AnimeSuki.com Forum

AnimeSuki Forum (http://forums.animesuki.com/index.php)
-   General Chat (http://forums.animesuki.com/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Abortion right or wrong (http://forums.animesuki.com/showthread.php?t=72285)

Gemstar 2008-10-01 16:27

Abortion right or wrong
 
My and my friends were discussing abortion a while back and no one can seem to argree whether it is right or wrong. What does everyone think.

mg1942 2008-10-01 16:45

It's just wrong.

Use protection or take contraceptive pills after you "do" it.

Phantom-Takaya 2008-10-01 16:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by mg1942 (Post 1952971)
It's just wrong.

Use protection or take contraceptive pills after you "do" it.

I second this opinion. Abstinence, protection or contraceptives. Else, the other option is adoption.

blue skies 2008-10-01 17:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by mg1942 (Post 1952971)
It's just wrong.

Use protection or take contraceptive pills after you "do" it.

It's wrong even if you're raped?

While using birth control and condoms should be common sense, those options unfortunately don't occur to some people. Not only that but frankly, you don't always think straight in certain situations. It's a delicate subject and I don't usually voice my opinion on it, but I've always felt that women should have the option of abortion. If a woman makes the decision to terminate a pregnancy, it's no one's business but her own.

mg1942 2008-10-01 17:08

Just sue the heck out of him and take the pill.

Game over.

Vexx 2008-10-01 17:11

The real answer is "it depends" but few people like to hear that.

TigerII 2008-10-01 17:15

I support for rape victims. If two kids fucked up, they should at least have the child, then give up for adoption.

mg1942 2008-10-01 17:17

There are many ways to bypass abortion as long as you're NOT a special case...

Irenicus 2008-10-01 17:20

Oh boy, such a complex, touchy, delicate, flammable, and altogether philosophically fascinating topic...

...and the thread's already going downhill.

Fun.

My advice? Google'it. I suspect even the most eloquent argument that will be posted here will have been posted before somewhere else. Once you get the general idea of how the different positions justify themselves, and on what premises they base their arguments on*, I'll be glad to play devil's advocate with you for a few rounds of friendly fun. :)

*opposing arguments often start from different premises, but the abortion issue is one that is extremely varied in this and where differing baselines play a very big part in why nobody ever agrees with each other.

TigerII 2008-10-01 17:21

Yeah, this could turn ugly, very fast like it has on so many other forums I post at.

mg1942 2008-10-01 17:23

lol My English instructor bans abortion as a research paper topic.

GuidoHunter_Toki 2008-10-01 17:23

There is no one correct answer to this question. Each individual can have different values and beliefs, and therefore a different definition of what is right or wrong.

I believe a women should have the right to choose wether or not to abort a baby. Now while protection is certainly something one should automatically do in a sexual situation if they don't want a baby, but face it, we are humans and this will not happen with everyone. Not to mention there are instances of rape. Now I always here the arguments about how abortions are morally wrong or evil, but to that I give you this to think about...

Now, what differentiates humans from animals? We both need food to survive; We both mate; We both follow the scientific determinates for life. So, in what way are we different?

It is my proposition that we are different because we have higher thought functions, So we have language, and discuss such things as we are discussing today, whereas animals have only lower thought functions for example, "I'm hungry lets eat".
So if there are two sorts of thinking, how is it that humans have the higher form and animals do not? The difference is humans have language. Try thinking without using language - you just can't do it. Our thoughts are tied up in our language - lower thought is tied up in physiology. So what sort of thought does an unborn baby have?


It does not have language
So, we must conclude - it only has lower thought functions. In other words, it is not a human before it is born. After it is born, it starts the process of becoming a human, by learning language. We have no qualms about killing an animal, because it cannot think like us, if it could we would find killing it morally repugnant. So, if it is necessary, we can abort a baby, as it is a person in potentia only.

