Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Abortion/Contraception/Stem Cell Research
Thread: Abortion/Contraception/Stem Cell Research This thread is 92 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 20 40 60 80 ... 88 89 90 91 92 · NEXT»
Consis
Consis


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
posted May 27, 2004 06:18 PM bonus applied.
Edited By: Consis on 22 Aug 2004

Abortion/Contraception/Stem Cell Research

Let's try to have a discussion involving the issues pertaining to abortion while adhering to the Heroes Community rules. I realize that sex must inevitably be discussed in this issue and I believe it can be written about in good taste.

I'll start the thread off by talking about where we are today. Today these issues find themselves in different perspectives depending on what country is being used as the basis for which laws. I am from america therefore I shall bring some of my country's thoughts to the table of debate. Mind you all, I said I'd bring some. As I am only one man, I can only bring as much as one person can to the table of debate. My thoughts and opinions can and should be viewed as specific to my own person and not, in any way, translated to the thoughts of my entire country. I'd like to ask that each member bring some of their country's laws to this table of debate. Any links, pictures, and famous quotes would be very helpful to the rest of us trying to understand where you are coming from.

This debate is also a magnet for religious views. It is inevitable because some religions, if not all, incorporate specific laws on the matter on how to act according to their beliefs. I respect this fully and hope that any member posting here be as forthcoming as possible with not only their own country's laws, but also any rules set down as law within certain very influential religious organizations.

Having said that, "I WELCOME YOU ALL TO THE TABLE..."

My position concerning this issue is mostly decided but not without some small degree of uncertainty. To this end I would hope that this debate might be able to enlighten me in becoming a more decided person on the matter.

I support contraception in most ways. I donot support subdermal implants for women. I support abstinence, condoms, birth control pills(not fully), and as I mentioned in a different thread certain surgical procedures used to prevent an egg from meeting the millions of sperm enroute to find it.

I don't support abortion but my position is a very clouded one. I think of myself as having a man's opinion. I consider women to be the ultimate authority on the matter and have been told so by many women on many occasions. I have an extensive background in many surgical techniques, medicine, and other such patient prehospital care providing. I think my background gives me a unique perspective on what I think is right. I believe that a fertilized egg is alive. I have just recently heard on the news that an egg was successfully made to begin it's growth cycle without a spermatazoan cell present.(I will search for a usefull link that may help enlighten us all on this news) I have heard a plethora of arguments from many women to support abortion. I have never truly agreed with it but I am usually left to ask myself how important I am in the bearing of a woman's child. Personally, it is to a woman that I give my greatest respect for our human reproductive cycles. They carry the child from inception to birth. They endure all that comes along with such an experience and its responsibility. Is this to say all women are responsible with their carrying of the child? No. Many are not and act very irresponsible. I know this. For the sake of argument I shall focus on those that fulfill their motherly role as universal matron. I have no religious preference therefore I am not affected by what any religion says concerning this issue. I do attend a presbyterian church regularly with my wife but this holds no weight in my decision-making process. I consider them to be an uplifting group of people that like to sing and pray.

I am left with an unarguable stance when confronted by a woman declaring her rights as the child's mother. I consider the role of a mother to be vital to child raising. I consider the role of a father to be very important but not vital. To sum it up, I believe the fathers are less important than women in this matter.

My position concerning stem cell research is against it. This matter falls under many categories of research. The most important one to me is that of cloning. In order to clone a person or animal a fertilized egg is used for the process. The process involves an uncertain number of tries to successfully remove certain "blueprint cells"(stem cells) before they are genetically programmed. With these blank "blueprint cells" the scientists can then program them to grow into whatever organ they want for possible transplant to a patient that needs said organ. This can be anything such as a leg, liver, heart, etc. The horrifying thing inherent to this procedure is that it takes an uncertain number of tries to successfully remove these greatly prized stem cells. This means that they could do it in 300 tries or 1 try. Unfortunately though, there has never been a successful one try recorded. On top of that, each and every time they remove the highly prized stem cells, the fertilized ovum is killed by removing the cells thus killing the possibility for it's growth to the form of a human being.

