The Abortion Debate (continued) (3 Viewers)

[ElGronko]

KFunk wins.

'Sup blood?


HotShot you are fighting logic with opinion. The point is, how can you separate the notion of "life" from one organism to another? To remove a "life" from one animal (or insect, or other living being) is in no way dissimilar to the removal of a life from another animal, say for example a human. In essence, this action of "loss of life" is inseparable between "lives" yet humans try and distinguish between them, the question is "why?".


I hope I haven't detracted from your argument Dr Funk.

 

[KFunk]

KFunk wins.

'Sup blood?


HotShot you are fighting logic with opinion. The point is, how can you separate the notion of "life" from one organism to another? To remove a "life" from one animal (or insect, or other living being) is in no way dissimilar to the removal of a life from another animal, say for example a human. In essence, this action of "loss of life" is inseparable between "lives" yet humans try and distinguish between them, the question is "why?".


I hope I haven't detracted from your argument Dr Funk.

Haha, you did it justice dude. It's good to find out that I'm speaking english here.

 

[*Minka*]

many would say they are not ready, then get yourself ready, its not hard especially in Australia to bring up a baby.

Bringing up babies is hard and maybe I don't WANT to bring up a baby? It is a choice after all and just because I enjoy sex in a relationship doesn't mean I want an eighteen year death sentence thank you.

The problem is some people are unable toa ccept the changing nature of society and that women are able to make indepent choices and don't have to be baby machines.

 

[HotShot]

I never said we were inferior to animals because we kill them. I was pointing out that we take issue when it comes to killing humans and turn a blind eye when animals die. I was wanting to know why some individuals are fine with killing animals but are totally against killing people (why do humans get different rights to living animals?).

i dont get ur point here, animals kill other animals and some animals kill their own kind - so what its a natural process?

That we have a right not to be killed essentially (similar to the right of freedom where it is more commonly thought of as a 'freedom from external forces' rather than a 'freedom to act how you please'). And yes, this then places restrictions on others, making it wrong for them to kill those who have a right to life.

u getting confused, the right to kill - is questionable and varies and thus laws govern this right. but the right to life is not questionable, its a natural process. can you bring someone back from the dead? U can kill them but you cant bring them back rite? so right to life does not exist there is no right its a natural process.

U cannot say that everyone has right to life or noone has the right to life. its somethin that is beyond our control. ITs bit like saying the right to oxygen - we need oxygen its a natural process. can you stop breathing oxygen its impossible - u can block everything in your body but there is oxygen already in ur body..?

It's not about directing or shaping your life. It's about a right to 'exist', not a right to 'exist in whatever manner you please'. At the most fundamental level we have our existence, without which we have nothing. A right to life is a right to the continuation of one's existence.

right to exist- againt we cannot control this element if we exist then we do and if we dnot then we dont. if ur trying to say if we already exists and then we cease to exist? then thats no problem.. but u are saying the right to exist - and we cannot control that.

 

[Generator]

Some of you are taking your 'arguments' too far, and some of you are also starting to think that personal attacks are fine. I'm going to close this thread for a short time, and I hope that some of you take the opportunity to reconsider your approach (i.e., not your stance regarding abortion itself, but rather your approach to the wider issues and the manner in which you present such thoughts).

Edit: Thread reopened. I suggest that those of you debating the issue take note of the forum's rules. Anyone who ignores this request will suffer the consequences.

 

[KFunk]

i dont get ur point here, animals kill other animals and some animals kill their own kind - so what its a natural process?

Humans are animals. If you also take no issue with humans killing each on the grounds of it being a 'natural process' then that's fine, otherwise it seems a tad anthrocentric.

u getting confused, the right to kill - is questionable and varies and thus laws govern this right. but the right to life is not questionable, its a natural process. can you bring someone back from the dead? U can kill them but you cant bring them back rite? so right to life does not exist there is no right its a natural process.

U cannot say that everyone has right to life or noone has the right to life. its somethin that is beyond our control. ITs bit like saying the right to oxygen - we need oxygen its a natural process. can you stop breathing oxygen its impossible - u can block everything in your body but there is oxygen already in ur body..?

