Look at the issue this way: If a child is going to come into the world it needs a lot of things, among them are a family, a home, food, education, and a lot of support. The list goes on. If that child is going to grow up without those necessities, to a single, poor mother who cannot support the child it becomes an issue of child abuse. Yes, ideally adoption would be an option, but the fact is that there are more unwanted childern out there than families who have the means to raise them.
Of course, pre-term birth causes 1/3 of the deaths of all infants, and I'd like to see a preemie make it to full growth without medical care.
By assigning the same terms to a fetus, you are making absolutely no distinction between a baby outside of the womb and one still growing. Some people make no distinction even at time of conception. As soon as the pregnancy test comes back positive, it's a baby. Argue potential-for-life, souls, etc. all you like, what rights do you have to force someone else in this country to do something against their wishes?
By assigning the same terms to a fetus, you are making absolutely no distinction between a baby outside of the womb and one still growing. Some people make no distinction even at time of conception. As soon as the pregnancy test comes back positive, it's a baby. Argue potential-for-life, souls, etc. all you like, what rights do you have to force someone else in this country to do something against their wishes?
That doesn't make sense...wouldn't it still be built on "ifs"...who was talking about sand?? j/kMarconius wrote:
An argument built on "ifs" is an argument built on sand...
Seriously though, not that anyone really cares, but I'm against abortion as a form of birth control. What I mean is basically what others have said, in case of medical emergency or complications putting the mother at risk, maybe even cases of rape, etc. But if you make a mistake, get pregnant, live with it. I got my girlfriend pregnant when I was 17. Abortion was never a question for either one of us (thank God...literally). We had the baby, I was 18 she was 17 and still had a year of highschool to finish. About two years later we got married, we've had another kid (on purpose) and our kids are now 9 and 4 and we've been married for almost 8 years. We weren't expecting to have a baby, but we made a mistake and made the best of it. I wouldn't change it if I could.
Point is, you'll have a hard time convincing me that the "fetus" is not alive, because I've seen the growth first hand. I've seen the reactions to the mothers voice. It makes me sick that people will end a life so willingly. But someone else was talking about murder and manslaughter, etc. That is one part of the law that just doesn't make sense. Why is it concidered a double homicide, or two cases of manslaughter if you kill a mother and her "fetus"? Because according to the law that fetus is not a human being...so...??? What if I killed a person who was holding a G.I. Joe action figure? He looks human, his arms and legs move and some of them actually talk. I know if I bought my own G.I. Joe figure and destroyed it no one would care. But if I killed someone else and destroyed their G.I. Joe figure in the process, would I be accused of two murders?
None of it makes sense to me how our legal system, and people in general, can rationalize it.
Then it would appear, if you are the latter, you have no idea what the hell you are talking about and thus not qualified to discuss it.IRONCHEF wrote:
Marconius is right, this debate hinges on definition of a "soul." If you've had children, if you've sung songs to it through it's mother's belly, if you've felt it kick you or mock you for singing, if you've heard it hiccup..then there is no debate..it's a living soul with an identity, with rights, with purpose and with a full, bright future.
If you've not had children, and haven't experienced those things..then yes, it can be easy to simply assign the lump of tissue as an unprotected blob of nothing. Sad, but it's true.
There's nothing wrong with abortion. It's entirely the choice of the mother. I am very against highly vocal pro-lifers, if you don't like abortion, fine - but deal with it. Making an already difficult decision for a pregnant woman even harder than it has to be is wrong. It's the womans body, it's their right to decide.
It is hard to define when a foetus becomes a baby, but I don't think that should be an issue at any stage relatively early in the pregnancy. Personally I don't really care how close a foetus is to being a baby, at no point in the womb is a foetus concious, which is what really concerns me.
For all those who are vehemently opposed to abortion, it's legal, get over it. The harrassment the poor women who have abortions sometimes have to endure sickens me.
