Abortion Is Wrong (4571 hits)
Category: GeneralRating: -0.99 on 305 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Martyn Steiner (View user info) at 2005-06-27 10:28:13 EDT
What makes a person human?
Maybe it's having all the constituent body parts of a typical human. These parts are all present in the eighth week of pregnancy - well within the legal limit on abortion.
Maybe it's the ability to survive independently of the mother. This has been known to be possible in the 20th week - well within the legal limit.
So, maybe it's the implantation of the developing baby on the embryo wall. Or the differentiation of the cells. Or maybe even the birth. But, none of these points are definite and surely nobody would, for example, abort a baby between it detaching from the placenta and leaving the mother's body - halfway through 'birth'.
The point is that there is only one logical point to call the start of human life - conception. This is the point when the two halves become a whole and when there is an identity capable of developing into an adult human given the right conditions.
If we call conception the start of human life, then it must be argued that the same rights and treatment should apply to the human life from this point onwards. If we are repulsed by the concept of the murder of a 50-year-old, 5-year-old or even 5-day-old then why is it that 5 months before birth it is still considered perfectly reasonable to murder the same human? If you don't kill it, the chances are that the developing child will develop into an adult with the full protection of the law against challenges to its life.
The notion that pregnant women should be allowed to decide what happens to their bodies seems, to me, to be utterly preposterous. The growing child inside a woman is *not* her - just because something is inside you doesn't mean that it *is* you - just like I live in a house, but I am not a house, and a chicken grows inside an egg, but noone is foolish enough to suggest that chicken and egg are one in the same.
And what about the baby's right to decide what happens to *its* body? Sorry, baby - you deserve to die, because mummy has a new job. And God forbid the child's father have any say in the decision - it is only half him, after all. Its funny, the nine months of pregnancy are vitally important when deciding who gets the final say over the life of the baby, but irrelevant when deciding if the baby is alive or not.
So, then - we're left with what I would consider to be the two strongest arguments in favour of abortion. Firstly, the risk that illegalising abortion will force women into disreputable 'back-alley' abortionists. That is true - I can't deny it. But, what I'm making here is a moral argument, not a legal one; I'm saying that the mother shouldn't want to kill her child at all.
And then rape. What do you do when a woman is faced with the possibility of giving birth to a child that will forever remind her of her horrific experience and possibly stigmatise the child for the rest of its life? I don't know - I really don't. Is this the exception? Maybe.
But then, lets think of the child as an adult. Who are they? Newton? Beethoven? Jesus? All three of these could be legally aborted if they were conceived today. Imagine that your lover's mother tells them that they were the product of a rape. Do you want them to have been aborted? Do you want them killed now?
Surely, surely you wouldn't kill your baby?
baby (45 kB) [application/octet-stream]
User Reviews
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2006-11-08 10:30:39 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
God I wish I hadn't ever written this. Whilst I broadly agree with the majority of what I said, the way I said it was hideous. I shouldn't have put that title, I shouldn't have ended like that. I shouldn't have been so clear-cut about a very 'grey-areas' issue that I'm not even sure about myself anymore.
If you know me and you're reading this, please don't use this as a guide to my character; of all the things I've ever written, this is the one I most wish I hadn't.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-07-06 04:14:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-07-06 03:22:24 (#)
Ranking: -2
It actually is rather unambiguous. I didn't just randomly choose to classify it differently at birth; the classification is rooted in the functional change that occurs with birth. Before birth, we have a helpless non-organism that cannot sustain its own life with its underdeveloped organs. After birth, we have a self sufficient organism. That dividing line, between self insufficiency and self sufficiency, is quite distinct and not ambiguous.
---- By ambiguous I meant that it's "dependency" classification makes no difference to its life itself - it makes no change to how the baby/foetus perceives the world, or how much it would "suffer" if it were to be killed. By "suffer" I can't exactly put in to words what I mean, but it's the same reason that you don't want adults to die, regardless of whether it will be a quick, painless death.
The "right to life" is nothing based in law, rather it is an anti-abortion slogan that's been repeated so much and seems to make enough intuitive sense that it is accepted. There's no right to life. There's only a right not to be killed without due process. Try applying that to a parrot or embryo.
---- I'm not saying it is a legal right. Or a moral one for that matter - your wording is much closer to what I mean. That's what this whole debate is about - the right not to be killed, or aborted, without due process. I believe it applies to a parrot in that you shouldn't kill a parrot without good reason, and the same goes for an embryo after it reaches consciousness. Before it has reached that point, mangle it for sport if one so desires.
It isn't just a meaningless technical classification. It is based on a specific physiological change. Fetal lungs don't breathe air, etc. As for the rest, it's again based on the imaginary 'right to life,' so it's basically moot.
---- Fine. Substitute "right not to be killed without due process." And what is so special about breathing air, or any other physiological function for that matter, that would affect your actual life?
---- There's nothing I can really say to your last reply that I haven't said before. The only difference between our opinions is that you seem to respect life based on when it becomes independent, whereas I respect it because it is aware, it experiences, and it suffers. I am interested to know - why do you think it is wrong to kill a 40 year old human being?
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-07-06 03:22:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
--- As I've explained, I see birth as the most ambiguous point at which you could possibly choose to assign it rights. It experiences no mental change, all that has changed is how you choose to classify it. This seems pretty ambiguous to me.
It actually is rather unambiguous. I didn't just randomly choose to classify it differently at birth; the classification is rooted in the functional change that occurs with birth. Before birth, we have a helpless non-organism that cannot sustain its own life with its underdeveloped organs. After birth, we have a self sufficient organism. That dividing line, between self insufficiency and self sufficiency, is quite distinct and not ambiguous.
---- These thoughts don't even have to be thoughts. As long as there is some form of conscious activity, I consider it to be life, and worth respecting. As for how we monitor them, I'm not going to pretend I have a clue as to what technology currently exists. What I do know is that the average time at which a foetus develops conscious thought is known, it's a fair few months into the pregnancy or something. Go Google it. This is when I believe some sort of restrictions should be placed on the practice of getting an abortion.
---- There are a great many varying degrees of rights. I don't believe a pig should have the right to free speech because it doesn't require or want it, but I believe it has a "right to life", because it is a thinking, conscious, living being. A set list of rights can't be "applied" mathematically.
The "right to life" is nothing based in law, rather it is an anti-abortion slogan that's been repeated so much and seems to make enough intuitive sense that it is accepted. There's no right to life. There's only a right not to be killed without due process. Try applying that to a parrot or embryo.
---- Don't let technical classifications obscure your viewpoint. Scientifically an eight-month foetus may be calssified as part of a woman, I'll take your word for that. When "assigning" rights, as you've put it, the right "to choose" of the woman should not take precedence over the right to life of another conscious entity, regardless of how you choose to classify it. As for the rest of that statement, go back and look at what I've said before. I don't believe rights are "ultimate, if you will. In that case, the mother's right to life does conflict with the baby's and unfortunately, the baby has to die. I believe this is the case in all sorts of other predicaments too, such as income, age, disability, rape, and probably most of the reasons women need to get an abortion. I guess I end up playing the devil's advocate on this issue because I am sick of my side of the issue being portrayed as if we don't place value on life.
It isn't just a meaningless technical classification. It is based on a specific physiological change. Fetal lungs don't breathe air, etc. As for the rest, it's again based on the imaginary 'right to life,' so it's basically moot.
Submitted by jack0173 (user info) at 2005-07-03 14:30:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Feijuada (user info) at 2005-07-02 17:01:18 (#)
Ranking: -2
It's none of your business if someone aborts a baby.
Submitted by cwl989 (user info) at 2005-07-02 21:54:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I like masturbating on the unholy inverted tracks of the grim and frostbitten necrobobsledders.
Submitted by Feijuada (user info) at 2005-07-02 17:01:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
It's none of your business if someone aborts a baby.
Submitted by Maddog (user info) at 2005-07-02 16:49:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Probably a good thing you aren't in charge, huh?
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-07-02 16:34:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Sorry Quasiplasmohedron, I must admit to not having read your comment properly the first time. I think that you're probably right to an extent that you shouldn't have sex if there's a risk of a child being produced that wouldn't have a good life. I wouldn't ever have casual sex and I personally think its a loving-relationship only thing, so I'd like to think that if a baby did happen, it would have a reasonably stable environment to live in. I think I'm mature enough to cope with, and love, the baby if it did happen. Is that fair comment?
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-07-02 16:21:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
No, thats not the choice. I think c) abortion is murder. But I can still have sex, I just take the risk that a child will result. You take risks all the time - and so long as you're careful, the risk is not as great as many another.
Submitted by Quasiplasmohedron (user info) at 2005-07-02 15:43:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It seems to me that you either believe that
(a)abortion is completely fine, in which case there's no harm in it being used as a primary means of birth control and we don't need to bother with condoms or pills or rubber cement
or
(b)abortion is at least *slightly* wrong - maybe not murder but still something to be avoided and we should all use other forms of birth control and only use abortion as a last resort (or not use abortion at all, depending on your beliefs)
My question is, if you believe (b), doesn't this line of thinking lead to the conclusion that sex, unless it's done explicitly to have a child, is wrong? No matter how many forms of contraception you use, you take the risk of getting pregnant and either having an abortion or raising a child that you didn't really want. Isn't it wrong to do something for pleasure if it could lead to doing something wrong?
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2005-07-02 00:16:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i was thinking this over for reasons only Buddha knows...
For those of you anti abortion except for int he case of rape...
so why is it okay for women who are raped to kill the unborn? isn't that STILL murder?
and isn't THAT what you are arguing? SO one murder is more okay than another?
I am just trying to see where you draw YOUR lines.
Submitted by alfakyle (user info) at 2005-07-01 13:42:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Martyn_Steiner "And I think, alfakyle, you'll find that a minor does have the right to protection of life just like I'm arguing it should inside the womb"
newborn to 18 (unless emancipated from having parents or legal guardian at earlier age) can not decide their own medical treatment without the permission of the parent/guardian.
a 45 year old in a coma living on machines does not get to decide. and i know, a fetus is different. but hell, it might be stillborn, but the person on life support might get better tomorrow. its kinda the same as pulling the plug. roll them dice.
Submitted by DeathJester (user info) at 2005-07-01 10:17:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"And God forbid the child's father have any say in the decision - it is only half him, after all."
+2 for that.
Submitted by missflibble (user info) at 2005-07-01 09:08:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
In answer to your question, I would not want to kill the baby I have in me now, but I don't wish to stop anyone else from being able to make that decision for themselves. each to their own. if abortion were made illegal again it would go back to women having back-street abortions performed with unsterilised equipment by unqualified people. surely this is better all round?
We're not just talking about fuckwits who can't use contraception, we're also talking about the victims of violent attacks and those children who are old enough biologically to have kids, but would not stand it mentally. my little brother's mate started her periods at age 10, but she was by no means ready to have a baby.
you are a tit.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-07-01 08:49:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The Katha Pollitt quote doesn't make any arguments that foetuses don't have rights, it only talks about the negative consequences of foetuses having rights.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-07-01 08:38:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-29 17:32:31 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-06-29 05:56:12 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-29 05:23:51 (#)
Ranking: -2
Maybe, but what it comes down to is the justification behind each viewpoint. Your take on this doesn't hold biological water. At conception, the unborn is at the zygote stage of development. It's obviously not capable of self-sufficiency, and therefore not an organism, making it part of the woman. You cannot assign rights to a body part.
----------------------------------------
Frankly, I don't give a toss if it's independent, self-sufficient, or even a being. If it is conscious or self-aware, that is what I respect, not its technical classification. If my pinky developed its own thoughts, I reserve my right to allocate it its appropriate rights.
So, on the vast spectrum of cognitive ability, you have chosen an ambiguous point at which to assign rights?
--- As I've explained, I see birth as the most ambiguous point at which you could possibly choose to assign it rights. It experiences no mental change, all that has changed is how you choose to classify it. This seems pretty ambiguous to me.
What kind of thoughts must these thoughts be? How do you suppose we monitor these thoughts?
---- These thoughts don't even have to be thoughts. As long as there is some form of conscious activity, I consider it to be life, and worth respecting. As for how we monitor them, I'm not going to pretend I have a clue as to what technology currently exists. What I do know is that the average time at which a foetus develops conscious thought is known, it's a fair few months into the pregnancy or something. Go Google it. This is when I believe some sort of restrictions should be placed on the practice of getting an abortion.
If you discard the technical classification of entities, and if you consider cognitive function to be the definitive factor in the assignment of rights, do you believe that chimpanzees should have the same rights as born humans? Or dogs? Or birds? They all have varying degrees of cognizance, which degree is the one where you get rights?
---- There are a great many varying degrees of rights. I don't believe a pig should have the right to free speech because it doesn't require or want it, but I believe it has a "right to life", because it is a thinking, conscious, living being. A set list of rights can't be "applied" mathematically.
That viewpoint is based nowhere in fact but rather on personal indiosyncracy. It's a good thing you DON'T have a right to allocate rights, as you incorrectly asserted. That's society's (government's) job, and interestingly no society in all of history has ever granted rights to the unborn.
---- You know I was screwing around with the wording of that example. And saying it has never been does not mean it should never be. That being said, I am "pro-choice" as I've said before.
Now the other issue here is the paradox of assigning two sets of rights over one organism. Please, tell me how you can simultaneously assign rights to both a woman and a part of her. What happens when these rights impinge on each other? Who wins? What happens if a woman needs a certain surgery and must have an abortion or else she will die? I could think of a million scenarios like this. Two sets of rights over one organism is an absolute MESS of an idea. There's no way it could happen, or should happen.
---- Don't let technical classifications obscure your viewpoint. Scientifically an eight-month foetus may be calssified as part of a woman, I'll take your word for that. When "assigning" rights, as you've put it, the right "to choose" of the woman should not take precedence over the right to life of another conscious entity, regardless of how you choose to classify it. As for the rest of that statement, go back and look at what I've said before. I don't believe rights are "ultimate, if you will. In that case, the mother's right to life does conflict with the baby's and unfortunately, the baby has to die. I believe this is the case in all sorts of other predicaments too, such as income, age, disability, rape, and probably most of the reasons women need to get an abortion. I guess I end up playing the devil's advocate on this issue because I am sick of my side of the issue being portrayed as if we don't place value on life.
----- And Williamson, what DMD just said.
Submitted by Natsukau (user info) at 2005-07-01 07:49:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Abortion would have been perfectly fine for your mother.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-07-01 01:15:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It wasn't a quote. It was a link. And, if you want to debate with me, make an arguement instead of saying 'I can't believe no one has shown this guy how stupid he is!'
Unless pasted means some thing positive. I have no idea what that means.
Submitted by PatheticCapitalistFuck (user info) at 2005-06-30 22:21:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-28 23:10:52 (#)
Ranking: -1
last guy: hahahahahahaha
guy before that: http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=11127&news_iv_ctrl=1021
--------------------------------------------------------------
I can't believe nobody has pasted this schmuck for quoting something from Ayn Rand's website.
Submitted by SammySam (user info) at 2005-06-30 18:49:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Abortion is quite possibly the best type of birth control around.
Submitted by justagirl27 (user info) at 2005-06-30 17:17:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
kind of lame you have to stick pictures of babies at the end.
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-30 06:33:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Shall we just all agree to disagree? I think so.
Submitted by MoneyG (user info) at 2005-06-30 02:24:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Here's the thing, you see it's really quite simple. Your opinions on this matter don't mean a flying fuck. Neither do mine for that matter. Because it has nothing to do with us, so pull your goddamned nose out of it you fucking crusader.
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-29 17:34:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
And williamson, if you agree with him, how can you still be against abortion before cognizance? Embryos don't think, yet you say rights should begin at conception.
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-29 17:32:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-06-29 05:56:12 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-29 05:23:51 (#)
Ranking: -2
Maybe, but what it comes down to is the justification behind each viewpoint. Your take on this doesn't hold biological water. At conception, the unborn is at the zygote stage of development. It's obviously not capable of self-sufficiency, and therefore not an organism, making it part of the woman. You cannot assign rights to a body part.
----------------------------------------
Frankly, I don't give a toss if it's independent, self-sufficient, or even a being. If it is conscious or self-aware, that is what I respect, not its technical classification. If my pinky developed its own thoughts, I reserve my right to allocate it its appropriate rights.
