»Ducky Posted October 10, 2004 Report Posted October 10, 2004 I suppose it comes down (like many things) to personal experience. I had an old girlfriend who had gotten pregnant and had intention of delivery.She was sound of mind, had a semi decent future and was motivated to accomplish her goals in life. A life in which revolved around her newer boyfriend that she loved.He was in a car accident soon after conception and killed. Some might argue that she should have had the child as a rememberance. Or that it was god's way of giving her something while taking away something to show human condition.She chose to abort due to heavy depression. Though she weeps today over the decision, she clearly knows it was a correct one, and that her life may not have moved forward without the option. Am I justifying the whole process with my story? nah. Just trying to show again my thoughts on the matter and why I believe that the choice of someone who is able to comprehend 'may' outweigh that of something that cannot.
Bacchus Posted October 10, 2004 Report Posted October 10, 2004 In my opinion, sovereignty of body should be extended to women. Respect of life should be equally granted to every life. would-be mothers or unwanted pregnancy should be something more openly discussed. social structures could be implemented to help those mothers, family or couples dealing with unwanted pregnancy: for exemple, an easier access to adoption, social, psychological support, etc. But in the end, it's a woman's, her body, her choice.It's hard enough as it is, no need to accuse her (them) of murder... Off course, if your beliefs teaches you that the soul is immortal, that God actually had a design, that a life's value can be measure on the age of an organism and all that, well...i understand why abortion can be an issue. But I can't see why women's rights would be any different from mine just because they can be pregnant...
Dr.Worthless Posted October 10, 2004 Report Posted October 10, 2004 But I can't see why women's rights would be any different from mine just because they can be pregnant...The issue being that the life that was created was through no means of their own.. it was through the concious decision of 1 female and 1 male to have sex. If you perform the cause, there will be an effect. Except in this instance the "effect" isn't trival.. its a human being.. I agree, there should be more sex education, more social services for single mothers, a more robust adoption system.. but simply killing the fetus should not be an answer.. It's hard enough as it is, no need to accuse her (them) of murder... Essentially thats what it is, abortion is just a nice word for it. If the concious decision was made to !@#$%^&* then the consiquences are there... Yeah I'm sure its rough being a 16 year old female and being pregnant.. Does that justify canceling the life of the being in the female? I don't believe so.. I don't see how you can justifyable put one persons existance over another, no matter what the age.
Aileron Posted October 10, 2004 Report Posted October 10, 2004 Mold is a living life form, and when your bread gets moldy, you throw it away.MURDERER. Um, mold would survive and infact thrive inside a trash can. Look, I can settle the arguement over whether or not a fetus is human here and now: we can go around it. Take the example of actuall and undesputed murder. By killing somebody, what is a murderer denying his victim? Human life? no...the victim had a life prior to being killed, and unless the murderer has a time machine, he can't take that away. The only thing the murderer is taking away from his victim is the victim's FUTURE life. While it is debatable that a fetus has a current life, that does not matter. In the vast majority of cases, the fetus would have a potential future life if the abortion is not done. Thus abortion and murder do deny the same thing...a future of human life. Threat to the mother is a good reason to deny this. One future human life is valueble enough to silence another...especially since in most cases the fetus would die anyway. Rape is not...it sucks, but the mother's 9 month rights are not worth an entire human lifetime. Besides, I don't think you guys care about this issue at all...you just hate religion and want to allign yourself against any view that happens to be held by one.
»Ducky Posted October 10, 2004 Report Posted October 10, 2004 Um, mold would survive and infact thrive inside a trash can.Correct, bad example on that point. Look, I can settle the arguement over whether or not a fetus is human here and now: we can go around it. smile.gif Take the example of actuall and undesputed murder. By killing somebody, what is a murderer denying his victim? Human life? no...the victim had a life prior to being killed, and unless the murderer has a time machine, he can't take that away. The only thing the murderer is taking away from his victim is the victim's FUTURE life. While it is debatable that a fetus has a current life, that does not matter. In the vast majority of cases, the fetus would have a potential future life if the abortion is not done. Thus abortion and murder do deny the same thing...a future of human life.And yet still no different from the other thousands of life forms we slaughter each day for our own gain. I don't see any differance. If we are 'allowed' to kill one 'pre life form' (Though it lives, this is the only phrase that comes to mind), why not others. Btw, that doesn't explain whether or not it is a human at all. It has the potential to become one, that does not mean it is one at the time.Obviously if we can hunt deer, kill rodents and otherwise destroy species without it being called murder, then killing a fetus which is not yet human is no different. Rape is not...it sucks, but the mother's 9 month rights are not worth an entire human lifetime.A constant reminder is not 9 months, it is a lifetime. Besides, I don't think you guys care about this issue at all...you just hate religion and want to allign yourself against any view that happens to be held by one.Correct, because my story was not one of importance what so ever.I never mentioned your god or religion, and only two others mentioned it briefly in a factual statement.They pointed out why it is an issue. No one said it was wrong because of your faith.I don't believe it to be faith based at all personally. I have seen split opinions in both areas.
MonteZuma Posted October 11, 2004 Report Posted October 11, 2004 Hundreds of thousands of women have abortions every year. The pro-choice view is not a view that happens to be 'held by one'. Anyone here who has ever had more than a few adult female friends probably knows someone who has had an abortion. You will probably never know about it because of the shame that some of them feel. Most women don't take the decision to abort lightly. An abortion will change their life forever. They understand the consequences of their actions on the fetus and on their own bodies. It isn't up to me and you to tell them whether their decision is moral, immoral or amoral. We should butt out and tackle the social causes of unwanted pregnancies.
»Ducky Posted October 11, 2004 Report Posted October 11, 2004 *Chuckle*Thank you for pointing out what everyone should know already
MonteZuma Posted October 11, 2004 Report Posted October 11, 2004 As for my personal belief, I voted "Yes in extreme cir!@#$%^&*stances" ie rape, health conerns, etc. I believe that this is the view of probably 85% of the US/world. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I doubt that the true figure is anywhere near 85%. The ridiculous thing about the supposed anti-abortion at-*BAD WORD*-ude in the US is that over 40% of US women have had an abortion. Somehow a vocal and often religious group of people in the US have hijacked the issue there. I think people in *most* other western countries are more liberal than in the US. In some countries abortion is more readily available and yet it is never an election issue. One problem that I see with the 'extreme cir!@#$%^&*stance' escape clause is how to define an extreme cir!@#$%^&*stance? In the early stages of the pregnancy, I think the expectant mother is the best person to judge that. An abortion is an extreme measure - physically and psychologically. Ducky and Bacchus - yeah - I think many of the people who use this forum have had very few adult female friends and even fewer who would open up to them enough to talk about abortion. I think most have no idea how many women have abortions. I don't think that they have any idea that most of these women are normal, well-adjusted people. And I don't think they have any idea of how much thought goes into the decision. Yours Truly, Cpt. Obvious
Dav Posted October 12, 2004 Report Posted October 12, 2004 i maybye joining this late but here is my view. Abortion is only ok in the extreeme cases in the poll, if you are stupid enough to have unprotected sex then pregnancy is a cocequence. I think the child should be put for adoption is its unwanted, its just not fair that 1 night of stupidity can lead to pregnancy when there are couples out there that try and try only to find they cannot become parents.
MasterDrake Posted October 12, 2004 Report Posted October 12, 2004 See thats the problem people think these places of adoption are just do great, how would you feel growing up without ever knowning who your real parents are or possibly not ever being adopted so you are a orphan. I wouldn't want the for me so why should I give such a horrible start to a child.
MonteZuma Posted October 12, 2004 Report Posted October 12, 2004 Abortion is only ok in the extreeme cases in the poll, if you are stupid enough to have unprotected sex then pregnancy is a cocequence. I think the child should be put for adoption is its unwanted, its just not fair that 1 night of stupidity can lead to pregnancy when there are couples out there that try and try only to find they cannot become parents.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Forty percent of women have had abortions. Another equally large portion of the female population have had unplanned pregnancies that they have kept. I'd say that most women and men have had unprotected sex and crossed their fingers hoping she didn't become pregnant at one point in time. By your logic, most of the female population of most if not all western countries are stupid. And I agree with MD. Adoption isn't the answer. Unwanted pregnancies are sad and regretable. I don't see how allowing an unwanted fetus to grow and develop into an unwanted child is advantageous to the mother or society as a whole.
Dav Posted October 12, 2004 Report Posted October 12, 2004 See thats the problem people think these places of adoption are just do great, how would you feel growing up without ever knowning who your real parents are or possibly not ever being adopted so you are a orphan. I wouldn't want the for me so why should I give such a horrible start to a child.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>adoption isnt always a "horrible start" you can ask (prehaps taking the pro life argument) would you rather be alive and adopted then never having existed past half the gesgation process?
Dr.Worthless Posted October 12, 2004 Report Posted October 12, 2004 Unwanted pregnancies are sad and regretable. I don't see how allowing an unwanted fetus to grow and develop into an unwanted child is advantageous to the mother or society as a whole. You failed to mention how adventagious living would be for the fetus... See thats the problem people think these places of adoption are just do great, how would you feel growing up without ever knowning who your real parents are or possibly not ever being adopted so you are a orphan. I wouldn't want the for me so why should I give such a horrible start to a child. When compared to the alternative of NOT EXISTING AT ALL, I believe i'd pick "not knowing my true parents.." Infact, last time i checked, anything beats being dead.. call me wierd..
Bacchus Posted October 12, 2004 Report Posted October 12, 2004 You wouldn 't know... And i don't think a non-existent would be living tissue would either.
Dr.Worthless Posted October 12, 2004 Report Posted October 12, 2004 You wouldn 't know... And i don't think a non-existent would be living tissue would either.Heh.. You're right I wouldn't know, but It wouldn't be a big stretch to assume existance is better than the lack thereof..... (Without going into religion..) Oh and btw.. "And I dont think a non-existent would be living tissue would either." You wouldn't know.... So.. Your arguement is that a fetus is "living tissue" until when, it become concious? When does the human "mind" manifest itself within the body.. Is there any way to know? If the "living tissue" is occupied by the human "mind" would you then believe canceling that humans life murder, or just a difficult decision? Does being born cons-*BAD WORD*-ute having more rights than being unborn? At some point the canceling of a life turns from a "hard decision" to "murder".. when is that? Arguable at 8 weeks, by most profession opinion atleast.. So.. now for the pre 8-week discussion. I've heard the term "potential human" thrown around. See, the ball of "living tissue" is unique in that it is the only ball of "living tissue" that WILL grow into a human being. There is no potential.. it isn't a roll of the dice or luck of the draw.. 2 people !@#$%^&*.. the embryo is human, 100% take it to the bank. In my opinion there isn't much justification to canceling a life.. a Unique existance.. unless there's "extreme cir!@#$%^&*stances". As many folks have said.. they virew an embryo to be nothing else but a m!@#$%^&* of cells, not a human.. much akin to mold, or any other animal/plant/fungus on this earth. The core difference is at the day of conception a human embryo has a unique set of chromosomes that are uniquely his/hers, which makes is the only "living tissue" in this universe that can and will grow into human. I doubt that the true figure is anywhere near 85%. The ridiculous thing about the supposed anti-abortion at-*BAD WORD*-ude in the US is that over 40% of US women have had an abortion. Granted, I pulled the 85% straight out of my !@#$%^&*hole, but please clarify your statment, I really don't want to believe that you're making an arguement to justify abortion because 40% of women in the US do it. Worthless-- Who really doesn't expect more than 2 points in the above post to be addressed.
MonteZuma Posted October 12, 2004 Report Posted October 12, 2004 What makes you think that you have a right to tell a woman what do do with a fetus inside her body? What makes you think that you have the right to call 40% of all women in the US murderers? You and I aren't moral adjudicators. Neither are the christian conservatives who love to push this barrow and put down people who they say have fallen by the wayside. If society placed more emphasis on the needs of living people than on the rights of sperm, ovum, zygotes and fetuses then we would have less unplanned pregnancies and less abortions.
Dr.Worthless Posted October 12, 2004 Report Posted October 12, 2004 I'll reply in chunks. What makes you think that you have a right to tell a woman what do do with a fetus inside her body?If the "fetus" is proven to be a living human being.. what right does the mother have to abort its life.. I don't care how highly you think of women.. Their body or not they sure as -*BAD WORD*- dont have the right to kill anyone. They don't have the right to kill the baby after its born, why should they have the right to do it before? What makes you think that you have the right to call 40% of all women in the US murderers? Perhaps because they are killing unborn people? You can replace "abortion" with killing, its the same thing. As I've said before throughout this thread, If I have to compromise at all i'll compromise with the pre-8 week timetable. Take your same 40% statistic and find out how many of those fit into the pre 8-week catagory, and how many fit into the post 3, 4, 5 month catagory.. Again I'll ask, when would you attribute the "mind" accompaning the "body" in a fetus. For any of the pro-choice arguements of "its not a human being" to be valid, they'll have to show when the baby recieves the "mind" part of his duality.. The reply I expect? "How do YOU know!?".. Simple answer, I don't.. but when dealing with another human i'll put things on the existance side for his sake.. So answer the above question, its at the core of your arguement.. when exactly do you attribute a "fetus" being human... You and I aren't moral adjudicators. Neither are the christian conservatives who love to push this barrow and put down people who they say have fallen by the wayside.Saying the death of an infant is illegal is no more "moral adjucating" than acknowledging the death of a born human being unjust.. If society placed more emphasis on the needs of living people than on the rights of sperm, ovum, zygotes and fetuses then we would have less unplanned pregnancies and less abortions. Right.. the needs of "living people".. so babies aren't living until their born, babies shouldn't have rights until their born.. So even though the baby is human ( are you argueing that?) since it is unborn it has less of a right to exist than a human that is born.. "But worthless... they are nothing but living tissue".. There HAS to be a point that the "living tissue" becomes "human".. and no its not at birth.. so when is it? I want to hear your opinion on the exact date. At that date when the "tissue" becomes human.. it should be en-*BAD WORD*-led to EVERY right that EVERY OTHER HUMAN HAS.. and the most basic of that is the right to life, which NO person has the right to take away, even if it IS his/hers own mother... Up till the date that the baby is 'living tissue" I'll consent that it isn't yet human (Though I believe it is human the day it is concieved... just like a monkey is a monkey the day its concieved.. mold is mold the day its created.. it can be NOTHING else but what it is...) and that the mother has the choice. But to say the mother has the choice over the existances life because it is in her body is !@#$%^&*anine, you're putting more value on a born human than an unborn one.. Seriously though.. abortion is one of those topics that will really go no where, so we really really really need to let it die.. It boils down to when you believe the conception turns into a human. There has to be a scientific timetable for that, and that needs to be the cut-off point. Say it is at 8 weeks.. pre 8-week abortions = ok.. post 8-week = not. There's some point where an existance becomes human.. and at that point if you cancel that life.. its murder. Its not a "right".. its called a definition.
MasterDrake Posted October 12, 2004 Report Posted October 12, 2004 Yeah worth your replies are just the same thing over and over whatever
Aileron Posted October 12, 2004 Report Posted October 12, 2004 ....... Look, I gave the arguement that goes around that question. Murder is wrong because it denies the victim their future human life, not the victim's past. A fetus has no past portion of their life, but that is not the moral consequence here. A fetus does have a future human life. (and for those who thought Ducky's response was sufficient, note that I said future HUMAN life in both this post and the last one, and if you want to be technical I'll change it to "future life as a moral agent".) It does not matter whether or not a fetus IS human because a fetus is a thing that will eventually have human life, and it is the robbing of future human life that makes regular murder wrong. The predictable counter to this would be the "every sperm is sacred" joke or some argument along those lines. However, in order for this arguement to apply, there has to be a being in question. A fetus is a being that would grow into a human if undesurbed. A sperm or an egg would not. They could hypothetically be combined to make a fetus, but the sperm and egg are not really a being yet. (BTW, don't think you can shoot down this arguement with one post...I stole it from a writing by one of those professional philosophy professors...no PhD holding philosopher has beat it yet.)
Bacchus Posted October 12, 2004 Report Posted October 12, 2004 Your argument only works if you believe in its premisses: 1)That as far as human are concern, life true nature is moral. 2)Something moral answers to something grander than itself. You need a "guaranteeing" principle for moral to work, be it God or else. Hence the importance of the "future" in your argument. 3)Hence the fact that animal life is excluded from your argument; an animal is not a "moral agent". This state of being is reserved solely to privileged beings, humans. 4)Your argument absolutely needs some kind of salvation to work. A "moral agent" will be judged by a higher instance that holds some kind of moral knowledge and thus can "appraise" a life's value. Again, this is essential for the "future" to hold a shred of sense and value. This argument will only hold true for certain contexts like abortion and i believe euthanasy (spl). You won't use it in a war discussion because war is motivated by other moral grounds and higher moral instances, even if you rob a "future life" of every "moral agent" that is killed.This kind of thinking works very well in a strutured view of life, like those influenced by religion for exemple...it doesn't work at all when explained to people less affected by moral issues depending on a "future judgement" or something.
Dr.Worthless Posted October 12, 2004 Report Posted October 12, 2004 Bacchus.. the only moral needed to justify the arguement is one accepted by every civilized country on this planet.. that murder is wrong.
»Ducky Posted October 12, 2004 Report Posted October 12, 2004 Oh !@#$%^&*, here it comes. "Why is it that when it's us, it's an "abortion" and when it's chicken it's an "omelette"? Are we so much better than chickens all of a sudden?"-Carlin
Bacchus Posted October 12, 2004 Report Posted October 12, 2004 Murder is wrong But war casualties aren't? Those aren't muders? right? What exactly is "murder"refering to?
Dr.Worthless Posted October 12, 2004 Report Posted October 12, 2004 But war casualties aren't? Those aren't muders? right? What exactly is "murder"refering to? You're question originally was pointed toward "moral values" Morals are created by the society in which you live. Societies have deemed murder wrong. Ask society why murder is wrong, but death during war isnt..
Recommended Posts