Guest AnnieEclectic Report post Posted February 4, 2003 Well, here's my opinion: Abortions allowed, with severe restrictions. I don't like abortions used for birth control, or because Jenna Bush forgot her diaphragm. However, rape victims and the like should have access for a child they literally had no control over concieving. your thoughts? -Annie Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Thoth Report post Posted February 4, 2003 An abortion is morally permissible if the pregnancy was due to rape, or if birth control failed. Anyone who wishes to argue against this point can take his or her best shot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted February 4, 2003 Agree wholeheartedly with your opinion. Although, I also don't think it's our job to dictate morals to women. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Thoth Report post Posted February 4, 2003 My definition of morality is Utilitarianism which states that the best, and therefore, moral thing to do is to maximize pleasure while minimizing pain. This includes not only your pleasure and pain, but everyone's as a whole. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted February 4, 2003 And frankly, nobody has the right to dictate morals to any other person. Morals are a matter of personal belief, and therefore, no one should ever have to deal with another person dictating to you what you should and shouldn't believe. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Thoth Report post Posted February 4, 2003 Umm... Outcast, this is a debate ON morality, specifically, on that of abortion. However, since we're on the same side... uhh... +1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tim Report post Posted February 4, 2003 My feeling on this is pretty simple; it is a matter of personal choice between the mother, her physician, and the father. No-one else has the right to stop them doing what they see fit, even if they disagree. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Thoth Report post Posted February 4, 2003 I forgot to add that it's morally permissible even if you believe that a fetus is a child, and you might think it's murder, because it isn't. I should've said that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted February 4, 2003 Genesis 2:7: "...and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul." Breath is the official action of life, according to this verse. Therefore, a fetus is not a living being according to the bible. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest snuffbox Report post Posted February 4, 2003 If you are a male...and pro-life...you have some serious issues to deal with. There is ZERO reason for any man but the would-be fathr to have any say on this issue. It is entirely a womans body issue...and if that can not be respected, then you have some major problems with your mind, morality, and psyche. Its ok to have a personal opinion, but thats as far as it can possibly, ethically, righfully, go for any males whose sperm is not directly involved in the issue. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JMA Report post Posted February 4, 2003 I'm pro-choice. I wish there were LESS abortions, though. Maybe if people used protection and/or birth control. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest HecateRose Report post Posted February 4, 2003 I am definitely pro-choice, but with some limitations. I think if a woman was raped, has a health problem (such as a bad case of diabetes) that could lead to the death of the mother, or if they used proven methods of birth control that failed, then there should not be an issue. Now if she got drunk at a party, and one thing led to another, I don't think they should abort. I don't think it should be a way to counter act and irresponsible action, but I believe if you are responsible enough to use any measure proven to prevent pregnancy and you end up in that 1% (give or take) that got pregnant anyway, you should be able to terminate. I do not believe a fetus is alive, though I do not think late term abortions should be allowed. There is normally to much danger to the mother there, and at that point in the pregnancy I think it would be best to go for an adoption. I also think the father should always be consultated if that is possible. If it was a one-night-stand type encounter, than I would not expect the woman to try and track him down, but they were in an established relationship and finding him is possible, they should at least try. In the end, the only people who should be envolved are the woman, the father, and the doctor(s). Besides, if someone wants an abortion, they'll find a way to get one, might as well be in a good hospital, with a doctor trained to preform it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Agent of Oblivion Report post Posted February 4, 2003 Exactly. I'm not in favor of women getting tetanus, hepatitis, or worse from unsanitary shady clinics, so I could never say no to abortions with a good conscience. Partial-birth abortions are a whole other matter entirely, as at that point, it's a human, unlike in the earlier stages of pregnancy. If a woman's carried a baby that long, they might as well just carry the baby to term, and put the little brat up for adoption. I'd rather people just use contraceptives, or put the kid up for adoption, but the option to abort a fetus in a clean, safe environment should be there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Ace309 Report post Posted February 4, 