So, on the vast spectrum of cognitive ability, you have chosen an ambiguous point at which to assign rights? What kind of thoughts must these thoughts be? How do you suppose we monitor these thoughts? If you discard the technical classification of entities, and if you consider cognitive function to be the definitive factor in the assignment of rights, do you believe that chimpanzees should have the same rights as born humans? Or dogs? Or birds? They all have varying degrees of cognizance, which degree is the one where you get rights? That viewpoint is based nowhere in fact but rather on personal indiosyncracy. It's a good thing you DON'T have a right to allocate rights, as you incorrectly asserted. That's society's (government's) job, and interestingly no society in all of history has ever granted rights to the unborn.
Now the other issue here is the paradox of assigning two sets of rights over one organism. Please, tell me how you can simultaneously assign rights to both a woman and a part of her. What happens when these rights impinge on each other? Who wins? What happens if a woman needs a certain surgery and must have an abortion or else she will die? I could think of a million scenarios like this. Two sets of rights over one organism is an absolute MESS of an idea. There's no way it could happen, or should happen.
"In its various aspects, the doctrine of "fetal rights" attacks virtually all the gains of the women's movement. Forced medical treatment attacks women's increased control over pregnancy and delivery by putting doctors back in the driver's seat, with judges to back them up. Workplace fetal-protection policies contest the entry of women into high-paying, unionized, traditionally male jobs. In the female ghetto, where women can hardly be dispensed with, the growing practice of laying off or shifting pregnant women around transforms women, whose rates of labor-force participation are approaching those of men, into casual laborers with reduced access to benefits, pensions, seniority and promotions. In a particularly vicious twist of the knife, "fetal rights" makes legal abortion -- which makes all the other gains possible -- the trigger for a loss of human rights. Like the divorce courts judges who tell middle-aged housewives to go out and get a job, or who favor the father in a custody dispute because to recognize the primary-caretaker role of the mother would be "sexist," protectors of the fetus enlist the rhetoric of feminism to punish women.
There are lots of things wrong with the concept of fetal rights. It posits a world in which women will be held accountable, on sketchy or no evidence, for birth defects; in which all fertile women will be treated as potentially pregnant all the time; in which courts, employers, social workers and doctors -- not to mention nosy neighbors and vengeful male partners -- will monitor women's behavior. It imposes responsibilities without giving women the wherewithal to fulfill them, and places upon women alone duties that belong to both parents and to the community.
But the worst thing about fetal rights is that it portrays a woman as having only contingent value. Her work, her health, her choices and needs and beliefs, can all be set aside in an instant because, next to child-bearing, they are all perceived as trivial. For the middle class, the idea of fetal rights is mostly symbolic, the gateway to a view of motherhood as self-sacrifice and endless guilty soul-searching. It ties in neatly with the currently fashionable suspicion of working mothers, day care and (now that wives are more likely than husbands to sue for it) divorce. For the poor, for whom it means jail and loss of custody, it becomes a way of saying that women can't even be mothers. They can only be potting soil."
-Katha Pollitt
Submitted by DJ_PuddingTyme (user info) at 2005-06-29 15:49:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
-2 for believing that life begins at conception.
Would removing fibroid tumors in a woman's uterus constitute "killing" too? After all they have been know to have hair folices, and calcium formations resembling finger nails and teeth.
Submitted by dirtylarry (user info) at 2005-06-29 15:37:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by iradney (user info) at 2005-06-29 10:53:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
martyn, you make some good points, BUT your comment on if there were troubles in the birth, and the baby would survive and not the mom, you'd choose the baby, made me see red. what about the family of the mother? what about the other children? what if she was a single mother? what happens to the baby then?
as for the question as to whether retards are self aware or not - spend some time with them - you'll see they are. i grew up with a brain-damaged elder sister, and met scores of other "retarded" people who were dumped in a home by their parents. How do i know they're self aware? The way all their eyes and heads turned the door each time someone walked in, hoping against hope their mommies and daddies had finally come to visit.
i'm pro-choice. i don't know if i personally would be able to have an abortion, but i'll burn that bridge when i get to it. but in my personal opinion, if a child is to be born, it should be loved, taken care of and cherished. i see too often in my country what needless breeding does - i see scores and scores of children on the streets, their arms and legs like toothpicks, with the rags of their clothes fluttering around them, as they run from car to car begging for money and food.
that's no life for a child.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-29 08:34:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
What Thorpe said.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-06-29 05:56:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-29 05:23:51 (#)
Ranking: -2
Maybe, but what it comes down to is the justification behind each viewpoint. Your take on this doesn't hold biological water. At conception, the unborn is at the zygote stage of development. It's obviously not capable of self-sufficiency, and therefore not an organism, making it part of the woman. You cannot assign rights to a body part.
----------------------------------------
Frankly, I don't give a toss if it's independent, self-sufficient, or even a being. If it is conscious or self-aware, that is what I respect, not its technical classification. If my pinky developed its own thoughts, I reserve my right to allocate it its appropriate rights.
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2005-06-29 05:30:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Define Value. I don't believe that we were "Destined" or "fated" for anything. We as a race are just another creature living off of the Earth. It will be here long after we've wiped ourselves out.
Anyhow, Most "moral" people come from a strong religious background. Strangely, they seem to fear death quite a lot. The claim it is a crime that these fetuses (?) are being aborted, but if they believe in their god so much, why has he/she/it done something about it. Better yet, are these little angels going straight to a wonderful afterlife? Oops - original sin!
I'm not an athiest. I believe in god with a lower case 'g.' I also don't believe it cares one bit what we do. I value human life - but not when looked at in the big picture. We as a society place too much empasis on death and not enough on life. Abortion = death. No, what about the LIVING woman?
I don't know...
Please - comments, questions, opinions
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-29 05:23:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-29 05:01:21 (#)
Ranking: 2
I reckon DMD and I have the same basic train of thought with different outcomes.
We have both come up with an exact point in our beliefs where human rights exist and where they don't. I don't want to speak for DMD here, but I think we both can't accept the "After X amount of weeks it's a person, despite the actual development of the baby in question". We've both found an exact biological point where it begins.
I've chosen conception, he's chosen birth.
Maybe, but what it comes down to is the justification behind each viewpoint. Your take on this doesn't hold biological water. At conception, the unborn is at the zygote stage of development. It's obviously not capable of self-sufficiency, and therefore not an organism, making it part of the woman. You cannot assign rights to a body part.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-06-29 05:23:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I have an absolute right to be here.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-29 05:13:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No offence intended but it seems like you place no value on human life.
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2005-06-29 05:09:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Okay Will, why is that? Seriously - I want your opinion on that...
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-29 05:03:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2005-06-29 04:59:36 (#)
Ranking: -2
"If we are repulsed by the concept of the murder of a 50-year-old, 5-year-old or even 5-day-old then why is it that 5 months before birth it is still considered perfectly reasonable to murder the same human?"
See, the issue is right there. I'm not repulsed by the murder of any one, regardless of age. This concept that, somehow, we have a "Right To Life" is utter nonsense. I support the death penalty, Assisted suicide and Abortion. We have no RIGHT to be here, we just lucked out...
=--=-=-=-=-==-
In the entire debate of abortion this is the arguement I hate the most.
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-29 05:02:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
ugh I hate philosophy (and anthropology and history, but who's counting)
Rights are just a construct of civilized society. There's nothing natural or inherent about them. We have them because over some period of societal evolution, they were deemed a necessary implement for government (or whatever, it doesn't really matter).
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-29 05:01:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I reckon DMD and I have the same basic train of thought with different outcomes.
We have both come up with an exact point in our beliefs where human rights exist and where they don't. I don't want to speak for DMD here, but I think we both can't accept the "After X amount of weeks it's a person, despite the actual development of the baby in question". We've both found an exact biological point where it begins.
I've chosen conception, he's chosen birth.
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2005-06-29 04:59:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"If we are repulsed by the concept of the murder of a 50-year-old, 5-year-old or even 5-day-old then why is it that 5 months before birth it is still considered perfectly reasonable to murder the same human?"
See, the issue is right there. I'm not repulsed by the murder of any one, regardless of age. This concept that, somehow, we have a "Right To Life" is utter nonsense. I support the death penalty, Assisted suicide and Abortion. We have no RIGHT to be here, we just lucked out...
Submitted by funk_boy (user info) at 2005-06-29 04:44:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Abortion Is Horrific. Not Neccessarily Wrong.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-06-29 04:43:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
DMD - Why do you believe humans have rights?
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-29 04:26:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Willy: And we could artificially feed a baby in the womb if we tried, I'm sure.
DMD: This is pretty much irrelevant. The fetal part of the human gestational material depends on the host for much more than simply nutrition. Even if you could artificially feed the fetus (it would have to be quite near birth to have sufficiently developed organs to digest and detoxify the food), it still wouldn't meet the requirements necessary to qualify it as an organism.
Willy: So, the baby feeding off the mother's nutrients in the womb is different to feeding off the nutrients outside the womb? A parasite is still a seperate being.
DMD: Again this is a gross oversimplification of the dependence of the fetus. Nutrition is not the only factor here.
Willy: I can't argue against you on this point. It is a much greater dependency but my question remains; how can one level of dependency void all human rights while another level won't impact at all. In a way, we are all dependent on eachother.
DMD: The level of dependency is not (directly, anyway) what 'voids' all human rights. The zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus is a part of the mother. As such it has no rights.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-06-29 03:46:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
snap.
Have I mentioned that I have changed positions?
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-29 03:29:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-28 18:58:19 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-06-28 04:34:34 (#)
Ranking: -2
explain premature babies who need to be placed in the neo-natal ICU hooked up to incubators please.
I was referring to normal birth.
And before someone brings it up, premature babies, having undergone birth, have attained the status of "separate organism."
God damn it I wrote this too fast. I meant to say it has attained the status of "person." A premature baby is NOT AN ORGANISM.
The word 'organism' is biologically defined by functions. A human organism is a living member of Homo sapiens sapiens that is capable of sustaining its own life. So no, a premature baby is not technically an organism. Someone on life support is not technically an organism. Someone who respirates using a vent, and then goes off it for 10 minutes, then gets back on is an organism, then not, then is again, in the same way that a patient in the ER can go from 'living organism' to 'dead ass mothafucka' and then be revived to 'living organism' again based on the ability to meet functional definitions.
However this ceases to be the point after birth. If I may quote someone alongside whom I've debated abortion on and off for the last 2 years:
"Membership in the human society is based on a consensus that exists in society that recognizes the arbitrary nature of assigning any point on a continuum as a defining point but nonetheless recognizes that without a successful birth process any potential membership in the human society inherent in the developing fetus by virtue of it's human genome and the fact it is alive, will remain unrealized and for this reason humans have never granted membership in the human society before that successful transition is realized."
Submitted by dethcow (user info) at 2005-06-29 02:57:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
The argument you're using is this:
Since X is potentially a Y, then X has the rights of Y.
Surely you can see the flaw in this argument. By this logic, presidential candidates would have the same rights as the president, since they potentially can become president. Hence, your argument fails.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-28 23:10:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
last guy: hahahahahahaha
guy before that: http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=11127&news_iv_ctrl=1021
Submitted by Dead_0hi0_Sky (user info) at 2005-06-28 21:40:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
if abortion is wrong, i dont want to be right.
Submitted by PatheticCapitalistFuck (user info) at 2005-06-28 21:11:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
A true right to lifer. I love the argument that just because something is alive, that it somehow has the "right" to continue to live. Pure and utter horseshit, and curiously an almost exclusively American viewpoint.
Morality = religion = brainwashing = mindless robots wanting to force their narrow-mindedness on everyone else.
The only reason why I don't personally insult you is because I respect your right to choose to not allow choice, but I'm glad you don't represent the majority.
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-28 18:58:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-06-28 04:34:34 (#)
Ranking: -2
explain premature babies who need to be placed in the neo-natal ICU hooked up to incubators please.
I was referring to normal birth.
And before someone brings it up, premature babies, having undergone birth, have attained the status of "separate organism."
Submitted by MrSparkle847 (user info) at 2005-06-28 18:34:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Oh, and speaking of Down syndrome and abortions: when preliminary screenings came back to my parents when my mom was pregnant with me, there was an elevated level of some chemical indicitive of possible Down syndrome in me. My parents had serious discussion, and with very heavy hearts decided that if indeed I did have Down syndrome, I would be aborted.
Guess what? I don't hold this against them at all. Rather, I applaud them for the tough decision (and no, it's not because the secondary tests came back negative for Down syndrome; I could just as easily be betrayed and insulted).
Kids with Down syndrome are bullied mercilessly as children, and I know I would not be up to the challenge of growing up with such heavy odds against me. So don't you ever tell someone they can't abort.
Submitted by MrSparkle847 (user info) at 2005-06-28 18:20:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
The notion that pregnant women should be allowed to decide what happens to their bodies seems, to me, to be utterly preposterous.
____________________________
After reading this, I checked the end for any semblance of a "just kidding" (I'm not even lying, this sentence is so goddamn retarded I didn't actually believe there could be someone as close-minded as you). Upon finding none, I didn't read the rest, because you and your ideas are both clearly offspring of someone with Down's syndrome.
Fetuses are an extension of the mother until it can survive without it's mother's blood pumping through its umbilical cord; it is no more capable of independent life than a lone eyeball. You don't want abortions? You don't have to get one - how convenient is that, eh? But don't you tell women out there what to do with extensions of their body.
I actually agree with Shlongy, who'd have thought it: shove a fetus up your ass.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-28 16:12:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2005-06-28 14:27:14 (#)
Ranking: -2
We should have post-natal abortions.
Starting with you.
----
hahahahahahahaha
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2005-06-28 14:44:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
durrrrr... sorry for the 0 no comment. I was about to say something, thought better of
it, then I had thought I backed out of the review screen. Guess not.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2005-06-28 14:27:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
We should have post-natal abortions.
Starting with you.
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2005-06-28 12:32:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
No Comment
Submitted by Viciousriffs (user info) at 2005-06-28 11:44:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I haven't the patience to read all of those comments, so here's this:
I completely disagree with your argument. You failed to take a number of factors into consideration. An unborn human is a parasite, by definition, so who has the right to tell a woman that she cannot handle that matter? I do not believe that a couple should have to suffer (if it is suffering to them, of course) through the rest of their lifetime by raising a child that they did not want, and for the child's sake just as well, it is better to be "rid of the problem" before it even begins than to force many people through a life of misery in the name of saving lives.
Saving lives is way less important than we realize, also- the human population is blossoming so grossly that nature needs a way to counterbalance our iron-fisted reign of this planet before we use it up completely. If there are people willing to not contribute to this problem, all the better for them and everyone else. My only solace is the knowledge that I will be so cynical by the time overpopulation is achieved that I'll ask if I can be the first one euthanized, and if they can do it on television so I can at least say I had my own TV show before (while?) I died.
OK, all of that said, in the emotional human mind, life is precious. I understand that line of thought, and I understand the morality behind it. Determining if one outweighs their damage to the world they live in with their contributions could become necessary, and euthanasia or some format of segregated living as a result of class, contribution, overall value, etc. could easily become a factor within the next 100 years. It sounds a bit outlandish when today's state of life is considered, but it's not so far fetched as it seems. I don't want to deal with it, just because I'm so laid back- I basically just want to be left alone most of the time in these issues- but I suppose this type of question will be more and more pondered as our detriment to our world increases.
I am giving you the +2, by the way, because despite your very concrete opinion on the issue, you didn't come across as a snotty, know-it-all bitch, and your opinion is well-founded to the point that nobody can call you totally ignorant for having it. If you are this steadfast in your opinion, I doubt that anything we say will affect your viewpoint, but I hope you at least glean a bit of understanding of another perspective after this post is all done and off the list.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-28 11:40:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
EVERYONE!!!
http://www.ubersite.com/m/68289
GO THERE AND CLICK REFRESH A BUNCH OF TIMES SO THAT I DONT KILL MYSELF WHEN THIS GETS MORE HITS THAN THAT!!!
DO IT!!!!!!!!!
