- 11-03-2005, 02:31 PM
Well I was at the Yale Physics Olympics a little while back. On a corner near the university, there was an old dude (70 maybe), holding a sign. At the top in big letters was the word "CHOICE." Then there was what looked like a dead chicken below it. I didnt notice untill I got closer that it was a fetus. Here is the picture, or very close to the picture, of what was on his board...
Now im not here to voice my opinion on abortion, arguing on the web is pointless. I will say, however, that this pic deeply disturbed me.
- 11-03-2005, 04:18 PM
Originally Posted by spatch
I empathize with people who are against abortion. I'm against it myself in principle. I do think those kids have the right to live, but they don't have the right to live at the expense of anyone else, the mother in this instance. Nor does anyone else have the right to live at the expense of anyone else. Self sovereignty to me is paramount in this issue.
Now of course this is a grey area. That logic taken to it's extreme means if no one is willing to help someone they should be left to die in the street. Both prochoice and prolife people have valid points that deserve serious consideration, and the extremists on both sides are misguided I think in not acknowledging that things aren't always so black and white. You're not just removing tissue from a woman's body when performing an abortion, nor can life be said to begin at conception with any certainty.
That's why I'd prefer the issue be left to the states. Whether Roe v Wade is constitutionally sound or not I have no idea. But, personally I'd prefer the abortion issue be left to the states to decide so no one-size-fits-all decision is forced on any one subpopulation within the US, and options along the entire spectrum of opinion are made available to all people.
- 11-03-2005, 04:45 PM
Originally Posted by CDB
There is 1 and only 1 case where I agree with abortion: When the mothers life is in danger.
Other than that there is no need to be performing one. Some say that there are more reasons to, but I bet to differ...
1) The mother is too young, say, under 18. In this case, the new grandparents should be responsible. They didnt raise her to be mature enough to not have a kid under 18, so this is there punisment. If I were to ever murder someone, my parents would get in some sort of trouble. Same with drugs. Why not with child birth?
2) Rape. Look at the wonderful opportunity you have. This baby's father was a rapist, so we can assume he wasnt a good guy. You can now raise this child to be a better person, and have a brighter future than the father. The father isnt sentanced to death for the rape, why should the kid? Even if you dont want to raise the kid, get it addopted. I would rather be in an orphanige than dead any day.
3) The mother just doens't want it. Well, the unibomber doesnt want to go to prison, so lets not make him. Sometimes you need to be RESPONSIBLE for your actions.
To end, unless there is a threat to the mothers life, there is no need to kill the baby. Worst comes to worst, adopt it.
PS- This is only my oppinion. I've been wrong before, and I'll be damned if I'm never wrong again.
11-03-2005, 05:16 PM
This is one issue that I really don't have a strong opinion on, and I don't think I ever will...which is not to say that I think it is unimportant. I tend to agree with CDB.
I have my own similar anecdote: While I was running a marathon several years ago there was a group of prolife demonstrators with gruesome posters that were probably about 3ftx5ft. They were staggered about every 20 yards for about a mile on a spot where you had to double back so that you would see them at about mile 16 and again at about 22. I observe the right to protest peacefully, and I can understand and possibly agree with their point of view, but graphic displays for people who are already nauseous and wiped out really serves no purpose. I felt a profound loathing for these demonstrators who I may have otherwise empathized with. Their classless display drove me further from understanding them.
11-03-2005, 08:24 PM
That picture is very bothersome, but as stated above, a touchy issue.
My own personal thoughts,a woman should have the right to an abortion, in a few cases, life threatening, and if raped.
Sadly in my line of work I see it used as a form of birth control, which sickens me.
RIP Ryan, :(
11-03-2005, 08:47 PM
11-03-2005, 08:52 PM
Well I have to commend the posters here. No personal attacks just stating their own opinions. VERY nice.
BTW does it seem like a large number of people who are out to protect animals, their rights and nature are pro choice/abortion?
Sleep Supplement 3Z BCAA: Red Raspberry and Lemon flavors
HGH/sleep enhancer: HGHpro
Test Booster: TestoPRO and STOKED!
Preworkout: MANIAC Fruit Punch and Pink Lemonade
11-03-2005, 08:56 PM
It does annoy me that some people believe in putting animals rights in front of humans rights. Pretty ass backwards if you ask me.Originally Posted by CROWLER
11-03-2005, 10:11 PM
Just as there are ppl who are pro-life who favor the death penalty and support the iraq invasion...Originally Posted by CROWLER
People frequently (too often IMO) take positions on issues based on emotion instead of logic and that protester is using that very approach. He is using a gory display to trigger an emotional reaction supporting his position.
Where is the debate on the social and economic costs as well as the impact on human and civil rights? Trying to settle issues and differences emotionally is all but futile.
