|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 2:44 pm
I disagree. Such a motivation for an abortion may seem shallow to you, but until the fetus is viable, it is just a part of the woman's body, to be disposed of or kept at her convenience. No one should be forced to enslave their body, time, and energy to another being if they don't wish to, even if the pregnancy was the result of irresponsibility. We do not punish irresponsibility with slavery. Even more likely, these pregnancies are the result of ignorance, which is mutually exclusive with responsibility.
Besides, ignorant and irresponsible people should not be having babies. I would rather those people not pollute our gene pool anyway.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 7:03 pm
I am pro-choice but choose life and think others should too. me_zoot No one should be forced to enslave their body, time, and energy to another being if they don't wish to, even if the pregnancy was the result of irresponsibility. We do not punish irresponsibility with slavery. Even more likely, these pregnancies are the result of ignorance, which is mutually exclusive with responsibility. Besides, ignorant and irresponsible people should not be having babies. I would rather those people not pollute our gene pool anyway. If it was because of irresponsibility and ignorance then they don't have the right to abortion the baby. Why should the baby be punished because of the mothers stupidity? And the mother can easily find a family more then willing to take the child off her hands instead of sticking it in a foster home. As for the child, it's much less likely to be irrisponsible and ignorant if raised by someone who isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 8:02 pm
no baby is being punished. It is not yet a baby. as long as the abortion is done at the appropriate time, it does not even have a brain yet and therefore could not possibly posses agency, the thing that makes us human.
until the fetus is viable, it is not human. It is just part of the hosting woman's body.
even if it was human, I object to your rhetoric that to decide not to fuel the growth of a being with one's own body, time, and energy is punishing it. No being, no matter how young and helpless, is entitled to the body, energy and time, of another. These are things that must be voluntarily given. To force someone to carry to term a pregnancy they don't want is slavery. Doing this, you turn a baby into an unwanted parasite that is just as likely to breed resentment and misery rather than a supportive, loving environment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:33 am
I don't see the problem with it.
There's enough people in this world to begin with. Why bring in more if you don't want them?
Maybe they were raped. It's not their fault they got pregnant, it wasn't their choice.
As for non-rape situations, maybe they aren't ready for children yet. As someone already said, there's too many children in the system anyways for adoption. >.>"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 8:09 pm
I asked my friend about it and this is what he said: Quote: Where does life begin and when does a ball of cells turn into a human being? I'm not sure....but when they abort a fetus it sure looks human: eyes, ears, movement, pain, heartbeat. And their methods are grotesque. The saline solution one where they chemically fry the babies skin..its long and excrutiatingly painful to the fetus. Or the one where they take a hook shaped knife and cut the fetus apart piece by piece and suck it out with a vacuum Or the worse is partial birth abortion where the babies head is coming out..half way through birth the doctor pushes the babies head to keep it from coming out all the way, then sticks a tube in the base of its school and sucks out the brains. Very barbaric...while this is not a fullproof logical argument. I would say it is extremely grotesque and enacted upon a child that would indeed survive outside of the womb if it was born at the time of the abortion. It's illogical to say an abortion is ok if you were raped. If indeed abortion is murder then rape doesnt justify murder. When a single mother is killed leaving her only child without parents...you don't kill the child too do you?..to save soceity from the inconvenience of a misplaced child. So why should rape be any different? ...killing the baby doesnt take back the rape or make it better. It tacks murder on to rape, and murder is worse than rape...so i really don't see why that justifies anything. Its an appeal to emotion. Which is a logical fallacy-which is to say a invalid argument style that bypasses logic to push through its points thereby disqualifing it as a legitimate claim. From our point of view which holds that abortion is murder...if they are correct in saying its slavery for women to not have abortions...then we are all slaves right now...because murder is illegal. Slavery is anti abortion. That is the dumbest argument for abortion I have heard yet. Its useless rhetoric.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 9:03 pm
Me and my friends talk about this all the time, and here's what we've come up with.