(note to rad: that is in a code that everyone but you understands. what it says in normal english is 'GO THERE AND CLICK REFRESH A BUNCH OF TIMES SO THAT I WILL KILL MYSELF WHEN THIS GETS MORE HITS THAN THAT!!!')
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2005-06-28 11:36:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-28 08:45:11 (#)
Ranking: 0
If this gets more hits than my homosexuality post, I'm going to cry.
----
When this got more hits than my worst post I cried for hours.
Submitted by Fleadh (user info) at 2005-06-28 11:15:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I think following your line of thought the last 4000 years of human civilisation's advances has been made up of nothing but "romantic ideals", huh?
*****************
Most morality and religious belifs are little more then romantic ideals so yea, like it or not the cornerstone of most modern society really boils down to little more then romantic idealism.
For example in reality we are little more then smart mammels with opposible thumbs who rank very high in the food chain. Idealistically we are born in the image of god or at very least believe ourselves to be spiritually superior to all other life on the planet. Some take this belief to its furthest levels of arrogence by saying that we are this devine form of life as soon as spearm joins egg and that this single cell is human life.
We mock peta for believing animals have this basic right to life as well. Our derision comes from teh fact that a) theyre fucktards and b) we find it objectionae that they would imply that we arent spiritually the masters of the animals just like good old genesis tell us we are.
Practically every aspect of life is glued together by a romantic ideal, An idea that makes us feel warm and good because the cold realities are just not very nice and we dont want to believe them.
At the end of the day never forget the primary rule of modern PC. You have the right to believe anything you want to believe, even if its fucking stupid.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-28 09:41:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by missflibble (user info) at 2005-06-28 08:47:43 (#)
Ranking: -2
CONDOMS PEOPLE!!!!
HOW MANY TIMES!!!!
C...O...N...T...R...A...C...E...P...T...I...O...N!!!!!!!
fuck. twats
=--=-=-=-=-=--=
Doesn't always work Flibbo!!!!
U...N...R...E...L...I...A...B...L...E!!!!!!
Submitted by missflibble (user info) at 2005-06-28 08:47:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
CONDOMS PEOPLE!!!!
HOW MANY TIMES!!!!
C...O...N...T...R...A...C...E...P...T...I...O...N!!!!!!!
fuck. twats.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-28 08:45:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
If this gets more hits than my homosexuality post, I'm going to cry.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-28 08:27:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Fleadh (user info) at 2005-06-28 07:52:52 (#)
Ranking: 0
The belief in the inherent right to life is little more then romantic idealism. The reality is each and evey living thing from baby turtles making a dash to the sea and hoping to not be eaten by the gulls to weather or not a drunken one night stand, Its just a lot of dumb luck that we are here, typing bollix on teh intarweb.
People die for a million and one godawfully stupid reasons, because a mother doesnt feel that she can cope with bringing a child into the world is one of the better ones.
=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Believing people have the right to live is little more than romantic idealism?
I think following your line of thought the last 4000 years of human civilisation's advances has been made up of nothing but "romantic ideals", huh?
Submitted by Fleadh (user info) at 2005-06-28 07:52:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The belief in the inherent right to life is little more then romantic idealism. The reality is each and evey living thing from baby turtles making a dash to the sea and hoping to not be eaten by the gulls to weather or not a drunken one night stand, Its just a lot of dumb luck that we are here, typing bollix on teh intarweb.
People die for a million and one godawfully stupid reasons, because a mother doesnt feel that she can cope with bringing a child into the world is one of the better ones.
Submitted by Ducky (user info) at 2005-06-28 07:31:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by phauna (user info) at 2005-06-28 07:15:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
If a foetus is a baby then you, sir, are also a baby, and hence a foetus.
Submitted by Bellebrown (user info) at 2005-06-28 05:43:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I've said it before, and I'll say it again.
This is a prime example of why abortion should be allowed, even after birth.
I bet your mum wished she still had that option.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-06-28 05:41:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Dependence is irrelevant DMD. Why should you care if it's dependent or not? The whole issue only serves to help you classify when you consider them to be technically alive, when at the point you have mentioned there is no change to their consciousness or anything similar.
Submitted by c1ndy (user info) at 2005-06-28 05:08:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Go Loki.
I'm resolving never to get involved in any teenage boys argue about abortion posts.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-28 04:41:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-28 04:07:11 (#)
Ranking: -2
"Does a baby forfeit it's rights as a person when it attaches itself to it's mother's breasts and leeches from her milk? Without mother's milk a baby cannot survive."
DMD: First of all, that isn't true; babies can survive on formula, and really anything else with similar concentrations of essential nutrients.
Willy: And we could artificially feed a baby in the womb if we tried, I'm sure.
DMD: Second of all, a baby nursing doesn't make it part of the mother any more than eating an apple makes you part of a tree, therefore, being its own self contained organism, the baby retains its rights.
Willy: So, the baby feeding off the mother's nutrients in the womb is different to feeding off the nutrients outside the womb? A parasite is still a seperate being.
DMD: Third of all, that kind of dependence isn't even remotely comparable to the dependence of a fetus upon the woman carrying it. Before birth the fetus is unable to oxygenate blood, properly circulate blood, detoxify blood, digest food, maintain blood pressure, maintain body temperature, etc. etc. After birth it is able to do all these things, and drinking breast milk doesn't change that.
Willy: I can't argue against you on this point. It is a much greater dependency but my question remains; how can one level of dependency void all human rights while another level won't impact at all. In a way, we are all dependent on eachother.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-06-28 04:34:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-28 04:07:11 (#)
Ranking: -2
"Does a baby forfeit it's rights as a person when it attaches itself to it's mother's breasts and leeches from her milk? Without mother's milk a baby cannot survive."
First of all, that isn't true; babies can survive on formula, and really anything else with similar concentrations of essential nutrients.
Second of all, a baby nursing doesn't make it part of the mother any more than eating an apple makes you part of a tree, therefore, being its own self contained organism, the baby retains its rights.
Third of all, that kind of dependence isn't even remotely comparable to the dependence of a fetus upon the woman carrying it. Before birth the fetus is unable to oxygenate blood, properly circulate blood, detoxify blood, digest food, maintain blood pressure, maintain body temperature, etc. etc. After birth it is able to do all these things, and drinking breast milk doesn't change that.
---
explain premature babies who need to be placed in the neo-natal ICU hooked up to incubators please.
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2005-06-28 04:20:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Adereterial, I attend a Baptist church. Its pretty crap and I disagree with most things that people say. This is good, because I then think about *why* I disagree. I'm not sucked in by their propaganda.
-------------------
Re-read what you typed in the original post and then reconsider that.
If you really want to provide yourself with an appropriate environment to consider morals and ethics and spirituality you'd make the effort to contact other groups and other Churches.
If you live in rural England as you claim, I guarantee there's a CofE church within spitting distance, and quite possibly a Catholic chapel or church as well, but you apparently persist in going to a Baptist church despite the fact you disagree with most things they say - as you claim.
Go seek out something different, for Christ's sake. You don't need to attend a church to consider ethical questions.
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-28 04:07:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"Does a baby forfeit it's rights as a person when it attaches itself to it's mother's breasts and leeches from her milk? Without mother's milk a baby cannot survive."
First of all, that isn't true; babies can survive on formula, and really anything else with similar concentrations of essential nutrients.
Second of all, a baby nursing doesn't make it part of the mother any more than eating an apple makes you part of a tree, therefore, being its own self contained organism, the baby retains its rights.
Third of all, that kind of dependence isn't even remotely comparable to the dependence of a fetus upon the woman carrying it. Before birth the fetus is unable to oxygenate blood, properly circulate blood, detoxify blood, digest food, maintain blood pressure, maintain body temperature, etc. etc. After birth it is able to do all these things, and drinking breast milk doesn't change that.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-28 02:06:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Good debate by the way.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-28 02:06:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-28 01:49:25 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-27 23:57:07 (#)
Ranking: 2
Well, it's attached to it's mother and it's inside a womb but I don't see how that makes it any less of a person than it will be in an hour.
------------
I already demonstrated below that while the fetus is attached to its mother it is a semiallograft which is always PART of the organism to which it is grafted, so it is not a separate organism biologically.
Not only that, but the differences between the fetus before birth and the neonate afterwards are extremely significant. The fetus gets its food and oxygen from the mother, and has its blood detoxified and its homeostasis maintained by the mother. After birth, the baby does it all on its own
=-=-=-=--=-==--=-=-=
Parasites exist throughout the animal kingdom both before and after life.
Does a baby forfeit it's rights as a person when it attaches itself to it's mother's breasts and leeches from her milk? Without mother's milk a baby cannot survive.
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-28 01:49:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-27 23:57:07 (#)
Ranking: 2
Well, it's attached to it's mother and it's inside a womb but I don't see how that makes it any less of a person than it will be in an hour.
I already demonstrated below that while the fetus is attached to its mother it is a semiallograft which is always PART of the organism to which it is grafted, so it is not a separate organism biologically.
Not only that, but the differences between the fetus before birth and the neonate afterwards are extremely significant. The fetus gets its food and oxygen from the mother, and has its blood detoxified and its homeostasis maintained by the mother. After birth, the baby does it all on its own.
Submitted by Feijuada (user info) at 2005-06-28 01:35:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-06-28 01:32:46 (#)
Ranking: -2
SHUT UP SHUT UP MAKE THE VOICES STOP YOU ARE ALL WRONG
Submitted by Feijuada (user info) at 2005-06-28 01:35:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-06-28 01:32:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
SHUT UP SHUT UP MAKE THE VOICES STOP YOU ARE ALL WRONG
Submitted by WellFedEthiopian (user info) at 2005-06-28 01:18:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
+2 for a decently written post on a touchy subject. -1 because I believe in abortion to a degree.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-27 23:57:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-27 22:54:42 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-27 22:51:15 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-27 22:49:47 (#)
Ranking: -2
an hour before birth isn't a person
-=-=-=-=-=-=
Wow.
---
How is it?
-=-=-=-=-=-=
Well, it's attached to it's mother and it's inside a womb but I don't see how that makes it any less of a person than it will be in an hour.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-27 22:53:18 (#)
Ranking: 0
"Freedom ends where it impacts other's freedoms. Not all pro-lifers have the mentality "I don't like it so noone should do it", there are those of us who believe "you are infringing on the child's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of yaddayadda so you cannot do it"."
----
No one literally has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That's from the Declaration of Independence, not a lawbook.
-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I'm not attacking it on legal grounds. I'm not even American. I don't give a shit about that declaration. But that phrase is the basis of mainstream libertarian thinking, on which plenty laws are founded both here and in your country, and if libertarianism can be used to support abortion, I was doing my best to show that libertarianism can also be used to oppose abortion.
I'm not a lawyer and if you do try and bring legalities into abortion you'll undoubtedly beat me in an arguement. I'm showing opposition to abortion on philosophical and moral grounds.
Submitted by Circe (user info) at 2005-06-27 23:44:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I would like to announce my intention to legally adopt loki as my sister/aunt/some kind of cool relative that teaches me stuff.
That is all.
Submitted by jimthefiend (user info) at 2005-06-27 23:26:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"And then rape. What do you do when a woman is..."
Tell her to stop walking down alleys wearing a mini skirt. She is after all, just asking for it. ;)
Submitted by Flack (user info) at 2005-06-27 23:01:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
-2EATAFETUS
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-27 22:54:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-27 22:51:15 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-27 22:49:47 (#)
Ranking: -2
an hour before birth isn't a person
-=-=-=-=-=-=
Wow.
How is it?
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-27 22:53:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Freedom ends where it impacts other's freedoms. Not all pro-lifers have the mentality "I don't like it so noone should do it", there are those of us who believe "you are infringing on the child's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of yaddayadda so you cannot do it"."
No one literally has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That's from the Declaration of Independence, not a lawbook.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-27 22:51:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-27 22:49:47 (#)
Ranking: -2
an hour before birth isn't a person
-=-=-=-=-=-=
Wow.
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-27 22:49:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
an hour before birth isn't a person
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-27 22:46:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2005-06-27 22:36:38 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by William_Q_Percy (user info) at 2005-06-27 13:03:53 (#)
Ranking: 0
The fact of the matter is that members of the human race are often torn between the primal instincts of wanting to protect each other and do what is best for ourselves. Abortion is one of the most classic instances of this dilemma.
A decision like abortion is just that: a decision. Whether it is right or wrong is irrelevant because it can be declared either way from a number of different perspectives for a number of different reasons.
One thing can be certain, however. That is that revoking the right to decide is as inhumane as the actual act itself, and should not be condoned. Just because you are supporting the ability to decide does not mean you are supporting the action. The people doing this are, by virtue of the difficulty of the decision, adults. Allow them the ability to exercise the freedom that makes us human; and then let those who commit the act be judged by an authority that has the ability to do so. I am telling you this much, that authority does not exist in any court that humanity can lay claim over. That much is true by seeing how we treat the issue.
--------------------------------
wow. excellent!
--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
When you consider the choice to murder another person as a decision I will accept this logic.
Freedom ends where it impacts other's freedoms. Not all pro-lifers have the mentality "I don't like it so noone should do it", there are those of us who believe "you are infringing on the child's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of yaddayadda so you cannot do it".
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-27 22:42:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-27 22:37:35 (#)
Ranking: -2
My position is that the unborn cannot be considered a person because it has not attained physical independence from its mother. When the umbilical cord is cut, the semiallograft that is the fetus is no longer a graft but a separate organism.
-=-==--=-==-=-=
8 months is not a person?
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-27 22:37:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
My position is that the unborn cannot be considered a person because it has not attained physical independence from its mother. When the umbilical cord is cut, the semiallograft that is the fetus is no longer a graft but a separate organism.
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2005-06-27 22:36:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by William_Q_Percy (user info) at 2005-06-27 13:03:53 (#)
Ranking: 0
The fact of the matter is that members of the human race are often torn between the primal instincts of wanting to protect each other and do what is best for ourselves. Abortion is one of the most classic instances of this dilemma.
A decision like abortion is just that: a decision. Whether it is right or wrong is irrelevant because it can be declared either way from a number of different perspectives for a number of different reasons.
One thing can be certain, however. That is that revoking the right to decide is as inhumane as the actual act itself, and should not be condoned. Just because you are supporting the ability to decide does not mean you are supporting the action. The people doing this are, by virtue of the difficulty of the decision, adults. Allow them the ability to exercise the freedom that makes us human; and then let those who commit the act be judged by an authority that has the ability to do so. I am telling you this much, that authority does not exist in any court that humanity can lay claim over. That much is true by seeing how we treat the issue.
--------------------------------
wow. excellent!
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-27 22:17:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-27 20:46:07 (#)
Ranking: -2
"Just because there are less cells and there seems to be less human appearance, an embryo or feotus is no less human."
I've said this about a million times, and no one seems to catch on (I blame the fact that most pro-lifers have dreadfully little knowledge of biology): HUMAN IS NOT THE ISSUE. PERSON IS THE ISSUE.
Every cell in your body is human, why the fuck does it matter that the unborn is human?
The relevant thing here is whether or not the unborn is a person.
It's not.
-=-=-=-=--=
I'd be interested in your definition of person.
I do see your point but I think if you will not consider a human as a person because of it's undevelopment I'd be interested on your opinion on retards.
Submitted by Lucylou (user info) at 2005-06-27 22:14:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
-1 because, quite frankly, it wasn't that original.
BUT Loki's reply was one of the funniest/best I've seen in a while. This post was worth it just for that!
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-27 22:13:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-06-27 20:44:59 (#)
Ranking: -2
Williamson, you of all people should realise that the "essence of life" or a "soul" or whatever you call it comes into it here.
-=-==--=-=-=
Why argue that? It's spiritual. I can't argue that as any more than unfounded opinion so I'm not going to.
Submitted by Feijuada (user info) at 2005-06-27 21:22:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
1) There are too fucking many people. What's a few less?
2) I think that a woman should be allowed to abort the baby right until it pops out. Why? Well, fuck, it's not like the goddamn thing is reading a book or thinking great thoughts. It's a lump of flesh.
3) The "It might cure cancer" argument is bullshit. Do you really think that a child that was so unwanted that only laws against abortions let it be born is going to be loved and cared for as a child that is planned for and wanted? Sure, the mothers who have children they didn't plan for say that they love them and wouldn't have changed anything, but maybe that's because they realize that they're chained to that child for 18 years.
