mmm burning puppies! dear god grendel, I never knew you had this kind of debating skill. I am impressed. pro-lifers need to take a look at themselves and realize that they are being selfish and unfair to others. What right do you have to force your views on someone else? Its not your body, its her body. Let her make the choice, cause you dont have to.
I'd have no problem with most of these "pro-lifers" if it didn't seem that they value a small speck of foetal tissue more than a fully sentient human being. Maybe this is an overgeneralisation, but I get the distinct impression that there are a large number of folk who will fight endlessly for the rights of a foetus, but couldn't give a fig about what happen to it when it's born. If it's Iraqi it might end up being bombed by US warplanes. If it's American it might get sent off to be shot in Iraq. If it's g-a-y it'll be persecuted. If it commits a crime, it'll get executed. If it gets ill it probably won't have healthcare.
Why worry so much about the rights of non-sentient "potential" people, and not about the real people who are already here?
Abortion, like experiments on animals, isn't "nice", and is to be avoided where possible, but as far as I'm concerned the rights of sentient beings vastly outway the rights of non-sentient blobs of tissue. I'd say it made more sense to ban slaughter of adult cows than foetuses.
And if you're worried about the rights of future potential people that don't exist yet, how about doing something about global warming, etc? Don't trash the world that your descendants will have to live in. At least they'll notice. An aborted foetus isn't going to know it was aborted.
So those who are pro-life want to see abortion basically eliminated from our country right? No more abortion doctors, no more clinics, etc because aborting a baby is totally wrong and all mothers should have the baby, whether it was accidental, a rape, the mother is poor, or too young; the 'baby' has the right to develop and live.
But what about the mothers who are going to abort it anyways, like those teenage girls. Some don't even go to abortion clinics and do it themselves the crude and extremely dangerous way, for example a coat hanger. If you outlaw abortion, causing clinics to shut down, then those uneducated teenagers would just lock themselves in a room, stick the coat hanger in to kill the fetus. You would rather risk the fetus AND the mother instead of giving her the choice to go to a trained doctor who can do the procedure SAFELY? That sounds pretty anti-life to me, not giving the mother a safe choice.
<!--QuoteBegin-KMO+Oct 19 2004, 12:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (KMO @ Oct 19 2004, 12:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'd have no problem with most of these "pro-lifers" if it didn't seem that they value a small speck of foetal tissue more than a fully sentient human being. Maybe this is an overgeneralisation, but I get the distinct impression that there are a large number of folk who will fight endlessly for the rights of a foetus, but couldn't give a fig about what happen to it when it's born. If it's Iraqi it might end up being bombed by US warplanes. If it's American it might get sent off to be shot in Iraq. If it's g-a-y it'll be persecuted. If it commits a crime, it'll get executed. If it gets ill it probably won't have healthcare.
Why worry so much about the rights of non-sentient "potential" people, and not about the real people who are already here?
Abortion, like experiments on animals, isn't "nice", and is to be avoided where, possible, but as far as I'm concerned the rights of sentient beings vastly outway the rights of non-sentient blobs of tissue. I'd say it made more sense to ban slaughter of adult cows than foetuses.
And if you're worried about the rights of future potential people that don't exist yet, how about doing something about global warming, etc? Don't trash the world that your descendants will have to live in. At least they'll notice. An aborted foetus isn't going to know it was aborted. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Uhh, the **** man.
I hate Bush and I hope he get defeated. I supported gun-control and balanced-budget. I strongly opposed wars.
I treasured human life and that's why I'm "Pro-life". But didn't you guys say you hate this term "pro-life"?
We're discussing the issue here, not liberal **** or conservative snob.
<!--QuoteBegin-crisano+Oct 19 2004, 12:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (crisano @ Oct 19 2004, 12:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So those who are pro-life want to see abortion basically eliminated from our country right? No more abortion doctors, no more clinics, etc because aborting a baby is totally wrong and all mothers should have the baby, whether it was accidental, a rape, the mother is poor, or too young; the 'baby' has the right to develop and live.
But what about the mothers who are going to abort it anyways, like those teenage girls. Some don't even go to abortion clinics and do it themselves the crude and extremely dangerous way, for example a coat hanger. If you outlaw abortion, causing clinics to shut down, then those uneducated teenagers would just lock themselves in a room, stick the coat hanger in to kill the fetus. You would rather risk the fetus AND the mother instead of giving her the choice to go to a trained doctor who can do the procedure SAFELY? That sounds pretty anti-life to me, not giving the mother a safe choice. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Or deliver the freaking baby.
<!--QuoteBegin-Dr.Suredeath+Oct 19 2004, 01:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dr.Suredeath @ Oct 19 2004, 01:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-crisano+Oct 19 2004, 12:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (crisano @ Oct 19 2004, 12:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So those who are pro-life want to see abortion basically eliminated from our country right? No more abortion doctors, no more clinics, etc because aborting a baby is totally wrong and all mothers should have the baby, whether it was accidental, a rape, the mother is poor, or too young; the 'baby' has the right to develop and live.
But what about the mothers who are going to abort it anyways, like those teenage girls. Some don't even go to abortion clinics and do it themselves the crude and extremely dangerous way, for example a coat hanger. If you outlaw abortion, causing clinics to shut down, then those uneducated teenagers would just lock themselves in a room, stick the coat hanger in to kill the fetus. You would rather risk the fetus AND the mother instead of giving her the choice to go to a trained doctor who can do the procedure SAFELY? That sounds pretty anti-life to me, not giving the mother a safe choice. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Or deliver the freaking baby. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The reason why the teenage girls do this is because they DON'T want to deliver the baby. It isn't logical to tell that girl to 'deliver the baby' when she doesn't want to. She'll just hide in her room and do what she needs to do to get out of the 'mess' that she got herself in. You're telling me that if pro-lifers get their way, everyone will suddenly smarten up and go, even though I don't want this baby or suffer the embarrassment from others knowing I got pregnant as a teen, I'll deliver it anyways.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Or deliver the freaking baby.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's not gonna be the case. Forbid abortion, and you'll see a sharp decline in legal arbortions - and a huge increase in ILLEGAL abortions, either home-made or otherwise. Only instead of having some people go "oh well, not eligible for legal abortion (kid too old, for example), have to have the baby then", the lines will be blurred. You'll have six-month old foetuses (or is that foeti?) being aborted because it becomes illegal at day one. At six months, I, for example, vividly oppose abortion. I don't want a six month old child to be aborted. That WOULD be murder. Seen from that perspective, legal abortion is the lesser evil if you don't like abortions - it offers greater protection for the children during later stages of the pregnancy. It leads to a certain decrease in the abortion of young foetuses most likely, but it leads to an increase in the abortion of old foetuses. For you, all life may be equal, but I value an six or eight-month foetus higher than a one-month.
Edit: Damn, crisano got in before me. That'll teach me to refresh the thread before posting. Well, I lie. It won't. But it should.
This is quite the thread. On one hand, it does seem both sides are entrenched, and the same arguments are passed back and forth, again and again and again. On the other, in the far future, there WILL be an answer to all this.
