Community

The PokéCommunity

We are still working on a better slogan!

Visit Index



Go Back   The PokéCommunity Forums > Off-Topic Discussions > Discussions & Debates
Notices

Discussions & Debates The place to go for slightly more in-depth topics. Discussions and debates about the world, current events, ideas, news, and more.

Post Reply
Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.  
Thread Tools
  #1    
Old May 14th, 2013, 10:56 PM
FreakyLocz14's Avatar
FreakyLocz14
Conservative Patriot
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Nature: Bold
Pennsylvania abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell was found guilty of first-degree murder for severing the spinal cords of infants whom survived late-term abortions yesterday. He agreed to a life in prison sentence to avoid the possibility of receiving the death penalty today.

I personally believe that we should be prosecuting abortionists more frequently. While we can't outright outlaw abortion, we can keep those who perform them under immense pressure. We should also pass parental consent laws, waiting period laws, mandatory ultrasound laws, and informed consent laws to make abortions rare.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/14...ife-in-prison/

Last edited by FreakyLocz14; May 15th, 2013 at 07:57 PM.
  #2    
Old May 14th, 2013, 11:29 PM
Yankas
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Gender: Male
Or we could work towards repealing any of those laws that are still in place today in quite a few states and work towards making the world a much less miserable place.
Sure, his crimes are atrocious and his punishment well-deserved, but I have a pretty good idea about why his clients chose to have unsafe late-term abortions in the first place.
  #3    
Old May 14th, 2013, 11:42 PM
The Dark Avenger's Avatar
The Dark Avenger
PumpkaBOO!
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The States
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 View Post
Pennsylvania abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell was found guilty of first-degree murder for severing the spinal cords of infants whom survived late-term abortions yesterday. He agreed to to life in prison sentence to avoid the possibility of receiving the death penalty today.

I personally believe that we should be prosecuting abortionists more frequently. While we can't outright outlaw abortion, we can keep those who perform them under immense pressure. We should also pass parental consent laws, waiting period laws, mandatory ultrasound laws, and informed consent laws to make abortions rare.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/14...ife-in-prison/
The law states that undue burden must not be placed on women regarding abortion.

I can see how waiting period laws (the S.C. upheld) are relatively non-burdensome, and the same with parental consent, at ages younger than 16 if I remember correctly.

Though, consent from the father and mandatory ultrasounds are more burdensome as consent of father could take weeks if not months. Though, ultrasounds, meh, that one was not defined either way by the court since it walking a fine line. A woman sometimes cannot obtain an abortion due to undue burdens. Abortions are legal because of women's privacy rights and all, but more so the consequences of not allowing abortion have a negative impact on all of society. First, women will perform abortions in unsanitary conditions, as observed in the pre Roe v Wade era.

The costs on society to cover infections of thousands of women each year is not worth the benefit of preserving fetuses. Second, the saved fetuses of unwanted children are a burden to society and often live less satisfactory lives, as parents that do not want children are statistically more likely to neglect or abuse children or not be able to afford proper care since most people who have abortions are impoverished, and society picks up the tab for foster care, healthcare costs, or their criminal behavior afterward (unwanted children are more likely to commit crimes.) Again, this is all statistically speaking, and the effect relate to all of society, not just an individual.

