Abortions

[-Osiris-]

Is abortion wrong? i would like to know your opinion

[myhexhax]

I believe they are wrong, though exceptions should be permitted in cases of rape, incest, and such. I do have a hard time arguing that it should be a criminal offense though, because I don't think that is right either.. perhaps if alternatives were promoted? I just think it is sad that a baby was going to grow up and become something great, but was killed off before it even had a chance.

In light of Obama's recent election in the United States, I am scared for what that is going to mean for this topic. He is incredibly extremist on this point.

"The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do." -- Senator Barack Obama

He also voted against a bill that would prevent the killing of babies that have been 'born' due to a botched abortion, a bill that even Senator Hillary Clinton supported.

I find it really disheartening that so many people could support a man who supports killing live infants (I'm not talking about fetuses here)

These are just my views though, and I'm always torn in what I should actually support..

[sidebottom]

President Obama "Waited until a day after the Jan. 22 anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court's 1973 decision legalizing abortion, to issue an executive order to provide funding for overseas organizations that perform or promote abortions."

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... tone_N.htm

Despite your personal beliefs on whether abortion should be legal at all or not, what do you all think about tax dollars being used to support an act that much of the country believes to be murder?

Also, the issue is not pro-life vs. pro-choice, it is pro-life vs. pro-murder; the term pro-choice is used to trick people into thinking that it stands for something good...after all isn't the freedom to choose things good? The fact is that 98% of abortions are a result of social inconvenience, not rape or any life threatening conditions (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/ ... asons.html
). In 98% of abortions the woman HAD a choice before conception. She choose to gamble with getting pregnant and she lost and now she wants to relieve herself of any kind of responsibility of her CHOICE. So logically, the pro-choice stance should die at conception, not the child.

And for any of you that will argue "well, it's not a child it is just a bunch of cells" I ask you, at what age should a person be granted the right to live? The common consensus for pro-murder folks is at the stage where the fetus can survive by itself outside the womb. But why stop there? A child at two years old certainly can LIVE outside their mothers womb but it cannot survive on its own by any means. How long will an infant survive if it is completely neglected? A couple of days at most? I've known teenagers that can't survive on their own without their parents providing for them, so should their parents be able to "abort" them if they decide that they no longer feel like dealing with them?

[godofcereal]

I am the abortionater! I have come back to stop Sarah Conor having her baby. *holds shot gun to vagina* This will hurt alot. *Bang*.
Say all that like the terminater.
I think woman should be aloud to get abortions, its their choice. And the baby is just living tissue like a scab, how many people keep their scabs?

[Andomis]

[I am and always will be pro-life]

I believe that life begins at the first beat of the heart, (on the 20th day after conception) and from then forward when the body of the child pumps its 'own' (blood within the body cavity at that moment in time) blood (being filtered through the mothers liver/kidneys of course) through its limbs- it is alive. I believe that that even under situations where there was a rape, the woman must make her choice then, and not 3 weeks later (If you are on the "pro-death" side that is). There are reasons for date rape kits, counsiling, and day after pills.

Do you think that men who are raped should be treated equally?

Did you know that if a man is raped, and the woman who raped him becomes pregnant- the choice to keep the baby is 100% hers? He has zero rights, and the baby has zero rights. Sperm, spit, gum (the consumable flavoured candy), bodily wastes (urine, etc..), sweat, and blood are no longer considered part of your autonomy once they leave your body, and can be used by anyone- for anything- no matter the way of gathering it. Cut someone and steal their blood- they cannot do anything about what you do with it, only about the fact that you took it.

Speaking of autonomy, what makes us autonomic? Do you think that a baby that is one day old, is more autonomic than a fetus? what about to that guy in the next room who has been in a 6 week coma? Autonomy is the method by which we currently decide whether something can make choices for itself or not. Its quite possibly easier to prove that a "crazy" person is less autonomic than a person in a coma, who cannot even speak. (there is a section of one of my psych books that has the exact definition, and requirements to beconsidered worthy of life currently- I will look it up)

I want to ask the next woman to get a abortion this question,

"if you get this abortion, we will kill the man in a coma behind you. do you still want it? because you are now making the choice for three lives, not just two, however two of the lives are in the same state of conciousness." (conciousness to a point- most EEG's show slight brain activity in coma patients resembling sleeping, and fetus' have a similiar form of sleeping-causes kicking, etc..)