I'm using right to life and right to exist in the same sense. If someone has a right to freedom and you restrict their freedom, say by putting them in shackles, then you violate their right to freedom. Similarly, if someone has a right to equal protection of the law and is then descriminated against in a court of law, perhaps on the basis of race, then that right too has been violated. Many rights protect individuals in this way.

In saying that an individual has a right to life it means that to kill them, in most circumstances, is to violate this right and is thus wrong. If such a right is respected then people are protected from unjust killing. Whether or not someone can be brought back to life, or whether death is a natural process, has little to no bearing on whether an individual has a right to life and whether it is wrong to kill. Also, whether we live and whether we allow others to live is not out of our control. We can kill others and we can kill ourselves. Similarly, we can protect others and ourselves from death. A right to life entails that humans have a right to oxygen. You can deny a person oxygen via suffocation which is wrong in spite of the fact that oxygen exchange in the lungs is a natural process.

 

[katie_tully]

Guess what! 10 weeks until I pop out my own, mini, Katie_Tully.

Meanwhile I still support PRO CHOICE, and you weeny whiners that harp on about 'science this', 'statistics that', 'god this', 'feotus rights that' are ill informed snotty nosed little brats.

May I suggest some of you get out into the real world where you have to make real decisions before you condemn things such as abortion. Quite frankly the feotus developing inside of me has nothing to do with any of you ring worms, nor did it at 6 weeks when I pondered such a crucial decision. Nor does any other foetus.

 

[HotShot]

Guess what! 10 weeks until I pop out my own, mini, Katie_Tully.

Meanwhile I still support PRO CHOICE, and you weeny whiners that harp on about 'science this', 'statistics that', 'god this', 'feotus rights that' are ill informed snotty nosed little brats.

May I suggest some of you get out into the real world where you have to make real decisions before you condemn things such as abortion. Quite frankly the feotus developing inside of me has nothing to do with any of you ring worms, nor did it at 6 weeks when I pondered such a crucial decision. Nor does any other foetus.

In australia are you allowed to know the gender of the baby? cos in some countries its illegal for the doctor to tell the gender of the baby.

 

[dieburndie]

In australia are you allowed to know the gender of the baby? cos in some countries its illegal for the doctor to tell the gender of the baby.

Australia does not have a law which only allows for one child per woman.
Most Australians live in an urban area, eliminating the need for the labour required for farming.
Women can achieve the same level of success and wealth as men here.
No, there is no need to prevent women from knowing their unborn child's gender.

 

[HotShot]

Australia does not have a law which only allows for one child per woman.
Most Australians live in an urban area, eliminating the need for the labour required for farming.
Women can achieve the same level of success and wealth as men here.
No, there is no need to prevent women from knowing their unborn child's gender.

sad thing is it happens in other countries - so thats they have to impose a law so that parents dont know the gender of the baby until it is born. simply many terminate if its a girl - sad shit they will never learn!.

 

[ur_inner_child]

sad thing is it happens in other countries - so thats they have to impose a law so that parents dont know the gender of the baby until it is born. simply many terminate if its a girl - sad shit they will never learn!.

Small tangent:

I personally feel that its the culture that needs to change. In the Chinese culture, a son continues the family line. The son is obliged to support his parents in retirement etc. The son stays in the household (quite literally).

The daughter on the otherhand is to be married off, new name, new household, new parents to "support". I'm not saying she forget her real parents entirely, but the obligation lies there.

I'm sure most of you are aware of these fairly traditional gender roles, but I feel that if this culture or mentality would sway and move on (in which case I know in some places it does/is) then a one child policy would not be so horrendous; where the parents are blessed regardless of whatever sex the baby is.

So what I am saying is, they are learning, but ever so very slowly...

 

[HotShot]

Small tangent:

I personally feel that its the culture that needs to change. In the Chinese culture, a son continues the family line. The son is obliged to support his parents in retirement etc. The son stays in the household (quite literally).

The daughter on the otherhand is to be married off, new name, new household, new parents to "support". I'm not saying she forget her real parents entirely, but the obligation lies there.

I'm sure most of you are aware of these fairly traditional gender roles, but I feel that if this culture or mentality would sway and move on (in which case I know in some places it does/is) then a one child policy would not be so horrendous; where the parents are blessed regardless of whatever sex the baby is.

So what I am saying is, they are learning, but ever so very slowly...

It is culture, but in the past really you couldnt blame the ppl - it was more the government's fault in my opinion anyway.