Transferrance of embryos and surrogate mothers/fathers.
That is, sometime in the future, perhaps in the next 100 years, probably less. There will be enough technology to be able to transfer embryos VERY early from the first mother to a surrogate mother OR father. Granted, for the father to grow and birth a child will take a fair bit more technology/hormones/drugs. But it's in the realm of possibility.
Then it will simply be a matter of all pro-lifers becoming surrogates. IF you believe it is a human life, you'll have no problem carrying the baby to term. It is the equivalent of being burdened for 9 months to save an innocent life.
Pro-choice folks will not.
In the Owl idealized world, this will happen. Then we won't have to worry about this thread.
Side note: most pro-lifers i've known are really pro-lifers. anti-gun, anti-war, pro social issues.
Pragmatically, all these philosophical issues aside. It becomes a matter of the rich and poor doesn't it? Because, if the price is right, any rich woman/girl/daughter/whatever CAN get an abortion. Whether you make it illegal or not. Perhaps they fly to a country that allows it and flies a physician over who can do it. The poor woman will still need the abortion. She'll still, most probably, go through with it. It will most probably be a very dangerous/sketchy situtation. In the black market, as with everything, you get, usually, what you pay for.
So if you make abortion illegal, PRAGMATICALLY, you are saying "Rich folks can get safe abortions, poor folks will probably not get as MANY abortions, but those who do will be in pretty serious danger".
*smiles as he brings lolfighter back into the discussion*
I'll give the quote again, for other's references.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Pro-Choicer's like to appear as though they are "looking out for the woman", they have her interests in mind. I think it is about the money. It is a huge industry based on poor choices - $100 and all your problems with disappear. In order for that ruse to work, they have to take the truth out of it - it isn't a person, it is a feotus, it is a clump of cells, it only has "potential" to be a person, it can't communicate. Have a baby when your ready, those mean pro-lifer's - they don't care about you, we care about you. It's your body, you can do what you want with it - after all, that feotus wouldn't survive without you. Besides, your too young to be a mom, who is going to take care of it? Common, $100 and you won't ever have to think about it agian. Doctor recommended!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think that some of the pro-choice people here have us pro-lifer's labeled incorrectly. The assumption is that since we are pro-feotus, we are against the teen mother.
That is simply not the case. We are totally for the teen mother. We are against irresponsibility. We are agianst the "easy way out". We want parents to be responsible for their teenage kids, and teach them how not to have babies. It isn't rocket science. We want parents to look out for thier kids, so if they do have babies they have options other than killing it.
What kind of message does abortion send to the teen mother? It's an inconvienience, so kill it. You don't have to be responsible with your body, and who you sleep with - we can just kill it.
What about life lessons? When faced with a tough choice in the future, will that teen be likely to pick the hard / rewarding road, or the easy way out?
Your right, lol, I don't want a child growing up with someone who doesn't want it. Neither should that person have the right to kill said child. Adoption > abortion.
The one and only thing that pro-choice people have going for them is that abortion solves a perceived immediate problem. Thats it. It is selfishness through and through.
@Grendel
By your logic - seeing that we pro-lifer's argue a moral stance - you would have to say then that morals begin at birth (or some other arbitrary time).
Being that you would agree in morality (murder is bad, theft is bad) and that people need to use morality to dictate law, then it follows that a debate on abortion would have a moral argument to it.
To try to pull morality out of a dicussion on abortion law is absurd. It is a moral decision - laws are made based on morality.
Furthermore, you said that these laws have to do specifically with what a "human being" is. I have no trouble defining that - what do you define it as? Does a human being need to be able to breath on its own? Does a human being need to be sentient? Does a human being need to be independent of other human beings for survival? Does a human being need to consist of more than X number of cells? Does a human being need to have brain waves? fingers? heart palpatations?
As soon as you define a human being as something "not human" before birth, then you need to define exactly what does constitute a human, all the exceptions to the rules, and cover a plethora of situations.
And just so you all know - being <b>WANTED</b> has nothing to do with being <b>HUMAN</b>
You do realize that responsibility won't suddenly come if you make abortion illegal. Parents won't suddenly change drastically and spend a helluva lot more time with their daughters to teach them about abortion and whatnot. Teenage girls who aren't responsible enough to hold out until adoption won't change if abortion becomes illegal.
In High School Health class, they teach kids about teenage pregnancy, eating disorders, sexually transmitted diseases, the system IS trying to help them. But being teenagers who aren't responsible, they still ignore the facts. Abortion is just one of them. Making abortion illegal won't make that teenage mom who is already dead-set on not having the kid, adoption or otherwise, change her mind. The only thing that will change is that the possible second and safer option, which is going to an anonymous clinic will be closed, leading her to choose a much more dangerous path. The parents can't do anything about it because one either they think everything is peachy keen with their daughter, or two they were and are still busy to look in on their daughter.
<!--QuoteBegin-crisano+Oct 19 2004, 01:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (crisano @ Oct 19 2004, 01:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You do realize that responsibility won't suddenly come if you make abortion illegal. Parents won't suddenly change drastically and spend a helluva lot more time with their daughters to teach them about abortion and whatnot. Teenage girls who aren't responsible enough to hold out until adoption won't change if abortion becomes illegal.
In High School Health class, they teach kids about teenage pregnancy, eating disorders, sexually transmitted diseases, the system IS trying to help them. But being teenagers who aren't responsible, they still ignore the facts. Abortion is just one of them. Making abortion illegal won't make that teenage mom who is already dead-set on not having the kid, adoption or otherwise, change her mind. The only thing that will change is that the possible second and safer option, which is going to an anonymous clinic will be closed, leading her to choose a much more dangerous path. The parents can't do anything about it because one either they think everything is peachy keen with their daughter, or two they were and are still busy to look in on their daughter. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> responsiblity isn't there with abortions legal.
Having it as a legal option is what is objectionable. Perhaps when people begin to realize that they no longer have a "get out of responsiblity free" card, they will begin to be responsible. It won't happen overnight, but enough prosecution for killing the unborn, and people will learn.
It shouldn't be the "systems" responsiblity - why do you think there are abortion clinics? It is the same system!! Like I said before, it is all about the money. High School teaches that abortion is an option - go have sex, wear a condom, but if it breaks, go get an abortion. Then go pay $100 at your local clinic, and all your problems are solved. Rinse, and repeat if necessary.
No, systems suck at raising responsible adults. Parents are the answer - and since the parents suck, God help us all.
I concur that if there is strict crackdown, then things might change. What I'm worried about is that there might be no one to 'crackdown' on when the teenage mother is dead after trying to abort her own baby. Either that or she has severely injured herself.
