Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The Snipers Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, voting in polls, and introducing yourself to our entire community. Registration is simple and fast!


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
001: Abortion
Topic Started: Mon Nov 17, 2008 6:06 pm (862 Views)
Etra
Level 22
For this discussion, I'm going to choose myself as the devil's advocate. I don't think it will be necessary for there to be two DAs to keep this discussion going, but if anyone would like to volunteer to help, let me know in the thread or by PMing me.

Abortion... there are many questions regarding it. Is it morally right to be able to end the life of an innocent? Is it morally wrong to choose the life of the mother over the baby's? Is there a point where the mother cannot choose to abort? In the event of a teenage pregnancy, should the parents be included in the decision? If a teenager has a baby and the father is not known, can the teenager have DNA testing done to determine who the father is? Should a woman be allowed to not abort a baby, but give it up for adoption? What about birth defects? Genetic disorders? Can a line be drawn where it is more pragmatic to abort a baby that will be more prone to nicotine addiction, alcoholism, and cancer?
Offline Profile
 
Aztec
Level 24
There is a point that a mother should not be allowed to abort. I believe that point starts when the zygote is no longer a zygote. Also, parents should not be required to be involved. Obviously there is some dysfunctional level within the family if the teenager doesn't want her parents knowing. It doesn't do any harm if the parents don't know. However, there are situations that it does do harm if the parents are required to be informed. Parental involvement should be the choice of the girl.
Offline Profile
 
DeMaGoG
Level 23
I have a research paper to do today, so I'm gonna avoid research for now, perhaps later though. For now, most of this will be my opinion I guess.

In response to Etra's post:

Is it morally right to be able to end the life of an innocent?
The typical disagreement between pro-abortionist and anti-abortionists is at what time having an abortion is wrong/immoral. Pro-abortionists have different stances themselves, anywhere from abortion at any point during pregnancy, abortions before certain phases in the pregnancy, abortion before any neural cells have formed (or perhaps cardial as well), or only if the mother's life is jeopardized by the pregnancy. I have a feeling that it will be amongst stances that the following debate will be about. Anti-abortionists are pretty straight forward in my opinion - no abortion, period.

Personally, I feel that abortion is ONLY an option if the mother's life is in jeopardy. I feel that life starts as soon as the egg and sperm join together. It is also in my belief (religiously and morally) that ending another person's life is wrong. Therefore, once ANY form of life has begun, the developing child should be left to develop.

Is it morally wrong to choose the life of the mother over the baby's?

Answered this already, but again, I feel it is morally right to choose the mother's life over the babies. Especially in circumstances where the mother is a necessary part of the family (which is most cases anyway).

Is there a point where the mother cannot choose to abort?

I also answered this. After fertilization, abortion is a no go, save what I mentioned earlier.

In the event of a teenage pregnancy, should the parents be included in the decision?

I feel that it is the girl's choice on whether or not to involve her parents and whether or not to include them in the decision. Since the pregnancy is a "medical condition" of the girl, she has every right to keep that information private and make the decisions for herself. (Actually did a debate on that specific question once haha)

If a teenager has a baby and the father is not known, can the teenager have DNA testing done to determine who the father is?

I read Michael Crichton's (RIP :( ) book Next about a year ago. Basically it touched on many different scenarios involving biotech firms and regular people. One such scenario was of a man who had some form of cancer, and who's genes miraculously cured him. The University hospital at which he stayed took samples from him for "testing" before he knew about his genes, and patented that gene so they could sell it to biotech firms. This lead to a lawsuit, and the man eventually won, because his genetic material was his own personal property.

I feel that the DNA of potential fathers is very similar to this. While it is important to know who the real father is, genetic testing can't be forced because that genetic material belongs to the owner. However, I'm sure it would be possible for a family member of the potential father to give a sample, and a possible match could result from that.

Should a woman be allowed to not abort a baby, but give it up for adoption?

I don't see how anything could be wrong with this. If the mother doesn't want the child, or simply can't keep it, I think she has a right to give it up. Since it is impossible to know how it will effect the life of the child in the long run, I don't see how it could be argued that adoption is a negative choice.

What about birth defects? Genetic disorders? Can a line be drawn where it is more pragmatic to abort a baby that will be more prone to nicotine addiction, alcoholism, and cancer?

All of these can be answered with what I stated earlier. Once the life has begun, abortion is only an option if the mother is at risk. I will assume that the birth defects/genetic disorders that will be discussed will be those that are harmful or torturous to the child. While these may greatly shorten the life of the child or make that life painful, I feel the child should be given that chance to live.




Those are my brief opinions... I'm tired... nap time! I'll do some actual research when I have time... for now, just throwing out where I stand.
Offline Profile
 
Tonic
The Mambo King
I recently did an argumentative essay on this very topic.

Personally, I believe abortion is morally wrong, and one of the more disturbing phenomena still socially acceptable in an otherwise civilized world.

The only circumstances which should warrant abortion should be in the event that the pregnancy puts the mother's life in jeopardy, and in the event of rape.

In cases of rape, I believe there should be a one month period for the rape victim to seek an abortion from a qualified medical doctor. After this one month deadline is passed, abortion should no longer be an option for the woman.

Considering that rape accounts for a very small number of abortion cases, this cannot be a valid argument for the complete legalization of abortion.

The following is a paragraph from an essay I completed recently. If anyone needs sources, I'll post up my works cited at another time.

"One of the main arguments for abortion is that human life does not begin until the baby is born and exits the mother’s womb. The baby cannot feel anything and is not a living being, so therefore abortion is not overtly immoral. This simplistic definition of life is absurd, and from a medical standpoint, completely untrue. “Life” begins much earlier than birth. In fact, “A developing embryo is genetically different from the mother. A developing embryo is also genetically different from the sperm and egg that created it” (Leaderu). This means that very soon after conception, the developing baby is already distinct from the mother and father. It is not a mindless mass of tissue, as is often said, but a unique human being. Considering that most abortions are committed during the first twelve weeks, it’s important to understand how dramatically the baby develops in that short span of time. After the twenty second day, the embryo already has a functioning heart, beating and distributing blood throughout the body. By the third week, the baby has already begun developing most of the major organs and the spinal cord. Only the fifth week in, and the baby has started forming eyes, legs, hands and ears. Weeks six, seven and eight already bring detectable brain waves, mouth, lips, fingernails, eyelids, bones, teeth, and the ability to hear and even hiccup. By the end of the twelfth week, also called the first trimester, “The baby has all of the parts necessary to experience pain, including nerves, spinal cord, and thalamus. Vocal cords are complete. The baby can suck its thumb” (LeaderU.com). The majority of abortions occur all the way up until twelfth week, when it’s apparent that it is far from a lifeless sponge of organic matter that they are aborting."
Offline Profile
 
Etra
Level 22
SeLMeR
Nov 17 2008, 06:37 PM
There is a point that a mother should not be allowed to abort. I believe that point starts when the zygote is no longer a zygote.

"when the zygote is no longer a zygote" means that an abortion would never be allowed. The zygote stage lasts for the first three days, after which the baby begins the morula stage. The earliest a pregnancy can only be detected is after the first or second week. And have you considered birth defects and genetic disorders? Who gave you the right to decide for the parents whether or not they're willing to raise a child with Down syndrome?

SeLMeR
Nov 17 2008, 06:37 PM
Also, parents should not be required to be involved. Obviously there is some dysfunctional level within the family if the teenager doesn't want her parents knowing. It doesn't do any harm if the parents don't know. However, there are situations that it does do harm if the parents are required to be informed. Parental involvement should be the choice of the girl.

