Re: Abortion.

Alice in Wonderland. · by Alice in Wonderland. on Tue 21 Oct 2008, 5:38 am

andILY. wrote:
The Dormouse Said. wrote:
The difference is how it is being used.
Whether it's being used as a contraceptive method or not.
Is there a difference in the procedure?
No.
Is there a difference in the thought process?
Most likely, yes.

Okay, I know it's not healthy to get a lot of abortions, but I don't see why having 10 abortions is immoral while having one is perfectly moral.
I mean, if you think it's murder or whatever, it's murder no matter how many times you do it.

I don't think it's murder.
A moral person and an immoral person can do the same thing but depending on WHY it is being done helps make it immoral.
If you kill a cat because you think it's funny, that's immoral.
If you kill a cat because it's dying and you don't want it to suffer, that's not immoral.

makoto kino. · by makoto kino. on Tue 21 Oct 2008, 7:12 pm

^ getting an abortion isn't based on a womans morality.

It's based on her circumstances, and what she want.

Alice in Wonderland. · by Alice in Wonderland. on Fri 24 Oct 2008, 5:09 am

vendetta. wrote:^ getting an abortion isn't based on a womans morality.

It's based on her circumstances, and what she want.

Abortion can be based on morality.
I am pro-choice 100%.
The only abortions I think shouldn't be legal are late term abortions.
I just agree that there are better uses of abortions than as birth control.

makoto kino. · by makoto kino. on Thu 04 Dec 2008, 11:39 am

Abortion for social reasons is unneccessary, I think, its the 21st Century, guys.

**LADIES AND GENTLEMEN** · by **LADIES AND GENTLEMEN** on Fri 19 Dec 2008, 2:45 am

Guys, I'm seeing a lot of arguments here saying it's the woman's body, but are we thinking about the rights of the kid, here?

Okay, so it's not a baby yet, legally or medically, but it will grow into one.

Don't jump on me, I'm most definitely pro choice, personally and legally.

What if you were raped? What if the baby was a product of incest? What if the child would grow up in a horrible environment? What if it would have serious deformities?

There's no WAY you can say in a legal context that abortion is wrong because it's not like you can say 'Only people in this this and this situation can get one', but at the same time, am I the only one who thinks that it's wrong to think of as a backup plan?

Yeah, people make mistakes, and if it happens once, especially with outside factors like drugs or alcohol when you can't really make the choice for yourself, then I can understand. (When I say this I mean the SEX happens once, not the abortion)

But I would never, ever make that mistake. Never. I would NEVER be careless enough to put myself in a position where I might create a child, only to have to have it destroyed. If there WAS a risk like that for me, I'd make sure my partner was using their own form of birth control, as well as condoms.

And I mean, if you don't have protection or you forgot to take the pill, there's PLENTY you can do that doesn't involve the risk of impregnation.

Maybe I think like this because there's a very good chance I can't have kids, but I think children are the most beautiful, sacred creatures in the world. I just can't imagine how abortinga perfectly healthy baby because someone forgot or was too lazy to use a condom is okay. I don't think I ever will.

proust. · by proust. on Fri 19 Dec 2008, 3:03 am

Ryan Ross wrote:Guys, I'm seeing a lot of arguments here saying it's the woman's body, but are we thinking about the rights of the kid, here?

Okay, so it's not a baby yet, legally or medically, but it will grow into one.

So if a gamete has human rights, shouldn't an ovum have human rights too? An ovum can grow into a human being too.
Also, in general, why do humans have human rights?

Ryan Ross wrote:But I would never, ever make that mistake. Never. I would NEVER be careless enough to put myself in a position where I might create a child, only to have to have it destroyed. If there WAS a risk like that for me, I'd make sure my partner was using their own form of birth control, as well as condoms.

Well such a risk is more or less present - chances are you will never become pregnant after being raped.
I don't know what woman/girl would take birth control constantly just in case they're raped.

**LADIES AND GENTLEMEN** · by **LADIES AND GENTLEMEN** on Fri 19 Dec 2008, 3:46 am

kafka. wrote:
So if a gamete has human rights, shouldn't an ovum have human rights too? An ovum can grow into a human being too.
Also, in general, why do humans have human rights?

Humans have rights because they can feel emotion and pain. Foetuses might not be able to feel emotion, but studies show they can feel pain.

You can't tell straight away that you're pregnant, either, even by tests. Often, by the time foetuses are aborted, they already have a determined gender, have developing fingers and toes, and have developed the pain centre in the brain.

