This is What's Wrong With Abortion

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote: First, you cannot let adults die. why the difference?

And no, we aren’t doctors or mothers, but were were babies once.[/quote]

…if i want to die, for whatever reason, i have the right to end my life. I am an organ donor, so it won’t be for nothing. I was an unexpected child, born just in time for the legalisation of abortion in Holland, and my mother never contemplated abortion inspite of the difficulties of having me…

…a dear friend of mine was in a bad relationship in her early 20s. She had an abortion because the thought of having a child with that man, and being tied to him for the rest of her life was too much to bear. It was her choice to make, and no-one else’s…

102

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:Really?

You don’t curtail rights to protect life? What’s the deal with them there gun control laws then? Please use little words, I’m a southern bible belt American.

We as a nation even force women and men to take care of their children after birth. Oh the horror. I’m assuming you don’t have laws against neglecting children, cause sometimes a mother wants to party right?

The hell is the difference between making parents take at least some measure of responsibility with there DNA inside or outside the womb?

If a mother or has the choice not to care for a child inside the womb how can you force her to care for it when born?[/quote]

…not upto the point that our government is denying any basic human right. I, we, don’t share the american idea that we have the right to bear arms, so that is not considered an infrigement by our government. That a child has to be taken care of does not compare to a fetus, which is basically a clump of cells, and the fact that there’s an impitus through legislation to care for your children does not, again, infringe on your basic human rights…

103

Why do people care about this so much?

Is it because they see babies as innocent and human life as sacred?

How then do they not care so much about wars waging all over the world, and “collateral damage” caused - shouldn’t you be fighting against war with all your energy?

104

[quote]ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote: First, you cannot let adults die. why the difference?

And no, we aren’t doctors or mothers, but were were babies once.

…if i want to die, for whatever reason, i have the right to end my life. I am an organ donor, so it won’t be for nothing. I was an unexpected child, born just in time for the legalisation of abortion in Holland, and my mother never contemplated abortion inspite of the difficulties of having me…

…a dear friend of mine was in a bad relationship in her early 20s. She had an abortion because the thought of having a child with that man, and being tied to him for the rest of her life was too much to bear. It was her choice to make, and no-one else’s…

[/quote]

Then your irresponsible friend shouldn’t have gotten herself into the situation. If you cannot raise a child, don’t put yourself at risk of having one. Her choice on getting pregnant or not was made when she had sex.

105

[quote]ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:Really?

You don’t curtail rights to protect life? What’s the deal with them there gun control laws then? Please use little words, I’m a southern bible belt American.

We as a nation even force women and men to take care of their children after birth. Oh the horror. I’m assuming you don’t have laws against neglecting children, cause sometimes a mother wants to party right?

The hell is the difference between making parents take at least some measure of responsibility with there DNA inside or outside the womb?

If a mother or has the choice not to care for a child inside the womb how can you force her to care for it when born?

…not upto the point that our government is denying any basic human right. I, we, don’t share the american idea that we have the right to bear arms, so that is not considered an infrigement by our government. That a child has to be taken care of does not compare to a fetus, which is basically a clump of cells, and the fact that there’s an impitus through legislation to care for your children does not, again, infringe on your basic human rights…

[/quote]

And I find it ridiculous you don’t the the right to bear arms is a right. I find it ridiculous (read stupid) they will arrest you for having a bullet in your pocket. But that is your society, you believe what you want (no matter how wrong you are j/k).

I also think your drug policy to be hypocritical. I’m willing to bet the objective of your government is the same as the one here (prevent people from doing them, est.). Only they realize driving it underground does more harm than good. That is a difference in method, not ideology, so you cannot claim ideological superiority.

Regardless, 24 weeks is NOT a fetus. Besides, there are movable limbs at 8 weeks, that constitutes way more than a “clump of cells”.

So forcing a mom to care for a child isn’t infringement on self determination?

106

…your life might be neatly divided into black/white and good/bad, and if that works for you than that’s great for you. But life just doesn’t work that way for most people. You, undoubtedly, believe your principles are commendable, but to me your way of thinking is rigid and devoid of compassion. Oh, but who’s having compassion for those poor aborted babies, you say? We all have, sir. It’s just that if i have to choose between the life and rights of a living, breathing person with an established life and a first trimester fetus, the choice is easy…

…i’ve never seen a discussion on this subject result in a better understanding from both sides, and this thread is no different. Your High Court decided long ago that the rights of women superceed that of a fetus, and even George W. did not manage to get that decision overturned. What makes you think you will?

107

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:Regardless, 24 weeks is NOT a fetus. Besides, there are movable limbs at 8 weeks, that constitutes way more than a “clump of cells”.

