The Sinister Design Forums

General => General Discussion => Politics => Topic started by: Deagonx on September 22, 2011, 07:27:32 PM

Title: Abortion
Post by: Deagonx on September 22, 2011, 07:27:32 PM
I am here to speak about yes, Abortion.

The argument for abortion seems to be something alone the lines of: ďIts none of your business, it is the motherís choice.Ē

And, while I have not actually talked about this topic that much, why is a fetus not legitimately considered a life? It is just in its early stage of development.

Secondly, if a woman didnít want to have a baby, why was she having unprotected sex? (Yes, I realize the circumstances of rape can go against this but that doesnít make it untrue. Because not all abortions are rape abortions. Only 1 in 100 are.)

Do any of you forumers have a child? You probably donít, but do you know someone with a small child? When you look at your child, or your friendís child, would you find it easy to tell a doctor to kill it?

And, while it is always a choice in abortion does the baby have no say in it? Who knows who he could grow up to be!

Also, it isnít like you have to keep the child if you legitimately arenít ready to be a parent, there are adoption options. (No Rhyme Intended).

I havenít thought heavily on the topic or else I would have more, but as for now that is my statement.


PS: How is abortion legal, but things like this can happen? http://healthfreedoms.org/2011/07/02/miscarriage-face-prison-time-for-murder/
Title: Pro-Choice vs Pro-Life
Post by: SmartyPants on September 22, 2011, 10:14:37 PM
I don't really have strong believes on either side of this issue, because I see legitimate points on both sides.  I don't have the right (or the balls) to tell women what they can or can't do with their bodies.  Since this a women's issue, women should be left to argue among themselves about it, while males focus on their own exclusive issues.  I do like to play devil's advocate when it comes to the abortion debate, because both sides of the issue are so polarized that both sides sounds crazy and stupid.  It is fun to mock crazy, stupid people.

Secondly, if a woman didnít want to have a baby, why was she having unprotected sex?
It is naive of you to think that one can't get pregnant from using protection.  Both condoms and "the pill" fail about 3% of the time. That means if you have sex 100 times, then you will have 3 good chances to make a baby.

Do any of you forumers have a child? You probably donít, but do you know someone with a small child? When you look at your child, or your friendís child, would you find it easy to tell a doctor to kill it?
Are you really comparing an mindless, emotionless fetus to a young child.  It is like saying you murdered a baby chicken every time you eat eggs.

And, while it is always a choice in abortion does the baby have no say in it? Who knows who he could grow up to be!
Someone probably told Hitler's mom the same thing when she considered abortion.

Also, it isnít like you have to keep the child if you legitimately arenít ready to be a parent, there are adoption options.
I am strongly for this, because both my mother and aunt were adopted.  If a pregnant 16-year-old in New York decided to had an abortion instead of giving up her baby for adoption, then neither my mother or me would be alive.
Title: Re: Pro-Choice vs Pro-Life
Post by: Deagonx on September 23, 2011, 01:33:28 PM
I don't really have strong believes on either side of this issue, because I see legitimate points on both sides.  I don't have the right (or the balls) to tell women what they can or can't do with their bodies.  Since this a women's issue, women should be left to argue among themselves about it, while males focus on their own exclusive issues.  I do like to play devil's advocate when it comes to the abortion debate, because both sides of the issue are so polarized that both sides sounds crazy and stupid.  It is fun to mock crazy, stupid people.

Secondly, if a woman didnít want to have a baby, why was she having unprotected sex?
It is naive of you to think that one can't get pregnant from using protection.  Both condoms and "the pill" fail about 3% of the time. That means if you have sex 100 times, then you will have 3 good chances to make a baby.

Do any of you forumers have a child? You probably donít, but do you know someone with a small child? When you look at your child, or your friendís child, would you find it easy to tell a doctor to kill it?
Are you really comparing an mindless, emotionless fetus to a young child.  It is like saying you murdered a baby chicken every time you eat eggs.

And, while it is always a choice in abortion does the baby have no say in it? Who knows who he could grow up to be!
Someone probably told Hitler's mom the same thing when she considered abortion.

Also, it isnít like you have to keep the child if you legitimately arenít ready to be a parent, there are adoption options.
I am strongly for this, because both my mother and aunt were adopted.  If a pregnant 16-year-old in New York decided to had an abortion instead of giving up her baby for adoption, then neither my mother or me would be alive.

1. Still, having sex isn't just for fun it is a serious part of the reproductive process. There are always risks, and why should someone lose their chance at life because of someone who didn't want to face up to that responsibility?

2. There is significant brain activity even in the womb. And you are.

3. Hitler's mother was talked out of an abortion by her doctor. But I'm not sure that applies here.

4. You agreed with me. So :P
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Rob on September 24, 2011, 08:11:12 PM
Do any of you forumers have a child? You probably don’t, but do you know someone with a small child? When you look at your child, or your friend’s child, would you find it easy to tell a doctor to kill it?
Are you really comparing an mindless, emotionless fetus to a young child.  It is like saying you murdered a baby chicken every time you eat eggs.
Most people wouldn't kill a small child because they view them as innocent people. With or without brain activity, though, a fetus is still biologically human. Even if it doesn't have all of its vital organs or extremeties developed, they are, at a cellular level, human. Their DNA makes them a unique human, meaning they are both human and innocent (definetly more innocent than most small children above a very very young age).
By the way, chickens can lay unfertilized eggs. Also, many people don't mind killing chickens for food very much, so I'm guessing they wouldn't care that much about killing a baby chicken.
Also, about this:
I don't have the right (or the balls) to tell women what they can or can't do with their bodies.
The issue for me isn't what women are doing with their own bodies (even if I do think it is foolish and wrong) because sometimes, the women are the victums, not the problem. However, I do have problems with them doing something to someone else's body.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: ArtDrake on September 25, 2011, 02:41:19 PM
Of course women should be allowed to have abortions. Carrying a child has extreme health risks, and complications are quite likely if childbirth is attempted at a young age. "Giving the child away" is possibly an option, but emotionally, it's like delivering a stillborn. You go through the horrible process of pregnancy and the effort of giving birth just to lose the child. While morally, canoodling at a young age is not something I condone, it's okay, and accidents happen, and instead of scarring the 16-, 17-, or 18-year-old girl or young woman with having to bear a child because of one such accident is a thousandfold more unconscionable. The stigma associated with a bulging belly while at school is awful, giving an impression of promiscuity in the youth, and the alternative of not going to school is even more unpleasant; the young woman could lose an entire year of her education!

