Guest the pinjockey Report post Posted March 28, 2003 I really don't understand the males can't voice an opinion logic either, because for every female that is considering an abortion there is a male out there that has just as much invested in that child as a woman does. Just because a woman carries the child for 9 months does not give her the sole right to make the decision alone. On the topic question I am pro-choice. There are the 3 stated circumstances that would be exceptions if there was ever pro-life legislation. But there would be too many back alley coat hanger jobs endangering lives that I would just keep things pro-choice. If a person uses abortion as birth control then they deserve whatever harm could ever possibly come to them. If you screw up you have the kid and give him/her up afterward. And I think it is really silly that some people think the gov't should pay for a woman to have an abortion. If it is one of the three exceptions then that I don't think would be bad if they needed help, but any other cases it sickens me that a person would want my tax money to pay for someone to kill off a child because they screwed up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest My Eyebrow is on fire Report post Posted March 28, 2003 Thanks guys for broadening my perspective. I'm happy we kept it civil too. (breaks down and uses a gay ass Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LaParkaYourCar 0 Report post Posted March 28, 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 Birth Control Fails??? You've got to be kidding me! I can somewhat understand with rape and incest, but failing birth control is rediculous. As far as a mother dying from it...well let me take an unpopular stance on that. Most mothers would be willing to die for their children's safety after they're born...why not before? You take safety precautions during pregnancy so the baby will be okay. Who's had a longer life? One has had somewhere around 20 years of life the other........none. Plus who said a mother dying during labor is a certain thing? Sometimes it might be, but even then would you want to go through life not knowing whether it would have worked out or not? Sometimes you need to ask yourself if your motives for abortion or true or just plain selfishness? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest My Eyebrow is on fire Report post Posted March 28, 2003 Laparka - what you wrote is pretty noble and introspective. However you're about to get roasted. Good luck. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LaParkaYourCar 0 Report post Posted March 28, 2003 I'm not here to start anything. I wrote something the same in a Current Events thread about abortion and never got roasted. And it can get pretty heated in that folder. If I don't get roasted there then I'm probably okay here. I was just presenting another view. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LaParkaYourCar 0 Report post Posted March 28, 2003 Let me clear something up I might have made a little confusing. I'm not calling a mother who may die during labor selfish. When I made that last comment I was referring to other situations. I know if I was faced with dying the decision wouldn't be easy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest the pinjockey Report post Posted March 28, 2003 I don't think it is a roast worthy point. I can see the logic where you are coming from, but I would say that where you say the uncertainty of the woman dying there is also the uncertainty of the child living. And I am sure that the women who would be willing to die for their unborn child are the pro-life types, so the women who would want the abortion are concerned about their own safety and I would not look down (not that you do I don't know, I just didn't know how to phrase it different) on them for wanting to save their own life. And yes birth control failing is not a valid reason, you always have to assume the OOPS factor. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LaParkaYourCar 0 Report post Posted March 28, 2003 I really don't understand the males can't voice an opinion logic either, because for every female that is considering an abortion there is a male out there that has just as much invested in that child as a woman does. Just because a woman carries the child for 9 months does not give her the sole right to make the decision alone. On the topic question I am pro-choice. There are the 3 stated circumstances that would be exceptions if there was ever pro-life legislation. But there would be too many back alley coat hanger jobs endangering lives that I would just keep things pro-choice. If a person uses abortion as birth control then they deserve whatever harm could ever possibly come to them. If you screw up you have the kid and give him/her up afterward. And I think it is really silly that some people think the gov't should pay for a woman to have an abortion. If it is one of the three exceptions then that I don't think would be bad if they needed help, but any other cases it sickens me that a person would want my tax money to pay for someone to kill off a child because they screwed up. Hasn't there been some evidences of even medical abortions being dangerous to the mother? Like damage caused from the tools used? That's what harm could come to someone getting abortions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest the pinjockey Report post Posted March 28, 2003 I don't know. I would imagine common sense would say that if you go stabbing up there with anything there could be effects. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest LooseCannon 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. I can't believe anyone took that line very seriously. So sorry if you took it as such. It's plainly idiotic. As an aside to elaborate on some earlier points, I think it's morally reckless to predicate one's pro-choice views on the unprovable assumption that the fetus is not human life. That certainly makes the issue a lot easier and the postion very neat and tidy, but it requires a leap of faith and when one's whole pro-choice beliefs are predicated on that leap of faith, the resulting pro-choice beliefs amount to a conscious disregard of the known risk that it may in fact be human life, which is moral recklessness. Also, it amounts to a worship of one's own beliefs and feelings and ignores the reality that the pro-choice postion is then only as persuasive as the proposition that the unborn fetus is not a human life. One could counter, I suppose, that my argument that consent to sex does not equal consent to procreation suffers from the same flaws. However the contrary belief that consent to sex equals consent to procreation is based upon an unnecessary sexual construct to which Occam's Razor may be appied. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest LooseCannon Report post Posted March 28, 2003 You have sex to have kids. If you don't want kids, don't have sex. That's not necessarily true. All we can really say for certain is that species who have sex, reproduce and thrive. And those that don't (among those that would require it for reproduction), obviously find themselves extinct. But chosing to believe that (1) sex was designed (2)exclusively for reproduction is not necessary. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest EricMM Report post Posted March 29, 2003 Loose Cannon, it doesn't matter why sex was created, if you want to get into it. All that matters is that if you have intercourse with someone there is a statistical chance of you becoming pregnant. SO there is no excuse for abortions for birth control IMO since if sex was involved, the chance of pregnancy is unavoidable. In cases of rape this situation gets much much more sticky. I feel that there is no reason to punish the baby for the actions of the father. But then people say there's no reason to punish the mother with 9 months of pregnancy and all the emotions that experiance entails. However I agree with previous sentiments, you can't protect anyone from their own future. Humans are resiliant, even a non-consentually conceived crack baby has a future, for better or worse. Killing it is the worst thing that can happen to it. However if there is a guarantee that having the baby will kill the mother, actually if there is a serious chance, I think an abortion is warrented. I think that an established human is more important than one who hasn't lived at all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest LooseCannon Report post Posted March 29, 2003 Eric, I think there's a slight difference in what we're arguing. You're arguing that it's immoral to choose to have an abortion after engaging in sex with the knowledge that sex could lead to a pregnancy. It's a reasonable position, though I'm not personally inclined to turn sex into some sort of existential choice. I, on the other hand, interpreted My Eyebrow is on Fire as saying that despite the fact that he didn't care whether or not someone killed human life, he wanted an explanation for what he saw as an inconsistency in the law's views on the matter. In my responses, I was trying to show that the laws position on abortion is not inconsistent with it's prohibition on homicide. I think there is a real distinction between what any of us might find morally wrong and what we think the law should prohibit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest cynicalprofit Report post Posted April 1, 2003 In the words of Bill Hicks "You're not a human being untill you're in my phonebook." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest My Eyebrow is on fire Report post Posted April 1, 2003 Hey! My neighbor isn't in my phonebook (unlisted)! His dog just shit in my yard. ::goes to kill neighbor:: I'm not making a statement against abortion here, I really do want my neighbor to die. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
