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
  • 2
001: Abortion
Topic Started: Mon Nov 17, 2008 6:06 pm (865 Views)
DeMaGoG
Level 23
Quote:
 
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.


Yes, that's possible, but he can't force her decision, only influence it.

Quote:
 
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?


It's obvious they wouldn't be exactly like you (unless cloned!!!) But what I really mean, is that there is no way you can know. Again, the best decision you can make is the lesser of two evils. You have to understand that killing goes against my religion, so you won't be persuading me on this point.

Quote:
 
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.


Yes, the parents will be taking care of the child, but it is still the girls responsibility. The parents just do it because of the unconditional love. The parents have every right to try and persuade their daughter to have an abortion. It's just her decision, and once it's made, they should respect it. Also, having a child as a teenager doesn't ruin your life. It only makes it difficult. You assume it ruins the person's life because they will likely not reach any of their previous goals, and because teenage pregnancy is not a social norm (it is in some places though...).

Quote:
 
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.


Hair is protein, not DNA. DNA is in the follicle. Also, DNA becomes contaminated easily. The DNA in a follicle in hot soup would likely denature to an unusable extent. My point is just that it would be very bad if our genetic material could be forcibly taken. You could be doing anything and they would basically interrupt your life and take tissue samples. Of course she would have to list off every guy. Teach her a lesson about being a slut for one. I don't get how anyone could think that little of sex to have that many partners, especially in one month.

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


Exactly. Nothing is forced, everything is voluntary.

Quote:
 
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...


My mistake, I assumed you would realize I meant move out of the country. I'm too tired to make the connection here... what does that sound familiar to?

Quote:
 
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.


I thought I stated that the issue was quality... Anyway, if you choose the mother's life, everyone's lives remain the same. If you choose the babies, that's less income for the family, and many other factors. So choosing the mother's life is obviously a better choice. You make it sound like the mother was selfish. Those children would also realize that if their mother hadn't saved herself, they wouldn't be here. And I don't think I ever said each case should be reviewed individually.
Offline Profile
 
Etra
Level 22
Tonic
Nov 18 2008, 09:16 PM
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.

Life and liberty are not rights, they are privileges. A right is something every person has, a privilege is something a select group of people have. You're going to have a hard time proving every person has the right to life and liberty.

Also, I'm not really sure why you're using those examples since they're not actually relevant to our discussion. In one of my previous posts, I said "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." Note the bold.

And the "rights", as you call them, in this country are entitled to people, which implies person-hood. One of the more generally accepted requirements for being a person is self-awareness. A baby does not develop that until long after it is born. If a baby is not a person before it is born, it is not entitled to those "rights".

DeMaGoG
Nov 18 2008, 09:18 PM
Yes, the parents will be taking care of the child, but it is still the girls responsibility. The parents just do it because of the unconditional love. The parents have every right to try and persuade their daughter to have an abortion. It's just her decision, and once it's made, they should respect it. Also, having a child as a teenager doesn't ruin your life. It only makes it difficult. You assume it ruins the person's life because they will likely not reach any of their previous goals, and because teenage pregnancy is not a social norm (it is in some places though...).

I don't mean to be rude but real life isn't a fairy tale; rarely does anyone live a blissful life with a happy ending. And I'm not assuming anything, as the article below shows. Rather, it seems you're making a generalization based on your religious beliefs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_pregnancy
 
Several studies have examined the socioeconomic, medical, and psychological impact of pregnancy and parenthood in teens. Life outcomes for teenage mothers and their children vary; other factors, such as poverty or social support, may be more important than the age of the mother at the birth. Many solutions to counteract the more negative findings have been proposed. Teenage parents who can use family and community support, social services and child-care support to continue their education and get higher paying jobs as they progress with their education.

Impact on the mother

Being a young mother in an industrialized country can affect one's education. Teen mothers are more likely to drop out of high school.[6] Recent studies, though, have found that many of these mothers had already dropped out of school prior to becoming pregnant and those in school at the time of their pregnancy were as likely to graduate as their peers. One study in 2001 found that women who gave birth during their teens completed secondary-level schooling 10-12% as often and pursued post-secondary education 14-29% as often as women who waited until age 30.[64]

Young motherhood in an industrialized country can affect employment and social class. Less than one third of teenage mothers receive any form of child support, vastly increasing the likelihood of turning to the government for assistance.[65]The correlation between earlier childbearing and failure to complete high school reduces career opportunities for many young women.[6] One study found that, in 1988, 60% of teenage mothers were impoverished at the time of giving birth.[66] Additional research found that nearly 50% of all adolescent mothers sought social assistance within the first five years of their child's life.[6] A study of 100 teenaged mothers in the United Kingdom found that only 11% received a salary while the remaining 89% were unemployed.[67] Most British teenage mothers live in poverty, with nearly half in the bottom fifth of the income distribution.[68] Teenage mothers are seven times more likely to commit suicide than other teenagers. [2]

One-fourth of adolescent mothers will have a second child within 24 months of the first. Factors that determine which mothers are more likely to have a closely-spaced repeat birth include marriage and education: the likelihood decreases with the level of education of the young woman – or her parents – and increases if she gets married.[69]

Impact on the child

Early motherhood can affect the psychosocial development of the infant. The occurrence of developmental disabilities and behavioral issues is increased in children born to teen mothers.[70][71] One study suggested that adolescent mothers are less likely to stimulate their infant through affectionate behaviors such as touch, smiling, and verbal communication, or to be sensitive and accepting toward his or her needs.[70] Another found that those who had more social support were less likely to show anger toward their children or to rely upon punishment.[72]

Poor academic performance in the children of teenage mothers has also been noted, with many of them being more likely than average to fail to graduate from secondary school, be held back a grade level, or score lower on standardized tests.[6] Daughters born to adolescent parents are more likely to become teen mothers themselves.[54][6] A son born to a young woman in her teens is three times more likely to serve time in prison.[73]

Impact on other family members

Teen pregnancy and motherhood can influence younger siblings. One study found that the younger sisters of teen mothers were less likely to emphasisize the importance of education and employment and more likely to accept sexual initiation, parenthood, and marriage at younger ages; younger brothers, too, were found to be more tolerant of non-marital and early births, in addition to being more susceptible to high-risk behaviors.[74] An additional study discovered that those with an older sibling who is a teen parent often end up babysitting their nieces and nephews and that young girls placed in such a situation have an increased risk of getting pregnant themselves.[53] Social workers play an important role in intervention with families. They work with the families to address common problems and health issues in order to promote a positive outcome for both the family and the baby.

