Abortion

Originally posted by whobdamandog
So anyway, when you're presenting your views to others, you have to realize that many of those who profess stuff like "abortion is a women's choice" or "a woman has a right to do what she wants with her body" are just ignorant. Not inherently evil or anything. Most are just being indoctrinated and controlled by the evil people who unfortunately control most of the media, the educational systems, etc, etc.

Or believe that it genuinely is a woman's choice and has zero to do with them. Which, aside from the very fair argument of "I don't wanna pay for it", is completely true.

-AC

Originally posted by The Omega in a different thread

...

A woman's right to choose what happens to her body, is FUNDAMENTAL for freedom and democracy. Without that right, you, YES you, the self-proclaimed holier-than-thou anti-abortionist, is trying to take away a basic democratic freedom! Shame on you!
If you want to live in a feudal state, where the STATE decides over the womans body, go move to some backwards feudal state, and take your medival opinions with you. If you want to stay, then by all means live by your own word, and stop forcing your world-views on others! THAT's facism! Both Hitler and Mao told people in their countries to spawn as many kids as thet could!! (With the result in China being, that they had to enforce a one-child policy so there would be food enough and resources enough for everyone).

Me? I'm for freedom and democracy!!! And I don't even think having kids should be a right!! Not every person who has a child SHOULD!
Me? I care for the people who have been BORN! Who're wanted by their parents, who are someones friend, mother, father, brother, sister...
Care, for crying out loud, for those who live.
A fetus never ASKED you to speak on its behalf! You're forcing your ideas on someone who can't even tell you, to shut up.

Ace.

Nah, God and all that.

-AC

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
"Et tu, Brute? Are you a liberal?" - updated version.

Quite good.

For the Liberal debate, I think there are many definitions and kind of Liberals so claiming that they all think alike is probably pretty dumb.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
"Et tu, Brute? Are you a liberal?" - updated version.

*Swipes quote for quote collection*

Liberalism is a matter of dates and issues. There is no one set of values all liberals adhere to in reality.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Actually I would consider myself to be more "liberal" than "conservative." I usually vote democratic or independent.😉

I find that most of those who support abortion are generally not very "liberal."

Case in point..

Anyone care to explain to me how someone can call themselves a "liberal", and not be concerned about the "civil rights" of the unborn?

Moving on.."liberal" and "conservative" are really just buzz words used by various individuals, to further separate and control people in a society. There's only 3 real groups of people in my book. The good, the bad, and the ignorant.

Not too many people fall in the good category, there's a whole hell of a lot in the bad, and probably even more in the ignorant. Unfortunately, the ignorant are just about always being manipulated by the bad ones, so it can be difficult to tell at times whether or not someone is truly evil or just very, very, ignorant.

So anyway, when you're presenting your views to others, you have to realize that many of those who profess stuff like "abortion is a women's choice" or "a woman has a right to do what she wants with her body" are just ignorant. Not inherently evil or anything. Most are just being indoctrinated and controlled by the evil people who unfortunately control most of the media, the educational systems, etc, etc.

I'd agree with you whobdamdog, but I believe only in bad and ignorant men, the "good" men are niave, and lost causes, just like the ignorant.

Well, I'd like to say that having read a good many of these pages I know pretty much the views of those who have recently been posting. I stopped three pages ago, because after reading a few of whobmadong and Hack Benjamin's posts, I was in danger of breaking down and closing the thread, which I'm reading to contribute to an essay I need to write.

Pro-life
The pro-life movement represented in the thread, have in general claimed these views:

A fetus (or embryo) is alive. It has the same rights that a newborn baby does. Thus, an abortion, which kills the 'baby', is murder. As pointed out by the pro-choicers present, there is no evidence as to when the fetus becomes human;

The potential for human life gives the fetus the right to life. Its potential to live a good life outweighs any reasons the mother may have for wanting an abortion. As many people have pointed out, humans also have the potential for evil, which negates the good. However, is a simply mediocre life not 'good' enough to warrant existence?