As for you right-wing, Bible-belt, it's-a-real-child people, wake up: fish have significant brain activity during development, but roe are tasty. We don't kill baby chickens when we eat eggs, since that egg we just ate was never going to be a chicken -- it was going to be eaten, if that makes any sense to you. Embryoes have gills before they have lungs. Killing off fish-baby before it becomes a screaming, kicking, pain in the uterus for the woman that didn't even want to have a child is A-okay by me.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Deagonx on September 25, 2011, 03:31:09 PM
I understand there are some health risks, but having intercourse in all has risks. And this is not just about 16, 17, and 18 year old girls. Most abortions happen with birth control in mind. You can rave on about all the poor things that will happen to a girl during pregnancy, and while I'm not saying it WILL be awful, I don't see any reason why the person she is carrying shouldn't have a chance at life for her mistakes.

Fish may have significant brain activity during development, but they are not going to evolve into a human being. And if you look at even BORN children as a "screaming, kicking, pain in the uterus" then perhaps you shouldn't participate in a discussion about the children you hate so much.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: ArtDrake on September 25, 2011, 06:06:36 PM
Yes. Intercourse has risks, and we try to prevent them. Abortion is a method by which we do so.

I'm not raving.

The embryo she carries is usually a mistake; the embryo she concieves when she actually wants a child will have a chance at life.

Embryos do not evolve into humans either. I was merely invalidating your point that concieved human embryos having significant neural activity does not mean that they are people.

I look at children who are born despite the mother's wishes as pains. The mother, for her own reason, is not ready to have a child, and yet has one. This is, from her perspective, quite a pain.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Deagonx on September 25, 2011, 07:46:37 PM
Yes. Intercourse has risks, and we try to prevent them. Abortion is a method by which we do so.

I'm not raving.

The embryo she carries is usually a mistake; the embryo she concieves when she actually wants a child will have a chance at life.

Embryos do not evolve into humans either. I was merely invalidating your point that concieved human embryos having significant neural activity does not mean that they are people.

I look at children who are born despite the mother's wishes as pains. The mother, for her own reason, is not ready to have a child, and yet has one. This is, from her perspective, quite a pain.

The death of a person for convenience. Mostly.

Yes you are.

A mistake that someone should have to own up to.

The point was that they are not mindless collections of cells.

And the child, why doesn't he get any consideration?
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Steelfist on September 26, 2011, 11:08:47 AM
Before I become mired in the endless moral quagmire of this debate, I will say that I do not condone abortion as a form of birth control - Many people have sex without protection then turn to abortion as a last ditch birth control method. It's more expensive, and it brings up the aforementioned moral quagmire; it's simply not a logical solution.

Now, on to the main debate.

I am very much a 'Pro-Choice' arguer - It's none of my business what a woman does or does not do - it is their moral and ethical choice; I do not believe I have the right to tell them they cannot have an abortion (And I don't believe anybody else has that right either - apart from the individual).

However, the central crux of the matter seems to hinge on what you believe a 'Living Human' actually is. Do your research, make your own decisions - I'm not telling you what to believe. I'm just telling you not to force those views on others.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: ArtDrake on September 26, 2011, 08:02:36 PM
And my seemingly rather callous point is that even if the child is a "real person" and an "individual" after conception, abortion is still completely ethical.

Also, if the mother doesn't think that the embryo constitutes a person, it's her belief, and she can choose to act on that belief.
Title: Re: Pro-Choice vs Pro-Life
Post by: SmartyPants on September 28, 2011, 06:14:47 PM
1. Still, having sex isn't just for fun it is a serious part of the reproductive process.
In the age of birth control, people see sex and reprodution as separate.  Even if you don't like, that is how the world works.

Most people wouldn't kill a small child because they view them as innocent people. With or without brain activity, though, a fetus is still biologically human.
Out of curiosity, would you pull the plug on someone who is brain dead?

The stigma associated with a bulging belly while at school is awful, giving an impression of promiscuity in the youth, and the alternative of not going to school is even more unpleasant; the young woman could lose an entire year of her education!
At my high school, we had four pregnant girls who didn't drop out.  Yes, they were ridiculed, but they had close friends to rely on.  I personally okay with people being ridiculed for mistakes, because it will make onlookers would be more cautious, so they don't make the same mistake.  To me, abortion does seem like the easy way out (especially for those who can easily afford it).

Before I become mired in the endless moral quagmire of this debate, I will say that I do not condone abortion as a form of birth control - Many people have sex without protection then turn to abortion as a last ditch birth control method. It's more expensive, and it brings up the aforementioned moral quagmire; it's simply not a logical solution.
I think almost everyone agrees that abortion is not acceptable form of birth control, but banning abortion for everyone doesn't sound like a good solution.  I hate nothing more then the govenment punishing everyone for the mistakes of the few.

I don't know about you, but I think people should not have kids untill they are ready to.

The abortion debate almost always comes down to what people believe at what point something is considered a person.  There are some such as the Catholic Church who believe that human life starts as sperm and unfertilized eggs, while the extreme other end believes that the baby is not a person untill it is born.  I personally believe to be human, one must have consciousness, reasoning, self-motivation, the ability to communicate, and self-awareness.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: ArtDrake on September 28, 2011, 08:03:06 PM
I agree, SmartyPants, that it's a viable option for some girls to go through with the pregnancy at school, but for others, I don't think that it would be the right choice. That choice should be theirs to make.