You do realize that a pregnant teenager will need financial support both for herself and the baby, if she keeps it, right? And who do you think she'll be getting that money from? And why does a pregnant teenager have to have a dysfunctional family for her to not want to involve her parents? If you knocked up a girl, would your first reaction be to tell your parents they're going to have a grandchild? Or would it be like anyone else and be either "Please God, don't let the kid be mine" or "Oh shit."

DeMaGoG
Nov 17 2008, 08:14 PM
Personally, I feel that abortion is ONLY an option if the mother's life is in jeopardy. I feel that life starts as soon as the egg and sperm join together. It is also in my belief (religiously and morally) that ending another person's life is wrong. Therefore, once ANY form of life has begun, the developing child should be left to develop.

Birth defects? Genetic disorders? Let's say you get married and you and your spouse decide you're ready for kids. Your wife becomes pregnant. Two months later, you find that something happened. Your baby will probably never walk or speak while still retaining normal mental development. Would you be willing to let your child live their 80+ years like that? If you were the child, would you thank or curse your parents for your life?

DeMaGoG
Nov 17 2008, 08:14 PM
I feel that it is the girl's choice on whether or not to involve her parents and whether or not to include them in the decision. Since the pregnancy is a "medical condition" of the girl, she has every right to keep that information private and make the decisions for herself.

The girl will be financially supported by her parents and their tax dollars. How can they not be involved? We, the general American public, has an indirect say in how the military is run because our money is paying for our soldiers' weapons, uniforms, and training. We also indirectly control the conditions of our roads, the security at airports, the quality of our schools. Why is that? Because our money is paying for all of it. Why should their daughter's pregnancy be any different? They're providing shelter and food for the mother and the child, along with funding aid for their daughter, which is paid for by their taxes.

DeMaGoG
Nov 17 2008, 08:14 PM
I feel that the DNA of potential fathers is very similar to this. While it is important to know who the real father is, genetic testing can't be forced because that genetic material belongs to the owner. However, I'm sure it would be possible for a family member of the potential father to give a sample, and a possible match could result from that.

You don't feel that the father of the baby should be found and held responsible for providing support for both the child and the mother, since he is in fact at least 50% responsible? The "rights" of one person, the father, versus the well-being of two people, the mother and the baby.

So you don't think it's OK for DNA testing to be forced so the father can be found but you'd allow for a family member to volunteer their own DNA to allow the father to be found? Isn't that contradictory?

DeMaGoG
Nov 17 2008, 08:14 PM
I don't see how anything could be wrong with this. If the mother doesn't want the child, or simply can't keep it, I think she has a right to give it up. Since it is impossible to know how it will effect the life of the child in the long run, I don't see how it could be argued that adoption is a negative choice.

The mother does not want to have to abort the child, so she'll keep it and give it up to an orphanage. Then our taxes will be used to pay for a child the mother did not want but wasn't able to "man up" and abort. Sounds a bit like handing off the responsibility.

DeMaGoG
Nov 17 2008, 08:14 PM
All of these can be answered with what I stated earlier. Once the life has begun, abortion is only an option if the mother is at risk. I will assume that the birth defects/genetic disorders that will be discussed will be those that are harmful or torturous to the child. While these may greatly shorten the life of the child or make that life painful, I feel the child should be given that chance to live.

Problem 1: What is "at risk"? Life? Well-being?
Problem 2: The involuntary hardships the parent(s) will have to undergo as a result of them not having the option to abort their baby.
Problem 3: The child will grow up and may decide that it didn't want to live in the first place.

Tonic
Nov 17 2008, 10:29 PM
I recently did an argumentative essay on this very topic.

Personally, I believe abortion is morally wrong, and one of the more disturbing phenomena still socially acceptable in an otherwise civilized world.

The only circumstances which should warrant abortion should be in the event that the pregnancy puts the mother's life in jeopardy, and in the event of rape.

In cases of rape, I believe there should be a one month period for the rape victim to seek an abortion from a qualified medical doctor. After this one month deadline is passed, abortion should no longer be an option for the woman.

Considering that rape accounts for a very small number of abortion cases, this cannot be a valid argument for the complete legalization of abortion.

The following is a paragraph from an essay I completed recently. If anyone needs sources, I'll post up my works cited at another time.

"One of the main arguments for abortion is that human life does not begin until the baby is born and exits the mother’s womb. The baby cannot feel anything and is not a living being, so therefore abortion is not overtly immoral. This simplistic definition of life is absurd, and from a medical standpoint, completely untrue. “Life” begins much earlier than birth. In fact, “A developing embryo is genetically different from the mother. A developing embryo is also genetically different from the sperm and egg that created it” (Leaderu). This means that very soon after conception, the developing baby is already distinct from the mother and father. It is not a mindless mass of tissue, as is often said, but a unique human being. Considering that most abortions are committed during the first twelve weeks, it’s important to understand how dramatically the baby develops in that short span of time. After the twenty second day, the embryo already has a functioning heart, beating and distributing blood throughout the body. By the third week, the baby has already begun developing most of the major organs and the spinal cord. Only the fifth week in, and the baby has started forming eyes, legs, hands and ears. Weeks six, seven and eight already bring detectable brain waves, mouth, lips, fingernails, eyelids, bones, teeth, and the ability to hear and even hiccup. By the end of the twelfth week, also called the first trimester, “The baby has all of the parts necessary to experience pain, including nerves, spinal cord, and thalamus. Vocal cords are complete. The baby can suck its thumb” (LeaderU.com). The majority of abortions occur all the way up until twelfth week, when it’s apparent that it is far from a lifeless sponge of organic matter that they are aborting."

I think I addressed a few of the problems with your view when I responded to SeLMeR and DeMaGoG. But the main point I can think of is this: A child is the responsibility and really the "property" of his or her parents until the age of 18. A baby, no matter how developed, will be under the age of 18. The parent is then able to do whatever he or she wishes with the child as long as no laws are not broken. And abortion is legal.
Offline Profile
 
Dope
Member Avatar
Expert Colon Stomper
About two years ago I had a lady come to my physics class and tell us why abortion is so great. At most all she did was confirm that this is definitely a delicate topic. Abortion then was outlawed in a great deal of the states and even where it wasn't outlawed, abortions were still performed illegally due to the cost and scrutiny of others. There were only two reasons allowed to abort those were of rape and at a point where the mothers health was in jeopardy. In addition to those stipulations abortions were only allowed in certain trimesters, usually the first and second. Third trimester abortions were only allowed if the mother could die.

I haven't been following the legal stipulations of abortions lately, but I will say this.When dealing with a topic so delicate as this, it's obvious that each abortion should be looked at on an individual basis. It's not like abortions weren't performed before current time. If a Roman woman believed herself to be pregnant and did not want a child, she would shove rocks up her vagina until they they entered the womb. At least now modern abortions are performed with a great deal of improvement in cleanliness. Now back to the individual basis. Most people argue that one night stands and drunken hook-ups are not a reason to have an abortion. But let's really tear this apart. In both of those situations there are obvious risks in having a child born with FAS, which not to say would force to child to live a life not worth living, but live a life very difficult to cope with. Some of the genetic disorders caused from FAS include mental retardation and a severe lack in motor skills.What about incest, which has a very high correlation of children born with birth defects.