Autumn Demon 2008-10-01 17:24

abortions for all

Reckoner 2008-10-01 17:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vexx (Post 1953036)
The real answer is "it depends" but few people like to hear that.

It really does depend.

There are many factors at play here for someone like me. How far into the pregnancy is the mother? Past 4 or perhaps 5 months I think should be illegal from a moral stand point (Unless it is an extreme case, whether it be kidnapped and raped or a serious health issue in the mother). With 4 or 5 months the mother really has had all the time to decide whether she wants the baby or not, and she should defintely know by now that she is pregnant.

Unless the baby is starting to be practically fully developed (Past about 5 months or 4 maybe) the government has no right telling what a woman should do with her body. They should start making protected sex illegal then if people are going to view it this way, why are the guys killing all their sperm! That's half the baby!

Remember people a fetus is highly unlikely to feel any pain until approximately 7 months or so.

james0246 2008-10-01 17:37

I think (one version of) Bob Dole said it best in a speech to factory workers:

Dole: Abortions for all.
Crowd: BOO!
Dole: Very well. No Abortions for anyone.
Crowd: BOO!
Dole: Abortions for some. Miniture American flags for all of us.

---

Abortion is an exceedingly complex issue that would require a thread longer than the longest Animesuki thread to just discuss the needed background and scientific research needed to discuss the matter. That being said, from a strictly constitutional view point, multiple areas of the Constitution can be construed to support Abortion (as long as scientific definitions of life are aplicable as evidience). So, Abortion from a strictly legal standpoint is acceptable, but from a personal values standpoint, abortion could be considered wrong.

The real question (at least in this thread) is not going to be if abortion is acceptable, but why 'you' support or do not support abortion?

solomon 2008-10-01 17:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by james0246 (Post 1953087)
I think (one version of) Bob Dole said it best in a speech to factory workers:

Dole: Abortions for all.
Crowd: BOO!
Dole: Very well. No Abortions for anyone.
Crowd: BOO!
Dole: Abortions for some. Miniture American flags for all of us.

---

Abortion is an exceedingly complex issue that would require a thread longer than the longest Animesuki thread to fully discuss. That being said, from a strictly constitutional view point, multiple areas of the Constitution can be construed to support Abortion (as long as scientific definitions of life are aplicable as evidience). So, Abortion from a strictly legal standpoint is acceptable, but from a personal values standpoint, abortion can be considered wrong.


Citizen Kang, classic simpsons episode.

Um is this really the best topic? I mean I have found many great participants on this forum on the US Elections page that were thoughtful and CIVIL, but this is BEGGING FOR FLAMES/TROLLS.

Kyuusai 2008-10-01 17:46

There are two questions at issue here: "When does life begin?" and "When is it acceptable to take a human life?" Quite frankly, the answers to these depend heavily on one's spiritual viewpoints.

There's not going to begin to be reconciliation between these viewpoints unless we're able to learn to scientifically test for a soul.

Myself, I cannot say that abortion is acceptable if done before a certain point. We just don't know when something becomes life. If there's a spirit, when is it relevant? I do believe there is a spiritual component to life, and since I don't know when something goes from "becoming" to "being", the only safe answer I can give is to assume that life begins at conception. Do I know that? No. I simply cannot in good conscience make another claim without evidence. We can say it's the woman's body, but... at whatever point life begins, it becomes another person's body, as well... And there are babies who survive late-term abortions and are left to die (So what are they at that point?).

And when is it acceptable to take a life? The one thing most can agree on is that it's acceptable to take a life when that life is threatening your own. While I have heard of hard-core anti-abortion activists choosing to risk a dangerous pregnancy, I've never heard from any who say that a family in that decision shouldn't have a choice. How inconvenient must things be to say that killing for convenience is OK?

