Abortion

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

It's funny how I see more men arguing against abortion than I see women...

Here's the thing about allowing the woman to choose. She may want to go through and have the baby rather than the abortion, it's not so black-and-white for a woman to simply say she'll go through with an abortion without much thought into it (although that can happen with some people). But if she want's to go through with an abortion, you can't stop her...unless you want to fight her, and by then you might as well let her go through with it.

But the real point is, who's body is it? Not your's, that's for sure. So who are you to tell folks how wrong they are for getting an abortion. You aren't the one pregnant, you aren't the one facing the issues concerning the soon-to-be child come 9 months, and unless you're willing to help a woman raise the child and lift stress off her back in concern with getting an abortion, you really have no say in the matter to begin with.

There is a difference between aborting an embryo and driving a knife through a 6-year-old, or to use your example a woman killing her spouse. You can't blur the line and say that its the same thing, especially when it comes to something already alive and interacting with their environment.

[CapnCloudchaser]

As a woman, I think a man should have a say in the process. That man shouldn't be allowed to force the woman either way, but if a woman wants to abort, and the man does not, then he should be allowed to have his say anyway, if he offers to support and maybe raise the child himself. Yes, the woman has to bring the child to term, but genetically speaking, the baby is part of him too, and wouldn't be there without him either. That gives him enough rights to have an opinion on it at least.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Yes, and the only man that should have a say is the father and no one else. Case in point, if you are NOT the father willing to help raise the child in the future, then you don't have any say in the matter.

Edited September 19, 2009 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[Lady Ninja]

Oh wow. Abortion is such a controversial topic... but since all of you guys have the guts to go out and voice your opinions on it, then so should I.

To me... I have two different views on when you should and shouldn't be allowed to get an abortion, see if you are a 'skank' and you go around being jail-bait and throw your goods all over every guy you meet and then get pregnant, Then I think you SHOULDN'Tbe entitled to having and abortion. I think that if you choose to screw around with every guy you meet and don't practice safe-sex and end up being pregnant, then you should have to go through with it, after all no one told you to go around and bang every guy you meet. Then again some people who were raped at a young age have and addiction to sex they they cant really help because they were influenced at such a young age... so I suppose that my previously stated point would be invalid if that was the case.

Now in another instance of you were raped or things along that line and then you got pregnant, then I think that you SHOULD be entitled to an abortion; for the fact that you got pregnant was not by your consent so why should you have to pay with something that you never even wanted in the first place?

Anyway that's my view on abortion...sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes with my opinions.

[Flyboy Fox]

I'm afraid I can't agree, Lady Ninja. What you seem to be implying is that a woman who behaves that way deserves to be punished with carrying the baby to term. But what of the baby? A baby of rape can be terminated, but a baby of a sluttenly woman is carried to term? Surely the baby itself is no more or less innocent in either case?

I hardly believe that a slut of a female would be a good parent, so what are we accomplishing by enforcing her pregnancy beyond filling up another children's home? I can so no logical reason at all why rape and sluttishness should be treated any differently as far as the baby is concerned. Pregnancy should NEVER be used as a punishment.

[Lady Ninja]

I'm afraid I can't agree, Lady Ninja. What you seem to be implying is that a woman who behaves that way deserves to be punished with carrying the baby to term. But what of the baby? A baby of rape can be terminated, but a baby of a sluttenly woman is carried to term? Surely the baby itself is no more or less innocent in either case?

I hardly believe that a slut of a female would be a good parent, so what are we accomplishing by enforcing her pregnancy beyond filling up another children's home? I can so no logical reason at all why rape and sluttishness should be treated any differently as far as the baby is concerned. Pregnancy should NEVER be used as a punishment.

Y'know, I can't help but to agree with you there. After reading a lot of these post I must say my views on abortion really have changed. Besides if a 'slut' does have a kid then no good can come of it that's for sure. The baby would grow up and become a rapist/and or serial killer that we hear so much about on the news. I think the root of all sadistic mad-men and woman come form a screwy childhood. In that case I feel as though people SHOULD be able to have and abortion on their own terms... but I just hope they all learn from their mistakes, you know?

[Flyboy Fox]

While I don't believe that all children of disaffected/bad parents will grow up to be rapists/murderers/criminals, it's an undeniable fact that having a painful and disadvantaged childhood with a lack of role-models and education does lend itself to poorer chances of a happy and productive adulthood. I feel that it would often be much fairer to abort a potential life than feed it through the blender of an existence of pain and disillusionment that so many unwanted children end up experiencing just because abortion is considered morally wrong on mostly spiritual (basically, superstitious) grounds.

