|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 12:47 pm
WatersMoon110 I, obviously, do believe that women should have the right to choose safe, legal abortion. But I also believe that they should be informed of all of the options available to them. And I strongly believe that an "at home" abortion is far too dangerous. Your friend is very lucky that she was not harmed. The biggest problem was her health. She didn't know if she'd survive carrying the baby to term. There was a very high chance it'd be a premature birth. And when she visited a pregnancy clinic, they informed her that her cervix could only expand a small fraction of what it needed to in order to pass a baby.
She's incredibly lucky that not only the abortion didn't harm her, but that the pregnancy's existance at all didn't harm her. WatersMoon110 You do understand that these emotions don't make good arguments, right? People feel the way they do about the matter because that is how they feel about. Explaining how you, or I, feel more sorrow for the one human involved doesn't do anything to convince people who feel more sorrow for the other human. One might help others to understand why one feels the way one does on the matter, but it will not convince anyone. *grin* Ah, yes, I know. I'm certainly not trying to change anyone's mind, but I really don't understand how someone could not feel sympathy for a woman in that situation, but feel sympathy for a fetus that feels nothing. But I guess the pro-lifers can't understand how we feel more sympathy for the woman either, eh?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 12:58 pm
Tiger of the Fire 1. Okay, first of all, abortion is not a "right" it is a ruling, in a more mundane term, a privilege. So taking that "privilege" away wouldn't in any way lead to taking away of rights. A womans allowance to abortion is not held in the same regard as voting, working, etc. These are considered fundamental right to all humans. How ever, the idea that woman should be able to kill out of convenience, simply because of location, is an idea that, even back in the 70s, a majority of Americans did not hold. Simply because we want to restrict a privilage does not mean we want to take away your rights. 2. Again, the comparison does not work. In fact, both times it works against you. In the previous argument, the parents are held responsible if the child kills some one. They are held accountable for the crime. In your new example, the couple intervenes before a crime can be committed, not only that, no humans die in the process. You missed my point. He's not getting off scott free in this situation in that I put just as much blame on him as the mother. Economically speaking, yeah, I honestly feel he should .have to do any more then take blame. If women are aloud to abort, I feel men shouldn't have to own up to being a parent either. Equality and all that. 3. Actually, yes, it is. If he has done every thing possible in his power, yes, he can get off with hitting you. But this point is not part of the actual debate and is there fore irrelevant, right? 4. I'm not going to touch that. Though I still stick by what I said. And yes, I wouldn't have shed a tear if your friend had lost her life. There were people she could have contacted, organizations she could have gone to. I have far more feeling for the life of a human then the momentary terror and discomfort of another. 1. No, abortion is not a right. But bodily domain is. Abortion is a way of exercising and preserving that right. If you take away the ways to exercise your rights, what right is left?
And tell me who holds the idea that women can kill for convenience today? I find that indredibly similar to pro-choicers arguing that pro-lifers are out to get the women, to opress women, and to punish women for having sex. Obviously that is not what you stand for. Obviously, pro-choicers do not stand for infanticide.
Back in the 70s? What?
2. The parents would not be charged with manslaughter. They'd be charged with neglect or that something-something-blahblahblah-not-putting-your-firearm-under-proper-protection-something-or-other charge. Not manslaughter.
In removing a gun from the child, the parents are preventing the crime from happening. In removing the fetus from the woman, the woman is preventing the crime from continuing.
There is no way to remove a fetus (and stop it from continuing to violate the woman's bodily domain) without killing it currently. That's just the way it is right now.
You may feel that he has just as much blame and should take just as much responsibility, but that doesn't mean that he'll get either. I agree, I think that it should be easier for men to sign away rights and parenthood of children they didn't want.
3. Wouldn't everything possible in his power include not hitting me? If I haven't touched him at all, he can't plead self-defense. He'd be charged. The end.
4. I guess that's something I'll just never understand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 1:11 pm
Here's a simple way- Fetus' whole life (as in the 80 or so years out of the womb) versus the 9 months of stress for the woman.
