Abortion

[Skeptical]

The irony: my inability to distinguish between the regularly encountered form of idiocy and the particularly irritating brand of idiocy that trolls employ results in me contributing idiocy of my own.

Don't worry, your elitist [cabbage] isn't wasted on us simpletons. We get more irritated with you than we let on.

 

I was poking fun at myself.

 

And I'll admit it: I have very little tolerance for what I consider stupidity. People have been coddled (myself included) by feel-good-television and well-meaning parents, who have taught them that not only do their views need to be tolerated, they also need to be respected or agreed with. I have no idea where this paradigm of compromise and extreme tolerance comes from, but deny it with every fiber of my being.

 

Have the strength to stand up for your (logically reached) conclusions about the world, and fewer of us will need to allow others to speak for us.

[obfuscator]

Just like you deny the increasing tolerance towards drugs, homosexuals, pornography, and many things that have become far more commonplace, right?

[sees_all1]

I was poking fun at myself.

 

No, you're being infuriating.

 

It also appears that you're too elitist, ignorant, and/or stupid to grasp the simple reason why the Catholic Church would never support an act it deems to be "intrinsically evil" (by the way, the answer is staring you in the face), or the reason that the people that champion limited government would want the most basic of rights protected.

Government shouldn't care about what you do in your bedroom, so long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others (you know, like an inalienable right to life).

[Zierro]

I'm not going to state my opinion, but a few months ago i found out that Lil Kim was impregnated by biggie smalls but aborted the baby. think about that one.

 

Good point. You just made me militantly pro-choice.

[Assume Nothing]

Random question in this thread - Is it killing/murder, to not save someone's life, when you have the ability to?

[sees_all1]

Random question in this thread - Is it killing/murder, to not save someone's life, when you have the ability to?

 

Really depends on the situation. For instance, say someone has an advanced form of cancer. They're given two options - an expensive trial drug with a 2% probability of curing their cancer, or hospice. Say the family decides hospice, and three months later that individual dies. Technically, you had the ability to save their life, but didn't. No, choosing hospice was not killing/murder. They died from cancer, not from with holding "lifesaving" treatment.

 

Scenarios like this vary wildly and there is no universal answer for all of them.

[meol]

Random question in this thread - Is it killing/murder, to not save someone's life, when you have the ability to?

On a moral level, I feel it is wrong to let someone die if you have the ability and are realistically faced with the opportunity. It is still not murder, since it lacks some of the "evil" elements of murder, but I still see it (personally) as a crime, generally speaking. (Of course there will be exceptions, but you don't build an argument on exceptions)

[Skeptical]

Just like you deny the increasing tolerance towards drugs, homosexuals, pornography, and many things that have become far more commonplace, right?

 

That didn't read as sarcasm, but I'm uncertain since I've never denied any of those things.

[Saru Inc]

Well, all I can say is, sometimes I troll irl by impregnating women purposefully, without their knowledge. Then, I tell them the next day and say this:

 

 

"I am not paying for that baby, I have provided you with only fake information, so you cannot file a paternity suit. What will you do?" And I then provide them with a pamphlet to an abortion clinic, and a pamphlet to an ob-gyn. (insinuating that they will keep it)

 

 

Over 600 women impregnated so far, all in the name of science.

 

 

 

 

-------------------

 

 

To hop onto the debate train over to seriousbusinessville, I will say my following thoughts about the topic of abortion. I may have already stated them, but I forgot.

 

 

- I am 100% pro life, down to my core.

- I will always vote pro choice on a ballot. Reason being, I am not a woman, I should not be able to decide for a woman. The same, I would not want a woman voting on my behalf for anything like that.

- The reason why I'm again abortion, while it is full of trivialities, the main reason is you don't know what the baby will turn out to be. I see no justice, nor purpose in killing off a soul, before they have a chance to grow.

- I do not, and never will, actively protest abortion clinics.

- I will counsel my female counterparts on not getting an abortion, however it is up to them.

- For people who say an abortion is infanticide, go back to dictionary school and start writing gullible on the ceiling. You can't mess with these minds. 8)

-However, and yes, this is contradictory to my previous statements, if a child is putting the mother in serious danger, and there is less than a %50 chance the baby will survive, I would approve of the abortion, provided it is not a late term abortion. (aren't those illegal? Not sure. )

- If a baby will be born a vegetable, or as I saw in Law and Order SVU earlier (made me sad :( ) a baby that will be in such constant pain for a year and than die, as much as I would want to just hold the baby while I had it, I would still approve the abortion.

