Abortion

[Kanzler]

A "clump" of cells is considered to be a fetus from 10 weeks onwards. The heart begins beating shortly before (around nine weeks) and the embryo already looks like a homunculus. Apparently in the United States, medical abortions aren't done as often as surgical ones. Personally, taking a cocktail of drugs to induce an abortion is a lot easier to stomach than sucking out the fetus/embryo.

 

[Monophobia]

Out of your entire argument I find this one to be the most incorrect and abhorrent thing I've heard anyone say on the rape/abortion subject. It makes me sick that you would happily make women who are pregnant by rape carry a constant reminder of their trauma. You make it out like it's an easy situation. It's clearly not. The psychological pain it would cause the woman is not even worth thinking about. But let's not lose sight, and realise that yes, some women go on to having a child through rape, but then the child could find out the fact she/he was a product of rape. How would you feel? Yes, you've been given a chance to live because it wasn't your fault your mother got raped, but that can't be a good feeling to know your father is a rapist?

Anywho, I'm pro-choice if I haven't made that obvious. Things just aren't as simple as you make out. In a perfect world yes, they would be. But in this day and age some of the things you are saying just are not viable.

And to those essiantially saying that sex is only for procreation and not also recreation... Get yourselves out of the dark ages.

You're absolutely correct in the sense that I have no idea what being a rape victim carrying the baby of my offender would be like. At the same time, though, I feel like making another argument against it would be futile with the information that you are pro-choice. I'm not going to change your views and that's that.

Human beings are sexual creatures by nature. Telling a human being not to have sex and expecting them not to would be like telling the rain to stop falling and expecting it to stop.

I didn't say you should stop having sex, I'm saying you should understand the risks that come with it. Just like the fact that having sex could potentially give you an STD. If you're not willing to accept them for what they are - you should not have intercourse and be surprised if something should happen.

Parents make decisions for their children all the time that they hope will protect them from possible harm. This really isn't any different than that.

It's completely different. Protect them from harm by murdering them before they even get a chance to experience life?

What you believe is irrelevant. What anyone believes is irrelevant. People who have been raised by loving, caring parents who made genuine attempts to teach them right from wrong, have been known to commit atrocious crimes resulting in the death of others. Also, morals are subjective. They are not the same for anyone. You cannot judge anyone by your moral beliefs.

Listing that abortions should be carried out because the child may become a villainous person was irrelevant as well. I agree that anyone can become like that - regardless of circumstances. Apologies for my error here (it was late and my thinking wasn't too on-point). I can see I was wrong about that point, but my other points were valid.

 

[Oryx]

I didn't say you should stop having sex, I'm saying you should understand the risks that come with it. Just like the fact that having sex could potentially give you an STD. If you're not willing to accept them for what they are - you should not have intercourse and be surprised if something should happen.

If you drive a fast car down a highway and someone driving while drunk hits you and you're injured, should you deal with the consequences and not ask for compensation because if you're not willing to accept the consequences for what they are - you should not be driving a far car down a highway and being surprised that you got in an accident?

That question is rhetorical, because the answer is obvious, but the point of it is that there's a line. When you start creating consequence-based arguments, you are aware that there are some things we do where even if we increased our risk, we are not seen as obligated to "deal with the consequences" no matter the situation. So the argument becomes "where is that line." So to you, what amount of risk is acceptable before the blame shifts to the woman having sex? And why is none of the blame shifted to the man - why is he not obligated to care for the pregnant woman for those nine months, as he should be willing to accept the consequences as well?

 

[Monophobia]

If you drive a fast car down a highway and someone driving while drunk hits you and you're injured, should you deal with the consequences and not ask for compensation because if you're not willing to accept the consequences for what they are - you should not be driving a far car down a highway and being surprised that you got in an accident?

That question is rhetorical, because the answer is obvious, but the point of it is that there's a line. When you start creating consequence-based arguments, you are aware that there are some things we do where even if we increased our risk, we are not seen as obligated to "deal with the consequences" no matter the situation. So the argument becomes "where is that line." So to you, what amount of risk is acceptable before the blame shifts to the woman having sex? And why is none of the blame shifted to the man - why is he not obligated to care for the pregnant woman for those nine months, as he should be willing to accept the consequences as well?

f you decide to drive down the highway at all you are taking a risk. You're taking a risk by walking out of the door of your home every day. You understand that, no? That is why you do it.

Anyway, I never said that anyone was obligated to take responsibility for both their and other's actions. You simply have to know that you're always taking a risk. Whether the man takes responsibility or not is his choice - as is the woman's if she chooses to abort the baby. I've simply been stating that it's morally wrong in mine and many other's eyes. I'm not saying anyone HAS to do anything, just like a woman or man doesn't HAVE to have intercourse.

 

[Oryx]

f you decide to drive down the highway at all you are taking a risk. You're taking a risk by walking out of the door of your home every day. You understand that, no? That is why you do it.

