OMG I WAS TOOO I BET I NEVER SAW YOU THOUGHRAIMIUS wrote:
"As a former fetus, I am Pro-Life."
I agree with this sentiment.
Also, I think it is wrong that the father has no legal say, currently.
If the mother's health is in danger, I can see having an abortion.
Just about every arguement in there is crap. No offense.XstrangerdangerX wrote:
Thought it might be interesting to read your opinions on this.
I'ma start it off in my usual hostile fashion by putting up a post I made elsewhere.This comes from here: http://www.musicianforums.com/forums/sh … t=abortionme wrote:
The abortion debate has passed into farce.
6000 children die each fucking day from lack of access to fresh water and you sit here discussing an individuals decision to terminate a single fucking foetus? This is a sickening effect of moral isolationism.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it that we are blinded by our own media and it's lack of coverage or do we really not comprehend the fact that children die everyday from something so utterly banal?
Why does this debate cause such strong emotion in people? Protection of infants is one of the three essential underpinnings of any society (the other two being truth-telling and the banning of murder), so this is partly why, as a society we feel such outrage when a child is harmed, because this is a fundamental violation of what should be. However it does not follow that we can form such an emotional attachment to a foetus in a woman's womb. This child was unplanned, obviously unwanted, how is it an addition to our society? How does this affect our capacity to exist? Were someone into post term-abortion (something which I advocate regularly in the pit) then there is a problem, this is murder of a sentient creature.
How on earth is it up to you to dictate to a women what she will do with her child? How can we legislate against individual choice? This is what you are doing. You have NO right to tell a women 'you must bear the child, for the rest of your life'.
What if she's an incapable mother? A drug addict, a prostitute. What if she's a really nice person but just doesn't want a child? None of these mothers are going to give their child the attention, nourishment and upbringing that will be essential for it to operate in society. Would you farm out the children to be adopted? Where will you find these people in the immense volumes required? If you do find them, why aren't they having their own? Impotency incidence does not match the occurence of abortion.
So, because she had unprotected sex she should bear the responsibilities of her actions? Stop trotting out the same mindless aphorisms we were all subjected to in sex ed. For one broken condom or one night of sexual congress you would commit this person to 18 years of parental responsibility? Let's forget the fact that this person is not responsible enough to use a condom; we are not this harsh with murderers. The scale of punishment that you ascribe to this is akin to hanging someone for not paying a parking ticket. Your logic is flawed.
Will you tell me now it's immoral and it's murder? Bugger off to the third world and see what blood our indifference there has shed. The double standard here practically screams 'wake the fuck up'.
And where is the male in all this? Do those of you against abortion see no responsibility for the male? When debating abortion I often get the sense that these so called 'pro-lifers' have absolved the male of fault, or at least assigned a diminished responsibility. So often it is vilification of the mother that sits at the head of your outrage.
---as to the case stated at the start of the thread, there is no logical problem here, merely an affect of law. To 'throw the book at him' so to speak. It is more an additional punishment for his crime than a comment on the potentiality of the foetus.
(And I've left many open points so as to encourage debate, so don't think to zing me unless you've really thought about it and have an entirely new angle to discuss)
I know we have a number of christian and other religious folk on here, I'm interested in sharing opinions.
Paper, scissors, ROCK!
Me too. I find it odd that people can say a fetus is not a person when everyone alive at this moment was a fetus themselves. Had they been aborted, they would not exist. I don't like knowing that it was legal for my mother to take away my existence, had she chosen to do so. It's very disturbing.RAIMIUS wrote:
"As a former fetus, I am Pro-Life."
I agree with this sentiment.
Also, I think it is wrong that the father has no legal say, currently.
If the mother's health is in danger, I can see having an abortion.
You are considering a fetus as a person and you say that we shouldnt force a person to give up his/her life for another one.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Me too. I find it odd that people can say a fetus is not a person when everyone alive at this moment was a fetus themselves. Had they been aborted, they would not exist. I don't like knowing that it was legal for my mother to take away my existence, had she chosen to do so. It's very disturbing.RAIMIUS wrote:
"As a former fetus, I am Pro-Life."
I agree with this sentiment.
Also, I think it is wrong that the father has no legal say, currently.
If the mother's health is in danger, I can see having an abortion.
Also when a mothers health is in danger, that is the only time I see an abortion as being an option. I don't think it is a good thing but I also don't think you should be able to force someone to give their life to save anothers. You can't force someone to basically die for another person.
