sillygirl

Who? Doesn't 'who' typically mean a PERSON?

from dictionary.com, just for you, denim:


Well, considering that that child is a living part of YOU (I mean.. does a heartbeat equal life?), and you are getting HELP killing it, wouldn't that be a form of euthanasia? That'd be a stretch, I suppose, but last I checked euthanasia's illegal...


Personally, I don't believe in abortion. Not a chance. I would rather die so my child could live. However, I am Pro-choice. It gets to a point, as lurkette said, that it's just flat out irresponsibility, BUT if it's legal, then more will be done in clinics by professionals, reducing health risks as opposed to a girl doing it on her own at home.

Shades

Are you serious? Shit, where's my flying car?

Me too. However, I would like to hear a rational counter to this secular (that means non-religious, for the non-dictionary inclined) argument:

Assume for the moment that the thing being aborted is not a "person" in any moral sense, and that we're not even going to entertain the conceit of a soul. What is being aborted, however, is undeniably human, albeit at an early stage of development, and is most certainly not part of the mother- it's a new entity, right down to the DNA. If not properly encapsulated, the mother's own immune system would attack it (and sometimes does, which is not great for either of them). Although Pro-Choice, I've always found the "It's My Body" argument to be fatuous. It's not the mother's body being aborted, it's some separate thing's partially developed body. Call a spade a spade.

I mean, how is denying that the aborted thing is alive and not a part of the mother not like arguing that the flu I had last week was a part of me? The germs came into me from an external source (I'm guessing from the fountain at work), gestated, grew, cells multiplied, and my health was affected.

I don't want anyone to say that abortion is universally wrong, I don't believe that either. Unfortunate, yes, but not necessarily evil. I just want to know how it's not killing. If you render something that was living unto a dead state by deliberate means, I think that's called killing. Dictionary.com says that killing is "To cause death or extinction; be fatal," and I don't think being aborted put a new spring in the step of the thing that was aborted.

Fenton-J-Cool

She should just use some kind of protection. I'm also pro-choice but i think she's sort of abusing the system... clearly she doesnt want kids, so why not ensure she doesn't make any more?

__________________
wra

telekinetic

Bravo shades. There are many intelligent arguments for and against abortion, but there are also some that don't make a bit of sense.

__________________
twisted no more

soccerchamp76

Denim - "Ask those who are being aborted, then. I suspect you'll get no complaints."

How about this:
http://www.abortionfacts.com/survivors/giannajessen.asp
http://www.abortionfacts.com/survivors/amy.asp
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/20..._survivors.htm

Read these and then get back to me

__________________
Brian Griffin: Ah, if my memory serves me, this is the physics department.
Chris Griffin: That would explain all the gravity.

denim

I don't need to. If they weren't aborted (meaning "killed"), they can't speak of how they feel about being aborted.

The point is that this thread has gone the way most "abortion" threads go: directly to the chasm of "It's this way!" "no it's not, it's this way!" with no further actual discussion. I recommend closing this thread.

sillygirl

Because you're such the authority, correct?

People are voicing their opinions. If you don't agree, that's fine. Everyone's been pretty mature about it so far, yes?

__________________

Anyone can be passionate, but it takes real lovers to be silly-Rose Franken
....absence makes me miss him more...

denim

Not especially, no.

telekinetic

I'd say other than your contributions, this has been a very mature discussion of all sides of the abortion debate...everyone but you mostly managed to avoid the typical abortion cliche arguments.

__________________
twisted no more

sillygirl

Look, you're the one who's given one line responses, some of which appear to be intentionally flammatory. If you don't like the way the thread is going, just don't read it anymore. Personally, I'm interested in hearing other people's opinions and thoughts, and I don't recall reading any intelligent thoughts from you.

