Should the government stop abortions?

[seltivo]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

I just thought I'd say this to all you antiabortion people:
if you accidentally get pregnant, go ahead and keep the baby, but don't take the choice away from the fourteen year old who was to quit school to try to find a job to support for a child she doesn't even love. if you think ending the life of a fetus is wrong, y don't you think ruining the girls life just to have another little kid (like the planet isn't populated enough as it is...) is ok?

[Penguinsamurai64]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

I think that the government shouldn't have the right to control what a person does with their body. It may not be the "right" thing to do in some situations, but I think it's their decision, not something we should be making laws about. That's my current opinion on it, if anyone wants to try to convince me of something else, go ahead, it's your opinion.

[vvav]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

Simply put: You damn religious freaks need to quit imposing your religion and your "oh my god it's A PERSON!" type of screwy morals on us. If you look at it from a religious point of view I can understand you not wanting an abortion and that's fine. You can keep your child if you want. But quit trying to force people who don't have the same beliefs as you not to have an abortion, just because YOUR religion says it's wrong.

p.s. Why do supposedly pro-life people bomb abortion clinics? That make sense to anyone else?

[AOL_blows911]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

I personaly am pro choice. Very conditional pro choice, however, but pro choice none the less. My beliefes have already been brought up in this thread. Children aborted before they can feel pain cause me absolutely no problems. Yes, the people were either stupid (oops >.>) or very unlucky (as in the case of rape-babies).

I've seen a lot of pro life people (mostly religious types, but others as well) heatedly saying that as soon as the sperm and egg meet, it is a baby and should be treated as human life. To me, that makes no sense. Yes, it has the potential to be life, but it is nothing more then a single cell, or , even several weeks later, a cluster of cells no smarter than a drop of blood. If you wiped up a drop of blood, would it be putting out life? Those cells would have created more cells, does that entitle them to a future? If the child would grow up in a poor home, such as not being wanted or being mistreated/neglected, then I think an abortion to save them from that furture is agreeable. Also, I heard it mentioned before (in this thread) of a couple who had a late (third trimester? I forget) abortion to save their child terrible pain and a certain early death. While this goes against what I said earlier, I find this to be completely moral and ethical. Killing/abborting an unborn, yet almost fully developed, child quickly rather than letting it suffer is completely justified.

I have also heard the same crowd mention "The child could grow up to be important to humanity. How can you deny it a future?" In short, the whole 'it could be great and your hurting us all' argument. This, to me, also holds no water. Yes, the child could the next Washington, Churchill, or De Vinci, but it could also end up being the next Hitler or Stalin. Who is to say that the child won't be a murderer, theif, or rapist rather than a priest, artist, or world leader? It makes no sense to me.

Last thing, http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sea/274495936.html made me laugh, even though I felt a little sorry for the girl. She's definatly low to try and do that, but she's still stuck with the child. And the way the man handled it was fantastic.

[stretchypanda]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

I just thought I'd say this to all you antiabortion people:
if you accidentally get pregnant, go ahead and keep the baby, but don't take the choice away from the fourteen year old who was to quit school to try to find a job to support for a child she doesn't even love. if you think ending the life of a fetus is wrong, y don't you think ruining the girls life just to have another little kid (like the planet isn't populated enough as it is...) is ok?

Why can't we teach the fourteen-year-old girl how NOT to get pregnant? No one is saying the pregnant woman has to keep the child. Hell, she could even voluntarily have a C-Section and not have to worry about stretching out her precious little vagina. The issue I take against abortion is that, in most cases, the act of creating a child is one committed by two willing and self-aware people. To me, if you cannot deal with the results of sex (a baby), you do not have any business having sex. I know it's not that simple when you factor in that most school systems don't allow legit sex education and that teenagers are ****ing idiots (oh, I'm sorry -- hormonal), but that's really what it boils down to, and we need to teach our kids that. "If you are going to have sex, you had damn well be prepared to face the consequences. If you are not prepared to face the consequences, here are some preventive measures you can follow, but they don't always work and you can still contract a disease or get pregnant."

Simply put: You damn religious freaks need to quit imposing your religion and your "oh my god it's A PERSON!" type of screwy morals on us. If you look at it from a religious point of view I can understand you not wanting an abortion and that's fine. You can keep your child if you want. But quit trying to force people who don't have the same beliefs as you not to have an abortion, just because YOUR religion says it's wrong.

p.s. Why do supposedly pro-life people bomb abortion clinics? That make sense to anyone else?

Nowhere in my bible does it say not to abort babies. You're basically regurgitating what a good number of people before you have said, only you decided to put a malicious spin on your words, and that's ridiculously unnecessary.

[Relambrien]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

Well, I'm pro-choice, and the reasons why have already been stated (no pain in first trimester, etc.). I just have this to add to the discussion:

To those of you who say the baby could grow up and make a difference in the world, think about this. Yes, he could be another Einstein. He could also be another Hitler, another Mussolini, or another George W. Bush (laugh. That one's supposed to be funny. Haha.). Besides, why would you want another Einstein anyway? He was one of the main reasons the atomic bomb could be developed. Why would you want another one of him, considering he could probably make a single bomb that would destroy the entire world by now?

