NESSAholics.com
Other Topics => Polls => Topic started by: Holly on September 08, 2005, 02:42:53 pm
-
what do you think?
-
As a christian I would have to say that I'm against it, as only God has the right to give or take away life. I am sympathetic towards it though cause I know there are some very challenging situations surrounding abortion in today's society, and I can understand why some people do have to go to those lengths. That said, I know also that if it was made illegal, then pregnant women might resort to unclean, illegal establishments, that could cause many more problems for their health, and society.
-
Anyone agree/disagree?
-
Strongly against. With the single exception of the mother's life being at significant risk.
And I hate the phrase 'pro-choice', the fact that the 'pro-choice' camp considers the perfectly accurate phrase pro-abortion unpalatable speaks volumes about its position.
That said, I know also that if it was made illegal, then pregnant women might resort to unclean, illegal establishments, that could cause many more problems for their health, and society.
I doubt it would cause *many* more problems for heath and society. Certainly less than illegal drug use, and those problems aren't enough to convince our government to make (say) heroin legal.
-
I am pro-choice but anti-abortion. I think abortion is horrible, horrible, horrible, but I suppose the mother should have the right to choose. If she's seriously cool with killing her baby then she doesn't deserve to have one, anyway.
Although I think that abortion is acceptable when the child is a health threat to the parent, to itself or is a product of rape (who would want to carry their rapist's child?). By a health threat to itself, I am referring to genetic counseling and pre-birth genetic screenings that reveal extremely serious diseases that would put the child in a lot of pain or kill it after a very short time.
-
I'm pro-choice.
-
I hate abortion threads.
-
I'm pro-choice all the way. Actually the best description of my views is that I'm Pro-death because I'm pro-choice, pro-euthanasia, and pro-death penalty. The only death I'm against is the fighting of wars that are unnecessary.
I don't think being religious has anything to do with the issue because there's plenty death that God sanctions according to the Bible.
-
I'm against it... The only reason's I'd think it'd be ok is:
a) if the mother's life is at risk
b) if the woman was raped
but other than that, the woman made the mistake and it's not fair to punish the unborn baby. I think of the fetus as a human. Regardless of whether or not they're outside the body, they are alive.
And I have reasons why this was on my mind and decided to make a thread about it. I know it's a touchy subject. Will, if you don't like abortion threads, ignore it.
edit:
and I know an argument is that sometimes people have abortions because they know they can't give the baby a good life. But there are tons of people who are waiting to adopt a baby.
-
Anyone agree/disagree?
totally agree :)
-
sorry :oops: (ignore)
-
I come from a feminist household, so I am going to go ProChoice all the way on this one. Not that I am "Pro Abortion", I hate when people whip that one out. the real agrument is whether or not it should be left up to the woman, where I completely agree, every person, man or woman has a right to their body.
-
I come from a feminist household, so I am going to go ProChoice all the way on this one.
Feminism and abortion have nothing to do with each other. Some feminists simply hijack women-only issues to further their own causes. I'm sure there are plenty of feminists out there who are not 'pro-choice'.
Not that I am "Pro Abortion", I hate when people whip that one out.
Pro-choice and pro-abortion *are* the same thing. If you're pro-choice, then you believe abortion is an acceptable choice. So, whether you like it or not, you're pro-abortion. Just because you don't like the idea of abortion or wouldn't have one yourself doesn't make you some kind of open-minded fencesitter on the issue. It simply makes you pro-abortion in spite of your personal feelings about abortion.
The distinction is a joke. Hey, I'm not pro-theft, but I believe everyone should have the legal right to steal everyone elses stuff.
the real agrument is whether or not it should be left up to the woman
No, that isn't the real argument. That's just what certain feminists want the argument to be. This isn't a gender rights issue, don't make it one.
every person, man or woman has a right to their body.
I wholeheartedly agree. But who decided that an unborn baby counts as the parents body and not a seperate person? And on what authority did they make that decision? When does an unborn baby cease to be part of the parent? The usual "a woman has the right to her body" pro-abortion propaganda misses the point completely. Nobody is disputing that right.
-
I am against it !.. :wink:
-
Even in normal circumstances (ie NOT a rape), while using birth control, a woman can get pregnant. And it's quite common. That is not her fault. I'm pro-choice. Big time.
-
Ok, Kev, I'm in the mood for a fight so I'll respond.
Of course this is a feminist issue, feminism is defined as the "Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes". A man will always have the right to choose what he wants done to his own body. With the addition of an unborn child, the issue becomes different for women.
That baby is a part of the woman's anatomy during pregnancy.