In fact, weighing the health of the baby and the mother are key factors in determining whether or not to have an abortion. If people are sadistic for killing human beings(all human beings, not just humans in the womb), than anyone allowing the mother to die for the birth of her baby is just as sadistic. You basically killed the mother to bring another life into this world, unless of course it was her decision. When genetic disorders come to mind, abortion is even more complicated. Let me say this, there are certain things that I believe all should have the ability to experience and you can only experience these things by living. To not have someone live just because they'll come out with a genetic disorder is justifying, but at the same time cruel. It's just like having to decide who to kill, the baby or the mother or forcing an innocent child to live a toilsome life.

Taking this further, most people don't consider how demanding having a child is, in every aspect. In Europe it is most likely your employer will give you a PAID LOA for up to two years to raise the child, for both the mother and father. There really isn't that much time in the life of the parent to do what they want. They work and come home to do a second shift. When it comes to monetary values, raising a child approximately costs $24,000 a year. That's $432,000 from womb to 18, not even including college. No one wants their child to be a failure right? Look at it this way, if your parents didn't have two kids, they could be millionaires. Let's face it, we all want our children to live comfortable lives if we ever had one and I will tell you now, the governmental aid for parents who have children they can't afford is the shittiest it's ever been. Those prices are for my generation which is around 1990. I don't even want to think what the prices are now due to inflation.

When it comes to deciding the abortion, I find many flaws in this hand down. Like Chris has said, the father is half responsible for this child. I don't see how you can force the father to be responsible financially, but not have a decision on whether or not the child is aborted. Don't hand me that emotionally attached bullshit either. Who's to say that father doesn't care about the fetus just as much as the mother? Are we now saying that men and women aren't equal, but they keep trying to push bill E42 in my goddamn face 24/7 (That's for another day and I'm not really sure if that's the name for the bill)

Now here's where things start to get a little more contradictory, like I already said it's a very delicate situation. If the fetus belongs to the parents, when it comes to teen pregnancy, the child also belongs to the parents, so don't they own what she owns? But at the same time, the parent's shouldn't have a say. I feel that if a child is at the age, where they want to have sex, they've already entered the period of their life when they have to accept their mistakes and take the consequences that follow. But that also means aborting a child is the cowardly way out and not responsible to begin with. And this is why taking one factor into consideration and trying to generalize a very broad norm is not the way to handle abortion.

I'll finish what I have to say later. I just got done carrying around boxes that weight almost as much as I do for four hours. Feel free to question what I have written so far if you need me to clarify my views.
Offline Profile
 
Etra
Level 22
Dope
Nov 18 2008, 02:01 AM
I haven't been following the legal stipulations of abortions lately, but I will say this.When dealing with a topic so delicate as this, it's obvious that each abortion should be looked at on an individual basis. It's not like abortions weren't performed before current time. If a Roman woman believed herself to be pregnant and did not want a child, she would shove rocks up her vagina until they they entered the womb. At least now modern abortions are performed with a great deal of improvement in cleanliness. Now back to the individual basis. Most people argue that one night stands and drunken hook-ups are not a reason to have an abortion. But let's really tear this apart. In both of those situations there are obvious risks in having a child born with FAS, which not to say would force to child to live a life not worth living, but live a life very difficult to cope with. Some of the genetic disorders caused from FAS include mental retardation and a severe lack in motor skills.What about incest, which has a very high correlation of children born with birth defects.

The best solution would be to, like you said, look at each abortion on an individual basis. It's too bad that's nearly impossible. To determine on an individual basis whether or not an abortion would be allowed will still bring up the argument of if and when a woman should be allowed to abort. Not to mention the staggering cost and time to review each case. I think that by the time a conclusion can be reached, the pregnancy would have at least developed for another 2 or 3 months. And if the mother is not in any danger, what then? Would the abortion, had it been approved, still go through?

Dope
Nov 18 2008, 02:01 AM
In fact, weighing the health of the baby and the mother are key factors in determining whether or not to have an abortion. If people are sadistic for killing human beings(all human beings, not just humans in the womb), than anyone allowing the mother to die for the birth of her baby is just as sadistic. You basically killed the mother to bring another life into this world, unless of course it was her decision. When genetic disorders come to mind, abortion is even more complicated. Let me say this, there are certain things that I believe all should have the ability to experience and you can only experience these things by living. To not have someone live just because they'll come out with a genetic disorder is justifying, but at the same time cruel. It's just like having to decide who to kill, the baby or the mother or forcing an innocent child to live a toilsome life.

The mother, even if a teenage pregnancy, would have lived at least 16 years of her life, leaving her with about 60 more. The baby would have a full 80 years to live. If there is no other option than to choose the life of the baby or the mother, the choice is then whether you'd give the baby a chance to experience its 80 years or hope that the mother can "equal" the 80 years that were sacrificed for her 60.

Dope
Nov 18 2008, 02:01 AM
Taking this further, most people don't consider how demanding having a child is, in every aspect. In Europe it is most likely your employer will give you a PAID LOA for up to two years to raise the child, for both the mother and father. There really isn't that much time in the life of the parent to do what they want. They work and come home to do a second shift. When it comes to monetary values, raising a child approximately costs $24,000 a year. That's $432,000 from womb to 18, not even including college. No one wants their child to be a failure right? Look at it this way, if your parents didn't have two kids, they could be millionaires. Let's face it, we all want our children to live comfortable lives if we ever had one and I will tell you now, the governmental aid for parents who have children they can't afford is the shittiest it's ever been. Those prices are for my generation which is around 1990. I don't even want to think what the prices are now due to inflation.

You're going to equate the life of a child and the money that would have to be spent to raise it?

Dope
Nov 18 2008, 02:01 AM
When it comes to deciding the abortion, I find many flaws in this hand down. Like Chris has said, the father is half responsible for this child. I don't see how you can force the father to be responsible financially, but not have a decision on whether or not the child is aborted. Don't hand me that emotionally attached bullshit either. Who's to say that father doesn't care about the fetus just as much as the mother? Are we now saying that men and women aren't equal, but they keep trying to push bill E42 in my goddamn face 24/7 (That's for another day and I'm not really sure if that's the name for the bill)

What happens if the father doesn't want the child but the mother does? Is the father still required to provide financial support? What if the father wants the child and the mother doesn't? Why should the mother have to endure a pregnancy against her will?

Dope
Nov 18 2008, 02:01 AM
Now here's where things start to get a little more contradictory, like I already said it's a very delicate situation. If the fetus belongs to the parents, when it comes to teen pregnancy, the child also belongs to the parents, so don't they own what she owns? But at the same time, the parent's shouldn't have a say. I feel that if a child is at the age, where they want to have sex, they've already entered the period of their life when they have to accept their mistakes and take the consequences that follow. But that also means aborting a child is the cowardly way out and not responsible to begin with. And this is why taking one factor into consideration and trying to generalize a very broad norm is not the way to handle abortion.

How can a teenager possibly be mature enough to make the same decisions a 30 year old person has to make? A teenager worries about school and friends, a 30 year old person has to make decisions about his or her family, job, and life. The ideal situation would be to have a close family that can work things out. But that's not being realistic. So the decision is who has more say, the mother or the parents?
Offline Profile
 
Dope
Member Avatar
Expert Colon Stomper
Etra
Nov 18 2008, 01:58 AM
Dope
Nov 18 2008, 02:01 AM
I haven't been following the legal stipulations of abortions lately, but I will say this.When dealing with a topic so delicate as this, it's obvious that each abortion should be looked at on an individual basis. It's not like abortions weren't performed before current time. If a Roman woman believed herself to be pregnant and did not want a child, she would shove rocks up her vagina until they they entered the womb. At least now modern abortions are performed with a great deal of improvement in cleanliness. Now back to the individual basis. Most people argue that one night stands and drunken hook-ups are not a reason to have an abortion. But let's really tear this apart. In both of those situations there are obvious risks in having a child born with FAS, which not to say would force to child to live a life not worth living, but live a life very difficult to cope with. Some of the genetic disorders caused from FAS include mental retardation and a severe lack in motor skills.What about incest, which has a very high correlation of children born with birth defects.