11-03-2005, 10:46 PM
CDB...have you read Freakonomics?
11-03-2005, 11:05 PM
The thing that gets me about abortion is the grey area. As a man, I wouldn't feel comfortable telling a woman to get an abortion if she got raped or if her life was in danger due to the pregnancy. But IMO, abortions are murder if you get them just because you weren't responsible
11-04-2005, 05:37 AM
Theres a big difference between the death penalty and abortion. The baby hasnt even been given the chance to do something wrong, while the person being executed is likly a murderer.Originally Posted by Nitrox
Whats your line of work?Originally Posted by toughchick401
11-04-2005, 06:21 AM
Just playing devils advocate here... But technically speaking... isnt that exactly what it is... a form of birth control. The only 100% effective one.Originally Posted by toughchick401
11-04-2005, 06:23 AM
Thats me!!!!!!!!Originally Posted by Nitrox
11-04-2005, 06:29 AM
If the potential for life IS life, then I have murdered millions...thoughtlessly washing them down the drain of the shower. I think that there are compelling arguements on both sides, but what you are calling a "baby" is hardly such, and I am surprised to see such illogical arguements on this board. Digging up an acorn before it becomes an oak tree is hardly the same thing as cutting down a tree that is living and established. And further to say that "alot of people that support animal rights seem support abortion" and thus, they are putting animal rights above human rights is really reaching. Rational discussion is one thing, but this is just an "I feel" type of argument going on, and will never reach a satisfactory end.
That being said, I am glad that people feel strongly in this issue, as I too value human life. I have, however, seen what happens to unwanted children and suffice it to say that maybe not having ever "lived" may sometimes not be the worst case scenario.
11-04-2005, 06:29 AM
cheers broOriginally Posted by DAdams91982
11-04-2005, 07:04 AM
That is a very week argument... You are comparing tree to a human being??? But again... that is why you are entitled to an opinion... I fully believe it is a baby. Even though the other side might say Hardly such.Originally Posted by diminuendo
11-04-2005, 07:05 AM
Originally Posted by spatch
11-04-2005, 09:34 AM
That pic kinda freaked me out. My wife is pregnant with twins and we just had our first ultrasound this week.
11-04-2005, 09:50 AM
Congrats and good luck. You're gonna need it with two cryin' babies.Originally Posted by foo.c
11-04-2005, 12:38 PM
I guess from the previoius posts, I'll probably get savagely beaten by you guys...
So a 12 year old girl should have a baby as punishment?! I believe the girl would be punished as much as the "grandparents." Or is it that the girl can go on living like a 12 year old (with no responsibility of the child), and her parents would take care of the child?!1) The mother is too young, say, under 18. In this case, the new grandparents should be responsible. They didnt raise her to be mature enough to not have a kid under 18, so this is there punisment. If I were to ever murder someone, my parents would get in some sort of trouble. Same with drugs. Why not with child birth?
I'm sure if you were raped, you'd want a constant reminder of such an awful event. Every time you looked at the baby, you'd think how horrible it was when it was conceived. Oh, and not to mention when the child grows up...2) Rape. Look at the wonderful opportunity you have. This baby's father was a rapist, so we can assume he wasnt a good guy. You can now raise this child to be a better person, and have a brighter future than the father. The father isnt sentanced to death for the rape, why should the kid? Even if you dont want to raise the kid, get it addopted. I would rather be in an orphanige than dead any day.
"Mommy, where's daddy?"
"Oh he's in prison for raping me...and your the result of it"
I'm sure that wouldn't have any effect on the mother or the child.
I'm all for the adoption angle, but once again it should be the mother's choice whether to have it, not anyone elses.
I don't think you're really aware of what's going on. I don't remember swimming around in the womb...I would rather be in an orphanige than dead any day.
Blowing people up is a crime, so you have to go to prison...having an abortion is legal.3) The mother just doens't want it. Well, the unibomber doesnt want to go to prison, so lets not make him. Sometimes you need to be RESPONSIBLE for your actions.
If the mother doesn't want it, you want to FORCE her to have it?!
I'm sure that wouldn't cause the mother to resent the child and possibly abuse it. Is that better?!
Of course, as said previously (Nitrox)...what about the economic/social issues?!
If you don't have the money, how are you going to give the child a decent life?!
Yes, I believe that people shouldn't use abortion as birth control, but I also believe it should be the woman's choice. Adoption is always the best option, but once again, that's for the woman to decide, not you.
I read that the majority of schools don't even teach birth control, but instead focus on abstinenance. Get real! A study just came out showing that this doesn't work, and that kids taught this actually have higher instances of STD's, and pregnancies!
Ok, enough of this ranting....
