Jump to content
TSM Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Guest AnnieEclectic

Debate: Abortion

Recommended Posts

Guest EricMM

I don't care what time the bible says that life starts, I know as well as everyone else that if you have a little 3 month old pre-baby, if you don't vacuum it, it will turn into a baby. It is basically wrong to end that. The same way it is wrong to choke a 3 day old baby to death, it is wrong to kill a fetus or a embryo or whatever.

 

That being said, I am totally against legislation attempting to illegalize abortion. I believe that if the Mother's life is at risk, she has the right to abort the baby. In this world you gotta look out for yourself. But abortions are not the only way to get out of having a child. You can set the baby up for adoption. If people (women) don't want to go through pregnancy or labor, they shouldn't have sex, especially without protection.

 

In fact, I think even in cases of rape, it would be more humane for the mother to conceive a child and set it up for adoption if she didn't want to deal with it. It's wrong to blame or punish the baby with what the father did.

 

Basically I'm pro-choice, and very anti-abortion. I'm totally glad that it will never really be up to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Agent of Oblivion

I liked the point you presented earlier, NoCal, about male birth control. I think it would be quite popular, actually. I for one don't want an unwanted pregnancy, and if in a couple, both the man and woman involved were on the shot or whatever, the chance of having a kid would be virtually nil.

 

Frankly, I can't think of any guys I know that wouldn't use that, were it available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest EricMM

I guess it must be pretty difficult to make a reliable male pill or injection. But think about how the pill works right? It makes it so that the egg doesn't get released right? The body thinks it's kind of pregnant right? I'm not entirely sure but that's my best recollection. But then guys don't eeeever stop making sperms so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ace309
Also, I feel that the argument that women will get abortions no matter what is kind of silly. I mean, coke addicts will get cocaine no matter what - that doesn't mean it should be legalized.

 

What you have here is an apples-and-oranges comparison.

 

Legal Coke = Snort it, get buzzed.

Illegal Coke = Snort it, get buzzed.

 

Legal Abortion = Knowledgable doctor performs a medical procedure in a sterile environment.

Illegal Abortion = Coat hanger.

 

I mean, is this abundantly clear?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest The Metal Maniac

Ace - I see where you're coming from, and it probably was a bad comparison. But the point I was trying to make is, just because people are going to do something anyway, I don't think that it should be legal, especially in cases where it causes harm to others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest thetrendsetter

Does A Fetus Count On The Census, No.

Does A Fetus Count As A Dependant, No.

Does A Fetus Sustain Life On It's Own, No.

 

I think a woman has every legal right to have an abortion, if both the man and woman are involved. I think if it's a mutual decision between the two that "They are not ready or mature enough for the kid", then yes, a Woman should have the right to have an abortion.

 

It's easy for someone to say "No, You Have To Have That Baby", especially when they don't know the circumstances of the person. There could be any number of reasons that a woman wants an abortion, and it's her legal right to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Spicy McHaggis

Does A 1 Day Old Baby Sustain Life On It's Own, No.

Does A 9 Month Old Baby Sustain Life On It's Own, No.

Does A 3 Year Old Child Sustain Life On It's Own, No.

 

Can one kill them also?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland
Does A 1 Day Old Baby Sustain Life On It's Own, No.

Does A 9 Month Old Baby Sustain Life On It's Own, No.

Does A 3 Year Old Child Sustain Life On It's Own, No.

 

Can one kill them also?

I'm sorry, but I didn't know a 1 day old, 9 month old, and 3 year old child would suddenly wither up and die if left alone for an hour.

 

I must be mistaken.

 

Damn those spontaneously combusting children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland

Yes, you fucking moron, they can SUSTAIN life on their own.

 

That means they don't rely on machines to simply be alive.

 

Perhaps a 3 year old couldn't survive without someone feeding it, but who's to say a 3 year old couldn't find food for itself?

 

Also take into account that the length of pregancy has significantly shortened for our species since what we would call 'prehistoric' times, and therefore, our children are born earlier than they are intended. Therefore, it's absurd to believe that a child could survive alone before the age of at least 2. However, that does not mean they cannot LIVE outside the womb, they simply won't be able to feed themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest J*ingus

I think NoCal brought up a very interesting point: do any of you know anyone that uses abortions as a form of birth control? I don't, and I've hung around some seriously fucked-up people in my time. I only know of one person in my circle of friends that's ever gotten one.

