Abortion

[Tornado]

If it is for religious reasons, then they might as well direct it elsewhere, because the US constitution calls for a separation of the church and the state. Religion has no business in issues such as this.

Not sure where I stand on it, but abortion in particular is a bit iffy on that when it comes to government. In fact, one of the more notable revisions to Obama's health bill is that absolutely positively zero monies goes towards abortions in any way, shape or form.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Tornado

[Dr. Good Girl]

Err, you serious? I'm pro-choice and even I think that's a silly reason for abortions to be okay. Unless of course you are talking about costs that the family simply CAN'T cover, but if so, you chose a weird way of wording it.

"How can we save money?"

"Oooh, well, I got a coupon for subway the other day, and if we buy the supermarket's own brand we'll save a lot. Oh, and abort that baby too, and we can go on holiday next year."

Seriously whut?

Wha--?

I pretty much meant when the family CAN'T cover the baby when I said "family who can't afford to pay all the things that a child needs". I didn't think it sounded like some money saving tactic.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

The exact wording is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

I could've sworn it meant the same thing, what with the whole freedom of religion or no religion at all...

I still don't think religion should be what influences a law, rather how it will benefit the people without ruining society. I'm one who thinks it should be okay for women to go into open combat during war if they choose to, but that's something else entirely.

If I'm understanding what you're saying, and I may be wrong (it's like midnight over here, bear with me) are you saying that the womb, and essentially the child, is the mother's property? That makes sense.

Sorta yes and no. While the embryo is in the womb and without the essential organs that it before developing into a fetus, it's really the mother's decision on what to do with it before it develops further.

Either way you want to cut it, there's really no stoping her from terminating it unless you or I wants to fight her to stop her, because once she's made up her mind it's gonna take a lot for her to reconsider. Same when it comes to anything else, if I wanted to set my car on fire in the middle of nowhere, you could tell me not to, but if that's my final decision it's gonna take a lot for me not to go through with it.

So I guess if you didn't want you're 5 year old anymore, it's fine to just kill him/her?

Your stretching my words right there. If you didn't want your 5 year old anymore, might as well give it custody to someone else.

Why kill the child when it's 5 years AFTER birth?

What's the difference? It may be there, since the child can't think for him/herself at that age, but to many people it's the same thing as taking a little kid and throwing him/her in a gas chamber.

And to those who feel that way, they can just choose not to have an abortion. It's not that complicated, either you want to got through with it and terminate it or have the baby.

At what point is there a line drawn that confirms the embryo as a human being?

It varies from person to person. To me, a human being can respond to its environment, move on its own will, feel pain, pleasure, etc.

An embryo can't do any of that, so to me and embryo is not yet a human being.

If you ask me, it's a human from conception, but that's my worldview.

Well if you ask me, it's human as soon as it develops it's major organs after a certain number of weeks. That's my worldview, not saying that yours is wrong.

I really think the only case I can see me agreeing with aborting the child is if the mother's life was in danger. That's it. I can't think of anything else now.

I'm not going to say you're wrong, but no matter the view you simply cannot control a woman on her choice of the abortion. You can influence her not to, but final say is up to her. The only one stopping her is herself.

Edited September 16, 2009 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[JezMM]

Wha--?

I pretty much meant when the family CAN'T cover the baby when I said "family who can't afford to pay all the things that a child needs". I didn't think it sounded like some money saving tactic.

I thought so. Lol, sorry, just the term "saving money" made it sound a bit funny to me for some reason. Most people would say it more like "it's unfair to bring a baby into the world you can't provide for".

[Roareye Black]

I resent your stereotypical views because they are off-base. If I read your question correctly, you believe pro-lifers think that abortion is okay in the case of rape? WRONG!!! Rape is tragic and not the woman's fault, but rape does not justify murder - and there is no way anyone can successfully portray abortion as anything less than murder. Again, you do need to (if only for a moment) consider the unborn child's rights.

