AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › AppleOutsider Abortion Thread v1
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AppleOutsider Abortion Thread v1 - Page 2

post #41 of 237
11/15/01 at 7:06pm
the FACTS are we don't really know when "life" is formed. We can however GUESS. That doesn't mean we are RIGHT. Saying otherwise makes you look foolish.
The crucial memorandum will be snared in the out-basket by
the paper clip of the overlying memo and go to file.
Reply
The crucial memorandum will be snared in the out-basket by
the paper clip of the overlying memo and go to file.
Reply
post #42 of 237
11/15/01 at 7:11pm
Thread Starter 
That's true. But what's the argument behind it?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #43 of 237
11/15/01 at 7:12pm
Pro-choice...

Too many babies anyway and, like seinfeld said, "I hate them, they are so immature!"

(My real feelings aren't so black and white guys...)
Matvei


"they want to be on 'God's' good side; they want to be saved; want 70 virgins, or raisins, or whatever . . ." -Pfflam
Reply
Matvei


"they want to be on 'God's' good side; they want to be saved; want 70 virgins, or raisins, or whatever . . ." -Pfflam
Reply
post #44 of 237
11/15/01 at 8:11pm
[quote]Originally posted by Solishu:
<strong>So killing "an unborn child" is not a matter of morality to you? I just cannot accept this kind of thinking.... So should people only be allowed to live if it is economically convenient for them to do so? What is it about an *unborn* child that makes it so different from a born child that it's life is at the mercy of its parent's convenience?

I really don't mean to misrepresent your stance on this, zonetuke, I'm just trying to flesh out its implications and foundation. Maybe you'ld like to clarify what makes abortion an a-moral decision, while murder clearly is a moral decision.... (if you believe that)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Solishu,

I would be opposed to an abortion if I were the father. It is wrong only for me. However, any other pregnancy is not for me to judge because of the unique physical configuration (a human inside of a human). All other situations I feel we can opine upon because these are instances whereby one human exists apart from another human (not physically bound). In summary, the decision to abort a pregnancy demands moral refection, but only by the parties involved.

You statement about economics is naive and I did not express that. First of all, we are not talking about people, rather unborn infants. Secondly, I used the adjectives "economic and social", not convenient. The economic and social reasons are many. However, most of these are substantial and are heavy stress factors in people lives. Convenience usually involves trivial matters.

The fact of the matter is that everyday women abort their pregnancies due to a mix of the following reasons: not capable of being a parent, not enough $, no father, medical hazards, do not wish to procreate, etc...

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: zonetuke ]</p>
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 237
11/15/01 at 9:00pm
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:

I'm not following the "logic". We're talking about abortion, not statutory rape.<hr></blockquote>

Yes, but what I was disputing was someone's (I don't remember who) statement that any older man who impregnated a teenager was scum (or something to that effect.


[quote]Say an older teen is manipulated by an older man (happens everywhere everyday) and is cast out by her family as a whore?
Is it ok then since she's been through mental duress and severe emotional trauma.<hr></blockquote>

I don't think it's ok in any circumstances, but in situations such as these I think that it's less condemnable.


[quote]Pregnancy is punishment?<hr></blockquote>

If you've been forced into it against your will, don't want to be pregnant, don't want to have a baby, don't feel that you're ready to raise a child, and/or aren't capable of supporting a child: yes. Also, there's more to it that just "being pregnant". You have to deal with restricted abilities, hormonal imbalance, all sorts of other symptoms of pregnancy, then the pain of childbirth (sometimes described as forcing something the size of a basketball through a hole the size of a golfball) or of surgery. After that, even if you opt for adoption and don't have to go through the hardships of raising a child before you're ready you still have to deal with the mental and emotional anguish of giving your child away. That I would say is punishment, especially when forced on an undeserving, innocent young girl.

[quote]There are degrees of atrociousness in regards to a dead baby?<hr></blockquote>

Yes. Babies die all the time. If a baby dies of some childhood disease, or a birth defect, would you consider that an atrocity on the level of murdering another human being? Are SIDS and abortion on the same level?

