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

Debate: Abortion

Recommended Posts

Guest RobJohnstone
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?

I used to work with someone who used abortion as birth control. He got his grilfriend to do it 3 times. Pretty sick fucking people out there. Too top it off he didn;t even feel bad, infact he laughed about it.

 

--Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest EricMM
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.

 

You're damn right that there's disagreement. Sex is not for fun, sex is not for love. Sex is reproduction, nothing more, nothing less. It may be a fun way to express your love for someone, but it's still a means to an end, and that end is pregnancy. There are other ways to have fun with someone you love, and if you choose to have intercourse, you really should deal with the serious possiblity of conception. If you were on the pill, or you were using a condom, or you were using anything like that, and you got pregnant, you should deal with it. If you really didn't want to get pregnant, I mean REALLY wanted to be sure you didn't have a baby, you wouldn't have sex at all. Isn't this clear?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest EricMM

And it's not like I'm abstainance only, I mean, sex is okay, but you have to accept the consequences of your actions. It is entirely fine to have sex using both a condom and the pill. Your chance of having a baby then are tiny tiny tiny. But even if you did, I feel that the moral thing to do would be to carry the baby to term and give it up for adoption if you didn't want to keep it. If you THAT against pregnancy, birth, and all associated issues, DON'T have sex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LooseCannon
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.

 

You're damn right that there's disagreement. Sex is not for fun, sex is not for love. Sex is reproduction, nothing more, nothing less. It may be a fun way to express your love for someone, but it's still a means to an end, and that end is pregnancy. There are other ways to have fun with someone you love, and if you choose to have intercourse, you really should deal with the serious possiblity of conception. If you were on the pill, or you were using a condom, or you were using anything like that, and you got pregnant, you should deal with it. If you really didn't want to get pregnant, I mean REALLY wanted to be sure you didn't have a baby, you wouldn't have sex at all. Isn't this clear?

*yawn*

 

okay grandpa

 

If I'm a woman, and I don't believe that this fetus inside of me is a human being in the sense that it deserves the dignity and respect that makes it impermissible for me to abort it, then what exactly is it about the procedure that means I can't use it as a method of birth control?

 

Or maybe having to carry the thing to term is the punishment for having the impunity to enjoy a good lay now and then. Cause Christ knows we have to "accept the consequences" of our actions. Whatever that means in this context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest RobJohnstone

"If I'm a woman, and I don't believe that this fetus inside of me is a human being in the sense that it deserves the dignity and respect that makes it impermissible for me to abort it, then what exactly is it about the procedure that means I can't use it as a method of birth control?"

 

Then that woman is ignorant to the fact. Obviously the fetus is a human being. It's simple, if you abort it, you are a murderer.

 

Loose Cannon, ever think about what if your parents would have aborted you?

 

--Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LooseCannon
"If I'm a woman, and I don't believe that this fetus inside of me is a human being in the sense that it deserves the dignity and respect that makes it impermissible for me to abort it, then what exactly is it about the procedure that means I can't use it as a method of birth control?"

 

Then that woman is ignorant to the fact.  Obviously the fetus is a human being.  It's simple, if you abort it, you are a murderer.  

 

Loose Cannon, ever think about what if your parents would have aborted you?

 

--Rob

Rob that woman is ignorant to the fact to you, fine. I haven't voiced my opinion on that point yet, here. But the way I see it:

 

A. If you believe this fetus is human in the way I described in my previous post, then you would not have an abortion under any circumstances. Not rape, not incest, not because you're poor, and maybe not even for the life of the mother.

 

B. If you don't believe the fetus is human, than you have no basis for objecting to using abortion as a method of birth control.

 

To me, it's an either-or proposition.

 

Also I don't think it means anything after the fact to ask someone 25 years later how they'd feel about their parents aborting them. I mean shit, if they had, I probably wouldn't be complaining about it now, now would I?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest RobJohnstone

You wouldn't be living, your parents took the right for you to live away from you. That my friend is murder.

 

--Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LooseCannon

To you, maybe.

 

To my mom, she was just removing some pesky tissue from her womb.

 

Who says you're right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LooseCannon

And that's just what I expected you to answer. Do you believe those of you who believe in God have the authority/right to impose your belief on those who disagree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest EricMM

Shhh rob shhh

 

Loose Cannon, if you do feel that the embryo is a human, then YES you would feel obligated to carry the baby to term with IMO the exception of if the baby is born it will kill the mom, since I would see that as some sort of sad self defense. I agree with your point, I just don't see who could see a fetus as anything other than a potential human, especially after like a month of development in the womb.

