Abortion

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What?

This thread should die

PVS. It's you.

so you're back. thought i'd never hear from you again..

Someone posted this on another location. Figured I could tear these mostly poor arguments up. Be sure and read their arguments and then my arguments (point by point) to be able to follow along.

10. Laws against abortion do not stop abortion; they simply make it less safe. The number of women who get abortions does not change when it goes from being legal to illegal, or vice versa. The only thing that changes is more women die. Every year, 78,000 women die from unsafe abortions.
9. If people want to stop abortion, they should turn to methods that do work. These include comprehensive sex education and safe, affordable contraceptives. Unfortunately, as illogical as it sounds, the people who are most against abortion are also often most against these preventative measures. If they truly wanted to reduce the number of abortions that occur, they would embrace these methods.
8. The politicians "pro-lifers" so ardently support are only after one thing: self-interest. The majority of them are not "pro-life" because they agree with you; they are because they know you will continue to vote for them--and they know that making women remain pregnant not only takes away their power, but it also keeps them busy, in line, controlled, as well as a baking factory for their failing economy. The more people they have to rule over, the more they have to work and buy. Period.
7. Religious ideology is no foundation for any law. Freedom of religion is guaranteed to any citizen in the United States; so why would the beliefs and values of one religion mandate actual laws for all citizens? It would be unfair, unjust and immoral. We do not have laws against eating fish, nor do we have laws that declare it is legal to sell one's daughter, rape someone, or keep a person as a slave--all things that are promoted in religious text.
6. Reproductive restrictions do not end with abortion. Many people also argue that contraception itself is wrong--another mainly-religious philosophy--and will deny women the protection they need based on this belief. There are legislative acts that allow actual pharmacists to deny women their birth control because of their beliefs; does this not violate the Hippocratic Oath, especially if thousands of women are on birth control because their very lives depend on it (see #2)? Also, since it is my belief that men should not rape women, if I were a pharmacist, would I have a right to deny a man his Viagra just in case he uses it to rape? You never know.
5. Most people who are against abortion will never even become pregnant. If a law would never, in any circumstance, apply to a man, a man creating that law is preposterous. It is akin to men creating laws that ban women from voting, owning property, or showing skin in public--only much more deadly.
4. Women who are raped or victims of incest should not be forced to carry out a pregnancy. Odds are that 1 in 3 women will be victims of sexual violence in her lifetime. Does this mean that 33% of all women should be forced to carry out a pregnancy from this violation? Considering how many people are killed during childbirth (see #2), should we allow this further risk to endured on top of what has already been done?
Many would argue that these women could endure the pregnancy, spending nearly a year of her life simply re-living the rape and its effects over and over again, to give up a baby at the end of it for adoption. However, we all are aware of the fact that there are millions of unwanted children awaiting adoption as we speak who remain unclaimed; in fact, UNICEF estimates that there are 210 million orphans in the world right now. If they have no one willing to be their parent or guardian, why would another baby have a better chance?
My theory is that people who spend so much time, energy, and money on anti-abortion campaigns should instead spend it on the precious children they say need saving so much--the ones who are alive and parentless. Imagine if all the funds spent on all those billboards and flyers and campaigns were instead either spent adopting or donating to places that are overrun with orphaned children. . . perhaps some actual credibility would be given to these people who claim to love children so much.
Also, there is the fact of the matter of the more than one million homeless youth in America alone. The number one factor for a child being homeless is physical or sexual abuse at home. Perhaps these "child-lovers" should step in and care for these already-born children as well.
3. Reproductive choice can be the only thing that stands between a woman and poverty. There is a reason that the 1 billion poorest people on the planet are female. In sub-Saharan Africa and west Asia, women typically have five to six children, which leaves them powerless to provide for not only their own families, but themselves.
2. Reproductive choice can be the only thing that stands between a woman and DEATH. Women who face deadly consequences of a pregnancy deserve to choose to live. Teen girls, whose bodies are not yet ready for childbirth, are five times more likely to die. Not only do 70,000 girls ages 15-19 die each year from pregnancy and childbirth, but the babies that do survive have a 60% higher chance of dying as well.
During my own pregnancy--which had been unexpected though joyful up to this point--I was horrified to learn that I had preeclampsia only 25 weeks in. While they were able to save both my daughter and me, she was born at 1 pound, three months premature, and was a medical miracle. Most babies at that weight do not survive; and if they do, they suffer severe complications--as do the mothers, including myself. I was then informed that my risk of it happening all over again was extremely high, and that if there were a next time I may not be so lucky. I am fortunate to have access to birth control, but many women--especially young ones--do not. Preeclampsia alone affects 10 to 15% of all women! There are hundreds of other complications that arise besides preeclampsia that can, and will, result in death as well.>
1. Doctors, not governments, should always be the people to make medical recommendations and opinions. Would you allow the government to tell you if you could have a kidney transplant or a blood transfusion? Of course not. The fact that we even consider, let alone allow, governments to regulate a medical procedure is both illogical and foolish.