[quote]Since it's about morality, wouldn't it be the moral thing for a rape victim to give birth to the child and give it a chance at life?<hr></blockquote>

The moral thing is to make a rape victim suffer further?
"America is a society where intellect seems to be out of style, replaced by garish gold jewelry, and winter clothes worn year round."
Reply
"America is a society where intellect seems to be out of style, replaced by garish gold jewelry, and winter clothes worn year round."
Reply
post #46 of 237
11/15/01 at 11:31pm
So, using your definition of viable, it would be perfectly ok for me to kill my aged grandmother who is paralyzed and on a respirator (as long as I shoot her up with morphine first so she doesn't feel pain) because she is a financial burden to me?

Oh, and don't give me that crap that you don't understand how someone can be pro life and pro death penalty. Out of the 4000 or so abortion threads that you've started or hijacked, I'm sure someone has explained to you the difference between killing for justice and killing innocents. Troll.
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 237
11/16/01 at 4:36am
pro choice but....

Only in the first trimester;
Pro government funding of contraceptives;
Pro free contraceptives distributed by the government to those who have a certain net anual income;
Pro more active distribution of knowledge on matters like contraceptives, safe sex and STDs.

That goes for any government. Except for maybe the Dutch, they seem to have it sorted out perfectly.
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
post #48 of 237
11/16/01 at 6:37am
Thread Starter 
kaboom:

I started this thread because the other one got hijacked, I say it earlier in the thread. Use your reading skills.

And he said "pro-choice and anti-death penalty" not the other way around.

You didn't eat your Wheaties OR stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, did you?

Re: your sick old grandmother:
If she wants you to, absolutely. But at that point in her life she is a person with a history and who has lived 70+ years of life with family and whatnot. Far different from a developing fetus.

nonhuman:

[quote]Yes, but what I was disputing was someone's (I don't remember who) statement that any older man who impregnated a teenager was scum (or something to that effect.)<hr></blockquote>

Yeah that was me.
Men who sleep with women and get them pregnant and then split are scum. They are scum if they get them pregnant and are not 100% supportive. Scum. Pieces of shit. They are very responsible for that pregnancy, yet someone will tell a woman that she can't have an abortion while telling the man that he doesn't have to worry about it.

[quote]I don't think it's ok in any circumstances, but in situations such as these I think that it's less condemnable.<hr></blockquote>

You sure you're not pro-choice?

[quote]Yes. Babies die all the time.<hr></blockquote>

Let me rephrase, there are degrees of atrociousness to ending a baby's life through abortion?

[quote]
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #49 of 237
11/16/01 at 8:40am
[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>the FACTS are we don't really know when "life" is formed. We can however GUESS. That doesn't mean we are RIGHT. Saying otherwise makes you look foolish.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Of course we know when life begins - conception. And please don't tell me this is just my personal belief. This is an existential fact. The only reason why we are debating the matter is because we are talking about human life here and we are trying to determine whether or not there are circumstances in which we can choose to not protect individual human lives. The guesswork people are engaging in is where to draw the line. But that line isn't about when life begins. It's about when we all will agree human life should be legally protected.

[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #50 of 237
11/16/01 at 9:20am
[quote]I started this thread because the other one got hijacked, I say it earlier in the thread. Use your reading skills.<hr></blockquote>I'm not sure what I said wrong here :confused:
[quote]And he said "pro-choice and anti-death penalty" not the other way around.<hr></blockquote>D'oh! Ok, I'm a dope.
[quote]If she wants you to, absolutely.<hr></blockquote>She doesn't want to. I want to kill her because:
a) She's a financial burden
b) She's a useless human being
or
c) I just don't want to deal with the responsibility.
[quote]But at that point in her life she is a person with a history and who has lived 70+ years of life with family and whatnot. Far different from a developing fetus.<hr></blockquote>Yes, far different from a fetus. But why is it wrong to kill her? She's probably less of a human than this fetus will be. She's living on a respirator, she can't really move etc...I'd argue that the fetus with 70+ years of potential is more valuable than a person with maybe 6-12 months worth of bed ridden life.

On the topic of rape and incest, why would it be so horrible to have the woman bring the baby to term and then put it up for adoption? I never see anyone mention this option. I would think that having a baby and giving it to loving parents that can't conceive would be quite a rewarding experience. Making good out of a bad situation.

