 |
| 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 - Abortion: whose choice is it? |
New poll |  | Thread closed |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
Silvershield   580                    Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| We've had the abortion debate a million times before, and I'm not trying to start that whole thing again. Instead, my question is specifically this:
Should men be entitled to take an anti-abortion stance? Very often, I see women discounting the opinions of men because "men cannot be pregnant." But, is that grounds for invalidating what could be an enormously helpful fraction - and by fraction, I mean half - of the population? You all know how I feel about this, but I'd like to hear how the other side reasons it. |
|||
|
Thexare Metal battleaxe Off to better places   Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| I think that discounting the opinion of someone solely because they can't ever directly experience something is quite ridiculous. That'd be like saying Ziff can't criticize Bush just because he's Canadian and (IIRC) can never be president.
Edit: Sorry for the generic comparison, but I really don't see much reason for debate here... if one comes up, maybe I'll go into greater detail. (edited by Thexare on 11-05-06 04:13 PM) |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Your point is exactly the one I've always used and gone to, yet a major argument of the pro-choice movement seems to be that no man should have any say whatsoever in the debate.
I actually thought of this topic because a pro-choice Facebook group provides a number of pictures and slogans to illustrate its cause, including: 1. "Representing and protecting the rights of American women" accompanying stick-figure depictions of the Senate, Supreme Court, and Senate Judiciary Committee that show that each of the three groups is overwhelmingly male 2. "77% of anti-abortion leaders are men; 100% of them will never be pregnant" 3. "The attack on women's reproductive rights has nothing to do with life and everything to do with trying to put women back in their 'place.'" 4. "Abortion: never an easy choice, sometimes the best choice, always a woman's choice." Honestly, some of them (or all of them, really) make me sick. Whether you agree with abortion or not, it is absolutely juvenile and absolutely ridiculous to argue that I have no say in the matter just because I can never experience the situation firsthand. Since I believe that abortion is the killing of an entity separate from the mother, it's equivalent to saying that I have no right to step in to prevent a mugging in an alley somewhere just because I am not the person doing the mugging. Your own analogy might vary, but that's the one I use  .
Edit because using the same word three times in close proximity is bad form... (edited by Silvershield on 11-05-06 04:28 PM) |
|||
Snow Tomato Snap Dragon  Since: 12-31-05 From: NYC Last post: 6299 days Last view: 6285 days |
| ||
| I believe men should have a say in the abortion argument. Women cannot conceive a child alone. However, it is often the women's choice moreso than the males choice. In a perfect world every father would be there for his child. In a perfect world people would obey the laws, and not shove hangers into their uterus to try and abort the babies themselves... which is really what was happening before abortion was legal.. and what would occur if it became illegal once more.
Want to know the abortion paradox? Many teenage girls who become pregnant have abortions without their parents knowing... it is legal (at least in New York). It is because they do not want to suffer the shame and embarassment of being looked at as a whore and regarded as a disgrace to the family. If this social standard didn't exist, I'm sure most teenage mothers would have their child and put their babies up for adoption. The same people who condemn abortions, condemn people who become pregnant outside of marriage... which feeds into the problem. I support a system that would encourage young mothers, or grown women looking to have abortions to consider adoption. Someone should tell these women that they are not going to disgrace their family. They are not whores. There is nothing wrong with them for having this happen to them. They can go on with their lives after they put their child up for adoption. No one talks to these women. The option of abortion should exist, simply for the health risks that would suffice if it became illegalized... but I think the abortion rate would drop significantly if someone just talked to these women. There is more at stake than their pride. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Snow TomatoThough this is a legitimate point of view, my aim is not necessarily to address which parent should control the fetus' fate but instead to discuss whether any man has a right to maintain a pro-life stance. We could argue all day about why the father has no control over the fate of a child that is just as much his as it is the mother's, but the major question I posed is about the greater abortion debate. Originally posted by Snow TomatoThe way to end abortion is not to outlaw it. While I would fully advocate the eventual illegalization of abortion, I would not expect such a measure to occur until after legitimate steps have been made towards making adoption and other options into true, viable alternatives. Originally posted by Snow TomatoThe option of abortion "should" exist, but only in a sort of ceremonial sense. That is, it should eventually become the least desirable option, one that would be so rare as to be essentially a non-option, whether legal or not. But I don't advocate outlawing it because I want to punish women who are pregnant; instead, it should be illegal because I want to preserve unborn children. The two are not mutually exclusive, though, and ideally you can help the child without "punishing" (although I detest that term in this context) the mother. |
|||
|
Sinfjotle Lordly? No, not quite.  Since: 11-17-05 From: Kansas Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Through rights and laws? It's the woman's body and it is her say.
