Abortion

[Jasoncw 11,841]

So why should incest be an exception?

[belfastuniguy 18]

I must say that I do not feel that there should be the need for abortions. There is enough forms of birth controll, many availible for free through many social programs. Having sex is a choice. A choice that if made, has great responsibility. If you choice to have sex and become, or make someone pregnant, then you shoud live with the circumstances. The idea that someone is having sex and becomes pregnant and the pregnancy is "inconvenient" so they decide to have an abortion and end a life just disgust mequote>

Tell that to the woman who is raped...or should she ask them to pause for a sec and pop on a condom..before violently sexually abusing her.

I can appreciate your stance when a child came into your life, but it gives you no right to dictate the lives of others.quote>

I agree, just because someone has had a child does not give them the right to issue a moral ultimatum to other people.

[Bumdark 3]

Exception to what, Jasoncw?

As for that pointless and rather headache-inducing argument about definitions, I'll take the liberty to settle this.

'Pro - ', in its most basic sense, means 'for', 'approving of', etc. So, if we went by definitions and technicality alone, the word association 'Pro-Life' would mean 'in support of life' / 'in favor of life'. 'Pro-Abortion' would mean 'In favor / support of Abortion'. 'Pro-CHOICE' is what is meant as 'in favor of giving the woman the choice between yay or nay'.

Problem is, Lord knows definitions and meanings are incessently skewed and turned into something else with misuse over time and/or stigma/associations, so these days, here's how they stand, in the context of the current debate/argument:

. Pro-Life: People who are against abortion as a general rule (and may, or may not, have ideals about when abortion 'might be acceptable', i.e. saving a woman's life or something).

. Anto-Abortion: See above.

. Pro-Abortion: People who agree with abortion (as in 'they don't rebute it') and encourage women to make their own choices.

. Pr-Choice: See directly above. Same as Pro-Abortion.

Pro-Abortion does not mean people who would encourage a woman to abort the baby (other than perhaps in cases such as rape or premature pregnancies (woman being too young to cope with having a child)). It means they aren't againt it. If you're not against something, you're then for it. There's no middle-grounds, no grey area, as far as I can tell. You're either anti - or pro - , but being pro - does not mean you enforce abortion on women. It means you're just not against it.

On a side-note, there was no need for that lazy ad hominem, Barbarossa. Insinuating that he's a teenager, whether accurately or not, is neither respectful nor useful. Being a teenager does not limit one's credibility or understanding of any matter. I should know, being 17 myself. Just pointing that out. (Not to mention he's stated he is (was) at University, which futher disproves that insinuation.) People should stop using the old fallacy of 'Am I speaking to a teenager here?' as though it were relevant; I know several teenagers who are far more able-minded, coherent and intelligent than many adults I know.

Sorry for the digression, just had to make that point.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Jasoncw So why should incest be an exception?quote>

I believe the thinking there is that a child born of incest would be a crime against nature, "unholy", and is best aborted rather than carried since you'd only be doing the child a disservice by allowing it to live. It's a "mercy killing" of sorts.

I could be wrong though. I'm not entirely sure what the theology behind that idea is, though I can understand the sociology behind it.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

I must say that I do not feel that there should be the need for abortions. There is enough forms of birth control, many availible for free through many social programs. Having sex is a choice. A choice that if made, has great responsibility. If you choice to have sex and become, or make someone pregnant, then you shoud live with the circumstances. The idea that someone is having sex and becomes pregnant and the pregnancy is "inconvenient" so they decide to have an abortion and end a life just disgust me.quote>

First of all, birth control methods have a probability of success, not certainty. If a person wanting sex without pregnancy disgusts you, then you don't have to have sex without intention of pregnancy. You have no right to dictate the behavior of two consenting people. That includes sexual relations. If they choose to have sex without pregnancy, that is their choice, and there is nothing you can do about it.

I had a different opinion before the first time I heard my daughters heartbeat on the monitor. No one could ever convince me that a fetus is not a life. quote>

I'm not trying to convince you that a fetus is not a life form. Is a tumor a lifeform? Is a a bacterium a life form? Do parasites have life? Do insects have life? Do trees have life? The answer to all of this is yes, yet you are not opposing killing these life forms.

The question is: is a fetus a sapient and/or sentient life-form?

I feel that the only time an abortion would be acceptable is for a case of rape or incest and extreme medical conditions. quote>

Why would these be exceptions for something you consider to be killing a human life? That smells of hypocrisy.

