What do you think about abortion

Post Reply New Topic

Reread the quote.


No, I don't think it is worth it. Just like I don't think that putting an entire nation at risk is worth appeasement or pacifist diplomacy when war is imminent--just because you think it's wrong to potentially kill thousands of enemy combatants in the process. The Western approach to war has become to wage an ideological war and win converts rather than wipe out entire populations. It wasn't that long ago when wars were won as much by numbers as they were strategy, and now wars are fought increasingly on the technological front to target specific individuals rather than entire military or paramilitary units.

Another example: The death penalty. You can't replace a human life, neither that of the murderer or the murder victim. But you deny justice to those affected when the murderer gets to keep his life. And since you can't bring back the victim, it's only fair that the murderer pays his debt by having his life taken from him. In all other things in Western society, a value is given to pretty much everything by which a criminal can pay either in terms of his freedom or something of equivalent value in addition to punitive damages. You can't put a price on life, thus why in principle the death penalty is a necessity. What sucks about the death penalty is that it is possible for innocent people to be put to death. It's not so much that we don't want to see justice done--we want everyone to get what's coming to them as well as deter certain crimes from happening in the first place--that so many of us oppose the death penalty. It's that we find the taking of life so disturbing we want to stop all forms of it as we can.

Whether we wage war or we put dangerous criminals to death, we kill people because we don't see any better options. Therefore we limit killing as much as possible so that we aren't ourselves guilty of the same crimes. It would be different if we were a more bloodthirsty society, that is, all of us got excited every time an enemy soldier died in battle or when a death row inmate got executed. If we were the kind of society that broadcast executions on TV networks and on news channels in real time. If soldiers filmed their operations and brought home human body parts as trophies.

We don't do that. If some corrupt head of state gets hung/beheaded or whatever and the video leaks and goes viral on Youtube, you never hear the end of the outrage.

What I'm saying is no one LIKES death nor the grotesqueries that go along with death when death of wrongdoers is necessary for the survival of a society. We try to avoid it, limit it, or eliminate it as much as possible.

Apply the same principle to abortion. #1) Is a woman truly being done an injustice if forced to carry a baby to term? I say it depends on the circumstances of conception. If rape, I say she is being done an injustice if denied an abortion. If any other circumstance, I say the baby is done an injustice if aborted. #2) Is the woman's life in certain peril if she carries the baby to term? If no, she should have the baby. If yes, then she has the right to defend herself, which may possibly involve killing the baby.

I don't want to get into THIS discussion, but I'll put this out there as food for thought: My opinion is that something is horribly wrong with society when it becomes comfortable with and even makes sport of killing (of any form, regardless of why). My opinion is that something is wrong with a person who can abort a baby and never give it another thought. Even if it's to save a mother's life. Note that I never said anything was wrong with aborting to save the mother's life. I mean that something is horribly wrong if a mother aborts to save her own life and feels ABSOLUTELY ZERO remorse for having to abort, if she doesn't need any counseling at all to deal with any grief over her loss. If she does feel remorse for something she had to do in order to survive, OK, I can work with that. But none whatsoever? And women who abort simply for no better reason than a baby is inconvenient? No feelings at all? Just my two cents on this one, but I think that's messed up.

I suppose it is messed up but I'm one of those people. I don't like kids and don't want kids. The times I was pregnant all I wanted to do was get rid of it however I could. I never felt anything about it and never regretted it.

After the second time I was pregnant I was offered Norplant and by the time the 5 years was up and it was taken out I quit having sex forever so I didn't have to worry about getting pregnant any more.

Finally understand the US conservatives' push to ban abortion.

http://jezebel.com/babies-not-even-wort ... -718813405

If the non-rich had reproductive rights, they wouldn't be having babies anymore. But then, who is going to work for the rich in 18 years? The rich's children? No way! The immigrants? HELL NO. So the rich need to make sure the poor keep having babies.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78rYupgxxoI[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOkOGsxEhxk[/youtube]What would pro lifers say about this?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpQ1HpAhY_0[/youtube]

Precisely why I don't want to get into THAT discussion. That's just how I feel about it and about all I can say.

At least in your situation you took steps to prevent it from happening again, including modifying your behavior. Regardless of how you feel about it and any differences you and I may have, I can respect your decision to make the changes you made.

I didn't modify my behavior for those reasons though. I quit having sex because I didn't enjoy it. I'll never have sex again but now I'm 100% safe from pregnancy because I had a hysterectomy last year.

I don't think it matters WHY you changed...just that you did. I've recently stopped doing a number of things I used to enjoy, and I've discovered two things: I don't really miss those things, and I'm better off without them. My reasons were different at the time I changed, but the ways in which I've grown since then has led me to deeper meaning in life. Not everyone experiences that, but that's ok, too. I don't believe that the ends justify the means, but I find nothing awry in either your means or your ends.

In my personal life, I've often considered chemical castration as a way of dealing with my own issues. I've found that addressing the spiritual roots of my problems, however, to be adequately effective without being selfish or hurtful towards my wife. That hasn't chased away all my inner demons (metaphorically speaking), just made them more manageable.

