[PUG] Abortion

[Barnabas]

Then elaborate on your declaration of absurdity for the reasons.

I don't know if this will suffice other then to say that I just had to.
who knows, but none the less I can only say I felt the need to post it.

 

[Raccoon Love]

Where should the line be drawn? PUG is an indicator that the thread is intended for war is it not? Did the proabortion side surrender?

Huh, I think when you start attacking members in a way which is directed directly towards them in a rude and disrespectful manner than one should go off to cool down, the topic might be heated and controversial but there is always a line between just heated discussing and attacking.

 

[the]

You know the drill. Keep it civil. No personal jabs, and nothing overtly inflamatory.

Then what makes a PUG different from a PAX if the rules are all the same? If you could start a thread about this seperately it would not derail this thread. TY

 

[IndigoSensor]

No topic subtitle allows for personal jabs or purely inflamatory posts, as that is against forum rules. PAX threads are in place for having no debate, just discussion. I have split off PAX threads in the past if they became debate oriented (as have other mods).

 

[TheLastMohican]

Barnabas, is this thread about the morality of abortion, the legality of abortion, both or neither? I'm wondering whether it really belongs in the politics section.

 

[the]

It seems that you don't understand the arguments as well as you think you do.

Nobody is advocating for abortion. Abortion is a horrible thing, and nobody out there is demanding the right to have abortions. What women are fighting for is the right to do what they will with their own body.

And what they want to do is have abortions. They demand that right.

Regardless of whether or not a fetus is a "part" of it's mother's body, it exists within it's mother's body, gets all its sustenance and eliminates all it's waste through its mother's body, breath's through it's mother's body, and cannot survive without it's mother's body. Women arguably have a right to do what they will with their own body, including aborting a fetus from it. Does that make it right? Does that make it reasonable? The reality is that it is none of your business.

Says you , you are not the father.

It is the mother who has to live with the decision.

and the father.

That is the reality if she seeks to do it with a licensed doctor, or by herself in a back alley with a coat hanger. The reality is that you can't control, even if you made illegal, what a woman does with her own body.

Of course, what you want to seem to do is give a fetus's life precedence over a mother's liberty. You want to call a mother a murderer if she chooses to abort a fetus. Maybe she is. And it is your right to judge her as such if you so choose. However, it is not your right to infringe on any woman's liberty. It is not your right to try to force your belief that the fetus's life takes precedence over the mother's right to choose what she will do with her own body. Nor in reality can you infringe on that right, unless you want to create laws whereby women are thrown in prison for having abortions.

Instead of trying to force your views on women, you should seek to work with them so that they don't want to get abortions. Providing sexual education and contraceptives so that they avoid getting pregnant to begin with and working to improve upon alternative options to abortion. Instead of being an adversary to women's right to choose, become an advocate for a women's right to give birth to a child. Become an advocate for sexual education. Become an advocate for adoption.

What is ridiculous is thinking that you can get people to change by condemning them for their choices. Remove the plank from your own eye before trying to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

I agree that we should help people to keep thier lives running smoothly yes.

Getting people to change by condemning thier choices is what laws and prison time andcommunity service, etc. is all about

 

[Barnabas]

It seems that you don't understand the arguments as well as you think you do.

Nobody is advocating for abortion. Abortion is a horrible thing, and nobody out there is demanding the right to have abortions. What women are fighting for is the right to do what they will with their own body. Regardless of whether or not a fetus is a "part" of it's mother's body, it exists within it's mother's body, gets all its sustenance and eliminates all it's waste through its mother's body, breath's through it's mother's body, and cannot survive without it's mother's body. Women arguably have a right to do what they will with their own body, including aborting a fetus from it. Does that make it right? Does that make it reasonable? The reality is that it is none of your business. It is the mother who has to live with the decision. That is the reality if she seeks to do it with a licensed doctor, or by herself in a back alley with a coat hanger. The reality is that you can't control, even if you made illegal, what a woman does with her own body. .

By this line of logic then the mother has the right to abort the child after birth, the child is still wholey dependent on the mother after birth for the next several years. the only diference is the woman is no longer shletering the child in her body but instead sheltering it in her home.

