20 Oct 04
Originally posted by chancremechanicAbortion is always a form of birth control. You're right, however, that people should not rely on it in isolation. The best way to prevent abortions is to teach folks how to avoid getting pregnant in the first case.
Abortion should NOT be used as a form of birth control, plain and simple...that is a heinous reason to get an abortion. If the "little girl" who got pregnant can't or won't raise the child, then give it up for adoption...maybe we should look at it from the unborn child's perspective...maybe he/she would choose to be adopted so as not to be a hinderance to the worthless biological parents. It ain't All about the mother....or father....
20 Oct 04
Originally posted by chancremechanicThan what is a good reason to get an abortion? Like I said, I only have 2 reasons that I think would allow an abortion; being too young, and putting the mother's life in danger. Look at it from her point of view. If she has the baby, it could effect her health/kill her and the baby might die as well. Would you still have the child? It's not my right to judge whether it's right or wrong, and it's not anyone else's either. It's the woman's body, not mine; it's her own business. And if abortion is made illegal, we'll have women taking birth control pills during pregnancy, which will kill the child anyways. So you'll have an increase in "crime" and eggs still being killed.
Abortion should NOT be used as a form of birth control, plain and simple...that is a heinous reason to get an abortion. If the "little girl" who got pregnant can't or won't raise the child, then give it up for adoption...maybe we should look at it from the unborn child's perspective...maybe he/she would choose to be adopted so as not to be a hinderance to the worthless biological parents. It ain't All about the mother....or father....
20 Oct 04
You guys and girls have got it all wrong.
The american president doesnt lead the country.
You are debating a inconsequential matter.
What matters is how you live day to day. How influential are you. How commited are you to your everyday life and desires. I can say that if you need to be led then come to me and I will lead you. Whats the difference. A pay cheque?
If you think that the government can truly effect your life then you lack the believe and conviction in yourself that you are greater than the politicians ramblings.
In light of the question posed before
Each has attributes that are inspiring and each has attributes that leave much to be desired.
In the end it doesnt matter.
The world we live in has been shaped by the blood of all our ancestors and shall continue to remain a world where power, lust and greed shall dominate the actions of all of us. This means war, famine , disease, and all the things we seem to blame on our so called leaders.
You are your own leader. You can choose any experience.
There is no such thing as peace. this is an illusion. There is however tolerence. How tolerent are you ?
I am South African. I am free.
Our presidents are simply our representatives.
Do you really care who sits in the oval office?
For those of you who are bitching about abortion, open your mind or go join the UN charity workers in Africa or somewhere else if you care so much about life. Hipocrates. Stop your self proclaiming flatulence. and dont give me that bull about god's law. Everything you know about god was given to you by man. Men and woman just like you.
Concern yourself with your own actions. You will be better off.
20 Oct 04
Originally posted by howardgeewell ... my NATURAL father wanted to have an abortion on me. Lucky for me my mother though it was murder and had no part of it. Im a very liberal person but i cant say abortion is no murder. Just because the child cant yet defend itself doesn't mean its not alive and wants to live.
Chancermechanic: you state that "maybe we should look at it from the unborn child's perspective..."
Well, an unborn child doesn't have a perspective: it is in a womb.
It is not an independent, fully formed entity: that is why abortion is not murder.
Saying you can kill a child when its not yet born because it is not conscious is like saying you can kill a man when he's a sleep
20 Oct 04
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardNobody is claiming that the fetus isn't alive. Folks who think abortion is permissible think that the fetus is alive, but that killing it isn't morally wrong (subject to certain conditions). So, the debate isn't over whether the fetus is alive, but whether the fetus has the rights or is due the consideration of a person.
well ... my NATURAL father wanted to have an abortion on me. Lucky for me my mother though it was murder and had no part of it. Im a very liberal person but i cant say abortion is no murder. Just because the child cant yet defend itself doesn't mean its not alive and wants to live.
