 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Thought on abortion? |
New poll |  | Thread closed |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
Rydain Sir Kibble Blaze Phoenix Runs with the Dragon Within                   Since: 11-18-05 From: State College, PA Last post: 6300 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
Originally posted by SilvershieldSo you think the state should be able to force me to use my bodily resources against my will in order to gestate something with no self-interest, thereby giving it rights over my body that no born, sentient person has, rights that it will lose at birth? So you think that because I happen to have a functioning uterus - something I never asked for - the state ought to be able to force me to undergo pregnancy, which at the very least will permanently change my body and at worst can kill me? So you think that my legal status ought to be lower than that of a corpse, which cannot have its bodily resources used without prior consent?Originally posted by ||bassHell yeah I'm anti-choice. If the choice is to preserve a life or to take it, I am thoroughly against anyone having the right to make that choice. Good to know I'm loved. |
|||
Skydude Armos Knight    Since: 02-18-06 From: Stanford, CA Last post: 6568 days Last view: 6568 days |
| ||
| One thing that I feel needs to be thrown in here is terminology for one of the sides. While generally referred to as anti-choice or anti-abortion, the terms aren't exactly accurate...at least not for all involved.
Most if not all Pro-Life people are anti-abortion, but not all anti-abortion people are Pro-Life. Think of how a square is a rhombus, but a rhombus isn't always a square. The Republican party, for the most part, is anti-abortion rather than Pro-Life, at least on official stances, though of course there are Pro-Life members within the party. What's the distinction, you might ask, and it's something that I've been explaining to people for years. If you're just anti-abortion, then your stance is pretty much that abortion is wrong, and should be illegal. Beyond that, opinions of individuals with the view differ, but that's about all it entails. Pro-Life, on the other hand, doesn't seek merely to make abortion illegal and be done with it. Those who are Pro-Life would support, ironically enough given terminology used, actually giving more viable choices to women, support during pregnancy and afterwards if necessary. As it is, many women who abort their children are doing so largely because they really don't have a viable option to do otherwise in society today. For us, making abortion illegal wouldn't be the end of the battle...it would merely be a shift into a different stage. I think Feminists For Life puts it very well:  |
|||
geeogree Red Cheep-cheep Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6310 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| Rydain: uhm.... if you engage in the act of sexual intercourse.... and you get pregnant.... maybe you weren't careful enough....
it's not like the "state" forced you to have sex.... they didn't force the penis into you.... they didn't force you to not wear a condom, or take your birth control pill... is it fair to that child to die because you were stupid? |
|||
|
Skydude Armos Knight Since: 02-18-06 From: Stanford, CA Last post: 6568 days Last view: 6568 days |
| ||
| Well, the thing is, in some cases, it's not exactly the woman's choice, and it's a coercive act. Of course, in those cases, it's often a coercive act for her to abort the child as well, which makes it a bit more complicated. Especially when, as is the case in the admittedly rare cases of abuse, the abortion serves to cover up the evidence of the relationship, such as a 30 year old with a 15 year old girlfriend, as the "clinics" won't reveal that information. And thus the abusive relationships continue.
To some extent, however, you may in fact be correct, I'm not sure. I say that because at least half of children aborted are those of women who have had that done before. This suggests repeated either unreported abuse, or not being careful enough. In that same vein, in cases that aren't abusive or coercive, you are indeed making a choice by choosing to have sex. You can use birth control of various sorts, but it's not 100% effective, and this is known. If we communicate that it's not 100% effective and people choose to engage in activity anyway, they are effectively acknowledging than they are aware of the risk for the activity that they are doing, and thus become responsible for consequences. (edited by Skydude on 04-04-06 06:12 PM) |
|||
|
geeogree Red Cheep-cheep Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6310 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| well, no one form is 100% effective....
