|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 7:00 pm
Mcphee No, I'd like to debate. This is good. Anyway. A fetus is a human being, because it contains human cells. It does have it's own habitat, and lives inside the mother until it is ready to come out. That makes it a human. Interesting...there are parasites that do the same thing. They feed off of a larger host until they are ready to leave the body somehow, and can cause damage in the process. Granted, these parasites do not contain human cells, but it is the same principle. A smaller organism feeding off of a larger organism. Why should a woman be forced to be the incubator if she does not choose to be?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 7:35 pm
Diadema It is possible to have sex withing the fulfilling adult relationship and not have children for sure. Yep, it's called abstinence. I'm partially kidding. Abstinence, yes, but no at the same time. You may have heard of NFP, Natural Family Planning. This is a natural birth control that measures when the woman is fertile, and the couple simply abstains from sex during that time. Very low failure rate. Thought Id comment on this. I've heard about NFP before, but always bad things. My aunt is supposedly doing it, and shes got like 12 kids now. But aside from that. I looked up some information on it, as it peaked my curiosity... Its supposed to be more effective than most regular contraceptions (condoms), and is only behind the pill and IUD's in effectiveness. Soruce (Just for anyone who's interested.) Nothing guarantees 100% though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 7:36 pm
Mcphee Sensedog Mcphee Abortion is not taking responsibility. That's a fact. It's running away from your problems, It's obliterating something that would have had a chance at life if not for the fact that you didn't want to be reminded of something you did, that could've changed your life. It's sort of like doing heroin to forget about everything else, except that this is something that you can't turn back from. There's probably always going to be regret over an abortion, and there's probably going to be regret over not having an abortion either. That's human nature, regret. But which is better, regret over something you did that you can't change, or regret over something that now has a chance to experience their own life? Even if it's a lot of regret, I'd say that at least the child got to experience something. At least they recieved an opportunity to try their hand at life's circumstance, instead of having the early stages of their new life cut-off, and not having a chance, because abortion doesn't dole out second chances. It is not a fact, it is a point-of-view. You might think that abortion is irresponsible from your perspective, but from my own, it is indeed a responsible solution to a problem. You could bring another child into the world who would not be cared for by yourself and thrown into the system, or you could simply have the fetus removed and spare both yourself and the child from future difficulties. By responsibility, I meant accepting that you've made a mistake, and dealing with it. Taking life as it is, and handling your decisions and your choices. .... I think you just proved MY point. OK, I got pregnat. I've accepted my mistake, and I'll take one of two actions to correct it. A) have an abortion and learn from it, or B) Make the child and I both suffer. The child because I hate children, and I for having it (near).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:47 pm
Some of you have mentioned that the people who have sex before they're married should be prepared for the possibility you get pregnant. And its also been mentioned that sex most likely going to be a part of most healty adult relationships, married or unmarried. But there are a lot of younger couples couples that dont want kids, cant afford kids, cant take care of kids, etc. But still want a healty sexual relationship. So, they take precautions. A lot of people I know that are sexually active use Birth controll and condoms when they do the deed. They know where they stand in life, and its not somewhere that a baby could get involved. Are they still "irresponsible" when the girl gets nocked up by the chance of some %.000001 margin (or whatever it is... BC has like a 99% with 97% for Condoms)? Should she have to go through with the pregnancy? Even though she consistantly used protection and caution? Consider, shes a double major univeristy student, on her 3rd year at UMD, going for her Masters in one degree(Im sure this is rare in students, but basing it off an actual friend of mine). Should she have to take the time off school? Maybe fail a class or two that shes paid a couple grand to take, just so she could have this baby (which possibly could also cost her an aditional couple grand in medical bills) that she tried to avoid?
Then what about women who've had their tubes tied (or is it when the guy has his done? I cant remember exactly, but one of them I think theres like a %.000001 chance of still getting pregnant. Or maybe its both of them. Gah, I cant remember.) and she still manages to get pregnant? Now you -know- she wasnt expeciting that one, and obviously doesnt want it, considering the operation she underwent to prevent it. Should she have been prepared for the possibility she could get pregnant, and just accept the baby even though she doesnt want it/cant take care of it?
