The Energon Pub

Thoughts?

Double V.

Personally believe that a society that epitomizes protection of individual rights should have nothing to do with it, if we're going on principal alone. I go with the 'reap what you sew' ideal when it comes with this. Of course, to allow the appealing to such ideal, I personally want to make more stringent laws regarding the responsibilities of the father, since those of the mother seem all but inherent, and birth control readily available and 100% effective. For rape, I'd be against, as the offspring in question had nothing to do with the offence. I realize this all based on hypotheticals. And the whole 'it's a living human being' deal doesn't come into play-- it's what it will become.

I just really don't like the idea of others, especially the strong (by which I mean those who deserve power no more than from being in such a position of authority-- I love the strong-willed), deciding who gets to exist and who doesn't, even if it's a decision of who gets to become a few years from the given action. I could see the point where people start to become undervalued and less individualized the more we realize we can manipulate and change the genes, group mentality, and very personality of those that will come after us. I think soon, this, with the idea of cloning and gene manipulation, may eventually rip apart the foundation of what we know as cultural morality and value of the liberalistic individual today. What happens to the individual ideal, to personal freedoms, to humanity, if man can be conditioned to think, do, say, look, and act the way the previous designer wants him to?

Frankly, this could go into a whole other topic. It's that sense of chaos that I personally thrive on that makes me hate this idea, and I guess this thought will eventually die off as well if we go that route. But, frankly, to see that chaos, that fight and struggle and clashing of ideals that go with everyone's desire to find their own path in this life, go out due to the cold calculation of who's there before really scares me.

im pro choice...i mean there are rights and wrongs but lets say if some girl was raped and got prego then she should prob get rid of that kid....this is always a weird subject cuz things could go many ways depending on the sittuation.

No offense to any of you men out there, but this is purely a woman's decision to make. We are the ones that carry babies, and therefore we have the right to make that choice. Until you guys start popping them out, leave the choice to us.

To me, no woman should be forced to bear the burden of a rapist's offspring. There is no telling the damage that could do to her life and the baby's. If that is what the woman desires (especially if she is a minor), there should be no barrier to that. I know you might say that women would abuse that and say they've been raped when they haven't, but the majority of women needing abortions weren't raped, and we should leave the option open to all women so that doesn't happen.

Another issue is severe birth defects. If a baby will be born with half a brain or other defect, the parents should also have the right to terminate. It would no doubt be the toughest and most painful decision in the world, but it would be the right one.

This is obviously a sensitive issue, and I used to be staunchly pro-life. But I understand being in the shoes of a woman with an unwanted pregnancy. I was even using BC when I got pregnant with a child I didn't want. Luckily, I was married and stable, so abortion wasn't the choice for me, but not every woman is that fortunate. It is better not to bring a child into a situation where abuse or neglect is probable, and it's better not to clog our foster system more than it currently is. Standing outside an abortion clinic and protesting isn't going to change the situation. They are just making a woman feel worse for a decision that was probably horrible to make.

I'm against it. Personally, I think the saying "a woman has a right to chose" is arrogant and distasteful. She has a right to chose what? To chose whether or not to kill her baby? Now, I would say that I'm basically against abortion as a means of birth control. If you don't want a baby then you should be on birth control BEFORE you have sex. And I feel for women in cases of rape, incest or if the baby has defects. But unfortunately if we outlaw abortion except for cases of rape etc, the rape allegations would just dramatically increase. And for anybody who says the baby isn't "really" alive or some of that bullshit, if it's no big deal then why do women usually go to counseling after an abortion? Why are so many women torn and depressed and ashamed after doing it? I'll tell you why because they KNOW they just killed their baby. A real person who was ready to come into the world and was a part of them. They know they just litterally killed that. And that is a lot of emotional baggage to handle. And quite frankly, if these women want to "chose" not to have a baby then we have adoption. there is a multi year waiting list for adoptive parents right now because of a shortage of babies. These babies could be going to loving caring homes instead of being murdered before even being able to leave the whomb.

