Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Do you think abortion is wrong?


bluewizard

Recommended Posts

Actually the morning after pill might not just help rape victims. Often they are in a state of shock for several days that they cannot think rationally to the point of taking care of themselves or any potential pregnancies. Many of the women who report the crime don't do so for several months. It isn't as easy as waking up the next day to go to the doctor and be like "Yeah, I was raped, can you make sure I won't get pregnant?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Asimov

    12

  • Taphophilia

    11

  • Dianka

    8

  • Lycorth

    7

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

There's just one point i'd like to make here. In a big way, the "prolifers" have already lost this battle, due to the fact that there is no way abortions will be comepletely banned.

In countries where its supposedly illiegal, there are still huge numbers of cases each year. herbal abortions have been in use for over 2000 years, in the middle ages, rome, greece, egypt, you name it.

i heard that even Plato wrote a book for women on how to abort.

 

If you haven't guessed by now, I am furiously pro-choice. possibly i am still angry that i was deluded into believing prolife crap during my catholic years. or it could be the young woman I saw die in in a hospital when I was twelve due to a back-alley procedure. or that the idea of carrying an unwanted perganacy to term just disguts me.

 

I say that sex-ed, all forms of birth control and all that stuff, should be taught as early as possible. i think there should be no abortion restrictions.

 

there. I said it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, a touchy subject. I'll give my opinion which is all I can do, and I will not try to convince anyone of anything.

I believe abortion should be legal and available. Legal isn't the same thing as available, and in effect the pro-life are winning that way in that there are not enough abortion providers.

 

I believe an abortion should be done as early as possible. I don't believe that a woman should have the right to abort at ANY time during her pregnancy, even if it is her body. There is a point where the fetus becomes viable and abortion should not be a choice after viability except in extreme and rare cases.

 

I believe in choice. Every child should be brought into this world a wanted child and not punished for the circumstances of conception. I believe that the pro-life side creates child abuse. They brain wash followers into believing they are committing murder if they have an abortion and force even children to have children. They force women who are not ready for the emotional tolls and burdens of raising children to do so. They are more concerned about the babies that are being aborted. They fail to do anything about the children who are in dire circumstances. As long as the kid was not aborted, what is the problem?

 

They brand those who have had abortions as murderers, even if it's a fourteen year old girl. They force women to be guilty of the crime of murdering their own children. They play psycological mindgames forcing guilt where no guilt should be. I believe pro-life is a detriment to humanity and causes more harm than it does good.

 

Pro-choice means choice. It means that I or my daughters have the right to make our own choices and choose what is best for our lives.

 

Taph

This is almost exactly how I feel too.

 

There is no clear-cut moment in which we can be certain that a fetus has moved from being non-viable to viable, so it's my opinion that it's better to terminate a pregnancy as early as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abortion became illegal in the US just prior to the Civil War, not because of morality, but due to the high rate of maternal death from infection in a time when infection was a common occurance.

 

A Christian doctor published a paper saying the embryo had a "soul". The paper was not widely recieved, until the doctor's son, also a Christian Doctor, took up the cause. Laws became stricter and stricter regarding women's reproduction.

 

I don't think that people are aware that in the US less than 75 years ago, birth control for even married women was illegal. Women were forced to have child after child, especially poor women who had no escape from their situation. During the 19th century opium for babies was popular. They called it "Mother's Helper". That's right, the kids were drugged to help the mother cope with so many kids.

Women were seen as only being useful as child bearers. Even in the 1950's it was illegal for unmarried women to seek birth control or even have knowledge of how not to get pregnant.

 

As far as adoption, most people wanting to adopt want a healthy white newborn, which is a rarity. Orphanages and foster homes are little more than "Child Pounds".

 

Taph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that's where you can't just say "it's wrong" or "it's right" and you can't just say "if she's too 'lazy' she should blah blah blah...."

 

True. Please consider my initial posting here kind of my "guidelines" for determining the pro or con of a specific case. Something to start from, but not set in stone. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if there will be skyrocketing crime rates 18 years after abortion goes out the window as there was a sharpe decline starting about 18 years after Roe v. Wade became law.

