Abortion and You

[Stealth Hunter]

The reason why I've decided to make a poll regarding this topic is that yesterday, January 22nd, was the 35th anniversary of the case that made abortion legal and a right in the United States. Jon Stewart, who hosts "The Daily Show", had a topic on this yesterday. The controversy over abortion is growing and growing. Pro-life supporters are gaining ground, and it seems that we may face an actual threat of it being dismantled from Constitutional protection.

My question to you is: "Do you think abortion should remain a right to the citizens of the United States?"

My personal feeling is yes, it should remain a right. If you are pro-life and it did remain a right, that's fine. Nobody would be forcing you to get one. Don't try to take control of the lives and bodies of other people.

[Iceman]

Don't try to take control of the lives and bodies of other people.

You make the point crystal clear....don't kill babies.You rational that it is unborn it holds no rights...this is flawed logic.

To murder is to stand up with the big boys...you may as well take a seat down in Folsom with the big dogs there...they like to kill.

Killing as in War and Murdrer has been discussed here before the right and wrong of both and intreperation in ragards to the Bible...maybe they are casulites of War huh?

The moment of successful conception is the begining of human life...I think I read that in a medical book somewhere? and for doctors to perform such acts I would think would violate they're hypo crit oath or something or maybe it's they are hypocrits?

Red is green and yellow white huh?

[Stealth Hunter]

Children in the womb technically aren't children, or at least according to medicine. Henceforth, the decision is to the parents.:roll:

A 4-month old fetus is not a baby. It is the beginning, but it does not think or feel, and considering the number of children born each day that are not wanted in the United States, it seems that the aborted fetus could be put to better use compared to an unwanted child (stem cells that could potentially defeat paralysis, cure the effects of cancer, and behave as a miracle cure).

[Peto]

OK--since it's Stealth Hunter that's tossing around this hand grenade ;)...

I'm undecided and that's not typical for me. I usually just say yes or no. My reasons follow:

I'm basically pro-life. If it wasn't for the decision of another person in my life, I would most likely have another child today. And I was willing to support and be a father to that child. However, I wasn't allowed a voice in the matter.

As for the woman who did make the decision--she had her reasons. Number one, we both knew that a marriage between us wouldn't work so her life and plans for the future would have been completely changed. Things have worked out well for her although we have talked about it a couple times since and she regrets having the abortion. She didn't see the long term psychological affect of her decision until it was too late. She's a good person and we remain friends to this day.

I'm also pro-choice for some scenarios such as rape, incest and medical conditions where the mother's life is at serious risk.

Unfortunately, the law will only be allowed to be written black or white. There is a serious grey area here which advocates at both extremes fail to recognize. Moderate view-points are drowned out by a smaller percentage of people who through stones at each other from opposite ends of the room. The victims of these stone hurlers are more often those who prefer to work out a problem and engage in options which will serve more people in the long run--the moderates who reside in the middle.

But this is the age of extremism. The irony is this (and I know I'm going a bit OT here) people who live at the extremes have more in common with each other than they do with moderates. They are both willing to crush anyone or anything that gets in their way of achieving their judgement of what is best for everyone. At least that's what they say. The fact is, they are only concerned about what they want and are more than happy to subvert and take control of both their polar opposition and the moderates who just want the yelling and stone throwing to cease. 10% controlling 90% (rough numbers here) is not a path toward peace.

So--back to abortion, Roe v Wade. I don't believe in abortion as a form of birth control. Neither do I believe in it being used as a battle ground for extremists where they battle just for the sake of battle. And at last report, the abortion rate has dropped dramatically in recent years. Perhaps a peek into the grey area is in order...

I realize and respect how sensitive this issue is to many people--maybe to most people. And I believe that is good to take a stance on one side or the other to some degree. But hurling insults at people you've never met or taken the time to learn why they believe what they do will never solve anything. Perhaps by sharing a cup of coffee instead of throwing rocks we can all gain a little insight that may not make everyone 100% happy, can at least lead to an uneasy truce. And some moderates may appreciate not having to duck rocks thrown by a minority of the people.

[sonar732]

Petro,

You make valid points here that are my way of thinking also. Granted, I didn't have the horrible situation that you did, but my stance is exactly as yours. I'm not going to get into a mud slinging debate because as I've mentioned in these forums before...

Give me one theory and I'll have 5 others to debunk it

So, why go thru all the hassle for, as you said, someone I've never met before when all they'll do is post some links from the internet about their factual information based on their experts opinion.

I've got my opinion, you've got yours...that's final.

[Skybird]

In principle I would favour to encourage every mother to carry out her child. If she still does not want it after having given birth, I would like her to have the legal possibility to give away her baby for adoption.

There are more and more couples today that cannot have babies, but would love to have kids. You could help both the mother and these couples that way.

I also know that life for all protagonists in disfunctional families can be hell for all, last but not least the children often are the ones suffering the most from that. Scandals of the past months and years in germany illustrate that. It goes as far as kids getting killed in mosrt cruel ways, and die by starvation while the parents don'T care.

I also know that having kids could derail your whole life, and I am not talking about career and money, but parents that are children themselves, and who see many things a human could and should experience at that age, being unavailable to them. That can raise bitterniss. Bitternis leads to anger. Anger leads to mistreatment.

for these reasons I am absolutely suppoorting the legal possibility that mothers could give away their children legally.

and I prefer that solution to abortion (medical arguments excluded). I also would like to kick media's lower bottoms for supporting a tennage cult and idols that lecture young people how cool it is to hehave like apemen, taking drugs, and have sex at every opportunity, and not using condoms. I am definitely not prude, but I think some more education towards self-control, discipline and less consuming of the other would be in order. If we complain about today's youth - we should not forget that they live according to what we adults teach them - or allow them. But if we accept a total laissez-faire, and rate crazy idols and bad media behavior and the money being made from that bahvior as acceptable for spioiling our children, we have no right to criticise them, and should point finger at ourselves instead.