Just my two cents.
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-27 20:46:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"Just because there are less cells and there seems to be less human appearance, an embryo or feotus is no less human."
I've said this about a million times, and no one seems to catch on (I blame the fact that most pro-lifers have dreadfully little knowledge of biology): HUMAN IS NOT THE ISSUE. PERSON IS THE ISSUE.
Every cell in your body is human, why the fuck does it matter that the unborn is human?
The relevant thing here is whether or not the unborn is a person.
It's not.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-06-27 20:44:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Williamson, you of all people should realise that the "essence of life" or a "soul" or whatever you call it comes into it here.
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2005-06-27 20:40:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Stin and Merlina said it best.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-27 20:29:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I find the major reason people support abortion and believe that feotuses aren't human is their inability to personify a baby at such a yung age.
If you will, I'd like to propose a hypothetical and ask if anyone would be more likely to oppose abortion if it were so:
Imagine that from the point of conception the shape of the original human cell was shaped like a human. Imagine there was absolutely no difference in the physiological makeup of the embryo, except now all of a sudden it Looked human. No more advanced, but much easier to personify. I know a lot of you who are pro-choice (the ones with brains) will still argue that there is nothing different about the embryo and thus your arguments still stand, but imagine the masses. The unsophisticated thought of public opinion is different however.
I believe you'd find that if embryoes from the point of conception had what appeared to be arms, legs, a torso and a head (even if they truly weren't) the masses would quickly swing pro-life because such a thing is easier to personify with.
We, ourselves are nothing more than trillions of cells packed together to form what appears to others as human beings. Just because there are less cells and there seems to be less human appearance, an embryo or feotus is no less human. This is why I consider abortion to be murder, and since I do not support the "choice to murder" i do not support the "choice to abort".
Yes, it is the imposition of my ethics on others. The ethic of Thou shalt not kill (I'm not religious though I like this saying). We as a society disallow murder of a fellow human. That is my justification against the right to abortion.
A tadpole is still a frog when you think about it.
PS. Am I the only one here to have +2'ed this? God damn I'm a right-wing nutball, hey?
Submitted by AndraSidan (user info) at 2005-06-27 20:23:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You had to know this would get flamed when you posted it.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-06-27 20:18:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:29:13 (#)
Ranking: 0
Thorpe does make an interesting point about what constitutes awareness, but I'm afraid that I think you were right when you said that the baby would eventually gain consciousness, just like a sleeping person. Hadn't thought about that until you said it.
-------------------------------------------------
WHAT?? I said that to pre-emptively rebut you. They have no previous memories or history or self, they're completely different to a sleeping person. Jesus Christ.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-06-27 20:13:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-06-27 18:25:28 (#)
Ranking: -2
ALL OF YOU ARE FUCKING WRONG AND I AM FUCKING CORRECT
Submitted by Yams (user info) at 2005-06-27 20:07:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
-2, but only because we've all made up our minds. And this sucks. That too.
Submitted by crazybutsolazy (user info) at 2005-06-27 19:05:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
wow...I was gone a couple hrs and there are like double the amount of posts....anyone getting bored yet?
Submitted by Girlwithaclue (user info) at 2005-06-27 19:03:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You go Loki!!
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2005-06-27 18:52:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Did anyone say anything new here or was it the same old bullshit where someone living a sheltered never had anything bad happen to them makes a blanket statement about abortion and then has to back peddle over exceptions?
ie
abortion is murder and wrong 100% of the time
except when the pregnancy is a danger to the woman
or in the case of rape or incest (odd that those are two separate things isn't it)
or if you know ahead of time that there is going to be something seriously wrong with the baby if it goes to full term
or if the man refuses to be involved
or if the woman is poor, black, and/or uneducated
or unable to care for the kid financially, emotionally, or physically
or if it is my kid, niece, other female person whom I care about and I'm worried that she would be throwing her life way by having a baby in the 9th grade
or if it was an accident or something and the kid isn't wanted
but other than that, abortion is wrong and people who do it are bad people going to hell
Was it something like that?
or maybe you got into the whole, it could have been Jesus, Moses, Hitler, Paris Hilton and then how would you feel issue?
Please tell me that someone said that she should have kept her legs closed and this wouldn't have happened? Gosh I'd hate it if no one went there.
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-06-27 18:42:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by freshspinach (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:02:47 (#)
Ranking: -2
Males will never be forced to make a decision to have an abortion and therefore should not have a voice on the matter. They can have all the opinions they want, but they should never matter. Period. If they desire a society where men decide the rights of women, move your ass to Afghanistan.
----------------------
I've seen views similar to this all through the correspondence to this post and, quite frankly, it disguists me. 50% of any child growing inside a woman "belongs" to the man who impregnated her.
I appreciate that the child grows inside the mother, but I detest the opinion that this, somehow, gives women more claim to their children than men.
This is displayed in the fact that men are much more likely to lose touch with their children after a divorce because they aren't allowed to see them, and that it's only the woman's choice to abort.
If a woman is raped and chooses to have an abortion, of course the bastard who raped her should have no say: I'm not advocating that kind of bullshit. But to say that "a man can never know what it's like" and this type of bullshit, and then go on to say a man "should not have a voice on the matter" strikes me as being as abhorrent as the totalitarian pro-life stance.
Submitted by Affinity (user info) at 2005-06-27 18:29:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
quackery
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-06-27 18:25:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
ALL OF YOU ARE FUCKING WRONG AND I AM FUCKING CORRECT
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2005-06-27 18:25:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2005-06-27 13:13:35 (#)
Ranking: -2
"I didn't put this post up to get hits...
The post got called "abortion is wrong" because I wanted people to read it, and I thought that that was likely to encourage it"
____
heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeat-whore!
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-27 18:03:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 17:20:27 (#)
Ranking: 0
Death_Metal_Dude, you are great. You're so wonderful and clever I look up to you and your fantastic jargon. Please marry me.
Submitted by MyNameIsTim (user info) at 2005-06-27 16:50:16 (#)
Ranking: 0
"2. All semiallogenic or allogenic relationships of this nature are grafts. "
prove it.
They're only grafts because you chose to call them a graft. The foetus has a different genetic code to the mother which I consider to distinguish it as a seperate organism.
In fairness, not many people know the ins and outs of their subject BEFORE their degree, do they?
Bull fucking shit, it's an accepted tenet of immunology that the fetus is considered a semiallograft, I don't need to prove it
Submitted by Slighty_Obnoxious (user info) at 2005-06-27 18:02:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Wow! An abortion post on most heated! Who woulda thunk it?
Submitted by Wiggles (user info) at 2005-06-27 18:00:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 17:27:09 (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't care if people get 'converted' or not. I just don't want people to think that everyone thinks abortion is OK except crazy evangelical Christians.
--------------
Ok, you've shown to me that retarded non-Christians also think abortion is wrong. Congratulations.
Submitted by TheEvilleprechaun (user info) at 2005-06-27 17:49:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I vote for drawing the line at whenever the blob of cells develops the ability to feel pain, or have thought processes of any kind. I don't know enough biology to know when that is, but it would seem about the time that the central nervous system begins to develop. That ability is the only aspect of humans that is truly distinct from other animals, and would seem then to define at what point a fetus becomes human.
In any case, to say that abortion is universally wrong, as your title implies, is idiotic. It excludes extreme cases of rape or incest, or when there is the threat of serous harm to the mother. Even barring these cases, I don't believe that in the very, VERY first stages of development that abortion is wrong, simply because the cells that exist at that point don't have a capacity for uniquely human functioning, such as thought, which separates human beings, of any age, from other animal life. So even by your own logic, abortion isn't universally wrong. At least you didn't go hyper-religious though. Good job!!
Submitted by Girlwithaclue (user info) at 2005-06-27 17:42:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by mush (user info) at 2005-06-27 16:40:28 (#)
Ranking: 0
Girlwithaclue...
*sigh*
Why did you make me do this?
http://www.ubersite.com/m/53807
After your "contribution" to this thread, I can't blame the guy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
By the way.........We are dating again so kiss my ass!!
Submitted by Girlwithaclue (user info) at 2005-06-27 17:41:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I am just really tired of this subject....
Therefore I don't believe that it should be dignified by a well thought out response!
But that is just my opinion as you are entitled to yours..
That is all....
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 17:37:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Nobody actually gives a shit what I think, do they? I mean, I think something different to you so why would you care what I thought?
Thanks for being so open-minded and not pre-judging.
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 17:34:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Yup, its her right to decide, that's correct. I'm just saying what I think the most ethical choice is.
Submitted by HighGeneticist (user info) at 2005-06-27 17:31:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You're one dumb son of a bitch. Leave it to a male to say shit like that. Men can go around and fuck anything they want and they don't have to deal with the consequences. If you were a young rape victim that got pregnant by the guy that raped you, you may not want to deal with the repercussions of that rape.
You will never understand because you will never have to deal with something like that. You obviously know absolutely nothing. And you piss me off.
I agree that abortion should not be viewed as some kind of contraceptive, but there number of different situations is vast. Abortion needs to be legal. It should be a woman's right to decide what happens INSIDE her own body, and that child is just as much a part of her as her heart. It was created inside of her, she has to carry it, her nutrients and blood and womb all contribute to that child's growth, therefore, it is her decision what happens to it. I am not saying that I would go out and have one, all I am saying is that it IS a woman's right to decide.
Pro-choice all the way.
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 17:27:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't care if people get 'converted' or not. I just don't want people to think that everyone thinks abortion is OK except crazy evangelical Christians.
Submitted by Wiggles (user info) at 2005-06-27 17:24:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Number of pro-choice people converted by this post: 0
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 17:23:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Miss_tila. The difference is that the tumor wouldn't develop into an adult and shares your genetic code. A baby would and doesn't.
And I think, alfakyle, you'll find that a minor does have the right to protection of life just like I'm arguing it should inside the womb.
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 17:20:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Death_Metal_Dude, you are great. You're so wonderful and clever I look up to you and your fantastic jargon. Please marry me.
Submitted by MyNameIsTim (user info) at 2005-06-27 16:50:16 (#)
Ranking: 0
"2. All semiallogenic or allogenic relationships of this nature are grafts. "
prove it.
They're only grafts because you chose to call them a graft. The foetus has a different genetic code to the mother which I consider to distinguish it as a seperate organism.
In fairness, not many people know the ins and outs of their subject BEFORE their degree, do they?
Submitted by alfakyle (user info) at 2005-06-27 17:04:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
miss_tila - true.
"And what about the baby's right to decide what happens to *its* body?" --> Minor's have no rights to decide things for themselves. If they did, they'd be able to drink, smoke, vote, enter legal contracts, etc.
Submitted by miss_tila (user info) at 2005-06-27 17:01:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
If I may point out out something rather obvious... If I have a tumor(technically a living tissue)do I not have the right to have it removed. I wouldn't want a tumor and no one else would be the one to decide that It must be removed. I would have to make the decission to stop it. Can you tell me the difference? I don't want tumors or rug rats.
Submitted by MyNameIsTim (user info) at 2005-06-27 16:50:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"2. All semiallogenic or allogenic relationships of this nature are grafts. "
prove it.
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-27 16:45:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"The growing child inside a woman is *not* her - just because something is inside you doesn't mean that it *is* you - just like I live in a house, but I am not a house, and a chicken grows inside an egg, but noone is foolish enough to suggest that chicken and egg are one in the same."
oops, you're about to go into zoology but you don't have much of a grasp on reproductive biology now do you
I've broken out this proof a few times on this website and never seen it even disputed, so let's see how you do
1. The Human Gestational Material is in a semiallogenic or allogenic relationship (depending on the HGM source) with the gravida.
2. All semiallogenic or allogenic relationships of this nature are grafts.
3. The HGM is a graft - and since it is genetically patterned for reproduction it is a reproductive graft.
4. Grafts are integrated into and a part of the organism they are grafted to.
5. Therefore, the HGM is a part of the organism it is grafted to.
Submitted by mush (user info) at 2005-06-27 16:40:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Girlwithaclue...
*sigh*
Why did you make me do this?
http://www.ubersite.com/m/53807
After your "contribution" to this thread, I can't blame the guy.
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-27 16:40:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
shut the fuck up you stupid ugly hag piece of shit
Submitted by miss_tila (user info) at 2005-06-27 16:22:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Sure thats what the world needs MORE unwanted and unfortunate people. Yes, lets all have alot of babies we don't want. At least it will keep welfare and child welfare busy. PS. "DON"T SPEAK OF THING OF WICH YOU KNOW NOT" <Quoteing someone famous, not sure who.
Submitted by miss_tila (user info) at 2005-06-27 16:17:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
This is by far the most well thought out argument for abortion I've ever heard. Maybe your mother should have thought twice! - 10 -10 -10
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-06-27 16:07:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Girlwithaclue (user info) at 2005-06-27 15:57:07 (#)
Ranking: -2
Grow a vagina than we can discuss something that you have no idea what it is like.....
---
this is ignorant
Submitted by Girlwithaclue (user info) at 2005-06-27 15:57:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Grow a vagina than we can discuss something that you have no idea what it is like.....
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2005-06-27 15:45:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
but I'd rather be top of the 'most viewed' board.
-----------
AAAHAHAHA BEST JOKE EVAR!
Oh wait...
Submitted by The_Yellow_Dart (user info) at 2005-06-27 15:43:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by mush (user info) at 2005-06-27 15:24:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Hey do you guys think KFC is still open?
Submitted by c1ndy (user info) at 2005-06-27 14:54:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2005-06-27 14:45:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2005-06-27 14:40:00 (#)
Ranking: -2
Shove a fetus up your ass.
--------
Take heed dipshit... Shlongy has spoken.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-27 14:42:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Humans are animals in the sense that they're seperate from plants as far as anatomy goes, but we're seperated in the sense that we can rationalize and animals can not, which is what gives us our rights.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2005-06-27 14:40:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Shove a fetus up your ass.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2005-06-27 14:39:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I don't care.
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 14:29:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
D_prime disagrees with me, but even I will admit that he's jolly clever.
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 14:28:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I realise there are 160 reviews, but if you just read my comments you'd have answers to the last two comments made. I'm actually about start a zoology degree, so I'm well aware that humans are animals. I see the point that you're making though.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-27 14:26:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
In order to have grey, there has to be black and white. There is a rational right and wrong. In some casese we can't be certain what it is because we aren't all knowing, but in that case the moral thing to do is predict it with your best judgement.
People can be gray.
Issues can't be.
In order to be gray, you need white and black in the first place.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2005-06-27 14:22:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"What makes a person human?"
The ability to see the world in shades of grey where every act has potential mitigating circumstances rather than imposing an artificial and formulaic black and white moral structure upon it just so you don't feel so 'lost'.
How about that?
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2005-06-27 13:48:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
We are animals.
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2005-06-27 13:44:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 13:35:30 (#)
Ranking: 0
Well, Sphagnum, more people got to see my opinion than would have had I reviewed an old post. I'd rather you were kinder to me, but I guess you're just angry because this is a sore spot for you - sorry.
-------
I guess you missed my point...AGAIN!
Had you reviewed an old post, only the people who gave any worth to your opinion would have gotten to see it. Now, it will be on most heated for 3 days and will continue to get activity because every man and his dog will get on here and tell you how much of a fucking idiot you are.
Presuming that this will be read less than that other post is nothing short of moronic.. But I've already come to expect that from you.
Have a nice day Mr Steiner, give my regards to the little boy who helps you tie your shoelaces up.
Submitted by Garrik (user info) at 2005-06-27 13:40:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-06-27 13:39:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
these things are guaranteed heated. done so many times already.
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 13:35:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Well, Sphagnum, more people got to see my opinion than would have had I reviewed an old post. I'd rather you were kinder to me, but I guess you're just angry because this is a sore spot for you - sorry.
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 13:33:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Who cares about heated?
NSFW Bingo Wings and Oral Sex. (1134 hits)
Category: Romance
Rating: 0.75 on 6 reviews (Rate this item) (View all ratings)
Submitted by Martyn Steiner (View user info) at 2004-09-05 17:30:17
Now look at the ratio of reviews and hits for this post. It might look like this post has done better, but loads less people read it so whats so great about the heat; it just means more people cared.