10. While I agree that it makes it less safe for some because they choose to use unsafe "underground" methods (not all do, but some do), I do not agree that the number who get abortions stay the same: I believe it goes down.

9. I agree on all accounts on this point. It is one of the best points made by this person. However, this point could easily be made by a anti-abortionist, too.

8. This is a silly over generalization and comes off as "anarchistic" (the obvious implication of using an "anti-government" argument is that they need government and the enforcement of the laws (such as no reprimands for doing abortions...protection to the abortionists, basically)). There are probably plenty of elected officials that oppose abortion on many different grounds (including religious). They then contradict themselves by saying a "majority". So, meh. The rest of this point falls into a non sequitur, ridiculous but feminist, rant. It also degrades into a conspiratorial diatribe towards the end. An ignorant, conspiratorial, feminist? I honestly did not think I would live to see the day that such a being would exist.

7. "Religious ideology" is the foundation for pretty much anything done...ever. However, this confuses what the actual foundation is: societal norms which CAN be influenced by religion. Religion can be seen as a product (it's the egg, not the chicken) of the society. This point vilifies religion unnecessarily. It should vilify religion and the people using religion villainously. This person also fails to realize that a religion could be infringed upon if such a religion requires that the followers prevent perceived "atrocities". Many people ignorant of what "freedom of religion" and the implications of what freedom of religion means, are not aware that it really is 'conditional religious freedom' that they want. They want to restrict religions but hide behind "oh boy...it's totes freedumbs, dude." But pointing that out or acknowledging does not fit well with political rhetoric especially when you're trying to sway someone. Additionally, this person tries to refer to morality on a philosophical level but does not realize that what they say is extremely subjective: "It would be unfair, unjust and immoral." Yeah, to you, it is that. But to another, killing an unborn human is "unfair, unjust, immoral, murder, selfish, disgusting, etc." Careful not to become too closed minded on social issues, is my message, here. There is definitely more than one way to approach this abortion topic and appealing to morality is hardly the best option for pro-abortionists, imo.

To address the last part of this person's point, they fail to realize that we have laws against spitting outside, walking a certain way on a sidewalk, motor-boating your wife, whale hunting in a land-locked state, etc. So appealing to "look, man, we don't have absurd laws that are found in religious tests" is quite a dumb tactic. It not only shows how truly ignorant they are, it also shows that they have no idea how "law" actually works.

6. I do support contraceptives (boy, do the males need a safe and effective contraceptive). But this person goes off into a very contradictory point about pharmacists being able to deny contraceptives. Look, you can't whine about "religious freedom" and then deny it at another location. Unless this was a strongly socialist state, you must allow you professionals to conduct business how they want. The exception is if their ACTION causes the harm to another individual. This descends into ridiculous litigation and business ethics because there are degrees of "harm" that can be defined as "reasonable" in a court of law. If a person cannot get contraceptives from a new-age hippie that thinks shaving and contraceptives are immoral to "the way nature intended", fine! Who cares! Take your business elsewhere. This is not like the old-west where you had to travel hundreds of miles between settlements. "But what about those people living in Montana where pharmacies are few and far-between?" Tough-sh*t, now isn't it? No one is forcing you to live in a remote area, no one is forcing you (well, they can't) to have unprotected s*x, and there are plenty of opportunities to get contraceptives. "But what about the dumb teenage girl who has controlling parents?" So we make laws that adversely affect the many just to accommodate the rare scenario? Good one. Allow people to have their religious freedom in how they conduct their own business. This is a mainly a capitalist state: deal with it. Migrate if your area does not suite your needs. Even in the reddest state in the union (Oklahoma) one town over can be liberal and yours be conservative.