A guy shouldn't have the right to decide if the woman should have to carry the baby. If there is a way to keep the baby alive through a painless, consequenceless (No matter how shallow), procedure to the woman, then he could choose that option. If there was a procedure that did have a something the woman had to give up, then it would be her choice what to do. You can not force someone to give you a kidney just because you'll die if you don't get it. Rydain used that one... Morally? I think both the man and the woman should try to agree what's best for both of them, but the woman should have the final say. She does have to go through the nine months of pregnancy after all... |
|||
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| Men should have a say in situations where they're actually, you know, in a bonded relationship with the woman in question, sure. Duh. The thing is, though, this rhetoric isn't aimed at them and to claim this is disngenious. It's aimed instead at the numerous, mostly male, political types and opinion-maker whose anti-abortion rhetoric is almost inescapably also anti women. Sure they can have their opinions, but equally so, it's valid for women to utterly dismiss them as being of very limited utility. In the end, it's a woman's body and a woman's life, it has to be her call in the end. Not the call of a bunch of legislators trying to score points with voters.
The problem is that there IS a massive gender dimension to this. Pretending that the issue isn't also about femininity and sexuality is absurd. Especially when LOT of anti-abortion rhetoric from a lot of people flows well beyond "the sanctity of life" stuff into full-on sex-hating mysogeny. There's an undeniable element of "women who have abortions are escaping their punishment for having sex" sentiment, and a fear of sexually assertive, self-confident women, lurking beneath a lot of the anti-abortion campaign. You only have to troll around the comments section of the feminist blogsphere to see how often words like "slut" and "whore" are thrown around in this debate. It's a feminist issue because it's inescapably an issue of gender and sexual politics. (edited by Arwon on 11-06-06 11:26 PM) |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Though I normally would not protest when a thread organically and naturally flows to a new topic of discussion, I would like to keep this one on a very specific track, only because the general abortion debate has been done to death here and I don't want to have it start all over again.
That said, I would like to re-emphasize the very specific question I am trying to pose. Whether the father of an unborn child should be allowed some influence regarding whether a fetus can be aborted or not is a legitimate topic, but it is not this topic. My question is, should any man, regardless of who he is, have the right to exp |
|||
|
Sinfjotle Lordly? No, not quite. Since: 11-17-05 From: Kansas Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| It depends on how insightful or empathetic they are.
If they're intelligent and have valid points, of course they can have an opinion; however, a woman with those same intelligence and those same valid points will have more weight in the issue. It isn't off limits, it's just thin ice. |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| Thing is SS, they're kind of inseparable as you yourself have illustrated. You're the one who bought up the feminist rhetoric and I was merely pointing out that they're not primarily thinking of "loving couples calmly discussing their situation" when they say the things you quoted, when they say that men's views don't have the same validity as womens' on this issue. That sort of misrepresentation is a clever political tactic, and it gets used quite often. I'd be careful of it.
