mechapope

Well, this is just my newbie opinion which has probably already been stated and disproven, but I believe that it is better to end one life humanely, then let it ruin two. By that I mean that I don't believe in abortions, unless it would ruin the life of the mother and child. Of course, just how rined a person's life becomes is a matter of perspective.

RatherThanWords

Actually, I think murder is wrong always, becuase no person has the right to control another's destiny, but there are a few people that I'd like to chop up in to pieces and piss on their remains.

DisabledMind

I myself am at a standpoint between the two, I'm not quite sure whether i would be for pro-life or abortion. I think abortion is not a cure for mistakes as some have taken pregnancy to be. I believe that if you take action in the creation of a life, you should have full responsibility in taking care of that of which you have created.
But in a situational viewpoint i can find it sensible, such as rape. If a rape victim is in a hard time where her mentality is rocky, and would not be able to handle having a visual day to day right by her side, then i can find it reasonable to abort a baby.

Mojo_PeiPei

Abortion is murder plain and simple. How can you justify it? Convenience? Please... Those welfare mama's are an inconvenience to me, how about I kill them. Regardless of religion, its wrong. That child has been called into existence, who are you to terminate it?

MacGnG

if you say "you can't abort any child ever" then you take away the FREEWILL of the mother by forcing her to have this child (which might only be there because some guy raped her!)

now if you are going to tell me that a mother MUST have the baby of the man that raped her because she is killing a life if she does, than sure you can belive that, but TELL YOUR WIFE THAT, if God forbid, that happend!!!!

it might be a harsh way to get my point across but it works, now disagree with it or not but think about it

Mojo_PeiPei

That is the only card that you "pro-choicer's" play, the rape card. Its a fucked up situation no doubt. But the child has nothing to do with it, the child is still innocent. There is the alternative of adoption.

Being Pro-choice is bullshit, don't wag the dog and just call a spade a spade, your pro-abortion. the fact of the matter is something like .05 of all abortions have anything to do with Rape. You made the choice to have sex, the result brings about new life. Maybe you guys can live with that choice, but the baby can't. It amazes how stupid people are my generation (i'm 18) and the one before me are about to have a big wake up call when we hit the afterlife (60+). Since Roe v. Wade you people have aborted 40+ million babies... every 4th baby dies from a choice. Its sickening in 30 years we have manged to abort an entire generation of people because they weren't convienent.

svt

I agree. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Lebell

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Mojo_PeiPei

Who is being disrespectful here? I didn't attack anyone here, just the context of the situation at hand.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Lebell

Just a friendly request, 's all

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Zips

What if, as stated before, the child was forced upon the mother through rape? She certainly is entitled to not give birth to a child she never intended to have, especially under such extreme cases, is she not? Not only that but isn't that child a constant reminder of the traumatic experience she went through? Thinking about it or not, that child will always be a subconcious reminder of something I'm sure she has no intentions of wanting to remember. Or what about when the birth of a child is found to severely harm, injure, or even kill the mother during birth? How could you justify still having the child then?

There are cases when abortion should not be taken, and that is when the "adults" (And I use that term loosely based on the age at which people are having children now) know full well what they're doing and what the repercussions are of that action. For simplicity's sake I'll leave the mentally handicapped out of this as they might not know the full extent of what may happen when/if they get lucky (That's a discussion of a whole 'nother matter, but if you wish to take that route be my guest). However, if the child is the cause of rape, or if the child's birth will conceivably kill the mother, it should be that mother's right to decide if she wants to proceed with birth or not.

Simply put there is no clear cut solution to this matter. There are always going to be variables where it may be the right thing to do on one hand, and on the other hand it may just be flat out wrong to even think about such an option.

__________________
Artificial Intelligence is No Match for Natural Stupidity.

Mojo_PeiPei

Can we come up with something new besides rape? Like I said it is sooooooo statisically uncommon its neither here nor there. Honestly give me one justifyable reason other then rape as to why a human life should be terminated?