So, as long as that decision of whether or not the government should dictate the next 18 years of your life and decide whether or not you have the right to your own body, should be left up to the woman.
Also, your attempt at a working example was laughable at best:
Hey, I'm not pro-theft, but I believe everyone should have the legal right to steal everyone elses stuff.
all I have to say is Huh?
In special cases of rape or if the child is known to be plagued with a genetic disorder, it comes down to the mother--the caretaker for the child--if she will continue with the birth or not.
"a woman has the right to her body" pro-abortion propaganda misses the point completely
I think you're missing the point. You, as a man, cannot possibly even begin to fathom the connection a mother has with their child. I think it is wrong for any life to leave the world, but if that life is going to grow up either not having a working family life or not having the mental capacity to function like the average human being I think that the mother, with whom the child will be entrusted to has the final decision.
And, if you're planning on retorting with the adoption is an option shpeal, take a second to think about it. How overcrowded and underfunded would the orphanages be?
But, ultimately this opinion comes from your environment. As I said I come from a very feminist household, always being told that a woman has the right--just like a man does--to their own body. This is a feminism issue no matter how hard ultra-conservative types try to use their own propoganda to twist it their own way.
-
and I know an argument is that sometimes people have abortions because they know they can't give the baby a good life. But there are tons of people who are waiting to adopt a baby.
I know people say they want to adopt babies but when it comes down to it they want to adopt babies that they think are perfect and if they're too old they don't want them so there are plenty of them that never get adopted. The perfect solution to the problem of abortion is to have everybody sign up as either pro-choice or pro-life and the pro-lifers can contribute to a fund to raise the unwanted babies in the world. They can call it a Life Tax. I don't think they'd be as adamant about it if that were enforced.
-
GeNuInEwAnNaBe69, you can go on and on all you want about how it is a woman's right to control her body. That is not a rebuttal to the argument that although a woman may be making a decision affecting her own body, she is also imposing her will on a body that is not her own. How can those two positions be reconciled? You certainly don't seem to want to try.
-
Will again, men are entitled to their opinion on this, but honestly I think that a woman has a better grip on it. I'm sorry to tell you that this is a womens rights issue. We are talking about unborn child, the prefix being the key part of that word phrase. This is a child that could not survive outside of the womb. For those of you who are not seeing the connection, it might help to say that the womb is inside of the mother! The womb, AKA the uterus is inside of the mother and is a constant in her anatomy. Thus, the infant's lifesource is the mother. for the sake of being repetative, the mother is what nurishes the unborn, there's that prefix again, child so that it can be born.
I really am convinced that I cannot sway your views, either you Will or Kev, and I respect that. I know that in a civilized society, difference of opinion are not only widespread and varied but also necessary for that society's function. This is an issue that I feel very strongly about and I was happy to see this thread. So once more
If we cannot even agree on what we're arguing about, there is not much of an argument.
I personally do not believe in the overturning of Roe V. Wade--if you don't agree, I would love to hear your opinion it would keep my arguing skills up to par.
Ps. I still love Jon Stewert
-
Of course this is a feminist issue, feminism is defined as the "Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes". A man will always have the right to choose what he wants done to his own body. With the addition of an unborn child, the issue becomes different for women.
That baby is a part of the woman's anatomy during pregnancy.
So, as long as that decision of whether or not the government should dictate the next 18 years of your life and decide whether or not you have the right to your own body, should be left up to the woman.
Feminism has achieved a great deal of good in the world but it goes too far on occasion. Abortion is one of those occasions. You just said it yourself, men and women are different. As such, "equality of the sexes" becomes a square peg into a round hole, the fact is that the sexes are biologically unequal. A pregnant woman has another person's body and will to consider. I'm sure that you've rationalised the termination of another person in your own mind with strange reasoning like "The womb, AKA the uterus is inside of the mother", "a child that could not survive outside of the womb", "the infant's lifesource is the mother", "the mother is what nurishes the unborn", etc. But there's really no need for such rationalisations. The mother isn't consigned to 18 years of unwanted parenting as you say, the child can go up for adoption and society will pick up the tab for the sexually irresponsible as it does for everything else. That's why I say it isn't a feminist issue. The woman has little, if anything, to lose from the birth of the child, the child has everything to lose from it's termination. The issue of abortion has everything to do with the child and little to do with the mother. Nobody wants to ban abortion because they want to deny the rights of women, they want to protect the rights of the unborn child. The only people who want to make this a gender rights issue are feminists with a chip on their shoulder, who seem to resent the position that nature has put them in as they strive for absolute equality at any and all cost. A target equality that, when it comes to abortion, is absurd and utterly selfish in light of our natural biological inequalities.
