Abortion

[DeletedUser14029]

I know what J412 is saying... just that I want to point out his first few paragraphs gives the impression that 'since it's illegal and causes a lot of troubles, let's legalise it etc', being of Christian background I am inclined to say Abortion is wrong. hence my reply.

I take Religious Studies as one of my subjects and I have studied about Abortion.
It is a much conflicting issue, but the general picture is that other than the woman having forceful sexual intercourse (rape, for example) all other reasons that ended up in pregnancy is due to the woman's consent. Therefore, as a previous player had said, should bear the consequences. 'sides, we should only be 'doing our part' (quoting Dr. Kleiner from Half-Life 2: Episode One) after we're married. . .

 

[DeletedUser]

Pro1000, as it seem you're not at all familiar with the concern J412 is presenting, I'm going to discuss just one aspect of this abortion debate. A major problem with making abortion illegal, based on firm statistics, is that women who seek an abortion will still obtain them, either illegally or elsewhere and via dangerous conditions. Numbers show the death/injury rate of women seeking abortion illegally is immense.

Just to touch another thing -- the pro life movement is largely headed by men, and comprised of men. This indicates the issue is not merely pro life, but gender-related, goes right back to the issue of women's rights, and shows how not only is there still a race war, but a gender war.

hellstromm im going to comment on this after as I do not have time to do it right now (church) but when I get back I would love to make a few comments on this. so just sit tight for an hour or so.

 

[DeletedUser]

I know what J412 is saying... just that I want to point out his first few paragraphs gives the impression that 'since it's illegal and causes a lot of troubles, let's legalise it etc', being of Christian background I am inclined to say Abortion is wrong. hence my reply.

I take Religious Studies as one of my subjects and I have studied about Abortion.
It is a much conflicting issue, but the general picture is that other than the woman having forceful sexual intercourse (rape, for example) all other reasons that ended up in pregnancy is due to the woman's consent. Therefore, as a previous player had said, should bear the consequences. 'sides, we should only be 'doing our part' (quoting Dr. Kleiner from Half-Life 2: Episode One) after we're married. . .

So since we bear the consequences for our own actions are you therefore of the opinion that people should not receive medical help for accidents?

Say for instance you slip when cutting down a tree and end up chopping off half your leg with a chainsaw, should we leave you to bleed to death since you willing went to chop the tree down but still cut your own leg off?

 

[DeletedUser]

I take Religious Studies as one of my subjects and I have studied about Abortion.

I understand you want to apply Christian ethics to this situation, but it really doesn't apply. This is about law, not ethics or morals and certainly not about the church.

Let's, for the sake of argument, say that the fetus is a living being.

I am saying this: the rights of the woman should trump the rights of an unborn baby. Whether she consents or not is not the issue. The bottom line is she does not want to commit to raising a child at that particular time then one of her options is an abortion.

I understand the issue is complex and certainly it is not a victimless act, but I think the woman (a taxpaying citizen who's rights are guaranteed the second she is born) takes precedent over the fetus even if it DID have civil rights, which it doesn't.

 

[DeletedUser14029]

eh,
if the fetus is a living being you think it will like to die?

I don't think your view that 'since one talks, the other can't, the latter can be ignored' view works. . .

one of the problems ensuing this is because after legalisation of abortion, and under very safe conditions, abortion will be used as another means of contraception. 'least with it illegal people will think twice about it.

 

[DeletedUser]

eh,
if the fetus is a living being you think it will like to die?

I don't think your view that 'since one talks, the other can't, the latter can be ignored' view works. . .

one of the problems ensuing this is because after legalisation of abortion, and under very safe conditions, abortion will be used as another means of contraception. 'least with it illegal people will think twice about it.

I'd like to ask if you have ever been in a situation where you or your partner were pregnant and you didn't think you were able to raise the child properly?

Before simply assuming people think of it as another means of contraception have you ever spoken to people who have had or been involved with someone who had an abortion? Have you ever asked them about the mental anguish that surrounds it?

If not then do not preach to me from ignorance.