My biggest problem with abortion (besides the whole murdering a baby thing) is the fact that it cheapens respect for life. Face the facts. It started with Roe v. Wade and has progressed to partial birth abortion (which is murder, plain, simple and gruesome!) I'm sure if I told you in the 70's that we would be fighting for the right to drill into a partially born human being that you would have laughed at me and called me a right wing extremist.
So now that we have sunk to this low, how much of a stretch will it be to start allowing other forms of murder, like the situation I describe above with my grandmother. Dr Kevorkian started it, where will it end? (Don't hijack this thread into a "right to die" argument please. I was just making a point.)
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 237
11/16/01 at 10:24am
Thread Starter 
[quote]Yes, far different from a fetus. But why is it wrong to kill her?<hr></blockquote>

It's wrong to kill her because she's a human being. Just like it's morally wrong to abort a fetus.

[quote]She's probably less of a human than this fetus will be.<hr></blockquote>

Howso?
I'm not following what you're trying to say.

[quote]On the topic of rape and incest, why would it be so horrible to have the woman bring the baby to term and then put it up for adoption? I never see anyone mention this option. I would think that having a baby and giving it to loving parents that can't conceive would be quite a rewarding experience. Making good out of a bad situation.<hr></blockquote>

Should she be legally obligated to bring to term a pregnancy that was forced on her?

[quote]My biggest problem with abortion (besides the whole murdering a baby thing) is the fact that it cheapens respect for life. Face the facts.<hr></blockquote>

So does the death penalty. So does shooting someone who is stealing your car stereo. Those aren't illegal, though.

[quote]So now that we have sunk to this low, how much of a stretch will it be to start allowing other forms of murder, like the situation I describe above with my grandmother. Dr Kevorkian started it, where will it end? (Don't hijack this thread into a "right to die" argument please. I was just making a point.)<hr></blockquote>

Mercy killings are asked for, so there's really no moral or ethical problems with that, in my mind.
You don't have to deal with your sick grandmother if you don't want, you can wash your hands and feet of her situation and the government will take care of her.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #52 of 237
11/16/01 at 10:24am
prolife and prochoice.

Prolife : life is a precious gift, so we have to respect her.

Prochoice, every child must have a future, He don't have to be doomed just at his beginning of his life. Having a child is a responsability, you don't just make a baby and leave him in the nature, it's a big responsability maybe the biggest for a human (and any kind of animal in general), you must take care of him, made his education ...If you cannot take your responsability of parent, perhaps abortion is not a so bad thing. Sometimes you have too make the lesser evil choice. If you don't want make evil choice : takes your precautions if you can .

For those who speak of murder, i'll just say that there is no precise moment when you can say that a foetus is a person. For me it's just a transition . For me a baby is just for his cortex aera like a computer with just an autoexe program that will evolve. Of course there is preimplemented soft in deep area of the brain, who controls the emotion, pleasure or pain and which are present very soon in the developpement of the foetus.
In the first day of life there is no brain, so it's difficult to say it's a person if you consider that consciensousness exist in brain. Days after days the foetus will evolve acquiring human capabilities and thus becoming more a person. The problem is that a foetus has the potential of any human regardless is age of developpement, so if you respect the life abortion is bad. In another way , we don't respect life too much, we kill others species, animal or vegetal in order to live. So we don't have to be too intransigeant. We have to be realistic if we want to survive.
Just an example , how many people here are for the war of US against terrorism : many i suppose. How many of the people who are for the war against terrorism are prolife : many i suppose too. But you know that every war brings innocents deaths : so your choice cannot be absolute, choice have to be realistic, in the case of war against terrorism, the US knows that they going to make a certain amount of innocent death among the afghanistan's population, but if US want to survive he has too make some choice.
Life is hard, sometimes you have to make some choice, not very nice. That's why i a m prochoice, but i prefer in the deep of my heart to be prolife (samething for the war).
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 237
11/16/01 at 10:25am
double post

[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: powerdoc ]</p>
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 237
11/16/01 at 11:24am
pro choice.

It always amuses me when complete strangers
believe they have some right to tell others
how to live their lives.

It doesn't matter if it is euthanasia, or abortion, it is a personal decision, and you
have no say in it, unless you are the partner.
http://freehenson.da.ru/ - chased out of America because he exposed the evils of Scientology. So much for freedom.
Reply
http://freehenson.da.ru/ - chased out of America because he exposed the evils of Scientology. So much for freedom.
Reply
post #55 of 237
11/16/01 at 11:30am
pro choice.

It always amuses me when complete strangers
believe they have some right to tell others
how to live their lives.

