Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
OfflineJOEBIALEK
Stranger
Registered: 06/03/05
Posts: 21
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
Abortion
    #7997332 - 02/08/08 05:53 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

On this 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, I would like to share my views on the issue of abortion.

Life begins at the point of conception. No one can deny that after a human being is conceived it will develop into the very same being as those debating this issue. What astounds me is that those who favor abortion went through an identical development stage as the being they are condemning to death. Would these very same people agree that a similiar choice should have been made about their own existence? Abortion today is used primarily as a birth control of convenience because people are too self-centered to take precautions. They prefer their own pleasurable self-indulgence over the care and sanctity of the life they created. What ever happened to taking responsibility for one's actions in this country? Is it too much to ask a woman who has conceived to place the child into adoption? Nine months of discomfort is nothing compared to life in prison for voluntary manslaughter! Does the father of the child have a say in this? And what about the constitution of the United States? Are not all people conceived in this country deserving of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I believe abortion is a crime against humanity and should be outlawed. We need to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision and get back to cherishing life in this country. For a country that murders it's children cannot be far from self destruction.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
Re: Abortion [Re: JOEBIALEK]
    #7997392 - 02/08/08 06:10 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

> Life begins at the point of conception. No one can deny that after a human being is conceived it will develop into the very same being as those debating this issue.

I can, because you are incorrect. The majority of fertilized eggs never manage to implant into a woman's uterus and are purged from the body. That's right. If life begins at conception, then the vast majority of "babies" are naturally aborted by a woman's body. Had you made the above claims with respect to implantation of the fertilized egg into the uterus wall, then I might agree with you. But you didn't, and I don't.

> Is it too much to ask a woman who has conceived to place the child into adoption?

To ask no, to force yes. Who are you to tell me what my moral values should be?

> Does the father of the child have a say in this?

Nope. After birth, yes. Before birth, no. Again, you are confusing a child with a fetus.

> We need to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision and get back to cherishing life in this country.

Who are you to tell me what my moral values should be?

> For a country that murders it's children cannot be far from self destruction.

Assuming by "children" you mean fetus, then China would disagree with you. They are about to self-destruct from over population.

Edit: ... and before you get too wound up telling me how bad of a person I am, you should know that I am anti-abortion.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Edited by Seuss (02/08/08 06:12 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinegluke bastid
Stinky Bum
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/20/00
Posts: 3,322
Loc: Charm City
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
Re: Abortion [Re: JOEBIALEK]
    #7997406 - 02/08/08 06:13 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

You have a sound sense of morality and ethics. For this I :congrats: you.

However you have let yourself come to conclusion that your morality trumps everyone elses, and that women aren't responsible enough to make their own moral, health, and reproductive decisions, that the government should do that for them. And for this, I say :spank:


Edit: ... and before you get too wound up telling me how bad of a person I am, you should know that I am anti-abortion.


--------------------
:hst:
Society in every form is a blessing,
but government at its best is but a necessary evil
 
- Thomas Paine


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger


Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Abortion [Re: JOEBIALEK]
    #7997434 - 02/08/08 06:21 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Life begins at the point of conception.




Why?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushouse
Mycomancer

Registered: 06/26/06
Posts: 500
Re: Abortion [Re: JOEBIALEK]
    #7997437 - 02/08/08 06:21 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

I ask: What is worse? To remove a fetus/child, or to birth it into a world where it is unwanted? "Just pop it out, then give it away! It's that simple!" Well, sometimes a person will take responsibility for their actions and abort the child before it has to endure this world.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Abortion [Re: JOEBIALEK]
    #7997439 - 02/08/08 06:22 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Roe v Wade was bad legislation, no matter what you believe about abortion.

My opinion: A women has a right to do what she wants with her body. When is the baby no longer part of her body? To some only after it naturally exits the womb, to others at the moment of conception. To me, if it has a separate DNA code, and when its brain develops (particularly the higher order parts) then it is its own human and though it requires nourishment from the mother it has the rights of a individual human.

In any regard, the father should have rights not only the mother. Either the father or mother should have the right to veto the abortion. Like firing a nuke, it should take two keys.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Abortion [Re: Mushouse]
    #7997443 - 02/08/08 06:23 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Mushouse said:
I ask: What is worse? To remove a fetus/child, or to birth it into a world where it is unwanted? "Just pop it out, then give it away! It's that simple!" Well, sometimes a person will take responsibility for their actions and abort the child before it has to endure this world.


You should ask some adopted/orphaned kids/adults and see what they say. I bet the majority are glad they are alive. I know my mom is (she was adopted).


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushouse
Mycomancer

Registered: 06/26/06
Posts: 500
Re: Abortion [Re: DieCommie]
    #7997493 - 02/08/08 06:34 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Well, if I knew of any, perhaps I would. It is an open question.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
Re: Abortion [Re: DieCommie]
    #7997508 - 02/08/08 06:39 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

> Roe v Wade was bad legislation, no matter what you believe about abortion.

Agree completely. Leave moral decisions to the family and community. The state does not need to get involved.

> the father should have rights not only the mother.

After birth, absolutely. Before birth, her body.

> Why? (does life begin at conception)

Because of cell division. This is why I am adamant about not calling a fetus a child. Until it is born, it is not a child. We can pretend to change definitions, calling a fetus an "unborn child", but this is nothing more than emotional baggage.

> You should ask some adopted/orphaned kids/adults and see what they say.

Then to be fair, we should also ask some of the aborted fetus' and see what they say. My guess is most of them will have no comment.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinegluke bastid
Stinky Bum
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/20/00
Posts: 3,322
Loc: Charm City
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
Re: Abortion [Re: DieCommie]
    #7997594 - 02/08/08 06:54 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Roe v Wade was bad legislation, no matter what you believe about abortion.

My opinion: A women has a right to do what she wants with her body. When is the baby no longer part of her body? To some only after it naturally exits the womb, to others at the moment of conception.




It is precisely that there exists, and always will, multiple answers to this question that the government should not favor one person's opinion over another's. Let the mother decide.


--------------------
:hst:
Society in every form is a blessing,
but government at its best is but a necessary evil
 
- Thomas Paine


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekriminalelement
"jesus wept."
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/26/07
Posts: 1,201
Loc: Ay! los popos estan aqui!
Last seen: 13 years, 6 months
Re: Abortion [Re: Seuss]
    #7997642 - 02/08/08 07:06 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

My parents wanted me, but weren't equipped emotionally to raise a child. Now I feel fucked up and alienated.

