For or Against or In Between

[Irvine511]

War is altogether different. Where would we be if war had not been waged against Hitler? We'd be goose-stepping all over the place, that's where. I've never heard of fetuses gathering up millions of Jews, gypsies and homosexuals and putting them in concentration camps and gassing them to death.

And innocent casualties will happen in every war. It doesn't make it right, but it is absolutely unavoidable in war.

have pregnant women not been killed in war?

 

[dandy]

whatever you believe about the rightness or wrongness of having sex outside of wedlock; it seems as if people want to *punish* a woman for having sex (and notice how guilt free the men are, and it's usually men who are the most staunchly anti-choice/pro-life).

it's a twisted form of mysogyny that has a level of justification and credibility through glorifying the rights of the unborn fetus, while completely disregarding the woman's. especially if she was stupid and promiscuous enough to get pregnant unintentionally.

this reminds me of another recent thread about one of the southern states debating passing a law to ban books by homosexual authors, to "protect" the minds of innocent children. it's the same twisted logic at play--whenever people are touting restrictive laws to "protect" a certain group, there is frequently a more sinister underlying motive that has nothing to do with protection, and everything to with identifying and punishing "unacceptable" sexual behaviour.

 

[80sU2isBest]

this reminds me of another recent thread about one of the southern states debating passing a law to ban books by homosexual authors, to "protect" the minds of innocent children. it's the same twisted logic at play--whenever people are touting restrictive laws to "protect" a certain group, there is frequently a more sinister underlying motive that has nothing to do with protection, and everything to with identifying and punishing "unacceptable" sexual behaviour.

If you think pro-lifers are pro-life because they want to punish people who sleep around, that's ridiculous. We want to save innocent human lives, that's what it's all about.

 

[verte76]

this reminds me of another recent thread about one of the southern states debating passing a law to ban books by homosexual authors, to "protect" the minds of innocent children. it's the same twisted logic at play--whenever people are touting restrictive laws to "protect" a certain group, there is frequently a more sinister underlying motive that has nothing to do with protection, and everything to with identifying and punishing "unacceptable" sexual behaviour.

That's my state, Alabama. The bill was introduced and died because there wasn't a quorum present at the vote.

 

[Irvine511]

If you think pro-lifers are pro-life because they want to punish people who sleep around, that's ridiculous. We want to save innocent human lives, that's what it's all about.

why destroy one life to save another, especially if that life being brought into the world would be less than fully wanted?

i'm also curious as to an earlier post of yours ... just want to be clear: if having a baby puts the mother's life in danger, should she then still have to give birth to the baby? also, what about severe brith defects? i know a mother of 5 who had an abortion between child 3 and 4 because as the baby developed, the brain didn't, and she would have given birth to a baby without a cerebral cortex. she chose an abortion, and i believe this happened well into the 2nd trimester, because it took that long to determine the baby's development. what should be done in a situation like that?

 

[80sU2isBest]

why destroy one life to save another, especially if that life being brought into the world would be less than fully wanted?

I'm not clear on how having a baby but putting it up for adoption "destroy"s a life. Killing a living human being, that pretty much destroys a life.

i'm also curious as to an earlier post of yours ... just want to be clear: if having a baby puts the mother's life in danger, should she then still have to give birth to the baby?

I don't know how I feel about that. If it's a question of "save this life" or "save that life", I don't have an answer. But I do know that scenario is rare. And the number of women who receives abortions because of "danger issues" is very rare.

also, what about severe brith defects? i know a mother of 5 who had an abortion between child 3 and 4 because as the baby developed, the brain didn't, and she would have given birth to a baby without a cerebral cortex. she chose an abortion, and i believe this happened well into the 2nd trimester, because it took that long to determine the baby's development. what should be done in a situation like that?

Since I believe that abortion is murder, I cannot in good conscience and in honesty to my beliefs say an abortion is okay. I jsut can't. But I do know that when people start making judgment calls about which babies should be born and which shouldn't, you're going down a slippery slope. I have a nephew who is 26 years old with Cerebral Palsy. In many ways, his mental capacity is less than 10 years old. But I love him as much as I love anyone. He brings light to my life. He has made a positive impact on my life. To think of him not here is a horrible thought.

Mark my words; what may start out as preventing births of baby without cerebral cortexes will eventually blossom into full-blown Aryanism.

 

[BAW]

I'm not clear on how having a baby but putting it up for adoption "destroy"s a life. Killing a living human being, that pretty much destroys a life.

If every unfit/unwilling woman who finds herself pregnant chose adoption, this argument wouldn't even exist. But the fact remains that a life can also be destroyed when someone is forced to carry a child they don't want or can't take care of. A lifetime of abuse and neglect starting in the mother's womb is something that can't be erased. The damage I've seen caused by unfit and unloving parents has made me wonder more than once why they even chose to give birth in the first place or at least why they kept the child after it was born.