As for the system, I don't remember health class teaching me abortion was the way to go if you got pregnant. Though it was years ago and things may have changed, but I think they even showed stuff where abortion was definately the wrong choice, even promoting adoption. Maybe different schools have different ways of educaton.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The point here is that only pro-lifers see anything wrong with abortion. Pro-lifers take the general stance of what someone is doing is wrong. That is a moral stance.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The point here is that only pro-choicers see anything good with abortion (I can turn this statement around easily, so it proves nothing). Pro-lifers take the stance of abortion as something wrong like murder being something wrong. We believe that, like murder, abortion should not be a legal action.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You cannot argue with a moral stance unless it is based on specific principles. If it is based on principles, you can debate how those principles apply in the cited instance. The main principle that is "violated" by abortion is that it is wrong to murder someone. However, that then leads on to the quite different issue of what constitutes a human being.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, and I argue that a fetus is a human being just like an old man is a human being. This we can argue on, yes? Or maybe you feel this isn't the appropriate thread to debate issues of abortion, I don't know.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Pro-choice advocates do not see a foetus as a human being. Consequently, removing the cellular growth from a woman's uterus is not commiting murder<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Wait. In other words, because pro-choice advocates believe it isn't murder, it isn't murder? Well, that does it for me. I mean, if pro-choice advocates believe a fetus isn't a human being, that's enough evidence for me.
@Grendel: Even if I weren't morally convicted that abortion is wrong, if the fetus is a human being, that constitutes murder yes? How then does morality detract anything from the pro-life stance?
*edit* i went back and re-read your post from earlier about not being logical or rational because it bugged me, and i *think* i might understand what you're saying, either i misread it or i found a better way for you to word the argument. what you were saying is that the logical processes behind each side were not suspect, only the premises? If this is so, I apologize for any misunderstanding. If, on the other hand, you were saying that we were arguing purely on emotion and not with reason, then I think you are sorely mistaken.
Also, I didn't make any partisan inferences from what you said, I only took what you said to their logical conclusions and asked you to confirm whether that was what you had in mind. Because TBH you haven't presented any "facts."
@All you people who say that we don't have a right to force our opinion on others, and that we care nothing for the mother, what right do <b>you</b> have to force your opinions on us? Federal funding for an act we think is murder?
Let me ask you guys something, are you opposed to the war in Iraq?
Abortion is a traumatizing experience, probably almost as much so as facing up to the fact that you just had a kid and are going to have to deal with it now. I haven't seen any statistics or studies proving that abortion is a better alternative for the mother than having sex indiscriminately and aborting afterwards. You can be fairly sure that the teenage mother will not be sleeping around for a good long time after she has her child. Of all the articles I've read on teenage pregnancy, the big factors that contribute to a traumatic experience are not that it's inconvenient for the mother; it's the fact that she's received incomplete training in terms of caring for her child, lacks emotional or psychological maturity to deal with raising a child, or is afraid of making it known that she's pregnant and thus keeping herself from receiving the kind of prenatal care that pregnant mothers need. That doesn't point to abortion as a solution; that points to better education and better parenting.
i'd be perfectly happy if my tax dollars went to helping teenage mothers get back on their feet, financially and emotionally. what i'm not happy about is people who say they're concerned about the mother but only proffer a short-term, throw-away solution as if all a teenage mother needs is the ability to kill her baby at will.
So I and many of those of the same opinion as me are men who have nothing to gain from abortion. If the child is aborted, we don't get any money from it. If it is NOT aborted, it's her problem. Hell, **** 'em then chuck 'em. Let THEM worry about the child. Not my problem, right? If I thought only about myself, I would not care about abortion at all, since it doesn't concern me. So, what can my motivation be for supporting abortion? Could it be concern for my fellow man? Could it be that I'm worried that a fourteen-year old is not emotionally, or indeed physically ready for a baby? Could it be that I don't want the kid to grow up without a mother that loves it, a mother who wanted the child she had? No, this is pure egoism on my part. No wait, I have fallen for corporate propaganda. These thoughts in my brain are not mine at all. Now excuse me while I set fire to a puppy, because burning puppies are fun. That was not my idea by the way, "the industry" told me. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
or you're trying to get out of paying child-support <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+Oct 19 2004, 08:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Oct 19 2004, 08:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Pro-choice advocates do not see a foetus as a human being. Consequently, removing the cellular growth from a woman's uterus is not commiting murder<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Wait. In other words, because pro-choice advocates believe it isn't murder, it isn't murder? Well, that does it for me. I mean, if pro-choice advocates believe a fetus isn't a human being, that's enough evidence for me. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> This works both ways, pro-life believe they are right and pro-choice should believe them, just because they say its wrong.
Yes, you did manage to bring me back into the discussion, if only by provoking me. You may not have been aiming at me, but I sure felt offended. I'm not very impressed.
And I think the issue that crisano brings up is very important. Forbidding abortion won't solve the problem. It won't magically make people more responsive. Take the prohibition: The U.S. of A. tried forbidding all alcohol consumption and production (except for practical uses, like chemistry or medicine, I believe). Where'd that lead? Increased alcohol consumption and a drastic increase in crime. If people want their booze, they'll get it, legal or not. Look at all the drugs. Being illegal doesn't seem to put a stop to them. It'll be the same with abortion: Forbid it, and people will just do it illegally instead. Simple solutions to complex problems have a way of backfiring quite drastically (and stop saying that this is a simple issue. This discussion amply proves that it is not). The right way to go about it is to first remove the want for abortion, then remove abortion. Teach responsibility, contraception, all that stuff. But don't do away with abortion until the society is ready. Currently, it isn't. And we're talking generations here, probably.
<!--QuoteBegin-lolfighter+Oct 20 2004, 04:22 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lolfighter @ Oct 20 2004, 04:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yes, you did manage to bring me back into the discussion, if only by provoking me. You may not have been aiming at me, but I sure felt offended. I'm not very impressed.
And I think the issue that crisano brings up is very important. Forbidding abortion won't solve the problem. It won't magically make people more responsive. Take the prohibition: The U.S. of A. tried forbidding all alcohol consumption and production (except for practical uses, like chemistry or medicine, I believe). Where'd that lead? Increased alcohol consumption and a drastic increase in crime. If people want their booze, they'll get it, legal or not. Look at all the drugs. Being illegal doesn't seem to put a stop to them. It'll be the same with abortion: Forbid it, and people will just do it illegally instead. Simple solutions to complex problems have a way of backfiring quite drastically (and stop saying that this is a simple issue. This discussion amply proves that it is not). The right way to go about it is to first remove the want for abortion, then remove abortion. Teach responsibility, contraception, all that stuff. But don't do away with abortion until the society is ready. Currently, it isn't. And we're talking generations here, probably. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Dispite the fact that I find this whole topic stupid because it has gone 10 pages full of drivel, I'm going to respond to this because the logic here is just wrong.
I have yet to hear of someone being addicted to abortions and teenagers don't run around having abortions because they want to look cool infront of thier friends. Abortion is a totally different deal than substance abuse. Without going into the issue of weather or not the fetus is a living human being or not (how can that really be proved one way or another) it should be obvious that the intent of anti-abortioners to protect one entity from another, not to protect people from themselfs. Thus such a law would be much more simmilar to environmental protection laws or other such laws. Honestly, on any scale, I don't see abortion being anywhere near as popular as illicit drugs in any sociaty with a good adoption system and strict pentalties against the act.
answer my question, lolfighter. <i>How can you believe that all a pregnant mother needs is the choice of whether or not to kill her baby?</i> All I've heard here in defense of pro-choice is a "Pack 'em up, send 'em to the clinic, dust off your hands your work is done here" mentality. except with prettier words. have you guys ever thought that legalizing abortion is only a stopgap measure to prevent something fundamentally messed up about society from spilling out of control?