This is the horror of cloning and stem cell research. Hundreds upon hundreds of fertilized eggs are used and die in the process to achieve one successful attempt. Each egg, with it's possibility for beginning a new life, is quickly operated on and discarded as unusable refuse.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Celfious
Celfious


Promising
Legendary Hero
Regular
posted May 27, 2004 06:38 PM

Of course its more likely that the murder of unborn babies is wrong.

thats all I have to say on this issue "its more likely that the murder of unborn babies is wrong."

bye bye
____________
Yeah no

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Khaelo
Khaelo


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
posted May 27, 2004 09:10 PM
Edited By: Khaelo on 27 May 2004

I just had to participate in a debate about abortion for a philosophy class, so the academic aspects of this topic are recent for me.

Issue # 1: Where does "personhood" begin?
This may be argued medically, philisophically, theologically, etc.  However one wishes to go about this, it needs to be laid out right from the get-go.  Otherwise, people just talk past each other.  To put it more bluntly, most everyone agrees that "baby-killing" (infanticide) is wrong.  The disagreement is when/if abortion qualifies as infanticide.

Issue # 2: Conflicting Rights
Please note -- this second issue presupposes an answer to the first, namely that the fetus is a person and therefore has rights in the first place.  Jumping to a discussion of women's rights bypasses a fundamental aspect of many pro-abortionists' stance.  If someone does not consider the fetus to be a person in the first place, there is nothing to counter women's rights and the point is moot.

My position:
1) Personhood is not a discreet category.  This is related to my position regarding human/animal worth -- there is a spectrum.  (This relates to Issue # 0: What is a person?.  Membership in the human species is not identical to "personhood" for me, although it is for others.)  
2) I do not consider a zygote a person because it does not meet the requirements of complexity in body or (theologically) in soul.  Therefore, I have no problem with early abortions for whatever reason.  Accordingly, contraception, including those methods that are actually early abortificants, is a non-issue.  It's all okay.
3) Later abortions are fuzzier because the fetus is closer to, but has not achieved, the rights of personhood.  In reality, there is no finish-line at which one can say, "Congratulations, kid, you're a real baby now!"  Unfortunately, abortion laws force society to draw such a line.
4) I think late-second and third term abortions should be permitted for medical reasons.  IMO, viability of the fetus isn't so much of an issue as how much of a burden the fetus presents to the mother, who has unquestionable rights.  If the dangerous pregnancy can be terminated by prematurely birthing the fetus, great.  Everyone is alive.  If not, the mother's health prevails.
5) Therefore, on my sliding-scale system, early abortions are permissable, infanticide (=killing an infant ex utero) is impermissable, and later abortions are permissable under certain circumstances.

In the US, the pro-life and pro-choice sides are both associated with extremist fanatics, so I avoid both labels.

Edits: clarification
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
bjorn190
bjorn190


Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jebus maker
posted May 27, 2004 09:14 PM

I say the mother should have the right to remove the fetus from her body during the first months, and then its up to society to

1.Create an artificial womb to grow it in.
2.Pay the mom for carrying the fetus for 9 months as a job, perhaps $4000 a month would be appropriate.

That way society can save any fetuses it wants, while not making the mother pay for it. Everyone is happy


 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Celfious
Celfious


Promising
Legendary Hero
Regular
posted May 27, 2004 10:36 PM
Edited By: Celfious on 27 May 2004

i may occasionaly say small things

Quote:
Issue 1: When dose personhood begin?

I find it argumentable, however illogical that only the moment a baby is born is the moment it is a person.

Obviously, there is not much of a difference from the baby the moment it is still inside, to the moment it is being born, and finaly the moment it is born.

then again, we are talking about humans on the debate here.


When it comes to 3 and 4 months I am not really sure. More than likely the nerveous system and everything will inflict pain, and more than likely there is a life force that is turned off some where around the time it is yanked into reality. Be it during the procedure, or after.
____________
Yeah no

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
privatehudson
privatehudson


Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
posted May 28, 2004 12:25 PM
Edited By: privatehudson on 28 May 2004

Well I also speak purely as a man, but however having spoken to a number of women, some of whom have been through the abortion process I can appreciate that the male understanding of the process can often be limited. My own stance on it though is as follows.