[vvav]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

Nowhere in my bible does it say not to abort babies. You're basically regurgitating what a good number of people before you have said, only you decided to put a malicious spin on your words, and that's ridiculously unnecessary.

It doesn't say not to abort babies, and yet 99% of the radical anti-abortion people are highly religious. That rant was less aimed at the typical people who have a moderate view on abortion and more aimed at the people earlier in the thread that basically said, "no abortions unless it's rape or could kill the mother."

[MalReynolds]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

Why can't we teach the fourteen-year-old girl how NOT to get pregnant? No one is saying the pregnant woman has to keep the child. Hell, she could even voluntarily have a C-Section and not have to worry about stretching out her precious little vagina. The issue I take against abortion is that, in most cases, the act of creating a child is one committed by two willing and self-aware people. To me, if you cannot deal with the results of sex (a baby), you do not have any business having sex. I know it's not that simple when you factor in that most school systems don't allow legit sex education and that teenagers are ****ing idiots (oh, I'm sorry -- hormonal), but that's really what it boils down to, and we need to teach our kids that. "If you are going to have sex, you had damn well be prepared to face the consequences. If you are not prepared to face the consequences, here are some preventive measures you can follow, but they don't always work and you can still contract a disease or get pregnant."

The only problem I see with FORCING the mother to keep the baby is the potential problems it can cause for the mother's health. Back problems, breast problems, post-partem depression, even the cost of carrying a baby for 9 months, including the cost of the surgery. Not every girl is more worried about a smiley faced cervix. There are complications with pregnancy.

If you cannot deal with the results of sex (a baby) then you do not have business having sex.

Well, sure. Own a dog first. If you kill that, you probably shouldn't have sex.

There are far worse things that can happen to a baby and a mother than the mother getting an abortion.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

I've seen a lot of pro life people (mostly religious types, but others as well) heatedly saying that as soon as the sperm and egg meet, it is a baby and should be treated as human life.

Right. That's because it is life. It is a living, unique being.

Yes, it has the potential to be life

Nono. There's no potential about it. It is life.

but it is nothing more then a single cell, or , even several weeks later, a cluster of cells no smarter than a drop of blood.

You're just a cluster of cells right now, too. Just a bigger one. You know that line which you drew about when it's okay to have an abortion and when it's not? One day before, it's just a cluster of cells. One day after, it's just a cluster of cells. One has certain chemical reactions and receptors, but is that where you draw the line of life? Our bodies frequently develop many new processes and functions throughout our lives. Just look at puberty.

If you wiped up a drop of blood, would it be putting out life? Those cells would have created more cells, does that entitle them to a future?

Blood cells are not living entities since they are not individually metabolic. You don't take one brick out of a structure and call the brick a house.

Simply put: You damn religious freaks need to quit imposing your religion and your "oh my god it's A PERSON!" type of screwy morals on us. If you look at it from a religious point of view I can understand you not wanting an abortion and that's fine. You can keep your child if you want. But quit trying to force people who don't have the same beliefs as you not to have an abortion, just because YOUR religion says it's wrong.

Before you go spewing any more of your antireligious vitriol around here in violation of the rules here, I'd like you to point out one instance where I mentioned religion. Just one. Go ahead; I'm waiting.

I don't know if you've read the title of the thread or not (it seems you haven't), but this is a discussion on FEDERAL LAW, not religious views. People are more than welcome to support their choices with a religious basis here, and you don't get to say anything about it. Welcome to America, where we have the right to have religion-based opinions. Welcome to FFR, too, where you don't have the right to derail a thread, though, just because you want to go on an anti-religion tirade.

I'm still waiting for you to show me where I mentioned it, though.

The only problem I see with FORCING the mother to keep the baby is the potential problems it can cause for the mother's health.

And the only problem I have with that argument is that it values the convenience of the mother over the life of the child. I don't know about everyone else, but I'll gladly take backaches and depression over death any day.

but don't take the choice away from the fourteen year old who was to quit school to try to find a job to support for a child she doesn't even love.

Wow... WOW. Way to claim that children of rape CANNOT and/or WILL NOT be loved by their mothers, who carried them for nine months and gave birth to them. No, it's impossible for a mother to love her child just because the child's father is a bastard.

