I'm a man of my word. I said I was going to put into text all of my objections to abortion, and I have. I was asked not to do this, because some people felt it would hurt the harmony on this board. Well, I'm not doing it to anger anyone. I'm doing it to change people's opinions on abortion. It is obvious that I won't attain that goal for many if not all who read my thoughts. But, that is still my goal, none-the-less. But, I am not so hard headed as to thumb my nose at those members who have, in a very civil manner, asked me not to do it. Instead of posting it here, I will provide a link to my own web page where I have written on the subject. It's not 100% complete, but I feel enough is there to now provide those who wish to see how I feel on the many facets of abortion the opportunity to do so. I hope everyone who has an interest in the subject will read it, and reply. I am all for those who object to my opinions as well as those who agree to respond. I'm not a thread-monger in the mold of heypartner . I merely provide the topic. Do with it as you will. Anti-Abortion: My Feelings ------------------ I have a dream.........his name's Hakeem. DREAMer's Rocket Page
That was very weird. Sorry for the delay. The page is now up and running. It was up before I posted the original message, but I did upload the page a few more times after a little editing. Also, NBCi.COM is not the most ideal server, but they're free, so I don't complain much. ------------------ I have a dream.........his name's Hakeem. DREAMer's Rocket Page
(Deleted because after thinking about it again, I would prefer not to participate in this discussion) [This message has been edited by Det The Threat (edited October 01, 2000).]
"What do we do with all the unwanted babies? I believe there should be a governmental program to provide delivery services for the babies, and then put them up for adoption. It's not a great idea, but under the circumstances it is the best we can do. And, maybe the next generation of unwanted children growing up in adoption centers, will learn from their parents mistakes and not want to repeat them. It may also decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies, because people will know that they will have to go through the entire pregnancy or risk an illegal abortion." So, you are suggesting orphanages funded by the government? Do you have no sense of history? Have you any idea what they are like in countries like Romania? And as for your theory that these "unwanted" children (I won't even bother with the psychological ramifications of that concept) may grow up and learn NOT to do this, you must be kidding. My mother is a therapist and would probably have a heart attack if she read that. Why exactly do you think children of child abuse grow up to be abusers? Or children of alcoholics and drug users grow up to be alcoholics and drug users? Children repeat the actions of their families over and over again whether they know them or not. If you think orphanages are a good idea, you better line up a ton of extra $$$ to pay for all the conseling these kids will have to go through to deal with the fact that their parents (although, it will most likely be parent, singular, because the vast majority of unwanted pregnancies are of single mothers because the father had long since bailed out - what about the father's rights?) left them alone as a baby! Since many of these children will be black or Hispanic and therefore not easily adoptable, you should prepare to educate and house them until they are 18. Then, while you are at it, they should all receive full medical treatment since many will be crack babies, have fetal alcohol syndrome and be born with down syndrome. I'm just giving you the reality. The next time you want to know the reality, go to a free clinic down in the third ward or acres homes or Denver Harbor and actually talk to a few pregnant women. Go to a shelter and see all the children who wonder where their next meal will come from. Go talk to the women who are abused by their husbands but are afraid to leave because they are pregnant or have small children and have no way to take care of them alone. Instead of educating yourself on all the ways to fix this horrible problem, actually learn about the real problems. instead of dreaming about how easy it will be at your house with your good job and your loving family. The rest of the world doesn't have that luxury. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
Dreamer: "I know of only two cases in which I believe a legal abortion should be allowed: 1. In cases where the pregnancy may cause the woman serious health problems. 2. In the case of rape (Incest I consider to be rape)." If you positively believe life began at conception, then why should there be any exceptions at all. Under condition 1) Why should a woman have the right over another life if the pregnancy may cause the woman serious health problems. According to your argument under WOMEN'S RIGHTS vs. FETAL RIGHTS "... when a woman has taken the risk of introducing another life into her womb, she loses …. no she never had the right to decide the fate of that life." Under condition 2) Why should fetuses suddenly loose their rights, these fetuses had nothing to do with the act of rape or committing incest. According to your argument under CHOICE "… But, when a choice involves another beings life, and the especially the termination of that life, then there should be no question, that should not be legal." Should fetuses formed under condition 2 have lesser rights as any other fetuses if life begins at conception? Are you insinuating that offspring have the obligation to forfeit their lives for their parents' sins? WHEN DOES