11-04-2005, 01:54 PM
The original point was that some people who support abortion are apparently hypocritical in their beliefs. I was illustrating the opposite. As far as the degree of difference between the two, that is debatable. It could come down to whether or not one human should be allowed to take the life of another. In that case there is no difference...Originally Posted by spatch
If you feel so strongly that other people should be made to take responsibility for others (ie the parents or grandparents) then why not take it one step further? If all pregnancies must be carried to term then there should be a draft amongst all pro-lifers to be adoptive parents for unwanted children. How many can you take Spatch?
If the abortion issue was so simple it would have been solved by now.
11-04-2005, 02:04 PM
a woman's choice is just that. it's much easier for us to point the finger when we haven't been in that position. however, i do believe there should be some sort of guidelines in qualifying for the procedure.
11-04-2005, 02:06 PM
ah... already see where this is going... might as well close the thread soon.
11-04-2005, 04:14 PM
Social work for now, lots of educating familes, training for jobs, making sure they have medical insurance or can get afforable insurance. I do it all this year as far as what I have gotten involved in, getting mothers already admitting to having abortions because they had no birth control! So i send them to get birth control, but its sadly like holding a child's hand, if I don't hold there hands it dosent get done.Originally Posted by spatch
RIP Ryan, :(
11-04-2005, 04:19 PM
So far this thread has been about 100% debate, and little/no pointless personal attacks. I'll try to keep it that wayOriginally Posted by EESCHMan
Within that child the mother holds the key to the future. Sure she could think of the rape when she looked at the kid. However, when the kid graduates school, gets a job, and becomes a productive citizen, she can know she changed, and possibly saved, a life.
11-04-2005, 07:20 PM
It was not an argument, it was an analogy. And yes, I was comparing a tree to a human, though not in a sense of worth rather to get a sense of the fact that it is highly unlikely that you are aware of the physiology of the fetus at the time most abortions are performed.
An acorn is no more an oak tree than MOST aborted fetuses are humans. Furthermore their brains lack a paradigm for which to compare/associate any nerve impulses including those along the pain pathways, and thus cannot truly experience pain and fear as we can.
To an extent this misunderstanding is due to anthropomorphism on the part of the beholder. We know that there are living cells, and we know that there is a possibility that those living cells will someday become a human being. This does NOT a human make. Each of the millions af sperm in each male ejaculation are living cells and are potential human lives. We needn't hold a mass funeral with millions of little coffins every time we come since potential requires actuation to become.
The more logical arguments center on when life begins, and that my friends is another thread at the least.
11-04-2005, 11:22 PM
wordOriginally Posted by diminuendo
11-05-2005, 01:26 AM
This argument I have to say I never agreed with. Those people would argue they are against killing someone who has not done something to deserve that kind of punishment. It's the difference between killing an innocent and killing someone whose a convicted murderer. Of course, innocents are killed in wars and these people know that, so we're back in the grey area.Originally Posted by Nitrox
True, but people have very different views on those issues. Arguments about social costs taken to their extreme lead to very unpleasant circumstances. The underlying point that I think should never be lost is people disagree on whether or not a fetus counts as a human life and if so is deserving of human rights.Where is the debate on the social and economic costs as well as the impact on human and civil rights? Trying to settle issues and differences emotionally is all but futile.
Many people argue that steroids and other drugs should always be illegal and the punishments for possession, use and sale should be taken to extremes, and they often point to what they consider to be the social costs of drug use. And, they ignore or don't see the social costs that arise from the extreme violation of individual's rights that are necessary to enforce such laws.
Loads of unwanted children can have social costs. But, I don't think anyone is worried about unwanted rich kids. Some, liberal and conservative and even prochoice and prolife, woud question the 'quick fix' aspect of abortion as I'd call it. What would we do with all those kids? How many would grow up to be criminals? How many unwanted rich kids will grow up to be corporate creeps?
I think bringing up the social costs of not allowing abortions sort of covers up a more major issue that needs attention: why are there so many unwanted kids, and why are so many parents seemingly incapable of raising them so they don't turn out to be criminals, of any stripe or income level?
11-05-2005, 01:31 AM
Heard of it, never read it. Sadly enough these days I barely have enough time scratch my balls much less read the way I used to.Originally Posted by size
11-05-2005, 01:44 AM
No, but one small point...Originally Posted by EESCHMan
This isn't a good argument. Legality is not the same thing as morality, which is what people are concentrating on when they discuss this issue. Trying to meld the two is a big mistake in my opinion.Blowing people up is a crime, so you have to go to prison...having an abortion is legal.
For example, were abortion to be made illegal in the near future I'm sure you wouldn't change your mind on the morality of the issue. A law making abortion legal doesn't make it moral anymore than a law making abortion illegal makes it immoral. That's just the law, and as I'm sure we all know here the law can be very misguided and outright wrong quite often.