 

[DeletedUser14029]

1st Question: I am 16. I am a girl. Thankfully I have not encountered such tragedy, thank you.

2nd Question: Really I do pity those that undergo abortion. (do you count parents who lost a child during pregnancy then never get pregnant again due to age feeling that kind of anguish too? if so then I can say I do) but just LOOK OUT of the window. Teenagers are pregnant at the age of 15, 16, even 12. They don't have the ability to restrain themselves effectively. That's more the reason to oppose abortion - with it legalised, they rush to have an abortion, then later feel traumatized. Then as they feel sad they look for joy in sex and it continues as a vicious cycle, minus the legalisation process in the city I leave in. These stories are not so uncommon.

 

[DeletedUser]

Morality is a myth, Humans are by nature cruel animals inside the sphere of natural selection, predation/prey and the food chain, only religion tries pitifully to exercise humanity from the animal kingdom and deny a right to survival. Interests of the many over the few, or the one

Abortion as a survival necessity can be justified, as a convenience no... from a woman's standpoint, if she does not have the resources, and/or has a fear of the pregnancy/birthing process which can and does have the chance to kill her, she is understandable justified in considering abortion for her own survival.

Lastly, forcing your personal world view upon another independent being in the universe is just plain wrong, you have far less right to tell another person how to approach their personal issues, then they have to their own. I will not tell you you cannot drive in the LA traffic because you could kill yourself with all that terribad 90 mph bumper-to-bumper driving going on, I can council you on the consequences of your action though. Legislating morality does not work... people much reach their decision through their own moral fiber.

 

[DeletedUser14029]

Funny you should mention moral (off-topic). Even before the introduction of religion into regions, people already have a basic set of morality in their mind. murder is wrong, obedience towards a rightful leader etc.

I give up trying to explain my point because no one listens. Or my English is not good enough to tell you guys my point plainly, but in a well-developed society even a poor mother giving birth to a child is not the end of days (social welfare, perhaps). . . (for poor countries I will say contraception BEFORE pregnancy is better don't you think?)

cases where the babies endanger their mothers during the process of giving birth is clearly a minority to those that want to get rid of their 'responsibilities', so generally speaking (yes I changed my viewpoint. have to make it more reasonable), Abortion should not be legalised. special permits for life-threatening cases only.

and you CAN tell me I cannot drive in the LA traffic - it does not contradict my human rights. also personal freedom is not infinite, mind you~

(Lastly, I am a student so my responses may come much later than you expect due to school, homework and revisions. Please be patient and keep this debate in a sane, calm and sensible level for the sake of not getting locked by mods >.<)

 

[DeletedUser]

Pro1000, as it seem you're not at all familiar with the concern J412 is presenting, I'm going to discuss just one aspect of this abortion debate. A major problem with making abortion illegal, based on firm statistics, is that women who seek an abortion will still obtain them, either illegally or elsewhere and via dangerous conditions. Numbers show the death/injury rate of women seeking abortion illegally is immense.

Just to touch another thing -- the pro life movement is largely headed by men, and comprised of men. This indicates the issue is not merely pro life, but gender-related, goes right back to the issue of women's rights, and shows how not only is there still a race war, but a gender war.

ok hellstromm im back

the first thing I would like to say is that there were only 39 (reported, according to the national Heath statistics) women who have died in the year 1972 (the year before abortion was legal).
second thing I would like to point out is that women are still dieing from so called "legal" abortions (lookup the blackmun wall)

and third but not the least of all. according to a 2003 gallup study women are more pro-life then men.

Sharing the pro-life message

Men can't get pregnant, so they shouldn't tell women what to do.

the pro-life movement is often characterized as an effort by men to control women's bodies. But in fact, studies show that women are actually more pro-life than Men. Perhaps they recognize that abortion often serves the selfish interests of men rather than the real needs of women.

