|
On April 28 2011 21:54 SacredSoul wrote:
My rant is over, but why do so many people want kids like me dead?
Well that is just great.
Even if we were to accept your way of looking at things (killing babies etc), you do understand that only people who could legally want you "dead" would be your own parents, right? We on TL have no say in that, nor do the people who pass laws, nor does ANYBODY else. So unless your own parents want to "kill" you, you won't "die" during pregnancy.
You say you're okay with abortion after rape, why is that? Rape is essentially sex that functions much in the same way "regular" sex does, and leaves the woman pregnant in the same way. The key difference is of course that she didn't WANT to have sex and she doesn't WANT the baby that was a product of it (even though that same baby might make it in life just as well as any).
So in that case you're fine with abortion because the woman doesn't want the child, but if she happens to not want it for any other reason at all, THEN it's murder and killing babies?
Physical rape isn't the only way (and probably not the worst way either) a woman can be forced or cheated into a pregnancy. There are millions of other scenarios, many are fairly common in some cultures and very difficult to identify in others. But your underlying point seems to be that murder is okay in some cases and wrong in the others.
|
On April 28 2011 21:56 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 21:03 -Archangel- wrote:On April 28 2011 20:42 Ghostcom wrote:On April 28 2011 20:04 -Archangel- wrote:
12 week fetus is already a really small baby, 20 weeks is pure murder. Statements like these are so detrimental to any worthwhile debate >_> In the end it all comes down to how you define life - is it when sperm meets egg? is it self-sustainability? is it awareness - and what degree of awareness? And 20 weeks seems like an odd time, but if I'm to guess it's because the earliest a baby can survive being born is 15 weeks premature, thus at 20 weeks it still can't survive AND by giving time until week 20 you can actually test for Downs syndrome which is done @ week 16. As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law. It's not the truth - it's your perception which isn't based on anything objective, but "merely" your feelings as a dad. The only reason WHY you even knew how your daughter looked at week 20 in the first place was because you were getting an ultrasound to test wheter or not there were any developmental defects which would make life impossible meaning your wife would've had to abort or give birth to a dead baby. You are being a total hypocrit so take your "I'm telling the truth" BS and shut up or bring some valid arguments. I know I'm VERY blunt, but you do not hold any moral highground in this, stop trying to make it seem like that. And congratulations with your daughter, kids can really be a blessing, but don't try and make your subjective feelings a universal standard. Exactly where the limit should be placed is very hard to decide and tbh I don't think there is any 100% correct answer. I DO however support the option of being able to abort a child with trisomy 21 and thus I also support abortion @ week 16-20 as that is the earliest you can with certainty say wheter or not the mutation is present without an unacceptable risk to the mother or fetus.
No side is the "truth". Everything in this subject is based on people's perceptions on life. Where do people get these perceptions? Through their experiences and feelings that happens throughout their lives. Without these experiences and feelings, we would all be drones heading to the mineral line. Think about why you argue for one side, then think about why another person argues for the other. Neither have a complete truth to their arguments, it's all based on opinions, ethics, morals, perceptions...all which are subject to change from person to person.
With that said... Being a new father, I can only hope for a complete ban on abortions. This is a good step forward in that direction. Before being married, I never gave this issue one thought. But after having my daughter, it makes me sick that people want to kill living and growing babies because they are too selfish.
|
On April 28 2011 21:54 SacredSoul wrote:
The only time it should be acceptable to abort a child is if it was conceived after a rape, and only if it still can't feel pain.
Im pretty damn pissed that so many people are for the killing of babies that were conceived during a fun night out, or after being drunk and making a night of poor decisions, I AM ONE OF THOSE BABIES! If my parents were as anti-life as you I wouldn't be alive! I think Im making the best of it too as I am going to college at 17, having fun with friends, and playing SC2...
Some of you on this forum are heartless and if everyone were like you I bet a good couple of million of GOOD, HARDWORKING, people would be dead and never would have had an effect on your life.
Those that have aborted because you didn't think you might have had the means to raise a kid, shame on you. My mom ended up having 4 kids on a 15k salary and I LOVE life. If you fuck up one night live with the consequences, don't murder some kid that could have made your life brighter. Honestly the way I see it aborting mothers should think about how their kid will be at 17-18 and then try and kill them.
