|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
posted May 17, 2013 08:10 PM |
|
|
|
How many Europian countries are debating this issue? I only hear about the USA here. In scandinavia this is nor never will be an issue at all...
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 17, 2013 08:17 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 20:18, 17 May 2013.
|
|
If i remember right it's illegal in Ireland, heavy catholics and all... Mostly, it's about religion and America is way too religious compared to Europe. And of course the Irish can always take a bus to London if they choose to have an abortion.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 17, 2013 08:43 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 20:47, 17 May 2013.
|
Quote:
I think, there can be no arguing against the fact that up to the point when a fetus can be removed from the womb and kept alive somewhere else, a fetus is something "society" has nothing to do with; it's solely and exclusively within the responsibility of the INDIVIDUAL pregnant.
Uh, no, that is not an opinion I accept and it is certainly not a "fact."
From what embryologists say an embryo is a living human organism. Society has an interest in not allowing innocents to be murdered. And there is none more innocent or helpless than the youngest of us.
Less than one percent of the cases where abortion is sought is because a woman was raped. And most women who have been raped don't seek abortion. The vast majority of times sex occurs sex is consensual.
Every time you chose to have sex you are consenting to the duties and responsibilities of being a parent. If you don't realize there is a possibility of a child being created as a result of you having a sex act you are a moron. Therefore when you help create a child you should "man up" or "woman up" and take accountability and responsibility and fulfill your duties as a parent and "partner" of the person you chose to have sex with.
If a woman does not want a child there are agencies that will pay all the bills related to her having the child if she will agree to give the child up for adoption. There are thousands of pro-life mother helping centers in the US alone. There is simply no reason to kill the baby if having the baby poses no risk to the mother.
I have the right to control my body but my right is not absolute. If I use my hands to steal I have violated your rights. If I use my hands to choke you to death I have violated your rights. If a woman uses her body to kill her baby's body she has violated the rights of the baby and is a murderer.
Quote:
If that is so, why would society make laws about how to deal with them? Basically, if you prohibit an abortion as a means of "getting rid" of a fetus, than you obviously have to forbid not only an abortion, but also everything that MAY lead to a miscarriage or to a "damage" of a fetus. That in turn would mean, as often stated, that every such case would have to be investigated.
How idiotic. A miscarriage is a natural death. People die naturally at all ages. Now, if the woman wants to cause her baby to die, yeah, that should be illegal. Society has a duty to protect innocent human organisms.
Quote:
Here is another angle: I think, there can be no discussion, that in case of a rape the possibility of an abortion MUST exist, otherwise the society is not fair to women and invites men to rape their wifes should they don't want (more) children.
But if abortion was allowed only in that case - a woman could always get an abortion by claiming a rape, so a law against abortion wouldn't make sense with such a rule which seems to be a basic right.
All of this points to the same thing: that it makes no sense to forbid abortions. A society can only try to adopt policies that will keep the number of unwanted pregnancies as low as possible to avoid abortions.
What innane statements. Abortion being illegal provides no motivation for a husband to rape his wife.
NO, it is not a basic human right to kill babies. A basic human right is the right to life.
The suggestion that abortion should be legal is a slap in the face of mothers, fathers, and children everywhere throughout all time. It implies somehow children are bad and getting pregnant is bad and loony leftists put pressure on women to kill their babies and tell them how wonderfully liberating it is to kill their babies and be "free" of motherhood. How utterly evil and how utterly innane.
Being a parent is wonderul thing, not something to be avoided at all costs, even to the point of murdering children.
Women don't need to apologize to a boyfriend for getting pregnant if the boyfriend gets upset. They need to tell the boyfriend to take a hike.
The other loony left argument is "Oh, but women can't have children if they want to get anywhere in this world." That is not true. But even if it were, it is evil to kill a child to gain a promotion.
Unborn children ARE NOT the enemy of Mommy and liberals painting them as such makes me want to puke. Liberal paint Mommy against Daddy, Daddy against Mommy, and Babby against everyone. Sick.
Every human life should be protected from conception to death. Human life can't be subject to arbitrary whims of others or subject to the selfishness of others.
If you don't want to be a parent don't have sex. Pretty simple.