 

Plenty of the more hostile and virulent pro-lifers like to paint the picture of abortion offering an easy way out for loose women who didn't take care and got knocked up. That couldn't be any further from the truth. Abortions are expensive, for one thing, in the neighborhood of $500 or more, and they're not covered by insurance. They're an extremely invasive process, are usually rather painful, and can often leave permanent scarring. It's not the type of thing that anyone woud take lightly.

 

And finally, another point to ponder: nobody can agree on whether abortion is morally wrong or not. But my question is: even if it were to be decided morally wrong, is it the government's place to enact laws to legislate our morality?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Spicy McHaggis
Yes, you fucking moron, they can SUSTAIN life on their own.

 

That means they don't rely on machines to simply be alive.

 

Perhaps a 3 year old couldn't survive without someone feeding it, but who's to say a 3 year old couldn't find food for itself?

 

Also take into account that the length of pregancy has significantly shortened for our species since what we would call 'prehistoric' times, and therefore, our children are born earlier than they are intended. Therefore, it's absurd to believe that a child could survive alone before the age of at least 2. However, that does not mean they cannot LIVE outside the womb, they simply won't be able to feed themselves.

I didn't say "live," assmunch, I said "sustain life on it's OWN." If you can't feed yourself, you can't sustain life on your OWN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Spicy McHaggis

"But my question is: even if it were to be decided morally wrong, is it the government's place to enact laws to legislate our morality?"

 

Murder and stealing are decidedly morally wrong... should those acts be legislated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest J*ingus

Murder and stealing are acts which cause an immedietely obvious and measurable harm on the victims and society as a whole. Abortion is much more of a gray area, since the entire debate basically boils down to whether or not the fetuses can be considered victims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest HecateRose

It is hard to reasonably debate this topic since so much of it depends on circumstances. How the baby was conceived, whether the parents are ready to parent, the health conditions of the mother (both physical and psychological), etc. I have to point out that there are many women who would be physically capable of carrying a fetus to term, but would not be mentally/emotionally capable. Besides the obvious issue of the risk of post partum depression, there are many other psychological factors that would make pregnancy unbearable for some. I just don't believe it is fair to MAKE someone do it. Why? Because we have not been in that position. Who are we to say that this is best or right or moral when we have not been there. I know that at this time in my life I would be completely devasted/shocked/terrified (among other things) if I became pregnant. I do not believe that I would be capable of dealing with a pregnancy due to some of my "personal circumstances." In the end, it would be unhealthy for me to carry a baby to term, not physically but mentally/emotionally/psychologically. I know that I am not the only woman in the world that would be affected in that way. It is atleast something to consider.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TheZsaszHorsemen

Somone here stated that a pro-life man has *no right* to debate abortion.

 

Whoah, whoah, whoah, you can kill that fucking bullshit with a TORCH. If you say that men have no right debate abortion you accept:

 

1. Women had no right to protest the Vietnam War. (They wern't going to be drafted)

 

2. Whites had no right to call for abolition for slaves.

 

3. Northerners had no right to debate segrgation.

 

Abortion is an issue which is tearing at the moral fabric of this country. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Women don't just wake up with children, men are involved believe it or not.

 

(Oh, and I'm pro-choice for the record.)

 

I HATE THIS GODDAMN FEMINIST PROPAGANDA. I swear the next time I hear someone says this my response will be, "Shut up and make me a sandwich."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest HecateRose

I definitely think men have a right to debate abortion, because one day the might be the father of a baby that the mother wants to abort. This affects men too, especially on an emotional/mental/psychological level. Men have as much a right to an opinion on the matter as women do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest CanadianChick

I'm more Pro-Life than Pro-Choice, but I'm not so Pro-Life that I would condemn one who decides to have an abortion. I think that if the mother and father couldn't support the child, they could put the child up for adoption. But of course, there are different circumstances in different situations and the decision should be based on what the circumstances are. But I am more Pro-Life than Pro-Choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LooseCannon

I have a hypothetical situation my friends, which may or may not be relevant.

