Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Abortion [split]
| Re: Abortion [split] [message #178701 is a reply to message #178640] |
Thu, 10 November 2005 16:04   |
 |
Arcane1
Messages: 28
Registered: November 2005
Location: NW Burbs, Chicago
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Goztow wrote on Thu, 10 November 2005 09:02 |
Just one point (didn't read all neather but found Crimson's point intresting): putting high taxes on abortion will make it a privilege (spelling?) for the rich while it is more than probable that it's the less rich people who are less informed about birth control, who might not having the money to do birth control (the pill and condoms still cost money) and who are most "touched" by an unwanted baby: think of getting a baby when you have bearly enough money from your job to feed yourself. Also think of the fact that you will probably need to give up your job because of the baby (someone needs to take care of it) when you're isolated.
So allthough it seemed quite a good solution to me at first read, I think that it will have a rather pervers effect this way. Your solution would work if all people had the same income though.
My personal opinion is that it should be possible in some cases but that people thinking of getting an abortion should be assisted in their choice by professional people so that they don't regret it afterwards.
|
Abortion, like much of the health care system in the US is far more attainable by the rich/priveleged. There are a number of stats showing that those with money to afford private insurance and options are far more able to recieve higher quality health care.
It is time to realize that we have tread where it was unwise. Bring them home before another 2000 die. Every day sooner is another service member not wounded, maimed, killed or away from home.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Abortion [split] [message #178702 is a reply to message #178681] |
Thu, 10 November 2005 16:10 |
|
Arcane1
Messages: 28
Registered: November 2005
Location: NW Burbs, Chicago
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| NeoSaber wrote on Thu, 10 November 2005 14:32 |
Letting women have abortions because they've been abandoned isn't a solution to the problem, it only makes the situation worse. Men think they can make women get abortions, or just abandon them in part because things like abortion are legal. Society needs to help people, not let them destroy themselves or others.
|
You have clearly been raised in a competent and coherent family where there was not only verbage of morality but the lifestyle. No doubt that if there were more of that we wouldn't be having this debate.
Unfortunately, morality and decency cannot be mandated or legislated. Making the men that are responsible for the behaviors is not only difficult, but nearly impossible. Using the lack of child support colllections as an example makes it clear that the idea of what makes a Father can't be institutionalized.
It is time to realize that we have tread where it was unwise. Bring them home before another 2000 die. Every day sooner is another service member not wounded, maimed, killed or away from home.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Abortion [split] [message #178712 is a reply to message #178702] |
Thu, 10 November 2005 17:16 |
 |
NeoSaber
Messages: 336
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Arcane1 wrote on Thu, 10 November 2005 18:10 |
Unfortunately, morality and decency cannot be mandated or legislated. Making the men that are responsible for the behaviors is not only difficult, but nearly impossible. Using the lack of child support colllections as an example makes it clear that the idea of what makes a Father can't be institutionalized.
|
Laws can be used to greatly encourage people though, and I don't just mean punishing people for their mistakes. The law in America pretty much strips fathers of their rights. A woman can get an abortion without even having to tell her husband. It doesn't even reach the level of debating if a father should have to give consent, he's doesn't even have a right to know about it to begin with. When laws start taking away a father's rights, then men are going to be prompted to ignore their responsibility as well. After all, if you're going to be punished when you don't do anything wrong, why should you do what's right to begin with?
That's the kind of 'morality' that can be put into laws. Give people rights with their responsibilities and they won't be as quick to ignore those responsibilities. Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. Taking away one removes the point of the other. Sure, there will probably always be people who do the wrong thing anyway, but at least then the law doesn't promote the irresponsibility it seeks to avoid.
NeoSaber
Renegade Map Maker at CnC Source
Animator/Compiler/Level Editor/Object Rigger/Programmer for Red Alert: A Path Beyond
|
|
|
|
| Re: Abortion [split] [message #178715 is a reply to message #178650] |
Thu, 10 November 2005 17:26 |
 |
Kytten9
Messages: 332
Registered: October 2003
Location: Manchester, England
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| warranto wrote on Thu, 10 November 2005 11:41 |
I can take the stuff before this as a rant, however this is just a plain insult to me.
I have no sympathy becase she got herself into the situtaion of being pregnant when she couldn't even support herself with the "money she had from her first kid."
While I know it will not happen to me (for differet reasons that I'm sure your thinking of), that does not mean I'm ignorant of anything.
Doing something simply because you're depressed is no excuse to do it. Having been through a depression I know this quite well.
|
I don't see how it is an insult to you Warranto, Have you had sex yet? Have you had kids yet? Ever been abused both physically, mentally and more by your own partner?
How old are you exactly?
I have a child, I have a history I wish I could take back or change things to, I have experiences I never ever wish to re-live in my life time. I two have had depression, I don't give a fuck what you say, I did some fucked up shit while depressed, I ate and I hurt myself and I even tried to take my own life. If you have experienced any where near what I have in my life time, then tell me I am insulting you, I don't think I am, you were/are being quite ignorant about a subject you don't even have the slightest insight to. That was what I meant. Like I said my friend HAD a boyfriend with her first child and he decided to leave her.....are you suggesting that she lock herself away and never have sex again? the guy who fathered the second child was her boyfriend too, he up and left, It isn't HER fault that this came to pass, but namely his too. That was what I was getting at about your ignorance, you pointed your finger at her straight away, because she's a "whore" for sleeping around, I bet the guy is a hero though, because I notice you didn't once mention his responsibility in this whole situation.
I wasn't trying to be insulting, I was merely pointing out how quick men are to shrug off responsibility, not just for their own actions, but for the actions of their fellow males. You proved my point, thanks!