Wikipedia isn't the most reliable source but the gist of the article and the studies done should be obvious.

DeMaGoG
Nov 18 2008, 09:18 PM
Hair is protein, not DNA. DNA is in the follicle. Also, DNA becomes contaminated easily. The DNA in a follicle in hot soup would likely denature to an unusable extent. My point is just that it would be very bad if our genetic material could be forcibly taken. You could be doing anything and they would basically interrupt your life and take tissue samples. Of course she would have to list off every guy. Teach her a lesson about being a slut for one. I don't get how anyone could think that little of sex to have that many partners, especially in one month.

Whatever, regardless of the specifics, my point still stands. Genetic material does not have to be "forcibly taken", it can be picked up off the floor.

And why does one person's actions warrant the obviously detrimental effect on her sex partners?

DeMaGoG
Nov 18 2008, 09:18 PM
Exactly. Nothing is forced, everything is voluntary.

Uh, your statement here is contradictory with the preceding paragraph. You argue that having DNA "forcibly taken" is wrong, and yet you're OK with the ignoring of the father's refusal to volunteer his DNA?

DeMaGoG
Nov 18 2008, 09:18 PM
My mistake, I assumed you would realize I meant move out of the country. I'm too tired to make the connection here... what does that sound familiar to?

Pilgrims, Jews.

DeMaGoG
Nov 18 2008, 09:18 PM
I thought I stated that the issue was quality... Anyway, if you choose the mother's life, everyone's lives remain the same. If you choose the babies, that's less income for the family, and many other factors. So choosing the mother's life is obviously a better choice. You make it sound like the mother was selfish. Those children would also realize that if their mother hadn't saved herself, they wouldn't be here. And I don't think I ever said each case should be reviewed individually.

Yes, and I agreed with you. Re-read my post.

If having a baby means "less income for the family, and many other factors", why should people be reproducing at all? In your attempt arguing for abortion, you've also argued against planned pregnancies. That's not very religious :lol:.

I said that thing about reviewing each case individually to rule that option out, leaving you with the mother or the baby. You chose the mother, and in my previous paragraph I noted a problem with your argument.
Offline Profile
 
Tonic
The Mambo King
'Etra'
 
Life and liberty are not rights, they are privileges. A right is something every person has, a privilege is something a select group of people have. You're going to have a hard time proving every person has the right to life and liberty.

Also, I'm not really sure why you're using those examples since they're not actually relevant to our discussion. In one of my previous posts, I said "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." Note the bold.

And the "rights", as you call them, in this country are entitled to people, which implies person-hood. One of the more generally accepted requirements for being a person is self-awareness. A baby does not develop that until long after it is born. If a baby is not a person before it is born, it is not entitled to those "rights".


If you are born in this country, then life and liberty are indeed "rights". This might not apply to other countries in the world, but as long as we live in the United States then we are afforded these rights by the Delcaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. It's called the Bill of Rights, not the bill of Priveledges.

You seem to be misunderstanding my point. You stated that children are the property of the parents until the age of 18. I provided some examples to clarify the fact that while children are the responsibility of the parents, they are not property, and they cannot be held to the same standards. I realize the fact that abortion is legal. Otherwise, we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion. My argument is that the same rights that apply to children up until the age of 18 should apply to the children before they exit the womb.

Also, your point about rights only applying to a self-aware human is incorrect. You stated yourself that a child does not develop self-awareness until it is a few years old. This doesn't mean that parent has the right to do as it pleases with the baby simply because it is not self-aware. It also has the same rights I pointed out earlier, which are life and liberty. Life, because a parent can not decide to end the life of their child when it becomes a financial inconvenience no matter what age the baby. There is a fundamental difference between a right and a priveledge in this country. Priveledges can be revoked. You cannot revoke the right to life in this country without legal repercussions. The same right should be applied to the unborn children, who are already a distinguishable human being with its own fingerprints, heart, and brain from the age of only two to three weeks. And the right to liberty also applies, when the child is old enough to take advantage of the fact.

Another common argument in this thread against abortion is that the baby will be born into a bad family, or since the woman cannot afford the child, the baby will suffer a cruel fate and abortion prevents that from happening. This argument is fundamentally flawed. While it may be true that unwanted pregnancies sometimes result in unfavorable conditions for the newborn, it doesn’t justify the act of killing any more than it justifies a mother killing her two year old infant because she has run into difficult financial times. It is no more unfair to an “unwanted” child to bring to bring him into the world where he will face potential hardships then it is to outright kill him. In many cases, people who decided not to abort end up loving the child in the end, and it is unconscionable not to provide every human being with that chance.