So yes, I wish my parents had done the RESPONSIBLE thing and not brought me into the world. They weren't responsible raising me, the least they could have done was be responsible enough to know they shouldn't have kids.

I'm pro-choice and I'm VERY careful. BC, condoms, the WORKS, man. But if I ever get pregnant, even if I give it away, I'm at HIGH!!!!! risk for post-partum psychosis. Both of my grandmothers have psychotic disorders due to hormone adjustments. I would take life in prison if it meant being sane and knowing I made the right decision, for myself and the fetus.

But I guess things like THE HEALTH OF THE PERSON HAVING THE CHILD or the quality of future life doesn't matter to you. You're just interested on imposing your moralism on people who have different religious convictions. I DONT happen to believe life begins at conception. I believe it begins when certain glands in the brain develop which act as a "lightening rod" for the soul.

Sorry, but the ugly truth is that what you're saying makes you sound like a sexist pig. Women will (thank god) still be in control of their bodies. Quit trying to enforce your crackpot ideas on other people, and QUIT trying to get the government involved in this crap. It's devastating to women.

Even upper-level cardinals in the Catholic church have released statements saying that legal abortion is morally better than illegal abortion, because legal abortion eliminates the need for clothes hangers, croquet mallets, and staircases. But I don't think you really care about the humanitarian implications of what you're saying, you're just parroting some crap arguments you pulled out of a leaflet from whatever bible thumping backwater baptist church you attend.

When all you care about is your own morality, you are blinded to the truth and the desirable nature of government.


--------------------
While there is a lower class, I am in it
While there is a criminal element, I am of it
While there is a soul in prison, I am not free.

Eugene V Debs


Edited by kriminalelement (02/08/08 07:06 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
Re: Abortion [Re: gluke bastid]
    #7997644 - 02/08/08 07:06 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

> the government should not favor one person's opinion over another's.

The way I word it: When the country is evenly split on a subject, then it is our duty to embrace freedom and protect the right of the individual to choose. (I'm talking in general, not just abortion.) As I said earlier, I am anti-abortion (finding the practice to be barbaric), but I have no right to force my moral values upon you.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Abortion [Re: gluke bastid]
    #7997658 - 02/08/08 07:08 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

There comes a point where the mother can no longer decide the fate of the life of her offspring and the child's life is protected by the law.

Its not a fun decision, and its going to piss people off, but there has to be a point where it goes from abortion to murder. That point does exist, and always will exist. Where that point lies is what is being debated.

In the past in some cultures the parents had the power of life and death over their children for their entire life. Even when their child was an adult it could be killed by the parents within the law. Other cultures deemed that never, not even while in the womb can a parent have the power to decide life or death. Currently in our society this point is somewhere between the second and third trimester.

Surely you are not claiming that the mother can decide life or death at any point. At what point does the govt. step in and say you cant decide? The govt. and the people have to make that decision. You cannot ignore it.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
Re: Abortion [Re: DieCommie]
    #7997670 - 02/08/08 07:12 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

> At what point does the govt. step in and say you cant decide?

At the point where the fetus can survive on it's own without the aid of the mother. Traditionally, this would be at birth. However, with modern medicine, things get a little murky.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekriminalelement
"jesus wept."
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/26/07
Posts: 1,201
Loc: Ay! los popos estan aqui!
Last seen: 13 years, 6 months
Re: Abortion [Re: DieCommie]
    #7997672 - 02/08/08 07:13 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

At what point does the govt. step in and say you cant decide?




When the fetus is viable outside the womb


--------------------
While there is a lower class, I am in it
While there is a criminal element, I am of it
While there is a soul in prison, I am not free.

Eugene V Debs


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMinstrel
Man of Science
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 1,974
Loc: Hogtown
Re: Abortion [Re: kriminalelement]
    #7997942 - 02/08/08 08:23 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

kriminalelement said:
Quote:

At what point does the govt. step in and say you cant decide?




When the fetus is viable outside the womb




When it tastes good.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
Re: Abortion [Re: Minstrel]
    #7998298 - 02/08/08 10:01 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

The only thing worse than an aborted fetus is an unwanted child. However, abortions are bad and abortions used like birth control are worse. So how about secretly sterilizing women during their second abortion? You vemen get one chance. :blush:

Also, only the woman should have the power to keep or abort the fetus because it is her body. But the male should be able to request she get an abortion. If chooses to keep it, the male should have no legal responsibility to the child.


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMadtowntripper
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers
 User Gallery


Registered: 03/06/03
Posts: 21,287
Loc: The Ocean of Notions
Last seen: 5 months, 23 days
Re: Abortion [Re: d33p]
    #7998496 - 02/08/08 11:06 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

I am 110% in favor of abortion.

I am absolutely immune to all talk of when life begins, or what constitutes a person, or the definition of a fetus.

It just does not matter one whit to me.

The only thing that matters is if you can tell another person what to do with their body. I do not see how it is in any way, shape, or form moral or right for a government to tell a woman that she *MUST* carry a fetus around with her for the next 9 months, her personal feelings on the matter being completely irrelevant.

Who is government to make this decision?

I believe Roe v. Wade was adjudicated correctly. While nearly everyone agrees that there are or should be limits to the power of the Federal government, I believe it is right and proper for the Federal government to act to prevent the usurpation of a person's rights by the state. The right of the states to pass laws banning this and that is not inviolate. The Federal government would certainly step in and stop a state like Mississippi from passing a law banning black people from having their tonsils removed. It is a prejudicial law.

So how can you tell a pregnant woman that she *HAS* to have a baby? Does the government know what is best for that woman?

Really?

When people talk about politics, they often mention certain issues as "Deal-Breakers" for them. Issues that if a politician were on the wrong side of that they could never vote for that politician. Abortion is that issue for me. I can not, will not, and could not ever vote a politician that was Pro-Life.

It is absolutely wrong to me.

And for the Ron Paul supporters out there, letting the states decide the issue is the EXACT SAME THING as banning abortion. Trying to paint it as otherwise is a blatant falsehood.


