Guest My Eyebrow is on fire Report post Posted March 26, 2003 Ok – occasionally I do this to expand my mind and to “keep myself smart.” I take an issue on which I stand, and evaluate it to see if I’m correct. I believe there is a correct opinion and a wrong opinion – no in between – and I always want to be right so… I’m Pro Life. Well, not really. I personally have no morals, to an extent. I’m not a christian, and I don’t give a shit whether or not a woman gets an abortion. She can get 2 a day and I would not care at all. I don’t really see what’s so sacred about a human life, in the womb or out of it – which is sick and sociopathic I guess. I’m so jaded to mankind, how dishonest people are generally, that I’ve lost my faith in mankind. And I don’t see what’s so bad about death anyway. I like sleeping. Most people love a good sleep and do it whenever they have the opportunity for as long as they can, but they’re afraid of death. Odd to me. Anyway…even though I don’t give a shit whether or not Sally has an abortion – I can’t get past the fact that it’s HUMAN. I’ve heard arguments that a tapeworm and a fetus are the same type of organism – and the only difference between killing a tapeworm and killing a fetus is that the fetus is human. So what gives us the right to kill the tapeworm over the fetus. That’s true on every level, except for the fact that the fetus is a HUMAN, as soon as it starts feeding off of you to survive. I mean, I just can’t see around the fact that 1) it’s alive and 2) no matter how undeveloped, it’s a human. Am I not getting something here? I don’t understand what “choice” there is. You’re carrying a human being in you – how can you “choose” to kill it? Isn’t that murder? Not that I care anyway, but it’s bugging me because I can always see an opposing viewpoint clearly. In this case – I don’t see the opposing viewpoint’s argument at all. Sure the fetus is mush in the early stages, but the mere fact it’s feeding off of you to survive indicates it lives on it’s own (albeit dependently). It’s a big mushy gooey human that can’t talk or think clearly yet – but it’s a human and illegal to kill humans. Not that I care one way or the other. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest EricMM Report post Posted March 26, 2003 Sometimes if they don't abort the baby the mother will die. Then it's a choice of who's life is more valueable, a little packgage of tissue or a breathing established(~!(?)) human being. Otherwise I agree with you there are other options than killing the fetus. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Ravenbomb Report post Posted March 27, 2003 when it's okay: Rape, incest, birth control fails when it's not okay: Idiot Brian and Idiot Sue think you can't get pregnant if you do it in the shower Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MrRant Report post Posted March 27, 2003 when it's not okay: Idiot Brian and Idiot Sue think you can't get pregnant if you do it in the shower Oh.... shit..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest bob_barron Report post Posted March 27, 2003 My problem with pro-choice is those botched abortions that can occur. I mean look at treble charged Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest snuffbox Report post Posted March 27, 2003 I love it when MALES think they can even voice an opinion on this unless theyre the father. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Texas Small Arms 09 Report post Posted March 27, 2003 This is a sensitive subject, but I am and will forever stand by pro choice. I feel it is a womens right to choose. Even though I am a catholic, there are choices that I choose not to stand by and this is one of them. And I know people will agrue that it is a potential life you are taking, and that is fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but no arguement will ever get me to change my mind. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest nl5xsk1 Report post Posted March 27, 2003 I should preface this with the fact that I'm a male, so my opinion - per snuffbox - is useless ... but the reason that I'm strongly pro-choice is because when I was in high school I joined the school's Women's Issues Group, and one of the functions that we did was escort girls into abortion clinics to help them get through the pro-life protesters as unscathed as possible. Once you've been spit on by pro-lifers while they waive posters of fetuses in your face, you learn to strongly disagree with those that spit and screamed. I went from being relatively impartial (say 60%-40% pro-choice) to amazingly pro-choice (say 100%-0%) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Incandenza Report post Posted March 27, 2003 I'm pro choice, as well. And as fucked up as it is that people have abortions just because they were too stupid to use protection, there's nothing you can do about that without infringing on the rights of those for whom an abortion is vitally important. Oh, and I can't forget that certain faction of pro-lifers that nl5xsk1 