Abortion Controversy

[EnviMea]

You should try to get raped some day, and get back to us on your findings.

Or maybe you have already been raped? That would certainly explain your otherwise non-cited, confident claims on the mental experience.

I agree with this. If you can come back with some thoughts based on experience, I'd like to be enlightened. Especially since it's an experience not unknown to me.

 

......in the mean time I am going to choose to ignore gravity.

 

Wee! This is fun!

In other news, I like you.

 

…or mothers told their child is at risk for a deadly malformation or a birth defect.

 

You've just killed Beethoven with that approach.

Not saying I'd do it. I probably wouldn't. But even when parents are intending on going through with pregnancies, and they find out the child may be born with painful, life altering disabilities, or there's a large chance of still birth, decide not to continue. Many think it's better the child not suffer. It's not my personal opinion, but it is many others'.

[Alyxx Thorne]

Anyone who has not experienced rape has no business talking about that it's easy to deal with the trauma. That's all I have to say about that. Speak for yourself, not others.

[BTGBullseye]

Anyone who has not experienced rape has no business talking about that it's easy to deal with the trauma. That's all I have to say about that. Speak for yourself, not others.

Now we're moving on to the topic of rape is it? Rape should have nothing to do with the abortion topic.

[Alyxx Thorne]

Anyone who has not experienced rape has no business talking about that it's easy to deal with the trauma. That's all I have to say about that. Speak for yourself, not others.

Now we're moving on to the topic of rape is it? Rape should have nothing to do with the abortion topic.

You were the one who discussed dealing with the psychological trauma from a rape experience. And I'd say rape and abortion is related because the corelation between rape and abortion has been discussed for most of the thread.

[Geneaux486]

I am pro-life. Even at conception what you've got is a developing human life that, if left untouched, will grow and develope and eventually be born, then live his or her life. There's no telling what that life might become, but I do not believe we have the right to decide when it is preferrable for a developing one to be extinguished.

[Kaon]

I think my views on abortion are a bit odd; as Geneaux486 mentioned, we do not know what a developing life may become.

 

With that in mind, I seem to apply it to a wider spectrum, i.e. nonhumans. (Sorry if this isn't quite on topic, it should make sense in a sec) The way humanity has been treating other life on this planet has been deplorable in a lot of cases. I'm not speaking about our desire to eat other animals, more so referring to the way we prevent other species from evolving by imposing limits or dangers on them. A quick example would be breeding lizards as pets, taking animals out of the wild etc. To me, a lot of the things humanity has done in regards to other animals seems to be a road block in development and evolution. If we had the ability and the desire to stop interfering, who knows what some species could be capable of given a few hundred years?

 

Of course the evolutionary development of animals takes a very long time, but in the essence of what a human being starts out as (incapable of defending itself/surviving alone) to what it can become during its life (self sufficient, intelligent, etc) I see a possibility for growth.

 

Although here is where my view's get a bit.. tangled.... I dislike how humanity treats animals, how we feel we can destroy them for our own uses simply because they are not up to our 'standards' of intelligence. But I'm pro-choice. I'm probably explaining myself very poorly, but I believe a woman should have to right to choose whether or not she's ready to care for a new life form. I mean really, having a child... it's no longer about you anymore, you're no longer having to care for just one or think about yourself, you have another life that you put before yours for the rest of your life. I don't mean to make it sound selfish, but I feel people should be prepared for that as best they can, not thrust into that situation which may lead to the child having a bad life.

 

So I think to sum it up, humans are intelligent beings capable of taking preventative measures, and if the time comes - making informed decisions about abortion, which is why I'm alright with it. But our views on beings we deem of lesser intelligence need some rethinking... who knows what other species could become if we gave them the chance, how long before rats could sing...

 

 

(I in no way intended to offend anyone by comparing human babies to animals, I've just always had a pessimistic view on how we treat them in comparison. It's also 1:40 in the morning so I'm sorry if most of this was incoherent rambling.)

[ajapam]

I really don't see how anyone could support this. We have so many options now if a mother doesn't want a child. Having an abortion seems like a very selfish thing to do. Unless of course the baby will be born with serious life altering defects. then it's a bit of a grey area that I think should be looked at on a case by case basis.

