Abortion

[Iliad]

I'm not 15, can promise you that! I'm not new to the net either..heard of maddox but dont remember why

Because of me.

weren't you the one who posted that quote?

What, the one near the beginning of the thread about not being pro-choice or pro-life but being pro-you-shutting-the-f*ck-up?

I think so.

no the "If you don't who maddox is you are either 15 new to the Internets or both"?

[vtmarik]

I'm not 15, can promise you that! I'm not new to the net either..heard of maddox but dont remember why

Because of me.

weren't you the one who posted that quote?

What, the one near the beginning of the thread about not being pro-choice or pro-life but being pro-you-shutting-the-f*ck-up?

I think so.

no the "If you don't who maddox is you are either 15 new to the Internets or both"?

That wasn't me.

[AtomicSlug]

Someone, please tell me, why is it if someone kills a pregnant woman, they get charged with double murder, but if a woman has an abortion, it is completely legal?

well to be fair....because roe vs wade made it so....

but still would it really make you feel any better if they made the stance consistent, and didnt charge double murder?

Nice try. I believe both should be illegal. I only support abortion if the child is going to die or the childbirth will kill the mother.

PS again, I'm agnostic, but I firmly believe that no matter how bad socio-economic circumstances may be, every child deserves a chance. And I believe a child is a child the minute that lucky sperm penetrates the egg.

PPS I've learned over the years that arguing about abortion, politics and religion are fruitless and a waste of electronic ink. Therefore, I formally remove myself from discussion on such topics. Peace all - as you were....

[boogiesadda]

Abortion as a form of birth control is just wrong. Abortion in the cases of incest and rape that can be proven is quite alright with me.

[vtmarik]

I think we should re-name the sides of the debate.

Pro-Lifers aren't, because while they decry abortion they also don't give much of their attention to situations where children are homeless or living in an impoverished nation. They're Pro-Criminalization.

Pro-choicers aren't either, simply because they only advocate one option over all others. They're quite simply Pro-Abortion.

So there you have it, The Pro-Criminalization crowd who want to drive those who want abortions into back alleys and coat hangers (thus creating a whole host of new crimes that will create new criminals that will fill our overcrowded prisons) and the Pro-Abortionists who prefer the government and the Church to stay out of their business.

[salvadevinemasse]

Abortion as a form of birth control is just wrong. Abortion in the cases of incest and rape that can be proven is quite alright with me.

BoogieSadda I'm with you on this one.. If its rape or a medical emergancy I believe in it but not for birth control.

[OnlyAmbrose]

This is new. A few days ago pro-choice was winning the poll by about 10. Now pro-life is up by two.

[daddy1gringo]

I think we should re-name the sides of the debate.

Pro-Lifers aren't, because while they decry abortion they also don't give much of their attention to situations where children are homeless or living in an impoverished nation.

VT, ...WHAT? Ever heard of Catholic Charities, World Vision, Compassion International, Operation Hope, Save the Children foundation, etc., etc., etc.,? To say nothing of the clinics, orphanages, soup kitchens, funds to feed the poor, etc. that are a major part of the budget of every little Christian Church. Many times more time and money than goes into anti-abortion causes is poured into saving and improving lives around the world by the same closed-minded Bible believers.

Boasting is madness, but you forced me to it. We have been supporting a child in Guatemala through World Vision for years. A few months ago WV had improved life in the child's community so much that they no longer needed the help. Our support now goes to another child in Thailand. Did you see the little blond girl in my family picture on the "post a picture of yourself" thread? Her mother was an at-risk teenager who we took in while raising our own 2 and my 4 nieces and nephew who had gone into foster care. She lived with us during her whole pregnancy and my wife was with her in the delivery room. When the mother moved out of our house and got the child taken away by the state for endangerment, we adopted her. And no, we are not that exceptional.

I don't know what stereotypes you're believing, but I know alot of Christians. The more fanatically they believe in Jesus and God's Word, the more they are committed to sacrificing to save and improve the lives of people. Born and unborn.