That said, I am quite proud of my most heated status, but I'd rather be top of the 'most viewed' board.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-06-27 13:31:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by MyNameIsTim (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:19:48 (#)
Ranking: 0
i'm against abortion, but for killing babies.
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2005-06-27 13:31:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by MANICMOTHER (user info) at 2005-06-27 13:21:51 (#)
Ranking: 0
Anybody can share their beliefs. It's the people who feel that they have a moral obligation (and divine right for that matter) to ram them down non-believers throats that I have a problem with.
-------
Amen to that.
Thanks for "sharing" Martyn. Can you "share" your opinion on some other political/religious/moral issues that get beaten to death on a regular basis around here as well? Just in the interests of educating us idiots.
Next time go to one of the other posts on the same issue and click review instead of submitting the same old bullshit.
You are a useless fucking heatwhore with nothing amusing or interesting to offer.
It's people like you who make me PRO-abortion.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-06-27 13:26:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by picow (user info) at 2005-06-27 13:24:35 (#)
Ranking: 0
Boys and girls, pregnancy can be prevented. It's called keeping your fucking legs closed. No pun intended. Abortion should not be used as birth control.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So sodomy is ok? Can I? huh? Can I? Huh, huh? Please?
If you say no I'm gonna hold my breath untill I die. *huffs in air*
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2005-06-27 13:25:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I take back my previous assumption.
This is hitting 200 heat, I swear.
Submitted by MANICMOTHER (user info) at 2005-06-27 13:24:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
This was sharing an idea, not forcing it on us. Thanks for that.
Submitted by picow (user info) at 2005-06-27 13:24:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Boys and girls, pregnancy can be prevented. It's called keeping your fucking legs closed. No pun intended. Abortion should not be used as birth control.
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 13:23:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by MANICMOTHER (user info) at 2005-06-27 13:21:51 (#)
Ranking: 0
Anybody can share their beliefs. It's the people who feel that they have a moral obligation (and divine right for that matter) to ram them down non-believers throats that I have a problem with.
--------------------------------------------------
I'm sharing - I hope it doesn't seem like I'm ramming you. :D Thats a joke, but serious, I don't intend to be pushy.
Submitted by MANICMOTHER (user info) at 2005-06-27 13:21:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Anybody can share their beliefs. It's the people who feel that they have a moral obligation (and divine right for that matter) to ram them down non-believers throats that I have a problem with.
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 13:21:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't put us higher than other animals. I think if I could tell an animal I had an issue with them aborting, then I probably would. I just don't think they'd understand me. I think I'll think about animals and ethics tomorrow. Thanks for the idea!
Submitted by William_Q_Percy (user info) at 2005-06-27 13:17:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by MANICMOTHER (user info) at 2005-06-27 13:16:06 (#)
Ranking: 0
Why do you put us in a higher bracket than animals? Because of your abilities for abstract thought? I call bullshit on that.
Yes, we are a thinking, growing, destroying race that supposedly has control over everything in our world, that doesn't make us exempt from our baser animal instincts.
Should we blow off the fact that elephants pine over dead comrades just because they are animals?
Should we ignore the language and complex social societies of the dolphins just because we don't understand it?
No. I think man has gotten a little too carried away with it's self and it's deep moral issues.
--
Shit, I think it's time I called it an Uber day. Manicmother is starting to make sense... am I seeing things?
Submitted by MANICMOTHER (user info) at 2005-06-27 13:16:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Why do you put us in a higher bracket than animals? Because of your abilities for abstract thought? I call bullshit on that.
Yes, we are a thinking, growing, destroying race that supposedly has control over everything in our world, that doesn't make us exempt from our baser animal instincts.
Should we blow off the fact that elephants pine over dead comrades just because they are animals?
Should we ignore the language and complex social societies of the dolphins just because we don't understand it?
No. I think man has gotten a little too carried away with it's self and it's deep moral issues.
Submitted by William_Q_Percy (user info) at 2005-06-27 13:15:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It makes perfect sense. So long as you don't feel the need to enforce your views on others, merely share it, and then will act within your beliefs should the situation arise, I don't see anything wrong with what you are saying.
Then again, it shouldn't matter to you what I think, but I understand what you're saying. So you have that going for you, which is nice.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-06-27 13:14:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by MANICMOTHER (user info) at 2005-06-27 13:00:38 (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm talkin' actual aborted pregnancies. Rabbits will do it in the wild, depending on the population and the conditions of their enviroment.
-------------------------
A fair and wise comment.
--------------------------
Berty, "As I say I respect your beliefs and your commitment to them but I am afraid the most bitter pill to swallow as a believer in human freedom is that you not only have to allow people to think things and do things that you don't like, but that you must encourage them to do as they please if only by your inaction. " - think I must have misunderstood that - surely you don't mean you should just let people do things you disagree with, like go to war or shoot kittens?
---------------------------
I let people do stuff I don't agree with everyday. I don't like cyclists but I respect there right to slow traffic to a crawl, I don't like the Daily Mail but I respect the need for fascist propaganda and general xenophobic lies. They are all neccesary to build the structure of society, the structure we all live in. That structure (what is not and is permissable) is defined by all sorts of subtle things, not just the rule of law.
I regret I must leave this debate to better men than myself as I have to go home. If you want to go through it some more you'll have to email me. Buh bye.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2005-06-27 13:13:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"I didn't put this post up to get hits...
The post got called "abortion is wrong" because I wanted people to read it, and I thought that that was likely to encourage it"
____
heatwhore.
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 13:09:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I agree William_Q_Percy. I've actually said several time that I think abortion *should* be *legal*, but that I, personally, don't think its morally right. I don't think I'm right as such, I just think what I think. Does that make any sense at all?
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 13:06:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Sphagnum, you're right about that individual cases are for the individuals involved and such like. I dispute that general ethical ideas should not be debated by those who have experienced it. The animal example proves the abortion debate to be neither wrong nor right. I simply highlighted the fact it didn't mean it was OK because that was what the point I wanted to make.
Adereterial, I attend a Baptist church. Its pretty crap and I disagree with most things that people say. This is good, because I then think about *why* I disagree. I'm not sucked in by their propaganda.
Berty, "As I say I respect your beliefs and your commitment to them but I am afraid the most bitter pill to swallow as a believer in human freedom is that you not only have to allow people to think things and do things that you don't like, but that you must encourage them to do as they please if only by your inaction. " - think I must have misunderstood that - surely you don't mean you should just let people do things you disagree with, like go to war or shoot kittens?
Manicmother, just because an animal does something naturally for the same reasons as humans do it, doesn't mean that humans should also do it.
Incidentally, I would also discuss it with my girlfriend an let her have the final say, not because its her choice alone, but because I love her and I'd rather she was happy than I was. See, I'm not such a bad person after all. Am I?
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-27 13:04:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
This is much more entertaining and deserve more attention:
http://www.ubersite.com/m/69384
Submitted by William_Q_Percy (user info) at 2005-06-27 13:03:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The fact of the matter is that members of the human race are often torn between the primal instincts of wanting to protect each other and do what is best for ourselves. Abortion is one of the most classic instances of this dilemma.
What you should be asking yourself is what gives anyone the right to decide whether killing ANYTHING is right or wrong? Human, animal, insect, plant, or lower life form?
A tomato is a living thing, do you give a shit whether or not it dies to feed you? How about if that tomato is going on a hamburger? Do you feel that it was wrong to kill the cow for the meat? What about if it were a veal burger? What about if you were killing these things for fun and not for food? How does it change then?
A decision like abortion is just that: a decision. Whether it is right or wrong is irrelevant because it can be declared either way from a number of different perspectives for a number of different reasons.
One thing can be certain, however. That is that revoking the right to decide is as inhumane as the actual act itself, and should not be condoned. Just because you are supporting the ability to decide does not mean you are supporting the action. The people doing this are, by virtue of the difficulty of the decision, adults. Allow them the ability to exercise the freedom that makes us human; and then let those who commit the act be judged by an authority that has the ability to do so. I am telling you this much, that authority does not exist in any court that humanity can lay claim over. That much is true by seeing how we treat the issue.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-06-27 13:00:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Actually, I'd discuss it with my girlfriend, and knowing that it's her final decision, stop if she wants to. I wouldn't be a third party as it was defined. If she doesn't even consider what I have to say at all.. well.. she'd be a bitch but that's her right, and I'd just leave.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I concur. Still that's us, I'd really like to be a dad myself. Once they get those artificial wombs up and running we'll be laughing.
Submitted by MANICMOTHER (user info) at 2005-06-27 13:00:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm talkin' actual aborted pregnancies. Rabbits will do it in the wild, depending on the population and the conditions of their enviroment.
Male lions kill cubs so that it is only their genes being raised in the pride. Hamsters will do it out of stress as will dogs in certain cases. Homosexual dog rape is nothing more than a show of dominance.
So let's look at it like this. Rabbits abort because they know it is not the right enviroment to raise young in. Doesn't seem all that different from some of the reasons given for human abortion.
Lions kill young that are not theirs, how many times have I woken up to the newspaper telling me that some asshole has just killed his girlfriend's baby because she left it with him and he resented it.
Hamsters killing their young out of stress, see post-partum depression and the number of infant mortality because of it.
Rape to show dominance. Isn't that the underlying reason for it in the first place?
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:59:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm against female clergy
----------------------------
Far out.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:56:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Who's talking shit about the Chruch of England?
Anglicanism?
I'm a (non-practicing) Anglican.
I'm also a left-leaning independant.
I'm pro-choice
I'm against female clergy
I'm anti-affirmative action
I'm pro-civil rights.
I'm just a bag of contradiction.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:55:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
hahaha *and say how no one should get an abortion
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:55:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Yeah, when I impregnate my girlfriend, I'm going to change my mind and post on Uber about it and then go become a politician or priest and say how everyone should get an abortion.
Actually, I'd discuss it with my girlfriend, and knowing that it's her final decision, stop if she wants to. I wouldn't be a third party as it was defined. If she doesn't even consider what I have to say at all.. well.. she'd be a bitch but that's her right, and I'd just leave.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:54:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Merlina (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:23:10 (#)
Ranking: 0
Berty - I love the way you talk....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Merlina, your very kind.
I suppose even a stopped clock tells the correct time twice a day.
(Whithnail & I)
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:53:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:48:56 (#)
Ranking: -2
Also, whether or not it's a good idea to have one is completely subjective.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:47:28 (#)
Ranking: -2
Okay, now I understand. I'm just prone to taking things literally. You're right, there's no reason for politicians and nobodys on the Internet to voice an opinion to people when the issue doesn't affect them. That's why I'm not writing about whether or not lime goes well with coke. I drink Pepsi and coke sucks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You could impregnate your girlfreind tonight, come tommorow I dare say the debate will be a little more pertinent.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:51:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Don't fucking start.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:48:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Also, whether or not it's a good idea to have one is completely subjective.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:48:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You attend what I assume is the Church of England to consider moral and spiritual questions?! The Church of England, second only to the Catholic Church in corruption and sanctimonious bullshit.
----------
For shame Ader, the man quite clearly said that it is the structure itself that he visits, not the church.
Easy to see why, Churches (real, stone, european churches that is) are very much like caves, usually at about 12-13 degrees and with a fairly constant level of humidity inside.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:47:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Okay, now I understand. I'm just prone to taking things literally. You're right, there's no reason for politicians and nobodys on the Internet to voice an opinion to people when the issue doesn't affect them. That's why I'm not writing about whether or not lime goes well with coke. I drink Pepsi and coke sucks.
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:47:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:39:49 (#)
Ranking: 0
Manicmother, you nearly got me converted there. And then I realised that when a new male lion takes over a pride he eats the babies. And hamsters make a habit of it. And my dog got gay-raped by another dog. Who, incidentally looked incredibly similar to this boy I went to school with.
You see, just because animals do it, doesn't make it right.
-----------
But it makes it wrong does it?
If so, please provide evidence to support your argument.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:46:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Does that answer the question?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It does indeed, very satisfactorily. I'm afraid I must pick on a part of your response there "morals are subjective", which is a very true comment. Thing is though is that effectivly means that one man's meat is another man's poison, that we can pick and choose which morals apply to us.
Therefore, one must infer that it is impossible to claim another's morality as 'wrong' and as such dismiss such a thing as an issue. This leaves us in a wasteland of Utilitarianism (which I don't agree with, by the way) or other generally un-sentimental perspectives.
As I say I respect your beliefs and your commitment to them but I am afraid the most bitter pill to swallow as a believer in human freedom is that you not only have to allow people to think things and do things that you don't like, but that you must encourage them to do as they please if only by your inaction.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:45:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
I do think that any one is 'allowed' to have an opinion on any thing, and they can think about the morality of abortion based on religon if they want to. However, when it comes to law, that's a different issue.
Though morals are subjective, there are rational ones and irrational ones.
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:44:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I'm sorry, I just assumed you two would be intelligent enough to read between the lines. It won't happen again.
A Man who is involved, (I.E The sperm donor/provider) should be able to have a say, if the Woman decides to involve him.
A Man who is not involved (I.E Catholic Priest/Pope/Politician) should mind his own fucking business.
Obviously the Woman is the one who is carrying the baby.(She OBVIOUSLY gets the ultimate say.)
Fat Lesbian bitch off the street wants to offer who 2 cents without any involvement. She can fuck off as well.
The only people the issue affects are the families and the baby involved. The pope still gets to fuck his alter boys as does the priest and the politician can pick up some kids of his own in Thailand. 99.9999999% of the time, these 3rd party pricks won't even know about it unless they can use it for political leverage.
If the issue is of a personal nature and you are going through it with a partner at the moment, You don't post your "opinion" on an internet forum. Therefore, Martyn fits into the "3rd party" scenario and should fuck off and book his tickets to Thailand.
Understand??
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:44:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
My parents are Christians, as is my girlfriend. I attend church, but am not a Christian. I attend so as to give myself an environment in which to consider moral, ethical and spiritual questions. The only reason I choose a church over any other religious building is that I live in the British countryside, so the choice isn't there.
--------------
My oh my.
You attend what I assume is the Church of England to consider moral and spiritual questions?! The Church of England, second only to the Catholic Church in corruption and sanctimonious bullshit.
You don't need to go anywhere to consider these questions - if you do, you don't have the courage of your own opinions or your ability to form your own.
By the sounds of it, you're accepting CofE doctrine without question. Go find yourself some opinions and morals of your own.
Religion is the crutch of the weak and ignorant.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:43:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:12:21 (#)
Ranking: -2
retards are self-aware
---
Is this your "I think therefore I am"
Submitted by William_Q_Percy (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:41:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
An abortion debate?
Is that time of year ALREADY? Sheesh.
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:40:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Ejryuu (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:37:58 (#)
Ranking: 1
Tresspassing is illegal and since there's something/someone IN another person's body, I'd consider that grounds for removal. Maybe the future mother asks the fetus to get off her property several times and he doesn't respond. That's grounds for getting rid of it.
--------------------------------------
Best ever argument against me. :D
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:39:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Manicmother, you nearly got me converted there. And then I realised that when a new male lion takes over a pride he eats the babies. And hamsters make a habit of it. And my dog got gay-raped by another dog. Who, incidentally looked incredibly similar to this boy I went to school with.
You see, just because animals do it, doesn't make it right.
Submitted by sg11588 (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:38:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Jesus christ, how many abortion posts have we gone through on this site?
Submitted by Ejryuu (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:37:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Tresspassing is illegal and since there's something/someone IN another person's body, I'd consider that grounds for removal. Maybe the future mother asks the fetus to get off her property several times and he doesn't respond. That's grounds for getting rid of it. Anyone want to have a drink?
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:37:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Haha, good point Berty - I'd definitely make an exception for New Kids On The Block.
Submitted by MANICMOTHER (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:36:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
The abortion bullshit will go round and round but don't forget there are mammals in the world that can abort their young during a bad season. Lack of food, instinctual knowledge of a bad year, heavy drought, it happens there, not just in the world of you supposed higher beings.
So what I think I'm trying to say is stop being a hitwhore and go do something else.
Submitted by simple_catalyst (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:35:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"and though the masters
make the rules
for the wise men
and the fools
i got nothin, ma
to live up to"
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:35:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
But then, lets think of the child as an adult. Who are they? Newton? Beethoven? Jesus?