5. This is another stupid argument. Who cares if many people that oppose abortion may never become pregnant? I may never be hit by low-flying planes but I still support laws against low-altitude flights in non-military zones. There's a million and one of those types of counter-arguments I could come up with. It's a poor argument. The point also says "most". Well, if you include all the males, okay. But that's stupid to include the males because they couldn't get pregnant even before this abortion debate started in the US. This person also makes another crappy point about "a man shouldn't create the law if the law will never apply to the man." So much wrong with that it is absurd. abortion laws apply to fathers over underage children. Same with guardians: looks like you're wrong, silly person. What about the ability of the man to choose whether or not his GF keeps the child? We argued about this in other threads but a man should not be forced to KEEP the child if he doesn't want it. He should be able to request to keep the child, too (but the female should have veto ability since it is her body, not his). Allowing a man to vote on a law that impacts BOTH genders is not akin to removing female's right to vote. Creating a law that only women can vote out is literally removing the right of the male to vote: the same thing that this idiot is arguing against but the gender is swapped. I am for reasoned and sound feminist arguments, but this one is so stupid as to weaken the position he/she is making.

4. I agree that victims should be allowed to abort. It's simply cruel and unusual to force a person to carry to term such a baby. However, the logic this person uses with the 1 and 3 women being victims thing is STUPID. In order for this person's point to be legit, they'd have to find out what percentage of the 1/3 that actually get preggo. THEN they could say (just making a number up like this person does on everything) "so does that mean 3% of sexual assault victims should carry their babies full term?" Using an "appeal to third world countries mortality rate for birthing mothers" is also not a good way to say, "aha! See! Look, women shouldn't give birth anyway because it KILLS them!" But to answer the question that they think is rhetorical, no, a woman should not be required to carry a baby full-term if she was the victim of sexual assault. Hell, she shouldn't be required to carry the baby regardless of how it was created. My actual opinion is at what point should we stop abortions?: somewhere in the 3-5 month time frame.

Then this person descends into another pro-abortion diatribe that makes so many logical and number errors. For one, all this time being spent by the pro-choicers is much better spent on helping the orphans, as well. Both parties want the same: children born to parents that want them. So appealing to, "zomg! your morality is misplaced cause you could spend it on something more noble!" is stupid. This pro-choicer is just as guilty. Also, who says the 210 million orphans are also waiting to be adopted? Just because they are orphans doesn't mean they are waiting to be adopted. That's a correlation fallacy.

Also, this person says that the pro-lifers could gain more credibility if they financially supported orphanage and adoption institutions. To this person's chagrin...many of them do. Well, there goes that point, too.

3. This is an appeal to the heartstrings argument. Here, let me do the same: "Many women's choices between poverty and not is one drag off of a crack-pipe." Or, how about this, "Many womens' choices between poverty and not is a single decision after highschool: go to college." The reason women are so poor is men are douche-nuggets that either get killed doing something like war, working, or accidents, or they simply leave. Let's not confuse, also, the biggest reason: the women were born into poverty, already. If this person actually knew what poverty was and how it "happened", they'd know that this point is just another stupid correlation argument, again. Additionally, their argument can be completely destroyed if you consider this: the majority of those 5 to 6 children having women had to have s*x in order to have those children. Now, I am not advocating abstinence. A better case can be made for an effective contraceptive that is cheap and widely available. I'm just saying that the majority of those women had a choice. Surely this person admit that these women knew that s*x makes babies?

2. This point descends into an anecdote. Women die from child birth, babies die from child birth. Bla bla bla. We already know that. This does not support a pro-life or a pro-choice point, at all. It is a red herring, at best, and dishonest rhetoric, at worst. Why doesn't this person take her own advice and adopt or spend money on contraceptives for women? lol, that'd actually be supporting her position instead of whining about another person's position. It's hard to take your own advice, isn't it?

