Abortion

Friendly, spirited debates please people! Keep it clean.
User avatar
Kitsy
Fufububbles
Fufububbles
Posts: 6887
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 7:57 pm
Real First Name: Katarina
Location: The land of Kitty (: aka. London
Gender: Female
Status: Offline

Re: Abortion

Postby Kitsy » Sun Feb 06, 2011 6:26 pm

Some courses have a compulsary internship year, but that's for stuff like business management or law, not history. And there are study abroad programs, but they're connected with the university so you're taking the same amount of credits but just abroad.

Student parents have provisions made for them before they go to the university, there's childcare and family rooms on campus etc, or you could do a part-time course (but they don't normally have those for BAs, mostly for further degrees like a Masters or a PhD). I'm not sure what they would do if you really did get pregnant. I think you'd probably have to do the year again if you had to take an entire term off. And then you'd have to pay the fees all over again etc. I'm not really sure. And this probably isn't on topic, but it's interesting anyway! The uni system seems a lot more rigid here.

EDIT: As far as I know, my university doesn't offer an online course. I know they definately don't for my subject (History). There's the "Open University" which is across the UK and is online courses, but it's not quite the same and doesn't have the same weight to it (afaik).
Image
Silly little foul black twisted heart I am!
http://superkits.tumblr.com

User avatar
bentj96
Ruler of the People
Posts: 2721
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 12:29 am
Real First Name: Steven
AFC Fan Fiction Name: Dark Star
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Gender: Male
Status: Offline

Re: Abortion

Postby bentj96 » Sun Feb 06, 2011 6:37 pm

opalkoboi wrote:
sharkie wrote:Opal what he's saying is that your personal morals aren't everybody elses. And it's not something like 'murder is wrong'- it's something that is unclear. So letting people decide for themselves, rather than pushing other people's morals (which are normally influenced by religion, NORMALLY) on them. He's not discrediting yours, he's simply saying that if you think it's morally wrong then NEVER get an abortion. But your morals do not equal my morals, so do not stay in the way of mine just because you believe it's wrong.


Um, that's not what was happening AT ALL. True, I think that, but that;s not at all what we were arguing about. He's saying there is no moral right and wrong, and he's saying otherwise. I say there is because although it differs from person to person, it doesn't mean it doesnt exsist, because it does exsist for each indervidual person.


I don't even understand what you are saying here. WHO said that morals don't exist?
Also known as Dark Star.

---98% of teenagers do or have tried smoking pot. If you're one of the 2% who hasn't, copy & paste this in your signature.---

I WON the game.

Glow sticks glow when snapped. Why can't my leg?


"How? She gonna blink Morse code?" -Amaury Nolasco (Prison Break: The Final Break)

http://www.fanfiction.net/~lorddarkstar

User avatar
Rocket Axxonu
Centaur
Posts: 845
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 8:16 am
AFC Fan Fiction Name: Axxonu
Location: United States
Gender: Female
Status: Offline

Re: Abortion

Postby Rocket Axxonu » Mon Mar 07, 2011 7:12 am

bentj96 wrote: I never once said moral doesn't exist... There is no right and wrong. Simply what the majority think is right or wrong. If someone believes something else, doesn't mean they're wrong. It's just contrary to the majority.


If I'm understanding right, this concept is what is known as 'moral relativism.' I personally find it a very disturbing world view for a number of reasons.

Let me put this idea in a different perspective: According to our society, we believe murder is wrong, don't we? But there have been countless societies who have practiced child sacrifice, having their own children burned or whatever to their gods. So basically, child sacrifice was 'right' in the eyes of those societies. But then again, maybe it is none of our business to judge those societies.

Now, let's say there is a guy down the street from me, who is beating his kid, sexually molesting them, etc. Or it becomes too much of a bother to feed him/her, so he either lets the child starve, or decides to kill the child so he doesn't have to deal with the inconvenience anymore. He doesn't feel bad about it, its his child, he can 'sacrifice' them or do whatever he wants with them, if its for his own comfort. But maybe I, the neighbor, shouldn't get involved; I shouldn't impose my morals on someone else, should I?

Of course, in our society, most of us would consider this base evil. But is it evil simply because the majority labels it as such? There have been societies where a man would have a right to do just whatever he pleased with his own children, including all of the above, and society/the law wouldn't consider it wrong.

Just because it is happening in some faraway country or society and not down the street from my house, does that make the pain the child feels any less horrible? Does the child deserve protection from fiends any less in a society where there are no laws to protect them than he/she does in a society where the behavior is despised?

sharkie wrote:Opal what he's saying is that your personal morals aren't everybody elses. And it's not something like 'murder is wrong'- it's something that is unclear. So letting people decide for themselves, rather than pushing other people's morals (which are normally influenced by religion, NORMALLY) on them. He's not discrediting yours, he's simply saying that if you think it's morally wrong then NEVER get an abortion. But your morals do not equal my morals, so do not stay in the way of mine just because you believe it's wrong.


(Note: Sharkie, not sure if you're stating your own opinion here or just summarizing bentj96's argument, but quoting this fits better with what I want to say in tying in moral relativist concepts with abortion ^^')

In the case of abortion, if one has conceived a child even if it is in the earliest stages of development, if it is left alone, it will eventually grow into a fully developed baby. And so I believe that baby is a person, even before he or she is consciously aware. It goes back to the analogy of the man (sorry, not meaning to be sexist, it could be a mother too) doing terrible things to his child down the street.

