Though not an atheist myself, I did find this article interesting. It presents the ever controversial topic of abortion, and a debate between two self-described atheists, using philosophical approaches for and against abortion.

All you philosophers and moralists out there should find this interesting.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/carrier-roth/)

Kurgan

Well, Kurgan....

I've always had somewhat of a vauge view about abortion:

I'm not exactly against it, but then again, i have a penis, and felt i should stay out of it.

Reading just a small excerpt from this case has convinced me to make a somewhat more educated opinion on what seems to be a far more sensitive subject than i thouhgt.

I shall retire to my quarters for the evening (I'm going to bed)I'll read the entire case there, and return with my point of view in the A.M.

Good night everyone!

GOD bless,

-Calypso

[This message has been edited by Jedi Calypso (edited June 22, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Jedi Calypso (edited June 22, 2000).]

Well it's an issue that affects us all, not just women, so I think everyone should be educated about it, don't you?

These are just two views on the subject, feel free to discuss it amongst yourselves and/or post your own comments here (please no flaming though).

Kurgan

http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/smile.gif) Good Morning! http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/smile.gif)

OK, I've reviewed the case and have returned with my new perspective on abortion.

It is my belief that it should not be illegal. Destroying a human prenate should not be considered "murder" because doing so does not kill an independent, free-thinking organism.

Also, I think that it is the parents' right to decide whether to keep the child or not, and once they decide that they dont want to be parents, the means of getting rid of the child. (i.e. abortion or adoption)

Think of it this way, if a poverty-sticken woman finds herself with child, what is she do do? She barely makes enough money to support herself, and there is no way that she could possably take on the responsiblilies of motherhood. The child would most likely not be able to be givin proper care and treatment, and would have a good chance of dying before it reaches the age of one.

In closing,I would like to re-state that abortion should NOT be considered immoral because it does not destroy an independent thinking mind. You argument to that may be: "but abortion is taking a life out of the world." True, i give it that much, abortion does claim a life, but so swatting a housefly with a flyswatter. In fact, while a prenate is in utero, it could be argued that it's thinking capibilities is no more than that of a housefly, so why should it make a difference?

I'd appretiate hearing your views on this Kurgan.

Cheers,

GOD bless,
-Calypso



[This message has been edited by Jedi Calypso (edited June 22, 2000).]

Jeez, Kurgan, you never give up do you? Always trying to stir the pot http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif)

My educated guess on your motives for bringing up this topic again:

1. You truly find debate enjoyable.
2. You want to conjur up some activity on these boards.

Fair enough. My thoughts are that none of our opinions are relevant until or unless we are actually forced to face this issue on a very close and personal level. I've seen people preach and pontificate about the right and moral thing that we should all be doing, taking the high road - this because it was convenient for them and because it didn't affect them in any way. Yet, when forced to face that very same issue in their personal lives, they quite frequently have an epiphany, and embrace the position they'd previously opposed.

Translation: opinions formed without the benefit of actually having faced the issue in question, are likely not representative of your true position.


------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

Yes, it is my diabolical master plan to stir discussion and present people with challenging ideas.

You saw through it Vaggy, old chum!

I tricked you into responding as well.. muhahaha! ; )

The debate posted didn't change my views on the subject. I still believe in the inherent dignity of all human life that must be respected, whether born, or unborn. I find Roth's arguments very intriuging. I had heard the other side's presentation before, so it was nothing new.

What was neat about the article is that you see another side to the arguments.

Up until this point, I had always heard the views from a JudeoChristian vs. Secularist or J/C vs. J/C POV. Never where both thinkers are putting aside any notion of religious morality. I often wondered how atheists could take stands on certain moral issues, without the presence of a higher moral law.

They tend to put their arguments into three bins:

1) the "Golden Rule" bin, that is, you don't harm others, because you don't want to be harmed yourself, you never know when you may be in the position the other fellow is in.

2) the "dignity of humanity" bin. Many atheists are humanists. That is, they hold the human race as something special, the highest form of life we know, and since they don't believe in God, they elevate the status of humanity almost to that of what others would have God as. Thus, they feel humans need to be treated properly.

3) the "philosophical/logical" bin. Often, just for the sake of argument, or because they feel the scientific or statistical facts support a certain position, they will adopt it.

Of course, what all this means is that just because you're an atheist, you don't automatically have a platform. Even among atheists, there are huge, wide, differences of opinion.

Perhaps the stereotypical view most see on the 'net is the "freethinkers" view, that is, they use the "philosophical/logical" bin almost exclusively, as well as a glaring hatred of all religions and disdain for those who follow them. They are constantly asserting "seperation of church and state" and other legal barriers to support their ideals. This is only but one view (and I have simplified it here, there is much more to it, from what I have seen).

And yes Vagabond, that is an interesting theory. That is, you are saying that a person may have a change of heart in the face of a crisis. With regard to this subject, I think you're saying that people rail against abortion, but once they get pregnant or get somebody pregnant, they "realize" that they want to have an abortion, so they quickly change to a "pro-choice" view.

I do not know if this has ever happened, but I would guess that is has, just as many pro-abortion people have changed to pro-life in the face of guilt, or because they were traumatazed by experiences with abortion.

I'm sure that human experience often does more to change people's minds than simple discussion.

However, as a thinking creature, I assume that I have the right to change my mind in the face of new evidence. I do not selfishly hold to my own narrow views, when they are proven wrong beyond all possible doubt.

Your's is a cynical and I think untestable theory...

While it is true, I have read about people who have converted, and who have switched political parties, etc etc.

In these peoples' experiences, they do not simply say "ALL ALONG, I secretly supported the other side, I just now am admitting it"
they admit freely, instead, that they were WRONG before, and now have CHANGED their position. That is what conversion is, a "change of heart," not an "admission of a hidden agenda."

To say you had the opposite position all along only makes you admit you are a hypocrite, and it shows a huge ego/pride complex in the person. I doubt all people can be stereotyped this way. They changed their position, they didn't simply reveal they were on the other side from the beginning.

This assumes, that anybody who ever changes their opinion is a liar and a hypocrite. This is a slap in the face to any thinking human being. Aren't we allowed to change our minds?

Kurgan

[This message has been edited by Kurgan (edited June 22, 2000).]

Yes, Vagabond, i suppose you do have a point there, but only to a certain degree.

I believe that we can formulate an opinion on something without experiencing that something personally and in depth.

However, experiencing the subect that you are forming an opinion on in this way can help you to make a more educated point of view.

I'll give you a different example:

Take into consideration the death penalty. You may have a strong opinion on that, and believe that it should be allowed. Now, your brother commits a crime and gets put to death, now your opinion changes because you have experienced it first hand.

