PDA

View Full Version : Abortion.



Golden Eel
04-18-2012, 07:50 AM
How do you feel about the subject?

Where do you personally draw the line in regards to where life begins?

Even if an organism is 'alive' by your definition, does killing it hold the same moral weight as killing a sentient adult? (E.G. is killing a living fetus equally as unethical to you as killing a born and thinking human?) Is it only immoral to kill an organism when it has the capacity to realize it wants to live?

Let's hear it.

Fav
04-18-2012, 08:09 AM
It depends on whether or not the individual in question is attractive. Not too many people care about an ugly male adult being killed, unless he has the appearance of someone warm and approachable. As for infants, I try to base my opinion on whether or not they are going to grow up and vote Democrat. If they give the impression of being self-reliant and capable of critical thinking, it's best to chop 'em as soon as possible before they grow up to be another Zimmerman.

That's just my 2.

But if you're looking for the full buck sixty five, I'm not exactly sure where life begins. Personally I do not think that you can either create nor destroy matter. Humans are just mutations from where the sperm and egg joined together and mutated. Neither was destroyed, it just morphed into something else.

An analogy would be grabbing a blob of blue jello and then a blob of yellow jello and pushing them together to make green jello. Both the blue and yellow jello still exist, they were just transformed into something else. So, really, you can't "create" life, just rather mutate your lovejuices which evolve into a living human.

I don't have a single problem with an infant out of the womb being killed for a "benevolent reason" - i.e. the baby was going to die in a few months or something. And a fetus in the third trimester I believe is pretty much the same thing as a fresh & newly born infant out of the womb.

Do whatever is in the best interest of the child, and I hope you enjoyed my $1.65.

1984
04-18-2012, 09:23 AM
Did you know that if every lifeless fetus was donated to third world countries it could end world hunger? ... Donate your stillborn/aborted fetus TODAY.

Dronepool
04-18-2012, 09:35 AM
I have no problems with them at at all. My mother had like 1 or 2 before I was born. If the people aren't ready to have a kid or don't want one, more power to them.

sayyosin
04-18-2012, 02:26 PM
Abortion is a question of choice. I believe women should have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies. If you don't like abortion, don't have one.

Golden Eel
04-18-2012, 02:47 PM
I was expecting/hoping for a bit more nuanced discussion about the issue, as opposed to simple 'yes' or 'no' answers.

For instance, at what point, if any, is too late (in your opinion) to get an abortion?

Like Favenris touched on, would you be for or against killing a freshly born child if you knew it would have a terrible life floating around foster homes or something equally (or more) bad?

Basically, at what point do you consider a life 'sacred', if you do at all? Would you swat a mosquito? Where is your line drawn?

Cringeon
04-18-2012, 03:02 PM
I draw the line at late term abortions unless the mother's life is endangered, or it's known the child will suffer form a cruel existence due to a medical condition. Life doesn't just begin at one moment, because every thing leading up to conception is some sort of genetic life/energy - but I don't think at any certain point it becomes sacred. I guess it depends on the emotional state of the woman though, the abortion should only take place if she's willing to part with the fetus. As long as the mother is of sound mind and decides that's what she wants, I trust her to make the decision regarding her body.

sayyosin
04-18-2012, 03:13 PM
My apologies for not elaborating. My opinion doesn't really differ from that of Favenris. It should be up to the parents to decide what's best for the child. I don't consider life sacred because biologically we aren't much different from chimpanzees; chemically we're not much different from our planet; and atomically we aren't just a part of the universe, the universe is a part of us. We're in the universe and the universe is in us. So with this in mind, I don't think ending the unconscious/conscious life of a baby should be considered murder if it's in the best interests of the child. Especially since we're all matter, and it cannot be destroyed. It just becomes something else.

We make life sacred by giving meaning to our own lives in order to comprehend and accept our existence. A baby cannot give any meaning to its life, as it only has 25% brain capacity of an adult. It's up to the parents to draw the line, not the state or church.

And yeah, I've killed a mosquito. Those shits are annoying. That doesn't mean I agree with killing another human being who is capable of evaluating their existence and exercising free will. Like I said, abortion and ending your child's life is a decision for the parents. Since I'm not a parent, I don't really have anything else to say. I agree that there is a thin line between doing what's best for your child and doing what's best for yourself. Indeed, it's pretty complicated. Birth control and condoms, everybody.

Mugwump
04-18-2012, 03:16 PM
Unless it happens to be my child I couldn't care less what happens to it. Kill it, eat it, raise it as a Mormon - just don't tell me about the cute shit it does thru your facebook updates. Ugh.

D:

Shangri-LIE
04-18-2012, 03:56 PM
I am against it as a method of birth control. I am for if necessary due to the reasons Cringeon brought up.

I don't see why some people stress the sanctity of life virtue as hard as they do when it comes to abortions when at the same time they support war operations and the death penalty. Is there a specific age in which the enchantment of being a cute baby wears off and it is ok to be killed? Human capital is faint. The human population has already reached it's critical mass. Humans kill and as mortals we're all subject to death in whatever fashion it takes us. We die. It doesn't matter how. We all just die.

The Wax Gentleman
04-18-2012, 04:31 PM
Guess what?
Eating meat is murderous.
Tearing up grass is killing living things.
Getting a tan kills cells on the outer layer of your body.
Have you ever killed an annoying horsefly, mosquito, or wasp?
Those things are more "alive" than any 2 month old fetus is going to be. They can't see anything, they can't hear anything, their brains haven't developed in the slightest... They are these little masses of flesh, that are scientifically "alive," but that raises the question of, when is one alive? When does one experience consciousness? When is one aware of themselves as a person? I don't think a tiny under-developed blob vaguely resembling a baby is going to feel a thing. "Well, no, you're taking away something that could be a life!" Birth control does that as well. Should we take away all means of birth control? Never eat anything again, because all food involves killing another living thing, or raping an animal for it's milk? You could extend your moral values to the nth degree, and then just decide to kill yourself, because you put other "things" in discomfort due to your existence. But then THAT would be killing a thing, wouldn't it?
If you want to have a child, have a child.
If you don't, get an abortion.
It really doesn't matter.

21Faces
04-18-2012, 04:34 PM
Late term abortions are sort of a weird occurrence in themselves as it is. They're prohibited in most places, but you have to figure no woman in their right mind would want to have one (as opposed to abortions in the first trimester which account for well over 90% of abortions performed today) because of the invasive nature of the procedure, the risks involved, the expense, etc. So that's sort of a non issue in my mind.

There is no question that a fetus is "life," I don't think anyone seriously debates that. I'm sure my body is crawling with bacteria right now and that is "life" also, as well as the eggs I had this morning which were also "life." So the issue is not "when does 'life' begin," because we know. At the moment of conception, when a unique genetic pattern is formed following the fertilization of an egg a "new" life begins developing in the womb.

The real question is at what point should life be considered "human" in a legal and moral sense- at what point is such life entitled by its nature to "human rights?" I think the rational foundation of anti-abortion arguments is that our genetic material- our biological status as human organisms grants us these rights no matter what stage of development we're in- zygote onward. Personally, I'd like to think that being "human" goes a little deeper than the 3% difference of genetic material between us and chimps. What that crucial 3% grants us is more important: a "self-awareness" that separates us to a degree from all other life on the planet. It's a neurological phenomena that fetuses lack, because their nervous systems are not adequately developed enough to appreciate their own existence, fear, pain, love, hope, self-interest, or any of the other qualities that we attribute to human life and experience.

Some argue that by this definition even born infants do not qualify as "human." I think it is interesting to note that early religious thinking did not traditionally view infants as having "souls" or reaching "the age of reason" until around 3 or 4. So even back then, people recognized that infants lacked "something," emergent "human" behavior until after they had survived infancy. Obviously that kind of thinking is no longer feasibly legal today- infant mortality rates in the first world are much lower than they used to be.

That said, I think if not by neurological standards, human infants are "covered," if you will, for their humanness through the principle of bodily autonomy. This is illustrated through what you could call "The Rule of Twins." If our status of "human" is bestowed at the moment our genetic uniqueness is established, then what about twins? Since they are identical, why do they get to count as two people out of the womb and not one? Because although they are both genetically identical, they are also separate and autonomous entities. Even in the case of conjoined twins, we can observe separate brains controlling separate limbs to separate ends. As such, we recognize twins as being separate human people.