If I were to turn my head away and ignore it, saying to myself, 'That's his choice', I would be seen almost as much as a monster as he was. But because I believe that a baby is a person with all my heart, even before he or she is born into the world, how can I possibly say, 'it's up to the individual'?

People may not accept or believe what I believe about conception and a baby being a person before it's born, but they must understand why people like me cannot accept this concept of 'choice' and why we are so dead set on 'imposing our own morals' on others.
Last edited by Rocket Axxonu on Wed Mar 16, 2011 3:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mizora
Spartan Warrior
Posts: 686
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 9:08 am
Real First Name: Uh...Guess?
AFC Fan Fiction Name: Spinnika
Location: Probably listening to my iPod and reading my book.
Gender: Female
Status: Offline

Re: Abortion

Postby Mizora » Mon Mar 07, 2011 8:24 am

Kitsy wrote:Secondly, having an abortion the day before a baby is born sounds like urban rumours. The cut off point is around 4 months, I think? Anything past that is only if something very, very serious is wrong (ie. the mother's life is in danger.)

(Sorry for bringing this back into the discussion, Kitsy wrote it a while ago.)
Urban rumours? Look it up, Kitsy, it's legal in both your country and mine! You are legally allowed to kill your baby right up until the moment of birth. What's more, (In Australia, I'm not sure about the UK or America) if the late-term abortion fails, you cannot give the baby a birth certificate or a name and you have to literally let the baby die. How sick is that? Even you, Kitsy, can't deny that the baby is alive then? How do you justify that?
And I totally agree with Rocket Axonuu. She's already answered your other points.
Image
I LOVE Harry Potter!!!
˙ɯɐ ı sɐ ʇɹɐɯs sɐ ǝɹɐ noʎ uɐɔ noʎ ɟı ¿sıɥʇ pɐǝɹ noʎ uɐɔ
BIBLE = Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth
"Lol Mizzy. MIZZZZZY. MiZoRa's box. Pandora. Mizora. Muahahaha. Insane, eh?" - Purple_Enigma
An adventure is merely an inconvenience looked at the right way, while an inconvenience is an adventure looked at the wrong way. ~G.K Chesterton
http://www.fairytalenovels.com/
EA Awards 2011-Mr. Shiny award of 2011

User avatar
sharkie
Crazy Cat Lady
Crazy Cat Lady
Posts: 4596
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:33 am
Location: Land of Tweed, Tartan, and Deep Fried Mars Bars
Gender: Female
Status: Offline

Re: Abortion

Postby sharkie » Mon Mar 07, 2011 8:43 am

It isn't the same as the man on the street though.

The man on the street- you see abuse, there is no reason for why that man should be hitting his child. You pull him up and you say "WTF." Because there is no possible thing that can make it acceptable.

The WHOLE point about abortion is extenuating circumstances. This isn't someone taking out their anger, or thinking "Ima kill a baby" this is someone making a decision about their life. The thing about pro life is you focus ONLY on the baby. Comparing it to someone beating a child is unfair, what benefit does beating a child bring? Does it help stop a cycle of poverty, does it keep a girl in uni?

So we have a situation where a girl gets pregnant, finds out early on and is like "I don't think I'm ready." But your view is "I don't care if it is absolutely nothing like a baby yet, or that you're only 8 weeks in- and I don't care about your currently very successful life, or unhappy life that having a baby would ruin- YOU SHOULD CARRY IT."

You actually seem sensible Rocket, I don't understand why you can't see that removing choice is very oppressive and very damaging to women.
*TEETH KNASH* The yellow ducks shall eat your socks in the nighttime
Took Jangrafess out my sig, clearly he doesn't appreciate old respect when he's pulling stunts like that
Raped your sig to tell you, that yes it is! ~AG
Who cares. - Someone

I want to verb your noun

POKEMON BEASTIALITY PWNS ALL (yes, that was me - Jangra)

SORREH, Niki, teal is my color. ^_^ *rape* BOLD FTW. - Voldylicious
i thought you needed new rape from me and i like this color so *rapes* (:
oohhh kittyyy, she's so orgasmically amazing. *rapes*

User avatar
Mizora
Spartan Warrior
Posts: 686
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 9:08 am
Real First Name: Uh...Guess?
AFC Fan Fiction Name: Spinnika
Location: Probably listening to my iPod and reading my book.
Gender: Female
Status: Offline

Re: Abortion

Postby Mizora » Mon Mar 07, 2011 12:01 pm

That is completely untrue, Sharkie. The pro-life movement runs heaps of women support groups. To say that we only focus on the baby is ludicrous! I find it incredibly offensive that you say pro-lifers don't care about the mother's life. The fact that you could even make that assumption shows how little you know about the pro-life movement.

I believe the pro-life movement is equally concerned about the mother and the child. Their concern actually follows the mother far more than it does the baby as the baby is soon dead and the mother's pain has only just begun. Pro-abortionists are never genuinely concerned with the mother, they do not offer proper counselling because to do so would be to admit that what they are doing is damaging the mother.

You say the whole point about abortion is extenuating circumstances and then follow on with a girl getting pregnant and she's like "I don't think I'm ready" or "I currently have a very successful life" or "I am going to have an unhappy life if I have this child", do you seriously think these are extenuating circumstances? If you can abort (or as I would suggest "Kill") a baby in the womb for any reason at all then it follows that you should be able to abort (kill) a baby for any reason. It's either ok or it's not. There is no such thing as agreeing with abortion for "extenuating" circumstances, that's just to try to justify the unnatural state that being pro-abortion is. Name one other species that kill their own unborn offspring.