The best solution would be to, like you said, look at each abortion on an individual basis. It's too bad that's nearly impossible. To determine on an individual basis whether or not an abortion would be allowed will still bring up the argument of if and when a woman should be allowed to abort. Not to mention the staggering cost and time to review each case. I think that by the time a conclusion can be reached, the pregnancy would have at least developed for another 2 or 3 months. And if the mother is not in any danger, what then? Would the abortion, had it been approved, still go through?

Dope
Nov 18 2008, 02:01 AM
In fact, weighing the health of the baby and the mother are key factors in determining whether or not to have an abortion. If people are sadistic for killing human beings(all human beings, not just humans in the womb), than anyone allowing the mother to die for the birth of her baby is just as sadistic. You basically killed the mother to bring another life into this world, unless of course it was her decision. When genetic disorders come to mind, abortion is even more complicated. Let me say this, there are certain things that I believe all should have the ability to experience and you can only experience these things by living. To not have someone live just because they'll come out with a genetic disorder is justifying, but at the same time cruel. It's just like having to decide who to kill, the baby or the mother or forcing an innocent child to live a toilsome life.

The mother, even if a teenage pregnancy, would have lived at least 16 years of her life, leaving her with about 60 more. The baby would have a full 80 years to live. If there is no other option than to choose the life of the baby or the mother, the choice is then whether you'd give the baby a chance to experience its 80 years or hope that the mother can "equal" the 80 years that were sacrificed for her 60.

Dope
Nov 18 2008, 02:01 AM
Taking this further, most people don't consider how demanding having a child is, in every aspect. In Europe it is most likely your employer will give you a PAID LOA for up to two years to raise the child, for both the mother and father. There really isn't that much time in the life of the parent to do what they want. They work and come home to do a second shift. When it comes to monetary values, raising a child approximately costs $24,000 a year. That's $432,000 from womb to 18, not even including college. No one wants their child to be a failure right? Look at it this way, if your parents didn't have two kids, they could be millionaires. Let's face it, we all want our children to live comfortable lives if we ever had one and I will tell you now, the governmental aid for parents who have children they can't afford is the shittiest it's ever been. Those prices are for my generation which is around 1990. I don't even want to think what the prices are now due to inflation.

You're going to equate the life of a child and the money that would have to be spent to raise it?

Dope
Nov 18 2008, 02:01 AM
When it comes to deciding the abortion, I find many flaws in this hand down. Like Chris has said, the father is half responsible for this child. I don't see how you can force the father to be responsible financially, but not have a decision on whether or not the child is aborted. Don't hand me that emotionally attached bullshit either. Who's to say that father doesn't care about the fetus just as much as the mother? Are we now saying that men and women aren't equal, but they keep trying to push bill E42 in my goddamn face 24/7 (That's for another day and I'm not really sure if that's the name for the bill)

What happens if the father doesn't want the child but the mother does? Is the father still required to provide financial support? What if the father wants the child and the mother doesn't? Why should the mother have to endure a pregnancy against her will?

Dope
Nov 18 2008, 02:01 AM
Now here's where things start to get a little more contradictory, like I already said it's a very delicate situation. If the fetus belongs to the parents, when it comes to teen pregnancy, the child also belongs to the parents, so don't they own what she owns? But at the same time, the parent's shouldn't have a say. I feel that if a child is at the age, where they want to have sex, they've already entered the period of their life when they have to accept their mistakes and take the consequences that follow. But that also means aborting a child is the cowardly way out and not responsible to begin with. And this is why taking one factor into consideration and trying to generalize a very broad norm is not the way to handle abortion.

How can a teenager possibly be mature enough to make the same decisions a 30 year old person has to make? A teenager worries about school and friends, a 30 year old person has to make decisions about his or her family, job, and life. The ideal situation would be to have a close family that can work things out. But that's not being realistic. So the decision is who has more say, the mother or the parents?

To the first question, yes. Second trimester abortions are allowed all the time, it's the third trimester abortions that aren't really allowed, unless it's a dire situation. With all the money wasted in other governmental facilities, I'm sure they could dedicate some to abortion. They already seem so involved in the topic, why not aid so they can regulate it so it can be used when it's actually necessary and I mean effectively. Having each state decide whether abortion is legal or not, hell any damn law like that is retarded...

Secondly, as I've said you cannot exchange anything when it comes to life. Living or not living at all. Giving up a life for a additional twenty is also not equal. I don't want to sound like a hippy, but if we killed ourselves for the benefit of mother earth, would that sacrifice be justified? There is a strong link between any parent and their children. There is no doubt that a parent would gladly give up their life for their child, but that decision can only be made by a parent. Not allowing abortion because the child will live twenty years longer than their mother is preposterous.

The monetary comments were only in addition to what I said earlier. Because I was implying certain things, I'll clarify more. It's obvious that I made how demanding being a parent is when I said time. What I didn't go into is after that child hits eighteen, you're always a parent. I witness firsthand in my family and friends, hell even strangers. Fully grown adults always call their parents for advice. I mentioned the fiscal needs due to several reasons. One this is America, but in the world as well the world doesn't prosper on trading seashells. Not to mention, earning an additional $24,000 to support the life of another in addition to yours limits your time even more and can lead to a stressful life and neglecting your child. If you're so busy working trying to put food on the table, how do you spend time with your child. Parents neglecting their children is caused by not having enough money. Parents taking their stress out on their children is caused by not having enough money. An old saying went "The boss yells at the father. The Father yells at the mother. The Mother yells at the kid. The kid kicks the dog."

The next is an obvious answer Chris, why did you ask this. Of course when the father doesn't want the child he is financially responsible. That's what child court is for. That's why a great deal of this population has warrants out for them. Plenty of mothers out there are "struggling" but paying for a new house and car note thanks to daddy's child support. The mother should have to endure the pregnancy the same reason the father has to pay. Even when the dad clearly doesn't want to be part of his child's life (Yes, there are jerks like that), they have to pay. So the same should go for the mother and in addition, that bitch should be forced to pay child support.

This is more anecdotal than anything I've said. No one knows what applies best to your life like you. No one has experienced what you have, so when it comes to serious decision making, your personal experience outweighs everyone's. Sure parents have more experience, but that was during their time, with their lives, and their parents who would have been completely different. Not to mention their biases influencing their decisions because they always feel like "There's nothing you can do that I haven't experienced in my past."(complete bullshit by the way) And what you've said about parents is a very broad generalization. Teenagers don't worry always worry about school or friends and older adults don't always worry about their job family and life. Hell I'm not going to lie, almost all my dumbass friends to this day still don't think about anything, but the next party they can drink at. But when teenage girls at least in my life that were pregnant, they take on an entire new identity. They begin to rationalize things with more realism. And like I've said, their experience helps them make that decision.
Offline Profile
 
BaSe
Level 27
All i have to say is... my family is very anti abortion atleast they were.. until my lil sister (16 years old) got pregnant. Its easy to say your against abortion.. but then something like that happens.. and it seems like the best thing to do. No one wants to see two 16 year old teens having a kid in the society we live in today.
Offline Profile
 
Xtreme
Member Avatar
The Creator
This is an issue because people just can't mind their own business and worry about themselves.