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 17, 2013 09:23 PM |
|
|
|
Christ. You are like a broken record. And you never address points. You just regurgitate the same sermon over and over and over and over and over again, without any rhyme or reason.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted May 17, 2013 09:29 PM |
|
|
Sex is a very important part of a relationship. Without it there is no relationship, in general. People should be able to have sex without fearing an unwanted child, because that's how couples work.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 17, 2013 09:30 PM |
|
Edited by Hobbit at 21:32, 17 May 2013.
|
I'm afraid all these thoughts repeated over and over again (especially about embryologists and human DNA) are not enough to claim yourself "free thinker"... especially when you're certainly not reading what your opponent said.
Sorry.
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 17, 2013 09:44 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 21:45, 17 May 2013.
|
Elodin, please refrain from calling other posts (or parts of other posts) idiotic and inane. I will start editing your posts and silencing you if I have to.
In addition, I'm not sure how you call all miscarriages "natural", and I already outlined why this is so in my post yesterday.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 17, 2013 11:24 PM |
|
|
Elodin:
Quote:
Every time you chose to have sex you are consenting to the duties and responsibilities of being a parent.
You are consenting to the risk of conception, which is not the same as risk of becoming a parent. It's like if you choose to play a sport, you consent to a certain risk of injuries, but you don't consent to living with the injury for the rest of your life if you happen to receive a treatable injury. Also, if you're giving your consent, there must be some previously existing entity that is receiving your consent. If you sign an employment contract, your employer is that entity. If you sign a marriage contract, your spouse is that entity. Both of them exist prior to the agreement, and are parties to it. The child, however, does not exist before conception, and thus you cannot make a contract with it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 17, 2013 11:28 PM |
|
|
Everytime I have sex I am only consenting to sex  Too bad for Elodin.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted May 18, 2013 12:15 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Everytime I have sex I am only consenting to sex Too bad for Elodin.
ditto.
Elodin already knows my opinion (pro-choice), so there's not point in arguing with him.
I will ask this, though.
Elodin, say you have a daughter, 16-17, and she get's knocked up by a guy. The guy then ends up dying, so you can't force him to help her take care of it, and his parents are, naturally, consumed with guilt and want nothing to do with your daughter or the child(whom they are probably calling "that little harlot" or worse). She doesn't want it, either, She had plans to go to college and study theology/law/politics etc, a future that you have put aside money to support. You don't nearly have enough money to help raise the child, and there is no-one else willing to step in.
what do you do?
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 18, 2013 03:27 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Elodin, please refrain from calling other posts (or parts of other posts) idiotic and inane. I will start editing your posts and silencing you if I have to.
In addition, I'm not sure how you call all miscarriages "natural", and I already outlined why this is so in my post yesterday.
I did not say ALL miscarriages are natural. Below is what I said.
Quote:
A miscarriage is a natural death. People die naturally at all ages. Now, if the woman wants to cause her baby to die, yeah, that should be illegal. Society has a duty to protect innocent human organisms.
The third sentence modifies the first two statements. A woman can purposefully cause a miscarriage by doing certain things. She could of course also accidentally do something to cause a miscarriage.
I stated in an earlier post about the topic that a woman deliberately causing herself to miscarriage is murder. She is taking the innocent life of the young human inside her. And I stated previously that if she accidentally did something that cause her to miscarriage that should not be prosecuted as a crime. In that case she poses no threat to anyone and certainly is punishing herself. And I said in that case helping her educate herself on how to better take care of herself and her baby would perhaps be appropriate.
Quote:
Christ. You are like a broken record. And you never address points. You just regurgitate the same sermon over and over and over and over and over again, without any rhyme or reason.
Day after day you make false statements about me and time after time you have refused to answer my questions. I could certainly go back and and show myself addressing point after point after point that easily shows your statement that I don't address points is utterly false. It is you who to me sound like a broken record, repeating the same false claims daily.
Quote:
Quote:
Elodin:
quote:Every time you chose to have sex you are consenting to the duties and responsibilities of being a parent.
You are consenting to the risk of conception, which is not the same as risk of becoming a parent.
I do not see how consenting to the risk of pregnancy is not the same as consenting to the possibility of becoming a parent unless you claim a parent has the natural right to kill the child and thus no longer be a parent.