--------------------
After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action.  If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it.  - Ernest Hemingway

If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it.  In the law courts, in business, in government.  There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent.    -Cormac MacCarthy

He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.  - Aeschylus


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmackshadow
It's Time for Wild Speculation


Registered: 09/27/05
Posts: 575
Last seen: 19 days, 13 hours
Re: Abortion [Re: Madtowntripper]
    #7998693 - 02/09/08 12:11 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Roe vs. Wade is actually a good ruling. It guarantees the right of choice. In fact, I am some what in a quandary about why any pro-life person would want it over turned. It single handedly prevents a situation like China has where the government has the right to say "You MUST have an abortion" With Roe vs. Wade that will never happen.

Not to bore you with anecdotal, but my grandmother worked in a Catholic Hospital, a place abortion was specifically prohibited. But on a fairly regular basis pregnant mothers would go visit these two "Specialist" doctors on the top floor, and would have "Spontaneous Miscarriages" Everyone in the Hospital knew what was going on. My point is that if the Catholic Church couldn't stop abortion in its own hospitals what makes you think that our government can do any better?

More over if we say that fetus' are children and have rights, then is a pregnant woman guilty of child endangerment for taking an aspirin two days after conception? If an expecting mother is arrested and sent to prison then does the fetus have the right to sue for false imprisonment? Every time a woman has their period should they be expected to search the tampon for a bundle of cells in order to fulfill the legal duty to report a dead person? My point is that our legal system is set upon the principals that life starts at birth. Changing that seems arbitrary and capricious to me.


--------------------
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
     
~H. L. Mencken~


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMadtowntripper
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers
 User Gallery


Registered: 03/06/03
Posts: 21,287
Loc: The Ocean of Notions
Last seen: 5 months, 23 days
Re: Abortion [Re: Smackshadow]
    #7998711 - 02/09/08 12:15 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Good point.

There is no way to stop women from having abortions. You can make the practice illegal and prevent women from *safely* having abortions. But you will not eliminate the practice.


--------------------
After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action.  If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it.  - Ernest Hemingway

If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it.  In the law courts, in business, in government.  There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent.    -Cormac MacCarthy

He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.  - Aeschylus


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinebiospun
homo sapien
Female User Gallery


Registered: 07/28/07
Posts: 282
Loc: USA
Last seen: 12 years, 11 months
Re: Abortion [Re: JOEBIALEK]
    #7998784 - 02/09/08 12:45 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

First of all, our world murders children in more ways than abortion. our world murders children by sending them to war, by poisoning their minds with mindless television babysitting, by putting so much damn high fructose corn syrup in every available food item that the child has no chance at not being diagnosed with ADHD...
second of all, some couples who chose to have abortions do so in a very resonsible manner. yes, birth control should have been used before conception if a child wasn't wanted, but some people just arent equipt to raise a child, even to carry a child. i know i wouldn't want my mother to have had me if she hadn't been strong enough to take care of me from the very point of conception- watching everything she put in her body, everything that went through her mind was about my well-being. some mothers aren't like that during the gestation period. i have friends who were adopted, and i'm so glad that they were born.
and then there is the the issue of rape, health of the mother, etc..abortion is simply an issue that couldn't possibly be conclusively judged as right or wrong. there are just too many aspects to it.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
Re: Abortion [Re: Madtowntripper]
    #7999124 - 02/09/08 04:38 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

> And for the Ron Paul supporters out there, letting the states decide the issue is the EXACT SAME THING as banning abortion.

Can you elaborate on this claim? Lets pretend that California decides to legalize abortion and Utah decides to ban abortion. How is this the exact same thing as banning abortion? Getting rid of Roe vs Wade simply returns the power of choice a little bit closer to home rather than forcing a position upon the entire country. The way it is now, if the people in Utah can get the federal government to ban all abortion, then the people in California have no choice in the matter.

I'm not claiming that you are wrong, but I certainly don't see how your statement is correct. What am I missing?


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekriminalelement
"jesus wept."
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/26/07
Posts: 1,201
Loc: Ay! los popos estan aqui!
Last seen: 13 years, 6 months
Re: Abortion [Re: Seuss]
    #7999537 - 02/09/08 09:58 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

abortions used like birth control are worse.




No women would do this. Abortion is not fun, and it is not an afterthought. Most women DO use contraception, and those that don't are typically young and uneducated about their bodies. Even with contraception and BC, there is still a significant chance of getting pregnant. By the age of 50, 47% of women have had abortions. Our bodies are built to get pregnant. That's a number one biological purpose.

Abortion isn't an afterthought. It's a last resort.

And as for the idea that men should be able to veto an abortion, they have NO say in that because they aren't gestating the child. Sorry men, but if you're pro-life, make sure BEFORE you have sex and try to make the baby that the woman agrees not to have an abortion. If you feel strongly about it you should only be making babies/having sex with people that agree with how you feel about the issue. Don't stick your dick in a woman that you know is pro-choice just because you're desperate.


--------------------
While there is a lower class, I am in it
While there is a criminal element, I am of it
While there is a soul in prison, I am not free.

Eugene V Debs


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinebiospun
homo sapien
Female User Gallery


Registered: 07/28/07
Posts: 282
Loc: USA
Last seen: 12 years, 11 months
Re: Abortion [Re: kriminalelement]
    #7999615 - 02/09/08 10:34 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

I agree fully with that, Krim


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMadtowntripper
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers
 User Gallery


Registered: 03/06/03
Posts: 21,287
Loc: The Ocean of Notions
Last seen: 5 months, 23 days
Re: Abortion [Re: Seuss]
    #7999637 - 02/09/08 10:42 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Seuss said:
> And for the Ron Paul supporters out there, letting the states decide the issue is the EXACT SAME THING as banning abortion.

Can you elaborate on this claim?

I'm not claiming that you are wrong, but I certainly don't see how your statement is correct. What am I missing?




Yeah, all I'm saying is that if the Federal Government were to drop its Roe v. Wade-based protection of a womans access to an abortion and leave such a decision to the states, there are at least 15 states that would ban abortions at their earliest possible moment.

That's what I mean. Anti-abortion proponents have only recently moved to their "Lets have the states decide" platform not out of some great love and respect for the Constitution, but because they realize they do not have the National Political Will to get something taken care of at a higher level. So they've set out to start banning abortions at the state level. A grass-roots approach, so to speak.

So thats why I say the two are the exact same. Drop protection on abortion in Washington today, and its illegal tomorrow in Mississippi. This is 100% guaranteed.