Sithsaber408 in particular argued that 1/3 of his 'generation' had been killed due to abortion. If abortion did not exist, then would the United States be a better place because of it? I think the answer there can only be no, as it would be hugely overcrowded and poverty-stricken.;

The sancitity of all human (and potential human) life extends to the fetus and embryo, which should not be destroyed under any circumstances. This is a view often followed by those who oppose abortion on religious grounds. It has not come up much in the thread, as it is simply refuted by those arguing from a secular point of view.

It is also sometime the view of pro-lifers that abortions to save the life of the mother, can be necessary evil. There are no other situations where abortion is acceptable. This view, however, hasn't appeared much on the thread. Some posters have also totally denied that abortion can ever be right.

Pro-choice
The same, for the pro-choice movement:

Nobody has proved when a fetus (or embryo) becomes a human being. Until somebody can definitively prove that a fetus is a human being, the rights of the mother must outweigh the possible rights of the fetus. This includes her right to privacy, and her right to alter her own body as she wishes. Since the fetus is part of her body, it is within her rights to destroy it;

The fetus is simply a bundle of cells. Since it is not independently alive, the mother has full control over its continued existence;

There are many scenarios in which the pregnancy is a result of something that emotionally scarred the mother (rape, for example). In these cases, forcing a woman to give birth, and thus go through hours of pain for, to a baby that will only serve to remind her of the incident, is unneccessarily cruel. Abortions should then be available. Adoption has been widely considered an alternative to bringing up the child by pro-choicers but a woman still has to go through the pains of childbirth.;

When contraception fails, abortion should be available to avoid unnecessary strain and stress for one or both of the parents (though in all eventualities, the woman's is the deciding choice);

Most of the posters in the thread have not approved of abortion - they only say that the option to do it should be there. The two other main choices (adoption and keeping the baby) are more desirable than abortion;

AC notably stated that he believed in abortion up to any point in the pregnancy, even immediately prior to birth. Of course, any such abortion would probably be severely detrimental to the woman in question, as she would still have to give birth, only to a dead fetus (technically) rather than a live baby which could then be given up for adoption.

It must also be pointed out that most of the pro-choice movement do follow a policy whereby there a limitations to the time period in which a woman may have an abortion. However, except for a brief discussion between Ush and AC, which degraded, this has not been commented on much.

Others
Other viewpoints or statements in the thread have been:

Ushgarak has said that because he doesn't know when human life begins, he does not condone abortion as there is a chance that it is murder. However, if a female friend chose to have an abortion, he would support them.

AC has stated that though an embryo is alive, it does not have a life (or is not a human life) any more than a plant or animal does. He has also said that to truly be against killing the alive matter that is an embryo or fetus one must also be against killing animals.

AC and Ush had a debate on the nature of the two opposing movements. During this Ush pointed out that most pro-choicers do wish to impose restrictions on the nature of abortions, but AC brought attention to the fact that a portion of pro-choicers want totally free abortions. It was also brought up that many pro-lifers only want stricter abortion laws, not an outright ban.

My own views
Since no doubt I have made mistakes in the above post, I expect that I will be corrected and argued with on a number of points. Personally, I believe that abortion it is not something that should be considered morally wrong. I would prefer, of course, that there was no need for abortion, but that is a vain hope. Abortion should not be restricted as much as it is, especially for the young, or victims of sexual assault or incest. However, the debate of the thread has been on several occasions difficult to read as posters make attacks on other people's views and forcing them to ever more extreme positions.

Originally posted by Trickster
Well, I'd like to say that having read a good many of these pages I know pretty much the views of those who have recently been posting. I stopped three pages ago, because after reading a few of whobmadong and Hack Benjamin's posts, I was in danger of breaking down and closing the thread, which I'm reading to contribute to an essay I need to write.

Pro-life
The pro-life movement represented in the thread, have in general claimed these views:

A fetus (or embryo) is alive. It has the same rights that a newborn baby does. Thus, an abortion, which kills the 'baby', is murder. As pointed out by the pro-choicers present, there is no evidence as to when the fetus becomes human;

The potential for human life gives the fetus the right to life. Its potential to live a good life outweighs any reasons the mother may have for wanting an abortion. As many people have pointed out, humans also have the potential for evil, which negates the good. However, is a simply mediocre life not 'good' enough to warrant existence?

