Are you Prolife or ProAbortion?

[Jackie Malfoy]

I just thought this would be a good quetion to ask and this place seen like they have alot of debate questions so why not ask this one?Anyway I am prolife I don't belive in killing babys
I think that the mother should have a choice but why should one of her choices be killing a baby who has notheirng to do with the mother's mistake?If the mother made a mistake she should not take the easy way out she should be adut enought to pay for it@!
How about you guys what do you think?Are you prolife or Proabortion (Which can also mean you think that the woman can choose reather to kill the baby or not?) See you around1JM :confused: :idea:

[Yoda]

Well, I'm sure this'll go swimmingly. :D

Anyway, if you're going to say "Pro-life" it's only fair to say "Pro-choice" as well, even though both are misleading.

[Piddzilla]

I'm pro killing babies.

[Golgot]

I'm pro killing babies.

Heheheh. So succinct.

[Jackie Malfoy]

Heheheh. So succinct.

Ok here is what they mean for you guys who don't know.

Prolife:Againt abortion and killing babys!

ProAbortion:With Abortion and some also think it is the woman's choice with the goverment!

Prochoice is the same as ProAbortion people say they are prochoice but are really pro abortion and the goverment is with proabortion and not the prolifes.
If they were with the Pro lifes then abortion would no longer be possible. But it is not so the goverment is with the Proabortions and not prolife!
I just wanted to pointed that out.Well see you around!JM :cool:

[Yoda]

Ok here is what they mean for you guys who don't know.

Prolife:Againt abortion and killing babys!

ProAbortion:With Abortion and some also think it is the woman's choice with the goverment!

Prochoice is the same as ProAbortion people say they are prochoice but are really pro abortion and the goverment is with proabortion and not the prolifes.
If they were with the Pro lifes then abortion would no longer be possible. But it is not so the goverment is with the Proabortions and not prolife!
I just wanted to pointed that out.Well see you around!JM :cool:
Greatest. Post. Ever.

[sunfrog]

I'm pro-abortion and against partial birth abortions. I'm also pro-cloning and pro-robot.

[Golgot]

Greatest. Post. Ever.

See what happens when you go away. It's neglect i tell you. I'm calling social services. You're neglecting your cyber-family ;)

[Golgot]

I'm pro-abortion and against partial birth abortions. I'm also pro-cloning and pro-robot.

You're also a prophylactic :p ;)

Heheheh, only kidding, i'm with you kiddo. (at least, i think certain late stage abortions are definitely unjustifiable - like the kid with a cleft lip that got terminated in th UK recently for example - i do believe there should be a cut-off point, with occasional exception permitable, but drawing the line is incredibly tricky)

But anyway, there's another, better, thread on all this i'm sure.

[Jackie Malfoy]

What do you mean better thread?I look aready and there is not which is why I did this one.Anyway I was just asking what you thought of this!So are you prolife or Proabortion?
I like everyone's else responed even through talkilng about cloneing is off the subject but anyway don't forget to vote ok?

See you around!JM PS-you do have a point through with what you just said! ;)

[Garrett]

I'm pro-abortion and against partial birth abortions.

That's about how I feel. I feel it should be the woman's choice...except in the partial birth situation. Do it or don't do it. Besides, I guess people shouldn't go around getting pregnant if they don't want babies. :p

[Yoda]

What do you mean better thread?I look aready and there is not which is why I did this one.
Planned Parenthood (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=3908).

[Caitlyn]

'Partial Birth' abortion legislation (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=5615&highlight=abortion)


Abortion; Why? (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=3136&highlight=abortion)

[blibblobblib]

I'm ProPlus

[Piddzilla]

I'm ProLific

[Golgot]

I'm ProLific

:rotfl:

Stop, stop, you're killing me ;) (i would say that was a bit childish, but i'd only be making things worse - oops, too late :rolleyes: )

[Jackie Malfoy]

Planned Parenthood (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=3908).


I see what you mean Yoda man but still that topic would be base upon proabortion and would only take one side would it not?
That is why I am asking what side you are on so people can say what side and why they are prolife or Proabortion all Planned Parenthood is one side and that is mainly if you argee with it or not.
Anyway that is why i asked the question the way I asked it.Well see you around!JM :cool:

[jamesglewisf]

I'm pro-life and anti-any-kind-of-abortion.

I think it is fair to call it pro-abortion. Pro-choice is just a euphamism for pro-abortion. The pro-abortion camp will never call it that because they know they would get much less support if they did.

The people who are extremely "pro-choice" don't really care about women being able to make choices. They want women to be able to kill their babies when they don't want them.

[jamesglewisf]

I think people who say, "I'm against abortion. I think it is wrong, but I think women ought to be able to choose for themselves," are being disingenuous. It's like saying that I'm personally against beating women on the head with a steel pipe, but I think men ought to be able to choose for themselves. You either believe it is wrong to or not. Have a backbone and say what you believe.

[Yoda]

I think it is fair to call it pro-abortion. Pro-choice is just a euphamism for pro-abortion. The pro-abortion camp will never call it that because they know they would get much less support if they did.I'm not sure if I agree. I think "pro-abortion" might imply, to some, that they want abortions to happen. I'm sure some pro-choice activisits do indeed revel in each abortion, and see it as a symbol of their political victory, but there are members of the pro-choice movement (some of them post here) who find the act less than savory, but consider it the lesser of two evils.

[jamesglewisf]

Yeah, if you consider having a baby evil, I can see that.

How about if you can't operate the zipper on your pants you go ahead and deal with the consequences of your actions. Give the kid up for adoption. Newborns are in high demand. They'll even pay for all of your medical expenses.

I can't stand it when people call abortion the lesser of two evils. If you believe that giving birth to a baby is somehow evil, then you are really evil for having sex. It ain't a mystery how that happens. If you are willing to have sex, believing that bringing a baby into the world is evil, but knowing that you can commit a "lesser evil" by just killing it, then you are really evil. It ain't the choice that is evil. It is the person.

Call it what it is - pro-abortion.

[Yoda]

Yeah, if you consider having a baby evil, I can see that.

How about if you can't operate the zipper on your pants you go ahead and deal with the consequences of your actions. Give the kid up for adoption. Newborns are in high demand. They'll even pay for all of your medical expenses.

I can't stand it when people call abortion the lesser of two evils. If you believe that giving birth to a baby is somehow evil, then you are really evil for having sex. It ain't a mystery how that happens. If you are willing to have sex, believing that bringing a baby into the world is evil, but knowing that you can commit a "lesser evil" by just killing it, then you are really evil. It ain't the choice that is evil. It is the person.

Call it what it is - pro-abortion.You're, on some level, preaching to the choir. I can't particularly fathom the thought process, either, but I think that's beside the point, which was that there are people who support legalized abortion, yet are not "pro-abortion." Their view of abortion, I imagine, is rather like the view you or I might take in regards to pornography: to be avoided, but something people need to reject on their own without government interference.

I disagree with these types of people, but do not feel at all comfortable calling them "pro-abortion" knowing that they would wish the end of it, albeit by different, more persuasive means than I would.

[Jackie Malfoy]

I'm pro-life and anti-any-kind-of-abortion.

I think it is fair to call it pro-abortion. Pro-choice is just a euphamism for pro-abortion. The pro-abortion camp will never call it that because they know they would get much less support if they did.

The people who are extremely "pro-choice" don't really care about women being able to make choices. They want women to be able to kill their babies when they don't want them.

Wow that is what I beeen trying to say good words!I argree with you 100%!
Both are not really evil Yoda well to me ProAbortion is evil because babys are geting killed for the fault of there mothers who should not be taking the easy way out.
To me and no one has to argree with me is having an abortion is taking the easy way out of your mistakes.I am not saying no one should pay for there mistakes but killing a baby to me is wrong!Well that is all I guess I want to cover!Oh one more thing yeterday my stepsister(16)had a baby boy and her doctor had told her to conder aborting him but she would it and I think it is very brave for her. My mom and her father is helping her and the father is well gone but that to me is making a choice not to choose abortion or even thining of it!See you around!JM :cool:

[jamesglewisf]

The truth is that abortion is not the easy way out. I am friends with several women who have had abortions. They suffered for years with guilt, depression, and other problems. Even knowing that they are forgiven by God, they are new creations in Christ, and their slates have been whiped clean; they still struggle with guilt and depression.

[Mark]

I'm Pro-state gland.

[jamesglewisf]

Their view of abortion, I imagine, is rather like the view you or I might take in regards to pornography: to be avoided, but something people need to reject on their own without government interference.Except that I wouldn't be opposed to pornography being illegal.

Frankly, I like government interference when it comes to murder.

[jamesglewisf]

I'm Pro-state gland.My teacher once read something about Isaiah falling "prostate" before the Lord. Somehow I don't think God felt honored.

[Yoda]

Except that I wouldn't be opposed to pornography being illegal.This, I definitely have to disagree with. I think freedom is preferable when another is not harmed in the process, and I think it'd be difficult to make a case that pornography directly harms another. It harms one's self, I'd say, but then again, so does gluttony, greed, etc, and I don't know that it's practical to ban these things.

Even if you came to the conclusion that such a set of laws was morally acceptable, it'd still be a logistical nightmare. Regardless, I presume there must be something you have an objection to, yet still believe should be a matter of persuasion, instead of a matter of law. Substitute pornography for that. :)


Frankly, I like government interference when it comes to murder.So do I. But I think that's apart from what we're discussing, which is what is and is not fair to call someone with a particular mindset. I think pro-abortion implies an explicit approval of the act that does not exist in the mind of every pro-choice advocate. Whether or not they're correct is another matter, because the term suggests a certain intent.

[Jackie Malfoy]

The truth is that abortion is not the easy way out. I am friends with several women who have had abortions. They suffered for years with guilt, depression, and other problems. Even knowing that they are forgiven by God, they are new creations in Christ, and their slates have been whiped clean; they still struggle with guilt and depression.

I am saying that people think they are taking the easy way out by thinking they can abort a baby everytime they sleep with someone but like you said it will make them upset and depressed and also I had read that most of abortion people tryed to kill themselves or end up killing them self becuse
They can't get over it it is a horrible expenced you feel very emity and yu will never be able to have kids again after having one if you want one later in life yuo will not able to and it is also brings harm to your body so why does people still do it?And again it is a goverment thing to get a abortion not the other thing around!Just to let yu know!See yuo around!JM :cool:

[Caitlyn]

Yeah, if you consider having a baby evil, I can see that.

How about if you can't operate the zipper on your pants you go ahead and deal with the consequences of your actions. Give the kid up for adoption. Newborns are in high demand. They'll even pay for all of your medical expenses.

I can't stand it when people call abortion the lesser of two evils. If you believe that giving birth to a baby is somehow evil, then you are really evil for having sex. It ain't a mystery how that happens. If you are willing to have sex, believing that bringing a baby into the world is evil, but knowing that you can commit a "lesser evil" by just killing it, then you are really evil. It ain't the choice that is evil. It is the person.

Call it what it is - pro-abortion.

I’m sorry, but your whole view seems to be based on some sugar coated world to me… so I would ask you what about the 11 year old girl who has a drug addicted mother that a 30 year old man impregnates… and then has no idea who she can turn to for help and ends up giving birth to the baby and then discards it in a trash pile… which is the lesser of the two evils in that case --- abortion or death from exposure and starvation?

[megalith]

I have to say I'm pro-choice. I would NEVER have an abortion myself, but I do think that under certain circumstances it would be best for the mother and the baby if it wasn't born. For example, in the case of a rape... The mother obivously wasn't trying to have a baby or being in a position to have to deal with her actions. The child would probably have a difficult life dealing with the fact that he or she was not wanted.

I do not believe abortion to be a method of birth control. THAT is just wrong. But if there is something wrong with the baby or it affects the mother's life, then it may be okay under those circumstances. If the baby is just not wanted or cannot be taken care of giving it up for adoption is a good choice.

"Pro-life" is such a strong word because it allows for no exceptions. To me, there is always an exception to the rule.

[Sidewinder]

I'm pro killing babies.


