The thread where we make enemies out of friends, aka the abortion debate thread

By the unanimous vote of all twister111s here, I am starting a thread devoted to the debate of abortion.

Those who know my style know I'm generally fairly middle ground and am good at seeing others' perspectives and trying to be accommodating.  You will find no such middle ground here.  I feel abortion should only be permitted when the mother's health is severely at risk, be it physical or mental, meaning following rape/incest.  Even then, I feel it should not be a default decision, but rather a well-thought one.  I will never understanding how someone can feel so passionately about women's rights that they feel justified in removing the right to life of another human.  Even if I did not believe in God, I could never support this practice.  How can we protect the lives of endangered animals and plants, yet treat unborn human life as trivial because we are not endangered?  I'll never understand it.  But you're welcome to try to make me.  I'm ready to be outnumbered, but I assure you I am will not cop out on this topic.

darth_ender said:

How can we protect the lives of endangered animals and plants, yet treat unborn human life as trivial because we are not endangered?  I'll never understand it.  But you're welcome to try to make me.  I'm ready to be outnumbered, but I assure you I am will not cop out on this topic.

Because we are selfish, and they take a lot of work and get in our way, and each one of them is pretty close to a 20 year investment.

There are fates worse than death, to use a cliche. The developmental childhood years are extremely pivotal in an individual's life. You screw those up, you screw up the person. At this point we have layers upon layers of screwed up people in this country, prepared to make layers and layers of more screwed up people. If some of these people chose to "opt out" of at least one of their contributions to the screwed up masses...

I've seen some kids in some really heartwrenchingly awful situations thank to parents who were never fit to be parents. There are so many situations like this we can't even track or contain them all. If they are willing to undo what their irresponsible behavior created, by all means, let them spare that poor child from that fate.

Would you rather millions more children be born to parents who didn't really want them in the first place and who are not willing to make the sacrifices it takes to be even the lousiest of parents?

darth_ender said:  I will never understanding how someone can feel so passionately about women's rights that they feel justified in removing the right to life of another human.

while I am not pro-choice, I'll try to explain the logic used by the other side.   It's as simple as this: they don't believe they are taking the right of life away from another human.    They don't believe the fetus is a human yet.   They believe you become a human when born, therefore to them the fetus is not human life.  Since, to them,  a fetus is not human life, it does not have human rights.      

just to be clear I believe the fetus at sometime before birth becomes human and therefore acquires the human right to life before birth.   I am not sure exactly when it happens, but I believe it happens sometime before birth and after conception.   Probably leaning closer to conception.  I therefore am more on the pro-life side.  I do believe abortion is ok when the life of the mother is at stake.  I am not sure about rape.  It is a dilemma for me.       

CP3S said:

darth_ender said:

How can we protect the lives of endangered animals and plants, yet treat unborn human life as trivial because we are not endangered?  I'll never understand it.  But you're welcome to try to make me.  I'm ready to be outnumbered, but I assure you I am will not cop out on this topic.

Because we are selfish, and they take a lot of work and get in our way, and each one of them is pretty close to a 20 year investment.

It doesn't have to be a 20 year investment.   I am sure you've heard of adoption.    It really only needs to be a 9 month investment.

CP3S said:

There are fates worse than death, to use a cliche.

perhaps there are, but do you want others deciding that for you?   Do you want others deciding for you when your fate is worse than death and therefore deciding to do away with you?   I say we can't play god.  If we have to choose for another person, I we should assume life is always preferable to death.   The only person who should have the right to decide if death is preferable to life for a individual is the individual themselves. 

CP3S said:

 

The developmental childhood years are extremely pivotal in an individual's life. You screw those up, you screw up the person. At this point we have layers upon layers of screwed up people in this country, prepared to make layers and layers of more screwed up people. If some of these people chose to "opt out" of at least one of their contributions to the screwed up masses...

I've seen some kids in some really heartwrenchingly awful situations thank to parents who were never fit to be parents. There are so many situations like this we can't even track or contain them all. If they are willing to undo what their irresponsible behavior created, by all means, let them spare that poor child from that fate.