Also, your attempt at a working example was laughable at best:
Hey, I'm not pro-theft, but I believe everyone should have the legal right to steal everyone elses stuff.
all I have to say is Huh?
So, your counter-arguments are "your attempt at a working example was laughable at best" and "all I have to say is Huh?". As those aren't actually arguments, my statement stands, the terms pro-choice and pro-abortion are synonymous in any sense that matters.
And, if you're planning on retorting with the adoption is an option shpeal, take a second to think about it. How overcrowded and underfunded would the orphanages be?
Of course a greater burden would be placed on the orphanage system, which would require extra funding. But that is not a good pro-abortion argument any more than an overcrowded and underfunded prison system is a good argument to legalise the most popular crimes. It often costs money to do the right thing. Personally I'd be happy to criminalise abortion and support a larger/better adoption system with my tax money.
But, ultimately this opinion comes from your environment. As I said I come from a very feminist household, always being told that a woman has the right--just like a man does--to their own body. This is a feminism issue no matter how hard ultra-conservative types try to use their own propoganda to twist it their own way.
No, my opinions are not dictated by my environment, nor are they a result of blindly following what I've always been told. I form my opinions using my own free thought. In fact, both my parents, although not feminists, are pro-abortion. I've had this same argument with them countless times.
If we cannot even agree on what we're arguing about, there is not much of an argument.
I know exactly what we're arguing about. A) that abortion is/isn't a gender rights issue and B) that pro-choice is/isn't the same as pro-abortion.
I don't think that I'll sway your views either. I argue because it's fun.
-
Just to add another note, both my parents are staunchly pro-abortion. One is a registered Republican. One is a registered Democrat. I myself, the contrarian I am, am a registered Libertarian. I am not blindly following my parents' beliefs. My beliefs come from me thinking issues out, following some very basic moral and political principles.
-
Being a woman who personally NEVER wants to push an 8-pound baby out of her vagina (and I feel VERY strongly about this), my opinion is that a male's opinion doesn't really matter. Who are you to tell me I HAVE to go through that kind of pain if I don't want to? I cry when I stub my toe! I don't need 9 months of carrying around something inside my belly that will suck the life out of me, either. The female body suffers immensely from childbirth. How can you argue with that?
-
If you don't want to have a baby, don't be sexually irresponsible.
Furthermore, moral arguments from males are not invalid. In case you haven't noticed, men aren't the only ones who make the anti-abortion moral arguments. Often, women make the same moral arguments that men make. In any case, saying men can't participate in the debate is a logical fallacy known as ad hominem. Try again.
-
Even in normal circumstances (ie NOT a rape), while using birth control, a woman can get pregnant. And it's quite common. That is not her fault. I'm pro-choice. Big time.
You can have sex responsibly and STILL get pregnant. What do you suggest a woman who doesn't want to have a baby should do in that scenerio?
-
Even in normal circumstances (ie NOT a rape), while using birth control, a woman can get pregnant. And it's quite common. That is not her fault. I'm pro-choice. Big time.
You can have sex responsibly and STILL get pregnant. What do you suggest a woman who doesn't want to have a baby should do in that scenerio?
Birth control is very reliable when used correctly. According to every study I've ever read on the subject, in the majority of cases where birth control has failed and an abortion is sought, contraceptives were not used consistently and/or correctly. In the case of condom failure, the morning after pill is quite effective as well.
-
I have also used the same argument that PianoGirl is using, that as a man you will never have an equal understanding of the pain involved in birthing a child or the emotional and physical strain put onto a woman. I know that women will also be what they enjoy calling "pro-life" and I think that I would be more open and willing to hear their opinions than a man's. It would be the same as me trying to descibe what an erection feels like in full detail--it is one of the things that I know I cannot possibly accurately feel and I know that and I respect that and so I move on.
I also, even at my relatively young age, know what it is like to be treated less fairly that the boys--who are blind to it. I have personally seen outright disregard for Title 9 in my own school, so for you who say that "feminism has gone too far" is misleading. Many of its fights have not gone far enough and are ignored.
And, perhaps, I never made my beliefs clear. If the woman finds out that her child will be at some disadvantage (ie. mental or physical disorder, or AIDS perhaps) or if that child will be born into an unloving household, that child will grow up finding it difficult to be a normal functioning member of society. That is not fair to the child. Abortion should not be used in place of safe sex or be seen as an imediate option, it should be a last resort but a resort nonetheless.
But that is not a good pro-abortion argument any more than an overcrowded and underfunded prison system is a good argument to legalise the most popular crimes.
