Abortion

[Mott the Hoople]

I wonder how many men insist on using birth control 100% of the time to try and insure no pregnancy occurs, whether or not the woman uses birth control.

If, in spite of everything the woman gets pregnant, I wonder how many men step up and ask the woman not to have an abortion because they'll take the baby and support it instead.

People put the onus of this on the woman but how many of them are willing to take on a lifetime of responsibility for an infant if the woman carries to term. For example, would you adopt the neighbor girl's baby if it wasn't yours, but you were able to talk her out of having an abortion?

Yup it takes two to tango.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Look back at the other posts. Someone specifically claimed unborn children are not human. The claim is made EVERY time this topic is discussed, and not always by the same poster. Therefore it is a widely held opinion that is easily proven false by science.

As such, it is not strawman as long as people make the false claim that unborn human children are not human. They make the claim, science refutes it.

As for the difference between a legal and biological, it is again not strawman. First, every dictionary on the English language defines a person as a living human. Second, what is the justification for excluding ANY living human from the legal definition of person? What is the justification for stating, essentially, that the scientific definition of living human is not good enough to be the legal standard? What is the justification for taking the stance that legal OPINION should be the standard for determining who has basic human rights, and who does not?

The problem with accepting the idea that opinion can/should be used to provide the legal definition of person is opinion varies, both between people and over time. There was a time when the legal opinion was that my people were not granted human rights. There was a time when the legal opinion was that blacks were not fully human, and could therefore be owned like cattle. Even today there are cultures that use legal definitions of humanity to exclude targeted classes of humans for discrimination, and sometimes elimination.

How is saying "the unborn may be biologically living humans, but aren't worthy of human rights" any different from the time when prevailing opinion stated "blacks may be biologically human, but they aren't worthy of human rights"? What is the functional difference between excluding the unborn from protection under the law, and excluding any other class of living human being from protection under the law?

Well that's all well and fine and I'll leave that for the lawyers to argue but it doesn't answer the questions I keep throwing out there . We know that both extremes of the abortion issue are immoral. That is, abortion for any reason and abortion for no reason. So with that being the case. When is it morally permissable to have an abortion?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I would never, ever, have unprotected sex, because its retarded not to. Period.

Most young men who would wind up in the situation are stupid and immature, so that's a good point. Of course, we are constantly bombarded with arguments that men don't get to have a say in the matter, anyway...

Never say never dude. When I was single I've had protected sex only to have the condom break. A fact I was unware of until after the fact.

The one bit of advice that my parents told me always made me think when I had an opportunity to have sex with some hotty who was an air head or other wise incompatible was, "Would I want to spend the rest of my life with her? Do I want to raise kids with her?"

That can make you think twice! LOL

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Not mention that arguing to kill a baby because the guy's irresponsible is absurd. The woman likley finds herself pregnant from her own irresponsibility.

Irresponsibility should never be a reason/excuse to kill a baby.

or anyone for that matter. It's a big reason why I opposed the immoral war in Iraq.

 

[Good Luck]

Well that's all well and fine and I'll leave that for the lawyers to argue but it doesn't answer the questions I keep throwing out there . We know that both extremes of the abortion issue are immoral. That is, abortion for any reason and abortion for no reason. So with that being the case. When is it morally permissable to have an abortion?

LOL You leave defining the relationship between human and person to the lawyers, and have the gall to speak of morality in the same breath? Hypocrite.

You want to talk about morality, answer this one: how is it "moral" to use law to define "person" in order to purposely deny human rights to a specified group of humans?

And I'll answer yours: if the mother would die trying to bring the baby to term, then if she so chooses, it should be legal for her to protect her own life. This is based on the standard that a person has the right to protect their own life - even at the cost of another - if that other poses a significant threat.

 

[Good Luck]

I wonder how many men insist on using birth control 100% of the time to try and insure no pregnancy occurs, whether or not the woman uses birth control.

If, in spite of everything the woman gets pregnant, I wonder how many men step up and ask the woman not to have an abortion because they'll take the baby and support it instead.

People put the onus of this on the woman but how many of them are willing to take on a lifetime of responsibility for an infant if the woman carries to term. For example, would you adopt the neighbor girl's baby if it wasn't yours, but you were able to talk her out of having an abortion?

There are a lot of people out there who would adopt, given the chance. Why do you think people who decide to adopt, more often than not, end up waiting more than a year, or end up going out of country when they decide waiting that long is not acceptable?

And, as was pointed out, killing the child is hardly justified because one or more adults involved choose to abrogate their responsibility.

Final point (to Cypress) - the number of men willing to take full responsibility for an unplanned child of theirs is not zero. Very low, but not zero. Why do you think the controversy of men having zero say about the death of their own child even exists, if it were not for men who would accept - even desire - the responsibility of caring for him/her?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

LOL You leave defining the relationship between human and person to the lawyers, and have the gall to speak of morality in the same breath? Hypocrite.