And don't even get me started on the sickening, torturous act of partial birth abortion.

I'm not quite sure what I think about abortion.

I know if you're going to ban it then it has to be completely banned. No exceptions whatsoever. If it's a person then there is no excuse to kill it. Not to save the life of the mother, not because of rape or incest, nothing. If it's a person then it has all the rights of a fully born human being.

Knowing what I know about biology, I do draw a definite distinction between a fetus and a fully formed human being.

I am reluctant, however, to hand over any rights to state or federal governments.

The choice isn't between abortion and no abortion, it's between legal abortion and illegal abortion. The former is preferable because that, at least, can follow some standards and regulations.

Personally I think that people should have the right to choose. Ultimately it's the woman who makes the decision but I do think that the guy involved should be allowed to voice his thoughts on the matter. Proper use of birth control coupled with responsible shagging is of course the ideal. I mean, if you go at it raw dog every day of the week with some random woman you picked up at some club then, well, that's pretty stupid of you.

This is why we have sex ed, though.

*sighs*

Such a touchy topic. (We seem to be going into a lot of these lately.)

I don't like the idea of Abortion. (at all.)
I don't like the government dictating what people can do with their bodies. (even more than Abortion.)

And while it is the woman's right to choose, it's also the father's (especially if they're married). If the two of you went and created a life together and then all of a sudden, you decide you don't want the baby, but the husband does...he has every right to make a decision about it!

How incredibly selfish and rude to say he doesn't!

What if the patriarch of the family was dying and needed a heart transplant? He actually has a compatible heart...but he chooses to let it go onto someone else because he says it's his body, his decision, and he doesn't want to go through the pain. What about his devoted wife of who knows how many years, his children, etc...what about their rights and say in the matter? Don't they deserve to have their husband and father fight and continue to live? Wouldn't that be incredibly selfish and rude to the spouse and offspring? And no, this is no different from allowing a man to have a say so in his child's life. In either scenario, a life is at stake and only one person's getting their say, selfishly hurting the rest of those around them.

On Abortion in general, I say it's between the mother and her conscience (or whatever Deity she believes in) and not me (or anyone else) and her. She will face the music for it at the end of the day.

I'd hope she wouldn't kill the baby (because let's face it, it's murder, just legalized.) that child could go to a family that will love and adore it as their very own. (No, I know, not always is that the case. I've read the stories.)

However, I, nor anyone else, especially the government should be allowed to tell her what she or anyone else can do with their bodies.

Forcing a woman to give up control over her body (even in this one aspect) is the first step to controlling all of us. It's a domino effect, and all it takes is one push to get the whole thing in motion.

The Government and the Church have separated for good reason. Neither one can control the other, and it should remain that way.

I tend to look at life like a high stakes Poker game, where every hand could literally mean ruin or complete win. You have to play the hand you're dealt, whether it's good or bad. (hey, we all get a good hand every now and then) You lay it all out on the table, and let the chips fall where they may.

I'll support a woman's right to choose. Only because I wouldn't want someone to deny me rights either.

Autobot032 wrote:*sighs*

Such a touchy topic. (We seem to be going into a lot of these lately.)

I don't like the idea of Abortion. (at all.)
I don't like the government dictating what people can do with their bodies. (even more than Abortion.)

And while it is the woman's right to choose, it's also the father's (especially if they're married). If the two of you went and created a life together and then all of a sudden, you decide you don't want the baby, but the husband does...he has every right to make a decision about it!

How incredibly selfish and rude to say he doesn't!

What if the patriarch of the family was dying and needed a heart transplant? He actually has a compatible heart...but he chooses to let it go onto someone else because he says it's his body, his decision, and he doesn't want to go through the pain. What about his devoted wife of who knows how many years, his children, etc...what about their rights and say in the matter? Don't they deserve to have their husband and father fight and continue to live? Wouldn't that be incredibly selfish and rude to the spouse and offspring? And no, this is no different from allowing a man to have a say so in his child's life. In either scenario, a life is at stake and only one person's getting their say, selfishly hurting the rest of those around them.