May I point out that our criminal justice systems have already done that. Personal example: One of my neighbors, who was not a minor at the time, stabbed someone in the chest. He was sent to prison for one year and is now home. Our armed forces, who recently overturned the rule that a new entry must have a clean record free of criminal activity, has just accepted him. We have lowered our standards quite a bit in the American Correctional system.
When abortion was illegal in the early 20th century, women who desperately wanted or needed, yes I said needed, the procedure would resort to unsafe and dirty environments to do so. Many of these women died of severe infections.
The fact that you are saying that this is not a gender rights issue is just unbelievable, it is something that affects one gender and is being decided on by people of the oposite sex. I know what you are trying to say, that it affects one sex so you cannot have equality, but I don't see the big picture that way. You, as men, will never have the physical responsibility of birthing a child, a woman will. Granted. But, as long as that child is a part of the woman, is living off of the woman, if that woman gets pregent in a situation where she had no control, a rape maybe, you (as in the "pro-life"rs are going to tell her that she has to go through 9 months of agony and suffering, have the unwanted child, and then you suggest adoption. Adoption is not a working option in all cases so to use a blanket answer is shameful.
Now the naming thing, if you guys can sugarcoat you claim that you are "pro-life" then we can say that we are "pro-choice". Pro-life is misleading especially since President Bush, who has called himself "pro-life" started a war with no reason, at least not one that was true, we can call ourselves "pro-choice", or we can make bumper stickers that say, "pro-life by choice" whatever you prefer.
I think that this is a states rights issue.
Jon Stewert is an American Treasure.
And yes, I also enjoy arguing quite a bit which is why I have perpetuated this one.
-
so for you who say that "feminism has gone too far" is misleading.
I said that feminism goes too far on occasion (specifically on the issue of abortion), not that feminism has gone too far. You've even quote marked it as if I actually said it, even though the quote appears nowhere in my post. Now that's misleading.
If the woman finds out that her child will be at some disadvantage (ie. mental or physical disorder, or AIDS perhaps) or if that child will be born into an unloving household, that child will not grow up to be a normal functioning member of society.
That's quite a claim. I'm sure that AIDs victims, foster children and the mentally and physically handicapped everywhere will be delighted to hear that they can never become functioning members of society. Somebody better tell Stephen Hawking. Are you sure that you didn't recieve a neo-nazi upbringing as well as a feminist one?
But that is not a good pro-abortion argument any more than an overcrowded and underfunded prison system is a good argument to legalise the most popular crimes.
May I point out that our criminal justice systems have already done that. Personal example: One of my neighbors, who was not a minor at the time, stabbed someone in the chest. He was sent to prison for one year and is now home. Our armed forces, who recently overturned the rule that a new entry must have a clean record free of criminal activity, has just accepted him. We have lowered our standards quite a bit in the American Correctional system.
You may. Although I didn't say that they hadn't done it.
Now the naming thing, if you guys can sugarcoat you claim that you are "pro-life" then we can say that we are "pro-choice". Pro-life is misleading especially since President Bush, who has called himself "pro-life" started a war with no reason, at least not one that was true, we can call ourselves "pro-choice", or we can make bumper stickers that say, "pro-life by choice" whatever you prefer.
What? Firstly, I don't and never have called myself pro-life. Secondly, you can't use the actions of George Bush against me or the entire 'pro-life' camp. We are not George Bush.
-
Kev, honestly, I think we are reaching the moot point in our discussion. We are both arguing about opinions, which by nature can not be proven or disproven. maybe I will feel more up to it tomorrow, I'm feeling under the weather today, but for the moment I'm going to play the "agree to disagree card" and call it a night.
And before you put words in my mouth, about how I am misleading, take a second to look at what I wrote rather than you're own quickly obtained opinions. That was my unedited one, I recently edited it, before I read your post, finding it to portray me as something I am not. I have many family members plagues by both mental and physical illness and can say nothing in the negative for their ability to function in society. I apologize if my original statement offended anyone that was not my intention.
And don't you dare label me as a neo-nazi, you don't even know me.
I apologize for labeling you as "pro-life" but that is generally what one would call the opposing side of the abortion issue.
-
Kev, honestly, I think we are reaching the moot point in our discussion.
I realise that, which is why I didn't reply to any of your original opinions.
And before you put words in my mouth, about how I am misleading, take a second to look at what I wrote rather than you're own quickly obtained opinions.
Granted. My bad. I retract that statement. Of course, correct English would have helped avoid the confusion.
And don't you dare label me as a neo-nazi, you don't even know me.
