Abortion

[coRtALoS]

To add to tipsy's post:
And if there is a god (don't want to debate it here, so hush), do you really think god is incapable of forming new views based on the bible? Or that he could not forsee abortion?

IF there is a God, wouldn't he have forseen this great debate in his infinite wisdom, and assured that something a little more specific was included in the Bible? :rolleyes

In my time I spend here, I do attempt my best to view things from both sides. Yes I've been to the abortion page linked to in Tipsy's signature. Yes I did cry when I saw those pictures (and I didn't just look briefly and close the window. I took my time to understand what it was I was looking at.) Unlike the majority of people who would rather adopt their parents beliefs rather than thinking for themselves, I do question my position on any range of topics daily, and what I came to realize after seriously taking into consideration the Conservative point of view is the human race can never become as perfect as it aspires to be.

Giving into sexual desire is not something we will escape. Ever. No sense in attempting to deny that which we are. As such, with imperfect flaws, people will make mistakes based on their irrational actions.

I also believe that applying a standard set of rules to everyone in general is a dangerous thing, as every single scenario is different. Thus I'm going to leave this debate with a quote I heard the other day. It can be applied against both sides of this argument, however I only hope that some of you will read it, and understand it's meaning, and not blindly follow a belief you believe, because those around you believe it as well.

Ideology serves as a tool to free individuals from the burden of thinking for themselves.

 

[B~E]

IF
Giving into sexual desire is not something we will escape. Ever. No sense in attempting to deny that which we are. As such, with imperfect flaws, people will make mistakes based on their irrational actions.
.

... and to finish your sentence, after making mistakes based on their irrational actions, they have to bear the consequence, not just conviniently get rid of it.

I also believe that applying a standard set of rules to everyone in general is a dangerous thing, as every single scenario is different

This is so very true. Every generalisation is dangerous, even this one.

 

[amrtin77]

if you dont have the same rules for everyone, whose the moral judge?

not saying i disagree... but this opens up a whole wave of new problems dealing with relative morality.

 

[Tipsy]

Figures you don't like abortion, but you don't have to worry about it; you're too busy molesting little boys and then covering it up to notice that there's a real world out there and everything is subjective.

Good job, go completely off topic and insult the church once more, really is quite some Arance Sanctuary material. As for the actual statistics for you. There are roughly 48,000 Roman Catholic priests in the United States. Much less than 1% of them are 'child molesters', so you are judging 48,000 people on much less than even half of them. Thats seems just crazy to me, I don't know about everyone else though. So let's put this into perspective. By looking at every country in the world, you can pick the worst 1% people in the country, and by looking at those worst 1% people you can come to the conclusion that everybody in that country you deem everybody in the entire country as a horrible person. Also, if you even bothered looking at what you are hurling insults out of your ass at, you would see that your completely off base. First off, not everything is subjective, and second, what I think you ment was right and wrong are subjective. Well according to my religion it isn't, we may not know what is right and what is wrong because we are human after all, but it definately is not subjective. This is all according to my religion just to reitterate this point.

To add to tipsy's post:
And if there is a god (don't want to debate it here, so hush), do you really think god is incapable of forming new views based on the bible? Or that he could not forsee abortion?

I'm trying to keep God out of this post, I just wanted to correct misconceptions. I found Undead Cheese's view as an athiest more interesting than myself defending pro-life. As for this, my view on abortion is based on a combination of doctrine, dogma, and the bible. As for God incapable of forming new views, as my religion holds God he has seen every view from every perspective because he is all knowing. As for the bible not making abortion a specific example, imagine how much unneccesary stuff would be thrown in if he put every example of every detail of specific issues from the time the bible was written to the end of time. For me, it is clear enough that abortion is wrong because it says 'Thou shall not kill'.

bastardsword, i was shooting for the balls so he can't molest said little boys. see, there is a method to my meanness!

I would just like to say congradulations, by accusing me because I am a Christain of being a child molester, you just accused, 33% of the world, roughly 2 billion people of being child molesters due to the fact that they are Christain.

One more thing, I am just stating facts, I have no presented an argument and am just correcting misconceptions of religion. All of the views on abortion in this post are based purely on religious doctrine, dogma, and the bible and should be read that way, I am not stating an argument, just responding to completely random and uncalled for flames on my religion.

 

[Nermal]

now, dont think im being sexist either,

but

men do provide a mostly stable income, how often do you hear of a single pregnancy with no other support than the mother herself? not often. the man should provide the money, time to run errands for this and that, etc.

besides, how many planned preganancies are horrible? maybe at childbirth...but they can have high doses of drugs to take away the pain.

The Myth! Wow, good thing I'm not too much of a feminist. The is a pre-conceived perception of the role between man and woman. Most woman now are self sufficient, and I'm not denying the fact that a lot of men would support the woman through this, but, they are not essential. Hm.. kind of hard to explain this clearly, and it really depends on the cases either way, but I'm not sure how many guys actually would support a woman throughout a whole pregnancy and than give the child through adoption (because that is the issue here... abortion/adoption).