Nevertheless in principal I defend the right of abortion, and I go into battle mode when relgious fanatics and zealots swing anti-abortion posters in one hand and the bible in their other hand, and even become militant and threaten staff and hospitals. Of abortion and such zealots, the latter are by far the greater evil.

Encourage mothers not to abort, but neither put social pressure on them, nor make abortion illegal. If that is their final decision, well, so be it. also do not be quick in judging them. most often you do not know the story behind it, and sometimes that may be a story of foolishness, but most often that is a story of tragedy and despair. If you want influence a situation, do not confront the mother and threaten her, but support her - no matter what the final decision of hers will be. Most abortions take place due to despair, disorientation, and lacking support. Riding moral attacks against such mothers does not help themn, but make their situation even worse. A pregnancy is a thing that affects and is part of the mother in the most direct way, nobody has any right to comand her what to do with that baby in her womb. If you think you have the right to do so, in name of the unborn life, you are not better than that kind of Muslims that treats their women like life stock.

Also consider this: 4 out of 5 women suffer from depression after having aborted. If you think mothers always make it too easy for themselves when aborting, you are missing reality by lightyears. such irresponsible women show up, too, yes - but they are not the rule. Not too mention that what you perceive as irresponsibility - may be lacking life experience. Pregnant mothers have a human right to fail and make mistakes, too. Has Jesus told you to leave behind those who sinned and did not know it better? So againb, if you want to influence a given situation, approach it with gentle mind, and be supportive. That is your best chance to make the mother chnage her mind. Give her a realistic perspective. Cast a spell of doom on her, and she will be doomed indeed. If you consider yourself to have practiced as a shiny Christian that way, I spit in your face.

I also must say this, though: I often see female dumbheads and their annoying brats at town and just think that it would have been the preferred option to see such people abort instead of having babies. Some people raise an incredibly nasty breed and do not educate them at all, and behave like the last survivor from the stoneage themselves. To see such figures makes me sick. and to see what influence these brats will project on social life and the cultural community once they grew up, makes me sick even more.

when human life begins, if soul exists and is a separate entity from body or not, all this can be discussed ad nauseum without reaching consensus. And there are ethical implication that touch a level of principle content that does lead beyond the individual life's fate. So I do the obvious thing that recommends itself: I'll will be with the mother and try to see it from her point of view and offer possibilities instead of refusing options. the magical word is "opportunity" - not "command". threaten a mother with hate if she aborts - and do not be surprised if maybe she gives birth, but then hates the child.

[Radtgaeb]

Don't try to take control of the lives and bodies of other people.
You make the point crystal clear....don't kill babies.You rational that it is unborn it holds no rights...this is flawed logic.

To murder is to stand up with the big boys...you may as well take a seat down in Folsom with the big dogs there...they like to kill.

Killing as in War and Murdrer has been discussed here before the right and wrong of both and intreperation in ragards to the Bible...maybe they are casulites of War huh?

The moment of successful conception is the begining of human life...I think I read that in a medical book somewhere? and for doctors to perform such acts I would think would violate they're hypo crit oath or something or maybe it's they are hypocrits?

Red is green and yellow white huh?
QFT

I can't stand it when people get 'surprised' by the fact that they're pregnant. Well, let's all do the math. You had sex, with that comes the risk of having a child (seeing is that IS the clearest purpose of human sexual relationships); if one isn't willing to become a parent, one shouldn't be out sexing up the town. Having an abortion is taking your lack of better judgement out on an innocent life. Religious or not, killing is wrong. If I may quote Fred Thompson (who, despite dropping out, was in my mind the BEST Republican candidate since Reagan) "Roe vs. Wade was a bad lawsuit, and besides that; it was just bad medical science."

[August]

Children in the womb technically aren't children

Oh yeah? Someone punches a pregnant woman in the stomach and causes her to have a miscarriage. They'd soon be up on murder charges. Now how could that be if they "technically aren't children"?

[Radtgaeb]

I
I also must say this, though: I often see female dumbheads and their annoying brats at town and just think that it would have been the preferred option to see such people abort instead of having babies. Some people raise an incredibly nasty breed and do not educate them at all, and behave like the last survivor from the stoneage themselves. To see such figures makes me sick. and to see what influence these brats will project on social life and the cultural community once they grew up, makes me sick even more.


What you said there made me think of a Public Service Ad I saw once. This guy is pushing a cart of kids around in the grocery store and they are screaming and yelling and nagging for candy; and he looks up to the ceiling as if to ask God to "just kill me now" and the screen goes blank and says "Use common Sense, use a condom.". :rotfl:

[AVGWarhawk]

Children in the womb technically aren't children, or at least according to medicine.

Morally, what is the life growing in the womb?


A 4-month old fetus is not a baby. It is the beginning, but it does not think or feel, and considering the number of children born each day that are not wanted in the United States, it seems that the aborted fetus could be put to better use compared to an unwanted child (stem cells that could potentially defeat paralysis, cure the effects of cancer, and behave as a miracle cure).

The problem perhaps is not the thought of abortion in itself but the proceedure of aborting. Partial birth abortions is brutal.

[Sailor Steve]

The moment of successful conception is the begining of human life...I think I read that in a medical book somewhere? and for doctors to perform such acts I would think would violate they're hypo crit oath or something or maybe it's they are hypocrits?

Red is green and yellow white huh?
You think you read it somewhere? It would be nice if you actually showed something concrete. Doctors are as confused on this issue as anyone else. And it's 'Hypocratic Oath' after the ancient Greek doctor Hypocrates. And, if you actually read it, you will find that it says nothing about your beliefs. To top it off, you should be against it, as it is sworn before a false god.
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/hippocrates.htm

I'm also pro-choice for some scenarios such as rape, incest and medical conditions where the mother's life is at serious risk.
I'm not saying you're wrong, especially since I agree with your stance on this; but I always get my back up whenever someone emphatically "pro-life" uses that argument. Is a child concieved from rape or incest less alive? Does it not have the same rights?

