I didn't decide anything.
What gives you the right to kill and innocent person? Well in this case I would say the fact that it's leeching resources off of your body. It's a parasite. Kill. Kill.
I didn't decide anything.
What gives you the right to kill and innocent person? Well in this case I would say the fact that it's leeching resources off of your body. It's a parasite. Kill. Kill.
Maybe reread what I wrote instead of fucking repeating your position over and over, which is just irritating. Very easy to understand.Originally Posted by discojoe
They both want opposite things and are enforcing their wills onto the other side. It is about power. Very easy to understand.Let's make the temporal steps, ok?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.Incorrect. Pro-choicers do not force anti-abortionists to get abortions.
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
FDG, if you are going to make nonsensical posts and then tell me to reread them to understand, please leave.
HERE'S THE EASY BREAKDOWN FOR SMALL MINDS
PRO-LIFERS WANT NO ABORTIONS
PRO-CHOICERS WANT ABORTIONS LEGAL
IF PRO-LIFERS HAVE THEIR WAY THEN PRO-CHOICERS WON'T GET WHAT THEY WANT
IF PRO-CHOICERS GET THEIR WAY THEN PRO-LIFERS WON'T GET WHAT THEY WANT
THEY BOTH HATE EACH OTHER
IT IS ABOUT SPITING THE OTHER SIDE
IT IS ABOUT POWER
Diana, if the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, do you support an abortion?
YOU FAIL TO REALIZE THAT ONLY THE ANTI-CHOICE POSITION REQUIRES FURTHER COERCION FOR IT TO BE REALIZED, WHEREAS THE PRO-CHOICE ONE STILL GIVES THE FREEDOM TO THE ANTI-CHOICERS TO GET AN ABORTION AND/OR TO TRY TO ENFORCE ANTIABORTIONIST LAWS.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
YOU MAKE A LAUGHABLY IRRELEVANT AND OVERLY COMPLEX ARGUMENT THAT MISSES THE POINT ENTIRELY AND WAS EMBARASSING TO READ.YOU FAIL TO REALIZE THAT ONLY THE ANTI-CHOICE POSITION REQUIRES FURTHER COERCION FOR IT TO BE REALIZED, WHEREAS THE PRO-CHOICE ONE STILL GIVES THE FREEDOM TO THE ANTI-CHOICERS TO GET AN ABORTION AND/OR TO TRY TO ENFORCE ANTIABORTIONIST LAWS.
Honey, the pig is done!tasty
(because the gammanites were going to say it eventually
I honestly don't care. Though I find partial birth abortion absurd. If you are going to abort a fetus there is no reason you should wait more than three months.
.
Well in that case all abortions are fine. Every pregnancy is a danger to the mother.I already answered that question.One life is not of more value than another, and so those times when one or both lives (the mother's and child's) are in danger (such as an ectopic pregnancy or other case) then the moral decision of what to do lies with the parent.
.
Peter's right, many, if not most, of the people arguing either side have little actual interest or investment in the issue. This has nothing to do with the actual issue itself. It's not about the issue, but the simple "I'm right; you're wrong" mentality.
As far as the stances go, those-that-do-not-wish-abortion-to-be-legal (long term, but doesn't carry the various emotional connotations that are built into the more commonly used terms) are enforcing the judgement that pre-birth life has equal or superior rights to post-birth life, and thus no right exists for the mother to terminate the pregnancy. Therefore, abortion must be illegal, as it is akin to murder.
Those-who-do-wish-abortion-to-be-legal consider the pre-birth life to have less or no legal protections as compared to post-birth life. This means that there does exist a right of the mother to choose to terminate the pregnancy, with varying caveats depending of how much legal protection exists.
And yes, the above positions were quite oversimplified.
Personally, I'm against abortion, but for the right to abortion. I find it an offensive practice comparable to infanticide, but I find no legal basis to prohibit it.
That faith makes blessed under certain circumstances, that blessedness does not make of a fixed idea a true idea, that faith moves no mountains but puts mountains where there are none: a quick walk through a madhouse enlightens one sufficiently about this. (A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.) - Friedrich Nietzsche
Well I honestly don't think life has some inherent value. When a person is born that person has rights, but I don't know about there being some inherent value to life.