Yes, again, medical reasons are reason enough. but fear of consequence? Not good enough. F minus minus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 2:35 pm
divineseraph Here's a simple way- Fetus' whole life (as in the 80 or so years out of the womb) versus the 9 months of stress for the woman. Yes, again, medical reasons are reason enough. but fear of consequence? Not good enough. F minus minus. Some sadness from people who disagree vs at least nine months of suffering for the woman, and very possibly much, much more.
Opposed by certain people in society because there's no other way to go about ending the pregnancy yet? Not good enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 3:55 pm
Tyshia2 divineseraph Here's a simple way- Fetus' whole life (as in the 80 or so years out of the womb) versus the 9 months of stress for the woman. Yes, again, medical reasons are reason enough. but fear of consequence? Not good enough. F minus minus. Some sadness from people who disagree vs at least nine months of suffering for the woman, and very possibly much, much more.
Opposed by certain people in society because there's no other way to go about ending the pregnancy yet? Not good enough. Yes it is possible that the woman can suffer but it is also possible that the woman won't suffer. Some women do get really sick while others have an very easy pregnancy (as in no morning sickness,ect...). Why think that the worse will happen when everything can possible go well? Why make it out that the woman would become very sick or possibly die when there is high chance that everying will work out o.k. For some woman, little things like cinnamon or peppermint,ect... can help control morning sickness and and most woman don't die cause of pregnancy or while giving birth. That seems to be used just to scare people or make them more worried then they should be. Besides, abortion could be just as risky as pregnancy ( risk of infection, they could accidently botch it which could lead to all sorts of problems,including death). Both can have risks invold
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 5:59 pm
sachiko_sohma Tyshia2 divineseraph Here's a simple way- Fetus' whole life (as in the 80 or so years out of the womb) versus the 9 months of stress for the woman. Yes, again, medical reasons are reason enough. but fear of consequence? Not good enough. F minus minus. Some sadness from people who disagree vs at least nine months of suffering for the woman, and very possibly much, much more.
Opposed by certain people in society because there's no other way to go about ending the pregnancy yet? Not good enough. Yes it is possible that the woman can suffer but it is also possible that the woman won't suffer. Some women do get really sick while others have an very easy pregnancy (as in no morning sickness,ect...). Why think that the worse will happen when everything can possible go well? Why make it out that the woman would become very sick or possibly die when there is high chance that everying will work out o.k. For some woman, little things like cinnamon or peppermint,ect... can help control morning sickness and and most woman don't die cause of pregnancy or while giving birth. That seems to be used just to scare people or make them more worried then they should be. Besides, abortion could be just as risky as pregnancy ( risk of infection, they could accidently botch it which could lead to all sorts of problems,including death). Both can have risks invold I meant that: For women desperate enough to risk a home abortion or trying to induce a miscarriage, they believe they can't afford to be pregnant. They think risking their lives is a better option than being pregnant. Obviously, for one to risk their life to avoid it, pregnancy is going to cause vast amounts of suffering for those women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 7:28 pm
Tyshia2 sachiko_sohma Tyshia2 divineseraph Here's a simple way- Fetus' whole life (as in the 80 or so years out of the womb) versus the 9 months of stress for the woman. Yes, again, medical reasons are reason enough. but fear of consequence? Not good enough. F minus minus. Some sadness from people who disagree vs at least nine months of suffering for the woman, and very possibly much, much more.