You have a God given right to be stupid. Please do not abuse this right!
n00bstories renegade server mod.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Abortion [split] [message #178723 is a reply to message #178164] |
Thu, 10 November 2005 19:08 |
 |
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
Have I ever had sex? No.
Have I ever had a partner? No.
How old am I? 23
| Quote: |
Like I said my friend HAD a boyfriend with her first child and he decided to leave her.....are you suggesting that she lock herself away and never have sex again? the guy who fathered the second child was her boyfriend too, he up and left, It isn't HER fault that this came to pass, but namely his too. That was what I was getting at about your ignorance, you pointed your finger at her straight away, because she's a "whore" for sleeping around, I bet the guy is a hero though, because I notice you didn't once mention his responsibility in this whole situation.
|
Nice boyfriend, no commitment made by anyone here. SHE chose to have sex, to my knowledge no mention of rape was made. Where did I ever mention that it was her fault the guy was a deadbeat and left? Oh yes, nowhere. Nice try, but making things up to make me look bad doesn't quite work.
Did I ever once mention that she was a ""whore" for sleeping around"? That's right, nowhere. Nice try, but making things up to make me look bad doesn't quite work.
Why didn't I mention the guy? Oh, I don't know. Perhaps because I assumed it would be automatic that the blame would be his fault as well. Afterall, it takes two to create a child. I guess you're just too thick headed to understand something as "complicated" as that (see, I can throw insults too! It doesn't make the argument any more vaild though)
I laugh at the thought that I would think this guy to be a hero. You are just pathetic.
| Quote: |
I wasn't trying to be insulting, I was merely pointing out how quick men are to shrug off responsibility, not just for their own actions, but for the actions of their fellow males. You proved my point, thanks!
|
Yes, not trying to be insulting by specifying ME in your comments:
| Quote: |
But then again it wouldn't matter to you would it?
|
| Quote: |
lose reputation coz she is a "whore", that's why you have no sympathy, because it cannot happen to you and will not happen to you, you can just sit idly by on the sidelines, like most men do. Ignorance is bliss isn't it?!
|
And you are trying to suggest that there was no intent to insult?
Once again, tell me where I supported the guy in his actions, and how I am shrugging off my own, and his, responsibility. No point was proven.
Pathetic.
[Updated on: Thu, 10 November 2005 21:07] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Abortion [split] [message #178725 is a reply to message #178164] |
Thu, 10 November 2005 20:12 |
 |
Jecht
Messages: 3156
Registered: September 2004
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
Warranto is right here. He is not assuming anything, just telling you like it is. Two people had sex. Two people made a baby. One left the other. He is a deadbeat, but she is still partially to blame. it takes two to tango.
[Updated on: Thu, 10 November 2005 20:14] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Abortion [split] [message #178733 is a reply to message #178164] |
Thu, 10 November 2005 20:53 |
 |
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Kytten, you're being far too hostile toward Warranto. He doesn't usually mean anything to be taken personally insulting; he certainly didn't mean for you to take his responses personally before you started attacking him.
Besides, his point is valid. You sound like you're saying it wasn't the girl's fault for becoming pregnant; well, it's a little hard to let the car in the garage when the door remains tightly shut, and as Warranto said, you never mentioned anything about rape or forceful sex.
We can only assume she willfully had sex with her boyfriend.
Now, what does she think sex was made for in the beginning? To have a little good time with her boyfriend, or to make babies?
If she didn't mean to have a kid, well, she needs to realize the true purpose for sex is to have kids and accept the fact that she is just as responsible for her kid's existence as her boyfriend.
If she did mean to have a kid with her boyfriend, what made her think he'd stay around forever? You never said they were engaged or anything; whatever happened to waiting until after you're married to have a child? A guy who isn't ready to commit to marriage sure as hell ain't ready to commit to raising a child, a far more important commitment.
Now, I'm not saying that her friends and family should just abandon her for making a mistake; it's their job to help her in her time of need, as I'm sure you did. True help can only come about, though, once she realizes the mistakes she has made and chooses not to make them again. Otherwise, the cycle will continue until she's had enough kids that she finally gets it.
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
 (<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
 (<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
[Updated on: Thu, 10 November 2005 20:55] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Abortion [split] [message #178736 is a reply to message #178164] |
Thu, 10 November 2005 22:35 |
 |
cheesesoda
Messages: 6507
Registered: March 2003
Location: Jackson, Michigan
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
Clare, what the fuck are you smoking? How can killing a child at any point and time whether or not someone's in financial hardship be acceptable? So if you have 5 kids, in financial hardship, is it okay to kill one of your children to make the load easier on you? This is the same idea. To have an innocent child pay for the stupidity of a person is just pointless and stupid. The male is responsible for this too, and it's unfortunate for your friend to have been put in that situation, but guess what, she DIDN'T have to consent to sex which led to her being pregnant. The guy didn't just say to your friend, "haha, now you're pregnant." She had equal part in this too, and as a mother, you're supposed to take care of your child no matter what. You wouldn't kill Aurora if you ran into some financial trouble. You love and protect her, but why should the fact that the child is in the womb make the situation any different?
whoa.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Abortion [split] [message #178814 is a reply to message #178704] |
Fri, 11 November 2005 14:10 |
|
Arcane1
Messages: 28
Registered: November 2005
Location: NW Burbs, Chicago
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| gbull wrote on Thu, 10 November 2005 17:36 |
Warrants are placed on deadbeat fathers. Notice I didn't say "dads".
|
A dissertation that I did in school (granted, almost 20 years ago) showed that only Michigan had a better than 50% collection rate of court ordered child support through it's "Friends of the Court" program. Illinois had a pathetic 20ish % rate of current collections and most states were close to as bad.