Would you rather millions more children be born to parents who didn't really want them in the first place and who are not willing to make the sacrifices it takes to be even the lousiest of parents?

again, you are deciding for the child, that the child is better off dead than alive.  You are playing God.  

twister111 said:

So I thought about the whole side of the debate of "a fetus is undoubtedly a person from the point of conception". Well then lets look at that from that perspective completely. Yes it being a person affords the right to live. Though the right to live comes with certain consequences to your actions. A starving person doesn't usually get away with stealing food. In spite of plenty of people treating their pants as food theft 'r us. Still without eating a person will die. Then what right does another individual have to force another to eat foods they don't normally eat, force bodily changes, cause them to throw up, force them to carry them around for 9 months, and kick the inside of their body? Essentially stealing nutrients from her to live. Now if it's that woman's choice to let those things happen then hey congrats! New life! Yay people are happy!

so you are comparing a bum on the street stealing food from a stranger  to fetus naturally taking nutrition from the mother?   I see that as a good comparison.    Neither a baby nor a fetus can fend for itself.   They need to be taken care of by someone.   As for the bum on the street,  there are charities and food stamps to use.  Just what do you expect a fetus to do?   I don't think we have the medical knowledge needed to remove a living fetus from the mother and provide it with the necessary nutrition it needs to survive and develop into a baby.   Until we do, I think it preferable that the fetus remain inside the mother until born.  

twister111 said:

However if a woman doesn't want a kid for various reasons why force her to go through all that? Yes a life will be lost, but shouldn't she have the right to self defence?

a fetus taking nutrients isn't what I'd call an attack needing to be defended from.   

twister111 said:

What I mean about that "self defence" point is that in a way that's what abortion is. It's protection from the injuries incurred during childbirth, the bodily changes, the weight gain, getting sick.

things that the fetus can't help from doing.  Things that the fetus made no conscious decision to do.  

twister111 said:

 

The quality of health for that person is a lot better aborting early. Hypothetically you hear a story on the news where a Woman had to get 20 stitches, or another story with a huge cut across her abdomen. Then you hear that she could've avoided such injury. It's hard not to instantly jump to the thought of "well why didn't you stop that?!" Isn't it? Even though you know I'm talking about a baby being born.

 

your last sentence already answered your question as why you didn't stop that.  

twister111 said:

All that said yes I realize a kid can be a wonderful, wondrous, and inspiring bit of joy to enter someone's life. I just recognize that the situation isn't completely black and white. There are too many variables to every situation to conclusively say "Yes you must keep the kid alive, because we say so!"

I wouldn't put it "because we say so!"  I would put it: " you must keep the kid alive cause murder is wrong" 

twister111 said:

I've only scratched the surface here. There's also the quality of life for the child after it's born, coming into the world unwanted already

again, when you talk about deciding whether the kid is better dead than alive, you are playing God.   Also remember as for being unwanted, there is always adoption. 

But I do agree with you twister111, is it a complicated question with many variables.   I am not exactly proud or happen my with my stance, but I can see no other way.  

theprequelsrule said:

There is only one question that should be asked when it comes to abortion: should a woman have the final say over the fate of something inside her?

in order to answer that question, you have to answer the real question: is what is inside her really human life or not. 

theprequelsrule said:

I feel that the opposition to abortion, from the ancient world to today, is based on keeping women under control of men.

I don't wish to be rude but that is bs.   I have no desire to "keep women under the control men".    Also remember many people opposed to abortion are women themselves.    This isn't about controlling women,  this is about protecting the rights of the child(specifically the right to live).  Now, you can argue the fetus isn't a human life, but many believe it is.  That is why they are opposed to abortion and not because they want to control women.    It was not my or any other man's decision that women would be the ones to carry the child to term.   If it were men that were the ones that got pregnant, I'd feel the way I do about abortion.    I think the argument that "people who are pro-life feel that way cause they want to oppress women" is just silly and stupid.     

theprequelsrule said:

I think if you agree with modern Western values, then you must automatically grant women the right to decide if the child they carry lives or dies.

did modern western values have decided that the fetus is not a human life and therefore has no right to life? 

(if you believe the fetus is a human life)did modern  western values decide that a woman has the right to play God with their unborn child's life?

theprequelsrule said:

It is one of those funny issues right? Liberals and conservatives are often on the side of the issue opposite to what you would expect. Conservatives should want the decision to remain with the family, while liberals would be more likely for the government to interfere to "protect" the child.

I guess I am liberal that wants to government to protect the child. 

Scientists need to figure out womb implants so men can carry babies.  With womb implants the conversion of body fat to fetus nutrients could make it a weight loss option, like the stomach band.  While increasing the dead beat parenting, to include a third surrogate.  Yeah sure, human body fat would probably not be sufficient for normal growth, but that's not the concern.  Stuffing the box with procreation offspring is the grand plan to aspire too, the hamsters might be the best at this, but human beings should be forced to do the same.  It's the best way to make Solent Green a reachable goal, so we can take the stomach fat fed babies and grind them back up to be re-eatten.  It'll take some time to work out the kinks of this perpetual energy machine, but gosh darn it with some talented minds, a reality can be this will!

What?

TV's Frink wrote: What?