The argument that a woman shouldn't have to suffer a pregnancy if she doesn't want to is ludicrous. Abortion is a dangerous procedure unto itself. Terminating a life under the guise of “birth control” is not only unjustifiable, but despicable as well. Most unwanted pregnancies are completely avoidable with just some basic precautions needed to be taken. There are a plethora of methods readily available to dramatically reduce and practically eliminate the chances of an unwanted pregnancy. Irresponsibility should not warrant abortion and give the chooser the power to end life. Most abortions are done for young adults who don’t have the maturity and life experiences to make good decisions. Why should they be put in the position where they can take the life of an unborn human being?
Offline Profile
 
Lintendo
Level 5
Quote:
 
Life and liberty are not rights, they are privileges. A right is something every person has, a privilege is something a select group of people have. You're going to have a hard time proving every person has the right to life and liberty.

Also, I'm not really sure why you're using those examples since they're not actually relevant to our discussion. In one of my previous posts, I said "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." Note the bold.

And the "rights", as you call them, in this country are entitled to people, which implies person-hood. One of the more generally accepted requirements for being a person is self-awareness. A baby does not develop that until long after it is born. If a baby is not a person before it is born, it is not entitled to those "rights".



umm i dont see why its hard to argue that every person has a right to life,if ur saying they don't then i'd say ur saying there are no rights at all for anything only privleges and thats just ehh... also about the relevancy, just because parent is under the law able to do whatever he/she wishes with the child as long as no laws are broken, doesn't mean its morally right, thats why we're having this debate. just because perhaps the law allows murder for some reason doesn't mean its ok. also about the self-awareness thing, u say a baby does not develop that until long after it is born. so its ok to kill 3 months old year olds? i dont think anyone agrees with that.

oh to tonic, "You cannot revoke the right to life in this country without legal repercussions." technically we can, its called capital pnuishment xP, but thats argued against too so iono xP...

lastly i just want to bring up anotehr pt. for those of you who are against abortions except in cases of rape or threatening of a mothers life... why is it ok to murder in these cases. cause i still assume u call it murder. just because ur life is in danger and killing someoen else is the only way to save it its ok? imagine ur on a sinking boat that can only support 1 person, and there are 2 ppl on it u and someone, its suddenly ok for u to kill that person and throw him off the ship if its the only way u can live? and rape.... just because u suffered something very bad and don't want a child.. its ok to kill it? why... in the legal sense, its not even ok for you to find teh rapist and kill him, the one who did it to you, but to kill an innocent bystander for it?? i'd think u have to be either for abortion or against it, its kinda weird to think its murder but suddenly justifiable for reasons like rape.
Offline Profile
 
TeaLaGe
Member Avatar
Level 50
I'll sum this up in 2 minutes: Observe greatness


Quote:
 
Is it morally right to be able to end the life of an innocent?


Kill the baby? no. Kill the fetus? oh yes.. If it's too late might as well just have the baby.

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


No. [UNLESS it is 1-2 month during preg] <-- ignore

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


When the baby is past 3 month.

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


Depend on age. over 18 = no.. Under 18 = yes, because the teen cannot take care by herself.

Quote:
 
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?


Yep. No other answer to this.

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


Yes, if she decides too. It is the only possible way to give the baby a chance at a good life.

Quote:
 
What about birth defects? Genetic disorders?


Abort whenever any problem come up. Make sure they understand the risk and prepare for the worst. End the baby life and put it out of it's misery.. if not possible, put up for abortion to have a better chance at life.

Quote:
 
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?


What the fuck is this question? You telling me a baby can have be addicted to alcohol? or nicotine?

Good game.
Offline Profile
 
Dope
Member Avatar
Expert Colon Stomper
Quote:
 
QUOTE (Etra @ Nov 18 2008, 07:33 PM)
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.


I've been arguing for both sides because when dealing with something like this I refer to Shakespeare "There is nothing neither good or bad, but thinking makes it so." $3.7 billion a year is in fact not dedicated to abortion.s You're forgetting that people also open up their own medical practices and there are three privately owned hospitals that I know of in Philadelphia alone. Then we subtract the money used to train doctors, since more than likely anything extra, after you get authorized and pass the exams, comes out of your pocket. Unless, you're working in a government hospital. Now the second point is completely ridiculous. You have to pay taxes regardless of whether or not you agree with the government. You send your kids to private school? Guess what, The government doesn't care and will continue to collect just as much property tax from you as they do everyone else? If you want to change that they make you go through this long process and only refund a fraction of the amount they collected from you. It's part of being an American citizen. You pay taxes whether or not you're a hippy or commy. And in fact that has happened. The CIA trained Osama and gave him two billion...Guess how he repaid us.

Quote:
 
QUOTE (Etra @ Nov 18 2008, 07:33 PM)
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?



If what you say is true, then unless your parents are millionaires I guess you shouldn't have been born in the first place. Secondly I think they would both be equally happy. One if she didn't sacrifice the older child, the younger ones wouldn't have been born. And obviously the latter is a mother sacrificing her life for her only child.

Quote:
 
QUOTE (Etra @ Nov 18 2008, 07:33 PM)
I'm confused. Are you trying to argue for or against abortion? Because so far, you've done both.


Been arguing for both sides...each case deserves to be looked at separately, it's the only way I know how to confuse everyone enough to where they'd have to agree.

Quote:
 
QUOTE (Etra @ Nov 18 2008, 07:33 PM)
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.


Read this again, particularly the end. I said that is wrong and should be corrected.
Quote:
 
QUOTE (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.


Quote:
 
QUOTE (Etra @ Nov 18 2008, 07:33 PM)
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)

Because now that they have a solution that is more efficient in their mind. There's some study in psychology, I don't remember who did it, but it said people will rationalize anything they believe in. So even though it may not be more efficient, if they see it in their eyes to be so, they will rationalize it. Not to mention, their own personal experiences effect the decisions they will make. They made a mistake once before and had an abortion. If they do the same thing, and felt no remorse about the first time, obviously they would do it again.

