Originally posted by DiamondBullets
We want the potential life to come to frution.If that don't satisfy you, then define a "good" reason.
It really is that simple.
Originally posted by StyleTime
Your "good" reason would be showing us how you have the RIGHT to ban abortion. That's really all you need here. Unfortunately, you don't have the right, er go you have no argument. Your personal values matter not.It really is that simple.
In that case, I can ask who has the RIGHT to say I can't drive drunk? Apparently, some one didn't like it so now its illegal. Laws are human creations--they're nothing but ink on paper that says what we can and cannot do.
In Pennsylvania its illegal for a horse to ride in the back seat of a car. Why is that? Where's the "good" reason???
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
I continue to believe that it should be a woman's right to choose whether or not she wants an abortion. There are many different circumstances that may provoke the woman into choosing to have an abortion: financial, social, etc. Then, there is the perhaps rather controversial circumstance of a woman blessed with foresight seeing what her baby would become. She sees with crystal clarity that for her to have the baby, the human race would collectively suffer a back-step in the evolutionary scale. I think many women - if given a chance to see what their off-spring would become - may choose this route. There are examples of these backwards steps everywhere. Just open your eyes and see...
You worked hard on that post as well🙂
The obvious reply would get me banned again sadly🙁
I'll leave it to the imagination🙂
Please stay on topic, dear boy. It would be a shame to see you aborted from this forum. We all greatly value your input. *smiley face*
PS. The post took the time it took to write (about 1 minute). In my mind, I'm seeing you call me some naughty - but rather unimaginative - words, and then you adding a quote lifted from the 'Ignorance' section of quotations.com.
On topic: The abortion law in the US should be a national one, rather than state-governed. By this I mean that the choice should be available to all.
Originally posted by DiamondBullets
^That's how the law works.Laws: formulized rules by the the current, legitimate government, which prohibit or regulate actions
Who has the right to say I can't go down to the local tavern, get plastered and drive?
Answer: the law!
But it's not law, abortion is legal in the U.S., except for South Dakota.
You want to make it into law, thereby forcing the woman to give birth.
So, are you going to take care of the child after forcing a woman to give birth?
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Please stay on topic, dear boy. It would be a shame to see you aborted from this forum. We all greatly value your input. *smiley face*PS. The post took the time it took to write (about 1 minute). In my mind, I'm seeing you call me some naughty - but rather unimaginative - words, and then you adding a quote lifted from the 'Ignorance' section of quotations.com.
On topic: The abortion law in the US should be a national one, rather than state-governed. By this I mean that the choice should be available to all.
Agreed. And if you ban here in a few states, people will flee to other states to have it done. You ban it in the U.S., they'll do it in shady clinics, back alley procedures, or black market medicines... some form of alternative. I don't see how taking the choice away from women promotes anything but objectification of the woman.
Originally posted by Wesker
Agreed. And if you ban here in a few states, people will flee to other states to have it done. You ban it in the U.S., they'll do it in shady clinics, back alley procedures, or black market medicines... some form of alternative. I don't see how taking the choice away from women promotes anything but objectification of the woman.
Get it right the correct phrase is Mare Fetus Incubator! Ok thanks........
As far as the National Govt enforcing an abortion law...............eh I don't really care either way initially it was setup to give states more control not the Nat'l Gov't.
Originally posted by The Omega
Wesker> Why do you unquestionably assign "good" to potential life then?
How did you get that from my post? I don't assign anything to potential life of a fetus. In fact, I've put forth this post on another forum when address the question of therapy to help a woman endure a forced birth, the use of contraceptives instead of abortion, and why forcing birth objectifies women, championing some unborn, nebulous baby over a living adult being.
1. Therapy and counselling costs money and is less than 100% effective. Hell, I'd argue that it's less than 50% effective. People shouldn't be forced to endure therapy just to preserve the life of an unborn child. You wouldn't endure therapy to save a random soul you didn't know from Adam, irregardless of whether or not they're blood. It's ridiculous to make an assumption when you've never carried a child that one can just suffer for nine months with morning sickness, susceptibility to certain diseases, large diet and nutrition intake changes, etc. etc. etc., And then the 12-24+ hours in painful, dangerous labor. I give women so much credit for enduring that. Hell, I give up on a shit after fifteen minutes.
