james2mart Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 This thread is meant for discussion on abortion. Have fun. Suggested topics include: 1. Right or wrong? 2. Age restrictions 3. Parental consent 4. Rights of the father -------------------- I'll go ahead and address number one myself. We declare people legally dead when they do not have a heartbeat or brainwaves. Fetuses develop heartbeats at 3 weeks and brainwaves at 6 weeks. You mean to tell me that these babies are still not living, even though they have what dead people don't? When two people have sex and the woman gets pregnant, that baby is living. That baby will likely live if you do not intervene. You wanted to have sex? Deal with the consequences. If a woman is raped, that's a different story. I think women that are raped should not have the abortion, but should put the baby up for adoption. You may have been brutalized, but it is going to make you feel amazing being able to put joy into infertile parents' hearts. Then again, I wouldn't blame them if they wanted an abortion... Shady topic here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swad Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 Just as a heads up, this is another rough topic - as with other Real Life topics, this one needs to be based on reasoning and logic... anything else won't be allowed. My thoughts: 1. It's a state issue. Each state should be able to decide whether they allow it or not. That's what Federalism is all about. 2. Whether you agree or disagree with Roe v. Wade, it was a poor decision legally speaking. It was one of the few in the history of the Supreme Court that wasn't based on precedence and was based on the dubious "shadowy rights" claim regarding the constitution. 3. I think that most of us can agree that abortion is a bad thing, whether or not it should be legal - I don't know of anyone who really "likes" abortion. Therefore, we should all work together on common ground to get things done, like lower teeange pregnancies, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swad Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 Haha... after I just posted about ad hom attacks. killbot, I had to delete your post - way too much "you, as a Christian..." and "I don't understand why people like you..." Can't have that. I'm gonna start a thread on argumentation. EDIT: Here it is: http://forum.insanelymac.com/index.php?showtopic=23173 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 fine, ill remove my veil of hostility... Well, what about men, if you have sex with another woman and she becomes pregnant, YOU dont have to deal with the consequences, you can just run away and not have anything to do with the child if you want to and leave her to take care of everything. I dont agree with abortion either actually, unless its within the first month or two, then I think its ok, but I dont know if I would personally choose that, I probably wouldnt. I would probably choose to live with the consequences, but thats what PRO CHOICE is all about, let the people involved decide whether its right for them or not, dont try to get lawmakers to make an arbitrary decision that effects all women who are in different circumstances and at different times. Seriously, if abortion isnt right for you, dont get one, simple as that. Also, I dont understand this, some conservatives talk about killing "maybe alive, maybe not" fetuses, but they have no problem going into a war that costs thousands of lives of REAL PEOPLE, who are for sure alive and breathing right now, how is that justified? If christians so claim to respect life, wouldnt they respect their life as well? just a thought The point still stands though: why not let that rape victim decide whether getting an abortion is the right thing to do why not let that 19 year old who got all the protection anybody should need, but still got pregnant, choose. whats wrong with letting people choose the right and wrong path for their own lives? There, hostility toward one person, eliminated... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swad Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 I'll address this since it goes with what I posted earlier: Also, I dont understand this, conservatives always talk about killing "maybe alive, maybe not" fetuses, but they have no problem going into a war that costs thousands of lives of REAL PEOPLE, who are for sure alive and breathing right now, how is that justified? If christians so claim to respect life, wouldnt they respect their life as well? just a thought 1) You're essentializing "conservatives" and "christians." There are many people in both groups who disagree with both items. To deny this is intellectually dishonest. 2) I'll reverse the argument - why is it that some of the more liberal Americans (note the qualifying statement here, not "all" or even "most") disagree with killing in war but are willing to accept it with an abortion. Also, what of those liberals who argue for the all-important "freedom of information" but don't want a parent to be allowed to know if their minor child is having life-risking surgery? If we're going to apply the standard to one group, it should be applied to all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 I'll address this since it goes with what I posted earlier:1) You're essentializing "conservatives" and "christians." There are many people in both groups who disagree with both items. To deny this is intellectually dishonest. 2) I'll reverse the argument - why is it that some of the more liberal Americans (note the qualifying statement here, not "all" or even "most") disagree with killing in war but are willing to accept it with an abortion. Also, what of those liberals who argue for the all-important "freedom of information" but don't want a parent to be allowed to know if their minor child is having life-risking surgery? If we're going to apply the standard to one group, it should be applied to all. i see your point, ill edit accordingly and to answer your question, its because I dont see a fetus as a person, while other people do, soldiers though are people for sure, so I have a definate problem with it, a fetus is a sliding scale though, in its early development, I feel its not a person, as time goes on, that line becomes more and more blurry. an in regards to freedom of information, I have no problem with doctor patient confidentiality, but freedom of information mainly points to the government for me, the government should be honest to its people, but somebodies personal life is their own business in my opinion, thats how I justify myself, whether the logic works or not is another issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyrana Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 I'll address this since it goes with what I posted earlier: 1) You're essentializing "conservatives" and "christians." There are many people in both groups who disagree with both items. To deny this is intellectually dishonest. 