Saying you can kill a child when its not yet born because it is not conscious is like saying you can kill a man when he's a sleep
Further, nobody is claiming that it is permissible to kill a fetus merely because it is not conscious. Indeed, that would be like saying it is permissible to kill a man that is asleep. Many argue that at the early stages of pregnancy, fetuses don't just lack consciousness, but the very capacity for consciousness. At best, they have the potential to develop this capacity, if the environment cooperates with their development. So, the difference between the fetus and the man asleep is that the former, in many cases, lacks the capacity for consciousness while the latter does not. At best, this argument can only establish that abortions are permissible during the first trimester. So, if you do think that mere consciousness is sufficient for rights possession, then you have to grant rights to fetuses after the first trimester.
Cheers!
20 Oct 04
Originally posted by bbarr
Nobody is claiming that the fetus isn't alive. Folks who think abortion is permissible think that the fetus is alive, but that killing it isn't morally wrong (subject to certain conditions). So, the debate isn't over whether the fetus is alive, but whether the fetus has the rights or is due the consideration of a person.
Further, nobody is claiming th ...[text shortened]... ights possession, then you have to grant rights to fetuses after the first trimester.
Cheers!
Bbarr's telling us what to think and how to think ...... 😀
20 Oct 04
Originally posted by bbarrso you would not have a problem with it if your mother had an abortion on you during the early stages of her pregnancy???
Nobody is claiming that the fetus isn't alive. Folks who think abortion is permissible think that the fetus is alive, but that killing it isn't morally wrong (subject to certain conditions). So, the debate isn't over whether the fetus is alive, but whether the fetus has the rights or is due the consideration of a person.
Further, nobody is claiming th ...[text shortened]... ights possession, then you have to grant rights to fetuses after the first trimester.
Cheers!
I think thats the question we have to ask ourself😉
20 Oct 04
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardIf my mother had had an abortion on the fetus that developed into me, there would have been no 'me' to have a problem with it. How could I have had a problem with anything at all if I had been aborted? There is an interesting tendency for the anti-choice folks to project their own psychologies onto fetuses, but that is an error. Fetuses, especially early in their development, don't have any psychologies at all. Hence, they can't have the psychologies anti-choice folks tend to project onto them. Your question is equivalent to the following: If you were a fetus in the first trimester of development, what would be your beliefs about the morality of abortion? The question is meaningless, since first trimester fetuses don't have any beliefs at all, and hence cannot have any beliefs about the morality of abortion.
so you would not have a problem with it if your mother had an abortion on you during the early stages of her pregnancy???
I think thats the question we have to ask ourself😉
20 Oct 04
Originally posted by bbarrWhen I was a fetus I may not have had any beliefs, but I had no problem using my Jedi mind trick on that darn abortion doc.
If my mother had had an abortion on the fetus that developed into me, there would have been no 'me' to have a problem with it. How could I have had a problem with anything at all if I had been aborted? There is an interesting tendency for the anti-choice folks to project their own psychologies onto fetuses, but that is an error. Fetuses, especially early ...[text shortened]... on't have any beliefs at all, and hence cannot have any beliefs about the morality of abortion.
Doc: "You don't want an abortion, ma'am"
My Mom: "I don't want an abortion."
Man, back when I was a fetus...those were the days! 😉
TheSkipper
20 Oct 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeI'm not telling anybody how to think, but I am pointing out an entailment of one particular belief. If you believe that consciousness is sufficient for having rights, then you are committed to believing that abortion after the first trimester is a violation of the fetus' rights. If you disagree with this argument, please present an objection.
Bbarr's telling us what to think and how to think ...... 😀
Cheers!
20 Oct 04
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardHow are these things similar? A man cannot be compared to an unborn fetus and taking a nap is not like being in the womb. It's the choice of the woman whether or not to have the child. Some women who get pregnant are not fit, capable nor ready to have children and raise them in a healthy environment. Who are we to tell them that they absolutely must have the baby?
Saying you can kill a child when its not yet born because it is not conscious is like saying you can kill a man when he's a sleep