2. I agree that modern day people should be sexually respectable and responsible, but no one's going to successfully rein in and enforce one of the greatest motivational urges in human history. Sexual morality is a highly debateable issue with most sexual taboos being subjective customs and not moral truths even by an objective approach. Should women be forced to endure nine months of pregnancy for one bad decision? I don't think so. I mean, first time drunk drivers might face up to 90 days in a jail cell for something that is far more irresponsible. Saying that women should endure that as duty is ridiculous.
3. Really, if you were raped, would you then want to endure nine months of carrying the offspring of someone who thought of you as a mere object? Could you wake up and justify the pain and suffering and therapy just for the sake of a child that could turn around and be just as evil as it could be good? Isn't that a lot to deal with just for a roll of the dice?
Let me put it another way- Suppose you're a doctor and a patient comes into the operating room. They have sharp shrapnel embedded in them that must be removed to save their life. The patient is also infected with Hepatitis C, which is a lifetime disease. If you operate, there is a 90% chance you will become infected. The disease can ravage your body, and can be spread to your lover, kids, family, etc. However, if you refuse to operate, you will violate your duty to the Hippocratic oath. You have no idea who this person is in life. They could be a criminal, a hero, a priest, a teacher, anything. What do you do? Would you take the chance to save this person, at the risk of yourself? Possibly your spouse or family? I wouldn't. It'd be a hard decision to live with, but I can't damn myself for another person, and especially so since I can effect others.
It's not an exact analogy, but it's all I have right now.
I also posted this in response to another's question about using abortion is a sad means of birth control, and that it's a forcing a woman to endure pregnancy because of something vague like "moral duty" is assinine. I hope this clears up my stance a lot:
Actually, I think we should look to the current social situations before we start clamoring about the rights of the unborn. Snuffing people out wasn't my idea of a great deal, but allowing a surplus of unwanted or mistaken children is a drain on society and on parental units or whoever has to take care of them. My point is this- we have kids all over the place who aren't living good lives. Adopt them. Give them good lives. They should have the right to a good life before that of an unborn child. Unborn children don't feel pain for a long while. They have no suffering to speak of. Their futures are nebulous. Assuming that they must be allowed to live in order to potentially have good lives is... ridiculous. Priority-wise, here's the breakdown:
Unborn fetus > mother > random starving, neglected child.
If it's the case where the child is not going to be given up for adoption, or not going to be properly loved and taken care of, or is a danger to the mother, or is the product of a brutal rape/incest, I see no reason why the mother shouldn't be allowed the option of abortion within the first trimester at least. It's her body. She alone has to bear this burden. If duty was indeed the prime morality behind keeping a baby, then you would have to agree that allowing children to suffer and starve or be neglected by others is equally a sin. If the duty is to giving a child a chance, why put an unborn one over a living, suffering one? Religious taboos and feelings aside, it's practical in many cases. Can it be abused? Yes. Anything can be. Any rights you have as a citizen in a society can potentially be abused. Should they be outlawed? No. If you outlaw abortions in South Dakota, people will simply go to another state for them. If you outlaw them in America and the mother can't leave the country, she'll do it herself or with illegal help. Is that truly a better solution?
It's not a black and white issue. It's easy for someone to sit there and say "She ought to fulfill the moral obligation". But then you're using the mother as an object and not a real person. She suddenly becomes dehumanized. Her interests and desires are subject to something that doesn't even have the capacity for high thought, something we attribute to beings with moral rights. She becomes a vehicle for a "potential good". And that's ridiculous, no matter who says it.
While I agree that it seems very moral and right to carry the baby anyways and suck it up and raise it, the fact of the matter is that you or I aren't child-bearing beings. We aren't women. We will never fully experience such and therefore our level of empathy is limited. But where that fails reason should prevail. The golden rule is "Treat others as you wish to be treated." Would you bear the burden of an unwanted child, animal, or even an adult being for nine months? No compensation, little help, less praise? Would you be able to deal with the health issues, the emotional issues, content in doing your duty? I don't think so.