Heated Debates I: Abortion

**TheFriendlyOgre** · June 14, 2005, 09:22 AM

For? Against? Why? Why not?

**DeleriumTrigger** · June 14, 2005, 09:43 AM

The thing is, i believe a woman has the right to do wutever she wants to her own body. If she just so happens to wanna play satan and kill the baby, thats her choice. However, if I had a girlfriend who wanted to do it, I wouldnt let her. Because I believe they have the choice, but its still wrong. I would take them all if I could. Your killing a living thing.

**Tom Paine** · June 14, 2005, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by DeleriumTrigger

The thing is, i believe a woman has the right to do wutever she wants to her own body. If she just so happens to wanna play satan and kill the baby, thats her choice. However, if I had a girlfriend who wanted to do it, I wouldnt let her. Because I believe they have the choice, but its still wrong. I would take them all if I could. Your killing a living thing.

So this is what they call double standards. Any woman except one you love has the right to do what she wants. Well, there you go. Anyways, I would like to take this debate iinto the ethical but non-religious area known as "grey". What are peoples views on situations like rape? Or failure of contraception? Or teenage pregnancy? Not pretty subjects, but still. I am pro-abortion in all cases; it is the woman's right to chose. However, if it was my (currently theoretical) girlfriend, then I would expect her to at least talk to me about her choice beforehand so I could at least help her through it, and the aftermath; but in the end, it is her body, and her wishes that count more, as she would be the one whose life was more disrupted (mothers' lives are typically more altered by the child than fathers').

**Armatus** · June 14, 2005, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by Squeakus Maximus

So this is what they call double standards. Any woman except one you love has the right to do what she wants. Well, there you go. Anyways, I would like to take this debate iinto the ethical but non-religious area known as "grey". What are peoples views on situations like rape? Or failure of contraception? Or teenage pregnancy? Not pretty subjects, but still. I am pro-abortion in all cases; it is the woman's right to chose. However, if it was my (currently theoretical) girlfriend, then I would expect her to at least talk to me about her choice beforehand so I could at least help her through it, and the aftermath; but in the end, it is her body, and her wishes that count more, as she would be the one whose life was more disrupted (mothers' lives are typically more altered by the child than fathers').

"Her body" is it really? I'm so tired of hearing that false arguement...

**Tom Paine** · June 14, 2005, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by Aeneus

"Her body" is it really? I'm so tired of hearing that false arguement...

So whose body is it? Yours? That harks back to the bad old days of wives being owned by their husbandsd.

**MoROmeTe** · June 14, 2005, 11:15 AM

Pro choice... The woman should have the right to do what she seems fit regarding her body, lest she injured herself in the process. If a woman wants an abortion, then she should be able to get one,as long as her life is not in danger because of it. It is HER body and only she can hold decision power over what happens to it.

It could be argued that she ahas the right to do whatever she wants with her body, including hurting herslef, but that would probably be much to radical...

**Belisarius** · June 14, 2005, 11:32 AM

I think this should be in the religion/moral etc forum section. But anyway I'll add My opinion

I’m neither Pro life nor choice I’m more pro circumstantial choice. Is the ball of cells a life? Biologically yes, they are a ball of cells, cells being the basic unit of structure and function of all life and are genetically different from the mother. I don’t take into account the arguments of the church ever, because they talk bollocks. Can the ball of cells survive on its own? Yes if given the nutrients and provided with an ideal environment. Problem is this environment is in the mother and therefore subjected to her will. Now Since I think the ball of cells is alive, or better yet, has the potential of life, don’t get this confused with the sperm, ovum etc those are genetically identical to the body, i.e. they have the same genes active or inactive due to genetic variation in meiosis. No, we are talking about a ball of genetically unique cells, therefore let’s clear up that contraception is not abortion, and, you’re in no way killing anything but your own cells, so ask the church if biting your nails is murder, same thing.

This brings me to my point, since most mothers have the choice of contraception, and are stupid enough to get pregnant. Condom is 99% effective, pill, the snip, time of the month.. The possibilities to prevent pregnancy are endless. So If some stupid jerry Springer "naughty person" gets herself pregnant out of her own stupidity then the “ball of cells shouldn’t be killed. Let her learn and have the baby which can then be given up for adoption. Baby lives, and abortion doesn’t become another form of contraception. But abortion does have its justifications.

1) If mothers life is at risk.
2) In the case of rape, but abortion should take place within a few weeks.
3) In the case of a still pregnancy, i.e the baby is dead.

I think those are the three main reasons, but abortion should not be a personal solution to convenience. In my opinion.

**ablitzkrieg** · June 14, 2005, 11:39 AM

Who friggin cares? If a couple decides that they are unable to care for a child then they should not have it. Sure, they should have been responsible and used protection in the first place but they didnt, so hopefully the experience of having to order the death of a developing child will teach them a lesson. Dont give me that "Fetus" Crap. That is a developing human being that you are killing. Go ahead, kill it. But dont sit there and tell me its "okay cus it cant talk yet."

I think this is a huge problem behind the whole Debate. Its the lack of responsibility and accountability. One side thinks that they shouldnt be responsible or accountable, and the other thinks that they should. The problem is that each side is trying to enforce their views on the other, which is why there are discussions on internet boards and in political debates.

**TheBagelmeister** · June 14, 2005, 11:44 AM

I'm 100% pro-choice. If someone screws up, why should atleast two individuals live miserable lives? The women who did not want to be a mother, and the child that isn't wanted by the mother? People screw up, that doesn't mean we ruin the rest of their lives.

I only agree with it though before the fetus is capable of actually sencing its environment, thus, before the brain develops. Before that, its non-sentient, and cannot possibly think or know if it is alive or dead.