-------
Jeffrey Dahmer, Charles Manson, New Kids on the Block...
The door swings both ways.
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:34:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Its not right to take a human life, because we have no right to decide whether they 'deserve' it or not, because, as this debate shows, morals are subjective.
My parents are Christians, as is my girlfriend. I attend church, but am not a Christian. I attend so as to give myself an environment in which to consider moral, ethical and spiritual questions. The only reason I choose a church over any other religious building is that I live in the British countryside, so the choice isn't there.
As with anyone, my beliefs are shaped by my parents, though they are both liberal. This argument is based on the assumption that it is wrong to kill another human and that from conception you are a human. This isn't a religious argument.
Does that answer the question?
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:32:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"The only time a Man should have an opinion on the issue is if a Woman asks him directly." When it comes to legality, the man has an equal say, except when it comes to referencing experiences in which case he has a fair, natural disadvantage. When it comes to the 'whether it's a good idea or not,' some people, about half of which are women, are completely fine with having someone else bring up a topic that's their business. If the women says 'fuck off I don't want to talk about it,' sure, but not every women, nor every person who has personal business of their own concern, hates it when people bring it up.
"If you rammed this bullshit down a Woman's throat and then knocked her up, do you think that if she wanted to have an abortion, she would even tell you about the pregnancy?" That's her discretion. And, it's in bad taste to tell someone all this if they don't want to hear about it.
"Women are the ones who have to endure the procedure and the ridicule, not Men." Women who don't get pregnant don't either.
"Men should fuck off and keep their opinions about the morality of abortion to themselves unless someone asks them.... And I don't remember anyone asking this Prick, Do you?" Nope. He's wrong, and perhaps a prick, but he should be allowed to voice his opinion.
Submitted by Deidra (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:31:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Excellent Post!
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:29:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
How can you possibly say its not an issue for anyone but the woman? The baby has half the genetic material of the father, so he 'owns' half of it. Even if you have it inside you for nine months, its obviously not entirely yours to do as you like with, because unless you reproduce asexually, you needed a man to make it.
Plus, I'd argue its an issue for the unborn baby.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:28:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:19:52 (#)
Ranking: 0
You know Berty, I really don't know why its different before and after conception, except that a sperm could be left as long as it liked and not ever become a human. I think the conception is unique because its the only definable point at which the two halves become a whole, as I said.
I realise though that choosing conception could be argued to be equally arbitrary as any other time, like the first mitotic division or such like.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I like your thinking! You have integrity in your beliefs, I respect that. Your quite right, it is the same (although I may have made light of that similarity, please forgive my crass words).
I often wonder why the Catholic church doesn't simply promote sodomy instead of witholding contraception, but that is another story.
The question now changes; is it right to take a human life? Although I don't believe that goo can be human, you do. So we'll go on the basis that it is, fully human I mean.
Before I go any further down this perilous path I must ask you whether or not you hold fast to religious beliefs, or whether you are a kind of extreme humanist.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:27:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
And only murderers have to go through the whole process of a trial.
I do understand your saying that a man shouldn't talk about whether it's a good idea or not, though I disagree because I think that you would have to apply that to women who haven't been pregnant before. But, as far as the legality goes, it's not a 'woman's issue.'
Women, and men, should stop grouping themselves together. It's not two different collective people, one side of which understands something and one doesn't. A woman who has never been pregnant wouldn't understand more than a man would.
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:25:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Sorry, I know this is the fourth thing I've said in a row, but I just noticed that all the posts I've ever written that we worthy of hits were when I said things that encouraged a "-2 die" attitude. Thus, this is my Number1 worst post ever and my Number3 best post ever, just because of all the reviews. This has managed to get onto most heated but that's essentially meaningless because it hasn't got many hits. Didn't there use to be a thing for most hits? I'd rather have that than most heated, wouldn't you?
Submitted by Merlina (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:23:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Berty - I love the way you talk....
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:22:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
D_Prime:-
The only time a Man should have an opinion on the issue is if a Woman asks him directly.
If you rammed this bullshit down a Woman's throat and then knocked her up, do you think that if she wanted to have an abortion, she would even tell you about the pregnancy?
Women are the ones who have to endure the procedure and the ridicule, not Men.
Men should fuck off and keep their opinions about the morality of abortion to themselves unless someone asks them.... And I don't remember anyone asking this Prick, Do you?
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:21:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Are all retards always self aware?
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:19:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You know Berty, I really don't know why its different before and after conception, except that a sperm could be left as long as it liked and not ever become a human. I think the conception is unique because its the only definable point at which the two halves become a whole, as I said.
I realise though that choosing conception could be argued to be equally arbitrary as any other time, like the first mitotic division or such like.
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:16:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
All this "you you you" is because d_prime asked me what I thought so I told him what decision I'd make if the decision was mine. I totally agree with him about why its not just a woman's issue. I came back because I was curious about what people had to say.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:16:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
And low and behold the tired debate grinds another revoloution through the dust and grime of tedium to the dirge of spent argument.
If it's definition your after why shouldnt we be against me wasting my jizz? It is alive after all, it's made up of wibbly bits. Or a women's period; should she gather up the sticky mess and preserve the egg to spare this 'unformed child' from the u-bend?
Of course not. That would be stupid. Wouldn't it?
Put the two gungy, masses together though and that's different is it? I'd say not. Why?
Because it's just meat. A person is not the wibbly bits they're made of, it's the things that make them smile and the things that make them cry. It's stuff that's pretty damn ineffable (which is why people are still talking about this nebulous nonsense). The self is such a shaky, changeable thing that it's generally defies definition.
One thing is for sure though, I remember my thoughts when I was five, they weren't much to shout about. There really wasn't an awful lot too me. Don't get me wrong, I've since blossomed and I'm well aware of the potential that meat has but that is all it is potential. And just as people have potentially to be real nice folk, they also have the potential to be real bad. They have the potential to fuck up people's lives.
That said, I'm not a dad. I dare say I'd feel differently if I where.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:12:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
retards are self-aware
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:09:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:07:14 (#)
Ranking: -1
It's not about feeling pain, it's about being self-aware.
---
is it okay to kill retards?
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:09:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Sph, though I believe abortion is completely moral and an absolute right, how is it only a woman's issue? Is the trial of a woman accused of murder only a woman's issue? If it doesn't count as a human being, which it doesn't, then it's still not a woman's issue; it's not an issue at all. If a bunch of women decide that abortions are wrong, women who still want to have one still should be allowed to.
Submitted by brokenlizard534 (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:02:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
oh god.
not again.
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:01:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I'm not reading all that!
I read the title and the user name suggests that you are a man.
Therefore, your opinion on the matter means little. Unless you were a failed abortion which I assume is highly likely based on the shape of your head and apparrent lack of Brain power.
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:57:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Shut the fuck up
Submitted by crazybutsolazy (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:55:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:51:18 (#)
Ranking: 0
One last point to d_prime. She should be allowed to get an abortion in all cases. Whether or not she should exercise this right is another matter. If she's raped, I can't fully understand why she'd do it, but I'd rather die (or anything else bad) than kill another human and I believe its human from conception. In the 50-50 case, I say I don't know because I don't . You're allowed to not be sure about things. If the baby will definitely live, but she won't, I'd save the baby. If the baby won't live, but she might, I'd probably save her (i.e. abort). If the baby might live, I'd ask lots of other people and make a decision based on group opinion. I personally would have no idea which way to argue - I might just disagree with consensus to let people think from both sides.
______________________________________
what is all this you you you. you'll decide this you'll decide that. It's not your fucking decision. You act like you own her or something and she has to do what your highness wants. God help that any girl gets pregant with your baby out of wedlock.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:54:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Yeah I know. I just misquoted you.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:54:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Okay now I respect you somewhat (this +2 is more like a plus 0.25)
Well, as long as you don't think it should be illegal, the rest isn't worth getting into. Now it all goes into my Objectivist ideas about morality and what makes a decision good, which is something seperate.
Peace out children. I've been on for about 15 hours so I'm going to go upstairs and see whether or not the sun's still there.
Submitted by mush (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:53:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
how is heat calculated?
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:52:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
No, no, no. I didn't say I think I don't think its ever alive. I said I think it IS always alive and that rape isn't a moral reason, in my eyes, to kill a child.
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:51:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
One last point to d_prime. She should be allowed to get an abortion in all cases. Whether or not she should exercise this right is another matter. If she's raped, I can't fully understand why she'd do it, but I'd rather die (or anything else bad) than kill another human and I believe its human from conception. In the 50-50 case, I say I don't know because I don't . You're allowed to not be sure about things. If the baby will definitely live, but she won't, I'd save the baby. If the baby won't live, but she might, I'd probably save her (i.e. abort). If the baby might live, I'd ask lots of other people and make a decision based on group opinion. I personally would have no idea which way to argue - I might just disagree with consensus to let people think from both sides.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:50:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Haha, I showed him that his doubt as to whether it counts as alive when its being considered alive may hurt the mother presents the fact that almost no one (certainly no one who 'considers' abortions in 'certain circumstances') actually thinks the fetus is alive, and he shrugs me off a couple times, finally with 'okay i dont think its ever alive you happy? (intends that he doesnt take me seriously)' and then leaves.
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:46:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Sorry, I'm not concentrating any more and I don't want people to think I'm doing this to get heat, so if I go it probably will die. I don't even know how heat works. 'Adam...' - you've made some good points and I'll incorporate them into my ideas on the matter. Thanks everyone.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:45:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
So, you seriously don't think, that if the woman has a 50% chance of dieing, or that if she got raped, she should be allowed to get an abortion, and aren't just saying that because you don't want to argue with me? If so, then it turns out I was extremely interested.
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:43:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
D_prime, I do think that its a human. So, you're probably right, I don't think rape is an exception. Happy now?
Thanks for agreeing with me shecky.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:43:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
So tell me what your reasoning is against my arguements, and if I don't care, no loss. If there's some idea that you have that makes what I say invalid, I'm actually quite interested in it. It would really clear up my idea of why so many abortion supporters approach the issue like that.
Or, because I argue well and make sense, especially the make sense part, are you assuming that I'm an arrogant asshole and don't deserve to be spoken to? That's quite the cop-out, but I think you're bigger than that.
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:42:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Tired subject matter + hackneyed writing style + transparent ploy for Most Heated = -2die
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:41:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
This is averaging about a review per minute...
I say it'll top out at 160 heat.
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:40:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Maybe it's the ability to survive independently of the mother. This has been known to be possible in the 20th week - well within the legal limit.
=========================
It can't survive without a plethora of assistance. Where do machines, and antibiotics, and hyperbaric chambers, and medical techinicians factor into the whole "natural" scheme of things?
Also, about awareness. Just because something has the ability to BECOME something that may under the right conditions become something aware, doesn't make it so. A chunk of uranium under the right condidtions can BECOME a nuclear bomb. A flu germ exposed to the right conditions could BECOME a monster that kills us all. Speculation of the future of anything will always be speculation.
Also why is it that the sanctity of OUR lives as humans are more important than the lives of the billions of living things that we kill every year. Cows and Chickens and Flys and Trees are all living things.
We as humans are both blessed and crippled by our ability to create a structured reality. We impose the morals, not GOD, on ourselves. We are also free to cast off these morals that others choose to try and bring down on us. People do it everyday, it's all a matter of societies willingness to accept or punish your reactions, because in the end it's us who punish each other, not GOD.
Submitted by sheckynecky (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:40:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Society tells us murder is wrong everyday. For some reason, people don't feel like killing the unborn is murder, I'm not sure why. I'm not Christian either, but I think people have a backwards view on abortion when they think "we need abortions because of the way our society is, children having sex, poor under-educated people having too many children etc, etc. Are these problems too big to fix? Isn't it putting the cart before the horse to say we need abortions because of societal problems? How about trying to better influence people's understanding of what fucking happens when you FUCK. Why can't people be made to understand that the function of every kind of life is to procreate. We are not any different. Don't want to have children? Get sterilized. Just not the right time in your life? Suck it up.(not the baby) Your teenage daughter is having a baby? Better get ready to help raise a grandchild because you apparently did not impress upon this girl enough that egg + sperm = baby, without exception. That's the problem though, there is an exception. People can feel free to buck the system, risk pregnancy because conveniently there is such a thing as abortion. I don't really see how any woman could be conflicted by this decision to kill her baby. It boggles my mind. Truly. Its a woman's choice? WTF?? Again, we tell people everyday that murder is wrong. This is just my opinion though and people do things everyday that I don't agree with. We have a society of people who think casual sex is more important than strong values and that a woman has a right to choose to kill children. Life begins at conception, the result of a fertilized egg is a child. Of course there are always grey areas to everything, I'm just saying my opinion on the idea that killing children for convenience is wrong.
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:40:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm sorry D_prime, I don't think you really care what I think, so lets not bother to continue arguing. I did say earlier that I thought it should be legal, but that just because it was legal didn't make it morally right.
I don't see what's wrong with including amongst an extensive list of reasons against it something about benefit to others. If it was all abou that, fair enough, flip out; but it really wasn't a huge part of my argument.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:40:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I'm not aggresive, I just don't pretend that I think you make any sense. If I was saying this, I'd be saying it completely calmly.
And, once again, would you consider killing a born baby because the mother was raped? Would you, and the other defenders, consider killing a born baby because of health reasons? Would you consider killing a born baby because its life could cause emotional problems for the mother? Would you kill a born baby for any of the reasons people use as an exception for abortion. Would you ever consider it? If you don't know or arent' certain about these, would you punish someone for murder when 'you aren't certain' whether they actually killed the person or not, or whether the person was already dead or not? No, this is because you see a fetuse not as life but potential life which you want to force the woman to produce.
Submitted by mush (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:39:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
BAHAHAHAHAH!!!
Submitted by BigDaddyV2.0 (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:37:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
If God thinks life is so precious, why don't children spring fully formed from the womb upon fertilization?
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:34:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Circe, I'm not trying to push my ideas on other people. I'm trying to present them for debate, just like you. I'm happy that people disagree with me.
D-prime, I didn't say I think its OK for rape, I said "I don't know - I really don't. Is this the exception? Maybe. ", because I'm aware of the difficulty of deciding which is the lesser of two evils in that case. I did however go on to suggest that maybe it wasn't an exception, though I'm still not totally sure. I quite like all the people who've commented here, except you - you're too agressive for my liking. I've probably just mis-read you though; and perhaps you've misunderstood me.
Submitted by fudgepacker (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:33:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
i disagree.
Submitted by Foonbo (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:33:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Dumbass. And you should get another -2 for spelling "Martin" with a "y."
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:33:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Once again, are we going to force women to reproduce because they might produce good people?
I've showed you, with examples, that the average baby that's born only because abortion is illegal is more likely to become a criminal and less likely to be well educated or do well financially(if you want I'll explain how I know this and how the study was done.)
- The benefit of others is not a reason to force people to do things that only involve themselves
- Illegalizing abortion does not benefit the average person
- This means that the only reason we have for illegalizing is if it counts as its own human
- I've quoted you and other supporters on why you think that it doesn't
Submitted by Merlina (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:32:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Martyn - I am so glad you put this - at least you are open to differing opinions..
"I didn't put this post up to get hits. I put it up because I feel like everyone disagrees with me (maybe I'm wrong then?)"
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:30:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Look at all these comments that it's okay EXCEPT in some circumstances.
Is killing an innocent thing okay EXCEPT in some circumstances? No. So, you obviously don't think that it's an actual living being.
Submitted by crazybutsolazy (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:29:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Axolotl (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:28:42 (#)
Ranking: 0
On the whole abortion thing, as a man, let me just say thank God I'm a man.
----------------------
props for making me laugh =)
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:29:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Thorpe does make an interesting point about what constitutes awareness, but I'm afraid that I think you were right when you said that the baby would eventually gain consciousness, just like a sleeping person. Hadn't thought about that until you said it.
And 'd-prime', whether or not society exists is irrelevant - those people have enriched many people's lives, so those people would have worse lives without them. Don't bother coming back to me over and over on the Jesus one, its not an argument I can really be bothered with I'm afraid: )
Submitted by Axolotl (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:28:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
On the whole abortion thing, as a man, let me just say thank God I'm a man.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:26:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Goodnught everybody. I'll see you all back here on No. 1 Heat when I wake up, okay?