__________________

Anyone can be passionate, but it takes real lovers to be silly-Rose Franken
....absence makes me miss him more...

denim

Offering inflamatory fodder as "evidence" of anything is useless. I've simply been involved in more of these "arguments" than I care to remember, and don't see any point in bothering to spend a lot of time on this. No one changes their minds based on one of these "debates".

sillygirl

If you don't care to spend any time on it, stay away from the thread. You didn't provide 'evidence' of anything other than your opinion. Again, if you don't like it, hit your 'back' button and read something else.

__________________

Anyone can be passionate, but it takes real lovers to be silly-Rose Franken
....absence makes me miss him more...

Astrocloud

After reading numerous posts from both sides of the "debate". I'm going to point out that nobody has considered the potential health risks to the mother giving birth.

There are cases where a woman's health would be severely at risk by giving birth. Yet, those opposed to abortion would suggest that these people's rights to make health decisions for their own bodies should be legislated away. It's also ironic that many modern "conservatives" give lip service to shrinking government yet want the intrusive hand of legislation to be imposed on a person's right to make health choices for themselves.

Finally, the Anti-Abortion movement has been known to produce outright lies to promote their agenda. Besides shooting doctors and occasionally acting like loons -their websites often contain ridiculous propaganda designed to ensnare the gullible. It's actually very difficult to believe anything coming from one of their sources -especially the alleged "testimony" of someone who allegedly survived an abortion.

soccerchamp76

Shooting doctors - so the pro-life community gets blamed for the actions of 3 or 4 lunatics?
And by the way, it is not considered abortion if the procedure is to save the mother's life. Since it is an indirect way of killing the baby, it is not considered abortion because the AIM of the procedure is not to abort the baby, but to save the mothers life.Recommend closing the thread because you do not want to spend the time reading the stories? It is not our fault you are too lazy to back up your claims. Those kids were botched abortions so YES they CAN talk about it because they were so close to death but due to a miracle, they were saved.

__________________
Brian Griffin: Ah, if my memory serves me, this is the physics department.
Chris Griffin: That would explain all the gravity.

Crusader

The flu is a virus. Viruses are not alive.

Back to the topic, after 2-3 abortions I think that the mother and father should get councilling and some education and spend some time in a chastity belt. Maybe they will appreciate sex more. There is no need for anything as permanent as sterilisation.

They should learn that they are responsible for their actions, and if they show they are irresponsible, then someone will take it away that responsibility (and the choices that go with it).

Accidents happen, but there are irresponsible people out there.

Spartak

Just curious, as to what do the pro-lifers who post here (eg soccerchamp76) think about aborting a child who was concieved as a result of rape ?

__________________
I can read your mind... looking at you... I can read your mind...

telekinetic

I don't think the circumstances should matter. It still comes back to my point that you either believe that it is wrong to terminate a fetus after a certain point, or you don't. If you believe it isn't wrong, then by all means, abort a rape! The emotional stress will be enormous on everyone involved.

On the other hand, if you believe it is wrong, then there are no set of circumstances that should make it right.

Another thought...one of my closest friends is the product of a rape that her young-teen mom choose to keep and raise...I wonder what she'd have to say on the topic.

__________________
twisted no more

sillygirl

I agree with twisted on this. Murder is murder, regardless. One of the few reasons I'm pro choice though, is because of the health risks involved in doing it in the first place. IF it's going to be done, it NEEDS to be done in a clinic, by a 'professional' (I can't help but think of a hitman when I say that), NOT by a girl at home.

Stompy

First and foremost, it shouldn't be anyone's business except the mother's. If she gets pregnant and doesn't want to carry though with the 9 months of pregnancy, then she shouldn't have to.

I think the main problem with the abortion issue is that too many people are trying to impose their religious beliefs on other people. That's not right.

You might believe that a woman who is a few weeks pregnant has another "life" inside of her at that point, but I might see things differently and instead see it as merely a cluster of cells. To me, it's not alive in the sense that you'd think something to be alive. It's not a living breathing person and it doesn't have a developed mind that can think and act on its own.

The fact of the matter is, abortions are legal. If you don't agree with it, you kinda have to live with it. You have to realize that there are things in life that will no doubt upset you because they don't follow YOUR standards. What's wrong to you might not be wrong to someone else.