Last edited by MooseRyder (2006-04-20 23:12:09)
I suppose I see what you're saying. This is something I'll have to think more about. Perhaps the only moral thing is for the mother to always go through with it and hope for the best, however harsh that may sound.MooseRyder wrote:
You are considering a fetus as a person and you say that we shouldnt force a person to give up his/her life for another one.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Me too. I find it odd that people can say a fetus is not a person when everyone alive at this moment was a fetus themselves. Had they been aborted, they would not exist. I don't like knowing that it was legal for my mother to take away my existence, had she chosen to do so. It's very disturbing.RAIMIUS wrote:
"As a former fetus, I am Pro-Life."
I agree with this sentiment.
Also, I think it is wrong that the father has no legal say, currently.
If the mother's health is in danger, I can see having an abortion.
Also when a mothers health is in danger, that is the only time I see an abortion as being an option. I don't think it is a good thing but I also don't think you should be able to force someone to give their life to save anothers. You can't force someone to basically die for another person.
BUT between the fetus and the woman, the fetus should die, allthough you consider the fetus as a person like you,me,him and her. But still you would go for the woman and not the fetus in that case, the fetus (a person) would had to give up his life to save the womans life, which come against your statement. So you make no sense
Between the fetus and the woman? The fetus should die. Becuase IF the MOTHER dies, there's a good chance the baby will die too. Your 'hope for the best' would destroy the chance of the mother ever giving birth again.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
I suppose I see what you're saying. This is something I'll have to think more about. Perhaps the only moral thing is for the mother to always go through with it and hope for the best, however harsh that may sound.MooseRyder wrote:
You are considering a fetus as a person and you say that we shouldnt force a person to give up his/her life for another one.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Me too. I find it odd that people can say a fetus is not a person when everyone alive at this moment was a fetus themselves. Had they been aborted, they would not exist. I don't like knowing that it was legal for my mother to take away my existence, had she chosen to do so. It's very disturbing.
Also when a mothers health is in danger, that is the only time I see an abortion as being an option. I don't think it is a good thing but I also don't think you should be able to force someone to give their life to save anothers. You can't force someone to basically die for another person.
BUT between the fetus and the woman, the fetus should die, allthough you consider the fetus as a person like you,me,him and her. But still you would go for the woman and not the fetus in that case, the fetus (a person) would had to give up his life to save the womans life, which come against your statement. So you make no sense
Well, if the mother goes through with it, the baby would live. The mothers death does not mean the childs death.Spark wrote:
Between the fetus and the woman? The fetus should die. Becuase IF the MOTHER dies, there's a good chance the baby will die too. Your 'hope for the best' would destroy the chance of the mother ever giving birth again.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
I suppose I see what you're saying. This is something I'll have to think more about. Perhaps the only moral thing is for the mother to always go through with it and hope for the best, however harsh that may sound.MooseRyder wrote:
You are considering a fetus as a person and you say that we shouldnt force a person to give up his/her life for another one.
BUT between the fetus and the woman, the fetus should die, allthough you consider the fetus as a person like you,me,him and her. But still you would go for the woman and not the fetus in that case, the fetus (a person) would had to give up his life to save the womans life, which come against your statement. So you make no sense
Which it is not? Pretty sure the human life cycle starts at conception but ok, all these science classes must be wrong because the human body goes through no changes until the outside world.MrPredictable wrote:
If you want to say that a fetus is life(which it is not) that really doesnt change my mind at all
Last edited by MooseRyder (2006-04-20 23:43:47)
I ment life in more a human way and less a plant way.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Which it is not? Pretty sure the human life cycle starts at conception but ok, all these science classes must be wrong because the human body goes through no changes until the outside world.MrPredictable wrote:
If you want to say that a fetus is life(which it is not) that really doesnt change my mind at all
Our bodies go through continuous changes throughout our entire development, including inside and outside of the womb. To try to put a "date when life truly begins" at any point other than conception is ignorant and incorrect.
Ok, think of it in a philosophical way. How can a fetus not be alive if the very action of abortion is to take that life away?MrPredictable wrote:
I ment life in more a human way and less a plant way.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Which it is not? Pretty sure the human life cycle starts at conception but ok, all these science classes must be wrong because the human body goes through no changes until the outside world.MrPredictable wrote:
If you want to say that a fetus is life(which it is not) that really doesnt change my mind at all
Our bodies go through continuous changes throughout our entire development, including inside and outside of the womb. To try to put a "date when life truly begins" at any point other than conception is ignorant and incorrect.
Thank you. Due to your penetrating insight I have seen the light.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Just about every arguement in there is crap. No offense.XstrangerdangerX wrote:
Thought it might be interesting to read your opinions on this.
I'ma start it off in my usual hostile fashion by putting up a post I made elsewhere.This comes from here: http://www.musicianforums.com/forums/sh … t=abortionme wrote:
The abortion debate has passed into farce.