although, most are so close to 100% that when combined and use properly become so close to 100% that you shouldn't be pregnant unless you stop using those forms of birth control... and in those cases of abuse and coersive force (pretty much rape in my mind....) I have no problem with abortion. I dont' want to outlaw it.... I want it limited to more of a case by case basis. It should require parental consent for minors. And it shouldn't be allowed to happen because "the condom broke" or "I forgot my pill".... or some other stupid excuse.... if you have sex, face the consequences.... |
|||
|
Sinfjotle Lordly? No, not quite.  Since: 11-17-05 From: Kansas Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by geeogree I'm a pill baby. My mother wasn't supposed to be able to have kids. (My sister was born less than a year after she was told this.) My brother was born after a vasectomy. Birth control doesn't always work. |
|||
|
Rydain Sir Kibble Blaze Phoenix Runs with the Dragon Within Since: 11-18-05 From: State College, PA Last post: 6300 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
Originally posted by geeogreeFirst off, Silvershield didn't make any distinction between pregnancy as a result of consensual sex and pregnancy as a result of rape. He just said he was anti-choice. This means that a functioning uterus would be a liability to me. Second, no form of reversible contraception is 100% effective, and I'm not quite ready for the permanent type yet. Mine - a Mirena IUD - is damned close, being statistically more effective than a tubal ligation. It is possible for a Mirena to shift out of place and become ineffective. It's rare, but it's possible. How exactly would an IUD displacement or expulsion be a result of my stupidity? I see that, in a later post, you say "If you have sex, face the consequences". Why must said consequences apparently require me to use my bodily resources against my will, undergoing a process (pregnancy) that, at least, permanently alters my body and, at worst, is lethal? How would you demonstrate in a court of law that allowing Tab A into Slot B is tantamount to signing a contract handing over my bodily autonomy to something that is not a legal entity? Third, calling a fetus a "child" is emotionally loaded and incorrectly conflates potential with a current state of being. An egg is not a chicken, an acorn is not an oak tree, and you and I are not corpses. I've already explained that the higher brain structures that produce the human mind do not begin to operate before the third trimester. Without a mind, there is no one home and no self-interest in living at all. I don't understand how I can be fair or unfair to something with no self-interest. Am I unfair to eggs when I make an omelet? Are you unfair to a turkey on Thanksgiving? |
|||
NetSplit Paratroopa Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6457 days Last view: 6457 days |
| ||
Originally posted by geeogree The child wouldn't exist if she hadn't been 'stupid' (terrible choice of words, by the way. I mean, we all know that birth control is perfect, right? Unwanted pregnancy resulting from consentual sex is definitely always a matter of simply not wearing a condom or taking a pill.  Riiiight...). Furthermore, that child isn't capable of much anything for months and months. How is it even a life worth saving before it is capable of surviving on its own? Danielle posted this earlier in the thread: "If the child had to choose between no life or an adopted life, I think a very large majority would go with being adopted. Of course, I can't prove it. Just my opinion on the matter." This is ridiculous, though. Not only can the child not survive on its own, it is PHYSICALLY INCAPABLE of such choice. You can give it all the options you want, but it doesn't matter; it's just a hunk of flesh that isn't done yet, and as such it can't choose any of those options. Of course the child would choose life if it were capable, but at the stage at which it would be asked this, it wouldn't even be capable of desiring life.
Oh, and Silvershield: You said, "Hell yeah I'm anti-choice. If the choice is to preserve a life or to take it, I am thoroughly against anyone having the right to make that choice." Fine. How about you take the god damn baby when it's born AND find some way to fix what has happened to the woman's body as a result of not having the abortion when she could have? You're forcing people (living people, people who are people NOW) to potentially ruin their lives just because you think a hunk of underdeveloped flesh is worth as much or possibly more than them. Why the hell aren't you crying out in pain every time a woman has her period and her egg is wasted, or a man masturbates and his sperm is wasted? These are things that, just like a fetus, could eventually become a person. However, in their current states, they simply are not people, are not capable of thought or decision, and are not even capable of desiring life. They are cells, just like the cells in your muscles, eyes, etc. What is it in your opinion that makes a fetus a life, just like the mailman or the grocer? |
|||
|
Skydude Armos Knight Since: 02-18-06 From: Stanford, CA Last post: 6568 days Last view: 6568 days |
| ||
| So I guess everyone is ignoring the more nuanced position of the choice made in consensual sex than I put forward and choosing instead to respond to the simple version, which is of course much easier to refute.
