Abortion: Legal or Illegal
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General discussions
Forum Description: Discuss any topic at all that is not music-related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=82415
Printed Date: February 09 2025 at 05:01
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Abortion: Legal or Illegal
Posted By: The Quiet One
Subject: Abortion: Legal or Illegal
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 19:43
|
This is a very heated discussion now in Argentina, and I'd really like to know your opinion. I know that this may become a heated thread as well, I'm simply asking for your opinion, if possible, with justification. And yes, I also know that it varies in different contexts, politics, religion, etc, include whatever you want for your justification. Should ABORTION be legalized or not? Thanks!
|
Replies:
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 20:00
|
Abortion breaks my heart.
------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: TheMasterMofo
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 20:02
|
Murder is defined as "The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse." Murder is illegal. Because abortion involves the destruction of a living thing (indisputable) that is created by two human beings (indisputable) and is born a human being (indisputable) and lives the life of a human being (indisputable), it can only be assumed that abortion is the destruction of a human being. I've never heard of a human giving birth to a dog, an elephant, or a mouse, though that would be interesting. Because of this, abortion is defined as murder. Murder is (and should be) illegal. Abortion should be illegal. |
Posted By: TheMasterMofo
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 20:05
|
Also: You can't have a debate on abortion on ProgArchives without this song being on the front page. |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 20:14
|
I feel this is not a thread that we need to have.
------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 20:15
|
I would keep abortion legal. I wish people were more responsible though so that the numbers were far less.
------------- ...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell" |
Posted By: TheMasterMofo
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 20:17
I wish that rapists would be more responsible, too. But what can you do? Some rapists are just going to act immature. At least they're not as childish as burglers, though. They can be so selfish! They act like everything belongs to them. |
Finnforest wrote:Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 20:26
|
Since babies don't have a soul, abortion is no worse than killing a small animal or a plant or a mushroom, but I'm fine with it being illegal. Oh, wait, it's not illegal . . . Well, I'm fine with that also.
|
Posted By: The Truth
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 20:31
Yes but it also breaks my heart when a baby is born unwanted by it's parents. It's really up to the parents. ------------- http://blindpoetrecords.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow">  
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 20:34
|
Of course abortion should be legal, it's unfortunate the question even has to be raised. BTW, I love it when those who hold personal freedoms to be most dear actively oppose it. |
Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 20:34
Any sensible person on this forum must feel the same. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised to see this thread closed in a couple of hours. |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 20:36
|
If I own an airplane, and mid-flight a passenger becomes unwanted, may I then throw him out? ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Horizons
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 20:37
|
I think it should be legalized. There are so many responsibilities with a child, and some parents just know they are unfit parents or are unprepared to devote their lives to a child with a disorder like Downs. ------------- Crushed like a rose in the riverflow. |
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 20:37
It's been discussed numerous times in other threads. We all survived. *Most* people are able to have a debate without the cheap shots. ------------- ...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell" |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 20:38
I am related to children who were unwanted by their parents. I am happy those folks at least let them be adopted. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 20:41
Hey that's my analogy :( ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 20:44
Nuh-uh. Yours involved a spaceship.  ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 20:45
No, nothing good has ever come from any abortion thread on any forum. ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 20:46
HENRY, YOUR JUST LIKE HITLER!!!!! ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 20:48
|
Fun thread.
A vote for legal. ------------- Dig me...But don't...Bury me I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect. |
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 20:49
By that criteria you'd remove a lot of threads. I'm sure some of the guys who participated in the threads enjoyed debating it. Not that I care Henry, you're probably right. ------------- ...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell" |
Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 20:50
You're probably right guys, if the Admins feels so, the thread should be gone. But since I know quite a few members from here (not in reality, but you get it), I think these are able to AT LEAST give their opinions formally and without creating a total mess.
|
Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 20:51
Reasons, please. This is not a poll.
|
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 21:05
|
Even after birth, a child is dependent on someone (usually the mother); if the mother (the de facto legal guardian) decides motherhood is not for her and just leaves or starves the child, she is prosecuted for neglect or abandonment. I don't see why the child being within or without the mother is relevant when it comes to the child's right to life. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 21:05
No, abortion is like Israel and Palestine: people feel so strongly about it it always becomes pointless and terrible very quickly. We do not need to have this argument again.
