Abortion; Why?

I'm not against abortion as long as there are reasonable limits, but I would like to point out that if a woman has a right to kill a fetus she's carrying inside her because it's HER BODY, then it seems to me people who do drugs should also be left alone to do their thing because it's their choice, their body.

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!

Just in case you don't check the last page Yoda I commented back thuurrr

Great. But this puts you at odds with most of the Democratic party. I'd also argue that, logically, the beliefs necessary to justify abortion also justify treating it like any other medical procedure, even though we all know instinctively that it isn't.

We have social programs to ensure that children are given the necessities of life. I have no illusions about how crappy this must be. But I don't understand the argument that abortion is justified because some people shouldn't have kids. Deeming that another life isn't worth living because it's difficult seems like playing God. Besides, history is littered with examples of great men and women who grew up under difficult circumstances. It's also worth pointing out that in this case, we're not even talking about difficult circumstances, but the mere likelihood of them.

All in all, it strikes me as downright dangerous to start making qualitative judgments about what constitutes a worthwhile life. Nobody's in a position to make that claim, and its implications are terrifying if taken to their logical conclusion.

Seriously? What, do you think all Christians should logically be anarchists? Believing in an ultimate judgment doesn't absolve anyone of doing the best they can to create just laws here and now.

EDIT: it's entirely possible, as well, that religion is "helpful" in the sense that it's true. Whether or not it makes consensus easier to find is another matter, but it doesn't follow that it isn't helpful unless you start with the presupposition that all religions are false, I think. And possibly not even then.

I'm at odds with most people, let alone Democrats. And why does it have to be so black and white if it's legal, I wouldn't mind paying for it like a normal procedure, middle ground is fine.


I don't trust social programs, mainly because I've experienced them. I could talk about population control and how having a child with hardly enough income to support yourself or just no IQ at all is more or less child abuse, but eh whatever.

But abortion has nothing to do with anyone except the two individuals who ****ed (up), regardless of religious belief. Murder has a lot to do with a lot of people (elaboration necessary?), lots of laws do, because that can actually lead to anarchy unlike abortion. It's not an unsafe world if abortion is legal, it's just more logical with the proper circumstances and guidelines.

I hope you're not saying what this infers and just worded it badly

The reality is abortions are legal and have been snce the early seventies in this country. More people support it than not. If goverment should pay for it or not is irrelevant. Arguing about when life begins is a religious discussion,. The medical community and the courts use different criteria to determine when an abortion is allowed.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

It's the parent's choice. If the father isn't around, which is one of the main reasons for abortion I believe, then it's the mother's choice. We live in the 21st century. We don't have to do it in secrecy with knit pins anymore, come on. Provide the option and let the individual decide.

__________________
The Freedom Roads

And criminalizing abortion would hurt people a lot more than it would help, IMHO.

Well, the logic is like this: if abortion isn't wrong and is perfectly justified, and if you also believe that the state should fund healthcare procedures (to some degree, at least), then it should follow that it should fund abortion, at least in some instances. I'm not sure if it's a direct contradiction to advocate healthcare funding without including abortion, but it seems like quite a balancing act. The fact that we haven't completely chosen one side or the other is a sign of our collective cognitive dissonance on the issue, I think.

I won't belittle how terrible I'm sure they can be at times. I just don't think we should be in the habit of not only saying that someone else's life isn't worth living, but saying so preemptively. I was dirt poor growing up, and I'm glad to be alive.

It's really shaky ground on which to be deciding who gets to live or die.

Well, unsafe for who? Obviously, the central question is the humanity of the fetus. If it's a person, then not only are lots of people "unsafe," but they're the people who are least able to defend themselves, in every sense of the word. That's one of the reasons the issue generates such fervent responses.

I've re-read the sentence a few times and I'm not sure what it's supposed to infer. I'm mainly disagreeing with the notion that it really matters if it's "helpful." If it's true, it has to be considered whether it's inconvenient or not, just like any other fact.

Surely criminalizing abortion doesn't help anyone but the illegal abortion trade that'd spring up.

So it's me and everyone else, then, eh? Okay then.

Well, no dispute there, obviously.

In most polls, yes. Though it's usually a narrow majority; the issue is very, very divided. And it's usually conditional, too: most people do not support it to the degree it's legal (at least in some places) today. It also appears to be trending the other way.