Yes, but whether or not you use birth control, if you don't get impregnated each month that ovum will die. If you go by that logic, then women are killing 'potential' human beings every month they don't become pregnant. A foetus, in my opinion, is not a potential human. I don't care what legalities say, I believe it's a person, no matter how underdeveloped a person it may be.

There has been no biological reaction to create a creature with growing, changing cells, with blood, with its own heartbeat. So an ovum and a a foetus differ greatly.

And not only this, but can't a sperm cell then be thought of the same way? Are men effectively killing babies when they masturbate? When they engage in oral sex? Anal sex?

kafka. wrote:Well such a risk is more or less present - chances are you will never become pregnant after being raped.
I don't know what woman/girl would take birth control constantly just in case they're raped.

Which is why I stated that I thought it was perfectly okay for a woman to get an abortion if she was raped - OR in the case of the several other circumstances I listed.

proust. · by proust. on Fri 19 Dec 2008, 4:20 am

Ryan Ross wrote:Humans have rights because they can feel emotion and pain. Foetuses might not be able to feel emotion, but studies show they can feel pain.

You can't tell straight away that you're pregnant, either, even by tests. Often, by the time foetuses are aborted, they already have a determined gender, have developing fingers and toes, and have developed the pain centre in the brain.

88% of all abortions happen during the first trimester, prior to the at 13th week [according to The Alan Guttmacher Institute and the Centers for Disease Control at least], while foetuses can only feel pain in the third trimester. Even so, fetal anesthesia is an option.

Plus, can't animals feel pain too?

Ryan Ross wrote:
Yes, but whether or not you use birth control, if you don't get impregnated each month that ovum will die. If you go by that logic, then women are killing 'potential' human beings every month they don't become pregnant. A foetus, in my opinion, is not a potential human. I don't care what legalities say, I believe it's a person, no matter how underdeveloped a person it may be.

There has been no biological reaction to create a creature with growing, changing cells, with blood, with its own heartbeat. So an ovum and a a foetus differ greatly.

And not only this, but can't a sperm cell then be thought of the same way? Are men effectively killing babies when they masturbate? When they engage in oral sex? Anal sex?

I merely mentioned the case of the ovum because nowadays a sperm cell is no longer needed to create a gamete - through medical procedures two ova are enough. But a lot of things can go wrong with a gamete cell naturally - accidentally. If a gamete cell is a person because it can become a person, I don't see with an ovum cell couldn't be a person too.
However, if I missunderstood you -which I might have, and you meant that only fetuses are persons [by the way, why? again the question of what makes humans human] - then I'll point out the statistics again - fetal period starts in the 10th week of gestation.

Ryan Ross wrote:Which is why I stated that I thought it was perfectly okay for a woman to get an abortion if she was raped - OR in the case of the several other circumstances I listed.

Why is abortion right in the case of rape? If abortion is murder, then it's muder regardless of the -honorable- reason behind it.

**LADIES AND GENTLEMEN** · by **LADIES AND GENTLEMEN** on Fri 19 Dec 2008, 12:09 pm

kafka. wrote:
Plus, can't animals feel pain too?

Um, yes, that's why we have animal rights.
I don't know about your laws, but I know in Australia, you can do practically nothing to an animal that you couldn't do with a human being, bar euthanasia. (This of course does not exctend to farm animals etc. You may have noticed I'm a vegetarian.)

But, that is a different discussion.

kafka. wrote:
Why is abortion right in the case of rape? If abortion is murder, then it's muder regardless of the -honorable- reason behind it.

I didn't say it was murder. There's a difference between depriving someone of life and taking a life they're already living. A foetus cannot experience emotions, so I don't think of it as taking A life, just taking life. There's a difference.

And the difference is that in ALL of these cases, the baby would probably experience a very tough life anyway. I've known a rape child. His mother couldn't love him, he didn't HAVE a father. He grew up tormented and lonely.

I'm stressing not that really it's ever OKAY, but that in some circumstances it's despicable, eg., people who ave had (or consider having in the future) multiple abortions because they cannot be bothered with contraception.

david c · by david c on Fri 19 Dec 2008, 7:18 pm

Just a Little Bit. wrote:
andILY. wrote:
The Dormouse Said. wrote:
The difference is how it is being used.
Whether it's being used as a contraceptive method or not.
Is there a difference in the procedure?
No.
Is there a difference in the thought process?
Most likely, yes.

Okay, I know it's not healthy to get a lot of abortions, but I don't see why having 10 abortions is immoral while having one is perfectly moral.
I mean, if you think it's murder or whatever, it's murder no matter how many times you do it.

I don't think it's murder.
A moral person and an immoral person can do the same thing but depending on WHY it is being done helps make it immoral.
If you kill a cat because you think it's funny, that's immoral.
If you kill a cat because it's dying and you don't want it to suffer, that's not immoral.

I believe that there are moral and immoral *acts*. Some Context is always important, sure, but the *act* of murder is widely held to be immoral. Look up 'murder' if you don't know everything it implies. It is a contextual act.
If you force mass child slave labour because you want to earn money for yourself, is it immoral? why?
if you force mass child slave labour because you want to earn money to feed kids in africa, is it moral? Again, why? what if its because you want to help children to be disciplined? Again, Does the end justify the means?
Surely it's not just good intentions? Infamous atrocities have been committed by *good intentions*. Maybe they play a part in deciding responsibility, but morality is more than that.
It's never clear cut, of course. and in relation to abortion, the question is tough. Are aborted babies human or are they not? is killing humans immoral, or is it not?
Say aborted babies are human, and say it is immoral to murder. Does the suffering of a person or many, outweigh the life of another human? or does it not?

Do humans have the right to give answers to these questions, on their own authority? On whose authority?

What I definitely know is that there are plenty of things that humans will never understand on our own. Who has the responsibility, or the right, to make these choices? Us, really?
I believe some things are absolute. There are things which depend on more than just the latest research, science which tips our beliefs one way or another. Some things may always remain uncertain because the answers do not lie within the realm of reason or science. In the end it comes down to fundamental beliefs.
^ my thoughts.. and by the way i read this whole thread and ive learnt plenty, or come to understand some things better at least. Thanks all for sharing!

proust. · by proust. on Sat 20 Dec 2008, 8:28 pm

Ryan Ross wrote:
kafka. wrote:
Plus, can't animals feel pain too?

Um, yes, that's why we have animal rights.
I don't know about your laws, but I know in Australia, you can do practically nothing to an animal that you couldn't do with a human being, bar euthanasia. (This of course does not exctend to farm animals etc. You may have noticed I'm a vegetarian.)

But, that is a different discussion.

Isn't abortion comparable to euthanasia?
It's not an act done out of cruelty or in a cruel manner.

I'm vegetarian too, I am also a supporter of both human and animal rights. I don't think it's immoral to hunt or grow cattle -as long as you do it in a respectful rational and non-cruel way. Also, I have pets -two dogs and a cat- and I have to give them meat-based products to eat, I'd just be a hypocrite if I assumed that to kill an animal -by humans- is okay as long as it provides food for an other animal, but wrong if the meat is then ate by a human.

Ryan Ross. wrote:I'm stressing not that really it's ever OKAY, but that in some circumstances it's despicable, eg., people who ave had (or consider having in the future) multiple abortions because they cannot be bothered with contraception.

why?
-Except for the fact that there are certain health-related risks if you have too many abortions.-

**LADIES AND GENTLEMEN** · by **LADIES AND GENTLEMEN** on Sat 20 Dec 2008, 9:39 pm

Because of everything I just said.

You can hold your opinions. I hold mine.

femmefatal · by femmefatal on Mon 29 Dec 2008, 2:56 pm

I'm pro-choice, but my reason is not that a woman can do whatever she wants with her body

I don't think pregnancy can really be compared with a tattoo, piercing, or homosexuality. it's invalidating to the beauty of human life to compare it to such.

I don't think that the argument of abortion "in the best interest of the child" is a valid argument either, because so many people are born into picturesque families and end up crazy

life is always better than no life, in my opinion anyway

but I do feel like a lot of pro life people have this misconception that some pro choice people are all abortion baby killers, in fact some people have the whole issue confused, it's not pro abortion and pro life

it's people who believe having the baby is always the way, and people who believe that each pregnancy is case specific with only the woman holding the fullest understanding of the situation to make a decent decision for herself

Jack Skellington · by Jack Skellington on Mon 29 Dec 2008, 7:16 pm

sleepyhead wrote:Pro-choice.
I don't get why people care what other people do with their body. It's the same with homosexuality and definitely not on the same level, but the same concept: tattoos and piercings. It's my body: I will do whatever the fuck I want with it.

I'm with you on that one.

david c · by david c on Mon 29 Dec 2008, 8:10 pm

flipireMAD wrote:I'm pro-choice, but my reason is not that a woman can do whatever she wants with her body

I don't think pregnancy can really be compared with a tattoo, piercing, or homosexuality. it's invalidating to the beauty of human life to compare it to such.

I don't think that the argument of abortion "in the best interest of the child" is a valid argument either, because so many people are born into picturesque families and end up crazy

life is always better than no life, in my opinion anyway

but I do feel like a lot of pro life people have this misconception that some pro choice people are all abortion baby killers, in fact some people have the whole issue confused, it's not pro abortion and pro life

it's people who believe having the baby is always the way, and people who believe that each pregnancy is case specific with only the woman holding the fullest understanding of the situation to make a decent decision for herself

I'm curious as to your last paragraph - myself personally being pro life, I agree with everything you've said Mmm hmm n_n

and I most definitely would say that the woman with the baby has the most knowledge regarding her own personal circumstance.

But a *pro-life* stance doesn't assume that 'having the baby is always the way'.
Just like people who oppose murder don't assume that 'killing is NEVER EVER allowed'. I personally oppose murder and all forms of the death penalty, but I still believe that there will always be circumstances where people have to be intentionally killed!! In fact I could imagine plenty of circumstances where I would personally kill people, with good intentions!!
But that doesn't change the fact that I am fully against murder, and I definitely would not push for legalisation of murder. For the simple reason that murder should inherently be unlawful - call it a bad act, evil, violating human rights, whatever. The point is that a prolife stance is not 'heartless' or 'black and white', the same way a stance against murder isn't. (unless you think both are.)

femmefatal · by femmefatal on Tue 30 Dec 2008, 6:14 am

Umm..I don't know how to quote but

TO AVEMARIA (sry it's in caps because I'd like to get your attention, nothing angry)
well, I don't think being prolife is heartless or black and white in the least, abortion is such a controversial issue because it really cannot be put into black and white and personally, I don't think it can even be put into simply two stances

in fact your stance is basically the same as mine in some ways, we just label it differently, except I like to define my abortion view as the prolife side of prochoice, I absolutely hate the thought of an abortion but there are still those scenarios where it could be necessary or with honestly good intentions (just like your murder example)

and the reason I define prolife the way I do is because most prolife people that I have spoken to are always for having the baby and in the states where statutes have passed banning abortion, they don't make exceptions for even rape (luckily they make exceptions for the mothers health, even the catholic church does that)

so basically the point of that was that I don't believe that prolife is heartless or black and white, I'm pretty prolife myself

let me know if that made any sense or not, I fail at forming concise thoughts

david c · by david c on Tue 30 Dec 2008, 8:54 am

hey

yeah, i hate categorising. it always ends up in misunderstanding... like just then, with me... hahahh.

so, what part of your thinking, is pro-choice then?

The main reason I *am* pro-life, is because i'm simply catholic... not that abortion has anythign to do with religion.. (it doesn't)... but I'll take my church's stance until convinced otherwise

and yeah, you make sense!! lots of sense!! Smile

do I make sense? lol

femmefatal · by femmefatal on Tue 30 Dec 2008, 5:18 pm

TO AVEMARIA again because other people will be posting and I'm too retarded to learn how to quote however simple it may be

it's just that I think that there can't really be a blanket law for every abortion case so by siding with prochoice I leave it to the goodness in all people to prevail in making their decision

you do make sense Smile

, but how can you invest so much trust in the catholic church? what about moral independence? and the history of christianity is unsettling and even today everything isn't so great..in my opinion anyway

(I'm really no doctrinal expert so I'm sure you could clear things up for me but I am catholic and have gone to catholic schools my whole life so I'm not criticizing from a completely uneducated point of view)

**LADIES AND GENTLEMEN** · by **LADIES AND GENTLEMEN** on Tue 30 Dec 2008, 7:07 pm

flipireMAD wrote:
it's just that I think that there can't really be a blanket law for every abortion case so by siding with prochoice I leave it to the goodness in all people to prevail in making their decision

That's my stance exactly.
I hate the idea of abortion being illegal because of exactly those circumstances; even if the people could all agree on one idea of which abortions are 'right' and 'wrong' or which should be allowed or disallowed, it's not practical and (sadly) abortions are in too high a demand for people to investigate reasoning.

Also, to quote, above the post in question there should be a button that looks like this:

proust. · by proust. on Wed 31 Dec 2008, 2:37 am

flipireMAD wrote:life is always better than no life, in my opinion anyway

Tell that to someone who is suicidal?

I find it odd to say the least to state that abortion should be permitted in some cases, and in others it shouldn't. It would mean that some lives are more valuable -or are just worth saving more than others depending on how moral -or immoral- their mother acted.