Does it matter? ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 21:07
If you don't wish to participate in the discussion, then don't. If you think a thread is not worth of being here, then report it. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: KoS
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 21:08
|
Henry's right. But I'll bite. Legal. The body performs auto-abortions when the environment is not right ie. not enough nutrition, stress. There is no reason that we shouldn't adapt that to outside forces such as income, access to healthcare, education. etc.
|
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 21:10
"No reason that we should?" Did you mean "shouldn't?"  ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 21:10
Except that I don't believe it became all that horrible in the Libertarian thread. Seems like people made some good points and it ended naturally, with little fireworks. But since we're sitting here arguing about whether we should argue, your point is well made
------------- ...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell" |
Posted By: KoS
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 21:12
|
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 21:12
I will accept that as your stance on abortion in America.  ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Triceratopsoil
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 21:13
|
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 21:13
Only a few people open the Libertarian thread, that is different from there being a dedicated thread to a subject.
I can't report it because it doesn't violate the rules. But just because someone does not violate the rules also does not mean it is a good idea. ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: TheMasterMofo
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 21:17
That could have something to do with the fact that people who hold personal freedoms dear include the right to living ones own life as a personal freedom.
Should unfit parents be able to euthanize their children, then? And are you advocating killing a child with Downs if it turns out that it's too much work or responsibility?
So you're advocating aborting this thread, huh? |
Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 21:19
|
I'm for the legal side of this argument. First, whether life begins at conception or not, I believe should be irrelevant. The question should be when does sentience begin, and I'm not a doctor, but I am The Doctor, I don't think sentience in any way can be said to begin at conception. I would put sentience much later on in the pregnancy. We destroy life all the time. I just had bronchitis a few weeks ago and took a nice round of antibiotics, committing what amounted to genocide of the creatures in my bronchial tubes. A fetus, prior to sentience is a parasite. It simply lives on the mother's body. Like my bacteria were doing to me a few weeks ago. Pregnancy is a medical condition. Nothing more until such time as a fetus can be said to have developed its own self-awareness. That does not come early in the pregnancy. Of course, unlike my bacteria, a fetus has the potential to become sentient. But if we're simply talking about potential, then I've committed mass murder throughout my life, not through abortion, but through other means. And my guess is that most men have.  ------------- I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you? |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 21:21
Yes.
False, I only want to be like Hitler. ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 21:25
Emm, yes, that's why I made this thread. I want to know people's opinions about this matter, I actually want to know more about those who are in favour and their reasons. I'm not judging anybody.
|
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 21:34
So when does it come?
|
Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 21:38
|
I'm sure there is scientific research on the subject, but I'd guess quite near the end of the pregnancy. But as I said, I'm not a doctor. Just The Doctor. One thing I can say for certain is that there is no sentience at conception. And in the early stages, it's pretty much just a formed blob of cells.