Relax. I'm not labelling you a neo-nazi. Your orignal statement was nazi like, I pointed that out to highlight the absurdity of the claim, not to label you a neo-nazi.
-
Thank you
-
I think it's kind of like legalising prostitution (heh...let me explain..):
Obviously in an ideal world all contraception would be 100% infallible and nobody would ever have an unplanned or unwanted child, but this is never going to happen. 'Backstreet' abortions are incredibly dangerous and no woman should have to go through them. They often result in death for both mother and baby. Basically, if a woman decides she must have an abortion, it is going to happen somehow, and the reason it needs to be legalised is so that it can be regulated. This means it can be done in safe, sanitary conditions with the minimal amount of risk and distress for the woman.
If it is made illegal and the woman/girl really has to have one, (and there could be all kind of situations, such as fear that her parents will kick her out if she still lives at home, or that her boyfriend will dump her or something, there could be anything) then she will essentially be putting her body and her life into the hands of a criminal, which nobody should ever have to do.
The reason I say it is like legalising prostitution is that that is another unpleasant truth that will always go on, but if it were legalised it could be regulated, and it would be illegal for the women to suffer abuse from their *pimps*, or not use condoms etc . If something is going to happen anyway and cannot be supressed then we should at least make efforts to make it as safe and well regulated as it can be. Alcohol can kill you easily, but when it was made illegal it caused huge crime waves . At least now (although I'm doubtful about how much effect it has) we can try to educate people about drinking responsibly, not drinking and driving etc, rather than simply pretending that it doesn't exist.
Abortion, for me, is a completely impossible issue to come to one conclusion on, I worry about too many people using it as a method of birth control, but I think it is far too complex an issue to simply ban it completely. That would not make the problem of unwanted babies go away, that is merely a symptom of the actual problem. Technically I am pro choice, but if I got pregnant accidentally I'm not sure I could bring myself to have an abortion.
Finally, I don't remember exactly what the rules for abortion are in the US - in England they are legal but only during the first trimester (thats the first 7 weeks i think?) - is it the same for America?
-
Abortion, for me, is a completely impossible issue to come to one conclusion on
It is difficult. Personally I don't think it is impossible, although certainly there are those who would never accept the conclusion, but it is difficult. The reason for the difficulty is that the point of contention is a moral one and, when it comes to morality, almost everyone has a unique frame of reference.
Your argument generalises nicely to almost any crime. In an ideal world nobody would be motivated to rape, but that is never going to happen. Legalisation and regulation of rape would make it much safer. Most people hold that such a violation of someone else's will is sufficiently immoral to outweigh the benefits of it's legalisation. Which is why there is no debate on legalising rape. However, if somebody did believe rape to be morally acceptable, then they can argue rapist's "pro-choice" in a similar way to how the people in this thread argue abortion "pro-choice" and who is anybody to tell that person otherwise? What makes their moral reference frame any more or less accurate than another?
My point is that there's really no point making an argument for abortion from the drawbacks of criminisation, women's rights, the discomfort of pregnacy or anything else. There will always be those, like me, who maintain that the termination of an under X week old unborn baby is sufficiently immoral to render those points insignificant. Likewise, there's no point in me making a moral argument against abortion because there will always be those who, because of what they believe, don't consider the termination of an under X week old unborn baby sufficiently immoral, or immoral at all.
All standards of morality are based on a belief system of some kind (which may or may not be a religious belief). Like it or not, the abortion debate is a belief system debate. If you can't make a case for your belief system, then you can't make a case for your stance on abortion. Most people can't.
-
it all depends on how she got preg and if the baby or mother is healthy(pro choice/santity of life/quality of life)..sorry i just did this in RE today lol.
-
No, it depends on whether or not the unborn child is a human being.
-
Pro Choice. :wink:
some quotes about Pro Choice I liked:
"The opposing argument is that a woman should
have the right to decide whether or not to bear a child."
"Under the 14th Amendment's "personal liberty", women are
given the right to receive an abortion."
"The state can't interfere in the private
lives of a citizen."
"A man can withdraw from a relationship as soon as he finds
out about a pregnancy. There is no question of his
involvement after that; he has made his choice."
"contraceptives fail, and because they are not always available or possible to use,
abortion is necessary if people are to be able to determine
whether and when to "bear or beget a child"
"Women choose to have an abortion
because pregnancy and childbirth can prevent them from
keeping their jobs, from feeding their families, and from
serving others in ways they consider necessary and
appropriate."
"If a woman cannot choose to terminate an unwanted
pregnancy, she is denied the right to the "possession and
control" of her own body. One of the most sacred rights of
common law is to choose and if a woman can't do this, then
her most important possession is taken away. Abortion isn't
only a woman's right, it's a woman's choice."
