Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes the law says you have the right. IMO it's not the right thing to do. YOU ARE KILLING A CHILD...even if you don't want to call him or her a child...you CANNOT argue that you are ending/killing a LIFE.
Afo I don't see it as KILLING A CHILD because it's not a child as far as I'm concerned. Also as far as I'm concerned it is completely the choice of the person who is expected to act as "host". Their body, their choice ABOVE and BEYOND the rights of any "potential child or "potential life".
I also don't hold the same "sanctity of life" belief that you appear to hold.
Not a big deal, we simply see it differently.
Life begins and ends all the time and children and adults, MILLIONS of them, live horrid little lives below the poverty line EVEN in AMERICA. If a woman has decided that she cannot support a child, does not want to carry a pregnancy to term I fully support her right to a termination, whatever her reason may be. AND I say that knowing that a small percentage of abortions occur because it is inconvenient or not the desired sex. I believe strongly that most women do not take the decision to terminate a pregnancy lightly and I trust them to make the best decision for them AND the welfare of their offspring, be that life or death. I would rather see a woman abort than carry a pregnancy to term and then live in poverty, struggling every day for the child to have a quality life whilst never being able to have a quality life for themselves either. I would rather see a woman abort than have a child come into the world knowing that its father wanted nothing to do with it. As far as I'm concerned any idiot can be a parent and many are (no offence to those good parents out there) but if you find yourself pregnant and the father isn't interested in being around (a good majority of them it seems these days) and you will not be able to adequately afford to feed, cloth, house and educate your child and you know it from the get go, then I find it much more sensible and humane to abort.
I understand that this may seem mercenary to you, but we do hold differing opinions. I will always support quality of life first and foremost AND I will always support a woman's right to autonomy over her own body.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
The organ donation and blood donation comparison is invalid because in 99.999% of cases the mother CHOSE to engage in an action knowing a child could result. It's hardly a "forced" organ donation as some have suggested. Yes, the child needs the mother's organs to survive. But once again she DID have a choice at one time.
You keep coming back to this choice business like we're dealing in immaculate conceptions. There are plenty of people on the organ donor registry or that require blood transfusions because they CHOSE to engage in behaviours that endangered their health leading to them requiring transplant or transfusion. Should we now start judging who righteously should be allowed these life saving medical procedures based on how we judge their actions? I don't think so. Just like I don't believe we should be making it manditory for people to donate blood or organs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
As to the part of your post I bolded, I consider the child as a "body" too. It's not your body to choose to kill, IMO. No different than if you decided to kill him or her after birth. When I hear arguments like this, part of me sees it as almost exactly the same as a woman saying "I have the right to kill my 2 year old."
It's very different to killing a 2 year old and I'm sorry that you cannot see that.
As far as I'm concerned the bottom line is people are not going to stop having sex and despite all the precautions and even the best of intentions OR even with no consideration at all, pregnancy will still be the outcome in a lot of cases. Until such times as there are no accidents EVER I support abortion because quite frankly if I have to choose between a cluster of cells and a fully functioning adult of reproductive age, then I choose the adult.
And here we are again...
Women cannot be permitted to have a choice in their sexual behavior. (Men, of course, are nowhere in the equation.)
Men are in the equation. If a man makes the same choice, he is just as repsonsible for the child after birth. Yet, the woman can simply choose to abort the child without him having a say. Whether the man is responsible for 18+ years is completely the woman's choice and he has no say. THAT is sexist to me.
Afo I don't see it as KILLING A CHILD because it's not a child as far as I'm concerned. Also as far as I'm concerned it is completely the choice of the person who is expected to act as "host". Their body, their choice ABOVE and BEYOND the rights of any "potential child or "potential life".
I also don't hold the same "sanctity of life" belief that you appear to hold.
Not a big deal, we simply see it differently.