There are a lot of responsible people out there that take the precautions necessary to prevent prenancy. s**t just happens sometimes. They shouldnt be punished for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2004 7:20 am
I.Am Veled Pro-homeless:"Don't buy a house, someone might break into it!" Me: "It's fine, I'll buy one at the end of a street where almost no one goes." Pro-homeless: "But someone could still break in!" Me: "I'll get locks on the doors!" Pro-homeless: "But someone could still break in!" Me: "Shut up. It's my house, not yours." Pro-homeless: *prays for my 'selfish' soul* ---Some time later--- Me: "HEY! Some jerk just broke into my house and is telling me I have to feed him or he's gonna stab me with a knife!" Pro-homeless: "I warned you." Me: *Gets out gun* "Be right back." Pro-homeless: "Don't! He's alive!" Me: "He broke into MY house and he's gonna injure me if not kill me." Pro-homeless: "But it's MURDER!" Me: "It's self defense. Now step aside." Pro-homeless: *prays for my 'selfish' soul* Sense a corrolation? Please, don't mock me. You know that to me it's legalized murder, and that thusly you are committing what my religion considers to be a mortal sin. It's really hard to have an intelligent, polite debate when one side starts making fun of the other. Alright. So now to show why what you are saying is mistaken; The fetus doesn't hurt you, except in that it causes some discomfort for the nine months. A better version of your story would have the robber grab some valuable stuff and leave. Are you going to kill them? Of course not. Is it going to make life less comfortable for a while? Yes. But you still can't legally kill him, because he isn't going to harm you anymore-He's gone. You can try and get him caught and put him jail, but not kill him. Or perhaps a story where your boyfriend brings a guest, and the guest, for whatever reason, ends up unable to leave the house for the next nine months, or he'll die. Any person I can think of would take care of him until he can leave, and I know that there isn't a single person who would look well on you for killing him to get him out. Alright, first off, as seen above in bold, you state that abortion goes against what your religion says is right. I really don't think I need to remind you that not everybody is of the same religion you are. Secondly, I would say that being pregnant would cause a little more than just discomfort. I know that some women get increadibly sick, discomfort would be sitting in pants that were to tight. Having a fetus growing in you and throwing up everymorning would be more then that I'm thinking. And in regards to your robber analogy...yes I would kill him. He is the one who broke into MY house uninvited, he should be prepared for me to fight for my property. If that makes me a bad person then ya, alright, I can live with that...at least I will still have all of my stuff sweatdrop xp
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2004 12:10 pm
*Looks at Kiriel_Trovara's avatar*
..
*is scared of the daisy on the head* surprised
....oops, sorry, back on topic now XD
I think a good deal of the problems we're seeing here is dealing with our perceptions and our definitions of what responsibility/irresponsibility mean. So I'm-a make a topic about that. xd
Also, I'd like to add that if a woman was taking BC and engaging in sex, that could be seen as very responsible... why? Because she IS thinking about the possibility of a pregnancy because she bothers using contraceptive devices! (And the point os using contraceptives is to prevent a pregnancy (and diseases) afterall, no?) And is it not true that you cannot miss a day taking a BC pill or it will lose its effectiveness? It means that, if taken correctly, she's responsible and diciplined enough to keep on top of her pills day by day. Although a pregnancy can occur with the use of BC pills, it's still very, very slight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2004 12:23 pm
Kiriel_Trovara Alright, first off, as seen above in bold, you state that abortion goes against what your religion says is right. I really don't think I need to remind you that not everybody is of the same religion you are. Secondly, I would say that being pregnant would cause a little more than just discomfort. I know that some women get increadibly sick, discomfort would be sitting in pants that were to tight. Having a fetus growing in you and throwing up everymorning would be more then that I'm thinking. And in regards to your robber analogy...yes I would kill him. He is the one who broke into MY house uninvited, he should be prepared for me to fight for my property. If that makes me a bad person then ya, alright, I can live with that...at least I will still have all of my stuff What you said in your first paragraph is why I've never used a religious argument to go against abortion. I only use the facts, and the science of it, which is undoubtedly on the pro-life side. And in regards to your second paragraph, I think that if you have become pregnant, and you thought you were mature enough to handle everything that goes along with having a baby, then you need to take responsibility. And I stress this profusely, because taking resposibility does not mean cutting up your "problem", and letting it die. That's not fair, that's what I'd call a cop-out. You are, for lack of a better word, shirking your own responsibility, which is that of a child inside of you. Even if you "learn" from an abortion, it still was self-serving, because you just decided that you didn't want the baby, and it was all for you. When someone takes responsibility, that means that they dealt with their problem. They figured out a solution that suited everyone involved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:07 pm
