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.
If abortions become illegal - who do you think is going to suffer the consequences? The rich and powerful - who have always had abortions, illegal or not? Or the rest of the population that doesn't have the power and doesn't have the money? Even if abortions were illegal - do you think that politicians and the elite upper class of our society wouldn't be shipping off their teenage daughters to get abortions? Yes, they would. They would still have a choice. The people who need the choice the most wouldn't have it. They would resort to the good old wire hangers and such. Also - say you let rape victims get abortions. Well, if it was only rape victims and women whose lives were in danger that were allowed to have abortions - it's pretty certain that then the rape vicitims would have to prove that they were raped. So - what happens if they don't have the required proof? The rape victim gets put on trial just like her attacker. Somehow this doesn't seem like this would work very well.
If more people are born poor than the experience of being poor will be more common and possibly concern about the plight of the poor greater. Granted you'll also have more born poor who go from "rags to riches" and feel the poor are just not trying, but the US before Roe was in many ways more compassionate to the poor than the US today and nations with lower abortion rates aren't usually as extreme as us on economic inequality.
That's a bit more Left-leaning than maybe I really feel, but from my perspective a world where the rich can still get abortions while the poor can't is bad for the rich. From my perspective it's better to be poor and exist, than be rich and not exist. Also the modern countries that do ban abortion (Ireland, Malta, Poland) don't really have more poverty than us. Even if it's against my faith, and theirs, they use artificial birth control or get sterilized or have other ways around it.
Even if they didn't I was a fifth child and my parents fell into poverty because of my health issues. And then they had my little sister. From an economic perspective, from many kinds of modern perspectives, what my parents did was kind of nuts. Particularly as my mother was feared to not be able to survive a sixth pregnancy. And yet my sister is teaching in Japan and, in an odd twist, is quite possibly the most socially liberal member of the family. Other than Tkramar and one guy in High School I almost never encounter people who wish they'd been aborted.
Still realistically I know abortion isn't going to ever be completely illegal. Even if Roe v Wade were overturned in the US many to most states would still allow abortion in many to most cases. I favor that happening anyway as I'm a moderate states-rights person. Also I think Roe and Doe makes restrictions in the second-trimester much harder to do than in many other nations, like France or Germany for example. I would like it if first-trimester abortion was viewed like other legal yet discouraged things (like chewing tobacco or being obese) with protections for pregnant women and better options, second-trimester abortion legal only in limited grave-health/risk-of-death situations, and third trimester abortions essentially illegal.
I have no religion but follow the laws of God and believe that taking a life is a sin, a horrible sin. If I were to say "To each her own" to me, I would be just as guilty as the person allowing their child to be killed. They wonder why teenage girls put their babies in trash cans or toilets yet, what do we say about life just weeks or even moments before that baby is murdered after birth by allowing "legal" killings. Also a big believer in "You reap what you sow." I'm pro-choice on being accountable for your actions and there are lists of people willing to adopt these precious lives that are being destroyed because some people feel these precious babies aren't human!
I am absolutely pro-choice, regardless of the woman's reason for choosing to have an abortion, or to give birth.
A fetus is not viable, and to say that it possesses life is to use the term rather imprecisely. For several months of pregnancy, the unborn XXX (fetus, child, whatever you choose to call it) bears only a loose resemblance to a human being, and has several distinct differences. So while it is alive, it is not a human being. Not yet.
As such, abortion falls under very different rules than killing a human being.
