Are abortionists just lazy and irresponsible women?

[vergiss]

Re: Is it worth the risk?

All I'm trying to say is how many times are you willing to redraw the moral line?
I agree killing should only be done in life or death circumstances.
If I didn't have time to show the gun ,fire a warning shot or shoot in a less lethal part of the body (arms or legs) I would shoot.

I said killing is acceptable in certain circumstances. You said it was wrong, always. But now you agree that, on occasion, it is justified?

See. Morality is never black or white.

And what response do you have to my idea that maybe they are concerned about overpopulation?

...if overpopulation is such a problem, why contribute to it with God knows how many extra babies?!

If they found that they couldn't the should use protection. There are no "accidental pregnancies".

I agree - gambling with unsafe sex is bloody stupid and you should get a sharp slap across the face if you try. However, every form of contraception still has a slight risk of failure. To say there are "no accidental pregnancies" more than slightly contradicts everything the morality police have just been trying to say to Danielle and I about "Sex always means a chance of accidental pregnancy, so you shouldn't have sex, blah blah blah." :lol:

 

[Malacandras]

I like the way you phrase that: "worth the moral risk". We make moral decisions every day of our lives, but abortion should remain legal because it has to remain an individual decision (yes, the father should have his input, too. Takes two to do the two-backed beast.). It isn't one that you can legislate about universally.
I don't think that any woman undertakes an abortion light-heartedly or ignoring the choice she's making. But I don't think that you can always say that she has to bear the child, no matter what.
Incidentally, what's your stance on the death penalty? Because here's the way I see the whole death in society thing. In an ideal world, all life would be sacred and inviolable. In our world, all sorts of other things come into the equation: disease, economic inequality and downright poverty, abandonment, emotional distress and crime. Because we choose to live in our society, we have chosen to make life something that can be violated for certain reasons - self-defense, murder, in Holland assisted suicide. Those are prices for living in an imperfect world. Abortion is one of those. When every baby can be adequately fed, loved and provided with equal opportunities throughout its life, then there will be no reason to have an abortion - or to put someone in the electric chair. Until then, we allow these things to happen that are morally questionable in order to improve our society. Whether they work or not is debatable.

 

[Peralin]

Incidentally, what's your stance on the death penalty? Because here's the way I see the whole death in society thing. In an ideal world, all life would be sacred and inviolable. In our world, all sorts of other things come into the equation: disease, economic inequality and downright poverty, abandonment, emotional distress and crime. Because we choose to live in our society, we have chosen to make life something that can be violated for certain reasons - self-defense, murder, in Holland assisted suicide. Those are prices for living in an imperfect world. Abortion is one of those. When every baby can be adequately fed, loved and provided with equal opportunities throughout its life, then there will be no reason to have an abortion - or to put someone in the electric chair. Until then, we allow these things to happen that are morally questionable in order to improve our society. Whether they work or not is debatable.

I am against the death penalty because of the same reasons that I'm against abortion. I don't know that the fetus is a child, but since it could be, don't risk it. I don't know that the "criminal" is innocent, but since he might be, don't kill him. I ask the same question for both of these topics: Is it worth the moral risk that you are wrong? I don't know about you, but I would feel absolutely terrible when finding out that someone who was executed was actually innocent of his "crimes". To me, it';s just not worth the risk of being wrong.

 

[Peralin]

Re: Is it worth the risk?

...if overpopulation is such a problem, why contribute to it with God knows how many extra babies?!

I was talking to danielle, not you. I was using it in my argument for adoption, not against abortion. I knew it would not work in that argument. I was asking why danielle was so against people who adopt when it may just be that they are concerned about overpopulation.

 

[Timequake]

Whether you consider the fetus living or not, one fact remains... abolishing abortion is conflicting with the rights given to us by the constitution. The fetus has no constitutional rights, the mother does. It isn't illegal to put your dog to sleep, why? because your dog has no rights. It is time to set your morals aside and think about your rights and the rights of others. So you're against abortion... fine don't have one, you have done your part but by restricting the rights of others you are going against the very thing that this country is founded on: individual rights.

 

[Peralin]

Whether you consider the fetus living or not, one fact remains... abolishing abortion is conflicting with the rights given to us by the constitution. The fetus has no constitutional rights, the mother does. It isn't illegal to put your dog to sleep, why? because your dog has no rights. It is time to set your morals aside and think about your rights and the rights of others. So you're against abortion... fine don't have one, you have done your part but by restricting the rights of others you are going against the very thing that this country is founded on: individual rights.