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Zips

Statistically uncommon or not, it STILL happens. Even the smallest voice needs to be heard does it not? So you'd opt to simply ignore those that have been raped simply because they're in the gross minority? They still are a factor in the question on abortion, it still happens, and a child may be the result of a rape even if you chose to acknowledge that aspect in this matter or not.

And if you READ my post you'd see that I made mention of the process of birth leading to the death of the birthing mother. What then do you do? By your viewpoint there'd be a murder going on either way correct? So instead of waiting to that point where a split section decision has to be made, I say the mother has every right to terminate the pregnancy long before her personal well being is ever made a bigger issue than what it may already be at that point (If she so chooses to put her own life ahead of a unborn fetus).

__________________
Artificial Intelligence is No Match for Natural Stupidity.

BBtB

Again, rape victims,incest victims and times when the mother might die during child birth all make up a small percentage of abortions. Lets say 5% although its probably even less then that. Now by your logic if we let this 5% get abortions then we HAVE to let the other 95% that just want to do it out of convience. On that same logic I could say 5% of black males will comit a crime. So lets kill them all!I'm just saying is all. I am not going to get into this debate.

__________________
Meridae'n once played "death" at a game of chess that lasted for over two years. He finally beat death in a best 34 out of 67 match. At that time he could ask for any one thing and he could wish for the hope of all mankind... he looked death right in the eye and said ...

"I would like about three fiddy"

Mojo_PeiPei

Even if it is rape you are still terminating a human life. As far as the arguement about the mother and birth, what makes you think that anything has to be done? We have perverted nature, played god if you will in the last 50 years of medical technology. Shit happens, it is the natural cycle of life, how do you think people got along without medicine for the thousands of years of existence before it? Like BBtB and myself have said with your two problems you have only brought up the VAST minority, does that not mean that some action should be taken against the majority?

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Lipo

No, I'm not contradicting myself, although I can see how you would come to that conclusion. Separate an embryo from the mother, and the embryo dies. It happens all the time during miscarriages, not just during abortion.

Lipo

I love the argument of adoption as an alternative. It makes me laugh. Sure, you can put your baby up for adoption. That's why there aren't any children in the world waiting to be adopted.

I would much rather have a child never be born than see it grow up in a harmful culture of foster homes or orphanages. In a world where there already isn't nearly enough homes for children to go into, the pro-lifers (that term cracks me up to) want to burden even more an over-burdened system.

Perhaps if the way we go about the adoption process were changed it wouldn't be such a bad alternative. If we could get race, sexual orientation, and religious faith removed from the adoption screening process, then perhaps I might go along with that idea. But when well-off black couples aren't allowed to adopt white children (Cincinnati) you're never going to reach a point where adoption is a viable alternative to abortion.

MacGnG

Pro-life FORCES the mother to have this child, no matter the circumstances. If you take circumstances out of the equation all you have left is: let the mother chose what she wants or not. THAT IS THE POINT!

It's the FREEWILL of the mother, it isn't anything else, you either let the mother decide what she wants to do or not

from a philosophical standpoint, taking away freewill, is the worst punishment you can do to any human being. it's taking away the naturally given rights of a person.

pro choice doesn't mean pro abortion; conversely, pro-life IS and only is anti-abortion, plain and simple.

Pro-Choice means let the mother make HER own damn decision, and accept it!

svt

Lipo: And I mean this very respectfully. Embryos develop before they become "attached" to the mother. They grow them in labs(thats a whole other debate). And..... adoption is a great way because there are many many couples who can't conceive and choose to adopt. My mother was adopted by a very loving family. Adoption is also a great way to help those in foreign orphanages, many people adopt from there and many more would if those countries would make it easier for people in the US to do so. Many adoptions are arranged before the baby is born, so it is a viable alternative. The fact of the matter is, nobody has the right to terminate life whether it is young or old. If the mother were going to die I could see an emergency surgery to remove the child and do all possible to sustain its life. Pro choice is a way to "cop out" of one's responsibility.

svt

Obviously, that's why this debate is taking place

Otaku

ok, the "pro-lifers" on here still havent answered the question : what if the mothers life was put in danger by the pregnancy/birth of this child.