 

Let's say that a fully grown human being is suffering from a terminal disease. And let's say that that disease can be cured only by attaching some sort of tube to you, and you only, and that through this tube this person will recieve nourishment for 9 months. Upon conclusion of the nine months the tube will be removed and you both will be free to go about your lives. But in the interim, it will obviously be a pain in the ass.

 

Now, are you obligated to go through with this? What if this person is your child, does that change anything? What if while you were sleeping they attached themselves to you with this tube, should you be allowed to remove it once you woke up and found out about it? Does whether or not you had some hot, nasty, unprotected sex a few days earlier really change any of these answers?

 

Please discuss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Retro Rob

I don't know what I would do to if I accidentally impregnated a women, BUT I do know that it is not my place to tell other people what to do. If a person really wants to have an abortion, then so be it. Not myself, or ANY of us has the right to tell them otherwise. Pro-Choice all that way, but that doesn't mean I would chose an abortion if I was ever in that situation. Although I never want a child, if the woman I had sex with wanted to abort, I would suggest adoption and the other options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sassquatch

I believe in pro-choice because I'd rather see the parents go to a certified clinic rather than have a back alley abortion or bring a child into a family where he or she was an accident in which they receive no love from their parents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ace309
Let's say that a fully grown human being is suffering from a terminal disease. And let's say that that disease can be cured only by attaching some sort of tube to you, and you only, and that through this tube this person will recieve nourishment for 9 months. Upon conclusion of the nine months the tube will be removed and you both will be free to go about your lives. But in the interim, it will obviously be a pain in the ass.

 

Now, are you obligated to go through with this? What if this person is your child, does that change anything? What if while you were sleeping they attached themselves to you with this tube, should you be allowed to remove it once you woke up and found out about it? Does whether or not you had some hot, nasty, unprotected sex a few days earlier really change any of these answers?

 

Please discuss.

 

Cannon, I'm familiar with this in a different context. Generally, the way it's told is that you're kidnapped and attached to this person as a means to save his life, and therefore the scenario is analogous to a rape-induced pregnancy (nonconsensual etc).

 

My opinion is that if you volunteer to be attached, you really shouldn't detach yourself later. However, I think it's also relevant that you don't attach yourself to provide nourishment to an invalid for pleasure. The situations are similar, but there are differences which change the way we look at them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LooseCannon
Cannon, I'm familiar with this in a different context. Generally, the way it's told is that you're kidnapped and attached to this person as a means to save his life, and therefore the scenario is analogous to a rape-induced pregnancy (nonconsensual etc).

 

My opinion is that if you volunteer to be attached, you really shouldn't detach yourself later. However, I think it's also relevant that you don't attach yourself to provide nourishment to an invalid for pleasure. The situations are similar, but there are differences which change the way we look at them.

 

Someone I was discussing abortion with came up with this hypothetical to me, and I don't entirely agree with it as a perfect analogy either. But I disagree that it's analogous to a rape induced pregnancy. Because I don't believe that just because someone chooses to engage in sex, they in any way consent to "the attachment." Though there is room for disagreement on that point I suppose.

 

I do think that the hypo hints at the real issue of autonomy and bodily integrity. Whether or not one should be compelled to be a host for another organism, to have their body go through the radical changes and discomforts of pregnancy, for the survival of another. Whether or not it's that person's "fault" that that organism exists in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DrTom

As an idealist, I'm pro-ambivalence. I don't believe the federal government should be deciding whether abortion is legal. States should decide it for themselves via referenda.

 

As a realist, I know that abortion needs to be legal and federally protected. If people are going to have abortions, they should be as safe as any other medical procedure. I'm pro-choice, though I admittedly shake my head at cases where abortion is used as retroactive birth control. By the way, the "rape and incest" crowd should realize that their permitted criteria cover less than 2% of all abortions performed. I'd much rather argue the other 98 percent, but maybe that's just me.

 

As a misanthrope and a cynic, I wish more people would have abortions, just so there wouldn't be so many idiots in the world. But I'd never say something like that out loud... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LooseCannon
you know, it's not so much that I'm pro-choice as that I'm pro-abortion.

heh, I guess I would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Spicy McHaggis

"Because I don't believe that just because someone chooses to engage in sex, they in any way consent to 'the attachment.'"

 

So you don't think people should face consequences for their actions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×