As long as the effects of what a person does doesn't harm anyone else, then why would anyone care? People are just too worried about what others are doing instead of focusing on their own problems.

[edit]
Some might say it's murder, but the technical definition of murder is UNLAWFUL killing of one human by another. Again, abortions are legal.

__________________
I love lamp.

theusername

i agree with the statement that one is too many.

Keep in mind I am pro-choice simply because i'd rather not have the government telling people how to live their lives however personally if i ever got a girl pregnant i'd fight like hell to keep the kid, just dont believe in abortion personally but also dont believe i have the right to impose my beliefs on others/

soccerchamp76

There are procedures that can be done within 24 hours to prevent conception from taking place. However, most girls and women are too scared (rightfully so as they were just part of the worst crime one can live through) to go to the police and/or hospital because of what people will think of them.

And to Stompy, my beliefs are not religious based. I do not believe in God at the moment and have never been religious in my life at all. My views on abortion are MORALLY based because I see no reason why a mother who WILLINGLY had sex would want to then murder the baby resulting from her actions?
I.E. You shoot someone with a gun, and you know that they are going to die, but for some reason believe you do not believe that you should be punished for it.

And to my previous responce, there have been people that were "rape babies" and are glad that their mother did not have an abortion as they would not be alive. The baby may be part of the rapist, but it is also 50% hers.

__________________
Brian Griffin: Ah, if my memory serves me, this is the physics department.
Chris Griffin: That would explain all the gravity.

Stompy

IMO, that's like comparing apples to oranges, as that person would already be alive and not just a clump of developing cells with no active mind/consciousness. Ending a life of a fully developed (not to mention, already born) person vs. an embryo are just two vastly different things. To me, it's just an embryo. Granted, the longer you wait and the more late-term it is, the more of an obligation you have to carry it through (aren't late term abortions illegal?). As humans, we own our bodies, not the government, so to terminate a growing embro inside a female is really a drastically different concept than walking up to someone for no apparent reason and shooting them in the face.

Am I glad my mother didn't have an abortion? It's easy to say yes now that I'm alive, aware of myself, and understanding of exactly what life is, but if she chose the other route, big deal. I wouldn't have known it any different.

But in the end, the moral dilemma is based purely on personal interpretation. If my girlfriend accidentally became pregnant because the pill failed and we came to the decision that now is not the proper time to have a child, I wouldn't think twice about going through with an abortion. The only people who'd be upset with it are those against abortions, but then again, if I lived my life how everyone else wanted me to live it, I'd be a pretty disappointed human being.

I suppose this will forever be a never ending debate until the origin of the consciousness is ever noted during the development of the embryo, but thank god it's legal and thank god women have the choice to decide what's right for themselves.

[edit]
Not trying to change anyone's opinion, of course, but just stating my own and my appreciation for the fact that it's legal.

__________________
I love lamp.

soccerchamp76

Well, I will respect your opinion Stompy despite our disagreements.

The major problem I have is when I see a picture of an aborted baby at just 6 weeks it looks like a miniature person and I cannot reason how a doctor could willfully terminate it.
My 2 cents.

__________________
Brian Griffin: Ah, if my memory serves me, this is the physics department.
Chris Griffin: That would explain all the gravity.

Frenchie

My friend has had a few aboritions.. and now she is talking about having a kid soon. She says that she regrets "giving up" her other ones... and she wants one now... all I think is that it is just to keep her relationship together (she's 18).

For your question I feel that the hospital should definitely tell the patient of her options... They probably do, but they obviously need to put it out more than they are doing for this woman. Even though they shouldn't get involved in peoples lives too much it's not right for the woman nor for the children she is leaving and loosing.

sillygirl

I agree with you here. I couldn't stand to let my baby be killed.