Ok maybe I should re-explain.  I need to know the address of whom I should be mailing my gizz tissues to.  It's a tragedy that millions of my already upon creation dead sperm are going to waste when they could be frankensperm'd back to a life they never had.  The idea that for every one egg, gazbillions of sperm go dead.  They are all forms of life and should be given a chance.  Now I know you've just asked yourself the important question, but none, what's the best way to repress your self-doubt about ignoring all the lives past/present/future who don't get the personal attention a normal human being needs to be a functional member of society.  The answer to that is for the next post.

TV's Frink said:

What?

I used to be a firm anti-abortionist. In my POV abortion was to be avoided at all costs unless there was absolute 100% certainty that neither mother nor child would be able to survive pregnancy.

After I began to doubt my religious convictions my views began to grow progressively more liberal, until I finally lost all faith in my religion and did a complete 180.

These days I consider myself a firm antinatalist.

Warbler said:

 

They believe you become a human when born, therefore to them the fetus is not human life. 

That is not true at all. I don't know, and have never read about, anyone who believes that a fetus is not human until born. Most pro-choice advocates would agree that a fetus can be considered human when the cerebral cortex begins processing information like sounds and sensations outside the womb, which is around 5 months. That happens to fall in line with the 1992 Supreme Court case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which set the upper limit for legal abortions in the US at 22 weeks, the point at which a fetus is viable outside the womb.

I would not listen to anyone who tries to argue that a 38-week-old fetus is not human. That's just nonsense.

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:  I will never understanding how someone can feel so passionately about women's rights that they feel justified in removing the right to life of another human.

while I am not pro-choice, I'll try to explain the logic used by the other side.   It's as simple as this: they don't believe they are taking the right of life away from another human.    They don't believe the fetus is a human yet.   They believe you become a human when born, therefore to them the fetus is not human life.  Since, to them,  a fetus is not human life, it does not have human rights.      

I think you speak for pro-choice people way too casually for someone who isn't one himself. While I agree, there is a large population that likes to believe it as you have explained it, but there are plenty of pro-choice people, myself included, who do admit that a fetus is, scientifically and by definition, a human life form. Everyone else is just trying to sell something, make themselves feel better, or split hairs to confuse the dumb masses, or are one of the dumb masses themselves.

It is human. It has it's own unique human DNA.

CP3S said:

darth_ender said:

How can we protect the lives of endangered animals and plants, yet treat unborn human life as trivial because we are not endangered?  I'll never understand it.  But you're welcome to try to make me.  I'm ready to be outnumbered, but I assure you I am will not cop out on this topic.

Because we are selfish, and they take a lot of work and get in our way, and each one of them is pretty close to a 20 year investment.

It doesn't have to be a 20 year investment.   I am sure you've heard of adoption.    It really only needs to be a 9 month investment.

Have you looked into the adoption system? Foster homes and orphanages? Not as ideal of a situation as you'd like to think. End up with some pretty screwed up people from these kinds of places too.

And the repercussions of child bearing don't disappear after the ninth month... Not even necessarily nine months after that.

Also, you have to take care of yourself to bring a healthy baby into the world, a lot of women aren't prepared to do that. Do we force them to carry their babies to term, and if so does that mean we have to force them to sustain from alcohol, tobacco, and other perfectly legal things that may be harmful to the child we are forcing them to have?

again, you are deciding for the child, that the child is better off dead than alive.  You are playing God.  

I'm not playing God. No one is playing God. We are talking about an unborn person who requires living inside your body in order to stay alive. There are a lot of things a pregnant woman can do to her body to screw up and potentially kill the baby inside her. How is that playing God?

Until we do, I think it preferable that the fetus remain inside the mother until born.  

And if the mother doesn't want it there? Tough?

twister111 said:

However if a woman doesn't want a kid for various reasons why force her to go through all that? Yes a life will be lost, but shouldn't she have the right to self defence?

a fetus taking nutrients isn't what I'd call an attack needing to be defended from.   

This is typically the problem with the abortion debate. It is usually carried out by guys who are quick to brush it off and make comments like the above. Try being pregnant then making the same claim that it isn't an attack. Pregnancy can be extremely uncomfortable, and can do a lot to harm the mother's health.

twister111 said:

All that said yes I realize a kid can be a wonderful, wondrous, and inspiring bit of joy to enter someone's life. I just recognize that the situation isn't completely black and white. There are too many variables to every situation to conclusively say "Yes you must keep the kid alive, because we say so!"

I wouldn't put it "because we say so!"  I would put it: " you must keep the kid alive cause murder is wrong." 

And it is murder because we say so.

The word "murder" is properly used in reference to an unlawful killing, not just any killing in general.

theprequelsrule said:

I feel that the opposition to abortion, from the ancient world to today, is based on keeping women under control of men.

I don't wish to be rude but that is bs.   I have no desire to "keep women under the control men".  

