• S E X
    L O V E +
    R E L A T I O N S H I P S


    ❤️ Welcome Guest! ❤️


    Posting Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • SLR Moderators: Senior Staff

Abortion - a necessary part of life

Crystalcallas, I realize your opinions are influenced by your extensive knowledge of literature. That said, I think it's in extremely poor taste to quote the Marquis de Sade in a thread about abortion.

Just *my* .02.
 
^^i think its pretty funny

but im a tasteless asshole sometimes so maybe it dont count

Its funny....

I got a completely different view of early abortion and full term or partial term abortion....

If i was a woman and i had let it get that far, seen the baby chillin out in my uterus, livin, movin, kickin, i wouldnt be able to kill it. but the first few months, aint killing to me. thats cellblob like i said. especially since my girls 1 day past her due date any any minute now shes havin that thing, and seeing the baby pictures and all that, its like i got a better understanding of shit. *I* woudl be sad if she had a abortion at 6 months. i seen that baby dance when you put on certain music, she loves tool and sublime and rick james. anytime you put that on, kids in instant motion.

shit like that. you get attched. but as far as "oh shit, i got knocked up a month ago" man, get out the medical equipment and suck that shit out. sorry if thats disrespectful to some people but ay thats me.
 
DigitalDuality said:
You're problem is "rights of another".

And that boils down to belief. Faith. Nothing more. And i don't care if religion backs that opinion or not, b/c a belief is exactly all it is. Nothing more, nothing less.

Tell me when you consider something alive? When is it a life?

Everytime i jack off... there's millions of "potential children" wiped away with a gym sock. Why does a zygote get better treatment? B/c of ONE cell? How about a developing fetus? At what stage does it become wrong?

See the point is the arguement. No one can define when life starts. No one can pin point the moment conscious starts. You can't prove if there's such things as souls and if/when they become attached.

So this "other" you're fighting for.. technically is a "potential other" until we have somekind of God-like insight other-wise.
Click to expand...

DD, I agree with you.

If you reread my posts, you will see that I have consistently maintained that there are reasonable arguments to be made on both sides of this debate.

And my main point has consistently been that if you're going to argue that abortion is morally acceptable, you need to address the issue of whether or not a fetus has rights, rather than sidestepping that issue and focussing on "freedom of choice."

The concept of "freedom" that we have fought for was meant to free us from being controlled by others.

It was NOT meant to give us the right to impose on others.


*****
 
mariposa420 said:
Crystalcallas, I realize your opinions are influenced by your extensive knowledge of literature. That said, I think it's in extremely poor taste to quote the Marquis de Sade in a thread about abortion.

Just *my* .02.
Click to expand...
I respectfully disagree :)

This isn't a thread where someone is opening their heart and soul about the emotional consequences of their abortion. And the quote isn't overly offensive if you consider the language of that time period.
 
To all of those who stated that until the embryo/fetus can live on its own, without the support of the mother, is not really a life, consider this: a baby that is born at 20 wks gestational age cannot live on its own outside of the mothers womb...yet in the world today a baby born at this stage is viable and can be kept alive with medical treatment and support (i.e steriod injections to help lung development, ventillation support, and many other things)

Since this baby would technically not be able to live outside of the womb on its own, does that mean that it is not a living being? I don't think so because there are many babies living right now that would not have been able to live without the medical knowledge that we have now and they are definitately HUMAN BEINGS. They grow and become children and then adults just like everyone else.

When the egg and the sperm join together to form the zygote, what is happening is that they link there chromosomes together forming a completely different set. Then they start splitting and keep splitting forming more and more copies of themselves. This is the "blob of cells" that some have referred to. Here is my point: every new cell that is formed contains these chromosomes which contain DNA. Now everyone knows that each individual person has there own DNA that is unlike anyone elses. So this "blob of cells" Has its own genetic make-up just like the rest of us. This makes it a unique living being. No one else that lives or will be born in the future will be just like that one.