On Abortion in general, I say it's between the mother and her conscience (or whatever Deity she believes in) and not me (or anyone else) and her. She will face the music for it at the end of the day.

I'd hope she wouldn't kill the baby (because let's face it, it's murder, just legalized.) that child could go to a family that will love and adore it as their very own. (No, I know, not always is that the case. I've read the stories.)

However, I, nor anyone else, especially the government should be allowed to tell her what she or anyone else can do with their bodies.

Forcing a woman to give up control over her body (even in this one aspect) is the first step to controlling all of us. It's a domino effect, and all it takes is one push to get the whole thing in motion.

The Government and the Church have separated for good reason. Neither one can control the other, and it should remain that way.

I tend to look at life like a high stakes Poker game, where every hand could literally mean ruin or complete win. You have to play the hand you're dealt, whether it's good or bad. (hey, we all get a good hand every now and then) You lay it all out on the table, and let the chips fall where they may.

I'll support a woman's right to choose. Only because I wouldn't want someone to deny me rights either.

But when a woman choses abortion, why is it HER body? Because she isn't the one dying. I think when a woman choses abortion, she is controling another human beings body. A body that has no choice. So why is the womans right to chose more powerful then the babies right to chose? Does anyone here think that if that baby was given it's own choice it would chose death?

As far as the government controling us, I'm a conservative and untrusting of the government by nature because of it. But I don't see abortion as a meeting of church and state but rather a moral responsibility. It is wrong to murder whether one believes in God or not, right?

HoosierDaddy wrote:

Autobot032 wrote:*sighs*

Such a touchy topic. (We seem to be going into a lot of these lately.)

I don't like the idea of Abortion. (at all.)
I don't like the government dictating what people can do with their bodies. (even more than Abortion.)

And while it is the woman's right to choose, it's also the father's (especially if they're married). If the two of you went and created a life together and then all of a sudden, you decide you don't want the baby, but the husband does...he has every right to make a decision about it!

How incredibly selfish and rude to say he doesn't!

What if the patriarch of the family was dying and needed a heart transplant? He actually has a compatible heart...but he chooses to let it go onto someone else because he says it's his body, his decision, and he doesn't want to go through the pain. What about his devoted wife of who knows how many years, his children, etc...what about their rights and say in the matter? Don't they deserve to have their husband and father fight and continue to live? Wouldn't that be incredibly selfish and rude to the spouse and offspring? And no, this is no different from allowing a man to have a say so in his child's life. In either scenario, a life is at stake and only one person's getting their say, selfishly hurting the rest of those around them.

On Abortion in general, I say it's between the mother and her conscience (or whatever Deity she believes in) and not me (or anyone else) and her. She will face the music for it at the end of the day.

I'd hope she wouldn't kill the baby (because let's face it, it's murder, just legalized.) that child could go to a family that will love and adore it as their very own. (No, I know, not always is that the case. I've read the stories.)

However, I, nor anyone else, especially the government should be allowed to tell her what she or anyone else can do with their bodies.

Forcing a woman to give up control over her body (even in this one aspect) is the first step to controlling all of us. It's a domino effect, and all it takes is one push to get the whole thing in motion.

The Government and the Church have separated for good reason. Neither one can control the other, and it should remain that way.

I tend to look at life like a high stakes Poker game, where every hand could literally mean ruin or complete win. You have to play the hand you're dealt, whether it's good or bad. (hey, we all get a good hand every now and then) You lay it all out on the table, and let the chips fall where they may.

I'll support a woman's right to choose. Only because I wouldn't want someone to deny me rights either.

But when a woman choses abortion, why is it HER body? Because she isn't the one dying. I think when a woman choses abortion, she is controling another human beings body. A body that has no choice. So why is the womans right to chose more powerful then the babies right to chose? Does anyone here think that if that baby was given it's own choice it would chose death?

As far as the government controling us, I'm a conservative and untrusting of the government by nature because of it. But I don't see abortion as a meeting of church and state but rather a moral responsibility. It is wrong to kill whether one believes in God or not, right?