So, i agree with you on that to a certain degree.

By the way Kurgan, way to go on this thread, this is the most intelectual discussion I've had since the "CHUCH" thread was deserted.

GOD bless
-Calypso

anyone who says that killing a fetus because it is not an "independant, free-thinking" person is on a slippery slope. Is a newborn free-thinking? Is a person who is a vegetable? is an elderly person in a nursing home independant?

the reasons people give for killing fetuses can be logically stretched to include just about anyone who is old or young.

ahh, Toche', Iknaton, Toche'



[This message has been edited by Jedi Calypso (edited June 22, 2000).]

I urge anyone coming to this topic, to read the debate I posted.

While it won't change your mind, it is good, because it challenges the (false) assumption that all opponents of abortion are conservative Christians.

Kurgan

Ikhnaton said-----
"anyone who says that killing a fetus because it is not an "independant, free-thinking" person is on a slippery slope. Is a newborn free-thinking? Is a person who is a vegetable? is an elderly person in a nursing home independant?
the reasons people give for killing fetuses can be logically stretched to include just about anyone who is old or young."
--------------

You're absolutely right on that Ik. Using that "free-thinking being" argument to justify killing anything is not very sound. Animals are one thing, but a human in any form is still a human. Does a 98-year old person with alzheimer's cease being human?
This argument gives us the right to decide who lives and who doesn't. That's a scary thought. A power that fellow humans do not have over each other. If we are all equals,
then one person certainly cannot hold the life of another in their hand. To say they will not have a happy life or that they aren't happy now and end it for them and save futher misery. That is not a human's place to decide.
Also, if a poverty-stricken woman just happens to "find" herself pregnant (i'm not talking about someone who was abused)without any hope of providing for the infant, then she should give birth and put the baby up for adoption. This "poverty-stricken women who finds herself pregnant" argument is used quite often to defend abortion, while in reality, abortions are so often carried out just for the convenience of the mother. If the mother or parents decide they don't want to be bothered, then just suck it down the sink....

------------------
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Castle/6462/cut2.jpg)
"A jedi needs only his Lightsaber. In battle, he and his weapon become a single fighting unit..."

Consider this:

The body is not the essence of a person, but rather the mind. The body is just flesh and bone...nothing that remarkable really. All creatures of this planet are made of the same stuff. Where we are different is in our minds, for without that we are nothing.

So, is a 98 year old with Alzheimer's disease a person? Well, they definitely have the body of a Human being, but I contend that they are no longer a person. In its advanced stages, this terrible disease robs its victims of all memories and the ability to function. They don't even know who they are anymore. In such a state, a dog can be said to be more a Human that the Alzheimer's disease victim. The merciful thing to do is to let these people die a dignified death, not waste away into an agonizing netherworld of confusion and despair, soley to satisfy some peoples' misguided notion of what is moral. It's a heartless act of selfishness.

Now then, do I think a fetus is a Human being? Certainly, given time it will become one. But I wouldn't call a six-week old fetus a Human. Nor would I call an apple seed a tree. Nor would I call an egg a chicken. But given the time to develop, all these things will take the form of their parents. Otherwise, where do you draw the line? Is a sperm a Human? Is a woman's egg a Human too? How about a woman's monthly period - is a Human dying each month, and if so is that morally wrong too? Let's take it even further...how about the food we eat that sustains us and eventually the nutrients in our food that become sperm and eggs...is our food Human too? How about water and carbon...are those Humans?

Think about it...


------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

Ok, Feilnyn, perhaps you and Iknaton have a point, but the difference between terminating a person with alstimers or a mentally handicaped person and getting an abortion is that handicaped people have lived lie, alztimers victems have lived life, they have made friends, and they would be missed if they were gone. In other words, it would make a difference.

An aborted fetus has not lived a life, not made any friends, and would not be missed if never born at all. It really wouldnt make a difference.

Now i understand your point of view here,in fact, deciding which side of this argument to take was a very hard decision for me to make. This is such a sennsitive topic, and there is just a fine line between one side and the other.

So, please dont make me out to be a monster because i condone abortion, personally, i think that putting a child up for adoption would be a better choice to make, but then again, if its not my child, its none of my buisiness what the parents do to the child.

Does anyone see where I'm coming from? Because I feel that I'm the only one here who understands the point I'm trying to get across.

GOD Bless,
-Calypso

[This message has been edited by Jedi Calypso (edited June 23, 2000).]

Originally posted by Vagabond:
Consider this:

So, is a 98 year old with Alzheimer's disease a person? Well, they definitely have the body of a Human being, but I contend that they are no longer a person. In its advanced stages, this terrible disease robs its victims of all memories and the ability to function. They don't even know who they are anymore. In such a state, a dog can be said to be more a Human that the Alzheimer's disease victim. The merciful thing to do is to let these people die a dignified death, not waste away into an agonizing netherworld of confusion and despair, soley to satisfy some peoples' misguided notion of what is moral. It's a heartless act of selfishness.

Now then, do I think a fetus is a Human being? Certainly, given time it will become one. But I wouldn't call a six-week old fetus a Human. Nor would I call an apple seed a tree. Nor would I call an egg a chicken. But given the time to develop, all these things will take the form of their parents. Otherwise, where do you draw the line? Is a sperm a Human? Is a woman's egg a Human too? How about a woman's monthly period - is a Human dying each month, and if so is that morally wrong too? Let's take it even further...how about the food we eat that sustains us and eventually the nutrients in our food that become sperm and eggs...is our food Human too? How about water and carbon...are those Humans?

Think about it...




You know, Vagabond, you and I must think alike, because wile i was typing my last post, i was thinking about typing something to that effect, but decided against it,. I'm glad one of us did.

Although I'm not too sure about letting an alztimers victum "die a dignified death" instead of "wasteing away into an agonizing netherworld of confusion and despair, soley to satisfy some peoples' misguided notion of what is moral", i do agree on the analogy you made to not considering an apple seed a tree, so why should we consider a 6 week old fetus a human?

Comments?

-Calypso

humans are not horses. you don't put them out of their misery. They have a consciousness of their own. It is not up to any other person, or even them to decide when their life should end. We are the caretakers and stewards of animals, but no human has the right to make judgement on another human's life. No human has the right to decide that they are somehow better than another and can thus make a judgement on their quality of life.

Humans need to stop playing God and leave it to the pro.

Re-read my friend:


...The body is just flesh and bone...nothing that remarkable really. All creatures of this planet are made of the same stuff. Where we are different is in our minds, for without that we are nothing...


No where did I say that people were horses. I said we are made of the same material. This is an undisputable fact.