 

[80sU2isBest]

If every unfit/unwilling woman who finds herself pregnant chose adoption, this argument wouldn't even exist. But the fact remains that a life can also be destroyed when someone is forced to carry a child they don't want or can't take care of. A lifetime of abuse and neglect starting in the mother's womb is something that can't be erased. The damage I've seen caused by unfit and unloving parents has made me wonder more than once why they even chose to give birth in the first place or at least why they kept the child after it was born.

Here's the answer, then; people need to straighten their crap out. People need to start loving their kids and if that's not possible, give them to people who will love them.

Miscreants and other irresponsible people just need to stop having sex.

Sex is a big responsibility as it can lead to a bigger responsibility - a new human life.

 

[BAW]

Here's the answer, then; people need to straighten their crap out. People need to start loving their kids and if that's not possible, give them to people who will love them.

Miscreants and other irresponsible people just need to stop having sex.

Sex is a big responsibility as it can lead to a bigger responsibility - a new human life.

On this we agree. Personal responsibility and thinking about someone other than yourself would go a long way towards solving the problems of unwanted pregnancy and mistreatment of kids that are already here.

 

[earthshell]

abortion - all for it
marriage - free for all or free for none.
death penalty - all for it

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Liberals are well-known for advocating numerous personal freedoms, yet when it comes to personal responsibilities, Charles Manson is capable of doing a better job. The abortion issue is a great example, as is the death penalty. They're quick to defend the life of someone who caused great grief on the community, but when it comes to innocent life, they couldn't care less. 80s is right on the money - sex is a big responsibility which could lead to an even bigger responsibility - a human life. Stopping a beating heart is killing. Period. Make abortion illegal, and stop blaming sex ed, and start taking accountability for your own actions. I wouldn't shed a tear for those vicious enough to seek back alley abortions, and refuse to sympathize for their own stupidity.

 

[melon]

Make abortion illegal, and stop blaming sex ed, and start taking accountability for your own actions. I wouldn't shed a tear for those vicious enough to seek back alley abortions, and refuse to sympathize for their own stupidity.

The rich will just head abroad, as they did decades ago. "Out of sight, out of mind." As for common people, people in the North will head to Canada; people in the South will head to South America or the Caribbean or something (I'm not sure where it is legal exactly).

Those in Middle America will do as they did before: go into the back alley or have a sudden "miscarriage." Think RU-486 is the only substance that can induce abortion? The Middle Ages had plenty of creative substances for that purpose.

Legality or not, people will continue to have them either where they are legal or using other, more creative methods. This fixation on "the law" is merely a method for the Religious Right to try and reassert control over the United States. Nothing more.

Melon

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

People need to start loving their kids and if that's not possible, give them to people who will love them.

Very true. And don't restrict the number of people who can adopt children, either, as Irvine said. It really doesn't help the pro-life argument when some of the pro-lifers also sit there and say gay people can't adopt children. Yeah. Restrict the number of available adoptive parents, that makes a load of sense!

Anywho, yeah, if we want abortion to stop, instead of a flat out ban on it, let's focus on fixing the problems that lead to women having abortions. Once those problems are fixed, I do not imagine there will be as much talk of abortion anymore.

Angela

 

[80sU2isBest]

Legality or not, people will continue to have them either where they are legal or using other, more creative methods. This fixation on "the law" is merely a method for the Religious Right to try and reassert control over the United States. Nothing more.

Melon

Nope. Our "fixation on the law" is an attempt to take a stand against a government officially condoning murder.

 

[earthshell]

it's not murder. it's women's rights. look it up.

 

[Irvine511]

Liberals are well-known for advocating numerous personal freedoms, yet when it comes to personal responsibilities, Charles Manson is capable of doing a better job. The abortion issue is a great example, as is the death penalty. They're quick to defend the life of someone who caused great grief on the community, but when it comes to innocent life, they couldn't care less. 80s is right on the money - sex is a big responsibility which could lead to an even bigger responsibility - a human life. Stopping a beating heart is killing. Period. Make abortion illegal, and stop blaming sex ed, and start taking accountability for your own actions. I wouldn't shed a tear for those vicious enough to seek back alley abortions, and refuse to sympathize for their own stupidity.

oh, Mac: stop with the Ann Coulterisms and mocking the very thoughtful arguments that have been put forth here.

 

[Irvine511]

Here's the answer, then; people need to straighten their crap out. People need to start loving their kids and if that's not possible, give them to people who will love them.

Miscreants and other irresponsible people just need to stop having sex.

Sex is a big responsibility as it can lead to a bigger responsibility - a new human life.

firstly, let me say that no abortion has EVER come from gay sex. so, here's to gay sex!!!

now, more seriously, i generally agree with your first point, however America likes to adopt white, healthy males. babies born with AIDS, addicted to crack, with fetal alcohol syndrome ... these kids are not so wanted by your average American couple. and let's also not forget the extremes that people go to in order to have a child of their "own." such money would be better spent on adoption.

your second point might sound good coming out of the mouth of a preacher or politician, but how are you going to go about this? "stop having sex." is that realistic? how do you propose to encourage this? how do you know who is a miscreant? how do you know who is irresponsible?

