Abortion: What's your opinion?

[Diego Varen]

Negatory. It's not and should never be an option here.

 

Agreed HerbieZ.

[ET Warrior]

The mother does get a benefit. We also get rid of periods and PMS for 9 months and sometimes longer since breastfeeding tends to suppress the menstrual cycle. Some of us think that's a great benefit.

And in general women's hormones during pregnancy cause them to be overly emotional (even depressed), they might end up sick every morning of every day until after child-birth (I hate throwing up once or twice a year because of sickness, I can't imagine it for 8 months), some women even DIE because of it. Reduced risk of cancer is a benefit, yes, but I would be VERY hesitant to call that a symbiotic relationship based on those aspects alone. Would you call Chicken Pox symbiotic because after it's over you're immune to the Chicken Pox?

[Rogue15]

if the baby gets killed, the parent should die as well. in a fire. kill them both or none at all.

[Ray Jones]

Actually, abortion and miscarriage are very close together. Some people seem to think that women who have an abortion are happy that they "got rid" of the "baby". The opposite is the fact, and in both cases it has a heavy impact on the woman's mental state. Miscarriage can be a very, very sad and bad thing to happen to a family, and so can be the necessity to decide whether abortion or not, and the abortion itself. The decision to abort a baby is often not an easy one, and I think it's another misconception in here, that women, or parents, decide by fingersnap to "get it done". Abortion of a child is a serious topic, and by all means, not a question of "killing innocent life" or not.

 

Who want you to decide about your life and family?

 

 

Oh, and ET you don't get sick every morning. This is totally different from woman to woman, and even pregnancy to pregnancy. During her first pregnancy, my girl wasn't sick for one single moment, believe it or not. The second pregnancy we only "discovered" because she was sick in the morning. Unfortunately, we didn't get the baby.. :.(

 

 

 

 

BTW, BIG advance of pregnancies: boobas incrediblos monumentalos ;

[SithRevan]

If you've read any of posts, there's a part about condom failures in them. They don't always work (there were people at my high school that happened to). And that's not even mentioning how sex can feel better without a condom.

But at least if they had they would be protected somewhat.

 

The best response in such an instance would be to alert the police and have the criminals hauled of for breaking the law. If stealing things is responded to by a reward, why on Earth should they stop? Leeches don't stop sucking blood when they hit a large vein. The same applies to such criminals.

 

Such a principle is entirely unethical. Looting, robbery, taking that which has not been earned and rewarding it is a betrayal of the human spirit, quite frankly. The best response would be for the government to help get them back on their feet so they can actually earn their next meals. If they continue to steal things, then they should naturally be put behind bars.

 

One must also consider the nature of people who resort to burglarly. Does someone who survives by leeching off and stealing from others really deserve any help in return for that?

I agree with you that criminals should be put into jail and I never said that I would not call the police on them after I gave them the food. If you commit a crime you should get punished accordingly. I just don't like to see people suffer or fear for thier lives because they can't make ends-meat. Also I want to try to do the right thing in both cases.

 

Now another thing is thier family if they have one you have to consider that too. They did not do anything so if you had that burglur hauled off to jail they would likely starve or resort to other methods of getting food just like our burglur did. So I think in both cases you would be somewhat... screwed.

[Aurora Starfire]

Remember, she's only one side of the fence.

 

No offense, but I haven't seen any other mothers come forward.

 

An invalid argument... This is an actual person we are talking about, whose death would affect others. Not a mindless cluster of cells.

 

As a matter of fact, an infant in the womb is also an actual person, whose death would affect others. What if your mother had aborted you before you could be born? You wouldn't be here to put forward your beliefs, which would affect all of us.

 

'Human beings' being the key term there...

 

No, "human beings outside of the womb" being the key term here.

 

Manslaughter is illegal, and yet people still do it. Does that mean we should make it legal, so that people can do it more "safely"?

The correct term in such an instance is 'criminal homicide'. And don't be silly. That's an oxymoron.

 

The murderer could get hurt while he's killing his victim. My statement still stands.

 

Quite frankly, some women just won't want to (and haven't wanted to) have kids. Their only solution in this instance will be to go the less than reputable hospitals, or to perform the abortion themselves. (That can be done by clubbing themselves in the torso with blunt objects)

 

Quite frankly, I have a solution to this entire problem: If you don't want kids, abstain from sexual relationships, especially outside of marriage. I know some of you aren't going to like my solution, but there it is.

 

Remember, the reason there are even laws in the first place is to keep people safe.

 

Exactly. The problem is that there aren't any laws in place to protect human beings who have no voice in the matter, like infants in the womb.

 

I'd laugh at you if you said it was comparable to a human.

 

I wasn't comparing it to a human. You know that, and I know you know it. You just couldn't think of anything else to say to refute it

 

When is it a human being?

 

At the moment conception occurs.

 

Somebody steeling things and somebody steeling a life are two very different things.

Thanks for making this important distinction, SithRevan.

 

Non-sequitur. This is not even remotely analogous to the current discussion.

Actually, it has a lot to do with it. Because human life begins at conception, abortion is the killing of a human being, just like you are a human being, and killing the infant human being in the womb would be wrong, just like killing you would be wrong.

 

And in general women's hormones during pregnancy cause them to be overly emotional (even depressed), they might end up sick every morning of every day until after child-birth (I hate throwing up once or twice a year because of sickness, I can't imagine it for 8 months), some women even DIE because of it. Reduced risk of cancer is a benefit, yes, but I would be VERY hesitant to call that a symbiotic relationship based on those aspects alone. Would you call Chicken Pox symbiotic because after it's over you're immune to the Chicken Pox?

 

Now there's something that has nothing to do with the situation. Chicken pox??

Have you held a baby recently? Or seen a baby? Played with a baby? If you had, you'd understand why mothers go through all of that. Mostly mothers who abort their babies are first-time mothers, who haven't had a sonogram, or a chance to see or know what a baby is like. I know my mother would willingly go through all of it again, because the reward is beyond belief.

 

If the child is merely an extension of the mother, like say her arm or kidney or lung, then no man should ever have to support a child he doesn't want. Afterall, it's her body, not his.

 

If I hear another man say that it's none of his responsibility..... When a man and a woman have sex together, and that produces a child, then both the woman AND the man have a responsibility to the new life they created together. The child is not just part of a woman's body, it's part of a man's body too.

[Jae Onasi]

And in general women's hormones during pregnancy cause them to be overly emotional (even depressed), they might end up sick every morning of every day until after child-birth (I hate throwing up once or twice a year because of sickness, I can't imagine it for 8 months), some women even DIE because of it. Reduced risk of cancer is a benefit, yes, but I would be VERY hesitant to call that a symbiotic relationship based on those aspects alone. Would you call Chicken Pox symbiotic because after it's over you're immune to the Chicken Pox?

 

What do you call them after they're born? Newborns still make a lot of physical demands on parents, in some ways more than during pregnancy. I had to nurse my babies every 2-3 hours and change their diapers all the time and deal with their crying and colic after they were born. I didn't have to do that before they were born. They didn't do a whole lot for me either before or after birth, but Jimbo and I didn't choose to have them for what they could do to benefit _us_. We had them because we wanted our family to grow, and we are happy to do the work involved in birthing and raising children. It's not a picnic 100% of the time, believe me. However, we still enjoy it the vast majority of the time.

 

Saying a woman in general gets over-emotional during pregnancy is over-stating the issue. Some women get over-emotional during PMS, so pregnancy benefits them. Some women get anemia from heavy periods. Pregnancy benefits them. Menstrual cramps tend to decrease and periods tend to get shorter and lighter after having babies. That's a great benefit for some of us. For some the physical relationship with their partner improves substantially during pregnancy. For many women with asthma or autoimmune problems like rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn's disease, or multiple sclerosis, being pregnant reduces their symptoms and problems dramatically, or eliminates those symptoms entirely. I wouldn't call my 50% lower risk of ovarian cancer, which is usually deadly, an unimportant thing. I may not have seen an immediate benefit while pregnant, but the chemical processes that lower the risk were happening while I was pregnant. You can hardly compare chicken pox to an often-fatal cancer.

 

Having had morning sickness, I can tell you it's a very strange experience, and there's no good way for me to explain it to someone who's never experienced it. It was different for each pregnancy, and my sister had a big problem with it and I didn't have it too bad. The issue varies widely from pregnancy to pregnancy and woman to woman. While barfing is barfing and it's not on my top ten list of fun things to do, you don't feel rotten like you do with stomach flu or a hangover. There were any number of times where I went to the bathroom, threw up, and then went to the kitchen and fixed a big breakfast because I then felt fine and in fact was starving. There are treatments for it if the morning sickness affects the mother to a significant degree, which is quite rare.

 

I actually enjoyed pregnancy for the most part--I was excited about each child that was going to join our family, and I don't know that I can adequately explain how it feels to be nurturing that life and doing positive things to help the baby grow and develop. In that respect, pregnancy was an emotional benefit to me. Both my babies responded to my voice and when I patted them through my belly, and while that's a very limited kind of relationship, it was there just the same. Now and then I still miss how it feels to have the baby moving around inside.

 

Some women do die in childbirth, and maternal mortality is indeed something the US needs to work on reducing--about half of those deaths are preventable with early care (e.g. identifying ectopic pregnancies early enough to treat them before they become life-threatening). The goal set by the World Health Organization is 3.3/100,000 births. However, women also die as the result of abortion--the CDC noted there was a 1.1 fatality rate per 100,000 abortions average from '72-'97. Abortion is not risk free.

 

Since I don't see abortion becoming illegal again, I think we do need to take steps to try to reduce it--improve contraception effectiveness, reduce the teen pregnancy rate, reduce risky behaviors that contribute to pregnancy, appropriately advise women of risks of abortion and its after-effects (we currently do a crappy job of addressing/dealing with the guilt and emotional issues that come with having an abortion), and support women better who are experiencing a crisis pregnancy.

 

And that's not even mentioning how sex can feel better without a condom

Without going into an inappropriate level of detail, I've heard this argument before, and it is the lamest, most idiotic excuse for not using a condom. It's also a load of BS. A microns-thin piece of latex membrane does absolutely nothing to diminish the experience. Trust me.

 

BTW, BIG advance of pregnancies: boobas incrediblos monumentalos

Too true. Jimbo didn't mind that effect one tiny bit. The effect tends to stay after pregnancy, too.

[Negative Sun]

This thread needs a good dosage of liberalism!