Where birds are different from us is that they have feathers, which allows them to fly. Where turtles are different from us is that they have a shell, which allows them to safely retreat from danger. Where fish are different from us is that they have gills, which allows them to breathe in water. Where we are different from the other animals is that we have large and complex brains for our size, which allows us a relatively high degree of intelligence.

Now then, on to your rant: yes, I agree that one Human does not have the right to make a judgement on another's life. On this detail we are in agreement. Where we disagree is that I say a 98 year old, with severe Alzheimer's Disease, is no longer technically Human. What remains of them is simply a ravaged shell, stripped of the person they once were - I've seen this first hand, so I know what I'm talking about.

Lastly, I have no designs on playing God, as you so dramatically put it. Rather, I strive to treat other Humans with dignity. A dignified life is not one where one wanders hallways in a bewildered daze, not recognizing anyone, nor oneself - always afraid - always confused - unable to speak because you can't remember how. Defense of prolonging such suffering is selfishly sadistic. You do this, not in the victim's interest, but in your own. True love comes from doing what's best for the one you love, even if it brings you sadness. How can you claim to love someone when you're only thinking of yourself?

Do I think the government should make these decisions? No, but I think the family should have the option of terminating the life of a loved one with a terminal and ravaging illness such as Alzheimer's, especially if that's what the victim wanted before his or her faculties were destroyed.

And back to the topic of this discussion, again, I don't classify a six-week old fetus as a Human...not yet. As I said before, if you don't draw the line somewhere, then the entire Universe is Human. I draw my line toward the later part of the second trimester.



------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

the more i read what you wrote, the more i stand behind what i originally said. You insist that you are not playing God, but everything you said after that says otherwise. You're judging another's life as being dignified or not. You're still judging it as less than adequate or something. That is a dangerous thing to do.

You're insisting on continuing a life, soley based on the fact that the shell once housed a Human consciousness. Period.

Your definition of a Human is the body, while mine is the consciousness.



------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

how do *you* know that consciousness does not still exist, even though the person walks around babbling like a lunatic? My definition is NOT just the body, but the whole package.

We are put on this earth to love and serve others. By killing off people whose usefulness seems to have expired, how loving is that? It is at those times where they most need our love. Instead we are lazy and just seek to get rid of them because they are an inconvenience.

Personhood never ends. It has a beginning, but it does not end, even if the mind fails in this life.

A woman's unfertilized egg is no more a person or a human being separate from the mother than your stomach, your arm, or a male's sperm cell.

However, once the sperm and egg are united, it is no longer a part of the mother, but the union of the matter of two seperate, independant human beings.

And it is all a process, not a "moment" so in fact, it becomes impossible for a proponent of "ensouled personhood" to determine the "moment" at which it is not permissable to kill the "nonperson."

There are those who say the "mother's rights" overrule those of her unborn child. This is utter nonsenese. The child is innocent, and thrust into this world by biology (and our actions) and so has a right to life, INHERENT to all human beings. If this right can be denied to her (the child), then it can be denied to all humans. Semantics can destroy lives it seems, when we judge a person not to be a person.

Biologically, the "fetus" the "embryo" etc are all human. Just as a chicken's egg is an animal, and a seed is a plant.

"Personhood" is a socially contructed, and philosophically defended, metaphysical term.

Roth's argument is that every human being has an inherent personhood, that is, personhood is not "ensouled" into a being by society.

Thus it would be more proper, not to refer to an unborn fetus as a "potential human being" (it is already a human being by virtue of its genetic makeup), or as a "potential person." It is merely an unrecognized person.

And yet there are those who dare decide that some living human beings, are yet NOT persons, and thus, not human. How can they possibly defend a human person that cannot stand up for itself in society yet?

If you do not believe what you have seen, how can you believe what you have not seen?

One must understand that the scientists have PROVEN what a human being is. We are a species, called homo sapiens distinct and unique from other animals, and from other primates. We are the only race of mammals to create a complex society and civilization (with language, customs, culture, tools, homes, religion, politics, etc).

Some will say that a human embryo is a fish, or a blob of tissue, but that's ignoring biology. We don't "become human" we aren't "born human" we were human from the time of our conception, and we remain human until we become dust. Even a dead corpse of a human being is still a human being.

This gets into debates over the body vs. the mind or the soul. Science seems to support the belief the our minds are created by our bodies, not the other way around. As a religionist, I believe in a soul, but even then, I see the mind and the body as connected. Biologically, a human being is a human being, even if you rip his brain out of his head, he's still a human being.

If you cut off a chicken's head, does it become a dog? No, it's still a chicken. It will soon die, but it will be a chicken, until it is broken down into it's base elements. A chicken doesn't have human rights, because it isn't human. A human is the only animal that possesses human rights. To accord human rights to a non-human is illogical. To attempt to remove human rights assumes that they are not rights at all, but privelages, accorded arbitrarily. And by whom? By God? By the government? By your next of kin?

Even if you don't believe in God, you must admit that human rights must be inalienable, or else they are meaningless. Only the rich, powerful elite have any claim to them.

Kurgan

[This message has been edited by Kurgan (edited June 23, 2000).]

Well, it looks like we all disagree then. No point in further debate http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif)


------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

(shows Vagabond the door): After you..

; )

But anybody else who wishes to stay and discuss, is free to (and encouraged to).

Btw, did anybody have any other comments on the articles posted? I'm not so interested in everyone's own personal views (which tend to be 50/50 anyhow), as much as your reactions to the content posted.

Kurgan

Well, science has always proven that we are human from the zygote on. A living growing organism with a human genetic code, procreated by two humans, can only be human. The fetus can't be part of the mother, as it has a different set of chromazones (sp?).

The only way to justify the inhumanity of the fetus is on a philosphical level (something to do with ambiguous "personhood"). Otherwise it is over-and-done-with foolishness. If one says that the fetus can't be killed outright without violating any rights, then newborns can also be destroyed, probably up to a year or longer. After all, birth is merely a spot in time. The baby is no different 5 minutes after birth than 5 before. Logic demands that newborns be treated as fetuses, as they are really no different after at least the third trimester (and I'm being really generous leaving it that late). Two nobel-winning scientists have actually advocated the legal destruction of newborns up to three weeks old (can't remember their names).

Of course, it is better to back things up with quotes:

The First International Conference on Abortion, held in Washington D.C., 1967, drew experts from around the world in the areas of medicine, law, ethics and social sciences. Their unanimous conclusion (19-1) on the question, "When does human life begin?" was as follows: "The majority of our group could find no point in time between the union of the sperm and the egg, or at least the blastocyst stage, at which point we could say that this was not a human life. The changes occurring between implantation, a six-week embryo, a six-month fetus, a one-week child and a mature adult are merely stages of development and maturation." (Taken from Handbook on Abortion, Dr. J. C. Willke.)