As for the planned pregnancies, they are not horrible because the mother 'loves' her child and wants it. For someone who does not want to have a child, the emotionnal and physical effects a pregnancy has is hard. If you can't 'love' that child, or you know your going to give it away, it's truly hard on the nerves, the body and psychologically. Then again, at the rsik of being sexist, and it is, only the woman will ever truly understand that.

As I've said, when men will share half of what being pregnant is, half of the emotionnal scar that either abortion or adoption leaves after, then maybe they will be able to judge the woman's decision in the case. I know this is not the 'thinking about the baby's way', but that's how a woman thinks. It's hard to give away to adoption, it's hard to go through an unwanted pregnancy, if a mother can't support a child mentally while it's still forming, a lot of chances are she will lose the baby also.

 

[Sogeking]

remember that men tend to die before woman

and thanks for saying that the woman can support the baby on her own, it shows that she can have the child and put it up for adoption

 

[Undead Cheese]

undead, people have sex. people will always have sex.

And people should accept the consequences of their actions. Again, if you really do not want the child you can put it up for adoption.

and the argument that "a non feeling, non thinking fetus has potential to become a human"

no shit, so does my sperm when i jack off.

No, your sperm have no potential to become life unless...
a.) You have magic sperm
-or-
b.) You are doing it within a very close proximity to a woman

I unfortunately don't think that most girls, even if they don't want the child and opt for adoption, can support a pregnancy. It's very hard on the body and nerves and also on hormones and whatnot. I don't think personnally I would be able to go through 9 months of that to give a child away in the end, stop my studies and etc. I know to most of you this is a very selfish argument.. if an argument at all. But that's how I and a lot of girls feel.

Yes, it is a selfish argument. It's not like a stock broker can invest a million dollars into a $50 stock, watch it spiral down to the point where it's only worth $25 and then take back his million and pretend it never happened.

But to get back on topic, then.. is taking the pill wrong then?

Nope, and I don't think abortion is wrong either if it's done within the first 10 weeks.

To those that think it's okay before it becomes a baby, it's still a 'potential' baby as a feotus, and yet you agree to that? Then your logic is flawed. I'm not saying doing this is wrong, I'm just saying your logic is flawed because if you are against abortion, this should also apply.

There's no flaw in the logic. Setting a time period on abortion makes the difference between destroying a jumble of cells and destroying a "human" in the early stages of development that has already established some heart/brain function.

people will ALWAYS have sex, think realistically. theres no way you can stop people from having sex. its going to happen.

And people should accept the consequences of their actions.

what are you going to do about it? have a population living in poverty?

That's usually what the screening processes at abortion clinics try to prevent. (along with abusive environments, etc.)

No matter what people say, it may seem sexist, and it is, but the choice in the end really does come back to the women.
When a the guys will have to share half of the pregnancy, half of the physical effects it causes, half of the emotionnal shock it is to bear a child, half of the labor, half of the trauma caused by giving a child away to adoption... then MAYBE they will get a say in this.

It's still the man's child, too, and if the couple ever breaks up he's going to have to pay child support, so I believe he also needs to have a say in the matter. (assuming it's within the first 10 weeks and the woman's life is not in danger)

 

[Lights]

Nope, and I don't think abortion is wrong either if it's done within the first 10 weeks.

Do you mean in any situation, or just in the 'special' situations?
I think in that time period, abortions should be allowed. Period. For any reason.

 

[Undead Cheese]

I'd prefer if it were reserved for the special situations we've talked about, but in the first 10 weeks my opinion isn't very strong one way or the other.

 

[l33t 0n3]

IF there is a God, wouldn't he have forseen this great debate in his infinite wisdom, and assured that something a little more specific was included in the Bible?

...But god did not write the Bible, and it would not be a relevant issue at the time the bible was written.

No matter what people say, it may seem sexist, and it is, but the choice in the end really does come back to the women.
When a the guys will have to share half of the pregnancy, half of the physical effects it causes, half of the emotionnal shock it is to bear a child, half of the labor, half of the trauma caused by giving a child away to adoption... then MAYBE they will get a say in this.

The woman gives birth, but the man has to deal with the baby all of his life by either staying with his wife forever, paying almost every penny he makes on the kid, or paying child support. The emotional strain is also equal, if not greater to the man.

The Myth! Wow, good thing I'm not too much of a feminist. The is a pre-conceived perception of the role between man and woman. Most woman now are self sufficient, and I'm not denying the fact that a lot of men would support the woman through this, but, they are not essential. Hm.. kind of hard to explain this clearly, and it really depends on the cases either way, but I'm not sure how many guys actually would support a woman throughout a whole pregnancy and than give the child through adoption (because that is the issue here... abortion/adoption).

Unless the family has switched roles, the woman can not make income sufficient to raise the child. I mean, they can if the dad stays at home and raises the kid, but a woman can't both create a steady income and raise a child. It's one or the other. I know seven people with divorced or widowed parents, and the mother alone can't ever support them. Even with divorce-suits, child support, or posessions from a will, the woman always needs to find a man for the income. They all try and fail, because there is not enough human for both. The only single working-mom with children I know doesn't do shit to raise her own kids. One of her sons spent the ENTIRE summer at my house 3 years in a row because she can't be home.