[Miko]

So does an amoeba, and the Swine Flu virus. They all meet the criteria for life, that doesn't stop you from finding ways to kill them. On that basis, we should just let E-Coli get everywhere and not bother with vaccinations because they kill life.

Fallacy of Accident. Anyway, The analogy to an Amoeba and Swine Flu would be akin to us aborting to save a woman's life. Because even the body is aware that not addressing the virus means essentially your death. If our immune system weren't necessary to kill things that would kill us, HIV would not be a problem in the slightest.

Having the characteristics of life does not mean the same thing as having the human right to survive.

Course the fetus is a human, so it should have basic human rights.

Life and Conciousness are seperate, and that is how issues of murder and legality on the subject are based.

And again a baby without self awareness is safe under the law.

If you'd done your research, you'd find that people in a coma showing no signs of recovery are disconnected and left to die after a certain amount of time.

That's true. But the reason they're kept alive for any amount of time is because they may one day become conscious. The same idea runs true for the fetus. A being that is presently not conscious but through the course of it's development it actually has a far better outcome for attaining consciousness than even the comatose patient.

But you are being silly again. By deeming that abortion is killing a fully fledged human being when all it kills is dividing cells.

It IS a full fleged human being. It is simply very underdeveloped.

And tbh, if the baby would come out as a danger to someone or end up living in a horrific state from neglect, bad parenting etc, then it's more humane to let it go and wait until the mother is ready to give birth.

But mothers of even wanted children are also likely to neglect or be bad parents. If you constantly lean on the side of worry and error I could just as easily make the claim to take the right from women to give birth and raise children because they could end up in a horrific experience with their birth family.

I cannot get my head around how people value dividing cells (Which at that point they are NOT anything more) above human life.

Maybe because it is a human life? I'd also like to add that your generalzing as well. Many fetii depending on their stage of development are much more developed than you're implying.

Yeh but the only reason sacrificing human happiness and allowing a child to be raised in pain and neglect sounds so rosy to you is because you think your view of the foetus being a fully matured human makes it worth more than an actual human life.

aha...except

1. It is alive.

2. It IS human.

3. Again the law shouldn't make legal the killing of another human for your, or anyone else's happiness. We'd all understand how (pardon my language) bullshit it is to say a born individual should die because they're not a gift to us.

And to be fair, your whole post shows how little experience you actually have with the subject of dealing with abortion. You're always downplaying the humane issues and sending up the women as murderers. It's that narrow-minded view that allows innocent women to be hated and spat at in the street for no good reason,

Don't adhom me. egging it to that degree is kind of like ligting a match to a room soaked in oil.

First of all, you probably didn't read all of my posts. Do I want abortion illegal unless to save a woman's life? Yes. Do I think that we can practically make a law like that now? No. Because there aren't enough government initiatives in terms of health care or postnatal assistance that'd make keeping to term and raising the child

possible. For example, if a homeless woman has to choose between getting an abortion and getting into a homeless shelter, who am I to tell her to continue living on the street with no way to survive for herself, let alone a baby?Secondly, when you treat adoption like a private bussiness, many kids won't actually be adopted. In many cases, women often abort because they feel they have no other option. It is extremely rare for a woman to just come out of this beaming with utter glee that she just killed someone. It's a rough decision. I am not doing this out of malice for women nor would I condone spitting on them in the streets. However look in the mirror for a minute and ask yourself what the connotations the words "choice" have. The illusion the movement pro "choice" gives is that a woman pigeon holed into an abortion clinic had ALL these other available options to her and in spite of this killed the unborn. This totally undermines the fact most women are greatly troubled by making the decision because they don't feel there are a lot of options.

You say "Just give them up for adoption!" but the reality of getting rid of a child is almost impossible, and those children who are sent out to adoption homes are rarely into a proper home.