-
I'm not even going to suggest that I'm taking a position in this issue, but I feel I have to clarify something, and perhaps make a point with it. Whether or not a woman has the right to possession and control of her own body (and I do feel that she probably should), that does not automatically, in and of itself, give her the right to terminate a pregnancy. At most, it gives her the decision whether or not to use her own body to produce the child. Say what you will about playing God and the expense and edge-of-practicality of a fetal transplant, but regardless of how we feel or believe, it's probably soon to be somewhat common procedure for women who do not wish to give birth, but at the same time do not wish to give death.
Again, don't infer from this post that I'm stating a position on abortion, but I don't personally believe anyone has the right to kill another human except in the case of defense of self or family. Is a fetus a human and is abortion the killing of a human? I will not make that decision here.
But to relate things, if a woman doesn't want you to ride in her car because she believes you will damage her car, make it look bad, or annoy her during the trip, she has the right to deny you a ride, but she doesn't necessarily have the right to keep you from getting where you want to go. If this is true of her car, how much moreso should it be true of her own body!
-
contraceptives fail, and because they are not always available or possible to use, abortion is necessary if people are to be able to determine whether and when to "bear or beget a child"
Hardly. If you really don't want to give birth and don't trust contraceptives or your ability to use them, then don't have sex. If you do decide to have sex and get pregnant, then welcome to the real world, actions have consequences. Just because it's possible in this case to offload the consequences of your own actions onto the unborn baby doesn't make it right to do so.
-
thats when abortion comes in.
-
"Under the 14th Amendment's "personal liberty", women are given the right to receive an abortion."
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Sure, you go tell yourself that. That assertion only works if you accept a priori that abortion is a right, which it really isn't under any sort of constitutional standard (Roe v. Wade was a political decision, not one based in law or even sound jurisprudence. It will be overturned.). It's hardly an argument that it is a right.
-
"Under the 14th Amendment's "personal liberty", women are given the right to receive an abortion."
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Sure, you go tell yourself that. That assertion only works if you accept a priori that abortion is a right, which it really isn't under any sort of constitutional standard (Roe v. Wade was a political decision, not one based in law or even sound jurisprudence. It will be overturned.). It's hardly an argument that it is a right.
It will never be overturned, so you keep telling yourself that. :wink:
-
thats when abortion comes in.
I heard you the first time.
-
and a second time is even better.
-
I'm pro-abortion. That would be the extreme beyond pro-choice, where it is beyond having a choice and in support of abortion in any circumstance. Well, just about any circumstance. I believe that a baby in a womb is not mature enough of an animal to be a human, with all the rights and privleges that go along with that, untill birth.
Sounds pretty out there, huh?
-
Sounds pretty out there, huh?
Not too out there. It seems to be a reasonably popular opinion these days (at least in this country). And, if history is any indication, it's an opinion that's only going to get more prevalent. Although you are probably ahead of the curve.
-
I'm pro-abortion. That would be the extreme beyond pro-choice, where it is beyond having a choice and in support of abortion in any circumstance. Well, just about any circumstance. I believe that a baby in a womb is not mature enough of an animal to be a human, with all the rights and privleges that go along with that, untill birth.
Sounds pretty out there, huh?
I TOTALLY agree with you. :D
-
Sounds pretty out there, huh?
Not too out there. It seems to be a reasonably popular opinion these days (at least in this country). And, if history is any indication, it's an opinion that's only going to get more prevalent. Although you are probably ahead of the curve.
Unfortunately I'm behind the curve for reading the thread. I just posted this without reading the thread too much. Wow, I didn't know so many of you thought the same way(or similiarly.)
You know it is kind of a backward way of thinking. My position is based on a way of thinking which follows the idea based on the observation of how your right to free speech doesn't begin untill you can actually speak. Minors don't obtain certain rights untill they reach a certain age and maturity.
Untill you are an individual your right to individual life doesn't start untill it occurs. Untill then your life is granted.
Argue on...
-
I'm pro-choice all the way. Actually the best description of my views is that I'm Pro-death because I'm pro-choice, pro-euthanasia, and pro-death penalty. The only death I'm against is the fighting of wars that are unnecessary.
I don't think being religious has anything to do with the issue because there's plenty death that God sanctions according to the Bible.
:lol: Someone likes Bill Mahr :lol:
You're pro anything that will get people off the streets and get traffic moving more freely, right? :lol:
-
Your argument generalises nicely to almost any crime.
No it doesn't.