 

I myself am pro-choice to the extreme. If a woman wants to stop her preganacy, that's none of our business. Likewise, if she chooses not to, that still isn't.

 

Some reasons...

 

(1. Illegal abortions...

(2. To fall back to an old argument, personal freedom...

(3. What pregnancies have women go through...

(4. The old 'human life' argument...

(5. The child...

(6. Involuntary impregnation...

(7. Allowing abortion doesn't mean it always has to be used...

 

And that's not even mentioning how most people here are guys, and teens to boot.

By far the most sensible post in this entire thread, those analogies with murderers and burglars make no sense to your original point here...I think some of them are swaying a bit too far from the actual issue, which, in my opinion, got concluded with this post.

 

I'm a 20 year old male btw, but I've talked about this with my fiancée who totally agrees with me, to get another female opinion in here.

[Henz]

I'm pro-choice.

I also think regardless of whether people think it's morally right or not, the choice HAS to be there. People against abortion can just not abort, people in favor would be stopped. I'm not promoting "abort abort abort!". Anyone considering abortion will be taking it very seriously. To take away that choice is not fair.

[Ray Jones]

The effect tends to stay after pregnancy, too.

Honour be to Ter Mightey Pregnancey! *bows*

[Darth InSidious]

You made up that percentage. If you didn't, I'd appreciate you cite a source to lend you some credibility, or I'll just ignore that number outright. Also, you seem to have ignored my statements about burglars, or perhaps I wasn't clear. You CHOOSE to own things that burglars might want to steal, so shouldn't YOU ALONE have to suffer the consequences of your choice to own those things? If you chase them out of your home you might be dooming them to die, and isn't all human life necessary to protect? Furthermore, just because a woman CHOOSES to have sex does NOT mean that a pregnancy is not an unwanted, un-asked for, unhelpful burden that will be thrust upon the mother.

That's a completely silly counter-argument, and you know it.

 

Yes, I did estimate that figure, given that rape is pretty uncommon, and for the most part, it sexual relationships are CONSENSUAL

 

The difference is that a burglar is taking what you have worked for - sex, by comparison, is not something you work hard to achieve (unless you consider relationships hard work, in which case my advice would be to seal yourself away with your copy of World of Warcraft ), but something from which you derive enjoyment. Furthermore, if you don't know the risks involved in having sex, you shouldn't have it - likewise, if you leave your family silver on the window-sill, you're asking for trouble.

 

Oh, and at what point did somebody being "anti-male" invalidate any opinions that they hold about things?

It doesn't. It does, however, show the context of her comments, and highlight that her agenda colours her perceptions. To take an extreme example ( yes, I know it is extreme, and quoting Godwin at me in response is NOT an intelligent counter-argument), NOT mentioning her agenda would be like quoting Reinhard Heydrich and not mentioning the context of who, when, where, what he was, when it was said, to whom, in what context, etc etc. It is a basic requirement of an argument...

Once again, you're throwing out "statistics", but I'll ignore it unless you can provide some kind of source to back up your claims.

I'd like to see you list sources for all your comments, too, please, then. It cuts both ways. http://www.spuc.org.uk/students/abortion/rape

Correct, I got the actual facts of the pregnancy wrong, but guess what? A. I'm not a woman, and B. I therefore haven't been pregnant from rape.

 

Oh, and I am aware that yes, this website has an agenda. In case reading such a site is too offensive for you, the citation is Mahkorn and Dolan, Sexual Assault and Pregnancy: New Perspectives on Human Abortion, 1981.

Non-sequitur. This is not even remotely analogous to the current discussion.

Not according to the grounds for abortion in the UK. Another example: if I decide you *will* annoy me, does that give me the right to crush your skull and hoover you up? All right, not 100% analogous, but my point still stands that fundamentally, you are placing convenience before human life.

Again...non-sequitur, (Though none of us could live less than 1 second in a vacuum, it still has no bearing on this discussion).

Depends whether you took that lungful of air first

You've particularly mis-labeled the relationship between fetus and mother. It is most certainly not symbiotic, but parasitic.

And you'd know from personal experience?

 

All right - what benefit does the environment get from humanity's existence? Both are parasitic, you are correct. Nonetheless, the point stands.

A growing fetus provides no tangible benefits for mother. They make them sick, they steal nutrients from them, use their blood, etc.

...Give them untold joy as they grow into an adult, etc etc...?

 

How is this any different to the way humanity acts towards the Earth? And I don't just mean in terms of environmental issues. You are correct in that I mislabelled the relationship between foetus and mother - I apologise. However, the point, as I said above, still stands.

 

http://www.afterabortion.org/rape.html - Incidentally, I found this site quite interesting, and thought you might, too

 

@Jae: Just another step toward the Brave New World of the future...

[mur'phon]

Being an atheist and a beliver in the rights of the individual, I don't think anyone should force a pregnant woman to give birth. Helping her make the right decision for her, and telling her what you think she should do is good, but ultimately it should be her decision. In most cases, women don't wait until the last month before aborting. They do it early, and unless you belive that life start when sperm meet egg (nothing wrong with that), you can't call it murder.

As for those saying it's the womans choice, try staying in South-Africa for a while. There a lot of girls are forced to have unprotected sex with older males in order to earn enough money to survive, or because they are their current husbands and would beat them/kick them out if they refuse. A side effect of this is that they get hiv, eventualy aids, and likely their children will get it too. So, should theese women be refused the right to abortion? They choose to have unprotected sex after all.