It is hard to define when a foetus becomes a baby, but I don't think that should be an issue at any stage relatively early in the pregnancy. Personally I don't really care how close a foetus is to being a baby, at no point in the womb is a foetus concious, which is what really concerns me.
For all those who are vehemently opposed to abortion, it's legal, get over it. The harrassment the poor women who have abortions sometimes have to endure sickens me.
For me this issue has absolutely nothing to with souls or religion. You wanna see a preemie make it to full growth without medical care?? It will not, but my son won't survive appendicitis without medical care either, so I guess he is not worth saving.Marconius wrote:
Of course, pre-term birth causes 1/3 of the deaths of all infants, and I'd like to see a preemie make it to full growth without medical care.
By assigning the same terms to a fetus, you are making absolutely no distinction between a baby outside of the womb and one still growing. Some people make no distinction even at time of conception. As soon as the pregnancy test comes back positive, it's a baby. Argue potential-for-life, souls, etc. all you like, what rights do you have to force someone else in this country to do something against their wishes?
STFU u sick bastard. (bertster7)
so if u got abortioned when u were a foetus, could u prove ur point?
so if u got abortioned when u were a foetus, could u prove ur point?
Last edited by mecky (2006-11-02 15:34:26)
Hmmmmmmmmm, well, if it is a WOMENS body, and HER choice, and HER right..........Why does the man have to pay child support if he doesn't want the kid?? I could wait for your answer but I will tell you, it is exactly because there are more people involved than just HER. In the case of abortion it is the baby.Bertster7 wrote:
There's nothing wrong with abortion. It's entirely the choice of the mother. I am very against highly vocal pro-lifers, if you don't like abortion, fine - but deal with it. Making an already difficult decision for a pregnant woman even harder than it has to be is wrong. It's the womans body, it's their right to decide.
It is hard to define when a foetus becomes a baby, but I don't think that should be an issue at any stage relatively early in the pregnancy. Personally I don't really care how close a foetus is to being a baby, at no point in the womb is a foetus concious, which is what really concerns me.
For all those who are vehemently opposed to abortion, it's legal, get over it. The harrassment the poor women who have abortions sometimes have to endure sickens me.
I agree that it is up to the parents to educate their children on their belief system, and give them sound guidence in this respect. However, schools should be where the hard truths are told. Birth Control prevents a lot of births, but it isn't 100% and they need to know that. They should also see the grim reality of STDs. Many of them can't simply be treated with a shot of anitbiotics, and if left untreated can lead to much more severe medical problems.IRONCHEF wrote:
It has failed because lazy parents let schools teach their children. Parent's are partially responsible when their little precious comes home pregnant or having knocked up a girl friend. And the teaching a parent does isn't just saying "don't have sex or I'll cut your balls off" or "i'll take your car keys away for a month." Such teaching moments (if the parents even fathom how important life is) come from parents when their kids are just learning to speak by teaching them that mommies and daddies make babies, etc. As they grow older, hopefully a parent is teaching how important it is to be married first, and "why" having babies without being married is so hard. Teaching the sanctity of life to kids, showing your effection towards your spouse in front of your kids to teach them that families=happiness, and teaching moral purity are EASy things to teach...and when they turn horny...you build on that foundation as they approach the dangerous ages and bad influences. But again, this can only happen if the parent respects life and family in such a way...which sadly is probably not very well represented these days.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Abstinence only sex education has failed.
I'm also aware that ANYTHING can still happen, despite the education. But at least you've done your best as a parent, and given your kids a much greater chance at not bringing unwanted babies into the world.
No, it was just a way to see where you stand on when the fetus becomes a baby. Applying murder and already-born analogies to fetuses won't work on those who don't think like you, as it's just ridiculous.
People will think I'm repulsive, and I'll keep on thinking that it's not your decision to make on what a woman does with her child.
People will think I'm repulsive, and I'll keep on thinking that it's not your decision to make on what a woman does with her child.