 

I have a feeling the "pro-life" crowd will be regretting their opposition to abortion in due time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm shocked at the number of people on this thread calling themselves pro-choice and then claiming that abortion is only okay if it's not the woman's "fault" that she got pregnant. What the fuck is up with that bullshit? Children are a punishment for having sex? Fuck that. It just reinforces for me that the abortion debate for most people has nothing to do with "saving babies" and everything to do with controlling the sexuality of women. Where in the "it's only okay for women who have sex under circumstances I deem acceptable" scenario is the punishment for the men who are 50% responsible for the pregnancy? I can respect a pure anti-abortion stance more than I can respect that hypocritical bullshit. Either the fetus is a human being with a right to be born, or it's not. Women have the right to make our own decisions about what's allowed to live inside our bodies, or we don't. Circumstances have exactly jack shit to do with it.

 

And that "the baby has seperate DNA" argument? So does a tapeworm. That doesn't mean I'm required to let it live inside me and feed off me. Forced pregnancy (which is what's left if women aren't allowed to terminate an unwanted pregnancy) is slavery. I am an autonomous human being, not a walking incubator. My body most certainly does belong to me, and no one else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm shocked at the number of people on this thread calling themselves pro-choice and then claiming that abortion is only okay if it's not the woman's "fault" that she got pregnant. What the fuck is up with that bullshit? Children are a punishment for having sex? Fuck that. It just reinforces for me that the abortion debate for most people has nothing to do with "saving babies" and everything to do with controlling the sexuality of women. Where in the "it's only okay for women who have sex under circumstances I deem acceptable" scenario is the punishment for the men who are 50% responsible for the pregnancy? I can respect a pure anti-abortion stance more than I can respect that hypocritical bullshit. Either the fetus is a human being with a right to be born, or it's not. Women have the right to make our own decisions about what's allowed to live inside our bodies, or we don't. Circumstances have exactly jack shit to do with it.

 

And that "the baby has seperate DNA" argument? So does a tapeworm. That doesn't mean I'm required to let it live inside me and feed off me. Forced pregnancy (which is what's left if women aren't allowed to terminate an unwanted pregnancy) is slavery. I am an autonomous human being, not a walking incubator. My body most certainly does belong to me, and no one else.

 

I agree with you. She didn't get herself pregnant.

 

Reading some of the posts, I had wondered how much of a persons view on abortion is a residual adherence to Christianity's teachings on it.

 

I don't think the pro-life stance is going to let up anytime soon. As long as their are churches that insight thier members that abortion is baby murdering there are going to be rabid pro-lifers.

 

Taph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think pro-lifers think that someone going for an abortion is like having a wart removed. I couldn't imagine the mental torture a woman goes through with making the decision, then living with it in wonderment for all her days.

 

However... if pregnancy and parenthood is that much out of the question for your circumstances, then THANK GOD we've mastered doing abortions without killing or maiming the host.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am an autonomous human being, not a walking incubator. My body most certainly does belong to me, and no one else.

 

Granted. But then, there are those ladies who (as I see it) are just too fucking lazy or stupid to make sure that either them or their partner uses contraception, although they know damn well what risk is involved if they don't. In that case, sorry... but it's hard for me to feel much mercy with those ladies if they then whine how they need an abortion.

 

Dammit, it's not that hard to think of and practice contraception if you don't want a child!!! :vent:

 

Yes there's most definitely a grey area between your position and mine. As is almost always the case in this damn life which stubbornly refuses to become a simple pattern of black-or-white alternatives just because we'd like it that way. :shrug:

 

By the way, that also means that there isn't just "pro-choice" and "pro-life" out there. There will always be grey areas. The great challenge is how to deal with them. Someone's bound to feel fucked, no matter where we draw the line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but I like my freedom of choice to decide to have a vacuum stuck up my cootch and the little errant bits of DNA sucked out if I want to. And I use birth control (not that I have enough sex for it to be useful for contraceptive purposes) to guard against the possibility of pregnancy. But if it happened, I don't want it, I don't need it, and I'm not a fucking factory like greygirl said. I do not exist just to haul my fat ass around for nine months, squeeze out a kid I didn't want to begin with, and try to continue with my life. Granted, I probably would, and possibly with a low lack of concern, but I still do not want to have to deal with that.