Amen

[jamesglewisf]

I’m sorry, but your whole view seems to be based on some sugar coated world to me… so I would ask you what about the 11 year old girl who has a drug addicted mother that a 30 year old man impregnates… and then has no idea who she can turn to for help and ends up giving birth to the baby and then discards it in a trash pile… which is the lesser of the two evils in that case --- abortion or death from exposure and starvation?You can claim I have a sugar-coated worldview and you can sit around inventing stories that appear worse than abortion, but that doesn't change anything. I mean, what's worse, 25 abortions or 25 babies being born in a hospital just before a HURRICANE destroys the building drowning every baby in the hospital???!!!!!

There aren't that many 11 year old raped and pregnant daughters of drug addicts that will go to Planned Baby-Killerhood to get an abortion. If she ends up there, it would still be better for the baby to be born and given up for adoption. The girl would probably be taken out of custody of the drug-addict mother and put into a foster home, and the boyfriend would get arrested for raping a child.

Your lesser-of-two-evils story doesn't prove anything, as most lesser-of-two-evil stories don't.

And BTW, my sugar-coated worldview includes one dead daughter and one that was in the hospital ICU for 12 weeks. My wife has been within hours of death on two separate occasions where the only thing I could do to help is pray. Every life has tragedy in it at some point. I just don't let my circumstances determine my worldview. I let truth determine it.

[Golgot]

You can claim I have a sugar-coated worldview and you can sit around inventing stories that appear worse than abortion, but that doesn't change anything. I mean, what's worse, 25 abortions or 25 babies being born in a hospital just before a HURRICANE destroys the building drowning every baby in the hospital???!!!!!

She's not inventing these things James. And she has encountered these type of things in her work. And to be honest the huricane example doesn't gel in this case coz we're talking about controllable decisions.

There aren't that many 11 year old raped and pregnant daughters of drug addicts that will go to Planned Baby-Killerhood to get an abortion. If she ends up there, it would still be better for the baby to be born and given up for adoption. The girl would probably be taken out of custody of the drug-addict mother and put into a foster home, and the boyfriend would get arrested for raping a child.

Sure, once the deed is done. And i agree with you that adoption is one valid reason for not aborting - there are lots of people who want kids, and who might even do pretty immoral things to get one (plus add in dropping sperm counts and working women who leave it too late and this trend will most probably continue/increase).

But there are other situations where abortion can be very valid. A raped young child shouldn't be forced to go full term if there is another option - or any victim of rape, especially if the pregnancy may endanger them more than the abortion (i'm sorry to hear about your troubles btw. You certainly have seen the hard end of what can happen in natural child-birth. But surely this can help you appreciate circumstances where someone should not be forced to be put through the trauma of childbirth, especially if they don't have a support network around them).

[jamesglewisf]

As long as one person believes abortion is killing a baby and another person believes abortion is an "option," we're never going to settle this.

Frankly, as long as one person rejects that God exists, there will always be this debate. Without God, you are free to make up your own truth. You can claim that you believe abortion is wrong, but that you shouldn't tell someone else what to believe.

With God, there is absolute truth. Without it, God couldn't exist. My job is to find that truth and try to live by it. With absolute truth, it doesn't matter what you believe or I believe. Truth is truth.

[Golgot]

Indeed. And indeed, "truth is truth" - the question always is - are you sure you know that truth. The point about these discussions is to talk about the practicalities (ideally to get closer to best-action, if not "truth" as well). I'm afraid i'm going to take it that you don't want to discuss the genuine situations where abortion can/could be legitimate. I agree with you in your points that it's unlikely that a raped 11 year old is going to come forward either for abortion or to give the baby up for adoption, coz of the threats from the raper etc. But an reasonably open-door policy at least allows for that possibility - and the people who work in those places can spot the signs right enough. She wouldn't have to say anything - they'd just know. It seems like the most pragmatic and moral approach is all

[Yoda]

Indeed. And indeed, "truth is truth" - the question always is - are you sure you know that truth. The point about these discussions is to talk about the practicalities (ideally to get closer to best-action, if not "truth" as well). I'm afraid i'm going to take it that you don't want to discuss the genuine situations where abortion can/could be legitimate. I agree with you in your points that it's unlikely that a raped 11 year old is going to come forward either for abortion or to give the baby up for adoption, coz of the threats from the raper etc. But an reasonably open-door policy at least allows for that possibility - and the people who work in those places can spot the signs right enough. She wouldn't have to say anything - they'd just know. It seems like the most pragmatic and moral approach is allIt's a legitimate question to ask, but the fact does remain that the overwhelming majority of abortions (at least in America) are nothing at all like that. I really don't see the sense in supporting all abortion in general on the strength of a few rare, extreme circumstances. These examples would, at best, only provide an argument against an across-the-board ban.

[Golgot]

Sure. And the same is true in Britain, i believe, that the majority of abortions are more a delayed version of the morning-after pill. What i was questioning was James's apparant all-out disagreement with abortion. That's the point - i'm arguing that abortion can be valid (although my personal feeling, is that people shouldn't be using it flippantly, or even, shouldn't be allowed overly-easy access to it [i wasn't thinking b4 when i said i only disagree with late-stage abortions]).

Also, when i talked about easy-access centres for the molested kid to walk into, i was thinking of multi-purpose clinics which dealt with various health issues, which could be walked into without prejudice or suspicion. There needs to be a subtle approach taken to lots of issues which might potentially bring about prejudice or persecution (and how these things are set up + who runs them is vital).

I turn into a bit of a prude when it comes to new technologies being used willy-nilly for a percieved "right" or "freedom" to be facilitated (that never existed before). When it's closer to a necessity, or an action that concretely resolves things for the best and avoids huge suffering that couldn't be previously avoided, i'm all for it.

[jamesglewisf]

I'm afraid i'm going to take it that you don't want to discuss the genuine situations where abortion can/could be legitimate. I've already stated that my view of truth is not dependent upon circumstances that you can concoct or relate. Killing with malice aforethought is murder. It doesn't matter if the person doing the killing is an 11 year old raped girl or a 25 year old gang member. And no, its not better to kill a baby before it is born than to dump it in a dumpster to kill it. Both are murder. You don't improve any situation by intentionally killing a baby.

[jamesglewisf]

The error here is assuming that the underlying truth is modified by circumstances. That is a worn out topic called situational ethics or relativism.

[Golgot]

If you improve the life of the young girl exponentially by saving her from the risks of childbearing/birth and the torment of a constant reminder of the rape then yes it's worth it. (and if the kid isn't left to die - but is brought up as a hated reminder, making both it's and the mother's life a living hell of hate, then there's still a strong argument for termination unfortunately - as difficult as these outcomes are to predict and judge)

And who's concocting anything? We're talking about modern life situations. I'd be tempted to say if anything, extrapolation from an old text could be deemed closer to concoction.

The error here is assuming that the underlying truth is modified by circumstances. That is a worn out topic called situational ethics or relativism.

And your error is to assume that you know "the truth". And yes, i believe relativism, when applied in a way which is sensitive to the needs for fixed norms, is a very useful tool. A vital one almost. It allows us to change our minds in some circumstances, and to not enforce a rule in a negative/destructive way in others. You should try it some time (and please stop double posting :p)

[Sedai]

I think people who say, "I'm against abortion. I think it is wrong, but I think women ought to be able to choose for themselves," are being disingenuous. It's like saying that I'm personally against beating women on the head with a steel pipe, but I think men ought to be able to choose for themselves. You either believe it is wrong to or not. Have a backbone and say what you believe.


These issues are not analagous, by any stretch of the imagination. How does an attack by another the same as a choice over one's own body? Pro-Choice is the right to have total control over the choices in one's life and over one's physical being. True this issue is also about abortion, as this is the issue the debate is currently centered around, but the choice concepts can be transposed to other issues as well. Taking away this choice would lead to other choices being taken away. One of the main reasons I am pro-choice is that most of the lifer's arguments are centered around a text I don't choose to base my life upon.

Late-stage abortion adds another set of issues to be examined and I think at this stage in the game the mother has already made her choice and needs to stand by it (keeping the baby).

Once again I will reiterate my take on the Bible, which is of course, just the way I look at things and is just my opinion, which I have the choice to construct thus: The Bible is a set of stories and concepts meant to guide people with lessons about life if they choose to use those lessons, choice being the key concept here. Erroding this concept, from any angle, would cause more erosion. It would be that key anchor point from which other cases would become tethered, setting the example that it is okay to revoke rights if enough people think another party shouldn't have them, even if the reasons are a belief held only by the party who want's the rights revoked. I respect other people's views, religious and otherwise, and would ask the same of them.

As Gol stated, you don't know what "The Truth" is, you just know what your truth is. I also agree that circumstances have EVRYTHING to do with this issue and trying to distill this issue down to a black-and-white concept (which NEVER works for ANY concept btw) is foolishness. An irresponsible teen who gets knocked up three times a year and hits the clinic like it's a trip to the record store is entirely different than a woman who was mugged, raped in an alley, and left with a child of a criminal against her will. Please explain how why these cases should be treated the same. What frame of reference for argument can be used to treat these women the same way?

Do you not realize that the choice you are making to read the bible and follow it's teachings is the same as the choice this woman is taking? A free choice over one's self thet define's one's life? There are people who think you shouldn't have the choice to choose which religion you follow in this world, and I hope they don't get their way either.

_Sedai

I recommend Orwell's "Animal Farm", for good insight into what can happen when sanctimonious attitudes get out of hand....

[Piddzilla]

Do I think abortion is wrong or not? What, if it is not wrong, then it automatically has to be right?

I don't think abortions are right. I think they are terrible. But I still do believe that everyone should be able to make their own decision in this matter. If men could get pregnant this discussion would not even exist.

I think the circumstances are totally irrelevant. If you are pro-choice then I think you should be able to leave all the freedom of choice to the individual, which is what pro-choice is about. Then it is not your business how she got pregnant or how many abortions she's had earlier in life. That is very judgmental, if you ask me. Every woman should be entitled to how many abortions in life? One? Two? Who should be the judge? And to say that it is up to the individual in one case but up to the authorities in some other cases is kind of hypocritical. Abortions will always include cases of tragedy, there is nowhere around it. There aren't any "good" abortions but they can't be banned.

[Yoda]

These issues are not analagous, by any stretch of the imagination. How does an attack by another the same as a choice over one's own body?You're assuming that the woman's body is all we're dealing with. But that's what's being debated in the first place. The Pro-Life stance does not state that a person cannot control their own body, but rather, that a fetus should be treated as its own body.

Pro-Choice is the right to have total control over the choices in one's life and over one's physical being.Same assumption as above. You're framing the issue from the standpoint that your side is factually correct. I could just as easily state that Pro-Choice is the right to have total control over someone else's physical being, as well as your own.

It all comes back to the question of whether or not the child is human. The entire issue hinges on that. If it's not human, no justification is needed. If it is, no justification is possible.

True this issue is also about abortion, as this is the issue the debate is currently centered around, but the choice concepts can be transposed to other issues as well. Taking away this choice would lead to other choices being taken away. One of the main reasons I am pro-choice is that most of the lifer's arguments are centered around a text I don't choose to base my life upon.Which arguments are those? While I do believe in The Bible, you need nothing more than a belief in the sanctity of life to make a compelling case for the Pro-Life side of things. It's by no means rooted in religion, except in the indirect sense that all morality generally is.

As for choice: why do you believe this particular choice will be the tipping point into fascism (or something similar)? Abortion was illegal earlier in the century, and the country was hardly a police state. It is my experience that such slippery slope arguments do not generally bear themselves out in real life.

Late-stage abortion adds another set of issues to be examined and I think at this stage in the game the mother has already made her choice and needs to stand by it (keeping the baby).Agreed.

Once again I will reiterate my take on the Bible, which is of course, just the way I look at things and is just my opinion, which I have the choice to construct thus: The Bible is a set of stories and concepts meant to guide people with lessons about life if they choose to use those lessons, choice being the key concept here. Erroding this concept, from any angle, would cause more erosion. It would be that key anchor point from which other cases would become tethered, setting the example that it is okay to revoke rights if enough people think another party shouldn't have them, even if the reasons are a belief held only by the party who want's the rights revoked. I respect other people's views, religious and otherwise, and would ask the same of them.Government already takes away a number of our "rights." Generally because they infringe on someone else's rights. And that's the pro-life argument in a nutshell: your "right to choose" may interfere with another's right to life.

