Abortion Poll

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Let me add this. If it were somehow possible for women only to vote on this matter, and the majority concluded abortion was wrong, then by all means, change the laws. You are the ones that carry the babies. It should be your decision.

 

I have always found this stance to be BS. Abortion is not only a womens issue, it strongly affects men as well. For one, unless you are a total dooshbag, you (the man) are going to have to rather drastically change your life to help priovide all the various and sundry forms of support a baby requires.

 

Secondly, half the babies aborted are, or would be, male. This gives us a stake in the process too.

 

While I would never personally advocate a partner of mine having an abortion, absent indications of down's syndrome or something, I am pro choice, for a variety of reasons. For one, as numerous other posters have pointed out, I don't like to see the governemnt interfere in such a personal decision. This is obviously a very grey area, where people see things differently, otherwise, there wouldn't have been a debate for the past half century over it.

 

Secondly, such laws are discriminatory. If a rich guys 16 year old daughter gets knocked up, he can fly her to wherever in the world abortion is legal. If a poor girl gets knocked up, she would not have the same option, and may end up harming herself in a "back alley" abortion attempt.

 

Thirdly (and this is where it gets real controversial) this world simple doesn't need so many babies, particularly babies born to parents who don't want them, and are not equiped to handle them. Abortion bans basically condemn children to lives of abuse, often lead to increases in crime (see the book Freakonomics for a great look at this) and ultimately bring the same sad cycle home again when they accidentally become impregnated with a child they don't want. Bottom line, society is better off without millions of unwanted children. That's stone cold, but sadly true. It would be better for all concerned if people took steps to avoid pregnancy in the first place, but unfortunately, that ain't gonna happen.

[Strike 6,019]

I voted pro-life because I was in a situation to consider it and decided to keep it. And I wasn't a teenager, not even close. But it was a life-affecting decision nonetheless. I realized at that point that until you are in that situation, philosophical ideas are pretty much worthless.

 

I was in that position once as well. We made a slightly different decision than you did, one that I struggle with to this day.

[MisanthropicAnthropoid 0]

This paragraph, however, caught my attention. You're saying the government "has the right to be involved" in theft, murder and abortion matters since they are all "moral issues," yet gay marriage is also a moral issue, but you "don't think that the government should be involved"? Is it just me, or is that a tad ?

 

In the paragraph below, I explained the statement. My point was that getting involved in one moral issue doesn't necessarily open the door for getting involved in others, if you have proper boundaries. Reposted for your convenience:

 

Theft is a moral issue, murder is a moral issue, and abortion is a moral issue. I think anyone who denies the moral component and gravity of any of those issues isn't paying attention. tongue.gif I think the government has the right to be involved in any of those. Gay marriage is also a moral issue, and I don't think that the government should be involved.

 

How do I draw the line without creating the slippery slope that you fear? I think that if issue infringes on basic rights to life, liberty, and property, the the government can have a say. If it can't be framed in a rights argument, then the government ought not have a say*.

Back to your responses:

 

2) The ridiculous argument that many women use abortion as a means of birth control, frequently presented as though thousands upon thousands of women are guilty of such. rolleyes.gif This is a tired, stale response I hear repeatedly by pro-lifers. Please. No woman in her right mind is actively going to rely on abortion as a means of birth control. That's absurd. Abortions are costly, dangerous to undergo, and can leave lasting emotional scars.

I think there are a fair number (maybe not thousands upon thousands) who do just this. A recent article noted that in England, about 50 women each year will be having their SEVENTH abortion. That sounds like using it for birth control to me. But I don't think something should be made legal or illegal based on its misuses, but based on its proper uses (and, you know, if there are any). For instance, drunk driving is no reason to prohibit alcohol.

 

3) And perhaps the thing I find most disturbing of all. What about after a baby is born? What if the child is unwanted or cannot be properly cared for? Babies are tremendous responsibilities, requiring constant love, care, and attention. Some women simply aren't equipped for this. It kills me to think a woman might some day be forced to keep her child and in turn, the child is resented, unloved, and as a result, neglected. There is a saying that pro-lifers give every sh!t in the world about unborn children, yet hardly care once they are born. Unfortunately, I see many truths to this statement. Pro-lifers constantly harp about the unsoundness of abortion, yet never offer concrete solutions on how to provide the love, care, attention and considerable resources babies require once they arrive.

It's terribly sad to see pro-lifers who believe this way. I would like to see all of those babies go up for adoption (or be taken care of by grandparents, etc), but it isn't the government's right to force it (this is no longer an issue of life, just quality of life). But, as far as using this as a reason for abortion, we would be horrified if a man killed his wife because he thought her life wasn't worth living (this has happened). Similarly, if you believe life has begun, you should be horrified if a women kills her child because she thinks the child's life isn't worth living. It's not one person's place to decide that about another person's life.

 

Let me add this. If it were somehow possible for women only to vote on this matter, and the majority concluded abortion was wrong, then by all means, change the laws. You are the ones that carry the babies. It should be your decision.

I still disagree on calling it a completely women's issue. Although the one's who have to worry about getting abortions are women, the ones who end up being aborted can be either sex. Theoretically, roughly half of the victims are men. This is why I don't like it being called a women's issue.

 

 

 

Although, unlike the feminist argument, this one has stayed civil, and that's nice.

[thetxstang 0]

I have always found this stance to be BS. Abortion is not only a womens issue, it strongly affects men as well. For one, unless you are a total dooshbag, you (the man) are going to have to rather drastically change your life to help priovide all the various and sundry forms of support a baby requires.