So a woman who is raped and suffered physical and psychological abuse and damage should also now be forced to suffer 9 more months and a major pain at the end of that as additional physical and psychological abuse THEN have the psychological screw-over of having to choose to keep or have the child adopted considering the child is thiers but may remind them of the very person who raped them in the first place? And you think your point of view is moral or ethical? I think it's scum, dishonourable and adding abuse onto an already abused woman. That child made no choice to be part of abuse, but neither did the woman, and the woman already exists. The child currently does not. In this circumstance I would say the person already living and contributing to society deserves to make her own choice. It is not murder to remove an infection from a wound, which after-rape pregancy is. I would only ever suggest it is this on the rape side of things, this does not reflect my opinion on pregnancy in general.

Personally, I love it when a church starts and supports a godparent home.

When? Get stuffed that ever happens. The church is as greedy as feck, and only rarely will a parish actually concieve of helping its fellow man, and usually only do it for something in return (I'll help if you come to church every Sunday). Surely charity, which is what God's law is all about, and compassion should be free? You'll find that such free giving without condition will actually drive people into church anyway because they've not been instructed to, and they will stay in church longer due to being given the option of free will. Your church is a flawed machine, self-righteous and generalising. When you speak of women who have abortions, you frequently pander them down to basic morons who chose it because they couldn't be bothered with a condom. THAT is immoral judgement that Jesus was against, surely? Let's remove the easily generalised face of some of the people you condemn in your smug superior attitude.

There was an abortion in my immediate family, but it was well considered and necessary for the good of the family, and certainly not taken lightly. And it isn't like that issue is forgotten. That decision haunts the person that made it, and she commemorates that child on the day it was meant to be born every year. The decision haunts that person, which proves it was not a simple case of birth control and frittered over. At the same time she does not regret the decision because it kept the family together, she simply regrets having to make that decision due to the pressures of the time.

People don't rush into abortion clinics every Friday the way you think, people usually only go to abortion as a very last resort and suffer making that call. It's easy for the uninformed (Like yourself) to make such snap judgements, and that makes you a bad Christian/religious follower. Abortion clinics are there for these extreme cases where there is no other option, and that is a humane and moral thing no matter what your own thoughts are. However you are correct in that it is open to abuse by a minority who see it as a birth control option. However to remove it because of that minority would be worse.

In the UK (And I'm sure in the US too) if you are out of work, you can sign up for the "dole", which is a small amount of money paid to you weekly by the government to tide you over while you find a new job. The majority only sign on for it in desperation whilst between jobs, but a minority simply LIVE off of it. Now that dole is paid by tax-payers, I contribute to it, everyone who works does. And I would like to think that in any brief period of time where I am between jobs, I can sign up for it and take my hundred-odd a week while I get a new job sorted. I've paid into it, I genuinely need it, I am entitled to it as a citizen. Should I be robbed of the chance of going on the dole, by completely deleting that option and possibly causing myself to be without ANY money at some point in future just because a few people abuse the system?

Time for a philosophical lesson: consequences come whether one is at fault or not - but that does not change the fact that evading the consequences is in itself still a blatant act of irresponsibility. Besides, the right thing to do in any case is to let the circle of justice form. The baby should be carried to term, his/her parentage should be determined (if necessary), and the thug should be made to squeeze out his life's worth on child support while he rots in prison.

I find your judgements completely unethical and I think that your idea of pro-life punishes those who do not deserve to be punished. Many will beat themselves up trying to pry through the moral dilemma you pose as a simple black and white answer, and will have to weigh up the pros and cons accordingly. You are but a small boy trying to prove his worth by preaching something he clearly doesn't understand. This is evidenced by your great belief in religion which is contradictory to your extremely judgemental attitude. A man who is unwilling to judge cases on a case-by-case basis and finds punishing the tortured to be ethical is a man I hope never gets any form of power. How cold and cruel your world must be.

I would also say that abstinence is a fools tradition. While it prevents all forms of pregnancy for sure, it removes the ability to know your Partner on all levels. You may see this as something that is required only past marriage, that is your belief. But surely not doing it, not knowing your Partner that well, getting married then divorcing is worse? However I wouldn't mind some angry virgin having a pop if it weren't for the fact your view of sex places everyone in the box of being scumbags. Your post and your words feel like those who have sex are doing so purely for fun and just shagging everyone they can find.