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Oct 20 2004, 02:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Oct 20 2004, 02:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->[...]have you guys ever thought that legalizing abortion is only a stopgap measure to prevent something fundamentally messed up about society from spilling out of control?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Indeed I have. You don't think that I believe that abortion is the ultimate solution to this, do you? Currently though, it's better than the alternative.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> answer my question, lolfighter. How can you believe that all a pregnant mother needs is the choice of whether or not to kill her baby?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> My answer, then, is this: That's not what I believe. Please show me the quotes that led you to assume that.
<!--QuoteBegin-lolfighter+Oct 20 2004, 08:15 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lolfighter @ Oct 20 2004, 08:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Oct 20 2004, 02:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Oct 20 2004, 02:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->[...]have you guys ever thought that legalizing abortion is only a stopgap measure to prevent something fundamentally messed up about society from spilling out of control?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Indeed I have. You don't think that I believe that abortion is the ultimate solution to this, do you? Currently though, it's better than the alternative.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> answer my question, lolfighter. How can you believe that all a pregnant mother needs is the choice of whether or not to kill her baby?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> My answer, then, is this: That's not what I believe. Please show me the quotes that led you to assume that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What alternative?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This works both ways, pro-life believe they are right and pro-choice should believe them, just because they say its wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Okay, I see the point now. The reasons we argue these ways are basically for the representation of if a fetus is a human being or not (because surely pro-choice people won't go so far to say that a human being can be murdered).
There is scientific evidence to prove or disprove such things. This isn't one of those debates where you can endlessly go back and forth saying "I'm right, you're wrong" and "No, I'm right, and you're wrong."
However, I think it is difficult to surmount an attack against pro-lifers considering the substantial scientifical evidence to suggest that a fetus is, in fact, a human being.
<!--QuoteBegin-Dr.Suredeath+Oct 20 2004, 03:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dr.Suredeath @ Oct 20 2004, 03:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What alternative?
There're abortion and birth... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The alternate to allowing abortion is to forbid abortion. As you have no doubt noticed, I prefer the former to the latter.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+Oct 20 2004, 09:04 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Oct 20 2004, 09:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This works both ways, pro-life believe they are right and pro-choice should believe them, just because they say its wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Okay, I see the point now. The reasons we argue these ways are basically for the representation of if a fetus is a human being or not (because surely pro-choice people won't go so far to say that a human being can be murdered).
There is scientific evidence to prove or disprove such things. This isn't one of those debates where you can endlessly go back and forth saying "I'm right, you're wrong" and "No, I'm right, and you're wrong."
However, I think it is difficult to surmount an attack against pro-lifers considering the substantial scientifical evidence to suggest that a fetus is, in fact, a human being. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It comes down to the individual definition of a human being. If you define a human as at very least a concious organism, then the argument that the fetus is not human is much more substantial. If you define a human as a living being made of human genetic material, then a fetus is human... But then wouldn't every cell in the human body be an individual human too? Anyway you look at it, the issue is really hard to resolve without a unified definition of humanity. Personally I'm just against abortion because I don't see the killing of developing organisms as an acceptable solution to the problem of being inconvinianced. Realisticly, a person could always choose to not get pregnant in the first place. I don't belive that humans should have the right to do whatever they see fit as individuals, although I see many decisions that can be made as decisions that people should have a right to make on their own accord, drugs for instance...
Some things are meant to be choices you make once and have to live with, I see pregnancy as one of those things.
<!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Dispite the fact that I find this whole topic stupid because it has gone 10 pages full of drivel, I'm going to respond to this because the logic here is just wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes the logic here might be wrong, but the point still stand.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->answer my question, lolfighter. How can you believe that all a pregnant mother needs is the choice of whether or not to kill her baby? All I've heard here in defense of pro-choice is a "Pack 'em up, send 'em to the clinic, dust off your hands your work is done here" mentality. except with prettier words. have you guys ever thought that legalizing abortion is only a stopgap measure to prevent something fundamentally messed up about society from spilling out of control? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It seems that alot of pro-lifers think that pro-choice think that abortion is a totally fine thing. This is in a word wrong. I don't think theres one pro-choicer in the arguement that actually thinks abortion is a totally fine thing with no wrongs about it. They all see it is a bad thing, but at the moment it is the less of two evils. -Legal abortion (safe) -Illegal abortion (very unsafe)
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->However, I think it is difficult to surmount an attack against pro-lifers considering the substantial scientifical evidence to suggest that a fetus is, in fact, a human being. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't think i've ever recalled hearing about pro-choicers making attacks (in any form) against pro-lifes before, the other way round yes. But thats not my point, at no point in the arguement has a pro-choicer made an attack, but rather stated how they see the facts, no attacks have been made either way in this debate, which is a good thing.
<!--QuoteBegin-Kester+Oct 20 2004, 09:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Kester @ Oct 20 2004, 09:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Dispite the fact that I find this whole topic stupid because it has gone 10 pages full of drivel, I'm going to respond to this because the logic here is just wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes the logic here might be wrong, but the point still stand.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->answer my question, lolfighter. How can you believe that all a pregnant mother needs is the choice of whether or not to kill her baby? All I've heard here in defense of pro-choice is a "Pack 'em up, send 'em to the clinic, dust off your hands your work is done here" mentality. except with prettier words. have you guys ever thought that legalizing abortion is only a stopgap measure to prevent something fundamentally messed up about society from spilling out of control? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It seems that alot of pro-lifers think that pro-choice think that abortion is a totally fine thing. This is in a word wrong. I don't think theres one pro-choicer in the arguement that actually thinks abortion is a totally fine thing with no wrongs about it. They all see it is a bad thing, but at the moment it is the less of two evils. -Legal abortion (safe) -Illegal abortion (very unsafe) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> A) I wouldn't have adressed the point if the point didn't still stand, now would I?
B) Abortions aren't some addictive drug. I'm not going to pretend that if they were illegal that people wouldn't find ways to get it done at all, I mean after all, people find ways to kill other people all the time, but that doesn't make it right. I think that if factilities that practice abortion were harder to find and had a worse reputation for being unsafe that it would drastically decrease the number of attemted abortions. Contrary to what apparently seems to be popular belife, abortions are niether addictive NOR cool. If they weren't so easily available, the vast majority of people would just settle for adoption or abandonment, or maby even *gasp* birth control!
Just because something will continue to be done after it is illigalized doesn't mean that it shouldn't be illigal. The issues surrounding drugs and alocohol that cause people to support their legalization just don't exist for abortion. I mean people murder other people all the time, does this mean we should legalize murder? it clearly isn't being preformed as safely as it could be...
GrendelAll that is fear...Join Date: 2002-07-19Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
To clear up a few points:
I don't have a moral stance on abortion, because I don't have morals. A moral code is something you pick up through indoctrination in a particular set of beliefs. I have <i>ethics</i>, which are somewhat different.
