Abortion and Morality

[ArmChair General]

First let me apologize for taking so long to reply.

Personally, I happen to believe in the principles laid out in our founding documents. That we do come into being with certain rights.

If, as you say, it is a game, and all our rights to live and be free are merely figments, I woud prefer to play the game than to live the alternative; the jungle. I have been there and don't care to go back. Today, right now, every unborn lives in the jungle. He or she can be killed anytime, without cause and without legal consequence.

I believe that there is something different in us, some spark if you will, that makes us different from every other species on the face of the earth and that spark, whatever you care to call it (if you care to name it at all) is why we can see that we have options. Eeither play the game as we do, or drop the game and join the animals.

So what your saying, is that your reasoning for being against abortion, is not logical at all. Indeed, its quite unsound.

Thats pretty much what I was getting at.

 

[heyjude]

Nothing that cannot live without using my body to do so has a right to live.
Nothing that cannot breathe is a human being. "And God breathed into Adam
s mouth, and Adam became a liveing soul."
No one has the right to force a woman to give birth to the evil spawn of a rapist.
No one has the right to tell me what I must do with my body. It is mine. If you want to pass laws about what someone should do with their bodies, pass laws to control what men can do with theirs.
Yes, women are the only people who can bear children. That is why men should have nothing to say about it. It is a woman thing. Men have no right to say anything about it. Nothing. Nada. Zip. When you get pregnant, make it illegal for men to have abortions.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Nothing that cannot live without using my body to do so has a right to live.
Nothing that cannot breathe is a human being. "And God breathed into Adam
s mouth, and Adam became a liveing soul."
No one has the right to force a woman to give birth to the evil spawn of a rapist.
No one has the right to tell me what I must do with my body. It is mine. If you want to pass laws about what someone should do with their bodies, pass laws to control what men can do with theirs.
Yes, women are the only people who can bear children. That is why men should have nothing to say about it. It is a woman thing. Men have no right to say anything about it. Nothing. Nada. Zip. When you get pregnant, make it illegal for men to have abortions.

Nicely put.

 

[vyo476]

I was thinking the other day about all this (I've been tied up at work, which is why I haven't been posting lately).

Abortion is, practically speaking, one person taking the life of another person. This definition should satisfy pale rider. One of the things that's been bugging me is that, under the law, the action of taking another's life isn't always illegal.

I'm referring to the decision close family members make when someone is put onto life support with little to no chance of ever regaining consciousness.

Now, on the one hand, the person lying in that hospitable bed is still alive, and because he/she is still alive, according to the path of logic pale has taken (and, indeed, I have taken), that person still has a right to life. To cut off life support would be to knowingly deprive that person of life, throwing his/her "right to life" straight out the window.

Now, why do we do this?

To save the person from unnecessary suffering. To conserve the resources it would take to keep the person alive. As an emotional favor to family members who would be ill-served to keep holding on despite the hopelessness of the situation.

Those reasons sound very reminiscent of the common reasons listed for abortions. I think that, legally speaking anyway, we have our precedent for abortion right there.

Just thought I'd point that out. I'd be particularly interested to hear pale's views on whether or not allowing family members to choose to take their comatose loved ones off life support should be allowed.

 

[vyo476]

Nothing that cannot live without using my body to do so has a right to live.

Full-out physical dependency isn't a long ways from partial dependency. Babies are still 100% dependent on others for survival.

Nothing that cannot breathe is a human being. "And God breathed into Adam
s mouth, and Adam became a liveing soul."

Firstly, are we honestly using the Bible to define humanity?

Secondly, there are plenty of people out there who require either partial or complete assistance to breath. Are asthma patients less human in your eyes?

No one has the right to force a woman to give birth to the evil spawn of a rapist.

"Evil spawn?" I grew up with a young man who was born from rape and he turned out well enough (except for a few suicide attempts - he was a little confused).

No one has the right to tell me what I must do with my body. It is mine. If you want to pass laws about what someone should do with their bodies, pass laws to control what men can do with theirs.

It is not about telling you what to do with your body; it is about telling you what you cannot do with the body of another person.

We do have laws to restrict how men use their bodies - unless sexuality is consensual it is rape and very, very illegal. If sex is consensual than pregnancy is one of the risks. We have laws to make sure that fathers at the very least help to support the children they create; if we need to revise these to make them more effective, than let's do it.

Yes, women are the only people who can bear children. That is why men should have nothing to say about it. It is a woman thing. Men have no right to say anything about it. Nothing. Nada. Zip. When you get pregnant, make it illegal for men to have abortions.

