Abortion

[Judge Judy]

If all life is precious, what justifies me killing an animal and eating it?

We kill animals cus we want to eat it

[Inactive Account]

Jyo- Because eating is necessary for humans to live; eating requires killing SOME organism; human life is more valuable than other life; therefore, we should eat, though not unneccessarily.

But that has absolutely nothing to do with abortion!

Yeah, protestors can be nuts. But there are normal human protestors too.

Back to the topic...

[Knife]

Nah, I'm just laughing about how off-topic this got.

[Jyosua]

Jyo- Because eating is necessary for humans to live; eating requires killing SOME organism; human life is more valuable than other life; therefore, we should eat, though not unneccessarily.

But that has absolutely nothing to do with abortion!

Yeah, protestors can be nuts. But there are normal human protestors too.

Back to the topic...

Actually I could survive quite well on breads, cheeses, and liquids, which require no killing of animals.

There is a point to this - what dictates you can take the life of an animal who already is conscious, self-aware, and what-not, but you cannot take the life of a human fetus?

I would like to note I survive mostly off grilled cheese sandwiches, milk, spaghetti, and various fruit pies.

[Mufasa]

*A holy light desends from the heavens. Lyle Dayek steps forward with his opinion.*

Here's my stance on the topic:

For one, it's not really my place to say anything, as I hope to never get pregnant myself. However, I personally don't like the idea of abortion so much. But, it's not my place to say what goes for everyone else. Pro choice means that people can chose to have abortions or not. Those who think it's wrong, don't have to have an abortion, and those who do can have an abortion.

So I think I'm pro-choice. I'm not for abortions myself, but I think it's their right to chose. However, it is completely wrong to use abortions as birth control. If you show up to an abortion clinic once a week, you should be arrested. I think the people who want abortions should be monitered and examined before allowing them to abort their potential child. At some point, responsibility has to kick in, and people need to accept that they have a child to take care of.

As for what I would want, I'm 19 years old. If I got a girl pregnant, I would let the girl decide. If she choses to have an abortion, then I will go a long with it. But if she doesn't want one, then I will help to take care of our child to the best of my abilities.

At least that's what I think.

You may stone me now.

[Crystal Shards]

I am "Pro-Choice" for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, you do not have to be pro-abortion to be allow people to have the choice. Look at smoking, dropping out of high school, or some marriages. You don't have to approve of the action but you can still allow the person to do it.

I believe that life officially (maybe not scientifically or religiously, but officially) begins at birth. We do not celebrate conception days or "baby got a heart" days, but rather birthdays. If you are going to make the argument that babies are alive before birth, you have to make some arbitrary day, which doesn't really work 'cause then people argue about where to draw that line. Premature babies are perfect examples of this. They're still born, even though it's earlier than expected. Those that need a machine's aid are still live babies; they just need a little help because of the premature birth. Sometimes we need help by machines as adults and we are still alive then, so...

For those arguing that birth begins at conception, and that abortion is killing potential life, one could argue (I don't, necessarily... it depends on what arguments the person makes) you should ban condoms as well, because condoms (and other birth control) prevents sperm (potential life) from developing, which is what abortion does, only at a later stage. Plan B (the morning after pill) kills a fertilized egg. Not many people know that.

Abortions are a fact of life. If abortion is made illegal, women will still try to get them. Wouldn't you rather protect our women from alcohol abuse, shady alley "doctors," overloading on vitamins, or at-home abortions? There are girls who threw themselves down stairs, punched themselves in the stomach, overdosed on vitamins, drank themselves to death, because they did not have access to a doctor who could have taken care of the procedure safely.

Post-Abortion Syndrome (where the woman kills herself or hates herself after an abortion) is not medically recognized. I realize no one has brought this up yet, but it inevitably becomes an argument by "Pro-Life" advocates.

For those who look down upon or wish to disallow those who get an abortion and weren't raped, why only allow some women to get one? You don't know the circumstances of that person's problem. It is hypocritical (especially if you are American, because it's written in being that we should allow equal access) to say it's cool for some women to get it but others not to. You could argue that every woman who doesn't want to get pregnant get a hysterectomy, but there's so much wrong with that.

Adoption is an option here, but many/most children don't get adopted. If you count the orphans in Africa, Latin American, and Asia alone you get 108 million or so, which is roughly the population of Mexico. Even if a child gets placed in the system it is not guaranteed (or honestly, even really an option) that the child will have the successful life that a lot of people. "They could be the next hero of the world," and whatnot. This is probably the worst-constructed argument created by "Pro-Life" advocates, and all it takes is one counter-point: doctors tried to get Frau Hitler to abort little Adolf, too.

Forcing a woman to carry to term a child she doesn't want (especially if she ends up keeping it) will not only foster resentment towards her child but also the father, if the father was the one forcing her to keep the child. On the same coin (but a different side), forced abortions can have detrimental psychological effects, so what I advocate is freedom of choice.