Since there is no set time when a foetus becomes sentient, I fully support an arbitrary cut-off point after which performing an abortion becomes illegal. I would err on the side of caution and make the cut-off point long before you could reasonably consider a foetus to be even vaguely "human".
On the subject of the "potential person":
Making the surgical removal of a bundle of cells illegal to me seems strange. You are attempting to legislate against a potential occurance (i.e. the cells going to full term and becoming a baby). Let's take a statistical look at this.
Situation A
Sally becomes pregnant by her husband. Sally has a number of problems with carrying a foetus to full term, due to blood pressure and biochemical problems. She has perhaps a 5% chance of delivering the baby. Deciding she cannot bear the heartache of losing another child in the third trimester, she aborts. Under these circumstances, the anti-abortion argument suggests that she and the M.D. who performs the operation are murderers because they have denied <i>a potential human being.</i>
Situation B
Sally is fertile and so is her partner and they have every intention of having children. In this situation, taking into account all factors, there is a 25% chance that they will conceive. Now along comes another person, who then runs off with Sally's partner. Neither have commited any crime by the standards of the anti-abortion lobby.
In both cases you have a chance for the same child to be born. From a perspective of "potential", Situation B is the most ethically questionable because the potential chance of the child being born is higher. This is unarguable. So why is it that we don't arrest the two culprits in Situation B? Because you can't legislate against "potential" occurances. That's Orwellian in the extreme.
What you <i>can</i> do is define what constitutes a human life. So we set an arbitrary limit somewhat <i>before</i> the time a bundle of cells could be considered an intelligent human life.
On the practicalities of abortion:
Anyone who says abortion is an easy choice has obviously never known anyone who has had an abortion. Before you can describe abortions as "easy", you should <i>really</i> go have some life experiences.
Side note on prohibition:
Actually, prohibition caused a colossal drop in alcohol consumption. It just also criminalised it and helped to feed organised crime. Not that I object to organised crime. If we have to have crime, I'd much prefer it to be properly run. Amateur criminals are a pain in the arse, cause unneccesary casualties and damage and generally rob from individuals, rather than corporations.
On the subject of comparisons with Prohibition, here's an article by a Professor of Christian Ethics pointing out that regardless of the rhetoric, under Bush's administration abortions have been <u>increasing</u> after a decade of decline down to a 24-year low in 2000. He attributes this to economic factors: women feeling unable to afford a child, not having a reliable partner, and concerns about availability of health care.
Bush's responsibility for those factors in this short term is debatable, but I think it's a good, rational analysis of the issues facing real people.
His conclusion: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What does this tell us? Economic policy and abortion are not separate issues; they form one moral imperative. Rhetoric is hollow, mere tinkling brass, without health care, health insurance, jobs, child care, and a living wage. Pro-life in deed, not merely in word, means we need policies that provide jobs and health insurance and support for prospective mothers.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Now, a 2nd Bush administration will IMO increase poverty and insecurity, thus increasing the desire for abortion, while at the same time trying to make it illegal. But maybe that's the Christian thing to do. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
My only real opinion about abortion is this: If a woman is a victim of rape and/or incest, and gets pregnant as a result, no one, and I mean <b><span style='color:red'>NO ONE</b></span> gets to question her decision on whether or not she wants to bear the child (and don't bring up the issue of "Rape is a woman's fault!" issue here. Not the place).
Comments
dear god grendel, I never knew you had this kind of debating skill. I am impressed.
pro-lifers need to take a look at themselves and realize that they are being selfish and unfair to others. What right do you have to force your views on someone else? Its not your body, its her body. Let her make the choice, cause you dont have to.
Why worry so much about the rights of non-sentient "potential" people, and not about the real people who are already here?
Abortion, like experiments on animals, isn't "nice", and is to be avoided where possible, but as far as I'm concerned the rights of sentient beings vastly outway the rights of non-sentient blobs of tissue. I'd say it made more sense to ban slaughter of adult cows than foetuses.
And if you're worried about the rights of future potential people that don't exist yet, how about doing something about global warming, etc? Don't trash the world that your descendants will have to live in. At least they'll notice. An aborted foetus isn't going to know it was aborted.
But what about the mothers who are going to abort it anyways, like those teenage girls. Some don't even go to abortion clinics and do it themselves the crude and extremely dangerous way, for example a coat hanger. If you outlaw abortion, causing clinics to shut down, then those uneducated teenagers would just lock themselves in a room, stick the coat hanger in to kill the fetus. You would rather risk the fetus AND the mother instead of giving her the choice to go to a trained doctor who can do the procedure SAFELY? That sounds pretty anti-life to me, not giving the mother a safe choice.
Why worry so much about the rights of non-sentient "potential" people, and not about the real people who are already here?
Abortion, like experiments on animals, isn't "nice", and is to be avoided where, possible, but as far as I'm concerned the rights of sentient beings vastly outway the rights of non-sentient blobs of tissue. I'd say it made more sense to ban slaughter of adult cows than foetuses.
And if you're worried about the rights of future potential people that don't exist yet, how about doing something about global warming, etc? Don't trash the world that your descendants will have to live in. At least they'll notice. An aborted foetus isn't going to know it was aborted. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uhh, the **** man.
I hate Bush and I hope he get defeated. I supported gun-control and balanced-budget. I strongly opposed wars.
I treasured human life and that's why I'm "Pro-life". But didn't you guys say you hate this term "pro-life"?
We're discussing the issue here, not liberal **** or conservative snob.
But what about the mothers who are going to abort it anyways, like those teenage girls. Some don't even go to abortion clinics and do it themselves the crude and extremely dangerous way, for example a coat hanger. If you outlaw abortion, causing clinics to shut down, then those uneducated teenagers would just lock themselves in a room, stick the coat hanger in to kill the fetus. You would rather risk the fetus AND the mother instead of giving her the choice to go to a trained doctor who can do the procedure SAFELY? That sounds pretty anti-life to me, not giving the mother a safe choice. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or deliver the freaking baby.
But what about the mothers who are going to abort it anyways, like those teenage girls. Some don't even go to abortion clinics and do it themselves the crude and extremely dangerous way, for example a coat hanger. If you outlaw abortion, causing clinics to shut down, then those uneducated teenagers would just lock themselves in a room, stick the coat hanger in to kill the fetus. You would rather risk the fetus AND the mother instead of giving her the choice to go to a trained doctor who can do the procedure SAFELY? That sounds pretty anti-life to me, not giving the mother a safe choice. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or deliver the freaking baby. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The reason why the teenage girls do this is because they DON'T want to deliver the baby. It isn't logical to tell that girl to 'deliver the baby' when she doesn't want to. She'll just hide in her room and do what she needs to do to get out of the 'mess' that she got herself in. You're telling me that if pro-lifers get their way, everyone will suddenly smarten up and go, even though I don't want this baby or suffer the embarrassment from others knowing I got pregnant as a teen, I'll deliver it anyways.
