Abortion: should the gov't ban it?

[Skin-and-Bone]

Thats right, just a couple of cells - thats why its all ok, why its not murdering a baby for someone's convenience, because they wanted to **** around but didnt want to pay the price. Thats why the woman has a choice because its just like getting her tonsils cut out, just a piece of flesh, not a living human being.

Now if you can look at this and tell me it is just a piece of flesh - then you are right, its just like jerking off, this potential is irrelevant.

I only just saw this. To me that looks like a dead baby head. Or in other words, a piece of dead flesh.

[Cycleon]

I only just saw this. To me that looks like a dead baby head. Or in other words, a piece of dead flesh.

that makes my point exactly - the type of people who can only consider that a piece of flesh, are exactly the type who are the true representatives of abortion - we are all just animals so it really doesnt matter if we exterminate our young in whatever way seems convenient - I am just tired of them couching it in crap like "a womans choice"

You are correct that abortion is legal in the US - however, unless it is in the confines of "an abortion clinic", the killing of a defenseless innocent person is normally considered a crime, murder - if I walk up to a pregnant woman and cause her to lose her pregnancy I can be charged with murder - again, the only difference is that one person wants the baby and that the other doesnt - no question if its a baby or not.

[Skin-and-Bone]

The thread title suggests we're talking about legal abortions, because no doubt the US government has already banned illegal abortions. That's what makes them "illegal". So in the context of the thread, abortion is not murder.

If a mother doesn't want a child, then it's best that the child is never born.

[Superhuman]

Well . . . there's a simple solution to your discomfort . . . You could just avoid clicking on these posts, yes?

-Tock
always glad to help a bro . . .

thanks for the advice...

[Superhuman]

did u know that a drop of blood magnified by the nth power looks exactly like a fetus?

[Mart651]

Please. No one respond. It would be great to see this thread go to the bottom and never return.

[ttuPrincess]

Please. No one respond. It would be great to see this thread go to the bottom and never return.

Is this thread still going????? GAWD DAMMIT!!!! This thing wont die!!!

Sorry Mart.. had to reply just to defy you!!!! HAHAHAHAHA

[markas214]

It's easy for a man to say abortion is murder and a woman has no choice as our body is not part of the equation. I just don't feel it's right to force a woman to carry the child of her rapist and give birth to it. That is one reason I believe it remains a personal choice.

[Cycleon]

ok markas, I can understand your feeling on a raped woman - now whatabout 95%+ of the abortions that occur where rape is not even a remote consideration?

And I do notice that no one is even brave enough to take a stab at arguing that it is a) not a baby or b) why murder for convenience is acceptable.

[1BigChris]

I have a few points I'd like to speak about abortion. (1) Only in cases of possible trauma or death to the mother should abortion be allowed. (2) The statement that women sing, "No Man is going to tell me what I can and can't do with my body" has no merit. It's true that the baby is part of the mother's body, but it is also part of the father's body. The baby cannot develop without contribution from the father. No woman, without divine intervention, can conceive a baby on her own. (3) Why should an unborn child suffer the consequences of irresponsiblity? If a woman doesn't want to have a baby, THEN DON'T HAVE SEX! No one woman has ever gotten pregnant from practicing abstinence.* I'm reminded of Jeff Goldblum's character in Jurassic Park. He states, "Nature will find a way." He speaks of mankind's futile attempt to control something that has been developing for an uncountable number of years. No form of birth control is perfect--NONE! (4) Sex is not a toy. It has the power to enrich life, and the power to destroy it. *aside from Mary, and women who have undergone medical methods of impregnation

[Skin-and-Bone]

ok markas, I can understand your feeling on a raped woman - now whatabout 95%+ of the abortions that occur where rape is not even a remote consideration?

And I do notice that no one is even brave enough to take a stab at arguing that it is a) not a baby or b) why murder for convenience is acceptable.

You're right about one thing. It's weak to use the rape abortion cases to argue the point for the reasons stated above.