Fetuses in the womb are not neurologically self aware, nor are they physically autonomous entities. They are reliant on the body of the mother for their very existence. As such, the rights and interest of the autonomous self-aware mother take precedence over the fetus. Further, because the fetus develops literally INSIDE the body of the mother the issue of her sovereignty over her own person comes into play. If we were reptiles, we might be having a different conversation. As mammals, the rights of a human mother both literally and figuratively eclipse that of any fetus developing inside her. A pregnant woman is well within her rights to drink, smoke, starve herself, or risk her own health to the same legal degree any other non-pregnant person would be. She owes absolutely no legal consideration towards her fetus. This reality is rather messily expressed through the assertion of a person's legal "right to privacy," in the sense that it is nobody else's business whether a woman is even pregnant at all or just fat, or just has a basketball sized tumor growing in her abdomen. Her choice to kill the life inside her is her own. Only she can legally decide what it's worth.

Personally, I think that the legal protection of women's control over their own reproductive processess through abortion and contraception is one of the greatest accomplishments of civilized human society on par with the abolition of slavery as an institution after the civil war. Many people are ignorant of how the history of women's legal rights over their own bodies have been so central to the sustainment of patriarchal societies. When we look at the (agrarian) societies of antiquity we see women treated as property because they were seen as property, traded like livestock between families. Your marriage to a woman was as much a purchase made from her father. You needed her to produce children to work your land as much as you needed livestock. An autonomous women who has sovereignty over her own body throws a wrench in the whole system. If a woman can decide on her own when and under what circumstances she will become pregnant or even choose to end a pregnancy in process, then you lose control over the means of production in an agrarian society. Prostitution was also a fundamental threat to the established patriarchal system in that women would dare assert the right to sell themselves on their own terms for their own profit rather than be sold by their fathers.

So that is what is really behind most anti-abortion arguments. It's not about the life of the fetus (exemplified by the exactly ZERO shits anti-abortion proponents generally give about fetuses out of the womb), it's about keeping things the way they are- keeping people (women and minorities, mainly) "in their place." Abortion and contraception are key issues that are linked and liberative. They are a threat to the holdouts of patriarchy and privilege that have been in place for thousands of years.

Golden Eel
04-18-2012, 04:48 PM
Guess what?
Eating meat is murderous.
Tearing up grass is killing living things.
Getting a tan kills cells on the outer layer of your body.
Have you ever killed an annoying horsefly, mosquito, or wasp?
Those things are more "alive" than any 2 month old fetus is going to be. They can't see anything, they can't hear anything, their brains haven't developed in the slightest... They are these little masses of flesh, that are scientifically "alive," but that raises the question of, when is one alive? When does one experience consciousness? When is one aware of themselves as a person? I don't think a tiny under-developed blob vaguely resembling a baby is going to feel a thing. "Well, no, you're taking away something that could be a life!" Birth control does that as well. Should we take away all means of birth control? Never eat anything again, because all food involves killing another living thing, or raping an animal for it's milk? You could extend your moral values to the nth degree, and then just decide to kill yourself, because you put other "things" in discomfort due to your existence. But then THAT would be killing a thing, wouldn't it?
If you want to have a child, have a child.
If you don't, get an abortion.
It really doesn't matter.

Who are you arguing with?

The Wax Gentleman
04-18-2012, 04:56 PM
Myself, I suppose. I'm trying to tackle all of the possible arguments.

sayyosin
04-18-2012, 04:57 PM
That was a very insightful post, 21Faces. I agree 100%.

Dronepool
04-18-2012, 08:34 PM
For instance, at what point, if any, is too late (in your opinion) to get an abortion?
I guess it should be taken care of within about 1-6 weeks.. at least? Got pregnant by mistake, have it taken care of. Got raped, have it taken care of. Decided that you're too broke to support a kid, have it taken care of.

Like Favenris touched on, would you be for or against killing a freshly born child if you knew it would have a terrible life floating around foster homes or something equally (or more) bad?
That's a bit different. Having a child and saying "OOPS NEVER MIND LOL KILL IT" isn't cool. They should have a chance. It's a 50/50 shot at a potentially DECENT life without knowing the give away parents.

Basically, at what point do you consider a life 'sacred', if you do at all? Would you swat a mosquito? Where is your line drawn?
I kill mosquitos with no remorse.

S.D.
04-19-2012, 04:04 AM
I often wonder why, if Anti-Abortion campaigners are so concerned about the preservation of life, they waste so much of their own stood around in front of medical facilities holding picket signs.
If you're Pro-Life, go and make amazing use of your own; read a book, write a book, make love, go somewhere you've never been, sing a song, write a song, watch a film, build something, do anything more constructive than waiting outside the Doctor's doorway so you can tell other people what's so wrong with their existence.

By that definition, Anti-Abortion campaigners waste as much 'life' as people who undergo the procedure apparently do. Swings and roundabouts.

TheTeletubbieFlasher
04-19-2012, 05:58 AM
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

sayyosin
04-19-2012, 11:40 AM
Personally, I think many people who are pro-life are simply just anti-woman.

21Faces
04-19-2012, 05:22 PM
^exactly that. My mother likes to say that if men could get pregnant you'd be able to buy oral contraceptives- particularly "Plan B" in vending machines.

Golden Eel
04-19-2012, 06:23 PM
I often wonder why, if Anti-Abortion campaigners are so concerned about the preservation of life, they waste so much of their own stood around in front of medical facilities holding picket signs.
If you're Pro-Life, go and make amazing use of your own; read a book, write a book, make love, go somewhere you've never been, sing a song, write a song, watch a film, build something, do anything more constructive than waiting outside the Doctor's doorway so you can tell other people what's so wrong with their existence.

By that definition, Anti-Abortion campaigners waste as much 'life' as people who undergo the procedure apparently do. Swings and roundabouts.


Personally, I think many people who are pro-life are simply just anti-woman.


^exactly that. My mother likes to say that if men could get pregnant you'd be able to buy oral contraceptives- particularly "Plan B" in vending machines.

I'm not sure I agree.

I think you're all generalizing a bit. A lot of these people honestly believe that abortion is just as morally reprehensible as what Hitler or Mao Tse Tung did, but in a much higher order of magnitude of frequency, and with (mostly) widespread social acceptance.

I don't think I agree with that, but I don't think it's fair to say things like 'people who are anti-abortion hate women!'

Sans Agendum
04-19-2012, 06:26 PM
Everyone should experience abortion at least once. Just for the experience.

Don't be so close minded. You may even end up enjoying it!

EDIT: Saying anti-abortion = anti-woman is about as valid as saying pro-choice=anti-babies.

sayyosin
04-19-2012, 06:30 PM
To be fair, I said most people, not everyone who is anti-abortion. I'm generally talking about conservatives. But you have to ask why some people are against something like abortion, but totally okay with the death penalty and war. If it's because they think it is unfair murder, they are hypocrites. That's how I concluded that some of them must be just anti-woman. They don't think women should be able to control their own bodies. In a society that's patriarchal, it makes plenty of sense that they would think this way and call it "pro-life."

Golden Eel
04-19-2012, 06:36 PM
To be fair, I said most people, not everyone who is anti-abortion. But you have to ask why some people are against something like abortion, but totally okay with the death penalty and war. If it's because they think it is unfair murder, they are hypocrites. That's how I concluded that some of them must be just anti-woman. They don't think women should be able to control their own bodies. In a society that's patriarchal, it makes plenty of sense that they would think this way and call it "pro-life."

Fair enough, I don't want to deny that there's a misogynistic element to a lot of abortion opponents.

I just dislike when people generalize opponents of abortion as women-hating or generalize proponents as murderers.

I think it's fair to say that neither side gives it the full amount of thought they should before they 'choose a side'. But that's probably true for basically any important decision people make. Hell, I wouldn't deny that I'm guilty of it quite a bit myself.

sayyosin
04-19-2012, 07:03 PM
Fair enough, I don't want to deny that there's a misogynistic element to a lot of abortion opponents.

I just dislike when people generalize opponents of abortion as women-hating or generalize proponents as murderers.

I think it's fair to say that neither side gives it the full amount of thought they should before they 'choose a side'. But that's probably true for basically any important decision people make. Hell, I wouldn't deny that I'm guilty of it quite a bit myself.

I agree that generalizing your opponents doesn't justify or validate your position. I'm also guilty of this. I understand the views of pro-life and why they are against abortion. I just don't value life as much as them, I suppose? Maybe it's because I don't believe in a soul. Then again, if a soul exists and it went somewhere after death, wouldn't the fetus be alright in the end? Sure, you might have robbed it from experiencing life, but you also saved it from experiencing hell on earth. Is it morally reprehensible to refuse abortion knowing your child will never receive the proper health care or education it deserves, or even the proper parenting if you're a 16 year-old rape victim? What if it's born with a genetic defect, disease, etc.? Now, I don't think every potential baby that isn't genetically perfect should be aborted, but I do think a woman should be given the chance to decide whether or not she wants to make the sacrifices of bringing a child into the world.