When you have an abortion you are taking away a person with its own identity after only a matter of hours from having a chance to live its life.

I am not a fanatical pro-lifer, I just think that it is something that cannot be taken lightly. In special situations maybe there is a very good reason to have an abortion in some peoples opinion. But if you are going to do something like have an abortion, it really needs to be taken seriously and you should know that you really are taking a persons chance to live, IMO.
 
Can any of us say with certainty that we know the exact point when life begins, or when a fetus changes from being a "clump of cells" into a human being? I certainly can't. The only logical answer I can give is that this change occurs at the moment when the fetus is able to suvive outside the womb. This moment is occuring earlier than ever before (even as early as 20 weeks) due to advancing medicine. All this means is that as long as the fetus's life is held completely in the hands of its mother, she has the right to choose to abort it.

By the way, for any of you who are annoyed that this discussion has taken a philosophical/ethical turn, you are only showing your ignorance by making that statement. What other kind of discussion is this other than an ethical one??
 
To all of those who stated that until the embryo/fetus can live on its own, without the support of the mother, is not really a life, consider this: a baby that is born at 20 wks gestational age cannot live on its own outside of the mothers womb...yet in the world today a baby born at this stage is viable and can be kept alive with medical treatment and support (i.e steriod injections to help lung development, ventillation support, and many other things)




Just wanted to say that - I don't consider that living on it's own. It's being assisted/supported by machines. Living on it's own is exactly that.

Oh, and I don't think anybody who's made the decision ever acted as though it was just another day, as though it was something as ordinary as a bad hair day. BTW. I find that SO obnoxious when people act like that. I don't know anybody who has taken it LIGHTLY. However, I disagree with your final sentence.

Why can't people in this thread admit what they are!?!? Say you're pro life, pro choice, whatever!

I am not a fanatical pro-lifer, I just think that it is something that cannot be taken lightly. In special situations maybe there is a very good reason to have an abortion in some peoples opinion. But if you are going to do something like have an abortion, it really needs to be taken seriously and you should know that you really are taking a persons chance to live, IMO.


Sounds fanatical to me.
 
i'd like to point out that a blob of cancer cells has its own(slighty mutated) dna. does that mean its wrong to cut it out and let it die? of course not.

yes, i'm drawing some correlation between a fetus and a cancer. deal with it. both are parasites that draw on the host for survival. the only real difference is that one eventually gets expelled and becomes a person.

in the first few weeks of a fetus' growth, doesnt the host's body try to attack it as if it was a foreign body? isnt that part of the reason there is a placenta? to protect the fetus?


but regardless, if its in the womans body, its is the womans choice. if men could get pregnant, we wouldnt even be having this disscussion.
 
abortion is never an easy choice, I had a girl I was having an affair with who got pregnant twice in the one year. I know, it wasnt clever, however she didnt think twice about terminating the situation. I wasnt available and me being unavailable left her feeling she was being dumped on and wasnt up for thet. When we split she met a man who realy wanted her and had a baby within the first year.

My belief its the woman choice and the mans duty is to support what ever choice she makes
 
Just curious if any of the guys here (in this thread) have ever had girlfriends that have had abortions, and their thoughts on that?

Does that sway your opinion?
 
I couldnt care less if a woman has had 10 abortions if i was gonna fall for her, i would be falling for her
 
randycaver said:
Just curious if any of the guys here (in this thread) have ever had girlfriends that have had abortions, and their thoughts on that?

Does that sway your opinion?
Click to expand...

I had a g'f who had an abortion (somewhere in the neighborhood of the ned of the first trimester, if i recall the story correctly), and even though she didn't really regard it as a baby, it still scarred her to this day.