It is time to realize that we have tread where it was unwise. Bring them home before another 2000 die. Every day sooner is another service member not wounded, maimed, killed or away from home.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Abortion [split] [message #178816 is a reply to message #178736] |
Fri, 11 November 2005 14:26 |
|
Arcane1
Messages: 28
Registered: November 2005
Location: NW Burbs, Chicago
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| j_ball430 wrote on Thu, 10 November 2005 23:35 |
Clare, what the fuck are you smoking? How can killing a child at any point and time whether or not someone's in financial hardship be acceptable? So if you have 5 kids, in financial hardship, is it okay to kill one of your children to make the load easier on you? This is the same idea. To have an innocent child pay for the stupidity of a person is just pointless and stupid. The male is responsible for this too, and it's unfortunate for your friend to have been put in that situation, but guess what, she DIDN'T have to consent to sex which led to her being pregnant. The guy didn't just say to your friend, "haha, now you're pregnant." She had equal part in this too, and as a mother, you're supposed to take care of your child no matter what. You wouldn't kill Aurora if you ran into some financial trouble. You love and protect her, but why should the fact that the child is in the womb make the situation any different?
|
Not having the history here, I can only assume that "Clare" is Kytten. Based on that:
Warranto was not over the line in my opinion or read. Kytten's posts were not either until the assault began out of what she percieved as an attack. This proves the bottom line issue here that the emotional aspects here far outweigh most people's logical abilities. You start using the words, human, embryo, life, fetus, baby and so on and peoples emotional strings start getting plucked. If not, then they are emoionless and don't count. Agreed?
A lot of this comes down to the reality that it takes "two to tango" as it was put. That is true. Now for the rest of the story: After the music stops, ONE is left with the weight of the responsibility. One is left not being able to sork to support themselves and the baby, one is left with the 20+ year responsibility of teaching and training and raising that life that started during that 90 seconds of bliss. Only one is left with the overall life changing responsibilities that range from diapers to school to driving a car to college tuition. I have 2 16 year olds, and one that I have raised from that zygote stage, only the first 6 with his Mother. (and BTW, she never has paid support).
So now look at the issue that even though it takes two to screw, only one gets pregnant. Only one has the long term responsibility by mandate. Only one has their life _permanently_ changed completely. Even if the sperm donor is made to pay $ on a regular basis that isn't much compared to 2am feedings and a 24x7 x20 year job.
So does a woman still not have the right to abort that child? Or at least be able to have that option? (please don't mix into this those that use abortion as post-birth control, that is a whole different issue of irresponsibility)
It is time to realize that we have tread where it was unwise. Bring them home before another 2000 die. Every day sooner is another service member not wounded, maimed, killed or away from home.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Abortion [split] [message #178821 is a reply to message #178164] |
Fri, 11 November 2005 14:56 |
|
cheesesoda
Messages: 6507
Registered: March 2003
Location: Jackson, Michigan
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
My logic presides over my emotions. My logic tells me that the "parasite" is human. Now, according to the law, it's illegal to kill another human. Now here's really where my logic kicks in, if the embryo/unborn child/parasite/fetus/etc... is human, and killing another human is illegal, that should make abortion legal. Should it not? Of course, it should.
It takes two to tango, correct, and as I've repeatedly said, the guy shouldn't be able to get away with this, and it should be a crime to do so. Regardless, that shouldn't make it legal to murder a child.
Of course, she doesn't have the right to kill a child. There are welfare programs, there are charities, there are organizations. She also shouldn't have that option readily available. It's MURDER, and in every civilized part of the world, murder is illegal.
Also, on the note of calling an embryo/fetus/zygote/human/baby/life a parasite, think of it this way: Shouldn't a newborn be considered a parasite as well? It lives off of its mother. Sure, it doesn't necessarily "attach" itself to it, but without breastmilk (or suplements), the child would surely die, so therefore it's dependant on is "host". Why is this a human and not a parasite? Surely both are clearly parasites, or both are clearly human. Which is it?
whoa.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Abortion [split] [message #178828 is a reply to message #178816] |
Fri, 11 November 2005 15:09 |
|
Jecht
Messages: 3156
Registered: September 2004
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| Arcane1 wrote on Fri, 11 November 2005 15:26 |
| j_ball430 wrote on Thu, 10 November 2005 23:35 |
Clare, what the fuck are you smoking? How can killing a child at any point and time whether or not someone's in financial hardship be acceptable? So if you have 5 kids, in financial hardship, is it okay to kill one of your children to make the load easier on you? This is the same idea. To have an innocent child pay for the stupidity of a person is just pointless and stupid. The male is responsible for this too, and it's unfortunate for your friend to have been put in that situation, but guess what, she DIDN'T have to consent to sex which led to her being pregnant. The guy didn't just say to your friend, "haha, now you're pregnant." She had equal part in this too, and as a mother, you're supposed to take care of your child no matter what. You wouldn't kill Aurora if you ran into some financial trouble. You love and protect her, but why should the fact that the child is in the womb make the situation any different?
|
Not having the history here, I can only assume that "Clare" is Kytten. Based on that:
Warranto was not over the line in my opinion or read. Kytten's posts were not either until the assault began out of what she percieved as an attack. This proves the bottom line issue here that the emotional aspects here far outweigh most people's logical abilities. You start using the words, human, embryo, life, fetus, baby and so on and peoples emotional strings start getting plucked. If not, then they are emoionless and don't count. Agreed?