Good idea, but I don't think you're right. Pro-choicers are fighting two (at least) battles intertwined: the abolishment of abortion and the rights of a fetus. They are sort of the same battle, because if it has rights it cannot be killed, and if it is illegal to kill it than it has rights. The two are actually one battle.

And by the way, morality should never be put aside. If we put morality aside America would still have slaves. If no one realized that it was immoral than nobody would have protested, and it never would have been an issue. Morality is a part of our country, it should not be set aside.

By abolishing abortion we are not going against individual rights, we are giving rights to the fetus. Why do you think there have been so many amendments to the Constitution? It's because we realized that the founders of America were not perfect, and we've realized that some things should be changed. We are working for giving rights to the fetus (which would automatically make abortion illegal). Sometimes in order to give rights we must also restrict rights.

 

[Timequake]

Good response… made me think at things a bit differently. Morality was a bad word to use… maybe ideology is a better word??? Put your ideologies aside and think about your rights. But you have to acknowledge that if morality crosses a certain line when governing the country disaster is at hand. There is a far too broad range in the principles of Americans to allow morality to be a major part of government.

But why give a fetus rights? If we allow the fetus rights, why not a beloved dog or cat that is considered one of the family? Again there is a line to be drawn. A fetus is not an dignitary citizen (I say citizen because I cannot think of a better word) and therefore cannot be protected by rights. Don’t you think that by giving the fetus rights it conflicts with the rights of the mother? And if the fetus did have rights wouldn’t it be considered a child and therefore under the authority of the mother restricting it’s rights anyway?

I guess this argument ultimately comes down to the how one would feel if the fetus had rights.

This gives me a headache… if what I wrote makes no sense please verify.

 

[vergiss]

Psht, as if even scientific fact would silence the religious fundamentalists in this argument.

 

[vergiss]

That is true. It's like when either side brings up the "people are/aren't born gay" argument - until you can prove either way, mentioning it is useless.

 

[Peralin]

But it's weird us talking about a fetus's rights, especially considering that a fetus is not a citizen, something that comes from birth most often, but never before. If we wish to define life as beginning at conception, then wouldn't it only be reasonable for citizenship to be based on place of conception, not place of birth, i.e. if an American couple is in france when the wife gives birth, the child is technically not a US citizen, but according to your logic, wouldn't it make more sense for a child concieved in france to not be an American citizen.

I don't exactly know what logic of mine you're talking about. I said that giving a fetus rights and abolishing abortion would most likely come at the same time. OK, as for giving citizenship and rights, I would just give them at birth, because it gives the parents time to decide what country they want their child to be a citizen of. I see what you're saying, that if we don't give rights until birth the fetus should not have rights at all, and that makes sense, but, if the fetus was proven to be a child, the fetus should have rights.

Actually, I'd give rights to the fetus. Not citizenship, but if the fetus is inside of a woman who is currently in America, it should have the rights of an American. Basically, abortio should be illegal in America, but if the woman wants to go to another country where it is legal to abort then she can. It's kind of confusing arguing this, but I think I've said it as best as I can.

And there are several flaws with your logic of the problems of the pro-choicers. First and foremost, all of your assumptions about our flaws are based around the concept that a fetus is alive, and that life begins at conception. Both of these are reasonable and respectable beliefs, but the word belief is accurate in this situation because belief requires the absense of absolute fact, which this absense exists with both of those beliefs, as they do with mine.

I don't exactly know what "assumptions" you are talking about, but yes, I did start this thread saying "what if the fetus was proven to be a child?". Sure, the discussion has shifted off of that question a bit, but in all of my posts I am assuming that the fetus is a child (otherwise this thread would get nowhere because we would be arguing whether the fetus is a child or not). My beliefs on abortion really have nothing to do with this. (I do not believe some of the things that I am assuming.) I am only assuming that the fetus is a child because there is a chance that it is, and I'm trying to remind people that abortion is a life/death situation, even if you believe otherwise.

Essentially, what I've learned is that you're not going to prove anyone wrong in this debate. Many people debate here thinking they're either gonnna prove to those pro-choicers that they're actually morally inferior baby killers, or coming in here thinking they'll show those pro-lifers that they're intellectually inferior and that the reason they allow for abortion in the case of incest is because the pro-lifers are all ****ing their cousins or what have you, when in fact both sides have morality and logic on their sides, but the fact is until this difference is proven one way or the other by science, then and only then will this debate have any chance of going anywhere, and until then both sides really can only agree to disagree.

True, it is impossible to prove any points on abortion unless science takes a side. If science can prove that pro-choicers are right, then I'll become pro-choice. If science proves that pro-lifers are right, then I'll remain pro-life. But, until science can prove one or the other (and it may not be able to at all!), we will never know who is right. However, it is interesting to see what people think about the issue and the possibility of being wrong. After all, since the fetus could be a child, is it worth the risk of killing the child? (I know you already answered this, Galen, but I want to restate it for everyone who hasn't read the entire thread.)