Quote:
 
QUOTE (DeMaGoG @ Nov 18 2008, 5:44 PM)
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.


I think you're defining a successful life very mistakenly. A successful life should be measured by happiness, not wealth. Just because having a child is costly, doesn't mean the quality of life parents experience drops or that the child is a burden. There are plenty of people who have the ability to drive, but cannot afford a car, he'd get over it. Hell that's a hazing most teenagers go through.
Offline Profile
 
DeMaGoG
Level 23
I'll come back later and argue against more statements, I just want to clarify this one really quick.

Quote:
 
I think you're defining a successful life very mistakenly. A successful life should be measured by happiness, not wealth. Just because having a child is costly, doesn't mean the quality of life parents experience drops or that the child is a burden. There are plenty of people who have the ability to drive, but cannot afford a car, he'd get over it. Hell that's a hazing most teenagers go through.


Since others are defining the quality of life as wealth, I have to in order to argue with them. If I just say money is happiness, not wealth, then we will have to argue over that as well, which would just be a waste of time.
Offline Profile
 
Lintendo
Level 5

Quote:
 
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?


i think this person was talking about genes that might indicate such things, more prone to getting cancer and such.. im not sure...

Quote:
 
What the fuck is this question? You telling me a baby can have be addicted to alcohol? or nicotine?


but in answer to this question, yes a baby can be born addicted to alcohol or nicotine, if a mother uses addictive drugs, it goes through her system and therefore also through the fetus's system, there are many documented cases of babies born like this. http://www.lep.co.uk/news/Babies-born-as-d...icts.3962053.jp first link i found.
Offline Profile
 
TeaLaGe
Member Avatar
Level 50
It's not right for a baby to be born into a world like that. The mother should seek help for her baby, NOT continue to do the same lifestyle she does.

So yes, if the mother drinks, smokes, drugs and cant stop it, the the baby should not even be born.
Offline Profile
 
Etra
Level 22
Tonic
Nov 19 2008, 02:04 AM
If you are born in this country, then life and liberty are indeed "rights". This might not apply to other countries in the world, but as long as we live in the United States then we are afforded these rights by the Delcaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. It's called the Bill of Rights, not the bill of Priveledges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

Tonic
Nov 19 2008, 02:04 AM
My argument is that the same rights that apply to children up until the age of 18 should apply to the children before they exit the womb.

Also, your point about rights only applying to a self-aware human is incorrect. You stated yourself that a child does not develop self-awareness until it is a few years old. This doesn't mean that parent has the right to do as it pleases with the baby simply because it is not self-aware. It also has the same rights I pointed out earlier, which are life and liberty. Life, because a parent can not decide to end the life of their child when it becomes a financial inconvenience no matter what age the baby. There is a fundamental difference between a right and a priveledge in this country. Priveledges can be revoked. You cannot revoke the right to life in this country without legal repercussions. The same right should be applied to the unborn children, who are already a distinguishable human being with its own fingerprints, heart, and brain from the age of only two to three weeks. And the right to liberty also applies, when the child is old enough to take advantage of the fact.

In a "murder" trial, the law is what matters, not your feelings about them. As I've said before, abortion is legal. And one of the main arguments for abortion is that a baby is not a person. You cannot go to jail for "murdering" a rock, or a tree, or the water because they are not persons; they are not self-aware. Unless you can perform a miracle and prove a baby is a person by either showing why being self-aware is not a requirement to being a person or by coming up with scientific evidence that a baby is self-aware in the womb, a preborn has no rights.

Tonic
Nov 19 2008, 02:04 AM
Another common argument in this thread against abortion is that the baby will be born into a bad family, or since the woman cannot afford the child, the baby will suffer a cruel fate and abortion prevents that from happening. This argument is fundamentally flawed. While it may be true that unwanted pregnancies sometimes result in unfavorable conditions for the newborn, it doesn’t justify the act of killing any more than it justifies a mother killing her two year old infant because she has run into difficult financial times. It is no more unfair to an “unwanted” child to bring to bring him into the world where he will face potential hardships then it is to outright kill him. In many cases, people who decided not to abort end up loving the child in the end, and it is unconscionable not to provide every human being with that chance.

Forgetful induction: "the fallacy of failing to take into account all the relevant evidence bearing on a conclusion". A preborn is not a person, a 2 year old infant is.

Tonic
Nov 19 2008, 02:04 AM
The argument that a woman shouldn't have to suffer a pregnancy if she doesn't want to is ludicrous. Abortion is a dangerous procedure unto itself. Terminating a life under the guise of “birth control” is not only unjustifiable, but despicable as well. Most unwanted pregnancies are completely avoidable with just some basic precautions needed to be taken. There are a plethora of methods readily available to dramatically reduce and practically eliminate the chances of an unwanted pregnancy. Irresponsibility should not warrant abortion and give the chooser the power to end life. Most abortions are done for young adults who don’t have the maturity and life experiences to make good decisions. Why should they be put in the position where they can take the life of an unborn human being?

100% probability of a woman dying for whatever reason if she does not abort > The probability of a woman dying as a direct result of the abortion. Unless the risk from the abortion is also 100%, at which point it becomes less a legal issue and more a moral one that the mother is going to have to make.

The only absolute way to prevent an unwanted pregnancy is to abstain from sex.

You'd be OK with one of those "young adults who don't have the maturity and life experiences to make good decisions" raising a child?

Lintendo
Nov 19 2008, 02:21 AM
umm i dont see why its hard to argue that every person has a right to life,if ur saying they don't then i'd say ur saying there are no rights at all for anything only privleges and thats just ehh... also about the relevancy, just because parent is under the law able to do whatever he/she wishes with the child as long as no laws are broken, doesn't mean its morally right, thats why we're having this debate. just because perhaps the law allows murder for some reason doesn't mean its ok. also about the self-awareness thing, u say a baby does not develop that until long after it is born. so its ok to kill 3 months old year olds? i dont think anyone agrees with that.