Life begins and ends all the time and children and adults, MILLIONS of them, live horrid little lives below the poverty line EVEN in AMERICA. If a woman has decided that she cannot support a child, does not want to carry a pregnancy to term I fully support her right to a termination, whatever her reason may be. AND I say that knowing that a small percentage of abortions occur because it is inconvenient or not the desired sex. I believe strongly that most women do not take the decision to terminate a pregnancy lightly and I trust them to make the best decision for them AND the welfare of their offspring, be that life or death. I would rather see a woman abort than carry a pregnancy to term and then live in poverty, struggling every day for the child to have a quality life whilst never being able to have a quality life for themselves either. I would rather see a woman abort than have a child come into the world knowing that its father wanted nothing to do with it. As far as I'm concerned any idiot can be a parent and many are (no offence to those good parents out there) but if you find yourself pregnant and the father isn't interested in being around (a good majority of them it seems these days) and you will not be able to adequately afford to feed, cloth, house and educate your child and you know it from the get go, then I find it much more sensible and humane to abort.
I understand that this may seem mercenary to you, but we do hold differing opinions. I will always support quality of life first and foremost AND I will always support a woman's right to autonomy over her own body.
You keep coming back to this choice business like we're dealing in immaculate conceptions. There are plenty of people on the organ donor registry or that require blood transfusions because they CHOSE to engage in behaviours that endangered their health leading to them requiring transplant or transfusion. Should we now start judging who righteously should be allowed these life saving medical procedures based on how we judge their actions? I don't think so. Just like I don't believe we should be making it manditory for people to donate blood or organs.
It's very different to killing a 2 year old and I'm sorry that you cannot see that.
As far as I'm concerned the bottom line is people are not going to stop having sex and despite all the precautions and even the best of intentions OR even with no consideration at all, pregnancy will still be the outcome in a lot of cases. Until such times as there are no accidents EVER I support abortion because quite frankly if I have to choose between a cluster of cells and a fully functioning adult of reproductive age, then I choose the adult.
I am a fan of adoption.
As far as having sex, I don't want people to stop. I want people to take the necessary precautions. I don't want people to have sex at all unless they can handle the consequences if protection fails.
Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 04-08-2009 at 06:31 AM..
So you're opposed to infertility treatments, as well, I suppose? Because, yanno, not all embryos are successfully brought to birth. Or is infertility treatment only allowable if one is willing to be Octo-mom, and implant whatever's handy?
I don't have a problem with infertility treatments actually OTHER than in cases like Octo-mom. So...you guessed wrong on both. Fine with fertility treatments in most cases, not OK with Octomom.
As far as having sex, I don't want people to stop. I want people to take the necessary precautions. I don't want people to have sex at all unless they can handle the consequences if protection fails.
I know you are.
I personally have no problem with adoption but it's not something I would do if I found myself pregnant and not wanting to be a parent.
As for sex and precautions, well even the best laid plans can come undone, I see no reason to perpetuate the problem by continuing an unwanted pregnancy.
As for sex and precautions, well even the best laid plans can come undone, I see no reason to perpetuate the problem by continuing an unwanted pregnancy.
It's simply one of the potential risks of sex that people need to accept.
As far as having sex, I don't want people to stop. I want people to take the necessary precautions. I don't want people to have sex at all unless they can handle the consequences if protection fails.
I don't have a problem with infertility treatments actually OTHER than in cases like Octo-mom. So...you guessed wrong on both. Fine with fertility treatments in most cases, not OK with Octomom.
So why is it okay to destroy embryos in infertility clinics and not in abortion clinics?
Okay, so a zygote or an embryo is a fully qualified person-- unless it results from rape, or incest, or endangers the mother's life, or is somehow otherwise problematic for the people endorsing its full personhood.
This smacks of "some people are more equal than others" far more than the entire line in the sand drawn to completely exclude zygotes and embryos from personhood.
The reason I think it's more acceptable in the case of rape is because, in that case, the mother did not have a choice. An unborn child is a parasite and I don't think a woman should be forced to carry one for 9 months. In any other case, she did have a choice.
If it endangers the mother's life, you have to choose between mother or child and I view both lives equally. Furthermore, if the fetus is not viable, it won't survive anyway if the mother dies. I consider one death preferable to two.
Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 04-08-2009 at 07:50 AM..
The reason I think it's more acceptable in the case of rape is because, in that case, the mother did not have a choice. An unborn child is a parasite and I don't think a woman should be forced to carry one for 9 months. In any other case, she did have a choice.
And...again, we circle back to the idea of childbearing as an appropriate punishment for Bad Girls.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