Abortion should be the right of choice for the woman. There are a variety of arguments for this, mostly though they boil down to the fact that no matter what processes are in place for the adoption of children, or the support of that mother, sometimes the expecting mother cannot physically or mentally cope with a child. Of course the reply to this would be that if the person had sex, they should face the possible consequences of that, however, sometimes women are raped, and a child can be conceived that way. It is incredibly difficult to determine whether the woman will be able to mentally go through the process of bearing a baby to conception. Many things can affect this, both before and after conception that could damage that woman for life. I know of at least two women who physically also would quite probably die if they had to go through another pregnancy, both quite young also. In that case perhaps permanently preventing their ability would be advisable, but again this is their choice.

Solutions other than abortion do not work in many cases. Having spoken with a woman in the US about this at length, she pointed out that in the states there is quite often problems with both adoption and foster care that leaves children without a stable family during their childhood for example. The solution of better education to reduce unwanted pregnancies will not stop the demand for abortions either, accidents and rapes do occur whatever our policy on abortion. She raised some additional points that I will try and find out, but the principle was that no matter the cause, there will always be a need for abortion. The proof is in the testing, Ireland had long banned abortion (might even still does) but Irish women still came to the UK to have the process done when needed. Banning abortion will also not stop it either, in Ireland and other countries it still happened, just not officially. Often this illegal process would be done poorly, sometimes by bribed doctors, sometimes by amateurs, and often it would severely harm the woman.

What I would say though is the extremists of the “pro life” faction, whilst their point of view may have some validity, their actions are despicable. Having spoken with a number of women who have aborted children, I know one thing is almost certainly true of all of them. Abortion is very much not a cold-blooded issue, and to make women who have one into “baby killers” is a despicable thing to do. Every woman I have spoken to about the issue confirmed that pretty much any argument that you or I could put forward is considered by them before the abortion. The soul-searching and emotion that comes from making that decision is horrible to see at the time, and even many years later, some I have spoken to about it cannot speak about their decision without being reduced to tears. For the rest of their lives, women who abort a child will think about that child, what he would have done, how old he was, what school he’d have gone to and so on. Any of those who think they can reduce the issue to accusations of “baby-killer” might want to think about what that woman goes through first. As I have always thought since talking to those who have been through the process, none of us can understand the pain a woman goes through when she aborts her child unless we have done it ourselves.

That would be my main message. Whether you agree with abortion or not, the point is that the issue is an extremely emotional one, and those that go through that decision, whatever they decide deserve our support, not our ridicule.

____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Asmodean
Asmodean


Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
posted May 29, 2004 02:44 AM

Quote:
The proof is in the testing, Ireland had long banned abortion (might even still does) but Irish women still came to the UK to have the process done when needed. Banning abortion will also not stop it either, in Ireland and other countries it still happened, just not officially. Often this illegal process would be done poorly, sometimes by bribed doctors, sometimes by amateurs, and often it would severely harm the woman.


This is true, and still holds, though at present the Irish Parliament is having a debate about allowing abortions for women who have been raped/suffer mental trauma from pregnancy.
But at the minute the only way to have an abortion in Ireland is if the mother has another potentially life-threatening condition that the pregnancy is making worse.
A few years back there was a big boat that came all the way from the Netherlands, and anchored out in the Irish Sea between the UK and Ireland. There were full medical facilities aboard it, and they actually OFFERED, for a fee, to ferry pregnant women to the boat and give them abortions.
I think it's the closest the Irish Navy ever came to launching a torpedo.

In Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK, we don't follow the UK's abortion laws either.
There seems to be something about the Irish mentality that finds it totally abhorrent. It is one of the few issues that opposing political parties here will actually agree on and have the support of 99% of the populace.

So, in that way I do not agree with abortion. I find it a terrible subject, and it's one of the few issues I find it hard to be objective about.
____________

To err is human, to arr is pirate.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
dArGOn
dArGOn


Famous Hero
posted May 30, 2004 07:48 AM
Edited By: dArGOn on 30 May 2004

I tried to not get involved in this discussion...but couldn't resist...most likely to my peril

Quote
"President Bush has recently signed into law a statute that prohibits abortion after two months of being pregnant." (From post in "Should Bush be elected...)


Hmmm I think you are mistaken...Roe vs. Wade mandates abortion be allowed up till the third trimester...that is 6 months. Bush does not have the power to override the Supreme Court without a Constitutional ammendment.

What Bush (with the Senate and House) signed into law was a law  that prohibits "partial birth abortion" which typically occurs after 6 months in which basically a baby is partially delivered...scissors are inserted to puncture the skull...then the brains are sucked out with a vaccum so the baby can be pulled out of the womb....lifeless
____________
Humans are gods with anuses -Earnest Becker

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
dArGOn
dArGOn


Famous Hero
posted May 30, 2004 08:05 AM

Quote
"I consider women to be the ultimate authority on the matter and have been told so by many women on many occasions."

That is a common belief, but to me is equitable of saying only a slavemaster is the ultimate authority over the issue of slavery...becasue it has the biggest effect on the slaveholder.  

Moreover I find it interesting that no one seems to care what a preborn female child may feel or think about the subject.

Yes pregnancy happens in a womans body...but it is NOT part of her body unless you want to say that while a woman is pregnant she has 4 arms, 4 eyes, etc....which of course is absurd.

Hardship of pregnancy is also really a non-issue ...otherwise we should permit infantcide as rearing a child for 18 years is a "hardship" that makes pregnancy pale by comparison.

Human life is ALWAYS an issue to be determined by all humans not just women.

Khaelo thoughtful post though I don't agree.  

Point to consider...what are the only things added to a "fetus" before they "officially" become "human"?  The only two things are time and nutrition...the same things that those of us born require to grow.  

Everything is generally already determined at conception...hair color, aptitude, IQ, height, race, etc.  In otherwords everything that "makes us human" is already present upon conception.  (Yes environment can have minor affects those base characteristics, but overall they are set upon conception)
____________
Humans are gods with anuses -Earnest Becker

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Wolfman
Wolfman


Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
posted May 30, 2004 08:17 AM

Quote:
(Yes environment can have minor affects those base characteristics, but overall they are set upon conception)

That depends who you talk to.
Some psychologists say what you just did, but others agree with social learning which says the child is an empty shell and everything is crammed into it as it grows giving it everything it knows, thinks, imagines.  It all comes from somewhere.
But that would be a whole other topic.  The psychology of a fetus is unknown of course, but what if it knew what was going on...
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
privatehudson
privatehudson


Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
posted May 30, 2004 11:04 AM
Edited By: privatehudson on 30 May 2004

Quote:
Moreover I find it interesting that no one seems to care what a preborn female child may feel or think about the subject.



Prior to the choice of abortion it thinks nothing. We cannot make decisions based on what something might think but the situation then and there.

Quote:
Yes pregnancy happens in a womans body...but it is NOT part of her body unless you want to say that while a woman is pregnant she has 4 arms, 4 eyes, etc....which of course is absurd.


In or of is irrelevant in many cases. Some females cannot physically manage to carry another child to birth, no-one has the right to force a woman to endanger her own life in the interests of "saving" the unborn child who at the point of choice is incapable of apreciating such concepts.

Quote:
Hardship of pregnancy is also really a non-issue ...otherwise we should permit infantcide as rearing a child for 18 years is a "hardship" that makes pregnancy pale by comparison.


Hardship comes in many forms. I know many examples were mentally the woman would be incapable of supporting the child during it's first few years. Also as has been pointed out sometimes the mental strain of pregnancy is one that should not be enforced if it cannot be dealt with by the woman either.

For all that a featus is or isn't during those first few months it is not quite a thinking human that can make it's own choices and decisions, nor appreciate what affect it will have on the mother. The mother and to a lesser extent the father must decide for that child if the pregnancy can be gone through with on behalf of the child. An unthinking state making a unilateral law about the issue is about as mad a thing as I can think of. I see no reason why a law-maker or pope, politician or doctor who have never met that woman should be permitted to have more say in the future or otherwise of their unborn child than the woman herself and those around her.