Opposed by certain people in society because there's no other way to go about ending the pregnancy yet? Not good enough. Yes it is possible that the woman can suffer but it is also possible that the woman won't suffer. Some women do get really sick while others have an very easy pregnancy (as in no morning sickness,ect...). Why think that the worse will happen when everything can possible go well? Why make it out that the woman would become very sick or possibly die when there is high chance that everying will work out o.k. For some woman, little things like cinnamon or peppermint,ect... can help control morning sickness and and most woman don't die cause of pregnancy or while giving birth. That seems to be used just to scare people or make them more worried then they should be. Besides, abortion could be just as risky as pregnancy ( risk of infection, they could accidently botch it which could lead to all sorts of problems,including death). Both can have risks invold I meant that: For women desperate enough to risk a home abortion or trying to induce a miscarriage, they believe they can't afford to be pregnant. They think risking their lives is a better option than being pregnant. Obviously, for one to risk their life to avoid it, pregnancy is going to cause vast amounts of suffering for those women. Some people steal because they feel they need to. Some people murder because they feel they need to. Can we make the killing of born people legal, since some may be in a situation in which they feel they have no other option? And of course, I mean killing for ALL cases, not even for self defense. Because that is what this agrument for the whole of abortion means. You say to allow it for the few who feel they need it, but then also for everyone. So if that works in abortion, let it work in theft and murder too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:29 pm
Tyshia2 Tiger of the Fire 1. Okay, first of all, abortion is not a "right" it is a ruling, in a more mundane term, a privilege. So taking that "privilege" away wouldn't in any way lead to taking away of rights. A womans allowance to abortion is not held in the same regard as voting, working, etc. These are considered fundamental right to all humans. How ever, the idea that woman should be able to kill out of convenience, simply because of location, is an idea that, even back in the 70s, a majority of Americans did not hold. Simply because we want to restrict a privilage does not mean we want to take away your rights. 2. Again, the comparison does not work. In fact, both times it works against you. In the previous argument, the parents are held responsible if the child kills some one. They are held accountable for the crime. In your new example, the couple intervenes before a crime can be committed, not only that, no humans die in the process. You missed my point. He's not getting off scott free in this situation in that I put just as much blame on him as the mother. Economically speaking, yeah, I honestly feel he should .have to do any more then take blame. If women are aloud to abort, I feel men shouldn't have to own up to being a parent either. Equality and all that. 3. Actually, yes, it is. If he has done every thing possible in his power, yes, he can get off with hitting you. But this point is not part of the actual debate and is there fore irrelevant, right? 4. I'm not going to touch that. Though I still stick by what I said. And yes, I wouldn't have shed a tear if your friend had lost her life. There were people she could have contacted, organizations she could have gone to. I have far more feeling for the life of a human then the momentary terror and discomfort of another. 1. No, abortion is not a right. But bodily domain is. Abortion is a way of exercising and preserving that right. If you take away the ways to exercise your rights, what right is left?
And tell me who holds the idea that women can kill for convenience today? I find that indredibly similar to pro-choicers arguing that pro-lifers are out to get the women, to opress women, and to punish women for having sex. Obviously that is not what you stand for. Obviously, pro-choicers do not stand for infanticide.
Back in the 70s? What?
2. The parents would not be charged with manslaughter. They'd be charged with neglect or that something-something-blahblahblah-not-putting-your-firearm-under-proper-protection-something-or-other charge. Not manslaughter.
In removing a gun from the child, the parents are preventing the crime from happening. In removing the fetus from the woman, the woman is preventing the crime from continuing.
There is no way to remove a fetus (and stop it from continuing to violate the woman's bodily domain) without killing it currently. That's just the way it is right now.
You may feel that he has just as much blame and should take just as much responsibility, but that doesn't mean that he'll get either. I agree, I think that it should be easier for men to sign away rights and parenthood of children they didn't want.
3. Wouldn't everything possible in his power include not hitting me? If I haven't touched him at all, he can't plead self-defense. He'd be charged. The end.