Much ignorance in this one, I sense.Sylvanis wrote:
Look at the issue this way: If a child is going to come into the world it needs a lot of things, among them are a family, a home, food, education, and a lot of support. The list goes on. If that child is going to grow up without those necessities, to a single, poor mother who cannot support the child it becomes an issue of child abuse. Yes, ideally adoption would be an option, but the fact is that there are more unwanted childern out there than families who have the means to raise them.
Ok, I'm not trying to be too much of a dick but you really don't know what you're talking about. First off, are you honestly trying to convince us that it is better for the child to kill them than to raise them in a broken home?? Let's see, you either have to grow up without a father or we can kill you before you have a chance to try. . .we'll just kill you, really you'll thank us later. Or poverty or whatever. Tell me you'd rather die than suffer through some hard times.
Regardless of that, to say there "are more unwanted children" is just flat out inaccurate. There's plenty of families that want to adopt and there's actually not enough babies to be adopted. The problem is the people adopting are picky. More often than not they can't have thier own children for whatever reason so they want to adopt someone else's baby. But they want a newborn not a 10 or 12 year old kid...they want to raise the kid from the begining. So yes are there kids not getting adopted? Yes. If someone was pregnant would they be able to find someone to adopt their baby? Most definately! There are waiting lists for adopting babies. For the record, I know this from experience. My sister and one of my aunts cannot have children. They both (at different times) have successfully adopted babies. Before being able to do so they had to go through a laundry list background checks and financial checks and phsycological testing and so much other crap to make sure they would be suitable to adopt...oh yeah, and they had to pay for all of this out of pocket. After they went through all of this stuff which took several months, they get put on a waiting list. In both cases it was more than a year before they're name is at the top, but than they still have to wait for an expectant mother to pick them to be the parents of her soon to be newborn baby. Once they are selected they fork out the dough to pay medical expences for the mother and baby during the rest of the pregnancy, and then every penny for the baby after birth. All in all, (with my sister at least...didn't get all details on my aunt) they spent about $20,000 out of pocket to adopt a baby.
Do not try to tell me that abortion will ever be a better option than adoption because it's just not true. There ARE enough people to adopt babies, so many people waiting every day for their chance to be new mommies and daddies. And thousands of chances ruined by abortion day after day because someone thinks it's too inconvenient to be responsible for their actions.
Ya know, I will tell all of you this:
I am now 40.When I was 20 my girlfriend aborted our baby, with my blessing. I have since fathered 2 wonderful sons 9 and 10 now. I tell you, hardly a day goes by where I do not think about that decision. Especially when I play with my boys.
I promise you all this. If you do it, later in life when you become a parent, it will haunt you. I promise.
I am now 40.When I was 20 my girlfriend aborted our baby, with my blessing. I have since fathered 2 wonderful sons 9 and 10 now. I tell you, hardly a day goes by where I do not think about that decision. Especially when I play with my boys.
I promise you all this. If you do it, later in life when you become a parent, it will haunt you. I promise.
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who carry a fatally ill child to full term is, knowing full well that it would suffer and then die, just so the parents could "hold" the baby is the most cruel and sickening thing I have ever heard in my life.Stingray24 wrote:
Yes, let's educate teens how to be smart since they are having sex. However, birth control is not bulletproof, which I'm sure you're well aware of, so it's not the full solution, either. Abortion is the ultimate assault on a woman when she has not been told all her options in a thoughtful manner. Many women who were not informed carry their grief to this day and have mental health issues and physical health issues because of the abortion. If the baby has fatal deformities, let the parents hold their child before he/she dies. I have friends that did just that, though the doctors tried time and time again to get them to abort. They don't regret their decision. The "no questions asked" policy is a good idea to protect the infant and the mother after birth so they get proper medical care.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Abstinence only sex education has failed. The fact of the matter is that people are having sex. Far too many people believe that if teens are taught the entire truth, including the truth about birth control that they will be more likely to have sex. The fact is they already are, without being educated about all the facts, and that should include birth control.
Abortions were going on long before it became legal, and making illegal will only force it underground again.