What we should be looking to do instead of arguing over whether women should be allowed to have safe abortions (which is honestly what people are arguing about), we should look for ways to lower abortion rates. This can be done by making contraception easier and cheaper to get a hold of (where I am at, each month of the pill is $20 and each quarter-year shot is $75, condoms are free in some places like hospitals and some schools but not all) and better sex education. What I mean by better sex education is that women and men should both receive better than abstinence-only education and that they should receive lessons on what a baby actually needs. Most people, thanks to people like Britney Spears, see babies as pets and don't understand that they need constant care and affection, and that you can't just give it away when it's done being fun.

These two things, more available contraception and better sex education, would greatly reduce abortion rates because they would reduce teen pregnancy rates (and, by extension, pregnancy rates as a whole). With lower pregnancy rates (especially those due to a lack of knowledge/materials) comes lower abortion rates.

Again, this isn't an argument about abortion being allowed, because it's going to happen whether or not we support it. The question is whether you will protect your women from hurting themselves out of desperation. The question is whether you're going to allow freedom of choice over one's own body.

And for the record, I have never met anyone who was Pro-Choice and was like, "Yeah, abortion is great!" Most people agree that it's indecent but not immoral.

Edited November 20, 2008 by Crystal Shards

[Knife]

Lyle, I think it is a nice statement, but it doesn't really add to the issue since others have said something similar to you.

[Jyosua]

I agree knife, but that's my place to say that, not yours -_-

[Metal Rabbit]

I believe that life officially (maybe not scientifically or religiously, but officially) begins at birth. We do not celebrate conception days or "baby got a heart" days, but rather birthdays. If you are going to make the argument that babies are alive before birth, you have to change that tradition. Also, scientifically, babies can't support themselves until their organs are working, etc., so life doesn't begin until then. Premature babies are perfect examples of this. They're still born, even though it's earlier than expected. Those that need a machine's aid are still live babies; they just need a little help because of the premature birth. Sometimes we need help by machines as adults and we are still alive then, so this argument is still valid.

For those arguing that birth begins at conception, and that abortion is killing potential life, one could argue (I don't, necessarily... it depends on what arguments the person makes) you should ban condoms as well, because condoms (and other birth control) prevents sperm (potential life) from developing, which is what abortion does, only at a later stage.

That's why this argument is to hard to make, because noone can agree on when life begins. The second paragraph is a flimsy argument because when you use contraception, life hasn't even tried to begin.

Post-Abortion Syndrome (where the woman kills herself or hates herself after an abortion) is not medically recognized. I realize no one has brought this up yet, but it inevitably becomes an argument by "Pro-Life" advocates.

I brought it up earlier. Musta been ignored.

Forcing a woman to carry to term a child she doesn't want (especially if she ends up keeping it) will not only foster resentment towards her child but also the father, if the father was the one forcing her to keep the child. On the same coin (but a different side), forced abortions can have detrimental psychological effects, so what I advocate is freedom of choice.

Not always though.

These two things, more available contraception and better sex education, would greatly reduce abortion rates because they would reduce teen pregnancy rates (and, by extension, pregnancy rates as a whole). With lower pregnancy rates (especially those due to a lack of knowledge/materials) comes lower abortion rates.

YES YES OH ****ING GOD YES!!!

Don't get me wrong, I agree with your views. :D

[Inactive Account]

This isn't a direct response to anything said; rather, it is a point that has not at all been brought up yet:

Another problem with abortion- it removes responsibility. For the woman, responsibility remains, because of the operation and the emotional effects, the knowledge of what has happened, but the man who got her pregnant loses the responsibility. He no longer feels the consequence of his actions; he has not caused a visible effect, there is nothing to drive home the significance of what has happened, and he assumes that if this happens again, there will not be an effect either. This may lead him to care less if he gets that woman or another woman pregnant later- because they can just abort it, right? But suppose they don't. To him, it's her problem, and he doesn't have to deal with it.

[TLSothe]

*ahem*

Abortion = yes

i would have little Gatries in NYC if it werent for abortions.

little mes = bad

But little yous would be epicsauce.

Adoption>Abortion.

[Crystal Shards]

I edited while you were typing it seems. Actually, Plan B is the morning after pill; it's a pill taken up to 72 hours after first unprotected intercourse. It terminates a possible zygote/blastocyst, so in essence, it is an abortion, just at an extremely early age. However, most people see it as a form of contraception.

This isn't a direct response to anything said; rather, it is a point that has not at all been brought up yet:

Another problem with abortion- it removes responsibility.

Um, so does adoption. Either way you're giving up responsibility for the child.

Again, I have never met a person that sees abortion as a second kind of birth control. I've known people who've had them, and while they may or may not regret the decision, I don't know a single one who was nonchalant about the decision. Your argument is known as the "slippery slope" argument, that if we allow people to do something all hell will break loose. Well, that's what they thought when Row v. Wade was passed, and once again, I don't know a single person who thinks abortion is like, the coolest thing ever.