Further, severing the spinal cords of infants is equivalent to murder, abortion is not in technical or legal terms murder since fetuses are not humans. Therefore, one doctor that abuses the practice of abortion, and instead, committing murder and not following safety guidelines for the women should be strictly dealt with, and his conviction should not influence a change in abortion policy that serves a state purpose since it would only increase the instances of these sorts of abortion malpractices as women resort to illegal an unregulated practices when legal abortions are hard if not impossible to obtain. Thus, the proposals to restrict abortion would actually be counterproductive.
  #4    
Old May 15th, 2013, 06:08 AM
Oryx's Avatar
Oryx
Of the pigeon, by the pigeon, for the pigeon
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Age: 22
Gender: Female
Nature: Relaxed
He was not prosecuted for performing abortions. You're clouding the issue by trying to make it seem that way, Freaky. Kermit Gosnell is only relevant to abortion providers in a question of why would someone use his obviously illegal services - if, as you would claim, legal abortions are so unburdensome and need more restrictions and even then they won't be a burden, then why are women taking the risk of going to this place that is so terrible? He worked in Philadelphia; there has to be at least one abortion provider in the vicinity of such a big city that was legal and safe. Maybe what he offered was cheap or he offered his services to women without these hoops they have to jump through, so they died getting an abortion to avoid their parents finding out or to not have to contact the rapist father that they didn't report. These are all relevant questions in the wake of that horror show that we need to be asking. The question of why women went there is essential in unraveling what kinds of restrictions create unsafe worlds for women, where they are forced to either carry a child they don't want to term or risk their health with an unsafe abortion.

Actually there is one more relevant point. The news article I read said it had been reported multiple times and no one did a thing about it. The cops in that area have something to answer for.
Theme
Pair
VM
PM
  #5    
Old May 15th, 2013, 06:45 AM
Livewire's Avatar
Livewire
ヒトモシ
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Sunyshore City
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Send a message via Skype™ to Livewire
Except that he wasn't performing abortions. He murdered viable fetuses (keyword: viable) after 24 weeks - delivered/removed them and snipped their spinal cords with scissors. That's not abortion.

And for somebody so obsessed with civil liberties and a less intrusive government, did you see what you wrote at the end of your OP? Forced ultrasounds? That's a gross misstep of government power and you know it.
  #6    
Old May 15th, 2013, 08:14 AM
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X
For Money
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Thats the thing though...

Republicans, well, conservatives believe in small government - Unless you were born with a vagina. Then they want to force government down your throat. Or... yeah, better not go with that one.

Edit
George Carlin puts it best, nice and simple.
"Pro-life...pro-life..They're not pro-life, they are anti-woman. Simple as it gets! They don't like 'em!"

Actually, better not put that up. If your intrested in his piece about Abortion, google this - George Carlin: Pro Life, Abortion, And The Sanctity Of Life
Follower of Carlinism since 2008.

Come play Runescape

Last edited by Mr. X; May 15th, 2013 at 08:34 AM.
  #7    
Old May 15th, 2013, 08:16 AM
Belldandy's Avatar
Belldandy
ღ Cammybear ღ
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Gender: Female
Nature: Timid
This is disgusting I for one believe that a foetus is human once conception occurs. Anything that will eventually be born as a human is a human to me, developed or not. Regardless that, I think we can all share feelings that a second-term or trimester baby having their spinal cord cut is equally if not moreso monstrous because now, the foetus is not just a human, but it looks like a human, too. That should put shivers in anyone's spine, looking down on that. To kill it anyway... It's monstrous, atrocious, heartless; inhumane.

I believe in abortions (at the woman's choice) for the mentally ill, financially unfit (government decision on how this is defined, case-by-case method), young (< 17), rape victims, women who may die or have complications at birth and women who find themselves in troubling situations i.e. abusive partner as to minimize the risk of the child being injured, hurt or growing up into a delinquent due to environmental factors (all three are unfair for the baby).

Also, if a doctor tells you that you're infertile so you don't use contraception, yet somehow conceive anyway. You should be allowed to abort because then it's not your fault; it's the doctor's. If not that, then no abortion but the doctor should have to pay a heavy fine to the new mother as to ensure the same mistake isn't made again. This happened to a friend of mine who conceived at age nineteen after being told that ovarian cysts rendered her infertile. She was overjoyed that she, after all the hype and negative news, had suddenly and "magically" conceived, but I can imagine others may not be i.e. aspiring students, professionals, etc. labeled infertile by medical practioners.

But if you're well-off and were irresponsible, not wearing condoms, no birth control, etc. (the use of both is what I define as "responsible," since there's a risk that both fail, and sometimes men and women don't know how to wear condoms properly - studies), then you should not have the right to an abortion because you, in a way, willingly conceived the foetus and should have to claim responsibility for that. As long as you don't fall under any of the above scenarios.

