What about abortion?? click dont be afraid

it absolutely has to do with the morality of abortion.

young women are clearly going to attempt abortions, regardless of their legal status. it's our moral obligation to ensure that these women have affordable (free), clean medical facilities in the event they decide to have an abortion. desperate times call for desperate measures and i believe history speaks for itself on this issue- even in times when abortion was illegal, it was still practiced, often by amature hands with terrible results. just as it is our moral obligation to rush the choking man from the restaurant to the ER, we must offer safe medical facilities for women who need an abortion.
 
It's not absurd in the least bit--at least for many devout religious individuals. Masturbation, condoms, any other form of contraception for that matter are looked upon as WRONG, namely because they stop the possibility of life.

the point is that some people think it's absurd to think that the fetus constitutes a unit of moral concern, many of you pro-life-ers, i doubt would embrace a doctrine of 'sex is only for making babies' (ie. no forms of contraception at all.) However if any of your arguments fall on the lines of Patty's (that the idea of life trumps the actual creation/birth of life) then it is NOT that far of a jump to say that masturbation and contraception of any form is just as morally unacceptable as abortion.

Really this argument just breaks down too much in too many places for one person to make a law that governs all people. This is why giving the choice to the MOTHER makes so much more sense.

NONE of you guys are going to have a baby, i'm sorry if that was your dream, so stop trying to regulate something that does not pertain to you at all. If ANYONE is going to argue about the morality of abortion it should be a topic left for the women to debate amongst themselves.

 
this is my point exactly to the T. Because we can't agree on this, give the power of deciding when the baby is a unit of moral concern to the MOTHER.
 
it is absurd. i am going to have a baby. deliver one, no. but i am going to have a baby. and that baby is half mine, and half me

"left for the women to debate amongst themselves" give me a fucking break. thats the most retarded thing ive ever heard. should we leave discussion of race to the blacks only?
id like to see a woman have a baby without a man... it is ABSOLUTLY NOT for just women to debate. thats your way of excusing yourself from an argument your uncomfortable and unsure about.
 
this argument goes nowhere.. cottonwood already debunked this completely, slippery slope, people still attempt suicide, murders, should we give them a clean place to do it?

lets look at your logic here. this thing is illegal. well people are going to do it anyway, so we should make it legal.
right...... that makes tons of sense
plus, consequentialism cannot be used to justify such a controversial law
 
when i get older, i want to knock my girlfriend up a bunch of times and get a lot of abortions. everytime shed get an abortion id keep the tiny baby in a jar. then eventually ill have a kid. whenever he gets out of line ill lock him in the abortion closet, and show him how easily i could have aborted his ass.
 
The fact that people are going to do something objectionable is the reason we make laws, NOT a reason to not make laws. There is no law, for instance, that landlords renting out properties on the moon follow more stringent fire codes due to the presence of pure oxygen in the biodome. That law does not exist because it isn't needed. Legislation should constrain society where other means fall short or make no attempt - not making a law because people are going to violate it is utterly ridiculous.

 
IT IS COMPLETELY ABSURD. You cannot counter this by saying, "Well, some people think contraception is wrong" because I don't agree with those people. What if I said to you, "If you think abortion is ok, you must think it's ok to burn infants alive as a sacrifice to a pagan god"? The two are not related, so stop trying to make ridiculous, irrelevant correlations.
 
What about our moral obligation to protect human life? Why should we facilitate the destruction of a genetically unique individual in the making if there are other options to be considered? Adoption is one.

In Sweden, people who can't conceive and who want children aren't able to adopt any Swedish children, because there aren't any to go around; they've all been aborted.

Maybe we would also do well to encourage having sex when in a situation to take care of inconvenient bi-products, like babies and such. But I guess that doesn't fly with the "do what you want with your own body" spiel. From estcst101 :

"and if you really want to start arguing about the idea of something --

or the conception of something constitutes it's existence (in our case

a fetus having rights from the moment it is conceived), aren't you

forced into the belief that the ONLY sex you can morally have is sex

intended for baby making?

why start at conception -- take up an every sperm is sacred

argument, where intentionally waisting the opportunity of life is like

killing a baby. "

Nope, what would follow is the only sex you can morally have is one wherein you are able to deal with the consequences of sex without wasting life. Your slippery slope ends when you begin talking about gametes as actual zygotes. Haploid cells aren't potential lives until joined.

