This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Abortion Debate
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
What else would a baby be?
A unique individual. Are you simple a combination of your mother and your father, or are you more than the sum of your parts?
Post by
MyTie
Should people be allowed to choose to kill their children?
Post by
Lordplatypus
Currently it's about Pro-Life vs. Anti-Life (Not the thing darksied wants, a different Anti-Life). Anti-Life states that murder of children is ok. Pro-Life Doesn't
That's the Pro-Life POV
Currently it's about Anti-Choice and Pro-Choice it's about Whether people have choices or not.
That'sthe Pro-Choice POV.
Personally. If someone's got a baby, and it's past the part where it's semisentient. Then it's too far for abortion, but before that, it's perfectly fine.
Post by
MyTie
Religion has nothing to do with my stance.
I don't understand the arbitrary line people draw in the pregnancy timetable and decide that it is OK to kill before that line, but not after. I don't understand who has the authority to draw that line.
Therefore, I reject the line. Therefore, the unborn baby is as much a real person to me as any child, and a child is as much a real person to me as I am. Abortion therefore is murder.
I wouldn't murder my own child. I wouldn't do it to save every living soul on Earth, including their own life. Why?
Because I don't murder my own children.
Post by
MyTie
Ok. To state this as politely as I can, there's 32 pages for you to refresh yourself on. When you are done reading, let me know and we'll talk about it.
Post by
MyTie
Legality is no defense for immorality.
My child died before birth, so I have an emotional connection to the subject.
Encouraging men not to be involved in the issue runs counter to encouraging men to be a part of their kid's lives.
If no arbitrary line can be drawn, nor trusted, when we can definitively say "this is when life begins", then we MUST choose between possibly infringing on a woman's choice, or possibly infringing on a baby's life. I choose to infringe on a woman's choice. Prove to me that an unborn baby is less than a baby, and then I'll consider changing my views.
Post by
MyTie
Why don't you prove to me than an organism with no heartbeat somehow matters more than a (usually) full-grown woman with a (usually) fully functioning brain?
I would never weigh the value of one human life OVER another.
Post by
MyTie
What do you think you're doing by saying abortion should never, ever be an option even if the mother would die?
Certainly not saying that we should go ahead and kill the baby. If someone's life hangs in the balance, NO human should have the power to murder someone to save someone else. If someone, through the course of nature, is doomed, unless I condone murder, that doesn't compel me to condone murder. I refuse to weigh one person against the other and make that choice, and I refuse to approve of anyone else making that choice. I am anti-choice. Period.
Post by
Magician22773
If you want to debate abortion only in the case of the mothers life being at stake, then that is almost a different topic.
I will agree, that is a "choice". You are choosing the life of your child or your own life (or your spouses).
MyTie has said what his choice there would be, and I can respect that. I have said before, that I honestly cannot say how I would react. It is almost too deep of a question for me to answer hypothetically.
But that is really not what the majority of pro-abortion support is about. You want to "choose" if and when you have a child, and circumstances be dammed.
Post by
MyTie
Self defense isn't murder.
Back when slavery was legal in the US, what it someone's choice to own slaves or not? Was that morally acceptable?
Post by
Gone
I don't really like that any time somebody comes out with a radical pro life point of view, they are instantly demonized as an oppressive a**hole.
To me abortion is like slavery, it's a massive injustice that's recognized nation wide as a right everybody is entitled to. Just another example of people victimizing those weaker than them, more often than not as a means of convenience.
Post by
MyTie
Self defense isn't murder.
Neither is getting an abortion when your life is at risk.
One could call that self defense.
So, then, tossing your toddler to a lion that was chasing you is also self defense? Amirite?
Post by
MyTie
It seems rather illogical to me that the murder of an innocent person is self defense.
Post by
Magician22773
Self defense isn't murder.
Neither is getting an abortion when your life is at risk.
One could call that self defense.
So are you saying that you support abortion only if the mothers health is at stake?
Because your last reply to me seemed to indicate otherwise.
Which is a person's right. To choose whether or not to allow something to live inside them.
IMHO, you cannot use cases where the mothers life is at question as a basis to support unnecessary abortion as well. They should be a separate issue. One is an honest to God moral choice....do I take one life to save another? That subject is at least, debatable. Acknowledging that you have to make a horrible choice to possibly save yourself of your spouse is something that I could at least understand.
But terminating a life based only on convenience, or inconvenience to me is absurd. You don't want to be a parent, fine..there are many alternatives. But not being willing to carry a child into this world because it might upset your lifestyle for 9 months...that is absurd.
Look, women always want to say "But you are a MAN! You don't know how it affects us."
If you told me I had to give up 9 months of my life to save the life of a child that was a complete stranger, I would. You pick the manner of "suffering" I have to endure. 9 months of prison....lock me up. 9 months of military service.....sign me up. You want to strap a 40 pound weight around my waist, inject me with a bunch of hormones to mess with my mental state, and then torture me in the most painful manner possible for 12 hours at the end....I am fine with that too. And I would do that for a child that I have never even met. And you are telling me it is too much to ask for a woman to sacrifice 9 months of her life for a child that they actively participated in the creation of. That is pure
selfishness
.
Post by
Magician22773
So..uh...
yeah
....Pro Choice at its finest.
Post by
Skreeran
Aye, when it comes to something like abortion, where people are interfering with a woman's right of choice, it's always going to be an issue.The question the be asked, though, is "Do women have that right to choice?"
If a fetus actually is a baby, then I would say that the baby--a person--has a right to life that overrides a woman's right to choice.