Though I do agree, abortion laws need to be redefined, because a lot of women are at risk for unsafe abortions for various reasons: parental, spousal influence, etc. Some women feel restricted and obliged to carry the baby to term, only to panic and "want out" near the end. Though I believe that the foetus has the same rights as the mother (if conceived purposefully in a good environment) (which is also why I believe the foetus has the right to a healthy home and good parents; if there's a lack, then (though I don't 100% agree even with this next statement, but it fits the "limits" defined earlier that, in my opinion, would make abortion OK) best not be born), there are such slight variations that I'd put the rights of the mother over the foetus', and those of the foetus over the mother's. Those distinctions have already been explained. If women want to have risky abortions because they fell into the irresponsible category, then they risk that on their own accord. I wouldn't agree with "murdering" a foetus because Anny Sue didn't want to take birth control and Don Juan didn't wear a condom. (And even if they did, and still conceived, if they don't fall into any of the categories before i.e. rape then they don't have the right to it either...)

And many who disagree, and that's OK. Abortion is such a sticky topic. There's religion, personal opinion, feminists and other groups that have such varying opinions. It'd be hard to please everyone.

It's just such a grey area!

But really, that doctor is a psychopath

FC: 4699-7283-5972; IGN: Irène, Etoile; Trade Shop Trade Reviews
  #8    
Old May 15th, 2013, 09:02 AM
hinkage's Avatar
hinkage
Go make some new disaster
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Age: 19
Okay, how in good conscience could anyone seriously believe abortion is okay? None of the arguments for it make any sense. At the end of the day, you're still killing babies, and the infanticide-attics always parrot the same stupid talking points.

"It's not conscious, so it's okay to kill it!" Yeah, try that on someone in a coma and tell me how well that works out for you. Whether or not it's yet aware (which, at a certain point it is anyway) is irrelevant, it's a living breathing human being.

"It's just a glob/mass of cells!" EVERY LIVING PERSON IS A GLOB/MASS OF CELLS. Why do you idiots even say this? You may as well be saying "It only has internal organs!"

"What if the mother was raped?!" Rape is given to hospitals as the reason for an abortion less than 1% of the time. Rapists are cowards who wear condoms, or pull out and finish at home. Even if the argument wasn't a fallacy to begin with, in that rare case it happened, why the hell is it the child's fault? That's just sick.

"The baby will have a hard life!" Newsflash: The vast majority of people born have hard lives. Should the poor not be allowed to reproduce? Single parents? What if the child is blind? Unbelievably stupid.

"What about a woman's rights over her own body!" What about the child's rights? Okay, forget that for a moment. We've already refuted the rape argument, so let's get right down to it. She chose to have sex. She chose not to use a condom. She chose not to use contraceptive. She chose that the sex would be coitus. She chose to let the guy ejaculate inside of her. And finally, she chose not to use the morning after pill. She consciously decided, again and again, t get pregnant.
  #9    
Old May 15th, 2013, 09:11 AM
Belldandy's Avatar
Belldandy
ღ Cammybear ღ
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Gender: Female
Nature: Timid
I'm really anti-abortion, but given how life is and how much of a hindrance a child can be in certain situations... I 100% believe that a foetus at conception is a human and should not die, but if the mother is going to die giving birth to it, or if she'll suffer trauma for years looking into the face of her child and seeing her rapist or aggressor... Then I'd pick mom over baby, unfortunately.

But if you engage in it yourself, wearing or not wearing condoms / using or not birth control / no morning-after pill (or even with), then phooey on you. You've got yourself a baby!

As for the hindrance comment, society is messed up to the point where your chances of achieving a decent job is very, very small if you're a teen mom or a young mother, mainly because you cannot acquire post-secondary education (or even complete secondary, for many!) It's unfortunate that no plans are in place for young mothers who for whatever reason get pregnant and have a child, for them to easily reintegrate into mainstream society and back into school. Daycares are just too expensive. It's wasted life for both the mother and the baby.

