First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
[DA] Thread on Abortion
4295 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Youtube!
Offline
Posted 8/17/09

ShroomInferno wrote:

I'm arguing pro-life! I just edited my post since...it obviously didn't seem to be clear enough?


I did notice... I just didn't reference your reply because it was further down the page and I thought only one name would support what IO was saying, lol.
And it's not dumb, I think it's actually quite a good point *high 5*
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 8/17/09

ShroomInferno wrote:

I'm normally pro-choice.

But here goes my pro-life argument:

If one can get charged for murder after hurting a pregnant woman causing the death of the unborn child, then why can't the women, who willingly go and kill their pre-born child, get charged for murder as well?


Edited since obviously nobody realised my stance...or maybe what I wrote is not clear enough, or just so dumb that people didn't feel like refuting it?


That law was implemented after Roe v. Wade. So, instead of using that law to argue Roe v. Wade is mistaken it would be more appropriate to use Roe v. Wade to argue that the two life penalty for murdering a pregnant woman is inappropriate.
Posted 8/17/09

SeraphAlford wrote:

That law was implemented after Roe v. Wade. So, instead of using that law to argue Roe v. Wade is mistaken it would be more appropriate to use Roe v. Wade to argue that the two life penalty for murdering a pregnant woman is inappropriate.


Well, I'm not too familiar with the Roe v. Wade since I'm not really following the US laws...so I might actually ask for a little assistance here, if it's not too much of a pain for you. =]
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 8/17/09

ShroomInferno wrote:

Well, I'm not too familiar with the Roe v. Wade since I'm not really following the US laws...so I might actually ask for a little assistance here, if it's not too much of a pain for you. =]


The United States Supreme Court has the power of interpretation. That means they get to tell us what the constitution means. I’m not too happy about this myself since the Supreme Court consists of nine justices who are appointed and not elected. Anyway, they’re one of the world’s most powerful legal bodies present in any system.

Roe v. Wade along with Doe v. Bolton are the two Supreme Court cases that legalized abortion in America. Although Roe v. Wade has been weakening over the past few years it’s the reason America has the most liberal abortion laws in the world. Anyway, that law you cited was actually enacted in opposition to Roe v. Wade. Pro-lifers passed it in the hopes that they could then use it to undermine Roe v. Wade.
Posted 8/17/09

SeraphAlford wrote:
The United States Supreme Court has the power of interpretation. That means they get to tell us what the constitution means. I’m not too happy about this myself since the Supreme Court consists of nine justices who are appointed and not elected. Anyway, they’re one of the world’s most powerful legal bodies present in any system.

Roe v. Wade along with Doe v. Bolton are the two Supreme Court cases that legalized abortion in America. Although Roe v. Wade has been weakening over the past few years it’s the reason America has the most liberal abortion laws in the world. Anyway, that law you cited was actually enacted in opposition to Roe v. Wade. Pro-lifers passed it in the hopes that they could then use it to undermine Roe v. Wade.


Oh...thank you. Well, I just thought that it's a bit illogical that the one is considered murder and the other not.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 8/17/09

ShroomInferno wrote:


Oh...thank you. Well, I just thought that it's a bit illogical that the one is considered murder and the other not.


Well, that was the idea. It just didn't work out the way they wanted! Good work though. Any other arguements?
Posted 8/18/09 , edited 8/18/09
Well, I still would say that it's a shame that there's such a huge contradiction in the law system. In fact, it's like saying that abortion is okay since it's legal murder, but seeing a desperate boyfriend, whose girlfriend got pregnant and wants to keep the baby in spite of her boyfriend's disagreement, trying to get rid of the baby by force is considered murder. And then there's the joke, that this "law went into effect, protecting unborn children, beginning at conception, from criminal attack that causes injury or death." [1]
I mean, how are we supposed to notice that a woman is in her....1 month? Or even pregnant at all if there's no obvious physical characteristic showing? So, someone gets angry at his girlfriend and hits her in the stomach, but he doesn't know that she's pregnant, but this caused physical injury to the woman's body causes a miscarriage, in other words, the foetus' death. In spite of having been completely ignorant about his girlfriend's physical state he will get charged for homicide if not murder..but that same woman could have originally planned to go for an abortion a month later...I mean..who knows, right?

To the other, the following is extremely ridiculous and just underlines that abortion-on-demand is widely practised, and honestly makes the previously mentioned law look even more ludicrous.

"Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient)."
[2]

Sounds like a steep price to pay for a potential human being.

PS: Morality isn't purely a religious invention, more like a cultural one, and religion is...part of culture.


_____________
Notes:
Abortion Facts
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

Murder Charges Filed in the Deaths of Unborn Babies in Arkansas and Ohio
http://www.nrlc.org/news/1999/NRL1099/ark.html
26750 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / California's Proj...
Offline
Posted 8/18/09 , edited 8/18/09
abortion, who cares! Humans brought it up, so why are you crying? boo. hoo.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 8/18/09

ShroomInferno wrote:


"Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient)."
[2]



It doesn't matter why a woman is having an abortion. It's her choice. She has no obligation to support a foreign entity with her own body if she does not choose to do so.
Posted 8/18/09 , edited 8/18/09

SeraphAlford wrote:

It doesn't matter why a woman is having an abortion. It's her choice. She has no obligation to support a foreign entity with her own body if she does not choose to do so.


But it's also her choice to wilfully expose herself to the danger of getting pregnant; consensual sex. If she is not capable of regularly consuming a contraceptive product to ensure her temporary infertility, then she should not, literally, go f*ck around. When a guy gets his girlfriend inadvertently pregnant, but she decides to keep it, he has to pay for his mistake for at least 18 years, but a woman, if she doesn't want the baby just goes and aborts it without prior consultation with the dad of the foetus. I see a huge gender inequality in this matter.
She may be the host for the baby, but in no way does she possess the right to decide when the foetus is considered a life, and when not. For that, most of the women will lack the educational qualifications to even know what they're talking about. And, as stated, the foetuses get aborted for a mostly cheap reason; inconvenience, bad social circumstances. But what about the viability of the foetus? Our technology is slowly but surely offering us a wide range of possibility of how to support an early born foetus, and that even from the first trimester as I've heard. So, they could remove the foetus from her womb and place it in an artificial one, and then later on offering it for adoption, no? There are tons of other people who'd like to have a baby but because of infertility or other issues could never have one.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 8/18/09

ShroomInferno wrote:

But it's also her choice to wilfully expose herself to the danger of getting pregnant; consensual sex. If she is not capable of regularly consuming a contraceptive product to ensure her temporary infertility, then she should not, literally, go f*ck around. When a guy gets his girlfriend inadvertently pregnant, but she decides to keep it, he has to pay for his mistake for at least 18 years, but a woman, if she doesn't want the baby just goes and aborts it without prior consultation with the dad of the foetus. I see a huge gender inequality in this matter.


So, in your opinion it is unfair to the father because he is not given a choice? This is a form of gender inequality? Do you not think that it would be a greater form of gender inequality if we gave men the right to force women to carry their children? This being said, I don’t perceive any inequality. The woman are at a natural disadvantage since they’re the ones who have to interrupt their life to carry and deliver a foreign object; therefore, allowing them to make the choice is not sexism but rather affirmative action. It’s raising women to the level of men.

Now, I agree with you. It’s certainly true that if the woman is having consenting sex without protection she’s making a dumb decision, but does the crime fit the punishment? Should we all be forced to live up to the consequences of our actions? Well, if we accept this postulate then smokers with lung cancer should be refused treatment.
Posted 8/18/09 , edited 8/18/09

SeraphAlford wrote:
So, in your opinion it is unfair to the father because he is not given a choice? This is a form of gender inequality? Do you not think that it would be a greater form of gender inequality if we gave men the right to force women to carry their children? This being said, I don’t perceive any inequality. The woman are at a natural disadvantage since they’re the ones who have to interrupt their life to carry and deliver a foreign object; therefore, allowing them to make the choice is not sexism but rather affirmative action. It’s raising women to the level of men.

Now, I agree with you. It’s certainly true that if the woman is having consenting sex without protection she’s making a dumb decision, but does the crime fit the punishment? Should we all be forced to live up to the consequences of our actions? Well, if we accept this postulate then smokers with lung cancer should be refused treatment.