It's strange that we agree so precisely on some issues (like drug use, teen pregnancy, and I'm sure there was a third), but have such contrasting views in other places and times. I mean, you're pretty socially liberal for such a fiscal and generally political conservative.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Deagonx on September 29, 2011, 06:02:18 PM
Also, if the mother doesn't think that the embryo constitutes a person, it's her belief, and she can choose to act on that belief.

I don't believe blacks constitute as people. It's my belief, and I should be able to act on that belief.

See how that works?

I believe they constitute as a person. So I should do my best to protect those people.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: SmartyPants on September 29, 2011, 09:17:20 PM
It's strange that we agree so precisely on some issues (like drug use, teen pregnancy, and I'm sure there was a third), but have such contrasting views in other places and times. I mean, you're pretty socially liberal for such a fiscal and generally political conservative.
FWI, someone who is a socially liberal and a fisical conservative is called a libertarian.  I am a strong believer in individual rights.  The govenment doesn't need to be so involved in so many aspects of our everyones lives.

Deagonx, I don't know how to respond to the ridiculousness of your last post without insulting you, so I am going to say "No comment".
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Deagonx on September 30, 2011, 06:40:48 PM
Deagonx, I don't know how to respond to the ridiculousness of your last post without insulting you, so I am going to say "No comment".

No, please do go on. I *really* would love to hear it.

(And hopefully ert can let you slide on this one)
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: ArtDrake on September 30, 2011, 07:11:19 PM
The question is, Deagonx, is there even a single black person in your womb?
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Deagonx on September 30, 2011, 07:13:51 PM
The question is, Deagonx, is there even a single black person in your womb?

You're saying that it's her choice because the child is inside her?

It was her choice to let that child inside her. To let that man do whatever he did with her. Sex has risks, I don't think a life should be taken for lack of responsibility.

(Once again, 1 in 100 abortions are due to rape. I do not want someone saying we should be pro-choice for those 1 in 100 abortions. Rape is awful and even worse if you are stuck with a baby. But the thousands of other lives taken for such a small minority is not worth it to me, I wish to discuss it no further)
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: ArtDrake on September 30, 2011, 07:20:32 PM
The mother does not "let the child in," unless you subscribe to the Homunculus argument for origins. (Sorry, can't find a link)

So, you believe that even if a life is not capable of knowing that it is being taken, your moral standards should apply to it?
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Deagonx on September 30, 2011, 07:36:51 PM
The mother does not "let the child in," unless you subscribe to the Homunculus argument for origins. (Sorry, can't find a link)

So, you believe that even if a life is not capable of knowing that it is being taken, your moral standards should apply to it?

I'm sure there are those who are not capable of even understand that they are "alive" or that they can "die"

And this issue isn't like gay marriage where I'm trying to shove my beliefs down others. I'd prefer to save lives here. If I believe they are lives I should try to protect them as they are being mercilessly destroyed.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: ArtDrake on September 30, 2011, 08:33:56 PM
Cute fluffy kittens at the animal shelter have to be mercilessly destroyed. So do babies for which the act of being delivered would harm the mother.

Having a baby isn't a consequence; it's a joyous event that must come at the correct time.

And as for all your high-horse ranting concerning the immorality of sexual intercourse, and how women are being promiscuous, and how 99% of abortions are for rape cases, I'll tell you several things that may or may not come as a shock to you:

Monogamous couples engage in sexual intercourse frequently, and when birth control methods fail (which is a very common occurrence), other methods must take place. Such behavior isn't immoral, and does not mean that the female involved needs to be round for 9 months and give away a baby at the end.
Overpopulation is a problem.
Sometimes, pregnancy would prevent life fulfillment; if you're a mother who suddenly has a young child (particularly a single mother), you now can't really get your education.
Some people aren't ready to be parents.
Being pregnant sucks, and it's usually not worth it unless you're going to have a baby you can keep.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Rob on October 05, 2011, 08:20:20 PM
First of all, I'm going to address this issue.
Out of curiosity, would you pull the plug on someone who is brain dead?
A person who is brain dead has no hope of recovery or any other life. An embryo does have hope for life. Even if brain activity hasn't started for an embryo, it will in short time. If you're brain dead, your brain isn't going to start back up.
Now, addressing Duckling's issues.
I doubt that most babies aborted are aborted because giving birth to the baby would kill or significantly harm the mother. Furthermore, I have absolutely no clue where you got the idea that babies must be killed if the act of being delivered would harm the mother. Abortion is an option, not an absolute.
Getting pregnant is as much of a consequence of sexual intercourse as a bullet fired is a consequence of pulling the trigger of a gun. Perhaps you meant that society should view getting pregnant as a good thing that was planned out instead of an unexpected consequence, but the sad truth is, not all pregnancies are planned.
Apparently, our views on the morality or immorality of sexual intercourse are different. When birth control fails, other methods (abortion) doesn't have to take place. Actions may have undesired consequences. The consequences may be very unpleasant to deal with. However, if you are able to completely get away from all the consequences, you don't learn much of anything, and so you don't do much in the way of preventing the consequences from occurring again.
Overpopulation may be a problem in India or some other country with a ridiculously high population density. It isnít anywhere near as big of a deal in America.
As I stated above, actions have consequences. Sometimes they are very unpleasant. However, the consequences are easily avoidable. For example, not having sexual intercourse before one has gotten the education they desire would take care of the problem of not being able to receive an education.
If someone has sexual intercourse, they are running the risk of getting pregnant. They should be prepared to accept the consequences. If not, they have a few months to get ready.
There are many disadvantages of being pregnant. This should be redundant by now, but pregnancy is avoidable, and if someone does get pregnant, it is probably because they made a choice. Your argument talks about the disadvantage for the mother. What about the disadvantages for the embryo? Do they not count at all in any way?  One of the things I donít like about abortion is that it lets the mother get away with being completely selfish. If the pregnancy is inconvenient for them, then they can just go ahead and kill the embryo. What if raising an existing child was inconvenient for a mother? What if the mother wasnít really ready to be a mother? What if having to raise the existing child got in the way of the motherís ambitions? Would it be right for the mother to kill the child? Of course not. Sometimes, you have to put otherís interests at the same level as your own, if not higher. People are born with a life instinct, and it doesnít start at birth. It starts before that. The embryo wants to live; the mother wants it to die. Apparently, only the motherís opinion counts.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: ArtDrake on October 05, 2011, 10:04:09 PM
Overpopulation is a problem in the world.