That's not gonna be the case. Forbid abortion, and you'll see a sharp decline in legal arbortions - and a huge increase in ILLEGAL abortions, either home-made or otherwise. Only instead of having some people go "oh well, not eligible for legal abortion (kid too old, for example), have to have the baby then", the lines will be blurred. You'll have six-month old foetuses (or is that foeti?) being aborted because it becomes illegal at day one. At six months, I, for example, vividly oppose abortion. I don't want a six month old child to be aborted. That WOULD be murder. Seen from that perspective, legal abortion is the lesser evil if you don't like abortions - it offers greater protection for the children during later stages of the pregnancy. It leads to a certain decrease in the abortion of young foetuses most likely, but it leads to an increase in the abortion of old foetuses. For you, all life may be equal, but I value an six or eight-month foetus higher than a one-month.
Edit: Damn, crisano got in before me. That'll teach me to refresh the thread before posting. Well, I lie. It won't. But it should.
Transferrance of embryos and surrogate mothers/fathers.
That is, sometime in the future, perhaps in the next 100 years, probably less. There will be enough technology to be able to transfer embryos VERY early from the first mother to a surrogate mother OR father. Granted, for the father to grow and birth a child will take a fair bit more technology/hormones/drugs. But it's in the realm of possibility.
Then it will simply be a matter of all pro-lifers becoming surrogates. IF you believe it is a human life, you'll have no problem carrying the baby to term. It is the equivalent of being burdened for 9 months to save an innocent life.
Pro-choice folks will not.
In the Owl idealized world, this will happen. Then we won't have to worry about this thread.
Pragmatically, all these philosophical issues aside. It becomes a matter of the rich and poor doesn't it? Because, if the price is right, any rich woman/girl/daughter/whatever CAN get an abortion. Whether you make it illegal or not. Perhaps they fly to a country that allows it and flies a physician over who can do it. The poor woman will still need the abortion. She'll still, most probably, go through with it. It will most probably be a very dangerous/sketchy situtation. In the black market, as with everything, you get, usually, what you pay for.
So if you make abortion illegal, PRAGMATICALLY, you are saying "Rich folks can get safe abortions, poor folks will probably not get as MANY abortions, but those who do will be in pretty serious danger".
Something to think about.
I'll give the quote again, for other's references.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Pro-Choicer's like to appear as though they are "looking out for the woman", they have her interests in mind. I think it is about the money. It is a huge industry based on poor choices - $100 and all your problems with disappear. In order for that ruse to work, they have to take the truth out of it - it isn't a person, it is a feotus, it is a clump of cells, it only has "potential" to be a person, it can't communicate. Have a baby when your ready, those mean pro-lifer's - they don't care about you, we care about you. It's your body, you can do what you want with it - after all, that feotus wouldn't survive without you. Besides, your too young to be a mom, who is going to take care of it? Common, $100 and you won't ever have to think about it agian. Doctor recommended!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think that some of the pro-choice people here have us pro-lifer's labeled incorrectly. The assumption is that since we are pro-feotus, we are against the teen mother.
That is simply not the case. We are totally for the teen mother. We are against irresponsibility. We are agianst the "easy way out". We want parents to be responsible for their teenage kids, and teach them how not to have babies. It isn't rocket science. We want parents to look out for thier kids, so if they do have babies they have options other than killing it.
What kind of message does abortion send to the teen mother? It's an inconvienience, so kill it. You don't have to be responsible with your body, and who you sleep with - we can just kill it.
What about life lessons? When faced with a tough choice in the future, will that teen be likely to pick the hard / rewarding road, or the easy way out?
Your right, lol, I don't want a child growing up with someone who doesn't want it. Neither should that person have the right to kill said child.
Adoption > abortion.
The one and only thing that pro-choice people have going for them is that abortion solves a perceived immediate problem. Thats it. It is selfishness through and through.
@Grendel
By your logic - seeing that we pro-lifer's argue a moral stance - you would have to say then that morals begin at birth (or some other arbitrary time).
Being that you would agree in morality (murder is bad, theft is bad) and that people need to use morality to dictate law, then it follows that a debate on abortion would have a moral argument to it.
To try to pull morality out of a dicussion on abortion law is absurd. It is a moral decision - laws are made based on morality.
Furthermore, you said that these laws have to do specifically with what a "human being" is. I have no trouble defining that - what do you define it as? Does a human being need to be able to breath on its own? Does a human being need to be sentient? Does a human being need to be independent of other human beings for survival? Does a human being need to consist of more than X number of cells? Does a human being need to have brain waves? fingers? heart palpatations?
As soon as you define a human being as something "not human" before birth, then you need to define exactly what does constitute a human, all the exceptions to the rules, and cover a plethora of situations.
And just so you all know - being <b>WANTED</b> has nothing to do with being <b>HUMAN</b>
In High School Health class, they teach kids about teenage pregnancy, eating disorders, sexually transmitted diseases, the system IS trying to help them. But being teenagers who aren't responsible, they still ignore the facts. Abortion is just one of them. Making abortion illegal won't make that teenage mom who is already dead-set on not having the kid, adoption or otherwise, change her mind. The only thing that will change is that the possible second and safer option, which is going to an anonymous clinic will be closed, leading her to choose a much more dangerous path. The parents can't do anything about it because one either they think everything is peachy keen with their daughter, or two they were and are still busy to look in on their daughter.
In High School Health class, they teach kids about teenage pregnancy, eating disorders, sexually transmitted diseases, the system IS trying to help them. But being teenagers who aren't responsible, they still ignore the facts. Abortion is just one of them. Making abortion illegal won't make that teenage mom who is already dead-set on not having the kid, adoption or otherwise, change her mind. The only thing that will change is that the possible second and safer option, which is going to an anonymous clinic will be closed, leading her to choose a much more dangerous path. The parents can't do anything about it because one either they think everything is peachy keen with their daughter, or two they were and are still busy to look in on their daughter. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
responsiblity isn't there with abortions legal.
Having it as a legal option is what is objectionable. Perhaps when people begin to realize that they no longer have a "get out of responsiblity free" card, they will begin to be responsible. It won't happen overnight, but enough prosecution for killing the unborn, and people will learn.
It shouldn't be the "systems" responsiblity - why do you think there are abortion clinics? It is the same system!! Like I said before, it is all about the money. High School teaches that abortion is an option - go have sex, wear a condom, but if it breaks, go get an abortion. Then go pay $100 at your local clinic, and all your problems are solved. Rinse, and repeat if necessary.
No, systems suck at raising responsible adults. Parents are the answer - and since the parents suck, God help us all.
As for the system, I don't remember health class teaching me abortion was the way to go if you got pregnant. Though it was years ago and things may have changed, but I think they even showed stuff where abortion was definately the wrong choice, even promoting adoption. Maybe different schools have different ways of educaton.
The point here is that only pro-choicers see anything good with abortion (I can turn this statement around easily, so it proves nothing). Pro-lifers take the stance of abortion as something wrong like murder being something wrong. We believe that, like murder, abortion should not be a legal action.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
You cannot argue with a moral stance unless it is based on specific principles. If it is based on principles, you can debate how those principles apply in the cited instance. The main principle that is "violated" by abortion is that it is wrong to murder someone. However, that then leads on to the quite different issue of what constitutes a human being.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, and I argue that a fetus is a human being just like an old man is a human being. This we can argue on, yes? Or maybe you feel this isn't the appropriate thread to debate issues of abortion, I don't know.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Pro-choice advocates do not see a foetus as a human being. Consequently, removing the cellular growth from a woman's uterus is not commiting murder<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wait. In other words, because pro-choice advocates believe it isn't murder, it isn't murder? Well, that does it for me. I mean, if pro-choice advocates believe a fetus isn't a human being, that's enough evidence for me.
