B_Think_Kink
Sexy Member
I should come as no surprise that I think women should be able to end a pregnancy whenever they want. People have reasons for everything they do, they have to live with the consequences if they end it or not.
Abortion rights
- Thread starter JP0724
- Start date
How conservative are your views!???
To say that abortion at whatever stage is murder and that society should not allow it....
Is like sayin we should all stop using birth control because its AGAINST GOD!!!
Thank God for the liberals and the blurred boundaries is all I can say!!!
B_Nick4444
Expert Member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2007
- Posts
- 6,849
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 107
- Points
- 193
- Location
- San Antonio, TX
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
B_Nick4444
Expert Member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2007
- Posts
- 6,849
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 107
- Points
- 193
- Location
- San Antonio, TX
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
murder is the taking of another human life
to make it otherwise you have to perform a conceptual contortion act, hence the convoluted discussions of "when life begins"
ask any Constitutional law scholar about Roe V. Wade, if you're not familiar with it yourself -- they'll tell you odd it is in comparison to other decisions in how the reasoning and rationale is set forth
nearest analogs I can think of is how Nazi ideology redefined humans as Aryan or Non-Aryan to determine their fates
or, the examples of tribal assignments in Africa currently taking place, by taking bodily measurements (e.g., width and breadth of nose) to likewise determine who is entitled to what
again, playing around with facts and values to achieve the desired result
we all know how pregnancy occurs, and how it can be prevented
as a promiscuous male, yes, I may at some point be faced with that decision should my partner ever arrive in that unintended condition
the fact that I will not be bearing, does not absolve me if I were involved in that creation; Nor, would I be taking it lightly, just because I would not be bearing
** that concludes my posting on this thread -- marvy audience!**
to make it otherwise you have to perform a conceptual contortion act, hence the convoluted discussions of "when life begins"
ask any Constitutional law scholar about Roe V. Wade, if you're not familiar with it yourself -- they'll tell you odd it is in comparison to other decisions in how the reasoning and rationale is set forth
nearest analogs I can think of is how Nazi ideology redefined humans as Aryan or Non-Aryan to determine their fates
or, the examples of tribal assignments in Africa currently taking place, by taking bodily measurements (e.g., width and breadth of nose) to likewise determine who is entitled to what
again, playing around with facts and values to achieve the desired result
we all know how pregnancy occurs, and how it can be prevented
as a promiscuous male, yes, I may at some point be faced with that decision should my partner ever arrive in that unintended condition
the fact that I will not be bearing, does not absolve me if I were involved in that creation; Nor, would I be taking it lightly, just because I would not be bearing
** that concludes my posting on this thread -- marvy audience!**
Last edited:
legalization of abortion has less to do with morality and more to do with equal access. moneyed and connected women have always had access to safe abortions. i have a friend in his 40s whose mother (in her late 40s herself) was asked, when she came in to talk to her doctor about being pregnant, if she wanted a "D&C." a D&C is one of the many ways to perform an abortion, but since it was also used for other "female trouble" it could be slipped by without the physician ever having to record the pregnancy. this wasn't an uncommon occurrence. legalization of abortion in the US really only freed up the option for women of modest or low income who didn't have access to the same kind of doctors or money that more affluent women had.
besides all that, the OPs point about a 16 week old fetus is, as others have said, an arbitrary point that's used to work on people emotions. a 16 week old fetus is no more alive than a 12 week old fetus. 95% of women who elect to have abortions have them well before 16 weeks anyway.
16 weeks is an interesting number to pick because it's right around the time that a woman would find out about various genetic disorders-- Down's Syndrome being the best known. Though I personally would probably not abort a Down's baby, I also could never dictate to another woman that she has to take on the tremendous financial, psychological, and social burden of a child with Down's Syndrome. not to mention the often poor quality of life these children suffer-- including abuse and neglect by their (hired) caretakers.
Don't get me wrong-- I'm not a proponent of abortion, exactly, but I do think it should be safe and affordable for women whatever their circumstance. In a perfect world, women who got pregnant accidentally would choose to carry the child and put it up for adoption. There are plenty of people who want children, especially infants.
However, I don't think any case of abortion is so clear cut that we can make laws that would be remotely fair to the women and children involved. I feel that the only people that can truly weigh the options are those in the middle of the situation-- and that's the mother, and to a lesser extent, the father of the child.
It's just not easy to make a call on anything but a personal, case-by-case basis. Take the case of a pregnancy endangering the mother's life. That seems clear cut. But it's not. Diabetes and epilepsy are two things that I can think of that can be very dangerous to a mother and a fetus, yet many women with these conditions have children with few complications. In light of this, many would say it doesn't sufficiently endanger the mother's life, even though those conditions greatly increase the probability of fatal complications. Pregnancy itself endangers a woman's life. Other things, like toxemia or PIH, which can be fatal and many times confine a woman to complete bedrest are also complicated. How do you tell a single women to go on 100% bedrest to go through with a pregnancy when she has to work to support herself?
