|
Post by AuntieSocial on Jul 6, 2004 19:48:44 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. Don't know if there was another thread on this board, and I don't have the time to look for it right now. The thread was on the old board. If I recall, it was started by nonbeliever.
|
|
|
Post by gameeks on Jul 13, 2004 11:48:57 GMT -5
"To whoever wrote the poll, you should probably not call people "anti-choice", it kinda tells them which side you're on." I see your point i should have worded it diferent.
|
|
Franc28
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 144
|
Post by Franc28 on Jul 13, 2004 18:16:12 GMT -5
I was quoting, silly. *I* obviously don't agree with that !
|
|
|
Post by Superhappyjen on Jul 23, 2004 15:23:25 GMT -5
, 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. While the fetus is still inside the woman's body we're not really debating the financial responsibility of raising a child. What if the father did have the right to choose? He would then have the right either to a)force a woman to have an operation to terminate the pregnancy when she doesn't want to, or b)force a woman to go through pregnancy and childbirth when she doesn't want to. The idea that a father should be given the right to choose is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Jul 24, 2004 8:09:20 GMT -5
Aren't you being sexist? The father, after conception, is forced by law to support that child on the whim of the mother. So clarify exactly what 'forcing' is agreeable and what isn't.
|
|
|
Post by BaalShemRa on Jul 24, 2004 9:43:00 GMT -5
Vertigo,
The solution then seems to be that the father should be able to give up his child for adoption ( to the mother most likely ). He would give up his half of rights and responsabilities over the child just as a mother can. That is for the legal and financial aspect.
As for the biological aspect, the mother bears all the consequences ( stricly speaking of the biological aspect ) so she should have full decision making power over that aspect. In other words, terminating or not the pregnancy should be her choice.
If she does choose to terminate it, the legal and financial aspects do not follow.
So it would go like this: Mother doesn't want it, father doesn't want it: Abortion. Mother doesn't want it, father wants it: Abortion. Mother wants it, father wants it: Both have custody. Mother wants it, father doesn't want it: Father forfeits his legal rights to the child as well as his duty to support it and the mother remains the sole legal guardian.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Jul 24, 2004 13:37:51 GMT -5
I don't like it that the father can merely forfeit his responsibility at a whim. People should face responsibility. However, as it is only the father faces this at the whim of the mother. The overarching argument is that we shouldn't be telling the mother what to do with something within her own body. The father's want for the child to live is not worth forcing the mother to have the child. So the mother can merely abort, but not the father.
This seems a bad compromise to me. I know what you have tried to do, BaalShemRa, levelling this unbalanced situation, but it doesn't seem a good thing to me.
As they say, life isn't fair. Some things will never be fair, I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by ccg111777 on Aug 4, 2004 19:22:01 GMT -5
I know, am very outnumbered in this board, being an ultra conservative aethist. There just aren't very many of us. But I feel I have to stand up for my views.
I personally believe that people deep down know that abortion is the killing an infant child, but people use semantical rationalizations in saying a human life after conception is not a person or its just a part of the mother, because they don't really care what they are doing. It's not convient for them to have a baby at that time so they are going to slaughter it, anythey don't cae what ANYONE has to say. We are all part of our mothers and we are all part of our fathers. Why are we so set on destroying life instead of nuturing it?
Some the posts on this are scary, cruel, and crazy to me. I'm sure you guys probably think the same about me. That's fine. Abortion is bad enough to me, but abortion after birth? I hope that person was just being sarcastic. That's plain first degree murder. Doesn't anyone believe that people should not have their very lives stripped from them at the very least? A mother may get pregnant and it might cause all kinds of complications. But who doesn't have problems in life? At least she still gets to live. You pro-choice people have taken your right to live for granted way too much, If you can't be inconvienced enough to change your plans for a mistake YOU made then you are a heartless and overly selfish person. I beleive selfishness is usually a good thing but not when you are talking about your own kin.
The only time an abortion should be allowed is when there is a substantially high risk the mother will die during the pregnancy. And even that should be a very hard decision for a mother. ( what ever happened to motherly instinct? A rape-victim exception, I can understand as well because the mother didn't choose to participate in the human reproductive process. Although I still don't see what that has to do with an innocent baby.
Just because I don't beleive in supernatural powers, It doesn't mean I don't have values or principles.
For me, I can't think of one thing worse than killing a baby, and that what abortion is to me. Without fudging any lines, that is what it is.
If you disagree hat it's babykilling than that's your opinion and I guess I have to respect that. If you think babykilling doesn't matter or is a good thing, I guess I have to respect that too, because respecting the opinions of those I disagree with is another one of those principles, and trying not to be a hypocrit is another one.
|
|
|
Post by Yaw on Aug 4, 2004 22:15:16 GMT -5
Here's the problem. Legality does not necessarily have anything to do with morality. This is one of those cases where it doesn't.