Edited November 20, 2008 by Crystal Shards

[Inactive Account]

And that quote Blue Fox posted, though it was probably a joke, is EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

Edited November 20, 2008 by Kiryn

[Metal Rabbit]

This isn't a direct response to anything said; rather, it is a point that has not at all been brought up yet:

Another problem with abortion- it removes responsibility. For the woman, responsibility remains, because of the operation and the emotional effects, the knowledge of what has happened, but the man who got her pregnant loses the responsibility. He no longer feels the consequence of his actions; he has not caused a visible effect, there is nothing to drive home the significance of what has happened, and he assumes that if this happens again, there will not be an effect either. This may lead him to care less if he gets that woman or another woman pregnant later- because they can just abort it, right? But suppose they don't. To him, it's her problem, and he doesn't have to deal with it.

The worst case scenario is that women just won't care at all, like it was portrayed in Farenheit 451. I don't believe we'll get to that point BECAUSE there are pro life people who will never let it come to that, no matter how liberal the country gets.

Edited November 20, 2008 by Adam

[Jyosua]

This isn't a direct response to anything said; rather, it is a point that has not at all been brought up yet:

Another problem with abortion- it removes responsibility. For the woman, responsibility remains, because of the operation and the emotional effects, the knowledge of what has happened, but the man who got her pregnant loses the responsibility. He no longer feels the consequence of his actions; he has not caused a visible effect, there is nothing to drive home the significance of what has happened, and he assumes that if this happens again, there will not be an effect either. This may lead him to care less if he gets that woman or another woman pregnant later- because they can just abort it, right? But suppose they don't. To him, it's her problem, and he doesn't have to deal with it.

He'll realize it when his lady friends all think he's a scumbag ;D

[Judge Judy]

This isn't a direct response to anything said; rather, it is a point that has not at all been brought up yet:

Another problem with abortion- it removes responsibility. For the woman, responsibility remains, because of the operation and the emotional effects, the knowledge of what has happened, but the man who got her pregnant loses the responsibility. He no longer feels the consequence of his actions; he has not caused a visible effect, there is nothing to drive home the significance of what has happened, and he assumes that if this happens again, there will not be an effect either. This may lead him to care less if he gets that woman or another woman pregnant later- because they can just abort it, right? But suppose they don't. To him, it's her problem, and he doesn't have to deal with it.

Yeah that is one part that annoys me. The guy should have the same responsibility as the women. Like pay child support etc

Edited November 20, 2008 by Luxord

[Inactive Account]

@Jyo: But will he care?

Edited November 20, 2008 by Kiryn

[TLSothe]

And that quote Blue Fox posted, though it was probably a joke, is EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

I don't really joke about topics like this. Unless you meant what Gatrie said.

[Inactive Account]

yeah, I meant what Gatrie said. at least I hope he intended it as a joke.

[Esau of Isaac]

Uh, duh.

If you put it that way, why kill a baby before birth? What if that baby was something VERY special to human-kind? Then again, what if it wasn't?

YOU think I don't understand everyone will die? What am I not understanding? Your so-called logic? If Shuuda can call God a jerk, than I can call your logic IDIOTIC. Survival of the fittest is all it is about, isn't it? Who gives a fuck about the weaker, As long as I'M STILL alive, there isn't anything to worry about. Is that what you believe? Please say you don't believe this...

Good fucking Lord. Let me put in the most basic terms so you can understand.

The point (which you so spectacularly missed, Champ) was that the fact that it has a good chance of becoming a person means nothing at all, because in this case eventualities are pointless to discuss. I will unfailingly die. But I'm not considered dead because I'm not yet dead. In that same sense, we should not protect the fetus by giving it the rights that people are given, because regardless of whether it has a good chance of becoming a person, it is not yet a person.

And what Kiryn said, we aren't talking about eggs that are already dead, or any of that other bull. We are talking HUMAN lives, the ones WE NEED to survive. Yeah, those ones. All life IS precious. But that isn't the point of THIS topic

What about human life? My blood is living, but I am in no way a mass murderer by cutting myself. Being human and having life does not intrinsically mean that it possesses the right to live.

Nah that is quite normal. People usually interpret things differently from religious text books.

What I mean is that previous to this topic, I could have sworn that I had gotten this interpretation from the Catechism. It might be that I am remembering an older interpretation of the Church's law.

All life is precious. We are currently discussing the ethics of a practice that happens to take human lives.

Why is all life precious?

Edit: "Not yet a person", not "not alive."

Edited November 20, 2008 by Esau of Isaac

[TLSothe]

yeah, I meant what Gatrie said. at least I hope he intended it as a joke.

I hope so too...

I mean, he's what, 17? Too young to have kids...even if you abort them

[Jyosua]

@Jyo: But will he care?

If he doesn't, he can count on not having sex for a while, unless it's a hooker. ;D

[Knife]

If he doesn't, he can count on not having sex for a while, unless it's a hooker. ;D

You know, most people just skip town after something like that happens.

[Crystal Shards]

@Jyo: But will he care?

Again, slippery slope argument.

[Inactive Account]

Knife/Jyo: Which amounts to not believing in any responsibility.

And as for the slippery slope, I think it's safe to say that while some guys will end up caring, some definitely won't. Which is the problem.

Edited November 20, 2008 by Kiryn