Two of my ex-girlfriends have each had an abortion. It maybe morally wrong, but it's just something you have to do. How can you say you want to bring a person into this world that you can not take care of for the next eighteen years? It is a life altering experience to have a baby and start a family, one that I was not ready for, either times. And I am fortunate to still be doing what I like to do instead of changing diapers or warming milk.

I am pro-abortion, if it's for the right reasons. Right reasons would be rape, if the mothers life was in jeopardy, and if you can not financially and mentally take care of a human being. Any other reason such as pre-mature births with possible mental illnesses, not being comfortable during the pregnancy, and not liking or not knowing the father.

If it were dealt on an individual basis, as to why they were having an abortion, it would make more sense to the all the people who are pro-life because I feel they think people just abort babies for the reasons I feel are not good enough.
Offline Profile
 
DeMaGoG
Level 23
Quote:
 
Birth defects? Genetic disorders? Let's say you get married and you and your spouse decide you're ready for kids. Your wife becomes pregnant. Two months later, you find that something happened. Your baby will probably never walk or speak while still retaining normal mental development. Would you be willing to let your child live their 80+ years like that? If you were the child, would you thank or curse your parents for your life?


Who am I to decide who should live or die? If I were the child, I'd be very thankful for my life. Have you honestly ever thought about how truly amazing life is? I feel it would be must better to live life with a disability, than to never live life at all. Let's say you have a car crash tomorrow and can't speak/walk/something. Should we end your life just because we ourselves wouldn't want to live that way? Or should we let you live and support you?

Quote:
 
The girl will be financially supported by her parents and their tax dollars. How can they not be involved? We, the general American public, has an indirect say in how the military is run because our money is paying for our soldiers' weapons, uniforms, and training. We also indirectly control the conditions of our roads, the security at airports, the quality of our schools. Why is that? Because our money is paying for all of it. Why should their daughter's pregnancy be any different? They're providing shelter and food for the mother and the child, along with funding aid for their daughter, which is paid for by their taxes.


As the child is ultimately the girl's responsibility, it should be her decision as to what happens to it. While the parent's will most likely be supporting that new child, they should respect their daughter's wishes. After all, parents are supposed to have unconditional love for their children. So when their daughter gets pregnant, they will support whatever decision she may make. They may attempt to influence her decision, but they shouldn't make the decision themselves.

Quote:
 
You don't feel that the father of the baby should be found and held responsible for providing support for both the child and the mother, since he is in fact at least 50% responsible? The "rights" of one person, the father, versus the well-being of two people, the mother and the baby.

So you don't think it's OK for DNA testing to be forced so the father can be found but you'd allow for a family member to volunteer their own DNA to allow the father to be found? Isn't that contradictory?


Honestly, I do feel that the father of the child should be found and held responsible. That would be best for the people involved. However, I am basing my stance on a larger issue. If people can be forced to submit their genetic property, people don't even own themselves. Let's say you have some special gene that gives you an advantage in life. A biotech firm takes this gene and patents it. Now they want the ability to take your cells whenever they need some, for whatever reason. You don't want to give them any cells, because those genes are yours, or whatever reason you have. The case goes to court, and the biotech uses the fact that genetic material can be taken by force in cases of paternity tests to support their case and win. Now they have every right to use your body at will. I'm just choosing the lesser of two evils in this situation.

Since genes in relatives are so close, a positive match could likely be found using a relative of the potential fathers. I'm sure that SOMEONE in each case would come forward and volunteer to give some DNA for testing.

Quote:
 
The mother does not want to have to abort the child, so she'll keep it and give it up to an orphanage. Then our taxes will be used to pay for a child the mother did not want but wasn't able to "man up" and abort. Sounds a bit like handing off the responsibility.


If you don't want your tax dollars going towards something, try to get legislation passed about it. Or move. Money given to adoption centers to raise children is one of the few liberal stances I have when it comes to how our government uses our money (for the most part I don't feel that the government should redistribute wealth in any way).

Quote:
 
Problem 1: What is "at risk"? Life? Well-being?
Problem 2: The involuntary hardships the parent(s) will have to undergo as a result of them not having the option to abort their baby.
Problem 3: The child will grow up and may decide that it didn't want to live in the first place.


Anything that jeopardizes the ability of the mother to support the family. It's not involuntary, there is adoption. Again, we don't have the right or ability to decide if that child will value their life.

Quote:
 
The mother, even if a teenage pregnancy, would have lived at least 16 years of her life, leaving her with about 60 more. The baby would have a full 80 years to live. If there is no other option than to choose the life of the baby or the mother, the choice is then whether you'd give the baby a chance to experience its 80 years or hope that the mother can "equal" the 80 years that were sacrificed for her 60.


You can't compare quantity to quality, and what's in question here is quality. Since there is no determining which life will have a better quality, this arguement is mute. Other factors must be considered, and there are a lot.

Quote:
 
What happens if the father doesn't want the child but the mother does? Is the father still required to provide financial support? What if the father wants the child and the mother doesn't? Why should the mother have to endure a pregnancy against her will?


If the father is known, he should be forced to financially support the child/mother. After all, it is 50% his. Just because the pregnancy isn't wanted doesn't give one a right to end it.

I've only skimmed through dope's comments, but I think I agree with most of them.

Base - There are a lot of things no one wants to see. Most of them are MUCH worse than two teenagers having a child. It's better to let the child live than fix a mistake two teenagers made. If you let the girl get the abortion, what are you teaching them? Certainly not responsibility.

Edit:

Xtreme - You COULD let the pregnancy go through and use adoption... better that than killing a person.

I feel that when it comes to this topic, you really have to choose the lesser of two evils. A life, or the quality of life.
Offline Profile
 
Tonic
The Mambo King
'Etra'
 
I think I addressed a few of the problems with your view when I responded to SeLMeR and DeMaGoG. But the main point I can think of is this: A child is the responsibility and really the "property" of his or her parents until the age of 18. A baby, no matter how developed, will be under the age of 18. The parent is then able to do whatever he or she wishes with the child as long as no laws are not broken. And abortion is legal.


It's a nonissue whether abortion is legal or not legal; we know it's legal. The issue is whether we as a society have a responsibility to recognize abortion for what it is: murder. And as murder is illegal, so should abortion be.

And from the angle that the child is the "property" of the parent, this is completely false. While the child is indeed the responsibility of the parent up until the age of eighteen, the child is still afforded the same inalienable rights and priveledges as any other citizen. A parent doesn't have the right to terminate the child simply because they find the child inconvenient at some juncture in time any more than they can kill any other human being. What I'm trying to make clear is that life begins much, much earlier than birth. Thus, the unborn, living embryo should be provided with the same protection enjoyed by any other human being.

Size is not a relevant issue either. A basketball player and a toddler are much different in size, are they not? That doesn't, however, make the basketball player worth any more as a human being than the small toddler. This concept can be applied to the developing baby inside of a woman's uterus.

I'll respond to some of your other points when I have some time. I'm actually in my Information Technology class right now. ZzZzZz
Offline Profile
 
Xtreme
Member Avatar
The Creator
Xtreme - You COULD let the pregnancy go through and use adoption... better that than killing a person.

