|
Post by gameeks on Jul 2, 2004 23:10:28 GMT -5
I personaly vote Pro. I think that women should have the right to make up there own mind. I also think that the Father/ person who got her pregnant, should not have an opinion in this issue. I would love to hear from others please replie.
|
|
Franc28
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 144
|
Post by Franc28 on Jul 2, 2004 23:51:15 GMT -5
The anti-choice ideology is not only against freedom, but against human dignity. Human beings who do not own their own bodies are called "slaves". Abortion is the right-wing way of enforcing state ownership, with the drug war, and citizenship, and... well, a lot of things I guess.
|
|
|
Post by AuntieSocial on Jul 3, 2004 6:58:16 GMT -5
I am definately pro-choice, the oppression of women by the religions and governments of the world has to stop, however, I do struggle with the issue of the biological father's right to be a father ... what if the father wants that child and is willing to raise it with no help from the mother? It's a question that will never have a satisfactory answer for one of the participants.
|
|
Anarchat
Seasoned Citizen
School's design is two-fold: to polish the exceptionally dull and to dull the exceptionally bright.
Posts: 107
|
Post by Anarchat on Jul 3, 2004 7:11:23 GMT -5
Just for future reference there's a thread identical to this one (I think) somewhere on the boards. Or maybe it was on the old boards. Oh well, I can't really remember.
At any rate, I'll just give a synopsis of my opinion on this matter.
I'm pro-choice because I like to think that we should have as much freedom in our choices as possible. The government should legislate morality as much as is necessary (such as in the case of murder, although I think that even laws against murder are not so much moral legislation as they are simply necessary for a civil society which is what separates current laws on murder and what many people propose for laws against abortion - the difference between that which is necessary and that which is merely "moral").
But, while I think that women should have the choice, I disagree with the act of abortion. I find it vile. I find it hard to refute the claim that, regardless of when life begins, that fetuses are future human beings, and that makes abortion akin to murder if not the exact same act.
Above all, however, what I find disgusting about abortion is that it, in many circumstances, is simply a quick fix for people who are afraid to take responsibilty for their actions. It allows many people to shirk their responsibility. I'm of course, talking about the people who lack the foresight to use birthcontrol and have fetuses that develop normally (i.e. not women impregnated though rape or those whose fetuses develop abnormally or dangerously). Even here, however, this is another side. Is it worse to have many murdered fetuses or to have many unwanted children? I'm still not sure what a reasonable answer is. I suppose it depends on whether one is a pragmatist or an idealist.
|
|
|
Post by Yaw on Jul 3, 2004 11:41:13 GMT -5
Don't know if there was another thread on this board, and I don't have the time to look for it right now.
This is, however, political content. Flingity fling.
|
|
|
Post by pieisgood on Jul 3, 2004 18:09:01 GMT -5
a) I just can't see the view for anti-choice. We could argue forever about when human life begins, but each person has their own opinion. It's really up the the mother. If the mother thinks it's okay, she'll do it. If she doesn't, she won't. Besides, just because pro-choice is the law doesn't mean that you HAVE to get an abortion...
b) Now, the interesting part. Are abortions okay for YOU? Do you think it's okay to have an abortion?
I have one of the strangest views about this. I think it should be okay to get an "abortion" possibly even AFTER birth. Think of it this way:
Bob and Alice decide to have a kid. Bob thinks it would be the greatest thing in the world for the whole time. Alice thinks she would love it until it becomes a teenager. Alice thinks that teenagers are just too annoying to live with. So, she decides to get an abortion.
However, would it be morally okay to kill it on it's thirteenth birthday, as long as you made that decision before it was born? According to people who don't think abortion is morally correct, that shouldn't be okay. But why? You're giving a baby 13 years of life that it wouldn't otherwise have. You're making people happy for thirteen years. Everybody wins for no cost whatsoever! How come that's not okay?
My view is: a) you can have an abortion anytime before birth. True, you are depriving a future human of life, but if that's not okay then shouldn't it be illegal to NOT have kids at every possible opportunity? If you don't; you are depriving a future human of life....
It becomes not okay to have an abortion when the kid has started affecting the world. The parents can't then throw the kid out; because it's too late to be the parent's choice. The kid has started to develop itself and affect others. Unless it's a unanimous decision, the kid can't be killed.
Well, there's my obscure thoughts.
-pie
|
|
|
Post by Yaw on Jul 3, 2004 18:31:32 GMT -5
Two points.