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:26:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Also, one can tell that you don't actually think the fetus is alive by your statement that you 'consider' the fact that it's okay if there's rape. Would you kill a born baby if it was created because of rape? No, because you know that it's a live. You know that this one isn't actually alive, you just think the woman should be forced to reproduce. Or else, if you didn't know whether someone ACTUALY killed someone or not, that they might have been dead already, if you'd 'consider' the fact that they were, would you throw that person in prison? Of course not.
When someone comes up with a formed, backed statement that they think that fetuses are alive and have all the rights of a living human, I'll have respect for their opinion.
If any one starts assuming that I'm left-wing because of this, I'd like them to know that I support lassiez-faire capitalism. Individual rights for businessmen AND women.
Submitted by Circe (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:25:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I apologise for my last review. It was uneccessarily offensive.
But sincerely, you can't impose your own morals on other people. You feel it's wrong, and that's okay. I feel that circumsision is wrong, but I'm not going to scream at a woman who chooses to circumsize her son that she's mutilated her baby.
People have reasons for what they do. Don't presume that your narrow minded outlook is the only one that's right.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:24:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
28. Abortion of racists with WMD / Rules (Rating: -0.5 on 6 reviews, last by Trout 500 days ago)
Submitted by DCWoody<dcwoody3000.at.yahoo.com> (View user info) at 2004-02-13 10:01:22
29. The only real reason for abortion..... (Rating: 1.62 on 32 reviews, last by Scott_James 496 days ago)
Submitted by Bigmike (View user info) at 2004-02-06 00:43:29
30. Your abortion means nothing to me. (Rating: -1 on 11 reviews, last by I_have_a_Malone_fetish 436 days ago)
Submitted by Malone (View user info) at 2004-01-28 15:33:57
31. Abortion is Racist.... (Rating: -0.22 on 13 reviews, last by smokymtcsw 516 days ago)
Submitted by Clayton Wood <smokymtcsw.at.aol.com> (View user info) at 2004-01-23 14:36:13
32. Abortion Rules (Rating: 1.12 on 8 reviews, last by UNconfused 436 days ago)
Submitted by DCWoody<dcwoody3000.at.yahoo.com> (View user info) at 2004-01-21 04:22:38
33. Abortion is what keeps America great (Rating: -0.71 on 17 reviews, last by Falconer 525 days ago)
Submitted by <mooneybro.at.aol.com> (View user info) at 2004-01-17 13:28:15
34. Abortion (Rating: -1.44 on 32 reviews, last by TheTick 342 days ago)
Submitted by Lee Nicholas <saxismything.at.aol.com> (View user info) at 2004-01-06 19:40:18
35. New Abortion Beef (Rating: -1.15 on 6 reviews, last by Tastycat 465 days ago)
Submitted by <baba_booey_shooey.at.hotmail.com> (View user info) at 2003-12-15 00:09:52
36. Abortion - A horrendous generation (Rating: -0.77 on 57 reviews, last by Adereterial 559 days ago)
Submitted by Steven Bonnell II <Wing_Neo_Star_15.at.Yahoo.com> (View user info) at 2003-12-11 21:38:31
37. What's the deal with Abortion (Rating: -1.62 on 16 reviews, last by Death_Metal_Dude 342 days ago)
Submitted by <onedopedog.at.aol.com> (View user info) at 2003-12-08 02:38:48
38. Abortion is mean! MEAN! MEAN!!! (Rating: -1.5 on 12 reviews, last by ChristPuncher 465 days ago)
Submitted by <baba_booey_shooey.at.hotmail.com> (View user info) at 2003-12-06 00:41:36
39. A Better Abortion Arguement (Rating: -1 on 18 reviews, last by Lisa 591 days ago)
Submitted by Justin Slater <myhandinablender.at.yahoo.com> (View user info) at 2003-11-13 22:55:45
40. Abortion (Rating: -0.68 on 17 reviews, last by Death_Metal_Dude 590 days ago)
Submitted by <ramaseesniblickiii.at.yahoo.com> (View user info) at 2003-11-13 21:20:26
41. Patial Birth Abortion (Rating: 0.3 on 24 reviews, last by slyphter 591 days ago)
Submitted by Ian C. <allahlovesboy.at.hotmail.com> (View user info) at 2003-11-13 01:02:44
42. Abortion Kills Children. (Rating: 1.1 on 28 reviews, last by Insanethemind 598 days ago)
Submitted by K.M (View user info) at 2003-10-22 22:58:13
43. Abortion (Rating: 0.21 on 29 reviews, last by Cassiopeia 618 days ago)
Submitted by RIZZOSTYLE <rizzo.at.efmovie.com> (View user info) at 2003-10-16 22:47:25
44. Arguments for Slavery/Abortion (Rating: -0.47 on 67 reviews, last by UNconfused 405 days ago)
Submitted by Alberto Frenrardo <alberto.at.nathanralph.com> (View user info) at 2003-10-06 18:57:09
45. Abortion + Ubersite Contest (Rating: 1 on 6 reviews, last by podium 96 days ago)
Submitted by reallybored (View user info) at 2003-10-03 18:40:17
46. I had an abortion (Rating: 0.75 on 9 reviews, last by William_Q_Percy 514 days ago)
Submitted by Jeet Kune Tony <psyqo87.at.yahoo.com> (View user info) at 2003-10-03 18:24:02
47. Abortion - spontaneous (Rating: -0.6 on 5 reviews, last by momanlad 2 years ago)
Submitted by <oneblake.at.yahoo.com> (View user info) at 2003-06-03 18:37:47
48. Abortion/Miscarriage of language! (Rating: -1 on 11 reviews, last by Spooner 6 days ago)
Submitted by <oneblake.at.yahoo.com> (View user info) at 2003-05-29 17:04:28
49. I Made an Abortion Today (Rating: 0 on 27 reviews, last by Beer_bong 2 years ago)
Submitted by <thecrazyflowerlady.at.yahoo.com> (View user info) at 2003-05-07 20:33:17
50. 36 Reasons Supporting Abortion (Rating: 0.15 on 25 reviews, last by jimbo 570 days ago)
Submitted by <joey1485.at.hotmail.com> (View user info) at 2003-04-10 16:30:44
51. Abortion (Rating: -0.13 on 15 reviews, last by perfect007dark 422 days ago)
Submitted by <iamamonkeyman.at.lycos.com> (View user info) at 2003-03-06 17:24:58
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:24:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
14. (NSFW) Abortion Made Cheap and Easy (Rating: 0.88 on 31 reviews, last by jack0173 4 days ago)
Submitted by Vermin (View user info) at 2005-01-20 20:19:07
15. Abortion: A little dose of reality... (Rating: 1.79 on 16 reviews, last by munkeypants 195 days ago)
Submitted by Pedro the dirty Mexican (View user info) at 2004-12-11 12:09:26
16. A Disection of the Abortion "Debate", or Why I Want to Have Rad's Babies (warning, long) (Rating: 0.98 on 18 reviews, last by williamson 141 days ago)
Submitted by FuckTheArmy (View user info) at 2004-12-11 10:43:54
17. Intelligent Abortion Discussion (Rating: -0.98 on 276 reviews, last by knucklesnelson 191 days ago)
Submitted by BDakotaC (View user info) at 2004-12-10 22:44:40
18. Abortion. Republicans. And the "Gray Area" (Rating: -0.14 on 335 reviews, last by munkeypants 229 days ago)
Submitted by NotMuchToSay (View user info) at 2004-10-30 14:24:53
19. Gay Marriage and Abortion (Rating: 1.3 on 11 reviews, last by Degreeless_Capibara 252 days ago)
Submitted by 37. Spiral (View user info) at 2004-10-17 14:21:30
20. My Stance On Abortion. (Rating: -0.77 on 14 reviews, last by Spiral_Abraxis 265 days ago)
Submitted by 45. Spiral Parabola (View user info) at 2004-10-04 21:32:38
21. Abortion Kicks Ass (Rating: -1.9 on 10 reviews, last by Walrus_King 272 days ago)
Submitted by The T Man (View user info) at 2004-09-27 22:58:31
22. is abortion right or wrong? you decide. (Rating: -0.41 on 20 reviews, last by Lechuga 287 days ago)
Submitted by <spam_me.at.clicktoexit.biz> (View user info) at 2004-09-11 21:32:46
23. The Horrors of Abortion (Rating: -0.31 on 23 reviews, last by dakingisdead 307 days ago)
Submitted by 218UCIO (View user info) at 2004-08-21 17:28:39
24. I am against the death penalty, but for abortion (Rating: -1.6 on 13 reviews, last by munkeypants 338 days ago)
Submitted by brian gibbs <brianleegibbs.at.mindspring.com> (View user info) at 2004-07-21 19:53:18
25. God on Abortion (Rating: -0.08 on 32 reviews, last by William_Q_Percy 338 days ago)
Submitted by Johnson <rickcane7479.at.yahoo.com> (View user info) at 2004-07-21 14:47:11
26. Abortion, no one gives a fuck about the children (Rating: -1.05 on 22 reviews, last by SoxSexSax 385 days ago)
Submitted by wse.jack.at.verizon.net (View user info) at 2004-04-30 21:03:18
27. Abortion 101! (Rating: -1.06 on 42 reviews, last by lordofthepost 467 days ago)
Submitted by <Spacecowboy468.at.budweiser.com> (View user info) at 2004-03-16 17:35:09
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:24:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I didn't put this post up to get hits. I put it up because I feel like everyone disagrees with me (maybe I'm wrong then?) and I wanted to let people who hadn't made up their minds hear my side of the story. I also wanted to hear what other people thought.
The post got called "abortion is wrong" because I wanted people to read it, and I thought that that was likely to encourage it. Admittedly it suggests black and white, but "Surely You Wouldn't Kill Your Baby" wasn't so snappy. I want people to read what I've written just like any other 'writer' does, so obviously hits are nice. But I want them because it means people have read what I think, not because I'm some sad, lonely hit-whore.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:23:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
1. Abortion Is Wrong (Rating: -0.72 on 49 reviews, last by MyNameIsTim 3 minutes ago)
Submitted by Martyn Steiner (View user info) at 2005-06-27 10:28:13
2. A 15 year old girl and abortion: a true story (Rating: 0.93 on 84 reviews, last by Miss 8 days ago)
Submitted by Miss (View user info) at 2005-06-08 16:19:36
3. Abortion, Mexicans, and Why Homicide Isn't What You Think It Is (Rating: 1.36 on 101 reviews, last by Alter 8 days ago)
Submitted by Rad (View user info) at 2005-06-07 11:07:09
4. The adventures of captain foetus and his struggle against abortion! (Rating: 1.88 on 67 reviews, last by Wazza 37 days ago)
Submitted by Paul Hibbert (View user info) at 2005-05-18 06:19:57
5. Serious Flash About Abortion (Rating: 0.17 on 17 reviews, last by Feijuada 61 days ago)
Submitted by Habeeb "Fuk a Dyke" Thomas (View user info) at 2005-04-26 14:02:22
6. Abortion (Rating: -0.89 on 70 reviews, last by mboomer 80 days ago)
Submitted by DCWoody<dcwoody3000.at.yahoo.com> (View user info) at 2005-04-03 18:32:58
7. Im anti-abortion (warning severe lack of content) (Rating: -1.43 on 29 reviews, last by thorpe 67 days ago)
Submitted by DCWoody<dcwoody3000.at.yahoo.com> (View user info) at 2005-04-02 18:42:01
8. Birth Control/ Abortion, lets find a better way. (Rating: -0.82 on 45 reviews, last by Herpes 88 days ago)
Submitted by Jungle_Jimanee (View user info) at 2005-03-30 10:39:54
9. 100K for an abortion? Part II (I bring Jesus into the ordeal) (Rating: 0.66 on 25 reviews, last by mrwolf 91 days ago)
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (View user info) at 2005-03-25 14:39:28
10. 100K for an abortion? I have a low cost alternative (Rating: 1.27 on 20 reviews, last by transformer 3 days ago)
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (View user info) at 2005-03-25 13:42:00
11. Abortion and the Feeding Tube: It's everyone's choice, dumbass (Rating: 0.65 on 34 reviews, last by Danger_Ranger 39 days ago)
Submitted by HZRD (View user info) at 2005-03-17 11:38:14
12. Bitch Shut your Mouth And get the Abortion.. Abortions in Poli Science 101 (Rating: 0.2 on 10 reviews, last by fluff 72 days ago)
Submitted by The Artist formly known as "Chris Evans" (View user info) at 2005-03-16 22:21:25
13. UberPoll: Is abortion funny or wrong? (Rating: -2 on 9 reviews, last by Feijuada 121 days ago)
Submitted by PileOfDeadBabies (View user info) at 2005-02-06 03:10:27
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:23:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Even though you're wrong, I would have given this a +1 for being a good read until you got into that 'this baby could help society by being Jesus or someone talented' bullshit. It's not a woman's legal obligation to help society by giving birth, and that's completely irrelavent. You're treating women, and men actually, as nothing but machines to help the great collective by bringing that into laws. We could, indeed, strap a woman down and force them to reproduce. Hell! If we don't do that, we might miss out on some great scientists or piano players!
Babies that would have been aborted are actually more likely to commit a crime, and Roe vs. Wade is probably what caused most of the fall in crime in the 90s. If, for other reason, abortion is wrong, would you let this be an excuse to have abortions? Society in general would obviously be better-off. Of course not.
Stop clouding your judgement by thinking about 'society,' which in fact doesn't exist, and start thinking about individual life, THEN form an opinion.
Submitted by crazybutsolazy (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:22:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
If my girlfriend got pregnant, I would rather give up my studies, get a shit job, look after the baby - on my own if necessary - do anything but kill it.
--------------------------
Ya, one of my friends did that. They got married a year ago just for the baby. They were not "in luv" now they hate eachother, they both have shitass jobs, they are being kicked out of there apt, and basically are both completely miserable. All because the jerk REFUSED to let her get an abortion when she was only 5wks pregnant
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:21:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:12:24 (#)
Ranking: 0
Thorpe - I'm not sure lack of self-awareness makes it OK either - this is the whole coma argument again though. I suppose you could suggest a sleeping person was not self aware: )
------------------------------------------------
If a sleeping (dreamless? maybe) person was never going to wake up, then sure, if it is necessary then the family should have the right to "abort" them.
Nobody say "But the baby will become self aware" because that's not my point - the best comparison there would have been a sleeping person that would wake up as a completely new and different person with no history, and I believe that to "kill" them before this "awakening" of self-interest is okay if required.
Submitted by Circe (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:20:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Yes I would. Want me to prove it? The little shit is sleeping, she won't even notice.
Submitted by mush (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:20:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
.. but only if "babies" can apply to people up to 70 years old...
(C) Maddox.
Submitted by MyNameIsTim (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:19:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i'm against abortion, but for killing babies.
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:19:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
This point here doesn't apply very widely and I realise many guys wouldn't agree.
If my girlfriend got pregnant, I would rather give up my studies, get a shit job, look after the baby - on my own if necessary - do anything but kill it.
Some guys wouldn't. But some guys wouldn't look after the baby if they got divorced from the mother when it was 6 months old. And like I've already said, you wouldn't kill the baby at that point.
Submitted by mush (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:18:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
oh snap!
Submitted by Stin (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:18:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It's also a case of absolute ethics vs. situational ethics. It's very easy to have absolute moral values, but try applying them to yourself, someone close to you, your brother or sister. It's much easier to "bend the rules" for the benefit of one than it is to change your whole paradigm.
Submitted by Merlina (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:17:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:12:24 (#)
Ranking: 0
Merlina, I shall quote the article;
"I don't know - I really don't. Is this the exception? Maybe. "
Does that sound black and white to you?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What is the title of this post?
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:16:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:07:24 (#)
Ranking: -1
I think you just have to face the reality of the situation.
Abortions will always happen - legal or illegal.
Making them legal - and restricted - makes them safer.
What is more important to you? A dead foetus, not technically alive or viable, or a woman dead or infertile from massive blood loss or infection after a backstreet abortion with a coathanger, as used to happen?