Rape = assault, the reason why it is rape as opposed to consensual sex is that the woman (or man..) does not want it to happen. In the case of prostitution, the woman (technically) is ok with the man having sex with her (although in many cases it IS rape due to kidnap/trafficking etc, hence why legalising would allow this to be regulated somehow, and it would not be so easy to trick or force somebody into it).
Legalising rape is nothing like legalising abortion, the point with abortion is that you have to decide for somebody who cannot decide for themselves (the unborn baby). Rape and any kind of assault, where the person is being abused and obviously doesn't want it to happen, is really rather more of a clear cut issue because they are there to SAY what happened and what they felt about it - the baby is not.
-
Your argument generalises nicely to almost any crime.
No it doesn't.
Yes it does. You've presented a valid difference between abortion and rape, that victims of rape can decide for themselves and victims of abortion can not. But that difference does not affect the generalisation.
Your initial argument
* demand for abortion will always exist
* illegal abortion is dangerous
* abortion can be made safer via legalisation and regulation
The same argument for rape
* demand for rape will always exist
* illegal rape is dangerous
* rape can be made safer via legalisation and regulation
The will of the victim is irrelvant.
Obviously I'm not saying that rape should be legalised, just that the "legalisation will make [insert controversial issue here] safer" argument alone is absurd. Safety clearly isn't the only factor (if it was, then rape should be legalised). There are moral factors on which nobody has an equal frame of reference and consiquently on which nobody can agree, which is why the abortion debate never ends. It's a foolish waste of time to continue debating the issue without realising this simple fact.
-
Your argument generalises nicely to almost any crime.
No it doesn't.
Yes it does. You've presented a valid difference between abortion and rape, that victims of rape can decide for themselves and victims of abortion can not. But that difference does not affect the generalisation.
Your initial argument
* demand for abortion will always exist
* illegal abortion is dangerous
* abortion can be made safer via legalisation and regulation
The same argument for rape
* demand for rape will always exist
* illegal rape is dangerous
* rape can be made safer via legalisation and regulation
The will of the victim is irrelvant.
Obviously I'm not saying that rape should be legalised, just that the "legalisation will make [insert controversial issue here] safer" argument *alone* is absurd.
How could rape become "safer" ??
-
How could rape become "safer" ??
Well, the specifics of rape are largely irrelevant to my point (most crimes will work in its place) and its not really the kind of thing I'd enjoy discussing at any great length but, for example, rape could be licenced and a condition of the licence is regular STD tests.
Use your imagination.
-
Would you also suggest that theft be licenced and regulated, such as that thieves should be required to keep accurate records so that victims of theft would be able to track down and repurchase their stolen items?! :?
-
How could rape become "safer" ??
Well, the specifics of rape are largely irrelevant to my point (most crimes will work in its place) and its not really the kind of thing I'd enjoy discussing at any great length but, for example, rape could be licenced and a condition of the licence is regular STD tests.
Use your imagination.
Sounds like legalised prostitution to me! Which does exist.
-
Your argument generalises nicely to almost any crime.
No it doesn't.
Yes it does.
It really doesn't...because if you apply it to rape it makes no sense, if you apply it to abortion then it does. If i had been suggesting legalising ALL crimes "legalisation will make [insert controversial issue here] safer" then i would have said that, as such i was talking about abortion. The reason why abortion is an issue is to do with whether or not the baby can decide, whether the woman has more right to life/the baby has a right to life yet, if it was just out & out murder then it wouldn't be an issue.
'The will of the victim is irrelvant.' Hardly. if that was true there would be no such thing as rape, only consensual sex. Obviously the will of the victim is relevant as that is what turns it from sex to a crime.
Rape is not just dangerous, it's illegal because it's forcing trauma and distress upon the victim. 'There are moral factors on which nobody has an equal frame of reference and consiquently on which nobody can agree, which is why the abortion debate never ends.' precisely, hence the whole 'issue' of abortion. Rape, murder etc are obviously wrong and there is no debate about them being illegal. It is precisely because abortion is a wholly different and much more complex issue that we are having a debate and that my arguement does not generalise nicely to any crime.
-
Would you also suggest that theft be licenced and regulated, such as that thieves should be required to keep accurate records so that victims of theft would be able to track down and repurchase their stolen items?! :?
No.
How could rape become "safer" ??
Well, the specifics of rape are largely irrelevant to my point (most crimes will work in its place) and its not really the kind of thing I'd enjoy discussing at any great length but, for example, rape could be licenced and a condition of the licence is regular STD tests.
Use your imagination.
Sounds like legalised prostitution to me! Which does exist.
The big difference is consent. Rape has one non-consenting party.