Is abortion a justifiable alternative, or do you think that the pregnancy should proceed anyway?

svt

Make sure to read all the posts

Otaku

Applogies there svt

How about the rest of the pro-lifers? anyone else wanna comment?

is there any reason in your minds that abortion is a justifiable alternative?

svt

No prob. TFP kicks ass and by that I mean the people. This is a really really controversial topic and yet everyone here is very respectful. Peace.

MacGnG

seems that you FORGOT this:
pro-life is against letting the mother choose.

svt

Mac, why is it the mother's decision on whether or not the child should die? Because she help conceive it? Because it's her freewill? Is abortion still not murder if the baby dies and the mother didn't want it aborted? For example, for some reason someone punches the woman in the stomach and the baby dies, did the perpetrator infact murder someone(remember, pro-choicers say the fetus isn't living)? The person who does so would most certainly go to jail. Yet if the woman allowed a doctor to abort the baby it isn't murder. ????? Explain

Lebell

The following is a paper I wrote for a morality class on the subject of abortion.

It is broken into three parts. First I argrue the pro-life side, second I agrue the pro-choice side and third, I argue my own conclusions and viewpoint.

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


The Morality of Abortion:
A Discussion


Introduction

Historically, abortion has been a subject that has received little attention in mainstream thinking. Various cultures have addressed when it was permissible, such as after “quickening” or after so many days of conception, but as a reality it was left to women and midwives. It has only been since the late 19th century with the advent of women’s rights movements in areas such as birth control do we see abortion begin to be addressed. This debate has significantly escalated in intensity and volume since 1973 with the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion in the landmark case, Roe vs. Wade.

A comment should be made regarding the use of the terms pro-life and pro-choice in this paper. It has been my experience that in this highly emotional debate, each side has chosen the terminology that it feels best describes itself. These terms are used here out of respect and not out of favor for a particular political or moral view on the rightness or wrongness of abortion and abortion laws.

Pro-life

The difficulty in the pro-choice side of the abortion debate lies in the fact that wherever the line is drawn in allowing or not allowing abortion, it is an arbitrary line. Fortunately, there are two principles which can guide us in deciding whether or not abortion is moral and permissible. First, is that is always wrong to take an innocent life, and second, that the fetus is human by the only non-arbitrary line, that being conception and the creation of a unique human genetic code.

Typically, arguments for the morality of abortion during any or all of pregnancy fall into three areas: 1) viability of the fetus; 2) experience, and; 3) what Noonan calls, “the sentiments of adults” . None of these are reliable however in determining the morality of abortion. The age of viability of the fetus has changed dramatically with the advent of 20th century medicine and it is reasonable to think that something akin to an artificial womb is possible. At the other end of the spectrum, a full term baby is just as dependant upon others for survival as the fetus, so viability is a non-issue.

Experience is also unreliable, as this not only depends on age but on the individual. The fetus at a very early age can experience pain, while adults who have suffered nerve damage may not. Psychologically, we do not distinguish individuals who have cerebral palsy as less “human” than others because of their defect and deficit of experience. Our view of children or our “sentimentality” is just as unreliable. The pro-choice side would argue that the fetus does not even “look” like a baby until several months after conception. Yet such distinctions have been used throughout history to deprive whole classes of individuals of rights, such as blacks in America, and in the extreme case, eugenics movements during Nazi Germany. So too, the pro-choice side would deprive the fetus.