"When the sperm and egg fuse, the newly-formed cell has conferred upon it the degree of Homo Sapiens, with all the rights and privileges pertaining." (Peter Amenta, Ph.D. Professor of Embryology, Hahnemann Medical School).

"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at conception. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence, from conception to adulthood, and any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes the termination of a human life." (Dr. A.M. Bongioanni, professor of obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania.)

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into existence. This is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception." (Dr. Jerome Lejeune, genetics professor at the University of Descartes, Paris).

The legality of abortion is in direct defiance of our laws against murder. If you can kill your baby I should have every right to kill anyone I want to. After all, abortion effectively elimenates the sacredness of human life from modern law.

No, nobody has any right to deliberately murder another human. Which makes this the biggest holocaust in the history of human kind, and it makes the abortionists paid assassins.

------------------
"To believe anything at all is to believe it true. To believe something true is to believe that whatever is incompatible with it must be false. And to believe somebody else's belief false is implicitly intolerant. Therefore, if intolerance is an evil, belief itself-in anything-is an evil. So the only way we can get rid of intolerance is to prohibit belief. Which, of course, would be very intolerant indeed."
-Ted Byfield

[This message has been edited by Conor (edited June 27, 2000).]

Well, Conor, you have your opinion, and I have mine, which as usual are in opposition.

Just because you feel you are right does not make you right, just as me feeling that I am right does not make me right. What we have left is the rule of Democracy to guide us through this controversial issue, whether you like it or not.


------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...



[This message has been edited by Vagabond (edited June 27, 2000).]

Conor, that information seems to agree with what I have studied.

Apparently science does not support the right of abortion by itself, and thus, those who support it do so from a philosophical/societal/ethical perspective.

Those who are against it do so often (but not always) from a spiritual/metaphysical/religious one, but this recent debate shows opposition from a philosophical viewpoint.

Clearly, science does not show abortion to be justified, and so it is up to the philosophers, the theologians, and the social engineers to fight it out.

That is not to say all scientists and doctors are pro-life (read: "anti-abortion"), many are pro-choice (read: "want to keep abortion legal"). However, the means by which they must defend their arguments lie outside scientific facts.

Of course there are those who have tried to justify abortion scientifically. These people are called eugenecists.

There will always be those who try to misuse science to further their own predjudices and for personal gain. Keep in mind some used Darwinian evolutionary theories to further racial biases. This is pseudo-science, not true science. They have been proven wrong, time and again.

Kurgan

Anyone who would try to justify abortion on racial grounds is a retard.

I support the right for the woman to choose whether or not she wishes to produce offspring.

One can be pro-choice, without being pro-abortion.

In my view, those who are anti-abortion, are actually anti-choice. Those who are pro-choice, are not necessarily pro-abortion. There is a distinct difference.


------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

I wouldn't say anyone WOULD try to justify abortion on racial grounds.

However, in the past this has happened. I'm sure no "pro-choice" person would wish to use these arguments, or be laughed at or lynched.

Some have said in the past that those who are "aborted" are mostly from poor families (often members of ethnic and racial minorities I might also add in some cases), who, had they brought their children to term, these people would be more likely to get into drugs and crime.

I would simply counter, that this is a "pre-emptive strike" against the unborn. This is killing people based on what we THINK THEY MIGHT DO IN THE FUTURE, not what they have done. I'd hate to be punished for crimes I have not commited, wouldn't you? Also, just because you are poor, does not make you any less human or dignified than a rich or middle class person (regardless of race).

The above arguments were used by a privilaged class as a way of weeding out what they thought of as "those undesirables."

I'm not arguing that today, and I don't expect that you are either, just stating one extreme example.

Some people think that pro-"lifers" are the fanatics.

Also, a person who is truly "pro-life" tends to also be against the death penalty, euthanasia (of humans at least), assisted suicide, etc. All the "death" type issues. In other words, they believe in affirming human life.

To call all people who oppose abortion (ie: people who wish to outlaw most or all abortions) as pro-life is probably not correct. By opposing abortion, you are affirming life, however, you might not be pro-life on other issues. Once I heard a semi-popular commedian say that "pro-life" was a misnomer, because all pro-lifers were against abortion, but pro-death penalty, and they were just anti-woman. I would simply call this guy a bigot, if he doesn't understand the issues, and thinks he can belittle people's beliefs in this way.

"Pro-choice" on the other hand, refers to whether or not a person should have access to abortion. These people are saying that abortion should be kept legal, because people need to have a "choice."

I would argue that the fetus/unborn baby/zygote/whatever you want to call it/human being has no choice in the matter.

Plus, pressure from the government, and big corporations like Planned Parenthood, who will scare the girl into having an abortion, and the media that tells her it's okay to go get laid, but if you get pregnant, you have to get rid of it. And that goes along too with businesses that discriminate against pregnant women (I can't think of any, but I'm sure it must happen).

In this culture, it's viewed as inconvenient and shameful for a person to get pregnant and not be married and/or have money. Society would rather kill than give life.

But, proponents of it will say, the end-all, be-all, is "choice" that the woman's supreme right "control over her body", etc. is supreme, even over the rights of an unborn human being. This I disagree with.

Some say that outlawing abortion is being "puritanical" or "punishing a woman for having sex" but this is another emotional argument that doesn't hold water.

Punishing a human being for being given life, is illogical. The fetus didn't ask to be conceived, and now that that's done, he/she deserves a chance, inspite of somebody else's bad "choice."

It's almost like if some nut, at random, shoots me in the leg in a crowded subway station, and then while I'm in hospitol, he decides to have me euthanized (and they do it). It wouldn't be my fault that he screwed up and did something bad, would it?

It's not forcing somebody's religious views on another. Not every religion is against abortion, and many who claim none are against it, and some members of those same religions who are against it, are in favor of it. So that's another fallacy to claim that it's forcing religion on somebody.

Democracy does not entail infanticide. We've lost the way somewhere. Hey, they do abortions in China.. and there it's often to get rid of female babies, because they have government restrictions on number of children in a family, etc.

My side of the issue, is that it's wrong. We can't treat human beings equally and justly if we don't start with the weakest and most vulnerable of our society first.

Thanks for sharing your opinion Vagabond. It's a deep issue, that has alot more to it than simply terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice."

It's a shame the media (and others) have decided to put it into that kind of black and white issue and force everyone to use those terms as if they were the whole shebang.