The experience of pro-life counselors and the testimony of women who have spoken out about their abortions show that men are more likely to push women into abortions they do not want than to try to force them not to have an abortion. But we never hear abortion advocates speak out against this kind of influence of men over women.

the pro-life movement calls on men to take responsibility for the children they have helped to conceive. The men who are active in the pro-life movement are responding to the call to step up and be advocates for women and children.

finally, no one would try to impose this principle-that only those directly affected by an issue should have any say about it- to any social justice movement. It was not only black Americans who fought for civil rights. Nor should it be only women, today, who speak out against abortion.

 

[DeletedUser]

1st Question: I am 16. I am a girl. Thankfully I have not encountered such tragedy, thank you.

Then consider yourself lucky.

2nd Question: Really I do pity those that undergo abortion. (do you count parents who lost a child during pregnancy then never get pregnant again due to age feeling that kind of anguish too? if so then I can say I do) but just LOOK OUT of the window. Teenagers are pregnant at the age of 15, 16, even 12. They don't have the ability to restrain themselves effectively. That's more the reason to oppose abortion - with it legalised, they rush to have an abortion, then later feel traumatized. Then as they feel sad they look for joy in sex and it continues as a vicious cycle, minus the legalisation process in the city I leave in. These stories are not so uncommon.

So once again someone is attempting to use the few to describe the many.

Surely a program of teaching people about contraception and the issues surrounding pregnancy and mother/fatherhood is more effective then forcing people to live in misery and poverty?

Or would you like to see people suffer in that sort of state, simply to teach them a lesson?

You didn't actually answer my question though, have you ever spoken to them or are you simply making assumptions for what you have seen and read?

And don't be stupid, loosing a child and having an abortion are two completely different things with completely different mental issues.

 

[DeletedUser]

eh,
if the fetus is a living being you think it will like to die?

I don't think your view that 'since one talks, the other can't, the latter can be ignored' view works. . .

I am saying that the woman has clear rights in this situation and the fetus does not. Even if the fetus was universally agreed up as a living being, it is not a citizen so it has no rights. My original argument is my reply I guess.

I don't care what the fetus "would like" to do. Sympathy doesn't play into my position. There is no right/wrong here regarding the fetus and its status as a living or non-living thing is a non-factor for me. My interpretation of the laws that govern the United States is that a judge or lawmaker can not put restrictions on a woman's reproductive system. To me, this is an OBSCENE violation of her rights.

 

[DeletedUser]

Morality is a myth, Humans are by nature cruel animals inside the sphere of natural selection, predation/prey and the food chain, only religion tries pitifully to exercise humanity from the animal kingdom and deny a right to survival. Interests of the many over the few, or the one.

Never heard it put quite like that, but have to agree with you.

Abortion as a survival necessity can be justified, as a convenience no... from a woman's standpoint, if she does not have the resources, and/or has a fear of the pregnancy/birthing process which can and does have the chance to kill her, she is understandable justified in considering abortion for her own survival.

Agree that self-interest is a factor, at least on an instinctive level. We are not the only mammal that does this.

Lastly, forcing your personal world view upon another independent being in the universe is just plain wrong, you have far less right to tell another person how to approach their personal issues, then they have to their own... Legislating morality does not work.

Agree 100%. Close to the point I was trying to make about personal rights.

 

[DeletedUser]

I just started playing this game (which I am enjoying btw) and have only recently joined this forum. I enjoy a good discussion/debate as long as it doesn't get personal or downright mean. If that happens I will uneventfully drop out of the discussion.

Believe it or not I am a Christian who believes in the "right to choose". There are two words I do not use in my vocabulary, "always", and "never". Two of the scariest words in the English language in my opinion. Therefore, I have to say that I can't think of any circumstance where I would condone an abortion. However, being a Christian, I believe in freedom. Freedom to make choices understanding there are consequences for each choice, some good, some bad.

To some it up, I am against abortion and would advise anyone that asked me, not to have one, but I am for the right to choose whether to have one or not. I also believe it should be the "choice" of the doctor as to whether he/she will perform abortion procedures.

 

[DeletedUser]

finally, no one would try to impose this principle-that only those directly affected by an issue should have any say about it- to any social justice movement. It was not only black Americans who fought for civil rights. Nor should it be only women, today, who speak out against abortion.