Pro-choice

The mistake of Noonan and the pro-life side is to confuse genetic humanity with person-hood and to attempt to ascribe the rights of the later to the former. This separation is central to the pro-choice position. Person-hood is and must always be separate from genetic humanity. While a fetus is undeniably genetically distinct from the parents, it is not sufficient for us to grant it the status of person-hood and the rights and moral status implied. In developing this argument, one must first define the characteristics or qualities that we can, in general, ascribe to people. Mary Ann Warren defined them thus:

1) Consciousness (of objects and events external and /or internal to the being), and in particular the capacity to feel pain;
2) Reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems);
3) Self-motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control);
4) The capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an indefinite variety of types, that is not just with an indefinite number of possible contents, but on indefinitely man possible topics;
5) The presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness, either individual or racial, or both.

An adult human certainly demonstrates all of these characteristics, and a baby of only a few weeks demonstrates most of them, but a fetus demonstrates none of them at the start and very few of them even at later stages of development. It is not denied that the fetus will become a person, but rather that the fetus is not yet a person and therefore cannot be ascribed all the rights and moral status that we would to an adult human or even an infant.

Using this concept of person-hood vs. genetically human, we may further say that not all genetically human beings are people, nor is genetic humanity necessary for person-hood and the rights we ascribe it. For the former case, we can consider the case of anencephaly, that is, incomplete development or even the absence of the brain in a newborn. Genetic humanity is undeniable yet the child will never meet the criteria of person-hood. In the second case we can consider hypothetical alien cultures or artificial intelligence. We can imagine meeting such creatures and where they meet our criteria they deserve the rights of person-hood.

Therefore, while it is due respect of it potential, a fetus is not a person and abortion is morally permissible at any and all stages of pregnancy.


Personal Viewpoint

I have never been completely satisfied or comfortable with either position presented here. In developing my own position, I have considered two cases, 1) the one week old fetus, and 2) the 8 ½ month old fetus. In the first case, I am strongly persuaded by Warren’s arguments. There are genetic humans, and there are persons, and the fetus at this stage does not exhibit the characteristics of a person as outlined above. It has a high probability of becoming a person and should be valued as such, but to ascribe it the same moral status as a fully developed person is completely foreign to my understanding of what a person is. In the second case, the fetus has, for whatever reasons, been allowed to develop. At this point, its potentiality is much closer to realization and it is viable outside the womb. I would consider an abortion at this point to be immoral, except to save the life of the mother. In both cases, Jane English’ “self defense” argument, where even the taking of innocent life can at times be justified, is persuasive.

I have also noted that frequently the pro-life side of the debate ignores the woman and her rights in this debate, or as English put it, “But all such approaches look to characteristics of the developing human and ignore the relation between the fetus and the woman.” Here I choose to distinguish being pro-choice from being pro-abortion. The debate of abortion is much like the debate over capital punishment. We are forced as individuals and as a society to draw lines in the sand. In some cases we may justify capital punishment while in others we may decide that it is an inappropriate punishment, while some individuals will hold that it is never morally justifiable.

Yet, there are valid arguments for each position. So too, is the debate over abortion. Strangely, Noonan said it best, “To say a being was human was to say it had a destiny to decide for itself which could not be taken from it by another man’s decision.” While he was talking about the fetus’ rights as a human being, I believe this is central to being pro-choice: it is morally wrong to interfere with another person’s personal moral decisions and destiny, especially when such decisions can be supported by reasoned and logical arguments.

Therefore, I support the current position of the Supreme Court in making abortion legal without restrictions in the first trimester while allowing restrictions as the pregnancy progresses. In my view, this is a reasonable attempt to balance the rights of the woman to self-determination with that of the fetus’s right to life especially in the middle of the pregnancy where it is difficult to draw a line, yet a line must be drawn.


--------

1 John T. Noonan Jr., The Moral Life, page 760
2 Mary Anne Warren, ibid, page 769
3 Jane English, ibid, p 782
4 John T. Noonan Jr., ibid, pp 763-764

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

BBtB

MacGnG, Why should it just be the MOTHERS choice? Did the father not have anything in this? And of course... no one is asking the child.