1. What statistics do you have to support this.

2. A lot of would-be adoptive parents are funneled out of the system because they cannot pay for fees to the agency or meet other criteria (ie single parent, even if they make a comfortable income to raise a child). This goes back to not addressing the fact agencies treat children as capital as well as other corrupt practices in the agencies. If I wanted to ad hom, I'd probably say at this point that your movement really only allows the status quo to remain as it is, and you are harming all that presently suffer from it. The children already suffering from the apathy people have towards adoption reform, the racist nature of the abortion clinics, the lack of choice most women have. I could argue that abortion exists in a great degree because people are generally too apathetic, and too unwilling to get off of their asses to make the reforms the cause it. I really do tire of people saying lifers don't care about the fetus when it's born when a similar statement could be made for many of the folks who lean on the side of "choice." They get mad when a lifer thinks of an unmarried woman who aborted a whore but they do nothing to really change societal image of a woman unmarried that's pregnant. Point being, they condone that stigma she has placed upon her prior to her abortion, to prompt that desire to abort in the first place.

I'm afraid I can't agree, Lady Ninja. What you seem to be implying is that a woman who behaves that way deserves to be punished with carrying the baby to term. But what of the baby? A baby of rape can be terminated, but a baby of a sluttenly woman is carried to term? Surely the baby itself is no more or less innocent in either case?

That's like saying why shouldn't we kill someone who committed petty theft because we'd kill someone who hijacked a plane and rammed it into a couple buildings. The victims are both equally innocent. What she's saying is that in a legal situation where abortion is illegal, a social contract would be that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy. However if you did not consent to sex (rape), then obviously this social contract is null and hence, you did not consent to pregnancy.

Edited September 20, 2009 by Miko

[BaronSFel001]

This is the bit that is not black and white, which you so wrongfully portray it is.

How do you know this with absolute certainty? Unless you think all morality is relative, then there would have to be certain presuppositions that can stand critical analysis. In that case, I say go with what makes the most sense, but is also the most consistent - and the Bible fits that bill. Even if you disbelieve the Bible (by the way, I only brought it up because of association - my argument against abortion actually has nothing to do with Christianity whatsoever), in the name of human decency, could you consider all the facts before making a life-or-death decision?

Let's be totally blunt here, the Bible has not told you abortion is wrong.

Again, my argument does not come from the Bible, but I can easily draw from the Bible. It is the most basic argument: murder is wrong, abortion is murder, therefore abortion is wrong. The only way you can justify abortion is by attacking the second line, and you cannot win against truth.

Modern law, modern accounting and modern views attribute Video Piracy as a crime of theft.

This may go a little off-topic, but how could you not associate the Biblical banning of theft as not covering internet piracy as well? If every possible offense past, present, and future were addressed in the Bible, readers would be overwhelmed. The point is to draw the general principle, maintaining that delicate balance between amorality and legalism.

Nobody has had a life actually taken from them (They simply don't have the chance to experience it), there is a clean medical procedure to prevent unwarranted internal damage and the effect is as simple as a bleeding cut or the effect of masturbation.

That is muddying the issue by making poor analogies (Miko is doing a wonderful job of explaining why, so I will not repeat it here). Try again.

This means we have to turn to modern law, social views and science in order to garner the answer.

The problem I have with that is that it is woefully subjective. How does one know one is right without absolute standards to base decisions on?

If that's the case, that more accepted view would be deemed more accurate unless it is in opposition to science and/or the law.

So majority makes right? Forgive me if I decide to have a problem with that.

Science states that before 24 weeks (I believe) an embryo has no conciousness, no thoughts, no concept of being.

I would bet my life that science has no way of determining that with reasonable certainty (of course science is incapable of absolute certainty, so we have to be reasonable about it). Again, Miko explains very well what the issue is with this.

There is a cut-off point where after a foetus has developed brain activity, an abortion would be considered murder.

Something that ticks me off no end is when people get away with pulling off abortions at this point as well. The law is proving somewhat impotent. How many people a year are convicted of murder by killing a late term fetus? I have not personally heard of one, even though I know full well that they go on.

So the Bible has not stated that abortion is wrong,

You are being unreasonable by saying that if the Bible does not specifically mention a particular offense (or form of an offense) than it is considered condoned. The way I see it, God gave humans a reasoning process, and as such His Word does not have to read like a chatterbox. You are reaching on this argument big-time.

Jesus was a bit rebellious, but in an open and thoughtful way. His father was a Rabbi, meaning that if he followed his father he would have been quite wealthy.

I have no idea where you got these total lies. Jesus conformed to the law and even raised the written standards a bit. He did have a problem with the "religious" authorities of the day, since they were both legalistic and hypocrtical, oppressing the people for the sake of their own power trip. And wherever you read that His father was a Rabbi was certainly not in the Bible, which directly states that while God is the true Father of Jesus, his father on Earth was the carpenter Joseph.