 

Secondly, half the babies aborted are, or would be, male. This gives us a stake in the process too.

 

While I would never personally advocate a partner of mine having an abortion, absent indications of down's syndrome or something, I am pro choice, for a variety of reasons. For one, as numerous other posters have pointed out, I don't like to see the governemnt interfere in such a personal decision. This is obviously a very grey area, where people see things differently, otherwise, there wouldn't have been a debate for the past half century over it.

 

Secondly, such laws are discriminatory. If a rich guys 16 year old daughter gets knocked up, he can fly her to wherever in the world abortion is legal. If a poor girl gets knocked up, she would not have the same option, and may end up harming herself in a "back alley" abortion attempt.

 

Thirdly (and this is where it gets real controversial) this world simple doesn't need so many babies, particularly babies born to parents who don't want them, and are not equiped to handle them. Abortion bans basically condemn children to lives of abuse, often lead to increases in crime (see the book Freakonomics for a great look at this) and ultimately bring the same sad cycle home again when they accidentally become impregnated with a child they don't want. Bottom line, society is better off without millions of unwanted children. That's stone cold, but sadly true. It would be better for all concerned if people took steps to avoid pregnancy in the first place, but unfortunately, that ain't gonna happen.

 

Man, I agree with every point you've made, other than your first two paragraphs.

 

I have always found this stance to be BS. Abortion is not only a womens issue, it strongly affects men as well. For one, unless you are a total dooshbag, you (the man) are going to have to rather drastically change your life to help priovide all the various and sundry forms of support a baby requires.

 

I agree an abortion can certainly affect a man; however, we'll have to agree to disagree that it's primarily a woman's issue and the the final decision is hers to make. Discussing a man's need to change his life and be an active participant in raising a child is simply stating the obvious. It's the same for any woman who has elected to keep her baby. No difference.

 

Secondly, half the babies aborted are, or would be, male. This gives us a stake in the process too.

 

Sorry dood. This is a ridiculous position. You're saying just because half of babies are males that we suddenly have some kind of "stake in the process"? You mean like watching out for one of our bros, or something? C'mon now. If abortion is to be taken into consideration at that level, female babies should be of equal importance. This conversation isn't about a baby's sex.

 

 

Seriously, overall a great post with some very valid points.

[edjr 6,898]

Who needs abortion when there are so many good staircases around?

[naomi 360]

naomi, I appreciate your post. You've obviously presented your thoughts with great consideration. The trouble I have with your submission is twofold:

 

1) You're representing abortion as a "moral" issue. Furthermore, your tacit religious suggestions have no bearing with me, even if I "don't have to be 'religious' to think that life begins at conception as opposed to at birth." Precisely when a baby's life begins will forever be debatable.

2) Your approach is an emotional one, appealing to the human condition which recoils in horror at the notion of extinguishing a human life. I cannot engage if I am to remain objective (see below).

 

To better explain my view, let me first state I categorically believe abortions are a sad solution to a very difficult problem. It's hurtful to try and rationalize. I don't think for a moment anyone believes an abortion is something to be celebrated. Any individual who does has something wrong with their hamster wheel.

 

Please don't link my comments on theft and abortion as being one in the same. I never used the word "moral" in either case. My point was only that abortion is a personal matter for a woman, while theft can affect anyone. Nothing more. Therefore, my argument was never "that laws against theft are less moral."

 

 

You said: "The government should stay out of personal and "moral issues" in my estimation. It is, quite simply, none of their business. I fear if abortion laws are passed, other moral issues may eventually be fair game for legislation."

 

I understand you could be putting moral into quotes because you're conveying that's how others see it, but I thought differently when you said you fear other moral issues may be fair game for legislation. My point which you may just outright disagree with, is that all laws have a moral basis. You could argue some are there not out of recognizing "right" conduct, but for survivalist reasons. 'We need to have it this way so people don't get screwed, and people includes me.'

Mentioning people define life by when it begins, and that if people define life by WHAT it is, it tends to transcend the condition of being in the womb or outside of it is not an emotional appeal. The point in saying it was to show why there are people who think they should be against abortion out of what they percieve is a natural principle of fairness and justice inside of them, with no religious basis. The point of saying that is in response to your idea that prohibiting abortion is different from other laws in that it usurps more 'moral' based authority. It's really dependent on the same amount of 'morality' in deciding murder is wrong. I don't know how there was anything tacitly religious in there, especially when I said "Not laying this out so you agree it begins at conception, this should show us why someone may easily apply what they percieve is life to an individual in the womb, with or without religion." Which would cause them to see abortion as wrong. In your world, those people, who have the same moral stake someone against theft, murder, etc., have...would be regarded as having special and undue interest that is none of their business.

 

To say it in a really plain way (because I wasn't personally recognizing the prohibition of abortion as more moral than other laws or thinking I was using an emotional appeal. Feel like my thoughts were entirely missed, but that could be my fault):

-Your argument is that abortion shouldn't be regulated because it's a very personal manner. You said "theft can directly affect anyone and is just plain wrong."

 

-"The government should stay out of personal and "moral issues" in my estimation."

 

Therefore, the government would be staying out of a lot of issues they're already in. I won't deny that it's 'religious' people who are by and large against abortion. Thinking self-perceived morality inspiring laws is undue would be missing the point that most laws are there because people appeal to what they feel is moral.