2003 I think abortion is rarely morally permissible, because it leads to a willfull jettisoning of a living or potentially living being. (No, sperm per se and eggs per se do not count as 'potentially living,' because even if you leave them in ideal conditions, they will never be more than sperm per se and eggs per se.) However, sometimes you have to strike a balance between strict morality and the necessities of society. A friend of mine had an abortion last year that still bothers her to this day, but due to a variety of circumstances that don't need to be mentioned here, the baby wouldn't have been adoptable and she couldn't have supported it. Does it make her an immoral person? Probably. I personally think you shouldn't fuck around if you're not prepared to deal with the consequences. I'm not saying virtuous people don't have sex. I'm saying virtuous people don't have unprotected sex outside of a relationship in which they're prepared to deal with the consequences of that unprotected sex. But should it make her a criminal? No. Of course, there's also that little Constitution thingie again. Right to privacy in the penumbra of the 5th Amendment due process clause, 14th Amendment equal protection, and, of course, the police power under the 10th that allows and provides for the states to protect the health, general welfare and morals of the people. Health and general welfare conflict with morals in this case, so a balance has to be struck, but in light of the rest of the Constitution this is the right balance. And, off to class. (Y). EDIT: Meant the reference to health and general welfare to include, nonexclusively, the negative effects of the coathanger folks and their ilk. Hope that was implied. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest AnnieEclectic Report post Posted February 4, 2003 You know Tom, I'm not going to put down your opinion or feelings on this matter. I'm just a little surprised at your stance. To be honest, I'm not sure why, but I respect your stance even if I'm not totally in agreement with your morality stand. Actually, I think I respect you a touch more now. ...all in all, that slightly confused me, heh. -Annie Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Ace309 Report post Posted February 4, 2003 Annie, you ignorant slut, I... Oh, wait. It's my personal belief that, while there IS a universal, uniform code of morality inherent in existence which determines in all cases what is right or wrong, our ability to interpret that code is spotty at best. As a result, a lot of people have very different ideas about morality. As such, you can't legislate what's right or wrong, only what people are protected from. That's not wishy-washy political correctness; that's practicality. I think society would be a lot better off if no one had to have abortions, but then again, society's not perfect and neither are the people in it. As such, sometimes you need to allow people an escape hatch instead of punishing them all their life for an indiscretion, and let them deal with the moral consequences. Just my $.02. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NoCalMike Report post Posted February 4, 2003 I think abortion is better than ignorant, irresponsible, and drug addicted parents having the children, that do nothing to better society. Most people that aren't responsible enough to use contraceptives are not going to be responsible enough to raise a child, and the phrase, "they should have thought of that then" does not apply, because we don't have time machines nor can we reverse anything. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheZsaszHorsemen Report post Posted February 4, 2003 I've debated this too long with people I know and love to get involved, but let me lend some advice to those arguing. I long ago discovered the abortion question should be appraoched like any other and be attacked from the following points of view: Political Economic Moral Legal Anthropological Civil Rights Psychological I myself am pro-choice, because I discovered that most of these facets favored that side. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Thoth Report post Posted February 4, 2003 Dammit Annie, this was supposed to be a debate about the very nature of morals, using abortion as a metaphor as the very nature of right and wrong. And now it's all ruined. I'll be crying in the corner, the blue corner. The sad one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Powerplay Report post Posted February 4, 2003 I think abortion is better than ignorant, irresponsible, and drug addicted parents having the children, that do nothing to better society. Most people that aren't responsible enough to use contraceptives are not going to be responsible enough to raise a child, and the phrase, "they should have thought of that then" does not apply, because we don't have time machines nor can we reverse anything. I may be taking this wrong, but are you suggesting it as a sure fire birth control way? Because frankly, I agree with most people here in saying that it's generally only permissible in when used in cases of Rape or detrimental harm to the mother. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Crazy Dan Report post Posted February 4, 2003 I am pro-choice, but I really don't like the concept of abortion. But, I would rather have abortion being done in the care of a physician and clean environment, then in the back ally with a coat hanger. I think abortion should at the least be still allowed in the case of rape and to save the mother's life. I believe that adoption should be the first option, but when it comes down to it, it's a women's body and her choice, not mine, unless I was the father, then I would want a say in the matter. Regardless if I think it is immoral is a mout point. I don't agree with abortions being a form of birth control. In this case, I am for better safe sex education and abstinence programs. What I don't like are these "holier-than-thou" bible thumpers who spend all their time condemning and speaking out on the horrors of abortion. These are the people who protest at Planned Parenthood, harrassing those who enter. And in some cases killing the doctor as well. Those types of people I wish would get a life, and stop trying to live everyone's elses. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest KoR Fungus Report post Posted February 4, 2003 As far as practicality goes, I'm pro-choice (excluding partial birth abortions) because it isn't practical to ban abortions completely. The consequences, primarily do it yourself abortions, greatly outweigh the benefits. If people want to get an abortion, they're going to get one, and we really don't want a bunch of girls dying after botched abortions. As far as morality goes, I'm completely against using abortions as a form of birth control, and I think that abortions are morally justified only in the case of rape, risk to the mother or failed birth control. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Samurai_Goat Report post Posted February 4, 2003 You know, I don't think I've heard anyone who is really pro-abortion. In a perfect world, I'd be hollering at the top of my lungs against it. But this isn't a perfect world. However, I would like to say that if the Supreme Court ever passes a law that prevents abortions, then every baby who would have been aborted should be put on the steps of the supreme court for them to take care of. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SupaTaft Report post Posted February 5, 2003 Meh, none of my business. It's not my body. -Taft Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Ace309 Report post Posted February 5, 2003 Kodos: ABORTIONS FOR ALL! Crowd: *boos* Kodos: ABORTIONS FOR NONE! Crowd: *boos* Kodos: Hmm... Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others! Crowd: *cheers, waves flags* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest CED Ordonez Report post Posted February 5, 2003 John Jackson: "Now, I respect my opponent. I think he's a good man. But, quite frankly, I agree with everything he just said!" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NoCalMike Report post Posted February 5, 2003 I doubt anyone can name 5-10 people that use abortion as birth control. Lucky if you can name one person who has had more than ONE. They are out there, I am sure of it, but it is relative to the bigger picture. Fact is, 99% of women that get abortions probably get them because they are in no condition to be a parent, and personally that might just be the better solution. I think what the medical field NEEDS ASAP, is a shot for MALES that makes you infertile for maybe up to 3-6 months at a time, because there is NO WAY I would"forget" to get the shot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Metal Maniac Report post Posted February 5, 2003 I'm against it, because I look at it this way: No matter what stage of development the fetus is in, as long as it has been conceived, then it is something that will, barring outside circumstances, become a living, breathing human being. To interrupt that natural process is to stop a human being from exisiting, which is something I feel should be avoided in all possible forms (Though it must happen in some circumstances of self-defense and wars and the like) 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. In cases of rape, I can totally understand the desire to abort, but, as I've said, I STILL feel that once the process is started, it should not be interrupted. True, in this case, it is a hard decision to make, but I personally feel it is the correct one. In cases of failed contraceptives, too bad. I should hope that people are intelligent enough to realize that having sex can lead to having babies, if the chances are right, no matter how much latex you cram down there. They took the risk of having children when they decided to have sex, thus, they have to live with the potential consequences of their action. I mean, apparantly ignorance of the law is no excuse - why should ignorance of your own bodily functions be any different? Tyler - Your reading of the Bible seems somewhat off. I mean, Adam was merely created - he didn't have to be born, and thus didn't have to be a fetus, and thus when HE was declared to be alive is not necessairly when EVERYONE is to be declared "alive". And I believe that's all I have to say. And before anyone asks, yes, I'm Catholic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted February 5, 2003 That's also not the only line in the bible in which the breath = life theorem is displayed. Also, there are no true lines in which it says a child in the womb is a living organism. If you wish to discount that line, I can pretty much discount any other line in the bible that 'says otherwise' Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest LooseCannon Report post Posted February 5, 2003 you know, it's not so much that I'm pro-choice as that I'm pro-abortion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