 

And Jae, you are wrong if you think Devon's reason is the lamest one for not using a condom. Just look at these reason's commonly used in South-Africa, the sad thing is they are true. "Having unprotected sex with a virgin cures aids" and "I only did it to check if I was hiv positive" meaning having the girl test herself to avoid having to do it, and if positive, do it with a virgin.

[Darth InSidious]

Being an atheist and a beliver in the rights of the individual, I don't think anyone should force a pregnant woman to give birth. Helping her make the right decision for her, and telling her what you think she should do is good, but ultimately it should be her decision. In most cases, women don't wait until the last month before aborting. They do it early, and unless you belive that life start when sperm meet egg (nothing wrong with that), you can't call it murder.

As for those saying it's the womans choice, try staying in South-Africa for a while. There a lot of girls are forced to have unprotected sex with older males in order to earn enough money to survive, or because they are their current husbands and would beat them/kick them out if they refuse. A side effect of this is that they get hiv, eventualy aids, and likely their children will get it too. So, should theese women be refused the right to abortion? They choose to have unprotected sex after all.

 

And Jae, you are wrong if you think Devon's reason is the lamest one for not using a condom. Just look at these reason's commonly used in South-Africa, the sad thing is they are true. "Having unprotected sex with a virgin cures aids" and "I only did it to check if I was hiv positive" meaning having the girl test herself to avoid having to do it, and if positive, do it with a virgin.

So...what's right should simply fit around what's convenient for humanity's wrongs?

 

In that case, I suggest you start spending 12 hrs at the gym every day, and always carry a large stick

 

EDIT: Y'know what? Believe what you will.

 

This debate is going nowhere, and I hate wasting time and getting nowhere

[Q]

And abortion is just one of those topics I personally refuse to touch.

A wise decision.

 

Same here.

[Emperor Devon]

Aurora, you seem happy enough to discuss this issue with me. Might I ask why you've dropped the most significant parts of it?

 

No offense, but I haven't seen any other mothers come forward.

 

There's some other moms at LF (not many), though they haven't posted here. A pity, it would be interesting to get, say, an atheist mother's perspective on this.

 

As a matter of fact, an infant in the womb is also an actual person, whose death would affect others.

 

It currently has no friends, no job, no role in society, no importance to the economy, and is a complete stranger to even the woman it's inside of. Not in much of a position to affect people.

 

What if your mother had aborted you before you could be born?

 

After deciding she wanted to have a kid, that would certainly be unique. I've heard of people who want kids and don't want kids, but ones who change their minds after getting pregnant is a new one (and by all accounts, quite rare).

 

No, "human beings outside of the womb" being the key term here.

 

It appears we're having a definition debate. From my perspective, it isn't a human being at that stage (reasons for why follow).

 

My statement still stands.

 

In the middle of a tar pit, metaphorically. You would consider 'safe murder' a term valid enough to debate? That belongs in a joke book, not a serious discussion.

 

Quite frankly, I have a solution to this entire problem: If you don't want kids, abstain from sexual relationships, especially outside of marriage. I know some of you aren't going to like my solution, but there it is.

 

Big Brother knows best! He'll tell us how to live! Let's all put our rights in his hands, because he knows best!

 

Exactly. The problem is that there aren't any laws in place to protect human beings who have no voice in the matter, like infants in the womb.

 

Going back to the 'what constitutes a human being?' debate. Since I think a fetus is as much a human as a rock is, there's hardly any reason to pass a law to protect it.

 

I wasn't comparing it to a human. You know that, and I know you know it. You just couldn't think of anything else to say to refute it

 

I addressed that in other parts of my post.

 

At the moment conception occurs.

 

Right, let's do a quick review of an egg right during conception...

 

Currently the egg is mass of cells that would look rather slimy in person. It currently does not possess a skeleton, a heart, a brain, etc. It is completely non-sentient and the equivalent of your average inanimate object in intelligence. It is incapable of emotion, thought, and all those qualities that separate human beings from stubs of broccoli. It has more in common with toothpaste than a living thing. Can you honestly say that is a person?

 

But at least if they had they would be protected somewhat.

 

Erm, my example?

 

I never said that I would not call the police on them after I gave them the food.

 

Let me get this straight... You'd give your own food to someone, and then have them hauled off to a place to that provides free meals? Devon is confused.

 

If you commit a crime you should get punished accordingly.

 

I would hardly call rewarding burglarly with food or cash a proportional punishment.

 

I just don't like to see people suffer or fear for thier lives because they can't make ends-meat.

 

And for that you would have people who can make ends meet suffer and possibly fear for their lives? Robberies are rarely nonviolent.

 

Now another thing is thier family if they have one you have to consider that too.

 

Yeah, the adults can go get jobs and enlist in a financial aid program. Not terribly much to ask of someone.

 

Ah well, this is getting off-topic. Suffice to say that crime is bad.

 

A microns-thin piece of latex membrane does absolutely nothing to diminish the experience. Trust me.

 

People I know personally would say otherwise. Without going into much detail, that can depend upon the condom and the state of what it's covering.

 

[Negative Sun]I think some of them are swaying a bit too far from the actual issue, which, in my opinion, got concluded with this post.