Anyway, I never said that anyone was obligated to take responsibility for both their and other's actions. You simply have to know that you're always taking a risk. Whether the man takes responsibility or not is his choice - as is the woman's if she chooses to abort the baby. I've simply been stating that it's morally wrong in mine and many other's eyes. I'm not saying anyone HAS to do anything, just like a woman or man doesn't HAVE to have intercourse.

So you believe that everyone should be able to make that decision as they see fit, you just don't feel that it meshes with your morals?

That means you're pro-choice.

 

[Monophobia]

So you believe that everyone should be able to make that decision as they see fit, you just don't feel that it meshes with your morals?

That means you're pro-choice.

I'm against it. I feel it's unnecessary. But it's kind of like laws against crime. Regardless of the fact that it's a law, people will do it anyway, and will always do it. They will always have a choice and it will never be outlawed.

I guess I'm neutral leaning more toward the against side. Who knows? Perhaps I should stay out of it.

 

[Kanzler]

Sex is supposed to make babies. Women biologically bear children. I don't know why a woman's biological "responsibility" should be shared. It's a consequence.

 

[Dakotah]

Sex is supposed to make babies. Women biologically bear children. I don't know why a woman's biological "responsibility" should be shared. It's a consequence.

Sex has the potential to result in a pregnancy. But most sex is not done with the intent of creating a new life. Most people, male and female, take steps to protect themselves from an unwanted pregnancy. But sometimes those efforts fail.

To answer your question: It should be shared because the act of creating a new life is a shared event. It is only a consequence if the pregnancy is an undesired one. Otherwise, it is something to celebrate.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

Again, do people saying the "sexual experience is intended to make new life" argument realize that many animals masturbate on a fairly regular basis? Most life has sex because it feels ♥♥♥♥ing awesome, not because they want a baby. Same for people. In fact, pregnancy usually deters sex in many cases, due to a baby being quite expensive to take care of, in terms of metabolism for an animal and in terms of financial with humans.

It's true that it exists because it's the means of reproduction but just because we made fire to cook things doesn't mean that we can't use it for other things as well.

 

[twocows]

Again, do people saying the "sexual experience is intended to make new life" argument realize that many animals masturbate on a fairly regular basis? Most life has sex because it feels ♥♥♥♥ing awesome, not because they want a baby. Same for people. In fact, pregnancy usually deters sex in many cases, due to a baby being quite expensive to take care of, in terms of metabolism for an animal and in terms of financial with humans.

It's true that it exists because it's the means of reproduction but just because we made fire to cook things doesn't mean that we can't use it for other things as well.

I seem to remember that only a few species actually have sex for pleasure; others just do it (and similar behaviors) instinctively. I'm sure there's some evolutionary advantage for non-reproductive sexual behavior, though (I can think of several, but it's not a topic I care to speak about in depth).

That said, I strongly advocate that humans are more than just our instincts, and that's one of the things that makes us great. So we do what we do for whatever reasons we deem sufficient. It's like you said: just because there's a singular evolutionary reason for the behavior doesn't mean we can't have other reasons. We are more than just our base components, more than just the set of instructions that built us.

 

[Xebelleon]

Read a newspaper article about this power station that burned medical waste to do power plant things. They stopped accepting waste from somewhere in BC when they discovered that chopped up aborted fetus bits were in the mix.

One of the most shocking somethings I have ever read.

 

[Dakotah]

Read a newspaper article about this power station that burned medical waste to do power plant things. They stopped accepting waste from somewhere in BC when they discovered that chopped up aborted fetus bits were in the mix.

One of the most shocking somethings I have ever read.

It's interesting to note that the original article appeared in a B.C. Catholic newspaper, published by the Roman Archdiocese of Vancouver. Hardly what I would consider a reliable source of unbiased material. Be that as it may, however, an official response from Health Shared Services BC, which contracted the waste company to deliver hospital waste, has been issued:

Doug Kent, a vice-president of Health Shared Services BC, issued a written statement Thursday saying the contracted waste company will still have to dispose of hospital waste from B.C. even if the Oregon plant is no longer available. Biomedical waste is destroyed at various facilities in Canada and the U.S., he said, in accordance with national guidelines that require incineration of waste containing human tissue.

For those that might find it shocking that aborted fetuses might be among the medical waste included, I would have to pose this question: just how do you suggest these aborted fetuses be dealt with?

Keep in mind that all biological matter, be it human or otherwise, decomposes, which in the process exposes harmful bacteria into the air. This organic material, regardless whether it is from an aborted fetus or from an amputated limb, needs to be disposed of safely so as to not pose a health threat. Clearly storing the material in a freezer of some sort is unrealistic, given the amount of organic waste that accumulates at a hospital. They don't make freezers that big.

And to be perfectly honest, I would find it far more disconcerting to know that aborted fetuses are ending up in landfill sites. At least as a source of energy, these aborted fetuses can actually serve a good purpose rather than be discarded like so much garbage in a dump somewhere.