-
it really doesn't... *snip* ...my arguement does not generalise nicely to any crime.
I know that my articulation is generally poor. Even so, your latest post (much of which I agree with and is entirely compatible with the point I've been trying to make) demonstrates a large misunderstanding of my arguments. Perhaps it's my fault, perahps not. Either way, I give up. Let others read the posts and decide what they will.
-
oh well nevermind...
-
oh well nevermind...
I'm sure we're both sick of typing the word rape anyway :-?
-
It's kind of strange that for once Kev isn't yelling back at me on this forum!
-
It's kind of strange that for once Kev isn't yelling back at me on this forum!
Uh-oh, the neo-nazi is back ;)
-
what angers me the most is that the MEN who run this country are trying to take away the right of a WOMAN.
why do THEY have control over OUR bodies?
-
what angers me the most is that the MEN who run this country are trying to take away the right of a WOMAN.
You see a right. I see a child.
why do THEY have control over OUR bodies?
Why do you dare to have control over your CHILD'S body?
It's just as easy to go the other way, you know.
-
You see a right. I see a child.
But Will, the government that MAKES the laws does not see the fetus as a child. How can they make a law based on flawed and incorrect constitutional statements?
It would be different if the US recognized the fetus as a person, however, it does. In Roe vs. Wade this is stated. Bush has set up a program giving unfortunate soon-to-be mothers the finances to bear a child and to keep the fetus healthy in her womb. Supposedly, the Administration is "concerned" about the health of mothers and their children; however, when the child is born, all financial assistance is taken away.
Why would the leaders of our country take away aids such as that when a woman obviously needs for her child? If they have enough compassion in the beginning and during pregnancy for the child and mother, they care, right? WRONG. It's very simple: America (excuse me, the United States) has become material patrons of egoism. In that sense, we are focused on two sole things: money and power. When you gain power, you gain money, and all Republicans are happy. The majority of Americans originally (when Bush was first elected) based their political opinions on two things: "The War on Terror" (how much bullshit do we deal with daily?) and abortion. Getting "rid" of abortion (that actually means not letting wannabe aristocrats find out about it) with this plan to make sure pregnant women are physically and financially fit to raise a child makes all oblivious, rich men believe that this abortion "epidemic" is coming to an end; our great president is finally finding a solution! Well, he is, except after the child - the child that our leaders care about so very much - is born, they say, FUCK YOU! FUCK YOUR BASTARD CHILD! AND FUCK YOU FOR BEING STUPID AND UNCHRISTIAN-LIKE, UNLIKE JESUS, AND FOR HAVING SEX! (What they don't know is Jesus did have sex.)
It's a subtle way to make everyone believe there's a solution for abortion. Then, because these men from Texas who enjoy shooting each and endangered birds, are voted into office because they've knocked one of the US' most controversial issues out. Then they gain power. And secretly make money. Under the table, always, like college basketball.
The hardest thing a mother ever has to do is give up her child; however, because she is a mother (NOT a father) she does whatever is necessary to protect her child. Men will never understand. Adoption is imagining your child with another family. Abortion is having no other option.
Feel sympathy, not resentment, for the women who have to give up their child because they're stuck and have no other option. Try something new as Americans: have empathy.
-
what angers me the most is that the MEN who run this country are trying to take away the right of a WOMAN.
You see a right. I see a child.
why do THEY have control over OUR bodies?
Why do you dare to have control over your CHILD'S body?
It's just as easy to go the other way, you know.
i am sure that is easy for you to say because you will never be pregnant, you will never be raped, you will never be abandoned by a man while pregnant.
a woman has control over her childs body because it is PART of her body until the umbilical cord is cut.
and yes, it does go the other way, but would I ever have known if i was never born?
(http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/c/O/bush_upyours.jpg)
-
I'm pro-choice...I really don't care because I don't want children anyway, and I'd assume that either my wife would have to agree or one of us would have to compromise, concerning not having children.
I'm sure we're both sick of typing the word rape anyway
I doubt that.
rape rape rape rape rape rape rape
-
An interesting question: if you believe in the human soul, at which point do you believe this soul enters the body? At birth? I think it is a relevant question...
-
I am pro-choice, but I think that abortion is an irresponsible decision when the pregnancy is because of volunteer unprotected sex.
-
An interesting question: if you believe in the human soul, at which point do you believe this soul enters the body? At birth? I think it is a relevant question...
Perhaps it never enters the body. Maybe it's only watching it, controlling it from afar, but so caught up in it that it's hard to discern the two, much like a virtual reality video game or something that is so easy to get wrapped up in that you have to be peeled away from it to return to the world.