I know very , very few women where that is the case. Very few.
Most of them that I have spoken to have said it was the hardest decision that they have ever made in their lives.
Most of them do everything they can to avoid going through the same process again.

If anything, the stigma that surrounds it hurts more than helps because they only receive judgement - as soon as you say the word involved, people assume the worst without bothering to listen to the particular set of circumstances. Which means that they can never speak publicly about it, only in private - and even then it's hard to know who to trust. The last girl I know who had it done is still haunted by it a year later and will probably need professional counselling. She just can't speak about it in public due to the stigma, and as such that inability to tell people has alienated most of her support system.

You wrote: "If I was in mortal peril and someone VOLUNTEERED to use their body to sustain mine, they CAN NOT change their mind once that begins absent their own health and safety being in peril if they continue. The reason why is because while there is no legal duty to rescue someone ONCE YOU BEGIN A RESCUE, you become legally liable if you abandon your patient..."

And when I brought up the fact that HCPs aren't on the job for 9 months, you continued: "1. Irrelevant. Duration of a rescue changes not the legal obligations created. If you knew you had to support someone until an arrangement was made and you agreed to it, you are bound to it. As pregnancy comes with the knowledge that it is 9 months, you can't argue lack of foreknowledge of the obligation. "
Strongly implying that you don't give a damn about the length of time involved. So, which is it: do you think that HCPs are legally compelled to stay with their patients for 9 months, or not? I don't think that they are, regardless of whether there is someone to hand off to.

[/quote]
When you get into a car, there's always a strong possibility that you'll get into an auto accident. Driving, however, isn't 'consenting' to be in an auto accident, nor is the fact that someone got into the car voluntarily grounds to deny them the medical treatment that will restore them to normal health in the event of an accident.

To those pro-life that are using the "Rights of the unborn child" argument, you are just spouting a version of the old Beethoven Fallacy.

The phrase "rights of the unborn child" is an oxymoron in itself. Unborn child have no rights. You are assuming that the unborn child has the capability to "assess" and "be conscious" about the world, were in fact it is unknown. It's more like a causal fallacy (?)

Another counter-argument to this is if unborn children have the rights to be born, then we are all making a mistake for not having sex everytime our sperms are on its ripening stage!

I don't know how to deal with your odd sense of "logic."

If you are a HCP, and you are asked to be the means of support for someone AND you are told it will require a personal 24/7 nine-month commitment, AND YOU AGREE to that, you are obligated once it begins.

End of discussion. Your reasoning keeps shifting to assumed premises which are not given.

Please stop changing the premises of a hypothetical situation as the means to disprove it. Every time you do it, you are illustrating an entirely different hypothetical which obviously would have different outcomes.



Again, you are changing the premises and even the scenario.

First, every time you drive a car, you accept that you might get hurt. If the harm is cased by someone else's negligence, they must fix the harm done. If you are negligent, you fix your own damages. In no case do you have a "right" to say you should be able to be in an auto accident and NEVER suffer any form of harm or loss whatsoever. If it happens, it happens, and you deal with it.

Second, the only thing that comes from an auto accident is a loss. Sex, if it goes contrary to your plan, will produce a new life. You might consider it a loss, but it is a new creation growing within you. It's not the same as mending a broken bone or stitching closed a laceration. It is not the product of "injury" or sickness. Finally, the proposal to "fix" the problem is to terminate this new life process.

We are, huh? Every single one of us? I don't care if the child grows up to be Beethoven or Hitler. Whether one becomes Beethoven or Hitler depends on choices the child makes.


Either way, it's completely irrelevant whether the child can "assess" and "be conscious" about the world. You STILL can't solve the problem that infants and toddlers are limited by the degree to which they can "assess" and "be conscious" just like an elderly dementia patient would be. Yet we don't throw out toddlers and the elderly like yesterday's garbage.

"Unborn child have no rights" is also false. Where do rights come from? If you're referring to legal rights, then this is a red herring. It's an appeal to law. I don't care what the law says. Laws change. Would you change your mind if suddenly legislators put laws on the books that granted unborn children the right to be born? Or do you prefer to think for yourself?


No, because sex cells are not unique, individual life forms that can exist apart from the bodies that produced them. A zygote or an embryo, on the other hand, is a distinct, separate human life. I'm aware that sex cells only carry part of human DNA and are themselves unique, but unless they DO something they die. They are about as consequential as skin cells. All an embryo needs is for the mother responsible for its existence to grow it for a relatively short amount of time and it takes care of the rest.

I have doubts about whether it isn't conscious, but at the same time I don't really care if it is or not. It's a human life and deserves to be treated like human life worth preserving.

Technically.

In an ideal world perhaps, if you ignore all other factors like what kind of life is it entering into, the needs and wants of the mother, the circumstances of it's conception, it's health, and the entire history of human infant mortality in which human life was aborted by nature at a rate of 30-50%.

I can't tell which is worse: being born into a biological/adoptive family knowing that you were unwanted or unloved, or simply not existing because of a procedure.