EDIT: opalkoboi already posted this, but I just thought it might bear posting again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JttSzO2nIgw
Image
I LOVE Harry Potter!!!
˙ɯɐ ı sɐ ʇɹɐɯs sɐ ǝɹɐ noʎ uɐɔ noʎ ɟı ¿sıɥʇ pɐǝɹ noʎ uɐɔ
BIBLE = Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth
"Lol Mizzy. MIZZZZZY. MiZoRa's box. Pandora. Mizora. Muahahaha. Insane, eh?" - Purple_Enigma
An adventure is merely an inconvenience looked at the right way, while an inconvenience is an adventure looked at the wrong way. ~G.K Chesterton
http://www.fairytalenovels.com/
EA Awards 2011-Mr. Shiny award of 2011

User avatar
sharkie
Crazy Cat Lady
Crazy Cat Lady
Posts: 4596
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:33 am
Location: Land of Tweed, Tartan, and Deep Fried Mars Bars
Gender: Female
Status: Offline

Re: Abortion

Postby sharkie » Mon Mar 07, 2011 1:06 pm

Okay Mizora- asking for animals that kill children is stupid. Loads of animals kill their babies- bottle nose dolphins in areas where there are food shortages etc.

Also if you want respect Mizora stop doing one thing- stop saying 'pro abortion'.

NOBODY is pro abortion. People are for not removing the RIGHT to an abortion. Personally I would probably NOT have an abortion but I will ALWAYS defend the right of women to access one. Because women should not have to have sex with the idea that no matter what, if they get pregnant that's them. Half of the anti pro choice is not about the children at all, it's about chastity and decency and you can't see that.

See that high number of aborted 'children', Mizora, so you think they should all go into care? Do yu think all the mothers should have kept them. Because if you think care, well that's a lot of children in care, which is practically a one way ticket to poverty, (talking because of the figures here), and if you think the women should keep them then you can not claim to be anything but oppressive to women.

Women have sex. But not all women who have sex should have to be mothers. Like let's take a women on birth control tablets for example. If she takes misses two, or misses them occasionally (easy to do trust me) they are not 100% effective. But this women HAS taken measures to avoid pregnancy, but because of a small error, she's pregnant.

Here's the difference between a pro choice and pro life group in this situation.

A pro life group feels bad for her- but don't educate her, except with negative propaganda. They say DON'T DON'T DON'T.

A pro choice group (NOT ABORTION) WILL educate her, inform her, and give her emotional support in making the decision. They will advise her if it's not a good idea- they will NOT tell someone straight out to have an abortion and if they go that way they help her in making sure it's the right decision. You have a twisted idea of what these groups are like- and the latter is a lot more helpful/

Edit: and a comment put it well

"And about a million people had miscarriages that year, what's your point?

If the foetus cannot live outside the womb then it is still a parasitic organism and it is the hosts choice to carry it or not.

You claim to want to end the ignorance but it is you who are ignorant of the opposing position, it is not that we do not know what abortion is it is that we support the woman’s right to choose her own path rather than be corralled into compounding the overpopulation problem"
*TEETH KNASH* The yellow ducks shall eat your socks in the nighttime
Took Jangrafess out my sig, clearly he doesn't appreciate old respect when he's pulling stunts like that
Raped your sig to tell you, that yes it is! ~AG
Who cares. - Someone

I want to verb your noun

POKEMON BEASTIALITY PWNS ALL (yes, that was me - Jangra)

SORREH, Niki, teal is my color. ^_^ *rape* BOLD FTW. - Voldylicious
i thought you needed new rape from me and i like this color so *rapes* (:
oohhh kittyyy, she's so orgasmically amazing. *rapes*

User avatar
Kitsy
Fufububbles
Fufububbles
Posts: 6887
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 7:57 pm
Real First Name: Katarina
Location: The land of Kitty (: aka. London
Gender: Female
Status: Offline

Re: Abortion

Postby Kitsy » Mon Mar 07, 2011 4:10 pm

Replying to one of your earlier posts, Mizora, about aborting just before a baby is due. Do your research, and please do it in unbiased places and not just pro-life places. The "limit" is 24 weeks into the pregnancy. I personally think it should be lowered even more, but there's the law in the UK: 24 weeks. A pregnancy lasts 40 weeks. So there you go, your point is invalid. (I got this of Wiki, but I'm sure there are other places where you can find this information.)

Secondly, on your latest post. Just looking at the way you're arguing shows how ridiculous your argument is - you're purposefully using evocative words such as "kill", trying to persuade your audience using emotion. This is not what you should be doing in a debate - emotions may drive your argument, but you should try and look at it in as much an unbiased way as possible. You also portray as anyone who is pro-choice (your use of the word "pro-abortion" just shows your ignorance) is automatically evil, who don't care about the baby or the mother. Surely someone pro-choice cares about the mother, or why else would they give the choice in the first place? Surely someone who is pro-choice also cares about the "child" because many people who argue for pro-choice do so saying that the "child's" life would be v. bad.