You want to talk about morality, answer this one: how is it "moral" to use law to define "person" in order to purposely deny human rights to a specified group of humans?

And I'll answer yours: if the mother would die trying to bring the baby to term, then if she so chooses, it should be legal for her to protect her own life. This is based on the standard that a person has the right to protect their own life - even at the cost of another - if that other poses a significant threat.

Wouldn't she actually be morally obligated under those circumstances to have an abortion and if so, how could that be a choice?

 

[Good Luck]

Wouldn't she actually be morally obligated under those circumstances to have an abortion and if so, how could that be a choice?

First, since when does a "moral obligation" reduce choice to zero? People ignore moral obligation all the time in this society. We already discussed one such common phenomenon - that of dads choosing to not be responsible for their children. Do you not think parenting your own children is a moral obligation?

Second, how is the mother choosing her own life above that of her child a "moral obligation"? And how would choosing to attempt to bring the child to term - even if the chances are slim to none - an abrogation of "moral obligation"?

You have a damned weird definition of moral obligation. And how it affects choice.

 

[Good Luck]

And you still haven't answered my question. I answered yours.

How is it moral to use law to deliberately deny human rights to a targeted group of humans?

 

[Cypress]

Final point (to Cypress) - the number of men willing to take full responsibility for an unplanned child of theirs is not zero. Very low, but not zero.

I was kidding around about "zero".

But it probably statistically close to zero, I don't think I've ever met a dude in my life who talked a girl out of an abortion, and subsequently raised the kid by himself.

Why do you think the controversy of men having zero say about the death of their own child even exists, if it were not for men who would accept - even desire - the responsibility of caring for him/her?

Surprisingly, most of the "controversy" I see on a regular basis is from dudes that either don't have girlfriends, or dudes who are stressed out about women whom they don't even know having abortions. Just look at this board. How many wingnut dudes do you see complaining about women they don't even know, having a right to reproductive choice? I see a ton of wingnuts like that.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

First, since when does a "moral obligation" reduce choice to zero? People ignore moral obligation all the time in this society. We already discussed one such common phenomenon - that of dads choosing to not be responsible for their children. Do you not think parenting your own children is a moral obligation?

Second, how is the mother choosing her own life above that of her child a "moral obligation"? And how would choosing to attempt to bring the child to term - even if the chances are slim to none - an abrogation of "moral obligation"?

You have a damned weird definition of moral obligation. And how it affects choice.

Are you actually arguing that the choice between having an abortion and dying is a choice? You got to be fucking kidding me?

And yes, if a woman has a pregnancy in which the baby has, for example, acute hydrocephalus, there is no chance that baby will live and a near certain 100% probablity she will die unless she has an abortion or a hysterotomy. Under those circumstances it would be morally obligatory for her to have an abortion. Let me give you another example, if a woman is told if she continues her abortion to term the baby might survive but she would certainly die and she has 3 small children at home dependent on her for their survival, would she also not be morally obligated to have an abortion?

If you think my definition of moral obligation is weird then you have no clue as to what a choice is.

 

[augustino5150]

Huh?

A two year old cannot survive on its own, though. I also don't think it requires a religious perspective to oppose killing an innocent person. When I first became aware of what abortion was, I was at school, talking to my classmates in the hall, and I was instantly appalled by the concept, because I knew instintively that it is wrong.

A baby is surviving on it's own the moment it screams "feed me." Anyone can feed it. If you kill the mother before it's born the baby will die. Yes, killing an innocent person is wrong. So is slavery.

You're appalled? Good!
Don't have an abortion!

Children are God's greatest gift and it's not wise to look a gift baby in the mouth but I still will not cast a vote for anyone who orders a woman to bear a child against her will. Let God take care of it. Don't you trust Him?

 

[augustino5150]

What I have proven is that you threw out references that were either factually incorrect or misconstrued. What you have failed to do is make an argument that considers your position reasonable.

The ethical argument most certainly can and is made about abortion. Scientifically we know without any doubt that at conception a person is biologically complete and alive. This new person remains alive unless killed by medical or natural means.


This knowledge introduces an ethical question to the very foundation of abortion laws; Are we killing an innocent human being? Constitutional protection to life is the springboard by which a challenge to Roe will come. I would think pro abortionists such as yourself would be wanting to sharpen every sword for the battle by debating the ethical and scientific realities of the abortion debate.

lol...You have only proven my point!
Your references are modern opinion and speculation. Mine are historical fact.
Thousands of women were raped in the Balkans as an act of war. The only thing those Muslims and Christians agree on is that abortion is an abomination to God and a woman who aborts shall be executed. Abortion law is clearly an enslaving act.

I'm not pro abortion. I think you're nuts to kill your own kid but that doesn't change anything. I will not vote for anyone who orders a woman to bear a child against her will.