Some people act like pregnancy is just a quick jaunt from conception to childbirth. It's simply not. I just cannot imagine a set of laws that make abortions harder to obtain that are at all equitable. Ultimately, it is a personal, ethical and medical decision to be made by the people involved.
besides all that, the OPs point about a 16 week old fetus is, as others have said, an arbitrary point that's used to work on people emotions. a 16 week old fetus is no more alive than a 12 week old fetus. 95% of women who elect to have abortions have them well before 16 weeks anyway.
16 weeks is an interesting number to pick because it's right around the time that a woman would find out about various genetic disorders-- Down's Syndrome being the best known. Though I personally would probably not abort a Down's baby, I also could never dictate to another woman that she has to take on the tremendous financial, psychological, and social burden of a child with Down's Syndrome. not to mention the often poor quality of life these children suffer-- including abuse and neglect by their (hired) caretakers.
Don't get me wrong-- I'm not a proponent of abortion, exactly, but I do think it should be safe and affordable for women whatever their circumstance. In a perfect world, women who got pregnant accidentally would choose to carry the child and put it up for adoption. There are plenty of people who want children, especially infants.
However, I don't think any case of abortion is so clear cut that we can make laws that would be remotely fair to the women and children involved. I feel that the only people that can truly weigh the options are those in the middle of the situation-- and that's the mother, and to a lesser extent, the father of the child.
It's just not easy to make a call on anything but a personal, case-by-case basis. Take the case of a pregnancy endangering the mother's life. That seems clear cut. But it's not. Diabetes and epilepsy are two things that I can think of that can be very dangerous to a mother and a fetus, yet many women with these conditions have children with few complications. In light of this, many would say it doesn't sufficiently endanger the mother's life, even though those conditions greatly increase the probability of fatal complications. Pregnancy itself endangers a woman's life. Other things, like toxemia or PIH, which can be fatal and many times confine a woman to complete bedrest are also complicated. How do you tell a single women to go on 100% bedrest to go through with a pregnancy when she has to work to support herself?
Some people act like pregnancy is just a quick jaunt from conception to childbirth. It's simply not. I just cannot imagine a set of laws that make abortions harder to obtain that are at all equitable. Ultimately, it is a personal, ethical and medical decision to be made by the people involved.
Last edited:
B_Nick4444
Expert Member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2007
- Posts
- 6,849
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 107
- Points
- 193
- Location
- San Antonio, TX
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
nashboy
Admired Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2008
- Posts
- 811
- Media
- 29
- Likes
- 754
- Points
- 178
- Location
- Nashville (Tennessee, United States)
- Sexuality
- 50% Straight, 50% Gay
- Gender
- Male
well how about this, FUCK ABORTION...its NEVER okay. my mom was raped and she DIDNT KILL ME. my family didnt want me becuase i was a half breed baby but they took me anyway becuase i didnt do anything wrong...and now they LOVE ME like crazy....i had a hard time when i was little feeling like i belonged there...but at least i was alive to feel it. im so sick of this subject. its one major issue that pisses me off. its never okay to kill a baby...because its never the babys fault...if u dont want it...there are plenty of people that do. if abortion had been legal...i could have been killed. period.
using your logic it makes it a good thing that your mother was raped. by extension, this makes all rape okay.
i guess what i'm saying is, it's great it worked out in your case. it may not have in many others'.
Last edited:
nashboy
Admired Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2008
- Posts
- 811
- Media
- 29
- Likes
- 754
- Points
- 178
- Location
- Nashville (Tennessee, United States)
- Sexuality
- 50% Straight, 50% Gay
- Gender
- Male
I propose then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. How does the argument go from here? Something like this, I take it:
Every person has a right to life, so the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body, everyone would grant that. But surely, a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed, an abortion may not be performed.
It sounds plausible, but now let me ask you to imagine this:
You wake up in the morning and find yourself back-to-back in bed with an unconscious violinista famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records, and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. Therefore, they have kidnapped you, and last night, the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own.
The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to youwe would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine monthsby then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you."
Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years, or longer still?
What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but now you've got to stay in bed with the violinist plugged into you for the rest of your life, because remember this: All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons; granted, you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body, so you cannot ever be unplugged from him."
I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.
Every person has a right to life, so the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body, everyone would grant that. But surely, a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed, an abortion may not be performed.