I can't stand it when people get 'surprised' by the fact that they're pregnant. Well, let's all do the math. You had sex, with that comes the risk of having a child (seeing is that IS the clearest purpose of human sexual relationships);
All of the above is true, but that doesn't change the fact that people are built to have sex, and what they do about it is their choice, not yours or mine.

if one isn't willing to become a parent, one shouldn't be out sexing up the town.
What one "should" or "shouldn't" be doing is none of your business. Or mine. It's easy to preach, but the last time I looked this was a free country.

Having an abortion is taking your lack of better judgement out on an innocent life. Religious or not, killing is wrong.
And that's the problem. The question is still whether abortion is killing or not. Your morality is not everyone's.

If I may quote Fred Thompson (who, despite dropping out, was in my mind the BEST Republican candidate since Reagan) "Roe vs. Wade was a bad lawsuit, and besides that; it was just bad medical science."
And Fred Thompson is neither a lawyer nor a doctor. His opinion is just that.

Oh yeah? Someone punches a pregnant woman in the stomach and causes her to have a miscarriage. They'd soon be up on murder charges. Now how could that be if they "technically aren't children"?
Not really. The best you could hope for is Involuntary Manslaughter.

Morally, what is the life growing in the womb?
Exactly: the key word here is "morally", and as everyone on both sides of the political fence here likes to say, "You can't legislate morality."

The problem perhaps is not the thought of abortion in itself but the proceedure of aborting. Partial birth abortions is brutal.
Yes it is. On the other hand, Roe v. Wade specifically mentions the first trimester only. The so-called 'partial-birth' abortions involve a baby which is very close to being born anyway.

Now that I've sort-of addressed my take on other peoples' opinions, I'll give my own.

My first question is: what is a right? Is it something 'allowed' by the government, or is it something inherent to us as individuals? Most Americans will tell you it's the latter, but they tend to change their minds depending on what 'right' we're talking about.

Personally I feel abortion is wrong, but the problem I see is that the only reason to make it illegal again is because it is indeed murder. But, before you can declare it murder, you have to define all the ramifications. August mentioned the 'punching the pregnant woman' problem, and he's right; today, if that happens, the very people who support abortion will be up in arms. They seem to want to have it both ways. But so does the other side. If you make abortion illegal because it is murder, then what happens to the pregnant woman who has a miscarriage because she strained herself moving a couch? Extreme and unlikely, you might say; but you can bet that the first time it happens lawyers will get involved, and it will be, if not involuntary manslaughter, at least negligent homicide. And then you'll have the case of the woman who miscarries, and her ex-boyfriend accuses her of killing the child intentionally. What if he wins? All these things are inded extreme, but they will happen.

I'm old enough to remember when abortion was illegal before, and there were a significant number of doctors willing to risk the repercussions. There also were numbers of women having them done by non-doctors, the so-called "back-alley abortions"; when one of them would ocassionally die and it made the headlines, the self-proclaimed "moral" people could be heard shouting "it's only what she deserved!" You think I'm exagerating, but I was there and it did happen, and fairly regularly.

Morally, I too am against abortion. Legally, I think things should stay exactly as they are, because I also realize that it is my moral belief, which not everyone agrees with, and as has been said, you can't legislate morality. If a woman disagrees, it's her body, her baby, her right and her decision, and no-one else's; not yours, not mine.

[Skybird]

Impressive reasoning, Steve. i think I eventually must check some of my own thoughts in some details in the light of your arguing. Hard to argue with you if I feel convinced by your general thinking. On the other hand, we are not so far apart in general opinion that abortion should remain legal, is a personal decision, a personal fate, but still is by your and my moral not desirable.

[August]

Not really. The best you could hope for is Involuntary Manslaughter.

Well sorry but you're wrong Steve. Here are some examples:

http://crime.about.com/b/2005/09/01/man-faces-two-murder-charges-in-pregnant-womans-death.htm
http://www.kmov.com/topstories/stories/kmov_localnews_070926_pregnantwomanshot.110b627ca. html
http://www.knbc.com/news/14536567/detail.html
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2007/nov/16/murder-charge-in-babys-death/

Don't get me wrong, I do think abortion should be legal although I think it should be taken more seriously than just another form of birth control. I just think that Roe v. Wade is very shaky legal ground to base something as serious as the taking of a human life.

[Sailor Steve]

Okay, the first three articles are about charges, not convictions. It will be interesting to see how it plays out in court; especially if the judges and juries arrive at different conclusions. Until then, I'm not wrong.

The fourth article actually talks about that very thing in the last paragraphs, making it even more interesting:
Because the baby was delivered after the crash, there is a question whether the child was a victim of homicide as defined by statute. "It's pretty clear that the legislative intent was not to include the fetus," said Carroll Multz, a retired Grand Junction defense attorney.
Multz, who served with other lawyers to draft a large-scale revision of the state's criminal statutes in 1971, said the law means a homicide victim " 'was born and was alive at the time of the act.' You have to go by the plain-meaning rule."

I don't think that as many women consider abortion a simple alternative means of birth control as pro-life groups try to imply, but that's an open question - especially where RU-486 is concerned. I do agree - it should not be taken lightly. There needs to be more serious discussion in political, legal, and yes, religious circles, and less righteous grandstanding. And that includes both sides.

[Onkel Neal]

Morally, I too am against abortion. Legally, I think things should stay exactly as they are, because I also realize that it is my moral belief, which not everyone agrees with, and as has been said, you can't legislate morality. If a woman disagrees, it's her body, her baby, her right and her decision, and no-one else's; not yours, not mine.

Hold on, the father should have equal decision power. After all, if the woman decides to give birth, he has to provide 50% of the support (well, actually more like 80%).

[RickC Sniper]

The father can also be taken to court to make him help pay for the abortion, even if his choice is to father and raise the child on his own. The father has always been screwed when it comes to this topic. (forgive the use of that word)
No rights, tons of responsibility................depending on her decision.