LIFE BEGAN? "I believe that the fetus becomes a life at conception. Not because the egg/sperm combination receives a "soul" at conception, but because from that point a human is being developed. Eggs by themselves don't produce babies. Sperm by themselves don't produce babies. It is only when the two combine is the possibility of life introduced." Using that logic, one could argue that just as eggs and sperms by themselves can not produce babies, a fetus can not transform into a baby all by itself either, it requires the assistance of the mother's womb. "Well, I know of 8 month old babies who couldn't maintain life without someone constantly feeding and caring for them, so are they lives then?" Yes they are consider lives, because they can live with the assistance of machine and any human assistance where as the fetus can ONLY live and develop within the mother's womb. Regarding your Californian Condor analogy, the curators of the sanctuary would be upset at the person who injected the poison because that person ruins their efforts to repopulate the Californian Condor. The person who injected the poison did more than pierce the shell with a syringe he destroys the chances of introducing more Condors into the wild. Everyone knows that an Condor egg will develop into an adult Condor just as sperm and egg will develop into a human when given the right condition. Since the curators have every intention to develop these eggs into Adult, they have every right to be upset. This has nothing to do with when does life begin; because we are not arguing IF a fetus will developed into a human being, we are arguing WHEN does life begin. Ditto for you Ranch analogy. IS ABORTION THE RIGHT THING TO DO? I probably will not choose abortion if it is up to me. However, I could not justify my action of forcing my beliefs onto others without proofs. Simply put, I have no proofs on when does life began.
Jeff, So, the answer is to kill those children and not give them a chance? Yeah, that solves the problem. --------------- I know a lot of people who say things like, "I don't want to be like my parents." Or, "I'll never do it like my parents did." Maybe if the next generation of "unwanted children" grow up in orphanages, maybe society will learn from it. I would gladly take on any of the other problems you mentioned, just to give those kids a chance to have a life. I thank God, I was given life. It may not be a good life all the time, but it is what you make of it. Maybe one of the kids that were aborted was the one who would've come up with the answer to all this, but now he/she can't because they're dead. --------------- What luxury? I don't have a house. I don't have a good job. And, my family is just as disfunctional as the next guys (drugs, eating disorders, poverty, mental instability). I take umbrage to that statement. ------------------ I have a dream.........his name's Hakeem. DREAMer's Rocket Page
rblh, Thank you for discussing more than one sentence of what took me a while to think of and even longer to write. Abortion Exception 1: In this case it is a choice of who's life to sacrifice. And, I stress "choice", because as I said in my article (for lack of a better name), some women still choose to take that risk and die doing so. But, in this case I am willing to allow that choice to be made. It's very similar to seeing two of your best friends, or your parents floating down a flood-swollen river, and your on a bridge. You can only grab one of them. Who do you choose? And, does that choice mean you chose to kill the other person? Abortion Exception 2: Again, I specifically stated that it is a choice. I would hope that a person who gets pregnant from a rape to give birth to the baby, because that baby had nothing to do with the crime. But, I cannot in good conscience tell a woman that she has to give birth to a baby that was concieved under criminal circumstances. But, the woman still willingly had sex, and a very possible outcome of sex is pregnancy. It's like she okayed the act of getting pregnant, but not the result. I want to douse myself with gasoline and light it, but I dont' want to burn to death. I'm not trying to force my beliefs on anyone. I'm just trying to make it illegal to kill babies. You can believe whatever you want. You can believe other races are inferior, you can believe the Earth is flat, you can believe that you should be able to kill someone for raping your sister, you can believe women should have the right to kill babies, because they lack responsibility. But, it should not be legal to perform abortions. It's not legal to smoke a joint, but you can go to Amsterdam and do just about anything. It's not legal to punish thieves by cutting their hands off (in this country). And, as I said, it's not even legal to kill YOURSELF, but you can kill unborn babies. Also, it's illegal to give birth to a baby and throw it in a dumpster because you don't want it, but if you killed it just a few minutes before it was born, or if (in the case of "partial-birth abortions) it was almost out of the woman's body, but still partially in, it's legal to kill it then. I don't want to try and stop a person's choice of whether to have an abortion or not. I just want to make it illegal to do so. Hell, it's illegal to drive over the speed limit, but people still do it. It's illegal to roll through a stop sign (even if there's no traffic), but people still do it. I just think abortion should be at least thought of by our govenment as jaywalking (not in the punishment aspect, just the legality aspect). ------------------ I have a dream.........his name's Hakeem. DREAMer's Rocket Page [This message has been edited by DREAMer (edited October 01, 2000).]