So forcing a mom to care for a child isn’t infringement on self determination?[/quote]

…abortion laws, even here in Holland, prevent abortion past 24 weeks except in cases where the life and health of the mother is in grave danger. You point is moot…

…no mother will be forced to care for a child. If she is not capable of providing a certain standard of care, her child is placed in the care of child services. Then the mother is liable for gross neglect. The fact to you have to provice a certain standard of care for your child is not an infringement on basic human rights…

108

[quote]ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote: Then your irresponsible friend shouldn’t have gotten herself into the situation. If you cannot raise a child, don’t put yourself at risk of having one. He choice on getting pregnant or not was made when she had sex.

…your life might be neatly divided into black/white and good/bad, and if that works for you than that’s great for you. But life just doesn’t work that way for most people. You, undoubtedly, believe your principles are commendable, but to me your way of thinking is rigid and devoid of compassion. Oh, but who’s having compassion for those poor aborted babies, you say? We all have, sir. It’s just that if i have to choose between the life and rights of a living, breathing person with an established life and a first trimester fetus, the choice is easy…

…i’ve never seen a discussion on this subject result in a better understanding from both sides, and this thread is no different. Your High Court decided long ago that the rights of women superceed that of a fetus, and even George W. did not manage to get that decision overturned. What makes you think you will?
[/quote]

lol. We get touchy when our own country becomes part of the conversation don’t we?

Just so we are clear a trimester is 14 weeks. Law allows up to 24 weeks (almost 2 full trimesters). So are you now disagreeing with the law?

109

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:lol. We get touchy when our own country becomes part of the conversation don’t we?

Just so we are clear a trimester is 14 weeks. Law allows up to 24 weeks (almost 2 full trimesters). So are you now disagreeing with the law?[/quote]

…no, not really. I do not take the opinion of others about my country personally. The first trimester remark was just to make a point, nothing more…

110

[quote]ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:lol. We get touchy when our own country becomes part of the conversation don’t we?

Just so we are clear a trimester is 14 weeks. Law allows up to 24 weeks (almost 2 full trimesters). So are you now disagreeing with the law?

…no, not really. I do not take the opinion of others about my country personally. The first trimester remark was just to make a point, nothing more…

[/quote]

I just wanted to make sure it was clear that 1st trimester was not the focus of this discussion.

I also agree that rape or endangerment of the mother are separate issues.

111

DD, I am curious, as you are against government intervention into peoples lives how would you control abortion without government intervention?

Mobs of motivated individuals outside clinics with banners?

112

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
DD, I am curious, as you are against government intervention into peoples lives how would you control abortion without government intervention?

Mobs of motivated individuals outside clinics with banners?[/quote]

lol. no. I’m against the government doing anything it doesn’t HAVE to. Protecting innocent life incapable of defending itself would be a have. Welfare, defining marriage, regulating drugs, economic stimulus, bailouts, est. are not.

113

But doesn’t welfare help to support the innocent children of families that are in poverty (the rest of your list I fully agree with so am having trouble drumming up an argument here)

114

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

Well, I was really discussing murder.

Consent is the key huh…? how do you ask a newborn?

Obviously a “newborn” would not be able to consent to his own termination. Of course, killing a “newborn” is generally considered to be a crime.

Most of us agree that all people are born with the right to life.

Whether they are conceived with the same right to life is not at all clear. If it were, abortion would be illegal. As the law stands, as long as the life is within its mother’s body, her rights trump its rights.

There is a distinction also, between killing something, and letting it die. If a baby comes out before it’s able to survive (generally until about 20 weeks), we call that a miscarriage, not a birth.

Between 20 and 27 weeks lies a vast moral gray area. To resuscitate or not to resuscitate? To abort or not to abort.

For the right to life laymen, there is no gray area. Never abort at any stage of gestation, and always resuscitate.

But for real doctors, and real mothers, it isn’t so clear-cut.

Myself, I would say no resuscitation before 24 weeks, and no abortions after. But I am neither a doctor nor a mother, so my opinion counts for little. As does yours.[/quote]

Good man.

115

So then we’ll ban abortion and let women seek the back alleys to get them from a guy in Vermont with a stump hand.

Or better yet, we’ll outlaw women having periods, because the egg should really be considered alive. Women should never have periods, they should get pregnant straight away and not murder that poor egg.

And men should only have 1 sperm in their ejaculate and make damn sure that the 1 sperm they give up makes it to the egg.

The fact remains that the armchair critics of abortion DO use emotion, and yes it is entirely possible to be rid of emotion in this issue.

I also don’t get why MALES are legislating on something that is such a FEMALE issue. What right do you have to fucking legislate on a uterus? Things like this are best discussed on a case by case basis. Making blanket decisions on things like this is what creates such friction.

116

[quote]Makavali wrote:
So then we’ll ban abortion and let women seek the back alleys to get them from a guy in Vermont with a stump hand.