And crazyfuck, you're on the ball with this one "if you're so against abortion, don't have sex". It's about consistency, and you nailed it. I'd add "... until you're in a situation to take care of unexpected consequences".

However: "if the mother is at some kind of risk, if she's not suited to be a

mother, of if the baby is a result of a rape or incest, abortion should

absolutely be an option the mother should be able to consider."

If the mother's life or child's life is at risk, the problem is way more complicated, rape and incest as well. But these are not the majority of cases, nowhere close. It's easy to play the fetal heartstrings on such matters as rape and incest, because who in their right mind wouldn't be opposed to such a thing? But it does come down to the "suited to be a mother" argument. You don't have to be suited to be a mother to bring a child full term. And I hope it crossed both parties' mind before the act that the consequences are very serious in sex. If you'd like to play like an adult, you should also be willing to accept adult responsibilities.

But that idea doesn't make the front page, and it sure isn't popular.

"Owning up to your actions" just doesn't cut it. You should do whatever

it is you want, and the consequences shouldn't involve sacrifice.

And on the matter of rape. I know a woman who escaped the Rwanda genocide, and who was raped while in hiding. She kept the child, and he's now 15. Somehow I think his life is worthwhile. Tell me when it would have been OK to negate him as an inconvenience.

Really, when it comes to human life, we seem way more ready to negate responsibility then with, I dunno, some beginner suing a ski station for overshooting a jump and getting wrecked. I'm sure it crossed your mind and other's that this dude was skiing and should accept the consequences of his decision. But when someone has sex and gets pregnant? Suddenly nirvana is just a pill away.

 
Wait, the mother is able to transcend and create her own morality based on pregnancy, when she is supposedly not in any way, shape or form able to be this mother to be?

Some God.
 
i didn't exactly read anyone's responses to what i said, but if anyone thinks i'm wrong, they can go fuck themselves. i'm right, you're wrong, end of story. any attempt to argue is laughable. i spotted something about my second post being "debunked" or whatever and i can assure you, it was not. blah blah, something about facilitating murder. whatever, you and your ideas are a joke.

have fun debating, just remember you're only right if you're with me on this one. i'm going to go play with coat hangers.
 
The point i was making is you are not going to put your self in ANY risk while 'having' a baby

i will cede that both parents aught to be involved in the conversation of abortion-- however you do not share an equal burden of pregnancy so why should you deserve an equal voice of the morality of abortion?
 
you missed the memo. there is no God. Jesus was just a dude with some good ideas, Moses crossed at low tide, and the Ten Commandments were a marketing trick (Carlin reference...). religion is a farce that keeps the human herd in line.
 
we all create our own idea of what is moral and what is immoral. let the mother's morality be the judgment on her abortion or birth.
 
Your question only looks at your side of the debate. If the question were simply, "Does a woman have the right to control her body?" you would be right and the answer would be obvious. But from the anti-abortion rights side, the question looks more like, "Does the unborn have the right to life?" and that question is not at all gender-specific. You need to look at both sides. Nobody does that in this debate.

 
the thing is none of us can agree on whether the unborn has a right to life, so you leave that for the mother to decide, not for something to be written in stone.
 
dude, i agree with you, thus making you right. let the bigots be wrong and have dry dicks. fuck 'em, if they knew anything, they'd be pro-choice.
 
The lack of agreement on something does not mean we should leave the decision up to the people in direct control of it. Should we have let plantation owners decide on the morality of slavery? After all, those who were opposed to slavery were obviously not the same people who depended on it for their livelihood. Again, should we have let the Germans decide on the morality of the Holocaust? Their stance was that it was ok to kill people of "inferior races," so who are we to say?