Lack of support on the government's end is not helping the issue.

FC: 4699-7283-5972; IGN: Irène, Etoile; Trade Shop Trade Reviews
  #10    
Old May 15th, 2013, 09:43 AM
Went's Avatar
Went
Blue
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Madrid
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Send a message via Skype™ to Went
Well I believe we are talking about a "person" in the moment the foetus leaves the mother's body. Until then, it's just that, a foetus. An unfinished project of human being. Therefore, I think it's okay if the mother decides not to finish her unifinished project of a baby. Of course, there comes a moment where having the foetus killed put the mother at risk as well, so I'm fine with drawing a line there; she had had ample time to decide earlier.

Hinkage said that he couldn't udnerstand how anybody in good conscience could support abortion: it's as easy as where you draw the line. If you draw the line in the instant of conception, then certainly abortion is an all-out murder. St. Thomas Aquinas believed babies didn't obtain a soul until their 40th day, they weren't humans until then. I consider a person isn't properly alive until it's been born, so you can't properly kill someone who hasn't been born yet.

And, ultimately, it's the mother who has to go through the pregnancy and all. Forcing her to have a baby she doesn't want to have (maybe the condom broke, or the pill didn't work well enough, or she just had second thoughts) sounds more like a punishment than anything else, one in favour of something that hasn't been born yet.

And this said, I believe ultrasounds carry an implicit message of "aww, look how cute it is AND YOU WANT TO ABORT IT YOU MONSTER", which I think is the last feeling she needs in those moments. Information, other options (adoption, help), cooldown time before taking the final decision, sure. Moral attacks, no thanks.
"Your loyalties... are they clear?"

"Yes sir. They are."

  #11    
Old May 15th, 2013, 11:12 AM
Esper's Avatar
Esper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
This story is a good example of what we might expect to see if we restrict abortion more. The women who went to this doctor likely went to him because of problems we have in our society where it deals with pregnancy and healthcare.

They women could have been poor and unable to afford abortions, perhaps waiting until they could save up money by which time other doctors wouldn't help them because of how far along the pregnancies were.

Or they could not have known they were pregnant for a while because of a lack of education about their bodies. Perhaps they didn't have access to contraception.

Or they could not have known what rights they had when it comes to having an abortion.

Of they could not get away from work or other responsibilities until it was too late.

Or they were afraid to go to a Planned Parenthood or other provider because of the stigma.

Or... well, you get the point. There are lots of factors that can come together to make a woman desperate. Mandatory waiting periods and other restrictions would only make more women more desperate.

deviantart blog pair
  #12    
Old May 15th, 2013, 01:55 PM
Oryx's Avatar
Oryx
Of the pigeon, by the pigeon, for the pigeon
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Age: 22
Gender: Female
Nature: Relaxed
Quote:
Originally Posted by hinkage View Post
Okay, how in good conscience could anyone seriously believe abortion is okay? None of the arguments for it make any sense. At the end of the day, you're still killing babies, and the infanticide-attics always parrot the same stupid talking points.

"It's not conscious, so it's okay to kill it!" Yeah, try that on someone in a coma and tell me how well that works out for you. Whether or not it's yet aware (which, at a certain point it is anyway) is irrelevant, it's a living breathing human being.
If a person is in a coma and required an organ donation from you to survive, even if it was your own child, you would be under no legal obligation to provide it. You could choose not to for literally any reason of your choosing - you can't afford it, you don't want the risk, or you just don't feel like it.

Quote:
"What if the mother was raped?!" Rape is given to hospitals as the reason for an abortion less than 1% of the time. Rapists are cowards who wear condoms, or pull out and finish at home. Even if the argument wasn't a fallacy to begin with, in that rare case it happened, why the hell is it the child's fault? That's just sick.
Can you please source your assertion that "rapists are cowards who wear condoms, or pull out"? I would like to see your scientific evidence that shows that all rapists do this, or even 99% of rapists do this.