I'm pro choice, but I'd be happy to never see another abortion performed ever again. I regard it as barbaric.
 
exarkann said:
i'd like to point out that a blob of cancer cells has its own(slighty mutated) dna. does that mean its wrong to cut it out and let it die? of course not.

yes, i'm drawing some correlation between a fetus and a cancer. deal with it. both are parasites that draw on the host for survival. the only real difference is that one eventually gets expelled and becomes a person.

in the first few weeks of a fetus' growth, doesnt the host's body try to attack it as if it was a foreign body? isnt that part of the reason there is a placenta? to protect the fetus?


but regardless, if its in the womans body, its is the womans choice. if men could get pregnant, we wouldnt even be having this disscussion.
Click to expand...

lol- that analogy is even worse than the holocaust one! Yes the host does try to attack the foetus within the first few weeks, and succeeds more often than not when the foetus has a different blood group.
 
exarkann said:
in the first few weeks of a fetus' growth, doesnt the host's body try to attack it as if it was a foreign body? isnt that part of the reason there is a placenta? to protect the fetus?
Click to expand...

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I have never heard any of this before. I thought the placenta's purpose was to bring nutrients to the fetus and get rid of wastes. Also, I don't think it's accurate that the mother's body attacks the fetus as if it is foreign unless there is some kind of problem, like negative rh blood cells in the mother and positive-rh in the fetus. My doctor told me that normally the mother's immune system is somewhat suppressed during pregnancy in order to keep the body from expelling the fetus--this is why pregnant women are more succeptible to colds and other illnesses.
 
Wah wah wah wah, a "aborting even a just-formed embryo is taking away a chance for something to live"

i dont mean to be disrespecting and I aint takin it lightly, and it aint a disrespect to the person who posted that either. but i gotta say thats a load of shit.

Dont get offended or see what i say as shit-starting, cuz its just how i feel and i been putting it softer but im a blunt person and straight up, thats me. i cant listen to that shit. :\

"imposing on the rights of others?" a SEED aint got rights man.

No one is like, Oh shit man, i better not let that acorn go thru the lawnmower and get chopped up, cuz its the baby of a tree and it coulda been a living thing!

Oh, so now we get to the catch - Only if its a HUMAN living thing does it have value. no one goes tryina give their dog birth support and hook up pre term puppies to a ventilator and shit. uhnless they crazy stupid rich people.

If you are spoutin off this shit left and right, about LIVING THINGS, then every living thing is sacred too.

It makes me laugh that some people can see no problem with, for example dogs, at a animal shelter living in shitty overcrowded conditions, and then gettin exterminated after a month if no one wants them, --a already living, already fully existing life ---but they wanna protect the cellwad of a just-concieved 5 days ago "life."

I aint one of those "animals are better than people" people at all, dont take it like that. Im just using a example. people complain about LIFE LIFE LIFE letting LIFe have a chance, but they disrespect other forms of life without a thought. just a thought there.

All i can say is, to the people who think that little "Someday Baby" is more important to let exist (and i wont say live, cuz that shit aint got a life yet) than the mothers needs and HER say of whats a freakin PART of her BODY.......

you never known the feeling of intense, pure RAGE, that there is a THING, a PARASITE, cuz thats exactly what it feels like, inside you RIGHT AT THIS MOMENT, in YOUR body, and you know its there, you dont want it there, and you cant do a damn thing.

of having this SHIT inside you that you CANT GET OUT, and its just IN THERE, and knowing the longer its there its GROWING and GROWING, leching off YOUR body, taking over, you didnt want it, and now it, this fuckin THING, has the power to change your life, and feeling comepletely helpless, angry, alone, and at the same time wanting to throw yourself stomach first into a sharp, hard object and just make it fuckin go away.


Sorry man but a "would-be" life can suck the dick of the already-in-progress life of the woman whose body is carrying it.
 
Imo, the "a fetus is a human being with rights" argument is a specious one because it implies (by conscious omission) that a fetus has the SAME rights as another viable, already born human being.

Animals are more conscious than are previability fetuses, and yet we don't hold hearings to determine if their rights are being violated when the choice to euthanize them is made. Who knows, maybe that dog would have been the Lassie of all Lassies and saved hundreds of people from burning buildings and found lost children in the forest...we'll never know now though, because we MURDERED it.