 

[augustino5150]

Welcome to the board.

Thanks...and a great board it is!

 

[augustino5150]

Buy as many as you like!

I can own my own body. Can I own my own slaves, as well?

If you use Biblical Law you can own as many as you can afford. You can even sell your three worthless daughters and use the proceeds to buy one hard working male slave!

 

[Canceled2]

lol...You have only proven my point!
Your references are modern opinion and speculation. Mine are historical fact.
Thousands of women were raped in the Balkans as an act of war. The only thing those Muslims and Christians agree on is that abortion is an abomination to God and a woman who aborts shall be executed. Abortion law is clearly an enslaving act.

I'm not pro abortion. I think you're nuts to kill your own kid but that doesn't change anything. I will not vote for anyone who orders a woman to bear a child against her will.

My references were not modern...the Rabbi's interpretation was, but rabbinical interpretation has varied from sect to sect since the destruction of Jerusalem post Christ!

So you do admit abortion is killing "your own kid" and so long as it's not your kid you have no problem with a woman doing it to her "own kid"; it's no skin off your nose.

Yeah dude...

 

[augustino5150]

You're Right!

Yes, Rabbinical interpretation varies from sect to sect and over time. Why does God keep changing His mind?

It's killing your own kid in my opinion but my opinion is worth as much as yours...didley squat.
I still will not cast a vote for anyone who will order a woman to bear a child against her will. That's between her and her God until the child is born.

If I can order you to bear a child against your will I can order you to do anything including burning witches at the stake or marching Jews into the gas chamber...but isn't that what you really want? A return to the dark ages?

 

[Canceled2]

Yes, Rabbinical interpretation varies from sect to sect and over time. Why does God keep changing His mind?

It's killing your own kid in my opinion but my opinion is worth as much as yours...didley squat.
I still will not cast a vote for anyone who will order a woman to bear a child against her will. That's between her and her God until the child is born.

If I can order you to bear a child against your will I can order you to do anything including burning witches at the stake or marching Jews into the gas chamber...but isn't that what you really want? A return to the dark ages?

You keep wanting to make abortion about an entity you don't even believe in ...stupid.

Your opinion is that abortion kills a woman's kid, but that's OK with you 'cause it isn't "your kid".

My opinion is that it's not OK to deliberately kill an innocent person...no matter its current location or who's kid it is. Children are not personal property to be destroyed or kept at whim...they are individules who should have rights of protection like every other person.

I base my opinion on the fact that it is ethically unjust to kill what even you acknowledge is "a kid".

You are one twisted up dude~~~

 

[Good Luck]

Are you actually arguing that the choice between having an abortion and dying is a choice? You got to be fucking kidding me?

No, I am not kidding - and there are many women who make that choice. I personally have known 2. One survived (barely), one did not. Are you saying both were wrong in their choice?

And yes, if a woman has a pregnancy in which the baby has, for example, acute hydrocephalus, there is no chance that baby will live and a near certain 100% probablity she will die unless she has an abortion or a hysterotomy. Under those circumstances it would be morally obligatory for her to have an abortion.

Are you implying that survival of the self is a moral obligation? Explain this concept farther. Because I can think of numerous examples when giving up one's own survival could be argued to be the moral obligation.

Let me give you another example, if a woman is told if she continues her abortion to term the baby might survive but she would certainly die and she has 3 small children at home dependent on her for their survival, would she also not be morally obligated to have an abortion?

Yes, if were I in such a situation, I would feel the obligation toward my living children outweighed any obligation to pursue a miniscule chance at bringing the child to term at the cost of my life. But that is how I would choose according to that poarticualr situation. Some women may see it differently. Thgat is why it is a CHOICE.

If you think my definition of moral obligation is weird then you have no clue as to what a choice is.

Actually it is you who has no concept of choice. You failed completely to address the fact that, all too often, people CHOOSE to ignore their moral obligations in pursuit of some other agenda - all too often a compeltely egocentric agenda. But in the cases of choosing to pursue an (almost) impossible goal of bringing a problem pregnancy to term, the agenda may be a religious or philosophical compulsion. But the fact is, even in the face of so called "moral obligations" (many of which people will not always agree are moral obligations) people have the CHOICE to still take other courses of action according to what THEY believe to be the higher obligation - even if that "higher" obligation, from their POV, is pursuit of personal hedonism.

And you still avoided my question. Why is that? I answered your question, so the least you can do is answer mine.

How is it moral to use law to deny human rights to a targeted class of humans?

 

[Good Luck]

I was kidding around about "zero".

But it probably statistically close to zero, I don't think I've ever met a dude in my life who talked a girl out of an abortion, and subsequently raised the kid by himself.

I can't say I know of anyone who di so, myself. At least not successfully. However, my best fried from HS gave it a good try - and failed. And there are a few cases that went to court on the issue, which I am sure you are aware of.