Making abortion illegal will not stop it from occurring. It is unlikely to even reduce the number of abortions -- although that won't show up on paper. It will only make women who want abortions go to backyard butchers for the procedure. So instead of just killing the fetus, making abortion illegal would put women into a position where they are also endangering their own lives. I don't think this is an acceptable result of any legislation -- it increases harm, in addition to being ineffective in its intent.
I'm not saying abortion is a good or a bad thing. I'm just saying that if you actually want to stop it, you need a better plan than legislation to make it illegal.
|
|
|
Post by ccg111777 on Aug 5, 2004 8:25:16 GMT -5
If women go and try to perform their own abortions because its illegal, then they get what they deserve for for trying to do something they shouldn't do. If the prospect of being convicted of murder is not enough a detterent for them, then I don't know what to tell you. If you rather risk going to jail for the rest of your life then have a child or admit that you got pregnant, than you are unusual. I don't care so much about the practical effects because you can't control what everyone will do, I am just saying it should be against the law as detterent and a punishment because I think it is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by breezanne on Aug 6, 2004 20:27:29 GMT -5
Hi CCG, You said that you'd allow abortion when there is a "substantially high risk the mother will die during the pregnancy... And... A rape-victim exception..."
So I think you do have a partial understanding of the following civilized concept: With modern health care, the many risks and costs associated with pregnancy/childbirth/motherhood NEED NOT be imposed upon a woman to her own detriment OR against her will.
The question remains... who decides whether a pregnancy is to a woman's detriment, or against a woman's will? How could anyone have a greater right than a woman herself to dictate what she does with her own womb? How could strangers, or the government, or even doctors and nurses be in any position to know and judge a woman's inner and outer "life situation" better than she herself can?
You do think you could justify "killing an infant child" who was conceived in rape... it sounds like you would allow this because the "mother" was not "guilty" of the sex. That would make it seem that your intent is not so purely to protect an "innocent baby"... but to PUNISH a woman who conceives by mistake. The common, and most important, thread between "rape" and "mistake" is that NEITHER woman INTENDED to bear a child at this time. The products of conception are the same either way. Since you'd allow abortions in cases of rape (and hopefully incest), you might want to tone down your use of inflammatory rhetoric about murder, and killing an infant child, and slaughtering babies. It is actually somewhat callous and insensitive to speak thus on such a complex and difficult subject. Regardless of why they occur, unwanted pregnancies require painful choices, one sort of pain or another sort of pain.
Out of a sense of compassion, even to yourself, you could describe your own admitted position as sometimes allowing the "early abortion of an embryo." The embryonic stage and the very early fetal stage are the most frequented time frames for both induced abortions and also "spontaneous abortions" (otherwise known as miscarriages).
Namaste.
|
|
|
Post by ccg111777 on Aug 7, 2004 5:29:32 GMT -5
Breezanne
First, I am not trying to inflame anything or anyone. I offered my opinion because it pertained to the topic, and I wanted to let people know there were some right-wingers on this board too.
Second, I don't consider what I said to be rhetoric, because it was what I honestly feel. I recognize that this is very heated devisive issue. I really don't think this issue is as complex as some, its just a fundamental disagreement.
Third, If I had my way I would make abortion illegal in rape and incest cases unless the the mother's the life depended on it, because only then her natural right to survival would justify killing someone else. I am willing to compromise here because there has always been a distinction in common law between the negligent and the careful. Eventhough a woman may not intent to get pregenant when she has consensual sex, she has the the burden of knowing the risks of such behavior. There is no chance you can get pregnant if you choose not to have sex. In law school we call it assuming the risk. When you're raped you don't assume any risk. Right before sex the reasonable person would tell themselves, "If I have sex, I could pregnant." The reasonable person does not ask themselves, "If I go to work today, I could get pregnant on the way." It's true that is always possible to get raped, but anything can be possible and we can only do so much to safeguard ourselves from unwanted consequences. One of these things is not have sex if we don't want a child. I still think that the childs right to live outweighs the need to mitigate damage to rape victim, but it is not quite as offensive to me as in the case of consensual sex.
Fourth, I don't feel that a woman being pregnant is a pushiment at all, quite the contrary. Any negative consequence that would result from it would be because of her for not wanting a child in the first place and then failing to take the necessary precautions. A major differnce in our pov's is that we righties feel you lefties are taking sex way too lightly. Its almost like you think of it as breathing or eating. I am not saying sex isn't a good thing, I just think you need to enjoy it and be ready to accept any consequences. Every action has consequences an good reason. You can't eliminate a problem just by eliminating the consequences. However, I think you can turn a problem into blessing by preparing for and embracing the consequences.
Finally, You said that unwanted pregnacies involve painful choices, therefore I suggest we find someway to the choice part out the equation. Make abortion illegal. Burgulars when they caught go through a very hard and trying time too. Laws against murder won't stop everyone from killing another person, but it will stop most of us. that's why we have laws, and if we had a law against abortion, then logically people who don't want kids will be more careful before they have sex.