Diadema I'm partially kidding. Abstinence, yes, but no at the same time. You may have heard of NFP, Natural Family Planning. This is a natural birth control that measures when the woman is fertile, and the couple simply abstains from sex during that time. Very low failure rate. You can still get pregnant at any time of the month, anyway: this does not expell the requirement for abortion. I.Am A better version of your story would have the robber grab some valuable stuff and leave. Are you going to kill them? Of course not. Is it going to make life less comfortable for a while? Yes. But you still can't legally kill him, because he isn't going to harm you anymore-He's gone. You can try and get him caught and put him jail, but not kill him. Or perhaps a story where your boyfriend brings a guest, and the guest, for whatever reason, ends up unable to leave the house for the next nine months, or he'll die. Any person I can think of would take care of him until he can leave, and I know that there isn't a single person who would look well on you for killing him to get him out. That doesn't work. There are differences between a fetus and both the robber and the guest. If you can't find them, you're not looking hard enough. Mcphee Anyway. A fetus is a human being, because it contains human cells. It does have it's own habitat, and lives inside the mother until it is ready to come out. That makes it a human. What's the significance of being human if a fetus has nothing that would even facilitate a personality? I don't see why human life is so valuable by virtue of having human DNA alone; especially since species are only arbitrary lines drawn by those who like to classify. Saying that a fetus has human cells is making an emotional distinction between a fetus and organisms that are not human but are of the same cognitive ability/have other similarities, which is speciesism. Mcphee I only use the facts, and the science of it, which is undoubtedly on the pro-life side. I depends what you're using science to illustrate as to which side it appears to favour. In reality, it's amoral and it's our presentation of the facts either for or against that make it appear to show one thing or another. Science does not prove that abortion is immoral or moral, though, only gives a person a reason to redefine their stance on it. It's not all about science, though. It's about weighing up the consequences of abortion and unplanned pregnancy and looking at them on an absolute scale; science only plays one role in that. In some cases it is more irresponsible to have a child that will be a burden on the system or that will be or put you at a disadvantage. Being responsible is not creating big problems for yourself or others but choosing the lesser of evils regarding yourself, your life and something that does not have a brain. What might have been (i.e. it would become a child) is irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:26 pm
Foetus In Fetu I depends what you're using science to illustrate as to which side it appears to favour. In reality, it's amoral and it's our presentation of the facts either for or against that make it appear to show one thing or another. Science does not prove that abortion is immoral or moral, though, only gives a person a reason to redefine their stance on it. It's not all about science, though. It's about weighing up the consequences of abortion and unplanned pregnancy and looking at them on an absolute scale; science only plays one role in that. I like what you said. And I agree. It's not all about science. That's why I never stick to just one source of information, I look at all sides of it, moral, political, social, scientific, etc. For instance, I don't agree with it politically, as I'm far from conservative, but then, I also value human life, because every living being deserves their own opportunity at a chance to live. I also think that, although a pregnant teenager may face social rejection for having a child so early in their life, I think that they need to take responsibility for a problem they created. What I meant by my statement, is that the pure science of it, forced me to re-evaluate what I thought about abortion. Quote: In some cases it is more irresponsible to have a child that will be a burden on the system or that will be or put you at a disadvantage. Being responsible is not creating big problems for yourself or others but choosing the lesser of evils regarding yourself, your life and something that does not have a brain. What might have been (i.e. it would become a child) is irrelevant Here is where I disagree. A child is not being a burden on the system while in the womb, and it certainly isn't born that way; So how can you abort something because you think it will be a burden? many things in life are a burden, but they should be taken with the knowledge that it's just another thing in life that makes up who we are. If you can learn from your pregnancy(instead of ditching your problem by aborting), that makes it all that much more right, doesn't it? Being responsible in a situation where two parties are involved means satisfying both of the parties-- Death is not a viable solution for the fetus in the abortion issue. If you just please yourself, and not consider the fetus as having any rights in this situation, of course you'd think it was okay to abort. I believe that no being created is above any other in the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2004 4:49 pm
I.Am Alright. So now to show why what you are saying is mistaken; The fetus doesn't hurt you, except in that it causes some discomfort for the nine months. Like was said before, I would hardly call it "discomfort" for 9 months. You try experiencing the joys of being nauseated, sore, swolen, aching, exhausted, an amotional rollercoaster for 9 months, topped of for a grueling who knows how many hours of child labor, and -then- tell me if you think its still just "discomfort". (Especially if its a young couple/young mother) And what about the "discomfort" to the wallet? Is that considered? Quote: It easily costs between $5,000-$8,000 for a normal vaginal delivery, up to $12,000 for a cesarean delivery and much more if there are complications. If you are covered by insurance, it may cover most of the cost. "It[Insurance] may cover most of the cost." But not everyone has insurance, do they. I.Am A better version of your story would have the robber grab some valuable stuff and leave. Are you going to kill them? Of course not. Is it going to make life less comfortable for a while? Yes. But you still can't legally kill him, because he isn't going to harm you anymore-He's gone. You can try and get him caught and put him jail, but not kill him. And if he doesnt leave? What if he still threatens to kill you? Mcphee Here is where I disagree. A child is not being a burden on the system while in the womb, and it certainly isn't born that way; So how can you abort something because you think it will be a burden? many things in life are a burden, but they should be taken with the knowledge that it's just another thing in life that makes up who we are. If you can learn from your pregnancy(instead of ditching your problem by aborting), that makes it all that much more right, doesn't it? An unwanted child -is- a burden. Its a burden on you while its in the womb(The "discomfort", the cost, the interruption of school, work, etc). And after its born, the unwanted child gets sent out into the adoption system, then becomming a burden on the govermnent, social services, and most likely some poor foster home. Isnt that also "ditching" the problem? Handing it over to someone else to take care of? What's learned from that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2004 7:07 pm