Sorry that the tone of this post was not gentle, but that was a ridiculous statement.

[vtmarik]

Did I say "Christians?"

No, I said "pro-lifers."

When I talk about pro-lifers, I'm talking about pro-lifers on their own. Unlike some I don't lump Christians into the group, since there are pro-life groups that don't have a single religious affiliation.


So sorry if that confuses you.

[daddy1gringo]

Did I say "Christians?"

No, I said "pro-lifers."

When I talk about pro-lifers, I'm talking about pro-lifers on their own. Unlike some I don't lump Christians into the group, since there are pro-life groups that don't have a single religious affiliation.


So sorry if that confuses you.

Right, I am confused. So, who are all those non-Christian pro-lifers that you state with such assurance don't do anything for anyone else's lives?

[salvadevinemasse]

O_O I can see both sides of the debate in general guys.. I wont pick pro, nor will I pick un-pro.. I respect that others will do what they feel most comfortable with..I just hope that if they do choose to do it they don't regret it later on is all. I only know about myself to be honest and how it would affect me. Thats all I can honestly say.
Salva

[vtmarik]

Right, I am confused. So, who are all those non-Christian pro-lifers that you state with such assurance don't do anything for anyone else's lives?

Libertarians for Life:
http://www.l4l.org/

Feminists for Life:
http://www.feministsforlife.org/

Silent No More Awareness
http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/

Each of these organizations is non-religious in origin, and make no claims about helping people (financially or otherwise) after they've made the decision to have a baby.


These are examples, as I am not quite bored enough to assemble a canonical list.

[daddy1gringo]

Right, I am confused. So, who are all those non-Christian pro-lifers that you state with such assurance don't do anything for anyone else's lives?

Libertarians for Life:
http://www.l4l.org/

Feminists for Life:
http://www.feministsforlife.org/

Silent No More Awareness
http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/

Each of these organizations is non-religious in origin, and make no claims about helping people (financially or otherwise) after they've made the decision to have a baby.

These are examples, as I am not quite bored enough to assemble a canonical list.

I see, and 1. You know lots of individuals from these organizations and know that they aren't Christians and don't do anything for homeless children, and 2. these are such a major part of the pro-life movement that they justified your generalization that:

Pro-Lifers aren't, because while they decry abortion they also don't give much of their attention to situations where children are homeless or living in an impoverished nation.

Where's the guy from the "suicide by cop" thread with his BS-O-meter when you need it? The fact stands that the majority of the people and organizations of the pro-life movement are Christian, and do give a great deal of attention to saving and improving others' lives, as I showed in my other post, and your attempt at discrediting them was just a judgemental false accusation. (Oh, wait, only those Bible-thumpers are judgemental)

[Malkithe]

Argument goes like this:

People should be allowed to chose for themselves, or...

I find it morally repulsive, so I must legislate so that everyone in the world has to follow my morality.

The second bothers me more than the prospect of some people pursuing abortions.

There is a difference between encouraging good morals and legislation... something that we've begun to forget.

If everything that was found to be morally repugnant was outlawed, we'd be left with no acceptable behaviors at all.

The problem with debates like this is that if the liberal voice wins, then everyone gets to stay the same. But if the conservative voice wins, then some people have to change. Convince people of it's immorality, and the behavior will stop on it's own. Legislate against something, and you drive it into the shadows.

Legislating against abortion is not only wrong, it doesn't stop abortions.

Most sensible people I know are against legislating something this divisive, but would do anything in their power to stop friends and family from choosing one.

[daddy1gringo]

Argument goes like this:

People should be allowed to chose for themselves, or...

I find it morally repulsive, so I must legislate so that everyone in the world has to follow my morality.

The second bothers me more than the prospect of some people pursuing abortions.

There is a difference between encouraging good morals and legislation... something that we've begun to forget.

The problem with debates like this is that if the liberal voice wins, then everyone gets to stay the same. But if the conservative voice wins, then some people have to change. Convince people of it's immorality, and the behavior will stop on it's own.