It's a specious argument predicated with an inflammatory, kneejerk intent. Moreover, it's a tad disingenuous because it implies society has some overarching interest in the potential of the unborn fetus, and yet somehow once the fetus is actually born society abdicates almost all responsibility for nurturing that potential to the mother. If society's interest in the potential of the fetus in utero were that paramount, then by logical extension the mother's parenting role even after birth should be secondary to that of the State.

*pauses for a second to allow requisite screaming bloody murder at the top of their lungs by resident Randians to die down*

If anything, I think the animal analogy is more appropriate here. Animals can't voice their subjective states of mind to defend their "rights". Neither can fetuses. Animals CAN provide their own means of sustenance and protection. Fetuses can't.

And almost certainly a fetus in the early stages of development would have no consciousness of its own being, the brain having not developed sufficiently at that stage...moreover, certainly the fetus is no more conscious of its own existence than an animal in almost any but the very last stages of fetal development, and I would imagine even that's debatable.

So if we had a "fetal impoundment shelter" system in which any pregnant mother could register her fetus for a period of, say, 7 days in which pre-approved prospective adoptees wanting to adopt could contractually bind themselves to adopt the child and pay for the childbirth costs, and then failing any takers within that 7 day period, the mother could choose to euthanize the fetus (assuming the fetus were still pre-viability stage of course), I'd be all for it.

Such a system could be set up to ensure the privacy rights of the mother. It would also address for the most part the minor parental consent concerns, although there would still be the nagging issue of the minor being able to void the adoption contract upon the child's birth. I'd simply say caveat emptor in that instance though.

Of course there are also utilitarian arguments already pointed out by others militating in favor of maintaining abortion as an option, e.g., the fact that the population is presently well beyond the earth's natural carrying capacity in the first place. There's also the argument that legalized abortion lowers the violent crime rate, an argument advanced by Steven Leavitt in his book "Freakonomics".

My view is that up until the fetus reaches the point of viability, fetal rights are clearly subsidiary to the carrying female's rights, with the caveat that if some system on the lines of above were enacted I would endorse it. The argument that a previability fetus is on the same level rights-wise with the mother is simply specious though.

L O V E L I F E said:
The concept of "freedom" that we have fought for was meant to free us from being controlled by others.

It was NOT meant to give us the right to impose on others.
Click to expand...

Sure it does in some instances. I wanted that last available parking spot that we both pulled up to roughly simultaneously, you got it instead, you imposed your right to secure it over mine without asking or bargaining with me for it first. I don't have any right to sue you based on tortious interference with my right to license that parking space to myself. Noise, zoning and pollution ordinances also set bright-line demarcations below which impositions upon others are presumed to be acceptable.

Obviously those are de minimis examples, but while "freedom of competition", "pursuit of happiness" and the reality of our society dictate that some de minimis impositions are tolerated, it does underscore that there are a number of elements missing from the abortion issue that would otherwise be present in a typical pure "freedom" setting.

The weakness in your "freedom" analogy here is that this just isn't, strictly speaking, a pure "freedom" situation. For your analogy to apply on all fours, the fetus would have to have some means of independently exercising its right to be "free" of the inherently "enslaving" aspects of the prenatal womb. The fetus isn't "free" to choose another host womb if it's dissatisfied with its current host womb or even petition for redress of grievances against it, say, e.g., that it didn't "consent" to the mother's nicotine or caffeine consumption. Nor is the mother "free" to unburden herself of all the decisions that she has to make on the fetus' behalf, or even consider the full range of reproductive options if abortion is significantly restricted.