2) I'll reverse the argument - why is it that some of the more liberal Americans (note the qualifying statement here, not "all" or even "most") disagree with killing in war but are willing to accept it with an abortion. Also, what of those liberals who argue for the all-important "freedom of information" but don't want a parent to be allowed to know if their minor child is having life-risking surgery? If we're going to apply the standard to one group, it should be applied to all. I'd just like to address point 2. Mainly since they aren't the same (again depends who you ask anyway) to quite a few people. While I'm pro-choice (in the beginning of a pregnancy), I still don't think a blastula is the same as a living person for example. You could do yet another twist here and ask why quite a few people who call themselves Christians have no problems killing people in a war or with capital punishment, but then scream murder when it comes to abortion. Anyway, as I said I am pro-choice, but don't think this issue is totally black and white. The 'right or wrong' question part is a bit inflammatory I think. No one is going to agree on that one unless we get very explicit on exact timeframes among other things I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james2mart Posted August 1, 2006 Author Share Posted August 1, 2006 I'll address why christians scream murder when it comes to abortion. 1. No one has the right to decide who lives or dies. (Now you say, "then why dont christians care about people dying in war?") 2. God sent plenty of people to war. War is biblical in the OLD TESTAMENT. Turning the other cheek is biblical in the NEW TESTAMENT. America would be a different place if we only relied on turning the other cheek. But the new testament also supports defending what you believe in. It all depends on how you look at it. 3. The bible says to obey the law of the land as long as it does not contradict with your beliefs. It says if you do not obey the law of the land, you will be subject to the punishment of the land. Simple doctrine there. And like I said before. a baby has a heartbeat in 3 weeks after conception and brainwaves 6 weeks after conception, which are both signs of life. Yes, sex is for enjoyment. But it is also called reproduction. Why engage in an act of reproduction if you plan on killing what you produce? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swad Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 FWIW, "fetus" is Latin for "little child." EDIT: Yeah, cyrana, the #2 thing is a really weak argument anyway. I just wanted to show that it could go both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgrimes80 Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 I'm Pro-life unless it threatens the mothers life or it's the result of a crime.... I could get into it; to put it simply... I don't believe that child bearing is supposed to be a thing of convenience. If you have sex (protected or not) there are consequences... whether you like them or not. It's my belief that parents are indebted to pay for their "consequences." My experiences: Abortion is a good reason to break-up. IMO it's a sign of selfishness, immaturity, and stupidity. I've ended two long-term relationships as a direct result of abortions. <- Mostly because I was kept in the dark... but I would have had a serious problem anyways... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 I'm Pro-life unless it threatens the mothers life or it's the result of a crime.... I could get into it; to put it simply... I don't believe that child bearing is supposed to be a thing of convenience. If you have sex (protected or not) there are consequences... whether you like them or not. It's my belief that parents are indebted to pay for their "consequences." My experiences: Abortion is a good reason to break-up. IMO it's a sign of selfishness, immaturity, and stupidity. I've ended two long-term relationships as a direct result of abortions. <- Mostly because I was kept in the dark... but I would have had a serious problem anyways... But is this true in every case though? I realize youve been influenced by your situation, but are all women that have this done doing it out of selfish, stupid, reasons? just a thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgrimes80 Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 But is this true in every case though? I realize youve been influenced by your situation, but are all women that have this done doing it out of selfish, stupid, reasons? just a thought Please do tell when isn't it out of selfishness, immaturity, or stupidity... It always comes down to convenience which, in it's own, will always at least fall under one of the mentioned three characteristics... with a few exceptions that I've already mentioned This instant a chick decides to open her legs (protected or not)... she is agreeing to the consequences of the "experience." As does the father accept possible obligations toward possible outcome. There are never legitimate excuses; If she's drunk... she should have thought about that before... there pretty much is never a reason that fall short of the listed. Just a thought, I completely respect those who decide abortion... I simply refuse to support it (for convenience) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 I'm torn on this issue. On the one hand, I'm all for choice in all it's forms. As far as I'm concerned, a fetus isnt a human being until it's been expelled from the womb. I dont see it as an issue of right and wrong, personally; If killing is always wrong, then