You sure about that? Again, when you make your pro-life statements, make sure you take into consideration the fact that you are opposing the right to a choice you'll never have to make by any kind of stretch of the imagination. You're opposing the right of other people to a choice you'll never be faced with.

I always thought it would be interesting to see how the abortion debate would change if men suddenly were able to give birth, or even better, if suddenly ONLY men could give birth.

I wish I could have kept up on this thread yesterday, as I knew I'd have several replies to make when I got here.  It's nice to have Warbler on my side, considering our often opposing viewpoints.  On the other hand, it's interesting to see pro-guns C3PSin the opposite camp.  I know no one likes several consecutive replies, but it's easiest for me, so cue the descending sunglasses.

CP3S said:

darth_ender said:

How can we protect the lives of endangered animals and plants, yet treat unborn human life as trivial because we are not endangered?  I'll never understand it.  But you're welcome to try to make me.  I'm ready to be outnumbered, but I assure you I am will not cop out on this topic.

Because we are selfish, and they take a lot of work and get in our way, and each one of them is pretty close to a 20 year investment.

Children are an investment.  They are inconvenient.  No excuse.

I recently performed my nursing clinicals at a rest home.  There were several individuals of advancing age and health.  Many were experiencing some degree of dementia.  They all contributed nothing to society.  They no longer have any reproductive ability to carry on the species.  They suck resources from tax payers and possibly their families.  They add unnecessary stress to their family's lives.  They are living reservoirs of disease that can easily be transmitted to their care providers.  Economically speaking, our country would be better off if they were simply euthanized.  Healthwise, we would be far freer of disease if the pathogens' greatest ongoing source of sustenance were destroyed and incinerated.  For the health of their family, think of the reduced stress, their own lack of exposure to these elderly creatures' diseases, the times when they have to care for them in the home themselves and are exhausted from being the caregiver.  Why don't we just give every family member the option to terminate the person's life?  Because we are talking about people.  The thing that separates us from the animals, whether you are religious or not, is that we have the capacity and the desire to save each others' lives, and equally are morally obliged to do so.

Would you pull the plug on a comatose patient, especially one you knew would ultimately revive?

Would you end the life of a 2 week-old child, who may be outside the mother's body, is hardly less damaging to physical and emotional health?

Would you put down a child who is mentally retarded and will never have an IQ greater than that of a 3 year old?  That can represent an even greater investment than 20 years, he/she will get even more in the way and take even more work.  I'm happy to say, by the way, that my 33 year-old brother with Down's syndrome (not normally so handicapping, but his mentality is truly about that of a 3 year-old) is still being cared for by my parents, and he may not be looked at as much of investment as he provides little tangible return.

This response is not just to you, but to all.  Many people are a long-term investment, and many of them provide little more back than love.  But human life is sacred, and as long as I claim to be human, I see it my duty to protect the life of all other humans.

There are fates worse than death, to use a cliche. The developmental childhood years are extremely pivotal in an individual's life. You screw those up, you screw up the person. At this point we have layers upon layers of screwed up people in this country, prepared to make layers and layers of more screwed up people. If some of these people chose to "opt out" of at least one of their contributions to the screwed up masses...

I've seen some kids in some really heartwrenchingly awful situations thank to parents who were never fit to be parents. There are so many situations like this we can't even track or contain them all. If they are willing to undo what their irresponsible behavior created, by all means, let them spare that poor child from that fate.

Would you rather millions more children be born to parents who didn't really want them in the first place and who are not willing to make the sacrifices it takes to be even the lousiest of parents?

I think the option for adoption raised by Warbler is a perfectly good one.  The government does its best to assure the child goes to a healthy family, and for a guy who is involved in social work, I've seen just how much effort goes into this.  CPS is legally obliged (at least here in AZ) to provide a huge amount of services and resources and chances for a removed child to return to his/her parent(s).  Meanwhile, the foster parents and other potential adoptive homes are required to be far more perfect and stable to even have a chance.  Many people who would care well for children are unable to have them.

What's worse about this argument is that you wish to spare someone who has no choice as to how they ended up in his/her shoes a fate worse than death?  Oh no, my friend.  Could you honestly look at that child once born, knowing it was going to go to an abusive home, and therefore give it a lethal dose of medication?  You have no right, no right to end that life, regardless of the circumstances.  If anything, you are morally obliged to preserve that life to the best of your ability and seek a means of altering that child's fate.

I am not one for big government, but in response to your last question, I'd rather have the government more willing to remove children from lousy homes and less willing to return them.  I've seen how damaging our current laws are.  I have a front row seat in my job.

twister111 said:

 

darth_ender said:

By the unanimous vote of all twister111s here, I am starting a thread devoted to the debate of abortion.

Anyway coincidently I was thinking about the walking dead's Pro-life message during it's zombie apocalypse premise a few days ago. It really got me thinking about the subject of abortion as weird as that is...