Of course the child would choose to survive. However, until that child leaves the mother's body, he or she is a part of the mother's body, hence her right to choose. (I know it's not completely cut and dry like that, but that's the basic gist of how the world looks at it.)

But as you said "I think when a woman choses abortion, she is controling another human beings body. A body that has no choice." that body has no choice, hence the reason women can make the decision one way or the other.

I seriously detest the idea of Abortion, I cannot stand it. I believe we are killing our great hope. One of these children could hold the key to saving us from diseases, pain, etc. We'll never know until the end, for sure, but in the interim, we have to put up with what's given to us in this world.

And you're right. It's a moral responsibility not to kill any life, including that of the fetus (or baby, depending on trimester, etc.) But Bush's Administration is using religious backing and would deny women the right to choose what to do with their bodies. This is the reason I mentioned that the Government shouldn't have any right to tell us what we can or can't do, and the Church (regardless of Bush pulling it in, or they freely join up in the battle) shouldn't be involved in lawmaking, not one bit.

They're taking God away from us left and right in political circles, but they can't take him from us personally. If we allow the Government to control our bodies, they'll try and control our personal connection to God (or whoever one may believe in)

I truly believe one cannot be a religious person and be political at the same time. Christ said "You cannot serve two masters" during The Sermon On The Mount, and this remains true to this day. You can either choose to serve for/with God, or for/with Politics, you can't ride the fence on this one.

Autobot032 wrote:

HoosierDaddy wrote:

Autobot032 wrote:*sighs*

Such a touchy topic. (We seem to be going into a lot of these lately.)

I don't like the idea of Abortion. (at all.)
I don't like the government dictating what people can do with their bodies. (even more than Abortion.)

And while it is the woman's right to choose, it's also the father's (especially if they're married). If the two of you went and created a life together and then all of a sudden, you decide you don't want the baby, but the husband does...he has every right to make a decision about it!

How incredibly selfish and rude to say he doesn't!

What if the patriarch of the family was dying and needed a heart transplant? He actually has a compatible heart...but he chooses to let it go onto someone else because he says it's his body, his decision, and he doesn't want to go through the pain. What about his devoted wife of who knows how many years, his children, etc...what about their rights and say in the matter? Don't they deserve to have their husband and father fight and continue to live? Wouldn't that be incredibly selfish and rude to the spouse and offspring? And no, this is no different from allowing a man to have a say so in his child's life. In either scenario, a life is at stake and only one person's getting their say, selfishly hurting the rest of those around them.

On Abortion in general, I say it's between the mother and her conscience (or whatever Deity she believes in) and not me (or anyone else) and her. She will face the music for it at the end of the day.

I'd hope she wouldn't kill the baby (because let's face it, it's murder, just legalized.) that child could go to a family that will love and adore it as their very own. (No, I know, not always is that the case. I've read the stories.)

However, I, nor anyone else, especially the government should be allowed to tell her what she or anyone else can do with their bodies.

Forcing a woman to give up control over her body (even in this one aspect) is the first step to controlling all of us. It's a domino effect, and all it takes is one push to get the whole thing in motion.

The Government and the Church have separated for good reason. Neither one can control the other, and it should remain that way.

I tend to look at life like a high stakes Poker game, where every hand could literally mean ruin or complete win. You have to play the hand you're dealt, whether it's good or bad. (hey, we all get a good hand every now and then) You lay it all out on the table, and let the chips fall where they may.

I'll support a woman's right to choose. Only because I wouldn't want someone to deny me rights either.

But when a woman choses abortion, why is it HER body? Because she isn't the one dying. I think when a woman choses abortion, she is controling another human beings body. A body that has no choice. So why is the womans right to chose more powerful then the babies right to chose? Does anyone here think that if that baby was given it's own choice it would chose death?

As far as the government controling us, I'm a conservative and untrusting of the government by nature because of it. But I don't see abortion as a meeting of church and state but rather a moral responsibility. It is wrong to kill whether one believes in God or not, right?