Aside from that, though, we have terrible, terrible double standards. We give the woman carrying the child full choice on the matter, but often a living will/power of attorney/health care proxy is required for a responsible family member to determine the outcome of a person assumed to be permanently incapacitated. Terminally ill people at the end of long, full lives must live out their final days in pain and suffering because merciful killing is not an option, while women are allowed to abort a child for the sake of convenience. I don't think that we, as a society, can justly say this is a matter of choice when we are not consistent on the issue of life from a standpoint of governance.

Irenicus 2008-10-01 17:46

...and to demonstrate what it means to play devil's advocate (or, in this case, God's, maybe?):

Note: my personal opinion of the issue is vaguely defined at best, so this is not representative of my beliefs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter_Toki
There is no one correct answer to this question. Each individual can have different values and beliefs, and therefore a different definition of what is right or wrong.

I believe a women should have the right to choose wether or not to abort a baby. Now while protection is certainly something one should automatically do in a sexual situation if they don't want a baby, but face it, we are humans and this will not happen with everyone. Not to mention there are instances of rape. Now I always here the arguments about how abortions are morally wrong or evil, but to that I give you this to think about...

Now, what differentiates humans from animals? We both need food to survive; We both mate; We both follow the scientific determinates for life. So, in what way are we different?

It is my proposition that we are different because we have higher thought functions, So we have language, and discuss such things as we are discussing today, whereas animals have only lower thought functions for example, "I'm hungry lets eat".
So if there are two sorts of thinking, how is it that humans have the higher form and animals do not? The difference is humans have language. Try thinking without using language - you just can't do it. Our thoughts are tied up in our language - lower thought is tied up in physiology. So what sort of thought does an unborn baby have?


It does not have language
So, we must conclude - it only has lower thought functions. In other words, it is not a human before it is born. After it is born, it starts the process of becoming a human, by learning language. We have no qualms about killing an animal, because it cannot think like us, if it could we would find killing it morally repugnant. So, if it is necessary, we can abort a baby, as it is a person in potentia only.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reckoner
It really does depend.

There are many factors at play here for someone like me. How far into the pregnancy is the mother? Past 4 or perhaps 5 months I think should be illegal from a moral stand point (Unless it is an extreme case, whether it be kidnapped and raped or a serious health issue in the mother). With 4 or 5 months the mother really has had all the time to decide whether she wants the baby or not, and she should defintely know by now that she is pregnant.

Unless the baby is starting to be practically fully developed (Past about 5 months or 4 maybe) the government has no right telling what a woman should do with her body. They should start making protected sex illegal then if people are going to view it this way, why are the guys killing all their sperm! That's half the baby!

Remember people a fetus is highly unlikely to feel any pain until approximately 7 months or so.

Let us go through a bit of the list here:

Once again, I'm not even necessarily disagreeing with this, just, you know.

1) Your relativistic viewpoints on the "true" answer of this question is generally accepted by "moderate" people, but just how honest and convincing is it? What you'd call extreme, others consider perfectly important -- centrally important -- in the tenets of their beliefs. If one considers a life, and perhaps a soul, to be conceived at the time of conception, it is perfectly reasonable to oppose this at essentially all points. What? Compromise? With murder? Preposterous! I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice...anything less, is turning a blind eye to murder.

You can argue all you want that secularism dictates otherwise, but there is a line between compromising on divorces and compromising on what one views and is well-supported in his doctrine by others that it is murder.

We have our choices and our freedoms until we punch another person in the nose, my friends, and this is not mere punches...

See, I approach this from the religious viewpoint, and not any extreme sect, even the mainstream Catholics are made clear by the Church that this is not a compromise to be accepted with a free conscience.

2) The scientific, and pseudo-scientific, arguments are brought up in favor of abortion, and they are mixed up haphazardly with philosophy. What defines a human? Is this an easy answer, "Oh, we can think," and that's it? Cognitive ability is all it needs? Then I ask you, are Orangutans, widely documented as most likely possessive of cognitive abilities (though sadly not the biological framework to produce human sounds...sad, I'd love to have a conversation with an Orangutan), humans? Are human babies human? Many arguments have been made that cognitive ability did not develop in humans until certain ages, as late as 1 or 2, some would say.

And even if I'd concede this point somehow, why is it that mere capacity of thought is all it needs to define a human? Why not something else? Our overall biology, like, say, carrying human genes? Wouldn't that make a lot more sense? And fetus definitely carries the full set of human genes, XX and XY or XXY or something and all. Or, heck, ask a philosopher. He or she will no doubt show you plenty of books arguing back and forth on the concept of the Human, if they exist at all, anyway *solipsism*.

Moreover, if one is to apply the concept, "but they're not fully human yet," I'd say this is becoming increasingly an excuse. Why not fully human? When fully human? 3 years old? Puberty? 18? Adulthood? I personally think making everyone below 10 and above 18 as fully humans and teenagers as a separate sub-species to be a positively darling idea.

3) If weeks of pregnancy will distinguish between an "acceptable" procedure of abortion and an unacceptable one, how can one be certain again of the issues described above? Why five months not safe, four months safe? Third Tri-mester? Bah, an awkward compromise, a slogan at best.

4) Since when is pain defines what can be killed and what cannot?

Etc.

And there are a lot more angles to explore in this labyrinthine subject, but I'll stop now, lest anyone actually think I'm religious and stuff. I need my internet badboy cred intact y'know.

ApostleOfGod 2008-10-01 18:18

Ahh. The "it depends" card's been played here. I guess it depends whether a baby should live or die.

I'm going to try and be thoroughly clear about this. And also get to the point and hopefully not go on such a rant to put you all to sleep or something :(.

Ladies and gentlemen, there isn't an "it depends" card here. I've always thought that if I'd stand as a powerful politic figure or something, I'd be lenient, sympathetic, and empathetic to the victims of unwanted pregnancy, common example, being raped. It's funny how people think though. They say when a girl's raped, she should abort the baby because she never wanted it in the first place. Regardless of having the baby or not, the rapist will not stop. Afterall, they're done with their business after they do their dirt. The victim woman is left for dead, for all they care.

For the men, like myself, who don't necessarily fully understand the pains of giving birth, well, I can say that adoption is worse. It leaves a lifetime mark - that is to say, there isn't an easy way out through this method. Aborting is already the easier way, but I guess not everything goes the way someone might want it. Yet, abortion is hard too. As I've said, it leaves a life time pain, both mentally and physically. I say mentally, because, just because a woman aborts the baby, that does not mean it's existance is something that never happened. I doubt any woman who's a victim of rape and aborted because of it, would forget the horrific experiences, nevermind the scar of life which comes with abortion as a package deal.

"It depends" doesn't necessarily cut it folks. We are talking about a premature baby here. A baby. In case you forgot since it may have been so long, perhaps 10 years, perhaps 50, you were one of those things. By saying abortion is okay, I wouldn't be being lenient - I'd be sadistic. Regardless of what my train of thoughts is trying to tell me. There are hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of couples and individuals alike, who await years to adopt a baby. Sure, there are orphanages around, and people don't always take a kid from the local orphanage, but I guess people naturally would want a new born baby to become a new member of the family. It's sad, I mean orphans have lost everything, but what can you do.. Anyways, before I drift off topic-

In the states, from what I know, there are thousands of abortions everyday. This is criminal. I remember hearing this story one time, about a man who murdered a woman in labour. He was charged with two murders - one for the woman, and one for the baby. I'm pretty sure some of you came across this. For those of you who did, and even if you didn't, you know it now. Do you not find it so ironic, that aborting a baby is legal, yet when a woman in labour is murdered, two murder charges are applied? Would they add another murder charge by so called "bending the woman's will of keeping the baby alive"? I wonder, if she had decided to have that baby aborted, would the murderer have been charged the same way? Should the murderer have been charged for two murders? I think so. Why? Because he's taking away not one, but two lives. One which may have had a better future than him.