Abortion should be allowed, but you should only get a limited number-- 3
First one, "Okay, something happened, you have 2 left"
Second, "You should have learned from last time, 1 left"
Third, "You're an idiot, this is your last chance"
Fourth, "Congratulations, you're a mother, you got more than enough chances before"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 5:43 am
Inevitable Dreamer I asked my friend about it and this is what he said: Quote: Where does life begin and when does a ball of cells turn into a human being? I'm not sure....but when they abort a fetus it sure looks human: eyes, ears, movement, pain, heartbeat. And their methods are grotesque. The saline solution one where they chemically fry the babies skin..its long and excrutiatingly painful to the fetus. Or the one where they take a hook shaped knife and cut the fetus apart piece by piece and suck it out with a vacuum Or the worse is partial birth abortion where the babies head is coming out..half way through birth the doctor pushes the babies head to keep it from coming out all the way, then sticks a tube in the base of its school and sucks out the brains. Very barbaric...while this is not a fullproof logical argument. I would say it is extremely grotesque and enacted upon a child that would indeed survive outside of the womb if it was born at the time of the abortion. It's illogical to say an abortion is ok if you were raped. If indeed abortion is murder then rape doesnt justify murder. When a single mother is killed leaving her only child without parents...you don't kill the child too do you?..to save soceity from the inconvenience of a misplaced child. So why should rape be any different? ...killing the baby doesnt take back the rape or make it better. It tacks murder on to rape, and murder is worse than rape...so i really don't see why that justifies anything. Its an appeal to emotion. Which is a logical fallacy-which is to say a invalid argument style that bypasses logic to push through its points thereby disqualifing it as a legitimate claim. From our point of view which holds that abortion is murder...if they are correct in saying its slavery for women to not have abortions...then we are all slaves right now...because murder is illegal. Slavery is anti abortion. That is the dumbest argument for abortion I have heard yet. Its useless rhetoric. you judge my rhetoric yet never answer it. Calling it "dumb" is not a rebuttal. If you use the coercive power of the state to force a person to give up their own body to another against their will, how is that not slavery? Even if I entertain the assertion that a thing that cannot live on its own has the right to exist, that does not mean that someone else is obligated to surrender their body, time, and energy to fuel it's growth. You point out in great detail that the various methods of abortion are gross. Yeah, so are gastric bypass surgery and tonsillectomies....whats your point? Finally, the one point I agree with you on is the partial birth abortion. In this case, you assert that the baby could possibly live outside the woman's body independently. That means it is viable and therefore human.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 10:59 am
Quote: The majority of abortion techniques are enacted when the fetus COULD live outside the body. So this person is wrong about that. Abortion IS legal...so the state is not coercing anyone at this present time. Even so slavery is different than restraining someone from a particular course of action. Using the word "slavery" is a desperate ploy to emotionally connect the idea of a law's restraint with the tryanny of whole people group. It is like saying. Well my parents won't let me eat before dinner..so I am gonna compare my plight to that of a starving ethopian village. It trivializes the pain of a whole racial group to compare abortion with slavery. It is NOT the same. No one is forcing you to do their bidding day in or day out and treating you as a second class citizen with no monetary or any other form of compensation....So slavery it is not. Prohibiting an action IS NOT NOT NOT slavery. This person is being rather flippant with the idea of slavery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 12:07 am
Inevitable Dreamer Even so slavery is different than restraining someone from a particular course of action. Using the word "slavery" is a desperate ploy to emotionally connect the idea of a law's restraint with the tryanny of whole people group. It is like saying. Well my parents won't let me eat before dinner..so I am gonna compare my plight to that of a starving ethopian village. It trivializes the pain of a whole racial group to compare abortion with slavery. It is NOT the same. Hmmm I thought the question was whether or not to make abortion illegal. Im glad its legal. My use of the word, slavery, indicates the deprivation of autonomy and the removal of one's choices over their own body, time, and energy. associations with American slavery prior to the civil war are in your head, not mine. I make this argument based upon the definition of the word slavery. It trivializes nothing, however, YOUR assertion that mentioning slavery would only offend one racial group does a lot to trivialize pretty much every other instance of slavery in the world other than American slavery prior to the Civil War. This is a straw man argument. Inevitable Dreamer No one is forcing you to do their bidding day in or day out and treating you as a second class citizen with no monetary or any other form of compensation....So slavery it is not. Prohibiting an action IS NOT NOT NOT slavery. This person is being rather flippant with the idea of slavery. prohibiting actions is what slavery is all about. Especially those important actions that are necessary to maintain autonomy. The thing that characterizes the existence of a slave is primarily the fact that they lack autonomy over their own body. Their body is used for the benefit of another. It is this characteristic that forms the basis of my analogy. By prohibiting abortion, you deny a woman autonomy over her own body. Her body is now being used for the benefit of another against her will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 2:38 pm