Of course the child would choose to survive. However, until that child leaves the mother's body, he or she is a part of the mother's body, hence her right to choose. (I know it's not completely cut and dry like that, but that's the basic gist of how the world looks at it.)

But as you said "I think when a woman choses abortion, she is controling another human beings body. A body that has no choice." that body has no choice, hence the reason women can make the decision one way or the other.

I seriously detest the idea of Abortion, I cannot stand it. I believe we are killing our great hope. One of these children could hold the key to saving us from diseases, pain, etc. We'll never know until the end, for sure, but in the interim, we have to put up with what's given to us in this world.

And you're right. It's a moral responsibility not to kill any life, including that of the fetus (or baby, depending on trimester, etc.) But Bush's Administration is using religious backing and would deny women the right to choose what to do with their bodies. This is the reason I mentioned that the Government shouldn't have any right to tell us what we can or can't do, and the Church (regardless of Bush pulling it in, or they freely join up in the battle) shouldn't be involved in lawmaking, not one bit.

They're taking God away from us left and right in political circles, but they can't take him from us personally. If we allow the Government to control our bodies, they'll try and control our personal connection to God (or whoever one may believe in)

I truly believe one cannot be a religious person and be political at the same time. Christ said "You cannot serve two masters" during The Sermon On The Mount, and this remains true to this day. You can either choose to serve for/with God, or for/with Politics, you can't ride the fence on this one.

It seems that each one of you has valid points that I agree with. But I have to say that though church and state are "seperate" they influence each other. The law tries to control religion and religion continues to influence those who make the laws.

As for abortion itself, I believe that it is wrong to kill an innocent. But exceptions (rape, incest) should be made. This world is not just black and white. There are many grey areas. My biggest concern is that we are killing people,before they are born, that could have had great destiny's before them. And I think that hurts us as a species.

Autobot032 wrote:

HoosierDaddy wrote:

Autobot032 wrote:*sighs*

Such a touchy topic. (We seem to be going into a lot of these lately.)

I don't like the idea of Abortion. (at all.)
I don't like the government dictating what people can do with their bodies. (even more than Abortion.)

And while it is the woman's right to choose, it's also the father's (especially if they're married). If the two of you went and created a life together and then all of a sudden, you decide you don't want the baby, but the husband does...he has every right to make a decision about it!

How incredibly selfish and rude to say he doesn't!

What if the patriarch of the family was dying and needed a heart transplant? He actually has a compatible heart...but he chooses to let it go onto someone else because he says it's his body, his decision, and he doesn't want to go through the pain. What about his devoted wife of who knows how many years, his children, etc...what about their rights and say in the matter? Don't they deserve to have their husband and father fight and continue to live? Wouldn't that be incredibly selfish and rude to the spouse and offspring? And no, this is no different from allowing a man to have a say so in his child's life. In either scenario, a life is at stake and only one person's getting their say, selfishly hurting the rest of those around them.

On Abortion in general, I say it's between the mother and her conscience (or whatever Deity she believes in) and not me (or anyone else) and her. She will face the music for it at the end of the day.

I'd hope she wouldn't kill the baby (because let's face it, it's murder, just legalized.) that child could go to a family that will love and adore it as their very own. (No, I know, not always is that the case. I've read the stories.)

However, I, nor anyone else, especially the government should be allowed to tell her what she or anyone else can do with their bodies.

Forcing a woman to give up control over her body (even in this one aspect) is the first step to controlling all of us. It's a domino effect, and all it takes is one push to get the whole thing in motion.

The Government and the Church have separated for good reason. Neither one can control the other, and it should remain that way.

I tend to look at life like a high stakes Poker game, where every hand could literally mean ruin or complete win. You have to play the hand you're dealt, whether it's good or bad. (hey, we all get a good hand every now and then) You lay it all out on the table, and let the chips fall where they may.

I'll support a woman's right to choose. Only because I wouldn't want someone to deny me rights either.