I think the father ought to have some say in the whole thing. I consider myself to be a pretty sensitive guy. One night several months ago, after my girlfriend and I were done...er, copulating, she asked me how I would react if she got pregnant. I answered honestly: I would be scared out of my wits, but I was ready and willing to accept responsibility for my actions. Although perhaps not really ready to be a father, I would still be the best father I could be. I asked her how she would react and she told me that she'd probably try to get it aborted. I told her I wasn't sure how I felt about that and she told me that it wouldn't matter; she'd just register the child's father as "unknown" and do it without my consent. I'm not sure how legal that would be, the thought behind it hurt immensely.

Deciding how much say Daddy ought to have in whether or not the child is aborted is a very, very sticky subject. On the one hand, you have guys like me who might not be ready for parenthood but at least are willing to accept the challenge. On the other hand, you have total deadbeats who impregnate girls and then run off to parts unknown, leaving said girls to deal with it alone.

I'm not sure how to go about making all these things fit together, but I do know this - if I were to conceive a child, I would not be okay with the idea of my partner going off and having it killed without consulting me first.

I guess this is a man vs. woman thing. With legalized abortion, men have to be more selective about who they choose to have sex with, because if they pick the wrong girl than they could be cut out of the decision to abort. With illegalized abortion, women have to be more selective about who they choose to have sex with, because if they pick the wrong guy they could wind up having to raise the child alone.

There's just no win-win scenario.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

"Evil spawn?" I grew up with a young man who was born from rape and he turned out well enough (except for a few suicide attempts - he was a little confused).

The evil spawn is the feeling a woman gets from having a parasite forcibly rammed into her body against her will and being forced to let it live on her and in her for 9 months and then having to struggle through the agony of birthing it. The child may not be at fault, but neither is the woman and the way Pale has it figured, only the woman has to give up 9 months of her life sheltering an uninvited parasitic guest who will cost her dearly in time, money, and pain.

It is not about telling you what to do with your body; it is about telling you what you cannot do with the body of another person.

It is sematics to say the you are not telling her what she can do with her body, if you wish to phrase it that way, then let's say that she is simply shedding the lining of the uterus as she does each month and it's not her fault that someone forced an unwanted parasitic body into that lining against her will. The death of the unwanted parasite is the fault of the person who placed it there violently, against her will.

I think the father ought to have some say in the whole thing. I consider myself to be a pretty sensitive guy. One night several months ago, after my girlfriend and I were done...er, copulating, she asked me how I would react if she got pregnant. I answered honestly: I would be scared out of my wits, but I was ready and willing to accept responsibility for my actions. Although perhaps not really ready to be a father, I would still be the best father I could be. I asked her how she would react and she told me that she'd probably try to get it aborted. I told her I wasn't sure how I felt about that and she told me that it wouldn't matter; she'd just register the child's father as "unknown" and do it without my consent. I'm not sure how legal that would be, the thought behind it hurt immensely.

The question that immediately came to my mind was: Did you jump out of bed right after she said that? Will you ever have sex with her again knowing how she feels?

I never fail to be amazed that men will take the side of violence against women. Instead of protecting women against rape and the after effects thereof, men try to say "Oh well, it's done, so you might as well live with it." I don't see this as a men against women issue, it's an issue of educating men to understand the level of violation involved in an unwanted pregnancy from rape.

 

[vyo476]

The evil spawn is the feeling a woman gets from having a parasite forcibly rammed into her body against her will and being forced to let it live on her and in her for 9 months and then having to struggle through the agony of birthing it. The child may not be at fault, but neither is the woman and the way Pale has it figured, only the woman has to give up 9 months of her life sheltering an uninvited parasitic guest who will cost her dearly in time, money, and pain.

If the child is not at fault, let's not call it "evil spawn." "Spawned from evil," maybe, but not "evil spawn." See the difference?

It is sematics to say the you are not telling her what she can do with her body, if you wish to phrase it that way, then let's say that she is simply shedding the lining of the uterus as she does each month and it's not her fault that someone forced an unwanted parasitic body into that lining against her will. The death of the unwanted parasite is the fault of the person who placed it there violently, against her will.

It isn't semantics. Hitting someone in the head with an axe is against the law because it's assualt and battery (or any number of crimes on up to first degree murder). The point of the law is isn't to tell me what I have to do with my body (resist the urge to hit people in the head with axes) but to prevent me from hurting someone. Abortion is a much more complicated case than the axe metaphor, but it is still apt as a radicalization.

Oh, and I wasn't talking specifically about rape, but about abortions in general.

The question that immediately came to my mind was: Did you jump out of bed right after she said that? Will you ever have sex with her again knowing how she feels?

I didn't jump out of bed, but we never did have sex again.

