Abortion - a necessary part of life

[Belisarius]

Human high fertility was once necessary. In Paleolithic times, life expectancy was 25-30; no matter how many kids you had, few of them would survive anyway, and the chances of the woman dying in childbirth were pretty good as well. Times have changed, but the plumbing hasn't.

I'm personally looking forward to a bioengineered future for all...

 

[L O V E L I F E]

Beatlebot:

I think I was clear in my first post when I stated that I do NOT equate abortion and the holocaust.

My point was to illustrate that the way you worded this sentence

Abortion, to these women, wasn't a crime against their unborn baby but a necessary part of their lives that ensured their own future and the future of their already existing children.

. . . seems to support the viewpoint that if a group of people, Group A, decide that it is in their best interest to engage in Activity X, the fact that engaging in Activity X is beneficial/necessary/extremely necessary/etc. to THEM makes it so that they don't consider Activity X to be a crime/wrong/immoral/unethical EVEN THOUGH by engaging in Activity X, they are DIRECTLY harming the members of Group B.

With abortion, Group A consists of women deciding to have abortions and Group B consists of their unborn babies.

With the holocaust, group A conisted of certain Nazis in power and Group B consisted of the Jews.

With slavery, group A consisted of slave owners and Group B consisted of the blacks they enslaved.

Again, I'm NOT suggesting that these situations are the same in all respects.

I'm simply pointing out that the same logic in this argument:

"Abortion, to these women wasn't a crime; rather, to them it was something they did to protect their interests (without respect for how it directly hurt another party - after all, the other party is just a bunch of fetuses - they're not even human beings)"

is eerily similar to the logic in this argument:

"The holocaust, to the Nazis wasn't a crime; rather to them it was something they did to further their interests (without respect for how it directly hurt another party - after all, the other party is just of bunch of Jews - they're not even human beings)"

and in this argument:

"Slavery, to the slaveowners, wasn't a crime; rather to them it was something they did to further their interests (without respect for how it directly hurt another party - after all, the other party is just a bunch of blacks - they're not even human beings)."

People who were anti-holocaust and anti-slavery at the time saw the unfairness because TO THEM, the parties being harmed WERE human beings and needed to be protected.

Similarly, people who are anti-abortion view abortion as unfair because TO THEM, the parties being harmed are (at least tantamount to) human beings and need to be protected.

Please be clear: I'm not sitting here on a high horse preaching.

I've done selfish things that I justified at the time.

It is easy to justify selfish behavior on the grounds that the other party's interests aren't as important as ours.

But that doesn't make it the right thing to do.

 

[Johnny1]

Then the real question is, whether a fetus or an "unborn child" or an "other party" is really a person. I don't think there's any doubt that black people and Jewish people are people. They have the same level of development and feelings and thoughts as their oppressors. But what about a fetus?

- No one of us has any memory of what it was like inside the womb.
- Especially at early stages of development, the level of brain activity in no way resembles that of even a newborn baby.
- We eat animals every day that are far, far more developed than a fetus.

These are just off the top of my head; I'm sure there are many other, more scientific arguments about why a fetus is not a person.

Is it possible that there are forces out there labeling fetuses as people in order to advance another agenda that has nothing to do with protecting a form of life they know are not people? In that case, can't one compare the tactics of the leaders of anti-abortion groups to those used by slavers and Nazis? The effect is reversed, humanizing a non-human object, but the control they gain over their adherents is similar.

 

[Beatlebot]

Nice Lovelife, I complain that your false analogy is offensive to me and you respond by throwing more at me. However, I get your point, you've decided to single out one comment of mine and ignore all the other things presented before I made that comment.

Here we go again:

During those many years I have known and seen what women did to themselves when they wanted to abort, if they lived out in the country. They would jump off the roof of the house, or they would fall off a horse. But most of all they would do themselves harm by using instruments of some sort, to make the blood come. They thought by bleeding they would get rid of it.

Interviewer: Did some of these women die from what they did?

Sophia: Yes. Oh yes, and how.

Because as far as I was concerned the pregnancy I aborted was a threat — a threat to my life — a threat to everybody — and to the baby I already had.

And THE comment

Abortion, to these women, wasn't a crime against their unborn baby but a necessary part of their lives that ensured their own future and the future of their already existing children.

Now by singling out that last comment and comparing (not equating) it the holocaust or slavery, you are suggesting that women who have abortions are selfish people ready to kill others for their own selfish purposes. To further their own ends. In response I can only direct you to READ the link I provided and the stories of women who sought an abortion when it was illegal and dangerous. They knew they risked their lives in doing so, they knew it might affect their ability to have children in the future, they knew they were likely to suffer horrendous pain. Yet went ahead and did it anyway.

Doesn't sound like the act of a selfish person to me. That sounds like a desperate person.