 

A bit, yes. Most of the arguing I've been doing is unrelated to some of my original points.

[Negative Sun]

A bit, yes. Most of the arguing I've been doing is unrelated to some of my original points.

That's cause you hit the nail on the head...And I don't think anyone (besides Jae maybe) is brave or stupid enough to try and argue those points.

I'd help you out but I think you've said it all, and I'm quite busy atm, but you've given me a good chuckle, it seems like common sense (or at least what I see as common sense) is scarce these days...

[SithRevan]

Erm, my example?

Well the pill and condoms are supposed to protect against things like that right? So if they are using both they would be much safer and less likely to have this moral delema that we are here talking about.

 

Let me get this straight... You'd give your own food to someone, and then have them hauled off to a place to that provides free meals? Devon is confused.

I would hardly call rewarding burglarly with food or cash a proportional punishment.

And for that you would have people who can make ends meet suffer and possibly fear for their lives? Robberies are rarely nonviolent.

Ok well those last statements may have not come out how I planned them too but in anycase I would rather help somebody and resolve an issue in a non-violent way instead of getting angry, getting hurt, and possibly even being killed over something that could have been resolved.

 

Yeah, the adults can go get jobs and enlist in a financial aid program. Not terribly much to ask of someone.

 

Ah well, this is getting off-topic. Suffice to say that crime is bad.

Then why don't they? You see millions of homeless; jobless people all over the world who are barely surviving. I don't think it would be as easy as that to go out and get financial aid then in the process of that get your life back together.

 

Also, I do agree that crime is bad and should be dealt with definatly but you also have to understand that in some cases there are other circumstances that lead to those crimes being commited. Anyway though I agree we are getting off topic so I will just leave it alone from now on.

[Aurora Starfire]

Aurora, you seem happy enough to discuss this issue with me. Might I ask why you've dropped the most significant parts of it?

 

Which parts did you think I dropped?

 

It currently has no friends, no job, no role in society, no importance to the economy, and is a complete stranger to even the woman it's inside of. Not in much of a position to affect people.

 

I've known some people like that

 

After deciding she wanted to have a kid, that would certainly be unique. I've heard of people who want kids and don't want kids, but ones who change their minds after getting pregnant is a new one (and by all accounts, quite rare).

 

Not as rare as one might hope. I don't suppose you've heard of George Tiller, a.k.a. "Tiller the Killer"? The stories are quite horrific. He is notorious for conducting late-term abortions.

 

In the middle of a tar pit, metaphorically. You would consider 'safe murder' a term valid enough to debate? That belongs in a joke book, not a serious discussion.

 

Well, if you're going to put my statement there, you'd better add in the term, "safe abortion", because there is very little difference between the two, which was the point I was making. Safe abortion=safe murder.

 

Right, let's do a quick review of an egg right during conception...

Currently the egg is mass of cells that would look rather slimy in person. It currently does not possess a skeleton, a heart, a brain, etc. It is completely non-sentient and the equivalent of your average inanimate object in intelligence. It is incapable of emotion, thought, and all those qualities that separate human beings from stubs of broccoli. It has more in common with toothpaste than a living thing. Can you honestly say that is a person?

 

Yes, I can. However, what I cannot do is make you understand my reasons. The reason that this "mass of cells" is a human being is that, at the moment of conception, God bestows an immortal soul upon this "mass of cells" which separates him or her from your stub of broccoli and your toothpaste. As a matter of fact, you're judging the fetus based on appearance, and what a slippery slope that is. Because the fetus, at that stage of development, does not look like a baby, does not mean that it is any less a baby. A shoot grown from an acorn does not look like an oak tree, but it is nonetheless an oak tree.

[Samnmax221]

Safe abortion=safe murder.

Sounds like Propaganda to me.

 

Yes, I can. However, what I cannot do is make you understand my reasons. The reason that this "mass of cells" is a human being is that, at the moment of conception, God bestows an immortal soul upon this "mass of cells" which separates him or her from your stub of broccoli and your toothpaste.

When you come up with a way to See, hear, touch, smell, taste, or measure this "soul", we'll talk.

[Aurora Starfire]

Sounds like Propaganda to me.

 

I was just simplifying my statement without explaining it all over again. But if you want propaganda, try this: "It's her body. It's her choice." People who believe in "choice" don't consider this fact: If an aborted child was given a chance to speak for himself, what do you think his choice would be? Would he choose death for his body? This is what you're really saying: "It's her choice. It's her child's body."

 

When you come up with a way to See, hear, touch, smell, taste, or measure this "soul", we'll talk.

 

My apologies. I forgot to clarify. I don't expect anyone who does not believe in God to understand my reasons. This whole issue is a matter of belief, whether you believe the fetus is a human being, or whether you believe the fetus is a piece of broccoli. I cannot force you to accept my belief, but neither can you force me to accept yours.

[SilentScope001]

I was just simplifying my statement without explaining it all over again. But if you want propaganda, try this: "It's her body. It's her choice." People who believe in "choice" don't consider this fact: If an aborted child was given a chance to speak for himself, what do you think his choice would be? Would he choose death for his body? This is what you're really saying: "It's her choice. It's her child's body."

 

I think the fetus could choose to follow the will of the mother in this case. The mother knows what is in the best interest of the fetus, and the fetus will defer to her judgment on wheter the fetus wants to live or die.

