Anti-Abortion (I went and did it)

So, if I understand you correctly, you are SUCH an extremist when it comes to protecting women, that this protection extends to control over their bodies by forcing them to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term? If that's the case, I can do without your protection, thank you very much.

Women don't need protection. They need equality. Only then, will we start to see a drop in the rates of abortion.

As far as the difference between abortion and infanticide, there is a BIG difference.

The vast majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester (first 13 weeks). Even as late as the 13th week, the fetus weighs just barely an ounce and nowhere near fully formed. There is no possible way it could live outside the womb, unlike a newborn baby.

 

Jeff , Buddy , a baby whose mother is a junkie , who is born with down syndrome , whose father he will never know , who nobody gives a damn about is still one HELL of a lot better than a dead baby. And DON'T tell me all the damn reasons why i am wrong in a physcological aspect , As far as I'm concerned A baby is a human life that was started on purpose , and if you don't want the baby TOUGH . In cases of rape I really don't know what to say maybe the person who raped the woman should have to take care of the child by himself

------------------
This signature space for rent call 555 ...


[This message has been edited by moestavern19 (edited October 02, 2000).]

 

HUH?!?!!!

This person is a rapist -- a convicted sexual offender. Last I heard, people scream bloody murder anytime a "sexual predator" moves within a mile of their home. Yet you would have them raising children?

Interesting idea to say the least.

 

Moe, you are living in a dream world. I would encourage you to volunteer at an inner city clinic or for an organization that takes care of unwanted children before you go off making generalizations.

------------------
Save Our Rockets and Comets
SaveOurRockets.com

 

Very compelling arguments DREAMer, I appreciate that. I hope you won't mind if I adopt some of them myself.

 

"Slavery took a war to become illegal, maybe abortion will too, in some way."

WOW!!! Dreamer!

So this begs the question. Do you condone those people who kill abortion doctors? This is not an attack, sincere question.

I love your discourse, but your starting to scare me.



------------------
I am the thread killer

 

I am confused by this Jeff...Are you saying that the lives these children lead are so bad that they would be better off dead?? Is this your rationale for allowing women to murder their children? Does this, in your opinion, somehow validate this abomination? I believe that Moes point was that anything is better than abortion. Please explain




------------------

 

The problem here (with people's arguments against Jeff) is that people are envisioning the wrong thing.

Here is the imagery:

#1 One baby, big head, pudgy arms and legs, dead in a pool of blood.

#2 The other, big head, pudgy arms and legs, addicted to crack.

Sure, the second seems better. That is the better scenario for a baby.

Now, compare baby # 2 with a little puddle of mucus-looking stuff. Anyone walking down the street would immediately rush to baby #2 and attempt to help, stepping on the puddle of mucus.

That is where sides will never meet, it seems. The whole life aspect. Emotions get too much in the way. Science says one things, some people's emotions say another.

Anyone who says that life as a ward of the state, addicted to crack, put on lithium to control your "behavior problems" then put into lock-up when you are older because there is nothing else to do with you. Then dying early because of all the drugs forced into your body (maybe getting "free" every now and then to steal, rape, and murder), etc...is a good life, one that the person should "thank God about", knows nothing about reality. My mother has had students of hers killed by irresponsible caretakers more than once - sh has seen all of these things, and I have seen some.

Don't kill something that science shows is not really a life (or at least drwas questions about...)let it live 16 years of "living" hell then kill it off, further costing society. Maybe after 100 years or so, we'll learn something.

Of course, by then our population will have grown too large and destroyed the eco-sytem due to our parasidic ways.

------------------
Talking to a dead hare about art

 

Geez, quite an interesting post...

Uh, since when does every child who is not born into the perfect "enviorment" end up addicted to crack and having "lithium shoved into it" ????? As a ward of the state? Dead at 16? Where the hell did that come from??

And if you think science has any unity on when life begins you have not been reading the literature.



------------------

 

Ugh i really have to stop posting in serious topics

------------------
This signature space for rent call 555 ...

 

Stringie,

Just compressing many different scenarios into one. The suggestion was to pace kids on the hands of government facilities, thus the "wards of the state". Thing. If, as a lot of these kids would be, they are addicted to crack, or mentally imbalenced, those were examples of what currently happens to kids already in such situations.

Even kids who just have emotional troubles due to abuse or abandonment are often considered behavior problems and sedated (lithium is the drug of choice).

Don't try to make it seem as if I am making all of this up. This all comes from experience, either direct or indirect.

"Dead at 16" was just a number, they obviously can die at any age...

------------------
Talking to a dead hare about art

 

Stringie Part II,

I was not saying science has said anything definite, just that it casts some doubt on the whole life aspect.