no one should do it, and it shouldnt be allowed period. I think one of the arguments against that is that a baby is an innocent. Well, I think that's true. It's innocent of anything but need, and is therefore not a true human being. (Just my take on it). But until the fetus/embryo becomes a seperate individual, the "host" should have the ultimate choice over whether or not to continue the embryos growth. On the other hand, being a homosexual, I find breeding to be offensive, and the less that can be done, the better. Since obviously the human species needs to be propegated, it should be propegated in a more responsible societal fashion. So, for that reason, not only am I against Abortion, I'm also against the act that causes an abortion to be necessary. A middle view, which i've considered many times to be a better scenario than outright abortion, and also unwanted term pregnancy is the removal of the fetus and it's implantation into someone else. Possibly even storage of the fetus for future need (the storage part is done now). Since most people can agree that the freezing of unwanted embryos for future need is not morally objectionable (at least, no one has seriously tried to outlaw the practice), I think perhaps it is a better notion. On the subject of childbearing; I think that having children that come from your own body physically as well as genetically is a bad practice. Parenthood should be licensed, and should be from a communal bank of embryos. As a side effect, everyone should be given anti-conception therapies. The United States has both too many unwanted babies, and too many unnecessary abortions. Just my take on it EDIT: as a side note on the idea of storing human embryos. It's probably a good idea to have a large bank of human embryos put aside somewhere, just in case. You never know when you're going to have to rebuild the species in some way, and having a large genetic sample wouldnt hurt either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJägermeister Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 Pro-choice I don´t like to have childrens so abortion is a good thing. At least it´s my girlfriend wich decide such things but I hope if one day she´s pregnant she will abort. Everybody is free to have babys but childrens should not grow up with parents wich don´t like them. Only people wich really want babys should keep them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 Agreed. (on the babies with parents who want them) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouch Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 I guess my stance is pro-life - however i don't think there is any point in outlawing abortions since people would simply seek illegal ones performed in a less controlled manner which can have serious complications. I also accept that there are circumstances where abortion in the early stages of pregnancy is acceptable (in the case of rape) However overall i say the purpose of sex is to conceive children and people should bear that in mind when doing it. I don't think abortion should be treated as a convenient way to avoid the conseqences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Nonny Moose Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 1. Right or wrong?2. Age restrictions 3. Parental consent 4. Rights of the father 1. Nebulous grey area. I think it is inherently wrong to destroy a baby like that (it's not a little glob of cells or else I can kill you on the basis that you're nothing more than a glob of cells). I also believe the choice should be there for rape, incest, or life endangerment. I dislike abortion being used as a birth control device, and anyone that does it (more than like three times in a year), deserves a court ordered sterilization. They have clearly shown irresponsibility when it comes to this front. 2 & 3. Minors need to have parental consent because abortion is a medical procedure. Minors are legally unable to make any kind of medical decision. There are exceptions, most notably abusive parents. These charges need to be investigated and proven by child services before parental notification can be waved. 4. I think that's an irrelevant issue. Fathers are typically shown in court procedings to not have rights anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 Please do tell when isn't it out of selfishness, immaturity, or stupidity... It always comes down to convenience which, in it's own, will always at least fall under one of the mentioned three characteristics... with a few exceptions that I've already mentioned This instant a chick decides to open her legs (protected or not)... she is agreeing to the consequences of the "experience." As does the father accept possible obligations toward possible outcome. There are never legitimate excuses; If she's drunk... she should have thought about that before... there pretty much is never a reason that fall short of the listed. Just a thought, I completely respect those who decide abortion... I simply refuse to support it (for convenience) Im against it for convenience as well, I dont think abortion is good, but I think women should have the right to decide whether its right or not for them. Also, if a woman is being smart and using birth control, she shouldnt have to pay for the consequences, reproduction is not the only reason to have sex though, I mean why do people who have had menopause, have sex? why do people who cant have children have sex? because it feels good, and why deny yourself, just do it in a smart, controlled way, and if you are smart about it and something bad happens, its not selfish to do something about it, because you were trying to prevent it and be smart about it, so one doesnt deserve the consequences. Also, most of the women ive known who have had to make that choice had the weight of the world on their shoulders, they were thinking "do I want a child to grow up in this kind of environment?". Which I dunno doesnt seem that selfish to me. It really is a slippery slope issue though because we run into trouble when we have to define a fetus, or an embryo, we all have different opinions about when the developing dealie is a person or not, and thats where we fight about it, atleast thats the way I see it, my personal observation is that its not a