It seems that pro life or more accurately called pro some lifers are going to continually refuse to understand anything since it disagrees with their point of view. Being pro choice is like being pro drug legalization. Someone can be pro legalizing regulatory drug use, although that doesn't mean they're pro doing drugs. Just because you think something should be legalized, doesn't mean you think it's a good thing for someone to doing it. Pro 'lifers' think that if you you're anti x then that automatically means x should be criminalized. This is flawed logic though. Just because you disagree with x doesn't mean it should be criminalized. Laws affect everyone which means they should be based on rational thinking since reason is an objective judge of things. Let's assume that pro 'lifers' get their whackiness into government and outlaw abortion. How does that do anything to prevent or decrease abortion. Looking at things like drug use and prostitution, it would do nothing to decrease abortion. Everyone who is going to get an abortion is still going to get an abortion. The only difference will be that they will resort to unsafe methods. Just look at drug users and prostitutes. Criminalizing such things doesn't decrease the activity by any means. For example, users of illicit drugs aren't stopped from using drugs and it's completely obvious that criminalizing it doesn't stop those whom use drugs from doing so. The only difference is that they use dirty needles and get their drugs from the dealer in the back alley. Legalizing things like elective abortion or drugs and prostitution isn't the same as legalizing things like theft or murder. Anti choicers don't understand that considering a fetus a human life is all a matter of opinion. Objectively, if it is a life then there should be evidence that supports the claim that it is a life. Personal emotions don't factor in as valid evidence. Criminalizing abortion isn't going to accomplish anything. If someone truly wants to reduce the number of abortions then they should advocate productive solutions like adequate sex education rather than those asinine abstinance only programs.
Mind you there's also a difference between first trimester and third trimester abortions.
Last edited by agnostic soldier; 03-07-2011 at 08:07 PM..
If more people are born poor than the experience of being poor will be more common and possibly concern about the plight of the poor greater. Granted you'll also have more born poor who go from "rags to riches" and feel the poor are just not trying, but the US before Roe was in many ways more compassionate to the poor than the US today and nations with lower abortion rates aren't usually as extreme as us on economic inequality.
That's a bit more Left-leaning than maybe I really feel, but from my perspective a world where the rich can still get abortions while the poor can't is bad for the rich. From my perspective it's better to be poor and exist, than be rich and not exist. Also the modern countries that do ban abortion (Ireland, Malta, Poland) don't really have more poverty than us. Even if it's against my faith, and theirs, they use artificial birth control or get sterilized or have other ways around it.
Even if they didn't I was a fifth child and my parents fell into poverty because of my health issues. And then they had my little sister. From an economic perspective, from many kinds of modern perspectives, what my parents did was kind of nuts. Particularly as my mother was feared to not be able to survive a sixth pregnancy. And yet my sister is teaching in Japan and, in an odd twist, is quite possibly the most socially liberal member of the family. Other than Tkramar and one guy in High School I almost never encounter people who wish they'd been aborted.
Still realistically I know abortion isn't going to ever be completely illegal. Even if Roe v Wade were overturned in the US many to most states would still allow abortion in many to most cases. I favor that happening anyway as I'm a moderate states-rights person. Also I think Roe and Doe makes restrictions in the second-trimester much harder to do than in many other nations, like France or Germany for example. I would like it if first-trimester abortion was viewed like other legal yet discouraged things (like chewing tobacco or being obese) with protections for pregnant women and better options, second-trimester abortion legal only in limited grave-health/risk-of-death situations, and third trimester abortions essentially illegal.
I agree with the bolded portion completely. I had been trying to come up with some other legal things to equate abrotion to - not that it is the same thing or anything at all - but something that is looked upon as bad or undesirable yet is still legal.
first off thanks to everyone for participating iin this poll/thread!
someone had asked for my opinion and i would like to say that in my original "guidelines" to this thread i had asked those who are "pro-choice" or "pro-life" NOT including special circumstances, understandable circumstances, ie, rape, incest, possibly even death due to giving birth. i know this would further go into a discussion of what i consider "understandable", but all "questionable" circumstances aside, meaning those who just use abortion as a "birth control" ie, being too young, being promiscuous, etc. in which case i do not agree with.
i believe that after the first heartbeat (5-6 weeks) you should never abort a child. before 5-6 weeks, only in these special circumstances, do i UNDERSTAND it. however im not choosing both sides. obviously everyone chooses life and a life is a not choice, but i would consider myself pro-life and then discuss why in my reply to the thread. which is what most of you have done and i appreciate your cooperating with the request ive made.