Moreover, it's hardly true that the idea that "if you don't experience or understand something, your opinions are less valid" is specific to abortions. Or at least, it shouldn't be. Sometimes, if you're offering an opinion not based in knowledge or experience, your views SHOULD be discounted. Observe: -Silver spoon politicians and dead-eyed suburbanites shouldn't lecture the poor about the need to work hard, and how poverty is the product of laziness. -People who've never seen the results of war or worried about loved ones being sent overseas should be far more circumspect and less gung-ho about demanding that wars be fought for peace and liberation. -People who've never met a muslim shouldn't go around saying Islam is bad and wrong. -People who've never experienced the wrong end of racial inequality and thus don't see the invisible structures of privelige surrounding them, should be careful about claiming we have achieved racial equality in society just because overtly discriminatory laws have been dismantled. Etcetera. In fact, I'd suggest that, as a general rule, the so-called "moral majority" in their safe little gated communities in their over-policed little suburbs should perhaps, once in a while, shut the fuck up and stop being judgemental prats about things they've never experienced, seen or suffered. But that's just my own rant because I'm sick of the "chattering classes" or "liberal intelligensia" or "chardonnay socialists" or whatever, being told they're out of touch, when the dead-eyed reactionary suburbanites that outnumber and outvote them/us aren't accused of said same despite being even more out of touch and prone to loud opinionating. So anyways. Sure, you're entitled to your opinions, but there's a severe limit on how valid they could possibly be. As a general rule, if you know less about a subject, have experienced less of it, your opinions tend to carry less weight in the minds of other people and you should carry yourself with a little humility and not be judgemental. That's neither right or wrong, just or unjust. It's just a basic fact of life. Mreh, fuck it. Maybe people should just get beaten up for stating their beliefs. (edited by Arwon on 11-07-06 01:29 AM) |
|||
MathOnNapkins 1100  In SPC700 HELL Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6278 days |
| ||
| Yes Arwon those are some nice counter examples. However, none of them involve the contentious issue of directly terminating a life. It seems to me that it doesn't require a woman's perspective to decide whether it's wrong to take the life of an embryo. In addition, infertile women would be left out of the conversation as well, since they will never conceive.
This kind of logic is not very productive. Taken to absurdity, it would mean that you cannot have any say over what I personally do, b/c you will never be me and know what it's like to be me. That's moral relativism at the extreme and if you want that, then fine. But rebellion by saying "let's go get abortions" isn't the noblest way to stick it to the male establishment. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by MathOnNapkinsThank you for verbalizing an argument that I was myself having trouble putting into words. The crux of the argument, I guess, is the idea that you don't need to be personally involved in a situation to know that what is going on in that situation is wrong. That's not to say that abortion is wrong - you all know that I am pro-life, but for the sake of this argument I am not assuming either stance - but that, if it is wrong, I shouldn't have to be capable of personally receiving an abortion in order to take a stand. My go-to scenario, as I hinted at earlier, is this: imagine you walk into an alley and see a person getting mugged. Now, of course, I know in my head that mugging is wrong, even though I have never experienced it myself. I should feel justified in taking action to stop the crime, even though I am not a participant in it and have no personal interest or involvement in it, just in the interest of preventing a misdeed. I don't need to have ever been mugged myself to know that it is not right. Now, I know you'll take offense at that analogy, innocent as it's intended, but do you not at least understand that point of view? Most of these pro-life males, though they can never become pregnant themselves, see abortion as an evil act; they don't presume to know all the intricacies of the female body and the female experience, they simply witness a problem and wish to take action to prevent it. I don't understand why that specific notion has to involve gender in any way. As MathOnNapkins said, why should a sterile woman be "allowed" to have an opinion, when a man who is very familiar with the female experience - an obstetrician, perhaps, or a social worker who deals with this sort of issue - should not? |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| War doesn't involve "the contentious issue of directly terminating a life"?