 

[Peralin]

That is true. It's like when either side brings up the "people are/aren't born gay" argument - until you can prove either way, mentioning it is useless.

I know this is off-topic, but you actually can prove that argument. You can prove that they aren't born that way by showing statistics of how many people were married and then became gay. That may not completely prove that they aren't born that way, but a case could be made of that.

 

[Timequake]

That proves nothing except that their realization was belated.

Origins of sexual preference are a tricky subject. Some people are sincerely confused about their sexuality while others are merely interested in experimentation. Sexual preference is all about attraction and acting on that attraction. Why is the attraction there? Who knows… maybe due to a hormone/chemical imbalance or maybe it is just natural? Regardless of it all, people need to realize it is not a disease or an epidemic it is biological.

 

[sargasm]

I just don't get it. What makes abortionists want abortion to be legal? Why do they think that it is morally ok? Why do they want it to be morally ok?

Ok, I'm pro-life, but I'll pretend I'm not for a moment. If a women gets pregnant but does not want to have a child, what makes her choose to have an abortion? Since no one knows for sure if the fetus is a living "human being" or not, wouldn't it be a bad idea to risk it?

The only ideas I can think of are laziness and irresponsibility. The woman must be too lazy to go through with the pregnancy or willing to simply take the easy way out regardless of morals.

Does it not occur to the women that they might be wrong in their beliefs? Do they never even consider the possibility that it is a child? Do they realize that there is a chance that they are morally commiting a murder? I would think that the idea would come up when making a decision such as abortion.

Sure, I've heard lots of reasons why women have abortions, including money, school, rape, and incest, and I realize that people who are pro-choice believe that the fetus is not a child, but this is what I am asking: Have you ever thought of the possibility that you are wrong and that all along children have been dying because of abortions? Is it worth the risk of murdering a child?

#1 shut up, you're stupid

#2 you can't apply morality to justify a political view (well you can but you'll look like an idiot....oh wait)

#3 I see you put all the blame on women, how intelligent of you. You do realize that it requires a man for a woman to get pregnant don't you, or have you not had that special talk with dad yet?

#4 Can you please explain how a hollow clump of cells is a child?

#5 Is it worth the risk of murdering a child? What isn't?:roll:

 

[jamesrage]

Are abortionists just lazy and irresponsible women?

Of course.Don't forget to add selfish to that part.

 

[Peralin]

#1 shut up, you're stupid

#2 you can't apply morality to justify a political view (well you can but you'll look like an idiot....oh wait)

#3 I see you put all the blame on women, how intelligent of you. You do realize that it requires a man for a woman to get pregnant don't you, or have you not had that special talk with dad yet?

#4 Can you please explain how a hollow clump of cells is a child?

#5 Is it worth the risk of murdering a child? What isn't?:roll:

Whoa, someone's overreacting just a bit. I think you need to go to anger management classes or something.

#1: What is wrong with you? I have one awesome GPA and you are stupid for trying to insult me when you have no idea how smart I am!

#2: Morality and Politics are intertwined and always should be. Why was slavery abolished? Because people realized that it was immoral to have slaves in a country of freedom.

#3: I am not putting the blame on women. If you've read this thread (and you obviously haven't) you would've read several times that I used this title to catch your attention. I am blaming nothing on women, just asking a simple question.

#4: I never said a hollow clump of cells is a child. I do not believe that a hollow clump of cells is a child. You are putting words into my mouth. I said "what if it was a child?", not "It is a child." The fact is that it could be, we do not know for sure. You really need to reread my first post.

#5: Again, you have some sort of mental problem if you really think that you're funny. Haha, Hehe, I may have just killed a child without even realizing it. Isn't that hilarious? You have one sick mind.

You have a lot of nerve to come and try to insult me without even answering my question. And by the way, I realize that men help with intercourse and should have a say in whether the child is aborted or not, but right now they do not.

 

[ProChoiceDanielle]

Of course.Don't forget to add selfish to that part.

So are women who get pregnant on purpose because they WANT a child.

 

[Peralin]

So are women who get pregnant on purpose because they WANT a child.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand why you would consider getting pregnant on purpose and giving birth is selfish. Maybe it's just me, but if you want to have kids and have unprotected sex then that's fine. I don't see what your point is.

 

[ProChoiceDanielle]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand why you would consider getting pregnant on purpose and giving birth is selfish. Maybe it's just me, but if you want to have kids and have unprotected sex then that's fine. I don't see what your point is.