Now you might think that there is no higher purpose for a woman then to act as a life support machine to potential humans. You might think that if she is not prepared to raise the child herself then she should simply give it up for adoption (assuming the rest of her family including her partner would agree to that). You might hold all kinds of lofty ideals about the sanctity of undeveloped potential human life. But just like the Catholic Church and it's past stance on contraceptive methods (remember Monty Python's 'Every Sperm is Sacred'), your views don't actually have much grounding in reality.

Which is, that whether you agree to it or not, whether it is legal or not, whether it is safe or not, women will seek out abortions and risk their own health to terminate their pregancies. So what it really comes down to, is whether you think they deserve to die for that or not.

 

[Khadijah]

Ha....no question.....

Abortion is necessary sometimes.

Girl, possibly very young, gets raped and impregnated. is she selfish to terminate the pregnancy because she dont want a unplanned, unwanted baby concieved by a violent and violating act?


Or just imagine you are a 15, 16 year old girl that gets pregnant.

When youre sitting there realizing that your life as you know it, your short, much-to-learn life, your potential to do what you want with your life -
to go find yourself,
to grow up as a normal teenager,
to work without worrying about daycare,
to go out and be with your people without having to get home to the baby,
to come into your own and let your mind grow into a adult which you barely even know SHIT about yet -

is about to be ended by a unplanned fetus growing like a parasite in your uterus,

"Well then you shouldnt have had unprotected sex if you didnt want a kid" just seems to lack that comfort that you need while you see your existence change for the worse in front of your eyes when that little peed-on strip changes the wrong color.


If you think someone should sacrifice their own future and what they could become and their dreams, to instead sit at home collecting welfare or working their asses off around the clock to support the kid they didnt want, because they made a bad decision,
and fixing the situation involves extracting a tiny blob of cells leeching off their insides and hurts no one but them self,
then you need your head checked.

amen roe v wade.

Abortion abuse is wrong. to fuck with no condom repeatedly and keep gettin abortions is a problem.

But for someone to fuck up, feelin scared, alone, and terrified of letting that thing grow to full term and permanently change their life into a direction they didnt want it to go, and then have someone think they desrve no help or counter action, cuz "they got what they deserved" is just straight fucked up.

 

[IAmJacksUserName]

The biggest problem with the pro-choice crowd is the way they dodge the argument. It isn't about it a woman's right to "choose" (You'd find very few people in the pro-life crowd who oppose a woman's right to make decisions for herself as a general principle). Rather, it's about a fetus's right to life. Personally, I'm fairly indifferent to a fetus; it doesn't bother me a whole lot to kill one. Therefore, I'm not against abortion. But the pro-abortion crowd fails to address that issue. They just rant about women being able to "choose". I generally do support a woman's right to choose (The same way I support a man's right to choose), but only to a degree. By that, I don't think a woman should be allowed to rob banks and to murder people. If I considered a fetus to equate to being a born human, than I'd consider that to be part of the latter. As it is, I don't. I do respect the argument that a fetus is a human, however, thus I don't ridicule people for holding that belief.

But since abortion is also unique in that only a woman can possibly commit it, it gets turned into a woman's right issue. I'll spell it out clearly for you: It's not about women "choosing", it's about fetuses being allowed to live, which, as I said, I happen to be callous to (Like most of you seem to be). There's no point in talking about the problems with having illegal abortions as an argument to preserve it's legality, since it's a moot point when you realize that the people you are arguing with think that the people having abortions are committing murder.

 

[ravbutterfly2]

I wouldnt consider abortion as some sort of birth control, but like I said I did have one many years ago, because I was to young, to naive, and to stupid to know the difference. I thought I knew everything at 16. Yeah, adoption is another option but not always the best. I know many kids who have been pushed throught the legal system, jumping from one family to the next...ask them how easy their lives are? Most of them had a terrible childhood and still struggling today. So, IMO, I am and always will be pro-choice.

 

[randycaver]

The biggest problem with the pro-choice crowd is the way they dodge the argument. It isn't about it a woman's right to "choose" (You'd find very few people in the pro-life crowd who oppose a woman's right to make decisions for herself as a general principle). Rather, it's about a fetus's right to life. Personally, I'm fairly indifferent to a fetus; it doesn't bother me a whole lot to kill one. Therefore, I'm not against abortion. But the pro-abortion crowd fails to address that issue. They just rant about women being able to "choose". I generally do support a woman's right to choose (The same way I support a man's right to choose), but only to a degree. By that, I don't think a woman should be allowed to rob banks and to murder people. If I considered a fetus to equate to being a born human, than I'd consider that to be part of the latter. As it is, I don't. I do respect the argument that a fetus is a human, however, thus I don't ridicule people for holding that belief.

