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
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
307945
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Okay I have a question.
If Mrs. Mytie was going to have a baby and the doctor said that there was a 99% chance the baby was going to die, and a 50% chance she was going to die giving birth. Would you get it aborted?
I'm getting a little tired of being asked these gruesome scenerios. Let me give some clear cut rules that will help filter out some of them.
1) I would never recommend, condone, or approve of abortion, no matter what the circumstance.
2) I would not 'punish' my wife for going against my wishes and getting an abortion.
3) I would never commit murder, no matter what the circumstance.
Apply those to your scenerio, the answer is obviously no. Use them for all from now on, because my opinion is unlikely to change.
Post by
172996
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
So in EVERY SINGLE SCENERIO IMAGINABLE, you don't think abortion is "right?"
1) I would never recommend, condone, or approve of abortion, no matter what the circumstance.
Yeah.. but what if..
NO
Yeah, but...
NO
What if..
NO
(I can issue pre-emptive 'no's if you need them)
Post by
172996
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
It seems hard to believe that even in the case of a crime victim that you retain your same opinion. That seems a bit harsh. You would rather the victim carry the reminder of that crime against her for the rest of her life?
Women, whom are victems of rape, and who now mother the children that were produced out of that rape, do not look down at thier child, into their innocent eyes, with their smileing loving faces looking up at thier mommy, and think "oh, there's that rape again".
If a woman had such a traumatic experience from the rape that she couldn't bear to look at the innocent child, she needs to put it up for adoption, not kill it.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
172996
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Women, whom are victems of rape, and who now mother the children that were produced out of that rape, do not look down at thier child, into their innocent eyes, with their smileing loving faces looking up at thier mommy, and think "oh, there's that rape again".
And you being a female rape victim know this for a fact?This was a topic from a psychology class I took. Generally, abortion is considered 'more traumatic' than rape. Sending a rape victem in for an abortion is like offering a person in a car accident some cocaine. Rough analogy, but you get the picture. Abortion is a very traumatic event. I do have articles and statistics that go along with children born out of rape, although this sort of thing is very rare. I would like to stress how rare 'abortion because of rape' happens. Again, I don't have the statistics in front of me, and I'm not going to look them up here on a work computer. I'll get them for you when I get home, if you want them.
Even though it is such a statistical minority, it still is a philosophical issue, I will grant you that. However, I still stick with my above observations.
If a woman had such a traumatic experience from the rape that she couldn't bear to look at the innocent child, she needs to put it up for adoption, not kill it.
Maybe she wouldn't want to go through all that a pregnancy entails. That's a lot of stuff to go through. Not to mention hospital stays/delivery and doctor visits that would have to be paid for just to give the child up for adoption.There are agencies and charities that would be willing to pay these fees for you as an alternative to abortion, so money is a non issue. The 'physical' part of it is a tiny price to pay for the woman compared to the death that the child faces. Imagine for a moment that this 'fetus' or 'zygote' could be an actual human life. Really wrap your head around that. Take it in, and try to empathize with that fact. Now, go back and reread some of the reasons for having an abortion and see if they make sense to you. A hospital stay? Seriously? 3 days in the hospital are trivial compared to 75 years of life cut off from someone else.
3 days is a lot too. My son was born in the bedroom of our old house. After we cleaned him up and put a diaper on him my wife and I went to taco bell, then grocery shopping. He was literally 2 hours old, and we were carrying him around safeway price shopping in the canned food isle.
Post by
172996
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Is there ever a point in which having your one year old child 'put down' should be an option? Like, if there is were a clinic that specialized in infant 'removal', would that be ok... some of the time? What if the kid has severe autism? What if the kid is in a really really poor family? What if his parents both die in a car accident and he has no family? What if... What if... What if... Of course the answer is always going to be 'no'. So, what is the difference between THAT and abortion? In my eyes, nothing. You can imagine how horrified I am by the thought that abortion happens, ever.
