Political Discussion #1: Abortion

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by Imported, Apr 9, 2005.

  1. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    hung_big: I don't take a particularily strong stance on this subject, but I do have an opinion none-the-less.

    I think that it is wrong to a certain degree. The majority of Abortion cases are just of women killing their babies because they do not want the responsibility or reprocutions of having a child.

    I think it is wrong (morally) for someone to fuck like no tomorrow or sleep with many men (or women, whatever the case may be) and just slaughter their unborn baby, because they couldn't take the proper precautions or obstain from sex. If someone has sex, then they should be prepared for possible consequences. When one can't be bothered to remain monogomous or use a condom then said person should NOT have the right to take the life of a fetus/embryo.

    If there was significant risk for both the mother and child if a birth takes place, I believe that it may be justified. For example, if the mother would more than likely die during birth and the baby would be born with a deformity and without a mom, than I think abortion may be a logical and suitable way out.

    I guess it come down to how someone defines a living being. I feel that at the moment of conception a fetus is a living being. Birth is just the aforementioned "child" entering our world. It makes no sense to me for someone to say the unborn child has to be 3/6 months old (I forget which one) before it becomes a "crime" or "murder". How fair is that? Because it doesn't look like a human looks before that stage doesn't mean it makes it right. The only reason that it isn't considered a crime before that stage is because it hasn't developed. Superficial much?

    Well...I guess I do take a rather strong stance. How does everyone else feel about abortion?
     
  2. B_DoubleMeatWhopper

    B_DoubleMeatWhopper New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2002
    Messages:
    5,402
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Louisiana
    I do have a strong opinion as well, but this one can of worms that I would rather stay out of.
     
  3. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    hung_big: Well Jacinto, you being Catholic I can probably imagine what your opinion is. I would guess that it is the same as mine, but to a further degree. You can tell us though, as this is just a discussion; if we decide to keep it as just that and not get our emotions involved it can be very political and unoffencive. :)
     
  4. mindseye

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Then again, earthworms, Listeria monocytogenes, and cockroaches are "living beings".


    I'm pro-choice. Thoroughly pro-choice, which means that if a woman doesn't want to bear a child, no government should force her to do so. And conversely, if a woman does want to bear a child, that choice should be supported as well:

    The so-called 'pro-life' movement, which insists that fetuses have a right to be born, never mentions the pregnancies that are terminated by miscarriage. If birth is indeed a fetal right, well, it's not the fetus's fault that the termination was involuntary? Why discriminate against these unborn fetuses?

    Every year, involuntary miscarriage and stillbirth in the US alone wipes out a fetal population the size of Tampa, FL. NICHD (National Institute for Child Health and Development) is the division of the Department of Health and Human Services responsible for funding and evaluating research into the causes and prevention of miscarriage. This research has, in the past, led to better understanding of how nutrition and medication can affect the risk of miscarriage. Under the Clinton administration, funding for NICHD grew by 9-15% annually. The Bush administration has cut funding increases for NICHD to only 3% annually; since this is approximately the annual rate of inflation as well, NICHD funding has stagnated in real dollar terms.

    If the pro-life movement were truly pro-life, they could channel some of their money and energy in the support of pregnancy research, and demand that their 'culture of life' president do the same. By doing so, they could potentially save over 300,000 lives every year, without controversy or political obstacles.

    However, doing something noble and non-controversial doesn't attract the sort of media attention that they crave. So instead, they focus exclusively on abortion and brain-dead women.

    (Wanna do something that's pro-life, pro-choice, and non-controversial? Here's a worthy non-profit organization that supports research that saves the lives of babies that women choose to have.
     
  5. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    hung_big:
    The so-called 'pro-life' movement, which insists that fetuses have a right to be born, never mentions the pregnancies that are terminated by miscarriage. If birth is indeed a fetal right, well, it's not the fetus's fault that the termination was involuntary? Why discriminate against these unborn fetuses?
    [post=298711]Quoted post[/post]​
    [/b][/quote]

    What do you mean by that? If there are still borns or miscarriages, it is nobody's fault. So are you suggesting we blame the fetus? That's like saying if someone dies of a heartattack or some other twist of fate that we should persecute them. I think it is a fetus's right to be born, and if somehow that is not possible (involuntarily) there is nothing we can do but move on.
     
