The Abortion Debate

[Veolin]

Lapinporokoira

La Veuve Zin

Deformography

Basically, if you do not want something inside of your body, it is violating your right to BD.

Question is, what do you have the right to do to whatever-this-something-is? If a little kid comes over and gives me a wet willie, he's violating my bodily domain. Should I have the right to kill him in retribution? What's the difference between that and rape? **Attention potential responders: I know what the difference is. I am not saying they are the same. This is a quasi-rhetorical question used to make a point.** (No offence to you, Deformo, I just wanted to head off the other brilliant minds in this thread.)

The difference is that in pregnancy the only way currently of protecting BD and removing the 'offender' is through killing in abortion.
What we need is advancements in other area's to help reduce the need for abortion then just remove abortion and still remain with the need.

I agree with you a lot on this. Unfortunitely, the only way to get rid of a unwanted fetus involves its death. If it were possible to remove an embryo or young fetus early in pregnancy without killing it, then abortion probably wouldnt be as much of a commodity but until that can happens, the only way for a woman to rid herself of the fetus means that it will die. Not everyone who wants an abortion neccesarily likes the fact that the fetus dies in the process as I would assume they would just care that its out of them. If the goverment found a way to safely remove the fetus with it living and had a way to continue its growth and maybe even then put it in the adoption system, there are probably plenty of women who would opt for it rather then abortion. But sadly.. thats not an option...

[Deformography]

La Veuve Zin

Deformography

Basically, if you do not want something inside of your body, it is violating your right to BD.

Question is, what do you have the right to do to whatever-this-something-is? If a little kid comes over and gives me a wet willie, he's violating my bodily domain. Should I have the right to kill him in retribution? What's the difference between that and rape? **Attention potential responders: I know what the difference is. I am not saying they are the same. This is a quasi-rhetorical question used to make a point.** (No offence to you, Deformo, I just wanted to head off the other brilliant minds in this thread.)

Uhm, no. You push him away. However, if someone is infringing on your right to bodily domain, and you must use lethal force, then that is your right. Getting away from someone who is giving you a wet willie doesn't exactly require lethal force, especially if this someone is a child. Getting rid of an unwanted embryo is, obviously, a smoodge different; methods of removing an embryo or a fetus that is not yet viable will result in embryonic/fetal death.

No offense taken, Zin. You're one of the few lifers who don't make me see red. biggrin

[Lady Miyo]

oneactdramaqueenanddancer

I am a teenage girl...and if I were to get pregnant right now I wouldn't have an abortion. I think they are VERY WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I think if a girl gets raped and doesn't want the baby then she should just have the baby and give it up for adoption. I know someone who got raped and absolutely DID NOT want the baby, but she was a good enough person to not kill the baby before it was born, as a matter of fact she was going to give the baby up for adoption (my parents were going to adopt it as a matter of fact) but she decided to keep it, and it was raised in a NICE home with a LOVING mother (even though her father was a rapist). I think it is stupid for young girls to have an abortion because they were screwing some guy and got pregnant and don't want to have to get "fat" or have the baby...get over it, you are not fat you're pregnant and should have the baby and just give it up for adoption. The only way I think abortion would be remotely ok is if the mother is going to die from having the baby (and maybe the baby too) then the doctor should be able to kill the baby (but she should have been told that she couldn't live through the birth first). And yes even though the baby is in the mother it still should have a right to live, it is a human and humans are given certain rights. The baby isn't a "fetus" it is a FREAKON BABY for goodness sake!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DON'T KILL HUMANS (no matter how young they are)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They are just babies, they don't say "ooh, she doesn't want to get pregnant, let me go and start to live in her so she can kill me!" they can't help it, it isn't their fault their under-aged mother was ******** someone and didn't want to get pregnant! If someone gets raped you don't kill them for what someone did to them, why would you kill a baby because its parents had sex but didn't want a kid? Just give it up for adoption!

I'm a mother of two, and my husband and I are stretched to the limit trying to support two children (one of whom is a newborn). Should we stop having sex (we use both the pill and a condom, and were when we conceived this last child) because there's a remote chance that we may get pregnant again with a baby that we simply cannot afford?

Let's say I DO get pregnant. I would be SO upset about getting an abortion, because my babies are very loved, and even as a fetus, I know that it's my baby. I'd still get an abortion because I wouldn't be able to take care of my new baby and my existing children as well.

Let's say I randomly decide not to get an abortion, should I get pregnant again before my husband and I are ready to have another child. How would you suggest I explain to my existing children "Mommy's growing another baby brother or sister for you, but she's going to give it away because she can't afford to feed both him/her and you two."? I'm genuinely asking, as I've asked several pro-lifers and can't seem to get a direct answer out of them.