See above. Currently in the United States, the Patriot Act basically allows the government to revoke your "rights" when it feels that you're a risk to national security. If life and liberty are in fact "rights" as you call them, the PA would have been ruled unconstitutional and overturned by the Supreme Court. It hasn't been.

Lintendo
Nov 19 2008, 02:21 AM
oh to tonic, "You cannot revoke the right to life in this country without legal repercussions." technically we can, its called capital pnuishment xP, but thats argued against too so iono xP...

Well it's not really relevant to the topic but the proponents of capital punishment believe it will prevent major crimes. It doesn't.

Lintendo
Nov 19 2008, 02:21 AM
lastly i just want to bring up anotehr pt. for those of you who are against abortions except in cases of rape or threatening of a mothers life... why is it ok to murder in these cases. cause i still assume u call it murder. just because ur life is in danger and killing someoen else is the only way to save it its ok? imagine ur on a sinking boat that can only support 1 person, and there are 2 ppl on it u and someone, its suddenly ok for u to kill that person and throw him off the ship if its the only way u can live? and rape.... just because u suffered something very bad and don't want a child.. its ok to kill it? why... in the legal sense, its not even ok for you to find teh rapist and kill him, the one who did it to you, but to kill an innocent bystander for it?? i'd think u have to be either for abortion or against it, its kinda weird to think its murder but suddenly justifiable for reasons like rape.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d030.htm

TeaLaGe
Nov 19 2008, 02:48 AM
What the fuck is this question? You telling me a baby can have be addicted to alcohol? or nicotine?

Addiction in general has a genetic factor that makes them more susceptible, as does cancer. And yes, as Lintendo said, a baby can be born addicted to nicotine and alcohol.

Dope
Nov 19 2008, 03:09 AM
I've been arguing for both sides because when dealing with something like this I refer to Shakespeare "There is nothing neither good or bad, but thinking makes it so." $3.7 billion a year is in fact not dedicated to abortion.s You're forgetting that people also open up their own medical practices and there are three privately owned hospitals that I know of in Philadelphia alone. Then we subtract the money used to train doctors, since more than likely anything extra, after you get authorized and pass the exams, comes out of your pocket. Unless, you're working in a government hospital. Now the second point is completely ridiculous. You have to pay taxes regardless of whether or not you agree with the government. You send your kids to private school? Guess what, The government doesn't care and will continue to collect just as much property tax from you as they do everyone else? If you want to change that they make you go through this long process and only refund a fraction of the amount they collected from you. It's part of being an American citizen. You pay taxes whether or not you're a hippy or commy. And in fact that has happened. The CIA trained Osama and gave him two billion...Guess how he repaid us.

The exact numbers aren't important since we don't even know what they are anyway. What does matter is the fact that everyone will be paying a lot of money if abortion is regulated, regardless of your stance.

What I stated was one of the reasons people do not want to regulate abortion. You're going to have to make them re-consider if you want them to vote to allow the government to impose regulations. Getting them to pay taxes to help kill a child against their beliefs is going to take more than saying, "You pay taxes whether or not you're a hippy or commy".

Dope
Nov 19 2008, 03:09 AM
If what you say is true, then unless your parents are millionaires I guess you shouldn't have been born in the first place. Secondly I think they would both be equally happy. One if she didn't sacrifice the older child, the younger ones wouldn't have been born. And obviously the latter is a mother sacrificing her life for her only child.

Put yourself in the position of the first child. You just found out your mother aborted your older sibling. But you decide it's OK because if she hadn't, you wouldn't be alive. Is that really what you would think?

Dope
Nov 19 2008, 03:09 AM
Because now that they have a solution that is more efficient in their mind. There's some study in psychology, I don't remember who did it, but it said people will rationalize anything they believe in. So even though it may not be more efficient, if they see it in their eyes to be so, they will rationalize it. Not to mention, their own personal experiences effect the decisions they will make. They made a mistake once before and had an abortion. If they do the same thing, and felt no remorse about the first time, obviously they would do it again.

Uh, maybe I read something wrong because I'm confused again. Your original point was that the mother should have more say than her parents, right? Then I replied saying that the teenage mother is not mature enough to handle a decision like that, but her parents are. Then you said that only the mother can know what's best for her life. Then I said apparently not since having one abortion makes you more likely to have another. And then you replied by arguing against your original point by saying a teenage girl should not be able to make a decision of that scale? Did you not read the link I gave?
http://www.afterabortion.org/poverty.html
 
# - Women who have had abortions are more likely to become pregnant again and undergo additional abortions. Nearly 50% of all abortions are repeat abortions. These repeat abortions do not represent "satisfied customers." Instead, post-abortion women often seek replacement pregnancies to make up for the aborted child, but find themselves faced with the same social pressures which led to the first abortion. There is also evidence that some women undergo repeat abortions as an act of "self-punishment" or as attempt to "harden" themselves to negative feelings stemming from their first abortion..
# - Compared to their peers, teenagers who have had one abortion are 4 times more likely to have a subsequent abortion. Almost 20% of teen aborters have a second abortion within a year, and 38% have a second abortion within 5 years.




Edit: I hope you all realize I'm just playing my role as the devil's advocate. Anything I say doesn't necessarily say anything about what I believe. When I think the topic has exhausted itself, I'll post my own beliefs and you can all take your turns attacking mine :P.
Offline Profile
 
Tonic
The Mambo King
Quote:
 


Quote me a specific passage of relevance. Don't link me to a bill which has over 340 pages and expect me to know exactly which section you're referring to. And I've yet to see a section of that act which revokes the right to life, which is the right in discussion.