  6. Dr Rock

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,696
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    who lives in the east 'neath the willow tree? Sex
    so? there's something wrong with that? what's worse: aborting a fetus because the parent(s) are incapable of supporting and/or raising a child, or forcing them to bear that child which they're incapable of supporting and/or raising? a fetus is just a solidified period that some guy came on. what IS an unforgivable crime is forcing a human being to be born into a world in which they will be afflicted by suffering and frustration practically from the moment of birth. at least 75% of parents I see at the present time should not have been permitted to have kids, simply because they're economically incapable and/or personally incapable of giving their kids any kind of life worth having. THAT is the real offense. you abort a fetus and flush it away, maybe it feels a few seconds of pain. you force the mother to carry that fetus to term, and you're condemning it to a whole LIFETIME of pain.
     
  7. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    hung_big: There is the option of giving it up for adoption....
     
  8. PLANK

    PLANK New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2004
    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Southern US
    so? there's something wrong with that? what's worse: aborting a fetus because the parent(s) are incapable of supporting and/or raising a child, or forcing them to bear that child which they're incapable of supporting and/or raising? a fetus is just a solidified period that some guy came on. what IS an unforgivable crime is forcing a human being to be born into a world in which they will be afflicted by suffering and frustration practically from the moment of birth. at least 75% of parents I see at the present time should not have been permitted to have kids, simply because they're economically incapable and/or personally incapable of giving their kids any kind of life worth having. THAT is the real offense. you abort a fetus and flush it away, maybe it feels a few seconds of pain. you force the mother to carry that fetus to term, and you're condemning it to a whole LIFETIME of pain.
    [post=298881]Quoted post[/post]​
    [/b][/quote]
    The same way I feel about killing ANY person: it is wrong .
     
  9. Dr Rock

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,696
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    who lives in the east 'neath the willow tree? Sex

    great, that REALLY solves the whole stupid problem. now the adoptive parents, the biological parents, AND the government have to spend money to ensure that this unwanted human life is given a place to exist - money that might just have been better spent, oh I dunno, maybe improving the state of this disaster of a world for those of us who already have to live in it. there are 6 billion people living on this planet today - which is roughly twice as many as it can realistically support over the timespan of 4 or more generations. the humane thing to do for everyone's sake - both living and unborn - would be to find ways to REDUCE the population instead of adding to it, before it's too late for ALL of us.

    <!--QuoteBegin-PLANK
    @Apr 9 2005, 07:32 PM
    The same way I feel about killing ANY person: it is wrong .
    [post=298884]Quoted post[/post]​
    [/quote]
    what a marvellously well-reasoned and incisively-presented argument you have there. well done indeed.
     
  10. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    hung_big: *Hides*

    Damnit...Now I have Dr. Rock on my ass. I was counting on some intelligent people to back me up...now look what I get...a one-liner :rolleyes: :huh:
     
  11. mindseye

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    That&#39;s a terrible option, because the supply exceeds the demand. Children who are left with no parents for adoption, but who aren&#39;t adopted -- disabilities, disfigurement, or simply wrong color and gender -- are wards of the state until their 18th birthday, and then they&#39;re tossed out to fend for themselves.

    Many of them develop strange social disorders from not having had stable role models to emulate; many of them have terrible self-esteem and are depressed and suicidal at times. I&#39;ve worked with some of these children, and the lives they&#39;re forced to endure is unspeakably tragic.
     
  12. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    hung_big: I tend to think those who are willing to adopt a child that is not theirs are people with good hearts who care for the well-being of youth and the young.
     
  13. madame_zora

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    10,252
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Ohio
    But what we fail to realise is that there are far too few people who are interested in adoption, like Mindseye said, the supply outweighs the demand.

    I am implicitly pro-choice, as in all things. There are numerous reasons, but some of the highlights are:

    1) Men have options that women do not. They can leave, and they do&#33; At alarming rates, unwanted pregnancies become the sole responsibility of the woman. I listed this first for a very good reason- there is no reason a woman should have to devote 18 years of her life to something a man can (and often will) just run from. When it becomes the responsibility of BOTH parties, I&#39;ll be interested in what men have to say.

    2) Single parent households are a tremendous tax on the government, where money could be better spent on issues for people already occupying the planet. If a woman chooses to bear a child alone, good for her, but if she chooses not to, that&#39;s her right as well.

    3) If you believe in God at all, then it is inconceivable that an unborn child wouldn&#39;t go immediately back to God, and maybe have a better chance at peace than if it were born into awful circumstances. Children born to single family households have FAR higher rates of depression, criminal activity, suicide, and neglect. Is this really the best thing we can think of to fight for?

    4) In a country where social programs are being cut to the bare bones, the likelhood of an unwanted child being provided with any kind of quality of life has been cut as well. The societal adjustments MUST come first, before anyone can sufficiently claim to care about life&#33; It&#39;s absurd. Have the baby at any cost, and fuck what happens to it afterwards- a true fundie attitude.

