The Abortion Debate (continued) (1 Viewer)

[Generator]

Becuase some people like to think that they decide arbitrararily when this happens in order to fulfil their ridiculous social agendas - such as yourself. Fetuses aren't dead, and theres only one other state of life other than "dead" - take a wild guess.

It's open to debate as to when a stand-alone life actually begins.

Why dont you ask about the millions of women just like this one?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/my-story-never-got-heard/2006/08/22/1156012515264.html

Nobody is going to deny that a number of people come to regret their choices later in life, but I don't see what that example has to do with the question, bshoc - we are talking about abortions, not tragic accidents that terminate planned pregnancies. As much as it may pain such women to see others exercise their reproductive rights (nothing you say can change the fact that this is an issue about a woman's reproductive rights), they have no right to dictate what another woman can or should do with her body.

 

[bshoc]

It's open to debate as to when a stand-alone life actually begins.

No it isn't, its only an open debate if you deny rationality, I cannot stand irrational people. Tell me Generator, if a fetus is not dead, then what is it?

Nobody is going to deny that a number of people come to regret their choices later in life, but I don't see what that example has to do with the question, bshoc - we are talking about abortions, not tragic accidents that terminate planned pregnancies.

My example applied directly to your question, a woman grieving about the loss of a child, unborn or not, any woman who doesen't at least feel horrid after abortion is not a human being.

As much as it may pain such women to see others exercise their reproductive rights (nothing you say can change the fact that this is an issue about a woman's reproductive rights), they have no right to dictate what another woman can or should do with her body.

Too bad its not the woman's body we're talking about, never were, never will be - thus invalidating your entire argument. Reproductive rights are rights to have children, not kill them.

 

[wce06]

Clearly, abortions are not enjoyable or good things - but that isn't the point of the 'debate'. Some people seem to be suggesting that simply because women have the right to decide whether or not they're ready and capable to bring life into the world, that they will then revel in some new-found feminine power that lets them "kill" fetuses. This is not the point of abortion, or of the debate. Rather, abortion allows people to fully consider whether bringing life into the world is a 'sensible' thing to do given individual circumstances.

Unwanted pregnancies occur, there's nothing we can do about that. Through abortion, however, we can insure that unwanted births do not happen - something far more serious. Again, I'm not suggesting (and hopefully nobody does) that abortions are pleasant. But they are more 'pleasant' than forcing a single woman, or a couple, to parent an unwanted child who they do not have the capacity to care for.

 

[dieburndie]

Clearly, abortions are not enjoyable or good things .

I think abortions are sometimes a good thing. A dead foetus (or embryo) is better than a child being subject to a life of absolute despair and hardship. It's just a foetus, things that actually are important die all the time.

 

[gerhard]

No it isn't, its only an open debate if you deny rationality, I cannot stand irrational people. Tell me Generator, if a fetus is not dead, then what is it?

The point isnt whether its alive or dead you idiot. A sperm cell is alive, but even you dont care if someone kills it. A blood cell is alive but no one cares if you kill it. The question is whether its a human life yet or not. We only care about killing a human life, not anything else.

 

[dieburndie]

Reproductive rights are rights to have children, not kill them.

And to not have children. You are advocating being forced to have a child. This does not represent any sort of rights. It's her foetus, she owns it, it is part of her (whoever this hypothetical being is), she should be able to do whatever she wants with it, like I should have the right to have my tonsils removed.

 

[wce06]

I think abortions are sometimes a good thing. A dead foetus (or embryo) is better than a child being subject to a life of absolute despair and hardship. It's just a foetus, things that actually are important die all the time.

Did you read the rest of the post? I agree entirely, but I wouldn't say that they're good things by themselves. It's not as if abortions are enjoyable events for anyone, it's just that they're necessary for us to make sure that we don't bring in babies when we're not ready/able to.

 

[KFunk]

I think abortions are sometimes a good thing. A dead foetus (or embryo) is better than a child being subject to a life of absolute despair and hardship. It's just a foetus, things that actually are important die all the time.

The fact that important things die doesn't mean the death of a foetus is insignificant. I generally feel that women should have the right to abort but I find it hard to agree with the argument in your first sentence. You need to contrast a life of despair and hardship against non-existence. Some people abort because they feel they can't afford to raise a child (this is a failure of society as much as anything) and some abort because they find out their unborn child has Down's syndrome. Saying that such unborn children are better off aborted amounts to saying to an individual with Down's syndrome, or who comes from a very poor background, that they would be better off had they never been born at all.

In truly severe cases where an abnormality would give a child a life span of, say, two weeks which were full of pain then yes, abortion would seem to be justified (similarly if they were going to be born without a functioning brain). However, I still find myself unable to agree with the standard examples of 'poverty' or 'young mother' which are so often punched into the 'for the good of the foetus' equation (I realise you didn't use these specific examples - this is a general counter argument as much as anything).

 

[Serius]

she owns it? last time i checked half the genetic material comes from the father. Since when can you own a life anyway? maybe you would be better suited in southern USA during the 1800's

It's open to debate as to when a stand-alone life actually begins

stand alone life generator? since when is this about wether life can survive on its own? I know many people who would be hard pressed to servive without the help of others. IF stand alone life is such a big deal, does this mean i can murder someone with MS[Multiple sclerosis] and call it an abortion? afterall this person is not living a stand alone life.

 

[bshoc]

The point isnt whether its alive or dead you idiot. A sperm cell is alive, but even you dont care if someone kills it. A blood cell is alive but no one cares if you kill it. The question is whether its a human life yet or not. We only care about killing a human life, not anything else.

Killing one of my sperm cells does not result in my death, when you abort you kill a human in its entirety, this is sometimes done by cracking the unborns skull and sucking it our with a vacuum tube - now tell me would you care if that happned to you? Sicko.