1. This point is the worst of all. What she should be saying is this: "Good and licensed doctors should be the ones making medical decisions for their patients." How do you become a licensed doctor? That's right: the government. Do you want an unlicensed physician working on you? Of course not. Guess this person did not realize the importance of government in medicine. Government is good for ensuring a certain level of quality is met for their licensed physicians. Their licenses can be revoked if they are proven to be "quacks" or criminals. Whew, glad the government DOES have a say-so? Guess she didn't think of that, either.

Here's another problem with her argument: some of the decisions from the government on whether or not you should have a new kidney are made DOCTORs. The government employs doctors (for example: medicare employs hundreds if not over a thousand doctors for creating policies and authorizations. They are necessary to ensure quacks don't request unnecessary procedures, to make sure some medications are not contraindicated, and so forth). The fact that this person is not aware of how much the government is and SHOULD be using doctors is illogical, ignorant, and foolish.

Here is a better list for why abortion should be allowed and other points about abortion:

1. Abortion can sometimes save a woman's life when the baby could die as well as the woman, if she were to try and carry it full term. This, for me, is the number 1 reason: medical necessity.

2. Women should be allowed to choose what goes on in their body. Not because of some sort of religious belief I have (actually, it is, but I can find secular reasons for why I would want/allow women to have an abortion) but because we are reasoning creatures. We posses the highest level of reasoning among any animals on this planet. We can make decisions. Since we have long life-spans, significant intelligence, and a very strong sense of self, it seems like a semi-objective moral affront to deny such a creature control over what is going on with their body.

3. Incest or rape can be bad choices. As long as the woman is okay with it, such abortions should be used.

4. While parents or guardians should get a say, the woman (if underage) should still get to choose.

5. While the male partner should get a say, the woman should still get to choose.

6. While I want to set the limit at which an abortion can be performed (for those abortions which are not medically necessary) at 3-5 months, I still think voluntary abortions should be allowed for reason #2. In the future when medical technology improves, we may get to adjust the ceiling limit on abortions down to even as little as 2 weeks. In which case, I would choose to move my ceiling limit to about a month. In the future, I hope the world becomes much more fascist when it comes to having children: you should get approval and then "activated" to have them. It would certainly help with poverty. 🙂

7. Personhood should be defined at the cutoff limit for abortions. It should be a person at 3-5 months. LIke point #6 states, if we improve technology enough to roll back the "cosmetic" abortion limit to a month, personhood should be defined at 1 month. Of course, this peronhood would be limited personhood on the same level as a dependent child would. My slogan would be: "Stop being an ignorant fool and allow for personhood you bigoted ageist." 🙂

8. Contraceptives should be much more freely available. Now, I do not think a young person should be punished because they knowingly made a bad decision, but I also do not like how abortions completely absolve them of being irresponsible. Maybe it is because I am becoming a crotchety old-man a la Robtard. Who knows. But I would err on the side of freedom just because that's the way I roll. So how can we facilitate this freedom? Contraceptives. I actually want having children to be hugely restricted meaning no one can have children, at all (literally...not by choice...but they have an implant that prevents them from getting preggo or getting someone preggo) and that would solve almost all abortion problems. But that's not reasonable and restricts that precious freedom I care so much about. So, again, contraceptives is my answer to this problem. I still would not force pharmacists from selling contraceptives if that is against their religion, of course.

9. If the spirit enters the body at the instant of conception, prove it. If you do not know how God operates the controls on when a spirit is introduced to the flesh, STFU and GTFO until you have some sort of evidence. I am a Christian, of course, but I still require proof of some claims about the spirit. If the "spirit enters the zygote" is the crux of your argument, then you must somehow prove that. I do not remember reading about abortion being wrong from Jesus or any of the old-school prophets. The often-misquoted "pulling out" guy that was struck down is not about abortion: it is about a douche having s*x with another dude's wife to get her preggo so the dude could have children. When that douche pulled out, he did it to be a jerk, not to prove a point about "bates" or abortion being wrong. Learn you scriptures, people. Stop applying extremely complex and contrived meanings to simplistic stories about "don't be a douche to your friends".