Quote:
 
In a "murder" trial, the law is what matters, not your feelings about them. As I've said before, abortion is legal. And one of the main arguments for abortion is that a baby is not a person. You cannot go to jail for "murdering" a rock, or a tree, or the water because they are not persons; they are not self-aware. Unless you can perform a miracle and prove a baby is a person by either showing why being self-aware is not a requirement to being a person or by coming up with scientific evidence that a baby is self-aware in the womb, a preborn has no rights.


You would be hard-pressed to find a rock or a tree which has human DNA, a human brain, a human heart, or human fingerprints. Also, you stated that a baby has no rights because it is not self-aware. This is not true.

'Etra'
 
One of the more generally accepted requirements for being a person is self-awareness. A baby does not develop that until long after it is born.


A baby enjoys that same basic right that you and I do. The fact that a baby is not self-aware up until a certain age does not mean that the baby can be killed. It is unlawful, not to mention highly immoral, to kill a "self-unaware" baby. The argument that the rights apply only to a person who is self-aware is false. The rights apply to all humans, regardless of age.

Quote:
 
Forgetful induction: "the fallacy of failing to take into account all the relevant evidence bearing on a conclusion". A preborn is not a person, a 2 year old infant is.


To what relevant evidence are you referring to? A preborn IS an infant. In what respect is it not? The baby does not undergo some drastic transformation before it is birthed. The baby that a doctor delivers during pregnancy is the same baby that was developing inside the womb for nine months. There isn't a magical vortex inside the uterus from where we pull complete babies. The unborn baby is genetically identicaland physiologically identical to the baby which is birthed. It is similiar to the fact that a baby cannot survive on it's own without the mother. We must facilitate the development of an infant until he/she is old enough to take care of him/herself. This also applies to the baby inside of the womb. We must also nurture and care for the baby until it is able to live outside of the womb. Simply, you must care for the baby at all stages of its life until it is of mature age. A stage of the baby's life is during pregnancy.

Quote:
 
100% probability of a woman dying for whatever reason if she does not abort > The probability of a woman dying as a direct result of the abortion. Unless the risk from the abortion is also 100%, at which point it becomes less a legal issue and more a moral one that the mother is going to have to make.

The only absolute way to prevent an unwanted pregnancy is to abstain from sex.

You'd be OK with one of those "young adults who don't have the maturity and life experiences to make good decisions" raising a child?


I'm not sure I understand your implication in the first paragraph. Maybe you can clarify.

It's true that the only ABSOLUTE way to prevent an unwanted pregnancy is the abstain from sex, but it is not the only practical way. The possibility of an unwanted pregnancy occuring even with the use of prophylactics is less than 3%. This includes condoms and birth control pills. If these measures are appropriately taken, then an unwanted pregnancy is largely avoidable. The vast majority of abortions are sought as a means of birth control. This is despicable.

Those "young adults" in discussion are probably not ready to raise a child, but that's something that should be considered before the irresponsible act of unprotected sex. And as I pointed out earlier, there are alternatives to abortion. Adoption is one of them. There are approximately 1.5 million families in the United States that are looking to adopt a baby. Why not provide one of these couples with the joy of having a child that they could not otherwise possibly have?
Offline Profile
 
Lintendo
Level 5
Quote:
 


u put this link up but im not sure what ur trying to say by it. In everything the links says, its about protecting yourself against violence. I dont think a baby being born even if it kills the mother would be called violence. The only thing that link is saying that u could possibly kill the person raping you at the time of the incident to stop such actions. It's not really self-defence when u abort a baby to save ur life. Just like its not self-defence in my sinking boat example.

Quote:
 
imagine ur on a sinking boat that can only support 1 person, and there are 2 ppl on it u and someone, its suddenly ok for u to kill that person and throw him off the ship if its the only way u can live?


It's self-preservation not self-defence.

Quote:
 
See above. Currently in the United States, the Patriot Act basically allows the government to revoke your "rights" when it feels that you're a risk to national security. If life and liberty are in fact "rights" as you call them, the PA would have been ruled unconstitutional and overturned by the Supreme Court. It hasn't been


You are assuming that the Supreme Court is perfect. In the real world, things that infringes on our rights happens. That doesn't mean they are no longer our rights. From what you are saying, you are implying that there are no such things as rights at all. And that anything relating to rights only comes from the Government we live under.

"Quoting from our declaration of independence. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

Government is only there to help us secure those rights. They are not the ones who give us rights in the first place. Whether you believe these rights come from God, or just from being alive/human.

Quote:
 
Put yourself in the position of the first child. You just found out your mother aborted your older sibling. But you decide it's OK because if she hadn't, you wouldn't be alive. Is that really what you would think?


I don't know how old you'd really have to be to fully understand the concept of abortion. But hopefully they child is old enough before finding out about such a thing. I dont really know how the child would think. Most children i'd assume love their mothers. THey'd just be happy that their mother is alive rather than some unknown older sibling that was aborted. That would be kinda what a child would think wouldn't it? I dont think any child would go emo finding out, omg a brother i never knew about was aborted to save my mothers life. Wahh my poor brother i don't know or really care about. *cut* Not until the child is quite old around our ages? and possibly develop an anti-abortion stance would the child perhaps look down on his mother or feel sad that his mother is a "killer".

Quote:
 
Unless you can perform a miracle and prove a baby is a person by either showing why being self-aware is not a requirement to being a person or by coming up with scientific evidence that a baby is self-aware in the womb, a preborn has no rights.


So that is still saying that u can kill even born babies up to the point of Self-awareness, whenver that is.