At any rate, this is not an absolute rule, it's a guiding principle which I am defending as entirely valid. Reducto ad absurdum and reducto ad relativismo arguments don't quite cut it. You argue that abortion is somehow an especially contentious or difficult issue. I do not agree. Firstly, for a lot of us, the issue simply isn't that important except inasmuch as people won't let it die. For mine, it's been mostly settled already, that the common sense position is "legal up to a certain point, then afterwards only for medical reasons". The view that ABORTION IS SPECIAL BECAUSE IT IS KILLING is, itself, a highly contestable position and therefore the view that it's somehow exempt from the general "butt-out" rule rendering the opinions of some people less important, doesn't automatically follow. I'm not saying people are not entitled to an opinion (well except when I'm advocating beating people up for stating their beliefs), I'm just saying just that people with a bigger stake in the issue dismissing it as not that important to consider, is a justifiable opinion too. And furthermore, I'm arguing that abortion is inescapably a feminist issue and a sexual politics issue, and framing it solely as a foetus-fetishist "life" issue is, in itself, a political and contentious move. Too many people seem to simply want to dismiss these other dimensions. I'd argue that the issue of abortion is actually far less pressing than many other more serious issues that get far less attention because a minority of people get all hysterical and fetishistic over foetuses and so politicians in America have to pander to them instead of, you know, worrying about shit that matters. I mean let's see.... millions dying of preventable diseases and labouring in relievable poverty, global warming looming ever larger and rendering millions homeless or worse, 40 million Americans without health insurance... or the moral politics of a bunch of people in robes or with bumper stickers on their SUVs? Hmmmm. Wake me when everyone in the US has health insurance and the budget is balanced. Now. Abortion isn't even the only political issue in which "is this killing?" is part of the philosophical contested space. I wonder how many people who think that abortion is directly ending a fully developed human life vote for pro-farm subsidy candidates or buy diamonds that support the suppression of human rights in African nations, for example. I wonder how many see the causality links that make them partly culpable for many many deaths, I wonder if they see the blood on their hands over that. Or is that just one opinion that makes this "killing someone" just like it's only an opinion that "Abortion is killing someone"? Besides which, with a few necessary caveats, moral relativism makes quite a lot of sense. It's a shame the word's been smeared by decades of hysterical right-wing kill-speak, like "liberal" and "welfare" have been. (edited by Arwon on 11-07-06 02:14 AM) |
|||
|
MathOnNapkins 1100 In SPC700 HELL Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6278 days |
| ||
| Many people in America don't see it that way. I was watching CSPAN this morning and a woman came on to comment over the phone about how it's biblically factual that any nation that practices abortion (or any kind of abomination) will be destroyed. This is the kind of voter you have to deal with in Red State America. Don't try to talk to them about global warming or something that could end up killing everyone. Killing embryos is far bigger concern. And if everybody does die I guess it's the rapture or whatever. Neither party in America (or any country) seems fully equipped to solve the problems you have mentioned through purely political means. If we had an abortion compromise it'd just be something else on the evangelical plate; say, homosexuality. And thus until it blows over (if ever) Democrats will have a hard time staying in power in the US.
Moving on, I think the feminist argument about abortion either fails or succeeds depending on your view point. If you view the embryo as an organ or a growth that is part of a woman, then men should little to no say in its removal. If you view the embryo as a distinct human life, then obviously men would be justified in having an opinion about ending its life. But it is no wonder that in some circles feminists are accused of every kind of treason against humanity when they make it look like their going to have a revolution if they can't get abortions. But I do quite agree that there is more to this in reality than just semantics. The abortion debate has to be about more than just abortion. It is about supression of female rights. Take away their right to abortion then they'll take away their right to get Birth Control pills. Can I guarantee that would happen? No. But you can bet it would be the next target. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| I'll respond more broadly later but, for now, let me point out why abortion is such a primary issue for many Americans, myself included.
Poverty, hunger, warfare, and every other problem out there that kills people daily is absolutely worth addressing and absolutely worth fixing. A great majority of the people that die from such disadvantages are absolutely innocent of any wrongdoing, so I would not argue for a second that they "earned it" or they "deserve it." However, many of those people are grown adults. Even if they have virtually no recourse through which to improve their own conditions, they still possess the basic human faculties that would allow them to improve and take advantage of better conditions, should those conditions present themselves. However, every aborted child is a child that has absolutely no recourse, no defense, no way whatsoever to save himself. Those starving people, or poor people, or people in war-torn countries, may be "effectively" helpless, but a fetus is literally helpless. Add to that the fact that while poverty, starvation, etc are caused by passivity - that is, because nobody is doing anything to solve the problem - abortion is an absolutely active event, and you see why it is not identical or directly comparable to many of those other issues. |