Simply restated, then, the choice that you have is to have sex. You can take precautions if you want to avoid pregnancy, realizing that these precautions are not 100% effective (as is stated on most if not all birth control, effectively creating a contract as far as product law is concerned). Abstinence is the only 100% effective method of preventing pregnancy. But then, you want to have sex, so that isn't a choice you want to make. Consider an analogy...but please don't respond to it literally, I know they're not exactly the same, an analogy isn't meant to be exactly the same, it's only meant to illustrate a point. Let's say you want to go skydiving. Your parachute is almost certain to work...but it might not. And you know that going into it. If you choose to skydive, you choose to take the risk that maybe it won't work that time. Similarly, if you choose to have sex, and take precautions, you choose to take that risk, small as it may be. You make the choice when you have sex, or jump out of the plane (or both at the same time, if you're adventurous  ) knowing full well what the consequences might be. Now, if makers of birth control claimed their products were 100% effective, that would be different, you would make the choice thinking there was no risk whatsoever of what you didn't want to happen. You make a choice based on your view of what the potential risk is. |
|||
|
Rydain Sir Kibble Blaze Phoenix Runs with the Dragon Within Since: 11-18-05 From: State College, PA Last post: 6300 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| I didn't ignore that position. Reread the middle paragraph of my post above. And I agree that, unless one partner is sterile beyond all doubts, heterosexual intercourse does carry some risk of pregnancy, and people need to be prepared to deal with that possibility before they have sex. I am asking why abortion should not be an available option for dealing with it. I understand that you and others in this thread personally value developing human life for religious or philosophical reasons, but I do not see why or how a governmental authority should be able to take away my bodily autonomy for the sake of that developing life, even before it has any potential for self-interest at all.
For the record, having a hysterectomy or getting your tubes or vas deferens obliterated (thereby removing any chance of spontaneous reconnection) is 100% effective contraception as well. (That reminds me of another hot button issue - sterilization on demand regardless of age or number of children - but that's another topic.) |
|||
Snow Tomato Snap Dragon  Since: 12-31-05 From: NYC Last post: 6316 days Last view: 6301 days |
| ||
| I'm totally torn on this issue.
I'm definatly 100% sure that I'd never, ever be able to have an abortion. However, I support the choice for those who can. My friend had one, that was a sticky situation... and she had hell to pay for it. My mom had it done, before I was born. It makes me think a couple of things.... it makes me feel like I'm super lucky... because my mom got pregnant with me before my parents were married... I very easily could have been aborted. Which is why, I could never have an abortion myself. I support birth control like wow. I am 100% for using every single form of contraception to make sure you don't get pregnant. However, I do understand that accidents happen. I think that the morning after pill is fine though... it's kind of just like using a condom. It just kills the spem before the egg is fully fertilized. My sister had to do this. That, I can deal with. However... I do agree with the option of abortion. My reason is that... if there wasn't abortion... you'd have desperate women shoving hangars up themselves again. Killing both the baby, and seriously injuring themselves. The healh risks would be much greater if abortion wasn't available... it'd just be a big, horrible mess. |
|||
Silvershield   580  Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6307 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by RydainFirst off, let's differentiate between this discussion as one of philosophical standpoints versus political preferences. Surely I would prefer if abortion were illegalized or at least tightly regulated, but this thread has so far been (and should probably remain) an argument of the act itself, not its legal status. So, I'd consider your comment on the state's role in your pregnancy to be irrelevant. That said, I don't know how your comment that you're pregnant "against your will" is at all valid, except in cases of rape (which, for this particular argument, I'll let stand as an exception). You know that to have sex frequently causes pregnancy and, being the smart woman you are, you also know that very few birth control methods are realistically 100% reliable (and certainly none are billed as such). Concerning the fetus and its rights, the