So I thought about the whole side of the debate of "a fetus is undoubtedly a person from the point of conception". Well then lets look at that from that perspective completely. Yes it being a person affords the right to live. Though the right to live comes with certain consequences to your actions. A starving person doesn't usually get away with stealing food. In spite of plenty of people treating their pants as food theft 'r us. Still without eating a person will die. Then what right does another individual have to force another to eat foods they don't normally eat, force bodily changes, cause them to throw up, force them to carry them around for 9 months, and kick the inside of their body? Essentially stealing nutrients from her to live. Now if it's that woman's choice to let those things happen then hey congrats! New life! Yay people are happy!

However if a woman doesn't want a kid for various reasons why force her to go through all that? Yes a life will be lost, but shouldn't she have the right to self defence? What I mean about that "self defence" point is that in a way that's what abortion is. It's protection from the injuries incurred during childbirth, the bodily changes, the weight gain, getting sick. The quality of health for that person is a lot better aborting early. Hypothetically you hear a story on the news where a Woman had to get 20 stitches, or another story with a huge cut across her abdomen. Then you hear that she could've avoided such injury. It's hard not to instantly jump to the thought of "well why didn't you stop that?!" Isn't it? Even though you know I'm talking about a baby being born.

All that said yes I realize a kid can be a wonderful, wondrous, and inspiring bit of joy to enter someone's life. I just recognize that the situation isn't completely black and white. There are too many variables to every situation to conclusively say "Yes you must keep the kid alive, because we say so!" I've only scratched the surface here. There's also the quality of life for the child after it's born, coming into the world unwanted already, and hell I could write an entire book on all the different variables for deciding to abort.

Finally, I do feel that there are some situations where it's distasteful to abort. Mostly when the kid is close to being born. Got a 9 month alert window and you decide to wait until it's close to being fully formed to want an abortion??? What??? At that point just procrastinate for a little while longer, give birth, give the baby up for adoption.

 

Consequences to your actions?  Whose actions?  I think the only people who made a choice here are the parents who had sexual intercourse.  Who is so stupid that they don't know that sex leads to babies?  Mom and Dad made the choice, not the child.  Don't you think that they should be the ones to face consequences for their actions?

See my comparison to the invalids who contribute little and consume much when you think of your stealing food analogy.  Life is full of extremely inconvenient situations and people.  If the easiest way to eliminate that inconvenience is to take a human life, that still doesn't make it right.  Think of a woman in an abusive relationship.  This man threatens to stalk her and hunt her down wherever she goes.  The easiest course of action may be to simply shoot him while he sleeps.  That's self-defense, right?  I think you know that is wrong.  How could it be wrong to kill an evil man who makes evil choices, yet perfectly acceptable to kill an innocent child who has made no choices but is rather the product of someone else's irresponsible choices?

I of all people am stuck in grey land.  I better than most, I feel, know that life is not black and white.  Read through the politics thread from page 406 on and you will get a taste of my pragmatic personality.  I see ideals, and I see reality, and I conclude that in our present state of humanity, we cannot simply stick to our perfect world hopes at all times.  But when it comes to abortion, I see very, very little grey.  You are taking an innocent person's life.  I've mentioned my grey area, and even there I think that much consideration should be given before performing an abortion.

theprequelsrule said:

There is only one question that should be asked when it comes to abortion: should a woman have the final say over the fate of something inside her?

I feel that the opposition to abortion, from the ancient world to today, is based on keeping women under control of men. And I am a semi-misogynistic male myself, so I don't usually take the Feminist perspective. I think if you agree with modern Western values, then you must automatically grant women the right to decide if the child they carry lives or dies.

I'm not saying we should throw a party when an abortion is performed or anything.

It is one of those funny issues right? Liberals and conservatives are often on the side of the issue opposite to what you would expect. Conservatives should want the decision to remain with the family, while liberals would be more likely for the government to interfere to "protect" the child.

 

Let me ask you the same question with a minor change.  Should a prenatal woman have the final say over the fate of something inside her?  Yes, remember, more than half of the world's aborted children are female, future women.  If we're pro-choice, what happened to their choice?  Think I'm not for women's rights?  I'm certainly for a woman's right to live, just as I am for a man's choice to live.  As Warbler stated and I heartily agree, if God (or nature for you non-believers) had given me and my sex the responsibility of carrying a child for 9 months, I would be equally pro-life, if not more so.