A lot of this comes down to the reality that it takes "two to tango" as it was put. That is true. Now for the rest of the story: After the music stops, ONE is left with the weight of the responsibility. One is left not being able to sork to support themselves and the baby, one is left with the 20+ year responsibility of teaching and training and raising that life that started during that 90 seconds of bliss. Only one is left with the overall life changing responsibilities that range from diapers to school to driving a car to college tuition. I have 2 16 year olds, and one that I have raised from that zygote stage, only the first 6 with his Mother. (and BTW, she never has paid support).
So now look at the issue that even though it takes two to screw, only one gets pregnant. Only one has the long term responsibility by mandate. Only one has their life _permanently_ changed completely. Even if the sperm donor is made to pay $ on a regular basis that isn't much compared to 2am feedings and a 24x7 x20 year job.
So does a woman still not have the right to abort that child? Or at least be able to have that option? (please don't mix into this those that use abortion as post-birth control, that is a whole different issue of irresponsibility)
|
My Grandmother spent her life volunteering at the DA Blodgett For Children. These people find homes for these children. My mother was an adopted baby from the D A Blodgett. If she was aborted, I wouldn't be here. There is always another way.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Abortion [split] [message #178832 is a reply to message #178821] |
Fri, 11 November 2005 15:13 |
|
Arcane1
Messages: 28
Registered: November 2005
Location: NW Burbs, Chicago
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| j_ball430 wrote on Fri, 11 November 2005 15:56 |
My logic presides over my emotions. My logic tells me that the "parasite" is human. Now, according to the law, it's illegal to kill another human. Now here's really where my logic kicks in, if the embryo/unborn child/parasite/fetus/etc... is human, and killing another human is illegal, that should make abortion legal. Should it not? Of course, it should.
It takes two to tango, correct, and as I've repeatedly said, the guy shouldn't be able to get away with this, and it should be a crime to do so. Regardless, that shouldn't make it legal to murder a child.
Of course, she doesn't have the right to kill a child. There are welfare programs, there are charities, there are organizations. She also shouldn't have that option readily available. It's MURDER, and in every civilized part of the world, murder is illegal.
Also, on the note of calling an embryo/fetus/zygote/human/baby/life a parasite, think of it this way: Shouldn't a newborn be considered a parasite as well? It lives off of its mother. Sure, it doesn't necessarily "attach" itself to it, but without breastmilk (or suplements), the child would surely die, so therefore it's dependant on is "host". Why is this a human and not a parasite? Surely both are clearly parasites, or both are clearly human. Which is it?
|
You can legally mandate that the sperm donor support the child financially, but there is no way to mandate parenting skills or abilities. This means that again the woman is left with 100% of the responsibility. That is just wrong.
I understand the options of adoption, but unfortunately there isn't place here for that is the abortion issue is a yes or no question and adoption, etc., is an unacceptable burden that is again placed on the woman.
As for the "parasite" issue. Please don't take that too far out of context. While a fetus is a life, is it indeed a conscious being? That is an argument that has raged across many lines. Is an embryo that does not have a formed brain an actual "human being" without having a consciousness? Without a consciousness, is it still considered killing? Here is where the biology and logic start to get really stretched with the emotional aspect.
It is time to realize that we have tread where it was unwise. Bring them home before another 2000 die. Every day sooner is another service member not wounded, maimed, killed or away from home.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Abortion [split] [message #178835 is a reply to message #178828] |
Fri, 11 November 2005 15:16 |
|
Arcane1
Messages: 28
Registered: November 2005
Location: NW Burbs, Chicago
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| gbull wrote on Fri, 11 November 2005 16:09 |
| Arcane1 wrote on Fri, 11 November 2005 15:26 |
| j_ball430 wrote on Thu, 10 November 2005 23:35 |
Clare, what the fuck are you smoking? How can killing a child at any point and time whether or not someone's in financial hardship be acceptable? So if you have 5 kids, in financial hardship, is it okay to kill one of your children to make the load easier on you? This is the same idea. To have an innocent child pay for the stupidity of a person is just pointless and stupid. The male is responsible for this too, and it's unfortunate for your friend to have been put in that situation, but guess what, she DIDN'T have to consent to sex which led to her being pregnant. The guy didn't just say to your friend, "haha, now you're pregnant." She had equal part in this too, and as a mother, you're supposed to take care of your child no matter what. You wouldn't kill Aurora if you ran into some financial trouble. You love and protect her, but why should the fact that the child is in the womb make the situation any different?
|
Not having the history here, I can only assume that "Clare" is Kytten. Based on that:
Warranto was not over the line in my opinion or read. Kytten's posts were not either until the assault began out of what she percieved as an attack. This proves the bottom line issue here that the emotional aspects here far outweigh most people's logical abilities. You start using the words, human, embryo, life, fetus, baby and so on and peoples emotional strings start getting plucked. If not, then they are emoionless and don't count. Agreed?
A lot of this comes down to the reality that it takes "two to tango" as it was put. That is true. Now for the rest of the story: After the music stops, ONE is left with the weight of the responsibility. One is left not being able to sork to support themselves and the baby, one is left with the 20+ year responsibility of teaching and training and raising that life that started during that 90 seconds of bliss. Only one is left with the overall life changing responsibilities that range from diapers to school to driving a car to college tuition. I have 2 16 year olds, and one that I have raised from that zygote stage, only the first 6 with his Mother. (and BTW, she never has paid support).
So now look at the issue that even though it takes two to screw, only one gets pregnant. Only one has the long term responsibility by mandate. Only one has their life _permanently_ changed completely. Even if the sperm donor is made to pay $ on a regular basis that isn't much compared to 2am feedings and a 24x7 x20 year job.