It IS the woman's right to choose, and whilst I agree that the legal period could be restricted, removing that right to choose takes us back 200 years, not forwards.
------------------------------------------------
I'm not arguing about the legality of abortion, I'm arguing about the morality. They probably should be *legal*, but perhaps so should drugs. That doesn't mean I think you should shoot up.
I'm not sure about which is more important. Though I suppose in that case it does depend if the child could survive alone. If I had the choice of a fully viable foetus or the mother, I'd probably go for the foetus. Difficult grey-area choice though.
People should be allowed to choose, yes. That doesn't mean that any choice is morally right.
Submitted by Stin (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:15:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I think it's unfair to say that men can't have an opinion because they never have to decide, but I do think it needs to be acknowledged that the implications of a pregnancy - any pregnancy - have a larger bearing on a womans life than they do a mans and that any "decision" taken by a man is purely hypothetical. It's fine as a discussion standpoint, but ultimately the responsibility is not theirs unless they choose to make it so.
Rights get mentioned a lot in connection with the abortion debate, but people forget that in order to have rights, one also has responsibilies. We cannot exercise our rights if we are not prepared to also take the responsibilities, and a man cannot use his right to an opinion if he will not accept the partial financial and time responsibilities (if nothing else) that come with having a child.
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:12:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Merlina, I shall quote the article;
"I don't know - I really don't. Is this the exception? Maybe. "
Does that sound black and white to you?
Thorpe - I'm not sure lack of self-awareness makes it OK either - this is the whole coma argument again though. I suppose you could suggest a sleeping person was not self aware: )
Submitted by mush (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:10:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
You get automatic -1 for being a hit-whore.
You have said nothing worthwhile. Everyone has heard all of these arguments before. If you're going to try up the # of your post hits, at least do us the favor of having an original thought.
I have an interesting philosphy about life. I think that anyone should be able to do whatever they wish, so long as they do not impede anyone elses ability to do the same. It really gets interesting when this mantra gets applied to things like gay Boy Scout leaders, seat belt laws, statutory (spelling?) rape, and abortions, and you can expect to see some posts on this in the future. However, I have one question for you dealing with this issue right now:
When do brainwaves become detectable in a fetus?
I have thought about this a lot and it seems to me that the only way to actually discern between a few cells and a human is that which most makes us human: the mind. Just recently, the courts have held up the idea that the mind is what really makes us human -- it's why they let Terry Schiavo's feeding tube be removed. I think in their (correct) judgment, she was no longer human; just a living mass of flesh and blood.
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:09:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
So you're not allowed to influence decisions about things you don't yourslef choose? So politicians can't make laws for asylum seekers or against murder or whatever if they're not going to have to be the judge in a court case?
Submitted by Merlina (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:08:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 10:56:31 (#)
Ranking: 0
Hey Merlina, if I can't say its right or wrong, how come you can?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm not saying its 'right' per se..... just saying that you can't make the sweeping statement that its wrong. Especially if you'll never have been or will be in the situation yourself.
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:07:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
I think you just have to face the reality of the situation.
Abortions will always happen - legal or illegal.
Making them legal - and restricted - makes them safer.
What is more important to you? A dead foetus, not technically alive or viable, or a woman dead or infertile from massive blood loss or infection after a backstreet abortion with a coathanger, as used to happen?
It IS the woman's right to choose, and whilst I agree that the legal period could be restricted, removing that right to choose takes us back 200 years, not forwards.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:07:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
It's not about feeling pain, it's about being self-aware.
Submitted by crazybutsolazy (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:06:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by freshspinach (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:02:47 (#)
Ranking: -2
Males will never be forced to make a decision to have an abortion and therefore should not have a voice on the matter. They can have all the opinions they want, but they should never matter. Period.
---------------------------
Exactly, they can leave when ever they want. We however are given all the responsibility of raising the child in a good nurting home in an envirment that that might not be possible or we may not have the maturity to do so
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:05:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Sorry to not respond sooner, Thorpe. You've made a good point and I totally see where you're coming from. I personally just don't think that feeling pain or not excuses it; is it right to stab a leper in the arm?
Submitted by doctorj24 (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:04:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:02:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
I am "pro-choice" (though I hate the term because it suggests I value choice over life) yet so many pro-choice arguments make me cringe.
Respond to my previous comment please.
Submitted by freshspinach (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:02:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Males will never be forced to make a decision to have an abortion and therefore should not have a voice on the matter. They can have all the opinions they want, but they should never matter. Period. If they desire a society where men decide the rights of women, move your ass to Afghanistan.
Submitted by fluff (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:02:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:01:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You're right Stin. My line is draw as detailed above, yours is drawn elsewhere. I have no problem with that and I have no real problem with you disagreeing with me; I just wanted to give my views an airing.
Submitted by Stin (user info) at 2005-06-27 11:00:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Martyn, I just don't think you can comprehend the enormity of what goes through a womans head when she finds out that she is pregnant and it wasn't planned.
As Merlina said, it's not black and white. It's finding where you draw your personal line in all the shades of grey. I know where I draw my line, I can justify it and still sleep at night, and as long as my line falls within the bounds of the law, you have no right to take it away from me.
Submitted by crazybutsolazy (user info) at 2005-06-27 10:59:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stin (user info) at 2005-06-27 10:55:35 (#)
Ranking: -2
People are not pro-abortion. They're not "pro-murderous-bastard" and "pro-killing-innocent-children". They are pro-CHOICE.
-
ditto! my thoughts exactly. and I was on birth control AND using condoms. I would never not plan ahead.....double negitive wow
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 10:59:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
They're not pro choice though - they're pro choice of woman. The baby doesn't get a choice and nor does a man if he wants to make one.
Sure, some men are assholes and reject women who get pregnant. But, husbands leave wifes and children and we don't send the cops round to kill the kids once the divorce is finalised.
Submitted by morontian (user info) at 2005-06-27 10:59:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
One of my best friends at the time actually went to the clinic to have an abortion and found out that she was too far along. Now, 10 years later, she is disguted with the part of herself that would have gone through with it. "Of course she is," right? Truly being a parent consists partly of cherishing your child. To look back and KNOW that you would have ended it on a technicality must be horrifying. Luckily, I'm male.
It's completely up to you...and if you can live with yourself in 15 years.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-06-27 10:58:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-06-27 10:36:42 (#)
Ranking: -1
I don't see conception as a logical point at all - it is a cop-out point, "We might as well start here just to be sure", and you have argued it as such.
To me, the only logcial point at which we afford a baby the rights of a human is when it starts to experience self-awareness. This occurs slightly after complex brainwaves are recorded, and I've forgotten the time at which this occurs, but it's well after eight weeks.
Otherwise, you're causing suffering to real, living people because of the "rights" of a bunch of cells that are alive biologically like a plant, yet have not developed anything that we should have moral qualms over losing.
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2005-06-27 10:58:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-27 10:49:39 (#)
Ranking: 2
I oppose abortion (and the "right" to abort) in all cases except in pregnancies that endanger the mother's life. This includes rape. The thought of being forced to go through the 9 month ordeal bearing a child conceived from rape would be the breakdown of the mother's mental and emotional health.
However in the case that two people mutually fucked and the girl ends up pregnant; that's her cross to bear (and with laws, we should make it the man's burden too). As unfortunate as it may be the child inside should not die because the girl didn't realise Penis + Vagina = Baby.
This has all been argued to death. I'm tired and incoherent. I'll go to bed as soon as "The Man Who Would Become King" finishes on tele. Goodnight Uber.
------------
Unless you're going to require they get married and not divorce, shut the fuck up.
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2005-06-27 10:56:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
According the the federal government, a person is not a person until they have a birth certificate and social security number. They are not counted for taxation or representation until this is the case.
In order for a fetus to be considered a person, they must be assigned something like a General Pregnancy Number. At that point, all expenses related to the pregnancy become tax-deductible and the fetus can be claimed as a dependent for tax purposes. Until such a time as fetuses are legally-recognized as dependents, your opinion on the matter amounts to fuck-all and you should shut your flapping cumhole and get the flying fuck off my front page.
Asshole.
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 10:56:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Hey Merlina, if I can't say its right or wrong, how come you can?
Submitted by Stin (user info) at 2005-06-27 10:55:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
It's also very easy for a man to make general, sweeping statements about abortion because it's much easier for him to up and leave. If we could guarantee that every child born inadvertantly to a mother who didn't want it would be taken in by its father, maybe things would be different. but you tell me that it's not my right to choose and then abandon me, what happens to my life? Don't tell me it doesn't happen - it's all too common.
People are not pro-abortion. They're not "pro-murderous-bastard" and "pro-killing-innocent-children". They are pro-CHOICE.
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 10:54:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Thanks Stin. You and 'crazy...' make a good point about the life that this unwanted child might have, but imagine the child that could have been aborted becomes a bit screwed up and does things screwed up kids do. Do you kill it? Isn't that a bit of a sinister suggestion?
Submitted by Merlina (user info) at 2005-06-27 10:51:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 10:46:48 (#)
Ranking: 0
Merlina, when you say not after 12-14 weeks, does that mean that 11weeks, 6 days and 23 hours after conception (not that you could be that certain, obviously) you'd be happy to abort?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I would.
And yes I have.
And no I don't spend days, weeks, hours crying over a lost baby because it wasn't a baby. There were reasons, good reasons.
I'm not saying it should be taken lightly or used as a method of birth control. BUT it is a hard enough decision that some women have to make and will often decide on termination for a number of reasons, without having people judging then for it.
You simply CANNOT say it is right or wrong. You can have an opinion, sure, but if you spout stuff like this you will be a very lonely person..
Life is not black and white.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-27 10:49:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I oppose abortion (and the "right" to abort) in all cases except in pregnancies that endanger the mother's life. This includes rape. The thought of being forced to go through the 9 month ordeal bearing a child conceived from rape would be the breakdown of the mother's mental and emotional health.
However in the case that two people mutually fucked and the girl ends up pregnant; that's her cross to bear (and with laws, we should make it the man's burden too). As unfortunate as it may be the child inside should not die because the girl didn't realise Penis + Vagina = Baby.
This has all been argued to death. I'm tired and incoherent. I'll go to bed as soon as "The Man Who Would Become King" finishes on tele. Goodnight Uber.
Submitted by Stin (user info) at 2005-06-27 10:49:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Martyn, you'll find a good debate on abortion here.
http://www.ubersite.com/m/50132
In case you can't be bothered to read it all, I have taken the liberty of copying a rating I made there.
___________________________________________________________
Submitted by Stin (user info) at 2004-11-06 08:50:35 (#)
Ranking: 0
Just to add my tuppence-worth to this debate.
A lot of people have spoken about the potential of the foetus to become a person, life a long and fulfilling life etc. etc.
However, the foetus has not yet started that life, and although there is the potential for that, there is also the potential for it to be born unwanted and unloved, to be beaten and abused, abandoned because its mother was unready for the commitment. It was the potential to grow up one messed-up kid who will turn to crime, violence, suicide.... the options are endless.
It would be lovely if every child grew up in a loving home to go on and get married, have 2.4 children of its own and become the model citizen. But children of young, single parents (as is often the case in accidents - but not always) are usually those who have behavioural difficulties, who go on to get involved in petty crime and the like.
I'm NOT saying that this is every case. Lojo, I'm particularly aiming that last statement at you.
But it is all a question of potential. Yes the foetus has potential. But what of the potential of the mother? What if she did everything possible (with the exception of not having sex) to prevent pregnancy? Is it fair to take away established potential, a life with probability rather than possibility, because of an accident? Stop a bright young girl from pursuing her potential for the sake of a foetus she did not want at that time, has no means to support, is unable to provide the lifestyle for at that time in her own life?
I don't think so.
I became pregnant at 18. It was an accident, I was on the Pill and using condoms. Heaven only knows what went wrong, but I became pregnant. Because I have never had nice, regular periods I didn't realise for some considerable time that I was pregnant at all. When I did, it was so late in the term that they would not have aborted unless for medical reasons.
I miscarried the baby at 24 weeks. By that time she was a baby, not a foetus - to me. She had arms and legs and fingers and dammit, I loved her. But had I known early enough in the pregnancy, I would have had an abortion. I was 18 years old, in the middle of exams and university applications, I had my whole life in front of me. Would I have been a good mother at that point in time? Maybe. Would I be a better mother when I was married, had a good job, money behind me and life experience? Undoubtedly.
I stand by a womans right to choose based on what is appropriate to her at that time. I do not advocate abortion as a means of primary birth control. I believe in the potential of a life already happening, rather than a life about to start. But that's my view, everyone else is entitled to their own. I'm not trying to convert, just sharing a different perspective.
Submitted by crazybutsolazy (user info) at 2005-06-27 10:49:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Sure abortion shouldn't be used as a birth control tool...but I think it should be just as illegal for example for my sisters best friend who's 13 to be having a baby. What kind of life is that kid going to have when his momthers barely older then he is. Sorry for blowing up, u hit a soft spot seeing that I just went though this
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 10:46:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Merlina, when you say not after 12-14 weeks, does that mean that 11weeks, 6 days and 23 hours after conception (not that you could be that certain, obviously) you'd be happy to abort?
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 10:44:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm sorry to have upset you, 'crazybutsolazy'. I admit I hadn't thought about situations like yours where the life of the mother is at risk. Perhaps this is another possible exception. Its really interesting to hear people's views on the matter - I'm really not a horrible person just because I think this and am very willing to listen to other people and be open minded - even to change my mind.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-06-27 10:41:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
http://www.ubersite.com/cgi-bin/search.cgi?q=abortion
Submitted by crazybutsolazy (user info) at 2005-06-27 10:40:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Only a guy would be niave and sensless enough to write this. I had an abortion two days ago, it was the hardest thing I've ever done in my life. But the dad wanted nothing to do with me, my family would disown me, and the doctor said because I already have severe stomach problems there was a 30% chance I wouldn't survive deliver. Go fuck yourself for thinking u have the right to decide if a girl should be allowed to have an abortion.
Submitted by Sassmasterr (user info) at 2005-06-27 10:38:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
there are no morals in America.
+1 so you don't get heat.
Submitted by Merlina (user info) at 2005-06-27 10:37:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Sorry Dervel. That sounded unfair, but I'm wasn't actually saying all men are like this.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-06-27 10:36:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
I don't see conception as a logical point at all - it is a cop-out point, "We might as well start here just to be sure", and you have argued it as such.
To me, the only logcial point at which we afford a baby the rights of a human is when it starts to experience self-awareness. This occurs slightly after complex brainwaves are recorded, and I've forgotten the time at which this occurs, but it's well after eight weeks.
Otherwise, you're causing suffering to real, living people because of the "rights" of a bunch of cells that are alive biologically like a plant, yet have not developed anything that we should have moral qualms over losing.
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2005-06-27 10:35:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Merlina (user info) at 2005-06-27 10:33:19 (#)
Its not a baby at this stage. Its a egg. I agree with prevention of termination after say 12-14 weeks but before that its TOTALLY sensible to give women the option to terminate rather than bring an unwanted baby into the world.
You have to be a man to write this.
---
With the exception of the last line which is unfair, I agree with Merlina completely.
Submitted by Merlina (user info) at 2005-06-27 10:33:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
If we call conception the start of human life, then it must be argued that the same rights and treatment should apply to the human life from this point onwards.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Its not a baby at this stage. Its a egg. I agree with prevention of termination after say 12-14 weeks but before that its TOTALLY sensible to give women the option to terminate rather than bring an unwanted baby into the world.
You have to be a man to write this.
Submitted by Stin (user info) at 2005-06-27 10:33:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Your ignorance astounds me.
Submitted by congo (user info) at 2005-06-27 10:33:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Wiggles has me laughing way too hard now.
And -2 for an obvious attempt at Most Heated. Too obvious.
Submitted by Wiggles (user info) at 2005-06-27 10:30:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I agree that abortion is wrong, unless you eat the fetus.
It's what the Indians would've done.
Submitted by Martyn_Steiner (user info) at 2005-06-27 10:29:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Sorry that the picture didn't work properly.
And no, I'm not a Christian.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2005-06-27 10:29:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
http://www.ubersite.com/m/41553
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2005-06-27 10:28:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You made the baby jesus abort himself.