------------- I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you? |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 21:47
|
I can't answer this with a simple yes or no: Legal only: 1.- Rape with pregnancy 2.- Proved fatal and painful sickness of the fetus like Tay Sachs 3.- Therapeutic abortion (Mother's life). Iván ------------- 
|
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 21:49
What country are you from, Chester? Our country (the USA) defends human beings' right to life. Not a right to sentience. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 21:51
Sadly, I'm from the US too. Just because the US does something a certain way doesn't make it right. In fact, it is more often the opposite. ------------- I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you? |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 21:55
You mean you oppose one's right to life? ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: timothy leary
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 21:57
| A formed blob of cells.....the key word there is formed and what is that form if not human? |
Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 21:57
I do not oppose the right to life of a sentient being. Of course, that leaves out about 90% of the human race. ------------- I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you? |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 22:01
Okey doke. Going to play video games now.  ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: TheMasterMofo
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 22:05
Are people in a coma fair game for a beheading, then? They're not aware of their surroundings or conscious. Many argue that sentience doesn't even begin directly after a baby is born. Some believe it takes weeks or even months before a baby actually is aware of what's going on. The problem with terms like "Sentience" or "Awareness" is that they're vague and there's no conclusive proof on when any of it definitively happens. If I blow up a building and people die, I can't defend myself by saying that I wasn't sure that it was empty but that I believed it was empty. I couldn't get off clean for the deaths of people in the building by saying, "Well, I've checked the building several times before and it was empty so I thought it was OK!". The same concept applies in the case of abortion; assuming that a baby isn't sentient or human or whatever is absurd. You don't just kill stuff on the assumption that it's not a person. You have to know for sure. If you're out hunting and you see a bush move and you shoot and it turns out that it was a human instead of a deer, guess who is getting charged with a crime... You are! It doesn't matter if you thought it wasn't human or not. Anyway, I'm about to go abort a few million potential sentients. |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 22:05
|
1. Life begins at conception 2. Not all life is created equal 3. We should not care about aborting life until it can feel pain 4. Only after the being can feel pain should it be given a "right to live," but if that's to hazy and impractical then I'm willing to bump it up to the "right to live" is only acquired at birth. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 22:13
|
So, since everyone is so concerned about fetuses, how about ensuring that EVERY child has proper medical care, proper food, clothing and housing? Oh, but you don't want to pay for that in the form of taxes, do you Rob? Or are children only important while they're in the womb? ------------- I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you? |
Posted By: TheMasterMofo
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 22:26
That would be pretty nice, too. I bet a lot of people would rather pay for that in taxes than pay for some lazy fool to sit around playing XBoX his entire life. Seems a bit diffusional from the issue of abortion, though. |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 22:26
Two things: 1. You've been away a long time, so you don't know what I've gone through this past couple of years. 2. You've been away a long time so you don't exactly know what I actually believe about healthcare or taxes. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 22:33
It is exactly the issue. If you only fight to limit abortion, but do not also want to help children that have already been born, then in my view your position becomes one not of protecting children, but simply one of control over women. You can't preach against abortion and welfare, government funded healthcare for children, school lunches, and so on without being a hypocrite. And possibly a misogynist. ------------- I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you? |
Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 22:35
Ok. Correct on both counts. Didn't mean to single you out. But read my last post for clarity on my position. ------------- I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you? |
Posted By: Andy Webb
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 22:35
|
My opinions is essentially it's not the best practice but is necessary in some cases, so should be kept legal but shouldn't be funded by anyone other than the patient. I agree with what Drew said as well. ------------- http://ow.ly/8ymqg" rel="nofollow">  
|
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 22:36
Is it not enough that our family believes in adopting and fostering children as we are able? Or are we heartless b*****ds who want to control a woman's body? Four members of my family are alive because their mothers' chose to let them be ADOPTED rather than killed off. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 22:41
Erm, you don't know me well enough to know this Rob, but I was also adopted. I was one of the lucky ones though, who had grandparents who wanted to adopt me and give me a loving home. How many children are that lucky? Really? How many children are going hungry? How many are ill without adequate healthcare? How many are homeless? How many are abused by foster parents (note, I am in no way saying anything about your fostering, but many are not so lucky to get decent people caring for them)? And you want to increase their numbers by limiting abortion? My heart breaks for children too, Rob, but not the ones who were aborted, but the ones who are alive and suffering. ------------- I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you? |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 22:55
|
These threads never end well.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 22:57
That was going to be my one and only post on the topic myself. But then I was struck in the head with a heavy object and figured what the hell, I'll post something substantive. ------------- I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you? |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 22:58
You're right. Children are suffering. Let's kill them. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: manofmystery
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 23:16
Being allowed to live is kind of essential to personal freedom. The government allowing someone the right to terminate someone else is an afront to liberty. You have a right to life and a right to liberty. Preserving these basic rights are the only two legitimate functions of government.
Might as well say babies don't have unicorns or telekinesis. Soul, pffft.
