Nadie
Cave Slave
I am not afraid
Posts: 97
|
Post by Nadie on Jun 11, 2005 20:36:36 GMT -5
It's the chick's fault: No
|
|
|
Post by Psychotic Kat on Jun 11, 2005 20:49:40 GMT -5
Ok, abortion. I think that it shouldn't be allowed because once the egg is fertilized it is a human, which makes me feel like it's murder (which it could be technically). But yeah, I also feel it should be allowed because it is your fault for involving yourself and having sex without protection (or with protection but the small percent where it doesn't work comes into play) before you were ready for the responsibility of what happens.
|
|
|
Post by Gox on Jun 11, 2005 22:40:31 GMT -5
Oh boy...
Abortion should be allowed. As I often say before, hell is a state of mind, right here on earth. There's no need to bring an innocent life into hell if it can be avoided. And most of the time, it will be hell when they're raised by irresponsible parents that made the child. Or even worse, irresponsible teens.
Secondly, what about rape victims? They now have to carry the burden of a criminal's baby, a decission totally against their will. By keeping abortion legal, so much misery of both the mother and the child in the future can be avoided.
I'm not saying abortion is a good thing, but it's somewhat of a solution to a very bad situation. It's still the Mother's choice anyway. Pro-Freedom^
*Looks at explanation I just wrote...* Not bad at all ;D
|
|
|
Post by Colloff on Jun 12, 2005 6:51:45 GMT -5
well to settle my point on it...i think it should be allowed to a certain degree. i dont think women should just go out, have sex, get an abortion, have sex, get an abortion, wash...rinse...repeat (DONT TWIST THAT!) but they should be able to do it if there was a legitimate cause of pregnancy like failed protection or rape...but with parental consent...
|
|
|
Post by Aristotle on Jun 12, 2005 12:22:34 GMT -5
Hello! im sorry i havent been here in a while, i was at reed workshop.
to the subject. justin's solution is rediculous. how can you determine who gets an abortion or not? who can you ask? on whos authority? and cat, this is a very good point you raised. "a fertilized egg is human". so many religious leaders say this, but know nothing. what is it to be human? we can pull the plug on a braindead person who can feel pain. they have more capabilities than a baby. but we can euthanise them because of thier pain. a baby does not qualify as a human until it is out of the womb because it is on life support until it is out. my mother aborted twin siblings of mine 17 years ago. i will hold it to my grave that it was the right decision, because if she kept them i would not exist, and her life was ruined. back to the previous question; what is it to be human? to be human, by definition you must be consious of your own life and death. that is the criteria for the state of being human. if it can be argued that human tissue with the ability to feel pain is human, then tell me what is right about euthanization of a braindead human being. tell me how every time a woman menstruates it is not an abortion, since an egg unfertalized is the mothers decision and is a possibility of life in its own right.
|
|
|
Post by Faygo on Jun 12, 2005 19:27:16 GMT -5
Its wrong. Let the reaper do his job, he's doing just fine. Let the babies go for adoption.
|
|
|
Post by Aristotle on Jun 12, 2005 19:43:14 GMT -5
in what respect is it wrong?
on whos authority?
on what ground?
by what standard?
if these questions are not asked in respect to the abortion crisis, then "its wrong" can not be qualified as an answer to the question at hand.
|
|
Nadie
Cave Slave
I am not afraid
Posts: 97
|
Post by Nadie on Jun 12, 2005 19:50:13 GMT -5
If you didn't have enough "protection", that's your fault still. You have to deal with it. But anywho, I have sympathy for rape victems as Gox has mentioned. Not knowing your "other half", or worse, knowing your other half and not liking it can be really horrible. (author of "A Ghost at Heart's Edge" describes it well.) I would say go abortion if it was a bad enough situation, but the baby is technically living. Life support or not.
Even if you don't see the baby's face, it dies. It dies INSIDE you, it died because of you.
|
|
|
Post by Aristotle on Jun 12, 2005 20:00:04 GMT -5
number one, there are several problems in your answer. one, you never said why a baby in the womb is to be declared alive, and you also never said why menstruation is not a natural form of abortion if the only reason so far proposed for not letting abortion go on is that an in the womb child is alive because there is the possiblility of life. also, even if it "dies" inside of you, what is the diffrence? an abortion is the same thing, except the woman prolongs the decision. you could blame the woman for not constantly having sex and constantly having children since puberty. you can also blame her for having an abortion for a baby that is obvoiusly not wanted.
number two, you never answered any of the questions above. you didnt say what the moral standard is for making the anti abortion approach. if it remains unsaid you may never aknowledge its existence and you might even be just "going with the public opinion".
|
|
Nadie
Cave Slave
I am not afraid
Posts: 97
|
Post by Nadie on Jun 12, 2005 20:11:05 GMT -5
I didn't say it was wrong. I personally say one shouldn't take the risk if one doesn't want to consider the consequences. I consider conception the time when there is "life" as you put it. So the egg alone during menstruation means nothing to me.
I'm not saying so for public opinion. I assume the woman to be in complete authority of an abortion, I just hope she doesn't use it as birth control.
|
|
|
Post by Aristotle on Jun 12, 2005 20:16:21 GMT -5
and that is what i agree with. (holy sh1t)
ill add one thing though. noone can enforce keeping it out of the birth control option. its a morality question. the government shouldnt try to decide. the church DEFINITELY shouldnt try to decide. anyone up for a new topic?
|
|
Nadie
Cave Slave
I am not afraid
Posts: 97
|
Post by Nadie on Jun 12, 2005 20:20:56 GMT -5
*nod*
answer my post already dammit XD
|
|
|
Post by Aristotle on Jun 12, 2005 20:26:32 GMT -5
this is my last post tonight. i bought atlas shrugged. its really good anyway it seems this topic has exhausted itself until there is a law passed. even if it is illegal you can go to canada where the government handles it free, or you can go to mexico where the doctor is named raul and he doesnt wear shoes and the operating table is a door. by the power invested by me as a mod, i hereby deem that there be a new topic! what is more important, the rights of the individual or the protection of society?
|
|
Nadie
Cave Slave
I am not afraid
Posts: 97
|
Post by Nadie on Jun 12, 2005 20:31:46 GMT -5
The rights of an individual to an extent. The society can't rely of goverment (or whatever leader they have) every time, they have to show SOME back bone...
|
|
|
Post by Duo on Jun 12, 2005 20:32:53 GMT -5
Absolutely, a new topic of debate is needed..*thinks and trys to come up with a new topic for debate* AH got one...although it may not be very good its a debate none the less Should immigration laws be further inforced? Sorry Colbs, but Jaccob edited his last post at 9:29 to include the new topic. Your post was 3 minutes late
|
|