In a debate, you just can't say "Pro-abortionists are never genuinely concerned with the mother, they do not offer proper counselling because to do so would be to admit that what they are doing is damaging the mother." You are making a sweeping (and wrong) generalisation, that is offensive and ignorant and just plain stupid. Anyone who paints anyone who believes in one thing as evil and terrible has no sense to them. Of course they offer counselling, and pretty much anyone who is pro-choice will say that it will probably do emotional damage to the woman. You are implying that anyone pro-choice wants to kill lots of little babies and damage women just for the sake of it. You are completely wrong and your entire argument is ridiculous, for all the points above.

Women should have the RIGHT to decide what to do. No one, not you, nor the government, nor any religion nor any relative or friend should be allowed to take the right of that decision away from her. If anything, it is pro-life groups that are ignoring the well-being of the potential mother. If she has decided that she wants an abortion, and they try and stop her then they are going against what she feels is best for herself and her "child." Whatever anyone else thinks, they shouldn't be able to force her.
Image
Silly little foul black twisted heart I am!
http://superkits.tumblr.com

User avatar
Rocket Axxonu
Centaur
Posts: 845
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 8:16 am
AFC Fan Fiction Name: Axxonu
Location: United States
Gender: Female
Status: Offline

Re: Abortion

Postby Rocket Axxonu » Thu Mar 10, 2011 5:36 am

sharkie wrote:It isn't the same as the man on the street though.

The man on the street- you see abuse, there is no reason for why that man should be hitting his child. You pull him up and you say "WTF." Because there is no possible thing that can make it acceptable.


Okay, okay, forget the beating thing. Let's limit the analogy to the mother/father taking relatively good care of the child for awhile, but then realizes the child is an inconvenience or getting in the way of their career. If the child (more appropriately, let's limit it further and say that it is still a baby, and cannot speak for itself yet) is getting in the way of the parent's own personal comfort or the parent realizes that they don't want the responsibility anymore, should that give them the power to do whatever they like? Throw the baby out with the garbage? Leave it unfed?

As you would agree, a baby is a human being too, and has rights as well as its parents, even if it can't yet voice them. And the right to live seems more pressing than the right to convenience. Should I or the government not be allowed to interfere in that situation? (I am not saying anyone who has had an abortion is like these parents, but I do believe they have been misled into believing it is okay to do something it isn't okay to do)

Of course, once a baby is born, there is always the option to give it up to adoption if you don't feel ready to take care of it, so people would tell the parent, 'if you didn't want it, you could have just given it up for adoption.' But a woman can't just get rid of the uncomfortable months of pregnancy by giving the baby up for adoption. I would ask, at what point during the pregnancy do you believe it becomes 'murder for convenience' like in the analogy of the living baby instead of simply something the woman should have a right to decide about for herself? (just according to whenever it is legal to do so?)

sharkie wrote:So we have a situation where a girl gets pregnant, finds out early on and is like "I don't think I'm ready." But your view is "I don't care if it is absolutely nothing like a baby yet, or that you're only 8 weeks in- and I don't care about your currently very successful life, or unhappy life that having a baby would ruin- YOU SHOULD CARRY IT."


I hate to say this because I am pretty sure you don't agree with me, but I can only put this one way: I believe that women do have a choice already, and it comes before the moment of conception. If the mother 'does not feel ready' or that 'she has a successful life and a baby would ruin it', the best way to ensure that is, yes, (as derided as it is) abstinence. If a woman is not abstinent, then she knows she is taking a risk that may result in her pregnancy. (There is of course the situation of rape, where it is not her choice, and those are very unfortunate, but those situations are rare in regards to pregnancy and the topic of abortion, and I don't think that's what we're discussing here anyway)

I will say it again: If left alone, a fertilized egg, even if it does not look like a baby yet, will still eventually grow into what we would view as an 'actual baby' if left alone. That to me indicates the 'egg' to be a child, even if it does not yet look like one. You may not believe that an egg is a real baby yet, but if you believed that it is like I do, I do not believe you would consider the examples you provided to be legitimate reasons in the slightest for 'terminating pregnancy'. I'm not trying to downplay the burden of having to carry a baby for so many months, but taking care of a live baby can also be a great burden and I believe both kinds of children, born and unborn, have a right to protection.

Taking care of a live baby is also 'oppressive', but you would still consider the mother terribly wrong for killing it just for that.* If I were to tell a mother not to kill her live baby, would you tell me, 'what you're doing is trying to oppress women'? Pro-lifers are not trying to oppress women; they are trying to stop what they see as an injustice. In fact, much of what pro-life organizations are about is helping women deal with the guilt of having done an abortion and being able to move on, aiding the women in caring for their babies, and forming relationships with/supporting women who have decided not to have abortions.

*Side note: I'm not saying every woman who has committed an abortion is as evil as a mother who would just up and kill the baby sitting right in front of her just because it was in the way. There is an aspect in abortion of not having to see the result of having the pregnancy terminated – for instance, have you ever read Harry Potter?
Spoiler:
In book 6, Draco Malfoy attempts to kill Dumbledore by sending him poison mead and a cursed necklace, both extremely dangerous but entirely indirect methods, but he finds killing Dumbledore face to face something else entirely and he cannot bring himself to do it.
There is something about being forced to face what one is doing, and one who can look someone in the face and kill them is on another level of evil, in my opinion, as opposed to one who is passively leading to a death. Not to downplay the seriousness of taking another life, though.