Again it is a case that these people exist, there are quite a few people (More women than men nowadays I find surprisingly) that DO go to clubs just to get some quick sex, sleep around and work as the village bike. But you're still not talking about a majority. I've slept with a few women, but it was never a quick shag. They've been in deep relationships. Like hugging, like kissing, like holding hands in a cinema, having sex is a different way of gauging how close and intimate you can feel with your Partner, and how well you click as a couple. I've never just slept with a random girl, and never without contraception, I have to feel the relationship is going somewhere. And yeah I've been wrong a few times, but if I hadn't been wrong I wouldn't know how wonderful it feels when you meet the right woman. When you find the right woman/man (depending lol), the hugs, the kisses and even the sex is different. It is intimate not on a horny level but on a level that there is trust, tenderness and affection poured into it.

It is easy for a virgin to ignore these facts, as they have no experience in them. It is also true that it is easier to not have sex before your first time (After having sex, it's harder to not do it). And if you wish to practice abstinence til your wedding night then that will be your choice and I support it. What I do not support is the attitude that those who do not are scummy people who are doing it all wrong. After all, and I'm certain it's written, that it is not YOUR place to judge anyone, but God's. If you are so certain your God exists and that we will be judged then let us make the choice and God punish as he sees fit.

Aborting a baby is not a murder, because the child does not yet exist. Is it immoral? Possibly, but that is Gods choice. Stabbing someone who is tangible and alive is murder, and our justice system is set up so that punishment is a case of rehabilitation and protecting the people rather than revenge. There is a reason for this, as revenge is sinful in itself, attempting to care for those with problems is not. And should that person be wrong, it will be God who enacts his vengeance. You are not God, and you do not speak for him. Until you have a little more life experience I doubt you'll be listened to particularly much except by lambs looking for a shepherd. You certainly won't catch my ear, being as judgemental as you are.

Roareye Black.

[Indigo Rush]

I'm not going to say you're wrong, but no matter the view you simply cannot control a woman on her choice of the abortion. You can influence her not to, but final say is up to her. The only one stopping her is herself.

I agree with this. I think the choice should always be there, sin or not.

[turbojet]

I would also say that abstinence is a fools tradition. While it prevents all forms of pregnancy for sure, it removes the ability to know your Partner on all levels. You may see this as something that is required only past marriage, that is your belief. But surely not doing it, not knowing your Partner that well, getting married then divorcing is worse? However I wouldn't mind some angry virgin having a pop if it weren't for the fact your view of sex places everyone in the box of being scumbags. Your post and your words feel like those who have sex are doing so purely for fun and just shagging everyone they can find.

Roareye, you are awesome! I agree 100% and I'm a Christian. Soloman basically had the kink section of the Bible so why not have sex and explore? I mean there are consequences, but the consequences can be more dire if you choose to wait and not know your partner not well enough.

[Indigo Rush]

Roareye, you are awesome! I agree 100% and I'm a Christian. Soloman basically had the kink section of the Bible so why not have sex and explore?

With 100s of wives.

...'kay

Before people start assuming things, (not saying they will) I think sex is fine. Within marriage, that is. I can't imagine people withholding their God-given desires for so long. But using Solomon as an example isn't so great. After his 700+ wives, his life went into a serious downhill torrent that ruined his life.

[turbojet]

With 100s of wives.

...'kay

Before people start assuming things, (not saying they will) I think sex is fine. Within marriage, that is. I can't imagine people withholding their God-given desires for so long. But using Solomon as an example isn't so great. After his 700+ wives, his life went into a serious downhill torrent that ruined his life.

I stated earlier that Solomon had hundreds of wives. Plus multiple wives,whether it is 2 or 700, can make anybody's life miserable. He wasn't so wise as the name interpreted him to be.

[Indigo Rush]

I stated earlier that Solomon had hundreds of wives. Plus multiple wives,whether it is 2 or 700, can make anybody's life miserable. He wasn't so wise as the name interpreted him to be.