Go ahead and play the "don't impose your morality on others" card, but the protection of individual rights is entirely dependent on groups of people imposing their morality on those who wish to trample those rights.

 
If that was actually your thought process in deciding on this issue, you are an incredibly fucked up, selfish piece of shit. Try sharing your rationale for abortion with girls, see how much they want to sleep with you then. "Yeah, I base my moral stances on whatever will get me the most physical pleasure." Go fuck yourself.
 
HOW? Give me a rational explanation of why these are not morally equivalent. Maybe one not based on doing whatever gets you the most sex. That might be nice.
 
hahahahaha, THANK YOU. i live for responses like that, you have no idea.

YES! guys everywhere heed my advice- if you want to get laid, do whatever girls tell you! man, if only you knew shit about me...
 
ya i see your point, but i don't really feel like creating more arguments for this topic... look into something like slaves, jews, etc. etc. all could speak for themselves, and that the others had to act on their behalves where as fetuses are different
 
Sure the slaves and Jews could physically speak for themselves, but in their situations they were not empowered to defend themselves (with some isolated exception, e.g., slave uprisings, Warsaw ghetto, etc., but you see what I'm saying). Besides, why should we hold the unborn's inability to speak for themselves against them? Shouldn't that be more of a reason to defend their rights?
 
You're right, I don't know you. My only knowledge of you is based on what I read in your posts. So consider my replies directed at the person you appear to be. Maybe you're being sarcastic and you're actually a reasonable guy with a slightly twisted, slightly hilarious sense of humor. But if you actually mean the stuff you've said here, I stand by my evaluation of you.

 
You should get your eyes checked, there wasn't any mention of "debunking".

" you missed the memo. there is no God. Jesus was just a dude with some

good ideas, Moses crossed at low tide, and the Ten Commandments were a

marketing trick (Carlin reference...). religion is a farce that keeps

the human herd in line."

I was pointing out that this transcendental, God-like human mother who does not have the ability to take care of a child somehow ha the ability to govern absolute moral truth with regards to human life. For a God, she seems rather frail. I wasn't making an argument for deity. Eyes a bit strained in the light after a while in the nether regions?

This whole shooting from the hip thing doesn't seem to work out for you.
 
buddy, let me warn you- you're dealing with a far superior mind. honestly, i feel like i'm running circles around you. what are you? 16?

when you have a rational argument, get back to me. so far i've just read crap that sounds like stuff some conservative prick with his head shoved up his ass would spout. maybe that says something about you? perhaps? maybe? you're trying to compare a medical procedure to facilitating murder. one is, as of this very moment, 100% legal, the other is punishable with death. apples and motherfucking oranges.

and trust me, i get enough ass that i don't need to adjust my political opinions in order to get more. you seem a bit stressed, though... not too many girls over at the college republicans meetings? maybe you should think about adjusting that political compass... liberal girls are easy.
 
I just had a good bumper sticker idea. Anyone seen the stickers that say something like, "85% of people opposed to abortion are men, 100% of them will never be pregnant"? I want to make one that says, "85% of people opposed to slavery are not plantation owners, 100% of them don't depend on slave labor to pick their cotton." Then just plaster the latter on the cars of anybody with the former.
 
superior? why dont you prove it instead rather than just tell us about it...

"you're trying to compare a medical procedure to facilitating murder" -this is what the whole arguments about jackass. the whole problem is 'is it murder?', thats why there is disagreement about abortion.

and that last paragraph.. just haaha. are you saying hes against abortion because he doesnt get enough ass and is stress?... but yeah, liberal girls are way easy.
 
Now I know you've got to be kidding. This is the product of "a far superior mind"? Hahahahahahaha.

You realize, of course, that slavery was once 100% legal, right? And that slaughtering Jews and other minorities was once legal (in a sense) in Germany? I'm arguing here that abortion should not be 100% legal...how can you counter that by saying "Abortion is 100% legal"? Apples and oranges, huh? You're an absolute fucking idiot. I don't think you would have known logic if it had come into your mothers womb, stabbed you in the back of the neck, and sucked your brain out with a vacuum.
 