Mizora wrote:Pro-abortionists are never genuinely concerned with the mother, they do not offer proper counselling because to do so would be to admit that what they are doing is damaging the mother.


Mizora, good point on how the pro-life movement is not about oppressing women, or that pro-lifers don't care about women, because much of what pregnancy resource centers do is try to support women. If someone were to stop a person from killing their own child, absolutely no one would try to argue that the parent was being 'oppressed.'

However, I understand why sharkie and Kitsy were offended by this statement. People on the side of pro-choice are trying to help women by giving them more options. I can see why one would make the argument you are making, but I personally don't doubt the authenticity of goodwill of many pro-choicers. Instead, I think you are thinking of the argument that abortionists don't care about women. You could legitimately call some abortionists 'pro-abortion' because they want women to get abortions, because they make money that way.


Kitsy wrote:You also portray as anyone who is pro-choice (your use of the word "pro-abortion" just shows your ignorance) is automatically evil, who don't care about the baby or the mother. Surely someone pro-choice cares about the mother, or why else would they give the choice in the first place?
[...]

If anything, it is pro-life groups that are ignoring the well-being of the potential mother. If she has decided that she wants an abortion, and they try and stop her then they are going against what she feels is best for herself and her "child."


Mizora has indeed stereotyped you, but I find it interesting that you bring up the 'pro-life groups don't care about mothers' argument then, because that is as much a hurtful stereotype of us that is equally untrue.

Let me put it this way with this analogy: A boy has been naughty (throwing rubber bands, graffitiing the desk, something like that). The teacher has specified beforehand that children caught doing this particular thing will have to stay in from recess for a couple of days or serve some other appropriate punishment. The parents hear about it from their son. Now, some parents might march down to the school and complain about the punishment and get it taken off immediately so the boy doesn't have to suffer the consequences of what he has done.

However, other parents, though were sorry to see their son have to endure the punishment and see him so distressed over it, just allow him to serve out the punishment, so that he will learn to be better behaved in future which will hopefully ultimately lead to his having a happier, easier time in the world. Do the parents who allowed the punishment not love their son as much as the parents who intervened?

Pro-lifers do care about women, as well as the children inside them. They do not want women to experience the guilt that may last a lifetime of having an abortion, and they do not want young single mothers to have to wear themselves out without any support. They do not want women to feel pressured to make a decision to do something that they believe is only there because society has tricked them into thinking is okay. Perhaps they try to guide the woman to make a choice that will lead to enduring an incredible burden for the next year or so, but it is because they want the woman's life to be ultimately happy and fulfilling in the end, and not one tormented by guilt.


Kitsy wrote:Surely someone who is pro-choice also cares about the "child" because many people who argue for pro-choice do so saying that the "child's" life would be v. bad.


I see, so abortion is about euthanasia now. This is a dangerous argument, because once you say this, it is difficult to know where to draw the line. People's lives in Africa may be pretty terrible, or the poor district of a city may be filled with people who are despairing and feel trapped in a pointless life, but that doesn't justify me being the judge, going out there with my morphine syringe and 'putting them to sleep' without asking them. Who gets to decide what life is worth saving, and what life would just be miserable so there's no point anyway?

sharkie wrote:See that high number of aborted 'children', Mizora, so you think they should all go into care? Do yu think all the mothers should have kept them. Because if you think care, well that's a lot of children in care, which is practically a one way ticket to poverty, (talking because of the figures here), and if you think the women should keep them then you can not claim to be anything but oppressive to women.


This is an extremely dangerous and precarious argument to make as well. Perhaps you are right and making abortion illegal would lead to poverty for women. But remember, Hitler among others' actions could also be considered 'population control.' If one believes as Mizora and I do that a baby is a human being from the moment of conception (I think you believe this, don't you Mizora?), the concept of abortion as 'population control' is very chilling. At what point do we draw the line between 'population control' and 'murder'?

Also, consider the possibility that if women knew they would have to carry the babies instead of having the option to abort them, many more of them may take more precautions and the number of pregnancies may dramatically decrease anyway.

*edit: Sorry this post is so long. I had too much I wanted to say...

User avatar
sharkie
Crazy Cat Lady
Crazy Cat Lady
Posts: 4596
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:33 am
Location: Land of Tweed, Tartan, and Deep Fried Mars Bars
Gender: Female
Status: Offline

Re: Abortion

Postby sharkie » Thu Mar 10, 2011 2:35 pm

That was actually, possibly, the biggest fail post of this thread so far. Well done.

First of all abstinence.

No.

Why?

You are saying that women shouldn't be having sex if they don't want to get pregnant, which is you pushing YOUR morals on to other people. Society is now a place where people have sex for pleasure. Not for making babies. Even if you disagree with it, that is the environment that people are in. We cannot possibly be in the situation where we go "YEAH GO HAVE SEX" but then "Oh well you had sex, don't you know that's for making babies."

We cannot.

Most women have sex, not all women want to be or are ready to be mothers. That does not mean they shouldn't have sex, they should take precautions and ultimately, if needed, have access to a termination.

Which brings me to the next fail you had. The boy being naughty? Hmmm, except sex isn't naughty. Except there's nothing wrong with a woman having sex.

Also, going back up there. Take this example- say we had a teacher that tried to act all cool and casual "yeah you can mess around in my class" and then, hearing that, the boy messes around, and draws on the desk. Then the teacher goes "What no! You can't do that- detention."