*edit* i went back and re-read your post from earlier about not being logical or rational because it bugged me, and i *think* i might understand what you're saying, either i misread it or i found a better way for you to word the argument. what you were saying is that the logical processes behind each side were not suspect, only the premises? If this is so, I apologize for any misunderstanding. If, on the other hand, you were saying that we were arguing purely on emotion and not with reason, then I think you are sorely mistaken.
Also, I didn't make any partisan inferences from what you said, I only took what you said to their logical conclusions and asked you to confirm whether that was what you had in mind. Because TBH you haven't presented any "facts."
@All you people who say that we don't have a right to force our opinion on others, and that we care nothing for the mother, what right do <b>you</b> have to force your opinions on us? Federal funding for an act we think is murder?
Let me ask you guys something, are you opposed to the war in Iraq?
Abortion is a traumatizing experience, probably almost as much so as facing up to the fact that you just had a kid and are going to have to deal with it now. I haven't seen any statistics or studies proving that abortion is a better alternative for the mother than having sex indiscriminately and aborting afterwards. You can be fairly sure that the teenage mother will not be sleeping around for a good long time after she has her child. Of all the articles I've read on teenage pregnancy, the big factors that contribute to a traumatic experience are not that it's inconvenient for the mother; it's the fact that she's received incomplete training in terms of caring for her child, lacks emotional or psychological maturity to deal with raising a child, or is afraid of making it known that she's pregnant and thus keeping herself from receiving the kind of prenatal care that pregnant mothers need. That doesn't point to abortion as a solution; that points to better education and better parenting.
i'd be perfectly happy if my tax dollars went to helping teenage mothers get back on their feet, financially and emotionally. what i'm not happy about is people who say they're concerned about the mother but only proffer a short-term, throw-away solution as if all a teenage mother needs is the ability to kill her baby at will.
*edit*<!--QuoteBegin-lolfighter+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lolfighter)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
So I and many of those of the same opinion as me are men who have nothing to gain from abortion. If the child is aborted, we don't get any money from it. If it is NOT aborted, it's her problem. Hell, **** 'em then chuck 'em. Let THEM worry about the child. Not my problem, right? If I thought only about myself, I would not care about abortion at all, since it doesn't concern me. So, what can my motivation be for supporting abortion? Could it be concern for my fellow man? Could it be that I'm worried that a fourteen-year old is not emotionally, or indeed physically ready for a baby? Could it be that I don't want the kid to grow up without a mother that loves it, a mother who wanted the child she had? No, this is pure egoism on my part. No wait, I have fallen for corporate propaganda. These thoughts in my brain are not mine at all. Now excuse me while I set fire to a puppy, because burning puppies are fun. That was not my idea by the way, "the industry" told me.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
or you're trying to get out of paying child-support <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
</lowblow>
Wait. In other words, because pro-choice advocates believe it isn't murder, it isn't murder? Well, that does it for me. I mean, if pro-choice advocates believe a fetus isn't a human being, that's enough evidence for me. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
This works both ways, pro-life believe they are right and pro-choice should believe them, just because they say its wrong.
And I think the issue that crisano brings up is very important. Forbidding abortion won't solve the problem. It won't magically make people more responsive. Take the prohibition: The U.S. of A. tried forbidding all alcohol consumption and production (except for practical uses, like chemistry or medicine, I believe). Where'd that lead? Increased alcohol consumption and a drastic increase in crime. If people want their booze, they'll get it, legal or not. Look at all the drugs. Being illegal doesn't seem to put a stop to them. It'll be the same with abortion: Forbid it, and people will just do it illegally instead. Simple solutions to complex problems have a way of backfiring quite drastically (and stop saying that this is a simple issue. This discussion amply proves that it is not). The right way to go about it is to first remove the want for abortion, then remove abortion. Teach responsibility, contraception, all that stuff. But don't do away with abortion until the society is ready. Currently, it isn't. And we're talking generations here, probably.
And I think the issue that crisano brings up is very important. Forbidding abortion won't solve the problem. It won't magically make people more responsive. Take the prohibition: The U.S. of A. tried forbidding all alcohol consumption and production (except for practical uses, like chemistry or medicine, I believe). Where'd that lead? Increased alcohol consumption and a drastic increase in crime. If people want their booze, they'll get it, legal or not. Look at all the drugs. Being illegal doesn't seem to put a stop to them. It'll be the same with abortion: Forbid it, and people will just do it illegally instead. Simple solutions to complex problems have a way of backfiring quite drastically (and stop saying that this is a simple issue. This discussion amply proves that it is not). The right way to go about it is to first remove the want for abortion, then remove abortion. Teach responsibility, contraception, all that stuff. But don't do away with abortion until the society is ready. Currently, it isn't. And we're talking generations here, probably. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dispite the fact that I find this whole topic stupid because it has gone 10 pages full of drivel, I'm going to respond to this because the logic here is just wrong.
I have yet to hear of someone being addicted to abortions and teenagers don't run around having abortions because they want to look cool infront of thier friends. Abortion is a totally different deal than substance abuse. Without going into the issue of weather or not the fetus is a living human being or not (how can that really be proved one way or another) it should be obvious that the intent of anti-abortioners to protect one entity from another, not to protect people from themselfs. Thus such a law would be much more simmilar to environmental protection laws or other such laws. Honestly, on any scale, I don't see abortion being anywhere near as popular as illicit drugs in any sociaty with a good adoption system and strict pentalties against the act.
Indeed I have. You don't think that I believe that abortion is the ultimate solution to this, do you? Currently though, it's better than the alternative.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> answer my question, lolfighter. How can you believe that all a pregnant mother needs is the choice of whether or not to kill her baby?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My answer, then, is this: That's not what I believe. Please show me the quotes that led you to assume that.
Indeed I have. You don't think that I believe that abortion is the ultimate solution to this, do you? Currently though, it's better than the alternative.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> answer my question, lolfighter. How can you believe that all a pregnant mother needs is the choice of whether or not to kill her baby?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My answer, then, is this: That's not what I believe. Please show me the quotes that led you to assume that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What alternative?
There're abortion and birth...
Okay, I see the point now. The reasons we argue these ways are basically for the representation of if a fetus is a human being or not (because surely pro-choice people won't go so far to say that a human being can be murdered).
There is scientific evidence to prove or disprove such things. This isn't one of those debates where you can endlessly go back and forth saying "I'm right, you're wrong" and "No, I'm right, and you're wrong."
However, I think it is difficult to surmount an attack against pro-lifers considering the substantial scientifical evidence to suggest that a fetus is, in fact, a human being.