Because most the people that engaged in this manner were poor people often struggling to live. having a female baby would have very few benefits and more costs involved, where as male could work and get a job help in the farm and bring wealth. where as the female would get married and move away.

the government should have done something about this ages ago - but they didnt. and now of course they are but it could have been done a long time ago.

 

[katie_tully]

... That is quite possibly the most retarded thing I've heard in my entire life.
Of course we are allowed to know the sex of the baby. I'm not sure whether you have ever seen an 18 or 30 week ultrasound, but even if they don't tell you, it's pretty bloody obvious what you're having.

Either it has dangle berries or it doesn't.

 

[dieburndie]

personally am against it. a potential bub is a life, and deserves a chance to have a life and live.

BUT in Australia I reckon it really should be entirely up to the woman. after all she will carry the baby.
But then the woman may not wanna go thru the ordeal of giving birth in the first place so meh i'll just give in and say that abortion the abortion laws should remain, but they shouldnt become tougher OR easier...hope this makes sense lol

It does. It makes a lot more sense to me when those who oppose abortion are able to rationalise that is the woman who should make the choice and not the state.
However, I don't believe in the "sanctity of life". I am a pro-abortion pro-choicer in that in the case a woman got pregnant, I would much prefer she aborted the baby than didn't.
To me the adoption mantra of pro-lifers is of little use because:
The woman in question has to carry a foetus to term and go through labour. The possible medical complications, loss of income, permanent effect on the body etc are all for nothing when she will simply give the child away. The maternal reward for the relentless and painful task of pregnancy is non-existent.
The adopted baby will become another resource swallowing westerner, contributing to the rapid degeneration of Earth as much as several third-world children would.
The emotional problems often associated with adoption for all three parties concerned (Child, biological parents, social parents) would in most cases outweigh those experienced if the pregnant woman chose to have an abortion.

If a mother decided to go through pregnancy, I would consider it a given that she would want to be part of her child's life.
Those who consider adoption to be the best option for the mother seriously need to evaluate how much it would affect the humans that exist already as they continue to abide by their one restrictive principle at all costs.

 

[$hiftyIceQueen]

say you got a woman pregnant, she wanted an abortion but you didnt, would you think it was fine that she has the final say in if your child was to live or die?

 

[*hopeful*]

meh i've already posted in here but im down for it, let the woman/family/etc make the choice of wether they want the baby or not

 

[dieburndie]

say you got a woman pregnant, she wanted an abortion but you didnt, would you think it was fine that she has the final say in if your child was to live or die?

Yes. She would be the one having to endure pregnancy. My sole contribution to the foetus would have been fertilising it.
Why would it be fine that I chose that the baby should be born, against the mother's wishes? I know you like men oppressing women, but I'm kinda into the whole 'equality' thing.
See, your perspective is clearly skewed towards having the child by default.
You don't see the choice between aborting and not as 50/50, with each side having equal merit. If you did it would be obvious that the parent who made a greater contribution to the development of the foetus should make the final decision, and you wouldn't be asking such a stupid question when my tone in the previous post clearly indicated what answer I would give.

 

[$hiftyIceQueen]

chill out

i dont think men are better then woman, and dont know why you would think that

i think i worded my question wrong

this is what i meant, pretend you wanted this child, but your partner didnt want it.. would like your partner to have the final say and not care about what you thought???

i think that both the parents should decide on it together, not the mother have the final say just because it is inside her

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

I think that both father and mother should discuss having an abortion, in an ideal situation, but in the end, the mother should have the final say.
I know it must be devestating for the Dad if he wants a kid and the mother doesn't, but they should have had safe sex in the first place and the situation wouldn't have arisen!

 

[The Brucemaster]

chill out

i dont think men are better then woman, and dont know why you would think that

i think i worded my question wrong

this is what i meant, pretend you wanted this child, but your partner didnt want it.. would like your partner to have the final say and not care about what you thought???

i think that both the parents should decide on it together, not the mother have the final say just because it is inside her

Yes but if the two parents have opposing views on the matter then deciding together is going to be a bit difficult. Ideally, of course, this should occur and indeed should be discussed before the situation arises to avoid problems such as this. However, when it comes down to it the mother should have the final say because it is her body etc. etc.