Sithsaber408 in particular argued that 1/3 of his 'generation' had been killed due to abortion. If abortion did not exist, then would the United States be a better place because of it? I think the answer there can only be no, as it would be hugely overcrowded and poverty-stricken.;

The sancitity of all human (and potential human) life extends to the fetus and embryo, which should not be destroyed under any circumstances. This is a view often followed by those who oppose abortion on religious grounds. It has not come up much in the thread, as it is simply refuted by those arguing from a secular point of view.

It is also sometime the view of pro-lifers that abortions to save the life of the mother, can be necessary evil. There are no other situations where abortion is acceptable. This view, however, hasn't appeared much on the thread. Some posters have also totally denied that abortion can ever be right.

Pro-choice
The same, for the pro-choice movement:

Nobody has proved when a fetus (or embryo) becomes a human being. Until somebody can definitively prove that a fetus is a human being, the rights of the mother must outweigh the possible rights of the fetus. This includes her right to privacy, and her right to alter her own body as she wishes. Since the fetus is part of her body, it is within her rights to destroy it;

The fetus is simply a bundle of cells. Since it is not independently alive, the mother has full control over its continued existence;

There are many scenarios in which the pregnancy is a result of something that emotionally scarred the mother (rape, for example). In these cases, forcing a woman to give birth, and thus go through hours of pain for, to a baby that will only serve to remind her of the incident, is unneccessarily cruel. Abortions should then be available. Adoption has been widely considered an alternative to bringing up the child by pro-choicers but a woman still has to go through the pains of childbirth.;

When contraception fails, abortion should be available to avoid unnecessary strain and stress for one or both of the parents (though in all eventualities, the woman's is the deciding choice);

Most of the posters in the thread have not approved of abortion - they only say that the option to do it should be there. The two other main choices (adoption and keeping the baby) are more desirable than abortion;

AC notably stated that he believed in abortion up to any point in the pregnancy, even immediately prior to birth. Of course, any such abortion would probably be severely detrimental to the woman in question, as she would still have to give birth, only to a dead fetus (technically) rather than a live baby which could then be given up for adoption.

It must also be pointed out that most of the pro-choice movement do follow a policy whereby there a limitations to the time period in which a woman may have an abortion. However, except for a brief discussion between Ush and AC, which degraded, this has not been commented on much.

Others
Other viewpoints or statements in the thread have been:

Ushgarak has said that because he doesn't know when human life begins, he does not condone abortion as there is a chance that it is murder. However, if a female friend chose to have an abortion, he would support them.

AC has stated that though an embryo is alive, it does not have a life (or is not a human life) any more than a plant or animal does. He has also said that to truly be against killing the alive matter that is an embryo or fetus one must also be against killing animals.

AC and Ush had a debate on the nature of the two opposing movements. During this Ush pointed out that most pro-choicers do wish to impose restrictions on the nature of abortions, but AC brought attention to the fact that a portion of pro-choicers want totally free abortions. It was also brought up that many pro-lifers only want stricter abortion laws, not an outright ban.

My own views
Since no doubt I have made mistakes in the above post, I expect that I will be corrected and argued with on a number of points. Personally, I believe that abortion it is not something that should be considered morally wrong. I would prefer, of course, that there was no need for abortion, but that is a vain hope. Abortion should not be restricted as much as it is, especially for the young, or victims of sexual assault or incest. However, the debate of the thread has been on several occasions difficult to read as posters make attacks on other people's views and forcing them to ever more extreme positions.

Nice recap, especially since the debate was about to begin again in earnest.

The problem is with pro-choice is you're making excuses, you're perpetuating the problem.

If rape and inscest are the culprites, stop the rape and inscest, why should abortion be legal cause of some other problem? That doesn't solve the problem. We need to crack down on rapists and get it through to the populace that if you sexualy abuse someone, you might not die, but you'll come up missing..