He also made no qualms about the "murder" of animal life.

You cannot equate animal life with human life, so do not even try that with me.

Having the baby would have been considerably worse. The existing parents and two children would have had a broken home, with no solid foundations for growing up. You would then likely enter into the same stuff Christians already hate as well, divorce, bad upbringing (or worse than they recieved), more stress, tension etc etc... An increase in homeless children, domestic abuse, divorced relationships (which are on a high as it is!), social downturn. That is what you invite by allowing unwanted children to be born.

Again, you are assuming the worst. And this is propogated so much that it is little wonder why abortion is so common - women feel they do not have much of a choice because they are given all these scare tactics. Your "compassion" falls way flat.

The sins of the father/mother are passed down to the children, dirtying them and they need to be cleansed.

That is true of all human life ever since Adam and Eve infracted. The point is that humans are incapable of saving themselves, so God provided a ticket out of hell with Jesus. Does the phrase "nobody's perfect" sound familiar?

The person you met is a rare case, and certainly to be congratulated for being so strong. But you think everyone is as strong?

I think there are too many who do not even bother trying. These people need support of friends and family throughout the entire episode, not a message that the only reasonable way to get rid of the pain is to get rid of the life.

You would actually scorn people for not being able to happily recount a rape? That sounds very cold, and much more of a negative view than my own which is actually focussing purely on hope and the concept of helping ease wounds and keep together families.

Straw man tactics are cold and low. If you are a reasonable person, you know full well that it is not the sort of message I mean to send. You talk about the healing of wounds - by creating another one? Something seriously flawed in that reasoning.

If you get raped (And I hope to God you never do), be sure to come back and tell us what a bundle of joy it was.

Your concern for my well-being is touching, but your straw man wording is not. And again, you assume the worst, that every time the mother looks into the face of her child she sees her rapist. You assume the worst about humanity if you think that is the regular case. Did I mention that less than 2% (or is it 3%) of abortions are performed because of rape?

It is like a Christian to condemn the weak, but not I.

I have no wish to condemn, but to encourage. I like to think that people are capable of much more strength than they feel they are. They just need to be supported positively rather than negatively, and they most certainly should not be left alone in these struggles.

I am not attempting to offend you, I apologise that things in my previous post were somewhat more personal and for that I apologise... I would be less blunt, but I would meander through so much bollocks I'd lose my point myself XD.

I knew you were not, but I just dislike being portrayed falsely (which you are still doing a little of). You and I do see eye-to-eye on one thing: blunt honesty is often the best way to get a point across.

[Roareye Black]

How do you know this with absolute certainty? Unless you think all morality is relative, then there would have to be certain presuppositions that can stand critical analysis. In that case, I say go with what makes the most sense, but is also the most consistent - and the Bible fits that bill. Even if you disbelieve the Bible (by the way, I only brought it up because of association - my argument against abortion actually has nothing to do with Christianity whatsoever), in the name of human decency, could you consider all the facts before making a life-or-death decision?

Morality is relative. A woman who kills her husband who has been beating her for 20 years, due to a sudden burst of panic built rage is not as guilty and as deserving of high punishment as a woman who has just stabbed a child to death for the sheer hell of it. Both are wrong, both are negative situations, but neither are the same. The same rules would apply to a man, however women hitting men is deemed acceptable in modern society (Despite that being an arguement for another day). The Bible never gelled with me, being of Viking descent I always preferred the belief that everyone is responsible for their actions, and that turning to "God" and "The Bible" is not an adequate cause for pardon or belief that a person has become a more positive person. The Bible grinds my gears, personally, so I would hate to see it used as the basis of judgement in criminal actions.

And I do believe in people considering all facts first. And I opt to use science as a grounding, where (Even if it isn't 100% certain) a baby is just a clump of cells with no human rights until it has formed what we consider a conciousness at several months. I could be wrong, I will be judged on that later as our "modern" and "advanced" knowledge becomes considerably more primitive. For now however, I prefer to use knowledge and reasoned ideas to ideological texts written in barbaric times.

Again, my argument does not come from the Bible, but I can easily draw from the Bible. It is the most basic argument: murder is wrong, abortion is murder, therefore abortion is wrong. The only way you can justify abortion is by attacking the second line, and you cannot win against truth.