Quote:
"What about a woman's rights over her own body!" What about the child's rights? Okay, forget that for a moment. We've already refuted the rape argument, so let's get right down to it. She chose to have sex. She chose not to use a condom. She chose not to use contraceptive. She chose that the sex would be coitus. She chose to let the guy ejaculate inside of her. And finally, she chose not to use the morning after pill. She consciously decided, again and again, t get pregnant.
So you believe in punishment babies? Do you also think that people who eat bad food shouldn't be allowed to get heart disease screenings because they brought it on themselves? What about people who drive motorcycles, should they be barred from medical treatment because they chose a risky way to live?

Once again, organ donation. It doesn't matter if the fetus is a human being, a clump of cells, or whatever you want to call it. Say you have a daughter. She's born, she's a legit human being and no one will argue with that. She falls ill. You're told the only way to save her is for you to go into surgery immediately and give her part of your liver. You have enough money to go through with the surgery, you're in good health with minimal risk, and you're certain she'll be fine afterwards. Know what? You're still not legally obligated to do it. And this is a human being that you or your wife/girlfriend/whatever gave birth to, which is a much bigger commitment than having sex. If you're going to argue that having sex should legally obligate you to have a child, then why doesn't having a child legally obligate you to do what's in your power to save her if she falls ill? If you believe so firmly that everyone should go out of their way for extended periods of time to save all human life, have you yet donated the one kidney you don't need? You know people die of lack of a kidney every day, right? You're murdering people, with your logic.

Remember, we're not talking about your ethics. Both you and I would probably brand someone who chose not to donate part of their liver under those circumstances a bad person ethically. But we're talking about legality; legality is not meant to follow your personal ethics.
Theme
Pair
VM
PM
  #13    
Old May 15th, 2013, 02:30 PM
The Dark Avenger's Avatar
The Dark Avenger
PumpkaBOO!
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The States
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Well here are the given reasons why women elected for abortion:

3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 3/4 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner (AGI).

Only 12% of women included a physical problem with their health among reasons for having an abortion (NAF).

One per cent (of aborting women), or 32,000, reported that they were the survivors of rape (NAF and CDC corroborated this)

All of these reasons are valid.
Additionally, 50% who elect for abortions are under the age of 25. Thus, corroborating evidence that these women did so for financial and health reasons given that young women are likely to not have established themselves in their careers, and thus cannot afford to take care of a child. Simply because one percent of women elect for abortion in the case of rape, it doesn't mean that right should not be afforded to them.

The cost on society in medical fees for women with reproductive health issues and welfare for indigent a parent(s) is too great. Additionally it could affect the individual woman's ability to function effectively in society. A woman should be responsible for her actions; however, society is harmed when we penalize these women. Further, in many cases, a woman might not have acted reckless in her conception of a child in cases like rape, health issues, or spouse/partner death or separation. The best way to address this issue is to allow for legal, regulated, and somewhat unburdened abortion rights to women regardless of our judgement of whether they abortion is justified for a personal reason since the effects are on society.
  #14    
Old May 15th, 2013, 02:46 PM
Oryx's Avatar
Oryx
Of the pigeon, by the pigeon, for the pigeon
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Age: 22
Gender: Female
Nature: Relaxed
Just adding that my personal beliefs are that if a fetus is viable outside the uterus, it should be taken out of the uterus and nurtured by the hospital if the woman wants to abort, leaving her out of it and allowing her to separate herself from the fetus without death if it can survive. My expectation is that one day science will expand far enough that we will be able to create an artificial uterus that will be able to nurture a child from conception through birth (we get earlier and earlier preemies surviving every day), then instead of abortion women could easily give up the embryo early in the pregnancy without any dodgy ethical issues. If this was covered by all insurance providers so that women that are low income could take advantage of it, only then would I believe that abortion has no place in our world.
Theme
Pair
VM
PM
  #15    
Old May 15th, 2013, 03:16 PM
Yankas
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Gender: Male
Quote:
Originally Posted by hinkage View Post
"It's not conscious, so it's okay to kill it!" Yeah, try that on someone in a coma and tell me how well that works out for you. Whether or not it's yet aware (which, at a certain point it is anyway) is irrelevant, it's a living breathing human being.