I'm pro choice because I don't want the government to have ownership over a part of my body. If the government can tell me I have to allow use of my uterus when I don't want it used, then I've lost a great level of autonomy.
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.
.
If post-birth life has superior rights to pre-birth life it sounds like a recipe for extinction or at least decline. So in longer term it is better for the society to value pre-birth life as they are the future of the society. This is a common sense argument not a logically sound argument as such. Just a point of view.
It would be if it affected population growth in a very negative way. While I suppose the US and perhaps some other 1st world countries would be more susceptible to negative population growth, due to social and economic forces causing a general decrease in the birth rate, in the decades that abortion has been legal, the US has steadily gained in population. I don't think abortion will be causing such problems anytime soon.If post-birth life has superior rights to pre-birth life it sounds like a recipe for extinction or at least decline. So in longer term it is better for the society to value pre-birth life as they are the future of the society. This is a common sense argument not a logically sound argument as such. Just a point of view.
That faith makes blessed under certain circumstances, that blessedness does not make of a fixed idea a true idea, that faith moves no mountains but puts mountains where there are none: a quick walk through a madhouse enlightens one sufficiently about this. (A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.) - Friedrich Nietzsche
Ok I can understand this point of view in a way. But I have to add that in the end it would be your choice to risk your uterus (unless you were raped). So the government (or in democratic countries the majority of voters) wouldn't force you to become pregnant. You would first have to make a conscious choice to take part in a hedonistic activity and knowingly take a risk of ending up with a new human being inside your uterus. Do you have the right to kill this human being if the risk is realized? My subjective opinion is "no". Instead you should be legally responsible for raising this human being as your child. Children are the natural consequence of sex.
Sex is a natural thing. I don't think it qualifies as a "hedonistic activity" any more than eating and pooping do.
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.
Remove the word "hedonistic" if you want to. It doesn't change the argument. Point is you would still be in control of your uterus until you consciously decide to risk it and that risk is realized. You would just be made to face the consequences of a realized risk.
...........
I refuse to give up rights to my body for any reason whatsoever, I don't care if I engaged in a risky behavior or not. And in fact if abortion were illegal here and I wanted one, I'd travel where it was legal or have an illegal one. My uterus is mine.
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.
So you would make the human in your uterus to face the consequences of YOUR choice. I can't support that view. It is not fair according to my ethics.
Well personally if I got pregnant I wouldn't have an abortion, but I'm happily married and financially stable. Women need to make the choice that fits best for that particular situation. I know women who have had abortions (I haven't had one) and one of the reasons they give for having them is that it isn't doing a baby favors to have it in a situation where it will be raised in a bad environment. Women don't have abortions willy-nilly. It's painful and can be emotionally traumatic. If women do make that choice it's generally done out of a sense of desperation to some extent or another.
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.
There are no means to define when an embryon becomes "someone" so it's better to play it safe and limit the abortion to earlier stages when there is no doubt that the "baby" is not at a stage where he also has rights to his body. As for legality, it's hard to build laws around philosophical views. Euthanasia's terms are harder to practically define than abortion's though, that's why i think euthanasia shouldn't be legal, even though i'm for it, contrarily to abortion. The responsibility argument sounds like a desire to blame a lack of responsability that finally has the chance to be externalized, as irresponsability is irrelevant to the debate about the very nature abortion, as it is only one of the possible causes of the need for abortion. The only relevancy of the concept of irresponsability is/should be moral/legal.
Well internally my views are pretty strong but I probably come out as way more judging in this thread than I would in real life. Here I'm trying to argument my view in a very solid and inflexible way. I used to have a way more liberal attitude while younger (around age 20). In the past 10 years I have developed my personal ethics into their current form. I know ppl who have made abortions and people who have had "accident" children and kept them. I can't say that my views on these questions affect how I deal with these people. What is done is done and it is time to look towards the future. Instead of going around flaming people who don't follow my morals I try to work for a future society that would be more moral. I do believe in right and wrong and I am not very much into the postmodernistic "relativistic truth" concept. Dj can call this a power struggle if he wants to. I just call it doing what I believe is the right thing to do now that I can finally see the light (putting it in a more poetic way)
Because of reasons like this I said in my first (or was it second) post that the question of abortion can't be looked at without taking into consideration myriads of other questions connected to it.