10. Where's the love? In any decision made, the decision must be an un-controlling, kind, loving, choice. If you know you will be a very very bad mother/father/couple, I feel that the loving choice would be to abort the pregnancy ASAP. Why? Because you love any potential children, "waiting" to be born, enough to know you would make a bad parent at that time in your life. The child does not deserve that. I highly doubt a loving God would rage at you for making a mature decision. Sure, adoption is a legit choice, too. If you have the ability to do the adoption thing, GREAT! Do so. Bless you for doing so but make better decisions in your life in the future.

I'm not totally against lending some rights to a human fetus, obviously it's not inert matter.

I just don't think it should even be a question of whether it has equal rights to the living, thinking mother. Let alone greater rights, as seems to be the view of those who refuse to accept abortions even when it's a question of life or death for the mother.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'm not totally against lending some rights to a human fetus, obviously it's not inert matter.

I just don't think it should even be a question of whether it has equal rights to the living, thinking mother. Let alone greater rights, as seems to be the view of those who refuse to accept abortions even when it's a question of life or death for the mother.

Yeah, I believe I made that point in my post. If I didn't (I ain't readin' all that shit to make sure I did uhuh ), I agree with your post.

Now this next point is really far out there and far fetched so bear with me.

Assume it is the year 2060 and the singularity does not happen as some predict. Pretend that we still created godlike AI that is highly predictive and is clairvoyant to our human perceptions. All we have to is present it with DNA from the developing fetus and the computer can tell us if the fetus would be okay with being aborted without having to wait for it to develop to let us know. I know that sounds weird or crazy but I think the laws should be based off of such a system. If the fetus would want to live (the clairvoyant God-like AI would tell us such), then we have no right to extinguish its life.

But surely such a system isn't even necessary because we could develop external development containers for the children and eliminate the need for abortion altogether. No more abortion.

Artificial wombs would be the shit. Love me some glass tube babies I can sprinkle fish food in to.

I don't understand the whole arguments for abortion. I've seen a few. They are:

1) The mom's a kid and can't handle it
2) The mom was raped
3) The child will have a terrible life
4) The mom could die

If a kid is getting pregnant, there is something terribly wrong with society. Why not instead of letting them have sex at a young age and telling them it's ok by getting them out of a pregancy without any repurcussions, we teach them to wait until they're older and to value all human life? And the "they're more likely to die" argument is crap, tbh. I had a friend who was pregnant at 16 and she had the baby and she's living just fine (so is the kid) and she's actually in college now. It hasn't "held her back" or affected her adversely in any way.

I don't care if the mom was raped, tbh. Why punish the child for the sins of the father? And besides, my mother-in-law was raped when she was younger and had a son from it. She gave him up for adoption right after and now he's living a wonderful life with a new family. And she's very happy for him, and it didn't "ruin her psyche" or anything. If anything, it let her move on.

You can't play God and say they'll have a terrible life. YOU DON'T KNOW, and it's wicked of you to try and say that you do. In the above example, my mother-in-law could have easily just had an abortion back then, and a family wouldn't have a son, and he wouldn't have had a chance at life. Besides, my wife is pregnant right now (5 and a half weeks along) and you can ALREADY hear the heartbeat. Nuff said.

The mom COULD die. As in, it's not a guarantee. It COULD happen. She also COULD LIVE. So again, why are you playing God that way?

Originally posted by Bat Dude
I don't understand the whole arguments for abortion. I've seen a few. They are:

1) The mom's a kid and can't handle it
2) The mom was raped
3) The child will have a terrible life
4) The mom could die

Originally posted by Bat Dude
I don't understand the whole arguments for abortion. I've seen a few. They are:

1) The mom's a kid and can't handle it
2) The mom was raped
3) The child will have a terrible life
4) The mom could die

Okay, let's skip all the excuses. There are people who can handle getting pregnant at sixteen, or getting pregnant from a rape, whatever.

But there are women who will die from pregnancy because it messes with their natural bodies. For example, I have a kidney transplant. Most people don't know this, but when you get a new kidney, they put it in the lower right belly. So, say I get pregnant. The baby needs to grow very large, and it needs to do that right over my new kidney. Now, all the very delicate mechanics in my right lower stomach are getting messed around with. So I will either pay with with renal failure, leading to another kidney transplant, or I will pay with a miscarriage.

There's not just life and death being discussed here. It's called "Health Wellness." Let's say I miscarry and I end up with severe depression and PTSD. How is my life going to be like this? I won't eat well, sleep well, and without a lot of self-effort I'm not coming out of this situation very well.