If I said, "The government's too big, it should be smaller," would you counter that by saying, "No man, you're wrong; I know because the government's big"?

By the way, the government should be smaller. Yes, I'm a conservative. Once again, go fuck yourself.
 
my opinion i am pro choice i believe its up to the girl but personally i dont think that i could have an abortion
 
so this adult is on life support. he is a coma, cant communicate, cant produce any conscious thought, you feel that they are not a person, they don't have those abilities. i am going to assume you feel the same way about fetuses, new scenario:

you wake up lying next to this adult in a coma in a hospital. the only thing that is keeping him alive is that he is connect to you, a full grown adult man is hooked up to your heart and you are keeping him alive. he is in a coma and is not capable of thought, communication, or movement. in nine months he will be, but until then, you must stay in bed next to him in order for him to survive. would you sit there? at your will he can be removed from your connection, but he will die. is he still not a person? does he have a right to life? should his rights take backseat because you want to go ski?
 
no you didnt.

the argument over abortion is currently arguing over if a fetus is a human. you are saying the conditions change the minute the baby is out of the womb, and killing it would be a crime. im saying who ever said when they are inside the mother they arent a person or dont have personhood? thats what this whole argument is over isnt it?
 
that is what i was trying to convey in my post one above. a baby in the whom, that kid said, the mother has a choice to kill it because it is hers.
my reply, the kid is still hers once its born, so can she still kill it once it born?
the obvious reply will be no, because then it is a person.
my reply, who determined and on what premise was it made that while inside the mom it wasnt a human?
we are back to square one, if a fetus is human or not

 
that doesnt matter! ahhh "unborn" does not mean 'unhuman', and until there is legitimate proof and reasoning of why a 'unborn' is not a human being and entitled to its rights they are comparable. what about people who are comatosed and braindead, handicapped, and infants? they aren't established socially, dont have rational thought, can we kill them without it being wrong?
 
Sure it is. Maybe not in a societal sense, but in a sense that they aren't expendable, yeah.

Would you call a feral child "subhuman" ? Probably, but what if this child had grown up in a normal environment? Yeah, you would consider him/her human. So what's the difference? Speech? Social awareness? Participation in societal functions? By that standard, any new born child is hardly human.

But there's the potential. The coma patient once had the potential. The feral child has the potential. The fetus has the potential. That potential is what makes these people worthwhile. If the coma patient is brain dead, it's different. If there is no hope for recovery, it's different. But until then, that person is human, and no one has the right to equate their live as somehow less worthy.

What of kids with Down's Syndrome? Sub human? Less of persons than "normal" people?

If you don't think there's a right to life, you might want to check up on some fundamental decrees from the 18th century... People seem to have agreed there is such a thing, hence the immorality of killing people that people tend to feel.

 
ahhh seriously?

that doesnt matter. even though its dependent in the womb that in no way says it isnt human and is permissible to kill. THAT is what needs to be proved. THAT is what this argument keeps coming back to.

im getting frustrated, but only because im finding nearly impossible to articulate this point...apologies
 
good on you too.

----

and separately when people say millions of people are killed by abortion every year, i want to point out that every other death (short of dieing of old age) could have been prevented by abortion, but you don't see me taking up that argument.
 
see the problem in saying "millions of people are killed by abortion every year" who established that they were people? if a pro-abortionist, like you just did, says this, they are acknowledging that fetuses are humans, and therefore abortion is wrong because as we all agree, it is prima facie wrong to kill a person.

which is why i would never say that and dont agree with that
 
Yes, I did compare them. I believe that Jews and the other groups slaughtered by the Nazis deserved basic human rights. I also believe that the unborn deserve basic human rights. My criteria for personhood is not dependent on the ability to develop complex rational thought, social establishment, or independent thoughts and feelings. So I see why the two don't equate from your viewpoint, but from mine the glaring difference is only in scope: abortion has killed FAR more persons than the Holocaust.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top