--------------------
After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action.  If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it.  - Ernest Hemingway

If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it.  In the law courts, in business, in government.  There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent.    -Cormac MacCarthy

He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.  - Aeschylus


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
Re: Abortion [Re: kriminalelement]
    #8000074 - 02/09/08 01:06 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

kriminalelement said:
Quote:

abortions used like birth control are worse.




No women would do this. Abortion is not fun, and it is not an afterthought. Most women DO use contraception, and those that don't are typically young and uneducated about their bodies. Even with contraception and BC, there is still a significant chance of getting pregnant. By the age of 50, 47% of women have had abortions. Our bodies are built to get pregnant. That's a number one biological purpose.

Abortion isn't an afterthought. It's a last resort.

And as for the idea that men should be able to veto an abortion, they have NO say in that because they aren't gestating the child. Sorry men, but if you're pro-life, make sure BEFORE you have sex and try to make the baby that the woman agrees not to have an abortion. If you feel strongly about it you should only be making babies/having sex with people that agree with how you feel about the issue. Don't stick your dick in a woman that you know is pro-choice just because you're desperate.




About 60% of women in the US having abortions(excluding cali since they never report data) have had one or more abortions previously. With 20% having had 2 previously and another 12% having had 3 or more previously. When over 1,000,000 abortions are being performed every year in the US, isn't that a bit much?

3 abortions? Really? You may like to think that there aren't idiotic women out there abusing abortion, but they are out there, in droves. I really don't know what if anthing should be done about, but fuck, at least acknowledge that it's happening and that it sucks.

Your 3rd paragraph is basically what I said, I agree. Also, you got a source for the 47% stat?

edit: was looking at old numbers, changed them to cdc's 2004


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang


Edited by d33p (02/10/08 05:06 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMadtowntripper
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers
 User Gallery


Registered: 03/06/03
Posts: 21,287
Loc: The Ocean of Notions
Last seen: 5 months, 23 days
Re: Abortion [Re: d33p]
    #8000098 - 02/09/08 01:10 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Why are 1,000,000 abortions a bit much?

How are you the sole arbiter or what is right and proper in this country?


--------------------
After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action.  If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it.  - Ernest Hemingway

If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it.  In the law courts, in business, in government.  There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent.    -Cormac MacCarthy

He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.  - Aeschylus


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
Re: Abortion [Re: Madtowntripper]
    #8000148 - 02/09/08 01:25 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Madtowntripper said:
Why are 1,000,000 abortions a bit much?

How are you the sole arbiter or what is right and proper in this country?




You missed the point of what I said. It's not about total abortions.

How am I the sole arbiter? Ok ok, I admit, I am god. Now respect mah authoritah.


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMadtowntripper
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers
 User Gallery


Registered: 03/06/03
Posts: 21,287
Loc: The Ocean of Notions
Last seen: 5 months, 23 days
Re: Abortion [Re: d33p]
    #8000158 - 02/09/08 01:28 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

d33p said:
Quote:

Madtowntripper said:
Why are 1,000,000 abortions a bit much?

How are you the sole arbiter or what is right and proper in this country?




You missed the point of what I said. It's not about total abortions.





Just referring to this quote.

Quote:

When over 1,000,000 abortions are being performed every year in the US, isn't that a bit much?




No, I don't think it is.


--------------------
After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action.  If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it.  - Ernest Hemingway

If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it.  In the law courts, in business, in government.  There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent.    -Cormac MacCarthy

He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.  - Aeschylus


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
Re: Abortion [Re: Madtowntripper]
    #8000167 - 02/09/08 01:31 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Madtowntripper said:
Quote:

d33p said:
Quote:

Madtowntripper said:
Why are 1,000,000 abortions a bit much?

How are you the sole arbiter or what is right and proper in this country?




You missed the point of what I said. It's not about total abortions.





Just referring to this quote.

Quote:

When over 1,000,000 abortions are being performed every year in the US, isn't that a bit much?




No, I don't think it is.




I suggest you research this term.

p-a-r-a-g-r-a-p-h


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMadtowntripper
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers
 User Gallery


Registered: 03/06/03
Posts: 21,287
Loc: The Ocean of Notions
Last seen: 5 months, 23 days
Re: Abortion [Re: d33p]
    #8000177 - 02/09/08 01:33 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

I have no idea what your point is.

If I took what you said out of context, I'm at a loss to see how.


--------------------
After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action.  If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it.  - Ernest Hemingway

If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it.  In the law courts, in business, in government.  There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent.    -Cormac MacCarthy

He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.  - Aeschylus


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
Re: Abortion [Re: Madtowntripper]
    #8000246 - 02/09/08 01:54 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

About 60% of women in the US(excluding cali since they never report data) have had one or more abortions previously. With 20% having had 2 previously and another 12% having had 3 or more previously. When over 1,000,000 abortions are being performed every year in the US, isn't that a bit much?




I thought it was clear my point was focused on multiple abortions. Try not latching onto a single clause out of an entire paragragh.


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMadtowntripper
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers
 User Gallery


Registered: 03/06/03
Posts: 21,287
Loc: The Ocean of Notions
Last seen: 5 months, 23 days
Re: Abortion [Re: d33p]
    #8000282 - 02/09/08 02:01 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Le Derr.

You sir, are absolutely correct and I am fucking stupid.

I have no excuse. I wasn't even high until like, 10 minutes ago. And I've been drinking coffee all day.


--------------------
After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action.  If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it.  - Ernest Hemingway

If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it.  In the law courts, in business, in government.  There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent.    -Cormac MacCarthy

He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.  - Aeschylus


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
Re: Abortion [Re: Madtowntripper]
    #8000530 - 02/09/08 02:59 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Yeah, all I'm saying is that if the Federal Government were to drop its Roe v. Wade-based protection of a womans access to an abortion and leave such a decision to the states, there are at least 15 states that would ban abortions at their earliest possible moment.




Hmmm.. I still disagree, I think... but I respect your opinion. It is a bit of a double edged sword... illegal everywhere, legal everywhere, or a mixed bag.

Quote:

You sir, are absolutely correct and I am fucking stupid.




Hardly. Stupid people don't realize when they make a mistake.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Abortion [Re: Seuss]
    #8004899 - 02/10/08 02:29 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

the life begins at the moment of conception argument seems vulnerable to phenomena such as:

1. chimerism, where dizygotic twins fuse together. Did one twin kill the other? Whose soul (or wahtever is life, who's life if you don't like soul) survives. Did one soul die?