[thetxstang 0]

In the paragraph below, I explained the statement. My point was that getting involved in one moral issue doesn't necessarily open the door for getting involved in others, if you have proper boundaries. Reposted for your convenience:

Back to your responses:

I think there are a fair number (maybe not thousands upon thousands) who do just this. A recent article noted that in England, about 50 women each year will be having their SEVENTH abortion. That sounds like using it for birth control to me. But I don't think something should be made legal or illegal based on its misuses, but based on its proper uses (and, you know, if there are any). For instance, drunk driving is no reason to prohibit alcohol.

It's terribly sad to see pro-lifers who believe this way. I would like to see all of those babies go up for adoption (or be taken care of by grandparents, etc), but it isn't the government's right to force it (this is no longer an issue of life, just quality of life). But, as far as using this as a reason for abortion, we would be horrified if a man killed his wife because he thought her life wasn't worth living (this has happened). Similarly, if you believe life has begun, you should be horrified if a women kills her child because she thinks the child's life isn't worth living. It's not one person's place to decide that about another person's life.

I still disagree on calling it a completely women's issue. Although the one's who have to worry about getting abortions are women, the ones who end up being aborted can be either sex. Theoretically, roughly half of the victims are men. This is why I don't like it being called a women's issue.

Although, unlike the feminist argument, this one has stayed civil, and that's nice.

 

MisanthropicAnthropoid, thanks for the reply. Though I'm still having trouble determining relevance in some of your analogies, you make some valid points. Again, we will need to agree to disagree about others, however.

 

I also appreciate how civil this conversation has remained. It's refreshing.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Man, I agree with every point you've made, other than your first two paragraphs.

I agree an abortion can certainly affect a man; however, we'll have to agree to disagree that it's primarily a woman's issue and the the final decision is hers to make. Discussing a man's need to change his life and be an active participant in raising a child is simply stating the obvious. It's the same for any woman who has elected to keep her baby. No difference.

Sorry dood. This is a ridiculous position. You're saying just because half of babies are males that we suddenly have some kind of "stake in the process"? You mean like watching out for one of our bros, or something? C'mon now. If abortion is to be taken into consideration at that level, female babies should be of equal importance. This conversation isn't about a baby's sex.

Seriously, overall a great post with some very valid points.

 

No, we don't disagree. I'm not arguing that our opinion as the prospective father should be equal, merely that it is not completely irrelevant.

 

This is obviously an issue that affects women more than men, as it is they who find themselves in the sturrups facing the buisness end of a vacum cleaner. Were I ever to find myself facing an unplanned pregnancy, I would merely tell the woman that whatever she decides, she can count on my total support. I would prefer that my opinion be heard on the matter, and then she has the decision to make. I should think that my opinion and willingness to participate in the raising of the child would be a rather useful piece of information as she makes that decision.

 

However, on a societal level, on whether or not the practice should be legal, this is an issue for society as a whole to decide. Is a fetus a person, entitled to rights enforcable by government? That is the real question that underlies the whole debate. And as the consequences of that decision, either the increase in crime and increased cost of social services should we elect to ban abortion, or the potential moral consequences should we allow it, affect the entire society, men and women, men's opinions are valid here. We are every bit as qualified to opine on the matter as women are. Now, if abortion is legal, the ultimate call whether or not to have one obviously has to reside with the mother.

 

I personally happen to think that an organism is not "alive" until it can exist independent of its mother. By that, I don't mean completely independent, but seperate. But that's just how I see it. I can certainly see how others feel differently. I don't think I have the right to force my opinion on anyone, but neither does the "It's wrong because our version of God says so" crowd either. That's why I am pro choice. Let everyone make their decisions with thier own conscience as their guide, and when they meet their maker, that is between them.

[Savage Beast 1]

I wish one of those cowardly murdering abortion doctors would come at me with a pair of tongs and a meat scraping tool.

 

But those cowards only kill innocent babies who can't fight back. I'll pay any abortion doctor $2000 dollars of my own money to come at me with an abortion tool in their hand, and try to kill me with it.

 

How about it? Any of you murdering b@stards brave enough to try and kill me with an abortion tool? I'll pay you $2000 to try, as long as you sign a legal document that clears me of any legal responsibility for beating you to death with my bare hands.

 

I hat baby killing b@stards with an anger only equaled by God himself for them.

 

Killing a defenseless baby is the ultimate act of cowardice.

[jets24 6]

No, we don't disagree. I'm not arguing that our opinion as the prospective father should be equal, merely that it is not completely irrelevant.

 

This is obviously an issue that affects women more than men, as it is they who find themselves in the sturrups facing the buisness end of a vacum cleaner. Were I ever to find myself facing an unplanned pregnancy, I would merely tell the woman that whatever she decides, she can count on my total support. I would prefer that my opinion be heard on the matter, and then she has the decision to make. I should think that my opinion and willingness to participate in the raising of the child would be a rather useful piece of information as she makes that decision.

 

However, on a societal level, on whether or not the practice should be legal, this is an issue for society as a whole to decide. Is a fetus a person, entitled to rights enforcable by government? That is the real question that underlies the whole debate. And as the consequences of that decision, either the increase in crime and increased cost of social services should we elect to ban abortion, or the potential moral consequences should we allow it, affect the entire society, men and women, men's opinions are valid here. We are every bit as qualified to opine on the matter as women are. Now, if abortion is legal, the ultimate call whether or not to have one obviously has to reside with the mother.

 

I personally happen to think that an organism is not "alive" until it can exist independent of its mother. By that, I don't mean completely independent, but seperate. But that's just how I see it. I can certainly see how others feel differently. I don't think I have the right to force my opinion on anyone, but neither does the "It's wrong because our version of God says so" crowd either. That's why I am pro choice. Let everyone make their decisions with thier own conscience as their guide, and when they meet their maker, that is between them.