Just because one is wise doesn't mean they can't mess up, and if I remember correctly, (and you're open to prove me wrong, I'm too lazy to look it up at the moment) Solomon originally married with multiple wives to make pacts and friendship with many other countries in the area. In effect, he adopted other religious practices and worshiped golden idols, which is a no-no. On top of that, he had sexual relations with these women. Being wise doesn't necessarily promise you to do good things.

But I do agree with you on multiple wives. Heck, having one relationship is practically guaranteed to have it's conflicts.

[turbojet]

Just because one is wise doesn't mean they can't mess up, and if I remember correctly, (and you're open to prove me wrong, I'm too lazy to look it up at the moment) Solomon originally married with multiple wives to make pacts and friendship with many other countries in the area. In effect, he adopted other religious practices and worshiped golden idols, which is a no-no. On top of that, he had sexual relations with (ALL) these women. Being wise doesn't necessarily promise you to do good things.

In bold is why he had such a miserable life.

[Roarey Raccoon]

Marriage is balls. Two people fucking vs two people fucking whilst wearing rings. Massive difference there XP. Makes no difference to sex and sexuality. Besides making sex terrifically dull.

[Indigo Rush]

Marriage is balls. Two people fucking vs two people fucking whilst wearing rings. Massive difference there XP. Makes no difference to sex and sexuality. Besides making sex terrifically dull.

For those who care about what the Bible says, it makes a huge difference. I really won't argue further about that subject because my basis for my argument is a book that many people like to question in terms of reliability. And even then, people like to interpret it differently, so this argument really won't go anywhere. (just saying in advance)

And I'm sorry if sex is dull for you, Roarz. :( (unless you're not married, in which case I didn't know :P)

- "This Post is Not Trying to Start Sh#t" ©Indigo Rush :S

Edited September 16, 2009 by Guybrush Threepwood

[Flyboy Fox]

Personally I don't believe in such things as souls or any preordained attribution of 'being' to a cluster of cells with no cognitive functioning yet. Therefore, to me, at the point immediately following conception a zygote is no more sacred than any other mono or multi-celled microscopic organism. I wouldn't apply the right to life to it anymore than to a ringworm living in my intestine I wouldn't lose sleep over the abortion of a clump of cells that's no more vital to the scheme of things than a bit of skin chewed off my finger. At that early stage it's no more human than the eggs lost every month by a women or the wasted sperm of a man's wet dream.

The woman burdened with the choice, however, IS human. I cannot possibly see why the 'life' of this clump of braindead cells is prioritised above her own, when she suffers infinitely more than the embryo which isn't really being denied anything because it never had anything to be taken from it. It will never regret the life it never had. There's nothing sad about that. It was destroyed while it was still a non-entity.

[Roarey Raccoon]

For those who care about what the Bible says, it makes a huge difference. I really won't argue further about that subject because my basis for my argument is a book that many people like to question in terms of reliability. And even then, people like to interpret it differently, so this argument really won't go anywhere. (just saying in advance)

And I'm sorry if sex is dull for you, Roarz. :( (unless you're not married, in which case I didn't know :P)

- "This Post is Not Trying to Start Sh#t" ©Indigo Rush :S

The Bible says a lot of things that nobody bothers to follow, even the most dedicated extremists pick and choose. It's hypocritical nonsense to say it's following the Bible, it's just popular culture. And no I'm not married, especially not traditionally, considering that I'm gay XP.

[Indigo Rush]

It's hypocritical nonsense to say it's following the Bible, it's just popular culture.

Can you enlighten me more on what you mean by this? The concept of abortion is popular culture, marriage, or the Bible in itself?

Edited September 16, 2009 by Guybrush Threepwood

[Roarey Raccoon]

Can you enlighten me more on what you mean by this? The concept of abortion is popular culture, marriage, or the Bible in itself?

Sure XP. Marriage is popular culture, when taking a broad look at how it functions in society it has very little to do with fulfilling biblical laws and regulations. So when someone talks about how marriage is respecting biblical rules I'm like "yeah, and my arse is purple" XP.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Roarz

[Indigo Rush]

Sure XP. Marriage is popular culture, when taking a broad look at how it functions in society it has very little to do with fulfilling biblical laws and regulations. So when someone talks about how marriage is respecting biblical rules I'm like "yeah, and my arse is purple" XP.