It sounds plausible, but now let me ask you to imagine this:
You wake up in the morning and find yourself back-to-back in bed with an unconscious violinista famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records, and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. Therefore, they have kidnapped you, and last night, the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own.
The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to youwe would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine monthsby then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you."
Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years, or longer still?
What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but now you've got to stay in bed with the violinist plugged into you for the rest of your life, because remember this: All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons; granted, you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body, so you cannot ever be unplugged from him."
I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2008
- Posts
- 2,138
- Media
- 44
- Likes
- 339
- Points
- 403
- Location
- Washington, USA
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 80% Straight, 20% Gay
- Gender
- Male
No, in a perfect world there would be no unwanted pregnancies. Yours could be considered a more ideal world. Sorry for nit picking that. A problem would be if it were a baby with a genetic defect. The chances of someone adopting a baby with down syndrome or other special needs. What about tay-sachs? For everyone involved, it's going to be miserable, especially for the baby.
I may not be able to give you some kind of "legitimate" reason you are looking for JP, but you can't give me one for not aborting a tay-sachs baby short of the parents not wanting to (which isn't part of the issue) either. I don't think you could give me a legitimate reason (in my opinion) for not doing it at 16 weeks.
I agree with MB that it really is a matter of belief in what you consider life. And until a staggering majority defines when life begins, and I do mean staggering, like how many people believe murder is wrong for example, it wont become a law, and shouldn't.
This is such a hot button issue and nobody is ever going to agree on this subject. This whole thread has turned into nothing but a battle ground. Agree to disagree and walk away I say.
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2008
- Posts
- 2,138
- Media
- 44
- Likes
- 339
- Points
- 403
- Location
- Washington, USA
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 80% Straight, 20% Gay
- Gender
- Male
I don't think ignoring things is the best remedy. Nobody is getting hurt, so I don't see any harm in discussing it, even if it is angirly. We're human afterall.
Two guys did shoot each other over the 'proper' way to say Jesus though, but I assume we are better than that. I hope so at least. :tongue:
faceking
Cherished Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2004
- Posts
- 7,426
- Media
- 6
- Likes
- 282
- Points
- 208
- Location
- Mavs, NOR * CAL
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Male
I'm a socially liberal as the next guy/girl... but the "right to abortion" and a "woman's choice". Lordy... talk about spinning it. This "topic" so needs to reworded, but the lib media has spun it well for the left. At least the OP called it "right to an abortion" vs "pro-choice", the hypocrisy in the latter is befuddling. By that.... "right to life for a baby", "pro-unborn death", etc... just weird, especially when 99.9% of the pro-choice ppl are anti-death penalty, whu?
I'm really not strong one way or another, as I haven't been in that spot, am not religious, but am a peaceful soul. It's just funny to watch the side of the political spectrum who populate Amnesty International, Human Rights, anti-Christianity, etc... can just make this a choice by those who commit the act vs those who are affected by the act. It's like Pol Pot's right to govern. whu???!!!
Kill the innocent young, yet protect the lifetime oft-guilty elder. It's all or none, IMHO.
I'm really not strong one way or another, as I haven't been in that spot, am not religious, but am a peaceful soul. It's just funny to watch the side of the political spectrum who populate Amnesty International, Human Rights, anti-Christianity, etc... can just make this a choice by those who commit the act vs those who are affected by the act. It's like Pol Pot's right to govern. whu???!!!
Kill the innocent young, yet protect the lifetime oft-guilty elder. It's all or none, IMHO.
Principessa
Expert Member
What happend to your mother was terrible. As a rape survivor I empathize. Unlike her I was not left pregnant, just beaten and emotionally scarred. You are correct it is never the childs fault. But there are so many normal, healthy babys like yourself that never get adopted. That never have a chance. :frown1: Personally I don't think I could do it, have an abortion. Yet I like knowing that I have the choice, that all women have the choice available if necessary. I have friends who have had abortions and I don't judge them harshly; because for them it was the right decision.
I hate to nitpick; but where do you live? According to your profile you are 22. Abortion became legal in America in 1973 with Roe v Wade. So abortion was legal when your mom was violated, and she chose to keep you. That's the thing about being pro-choice that people forget. There is more than one choice you can make.
1BiGG1
Sexy Member
- Joined
- May 13, 2008
- Posts
- 1,942
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 29
- Points
- 123
- Location
- Milwaukee, WI
- Sexuality
- 50% Straight, 50% Gay
- Gender
- Male
The majority opposed womens, childrens, slaves and gay rights at one time or another in this country. According to you the minority should just agree to disagree and walk away on these issues = no thanks.
If you have no game sit on the sidelines and learn.
So, on abortion, the minority should stand up and fight, but on democracy, the majority should shut up and sit down.