So does a woman still not have the right to abort that child? Or at least be able to have that option? (please don't mix into this those that use abortion as post-birth control, that is a whole different issue of irresponsibility)
|
My Grandmother spent her life volunteering at the DA Blodgett For Children. These people find homes for these children. My mother was an adopted baby from the D A Blodgett. If she was aborted, I wouldn't be here. There is always another way.
|
Some philosophies would say that is not true. There is the idea that your "soul" would have been brought into the world through another body. I am not negating your point, not at all, because your life experiences would be so different and all the other nature vs. nurture argument.
It is time to realize that we have tread where it was unwise. Bring them home before another 2000 die. Every day sooner is another service member not wounded, maimed, killed or away from home.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Abortion [split] [message #178842 is a reply to message #178832] |
Fri, 11 November 2005 16:20 |
|
cheesesoda
Messages: 6507
Registered: March 2003
Location: Jackson, Michigan
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
| Arcane1 wrote on Fri, 11 November 2005 16:13 |
As for the "parasite" issue. Please don't take that too far out of context. While a fetus is a life, is it indeed a conscious being? That is an argument that has raged across many lines. Is an embryo that does not have a formed brain an actual "human being" without having a consciousness? Without a consciousness, is it still considered killing? Here is where the biology and logic start to get really stretched with the emotional aspect.
|
Okay, so let me "stretch" it even farther. What if someone's sleeping? They, for that time being, have no consciousness. Thus, does this make it legal for someone to enter another's house and shoot them while they're asleep, and it not technically be "killing"?
whoa.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Abortion [split] [message #178872 is a reply to message #178164] |
Fri, 11 November 2005 20:17 |
|
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Arcane1 wrote on Fri, 11 November 2005 16:26 |
This proves the bottom line issue here that the emotional aspects here far outweigh most people's logical abilities. You start using the words, human, embryo, life, fetus, baby and so on and peoples emotional strings start getting plucked. If not, then they are emoionless and don't count. Agreed?
|
I don't think emotion has much to do with it anyway. Let's call those embryos what they are--developing humans. It isn't bringing emotion into the discussion to call them by their true nature. They are human lives in the earliest stages of development. We all were once that tiny bundle of cells in a woman's womb. We're all humans now, and we were human then.
I can't possibly think of any other way to describe them other than human.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck; I'm not going to try calling it a hummingbird or an eagle as it would be simply factually incorrect to do so.
| Quote: |
A lot of this comes down to the reality that it takes "two to tango" as it was put. That is true. Now for the rest of the story: After the music stops, ONE is left with the weight of the responsibility. One is left not being able to sork to support themselves and the baby, one is left with the 20+ year responsibility of teaching and training and raising that life that started during that 90 seconds of bliss. Only one is left with the overall life changing responsibilities that range from diapers to school to driving a car to college tuition.
|
That's all true, and it's all sad. No one here is trying to vindicate the man responsible for getting her pregnant. He is just as responsible for getting the woman pregnant as she is.
That alone doesn't vindicate the woman from fault, though. She should have thought about all that before choosing to have sex (or make a baby (since that's what sex is biologically for)).
| Quote: |
So now look at the issue that even though it takes two to screw, only one gets pregnant. Only one has the long term responsibility by mandate. Only one has their life _permanently_ changed completely. Even if the sperm donor is made to pay $ on a regular basis that isn't much compared to 2am feedings and a 24x7 x20 year job.
So does a woman still not have the right to abort that child? Or at least be able to have that option? (please don't mix into this those that use abortion as post-birth control, that is a whole different issue of irresponsibility)...
(next post)
You can legally mandate that the sperm donor support the child financially, but there is no way to mandate parenting skills or abilities. This means that again the woman is left with 100% of the responsibility. That is just wrong.
I understand the options of adoption, but unfortunately there isn't place here for that is the abortion issue is a yes or no question and adoption, etc., is an unacceptable burden that is again placed on the woman.
|
She made a mistake, a dire mistake, and now she has to live with the consequences.
Sorry babe; tough luck; you shouldn't have done that; hope you learned something; now own up to what you did and take care of the child you made.
The same should apply to the man, too.
Of course, nothing can really stop him from leaving, besides being labelled a coward and downright dispicable human being.
It's too bad if that happens, but it happens; sorry if this sounds too rough, but the girl should have thought about that before having sex before getting married.
There is no guarantee that a boyfriend who she thinks loves her will stay around forever. Like I said before, if he's not ready to commit to marriage, how could he possibly be ready to commit to raising a child? So for what possible reason should the woman make a go at making a child by having sex with him? She should have weighed the consequences before making such a decision.
Now that she has a child to deal with, she should not have the right to kill it off simply because it has become an inconvenience to her, as J_Ball said earlier.
If parents were allowed to kill their children for being inconveniences, I sure as hell wouldn't be here to bore you all with all this typing. 
| Quote: |
As for the "parasite" issue. Please don't take that too far out of context. While a fetus is a life, is it indeed a conscious being? That is an argument that has raged across many lines. Is an embryo that does not have a formed brain an actual "human being" without having a consciousness? Without a consciousness, is it still considered killing? Here is where the biology and logic start to get really stretched with the emotional aspect.
|
Whether it is conscious or unconscious is irrelevant; it is still a human life. A human doesn't need to be conscious to be labelled "human". Terry Schiavo was a human; Terry Wallace is a human. Both were unconscious for a long period of time, but both were still considered "human."
There is nothing emotional about it, yet everything logical and biological about it; a developing human is just that--human. Just because it may be at the stage before a functioning brain or a consciousness develops does not change its inherent nature of being a human.