[Stealth Hunter]

Children in the womb technically aren't children

Oh yeah? Someone punches a pregnant woman in the stomach and causes her to have a miscarriage. They'd soon be up on murder charges. Now how could that be if they "technically aren't children"?

Because it would have been a child in a few more months.

[August]

Because it would have been a child in a few more months.

But so would an aborted fetus had it been allowed to be born.

Like I said i'm not opposed to abortion (not with 6+ billion people on the planet) but it is a huge contradiction to allow a woman (and/or her doctor) to kill her fetus but prosecute a person who causes a fetus to die and like the guys have commented on, complicate the matter even further by making the father financially responsible for the child without giving him any say in whether it is allowed to be born or not.

And it's all based on a rather stretched interpetation of the Constitutional right to privacy. No wonder it is the source of such division and acrimony in our society.

[Fish]

[Morally, I too am against abortion. Legally, I think things should stay exactly as they are, because I also realize that it is my moral belief, which not everyone agrees with, and as has been said, you can't legislate morality. If a woman disagrees, it's her body, her baby, her right and her decision, and no-one else's; not yours, not mine.

Is where I stand too.

[Fish]

Morally, I too am against abortion. Legally, I think things should stay exactly as they are, because I also realize that it is my moral belief, which not everyone agrees with, and as has been said, you can't legislate morality. If a woman disagrees, it's her body, her baby, her right and her decision, and no-one else's; not yours, not mine.

Hold on, the father should have equal decision power. After all, if the woman decides to give birth, he has to provide 50% of the support (well, actually more like 80%).

Neal, I think in the position the woman is (choosing abortion) the father is most times not interested.

[Konovalov]

[Morally, I too am against abortion. Legally, I think things should stay exactly as they are, because I also realize that it is my moral belief, which not everyone agrees with, and as has been said, you can't legislate morality. If a woman disagrees, it's her body, her baby, her right and her decision, and no-one else's; not yours, not mine.

Is where I stand too.

I share the same position also. :yep:

[Skybird]

Neal, I think in the position the woman is (choosing abortion) the father is most times not interested.
Vaguely remembering statistics for Germany from many years ago, that holds truth. The majority of women aborting are not easy-minded, but are desperate and cannot see any way out. that'S how it is with human - humans are not always reasonable, but can get trapped in self-made mental mazes that offer no escape, if the despair is too great and fear takes over. Only a few women aborting are career-beasts and lifestyle-fashionistas. That'S why I said that if you want to help in a given situation, don't doom them, but support them, and offer them perspectives, instead of threatening penalty. And historically, penalties have not had any deterrence regarding illegal abortion - which costed many more lives, and crippled many women.

[Letum]

Well, there are millions of ways at looking at the issue.
Here's an analogy that obviously isn't a direct comparison of all the complexities, but
it helps us face one of the issues involved head on with out the other complications.
Namely, the issue of ownership of your own body:


Lets say you find that you have found a tramp living in your garden shed one winter
morning. Perhaps it is your fault because you did not put a lock on the shed.
The tramp also happens to be half related to you.

The tramp says he will go away once summer comes, but if he leaves the shed in
winter he will freeze to death.

The problem is, the tramp is eating your food, is an embarrassment, is causing you
distress and preventing you living your life normally.

Even if the tramp will die of cold if you kick him out of your shed, you should still be in your rights to kick him out; even if you let him in there.
It might not be the most compassionate thing to do, but you would certainly be in your
rights.

People should no more have to put up with trespassers in their body than they should
be forced to put up with a tramp in their garden shed.

[RickC Sniper]

Bad analogy.

The tramp CHOSE to enter and live in the shed.

A fetus is now a trespasser? That suggests somehow it had free will and chose to end up in a womb.


:doh:

[Iceman]

Lol..Sailor Steve..I was being sarcastic.

Abortion is just like the word implies....abort.

If there was no life to be aborted wouldn't it just be called taking a crap?

[Redbrow]

In a thousand years who will care? If Bible banging Christians are correct it will be those cast into the ovens of hell - right after their demi-god Jesus returns at the head of a heavenly calvary charge with angels all riding white lipizzaners riding down to clobber non believers and believers who don't quite believe enough. But this punishment will not realy come because of abortting babies - because really it comes for the sin of not having accepted Jesus Christ (that doppelganger of Mithra) as their personal Lord and Savior. I should know cause I used to be a preacher long ago - before I saw the light - BABY!

Other than such arguments as this, this question (of abortting) will depend on opinions or other non-Christian religious myths and doctrines. But since I know that the odds of mankind saving the biosphere from its destruction from the hands of civilization is about nill, I say: let's wait a thousand years and ask earth to see if anyone cares:
Nope, no one there seems to care.

:cool:

[Sailor Steve]

Hold on, the father should have equal decision power. After all, if the woman decides to give birth, he has to provide 50% of the support (well, actually more like 80%).
The father can also be taken to court to make him help pay for the abortion, even if his choice is to father and raise the child on his own. The father has always been screwed when it comes to this topic. (forgive the use of that word)
No rights, tons of responsibility................depending on her decision.
Both excellent points, and I agree; the father should have some say. I was addressing only the concept of government deciding based on moral principles.