But when a woman choses abortion, why is it HER body? Because she isn't the one dying. I think when a woman choses abortion, she is controling another human beings body. A body that has no choice. So why is the womans right to chose more powerful then the babies right to chose? Does anyone here think that if that baby was given it's own choice it would chose death?

As far as the government controling us, I'm a conservative and untrusting of the government by nature because of it. But I don't see abortion as a meeting of church and state but rather a moral responsibility. It is wrong to kill whether one believes in God or not, right?

Of course the child would choose to survive. However, until that child leaves the mother's body, he or she is a part of the mother's body, hence her right to choose. (I know it's not completely cut and dry like that, but that's the basic gist of how the world looks at it.)

But as you said "I think when a woman choses abortion, she is controling another human beings body. A body that has no choice." that body has no choice, hence the reason women can make the decision one way or the other.

I seriously detest the idea of Abortion, I cannot stand it. I believe we are killing our great hope. One of these children could hold the key to saving us from diseases, pain, etc. We'll never know until the end, for sure, but in the interim, we have to put up with what's given to us in this world.

And you're right. It's a moral responsibility not to kill any life, including that of the fetus (or baby, depending on trimester, etc.) But Bush's Administration is using religious backing and would deny women the right to choose what to do with their bodies. This is the reason I mentioned that the Government shouldn't have any right to tell us what we can or can't do, and the Church (regardless of Bush pulling it in, or they freely join up in the battle) shouldn't be involved in lawmaking, not one bit.

They're taking God away from us left and right in political circles, but they can't take him from us personally. If we allow the Government to control our bodies, they'll try and control our personal connection to God (or whoever one may believe in)

I truly believe one cannot be a religious person and be political at the same time. Christ said "You cannot serve two masters" during The Sermon On The Mount, and this remains true to this day. You can either choose to serve for/with God, or for/with Politics, you can't ride the fence on this one.

Fair enough.

Can we stop quoting entire pages of post?

Professor Smooth wrote:Can we stop quoting entire pages of post?

Yes. Sorry.

at the risk of getting totally slammed..

i agree with the right to abort because its a very humane way of doing something that is and has been a part of life (ANY animal, not just human) since day dot.

animals instinctively use infanticide. its not about moral right or wrong. its about what works for them. if the infant is injured, or deformed, or unwanted (lets face it - this is a factor with both wild animals and humans) its destined to be majorly disadvantaged in the game of life and is subsequently killed.

In Africa, infanticide was much more popular before someone else told them otherwise. thats how they controlled their situation. but that was back when there were a few less starving mouths.

Humans are no more important in this world than the animals that practice thier own 'abortions' all the time. they have thier reasons.

I feel better about my position every time a see a kid with a parent who doesnt care for them properly. This is mainly because they cant even care for themselves properly. and that could also be because thier parents before them didnt have a clue either.

i dont see a problem with abortion.

Moonbase2 wrote:No offense to any of you men out there, but this is purely a woman's decision to make. We are the ones that carry babies, and therefore we have the right to make that choice. Until you guys start popping them out, leave the choice to us.

No offense, but this an extremely selfish and one-sided view. Take it from someone who was on the very nearly almost on the recieving end of an abortion. It's scary when I think that my existence was dependant upon the actions of a bratty 18 year old who had no problems creating me, but suddenly had objections if they wanted me.

Incidently, if you have a child and was considering an abortion before changing your mind, NEVER tell them.

DesalationReborn wrote:I personally want to make more stringent laws regarding the responsibilities of the father, since those of the mother seem all but inherent, and birth control readily available and 100% effective.

I have no problem with making the laws tougher on dead-beat dads, just as I have no problem making laws tougher on dead-beat moms (yeah, they exist).

I do have objections about the statement about birth control. There's no such thing as 100% effective birth control. If a doctor tells you this, find a new doctor, because you're looking at an idiot.
I'm not advocating against birth control, please, by all means use it! All I'm saying is that please be prepared for the consequences if it fails.