2. the ability to create many fetuses by spliting totipotent cells into several different masses. Want to create three babies? when that fertilized egg (alive, w/ sould or life) divides into three cells, split them apart. Now you have three lives, apparently, as they are all fertilized and genetically equipped to develope into three people.

Did you kill the original person? Did you put him in one cell? Where did the other lives come from? When did they come to be, as this question doesn't rest w/ teh "at fertilization" because at fertilization you have only one cell, w/ no means of knowing it will give rise to many people. And if god or whomever had forseen that you would interfere and make three beings from one, and so had endowed that cell mass with three souls/lives, then that leads to the realization that everything we do is predetermined anyways, an unsettling realization that can only lead to nihilism which would then place no value on morals anyways.


---


Mainly for the last reason, that totipotent cells can be split to create new viable beings, I cannot fathom life begins at conception.

At most, abortion is immoral after totipotency ceases, around two weeks I believe, but we can't be sure.

At moste, therefore, the law should restrict post-14 day abortions out of an abundance of caution, and I beilieve that it should probably be viewed as immoral in cases where the mother is not greatly inconvienianced by the pregnancy,to get an abortion after this point in time.

I really hesitate to legislate in this area, however; considering that an abortion is relativly easy to induce through mechanical or chemical means.


Edited by johnm214 (02/10/08 02:46 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Abortion [Re: johnm214]
    #8004952 - 02/10/08 02:43 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Additionally, I find some value in Thompson's Minimally Decent Samaritan argument. Anyone interested in this subject should read it, I find it to raise good points. In general, I think it strongly argues that an unwanted pregnancy that is the product of rape or failed birth control, where the woman made a good faith effort to avoid pregnancy, is permissible to be terminated- as you owe no duty to this being using your body, unless birth is eminent. You have no right to kill the child, but you have the right to remove it from your body if its more than an inconvenience to you.

http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm


Quote:

But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. "Tough luck. I agree. but now you've got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.



In this case, of course, you were kidnapped, you didn't volunteer for the operation that plugged the violinist into your kidneys. Can those who oppose abortion on the ground I mentioned make an exception for a pregnancy due to rape? Certainly. They can say that persons have a right to life only if they didn't come into existence because of rape; or they can say that all persons have a right to life, but that some have less of a right to life than others, in particular, that those who came into existence because of rape have less. But these statements have a rather unpleasant sound. Surely the question of whether you have a right to life at all, or how much of it you have, shouldn't turn on the question of whether or not you are a product of a rape. And in fact the people who oppose abortion on the ground I mentioned do not make this distinction, and hence do not make an exception in case of rape.


....


But it might be argued that there are other ways one can have acquired a right to the use of another person's body than by having been invited to use it by that person. Suppose a woman voluntarily indulges in intercourse, knowing of the chance it will issue in pregnancy, and then she does become pregnant; is she not in part responsible for the presence, in fact the very existence, of the unborn person inside? No doubt she did not invite it in. But doesn't her partial responsibility for its being there itself give it a right to the use of her body?

...

If the room is stuffy, and I therefore open a window to air it, and a burglar climbs in, it would be absurd to say, "Ah, now he can stay, she's given him a right to the use of her house--for she is partially responsible for his presence there, having voluntarily done what enabled him to get in, in full knowledge that there are such things as burglars, and that burglars burgle.'' It would be still more absurd to say this if I had had bars installed outside my windows, precisely to prevent burglars from getting in, and a burglar got in only because of a defect in the bars.

....

So my own view is that even though you ought to let the violinist use your kidneys for the one hour he needs, we should not conclude that he has a right to do so--we should say that if you refuse, you are, like the boy who owns all the chocolates and will give none away, self-centered and callous, indecent in fact, but not unjust. And similarly, that even supposing a case in which a woman pregnant due to rape ought to allow the unborn person to use her body for the hour he needs, we should not conclude that he has a right to do so; we should say that she is self-centered, callous, indecent, but not unjust, if she refuses. The complaints are no less grave; they are just different. However, there is no need to insist on this point. If anyone does wish to deduce "he has a right" from "you ought," then all the same he must surely grant that there are cases in which it is not morally required of you that you allow that violinist to use your kidneys, and in which he does not have a right to use them, and in which you do not do him an injustice if you refuse. And so also for mother and unborn child. Except in such cases as the unborn person has a right to demand it--and we were leaving open the possibility that there may be such cases--nobody is morally required to make large sacrifices, of health, of all other interests and concerns, of all other duties and commitments, for nine years, or even for nine months, in order to keep another person alive.






And finally, legislation is often misguided. Even the partial birth abortion ban, a reasonable moral stance, was dumb. It was a small incidence anyways, and the law did not require women to give birth, it only required them not to give birth to live fetuses who are then killed before removal from her body/ vaginal canal. So they just kill the fetus before the removal now... lota good that did, yet you still here people trumpet this largely symbolic and worthless law.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineboomer q
Comrade General
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/03/07
Posts: 1,091
Loc: Dirty Jersey
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
Re: Abortion [Re: johnm214]
    #8008074 - 02/11/08 09:51 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

there are a few arguments made by "pro-life" people that just dont jive with me

first of all, just the language and terms which they apply to the debate are slanted, they say people are "pro-abortion." lets be serious, no one is pro abortion. if youve ever spoken to a girl or woman who has had an abortion, theyll tell you that it was one of the hardest decisions they ever had to make, and that it was one of the most emotionally scaring events in their life. people dont have abortions willy-nilly cause its easier than slipping on a condom, or because they enjoy it so much or something. and when people say women use abortion as a form of birth control..... no shit, thats the fuckin point of an abortion, but its not as if girls go around saying to each other that buying condoms is too much of a pain, so theyl just get an abortion later on... lets be serious, this happens VERY infrequently


another term i have a problem with is "pro-life". this is bullshit. you people arent pro-life, youre pro-birth. sure, its easy enough for someone whos never had anything to do with an unwanted pregnancy to say, yea, just put it up for adoption, no big deal. yea, its no big deal for a 14 year old girl to miss a year of school cause public schools dont like girls who "show" in regular classes. nobody on the "pro-life" side worries much about that life, the girl who is ostracized and ashamed and doesnt wanna have to look at her mistake in the mirror everyday for the next 9 months.