Abortion is a very viable possibility.
There is no reason not to abort.
Getting pregnant is as much a consequence of sexual intercourse as getting shot is a consequence of the firing of a gun,
despite the warning on the gun saying "point away from eyes and face" and the fact that you weren't aiming for anyone.
Procreation is a basic act which is performed when a couple desires a child. A child is a desired consequence of that act.
However, intercourse is an act performed for pleasure, and there is no moral depravity associated with it.
Thus, a negative consequence is not befitting of the act, and should not be forced on either the child or the parent.
If abortion is an option, it should be utilized to reduce the risk of inopportune birth.

Rob, that's not true. Nearly all abortions happen as a result of one of the following:
Inability to care for a child.
To prevent birth of a child after childbearing age, where childbirth might kill the mother.
To prevent birth of a child with severe congenital defects.
To prevent the birth of a child born of violence.
A condition the mother has that makes childbirth high-risk.

I've got you stone cold on the underlined ones. Harm to the mother, unfair to the child-to-be, emotional trauma for the mother.

You say that if a woman gets pregnant because of contraceptive failure, she should go through with the pregnancy, go through with the birth, weep, say goodbye forever, and give away her child? That stinks to high heaven of an outdated concept of male superiority -- the idea that women should go through any pain because of their immorality, and deliver their child, even though they don't want to, for the sake of a little nub of flesh in her belly, because (so the logic used to go) it might be a boy.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: SmartyPants on October 06, 2011, 01:00:27 PM
Overpopulation is a problem in the world.

Abortion is a very viable possibility.
It really isn't.  Most population growth is in third world countries who don't have any access to contraception.  Aborting everytime someone has unprotected sex is not a viable possibility.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: ArtDrake on October 06, 2011, 04:28:58 PM
No, the two weren't meant to go together.

In third-world countries, people generally have a lot of children because they can't be sure that all of them will survive or even be somewhat healthy. They, for the most part, don't need abortion, as they are willing to take the risks to the child and to themselves.

If one can afford to have an abortion every time one engages in unprotected intercourse, then one ought to be allowed to.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Deagonx on October 06, 2011, 06:39:40 PM
If one can afford to have an abortion every time one engages in unprotected intercourse, then one ought to be allowed to.

I can afford to buy bullets a gun and kill people. I ought to be allowed to.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: SmartyPants on October 06, 2011, 08:14:25 PM
Out of curiosity, would you pull the plug on someone who is brain dead?
A person who is brain dead has no hope of recovery or any other life. An embryo does have hope for life. Even if brain activity hasn't started for an embryo, it will in short time. If you're brain dead, your brain isn't going to start back up.
What if someone is in a coma with a 0.1% chance of that person waking up and cost $10,000 a month to keep that person alive.  Would you pull the plug even though there is brain activity and hope of recovery?
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Deagonx on October 07, 2011, 09:29:04 AM
Out of curiosity, would you pull the plug on someone who is brain dead?
A person who is brain dead has no hope of recovery or any other life. An embryo does have hope for life. Even if brain activity hasn't started for an embryo, it will in short time. If you're brain dead, your brain isn't going to start back up.
What if someone is in a coma with a 0.1% chance of that person waking up and cost $10,000 a month to keep that person alive.  Would you pull the plug even though there is brain activity and hope of recovery?

Ehm... I find the two situations relatively incomparable. 10,000 a month could probably go to homeless shelters and save even more lives.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Steel Ersatz Man on October 07, 2011, 01:06:48 PM
My view is that Abortion is just plain wrong. Now I respect others views on the matter but I'm like Set, I don't even kill flies, so, having a pro-sort of baby murder attitude? No thanks!
However, if we were to look at it mathematically, if someone has a child that they don't want to, then another child is less likely to be born. So, you are killing a hypothetical child by letting that one live. But, if you give that child up for adoption, the mother would be more inclined to have a second child when she is ready, so, both the child and the hypothetical other child would live, or a life equivalent.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: SmartyPants on October 07, 2011, 10:39:20 PM
Out of curiosity, would you pull the plug on someone who is brain dead?
A person who is brain dead has no hope of recovery or any other life. An embryo does have hope for life. Even if brain activity hasn't started for an embryo, it will in short time. If you're brain dead, your brain isn't going to start back up.
What if someone is in a coma with a 0.1% chance of that person waking up and cost $10,000 a month to keep that person alive.  Would you pull the plug even though there is brain activity and hope of recovery?
Ehm... I find the two situations relatively incomparable. 10,000 a month could probably go to homeless shelters and save even more lives.
The situations are comparable, because they both involve possibility of life and a financial cost.  I know both Deagonx and Rob think that the possiblity of life for an unborn fetus is worth the financial cost to not allow abortions.  I am only asking about the coma question to see where one draws the line.  Apparently, Deagonx thinks that $10,000 isn't worth a 0.1% of life.
If there is a 90% chance that the baby is a stillborn and the resulting medical bills without an abortion will bankrupt the eighteen-year-old girl, will you be against her having an abortion?
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Steel Ersatz Man on October 07, 2011, 11:14:09 PM
Hmm, in those cases I'm going to go with a very left wing attitude of: "The government should give her money!"
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Deagonx on October 08, 2011, 06:20:55 PM
Out of curiosity, would you pull the plug on someone who is brain dead?
A person who is brain dead has no hope of recovery or any other life. An embryo does have hope for life. Even if brain activity hasn't started for an embryo, it will in short time. If you're brain dead, your brain isn't going to start back up.
What if someone is in a coma with a 0.1% chance of that person waking up and cost $10,000 a month to keep that person alive.  Would you pull the plug even though there is brain activity and hope of recovery?
Ehm... I find the two situations relatively incomparable. 10,000 a month could probably go to homeless shelters and save even more lives.
The situations are comparable, because they both involve possibility of life and a financial cost.  I know both Deagonx and Rob think that the possiblity of life for an unborn fetus is worth the financial cost to not allow abortions.  I am only asking about the coma question to see where one draws the line.  Apparently, Deagonx thinks that $10,000 isn't worth a 0.1% of life.
If there is a 90% chance that the baby is a stillborn and the resulting medical bills without an abortion will bankrupt the eighteen-year-old girl, will you be against her having an abortion?