- So maybe I'm not a %100 pro life, but for the majority of the stuff (hole in condom/no condom/ rape/etc) ways of becoming pregnant, I am completely pro life, and will not falter.

- Please do not confuse me with people like my mom, who go out and make stupid signs "abortion is murder" yes, because the people in the clinic already, haven't considered that.

[Saru Inc]

Pathetic? Wow. No need for flaming their bro, I mean... Seriously. This is the world, as we know it. People are going to disagree with you all the time, and you're going to have to live with it, because we disagree, doesn't make me pathetic, nor you. And if you read what I said, I said this is my opinion, but *herp derp* I'll vote pro choice on the ballot. But seriously, take a bottle of roofies and chill, just putting my opinion out there.

And way to go out to an extreme on the rape argument, I would like to see that held up in court.

[Range_This11]

[adds Abortion topic to do not reply to list]

Chalk that one up with religion and you've got yourself a successful OT strategy :wink:

[Dupin]

[adds Abortion topic to do not reply to list]

Chalk that one up with religion and you've got yourself a successful OT strategy :wink:

And politics, and homosexuality...oh wait, all of OT is a "troll topic". The solution: reverse troll. Watch this:

 

Saru, your completely backwords.

[Alg]

And politics, and homosexuality...oh wait, all of OT is a "troll topic". The solution: reverse troll. Watch this:

Even... Even Things That Annoy the Hell out of You?

 

My world is shattered. :sad:

[Zierro]

Pathetic? Wow. No need for flaming their bro, I mean... Seriously. This is the world, as we know it. People are going to disagree with you all the time, and you're going to have to live with it, because we disagree, doesn't make me pathetic, nor you. And if you read what I said, I said this is my opinion, but *herp derp* I'll vote pro choice on the ballot. But seriously, take a bottle of roofies and chill, just putting my opinion out there.

And way to go out to an extreme on the rape argument, I would like to see that held up in court.

 

Disregarding the whole flame thing, I'm curious to know your reasoning on why rape doesn't warrant abortion. I quite agree with the point he was making, even though they might be extreme hypotheticals.

[sees_all1]

Disregarding the whole flame thing, I'm curious to know your reasoning on why rape doesn't warrant abortion. I quite agree with the point he was making, even though they might be extreme hypotheticals.

 

Simply put, two wrongs don't make a right. Killing a child in the womb won't make the pain of rape go away. Also, the belief that every person has a right to life doesn't leave any exceptions.

[Zierro]

Killing a child in the womb won't make the pain of rape go away.

 

The reason of the abortion isn't really to "make the pain go away". It's because the mother doesn't want to give birth to a rapist's child and raise them on her own, she is not financially/mentally ready yet or simply does not want a child - even though the pregnancy has already been imposed on her against her will, and to cut any ties to that miserable memory she can (in that case I guess it is a matter of making the pain go away).

 

Also, the belief that every person has a right to life doesn't leave any exceptions.

 

Why should there not be exceptions to that rule? What if it's a question of a sick demented serial killer's life or three innocent children? Is it wrong to take his life, even though it would directly be securing three innocent ones? It's not as black and white as killing = bad, not killing = good. I believe that killing is inherently wrong, however, under certain circumstances, it is definitely the lesser of two evils. In the case of abortion, it sounds much worse to force her to endure more trauma than she's just been through than for her to make the choice to abort her own rape baby because of the reasons I listed above.

 

Also, whether it is a person that is entitled to the same rights as a fully grown woman yet is questionable. Their human rights are clashing, but the difference is that the woman has hopes, dreams, friends, memories, sentience, the capability of suffering, etc., whereas the fetus isn't even aware yet. The woman is already suffering enough, the least that could be done is that she gets the right to diminish it.

 

- I am 100% pro life, down to my core.

- I will always vote pro choice on a ballot. Reason being, I am not a woman, I should not be able to decide for a woman. The same, I would not want a woman voting on my behalf for anything like that.

- The reason why I'm again abortion, while it is full of trivialities, the main reason is you don't know what the baby will turn out to be. I see no justice, nor purpose in killing off a soul, before they have a chance to grow.

- I do not, and never will, actively protest abortion clinics.

- I will counsel my female counterparts on not getting an abortion, however it is up to them.

 

You sound like you are pro-choice, but that you would try to convince a woman that her choice should be to keep it.

[sees_all1]

Killing a child in the womb won't make the pain of rape go away.

 

The reason of the abortion isn't really to "make the pain go away". It's because the mother doesn't want to give birth to a rapist's child and raise them on her own, she is not financially/mentally ready yet or simply does not want a child - even though the pregnancy has already been imposed on her against her will, and to cut any ties to that miserable memory she can (in that case I guess it is a matter of making the pain go away).

No one is forcing her to raise the child. I understand the concerns, especially in this rare and terrible situation. The child is not at fault though, so it should not be punished.

 

Also, the belief that every person has a right to life doesn't leave any exceptions.

 

Why should there not be exceptions to that rule? What if it's a question of a sick demented serial killer's life or three innocent children? Is it wrong to take his life, even though it would directly be securing three innocent ones? It's not as black and white as killing = bad, not killing = good. I believe that killing is inherently wrong, however, under certain circumstances, it is definitely the lesser of two evils. In the case of abortion, it sounds much worse to force her to endure more trauma than she's just been through than for her to make the choice to abort her own rape baby because of the reasons I listed above.

Its a question of intent. I believe that the death penalty is wrong, because the intent isn't to save people, its to end a life. The intent of your hypothetical situation is to save three innocent ones, instead of taking the demented serial killer's life.

Say the demented serial killer were holding a gun at their heads, and you had a gun. If you shoot him in the head, they'll be safe. If you shoot him in the chest, they'll be in harms way. If you shoot at his hand, you might miss. What do you do? You keep them safe, you go for the head shot. If they die, its an unfortunate consequence, but its not the intent.

 

Also, whether it is a person that is entitled to the same rights as a fully grown woman yet is questionable. Their human rights are clashing, but the difference is that the woman has hopes, dreams, friends, memories, sentience, the capability of suffering, etc., whereas the fetus isn't even aware yet. The woman is already suffering enough, the least that could be done is that she gets the right to diminish it.

This is a core issue. When do humans get their rights? I believe that a person's inalienable rights from God are granted once a person is formed in the womb - at conception. Yes, the convenience of the woman and the rights of her child may be diametrically opposed, but one "right" supersedes the other.

[Nenga]

- I am 100% pro life, down to my core.

- I will always vote pro choice on a ballot. Reason being, I am not a woman, I should not be able to decide for a woman. The same, I would not want a woman voting on my behalf for anything like that.

- The reason why I'm again abortion, while it is full of trivialities, the main reason is you don't know what the baby will turn out to be. I see no justice, nor purpose in killing off a soul, before they have a chance to grow.

- I do not, and never will, actively protest abortion clinics.

- I will counsel my female counterparts on not getting an abortion, however it is up to them.

 

You sound like you are pro-choice, but that you would try to convince a woman that her choice should be to keep it.

 

You know how it is.

 

Pro life(rs?) are anti abortion.

Pro choice(rs?) are not anti life, rather see the person has the right to chose between the options.

 

Pro lifers usually see pro choicers as completely on the other side of the fence, while in reality, we're in the middle of the yard.

 

Also, the belief that every person has a right to life doesn't leave any exceptions.

 

Why should there not be exceptions to that rule? What if it's a question of a sick demented serial killer's life or three innocent children? Is it wrong to take his life, even though it would directly be securing three innocent ones? It's not as black and white as killing = bad, not killing = good. I believe that killing is inherently wrong, however, under certain circumstances, it is definitely the lesser of two evils. In the case of abortion, it sounds much worse to force her to endure more trauma than she's just been through than for her to make the choice to abort her own rape baby because of the reasons I listed above.

Its a question of intent. I believe that the death penalty is wrong, because the intent isn't to save people, its to end a life. The intent of your hypothetical situation is to save three innocent ones, instead of taking the demented serial killer's life.

Say the demented serial killer were holding a gun at their heads, and you had a gun. If you shoot him in the head, they'll be safe. If you shoot him in the chest, they'll be in harms way. If you shoot at his hand, you might miss. What do you do? You keep them safe, you go for the head shot. If they die, its an unfortunate consequence, but its not the intent..

 

What if this guy killed your mother and it was clear that he was not sorry for what he had done. Would you still say he had a right to live? Father? Burnt down your house while you were out killing all your family inside? There comes a point where saying everything has a right to live doesn't answer it. Sure, it's not going to happen, right now you're saying yes he deserves a right to live, but if that really happened you'd want him to [bleep]ing die by your own hand.

 

But we're not here to debate the death penalty.

 

An unborn fetus, the woman does not want the child, she doesn't want to raise it, she doesn't want to go through with the pregnancy, she doesn't have the money to pay for all the hospital bills, she does not have the money to care for it. Who are you to tell her she has to do this thing that she in no way wants to be apart of?

 

Like i've said before, my big reason for being pro choice is because I think the woman has the right to choose what happens to her body, not some pile of cells. In a perfect pro life world, would the mother be jailed for not treating the baby right in the womb? Or if it dies? would that be considered murder, after all if life begins the moment the child is conceived then the woman is killing the child right?

 

What about a skin cell, that's alive too, people who suntan are abusing their skin cells, why not make a law against suntanning? Yeah right now you're saying a law against suntanning is ridiculous, and justifying why it is ridiculous. But if it's truly a dumb idea, why do you need to defend yourself and come up with reasons it is so? Why not just trust others to see it as you do? Ever wonder why there is never any pro choicers protesting? Because our way of thinking makes sense, we don't feel the need to defend the last breath of a dying generation.

[sees_all1]

What if this guy killed your mother and it was clear that he was not sorry for what he had done. Would you still say he had a right to live? Father? Burnt down your house while you were out killing all your family inside? There comes a point where saying everything has a right to live doesn't answer it. Sure, it's not going to happen, right now you're saying yes he deserves a right to live, but if that really happened you'd want him to [bleep]ing die by your own hand.

If my family was murdered, and I faced the murderer in a one on one situation (as unlikely the scenario), I'd probably want to pound him to a pulp. That said, I pray to God that never occurs, and if it does, that He'll give me the strength to get through that. But that's about as personal as I'll get with you, because it isn't relevant to the debate at hand.

 

 

An unborn fetus, the woman does not want the child, she doesn't want to raise it, she doesn't want to go through with the pregnancy, she doesn't have the money to pay for all the hospital bills, she does not have the money to care for it. Who are you to tell her she has to do this thing that she in no way wants to be apart of?

What do you say to a woman that carries her child to term, then flushes it down the toilet? Sorry, you're two weeks too late to legally kill your baby?

Anyhow, there are more than 2000 crisis pregnancy centers in the United States, most of which do not receive federal funding. If she doesn't have the money or want to pay for the bill, they will help her. They will help her all the way until she puts her child up for adoption or until she no longer needs assistance.

 

In a perfect pro life world, would the mother be jailed for not treating the baby right in the womb? Or if it dies? would that be considered murder, after all if life begins the moment the child is conceived then the woman is killing the child right?

In a perfect pro-life world, every child conceived would have a chance at life. In a perfect pro-life world, there would be no want or need for abortion. There would be no stigma attached to being pregnant, no stress or pressures from society.

 

What about a skin cell, that's alive too, people who suntan are abusing their skin cells, why not make a law against suntanning? Yeah right now you're saying a law against suntanning is ridiculous, and justifying why it is ridiculous. But if it's truly a dumb idea, why do you need to defend yourself and come up with reasons it is so? Why not just trust others to see it as you do? Ever wonder why there is never any pro choicers protesting? Because our way of thinking makes sense, we don't feel the need to defend the last breath of a dying generation.

Put a skin cell in a uterus and tell me if it forms a human being in 9 months.

Also, there is a huge difference between a person tanning themselves and a person taking the life of another individual.

And your counter-protest point is flat out wrong. Of course, people without strong convictions would never know that, because they'd never see it first hand. About a month ago I was praying in front of a local abortion facility, and in an hour I'd been called a dozen names I'm not allowed to post here. Or you could look video posted a couple pages back.

[Saru Inc]

Pathetic? Wow. No need for flaming their bro, I mean... Seriously. This is the world, as we know it. People are going to disagree with you all the time, and you're going to have to live with it, because we disagree, doesn't make me pathetic, nor you. And if you read what I said, I said this is my opinion, but *herp derp* I'll vote pro choice on the ballot. But seriously, take a bottle of roofies and chill, just putting my opinion out there.

And way to go out to an extreme on the rape argument, I would like to see that held up in court.

 

Disregarding the whole flame thing, I'm curious to know your reasoning on why rape doesn't warrant abortion. I quite agree with the point he was making, even though they might be extreme hypotheticals.

 

 

Well, I don't see the point in explaining, simply because it's from a religious viewpoint. I believe every fetus is created for a purpose, if a woman becomes pregnant, that fetus has a purpose. Naturally this will seem nonsensical to most, since lets face it, many many babies die in the womb. Perhaps however, maybe that was their purpose. I, sure as hell do not know. Also, not counting husbands raping their wives, or vice versa, the vast majority of criminal rapes do not result in pregnancy. This of course is due to teh fact that with DNA testing now, the rapists don't want to get caught. But that's more of a "fun fact," then a debatable point.