 

And it's not that I advocate it for lazy woman's birth control. Far from it. Condoms can be bought for pocket change in machines; it is simple enough to at least attempt responsibility. But for a last-ditch attempt to rid one's self of a lifelong commitment that isn't needed, or could most likely be financially or emotionally ruinous? Hell yes I'll take the suck job. I know I am in no shape or form ready to deal with a squalling little brat, nor do I want to break my back and my wallet doing so. I may be in the minority of rabidly child-free, but I see no purpose in being a baby factory someday just because people expect every woman to do so that's physically capable. Piss off.

 

Plus, I would love to ask all of these pro-life hypocrites how many adopted kids they have. Not just foster; adopted. And American. Not kids they flew to China to adopt from stinking squalls, but the kid who had two drug-addicts for parents, or the mentally incompetant, or the physically disabled. Even my roommate and his sister, both of whom are adopted, had fairly clean bills of health and background; no crack babies for their parents. How many of these pro-lifers would take on the responsibility and swallow their own words if they managed to outlaw abortion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Granted. But then, there are those ladies who (as I see it) are just too fucking lazy or stupid to make sure that either them or their partner uses contraception, although they know damn well what risk is involved if they don't. In that case, sorry... but it's hard for me to feel much mercy with those ladies if they then whine how they need an abortion.

 

Um...did you READ my last post??

 

I can't help it...I have to digress again....

 

FUCK YOU.

 

Seriously!!! Listen to yourself for a goddamn minute! What you are saying here is that WOMEN have all of the responsibility to make sure they don't get pregnant.

 

What then, are we going to do with the man who impregnanted this "lazy, stupid" woman who got knocked up? I propose that if a man is too stupid and fucking lazy to wear a condom, then for the entire time that the woman is pregnant, we put a vice on his balls. As the nine months go along, we tighten it just a little bit...and then during the delivery squeeze until he begs to stop. Oh...and for every gyno appointment the woman has to go to, the man should have to get a gloved finger shoved up his ass...and then lets leave a metal speculum in there for awhile...ya know, make sure its spread nice and wide. And...he has to wear a shirt every single day saying that he impregnanted someone out of wedlock.

 

Its only fair. That is only a portion of what a woman has to go through if you force her to carry a child she doesn't want to carry. It takes two people to get pregnant. TWO. Men should be just as responsible...and if they aren't, then the result is an unwanted pregnancy. And sometimes, even if they are, they still have an unwanted pregnancy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Granted. But then, there are those ladies who (as I see it) are just too fucking lazy or stupid to make sure that either them or their partner uses contraception, although they know damn well what risk is involved if they don't. In that case, sorry... but it's hard for me to feel much mercy with those ladies if they then whine how they need an abortion.

 

Dammit, it's not that hard to think of and practice contraception if you don't want a child!!! :vent:

 

Very true - everyone has to be responsible and use contraception if they don't want a kid. There is no excuse for women or for men who don't take all the necessary steps to ensure they don't conceive if they don't want to, including just not having sex if that's what it takes. If a woman doesn't want to use birth control or make sure the guy does, she should keep ler legs together. If a guy doesn't want to take two seconds to put his rubber on or make sure the girl is using reliable birth control, he should keep his pants zipped. It's not rocket science.

 

The bottom line is responsibility - getting an abortion just because you don't want the kid is irresponsible, to say the least. If there's a valid medical reason why a life has to be terminated, then it's acceptable. If there is no valid medical reason, then it is unacceptable. Very simple.

 

And to Jose - don't get me wrong, I'm all for euthanasia if the case calls for it. If I'm a drooling vegetable, then pull the damn plug - I'd be better off dead than "living" in such a disgraceful state. All I meant was that if we make it too easy to terminate life due to illness or unwantedness, I think it could set the stage for a person being euthanized for a simple illness or for forced abortions. It's sadly a fact of human nature to take things too far, and we always have to be on guard against that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you are saying here is that WOMEN have all of the responsibility to make sure they don't get pregnant.

 

What then, are we going to do with the man who impregnanted this "lazy, stupid" woman who got knocked up? I propose that if a man is too stupid and fucking lazy to wear a condom, then for the entire time that the woman is pregnant, we put a vice on his balls. [...]