As Gol stated, you don't know what "The Truth" is, you just know what your truth is. I also agree that circumstances have EVRYTHING to do with this issue and trying to distill this issue down to a black-and-white concept (which NEVER works for ANY concept btw) is foolishness. An irresponsible teen who gets knocked up three times a year and hits the clinic like it's a trip to the record store is entirely different than a woman who was mugged, raped in an alley, and left with a child of a criminal against her will. Please explain how why these cases should be treated the same. What frame of reference for argument can be used to treat these women the same way?I might ask the same in reverse; because as it stands now, legally, I believe they are treated the same. Are you saying you are pro-choice, but would like to see the current laws reformed?

Do you not realize that the choice you are making to read the bible and follow it's teachings is the same as the choice this woman is taking? A free choice over one's self thet define's one's life? There are people who think you shouldn't have the choice to choose which religion you follow in this world, and I hope they don't get their way either.Again, it all comes back to the humanity of the fetus.

I recommend Orwell's "Animal Farm", for good insight into what can happen when sanctimonious attitudes get out of hand....I've read it at least half a dozen times, and find it to be more an idictment of Communism than a warning against sanctimonious attitudes.

[Yoda]

I don't think abortions are right. I think they are terrible. But I still do believe that everyone should be able to make their own decision in this matter. If men could get pregnant this discussion would not even exist.To suggest that is to suggest that every single Pro-Life man objects to abortion purely out of a desire to control women. This strikes me as a very unreasonable generalization. Moreover, I believe it is easily disproven in the fact that the Pro-Life movement is generally made up by as many women as men, if not more.

This ties into a larger issue; the odd notion (I'm not saying you subscribe to it; feel free to clarify) that men cannot hold valid opinions on the issue, simply because they do not know what it's like to be pregnant. But wouldn't this logic exclude women who have not yet become pregnant, as well? And surely an argument's objective validity is not contingent on whose mouth it comes out of.

So, I do not at all believe that men becoming pregnant would end the debate. Though as I've said in the past, translucent stomachs sure as hell would.

Aside from that, why do you think abortions are "terrible"? If the fetus isn't really a human, then what's so awful about it? If it's just a part of the woman's body she doesn't want, what makes it any worse than clipping your own toenails?

I think the circumstances are totally irrelevant. If you are pro-choice then I think you should be able to leave all the freedom of choice to the individual, which is what pro-choice is about. Then it is not your business how she got pregnant or how many abortions she's had earlier in life. That is very judgmental, if you ask me.Well, it's judgmental in the sense that it expresses disapproval. But then again, so do you when you call it judgmental. I don't see anything wrong with expressing a disapproval of casual abortion. It's a moral statement, not a legal one, in my mind.

Every woman should be entitled to how many abortions in life? One? Two? Who should be the judge? And to say that it is up to the individual in one case but up to the authorities in some other cases is kind of hypocritical. Abortions will always include cases of tragedy, there is nowhere around it. There aren't any "good" abortions but they can't be banned.Legally, you make a fine point. You cannot limit abortions in a numerical sense...I don't think anyone's said otherwise, though. Sedai was simply expressing his distaste, if I've read correctly, with people who treat it as anything other than a necessary evil.

[Piddzilla]

To suggest that is to suggest that every single Pro-Life man objects to abortion purely out of a desire to control women. This strikes me as a very unreasonable generalization. Moreover, I believe it is easily disproven in the fact that the Pro-Life movement is generally made up by as many women as men, if not more.

I could simply say "no, that is not what I am suggesting" because it isn't, and that would be the end of that one...

However...

My satement about men becoming pregnant and the size of this discussion does not suggest that every single Pro-Life man desires to control women. Why? Because what it is instead suggesting is that if men could put themselves in the place of women and bear children then we would use everyting in our power to see to that we had the control of our own bodies. Hell, that would be part of the Constitution.

My guess is that the Pro-Life movement is built up by people that are directly or indirectly opposing abortions because of christian/religious reasons. And believe me, if men could bear children, the Bible, which was written by men, would look very differently. Thus would this discussion be very different too.

This ties into a larger issue; the odd notion (I'm not saying you subscribe to it; feel free to clarify) that men cannot hold valid opinions on the issue, simply because they do not know what it's like to be pregnant. But wouldn't this logic exclude women who have not yet become pregnant, as well? And surely an argument's objective validity is not contingent on whose mouth it comes out of.

Eh.. Is a mortal immortal until he gets killed? Why are women who haven't been pregnant yet excluded?

As for the first half of your paragraph. I think my point is valid and I am a man. So... I don't know what to say... No, I don't subscribe.

So, I do not at all believe that men becoming pregnant would end the debate. Though as I've said in the past, translucent stomachs sure as hell would.

I didn't say that it would end this debate. What I meant was that the discussion would be very different, possibly less charged and probably of lesser proportions.

Aside from that, why do you think abortions are "terrible"? If the fetus isn't really a human, then what's so awful about it? If it's just a part of the woman's body she doesn't want, what makes it any worse than clipping your own toenails?

My god, you're right! Like clipping toenails! Of course! Oh well, I guess they aren't that terrible then...

A long story made short just for you:

I know a woman who met an older guy. They got married and she got pregnant. A few months into the pregnancy he left her and went back to his ex-wife and kids and after a while my friend had an abortion. All the reasons to what lead to that decision or whether she did the right or the wrong thing is not the issue here. But do you honestly think that she thought of it as clipping toenails?

Well, it's judgmental in the sense that it expresses disapproval. But then again, so do you when you call it judgmental. I don't see anything wrong with expressing a disapproval of casual abortion. It's a moral statement, not a legal one, in my mind.

I don't see anything wrong with expressing a disproval either. Am I allowed to disagree with it? Sedai wrote about the teen who used abortion as a contraceptive and about the woman who was pregnant through rape and then he asked why those cases should be treated the same. I gave my opinion on it. I thought it spoke against the whole idea of the Pro-Choice and rather supported the ideas embraced by the Pro-Life: abortions should only be allowed if the woman was raped.

How can one be Pro-Life and at the same time say that abortion could be acceptable if the fetus was the result from a rape?

And I can't say that I thought of Sedai's statement as neither moral nor legal. I didn't even know there was two different debates going here simultaneously.

Legally, you make a fine point. You cannot limit abortions in a numerical sense...I don't think anyone's said otherwise, though. Sedai was simply expressing his distaste, if I've read correctly, with people who treat it as anything other than a necessary evil.

He stated that he thought the circumstances wasn't irrelevant and I think they should be. My post wasn't aimed directly towards Sedai, whose post was great, but that thing about the circumstances got me thinking and it lead to that I wrote my post.

And what do you exactly mean with "legally"? Even if the reasons to why we oppose abortions or not are are moral or emotional, it all comes down to "legally" in the end, doesn't it? Is the Pro-Life movement interested in making abortions illegal or are they just into namecalling? Would there even be a Pro-Choice movement if they didn't feel threatened by new laws?

[Revenant]

I, myself am of the opinion that abortions should be allowed.

Even though there is a potential of killing a sentient being, (biology, but mostly speculation) sometimes there is no other option. Having a child is a lifetime commitment, life bound contract, and responsibilty. For the pregnant woman it is a pivot for which there is no turning back. To expect, nay demand, she has that child is a violation of her rights and a potential hazard to her and the child's health.

In the end I think the decision should by rights belong to her and not to some never to meet stranger based on their personnal beliefs. There is no actual conformation of truth on either sides but the woman is the one who the decision is going to effect most.

She risks her own well being by choosing to give up or keep the child. She could regret forever opting to end its existence, but she could also regret, if she keeps the child. There is agony on both sides of that coin.

If she doesn't want it and gives it up for adoption, there is also guilt there too, for letting go the child she bore. Or if she keeps it and raises the baby under the poverty line, she may be unable to give it what it needs, causing it needless suffering because the option was not there to save it a life of mysery.

Sometimes life can in actual fact mean death.

At a certian point, there should be no option to abortion but before then the pregnant woman should by all means, with all the help she can get should have the option to carry it out.

[Sedai]

I plan on posting some responses peeps, but I am SWAMPED here at work and must wait until this evening, sorry to leave you hanging but I wanted to get back on some of these responses, which are all great. I just sent Yods a PM with about 15 spelling errors in it, and figured I might as well post here instead. ;)

more later

_S

[CrazyforMovies]

Definantely PRO LIFE I think a baby is innocent. If you belive that abortion is a right for women, think again ..its society's way of controlling you. As a women you made the decision to be sexual active, you must take the responsibility of that life because it was given to you as a gift. Killing an innocent baby is totally wrong. Just because you made a mistake doesn't justify you killing an innocent life.

Besides babies are beautiful. And children do grow up so don't be distraught this child will fullfill you life and make you proud in so many ways that you cannot imagine.

[Creed]

This is not a religious thread and as such should not be used as a soapbox for personal religious beliefs. The threads title in no way asks if you're religion allows you to believe you can permit abortion, it instead asks wether you prefer one or the other... I prefer the choice.

[CrazyforMovies]

This is not a religious thread and as such should not be used as a soapbox for personal religious beliefs. The threads title in no way asks if you're religion allows you to believe you can permit abortion, it instead asks wether you prefer one or the other... I prefer the choice.



........sad very ..sad.

[allthatglitters]

this is my very small and mostly insignificant opinion

I am very adamant on the ProLife stance. But for me to just believ in something without a reason is not sufficient, I have to have a reason, and so in my search for reason and logic I came to this conclusion. That actions require consequences, if you decide to have sex, then you potentially put yourself at risk of conceiving a child. Even if you are raped, and it wasn't your action, it still has a consequence, even if it's not yours. (also to think abput it, being raped and having that horrible thing happen to you then being able to bring life into the world is sort of ironic)

With the late-birth abortions, what's the difference? What difference does a few weeks make? What it's suddenly going to be MORE human than it already is? Obviously not. It's just growing more and more, it's always been human.

I also look at this this way. Even if something is without intention, it does not mean it is without purpose. Sure you could of slept with some guy and gotten pregnant, not on purpose of course, but that doesn't mean that the little baby (fetus-whatever you call it) isn't without a purpose in life, that since it was conceived without any intention that it does not have a meaning in life, that it has no purpose. This is probably a really bad example, look at the theory of evolution, ok basically the things that evolved physically just didn't decide to evolve (alhtough it was earlier believed with Lamarcks theory of evolution that thats what happened), no it happen un-intentionally. But yet we have love, and hate and all other sorts of emotions, and somehow in this world that gives us purpose, yet we "supposedly" came into being without intention.

The reason why murder and suicide are ruled as homicides are because society still believes that you cannot put a value on your own, or somebody elses life. Why is it any different for a little baby inside it's mother's womb? Is it because that it can't speak up for itself that it suddenly becomes ok to put a value on it's life?

[theshape82]

so are you saying that because you took your pants off and did the dirty you aren't willing to take responsibilty?
that's rediculous...if you have enough in you to create a life then you should at least let that life have it's chance...if you don't want the kid then put him/her up for adoption so that some other family who doesn't have the means to have children themselves might be able to raise a child anyways!

IMO anybody who goes through abortion is sick

[Caitlyn]

If you belive that abortion is a right for women, think again ..its society's way of controlling you.

I’m going to have to disagree with you on this one… Up until the late 1860’s, abortion was legal in the US … Recipes for mixing herbs that would cause abortions have been around since the 4th century and by the 1820’s, there were many commercial products on the market to cause abortions… and soon after, clinics sprang up in most of the major cities run mainly by midwives… and traveling salesmen normally had a supply of pills that induced abortions.