I don't understand what this means. It's an issue, and logical implications about the issue as a whole follow from it. It's perfectly relevant.

I don't see how it could be characterized as a religious discussion, because it's a legal issue. The moment a government makes a determination to product people's lives in general, it is obligated to make some kind of determination about what constitutes a life.

Yoda, I don't remember, but are you for the death penalty?

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

I never understand what argument people are making when they say this. What's the year got to do with it?

The idea that being pro-choice is about letting the "individual decide" and pro-life is not is a fallacy. The dispute is about what constitutes an individual. Everything else is ancillary to this.

Since this is primarily a movie forum, I'm reminded by this thread of three movies that are relevant: Vera Drake, Palindromes, and 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days.

Unless you think unborn children are people.
See above. It helps the things that are being killed, obviously.

Come on. I expect lots of people to be pro-choice, but I don't understand how someone could advance an argument that presupposes the very thing being argued.

As for the illegal abortion trade: there are any number of things people are going to do whether we make them legal or not. That's not an argument for making them law.

I almost answered this question before it was asked, because I assumed it would come up. I'm against it, for a variety of reasons.

Though I wouldn't say that someone who is pro-life and pro-death penalty is necessarily contradicting themselves, given the obvious difference between a society collectively punishing someone and a lone individual making a unilateral, oversight-less decision to end a life that, by definition, has committed no offense outside of existing.

You're just repeating yourself, I said there is no black and white here. I don't have to believe abortion is justified and believe it needs to be state funded. There's a split because people keep saying what you're saying as if there's no possible way there could be a compromise.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing but, depending on the person, the "established" being technically has more say. It's not really about being dirt poor, it's about starving your child, losing shelter, etc.


But that's impossible to determine. I just can't see the purpose of pro-life outside religion, and that's when it becomes unsafe. Having one prick into religion because of abortion is completely fair to me compared to all the other ideologies that the country says are welcome but this doesn't really hold true.


I was questioning the implication that religion is true, which is while it is real in that people believe in it, no one can say true or false or anything so it's not worth adding to the already muddled world of politics.


Also, what happened to stem cell research? Couldn't the banning of that "waste" the fetuses?

I thought you were anti-death penalty but I wasn't sure if I was confusing it with something else. We have too many "political" threads...

Feeling that one needs an abortion is a sad, awful thing but I just wanted to say that I despise the death penalty as well. I wasn't trying to set you up to be a hypocrite.

I think it's because, were it not a religious argument, it wouldn't be a legal one.

Because we (the Western World) have moved on from the middle ages. Hence, the C21st.


Yes, it does. It helps the woman who doesn't want it and it 'helps' prevent an unwanted child being born.

I'm actually with Yoda on this one (apart from the whole "ending a life" bit at the end.) I see no problem with someone being pro (or anti) one and hold an opposite view with the other.

That's because when an innocent life is involved, there is no compromise. That's why this is such a stark issue. In a sentence, it works like this: if the fetus is not a human, no justification is necessary. If a fetus is a human, no justification is possible.

Well, technically in the sense that right now it's legal, yes. But this is, of course, a discussion about what ought to be legal and why.

The problem with giving this power to the more "established" person is that this describes parents and their newborn children just as much as parents and fetuses. Any argument for the justification for abortion should probably not work about equally as well describing born infants.

Well, my response is the same, then: we don't get to decide that for other people. But they still have choices. They can give the baby up, for example. They are not completely without recourse. I'm also not sure either of us would really trust someone to draw the line between the truly destitute and the highly inconvenient, anyway.

The only belief necessary to be pro-life, regardless of religious affiliation, is that innocent human life is sacred and ought to be protected. I think you'll find that no arguments I advance (or have advanced) will posit anything more than that.

I honestly can't follow this. Can you rephrase?

Correct, it cannot be empirically established as true. I'm simply saying that there's nothing wrong with it factoring into someone's political beliefs. If they honestly believe it's true, that's the only sensible thing to do. I expect all people to bring all honestly-held beliefs into the public sphere.

EDIT: just saw the added quote...

That's kind of a loaded question. But sure, it would "waste" them (assuming I understand the science correctly), but in the same way we "waste" the bodies of people who aren't organ donors, or "waste" money on caskets and funeral services. Obviously, the position is one of showing a degree of respect for human life beyond its material benefits, partially so that we don't come to cheapen life over time.