How anyone could even phathom using a child as a punishment for sexual promiscuity is beyond me, and is exponentially more cruel than aborting the fetus.

Then we should outlaw divorce that is predicated on infidelity. Kids stuck in the middle, and all that.

I don't see how anything can be more cruel to me than killing me. It goes along with the whole "quality of life" double entendre. Is it less cruel to kill someone or to let someone live in an environment you deem to be cruel or less than ideal?

steiger

I don't see how anything can be more cruel to me than killing me.

So you're perfectly fine with a child growing up in a resentful environment, where that child is reminded daily that they were not wanted? It sounds like you just want people to suffer for their percieved "sins", even if that sin is being born to a parent that does not want the child.

How very respectful of life you are.

If the fetus wants to live it will defend itself.

STAY OUT OF MY UTERUS! For all you bible beatin, jesus lovin, GW supporten, living on another planet americans, worry about yourself! If you don't believe in it, then don't have one!

steiger

Then we should outlaw divorce that is predicated on infidelity. Kids stuck in the middle, and all that.

I'm sorry, but I can't let this B.S. statement stand.

Do the parents suddenly stop loving their children when they get a divorce? The only divorces I know of where the children were used as barganing chips were where the parents basically got married BECAUSE they had a child. They didn't love each other, and they certainly didn't love the child (I grew up around a lot of these kids, being from a poor neighborhood and all).

fuhfuhfuh
Actually, I know a lot of people that think just this. Why else would nursing homes be so popular? It's not because the kids are taking care of the elderly parents. They are in fact, paying someone else to deal with their "problem". Putting Grandma in a home, rather than taking her in yourself, is a cop-out.

Also, whether the fetus is viewed as a "person" or not is moot... my point still stands. When you force someone to do something against their wishes, you will get hostility. The definition of "person" as absolutely jack to do with my point.

Wrong on all counts.

1. There are plenty of reasons why nursing homes are popular, the chief one being that most people do not know how to care for the elderly, or do not have time. I realize that there are people who are simply unwilling to care for their parents, and so "dump" the problem on a nursing home. But since paying for a nursing home still counts as "providing care," your conclusions (that it means that people do not feel they have a duty to the elderly) are false.

2. I understand full well that you get hostility when you tell someone they can't do something. However, your argument has nothing to do with "hostility." Do you want to change the subject?

In point of fact, it makes no sense to speak of the foetus in inhuman terms ("punishment") if it is in fact a person, unless it makes sense to speak of Grandma as an object as well simply because she becomes a burden when she gets old. So the validity of your argument does hinge on that fact.

I'm not telling you how to define it, just pointing out that when you form arguments about human rights (such as the right to life and to recieve some sort of consideration from society), your definition of "human" (person) is pretty damned important.

RockIsDead:

You mean like the way there's laws against genital mutilation of infant males but no laws against genital mutilation of females?
Wait, it's the other way around.

So much for your lame point.

Uhh, yeah...

So, you honestly think that if the men in this country were suddenly saddled with the burden of pregnancy that abortion would continue to be assailed as it is now?

Flatulent_Flea
Citizenship is granted to persons BORN in the United States.

This point is made quite often: That you do not merit citizenship until birth.

If you don't mind fleshing out your position just a little bit, would you mind telling everyone what moral distinction there is between an organism five seconds before clearing the birth canal, and five seconds after?

What I find interesting is that the Republicans are supposedly "pro-life" but they're all for slashing the welfare budget.

vrax
So, you honestly think that if the men in this country were suddenly saddled with the burden of pregnancy that abortion would continue to be assailed as it is now?

Whether or not it is likely and whether or not it should happen are of course two different things (see: normative vs. descriptive ethics).

If men could become pregnant, there are probably a lot of men who would change their position. However, if their argument is correct now, then it would be correct then, and they would be knowingly committing and supporting immoral acts (which of course happens all the time--see any televangelist caught in a sex or drugs scandal).