Hooray for specious arguments! Someone not wanting to be forcably removed from whatever gains, they managed to acquire as a result of being allowed to live, in order to fund vague and unachievable goals! What a monster! Filling the criteria of "proper" varies on a person by person basis and therefore is not only an impossible goal but a dangerous and idiotic one. If the system were working properly it'd be protecting our liberty from authoritarians like yourself, well-meaning or not.
No, hang on, wait, maybe if we let the government terminate those who get above the "proper" line then the rest of us can all live in the glorious equality that is having the exact same everything as everyone else. -------------  Time always wins. |
Posted By: manofmystery
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 23:30
You're basically saying that in your perfect world that if you, yourself, didn't have grandparents that you wouldn't exist. Well, guess we can't say you aren't commited to beliefs.
You're forgetting the hungry, homeless, and anyone who has been abused. We could probably round them all up. ------------- Time always wins. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 23:36
|
Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 23:43
 ------------- I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you? |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 23:44
|
Too many people just shield themselves with "the law" and can't give one damn personal opinion. I guess that's why politicians can do whatever the hell they want.
This issue has always given me problems. For the sake of consistency and humanity, I oppose the government deciding who lives and who dies in the death penalty. Why would the government allow someone to kill somebody else then? I'm not sure what I would do in a given situation. I'm not ready to throw down judgement like some high mighty wiseman when I'm not sure what I would do myself. I'm just a little worried that some people are so eager to allow indiscriminate abortions. I also don't love forgetting that there are special situations when abortions could be justified. ------------- 
|
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: November 01 2011 at 23:53
|
Keep it legal, safe and rare. Ideally we'd live in a world where it was only needed in those rare cases when it could be harmful to the mother's health. But we don't live in fantasy land, and while in my heart I want to say "make it illegal in most cases" in my brain I know it will keep happening....you can't legislate morality, and knowing that it might as well be kept safe and done by doctors in their facilities. Of course keeping the people educated is important, so hopefully it won't be needed. One thing I've always pondered myself, should it be left up to the doctor ultimately? I used to think so, but I started to think about: should they be neutral? Should they not be allowed to make such decisions and solely tend to what is presented to them, or as medical experts should they have the final say? It's funny because the debate itself always boils down to the same argument per side, always, but there are so many questions it raises as you think about it more. Complex and simple. |
Posted By: TheGazzardian
Date Posted: November 02 2011 at 00:14
|
Legal. I do not assign human life as intrinsically more valuable than other life (despite my bias that I like more humans than I do individuals of other species and find them easier to interact with). If we are going purely by # of lives in the world, then abortion actually saves lives - all the animals, plants, etc. that that human would have consumed during their lifetime are now saved. If we are not going by # of lives in the world matters, I don't see why the loss of one matters. Human population is skyrocketing at an insane rate and I sincerely doubt the world will be able to support us through continuous growth. One thing I hear a lot is, "Would you want your parents to abort you?". I find this to be a bit of a flawed argument. Consider this obvious example: Hitlers parents had an abortion. He was never born. Millions more jews have been born than their would otherwise have been, because the holocaust never happened. Less obvious scenario: mommy doesn't have an abortion. At age 40, child drunk-drives and kills a pregnant mother. Given enough time, her children would have given birth to thousands more human beings. The point is it's not a zero-sum game. We can't know the future and we don't know how many "potential lives" are lost by a child being born, nor are lost by a child being aborted. And we never will and trying to measure that is impossible. So the death of one, unborn child doesn't bother me. Personally, I think a lot of people forget that life is a game of death. Especially in first world cultures, where the fact that our food was once a living thing, and that many lives have ended each day simply to provide us with chemical energy to keep our bodies moving. It's easy to fix that when it comes in nice, shrink wrapped packages at the store and you never see the cow that beef used to be. But this is reality: everything alive is killing other things constantly in order to survive, because the earth is not infinite but is finite, and cannot support infinite life. I don't see why a dead fetus is a big deal in that scheme. EDIT: Sorry if this is now very well written, I am very brain tired. May edit in morning, if I remember.