I understand what you mean. The conflict lies within the pages of Genesis, where it explains that man must be with a woman and join together, explaining the origin of marriage. Now, since Christians believe (not all, though) that this is true, they hold to the Biblical account. People who don't agree with the Bible will say differently.

Taking a secular perspective on marriage, then yes, it's a cultural tradition that's been around since the dawn of humans. Find a partner, make a kid, stick with each other to raise him/her, keep the cycle going. Be fruitful and multiply, as Christians say.

At this point I think I'll step out of this conversation. It was nice to hear everyone's perspective on the situation, and I don't think I have much else to accomplish after sharing my beliefs on abortion, marriage and the like.

- Indigo out.

[BaronSFel001]

...

-Roareye Black.

I have no desire to change anyone's opinion on what an unwanted/unexpected pregnancy entails - everyone is entitled to their own view. But you seem to still be missing my point, and your response was totally predictable: you play the compassion card by saying something along the lines of "the woman has gone through enough." That may be so, but the point remains of what is the right thing to do and what is not. Life begins at conception - despite what you may think, this is not a moral gray area, so stop trying to portray it as such - and the unethical ones are those with the audacity to deny the new life its fundamental right to live.

I resent being considered unethical just because I believe in moral absolutes. And I am hurt that you think I am being judgmental: you are absolutely right that I do not have that power and that only God does (but God did write down the laws and give them to us for our benefit), but it is not an act of judgment to simply be told when something is wrong. I have absolutely nothing against sex itself: it is the most wonderful thing when it is used properly. I am just trying to do the right thing, in or out of political power (funny you mentioned that: how else can I make a difference for the better these days?), simply because it is the right thing to do. Because this is black-and-white issue, I am not being legalistic - trust me, I have experienced Christian legalism, and it drove my freedom-loving American heart to near-rebellion.

I sincerely hope nobody takes the abortion issue lightly: the emotional toll it takes on the ex-mother should actually say something about human decency, and deep consideration that it should be avoided altogether. Your family's story says that directly, that you never forget about what could have been. Bottom line: a child is never, ever, EVER, to be considered a form of punishment. Whatever the case of its conception, a baby is meant to be a bundle of joy, not an overwhelming burden (frankly, your idea of the baby reminding the woman of her rapist is ridiculous, because it is her child too, a child which could very well grow up to love her back -- did I mention I once met a child of rape, whose mother was always questioned why she did not have an abortion, and who is now a strong anti-abortion activist? And "Jane Roe" certainly regrets what the Supreme Court did with her case). Think about it: your stance would hold up much better if everyone else in the world was as cynical, focusing only on the negative.

I think I am done here, on one condition: stop calling me things that I am not.

[BaronSFel001]

I could've sworn it meant the same thing, what with the whole freedom of religion or no religion at all...

I still don't think religion should be what influences a law, rather how it will benefit the people without ruining society. I'm one who thinks it should be okay for women to go into open combat during war if they choose to, but that's something else entirely.

Okay, last mention of this before this spirals out of control: I just want you to know that I totally understand where your position on this comes from. Religion governing government is never a good thing - the Islam states to the East are testament to how easily power is abused when the person is given absolute power to call the shots because he is supposedly God's emissary. Those states are called theocracies, and that is what the Constitution prevents America from becoming: another Catholic or Anglican (or Presbyterian, or Episcopalian, or Methodist) empire. But that does not such should not be considered at all, or that "religious" references (or *possible* religious references, i.e. intelligent design) are to be completely stifled. America was not meant to be a theocratic nation, but that does not mean it was also meant to be a secular nation - the Founding Fathers knew better than that, knew that there was a comfortable balance in between the two. That is what separation of church and state means: both institutions have their jurisdictions, neither one ruling over the other.

EDIT: I love seeing women assert themselves on the battlefield as well. I just wanted to mention that, but I have no clue what that has to do with anything. Ah, well, interesting tidbit anyway.