Like I said, we were all once that small in our mothers' womb at some point in our lives. If we weren't human, what were we, and why do we consider ourselves human now if we didn't start out as humans?
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
(<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
(<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
|
|
|
|
| Re: Abortion [split] [message #178879 is a reply to message #178164] |
Fri, 11 November 2005 21:24 |
|
cheesesoda
Messages: 6507
Registered: March 2003
Location: Jackson, Michigan
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
| William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet |
What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet
|
Regardless of what people want to label the unborn child, it still remains the same. It's a child. It's not some random organism that decides to become human. From the moment of conception, the zygote is human. The zygote isn't going to decide to turn into a dog, or a cat, or a elephant. It's human, and nothing changes that fact. It's just a pathetic excuse to accept abortion by labeling the child not human simply so that nobody has to deal with killing an innocent child. Congratulations, you're hypocrites. You bitch at Bush for covering up his "war for oil" by saying it's a "war on terrorism", yet you disguise the child as a "parasite" or twist it some way so that it's not human, so you can get away with murder.
whoa.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Abortion [split] [message #178917 is a reply to message #178872] |
Sat, 12 November 2005 06:39 |
|
Arcane1
Messages: 28
Registered: November 2005
Location: NW Burbs, Chicago
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| j_ball430 wrote on Fri, 11 November 2005 17:20 |
Okay, so let me "stretch" it even farther. What if someone's sleeping? They, for that time being, have no consciousness. Thus, does this make it legal for someone to enter another's house and shoot them while they're asleep, and it not technically be "killing"?
|
A developing fetus, without a developed cerebral cortex that has yet to experience stimulation sensation and thus "sentience" cannot be compared to a post-sentient human that is rendered unconscious or sleeping.
| Hydra wrote on Fri, 11 November 2005 21:17 |
I don't think emotion has much to do with it anyway. Let's call those embryos what they are--developing humans. It isn't bringing emotion into the discussion to call them by their true nature. They are human lives in the earliest stages of development. We all were once that tiny bundle of cells in a woman's womb. We're all humans now, and we were human then.
I can't possibly think of any other way to describe them other than human.
|
Well, to be pragmatically antagonistic, we could call it a biomass that hasn't achieved any real form yet. Yes it has the potential of form, but it has not reached any state above potential. The sex is not even determined yet, the heart has not beaten and the nervous system has yet to fire a neuron.
| Hydra |
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck; I'm not going to try calling it a hummingbird or an eagle as it would be simply factually incorrect to do so.
That's all true, and it's all sad. No one here is trying to vindicate the man responsible for getting her pregnant. He is just as responsible for getting the woman pregnant as she is.
That alone doesn't vindicate the woman from fault, though. She should have thought about all that before choosing to have sex (or make a baby (since that's what sex is biologically for)).
|
That is a point that I seriously appreciate. Realistically, any argument that did that, I would ignore, as I dont consider a position like that worth arguing against. On the contrary, there hasn't been the slightest hint of that yet, which is says a lot about the participants.
| Hydra |
She made a mistake, a dire mistake, and now she has to live with the consequences.
Sorry babe; tough luck; you shouldn't have done that; hope you learned something; now own up to what you did and take care of the child you made.
The same should apply to the man, too.
Of course, nothing can really stop him from leaving, besides being labelled a coward and downright dispicable human being.
It's too bad if that happens, but it happens; sorry if this sounds too rough, but the girl should have thought about that before having sex before getting married.
|
There is such a thing as culpability in law. That the woman be made to shoulder all the burden ultimately is not an appropriate result for a single bad act according to the body of Civil and Criminal Law in the US.
-If I give you a loaded gun, and you go kill someone, you will go to jail and possibly get the death sentence. I, for supplying you the weapon will also be charged, and most likely with a close to as heavy a punishment as a participant.
-If I supply you with alcohol, and you leave my home and cause an accident with fatalities, again, you will be prosecuted and potentially convicted and sentenced to life in prison or death for murder. I, as the supplyer, would also be charged and be held responsible, convicted and sentenced.
-If you are building a structure, and choose to use Company X as a supplier of a critical component, and it fails, killing occupants, ultimately the designer that chose Company X's product, Company X and its owners will be held liable.
-In a divorce settlement, where kids are involved, the Father is basically sentenced to a degree of support for the child(ren) over a period of time.
And there are thousands of other examples of shared responsibility. Why then in the situation of creating life is the Sperm Donor allowed to escape/avoid culpability? At most the SD is held to a minimal financial degree, leaving the other person 99% responsible.
That doesn't make legal sense to me, and is further proof of the misogynistic nature of this country's legal system. In the case of the divorce and settlement of support, while the laws mandate non-custodial responsibility, there are minimal resources to actually enforce this. Again, leaving the woman lacking support or recourse much of the time.
| Hydra |
There is no guarantee that a boyfriend who she thinks loves her will stay around forever. Like I said before, if he's not ready to commit to marriage, how could he possibly be ready to commit to raising a child? So for what possible reason should the woman make a go at making a child by having sex with him? She should have weighed the consequences before making such a decision.
Now that she has a child to deal with, she should not have the right to kill it off simply because it has become an inconvenience to her, as J_Ball said earlier.
If parents were allowed to kill their children for being inconveniences, I sure as hell wouldn't be here to bore you all with all this typing.
|
OK, the whole "boyfriend" issue is beyond the scope of this conversation I'm afraid. Any girl that is allowed to fall into that trap has her parents to thank as much as the guy that she's in the back seat with. I have a 16 year old daughter, that knocks guys eyes out when she walks down the hall according to my Son that is also 16 and at the same school with her. She knows better because she has been taught better.