4. I guess that's something I'll just never understand. Bodily domain is a right, but it is debatable as to how far is should extend. You take a way that one privilege you're left with the every thing else, freedom of speech, the right to vote, the right to work, etc. Its highly doubtful that taking away a womans privilege to abort would lead to taking away her rights. Slippery slope fallacy, as Waters pointed out. As for who wants to kill for convenience? We don't name names here, but talk to a few people in the choicer guild. Many will tell you its their right for what ever reason, be it safety or convenience. Actually, they very well can be. There are several cases of it here in America, in the UK, and in Canada. I'm looking for the sources. Having some friends help me out. I'll find them. I've found them for a debate on this subject. Think they might be on CNN.com? No crime is being committed that the fetus can trully be held accountable for in a true court of law (even if they were or were not designated as people). You can claim its invasion of personal space, but due to the coarse taken to reach the outcome, its still highly debatable if it is.The two are still incomparable. A possible crime is being prevented by taking away the gun, but it is still highly debatable if a crime is being stopped by having an abortion. Point. However, simply because you feel he wont get any blame, dosn't mean he shouldn't. That need to change, men need to be held accountable for the situation just as much as the women. It never JUST her fault, it take two to make baby,. A number of people have gotten off an assault for being overly verbally abused on very obscure self defense pleas. The situation is irrelevant though. End of argument. Actually, you understand it better then you know. An example perhaps. You see the comfort (be it physical, emotional, or mental) of the women as being more important. To you, thats the most important thing to be concerned about, you have no concern for the life of the unborn (unless of coarse she's concerned about it...then its like...I don't know...that fetus magically has more importance then most other...) No turn it around (or at least try to). The life of the unborn becomes the most important thing to worry about (save for the LIFE of the mother, when that threatend it goes into a grey area for us)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 1:10 pm
Quote: 1. No, abortion is not a right. But bodily domain is. Abortion is a way of exercising and preserving that right. If you take away the ways to exercise your rights, what right is left? And tell me who holds the idea that women can kill for convenience today? I find that indredibly similar to pro-choicers arguing that pro-lifers are out to get the women, to opress women, and to punish women for having sex. Obviously that is not what you stand for. Obviously, pro-choicers do not stand for infanticide. Back in the 70s? What? Bodily Domain is the excuse women use to justify having an abortion. The government places limitations on what you do to and with your body just as much as they limit what power and influence someone can have over your body. Turning this issue into a discussion of bodily rights is, frankly, ******** stupid. It shows me something is amiss in someone's thought pattern. We're talking about whether or not you should be able to legally terminate your pregnancy. Your unborn child is SUPPOSED to SHARE your ******** body. How some women manage to fix their "mouths" to even mention bodily autonomy is ridiculous bullshit to me. It's just more feminist rhetoric. People, especially men, who speak as if they want women to take some accountability are merely dressing up rhetoric meant to keep women beneath them and subservient.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 2:10 pm
divineseraph Tyshia2 I meant that: For women desperate enough to risk a home abortion or trying to induce a miscarriage, they believe they can't afford to be pregnant. They think risking their lives is a better option than being pregnant. Obviously, for one to risk their life to avoid it, pregnancy is going to cause vast amounts of suffering for those women. Some people steal because they feel they need to. Some people murder because they feel they need to. Can we make the killing of born people legal, since some may be in a situation in which they feel they have no other option? And of course, I mean killing for ALL cases, not even for self defense. Because that is what this agrument for the whole of abortion means. You say to allow it for the few who feel they need it, but then also for everyone. So if that works in abortion, let it work in theft and murder too. That definitely wasn't my point.
What you responded to was my response to sachiko_sohma's statement about women not suffering. I said that if they're desperate enough to get an illegal abortion, they're going to suffer if they're pregnant.