/Shrug Until it's proven 100%, I just go with what we have now, which is a choice of the mother.But you can't "prove it 100%." It's a matter of philosophy and ethics, not science. Science can't tell you at what week a person becomes a person. I'm really only comfortable with early-week abortion; before the 6th week (when the fetus' heart begins to beat on its own) if possible.
Besides, if it's an unknown whether or not you're killing a person, shouldn't you default to the choice that loses less life?
Post by
Adamsm
But you can't "prove it 100%." It's a matter of philosophy and ethics, not science. Science can't tell you at what week a person becomes a person. I'm really only comfortable with early-week abortion; before the 6th week (when the fetus' heart begins to beat on its own) if possible.
Besides, if it's an unknown whether or not you're killing a person, shouldn't you default to the choice that loses less life?
To me, no not really. But then again, it's not my choice anyways; it is up to the mother and possibly the father if he's still in the picture.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
The thing with abortion, is that if you don't believe it is a person, it is a women's rights issue. If you do believe it's a person, it's a children's rights issue. There is no person who is pro-life who believes that they are telling a woman what to do to her own body. Every person who is pro-life believes they are protecting a child from a parent who is choosing to kill it. That's why there will never be an accord between the two sides. No person who is pro-choice would be able to agree that a woman who wanted to kill a 2-3 year old was making a decision that was her right to make because it was a "mother's rights" issue, because they are looking at someone killing a separate person, and no person's personal rights include the ability to take a child's life, except maybe in self defense. For someone pro-life, the claim that it is a woman's rights issue is the same- they don't agree that someone's personal rights include the right to kill others (except perhaps self-defense/life of mother).
Even though I believe that it is a child, I don't call people who are pro-choice "disgusting" in their belief because I really, truly believe that you don't think it is a child. I find that very sad, and it's hard for me to understand how someone could not, but I don't for a second think that people are intentionally campaigning to kill kids to make their lives less complicated. I understand why you believe what you believe, and am not so stubborn as to pretend that your point of view is that it's ok to kill children, even if it makes my point of view sound better.
I know that people who are pro-choice understand that people who are pro-life genuinely, completely, believe that they are keeping parents from killing living children. You don't have to agree, you can absolutely feel that you don't understand how they could classify them as children when they're so early in development, but please don't insult peoples intelligence by saying that you think that pro-life people think that they just can arbitrarily control women's own bodies, because you know that's not what its about for them.
So often, people are so involved in the mud-slinging and trying to paint the other side as being lunatics, that they ignore the fact that the only real disagreement is whether or not it is a child, and if you believed what the other side believed as to whether or not it was, then their actions would be 100% understandable and what you would be doing as well. The only real debate is whether or not it is a child and why- any argument about women's rights has no real impact because it's an argument that only makes sense if it is not a child, and if they didn't believe it was a child, then you wouldn't have to convince them of whether or not you had the right to terminate anyway. Any argument about children's rights has no impact on you because you don't think of it as a child, and if you did they wouldn't have to convince you that killing it was wrong.
If people want to debate this subject, and actually get someplace rather than blindly and dogmatically yelling things that sound ridiculous to the other side, then they have to accept that all of the further actions and beliefs taken by both sides would be pretty much completely normal and correct if they were correct about whether or not it is a child. If people want to say that the way in which they define a child makes no sense, and this classifications is X, Y or Z, then that's a much more valid argument than "They want to kill children" or "They want to control my body," because neither of those are accurate. That's why, in a pro-life argument, the gender of the person doesn't matter, because a man who wants to protect a child is no less right than a woman who wants to protect a child.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##ElhonnaDS##DELIM##
Post by
Skreeran
Edit: Nice post Elhonna. Makes mine rather superfluous, but I'll keep it anyway... :P
But you can't "prove it 100%." It's a matter of philosophy and ethics, not science. Science can't tell you at what week a person becomes a person. I'm really only comfortable with early-week abortion; before the 6th week (when the fetus' heart begins to beat on its own) if possible.
Besides, if it's an unknown whether or not you're killing a person, shouldn't you default to the choice that loses less life?
To me, no not really. But then again, it's not my choice anyways; it is up to the mother and possibly the father if he's still in the picture.Again, I still don't agree. Mom can't decide to kill her baby after it's born. Why not? It hasn't had any experiences or real life yet, what will it even be losing by dying? The answer is it's life.
People
are protected by laws, independent of their parent's wishes. I don't belong to my mother, because I am a person.
I don't think all abortions involve killing people (because I don't think a soul is injected at conception), but I think that if there is any question of whether or not a fetus is a person, it's fair for lawmakers to write laws for their protection.
Post by
Magician22773
Oddly enough, several Federal Laws actually recognize, even protect, an unborn child.
The Innocent Child Protection Act, passed in Congress in 2000 by a vote of 417-0, states:
It shall be unlawful for any authority, military or civil, of the United States, a State, or any district, possession, commonwealth or other territory under the authority of the United States to carry out a sentence of death on a woman while she carries a child in utero,
The principle argument presented in the Innocent Child Protection Act was, carrying out the execution would take
two
human lives, including one convicted of no crime.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, 2004,
recognizes that when a criminal attacks a pregnant woman, and injures or kills both her and her unborn child, he has claimed
two
human victims.
The Supreme Court also has ruled, in
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 1989
, that Missouri's statute that says
"the life of each human being begins at conception," that "unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being,"
was Constitutional
Roe v. Wade never discredits that a child is not a child, it only give women a court protected ability to kill that child.
For other purposes, including criminal acts, and death penalties, it both protects, and recognizes that a child in the womb is indeed, a child. What a person "thinks", should be carefully scrutinized, if you are weighing that as justification. Not to long ago, this country did not "think" blacks were human either.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.