Bacchant Diadema It is possible to have sex withing the fulfilling adult relationship and not have children for sure. Yep, it's called abstinence. I'm partially kidding. Abstinence, yes, but no at the same time. You may have heard of NFP, Natural Family Planning. This is a natural birth control that measures when the woman is fertile, and the couple simply abstains from sex during that time. Very low failure rate. Thought Id comment on this. I've heard about NFP before, but always bad things. My aunt is supposedly doing it, and shes got like 12 kids now. But aside from that. I looked up some information on it, as it peaked my curiosity... Its supposed to be more effective than most regular contraceptions (condoms), and is only behind the pill and IUD's in effectiveness. Soruce (Just for anyone who's interested.) Nothing guarantees 100% though. The failure rate is 4% *faints* but yes, it has a very low failure rate. Have you asked your aunt whether or not she was using to space her kids? That's what my parents did. Thank God. I wouldn't be able to stand it if John was one minute less young than I. xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2004 7:09 pm
Foetus In Fetu Diadema I'm partially kidding. Abstinence, yes, but no at the same time. You may have heard of NFP, Natural Family Planning. This is a natural birth control that measures when the woman is fertile, and the couple simply abstains from sex during that time. Very low failure rate. You can still get pregnant at any time of the month, anyway: this does not expell the requirement for abortion. Not true. A woman's fertility period lasts, on average, for 72 hours. That's why NFP works.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 11:14 am
Mcphee Here is where I disagree. A child is not being a burden on the system while in the womb, and it certainly isn't born that way; So how can you abort something because you think it will be a burden? many things in life are a burden, but they should be taken with the knowledge that it's just another thing in life that makes up who we are. If you can learn from your pregnancy(instead of ditching your problem by aborting), that makes it all that much more right, doesn't it? You can learn from your mistakes without having to follow through on them and make things worse by doing so: that would be another mistake. Unwanted pregnancies aren't always the result of mistakes, though. I wouldn't call failed birth control a mistake. Do you really want a child to be born into a world that would regard it as a burden? Mcphee Being responsible in a situation where two parties are involved means satisfying both of the parties-- Death is not a viable solution for the fetus in the abortion issue. If you just please yourself, and not consider the fetus as having any rights in this situation, of course you'd think it was okay to abort. This is where science is relevant, though: the fetus cannot qualify as an equal party because it isn't equal. Mcphee I believe that no being created is above any other in the world. Sadly, personal beliefs aren't valid unless they can be shown to be logically valid or evidenced to have basis in the real world. This one has a high potential to be fallacious coming from anybody who uses antibiotics or likewise. Diadema Foetus In Fetu Diadema I'm partially kidding. Abstinence, yes, but no at the same time. You may have heard of NFP, Natural Family Planning. This is a natural birth control that measures when the woman is fertile, and the couple simply abstains from sex during that time. Very low failure rate. You can still get pregnant at any time of the month, anyway: this does not expell the requirement for abortion. Not true. A woman's fertility period lasts, on average, for 72 hours. That's why NFP works. If you have an irregular period or if you ovulate at an unexpected time of the month then it fails, that's what I meant. Since it has a failure rate at all means that abortion is still very much up in the air whether everyone uses NFP or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:38 pm
Foetus In Fetu Diadema Foetus In Fetu Diadema I'm partially kidding. Abstinence, yes, but no at the same time. You may have heard of NFP, Natural Family Planning. This is a natural birth control that measures when the woman is fertile, and the couple simply abstains from sex during that time. Very low failure rate. You can still get pregnant at any time of the month, anyway: this does not expell the requirement for abortion. Not true. A woman's fertility period lasts, on average, for 72 hours. That's why NFP works. If you have an irregular period or if you ovulate at an unexpected time of the month then it fails, that's what I meant. Since it has a failure rate at all means that abortion is still very much up in the air whether everyone uses NFP or not. I'd really have to do some more research on whether or not periods or ovulation time even effect it. It's not the rythym method where you guess and see if your wrong or not. It's based on body temperature and other things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 4:02 pm
Diadema I'd really have to do some more research on whether or not periods or ovulation time even effect it. It's not the rythym method where you guess and see if your wrong or not. It's based on body temperature and other things. Oh, I see. That would be more reliable; the method I was taught was the rhythm method.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