Forget the months, forget the time, forget it all. When you dot it down, it all comes to whether you want to kill the baby, or keep it alive. What's a baby anyway when it's just a baby, right? Well, for all you who say "it depends," what if I was to tell you that baby could have been you? Or for all you "pro-choice" people.. I love how they coined that term. Pro-Choice. It sounds so positive. A great manipulation. Nothing more.

Don't even start with the "It's the woman's decision to have the baby aborted or not. It's Her baby after all" act on me either. I may be cold and harsh to some of you for saying things in this manner, but man, the truth hurts. It was never a woman's choice to remove a living being. Never. Even if the rape occurs, I can't say that the rape gives you an excuse to abort the baby. I just can't. At the face of a living being, the opportunity for another existance to come to being in this world of ours, I can't say, "You've been raped. You now have the decision to kill the baby or not." If you can't agree with this, then look up Pam Stenzel. She's the result of a raped 15 year old girl giving birth to her baby. She doesn't even know her damn biological father. Her mom didn't abort her, and what's she doing now? Travelling around, giving counsel to women who've had abortion, and fighting it at the same time. Giving facts as to why it's the worst choice, and there are better options, even if you don't think so.

Society's got us all twirled up. We're not being lenient by leaving abortion as an option. Criminals will run loose regardless. Doctors are getting paid to get rid of life. And they're not doing anything better than Euthanasia by doing so - the only difference would be time, and that instead of just one, two unnecessary sacrifices are made here - the baby, and the woman's life. I'd be damned if there has never been a case in history where a woman's life was ruined, becoming disastrous, because of the mistake she made by having abortion. I'd be damned.

Pro choice? Forget that. I refuse to even title myself pro life. That's stupid. It should be an automatic given that everyone's for life. Even if you're pro choice, you're for life. Afterall, I don't know very many people who are Pro Choice and accept murders at the same time. So I guess it all comes down to the comparison between the value of a baby's life and the value of a matured baby's life (matured being any point after birth, let it be 10 seconds or 10 years). Ironic, isn't it. That we would devalue what we were in the past because it's "in the past". But for the last time, that doesn't cut it. It never will. Once the baby's there, it's there. If you don't want it, put it up for abortion - thousands of other people are willing to take it in your stead because they can't "create" their own. And if you really would rather pointlessly decide to have abortion and bear all the torment and anguish in the aftermath, it's "your choice" to do so after all. Believe me. No one really wants it. And I refuse to be sadistic by saying the baby's worth nothing when it's premature, and it's okay to kill it.

Take this in - take it in real well. There ain't no exceptions when life and death is at question. It's not about choice - murder is a choice. It's wrong. And trust me, You Don't Want That Choice.

Vexx 2008-10-01 18:36

Sorry but calling something a "baby" is just playing an emotional card because people attach all sorts of symbolism to the term that doesn't necessarily apply to a cluster of cells that may have no neural net and nothing we could call "memory" or "experience". Your other arguments are bit specious and subject to riposte (e.g. what if it had been you - then d'uh I wouldn't be here but that's a parallel universe isn't it?) Non-starter (again, Google finds us much more eloquent arguments for and against).
In essence, you're saying that a woman is not in control of her own body - which is odd because the females of most all species control the output of a pregnancy in various ways (much more bluntly, of course) in response to environmental conditions. This is when most women I've ever encountered (pro or con) say, "like hell its up to the men to decide".

Kyuusai and Irenicus present better arguments in terms of "soul" but that comes down to pure belief since we cannot test for it.

Before the next poster rockets off - personally, I think the safest card is the best contraception we can develop to avoid the "terrible choice" in the first place. Follow that up with some miraculous way of transferring fetuses to someone that wants it. Then everyone is happy (except those who think pregnancy is some sort of divine punishment for having sex).


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:48.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.