 

 

I'm Pro Choice but I absolutely appreciate your view of the issue.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

I wish one of those cowardly murdering abortion doctors would come at me with a pair of tongs and a meat scraping tool.

 

But those cowards only kill innocent babies who can't fight back. I'll pay any abortion doctor $2000 dollars of my own money to come at me with an abortion tool in their hand, and try to kill me with it.

 

How about it? Any of you murdering b@stards brave enough to try and kill me with an abortion tool? I'll pay you $2000 to try, as long as you sign a legal document that clears me of any legal responsibility for beating you to death with my bare hands.

 

Killing a defenseless baby is the ultimate act of cowardice.

 

First of all, as an attorney, here's some free advice: such a legal document, a "murder waiver" if you will, is not valid. Hate to see you get the chair on a bad contract misunderstanding.

 

And here is the problem with this whole debate, which makes it such a highly charged arena:

 

I hat baby killing b@stards with an anger only equaled by God himself for them.

 

As long as some people presume to know the opinions and views of God, and seek to impose them on others, our society will never move forward from these questions. If there is a God, he gave us free will. If he had wanted certain things banned, do you think he needs your help, or that of our pathetic Congress to do it? If you are so sure that this angers God, why don't you just chill and let him worry about it. Seems like judging the right and wrong of our actions would be his perrogative, not yours.

[thetxstang 0]

No, we don't disagree. I'm not arguing that our opinion as the prospective father should be equal, merely that it is not completely irrelevant.

 

This is obviously an issue that affects women more than men, as it is they who find themselves in the sturrups facing the buisness end of a vacum cleaner. Were I ever to find myself facing an unplanned pregnancy, I would merely tell the woman that whatever she decides, she can count on my total support. I would prefer that my opinion be heard on the matter, and then she has the decision to make. I should think that my opinion and willingness to participate in the raising of the child would be a rather useful piece of information as she makes that decision.

 

However, on a societal level, on whether or not the practice should be legal, this is an issue for society as a whole to decide. Is a fetus a person, entitled to rights enforcable by government? That is the real question that underlies the whole debate. And as the consequences of that decision, either the increase in crime and increased cost of social services should we elect to ban abortion, or the potential moral consequences should we allow it, affect the entire society, men and women, men's opinions are valid here. We are every bit as qualified to opine on the matter as women are. Now, if abortion is legal, the ultimate call whether or not to have one obviously has to reside with the mother.

 

I personally happen to think that an organism is not "alive" until it can exist independent of its mother. By that, I don't mean completely independent, but seperate. But that's just how I see it. I can certainly see how others feel differently. I don't think I have the right to force my opinion on anyone, but neither does the "It's wrong because our version of God says so" crowd either. That's why I am pro choice. Let everyone make their decisions with thier own conscience as their guide, and when they meet their maker, that is between them.

 

My friend, we are almost exactly on the same page. I agree 99.5% with your post. The only trouble I have, again, is with your comment that "this is an issue for society as a whole to decide."

 

Please understand, my beliefs aren't intended to undermine any man's "rights" or discount the way an abortion "affects" him. I, personally, would be devastated if a woman I got pregnant were to decide for an abortion. I would do everything in my power to support her, pre and post birth, but am still adamant the final decision should be hers.

 

Is a fetus a person, entitled to rights enforcable by government? That is the real question that underlies the whole debate.

 

Acreed. There are so many emotional and "moral" dilemmas to the debate, but this is indeed the heart of the question. What makes it all the more convoluted, of course, is when actual life begins. At what point should life rights enforceable by the government kick in?

 

This is an area I still struggle with. I realize this is irrelevant to this thread, but I personally believe "life" begins once the "fetus" stage has commenced (i.e., roughly eight weeks after conception). I do not believe a zygote or embryo falls into this category, but many proponents argue life begins the moment the tadpole reaches the egg. But, I digress...

 

[naomi 360]

And here is the problem with this whole debate, which makes it such a highly charged arena:

As long as some people presume to know the opinions and views of God, and seek to impose them on others, our society will never move forward from these questions. If there is a God, he gave us free will. If he had wanted certain things banned, do you think he needs your help, or that of our pathetic Congress to do it? If you are so sure that this angers God, why don't you just chill and let him worry about it. Seems like judging the right and wrong of our actions would be his perrogative, not yours.

 

 

This is what I don't get. What you just said you could say about other things that law does prohibit, but you would likely still support the prohibitions. I agree with how you communicated the underlying question a couple posts ago. I believe a human is "alive" before they are born, but I see you don't feel the same and know there are many others who don't. I believe it's wrong to take that life, and I would oppose allowing that if Americans were to vote on it. At the same time, I support your right to support it. You sounded in the other post like you get this because you said "on a societal level, on whether or not the practice should be legal, this is an issue for society as a whole to decide." Either way it is imposing morality, like many laws are, it's just that the popular one will win out, which many won't find to be an imposition. It's not consistent to isolate those usurping God's authority as those keeping society from moving on. God, something a person believes is a natural recognition of justice/fairness inside themselves/whatever...depending on where you stand, can prevent moving on from this question. I don't see how the question can be moved on until we all DO have that knowledge or proof as to when a human becomes alive. If there is a creator of life, he has that answer but I'll concede to the hypothetical scenerio that we may die and cease to exist, and never know, for sake of argument. No matter who or what you're appealing to, by nature we all judge the right and wrong of actions and impose the resulting view. It's wrong to impose on the woman's freedom to make the choice = imposing on those that don't want to live in a society that supports what they see as murder...a society that supports what they see as murder. Totally understand it might not seem that way to someone, but either way you swing it, there's imposition. Also where Savage Beasts stands, if he isn't a troll, isn't a knee jerk religious stance combined with a lack of a personal connection to a right and wrong....like what everyone else has and judges out of, because the bible doesn't expressly say anything against abortion. It does against murder, and it speaks towards what life is.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