The truth is that the child is not a child until it forms a conciousness, and as such is just cells. That is the truth. The issue is that science currently dictates a conciousness at several months, not at conception. So this is what law is based on to judge whether it is murder or not and currently the law considers it is not. Again, we may be proven wrong, but I'm going with the facts as they stand for now.

This may go a little off-topic, but how could you not associate the Biblical banning of theft as not covering internet piracy as well? If every possible offense past, present, and future were addressed in the Bible, readers would be overwhelmed. The point is to draw the general principle, maintaining that delicate balance between amorality and legalism.

This vague book was also used by the powers of the Church to murder Muslims across the Arab lands, slaughtering innocent Scandinavians who wanted to believe in other things. Sorry, but the Holy Bible has murdered too many innocents through its vagueness being interpreted by utter bastards for me to consider it moral enough to be a moral groundwork. I conceed that it includes some good stories, with moral meanings to learn, but as a basis for morals and law? There's too many holes for it to be a stable enough groundwork. Sorry.

That is muddying the issue by making poor analogies (Miko is doing a wonderful job of explaining why, so I will not repeat it here). Try again.

I'm not being rude, but I actually am struggling to understand what Miko is saying. It's not that I necessarily disagree or am defending my arguement, but genuinely I cannot get my head round the stuff he's saying >.<

The problem I have with that is that it is woefully subjective. How does one know one is right without absolute standards to base decisions on?

Life is subjective. The world is subjective, nothing is infinite and nothing is definate. This is why I consider the science of today to be correct for today, but in future it may be disproven. The reason is because life changes, things are subjective to their time frames and the knowledge known. I'm sure you don't approve of burning women, but Christians back as recently as the 1800s felt it was the right thing to do, even after scientific studies such as dunking a woman in water and if she died she was telling the truth. That was fair back then, it's barbaric now. Likewise what I see as correct science, that makes abortion okay, could very well be considered barbaric in future if further information is uncovered, or future science may solidify my statements and the current scientific status of conciousness in foetii. To say science of now is definately true would be pointless, but to say it is false would be equally as stupid. Humanity makes the best judgement on the information it has to hand, and for the here and now these are the standards that are so absolute.

Something that ticks me off no end is when people get away with pulling off abortions at this point as well. The law is proving somewhat impotent. How many people a year are convicted of murder by killing a late term fetus? I have not personally heard of one, even though I know full well that they go on.

Agreed. I agree 100% with this. If you couldn't be arsed to get it aborted at the right time, and the baby now has conciousness, an abortion should be a crime. Actually, it is! I am in agreement that killing a child that has a conciousness is appalling, but unfortunately the government are pussies when it comes to punishment because they aren't brave enough to take action when needed. As such illegal abortions get the okay, as do people living off the dole, illegal immigrants and a wealth of other factors which should be a simple decision. The book of law is there, fucking use it! I know that is off topic to the abortion issue (The fact is the law book states abortion to be legal to a certain point), but has some relevence. Just wanted to clarify I agree with you on that one.

You are being unreasonable by saying that if the Bible does not specifically mention a particular offense (or form of an offense) than it is considered condoned. The way I see it, God gave humans a reasoning process, and as such His Word does not have to read like a chatterbox. You are reaching on this argument big-time.

That would be more believeable if he didn't kick Adam and Eve out to suffer and possibly die in the wasteland for having used said reasoning to eat the apple. And in God's wierd wisdom, he created the evil snake in the first place! While I agree that reasoning should be used, and that not having an offense (Or possible offense, as this one is atm) doesn't mean it's condoned, it also doesn't mean that it is condemned either. That's the key issue of having vagueness in a book supposed to be written as a Holy Doctrine.

I have no idea where you got these total lies. Jesus conformed to the law and even raised the written standards a bit. He did have a problem with the "religious" authorities of the day, since they were both legalistic and hypocrtical, oppressing the people for the sake of their own power trip. And wherever you read that His father was a Rabbi was certainly not in the Bible, which directly states that while God is the true Father of Jesus, his father on Earth was the carpenter Joseph.

Various documentaries studying the existance of Jesus and what his actions and life were based on other literature and the environement he would have lived in. These are small details I noted and mistakingly thought they were from the Bible, my apologies.

You cannot equate animal life with human life, so do not even try that with me.