It doesn't matter if it is euthanasia, or abortion, it is a personal decision, and you
have no say in it, unless you are the partner.
http://freehenson.da.ru/ - chased out of America because he exposed the evils of Scientology. So much for freedom.
Reply
http://freehenson.da.ru/ - chased out of America because he exposed the evils of Scientology. So much for freedom.
Reply
post #56 of 237
11/16/01 at 12:21pm
[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>Of course we know when life begins - conception.</strong><hr></blockquote>OK, but I think most people are talking about what you might call personhood, and when people say life they often really mean personhood.

So when does personhood start?
1. at conception, too?
2. at the beginning of pregnancy?
3. at viability?
4. at birth?
5. at age 18?
6. 21?
7. are only mentally sound individuals really persons?

And even if we determine personhood, we still don't know the answer to the abortion question. It's not simply a question of determining the legal rights of one individual, but of balancing two that are intertwined:

1. the right to life of a (perhaps pre-personhood) pre-natal human life vs.
2. the right of adult persons to control their own bodies

If you give one right, you automatically take the other away.

The right to live is about as strong of a right as I can think of, but I think most people would agree the right to control one's own body is pretty high up there, too.

Thought question: We hear about forced abortions in China; which is more disgusting about that practice:
a. that pre-natal babies are being killed, or
b. that the gov't is violating the most fundamental rights of the parents?

If you're pro-life, I'd think a) would trump b). But does it really?
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 237
11/16/01 at 12:22pm
[quote]Originally posted by zonetuke:
[QB] First of all, we are not talking about people, rather unborn infants. [QB]<hr></blockquote>

Let me first statte that this is directed at no one person, but at the pro-abortion mentality in general.

The first step to making killing a particular class of someone or something OK is to strip the humanity from it. That is how it is always done. Nazi's, KKK, Slave Owners, whatever. Babies are humans, and therefore killing them is killing people. Just because they are not born yet does not make them less of a person. Where does that mentality of it's just an unborn fetus change when you have a partial-birth abortion?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #58 of 237
11/16/01 at 12:28pm
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>Thought question: We hear about forced abortions in China; which is more disgusting about that practice:
a. that pre-natal babies are being killed, or
b. that the gov't is violating the most fundamental rights of the parents?

If you're pro-life, I'd think a) would trump b). But does it really?</strong><hr></blockquote>

They are both wrong. China is a human rights nightmare anyhow. But that is another thread altogether.

Rarely if ever does any real good come from an abortion.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #59 of 237
11/16/01 at 1:11pm
[quote]Originally posted by: groverat
<strong>Yeah that was me.
Men who sleep with women and get them pregnant and then split are scum. They are scum if they get them pregnant and are not 100% supportive. Scum. Pieces of shit. They are very responsible for that pregnancy, yet someone will tell a woman that she can't have an abortion while telling the man that he doesn't have to worry about it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hmm, I guess I misunderstood you then, and there's no reason for us to be arguing because we're in agreement here.

[quote]<strong>You sure you're not pro-choice?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I am pro-choice (check my first post in this thread).

As an interesting, related side note: I'm also pro-death penalty, but I still think killing is wrong. And, as if that weren't enough I'm morally opposed to the idea of keeping animals in captivity for the sole purpose of killing them. Hell, I'm even morally opposed to keeping animals as pets (I think it's despicable what we do to horses), but I still eat meat because I like it too much to give up (and yes, I actually did try to go vegan once).

[quote]<strong>Let me rephrase, there are degrees of atrociousness to ending a baby's life through abortion?</strong><hr></blockquote>

It's not that the act itself becomes any less of a bad thing, but that the circumstances can sometimes make it somewhatnot completely unless the mother's life is at statejustified (in the same way that I would consider myself justified in killing someone who posed a threat to my life, although obviously not at the same level).
"America is a society where intellect seems to be out of style, replaced by garish gold jewelry, and winter clothes worn year round."
Reply
"America is a society where intellect seems to be out of style, replaced by garish gold jewelry, and winter clothes worn year round."
Reply
post #60 of 237
11/16/01 at 1:12pm
[quote]Originally posted by xenu:
<strong>pro choice.

It always amuses me when complete strangers
believe they have some right to tell others
how to live their lives.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh yeah, I hate it when that happens. If a wanna go kill or rape someone, what right does someone else have to tell me that I can't do it? It's *my* life, and I'm gonna live it the way *I* want to.