mentioned. Were I not an atheist, I'd say there's a place in hell for those rotten fucks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest El Satanico Report post Posted March 27, 2003 The ONLY person other than the mother that should have ANY say in the choice is the birth father. No one else should be able to tell her what choice to make because it doesn't affect them directly. Rather it's right or wrong they should have the choice to get an abortion. I believe they should be forced to attend a meeting or class that will explain everything and show them all of the alternatives and forced to wait at least a day before they are allowed to have the abortian. This would make sure they understand that there's other options and then given time to decide if it's really what they want. If they returned after the class and waiting period and still wanted an abortion then it's done. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Metal Maniac Report post Posted March 27, 2003 2 things: I love it when MALES think they can even voice an opinion on this unless theyre the father. By that logic, women shouldn't be allowed to voice an opinion on the draft. Just because something doesn't directly involve me, that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on it. Secondly, I'm of the mind that if you have sex, protected, and she gets preganant anyway....too bad. No one ever said that condom was 100% safe. People need to understand that if they're going to engage in an act which has 2 potential results (Kid or no kid) then they have to deal with the consequences of their actions. But that's my take. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest LooseCannon Report post Posted March 27, 2003 All I know is that this decision is far too important to trust a friggin' woman to make. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Texas Small Arms 09 Report post Posted March 27, 2003 Spoken like a true male....makes me chuckle Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest EricMM Report post Posted March 27, 2003 See but that's Loose Cannon, he's twisted. If my post was confusing let me say this: I am pro choice in that I don't want abortions outlawed, we've been there and it's not worth it. However, I feel that in cases where there is no risk of physical harm to the mother, I think it is MUCH more um ethical? moral? whatever to carry the baby to term and give it up for adoption. Ok, I mean if a father rapes his 12 year old daughter and she gets pregnant, maybe then it's better to avoid the situation. But if the woman is in her twenties, why should the baby have to pay with it's life when it's the father who raped the mother? Rape is one of the most awful things and I think it should probably be punished by life in jail doing hard time (for active violent rape) but the baby deserves to live anyways. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SP-1 Report post Posted March 27, 2003 As a writer, something that interests me is that if some kid goes and gets knocked up before realizing there are consequences to such a thing and aborts the baby . . . what if that was the person that was going to cure cancer? Or AIDS? Life is too precious. Too important. And too many good things can come of it to extinguish it. If you don't want to mother/father this person, fine. Give it up for adoption to good parents who DO want to have children but cannot for whatever reason. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest cynicalprofit Report post Posted March 27, 2003 Simple reason: if it's not your kid or your body, its not your business. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest snuffbox Report post Posted March 27, 2003 2 things: I love it when MALES think they can even voice an opinion on this unless theyre the father. By that logic, women shouldn't be allowed to voice an opinion on the draft. Just because something doesn't directly involve me, that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on it. Secondly, I'm of the mind that if you have sex, protected, and she gets preganant anyway....too bad. No one ever said that condom was 100% safe. People need to understand that if they're going to engage in an act which has 2 potential results (Kid or no kid) then they have to deal with the consequences of their actions. But that's my take. An 'opinion' is entirely different than being able to choose. I doubt theres an abortion fanclub or anything. Its not a cool or popular thing but that doesnt change the idea that its a woman's body; its a woman's decision. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest My Eyebrow is on fire Report post Posted March 27, 2003 I'm still VERY unclear on the pro choice position. Basically I've gotten, so far, the impression of "Yes you're killing a child, but it's not your child so mind your own business." I think that "I want the right to choose" is the most debated incomplete thought (almost a fragment) of modern times. Choose what? What are you choosing? If there is a living human being inside of you (it's not an alien, it's not a goat, it's a human), I don't see how in the world I can respect your request for "The right to choose [to kill the child]." Once again, I'm not a radical christian, I'm not even a christian - and I don't give a shit if a woman kills her child or not...but I think most definitely it's murder, and it's hypocritical to outlaw one and not the other. I mean come on, just because the kid is silent doesn't mean he doesn't mind being dissolved with chemicals and sucked out. Although nowadays I wish somebody would spare me the torture of my shitty job and dissolve me with chemicals and suck me out of the 2nd story window. But that's another story. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JangoFett4Hire Report post Posted March 27, 2003 I love pro-lifers, such as John Salvi, who in 1994 shot up a Planned Parenthood in Boston, killing 2 workers. I'm so pro-life, I'll kill for it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest B-X Report post Posted March 27, 2003 lets not forget Eric Rudolph. Bombed the clinic in Birmingham, might have done the Olympic bombing, then went into hiding in the mountains of NC. I'd bet that he STILL hiding in them woods. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest LooseCannon Report post Posted March 27, 2003 See but that's Loose Cannon, he's twisted. Really, I'm more curled... ...into a ball like an unborn fetus. Ok, I mean if a father rapes his 12 year old daughter and she gets pregnant, maybe then it's better to avoid the situation. But if the woman is in her twenties, why should the baby have to pay with it's life when it's the father who raped the mother? Rape is one of the most awful things and I think it should probably be punished by life in jail doing hard time (for active violent rape) but the baby deserves to live anyways. Choose what? What are you choosing? If there is a living human being inside of you (it's not an alien, it's not a goat, it's a human), I don't see how in the world I can respect your request for "The right to choose [to kill the child]." Because women are not breeding machines. From where does this obligation to preserve this life come? If she doesn't want to be an incubator, why should we impose that obligation upon her? It's not at all the same as killing a self-sufficient, sentient being. It's more like removing someone from life support, except more justifiable, because women are not life support machines and they didn't volunteer to become one. And likin' dick doesn't change any of that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Goodear Report post Posted March 27, 2003 See, I wrote a paper on this once... so I'm an EXPERT! Or whatever. Even if you refuse to believe that a fetus is a living human (and that's reasonable... IMO); I would find it impossible to dismiss that a fetus is indeed at the very least a potential human. And even under that rational a fetus has some intrinsic value beyond that of say ... a desk which is never going to get up, walk and talk, or complain about its curfew. Trust me as someone who is anti-abortion, there is nothing I find more distastful than someone who murders someone in the name of this cause... nor do I appreciate the protesters. It's more like removing someone from life support, except more justifiable, because women are not life support machines and they didn't volunteer to become one. And likin' dick doesn't change any of that. I find this to be a faulty analogy, considering that a fetus is going to be "off life support" in a pretty set determinant amount of time. You make it sound if Jimmy is on life support and we know he's going to wake up in a week, that it is morally acceptable to pull the plug. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest LooseCannon Report post Posted March 27, 2003 I find this to be a faulty analogy, considering that a fetus is going to be "off life support" in a pretty set determinant amount of time. You make it sound if Jimmy is on life support and we know he's going to wake up in a week, that it is morally acceptable to pull the plug. And you make it sound like a woman in this situation is the exact equivalent of a life support machine. If little Jimmy needs a pint of blood in order to pull through, and you for whatever reason are the only one who can provide it, are you morally obligated to give it to him? Should we condemn you and put you in jail if you don't? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest J*ingus Report post Posted March 27, 2003 Well, this devolved into the usual "it's her choice" vs. "it's a baby" argument. A different debate point: should anti-abortion protestors be allowed to form picket lines right outside the clinics (so that clinic workers, patients, etc.) have to walk through a screaming mob of people to get inside? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest My Eyebrow is on fire Report post Posted March 27, 2003 Ok now I'm starting to see the opposing viewpoint - which was the goal of this thread. The basic issue of disagreement is "Does a fetus have rights?" If you come to the conclusion that it's soul-less, lifeless mass similar to your appendix - I see where you're coming from. Women have the absolute right to get right of their appendix or tonsils and shouldn't be denied the right to choose to remove them. However, if you come to the conclusion which I have - that it's feeding and growing, therefore it's alive and isn't anything but a human being - then I believe it has every right a walking, talking human being has - one of such rights is not to be killed. <<It's not at all the same as killing a self-sufficient, sentient being. >> I don't understand, after the initial indications that he/she lives as a separate organism (like feeding and growing) that it can be regarded as lifeless. Just because he/she is too immature physically to talk like a human, doesn't mean he/she isn't a human. <<From where does this obligation to preserve this life come? If she doesn't want to be an incubator, why should we impose that obligation upon her? >> Sexual intercourse does not lead to isolated incidents of childbirth. It's the cause of childbirth, and speaking from an evolutionary standpoint, it has no other purpose. She shouldn't be forced to be an incubator - but she wasn't selected randomly like in a case of cancer or influenza. Nobody forced her to have sexual intercourse. The choice to potentially become an incubator was presented to her before the penis was inserted, and she chose to take the risk. <<they didn't volunteer to become one. >> I will avoid analogies because too often they're incorrect. But, I do feel that by her consenting to have sex with a male - and that she was potentially going to have a human life form inside of her because of her consenting - that's volunteering to enter yourself into the lottery of having a child - and being an incubator. << It's more like removing someone from life support,>> <<If little Jimmy needs a pint of blood in order to pull through, and you for whatever reason are the only one who can provide it, are you morally obligated to give it to him?>> I don't think that analogy is correct because you were not responsible for putting Jimmy in his situation. By consenting to sex, the woman has agreed to potentially having a child form in her stomach. If she hadn't agreed to have sex, the baby would not be there in the first place - thus she's responsible for it's presence. Also it's not correct I feel because you are not performing a "cause and effect" action to exterminate Billy. Billy was dying on his own, the baby would have been fine if you didn't perform the procedure. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest LooseCannon Report post Posted March 28, 2003 <<It's not at all the same as killing a self-sufficient, sentient being. >> I don't understand, after the initial indications that he/she lives as a separate organism (like feeding and growing) that it can be regarded as lifeless. Just because he/she is too immature physically to talk like a human, doesn't mean he/she isn't a human. I always end up dragging myself into these threads when I don't really intend to. Anyway... I'm not saying it's not human (not necessarily saying it is). I'm saying it's not the same as killing something that can live on its own. I'm saying that a woman does not have the obligation to ensure the survival of this fetus. (We'll get to your contention that she does later.) <<From where does this obligation to preserve this life come? If she doesn't want to be an incubator, why should we impose that obligation upon her? >> Sexual intercourse does not lead to isolated incidents of childbirth. It's the cause of childbirth, and speaking from an evolutionary standpoint, it has no other purpose. She shouldn't be forced to be an incubator - but she wasn't selected randomly like in a case of cancer or influenza. Nobody forced her to have sexual intercourse. The choice to potentially become an incubator was presented to her before the penis was inserted, and she chose to take the risk. This is where the ultimate point of our disagreement lies. I read something like that and I understand it as basically the equivalent of saying that people should be punished for enjoying sex, or at the very least deserve any ill consequences that result. I actually agree with you on that one. There's nothing better than sitting back with my arms folded, a satisfied smirk on my face, and saying "bitch I told you so" to some pregnant girl who hadn't realized what a horrible thing sex outside the confines of marriage is. It's just that I don't believe the fetus should have to suffer the ignominy of growing up with a whore for a mother. <<they didn't volunteer to become one. >> I will avoid analogies because too often they're incorrect. But, I do feel that by her consenting to have sex with a male - and that she was potentially going to have a human life form inside of her because of her consenting - that's volunteering to enter yourself into the lottery of having a child - and being an incubator. << It's more like removing someone from life support,>> <<If little Jimmy needs a pint of blood in order to pull through, and you for whatever reason are the only one who can provide it, are you morally obligated to give it to him?>> I don't think that analogy is correct because you were not responsible for putting Jimmy in his situation. By consenting to sex, the woman has agreed to potentially having a child form in her stomach. If she hadn't agreed to have sex, the baby would not be there in the first place - thus she's responsible for it's presence. Also it's not correct I feel because you are not performing a "cause and effect" action to exterminate Billy. Billy was dying on his own, the baby would have been fine if you didn't perform the procedure. Of course the analogies are not perfect. Abortion is abortion, it's not exactly like anything else. And most of the analogies to abortion will tend to blend the action/omission distinction. I'm merely trying to illustrate the background principles that make abortion justifiable. Principally the principle of Autonomy. We just don't have the obligation toward other human beings that you are saddling the mother with in this situation. But you justify that obligation by saying that she consented to getting laid and so consented to the obligation. I'm sure a lot of people around here will agree with that. But I chose not to embrace such a stark worldview. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Metal Maniac Report post Posted March 28, 2003 It's just that I don't believe the fetus should have to suffer the ignominy of growing up with a whore for a mother. And who, exactly, are you, or anyone else, to make that choice for the fetus? Not existing means that the potential child has no way to feel joy, in any capacity. So, by existing, this fetus' chances to feel happy are increased by an enormous capacity. Will there be sadness in it's life? Quite possible, but hey, that's life. The point I'm trying to make is this: By denying that child the chance to live, in an effort to keep it from having a sad life, you're also depriving it of the chance to have a very happy life. However, all this talk of non-existence is pretty hard to clarify, since no one *really* knows what it is. But we do know this: You cannot feel pure human joy, if you are not alive. So how can you claim that abortion could be actually beneficial (That's how I interpret your stance on not having a whore as a mother), in any way, to the fetus when all it does is deprive that child the chance to have anything? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheZsaszHorsemen Report post Posted March 28, 2003 I love it when MALES think they can even voice an opinion on this unless theyre the father. Here's the thing... If we go by the demented, feminist, propaganda being hurled here then... Women have no right to protest a war, because they can't be drafted White people shouldn't have objected to slavery since they wern't being enslaved Same thing with segregation That's just a small, small, fraction of the shit that just couldn't happen without a FAIR, OBJECTIVE, OPINION. I think men should debate it, because quite frankly every woman I've ever met is either so liberal that she even hear a counter-argument without crying sexism, or so fucking devout that the very mention of the pro-choice movement is like Satan himself lunging for their souls. Men are a bit more removed from the subject, so they can more fairly, and calmly discuss. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest godthedog Report post Posted March 28, 2003 It's just that I don't believe the fetus should have to suffer the ignominy of growing up with a whore for a mother. my mother had me out of wedlock and considered abortion, i've never thought to myself "damn you whore, you should have aborted me." this is more of a general statement than a direct response to the quoted argument, but... i've always found pseudo-noble statements like "i don't know how i'd feel about bringing a child into this world" to be kind of ignorant. to act like abortion is some kind of noble deed depriving a baby of the pain it's sure to suffer later in life is very presumptuous. it basically amounts to forcing one's own depressing, nihilistic view of life (which may or may not even be correct) on another human being that has noi choice in the matter. if one wants to say she's denying it the suffering of life, she must admit it's also denying it any opportunity at all for joy. EDIT: goddamn metal maniac for being able to type faster than me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheGame2705 Report post Posted March 28, 2003 I think the irony in it is is that the mothers are all about having a choice themselves but don't even think about the fetus' choice. The fetus can't choose yes or no and the mother is ignoring that just as long as she gets HER choice. You have sex to have kids. If you don't want kids, don't have sex. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