I just wanted to discuss this point the most because you so flippantly flip your coin into the air, heads dead, tails alive, like nobody has a choice over it. There are ways to tell if a baby will kill Mom. Sometimes those things can be fixed - sometimes they can't. But it's not like women don't have the resources to find out one way or the other.

I am Pro "It's soooo not my choice," otherwise known as Pro-Choice.
There are so many variables out there, and I've never given birth, I've never had experience in the field, it's not my body and I don't know what's going on.

Sometimes it seems much more ignorant for a man to say "it's my choice." Do you even know the geography?

I think that it's a woman choice to get the abortion or not. I think it'd be cruel to a child let his/her parents raise him/her even if they don't like it.

Also, I'm totally against that "gift of God" or "he has a soul" horseshit.

Glad that we don't have debate on that matter up here. People are most likely for, in Canada.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
If a kid is getting pregnant, there is something terribly wrong with society. Why not instead of letting them have sex at a young age and telling them it's ok by getting them out of a pregancy without any repurcussions, we teach them to wait until they're older

Originally posted by Bat Dude
and to value all human life?

Originally posted by Bat Dude
And the "they're more likely to die" argument is crap, tbh. I had a friend who was pregnant at 16 and she had the baby and she's living just fine (so is the kid) and she's actually in college now. It hasn't "held her back" or affected her adversely in any way.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
I don't care if the mom was raped, tbh.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
Why punish the child for the sins of the father?

Originally posted by Bat Dude
And besides, my mother-in-law was raped when she was younger and had a son from it. She gave him up for adoption right after and now he's living a wonderful life with a new family. And she's very happy for him, and it didn't "ruin her psyche" or anything. If anything, it let her move on.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
You can't play God and say they'll have a terrible life. YOU DON'T KNOW, and it's wicked of you to try and say that you do. In the above example, my mother-in-law could have easily just had an abortion back then, and a family wouldn't have a son, and he wouldn't have had a chance at life. Besides, my wife is pregnant right now (5 and a half weeks along) and you can ALREADY hear the heartbeat. Nuff said.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
The mom COULD die. As in, it's not a guarantee. It COULD happen. She also COULD LIVE. So again, why are you playing God that way?

Originally posted by Bouboumaster
Glad that we don't have debate on that matter up here. People are most likely for, in Canada.

surveys I've seen suggest most Canadians support some additional restrictions on abortions here.

this being said, it is mainly because, in Canada, abortion is technically legal up to the moment the child leaves the mother, so like, even in the 9th month. There is also the issue of abortions based on gender that were in the news a while ago that people were in favor of introducing restrictions to stop.

I believe at least one member of the federal conservatives is trying to bring the issue back up:

YouTube video

http://www.catholicregister.org/news/canada/item/13813-motion-could-re-open-abortion-debate

Originally posted by Bat Dude
If a kid is getting pregnant, there is something terribly wrong with society.

Let me first point out that I do enjoy your posts and most especially your boldness in the face of so much intellectualism here on KMC (seriously, we are a bit arrogant and come off as elitist around here).

But, to address that...

Almost every single person living today would not exist if it weren't for "kids" getting pregant and having kids.

Only recently (the last hundred years) have we put such a high number on "consenting" sex: 18.

Watching discovery a few years back and they talked about our hunter gatherer "mothers." By 18, they had either been preggo 2-3 times or they had 2-3 kids. That's quite a bit.

Why did I bring that up? Well...kids have been having babies since humans existed. But don't you think it is the textbook definition of civilization that helps prevent "kids from having kids"?

Originally posted by Bat Dude
Why not instead of letting them have sex at a young age and telling them it's ok by getting them out of a pregancy without any repurcussions, we teach them to wait until they're older and to value all human life? And the "they're more likely to die" argument is crap, tbh. I had a friend who was pregnant at 16 and she had the baby and she's living just fine (so is the kid) and she's actually in college now. It hasn't "held her back" or affected her adversely in any way.

I made the same argument. I do not like the fact that someone can get out of the repercussions of very serious adult decisions. It irritates me that a life has to be snuffed out so a person can maintain their selfish and often reckless life.