As for people that get tried for killing two people if the mother was pregnant, that happens because it wasn't their choice to make. The only person that should be able to make that decision is the mother.
And for the record I'm all for people being told all their options, including adoption, before they can get an elective abortion. I'm also for elective abortions only being available during the first trimester. After that abortions should only be performed when the baby has fatal deformities, or the mother's life is at risk for carrying the baby to term.
I also think the "No questions asked." policy is one of the better ideas to come along. A mother can drop the baby off at any hospital without questions. This will prevent the number of deaths that result from mothers killing the baby shortly after birth.
I'm pretty easy going and open minded, but that is just one of the sickest things I have ever heard. I would put that right up their with terrorists decapitating their hostages on film.
You do not have children, obviously, therefore, not qualified to have an educated opinion.Marconius wrote:
No, it was just a way to see where you stand on when the fetus becomes a baby. Applying murder and already-born analogies to fetuses won't work on those who don't think like you, as it's just ridiculous.
People will think I'm repulsive, and I'll keep on thinking that it's not your decision to make on what a woman does with her child.
I think it's interesting that you feel so much pity for the woman who has to deal negative feedback on a decision she is making. But you have no simpathy for the baby that has to deal with the vacuum that is literally sucking it's life away.Bertster7 wrote:
There's nothing wrong with abortion. It's entirely the choice of the mother. I am very against highly vocal pro-lifers, if you don't like abortion, fine - but deal with it. Making an already difficult decision for a pregnant woman even harder than it has to be is wrong. It's the womans body, it's their right to decide.
It is hard to define when a foetus becomes a baby, but I don't think that should be an issue at any stage relatively early in the pregnancy. Personally I don't really care how close a foetus is to being a baby, at no point in the womb is a foetus concious, which is what really concerns me.
For all those who are vehemently opposed to abortion, it's legal, get over it. The harrassment the poor women who have abortions sometimes have to endure sickens me.
DAMN!!! +1 You said that with Such thought it was very empowering to read.IRONCHEF wrote:
I think the outrage is considerably less because the majority of Americans support abortion. I do in the event of serious or life threatening complications to the mother and possibly in the event of rape and incest.Stingray24 wrote:
America is outraged over deaths in war, but cannot muster defense for the most vulnerable in our society – infants.
Also, the lives being lost in warfare are developed lives where people have much more intimate attachment than they would with a 2-40 week old fetus.
And just a personal note regarding when "I" think it's a human being...I believe that when the heart beats (2 weeks, actually), it's a living soul. I believe that when the spirit (something created by God) goes into the "mortal tabernacle", or fetus, it's a living soul. But I also believe the value of mom is higher than that soul. If I am to choose between my wife and one of my kids, sadly i have to chose my wife. Same application for choosing an abortion.
But the people doing abortion as a means of lazy birth control, yes, those people are killers and they will have their day of accountability. And on the same hand, someone bombing the clinic that performs that abortion, or that person's home or car is JUST as guilty of murder as said aborting mother.
Marconious:
"It's no one's business to legislate on. You violate the privacy rights of the mother if you start assigning legalities to fetuses.
There are many instances when abortions are necessary, and there are many instances where abortions might seem morally wrong. If you don't like abortion, don't have one. Stop trying to legislate morality."
+1 to you too Man. You 2 sumed this whole topic up in 2 posts. No need to read Any further.
What do you mean?mecky wrote:
STFU u sick bastard. (bertster7)
so if u got abortioned when u were a foetus, could u prove ur point?
No one who got aborted could prove any point.
I'm saying foetuses are not concious. That's fact. No babies that have been aborted know they have been, none of them have experienced life (in any normal sense). The mothers wellfare is far more important to me than the foetuses. I'm not saying that abortions are a decision to be taken lightly, but if it will be much more than a mild inconvenience to the mother - if they really don't want or are unable to support a child, they should have an abortion. It's the stigma surrounding them that makes me sick.