Some retorts I've heard, "well she should have worn a condom," "she should take responsibility and make those sacrifices because life is important." These are all valid, but you can't ignore the huge gray area. In the end, it's about the availability of having that choice. The people who think it's murder comparable to Hitler or Mao Tse...well, I think that's a pretty ridiculous comparison. A fetus is a part of a woman's body until it develops into a baby and leaves the birth canal. The atrocities that dictators directed just weren't the same, as they forced death upon millions who weren't a "part" of them at all...just a part of their plans to forward their agendas.

I guess what I'm getting at is that a mother deciding to end the potential for life of her own product before it is even born is not the same as killing millions of live people. That's just dumb.

Dysmorphia
04-19-2012, 07:06 PM
I am pro-abortion but prevention is always better than cure.

Some perceive a life to be created the moment of conception; some consider it to be birth. Personally, I cannot define when an organism is considered a ‘life’, and probably won’t be able to do so until I am an expectant mother. Whether alive or not, a fetus is wholly dependent on the mother, so ultimately it is the mother’s choice whether or not to continue with the pregnancy.

Determining whether it is right or wrong to opt for an abortion is, in my opinion, irrelevant. What is important is consideration for both the mother and child. Even if you believe that abortion is wrong, is it more wrong to bring a child into the world when you are unable to provide the best possible life for him/her? I think so.

sayyosin
04-19-2012, 07:10 PM
What is important is consideration for both the mother and child. Even if you believe that abortion is wrong, is it more wrong to bring a child into the world when you are unable to provide the best possible life for him/her? I think so.

I agree. It's not about what you think is best for everyone, it's what you think is best for your own child.

ThreeEyedGod
04-19-2012, 07:27 PM
Sure, you might have robbed it from experiencing life, but you also saved it from experiencing hell on earth.

As long as we are speculating: what if it would have had an awesome, fucking awesome life?


Is it morally reprehensible to refuse abortion knowing your child will never receive the proper health care or education it deserves, or even the proper parenting if you're a 16 year-old rape victim?

So with that logic, it would not be morally reprehensible to machine gun small, starving Ethiopian villages. Some of those people are starving nd live in hellish conditions with no hope in sight. Why not abort them? And hey, they've already experienced life, and now they are being spared from hell on Earth. Best of both worlds...lucky!



I guess what I'm getting at is that a mother deciding to end the potential for life of her own product before it is even born is not the same as killing millions of live people. That's just dumb.

So a 'million abortions' could easily translate to just a 'million choices being made'?

sayyosin
04-19-2012, 07:55 PM
I think you need to re-read what I said because you took everything and spun it around to make absolutely no sense.


As long as we are speculating: what if it would have had an awesome, fucking awesome life?

It's up to the parent whether or not they believe a fucking awesome life is even possible for their child.


So with that logic, it would not be morally reprehensible to machine gun small, starving Ethiopian villages. Some of those people are starving nd live in hellish conditions with no hope in sight. Why not abort them? And hey, they've already experienced life, and now they are being spared from hell on Earth. Best of both worlds...lucky!

That's not the same thing at all. A mother deciding to end the potential life of her womb has nothing in comparison with the slaughtering of unfortunate, LIVING people. Of course it's morally reprehensible to shoot other people just because they're living in hellish conditions. That has nothing to do with preventing your own potential child from going through those conditions because you cannot provide the life you think they deserve.


So a 'million abortions' could easily translate to just a 'million choices being made'?

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying not all abortions are just choices? I said murdering millions of people is not equivalent to millions of abortions because most abortions are done successfully by the will of the mother who is holding it in her womb. It's not some forced killing spree in most situations, it's a choice that's made between the parents.

ThreeEyedGod
04-19-2012, 09:34 PM
No spin at all as I am just holding you up to your own words.


It's up to the parent whether or not they believe a fucking awesome life is even possible for their child.

Now you are contradicting yourself in a very strong way. So which is it? A fetus is a child or it isn't a child?

No, it is not up to the parent to dictate what kind of life their 'child' is going to have. When a mother gets an abortion, she is simply making the choice of whether the child( or is it just a fetus?) receives a life or is terminated. Your parents do not get to decide what life you are going to have unless they keep you around as a slave and you fail to detach from them. This is something a fetus(child?) does not get to choose.




That's not the same thing at all. A mother deciding to end the potential life of her womb has nothing in comparison with the slaughtering of unfortunate, LIVING people. Of course it's morally reprehensible to shoot other people just because they're living in hellish conditions. That has nothing to do with preventing your own potential child from going through those conditions because you cannot provide the life you think they deserve.

So when you get an abortion, not only are you just simply exterminating biological tissue, you are also destroying potential life? We agree, right? Destroying a fetus is not unfortunate, because it wasn't alive yet: it simply COULD HAVE BEEN alive( if you had let it be).

But those people I described are living a hell on earth, so why not abort them? Why not end their misery? I mean the very idea is something which apparently troubles you so much, that you would end a potential life out of the paranoia that it could end up living in the same manner as those poor bastards. Look, these people ARE, in the present, LIVING hellish lives! These are actual human beings and not just pesky fetuses confined to a womb.What are you doing to save these humans??



I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying not all abortions are just choices? I said murdering millions of people is not equivalent to millions of abortions because most abortions are done successfully by the will of the mother who is holding it in her womb. It's not some forced killing spree in most situations, it's a choice that's made between the parents.

Most mass murderers also commit their deeds successfully by their own will. No one has forced them to do shit. This is a choice that is made between them and their respective governments.

Of course this isn't the SAME THING: it's allegory. I'm not saying abortion performers are the same as Mao or other mass murderers, but you are the one that has entertained the notion by comparing the two to each other and you must answer for it.

sayyosin
04-19-2012, 10:36 PM
Now you are contradicting yourself in a very strong way. So which is it? A fetus is a child or it isn't a child?
I admit to that contradiction and that's simply just an error on my part. I meant fetus, as in a potential child.


No, it is not up to the parent to dictate what kind of life their 'child' is going to have. When a mother gets an abortion, she is simply making the choice of whether the child( or is it just a fetus?) receives a life or is terminated. Your parents do not get to decide what life you are going to have unless they keep you around as a slave and you fail to detach from them. This is something a fetus(child?) does not get to choose.

The parents are the ones who are going to raise the potential child in the environment they dwell in, so in that sense, it is up to them to decide what kind of life their potential child is going to have. The potential child has no choice in this matter, so if the parents decide that having one is not in the best interests of themselves and their potential child, abortion should be available as an option. I was not talking about parents controlling the lives of their children after they have grown up.



So when you get an abortion, not only are you just simply exterminating biological tissue, you are also destroying potential life? We agree, right? Destroying a fetus is not unfortunate, because it wasn't alive yet: it simply COULD HAVE BEEN alive( if you had let it be).

But those people I described are living a hell on earth, so why not abort them? Why not end their misery? I mean the very idea is something which apparently troubles you so much, that you would end a potential life out of the paranoia that it could end up living in the same manner as those poor bastards. Look, these people ARE, in the present, LIVING hellish lives! These are actual human beings and not just pesky fetuses confined to a womb.What are you doing to save these humans??

Because they are alive. Don't you see the difference between people who are alive and breathing, and an unborn fetus who doesn't even know it exists yet? Please, enough with the assumptions that I'm "paranoid" and shit, and asking me what I'm doing to save other people's lives. It's so irrelevant to what we're discussing. Everything I said was theoretical and it doesn't apply to what I would do if I were in this situation. I'm a 19 year-old male in college and totally inexperienced with the idea of having a child. I have no idea what I would do. I was not implying that abortions should be done because parents should be afraid that their potential child could have a life that's as unfortunate as your example, but that if it were the case, meaning, if they believed bringing a child into their life would do more harm than good for that potential child, they should have the option to do what they think is in the best interest of their potential child. Abortion should be a last resort, not a get-out-free card.



Most mass murderers also commit their deeds successfully by their own will. No one has forced them to do shit. This is a choice that is made between them and their respective governments.

Of course this isn't the SAME THING: it's allegory. I'm not saying abortion performers are the same as Mao or other mass murderers, but you are the one that has entertained the notion by comparing the two to each other and you must answer for it.

If you read MMT's post earlier in the thread, you would see that I'm just replying to his notion that some pro-life people consider abortions to be just as morally reprehensible as Hitler or Mao's actions. I am not comparing them for any reason, and I think the comparison itself is distracting from the real questions: should women have the right to decide what is best for their potential child? Should women be able to do what they want with their bodies?

The Empirical Guy
04-19-2012, 11:03 PM
Pro-abortion, but it should be taken care of as soon as possible and prevention is a much better option. If you find out you are pregnant through no fault of your own (ie; you were making correct use of contraception etc), and do not wish to proceed with the pregnancy, that's your choice. Take care of it quickly though. Late term abortions can be a trickier matter, but in the first few weeks, that fetus is nothing but a little blob of non-sentient cells. Life, surely, but no more so than the bacteria we kill every time we brush our teeth and wash our bodies, so it's not first degree murder as such. In that instant, I don't care. Don't want a baby? Vacuum that liquified fetus right out! If you've done everything in your power to prevent it (apart from abstinence, obviously), then you have the choice to proceed down that path and stop yourself from having a baby. Maybe it's for reasons as selfish as you don't want one, don't want to deal with the impact on your life. That's cool by me. However, things should be done as soon as possible. It boggles me how late some women find out they are pregnant. Now, I'm no woman, but it seems to me that it would be pretty obvious you are pregnant, what with that whole not bleeding out your vagina not happening and stuff. Despite this, I know 2 separate people (one of whom had been pregnant before and should know the signs!) who have not found out they were pregnant until nearly the sixth month!

Once things go late term, it get's a little sticker. When you can have an ultrasound and see a very definite human form in there... is it alive? It's life, but does it feel? Have thought? Certainly none of us can remember being in the womb, so we might suggest not, and killing them at this point would not result in any pain or suffering. However, simply through the shape and human-like appearance of the unborn, it becomes a moral sketchy ground. However, in cases such as rape, illness of the mother that could impact the child, or simply through the knowledge that for any reason the child would have a life difficult due to circumstances such as a poor or unable upbringing, severe disablility etc, then I still think it's ok. As Dysmorphia said:


Even if you believe that abortion is wrong, is it more wrong to bring a child into the world when you are unable to provide the best possible life for him/her? I think so.

ThreeEyedGod
04-19-2012, 11:31 PM
In that instant, I don't care. Don't want a baby? Vacuum that liquified fetus right out! If you've done everything in your power to prevent it (apart from abstinence, obviously), then you have the choice to proceed down that path and stop yourself from having a baby. Maybe it's for reasons as selfish as you don't want one, don't want to deal with the impact on your life. That's cool by me.

This is the best answer as it is a brutally honest, not sugar coated, beat around the bush answer.

But if you haven't done everything to prevent it( apart from abstinence), then you don't have a choice to proceed down that path?


Even if you believe that abortion is wrong, is it more wrong to bring a child into the world when you are unable to provide the best possible life for him/her? I think so.

So if it turns out you are unable to provide the "BEST" ( what does this even mean? What is the "best"? I'm not rich, so therefore my parents did not provide the best possible life for me?), then you are wrong for not having terminated your fetus? All these poor people with children should have known better and had abortions! Look at what their fetus grew up to be: Living in a trailer and eating a 5 day a week macaroni and cheese diet, while their poor ass father works at the button factory.

There are some well regarded points in the "pro-choice" camp and this is not one of them.

And if you are so indifferent when it comes to sucking a fetus out of a woman, why is prevention a better option? To conserve electricity? Cut back on bio-waste? Spare the woman some sort of shame? Who cares, let her have as many as she can handle.

Dysmorphia
04-20-2012, 01:27 AM
So if it turns out you are unable to provide the "BEST" ( what does this even mean? What is the "best"? I'm not rich, so therefore my parents did not provide the best possible life for me?), then you are wrong for not having terminated your fetus? All these poor people with children should have known better and had abortions! Look at what their fetus grew up to be: Living in a trailer and eating a 5 day a week macaroni and cheese diet, while their poor ass father works at the button factory.


I actually think that people who can't afford to have children shouldn't have them. I live in an area with high levels of unemployment, where many families are totally dependant on social security payments. The thing is, these families have been on the dole for generations. When they need more money, they poop out another child so they get a bit of extra cash from social security. Their living conditions are poor and the children miss out.
Personally, when I want to start a family it will be when I feel I am in the most optimum position to do so. That is having a reliable source of income, a stable home, family unit and being physically and mentally prepared.




And if you are so indifferent when it comes to sucking a fetus out of a woman, why is prevention a better option? To conserve electricity? Cut back on bio-waste? Spare the woman some sort of shame? Who cares, let her have as many as she can handle.

Abortions are gross. It is so much easier to pop a pill in your mouth at the same time every day than to put your body through this kind of procedure. Abortions have several complications such as infections, cervical damage and a greater risk of death during childbirth in other pregnancies.

The Empirical Guy
04-20-2012, 03:33 AM
This is the best answer as it is a brutally honest, not sugar coated, beat around the bush answer.

But if you haven't done everything to prevent it( apart from abstinence), then you don't have a choice to proceed down that path?

You do, but it's a careless choice. Abortion is not a contraceptive. If you know full well that you do not want a child, take the necessary steps to prevent pregnancy in the first place, don't just whip your baby making parts around and and think that abortions are the first answer.


So if it turns out you are unable to provide the "BEST" ( what does this even mean? What is the "best"? I'm not rich, so therefore my parents did not provide the best possible life for me?), then you are wrong for not having terminated your fetus? All these poor people with children should have known better and had abortions! Look at what their fetus grew up to be: Living in a trailer and eating a 5 day a week macaroni and cheese diet, while their poor ass father works at the button factory.

"Best" means a good quality of life where the child has a reasonable attempt at being happy and creating a existence for themselves they are happy with. This is entirely unconnected to money and your area where you live. I don't want to have child right now because I know I can not afford to support one. They would either be brought up in an extremely poor situation without proper care, or I would be forced to work my ass off at jobs I hate doing extremely long days at minimum wage, making my own life so unsatisfactory that I would likely end up resenting the child and damaging them through the relationship. Either way, the child is not going to have a good upbringing.

My parents have done a far from perfect job of raising me, and we certainly have never been rich, but they did the best damn job they could in their way and it put me in a position to go out and create my own life in the world and have a fair stab at a happy existence.

That isn't to say that people in 3rd world countries shouldn't reproduce, either. They live in a different culture, things are very different there. What is the best possible life there is different from here. But there is a difference between bringing a child in to a poor village where they can at least scratch out a living on a small patch of farmland, and popping one out on the way to the refugee camp, hoping and praying that you will be one of the lucky ones to get a share in the next food aid shipment, if and when it arrives.

Sticky Killer Jones
04-21-2012, 02:06 AM
I am pro-life. When I can, I spend my time with my uncle who does work for Operation Rescue, basically traveling to abortion clinics around the country that still do late-term abortions and harass the women (mostly prepubescent girls) who are coming in to murder their child.

I do not care if you were raped, you should have kept your legs closed. Especially if you're only a teenager. Saw an 11 year-old with a large belly visit Dr. George Tiller (the Baby Killer) a few years ago. Such a floozy. Young ladies these days have no sense of propriety. Nor do I care if giving birth is a risk to the mother's life. A person is a person, no matter how small.

I also care much less if the child you're having (whether you like it or not) is going to have terminal, untreatable ailment that will eventually take it's life not long after birth. As long as my tax money doesn't go to helping your lazy, unemployed, minority ass to pay for all the medical expenses of taking care of your special needs child.

Just because I held up the value of life of the unborn much higher than you do, doesn't mean that I extend my graciousness to the rest of the population! Especially if they're 'struggling' and 'poor'. Poverty is a mental illness, like promiscuity and feminism. I'll direct you to my Bible for help, not my wallet.

The Empirical Guy
04-21-2012, 09:42 AM
I'm sorry, forgive me if I'm missing something obvious, but you are trolling, right? I mean:



I do not care if you were raped, you should have kept your legs closed. Especially if you're only a teenager.

Come on, now, seriously. You do realize that the entire definition of "rape" is that she didn't want it, right? It's pretty hard to keep your legs closed when set upon by a group of physically stronger males and a knife held to your throat.

AssetReign
04-21-2012, 09:46 AM
I'm sorry, forgive me if I'm missing something obvious, but you are trolling, right? I mean:



Come on, now, seriously. You do realize that the entire definition of "rape" is that she didn't want it, right? It's pretty hard to keep your legs closed when set upon by a group of physically stronger males and a knife held to your throat.

I was hoping that was Sticky's misguided attempt at sarcasm because the alternative is too dark to contemplate.

Golden Eel
04-21-2012, 03:43 PM
but you are trolling, right?

Badly, at that.

Whisky And Speed
04-21-2012, 03:46 PM
I got abortion in my eyes.

Golden Eel
04-21-2012, 04:11 PM
I got abortion in my eyes.

Thanks for that constructive input.

Whisky And Speed
04-21-2012, 04:22 PM
You are welcome master.

FeedYourHead
04-21-2012, 04:50 PM
anti-people, now you've gone too far.

The Empirical Guy
04-21-2012, 11:48 PM
I got abortion in my eyes.

I'm pretty sure the procedure isn't meant to be that messy.

Terrapin
04-22-2012, 05:19 AM
I prefer prevention, but abortion comes in handy as a last line of defense. Overpopulation is a major problem. (http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2011/08/16/i-population-problem-0) Guys, you are better off nipping this issue quickly by simply having a vasectomy and ridding chances of contributing to this huge problem we're currently encountering. Ladies, get your tubes tied and help us fellas out. Our unbridled numbers and the amount of resources we ingest, while at the same time polluting it back, is horrific. You, as a single individual, will increase your carbon footprint 40 times just by having two kids. (http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/having-children-brings-high-carbon-impact/) I sure as shit don't want to be paying money to help out your retarded family, so help a brotha out and lighten up economic load as well. Bonus points goes out to sodomy here. Or how about buying some fucking condoms?

I believe having an abortion shows signs of the individual being irresponsible in many cases, but still a necessary procedure in keeping our population in check. That is until we can come together and stop making such a dramatic impact on the planet through reproduction. *high hopes*

Some extraneous food for thought: who else believes that having a kid involves the decision between two people instead of just the woman? Say if the woman wants the kid but the man doesn't, or vice versa? Would you not agree that if people feel responsible enough to be having sex, they should also be responsible enough with each other to make these kinds of decisions mutually? (Obviously I'm not talking about rape in this instance)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbMBIP_PPUo&feature=related

The Empirical Guy
04-22-2012, 07:35 AM
Hey, you got my first use of the new "Like" thingy.

You're absolutely right, overpopulation is a massive problem that is greatly exacerbated by families with a small army of children. In 3rd world countries where birth control is harder to come by, and the children may well have a lower survival rate anyway, it's a different manner but when you see Western families popping out 4, 5, 6 or more kids just because they "love children so much!"... yeah, that kind of pisses me off. I love dogs, but I don't have a dozen of them. Kids are not toys, either. Throw all you love in to your children their whole lives, don't just pop out another when the previous outgrows that baby cute stage.

As for your second point, it's entirely up to both parties and should be discussed previously. I'd never enter in to some sort of serious relationship with someone where we were having sex regularly without having at least discussed the basics of how we feel about children and what we intend to do should she fall pregnant. It helps a lot to clear that sort of thing up before hand, before the emotion of the moment becomes involved. At the end of the day, the baby is in the woman's womb and it's her choice - if the father wants the baby and she wants to go get an abortion, it's up to her and, unfortunately, there's not much he can do about it. In the reverse case, it gets stickier - if there's an agreement that they don't want a child, but then after falling pregnant the woman has the child anyway, then what? The father is put up for 18 years of financial help against his wishes. It would seem fair that if the child was born against his wishes and proper birth control was observed in the first place etc, he shouldn't be accountable for this cost. That seems hard to put in to practice though as you then get a lot of deadbeat dads saying "Naw, I never wanted that kid!". It's not really something that's easily provable.

ThreeEyedGod
04-22-2012, 04:43 PM
Abortions are gross.

Why is this thread even open after this astute point?

Debate is over.

Bound&Tied
04-24-2012, 12:07 AM
It's best to ask yourself, would YOU ever have an abortion. And with that, no I would not. Ever. I have no opinion towards people who have done it, or would do it when they need to. I never want to be pregnant either. I want to adopt.

21Faces
04-24-2012, 12:57 AM
Some extraneous food for thought: who else believes that having a kid involves the decision between two people instead of just the woman? Say if the woman wants the kid but the man doesn't, or vice versa? Would you not agree that if people feel responsible enough to be having sex, they should also be responsible enough with each other to make these kinds of decisions mutually? (Obviously I'm not talking about rape in this instance)
Men have total free will- both biologically and socially, to determine what vaginas our DNA ends up in. From a totally naturalistic perspective, it's our responsibility to make sure those vaginas are places where our potential offspring will be carried to term if that's important to us. Many men naturally seem to feel that once their "work" is done, there is some expectation of mutual consideration between them and a female. In reality, any consideration to carry our offspring to term is elective on the part of the female and is dependent on the merit of the male. So while I agree that a responsible man will likely only be impregnating a woman with a child being the goal of both parties, there is always a chance that the woman may decide "No, actually... I changed my mind and I don't want to have your child." In that case congratulations, you've failed at reproduction- either in mate selection, or maintaining the pair bond with your female partner.

I think the idea that the wishes of the man in any pregnancy situation- planned or unplanned, are entitled to any consideration- particularly legal consideration, is very dangerous and should be rejected on principle in every case.

Dysmorphia
04-24-2012, 01:24 AM
I think the idea that the wishes of the man in any pregnancy situation- planned or unplanned, are entitled to any consideration- particularly legal consideration, is very dangerous and should be rejected on principle in every case.

I really disagree with this. The choice to have/not have a child is a massive, life changing decision. This so, I feel it is important for the views of both parties to be considered and a mutual agreement achieved. Frankly, I think it is rude and inconsiderate not to respect the views held by the male in the relationship should pregnancy occur.

Shangri-LIE
04-24-2012, 07:53 AM
What's wrong with killing people? It's what we do.

ThreeEyedGod
04-24-2012, 08:38 AM
What's wrong with killing people? It's what we do.

where have you been? fetuses (feti?!) are not people.

They are potential people.

They could have been people.

Shangri-LIE
04-24-2012, 08:51 AM
where have you been? fetuses (feti?!) are not people.

They are potential people.

They could have been people.

I was just being snarky. Go back several pages and read my real comment.

ThreeEyedGod
04-24-2012, 09:21 AM
:/

Golden Eel
05-04-2012, 07:01 PM
Philosophers' claim over moral right to kill newborns sparks outrage

KILLING newborns is morally the same as abortion and should be permissible if the mother wishes it, Australian philosophers have argued in an article that has unleashed a firestorm of criticism and forced the British Medical Journal to defend its publication.

Alberto Giubilini, from Monash University, and Francesca Minerva, from the University of Melbourne, say a foetus and a newborn are equivalent in their lack of a sense of their own life and aspiration. They contend this justifies what they call ''after-birth abortion'' as long as it is painless, because the baby is not harmed by missing out on a life it cannot conceptualise.

About a third of infants with Down syndrome are not diagnosed prenatally, Drs Giubilini and Minerva say, and mothers of children with serious abnormalities should have the chance to end the child's life after, as well as before, birth.
Advertisement: Story continues below

But this should also extend to healthy infants, the pair argue in the BMJ group's Journal of Medical Ethics, because the interests of a mother who is unwilling to care for it outweigh a baby's claims.

The academics call an infant, like a foetus, only a ''potential person'', but they do not define the point at which it gains human status, saying this depends on the baby's degree of self-awareness and is a matter for neurologists and psychologists.

Julian Savulescu, the journal's editor, said the authors had received death threats since posting the article last week, via the publication's own website and online discussion forums.

His goal was ''not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument,'' wrote Professor Savulescu, from the University of Oxford. If others made a similarly refined case for recriminalising abortion he would also publish that.

''What is disturbing is not the arguments in this paper nor its publication in an ethics journal. It is the hostile, abusive, threatening responses that it has elicited Proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat.''

Steve Clarke, the chief executive of the advocacy group Down Syndrome NSW, said the paper was ''very theoretical''.

''I don't think it does have any relevance or insight for the real world. It is so beyond our social mores and values that it is beyond the pale and I wouldn't want to dignify it with any further comment,'' he said.

Bernadette Tobin, the director of the Plunkett Centre for Ethics at St Vincent's & Mater Health and the Australian Catholic University, said the Melbourne academics should ''speak forthrightly'' and use the word infanticide if they wanted to persuade people that killing newborns and terminating pregnancies were equivalent.

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life/philosophers-claim-over-moral-right-to-kill-newborns-sparks-outrage-20120301-1u61l.html

sayyosin
05-04-2012, 07:30 PM
Killing babies and terminating pregnancies are not equivalent. They might only have 25% brain capacity of adults, but they are alive and that's the difference between taking away potential life and newborns. I understand, but disagree with their reasoning about this and I would never support their "theoretical" ideas. The parents should be responsible enough to get it aborted early on and not have to resort to this. If they fuck up, they need to make the sacrifices for their living child just like their parents did for them (in most cases).

The death threats are just stupid.

FeedYourHead
07-24-2012, 06:57 PM
I thought these statistics were pretty disgusting.
http://www.philly.com/philly/health/HealthDay666976_20120724_More_Than_a_Third_of_Birt hs__Unintended___CDC.html?cmpid=138896554
Read this article [Mosher said]


TUESDAY, July 24 (HealthDay News) -- More than a third of births in the United States stem from unintended pregnancies, a number that's remained steady in the United States from 1982 to 2010, a new government report indicates.

The make-up of women having these births, however, has shifted over time from white to Hispanic and to those in their teens and 20s, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"We have made no progress since 1982 in reducing the percentage of births that are unintended," said report author William Mosher, a statistician at CDC's National Center for Health Statistics. "It was 37 percent in 1982, and it's still 37 percent."

The report was released Tuesday.

"Intended" births are planned, Mosher said. "Unintended" births are those that are either "mistimed," which means they occur either a short time or years before the mother had planned to become pregnant or "unwanted," which means a mother did not want the pregnancy, whether or not she already had other children.

For example, in 2008, of the roughly 4.2 million births, 1.6 million were unintended, 600,000 were unwanted, another 600,000 were mistimed by more than two years and 400,000 were mistimed by less than two years, according to Mosher.

"There was only one group where we made some progress and that is among white married women," Mosher said. "But, they account for a smaller and smaller proportion of the births."

In 1982, white women accounted for 66 percent of all births. In 2006-2010 they accounted for 43 percent, Mosher noted. "More unmarried women and more particularly more Hispanic women account for more of the births these days than 30 years ago," he said. "The ability to have births when you want them varies across the population," Mosher said.

Women who have mistimed births of less than two years are more likely to be better educated and married than those whose birth is mistimed by more than two years, Mosher said.

In 2002, 86 percent of intended births were to women with college educations, compared with 58 percent to women with less than a high school education, according to the report.

Moreover, women who have unintended births tend to be poorer, Mosher said. According to the report, 35 percent of intended births were paid for by Medicaid, compared with 65 percent of unintended births.

And Medicaid paid for 75 percent of births for women who had births more than two years before they intended. "That's an indicator that she wasn't ready," Mosher said. "She wanted to finish high school, college, job training or get married before she had a baby."

Unintended births are costly. Mosher noted that medical care for unintended pregnancy costs $11 billion a year, much of which are Medicaid dollars.

The new report "shines yet another light on the fact that low-income and underserved women are significantly more likely to experience unintended pregnancies, which can have detrimental consequences for women and their families," said Deborah Nucatola, senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

"Full implementation of the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion efforts and the women's preventive health provision -- which in August will begin requiring private insurance plans to cover birth control without co-pays -- will be crucial steps towards guaranteeing that all women, regardless of income, have access to effective birth control."

Major differences also exist in intended and unintended births by age, Mosher said.

"For teenage mothers, 23 percent of their births are intended -- that means that 77 percent are not," he said. "If teens had only the births they intend we would have one of the lowest teen birth rates in the world -- we don't," he said.

For women aged 20 to 24, only half of their births are intended, Mosher added. "It's not until 25 and older that three-fourths of births are intended," he said.

There are also striking differences in intended and unintended births based on marriage, Mosher said.

For example, 77 percent of births to married women are intended, 49 percent of births to unmarried
women living with a partner are intended, but only 33 percent of births to single women without partners are intended, he said.

"A lot of us who are parents think parenthood is just a delight for everybody, and that's certainly not what this report suggests," Mosher said.
Unintended births are both a public health and social problem, he said.

"If all births in the U.S. were intended there would be very few teen births, there would be much fewer births to unmarried women, there would be much fewer births to 20- to 24-year-olds," Mosher said. "Parenthood would be concentrated to married and cohabiting women 25 to about 39."

MaryYana
07-25-2012, 01:32 AM
Did you know that if every lifeless fetus was donated to third world countries it could end world hunger? ... Donate your stillborn/aborted fetus TODAY.

Actually, if we didn't make so many babies and if some people didn't sit on so much money they don't use, we could much easier end global warming and world hunger.

As for aborting a baby, you should always go for the better alternatives first. Pills, condoms, morning-after-pills... If you still fuck up, say you are not taking pills because you don't have a boyfriend and you go to a party and whooops next day you wake up on top of a stranger and you have too much of a headache to get outside and buy morning-after-pills. In that case, it's better for the kid and the environment if the kid is not born and will not know of it than to get born to the hands of a woman who doesn't actually want it or who isn't ready.

So abortion should be allowed, but if you're a sane person you won't use it as your first way out at all times.

Dysmorphia
07-25-2012, 11:14 PM
This is so ridiculous:
"A pregnant teenage girl in the Dominican Republic is being prevented from receiving life-saving cancer treatment due to strict abortion laws."
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/8506082/abortion-law-stops-teens-cancer-treatment

MaryYana
07-26-2012, 01:44 AM
This is so ridiculous:
"A pregnant teenage girl in the Dominican Republic is being prevented from receiving life-saving cancer treatment due to strict abortion laws."
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/8506082/abortion-law-stops-teens-cancer-treatment
Time for her to kidnap some doctors and move to the moon. :/

It's nice to see that her mother can put religion aside for the health of her own daughter though.

Celebrity Killing Spree
10-06-2012, 01:49 PM
Abortions should be mandatory.

Willice
10-07-2012, 04:58 PM
Abortions should be mandatory.

Do you mean under certain circumstances or just to kill each and every unborn so they can't grow up to fight the wars?

Celebrity Killing Spree
10-10-2012, 01:30 PM
Do you mean under certain circumstances or just to kill each and every unborn so they can't grow up to fight the wars?

More like I was being facetious. My honest opinion, I'm pro-choice. But I have a rather unsettling cognitive dissonance over it. On one hand, I don't think anything which couldn't reasonably survive outside of it's mother is a person. And the amount of cells lost during an early stage abortion is less than would lose blowing your nose.

On the other hand, if a pregnant woman is attacked and as a result her fetus is terminated, I'd like the perpetrator to be charged with murder.

It doesn't make sense and I admit you can't have one without the other. So I'm just going to sit here miserable about it.

AssetReign
10-10-2012, 01:35 PM
^ Being conflicted is what separates us from the majority of the rest of the animal kingdom.

Willice
10-12-2012, 05:55 PM
It doesn't make sense and I admit you can't have one without the other. So I'm just going to sit here miserable about it.

Actually, I think that could be a reasonable view. If the mother is pro-life and wants to sue over the "life" in her she ought to be able to, but by contrast the mother who doesn't view it as alive can abort it. I think one of the problems with the abortion debate is that neither side is keen on taking relative viewpoints into account. It has to be a life or not for most of us. I do think that we should protect "potential humans" but the state ought not to intervene in it.

Do what you want with your debate skills to convince the abortionist or the mother that their actions are wrong, but do not throw one of them in prison for disagreeing and doing it. I feel the same way about drugs or anything other crime that directly affects only the perpetrator.


^ Being conflicted is what separates us from the majority of the rest of the animal kingdom.

yup

loftvoker
10-12-2012, 07:57 PM
Abortions should be mandatory.

Even in another community, your stupidity has no bounds - same user name, same level of idiocy.

Willice
10-12-2012, 09:59 PM
Even in another community, your stupidity has no bounds - same user name, same level of idiocy.

Self hate isn't cool emo kid, get a counselor.

Celebrity Killing Spree
10-15-2012, 08:39 PM
Even in another community, your stupidity has no bounds - same user name, same level of idiocy.

And even now you're willing to prove my point why abortions should be mandatory.

OneOfTheBeautifulPeople
12-31-2012, 02:02 PM
I'm pro life. Even if it's rape. I don't go around shaking my finger at others who are pro choice tho. I'm just saying that that is what is right for me.
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/60840_177790022362281_145156670_n.jpg

MissZombilicious
12-31-2012, 02:16 PM
I so don't understand this discussion. And I am disgusted by the idea that a raped girl or woman should be forced to go through the pregnancy. I have lived in Germany and I'm living in Sweden now. Abortion is legal in both countries. I don't even think I have ever met someone that was "pro-life". What the fuck is that? It is an opinion based on RELIGIOUS MORALS, not science. Educate yourself. Abortion is not killing because the embryo is not in a state where it can feel pain or even think. It's bascially just an egg filled with some blood and sperm. You are brainwashed by your religious beliefs, instead of seeing the SCIENTIFIC TRUTH. And I think the pro-life people have never seen an ultrasound of an embryo of under three months: there is nothing, a small blop. There is no brain, ergo, no feelings of pain and no self-counsciousness.
At my university they have the morning-after-pill in a vending machine :D

Kudos to the people in this thread that have tried to bring medical science into this instead of grounding their arguments on outdated morals.

1984
12-31-2012, 02:16 PM
I'm pro life. Even if it's rape. I don't go around shaking my finger at others who are pro choice tho. I'm just saying that that is what is right for me.

That point is completely irrelevant. Is it life that is important or a consciousness? By the logic that you've represented with that photograph, I'd hope that you are a vegetarian.

MissZombilicious
12-31-2012, 02:29 PM
I'm pro life. Even if it's rape. I don't go around shaking my finger at others who are pro choice tho. I'm just saying that that is what is right for me.
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/60840_177790022362281_145156670_n.jpg

I'm glad to hear that you are at least not trying to push your morals upon others and their bodies.
I don't understand the use of this picture though. The fetus in that picture is no way three months old (the legal time for having an abortion in many countries).
There is a huge difference between the definitions of "life" in biology and astronomy and medicine. When do you think a person is dead then? I say a person is dead when the heart and the brain are dead. In medical terms. Life in biological terms means that something is an organism that has certain functions, like evolving, like an exchange of substances with the enviroment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
Life as in human existence is totally different from life in a biological sense. Just thought I'd point that out.
As Kollaps said, if you are "pro-life" you better be a vegetarian and be concerned about every straw of grass you step upon.