 

Fine with me. Apologies if I sounded like I think all the responsibility is with the women. Of course it's not. :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Granted. But then, there are those ladies who (as I see it) are just too fucking lazy or stupid to make sure that either them or their partner uses contraception, although they know damn well what risk is involved if they don't. In that case, sorry... but it's hard for me to feel much mercy with those ladies if they then whine how they need an abortion.

 

I say again: So fucking what? If a woman gets pregnant and doesn't want to be, she doesn't need your fucking "mercy". Whether or not she carries the pregnancy to term is not your goddamn decision, thank goodness! Having a child is not a punishment! If someone really is too "lazy or stupid" to use contraception, then they absolutely should be able to get an abortion, because the last thing we need is still more morons breeding. I find it reprehensible that you'd think women who have sex in a way that you don't happen to like deserve to be punished through forced pregnancy. The very thought disgusts me.

 

For a lot of people, there is no grey area. I am pro-choice. Period. If something is growing inside a woman's body and she doesn't want it in there, it comes out. No "only ifs", no "maybes", she doesn't want to be pregnant, she doesn't have to be pregnant. I don't really give a shit about the circumstaces, or if she's already had an abortion before, or her financial standing, or anything. Her body belongs to her, she makes the decision.

 

The bottom line is responsibility - getting an abortion just because you don't want the kid is irresponsible, to say the least. If there's a valid medical reason why a life has to be terminated, then it's acceptable. If there is no valid medical reason, then it is unacceptable. Very simple.

 

But it is "responsible" to bring YET ANOTHER unwanted child into the world, to be raised by a parent who didn't want the kid in the first place, or spend the beginning of its life sitting in state custody? Yeah, that's a *fabulous* solution.

 

The responsible thing to do is to take care of the problem.

 

If a kid is playing with a ball and throws it through his bedroom window, what would be the responsible thing to do? Fix the broken window and make the kid pay for it, or tell the kid "Too bad, you broke the window, now you have to live with it for the rest of your life"?

 

Having unwanted babies is irresponsible. Taking care of an accidental pregnancy by having an abortion is very responsible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see how not wanting to subject a child to a life where he or she may not be wanted is something to be avoided. However, there are plenty of parents who would gladly take the child off the mother's hands. Many agencies specialize in this. And of course the parents of the child could simply grow up and rise to their natural responsibility and take proper care of the child - both parents, not just one or the other.

 

I fail to see how is exterminating a pregnancy without a valid medical need to do so anything other than an irresponsible act towards the life that the sexual activity of two people brought into the world. And since a child is a biologically different organism than the mother, it's not her body after all. It may grow in her body, but is a human life nonetheless. Open and shut case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see how not wanting to subject a child to a life where he or she may not be wanted is something to be avoided. However, there are plenty of parents who would gladly take the child off the mother's hands. Many agencies specialize in this. And of course the parents of the child could simply grow up and rise to their natural responsibility and take proper care of the child - both parents, not just one or the other.

 

I fail to see how is exterminating a pregnancy without a valid medical need to do so anything other than an irresponsible act towards the life that the sexual activity of two people brought into the world. And since a child is a biologically different organism than the mother, it's not her body after all. It may grow in her body, but is a human life nonetheless. Open and shut case.

 

Dude, plenty of parents?? Doubtful, why do you think there ARE so many unwanted children all over the world?

 

It's not an open and shut case, as greygirl says it's inhabiting her body, and in all senses of the word, parasitic. The only positive benefits are from people who want the baby. It's taking energy from her, relying on her to survive, therefore it IS her body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The responsible thing to do is to take care of the problem.

 

I agree. I've never quite understood why some people see having an abortion as avoiding responsibility or "copping out". I think that sometimes having an abortion is absolutely the most responsible thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. It's still not her body. It's a biologically different and separate human organism. There's no ethical justification to kill it unless it presents a clear and present danger, just like with humans who are already born. A dangerous person poses a threat to the safety of others, therefore said person should be killed to eliminate that threat; an annoying person can't be killed because his presence is unwanted, therefore the same should apply to the unborn. It's about an equal application of ethics.