You see why that line of reasoning doesn't work?
Electric Gypsy
Reply
Electric Gypsy
Reply
post #61 of 237
11/16/01 at 1:49pm
Pro-choice, given that the options are not really "Abortion or Child", but, tragically often, "Legal Abortion or Back-Street Abortionist".

I have never found the lumping together of abortion and the death penalty as a single argument to be valid. My opposition to the DP is based around accepting the fallibility of the judicial process, and therefore avoiding irrevocable decisions. I don't like the idea that my government would have the right to kill me in error. However, I would have no objection to any convict choosing to be put to death, over lifetime incarceration.

Interestingly, here in the UK, you are most likely to be murdered by your mother, on the day you are born. That is the reality of the "choice" that many young women face; would you sentence these girls to death?
Reply
Reply
post #62 of 237
11/16/01 at 2:31pm
[quote]Originally posted by Jellytussle:
<strong>Pro-choice, given that the options are not really "Abortion or Child", but, tragically often, "Legal Abortion or Back-Street Abortionist".</strong><hr></blockquote>

That's like saying that we shouldn't have speed limits because people will drive as fast as they want to anyway. Or maybe that we should legalize petty theft because it happens so often. See the problem?
Electric Gypsy
Reply
Electric Gypsy
Reply
post #63 of 237
11/16/01 at 3:05pm
[quote]Originally posted by Whisper:
<strong>That's like saying that we shouldn't have speed limits because people will drive as fast as they want to anyway.</strong><hr></blockquote>That's not the argument Jelly was making, I don't believe. I think what Jelly was saying was that if abortion is illegal, more women will die or be injured. He wasn't saying "we shouldn't have laws because people will break them anyway."

It's a subtle difference, maybe, but an important one. I think it would be hard to show that making stricter speed limit laws increases traffic deaths. If it did, the arguments about that issue would be very different.

Sorry to butt in, Jelly.
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 237
11/16/01 at 3:53pm
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>That's not the argument Jelly was making, I don't believe. I think what Jelly was saying was that if abortion is illegal, more women will die or be injured. He wasn't saying "we shouldn't have laws because people will break them anyway."

It's a subtle difference, maybe, but an important one. I think it would be hard to show that making stricter speed limit laws increases traffic deaths. If it did, the arguments about that issue would be very different.

Sorry to butt in, Jelly.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You meant to say, "I think it would be hard to show that making stricter speed limit laws decreases traffic deaths," right? (I sure hope so cause the rest of my post depends on it ).

Yes, stricter speeding laws would decrease fatal traffic accidents. Do you really think we'd still have so many fatal "you mean that chunk of metal used to be a car?" accidents if we couldn't go faster than 5mph?

If you meant to say what you did say, then I'll have to figure out what your point is before I can reply to it .
Electric Gypsy
Reply
Electric Gypsy
Reply
post #65 of 237
11/16/01 at 5:11pm
[quote]Originally posted by Whisper:
<strong>You meant to say, "I think it would be hard to show that making stricter speed limit laws decreases traffic deaths," right?</strong><hr></blockquote>No, I did mean what I said, I was just making a convoluted point.

Jelly was arguing that making the abortion law stricter would lead to pregnant women's deaths or injuries. In that way, it's unusual. Hopefully, most laws don't lead to increased deaths or injuries.

That's all I was saying about the speed limit laws - that your analogy fails because that's a law that decreases deaths and injuries, unlike abortion laws, which would have the effect of increasing the deaths and injuries of pregnant women.
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 237
11/16/01 at 6:24pm
Groverat,

Not to interrupt the current direction of the discussion, but you were asking earlier what I meant by "depends on the circumstance", when determining if an older guy that sleeps with a young (say 15-18) girl is a scumbag.

My thought there is that there are many girls who are 15, 16, 17 and 18 would could easily pass for 19, 20,21,22 -- and if the guy didn't bother to check a license (not exactly a smooth move when you're trying to ask a girl out), there's no way the guy would be the wiser.

Basically, my feeling is, if a guy who is 25+ knowingly jumps in the sack with a girl who is say 15-18 - absolutely he is a piece of shit and deserves to pay for the maternity visits, adoption process, etc. But that doesn't make a promiscuous girl more a "victim" or somehow less responsible.