I never fail to be amazed that men will take the side of violence against women. Instead of protecting women against rape and the after effects thereof, men try to say "Oh well, it's done, so you might as well live with it." I don't see this as a men against women issue, it's an issue of educating men to understand the level of violation involved in an unwanted pregnancy from rape.

I'm not taking the side of violence against women. Believe me, I'm not. Rapists are just about the most scummy human beings on the planet and they deserve whatever they get. I'm all for protecting women against both the act of rape and the after-affects of rape. I just didn't think characterizing the unborn child of a rape victim as "evil spawn" was totally fair, seeing as the baby didn't actually do anything to deserve that title.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

If the child is not at fault, let's not call it "evil spawn." "Spawned from evil," maybe, but not "evil spawn." See the difference?
It isn't semantics. Hitting someone in the head with an axe is against the law because it's assualt and battery (or any number of crimes on up to first degree murder). The point of the law is isn't to tell me what I have to do with my body (resist the urge to hit people in the head with axes) but to prevent me from hurting someone. Abortion is a much more complicated case than the axe metaphor, but it is still apt as a radicalization.
I didn't jump out of bed, but we never did have sex again.
I'm not taking the side of violence against women. Believe me, I'm not. Rapists are just about the most scummy human beings on the planet and they deserve whatever they get. I'm all for protecting women against both the act of rape and the after-affects of rape. I just didn't think characterizing the unborn child of a rape victim as "evil spawn" was totally fair, seeing as the baby didn't actually do anything to deserve that title.

Okay, fair enough, call the implanted thing by any name you wish to choose, but allow the woman the right to take it out of her body--that's the bottom line.

 

[top gun]

Okay, fair enough, call the implanted thing by any name you wish to choose, but allow the woman the right to take it out of her body--that's the bottom line.

You make a good point that's seldom ever discussed.

Abortion terminates the embryo or fetus because it could not live outside the womb on its own. What the anti-choice advocates are really advocating is that women become religion based and/or government forced incubators.

It just seems reasonable to me that because this is such a personal decision and there is such a huge difference of opinion here on what an individual should or should not be forced to do that individual "choice" is the only fair outcome. Let the education of the situation and ones own personal or religious beliefs guide them to do what they think right while not forcing their opinions or their chosen way of life or view of life onto others.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You make a good point that's seldom ever discussed.

Abortion terminates the embryo or fetus because it could not live outside the womb on its own. What the anti-choice advocates are really advocating is that women become religion based and/or government forced incubators.

It just seems reasonable to me that because this is such a personal decision and there is such a huge difference of opinion here on what an individual should or should not be forced to do that individual "choice" is the only fair outcome. Let the education of the situation and ones own personal or religious beliefs guide them to do what they think right while not forcing their opinions or their chosen way of life or view of life onto others.

Hear, hear! Land of the free, where people can choose what to do with things INSIDE their own body.

 

[heyjude]

Secondly, there are plenty of people out there who require either partial or complete assistance to breath. Are asthma patients less human in your eyes?

vyo476 I don't have to stand at the persons side and breathe into their mouth or carry them around in my arms. There are machines or drugs involved.

Evil spawn?" I grew up with a young man who was born from rape and he turned out well enough (except for a few suicide attempts - he was a little confused). You have no idea how a woman feels about rape and being impregnated by the rapist. You can not. So butt out.

I think the father ought to have some say in the whole thing. The law does not give a husband the right to tell his wife she may not have an abortion. She doesn't have to lie about who the father is. I wasn't aware the question came up.

You and all men should be very careful about the results of your sex life. It is your responsibility to not have children you don't want. Don't even think it is a woman's job to keep you from getting her pregnant. You don't want to be called Daddy or have a woman abort your child, don't get her pregnant.

 

[vyo476]

Okay, fair enough, call the implanted thing by any name you wish to choose, but allow the woman the right to take it out of her body--that's the bottom line.

I would be one hundred percent fine with this if it didn't kill the "implanted thing" - which is still a human being. That's the one aspect of abortion that I just can't get around all the way - although I am starting to come around a bit. I posted something else the other day about familial rights and life support that got totally ignored (in favor of my other post, for which I'm getting torn apart).

I think that the two main scientific areas of study that should be pursued are a drug that prevents ovulation (which would be a near-perfect contraceptive, or so I'm told) and a method of transferring a fetus from a woman to an incubation unit without killing the fetus. Both would drastically lower the cases in which abortion would be the most appealing option.

Let the education of the situation and ones own personal or religious beliefs guide them to do what they think right while not forcing their opinions or their chosen way of life or view of life onto others.