To me there will always be a need for abortion due to the fact that the world is not perfect. Women do not always concieve at the right time, often not through their fault either. Not all women can either mentally or physically go through the strain of pregnancy at that time, let alone continue to raise the child. Adoption does not always work in either the US or here. If we want to close our ears and eyes to pretend that these cases never occur then we can happily tell ourselves that banning abortion is a good thing. All we will do though is to create a situation like Ireland over abortion. A situation that may work for some, but for many it is a disaster.

Quote:
The psychology of a fetus is unknown of course, but what if it knew what was going on...


Then I still highly doubt it would be able to appreciate the choice made in it's entirety and make that choice.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
dArGOn
dArGOn


Famous Hero
posted May 31, 2004 10:00 AM
Edited By: dArGOn on 31 May 2004

Quote
“Some females cannot physically manage to carry another child to birth, no-one has the right to force a woman to endanger her own life in the interests of "saving" the unborn child who at the point of choice is incapable of appreciating such concepts.”

I find it interesting when people form opinions based upon irrelevant issues.  Shows their political persuasion has caused a blindness to an egregious slaughter of life.  At least 95% of abortions occur not because there is some sort of endangerment to a woman’s health…they occur primarily because it would disturb her lifestyle…quite a sick excuse to terminate a life.  So lets talk about the rule, not the exception to the rule where you might find comfort in supporting the massacre of innocent helpless humans.

IF one would only support abortion if the life of the mother would be at risk at least I could understand it…but to bring up such a situation on a discussion of abortion misses the point the VAST majority of abortions are simply a matter of convenience…and that is sick beyond compare.

Quote
“For all that a fetus is or isn't during those first few months it is not quite a thinking human that can make it's own choices and decisions, nor appreciate what affect it will have on the mother”

Huh…so you know what a life thinks in the womb?  

One thing is definite…the survival instinct is beyond reproach…every life form seeks to continue its existence…seems rather callous and arrogant to assume otherwise.

What effect it might have on the mother…you got to be kidding…please tell me you are kidding….we are talking about murdering a life…what the heck does the affect on the mother have to do with anything??????????  

Again if you want to consider the effect upon the mother then logically you must support infanticide because as a father of 3 and as someone who has worked with child abuse as a professional I can tell you “born” children can have a tremendous effect upon women…so if that is the criteria that you want to hold then we should allow women to murder their offspring anytime they will have a negative “affect” upon the mother.

There has to be an especially tortuous place in hell for those who would willfully and intentionally dismember the most innocent human life forms on earth.  

This generation is as blind to the atrocities of abortion as societies in the past were ignorant of the evil of slavery.  If you want to be on that side of the equation…God help you and hopefully the world will soon awaken to this genocidal slaughter of our children in the name of selfish convenience!

____________
Humans are gods with anuses -Earnest Becker

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
dArGOn
dArGOn


Famous Hero
posted May 31, 2004 10:41 AM

Quote
"Some psychologists say what you just did, but others agree with social learning which says the child is an empty shell and everything is crammed into it as it grows giving it everything it knows, thinks, imagines."

Nuture vs Nature is always an interesting consideration.  As a psychotherpist I know that nurture has a profound impact upon developement.  But on the whole genetics determines the foundation and environment can only impact the general foundation.  If two black people have a child they cannot make the child white through environment....if two retarded people have a child they will not produce a genius....environment can affect the overall perameters of genetics but cannot supercede genetics.
____________
Humans are gods with anuses -Earnest Becker

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
privatehudson
privatehudson


Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
posted May 31, 2004 12:32 PM

See THIS is why discussing abortion is pointless, people think that their opinion must be right and the only one...

Quote:
I find it interesting when people form opinions based upon irrelevant issues. Shows their political persuasion has caused a blindness to an egregious slaughter of life. At least 95% of abortions occur not because there is some sort of endangerment to a woman’s health…they occur primarily because it would disturb her lifestyle…quite a sick excuse to terminate a life. So lets talk about the rule, not the exception to the rule where you might find comfort in supporting the massacre of innocent helpless humans.