My rant is over, but why do so many people want kids like me dead?
I was one of those babies too but I still support a right to abortion. If I'd been aborted then I wouldn't be here to be pissed off about it so I don't see what difference it makes. It would also have saved me the bother of actually experiencing death too, which I can't say I'm looking forward to -_-
|
I mention the modern age in respect to all nations and women worldwide in the globalised modern world. The point I was making was off-topic to the Indiana bill discussion, and was about the effects of childbirth on the woman, as the person I quoted referred to it as 10hours of casual reading or something. I'm sorry if this detracted from the discussion of the Indiana bill, it's just this thread has been about bigger issues for the last few pages, of which the Indiana bill is a small part of.
|
United Arab Emirates1141 Posts
On April 28 2011 21:59 eLiE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 21:54 SacredSoul wrote:
The only time it should be acceptable to abort a child is if it was conceived after a rape, and only if it still can't feel pain.
Im pretty damn pissed that so many people are for the killing of babies that were conceived during a fun night out, or after being drunk and making a night of poor decisions, I AM ONE OF THOSE BABIES! If my parents were as anti-life as you I wouldn't be alive! I think Im making the best of it too as I am going to college at 17, having fun with friends, and playing SC2...
Some of you on this forum are heartless and if everyone were like you I bet a good couple of million of GOOD, HARDWORKING, people would be dead and never would have had an effect on your life.
Those that have aborted because you didn't think you might have had the means to raise a kid, shame on you. My mom ended up having 4 kids on a 15k salary and I LOVE life. If you fuck up one night live with the consequences, don't murder some kid that could have made your life brighter. Honestly the way I see it aborting mothers should think about how their kid will be at 17-18 and then try and kill them.
My rant is over, but why do so many people want kids like me dead? lol, I want you alive. And I agree about the rape thing, although I'll admit, there was a movie (in religion class, yes, now we must discount the story >_<) I saw about a woman who was conceived through rape, and the mother carried her to birth and gave her up for an adoption. That woman went on to advocate for protecting the lives of the fetuses in those situations. Both the mother and the child were pretty outstanding people in my opinion.
Precisely - we wouldn't be reading ANY of this Tl-ers posts. ANY. If his mother went for an abortion. He would've just been wiped off the face of the earth. Is his mother proud of having him as a son? Yes. Did he bring joy into her life? Yes (And also grief mind you, when he's going through his teenage years ^^)
Point is, abortion isn't a simple topic of science. It is a complex issue which has LONG-TERM consequences for everyone involved. A good documentary to watch documenting both sides of the issue, would be on the Yugoslavian wars and how the Serbian military systematically raped thousands of Bosnian woman day and night for 4 months, making sure that every one had conceived and gotten a giant belly before letting them go. It is not even near the most depraved of human acts, but it's pretty bad aye.
The documentary interviews a Bosnian woman, who underwent that experience. Guess what - her young son of 8 years old is in it as well. She concludes that she is both traumatised by her experiences, yet loves her Son dearly and felt he is the greatest blessing to her life.
Very complex issue which is just really really hard. I feel for politicians @_@
|
Thanks for that moving story about Serbian rapists JesusOurSaviour. Your insight fills us all.
|
On April 28 2011 22:19 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 21:54 SacredSoul wrote:
My rant is over, but why do so many people want kids like me dead? Well that is just great. Even if we were to accept your way of looking at things (killing babies etc), you do understand that only people who could legally want you "dead" would be your own parents, right? We on TL have no say in that, nor do the people who pass laws, nor does ANYBODY else. So unless your own parents want to "kill" you, you won't "die" during pregnancy. You say you're okay with abortion after rape, why is that? Rape is essentially sex that functions much in the same way "regular" sex does, and leaves the woman pregnant in the same way. The key difference is of course that she didn't WANT to have sex and she doesn't WANT the baby that was a product of it (even though that same baby might make it in life just as well as any). So in that case you're fine with abortion because the woman doesn't want it, but if she happens to not want it for any other reason at all, THEN it's murder and killing babies? Physical rape isn't the only way (and probably not the worst way either) a woman can be forced or cheated into a pregnancy. There are millions of other scenarios, many are fairly common in some cultures and very difficult to identify in others. But your underlying point seems to be that murder is okay in some cases and wrong in the others.
Well, I think that the fact that she didn't consent to the act is the problem, not that that it's physically the same. And that is also considering rape within marriages and other relationships. I would understand the decision to have an abortion in that situation. Even then, I'd probably still have the baby and give it up, although that is coming from a man who isn't going to be having any babies, so there is my bias.
|
United Arab Emirates1141 Posts
On April 28 2011 16:54 mufin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 16:41 JesusOurSaviour wrote:On April 28 2011 16:23 TOloseGT wrote:On April 28 2011 16:15 JesusOurSaviour wrote:And I would NEVER of wanted my mother to have an abortion - I wouldn't be stating my arguments against post-modern, short-sighted liberalists on this forum otherwise. You equate your moral values with mine, then call me short-sighted for not seeing it your way? Who's the fool now? well we are all fools - for rejecting God when he is our loving Father and our Creator. Besides that - 1. when did I equate my moral values with yours? We have different moral values. 2. short-sighted vs Far-sightedness. Short-sightedness referring in this case to how a lot of posters on this thread don't look into the complexity of this issue, both in the breadth/depth of consequences and the many mental and emotional complications of abortion that arise with time. (I'm a 2nd year medical student, abortion gets discussed to death..... T_T) 3. conclusion: who's the fool now? I think we all are. Jesus is coming back soon and I'm here arguing about issues which will not affect me (since I will never ask my wife to abort). While I am supposed to be doing God's work. Ag man, I will admit first that I am the fool in this case! if your not trolling, then you should understand that no one is going to take you seriously when you use "God" as the basis for your arguments.
Interesting. Seeing that only ~5% of post-modern Western society is Bible-believing and bible-practicing Christians, of course a lot of people aren't going to take me seriously. Am I trolling? No. Jesus is coming back and I speak that in truth. When? I don't know and I don't need to speculate. There's plenty of harvest out there that Christians need to go out and work for, such that trolling on internet forums is definitely not going to bring honour to God. I'm not trolling, I'm just stating the Christian opinion on the matter at hand.
Now there's 7500+ active TL-ers, so assuming TL-ers adhere to some sort of normal distribution, I'd expect +/- 375 TL-ers to be followers of Christ. Then again, a gaming forum with many worshiping strong atheists such as IdrA may hint at an even lower proportion of Christians. Who knows. Point being - I'm not trolling, but stating what I believe about the matter at hand. 
|
On April 28 2011 22:19 PolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 21:56 Ghostcom wrote:On April 28 2011 21:03 -Archangel- wrote:On April 28 2011 20:42 Ghostcom wrote:On April 28 2011 20:04 -Archangel- wrote:
12 week fetus is already a really small baby, 20 weeks is pure murder. Statements like these are so detrimental to any worthwhile debate >_> In the end it all comes down to how you define life - is it when sperm meets egg? is it self-sustainability? is it awareness - and what degree of awareness? And 20 weeks seems like an odd time, but if I'm to guess it's because the earliest a baby can survive being born is 15 weeks premature, thus at 20 weeks it still can't survive AND by giving time until week 20 you can actually test for Downs syndrome which is done @ week 16. As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law. It's not the truth - it's your perception which isn't based on anything objective, but "merely" your feelings as a dad. The only reason WHY you even knew how your daughter looked at week 20 in the first place was because you were getting an ultrasound to test wheter or not there were any developmental defects which would make life impossible meaning your wife would've had to abort or give birth to a dead baby. You are being a total hypocrit so take your "I'm telling the truth" BS and shut up or bring some valid arguments. I know I'm VERY blunt, but you do not hold any moral highground in this, stop trying to make it seem like that. And congratulations with your daughter, kids can really be a blessing, but don't try and make your subjective feelings a universal standard. Exactly where the limit should be placed is very hard to decide and tbh I don't think there is any 100% correct answer. I DO however support the option of being able to abort a child with trisomy 21 and thus I also support abortion @ week 16-20 as that is the earliest you can with certainty say wheter or not the mutation is present without an unacceptable risk to the mother or fetus. No side is the "truth". Everything in this subject is based on people's perceptions on life. Where do people get these perceptions? Through their experiences and feelings that happens throughout their lives. Without these experiences and feelings, we would all be drones heading to the mineral line. Think about why you argue for one side, then think about why another person argues for the other. Neither have a complete truth to their arguments, it's all based on opinions, ethics, morals, perceptions...all which are subject to change from person to person. With that said... Being a new father, I can only hope for a complete ban on abortions. This is a good step forward in that direction. Before being married, I never gave this issue one thought. But after having my daughter, it makes me sick that people want to kill living and growing babies because they are too selfish.
Your entire post failed when you said that ethics aren't universal; that is the entire point of ethics - the search for the universal truth!
And abortion isn't about killing living and growing babies - it's not babies! Being a medical doctor it makes me sick that people like you think you hold any sort of moral highground. And it makes me even sicker that you think selfishness is the only reason for an abortion.
|
Given I have a friend who was born prior to 6 months, incredibly prematurely, but due to current medicine, is now 26 years old, healthy, and a blast to hang out with, I'd have to say that after 20 weeks seems a little late for an abortion.
I'm not pro-life, but I'm all for abortion being more fully regulated (in most of the USA, the regulation isn't up to typical medical standards, or even close, including discussion of potential side effects.)
I also don't think abortion should be legal once the baby can reasonably survive outside the womb. At that point, you're killing an infant.
|
On April 28 2011 22:11 scouting overlord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 22:06 vetinari wrote:On April 28 2011 21:53 scouting overlord wrote:On April 28 2011 21:49 vetinari wrote:On April 28 2011 21:15 scouting overlord wrote:On April 28 2011 21:10 vetinari wrote:On April 28 2011 20:58 scouting overlord wrote:On April 28 2011 20:56 vetinari wrote:
If women have the sole right to choose, should she not have the sole burden of responsibility?
Note how on all of these imagined and highly biased 'well if i wuz in this position' provided, the woman always runs off with the child . Thanks for responding to the question, mate. ... Really. At this point, I'm pretty convinced that you are a troll.  Do you think I'm trolling because I don't show your opinions respect or something? They don't deserve it, the question you asked is irrelevent to the discussion of abortion, unless you're making the point that if a woman has the sole right to abortion, then she should raise the child on her own as well? That if born, and the father leaves her, he wouldn't have to pay child support by this logic right? I imagine this is the crux of what you're trying to get across, and it's reprehensible . Yes. By not showing respect to other people, you debase yourself and the position for which you stand. By denigrating all who disagree with you, no matter how slight to point of contention, you prove yourself to be an person who has no place in civil society. You will note, if you bothered to read, instead of skimming the thread and quote mining, that I am firmly in the pro-choice camp. Now, you seem to be of the opinion, that a woman has all of the right to choose, and need bear none of the fiscal responsibility. I, however, am of the opinion, that should a child be born out of wedlock, a man need not bear ANY of the fiscal responsibility. This would have the three fold benefit of: women would be discouraged from having children outside of marriage (a net public good, as single parents unfortunately do not do well at raising children, statistically speaking*). men would have financial security, not needing to worry about failed contraception making him a wage slave. Children are much more likely to be born into families where they are wanted, as marriage would only occur if both parties wanted children at some point. *children raised by single parents are on average less educated, earn lower incomes later in life and more criminal. Ironically enough, children raised by single mothers do far more poorly on each of these metrics than those raised by single fathers. "Now, you seem to be of the opinion, that a woman has all of the right to choose, and need bear none of the fiscal responsibility. " Never said this, not even hinted at it . It's almost like you have some kind of unconscious bias, how strange. "I, however, am of the opinion, that should a child be born out of wedlock, a man need not bear ANY of the fiscal responsibility." This is fucking disgusting, the poor man and his precious ~wedlock~. Marriage was historically used to oppress women in society, just a heads up. "men would have financial security, not needing to worry about failed contraception making him a wage slave." At this point you're so crazy I don't need to say anything. Those poor, poor single men, when will they ever get a break? Congratulations for proving yourself to be a quote mining troll. GG? Uh, I quoted exactly what you said, and preserved exactly what you meant by each point? I'm not twisting your words in any way, simply articulating them in a more real fashion. This isn't "quote mining", especially in such a small amount of text. I even quoted the whole thing at first, so people can see it in context. You are very sensitive
Uh, no? You respond to 3 quotes, each pulled out of the context of the argument. That is the very definition of quote mining. In addition, you do not actually provide a counter argument, but merely make wild assertions.
Your 3 points:
thank you for admitting that women should bear fiscal responsibility for something which is solely HER decision.
"You are a monster that wants to make women slaves." (Yeah, i do, i want a harem of 816 models, tyvm)
"You are a lunatic. Child support is a pittance" This last is false, as a) I'm quite sane, and b) child support is usually more than 50% of after tax income.
|
I do think that women have a right to terminate a pregnancy. However, at the point when a fetus can be removed and live on its own there is no reason to kill it. Partial birth abortions are murder in my opinion.
Edit: in a situation where there is some severe deformation or genetic abnormality or some other similar circumstance, I'm fine with it. I am referring to perfectly healthy fetus's that pose no danger to the mother.
Warning this spoiler contains a graphic description of exactly what a partial birth abortion is.
I think you'll see why I have a problem with it.
+ Show Spoiler +
The procedure is usually performed during the last trimester of gestation up to the end of the ninth month. The woman's cervix is dilated, and the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps. Then he proceeds to pull the baby into the birth canal. The abortionist then delivers the baby's body, feet first, all but the baby's head. The abortionist inserts a sharp object into the back of the baby's head, removes it, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains are sucked out. The head of the baby collapses at this point and allows the aborted baby to be delivered lifelessly.
|
On April 28 2011 22:29 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 22:19 PolSC2 wrote:On April 28 2011 21:56 Ghostcom wrote:On April 28 2011 21:03 -Archangel- wrote:On April 28 2011 20:42 Ghostcom wrote:On April 28 2011 20:04 -Archangel- wrote:
12 week fetus is already a really small baby, 20 weeks is pure murder. Statements like these are so detrimental to any worthwhile debate >_> In the end it all comes down to how you define life - is it when sperm meets egg? is it self-sustainability? is it awareness - and what degree of awareness? And 20 weeks seems like an odd time, but if I'm to guess it's because the earliest a baby can survive being born is 15 weeks premature, thus at 20 weeks it still can't survive AND by giving time until week 20 you can actually test for Downs syndrome which is done @ week 16. As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law. It's not the truth - it's your perception which isn't based on anything objective, but "merely" your feelings as a dad. The only reason WHY you even knew how your daughter looked at week 20 in the first place was because you were getting an ultrasound to test wheter or not there were any developmental defects which would make life impossible meaning your wife would've had to abort or give birth to a dead baby. You are being a total hypocrit so take your "I'm telling the truth" BS and shut up or bring some valid arguments. I know I'm VERY blunt, but you do not hold any moral highground in this, stop trying to make it seem like that. And congratulations with your daughter, kids can really be a blessing, but don't try and make your subjective feelings a universal standard. Exactly where the limit should be placed is very hard to decide and tbh I don't think there is any 100% correct answer. I DO however support the option of being able to abort a child with trisomy 21 and thus I also support abortion @ week 16-20 as that is the earliest you can with certainty say wheter or not the mutation is present without an unacceptable risk to the mother or fetus. No side is the "truth". Everything in this subject is based on people's perceptions on life. Where do people get these perceptions? Through their experiences and feelings that happens throughout their lives. Without these experiences and feelings, we would all be drones heading to the mineral line. Think about why you argue for one side, then think about why another person argues for the other. Neither have a complete truth to their arguments, it's all based on opinions, ethics, morals, perceptions...all which are subject to change from person to person. With that said... Being a new father, I can only hope for a complete ban on abortions. This is a good step forward in that direction. Before being married, I never gave this issue one thought. But after having my daughter, it makes me sick that people want to kill living and growing babies because they are too selfish. Your entire post failed when you said that ethics aren't universal; that is the entire point of ethics - the search for the universal truth! And abortion isn't about killing living and growing babies - it's not babies! Being a medical doctor it makes me sick that people like you think you hold any sort of moral highground. And it makes me even sicker that you think selfishness is the only reason for an abortion.
That's your opinion. In my opinion, they are babies. I am sorry that I make you sick. I also didn't mean to imply that selfishness is the only reason why people choose to abort a pregnancy.
|
United Arab Emirates1141 Posts
On April 28 2011 22:34 Reborn8u wrote:I do think that women have a right to terminate a pregnancy. However, at the point when a fetus can be removed and live on its own there is no reason to kill it. Partial birth abortions are murder in my opinion. Warning this spoiler contains a graphic description of exactly what a partial birth abortion is.I think you'll see why I have a problem with it. + Show Spoiler +
The procedure is usually performed during the last trimester of gestation up to the end of the ninth month. The woman's cervix is dilated, and the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps. Then he proceeds to pull the baby into the birth canal. The abortionist then delivers the baby's body, feet first, all but the baby's head. The abortionist inserts a sharp object into the back of the baby's head, removes it, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains are sucked out. The head of the baby collapses at this point and allows the aborted baby to be delivered lifelessly.
Bro you just turned me off Obstetrics... although only 2 people in Queensland, Australia are licensed to do Abortions... and most abortions in Australia are only sanctioned before the 3rd trimester.
|
I'm pro-abortion, but as many have said, the matter is not black and white on when it should be disallowed. 20 weeks is quite a long time in my eyes, so I don't see this law as a big deal. It's 18 weeks here in Sweden, and I may be wrong but I believe Sweden is often mentioned as one of the least religious states as well as being better than most states regarding gender equality (though far from full equality).
|
On April 28 2011 17:27 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 16:50 Omnipresent wrote:There are two main problems with this bill. The first is simple. The law requires doctors to give patients inaccurate information about abortion. In this case, it's the "fetal pain" claim, which all available evidence suggests if false. There's a second issue here that usually gets lost in these discussions. It's the issue of enforcement. This is largely the grounds on which Roe v Wade was decided (for anyone outside the US, this is the supreme court case which essentially legalized abortion). As much as we like to argue over a woman's right to choose, enforcement is the real legal issue here. There's no way to enforce anti-abortion laws without violating 4th amendment protections against unreasonable searches. That is, there's no way to make a case against anyone breaking this law without accessing her medical records, violating privilege, or otherwise infringing on her privacy. This second issue is especially interesting because of the problem it poses for much of the right in America, especially libertarians. While they may personally oppose abortion for moral or ethical reasons, any law banning it necessarily infringes on basic civil liberties. That's why I find it strange that so many "libertarians" support anti-abortion laws. I've quoted one such libertarian below. + Show Spoiler +On April 28 2011 11:16 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 11:09 gogogadgetflow wrote:
You can't be banned for arguing for/against abortion as long as you keep it civil and substantive. No need to paint tl negatively.
For now the solution for Hoosiers is simple. Leave the state if you need an abortion. On one hand 20 weeks is plenty of time for an abortion, so the law is at least moderate in that respect. Ethically, however, I support the right of a woman to expel the fetus at any stage of pregnancy; because the baby lives inside the woman its right to life is forfeit. Whether or not it can feel pain is a non-factor (legally - I myself would consider such a factor but I cannot force someone else to). No one has the right to kill another individual unless your life is in danger. Yes, you have the right to evict, but not kill, which means the woman can have (induce) early pregnancies and put the child up for adoption. You do not have a right to kill a trespasser on your property who is not a danger to you, your family, or your property. I really do not like to get into this debate, because both sides are pretty well set in their views. My personal view is pretty moderate -- a woman has a right to evict, but not kill. It's also important to note the context in which this law is being passed. It's one of several very similar laws making its way through state legislatures around the country. This version is fairly benign compared to others, but it's part of the same campaign. The end goal, it seems, is to eventually have one of these laws challenged in court. It's clearly unconstitutional (based on precedent), and could be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court (which would almost certainly accept it). At that point, Roe v Wade would likely be overturned. In short, the goal is to pass a law custom built for legal challenge, with the final result being the overturn of Roe v Wade. This law doesn't look particularly unreasonable on its face. 20 weeks seems like a fair amount of time to obtain an abortion. The restrictions placed on doctors are relatively moderate. But when viewed in the context of a nationwide campaign to overturn Roe v Wade, it's a scary proposition. As a Hoosier, I'm concerned. As an anti-choice pro-deather myself, let me reiterate that Roe v. Wade is a bad decision. The only thing this bill challenges is the time frame frame of Roe v. Wade, because that was made in the 70's. They both rest on the exact same rationale, that the woman's right to choose is predicated upon her necessity towards the fetus. This is not designed to take down Roe v. Wade, and when that does eventually happen (as it should, so a proper decision can be made on the issue) this law will still stand, essentially protecting the same line that R v. W drew. What bothers me most, even though deep inside I knew it would happen, is that no one, on either side of the debate, is getting past initial moral arguments or even coming close to looking at the jurisprudence of the bill. Perhaps I'm alone in thinking this, but my opinion on where life begins means nothing. In fact, it means so little that I don't even pretend to know where it begins. There's a novel concept- not immediately picking sides, but instead deferring to experts? What is this madness?
Jibba, I normally love your posts but this one just tries to hard too be sensationalist "anti-choice pro-deather" etc. Some interesting points, but I can't really agree with not allowing a mother choose, no matter how hard people yell about it..
|
On April 28 2011 22:31 JingleHell wrote:
Given I have a friend who was born prior to 6 months, incredibly prematurely, but due to current medicine, is now 26 years old, healthy, and a blast to hang out with, I'd have to say that after 20 weeks seems a little late for an abortion.
I'm not pro-life, but I'm all for abortion being more fully regulated (in most of the USA, the regulation isn't up to typical medical standards, or even close, including discussion of potential side effects.)
I also don't think abortion should be legal once the baby can reasonably survive outside the womb. At that point, you're killing an infant.
The last time I saw some figures (3 months ago when we had a prof. from the neonatal department holding a lecture) it was like this:
Week 23: case-basis: i.e. one in a blue moon.
Week 24: 7%
Week 25: @ 50%
Week 27: >90%
Week 20 is based on this imho not too late...
|
On April 28 2011 22:34 Reborn8u wrote:I do think that women have a right to terminate a pregnancy. However, at the point when a fetus can be removed and live on its own there is no reason to kill it. Partial birth abortions are murder in my opinion. Warning this spoiler contains a graphic description of exactly what a partial birth abortion is.I think you'll see why I have a problem with it. + Show Spoiler +
The procedure is usually performed during the last trimester of gestation up to the end of the ninth month. The woman's cervix is dilated, and the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps. Then he proceeds to pull the baby into the birth canal. The abortionist then delivers the baby's body, feet first, all but the baby's head. The abortionist inserts a sharp object into the back of the baby's head, removes it, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains are sucked out. The head of the baby collapses at this point and allows the aborted baby to be delivered lifelessly.
I didn't know that is how they performed a partial birth abortion. I'm speechless.
|
there are good reasons for an abortion past the 20th week (eg health issues to fetus and mother).
by denying that the goverment doesnt fullfill their responsability towards their citicens IMO.
|
On April 28 2011 22:27 eLiE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 22:19 Talin wrote:On April 28 2011 21:54 SacredSoul wrote:
My rant is over, but why do so many people want kids like me dead? Well that is just great. Even if we were to accept your way of looking at things (killing babies etc), you do understand that only people who could legally want you "dead" would be your own parents, right? We on TL have no say in that, nor do the people who pass laws, nor does ANYBODY else. So unless your own parents want to "kill" you, you won't "die" during pregnancy. You say you're okay with abortion after rape, why is that? Rape is essentially sex that functions much in the same way "regular" sex does, and leaves the woman pregnant in the same way. The key difference is of course that she didn't WANT to have sex and she doesn't WANT the baby that was a product of it (even though that same baby might make it in life just as well as any). So in that case you're fine with abortion because the woman doesn't want it, but if she happens to not want it for any other reason at all, THEN it's murder and killing babies? Physical rape isn't the only way (and probably not the worst way either) a woman can be forced or cheated into a pregnancy. There are millions of other scenarios, many are fairly common in some cultures and very difficult to identify in others. But your underlying point seems to be that murder is okay in some cases and wrong in the others. Well, I think that the fact that she didn't consent to the act is the problem, not that that it's physically the same. And that is also considering rape within marriages and other relationships. I would understand the decision to have an abortion in that situation.
You mean you would understand her decision to murder a child? Because according to you, that's what abortion is. If we're talking about murder though, I can't see how that situation would justify killing a person - it's not self defense, the "person" in question is a product of the situation but didn't cause it, and is completely defenseless. The woman would be punishing the child for the crime somebody else (the father) committed, seems awfully unfair to me. But still you understand it.
I mean, *I* understand it myself, but I only understand it because I don't see it as a murder in the first place. How can YOU understand it and treat it as a murder at the same time?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