 

[Generator]

stand alone life generator? since when is this about wether life can survive on its own? I know many people who would be hard pressed to servive without the help of others. IF stand alone life is such a big deal, does this mean i can murder someone with MS[Multiple sclerosis] and call it an abortion? afterall this person is not living a stand alone life.

The point isnt whether its alive or dead. A sperm cell is alive, but even you dont care if someone kills it. A blood cell is alive but no one cares if you kill it. The question is whether its a human life yet or not. We only care about killing a human life, not anything else.

Argue the point and not your own twisted interpretation, Serius.

 

[dieburndie]

Did you read the rest of the post? I agree entirely, but I wouldn't say that they're good things by themselves. It's not as if abortions are enjoyable events for anyone, it's just that they're necessary for us to make sure that we don't bring in babies when we're not ready/able to.

Yeah, there was really no good reason for me to argue with you.

 

[bshoc]

And to not have children. You are advocating being forced to have a child. This does not represent any sort of rights. It's her foetus, she owns it,

No she doesent, no man may own another, we abolished slavery some time ago you see.

it is part of her (whoever this hypothetical being is),

We call these beings "humans" you see

she should be able to do whatever she wants with it

Then we should all have the right to kill her as well, I mean if she disagrees with her babys existance and kills it, whats there to prevent us from doing the same thing? 3 months? get out!

The ultimate point however is that NO woman in western society should be able to declare that she "accidently" got pregnant give all the contraceptives available, infact the chances for the pill, condom and charting to fail together equates to 4 abortions in Australia per year, not 60000. Heck, any woman this stupid should be locked up for 9 months, give birth and have her child forcably adopted out by the state.

 

[wce06]

Argue the point and not your own twisted interpretation, Serius.

Exactly. Don't drag the debate down to that, no one is suggesting that we should 'kill' people with MS. The right to control reproductive organs has no link to the 'right' to cull people who can't survive 'standing-alone'. good call Generator

 

[Aime Fantasy]

I think abortions are sometimes a good thing. A dead foetus (or embryo) is better than a child being subject to a life of absolute despair and hardship. It's just a foetus, things that actually are important die all the time.

You cannot judge what a person will live through. Do you believe that all children in africa or any other 3rd world country because of how you think they should live their lives? (Which is a relative idea mind you. What you believe fulfills a life maybe twaddle to an old african that has lived a happy and content life) Maybe I don't understand you. Can you elaborate?

(generator's response edited out... I can't put it into words properly! I'll try to reword it soon.)

 

[wce06]

Heck, any woman this stupid should be locked up for 9 months, give birth and have her child forcably adopted out by the state.

So it's the woman's fault that there's a pregnancy, yet the rights of the fetus are divided equally between father and mother? It would be good to see some consistency in this argument. That last sentence (quotation above) says it all about the sense and reasoning you bring to this debate.

 

[dieburndie]

she owns it? last time i checked half the genetic material comes from the father. Since when can you own a life anyway? maybe you would be better suited in southern USA during the 1800's
.

If you cannot see any difference between the slavery of african people and a woman being in control of that which relies on her body for it's entire existence, I don't really think I'm going to make a lot of ground arguing with you. Yeah, the USA in the 1800's was known for the radical extent of it's women's rights. What you are saying is stupid. And it isn't a life yet, that's the whole point of this argument for a start.

 

[Generator]

(generator's response edited out... I can't put it into words properly! I'll try to reword it soon.)

Bah . Just for the record, I was going to ask something along the lines of whether a philosophical paradox that may be of concern to some should stop others from accessing a termination, but I reserve the right to offer a proper reply when you return with the point in question .

 

[bshoc]

So it's the woman's fault that there's a pregnancy, yet the rights of the fetus are divided equally between father and mother? It would be good to see some consistency in this argument. That last sentence (quotation above) says it all about the sense and reasoning you bring to this debate.

Nobody here actually wants to argue for the fathers rights, thus we are debating assuming that it is only the woman who has the legal power to do so, which is true. Pregnancy is the womans fault, nobody forced her to have sex, thus any negative ramifications of the action on her own being is entirely her own doing, the same way if a man caugh aids it would be his problem, if a woman gets pregnant its her problem, and she has absolutely no right to an abortion given that minor preacuations would have prevented her predicament in the first place, the same way that guy with aids doesent deserve taxpayer money when he could've just worn a condom.

Its called personal responsibility, get used to it, or go to North Korea.

 

[dieburndie]

No she doesent, no man may own another, we abolished slavery some time ago you see.

If that is slavery, I think the fact that the foetus is being fed is slavery because it is against it's will (because it has no will, because it is not a fucking human yet). On further injustice regarding the liberty of those trapped in wombs by their evil dominant masters, we should abolish all control pregnant women have over their embryos/foetuses, and allow these intelligent, sentient beings to exist according to their obviously very significant ability to do so.

Then we should all have the right to kill her as well, I mean if she disagrees with her babys existance and kills it, whats there to prevent us from doing the same thing? 3 months? get out!

The ultimate point however is that NO woman in western society should be able to declare that she "accidently" got pregnant give all the contraceptives available, infact the chances for the pill, condom and charting to fail together equates to 4 abortions in Australia per year, not 60000. Heck, any woman this stupid should be locked up for 9 months, give birth and have her child forcably adopted out by the state.

That's some fantastic maths, and also some great work abiding by the same civil liberties you were so adamant be maintained when you could tailor them to support your ridiculous argument. That's the exact problem for you, you already have the opinion and will change the meaning of any information to suit this, you won't be changing what you think according to the information. There isn't even any point in me arguing this because next you will probably say I am a totalitarian minded mass murderer determined to enslave humanity through killing everything.