Why not? I hate to use this, as I despise the people that do, but it's perfectly possible to be vegetarian and healthy nowadays. Killing animals for food is way below necessary that it is simply done for pleasure. It's almost viewing sport in murdering small animals then eating the carcasses for fun. There's no nutritional benefits to meat you can't find in other foods, such as soya or the vegetarian bacon/burgers/sausages etc that are readily available on the market. While you somehow view animals as below humans (Though recent studies have shown they think more like us than we originally thought, showing a similar level of conciousness), even you can see the truth in what I'm saying. You eat meat for no good reason, just because you want to. This is surely concievable as murder because there is no positive reason to do it? It's surely be no different than killing the man next door for a snack.

I know you're likely tutting right now, this is a stereotypical vegetarian arguement (Which I have good comebacks for too, based on the concept of allowing anyone to choose) but the fact is that despite your arguement, alot more creatures of any kind have died for you than for me. I havn't eaten meat since I was 5 (My own choice), which means for the last 18 years I've lived, am 100% healthy and that many fewer animals have been killed to feed me (In an ideolistic world, they've likely been killed anyway XD)

Again, you are assuming the worst. And this is propogated so much that it is little wonder why abortion is so common - women feel they do not have much of a choice because they are given all these scare tactics. Your "compassion" falls way flat.

I think there are too many who do not even bother trying. These people need support of friends and family throughout the entire episode, not a message that the only reasonable way to get rid of the pain is to get rid of the life.

I have no wish to condemn, but to encourage. I like to think that people are capable of much more strength than they feel they are. They just need to be supported positively rather than negatively, and they most certainly should not be left alone in these struggles.

How you view the world is created by what the world has done to you during your upbringing. Clearly you had a better upbringing than I did. Revel in it, recognise that you have had an abundance of luck and that you've been blessed to have the life you've had. Some of us attempted suicide age 7, some of us succeeded and some of us didn't. What drives an innocent youth to suicide? School homework certainly isn't that bad at that age, you have no worries of a job or the bills. So many fewer pressures, and yet suicide among children is still a constant thing.

This is because of the world we live in, the shit-hole of society we are flung into by science or some so-called "Blessed" Creator. Being the subject of horrific bullying by students and teachers (And even physical abuse at age 8 by my headmaster) for ten years, both physical and psychological all for the name of profit, I am well aware of the negative side of society. It is easier to state that there are positive things in the world when you've never been battered to suicide, especially since school is a place where you're supposed to be protected rather than abused for profit. But it happens, it still happens and society deems it acceptable because of how negative a culture we are. But despite all this, there are positives. I've seen them, mostly after leaving school (Personally I fear having to send my kids to prison just because we name it "school", but there's nowhere else to go).

Also you say that people are capable of more than enough strength to ge through most things. And using myself as an example would seemingly prove you right, I survived literal and psychological torture throughout school that it's a miracle I've come out alive let alone as open as I am (I currently do acting and am doing very well in my job etc) and as successful in my personal life. Bruce Willis is another example of a child suffering needlessly coming out the other side with a positive end. These people are capable of more inner strength.

But I also know what it's like to know you've got nothing left, your strength is empty, you have nothing to give. You're down and out and capable of no more. I've been there, and it is a frankly scary place. A place where murder, suicide and many other things seem more than acceptable. Everyone has survival instincts, and going cold is the worst thing imaginable. It can make you take a knife to someone's throat and your mind makes it a rational, intelligent and fair solution. If you've never been beaten down by life to that level, you'll never understand the real choice this sort of decision is. At the end of the day most of us only do what we must, not the most we can do. Most do not push ourselves. But whether we do or don't, we all know our limits. Some people geuinely wouldn't be able to handle having a child, especially a rape victim, and it is a testiment to women's courage that only 2-3% of abortions are rape related, but that 2-3% would most likely be suicide victims otherwise and most likely with the baby killed too.

Life doesn't throw you a bone, it doesn't offer help and solidarity. It offers pain. The help, love and solidarity people get comes from others, and from their own decisions shaping them. I'm sorry if this sounds alien, or you may relate to it, but people have limits. And if you break someone past their limit, there's nothing that anyone can do to help them. You effectively killed someone by extension. Again, the abortion rate is actually low, which shows a great positivty. But I would hate to be the person who's vote to illegalise abortion caused the death of innocent women who MY choice pushed past the brink of sanity and safety.

Straw man tactics are cold and low. If you are a reasonable person, you know full well that it is not the sort of message I mean to send. You talk about the healing of wounds - by creating another one? Something seriously flawed in that reasoning.

