For or against?
For or against?
Doesn't the baby have a choice or right to live as well? It can always kill itself after if life turns out bad.Originally Posted by Starfall
excellent pointOriginally Posted by Uncle_Sam
Damn those gammanians.....
As for abortion, I don't think it is anyone's right but the mother, because it's coming out of her body, and she will, most likely, be the one who is mostly responsible for it's well being. Not that a man should not have responsibility or consent, hell no. He should be just as responsible and accountible.
But if I had to choose b etween the two, I say the woman gets to decide.
Hey hey hey -- why not post a child of all the kids who grew up in africa, or even the ghetto in USA, to show how horrible off they are, when they have to grow up in really bad situations.
Show the pictures for the negatives of both
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
All the time... it happens.
Though even rape, or poverish living is a pretty lame excuse to fold one's cards, in my most humble of opinions of course.
Now I know one could say, "But Dramatics, easy said; not so easily done if you were in those shoes," and that is correct. There surely will be much suffering of some degree, but that which has not killed me, only made me more numb.
But if one's definition of satisfaction is wealth, prestige, celebrations... superficial shiatsu, then the best thing to do would be to can the little bastard. You can put together another one. Better to be a havesome than a havenot right?
Just SEI it!
I'm pro-choice. I know that there is an awful lot of babies that could have had a good life, but there are even more babies who are better off in Heaven, compared to the life they would have had.
There was some statistics. For some time abortion was not allowed and about 15-20 years later crime rates had noticeably increased. I can't remember where I read about it, and I don't remember the exact numbers, but I didn't see any inconsistencies. Prohibiting abortion increased the amount of children that the parents didn't care for.
And think about this - there are people who would rather have an abortion. That means that they don't care about the baby enough to give birth. Do you think that they would be excellent mommies who lovingly raise a cute good moral child? If those people can't have the abortion, will they treat the child in the way that the child has to be treated?... While you're at it, think about all the babies who get left for dead near trash cans, because the mother didn't want the baby.
Sometimes the pro-life people disturb me - being all moral and good without thinking about the consequences of their moral actions. I understand the pro-life reasoning, but I think allowing abortion is the lesser evil. I would just increase the funding of counselling - I want excellent psychologists making hesitant pregnant people really believe that they want the baby, but I don't want anyone to have a baby against their will.
PS! I have a hunch that this will cause a lot of arguing. I'll be out of town for 2 days, so if I don't reply, it's because I'm not here.
I'm generally strongly against. However the issue gets complicated when you look things at individual level. There is a lot of gray area.
I would like a society with a pro-life and anti-abortion attitude but a society that is not fanatic about the subject and is flexible on evaluating individual cases. This can't happen just by enforcing certain individual laws. It should be a more general "spirit" in the society. Currently the sheer amount unwanted pregnancies in the society makes the issue extremely complicated and I think society should evolve in many ways and a single moral question like this can't be looked at without taking into account the myriads of other questions connected to it.
But to answer shortly: Abortion should not be made a "norm" or given a status of being an ethically sound prevention method. Instead it should be seen as an extreme measure acceptable only in extreme/extraordinary circumstances.
In the U.S. currently, women can get an abortion for any reason at anytime with no questions asked, and I think that's wrong. I'm not "anti-abortion" and I don't want to see ZERO abortion rights, but the thought of 75 million some babies being killed since abortions became legal in this country makes my stomach turn. There has to be a better way, and I think the abortion laws should be much stricter. There is polling data that shows that the majority of Americans are in favor of this also.