    I love you, Chris, but at 15 and predominantly gay, I can&#39;t see where this is an issue that affects you at all. For gay people to have opinions about something that is ONLY a consequence of straight sex seems a little hypocritical to me. For a man, it is downright irritating. Why not take up your side of the fight and talk about how men should pull up their britches and SUPPORT FULLY the unwanted babies they create, THAT I&#39;d listen to&#33; Instead you just call women whores and expect agreement, not your brightest moment.
     
  14. mindseye

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Chris, please go back and read both of my posts in their entirety, for comprehension. I&#39;m getting the feeling from your responses that you&#39;re greatly misinterpreting the points I&#39;m making.
     
  15. jonb

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,308
    Likes Received:
    2
    My opinion? Gentlemen, start your flamethrowers because in a thread on abortion, you&#39;re going to need them. (Geez, what an original, never-before-discussed topic where both sides are willing to listen to the other&#39;s point of view.)
     
  16. madame_zora

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    10,252
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Ohio
    Well, I&#39;ll be willing to listen to a man&#39;s opinion about abortion when men are legally obligated to share BOTH in the financial responsibility of child-rearing as well as they physical time committment. Most men dip completely, having no obligation at all. Absentee fathers who pay child support are better than nothing, but a FAR cry from sharing in the impact of forfeiting your life. When the obligation&#39;s the same for both, then I&#39;ll care how men feel.
     
  17. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    carolinacurious:
    No, The majority of abortion cases are of monogamous couples choosing to abort when they simultaneously used both the pill and condoms and both methods failed, and the life of the both the mother and the baby are at risk, and after a reasonable and compassionate discussion both potential parents decided that they were unable to properly care for a child at this time.

    Since you&#39;re going to make up facts....


    I think abortion should be safe, legal and rare.

    When you figure out a way to distinguish between victims of rape or incest and people who were using birth control and those who were just having irresponsible sex get back to me.

    When the religious "right" is willing to pursue policies that actually reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies rather than the opposite they can get back to me too.

    IMO, so I don&#39;t run afoul of Dr. Rock, people "who were just having irresponsible sex" should be able to get abortions as well, they&#39;ve already shown what fantastic parents they would make. But until we are able to tell them apart from victims of rape or incest or people who used birth control and had it fail then the matter doesn&#39;t seem worthy of discussion.
     
  18. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    carolinacurious:
    MZ, I got into a world of trouble with the dean of the philosophy department at my school when she was teaching medical ethics and she used this particular argument. I told her that since she was having a class for just the female students she should schedule a special time period or let all of the men go home.

    Now there are several differences, YOU didn&#39;t ask my opinion before telling me that my opinion didn&#39;t matter. You also know from my above post that I am pro-choice, my philosophy professor assumed that I was pro-life; since my opinion was meaningless to her anyway as a man I saw no reason to correct her assumption.

    My problems with the argument (which may not already be obvious) are that if you tell me that my opinion is meaningless IF I disagree with you then you don&#39;t get my support when I agree with you either, and that if men are completely removed from this discussion I would expect the men who "skip out" on their obligations to increase.
     
  19. GottaBigOne

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,020
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    New York
    This indeed is a very complicated issue with many different factors that have to be taken into account. There are many points to debate, and they are all far from being able to be argued with any real conviction. This is how I see it:

    Point 1: Where "life begins."

    This is probably the most ambiguous of the points that can be debated. When we speak of "life" we can be talking about many different things, so in order to more accurately have a debate we must define our terms. I define "life" by the basic biological criteria that it must meet, which are pretty universal and well... basic.
    Dictionary.com defines it as such: #

    1. The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
    2. The characteristic state or condition of a living organism.

    If we define "life" in its most basic form, then we must accept the fetus, no matter what stage of developement it is at, as "living"; it is a mass of cells that by definition are alive. But if we are to say that life is sacred, and at no matter what developmental stage is to be protected, then we cannot only want or try to protect the fetus. Certainly sperm cells and egg cells are alive; is it a crime to let those die?? Certainly bacteria, viruses, and cancer cells are alive, should we also protect those?
    Obviously we are not talking about saving the living status of any living being, we are talking about human beings who are unique and seperate from their bearers.

    So the question then becomes: when does a human life start? The distinction between a zygote and sperm and egg cells is that the zygote has a full set of chromosomes, and is its own distinct being, genetically. Certainly then it is its own human being, although rather fundamental and lacking a lot of the things we define as fulfilling the "human experience". At the point of up until about 6 or 7 months, maybe even earlier, it is drastically dependant on its mother for survival. At the earliest stages of development, it is completely helpless and could not possibly survive on its own, so its very existence rests completely on the sustenance it recieves from its mother.