Quote: Any time the rights of two people stand in opposition to each other, the law exists to protect the more fundamental right. We see this all the time. For example, if a car is driving down a street while someone is crossing that street, the law requires the driver of the car to slow down and stop (giving up their right to drive where they want, when they want, and at what speed they want) so that the pedestrian may cross the street in front of him. Why? Why must the driver temporarily give up his right to drive down the street just because someone else is walking across the street? Why is the right of the man on foot upheld while the right of the man in the car is denied? It is not because the pedestrian is more valuable than the driver but rather because, if the driver doesn't stop, the pedestrian will likely be killed. In order for the driver to proceed down the street at full speed, at that moment, it will cost the pedestrian his life. In order for the pedestrian to finish crossing the street, at that moment, it will cost the driver a few minutes of drive time. The autonomy of the driver must be temporarily suspended to protect the life of the pedestrian. Though a pregnant woman gives up far more than a few minutes of drive time, she gives up far less than the baby, who would otherwise be killed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 8:44 pm
your argument is sound once the fetus is viable. Prior to that it is only a non-viable potential human and potential humans should be regarded no rights that their host does not see fit to extend them.
only full humans get rights...everything else is at our convenience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 8:56 pm
Wrong wrong wrong. All goddamn wrong. Lots of stuff here to read over, but there are things we don't see. Some say, a child is not a child until it leaves the mother. When inside, do you not have a gender, do you not grow and breathe and eat like a regular person? Can't hear, and feel everything that goes on around you? Don't you have a mind of your own? I can understand situations out there, I really do. But, why kill something that doens't have a say whether it wants to live or not? How can you kill something so defenseless that it can't even live on it's own without support form it's mother? When we were born into the world, we depended on the same things that the babies inside the stomach depend on. The same exact things. Air, food, life. We all need it. Another point is, you're taking away it's soul. It's will to live. How do you know that all potential abortions out there didn't hold a child who would grow up and save the world? Put an end to things? People don't think, they never think. It's alive. You're alive. What's the difference?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:29 pm
Reiko_Sazuki Wrong wrong wrong. All goddamn wrong. Lots of stuff here to read over, but there are things we don't see. Some say, a child is not a child until it leaves the mother. When inside, do you not have a gender, do you not grow and breathe and eat like a regular person? Can't hear, and feel everything that goes on around you? Don't you have a mind of your own? I can understand situations out there, I really do. But, why kill something that doens't have a say whether it wants to live or not? How can you kill something so defenseless that it can't even live on it's own without support form it's mother? When we were born into the world, we depended on the same things that the babies inside the stomach depend on. The same exact things. Air, food, life. We all need it. Another point is, you're taking away it's soul. It's will to live. How do you know that all potential abortions out there didn't hold a child who would grow up and save the world? Put an end to things? People don't think, they never think. It's alive. You're alive. What's the difference? Yes but a counter argument for that would the views of other people and my religious views which clearly state that the child has no soul and is there for not human until it takes its first breath.
Id also like to point out that you dont know if that child could end up being some tyrant or war monger who ends up killing thousands. Why does everyone have to argue about this?
Seriously, why cant you all understand that its called free will.
if the mother doesn't want the child then she shouldn't have it.
If she does want the child however then she can have the baby.
Either way the mother walks away knowing that she got to choose her own fate instead of everyone else choosing it for her stare
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 6:43 am
the notion of a soul is religo-philosophical nonsense that we use to create obedience to doctrine via threats to its disposition.
The thing that makes humans human is agency. This actually does not even exist in a newborn yet but at the point where the offspring is capable of living outside it's host, we can be relatively certain it will happen.
before this point, the point where offspring can live outside the host, it is just potential.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