*edit.. wow tonic always posts right b4 me, so alot of my stuff coincides with what hes says. but whee, also about self aware. dont we lose that when we're asleep? or when ppl are comatose? following that idea, those ppl are no longer ppl, so its also ok to kill them?
Offline Profile
 
Tonic
The Mambo King
This quickly turned into an everyone vs. Etra thread. Are there really no other champions of pro-choice in here?
Offline Profile
 
Stun
Level 10
I'm going to have to say that I'm pro-choice. Despite ending an innocent life(more or less) it is the choice of the mother. No child wants to grow up in financial struggle, or knowing that it was a mistake, or even with disease.

The current stance on abortion is that it is legal(as long as it isn't in the 3rd trimester?), according to the 14th amendment the fetus is the "property" of the mother and anti-abortion laws violate the privacy of that mother. The court case of Roe v. Wade explains this, as the pro-choice Roe, won.
Offline Profile
 
Etra
Level 22
Tonic
Nov 19 2008, 04:57 PM
Quote me a specific passage of relevance. Don't link me to a bill which has over 340 pages and expect me to know exactly which section you're referring to. And I've yet to see a section of that act which revokes the right to life, which is the right in discussion.

My mistake, the provision that revokes citizenship and thereby your "right to life" is in Patriot II. And the Patriot Act can revoke your liberty.

Tonic
Nov 19 2008, 04:57 PM
You would be hard-pressed to find a rock or a tree which has human DNA, a human brain, a human heart, or human fingerprints. Also, you stated that a baby has no rights because it is not self-aware. This is not true.

Definition of a person: http://www.cmda.org/AM/Template.cfm?Sectio...tentDisplay.cfm
I don't think we've concluded yet if a baby can feel pain while in the womb. A baby does not become self-aware for a long while after birth. Not sure when a baby learns to reason. And I suppose crying is a form of communication.

Tonic
Nov 19 2008, 04:57 PM
A baby enjoys that same basic right that you and I do. The fact that a baby is not self-aware up until a certain age does not mean that the baby can be killed. It is unlawful, not to mention highly immoral, to kill a "self-unaware" baby. The argument that the rights apply only to a person who is self-aware is false. The rights apply to all humans, regardless of age.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/p/fetus_rights.htm
Etra
Nov 19 2008, 04:13 PM
the law is what matters, not your feelings about them


Tonic
Nov 19 2008, 04:57 PM
To what relevant evidence are you referring to? A preborn IS an infant. In what respect is it not? The baby does not undergo some drastic transformation before it is birthed. The baby that a doctor delivers during pregnancy is the same baby that was developing inside the womb for nine months. There isn't a magical vortex inside the uterus from where we pull complete babies. The unborn baby is genetically identicaland physiologically identical to the baby which is birthed. It is similiar to the fact that a baby cannot survive on it's own without the mother. We must facilitate the development of an infant until he/she is old enough to take care of him/herself. This also applies to the baby inside of the womb. We must also nurture and care for the baby until it is able to live outside of the womb. Simply, you must care for the baby at all stages of its life until it is of mature age. A stage of the baby's life is during pregnancy.
Etra
Nov 19 2008, 04:13 PM
A preborn is not a person, a 2 year old infant is.


Tonic
Nov 19 2008, 04:57 PM
I'm not sure I understand your implication in the first paragraph. Maybe you can clarify.

It's true that the only ABSOLUTE way to prevent an unwanted pregnancy is the abstain from sex, but it is not the only practical way. The possibility of an unwanted pregnancy occuring even with the use of prophylactics is less than 3%. This includes condoms and birth control pills. If these measures are appropriately taken, then an unwanted pregnancy is largely avoidable. The vast majority of abortions are sought as a means of birth control. This is despicable.

Those "young adults" in discussion are probably not ready to raise a child, but that's something that should be considered before the irresponsible act of unprotected sex. And as I pointed out earlier, there are alternatives to abortion. Adoption is one of them. There are approximately 1.5 million families in the United States that are looking to adopt a baby. Why not provide one of these couples with the joy of having a child that they could not otherwise possibly have?

My first paragraph was in response to "The argument that a woman shouldn't have to suffer a pregnancy if she doesn't want to is ludicrous. Abortion is a dangerous procedure unto itself. Terminating a life under the guise of “birth control” is not only unjustifiable, but despicable as well."

Our current population is 301,139,947. 3% of that is 9,034,198. And since about half the population is women, 4,517,099 women become pregnant each year even while practicing safe sex. There are about 1,300,000 abortions per year. So no, the vast majority of abortions are not sought "as a means of birth control".

Regardless of how many families want to adopt, there are only 17,000 adoptions each year (http://adoption.state.gov/news/total_chart.htm). That leaves millions more in orphanages each year.

Lintendo
Nov 19 2008, 05:00 PM
u put this link up but im not sure what ur trying to say by it. In everything the links says, its about protecting yourself against violence. I dont think a baby being born even if it kills the mother would be called violence. The only thing that link is saying that u could possibly kill the person raping you at the time of the incident to stop such actions. It's not really self-defence when u abort a baby to save ur life. Just like its not self-defence in my sinking boat example.

It's self-preservation not self-defence.

Abortion that is done to save the life of the mother is technically self-defense. The link I posted is the legal definition of self-defense. This one is easier to understand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense.

Lintendo
Nov 19 2008, 05:00 PM
You are assuming that the Supreme Court is perfect. In the real world, things that infringes on our rights happens. That doesn't mean they are no longer our rights. From what you are saying, you are implying that there are no such things as rights at all. And that anything relating to rights only comes from the Government we live under.

Government is only there to help us secure those rights. They are not the ones who give us rights in the first place. Whether you believe these rights come from God, or just from being alive/human.