*pauses for a second to ponder the possibility of movie sequel...BRAD PITT: WOMB RAIDER*

It's simply not a pure "freedom" situation, and to imply that this issue is controlled by a pure "freedom" analysis militating in favor of the fetus is a dangerous implication, for it could (I'm envisioning the following scenario in an amplified version of the present political climate, of course) very easily lead to such slippery slope results intruding even more micromanagerially into the female's life, i.e., the creation of new, even more intrusive State-based "fetal protection" enforcement rights against the putative mother...perversely enough, engendering the very state of control you militate against and endangering the very freedom you ostensibly support.

She had a glass of wine? HAUL HER INTO REPRODUCTIVE COURT! She smoked a cigarette? HAUL HER INTO REPRODUCTIVE COURT! She had particularly vigorous sex during the early pregnancy stages? HAUL HER INTO REPRODUCTIVE COURT!

Sure, those examples are stretched to the extreme, but with the underpinnings of the constitutional right of privacy presently under fire (particularly with respect to reproductive rights) and some on the far right of the political spectrum bemoaning declining American birthrates, it's not hard to imagine some such diluted version of those scenarios in the future ala the Nazi Lebensborn programs.

Given the degree of contentiousness on the issue, until the day comes that we develop technology to process and interpret early fetal brainwaves it's far more desirable imo, and indeed arguably even more protective of the "freedom" you espouse, to maintain the present "viability" bright-line demarcation so that such slippery slope temptations are minimized on either side of the coin.

-------------------------------

While I freely admit that this is merely my own speculation, I suspect that the driving forces in the upper tiers of the anti-abortion movement harbor motives not unlike that of the eugenics movement of the 1930's, namely, that of promoting the birth of more "fit" children while discouraging the birth of "unfit" children. Oddly enough though, the eugenics baby has now been dropped squarely upon its head...once harbored amongst the "liberal elite", the eugenicists are now firmly entrenched in the far right elite camp (think Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan).

In the early 1900's when birth rates among all classes were still fairly high, the eugenicists SUPPORTED birth control and abortion as a means of lowering birth rates of the poor classes. Now however, given that the more "fit" in our society often employ birth control and abortion as a means of controlling when they reproduce in order to maximize their own economic competitiveness, and further given that the poor still tend to produce roughly as many offspring as they ever did (or at least more than the upper classes), the eugenics advocates OPPOSE abortion because it's had precisely the opposite effect of what they had always sought, namely, engineering and controlling society in the manner they intended.

Of course the eugenics advocates now couch their opposition to abortion in the most "moral" of terms, i.e., "abortion is murder and murder is wrong", to gain the support of the lower tier (primarily religious) anti-abortion advocates, but again, I suspect the real motive is ulterior. That's why they screamed bloody murder and immediately moved to denounce and smear Leavitt when he published his thesis supporting the view that legalized abortion lowers violent crime rates. Naturally it just wouldn't do to allow evidence of abortion imparting a benefit to society to go unsmeared.
 
The whole basis of this thread is flawed. There are natural ways to prevent conception, and back in the olden days this is how it was done. The body gives very obvious signs of ovulation. Avoiding having sex around that time won't guarantee that you never have any children. But it will definitely reduce the likelihood. And then you won't need to worry about having hundreds of children.

There are so many options for contraception available now, and in conjunction with the morning after pill I struggle to see why abortion rates are still rising. How is it possible that so many people continue to be so stupid? I can understand the pill failing, or the implant failing, and no one realising until it's too late, but that definitely doesn't account for the rising rates.

I heard a statistic on the radio that was something like 10% of all Australian women aged between 16 and 30 had an abortion last year. Disgusting.
 
^^^

(for glowbug)For lack of a better word, HELLZ YEA.

Took me a minute to read that, but you basically said everything i was thinking, in court-speak. good post man. damn.



Anna: like i said before, i dont support abortion as birth control, but sometimes peope make mistakes and it aint intentional stupidity or ignorance, its just a fuckin mistake. as humans we make those.

shouldnt happen all the time, but you cant write off anyone that get a abortion after getting pregnant accidentally as stupid. one thing i learned in life is you never know what someones story is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top