This is what I don't get. I agree with how you communicated the underlying question a couple posts ago. I believe a human is "alive" before they are born, but I see you don't feel the same and know there are many others who don't. I believe it's wrong to take that life, and I would oppose allowing that if Americans were to vote on it. At the same time, I support your right to support it. You sounded in the other post like you get this because you said "on a societal level, on whether or not the practice should be legal, this is an issue for society as a whole to decide." Either way it is imposing morality, like many laws are, it's just that the popular one will win out, which many won't find to be an imposition. It's not consistent to isolate those usurping God's authority as those keeping society from moving on. God, something a person believes is a natural recognition of justice/fairness inside themselves/whatever...depending on where you stand, can prevent moving on from this question. I don't see how the question can be moved on until we all DO have that knowledge or proof as to whether a fetus should be considered alive or not. If there is a creator of life, he has that answer but I'll concede to the hypothetical scenerio that we may die and cease to exist, and never know, for sake of argument. No matter who or what you're appealing to, by nature we all judge the right and wrong of actions and impose the resulting view. It's wrong to impose on the woman's freedom to make the choice = imposing on those that don't want to live in a society that supports what they see as murder...a society that supports what they see is murder. Totally understand it might not seem that way to someone, but either way you swing it, there's imposition.

 

I respectfully disagree. See, in my mind, legalizing abortion allows each individual women and her partner to make the decision for themselves, in accordance with their morals and beliefs.

 

If Woman A believes abortion, even of a 2 day old zygote, is murder, outlawed by God as she understands him, then she does not have to have an abortion. She is free to live her life in accordance with her beliefs.

 

If Woman B believes that a fetus at two weeks is not a life, and choose to abort the pregnancy, that's her decision, and she will have to bear and moral consequences, should she meet with a disaproving diety.

 

Thus, under a pro-life system, everyone is free to live their lives in accordance with their beliefs. But if Woman A is successfull in having abortion banned, she imposes her views, her version of God's law, onto woman B.

 

I don't believe that that is a proper thing for government to do.

[naomi 360]

I respectfully disagree. See, in my mind, legalizing abortion allows each individual women and her partner to make the decision for themselves, in accordance with their morals and beliefs.

 

If Woman A believes abortion, even of a 2 day old zygote, is murder, outlawed by God as she understands him, then she does not have to have an abortion. She is free to live her life in accordance with her beliefs.

 

If Woman B believes that a fetus at two weeks is not a life, and choose to abort the pregnancy, that's her decision, and she will have to bear and moral consequences, should she meet with a disaproving diety.

 

Thus, under a pro-life system, everyone is free to live their lives in accordance with their beliefs. But if Woman A is successfull in having abortion banned, she imposes her views, her version of God's law, onto woman B.

 

I don't believe that that is a proper thing for government to do.

 

 

Let's say that Woman A is Chinese and against killing female babies in China...my knowledge of history is poor, but I think that was government sanctioned.

 

Woman B believes that her female baby contributes to overpopulation and males are more valuable to society at this point, not more baby makers.

 

Woman A may impose her beliefs on Woman B if the civic opportunity comes up, and it wins out, and you'll be okay with it.

 

Either way it can be argued that there's imposition on someone else, abortion of a fetus just strikes people as a heck of a lot more justified. Some people are of the mind that it is just as justified to ensure that unborn babies aren't killed. Society not "moving on" and being at an impasse equally hinges on one side's view of what's moral as it does the others.

[MisanthropicAnthropoid 0]

I respectfully disagree. See, in my mind, legalizing abortion allows each individual women and her partner to make the decision for themselves, in accordance with their morals and beliefs.

 

If Woman A believes abortion, even of a 2 day old zygote, is murder, outlawed by God as she understands him, then she does not have to have an abortion. She is free to live her life in accordance with her beliefs.

 

If Woman B believes that a fetus at two weeks is not a life, and choose to abort the pregnancy, that's her decision, and she will have to bear and moral consequences, should she meet with a disaproving diety.

 

Thus, under a pro-life system, everyone is free to live their lives in accordance with their beliefs. But if Woman A is successfull in having abortion banned, she imposes her views, her version of God's law, onto woman B.

 

I don't believe that that is a proper thing for government to do.

 

 

Abortion is illegal: pro-lifers have imposed their belief on pregnant women. If it is true that life (complete with rights) begins at conception, this is a-okay (akin to banning murder). If it isn't true, this imposition is stricter than necessary.

 

Abortion is legal: women who get abortions impose their belief on the entity in the womb. If said entity really doesn't deserve the right to life, this imposition is a-okay (who cares if you impose your belief on something that has no rights. It's like imposing your landscaping beliefs on a tree). If this entity does in fact deserve full rights, then this imposition is far from okay (we've just declared that murdering an innocent is okay).

 

 

There's an imposition both ways, just an imposition on different people/entities. Whether the imposition is justified or not depends on the result of the debate on the beginning of human rights.

[MisanthropicAnthropoid 0]

Let's say that Woman A is Chinese and against killing female babies in China...my knowledge of history is poor, but I think that was government sanctioned.