THat's a much more accurate portrayal of the abortion situation. It's unfair because the teacher (representing society) has made people feel like it's okay to do something, only to turn around and say "Huh no, suffer the consequences."

And I'm not even going to take a lot of time on your hitler thing. It's like this word people invoke to make everyone go "oh no".

No it's not a Hitler-esque thing to say. Mizora showed me a really stupid video that illustrated another situation that people would defintely not want to have. You know Sweden, very liberal attitude to sex, they have hardly anyone in care and less single parents. And while I don't love Sweden, one of the reasons for this is the liberal attitude to abortion.

ALSO, interesting about sweden, is that they have more families, less single parents, etc. They have an attitude of "when you're ready." And it works- even if you don't agree with it, it works a lot better than in countries where there is a stigma to having an abortion.

Also- as for the life at conception argument- 60-80% of fertilised eggs are flushed away in the menstrual cycle
*TEETH KNASH* The yellow ducks shall eat your socks in the nighttime
Took Jangrafess out my sig, clearly he doesn't appreciate old respect when he's pulling stunts like that
Raped your sig to tell you, that yes it is! ~AG
Who cares. - Someone

I want to verb your noun

POKEMON BEASTIALITY PWNS ALL (yes, that was me - Jangra)

SORREH, Niki, teal is my color. ^_^ *rape* BOLD FTW. - Voldylicious
i thought you needed new rape from me and i like this color so *rapes* (:
oohhh kittyyy, she's so orgasmically amazing. *rapes*

User avatar
Kitsy
Fufububbles
Fufububbles
Posts: 6887
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 7:57 pm
Real First Name: Katarina
Location: The land of Kitty (: aka. London
Gender: Female
Status: Offline

Re: Abortion

Postby Kitsy » Thu Mar 10, 2011 7:31 pm

First I'll just say that I 100% agree with what sharkie said about sex. You may not want to have sex before you're ready to have kids, good for you, those are your morals. But what if you never want children? Should you never have sex, ever? What if you're in a relationship and you never want children? Does that mean you and your partner are never allowed to sleep together? Women should be allowed the freedom of having sex whenever they want to, and just because accidents happen, doesn't mean they should be FORCED to carry the child.

The problem I have with your view about pro-life caring about the mother and trying to stop them doing an injustice (and with the metaphor of a parent to a child) is that you're acting like the potential mother's are stupid or childish. They have the right to make this decision themselves, and no one has the right to tell them what to do. If they have an abortion and then feel guilty, then they will deal with it with the support that is provided to them. No one should try and guide a woman into making a choice - and pro-life isn't about guiding women either, it's about telling them they can't do something. That's the worst bit - I'm not telling anyone to have an abortion or to keep a child, I'm giving them the option to choose themselves.

The difference between killing a baby that is in front of you and having an abortion is that the foetus is NOT a baby. Scientifically, legally, it is not a baby. You have no RIGHT to call it murder, because it isn't. If you wouldn't be able to do it yourself, that's fine - but the pointeint that I'm making is that no one has the right to FORCE someone to carry a baby. If a mother decides she doesn't want to, how cruel would it be to force her to carry the child?
We generally live in a society that is fairly liberal and that people are allowed to make their own choices - they can choose where to work, what to wear, who to socialise with, how many children to have, what religion they choose etc. To take away the right for someone to have an abortion would be a step backwards into a society where a certain sect of people force their morals onto others.

On abortion being "euthanasia." Sometimes, yes. If the child has such a medical condition that it will not live for very long and will be in alot of pain, then yes, I think abortion is the kindest thing to do. This is not an uncommon reason for abortion. Or maybe carrying the child will be harmful to the mother - that is another reason that abortions are carried out.

The thing is, no one has the right to tell someone to have an abortion or not to have an abortion. There is no one who is "pro-abortion." You say that some people are because they get money for it - no they don't. Here it's on the NHS, and if you take that logic then you'd say that doctors want people to get ill so they can get money. It doesn't work like that. No one is pro-abortion, just pro-choice and everyone deserves a choice.
Image
Silly little foul black twisted heart I am!
http://superkits.tumblr.com

User avatar
Rocket Axxonu
Centaur
Posts: 845
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 8:16 am
AFC Fan Fiction Name: Axxonu
Location: United States
Gender: Female
Status: Offline

Re: Abortion

Postby Rocket Axxonu » Fri Mar 11, 2011 2:31 am

Hmm, thank you for that very patronizing comment. Anyway, moving right along with the discussion...

I think my argument is a bit different than the impression I have apparently given. I will quickly recap my main point, and put it as simply as possible.

1. Premise 1: I assume you fundamentally agree with me sharkie that there are some situations that warrant someone 'imposing their morals' on others. You would interfere if you saw a man beating his child, because 'there's no excuse for that.' Because you personally feel that it is wrong and should not be allowed. I assume you would also feel interference justified in the case of parents killing their live baby just for convenience too.

2. Premise 2: I believe a zygote (fertilized egg) is a human being. As much so as any baby that has already been born.

3. Conclusion: We agree that human life is valuable, so if you believed that the unborn child is a human being, you would agree with my assessment that it's inhumane, even if it is a burden for the mother. The difference in our beliefs about whether the fetus/baby is a human being is where the difference between us really lies, I believe. So to convince me that women should have the right to choose, you must first convince me that the fetus/baby is not a human being; and that is where I suggest we focus our argument.

sharkie wrote:Which brings me to the next fail you had. The boy being naughty? Hmmm, except sex isn't naughty. Except there's nothing wrong with a woman having sex.