Slippery slope. This is killing we're talking about here, and if we're not going to bother to regulate the willful taking of one person's life by another person, why bother with any regulation?

Are there any situations in which you think abortion should not be allowed, or do you believe in full legalization?

You have no idea how a woman feels about rape and being impregnated by the rapist. You can not. So butt out.

No, I can't. I can know how it feels to be the child that results from such a thing - as I said, I have a friend who was born from rape. He isn't evil. He's certainly had a tough life, trying to come to grips with what happened to his mother (and the fact that he was the result of it), but that doesn't make him "evil." That really was all I was saying.

Perhaps you should tell my friend he didn't deserve to live. I could almost guarantee you that he'd find the nearest tall building and jump off of it (he's extremely sensitive about things like that) - but that's all well and good, he's "evil spawn."

You and all men should be very careful about the results of your sex life.

I try to be. I've made a few bad decisions here and there, but not once have I ever been unwilling to live up to the responsibilities of fatherhood should my mistakes have resulted in a pregnancy. I can only speak for myself in this matter, and not for other men, because I'm not other men.

It is your responsibility to not have children you don't want. Don't even think it is a woman's job to keep you from getting her pregnant.

I've always thought that it was up to both partners. If I'm having sex with a woman, it's a mutual thing, because I am not a rapist. In that mutually accepted scenario it is up to both of us to take the necessary precautions to prevent a pregnancy. If a pregnancy occurs, it is our fault - not just mine.

 

[r0beph]

I would be one hundred percent fine with this if it didn't kill the "implanted thing" - which is still a human being. That's the one aspect of abortion that I just can't get around all the way - although I am starting to come around a bit. I posted something else the other day about familial rights and life support that got totally ignored (in favor of my other post, for which I'm getting torn apart).

Well it's a potential human being. It's human as far as DNA and such, but it's hardly personage. While this DNA that has come from conception is completely new DNA from that of either parents (as it is a combination thereof) it is nonetheless not a person. The distinctness of DNA, is of no bearing. (a person that is a clone should have all rights that are afforded normally conceived people, as a hypothetical example); as well the idea of distinct dna and the bundle of cells being protected would make getting rid of cancer, murder (although this could be argued by the extreme-extremist in that it still falls under the endangerment of life argument that some partial-pro-abortion/pro-lifers carry) The only thing that makes this something anyone considers of WORTH is that the potential of personage exists, as cancer cells or otherwise do not have this potential.

I think that the two main scientific areas of study that should be pursued are a drug that prevents ovulation (which would be a near-perfect contraceptive, or so I'm told) and a method of transferring a fetus from a woman to an incubation unit without killing the fetus. Both would drastically lower the cases in which abortion would be the most appealing option.

Fetal transference would be a legal nightmare. Not that it should be a viable option. I imagine they'd handle this similar to as they handle adoption, which itself is a wonderful thing, but also a legal nightmare, I think the fetal transference would be more so. Prevention of ovulation would be ideal. Since Plan B stops implantation (it's simply progesterone, which is in the most commonly used monophasic and triphasic birth controls.) This means that normal birth control will also have the likelihood of not allowing implantation in cases where an egg is fertilized even though birth control is followed to the letter. This creates a problem for the anti-plan b lot, since the most common birth controls have the SAME EFFECT!

Slippery slope. This is killing we're talking about here, and if we're not going to bother to regulate the willful taking of one person's life by another person, why bother with any regulation?

A fertalized ovum is not a person. It is a potential person. I could argue when personage begins with myself alone, and won't attempt to bring that here, the next section however will lend some clues as to where I stand on that.

Are there any situations in which you think abortion should not be allowed, or do you believe in full legalization?

I really don't like the idea of non-emergency third trimest abortions, you have plenty of time to think about if you want to carry to term or not, I think that at this point you may as well put it up for adoption.

No, I can't. I can know how it feels to be the child that results from such a thing - as I said, I have a friend who was born from rape. He isn't evil. He's certainly had a tough life, trying to come to grips with what happened to his mother (and the fact that he was the result of it), but that doesn't make him "evil." That really was all I was saying.

Perhaps you should tell my friend he didn't deserve to live. I could almost guarantee you that he'd find the nearest tall building and jump off of it (he's extremely sensitive about things like that) - but that's all well and good, he's "evil spawn."

This is bordering on logical fallacy. You're transposing your friend's personage upon a potential person. Your friend deserves to live, and I'm sure his mother is glad she had him, however it is directly related to HER mental stability whether or not SHE felt she could handle that. For her I guess it's fine, for others that choice should remain, for me this is all moot since I am all for the choice of a mother up to third trimester.