It seems that each one of you has valid points that I agree with. But I have to say that though church and state are "seperate" they influence each other. The law tries to control religion and religion continues to influence those who make the laws.

Considering that most laws are based on morals comprised of religious values, to totaly seperate church and state is never going to happen.

i agree with the right to abort because its a very humane way of doing something that is and has been a part of life (ANY animal, not just human) since day dot.

I see nothing humane about soffocating a baby by removing the amniotic fluid, and then replacing it with a salt solution that chemically burns it to death.

you dont need to be religious to have moral values.
you can be be responsible for your own values. i dont think that statement is very valid.

and i respect the fact that you dont think that the method for abortion is humane. i gues we have different definitions for humane.

skippytron wrote:you dont need to be religious to have moral values.
you can be be responsible for your own values. i dont think that statement is very valid.

I didn't say you needed to be religious to have moral value, I said the laws were stemmed from them. Murder, theft, etc are all basic principles brought on by the ten commandments, which early lawmakers took more to heart then people in the modern age. This is why there were ten commandments in courthouses across the country, until they were removed.

I am sticking with my statement that this is a WOMAN'S decision to make. And for the record, often it is the MAN that is pushing for an abortion. Look, whether you men like it or not, it's our ovaries, our uterus, our reproductive system. We should not be FORCED to give birth to a baby we don't want. Why would you wish that on a woman or a child? Accidents happen. If they didn't, we wouldn't need abortion.

It is also difficult to understand what is like to be in a woman's shoes when she is pregnant and doesn't want to be. I've been in those shoes. I understand those feelings. My situation was a LOT more favorable than many women out there. I had that baby and love the snot out of him, but for some women they can't even afford to care for them. And before you go calling a woman a murderer, maybe you should call out those men that aren't around to help raise these babies.

I know one person who has admitted to an abortion. Actually, she had kept her pregnancy a secret til she asked me to work for her on the day of her abortion. She was unmarried, with two kids, one of whom had down syndrome, and she was working at Subway. She and the father of her kids were barely hanging on by a thread. To her, abortion was the only choice, because they couldn't afford the baby. It is best for her family in this case. She did the abortion before the end of the first trimester. If you ARE going to get an abortion for purposes other than medical issues, it is best to do it then. And most women do it before the baby is viable, making partial birth abortion rare.

Anti-abortion arguments depend on the arguments that a fetus is a person and that all people have a right to live. The first argument is the one which comes under dispute. There are at least two major notions of where personhood comes from in the West. In the first, the person comes from inherent attributes of birth, from bloodline in older folk theory and from genetics in contemporary scientific folk theory. In the second, the person is a process produced by relationships with other persons.

The strongest version of the first viewpoint would see a fertilized egg as a person and thus argue for its rights. It is a viewpoint consonant with the attachment of inherent attributes of the person to biological characteristics of birth.

The second viewpoint would not see a fetus as a person, or only partially as one if the mother and family desire it and are thus already forming mostly one-sided relationships with it. Here, the family treating the baby however they do when it is born is the beginning of its personhood and of the applicability of its rights as a person.

Proponents of the first argument must confront how women's bodies regularly abort fertilized eggs in the first weeks of a pregnancy before a woman even realizes its existence, thus making women's bodies the greatest slaughterers of humankind in existence. Constant monitoring of any sexually active woman to guarantee the survival of any person created inside is the only way to stop this eons-old stream of murder by menstruation.

Proponents of the second viewpoint must confront that a baby killed or allowed to die as soon as it is born would not qualify any more as a person than a fertilized egg, such that it might be necessary to condone infanticide, which has been used as a form of birth control across cultures for millennia.

The point here is not to force a choice between two extremes, but to consider the ramifications of following an argument with consistency.

Moonbase2 wrote:I am sticking with my statement that this is a WOMAN'S decision to make. And for the record, often it is the MAN that is pushing for an abortion. Look, whether you men like it or not, it's our ovaries, our uterus, our reproductive system. We should not be FORCED to give birth to a baby we don't want. Why would you wish that on a woman or a child? Accidents happen. If they didn't, we wouldn't need abortion.