6000 children die each fucking day from lack of access to fresh water and you sit here discussing an individuals decision to terminate a single fucking foetus? This is a sickening effect of moral isolationism.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it that we are blinded by our own media and it's lack of coverage or do we really not comprehend the fact that children die everyday from something so utterly banal?
Why does this debate cause such strong emotion in people? Protection of infants is one of the three essential underpinnings of any society (the other two being truth-telling and the banning of murder), so this is partly why, as a society we feel such outrage when a child is harmed, because this is a fundamental violation of what should be. However it does not follow that we can form such an emotional attachment to a foetus in a woman's womb. This child was unplanned, obviously unwanted, how is it an addition to our society? How does this affect our capacity to exist? Were someone into post term-abortion (something which I advocate regularly in the pit) then there is a problem, this is murder of a sentient creature.
How on earth is it up to you to dictate to a women what she will do with her child? How can we legislate against individual choice? This is what you are doing. You have NO right to tell a women 'you must bear the child, for the rest of your life'.
What if she's an incapable mother? A drug addict, a prostitute. What if she's a really nice person but just doesn't want a child? None of these mothers are going to give their child the attention, nourishment and upbringing that will be essential for it to operate in society. Would you farm out the children to be adopted? Where will you find these people in the immense volumes required? If you do find them, why aren't they having their own? Impotency incidence does not match the occurence of abortion.
So, because she had unprotected sex she should bear the responsibilities of her actions? Stop trotting out the same mindless aphorisms we were all subjected to in sex ed. For one broken condom or one night of sexual congress you would commit this person to 18 years of parental responsibility? Let's forget the fact that this person is not responsible enough to use a condom; we are not this harsh with murderers. The scale of punishment that you ascribe to this is akin to hanging someone for not paying a parking ticket. Your logic is flawed.
Will you tell me now it's immoral and it's murder? Bugger off to the third world and see what blood our indifference there has shed. The double standard here practically screams 'wake the fuck up'.
And where is the male in all this? Do those of you against abortion see no responsibility for the male? When debating abortion I often get the sense that these so called 'pro-lifers' have absolved the male of fault, or at least assigned a diminished responsibility. So often it is vilification of the mother that sits at the head of your outrage.
---as to the case stated at the start of the thread, there is no logical problem here, merely an affect of law. To 'throw the book at him' so to speak. It is more an additional punishment for his crime than a comment on the potentiality of the foetus.
(And I've left many open points so as to encourage debate, so don't think to zing me unless you've really thought about it and have an entirely new angle to discuss)
I know we have a number of christian and other religious folk on here, I'm interested in sharing opinions.
Paper, scissors, ROCK!
There's really only one defense for abortion and it's not irresponsibility.
WTF? If the mother dies, then the baby has no life support. End.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Well, if the mother goes through with it, the baby would live. The mothers death does not mean the childs death.Spark wrote:
Between the fetus and the woman? The fetus should die. Becuase IF the MOTHER dies, there's a good chance the baby will die too. Your 'hope for the best' would destroy the chance of the mother ever giving birth again.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
I suppose I see what you're saying. This is something I'll have to think more about. Perhaps the only moral thing is for the mother to always go through with it and hope for the best, however harsh that may sound.
I would say the same. So you have no problem with mass murdering animals by the thousand, but you have a problem with killing ONE unborn baby?For those who say that a fetus is not a living person, what would you define it as?
It is a living entity of cells with human DNA. So, I would considder a fetus a person.
Last edited by dubbs (2006-04-22 01:59:55)
Since you did not quote anyone, and I was the last that posted check out this siteSpark wrote:
Really? I'd like to see a study of how this is possible.
I don't think anyone here is "for abortion" (I may be wrong though)dubbs wrote:
I have a question for all the people that are for abortion.
The law that defines a fetus as a living being for murder was created over 25 years after Roe v. Wade. A woman's right to dictate the outcome of her pregnancy is seen as a human right in the American culture. You are not a woman, you do not know what it is like to carry a living being inside of you. It is easy to sit back and say, "I'm Pro-Life, killing babies is bad." Everyone agrees babies should not be killed. Reality is, some people cannot afford to bring offspring into this world. All you people that are "pro-life/anti-abortion," can you afford to take another human into your household? If so, then do it. If not, then you know the situation some people are in.dubbs wrote:
If the soon to be mother is killed, and the fetus also dies, the killer is charged with two counts of muder. That law is saying that a fetus is a person and can be killed. Tell me what the difference is when a mother willingly allows a doctor to kill the fetus inside of her? Why do people overlook some laws, and try to justify other ones?
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2006-04-22 04:58:41)
you must still hve a tail thenRAIMIUS wrote:
For those who say that a fetus is not a living person, what would you define it as?
It is a living entity of cells with human DNA. So, I would considder a fetus a person.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-04-22 08:47:09)