I guess I also see it from the viewpoint though that there are women out there who CAN'T HAVE CHILDREN, who have LOST children, and who instantly feel a bond between herself and her child. Maybe that's why it gets to me so much that there are women out there who 1) don't learn from their mistakes 2) DO IT REPEATEDLY 3) consider it a form of birth control.

Rodney

I'm just answering the original question.

Abortions are like divorces. One is understandable. Two means your judgment and responsibility are questionable, unless the first one happened when you were _very_ young. Three means you don't know what you're doing and probably never well.

Oh yeah, this goes for guys as well. It's _your_ abortion, too, even if somebody else is having it for you.

As for whether it should be legal or not, my 80-year-old fundamentalist mother _hates_ abortion -- but wouldn't outlaw it. Because she came from a time when it wasn't, and saw women have their lives ruined for having a kid out of wedlock, or even dying in back-alley abortions.

Because -- face it. All legalizing abortion did was make it available to -everybody.- The rich have always had access to safe abortions through their connections, and always will -- even if it's outlawed for the rest of us.

hilbert25

I will not discuss at what point a clump of cells changes into a form of life, it's really hard, and science will always be able to bring the point at which the cells can live outside the mother earlier. However, if it is just a clump of cells then currently our laws have inconsistencies. For example, you can get vehicular manslaughter if by your actions, when driving a car you cause an accident where a mother loses a baby. Yet, if it's just a clump of cells, how could this possibly be right?

In fact, according to some of the arguments, would the person who just committed the crime just done that mother to be a favor by removing a parasite from her body?

And the argument that the government has no right to tell you how to use your body is flawed. The sole purpose of laws are to tell people what to do with their body's and minds. I can murder someone with my body, but the government tells me that is wrong. I can be nude in public, I can be a prostitute, and I can trespass, but those things are all illegal. Those are all occasions where the government tells me what to do with my body: cover it, keep it from having sex, or keep it away from some arbitrarily divided place.

I will agree that there are circumstances where abortion will save the mother from injury or death, and that is definitely a valid reason. And although I don't personally agree with it, having an abortion after a rape also has some merit.

But ending someone else's potential life for your own comfort is not a valid reason in my mind. I will not hate anyone who does such a thing, I have and will do what I can to support anyone I know who has made that choice, but I fell that society is wrong for allowing it to happen.

How come adoption is never really talked about? If you cannot keep the child, put it up for adoption rather than killing it. A life that seems like it would suck to you is infinitely better than no life at all.

And Stompy, you asked about late term abortions being illegal. They are in fact very legal, check out a google search on "Partial Birth Abortion." If you can provide an argument as to why that should be allowed, I would be open to hearing it.

hilbert25

But if you define a fetus as alive, we would be both committing infanticide

But more importantly, there is a difference between me removing your fetus and me removing your hair? That should be obvious. Which is what I'm trying to get at. People like to claim that it's just a clump of cells, but if it is just that, then how can you explain why it has more of an emotional attachment to people then a hairstyle or fingernail?

Stompy

IMO, they're attached because one day it will be a child. They're attached to the fact that they're currently growing another human being inside of them and that they WILL be a mother and have a family.

If you get into an *accident* which results in the mother losing her baby, do you really get manslaughter (and jail time) for that? That's kinda messed up... accidents happen, ya know? But if you purposely went up to a mother and did something that resulted in her losing her baby, then yes, it makes sense for that to be illegal as opposed to the mother making a consious choice in having a doctor remove a fetus.

As for the govt having the right to determine what you can/cannot do... a lot of those examples you gave fit well with "your rights end where mine begin" or basically your actions have a direct impact on others. That's why you can't trespass, be nude in public, etc...

Also, there are quite a few laws that don't really make much sense like prostitution. Yeah, might seem dirty and nasty to most people, but if someone wants to accept money for sex and both parties consent, then why is it anyone else's business? Is it because it's not taxed? Go to Nevada, you can shell out money at a bunny ranch and go to town as you please.

The banning of drugs is another nonsensical law. If I go home and decide to smoke a joint in the privacy of my own home, then why shouldn't I be allowed? Why is it one form of altering your consciousness is legal (alochol) while another is illegal (marijuana)...