About the holding back thing: I think most girls, when they have kids...they grow the **** up. Sometimes, that's what it takes for them to pull their heads out of their ass is to have a baby. To a much rarer extend, that's what it takes for the fathers, as well.

Now, that is not always the case. In fact, I'll say that it more often than not doesn't happen. 🙁

Originally posted by Bat Dude
I don't care if the mom was raped, tbh.

Sorry to be so cold and blunt about it...but that's just ****ing stupid.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
Why punish the child for the sins of the father?

You do know that this is the exact reasoning used for why she should abort, right? 😄

Originally posted by Bat Dude
And besides, my mother-in-law was raped when she was younger and had a son from it. She gave him up for adoption right after and now he's living a wonderful life with a new family. And she's very happy for him, and it didn't "ruin her psyche" or anything. If anything, it let her move on.

1. That's super duper awesome. Good on your mother-in-law. I have mad respect for women who do such a thing. It takes a very strong person, emotionally, to be able to pull such and endeavor off.

2. I do not think the majority of women have the emotional strength and the familial support (emotionally, financially, etc) to be able to do what your aunt did. She is a very rare exception, imo.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
You can't play God and say they'll have a terrible life. YOU DON'T KNOW, and it's wicked of you to try and say that you do. In the above example, my mother-in-law could have easily just had an abortion back then, and a family wouldn't have a son, and he wouldn't have had a chance at life. Besides, my wife is pregnant right now (5 and a half weeks along) and you can ALREADY hear the heartbeat. Nuff said.

You do know that Jesus, in the new testament, said we were gods?
You do know that, as spiritual offspring of God, we have godlike attributes like reasoning and free will (though limited), right?

But I do agree that casual abortions are wrong. I just do not think I have the right to force my religious beliefs upon other people. We do have an obligation, as citizens, to protect the lives of those people that cannot do it for themselves. So when dose the baby become a person? I believe the law sets it at 5 months. 😄

Originally posted by Bat Dude
The mom COULD die. As in, it's not a guarantee. It COULD happen. She also COULD LIVE. So again, why are you playing God that way?

Doctors can usually make decent assessments (scientific assessments based on several measurements and previous data) and quite accurately predict those things. So it is not really playing God: it is saving a life. But that is a rare circumstance and C-Sections are making the "but she is too young and it could kill her during childbirth" argument quite antiquated...especially for the US where it is the first choice.

IMO, playing God would be violating the Prime Directive by introducing technology and "society" to a primitive people that did not ask for it. Playing God would be creating perfect humans with advanced DNA technology.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
So the presence of an organ working means the woman [b]must let it continue being a parasite inside her? Tapeworms would be happy to hear that argument.[/B]

Be honest with yourself: that's quite a shitty argument. uhuh

Originally posted by inimalist
surveys I've seen suggest most Canadians support some additional restrictions on abortions here.

this being said, it is mainly because, in Canada, abortion is technically legal up to the moment the child leaves the mother, so like, even in the 9th month. There is also the issue of abortions based on gender that were in the news a while ago that people were in favor of introducing restrictions to stop.

I believe at least one member of the federal conservatives is trying to bring the issue back up:

YouTube video

http://www.catholicregister.org/news/canada/item/13813-motion-could-re-open-abortion-debate

That's a minority, thank God,

Conservatives in Canada are not that retarded (well, for a big chunk of the majority)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Be honest with yourself: that's quite a shitty argument. uhuh

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Da hoy. But the "I can feel its heart beating" is pandering to emotion. I feel the same way toward an unwanted baby the way I do a tapeworm--parasite.

It is definitely a parasite in a strict but distorted sense. It doesn't qualify since it is how the host is reproducing but if we remove that disqualification, it counts as a parasite.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Assume it is the year 2060 and the singularity does not happen as some predict. Pretend that we still created godlike AI that is highly predictive and is clairvoyant to our human perceptions. All we have to is present it with DNA from the developing fetus and the computer can tell us if the fetus would be okay with being aborted without having to wait for it to develop to let us know. I know that sounds weird or crazy but I think the laws should be based off of such a system. If the fetus would want to live (the clairvoyant God-like AI would tell us such), then we have no right to extinguish its life.