Ways to cope with the problems you mention could be
a) making sure that the father has same legal responsibilities as the mother (of course fathers don't have uterus but currently nothing can be done about that)
b) promoting stable long term relationships where it is easier to raise children if "accidents" happen
c) promoting safe sex and abstinence from sex outside of stable relationships
d) promoting abstinence from risky use of narcotics and alcohol as these are often connected to raised risk of accidental pregnancies
e) making it easier for poor people to finance the raising of their children (giving them money, having facilities where desperate women who want to keep their babies could temporarily or even persistently go to recover, ...)
f) promoting atmosphere where family members (or others) would not judge people who have unwanted children but would help them raise them (parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, friends, ...)
g) promoting a generally pro-life attitude where children would be seen as a blessing for the future not as a curse that ruins your life
Ok these are just quick ideas. But basically we should strive towards a society where there would be less unwanted children AND where having unwanted children would not be such a life devastating experience as it seems to be nowadays. Quick fixes such as "yes you can kill your children if you do it before they are xxx months old" are not good enough in long term. I remember a south park episode where it was proposed that you should be able to abort children under 10 years old or something. It was actually pretty funny episode even though the theme was heavy
I agree completely with making a society where abortion becomes less necessary. But I think women will always need to have the ability to have abortions if they feel it is necessary.
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.
If you do not want to be pregnant, then...
- use protection, or even double protection (pill + condom)
- enjoy alternate forms of sex besides intercourse (there are many)
- do not have sex at all.
Any of the above 3, and you will almost never be in the desperate situation of needing to get an abortion. Abortion should be available for people who slip through the cracks, have complications, or are victims of rape, incest, or whatever. Far too many women use abortion as their safety net for their own lack of personal responsibility and complete and utter carelessness.
Nobody is saying that and now you're distorting the views of pro-lifers. I say you can have all the sex you want, but if you don't want to get pregnant then use protection, or have alternate forms of sex. Otherwise don't have sex at all. You're also engaging in class warfare. I know people who are dirt poor that do a far better job of raising their kids than loaded filthy rich parents. Raising children is about personal responsibility and committment to family.
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
I've read estimates that as many as one out of three women in teh US is the victim of sexual assault at some point in her life. To put this all on personal responsibility is in my opinion irrelevant but it's also unrealistic.
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.
I totally agree with the above. Some people who are living today might have been better off aborted. Having a life is not everything, the quality of that life is important.I'm pro-choice. I hate it when anti-abortionists try to get a woman's abortion rights removed. If you don't want abortions, then don't get them.No need to wreck it for everyone else. Simple as that.
I do not think I will think any differently about this issue based on emotive images of abortions. I actually hate when people use them as an aid to advance their arguments.
To anyone posting images of abortions or abortion procedures, whether the images are photographs or drawn diagrams: please give the link to the image with a brief warning above it rather than displaying the image directly in the thread. Thank you.
NiTe | Socionix
But to pro-lifers, abortion is murder. So to them, this is the same as saying, "If you don't like murder, don't murder anyone. It's that simple."I'm pro-choice. I hate it when anti-abortionists try to get a woman's abortion rights removed. If you don't want abortions, then don't get them.
this is why abortion should be outlawed. if this were the case stupid people would lag behind others due to their poor descison making and they would inevitably be weeded out of the gene pool. instead they are rewarded for their stupid choices by gaining more life experience which helps them out compete the non-foolish descision makers. don't mind me, just trying to be inflammatory.This really well known girl in my school got pregnant (everybody knew, even the teachers) she was going to keep it, her boyfriend was going to drop out of his school activities and get a job so they could provide for the new baby ect...
She ended up getting an abortion because she would have had to quit cheerleading.... which was apparently very important to her, obviously more important than her own flesh and blood.
In those cases I would think it’s more appropriate to keep the baby. She obviously wasn’t raped, the baby had a good chance of being healthy, and I’m sure her & her boyfriend could have provided a decent life for it, or at least put it up for adoption.