 

But do not think me closed to the opposing view; bearing a child cannot be easy and only those who are suited for the task should do it. I would rather a child be aborted than be with a mother unfit or unsuited to the more awesome responsibility of raising it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. It's still not her body.

 

 

:ugh: How do you figure it's not her body? she's the host, everything she eats and does effects the fetus. I'm sorry but your argument has zero legs and makes no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. It's still not her body. It's a biologically different and separate human organism. There's no ethical justification to kill it unless it presents a clear and present danger, just like with humans who are already born. A dangerous person poses a threat to the safety of others, therefore said person should be killed to eliminate that threat; an annoying person can't be killed because his presence is unwanted, therefore the same should apply to the unborn. It's about an equal application of ethics.

 

But do not think me closed to the opposing view; bearing a child cannot be easy and only those who are suited for the task should do it. I would rather a child be aborted than be with a mother unfit or unsuited to the more awesome responsibility of raising it.

 

Why should the same apply to the unborn?

 

1) A dangerous person is an individual human being with an identity, an fetus is not.

2) There is ethical justification for killing something that a) Is not wanted, and B) Is wholly dependant upon another organism for survival.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:ugh: How do you figure it's not her body? she's the host, everything she eats and does effects the fetus. I'm sorry but your argument has zero legs and makes no sense.

 

My argument makes perfect sense. It is a seperate organism that is in a measurable process of development. Hence it may live in the woman's body for a time but clearly is not the same as her own body. Seems pretty clear to me :shrug:

 

What does identity have to do with threat level? If something is not a threat, then why kill it, unless for food? And since we don't eat fetuses, there is normally no need to kill a child that does not endanger the mother's life. Of course, each case isn't the same, so flexibilty is logical. I don't see the problem here - except that I view abortion as a medical procedure to be utilized when necessary, not a dogma that no mortal may dare question.

 

I see no compelling evidence and shall remain a happy heretic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:ugh: How do you figure it's not her body? she's the host, everything she eats and does effects the fetus. I'm sorry but your argument has zero legs and makes no sense.

 

My argument makes perfect sense. It is a seperate organism that is in a measurable process of development. Hence it may live in the woman's body for a time but clearly is not the same as her own body. Seems pretty clear to me :shrug:

 

 

No it doesn't make perfect sense. :Doh: You say a women's body no longer belongs to her if she happens to become pregnant, the statement is absurd at best. You say the few cells residing within her takes precedence over the actual living breathing women. I fail to see how you can logically defend that belief? Weather it is a separate entity is a moot point. It can not survive without the host for the first 3 months of gestation.

 

What does identity have to do with threat level? If something is not a threat, then why kill it, unless for food? And since we don't eat fetuses, there is normally no need to kill a child that does not endanger the mother's life. Of course, each case isn't the same, so flexibilty is logical. I don't see the problem here - except that I view abortion as a medical procedure to be utilized when necessary, not a dogma that no mortal may dare question.

 

 

 

You keep calling it a threat level, I'm not arguing from the level of any threat, I'm arguing from the POV of the willingness of the host. It is not a "child" it's a potential child. You want to pick and choose what defines 'necessary'. Do you believe that women should fit your necessary criteria before having an abortion? If so, Under what banner of criteria would you list it?

 

I see no compelling evidence and shall remain a happy heretic.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I'm not out offering foster care - I don't need to to have an opinion on this matter. And I do know a thing or two about unwanted children growing up in abusive or otherwise substandard homes; many of my friends came from such places. Some of them turned out to be little better than their parents, but most turned out to be decent people. So no, I really don't agree completely with justifying abortion just to save them from that. Also, not to downplay at all the wretched suffering many abused children have to endure unjustly, but people have suffered all throughout history and likely always shall. We should focus on removing in whatever way we can the causes of suffering, in this case the abusive parents, and not killing off those who are guilty of no crime.

 

But, like I've said before, I'd rather a child be aborted than suffer a miserable existence for no reason. I can straddle the fence a good bit on that one, but still stand by my opinions. And this will be my last post on this topic, lest it turn into a flame war - I remain the happy heretic on this issue of modern dogma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.