and how bout the life of the child after its born? oh yea, just leave it in front of a police station, thats no problem... there doesnt seem to be much attention from the "pro-life" movement to the conditions of state run facilities to house unwanted children. how much funding is pouring in from these conservative republican christians for head start programs, or social services, or health care for children born into poverty? not much. these "pro-life" people dont care about how the unwanted child gets fed, or sheltered, or who pays for health care or education...thats what pro-life SHOULD mean, doing something productive for the children who we KNOW already have life, not arguing for decades about where and when a life REALLY begins. theyll fight tooth and nail to make sure kids get born, but then these "christian conservatives" cant be bothered with health care funding, or more funding for schools, or social services, or welfare, because thats too "big government." they hate "big governments" that tax us to death so they can provide for the poorest of the unwanted.... does anyone else see a bit of a paradox here?

im just looking for a little consistency here, because the VAST majority of these morally superior christians have never adopted a child, because theyre too busy having their own. whens the last time you saw an upper middle class white woman adopt an unwanted black child born with a dependency to drugs? or born with HIV? ive never heard of it, but maybe some of you live in places morally superior to new jersey....


another thing that pisses me off about these people is their claim of the "sanctity of life." i just plain dont believe in this, for a few reasons. first of all, why just the sanctity of human life? no one complains about the sanctity of life in the amazon jungle being cut down and replaced with sugarcane plantations. it doest come up in reference to the thousands of species a year we wipe out of existence, does god love those beings less than he loves humans?

and those conservatives, they love their wars....so why is it ok for these evangelicals from the midwest and the bible belt to cheer an occupation of the middle east while at the same time lamenting the loss of all these microscopic clumps of cells? 650,000 iraqis are dead because we didnt like sadam as a dictator...what about the sanctity of those lives? a fetus has the right to life, but if it grows up and lives in iraq we wont think twice about dropping a 2000 lb bomb on his house if hes in the way of a "terrorist."

what about the sanctity of the lives of people we execute? so a bundle of cells so small that you cant see it has the right to life, but murderers dont? who decides when a person forfeits that right to life? oh, thats right, christian judges, because they have the moral authority to decide when someones life is no longer sacred, right? doesnt this seem a little conditional to you? your life is sacred unless you chose to break our rules, in which case we'll substitute our judgement for gods. its not just people we execute, what about the millions in our country in prison being treated like cattle?


the last point i wanted to make was about overpopulation. how sacred is life? is it so sacred that we'll sacrifice all the other life on our planet for it? should we really save every single fetus? how about in a few decades when the earths population is closer to 10 billion people? how bout if we survive another hundred years, should we save every fetus when there are 15 billion people in the world? how bout 20 billion? is it our doctrine as a race to reproduce and grow our population at all costs? what if when theres 20 billion people on earth theres global famine, and its determined that the earth we've been raping for its natural resources can only support 5 billion people? what happens to the sanctity of the lives of the 15 billion extra people? are their lives no longer sacred, no longer worth saving at all costs? or would you then be pragmatic and say oh, well in the case we should try to reduce our population to a level which can be sustained...at that point, who would be the 5 billion worth saving? well, if you ask a christian, im sure they would say that its the christians who should be saved, right? cause you guys have a monopoly on morality, and decided to save every single fetus on earth, and therefore deserve to live more than everyone else, right?


its bullshit, this pro-birth movement


--------------------
I got bags of funk and i sell em by the tons


Edited by boomer q (02/11/08 09:59 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Abortion [Re: boomer q]
    #8008293 - 02/11/08 11:10 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

your mixing issues. That the same person may adopt stances appearing inconsistant doesn't mean both of them are incorrect. This is just an ad hominem and doesn't address the underlying argument.


Quote:


the last point i wanted to make was about overpopulation. how sacred is life?





The only way you can begin to address that is to consider it infinitly important in a moral sense.

I don't see how else you can address life in a utilitarian way without considering it infinitly important (mainly cuz this destroys simple additive utilitarian comparisons, so maybe calling it utilitarian isn't really accurate).


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineboomer q
Comrade General
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/03/07
Posts: 1,091
Loc: Dirty Jersey
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
Re: Abortion [Re: johnm214]
    #8008420 - 02/11/08 11:35 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
your mixing issues. That the same person may adopt stances appearing inconsistant doesn't mean both of them are incorrect. This is just an ad hominem and doesn't address the underlying argument.


Quote:


the last point i wanted to make was about overpopulation. how sacred is life?





The only way you can begin to address that is to consider it infinitly important in a moral sense.

I don't see how else you can address life in a utilitarian way without considering it infinitly important (mainly cuz this destroys simple additive utilitarian comparisons, so maybe calling it utilitarian isn't really accurate).





its true, i was rambling a bit, and i wasent really aiming to get to the root of the underlying arguent, i was just making a few points that always piss me off when having this argument

im not really sure what you mean though, when you say "The only way you can begin to address that is to consider it infinitly important in a moral sense." care to elaborate? im not trying to be argumentative, im just interested


--------------------
I got bags of funk and i sell em by the tons


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Abortion [Re: boomer q]
    #8008575 - 02/11/08 12:09 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Well I mean if your addressing something in a utilitarian sense, you have to apply a value to it to evaluate it.

People often say utilitarianism doesn't work w/ human life cuz its imposible to derive a system that doesn't lead to absurd or seemingly immoral situations. I think by assesing a human an infitinite value, you remove the problem.

Its like the question of "is it okay to kill a child, take their organs, so that five children may live, and ten more may live better lives?" Well if you assign a discrete value to a life, say 10 (or even if each life is valued diffeerntly) you would come to the solution of yes, this is permissable, cuz that one life is not more important than 5, so the one must die.

But the problem is that it seems inherently immoral to kill one so that others may live, when that one has commited no wrong and not indebted themselves to the others. It is not their fault that the otehrs will die, so how is it their responsiblity to address it?


I think this situation is immoral, and it can be addressed by making a person's life infinitely valuable.

Then person one is worth ∞1

Person two three, et cet are worth ∞2; ∞3

so in this case, since as amatter of mathmatical proof, ∞1 is not greater than ∞2 + ∞3 + ∞4 you've avoided the problem. The mathmatical treatment doesn't compel the death of the one individual, in fact the comparison of a sum of infinite values to a single infinite value cannot be done.

So in a sense this saves us from the compulsion to conclude that the person 1 must die for the others, but it also destroys the utility of the quantitative system.... so it may not be accurate to still call it utilitarian.