 

Law states that if there is a person in a vegitvite state without a living will, then those who are connected to this person gets to represent the person, since they know this person and be able to decide what is in the person's best interest, what this person would want. It starts with spouse, and then move to family members, like parents.

 

So, using this law, if a person is a fetus, it is the mother who gets to decide, since the fetus is unable to communicate its desicion, and the mother, having a close connection to the fetus, would be able to accurately represent the wishes and desires of the fetus. If the female believes that fetus wants to die (because the fetus may not want to be a burden to the female, or if the fetus does not want to live in a world where he may not be taken care of very well), then it should express that wish and have the fetus die.

 

By forcing the fetus to live, you are not giving the fetus and the woman representing the fetus the right to choose. I think. Maybe, I'm wrong.

--

...Me, I don't care. This issue is distracting from the more important points...or not. Fact is, it cause a lot of conterversy and mayhem...and I'm sure future generations will just laugh at us.

 

Future Person 1: "Bah, people blow up abortion clincs, protests quite reguraly, and send up lawsuits up to the Superme Court...just to save a couple of fetuses?"

 

Future Person 2: "Hey, it's better than those NOW freaks who do pretty stupid protests and boycotts for something so insiginficant."

 

Furture Person 1: "Glad that we are civilized beings. Now to return to the topic of apples and organes..."

 

Future Person 2: "The Republican Army of Oranges has been oppressed for generations! It is up to the Democratic Knights of Apples to give up its crusade and stop the killing!"

[ET Warrior]

Oh, and ET you don't get sick every morning.

Yes, this is true. However there ARE women who do get sick every morning. There are women who end up so debilitated they can barely leave their homes during the last months of their pregnancy. Medical complications are not uncommon during pregnancy. There are many very tangible dangers in carrying a child to term.

 

This actually brings back into play the Violinist example, which was generally ignored earlier. What happens if you get drunk at a party and wake up and I have plugged myself into your circulatory system because otherwise I will die. You didn't ask for this to happen, but that is one of the inherent risks with drinking too much. Shoot, it might even be something that could happen to you just for falling asleep without adequately protecting yourself from people kidnapping you. Do you have the moral obligation to let me use your body's nutrients to keep my life going? I even have a voice! I am represented. I say I want to live, don't unplug me!

 

Yes, it would be extremely nice of you to keep me hooked up until my body started working again, but should you not have the RIGHT to say no? To say that your body is yours and I am not allowed to leech off of you?

 

What if your mother had aborted you before you could be born? You wouldn't be here to put forward your beliefs, which would affect all of us.

In all honesty, if my parents had not wanted me, if I would have been an undue burden on the family, or if they had honestly just decided that they couldn't handle another kid, then they should have had an abortion. I never would have known, so how could I be upset about it? I currently love my family enough to know that I would want whatever had been best for them, be that having me or not.

 

Actually, it has a lot to do with it. Because human life begins at conception, abortion is the killing of a human being, just like you are a human being, and killing the infant human being in the womb would be wrong, just like killing you would be wrong.

Actually, even if I accept your assertion that at conception the zygote is a full human with right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it STILL isn't comparable. If I am annoying him, he can leave. If I follow him, he can get a restraining order. These options are not exactly available to pregnant mothers. Furthermore, no matter how annoying I am, I am not leeching off of his body's nutrients to sustain myself. I am not taking up residence INSIDE of his body. I am not creating additional health risks, I'm not preventing him from working or going to school. The analogy does not hold.

Now there's something that has nothing to do with the situation. Chicken pox??

That analogy was in relation to Jae's comment that a benefit of child birth was protection against certain types of cancers, making it not an entirely parasitic relationship. My rebuttal is that there ARE benefits from getting some diseases, but we don't call Chicken Pox a symbiote.

If you had, you'd understand why mothers go through all of that.

Actually I have. I've got LOTS of family, and a lot of cousins, and plenty of them are and have been having kids for awhile. I don't really LIKE babies. They are highly overrated. And the benefits are not universal. Not all people want babies. Not all people love children. That's why abortion is an option and not a requirement.

If I hear another man say that it's none of his responsibility..... When a man and a woman have sex together, and that produces a child, then both the woman AND the man have a responsibility to the new life they created together. The child is not just part of a woman's body, it's part of a man's body too.

What if you hear another woman say it? What if that other woman was you...like...a page ago?

And please, it's not "the child of a rapist". That child is the child of the woman who carries him.

 

What do you call them after they're born? Newborns still make a lot of physical demands on parents, in some ways more than during pregnancy.

But there is still a major distinction at this point. If your child is misbehaving or causing undue stress, they can be put in one room, while you walk to the other room, and you are occupying different spaces. If you eat a hamburger, they aren't taking the nutrients from that food for their own. It is highly unlikely that any of their actions will result in you being rushed to the hospital to have your abdomen sliced open.

I actually enjoyed pregnancy for the most part--I was excited about each child that was going to join our family, and I don't know that I can adequately explain how it feels to be nurturing that life and doing positive things to help the baby grow and develop.

But you WANTED children. You weren't dealing with the anxiety of potentially having a kid when you don't even know who the father is, when you're still trying to get through high school, when you have no method of supporting this child, when being out of work during pregnancy will result in lost income that could put you out on the street, or when you just deep down can't STAND kids. It's important to understand that not everybody is going to HAVE the same feelings that you do about pregnancy and child birth.