[Z3Ncat]

ReverofeviL

Quote:

Unfortunately, the need for abortion won't leave Society until rape, incest, deformities, unsafe birthing, and unprotected sex leave Society as well. :/

For now, we should leave it up to those who are going through such things to decide of abortion is right for them.

It's not right for us to decide that some girl we've never met can't have an abortion because we feel it's wrong. It's none of our business.

Your right. It's the business of the to humans affected, the girl and the fetus growing inside her. The problem is that the unborn dont have voices so they must be protected by those who do.

Are you going to 'protect' the lavender plant sitting in my kitchen window, too? After all, it's about on par with a fetus - it's alive, but not sentient. It's not a person - and neither is a fetus. When my lavender is paying its share of the rent, it can have a say in how things are run in my apartment. When a fetus starts paying its share in government taxes, then maybe it'll have its place in making laws and policy. But, since neither my plant nor a fetus can do those things, they're just going to have to stay what they are - non-people who have no rights, and deserve no rights - certainly not when those rights trump the rights of taxpaying, sentient, actual PEOPLE.

[Kuharai]

What I do with my own body is none of anyone else's concern. My husband and myself have agreed that our situation does not warrant a readiness for another child yet. If, on birth control and condom usage I were to become pregnant - I'd have an abortion.

And for everyone who even attempts to say that all unwanted pregnancies should carry to term and give up for adoption... that's ludicrous. There's enough unwanted babies, children, and teenagers in this system already. So, until all pro-lifers decide to adopt 2 or more unwanted children instead of baking their own...

[FriedRooster]

oneactdramaqueenanddancer

I am a teenage girl...and if I were to get pregnant right now I wouldn't have an abortion. I think they are VERY WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I think if a girl gets raped and doesn't want the baby then she should just have the baby and give it up for adoption. I know someone who got raped and absolutely DID NOT want the baby, but she was a good enough person to not kill the baby before it was born, as a matter of fact she was going to give the baby up for adoption (my parents were going to adopt it as a matter of fact) but she decided to keep it, and it was raised in a NICE home with a LOVING mother (even though her father was a rapist). I think it is stupid for young girls to have an abortion because they were screwing some guy and got pregnant and don't want to have to get "fat" or have the baby...get over it, you are not fat you're pregnant and should have the baby and just give it up for adoption. The only way I think abortion would be remotely ok is if the mother is going to die from having the baby (and maybe the baby too) then the doctor should be able to kill the baby (but she should have been told that she couldn't live through the birth first). And yes even though the baby is in the mother it still should have a right to live, it is a human and humans are given certain rights. The baby isn't a "fetus" it is a FREAKON BABY for goodness sake!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DON'T KILL HUMANS (no matter how young they are)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They are just babies, they don't say "ooh, she doesn't want to get pregnant, let me go and start to live in her so she can kill me!" they can't help it, it isn't their fault their under-aged mother was ******** someone and didn't want to get pregnant! If someone gets raped you don't kill them for what someone did to them, why would you kill a baby because its parents had sex but didn't want a kid? Just give it up for adoption!

- Adoption doesn't solve unwanted pregnancy.

- Good for that rape victim, she made the decision on whats right for her, doesn't mean everybody is gonna follow that. If it happened to me, i'd get rid of the filth that monster left me. Also I have tocophobia.

- Babies are born. Fetuses are not.

- Some people like me are against adoption. There are millions of children already needing homes. I'd rather adopt some of them than have my own.

[McPhee]

Z3Ncat

Are you going to 'protect' the lavender plant sitting in my kitchen window, too? After all, it's about on par with a fetus - it's alive, but not sentient. It's not a person - and neither is a fetus. When my lavender is paying its share of the rent, it can have a say in how things are run in my apartment. When a fetus starts paying its share in government taxes, then maybe it'll have its place in making laws and policy. But, since neither my plant nor a fetus can do those things, they're just going to have to stay what they are - non-people who have no rights, and deserve no rights - certainly not when those rights trump the rights of taxpaying, sentient, actual PEOPLE.

Your plant and a three year old have a lot in common, by that logic as well.

Human rights aren't bestowed on people when they start paying taxes. They're granted (or should be) when they enter the species of homo sapien.

Dogs don't grow into cats; babies don't start out as plants.

People don't come from Non-people. It's scientifically impossible.

[Denzorz]

McPhee

Z3Ncat

Are you going to 'protect' the lavender plant sitting in my kitchen window, too? After all, it's about on par with a fetus - it's alive, but not sentient. It's not a person - and neither is a fetus. When my lavender is paying its share of the rent, it can have a say in how things are run in my apartment. When a fetus starts paying its share in government taxes, then maybe it'll have its place in making laws and policy. But, since neither my plant nor a fetus can do those things, they're just going to have to stay what they are - non-people who have no rights, and deserve no rights - certainly not when those rights trump the rights of taxpaying, sentient, actual PEOPLE.