 

Woman B believes that her female baby contributes to overpopulation and males are more valuable to society at this point, not more baby makers.

 

Woman A may impose her beliefs on Woman B if the civic opportunity comes up, and it wins out, and you'll be okay with it.

 

Either way it can be argued that there's imposition on someone else, abortion of a fetus just strikes people as a heck of a lot more justified. Some people are of the mind that it is just as justified to ensure that unborn babies aren't killed. Society not "moving on" and being at an impasse equally hinges on one side's view of what's moral as it does the others.

 

China is a bit of a different situation because abortion there is mandated by government, not just allowed by government.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Abortion is illegal: pro-lifers have imposed their belief on pregnant women. If it is true that life (complete with rights) begins at conception, this is a-okay (akin to banning murder). If it isn't true, this imposition is stricter than necessary.

 

Abortion is legal: women who get abortions impose their belief on the entity in the womb. If said entity really doesn't deserve the right to life, this imposition is a-okay (who cares if you impose your belief on something that has no rights. It's like imposing your landscaping beliefs on a tree). If this entity does in fact deserve full rights, then this imposition is far from okay (we've just declared that murdering an innocent is okay).

There's an imposition both ways, just an imposition on different people/entities. Whether the imposition is justified or not depends on the result of the debate on the beginning of human rights.

 

I guess that's my point... The debate on the "beginning of life" is never going to be resolved. That being the case, it seems to me that the fairest thing to do is to allow everyone to make their own decisions, based on their views. Err on the side of freedom.

[MisanthropicAnthropoid 0]

I guess that's my point... The debate on the "beginning of life" is never going to be resolved. That being the case, it seems to me that the fairest thing to do is to allow everyone to make their own decisions, based on their views. Err on the side of freedom.

 

I agree that the debate isn't getting resolved, but I'd rather err on the side of caution. But I think at this point we understand each other pretty well and can agree to disagree.

 

And, given how this debate has gone, I'm probably with you on the vast majority of social issues (at least at the federal level). Unless there's a possible imposition on someone's life, liberty, or property, err on the side of the government staying the heck out of it.

 

ETA: And, since you're from Nashville, know anything about Daniel Lewis? He's from Smyrna (I believe) and is running against Alexander and Tuke for Senate.

[kilroy69 1,268]

Killing a defenseless baby is the ultimate act of cowardice.

So if we give them say,,, like an AK-47 we coul kill them. I mean they are no longer defenseless right?

[TheNewGirl 1,637]

How many of you single guys wear condoms when you're focking?

[Giants Fan 85]

I voted pro-life because I was in a situation to consider it and decided to keep it. And I wasn't a teenager, not even close. But it was a life-affecting decision nonetheless. I realized at that point that until you are in that situation, philosophical ideas are pretty much worthless.

 

 

So ... you are really pro-choice, right? Or are you saying that everyone should make the same choices you do, regardless of their situation?

[MisanthropicAnthropoid 0]

How many of you single guys wear condoms when you're focking?

 

Who would I be focking if I were single?

 

For me, the answer is no one. So your question doesn't apply.

[gocolts 300]

Please. No woman in her right mind is actively going to rely on abortion as a means of birth control. That's absurd. Abortions are costly, dangerous to undergo, and can leave lasting emotional scars.

Around 50 women each year in the UK notch up their seventh abortion, last year 1,300 women had at least their fifth abortion.

 

You may want to look a little closer. It is shocking to me how many woman do EXACTLY what you said no woman would ever do.

[gocolts 300]

One thing always gets left out of this issue is equality.

 

Woman get to decide if they want to be a parent or not after the sex took place. Men do not get that same choice.

 

I am against abortion. Don't buy this BS about the mothers safety either that folks throw around when it comes to late term abortions. The partial birth abortion makes zero sense. If that baby is so damn deadly in her body that the woman's health is at risk, what sense does it make to deliver the baby half way, suck the brains out into a sink, then finish the birth. Or, the C-section. Get in and get out if her health is in such danger. My ex wife had to make this decision. She was told the baby had to come out or die. Born 3 months early. 2 pounds 2 ounces.

 

Since the woman can decide, why not the men??? What happened to equality??? Hell, we even have psychos having kids without fathers intentionally and we are told that kids do not need a father everyday by the feminists. So if your pro choice, let everybody chose, not just the women. As someone mentioned early, this affects mens lives too.

[jerryskids 7,085]

I was in that position once as well. We made a slightly different decision than you did, one that I struggle with to this day.

Sorry to hear bro. Let me expand on my main point, which is that you can philosophize all you want but that doesn't mean jack until you have to face it. There were two related topics in our situation. Background: Married, two kids. Had recently decided that we were done, and I was happy with that. But I put off my V, because I... wasn't really sure. Badaboom, badabing, wife pees on a stick and gets the plus sign. The two epiphanies I had:

1. Oh hell YEAH I was done with two. Why did I put that off?! If I could have gone back a few months and gotten the V, I'd have been the happiest man alive.

2. Well here we are expecting a 3rd child... and no way I could abort it.

 

#3 is 7 now, and I wouldn't trade her for the world.

 

To GF: I see your point in your response to me, but I don't agree with your logic. My point was that you don't know your position until you face it, not that my statement is supporting pro-choice.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

ETA: And, since you're from Nashville, know anything about Daniel Lewis? He's from Smyrna (I believe) and is running against Alexander and Tuke for Senate.

 

Actually, I live in Murfreesboro. No, I am ashamed to admit I have not bothered to pay the slightest bit of attention to the Senate race. Why, should I?