I feel that when it comes to this topic, you really have to choose the lesser of two evils. A life, or the quality of life.


First, it is not a life. How can it have a life before it has a birth certificate? When you celebrate your birthday you do not celebrate it the day your father impregnated your mother. No, you celebrate it the day you come out of the womb and step into the world.

Second, a life, or the quality of life...You have to rephrase that please to this:

An unborn meaningless life, or the quality of 3 lives, and also their families.

The father, the mother, and the baby will go through tough times, and so will the family. If it is something they can handle financially, then they should have the baby. But as a teen? No. That baby should not be born to better the lives of everyone that he/she would have come in contact with.

Third and finally, in a lot of cases, I feel adoption would be more painful then having an abortion. Especially when 20 years down the road, the kid you put up for adoption comes back to you to ask you questions about why you did it.

Should have just had an abortion and had a REAL baby.
Offline Profile
 
Dope
Member Avatar
Expert Colon Stomper
I still believe the best way to handle a topic such as this is to look at each situation on an individual basis. Before someone even makes this point (Abortion isn't the answer to fixing an unexpected child) then let me give you this to think of. Should a person that falls down a well be rescued? I mean he wasn't supposed to be there in the first place, just like the parents shouldn't have been having sex if they didn't want a child. I think Demagog put it best when he said, "You really have to make the choice of the lesser of two evils." I do disagree with the statement that one is the quality of life. As I've already said, nothing can compare to actually living a life. It doesn't matter if you're a paraplegic, living is just one of those things nothing else can compare to. It gives you experiences, joys and emotions that just couldn't be experienced any other way. I think the real decision relies in the parents. Whether they want to deal with the difficulties of raising a child, whether or not they have the money, or save/not deal with these difficulties at all.
Offline Profile
 
DeMaGoG
Level 23
Quote:
 
First, it is not a life. How can it have a life before it has a birth certificate? When you celebrate your birthday you do not celebrate it the day your father impregnated your mother. No, you celebrate it the day you come out of the womb and step into the world


You are defining life as having experiences once out of the womb. Yet it has been shown that reading and music around a baby before birth can improve it's intelligence. On the other hand, pre-borns can be affected negatively by drugs and alcohol. Considering those only affect living things, I think it's safe to say that the pre-born is ALIVE inside the womb. If something is alive, it obviously has a life. In fact, what is life? Scientifically, life is any organism that reproduces, and then a few other things which I can't recall at this moment, but are readily googlable. Birth certificates do not say "Hey! I lived!" they say "Hey! I was born alive!" Birthdays are simply tradition. They don't signify when you became alive, although they may originally have.

Quote:
 
Second, a life, or the quality of life...You have to rephrase that please to this:

An unborn meaningless life, or the quality of 3 lives, and also their families.

The father, the mother, and the baby will go through tough times, and so will the family. If it is something they can handle financially, then they should have the baby. But as a teen? No. That baby should not be born to better the lives of everyone that he/she would have come in contact with.


Contradicting much? You just said that being unborn was not being alive, but now you say it is a meaningless life. Anyway, I've already disproved that statement. But as for the quality of x number of lives, sure, with the birth of that child, the overall quality of several people's lives may be dramatically altered, but you are saying that EVERYONE that child comes into contact with will be negatively affected. That is a horrible arguement. That child, like any other child, will be capable of bringing love, joy, and any other kind of goodness to the world. They could cure cancer for all you know. So you, by killing a possible cancer curer, are killing a great number of people in the long run. Nice to know you support cancer. :-P

Quote:
 
Third and finally, in a lot of cases, I feel adoption would be more painful then having an abortion. Especially when 20 years down the road, the kid you put up for adoption comes back to you to ask you questions about why you did it.


At the age of 20, who would really care why their parents gave them up for adoption? People have better things to do than be concerned over such trivial things.

Quote:
 
I do disagree with the statement that one is the quality of life. As I've already said, nothing can compare to actually living a life. It doesn't matter if you're a paraplegic, living is just one of those things nothing else can compare to. It gives you experiences, joys and emotions that just couldn't be experienced any other way.


I was referring the lives of everyone else involved. They can either choose to kill a child, hence keeping their current life quality, or they can choose to keep the child, which would degrade their life quality.
Offline Profile
 
Dope
Member Avatar
Expert Colon Stomper
DeMaGoG
Nov 18 2008, 03:34 PM
I was referring the lives of everyone else involved. They can either choose to kill a child, hence keeping their current life quality, or they can choose to keep the child, which would degrade their life quality.

Having a child does not degrade the quality of someone's life. It's just very demanding.
Offline Profile
 
DeMaGoG
Level 23
Dope
Nov 18 2008, 04:21 PM
DeMaGoG
Nov 18 2008, 03:34 PM
I was referring the lives of everyone else involved. They can either choose to kill a child, hence keeping their current life quality, or they can choose to keep the child, which would degrade their life quality.

Having a child does not degrade the quality of someone's life. It's just very demanding.

You said so yourself that the cost of raising a single child is about $24,000 a year. 420 or so thousand until they are an adult. I'd say that's more than enough to qualify as lowering the quality of life that family could have if they didn't have that child. This keeps being brought up, how an unexpected child has negative effects on the quality of life of others in the family. My original point was to put into contrast a few sacrifices made for a child to live and killing that child. Imagine going up to a teenager who has the ability to drive, but no car because their family can't afford it. Then you explain to them that if one of their younger siblings hadn't been born, they could afford a car. Think they'd wish that sibling had never been born? I'd think not.
Offline Profile
 
Etra
Level 22
Dope
Nov 18 2008, 03:27 AM
To the first question, yes. Second trimester abortions are allowed all the time, it's the third trimester abortions that aren't really allowed, unless it's a dire situation. With all the money wasted in other governmental facilities, I'm sure they could dedicate some to abortion. They already seem so involved in the topic, why not aid so they can regulate it so it can be used when it's actually necessary and I mean effectively. Having each state decide whether abortion is legal or not, hell any damn law like that is retarded...

A first trimester abortion costs $500-1,000 and a second trimester abortion costs $600-10,000 (http://www.fwhc.org/abortion/flyer.htm). There are about 1.3 million abortions per year (http://www.abortiontv.com/Misc/AbortionStatistics.htm). Let's average the cost of a first trimester abortion at $750 and a second trimester at about $5,000 and say that the total number of abortions performed are half first and half second trimester. Each year, the procedures would cost us $3,737,500,000. Then add in the cost of the government having to pay for and provide the necessary equipment to perform an abortion to maybe 5 or 10 hospitals per state. Then there's the cost of having to train doctors to perform an abortion. A rough estimate would be about $5,000,000,000 as a one-time cost for equipping hospitals and training doctors, which is paid for by us. Then the $3.7 billion each year for the procedure itself is paid for, by us.

The second problem with trying to make a law stating abortion as legal and regulating it is that people that do not agree with the government will still be forced to pay for it. Are you against bombing an elementary school? Try giving the bomber some money to help him blow up a couple hundred kids.

Dope
Nov 18 2008, 03:27 AM
Secondly, as I've said you cannot exchange anything when it comes to life. Living or not living at all. Giving up a life for a additional twenty is also not equal. I don't want to sound like a hippy, but if we killed ourselves for the benefit of mother earth, would that sacrifice be justified? There is a strong link between any parent and their children. There is no doubt that a parent would gladly give up their life for their child, but that decision can only be made by a parent. Not allowing abortion because the child will live twenty years longer than their mother is preposterous.