 

I actually have a friend who dated a girl for awhile, and then found out she was a single mother (They were both 21 at the time). As soon as he found out that she had a kid he couldn't keep dating her. He was only 21, he was in college, he just couldn't do it. Do you think that girl doesn't resent her child at times? How many single men her age are interested in dating into a family?

A microns-thin piece of latex membrane does absolutely nothing to diminish the experience. Trust me.

And from experience, I can certainly state that is an incorrect assertion. I certainly think the reduction in the experience is worth the reduced chance of pregnancy, but there IS a difference.

 

That's a completely silly counter-argument, and you know it.

I don't think it's silly at all. I am being GENUINELY serious here. Why is the risk of sex such that if we take the risk and get burned it's a "Too bad, so sad, deal with it" problem, but taking the risk of getting robbed such that we can chase of the robber, or call the cops and get our things back?

Yes, I did estimate that figure, given that rape is pretty uncommon, and for the most part, it sexual relationships are CONSENSUAL

So you have never, EVER looked into rape statistics then? rape is uncommon? Despite the fact that one out of every six women in the United States is the victim of Sexual Assault, in 2004-2005, there were an average annual 200,780 victims of rape, attempted rape or sexual assault, and Every two and a half minutes, somewhere in America, someone is sexually assaulted. source. Those statistics don't even take into account sex that may not have been entirely consensual, but wasn't reported so it doesn't make it to the statistics pages. In fact, some statistics suggest only 16% of rapes are reported. source.

The difference is that a burglar is taking what you have worked for

Not everybody works for their things. What if my TV was a gift from my extremely rich uncle? I didn't have to do anything for it, but I still put it in my living room as a lure for those darn burglars.

It does, however, show the context of her comments, and highlight that her agenda colours her perceptions.

Well if her perceptions are so colored by her she-woman-man-hating behavior, then feel free to point out why the violin player analogy is flawed.

I'd like to see you list sources for all your comments, too, please, then. It cuts both ways.

I generally make efforts to provide sources to actual statistics or quotes that I bring into any argument that are not purely of my own device. If I have failed to do that at some point please point that out so I can correct my mistake. I don't generally make up numbers without making it obvious that they are fabrications used for emphasis.

Not according to the grounds for abortion in the UK. Another example: if I decide you *will* annoy me, does that give me the right to crush your skull and hoover you up? All right, not 100% analogous, but my point still stands that fundamentally, you are placing convenience before human life.

It is STILL a non-sequitur, though I will point out that the violinist analogy brings to light your point of "convenience" before human life.

All right - what benefit does the environment get from humanity's existence? Both are parasitic, you are correct. Nonetheless, the point stands.

Except that the "environment" is a descriptor that we humans have given to a complex system of parasites, symbiotes, and all other manner of creatures. The fact that we exist off of the "environment" is merely an artifact of the existence of the "environment", and the fact that humans are a part of it. So again, non-sequitur, this does not compare to an organism living parasitically off of another organism.

...Give them untold joy as they grow into an adult, etc etc...?

Which is not a universal benefit of having children. Children can DESTROY the lives of the mothers who have them. They can TAKE the lives of the mothers. Not every person will get any joy from having children, let alone "untold joy". This is the point of having a choice. Some people simply should not be having children. They then have the option of abortion. Some people will gain GREAT benefit from it, and they choose NOT to have an abortion.

foetus and mother

I appreciate the...subtle attempt at spelling correction, but fetus is an acceptable alternate spelling.

 

God bestows an immortal soul upon this "mass of cells" which separates him or her from your stub of broccoli and your toothpaste.

Separation of Church and State.

[Aurora Starfire]

You don't like babies or children? Ah, well that explains it.

 

Separation of Church and State.

I already said I didn't expect any of the rest of you to share my belief.

 

In all honesty, if my parents had not wanted me, if I would have been an undue burden on the family, or if they had honestly just decided that they couldn't handle another kid, then they should have had an abortion. I never would have known, so how could I be upset about it? I currently love my family enough to know that I would want whatever had been best for them, be that having me or not.

So you'd prefer to be dead if your birth would have been a strain on your family's budget? I find that rather hard to believe. And, actually, based upon what I've said before, you would have known, because everyone has an immortal soul, destined for heaven. I know you likely don't believe this, but I do.

 

If I hear another man say that it's none of his responsibility..... When a man and a woman have sex together, and that produces a child, then both the woman AND the man have a responsibility to the new life they created together. The child is not just part of a woman's body, it's part of a man's body too.

What if you hear another woman say it? What if that other woman was you...like...a page ago?

And please, it's not "the child of a rapist". That child is the child of the woman who carries him.

I'm sorry, I phrased that poorly. Let me try again: "And please, it's not 'the child of a rapist'. That child is also the child of the woman who carries him." Both the man and the woman have responsibility. Not just the man, and not just the woman, but BOTH of them. Thanks for catching that; I was on my way out the door when I posted

 

I believe I've stated my views on this subject fairly clearly. As I said before, I cannot force any of you to accept my views, but neither can you force me to accept yours.

 

What it comes down to, is this: If you believe in God, then it matters a great deal whether a fetus is aborted or not. If you don't, then it doesn't matter whether mothers choose to abort their children, because life has no meaning, no purpose.