Just trying to point out that emotions will not convince anyone to change their views about "what they think" about when life begins, it is too personal. Even if science proved somehow that life existed 10 minutes after sex, there are some religions that would say life was only onece outside of the womb - or vice versa (proved life was not until out of womb).

I was not trying to argue with any of that, just practical application of what to do with "unwanted" children, as there already is a shortage of families that will adopt inner children, much less inner city ones with addictions or mental/physical defects.

------------------
Talking to a dead hare about art

 

rascal,

I believe the fetus, not the woman, is completely defenseless in the case of abortion.

A fetus has no choice over his body. If a woman wants the fetus gone, doctors should take him out whole and try to save him. I think in the next 100 years science will be able to keep him alive as a biproduct of cloning experiments.

------------------
As the wise Ewok philosopher, Logray, once said, "yub yub"

 

In a hundred years we'll be so overpopulated that this whole debate will be remembered as comical and absurd.

------------------
Sometimes I think I'd be better off dead.

No, wait, not me...you.

 

i do give a rat's ass DREAMer and I'm glad you are at least open to the idea.
Conversely, your essay was well written and has some good points. I don't ever think I'll become anti-abortion but I am becoming more sympathetic to your beliefs.

I think the whole country should just have a national referendum to decide the abortion debate either way once and for all.

 

Who really believes in killing innocent young babies? Nobody. So what this all comes down to is...are you alive at 13 weeks of gestation or earlier,etc. Arguments about theyd be better off if they werent in this world, theyre going to end up being crack addicts, etc, shouldnt come into play, because this would be like going around to them right after birth and killing htem or going around a year later and killing them or just killing all present crack addicts, because if it is sooo bad to grow up to be a crack addict to merit death before getting there, then this certainly should merit death for all those crack addicts who are already addicts.

SO, the question, at least to me, is when is a life a life?

I find that this question can hardly be answered by science now or ever in the future. It certainly isnt a quantitative measure that some new theory or technique will produce. IT is a question of ideology, spirituality, and religion. A question of one's morals and what defines those morals.
That is why the debate is sooo heated.

My personal belief is that life is started immediately upon the connection of egg and sperm. Certainly there are no brain functions or any resemblence to a physical being, but is there still life...to me, yes.

Heres an interesting scenario I just thought of: Take someone who is a loving, caring person,etc who happens to have an unwanted pregnancy during college. She believes in abortion and gets the abortion done. Later in life, she is now married and is pregnant. A couple weeks into this pregnancy, something goes wrong and she loses the child. How does she feel?
WOuld she feel any differently than someone who doesnt beleive in abortion in the first place?
I know this cant be generalized as this scenario is not the norm, but jsut an interesting quesiton I thought.


------------------
Remember.... You are not really drunk until you must hold on to the grass to keep from falling off the earth.

 

I guess I don't understand your question JayZ. Miscarriages happen all the time, regardless of whether the woman had an abortion previously.

 

I was trying to see how this woman would feel about the miscarriage. I know they happen all the time. I admit Ive never been in a relationship where one has happened. But I can imagine if I was in one, I would feel like a life has been lost, regardless of how long that life had been developing. Does someone who believes in abortion because it isnt really a life prior to 13 weeks anyway feel the same way. Or would they feel no big deal, it wasnt really a life anyway. That is what I was, admittedly poorly, trying to ask.

------------------
Remember.... You are not really drunk until you must hold on to the grass to keep from falling off the earth.

 

JayZ -- It took me a minute, but now I get what you were asking and it really is a thoughtful and thought-provoking question.

A woman aborts a pregnancy at, let's say, ten weeks. She goes on with her life. Five or six years later she tries to become pregnant, but miscarries at somewhere around ten weeks. Would she feel differently? Do her feelings about the pregnancy change how she views conception, the beginning of life, etc...? Very interesting.

Although I don't have an answer, it does seem that her views on abortion may be subject to change, simply because of her new state of mind.

That's why this issue is so sticky. Science isn't of much help, because the frontiers of medicine are always changing. (What was not considered a viable life 20 years ago now is.) So we are forced to rely on our own best judgement.

The problem with that is we all view the world so very differently and we all want one big, sweeping law to cover every possible scenerio. It just isn't realistic.

I mean parental notification, on the surface, seems like a law designed to protect family integrity. But examine it on a case by case basis and flaws begin to emerge. What if it was her stepfather who impregnated her? What if she comes from a strictly religious family who will disown her? What if she may suffer abuse from her parents because of her actions?

It's tempting to sit in judgement of others, but it serves no one. We would be better off by trying to understand their situation first.

Thanks JayZ for a very interesting question -- I'm going to be mulling this one over for a while