The problem with trying to compare the mother's life and the child's is that it's not just the possibly aborted child that is at risk. A child who's mother aborted what would have been their older brother or sister to save her own life VS a child who knows that his or her mother sacrificed her own life for theirs. Which do you think is going to have a happier life?

Dope
Nov 18 2008, 03:27 AM
The monetary comments were only in addition to what I said earlier. Because I was implying certain things, I'll clarify more. It's obvious that I made how demanding being a parent is when I said time. What I didn't go into is after that child hits eighteen,  you're always a parent. I witness firsthand in my family and friends, hell even strangers. Fully grown adults always call their parents for advice. I mentioned the fiscal needs due to several reasons. One this is America, but in the world as well the world doesn't prosper on trading seashells. Not to mention, earning an additional $24,000 to support the life of another in addition to yours limits your time even more and can lead to a stressful life and neglecting your child. If you're so busy working trying to put food on the table, how do you spend time with your child. Parents neglecting their children is caused by not having enough money. Parents taking their stress out on their children is caused by not having enough money. An old saying went "The boss yells at the father. The Father yells at the mother. The Mother yells at the kid. The kid kicks the dog."

I'm confused. Are you trying to argue for or against abortion? Because so far, you've done both.

Dope
Nov 18 2008, 03:27 AM
The next is an obvious answer Chris, why did you ask this. Of course when the father doesn't want the child he is financially responsible. That's what child court is for. That's why a great deal of this population has warrants out for them. Plenty of mothers out there are "struggling" but paying for a new house and car note thanks to daddy's child support. The mother should have to endure the pregnancy the same reason the father has to pay. Even when the dad clearly doesn't want to be part of his child's life (Yes, there are jerks like that), they have to pay. So the same should go for the mother and in addition, that bitch should be forced to pay child support.

There is the possibility that the father cannot afford to pay child support, i.e. a teenager or in poverty, and that is why he wants the mother to abort the child. And if the mother doesn't want the baby, has it anyway, and gives it to the father to raise without her, does she have to pay child support too? No. Why is that? It's because our society assumes, like you did, that the father is a "jerk" and that the mother must have a good reason. That's not always the case.

Dope
Nov 18 2008, 03:27 AM
This is more anecdotal than anything I've said. No one knows what applies best to your life like you. No one has experienced what you have, so when it comes to serious decision making, your personal experience outweighs everyone's. Sure parents have more experience, but that was during their time, with their lives, and their parents who would have been completely different. Not to mention their biases influencing their decisions because they always feel like "There's nothing you can do that I haven't experienced in my past."(complete bullshit by the way) And what you've said about parents is a very broad generalization. Teenagers don't worry always worry about school or friends and older adults don't always worry about their job family and life. Hell I'm not going to lie, almost all my dumbass friends to this day still don't think about anything, but the next party they can drink at. But when teenage girls at least in my life that were pregnant, they take on an entire new identity. They begin to rationalize things with more realism. And like I've said, their experience helps them make that decision.

If a pregnancy causes a teenage girl to "rationalize things with more realism", why is it that women that have one abortion are more prone to having another? (http://www.afterabortion.org/poverty.html)

DeMaGoG
Nov 18 2008, 12:45 PM
Who am I to decide who should live or die? If I were the child, I'd be very thankful for my life. Have you honestly ever thought about how truly amazing life is? I feel it would be must better to live life with a disability, than to never live life at all. Let's say you have a car crash tomorrow and can't speak/walk/something. Should we end your life just because we ourselves wouldn't want to live that way? Or should we let you live and support you?

I know we'd all like to think so, or maybe not, but your child will not be exactly like you. Actually, I know more people that are vastly different from their parents than people that are very similar to their parents. So you cannot rationalize your decision by assuming your child will think as you have. And even if you can, you don't know what it's like to have to live with those disabilities. The best decision you can make is what is best for yourself and your spouse. Parenting is difficult as is with a normal child. How about the difficulty of raising a disabled child? I don't think anyone would disagree when I say it's at least two, if not three, times as difficult. Can you handle it? Are you willing to bet the happiness of your child on your decision?

DeMaGoG
Nov 18 2008, 12:45 PM
As the child is ultimately the girl's responsibility, it should be her decision as to what happens to it. While the parent's will most likely be supporting that new child, they should respect their daughter's wishes. After all, parents are supposed to have unconditional love for their children. So when their daughter gets pregnant, they will support whatever decision she may make. They may attempt to influence her decision, but they shouldn't make the decision themselves.

When the teenage girl is at school, who do you think is taking care of the baby? Who's paying for food, diapers, shots, and clothes? Pretty sure it's the parents' time and money that is being used for the baby. And it's "ultimately the girl's responsibility"? Sounds unfair and illogical to me. And what if "unconditional love" means telling their daughter that she can abort the child so she doesn't ruin her life or to have the child and figure out how to support it on her own? Because let's be honest, there are stories of teenage girls keeping their child and still living happy lives, but there are many more that live unhappy ones.

DeMaGoG
Nov 18 2008, 12:45 PM
Honestly, I do feel that the father of the child should be found and held responsible. That would be best for the people involved. However, I am basing my stance on a larger issue. If people can be forced to submit their genetic property, people don't even own themselves. Let's say you have some special gene that gives you an advantage in life. A biotech firm takes this gene and patents it. Now they want the ability to take your cells whenever they need some, for whatever reason. You don't want to give them any cells, because those genes are yours, or whatever reason you have. The case goes to court, and the biotech uses the fact that genetic material can be taken by force in cases of paternity tests to support their case and win. Now they have every right to use your body at will. I'm just choosing the lesser of two evils in this situation.

If you find a hair in your food at a restaurant, you have somebody's DNA in your food. DNA can be obtained from dead skin cells and hair. If people want to "own themselves" they'd have to vacuum just about anything and everything everywhere they go. And that's not feasible. So in that sense, no, you do not own your own genetic material. Besides, have you even considered how the father would be found if the girl doesn't know who the father is? She would have to list off every man she has ever slept with in the past month so they could have their DNA tested. Imagine the problems that would cause.

DeMaGoG
Nov 18 2008, 12:45 PM
Since genes in relatives are so close, a positive match could likely be found using a relative of the potential fathers. I'm sure that SOMEONE in each case would come forward and volunteer to give some DNA for testing.

So the possible father does not volunteer his DNA but his uncle does. Wouldn't that be circumventing the possible father's refusal?

DeMaGoG
Nov 18 2008, 12:45 PM
If you don't want your tax dollars going towards something, try to get legislation passed about it. Or move. Money given to adoption centers to raise children is one of the few liberal stances I have when it comes to how our government uses our money (for the most part I don't feel that the government should redistribute wealth in any way).

American government lesson: if there is a federal law passed that mandates anything, the government is required to provide the funds to the state governments to carry out the law that was passed. It doesn't matter where you move, you're still paying for it, unless you move out of the country. And people being forced to move out of a country because something that their government is requiring them to do is infringing upon their beliefs? Sounds familiar...

DeMaGoG
Nov 18 2008, 12:45 PM
Anything that jeopardizes the ability of the mother to support the family. It's not involuntary, there is adoption. Again, we don't have the right or ability to decide if that child will value their life.

You can't compare quantity to quality, and what's in question here is quality. Since there is no determining which life will have a better quality, this arguement is mute. Other factors must be considered, and there are a lot.

