matthew330

The endangerment of the future you or your girlfriend have is not in my opinion a matter of societal benefit and certainly not an excuse to "kill" another child

And since you evidently agree it's murder, and just want to justify it by showing how will benefit society let me offer you this:

"there is no correlation between unplanned pregnancies and the subsequent abuse of the children - in fact, it is most often the wanted children who are abused. For instance, a study of 674 battered children in California found that 91% of the children were wanted, compared to 63% for the control groups nationally. [6] I have not yet seen a study (and I have read a large amount of pro-choice material) that correlates the two.

Child abuse has also increased by 500% since abortion was legalized in 1973."

Sounds to me like your suggesting we should really consider extending the line when it comes to legal murder, where as I'd like to narrow it. So you tell me where you'd like it drawn. I certainly wouldn't extend the option to commit murder to a 14 year old scared little girl.

I'm paying perfect attention, I just can't believe I have to articulate the difference between the above example, and a situation where the frickin world democracy is at stake by a whacko dictator, and the congress and president of the United States decide to go to war where people will die. Or a long drawn out trial lasting years where a jury finds you guilty and a judge sentences you to death.

Mael

i'm missing whatever correlation your trying to make here... are you saying that people who abort thier kids abuse them? obviously not... if that statistic is true, what it means is that of the people who have had kids, abuse has gone up. abortions would make the number of total births lower, so just by the amount of births being lower compared to the number of abuses, the percent will go up. abuse itself could have gone up as well, but that statistic (where did you get it from, btw) doesn't tell which it is.

also, if abuse has gone up, it's the people who are choosing to have the children that are abusive, not the ones who don't. so i don't see that stat. helping your position.

another question. so you think abortion is murder and should be made illegal. why are you right when others think differently on this subject? why are your morals better than that of others? and, if your views were to be shared by the majority, why should they be imposed on the minority, when it is something that really doesn't impact you (ie. a pregnant lady 10 states away whom you've never met nor never will)?

bonus points to you if you can answer any questions in the last paragraph without mentioning your religous opinions.

filtherton

You'd like to narrow it to fit in with only your narrow viewpoint, you thik it is allright if the scared girl is a criminal or in a warzone right? C'mon where did i say anything about killing scared girls??? Where the hell do you get that? Jesus christ, why don't you convolute yourself a way to compare me to hitler? If you think your position has merit why do you have to resort to such hysterical and irrelevant comparisons?

Maybe you should define societal benefit beyond the definition "what mathew330 thinks is right for other people to do". Society benefits because there would be one less person sucking up resources both from the welfare system and from its mother and my ability to maximise our generation of resources. Of course we're just a drop in the bucket, but a part of the bucket nontheless.

Had you been paying attention more carefully you would know that i currently do not believe that it is murder, i am just wondering why you don't respect all human life with equal gusto.

Very good. Is that supposed to be relevant to anything i said? I brought up welfare. How many aborted fetuses are on welfare? None. How much of a drain on society is it for everyone else to have to contibute more than their share to help raise a child born to parents who are unable to provide enough food for their children?

Don't hurt yourself you still haven't really articulated anything along those lines.
Pay attention: We, as a society, make certain exceptions to our belief in the fundamental right each person has to live. That exception seems to come into play when it is in society and/or the individual's best interest for someone to die.

We kill criminals because we believe they are unredeemable. Some are actually innocent, but this fact hasn't invalidated the practice. They are of no use to us and would probably have a negative effect if allowed back in the mix. If it was about punishment we'd let them rot for the rest of their lives, death is getting off easy. Society benefits-killing is okay.

We go to war to protect(allegedly)our way of life. Some wars are just, some aren't, this hasn't invalidated the practice. In wars, people die. We justify the deaths of soldiers and civilians, the civilians are probably just as innocent as developing fetuses(feti?) because we go to war for the good of everyone(sometimes) in society. Society benefits(maybe)-killing is okay.

We have abortions. Some are the result of a careful evaluation of options, some aren't, still doesn't invalidate the practice. Maybe you'll dig up some statistics that claim otherwise, but right now lets go with what seems like common sense- bad people come from bad situations. Having people who are unprepared physically, emotionally, and financially to raise children raise children is generally a bad idea. I'm not saying adversity can't be overcome, just that it is against the odds for adversity to be overcome. I am better off when people have the option to abort, so are you. Unless you think more children should be brought into the world with parents who are hooked on some sort of narcotic, or unable to raise a child without neglecting it or abusing it. Abortion gives people the option to opt out if they know or suspect that they might not be capable of providing a child with proper care. Society benefits-"killing" is okay.