If the entire world were on the brink of destruction, and I could save it all by approving of the abortion of 1 baby, who I didn't even know, who had a 0% chance of surviving pregnancy, and whos preganancy had a 100% chance of killing the mother, and all the leaders of all the countries in the world would agree to peace if I did, and every single human being on earth got down the thier knees and begged me to approve of this one abortion.. .my answer... would be... drum roll.... NO. One murder is not justified, ever.
Post by
bwirum
Thank you for your input. I would encourage you to open by answering the OP questions.
To answer your question: I have two living children: one born before Jacob died, and one born after.
I understand where your views are coming from. All of this is understandable. My view is that society goes through such great lengths to protect human life, it is shocking that they are so quick to promote some of its death.
I tried to post this yesterday, swiftly after your response, but got the "wowhead is undergoing...." message, so this post does not take any posts after the quoted one into consideration:
And here is where this whole discussion is flawed.
First off, I won't answer the OP questions due to the fact that I feel all the questions and the form in which they are asked sways them in the pro-life direction, and no answer will be an appropriate one. Maybe you should have formed one part and a pro-choice spokesman should have formed the other?
Secondly, you (not YOU you, but pro-lifers you) lay it out as if this is something PROMOTED. I don't see it like that. I see it as a last solution.
Lastly, I'm not sure discussions of this kind does well in a setting like this. There is way too much room to go off the path of healthy discussion, as seen many times, and too much room to not lay out the whole message at once. Example being the post I replied to last, where you in later posts have said the child to be a toddler, unable to tend for himself at all, therefore doomed to die regardless. Vastly different scenario.
I respect your point of view, I would NEVER dream of imposing an abortion on you or your wife, regardless of situation. I am pro-CHOICE, not pro-abortion.
And I've read the whole thread now. I don't really like the direction of the thread (not the general discussion), so I'm going to end my involvement here, and I'm sorry if that seems abrupt, but... well, I don't think I could add much that hasn't been said, or say much more before falling victim to my own words - swaying from the pinned discussion at hand.
It has been a good and thoughtfilling read though. Thanks and good luck all.
Post by
Patty
MyTie, you seem to be going into a debate about Euthanasia here....or at least, what some people interpret Euthanasia to be.
And I agree with Bwirum, the questions are very biased in my opinion.
Post by
MyTie
@bwirum-
Again, thanks for your input. The part of your post that I would like to address is the biases in the OP based on the fact that I am obviously pro life. I cannot deny that the post is obviously slanted, as it would be if any individual wrote it. You are right though, that it would need two people with opposing views. For the sake of convienience though, we ask that the OP questions be used anyway. I used the same types of questions used in this topic in professional debates.
Another point you bring up is the fact that this forum is not a place where this kind of discussion "does well". I disagree. This is where I feel the most comfortable discussing these issues and topics. So, for me, it works better than anything else.
The last item I would like to point out is the difference between 'pro-choice' and 'pro-abortion'. I understand the point you are making. You don't agree with abortion, but also don't agree with a law against it. Normally, I would agree with limiting government's interference on ANY choices that the citizens want to make.... unless... those choices hurt someone else. I believe that abortion MIGHT be hurting someone else. Until we know for sure, we should be safe and not allow the choice to do that, as we don't allow people the choice to do any array of other things that hurt other people... theft, arson, kidnapping, harassment, etc... Until we can be scientifically SURE that the unborn are not alive, then we should respect thier inaliable right to that life. So, the word 'choice' may be misleading. If it is hurting another person, then it wouldn't be a defensible choice, just like a jury would not aquit a murderer because they believe in his ability to 'choose' to murder. Would those jurists be 'pro-murder' or 'pro-choice'. The line is very grey there. However, you are right. The "wordage" in abortion debates is a debate all in itself.
Post by
325248
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
who are u to judge whats right and wrong
/sigh
This is getting repetitious.... please read my views before questioning them. I have clearly said that my views are the way they are because we cannot know whether abortion is right or wrong. So, I'm playing it safe.