really a person until the first trimester is over, then it would be TOTALLY wrong to abort it, but if you find out early, like say in the first month, and you have to get an abortion, I have no problem with that, after that it slowly becomes gray, because women who wait that long have serious problems, I mean, get it out or live with it, make your damn decision heheh. Im rambling so ill stop, but I think theres a point in there somewhere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james2mart Posted August 2, 2006 Author Share Posted August 2, 2006 gwprod12 I think you're completely incorrect when you say that a fetus is inhuman before it is expelled from the womb. a chicken is always a chicken, even before it is hatched from its egg. Likewise, a human is always a human. Humans cannot produce species other than human beings, so saying that a fetus is not a human until it exits the womb is entirely false. Like I said before, babies have heartbeats in 3 weeks and brainwaves in 6 weeks. How does that make them inhuman? The only logical time to describe the "creation of life" is conception. As soon as a woman is done having sex, there is a possibility that she has begun a 9 month term. The woman has done what woman is built to do. Reproduce. Aside from taking care of her body, the fetus will grow and begin life, provided the absence of complications. You cannot say that life has only been created while the baby is exiting the birth canal. The life was already created 9 months ago, but is just now ready to live without its mother. Babies are human from the time they are conceived, and to deny them the name 'human' is completely against science and is, in fact, inhumane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgrimes80 Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 Im against it for convenience as well, I dont think abortion is good, but I think women should have the right to decide whether its right or not for them. Also, if a woman is being smart and using birth control, she shouldnt have to pay for the consequences, reproduction is not the only reason to have sex though, I mean why do people who have had menopause, have sex? why do people who cant have children have sex? because it feels good, and why deny yourself, just do it in a smart, controlled way, and if you are smart about it and something bad happens, its not selfish to do something about it, because you were trying to prevent it and be smart about it, so one doesnt deserve the consequences. Also, most of the women ive known who have had to make that choice had the weight of the world on their shoulders, they were thinking "do I want a child to grow up in this kind of environment?". Which I dunno doesnt seem that selfish to me. When one decides to engage in "protected" sex... he/she has to understand that there is still the risk of a child; If you're not ready for a kid, you're not ready for sex (pleasure or purpose) It really is a slippery slope issue though because we run into trouble when we have to define a fetus, or an embryo, we all have different opinions about when the developing dealie is a person or not, and thats where we fight about it, atleast thats the way I see it, my personal observation is that its not a really a person until the first trimester is over, then it would be TOTALLY wrong to abort it, but if you find out early, like say in the first month, and you have to get an abortion, I have no problem with that, after that it slowly becomes gray, because women who wait that long have serious problems, I mean, get it out or live with it, make your damn decision heheh. Im rambling so ill stop, but I think theres a point in there somewhere I don't care if it's a single cell...embryo, or fetus... it's a life that (at the very least) is prevented; a chance taken away. That particular combination of DNA will probably never exist again, that's a lost son, daughter, friend, foe, genius, etc. in any event, someone whom you'll never get to know. Life, in any form, is the one thing I cherish all the time. I fear the day its taken away from me. For me, knowing that I'm responsible for the sparing of a life that never did anything wrong, to have taken away an opportunity to enjoy life, to have derailed the potential contributions to the world that were on the way... would simply be too much of a burden. In a sense, I wish everyone was uneasy about it. I'd rather "pay" the consequences of raising a child, give him/her everything I can, to raise a better person than myself, spoil him/her with love and in the end, know that I did the right thing. I personally think that people are indebted to their offspring regardless of circumstances. It's the responsibility you hear most older generations talking about... I truly regret even paying for the previously mentioned abortions, I feel like something was taken away from no only the unborn, but ME. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james2mart Posted August 2, 2006 Author Share Posted August 2, 2006 well said, jgrimes80. we appreciate your willingness to share your first-hand experiences with this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 The moment of the creation of a life is a value judgement. A fertilized egg is a potential human being. Just as sperm or an egg is a potential human being. If an embryo could exist and grow without it's mother, then it would be a seperate life. It cant, so it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pantalaimon Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 pro-life do anything unless the sperm joined the egg, once then, just be pregnant (as a couple, of course....) then u can choose to keep it or give it on adoption Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 What if no one wants to adopt your baby? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 I respect everybodies views here, but shouldnt it be up to the people who are involved to decide whether its right or not for them? im not saying abortion is right, I think it should be avoided unless absolutely necessary, but thats not your decision, or mine, or a politicians, its the person who's going through it who has to live with the decision, and it SHOULD be their decision, not anybody elses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts