ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 11:48 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 84 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Right to Choice or Right to Life
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2003 12:30 am 
Offline
Expatriate
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 11:08 pm
Posts: 139
Location: Beyond the Singing Stars
Alright. I know this is a very touchy subject. Recently, however, I got into a discussion about this and I'd like to discuss it here where I know (MIB aside) there will be few insults or degradation of views. Besides, I'm honestly curious as to other people's views on the subject. So here goes.


I believe that fundamentally, Abortion is wrong. It is the destruction of a life that never had a chance to experience that which its destroyers did. But further, I see it as an act of irresponsibility on the part of both parents. And here's why.

As I see it, no pregnancy is truly unexpected. There is only one act that can ever lead to pregnancy, and that is Sex. There are precautions you can take: Birth control, condoms, coitus interruptus, that will reduce the probability of Sex leading to pregnancy, but the probability is always there. And yes, there are cases of even having your tubes cut not fully stopping pregnancy.

That being said, I see that the moment a person decides to engage in sexual activity, they are agreeing that they are able and willing to live with the results of that action. AIDS, syphyllis, pregnancy. All are possible consequences that by taking part in the act of Sex you agree to live with should they arise. Some can be treated. Others can't. But whatever the outcome is, it is a direct result of your choices. Choices that cannot be unmade. Choices that you have the responsibility to live with.

The most common reason I have heard in favor of abortion is "It's my body, I'll do what I want." Well, the child may physically be in your body, but they are not you. You do not have the right to make that choice for another living being. No more than you have the right to take the life of the person sitting next to you on a bus simply because you wanted their seat.

I have also heard that abortion is done for the baby. To save it from a bad life that it wouldn't want. Well, a bad life is better than no life at all. Even in a bad life a child has the ability to learn, to grow, to gain experience and possibly rise above what most would call a "bad life." Would I wish such a life on a baby? No. But it happens. And people have learned to deal with it, move on, and better themselves in spite of their surroundings.

Now, I'd like to address what I see as the reason that abortion is as large of an issue as it is today. Namely, people not waiting to have sex. Being a college student, I am surrounded by people who have made that choice. People who decided that they weren't going to think about what consequences their actions might bring. Granted, I don't see too many pregnancies here, but that's probably because my school is very small (pop. 2000, maybe 2500). Honestly, I think that before anyone should consider having Sex, they should be prepared for the possible outcomes. Namely, I would like to see people waiting until they are in a relationship strongenough and stable enough to handle the addition of a child.

I'm not going to say that Marriage is the only such relationship. I know of many parents who are not married and are doing absolutely wonderfully. However, I do believe that marriage is one very good indicator of such a relationship. Think about it. If you/ your partner isn't committed enough to get married, how could your you/your partner possibly be committed enough to raise a child?

The point has been raised that today marriages are more about tax issues and finances than love and committment. Sadly, this is too often the case, and it is regrettable. However, there is the financial cost to raising a child, and this is fairly indicative of the ability to support one.

Now, is abortion in all cases wrong? No. I don't believe so. I would say that there are two cases where abortion is acceptable (though I would not say encouraged). The first being if having the child would physically harm the mother. It's a balance of two lives, and I would say that it is a judgement call to be made case by case. Either way would be tragic, but if the decision had to be made, I would feel alright with either outcome.

The second case where abortion would be acceptable would be Rape. In that case, the mother was never given the choice of childbirth. The psychological trauma of having the child could be enough to constitute a balance of two lives. Again, I would say that it would be a matter of case by case.

All in all, I believe that the solution to the problem of abortion is a simple one. If people would wait until they are ready to support a child to have sex, there would not be nearly so many unwanted pregnancies and thereby abortions. That doesn't mean that it's an easy solution. Nor that it's necessarilly going to happen. It's an idealistic view. However, if people are willing to live up to the responsibilities of their actions, abortion would no longer be the issue that it has become.

_________________
A float, a drift, a flight, a wing
A hawk, a quail, the promise of spring
And the river bank talks of the waters of March
It's the end of the strain, It's the joy in your heart
~Susannah McCorkle - The Waters of March


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2003 1:49 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
First trimester abortion is perfectly fine. At this stage the fetus is less advanced than your average house plant (mentally, anyway), so there's nothing morally wrong with destroying it. That is, unless you believe in the idea that a fetus is given a human soul at conception, but such an idea is mystical/religious, and religious ideas have no place in legal distinction.

Second trimester abortion is a little less clear cut, but is still largely permissible. It really depends on how late in the second trimester the abortion is.

Third trimester abortion is murder, plain and simple.

Now, what we believe is immoral and what we believe should be illegal are two different things. For example, I am a vegetarian, but I do not believe that meat should be outlawed. This is because, as much as I hate the killing of animals, it is too integrated into our society for any top-down governmental prohibition to work. Also, such legislation might lead to further laws regarding what we can and can't eat, and thus we'd slowly drift toward fascism. An almost identical argument can be made for abortion laws for those who believe abortion is morally wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2003 7:44 am 
Offline
Expatriate
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 11:08 pm
Posts: 139
Location: Beyond the Singing Stars
I agree with you about the immorrality vs. illegality thing. Note I never onece talked about the laws regarding abortion. Idealistically, I would say that there shouldn't be a need for the laws, since people should be responsible for their own actions. Realistically, I see that there are laws, and that it would be incredibly difficult to remove them.

I'm discussing as simply moral standpoint. Yes, I do believe that a life is given a soul at conception, something that stems from my religious views. I would certainly like to see what other peoples religious views on the subject are.

_________________
A float, a drift, a flight, a wing
A hawk, a quail, the promise of spring
And the river bank talks of the waters of March
It's the end of the strain, It's the joy in your heart
~Susannah McCorkle - The Waters of March


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2003 8:42 am 
Offline
Native

Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 903
Here's one definition that I can agree with: Cogito, ergo sum. I think, therefore I am.

What this translates to is that before the fetus develops definite nerve cells (which happens, IIRC, ~4 weeks after conception), abortion should be acceptable. Morning-after pills are OK, etc., but once those nerves are present, hands off.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2003 8:52 am 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 128
Location: Evanston, IL (USA)
I have a whole lot of trouble buying any arguments that abortion is somehow more or less moral based on the progression of the fetus. Leave your average household plant alone for as long as you like, and it will develop into a larger average household plant. Leave a first-trimester fetus alone, and you get a human being.

That said, I personally don't have any problem with abortion. I just like people to realize that they are making the choice "to make my life easier, I am going to kill someone else." If they're cool with that, great. Faced with the option of drastically reducing my income, educational possibilities, employment options, etc. and putting a bullet in the brain of some poor fucker I don't even know all that well, with full legal protection of my action, I might be tempted to go for the bullet option. But I'd call it premeditated murder, not my right to choose.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: The last sentence is meant to be humorous, just in case you are too dense to notice.
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2003 10:22 am 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
I personally have no problem with abortion. I hate to say it, but in the world we live in, its something that just has to be. Also, it can help stem population problems in third world countries or places where population is becoming extremely excessive, IE China and India. Now, to say that if they are having sex so they should be ready to take the consequenses isn't always as simple as it sounds. A great deal of places lack proper education on the outcomes of sex. Also, what else is there really to do in a third world country besides continuing to starve and having sex?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2003 6:16 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
Kylaer wrote:
What this translates to is that before the fetus develops definite nerve cells (which happens, IIRC, ~4 weeks after conception), abortion should be acceptable. Morning-after pills are OK, etc., but once those nerves are present, hands off.


So possessing nerve cells = having rights? Last I checked, animals possess neurons, and we kill them on a daily basis. There has to be some more accurate way of determining sentience (or whatever quaality it is you believe entitles the possessor to basic human rights).

Treespeaker wrote:
I have a whole lot of trouble buying any arguments that abortion is somehow more or less moral based on the progression of the fetus. Leave your average household plant alone for as long as you like, and it will develop into a larger average household plant. Leave a first-trimester fetus alone, and you get a human being.


Leave primordial sludge alone for long enough, and eventually it will start talking and debating about the morality of abortion. Just because something may eventually develop into a being which deserves rights, doesn't mean that it should be granted rights now. The fact is, if something cannot think and feel even on an animal level, then it has no rights, regardless of what it may become if left alone.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2003 7:29 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 6:38 pm
Posts: 3148
Location: Gay bar at the end of the universe
Akuma Kei wrote:
Well, a bad life is better than no life at all.

I strongly disagree. Talk to some people who suffer from terminal illnesses or chronic diseases. There are many who would much sooner wish death on someone than for them to go through what they have.

To not live at all is neutral. They enjoy none of the joys of life, however they are spared from the torments that come with it as well. If you know a child's life will net unhappiness and pain then it is perfectly reasonable to spare the child that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2003 8:28 pm 
Offline
Native

Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 903
IcyMonkey wrote:
Kylaer wrote:
What this translates to is that before the fetus develops definite nerve cells (which happens, IIRC, ~4 weeks after conception), abortion should be acceptable. Morning-after pills are OK, etc., but once those nerves are present, hands off.


So possessing nerve cells = having rights? Last I checked, animals possess neurons, and we kill them on a daily basis. There has to be some more accurate way of determining sentience (or whatever quaality it is you believe entitles the possessor to basic human rights).


Possessing nerve cells + being genetically human (a factor that I assumed was too obvious to require mentioning) = being treated as a human being, with the rights that said state grants (such as not being killed on someone else's whim).

Animals fail the very basic requirement of needing to be human in order to have human rights, so they don't need to be part of the argument.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2003 10:41 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
Kylaer wrote:
Possessing nerve cells + being genetically human (a factor that I assumed was too obvious to require mentioning) = being treated as a human being, with the rights that said state grants (such as not being killed on someone else's whim).

Animals fail the very basic requirement of needing to be human in order to have human rights, so they don't need to be part of the argument.


So, would a sentient alien race entirely unrelated to humanity have rights?

I always thought rights were based on sentience rather than genetics.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2003 10:57 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2885
Location: San Antonio
I don't have any problem with abortion per-say, but if we are going to do third trimester abortion, why not let me kill inconvenient people too. I can think of several asshole who I could make the world a better place by aborting. Why the hell not? Why not let everyone "abort" one person every nine months. It'll help the overpopulation problem, and will eliminate alot of nuisances who are far more annoying than a child who hasn't even been born yet.

_________________
We used to play for silver, Now we play for life.
One's for sport and one's for blood
At the point of a knife, Now the die is shaken
Now the die must fall,
There ain't a winner in this game
Who don't go home with all, Not with all...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2003 11:09 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
Clay_Allison wrote:
I don't have any problem with abortion per-say, but if we are going to do third trimester abortion, why not let me kill inconvenient people too. I can think of several asshole who I could make the world a better place by aborting. Why the hell not? Why not let everyone "abort" one person every nine months. It'll help the overpopulation problem, and will eliminate alot of nuisances who are far more annoying than a child who hasn't even been born yet.


I think this is something we can all agree on!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2003 5:34 am 
Offline
Native

Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 903
IcyMonkey wrote:
Kylaer wrote:
Possessing nerve cells + being genetically human (a factor that I assumed was too obvious to require mentioning) = being treated as a human being, with the rights that said state grants (such as not being killed on someone else's whim).

Animals fail the very basic requirement of needing to be human in order to have human rights, so they don't need to be part of the argument.


So, would a sentient alien race entirely unrelated to humanity have rights?

I always thought rights were based on sentience rather than genetics.


They might have rights, but they wouldn't have human rights, the operative word there being "human." Now, if peaceful contact was made with another sentient species, that other species might be granted rights equivalent to human rights, but they still wouldn't be human rights because the possessors wouldn't be human.

Also, if you base the possession of human rights on a nebulous "sentience" you pave the way for people saying "Those severely-retarded people are not truly sentient. Let's retroactively abort them, and save the rest of us the trouble of caring for them." I somehow doubt that is the result that you want.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2003 1:03 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 06, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1967
Location: All curled up in a Calabi-Yau space
Eh, I'm not the type to say that Technology Will Solve All Our Problems!!!111, but in this case, I think it can make the question fairly moot. 100% effective passive birth control would pretty much do away with unwanted pregnancy. Until then, there's always going to be a debate on the subject, simply because there is no definitive answer. It's based on subjective questions of anthropomorphism, when the genotype becomes the phenotype. In other words, when potential becomes actuality. The growth of an embryo into an infant is a continuous process, so any point you pick to mark the crossing-over is going to be somewhat arbitrary. As long as infanticide is illegal and birth control is not, there will be questions about where to put the center-mark between them.

That said, there are a lot of things that annoy me about the usual debate on the subject, from both sides denying that the other's position has any validity whatsoever (they are apparently pro/anti abortion simply because they're EVIL!), to the rather questionable labels they assign themselves. Being pro "choice" or "life" is so vague as to be useless.

_________________
Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence.
- Robert Anton Wilson


Last edited by Wandering Idiot on Sun Jun 12, 2005 5:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2003 10:18 pm 
Offline
Expatriate
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 11:08 pm
Posts: 139
Location: Beyond the Singing Stars
Wandering Idiot wrote:
100% effective passive birth control would pretty much do away with unwanted pregnancy.


Ah, but there is such a thing. It's called Abstinance. Many people practice it, but most don't. I think it would solve the entire issue. Unfortunately for me, it's a pretty idealistic viewpoint, and it would never happen. There are too many people in the world who don't care about the consequences enough.

_________________
A float, a drift, a flight, a wing
A hawk, a quail, the promise of spring
And the river bank talks of the waters of March
It's the end of the strain, It's the joy in your heart
~Susannah McCorkle - The Waters of March


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2003 10:20 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Or there are those of us that found sex is very fun and can be meaningful. I always take a number of precautions, however. I don't need any kids. Hell, I've even thought about getting a vasectomy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:03 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2428
Location: In the ether, Hand of DM poised for enervation at will
And as soon as I'm able to, I'm getting my tubes tied as well. It sucks, though, because I can't get it done until "I'm 30 years old or I've had one child" (At least in my state.) It sucks. But I agree, abstinence, while a great way not to get pregnant, is pretty idealistic in today's society. Many people find sex too enjoyable and too much of an powerful bond with their siggo to give it up.

Incidentally, I can't remember if it was on the boards or not, but they've developed a male birth control pill, that actually reduces a guy's sperm count to 0. They have the same side effects as female birth control pills, though, due to the lack of hormones.

Back on the subject, I don't think abortion is wrong. However, if a woman doesn't believe in it, I'm not going to force my opinion on her. It's her life, after all, it's her decision. I, personally, agree with Krylex, and believe that it is going to be necessary as our world overpopulates.

That and I'm biased because I have ovaries. Personally, if I get raped, or if the condom breaks or if my birth control doesn't do it's job, I don't want to end up wtih a kid before I've planned for it because of someone else's fuckup. There's also the medical reasons for abortions. And I have to agree, birthing a kid who's going to be retarded, a vegetable, ect, just for the sake of birthing is wrong. Why bring him into a world where he's only going to suffer?

_________________
The scent of Binturong musk is often compared to that of warm popcorn.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:57 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 10551
Location: Bris-Vegas Australia
You know Abstinance isn't very difficult.
Its hard all the time yes... but not diffcult.

Actor.

_________________
"Why can't we go back to living like cavemen? I know it was a rough and ready existence - the men where always rough and the women were always ready! " - Santa.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 31, 2003 9:47 am 
Offline
<font color=darkred><b>Lorem Ipsum
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3342
Location: ich bin ein Auslander
At the end of the day, it's a case by case situation. I am certainly not going to push my views on anyonr else, and if i am involved in a pregnancy situation, i have finally reached the point that i feel comfortable dealing with the outcome and supporting my partner, whatever she may choose.

But still raising a child is a massive responsibility, the biggest responsibility possible, and should not be entered lightly. Does this mean sex is something that should not be entered whimsically?

Yes, all in all, i think it is.

Don't get me wrong, as a recreational activitiy, i see many numerous benifits in sex and sexuality, biut the possible advent of a child should not be entered lightly. iv'e seen too many children born due to frivilous behaviour to think otherwise.

Which raises the question of abortion.

Once again, a case by case situation, and a decision to be mafe by those involved, not me. What i believe is that ever couple, or potential mother or fathervshould be filled in with the facts of what to expect, from both sides, and given the chance to make an EDUCATED dicision for themselves.

our bigges strength is that through our diversity, we can make our own cognitive decisions, and not just reley on instinct. This is how rape is not a viable option for the propogation of the species.

no one should be forced to be a parent, or be forced to gie up childbirth in a truly ideal world...

but who ever said this world was ideal......

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:28 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 1:49 pm
Posts: 399
Location: Somewhere else
Well... where to start...


Quote:
Ah, but there is such a thing. It's called Abstinance. Many people practice it, but most don't. I think it would solve the entire issue.


At least you understand that this is a pretty idealistic viewpoint that's just not gonna happen on a large scale. But, let's put the Abstinance arguement into a slightly different light.

I'm married. I live comfortably with my wife in a not-small but not-large apartment. I work full-time, and we can live on that. My wife works part-time and it all goes to savings. We are not really needing anything; I have a vehicle that's mine, bought and paid for, we have computer, internet, TV, DVDs, PS2, ect. We have a set of pots and pans, a full set of dishes. You get the point.

I seriously doubt we'd be able to put anything into savings if we had a kid, my wife would HAVE to work (and she could only work when I'm home, so we would never get to see each other), and we would both have to do alot more around the apartment (I thought our cats crapped alot -- then I babysat a kid in diapers). We might even be forced to go on some sort of welfare (WIC, foodstamps, whatever) in order to properly feed the kid. We probably wouldn't be able to finish college on our own, we'd have to get even more student loans, if we had the time. We already have student loans, but we can afford those payments too.

So .... what you're saying is that I can't have sex, even protected sex, with my wife for the simple reason that we can't really afford to have a child, so if she gets pregnant, we're screwed and have to join the massess that are a drain on society (welfare)? Thank goodness we're pro-choice!

==========

Quote:
And yes, there are cases of even having your tubes cut not fully stopping pregnancy.


I just have to mention that you could probably sue the doctor who performed the faulty operation for muchos buckos if you get pregnant after having your tubes tied. Then you don't have to work, and could take care of the kid easily (yay!). That is, if you wanted to. But that's another issue entirely.

Ah yes, another point, what if your kid finds out, say when he's 15 and full of angst, that you didn't want a child at all, but accidentally got knocked up, and couldn't abort for whatever reason. "Oh, by the way, I know you hate us anyway, but we didn't even want you! We have the doctor's note to prove it!"

I've heard pro-lifers saying something along the lines of "If you have sex, having a child is 'the consequences of your actions' or it's a 'punishment for having immoral sex'". Yay! You're child's name is Consie! I bet she's going to have a healthy childhood!

==========

Quote:
The most common reason I have heard in favor of abortion is "It's my body, I'll do what I want." Well, the child may physically be in your body, but they are not you.


WooHoo! Yet another argument that makes no sense! To put your words into a slightly different light... "Well, the tapeworm may physically be in your body, but it is not you!" I understand a tapeworm is not human, but, a fetus is a parasite. A baby can live without the mother. A fetus cannot.

I just love the "a fetus has full human rights" argument. Since the fetus has full human rights, the mother, by definition, cannot. Yes! The double-handfull of cells multiplying inside your body has more rights than you do! Sure, the mother can (probably) drink or own a gun, has friends and family that love her, might have a job, but certainly can watch TV, but she can't get rid of the parasite growing within her because ... why? Because someone decided that she had to "live with the consequences" because she's a dirty slut who consumated her marriage when she knew full well that they couldn't afford a child!

When me and my wife were getting the marriage certificate, they asked us several questions. One of them was (essentially) can you afford to support each other. None of them, however, was 'can you afford to support a child'.

===========

Quote:
Honestly, I think that before anyone should consider having Sex, they should be prepared for the possible outcomes.


I think I've covered this one already ... I don't want my child to know that they are "a possible outcome," yet I do want to have sex with my wife. Fancy that.

============

Quote:
The point has been raised that today marriages are more about tax issues and finances than love and committment. [snip] However, there is the financial cost to raising a child, and this is fairly indicative of the ability to support one.


I've already covered this one, too. Me and my wife married for Love and Commitment, but the financial issue is valid as well. Because we are married, I pay less in taxes, and my wife can get onto my medical insurance at work. Plus it makes us eligable for grants for school (rather than loans -- which we have $15k in). But we cannot afford a child. Being married does not mean you can support a child.

==========

Quote:
If people would wait until they are ready to support a child to have sex


Oops! Already covered it. Me and my WIFE are not ready to support a child, but we comfortably can support ourselves. Guess we can't consummate our marriage! (arn't we selfish bastards? we'd rather live in comfort than have a child and live in crap! when we have kids, we want them to have a good life!)

=========

Quote:
Idealistically, I would say that there shouldn't be a need for the laws, since people should be responsible for their own actions.


So your saying that people who get abortions are not being responsible for their actions? It's better than having a child that you loathe, beat the snot out of them every day for 20 years, until they flip out and murder their parents. Women who get abortions are being pro-active, they do something early on, rather than ignoring the issue until it's to late. I know someone who hid the fact that she was pregnant until it was too late to get an abortion, probably because she didn't want to hear people talking about how she should probably get an abortion, and didn't want to deal with the fact that she was, indeed, pregnant. She didn't want everyone to know she was pregnant while something could be done about it. At least, that's my theory. She had to have known she didn't have her period for four and a half months. She should have noticed the movement in her belly. Oh wait, she did.

=========

That brings me to another point I've been meaning to bring up...

Quote:
I see that the moment a person decides to engage in sexual activity, they are agreeing that they are able and willing to live with the results of that action. AIDS, syphyllis, pregnancy. All are possible consequences that by taking part in the act of Sex you agree to live with should they arise. Some can be treated. Others can't.


Yes, some of the consequences of sex can be treated. Like pregnancey. It's called abortion, or morning-after pills. Most STDs, can be treated with varying degrees of success. Few can be cured, however. I'm reminded of a great bumper-sticker quote: "Life is a Sexually Transmitted Disease."

==========

Quote:
I have a whole lot of trouble buying any arguments that abortion is somehow more or less moral based on the progression of the fetus


So ... ovulation is immoral, because it has the potential to be human? As does sperm? So even if you're having sex to have a child, you're 'wasting' all that precious pre-human life, because only one spem makes it some of the time? So the only way to make sex moral is to remove it entirely, and only go with artifical insemination, because it wastes less sperm?


=================
=================

In closing, I'd just like to say that I think pro-life vs pro-choice arguments are funny. They usually go like this:

Pro-Life: Abortion is wrong!
Pro-Choice: But what about this, and this, and this, and what alternative do you suggest, and why do you say it's wrong?
Pro-Life: It's wrong because it is!
Pro-Choice: But you didn't really answer my question... why is it wrong?
Pro-Life: It's morally wrong!
Pro-Choice: But my morals are different...
Pro-Life: Then you are immoral!

I've noticed that pro-lifers don't really have an argument beyond "it's immoral" and "it's wrong" and "you have to deal with the 'consequences' of your actions!." Isn't having an abortion dealing with the issue? Isn't ignoring it until it's too late to do anything not dealing with the consequences of your actions?

_________________
--- This space for let ---


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 84 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group