Kind of like "liberal" and "conservative."
They don't always work for everyone, but we're sort of stuck with them.

Kurgan

Kurgan,


...I would argue that the fetus/unborn baby/zygote/whatever you want to call it/human being has no choice in the matter...


I believe in a hierarchy of rights:

1. The rights of the living outweigh the rights of the unborn and the dead.

2. The rights of the unborn outweigh the rights of the dead

I belive the woman has a right to decide whether to carry an unborn child to term. This is my opinion, which we obviously differ on.

The reason I mention the dead, is sort of off topic, but is still in my personal hierarchy of rights. In the future, perhaps thousands or even hundreds of years, we will start to run out of usable space on this planet and it will no longer be feasible to have elaborate cemetaries. I, personally, believe they are a waste of space and that peoples' bodies should be creamated in order to make room for those of us who are actually alive.


...Plus, pressure from the government, and big corporations like Planned Parenthood, who will scare the girl into having an abortion...


What in the world are you talking about? We must live in a different country, because I've never seen any evidence to support this claim. Not to ridicule you - this just sounds surrealistically paranoid, and unfounded.


...and the media that tells her it's okay to go get laid, but if you get pregnant, you have to get rid of it. And that goes along too with businesses that discriminate against pregnant women (I can't think of any, but I'm sure it must happen)...


...I'm speechless. These are some of the most absurd things I've ever seen you write - again, with all respect. I suspect that Kansas City is a bit more Liberal than Iowa (that is where you live, right), and the television shows we get to see are nothing like the horror-world you're describing.


...The fetus didn't ask to be conceived...


Agreed. The fetus is not even able to think up until possibly the later part of the third trimester, if even that. I know my first memories didn't begin until I was about one or two years old, and I definitely don't remember being circumsized. Therefore, someone could have tossed me into a wood chipper right after my birth and I'd have never known it.


...Democracy does not entail infanticide. We've lost the way somewhere.


Democracy is morally neutral. Hence, if those utilizing a Democratic government choose to allow infanticide, as you call it, then Democracy does in fact entail it.


...Kind of like "liberal" and "conservative."...


I wish more people were socially Liberal. It's very refreshing and enlightening to be Liberal, and I'm proud to be of this mindset. One might say it's Liberating...


------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

Even if I thought Democracy had any authority to decide what is moral and what is not (which I think is bull****) I couldn't support abortion on that perspective, as abortion was legalized without any consent at all.



------------------
"To believe anything at all is to believe it true. To believe something true is to believe that whatever is incompatible with it must be false. And to believe somebody else's belief false is implicitly intolerant. Therefore, if intolerance is an evil, belief itself-in anything-is an evil. So the only way we can get rid of intolerance is to prohibit belief. Which, of course, would be very intolerant indeed."
-Ted Byfield

No one's asking you to support abortion, but I expect you to obey that laws and rights in our country. If you don't like them, then either try to convince a majority of people to agree with your view, or move to a country more to your liking.

------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

It's like Conor said, Vagabond. Democracy didn't play a role in deciding whether or not abortion should be legal. This decision was made by the Supreme Court.



------------------
http://timeslide.homestead.com/files/newsig3.jpg)

Come to the TimeSlide (http://timeslide.homestead.com/index.html).

Thanks to Jedi Kanigget for the pic.

No, the decision was made by the USA's founding fathers by their wording of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as the aforementioned were interpreted by the U.S. Surpreme Court.

Sure, religious people are all behind the USA when it comes to freedom of religion, but when it comes to other freedoms, the hypocrisy bit gets flipped, and now you're ready to take away the freedoms you don't agree with from other people. Sorry, but the only way to do that is to pass a Constitutional Ammendment.


------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

i love how people think that they somehow have a "right" to terminate a human life.

it absolutely disgusts me.

I love it how people think they can take away my rights because they think they know best.

It absolutely disgusts me.


------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

vagabond, what makes you think you somehow have a right to take a life?

the only time you have a "right" (i use the term loosely) to take a life is in self defense.

what is your big defense for your belief that you have this "right"?

*note: i am debating points here, and nothing i say should be taken personally*
<font size=1>

[This message has been edited by Ikhnaton (edited June 29, 2000).]

A woman's right to control her bodily functions is paramount. If she wants to have a baby, that is her choice. If she doesn't want to have a baby, that is also her choice.

Ike, if I went up to you and held a gun to your head and said, "Damn it, you'd better run through the middle of the street naked, or I'm going to blow your brains out", you would probably be very angry and feel violated. At that point you would have lost control of your body. I would have violated your basic Human rights.

Some extreme anti-choice people have suggested just this very thing when a woman's life is in danger from her pregnancy. They're saying, "Damn it, you're going to have this baby, even if it kills you." Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will is a violation of her basic Human rights. Similarly, if one forced her to abort her pregnancy against her will, it would also violate her basic Human rights.

People just can not impose their own personal beliefs on the reproductive rights of a woman, except the woman herself. Period.

The irony is that the people most trying to control women's reproductive rights are white, conservative, christian males.

Ike, don't worry. No offense taken by me, and I hope you don't take any personal offense from any of my remarks.


------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

the woman has a choice as to what she does with her reproductive organs, and the choice is whether or not to have sex to have a child. yes, you can talk about rape and stuff all you want, but the choice is there, not after a new life is created.

Vagabond, I don't object to your opinion, (though I disagree with it of course). I merely object to your misuse of certain terms.

"Living" applies to all plants, animals, protists, fungi, and all manner of bacteria, etc. It doesn't distinguish between "born" and "unborn."

I'm not talking about dead people here. A dead person, as far as I'm concerned can't be hurt by anyone living on earth. Sure, you can upset people who KNEW that person, by speaking ill of the dead individual, or denying them a proper burial, etc, but that only tarnishes the memory of the person.

The person's body has ceased to function and no longer feels pain, no longer thinks, and can't have it's feelings hurt in this way.

I never said that was an issue. Back on topic... abortion:

An unborn human or unborn of any other species are "alive" in the same sense that a born individual is.

And the other term you use incorrectly is "human."

A "human" is a mammal of the species homo sapiens. This is a biological distinction which no scientist can disagree with. We are human by nature's decree.

Sure, you have people like the Nazi's and the Klu Klux Klan who say certain groups of creatures within our species (like Blacks, Jews, Gypsies, or Catholics..) aren't "human" but they aren't thinking clearly or they haven't read anything about biology or zoology.

We're all in the same family.

A dead person is human as well. They may not be moving around and "alive" but they still have the same genetics we do. Eventually they will decompose and then return to the elements. Then they will cease to become human, because they will have become the food for worms and bugs, and part of the soil or ash.