First of all, abortion should be legal (or, as in Canada, unlegislated). The reason for this is pragmatic -- with abortion illegal, those wanting one will go to backyard butchers for an abortion, which could kill them. As government's responsibility is to look after public welfare, it should not adopt a policy that would result in harm for its citizens, regardless of the morality of abortion. (I would apply similar logic to drug legislation -- if a policy making drugs illegal causes more harm than its absence, it should be removed.)
Second, there is an extreme hypocrisy on the part of many pro-lifers that must change. The problem is simply that while they insist that a woman must bear a child to term, they have no problem with denying that child funding for the education, health care, and other social needs required to raise it. You cannot claim to be making a woman bear a child for love when you also insist that she be burdened with the full financial load regardless of her circumstance. This is a way of turning child-rearing into a punishment for having sex, and has no relationship with love at all. In fact, it is far more likely that the number of abortions would go down were women provided with publicly funded day care and baby bonuses than by instituting an anti-abortion law. If you really are pro-life, act like it.
|
|
|
Post by AuntieSocial on Jul 3, 2004 18:53:10 GMT -5
My view is: a) you can have an abortion anytime before birth. True, you are depriving a future human of life, but if that's not okay then shouldn't it be illegal to NOT have kids at every possible opportunity? If you don't; you are depriving a future human of life... In the words of Monty Python (and a paraphrase of Catholic doctrine ... every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate. Have you ever heard of onanism? Also known as coitus interruptus. According to the Catholic church (and the Bible), that is a serious offence.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Jul 5, 2004 12:21:05 GMT -5
Realise that the father doesn't get a vote to abort. If the mother wants to raise the child on her own, the father doesn't have a say; he is then mandated to support the child through alimony.
The reasoning is that the father should be held responsible for impregnating the mother. If the child lives, he is responsible.
So while we are campaigning for the mother's right to abort, surely we should consider the father's right to not abort? Since we so ready to hold the father responsible, surely the father should be given the choice to not abort the child, if he wants to raise the child on his own.
|
|
|
Post by droskey on Jul 5, 2004 15:48:58 GMT -5
AuntieSocial This gave me trouble a few years ago. Not so much now. As far as the decision whether or not to abort, I think that the mother's rights supercede those of the father. Simply because you can't make a distinction between the baby and the mother before the baby is born. However, after the baby is born that's another story.
I think a particularly sticky issue is what happens if the father doesn't want to be a parent but the mother does. Let's take this issue. You have a couple who are taking precautions but they still get pregnant. The mother decides that she wants to keep the baby, but the father does not want to be a parent. He is neither financially nor emotionally prepared to do it. Is he still responsible for supporting the child financially?
|
|
Franc28
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 144
|
Post by Franc28 on Jul 5, 2004 16:32:25 GMT -5
You have a "right" to be a father (whcih I would disagree with, but whatever). But you do not have the right to dictate what a woman can do with her body. If you want that, I recommend you go to Iran.
|
|
|
Post by BaalShemRa on Jul 6, 2004 7:40:26 GMT -5
In the same line as what Jacopo said. While a woman bears 100% of the biological consequences, she should have 100% of the say on the biological aspect. For the legal and financial aspects however, they are born by the father too.
So, if a woman wants to avoid the financial and legal responsabilities, she can give her child to adoption services ( which even anti-abortion people are unlikely to want banned ). But a father cannot do the same. Why?
|
|
|
Post by BaalShemRa on Jul 6, 2004 7:41:48 GMT -5
To whoever wrote the poll, you should probably not call people "anti-choice", it kinda tells them which side you're on.
Also, in an ideal world, both mothers and fathers would want to take care of their children.
|
|
Franc28
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 144
|
Post by Franc28 on Jul 6, 2004 11:25:16 GMT -5
"To whoever wrote the poll, you should probably not call people "anti-choice", it kinda tells them which side you're on."
Yes, on the side of honesty. If I upheld that the mother's life should be in the hands of bureaucrats, I would not hide it by calling myself "pro-life".
|
|
|
Post by BaalShemRa on Jul 6, 2004 11:53:46 GMT -5
hehe, curt.
There are people who are willing to allow abortions in cases where the not-to-be-mother's life could be in danger. That is no more putting someone's life in the hands of bureaucrats than having a state-delivery healthcare system.
Citizenship is about state ownership? Since the individual can renounce it ( it's in his hands ), how is that an instance of state ownership?
|
|