Along those roads, we have outlawed: murder, theft, abuse, and slavery but it still occurs should we make it legal.

Of course, what you want to seem to do is give a fetus's life precedence over a mother's liberty. You want to call a mother a murderer if she chooses to abort a fetus. Maybe she is. And it is your right to judge her as such if you so choose. However, it is not your right to infringe on any woman's liberty. It is not your right to try to force your belief that the fetus's life takes precedence over the mother's right to choose what she will do with her own body. Nor in reality can you infringe on that right, unless you want to create laws whereby women are thrown in prison for having abortions. .

I argue against the mothers right to choose if you can call it that. "the right to extend your fist ends at my nose" sums it up well enough, others rights end where they start being harmfull to others why is this different?

Instead of trying to force your views on women, you should seek to work with them so that they don't want to get abortions. Providing sexual education and contraceptives so that they avoid getting pregnant to begin with and working to improve upon alternative options to abortion. Instead of being an adversary to women's right to choose, become an advocate for a women's right to give birth to a child. Become an advocate for sexual education. Become an advocate for adoption.

I do indeed support adoption, education and condoms, the things almost all abortions come from when these things fail.

What is ridiculous is thinking that you can get people to change by condemning them for their choices. Remove the plank from your own eye before trying to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

I have thouroughly clensed my eyes, I made sure of it. I could not let myself adress such topic if hadn't. I hope show people where there wrong, and in doing so hope to change there mind.

 

[bs98r3kjf]

I'm generally against abortion except in the following cases:

1) The mother's health is in danger due to dangerous birth complications that she is likely to face.

2) The mother was raped. I know its not the baby's fault but I think keeping the baby would be painful for both the child and the mother at this point.

I'll come back and edit if I can think of anymore.

 

[Satya]

And what they want to do is have abortions. They demand that right.

I have never met a person who wants to have an abortion. It is often a very painful choice and it is anything but a pleasant experience. What people want is the choice.

Says you , you are not the father.

and the father.

Separate issue entirely. You can't speak for all fathers.

Getting people to change by condemning thier choices is what laws and prison time andcommunity service, etc. is all about

Justice is about holding people accountable, protecting the community, and providing people with the life skills needed to be productive members of society. Justice in no way seeks to condemn people for their choices, but to recognize and protect those hurt by their choices and to seek to change the behaviors or circumstances that lead people to make those choices.

 

[Barnabas]

Barnabas, is this thread about the morality of abortion, the legality of abortion, both or neither? I'm wondering whether it really belongs in the politics section.

I had hard time sorting that out to. I came to the conclusion that it is about both, but more so the legality of it.

 

[bamf]

I really don't know where I stand on the issue, but we all know that they're going to happen whether we like it or not.

My favorite quote from Always Sunny is "What if Jesus got aborted?"
(and that's not supposed to be a knock at anyone, just this topic always reminds me of the quote)

 

[the]

I have never met a person who wants to have an abortion. It is often a very painful choice and it is anything but a pleasant experience. What people want is the choice.

No because they want the choice so that they can go have an abortion with as minimal hassel as possible. Some people are in the place of wanting to get one so they want to be allowed to by law.

Separate issue entirely. You can't speak for all fathers.

But I can speak for some

Justice is about holding people accountable, protecting the community, and providing people with the life skills needed to be productive members of society. Justice in no way seeks to condemn people for their choices, but to recognize and protect those hurt by their choices and to seek to change the behaviors or circumstances that lead people to make those choices.

Justice is not about providing life skills. Justice is about reconciling everyone involved in a fucked up situation (which is what abortion is). And I mean everyone, blatocyst, fathers, and mothers alike.

 

[Satya]

By this line of logic then the mother has the right to abort the child after birth, the child is still wholey dependent on the mother after birth for the next several years. the only diference is the woman is no longer shletering the child in her body but instead sheltering it in her home.