"It's just a glob/mass of cells!" EVERY LIVING PERSON IS A GLOB/MASS OF CELLS. Why do you idiots even say this? You may as well be saying "It only has internal organs!"
You are basically just grasping strawman, you construct some kind of imaginary argument that no sane person has ever made and try to refute it.
No one believes that you should be able to indiscrimenately kill anything that isn't concious. All you are doing is try to shove your incredibly arbitrary standards down other people's throats. You draw some a line based on your own personal beliefs that you find acceptable and everyone that disagrees with you is an idiot.
Or do you mind explaining what makes a fertilized egg, it's nothing more than the combination of the egg and a sperm. I would argue that the things that make a life valuable are thoughts, feelings, memories, and awareness. None of these things are present in an embryo until several months after the conception because it simply does not have a nervous system. This also breaks apart your comparasion with coma patients. They actually have feelings, memories and whatnot, their nervous system is still active or else they wouldn't be alive.

Last edited by Yankas; May 15th, 2013 at 11:10 PM.
  #16    
Old May 15th, 2013, 03:18 PM
The Dark Avenger's Avatar
The Dark Avenger
PumpkaBOO!
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The States
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Just throwing it out there and for anyone else to weigh-in on.

But, what if it is the case that in the future our population becomes to unmanageable in addition our economy is in a state of peril, and we have the technological advancements to cultivate a fetus that has yet to attain viability in the womb.

Should we utilize the technology and intervene or abort the fetus and not intervene with the technology?
  #17    
Old May 15th, 2013, 05:08 PM
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenneking View Post
Just throwing it out there and for anyone else to weigh-in on.

But, what if it is the case that in the future our population becomes to unmanageable in addition our economy is in a state of peril, and we have the technological advancements to cultivate a fetus that has yet to attain viability in the womb.
Wouldn't be the case here. Maybe elsewhere, like China or India. Canada and the US and the like is endanger of having an aging population, with the younger population at risk of not being able to meet the rate of replacement due to decreased numbers of births. That would hurt our economy.

Anyway, I'm against late-term or so-called "partial birth" abortions because at a certain point in its development it is able to feel pain. And if it is able to survive outside the womb at that point, and would otherwise ordinarily be attempted to save in he event of a premature birth, I can't comprehend why you would terminate something at the point.

But this goes beyond even that. The abortion attempt failed, it was born (and if there's disagreement about life beginning at conception, we've got to at lest be able to agree that it should most certainly exist come birth), and he killed them. Correct verdict I think
  #18    
Old May 15th, 2013, 06:21 PM
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X
For Money
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
For those who base their opinions on Abortion entirely on the Bible, might as well point this out.

Catholic Health - A insurance company (If I remember right) that prides itself on Catholic Values - argued that a fetus wasn't a human being.

The reason why? So they could get out of paying a monetary settlement.
Follower of Carlinism since 2008.

Come play Runescape
  #19    
Old May 15th, 2013, 06:50 PM
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. X View Post
For those who base their opinions on Abortion entirely on the Bible, might as well point this out.

Catholic Health - A insurance company (If I remember right) that prides itself on Catholic Values - argued that a fetus wasn't a human being.

The reason why? So they could get out of paying a monetary settlement.
Hypocritical insurance companies trying to cover their asses financially should be the moral compass for us all
  #20    
Old May 16th, 2013, 11:27 AM
Esper's Avatar
Esper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRIFORCE89 View Post
But this goes beyond even that. The abortion attempt failed, it was born (and if there's disagreement about life beginning at conception, we've got to at lest be able to agree that it should most certainly exist come birth), and he killed them. Correct verdict I think
As contentious an issue as abortion is at least we can all agree that this guy deserved punishment for what he did. Definitely the correct verdict.