only reason it comes to lose those rights at birth is because the natural process of childbirth eliminates the child's ability to use those rights; it need no longer have "authority" over your body because there's to give it such power would not aid in its survival as a human animal. The rights it does have, those during gestation, are in the interest of the survival of a new human life. Originally posted by RydainYou say so yourself later, there are some methods of birth control that are completely reliable; if you'd rather forfeit that functioning uterus of yours, you are free to apply any of those methods, only with the foreknowledge that it would be a permanent decision. But that's one aspect of the decision that you'd have to come to terms with. Your "prior consent" was the act that put you in a pregnant state in the first place, and that act was fully voluntary. Originally posted by RydainWhat a silly thing to say. Of course you're "loved," at least in the legal sense of possessing rights, but just as in any legal conflict, one person's rights cannot infringe on those of another. Your right to not be pregnant cannot infringe on your unborn child's right to life. His right to life can certainly infringe on your right to not be pregnant, though, because that right was forfeited when you participated in an act that could knowingly cause pregnancy. Originally posted by RydainI saw no need to distinguish at that point in time because I had already done so in a previous post. I am personally against abortion even in cases of rape, but I've admitted to allowing it as an exception just for the sake of the argument because abortions due to rape are nearly statistically irrelevant. Originally posted by RydainYou can't have your cake and eat it too. You want to be able to have sex but not get pregnant, and statistics prove that you have an overwhelming chance of doing just that, but unless you are fully abstinant you cannot receive the benefit of being sure you'll not conceive. Originally posted by RydainBecause the Tab A - Slot B deal is purely of your own free will, and you lose nothing (except maybe physical pleasure, which can be gained through other means) by abstaining from it. It's hardly the blackmail you make it seem, where you are forced to have sex and, in doing so, to face the consequences of the act; instead it an "extracurricular" event which is overwhelmingly safe, but the tiny chance that it will result in something undesirable is part of the package. When I'm at a mountain and going to snowboard, they make me sign a waiver saying that I could suffer physical harm or death if I engage in the activity; I could very well stay in the lodge and lose nothing but a bit of fun in doing so, but instead I take the chance because it's rather unlikely that the undesirable outcome will come to pass. If it does, though, and I am injured or killed, my survivors could certainly be angry that it happened, but they would have no legal grounds on which to take action. My participation in the initial event indicated my acceptance of its possible consequences. Originally posted by RydainI agree. Keep the terminology at what it should be, but in the same sense that "child" is emotionally loaded beyond a point that is reasonable, so is "fetus" often emotionally devoid to the same extent. Call it a fetus just for the sake of having constant, understandable terminology, but don't allow "fetus" to become interchangeable with "nonliving" as many people would like it to be. Originally posted by RydainIt's not a question of self-interest, it's a question of the being's species identity. That egg or turkey is not a human being, and as such is not subject to the considerations given to a human being. To argue that single statement is against all conventional, popular, and logical opinion. A society that sanctions abortion is a society that encourages the extermination of its own people. Originally posted by NetSplitCertainly not perfect, but overwhelmingly effective. Originally posted by NetSplitTo make a point that has already been done to death: is a child below the age of one year capable of much of anything, either? Most of the newborns I've seen just kind of lay there. Originally posted by NetSplitObviously the child cannot make the choice itself. She said nothing of the sort. The gist of her comment is that, given a hypothetical person the choice of being adopted and being aborted, most would choose the former. If I asked you right now, which would you rather have, a life in a foster home or with adoptive parents or no life at all, which would you prefer? Originally posted by NetSplitOr, instead of taking the baby myself, how about it is given to an adoption agency that will know far better what to do with it than I will? I mean, after all, that is what they do: they deal with unwanted children. How about the woman can have the abortion, and you deal with the damage done to her cervical muscles, damage that could complicate or outright prevent subsequent pregnancies? That's probably a bit harder that fixing a woman's body after childbirth, a totally natural process. Originally posted by NetSplitYou were once a "hunk of underdeveloped flesh." So was Gandi, for that matter, and Martin Luther King and Jesus and Mother Theresa. You're oversimplifying it to the point that it's a bit ridiculous; it's more than a hunk of flesh, it's humanity in the making. Originally posted by NetSplitA single egg or sperm could eventually become a person? Good luck with that one. That is an enormous post. Wow. |