As for the "inconvienence" issue. There are a number of clutures that still keep a bucket of water next to the birth bed, and if the newborn is a female, then it goes in head first. The liability of a female in those cultures is percieved as so high that a female is disaster. The Eskimo, Chinese (rural), Indian and much of the Indonesian areas. The inability to work to support the family and the potentially bankrupting dowry are the primary reasons to mu understanding.
| Hydra |
Whether it is conscious or unconscious is irrelevant; it is still a human life. A human doesn't need to be conscious to be labelled "human". Terry Schiavo was a human; Terry Wallace is a human. Both were unconscious for a long period of time, but both were still considered "human."
There is nothing emotional about it, yet everything logical and biological about it; a developing human is just that--human. Just because it may be at the stage before a functioning brain or a consciousness develops does not change its inherent nature of being a human.
Like I said, we were all once that small in our mothers' womb at some point in our lives. If we weren't human, what were we, and why do we consider ourselves human now if we didn't start out as humans?
|
Agreed, the label of "human" sticks validly. I don't think that was ever in question. Whether it should be considered primary over the Mother's interests, needs and desires/will at that stage of development is the issue that we again end up at.
It is time to realize that we have tread where it was unwise. Bring them home before another 2000 die. Every day sooner is another service member not wounded, maimed, killed or away from home.
[Updated on: Sat, 12 November 2005 06:46] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Abortion [split] [message #178986 is a reply to message #178922] |
Sat, 12 November 2005 21:58 |
|
Arcane1
Messages: 28
Registered: November 2005
Location: NW Burbs, Chicago
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Actually, all fetuses start out female. It is only later in the process that the male aspects are brought out via hormonal changes.
It is time to realize that we have tread where it was unwise. Bring them home before another 2000 die. Every day sooner is another service member not wounded, maimed, killed or away from home.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Abortion [split] [message #178993 is a reply to message #178917] |
Sun, 13 November 2005 00:43 |
|
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Arcane1 |
Well, to be pragmatically antagonistic, we could call it a biomass that hasn't achieved any real form yet. Yes it has the potential of form, but it has not reached any state above potential. The sex is not even determined yet, the heart has not beaten and the nervous system has yet to fire a neuron.
|
Yet it will develop eventually into a fully grown human being. Unless some extremely rare act of nature changes the chemical makeup of the being and transforms it into another form of life, we know that it will emerge as a human being, just as we know a bird's embryo in an egg will eventually develop into a fully grown adult bird.
It isn't just a random biomass that can transform into anything; it's a human biomass on every level upon which you observe it, be it genetic, chemical, or even atomic, in its earliest stages of development.
| Quote: |
| Hydra |
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck; I'm not going to try calling it a hummingbird or an eagle as it would be simply factually incorrect to do so.
That's all true, and it's all sad. No one here is trying to vindicate the man responsible for getting her pregnant. He is just as responsible for getting the woman pregnant as she is.
That alone doesn't vindicate the woman from fault, though. She should have thought about all that before choosing to have sex (or make a baby (since that's what sex is biologically for)).
|
That is a point that I seriously appreciate. Realistically, any argument that did that, I would ignore, as I dont consider a position like that worth arguing against. On the contrary, there hasn't been the slightest hint of that yet, which is says a lot about the participants.
|
Not to be a grammarian (if that's the right word (or even a word at all...)), but the words seem a little jumbled, so I can't quite understand what you're trying to say here.
In an attempt to clarify: are you saying my point about the woman being held partially responsible was invalid, or did you appreciate what I said about the man being equally responsible?
| Quote: |
There is such a thing as culpability in law. That the woman be made to shoulder all the burden ultimately is not an appropriate result for a single bad act according to the body of Civil and Criminal Law in the US.
-If I give you a loaded gun, and you go kill someone, you will go to jail and possibly get the death sentence. I, for supplying you the weapon will also be charged, and most likely with a close to as heavy a punishment as a participant.
-If I supply you with alcohol, and you leave my home and cause an accident with fatalities, again, you will be prosecuted and potentially convicted and sentenced to life in prison or death for murder. I, as the supplyer, would also be charged and be held responsible, convicted and sentenced.
-If you are building a structure, and choose to use Company X as a supplier of a critical component, and it fails, killing occupants, ultimately the designer that chose Company X's product, Company X and its owners will be held liable.
-In a divorce settlement, where kids are involved, the Father is basically sentenced to a degree of support for the child(ren) over a period of time.
And there are thousands of other examples of shared responsibility. Why then in the situation of creating life is the Sperm Donor allowed to escape/avoid culpability? At most the SD is held to a minimal financial degree, leaving the other person 99% responsible.
That doesn't make legal sense to me, and is further proof of the misogynistic nature of this country's legal system. In the case of the divorce and settlement of support, while the laws mandate non-custodial responsibility, there are minimal resources to actually enforce this. Again, leaving the woman lacking support or recourse much of the time.
|
I'm not saying that the man should get away with it. Any man who walks out on an accidental pregnancy is a downright despicable and pathetic human scumbag.
Both the man and the woman should share an equal amount of responsibility in raising the child; whether this is legally mandatable, I do not know. I do know that whatever settlement that may be decided in the courts must be abided by, whether it's financial support provided by the father, visiting time for both parents with the child, etc. Should either parent fall back on his/her court-mandated responsibilities, the opposing party has the right to take them to trial once again.
So, like I said, I'm not sure if there is a specific law mandating male participation, or even female participation for that matter, in the raising of a child, but I do know that whatever agreement both the mother and father come to in a trial must be upheld. Now, I'm not able to give any examples, but common sense tells me that there must have been at least once case in the history of the United States where both the mother and father shared a court-mandated equal responsibility of raising a child.