I don't not suscribe to the notion that the right to choice is because it's a woman's body and she can do whatever she wants with it. quote>

People have ownership of themselves. A person's body is under the sole control of the person inhabiting it. They have the right to decide matters concerning their own body. If a person injures themselves, commits suicide, disposes of a tumor, removes an appendix, removes a spleen, or removes a tumor, that is none of the government's business. Abortion is no exception.

It takes 2 parties to become pregnant and the life of the child is just as much the male's responsibility. The male should always have a say in what happens to the life he helped create. It's funny how if the woman wants an abortion it's her body and the male has no business in making a decision, but if a woman decides to have the child it is no longer her's, it becomes their's and she expects the male to participate. I think the main problem with society across the world is a general lack of responsibility.quote>

 

Who is carrying the child? Whose body is the child inhabiting? The woman's. A person has the sole right to decide matters concerning their own body. Therefore, it is solely the woman's choice.

The inconsistency in that argument is that the man may be for the abortion, or the woman may be pro-life or anti-abortion and decide to carry the child anyway.

Besides, a child is not the collective property of the mother and father. Once the child is seperated from the mother's body, the child's body belongs to the child, and that is regardless of age.

As for that pointless and rather headache-inducing argument about definitions, I'll take the liberty to settle this.

'Pro - ', in its most basic sense, means 'for', 'approving of', etc. So, if we went by definitions and technicality alone, the word association 'Pro-Life' would mean 'in support of life' / 'in favor of life'. 'Pro-Abortion' would mean 'In favor / support of Abortion'. 'Pro-CHOICE' is what is meant as 'in favor of giving the woman the choice between yay or nay'.

Problem is, Lord knows definitions and meanings are incessently skewed and turned into something else with misuse over time and/or stigma/associations, so these days, here's how they stand, in the context of the current debate/argument:

. Pro-Life: People who are against abortion as a general rule (and may, or may not, have ideals about when abortion 'might be acceptable', i.e. saving a woman's life or something).

. Anto-Abortion: See above.

. Pro-Abortion: People who agree with abortion (as in 'they don't rebute it') and encourage women to make their own choices.

. Pr-Choice: See directly above. Same as Pro-Abortion. quote>

Well, I do agree with you on the first definitions, and do agree that the latter definitions are the ones that are used by various factions in this argument.

On a side-note, there was no need for that lazy ad hominem, Barbarossa. Insinuating that he's a teenager, whether accurately or not, is neither respectful nor useful. Being a teenager does not limit one's credibility or understanding of any matter. I should know, being 17 myself. Just pointing that out. (Not to mention he's stated he is (was) at University, which futher disproves that insinuation.) People should stop using the old fallacy of 'Am I speaking to a teenager here?' as though it were relevant; I know several teenagers who are far more able-minded, coherent and intelligent than many adults I know. quote>

That is agreed. I did not respond to it as a person's age is irrelevant in this argument.

[Bumdark 3]

// The question is: is a fetus a sapient and/or sentient life-form? //

(For anyone else reading this: sapience is the ability to apply knowledge and/or skills to a task (hence our scientific name 'Homo Sapiens-Sapiens') - ie. intelligence, while sentience is the ability to think and percieve for oneself and to have an awareness of one's surroundings, and being able to react to stimuli with thought-out actions and reactions - ie. the 'soul' or 'consciousness'.)

So no, a fetus is neither sapient nor sentient. It is not aware of its surroundings (some minor reactions to physical stimuli aside, which are a sign of it merely being alive rather than it being conscious), does not think, feel, or anything of the sort. Its brain is simply not developed enough to enable such advanced processes as of yet.

So no, it's not a person, so no, ending its life is not important, or 'murder'.

// Why would these be exceptions for something you consider to be killing a human life? That smells of hypocrisy. //

Many pro-life people, at least those who accept the possibility of abortions in only the gravest of cases, seem to think a fetus' life is important enough to spare it the abortion, but less important than the mother's, which I think half makes sense, and half is ridiculous and hypocritical.

. Makes sense: a fetus is incomplete and realistically worthless: it hasn't accomplished anything yet and cannot do so in its current condition, whereas the mother, if she has an abortion and is still reproductively able, can make more children. You're basically throwing away a cookie but keeping the mold - the cookie itself is unimportant, the mold can always make more. (A very crude way of looking at it, but it works.)

. Hypocritical/ridiculous: according to their own arguments, 'all life is sacred', 'any life is a life', 'all life must be saved', etc. So permitting abortions, even in the most extreme of cases, directly goes against their own sayings.

// Well, I do agree with you on the first definitions, and do agree that the latter definitions are the ones that are used by various factions in this argument. //

Indeed. Whatever the words/terms meant originally, or 'properly', is now pretty much irrelevent as they no longer mean those things in the common consciousness.