|||
|
Thexare Metal battleaxe Off to better places  Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Silvershield In the making, as in... not quite there yet? |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6307 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Cheveyo ChowilawuNo, in the making as in... The two cases of my roommate's homemade beer sitting in my dorm room are in the process of becoming carbonated. Anyone would tell you that they are beer - hell, they'll get ya damn drunk if you were to crack one open now - but to achieve all the attributes that traditionally define beer, they'll need another week or so. They are certainly beer, they'd just be flat if opened now. You see, that liquid is beer "in the making," but who's to say it can't simultaneously be in the process of maturing fully within its identity while still being open to definition as a member of that identity? |
|||
|
Skydude Armos Knight Since: 02-18-06 From: Stanford, CA Last post: 6568 days Last view: 6568 days |
| ||
| Wow, Silvershield, wow...you just did a lot of work for me. And in return, I'll help you out a bit on that last point.
A child in the womb...or fetus, if that's the term you prefer (which itself is merely the Latin term for a baby, ironically enough) is not a separate entity from a human being, but is just another stage of development. As this human goes through life after birth, subsequent stages of development are observed, such as infancy, childhood, adolescence, adulthood, old age. What this being goes through within her/his mother is really just another stage of development. We exist in our lives on a continuous cycle of development. You're different, albeit just a tiny bit so, today, than you were tomorrow. |
|||
|
Sinfjotle Lordly? No, not quite. Since: 11-17-05 From: Kansas Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| Yes, an egg is a stage of life too. Your point?
[quote = Silvershield]Concerning the fetus and its rights, the only reason it comes to lose those rights at birth is because the natural process of childbirth eliminates the child's ability to use those rights; it need no longer have "authority" over your body because there's to give it such power would not aid in its survival as a human animal. The rights it does have, those during gestation, are in the interest of the survival of a new human life. Brainless parisites have rights now? So why don't insects have rights to feed off of your skin? You choose to keep living after all, it is natural for them to try to feed off of your skin/blood. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6307 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by DracoonThe qualifying factor is, of course, humanity. Neither the egg nor the insect have human DNA. But a fetus surely does. |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| That mass of cells isn't a human until it gains brain function. | |||
|
Skydude Armos Knight Since: 02-18-06 From: Stanford, CA Last post: 6568 days Last view: 6568 days |
| ||
| Well, I pose again the question that I asked earlier:
Do you consider brain function per se a necessary component of being human (that is, if at any point there is no brain function, said person ceases to be human) or is this a dividing line you draw after which said individual is human, even if brain functioning ceases? Also, how do you define brain functioning? If you're just talking about brainwaves, those are generally recorded by 40 days after conception...and it's important to note that most abortions take place after this time in human development. |
|||
|
Sinfjotle Lordly? No, not quite. Since: 11-17-05 From: Kansas Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| The only thing that makes us different from animals is our intelligence.
Intelligence then becomes your humanity. So to answer your question Skydude, I personally don't think something can be considering human until it's first full thought. I have no clue when that is, but if it doesn't even have a brain, it isn't human to me. Edit: If the brain doesn't work, it's dead to me. (edited by Dracoon on 04-04-06 11:51 PM) |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Thought on abortion? |
| Thread closed |