But until then, we're all human.

Until our bodies stop working and are beyond recovery (ie: can't be revived by any means) then we are "alive."

A fetus/unborn baby is both "alive" and "human" in the fullest sense of the word. Even the founding fathers would agree.

Kurgan

Oh, and Vaggy, I think you missed the point of this debate.

"Religious people" are not the only ones against abortion.

Maybe you have stereotypes of the anti-abortionists. Are these from TV shows or what you saw on CNN? Somewhere along the line weren't you the one who said the only people who support abortion were "rich, white, Republican Christian men?"

I'm sure many of THOSE people are against abortion, but the aren't the only ones, and they are probably even in the minority of folks who are against it. I'm not talking about this country alone, I'm talking about the WORLD. Obviously the governments of many countries have decided to force the issue on us, but what do the people want? Isn't that what Democracy is all about?

Or is it just what a group of rich and powerful (and unelected, I might add) bueracrats decide is "best for us."

At one time our Supreme Court said that slavery was correct. Guess they aren't infallible after all! ; )

I'm not talking about TV shows, or what any religious group is talking about. I'm talking about the topic itself.

Here we go with terms again. ; )

You like the way the country is because it happens to support your view. But what if it didn't? Then you'd be as upset as the rest of us, and you'd have a right to complain.

Again, I would like to clear up some fallacies.

First off, I am not a Republican, nor do I consider myself a conservative. I don't consider myself a liberal either. Just so you know. I'm not a fundamentalist Christian.

The part about a Constitutional Amendment is a good one. I agree that the laws need to be changed. How on earth could I possibly FORCE you, Vagabond, to NOT have an abortion, and thus "violate your human rights," as you put it? How??! By saying "I am against abortion" how is that taking away the rights of any women, in the world?"

I see it as merely standing up for the rights of the innocent, who cannot protect themselves, in the face of a barbaric set of laws that endanger THEIR human rights.

Nobody said that a woman must be forced to not have an abortion if her life is in danger from pregnancy. The abortions performed to "save the life of the mother" are very very rare. As are the number of abortions performed on woman who were pregnant as a result of sexual assault.

Incidentally, even if the pregnancy was caused by a rape, that does not in any way diminish the need for a human life to be protected (ie: the fetus must be allowed to live). The mother has the option to put her child up for adoption.

Millions of parents in this country would give their right arm for a child, as they cannot have one of their own, and would make good loving, care-givers. Even gay couples want to adopt. Abortion would deny them this.

Kurgan

[This message has been edited by Kurgan (edited June 29, 2000).]

I never said a fetus wasn't alive. True, it has DNA, so technically it is Human. My hair and fingernails have Human DNA as well - none of you seem to get up in arms when you get a hair cut. That's not even the point.

The mother's right to terminate her pregnancy exceed the right of the fetus to impose the pregnancy on the mother. The fetus exists as the discretion of the mother.

And Ike, if you don't want any children, then you can practice abstinence if you want. That's not very realistic and it's not very Human either.

Why is it that all of you conservative christian males think it's okay for you to tell a woman what to do with her body, but you would object to someone forcing you to do something against your will at gunpoint? Explain this please.



------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

...Somewhere along the line weren't you the one who said the only people who support abortion were "rich, white, Republican Christian men?"...


Actually, I said soemthing more along the line that the majority of those who are anti-choice are white, conservative, males. I stand by this statement. Further, this statement does not mean that people who fall out of this stereotype are not also anti-choice.


...I'm sure many of THOSE people are against abortion, but the aren't the only ones, and they are probably even in the minority of folks who are against it...


I seriously doubt it.


...At one time our Supreme Court said that slavery was correct. Guess they aren't infallible after all! ; ) ...


That's quite correct, which is the reason that I never said the Surpreme Court was infallible. It's just the highest court in our land, and that's the way our government works, like it or not.


...You like the way the country is because it happens to support your view. But what if it didn't? Then you'd be as upset as the rest of us, and you'd have a right to complain...


You seem to be implying that I said you didn't have a right to complain, which I never implied.


...First off, I am not a Republican, nor do I consider myself a conservative. I don't consider myself a liberal either. Just so you know. I'm not a fundamentalist Christian...


I never said anything about fundamentalist christians. You are, however a christian male, so I got 2 out of 3 right. You are still a part of the major body wishing to oppress women.


...How on earth could I possibly FORCE you, Vagabond, to NOT have an abortion, and thus "violate your human rights," as you put it? How??! By saying "I am against abortion" how is that taking away the rights of any women, in the world?"...


I never said that you speaking those words would violate my Human rights. But even if a constitutional ammendment was made prohibiting the woman's right to choose, I feel it would be a major step backwards for a free society, making women second-class citizens.


...I see it as merely standing up for the rights of the innocent, who cannot protect themselves, in the face of a barbaric set of laws that endanger THEIR human rights...


I see it as the oppression of women by men.


...Nobody said that a woman must be forced to not have an abortion if her life is in danger from pregnancy. The abortions performed to "save the life of the mother" are very very rare...


The Nebraska law, that the Surpreme Court struck down yesterday, attempted to ban late term abortionns even if the mother's life was in danger. You stand corrected.


...Incidentally, even if the pregnancy was caused by a rape, that does not in any way diminish the need for a human life to be protected (ie: the fetus must be allowed to live). The mother has the option to put her child up for adoption...


No, the fetus must not be allowed to live. The mother may choose to allow the fetus to grow to term, or to terminate it. Yes, the woman also has the choice to give the baby up for adoption, but again, that is her choice and not a goverment mandate.


...Millions of parents in this country would give their right arm for a child, as they cannot have one of their own, and would make good loving, care-givers. Even gay couples want to adopt. Abortion would deny them this...


This is not a justification for forcing unwanted pregnancies on women.

Further, and you will no doubt find this surprising, I don't know that I am very comfortable with gay couples adopting children. I have no problem with gay people becoming legally married, but I think that most children would prefer a typical male/female set of parents since most children are born straight.


------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

Wow, I don't visit the board for awhile, and now I have to join the tail end of page2! I don't expect you to read my response, because I didn't read yours (not enough time right now), so I'm just adding my opinion, not joining the flow of the debate.

Calypso, I read your initial response (but not the others yet). I agree and disagree with you some.

1)A prenate is a human life, and deserves to live. If I wear a condom, and my sperm never reach the egg, a life form was not killed. Once that egg is fertilized and nature takes its course, barring some accident or mishap, it will become a human being. It doesn't matter what brain waves are present or not.