I find no comfort in abortion no, I do recognise that it is a necessary thing for some. I find nothing particularly disturbing in suggesting that abortion for genuine reasons is both needed and essential. I don't recall suggesting that it should be used in all cases, however the judgement of whether that pregnancy is the right time for the parent is entirely down to the parent. We allow our parents to choose our major decisions for us when we cannot, now we assume that our parents cannot do this then do we? What right do we have to force someone into having a child just to assauge our conscience? Are we arrogant enough to assume that every woman who aborts a child because of circumstance is doing so cold-bloodedly without thought? Can you read the minds of every woman and assume it is the mind of a murderer? Do you know every circumstansial abortion and know it is disgustingly done without thought? Do you understand every case and know that the woman would be able to support the child mentally and physically?

Ideally I would prefer to see abortion only on medical or mental reasons related to either the child or parent. Realistically I recognise that there is a need for circumstansial abortions also. If you think that means I don't care about children then you need your head examining. I've see the alternatives fall apart at times. Of course you don't know this is my stance, but you do assume you know...

Quote:
IF one would only support abortion if the life of the mother would be at risk at least I could understand it…but to bring up such a situation on a discussion of abortion misses the point the VAST majority of abortions are simply a matter of convenience…and that is sick beyond compare


In YOUR opinion it is sick beyond compare. I conclude that since the child is too young to comprehend such issues as the mental and physical state of the mother, or the situation the mother is in at the time, I see it as no more a problem than euthanasia.

Quote:
Huh…so you know what a life thinks in the womb?


And I suppose you can prove that it understands everything the mother has to consider when deciding this issue? Now who's giving irrelevances?

Quote:
What effect it might have on the mother…you got to be kidding…please tell me you are kidding….we are talking about murdering a life…what the heck does the affect on the mother have to do with anything??????????


Oh please, cut the emotional BS for a change. Allow me to introduce you to a situation. I know of someone who though fine in herself now had 3 children in 9 years. All of them she mentally could not support. I know this because I saw her break down and loose control with each of them in turn, able to look after them for a month at a time then collapse. I watched as they took all 3 children from her in a row and watched as she attempted suicide twice in that period. What would YOU have done with her? Denied her the right to ever have children because of this? Forced her to accept more children knowing she could not cope? Even now she could have another and she might loose control? Don't even try telling me about support for her, she had two entire families doing whatever they could. I know, that was and is my sister, and I garuntee you that had she got pregnant again soon after the third I would never have arrogantly assumed that I know so much about her that carrying that pregnancy forward is the best thing.

Next in your infinite wisdom you'll no doubt inform us that there can never be a medical reason to abort a child. After all, if there's a 10% (for example) chance that the pregnancy can work and a 90% that it won't and likely kill the mother we MUST go ahead right? I guess my sister was one of the 5%, but according to you she would have been a murderer had she aborted any of them. Instead 1 of them spent 2 years in foster care and now will possibly never see his mother again. The other two live with their grandparents but were badly scarred emotionally from the whole episode. I guess if you can't see a reason in all that you never will.

Quote:
Again if you want to consider the effect upon the mother then logically you must support infanticide because as a father of 3 and as someone who has worked with child abuse as a professional I can tell you “born” children can have a tremendous effect upon women…so if that is the criteria that you want to hold then we should allow women to murder their offspring anytime they will have a negative “affect” upon the mother.



No because once born it is easier to adopt the child as the process of pregnancy has already gone ahead. I don't support child murder then as there are other options that are valid in most situations. In some abortion cases there are not.

Quote:
There has to be an especially tortuous place in hell for those who would willfully and intentionally dismember the most innocent human life forms on earth.


Oops, and here I was expecting a reasoned debate... Emotional arguments aren't quite so valid when you consider the long reaching affects on the woman who aborts a child. But of course they're all cold blooded murderers without reason or thought. *rolls eyes*

One of the most worrying aspects of your entire post is you sound like one of those lovely people who stand outside abortion clinics and shout "BABY KILLER" at the women going in. In fact I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to respond, with the attitude you've so far shown I highly doubt anything like logic can dare to penetrate the shield of your arrogance. Second most worrying is your pathetic attempts to assume things about me simply because I do not agree with your stance. You've neither asked nor bothered to find out. You just assume the worst. Quite disturbing and quite unreasoning really.