Alright, you're obviously a brainwashed femminazi so I will ignore any post you make beyond this point. I've had my daily dose of bullshit today.

 

[Lights]

A bit of a bump here, but I was thinking about something. >:O



For those of you who believe the fetus has the same rights as a newborn, that human rights are acquired at conception, what do you think of imprisonment of a pregnant woman? For surely, if you cannot infringe on the rights of the fetus' right to live, you cannot force it to do prison time when it is totally innocent, as you claim. You can't be for one and not the other, at least you can't and be consistent with your argument.

So, if a woman who is 20 weeks pregnant commits a murder, what do you do with her? Prison? No. You can't execute, obviously. You cannot do anything that would infringe on the fetus' right to freedom.


Thoughts?

 

[Sogeking]

you put her on house arrest, except you prepare a hospitol room for her. Place a guard on the room. done.

 

[Lights]

you put her on house arrest, except you prepare a hospitol room for her. Place a guard on the room. done.

Slow down. That would mean putting the unborn baby, the one that has every human right entitled to each free man, on house arrest, too. We are talking about punishing the innocent, which just can't be allowed. After all, fetus' are people too! What has the fetus done wrong? You can't put it on house arrest, no more than you can infringe on its right to life. Consistency, my friend, is a bitch.

 

[Tipsy]

Slow down. That would mean putting the unborn baby, the one that has every human right entitled to each free man, on house arrest, too. We are talking about punishing the innocent, which just can't be allowed. After all, fetus' are people too! What has the fetus done wrong? You can't put it on house arrest, no more than you can infringe on its right to life. Consistency, my friend, is a bitch.

Or you could just as easily twist the facts the other way. You would be putting the mother on house arrest and in this case the guard at the door could let the fetus leave house arrest anytime. Oh wait, it can't because it is already stuck inside its' mother for however long is left in the pregnacy. Point of this, you can either twist the facts the way you are doing by saying that the fetus is being imprisoned, or you can twist the facts the other way and say that the fetus is just staying with the mother and can leave the house arrest whenever it wants to. It is just a perspective thing.

 

[Lights]

It is just a perspective thing.

As is abortion.
And yet, everyone is so ready to put an end to it because of their perspective. They forget that their are others who do not look at it the same way.

 

[Tipsy]

As is abortion.
And yet, everyone is so ready to put an end to it because of their perspective. They forget that their are others who do not look at it the same way.

The difference between the example and abortion is that as you put it, "For surely, if you cannot infringe on the rights of the fetus' right to live, you cannot force it to do prison time when it is totally innocent". I don't see how murder can be different in different perspectives, because in the end it is murder.

 

[Undead Cheese]

The baby's life in "prison" is no different than it would be out of prison while it is still in the womb. After the baby is born it is immediately placed for adoption. Problem solved.

 

[torrid mind]

im pro life but i personally wouldnt have an abortion. i feel like if i had an abortion it would be like killing a part of myself. i would carry out the pregnancy and get in a program that helps in finding a good adoptive parent.
i think a woman should be able to do whatever she wants with her own body. men can do whatever they want with their sperm. everytime a man jacks off isnt he then killing thousands of potential babies?
besides bringing a baby into a home that doesnt want it is just morally wrong in my books.

 

[Lights]

The difference between the example and abortion is that as you put it, "For surely, if you cannot infringe on the rights of the fetus' right to live, you cannot force it to do prison time when it is totally innocent". I don't see how murder can be different in different perspectives, because in the end it is murder.

Keeping in mind the idea that abortion is murder isn't concrete.
From your perspective it is murder, and to others it can be something else.

The baby's life in "prison" is no different than it would be out of prison while it is still in the womb. After the baby is born it is immediately placed for adoption. Problem solved.

An unborn's death or life while in the womb is no different, as far as awareness goes. Putting it up after it is born doesn't solve the problem of while it is still in the womb. The baby is still in prison.


I am only asking for consistency. If you cannot kill an unborn, you cannot force it into prison, even if still in the womb. Remember it has the same rights as a newborn child.

 

[l33t 0n3]

This is where society is headed, I guess. Does a human no longer have a value? Just because they aren't as developed as you gives you the right to throw one away like a tissue? Abortion is one of the many hyppocritical pieces to a democrat. Democrats complain about men willingly dying in a war, and abuse the video-recordings of those who only joined the army to rip our government out of an education's worth of money (if you don't want to die, don't join a volunteer army), yet they fail to realize that by supporting abortions, they would end up killing more people without their consent. Sounds a lot like genocide to me.

99.9%. This number shows the reliability of the average condom. 99.9%. That's also the rate of avoidable abortions. The only excuse would be a broken condom, and if it breaks, take some birth-control. Infact, I would only find an abortion acceptable if a condom broke while mentally-handicapped people were having sex and didn't know to use birth control if it broke. Wow, that's like what? Two people in the us?

Wait, most of the US is retarded these days.