The child is no longer within the mother's body after it is born. Your argument is irrelevant because the option exists after the child is born to place the child with a different mother. That option does not exist before the child is born. The fetus draws directly upon the mother's body while it is within the mother's body without the mother's choice, but the mother must choose to provide support for the child after it is born.

Along those roads, we have outlawed: murder, theft, abuse, and slavery but it still occurs should we make it legal.

True. I'm only posing the question of whether or not making women criminals for choosing to have an abortion makes any sense given that it is their body. You want to impose your value that the fetus's life takes precedence over the mother's liberty, but you aren't protecting anyone by doing so. The mother will still have an abortion if they so choose and the only difference is you will be locking them up for doing so. Murder, abuse, and slavery involve another person's body and invading another person's liberty. Theft involves another person's property.

I argue against the mothers right to choose if you can call it that. "the right to extend your fist ends at my nose" sums it up well enough, others rights end where they start being harmfull to others why is this different?

Yes. My fist is not inside your body. My body and continued existence are not dependent upon your body.

I do indeed support adoption, education and condoms, the things almost all abortions come from when these things fail.

Then perhaps you should focus on why they fail and seek to reduce those failings. By doing so, you will almost certainly reduce abortions. Considerably more so than you could probably accomplish by outlawing it and forcing it into secrecy.

I have thouroughly clensed my eyes, I made sure of it. I could not let myself adress such topic if hadn't. I hope show people where there wrong, and in doing so hope to change there mind.

Well here is your stone my friend. Get slugging.

 

[Barnabas]

I have never met a person who wants to have an abortion. It is often a very painful choice and it is anything but a pleasant experience. What people want is the choice..

you speak from personal experience, you can't definitively say this is or is not. And I'm definitley not saying that there poeple out there that want abortions, but there could be.

Separate issue entirely. You can't speak for all fathers. .

agreed

Justice is about holding people accountable, protecting the community, and providing people with the life skills needed to be productive members of society. Justice in no way seeks to condemn people for their choices, but to recognize and protect those hurt by their choices and to seek to change the behaviors or circumstances that lead people to make those choices.

bad wording(not yours), but if abortion is wrong then there should be a correctional method involved, not neccasarly jail. But some form of education mandated and community service fined. That is if it were ilegal, on second thought maybe none at all to the mother but instead a fine to the doctor. I the women has commited a self endused abortion, she's probably hurt herself enough.

 

[alcyone]

First of the infant is not a part of the mothers body, it may be inside and attached to the mothe but is not a part of her body.

Considering that you are male and will never EVER be able to be pregnant how can you be so positive that a fetus that is inside and attached to a pregnant woman is 'not part of her body'? Considering that until the 32nd week of pregnancy it is very unlikely that a fetus can survive outside of the womb on its own without extensive medical intervention, the fetus certainly fits under the Merriam Webster definition of a parasite.

If it is not a permanent part of a females body, but that doesn't make it any less a part when there is a pregnancy.

In the case of rape or incest, the child still has the right to live even if your bothered by the fact that you have to carry it, you don'y have to raise the child but it still deserves it's shot at life.

Since you'll never be in the position to carry a rapists child. How are you even qualified to take a stance like this? How is forcing a woman to bear her assailants child NOT punishing her for the attack? I see that you are very young, and naive in the way of young things. I wonder if you would stand next to your wife for 10 months if she were raped and forced to bear her attackers child. That would be a year of reminders every moment of every day of what happened. I won't ever start wondering about the emotional and mental trauma of the woman. But for you....the hypothetical husband...that is over a year of reminders that your wife was violated in the most intimate way possible and is bearing the fruit of it.
There is nothing more wondrous than feeling a baby inside the womb wiggle and kick, and every time you felt that there would be the thrill of feeling that life followed by the bitter reminder that it isn't your child moving...it was a rapists. I wonder, would you be able to face the well meaning strangers on the street who'd be gushing all unknowingly about how wonderful it is going to be.....with the mocking voice in your head reminding you that it isn't yours....Or the doctor appointments...would you be there with your wife for these appointments?

It is SO easy to sit back on your soapbox and make blithe generalistic statements about how 'bothersome' it would be to carry a rapists child to term. You have no empathy. You have no idea what it feels like to be raped. For you to post something so ignorant about a subject like this is indicative about the complete bubble you operate in.

If the parent is not ready, simply give birth and adopt the child out of your care immediatley after birth. You can go back to school, Parents can have there child, and the child gets to live win, win, win.

[/quote]

'Simply'????.......there is nothing simple about pregnancy or childbirth. Do you know anything about the physiological effects pregnancy/childbirth has on a woman's body?

My apologies, that was a rhetorical question as you have no clue. And you never will.

All your OP arguments did for me was reinforce my belief that anyone with a penis has no business dictating legislation mandating that a pregnant woman must bear her child.

 

[Satya]

No because they want the choice so that they can go have an abortion with as minimal hassel as possible. Some people are in the place of wanting to get one so they want to be allowed to by law.

You can legislate as much hassle as you want. You can deny public funding for abortions. You can up the certifications needed by doctors to perform abortions. You can limit the amount of money doctors are allowed to charge for abortions. You can make abortion as unattractive an option as possible, you just don't have the right to outlaw it completely.

But I can speak for some

I await the day that a father takes a mother who is seeking an abortion to court and seeks by law to have his rights as a father recognized. But to my knowledge, it has yet to have occured.

Justice is not about providing life skills. Justice is about reconciling everyone involved in a fucked up situation (which is what abortion is). And I mean everyone, blatocyst, fathers, and mothers alike.

You are speaking of retribution, not justice. Justice is restorative, which is why social workers exist. If we simply tossed people in prison and then released them after they served their time, then we would create greater problems than we could ever solve. We seek to understand the circumstances or behaviors that lead people to offend and to correct them. That is what life skills are all about and is one of the major focuses of modern justice.

 

[the]

To come out and say it, I have no experience with rape victims except for just one. Personally speaking I dont look at my nephew and think oh look a guy raped my sister at anytime I see him. I see my favorite person of all time. But I am very very very glad he didnt get aborted.

 

[Barnabas]

The child is no longer within the mother's body after it is born. Your argument is irrelevant because the option exists after the child is born to place the child with a different mother. That option does not exist before the child is born. The fetus draws directly upon the mother's body while it is within the mother's body without the mother's choice, but the mother must choose to provide support for the child after it is born. .

the should the other mother have the right, Let's face facts most of the abortions arn't because of rape or incest in America, they come from women whom aget pregnant and decide the child is unwanted or inconvient. More or less there try to remove a mistake.

As for a choice the women has one, to abort the child. That is what this debate is about if that choice should be legal or not.

True. I'm only posing the question of whether or not making women criminals for choosing to have an abortion makes any sense given that it is their body. You want to impose your value that the fetus's life takes precedence over the mother's liberty, but you aren't protecting anyone by doing so. The mother will still have an abortion if they so choose and the only difference is you will be locking them up for doing so. Murder, abuse, and slavery involve another person's body and invading another person's liberty. Theft involves another person's property. .

kinda answered this in another post. but that goes again along the lines of any other crime, if I murder some one and get sent to prison that doesn bring the victim back to life, it serves justice to the killer.

Yes. My fist is not inside your body. My body and continued existence are not dependent upon your body. .

semantics, why should it matter if the child is inside the woman.

Then perhaps you should focus on why they fail and seek to reduce those failings. By doing so, you will almost certainly reduce abortions. Considerably more so than you could probably accomplish by outlawing it and forcing it into secrecy. .

why not both?

 

[the]

All your OP arguments did for me was reinforce my belief that anyone with a penis has no business dictating legislation mandating that a pregnant woman must bear her child.

Just wow.

 

[TheLastMohican]

All your OP arguments did for me was reinforce my belief that anyone with a penis has no business dictating legislation mandating that a pregnant woman must bear her child.

Well, let's not turn it into a sexist divide. There are plenty of women who would agree with Barnabas (in position, if not entirely in arguments), and plenty of men who would agree with you. If the reasoning can be accurately expressed in text, then people of either sex can understand it, and can therefore base legislation upon it.