 

And getting an abortion is not exactly like cutting your hair. It's not excess tissue, it's your progeny.

 

BTW, like I said, I'm all for sex, as long as you're ready to accept the consequences. I'm nobody's granda, you're older than me, don't act like I'm a prude. With sex comes responsability, or else comes bad shit. Shit like STD's and pregnancy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JMA

I'm going to have to agree with LooseCannon here. I don't consider a fetus a human being. And I don't think some religious cult should dictate what women do with their bodies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LooseCannon
BTW, like I said, I'm all for sex, as long as you're ready to accept the consequences. I'm nobody's granda, you're older than me, don't act like I'm a prude. With sex comes responsability, or else comes bad shit. Shit like STD's and pregnancy.

Preliminarily, I was just joking around w/ the "grandpa" comment. Didn't mean anything other than just a friendly, lighthearted jab.

 

Loose Cannon, if you do feel that the embryo is a human, then YES you would feel obligated to carry the baby to term with IMO the exception of if the baby is born it will kill the mom, since I would see that as some sort of sad self defense.  I agree with your point, I just don't see who could see a fetus as anything other than a potential human, especially after like a month of development in the womb.

 

According to some moral codes, not even the life of the mother would justify abortion, based on the distinction between actively committing evil and passively allowing evil. Also, even if you do think it is a human life, one can still believe abortion is morally permissable, because otherwise you are making the woman obligated to support this life (like the hypothetical from before). I can concede that one can reasonably believe that concession to sexual intercourse is a concession to accept this obligation. But I also believe that one can reasonably believe otherwise. It's just a difference in moral beliefs.

 

And getting an abortion is not exactly like cutting your hair.  It's not excess tissue, it's your progeny.

 

It's different in terms of the invasiveness of the operation, but to me it's not different morally, if it is not a human being. It is to you, I can accept that, and won't try to persuade you otherwise.

 

But as far as the "having sex means dealing with the consequences" argument, well, if you don't believe that this is a human life, and you don't want to carry it to term, than having an abortion IS dealing with the consequences.

 

Putting certain arguments to the side (such as Dr. Tom's and other legal and constitutional points), and viewing this as solely a moral question, the issue boils down to whether a group with one moral code can impose their views on people with a different moral code.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Samurai_Goat

"According to some moral codes, not even the life of the mother would justify abortion, based on the distinction between actively committing evil and passively allowing evil"

 

Yea, well, if you really place life on that high a list, than you should definatly abort. The mother could have other children, thus producing more life. However, if you kill the mother for the child, not only could the child turn out to be a complete waste of a human, or abnormally sick, or unlucky, you've destroyed something that already has value to both you and to society. I'm not attacking you, just this, in my oh so not humble opinion, silly view.

 

And I can hear the response someone will give me. "What if that kid's the next Einstein/Motzart/Michelangelo?" Well, if you ask me, genious isn't born, it's raised. Genetic potential only carrys so far. So who do you think will be raised better: The kid with two loving parents, or just a father whose wife died giving birth to this child?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LooseCannon

I'm not saying that's my view. Some people just believe it is morally superior to let the mother die, than it is to actively kill the fetus. I'm not saying it's not a silly view, but it's not exactly an unpopular one, either. It's the Catholic Church's official position, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Retro Rob
GOD

 

--Rob

Ugh... Don't bring HIM into this...

 

Considering I don't believe in God, why would I give a shit what he thinks of me for being Pro-Choice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest thetrendsetter

It is the mother's body, it's the mother that sits through the 9 month pregancy. How can you tell someone what to do with thier own body. If they don't want the fetus, it is completely their choice.

 

If the mother doesn't recognize the fetus as a human, then it's no moral dilemma on her part.

 

Cancer is a growth in the human body, it is living tissue, a fetus isn't a human, it's living tissue. therefore should we not allow people to kill cancerous tumours because it's living tissue.

 

Legally, The United States and Canadian Governments Does Not Consider A Fetus A Person on the census, therefore as a whole, our society does not consider a fetus a person.

 

Again, Not arguing any persons individual arguement, i just feel everyone has the right to make thier own decision.

 

"Rob Johnstone : You wouldn't be living, your parents took the right for you to live away from you. That my friend is murder."