It is not for you to be making that judgement, and how could you possibly know that they'd just be better off aborted? There are scores of women out there who maybe weren't quite ready and were considering abortion but decided to have the baby anyways, and that it was the best decision they ever made, and that the baby brought so much joy and happiness into their lives.Originally Posted by Kristiina
I've heard this before and I think it's from some recent book that came out within the past few years. The one with the big green apple or something on the front. Can't remember the author or title. Anyways, that's an interesting point, but I have a feeling that there's more to that than meets the eyes.Originally Posted by Kristiina
One word: Adoption. Do you know how many couples are in line to adopt babies in this country due to infertility? It can take years. Why kill a perfectly good and healthy baby that has a chance at a happy and normal life when there are thousands and thousands of couples out there willing to adopt that cannot have a baby on their own. And aunt and uncle of mine are two such people, and they didn't feel like waiting like 4 or 6 years in the U.S., so they adopted a little girl from an orphanage in China and she's the sweetest little girl ever and is incredibly grateful for the life that's she's been given a chance at. This girl is going to go places, let me tell you. She's only 10 now. She could have been aborted, and what a tragedy that would have been.Originally Posted by Kristiina
What you're doing is using moral relativism, and that's what disturbs me. "well yeah, abortion might not be the best thing, but it's surely better than <<insert other bad thing here>> so it's ok". It's a way to justify "bad" behavior by comparing it to something else that is "worse" and therefore that particular behavior is now ok. You have to draw the line between right and wrong somewhere, and there are also consequences to having an abortion too. A lot of women who have had abortions have long-term psychological ailments resulting from the abortion, are far more likely to suffer from depression, or have physical health problems or infertility.Originally Posted by Kristiina
If you're not ready to bring a child into the world then you shouldn't be having unprotected sex. People should be a lot more repsonsible and "think of the consequences" of what could happen. Use protection, geez. I do believe that abortion is morally wrong. I don't want it legally eliminated, but rather just more limited. If you're the victim of rape, incest, or there are health complications, I think it should be available as an option. It should not be "unlimited" though, as it is now. In an ideal world, there would be no such thing as an unwanted pregnancy, and hence no real need for abortions. But we don't live there. Unlimited abortion "rights" IMHO just encourages irresponsible and carefree behavior and "oh if we get preggers we'll just have an abortion" which I think is immoral. Stricter abortion laws would force people to be more responsible with themselves, and reduce the need for abortion and reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies to begin with.
My wife is pro-life and cited the number of unwanted babies that would be off the streets and reduced crime. I think it's a good point, but that the problem begins before that and that there's a better solution. If you can find what the source of that was though, let me know. I'll buy the book off of ebay and give it a read. :wink:Originally Posted by Kristiina
Te-INTp/ILI, my wife: Fi-ISFj/ESI, with laser beam death rays for ESTp/SLEs, lol
16 years of bliss in an Activity relationship
Against, I'm completley Pro-life.Originally Posted by Morality_Enforcer
I am against it in terms of people that use it as a lifestyle and not a last option. I know someone (by proxy, not by choice) that has had 3 within 5 years because of "oops" factors. The only positive note is that I wouldnt want this person being a parent, either. However, adoption is a viable method. A SHITLOAD of people would give several kidneys to have healthy, cracker baby.
I want to contrast something about a friend (this one is by choice). She messed up on her birth control somehow (Im not going to ask but I do remember her working 60hrs a week then, so...). She decided to keep it even though it was a crappy option for her to do. Now she has people telling her, "I told you so," right to her face! WTF?!?!?
I agree with many things in your post. However in this particular point I would go even further and say "if you are not ready to bring a child into the world then you really shouldn't be having sex at all (unprotected or protected)". Because no protection method is 100% reliable you should always be prepared for the consequences. If you have already decided you are going to abort in case you get pregnant then you are not ready to have sex in my opinion.Originally Posted by stevENTj
Sex here understood in a way it usually is when talking about "unprotected sex".
I'm completely pro-choice.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
Some people don't need to be parents and they know this.
Though I would never do it myself.
All Hail The Flying Spaghetti Monster
I think abortion is wrong and a really shitty way of trying to cover up mistakes, but there are situations where the life of the mother of child or children (as with selective reduction) are at stake, or there is a case of rape, etc. where I think it should be up to the mother. If abortion is wrong and she makes a bad decision, she will live with the consequences.
I do not think abortion should be illegal. I think there should be a waiting period of at least a week as well as mandatory pre-operation and post-operation counseling. I also think that individual states should be able to write their own laws on issues such as this and marijuana and gay marriage... but that's another topic. Bottom line: abortions will happen, whether they are legal or not. If they are illegal, we'll have 15 year old girls getting infections and dying because they're afraid their dads will hurt them if they find out about their pregnancies.
I do still advocate that anyone who wants free sterilization should get it though.
Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/
Kristiina&Steve: the book is Freakonomics, Levitt.
Kristiina: the other way around. 15-20 years after the legalization of abortion, teen crime rates dropped.
I'm personally rationally pro-choice, emotionally anti-abortion. I would vote for pro-choice, since nobody should try to force other people into doing something they do not want to.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Uhm...I think I'm against. But I've heard arguments that the child is not yet "alive" or have a mind or however you want to put it, until a certain trimester.