I would not be against her having an abortion in that case.

But I see what you are doing, you are putting radical examples forward to see where I allow abortions. I assume next you are going to conclude I should be pro choice because of these VERY unlikely EXTREME circumstances?
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: flack on October 09, 2011, 01:04:44 AM
Interesting conversation. I stand on the neutral side of things. There are just too many different circumstances faced when one considers an abortion. Many were discussed on this forum. I would like to offer my viewpoint. Please don't be offended.

The MAIN reason people want abortions is because raising a child will cause problems in their life. Then the first to ask is does that give her the right or (is it right) to get an abortion? Pros and Cons would both argue based on certain circumstances that caused her to become pregnant and then discuss the overall benefit and harm that would occur if an abortion did take place. These reasons all reflect partly on the basic viewpoints of people of whether they THINK something is right or WRONG (their morals (not sure if its right word to use but you know what I mean)) and reflect based on some of the conditions there are in life. What I mean by conditions are for example laws that govern and certain things that a person needs to survive in this society (eg money) which are all established by us. If we look into these factors, they are all so complicated in the world we live in that it is very hard and impossible to be sure that 1 side is completely right.   

Moreover, after looking deeply into this and trying to find a solution. I wanted to understand why we even have to end up in the difficult position of even asking the question in the first place. This is the answer I came up with: Because we have an imperfect society. Why is society imperfect? I think we can all agree that it isn't perfect. Problems like wars(genocide), famine, poverty, diseases, selfishness and ignorance in people, you name them all occur constantly throughout the history since human origin. Yet knowing these things are bad ALL the time we still haven't resolved it after all the time that has passed? Why do people still kill, rape, slander, and hurt others constantly? Or hurt ourselves? WHY??? We cant
even answer this basic question.

If people fixed these problems then we can easily answer if abortion is right or wrong. Because really the main problem is not whether "Do I need an abortion or not"? but whether if people can stop hurting themselves and create a better (I wont say perfect) society. 
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Steel Ersatz Man on October 09, 2011, 10:36:34 AM
Interesting conversation. I stand on the neutral side of things. There are just too many different circumstances faced when one considers an abortion. Many were discussed on this forum. I would like to offer my viewpoint. Please don't be offended.

The MAIN reason people want abortions is because raising a child will cause problems in their life. Then the first to ask is does that give her the right or (is it right) to get an abortion? Pros and Cons would both argue based on certain circumstances that caused her to become pregnant and then discuss the overall benefit and harm that would occur if an abortion did take place. These reasons all reflect partly on the basic viewpoints of people of whether they THINK something is right or WRONG (their morals (not sure if its right word to use but you know what I mean)) and reflect based on some of the conditions there are in life. What I mean by conditions are for example laws that govern and certain things that a person needs to survive in this society (eg money) which are all established by us. If we look into these factors, they are all so complicated in the world we live in that it is very hard and impossible to be sure that 1 side is completely right.   

Moreover, after looking deeply into this and trying to find a solution. I wanted to understand why we even have to end up in the difficult position of even asking the question in the first place. This is the answer I came up with: Because we have an imperfect society. Why is society imperfect? I think we can all agree that it isn't perfect. Problems like wars(genocide), famine, poverty, diseases, selfishness and ignorance in people, you name them all occur constantly throughout the history since human origin. Yet knowing these things are bad ALL the time we still haven't resolved it after all the time that has passed? Why do people still kill, rape, slander, and hurt others constantly? Or hurt ourselves? WHY??? We cant
even answer this basic question.

If people fixed these problems then we can easily answer if abortion is right or wrong. Because really the main problem is not whether "Do I need an abortion or not"? but whether if people can stop hurting themselves and create a better (I wont say perfect) society. 

Nice Viewpoint!
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: ArtDrake on October 09, 2011, 11:01:10 AM
Deagonx, what do you think about contraception?
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Deagonx on October 09, 2011, 12:40:33 PM
Deagonx, what do you think about contraception?

I think anyone who isn't married should use contraceptives. Because while I disapprove of before-marriage sexual relations. I cannot stop it completely. But I assume a 16 year old girl wouldn't want a baby and should use contraceptives. If she gets pregnant, it's her fault and the child shouldn't have to pay for that.