A man doesn't pay child support before the child is born. That is because it is still a part of the mothers body. A foetus is not a proper seperate entity untill late in the pregnancy. It is a part of the womans body and therefore her responsibility.lowing wrote:
Hmmmmmmmmm, well, if it is a WOMENS body, and HER choice, and HER right..........Why does the man have to pay child support if he doesn't want the kid?? I could wait for your answer but I will tell you, it is exactly because there are more people involved than just HER. In the case of abortion it is the baby.
A foetus isn't a person. It is potentially a person. It's like calling an egg an omelette.
I agree there is a line that has to be drawn and it has been. So long as abortions are within the legal timeframe there should be no (or considerably less, as I can see it as rather a distastefull activity, despite my absolute support for it) stigma attached to it.
I'm educated enough to understand that this is a country of liberty and that it should never be anyone else's decision than the mother, as they are the ones who are actually going through the physical process of carrying the child.lowing wrote:
You do not have children, obviously, therefore, not qualified to have an educated opinion.Marconius wrote:
No, it was just a way to see where you stand on when the fetus becomes a baby. Applying murder and already-born analogies to fetuses won't work on those who don't think like you, as it's just ridiculous.
People will think I'm repulsive, and I'll keep on thinking that it's not your decision to make on what a woman does with her child.
And I can not have children.
Ya might wanna re-read.ya missed the point.Bertster7 wrote:
What do you mean?mecky wrote:
STFU u sick bastard. (bertster7)
so if u got abortioned when u were a foetus, could u prove ur point?
No one who got aborted could prove any point.
I'm saying foetuses are not concious. That's fact. No babies that have been aborted know they have been, none of them have experienced life (in any normal sense). The mothers wellfare is far more important to me than the foetuses. I'm not saying that abortions are a decision to be taken lightly, but if it will be much more than a mild inconvenience to the mother - if they really don't want or are unable to support a child, they should have an abortion. It's the stigma surrounding them that makes me sick.A man doesn't pay child support before the child is born. That is because it is still a part of the mothers body. A foetus is not a proper seperate entity untill late in the pregnancy. It is a part of the womans body and therefore her responsibility.lowing wrote:
Hmmmmmmmmm, well, if it is a WOMENS body, and HER choice, and HER right..........Why does the man have to pay child support if he doesn't want the kid?? I could wait for your answer but I will tell you, it is exactly because there are more people involved than just HER. In the case of abortion it is the baby.
A foetus isn't a person. It is potentially a person. It's like calling an egg an omelette.
I agree there is a line that has to be drawn and it has been. So long as abortions are within the legal timeframe there should be no (or considerably less, as I can see it as rather a distastefull activity, despite my absolute support for it) stigma attached to it.
So, if a guy punches a women in the stomach when she is pregnant, why is the punishment more severe? And if she miscarries because of that punch, that person would be in big trouble. Care to explain why and then tell me it is not a life?
I have no sympathy for the foetus (we're not talking about babies here) because it is totally unaware of what it is and has not experienced life. It is not a person in any sense. It all depends on where you draw the line. You could say that the morning after pill is murder in exactly the same way as people calling abortion murder, which I think is absurd. It is not killing, it is depriving of the oppotunity for life perhaps, but there is a difference.MastersMom wrote:
I think it's interesting that you feel so much pity for the woman who has to deal negative feedback on a decision she is making. But you have no simpathy for the baby that has to deal with the vacuum that is literally sucking it's life away.Bertster7 wrote:
There's nothing wrong with abortion. It's entirely the choice of the mother. I am very against highly vocal pro-lifers, if you don't like abortion, fine - but deal with it. Making an already difficult decision for a pregnant woman even harder than it has to be is wrong. It's the womans body, it's their right to decide.
It is hard to define when a foetus becomes a baby, but I don't think that should be an issue at any stage relatively early in the pregnancy. Personally I don't really care how close a foetus is to being a baby, at no point in the womb is a foetus concious, which is what really concerns me.