No, but I'm sure that now you are here you're probably on balance happy you weren't aborted. The fact, alluded to in a part of your post I didn't quote, that the child isn't conscious, or that their life might no be as pleasant as others doesn't negate the argument from human rights. It's still arguable that they have the right to that life, no matter how vile it may turn out to be.If the mother doesn't want it, you want to FORCE her to have it?!
I'm sure that wouldn't cause the mother to resent the child and possibly abuse it. Is that better?!
A person who is incapacitated and in a vegetative state still has rights, and the situation is especially clear if they've left a living will. What if they have the potential to recover? No matter how remote it is, is someone else justified in pulling the plug, and is it moral and legal to force someone to keep the machines going in the hope they will one day wake up?
11-05-2005, 01:58 AM
True, those arguments are a lot more logical. But we are not a nation of Spocks, and to take the analogy further, Spock (logic) and Kirk (passion) were very weak characters when dealt with seperately. Their chemistry was in how they worked together. Logic is a process, it still needs premises to be plugged in, and those premises have moral and ethical aspects to them.Originally Posted by diminuendo
Even were we to get everyone to agree on what constitutes a human life (not going to happen), and then center in perfectly on when that life begins (probably impossible), the moral issues still remain. Constantly aborting potential lives can be argued to be morally wrong too, if not from the abortions but from the behavior that leads to them.
There are people born without the ability to feel pain. That doesn't make it okay to engage in actions that would, if they could feel pain, hurt them. Hold their hand to a fire and they're still burned, whether they felt it or not.
Personally I think life began a very, very long time ago and has never ended since. I'm never going to tell anyone what to do with their own body, whether they want to take drugs or abort a fetus. Self sovereignty. But, I can still judge their behavior and at the very least use that as guide in my life to help me determine right from wrong.
11-05-2005, 04:59 PM
No, were not forcing her to have a baby, were saying she shoud have to give birth bc she wasn't smart enough to use birth controll or not have sex if she didnt want to deal with the consequences.Originally Posted by EESCHMan
Repeat after me... Re-spon-si-bil-i-ty
Again, this isnt a personal attack, just debaiting
11-05-2005, 06:28 PM
Legally restricting her access to an abortion is forcing her to have the child, so that is in fact what you are saying. All laws are backed up with the threat of force. Just because that force is legally sanctioned doesn't change that basic fact.Originally Posted by spatch
11-05-2005, 07:37 PM
Abortion is quite possibly the worst act the human race has ever committed.
I can't even fathom how abortion became a "right" that trumps the most basic right we have... the right to life.
11-05-2005, 11:13 PM
I agree. One of my best friends was born from a rape, she is an amazing person that is very glad her mother didnt abort her, despite the rough times she has had.Originally Posted by brogers
11-05-2005, 11:55 PM
What I dont get is how some people are agains eating animals but for abortions. My motto- REAL MEN EAT MEAT
Also, if I have the "choice" to remove a baby from my body, I'll be damned if I dont have the choice to use PCP, heroin, anabolic steroids, crack cocane, or anything else I so deem necessary.
11-06-2005, 11:55 PM
It's kind of disgusting, but when I've been at accident scenes where people have been horribly burned, it smells like a good BBQ. Sick but true. You never look at a rack of ribs the same way again.Originally Posted by spatch
11-07-2005, 04:55 PM
11-07-2005, 05:59 PM
Morality aside, I truly do not understand our government's stance on issues of life. Allowing abortion is a decision on when life begins by the government is it not? In my eyes it has to be or the laws of homocide would apply.
So the government decides a fetus is not life. Agree or disagree but that is the decision.
But then I've seen incidents where a drunk driver kills a pregnant woman and is charged with two counts of vehicular manslaughter.
So is want of a child the deciding factor? Is desire for life a requiste for it?
If the government decides desire for life is the deciding factor then why is doctor assisted suicide illegal?
I don't understand laws in place that would allow me to drive my girlfriend to an abortion clinic without penality, get in a accident on the way home that leads to a murder charge of an unborn victim, prevent a doctor from giving me a lethal injection upon my request if I was distraught over it, or sentencing me to death because of it.
*This post is not intended to support abortion, suicide, drunk driving, or the death penalty*
Similar Forum Threads
- By kwyckemynd00 in forum PoliticsReplies: 123Last Post: 05-03-2006, 12:32 PM
- By BigVrunga in forum News and ArticlesReplies: 90Last Post: 03-02-2006, 08:29 PM
- By spatch in forum General ChatReplies: 159Last Post: 02-04-2006, 10:15 AM
- By wheystation in forum General ChatReplies: 14Last Post: 08-13-2005, 07:01 PM
- By Fleetcare in forum AnabolicsReplies: 3Last Post: 07-08-2004, 08:46 PM