Dreamer "But, the woman still willingly had sex, and a very possible outcome of sex is pregnancy. It's like she okayed the act of getting pregnant, but not the result. I want to douse myself with gasoline and light it, but I dont' want to burn to death." That same argument could also apply to the case where the pregnancy may cause the woman serious health problems on exception 1. The woman also knows there is a chance that the pregnancy could lead to complications and she okayed the act of getting pregnant but not the result. In case of incest and rape, it is indeed a very disgusting act to tell a woman that she has to give birth to a baby that was conceived under criminal circumstances. But if life began at conception which one is more import, life or a person's feeling. Which one is a lesser appalling choice, killing an innocent life because the father committed the crime or telling the woman to carry the pregnancy to full terms. If an innocent kid's father raped a member of my family, do I have the right to terminate that kid's life? I do consider it to be an act of forcing one's belief onto others when you want to make it illegal to have abortion. By making abortion illegal, you are forcing your beliefs on to others that do not consider abortion as killing innocent life. You are punishing others that do not buy into your line of thinking. Furthermore, you can not make exceptions like 1 & 2 that are inconsistent to the reasons you gave for pro life. How do you expect others to agree with you when your own beliefs are inconsistent. [This message has been edited by rblh (edited October 01, 2000).]
rblh, My beliefs are consistent. My belief is in COMPASSION. I have compassion for the millions of innocent babies killed a year. I have compassion for the woman raped and impregnated by her attacker. I have compassion for the woman who could die in child birth. Sometimes, you have to pick the lesser of two evils. Right now, "abortion for all" is obviously NOT the lesser. In a perfect world there would be no abortions, but in that same world there would be no: rape, incest, or complicated pregnancies. Also, if you just look at the numbers, the percentage of abortions due to rape, incest, and health concerns is (I would wager, feel free to show me otherwise) less than 5% of all abortions in the U.S. You haven't addressed the fact that jaywalking is illegal, but abortion is not. Why not find some inconsistencies in the legality of things like that than with splitting hairs about when a woman (and her significant other) should be able to decide to abort a pregnancy. My way millions of babies are still alive, your way some irresponsible women (and men) live to kill again..... ------------------ I have a dream.........his name's Hakeem. DREAMer's Rocket Page
Dreamer, Your beliefs are inconsistent when you argue against abortion with "But, the woman still willingly had sex, and a very possible outcome of sex is pregnancy. It's like she okayed the act of getting pregnant, but not the result. When a woman has taken the risk of introducing another life into her womb, she loses …. no she never had the right to decide the fate of that life." but are unwilling to use this same standard to restrict abortion even under the condition where the pregnancy may cause the woman serious health problems. Your own argument stated that the woman has no rights over the fetus but you are not willing to apply the same standard under exception #1. How passionate can one be if one positively believes life began at conception but allows a woman to choose abortion in case of rape or incest. Are you saying that a woman's feeling and emotional state is more important than an innocent life that has nothing to do with the act of rape or incest. I failed to see why people are consider to be murders because they do not belief life began at conception and support abortion; on the other hand you consider yourself to be compassion for allowing abortion in cases of rape and incest while you positively believes life began at conception. How can your beliefs be consistent when you belief life began in conception but allow a women to abort a totally innocent life who has nothing to do with the act of rape or incest? "Also, if you just look at the numbers, the percentage of abortions due to rape, incest, and health concerns is (I would wager, feel free to show me otherwise) less than 5% of all abortions in the U.S." What is the minimum % requirement for killing innocent lives (due to rape, incest, and health concerns) to became significant 10, 20, 30 …? If life began at conception only 0 % is tolerable even in cases of rape or incest. It should also be intolerable in cases of health concerns according to your arguments that "But, the woman still willingly had sex, and a very possible outcome of sex is pregnancy. It's like she okayed the act of getting pregnant, but not the result. When a woman has taken the risk of introducing another life into her womb, she loses …. no she never had the right to decide the fate of that life." "You haven't addressed the fact that jaywalking is illegal, but abortion is not. Why not find some inconsistencies in the legality of things like that than with splitting hairs about when a woman (and her significant other) should be able to decide to abort a pregnancy. My way millions of babies are still alive, your way some irresponsible women (and men) live to kill again....." What is there to address when I do not believe abortion should be illegal because I can not give any proofs to support the case. It is not splitting hairs about WHEN a woman should be able to decide to abort a pregnancy, because that is the whole point of the abortion debate WHEN DOES LIFE BEGAN? [This message has been edited by rblh (edited October 01, 2000).] [This message has been edited by rblh (edited October 01, 2000).]