matthew330

I just read the first line filtherton - calm down. It's ironic how you have suggested that i haven't been paying close enough attention. To be perfectly honest i don't understand how in the world you misconstrued what i was talking about to mean your out killing scared little girls. It doesn't even fit in with any of the conversation. Again - I wouldn't extend the option of committing murder (i.e. - abortion), to a 14 year old girl who got pregnant and is scared shitless. She's clearly already made a couple bad choices, and you want her to alone to have a decision in what you refer to as "legal murder." Get a grip - I'll respond to the rest of your post later (haven't read it yet), and Mael's as well - decent post by the way Mael. I haven't brought up any religious viewpoints yet (as I don't consider myself a religious person - I'm sure that surprises you), so rest assured they won't be brought up in my response.

filtherton

You're right, i read some of it wrong. Apologies.

gwr_gwir

oy. lots of back and forth posts, close to half of which go off topic in some way, from what I've seen of it, in this discussion. let me see if I can get this straight, now... in no real order, and from no real viewpoint, these below. (my own views, I won't express currently).

Question 1 - When the fetus/baby may be called "alive" - at conception, at awareness, or at birth.

Question 2 - Whether or not abortion is morally right in any given circumstance.

Question 3 - When abortion, if/when at all, may be called "murder".

Question 4 - Whether or not abortion is connected with unwanted/undesirable elements in society - for example, child abuse and/or rape - and whether it creates a rise or fall in any and/or all of the given categories of undesirables.

Of course, the answers seem to vary based on personal opinion and religion, and with the arguments back and forth, I haven't seen a definite answer to any of the first three questions, and only a vague answer or so to the 4th.

Is that summary of the questions correct, then?

Edit: (Question 5) also, on the subject of the government and restriction of freedoms - where does that begin and end? with censorship of speech and books, with no end in sight, with prohibitions on weaponry, with the justice system we have set up as based on a certain moral point of view, what/where?

__________________
Being intelligent is not a felony. But most societies evaluate it as at least a misdemeanor.
-- Robert Heinlein

KnifeMissile

Damn, I should have gotten in early. I must say, some of these responses are frightening! I only read the first and last page 'cause I have much to say but can't bear to read all six pages. So, I'm probably missing opportunities to comment but I don't need more of those. I've got plenty already!

Give me a break. They call it "pro-choice" because they wanted to find a descriptive term for their stance. "Pro-life" is called that because it's life, always. "Pro-death" would be killing every child, always. You're comment is just inflammatory with little content. Something more constructive would be appreciated...

This stance and Stiltzkin's support of it is frightening. I can only suppose you two belong to the set of people who don't see the irony of bombing abortion clinics or murdering abortionists.
Even if a guilty party won't be punished by the legal system, you are willing to give them a punishment greater than the legal system would have given them? I know of no state that gives capital punishment for a simple murder.

First, it's debatable how much work he has done up to the time of birth.

Secondly, and more importantly, your point is rhetoric (something I despise). Yes, I agree that there is no difference between just before birth and just after birth. Pro-choice people also believe this, which is why you can't have an abortion just before birth. Of course, you know this and made this statement to try to make the Pro-life stance seem ludicrous to anyone without any analytical skills (which, I'm sure there are plenty). I think the limit is 24 weeks from coneption, which is a far cry from just before birth. Now, whether that's too much is a different and valid issue but not the one you were trying to address. Again, please be more constructive in your criticism...

This is an egregiously specious argument and I implore you from making conclusions based on this type of thinking in the future.

Most children who were battered were wanted because most children were wanted. The statistic doesn't say anything about what percentage of the aborted children would have been battered had they'd been born. I know that might have been hard to understand so think about the 9% that didn't want their child. If they didn't want the child, why did they not get an abortion? Suppose everyone that didn't want their child got an abortion. That would mean that 100% of the children that were battered were wanted! How does this support the claim that abortion causes more child abuse?
Also, who are these control groups? This statistic might be evidence if the control groups were pockets of the US where abortion was illegal but I highly doubt that's the case! Even then, they still wouldn't be conclusive...

The last statistic also indicates nothing except a vague correlation. It's not at all pedantic to say this. Maybe child abuse went down since 1973 (also only a correlation) and then went up by 600% after the Gulf War, which works out to be 600% from 1973! Would that mean the Gulf War caused child abuse? This statistic alone indicates nothing, not to mention it's nameless source...

Now, I do have an opinion but I'll save them for another post...

matthew330

I probably should have explained myself when i posted those statistics - I agree with you they are vague - but that was my point. It can be argued both ways as to where the correlation exists. It was posted in response to the above quote - unfortuantely appearing on the next page. The very fact that there is nothing definitively pointing to abortion benefiting individuals and society. That's it, that's all - but I agree, I should have made that more clear.