The other guy in the scenario is the one who knowingly jumps in the sack, but thinks he's doing it with a girl that is his own age. *Not* a scumbag, but still responsible, I agree. This guy should pay 50% of the costs rather than 100% (in an ideal world where no one would lie about such things).

In either case though, there's no excuse for abortion IMO. You make choices in life, and you deal with the consequences. Unfortunately many Americans don't like consequences, so they get outta dodge any way they can, abortion in this case.

And sad as it may be there *are* girls out there who are too young to be having sex, but sleep around a lot anyway (with boys their age, older men, whoever they feel like)...to say those girls are somehow victims and bear no responsibility for their pregnancy / child is ludicrous.

Sorry, just the way I see it. Using my earlier example, most 16 year old girls are no less able to take care of their body and refrain from sex, than they are able to get up in the morning when the alarm clock goes off. It's a conscious decision that has consequences, period.

Abortion is a means of avoiding the consequences.

[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #67 of 237
11/16/01 at 6:32pm
I don't like the way this thread is going.
It's too civilized. Let's fix that right now.

groverat, you're Hitler!!!! You nazi scum!

Thank you.
Reply
Reply
post #68 of 237
11/16/01 at 6:38pm
Surely you can't be referring to my last post. I don't think less of Groverat at all for disagreeing with my earlier comments. I was just trying to clarify one of my earlier statements you guys understood where I was coming from.

Actually, based on the posts I've read, it's a pretty tame thread. I'm impressed, given the emotional nature of the topic. And there are grey areas within this debate for sure, but not many. The only ones I can think of (as I said earlier) are cases of rape, incest...perhaps if the mother's life is in danger during delivery (the thought being that she can always try again later to have a child, etc.)....

Anyway, I've said all I intend to. I don't think all pro-choice people are evil or anything like that, but I do think many of them like to make lame excuses for people who never considered the consequences of having unprotected sex and the like.
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #69 of 237
11/16/01 at 7:15pm
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>No, I did mean what I said, I was just making a convoluted point.

Jelly was arguing that making the abortion law stricter would lead to pregnant women's deaths or injuries. In that way, it's unusual. Hopefully, most laws don't lead to increased deaths or injuries.

That's all I was saying about the speed limit laws - that your analogy fails because that's a law that decreases deaths and injuries, unlike abortion laws, which would have the effect of increasing the deaths and injuries of pregnant women.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Oh, I get it. I don't agree with you, but at least I know what you're saying now.

Here's why I don't agree. I believe that unborn children are just that -- children that haven't been born yet. All this stuff about fetuses and embryos and whatnot are nice for describing what stage of development it's at, but when you get to down to what it fundamentally is, it's just a kid that hasn't been born yet. By making abortion illegal, you save the lives of however many kids it is that would get aborted. True, some women may decide to get an illegal abortion, and some of those women may die in the process. But I'd be *very* surprised if the number of women who die from illegal abortions would be anywhere near the number of abortions that wouldn't happen due to abortion's newfound illegality. Does that make sense?

In any case, it's a bit of a moot point. If something is wrong, it's still wrong whether or not people get hurt and/or killed doing it.
Electric Gypsy
Reply
Electric Gypsy
Reply
post #70 of 237
11/16/01 at 10:28pm
Thread Starter 
[quote]Life is hard, sometimes you have to make some choice, not very nice. That's why i a m prochoice, but i prefer in the deep of my heart to be prolife (samething for the war).<hr></blockquote>

There are no pro-choice people who think abortions are awesome and fun. There are no pro-death penalty folks who get off on killing. Well, there are a few but they are the vast minority and are insignificant. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling you something.

No need to feel guilty being pro-choice.

[quote]The first step to making killing a particular class of someone or something OK is to strip the humanity from it.<hr></blockquote>

I can't speak for all othe pro-choice folks, but I make it a point to illustrate that I don't think this way. Abortion is killing a baby. I'm pro-choice.

[quote]Rarely if ever does any real good come from an abortion.<hr></blockquote>

Rarely if evern does any real good come from drinking. Or extra-marital sex. Should these things be illegal?

nonhuman:

[quote]I am pro-choice (check my first post in this thread).<hr></blockquote>

Busted me!

Animals taste good and pets are cool. They're just animals.