 

[80sU2isBest]

how do you know who is irresponsible?

Since sex can lead to children, if a person isn't responsible enough to care for a child, he/she isn't responsible enough to have sex.

 

[80sU2isBest]

it's not murder. it's women's rights. look it up.

What do I need to look up? If it is the intentional termination of an innocent human life, it's murder, and I don't acre if you do call it "women's rights". In some countries, it is legal for a man to beat his wife if she doesn't wear a veil. Are you going to call that "man's rights"? Just because something is legal doesn't make it morally right. Speaking of looking up, why don't you go read a detailed fetal development chart.

 

[Irvine511]

Since sex can lead to children, if a person isn't responsible enough to care for a child, he/she isn't responsible enough to have sex.

i generally agree with you.

however, how much compassion do you have for those who slip up? who give in to temptation? who simply make mistakes? who try to be responsible about birth control but things happen?

i'm not saying that, by definition, these are reasons to have an abortion. what i am saying is that good people with good intentions make mistakes, and sometimes bad things happen to good people.

i think sex is a very slippery subject. it is an instinct, and it takes effort to control it. no, no one has to have sex, but living a life of celibacy is not a terribly healthy thing to do. i have sympathy for people when they make mistakes, i really do. as a correlatory, i don't think that anyone "deserves" an STD, or god forbid HIV, simply because they screw up and have unprotected sex. yes, those are the consequences and they should know that, but humans are fallable, people screw up, and people make mistakes for millions of reasons.

i suppose that i'm still hung up on what i see is a punishment ethos. that deeds have consequences, and you must live with the consequences -- you know, eat too many happy meals and you'll get fat; start smoking cigarettes and you'll get addicted.

i just don't think a pregnancy, and a birth, should be viewed as a "price" to pay.

 

[melon]

Nope. Our "fixation on the law" is an attempt to take a stand against a government officially condoning murder.

Then I guess I find it hypocritical when those same "Christian organizations" are equally zealous in their support for the death penalty.

Personally, like I've said, I'm split on the issue of abortion into some horribly ambiguous mess. It's not my #1 issue.

Melon

 

[Seabird]

Abortion-against. I am for sex ed and all the available info and birth control in the world, but let's face it, everyone over 8 years old knows where babies come from and this isn't stopping people from irresponsible sex. I don't believe an innocent child should have to die for this. (common exceptions of course)

Gay marriage- why not?

Gay adoption- case by case basis, isn't that how it works for straights too?

Guns- if guns were outlawed only outlaws would own guns

drugs- legalize and regulate

euthanasia- yes, IF the person is coherent or has left a legal document. No more Terri Schiavo fiascos, I disagreed with that.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

oh, Mac: stop with the Ann Coulterisms and mocking the very thoughtful arguments that have been put forth here.

That's your argument? Oh, man!

 

[Macfistowannabe]

it's not murder. it's women's rights. look it up.

I didn't search "women's rights", but I searched for "abortion." Buzzwords can rape your mind.


*image removed by Sicy. Too graphic for this forum.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I would insist that that image is removed, I hardly think that it adds to the argument.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I would insist that that image is removed, I hardly think that it adds to the argument.

I would insist that the image stays. No sense in censoring reality.

 

[BAW]

Thank you Sicy.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Are we going to remove images from the Iraq war as well?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Guns- if guns were outlawed only outlaws would own guns

euthanasia- yes, IF the person is coherent or has left a legal document. No more Terri Schiavo fiascos, I disagreed with that.

I agree 100% to both of these points.

 

[melon]

euthanasia- yes, IF the person is coherent or has left a legal document. No more Terri Schiavo fiascos, I disagreed with that.

Poor people in Terri Shiavo's condition get unplugged on a regular basis. In Texas, a law signed by Dubya himself when he was governor authorizes hospitals to unplug Medicaid patients if they are deemed "hopeless" and can be done even against the guardian's wishes. Terri just happened to be "lucky" in that she had hundreds of thousands of dollars from a malpractice suit at her disposal.

Less than six months before Terri Shiavo, a poverty-level black woman fought in vain to prevent her child from being unplugged, and Texas state courts sided with the hospital. She didn't have the funds for endless appeals like the Schindlers/Shiavos. As such, she didn't have even remotely the amount of press coverage.

People in this situation got unplugged before Terri and they will continue to be unplugged after. Unless, of course, we want to raise our taxes to take care of the thousands upon thousands of people of all ages who end up in Terri's situation each year.

There's an ethical debate rolling on as to whether we should start putting in feeding tubes into the thousands of newborns each year born solely with a brain stem, so we can harvest their organs. It is such a substantial amount that it is said that our transplant needs would be more than fulfilled if we did this to these newborns. As it stands, these babies die of starvation--just like Terri did--within a week.

The cruel fact remains that these people exist, and there's nothing that can be done to save them. Thankfully, having no cerebral cortex means having no consciousness and no pain.

Melon