Modern Western values are more charitable towards human life than virtually any other society, past or present.  How casually have humans been killed in the past, or how casually are they killed in many other cultures today (think Middle East terrorism, Chinese daughter drowning, etc.)  Don't for a moment claim that Western values demand abortion.  The only Western value that comes close to doing so is our tendency to avoid responsibility for our actions.  I was ill prepared to raise a child when I first found out my wife was pregnant, let alone the twins it turned out we were having.  But I learned to man up and be a dad.  Perhaps if we better instilled this value in our society today, there would be no more excuse for wanting to abort a person.

none said:

Scientists need to figure out womb implants so men can carry babies.  With womb implants the conversion of body fat to fetus nutrients could make it a weight loss option, like the stomach band.  While increasing the dead beat parenting, to include a third surrogate.  Yeah sure, human body fat would probably not be sufficient for normal growth, but that's not the concern.  Stuffing the box with procreation offspring is the grand plan to aspire too, the hamsters might be the best at this, but human beings should be forced to do the same.  It's the best way to make Solent Green a reachable goal, so we can take the stomach fat fed babies and grind them back up to be re-eatten.  It'll take some time to work out the kinks of this perpetual energy machine, but gosh darn it with some talented minds, a reality can be this will!

Um, thank you for participating...

DuracellEnergizer said:

I used to be a firm anti-abortionist. In my POV abortion was to be avoided at all costs unless there was absolute 100% certainty that neither mother nor child would be able to survive pregnancy.

After I began to doubt my religious convictions my views began to grow progressively more liberal, until I finally lost all faith in my religion and did a complete 180.

These days I consider myself a firm antinatalist.

So if I am to understand you correctly, you are  completely opposed to birth, and thus favor human extinction?  I know you've got a bizarre sense of humor, so I'm going to assume you're kidding with your last sentence.

CP3S said:

 but there are plenty of pro-choice people, myself included, who do admit that a fetus is, scientifically and by definition, a human life form.

if that is what you believe, why do you think people have the right to kill it.

CP3S said:

CP3S said:

darth_ender said:

How can we protect the lives of endangered animals and plants, yet treat unborn human life as trivial because we are not endangered?  I'll never understand it.  But you're welcome to try to make me.  I'm ready to be outnumbered, but I assure you I am will not cop out on this topic.

Because we are selfish, and they take a lot of work and get in our way, and each one of them is pretty close to a 20 year investment.

It doesn't have to be a 20 year investment.   I am sure you've heard of adoption.    It really only needs to be a 9 month investment.

Have you looked into the adoption system? Foster homes and orphanages? Not as ideal of a situation as you'd like to think. End up with some pretty screwed up people from these kinds of places too.

but can you really be certain foster homes and orphanages are worst than death?   Also not all babies that are up for adoption end up in foster homes and/or orphanages.    Some people find the adoptive parents before the baby is born.   Then the baby goes directly from the natural mother to the adoptive parents.   I don't think that is so bad.

CP3S said:

And the repercussions of child bearing don't disappear after the ninth month... Not even necessarily nine months after that.

I could be wrong, but I think mothers usually recover quickly from birth if they take care of themselves.

CP3S said:

 

Also, you have to take care of yourself to bring a healthy baby into the world, a lot of women aren't prepared to do that. Do we force them to carry their babies to term, and if so does that mean we have to force them to sustain from alcohol, tobacco, and other perfectly legal things that may be harmful to the child we are forcing them to have?

better that than kill another human being. 

CP3S said:

again, you are deciding for the child, that the child is better off dead than alive.  You are playing God.  

I'm not playing God. No one is playing God. We are talking about an unborn person who requires living inside your body in order to stay alive. There are a lot of things a pregnant woman can do to her body to screw up and potentially kill the baby inside her. How is that playing God?

I am not sure what else you call it went you decide that someone is better off death than alive and therefore its ok to kill that person. 

CP3S said:

Until we do, I think it preferable that the fetus remain inside the mother until born.  

And if the mother doesn't want it there? Tough?

and if the child doesn't want to die? though?

CP3S said:

twister111 said:

However if a woman doesn't want a kid for various reasons why force her to go through all that? Yes a life will be lost, but shouldn't she have the right to self defence?

a fetus taking nutrients isn't what I'd call an attack needing to be defended from.   

This is typically the problem with the abortion debate. It is usually carried out by guys who are quick to brush it off and make comments like the above. Try being pregnant then making the same claim that it isn't an attack. Pregnancy can be extremely uncomfortable, and can do a lot to harm the mother's health.

I am sure it can, but I still don't how a fetus taking nutrients can be compared to a mugging.    The fetus isn't even making a conscious choice. 

CP3S said:

twister111 said:

All that said yes I realize a kid can be a wonderful, wondrous, and inspiring bit of joy to enter someone's life. I just recognize that the situation isn't completely black and white. There are too many variables to every situation to conclusively say "Yes you must keep the kid alive, because we say so!"

I wouldn't put it "because we say so!"  I would put it: " you must keep the kid alive cause murder is wrong." 

And it is murder because we say so.