You assume the worst about humanity if you think that is the regular case. Did I mention that less than 2% (or is it 3%) of abortions are performed because of rape?

One long term wound can destroy someone. Two bigger but short-term wounds will be easier to heal. Example;

1. You get stabbed in the chest and in the stomach with knives. Two wounds, major internal bleeding. You're pretty bad shape. You're in hospital a little while, you recover.

2.You slip in the bath, do some damage to your lower spine which is easily patched up but your legs will never work again. You're out of hospital about the same time if not faster, but you're wheelchair bound for the rest of your life.

Some would prefer option 2. Less horror to deal with for sure, I would personally prefer option 1. Option 1 is physical, it's harsh and it's horrific, but once healed it's all good. Some slight issues in the cold climate, stomach wounds are long-term nasty especially in cold weather. But once you're patched up, you're able to continue the same way as before. Live life the way you want and do all the things you used to do beforehand. Option 1 is the rough equivalent of aborting a child due to psychological and/or physical stresses.

Option 2 is easier to deal with at first. You're in pain, but you're not about to die. You've clearly and easily got your whole life ahead of you no problems. But every day you're a cripple. You have no mobility save for a chair, no indpendance or very little of it. What you can do in your life is limited due to a lack of mobility and indpendance. Option 2 is like having the child. Now alot of people can survive the process of becoming a cripple, face every day with the same zest for life that we all do. But then there's that percentage that can't, that break down, that hide away and just pray the next day never comes.

This hypothetical situation is actual physical wounds and/or accidents so the choice to have them done to you is taken away. With abortion the choice exists. I still wouldn't feel okay taking away the mother's right of abortion if she honestly felt she couldn't take having the child. But this is my view, yours is clearly different and that's fine. But to me, I'd definately be an Option 1 person, take the extra pain for the benefits to me and others later on. Selfish? Probably. But I don't think I could live with Option 2.

I knew you were not, but I just dislike being portrayed falsely (which you are still doing a little of). You and I do see eye-to-eye on one thing: blunt honesty is often the best way to get a point across.

That is why I'm enjoying this discussion And why you can be assured there is no malice behind my words. I apologise for portraying you falsely. And I will admit that your points do intrigue me, not enough to change my opinion but they are interesting and a good read. I like having my views challenged

[TheGerkuman]

Just a small offshoot of the conversation, but:

I always preferred the belief that everyone is responsible for their actions and that turning to "God" and "The Bible" is not an adequate cause for pardon or belief that a person has become a more positive person

Neither do the courts, which is why we have laws. In the end, you won't know if a person has changed unless their actions show it; remorse may be part of it, but even that wouldn't be enough. I know very few christians that would suggest that the law should be removed, or that you should automatically believe people on the basis of what they say. People lie! XD

[Mollfie]

I think that at the end of the day that it's the woman's choice because it's her body. If you're in a relationship with the woman I beleive that men have atleast the righ to disagree and discuss the situation (and persuade her otherwise if they so wish) but it's always going to be the woman's choice. And if you're not in a relationship then I think that the father has no rights at all in regards to this, and it's up to the woman and he has no rights to complain.

This is simply because I don't believe that the man can ever fully understand what the woman goes through, physically, mentally and emotionally if she has an abortion, or even in pregancy.

[TheGerkuman]

But with that attitude, how can the genders ever be truly equal? It's that sort of thing that biases the custody of children in favour of women, regardless of merit.

[Badnik Zero]

^ I agree with Mollfie. Women can have babies, men can't. Is that equality or just how the world works?

[Flyboy Fox]

It's ultimately the woman's choice. No man has the right to force or attempt to force a woman to carry a baby to term in her body for 9 months. Once the baby is born, the issue of custody is a different kettle of fish altogether. But while the baby is a parasitic extension of the woman's own body, she of course has much more rights relating to it.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

This is simply because I don't believe that the man can ever fully understand what the woman goes through, physically, mentally and emotionally if she has an abortion, or even in pregancy.

^This right there. And to add on that a lot of men probably don't wanna go through with the same things as women do during pregnancy or abortions.

I'm a guy obviously, and I can easily say that there are thing women experience that I never want to go through.

But with that attitude, how can the genders ever be truly equal? It's that sort of thing that biases the custody of children in favour of women, regardless of merit.