|||
NintendoFB Coney Since: 11-02-06 From: Florida, US Last post: 6341 days Last view: 6341 days |
| ||
| I agree that the men have some say in it. Both the pregnant woman and her mate must have to agree on what will be done, however, it's ultimately the woman's choice because it is her body. | |||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Silvershield SS, not to rip or anything. But in the terms of it wouldn't it be fair to state that the passivity that causes these problems could be solved by motivating the groups that actively campaign against abortion to move onto something that affects far more people? But then, to say it is not identical would be correct. Because abortion is an issue that is easily addressed by humans talking to humans. Poverty is something requires little to no direct person-to-person rationalization. It simply is. However, to not say that they are directly comporable would be a misnomer in the extreme. Many abortions are brought about by a lack of support for the woman and similar issues - which I feel are directly related to poverty. And although passivity is the greatest evil facing the masses of the world today perhaps a pardigm must be inserted here. That Arwon is using this issue as a term of contrast-compare. |
|||
Tauwasser Red Goomba  Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6371 days Last view: 6291 days |
| ||
| @Silvershield
There's a general flaw in all of your arguments. It's words like right and wrong that caught my attention. You try to justify things ultimately... Like "mugging is wrong". For some reason or another, I don't see the point in arguing then... I can say "mugging is right". Now we have a problem. Almost every decision is case based. You can't condemn everybody who mugs others just because "mugging is wrong". The mugger might need something, be poor, whatever. Have three children at home waiting to get a Same thing goes for abortion. On one hand "abortion should always be legal if it's performed on a rape victim". On the other hand, killing "fetus'" is just wrong, too. As I see it, there are certain spheres where people do have a say and when people don't. I believe parents ultimately should have the last say. Yes, parents, or rather soon-to-be parents. Not the mother, not the father alone. If there are health risks or other risks involved, then why not abort now and receive later at a convenient point in time? Who has the right to tell other people what's best for them and especially something that cannot live on it's own? I know of people who are pro-war and contra-abortion. These people don't give a damn farting shit about people getting ripped apart by bombs, which is a direct issue in my opinion. However, when some Ohioan woman wants to get rid of something they don't want, they couldn't care a single bit less! (e.g. See here) The link above is not even about abortion, but about Plan B and how it is denied to a person wanting it. In my opinion that is a felony just like stabbing a person is a physical inviolability. You don't go around impeding other people's rights. That's what they were made for! So people don't go boss other people around to their likings. I mean, c'mon. I think your appendage is a living thing too. Do I force you then to keep it and let you die from it? Another example of this can be found in Michael Moore's books. For some reason he is calling up an official and fakes that he thinks male sperm, being a credential to make life, is something sacred, too, and all people who kill sperm, e.g. by using a condom or "clubbing it" in the rest rooms should face charges. It was surprising he was not the first one to even raise that thought, but there was a somewhat active community of men actually trying to get other people to sign their "referendum", too. I mean, it's all just the same, really... Some people might not want to abort a baby. And for the sake of luminosity they don't need to take advantage of the medical procedures in place already, however taking that right, the right to use said medical procedures to abort a foetus, is a dire violation of they personal rights and even their body, too. It shouldn't be as much about whether or not men should have a say in it as rather if other people can impede somebody else's right to do what they want with their body. Some special cases, like mental disorder and whatever may be considered. However, murder is forbidden in modern society, or so they say. I remember that one lady, being a cripple or having a disorder or something, who actually appealed to the European Court because she wanted to die. However, she didn't want her husband to end up in jail for helping her. That's why she wanted to push a law that'd state consentous killing was alright. I don't know what happened to her actually, however, it also doesn't seem wrong to ask somebody to end one's life when you yourself cannot end it. In case everybody wonders, why I just drop this mental shitload on you... I tried to exemplify, that there are always alternatives to be considered, when "lumped together" solutions won't work. I for my part, don't see why people should have any say in my personal affairs as far as nobody else is concerned at all. Therefore, only people involved should be allowed to have a say. There seems to be a complication for abortion because it only happens in the body of the female. However, most people are aware how the other part feels about it, before they actually have sex! I for one, told my gf that I didn't want to have a child and that therefore all possible matters must be taken to never let it happen. However, I expect her to talk to me as soon as it happens and that we'll find a solution that will satisfy us both. I'd hate to be surprised like "Oh, by the way, I'm pregnant, you're gonna pay for it the rest of its life until it's eighteen, I'm not gonna change my mind." That'd just suck and