 

The rape thing is another grey area I don't really wanna get into. I understand how it could be traumatic, but I'd still lean towards "pro-life." That's a tough one for the girl.

 

I recently learned that Eskimoes would actually kill their children. It sounds bad, but they would only do it if they could not take care of them, and even then they would give the child to another family if possible. What we are doing with abortion is just drawing the line at a different point, and sometimes for different reasons.

 

Bottom line, if you are a slut, suck it up, give the child up for adoption, and grow a responsibility. Same goes for couples who just aren't ready to have kids (except for the responsibility part, of course.) The other situations are tough to say.

 

If I sound insensitive, it's just that it seems so clear to me. I'm not a religious person at all, I just think the kid should have a chance. None of us know what death is like, so why not let him/her experience life while possible?

[Geneaux486]

I recently learned that Eskimoes would actually kill their children.

 

This was an extremely rare occurence used in the most dire of circumstances. It wasn't so much done when parents couldn't take care of their children as it was when there weren't enough resources to keep everyone in a community on their feet.

[ajapam]

I recently learned that Eskimoes would actually kill their children.

 

This was an extremely rare occurence used in the most dire of circumstances. It wasn't so much done when parents couldn't take care of their children as it was when there weren't enough resources to keep everyone in a community on their feet.

 

Perhaps I was wrong. That illustrates my point even better, anyway.

[Michael Archer]

Abortion?

 

Well, the issue is whether or not a fetus has a right to live in a woman's body with or without her permission. This is where I see a lot of my fellow pro-abortionists fault and make the entire pro-abortion case look bad. A lot of them will say "Oh, there's no brain activity until blah blah blah", "it's not human!" and the like. They're completely missing the point. The issues is just a matter of rights.

 

Does the fetus have the right to live in a woman's body with or without her permission? No. Why? Rights cannot infringe on other rights. To force a woman remain pregnant, means to force a woman to go against her reason, what she thinks is best for her, and what she can do with her own body. This violates her rights to life (and the nourishment thereof), liberty (to choose what she does for herself) and property (remember: her body is her property!). This is why a fetus does not have rights and only lives within a woman by her permission. Even if the fetus was a fully conscious human being, all of the above would still apply.

[Alyxx Thorne]

I think Michael brings forth a very important reason here.

[BTGBullseye]

Does the fetus have the right to live in a woman's body with or without her permission? No. Why? Rights cannot infringe on other rights. To force a woman remain pregnant, means to force a woman to go against her reason, what she thinks is best for her, and what she can do with her own body. This violates her rights to life (and the nourishment thereof), liberty (to choose what she does for herself) and property (remember: her body is her property!). This is why a fetus does not have rights and only lives within a woman by her permission. Even if the fetus was a fully conscious human being, all of the above would still apply.

And for 99% of abortions, it is the consequence of the female's intentional actions that the baby is conceived. Why should a living human being be murdered because the "mother" couldn't keep her pants on?

[Alyxx Thorne]

Does the fetus have the right to live in a woman's body with or without her permission? No. Why? Rights cannot infringe on other rights. To force a woman remain pregnant, means to force a woman to go against her reason, what she thinks is best for her, and what she can do with her own body. This violates her rights to life (and the nourishment thereof), liberty (to choose what she does for herself) and property (remember: her body is her property!). This is why a fetus does not have rights and only lives within a woman by her permission. Even if the fetus was a fully conscious human being, all of the above would still apply.

And for 99% of abortions, it is the consequence of the female's intentional actions that the baby is conceived. Why should a living human being be murdered because the "mother" couldn't keep her pants on?

I agree that people should take responsobility for their actions, but we all f*** up sometimes, and with a rape scenario it might even be against the woman's will.

[BTGBullseye]

Does the fetus have the right to live in a woman's body with or without her permission? No. Why? Rights cannot infringe on other rights. To force a woman remain pregnant, means to force a woman to go against her reason, what she thinks is best for her, and what she can do with her own body. This violates her rights to life (and the nourishment thereof), liberty (to choose what she does for herself) and property (remember: her body is her property!). This is why a fetus does not have rights and only lives within a woman by her permission. Even if the fetus was a fully conscious human being, all of the above would still apply.