Interestingly enough, the law does require men to be "burdened" with financially supporting their offspring. Lots of men are pro-choice because they want the option of not having to pay child support for 18 years. In a sense your question is the same as, "Do men change their views on abortion when they get a woman pregnant?" That probably happens a lot--both ways (some men decide that fathering a child is the best thing that ever happened to them).

All in all, I think you're dangerously oversimplifying the issue.

CrscntBufS
What I find interesting is that the Republicans are supposedly "pro-life" but they're all for slashing the welfare budget.

Please demonstrate logically how your conclusion follows from your premises.

I don't think it does, since you can demonstrate that Republicans are not against all forms of emergency aid and support, only some kinds, and mostly on how they are implemented rather than that they exist in the first place.

So you're perfectly fine with a child growing up in a resentful environment, where that child is reminded daily that they were not wanted? It sounds like you just want people to suffer for their percieved "sins", even if that sin is being born to a parent that does not want the child.

How very respectful of life you are.

I'd rather have someone alive than not alive, yes. This is not an all-or-nothing situation. Children grow up, and children who's parents didn't want them grow up to be adopted, or suck it up, or go on welfare, or have a therapist or post on fark.com, but they grow up.

It's like saying that poor people have shiatty lives where they may be unhappy, so killing them is really kind. Being emotionally abused != being killed. It's possible to be abused and some day be happy. The millions of children who've been aborted have never been given that chance.

fuhfuhfuh
Do the parents suddenly stop loving their children when they get a divorce? The only divorces I know of where the children were used as barganing chips were where the parents basically got married BECAUSE they had a child. They didn't love each other, and they certainly didn't love the child (I grew up around a lot of these kids, being from a poor neighborhood and all).

I was actually joking there. I am agnostic on divorce. People do it, but people do shiatty things to each other all the time.

Mostly it doesn't involve killing, and when it does, those people are punished by the government or at least it's supposed to. I'm upset by the double standard. It's ok to kill someone if they've been alive for 3 months but not if they've been alive for 30 months or 300 months. You realize that everyone who argues that a fetus is not human has been a fetus.

Maybe we should make abortion illegal, but force women at random to adopt. It would be on some kind of lottery system, where the woman doesn't get to choose the baby, and doesn't have a choice even if she ends up with a baby that has AIDS, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, or some other disability. Every female above the age of 13 would have to register for this lottery, and it wouldn't matter if they weren't financially or intellectually capable of raising a child. Any woman, at any given time, could just be stuck with a random baby.

Does that sound fair? It doesn't sound fair to me. But hey, what else are you going to do with the millions of babies born every single year to mothers that don't want them?

Everyone agrees that killing a breathing human is wrong, but obviously people disagree on killing a fetus. Why can't you just leave it up to the individual to decide? If you're really so concerned about these potential babies, why aren't you making a place for them in your home right now? Or do you only care as long as you don't have to deal with the responsibility personally?

You realize that everyone who argues that a fetus is not human has been a fetus.

But we aren't anymore. Everyone in this thread is very, very different from a fetus. For the first, oh, 49 days after fertilization a human fetus is indistinguishable from any other mammalian fetus.

Captain Fashion: But hey, what else are you going to do with the millions of babies born every single year to mothers that don't want them?

I thought that was what dumpsters were for.

Captain Fashion

Everyone agrees that killing a breathing human is wrong, but obviously people disagree on killing a fetus. Why can't you just leave it up to the individual to decide? If you're really so concerned about these potential babies, why aren't you making a place for them in your home right now? Or do you only care as long as you don't have to deal with the responsibility personally?

How do you know I don't? If I, in fact, have adopted 1.2 million babies this year, does that suddenly make my argument hold water for you? Will you suddenly start caring about babies being killed in the womb? I thought not.

I don't personally get involved with catching or jailing murderers, does that mean I can't be against murder?

ChimbleySweep

You realize that everyone who argues that a fetus is not human has been a fetus.

But we aren't anymore. Everyone in this thread is very, very different from a fetus. For the first, oh, 49 days after fertilization a human fetus is indistinguishable from any other mammalian fetus.

Indistinguishable in what way? To the human eye? To a microscope? Human fetus are different in a very important way from other mammalian fetuses -- the potential for human life. An apple seed and a peculiar rock might look similar, but their potential for life are very different.