**ablitzkrieg** · June 14, 2005, 11:45 AM

And i have never met a woman who had an abortion that didnt regret it. You know that you killed your child, but you are using an arguement to try to lessen your own guilt.

**Tom Paine** · June 14, 2005, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by GENERAL_MAXIMUS

I think this should be in the religion/moral etc forum section. But anyway I'll add My opinion

I’m neither Pro life nor choice I’m more pro circumstantial choice. Is the ball of cells a life? Biologically yes, they are a ball of cells, cells being the basic unit of structure and function of all life and are genetically different from the mother. I don’t take into account the arguments of the church ever, because they talk bollocks. Can the ball of cells survive on its own? Yes if given the nutrients and provided with an ideal environment. Problem is this environment is in the mother and therefore subjected to her will. Now Since I think the ball of cells is alive, or better yet, has the potential of life, don’t get this confused with the sperm, ovum etc those are genetically identical to the body, i.e. they have the same genes active or inactive due to genetic variation in meiosis. No, we are talking about a ball of genetically unique cells, therefore let’s clear up that contraception is not abortion, and, you’re in no way killing anything but your own cells, so ask the church if biting your nails is murder, same thing.

This brings me to my point, since most mothers have the choice of contraception, and are stupid enough to get pregnant. Condom is 99% effective, pill, the snip, time of the month.. The possibilities to prevent pregnancy are endless. So If some stupid jerry Springer "naughty person" gets herself pregnant out of her own stupidity then the “ball of cells shouldn’t be killed. Let her learn and have the baby which can then be given up for adoption. Baby lives, and abortion doesn’t become another form of contraception. But abortion does have its justifications.

1) If mothers life is at risk.
2) In the case of rape, but abortion should take place within a few weeks.
3) In the case of a still pregnancy, i.e the baby is dead.

I think those are the three main reasons, but abortion should not be a personal solution to convenience. In my opinion.

What is your stance on the Death Penalty then? Because what gets me mis that so many pro-lifers are also fanatical adherents of capital punishment. Now that makes no sense to me; surely if you view a ball of cells (ie a fetus) as a life, you must view that of a full-grown human equally worthy of life?

**Belisarius** · June 14, 2005, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by Squeakus Maximus

What is your stance on the Death Penalty then? Because what gets me mis that so many pro-lifers are also fanatical adherents of capital punishment. Now that makes no sense to me; surely if you view a ball of cells (ie a fetus) as a life, you must view that of a full-grown human equally worthy of life?

I dont really have a stance on it, doesnt exist here. But if you ask me death is much better then life behind bars. I'd go for the severe punishment of Life as a captive. If you get my point.

**Tom Paine** · June 14, 2005, 12:10 PM

I get it. And it does matter; and it wasn't only directed at you, you were just the most recent post that I could use to make the point (sorry and all that).

**CrayonVonCaesar** · June 14, 2005, 12:14 PM

THIS IS THE 100TH ABORTION THREAD THIS MONTH. I have an idea, kill me.
Anyway excuse the intrusion, continue the endless arguing..

**Tom Paine** · June 14, 2005, 12:16 PM

Foeti only, I'm afraid. But unluckily not even them, according to some people, and only criminals according to others.... Excuse the digression. I felt it was a point worth making.

**IronBrig4** · June 14, 2005, 12:58 PM

This thread will end in flames. They all do. That said, I'm pro-choice under special circumstances only. If the fetus was conceived as a result of rape or incest, then leave the choice to the mother. Just because you're pro-choice doesn't mean you're a murderer or anything of the sort. It just means that you place more value on the mother.

**Bovril** · June 14, 2005, 01:00 PM

Need abortion involve killing the baby? Can't they just whip it out and see how it gets on by itself? Mothers are allowed to give their born children up for adoption, why not their unborn children?

Edit: Actually, some one is going to think I'm stupid enough to believe a child could survive this. I don't. But I think that it shouldn't be the mother's legal responsibility to keep her child, but a moral one, uneforceable by law, since your not actually killing the child, you're opting out of supporting it. And if you were raped, I don't see any moral responsibility at all unless compasion is a responsibility.

**Destroyer Joe** · June 14, 2005, 01:05 PM

I am pro-life. If you don't want a kid, then don't have sex, it's as simple as that.

**TheBagelmeister** · June 14, 2005, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by Bovril

Need abortion involve killing the baby? Can't they just whip it out and see how it gets on by itself? Mothers are allowed to give their born children up for adoption, why not their unborn children?

I don't think its possible to do a 'fetus transplant'. Especially considering that the fetus gets oxygen from the mother, so I think it'd die. There might also be come problems like a rejection (or in this case, miscarriage). Anyway, I doubt too many people would volunteer to have a fetus implanted in their uterus. I'd think most couples looking for a baby would rather do it naturally, or have their own kid from their own genes.

Anyway, the fetus needs the mother for nutrients and oxygen. I dont think its possible yet to grow a fetus in a culture, only for really early stages as a zygotes.

As for mothers giving up their unborn children for adoption, maybe they dont want to go through the process of childbirth and pregnancy.

For us to be living in a world in which abortion is not needed is called the ideal. We dont live in an ideal world, and don't pretend to, so why pretend that when it comes to a fetus the situation must be in an ideal world?

But I think that it shouldn't be the mother's legal responsibility to keep her child, but a moral one, uneforceable by law, since your not actually killing the child, you're opting out of supporting it.

Thats a strange arguement. You can argue if someone becomes pregnant unintentionally, there is a good chance they were being irresponcible. But, if they were so irresponcible with something like sex, why do you think they'd be more responcible with handling a child?

I am pro-life. If you don't want a kid, then don't have sex, it's as simple as that.

You really believe people are going to go their entire lives as virgins? Thats quite a lot naive, the demands are way too high.