Whisper:

[quote]Oh yeah, I hate it when that happens. If a wanna go kill or rape someone, what right does someone else have to tell me that I can't do it? It's *my* life, and I'm gonna live it the way *I* want to.<hr></blockquote>



Those two are acts on a conscious being that is aware of its existence and feels pain. Abortion is not.

Moogs:

[quote]But that doesn't make a promiscuous girl more a "victim" or somehow less responsible.<hr></blockquote>

Yes but the guy is not responsible. He can run off never to be found again, he's out scot-free. She is stuck with the pregnancy. This happens all the time. He is morally responsible in fairy-land but in the real world he has no responsibility. She is a victim in a sense, not a pure victim but screwed over by sexism nonetheless.

[quote]the one who knowingly jumps in the sack, but thinks he's doing it with a girl that is his own age. *Not* a scumbag,<hr></blockquote>

I'll disagree. If you participate in a procreative act with someone you don't wish to procreate with in a manner that will lead to procreation you are a scumbag. But that's neither here nor there.

[quote]And sad as it may be there *are* girls out there who are too young to be having sex, but sleep around a lot anyway (with boys their age, older men, whoever they feel like)...to say those girls are somehow victims and bear no responsibility for their pregnancy / child is ludicrous.<hr></blockquote>

15 year old girls don't walk around thinking, "I'm going to be a whore today." They are manipulated by older men 99 times out of 100. No one is saying they bear no responsibility.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #71 of 237
11/17/01 at 11:54am
Whisper, try keeping your argument within context.

Who are you to tell anyone they cannot have an abortion, if that is their choice?

Are you really that arrogant?

It is not your call. You have no say in it.
None. Zero.

When will people learn to keep their faces out of other peoples private lives?

What next? Banning porn, because you don't like the idea of adults looking at naked people in the privacy of their own homes?

Censoring the internet because, shock, horror, some kid might see a naked person, or read adult themes?
http://freehenson.da.ru/ - chased out of America because he exposed the evils of Scientology. So much for freedom.
Reply
http://freehenson.da.ru/ - chased out of America because he exposed the evils of Scientology. So much for freedom.
Reply
post #72 of 237
11/17/01 at 11:59am
Whisper, try keeping your argument within context.

Who are you to tell anyone they cannot have an abortion, if that is their choice?

Are you really that arrogant?

It is not your call. You have no say in it.
None. Zero.

When will people learn to keep their faces out of other peoples private lives?

What next? Banning porn, because you don't like the idea of adults looking at naked people in the privacy of their own homes?

Censoring the internet because, shock, horror, some kid might see a naked person, or read adult themes?
http://freehenson.da.ru/ - chased out of America because he exposed the evils of Scientology. So much for freedom.
Reply
http://freehenson.da.ru/ - chased out of America because he exposed the evils of Scientology. So much for freedom.
Reply
post #73 of 237
11/17/01 at 12:51pm
I find i funny that if a man punches a women that is pregnant and kills the baby he goes to jail. But a woman can do that and it's legal.

Nice the way they contradict each other
The crucial memorandum will be snared in the out-basket by
the paper clip of the overlying memo and go to file.
Reply
The crucial memorandum will be snared in the out-basket by
the paper clip of the overlying memo and go to file.
Reply
post #74 of 237
11/17/01 at 2:07pm
/me raises hand

Pro-choice, here.
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 237
11/17/01 at 6:11pm
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>15 year old girls don't walk around thinking, "I'm going to be a whore today." They are manipulated by older men 99 times out of 100. No one is saying they bear no responsibility.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Um, actually...

Thinking back to my high school years (a whole 1 1/3 years ago) 15 and 16 year old girls do make a conscious decision to be a whore a lot of the time. They want to be "fashionable" and everyone says it's "fashionable" to sleep around. Sure, sometimes they are manipulated into having sex by older men, or even boys in their own age group. Then again there are the girls who brag about how many guys they blew at the party over the weekend (yes, I did heard claims such as this in highschool).
"America is a society where intellect seems to be out of style, replaced by garish gold jewelry, and winter clothes worn year round."
Reply
"America is a society where intellect seems to be out of style, replaced by garish gold jewelry, and winter clothes worn year round."
Reply
post #76 of 237
11/17/01 at 10:24pm
I'll get on my soapbox. Woohoo, good to have AI back A little poem:

If it's in a petri dish, life it's not
If it's in a womb, buy some diapers for the tot?