What about cigarettes? You get tons of people who feel cigarettes should be illegal and banned, but really... it's not their place to do so. If I want to smoke, then I'll smoke.

Abortion, to me, is in the same category. Yes, those against it will produce some very insightful questions from a moral standpoint, but it really boils down to personal choice. I think in reality there are far more pressing issues that are negatively affecting our society than people who get abortions.

As for late term abortions, I thought I heard somewhere that Bush made 'em illegal, but if they aren't well.. I feel if you're in your 7 month of pregnancy, you can't exactly say, "Well I didn't know. I'm not ready and I don't want it." You should've said that earlier on. Might as well tough it out for another 2 months.

Let's put it this way: if my girlfriend became pregnant and we knew about it in the first month or two, then an abortion would be a likely choice if we decided that now wasn't the right time (and now isn't the right time, so that'd be the most likely scenario). If, for some strange reason, we didn't know she was pregnant till 7 months into it (which is highly unlikely)... I personally wouldn't consider an abortion. Why? I don't know, probably because it's more developed at that point and could actually live on its own (I think) if it happened to be born at that stage in the development of the embryo.

__________________
I love lamp.

hilbert25

Yes, it is a law in some states.

The problem is that you're very much affecting someone else's life with an abortion, especially a late term one. And right now as long as a full grown baby's head hasn't been outside the mother, it currently has no rights, even if it could be potentially alive and breathing without the mother.

Well he tried to push for a law banning partial birth abortions, but it was struck down by the supreme court, I believe. It had nothing to do with late-term abortions.

Stompy

I'm not trying to be a smart ass or go off on some crazy tangent with this, but a lot of the questions those who are against abortion present can also be applied to animals.

Those against abortion, do you eat meat? If so, you do realize that the animal you are eating was slaughtered and essentially raised to die? What gives humans the right to kill animals in that manner?

What about eggs? Those are dead chicken embryos that could've grown into full chickens. You take those chicken's lives away so you can eat.

I guess my point is... what does it matter? Why would you care so deeply for an undeveloped human embryo, yet at the same time disregard supporting life of all kinds?

Sure, tons of moral questions could be brought up about killing animals for food, but most people don't worry about it. Why is that?

I think at some point you just gotta either accept some morally questionable (on some level) things we do as a society (porn, drinking, cigarettes, abortion, etc..) as a fact of life or forever take a stance fighting the never ending battle to change the way things are.

__________________
I love lamp.

Shades

Ask a simple question, get a simple answer. In order for me to live, those animals and plants have to die so I can eat them. I haven't seen "human fetus" on the menu anywhere yet, and anyway think it easy to show it would be inefficient (if we used them as a food source, our species would quickly starve).

Stompy

Yeah but... you don't HAVE to eat meat. You can get the same nutrients via other methods.

See where it leads? Infinite followup questions.

It's all perspective.

You may ask me a simple question "What gives you the right to kill a fetus?"

I might say "it's not alive". A mother might say, "it's mine, I'm not ready for a baby." etc... simple answers to simple questions.

In the end, it really just boils down to: if you don't like it, don't do it; no one's making you. It's a choice, an option for others who feel (and have made the decision) that it is right for THEM, based on any reason or no reason.

__________________
I love lamp.

Shades

That's not how a society works. There are plenty of laws that hard code moral judgments. For example, I can't shoot someone who cuts me off in traffic (even though he would totally deserve it and I live in Texas at the moment). I may decide for myself that the value of human life is trumped by my irritation at traffic problems, but the rest of society got together and said that wasn't cool.

In other words, there is behavior society will tolerate, and behavior it won't. Some parts of it are more easily justifiable than others depending on who you are, but they are absolute (unless you are rich or famous). Abortion happens to be a popular issue at the moment because it's really only being openly debated now. I just wish it would be debated honestly.

I might also that your argument is basically relativism, and that argument should always be disregarded. One could always argue one way or the other on it and be correct, inasmuch that it's right from someone's viewpoint. It's an obvious fallout from asking "What is it about X that I ought not to Y" and seeing that for any X and infinite Y exist. Remember, it's not all relative.

If we allowed relativism to be a valid platform, how should we ever put consistent punishments on crimes? Some might argue that embezzling is just sticking it to the man and hand down a slap on the wrist, whereas others might sentence you to death for violating the noise ordinance (I would).

Stompy

In any other case, that would be true. The main difference in this case and the others where people refer to blatant and intentional murder of another living person is a simple one: abortions are legal.

Our government is for the people, by the people. Some might argue this, but when all is said and done, that's how it works.

When the subject of abortions came up to the supreme court, they obviously made a wise choice in deciding that it really isn't their place to tell others what they should/should not do in this area. It was too much of a grey area to make such a decision, and rightfully so. Yes, it presents a plethora of moral questions as well as shares common ground (on some level) with murder, but it's really not the same. If it was, it would've been made illegal. To them, there clearly wasn't enough there to make them decide that abortions should be illegal... and trust me, all the moral questions that others have brought up have without a doubt been thought of by the justices.

The truth of the matter is: it's too much of a grey area.

So yes, that's how OUR society works. Again, you might not agree with it, but the cold hard truth is you have to live with it whether you like it or not and chances are, it will NOT change anytime soon.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: what's morally wrong to you might not be morally wrong to someone else. You may think/feel they're wrong and can have all the arguments against it you want, but until the law dictates otherwise or god himself appears and tells people "abortions make baby jesus cry", they aren't.

__________________
I love lamp.

fnaqzna

So what? It's their body, not yours and not mine. The analogy is flawed. Guns, cars, liquor and corporations are possessions. A body isn't the same thing. Not even close.

BenChuy

Ok, here is one: When you misuse your voice/your right to free speech, you can be jailed. When you misuse your dick, you get jailed. When you misuse your power over your developing children, you get talked to. then you WILL do it again and then you get jailed. (don't know why, on that one).
If a woman misuses her uterus, what happens? There was a *potential* life there. This leads to very odd conversations about what lives are worth keeping around.
The government DOES regulate what you do with your body all the time. It is usually concerning your body infringing on another body. So, what about a body growing in a body?!

Sit and think about that one... Unless it was rape or something similar, the person probably knew the risk that that would happen. It is NOT an invading body. It was one that was put into effect knowingly by both parties. So, we could treat this like a contract between to individuals, consenting to a physical contract. In that case, legally, both of them should be responsible for its upkeep or termination.

weird when you extrapolate, isn't it...

Maybe there should be a BPB (Better Person Bureau)?

Stompy

Not entirely true.

If my g/f happens to be on the pill and that miniscule chance occurs where she gets pregnant, it shouldn't matter.

We took precautions, it still happened.

If we decided it wasn't a good time to have a baby, we'd go through w/ an abortion.

I don't expect everyone to agree with it, but that's fine. Thank god I have the choice to live my life how I want to live it (while making LEGAL choices) without living it how others want me to live it. What kind of life would that be?

I just don't understand why people argue about it.. like trying to justify it. If you're against it, great! Then next time you have a baby when you aren't ready, you can do your part and follow through with it. If you aren't against it, great. Next time you have a baby when you aren't ready, you'll know the legal choices you can make.

It seems that abortion isn't really the issue.. seems more like an issue with people not being able to understand or accept the fact that not everyone shares the same morals/ideals as one another. That's what baffles me about society.

To each his own, I say.

__________________
I love lamp.

livingfossil

I don't really see, in any way, how the baby would -deserve- to die. Also, the distinction between 'baby' and 'fetus' is sort of important here.

soccerchamp76

The only distinction is time.

In cases of partial-birth abortions, it is a matter of about 2 inches.

__________________
Brian Griffin: Ah, if my memory serves me, this is the physics department.
Chris Griffin: That would explain all the gravity.