Edited September 16, 2009 by BaronSFel001

[Roarey Raccoon]

Life begins at conception - despite what you may think, this is not a moral gray area, so stop trying to portray it as such - and the unethical ones are those with the audacity to deny the new life its fundamental right to live.

I've had a fair share of discussions with you so I know you're not intentionally trying to be a dick or anything like that, and I do agree with many of your points. However, I must say that there is a grey area as for when life begins. Sperm and eggs are also living cells, when they join and the processes of meiosis and mitosis occur you're then saying you have life. There was always life involved, so by the same logic sperm dying is also a tragedy where potential lives are lost by the million. Life, as we semantically refer to it in moral discussions, is more than just a collection of living cells. You have a potential person there at the stage of conception and the developing foetus in the womb, but not a person. You don't have a living human being, you have something that will become one, should it be allowed to finish growing.

It is indeed sad when this potential life is sacrificed and I understand completely why people associate such an act with murder. It's tragic and sad from one perspective, but nature is far more brutal, unfeeling and ruthless than any human decision. Natural abortions occur at every conception and I don't need to tell you how unforgiving and harsh this world can be, all you need to have done is watched the news or a nature documentary. It makes no difference to the unborn whether they are born or not, because they cannot think or perceive anything. An act of cruelty can be an act of mercy, depending on why it is happening, there are no real fundamentals. Just as we can kill in war and not condemn it XP.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Roarz

[Flyboy Fox]

Of course life begins at conception. But the VALUE of that life is not necessarily the same as that of a fully (or even a partially later developed) child.

Viruses and parasites are life too, but we would not even think for a moment to try to preserve them with effort within our bodies, these microorganisms that are little more than a bundle of cells.

I have no more compassion for a newly fertilised egg than for the friendly bacteria that lines my stomach or for a newly planted seed that hasn't yet developed beyond a mere sprout. I wouldn't destroy a potato plant, but I really don't give a damn about the sprouting 'eyes' that I cut from my potato before I cook it up to eat it :3

[Jhog]

Wish I'd thought of that @.@

I had to do an essay on this at college a while ago. I dunno why, and considering I don't have any real opinion on it ^^; it just seems like two different ways of being right, all this pro-life vs pro-choice stuff. Normally this kind of thing creeps me out.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

I sincerely hope nobody takes the abortion issue lightly: the emotional toll it takes on the ex-mother should actually say something about human decency, and deep consideration that it should be avoided altogether.

I don't believe anyone here is taking it lightly in anyway, although some do consider it the easy way out after having irresponsible sex, with irresponsible the way I view it as sex without the condom and thinking that you can just pull out an not get the woman pregnant when you don't have that kind of experience.

And trust us when we say that we know how the ex-mother may feel on it...okay, maybe not exactly how she feels in here exact position, but abortion does put a strain on a lot of people.

But excuse me for being red-eyed and venomous on this whole debate when I say that no matter what the view is, whether you are pro-life, pro-choice, whatever, if the woman has made her final decision on getting an abortion, you'll really have to fight her if you want to convince her otherwise and in doing so it seems like you're trying to control her on what she does. That just doesn't fly with a lot of people, me included. Once her mind is made up, there's almost no stopping her except her changing her mind, nothing else.

EDIT: I love seeing women assert themselves on the battlefield as well. I just wanted to mention that, but I have no clue what that has to do with anything. Ah, well, interesting tidbit anyway.

I read a few articles on how seeing women on the battlefield is "immoral, Un-American, and Un-Christian" and I brought that up as an example to show how far we have come when it comes to serious issues such as abortion and the like.

[BaronSFel001]

I read a few articles on how seeing women on the battlefield is "immoral, Un-American, and Un-Christian" and I brought that up as an example to show how far we have come when it comes to serious issues such as abortion and the like.

Oh, I think I see the connection now. I can tell you for sure that there is nothing in the Bible that makes women unequel to men. The way I see it, the whole thing that made women subservient to men in society was based on cultural tradition, not necessarily on religion.