I don't mind people disagreeing with abortion, but the pathetic attempts to make it seem utterly uneccesary, or to make it's supporters and women who abort into the architects of some type of genocide just destroy any credibility your points may have had. Unless you're intending to discuss things reasonably then this is pointless. Talk about blindness, at least some appreciate that situations call for abortion sometimes rather than cloud the issue by talking like their stance is the only logical one and introducing ridiculous concepts.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Khaelo
Khaelo


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
posted May 31, 2004 06:54 PM
Edited By: Khaelo on 31 May 2004

more clarification + bonus questions

With regard to the "burden on the mother:"

The burden on the mother is indeed relevant to the abortion debate because a fetus is dependant exclusively on the mother, while an infant can be dependant on any adult who is available.  Therefore, comparing the burden of raising a child to the burden of pregnancy is not quite accurate.  Whatever one may say about the efficiency of our child-reshuffling system, an unwilling parent can give their infant up for adoption.  A pregnant woman in distress cannot hand her fetus over to someone else to bring to term.  A live child can be removed without killing it, but this is not the case for a fetus.  That is one of the pivotal differences between abortion and all-out infanticide, IMO.

I am not clear on the medical details of partial-birth abortions, mostly because my information on them has come exclusively through a Catholic education (a notable bias away from my position makes it more difficult to determine areas of agreement ).  However, as stated above, I don't think a fetus who has reached an age of viability outside the womb should be aborted, i.e. killed then removed.  If there is a medical problem, a fetus with a chance at independant life should be birthed, not aborted.  It may live, it may die anyway, but at least it has a shot.  But it should not be left in utero to endanger the woman.  Even if one accepts personhood as beginning at the moment of conception, wouldn't a medical procedure like this be justified under self-defense?  If a psychotic madperson is threatening bodily harm to someone, even if the unfortunate crazy would be found "not guilty" by reason of insanity, they may still be killed in self-defense.

I am also confused by the statistics provided.  Abortion is surgery, and an unpleasant, dangerous procedure at that.  Who takes that kind of thing lightly?  For convenience?  Also, how many women wait until late in their pregnancy to decide that it is inconvenient?  (although I understand that timing is not important for the "moment of conception" postion)  The source for the statistics would be enlightening as well.  Do abortion clinics take down the exact reasons why their clients seek their services?
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Aculias
Aculias


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
posted May 31, 2004 07:22 PM

Most women dont use thier brains just like us men & they get pregnant when they are very young when they should seriously take some anger management classes & supportive emotionally,financially & all that goes with it.
Sometimes kids should never be born even if you love them to death because women use thier kids for thier own excuse if they cant support them, even if they do love them to death.
I dont support Abortions either, but I defanately dont support kids going through unstabability.
Moving in unstable houses,living in unsanitary places, yalls probally dont know but it's common.
Even religiously women get pregnant because they dont use thier brains.
Religion dont have much to do on this issue.
Understand that theres only a few women that devote 99% of thier life living under the code of thier lord.
Were all human & make mistakes, even if you do look up at the lord of your religion that much.
Kids that have to go through the unsupportive parent or if any of them are abusive, they need to give the kid up for adoption.
At least then do they have a chance to succeding in this life.
ALot of poor mothers LOVE to abuse Social security powers by having many kids to get more money for thier self in GA & food stamps which alot sell or use the money for drugs.
Kids dint need to go through that.
Not the kids fault for thier environment thier parenthood brings them.
I dont support abortion,dangerous for the female the procedure too.
My XXXGF had my kids abortion & the only reason she did that was to get back at me for breaking up with her for good reasons.
I despise abortion,I dont know maybe in some extent it can be nessary for the kids future & sake.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Consis
Consis


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
posted June 01, 2004 09:29 PM

Partial Birth Abortion Law Deemed UnConstitutional By SanFransisco Judge


(copied from cnn)
SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- A federal judge Tuesday declared the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional, saying the measure infringes on a woman's right to choose.