I try to be. I've made a few bad decisions here and there, but not once have I ever been unwilling to live up to the responsibilities of fatherhood should my mistakes have resulted in a pregnancy. I can only speak for myself in this matter, and not for other men, because I'm not other men.

I think the choice should 100% remain with the mother, as a man, I am arguing against my fatherly rights for an unborn child, however I cannot waffle on my stance. The mother is the one who ultimately is responsible for CARRYING the pregnancy. The mother and father post-birth however should remain in responsibility. Of course this brings the question of why should a father support a child he wanted to have aborted; I don't feel child support should be levied on "the father" alone. This should all be handled on an income basis. If the mother has custody and more income than the father, there is no way he should have to pay. And just the same on the inverse, if he has custody and makes less than the mother SHE should help. And all forms of the case.

I've always thought that it was up to both partners. If I'm having sex with a woman, it's a mutual thing, because I am not a rapist. In that mutually accepted scenario it is up to both of us to take the necessary precautions to prevent a pregnancy. If a pregnancy occurs, it is our fault - not just mine.

Agreed, conception is 100% a dual responsibility lying on the shoulders of both the man and the woman. This cannot be argued, unless intentional and misleading actions precede this (the old holes in the diaphragm bit et al.) At which the person who intentionally created the pregnancy should bear all responsibility there of. Of course this would be a purely civil matter and would likely require some precedent first, it's likely to uncommon to really matter.

 

[heyjude]

Any person of either sex who imposes parenthood on another is commiting an immoral act. And I sympathize with the feeling that the victim should not be responsible financially, but the child has the absolute right to the support of both parents.

Women are responsible for their own bodies. It is not a man's job to keep her from getting pregnant, or her job to protect him. I would have to put a remarkable amount of trust in another, to allow them to keep me from concieving. And I don't think I could do that outside of the commitment of marriage.

Once a pregnancy has occured, it has to be up to the woman to decide what will happen. An artificial womb sounds good, but would it be. What happens if busy women decide to use them? Will that interfere with the bond between mother and child? Men bond with a child, but do not experience what a woman does, and yet, they are far more likely to opt out of a relationship with their child than a woman is. Would you be creating a world in which both parents feel free to walk away? It is usually best to not mess with nature.

 

[palerider]

I disagree with yours too, but I don't call you a liar.

I don't tell lies.

Start bringing, Pale.

How about we start with the first, and most blatant lie you told.

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=16260&postcount=199

On the torture thread, I said:

"Face it mare, your hypocrital position has been exposed. You rail against torture but support a fabricated right of women to murder a million unborns per year precicely by tearing them limb from limb, without the benefit of anesthesia I might add, for reasons that amount to no more than convenience."

Then you repsonded:

"Nice try, Pale, but it won't work, I think abortion is murder. Just like I think that torture is murder. Keep trying though, we all appreciate your poorly-spelled but ghastly descriptions. "

From that point, you have told a series of lies. Stating that I have said a thing when I have said nothing of the sort and deliberate misrepresentations of my statements. I wouldn't have said you lied mare, if you had not, in fact lied.

Since you have all the important dogma down pat and, on this site, you are arguing for their religious beliefs, I suppose they will cut you some slack on the praying and incense (though please note that you have not yet denied praying or burning incense, all you have done is say that you have not mentioned it in your posts).

I have stated specifically that I am not a catholic. And I don't burn insense. At this point, how about you bring forward some "catholic dogma" and show me where I have said anything from their books. I have repeated over and over that my position is that unborns are human beings and human beings have a right to live. Which part of that is catholic dogma?

I asked you about it and you declined to answer. You have never said that you wouldn't do it, all you said was that you wouldn't torture family members--so I gather that everything else is still on the table. Answer the question: how far would you go to torture someone to save millions of lives?

If the limbs were torn from one who held information that you needed, you would lose that information as the shock of having a limb torn off would render your terrorist useless as a source of information.

You are the one quoting Catholic dogma, not me.

You keep saying that. How about you prove it. Bring some "dogma" from the catholic church and lets compare it to my position? Or is that just another expedient lie that you tell?

I have yet to see one, try again. A lie is deliberately saying something that you know isn't true.

See above. That was a bald faced lie mare.

I'm not Armchair, and I don't agree with you "logic" since you throw out at least half the equation to come up with your answer. What do you call a scientist who throws out the data so that he gets the answer that he wants?

Since you wouldn't recognize logic if it bit you on the ass, I am not going to worry much about it.

Of course, read your Bible a little more, Pale, Thou shalt not kill and Thou shalt not steal are right there in the 10 Commandments.

That set of rules came from the Torah mare, long before the catholics were ever thought about.