What does bravery have to do with anything? This isn't a pissing contest.

a) Well, I suppose that depends on what you think a baby is. Besides, until a baby is self-aware I don't think they have "lived".

b) Why would it be brave for someone to argue that murder for convenience is acceptable? Also, who even hinted that they thought it was?

Oh, and I don't know if I've mentioned this already, but...it's the truth. Abortion is not murder. I think I'll be ready to puke blood if I have to explain why again.

[Tock]

did u know that a drop of blood magnified by the nth power looks exactly like a fetus?

No, but if you hum a few bars I'm sure I could pick up the tune . . .
--Tock

[Cycleon]

Ill leave the humming of bars to you tock

[Tock]

1) ok markas, I can understand your feeling on a raped woman - now whatabout 95%+ of the abortions that occur where rape is not even a remote consideration?

2) And I do notice that no one is even brave enough to take a stab at arguing that it is a) not a baby or b) why murder for convenience is acceptable.

1) I fail to see where there is a distinction.
Even in a case of rape, the exact same result happens as follows in a copulatory act of love and joy. So if it's wrong to abort in the latter case on grounds the result has civil rights, then so does the former.

However . . . this is a personal matter, something which I would consider to be beyond what government is authorized by the Constitution to involve itself in.
If individuals and private organizations and churches and what-not want to preach against abortion, that's fine. But in the end, IMHO, the final say in the matter belongs to the INDIVIDUAL, not the government, for the same reason that choice of religious beleif belongs to the individual and not the government.

2) It makes no difference if it's a baby or a "baby in progress" because as long as it's inside the womb, dependant on the mother, then it is subject to any decision the mother decides to make.

They reported on today's news the story of some lady in Utah who went to the maternity ward with twins. One of the twins was stillborn, the other is ok, and now the local authorities are charging her with murder, because they allege she refused a C-section which doctors allege they recommended to save the life of the other twin. The mother is charged with refusing the C-section because she said she didn't want to be scarred on her abdomen.
The mother denies she refused the C-section, doesn't know anything about it.

This is a clear case of the government sticking its nose into places where it does not belong. Even if the mother had refused a C-section, it would have been her right to do so (everyone should have the right to decline surgery). It seems public outrage has been raised because the mother refused the C-section for mere reasons of vanity . . . but it's not the legitimate province of government to weigh the reasons we make decisions; only to restrict the choices we make, and then only within the framework of the Constitution. Here, we've got government officials trying to push its notion of law about 18 inches up that poor woman's vagina.
IMHO, as long as her twins were unborn, they are part of the mother's body and are the sole concern of the mother. Once they are born, though, the Constitution covers their rights and responsibilities. Folks unhappy with this arrangement are welcome to support anti-abortion organizations, but still, her personal rights to choose what she does with her own body must always be her own, just like us AS users should always have the right to do with our bodies whatever we choose to do.

--Tock

[markas214]

ok markas, I can understand your feeling on a raped woman - now whatabout 95%+ of the abortions that occur where rape is not even a remote consideration?

And I do notice that no one is even brave enough to take a stab at arguing that it is a) not a baby or b) why murder for convenience is acceptable.

My belief is abortion should not be used for birth control. Unfortunately many of the religeous zealots will do all they can to stifle the teaching of preganancy prevention. The often touted virtue of celibacy goes entirely against human nature. Just a couple centuries ago woman were marrying and having children in their early teens on a regular basis and this behavior dates back to the origan of man. It had to be that way as life expectancy was less than 30 years for the first 99.99% of human existance. We cannot simply preach away sexual behavior in people or tell them to wait until marriage. It goes against our ingrained behavior. So, Cycleon, can we at least agree that the best way to eliminate abortion is to prevent unwanted pregnancies in hte first place? I'm afraid though even if we agree there will be too much pressure against birth control education from intolerant theologians and far right pandering politicians.