Or better yet, we’ll outlaw women having periods, because the egg should really be considered alive. Women should never have periods, they should get pregnant straight away and not murder that poor egg.

And men should only have 1 sperm in their ejaculate and make damn sure that the 1 sperm they give up makes it to the egg.

The fact remains that the armchair critics of abortion DO use emotion, and yes it is entirely possible to be rid of emotion in this issue.

I also don’t get why MALES are legislating on something that is such a FEMALE issue. What right do you have to fucking legislate on a uterus? Things like this are best discussed on a case by case basis. Making blanket decisions on things like this is what creates such friction.[/quote]

I agree.

The fact is that there will always be abortions. Having them legal lets the government regulate and the oversee them and at the very least make sure they’re safe.

It’s also true that a guy can knock a girl up and then… well, take off. If the woman is lucky, the guy isn’t a scumbag and she gets child support, but the fact remains that often it would mean the child being raised alone. That’s a very personal thing for the government to demand that they do…especially when the same voices that demand the woman have the child are the same ones who vote against welfare that could help her during the inevitable hard times.

Glad I’ve got a cock, tell you that.

117

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Can one of you guys chart out how much each person is worth at each age, gender, race?

A 23 day old isn’t worth 200k. what about a 1 year old? what about a 3 year old? is “it” worth more once they learn to walk or talk? Orphans not worth investing money in if they don’t have people who love them? Do you value infants by weight? Tell me what the spending limits should be on each person.

I’m sorry, but that justification is asinine.[/quote]

Actually, having raised 4 kids, one of which is in college, thus far I have determined kids have negative value. In fact, I am fairly certain, I will never get paid back the money that I have “invested” in them. They in turn, however, will have kids of their own that they will lose money on. That is their karma.

118

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
So then we’ll ban abortion and let women seek the back alleys to get them from a guy in Vermont with a stump hand.

Or better yet, we’ll outlaw women having periods, because the egg should really be considered alive. Women should never have periods, they should get pregnant straight away and not murder that poor egg.

And men should only have 1 sperm in their ejaculate and make damn sure that the 1 sperm they give up makes it to the egg.

The fact remains that the armchair critics of abortion DO use emotion, and yes it is entirely possible to be rid of emotion in this issue.

I also don’t get why MALES are legislating on something that is such a FEMALE issue. What right do you have to fucking legislate on a uterus? Things like this are best discussed on a case by case basis. Making blanket decisions on things like this is what creates such friction.

I agree.

The fact is that there will always be abortions. Having them legal lets the government regulate and the oversee them and at the very least make sure they’re safe.

It’s also true that a guy can knock a girl up and then… well, take off. If the woman is lucky, the guy isn’t a scumbag and she gets child support, but the fact remains that often it would mean the child being raised alone. That’s a very personal thing for the government to demand that they do…especially when the same voices that demand the woman have the child are the same ones who vote against welfare that could help her during the inevitable hard times.

Glad I’ve got a cock, tell you that. [/quote]

Circumstances do not negate the fact that the life you are taking is a human life. If circumstances were the determinant of the value of a human life, then we can solve a lot of problems by just killing off a whole bunch of people in dire straits… Famine in Africa? bomb the shit out of them and they will be hungry no more. But that is morally repugnant is it not? Yet some how it becomes a right and a liberty to take life when it is cloaked in the human flesh of the mother. Somehow when you can’t see it, it’s not murder, but in reality it is murder. This story illustrates that, when the bitch having the abortion exclaimed “They killed my baby!” that was telling right there. She was horrified at the fact that they did what she came in there for, but when she sees what it really is she sees it now as murder. That is a bitter way to learn a lesson.

The fact that people would do them any way in some cases doesn’t make it right. People break laws all the time, it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have laws. People rape, murder, steal, abuse, etc. despite the fact that it is illegal. She we provide a safe environment for people to commit such acts simply because they will do it anyway? I thought not.

119

[quote]Magarhe wrote:
Why do people care about this so much?

Is it because they see babies as innocent and human life as sacred?

How then do they not care so much about wars waging all over the world, and “collateral damage” caused - shouldn’t you be fighting against war with all your energy?

[/quote]

Collateral damage from war is not the topic at hand, but most of us do care about that as well. Feel free to start a thread about that.
At 40+ million babies killed and counting by “legal” abortion, the casualty rate is much higher than any war. Only Stalin legally killed more people.

120

[quote]tom63 wrote:
Scott Peterson is in prison for double murder…One of the murders was his unborn son.

how does that work now? If you want it, it’s a life, but if you don’t, it’s not a life.

[/quote]

It is a paradox of the law…Terminating a pregnancy out side the haven of an abortion clinic, can get you prosecuted for murder…So technically, you can only off your offspring in designated areas legally.
Go punch a pregnant woman in the gut hard enough to kill her baby and see what you get in a court of law.