[MisanthropicAnthropoid 0]

Actually, I live in Murfreesboro. No, I am ashamed to admit I have not bothered to pay the slightest bit of attention to the Senate race. Why, should I?

 

He won't win, but he's the Libertarian Party candidate, and although I don't agree with him on everything, he seemed like a good alternative to Alexander and Tuke.

[GeminiV 0]

1) As I said before, I have issues with fat cat lawmakers in Washington making abortion decisions on women's behalf. It's hypocritical. Men would be outraged if female politicians pushed legislation that would prevent us from making a decision about our bodies.

 

Right-wing females in 2040 decide that life begins even before conception and outlaw male masturbation.

[MisanthropicAnthropoid 0]

69, dudes

[thetxstang 0]

Around 50 women each year in the UK notch up their seventh abortion, last year 1,300 women had at least their fifth abortion.

 

You may want to look a little closer. It is shocking to me how many woman do EXACTLY what you said no woman would ever do.

 

I never stated, "no woman would ever" use abortion as a form of birth control. My specific comment was, "No woman in her right mind is actively going to rely on abortion as a means of birth control."

 

There are obviously plenty of people, both men and women, who aren't of sound mind and/or routinely make poor decisions. These are the women I refer to. And quite frankly, I'm relieved when such women have abortions. It would be a veritable tragedy if they were to keep and attempt to rear their offspring. Women like this don't deserve the gift of children.

 

For sake of argument, and to illustrate my point, let's do this. There are an estimated 60,943,912 people in the United Kingdom as of July 2008. For simplification purposes, let's round that figure down to 60 million. Next, let's assume roughly half the population (30 million) is female. Then, let's posit only 25% (7.5 million) of those females are of childbearing age and engage in sexual intercourse.

 

Now, for illustrative purposes, let's bump your abortion abuse figure up to 5,000 UK women. 5,000 is 0.067% of 7,500,000. That's sixty-seven one-hundredths of one percent(!) of childbearing women who "actively rely" on the procedure as a means of birth control.

 

The pro-life propaganda machine would prefer everyone believe a considerable percentage of women systematically use the procedure as a form of birth control. I maintain my position.

 

 

 

 

 

I'd give you one of my token , but I like you dood.

[buffalobillsffl2003 0]

7 jesus H! someone stick a shopvac up that gash and suction out the fallopian tubes or whateverthefuckthey are.

 

[Giants Fan 85]

69, dudes

 

I can honestly say, "I was conceived during '69."

 

Born in February, 1970.

[TheNewGirl 1,637]

Truly, I have no idea what I would do if I were in this situation.

 

I am pro-choice in the sense that I would like the ability to make a choice. I don't like the idea that regardless of what *I* want to do with my baby or my body, or what my husband and I agree on doing; it would be illegal for me to abort the baby.

 

He's had a vasectomy, but if I were to get pregnant, we'd likely keep it. But even at that, I don't know and I really hope that I never have to make that decision and I hope my kids don't either.

[Voice_Of_Reason 0]

I think 99% of the arguments are garbage.

 

It is pretty simple. When do you believe life begins? I believe life begins when the sperm fertilizes the egg and begins to grow as a new baby. Therefore, killing him/her is not a option I believe anyone should have. Not in any case. If the woman life is in danger, you remove the baby, not abort him/her. You give the baby a chance to live on his/her own. You do not kill him/her, you give him/her a chance.

 

This is my opinion and belief. Sorry if you disagree.

[gocolts 300]

I never stated, "no woman would ever" use abortion as a form of birth control. My specific comment was, "No woman in her right mind is actively going to rely on abortion as a means of birth control."

 

There are obviously plenty of people, both men and women, who aren't of sound mind and/or routinely make poor decisions. These are the women I refer to. And quite frankly, I'm relieved when such women have abortions. It would be a veritable tragedy if they were to keep and attempt to rear their offspring. Women like this don't deserve the gift of children.

 

For sake of argument, and to illustrate my point, let's do this. There are an estimated 60,943,912 people in the United Kingdom as of July 2008. For simplification purposes, let's round that figure down to 60 million. Next, let's assume roughly half the population (30 million) is female. Then, let's posit only 25% (7.5 million) of those females are of childbearing age and engage in sexual intercourse.

 

Now, for illustrative purposes, let's bump your abortion abuse figure up to 5,000 UK women. 5,000 is 0.067% of 7,500,000. That's sixty-seven one-hundredths of one percent(!) of childbearing women who "actively rely" on the procedure as a means of birth control.

 

The pro-life propaganda machine would prefer everyone believe a considerable percentage of women systematically use the procedure as a form of birth control. I maintain my position.

I'd give you one of my token , but I like you dood.

I see what you mean. Not this changes your figures too much, but that was each year and not just a one time deal. Still, it is a small percentage. However, obviously there are plenty of women who use it as birth control. Thanks for being patient with me on these issues bro. It's all good.

[TheNewGirl 1,637]

I think 99% of the arguments are garbage.

 

It is pretty simple. When do you believe life begins? I believe life begins when the sperm fertilizes the egg and begins to grow as a new baby. Therefore, killing him/her is not a option I believe anyone should have. Not in any case. If the woman life is in danger, you remove the baby, not abort him/her. You give the baby a chance to live on his/her own. You do not kill him/her, you give him/her a chance.

 

This is my opinion and belief. Sorry if you disagree.