 

[Star-Lord]

What I don't get surrounding the abortion debate is how everyone goes into biology instead of looking at the simple fact that we don't have any other legal precedents that require someone to surrender their body to another person. Why is abortion the exception? (Hint: It shouldn't be and luckily in some places it isn't)

 

[Kanzler]

Because there are ethical controversies surrounding the personhood of a fetus. Isn't abortion legal in the Western world already?

 

[Star-Lord]

I'm aware of ethical considerations but the fact of the matter is, no matter what, legally we don't have something similar to where someone has to restrict control of their body. I could understand how ethical question comes into play if we had a law similar but we don't so, *shrug*

and nah there's still huge problems with abortion in the US.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

What I don't get surrounding the abortion debate is how everyone goes into biology instead of looking at the simple fact that we don't have any other legal precedents that require someone to surrender their body to another person. Why is abortion the exception? (Hint: It shouldn't be and luckily in some places it isn't)

It's because the Pro-Life debate, outside of a religious context, almost completely hinges on the debate of when life "begins". In all truthfulness life honestly begins when the cells that create them do, but the description of when a fetus becomes "a human" is hard to draw the line. It's almost as bogus as arguing when "a monkey becomes a human" or whatever with evolution. I notice this trend a lot with debates with a heavy religious overtone on one side...

Ultimately though I think people who are very strongly pro-life forget that abortions will still happen outside of the law. They will just be unregulated, dangerous, and possibly end up in the death of the mother. But I guess that's not as important as the baby, is it?... oh...

 

[Star-Lord]

It's because the Pro-Life debate, outside of a religious context, almost completely hinges on the debate of when life "begins". In all truthfulness life honestly begins when the cells that create them do, but the description of when a fetus becomes "a human" is hard to draw the line. It's almost as bogus as arguing when "a monkey becomes a human" or whatever with evolution. I notice this trend a lot with debates with a heavy religious overtone on one side...

I think my position is that I can't understand whether life beginning or not is really an issue. It seems so inconsequential to me in face of the fact that, in absolutely no other circumstance is someone supposed to give up their body. If one is not expected to give up their body to someone who's alive for pete's sake why should they give one up for the unborn?

Ultimately though I think people who are very strongly pro-life forget that abortions will still happen outside of the law. They will just be unregulated, dangerous, and possibly end up in the death of the mother. But I guess that's not as important as the baby, is it?... oh...

I agree. I mean I don't think abortion is a pretty thing but I support the legalization and regulation of it because women should have access to proper healthcare rather than terminating a child in an unsafe manner.

 

[RedMort]

In Spain, they have become a law over 50 years ago. Here there is no progress, it's always the same thing over and over and over again.
Everyone's opinion is that women choose less government the 5 people ...

 

[Ivysaur]

In Spain, they have become a law over 50 years ago. Here there is no progress, it's always the same thing over and over and over again.
Everyone's opinion is that women choose less government the 5 people ...

What? The first abortion law was passed in Spain in 1983 (that's 30 years ago, not 50), and only allowed it in cases of rape, unviability of the foetus, risk for the mother's life or "mental damage" for the mother. The law was tweaked in 2010 to give a blanket approval for all abortions before the 22nd week, and now our conservative Government plans to repeal that law and go back to the 1983 one with a few more restrictions. I wouldn't call that "progress" either, unless you mean in the anti-choice sense.

 

[~Justified~]

You cannot murder what is not protected under the law. An unborn child has no rights under the law. It is not protected by any Constitution that I know of. It is not considered a person. One of the reason personhood amendments (laws that would change the definition of a person to include a fertilized human egg) overwhelmingly fail to be passed is because they all have the potential to convict women of a criminal offense should she suffer a miscarriage. Already there was one instance where a woman who attempted to commit suicide, but failed, while pregnant was charged with murder because her fetus did not survive. Would you charge this woman with murder if you were the prosecutor?

Now you personally may not approve of abortion, but quite frankly, who the heck cares what you believe when your life is not affected one bit by a woman in another part of the world choosing to abort a child she did not want, or cannot raise, or will not be able to carry to term, or was conceived in rape? You have no stake in any woman's decisions on whether to carry a child to term or not, even if the woman is someone you are in a relationship with.

With that being said, let's say only american born citizens are protected under the law, everyone else is fair game for murder. Does that make it morally right? No, of course not. Just because the law says its not protected, doesn't mean it's morally right to kill it.

I also disagree with the people that say a woman has the right to control her body, of course she has the right to control it, but you agree to share your body with a child when you take part in the act that results in the conception of a child. Should a murderer be taken off death row because he didn't like the consequences of his actions? Absolutely not, this is no different. You conceive under no fault of anyone else but your own, therefore, you do not get to play God and choose who lives and who dies because you made a stupid mistake and did not want to deal with the consequences.

My opinion may differ in cases of rape or possible harm to the mother, but otherwise, you make your choice and you live with the consequences, that's how life works. In cases where you can't afford the child, that is what adoption is for.