Ask someone that, see how they react, I will bet that most women will reply that it is absurd and that they dont even know the person in a coma- nor have the right to pick when he/she dies. (huh... sound familiar?)

(different scenario)
As for the woman, if she was "pro-death" (or blindly called pro-choice) then she would make the choice whether to risk getting pregnant or not, and if she did, she made that choice. You cannot go to a black jack game and bet, lose, then change your bet so that you come out winning. You choose, you lose. You abstain, you remain.

I actually got into an arguement over this with a few female friends of mine (3 were pro-death, 1 was pro-life), the pro-life one said that we should make the choice before we make the risk. The 3 pro-death ones all agreed 100% that they would like the "option" (AN OPTION????) to be able to have an abortion if they wanted one. Even if the baby did not pose a distraction to or inhibit normal daily activities in their lives, they would still want to be able to 'get rid' of the problem without having to tell their parents or having to stress over it. I was then told (by all 4- including the pro-life friend) that because I can never give birth (I am male), I do not get to have an opinion on the matter. Furthermore that I should not have any choice, even in marriage as to whether or not to keep a baby.

I think that society once tried to protect the female gender, and now it is just growing out of hand, and is being abused. I do not believe that a woman has more or less rights over a un-born baby then the male counterpart. Furthermore, I do not believe that either males or females have any choice at all- once the baby is at the point where the mother can no longer push blood through the body of the fetus, and it has to do it for itself or it would die, the choice to stop life has come to a close. A fetus/baby is NOT part of a womans body.

Two people, born together at the hip, sharing parts of their body, they both have 2 legs and 2 arms, but are just connected through a kidney that they share. Neither of these people are considered to have rights over the other persons arms or legs. Why should a baby have to give up its whole body to the woman when they are only connected through 1 tube? They share the tube as the people share the kidney.. divide that up if you want after the baby is born, Im sure the woman wont want it (umbilical cord).

Follow rules, don't bend them for your own purposes (sounds backwards in comparision to the site/community this is, but in RL- this is true). Women push the limits of abortion every day, when there are already plenty of laws against it, just not formally stating "no abortions."

I am the abortionater! I have come back to stop Sarah Conor having her baby. *holds shot gun to vagina* This will hurt alot. *Bang*.
Say all that like the terminater.
I think woman should be aloud to get abortions, its their choice. And the baby is just living tissue like a scab, how many people keep their scabs?
-godofcereal

A scab is actually not living tissue, it is dead tissue- if the fetus/baby had died on its own, then yes it could be removed. Do you, godofcereal, cut off parts of your body? say a finger? then keep it? I doubt it. Think before you speak.

I think for this matter, maybe abortion needs a better definition. Maybe an abortion should be the removal of a dead fetus, or a fetus without a heart yet? Then sure women can have the choice, as long as men get to also. However if the fetus/baby is still alive, and functioning, then no one should have the "choice".

This is only the tip of my views. But I will stop here because I need to be up in 5 hours.

I would highly suggested thinking about what I have said before you reply, whether in agreement or in difference.

Alive,
Andomis

**Disclaimer, Anything stated above is only an opinion and to be treated as one. Nothing above is ment to change your own personal views, but maybe to jog them. Nothing above is meant to be offensive or sexist.**

**EDIT - Fixed Typo**

[IncandescentLight]

Well, the child should be allowed to live. Even if the mother doesn't want him she can live him/her with social services. Better than not living a life.

[xcurious]

Who cares

[godofcereal]

Who cares

now there is an attitude

[BuTTHeaD]

Oh, woops.
Haha, i meant to choose Pro Life.
Abortions are just not right.
IncandescentLight is correct.
If the mother doesn't want it, put it up for adoption, don't kill it.

[Nines]

Pro-choice.

Until you've had children you don't really have an opinion on this subject... So what I have to say can be considered null and void. However, I'm at the age where a few of my friends are starting families of their own and the attachment to their children is more than words can describe. I think that putting a child up for adoption because of social inconvenience would stir up massive psychological damage because of mother/father-child separation on the parents part. I can't imagine having a child with a girl and then deciding someone else should bring it up... I'd want a say in it, but it wouldn't be anything to do with me.

An early fetus can't think, it's unconscious and unknowing and if in the event that a father/mother isn't in a position to provide the absolute best they can for the child, then they shouldn't have it and the pregnancy should be terminated. By the logic of many you'd assume that male masturbation should be illegal since "potential children" are being killed the whole time.