Actually, there are a lot of other issues that surround custody of children than the matter of who gave birth to the child. While that does add more weight for the woman in getting custody, it's not the only thing that determines custody rights. But that's something else entirely.

[Legendary Emerald]

Reviving dead threads isn't usually something I do. But I NEED to tell this story, and this is the only thread for it.

So I live on campus here at University of North Florida. I'd stayed up late the night prior reading "My Little Dashie" for the first time, and went to bed in a great mood. Then I woke up to a splitting headache, and decided it was time to get something to eat. So I walk the 10 minute walk to the cafeteria that's on campus, and what do I see as I walk down the familiar path?

Dead babies. Dead babies EVERYWHERE.

A pro-life group had set up shop right in front of the Student Union and Cafeteria. They'd brought with them huge billboards with images of dead children, fetuses, and abortions past the third trimester. Worse than that though, they were comparing abortion in America to genocide, using images from the Holocaust and the Rwandan massacre as well.

Well, there goes my appetite.

How inconsiderate... how inaccurate... how mind-blowingly awful a person do you have to be to set up such an event, in a public place that most students will walk by at least once a day! Hilariously, there were signs warning that disturbing images lay ahead, but by the time they appeared along the path, it would take you completely out of your way to get to the same destination on the other round-about walkway. So really, there was no way of avoiding it completely unless you went far out of your way. And who is going to do that, other than the people who already had to experience it the first time?

A young woman offered me a pamphlet as I walked past. I don't think I have ever been so rude, so indignant to a stranger in all my life, even if all I said was "No." in the most icy tone I could muster.

Why did the school approve of this? In the interest of free speech? Sure, that's noble and all, but they are allowed to exercise your right to ban anyone from appearing on campus that they please. How can you say you promote higher education, and then allow the spread of malicious propaganda all over your beautiful campus? Propaganda that goes against what probably every single professor at the college believes in, and which undoubtedly negatively affects the cafeteria workers who's clientele are now sick to their stomachs from seeing a third-trimester babie's head being lifted up by a hook?

I'm totally fine with people who are pro-life in their own lives; that's their choice, and they'd know more about themselves than I would. But for the love of god, they need to keep their wildly off-base hyperboles and grotesque images to themselves. I know most pro-lifers aren't all like that, and that this is a special case of idiocy that has taken root in my campus. But... I'm just so disappointed in my college right now. In my STATE, right now. I need to go chill out and relax with some ponies now. See ya.

[LoseR]

My take on abortion? Okay, well here it is:

There was a quote I saw once, though I don't remember exactly how it went or where it was from, but this is pretty much what it was...

If you're mature enough to have sex, you should be mature enough to care for a child.

I don't like the idea of abortion, but there ARE times when it's okay to use. Of course, rape, since it's not really the women's fault. Also, when it dangers the women giving birth. If the women could die from giving birth, she really doesn't have to go through with it. Logically speaking, either way someone dies, and the unborn child wouldn't go through any harm, so why not?

[LunarEdge]

If you're mature enough to have sex, you should be mature enough to care for a child.

Edited March 17, 2012 by LunarEdge

[Jeffhog]

Interestingly enough, I just submitted an essay last night on the moral status of the fetus in light of abortion, and then I see this thread.

[Diogenes]

http://govinthelab.c...-cows-and-pigs/

New bill passes the state of Georgia where women are required to carry stillborn babies without any option of abortion which may likely kill the mother. The big model for this was 'cows and pigs do something similar.'

[Mono]

This pretty much sums up pro-life retards.

[Jeffhog]

This pretty much sums up pro-life retards.

[Patticus]

So, Georgian politicians consider women on a par with cows and pigs. They consider them to be cattle, essentially. I'd say that's as good a justification as any for Great Britain to re-assume control of that particular former colony and yank it back into the modern world. It clearly can't govern itself, and America as a whole would do well to be rid of its political class' fetid, toxic ideas about women.

Edited March 18, 2012 by Patticus

[Nepenthe]

Politicians are giving me great reasons to explain to my mom why I don't want to have kids. "If I have a miscarriage, I'll have to risk my life carrying a dead fetus inside me until birth, because the old men at our Congressional building think my physiology is exactly the same as that of a cow. Sorry."

No, actually, this is still awful regardless. I can only hope these are the nails in the coffins of this disastrous party, and that they either get their shit together or simply die off without having had the ability to significantly indoctrinate their own offspring with this nonsense. Fucking hell.