Once in the womb, killing is morally wrong
Once in the court, law is morals through a bong?

This pretty much sums up my views on abortion, stem cell funding, and things related

In other words, what is lawful is different from what is moral. They are related, sometimes a direct one-to-one relationship, but law takes into account the fallibility of humanity [at least in just and democratic societies] while morality tries to make humanity infallible. I would hope the two are never aligned.

In Roe v Wade, it was not strictly a decision based on what is moral, but what is right for all. Jelly had it right, Roe v Wade was in part about high death and injury rates of women who performed illegal abortions than about the morality of killing a fetus. To this day, the mother's health takes precedence over the fetus, and any law that doesn't take this view, like the late term abortion law in Nebraska which never provided the exception, will most likely be struck down.

In allowing for abortion with Roe, the USSC accepted that humanity is fallible, that there will always be situations where an unwanted pregnancy will occur where a woman is forced to make a choice, and will make one that hurts her and the fetus. However, if I recall my read of Roe correctly, the USSC did not state that abortion was legal for any period of pregnancy, only prior to viability. When viability occurs is debatable, but the health of the mother isn't. Any law that proscribes abortion after 4 to 6 weeks and includes the mother's health exception would pass constitutional muster without overturning Roe in my opinion.
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 237
11/18/01 at 7:31am
These threads are a lot better when you've been in them from the start...I'll sit this one out. I'm sure there'll be another one.

I do have a tiny question though but it could be that I misread something...or didn't read it at all...

The opinion on the board seems to be that if a young girl, let's say a 15 year old, goes around looking for sex in a bar that means she is a whore? slut? pick one...

I also seem to get the impression that an abortion is seen as avoiding responsibility for her actions (so I guess I have two questions...). Isn't having an abortion the same as taking the responsibility to have an abortion? <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
post #78 of 237
11/18/01 at 9:34am
Thread Starter 
[quote]The opinion on the board seems to be that if a young girl, let's say a 15 year old, goes around looking for sex in a bar that means she is a whore? slut? pick one...<hr></blockquote>

It's chauvanist but I think that's the general consensus here. As long as attitudes like this are held where men are expected to sleep with anything that's willing I suspect 15 and 16 year old girls will still be taught to be whores at such a young age.

[quote]Isn't having an abortion the same as taking the responsibility to have an abortion?<hr></blockquote>

Yet another thing they look over. They dehumanize the girl who has the abortion, makes it easier for them to act as if they are the only one seeing the moral outrage.

proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #79 of 237
11/18/01 at 11:38am
[quote]Originally posted by xenu:
<strong>Who are you to tell anyone they cannot have an abortion, if that is their choice?

Are you really that arrogant?

It is not your call. You have no say in it.
None. Zero.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Who are you to tell me that I cannot tell anyone else that they cannot have an abortion, if that is my choice? Are you really that arrogant? It is not your call. You have no say in it. None. Zero.

By your logic I shouldn't be able to tell a theif not to steal my stuff.
[quote]<strong>When will people learn to keep their faces out of other peoples private lives?

What next? Banning porn, because you don't like the idea of adults looking at naked people in the privacy of their own homes?

Censoring the internet because, shock, horror, some kid might see a naked person, or read adult themes?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Porn doesn't kill. Abortion does.
Electric Gypsy
Reply
Electric Gypsy
Reply
post #80 of 237
11/18/01 at 1:01pm
Whisper, I assume you are being obtuse, and taking everything out of context, on purpose.

Perhaps you feel that is the only way to have an argument?

Your analogies are quite pathetic. A theif stealing your stuff affects you, personally.

A complete stranger deciding to have an abortion doesn't.

You are obviously allowed to have an opinion.
You are obviously anti-abortion. Fine. That's your call.

You have no say into whether a woman has an abortion or not. None. Unless you are the partner.

That you are so arrogant that you feel you have the right to dictate what a complete stranger can, or cannot do, to their bodies, speaks volumes about the sort of person you are.

Since we are being polite about this, I will not use the actual words I am thinking.

P.s. Why does the stupid add reply button post everything I write twice???
http://freehenson.da.ru/ - chased out of America because he exposed the evils of Scientology. So much for freedom.
Reply
http://freehenson.da.ru/ - chased out of America because he exposed the evils of Scientology. So much for freedom.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › AppleOutsider Abortion Thread v1