Again this is just my honest personal opinion, I'm sure you hate it, so I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm not trying to get anyone PO'ed. If you want to call me idiot, go ahead. But if you do, I'd like to see you back that claim up.
|
|
|
Post by Superhappyjen on Aug 7, 2004 9:58:03 GMT -5
CCG
You say you are against abortion because:
You also say: So essentially you feel it's okay to kill an infant child if it illiminates a health risk to the mother. Somehow I don't think you would say this if we talking about an actual infant, instead of a fetus.
So, you don't think it's a good idea for rape-victims to murder their infant children but you are willing to compromise and let them because they didn't want to have sex in the first place? If you really do believe that a fetus is an innocent human infant (which I don't think you really do) then what you are saying here is scary and cruel.
A fetus is not a baby. A fetus is a fertilized cell which has the potential of becoming a baby. It feels no pain. It thinks no thoughts. It is human, but it is not a human being. The woman's rights have to outweigh the rights of the fetus.
BTW: I see that the poll is still 100% in favour of choice. Why don't you vote if you feel so strongly?
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Aug 7, 2004 13:07:21 GMT -5
ccg, think about your motivation behind your opinions discussed here. Be very honest and think what the underlying reasoning is. You say it is because a foetus is a life form and it is murder to abort one. Is that really true?
Is the fact of the foetus being a potential human being the real motivation? Or is it that people shouldn't be so frivolous with such things as sex? Do you think that people should rather only have sex when they are married? That way, if the mother becomes pregnant there is a stable environment for the child to grow up in.
As soon as people start having extramarital sex bad things happen. Young girls who are still in school get pregnant, and soceity's morals decline. There is more explicit content in movies, and we have pornography and sex shops all over the place. Sex is not the sacred thing it is supposed to be anymore, right?
Could it be that part of your adamant stance against abortion is because of this slippery slope I have described here?
If we allow abortion, who knows where the slope will end. More girls will prostitute themselves, and sex will become far more common, a social grace among friends. And all the while precious babies are treated as a pimples, removed as soon as they appear. We can't let our society degrade so, right?
The place to fight it is abortions. If we outlaw abortions, people will be forced to think about the consequences. As a result they will be more cautious, and less likely to indulge in one night stands and such. They don't respect sex like they should, but they act in the way we want because of the penalties.
I am sorry to say but the motivation behind this view is that we want to get people to behave in the way we want them too. We don't like these promiscous people in society. We don't like prostitutes. We want a society where these things don't exist, or at least where they are limited. It is similar to wanting to censor explicit content in movies, or forcing people not to smoke or drink in their own homes.
The 'foetus = baby' argument is usually a convenient cover for this underlying motivation. It is this slippery slope that scares people so, that gives them their motivation.
So ccg, try to understand your motivation for holding your views. It is very important to know why you are holding a particular viewpoint. Could you honestly talk of your motivation? Thereafter we can discuss the important factors in the debate.
|
|
|
Post by ccg111777 on Aug 7, 2004 19:04:38 GMT -5
A firtelized human egg is a SEPARATE though DEPENDENT human life. to start human life you need an egg and sperm. those are our ingredients if you. Its my opinion that at conception we have all we need to grow independently and that is why I think we become people at that time. A person is a person, I don't care if he or she is 80 years old or 80 seconds old, you can't just kill someone with a darn good reason. I've NEVER said abortion is ok when the mother's HEALTH is at risk. I did say it could be justified only When the mother is endanger of DYING because of the preganancy, and there is no other way to avoid it then to kill the baby.
I don't bellieve being a rape victim is an adaquate justification for a mother killing her unborn child. I only was trying to say that I see the logical argument that could be made for an exception.
I don't really care if other people have sex or not. What bothers me is when people can't understand that every action has consequences. And when people act all surpised and complain about consequences, when they were the ones who failed to take the necessary steps to prevent those consequences.
I don't have any motivation at all for trying to control anyone or get them to "do what I want" I beleive people should be free to do what they unless their actions cause harm to someone else. I just wish people would not kill other people, whether they are born or not.
All theese hidden motives you say I have are just not true. They must be some other people's motives but they are not mine. My one motive is very simple. Dissuade people from killing other innocent people. That is it.
To me the argument really does come done where do you draw the line at where a separate human life begins. I've said why I feel why conception is that line. Many disagree and make good points why, but for me those points just aren't good enough to persuade me.
I like to believe that I am a person of principle. I just want to uphold principles I believe in. Its not actual results I'm interested in. Even if Abortion is illegal, the bottom line is people can still CHOOSE to break the law. There is nothing I or anyone else can do take free will away from anyone. I don't want to go into depth into why society has rules and principles. At least not tonight.
The reason I didn't vote in the poll was because I don't feel there was an option that properly explains how I feel about the topic. I was looking for anti-butchering but it wasn't a given option.
|
|