I'm not at all saying that every woman does, but come on, you're being ridiculous.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[devonin]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

Judith Jarvis Thomson provided one of the most striking and effective thought experiments in the moral realm. Her example is aimed at a popular anti-abortion argument that goes something like this: The fetus is an innocent person with a right to life. Abortion results in the death of a fetus. Therefore, abortion is morally wrong. In her thought experiment we are asked to imagine a famous violinist falling into a coma. The society of music lovers determines from medical records that you and you alone can save the violinist's life by being hooked up to him for nine months. The music lovers break into your home while you are asleep and hook the unconscious (and unknowing, hence innocent) violinist to you. You may want to unhook him, but you are then faced with this argument put forward by the music lovers: The violinist is an innocent person with a right to life. Unhooking him will result in his death. Therefore, unhooking him is morally wrong.
However, the argument does not seem convincing in this case. You would be very generous to remain attached and in bed for nine months, but you are not morally obliged to do so. The parallel with the abortion case is evident. The thought experiment is effective in distinguishing two concepts that had previously been run together: “right to life” and “right to what is needed to sustain life.” The fetus and the violinist may each have the former, but it is not evident that either has the latter. The upshot is that even if the fetus has a right to life (which Thompson does not believe but allows for the sake of the argument), it may still be morally permissible to abort.

To be fair, this analogy only holds -directly- if the woman made no choice at all towards getting pregnant (Ie. It only applies in a reasonable way to instances of rape, where the woman didn't choose to engage in an activity that had as a consequence pregnancy) but it does still tell us something valuable about our mentality in all cases with respect to abortion.

The only reason there is any debate at all on the subject is the idea that the fetus in the mother is a self-aware, intelligent life that has an equal moral value as the mother. But I really don't think there is any particular scientific or medical evidence to support that conclusion, and for something as important as a woman's rights to control her own life and body, "It just seems wrong" as a purely emotional conclusion doesn't, and shouldn't cut it.

[OrganisM]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

So, Guido, if you've ever stepped on a roach or swatted a fly, you should be put behind bars for being a vicious murderer. After all, a roach is a living clump of cells, isn't it?

Oh, it's not human? Not cute? Then it must not be as important.

Sorry, my mistake.

Think of the cows argument devonin brought up. A clump of cells in the womb can't decide where it's going or what it wants, now, can it?

[Squeek]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

Guido, what if it were you? There are male rapes too.

Either pay a ridiculous amount of child support for a baby you didn't want and really doesn't even belong to you, or opt out for an abortion?

What if it happens thirty times? Can you support thirty children?

One hundred?

Ten million?

Do you see how ridiculous it is to just disallow abortion yet?

[AOL_blows911]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

Right. That's because it is life. It is a living, unique being.

Again, your opinion vs. mine. Technicaly it is living cells and all, but to me, it is not alive yet, in the sense that it has no sense of self, let alone any senses at all. It's individual DNA is unique, but other than that and the actual cell geometry/positions, it is the same as any other embryo of that stage. That is my opinion. I have mine, you have yours, thats what debates are about

Nono. There's no potential about it. It is life.

Read above. In my opinion, it is living but not truely alive until the embryo developes senses (I tend to think of this as when it can start feeling pain, but I'm not an expert on the matter and it could be sooner that it has a nervous system enough that it can sense).

You're just a cluster of cells right now, too. Just a bigger one. You know that line which you drew about when it's okay to have an abortion and when it's not? One day before, it's just a cluster of cells. One day after, it's just a cluster of cells. One has certain chemical reactions and receptors, but is that where you draw the line of life? Our bodies frequently develop many new processes and functions throughout our lives. Just look at puberty.

Blood cells are not living entities since they are not individually metabolic. You don't take one brick out of a structure and call the brick a house.

I know plenty about puberty, because I'm 16 and stuck in the middle of it. And true, bodies do go through many different processes, creating new ones and the stopping old as life goes on. "One day before, it's just a cluster of cells. One day after, it's just a cluster of cells. One has certain chemical reactions and receptors, but is that where you draw the line of life?" - and after a certain period of time, nerve cells will develope and thoughts will begin to spark. I draw the line of life at the cognitive stage. The blood cell example was weak, I'll give you that, but I didn't have much time and wanted to post my views. The point of the analogy was that an individual zygote has no more power of mind than a blood cell. At least, it has never been proven to, anyway. For all I know, there is a meta-physical soul that makes every human intelligence. Or, it is interactions of chemicals and electrical charges throughout our brain and nervous system that make us who we are (which is my belief, as you may have guessed). Possibly some combination of the two. Until this is disproven, it is my belief. So, again, I draw the line of life at the point when thought (however basic) begins.

[devonin]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

but is that where you draw the line of life?

It is an issue of threshold, not degree.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

Again, your opinion vs. mine.

Nono. Whether or not it is a living being is not an opinion. You said it yourself: "Technically it is living cells". That's all I was stating.

If you don't want to value the life it has, well, that's your opinion, but you can't deny the life that's there.

I'll agree to disagree with you about when life should be valued, but there's no reason to say that it's not alive.

Squeek: since when would I have to personally support the children of my rapes? I'm pretty sure no law forces rape victims to pay child support, and I could give a child that I couldn't support up for adoption.

I don't know the name of it, but I'm pretty sure there's a logical fallacy in proposing the situation where a guy gets raped ten million times and has a child from it each time. Either way, no, I don't see any reason why outlawing abortion is ridiculous.

It is an issue of threshold, not degree.

...? Wasn't I talking about threshold when I said that?

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com