I am not sure what else you call killing a human being.   

tell me, does the KKK have a right to say that killing black people isn't murder?  nope.   that's also cause we say so.

CP3S said:

The word "murder" is properly used in reference to an unlawful killing, not just any killing in general.

in Germany in the early 1940's I am pretty sure it wasn't unlawful to kill a Jewish person, yet it I am pretty sure we'd still call it murder.   

CP3S said:

You sure about that?

so now you want infer that I am sexist just because I a pro-abortion?   Even though I a pro-all kinds of women's rights?   Don't ever complain about someone saying race has something to do with those that hate Obama. 

to answer your question: yes I am 200% certain I have no desire to control women.  All I want to do preserve life once it already exists.    That you would infer I am a sexist and that I want to control women, angers me. 

As for defending abortion even if it is human life:   If the fetus is human with the same rights as you and I?  how is killing it any different than killing it once its outside the womb?  If a mother gave birth to a baby, and then decided that since she really didn't want it.  She thought adoption is so terrible and the baby will be better off dead than alive, so she kills it.   We call that murder, right?   Why should it be different for a human still inside the womb?

asterisk8 said:

Warbler said:

 

They believe you become a human when born, therefore to them the fetus is not human life. 

That is not true at all. I don't know, and have never read about, anyone who believes that a fetus is not human until born. Most pro-choice advocates would agree that a fetus can be considered human when the cerebral cortex begins processing information like sounds and sensations outside the womb, which is around 5 months. That happens to fall in line with the 1992 Supreme Court case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which set the upper limit for legal abortions in the US at 22 weeks, the point at which a fetus is viable outside the womb.

I would not listen to anyone who tries to argue that a 38-week-old fetus is not human. That's just nonsense.

It's not just nonsense, as many abortions have been performed past that legal limit with no legal action pursued.  Can't think of that doctor who was murdered two or three years back.  I would certainly never advocate murdering him, but I would certainly think that he should have gotten in trouble for the numerous post-22 week abortions he performed.

Nevertheless, this timeframe is still too arbitrary to me.  Again, refer to the scenario I brought up before.  Lets say we have a man in a coma.  We know he will recover fully within 9 months.  We see little brain activity in our MRIs and CT scans.  We know he will feel no pain if we simply inject a lethal drug into his IV.  His medical bills are destroying the lives of his family members.  Can we kill him?  According to the general arguments of personhood, for the duration of his coma, or at least until greater brain activity returns, he is not a person.  Can we kill someone who is temporarily not a person?  Heck, he may even awake to an extremely disappointing life, paralyzed, neglected or abused in a long-term facility.  Should we spare him "a fate worse than death"?

CP3S said:

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:  I will never understanding how someone can feel so passionately about women's rights that they feel justified in removing the right to life of another human.

while I am not pro-choice, I'll try to explain the logic used by the other side.   It's as simple as this: they don't believe they are taking the right of life away from another human.    They don't believe the fetus is a human yet.   They believe you become a human when born, therefore to them the fetus is not human life.  Since, to them,  a fetus is not human life, it does not have human rights.      

I think you speak for pro-choice people way too casually for someone who isn't one himself. While I agree, there is a large population that likes to believe it as you have explained it, but there are plenty of pro-choice people, myself included, who do admit that a fetus is, scientifically and by definition, a human life form. Everyone else is just trying to sell something, make themselves feel better, or split hairs to confuse the dumb masses, or are one of the dumb masses themselves.

It is human. It has it's own unique human DNA.

 

CP3S said:

darth_ender said:

How can we protect the lives of endangered animals and plants, yet treat unborn human life as trivial because we are not endangered?  I'll never understand it.  But you're welcome to try to make me.  I'm ready to be outnumbered, but I assure you I am will not cop out on this topic.

Because we are selfish, and they take a lot of work and get in our way, and each one of them is pretty close to a 20 year investment.

It doesn't have to be a 20 year investment.   I am sure you've heard of adoption.    It really only needs to be a 9 month investment.

Have you looked into the adoption system? Foster homes and orphanages? Not as ideal of a situation as you'd like to think. End up with some pretty screwed up people from these kinds of places too.

And the repercussions of child bearing don't disappear after the ninth month... Not even necessarily nine months after that.

Also, you have to take care of yourself to bring a healthy baby into the world, a lot of women aren't prepared to do that. Do we force them to carry their babies to term, and if so does that mean we have to force them to sustain from alcohol, tobacco, and other perfectly legal things that may be harmful to the child we are forcing them to have?

I'm sorry that being a parent requires more responsibility than living the free life, but we also require that parents abstain from otherwise legal things once the child is born and in the home.  A parent can live in a dump if they want, but when they have a child, the situation changes.  I'm sorry that nature requires that women bear the brunt of that physical responsibility, but I certainly am not opposed to society and the government requiring far more responsibility from men than it currently does.