 

 

But again mind you, I will vote pro choice in any election, because I don't feel that men should be able to vote for women matters. It's between them and God.

[D Jay99]

You are all acting like a fetus is a really special thing, but say the mother aborts it because she doesn't want it in her life at that moment, be it because she was raped or just because she doesn't think she can take care of the child properly. Who are you to force her to carry out the pregnancy for an unwanted baby, when she can in almost all cases just concieve another when she is ready for it and wants one? Plus, the only thing a fetus has is potential, the mother probably already has a life and a job and maybe no money etc etc. Having a baby will screw her life up for at least 9 months, more if she doesn't choose to put it up for adoption.

 

Also, I have no idea why god was brought into this at all. As you might know, not everyone believes in god, so you shouldn't force principles based on a religion onto everyone else even though they do not believe in it. I understand you want to convince them that not abortion the fetus is better, but you're not authorized to impose this on everyone else. Which is why the mother should have the last vote in this, it is her life that will be affected and fetuses can be concieved at any time, if she does believe in god she can always choose to keep it anyway.

[obfuscator]

We can make one at any time, so let's throw it away!

[Dupin]

He said pretty clearly that he wouldn't force his opinions on someone else, and would vote pro-choice.

 

But Saru, what if the baby's purpose was to be aborted? If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, and the fetus is aborted, then wouldn't that be God's will? As we all know, God works in mysterious ways.

[Saru Inc]

You are all acting like a fetus is a really special thing, but say the mother aborts it because she doesn't want it in her life at that moment, be it because she was raped or just because she doesn't think she can take care of the child properly. Who are you to force her to carry out the pregnancy for an unwanted baby, when she can in almost all cases just concieve another when she is ready for it and wants one? Plus, the only thing a fetus has is potential, the mother probably already has a life and a job and maybe no money etc etc. Having a baby will screw her life up for at least 9 months, more if she doesn't choose to put it up for adoption.

 

Also, I have no idea why god was brought into this at all. As you might know, not everyone believes in god, so you shouldn't force principles based on a religion onto everyone else even though they do not believe in it. I understand you want to convince them that not abortion the fetus is better, but you're not authorized to impose this on everyone else. Which is why the mother should have the last vote in this, it is her life that will be affected and fetuses can be concieved at any time, if she does believe in god she can always choose to keep it anyway.

 

And who are you to force your opinion of abortion upon me? Also, I have no idea why your opinion was brought in at all, after all, we all have our own opinions. Is what you post is saying. And you're not authorized to tell me what to do (aka voting pro choice... Who are you to tell me to vote pro choice)

 

 

He said pretty clearly that he wouldn't force his opinions on someone else, and would vote pro-choice.

 

But Saru, what if the baby's purpose was to be aborted? If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, and the fetus is aborted, then wouldn't that be God's will? As we all know, God works in mysterious ways.

 

 

People can go against God all the time, it's why sin exists. But to answer your question fully, I cannot. That too lengthly a debate, and I got class in 3 mins. (I may pm you my side though later on if you're actually interested)

[D Jay99]

You are all acting like a fetus is a really special thing, but say the mother aborts it because she doesn't want it in her life at that moment, be it because she was raped or just because she doesn't think she can take care of the child properly. Who are you to force her to carry out the pregnancy for an unwanted baby, when she can in almost all cases just concieve another when she is ready for it and wants one? Plus, the only thing a fetus has is potential, the mother probably already has a life and a job and maybe no money etc etc. Having a baby will screw her life up for at least 9 months, more if she doesn't choose to put it up for adoption.

 

Also, I have no idea why god was brought into this at all. As you might know, not everyone believes in god, so you shouldn't force principles based on a religion onto everyone else even though they do not believe in it. I understand you want to convince them that not abortion the fetus is better, but you're not authorized to impose this on everyone else. Which is why the mother should have the last vote in this, it is her life that will be affected and fetuses can be concieved at any time, if she does believe in god she can always choose to keep it anyway.

 

And who are you to force your opinion of abortion upon me? Also, I have no idea why your opinion was brought in at all, after all, we all have our own opinions. Is what you post is saying. And you're not authorized to tell me what to do (aka voting pro choice... Who are you to tell me to vote pro choice

I was under the impression that abortion is either legal or not, surely if everyone would believe that, it would be legal? Pro choice doesn't force anyone to do anything, pro life does.

 

We can make one at any time, so let's throw it away!

 

No not "let's throw it away", more like "let's not have it screw up the mothers life but let the mother decide for herself when she is ready for a baby".