The ruling applies to the nation's 900 or so Planned Parenthood clinics and their doctors, who perform roughly half of all abortions in the United States.

U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton's ruling came in one of three lawsuits challenging the legislation President Bush signed last year.

"The act poses an undue burden on a woman's right to choose an abortion," she wrote.

Federal judges in New York and Nebraska also heard challenges to the law earlier this year but have yet to rule.

Planned Parenthood lawyer Beth Parker welcomed the ruling, saying it sends a "strong message" to Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Bush administration "that the government should not be intruding on very sensitive and private medical decisions."

Government attorneys did not immediately return calls for comment.

Bush signed the law in November, saying "a terrible form of violence has been directed against children who are inches from birth while the law looked the other way."

The law represented the first substantial federal legislation limiting a woman's right to choose an abortion, and abortion rights activists said it ran counter to three decades of Supreme Court precedent.

In the banned procedure -- known as intact dilation and extraction to doctors, but called partial-birth abortion by opponents -- the living fetus is partially removed from the womb, and its skull is punctured or crushed.

Justice Department attorneys argued that the procedure is inhumane, causes pain to the fetus and is never medically necessary.

Abortion proponents, however, argued that a woman's health during an abortion is more important than how the fetus is terminated, and that the banned method is often a safer solution that a conventional abortion, in which the fetus is dismembered in the womb and then removed in pieces.

The measure, which President Clinton had twice vetoed, was seen by abortion rights activists as a fundamental departure from the Supreme Court's precedent in Roe v. Wade. It shifted the debate from a woman's right to choose and focused on the plight of the fetus.

Abortion advocates said the law was the government's first step toward outlawing abortion. Violating the law carries a two-year prison term.
(copied from cnn)

I'm still gathering information before writing a response to some of the other posters here. One thing is for certain though, this subject is not taken lightly by anyone.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Khaelo
Khaelo


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
posted June 03, 2004 08:16 PM
Edited By: Khaelo on 5 Jun 2004

Vadskye says:
Quote:
I myself am pro-life, and I think that it's your own fault you had a kid when you didn't want to. Even in the case of disabilities, I think that you should keep your kid. That's no one's fault (unless you were drinking while you were pregnant or something.) and it's especially not the kid's. He deserves a chance to live. I'd be interested to hear some opposing viewpoints.

Behold -- other viewpoints!

May I ask what you think in the case of rape?

Edit:  Clarification on poorly-worded question.  Vadskye, what is your opinion on abortion in cases where it clearly isn't the woman's fault that she is pregnant, e.g. if she were raped?
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Aculias
Aculias


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
posted June 04, 2004 02:29 AM

That is the most stupidest question I ever seen from you,What about rape, what do you think Women can mentally function after what happened to them.
Only Girls who are brainless would even think about keeping the baby.
They wouldnt function right after going through such ordeals,it will be in thier head forever.
I would think that adoption would be the best bet because of the tought of who the father is & the child needs a chance to make it in life.
Abortion may be a possibility but I never believe in it but sometimes children should of not even been born in some extent then to go through a hoarde of BS that will effect thier life forever just because of thier parents.

____________
Dreaming of a Better World

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
bjorn190
bjorn190


Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jebus maker
posted June 05, 2004 10:23 AM

How about this easy solution?

The pro-life people dont have abortions,
and the pro-choice people get to have abortions of they want?

That way, nobody imposes their values on another. If we do it the other way and let the pro-life people impose their values on others, I say that the pro-choice people should get a "impose value on pro-life people for free" card and use it for whaterver they want, like:

1. Pro-life people dont get to go outside after 6pm.
2. Pro-life people only get to have sex once in their lifetime, and only to create a baby.
3. Pro-life people dont get to eat meat, because its mean to cows.
4. Pro-life people should pay a 50% tax on their income to help all the newborn babies in africa.

These are only examples.

Thing is, if you're a nut of some sort.. its ok, as long as you dont try to impose your values upon others. Try to deal with whats wrong inside you instead of looking for others to blame.


 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 92 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 20 40 60 80 ... 88 89 90 91 92 · NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.2191 seconds