2) "Right to Chose" (IMO) is a misnomer, a cleverly worded propaganda that sets an issue before the voters to gain female votes. You want to know what abortion is about? MONEY! Ladies, you are being told it is about your right to choose, but it's about the incredible amount of money paid to abortionists (federal tax money available for pigs at the money trough!) An abortion is a highly profitable and highly invasive procedure, and can permamently damage a females delicate internal organs to the point of sterility, and I imagine even death. They want nothing more than for you to come back every couple of months for another, and the bank accounts get fatter and fatter. They pay lobbyists and politicians handsomely to keep it legal, and don't take my word for it, take theirs...they admit it!

What does abortion have to do with a woman's right to choose. How many choices are made before the conception/fertilization? (see below for rape) If you don't want to be pregnant and have a child, do whatever can be done to avoid that. If that means abstinence, so be it. And nothing is 100%, so if you're sexually active, even with precautions, you may get pregnant, and knowing that up front, be responsible if you do.

That goes for the male too! Man, if you want to get some, and she gets pregnant, face the consequences like a man and pay the responsibilty tied to fathering. Unfortunately ladies, it'd be nice, but the guy often doesn't stick around and there's nothing you can do to change that other than making sure you do all that you can to avoid getting pregnant. If you get pregnant and he leaves, YOU will carry that baby alone, YOU will raise, care for and support them to adulthood alone, so YOU must, for YOUR OWN SAKE, be responsible. I wish that weren't so, but guys are jerks these days!

3)I don't think abortion should be illegal, but I don't think it should be available as a non-chalant method of birth control. (Ooops...I got pregnant...oh well, I'll just get qa n abortion) It shouldn't be easy so easy to get an abortion. Might the pregnancy, delivery and raising of that being be an inconvenience to the mother? Certainly, but that is a consequence of having sex. If a pregnancy/baby is unwanted, there are plenty of choices that can be made to keep that event from occuring. Again, that is where you can exercise your right to choose.

And in the case of a pregnancy resulting from rape, I have no problem with an abortion there. There was no choice invloved there! I would advise against it just because I have friends that had abortions young, only to deeply regret it, to the point of torment, when they had children later and they realized what they kept from being born. But I wouldn't forbid it.

Calypso wrote: <Think of it this way, if a poverty-sticken woman finds herself with child, what is she do do?>

You don't find yourself pregnant, you get pregnant through your choices and his choices(barring rape). What is she to do? Whatever she can to not get preganant in the first place. That's not fun, but it's realisitc.

As far as wanting to avoid the unpleasant circumstances of a poor, impoversished woman becoming a poor impoverished single mom...that is the job of Christians (who I guess are on Sabbatical) and the community/society she lives in. Beware, Calypso, what if your life gets terminated some day because you're old, unwanted and unproductive by some standard...oh well. What if your mother ha said "Oh, I really don't want the responsibility after all...bye-bye son!"

You know what else...none of this would be an issue! A patent was made in, like the 50's, of a gold valve placed in the testes' tubes. A small procedure, the valve is turned to off, no (or at least very, very slight) chance of pregnancy. You get older, want a family, have the valve turned on, here comes the babies. Done with babies, have it turned off, AND you can go back to on if you change your mind later(unlike vasectomy's). Who bought the patent and trashed the idea? Drug companies. Why? So women would have to pay for a pill thay have to take every day, a prescription renewable every month...and if not, than abortions make money too! It makes me sick that they then come forward to lobby for legalized, quick access abortions under the umbrella of "Women, don't let them take your right to choose."

Here's my final thought: "Women, don't let them take away your dignity. Don't let them invade and damage your precious body, Don't let them manipulate you like a sucker. Stand tall, strong and smart, and be responsible for your life."

Vagabond, all the US polls I have seen show abortion is an issue American's are sharply divided on.

Please show me the statistical evidence that "MOST" the "MAJORITY" or even "ALL" of "anti-choice" (those who wish abortion to be illegal/consider it immoral) are "white, conservative christian males."

Stereotyping is a bad idea, is it not?

Many Muslims are against abortion, and most of them are not conservative Christian males. Many women are against abortion.

Even atheists are against abortion. Atheist woman, for goshsakes! How do I spell that out for you?

What if I said all, most, or the majority of pro-abortionists were bleeding-heart liberal, radical feminist, New Agers?

Would that be fair? No, I don't think so.

Stereotypes are bad because they basically say you can predict a person's personality, beliefs, behavior, etc, by the group they were born into, or happen to belong to.

Not every Christian is against abortion, many women are against it as well as for it, and liberals are against it as well as conservatives, and some so-called conservatives support abortion.

Many politicians (and citizens) support the status quo. So whatever is legal, if fine with them. If abortion were banned tomorrow, they wouldn't even blink. But, for many others, abortion is a very important issue.

And you still don't understand the terms "alive" and "human."

You are saying that each of the dead hairs on your head is a human being? Previously you said everything in the entire universe (all matter) was human. A human being is an individual being, a lifeform that shares the genetic characteristics of homo sapiens. There is a difference between my finger, and another person, is there not? A human baby gets nourishment from its mother, but it is not an organ in her body. It is a seperate creature. How hard is that for you to grasp?

Even those who support abortion agree that a fetus is both really and truly alive and really human.

They acknowledge those facts openly.

The way in which they DEFEND abortion, is much in the way you have hinted at. That is, they say the woman's will is greater than that of an unborn human being. That is, she has the power of life and death over her children.

They would also try to defend abortion on philosophical grounds. Or emotional ones.. like saying that a woman can't be forced to put up with something as stressful as pregnancy or whatnot.

Sadly, statistics don't support many of the emotional arguments. Most abortions are not performed in cases of rape. Abortions are not "rare." They are not all performed in the first trimester, and they aren't all done for the benefit of poor women who can't afford kids.

The "Democracy" argument basically boils down to one of two things:

1) Whatever the majority decides in a country is then moral (or there is no morality, there is only law, and the law is final). If you don't like it, move to another country that supports your beliefs.

The trouble with this argument is that it denies due process, justice, and the right to redress grievences.

If the people disagree or change their minds, they have a right to speak up and get the laws changed. Nobody should be forced to obey an immoral law that defies their conscience. Every citizen has a right to have a say in their government. Not just the rich, or the popular. Moving to another country is not feasible or logical for most, free-minded people.

2) The goverment knows what's best, and whatever they decide is the law, in our best interest. That's that.

This argument ignores the fact that the government governs at our consent. We have no obligation to have immoral laws thrust upon us by unelected authorities. That is the whole reason we broke away from Britian in the first place. The founding fathers whole intention was to give us a government OF the people, and FOR the people, not merely "above the people."