But since abortion is also unique in that only a woman can possibly commit it, it gets turned into a woman's right issue. I'll spell it out clearly for you: It's not about women "choosing", it's about fetuses being allowed to live, which, as I said, I happen to be callous to (Like most of you seem to be). There's no point in talking about the problems with having illegal abortions as an argument to preserve it's legality, since it's a moot point when you realize that the people you are arguing with think that the people having abortions are committing murder.

Um.. I don't think that point is really dodged.. Most pro-choicers I know don't consider that fetus to be a life, therefore.. it's not committing murder, and the fetus doesn't have a right to something it doesn't have. I consider it to have a life when it's considered viable on it's own. People may not like that, but I don't care, it's my right to have an opinion on the subject.

Basically, you can talk about this topic until you're blue in the face but it's never going to change someone else's mind.

 

[IAmJacksUserName]

Um.. I don't think that point is really dodged.. Most pro-choicers I know don't consider that fetus to be a life, therefore.. it's not committing murder, and the fetus doesn't have a right to something it doesn't have. I consider it to have a life when it's considered viable on it's own. People may not like that, but I don't care, it's my right to have an opinion on the subject.

Basically, you can talk about this topic until you're blue in the face but it's never going to change someone else's mind.

Yes, I know that most pro-choicers don't regard fetuses as human, but they should acknowledge and argue that point, rather than concentrating on the concept of "choice." They need to defend their reasons for why it is morally acceptable for a woman to have an abortion. Of course, it's a little hard since the whole debate is really more of a philosophical and idealogical one than a practical one.

 

[L O V E L I F E]

The biggest problem with the pro-choice crowd is the way they dodge the argument.

It isn't about it a woman's right to "choose" (You'd find very few people in the pro-life crowd who oppose a woman's right to make decisions for herself as a general principle).

Rather, it's about a fetus's right to life.

Well said.

Beatlebot, I have never said that it's unreasonable for someone to be pro-legalization of abortion.

I'm just in favor of calling something what it is.

People who eat meat should acknowledge that to them, their enjoyment of food is more important than an animal's right to life.

Simlarly, people who have abortions should acknowledge that to them, their enjoyment of their life without the addition of another child is more important than a fetus's right to life.

 

[randycaver]

Why do they have to acknowledge anything to you, or to anybody? Who should we "admit" this to?

LOL I seriously don't understand why you have to be like this. They are decisions that everyone has the RIGHT to make themselves. Would you appreciate it someone insisted that you justify why you make every decision that you do?

There are many grey areas. I don't care what people do, as long as their beliefs aren't forced on me.

 

[IAmJacksUserName]

^^

But with the issue of abortion, there's more than one being's rights in question. In order to defend your stance, you need to be able to explain why a fetus doesn't have the right to live.

 

[Beatlebot]

Dodged the issue? Sorry, I thought I addressed it all right here:

Now you might think that there is no higher purpose for a woman then to act as a life support machine to potential humans. You might think that if she is not prepared to raise the child herself then she should simply give it up for adoption (assuming the rest of her family including her partner would agree to that). You might hold all kinds of lofty ideals about the sanctity of undeveloped potential human life. But just like the Catholic Church and it's past stance on contraceptive methods (remember Monty Python's 'Every Sperm is Sacred'), your views don't actually have much grounding in reality.

Which is, that whether you agree to it or not, whether it is legal or not, whether it is safe or not, women will seek out abortions and risk their own health to terminate their pregancies. So what it really comes down to, is whether you think they deserve to die for that or not.

Are you actually reading my posts? Or are you dodging the issue?

Truth is we could argue all day and night about when a potential human life becomes a human life with the same rights as everyone else. You could argue that the morning after pill is murder, you could argue that while a child cannot feed itself or keep itself warm it still needs to exist on the goodwill of it's mother. We could argue about it all day and NEVER agree. I don't see where it would get us.

So yes, this is actually an argument about a woman's right to choose. AND once again, equating (or is it comparing?) abortion to bank robbery is a false analogy, but you know what? If I felt my life depended on it I WOULD rob a bank. How's that for acknowledgement? Can you admit the same?

 

[randycaver]

I don't need to explain my opinion to you. Like I asked- who should I justify it to, and why? I really don't need your approval in order to feel secure in my justification. I already said I believe the fetus isn't viable until it can survive on it's own. I'm not going to say it 6 different ways to please you or anybody else. I also never said let's go around and have mass abortions.

So, you can twist around someone else's words. For a pro-choicer, you have a funny way of showing it. :D Wait, you actually just kind of stepped around that. You refer to the prochoice crowd, you are indifferent to a fetus, but you didn't claim allegiance.. hmm!? Oh well. Have fun!

I'M OUT!