OneOfTheBeautifulPeople
12-31-2012, 04:02 PM
I so don't understand this discussion. And I am disgusted by the idea that a raped girl or woman should be forced to go through the pregnancy. I have lived in Germany and I'm living in Sweden now. Abortion is legal in both countries. I don't even think I have ever met someone that was "pro-life". What the fuck is that? It is an opinion based on RELIGIOUS MORALS, not science. Educate yourself. Abortion is not killing because the embryo is not in a state where it can feel pain or even think. It's bascially just an egg filled with some blood and sperm. You are brainwashed by your religious beliefs, instead of seeing the SCIENTIFIC TRUTH. And I think the pro-life people have never seen an ultrasound of an embryo of under three months: there is nothing, a small blop. There is no brain, ergo, no feelings of pain and no self-counsciousness.
At my university they have the morning-after-pill in a vending machine :D

Kudos to the people in this thread that have tried to bring medical science into this instead of grounding their arguments on outdated morals.

I didn't say a thing about religious beliefs. I also said that I don't go shaking my finger at people who are for abortion. I also said that prolife is the right decision for ME. I am not going to argue with people who can't even read.

MissZombilicious
12-31-2012, 04:24 PM
I didn't say a thing about religious beliefs. I also said that I don't go shaking my finger at people who are for abortion. I also said that prolife is the right decision for ME. I am not going to argue with people who can't even read.

That post wasn't directed at you but at people in this thread in general.. my second post was a reply to your post :) And if you read my second post you know that I actually said that I'm glad that you don't want to push your opinion on abortion upon others. What you do with your body is up to you and what others do with their bodies is up to them. So we both agree on that :)
Oh, and I added religious beliefs because the big majority of the pro-life supporters are religious. The main arguments are religious ones. That we shouldn't waste any life that God has given. Non-religious people, atheists and agnostics, are pro-choice instead because they educate themselves when it comes to things with a scientific answer. That's why the most atheist countries in the world have legalized abortion and the religious parts of the world are still against abortion. There is a connection which I thought was pretty obvious.

Emma
01-01-2013, 06:46 AM
The problem with the pro-lifers I have always found is that they seem to think pro-choice means pro-abortion, when in fact it just means the belief that women have a right to decide what is a painful decision to make but sometimes necessary.

Btw the being pro-life even when rape (not directed specifically at the person who posted about. It in this thread but a bee I have in my bonnet about that line of thinking) - yes it's not the unborn babies fault but why should the woman have to bear a constant reminder to that? Also what about incest where a father apes his daughter and there are medical risks as well as the fact that its plain wrong? Sorry ut I think those who would deny a woman or a girl an abortion in these circumstances is just as cruel as the act of rape itself as it prolongs or rater adds to the distress the victim is already in.

spaceSuicide
01-01-2013, 10:19 AM
I'm pro-choice. If it's going to ruin the mother and/or father's current life standings why subject yourself to a horrible living condition for you and the child?

Also for the child's sake, if it is going to be neglected, put up for adoption, not taken care of properly or loved I'm very much for abortion to spare the unborn the misery that often comes with those topics.

I find it asinine that a religious group or some pro-life fanatic can dictate what I woman can or can't do with her body. It's pathetic and none of their business. I really doubt they care for the unborn child anyways, all they care about is the 'Godless procedure'.

Lillith
01-01-2013, 02:44 PM
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ltcqn5WCqQ1qa9psgo1_500.png

brian219
01-03-2013, 03:02 AM
I think it's dumb to drag religion into the debate. The issue has exactly two layers, one moral and one philosophical.

The moral layer is in deciding whether or not murder is "wrong." Deciding "right" and "wrong" is an issue of morality. In the case of murder government, society and most religions, that I'm familiar with, agree to throw murder into the "wrong" pile. Therefore there is little controversy with this layer.

The philosophical layer is in deciding whether abortion is murder. It is absolutely a philosophical question to ask "when does a person become a person." No religion's texts, that I am aware of, answers this question or attempts to define such a thing. Therefore it should not be a religious issue and any attempt to make it so is illogical.

Golden Eel
01-23-2013, 12:31 AM
I think it's dumb to drag religion into the debate. The issue has exactly two layers, one moral and one philosophical.

The moral layer is in deciding whether or not murder is "wrong." Deciding "right" and "wrong" is an issue of morality. In the case of murder government, society and most religions, that I'm familiar with, agree to throw murder into the "wrong" pile. Therefore there is little controversy with this layer.

The philosophical layer is in deciding whether abortion is murder. It is absolutely a philosophical question to ask "when does a person become a person." No religion's texts, that I am aware of, answers this question or attempts to define such a thing. Therefore it should not be a religious issue and any attempt to make it so is illogical.

It's not inherently a religious issue, but the Christian right has co-opted that side of the argument (at least in this country) and I don't think you can deny that. So when the loudest proponents of an argument are all prominent Christians (who back up their argument using their religion), it becomes difficult to keep religion out of the conversation.

Crazy_Baby
02-05-2013, 11:53 AM
Pro-choice all the way. And no jumping through hoops to get it. It's no ones business what I or anyone else does with their own bodies and lives thank you very much. The idea that other peoples morals can be shoved down my throat and affect me in such a huge way sickens me. Abortion is illegal where I live.

And you'll notice of course many (I'm not saying all) of those adamant pro-life people bitching and whining about state benefits to parents and children and how they should be cut rabble rabble, not my taxes! They obviously don't give a shit about the kid once it's actually alive and well they never cared about the woman involved in the first place.

TheTeletubbieFlasher
02-05-2013, 12:48 PM
Have as many abortions you want.... It is your body... and your paycheck.... Most abortions are done under 8 weeks. Should we ban birth-control .. how about all of the ladies just spread our legs and open our vagina . and all the men here can spray us... and we will do gods bidding... having all the these babies... maybe put them in church together... make more priests... and nuns... sounds good... Hopefully we learn nothing in the process and live like apes.... fucking, eating, shitting... and then repeat this until the sun eats the earth... fuck science...

Two Faced Egg (23)
08-14-2015, 10:00 AM
Bringing Up this Abortion thread again , partly because of all the investigation going on with P.Parent-hood , but , yea. I don't even want to talk about that Lol'Ss I am really most interested in something I read on above top secret having to do with how Nations that have 'Banned' abortion have the highest rate .. now I am not going to "DroP links" ..cause that'Ss not My stlye .. I don't have Proof to Show You , And another thing We all have to remind the Conservative Right is that Israel has one the most Liberal Abortion policies out there ,. .. so .. yea ... What do Supporters of them say about that ?

cataract777
08-17-2015, 09:34 PM
I'm for abortion. Do what you would like with your body. We all make mistakes, and if getting pregnant was yours then so be it. I believe in having the choice to have a child or not once pregnant. Of course, preventing pregnancy, if you choose to do so, should be taken seriously in the first place, but mistakes do happen. If a 16 year old girl gets pregnant as a result of failing to be responsible with sex, then I definitely believe in abortion. She is not ready to take care of the child when she has growing put to do herself. But I also think that abortion is not something that should be taken lightly.

Two Faced Egg (23)
08-18-2015, 10:24 AM
What about Post-Birth Abortion ? You ever heard of that ?

Shangri-LIE
09-12-2015, 04:05 AM
The Universe is in an Abortion Bucket. It's a Black Hole. It's also traveling/expanding faster than the Speed of Light, which means that we've already been here and to the "thereafter" because after all, Black Holes are escapable, meaning so is Death.....*Sigh...*Deep Breath.............Which never occurs to begin with because all "information" that is destroyed is eventually dispersed back out of it/them. So, there. By that logic, murder should be legal because everyone is going to exist again and still be in the past yet in the future, also at the same time in a present that is both pointless and fucking amazing all at once. Did the particle that became "unstable" not count as matter before it exploded? Of course it did. lol

Two Faced Egg (23)
09-12-2015, 09:48 AM
yay! - Murder is Legal!