Your plant and a three year old have a lot in common, by that logic as well.

Human rights aren't bestowed on people when they start paying taxes. They're granted (or should be) when they enter the species of homo sapien.

Dogs don't grow into cats; babies don't start out as plants.

People don't come from Non-people. It's scientifically impossible.

Actually, I think human rights are bestowed on people when they're born. I could be wrong, but I think I'm right. My bad if I'm wrong.

[McPhee]

Deformography

Uhm, no. You push him away. However, if someone is infringing on your right to bodily domain, and you must use lethal force, then that is your right. Getting away from someone who is giving you a wet willie doesn't exactly require lethal force, especially if this someone is a child. Getting rid of an unwanted embryo is, obviously, a smoodge different; methods of removing an embryo or a fetus that is not yet viable will result in embryonic/fetal death.

I think her point was rather-- How can you decide where to draw the line between infringing on someone's body, and say, just being a nuisance?

Like, say you had a partner who was trying to prevent you from having an abortion. Is he infringing on your bodily integrity? Do you have the right to kill him?

[McPhee]

PhoenixDenz

Actually, I think human rights are bestowed on people when they're born. I could be wrong, but I think I'm right. My bad if I'm wrong.

I don't think you're wrong, no.

However, what's the difference between a 8 3/4 month old fetus, and a newborn, really? If a child isn't out of the womb at nine months, is it not a child yet?

Legally, of course, the answer is it isn't. But my point is, WHY isn't it? Why is there a line drawn when it's born that says, "it now counts"?

[Z3Ncat]

McPhee

PhoenixDenz

Actually, I think human rights are bestowed on people when they're born. I could be wrong, but I think I'm right. My bad if I'm wrong.

I don't think you're wrong, no.

However, what's the difference between a 8 3/4 month old fetus, and a newborn, really? If a child isn't out of the womb at nine months, is it not a child yet?

Legally, of course, the answer is it isn't. But my point is, WHY isn't it? Why is there a line drawn when it's born that says, "it now counts"?

Because by the time it's born, there's a fully functioning body there, and a sentient mind - we know for a fact that newborns can learn and think. An 8 3/4 month old fetus, should it leave the womb, is capable of survival - a 2 month old fetus is not. Nor can it feel pain, or think, or meet any qualification to be a person. Hell, it's possible that no one even knows it exists yet!

My statement about taxes wasn't that paying taxes makes you a person, but that it makes you a citizen with a say in government policy and law-making (however small a say it may be) - a point I should have made better. Why should something that's not even a person, let alone a citizen of the country I reside in, be able to have a voice in writing laws on abortion? It shouldn't. Frankly, what I contribute to the world and to my country makes me far more worthy of having MY views taken into consideration, rather than the so-called views (because face it, no one knows, and no one will ever know, what a fetus thinks about any subject - because fetii DO NOT THINK) of something that my body may miscarry itself before I even know it exists.

[McPhee]

Z3Ncat

Because by the time it's born, there's a fully functioning body there, and a sentient mind - we know for a fact that newborns can learn and think. An 8 3/4 month old fetus, should it leave the womb, is capable of survival - a 2 month old fetus is not. Nor can it feel pain, or think, or meet any qualification to be a person. Hell, it's possible that no one even knows it exists yet!

Oh, so survival capability is all that counts, here?

Because if that's what we're talking about, pro-choice people should be opposing all abortions in the third trimester, as a fetus definitely is viable then. And as for "Qualification" to be a person, it's really a pointless argument, because your opinion of what makes a person differs from mine. You value the sentience of the human being more than just the fact of it simply being a human being. That's something you and I will always differ on.

Quote:

My statement about taxes wasn't that paying taxes makes you a person, but that it makes you a citizen with a say in government policy and law-making (however small a say it may be) - a point I should have made better. Why should something that's not even a person, let alone a citizen of the country I reside in, be able to have a voice in writing laws on abortion? It shouldn't. Frankly, what I contribute to the world and to my country makes me far more worthy of having MY views taken into consideration, rather than the so-called views (because face it, no one knows, and no one will ever know, what a fetus thinks about any subject - because fetii DO NOT THINK) of something that my body may miscarry itself before I even know it exists.

... I'm not saying that the fetus's OPINION should be taken into account. I'm saying that it's life should be.

And it's not a person because the law says so. Which is of course the only important thing. Like the laws that say gays can't get married, or that people deserve to die from the death penalty, or conscription laws that force people overseas to die in wars.

You seem to think it's about the fetus getting a say. It's really about favoring the life of one, over the convenience of another. Which is what I feel all laws should represent.

[lil ireland814]

yea stop abortion i mean comon rly its alive it feels this happening its a baby would u kill something so small and innocent i march in washington with my curch to end it we march for a day or more we strike about that stupid law allowing abortion