Also, going back up there. Take this example- say we had a teacher that tried to act all cool and casual "yeah you can mess around in my class" and then, hearing that, the boy messes around, and draws on the desk. Then the teacher goes "What no! You can't do that- detention."

THat's a much more accurate portrayal of the abortion situation. It's unfair because the teacher (representing society) has made people feel like it's okay to do something, only to turn around and say "Huh no, suffer the consequences."


I'm sorry, I thought the purpose of my analogy was clear. I've heard the accusation over and over that pro-lifers don't care about the women, just the babies. But simply because they don't necessarily agree with providing 'an easy way out,' does not mean they do not care about mothers or that they are trying to oppress them. Just like parents who may feel it is best to demonstrate their love by not interfering and hoping the child will learn to be more responsible and have a happier life because of it.

But let's keep going with this evolving analogy anyway. The teacher is society. He tells the kids, “I'm cool with you messing around, just have fun.” The kids proceed to do something dangerous (perhaps even at the teacher's suggestion), jumping off desks, something like that. One of the kids breaks his arm, and the teacher says, “Oh, I'm the one who said you could do whatever you wanted, I'm not going to punish you. Everybody else just go back to what you were doing while I take him to the hospital.”

His first statement is pointless, because it's a given he isn't going to punish the boy further after what he just went through. Instead, the boy has suffered the consequences of his own actions, which were largely the result of the teacher's negligence. We can blame the teacher, but he's not the one who suffered for it, it's ultimately the kid's arm that got broken. The teacher is also failing the kids additionally by not taking any measure to prevent the same thing from happening again. Some of the kids may learn from what happened to their friend, but the fact that the teacher is not taking an active role in the matter can only mean more kids than necessary will get hurt doing something dangerous.

Even if the teacher chooses to educate the kids and tell them the possible consequences of their actions, does that mean it will stop every kid from jumping and getting injured? No. But isn't it better for the kids own well being over all to at least try to prevent the dangerous behavior in the first place, change the teacher's methods, rather than let it be encouraged, wait for the behavior to cause injury, and just blame the teacher afterward? Such as with slavery, society it not always right. We need to learn to think and judge risks for ourselves.

Of course, this analogy is incomplete. There's a difference between the kid breaking his arm and a pregnancy, and that's that the arm will take a long time to heal, while a pregnancy can be dealt with almost immediately through abortion. But if there was a way to magically heal his arm, should we withhold it from him just to teach him a lesson? Of course not, that would be unspeakably cruel and vindictive. So I would agree that an abortion should be a personal choice and an option for women who find themselves in an extremely difficult position that could have terrible life-altering consequences, except for one thing.

The pro-life movement isn't about withholding a possible cure for the suffering the woman may have to endure. It's not about punishing them. It's about the preserving of human life, because we believe a zygote/baby is a human being. Pro-choicers may not agree with that idea that it is a life, but don't you see that if you did believe it was, why one would feel the way we do? Helping to ease the transition or supporting the mother during her pregnancy, trying to find out what's best for her that doesn't involve taking what we believe is a human life.

Kitsy wrote:On abortion being "euthanasia." Sometimes, yes. If the child has such a medical condition that it will not live for very long and will be in alot of pain, then yes, I think abortion is the kindest thing to do. This is not an uncommon reason for abortion. Or maybe carrying the child will be harmful to the mother - that is another reason that abortions are carried out.

Hmm, yes, that is a tough situation. Euthanasia is a whole topic unto itself, and a hard one. Though I believe this reason is not nearly as common as more self-serving ones. (I know 'self-serving' has a bit of a negative connotation, but I don't believe it's wrong to act for one's own happiness, if it doesn't involve injuring another party in the process. If one believes that the fetus/baby inside the mother is not yet a true human being, it makes sense to get an abortion if the mother isn't ready yet)

Kitsy wrote:The difference between killing a baby that is in front of you and having an abortion is that the foetus is NOT a baby. Scientifically, legally, it is not a baby.

Okay, this statement gets to the real crux of what you must prove to a pro-lifer to convince them it is okay for society to give women the option of choice. The other parts of the argument have no value to someone on the side of pro-life in light of their belief that the 'fetus' is a baby.

'Scientifically, legally not a baby' – In America, black people I believe were not considered fully human. Legally, they didn't have the rights of white people, and scientists would claim they had found scientific evidence that they were mentally inferior to white people, more like animals.

The point of my bringing this up is not to say that that *proves* that the fetus is a human being, but just because legally a person of another ethnicity is not recognized as a person, does that mean it's okay that their life isn't valued? History teaches us that true right and wrong are not determined by law. If the egg is fertilized and begins the process of development, if left alone it will grow into a baby. It makes more sense to me in light of that to consider it human from the very moment it comes into existence, rather than place an arbitrary limit of 'it's only human after a certain point'.

sharkie wrote:Also- as for the life at conception argument- 60-80% of fertilised eggs are flushed away in the menstrual cycle

Once the baby enters the uterus and begins development, then. But could you give me some more detail on this? Because I thought the menstrual cycle didn't occur when a woman becomes pregnant. Each month, a woman's body prepares an egg and it matures, but the body discards it unless it's fertilized. Do you mean eggs that are fertilized, but don't cause the woman to become pregnant (don't know if this is possible or not)?
Last edited by Rocket Axxonu on Wed Mar 16, 2011 3:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
sharkie
Crazy Cat Lady
Crazy Cat Lady
Posts: 4596
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:33 am
Location: Land of Tweed, Tartan, and Deep Fried Mars Bars
Gender: Female
Status: Offline

Re: Abortion

Postby sharkie » Fri Mar 11, 2011 6:32 am

Rocket, I'm keeping this short. See how you keep having to over complicate things and change your argument, while mine and Kitsy's has stayed the same through out- who's is better?