I don't think you realize that if you allow abortion only if the mother is "at risk", you're ultimately going to have to choose between the quality of life of the mother and the quality of life of the baby. The former is that any future children the mother has will know they should have an older sibling, but don't because their mother chose her life. And the latter is that the child will live knowing his or her mother sacrificed her life. So which is it? And as I've said before, reviewing each case individually is nearly impossible.

DeMaGoG
Nov 18 2008, 12:45 PM
If the father is known, he should be forced to financially support the child/mother. After all, it is 50% his. Just because the pregnancy isn't wanted doesn't give one a right to end it.

I've already addressed this above in response to Dope.

Tonic
Nov 18 2008, 12:53 PM
It's a nonissue whether abortion is legal or not legal; we know it's legal. The issue is whether we as a society have a responsibility to recognize abortion for what it is: murder. And as murder is illegal, so should abortion be.

Murder implies life, since you cannot murder a stone or a river. And scientists still cannot determine exactly when a baby first possesses life. There is plenty of evidence for every view on that subject; there is no concrete answer. So what we have to do instead of using fact is to decide for ourselves when a baby is living. When do you think a baby is living and why? That's what the true argument is for whether or not abortion is murder.

Tonic
Nov 18 2008, 12:53 PM
And from the angle that the child is the "property" of the parent, this is completely false. While the child is indeed the responsibility of the parent up until the age of eighteen, the child is still afforded the same inalienable rights and priveledges as any other citizen. A parent doesn't have the right to terminate the child simply because they find the child inconvenient at some juncture in time any more than they can kill any other human being. What I'm trying to make clear is that life begins much, much earlier than birth. Thus, the unborn, living embryo should be provided with the same protection enjoyed by any other human being.

Until you're 18, almost every decision you make requires the consent of your parent or guardian. If you want to go to a school, you need consent from your parent or guardian. If you want to create a bank account, you need consent from your parent or guardian. If you want to get a job, you need consent from your parent or guardian. I don't see either of my parents having to ask my grandparents permission to do anything and I'd be willing to bet yours are the same. So it doesn't seem like anyone under 18 is "afforded the same inalienable rights and privileges as any other citizen". What it does seem like is that your parents control your life. Sounds like you're property to me.

Abortion is legal, killing is not. You're going to have to provide an explanation of why you think life begins "much, much earlier than birth" for you to compare the two.
Offline Profile
 
Tonic
The Mambo King
Xtreme
Nov 18 2008, 05:10 PM
Xtreme - You COULD let the pregnancy go through and use adoption... better that than killing a person.

I feel that when it comes to this topic, you really have to choose the lesser of two evils. A life, or the quality of life.


First, it is not a life. How can it have a life before it has a birth certificate? When you celebrate your birthday you do not celebrate it the day your father impregnated your mother. No, you celebrate it the day you come out of the womb and step into the world.

Second, a life, or the quality of life...You have to rephrase that please to this:

An unborn meaningless life, or the quality of 3 lives, and also their families.

The father, the mother, and the baby will go through tough times, and so will the family. If it is something they can handle financially, then they should have the baby. But as a teen? No. That baby should not be born to better the lives of everyone that he/she would have come in contact with.

Third and finally, in a lot of cases, I feel adoption would be more painful then having an abortion. Especially when 20 years down the road, the kid you put up for adoption comes back to you to ask you questions about why you did it.

Should have just had an abortion and had a REAL baby.

I question your logic. Being in possession of a birth certification does not equate to having a life. You can look to the countless number of illegal immigrants living in our own country for proof of that. When you're born, a birth certificate doesn't flow out along with the placenta, it's created for you by men.

As for birthdays, that's really just a question of social practice. This doesn't have any bearing on whether or not the developing baby can be called life or not. There are some people who do celebrate their birthdays, as there are cultures who celebrate their passage to manhood by coating themselves with a sweater made of the excruciatingly painful bullet ants, resulting in severe scarring, convulsions, and sometimes even death. Birthdays just happen to be our particular society's way of celebrating. Not to mention how difficult it is to actually pin down a particular day of conception. When couples attempt to have children, they often do so feverishly and over the course of several days or even weeks. It's much easier obviously to know when exactly you exited your mother's womb, and this date can be easily documented.

You say that an unborn life is meaningless. Well, at least you agree that an unborn life is still a life. That's the main point that needs to be established in these debated. I don't know about you, but being told that my life up until being born is meaningless doesn't really sit well with me.

You continue and say birth would be more painful than adoption. More painful for who? Certainly not for the baby, Xtreme. Most abortions are committed when the baby is sufficiently developed to experience pain. Take a gander at this picture, and tell me that this "fake", "meaningless", and "unalive" baby didn't deserve a chance to live a life.

Warning: Pictures are graphic.

Meaningless Baby

I don't feel pain.

Dealing with the circumstances of your birth will be difficult. However, that doesn't mean that the unborn child doesn't deserve the chance to live. Being adopted doesn't bar you from enjoying a fruitful life. Part of growing up is to contend with difficult situations, and there's no reason why the adopted person won't be able to deal with the revelation that their adoptive parents are not their genetical bearers. Making presumptions on their part is wrong. And I can guarantee you that as sour as things may get, the person will always be grateful that the decision wasn't made to end their life before they even had a chance to live. As a friend of a few people with adoptive parents, I can say that sometimes the love provided by foster parents can be just as fulfilling and rich as that of the biological parents.

And yes, they are REAL people.
Offline Profile
 
Tonic
The Mambo King
Etra
Nov 19 2008, 12:33 AM
Until you're 18, almost every decision you make requires the consent of your parent or guardian. If you want to go to a school, you need consent from your parent or guardian. If you want to create a bank account, you need consent from your parent or guardian. If you want to get a job, you need consent from your parent or guardian. I don't see either of my parents having to ask my grandparents permission to do anything and I'd be willing to bet yours are the same. So it doesn't seem like anyone under 18 is "afforded the same inalienable rights and privileges as any other citizen". What it does seem like is that your parents control your life. Sounds like you're property to me.

Abortion is legal, killing is not. You're going to have to provide an explanation of why you think life begins "much, much earlier than birth" for you to compare the two.


It's true that most of your decisions are dependant upon your parents until you are over eighteen. But you missed the rights to which I was referring to. The inalienable rights are the right to life and liberty. A child is protected under law. Regardless of age, a parent cannot infringe on these rights legally. They cannot take away the life of their child. They cannot take away the liberty of their child, either. I'm obviously not talking about grounding their child, or not letting them play X-box for a week. I'm talking about restrictions along the lines of not letting their child eat, beating their child, or restricting the ability of the child to live.

A comparison to property is still inaccurate. If that were true, then there would be no such legal case as child abuse. With your own property, you are allowed to do as you please. You should be able to beat, maim, or kill your child under that interpretation. If I have a car, that IS my property. I can do whatever I want with that car. Destroy it, blow it up, drive it off a cliff. As long as I don't injure somebody else, that's my prerogative. If you have a child, you are required to provide him or her with the means to survive until that child is old enough, but that doesn't mean the child is a piece of property. You are responsible for the child, but you may not hurt the child or restrict his basic rights. Discipline is parenting, killing is not.

This brings me back to the original argument. If a child is allowed these rights, being the right to live and be free, then these rights should be in effect even before the child is born. I already provided some sound scientific data as the how the child is already in possession of most of the components necessary to survive by the time it is only two months old. While the definition of the beggining of life is not concrete, my definition of human life is when a developing embryo is genetically distinct from its parents, but genetically distinguishable as a human.
Offline Profile
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Serious Discussions · Next Topic »
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3