Couldn't have put it any better myself.Originally Posted by FDG
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
I was just going to say the very same thing. The idea of abortion being illegal and desperate women having to go the backalley route (because not everyone has the means to travel to Canada) is really disturbing to me and I think men who argue this topic have to sit down just for one minute and truly think about the tremendous impact of finding out you are pregnant and do not want to be. It is pretty scary. And carrying a baby to then give it up for adoption is no picknick either... An older friend of mine got pregnant right after the birth of her first child during a time when abortions were illegal. Through different channels, she found a doctor to perform the surgery. Nobody could know, so she had it done, went home and went about her day bleeding, in pain, and depressed. Not to mention the many women who died or were permanently injured.Originally Posted by gilligan87
In Germany, it is legal to have an abortion during the first trimester and only after counseling.
Seriously, making abortion illegal seriously infringes on the right of women, to say that only responsible people should have sex is ludicrous and patronizing ('you are too poor to afford raising a baby? Sorry dude, no sex for you!') and giving up a baby for adoption is not for everyone.
This is dodging the issue and self-serving. First, in principle, if you don't interfere (and unless there is spontaneous abortion), the embryo will grow into a human being. So regardless of the stage of where you interrupt it, the result is the same.Originally Posted by aurora_faerie
My own position is the same as FDG's, my point is just about the futility of the "when is a baby really a baby" argument.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
Well, considering that the popularity of the modern concept of birth control methods was initially promoted explicitly by the same people who promoted the Eugenics movement [only people with certain Genes or DNA should be sexually reproducing] ... taking that it is hard to say that 'birth-control methods' [such as abortion, condoms, spermicides, etc.] are really a form a responsonsibility, unless a persons motive is that only certain 'specific people' should be allowed to fully propogate even though most people do not really use contraceptive with that intention. This is not to say that methods of birth control are necessarily wrong, it just looks really two-faced in the big picture of things with that sort of an agenda behind it. Especially when the Eugenics movement initially fully supported Abortion until the lack of acceptance caused them to promote other means of birth control.
The point is that any idiot has pretty much been given the means to reproduce whether that is a good thing or not, whether circumstances that permit a child to born into a good or bad enviroment or under good or bad circumstances is up to a concept called karma, or that we are all under a curse of sin in need of redemption, or that this world just sucks ass isn't really relevant since people are going to be doing their own things anyways in their own time in their own circumstances and there really is not a good way to regulate any of this. It is part of nature and a part of being human ...
But the question is ... who has the right to determine who should be born or not? Is it fate, God, man, the government, religion, mothers?, fathers? individuals? ... What? - I bet this debate can go on for hours without end.
Yeah that's the one.Originally Posted by FDG
I'm in the "I don't give a shit" camp.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
Here's the truth:
Most people absolutely do not give a shit about abortion, nor do they care about the random barely human babies that get aborted. This whole argument is about power, and the desire to have something to hate.
Feel lucky.Originally Posted by Socioniko_Nut
DJ: Depends on which side do you side.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
People jump onto one side of an issue just so they can enforce their will onto the other side. It gives them an outlet for all the hate they have, and empowers them, as they know they have forced their will onto someone else, against their will. It has to be against their will or there is no sense of justice or satisfaction.Originally Posted by Diana
Both sides of the abortion argument are biased and full of shit.
Incorrect. Pro-choicers do not force anti-abortionists to get abortions.Originally Posted by discojoe
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Lmao. Pro-lifers want abortion outlawed (mostly). Pro-choicers want it legal. Pro-choicers are forcing their will onto pro-lifers. I was not incorrect. The whole argument is essentially a legal one, dressed as a moral one.Originally Posted by FDG
People take innocent lives into their hands all the time. Your ideal does not fit reality.
Let's make the temporal steps, ok?Originally Posted by discojoe
Pro-lifers want to force pro-choicers not to make abortions.
Pro-choicers want to force pro-lifers NOT to force pro-choicers to make abortions.
As you see, it's action and reaction. Attacker and defender.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
They both want opposite things and are enforcing their wills onto the other side. It is about power. Very easy to understand.Originally Posted by FDG
Diana: I didn't misunderstand what you wrote. I found a crippling error in it and focused on that instead. I'm sorry you want to outlaw driving.