|
Posted By: manofmystery
Date Posted: November 02 2011 at 00:36
Oh, I forgot, rights are handed out on a first-come-first-serve basis. By this logic murder is fine so long as the person who commited it was older than the victim. Your right to life and liberty does not include denying someone elses right to life and liberty. I support your right to do whatever you want with your own body, by the way. You are the one wanting to apply an arbitrary start date to self-ownership. Let me put it another way - it'll be a cold day in Hell before I don't call out the "I'm an enlightened male who believes in woman's rights" argument as the bullsh*t grandstanding that it is. ------------- Time always wins. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 02 2011 at 00:59
|
Brilliant-- I point again to your own words: "Your right to life and liberty does not include denying someone elses right to life and liberty". What part of that don't you subscribe to? |
Posted By: manofmystery
Date Posted: November 02 2011 at 01:19
|
What? The ability to end someone elses life is not a right, to be included with life and liberty, because it denies those to someone else. That any clearer? ------------- Time always wins. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 02 2011 at 01:35
|
Oh that's clear as a bell, and not entirely accurate if you allow killing as part of defending your country and its freedoms, nor if you allow a home or business owner to shoot a trespasser. Even if a woman getting an abortion agreed with you philosophically regarding the rights of the unborn, it doesn't make it right to deny her by law an act she deems correct or necessary. I suspect deeply that none of us know, even some women, why abortion rights are important. Many of these women no doubt deeply regret their decision even before they have a procedure, and still refuse to deny the right to others. That aside, don't make this personal, it's a
mistake. It's off point whether you think I'm an enlightened male
bullsh*t grandstander or not, and irrelevant. |
Posted By: toroddfuglesteg
Date Posted: November 02 2011 at 03:02
|
I am in principle and in a perfect world against abortion. But we don't live in a perfect world and some of those who have kept their children has caused their children massive damages. The example of Ireland from the 1930s to the mid 1990s is also terrifying. Abortion was illegal and unwanted children became the object of pedofiles and serious neglect. All of it state approved through the local churches. We don't live in a perfect world and that is why I am pro legal abortions. |
Posted By: Jim Garten
Date Posted: November 02 2011 at 03:35
Possibly, but at the moment people are expressing opinions without becoming self-opinionated & there's some good debate happening here on a very emotive subject. ------------- 
Jon Lord 1941 - 2012 |
Posted By: someone_else
Date Posted: November 02 2011 at 03:51
|
I am against abortion. Even without putting my faith forward, it is a fact that when an abortion occurs, the unborn child is aware that it is being killed (I have seen a documentary about this back in '86 or '87), even though it is just a foetus of 4 weeks. ------------- 
|
Posted By: progkidjoel
Date Posted: November 02 2011 at 04:19
|
Legal. It wouldn't be needed in a perfect world, but we'll never have one.
1 - It's not a foetus at that age. 2 - It probably has the same awareness of it's death as any lump of cells do - not much. The cells probably do know that they're being destroyed, but not in any extraordinarily deep or meaningful fashion. They're probably at the same level of awareness as cells you kill millions of every day by breathing, washing your hands, eating, having an immune system, etc.
Then why do plenty of states in America still allow the death penalty? ------------- 
|
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: November 02 2011 at 04:50
|
Posted By: someone_else
Date Posted: November 02 2011 at 04:55
You are probably right in this, but I don't think that it really matters whether you call in "embryo" or "foetus". Thanks for the correction anyway.
I found the vid on YouTube. It is age protected. I don't have a YouTube or Googe account and I have no plans to register, so I am not sure, but I think that the minimum age required to watch it is 18. I saw that it won't be long before you reach that age (congratz in advance), so I give you the link:
http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=http%3A//www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DcjNo_0cW-ek" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=http%3A//www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DcjNo_0cW-ek -------------
|
Posted By: Saperlipopette!