I did not try to justify abortion being legal because some people feel they need abortions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 2:32 pm
Tiger of the Fire Bodily domain is a right, but it is debatable as to how far is should extend. You take a way that one privilege you're left with the every thing else, freedom of speech, the right to vote, the right to work, etc. Its highly doubtful that taking away a womans privilege to abort would lead to taking away her rights. Slippery slope fallacy, as Waters pointed out. As for who wants to kill for convenience? We don't name names here, but talk to a few people in the choicer guild. Many will tell you its their right for what ever reason, be it safety or convenience. Actually, they very well can be. There are several cases of it here in America, in the UK, and in Canada. I'm looking for the sources. Having some friends help me out. I'll find them. I've found them for a debate on this subject. Think they might be on CNN.com? No crime is being committed that the fetus can trully be held accountable for in a true court of law (even if they were or were not designated as people). You can claim its invasion of personal space, but due to the coarse taken to reach the outcome, its still highly debatable if it is.The two are still incomparable. A possible crime is being prevented by taking away the gun, but it is still highly debatable if a crime is being stopped by having an abortion. Point. However, simply because you feel he wont get any blame, dosn't mean he shouldn't. That need to change, men need to be held accountable for the situation just as much as the women. It never JUST her fault, it take two to make baby,. A number of people have gotten off an assault for being overly verbally abused on very obscure self defense pleas. The situation is irrelevant though. End of argument. Actually, you understand it better then you know. An example perhaps. You see the comfort (be it physical, emotional, or mental) of the women as being more important. To you, thats the most important thing to be concerned about, you have no concern for the life of the unborn (unless of coarse she's concerned about it...then its like...I don't know...that fetus magically has more importance then most other...) No turn it around (or at least try to). The life of the unborn becomes the most important thing to worry about (save for the LIFE of the mother, when that threatend it goes into a grey area for us) Oh, sorry. I thought you meant kill for convenience as in kill anyone out of convenience. I've heard that response so many times, I assumed that was what you meant.
Of course, it's debatable if abortion is killing at all.
Really? I've never heard of a parent being charged with manslaughter for the actions of their child. I've heard of neglect charges (for both child care and firearm care), but never manslaughter. That seems outrageous.
If a fetus were a born person using the woman's body in the same way a fetus is (though obviously not from within her uterus), a crime would be being committed. Just using someone else's body for your own benifit without their consent -- not even using their nutrients and causing the health and bodily changes that pregnancy does -- is a serious offense.
But of course, as you said, the situation is debatable due to the way it arose in the first place.
I completely agree with you on that. If women are going to take any blame or responsibility, men need to take just as much. But I just don't see how that could happen. And I don't see it happening even if a way to make men take some blame existed.
I do understand the powerful emotion behind it. What I can't understand is how a potential life that can't survive on its own is more important than the woman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 2:38 pm
Erasmas Quote: 1. No, abortion is not a right. But bodily domain is. Abortion is a way of exercising and preserving that right. If you take away the ways to exercise your rights, what right is left? And tell me who holds the idea that women can kill for convenience today? I find that indredibly similar to pro-choicers arguing that pro-lifers are out to get the women, to opress women, and to punish women for having sex. Obviously that is not what you stand for. Obviously, pro-choicers do not stand for infanticide. Back in the 70s? What? Bodily Domain is the excuse women use to justify having an abortion. The government places limitations on what you do to and with your body just as much as they limit what power and influence someone can have over your body. Turning this issue into a discussion of bodily rights is, frankly, ******** stupid. It shows me something is amiss in someone's thought pattern. We're talking about whether or not you should be able to legally terminate your pregnancy. Your unborn child is SUPPOSED to SHARE your ******** body. How some women manage to fix their "mouths" to even mention bodily autonomy is ridiculous bullshit to me. It's just more feminist rhetoric. People, especially men, who speak as if they want women to take some accountability are merely dressing up rhetoric meant to keep women beneath them and subservient. A v****a and p***s are designed for and supposed to be used for sex. Does that mean that sex in all cases should be allowed too, whether a party is being forced and harmed against their will or not?