This is quoting from within a quote...Gizmo didn't SAY this but was trying to use it illustrate his point.

I whole-heartedly have to DISAGREE that the abortion issue is ANYTHING remotely like the Black-American movement. I don't even want to elaborate but they are NOTHING alike.

 

[DeletedUser]

I am saying that the woman has clear rights in this situation and the fetus does not. Even if the fetus was universally agreed up as a living being, it is not a citizen so it has no rights. My original argument is my reply I guess.

wasn't that the same argument for keeping slaves and not giving black people or women rights? think about it?

lets go back 80 or so years and replace fetus with black person

"....Even if a black person had universally agreed up as a living being, it is not a citizen so it has no rights..."

 

[DeletedUser]

wasn't that the same argument for keeping slaves and not giving black people or women rights? think about it?

lets go back 80 or so years and replace fetus with black person

"....Even if a black person had universally agreed up as a living being, it is not a citizen so it has no rights..."

No. You are way off base. African Americans were made citizens 100 years prior to the period you are referring to. Since they were already citizens, they had constitutionally protected rights, unlike a fetus. The purpose of the civil rights movement was to abolish laws that conflicted with these rights, such as the idea of "separate but equal."

If anything, your comparison can be made the opposite way and help make my point for me:

The pro-choice movement is a movement against laws that potentially conflict with constitutionally protected rights of women.
Just like the black civil rights movement was a movement against laws that conflicted with their constitutionally protected rights.

The pro-life movement is a movement that wants legislation to restrict a woman's rights in favor of the "theoretical rights" of the fetus. There is absolutely NO comparison that can be made between the aborted fetuses and African Americans in the 1960s.

 

[DeletedUser]

No. You are way off base. African Americans were made citizens 100 years prior to the period you are referring to. Since they were already citizens, they had constitutionally protected rights, unlike a fetus. The purpose of the civil rights movement was to abolish laws that conflicted with these rights, such as the idea of "separate but equal."

If anything, your comparison can be made the opposite way and help make my point for me:

The pro-choice movement is a movement against laws that potentially conflict with constitutionally protected rights of women.
Just like the black civil rights movement was a movement against laws that conflicted with their constitutionally protected rights.

The pro-life movement is a movement that wants legislation to restrict a woman's rights in favor of the "theoretical rights" of the fetus. There is absolutely NO comparison that can be made between the aborted fetuses and African Americans in the 1960s.

the cival rights movement was not just in the 60's you are aware of that right? it really unofficial started after the cival war.

one thing I am referring to is what I will call "slavers rights" or "slave owners rights" as I stated above black people were not considered citizens, they were what is called property. much like today we have people who say you should not tell me what to do with what is mine. slave owners were having there rights infringed (in their minds) upon, their right to own slaves. (do you see were im going with this). much like you are saying women are having their rights to have an abortion infringed upon.

so weather you see there is a difference or not you should try looking at different issues from all angles.

 

[DeletedUser]

I sill fail to see ANY connection between the black americans and the fetuses. I invite you to make one and get this thread back on topic.

Now it sounds like you are comparing the woman's rights to the slave owner's rights.

If you are going to tell me that when the Civil Rights movement is mentioned, you don't immediately think of Rosa Parks, Jackie Robinson, and Martin Luther King, then you really don't know much about it.

This is from wikipedia:

The Civil Rights Movement in the United States refers in part to a set of noted events and reform movements in that country aimed at abolishing public and private acts of racial discrimination and racism against African Americans between 1954 to 1968, particularly in the southern United States.

So I apologize. You were not 100 years off, you were 90 years off.

I don't think the problem is that I am not looking at the issue from enough angles. I think the problem is you are not making a valid point and/or changing your argument.

But to address what you said: The slave owners did not have constitutionally protected rights to own other human beings. Those were state laws you are referring to. So try again.

 

[DeletedUser]

I think that what he's saying is that slaves were not considered to be "human" in the full sense back then, just like a fetus isn't considered to be one now. The implication is that some day a fetus may be protected by the constitution, just like ex-slaves were once they were emancipated.