[sonar732]

REASONS FOR ABORTIONS: COMPILED ESTIMATES (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html#5) rape0.3 % (0.1-0.6 %) incest0.03 % (<0.1 %) physical life of mother0.2 % (0.1-0.3 %) physical health of mother1.0 % (0.1-3 %) fetal health0.5 % (0.1-1.0 %) mental health of motherdepends on definition "personal choice"
--too young/immature/not ready for responsibility
--economic
--to avoid adjusting life
--mother single or in poor relationship
--enough children already98% (78-99 %)
--(32 %)
--25% (21-28 %)
--(16 %)
--(12-13 %)
--(4-8 %)

[elite_hunter_sh3]

abortion should be banned.. UNLESS the child is concieved because of Rape or sexual assault.. if a girl decided to fool around knowing the risks.. then let her suffer the punishment and not be allowed an abortion.. although illegal immigrants should be encouraged to have abortions.. we dont want anchor babies flooding North America... so im yes and no :-?:shifty:

[mrbeast]

abortion should be banned.. UNLESS the child is concieved because of Rape or sexual assault.. if a girl decided to fool around knowing the risks.. then let her suffer the punishment and not be allowed an abortion.. although illegal immigrants should be encouraged to have abortions.. we dont want anchor babies flooding North America... so im yes and no :-?:shifty:

So the child has to suffer as a punishmet too? :roll:

So even though abortion should be banned according to you, the unborn children of illegal immigrants are worth less than other unborn children? :nope: :roll:

[dean_acheson]

I think that we have mildly skirted a more important issue here:

"Do you think Abortion should remain a right to American Citizens."

The fact is, is that the way things are now, us "American Citizens" have absolutely NO SAY in if abortions are legal or not legal. The US Supreme Court has decided that for all of us.

Really nice of them.

When the USSC handed down the Roe decision, they overrode every statelaw on the issue. The said that a woman has some fuzzy 'right to privacy' that extends to her womb. This "constitutional right" allowed her to terminate her pregnancy. This 'constitutional right' that Justice Douglas found in the 'penumbras' of the Bill of Rights removed this decision from every elected politician in the country.

The day that the one unelected branch of the United State government decided that it was up to them to decide a moral issue of this import, was a poor day in the Court's history, as black as the day that prior Courts handed down Dred Scott, the Plessy case, Lochner, or any other decision in which the US Supreme Court decided to make a moral decision to guide us poor misguided fools that make up the electorate.

Until the Court decides to throw Roe on the scrap heap of history and allow us to have a debate on this matter, and decide the issue in our state legislatures, where according to any honest reading of the U.S. Constitution would place it, this matter is for all intents and purposes settled.

An aside note: Many pols. on both sides love the fact that they can get folks up in arms over this, since they can stir up their core electorate on the matter, when as things stand, this matter is one controlled by the Article Three branch of government.

[dean_acheson]

Sorry, that is why I voted 'undecided' since it doesn't matter what I decide on this issue.

[geetrue]

What happens if America has to go to war? Say in the next 18 years ...

Who's going to fight in the next big one, pretend they could get out of the starting gate with all of these nuclear weapons available?

We don't know do we ... but we do know who won't be fighting those future wars.

The tens of thousands of fetus babies tied up in garbage sacks and disposed of in a big furnace.

Think about it ... selective breeding is on the way. Hell it's already here.

[Letum]

Bad analogy.

The tramp CHOSE to enter and live in the shed.

A fetus is now a trespasser? That suggests somehow it had free will and chose to end up in a womb.


:doh:

It's not really much of a choice if the tramp will die out side the warmth of the shead.

However, that is irrelevant: choice or not someone who is occupying your body with
out permission is trespassing. Even if they have no choice, you still have the right to
evict them by force.

[RickC Sniper]

If you acknowledge that they are "someone" you already have decided the issue.

A fetus can be legally aborted. A "someone" cannot. The whole abortion debate hangs on the question of "when does the fetus becomes a person".

[Knipper]

Why is this topic here? What does it have to do with sinking allied shipping? Fer god's sake if you want to talk about this stuff, log in to dead babies.com or something.

[Platapus]

This is a very difficult question to answer. Not only are there legal and medical issues involved but there are moral ones. Many would say that the moral issues are the most important of the three.

I would agree.

This is why the decision whether a woman should or should not have an abortion needs to rest with the individual (with the advice of a medical/legal/moral professionals) and not the state or federal government.

I can not see any decision that will be acceptable to all citizens except the decision that the state/federal government won't make the decision.

If you think that an abortion is morally acceptable to you at this time, then get one
If you think that an abortion is not morally acceptable to you at this time, then don't get one.

The only "moral" decision is to give people the choice.

Here is an interesting concept to consider:

If life (in the legal sense) starts at conception, then why is a woman who miscarries not convicted of involuntary manslaughter?

Involuntary manslaughter means that you did not intend the death right?

Like I said, a most difficult question to answer

[Knipper]

oh for god's sake......

[Penelope_Grey]

LOL this is great... a bunch of men debating abortion!?

I thought I'd seen everything till now... Let me just say, having an abortion may not be morally right, or a nice thing, but sometimes its got to be done. Better to not have a baby than to have one and just not want it and see it took into care or something or just generally upset that persons life.

Yes people should take care, but accidents happen. The father should get input, I agree but he doesn't need the final say. That is the childs mother always.

Having said that, there should be a cut off point somewhere as to when you say right, you cannot legally have this. That cut of point should be when the clump of cells progresses to an actual baby.

EDIT: not that I am an American citizen or nothing.. . but well, its a hot potato in the UK too at the best of times is Abortion

[Dowly]

Every woman has the right to do abortion. And if somebody points to the killing of "innocent children" I just point them to the ka-zillion cases where man has killed millions of "innocent children" as 'collateral damage'. :nope:

[Letum]

If you acknowledge that they are "someone" you already have decided the issue.

A fetus can be legally aborted. A "someone" cannot. The whole abortion debate hangs on the question of "when does the fetus becomes a person".


I disagree. What name we give something makes no differance and is impossible to answer.

I think that if you acknowledge that every human has a right to own their body, you
have already decided the issue.

The whole abortion debate hangs on the question of "Should another person have a
right to my body, the food I eat, etc.".

If not, thgen abortion is less killing and more eviction. In the same way we turn off
life support machines.

[Sailor Steve]

Why is this topic here? What does it have to do with sinking allied shipping? Fer god's sake if you want to talk about this stuff, log in to dead babies.com or something.
This is the 'General Topics' forum. It is specifically for debating everything BUT sinking Allied shipping. If you don't like it, you don't have to read the posts.