Well, these are the arguments that are usually trotted out. Please read my long post on pg 22 (31 aug, 17:15) which deals with these arguments. I have yet to see anyone attempt to deal with what I said there.

[Malkithe]

Then I'll attempt it for argument's sake, taking the points you made in order:

It's not unreasonable to view abortion from a gender conflict perspective, even if many women support 'pro-life.' It's ridiculous to think that people act completely rationally at all times, and can always avoid the emotional issues inherent in something like this. While easy abortions do foster some degree of immorality, likewise severe prohibition of abortions promotes subjugated women.

Easy access to abortion liberates men into going crazy and impregnating everyone, because it's so easy to fix? Anyone making that claim forgets the tremendous emotional and social tole that pregnancy takes, with or without an abortion. To label it as nothing more than "I'm pregnant so I'll just take a pill and everything will be peachy keen" is to render it too simplistic. Abortions are not easy, and are not 'quick fixes.' (Perhaps an argument against, based on social / psychological stress, although you can't argue a point both ways.)

Girls forced into abortion by boyfriends / fathers? This is very true and a great threat to society - but it speaks of the nature of people, not of abortion. If we were to outlaw anything that people abused or used irresponsibly... we'd have to do away with pain killers, guns, cars, alcohol... Less regulation, more moral education is what we need. You can't make good citizens by making a list of prohibited behaviors, but you can make better citizens by educating them on morals. Keep in mind to that speaking about a woman who wants to keep her baby but is forced to have an abortion by a man makes it a gender conflict issue again (makes you want to let HER have the power to choose). Keep in mind to that even if you outlaw abortion, abortions will continue under these circumstances, just as they did before abortion was legalized.

The example of a crack dealer is a false analogy - a much greater majority of Americans are against cocaine than are against abortion.

The next appeal to the definition of rape is also a false analogy - The argument that a woman cannot force something on her baby goes in loops, because to prohibit this you must force something on her (again with the gender conflict!). Keep in mind that moral education, not prohibition, would solve this in a less 'forcible' manner.

You next say something that frightens me - Society cannot let an individual choose the right decision!? Our society was founded on freedom of choice, our primary religion revolves around free will, and you forget that someone has to choose a list of acceptable behaviors for them to be legislated (why the politician, and not me?).

About the 'murder' aspect - Taking a human life MUST always be forbidden? Then what about soldiers, or the death penalty?

About the line being drawn as to when a human is formed... I have to agree with you. I find the distinction difficult to make myself, and would rather err on the conservative side. That being said, my argument hasn't centered around this as of yet.

Be careful talking about 'beliefs' as in believing when life begins or does not as being arbitrary per their nature - it's true that beliefs are not empirically founded, but then again religious ideology (of which the majority of pro-lifers are a strong supporter of) are only beliefs as well, and I don't think that the argument of one belief over another is ever appropriate in a rational debate.

One final point about your language - a mandate does not exist to ban abortion - that would require a large majority. One of the reasons we can debate this so much is that such a majority does not exist. Keep in mind too that justice is a balance of opposing responsibilities - speaking as though the government has only one idea to support is fairly skewed.

All things considered, we need to move past the emotional arguments about murder, gender subjugation, dead babies and libertarians.

Take it from a pro-choicer who's terrified and appalled by abortion - we need to teach ourselves better morals (so as to remove the desire for abortion), encourage positive social and nuclear support (so as to remove the need for abortion), and leave the legislation to... well... no one.

[OnlyAmbrose]

I find it morally repulsive, so I must legislate so that everyone in the world has to follow my morality.

From our point of view, that's like saying "I find murder repulsive, so I must legislate that everyone in the world must follow my morality."

Legislating against abortion is not only wrong, it doesn't stop abortion

1. If it is assumed that abortion is homicide, then why is it wrong? I've posted my case for that a few pages back, but in any event, if it's considered homicide, then it is already legislated against.