 

 

Figuring out when life begins is that "moral issue." Many people that life begins at fertilization, which is roughly 24 to 48 hours after the intercourse occured. The woman won't know that she's actually pregnant for another week or two - there is all ready "life" inside of her growing. Many people believe that life begins at implantation, which happens anywhere from 5 to 7 days after the intercourse when the cells actually implant in the uterus. Some believe that life begins when there is a heartbeat...which happens around 5 to 6 weeks of pregnancy. The woman all ready knows that she's pregnant (most of the time), but the tiny two chambered heart doesn't start beating until then.

 

When YOU think that life begins isn't really where the arguement is...it's clearly about where our government believes life begins. If they determine that life begins at fertilization, then any abortion if pretty much illegal. If they determine that life doesn't begin until the heart beats, then you have between 5 and 6 weeks of pregnancy. If they determine that an abortion is okay until the fetus can survive outside the womb, you probably have until around 22 or 25 weeks (although the percentage is VERY small, some babies can survive at this point).

 

I tend to think that abortion is totally a moral issue and I don't want the government telling me what's morally right or wrong...especially when both the Presidents in office and those that once ran for the office both cheat on their wives, have other children with other women, and then LIE about it. Yeah. YOU are going to tell ME what's morally right or wrong.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

I think 99% of the arguments are garbage.

 

It is pretty simple. When do you believe life begins? I believe life begins when the sperm fertilizes the egg and begins to grow as a new baby. Therefore, killing him/her is not a option I believe anyone should have. Not in any case. If the woman life is in danger, you remove the baby, not abort him/her. You give the baby a chance to live on his/her own. You do not kill him/her, you give him/her a chance.

 

This is my opinion and belief. Sorry if you disagree.

 

So, you think that 99% of everyone else's opinions are "garbage" and we are expected to be understanding of yours?

 

Makes for a great debate.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

Figuring out when life begins is that "moral issue." Many people that life begins at fertilization, which is roughly 24 to 48 hours after the intercourse occured. The woman won't know that she's actually pregnant for another week or two - there is all ready "life" inside of her growing. Many people believe that life begins at implantation, which happens anywhere from 5 to 7 days after the intercourse when the cells actually implant in the uterus. Some believe that life begins when there is a heartbeat...which happens around 5 to 6 weeks of pregnancy. The woman all ready knows that she's pregnant (most of the time), but the tiny two chambered heart doesn't start beating until then.

 

When YOU think that life begins isn't really where the arguement is...it's clearly about where our government believes life begins. If they determine that life begins at fertilization, then any abortion if pretty much illegal. If they determine that life doesn't begin until the heart beats, then you have between 5 and 6 weeks of pregnancy. If they determine that an abortion is okay until the fetus can survive outside the womb, you probably have until around 22 or 25 weeks (although the percentage is VERY small, some babies can survive at this point).

 

I tend to think that abortion is totally a moral issue and I don't want the government telling me what's morally right or wrong...especially when both the Presidents in office and those that once ran for the office both cheat on their wives, have other children with other women, and then LIE about it. Yeah. YOU are going to tell ME what's morally right or wrong.

 

Well, I think that the religious folks want the debate to be about morals and their beliefs. However, the law is different. While morality is a basis for much of our law, laws are based upon the majority of the public's views (in reality, the majority of the lawmakers) of what is acceptable and what is not.

 

I agree with what you are saying completely and I think that others have stated this as well. If you believe that life begins at conception, that is great. Follow that. However, most people do not believe that life begins at conception, so that perception should not be forced upon those that disagree.

[Voice_Of_Reason 0]

So, you think that 99% of everyone else's opinions are "garbage" and we are expected to be understanding of yours?

 

Makes for a great debate.

Let me expand on what I was really trying to get across. The reason I think 99% of the arguments are garbage is because the real question is when does life begin? Injecting what the government thinks, rape, incest, mother life, diseases, world over population, unwanted children, etc are all clutter to the real and only important question. When does life begin?

 

You can cloud the issues with lots of "what about this" arguments. But if you push all that aside, it always comes down to 2 questions. 1. When does life begin? and 2. What rights do you assign when life begins?

 

I am not trying to down anyones arguments. But merely state that they really only cloud the issue more than need be. If you believe that life begins at birth, then you can easily say you are pro-abortion. If you believe life begins at conception, then you are easily pro-life. If you believe it begins at the heartbeat, then you are somewhere in between the two.

 

The human brain often clouds things up to excuse our own belief sysyems. For a crazy non offensive example, you believe in your heart of hearts that the Dallas Cowboys are the most evil team in the league and refuse to root for them. But in comes your fantasy draft and you have to choose between Romo and Lienart. You tell yourself, that is just fantasy football and take Romo. Now you find yourself in a corner. You believe deep down that rooting for the Cowboys is wrong, but you have Romo as you QB. It's a crazy example, but the point remains the same. If you believe something deep down, the mind will move around to make something exceptable to you if you think you have no choice or don't like the options available.

 

In the same way you can talk about abortion. If your belief is that life begins are conception, excusing any abortion goes against your beliefs. Because if you believe that life begins at conception, then any abortion takes a life. Thus people cloud the issue with other things such as government morality, rape, incest, mothers health, etc. But at the heart of the issue is when do you believe life begins. Once you have your answer, then you have a choice to cloud the issue to move the line, or stand by what you believe.

 

I personally believe that life begins at conception. If you believe it begins at birth, then you'd have a different opinion than mine. If you believe that is begins at the 1st heartbeat, then you will have an opinion somewhere in between. But once you assign life to a point, anything after that is the taking of a life.

 

I hope the point I am trying to get across comes through.