 

[IAmJacksUserName]

Both of you (Beatlebot and Randycaver), don't seem to understand that in practice, I agree with you. I think abortion should be legal too. I'm just trying to show you that the people who threaten abortion's legality believe that the life of a person is at stake, not the right's of a woman. Responding by saying "But women have a right to choose" won't make them budge. You may believe personally that women's rights are at stake, but that's not what the controversery is centered over. At least, not for your opponents.

Randycaver, you don't have to justify your views, unless you don't mind it when the people who you disagree with get the only word. If there was an ammendment that was seriously being considered that stated "Upon one year from this ammendment's passing, IAmJacksScreenName will be executed without any due process for no reason at all," then I would address the concerns of the people who wanted to execute me, and argue the merits of me not being executed, even though I'd think having to be in that situation would be absurd. Better to respond to absurdity than having absurdity prevail.

Are you actually reading my posts?

Appearently you aren't reading mine, as you quoted me as making an analogy that I never made. I was making the point that there's a limit to how far rights go, and I gave an example of an action that clearly would be out of line. I even said that I don't believe abortion to be out of line. Read that again.

There seems to be quite a bit of misinterpretation of what I'm saying. I'm sorry if my message is unclear, but please, let's be friendly.

 

[L O V E L I F E]

So yes, this is actually an argument about a woman's right to choose.

AND once again, equating (or is it comparing?) abortion to bank robbery is a false analogy

No, it's not.

Beatlebot, I really think you're missing my main point and Iamjacksusername's main point.

The point is NOT that people who are against the legalization of abortion are right and that people who are for the legalization of abortion are wrong.

The point is that you are not framing the issue properly.

A person has rights, but these rights have limits.

And for the most part, these limits come into play when your rights start infringing on the rights of another.

And just as you DON'T have the right to rob a bank because it directly and unfairly harms others, many people feel that you don't have the right to have an abortion because it directly and unfairly harms others.

If you want to disagree, attack whether or not the "others" in this instance deserve to have the same rights as you, or to have rights at all.

Just don't pretend that your rights have no limits.

 

[Beatlebot]

I'm just trying to show you that the people who threaten abortion's legality believe that the life of a person is at stake,

Yes, and I already addressed this. You're not reading my posts are you? I repeated myself twice. Prohibiting abortion does not make it go away, women will to risk their lives attempting to procure an abortion. So it really does come down to a whether you think a woman derserves to suffer and die for trying to have an abortion. If you do, then you really need to question what kind of 'morals' you have.

Let me reword your quote:

I'm just trying to show you that the people who threaten abortion's legality are putting the life of a person at stake,

EDIT: Lovelife,

Just don't pretend that your rights have no limits.

I would not. However, I do feel I have a right over my own body and whether or not I choose to reproduce. Would you deny me this?

 

[L O V E L I F E]

Prohibiting abortion does not make it go away, women will to risk their lives attempting to procure an abortion.

So it really does come down to a whether you think a woman derserves to suffer and die for trying to have an abortion.

If you do, then you really need to question what kind of 'morals' you have.

Prohibiting rape does not make it go away.

Laws are in place to DETER bad conduct.

The fact that laws don't completely eliminate bad conduct does not mean that there shouldn't be any laws.

I really don't think you are grasping the concept of competing interests.

I understand that you think it's unfair that some women suffer and die for trying to have an abortion.

I don't think you have grasped the fact that many people think it's unfair that innocent people-to-be are killed against their will every time someone has an abortion.

 

[mariacallas]

I don't need to explain my opinion to you. Like I asked- who should I justify it to, and why? I really don't need your approval in order to feel secure in my justification. I already said I believe the fetus isn't viable until it can survive on it's own. I'm not going to say it 6 different ways to please you or anybody else. I also never said let's go around and have mass abortions.

Word muthafuckin word x a million. I'm out. :D

 

[L O V E L I F E]

However, I do feel I have a right over my own body and whether or not I choose to reproduce.

Would you deny me this?

Now we're getting into interesting territory.

Let's first assume that a fetus has at least SOME rights, because absent that, this issue isn't even worth debating.

Now, if hypothetically, a fetus or a baby crawled up your smelly hole and into your body, I would entertain the argument that you would have the right to kill it if that was the only way to get it out of your body.

It follows then, that I would acknowledge that a woman who is raped has at least a reasonable argument that she should be allowed to get a fetus/baby out of her body by means of abortion.

The counterargument would be that while becoming pregnant through rape is a tragedy, that doesn't give the woman a right to transfer her misfortune to the fetus and that therefore, she should instead have to carry the baby to term.

If, on the other hand, a woman becomes pregnant from sex she consented to, one can make a much stronger argument against abortion based on the rationale that the woman assumed the risk of becoming pregnant, and thus should be prohibited from using the "intruder is in my body" argument.

Again, please be clear that I am not trying to state emphatically what I personally think is right or wrong in any of these scenarios; I am merely trying to frame the issues properly.