And having been a fetus and now _past_ it, wouldn't the acceptance of killing fetuses be as hypocritical as a black professor being against affirmative action?

Brick Top:

Whether or not it is likely and whether or not it should happen are of course two different things (see: normative vs. descriptive ethics).

Geee, yeah...thanks for that.

If men could become pregnant, there are probably a lot of men who would change their position. However, if their argument is correct now, then it would be correct then, and they would be knowingly committing and supporting immoral acts (which of course happens all the time--see any televangelist caught in a sex or drugs scandal).

Interestingly enough, the law does require men to be "burdened" with financially supporting their offspring. Lots of men are pro-choice because they want the option of not having to pay child support for 18 years. In a sense your question is the same as, "Do men change their views on abortion when they get a woman pregnant?" That probably happens a lot--both ways (some men decide that fathering a child is the best thing that ever happened to them).

All in all, I think you're dangerously oversimplifying the issue.

Do you mean to tell me that my single sentence didn't constitute a detailed analysis of the scenario? I mean, other than the fact that I'm just addressing one facet of the abortion issue, namely hypocrisy spawned from a lack of empathy, I simply can't believe it!

steiger If I, in fact, have adopted 1.2 million babies this year, does that suddenly make my argument hold water for you? Will you suddenly start caring about babies being killed in the womb? I thought not.

Actually, yeah. If you can find loving homes for the 1.2 million babies that would be born every year, then yes, by all means make abortion illegal.

I don't personally get involved with catching or jailing murderers, does that mean I can't be against murder?

No one says you can't be against abortion. I support your right to be against abortion. Why can't you support a woman's right to make a decision about her body that doesn't affect you in any way?

Hmmm, I think that it is interesting that we are hearing only positions from one side of the arguement: from those who were never aborted.

Captain Fashion
Well, the question of whether or not the foetus deserves human rights is still contested. If it does, then it wouldn't matter what the woman wants...society would not support an abortion (except perhaps for medical reasons) any more than they would support a woman abandoning a five-year-old.

That is why personhood is at the center of the debate. All of the arguments on both sides center on that--before it can be an issue of "women's rights," the issue of "human rights" must be settled.


vrax
I'm sure that, somewhere, poorly constructed sarcasm and jackassery are considered to be "dialogue." I suggest you go there, and never come back.

If this isn't murder I dunno what is...

Why can't you support a woman's right to make a decision about her body that doesn't affect you in any way?

Because if a fetus is a human being and not a part of "her body", then you're asking people to support child murder as a form of population control.

Back when Roe v Wade was decided, medical science didn't know as much as it does today about fetal developement, DNA, etc., so the question of whether a fetus was a part of her body or a living person was a lot fuzzier.

Today, the evidence that has come in all leans in favor of the living person argument.

But then, if more pro-lifers would concentrate their resources on establishing a social safety net for pregnant women caught in this type of situation to fall back on, there would be less abortions, less "unwanted" children, etc, and they wouldn't even have to try to piledrive their way through the government to make it happen.

Eh, that's my 2. I'm going home to play BF2

Murder is 'wrong' because it hurts society as a whole, and pretty much every rational person would agree that murder is 'wrong'. The thing is, not everyone agrees that abortion is wrong, and it doesn't hurt society as a whole, so it basically comes down to a matter of opinion.

When you are anti-abortion, your are trying to force your moral views onto people that don't share your views. The choice of an individual woman to have an abortion doesn't hurt you in any way, so why do you care?

Personally, I think abortion is gross and wrong and all that, and I would love to see our society make a happy place for every single unwanted baby, but I don't see that happening. I see people wanting to make abortion illegal so they can feel better about themselves, but they don't consider the consequences of 1.2 million unwanted babies per year being born. Why don't people ever think of the consequences?

Yeah I think abortion is wrong, but I think every individual has to be free to make their own choice on this issue.

Alright, that's enough ranting. It's midnight in England and I have to get some rest so I can be ready to go back to curing cancer tomorrow.

I'm wondering if pro-life supporters have funerals and graves if they have a miscarriage. If the fetus is a full human life shouldn't it be afforded the same ceremonies as a regular person?

I'm not saying this is a good reason for choice but it seems hypocritical to me.

Pensacola, 1993. My foreign born wife and I were having major issues - and pregnant. We decided to abort. I took her to the clinic myself and was not prepared for the fact I had to lead her through a sea of protesters, some of whom were quite agressive. You want to see quite agressive try getting in my face when I am in no mood to deal with it. My blood was boiling but I didn't think it would help to be arrested right in front of my already traumatized wife. We made it in and had the procedure. I'm grateful to live in a country where we had the unpleasant but viable option. 16 years later I am glad it was over. I don't regret it, don't know how the mom feels.
If it makes you feel any better believing the fetus flew away to heaven be my guest....

I have an idea. Since abortion is a choice (as it should be) I would like to pursue the idea of male reproductive control. When a man gets a woman pregnant he should have the choice of whether or not he wants to support the upbringing of the child if the woman chooses to keep it. If the man wishes her to have an abortion and she chooses otherwise then she is solely responsible for the upbringing of the child.

alright, in the time it took me to write that last post, 4 people posted good arguments. Damn.

All I can say is that torturing people and killing Iraqis does affect society, and therefore I think it's wrong.

Also, over 50% of abortions are done in the first 10 weeks or earlier, when the fetus is indistinguishable from any mammal fetus.

Good night.

Captain Fashion
Actually, yeah. If you can find loving homes for the 1.2 million babies that would be born every year, then yes, by all means make abortion illegal.

See, this argument you've positioned yourself with supposes that results supersede any other concern. The ends justify the means. Abortion must be legal, or else what would we do with all them babies?

Determining whether a thing is right is not the same as determining whether a thing is expedient and easy. That's why the "ends justify the means" is shunned by pretty much every belief system I can think of, including Jedi.

Felgraf makes an excellent point -- if something doesn't immediately apply to the way I live my life, it should be allowed? It doesn't work, and that's why "politics" is supposed to be the king of sciences. It's a "meta" science wherein it determines how all other sciences are applied. Thus, even if I have a penis, I can and should discuss what's right in situations involving people who have vaginas. Who and what I am have nothing to do with the validity or lack there of of my arguments. No matter how many kids I adopt.

Shooty

I'm wondering if pro-life supporters have funerals and graves if they have a miscarriage. If the fetus is a full human life shouldn't it be afforded the same ceremonies as a regular person?

The thing is... If you believe in Christianity - according to the Bible, Ceremony or not, the baby goes to hell. (Did not accept Jesus.. and such). This applies to babies and children as well.

Shooty

Some people do. I know people who have named the kids who would have been if not for the miscarriage, and who mourn them still.

Captain Fashion

Consensus politics doesn't work at a moral level either.

This is where I show a big lack of understanding and inability to empathize with some people's beliefs. I don't understand how the word "moral" can mean anything if it's just based on whatever you or you, or you think is right.

I guess from now on, I'll refuse to use the term "moral" in my own arguments and refuse to acknowledge it in others' arguments, because if morality is whatever you want it to be, then wtf?

I never like these threads. Abortion is an extremely personal decision between a woman, (some times) the father, her doctor, and, if she is superstitious, her god.
Nobody outside this circle bears any relevence.

purplesmoke420

I love sweeping statements about Christianity. I guess Catholics aren't Christian, because that's certainly not what the RC Church teaches. And where exactly does the Bible make reference to what happens when babies miscarry?

Felgraf, that is an excellent point to make. Kudos. Likewise steiger.

Captain Fashion, I think you are dodging the meat of the issue and bringing up points that have already been addressed. Whether or not you are "forcing" morality on someone doesn't really matter--we do it all the time, and in fact, so long as taxpayer money goes to fund abortions, it is unavoidable. Therefore this does holds no water as an argument. Likewise, the issue of "individual choice" hinges upon the question of whether or not the foetus is an "individual."

You know I'm not pro or anti abortion, mainly because I keep my nose outta other peoples personal business (I also don't tell folks how to raise their kids).

The choice for me is not a choice, but for my wife it would depend on many factors. She is a smart woman (a lot smarter than most here) and any choice she makes would be the right choice in my book.

Allowing the state to superceed her decision is socialism.

r

/one of the last of the non-socialists around here
//yeah, I'm talking about you

Dumb-Ass-Monkey: That doesn't mean I want it abolished. Just a little fuucking personal responsibility when taking abortion as an option.

some people consider abortion as a viable alternative to having a child and they do see abortion as taking responsibility
not taking responsibility would be ignoring the problem and not making a decision until it's too late to have an abortion and having to carry a baby you don't want to term, then having to give birth to it and keep it, being unable to support it financially or emotionally
taking away abortion is removing one way of taking responsibility for your actions.
also, i don't know what kind of psychos you hang out with, but the 2 people i know who had abortions were traumatised by the decision. in fact the only thing that would have been worse would have been carrying the thing to term and giving birth, then either giving it up, or, worse, having to try and raise it.

2006-01-23 07:39:56 PM Brick Top
As with all the other pro-choice arguments in this thread, this assumes that the foetus is not human. That issue has not yet been settled. So your argument, as it is, is invalid.

Invalidating arguments on the basis of not knowing whether or not the fetus is a human invalidates all points on both sides, does it not?

Pro-life: It IS a human, it is protected.
Pro-choice: It is NOT a human, it is not protected.

heres's a thought....
if the technology existed to remove a fetus from one woman and implant it in another, would the government have the right to take said fetus, implant it in another woman and force that woman to have it whether she wants it or not?

Here is another thought, if the state decides that it has a right over the foetus.

Should the state then force preg. women to :
1) not smoke
2) not drink any alcohol
3) eat whole foods, no McDs
4) do yoga or some form of safe exercise
5) get your checkup (paid for by the state)

Once you cross the line and give the state power you're in for a whole lotta ugly.

People look at Roe V. Wade too narrowly, it isn't just about abortion it is about ensuring that all persons have a level of privacy garunteed by Federal Law. Now this idea is a big deal at the moment in regards to the PATRIOT act, abortion, domestic spying, and state vs. federal rights. To ay Roe V. Wade is not a corner stone of contemporary civil rights is like saying Coffee is not important to starbucks.

// oh and for anyone who wants to claim the is not explicit right to privacy ala Robert Bork please read the federalist paper number 84

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._84

gueedoguy: If this isn't murder I dunno what is...

Why don't you show us where you found that asinine picture.

I think the issue here is about who and who does not get to legislate what women can do to their bodies. I'm also hearing alot of farkers who have never made mistakes in their lives that they might be judged negatively for.

For those of you who believe (I'm looking at you Lucky13) that because a woman willingly has sex and (accidently) becomes pregnant she has to be haunted by that mistake for the rest of her life, I think thats utter bullshiat. We all make mistakes in our lives, sometimes involving sex. If we really aren't prepared (for any number of reasons) to have a children, and don't want to (yet) go through the physical trauma of pregnancy and labour then should we just "live" with it? I'm not abdicating personal responisbility, I just happen to believe that it is more responsible to do what NEEDS to be done (even if it may be hard) for your betterment and any children who you bring into your live's betterment than it is to live with that mistake forever.

/It's not just single spread legged "slut whores" getting pregnant, its our sisters, friends, co-workers, etc. One little slip up can define the rest of our lives. To call names (especially such crude ones) is a callous way to treat people who actually do end up in these unfortunate circumstances.
//ditto for "clusterfarks", some people can get pregnant from plain old, normal sex, you know.
///Not that I have to worry about that for a while...finding myself suddenly single for the first time in 3 years....*sigh*...no possible baby making for a while for me looks like....*tear*

Love the fetus, hate the child! Isn't that what they are really saying. Where the hell are these people after the baby is born? If they really care about these children than help out these families when the baby is in the world!

D&E isn't just for breakfast anymore...but don't worry, pharma tech will solve the problem in a few years and there ain't nothing that can be done about that by the fascists.