And that's still bullshit really, only about 1% of abortions is do to rape, 99% of it is either mid-age women who just don't want it, women who were convinced to have one, or adolescent teenagers who shouldn't have been having sex in the first place.

So instead of murdering children to keep the peace, enforce the law, I mean damnit yo, if you're not going to enforce law why not just admit anarchy and then we can do whatever?

Originally posted by Hack Benjamin
The problem is with pro-choice is you're making excuses, you're perpetuating the problem.

If rape and inscest are the culprites, stop the rape and inscest, why should abortion be legal cause of some other problem? That doesn't solve the problem. We need to crack down on rapists and get it through to the populace that if you sexualy abuse someone, you might not die, but you'll come up missing..

And that's still bullshit really, only about 1% of abortions is do to rape, 99% of it is either mid-age women who just don't want it, women who were convinced to have one, or adolescent teenagers who shouldn't have been having sex in the first place.

So instead of murdering children to keep the peace, enforce the law, I mean damnit yo, if you're not going to enforce law why not just admit anarchy and then we can do whatever?

I think you're missing the point- rape and incest are things that are very difficult to pinpoint and stop. If anything, rape is so damn common in the United States that it's really rather disturbing. Most women can relate to a rape scenario and/or an incest scenario, and that's just the ones who have reported it. True, something needs to be done about that. I could not agree more. But saying "solve it" and doing it are two totally different things.

Meanwhile, rape and incest DO happen, and while you may have some severely unofficial percentages to support your opinion (That come from... er... just you), try not to negate the impact they have on women of today.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Factually incorrect considering it's not a human at conception, it's a cell.

It is a HUMAN cell, though. It has to be a human cell or else it would never develop into a human. If it were a cancer cell, it would develop into cancer, wouldn't it? Cancer cells are not human as such because they don't develop into babies. Human cells develop into babies, so you can actually say that a human cell is a human, as of course it is. What the bloody hell else do you think it is? A dolphin cell? A rhino cell? No, it's a human cell, meaning it is HUMAN.

Originally posted by Hack Benjamin
The problem is with pro-choice is you're making excuses, you're perpetuating the problem.

If rape and inscest are the culprites, stop the rape and inscest, why should abortion be legal cause of some other problem? That doesn't solve the problem. We need to crack down on rapists and get it through to the populace that if you sexualy abuse someone, you might not die, but you'll come up missing..

And that's still bullshit really, only about 1% of abortions is do to rape, 99% of it is either mid-age women who just don't want it, women who were convinced to have one, or adolescent teenagers who shouldn't have been having sex in the first place.

So instead of murdering children to keep the peace, enforce the law, I mean damnit yo, if you're not going to enforce law why not just admit anarchy and then we can do whatever?

Why do you have such a boner for KGB tactics?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Why do you have such a boner for KGB tactics?

lmao

Originally posted by Makedde
It is a HUMAN cell, though. It has to be a human cell or else it would never develop into a human. If it were a cancer cell, it would develop into cancer, wouldn't it? Cancer cells are not human as such because they don't develop into babies. Human cells develop into babies, so you can actually say that a human cell is a human, as of course it is. What the bloody hell else do you think it is? A dolphin cell? A rhino cell? No, it's a human cell, meaning it is HUMAN.

Exactly, it has to DEVELOP INTO a human. It's not a human at conception you fool, it's a cell.

The species it represents has nothing to do with what it factually is at the time. A cell.

A cell isn't human, it's a cell. Let's not keep revisiting this.

-AC

It's a human cell, dingbat, meaning it is human.

No, it's a CELL.

It becomes a human when it becomes a foetus, it's not a foetus at conception. It's a zygote, a zygote is a cell. Not a human.

A cell is not a human. How many times do you need this explained?

-AC

I never said a cell was human, I said it was a human cell, HAD to be human, or else it would never BECOME a human. As I said, cancer cells become cancer, they don't become human because they are not human cells.

Then what the hell are you talking about?

If you know it's not a human, why are you debating with me? I know it's not a human, that's my point.

-AC

A human cell will become a human being, it is still, and always will be, a human cell.

A cancer cell will never become a human, because it is not a human cell.

Get it?