Are you Prolife or ProAbortion?

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...

__________________

Δύο άτομα. Μια μάχη. Κανένας συμβιβασμός.

Agreed.

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

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.

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

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

__________________
I am moved by fancies that are curled
Around these images, and cling:
The notion of some infinitely gentle
Infinitely suffering thing.
T.S Eliot, "Preludes"

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.

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.

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.

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

__________________

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.

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.

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, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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…


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…

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

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.

__________________
Review: Cabin in the Woods 8/10

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.


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.