And for 99% of abortions, it is the consequence of the female's intentional actions that the baby is conceived. Why should a living human being be murdered because the "mother" couldn't keep her pants on?

I agree that people should take responsobility for their actions, but we all f*** up sometimes, and with a rape scenario it might even be against the woman's will.

If it gets rid of non-rape abortions, I'm willing to work from there... It's a good start anyways. Way better than the "kill it if you don't like it" mentality expressed by Michael Archer...

[Bjossi]

and with a rape scenario it might even be against the woman's will.

 

It definitely is, unless the woman is the actual rapist.

[Alyxx Thorne]

and with a rape scenario it might even be against the woman's will.

 

It definitely is, unless the woman is the actual rapist.

Of course. It's rare but it happens.

[Michael Archer]

And for 99% of abortions, it is the consequence of the female's intentional actions that the baby is conceived. Why should a living human being be murdered because the "mother" couldn't keep her pants on?

 

It's not an issue of what happened in the past; it's a matter of rights. Does a fetus have the right to consume a woman's resources without her consent? Does it have the right to take what it wants, even at the expense of the woman's life, mind and reason?

 

"Murder" is the taking of a human being's life through the initiation of force. A fetus is human, but not a "human being" per se, since it's dependent entirely on its mother. A baby is a physical separate entity, so killing a baby would be murder. Removing a fetus, would not be, since there is no right to exist on another human as a parasite.

 

If it gets rid of non-rape abortions, I'm willing to work from there... It's a good start anyways. Way better than the "kill it if you don't like it" mentality expressed by Michael Archer...

 

Not "kill it", "remove it" which usually results in fetal death. The way you phrased it sounds like I'm advocating the initiation of force against other human beings at the whim of another, which I'm not.

 

You own your body, do you not? How would you feel if the government forced you to give a kidney to a complete stranger? The stranger would die without it; using the anti-abortionist arguments, the "donor" will commit murder if he does not give his kidney.

 

A fetus resides in a woman by her permission only. You do not have the right to tell a woman how she will use her body, her resources, or her property, nor does the government have the right to use her as a breading pig.

 

To outlaw abortion would be contrary to the right to life. The right to life includes the right to freedom of mind, reason and action for yourself. Forbidding a woman to get an abortion would be contrary to her reason, that tells her it would be detrimental to her own life to keep the fetus.

 

This is why it angers me that the anti-abortionists have the audacity to call themselves, "pro-life".

[Geneaux486]

The infant isn't taking resources from the mother because it *wants* to, so why should it be punished? Furthermore, even though one is dependent on the other, there are still two living things to take into consideration here. Your argument that a fetus is technically infringing on the mother is true enough from a certain point of view, but it does not follow that this invalidates the fetus' right to live, as it has no control over its actions. You say the government doesn't have the right to tell a woman how to use her body and resources, do you then also apply this to the situations that arise after a child is born? After all, it's still infringing upon the personal freedoms and resources of at least one parent if not given up for adoption. Also, you say that rights cannot infringe on other rights, but this is contrary to day-to-day life. Rights infringe on other rights all the time, and yet the majority of the time this does not invalidate them. It's something that will always happen as long as there is more than one person with unlimited wants and needs in a world of limited resources.

[BTGBullseye]

The infant isn't taking resources from the mother because it *wants* to, so why should it be punished? Furthermore, even though one is dependent on the other, there are still two living things to take into consideration here. Your argument that a fetus is technically infringing on the mother is true enough from a certain point of view, but it does not follow that this invalidates the fetus' right to live, as it has no control over its actions. You say the government doesn't have the right to tell a woman how to use her body and resources, do you then also apply this to the situations that arise after a child is born? After all, it's still infringing upon the personal freedoms and resources of at least one parent if not given up for adoption. Also, you say that rights cannot infringe on other rights, but this is contrary to day-to-day life. Rights infringe on other rights all the time, and yet the majority of the time this does not invalidate them. It's something that will always happen as long as there is more than one person with unlimited wants and needs in a world of limited resources.

 

+rep

[Alyxx Thorne]

I think all in all, despite that I am mostly pro-choice, adoption is a much better option than abortion.