[silentrunner]

I don't think anyone would be pro choice if their mother's had gotten an abortion for a few reasons.
1. We all like being alive.
2. Wouldn't you feel bad if youre mother didn't want you.
3. MOST importantly you could not be either pro life or pro choice because you would allready be dead.

[mrbeast]

I don't think anyone would be pro choice if their mother's had gotten an abortion for a few reasons.
1. We all like being alive.
2. Wouldn't you feel bad if youre mother didn't want you.
3. MOST importantly you could not be either pro life or pro choice because you would allready be dead.

How would you feel if you were born and your mother didn't want you?

[Takeda Shingen]

Why is this topic here? What does it have to do with sinking allied shipping? Fer god's sake if you want to talk about this stuff, log in to dead babies.com or something.
This is the 'General Topics' forum. It is specifically for debating everything BUT sinking Allied shipping. If you don't like it, you don't have to read the posts.

Only an old man like Steve could get away with something like that.

[Skybird]

Tak,

Steve has no reason needing to trust in his record in order to get away with his post - his post is perfectly fine in form, and correct in content. If you want to sanction somebody here, then target Knipper's condescending comment on "posting at deadbaby.com" - and even that maybe is not worth it.

[Knipper]

Sorry if I came over condesending folks. It just struck me there are so many other places on the net to talk about stuff like this. Far be it from me to stifle free speech though. Anywayz, take no notice, I'm just a bit grouchy cos I gave up smoking Jan 1 after 40 years. For my two penn'orth, I'm with Penelope on this one.

[Skybird]

I see no issue having happened anyway, so never mind, Knipper, that's why Takeda surprised me with his intervention, and that especially towards Steve. So, one guy here got too little nicotine, and somebody else got too much coffein, that's all! ;) :lol: Neal wants the general forum to be a place were even many non-navy things can be discussed, like you talk in a bar or a lounge, only that potentially flamatory political and religious topics get tighter monitoring now and are tolerated at reduced numbers only, which is okay. Abortion might be strange to be discussed here - but we have seen much more weird stuff getting discussed in the GT forum over the years. Everybody can participate, but nobody must participate. Can't get more reasonable, i think. Ah, and good luck with your no-smoke-policy - I'm sure it's worth to be followed! ;)

[Knipper]

Thanks Skybird, you are very understanding. :up:

[Skybird]

Thanks Skybird, you are very understanding. :up:
With most things, yes; but not with all. :sunny: :lol:

[Onkel Neal]

Morally, I too am against abortion. Legally, I think things should stay exactly as they are, because I also realize that it is my moral belief, which not everyone agrees with, and as has been said, you can't legislate morality. If a woman disagrees, it's her body, her baby, her right and her decision, and no-one else's; not yours, not mine.

Hold on, the father should have equal decision power. After all, if the woman decides to give birth, he has to provide 50% of the support (well, actually more like 80%).

Neal, I think in the position the woman is (choosing abortion) the father is most times not interested.

That's probably true. I'm just highlighting the inconsistency--the woman's right to choose should not be an absolute right. What if the father wants to abort, why can't his right to choose trump the mother's right to carry the fetus to full term? That's equally his genetic material in there.

Who can deny, if your mother had aborted her fetus in the first trimester, you would not be here to argue this issue either way. Maybe that is not murder, to remove a clump of cells. But it is denying some eventual human being the complete right to exist.

I also cannot help but notice, that even firmly empowered with the "right to choose", most women feel shame about having an abortion. That says something.

What puzzles me, in this day and age, why unwanted pregnacies are so prevalent? Birth control is very easy and convenient. And with STDs, wth are people doing out there?

That's how I feel about it, but note this, I wouldn't cross the street to protest or campaign against Roe vs Wade. If someone wants to abort their own child, I think it's wrong but I won't lift a finger to stop them. I think it could be an ironic self-regulating form of soical Darwinism.

Hope I didn't anger anyone, just my opinion.

[Onkel Neal]

I see no issue having happened anyway, so never mind, Knipper, that's why Takeda surprised me with his intervention, and that especially towards Steve. So, one guy here got too little nicotine, and somebody else got too much coffein, that's all! ;) :lol: Neal wants the general forum to be a place were even many non-navy things can be discussed, like you talk in a bar or a lounge, only that potentially flamatory political and religious topics get tighter monitoring now and are tolerated at reduced numbers only, which is okay. Abortion might be strange to be discussed here - but we have seen much more weird stuff getting discussed in the GT forum over the years. Everybody can participate, but nobody must participate. Can't get more reasonable, i think. Ah, and good luck with your no-smoke-policy - I'm sure it's worth to be followed! ;)

I can't speak for Tak, but I think he was just wryly observing Steve's comment. Steve has a lot of cred, and states something point blank, most people know it holds water. :)

[Sailor Steve]

Sorry if I came over condesending folks. It just struck me there are so many other places on the net to talk about stuff like this.
Very true...but we have so much fun here.

I'm just a bit grouchy cos I gave up smoking Jan 1 after 40 years.
And that is a very good reason to be grouchy!:rock:

For my two penn'orth, I'm with Penelope on this one.
With which I can't argue; but then I think I stated that that's my feeling too.

[Stealth Hunter]

LOL this is great... a bunch of men debating abortion!?

It's the sequel to Twelve Angry Men:

A Forum of Angry Men, A Poll, and What the Moderators Saw.