I do not believe in an innate right to kill children. I believe in a human organism's innate right to live.
Of course not all parents will fulfill their obligations once a pregnancy occurs. Some men will cut and run. They are selfish. They have no sense of obligation to the child or to the mother of the child. That does not mean that no moral obligation exists.
Quote:
It's like if you choose to play a sport, you consent to a certain risk of injuries, but you don't consent to living with the injury for the rest of your life if you happen to receive a treatable injury.
Pregnancy is not an illness or an injury. Killing the young human organism (child) is not "treatment."
Quote:
Also, if you're giving your consent, there must be some previously existing entity that is receiving your consent.
Not really. when you have sex you know there is a possibility of pregnancy.
By having sex you are making yourself subject to moral obligations that come with a possible pregnancy. Obligations to the mother/father and to the prospective child.
You may not have wanted to become a father when had sex but you knew that might become one when you had sex. You chose to have sex. You chose the obligations that come with the consequences of sex. Morally.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 18, 2013 03:35 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 03:40, 18 May 2013.
|
Quote:
Elodin:
Quote:
Every time you chose to have sex you are consenting to the duties and responsibilities of being a parent.
You are consenting to the risk of conception, which is not the same as risk of becoming a parent. It's like if you choose to play a sport, you consent to a certain risk of injuries, but you don't consent to living with the injury for the rest of your life if you happen to receive a treatable injury.
Additionally, (since you say you are married with four kids, I assume you know this already)if you're in a long-term relationship and living together with someone, sex can be a pretty spontaneous thing that can pop up any time. Especially if the relationship is a happy and healthy one. Now, according to your standards, terminating an unwanted pregnancy even in its first day is murder, so unless you're very neat and organized (and most people aren't, some even consider it a turn off when it comes to sex) there will probably be some unwanted child in your life at some point. Keep in mind that terminating a few cells in the early weeks and giving away your born child to social services is not the same thing, not in practice, not emotionally. Adaption is not the answer in rape cases too, you ask women to give away their birth children, which is even beyond their capacity to do sometime, when the baby is once born. And why, because your subjective definition of personhood starts within the minute of conception... You realize that you are also defining a personhood intentionally or unintentionally, by defining to terminate a zygote as murder.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 18, 2013 03:42 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Elodin, say you have a daughter, 16-17, and she get's knocked up by a guy. The guy then ends up dying, so you can't force him to help her take care of it, and his parents are, naturally, consumed with guilt and want nothing to do with your daughter or the child(whom they are probably calling "that little harlot" or worse). She doesn't want it, either, She had plans to go to college and study theology/law/politics etc, a future that you have put aside money to support. You don't nearly have enough money to help raise the child, and there is no-one else willing to step in.
what do you do?
I'm not sure how often I have to keep repeating this.
It is not ok to kill an innocent young human organism because you don't want it.
Additionally you have presented a situation that will never occur. There are thousands of agencies that will help mothers.
But the question being about my own daughter if I did not have the current finances to take care of a kid (though they are NOT as expensive as liberals love to claim) I'd take another job or start another business or sell something. I'd never say,"Honey, you need to go have that kid killed at the clinic." Nor would I say, "You're on your own *****."
Family and friends should help care for one another, not murder each other.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 18, 2013 04:09 AM |
|
|
Is there ANYONE on this board of hundreds of people, that agree with Elodin?
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 18, 2013 04:19 AM |
|
|
|
If you look at earlier pages, there are (or used to be) other pro-lifers. Although, they are much less aggressive and they seem to be talking about their own choice or stance rather than suggesting to outlaw abortion for all women.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 18, 2013 05:10 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 05:47, 18 May 2013.
|
@Elodin
Quote:
A miscarriage is a natural death. People die naturally at all ages. Now, if the woman wants to cause her baby to die, yeah, that should be illegal. Society has a duty to protect innocent human organisms.
Right. So society, which has a duty to protect innocent human organisms (including embryos), should we prevent fat people from having babies, because obesity has been linked to miscarriage. Correct?