Unfair, in a sense, where he has no choice whether he wants to finance the life of a child he never wanted or not. I mean, he doesn't get the right to decide whether he wants the child, or not, but as previously mentioned, even if he doesn't want the child he is still forced to give financial support to the woman who exposed herself to the risk of becoming a parent just as much as he did when they both did consent to sex. The sole difference is..that if she doesn't want the child, she just has to walk into an abortion clinic, and the story is over, but the guy doesn't, because if she wants to keep it, but he doesn't he'll have to pay for at least 18 years aliments in spite of it being an unwanted child on his part. To top it all, the guy has just the condom on which he can rely on to some point, but even that one is a risk factor, but the woman has quite a few means of anti conception methods to ensure her temporary infertility. I would say that all those contraceptive methods make up for the "natural disadvantage" of having to carry out a child; she can prevent it.

Smokers? I don't think that you can compare a smoker's decision to the ending of an innocent life who didn't even get to choose. Comparing an unborn baby to cancer is almost outrageous, since there's a fine line between the two. The further along the foetus gets, the more independent they become, thus viable. Already after the 23rd week with appropriate neonatal intensive care babies are capable to survive outside of the womb with a pretty decent survival chance. And there was even a miracle baby that survived outside of the womb after just 21 weeks and 6 days. I think it's time to reconsider the standards for foetal viability especially in terms of abortion. Destroying a life that has such a decent survival chance outside of the womb out of pure selfish reasons is at best appalling.


_____________
Notes:
Premature Birth and Viability
http://miscarriage.about.com/od/pregnancyafterloss/a/prematurebirth.htm
Posted 9/27/09
i just want to state this. whoever is actually against abortion doesn't know what it's like. why do so many people have a problem with it, it's not happening to them, so why the hell should they care about it, the facts already stated by other people here about why people choose abortion e.g rape, simply not able to have the child or do not want it are absolutely right and fine, it's the pregnant womans choice to have an abortion, not anyone else's at all, so why the hell can't anyone leave them be. let them try and go through it, see what they say.
maffoo 
78814 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / England
Offline
Posted 9/27/09

CherryBlossoms-x wrote:

i just want to state this. whoever is actually against abortion doesn't know what it's like. why do so many people have a problem with it, it's not happening to them, so why the hell should they care about it, the facts already stated by other people here about why people choose abortion e.g rape, simply not able to have the child or do not want it are absolutely right and fine, it's the pregnant womans choice to have an abortion, not anyone else's at all, so why the hell can't anyone leave them be. let them try and go through it, see what they say.


I am against abortion because ultimately it is killing an unborn child, which I believe is morally wrong. If the baby was born prematurely killing it would be infanticide - why is it different just because it's still in the womb?

I accept that there are circumstances where abortion must be available - if the woman's life would be at risk if the pregnancy continued, for example. In the case of rape, I don't believe that it is "right" as such, but then neither is forcing the woman to carry the rapist's baby to term. However, in the case of a woman who just doesn't want the baby, surely she should have taken that into account when she had sex (assuming there was no coercion of course)? It's not like contraceptives aren't easily available, and people know that pregnancy is a possibility if contraception isn't used.

Posted 9/27/09

maffoo wrote:


CherryBlossoms-x wrote:

i just want to state this. whoever is actually against abortion doesn't know what it's like. why do so many people have a problem with it, it's not happening to them, so why the hell should they care about it, the facts already stated by other people here about why people choose abortion e.g rape, simply not able to have the child or do not want it are absolutely right and fine, it's the pregnant womans choice to have an abortion, not anyone else's at all, so why the hell can't anyone leave them be. let them try and go through it, see what they say.


I am against abortion because ultimately it is killing an unborn child, which I believe is morally wrong. If the baby was born prematurely killing it would be infanticide - why is it different just because it's still in the womb?

I accept that there are circumstances where abortion must be available - if the woman's life would be at risk if the pregnancy continued, for example. In the case of rape, I don't believe that it is "right" as such, but then neither is forcing the woman to carry the rapist's baby to term. However, in the case of a woman who just doesn't want the baby, surely she should have taken that into account when she had sex (assuming there was no coercion of course)? It's not like contraceptives aren't easily available, and people know that pregnancy is a possibility if contraception isn't used.



maybe that it's not all stupidity that there was no contraception involved, even if you use contraception there is still the chance of getting pregnant, if that happened to you by accident and you weren't at all ready for a child or even go through the process of birth, what would you do? i don't understand why people against have such a big problem when it's not happening to them. why can't they leave all the arguments whether not to or to go for it until they themselves are pregnant - other than shouting and ranting at people who have to go through the whole process, it's bad enough they had to choose the option with all the mental and physical pain but they have many people telling them they are murderers.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.