In the late 1860’s, the American Medical Association started crusading against abortion to establish the Doctors so called superiority over midwives and those offering herbal remedies (ie Snake oil doctors)… and they promoted prejudice views to obtain their goal… Back then, the typical female using abortion clinics or purchasing the remedies were white upper and middle class married women… births among this group were declining while births among immigrants were on the rise… mainly Catholics and non-whites (which included more then just blacks… Irish, Scots, Native Americans, Italians, Mexicans, Japanese, etc. were all classified in this group). So, the Doctors took up the rally cry that the US would be populated by the aliens (immigrants) instead of their own children (American born white Protestant )… and as a result, abortion was soon declared illegal…

Abortion clinics were raided… and the midwives and “Snake oil doctors” forced out of business… at least in the open. However, the very same Doctors who had pushed to make abortion illegal, were, themselves, still aborting babies… and the only time anything was done about it was if the female died and her family caused a fuss…

Sadly, the main thing they accomplished out of it all was to totally humiliate women… the ones caught in abortion clinics raids were forced to publicly disclose their sexual habits and the ones seeking medical aid for a botched abortion were denied treatment until they disclosed who the abortionist was, who the father was, and many times, how many men they had sexual relations with… if the female was unmarried, the responsible males were often tracked down and jailed… And around 1900, the American Medical Association, once again, publicly endorsed the practice of denying medical treatment to women suffering from botched abortions… a practice that was often carried over to women who were having miscarriages due to complications or other types of female problems that had absolutely nothing to do with an abortion…

So what started out as a rather underhanded way for Doctors to establish themselves in society… ended in discrimination against women… and I’m sorry, but how on earth someone could think giving women the right to legally have an abortion is a way for society to control them instead of the other way around, is beyond me…

Now, just to clarify… I personally don’t believe in using abortion as a form of birth control… however, I do believe in the woman’s right to choose (especially in the case of rape/incest or the life of the female is in danger)… I’ve said it before and I will say it again… education is the key to ending abortions except in the extreme cases… and if you study the stats… things are slowly changing… State Health Departments now have many educational programs in place aimed at reducing teen pregnancies and widespread educational programs promoting the use of contraceptives are making a difference… The only group where abortion is on the rise are in poorer women… mainly households that are two times below Federal poverty levels… so something needs to be done there…



Note: Sorry for the long post… and Golgot, don’t say it… ;)

[Piddzilla]

Great post, Cait!

[Golgot]

Note: Sorry for the long post… and Golgot, don’t say it… ;)

Pidz said it already - that is one great great-big post! :)

[Escape]

I believe that direct abortion of any kind even because of such reasons as rape and incest it still the direct act of taking human life. It is wrong plain and simple.
Human life starts at conception at the moment of fertilization, when the sperm and ovum meet to form a single cell. This single cell human being will have everything it needs to grow into an adult human being unless this process is interupted. Even science will tell you that so you don't have to be religious to know the difference.
Also when you hear of arguments defending abortion based on rape or incest they sound foolish if one is to acknowledge that the fetus that you are aborting is indeed human. Who ever says that "I'm against abortion except when etc.... " sounds very illogical indeed. To me it sounds like this. "I'm against murdering babies in the womb except through rape or incest." That doesn't sound right now does it?

Anyways, I just though I'd get my 2 cents in.

[angelwingsdevil]

wow this is why some things like this should not be discussed except by mature adults. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. And yes we should show tolerence when listening to others. But we should never try to force our opinions on another. These differences is what makes North America such a wonderful and beautiful place to live in. We have the freedom to choose our own beliefs. That may include such debatable topics such as abortion. But to keep our countries free, to hold on to our civil liberties, we may have to bend and except that others do not feel as we do. That is what Pro-Choice is about. You may believe it is wrong to have an abortion, that is your choice, but it is not anothers. You have the right to choose not to have an abortion, just as another has to have one. If this choice is taken away our quality of life diminishes. Would you allow someone else to choose for you? To set what your beliefs should be?

[Escape]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. And yes we should show tolerence when listening to others. But we should never try to force our opinions on another. These differences is what makes North America such a wonderful and beautiful place to live in. We have the freedom to choose our own beliefs. That may include such debatable topics such as abortion. But to keep our countries free, to hold on to our civil liberties, we may have to bend and except that others do not feel as we do. That is what Pro-Choice is about. You may believe it is wrong to have an abortion, that is your choice, but it is not anothers. You have the right to choose not to have an abortion, just as another has to have one. If this choice is taken away our quality of life diminishes. Would you allow someone else to choose for you? To set what your beliefs should be?
So before when "America" believed that seperating blacks from whites was a good thing, nobody should have tried to change these laws simply because that would have been pushing thier beleifs on others? Don't be ridiculous. How about when abortion was once illegal, and pro-abortionists changed that law? What do you say about that.
What if there is a law that said that all newborns can be thrown in the garbage untill the first week of their birth? You wouldn't say a word now would you cause that would be pushing your beliefs on others. As I have said before, the anti-abortion argument is not only for the religious believers but for the logical minded individual about this issue who stands up for ones basic right to life. This is not something that has to take faith to disprove.

wow this is why some things like this should not be discussed except by mature adults.
You just offended everyone who is an adult including myself because they are not in agreement with you about this issue and want to change that law back to how it should be.
You are the one who needs some growing up to do.

[7thson]

This is what I have to say on this subject: When you end the life of anything you take away from it everything it will ever have or ever experience on this Earth. If you truly believe that those experiences would ALL be horrible then abortion would be a good choice. If, however, you think that there may be a chance of any good experiences at all, what right does anyone have to deny that to another living being?

[Equilibrium]

Heres what i think..abortion the first 3 weeks after conception is totally fine....theres nothing there but disorganized cells...after that is a gray area but i firmly believe that abortion after 2 months is criminal...

[nebbit]

I don't think abortions are right. I think they are terrible. But I still do believe that everyone should be able to make their own decision in this matter.

Agreed. :yup:

[Escape]

Agreed. :yup:

Let's just think about this. You think it's wrong but everyone should be able to choose. What makes it wrong. If you believe that it is wrong because it is a human life then this is totally contradictive in itself. I don't think I know anybody in this world who believes murder should be someone's choice. Innocent human life must be defended at all times.

[nebbit]

Let's just think about this. You think it's wrong but everyone should be able to choose. What makes it wrong. If you believe that it is wrong because it is a human life then this is totally contradictive in itself. I don't think I know anybody in this world who believes murder should be someone's choice. Innocent human life must be defended at all times.

Sorry if my answer was a bit ambivilant, I am for choice, I am not against abortion, I was untill I started working with teenage girls, with mental illness, pregnant, no family support, no support from the father. Obviously everyone doesn't think like you, it would be nice if we didn't have unwanted pregnancies, unfortunatly it is a factor of life. :(

[allthatglitters]

i personally wouldn't have one- even if i didn't want the baby-i still couldn't do it

i think it's terribly sad and sincerly wish that it wasn't a factor-but in the cases of the girls nebbit is talking to them, what else are they going to do?

accckkk......it's too late for me to eloquently express my opinion on this- i'll finish it tomorrow :yawn:

EDIT: I am such a dork and din't realize I had already replied to this topic- but ho hum that was many moons ago and back then i hadn't see and experienced some things i've had now...god the advantage of being young

[Escape]

Sorry if my answer was a bit ambivilant, I am for choice, I am not against abortion, I was untill I started working with teenage girls, with mental illness, pregnant, no family support, no support from the father. Obviously everyone doesn't think like you, it would be nice if we didn't have unwanted pregnancies, unfortunatly it is a factor of life. :(

So when defined by you, does one become an official human being?

[nebbit]

So when defined by you, does one become an official human being?

That's not for me to decide, my job was to help others cope with there decissions, as it is not one women do lightly. :(

[Escape]

That's not for me to decide, my job was to help others cope with there decissions, as it is not one women do lightly. :(

But don't you see, you have already made that decision by stating that you are for choice in your previous thread. Who can be for a choice of which the outcome may be murder? It would seem logical for one to think this through before saying they are for such a decision that could be killing innocent life. But by saying I am for this "choice" but don't want to make a decision whether this "choice" is right or wrong seems to me rather like a cop-out. You obviously believe it is right so naturally you must have a good idea when a human being is actually a "human being" and I would really love to hear when that is.

[Golgot]

You obviously believe it is right so naturally you must have a good idea when a human being is actually a "human being" and I would really love to hear when that is.

Many people who are "pro-choice" etc support the idea that abortion should only be used in extreme situations. Most of us have our definitions of when abortion is the best thing for the child (and parent). Those times are often very hard to judge, but in situations where a miserable life is guaranted because of mental/physical deformity, or the mother's death would result from the birth, it can be justified for sure.

Do you not think that "murdering" a life that would certainly have been severly blighted and painful could be the best thing for both child and family?

The question about when you should perform an abortion is very important (especially with the latest evidence of developmental actions occuring earlier than 24 weeks etc). I don't like seeing abortion being used as a form of blase contraception, and i think the "line" of when a baby is considered a being should be moved back a bit (and only ignored in exceptional situations).

But, in a weird way, it's respect for life that makes many people think taking an early-life can be for the best.

[Escape]

Many people who are "pro-choice" etc support the idea that abortion should only be used in extreme situations.
I disagree. Many people who are "pro-choice" seem to support the idea as a form of birth control. The percentage when it comes to the extreme situation senario is very small.

Those times are often very hard to judge, but in situations where a miserable life is guaranted because of mental/physical deformity, or the mother's death would result from the birth, it can be justified for sure.
This I do not agree with. Who makes you judge jury and executioner over ones right to life simply because you believe he will go through a certain amount of pain that is unnecessary for a "normal life". By your logic then I would say you believe it is ok to murder a 5 year old mentally or physically disabled boy or girl who has not been aborted.

Do you not think that "murdering" a life that would certainly have been severly blighted and painful could be the best thing for both child and family?
I don't think that "murdering" a life of any kind it deemed acceptable in any case. It is not my life and not my right to take that away from such an individual. Nobody has absolute certainty of another's future unless you are God. You are making it your decision to kill another based on what you believe is best for him.

The question about when you should perform an abortion is very important (especially with the latest evidence of developmental actions occuring earlier than 24 weeks etc).
Developmental actions takes place immediately after the fusion between sperm and egg when a zygote is formed. This is not up for dispute.

But, in a weird way, it's respect for life that makes many people think taking an early-life can be for the best.
Balony. As I have stated earlier. Of the millions of abortions worldwide yearly, a very tiny percentage has to do with an extremely deformed baby.

[Caitlyn]

Balony. As I have stated earlier. Of the millions of abortions worldwide yearly, a very tiny percentage has to do with an extremely deformed baby.


I could be wrong, but I don’t think that is what Golgot meant… I think he was talking about the babies who are born only to be thrown in trash piles, starved, or beaten to death, etc.

[Tea Barking]

No one can tell a woman not to have an abortion, if the mother wants an abortion then its her right.
Its fine for a man to say its not right, hes not the one who has to spend the rest his life raising the child.
Then theres the women or even just children who get raped and get pregnant, its not right to say they cant have an abortion.
Its the womans choice and only hers.

[allthatglitters]

hmmmmmm...yes i see golgot's point. It's just a shame that in life in general that it's like that. No child should be so selfishly put under that- it's not fair for them. but i wonder how those parents children or would be parents children find out what they are doing is wrong? what if they never learn? i wish it didn't have to happen. it's not the abortion, or the baby that is the problem, it's the actions of people and the choices they make and what a pity it is that somebodies choice or actions leads to the death of an innoccent one, a death that spares that life much heartbreak, but a death it is. i don't think i am being very eloquent at the moment, but it's like this. every action and choice we make affects somebody else. when somebody makes a concious chocie to rape someone then it is not the girls fault she is pregnant and the blood is not on her hands. just as much when a person makes a concious choice to keep a child, only to abandon it, that person has just as much blood from breaking somebodies heart as it would be to have an abortion.

[nebbit]

But don't you see, you have already made that decision by stating that you are for choice in your previous thread. Who can be for a choice of which the outcome may be murder? It would seem logical for one to think this through before saying they are for such a decision that could be killing innocent life. But by saying I am for this "choice" but don't want to make a decision whether this "choice" is right or wrong seems to me rather like a cop-out. You obviously believe it is right so naturally you must have a good idea when a human being is actually a "human being" and I would really love to hear when that is.

there are some real situations that unless you are there, you or I, could never contemplate how hard it is, a friend had one child and was pregnant with her second, ultra sound and other tests showed she and the baby had a rare medical condition, the baby had no brain, if she went to full term, the baby & her would die, leaving her hsb and her child without her, as a religious person this was a big dilemma, she did decide to have the pregnancy terminated, she has had an other baby, both mother and baby fit and well, many of her so called friends from the church have shunned her, she is unable to attend that church anymore, they feel she should have died with the baby, :rolleyes: If God did not want people to have a choice then why did he allow someone to invent an ultra sound machine.

As for when is a fetus a human, I had a still birth at nearly 20-weeks, the baby had died, I didn't have a funeral for my baby, here the unborn child has to be over 20 weeks to consider it a child for the purposes of a funeral, so someone decided that one for me, I have had to learn to live with that, as you will have to live with the fact that others don't share your views on abortion.

[Escape]

there are some real situations that unless you are there, you or I, could never contemplate how hard it is, a friend had one child and was pregnant with her second, ultra sound and other tests showed she and the baby had a rare medical condition, the baby had no brain, if she went to full term, the baby & her would die,
Nebbit, you seem to give the worst possible case scenario to justify abortion. It’s like myself saying since it’s ok to pull the plug on a brain dead individual thereby justifying all homicides. This case in particular is probably less than 1 percent of all abortions. It seem that what you are referring to is anencephaly, a defect in brain development resulting in small or missing brain hemispheres. A congenital absence of the brain and cranial vault, with the cerebral hemispheres completely missing or greatly reduced in size. If it is wrong to kill a boy or girl with this same development, then it is wrong to kill a baby with the same thing.

If God did not want people to have a choice then why did he allow someone to invent an ultra sound machine.That is just silly for I can return this with God allowed someone to invent the ultra sound to save the baby’s life in the seeing how it is positioned or if the cord is wrapped aroung the neck etc.

As for when is a fetus a human, I had a still birth at nearly 20-weeks, the baby had died, I didn't have a funeral for my baby, here the unborn child has to be over 20 weeks to consider it a child for the purposes of a funeral, so someone decided that one for me,
The law that was put in place to define a human being can always be changed.
Just because someone decided that the baby isn’t human before 20 weeks doesn’t make it correct. It is very easy to refute this using all necessary medical and biological information we have today. People just don’t want to listen and are getting duped by all of the pro abortion propaganda going around today.

I have had to learn to live with that, as you will have to live with the fact that others don't share your views on abortion.

Nah, I don’t have to live with that at all. Laws can always be changed and I will fight this law on abortion till my last breath.
Would you also feel the same way if we made a law discriminating against the blacks? Would you simply sit back and learn to live with it. Not likely.
Also, if the law is ever changed back to make abortions illegal again then I will hope you will just accept it as you would have me to do. Then again, mabe you will have a better understanding of when a human is a human being.

[Caitlyn]

This case in particular is probably less than 1 percent of all abortions. It seem that what you are referring to is anencephaly, a defect in brain development resulting in small or missing brain hemispheres. A congenital absence of the brain and cranial vault, with the cerebral hemispheres completely missing or greatly reduced in size. If it is wrong to kill a boy or girl with this same development, then it is wrong to kill a baby with the same thing.

I guess you missed the part where Nebbit said the Doctors had informed the mother that if she carried the baby to full term, not only would the baby die, but she would as well. I just spent a considerable amount of time reading about Anencephaly… What I found is that Anencephaly occurs in 1 out of 1000 pregnancies and the mothers are told their babies will only live a few hours after birth… but I could find nothing about the mothers being advised they would also lose their life for carrying the baby full term. So, I doubt if Anencephaly was what was wrong in the case Nebbit stated…


Nah, I don’t have to live with that at all. Laws can always be changed and I will fight this law on abortion till my last breath.
Would you also feel the same way if we made a law discriminating against the blacks? Would you simply sit back and learn to live with it. Not likely.
Also, if the law is ever changed back to make abortions illegal again then I will hope you will just accept it as you would have me to do. Then again, mabe you will have a better understanding of when a human is a human being.

This is one of the most insensitive posts I have ever read on MovieForums… you totally missed the point Nebbit was making and then basically spit in her face…

[Golgot]

Now, you're obviously not here to discuss this issue but to 'tell us how it is', but i reckon me and the others'll try and reason with you for a bit anyway.

I disagree. Many people who are "pro-choice" seem to support the idea as a form of birth control. The percentage when it comes to the extreme situation senario is very small.

Not many people who hold the pro-choice stance i described lobby very hard for change, that's true, but the medical profession is very ethically-aware, and i wouldn't be surprised to see altered regulations over the next few years.

I think there are probably too many late-term/'lazy' abortions going on, but can you back up your claim that they are a huge percentage of all abortions?

This I do not agree with. Who makes you judge jury and executioner over ones right to life simply because you believe he will go through a certain amount of pain that is unnecessary for a "normal life". By your logic then I would say you believe it is ok to murder a 5 year old mentally or physically disabled boy or girl who has not been aborted.

A 'certain' amount of pain is not what i'm talking about. I'm talking about situations that could be compared to extreme, prolonged, physical torture (or to a painful death).

You have a terrible habit of 'universalising' ideals that are specifically designed to apply to specific situations. You should be able to see that we're not advocating killing developted human beings. We're talking about preventing them reaching a stage where the suffering begins.

Having worked with the mentally and physically infirm, i certainly believe in 'letting die' in the sense of not prolonging someone's life in a state of 'torture' if there is no hope of cure. But i worked with elderly people, where they categorically wouldn't recover. Children are a different matter, and the letting-die situation would only apply in exceptionally extreme cases. Those who are mentally infirm alone are normally capable of some internal life and loving interchange, so the issue of 'murder' to make their life better doesn't really occur.

I don't think that "murdering" a life of any kind it deemed acceptable in any case. It is not my life and not my right to take that away from such an individual. Nobody has absolute certainty of another's future unless you are God. You are making it your decision to kill another based on what you believe is best for him.

And sometimes for what we believe is best for all, when things are as certain as they can be.

Why don't you address Nebbit's example? You believe that taking a life can never be right - so therefore you must think that both the mother and child should die in that situation. Please try and justify that.

When situations are less clear-cut, like assessing the likelihood of a miserable-life-for-all, in the case of rape-abortions for example, it becomes an extremely difficult choice, i agree.

Developmental actions takes place immediately after the fusion between sperm and egg when a zygote is formed. This is not up for dispute.

Indeed. But i was talking about developmental actions with regards to potential cognitive functions. A bunch of cells won't feel 'suffering' as a developted human does. A distinction can be made.

Balony. As I have stated earlier. Of the millions of abortions worldwide yearly, a very tiny percentage has to do with an extremely deformed baby.

You didn't address my point - which was about justifying extreme abortions. The point is that many of us advocate the termination of an early, unformed life because of our respect for life.

[Yoda]

These conversations can get ugly real quick, so I'm going to try to address just a few things as simply as possible...

Many people who are "pro-choice" etc support the idea that abortion should only be used in extreme situations. Most of us have our definitions of when abortion is the best thing for the child (and parent). Those times are often very hard to judge, but in situations where a miserable life is guaranted because of mental/physical deformity, or the mother's death would result from the birth, it can be justified for sure. This is certainly something reasonable people can differ on. But clearly, as has been mentioned, these extreme situations are just that; extreme. They are very rare. I don't see the logic in allowing all abortions based on a handful of extreme circumstances.


Do you not think that "murdering" a life that would certainly have been severly blighted and painful could be the best thing for both child and family? It can be, but that's a real dangerous line to tread. People with unhappy childhoods, abusive parents, or significant physical defects can (and do) still go on to lead happy lives. Once you start deciding for people whether or not they're likely to enjoy being alive, you've crossed a major line, in my opinion, and are making decisions that people really shouldn't be making for each other. It's playing God, any way you look at it.


Why don't you address Nebbit's example? You believe that taking a life can never be right - so therefore you must think that both the mother and child should die in that situation. Please try and justify that. I don't think justification is needed, honestly. I could say that it's never right to kill an innocent child, and you could come along and say "what if some psychopath tells you you have to, or else he'll kill them himself, as well as someone else?" I don't think a person's basic principles become null and void just because they're put into a horrible lose-lose situation.


Indeed. But i was talking about developmental actions with regards to potential cognitive functions. A bunch of cells won't feel 'suffering' as a developted human does. A distinction can be made. It can, but again, that's a road we, as human beings, should probably avoid going down. It's a dangerous distinction to make, and whatever distinction can be made won't be any greater than the distinction between murdering someone while they're awake, and murdering them while they sleep. A painless death is preferable, but if innocent life is being snuffed out, that's so much more important so as to render the lack of pain comparatively unimportant.


Its fine for a man to say its not right, hes not the one who has to spend the rest his life raising the child. But she has a choice beyond the choice of abortion, too. She can put it up for adoption. Giving birth to a child does not require that you necessarily raise it. There are literally thousands of couples falling all over themselves every day to try to adopt a child. So neither parent has to raise the child, really, though it should be noted that the law does hold biological fathers liable for financial support of the children they father...and this is to say nothing of the fact that abortion laws and child support laws effectively contradict each other.


If God did not want people to have a choice then why did he allow someone to invent an ultra sound machine. I enjoy your posts, nebbit, and find you to be a reasonable person, but I find this particular quote to be beneath you. What you're basically saying, it seems, is that anything we do with any invention must be okay, because if it wasn't God wouldn't have allowed us to invent the thing in the first place. I don't think that makes sense -- and ultra sounds aren't explicitly "for" aborting children, anyway, so I don't think it works on either level.


I have had to learn to live with that, as you will have to live with the fact that others don't share your views on abortion. We all have to live with differing opinions, but I don't think "well, we disagree" will help anyone understand. I think Escape is asking some legitimate questions, and I think those questions deserve answers not comprised solely of anecdotal evidence, or appeals to emotion.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

... Once you start deciding for people whether or not they're likely to enjoy being alive, you've crossed a major line, in my opinion, and are making decisions that people really shouldn't be making for each other. It's playing God, any way you look at it....
This is exactly why I'm pro-choice. No one should decide for another person whether that person can raise a child. How often people will sit back and say "some people just shouldn't be parents", but post-conception, we offer few alternatives.

No one should decide for another person if they should go through 9 months of illness, health risks, psychological bonding, familial ostricism and all the other potential considerations for carrying a child to term - even if the involvement ends there.

Those are choices that people should be able to make for themselves.

[Yoda]

This is exactly why I'm pro-choice. No one should decide for another person whether that person can raise a child. How often people will sit back and say "some people just shouldn't be parents", but post-conception, we offer few alternativesBeing pro-life is not in any way deciding for someone else whether or not they can raise a child; it's deciding that these children have a right to be born. Whether or not the parents are fit is a seperate decision.


No one should decide for another person if they should go through 9 months of illness, health risks, psychological bonding, familial ostricism and all the other potential considerations for carrying a child to term - even if the involvement ends there.And no one should decide for another person that they should not be given a chance at life in the first place. Sorry, but the "let people decide for themselves" logic works both ways, unless you can state unequivocally that unborn children are not really people; which, clearly, no one can.

It sounds all well and good to try to make child-bearing into a personal decision, but taking another life (as some believe it is) is obviously not a private matter. Basic rights (like the right to life) are a public concern.

[Golgot]

These conversations can get ugly real quick, so I'm going to try to address just a few things as simply as possible...

This is certainly something reasonable people can differ on. But clearly, as has been mentioned, these extreme situations are just that; extreme. They are very rare. I don't see the logic in allowing all abortions based on a handful of extreme circumstances.

I thought i'd been clear that i'm not using it as a justification for other types of abortion (i'd said a couple of times that i don't agree with the 'life-style' abortions, which i also suspect make up the majority of all abortions). Each 'type' of abortion needs to be judged on its own merits. I was merely trying to establish the core point that abortion can be justified in extreme situations.

It can be, but that's a real dangerous line to tread. People with unhappy childhoods, abusive parents, or significant physical defects can (and do) still go on to lead happy lives. Once you start deciding for people whether or not they're likely to enjoy being alive, you've crossed a major line, in my opinion, and are making decisions that people really shouldn't be making for each other. It's playing God, any way you look at it.

The only firm area where a decision is 'easy' is when the child's or mother's death is nigh-on-guaranteed.

After that it's a very tough call, i agree. I said before that i think severly infirm children/people can certainly still enjoy life, especially when in a loving environment.

But when it comes to an adoption-or-nothing situation, it's odds on that not many people are looking to adopt severly handicapped children. As callous as it all sounds, my leaning at this moment in time is towards termination if no prospective adoptees/caring-institution can be found or look likely to be appear. (Coz let's face it, what other choices are there? My suspicion is that in the UK even the state-funded NHS 'allows' the majority of such children to die i.e. refuses life-sustaining medication. What must happen when even a state-funded institution is unavailable?)

I don't think justification is needed, honestly. I could say that it's never right to kill an innocent child, and you could come along and say "what if some psychopath tells you you have to, or else he'll kill them himself, as well as someone else?" I don't think a person's basic principles become null and void just because they're put into a horrible lose-lose situation.

I find this flabbergasting. You're basically saying that two deaths are better than one. This is an example of a categorical situation, it's not a 'what-if'. Pregancies can be determined to be as-good-as-certain to kill both mother and child. You are basically saying that you agree with the idea that the mother should die when she could be saved.

Surely a person's principles become in need of renalysis in situations where they contradict themselves (or at least become in need of a little flexibility of application)?

It can, but again, that's a road we, as human beings, should probably avoid going down. It's a dangerous distinction to make, and whatever distinction can be made won't be any greater than the distinction between murdering someone while they're awake, and murdering them while they sleep. A painless death is preferable, but if innocent life is being snuffed out, that's so much more important so as to render the lack of pain comparatively unimportant.

I think the killing-sleeping-people-is-ok law is unlikely to come about, no? Anyone can tell the difference between that and a law that allows the killing of a fetus deemed to be comparitively 'unconscious'. The contextual differences distinguish the two situations. I haven't noticed any bed-time-butchery laws following on from legalised abortion.

I do think the whole idea of a dividing line between fetus and human, between unconscious-blob and conscious personality, is a ridiculous one anyway. There's almost certainly no one point where the transition occurs - it's a process, a sliding scale. That's why for me it's a question of lessened suffering.

I think debating when we can make that judgement call is something we should all do. Except...when the death of both child and mother is imminant. That for me, is a done deal. And i'm yet to hear a coherent argument that justifies letting both of them die when one could be saved.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Being pro-life is not in any way deciding for someone else whether or not they can raise a child; it's deciding that these children have a right to be born. Whether or not the parents are fit is a seperate decision.In many cases, to disallow a person the option of terminating a pregnancy is to force them to attempt parenthood. Unless the State wishes to adjuticate the fitness of parents, and take an active hand in assuring the well-being of these lives you'd have them protect, they should not be involved in the process of deciding any of it.


And no one should decide for another person that they should not be given a chance at life in the first place. Sorry, but the "let people decide for themselves" logic works both ways, unless you can state unequivocally that unborn children are not really people; which, clearly, no one can.

It sounds all well and good to try to make child-bearing into a personal decision, but taking another life (as some believe it is) is obviously not a private matter. Basic rights (like the right to life) are a public concern.See above. And while you've attempted to head me off at the pass with the phrase "clearly, no one can", it applies to your arguement as well, therefore that point is not something reasoning people can use to support either stance.

[Yoda]

In many cases, to disallow a person the option of terminating a pregnancy is to force them to attempt parenthood. Unless the State wishes to adjuticate the fitness of parents, and take an active hand in assuring the well-being of these lives you'd have them protect, they should not be involved in the process of deciding any of it. Given the extreme demand for unwanted children, I don't see why barring abortion would necessarily force "many" people into parenthood.

As for adjuticating the fitness of parents; last I checked, Social Services did just that. Regardless, I don't agree with your claim that, if we preserve an infant's right to life, we must immediately become surrogate parents to them; I think it's a non-sequitur. The government is in the business of protecting rights, and the right to life is the most basic of those. Preserving it doesn't require that the government takes responsibility for the rest of that person's life.


See above. And while you've attempted to head me off at the pass with the phrase "clearly, no one can", it applies to your arguement as well, therefore that point is not something reasoning people can use to support either stance. Sure, it applies to my argument. The difference is that, if I'm wrong, most people would be forced to give unwated children (overwhelmingly the result of a concious decision to risk pregnancy) up for adoption. If you're wrong, we've legally sanctioned infanticide. Isn't that a pretty big risk to take?

[Yoda]

I thought i'd been clear that i'm not using it as a justification for other types of abortion (i'd said a couple of times that i don't agree with the 'life-style' abortions, which i also suspect make up the majority of all abortions). Each 'type' of abortion needs to be judged on its own merits. I was merely trying to establish the core point that abortion can be justified in extreme situations. My mistake. This begs the question, though, as to whether or not there's any difference, in practice. There's no realistic way, as far as I can see, to disallow abortions deemed to be a "life-style" abortion, as you put it, so by supporting abortions in those cases, aren't you effectively supporting the ones you don't approve of, as well?


The only firm area where a decision is 'easy' is when the child's or mother's death is nigh-on-guaranteed.

After that it's a very tough call, i agree. I said before that i think severly infirm children/people can certainly still enjoy life, especially when in a loving environment.

But when it comes to an adoption-or-nothing situation, it's odds on that not many people are looking to adopt severly handicapped children. As callous as it all sounds, my leaning at this moment in time is towards termination if no prospective adoptees/caring-institution can be found or look likely to be appear. (Coz let's face it, what other choices are there? My suspicion is that in the UK even the state-funded NHS 'allows' the majority of such children to die i.e. refuses life-sustaining medication. What must happen when even a state-funded institution is unavailable?) That's true. Though we do, as you touched upon, have stated-funded institutions to care for them. Either way, death still seems extreme. Notice that when an already-living person wants to kill themselves, we almost always chalk it up to pschyological disorder or chemical imbalance. It's just not deemed natural to want to die.

Now, we could have a very long discussion about whether or not it's ever sane for a person to want to end their life, but clearly society on the whole has determined that it's not usually healthy and normal to do so. I think you'd need quite the smoking gun, then, to justify it. That's a damn heavy burden of proof, in other words. Not that you're saying otherwise.


I find this flabbergasting. You're basically saying that two deaths are better than one. This is an example of a categorical situation, it's not a 'what-if'. Pregancies can be determined to be as-good-as-certain to kill both mother and child. You are basically saying that you agree with the idea that the mother should die when she could be saved. I didn't mean to give that impression; I'm not trying to say that the mother should die for a lost cause. I'm merely trying to demonstrate that pure pragmatism isn't always the answer.

I don't know if you've ever read (or seen) Storm of the Century. It's a Stephen King story and (spoilers abound) it deals with a New England town cut off from the rest of the world during a once-in-a-lifetime storm. While they're isolated, a warlock (or something of the sort) shows up and offers them a deal: give me one of your children, and I'll leave. Refuse, and I'll kill every last one of you.

What do you do in this situation? Do you willingly hand your own child over to some evil creature to save lives? Does pragmatism trump principle, when you get down to it? I think the real question this all boils down to is this: are there things worse than death? At the risk of sounding overly idealistic, I think there are.


Surely a person's principles become in need of renalysis in situations where they contradict themselves (or at least become in need of a little flexibility of application)? Perhaps so. I'm not going to pretend that there's a clear-cut right answer. If I were ever in that situation, I can't really imagine myself telling my wife to face certain doom without any hope of the child surviving.


I think the killing-sleeping-people-is-ok law is unlikely to come about, no? Anyone can tell the difference between that and a law that allows the killing of a fetus deemed to be comparitively 'unconscious'. The contextual differences distinguish the two situations. I haven't noticed any bed-time-butchery laws following on from legalised abortion. They're not identical, no, but swap the sleeping person for someone in a coma, and you get a lot closer. All I was really getting at is that it's not much consolation to point to a lack of suffering if an innocent life is lost. That trumps the circumstances of the death.


I do think the whole idea of a dividing line between fetus and human, between unconscious-blob and conscious personality, is a ridiculous one anyway. There's almost certainly no one point where the transition occurs - it's a process, a sliding scale. That's why for me it's a question of lessened suffering. It's ridiculous, but no moreso than any line. Not everybody above 18 is mature and informed enough to vote, and not everyone below 18 is ill-equipped to do so. Any line you draw's going to look silly, but it's sillier not to draw any line at all. Right now, in America, our line is birth. In my opinion, a moment's thought reveals that definition of humanity as completely untenable.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Given the extreme demand for unwanted children, I don't see why barring abortion would necessarily force "many" people into parenthood.

As for adjuticating the fitness of parents; last I checked, Social Services did just that. Regardless, I don't agree with your claim that, if we preserve an infant's right to life, we must immediately become surrogate parents to them; I think it's a non-sequitur. The government is in the business of protecting rights, and the right to life is the most basic of those. Preserving it doesn't require that the government takes responsibility for the rest of that person's life.


Sure, it applies to my argument. The difference is that, if I'm wrong, most people would be forced to give unwated children (overwhelmingly the result of a concious decision to risk pregnancy) up for adoption. If you're wrong, we've legally sanctioned infanticide. Isn't that a pretty big risk to take?
I think the basic difference in our opinions is that I value the quality of life over its mere existance. You want to preserve life, regardless. I think that's irresponsible, given that one intervention on the part of the State can cause consequences for which you are willing to allow them to then sidestep responsibility.

Oh, and Social Services determining the fitness of parents? That was a knee-slapper. Next you'll tell me food stamps provide good nutrition. :p

[7thson]

No matter what anyone thinks or believes everyone is smart enough to know that abortion ends the life of an unborn child. Use whatever word or words you want in place of "unborn child" it is still the same. Does this mean I am pro-life? Well actually, no. I would prefer that abortions did not exist, but in today's world that would be ignorant to think it could be true. So instead I say that each instance of abortion has a story behind it, and who am I to judge? I will say, however, that abortion used as birth control is wrong. I also think that the Father should have a say so, if indeed they are willing to raise the child if neccessary, if not then they should keep their mouths shut.

[nebbit]

Nebbit, you seem to give the worst possible case scenario to justify abortion.

Unfortunately for me I do see extreme cases as a matter of course, I have worked in the field of public health for 30yrs, I wish I hadn't seen or had to deal with some the things I have, it has made me more open minded, and not see things just as black or white, it would be nice if every child was wanted and abortion did not exist but that is the way it is, it isn't as easy as you seem to think it is.

What do you suggest that my friend should have done in her situation, as you don't know all her problems at the time, and the bottom line was hers and the baby's death what do you think she should have done?

Yoda sorry about my silly statement re ultra sounds and God, as you can see I am disillusioned with God and him/her allowing all the terrible things that happen in this world, that is my issue and I am working on that, sorry to those others I also may have offended, I am not sure that the ultra sound was invented for only seeing where the baby is or if the cord is around its neck.

[Escape]

I guess you missed the part where Nebbit said the Doctors had informed the mother that if she carried the baby to full term, not only would the baby die, but she would as well. I just spent a considerable amount of time reading about Anencephaly… What I found is that Anencephaly occurs in 1 out of 1000 pregnancies and the mothers are told their babies will only live a few hours after birth… but I could find nothing about the mothers being advised they would also lose their life for carrying the baby full term. So, I doubt if Anencephaly was what was wrong in the case Nebbit stated…Well, I got the feeling that nebbit wasn’t being totally honest and is holding back on something. I could be wrong and jumped the gun prematurely.

This is one of the most insensitive posts I have ever read on MovieForums… you totally missed the point Nebbit was making and then basically spit in her face And what point was that? I believe you totally missed my point as in I don’t like someone trying to tell me to accept a law that allows the murder of many innocents.

Now, you're obviously not here to discuss this issue but to 'tell us how it is', but i reckon me and the others'll try and reason with you for a bit anyway.I am sharing my feelings and thought just like the rest of you.

I think there are probably too many late-term/'lazy' abortions going on, but can you back up your claim that they are a huge percentage of all abortions?It’s in the statistics and I’m not only talking about late term but so called lazy abortions at anytime.
.

A 'certain' amount of pain is not what i'm talking about. I'm talking about situations that could be compared to extreme, prolonged, physical torture (or to a painful death).[quote] Sorry but mercy killing doesn’t sit well with me either.

[quote]You have a terrible habit of 'universalising' ideals that are specifically designed to apply to specific situations. You should be able to see that we're not advocating killing developted human beings. We're talking about preventing them reaching a stage where the suffering begins.A human being is a human being no matter what stage regardless of the suffering that it will encounter.

Having worked with the mentally and physically infirm, i certainly believe in 'letting die' in the sense of not prolonging someone's life in a state of 'torture' if there is no hope of cure. But i worked with elderly people, where they categorically wouldn't recover. Children are a different matter, and the letting-die situation would only apply in exceptionally extreme cases. Those who are mentally infirm alone are normally capable of some internal life and loving interchange, so the issue of 'murder' to make their life better doesn't really occur.Letting die. I don’t know what you are implying here. Do you mean allowing them to die naturally or to kill them with outside help? If you are talking of the second then those two words are meant to sugar coat the intentions.

And sometimes for what we believe is best for all, when things are as certain as they can be. Why don't you address Nebbit's example? You believe that taking a life can never be right - so therefore you must think that both the mother and child should die in that situation. Please try and justify that
If there was a way to save the mother such as if the abortion is caused indirectly then I agree with that. But to directly kill someone to save your own is not proper however is still by far a lesser evil than the other situations.

When situations are less clear-cut, like assessing the likelihood of a miserable-life-for-all, in the case of rape-abortions for example, it becomes an extremely difficult choice, i agree.Actually, since the baby is a new human individual then in those cases as you gave, it is easier to understand the immorality of those abortions rather than one where both will die.


You didn't address my point - which was about justifying extreme abortions. The point is that many of us advocate the termination of an early, unformed life because of our respect for life.Again, I don’t believe in mercy killing. Would you likewise have no problem with terminating a life such as you speak of without any indication from the sufferer that he want’s to die?


This is exactly why I'm pro-choice. No one should decide for another person whether that person can raise a child. How often people will sit back and say "some people just shouldn't be parents", but post-conception, we offer few alternatives.

No one should decide for another person if they should go through 9 months of illness, health risks, psychological bonding, familial ostricism and all the other potential considerations for carrying a child to term - even if the involvement ends there.

Those are choices that people should be able to make for themselves.No person should be allowed to murder an innocent human being and call it a choice.

But when it comes to an adoption-or-nothing situation, it's odds on that not many people are looking to adopt severly handicapped children. The key words here is “its odds on” . This proves your argument is not a sure thing thereby gambling with a human life.

I find this flabbergasting. You're basically saying that two deaths are better than one. This is an example of a categorical situation, it's not a 'what-if'. Pregancies can be determined to be as-good-as-certain to kill both mother and child. You are basically saying that you agree with the idea that the mother should die when she could be saved.Let me give you an example. Lets say a mother and her baby were on a platform that was quickly being lowered into fire. Their combined weight is pulling them down. The mother throws the baby into the fire and saves herself by ridding the platform of the extra weight. This to me sound like murder since it was her actions that caused the death and not the actions of the unfortunate situation they were both in.

I think the killing-sleeping-people-is-ok law is unlikely to come about, no? Anyone can tell the difference between that and a law that allows the killing of a fetus deemed to be comparitively 'unconscious'. The contextual differences distinguish the two situations. I haven't noticed any bed-time-butchery laws following on from legalised abortion.Now you’re stating that an unconscious underdeveloped human has less rights than a conscious fully developed human. This is an excellent example given by yoda and proves how dangerously wrong your position is.

In many cases, to disallow a person the option of terminating a pregnancy is to force them to attempt parenthood. Unless the State wishes to adjuticate the fitness of parents, and take an active hand in assuring the well-being of these lives you'd have them protect, they should not be involved You don’t realize how ridiculous your argument sound. By your sad logic we should murder all children who are not properly being taking care of out of neglect.

I think the basic difference in our opinions is that I value the quality of life over its mere existance. You want to preserve life, regardless. I think that's irresponsible, given that one intervention on the part of the State can cause consequences for which you are willing to allow them to then sidestep responsibility.
I think your're missing the whole prolife point. We value human life and it's chance to have the quality of life that you value so much.

Unfortunately for me I do see extreme cases as a matter of course, I have worked in the field of public health for 30yrs, I wish I hadn't seen or had to deal with some the things I have, it has made me more open minded, and not see things just as black or white, it would be nice if every child was wanted and abortion did not exist but that is the way it is, it isn't as easy as you seem to think it is.

What do you suggest that my friend should have done in her situation, as you don't know all her problems at the time, and the bottom line was hers and the baby's death what do you think she should have done?
Nebbit, first off I want to appoligize if I came across as insensitive to your loosing your child as I hadn't addressed it in my last response. I agree it is a tough situation and I would never ask a lady to sacrifice herself for such an occasion. I do feel that it is still killing a human life prematurely even though it would be considered a passive abortion. But these situations are rare as I've said before and should not be used to support abortion of all cases.

[nebbit]

Nebbit, first off I want to appoligize if I came across as insensitive to your loosing your child as I hadn't addressed it in my last response. I agree it is a tough situation and I would never ask a lady to sacrifice herself for such an occasion. I do feel that it is still killing a human life prematurely even though it would be considered a passive abortion. But these situations are rare as I've said before and should not be used to support abortion of all cases.

Thanks for apologizing Escape, don't worry, this isn't about me and I am ok.

I admire your stand, but I am able to disagree with you wether you think it is right or wrong.

One of my closest friends, (uncle to the girl that had the abortion) is very pro life and he pickets out side of abortion clinics, we are still friends, he just accepts that we have different views, we leave it at that, he also does a lot of praying for my soul, which i think is very sweet. :D

[Golgot]

This begs the question, though, as to whether or not there's any difference, in practice. There's no realistic way, as far as I can see, to disallow abortions deemed to be a "life-style" abortion, as you put it, so by supporting abortions in those cases, aren't you effectively supporting the ones you don't approve of, as well?

Not really. In practical terms, if official abortion-access was based on medical grounds alone - i.e. extreme circumstances alone - then that would prevent sanctioned "life-style" abortions in a justifiable way.

This is all theoretical, coz i've got no real mechanism for influencing the state of law on this one (and i'd like to see a sliding-scale of acceptabiliy anyway ;) - which is where all the troublesome judgement calls and practical mechansims come in to play).

In my daily life, i don't support 'life-style' abortions as a rule, simply because there are enough people who want to adopt. I think the whole situation is cruel, as only life can be, but because there are lessons to be learnt there technology shouldn't be used as a get-out clause. I think adopted kids suffer from the feeling of being unwanted, and the mother suffers from going full term with a child she then gives away when her body is telling her to care for it, but ultimately i agree that we shouldn't deny the potential child its potential for life.

That's true. Though we do, as you touched upon, have stated-funded institutions to care for them. Either way, death still seems extreme. Notice that when an already-living person wants to kill themselves, we almost always chalk it up to pschyological disorder or chemical imbalance. It's just not deemed natural to want to die.

Well the options we seem to be talking about are the choice between slow-death-by neglect and quick-death-with-decreased-sensitivity. It's not really comparable to a functioning adult choosing to kill themselves.

Again, in the case of severly impaired unwanted children, my suspicion is that they're frequently allowed to die if they go full term, so in that sense, it's not an issue as such.

(i totally believe in the letting-die issue where a medically-prolonged life amounts to torture, especially if it means a life without any love in it)

I didn't mean to give that impression; I'm not trying to say that the mother should die for a lost cause. I'm merely trying to demonstrate that pure pragmatism isn't always the answer.

Funny how it always takes some wildly implausible theoretical situation to demonstrate that sort of thing ;). I'd say pragmatism that's focused on making things better rather than worse is one of the few choices we have in the non-theoretical/real-world - the problem is the judgement call. And it's one big stonking problem - one that i think our time is best spent addressing.

I don't know if you've ever read (or seen) Storm of the Century. It's a Stephen King story and (spoilers abound) it deals with a New England town cut off from the rest of the world during a once-in-a-lifetime storm. While they're isolated, a warlock (or something of the sort) shows up and offers them a deal: give me one of your children, and I'll leave. Refuse, and I'll kill every last one of you.

What do you do in this situation? Do you willingly hand your own child over to some evil creature to save lives? Does pragmatism trump principle, when you get down to it? I think the real question this all boils down to is this: are there things worse than death? At the risk of sounding overly idealistic, I think there are.

I imagine you're saying that it would be better for the whole village to die, because they would at least go to heaven for their selfless action, and the child would not be damned? Using the christian framework, i'd have to say it's better for the village to die too.

But i don't believe in that framework. You know how i feel about this - it's what happens on earth that's important. I see this as one of the damaging aspects of the heaven-hell myths. If it were the case of one child's life versus the village, for me, the child has to die. That's the cruelty of life.

I think there are worse things than death too. There's a life lived in constant suffering.

Perhaps so. I'm not going to pretend that there's a clear-cut right answer. If I were ever in that situation, I can't really imagine myself telling my wife to face certain doom without any hope of the child surviving.

For me, so long as the chances of dual-death are high, it's as clear-cut as any decision gets. In the sense that it can be termed 'self-defence', i imagine that it could fit in with your interpretation of the 'thou shalt not kill' commandment.

They're not identical, no, but swap the sleeping person for someone in a coma, and you get a lot closer. All I was really getting at is that it's not much consolation to point to a lack of suffering if an innocent life is lost. That trumps the circumstances of the death.

Ah, now the coma thing does happen already, and in terms of 'letting die', i think it can be justified (but again, in cases of great certainty - and mistakes are bound to be made)

As SamsoniteDelia aptly put it, this is about quality-of-life versus right-to-life. Is a life lived in torture better than a life not lived? That's the the central theoretical question.

It's ridiculous, but no moreso than any line. Not everybody above 18 is mature and informed enough to vote, and not everyone below 18 is ill-equipped to do so. Any line you draw's going to look silly, but it's sillier not to draw any line at all.

Sure, i think the line should be drawn, and it should bend and shift too, depending on context. And that's where application can get tricky, but i think it makes societies healthier when they try. A practical solution is laws that interact with each other. An 18-year-old with a felony can't vote for example (neither can an innocent one from Florida called Ramirez, but that's another matter ;)).

Right now, in America, our line is birth. In my opinion, a moment's thought reveals that definition of humanity as completely untenable.

Oh i agree. But the theory of lessened-suffering still holds weight for me. It can be adapted to new discoveries, but it works throughout.

[Equilibrium]

Not really. In practical terms, if official abortion-access was based on medical grounds alone - i.e. extreme circumstances alone - then that would prevent sanctioned "life-style" abortions in a justifiable way.

This is all theoretical, coz i've got no real mechanism for influencing the state of law on this one (and i'd like to see a sliding-scale of acceptabiliy anyway ;) - which is where all the troublesome judgement calls and practical mechansims come in to play).

In my daily life, i don't support 'life-style' abortions as a rule, simply because there are enough people who want to adopt. I think the whole situation is cruel, as only life can be, but because there are lessons to be learnt there technology shouldn't be used as a get-out clause. I think adopted kids suffer from the feeling of being unwanted, and the mother suffers from going full term with a child she then gives away when her body is telling her to care for it, but ultimately i agree that we shouldn't deny the potential child its potential for life.



Well the options we seem to be talking about are the choice between slow-death-by neglect and quick-death-with-decreased-sensitivity. It's not really comparable to a functioning adult choosing to kill themselves.

Again, in the case of severly impaired unwanted children, my suspicion is that they're frequently allowed to die if they go full term, so in that sense, it's not an issue as such.

(i totally believe in the letting-die issue where a medically-prolonged life amounts to torture, especially if it means a life without any love in it)



Funny how it always takes some wildly implausible theoretical situation to demonstrate that sort of thing ;). I'd say pragmatism that's focused on making things better rather than worse is one of the few choices we have in the non-theoretical/real-world - the problem is the judgement call. And it's one big stonking problem - one that i think our time is best spent addressing.



I imagine you're saying that it would be better for the whole village to die, because they would at least go to heaven for their selfless action, and the child would not be damned? Using the christian framework, i'd have to say it's better for the village to die too.

But i don't believe in that framework. You know how i feel about this - it's what happens on earth that's important. I see this as one of the damaging aspects of the heaven-hell myths. If it were the case of one child's life versus the village, for me, the child has to die. That's the cruelty of life.

I think there are worse things than death too. There's a life lived in constant suffering.



For me, so long as the chances of dual-death are high, it's as clear-cut as any decision gets. In the sense that it can be termed 'self-defence', i imagine that it could fit in with your interpretation of the 'thou shalt not kill' commandment.



Ah, now the coma thing does happen already, and in terms of 'letting die', i think it can be justified (but again, in cases of great certainty - and mistakes are bound to be made)

As SamsoniteDelia aptly put it, this is about quality-of-life versus right-to-life. Is a life lived in torture better than a life not lived? That's the the central theoretical question.



Sure, i think the line should be drawn, and it should bend and shift too, depending on context. And that's where application can get tricky, but i think it makes societies healthier when they try. A practical solution is laws that interact with each other. An 18-year-old with a felony can't vote for example (neither can an innocent one from Florida called Ramirez, but that's another matter ;)).



Oh i agree. But the theory of lessened-suffering still holds weight for me. It can be adapted to new discoveries, but it works throughout.
You amaze me sometimes, you make very good points.

[nebbit]

You amaze me sometimes, you make very good points.

Thanks :love:

[Golgot]

Thanks :love:

Hey, stop stealing my accolyte! ;)

Cheers Equil (altho i think some people would disagree with you ;))

But Nebs, considering you were the first one to point out the 'amazing' facts surrounding your friend, and how you guys came to a resolution, you deserve a lot of love.

We're all caught up in the maze-of-A, eh?

[The maze-of-A can be reduced to a logical forumla for the theoretically-minded.... A = the best solution possible. The thing we're always looking for :yup:]

So let's all give up some love for Nebs and her good points

(the search is still on for her bad points, and so far, i can only assume she has evilly sharp toenails, to make up for all her other inexcusable goodness ;))

[nebbit]

(the search is still on for her bad points, and so far, i can only assume she has evilly sharp toenails, to make up for all her other inexcusable goodness ;))

Thanks for the sweet words, by the way, I have very, very, cute feet, :yup: I hope LordyLord reads this and takes notice. :D

[Golgot]

It’s in the statistics

Where do you get your statistics from? Can you provide a link?

I’m not only talking about late term but so called lazy abortions at anytime.

I'm troubled by these as well, but i wanted you to address the idea that abortions can be justified in extreme life-threatening circumstances. I'm glad that you seem to have accepted that.

Some of the other examples we've looked at cover situations where it might be justifiable to abort a child even if its or the mother's death isn't the issue...

Sorry but mercy killing doesn’t sit well with me either.

A human being is a human being no matter what stage regardless of the suffering that it will encounter.

Sure, fine, but if its life is sure to be one of constant torture, it has a 'better' life if it has no life at all. That's just compassion. But it's a principle that's only firmly applicable in cases of extreme certainty.

Letting die. I don’t know what you are implying here. Do you mean allowing them to die naturally or to kill them with outside help? If you are talking of the second then those two words are meant to sugar coat the intentions.

I'm talking about not artifically sustaining life in situations where the sustained-life is an extremely-tortured one with no hope of change. So yes, i'm talking about allowing to die naturally. (i think painkillers should be used too, but the situation where overdoses of painkillers are used to speed the death process are walking a very dangerous line).

If there was a way to save the mother such as if the abortion is caused indirectly then I agree with that. But to directly kill someone to save your own is not proper however is still by far a lesser evil than the other situations.

What do you mean by 'indirectly'?

Killing in self defence is surely justifiable even within the context of biblical scripture? My understanding is that the commandment concerning killing is normally defined/translated as 'thou shalt not murder'. Any creed that said you could never kill someone to prevent them killing you would never have survived.

Actually, since the baby is a new human individual then in those cases as you gave, it is easier to understand the immorality of those abortions rather than one where both will die.

It's a new human individual in all the cases.

Again, I don’t believe in mercy killing. Would you likewise have no problem with terminating a life such as you speak of without any indication from the sufferer that he want’s to die?

This is often a key difficulty. That's why you have to be as sure as possible that the situation is certain to persist.

Almost everyone knows what it's like to be so ill that we'd do anything to make the suffering stop. Many infirm elderly people spend large amounst of time in this state, but occasionally have lucid moments during a lull in their symptoms. But in situations where they are never in a fit mental state to judge, but make comments like 'let me go' constantly etc, and are constantly miserable, then it seems reasonable to assume that allowing them to die would be the best thing for them.

Coma's are a very difficult situation. Those comas that have involved major brain damage perhaps are the clearest examples of where it could be best to let them die, for both the victim and their relatives.

No person should be allowed to murder an innocent human being and call it a choice.

But they should be allowed to defend themselves and call it necessity. And they should be allowed to concern themselves with the well-being of others.

The key words here is “its odds on” . This proves your argument is not a sure thing thereby gambling with a human life.

There's rarely such a thing as a 100% sure prediction when evaluating a complex situation. I was merely reflecting that. Any reasonable rule must be firm but also respond to such information-gaps.

Your argument is only a 'sure thing' because you ignore certain details, simplifying the situation to a point where it doesn't reflect reality well enough. You include the importance of life in your 'equation', but you don't include the quality of that life.

Is a life lived in torture better than no life at all?

Let me give you an example. Lets say a mother and her baby were on a platform that was quickly being lowered into fire. Their combined weight is pulling them down. The mother throws the baby into the fire and saves herself by ridding the platform of the extra weight. This to me sound like murder since it was her actions that caused the death and not the actions of the unfortunate situation they were both in.

That's an entirely specious distinction, which is just designed to make you feel better. It may seem to you that she is responsible for the child's death, but really, it is the situation that is the cause.

Humans have a responsability to respond to situations, because we can. Our actions may therefore reflect the horror of the situation that inspired it, but our hand was forced by that situation. We wouldn't have taken the action otherwise.

Now you’re stating that an unconscious underdeveloped human has less rights than a conscious fully developed human. This is an excellent example given by yoda and proves how dangerously wrong your position is.

No, i was arguing first and foremost that they would feel consistant pain and anguish for a shorter time than would otherwise be the case. (the 'quality' of the pain and anguish a foetus feels etc is basically an unknowable issue, so i base my sliding scale more on time scale than development).

You don’t realize how ridiculous your argument sound. By your sad logic we should murder all children who are not properly being taking care of out of neglect.

No, again you universalise a specific situation into a generalised one that no-one would advocate and isn't justifiable.

Is was theorising that if a severly deformed child were guaranteed to have no care, and would basically die from neglect and from their own physical deformities, having suffered a lot, it would be kinder that they never had that consistantly-negative life.

However, seeing as these children die fairly swiftly anyway if they recieve no care, it's not really a decision that can be made. It's just a sad fact of life.

I think your're missing the whole prolife point. We value human life and it's chance to have the quality of life that you value so much.

And you seem to miss the point that people like myself are concerned with situations where the quality of life would be so poor as to make the life not worth living. That's the only real issue that can justify abortions to avoid non-life-threatening situations.

The most difficult situations, and the one's i'm not decided about, are the ones where emotional rather than physical suffering is the issue, as this is so hard to guage.

[Escape]

Where do you get your statistics from? Can you provide a link?
Here is one (http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm)

I'm troubled by these as well, but i wanted you to address the idea that abortions can be justified in extreme life-threatening circumstances. I'm glad that you seem to have accepted that. I never accepted that. I only said I can never personally ask a woman to allow herself to die with the child. I still believe it is wrong.

Some of the other examples we've looked at cover situations where it might be justifiable to abort a child even if its or the mother's death isn't the issue...
This is the problem that abortion of any kind will inevitably bring. Once you allow it at a certain stage for a certain reason, the fetal life will become less important down the road whether you believe it or not. It's human nature to find reasons to justify their immoral actions.

I'm talking about not artifically sustaining life in situations where the sustained-life is an extremely-tortured one with no hope of change. So yes, i'm talking about allowing to die naturally. (i think painkillers should be used too, but the situation where overdoses of painkillers are used to speed the death process are walking a very dangerous line).
I still dissaggree since it would be neglecting a life that can possibly survive.

What do you mean by 'indirectly'?
indirect abortion (http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/INDIRECT.TXT)

It's a new human individual in all the cases. Actually my previous quote to this was directed at someone else. I'm a bit lazy at times to always give the quoters name.

This is often a key difficulty. That's why you have to be as sure as possible that the situation is certain to persist.

Almost everyone knows what it's like to be so ill that we'd do anything to make the suffering stop. Many infirm elderly people spend large amounst of time in this state, but occasionally have lucid moments during a lull in their symptoms. But in situations where they are never in a fit mental state to judge, but make comments like 'let me go' constantly etc, and are constantly miserable, then it seems reasonable to assume that allowing them to die would be the best thing for them.

Coma's are a very difficult situation. Those comas that have involved major brain damage perhaps are the clearest examples of where it could be best to let them die, for both the victim and their relatives.
I understand what you're getting at golgot, I really do however nobody should have the power to descide when a human should live or die simply because HE feels the patient shouldn't go through the pain. It is a slippery slope and because of the uncertainty involved one coud be murdering a life that could have wanted to live. Only He has that choice.

But they should be allowed to defend themselves and call it necessity. And they should be allowed to concern themselves with the well-being of others.
To defend oneself with killing another, it is only justifiable if the attacker willfully tries to kill the defender. I can't say that this applies with a fetus and it's mother. They are both in the same position and both have a right to be there.

There's rarely such a thing as a 100% sure prediction when evaluating a complex situation. I was merely reflecting that. Any reasonable rule must be firm but also respond to such information-gaps.
Even with the 1 percent that you are wrong that life was murdered needlessly.

Your argument is only a 'sure thing' because you ignore certain details, simplifying the situation to a point where it doesn't reflect reality well enough. You include the importance of life in your 'equation', but you don't include the quality of that life.
When directly taking life of another complexity of an argument is not really needed.

That's an entirely specious distinction, which is just designed to make you feel better. It may seem to you that she is responsible for the child's death, but really, it is the situation that is the cause.

Not really. The point is the murder was done by the actions of another.

Originally Posted by Escape
You don’t realize how ridiculous your argument sound. By your sad logic we should murder all children who are not properly being taking care of out of neglect. This answer I gave again was directed at someone else.

Originally Posted by Escape
I think your're missing the whole prolife point. We value human life and it's chance to have the quality of life that you value so much.

Again, this answer was also directed at another poster.

[jacks username]

I'm pro-killing everyone.
j/k

[Krackalackin]

If this poll is accurate on how you guys feel, I think it's sad and you all should be ashamed.

[Agent 0 Zero]

Honestly, I dont think there is an actual right awnser here. There is the fact that you are killing a life, but we are free to do anything right, we are free for what ever aslong as it doesnt violate others rights. But doent that baby have rights. Also there are all thoose problems with the what if factor. What if in killing this baby, I may die in the process. Then there is all theese religious people saying that this injust, or a sin. Isnt god forgiving though. This topic makes me very uneasy. Its too lopsided. Although we the people have the choices to make and what we should, but if we do not make the right ones well fall in the process.

Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born.Ronald Reagan (1911 - 2004)

[Agent 0 Zero]

If this poll is accurate on how you guys feel, I think it's sad and you all should be ashamed.


what are you getting?

[nebbit]

If this poll is accurate on how you guys feel, I think it's sad and you all should be ashamed.

I Hope you never have to make a decision about abortion, it is a hard one, not everyone has support and family to help, I have never met one person who used abortion for family planning, try and be less judgmental, of people who have made this decision, they need support and love. :yup:

[Zeiken]

I realize im pretty late with this thread- im sorry if im repeating anything thats already been beaten to death. :)

I've always been pretty religious- i was raised Lutheran, and have been going to church all my life- but i've incorperated aspects of other religions and beliefs into my own faith structure, (which has actually made me quite the 'mislead youth' in my congregation.)
Usually religious folks are pretty adamate on one side or the other of this topic, but i never really knew where i stood until about two months ago. (Although i always claimed to be pro-abortion to get closer to this girl. Ive always felt bad about that.)
Anyways- im not going to condemn you pro-choice-ites to hell for your beliefs. From my point of view, (which, currently is very pro-life), abortion shouldnt be illegal, simply because we shouldnt have to even debate over a thing like this. In my ideal world- it would be utterly unthinkable .
Unfortunatley- ideals alone cant really do much of anything in this world.
I dont think pro-choice supporters are bad people. I think that women's bodies are their own business- and i certainly cannot fully understand exactly whats going on with women, (for obvious reasons), but ultimatley i believe that we should do all that we can with God's greatest gift. I think we can work towards that kind of future, where women dont have to make that kind of decision, because its made before mistake is. The only things standing in our way is violence, alcohol, drugs, and money. Its shouldnt be that hard :)