EDIT: And in the event you think that example is a little too bordering on the absurd, then what about this one: should it be illegal for a woman to smoke while pregnant? What about drinking alcohol? Eating unhealthy food? Going to work and submitting herself to stress? Supposing I agree with you that direct abortion should be illegal under the idea that society has a duty to protect the life of the unborn, I wonder - how far then is society entitled to go to protect a fetus from the actions of the mother? When do the risks and consequences become great enough to give society the right to intervene, in your opinion?
So we're clear, I'm willing to hear how you answer this question, because being perfectly honest, I have an open mind when it comes to abortion. I don't think either side has a bullet-proof case. Obviously I don't buy into the religious angle, but I see some merits to the pro-life argument. I also see problems. A lot more problems than merits, if I'm being candid, but still... So help me see your solutions to the problems.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted May 18, 2013 05:24 AM |
|
|
Quote:
@Elodin
Quote:
A miscarriage is a natural death. People die naturally at all ages. Now, if the woman wants to cause her baby to die, yeah, that should be illegal. Society has a duty to protect innocent human organisms.
Right. So society, which has a duty to protect innocent human organisms (including embryos), should prevent fat people from having babies, because obesity has been linked to miscarriage. Correct?
EDIT: And in the event you think that example is a little too bordering on the absurd, then what about this one: should it be illegal for a woman to smoke while pregnant? What about drinking alcohol? Eating unhealthy food? Going to work and submitting herself to stress? I wonder - how far is society entitled to go to protect a fetus from the actions of the mother?
And the population growth of the US grinds to a stand still.  
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 18, 2013 06:02 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 06:04, 18 May 2013.
|
Thing about abortion is that it's such an incendiary topic that it's virtually impossible to have an engaging, open discussion about it. I don't get a whole lot of exposure to pro-life viewpoints in real life - at least, not with anyone I feel comfortable having an open conversation about it with. Mostly because they just want to cram their viewpoint down your throat and aren't willing or interested to even hear arguments to the contrary, and they get truly angry at you on a personal level if you're not a kindred spirit. Mind, there are plenty on the pro-choice side with this kind of tunnel-vision as well, but I venture to think there are a lot more "moderate" pro-choice leaners than "moderate" pro-life leaners. Could be wrong on that count, but... Anyway, I yearn to have a conversation with a pro-life adherant who is willing to approach the topic without viewing me as a hostile adversary. I'm truly interested in the viewpoint, but I've yet to encounter a pro-lifer in my personal life who isn't afraid to think about the problems I see with the stance and give me answers that aren't just fingers-in-the-ears regurgitation of the same arguments I'm trying to dig into and understand on a deeper level.
I lean pro-choice for various reasons I don't think I've really disclosed here, at least not in any explicit fashion. Some of those are scientific but most aren't. And as such I acknowledge my position has weaknesses and I don't believe there is any True, Right answer to the problem. This is why I am interested in the other side.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 18, 2013 06:15 AM |
|
|
Elodin:Quote:
I do not see how consenting to the risk of pregnancy is not the same as consenting to the possibility of becoming a parent unless you claim a parent has the natural right to kill the child and thus no longer be a parent.
Given that parents can give their children up for adoption (and I assume you're fine with that), they are not actually obligated to be parents.
Quote:
Not really. when you have sex you know there is a possibility of pregnancy.
When people have sex, who is involved? The two people of the opposite sex. The two people consent and have sex. They know that there is a certain risk of pregnancy, and as long as both partners take reasonable precautions that are agreed upon, neither partner can blame the other for causing the pregnancy. But that is as far as consent goes when it comes to pregnancy - the woman consents to the possibility of becoming pregnant, but to nothing else. It's also important to note that the issue of consent is between the two people having sex - if one of them does something the other hasn't agreed to, they have a claim against the other person. But because the fetus is not a party to the agreement, he doesn't have a claim based on it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 18, 2013 07:34 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Family and friends should help care for one another, not murder each other.
You are the one defining it as murder, but let's skip that for now. What you do is absolutely wishful thinking here, some of those women don't have families at all, put aside supportive ones. The procedure of abortion is a very disturbing thing for a woman to go through and sometimes also a financial burden. Nobody goes through it just for the kicks of it. You talk as if women say "what the hell, let me just get pregnant, I'll have the doctor scrape my uterus tomorrow anyway."
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