someone also said that this is some form of what it seems like population control, and i have to disagree because if we really wanted population control and do away with over 90% of abortions we should simply spread the word not to be promiscuous, no matter what you do or what protection you wear there is ALWAYS still a chance you can get pregnant. they always say 99% chance of not getting pregnant, yet your gambling with that 1% that could possibly be a life.
i believe that when a man and woman make the choice to have sexual relations, with or without protection that if a pregnancy happens to occur, they should not just be able to go to an abortion clinic and say you know what, im not ready for this, because i believe if your really not ready you shouldnt have had sexual relations. the only thing that will 100% stop 9 out 0f 10 abortions is abstinence.
im not sitting here preaching abstinence, but if my daughter were to get pregnant by her boyfriend and shes and him are still in high school, which is not uncommon in todays society, that the man AND woman should take their responsibilities seriously. if they have a problem, work it out because it is really not just about the two of them anymore. if they cannot i would not be upset and i would do all i can to help but only if i felt they SINCERELY tried to work things out. worst case, i would do all i can to be there for my grandchild.
again this is just my opinion and to be honest this entire thread/poll is opinion based. as you know there is no right or wrong answer. you may agree or disagree but its just an opinion. there are many "grey areas". i do appreciate everyones participation though
I did not respond to the poll, because it is framed in binary, EITHER-OR terms. Therefore there was no way I could respond honestly.
The "abortion" issue has at least two, quite different, aspects. The first, and the one to which most folks are responding, is the religious/spiritual one. The second is the Constitutional aspect.
Personally, my wife and I are "Pro-Life". However, we also recognize that this is a deeply personal, religious/spiritual matter.
Constitutionally, both of us are squarely "Pro-CHOICE", in that we believe that the rules, restrictions and mores of one religious/spiritual belief system should never be legally or forcibly imposed on anyone, PARTICULARLY when their own belief system differs. Folks, there are a number of belief systems that define life as beginning when the umbilical cord is cut.
The part I said was "not debatable", was this: The start of a new human life...and it IS a human being, not something else...begins at conception...that is not up for debate.
I know exactly what you said thank you. Which is why I told people to beware. It very much is up for debate when a “human being” begins because the meaning of “human being” itself is a variable one depending on what the context of the conversation is. It is in fact of paramount importance to know what you mean by “human” in any given context.
For example “human” can just mean containing Human DNA. In which case a corpse is “human”. A sperm is “human”. I am “human”. A Zygote is “human”. The mass of green goo I pull out when picking my nose is “human”. A cancer is “human”. Yet we do not assign “human rights” to many of those things do we?`
Even the word “life” is not so clear and is “up for debate”. Sperm are alive. They have a different life cycle to us, but they are still alive.
So it is simply too easy to assign concepts such as a “right to life” to things that are alive, or things that have human DNA. It is not workable. So simply declaring… based on literally nothing… that a zygote after conception is a “human being” is a cop out and tells us nothing at all, especially in a discussion of “human rights” or a “right to life” or the morality of terminating same.
But these important conversations are EXACTLY what I said people like yourself are glossing over and coping out of by declaring by fiat they are not “up for debate” when they very much are and this is the warning I wanted to give people when I told them to beware comments like yours as when someone declares a whole part of the conversation as not being “up for debate” they are usually just someone trying to avoid a debate they themselves can not handle.
In fact I do not find a zygote to be a “human being” any more than I find a Blue Print to actually BE a house. The zygote fits no definitions of “human being” I hold, nor know of. The zygote is simply a completely undifferentiated clump of cells containing the DNA which is the blue print for BUILDING a human being.
As I say, if you want to call a zygote a human being therefore, you better also start calling blue prints actual houses as one is no more ridiculous and baseless than the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sukrill
i believe that after the first heartbeat (5-6 weeks) you should never abort a child.
Any reason why? I have heard other people say it but not say why either. It seems a rather arbitrary and random point to pick unless there is some basis for it that I am missing. Short of sticking your hand into a hat of paper each containing a developmental milestone... and just happening to pick out the first detectable heart beat.... is there any defensible basis for this?
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.