Dirge Inferno
09-16-2015, 02:09 PM
I do not give a shit, I am for abortion if the woman is totally sure they want it. I am even more for it if the woman is in danger due to the fetus or if the fetus will have a terrible defect that will make them suffer their whole lives.

crazybitch
10-21-2015, 09:20 PM
I think the reason there is this discussion because the replicans worship textilecota the amish white dude who was the son of venus and apparently they now know the secret of the male penis as a weapon of social control and progressive annihilation of the vagina. hahahahahah I laughed

mr.svperstar13
11-04-2015, 02:43 PM
I really don't give a shit either way, but if I had to choose, I'd be for it.

filthytothecore
11-04-2015, 11:43 PM
I think it feels great! :)

Smoking Mirrors
01-09-2016, 11:50 PM
Ready to read something that is likely to reveal psycho-abnormal tendencies?
I think killing is just fine. In fact, I think killing can be extremely beneficial in many cases.
If the individual has nothing to offer or has no self-awareness/realization of its existence or any concepts besides its existence, it's more than likely a burden and contributing nothing. As for fetuses, they won't know they've died, and they haven't existed enough to do anything real yet and won't be missed. Can't miss something you never knew. If someone is in a vegetative state without communication or awareness, why keep them alive? They don't know what's going on. They're costing money and time for someone's emotional inability to let go. A fetus that will die soon after birth or suffer major issues throughout its life has no reason to be supported for so long solely to continue its existence. I find it strange, the emphasis and importance placed on human life. Sure, some people matter. But many don't.

I might come across this in the near future and be appalled, but hey, it's the current thought.

Penance Sentence
01-13-2016, 06:53 PM
Hehehe^ I like your brutal honesty. It's something we need more of around here. I never got emotionally-involved in the whole abortion issue, but brutal honesty, exemplified in the case above, is what I've been emotionally-involved with.

Mirrors, you don't have to be appalled for how you will think in the future. If more people were like you, then the importance of human life would be much greater. Seriously. It's not like you're the only one to think what you just said; it's just that you have the courage to be yourself in a world full of drones who follow their orders of victimizing anyone who thinks outside the box. Never be afraid to admit how ugly you can be in this world, and never be afraid to stand by yourself when all of everybody else leaves your side. It'll show you your true friends, as well as your true character.

I commend you.

Shangri-LIE
01-16-2016, 03:23 AM
Look. You can't just go around killing a bunch of fucking kids.

Penance Sentence
01-16-2016, 03:44 AM
^ I like that. It shows how most people would be fine with killing 2 year olds, if if it were common practice. Abortion is actually a very Satanic practice. If someone has an abortion, and is a Satanist into child sacrifice, then fine. Otherwise, people who condone abortion should see it as what it actually is.

Killing, however, in any form, is not done for the lack of importance/importance of the individual, but because of the humanness we see ourselves in others. Abortion culture, however, fails to acknowledge what it actually is.

I don't care if people do it or not, though. I just like to see things for how they actually are.

Penance Sentence
01-16-2016, 04:10 AM
And, no I don't care if someone is a practicing Devil Worshipper/Satanist, because reLIEgious freedom, hehehe.

I'm not trying to be a dick, but the irony is big on this one.

Shangri-LIE
01-16-2016, 04:40 AM
Why are we killing so many CHILDREN?!?!? LOL


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYzlVDlE72w

Penance Sentence
01-16-2016, 04:44 AM
That song actually does a good job of describing the abortion issue.
Best part is the cross on around her neck.

Actually a good song.

M Tragedy666
01-16-2016, 11:45 PM
I'm not even sure abortion always entails "killing". Depending on when the operation is done, it's more like late birth control--preventing something from forming and developing. "Life" is subjective. Prior to it's heart beat is it alive? It's a blob, and different local genes are telling it to do different things. Apoptosis tells it to cancel what it's already done. It's not so much a life as it is a life-to-be. It's the potential for life. The "stuff" to make a life is there, you are essentially turning off the switch and ending the process prior to completion in early abortion. Some obvious cases when abortion is necessary like when we know the kid will be born without a liver and suffer and die within hours. It's immoral to not end the pregnancy upon knowing this information. Most people don't contribute anything, but we can't go around killing people. And what you see as important, someone else thinks is dumb, so it's important that we can't allow murders and things like that. A more auspicious society is one with few abortions, but this is more about education and access to healthcare, so I digress.

Penance Sentence
01-17-2016, 12:31 AM
It is always killing, but Crowley even described Masturbation as a form of sacrifice, which it is. And yes, it is killing, and is acknowledged, and can be argued that said some later-term pregnancies have sentience to rival that of certain animals. Yet, we only kill animals for food, and have no real issue other than that.

My point was that, just because killing means the death of someone/something, does not mean it is unethical, to kill, by standards of supporting mankind. Killing can be, for the 'good,' but the 'good' is always arbitrary. In other words, we can kill fetuses, but killing an animal of a similar intelligence level is looked at as depraved and Psychopathic. By giving 'Women' rights, you automatically take way rights of others.

If we look at fetuses as blobs, then what stops a Psychopath at viewing ALL people as blobs, and therefore feels the right to kill anyone who gets in his way? If we judge some specimen/being/individuality as being fit for slaughter based on its intelligence (in this case, a fetus), then one should understand it wouldn't be different from say, Christopher Langan sterilizing a Downsyndrome specimen on the merits of Langan's circumstantial hypothetical "Might is Right." And, I AGREE with Might IS Right.

It's the law of the Universe. I'm definitely not against killing, so I couldn't be against Abortions. Thought-provoking stuff.

M Tragedy666
01-17-2016, 01:26 AM
The only "Might Is Right" I'm familiar with is Ragner Redbeards book by the same title of which LaVey stole large portions of for his Satanic Bible. I used to agree with that sort of survival of the fittest, if you're too weak to take care of yourself you deserve to die, mentality. Let me just say that as I've gotten older and wiser, I've realized that you really would NOT want to live in that sort of Bush Administration, Darwinian world. We need to intelligently design our morality and take care of one another. Altruism is a great thing. I hate the thought of killing anyone. Fetuses feel less pain than a grown adult pig, so you could argue it's much worse to kill a pig. In any case, I support abortion and it's much better to reduce the overall suffering of everything by having an abortion, than weighing in on the traumatic and emotional stress of a woman who was a rape victim having a child she didn't want when our populations are already way too high. Might Is Right sounded like a great thing when I was younger, now I want socialized health care and a happier, healthier society for everyone to thrive and prosper. Otherwise, any asshole can come along and kill. Imperialism is often what terrorists stand by. It was imperialial totalitarianism that hitler embraced.

Penance Sentence
01-17-2016, 01:35 AM
Might is Right will always prevail. We have War because we are violent/sexual creatures trying to Fuck the World, literally. When we stop with War, is when we are no longer Sexual creatures. When we're no longer sexual, the species ends. So, to answer thread question, yes, killing can be ethical, and often is. The only other scenario I can think of is cloned humans, created in labs, with no Rights than to do what they were created for.
And lastly, giving someone an anesthetic, and then chopping their head off isn't anymore ethical to me.

Shangri-LIE
01-22-2016, 07:04 AM
Look, you CANNOT just go around killing little Children!

Penance Sentence
01-22-2016, 09:07 AM
People don't take that into account in less developed nations, and sometimes, in this nation.
'Eating of Young,' killing children, and Abortion, alike, are probably not the best things for society.
Might is Right still prevails. I think children are stronger than most Adult, because of their imagination. And, most boys would kill their fathers, to fuck their mothers. That's one step beyond most fathers, hehehe

PaperDoll
01-30-2016, 06:34 PM
So that is what is really behind most anti-abortion arguments. It's not about the life of the fetus (exemplified by the exactly ZERO shits anti-abortion proponents generally give about fetuses out of the womb), it's about keeping things the way they are- keeping people (women and minorities, mainly) "in their place." Abortion and contraception are key issues that are linked and liberative. They are a threat to the holdouts of patriarchy and privilege that have been in place for thousands of years.


I draw the line at late term abortions unless the mother's life is endangered, or it's known the child will suffer form a cruel existence due to a medical condition. Life doesn't just begin at one moment, because every thing leading up to conception is some sort of genetic life/energy - but I don't think at any certain point it becomes sacred. I guess it depends on the emotional state of the woman though, the abortion should only take place if she's willing to part with the fetus. As long as the mother is of sound mind and decides that's what she wants, I trust her to make the decision regarding her body.

Well said. These are my sentiments exactly.

Shangri-LIE
01-30-2016, 06:44 PM
I've joked around in this thread, but I am really up for a Human Cull and a mandatory sterilization period of about 20 - 30 years.

YoureAlreadyHere
02-03-2016, 11:40 AM
Despite this serious topic, the light hearted comments lately have really cracked me up.


Serious ground: I think women should be aware of the repercussion of their possible decision to end their CHILD's (not offspring, but potential child to raise and watch and adore) life. We constantly wonder about the livelihood of the woman who bears a bastard child or the child who grows up with an "unfit" role model, dribble dribble etc... Most people do not consider the reality to face after making such a decision, and if they do it is likely because they are in the situation themselves. More awareness should be brought to regret/remorse/the reality of the decision and how disturbing it can be. Beware buyers remorse.