The documents that founded our country also stated that if at ANY TIME, the government did not represent the will of the people, and ceased to perform as it ought to, that the PEOPLE had a right to ABOLISH IT and form a new one. Now that would scare alot of buerecrats, and conservatives, but that's what they said. They seem to have believed it to, as they were willing to fight and die for it.

The case of abortion is far from over.. and trying to paint the opponents of it as narrow minded zealouts is a common one, but it doesn't stand up to closer scrutiny.

Recall again, at one time people thought it was okay to deny woman the right to vote, and okay to enslave blacks and discriminate against them. If these things can change, so can this case of brutality against unborn human beings.

Kurgan

quite-gone gin,

Welcome. And I'd urge you to read this entire thread, if you get the chance. Much of what you've stated has already been discussed, so I won't rehash it here.

I will say that I strongly disagree with your opinion that the main reason people want women to have the right to choose is to make the doctors who perform abortions money. That's missing the point entirely.

One more thing: when you wear a condom, and the sperm don't reach the egg, something does die...your sperm, and eventually the egg will die too. The sperm is a cell. The egg is a cell. The combined sperm/egg is a cell. We're composed of a bunch of cells...so what? In any event, I see it as irrelevant anyway. The mother has sole discretion whether to complete her pregnancy or terminate it. If you were a woman you'd likely have a different perspective.


------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

This seems to be a heated discussion....

I was raised as a baptist, and that religion told me that killing is killing in any way, shape or form. I am now more or less agnostic, meaning I don't really have a religion, but do believe in something.

Though I can honestly say that I think abortion, in the most general of terms, is wrong... I also happen to believe that in some cases, it could be "acceptable"

Now, here is my explanation:

I happen to see or hear alot about people getting pregnant, not wanting it, and ultimately, getting an abortion... I believe that this is wrong. In my own opinion, Abortion is not a form of birth control.

When someone is careless enough to engage in a sexual activity with someone else, there should be a certain level of compitence and responsibility. If responsible behavior is not present, and the two fool around carelessly, Then they should have to accept the outcome, however extreme, of their actions. Anyone who decides to take extreme measures because they do not want to deal with reality, should be herded into a building, and shot like cattle.

Now, on to why I think that abortion is "acceptable" on only the very rarest of occurences:

I'll start off by giving this example:

In a city not very far from where I live, there was a story about how a mentally challenged, comatose woman was raped by an orderly at the hospital that was caring for her. Now, because this woman was in the condition that she was, there was no way to decide what would be done- Whether she would carry the child full-term, or whether the child would be "destroyed". The decision could not be decided by anyone other that the woman, regardless of her condition, so this woman, even in her condition, carried the child full term. When the term was over, the child was born. The mother, died in labor. The child is severely disabled, both mentally and physically, and will most likely live it's entire life in a hospital.

This is an instance where I believe that abortion would be acceptable. I also belive that in other situations, such as rape, by family member or stranger, would be cause for abortion. That is about my extent for tolerance of it though.

This is all I to say for now. Anyone with questions, feely free to ask.

the13thjedi

13th,


...When someone is careless enough to engage in a sexual activity with someone else, there should be a certain level of compitence and responsibility. If responsible behavior is not present, and the two fool around carelessly, Then they should have to accept the outcome, however extreme, of their actions. Anyone who decides to take extreme measures because they do not want to deal with reality, should be herded into a building, and shot like cattle...


Yes, you're right, there should be a certain level of maturity that comes with having sex. However, the reality of our world is that this is not the case.

I know a woman, who when she was 15, got pregnant by her boyfriend, because she was young and stupid. According to your words, this girl, barely a teenager, would have been forced to give birth and deal with a newborn, when clearly she wasn't even responsible enough to take care of herself. I disagree with you. Girls who get pregnant at such a young age are not close to be mature or educated enough to take care of themselves, much less another life.

Furthermore, this 15-year-old got an abortion, finished out high school, went to college, got married, has a good job, and is planning to start a family soon. According to your words, she should be taken out behind the shed and have her brains blown out. Sorry, but I have to disagree with you again. This woman is now a productive member of society, is mature, and is a good person. She regrets that she had to get an abortion, but it was the best choice for her at that time in her life. You may disagree with her choice, and that is your right, but the fact remains that it was her choice and she made it.

I'm not defending her act of stupidity in getting herself pregnant...that was dumb, and was no doubt a reflection of her young age. But we live in an imperfect world where sometimes the only method of learning is from the teacher of experience. The key is to learn not to repeat your mistakes, and in the case of this woman, she has.


------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

I stand by what I said...

There a thousands of people who can not have children who would have been more than willing to adopt that child...

I think that giving a child up for adoption is much more sensible than destroying it...

I'm sorry if you disagree with me Vagabond, But abortion IS NOT a form of birth control, no matter how you slice it...

the13thjedi

13th,


...There a thousands of people who can not have children who would have been more than willing to adopt that child...


This is not justification to force a woman to have an unwanted pregnancy.

Hell, I love a good laugh. That doesn't give me a right to hold a gun to your head and force you to run down the street, naked, squawking like a chicken, just so I can laugh at you. Me doing this to you would violate your Human rights. The government taking control of a woman's reproductive cycle would violate the rights of all women. The government can not legislate a woman's reproductive behavior, period.

You may disagree, but again, that is your right. Further, you may want to try to look at the issue from a female point of view, rather than from the point-of-view of one with a penis.




------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

Hey,

Found a site with an article that i thought would stir up the pot a bit:
http://dallasnews.com/campaign/105444_gop_03pol.ART.html)

GOD bless;
-Calypso

This has nothing to do with the government in my oppinion...

And I'm sorry you disagree, But comparing pregnancy with what you compared it to is downright ignorance...

Now I know you may not think so... But you're looking at the situation with a very closed-minded approach towards what seems to be any alternative to abortion...

It may just be the way you think... But I get the impression that you are just attempting to find justification where there really is none to be found.

There is always a choice. And your friend made two poor choices in my humble oppinion:
1) Sexual activity without the use of proper birth control... And just because she was 15 is no excuse... When I was that age, I knew what precautionary measures were.
2) Said person chose to run from reality and make a painfully final decision, for both herself and her unborn child.

Now, you're probably steaming right now... But I just cant make much sense out of what you say... True that no one can force an unwanted pregnancy, But if the proper measures are taken in the first place, the entire problem could easily be avoided...

Once again Vagabond,

I'm sorry if you disagree with me.... But, ABORTION IS NOT A FORM OF BIRTH CONTROL....


And, No Offense, But that is the justification you're trying to make, regardless of wether of not you know it.

the13thjedi