[Tock]

Well, it seem obvious to me that if ya wanna reduce unwanted pregnancies, one sure-fire way would be to encourage homosexuality. ==whoosh== (dodging Cycleon's baseball bat)
But yah, if boys were encouraged to go off by themselves and girls likewise, and postpone heterosexual activity until after 20 or 25 or maybe even marriage, that would cut down on an awful lot of abortions. ==whoosh== (dodging the baseball bat again)

Otherwise, being the advocate for personal liberties that I am, it seems to me the one to decide if what's inside her is a 'life' or not should be the individual woman carrying the fetus. Sorta like the decision for getting circumsized shouldn't be left to custom, or the decision to prevent someone from smoking or taking AS should be left to the individual. Once ya get a bunch of politicians and clergy involved, you end up with monstrosities like the Inquisition (loss of personal liberty) ==whoosh== (dodging Cycleon's baseball bat)

JMHO . . .
-Tock

[Superhuman]

It's easy for a man to say abortion is murder and a woman has no choice as our body is not part of the equation. I just don't feel it's right to force a woman to carry the child of her rapist and give birth to it. That is one reason I believe it remains a personal choice.

The morning-after pill is effective for 72 hours after intercourse... I believe in 99% of rape cases the woman would have the ability to go get it after the incident. Rape is no excuse for abortion. If for some reason she can't get the emergency contraceptant because she's in a foreign country where it is unavailable, then she should put it up for adoption immediately after birth. Abortion=Murder, simple as that. That baby could grow up to be a wonderful person, maybe a teacher, a doctor, even a Jesus-like preacher of peace who puts an end to rape and murder by bringing the world together... who knows?

[markas214]

The morning-after pill is effective for 72 hours after intercourse... I believe in 99% of rape cases the woman would have the ability to go get it after the incident. Rape is no excuse for abortion. If for some reason she can't get the emergency contraceptant because she's in a foreign country where it is unavailable, then she should put it up for adoption immediately after birth. Abortion=Murder, simple as that. That baby could grow up to be a wonderful person, maybe a teacher, a doctor, even a Jesus-like preacher of peace who puts an end to rape and murder by bringing the world together... who knows?

OK, so your 12 year old daughter gets kidnapped and raped repeatedly for 10 days, you would force her to deliver the child of the rapist? That is murder of her psychlogical well-being. Or your wife will never survive if a pregnancy is left to continue, do you let her die and wouldn't that also be murder. Lastly a fetus is diagnosed with a genetic defect such as anencephaly where there is no frontal brain that child will be born with no ability to think or fewel anything other than pain, why would anyone want to bring such a profoundly deformed child into the world. Extreme cases I know but could happen. I will not take it upon myself to make this choice for others and don't believe anyone else is so enlightened as to do so either especially the US Gov't.

[Cycleon]

Better yet - what if your daughter could run off with off with some hippy and he knocks her up and the child becomes the next osama bin laden or leads a bloody revolt in the US that causes 1000s of deaths - this is sufficient reason to sterilize all young women over 12 years old dont you think?

as to the mothers life or the baby - that is a choice she can make - most docs would err on saving the mother - this in no way denies having to kill the child, it is simply the acknowlegement that one life must be sacrificed to save the other - as to a severely deformed child, it can be argued that the baby is already unsustainable - again, acknowleging that it is a baby but due to its "injuries" that it cannot truly survive in the normal sense - both of these are tramatic but are not due to "choice" of a mother of whether it is convenient for her to have the baby.

again, back to reality - instead of taking a 1 in a million example of what happens so as to obfuscate the real issue - but that doesnt convince you - because most MALES want to make sure women can keep aborting what ultimately was THIER responsibility to ensure didnt happen - because they dont want the baby to inconvenience THEM - thats why we should genetically stamp each baby to the father to make sure he is financially FULLY RESPONSIBLE for that child until adulthood - then watch the illegitimate birth rate plummet

[markas214]

Better yet - what if your daughter could run off with off with some hippy and he knocks her up and the child becomes the next osama bin laden or leads a bloody revolt in the US that causes 1000s of deaths - this is sufficient reason to sterilize all young women over 12 years old dont you think?"

That really doesn't address my point. Should the girl be forced to give birth even if she absolutely refuses will be ruined emotionally?

" thats why we should genetically stamp each baby to the father to make sure he is financially FULLY RESPONSIBLE for that child until adulthood - then watch the illegitimate birth rate plummet

You are 100% correct on that one. These *ssholes who go around having kids and then contribute zero to the childs needs, financially and emotionally, must be held accountable. I agree that this would be a great way to deal with this issue. Do you also agree that we should teach birth control to prevent unwanted conception in the first place?

[Red Ketchup]

And I do notice that no one is even brave enough to take a stab at arguing that it is a) not a baby or b) why murder for convenience is acceptable.

Bro, murder is what society makes it to be....

If a society decides that killing a fetus under X age is not murder, than to them it is not. Plain and simple...

A parallel to this is the death penalty...

In American society, killing a criminal is accepted as not being murder because American society (thru their government and court system) has decided that it is not murder. Where I am from, there is no death penalty and it is considered by the people to be nothing more than state sponsored murder. The only difference is what society defines.

Red

[Superhuman]

OK, so your 12 year old daughter gets kidnapped and raped repeatedly for 10 days, you would force her to deliver the child of the rapist? That is murder of her psychlogical well-being. Or your wife will never survive if a pregnancy is left to continue, do you let her die and wouldn't that also be murder. Lastly a fetus is diagnosed with a genetic defect such as anencephaly where there is no frontal brain that child will be born with no ability to think or fewel anything other than pain, why would anyone want to bring such a profoundly deformed child into the world. Extreme cases I know but could happen. I will not take it upon myself to make this choice for others and don't believe anyone else is so enlightened as to do so either especially the US Gov't.

okay, in that extreme circumstance of her being raped for 10 days rendering the EC ineffective, then I would immediately abort the baby before it has time to develop at all. If my wife were to be pregnant, and would die during birth, then I would make her have a C-section. If the child was 100% likely to have a potentially fatal genetic defect, then I would abort it. If it was just going to be mentally challenged, then I would put it up for adoption. I believe that there is no justifiable reason to kill a human being who is of sound mind and who is completely healthy, especially a baby. I am also opposed to capital punishment, with the exception of mass-murderers such as Hussein and Bin Laden... and Dohmer

[markas214]

okay, in that extreme circumstance of her being raped for 10 days rendering the EC ineffective, then I would immediately abort the baby before it has time to develop at all. If my wife were to be pregnant, and would die during birth, then I would make her have a C-section. If the child was 100% likely to have a potentially fatal genetic defect, then I would abort it. If it was just going to be mentally challenged, then I would put it up for adoption. I believe that there is no justifiable reason to kill a human being who is of sound mind and who is completely healthy, especially a baby. I am also opposed to capital punishment, with the exception of mass-murderers such as Hussein and Bin Laden... and Dohmer

While I disagree with your position I respect that you in that you are a man of reason in being able to see that extreme cases do exist.

[Skin-and-Bone]

Abortion=Murder, simple as that.

No. You're wrong.

That baby could grow up to be a wonderful person

That point is deeply flawed. If you decide that the possibility of the baby growing up to be a wonderful person is relevant in deciding to stop a baby being aborted, then you also have to conceed that the possibility of the baby growing up to be a terrible person, is relevant in deciding to abort a baby. Both points are...well, they're just stupid.

maybe a teacher, a doctor, even a Jesus-like preacher of peace who puts an end to rape and murder by bringing the world together... who knows?

Well, as the story goes, the last "Jesus-like preacher" caused arguments, fighting, and violence. That's another thread though. (filled with lots of arguments and fighting, no doubt)

[Superhuman]

saying that I'm wrong about "Abortion=Murder" is simply just your opinion. Everything in this thread, well just about everything in this thread, is subjective. Nobody will ever be able to win this argument.

[Red Ketchup]

Everything in this thread, well just about everything in this thread, is subjective. Nobody will ever be able to win this argument.

I think thats the smartest thing I've read all day

Red

[Skin-and-Bone]

saying that I'm wrong about "Abortion=Murder" is simply just your opinion.

It would be just my opinion if it didn't also happen to be true. Abortion is not murder. That's a fact. I've already explained why. I'm aware that we have opinions, and that having one doesn't make it real, but it doesn't matter how much you discuss it, until abortion becomes illegal, it will not equal murder.

[Superhuman]

It would be just my opinion if it didn't also happen to be true. Abortion is not murder. That's a fact. I've already explained why. I'm aware that we have opinions, and that having one doesn't make it real, but it doesn't matter how much you discuss it, until abortion becomes illegal, it will not equal murder.

Just because it is legal does NOT mean that abortion is not murder. How is it a "fact" that abortion is not murder? What a group of men (and women) in our government deems acceptable really doesn't mean too much...that is THEIR opinion as well. If the government suddenly decided that abortion IS murder, would you believe that too, just because you have blind faith in what our leadership has to say?

Likewise, just because steroids are illegal does NOT mean that they are bad.
Sometimes you have to stand up for what you believe in... not what the old men in office believe. It's a government FOR the people, not just TO the people.

[Skin-and-Bone]

Just because it is legal does NOT mean that abortion is not murder. How is it a "fact" that abortion is not murder?

Murder is unlawful killing. Abortion is currently "lawful". Therefore, abortion is not unlawful, and is not murder. You seem to have a different definition of murder.

What a group of men (and women) in our government deems acceptable really doesn't mean too much...that is THEIR opinion as well.

Doesn't mean too much? You're joking right? It may be "their opinion", but unlike us, they can make laws which support their opinions, and they can throw your ass in jail if you break the laws.

If the government suddenly decided that abortion IS murder, would you believe that too, just because you have blind faith in what our leadership has to say?

It's not about belief or faith. The definition of murder is "unlawful killing", so if the people that make the laws (the government), decide they don't want a particular type of killing to be unlawful anymore, then they'll make it lawful and it will no longer be "murder". If I don't agree with their decision, I'm not going to have "faith" in it or them, but that doesn't change the fact that it would no longer be murder by definition.

It's a government FOR the people, not just TO the people.

I'd like it that way, but it just isn't. They have their own interests, and are in a position of power.

[Cycleon]

murder is the killing of someone who does not deserve it, ie, someone who is innocent - whether that has government sanction or not is something quite different - killing in war could be construed as self defense (ie a "non-innocent") - death penalty or killing osama could be construed as retributive (again, not innocent) - assasination of someone relatively innocent may be gov sanctioned and may be deemed neccessary but it is still likely murder

[Superhuman]

true, but just because abortion is technically not murder due to the fact that it is lawful does not mean that morally, ethically, and religiously it is not murder. I am not going to obey OR respect what the government says simply because it has the power to put me in jail, I will obey because I can tell the difference between right and wrong. On most issues, our gov't is right, but on this one it is not.

[Skin-and-Bone]

murder is the killing of someone who does not deserve it, ie, someone who is innocent - whether that has government sanction or not is something quite different - killing in war could be construed as self defense (ie a "non-innocent") - death penalty or killing osama could be construed as retributive (again, not innocent) - assasination of someone relatively innocent may be gov sanctioned and may be deemed neccessary but it is still likely murder

Here's the problem with the secondary definition of "murder". I think abortion is not unjust killing, and I have no problem with it, but you think it is unjust killing. Now, you can't argue that something is "for a fact" an unjust killing, but you can argue for a fact that something is an unlawful killing. Do you see the problem with the secondary definition?

You might ask why I even bothered to argue the case. My reason is that I think it's stupid to use the word "murder" for a girl/woman that becomes pregnant, but is not ready to bring up a child. I also think it's outrageous when people are judged on what they do with their own body. I know the standard reply to that is "but they're taking another life". Well, that's very nice, but as long as the baby is unborn, it's just part of a chemical reaction and is living as a parasite inside the mother's (the host's) body. It's not a human being. How can you call something that has never taken independant breath, a human being? The potential for life is irrelevant.

[Superhuman]

sure it's the mother's body, but the baby inside's body belong's to itself, not the mother. There is another life, or entity, inside of the mother. Whether you consider it human or not, it's there and it has no reason to be killed. It did nothing wrong - in fact the mother did, for not insuring that conception would not occur. The unborn child should not pay the price for the mother's irresponsibility. If you're not ready to take care of a child, or go through labor and give it up for adoption, then use a condom, use birth control, use emergency contraceptant, or don't have sex. SKIN-N-BONE YOU CANNOT ARGUE AGAINST WHAT I SAID. There is no way to dismiss what I just said at all.

I'll say it again...
The unborn child should not pay the price for the mother's irresponsibility.

[Skin-and-Bone]

Why can't I argue against it?

People make mistakes. Young girls get pregnant, realise further down the line the error they have made, and also realise that they don't want to be pregnant any longer. It's fairly pointless to tell those girls that "you should have thought about that before you started ****ing around". What about the girl that's going to have to go through pregnancy, labour, possibly having to give up the baby because she can't raise it? You think girls should be forced to do that? Or forced into illegal surgeries because they can't bare the thought of having to go through it all?

Why does the baby not belong to the mother? It's a part of her body. She has already been exposed to the world. She is attached to it. She is self-aware. She has formed relationships. The baby has done none of this. If the mother had used condoms, she would have only "ended" the same baby at an earlier stage. What difference does it make?

[Superhuman]

well, determining whether the baby is actually "alive" in that respect is like trying to determine if the baby has a soul before it is born. I guess we just don't know. It's something we can wait until we're gone to ask God. I believe, however, that since we DO NOT know for sure whether the baby has a soul or is aware within the womb earlier than 4 months (studies have shown that reading to a baby in the womb increases reading ability and linguistic skills after birth), we should not just go ahead and kill it.

Also, it is not

fairly pointless to tell those girls that "you should have thought about that before you started ****ing around"

They SHOLD HAVE thought it through. Again, the unborn child should not pay the penalty of death for the irresponsibility of the mother OR the bad parenting that resulted in a young girl sleeping around.

[daman1]

You also have to look at it from a religous perspective. And further more divide that into eastern and western religons. As the western religons would say it is a sin to have an abortion because it is killing someone, refer to 10 commandments. The eastern religons such and Hiduism, Judaism, Buddaism, etc, would be against it as well. They believe your life is already predeterminded and that you are going to be in a certain class and pattern. They feel having an abortion is like breaking out from your caste or life plan that was set out for you.

[Superhuman]

yup, that's right. I think even Militia Guy would agree with that

[Skin-and-Bone]

Well no, I don't really have to look at from a religious perspective, as I don't subscribe to a religion. That also rules out the "waiting to ask God" thing, if only because I don't know if I'd be waiting for nothing. That aside, in talking about awareness, what I was driving at was that I think people who are already alive, and have lived, shouldn't have their lives ruined to protect something that hasn't even taken it's first breath.

[Skin-and-Bone]

They SHOLD HAVE thought it through. Again, the unborn child should not pay the penalty of death for the irresponsibility of the mother OR the bad parenting that resulted in a young girl sleeping around.

As a reply to me, this is verging on moronic. Can you not see how utterly pointless it is to tell to tell the girl she "SHOULD HAVE thought it through"? It doesn't matter that she should have. She DIDN'T. That can't be changed. So, how does it help to focus on how decisions which have already been made could have been made better? It's not constructive at all. The right thing would be to let her make her own decision on what the best course of action is, and be supportive.

Jeez. Anyone can say, "You should have thought about that..."

[Superhuman]

how the hell is their life ruined? you're exaggerating a bit much. they should just give the freakin kid up for adoption. My mom was adopted and she is fine, she has a good relationship with her biological mom, and she had a great one with her adopted one (she recently passed away). they should have thought it through... just because they didn't does not give them an excuse to murder a child.