The only real issue here, I think, is in how this case is spun. Some abortion opponents have tried to portray abortions everywhere like this when this is clearly outside the norm.

Well, I suppose the other issue would be what should be done if a woman goes for a (legal) abortion and the doctor screws something up and ends up causing the woman to give birth to a living baby. Not likely, of course, but it's something to chew on.

deviantart blog pair
  #21    
Old May 17th, 2013, 06:07 AM
icomeanon6's Avatar
icomeanon6
It's "I Come Anon"
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Northern Virginia
Age: 21
Gender: Male
I'm only going to post here once because the topic literally makes me feel ill.

There is exactly one question that needs to be answered concerning abortion, yet it is one that everyone wants to avoid: When does a human being's life begin?

The vast majority of us, I'm sure, would agree that convenience is no excuse for murder. We would also agree that it is wrong to kill someone to make amends for a violent crime that they bear no responsibility for in any way.

We all agree that Kermit Gosnell had no right to do what he did. The question is whether what he did would have been right had his victims still been inside their mothers and been only a few weeks younger.

If a fetus is not a human, then killing one is morally no different than killing an animal. If a fetus is a human, then killing one is morally no different than killing an infant. On top of that, the only real question concerning the morality of an abortion would be whether the mother's life is in danger, and whether we should kill one to save the other. Convenience cannot excuse murder, and neither can killing be amends for a violent crime if the object of the killing is not guilty.

(For the record, I apply the same reasoning to eating meat: if animals are in fact deserving of the exact same right to life as human beings, then there can be almost no moral justification for killing and eating them. That's a big 'if,' though.)

The question of when human life begins would have been answered by science already if science could ever answer it. It is a matter of our society's philosophy and conscience. I myself would argue that our courts are far too exclusive in deciding on which humans are alive, and that we should err on the side of protecting human life over human convenience or privilege.

Moreover, before we all accuse those who disagree with us on abortion as being either un-empathetic misogynists or un-empathetic murderers, I would ask that we all remember that most of us are acting on wildly different assumptions. What this issue calls for is understanding, and understanding will not come from personal animosity.

My chapter fics:
Kanto: The Disputed Frontier - 14 chapters, indefinite hiatus. Gary Stu's Unpredictable Adventure - 8 chapters, completed. Digimon Campaign - 7 chapters, ongoing

One-shots:
There's Always Tomorrow (SWC 2009), A Matter of Stubbornness (SWC 2010), Left by the Roadside
(SWC 2011 1st place),
Giovanni Destroys the World and Everything in It (2012), By What Right? (SWC 2013 1st place), Back in the Day (SWC 2014 1st place) (New!)


Family (kind of?): Strange person who calls me strange names

If the pen is mightier than the sword, the keyboard is mightier than the ICBM.
  #22    
Old May 17th, 2013, 06:18 AM
Oryx's Avatar
Oryx
Of the pigeon, by the pigeon, for the pigeon
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Age: 22
Gender: Female
Nature: Relaxed
Quote:
There is exactly one question that needs to be answered concerning abortion, yet it is one that everyone wants to avoid: When does a human being's life begin?
I see you didn't read the thread, as I completely disagree that this is relevant at the most basic level of abortion. When we focus on this as a benchmark, we obfuscate the issue, which is: human being or not, should a woman be legally forced to donate her organs to another creature for 9 months? Just like no one is legally obligated to ever donate a nonessential organ to a family member, no one should be legally obligated to donate their body to a child, potential or otherwise.
Theme
Pair
VM
PM
  #23    
Old May 17th, 2013, 07:03 AM
Belldandy's Avatar
Belldandy
ღ Cammybear ღ
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Gender: Female
Nature: Timid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toujours View Post
I see you didn't read the thread, as I completely disagree that this is relevant at the most basic level of abortion. When we focus on this as a benchmark, we obfuscate the issue, which is: human being or not, should a woman be legally forced to donate her organs to another creature for 9 months? Just like no one is legally obligated to ever donate a nonessential organ to a family member, no one should be legally obligated to donate their body to a child, potential or otherwise.
This is an interesting way to look at it, actually. Never thought of it that way. I do think if you can donate a kidney to save your child, you should (and a lot would, out of love) because it's the moral thing to do IMO. People could feel differently about that, though.