I have so much more to say about this issue, but I think I’d rather not get into it now.
By that logic when people morally object to someone wanting to sleep with their spouse they have no ground to stand on
(oh wait that was ashton who i was talking to about that)
Precisely. If it is about power from my particular pro-choice point of view, then it is solely about my right to be the only one to have complete power over my body. Everything else is entirely intrusive to me.
And this leave it all to the woman because she is the irresponsible one and must subject to the will of ... you and people who think like you. If abortion becomes illegal, I would suggest we force all men by law to use condoms at all time unless they want a baby with the woman they are sleeping with to make sure that the responsibility lies with both. Irresponsible men get out a bit too easy here, don't they?If you do not want to be pregnant, then...
- use protection, or even double protection (pill + condom)
- enjoy alternate forms of sex besides intercourse (there are many)
- do not have sex at all.
Any of the above 3, and you will almost never be in the desperate situation of needing to get an abortion. Abortion should be available for people who slip through the cracks, have complications, or are victims of rape, incest, or whatever. Far too many women use abortion as their safety net for their own lack of personal responsibility and complete and utter carelessness.
Also, if this debate were truly about the baby, then the race/incest argument does not hold because the baby is still innocent regardless of how it was conceived. It boils down to this: irresponsible woman must have baby. Responsible but raped woman must not have the baby. If this were the law, it forces women to reveal the most intimate details of their lives (sex). It will force women to lie and claim they got raped. Imagine the consequences. Scary.
Essentially, following your argument, dj is right and it is about power, but in a different way. It is about power over the woman. Perhaps even about punishment, carried out over the life of an unborn baby. That is very very iffy, if you ask me.
I might be a feminazi, but I shower, shave, and I am heterosexual. Thank you.
The "if it's illegal, women will just find some way around it" argument is a very poor reason to make it legal. Murder is illegal but people still do it. Since people find a way around it, should murder be legal? No. Therefore the argument that abortion should be legal because women will simply get back alley abortions (or women will just lie about being raped if there's a rape exception) is invalid.
That faith makes blessed under certain circumstances, that blessedness does not make of a fixed idea a true idea, that faith moves no mountains but puts mountains where there are none: a quick walk through a madhouse enlightens one sufficiently about this. (A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.) - Friedrich Nietzsche
Point taken, but now my question is this: what would you deem a sufficient punishment for a woman who has an abortion when it is illegal? Just out of curiosity. Will you punish the guy along with her?
I hadn't really considered it. As I said earlier, I see no legal justification to make it illegal. However, I suppose the punishment would fall upon the woman, as she makes the choice. Subsequent punishment would also fall on the doctor who performs the abortion (if there is one) and perhaps the man would qualify as an accessory or conspirator or somesuch if he is with the woman in deciding for the abortion. There's no valid justification for punishing the man simply because he was half responsible for the pregnancy. The abortion would be on trial, not the sex and it's resulting pregnancy.Point taken, but now my question is this: what would you deem a sufficient punishment for a woman who has an abortion when it is illegal? Just out of curiosity. Will you punish the guy along with her?
That faith makes blessed under certain circumstances, that blessedness does not make of a fixed idea a true idea, that faith moves no mountains but puts mountains where there are none: a quick walk through a madhouse enlightens one sufficiently about this. (A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.) - Friedrich Nietzsche
If I gave birth to a child, and after she were born it were discovered that in order for her to survive she would have to be connected to my blood supply 24/7 for nine months, I could not be compelled to allow her to share my blood and be connected to me. Nor, I doubt, would many people have that expectation.
If some 18-year-old needed a blood transfusion immediately and I were the only one who were able to supply the blood on time, I could not be compelled to give my blood, nor would many people think the goverment should be able to compel me to.
If my 4-year-old daughter needed a kidney donation, I could not be compelled to give a kidney.
Why is there some other expectation with the use of my womb? It belongs to me too. If I choose to share it, that's up to me. But it is mine.
Why is it considered OK to give the goverment the power to compel me to use my uterus to support a fetus against my will?
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.
Reply With Quote