For all those who are vehemently opposed to abortion, it's legal, get over it. The harrassment the poor women who have abortions sometimes have to endure sickens me.
No, I'm saying in my obviously biased way, that someone who doesn't appreciate the process between conception and birth probably won't understand why they should protect an unborn child. And Im NOT the latter if that's what you're insinuating.lowing wrote:
Then it would appear, if you are the latter, you have no idea what the hell you are talking about and thus not qualified to discuss it.IRONCHEF wrote:
Marconius is right, this debate hinges on definition of a "soul." If you've had children, if you've sung songs to it through it's mother's belly, if you've felt it kick you or mock you for singing, if you've heard it hiccup..then there is no debate..it's a living soul with an identity, with rights, with purpose and with a full, bright future.
If you've not had children, and haven't experienced those things..then yes, it can be easy to simply assign the lump of tissue as an unprotected blob of nothing. Sad, but it's true.
There isn't a baby involved in abortion. There is a foetus. I think you are the one to miss the point.lowing wrote:
Ya might wanna re-read.ya missed the point.Bertster7 wrote:
What do you mean?mecky wrote:
STFU u sick bastard. (bertster7)
so if u got abortioned when u were a foetus, could u prove ur point?
No one who got aborted could prove any point.
I'm saying foetuses are not concious. That's fact. No babies that have been aborted know they have been, none of them have experienced life (in any normal sense). The mothers wellfare is far more important to me than the foetuses. I'm not saying that abortions are a decision to be taken lightly, but if it will be much more than a mild inconvenience to the mother - if they really don't want or are unable to support a child, they should have an abortion. It's the stigma surrounding them that makes me sick.A man doesn't pay child support before the child is born. That is because it is still a part of the mothers body. A foetus is not a proper seperate entity untill late in the pregnancy. It is a part of the womans body and therefore her responsibility.lowing wrote:
Hmmmmmmmmm, well, if it is a WOMENS body, and HER choice, and HER right..........Why does the man have to pay child support if he doesn't want the kid?? I could wait for your answer but I will tell you, it is exactly because there are more people involved than just HER. In the case of abortion it is the baby.
A foetus isn't a person. It is potentially a person. It's like calling an egg an omelette.
I agree there is a line that has to be drawn and it has been. So long as abortions are within the legal timeframe there should be no (or considerably less, as I can see it as rather a distastefull activity, despite my absolute support for it) stigma attached to it.
The foetus is just an extension of the womans body. There is no one else involved, except possibly the father - but his views would be secondary to the mothers because it's her body. In the case of abortion there is no baby to be involved.
It would be much more like calling an egg a baby chick...sorry that just seemed very wrong to use the comparison the way you did.Bertster7 wrote:
A foetus isn't a person. It is potentially a person. It's like calling an egg an omelette.
Regardless, I didn't want to quote the whole post, but you also tried to make a point that fathers don't pay child support before a baby is born. That is true, but I think the other person was trying to say, why is it that the mother gets the sole decision making power as to abort or keep the baby (legally it is her decision and hers alone...unfortunately). So regardless of what the father wants, she can keep or abort the baby. Let's say the father wants it, she aborts and he is left with nothing. She has taken something from him that is scientifically half his. But if the father doesn't want it and the mother does...she keeps it, and then the father has to pay child support even though he didn't want the baby. Why wouldn't it be half his decision one way or the other? I disagree with abortion, but if anyone is going to make the choice it should be father and mother to gether. If they can't agree, have the baby and the person that wanted it gets full custody with no legal obligation to or from the person that didn't want it.
Bottom line, if you're grown up enough to choose to have sex, you should be grown up enough to deal with the results.
I would really like an answer from a few of you.Clark W Griswald wrote:
So, if a guy punches a women in the stomach when she is pregnant, why is the punishment more severe? And if she miscarries because of that punch, that person would be in big trouble. Care to explain why and then tell me it is not a life?
Last edited by Clark W Griswald (2006-11-02 16:00:12)