WANTING something is being selfish. A person who gets pregnant on purpose for the purpose of WANTING a child or WANTING to become a parent is selfish. They did it because they WANTED it.

 

[Peralin]

WANTING something is being selfish. A person who gets pregnant on purpose for the purpose of WANTING a child or WANTING to become a parent is selfish. They did it because they WANTED it.

You know, maybe you're right. Maybe everyone should just adopt instead of giving birth. There are enough children to go around, why are women still giving birth? (Yes, I'm joking, I know you hate adoption because the people are selfish)

 

[ProChoiceDanielle]

You know, maybe you're right. Maybe everyone should just adopt instead of giving birth. There are enough children to go around, why are women still giving birth? (Yes, I'm joking, I know you hate adoption because the people are selfish)

Adoption is selfish too. You are going out and picking up a child because you WANT one..

I think my point is going right over your head. My point is that ALL people, women, men, aliens, black, white, asian, purple, blue or green are ALLLLLL selfish. It is human nature. So to call someone selfish because they want an abortions is a moot point because of the fact that someone who goes out and gets pregnant on purpose to have a child is selfish. Just like the couple who adopts a child is selfish.

Get it?

 

[vergiss]

I know this is off-topic, but you actually can prove that argument. You can prove that they aren't born that way by showing statistics of how many people were married and then became gay. That may not completely prove that they aren't born that way, but a case could be made of that.

:doh And a case could be made of the simple fact that you and I didn't choose to be straight, did we?

Don't worry, Danielle. You're asking him to apply logic and reason, and I'd be surprised if he could even spell those words.

 

[ProChoiceDanielle]

:doh And a case could be made of the simple fact that you and I didn't choose to be straight, did we?

Don't worry, Danielle. You're asking him to apply logic and reason, and I'd be surprised if he could even spell those words.

LOL! Good one.

 

[Peralin]

Adoption is selfish too. You are going out and picking up a child because you WANT one..

Is it really? If you have lots of money and feel that you could support a child who has absolutely no family whatsoever, you are being selfish if you adopt this child? I don't think so. It's not likely that this would happen, but I'm just pointing out a flaw in your logic.

Is it selfish to want something? No. Is it selfish to go out and get something because you want it? No. Is it selfish to kill a child because you are not willing to share with an adoptee? Yes. Is it selfish to adopt a child who has no home instead of giving birth to a child of your own? No. (Of course these are all opinions.)

I, for one, am not likely to get my wife pregnant (on purpose) because I care about others. I will adopt and give an unfortunate child a home instead of having a child of my own because I know that the world will eventually be overpopulated and I do not want to contribute to overpopulation. Is that being selfish? No!!! Yes, I do want kids, but am I willing to share them (by adopting someone else's child), yes!! Wanting is only selfish if it is good for only you but bad for others.

I think my point is going right over your head. My point is that ALL people, women, men, aliens, black, white, asian, purple, blue or green are ALLLLLL selfish. It is human nature. So to call someone selfish because they want an abortions is a moot point because of the fact that someone who goes out and gets pregnant on purpose to have a child is selfish. Just like the couple who adopts a child is selfish.

Get it?

No, to purposely get pregnant is not selfish because you are willing to take care of the child! If you are helping the child then you are not being selfish!

Here's a good definition of selfish: "Concerned chiefly or only with oneself"

I don't know how to link, so I'll just copy/paste my source:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=selfish

Selfishness is not the same as want! Look it up in the dictionary! Sure, I admit it, everyone is selfish sometimes. But not always. That's where the word selfless comes into play.

 

[Peralin]

:doh And a case could be made of the simple fact that you and I didn't choose to be straight, did we?

Exactly my point! My point is that the issue of homosexuality is different than the issue of abortion because we have all experienced some sorts of attraction and we have evidence to back up our ideas. Unlike abortion, in which all ideas are opinions only (exaggeration, I know).

Don't worry, Danielle. You're asking him to apply logic and reason, and I'd be surprised if he could even spell those words.

Actually, I got 3rd place and the 2nd place in my grade school spelling bees, and I kick *** when it comes to spelling, so you have no argument there. And by the way, everything I believe in has a reason, I do not go by "faith" or the Bible or any of that. I base everything on scientific evidence.

P.S: Whatever happened to your anti-insult beliefs, eh?

"Learn to respect other people's opinions regarding what is ethical, without shoving your own down their throats or stooping to ridiculous insults."
-Vergiss

 

[Peralin]

LOL! Good one.

HAHAHA! Not really. Because Vergiss has no idea how good at spelling I am! But yeah, the beginning part of Vergiss's post? That was a hilarious joke, huh?