Married couples shouldn't use contraceptives unless they already have a child and aren't ready for another.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Rob on October 11, 2011, 11:07:08 PM
My time is somewhat limited, so I'll just address on issue.
Rob, that's not true. Nearly all abortions happen as a result of one of the following:
Inability to care for a child.
To prevent birth of a child after childbearing age, where childbirth might kill the mother.
To prevent birth of a child with severe congenital defects.
To prevent the birth of a child born of violence.
A condition the mother has that makes childbirth high-risk.
If you've looked at a study, the three main reasons that women say they have abortions are:
Negative impact on their lives (life as in plans for the future)
Financial Instability
Relationship problems/unwillingness to be a single mother
In case you're wondering where I got these from, I'm inserting a hyperlink. The actual study is hyperlinked on the page.
http://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/a/AbortionReasons.htm (http://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/a/AbortionReasons.htm)
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: ArtDrake on October 12, 2011, 04:04:09 PM
I'd consider those as all falling under the first heading...
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: SmartyPants on October 13, 2011, 01:19:11 PM
Out of curiosity, would you pull the plug on someone who is brain dead?
A person who is brain dead has no hope of recovery or any other life. An embryo does have hope for life. Even if brain activity hasn't started for an embryo, it will in short time. If you're brain dead, your brain isn't going to start back up.
What if someone is in a coma with a 0.1% chance of that person waking up and cost $10,000 a month to keep that person alive.  Would you pull the plug even though there is brain activity and hope of recovery?
Ehm... I find the two situations relatively incomparable. 10,000 a month could probably go to homeless shelters and save even more lives.
The situations are comparable, because they both involve possibility of life and a financial cost.  I know both Deagonx and Rob think that the possiblity of life for an unborn fetus is worth the financial cost to not allow abortions.  I am only asking about the coma question to see where one draws the line.  Apparently, Deagonx thinks that $10,000 isn't worth a 0.1% of life.
If there is a 90% chance that the baby is a stillborn and the resulting medical bills without an abortion will bankrupt the eighteen-year-old girl, will you be against her having an abortion?
I would not be against her having an abortion in that case.
Since you think there are some exceptions where abortions are acceptable, how do you think it should be decided who is/isn't allowed to have an abortion?
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Deagonx on October 13, 2011, 01:50:42 PM
Smartypants, I think there are some acceptable cases of abortion. But they are too little for me to be "pro-choice."

If say, the child was definitely going to be a stillborn, hell, abort it. It's dead anyways. But majority of abortions are for convenience and I cannot allow it.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: SmartyPants on October 13, 2011, 02:03:35 PM
But how does one decide what are the acceptable cases?
Are you the one that pregnant women have to petition to have an abortion?
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Deagonx on October 13, 2011, 02:48:06 PM
But how does one decide what are the acceptable cases?
Are you the one that pregnant women have to petition to have an abortion?

I'm saying since the 'acceptable' cases are very rare, we shouldn't try and decide what is right and wrong, and ban it.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: SmartyPants on October 13, 2011, 03:15:05 PM
You think everyone shouldn't have access to abortions, because too many people want it for reasons you don't like.

*Sorry Kim, you have to go through a pregnancy that will probably kill you, because Deagonx says no exceptions.
*Sorry Jill, you can't have an abortion after your father raped you.  Because Deagonx doesn't allow abortions for anyone, you have to raise an inbreed baby even though you are a broke sixteen-year-old.
*Sorry Mary, even though you have AIDs and a pregnancy will inhibit your ability fight the disease, you still have to give brith to an HIV infected baby, because Deagonx thinks you need to be punished for having a condom break during sex.

I was going to do more of these, but I find it too depressing.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Rob on October 13, 2011, 04:46:19 PM
I'd consider those as all falling under the first heading...
You have suceeded in completely missing my point. Nearly all abortions happen because of the first reason you stated. Only 12% of abortions in the U.S were the result of the mother's physical problems. 13% of abortions were the result of possible problems with the fetus's health. 1% of abortions were becase of rape, and less than half a percent of abortions were because of incests. Most of the reasons for abortion are because the mother wants to do whatever they want to do, and the baby won't let them. The rest of the reasons you listed as being a primary reason for abortions were not actually primary reasons.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: ArtDrake on October 13, 2011, 05:50:36 PM
So... you think that because less than three-quarters of abortions happen for a reason that you don't like, women shouldn't have abortions?

You also think that if contraception fails when married couples are participating in safe intercourse, the woman should go through with the pregnancy that she does not even want? What value does a fetus in the womb have compared to the happiness of the woman carrying it? It's not an independent living organism. It does not have ideas and thoughts. It exists in a state incapable of having memories or making decisions. Potential is a lie; if the fetus is going to be aborted, it does not have a future, it does not have a mind, and it certainly does not have any more right to exist than the baby the woman would be having if she had her baby at the time she wanted would!

An egg has the same amount of potential as does a fetus; the fetus is merely closer. Is contraception, which prevents realization of the potential, a crime? NO. Is abstinence, which prevents the fertilization of the egg and the combination of genetics, a crime? NO. Childbearing is an act of choice, and is never a responsibility. Abortion is acceptable at any time, since the mother does not want to bear a child. Is that clear?
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: SmartyPants on October 13, 2011, 07:33:23 PM
Duckling comments tend to be more Pro-Abortion then Pro-choice.  It is just seems odd that he is encourages it use, while most people (at best) begrudgingly find abortion necessary.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: ArtDrake on October 14, 2011, 02:03:46 PM
So....

you missed my saying "want to have a child?" If the woman does not wish to have the child, then abortion must be made an option.

If, however, she sees it as her solemn duty to bear the child, that desire completely trumps any health detriments or social situations.

I am pro-choice; I simply was pro-choice a bit aggressively right then.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Deagonx on October 14, 2011, 02:06:33 PM
If she doesn't want to have a baby, she shouldn't be having sex?

It has it's risks. Why should someone lose their chance to live because of it?



But really, this is more or less a decision of morality. You say that I should let people do what they want, but I want to stop it because it's my belief it is a life being taken.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: SmartyPants on October 14, 2011, 03:36:41 PM
Deagonx think everyone shouldn't have access to abortions, because too many people want it for reasons you don't like.

*Sorry Kim, you have to go through a pregnancy that will probably kill you, because Deagonx says no exceptions.
*Sorry Jill, you can't have an abortion after your father raped you.  Because Deagonx doesn't allow abortions for anyone, you have to raise an inbreed baby even though you are a broke sixteen-year-old.
*Sorry Mary, even though you have AIDs and a pregnancy will inhibit your ability fight the disease, you still have to give brith to an HIV infected baby, because Deagonx thinks you need to be punished for having a condom break during sex.
Deagnox, can still say that there shouldn't be any exceptions that allow abortions?
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Deagonx on October 14, 2011, 09:16:31 PM
Deagonx think everyone shouldn't have access to abortions, because too many people want it for reasons you don't like.

*Sorry Kim, you have to go through a pregnancy that will probably kill you, because Deagonx says no exceptions.
*Sorry Jill, you can't have an abortion after your father raped you.  Because Deagonx doesn't allow abortions for anyone, you have to raise an inbreed baby even though you are a broke sixteen-year-old.
*Sorry Mary, even though you have AIDs and a pregnancy will inhibit your ability fight the disease, you still have to give brith to an HIV infected baby, because Deagonx thinks you need to be punished for having a condom break during sex.
Deagnox, can still say that there shouldn't be any exceptions that allow abortions?

I worry that with one exception people will push for more. So, I choose to go with the option I see to be more moral. No abortions.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: ArtDrake on October 15, 2011, 03:31:21 PM
If she doesn't want to have a baby, [should she be] having sex?

[Intercourse?] has [its] risks. Why should someone lose their chance to live because of it?

But really, this is more or less a [moral decision]. You say that I should let people do what they want, but I want to stop it because it's my belief [that a life is] being taken.

First question: sure. Not everyone is a Bible-belt Christian, and not everyone thinks that chastity and abstinence are the only way. In fact, somewhere between 88% and 99% of Americans don't. Your judgement is not important to the law, and as it is determined by your religious background, it cannot reasonably be incorporated into law.

Second question: I agree that intercourse has its risks. However, we must do the best we can to minimize those risks; an undesired baby is one of them, so we simply abort the lengthy process of making a baby before it really starts.

Third point: this is America, land of the free, home of the brave. If we can't all agree that something is forbidden, it is allowed. You, in turn, have the freedom to choose not to abort any baby you may have.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Deagonx on October 16, 2011, 04:32:19 PM
You have the freedom to choose not to abort any baby you may have.

What you just said to me is the equivalent of "You have the freedom to not kill people. But don't judge others for wanting to."

so we simply abort the lengthy process of making a baby before it really starts.

It starts with intercourse. Protip, only humans and orangutans have sex for pleasure. Outside of us and monkeys sex is something purely for reproduction. Why is it wrong for me to want to save lives by banning abortion?

Your judgement is not important to the law, and as it is determined by your religious background, it cannot reasonably be incorporated into law.

You say that like the only people who disapprove of abortions are religious.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: ArtDrake on October 16, 2011, 08:21:19 PM
What you just said to me is the equivalent of "You have the freedom to not kill people. But don't judge others for wanting to."

It starts with intercourse. Protip, only humans and orangutans have sex for pleasure. Outside of us and monkeys sex is something purely for reproduction. Why is it wrong for me to want to save lives by banning abortion?

You say that like the only people who disapprove of abortions are religious.

First: nope! What I said is that since you're a male, you don't get to make that decision. And you also have the freedom to judge women for their decision to abort! It's America, remember?

Second: wouldn't it make more sense just to ban recreational intercourse?

Third: no, I say it like you only disapprove of abortions because you're religious.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Deagonx on October 17, 2011, 05:57:06 AM
1. You said nothing about me being male. You said I have the freedom to not abort, and that others should be allowed to. In turn I say "I have the freedom to kill people, but don't judge me for doing so."

2. No one will stand for that. And it would happen anyways. We have to be realistic here.

3. That's not true.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: ArtDrake on October 17, 2011, 05:56:15 PM
First point: I'm sorry. I guess it was a bit subtle. You see, I said that you have the freedom to abort any baby you have. That implied that, since you are male and cannot have a baby, you cannot make the decision.

Second: you think so? But don't you think that you're making exactly the same change if you try and get abortions banned? Recreational intercourse will become a lot more hazardous; there'd be no way out of having a baby!

Third: hmmm... where did you say that you had gotten that idea that the soul is attached to the body at conception? Oh, that's right -- your religion.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Deagonx on October 18, 2011, 05:14:16 PM
1. The male plays just as much of a role in reproduction, also this isn't about my gender.

2. I do think so. And I'm not going to listen to your sarcastic rhetoric on the topic.

3. Except I said nothing about the soul. I said nothing about my religion. I kept my religion out of it. You are bringing religion into it.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: ArtDrake on October 18, 2011, 06:10:52 PM
1. I beg to differ, but my point was that males don't have babies.

2. It wasn't sarcastic. Do you or do you not think that the banning of abortion would give couples who do not want children no choice but to cease recreational intercourse?

3. I'm sorry. I simply thought that you had had your ideas spoon-fed to you. Where did you learn this wonderful idea about human potential existing only after conception? Don't unfertilized eggs have the potential to be fertilized?
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Deagonx on October 18, 2011, 07:35:26 PM
1. So if I were a female my point would be more valid.

2. Maybe. But that would be a good thing IMO. Isn't overpopulation a big problem?

3. Babies have brain activity, heart beats, and much more in the womb. As far as I am concerned, they should have rights equal to everyone else.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: ArtDrake on October 18, 2011, 08:20:20 PM
First: nope! But you would have the right to choose not to abort any baby that you carry. That was my original statement.

Second: yes. That's why abortions are necessary; people aren't going to stop engaging in recreational intercourse.