[ET Warrior]

You don't like babies or children? Ah, well that explains it.

I will assume that remark is somehow intended to imply that my support for a woman's right to choose is somehow linked to my personal feelings towards infants? I assure you that is not the case.

 

So you'd prefer to be dead if your birth would have been a strain on your family's budget? I find that rather hard to believe. And, actually, based upon what I've said before, you would have known, because everyone has an immortal soul, destined for heaven. I know you likely don't believe this, but I do.

I don't quite see why that is hard to believe. According to everything that I live my life by, I would never have known the difference, so I would prefer the people I love the most in my life wouldn't have been overly inconvenienced.

However, if I am to believe what you say here, it seems like I may have been better off anyway. If what I know about Christianity to be true, then my current beliefs and lifestyles are going to earn me a ticket to eternal damnation. If I'd been aborted I would've gotten a "Get out of Hell Free" card and been on the fast pass to eternal paradise. Seems like a pretty good deal.

 

I believe I've stated my views on this subject fairly clearly. As I said before, I cannot force any of you to accept my views, but neither can you force me to accept yours.

The best part of my beliefs is that not everyone has to believe them. Merely respect them.

[Jae Onasi]

Law states that if there is a person in a vegitvite state without a living will, then those who are connected to this person gets to represent the person, since they know this person and be able to decide what is in the person's best interest, what this person would want. It starts with spouse, and then move to family members, like parents.

So, using this law, if a person is a fetus, it is the mother who gets to decide, since the fetus is unable to communicate its desicion, and the mother, having a close connection to the fetus, would be able to accurately represent the wishes and desires of the fetus. If the female believes that fetus wants to die (because the fetus may not want to be a burden to the female, or if the fetus does not want to live in a world where he may not be taken care of very well), then it should express that wish and have the fetus die.

By forcing the fetus to live, you are not giving the fetus and the woman representing the fetus the right to choose. I think. Maybe, I'm wrong.

 

This is applicable when the person is in a _persistant_ vegetative state with no hope for recovery. An embroyo will not remain in a persistant vegetative state (unless it has some sort of disease or malformation), it will grow and develop and become a functioning human. This law therefore does not apply to fetuses.

 

@Emperor Devon--that first cell after conception may not be able to live outside the womb for another 21-22 weeks at the bare minimum. However, it has its own unique DNA pattern, its own cell structure, and by 10 weeks gestation will have its own heart that's beating.

 

This actually brings back into play the Violinist example,

This is an entirely inapplicable example. An adult trying to leech off another adult is wholly unlike what happens during pregnancy.

 

It is highly unlikely that any of their actions will result in you being rushed to the hospital to have your abdomen sliced open.

Good heavens, that is very dramatic. My c-section scar is a whole whopping 5 inches long if that. I hardly characterize that as having my abdomen 'sliced open'.

But you WANTED children. You weren't dealing with the anxiety of potentially having a kid when you don't even know who the father is, when you're still trying to get through high school, when you have no method of supporting this child, when being out of work during pregnancy will result in lost income that could put you out on the street, or when you just deep down can't STAND kids. It's important to understand that not everybody is going to HAVE the same feelings that you do about pregnancy and child birth.

 

Frankly, if I were in a situation where I just could not afford or did not want kids, I would not leave my fertility up to anyone else. I'd be taking care of my own contraception and not leaving it up to the man.

 

If I'd been in that situation in high school/college, couldn't stand kids, or couldn't afford to bring up the child, I would have given the child up for adoption. It's highly unlikely that post-partum recovery would put someone out on the street. That's where crisis pregnancy centers come in as a safety net--they provide a place to stay for women in difficult situations, and help them with baby supplies and so forth. Government agencies would provide intervention for the safety of the mother and child both. Furthermore, if a woman is in a low-income situation, medicaid (the american version) takes care of the woman and child's healthcare through the post-partum period for the woman and through childhood for the child. Women cannot be fired for giving birth because of FMLA (among other laws). The concern about a woman being out on the street after giving birth, while laudable, is happily largely unfounded because it would take an extraordinarily bizarre set of circumstances for that to happen. In addition, women do have to take some time off work after an abortion to recover from that procedure as well.

 

How many single men her age are interested in dating into a family?

One of my best friends in undergrad did just that at age 23. He fell in love with a terrific gal who had had 2 kids from a previous marriage. Albert Pujols (Cardinals first baseman) at age 19 married a woman who had had a baby with Down's. Not every guy wants to marry a woman with kids and create an insta-family. However, plenty of guys do indeed do just that.

And from experience, I can certainly state that is an incorrect assertion. I certainly think the reduction in the experience is worth the reduced chance of pregnancy, but there IS a difference.

Whew. If you can actually make the quantitative observation in the middle of The Wild Thang that something that is .0019 inches thick makes it X% less enjoyable than without, you've got a hell of a lot more willpower than I do.

 

They can TAKE the lives of the mothers.

About 5-7/100,000 births. Risk of death from abortion is about 1.1/100,000 abortions over the last 20 years. The risk of a fatal car crash is 14-15/100,000. Your risk of getting struck by lightning is about .16/100,000. All of these are really small numbers, and I'm not quite sure what the excitement is all about. A woman has a small amount of risk of dying whether she carries the child to term or has an abortion, she merely trades one risk for the other.