Because if the bodily domain argument is bullshit because a fetus is supposed to be inside your body, than the reason rape is illegal should be bullshit too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 3:21 pm
Tyshia2 divineseraph Tyshia2 I meant that: For women desperate enough to risk a home abortion or trying to induce a miscarriage, they believe they can't afford to be pregnant. They think risking their lives is a better option than being pregnant. Obviously, for one to risk their life to avoid it, pregnancy is going to cause vast amounts of suffering for those women. Some people steal because they feel they need to. Some people murder because they feel they need to. Can we make the killing of born people legal, since some may be in a situation in which they feel they have no other option? And of course, I mean killing for ALL cases, not even for self defense. Because that is what this agrument for the whole of abortion means. You say to allow it for the few who feel they need it, but then also for everyone. So if that works in abortion, let it work in theft and murder too. That definitely wasn't my point.
What you responded to was my response to sachiko_sohma's statement about women not suffering. I said that if they're desperate enough to get an illegal abortion, they're going to suffer if they're pregnant.
I did not try to justify abortion being legal because some people feel they need abortions. There was an underlying note that aboriton should be legal because some women feel they NEED it. Hence being willing to risk death to end a pregnancy. However, some people will suffer if they do not steal. They will not be able to afford food/playstation3's. (The last part was a joke, but seriously, they may not be able to afford food, medecine, drugs, whatnot) If suffering from a lack of a right is enough to turn something which was once illegal into something which is now legal, then why is theft not legal for those who are starving? And again, if allowing those who need abortions to abort allows those who aren't truly in need medically, would this not make stealing, in the hypothetical truth, legal for everyone?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 3:44 pm
The thing is, though, even when a woman steals to feed herself because she feels there are no other options (and indeed, there may be no other options to feed herself in a healthy manner that won't make her sick if she can't find a good charity), people feel sorry for her. You're claiming that you don't feel sorry at all for women who die obtaining illegal abortions, which is your right, but I don't agree with you. I don't think abortion should be made legal because of these women, but I do feel bad for them, I feel bad that they felt they had no safer options, that they were desperate enough to abort illegally. When someone is driven to the point where she risks her life to do something, unless she has a history of stupidity, she's obviously not doing it because to her it's just plain convenient, it is worth risking her life for some reason.
I'm not saying you need to agree with me. It's just...I agree with her example. Jumping out of a moving car and dying in the attempt is something we'd normally call stupid, but when you're in a situation where you believe it's more dangerous for you to stay in the car, even intelligent people will risk their lives if they can't find a third option. I'm not saying it's exactly the same, just the concept.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 5:57 pm
Tyshia2 Erasmas Quote: 1. No, abortion is not a right. But bodily domain is. Abortion is a way of exercising and preserving that right. If you take away the ways to exercise your rights, what right is left? And tell me who holds the idea that women can kill for convenience today? I find that indredibly similar to pro-choicers arguing that pro-lifers are out to get the women, to opress women, and to punish women for having sex. Obviously that is not what you stand for. Obviously, pro-choicers do not stand for infanticide. Back in the 70s? What? Bodily Domain is the excuse women use to justify having an abortion. The government places limitations on what you do to and with your body just as much as they limit what power and influence someone can have over your body. Turning this issue into a discussion of bodily rights is, frankly, ******** stupid. It shows me something is amiss in someone's thought pattern. We're talking about whether or not you should be able to legally terminate your pregnancy. Your unborn child is SUPPOSED to SHARE your ******** body. How some women manage to fix their "mouths" to even mention bodily autonomy is ridiculous bullshit to me. It's just more feminist rhetoric. People, especially men, who speak as if they want women to take some accountability are merely dressing up rhetoric meant to keep women beneath them and subservient. A v****a and p***s are designed for and supposed to be used for sex. Does that mean that sex in all cases should be allowed too, whether a party is being forced and harmed against their will or not?
Because if the bodily domain argument is bullshit because a fetus is supposed to be inside your body, than the reason rape is illegal should be bullshit too. You're comparing apples and oranges. The reason the bodily autonomy argument is bullshit isn't just because pregnancy is natural. It's also a situation, a course of action, you put in motion. Thus, you have to be careful of the mistakes you make...because this one mistake could have a baby at the end of it. Then it's not about you making amends for yourself, for the father, for your parents...it's about the baby.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