    Now the question is: Is it murder to simply withhold sustanance from another human being? Are we morally responsible to feed, and nurture another human being because they are unable to do it themselves? And to go further, since the undeveloped fetus&#39; needs are more than just simply being fed (because to withhold food from a completely developed human being is already legally deemed neglect, and i would assume most people would be against starving someone who is perfectly healthy otherwise) are we morally obligated to help another living being develop inside of us, even when to do so would be equal to ruining your own life? Is it murder to simply refuse to sustain another&#39;s life?

    I would argue that it is not murder to simply let something die. The fetus would not survive without the womb, but it is not the same as killing it by simply removing it from the womb. Of course, the result is that it would die but think of it this way: I&#39;m a parent and my child, while it is under my supervision, is totally safe from all possible dangers, there is no way it could ever run into trouble. Now to make sure that my child doesn&#39;t die until I guess I do, then I would have to dedicate my entire life to supervising it. If i were to take away my supervision, then my child will certainly get into trouble and die. Am I obligated to sacrifice my entire life, just because my child is unable to live without my supervision??
    I&#39;m sure a lot of you would say yes, and I would agree that a good parent would be one who would be willing to do that, but in a way although we are talking about parenting the analogy is not; it is talking about individual freedom. Let&#39;s take away the parent/child relationship away from the analogy. I am a man, and there is someone else who, under my supervision, will never die. I take away my supervision and they die. Am I responsible? This is where choice comes into the equation. Say I&#39;m a woman and I get pregnant, am I oblgiated now to sacrifice my entire life just because there is an organism growing inside me, and I am bound now to it only because it happens to be me that it grows inside? Say that organism were a cluster of cancer cells, still the same?

    Of course the best option would probably adoption. I myself am adopted, and I am very greatful that my biological mother CHOSE to carry me to term. I think a lot of what causes the confusion in this debate is that people think that the opposing sides are always such on the exact opposite sides of the issue; the labels dont help either.
    Pro-Lifers are not anti-choice, at least universally, they only believe that protecting life shouldn&#39;t be someones choice; Pro-Choicers are not anti-life, they are not PRO-ABORTION&#33;&#33;&#33; They simply think it should be a matter of choice, and that that choice should be available. I like to think that I am both a pro-lifer, and pro-choicer. I respect everyone&#39;s "right" to chose what they do with their own bodies, and if it were my choice, my personal choice, i would CHOOSE to carry it to term and see where it goes from there.
    I was gonna go on with this, but its getting to long. I&#39;ll just say that it is a complicated issue.
    When you abort, you are ending a potential human life, but not every potentiality has a "right" to be realized, it it did, then there wouldn&#39;t be any miscarriages. This choice should not be made lightly, it is very serious. I like to think that my biological mother thought long and hard about wjhwat she should do, and I&#39;m glad she did. Abortion should be available, but not taken lightly.
     
  20. madame_zora

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    10,252
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Ohio
    Carolinacurious, I really do understand your point, and it is a good one. The problem I keep coming back to is the fact that the men who care enough to "do the right thing" whatever that is for them, are going to do that regardless. There have been several men&#39;s movements who speak up for male accountability, and while I appreciate them and their sincere opinions, they have no effect on the (still majority) of men who are not so supportive. Despite what any individual feels, the majority of women who find themselves in this position are young, poor, and abandoned. I wish there were some other truth to report, but we all know this to be the case. No man can ever put himself in their position, so all I was saying is that men who wish to have an opinion that has meaning should direct it toward themselves. Seriously contemplate if YOU were to have a condom fail, would YOU want to have a child dropped on you with no help from anyone and be solely responsible to raise it for 18 years, knowing the government won&#39;t help, you&#39;ll have trouble arranging daycare, you&#39;ll probably have to work 2 jobs to survive, see the child infrequently as he/she is raised by institutions, be dead tired forever? If YOU are willing to do it, then do it&#33; Just don&#39;t put it off on me to do it, while spouting the moral highground.

    BTW, my other post was in response to Chris, and the "yous" that I used here are toward all men in general, not you personally. My point is, I have yet to hear of a man claiming to be pro-life who has accepted the role of a single parent (and let the woman off the hook totally) so the woman would not abort. Now, there may have been such occasions, but VERY FEW&#33; Most men who dump this responsibility on women are the same men who would dump the child on her as well. Oh yeah, maybe he&#39;d send child support, maybe even visit now and then- NOT the same lifestyle change at all. Harumpfh&#33;

    FWIW, I agree with your opinion about the medical class, you shouldn&#39;t be forced to attend if the discussion wasn&#39;t open to you. I am also of the opinion that men shouldn&#39;t be allowed to vote about abortion.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted