|
On April 29 2011 02:15 howerpower wrote:
It's pretty sick that our country thinks they can tell someone what they can do in this situation. I don't care what you believe or what I believe, it's not your choice.
You really think it's that black and white? You think the rest of society is just trying to impose their will on everyone without good cause? How about considering that the act of abortion ends a life/a potential life (however you quantify it)? Consider how it could be equated to murder based on what your personal definition of 'when life starts' is? Come on, man. There's a reason these debates rage - it's a huge moral grey area.
|
On April 29 2011 02:19 Patate wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 11:33 Essentia wrote:On April 28 2011 11:28 Mastermind wrote:On April 28 2011 11:16 Wegandi wrote: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. Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes. Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing. Animals are living things too, yet society doesn't have much trouble killing them (euthanasia). My neighbors decided to kill their dog because they didn't want it to hurt their newborn child. The difference between the fetus and the actual living being is awareness, not if it's living or not. And actually, awareness comes at around 1-2 years old. I would be in favor of euthanasia of young babies if they show a mental or physical disorder. By the way, first post :D Watching Dog Whisperer on animal planet makes me doubt about the consensus on animal self awareness. Dogs seem pretty damn smart and self aware imho  Unfortunately it's virtually impossible to measure self awareness, so it's hard to make an informed guess.
Grats on first post ^^
|
United States7483 Posts
On April 28 2011 23:34 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 21:07 scouting overlord 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 wasn't sentient, it wasn't a person in any definition of the word. Your embarassing anecdote about your precious little angel is an artifical construction to women's rights  . Who are you to know it wasn't sentient? How dare you claim something like that?! I am sorry if you feel abortion is about woman rights. It is not. It is about rights of the child. If you want to look beyond that it is as much about mans rights as womans. They are both equally responsible for the baby.
Because sentience is defined by having the ability to feel, a fetus at 12 weeks has not yet developed that, thus, by definition, it isn't sentient yet. So.......... that's how he dares. Science.
|
On April 29 2011 02:15 howerpower wrote:
It's pretty sick that our country thinks they can tell someone what they can do in this situation. I don't care what you believe or what I believe, it's not your choice.
I hope you're not serious. This is terrible logic that could be applied to any rule/law/restriction you can think of. "It's not your choice whether I murder people in my backyard."
And I'd like to point out just as general information for this thread that abortions due to rape/incest make up 1% of total abortions. Now obviously it is a terrible thing to be raped but I don't see why the baby should be held responsible for the crime(s) of its father. If it's such a psychological burden to raise the offspring of your assailant, then put it up for adoption.
|
On April 29 2011 02:21 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 02:15 howerpower wrote:
It's pretty sick that our country thinks they can tell someone what they can do in this situation. I don't care what you believe or what I believe, it's not your choice. You really think it's that black and white? You think the rest of society is just trying to impose their will on everyone without good cause? How about considering that the act of abortion ends a life/a potential life (however you quantify it)? Consider how it could be equated to murder based on what your personal definition of 'when life starts' is? Come on, man. There's a reason these debates rage - it's a huge moral grey area.
LOL, let me say it again.
Regardless of what society, 'god', or your definition of 'when life starts' is, it's not your choice.
and YES, society is trying to impose their will on everyone without good cause. where have you been?
|
On April 28 2011 19:10 scouting overlord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 19:07 Romantic wrote:On April 28 2011 19:04 scouting overlord wrote:On April 28 2011 19:02 Linkirvana wrote:You must be fucking joking. 'Carrying the child for 9 months seems trivial' I'm guessing you're not a father, or a woman who's been through childbirth, which is a greater physical and mental pain than you'll ever experience fyi. But I'm sure having a small % of your money deposited to the mother is just as important, as well as your precious little feelings about the child you neglected to raise. Even if you're still with your pregnant partner, if she doesn't want to bear the child it's her body and her right . Maybe next life you can experience how great it is to be female in this world, with Brave Men FIGHTING FOR THE UNBORN RIGHTS, but for now you'll just have to wait. I'm not a father, nor a woman. Also wow your arguments are all over the place, making very little sense at all. You think the difference between a woman's responsibility to her child, and a man's responsibility to his child is only seperated by the 9 months of carrying the child? Carrying a child for 9 months does indeed seem trivial compared to the lifetime of responsibility that comes with it for both man and woman. In my eyes both the man and the woman have equal responsibility for the child, which means they will both be "equally burdened (Spelling?) by it" A lifetime of responsibility compared to 9 months of being pregnant. Ofcourse I'm assuming the father feels as responsible as he should. I'm not talking about deadbeat dads, fuck those. I don't care if the poor man feels sad, it's nothing compared to an unwanted childbirth. There is no way, no how that a man's part is equal in birthing and raising a child. Women raising children is just a societal thing. Beyond being able to feed them fairly well by having the goods, (uneducated on issue) I think men statistically do just as well. The amount of labor required to provide child support demanded by courts is pretty hefty. You have never experienced pregnancy. You never will experience pregnancy. No male will, and it's a greater burden on the women, both mentally and physically, than whatever "statistics" and "labor" the court puts on you. It will scar her body and mind for life, not just for when the court dictates your "labor time"
I dunno if you've ever known anyone who has had an abortion, but it can have a dramatic mental effect as well. I knew a girl who had one when she was 18 and at 26, it still haunted her. Obviously it has different effects on different people, but it's not something you can do and then forget about it.
|
On April 29 2011 02:28 howerpower wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 02:21 Bibdy wrote:On April 29 2011 02:15 howerpower wrote:
It's pretty sick that our country thinks they can tell someone what they can do in this situation. I don't care what you believe or what I believe, it's not your choice. You really think it's that black and white? You think the rest of society is just trying to impose their will on everyone without good cause? How about considering that the act of abortion ends a life/a potential life (however you quantify it)? Consider how it could be equated to murder based on what your personal definition of 'when life starts' is? Come on, man. There's a reason these debates rage - it's a huge moral grey area. LOL, let me say it again. Regardless of what society, 'god', or your definition of 'when life starts' is, it's not your choice. and YES, society is trying to impose their will on everyone without good cause. where have you been?
Forgive us for not all being anarchists.
|
The legality of abortion in the FREE United States of America or anywhere else in the world should never be in question.
20 weeks? Okay that will suffice.
Permanent ban. No Thanks.
Pain? Pain that this unborn "person" will feel? Sure that is one way to look at it. But how about the pain and misery this baby is going to endure from the years of neglect and pain he/she will feel if abortion is no longer an option. Derelicts raising kids = extreme long term pain.
Abortion should not only be legal, but mandatory in most cases.
|
On April 29 2011 02:23 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 02:19 Patate wrote:On April 28 2011 11:33 Essentia wrote:On April 28 2011 11:28 Mastermind wrote:On April 28 2011 11:16 Wegandi wrote: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. Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes. Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing. Animals are living things too, yet society doesn't have much trouble killing them (euthanasia). My neighbors decided to kill their dog because they didn't want it to hurt their newborn child. The difference between the fetus and the actual living being is awareness, not if it's living or not. And actually, awareness comes at around 1-2 years old. I would be in favor of euthanasia of young babies if they show a mental or physical disorder. By the way, first post :D Watching Dog Whisperer on animal planet makes me doubt about the consensus on animal self awareness. Dogs seem pretty damn smart and self aware imho Unfortunately it's virtually impossible to measure self awareness, so it's hard to make an informed guess. Grats on first post ^^
I also doubt the general consensus, but sometimes we got to simplify things in order for them to be logical.
Going for it the moral way is not the way to do it, because there will always be ones who agree and ones who disagree. I am more into the rational way of thinking. Society (taxpayers) does not have to pay for people with important mental or physical disorders. Unwanted babies often come from unresponsible parents, who will not raise their child into a good member of society. But now of course, legal abortion can be seen as a way to fix mistakes (unprotected sex), and that's where I believe there should be a certain way to coerce parents (or the single mother) who will abort their unborn child for no good reason (disease, "rape" pregnancy)
|
On April 29 2011 02:19 Patate wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 11:33 Essentia wrote:On April 28 2011 11:28 Mastermind wrote:On April 28 2011 11:16 Wegandi wrote: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. Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes. Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing. Animals are living things too, yet society doesn't have much trouble killing them (euthanasia). My neighbors decided to kill their dog because they didn't want it to hurt their newborn child. The difference between the fetus and the actual living being is awareness, not if it's living or not. And actually, awareness comes at around 1-2 years old. I would be in favor of euthanasia of young babies if they show a mental or physical disorder.By the way, first post :D
What the fuck? You've got to be kidding me. Or at least I hope I am misunderstanding that statement of yours.
|
On April 29 2011 02:26 Alzadar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 02:15 howerpower wrote:
It's pretty sick that our country thinks they can tell someone what they can do in this situation. I don't care what you believe or what I believe, it's not your choice. I hope you're not serious. This is terrible logic that could be applied to any rule/law/restriction you can think of. "It's not your choice whether I murder people in my backyard." And I'd like to point out just as general information for this thread that abortions due to rape/incest make up 1% of total abortions. Now obviously it is a terrible thing to be raped but I don't see why the baby should be held responsible for the crime(s) of its father. If it's such a psychological burden to raise the offspring of your assailant, then put it up for adoption.
Point is: That point is based on your assumption that abortion is the moral equivalent of murder. As you can see, a large number of people don't agree with that assumption. Now on what grounds are you allowed to dictate your opinion on the matter to the rest of the world?
(The problem here obviously is that for many people that believe that adoption is murder, it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of divine fact/personal experience/whatever.)
|
Thank god, some places in America are heading in the right direction.
I'm not totally against abortion, but anything after 20 months is disgusting.
|
all this talk of pain... what if I sedated you and then killed you? there is no pain... with that in your system, you CANNOT feel pain. So what if it's not natural? this argument of feeling is actually stupid. The idea that anything is ok "as long as it doesn't effect someone else" is horrible. besides, abortion removes the kid's ability to EVER feel. Who are you to decide? in 99% of cases, the situation could have been avoided, one doesn't just randomly become pregnant -_-
|
On April 29 2011 02:36 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 02:26 Alzadar wrote:On April 29 2011 02:15 howerpower wrote:
It's pretty sick that our country thinks they can tell someone what they can do in this situation. I don't care what you believe or what I believe, it's not your choice. I hope you're not serious. This is terrible logic that could be applied to any rule/law/restriction you can think of. "It's not your choice whether I murder people in my backyard." And I'd like to point out just as general information for this thread that abortions due to rape/incest make up 1% of total abortions. Now obviously it is a terrible thing to be raped but I don't see why the baby should be held responsible for the crime(s) of its father. If it's such a psychological burden to raise the offspring of your assailant, then put it up for adoption. Point is: That point is based on your assumption that abortion is the moral equivalent of murder. As you can see, a large number of people don't agree with that assumption. Now on what grounds are you allowed to dictate your opinion on the matter to the rest of the world? (The problem here obviously is that for many people that believe that adoption is murder, it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of divine fact/personal experience/whatever.)
Err, the same grounds as everyone else? Why am I not allowed to walk over to my neighbour's house and steal all their shit? Because society said no. Whether you like it or not, the greater opinion of the collective society controls our behaviour.
|
On April 29 2011 02:36 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 02:26 Alzadar wrote:On April 29 2011 02:15 howerpower wrote:
It's pretty sick that our country thinks they can tell someone what they can do in this situation. I don't care what you believe or what I believe, it's not your choice. I hope you're not serious. This is terrible logic that could be applied to any rule/law/restriction you can think of. "It's not your choice whether I murder people in my backyard." And I'd like to point out just as general information for this thread that abortions due to rape/incest make up 1% of total abortions. Now obviously it is a terrible thing to be raped but I don't see why the baby should be held responsible for the crime(s) of its father. If it's such a psychological burden to raise the offspring of your assailant, then put it up for adoption. Point is: That point is based on your assumption that abortion is the moral equivalent of murder. As you can see, a large number of people don't agree with that assumption. Now on what grounds are you allowed to dictate your opinion on the matter to the rest of the world? (The problem here obviously is that for many people that believe that adoption is murder, it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of divine fact/personal experience/whatever.)
No it isn't. Maybe murder was a bad example, but society regulates all manner of things that people can or cannot do. I don't see how preventing women from aborting their children is particularly special. Unless you are a full-blown anarchist, saying that it "isn't your choice" whether someone can have an abortion is kind of silly.
But back to my inductive proof:
Let us assume it is wrong to kill a baby after it is born.
Killing a baby the day before birth is also wrong (it is fully capable of living on its own at that point, you could induce a pregnancy and it would live).
If it is wrong to kill something today, it was wrong to kill them yesterday (the idea that a few hours make a difference on whether it is ok to kill or not is ridiculous).
Thus by the inductive hypothesis and the principle of mathematical induction, abortion is wrong at any point after conception.
|
On April 28 2011 11:33 LojiQaen wrote:
My general idea:
Although abortion is a huge deal, and I personally don't even know what I think is right or wrong since both sides have great arguments, it is simply not a political issue, it's a moral issue. It's up to the mother, not the politician.
One of the best comments in here to be honest.
|
Please, stop saying that its "the woman's body." Its not, its just NOT.
The baby happens to be inside of the woman, but the baby IS NOT THE WOMAN. It is not HER body, it is the baby's body. Period. There is no argument you can make that it is some how the woman's body. The baby is inside of her, that's all.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Ideally electing and performing a late-term abortion should be socially stigmatized for actively destroying a developing human soul. If there is enough of a life-valuing culture, peer pressure would dissuade the abortions better than a legal proscription. The same stigma would apply to a much less extent for earlier abortions. But publicizing procedures like that would violate patient-doctor confidentiality so I don't know about the solution.
I would rather it not be illegal. Frankly, abortion doctors alarm me more than the mothers electing abortions. I don't understand how they can do that for a living. The main school of obstetrics is caring for a fetus for a safe healthy delivery. Then there's a school that's all about killing it. Creepy.
|
On April 29 2011 02:44 Alzadar wrote:
But back to my inductive proof:
Let us assume it is wrong to kill a baby after it is born.
Killing a baby the day before birth is also wrong (it is fully capable of living on its own at that point, you could induce a pregnancy and it would live).
If it is wrong to kill something today, it was wrong to kill them yesterday (the idea that a few hours make a difference on whether it is ok to kill or not is ridiculous).
Thus by the inductive hypothesis and the principle of mathematical induction, abortion is wrong at any point after conception.
LOLOLOLOLOL. I find yout "wrong at any point after conception" RIDICULOUS. I mean come on, Its not ok to kill something at one point (second of conception) but not few seconds before? How can that be possible according to your brilliant hypothesis? It would be wrong to kill! LOL.
Bible pretty much supports my argument too. Masturbaters and condom users should be put to death.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On April 29 2011 02:52 NIJ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 02:44 Alzadar wrote:
But back to my inductive proof:
Let us assume it is wrong to kill a baby after it is born.
Killing a baby the day before birth is also wrong (it is fully capable of living on its own at that point, you could induce a pregnancy and it would live).
If it is wrong to kill something today, it was wrong to kill them yesterday (the idea that a few hours make a difference on whether it is ok to kill or not is ridiculous).
Thus by the inductive hypothesis and the principle of mathematical induction, abortion is wrong at any point after conception. LOLOLOLOLOL. I find yout "wrong at any point after conception" RIDICULOUS. I mean come on, Its ok to kill something at one point (second of conception) but not few seconds before? How can that be possible according to your brilliant hypothesis? It would be wrong to kill! LOL. Bible pretty much supports my argument too. Masturbaters and condom users should be put to death.
The line that is conception is non arbitrary. Sperm or an egg, on their own, will NEVER become a human being. A fertilized egg WILL become a human being. Before conception the human to-be didn't exist, you can't kill it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