Date Posted: November 02 2011 at 05:28
That's not what he wrote at all. He told you something personal, and that's how you react? |
Posted By: TheMasterMofo
Date Posted: November 02 2011 at 05:55
The first half of that makes sense, but the whole notion that you can't speak against welfare and be pro-life is absurd. And it's not an issue of what kind of people are pro-life anyway, the issue is: Are unborn babies humans? If they are, they can't be killed.
So if a conjoined twin kills their twin, is it not murder? After all, they're sharing bodies; one ought to have the right to do what he wants with it. I have a great idea for people who are unfit to be parents: Keep it in your pants and you won't have to worry about having kids! Maybe we should teach responsibility instead of teaching bailouts. Abortion is basically a bailout from a sexual mistake just like the government bails out companies with money for financial mistakes. Edit: Quote fail |
Posted By: progkidjoel
Date Posted: November 02 2011 at 06:06
Yes, because there is no difference in the biological relationships between an unborn child and a mother or conjoined twins, har har har. And telling people not to do things doesn't work - plenty of people stll murder, rape and steal every day, hour, every minute. The suggestion that an abortion is a bailout is disgusting and completely taken out of context. What about someone who is raped, who uses defective contraception? There are plenty of pregnancies caused by those two every year, are they at fault and simply trying to avoid responsibility that they either had forced onto them or tried to avoid? *edited for derpy grammar -------------
|
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: November 02 2011 at 06:29
|
I thought the Doctor's post about bacteria entering your body and being forcibly ejected by antibiotics a very insightful one (I've never seen anyone approach this topic from that angle before) I notice that this issue is a particularly polarizing one for the Libertarians in our midst. This is probably a very simplistic and glib overview on how their property centred arguments might go: We might agree that everyone owns their body (as it's our property alone) Assuming the foetus is permitted by the mother, she would have the right to revoke this permission by ejection Her reasons for doing so would be considered irrelevant by Libertarians*, as opposing her right to evict trespassers would be considered a violation of her individual liberty by unacceptable use of force (in this case by the government) *Herein lies the crux of the debate: it is these very reasons to abort that cause such moral outrage depending on what side of the argument you belong. I have a problem with a perceived right that affords the mother the option to eject a latent human that does not even have the requisite volition to deliberately trespass/squat/invade the womb. An embryo has no rights...a child cannot acquire any rights until it is born (Ayn Raynd) no being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person's body (Murray Rothbard) I find both quotations which reduce human life to that of the small print in a lease agreement, highly repugnant  ------------- 
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 02 2011 at 07:05
|
Look, I believe life begins at conception. That's when the two sets of genetic material come together. It is also true that not all fertilized eggs get implanted and develop into babies. Then there are miscarriages and even up to the end of pregnancy there sometimes arise situations where it's going to be the life of one or the other. Who should play God and choose? The woman should have the last say. The notion that a woman is going to carry a developing baby for nine months or so and then get an abortion before birth on a whim is ludicrous. First they come for abortion rights, but lets not forget that contraception is in the cross-hairs of many on the anti-abortion side. Also, many want to dictate how you conduct your sex lives, who you are allowed marry, etc. In the end outlawing abortion doesn't put an end to the practice. It just criminalizes it and makes it dangerous. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Saperlipopette!
Date Posted: November 02 2011 at 07:16
Sorry for editing out the midsection of your post. There was nothing wrong with it, but what's left is basically why I'm for legal abortion. And history should have taught us that having an abortion shouldn't be something women have to break laws to get done. |
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: November 02 2011 at 07:22
|
The earth has 7 billion people. By 2025 there will be 10 billion, most of them starving and unwanted. Keep abortion legal, or start handing out saltpeter and condoms. ------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: The Hemulen
Date Posted: November 02 2011 at 07:31
|
Apologies if this has already been said (I may have skipped a couple of pages), but it bears repeating. Regardless of your spiritual beliefs, at what point you believe a conglomeration of cells becomes a human being or what your opinions on the rights of the individual and what say they should have over their own body here's an undisputable fact: making abortion illegal does not stop it from happening. All it does is criminalise those women who, for whatever reason, choose to have one. Isn't it far better for countries to allow for safe, legal abortions to be carried out by medical professionals than we go back to the days of wire coathangers and the like? |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 02 2011 at 07:32
 Oh wait, oral sex!!! ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: November 02 2011 at 08:18
Some stats for that? ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: manofmystery
Date Posted: November 02 2011 at 08:53
So, an unborn child is the same as an enemy soldier or a trespasser? Saying a woman deems it "correct or necessary" doesn't change a thing. You have still placed an arbitrary start date on self-ownership and asserted that making someone female gives them the right to take away the rights of someone else. I said your argument was grandstanding bullsh*t because, given how you worded it, it certainly was and adding the "come into my town" threat made it all the more ridiculous. This isn't a high-noon showdown in the old west. ------------- Time always wins. |
Posted By: Saperlipopette!