In regards to "donating their body" out of conception, I still think that if the person was irresponsible about sex, then they actually willingly "donated their body" to begin with, and that is is therefore unjust to kill a child because technology now makes it convenient to do. You don't have to raise it, but you should give birth to it (adoption is always an option) and give it a chance at life, since it's not the baby's fault that its mother or father was irresponsible about sex i.e. not wearing condoms, not taking birth control, etc.

Noting, even if it's the father's mistake, it's still the mother's in a way, too, making both parties irresponsible. If you truly don't want to get pregnant (or have a pregnant girlfriend), you'd be mature enough about sex to protect yourselves in all ways possible, including making sure your partner is using protection and being mature. You don't see people working with radioactive materials wearing swimshorts and sandals. They wear the proper equipment for the task; so should the mother and father. Birth control + condom + morning after (if ever a doubt) is really the best thing to counter conception. Though all of them have a chance to fail, if used properly and constantly together, the chance drops to, what? 0.001% And then you're just freakishly lucky if it stills happens lol

Noting that if you have to make sure your partner is using contraceptive every time you engage in intercourse, then the person ought to be dumped because 1) it's a very important issue (and the person's being an idiot about it), and 2) a partner is a partner and not a parent; if they can't think for themselves and understand it without you nagging them about contraceptive, then they need time to grow up. Not your job to be a mom / dad.

Different topic, though.
  #24    
Old May 17th, 2013, 07:06 AM
Oryx's Avatar
Oryx
Of the pigeon, by the pigeon, for the pigeon
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Age: 22
Gender: Female
Nature: Relaxed
Are you speaking morally or legally? I'm speaking purely from a legal standpoint, not a moral one. If having a child does not obligate you to donate nonessential organs if they need it, then having sex should not legally obligate you to donating your body for 9 months.
Theme
Pair
VM
PM
  #25    
Old May 17th, 2013, 08:38 AM
Moogles's Avatar
Moogles
better than u
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Dalhousie University
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Nature: Bold
The sad thing is that abortion shouldn't be a question between "murdering" a "baby" or not. Rather, it should be a question on if a woman has the right to control what's happening in her body or not. What a lot of people don't seem to understand is that pregnancy and childbirth is actually a really tiring and invasive process. I'm a man and I don't think I could ever handle carrying a baby for nine months. Carrying a child isn't pretty and if a woman doesn't think she can handle it, she should have the choice to get an abortion.

I mean I don't really like the thought of abortion, but I recognize that a) As a man it really isn't my decision and I can't tell a woman what to do with her body and b) A woman should have the right to opt out of having her own body completely invaded for nine months.

And besides, if a woman doesn't want a child she'll find a way to abort it. Legalized abortions give safer access to healthcare and that's the important thing. Without it, well, we could have more stories like the OP 8(
Me. I am Moogles... The Elusive Chanteur

Quote:
Honestly, Moogles, your posts are so nigh impossible to understand that I cannot help but just scratch my head. I know you’re trying to be clever and cute with your outright… pitiful writing style, but I’ll… try to tackle whatever drivel you said.
Post Reply
Quick Reply

Sponsored Links
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Minimum Characters Per Post: 25



All times are UTC -8. The time now is 11:03 AM.

About Us
© 2002 - 2014 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com. Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.

Copyright
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2014 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com. PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator. Header artwork by Jordanice of deviantART.

Social Media
If you would like to stay up-to-date with us on the go, when we're down, or other such things, follow us on social media sites--most notibly Twitter, Facebook, and Google Plus--by clicking on the links provided.

Design presented by Peitharchia. Special thanks to Hiroshi Sotomura and Ausaudriel.