Maybe I misunderstood you. Are you literally asking who I am? I'm MyTie, and no, I'm not the supreme judge of right and wrong. Apparantly, nobody is (at least, last time I checked), but that probably won't stop us from debating the premise.
I would encourage you to follow the OP questions, instead of directing criticisms at individuals, which can lead to flames.
Post by
bwirum
@bwirum-
Again, thanks for your input. The part of your post that I would like to address is the biases in the OP based on the fact that I am obviously pro life. I cannot deny that the post is obviously slanted, as it would be if any individual wrote it. You are right though, that it would need two people with opposing views. For the sake of convienience though, we ask that the OP questions be used anyway. I used the same types of questions used in this topic in professional debates.
Another point you bring up is the fact that this forum is not a place where this kind of discussion "does well". I disagree. This is where I feel the most comfortable discussing these issues and topics. So, for me, it works better than anything else.
The last item I would like to point out is the difference between 'pro-choice' and 'pro-abortion'. I understand the point you are making. You don't agree with abortion, but also don't agree with a law against it. Normally, I would agree with limiting government's interference on ANY choices that the citizens want to make.... unless... those choices hurt someone else. I believe that abortion MIGHT be hurting someone else. Until we know for sure, we should be safe and not allow the choice to do that, as we don't allow people the choice to do any array of other things that hurt other people... theft, arson, kidnapping, harassment, etc... Until we can be scientifically SURE that the unborn are not alive, then we should respect thier inaliable right to that life. So, the word 'choice' may be misleading. If it is hurting another person, then it wouldn't be a defensible choice, just like a jury would not aquit a murderer because they believe in his ability to 'choose' to murder. Would those jurists be 'pro-murder' or 'pro-choice'. The line is very grey there. However, you are right. The "wordage" in abortion debates is a debate all in itself.
I am not going to go in more depth on this topic now, but I'd like to commend you for keeping the topic as civil as you (and others) have managed.
I am not questioning your ability to keep this in line with the topic at hand, but as you have seen a couple to few times during this thread, there has been (uninformed/unwilling?) attempts at going off the line. This is why I don't particularly like these sorts of discussions/debates on internet fora. They sway easily.
I'd like to bring up a separate point though; I do think that the lengths of which some people are willing to go to defend their stand are beyond preposterous (I am thinking about real life lengths here, not forum-discussionwise). This comes about in many debates and discussions, but pro-life/choice seems particularly bad. Along with religion. Strangely the two often also seem connected.
I accept and understand your point of view, as I expect you to accept and understand mine. If this stand was to be used in more settings in life, there would be less conflict and war.
Post by
109094
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
wolf831
After reading this thread, I will enter into the discussion by answering the OP questions, even though I do agree it would have been a better idea to have a representative of the opposing viewpoint also pose questions in the OP.
If YES (pro-life stance):
What about medical problems?
Medical problems concerning the health of the mother I assume. I have always been around the medical community, from when I was raised (father is a doctor, mother a nurse) to my current job in the medical industry, and have come to realize that there is no such thing as an insurmountable problem or an impossible cause, therefore even if the mother's health is at risk, the chance of injury to the mother is not equal to the assured fact that the child will die if an abortion is preformed sucessfully. Those two factors do not balance out.
What about if a baby has no chance?
As stated above, there is no such thing as "no chance" in the medical world. I have seen a good number of "medical miracles" where certain individuals have claimed that no hope for any recovery exists in a certain situation, only for the subject to have a full recovery to a normal life.
What about cases of incest or rape?
In cases like this, if the mother truly cannot or does not wish to support the child, the child should be offered up for adoption after having been carried to term. The mental side effects of giving away a child via adoption are minimal when compared to the devestating effects that an abortion can have.
What about if the baby is guranteed to have a bad life?
This situation can be related to the question above. If the child would be in a bad family situation, or the mother simply cannot provide for it, it should be put up for adoption. If the claim of a "bad life" is based on a mental or phsyical deficiency of some sort on the part of the child, that is not a strong enough basis for that claim. I know many individuals with such deficiencies that leave very full and happy lives, so it is definitely a possibility
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.