[Skybird]

I see no issue having happened anyway, so never mind, Knipper, that's why Takeda surprised me with his intervention, and that especially towards Steve. So, one guy here got too little nicotine, and somebody else got too much coffein, that's all! ;) :lol: Neal wants the general forum to be a place were even many non-navy things can be discussed, like you talk in a bar or a lounge, only that potentially flamatory political and religious topics get tighter monitoring now and are tolerated at reduced numbers only, which is okay. Abortion might be strange to be discussed here - but we have seen much more weird stuff getting discussed in the GT forum over the years. Everybody can participate, but nobody must participate. Can't get more reasonable, i think. Ah, and good luck with your no-smoke-policy - I'm sure it's worth to be followed! ;)

I can't speak for Tak, but I think he was just wryly observing Steve's comment. Steve has a lot of cred, and states something point blank, most people know it holds water. :)
If that is true, I apologize if he thinks I commented on him for wrong reasons. sometimes the humour in writing is not that obvious like it is when being said vis-a-vis. At least my excuse is that what you just said about Steve is the reason why I defended him. Four friendly PM meanwhile show that Knipper and me have no probs whatever, too, so I probably scrambled for a false alert. Sorry, guys.

[Iceman]

Morally, I too am against abortion. Legally, I think things should stay exactly as they are, because I also realize that it is my moral belief, which not everyone agrees with, and as has been said, you can't legislate morality. If a woman disagrees, it's her body, her baby, her right and her decision, and no-one else's; not yours, not mine.

Hold on, the father should have equal decision power. After all, if the woman decides to give birth, he has to provide 50% of the support (well, actually more like 80%).

Neal, I think in the position the woman is (choosing abortion) the father is most times not interested.

That's probably true. I'm just highlighting the inconsistency--the woman's right to choose should not be an absolute right. What if the father wants to abort, why can't his right to choose trump the mother's right to carry the fetus to full term? That's equally his genetic material in there.

Who can deny, if your mother had aborted her fetus in the first trimester, you would not be here to argue this issue either way. Maybe that is not murder, to remove a clump of cells. But it is denying some eventual human being the complete right to exist.

I also cannot help but notice, that even firmly empowered with the "right to choose", most women feel shame about having an abortion. That says something.

What puzzles me, in this day and age, why unwanted pregnacies are so prevalent? Birth control is very easy and convenient. And with STDs, wth are people doing out there?

That's how I feel about it, but note this, I wouldn't cross the street to protest or campaign against Roe vs Wade. If someone wants to abort their own child, I think it's wrong but I won't lift a finger to stop them. I think it could be an ironic self-regulating form of soical Darwinism.

Hope I didn't anger anyone, just my opinion.

Excellent point there Neal...I think the point Fish made is grossly incorrect.If I get a woman pregnant and she wants to kill it and I as the father say no...then the woman should be forced to carry the child ,have it ,give it to me ,then hit the road...end of story.I would be happy with that decision by judges...at the very "Least" give the father a chance which only seems fair since if the tables were turned the woman may legally demand support for the child even if the father did not want it....Great point Neal.:up:

[Mikey_Wolf]

Like it or not lads - when it comes to babies, its a biological fact that the woman does all the hard work, so personally I think that the final say rests with her as it should do.

If she doesn't want to go through with a pregnancy and suffer agonising pain giving birth then, she should have an escape route. No man should be able to tell her she must have the baby.

Having said that, there shoudl be some sort of legal protection for a bloke who doesn't want anythiing to do with his child, in my view men like that are of very low caliber and class (unless they were tricked and became a dad without knowledge they were to become one) and I wouldn't spend time with them unless absolutely mandatory.

[Knipper]

sometimes the humour in writing is not that obvious like it is when being said vis-a-vis.

That's my (and I'm sure other people's) problem with BBS and indeed IM, I get carried away with the chat and forget people can't see me smiling wryly as I reply to something I thought was funny. I'm also aware my sense of humour can get out of hand sometimes. Peace and love to all :rock:

[Letum]

Who can deny, if your mother had aborted her fetus in the first trimester, you would not be here to argue this issue either way. Maybe that is not murder, to remove a clump of cells. But it is denying some eventual human being the complete right to exist.

If you want to make sure that no one is denied existence than you should have an
aggressive scheme of mandatory breeding. :doh:

Billions upon billions of people are denied existence because people don't breed
constantly.

[Tchocky]

Abortion is illegal here, which creates many more problems than it may have solved. There are thousands of young Irish women going to the UK/Continent for a long weekend :/

Criminalising abortion is a horrible thing to do, seeing as it's already one of the most traumatic choices that anyone can make.

[August]

Who can deny, if your mother had aborted her fetus in the first trimester, you would not be here to argue this issue either way. Maybe that is not murder, to remove a clump of cells. But it is denying some eventual human being the complete right to exist.
If you want to make sure that no one is denied existence than you should have an
aggressive scheme of mandatory breeding. :doh:

Billions upon billions of people are denied existence because people don't breed
constantly.
Which is not the same thing as what Neal was talking about at all... :roll:

[geetrue]

The only difference between the way the KKK killed black people and the way abortion kills black people is that it takes less time.

It only takes three days in America for the abortionist to kill the same amount of black people that the KKK has killed in all of the years they have been around.

I know it's a cruel world ... facts don't lie.

[SUBMAN1]

The only difference between the way the KKK killed black people and the way abortion kills black people is that it takes less time.

It only takes three days in America for the abortionist to kill the same amount of black people that the KKK has killed in all of the years they have been around.

I know it's a cruel world ... facts don't lie.Perfect post.

I'm personally in the middle. Not wanting to give Gov the control, but also thinking Mothers should bear the consequences of ones actions.

I am for abortion where mother life is threatened, or rape.

I also don't want to go back to a time when Government forced women to threaten ones life with a coat hanger or something.

I guess we must take the good with the bad.

-S

[Letum]

Who can deny, if your mother had aborted her fetus in the first trimester, you would not be here to argue this issue either way. Maybe that is not murder, to remove a clump of cells. But it is denying some eventual human being the complete right to exist.
If you want to make sure that no one is denied existence than you should have an
aggressive scheme of mandatory breeding. :doh:

Billions upon billions of people are denied existence because people don't breed
constantly.
Which is not the same thing as what Neal was talking about at all... :roll:

The connection you are failing to make is that Neal thinks that "denying some
eventual human being the complete right to exist" is wrong.