But I'm also rambling, and none of this matters in the end unless you concede that a fetus has moral value, something most people aren't prepared to do, I'd suspect, that support abortion on a moral sense. And it also is worthless for determining when a moral person is formed.

--

And you allude to a problem with utilitarianism... when an additional person will add an incrementally small burden to the others, is it justified to kill that person, even if they are a "moral person" in the sense that they have the same rights as anyone else?

Quote:


the last point i wanted to make was about overpopulation. how sacred is life? is it so sacred that we'll sacrifice all the other life on our planet for it? should we really save every single fetus? how about in a few decades when the earths population is closer to 10 billion people? how bout if we survive another hundred years, should we save every fetus when there are 15 billion people in the world? how bout 20 billion? is it our doctrine as a race to reproduce and grow our population at all costs? what if when theres 20 billion people on earth theres global famine, and its determined that the earth we've been raping for its natural resources can only support 5 billion people? what happens to the sanctity of the lives of the 15 billion extra people?




While you might say it is right to stop population increase as a general policy, can it really be said that that one person extra causes harm of a greater magnitude than their own life's value? Perhaps an extra million people would cause much harm, but would that one person cause such harm in the rest that he must die? I would think not.



But again, this presumes the aborted fetus is a person, and it only addresses the ethical problems, not the policy problems, and in my mind these are two different considerations.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineHighHat
Repeat Gold Medal eBay -TiVoist
Male


Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 303
Loc: Delocated
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months
Re: Abortion [Re: Madtowntripper]
    #8014226 - 02/12/08 06:15 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

The argument against abortion is the same as the argument against drugs. Abortions have existed for thousands of years, the only difference is today, in the US, women don't have to throw themselves down stairs, sharpen coat hangers, or drink varying substances that are dangerous to both the fetus and the mother.

Abortion, like drug use, is not going anywhere. Women have and always will find a way to abort their pregnancy (if that is what they really want) in one way or another. An abortion clinic is the equivalent to a SIF. Women who want an abortion get an abortion with minimal risk to themselves. It would be barbaric to take away this avenue for women who does not want a child to "fix" their "problem." Say what you like, but a problem is what it is to someone who cannot support a child and abortion is a "solution."

That said, I believe a woman who can endure and support a healthy pregnancy should at least see the pregnancy through and put the child up for adoption. It is a different matter, however, if the woman cannot support a healthy pregnancy or social pressures would damage their relations, in turn decreasing their quality of life, limiting their opportunities, and keeping them from reaching their full potential. This may sound ambiguous, but that's the point. It is ultimately up to the woman to decide what is better for them, not anal-retentive do-rights that think they understand every person's situations in life and decide what is best for them.

If you don't agree with abortion, don't get one. That is the most that you should do. Running around touting your definitions of life, your interviews with people that are happy to be alive, and your beliefs on what you think is or isn't 'right,' may make you feel better, perhaps even fulfill some sort of religious shortcoming you may be subliminally aware of, but you have to realize at some point or another that your views, beliefs and practices are not necessarily right for ANY other person, much less EVERY other person.

Here's a solution to abortion: every female would get a shot rendering them sterile. This could be reversed by taking a pill. Therefore, there would never be an unwanted pregnancy and no need for abortions. This is undoubtedly debatable. There is no such thing as a perfect solution, you have to pick what is right for you. Who is anyone to stand in the way?

You can't miss what you never had. Same goes for life. Who says the same person wont be born from a different pregnancy?


--------------------
Have you ever felt like you were wearing a hat, but you weren't?

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" -Letter from the Pennsylvania Assembly, November 11, 1755

This profile is strictly for role-playing. Any alleged association with illegal activities is purely fictional. Any images depicting illegal activities are photo-shopped or stolen.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Abortion [Re: HighHat]
    #8014296 - 02/12/08 06:30 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

The argument against abortion is the same as the argument against drugs. Abortions have existed for thousands of years, the only difference is today, in the US, women don't have to throw themselves down stairs, sharpen coat hangers, or drink varying substances that are dangerous to both the fetus and the mother.





not at all

drugs should be legal because it is immoral to sanction someone for using them, which is not an immoral act

additionally the practicalities of enforcing prohibitionist laws are such that the benifits are less than the harms

--

I get what your saying though, arguing from a harm reduction standpoint, but this is a bit misguided imo. Harm to the mother when she herself makes the choice to abort pales in comparison to the harm to the fetus. If you accept a given fetus is a moral being, I don't see how it matters how the mother hurts herself as a result of the law.

The bigger issue on a policy level is can it be certain that abortion is wrong? I think this is not certain. Morally I think after a few weeks its wrong to abort in most cases, out of an abundance of caution, but this doesn't translate to a policy that should be enacted.

Since we can't be sure when a being comes into existance, we probably shouldn't criminalize all abortion, as criminal laws should only attach where there is a clear moral wrong being commited. And I'm not certain that abortions via miscarraige are that hard to induce, but I'm really not educated on this point.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushouse
Mycomancer

Registered: 06/26/06
Posts: 500
Re: Abortion [Re: johnm214]
    #8014568 - 02/12/08 07:28 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
criminal laws should only attach where there is a clear moral wrong being commited.




Imagine a world where you are a "criminal" because you act in a way that goes against the beliefs of another. You don't have to imagine too hard, because you're living in that world right now. Some people say that simple sodomy is immoral; and for that reason it is a criminal act, where I live, anyhow. I find that simply fucking ridiculous.

Who decides what is moral?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Abortion [Re: Mushouse]
    #8014635 - 02/12/08 07:39 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Mushouse said:
Quote:

johnm214 said:
criminal laws should only attach where there is a clear moral wrong being commited.




Imagine a world where you are a "criminal" because you act in a way that goes against the beliefs of another. You don't have to imagine too hard, because you're living in that world right now. Some people say that simple sodomy is immoral; and for that reason it is a criminal act, where I live, anyhow. I find that simply fucking ridiculous.

Who decides what is moral?




whoever is in charge of the state, hopefully an electorate made up of the people. Your imagined world exists, and is our world. Things are always illegal because they go against the beliefs of someone... what is this imagining business?

how would you make laws? disregard morals and randomly assign penalties to random acts?

sodomy is clearly not an immoral act, but so what some think it is? Some people think other things should be illegal, too. The fact that they think this, and are wrong, doesn't mean laws are bad, and the fact that some have views on morality that are indefensible is likewise not a condemnation of morality.