not be fair. However, I think I would have a say in that matter because I inadvertently would have helped to produce it. So long, Tauwasser |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by NintendoFBHave you not read a word of this thread? Originally posted by Plus Sign AbominationWhat problem affects "far more people," at least on American soil? Surely the problems with starvation and war and disease are enormously widespread on a global scale but, speaking only for the United States, abortion kills a million and a half human beings every year. Even if deaths due to other issues are "far greater" - which I am skeptical about - it's not as if that ~1.5 million figure is small enough to be ignored. That's a huge amount of human life. Originally posted by Plus Sign AbominationNot sure I understand your point here. Originally posted by TauwasserNo, there's no problem. Mugging is wrong. Certainly any number of external circumstances could qualify the criminal's motivation for performing the act but, invariably, that act is wrong. Originally posted by TauwasserI'm not condemning the person committing the crime, I'm condemning the crime itself. As I said above, the attacker could have a justifiable reason for doing the deed, but that will never make it the right thing to do. If you need money to support your starving family, there are plenty of non-violent, non-criminal ways to get it. Originally posted by TauwasserIf mugging someone for the sake of feeding your starving family were legally or morally acceptable, you can bet that legislation would not treat such an instance as identical to any other instance of the same crime. That's not to say that it is at the same level as committing such an act out of sheer malice, but it is hardly innocent. Originally posted by TauwasserWell, no, it should never be legal, because it invariably punishes an innocent human life. But we digress from the topic at hand. Originally posted by TauwasserFirst, no pro-lifer will fault a mother for aborting her child if it threatens her own life. However, as above, I must insist that we're veering off the topic. Originally posted by TauwasserYou're oversimplifying the issue in a misleading way. Certainly people being ripped apart in war is a tragedy, but isn't a defenseless fetus being ripped apart within the womb a tragedy as well? As per the statistics I provided above, ~1.5 million unborn children are killed every year, compared to roughly 3000 American soldiers who have been killed in our three year campaign in the Middle East. I am personally anti-war (except in cases of a just war, which I don't necessarily think Iraq could be called), but I recognize the difference between a grown man who has volunteered for the military being killed as opposed to a tiny infant who never asked for that fate. Originally posted by TauwasserPlan B is a bit of a controversial issue because there is not irrefutable proof that it acts to prevent conception rather than expelling an already fertilized egg. If the case is the former, then I can have no objection to it, but as long as it possibly acts to kill a zygote, I would naturally oppose it. However, I don't know if I can support a person who refuses to provide it, only because it is presently a legal drug and, practically speaking, there are plenty of other places to get it anyway. Of course, the idea that a sperm cell is a distinct human life is absurd. Originally posted by TauwasserAnd using that right to kill another human is a dire violation of morality. It makes me want to scream whenever someone says that, if I don't want an abortion, I don't need to get one; of course, these same people are often anti-war, but if that war does not affect them directly then how can they justify opposing it? Originally posted by TauwasserI agree: no woman should be able to impede the fetus' right to live and exist as the distinct human life that it is. Originally posted by TauwasserFine, only people directly involved get to have a say. The woman says that the child dies, while certainly the child can be assumed to want the opposite. So, how can the woman's desire overrule the child's desire to live? Originally posted by TauwasserNot to beat that old dead horse but, honestly, you had your say when you engaged in the act that you know causes pregnancy. It's not as if it blindsided you if you willfully and knowingly had sex. But, in any case, we are totally leaving the original topic of discussion. Like I said, the general abortion debate has been done to death, and this thread is for a more specific topic. |
|||
|
Tauwasser Red Goomba Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6371 days Last view: 6291 days |
| ||
| It's not like the foetus has any feelings or thoughts at all :| It just has no desires at all. Even newborns don't show that much desire to live right away. They need to get fed, get whatever they need in daily life and funnily enough somewhen the process of thinking just starts. It's not like a foetus has experience with anything.
I personally don't think foetuses are human yet. They are officially called human once they're out of the womb and would not die on their own in some hours. And in any case. The desire to live of an already "raised" human seems to be of higher importance than the one of a mere foetus who is not yet ready to think, actively feel etc. Anyhows, you don't like swaying from topic to topic like me, so I'll stop there. Oh yeah, and the figures for Iraq range from 46,000 up to an estimated 942,636 that already died or will die following this war :-/ Only using American Army figures doesn't count So yeah, that would totally be out of interest there.
Anyways, people involved should have a say. And as the whole earth is in fact involved imo there's nothing wrong being pro-war or anti-war here. Germany for instance pays too for things the stoopid Americans destroyed, so don't bother arguing that point. cYa, Tauwasser |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Abortion: whose choice is it? |
| Thread closed |