There're abortion and birth... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The alternate to allowing abortion is to forbid abortion. As you have no doubt noticed, I prefer the former to the latter.
Okay, I see the point now. The reasons we argue these ways are basically for the representation of if a fetus is a human being or not (because surely pro-choice people won't go so far to say that a human being can be murdered).
There is scientific evidence to prove or disprove such things. This isn't one of those debates where you can endlessly go back and forth saying "I'm right, you're wrong" and "No, I'm right, and you're wrong."
However, I think it is difficult to surmount an attack against pro-lifers considering the substantial scientifical evidence to suggest that a fetus is, in fact, a human being. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It comes down to the individual definition of a human being. If you define a human as at very least a concious organism, then the argument that the fetus is not human is much more substantial. If you define a human as a living being made of human genetic material, then a fetus is human... But then wouldn't every cell in the human body be an individual human too? Anyway you look at it, the issue is really hard to resolve without a unified definition of humanity. Personally I'm just against abortion because I don't see the killing of developing organisms as an acceptable solution to the problem of being inconvinianced. Realisticly, a person could always choose to not get pregnant in the first place. I don't belive that humans should have the right to do whatever they see fit as individuals, although I see many decisions that can be made as decisions that people should have a right to make on their own accord, drugs for instance...
Some things are meant to be choices you make once and have to live with, I see pregnancy as one of those things.
Yes the logic here might be wrong, but the point still stand.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->answer my question, lolfighter. How can you believe that all a pregnant mother needs is the choice of whether or not to kill her baby? All I've heard here in defense of pro-choice is a "Pack 'em up, send 'em to the clinic, dust off your hands your work is done here" mentality. except with prettier words. have you guys ever thought that legalizing abortion is only a stopgap measure to prevent something fundamentally messed up about society from spilling out of control? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It seems that alot of pro-lifers think that pro-choice think that abortion is a totally fine thing. This is in a word wrong. I don't think theres one pro-choicer in the arguement that actually thinks abortion is a totally fine thing with no wrongs about it. They all see it is a bad thing, but at the moment it is the less of two evils.
-Legal abortion (safe)
-Illegal abortion (very unsafe)
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->However, I think it is difficult to surmount an attack against pro-lifers considering the substantial scientifical evidence to suggest that a fetus is, in fact, a human being. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think i've ever recalled hearing about pro-choicers making attacks (in any form) against pro-lifes before, the other way round yes. But thats not my point, at no point in the arguement has a pro-choicer made an attack, but rather stated how they see the facts, no attacks have been made either way in this debate, which is a good thing.
Yes the logic here might be wrong, but the point still stand.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->answer my question, lolfighter. How can you believe that all a pregnant mother needs is the choice of whether or not to kill her baby? All I've heard here in defense of pro-choice is a "Pack 'em up, send 'em to the clinic, dust off your hands your work is done here" mentality. except with prettier words. have you guys ever thought that legalizing abortion is only a stopgap measure to prevent something fundamentally messed up about society from spilling out of control? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It seems that alot of pro-lifers think that pro-choice think that abortion is a totally fine thing. This is in a word wrong. I don't think theres one pro-choicer in the arguement that actually thinks abortion is a totally fine thing with no wrongs about it. They all see it is a bad thing, but at the moment it is the less of two evils.
-Legal abortion (safe)
-Illegal abortion (very unsafe) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
A) I wouldn't have adressed the point if the point didn't still stand, now would I?
B) Abortions aren't some addictive drug. I'm not going to pretend that if they were illegal that people wouldn't find ways to get it done at all, I mean after all, people find ways to kill other people all the time, but that doesn't make it right. I think that if factilities that practice abortion were harder to find and had a worse reputation for being unsafe that it would drastically decrease the number of attemted abortions. Contrary to what apparently seems to be popular belife, abortions are niether addictive NOR cool. If they weren't so easily available, the vast majority of people would just settle for adoption or abandonment, or maby even *gasp* birth control!
Just because something will continue to be done after it is illigalized doesn't mean that it shouldn't be illigal. The issues surrounding drugs and alocohol that cause people to support their legalization just don't exist for abortion. I mean people murder other people all the time, does this mean we should legalize murder? it clearly isn't being preformed as safely as it could be...
I don't have a moral stance on abortion, because I don't have morals. A moral code is something you pick up through indoctrination in a particular set of beliefs. I have <i>ethics</i>, which are somewhat different.
Since there is no set time when a foetus becomes sentient, I fully support an arbitrary cut-off point after which performing an abortion becomes illegal. I would err on the side of caution and make the cut-off point long before you could reasonably consider a foetus to be even vaguely "human".
On the subject of the "potential person":
Making the surgical removal of a bundle of cells illegal to me seems strange. You are attempting to legislate against a potential occurance (i.e. the cells going to full term and becoming a baby). Let's take a statistical look at this.
Situation A
Sally becomes pregnant by her husband. Sally has a number of problems with carrying a foetus to full term, due to blood pressure and biochemical problems. She has perhaps a 5% chance of delivering the baby. Deciding she cannot bear the heartache of losing another child in the third trimester, she aborts. Under these circumstances, the anti-abortion argument suggests that she and the M.D. who performs the operation are murderers because they have denied <i>a potential human being.</i>
Situation B
Sally is fertile and so is her partner and they have every intention of having children. In this situation, taking into account all factors, there is a 25% chance that they will conceive. Now along comes another person, who then runs off with Sally's partner. Neither have commited any crime by the standards of the anti-abortion lobby.
In both cases you have a chance for the same child to be born. From a perspective of "potential", Situation B is the most ethically questionable because the potential chance of the child being born is higher. This is unarguable. So why is it that we don't arrest the two culprits in Situation B? Because you can't legislate against "potential" occurances. That's Orwellian in the extreme.
What you <i>can</i> do is define what constitutes a human life. So we set an arbitrary limit somewhat <i>before</i> the time a bundle of cells could be considered an intelligent human life.
On the practicalities of abortion:
Anyone who says abortion is an easy choice has obviously never known anyone who has had an abortion. Before you can describe abortions as "easy", you should <i>really</i> go have some life experiences.
Side note on prohibition:
Actually, prohibition caused a colossal drop in alcohol consumption. It just also criminalised it and helped to feed organised crime. Not that I object to organised crime. If we have to have crime, I'd much prefer it to be properly run. Amateur criminals are a pain in the arse, cause unneccesary casualties and damage and generally rob from individuals, rather than corporations.
Bush's responsibility for those factors in this short term is debatable, but I think it's a good, rational analysis of the issues facing real people.
<a href='http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=sojomail.display&issue=041013#5' target='_blank'>http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=sojom...&issue=041013#5</a>
His conclusion:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What does this tell us? Economic policy and abortion are not separate issues; they form one moral imperative. Rhetoric is hollow, mere tinkling brass, without health care, health insurance, jobs, child care, and a living wage. Pro-life in deed, not merely in word, means we need policies that provide jobs and health insurance and support for prospective mothers.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now, a 2nd Bush administration will IMO increase poverty and insecurity, thus increasing the desire for abortion, while at the same time trying to make it illegal. But maybe that's the Christian thing to do. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->