And also, morals like "don't hit your children" (partly because you have chosen to take the responsibilty of having a child, and carrying it full term)- are clear. Morals like don't have sex unless you want a baby are ignorant- I think anyone that tries to preach abstinence is ignorant. I completely support individuals who are abstinent, but you shouldn't ever preach it. Because in modern western society less people are going to be abstinent than sexually active, and teaching abstinence just restricts sex education.

It is countries with limited sex education, and where sex is seen as more dirty that teenagers are more likely to get pregnant etc. While in countries with a liberal attitude to sex and abortion.. there is a lower rate of teen pregnancy all together. What does that say?
*TEETH KNASH* The yellow ducks shall eat your socks in the nighttime
Took Jangrafess out my sig, clearly he doesn't appreciate old respect when he's pulling stunts like that
Raped your sig to tell you, that yes it is! ~AG
Who cares. - Someone

I want to verb your noun

POKEMON BEASTIALITY PWNS ALL (yes, that was me - Jangra)

SORREH, Niki, teal is my color. ^_^ *rape* BOLD FTW. - Voldylicious
i thought you needed new rape from me and i like this color so *rapes* (:
oohhh kittyyy, she's so orgasmically amazing. *rapes*

Roxxi
Cave Troll
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 10:22 pm
Status: Offline

Re: Abortion

Postby Roxxi » Sun Mar 13, 2011 10:57 pm

Okay, I'm going to have to come in here. In my opinion, there's been way too much talk here about what the "pro-life people" and "pro-choice people" are like. Yes, there are many sensitive and caring people of both beliefs. Yes, there are many selfish and ignorant people of both beliefs. There can't be an argument about which group is generally better.

But anyway, about the real issue:

Kitsy and Sharkie, it's not about the moral issue of having sex before marriage and trying to push that on other people. It's not about pro-lifers saying "You have to be like me. Don't have sex." It's about whether or not people should be able to behave irresponsibly when they know there are consequences and then when the consequences occur, being able to get out of those consequences by having an abortion. Everyone knows that when you have sex, there's the chance you'll get pregnant. So just because in recent times in our society people have sex more before marriage, that means that now we should be able to make it easier for them to do so without consequences? What you're saying is that people should be able to do whatever they want when they want and have an easy way of getting out of trouble for themselves. And I'm not trying to preach against sex. Even if someone does do it, they should grow up and be responsible enough to take birth control pills regularly so they can avoid the situation entirely. If they are not ready for a baby, and they're having sex, and not taking birth control pills, and they get pregnant, they should be held accountable because they knew that could happen.

And yes, I believe that inside the mother it is a human being. How can you possibly determine when it becomes a human and when it's just a parasite? What makes that specific limit (24 weeks in I think it was) have any meaning?

I don't think Rocket Axxonu's argument has changed at all. The whole time Rocket has kept with the same thing: that unborn or born it's still a human being. That abortion is wrong because while using your right to terminate it, you're taking away that human's right to live.

User avatar
sharkie
Crazy Cat Lady
Crazy Cat Lady
Posts: 4596
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:33 am
Location: Land of Tweed, Tartan, and Deep Fried Mars Bars
Gender: Female
Status: Offline

Re: Abortion

Postby sharkie » Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:36 pm

No Roxxi I'm not saying that people should be able to do whatever they want and get away with the consequences of it. My main point was actually that societies that have a general tolerance of abortion ALSO have a lower rate of STDs and teenpregnancy in general. Very rarely does condemning abortion and condemning promiscuous sex not go hand and hand. Places with the most liberal attitude to abortion also have high rates of people on birth control.

Besides, even if you think it's wrong, and if you make it illegal, people will have abortions. Because shiit happens. Making it illegal just puts the many women that will do it anyway in danger.

The main point is that your body is your body and you should be able to make decisions about it. As long as something is dependent on your body it should be your choice whether or not it continues. And yes, I think this applies to drugs, prostitution, everything. When things are illegal you can't study them properly, can't regulate it.

When abortion is legal you can look at it and say "hhmm this many people are having abortions, we need tto focus more on *safe sex*" wheras if it's illegal you just don't have access to that information- even though it's still going on.
*TEETH KNASH* The yellow ducks shall eat your socks in the nighttime
Took Jangrafess out my sig, clearly he doesn't appreciate old respect when he's pulling stunts like that
Raped your sig to tell you, that yes it is! ~AG
Who cares. - Someone

I want to verb your noun

POKEMON BEASTIALITY PWNS ALL (yes, that was me - Jangra)

SORREH, Niki, teal is my color. ^_^ *rape* BOLD FTW. - Voldylicious
i thought you needed new rape from me and i like this color so *rapes* (:
oohhh kittyyy, she's so orgasmically amazing. *rapes*


Return to “The Debate Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Artemis Fowl Confidential Fan Forum : Disclaimer
cron

Login  •  Register