Second and a half: so, do you or do you not think that the banning of abortion would effectively make recreational intercourse a much higher-risk behavior?

Third: but don't unfertilized eggs have the same amount of potential? You've said yourself that eating eggs is murdering baby chickens:

[C]omparing an mindless, emotionless fetus to a young child... is like saying you [have] murdered a baby chicken every time you['ve eaten] eggs.
... [Y]ou are.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Deagonx on October 19, 2011, 06:45:01 PM
1. Once again, what you are saying is the equivalent of "If you don't people to be killed, don't kill people"

2. Overpopulation fixes itself in nature. And I'm sure many girls would stop having intercourse if they knew they couldn't have an abortion.

3. They have the same amount of potential to live. But chickens will not have as sentient an existence, or as big an impact on the world.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Steelfist on December 15, 2011, 10:03:02 AM
1. The male plays just as much of a role in reproduction, also this isn't about my gender.

I had to do a double take when I read this.

The male merely initiates the process, and the act of doing so is enjoyable. The female, while also involved in the (usually) enjoyable initiation: Suffers morning sickness (This is frequently debilitating), bears the child for nine months (Cravings, mood swings, increase in size and consequent decrease in self esteem, etc) - and is also subject to various social problems (Rumours, stares, y'know; generally being vilified) if the pregnancy is somehow unusual (Rape, incest, underage,etc), then finally childbirth; reputedly an agonising experience. And then, there is the emotional enslavement of the maternal instinct.

The male experiences nothing more that a short period of pleasure and perhaps some guilt on inflicting this on the female.

How, precisely, do these two experiences compare? and how, in the name of your mononic deity, does the male play an EQUAL PART?

What right do you, a male, have to tell the true victim that they cannot cut short the horrifying experience of an unwanted pregnancy?
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Shadoroq on December 15, 2011, 06:42:01 PM
Clearly we have some very opinionated people on both sides of this argument. It's left me thinking a few things.

@Deagonx: Why did you bring up this topic knowing that as soon as you drop the "a word" the s*** hits the fan? It's kind of like drinking a bottle of bleach and then asking a room full of people, "Hey, want a sip?"

@SmartyPants: From the start, this topic's potential for resolution was an unfathomably small fraction of a percent. Even for free, I'd pull the plug on that. ;)

@(The entire congregation): Did you ever really think there was any hope that this would end well? (FYI: There wasn't.)

Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: CraigStern on December 16, 2011, 08:50:21 AM
and how, in the name of your mononic deity...

Mind the forum rules. We do not insult other peoples' religious beliefs here. Stick to debating the ideas, please.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Steelfist on December 16, 2011, 01:08:35 PM
Oh, fine.

Aparrently, I can't slip in one jibe without admonition, and yet Deagonx and his fellow bible wielding fanatics can get away with calling evolutionism 'stupid' repeatedly, and Deagonx has no comment upon his infuriatingly smug signature. You realise that by insulting evolutionism he is insulting my religious beliefs (Or rather, my non-religious beliefs. Same difference, really)? And yet I recieve a somewhat superior 'mind your manner' reply - and not by a discreet PM, either - and his antics are benevolently ignored? Do I detect the stench of favoritism? Perhaps so. Furthermore, unless you had a point to make on the topic, did you not just flout your own 'stick to discussing the ideas' request/command?

Back to the topic.

@Shadowroq: No, I don't think any of us did. But, like most of the more active forum users, I am drawn to a controversial discussion like a moth to a flame. Normally, I don't post much, but sometimes a ridiculous comment (Such as Deagonx 'equal part' comment) will snare me, and compel me to post.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: bugfartboy on December 16, 2011, 03:27:19 PM
Deagonx and his fellow bible wielding fanatics
Interceding in my usual way, I'd like to mention that I find this generalization somewhat offensive, as I've been doing my best to stay out of this debate as a whole as of late. And the "fanatic" portion didn't help.

Quote from: Steelfist part 2
@Shadowroq: No, I don't think any of us did. But, like most of the more active forum users, I am drawn to a controversial discussion like a moth to a flame. Normally, I don't post much, but sometimes a ridiculous comment (Such as Deagonx 'equal part' comment) will snare me, and compel me to post.
I personally think that if you didn't see a bad messy end coming to this conversation, you are a hopeless person. But that's just me.

Anyways, I think I've drawn enough attention to myself.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: Steelfist on December 17, 2011, 07:56:33 AM
True, I may have been a little extreme there; an irritated post is rarely a friendly one. My apologies.

I don't quite understand what you are trying to say with this:

 
I personally think that if you didn't see a bad messy end coming to this conversation, you are a hopeless person. But that's just me.

What do you mean by 'hopeless'? I myself didn't see this ending well, as I said in my post, so I'd also be interested as to why you quoted me and not the original question (as it implies that it is aimed at me, hence the first question).

I'm somewhat confused. But that's just me.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: bugfartboy on December 17, 2011, 01:53:17 PM
It was merely my goal to say that I saw that this would come to a messy end, in a roundabout way.
Title: Re: Abortion
Post by: CraigStern on December 17, 2011, 04:47:26 PM
Aparrently, I can't slip in one jibe without admonition

Flaming is against forum rules. So, no.

and yet Deagonx and his fellow bible wielding fanatics can get away with calling evolutionism 'stupid' repeatedly, and Deagonx has no comment upon his infuriatingly smug signature. You realise that by insulting evolutionism he is insulting my religious beliefs (Or rather, my non-religious beliefs. Same difference, really)?

I don't read every single thing that gets posted on the forums; I simply don't have time to do that and also develop the game. I just happened to see your post. If someone else posts something you find overtly disrespectful, you should PM me so I can deal with it.


Since this thread has now devolved into people talking about how this thread has devolved, I'm going to lock it. If you guys want to talk about abortion itself again, PM me and I'll open it back up. For now, however: locked.