Otaku, The majority of such births could be done through surgery thus saving the life of both invovled. Beyond that, again, we HAVE answered this question before, these make up the fring minority of abortions.

But again, I am not going to go into the debate of outlawing abortions or anything like that. I just think it should be a decision of EVERYONE involved. It shouldn't be the sole decision of the mother simply because it happens to be inside her. Her decision will effect many others other then just her.


Also, Lebell, while I do not 100% agree with your conclusion I must say that is one of the best articles on abortion I have ever read. Kudos to you.

__________________
Meridae'n once played "death" at a game of chess that lasted for over two years. He finally beat death in a best 34 out of 67 match. At that time he could ask for any one thing and he could wish for the hope of all mankind... he looked death right in the eye and said ...

"I would like about three fiddy"

MacGnG

svt: if someone punches the mother and the baby dies, it's up to the court to decide what the guy is charged with (manslaughter maybe), happend on, i think, an episode of Law And Order.. it was interesting. --if someone can find something on the net, it's happend b4 , what was the guy charged with.

BBtB, yes it is primarily the mothers choice, she can decide if she wants the fathers input, it's also the circumstances of the mother and father, married?, is she an unfit mother? is he an unfit father?... no one asks the child, because the child can not speak... i agree everyone should be involved in the decision, but they all cant.

i don't agree with killing the potential of life, but taking away the freewill of the mother is worse.

what is so wrong with letting the mother decide (simply letting her decide whatever she wants). this is the only thing I argue for. i am fighting for the mother to make whatever decision she wants, if she doesn't want to have an abortion,OK, but if she does no one should stop her.

if a girl wants to, she is gonna find a way to abort the baby some how; Isn't providing a safe and sterile environment for the abortion to occur, a lot better than a 13 year old girl using a coat hanger?

i only fight for the right of the mother to do as she chooses, not for the "killing" of a fetus.

pangavan

According to the catholic faith the efforts go to the child. My grandmother had one of the first cesarian sections,they actually asked grandpa who they should save if it came to it.

"The baby has not been baptized and would die with an unclean soul"
This may have changed over the years...the church has gotten more PC since I learned from the nuns

__________________
He is, moreover, a frequent drunkard, a glutton, and a patron of ladies who are no better than they should be.

BBtB

But WHY? Why should it be solely the mothers choice? And the father maybe get "input" Why does the father not have a true say? Its just as much his child as anyone elses. I mean that is the whole stance of pro-choice people. Pro the mothers choice. But WHY merely the mothers? Because it happens to be inside her? Well fuck you if you think I am going to stand idly by while someone kills MY child out of laziness. And it will be out of laziness. Because I am not a rapist. I am not knocking up any 13 year olds. And obviously I am going to take the mothers health concerns into my decision. The only way she is going to get an abortion against my wishes is if it IS out of laziness. And you (and sadly the law as well) say its her right to do so. Well what about my right to my child?

__________________
Meridae'n once played "death" at a game of chess that lasted for over two years. He finally beat death in a best 34 out of 67 match. At that time he could ask for any one thing and he could wish for the hope of all mankind... he looked death right in the eye and said ...

"I would like about three fiddy"

MacGnG

BBtB: (simply) EVER FATHER isn't AS GOOD AS YOU! every father wouldn't take all those things into consideration, thats why.

DisabledMind

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
So your telling me that a mother should have to go through all of the pain and suffering, that another has put apon her because it would be wrong to abort a baby? I am anti-abortion all the way, but if the cause of the baby going to scar you for life then i believe you should get rid of it.
I know if i was put in a situation such as that, I wouldn't want to go through with haveing a baby of a man that raped me. It would be way to damn scary. But thats my thoughs.

(And if your targeting the "pro-choicer's" with that comment then you should word it a little bit differently. Because the only People that have been playing "rape cards" are the ones that are against abortion. Just a thought?)

BBtB

Oh, so fathers are all inherently bad? Or just the majority? And mothers are inherently good?