This is the same logic that causes the catholic church to ban condoms and it is a
deeply flawed logic, even if like Neal, you do not carry it all the way to its logical,
yet aubsurd, conclusions.

[August]

The connection you are failing to make is that Neal thinks that "denying some eventual human being the complete right to exist" is wrong.

This is the same logic that causes the catholic church to ban condoms and it is a
deeply flawed logic, even if like Neal, you do not carry it all the way to its logical,
yet aubsurd, conclusions.

Not the same thing at all Letum. Abortion shouldn't be considered just another form of birth control regardless of whether you're Catholic or not.

[Letum]

The connection you are failing to make is that Neal thinks that "denying some eventual human being the complete right to exist" is wrong.

This is the same logic that causes the catholic church to ban condoms and it is a
deeply flawed logic, even if like Neal, you do not carry it all the way to its logical,
yet aubsurd, conclusions.
Not the same thing at all Letum. Abortion shouldn't be considered just another form of birth control regardless of whether you're Catholic or not.


I'm not saying it is!

My only point in the first post of mine that you quoted is that:
"denying some eventual human being the complete right to exist" leads to absurd
conclusions and is thus a poor stance to argue from.

[Onkel Neal]

Who can deny, if your mother had aborted her fetus in the first trimester, you would not be here to argue this issue either way. Maybe that is not murder, to remove a clump of cells. But it is denying some eventual human being the complete right to exist.
If you want to make sure that no one is denied existence than you should have an
aggressive scheme of mandatory breeding. :doh:

Billions upon billions of people are denied existence because people don't breed
constantly.
Which is not the same thing as what Neal was talking about at all... :roll:

The connection you are failing to make is that Neal thinks that "denying some
eventual human being the complete right to exist" is wrong.

This is the same logic that causes the catholic church to ban condoms and it is a
deeply flawed logic, even if like Neal, you do not carry it all the way to its logical,
yet aubsurd, conclusions.

Uh, wrong. Why would you pretend to think I meant "eventual human being" as billions of isolated sperm and eggs cells? You know I was referring to an eventual human being that exists genetically at conception. I'm not going to explain it to you, the difference between conception and the capacity for conception should be obvious.



.

[Letum]

Who can deny, if your mother had aborted her fetus in the first trimester, you would not be here to argue this issue either way. Maybe that is not murder, to remove a clump of cells. But it is denying some eventual human being the complete right to exist.
If you want to make sure that no one is denied existence than you should have an
aggressive scheme of mandatory breeding. :doh:

Billions upon billions of people are denied existence because people don't breed
constantly.
Which is not the same thing as what Neal was talking about at all... :roll:
The connection you are failing to make is that Neal thinks that "denying some
eventual human being the complete right to exist" is wrong.

This is the same logic that causes the catholic church to ban condoms and it is a
deeply flawed logic, even if like Neal, you do not carry it all the way to its logical,
yet aubsurd, conclusions.
Uh, wrong. Why would you pretend to think I meant "eventual human being" as billions of isolated sperm and eggs cells? You know I was referring to an eventual human being that exists genetically at conception. I'm not going to explain it to you, the difference between conception and the capacity for conception should be obvious.

The difference is obvious, but the your definitions are not.

In what way are isolated gametes not an "eventual human being", even if they are destined to join,
but
A fertilized gamete is a "eventual human being" even tho it is destined to die before it becomes one?

Isn't that a inconsistency?

[Onkel Neal]

A fertilized gamete is a "eventual human being" even tho it is destined to die before it becomes one?

Isn't that a inconsistency?

No, it's not. Once they are joined and form a zygote, that minute group of cells will become a human being, unless interrupted by an outside force. If that is not the point where life begins, what is?

[Tchocky]

I never know where to draw the line.
Maybe real life begins at the moment the fetus is not dependent on a single exclusive person, ie at the moment of birth. But that's extremely problematic.

*sigh*

Let it be legal, if only so we don't end up criminalising women who make the choice.

[joegrundman]

Life begins when the child has left university with a professional degree.

[Sailor Steve]

:lol:

I've mentioned on a similar thread an old Jules Pfeiffer cartoon. A young girl is talking about herself, and it goes something like this:

"I was born in a ghetto. My father left home when I was five. I was raised on the streets. I was given drugs when I was ten. I was raped by a gang. Now I'm fourteen and pregnant. So you tell me - when does life begin?"

[Letum]

A fertilized gamete is a "eventual human being" even tho it is destined to die before it becomes one?

Isn't that a inconsistency?
No, it's not. Once they are joined and form a zygote, that minute group of cells will become a human being, unless interrupted by an outside force. If that is not the point where life begins, what is?
It is no more objective to take that as the point where something will "become a
human being" than any other.

If two particular isolated gametes are destined to become a human unless
interrupted by an outside force (i.e. a condom or the lack of a mandatory breeding
program), then it is utterly arbitrary to chose any one point as the point where a
human becomes eventual or inevitable. Especially since the eventuality is guaranteed
at no stage.


The "point where life begins" is a whole new question!
For this one we need a good tight definition of what "life" is.
I don't think there is any need to have a good tight definition and no need to decide
when "life begins" because what we do does not change because of a label we give
something.
Perhaps you disagree, in which case, for arguments sake, I would life to see what definition of "life" you favor.

[Skybird]

I never know where to draw the line.
Maybe real life begins at the moment the fetus is not dependent on a single exclusive person, ie at the moment of birth. But that's extremely problematic.

*sigh*

Let it be legal, if only so we don't end up criminalising women who make the choice.
Pragmatic, not the ideal solution (if there is any), but acceptable. I tend to agree.

I just remind that there is the option to make it /leave it legal and always possible for the mother to give her kid away for adoptions, unhindered and undiscriminated. That still leaves the mother with nine months - but then: no need to abort. And she might change her mind in that time, and after birth. I would always mention this option, and encourage and support to chose for it. But legal pressure not to abort I must refuse.