What we must note about cases like these is that very rarely are any two cases alike. I'm sure that in many cases, what you have said is quite true--the man walked out and shouldered the mother with the sole responsibility of raising the child alone. Yet I'm also sure that there have even been cases where it was not the father but the mother who walked out on the father and child; granted, such a case is probably much more rare, but I don't doubt that it can happen or has happened.
There have been many cases where one parent was trying to protect the child from another parent; if the father of a child has a violent drinking problem, would we want to mandate that he take an active role in raising the child when his presence has nothing but detrimental effects?
(Damn I can type a lot....)
| Quote: |
OK, the whole "boyfriend" issue is beyond the scope of this conversation I'm afraid. Any girl that is allowed to fall into that trap has her parents to thank as much as the guy that she's in the back seat with. I have a 16 year old daughter, that knocks guys eyes out when she walks down the hall according to my Son that is also 16 and at the same school with her. She knows better because she has been taught better.
|
I think it is relevant, because that is one particularly common case involving the decision for a woman to get an abortion.
A girl thinks she's in love with her boyfriend, who convinces her to have sex with him; she falls pregnant, and the boyfriend runs off; faced with raising a baby as a teenage mom, she has the option of aborting the unborn baby.
It's an all-too-familiar and extremely unfortunate and sad case that happens too often in this country.
Now, there may be many factors that were affecting her decision to have sex (be it a combination of pressure to have sex and a lack of discipline, etc.), just as a murderer's troubled childhood or unstable mental state affect his decision to kill; it was their ultimate decision to follow through with their acts, though.
The murderer chose to kill; the girl and the guy chose to have sex. Sure, there may be underlying factors affecting them, but they were the ones who made it.
(I think I'm repeating myself; been up since 4:30 this morning; I need some sleep....)
| Quote: |
As for the "inconvienence" issue. There are a number of clutures that still keep a bucket of water next to the birth bed, and if the newborn is a female, then it goes in head first. The liability of a female in those cultures is percieved as so high that a female is disaster. The Eskimo, Chinese (rural), Indian and much of the Indonesian areas. The inability to work to support the family and the potentially bankrupting dowry are the primary reasons to mu understanding.
|
Not to open up another stinky can of worms, but such cultures have little legitimacy in today's world, while being fundamentally dangerous at the same time.
It's just plain wrong to kill people simply because, according to those cultures, they are too high a liability.
According to the Sudanese government, Christians are too high a liability to their country, so they've been on an extermination crusade for the past few decades; over the years, they've killed at least two million Christians.
According to the Nazi party, Jews, gypsies, the elderly, etc. were too high a liability in their society, so they proceeded to start a world war to exterminate all of their kind.
According to the current networks of Islamic terrorism, the existence of the United States and her allies are too high a liability to the world, so they have declared all-out war on our nation.
It is my fervent belief that each and every human being has value and worth; no one on this Earth was created simply to be thrown away like yesterday's garbage.
A child is the most precious and valuable being on the planet with a natural right to exist; they are not to be cast aside simply because a few might be "inconveniences" to their parents.
I'm starting to get into a discussion about cultures and religion and stuff like that, now, so that's as far as I'll go with that.
| Quote: |
Whether it should be considered primary over the Mother's interests, needs and desires/will at that stage of development is the issue that we again end up at.
|
It most definitely should be considered primary over the mother's interests, needs, desires, and will. Unless a person commits a haneous crime, no right, interest, or need supercedes his right to live.
Side note: Ugh... you'll have to excuse me if I repeated myself too many times over (I'm sure I did)--just skip over those parts; I've been up for 22 hours....
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
(<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
(<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
[Updated on: Sun, 13 November 2005 00:48] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Abortion [split] [message #179022 is a reply to message #178164] |
Sun, 13 November 2005 09:28 |
|
Arcane1
Messages: 28
Registered: November 2005
Location: NW Burbs, Chicago
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Im grinning broadly at Hydra's multi-threaded and tangled logic.
And yes, I agree with all of it.
So let's cut to the bottom of the matter here, shall we? Because I think that we've pretty well proven that there are as many opinions and feelings about the issue as there are people to have them and feelings to feel them with. Im going to assume that we all agree on that point until someone argues it. What we end up with is a situation where there are an unlimited number of variables, which are compounded by an unlimited number of emotions by an unimaginable array of people and situations...
Basically, what we have is an equation that is a variable number of variables, (or v^x) with two constants, those being the existance of a fetus and a woman carrying the fetus. No other variable, such as sperm donor, health, etc. are able to be figured in really as they most all are based on Human Behaviors.
So here is the bottom line question:
How is it that one law, or one set of rules made by a governing body can set the standards for all situations that may arise? How is it that a governing body that is removed from the situation entirely be allowed to tell any and all future citizens how to operate appropriately? Even if there was a "true" majority decision on what is "right" or "wrong", how can that standard be Appropriately applied to ALL future people that can be potentially affected? Certainly there are no other rules or laws that apply so broadly without individual consideration and having such immediacy and privacy issues. Certainly this is a case where the law does not allow for appeals after the fact, which is the basic guarantee against human fallibility in the legal system. What I see it boiling down to is how could I, or You, or Anyone else have the Right to make that decision arbitrarilary, across the board and without appeal for every person that will possibly be faced with such a decision?
It is time to realize that we have tread where it was unwise. Bring them home before another 2000 die. Every day sooner is another service member not wounded, maimed, killed or away from home.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue Nov 26 18:47:57 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01826 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