I am sorry I just can not buy that the father shouldn't have a say in what happens to their child because they may not pick the right choice. Of course assuming the mothers always do.

__________________
Meridae'n once played "death" at a game of chess that lasted for over two years. He finally beat death in a best 34 out of 67 match. At that time he could ask for any one thing and he could wish for the hope of all mankind... he looked death right in the eye and said ...

"I would like about three fiddy"

rainheart

Would you consider it murder if I masturbated and disposed of all the millions of sperm in my semen?

svt

Let's clarify some stuff. A woman being raped is a terrible terrible thing no one here is arguing that point. If she were to be come pregnant the scarring wouldn't be from the baby, it would be from the trauma induced from being raped. The baby was brought into the world and that cannot be helped. Getting rid of it is fine, it's just the way in which you do. Women don't have to go "into labor" per say, she can have a c-section. Whether or not she has an abortion or has the baby it's going to require some form of surgery. Adoption is the best way, rather than taking life the woman can choose to give life.

MacGnG

no one always pick the right choice!!!!!!!!!!!

you just don't get it!

thats not what i was trying to say. my point was that some father's aren't good, which is why it should be the mother's choice. but since there are some mother's that aren't good either, then it becomes the combined choice of many.

this what it comes down to, it is the mothers choice with the input of others, unless for some reason she isn't fit to make the decision, and if she isn't fit to make the decision, she shouldnt be having the child.

BBtB

You are contradicting yourself. First your say, rightly so, that no one can pick the "right" choice. First off that is subjective secondly not everyone is fit to make said judgement. Then you go on to say that because people are subject to errors it should be the womans decision? I guess I don't get it. Because she can make the wrong decision it should be hers? Or because he can?

Either I don't get it or your argument just dosn't hold water. Unless you bring more to the table I am just going to assume it is in face that latter.

__________________
Meridae'n once played "death" at a game of chess that lasted for over two years. He finally beat death in a best 34 out of 67 match. At that time he could ask for any one thing and he could wish for the hope of all mankind... he looked death right in the eye and said ...

"I would like about three fiddy"

Otaku

there is no argument to be played out here BBtB. You are saying it is your right to have input into the decision, and it is. However it isnt your right to say "no you must bear my child". The actual process of bearing that child is left to the woman, and in doing so, she is the one who must make the ultimate decision.

You can have all the input you wish, but in the end, the final decision is hers.

The fact that you helped concieve this child is important, and so is your input into thedecision. However, if the woman decides she wants an abortion, how can you stop her (apart from becoming violent and/or restraining her physically)?

You can't!(unless she is considered unfit to make this decision - another discussion) Thus the ultimate decision is hers, not yours.

lafemmefatale

out of curiosity...those of you who are strongly pro-life...are you also vegetarians? This is a entirely hypothetical comparsion and no way does it reflect reality but humans control lives of animals daily by choosing to eat them, destroying habitat etc. and it is possible to draw similaties between animals and babies/fetuses in that neither have a great*[generally] mental capacity, but both are life forms...yet we choose to eat animals.

Now, this isnt to promote vegetarianism since I'm not one...it's just a thought. And I'm not entirely pro choice...i used to be but then growing up I realised that the average person cant be trusted to make wise decisions lol...no seriously...why give the choice if it'll be abused. Life is precious and at the same time women should have the choice but the average woman who gets these are raped and miserable, but teens or women who had abortions 5 or 6 times before. Personally i wanna slap them and tell em to smarten up but then in weighing the outcomes...I'd still have to say i'm a reluctant pro choicer

A woman who doesnt want the baby and has the baby will NOT love it, and putting babies up for adoption may be an option but for a child to find happy circumstances through adoption isn't common. Also women may keep the child and just be emotionally distant or abuse them etc etc...the consequences of having the baby is really tragic to think about.

__________________
-poor is the man whose pleasure depends on the permission of another-