It should certainly be a prerequisite for an act to be criminal that it be an immoral act (though policy considerations and the practicalities of enforcement may make some immoral acts wrong to criminalize). Just what do you propose instead?

Or do you simply not like the word?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushouse
Mycomancer

Registered: 06/26/06
Posts: 500
Re: Abortion [Re: johnm214]
    #8018453 - 02/13/08 04:46 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

You say that those who are in charge of the state decide what is moral, then you go and say that certain laws, based on what people in charge said is moral, are wrong. So those people who are in charge: do they or do they not decide what is moral? Who is the authority on morality? I think that you believe it is you.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Abortion [Re: Mushouse]
    #8018626 - 02/13/08 05:28 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Mushouse said:
You say that those who are in charge of the state decide what is moral, then you go and say that certain laws, based on what people in charge said is moral, are wrong. So those people who are in charge: do they or do they not decide what is moral? Who is the authority on morality? I think that you believe it is you.




Yes, the legislating body may decide what is moral and enforce that determination with the force of law- (which is not what I'm advocating be done anyways. I'm saying that immorality should be a prerequisite to criminalizing a particular behavior).

Yes I may disagree with that determination.

so what?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSyle
Kenai Sigh
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/16/05
Posts: 6,678
Loc: WA
Last seen: 10 months, 26 days
Re: Abortion [Re: Madtowntripper]
    #8018635 - 02/13/08 05:29 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Madtowntripper said:
I am 110% in favor of abortion.

I am absolutely immune to all talk of when life begins, or what constitutes a person, or the definition of a fetus.

It just does not matter one whit to me.

The only thing that matters is if you can tell another person what to do with their body. I do not see how it is in any way, shape, or form moral or right for a government to tell a woman that she *MUST* carry a fetus around with her for the next 9 months, her personal feelings on the matter being completely irrelevant.

Who is government to make this decision?

I believe Roe v. Wade was adjudicated correctly. While nearly everyone agrees that there are or should be limits to the power of the Federal government, I believe it is right and proper for the Federal government to act to prevent the usurpation of a person's rights by the state. The right of the states to pass laws banning this and that is not inviolate. The Federal government would certainly step in and stop a state like Mississippi from passing a law banning black people from having their tonsils removed. It is a prejudicial law.

So how can you tell a pregnant woman that she *HAS* to have a baby? Does the government know what is best for that woman?

Really?

When people talk about politics, they often mention certain issues as "Deal-Breakers" for them. Issues that if a politician were on the wrong side of that they could never vote for that politician. Abortion is that issue for me. I can not, will not, and could not ever vote a politician that was Pro-Life.

It is absolutely wrong to me.

And for the Ron Paul supporters out there, letting the states decide the issue is the EXACT SAME THING as banning abortion. Trying to paint it as otherwise is a blatant falsehood.




do you support health care plans that require all americans that they MUST have health care?


--------------------
https://kenaisigh.bandcamp.com/ <- Just completed the 2021 RPM challenge for February - An EP in one month (5 songs or 20 minutes). Check it out!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushouse
Mycomancer

Registered: 06/26/06
Posts: 500
Re: Abortion [Re: johnm214]
    #8018692 - 02/13/08 05:43 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

So you're saying that the legislating body is the authority on morality; that they are the ones that determine what is moral and immoral. Then you turn right around and say they're wrong.

So who decides morality then? If you say they're wrong, then how can you say they're the ones who decide?

I guess what I'm really getting at is this: morals are purely a matter of opinion. Nobody can just decide that something is immoral, because if asked why that something is immoral it will always boil down to "just because." You state that you disagree that sodomy is immoral, yet those legislating bodies have said that it is. Are you wrong then? Didn't you say that they decide morality? That would mean they decide what you think. So how can you hold your opinion? They just told you otherwise!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekriminalelement
"jesus wept."
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/26/07
Posts: 1,201
Loc: Ay! los popos estan aqui!
Last seen: 13 years, 6 months
Re: Abortion [Re: Mushouse]
    #8018825 - 02/13/08 06:27 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

additionally the practicalities of enforcing prohibitionist laws are such that the benifits are less than the harms




Right, because a woman drinking a lethal dose of abortive tea or puncturing her uterus and bleeding to death aren't side-effects of prohibitionist laws.

Face the facts: laws against abortion kill women, and the benefits are less than the harms. Bearing a child is incredibly exhausting and dangerous, and getting an abortion without a doctor is even worse.


--------------------
While there is a lower class, I am in it
While there is a criminal element, I am of it
While there is a soul in prison, I am not free.

Eugene V Debs


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekriminalelement
"jesus wept."
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/26/07
Posts: 1,201
Loc: Ay! los popos estan aqui!
Last seen: 13 years, 6 months
Re: Abortion [Re: kriminalelement]
    #8018826 - 02/13/08 06:28 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

On second thought, laws against abortion are unjust. They don't just kill women, they outright murder them.


--------------------
While there is a lower class, I am in it
While there is a criminal element, I am of it
While there is a soul in prison, I am not free.

Eugene V Debs


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Supreme Court Upholds Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
( 1 2 3 all )
Le_Canard 4,568 51 04/23/07 05:54 PM
by zappaisgod
* Sisters pregnant at 12, 14, and 16. mother blames the school.
( 1 2 3 all )
lonestar2004 4,713 41 05/26/05 02:46 PM
by Veritas
* China: Forced Abortions At Nine Months DiploidM 1,749 12 04/26/07 01:46 AM
by FrenchSocialist
* Abortion
( 1 2 3 4 all )
RandalFlagg 3,563 74 01/27/03 10:30 AM
by Skikid16
* "Abortion clinincs" or "health clinics"
( 1 2 3 all )
JohnnyRespect 3,006 54 06/04/03 10:44 PM
by 1stimer
* At what age post conception is the fetus a person? How soon is it ok to ban abortion, RU-486?
( 1 2 all )
johnm214 3,074 34 08/24/07 07:59 PM
by SneezingPenis
* Mother arrested for attempting to intervene in her 14 year olds decision to have abortion.
( 1 2 3 4 all )
lonestar2004 4,280 61 03/25/05 11:51 PM
by SoopaX
* Fifty babies a year are alive after abortion lonestar2004 2,050 19 11/29/05 07:04 AM
by SirTripAlot

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,719 topic views. 1 members, 7 guests and 6 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.044 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 12 queries.