Yes, it is the woman's choice, in many ways. It's also the woman's choice to not have sex, it's also the woman's choice to use birth control if they are not capable of that. And yes, it's a woman's choice to end a pregnancy, because, yes it is their body. But it's also their responsibility to live with the decision once they've aborted the baby. They should have to remember that for the rest of the thier lives, and maybe make better decisions in the future.

It is also difficult to understand what is like to be in a woman's shoes when she is pregnant and doesn't want to be. I've been in those shoes. I understand those feelings. My situation was a LOT more favorable than many women out there. I had that baby and love the snot out of him, but for some women they can't even afford to care for them. And before you go calling a woman a murderer, maybe you should call out those men that aren't around to help raise these babies.

I wasn't calling a woman a murderer, I'm just advocating that they take responsiblity for themselves and their actions. And those responsibilities should extend to both the parents. I'm with you on the dead-beat parent thing, though it's not just the father who conveniently forgets their responsiblities.

Well, I guess my point is, no man has the right to dictate what the woman can or cannot do with her own body, especially men that have nothing to do with her. My husband thinks he has the right to say so, because he "was nearly aborted". I guess that gives him the authority....not. He doesn't have a uterus, therefore he has NO say.

Yeah, a woman should be more responsible. I think that is the prime reason why BC should be free and readily available. It would make both sides happier if the NEED for abortion is lessened.

Moonbase2 wrote:Well, I guess my point is, no man has the right to dictate what the woman can or cannot do with her own body, especially men that have nothing to do with her. My husband thinks he has the right to say so, because he "was nearly aborted". I guess that gives him the authority....not. He doesn't have a uterus, therefore he has NO say.

Yeah, a woman should be more responsible. I think that is the prime reason why BC should be free and readily available. It would make both sides happier if the NEED for abortion is lessened.

And I wouldn't dream of believing that I'm in control of any woman...not even my wife, and I never said that. If anything, it's the other way around

Loki120 wrote:

DesalationReborn wrote:I personally want to make more stringent laws regarding the responsibilities of the father, since those of the mother seem all but inherent, and birth control readily available and 100% effective.

I have no problem with making the laws tougher on dead-beat dads, just as I have no problem making laws tougher on dead-beat moms (yeah, they exist).

I do have objections about the statement about birth control. There's no such thing as 100% effective birth control. If a doctor tells you this, find a new doctor, because you're looking at an idiot.
I'm not advocating against birth control, please, by all means use it! All I'm saying is that please be prepared for the consequences if it fails.

I stated that I was speaking in hypotheticals-- morality for a perfect natural system. And I agree- nothing is ever 100%.

To others, I personally debate whether we have control over our own bodies, or if there is really a body to control. What absolutes define a body? If you get an organ transplant, is it still your body? If you change a single cell in your brain, are you still you? How about another? Another? Another? Ad nausiam? Then you can't define what makes you you, for 'you' are constantly replacing and repairing patches so that you are a totally new individual at least every 7 years. If we go with anything, people would say it is our memories to define us, but what of a clone with your own memories? We aren't so definite as we think.

If we are going on ownership, it can also be argued in that, if a man owns his seed, that by proccess of copulation the woman is willingly allowing the transfer of his property into the costody of her own. Seeing as a child is 1/2 the genetics of the father, that means that the child is well 1/2 the property of the father, and property that was willingly accepted into her own self by the woman, and, at least outside of rape, is not a trespassing, unwilled entity, or something that can be disposed of without consultation of the mutual owner. Of course, these days you can't legally own a human being, but as many consider a fetus not such, than I'd personally think this valid.

We can argue the will of the mother and the will of the child, but, in the end, this comes down to a 'might makes right' issue-- the one in inherent, undeserved authority (ass all really is) conquering and deciding for those who have yet to make a choice, or even those who have yet to exist, and that is no morality at all.

EDIT: And note I am discussing the conscious willing of an action-- we can't be responsible for what we can't control. Though I would debate 'responsible.'