// That is agreed. I did not respond to it as a person's age is irrelevant in this argument. //

It is a cowardly tactic I've had employed against me many times before (each and every time by morons or ignorants who simply didn't take it that a 'kid' would humiliate them in a public forum. XD). I simply wouldn't let it fly. Anyway, number one rule: attack the topic, not each other, right? Not to mention ad hominem, except for very specific cases, pretty much automatically disqualifies one and grants victory to the other as you've shown you can't be rational and mature in a debate. Personally, I only use ad hominem when I feel like being a jerk (it does happen ), but never to try and 'sway the argument in my favor' as that's just pathetic.

But enough of that ...

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Bumdark 3]

// I find this most recent post to be most hypocritical. //

Odd, seeing as I neither mentioned you directly nor indirectly, nor even had you in mind. I was commenting on the use of the 'He/she's a teen' tactic in general, not anyone in particular. It has been used against me, fact. Every single time by people who thought they were right when I knew, thanks to logic and/or knowledge (or simple common sense), that they were not. Fact. Then things got nasty when I politely pointed out they were wrong when they used the 'You're just 16, just a stupid kid, what do you know, blaaah ...' cop-out on me (I've never felt the curiously common urge to hide my age).

So where exactly did I name-call you, or what? Nowhere, and nothing. Yet I was treated to 'name-caller' myself, even 'hypocrite', not to mention that dang metaphor that's used ad nauseum these days. So you can keep your 'hypocritical' to yourself. That post is/was neither ad hominem, nor insinuations of any type. I do hope that was your last post if that is how greatly you misread what others may write.

And yes, one can be humiliated in a so-called 'anonymous' public forum. Pick an argument with an honest idiot (over on IMDb though, considering the mods' zeal for censorship here) and throroughly prove him wrong again and again, blast away any credibility he/she had, and just ram them into the ground. If that's not 'humiliation' on their part I seriously need to read the dictionary again. (Yes, that was dry humor.)

(Not to mention my mention of 'them can't taking that a kid could humiliate them' or however I phrased it originally was clearly intended as a comical side-remark, not a serious observation.)

(Mods: none of the above was any sort of flaming. At least, definitely not intended as. Just pointing out the fallacies of calling me a hypocrite when he misunderstood my post to begin with.)

Now if that's done with ... Well at least this was a bump for this thread in any case. Come on folk, discussions are begging!

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Bumdark 3]

The words speak for themselves. Enough said.quote>

Ok, so you don't understand that, unless you referenced my age sometime in the past, then that simply does not apply to *you*, but to the select twits, especially on IMDb.com, who *did* 'call me out' on being 15-16 (and now 17)?

No offense (honestly) but you're still misunderstanding what I wrote. Where did I ever mention I was personally offended by your comment? I said I noticed it, and chose to comment on it as a sidebar. I certainly do not have a 'persecution complex' or a chip on my shoulder or anything of the sort. I simply like to write alot, and oftentimes I catch myself rambling on about things even I don't care about. And again, I never called you a 'moron' or'ageist' or anything at all. I said *all those who used it against me* had, in those specific cases, been moronic themselves, judging by what they wrote before/after and how they wrote it. I'm certainly not afraid or hesitant to call a moron a moron if I encounter one, and so far it appears you are not - merely misunderstanding what I write. If you never used name-calling or age-calling on me (ie. you haven't), then that does not apply to you, as it was not intended to. Besides, it was always ever used on me in the swamps of IMDb.com, so unless for some reason you posed as a twit who insulted me like that, on IMDb, long ago, then it simply does not apply to you.

I'm not still replying because of any open wounds or unhealed scars, don't worry about that. I just like matters and records to be set straight, and this one stands thus: I never insulted you. You never insulted me. You made a snide comment, which you say you regret. I just commented on your comment, which led us down this unpleasant tangent. You misunderstood what I meant (twice) and name-called me, whereas I never said anything of the sort to you. That's all ... If I was to get worked up about something I'd go all postal on you, and seeing as I personally find myself to be quite serene, perhaps a tiny bit ... um ... (damn you, small vocabulary) whatever the word is for 'tired of explaining this three times', then you can sleep safe knowing I certainly don't give a crap what people think or say about me either. I've dealt with worse than being called 'teen' before, I can assure you that. o_o

I'd be happy if you didn't reply and I didn't either. Pointless tangent. Starting to wish a Mod would delete the lot of it (oh wait - Page Flip Bug ... grrr). I certainly do not feel offended, or any negative feelings towards you ... Let's agree to keep it that way, alright? :-)

Glad to be back on topic ... I agree with your last sentence. You might elaborate more (unless you've posted your more-detailed thoughts here before, which I would then have missed ...)