Date Posted: November 02 2011 at 09:29
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/05/10-billion-plus-why-world-population.html" rel="nofollow - This is hardly news to anyone? The United Nations yesterday revealed unsettling http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/world/04population.html" rel="nofollow - news about the world's population: Instead of leveling off at around 9 billion by 2050, the population will now reach 10.1 billion people by 2100 and keep growing. That http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/index.htm" rel="nofollow - projection from the U.N. Population Division reflects revised estimates of fertility particularly in developing countries. Demographer John Bongaarts, a vice president of the Population Council in New York City, spoke with ScienceInsider about why the outlook has changed: The Dark Elf is just exaggerating a bit, but what he says is still valid. There should be born less people in the future, not more. |
Posted By: Failcore
Date Posted: November 02 2011 at 09:35
|
I think it should def be legal in the case of rape, danger to the mother, etc. As far as other cases, I think it should be a state's rights issue. I personally think it's a scummy thing to do without good reason, but I do not believe first trimester abortions are tantamount to murder. It however, is more than squashing a bug, which is how some people make it out to be. One of my close friends was nearly aborted because the doctor suspected she had down syndrome, but her mom didn't have the heart to do it and it turned out she was a perfectly beautiful girl. It makes me throw up in my mouth a bit to think she could possibly not have existed. ------------- 
|
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: November 02 2011 at 10:36
I'm ok with this. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: November 02 2011 at 10:38
Libertarians can be...blunt...but I should say I don't disagree very much with these statements. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Lark the Starless
Date Posted: November 02 2011 at 11:07
AND 4. Incest. I say legal. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: November 02 2011 at 11:35
He said two things and you assumed I was objecting to the more easily measurable of the two statements he made? ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: November 02 2011 at 11:56
|
Athough I am personally against abortion and would do my part to try and talk anyone that I know who might be in this situation out of having one, I am pro-choice. I believe that it is an option that should be legally available, otherwise you go back to the days of them being performed in backrooms with rusty hangers. I must admit that in this day and age that it stuns me that people still have unwanted pregnancies with the availability of the pill and condoms and whatnot, and if you are so stupid to get into this situation then are these really people that we want breeding. (obviously, victims of rape and/or incest do not normally fall under the stupid factor).------------- 
|
Posted By: NotAProghead
Date Posted: November 02 2011 at 12:05
|
Legal. Always, without any ifs. And financed by the country. ------------- Who are you and who am I to say we know the reason why... (D. Gilmour) |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: November 02 2011 at 12:09
|
Including partial birth?
------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: NotAProghead
Date Posted: November 02 2011 at 12:17
|
I think it's up to medicine to decide. ------------- Who are you and who am I to say we know the reason why... (D. Gilmour) |
Posted By: Jim Garten
Date Posted: November 02 2011 at 12:22
Pretty much sums up how I feel about the matter. A good reference point on this is Mike Leigh's excellent (and multi award winning) movie 'Vera Drake' which addresses many of the concerns brought up in this thread. -------------
Jon Lord 1941 - 2012 |
Posted By: Failcore
Date Posted: November 02 2011 at 12:24
You'd be surprised at the amount of guys who will refuse to use condoms. -------------
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: November 02 2011 at 12:28
Ah... ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |