Re: Abortion ethics dilema

[Rule]

At least no one has brought up anything about it being a "woman's right to choose," 'cause that's such a BS argument.

A woman having some choice over what happens within her own body?  That seems reasonable. 

[iago]

At least no one has brought up anything about it being a "woman's right to choose," 'cause that's such a BS argument.

A woman having some choice over what happens within her own body?  That seems reasonable. 

It makes sense, as long as there isn't another life at stake. ie, the "baby"'s

I've said it before -- every argument is contingent on just the one, specifically, whether or not the foetus counts as a person/human/baby/etc., which I still think is a religious argument.

[Rule]

At least no one has brought up anything about it being a "woman's right to choose," 'cause that's such a BS argument.

A woman having some choice over what happens within her own body?  That seems reasonable. 

It makes sense, as long as there isn't another life at stake. ie, the "baby"'s

I've said it before -- every argument is contingent on just the one, specifically, whether or not the foetus counts as a person/human/baby/etc., which I still think is a religious argument.

It's very obvious to me why a religious person is more likely to be against abortion than a non-religious person.  At first, it might seem to have no connection as to whether one sees the fetus as a child or not.  As I've observed before, this distinction is almost certainly a rationalisation.  It is in the best interests of the church for a fertilized egg to eventually become a child and be born -- if it is the Church that is deciding for people whether or not to have an abortion, then it almost certain that the child will be indoctrinated with whatever that Church believes.  Religions are generally pro giving birth.  If you're listening at all to what the church is saying, chances are you are a follower.  And chances are your children will also be followers.  They encourage procreation within marriage.  They want as many followers as possible.

[CrAz3D]

At least no one has brought up anything about it being a "woman's right to choose," 'cause that's such a BS argument.

A woman having some choice over what happens within her own body?  That seems reasonable. 

Well, then a man should have a choice whether to support the bastard child or not.

[Rule]

At least no one has brought up anything about it being a "woman's right to choose," 'cause that's such a BS argument.

A woman having some choice over what happens within her own body?  That seems reasonable. 

Well, then a man should have a choice whether to support the bastard child or not.

The bastard child? That would only be in the case that the parents weren't married. I'm not sure where I stand on that. But I can see a fair case for no father child support, if the woman makes a unilateral decision to raise an accidental child when she could have had an early stage abortion (preventing a child from ever existing) or given it up for adoption.

[Camel]

At least no one has brought up anything about it being a "woman's right to choose," 'cause that's such a BS argument.

Why is that a BS argument? Is anyone handing you a coat hanger and forcing you to abort the baby?

If you're suggesting that life is intrinsically valuable, regardless of its state, then are you also a vegetarian for the same reason?

every argument is contingent on just the one, specifically, whether or not the foetus counts as a person/human/baby/etc., which I still think is a religious argument.

Whether the fetus counts as a person is indeed relevant to whether abortion is morally/ethically wrong.

Where I differ is that I don't see how one can justify making it a criminal act to do something that is arguably not morally/ethically wrong, especially when the argument is a very good one. You can debate it all day, but that won't change the fact that it's a gray area.

If it's okay to make it illegal to exercise a moral opinion, is it also okay to make it illegal to exercise a political opinion? This does not relate to the example that's currently bubbling up to your fingertips because, among other reasons, the jews you're thinking of were not in the gray area between conception and birth; they were most certainly alive, and that was most certainly murder.

[CrAz3D]

At least no one has brought up anything about it being a "woman's right to choose," 'cause that's such a BS argument.

A woman having some choice over what happens within her own body?  That seems reasonable. 

Well, then a man should have a choice whether to support the bastard child or not.

The bastard child? That would only be in the case that the parents weren't married. I'm not sure where I stand on that. But I can see a fair case for no father child support, if the woman makes a unilateral decision to raise an accidental child when she could have had an early stage abortion (preventing a child from ever existing) or given it up for adoption.

Those are usually the abortions I see around here.




Camel, I'm suggesting that humans have a right to experience life ... make their own choices and whatnot

[MyndFyre]

fetus?

Words that originated on latin that contain "oe" or "œ" are frequently shortened to "e" in English, the same way that æ (as in "æsthetics") is often shortened to just "a" or just "e" ("asthetics" or "esthetics"). Completely irrelevent, obviously.

I've never seen aesthetics spelled any way other than "aesthetics."  I've also never seen the name Oedipus shortened to "Edipus" - that just looks stupid.

if you kill babies you kill baby jesus!

You realize that a baby isn't called a "baby" until it's born, right? Before that, it's a foetus. Using the word "baby" only confuses the issue.

CrAz3D is a retard, but I think that what iago says here is the crux of the issue.  Does an unborn child have the right to life?  Whether it's a fetus or baby is really irrelevant; it's whether that being, if you can call it a being, has the right to life, and does that being's right to life trump the mother's right to determine what happens within her body?

I'm only jumping in here because I think the topic is interesting and I also think this really is the only part of the debate that matters.  The fact that Crazed is still posting means that the topic probably hasn't gone anywhere worthwhile yet.

At least no one has brought up anything about it being a "woman's right to choose," 'cause that's such a BS argument.

A woman having some choice over what happens within her own body?  That seems reasonable. 

I agree.  However, there are also consequences to what a woman chooses to do with her body.

If a woman has sex, be it protected, on birth control, whatever - she assumes the risk of becoming pregnant.

Now, I don't think it's unreasonable to deprive her of the right to control what her body does when it becomes pregnant to protect another life.  But that's really -- like I said in my previous post -- the crux of the issue (whether the unborn child/fetus/baby/whatever-you-want-to-label-it has the right to life).

Incidentally, while I'd prefer the option is not taken, I support the right to an abortion in cases of rape.

[edit]Combined double-post

[CrAz3D]

Myndy, what do you think about "right to choose" re: the father's child support payments?

[Camel]

Incidentally, while I'd prefer the option is not taken, I support the right to an abortion in cases of rape.

Mynd, I'd like to hear your response to:

people who are pro-abortion (not going to call them "pro-choice", that terminology is retarded) don't believe that they ARE babies.

[MyndFyre]

Incidentally, while I'd prefer the option is not taken, I support the right to an abortion in cases of rape.

Mynd, I'd like to hear your response to:

people who are pro-abortion (not going to call them "pro-choice", that terminology is retarded) don't believe that they ARE babies.

I believe that whatever-you-call-them are living and have the right to continue to do so.  I don't believe that being alive necessarily qualifies the right to continue to do so, though (to preempt Rule's undoubtedly-coming question "So anything that's alive has the right to remain that way?").  I believe these questions need to be answered per-person, and that there's no global way everyone will ever agree.

I think that, if you want to attempt to inject reason into it, the valid question to ask is: is the potential within a whatever-you-call-it of greater value than whatever's prompting the abortion?  For instance, if parenthood is going to result in the mother's inconvenience, such as having to drop out of college, I don't believe that the mother's inconvenience outweighs the cost of potential life in any scenario.  However, if parenthood is going to result in the mother's life being lost (during childbirth, for instance), I think that it's much less clear.  I forgot to mention, I'm also supportive of (although would prefer the option be not exercised without both parents' involvement) abortion in situations in which the mother's life is in jeopardy.

The bottom line (for me) is this: when a woman has sex, she assumes the risk of pregnancy.  When she is raped, she does not.  She's at risk for pregnancy if she is raped, but she doesn't assume the risk.  Consequently, I think abortion should be illegal.  I think that the potential for death is extraordinary enough that it warrants an exception to that rule as well, as it is fairly uncommon.

[Rule]

The bottom line (for me) is this: when a woman has sex, she assumes the risk of pregnancy. 

So what?  When a person with a peanut allergy consumes certain types of food he risks an allergic reaction.  Should he be denied treatment?

What you're doing is all rationalisation.  You wouldn't have these beliefs if you grew up with a different background. 

[is] whatever-you-call-it of greater value than whatever's prompting the abortion?

Yes, that's the question.  It just happens that all of the value given to the whatever-you-call-it is derived from selfish religious motivations and their rationalisations. 

You really are denying potential life by not impregnating your girlfriend at the soonest opportunity.  Worried about consent?  At least try to convince her, that way you are doing the best you can to make sure potential human life is realized.

Consequently, I think abortion should be illegal.

So you think the government should legislate on very subjective issues without a clear majority agreement? Isn't that very undemocratic?

I believe that whatever-you-call-them are living and have the right to continue to do so.

Then why aren't you vegetarian.  Please explain in rational terms what makes a fertilized human egg more valuable than intelligent animal life.

[CrAz3D]

If the fucker ate a peanut KNOWING it would fuck him up ... then yes.  He should die and we should applaud

[while1]

I personally don't support abortion- there are better options out there.  i.e. adoption, for I have first hand experience as a child of adoption and I'm grateful for being given a chance to 1)  Live 2) A better life than if my mother had not aborted and kept me.  Now pregnancies as a result of rape is a different story.

However, while I do not support abortion, I do feel that it is not my right nor the government's right to make this decision for someone else concerning their health and reproductive affairs.  Same thing goes with gay marriage- which comes down to one thing, who you fuck.

[deadly7]

I personally don't support abortion- there are better options out there.  i.e. adoption, for I have first hand experience as a child of adoption and I'm grateful for being given a chance to 1)  Live 2) A better life than if my mother had not aborted and kept me.  Now pregnancies as a result of rape is a different story.

However, while I do not support abortion, I do feel that it is not my right nor the government's right to make this decision for someone else concerning their health and reproductive affairs.

That would be great, except for the adoption and foster care systems in the United States are so ridicuously overworked as it is, unless you're the cutest baby in the world, you'll probably be waiting a LONG time. And there's a very good chance that your interaction with drugs and crime will go up the longer you're kept waiting.