You would assume that the Supreme Court is imperfect and therefore capable of making a mistake in regards to a ruling, but assume that the writers of the Declaration of Independence made no mistake?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

When the DoI was written, "men" referred to white, property owners but now it includes men and women regardless of gender or race, as long as they are a citizen of the United States. Only a person can become a citizen. As I've repeated numerous times now, a baby is not a person because it is not self-aware. Also, a baby becomes a citizen after it is born, not at any time before.

Lintendo
Nov 19 2008, 05:00 PM
So that is still saying that u can kill even born babies up to the point of Self-awareness, whenver that is.

We're debating the legality and morality of abortion, not infanticide.

Tonic
Nov 19 2008, 05:20 PM
This quickly turned into an everyone vs. Etra thread. Are there really no other champions of pro-choice in here?

I'm just arguing for whatever side happened to be opposing the popular view. If we all agreed, this would a pretty lame discussion.
Offline Profile
 
Xtreme
Member Avatar
The Creator
Pro-choice is the better of the two. Why do people even care? It does not affect the people on the outside whatsoever. Just let people have their freedom, that is what it is there for. There are many other things that should be illegal but aren't. Go take up one of those you jesus loving freaks.

Mind your own god damn business and stop worrying about what other people are doing.

It is legal, get over it.
Offline Profile
 
FaZ-
Level 39
I'm sorry to butt in a bit late here, but I just find defining a baby as a non-person due to it being self-unaware is just blind.

If a mother kills her 4 month old son, is that not murder as well? It still depends on her for life, albeit indirectly, and by most accounts has equal self-awareness to an abortion victim even a few weeks in. The fact is that we are not sure, and that's reason enough to use abortions only as a last resort.

As for the data you found for those who practice safe-sex and still have pregnancies, I'd love to see where it came from. Does the website consider pulling out "safe sex" as well?

Xtreme, I invite you to listen to or read a speech given at the turn of the millennium by Holocaust victim and author Elie Wiesel: "The Perils of Indifference."

Your viewpoint ignorantly assumes that human beings will not make morally unsound decisions, and that the fact that evil exists in the world is reason enough for man to continue to suffer its existence. That is wholly foolish and due to such a viewpoint evil is left largely unchecked in the world around us.
Offline Profile
 
Lintendo
Level 5
Quote:
 
So that is still saying that u can kill even born babies up to the point of Self-awareness, whenver that is.


Quote:
 
We're debating the legality and morality of abortion, not infanticide.


but by saying that they are not people up to the point of self awareness u are saying that infanticide is ok. i just want to clarify if that is what you are saying. If u are saying that infanticide is also ok up to a point, the ideas woudln't conflict. However if u say infanticide is wrong even b4 the point of self-awareness there'd be a contradiction in logic. If u say that infanticide is wrong, then why? What is morally different from killing a baby 1 minute b4 it is born and 1 minute after it is born. Is being "born" what makes us a person. And from

Quote:
 
Also, a baby becomes a citizen after it is born, not at any time before


I dont see why being a citizen matters. Even if illegal immigrants aren't citizens of the US, they still have a right to life and it'd still be wrong to kill them.

Quote:
 
Mind your own god damn business and stop worrying about what other people are doing.

It is legal, get over it.


so if murder was legal and as long as they weren't directly trying to kill you we should mind our own buisness?? i dont think so.... just because it doesn't "directly" affect us does not mean we shouldn't speak out against an act we find morally wrong.

Quote:
 
Go take up one of those you jesus loving freaks.


LOL, non-christians also think murder is wrong. I don't think religion was really brought into this debate at all. This line is just funny.
Offline Profile
 
Xtreme
Member Avatar
The Creator
If it was legal since the beginning of time? No one would care about murder. But it is illegal for a reason.

Abortion isn't illegal because it is not murder. Your opinions might be heard, but will not change anything.

I feel that our government does the right thing in giving women the choice, rather then forcing them to have a baby. What would you want them to do instead? Put a limit on how much sex people have? Put all unwanted babies up for adoption? Force them to raise an unwanted child?

All those things violate your rights. We live in a country where you live your life with freedom, which is why they give you a choice.
Offline Profile
 
FaZ-
Level 39
Xtreme
Nov 20 2008, 12:07 AM
I feel that our government does the right thing in giving women the choice, rather then forcing them to have a baby. What would you want them to do instead? Put a limit on how much sex people have? Put all unwanted babies up for adoption? Force them to raise an unwanted child?

Create discipline among teenagers? Force safe sex or allow those who don't practice it to serve as bad examples, rather than advisers at the clinic.

Abortion gives immature teens the ability to make stupid decisions and not have to pay for them. While it's certainly a part of our culture, I don't feel that it at all has to be. 99.9% isn't an estimate, it's a fact. If used correctly. If you're too stupid to put a condom on correctly, the world might be better off if you didn't have children anyway, but that's not morally right. If you're 1/1000 people who has a child even despite proper use of contraceptives, adoption is an unfortunate option.

When does a woman's choice over her child end? What arbitrary measure is birth? Birth means next to nothing in the development of a child, it still needs to be in the mother's care for years, or it will die. Should we then allow women to kill their 3 year olds if they decide that night of drunken sex really wasn't worth it in the end, or when their loveless marriage falls apart? These poor actions are all reflective of each other and of the poor levels of world and societal awareness in Americans.

Having an abortion means admitting that you made a mistake in having a child. That means poor planning, poor decision making ability, and, above all, poor self control.

The required tenet when calling America a free country is the follow-up that you are only free insofar as you do not limit the freedoms or rights of others or face repercussions by law. Abortion is the most obvious and glaring example of this, and I feel that future generations will look back on our abortions as we look at slavery.

In closing, I was struck by the sincerity of this where I wouldn't expect to find it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjlS5P3l78w

Thanks.
Offline Profile
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Serious Discussions · Next Topic »
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2