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Meg 368]

Yes, let's drop this nasty tangent and move on.

 

Going back to an earlier point (way back in the beginning), here is a recent news story about a woman who gave her son up for adoption, how they crossed paths again, and how they both feel about it.

 

 

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[your_adress_here 11]

My views on abortion are this:

I think the person who is pregnant (and only that person) should have full choice over what she wants to do. I am in support of abortion if that is what the person wants. Only they can be the judge.

[Orchid22 1]

I feel abortion is necessary if the woman was a victim of sexual assault or the pregnancy puts the life of the mother in serious danger, like next to death. Other than that, there are 2 options:

*have the baby and put him/her up for adoption or *don't have unprotected sex until your stable enough to have children.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

As far as I am concerned, I want Patricius Maximus to know my comment was not deserved, but I care very little about your opinion.quote>

Now I know it. I just read this far-off tangent you two went on, and it sure was blown out of proportion. We all sometimes post some things we regret posting. Even I've done it once in a while.

Go ahead and think me an ageist.  Even think me a moron, if it makes you feel better about yourself.  I am surprised by the vehemence of this entire discussion.quote>

As far as I'm concerned, your post does not necessarily make you an ageist. You may be one, but you're no more likely to be one than anyone else here.

I'm all for dropping this nasty tangent.  I said what I said, you interpreted it as befits you, I interpreted what you said, etc.  No one cares and I am sure they are all turned off by it.  Let's move on.  We agree to disagree.quote>

Agreed for me as well. I hope that that course does not pick up again.

[belfastuniguy 18]

than that, there are 2 options:

*have the baby and put him/her up for adoption or *don't have unprotected sex until your stable enough to have children. quote>

I fail to see the logic in that. If the women is going to put the baby up for adoption then why should she not have the choice to simply terminate. Instead she has to have a baby grow inside her and leech of her body depriving her of nutrients and energy and the ability to enjoy her life she would otherwise be able to do if she had terminated.

If a women gets pregnant and has no intention whatsoever of keeping the child and simply give it away then why should she not be allowed to abort the fetus?

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Orchid22 1]

Maybe I didn't express my view clearly. There are millions of factors to take into consideration when it comes to abortion. I am male, so I don't know the process a woman's body go through. When it comes down to it, its a woman's right, and I don't support any laws taking away women's rights. I guess I feel this way because I don't like hearing about abortions taking place when the fetus is 4-6 months.

[coolotter88 2]

Well, I think the only other 100% pregnancy free method is to use different orifices...

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa but this would promote "immoral behavior" and people could turn into pillars of salt. quote>

I dunno, I kind like the idea of sprinkling sinners on my french fries.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

I dunno, I kind like the idea of sprinkling sinners on my french fries.quote>

Hmm... would that be cannibalism? An interesting question.

[Duke87 1,070]

Epic Bump.

So, there's been a little ruckus over the fact that Focus on the Family has purchased a slot during the Super Bowl to air a pro-life ad.

(you may choose which bit of buzz you wish to read)

Insomuch as I support the group's right to do this, and CBS's right to allow them... I'm displeased that we're "going there". The Super Bowl is no place for politics and controversy.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Epic Bump.

So, there's been a little ruckus over the fact that Focus on the Family has purchased a slot during the Super Bowl to air a pro-life ad.

(you may choose which bit of buzz you wish to read)

Insomuch as I support the group's right to do this, and CBS's right to allow them... I'm displeased that we're "going there". The Super Bowl is no place for politics and controversy.quote>

I wouldnt call it "subversive" to show a "Pro-Life" ad.  Idiotic, Stupid, and the super bowl being not at all the right forum, would be a better description,

Inviting contoversy is never a good idea, and this ad invites  double standard claims from the pro choice faction.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

However, CBS should take a lot of heat for allowing the politicization of a sports event. It would have been a simple matter to say No.quote>

Maybe, maybe not. CBS has had a long standing policy not to permit political ads during the super bowl which they've seemingly just suddenly up and dropped to allow this one. What we don't know is why. It's speculated that FotF threatened to sue CBS for discrimination if they didn't air the ad. But that is, of course, just speculation. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well, I could care less about NFL "football", but I think that a political ad in a sports event broadcast of the stature of the Super Bowl is carrying things too far. There should be a pro-choice rebuttal or similar statement. CBS would be wise to post a disclaimer in front of the ad.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

wise marketing, for the first time in many years more than 50% of Americans identify as 'pro-life'. CBR skews older as well.

[morriswalters 16]

Another reason not to watch the Super Bowl.