 

Loosecannon: "Who says you're right? "

 

Rob Johnstone: "GOD"

 

If someone doesn't believe in god, that comment doesn't have bearing, and whose god are we talking about? Does Every God have these views on abortion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Samurai_Goat

Hey, I brake for advanced melanoma. It's living too.

 

Edit: I break for advanced melanoma. May seem a bit more amusing, but kinda silly, when you think about it. I have my reputation to consider.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JMA
Ugh... Don't bring HIM into this...

 

Considering I don't believe in God, why would I give a shit what he thinks of me for being Pro-Choice?

I totally agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Spicy McHaggis
I'm not saying that's my view.  Some people just believe it is morally superior to let the mother die, than it is to actively kill the fetus.  I'm not saying it's not a silly view, but it's not exactly an unpopular one, either.  It's the Catholic Church's official position, for example.

Do some f-ing research, man.

 

"First, while the Church opposes all direct abortions, it does not condemn procedures which result, indirectly, in the loss of the unborn child as a "secondary effect." For example, if a mother is suffering an ectopic pregnancy (a baby is developing in her fallopian tube, not the womb), a doctor may remove the fallopian tube as therapeutic treatment to prevent the mother’s death. The infant will not survive long after this, but the intention of the procedure and its action is to preserve the mother’s life. It is not a direct abortion.

 

There also occur, very rarely, situations in which, in order to save the mother’s life, the child needs to be delivered early. But this can be done safely with a normal, induced delivery, or a caesarean section."

 

http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletter...s/CU/ac0898.asp

 

It is scientific and medical fact that life begins at conception. I'll prove it if I have to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LooseCannon

Where does what you have quoted contradict what I said. In fact the line which says, "while the Church opposes all direct abortions, it does not condemn procedures which result, indirectly, in the loss of the unborn child as a 'secondary effect.'" would seem to be just about exactly what I said.

 

No shit. Life begins at conception. But we kill living things all the time. You can't scientifically or philosophically, however, prove that at conception, this life has aquired the aspects which make it wrong to terminate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One note: with the claims of 43 million kids aborted, if those abortions never happened, there'd probably be about 30 million people tops, since you have to figure that if a mother had the kid, she might not have gotten pregnant again and all those other varibles.

 

Partial-birth abortions should be illegal except for the health of the mother and maybe Rape or Incest (but the mother should have known about the circumstances of who or how she got pregnant in time to get a normal abortion instead of one at the last minute)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LooseCannon
Humans only breed humans... for a start.

I don't want to retort with a comment like "so?" But there's not a whole lot else to say. It's a question, for some, of when this life becomes a human being worthy of the dignity and respect which protect it from being arbitrarily terminated. We have different beliefs on the matter. I understand that to you it's common sense. But a lot of people don't see it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Spicy McHaggis

For another, the baby/fetus has complete DNA at conception.

 

But, I guess it's another "agree-to-disagree" situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ace309

Quoth LooseCannon:

Some people just believe it is morally superior to let the mother die, than it is to actively kill the fetus. I'm not saying it's not a silly view, but it's not exactly an unpopular one, either. It's the Catholic Church's official position, for example.

 

Responded Spicy, with cite:

"First, while the Church opposes all direct abortions, it does not condemn procedures which result, indirectly, in the loss of the unborn child as a "secondary effect." For example, if a mother is suffering an ectopic pregnancy (a baby is developing in her fallopian tube, not the womb), a doctor may remove the fallopian tube as therapeutic treatment to prevent the mother’s death. The infant will not survive long after this, but the intention of the procedure and its action is to preserve the mother’s life. It is not a direct abortion.

 

There also occur, very rarely, situations in which, in order to save the mother’s life, the child needs to be delivered early. But this can be done safely with a normal, induced delivery, or a caesarean section."

 

And yet, LooseCannon replies with:

Where does what you have quoted contradict what I said. In fact the line which says, "<snip due to quote above>" would seem to be just about exactly what I said.

 

But it's not, Cannon. You said that the Catholic Church's official position was to let the mother die rather than abort, and Spicy's quote (WITH CITE~! I love you, man) directly refutes that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LooseCannon

No it doesn't it says "the Church opposes all direct abortions." It then gives examples of situations where a procedure is not a direct abortion. What I had said before was that the distinction was between an active act of evil vs passively permitting a bad consequence. Those procedures mentioned in Spicy's quote are such that you can say you are permitting a bad consequence and not performing an act of evil.

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  

×