BF2S Forums Is Abortion Choosing Who Lives and Who Does Not?

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

My point of view is quite simple... if a woman is raped and she wants to abort the child then fine, it is her choice and who am I to force her to do otherwise? If she decides she wants to have the child and raise it herself then fine, it is her choice and who am I to force her to do otherwise? If she decides to have the child and put if up for adoption then fine, it is her choice and who am I to force her to do otherwise?

I don't agree with abortion as a form of 'contraception' but I would agree with abortion when the life of the mother is in danger.

And we are in agreement on all those points. But that wasn't the point of the discussion.

Well if you're talking about some sort of absolute moral 'right' or 'wrong' on the issue of abortion in terms of how it relates to rape victims I don't think it exists, it is relative to each victim and their particular set of circumstances in my opinion.

I never implied there is an absolute right or wrong...of course it's relative to the people involved. What I was arguing was the implication in your posts (which you have since clarified) that, in the instance of rape, there are only two choices: abort or keep and raise. You've since said there are basically three choices: abort, keep and raise, or give up for adoption. Then we discussed your arguments against the adoption choice, which I still think are ill-informed.

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And we are in agreement on all those points. But that wasn't the point of the discussion.

Well if you're talking about some sort of absolute moral 'right' or 'wrong' on the issue of abortion in terms of how it relates to rape victims I don't think it exists, it is relative to each victim and their particular set of circumstances in my opinion.

I never implied there is an absolute right or wrong...of course it's relative to the people involved. What I was arguing was the implication in your posts (which you have since clarified) that, in the instance of rape, there are only two choices: abort or keep and raise. You've since said there are basically three choices: abort, keep and raise, or give up for adoption. Then we discussed your arguments against the adoption choice, which I still think are ill-informed.

You can't really say they are ill-informed as every situation is different, even if you know a few examples personally they don't negate other examples that exist. People in here have argued 'why can't the rape victim just have the child...?' as if it's as simple as taking the dog out for a walk... we're talking about nine stressful months of physical and emotional upheaval for a woman who may not want the general public to realise she was raped at all, never mind pregnant. You are a realist like me FEOS and must surely acknowledge the stigma that is attached to birth outside of wedlock never mind birth as a result of rape. Abortion is not a pleasant option but it is an option that allows the victim to get a certain degree of closure after what she has been through; having the child and putting it up for adoption will follow you around for the rest of your life... there will be no closure in that scenario.

It would be difficult enough for a rape victim to tell a future partner that she was once raped, never mind that she was once raped and subsequently had an abortion... now imagine the difficulty of telling your partner that you were once raped, got pregnant, had the baby, put it up for adoption and that your child is now roaming the earth somewhere in who knows what condition.

I don't care what the options are, I don't care what the arguments are, I don't care how informed a potential ignorant person may be, I don't care how mature or immature they may be, etc.

It isn't the state's right or obligation to instruct, inform, bar choice or force a choice. They shut the fuck up completely and let the person make the choice.

It simply doesn't matter if the world is mean, ignorant, absurd or whatnot. The moral obligation is personal, the choice is personal, the right is personal, the body of a woman is personal, etc. Even the father of the child should have NO SAY in the matter, in legal terms. If he fails to have a reasonable personal relationship with the potential mother - then that already disqualifies him in the matter. If he does have a reasonably good relationship with the potential mother then he and her shall decide together... else not.

My personal feelings that abortion should be avoided is not a moral obligation to another. My feelings should absolutely be set aside, my personal judgments should absolutely be set aside. It simply isn't my choice - when it isn't my body - and that applies to everyone.

PS: I find it odd that many people I know would vote democrat excepting that one issue: abortion. It's often been said to me "I can't in good conscious vote against my beliefs," eh more or less... but the reality is there is almost no chance of Roe v Wade being overturned and every election so far - it hasn't. So far they've been swayed to vote republican over a moot-in-reality point.

Last edited by topal63 (2008-09-22 09:20:20)

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

It isn't the state's right or obligation to instruct, inform, bar choice or force a choice. They shut the fuck up completely and let the person make the choice.

I'm sorry but thats exactly what the government in fact does. They tell you what you can and can't do, thus restricting your choices.

I am sorry but, I think, you might be confused, they (the gov.) are already (currently) exempted from restricting a woman's right to choice over her body. If you're suggesting the gov. should enter the womb and thus restrict it - please explain why? We shouldn't have any laws on the books period regarding personal choice: gay marriage, drug use, prostitution, abortion, etc. (Basically in reference to legal-age adults).

If there need be any law it is only in regards to the nuisance of a free act (actually disturbing peace, etc), or the criminal consequences inflicted upon another by a freely committed act.

Last edited by topal63 (2008-09-22 09:43:38)

CameronPoe wrote:

I would not regard down syndrome as something that 'justifies' having an abortion.

same here.

a lot of what im reading here is that people are ok with aborting kids with DS because they dont want them to suffer through life.

well, why not abort babies who's mothers dont know who the father is, cant take care of them and so on....

those kids will probably suffer too in life, why not abort them?

topal63 wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

I am sorry but, I think, you might be confused, they (the gov.) are already (currently) exempted from restricting a woman's right to choice over her body. If you're suggesting the gov. should enter the womb and thus restrict it - please explain why? We shouldn't have any laws on the books period regarding personal choice: gay marriage, drug use, prostitution, etc.

If there need be any law it is only in regards to the nuisance of a free act (actually disturbing peace, etc), or the criminal consequences inflicted upon another by a freely committed act.

So no laws unless it affects someone else?

Exactly.

If it isn't affecting another why would we even need any law - we wouldn't. Clearly people commit acts of free-will that do affect others and the other (person, party, entity) should not be existing with no-rights, at whim, in the face of another's act of free-will. It is basically why we are a Republic to begin with (Democratic Republic that is, this Great American Experiment).

Well some people regard fetuses as human beings, like you and I, so therefor abortion does affect someone else other than the mother. At least according to them.

I'd say the real issue has nothing to do with personal choice. It has to do with views on when life begins.