What about this psycho Catholic priest who crashed his car into an abortion clinic and tried to break into it wielding an ax? he could have killed someone and perhaps he intended to? It wouldn't be the first time an anti-choice protester resorted to fatal violence.
outlaw, I think you know me (somewhat) by now. I don't have an "internet" personality, as some people do. What you see it what you get with me. I, obviously, do not condone the priest's actions. But, maybe he was taking a line out of Malcolm X's book. Slavery took a war to become illegal, maybe abortion will too, in some way. ------------------ I have a dream.........his name's Hakeem. DREAMer's Rocket Page
While I tend to agree w/ DREAMer's sentiments... my conclusion differs due to my pragmatic, yet slippery slope b.s. fallacious arguments that the population should be managed. The last thing humans should do, IMO, is enforce child birth. Is it just me, or is this the sort of subject that would be impossible to be objective about? Either way you look at it, abortion takes a mass of cells and ends its potential to be an autonomous human. That much, pro-choice and pro-life people have to agree on. Some pro-choice people might even agree that it is murder. All of these things though, are descriptive things. Normative things tell us how we should live, not how we are living. To me, the bridge to determining whether or not abortion is immoral is the same one as determining whether or not my grilled chicken breast tonight was immoral. Both involve the deaths of a separate organism. To determine that either should not have occurred relies on appealing to someone's compassion... A vegetarian says "but the chicken suffered". The meat eater says "so?". There's not much arguing that. The meat eater has to agree that the chicken's suffering was a bad thing that should evoke his/her action. There's certainly not some objective truth that demands though, that the chicken not suffer. There also doesn't seem to be some rule that a clump of cells has some right to this world that overrides the living's rights (although I've arbitrarily drawn the distinction that an abortion of a 5 month old fetus is worse than that of a first trimester). Sorry for babbling, but I simply think that this argument will never be solved. However, persuasive emotional arguments such as DREAMer is making will appeal to people's compassion from time to time and get said person to change their views. There will never be an argument, though, that every person will look at and say "it's over, it's solved". ------------------ "Everyone I know has a big but... come on Simone, let's talk about your but."
Sorry DREAMer, I wasn't trying to attack you by comparing you with the priest. I apolgize if that's what it sounded like. I just brought it up in this thread after I heard it on the news. I totally respect your passion in defending your view on this topic despite my disagreeing with it.
Thank you, Achebe, for bringing up the population point. It does, however, open up a whole other can of worms. I was one of those that asked DREAMer not to post this topic. I was tired when I made that request, as I am tired now. One of the reasons why I am so tired is that I see no resolution to this question. That makes me weary. I really want to post my opinion, but I don't think it would be very enlivening. Maybe some night when I've had a good deal of caffeine and I'm feeling frisky. Until that fateful evening, DREAMer. Good night. ------------------ Sometimes I think I'd be better off dead. No, wait, not me...you.
Congratulations on 2000, by the way. ------------------ Sometimes I think I'd be better off dead. No, wait, not me...you.
Jeff, I believe Abortion is murder. This is the big difference between the two of us. Every argument for abortion I have seen doesn't take this into account. I can't justify murder through any argument to my heart or my brain, though yours is one of the best I have read in that it draws sympathy that for the horrible world they will be brought up in. Wholesale slaughter of people below the poverty line, over 55, on medication, that speed, that drink, that do drugs, that are bad parents would fix a lot of problems, but let's not go there becuse I would have to be killed a few times. I know this is completely absurd, but I am trying to get you to understand how I view abortions. I think underprivelidged Americans being executed because Americans consider it a burden is a real problem. Screw universal healthg care and free perscriptions for the elderly. Build new and better orphanages. We don't need new transports for the military. What's the difference between abortion and the Prom baby murder? 1) The baby had a chance of being found in the trashcan and rushed to an emergency room. 2) One is inside the mom one isn't, but both die because they need their mother for nourishment. 3) The baby is more developed, but would have same genetic structure. 4) Its just where you draw the line. On the point of rape, I am for the death penathy. I am against the death penalthy, normally. I have never come up with a good reason for this internal hypocracy, except that is the way I feel. I consider myslf an extremist when it comes to protecting children and women. ------------------ As the wise Ewok philosopher, Logray, once said, "yub yub" [This message has been edited by Joe Joe (edited October 02, 2000).]
The best part about this is the political paradox for party-line Republicrats. A Pro-life religious zealot stopped by a private gun owner. Tee hee.
