What do you think about abortion

Post Reply New Topic

Sounds like you aren't falling in with the old "it isn't a child" brigade, refreshing to see, and if correct, it's the first time I have seen it in these threads. Edit: from the "pro abortion crowd" I should say.



But it's not inhumane to kill a child?



Absolutely, but there is a young human being in the equation. Is there no possibility that the rights of the child to live might trump the mother's right to avoid enduring some temporary discomfort or inconvenience?

Abortion is prenatal infanticide.

To take from the thread on white pride/shame, many of us don't feel like we are at all attached to them, at least in terms of having pride or shame.

If you won't identify with your past, why do you, for eugenic birth control, identify with the future?

I'm not entirely sure what you are saying here.

Could you please clarify?

Abortion is something I don't like to think or talk about. Even hearing or seeing the word "abortion" makes me cringe. I like to think of myself as a liberal person, but I feel very strongly about the preservation of life and for me life is valuable, and my view on abortion is complex. We were all fetuses at one point, and I care about people's lives and believe everyone has a right to exist. If a woman gets pregnant, and the pregnancy was planned and the woman wanted to have a baby, but then one day decides that she doesn't want a baby for no reason other than not wanting a baby, she shouldn't have an abortion. Women say it's their body and their choice, but it's not just her baby; it's the father's baby too, so if she loses the baby, he loses the baby, which I think is unfair on the father. If, for example, the mother's pregnancy put her health at serious risk, then I think it's okay for her to have an abortion. If she unwillingly got pregnant (e.g. through rape), giving the baby up for adoption is an option, though if she really couldn't handle it I wouldn't disagree with her aborting the baby.

That's just my opinion.

The op of the thread talks about a woman who tried to abort only 1 twin because it had some problems with it. The op then goes on to describe that this is wrong because if someone had decided because they have autism we should abort them.

Ignore my comment about the other thread.

The op is identifying with literally all unborn children who have 'defects', because they are drawing the comparison between themselves and all unborn children. But why would one do that? No one is taking away your life, no one is saying your life is wrong. Which just leads back to the whole argument of 'is a fetus a person' then.

Like, to say 'I exist therefore I think that other people with my condition should also exist' is to put oneself in a group of people of 'have my condition'. For this debate, the op has now put themselves as a member of groups of people who aren't even born yet.

I don't identify with my ancestors because they're not me; I don't take on their shame or pride. So it doesn't make sense to me to identify with a possible future.

I see what you're saying carvernio. It's been argued that selective abortions have parallels with eugenics and that as people with AS, we should disapprove because it affects all future versions of "us"

If we're willing to look forward and personally relate in people because of their potential AS diagnosis, then you could argue that we should look to the past and relate to people because of common european ancestry.

Yes exactly.

I have mixed feelings about abortion. I honestly do not have a problem with abortion as a form of birth control, but I have a BIG F*CKIN' PROBLEM with abortion as a form of eugenics! As it turns out, the latter is what abortion was originally intended for.

Since a man can't make one, he has no right to tell a woman when and where to create one. - Tupac Shakur

I was in a similar thread recently so I'll take the lazy route and copy a comment I made there in response to a comment about "things being the same as they used to be" if abortion were made illegal again:

"Nothing new."

"Yep....it's back to the "good old days" where if you were rich you could afford to travel to a distant state or country to get an abortion....NO problemo just a little inconvenient (no reason to worry about the poor really). Very very common in "The Good Old Days."

But if you were poor you went to see the "granny" for a death dealing concoction (what was killed was in question, it varied depending on the "doctor") or the grimy back alley abortionist. This is what most will receive with the new anti-abortionists movement.

Or if you were really poor you boiled the coat hanger from your closet and "had a go at it."

Yep..The Good Old Days! I remember reading over and over the results printed in the newspapers...I'd imagine with Facebook and YouTube news will be even more graphic. Yep...back to the old brutality.

BUT BUT BUT I just read this morning the Fed has decided to counteract this brutality by easing restrictions on a do it yourself abortion pill, regardless of what some states may say. Yea!"

YOU SEE the "argument" over secular and religious views had little to do with abortion being made legal. THAT battle, although going "hot and heavy" was never resolved. It was apparent to anyone it was poor people that suffered day after day after day.

These terrible atrocities we forced on women wasn't a minor matter; we're talking about THOUSANDS of women, YEAR AFTER YEAR. No one with ant decency could say "Well it's OK for the rich and famous to have abortions but the poor must suffer." Which is exactly the situation then and which will become the situation again if the Bible Thumpers are allowed to have their say.

The only difference now is the poor will still have access to the new abortion drugs available now....or, if the release of these drugs is stymied, black market (some fake) drugs will be sold.

The above are called FACTS and anyone can look up the number of terrible incidents before Roe v. Wade (I have not). But the reason for Roe v. Wade was the terrible inequity forced upon poor women.....I hope this never happens again...but it will if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

Yes, and likewise, man has no right to go into a woman's body to kill a baby. Nor does man have a right to destroy any part of a woman's body.

I don't think abortion is a good thing really, but if it isn't made legal, women will have unsafe abortions. So I think it should be made legal.

But once it is already CREATED, that quote does not apply. Besides, who gives a f*ck what Tupac thought about abortion! Not to disrespect the man but I will not acknowledge anyone individual as a universal authority.

Same as me

BTW you are

Already-born people with functioning brains > fetuses.

That's about as far as I'm willing to debate it.

Peace out.