2. Legislating against murder doesn't stop murder either, but I'm glad we have laws against it.

[Malkithe]

But killing another human isn't always murder, thats the point - we draw the line in various places about killing and murder... after all, the states that support an abortion ban tend to support execution - an example of murder.

[Malkithe]

That, and I'm not supporting abortion, just saying that if we just legislate against it, nothing's solved. If we attack the social roots, we can make a dent in it. It's time for pro-lifers to move in a more constructive direction.

[Beastly]

How is a fetus not human? Just think of you when you were a fetus... You were still you only a very small version. We all evolve.

There is a reason that the human fetus is inside. It is the perfect protection. Why can't aborted humans, be stored in incubators, until strong enough to survive.

Until they can find a way for a fetus to survive outside of the mother, I think it is still a kill. A kill is a kill. whether a small human or a big human.

[Malkithe]

I've never said it's not a kill, I said the opposite. I never said abortion wasn't immoral, I said the opposite.

Refer to long post above, and two smaller ones below that.

I was arguing legislation versus moral education.

[freezie]

We are allowed to send our animals to be killed because of a little misconception from them, but not to stop a process of having a children VERY EARLY ON because of...?

The is not alive yet. His brain is useless, so is his heart. Without those, you cannot live.

Yet the animal IS alive.



Doesn't make sense. Parent's choice. But after a few weeks, too bad for you guys. That's my oppinion.

[salvadevinemasse]

You guys are forgetting one very important key factor in this debate.. It takes two to make a baby to begin with.. why are we only fighting about the mothers rights here? Don't the fathers have a say in this matter too? What if the mom doesn't want the baby, yet the dad does? Should he have to take her to court if she doesn't want to carry the pregnancy out to full term? I think there should be a case to case situation.. However if its not a rape situation or a medical situation that puts the moms life in jeopardy then both parents should be there for the process so we know the father of the child agrees. Every woman should have to file a police report and have a rape test done if its happened to her. Or should bring her medical records with her if shes doing it by herself..

Then again thats my opinion. Because what if the best option for that baby is the father to begin with?

Not all mom's are perfect right? My best friend up north at 3 months old was sold for heroin to her mothers dealers.. at 7 her mom came back for her the dealers had been clean starting from the day that child came into their lives they stopped all drugs to be good parents.. at 7 tasha ended up back with her mom who let her stay out till 2am if she wanted..When tasha was 13 her mother died of a O.D. Just goes to show you not all mom's would make a great mom.

Salva~

[freezie]

Of course the father has a say in this, unless the mom have been cleared about not havingh a child before doing anything..

Generally called a mistake. But yes..Dads have a right there.

[Stopper]

First, I am pro-abortion - I find the idea of ascribing a separate legal personality and moral rights to a parasitic clump of cells ridiculous. I don't see abortion as being immoral, at least in the first and second trimesters.

I just want to say that this thread makes me a bit queasy. It's the same sensation I get when I see male legislators and male bishops arguing against something that they will never have to experience in their lives (and something which between one-quarter and one-third of women in Great Britain have done - they're to be criminalised or thought of as morally abhorrent!?!) I must admit that this is purely emotional. I can't come up with any intellectual basis for why men shouldn't be allowed to comment on, and vote for or against, abortion, but it is the same sensation I get when I see chickenhawks like Bush and Blair ordering their armed forces to war - it's something they have never and will never experience.

You guys are forgetting one very important key factor in this debate.. It takes two to make a baby to begin with.. why are we only fighting about the mothers rights here? Don't the fathers have a say in this matter too? What if the mom doesn't want the baby, yet the dad does? Should he have to take her to court if she doesn't want to carry the pregnancy out to full term? I think there should be a case to case situation.. However if its not a rape situation or a medical situation that puts the moms life in jeopardy then both parents should be there for the process so we know the father of the child agrees.

No. I see no reason why potential fathers have the right to the slightest say over whether a woman has to take her pregnancy to term or not. This is different from my queasiness over men arguing against legal abortions - it's the woman's body, and she doesn't suddenly lose her individual sovereignty just because she becomes pregnant.