As for the rest of what you've said above, I think I've covered it, so I will move on.

 

again, you are deciding for the child, that the child is better off dead than alive.  You are playing God.  

I'm not playing God. No one is playing God. We are talking about an unborn person who requires living inside your body in order to stay alive. There are a lot of things a pregnant woman can do to her body to screw up and potentially kill the baby inside her. How is that playing God?

I think he's talking about consciously damaging or killing the baby, which to me does seem like playing God.

Until we do, I think it preferable that the fetus remain inside the mother until born.  

And if the mother doesn't want it there? Tough?

As a parent, there are days where I swear I don't want my kids.  Ask any parent, and there are times where they feel so stressed they wish they had no kids.  Yes, the answer to them is "Tough."  Mind you, I love my kids and would not trade them for anything, but even if I truly did not want them, there are legal processes to ensure they be raised by someone who does want them.  Such is the case for mothers of unwanted children.  And often, when those mothers get a glimpse of their children for the first time on an ultrasound, their perspective changes drastically.  Why not give them the opportunity to at least determine if they really want the child instead of "protecting women's rights" by pressuring her to make an uninformed decision.  I hate the arguments against even that much.

 

twister111 said:

However if a woman doesn't want a kid for various reasons why force her to go through all that? Yes a life will be lost, but shouldn't she have the right to self defence?

a fetus taking nutrients isn't what I'd call an attack needing to be defended from.   

This is typically the problem with the abortion debate. It is usually carried out by guys who are quick to brush it off and make comments like the above. Try being pregnant then making the same claim that it isn't an attack. Pregnancy can be extremely uncomfortable, and can do a lot to harm the mother's health.

If a mother wants to be protected from pregnancy, in the majority of cases I have a fool-proof plan: abstinence.  Oh, wait.  Life's about fun.  Life's about pleasure.  Life's not about responsibility.

C'mon, even pure naturalists know that sex's primary purpose is not so little kids can have fun on prom night; it's for reproduction.  Forgive me for not enabling responsibility with choices.

twister111 said:

All that said yes I realize a kid can be a wonderful, wondrous, and inspiring bit of joy to enter someone's life. I just recognize that the situation isn't completely black and white. There are too many variables to every situation to conclusively say "Yes you must keep the kid alive, because we say so!"

I wouldn't put it "because we say so!"  I would put it: " you must keep the kid alive cause murder is wrong." 

And it is murder because we say so.

The word "murder" is properly used in reference to an unlawful killing, not just any killing in general.

Well, that's true!  And it's convenient.  I guess that means Hitler didn't murder Jews, homosexuals, Poles, Jehovah's Witnesses, or POWs.  It was legal, after all.  Copy and paste your favorite dictator and those groups legally killed under their direction.

theprequelsrule said:

I feel that the opposition to abortion, from the ancient world to today, is based on keeping women under control of men.

I don't wish to be rude but that is bs.   I have no desire to "keep women under the control men".  

You sure about that? Again, when you make your pro-life statements, make sure you take into consideration the fact that you are opposing the right to a choice you'll never have to make by any kind of stretch of the imagination. You're opposing the right of other people to a choice you'll never be faced with.

 

 

That is a pretty low blow.  For what reason does my wife oppose abortion?  Is it because our society, my church, or her domineering husband have brainwashed her into opposing this practice.  She's had a cesarean.  She's gained weight.  She has stretch marks and varicose veins.  It was uncomfortable and painful to her.  But remarkably, she abhors the practice.  You, as a male, have no more or less of a right to favor abortion than Warbler or I have to oppose it.  You will never be in their shoes either, and thus don't truly know the pain or inconvenience of childbirth.  Heck, I suspect I at least have a better glimpse than you do, considering I was there when my sons and daughter were born and helped care for my wife as she recovered.  Don't you accuse anyone of sexism when they simply value human life even above a woman's health.

TV's Frink said:

I always thought it would be interesting to see how the abortion debate would change if men suddenly were able to give birth, or even better, if suddenly ONLY men could give birth.

You might be surprised.  It is a fair assertion that women generally are more compassionate than men.  More of the world might oppose abortion if the shoe were on the other foot and women didn't know what it was like to go through pregnancy, and would likely put human life above male discomfort and inconvenience.

CP3S said:

twister111 said:

However if a woman doesn't want a kid for various reasons why force her to go through all that? Yes a life will be lost, but shouldn't she have the right to self defence?

a fetus taking nutrients isn't what I'd call an attack needing to be defended from.   

This is typically the problem with the abortion debate. It is usually carried out by guys who are quick to brush it off and make comments like the above.

I am sure many women who are pro-life and have had babies, also make the same argument.