• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

My take on it

Locke

New member
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Abortion is clearly an act of murder. If a woman or girl is responsible enought to have sex, than she is responsible enough to have a baby and choosing to just kill it without giving the small child a chance to live is an absolutely grusome prospect. Abortion should be completely outlawed except in cases of rape or in some cases, incest.
Locke
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,172
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I swear, i'd add my opinion but in the short time i've been here i've already added it to a number of threads identical to this. Is there anyway we can just get a "POST YOUR OPINION" thread open wehere people can do this instead of having 50 threads a week of "this is my opinion on it"
 

brianlp01

New member
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Location
Danbury, CT USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Locke said:
Abortion is clearly an act of murder. If a woman or girl is responsible enought to have sex, than she is responsible enough to have a baby and choosing to just kill it without giving the small child a chance to live is an absolutely grusome prospect. Abortion should be completely outlawed except in cases of rape or in some cases, incest.
Locke
I agree 100% with everything u said. Abortion is murder. Give the child a chance at life. If you cant take care of it, put the baby up for adoption. Give it a chance with another set of parents.
 

IValueFreedom

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
168
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Locke said:
If a woman or girl is responsible enought to have sex, than she is responsible enough to have a baby...
I pose a question for you...

What if the woman having sex is ignorant of the fact that a baby can result from it. Is she then morally responsible for the baby, if she didn't know it was possible.

So... for an example, say a woman is diagnosed that she will never in her life become pregnant, something is wrong with her body. 100% she cannot have a baby. Then, as she is not able to have a baby or the reprocussions of her actions, would it not be fair to say, have as much sex as you want since nothing will ever come out of it.

Now, say that same women got pregnant. The doctors screw up or her body heals itself or it is just plain a miracle, is she then morally responsible to have the baby?

I would say she is not always. Here's why:

Let's say that you wake up from a deep sleep in a room that is not yours, with tubes coming out of your arms. These tubes drop to the ground, travel along the floor, and then climb up a bed next to you where they enter the arm of another man.

A doctor comes in and tells you that this man lying next to you has a problem with his liver, and you're the only one in the world that has the same blood that can save him. The doctor then tells you that he can fix the man, but it will take 9 months, so until then, you have to stay in this bed with these tubes coming out of your arm. You can't leave, take a break, or have the same life you once did while you're connected to this helpless man.

Are you morally responsible to keep this man alive?

Now what if the doctor told you that instead of 9 months, it is going to be for the rest of your life. Your life as you know it is over. The rest of your days will be spent in a bed, next to a helpless man. Now are you morally responsible to keep this man alive?

I do not think you are. There was no consent, explicit nor tacit, so one cannot judge you negatively for taking out the tubes therefore killing this helpless man.

Now what if the doctor said instead of 9 months, it was 3 hours. In 3 hours this helpless man will be able to get up and live a full, good life. Are you morally responsible then? Is 3 hours of lying in a room worth it to save someone's life, even though you hadn't agreed to it explicitly nor tacitly?

Do you see my point? If it were a lifetime, then nobody could say you're immoral for taking the tubes out of this helpless man, but if it were 3 hours, even though you have no obligation to this person, most would generally think that it was an immoral act.

On one end, you have a minimally decent samaritain, who helps others when it is of little or no hinderance upon themself. And on the other end, you have an unreasonable request, one that any person could choose to end if they do not feel like making a huge self sacrifice.

Now, where do you draw the lines? Up until what point is it a minimally decent samaritan who is morally obligated to keep this man alive? 3 hours? 2 days? 4 months? 15 months? 5 years?

At the same time, when is it morally acceptable to take the tubes out of your arms and say, this is unfair. This is not what I want, and what you're asking is unreasonable. 2 months? 5 months? 3 years? 10 years?

The point is that this point is subjective. Everyone in this situation must find their own path. There is definative answer for all people. So, as such, It is possible that someone who is 100% ignorant that they can have a baby feels that 9 months is too long to ask for something she doesn't want nor censented to.


*This idea is not my own, it is from an MIT philosphy/ethics professor. Well, I believe that where she teaches.

I just thought I'd give you that to read over and think about.
 

Locke

New member
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
sorry to reply so late, but thankyou, that is a very interesting take on it. The case that you proposed is extremely throtetical, so try to come up with a more likely situation and then we will discuss that.
Locke
 

Ryanmodcon

New member
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
How do you kill something that was never born?
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Locke said:
Abortion is clearly an act of murder.
Murder clearly is the illegal killing of a person. So clearly, you are lying, you are bearing false witness, a known sin.
If a woman or girl is responsible enought to have sex, than she is responsible enough to have a baby
Or to abort it.

That aside, your claim is in no way assured. After all, many PL call he irresponsible.
and choosing to just kill it without giving the small child
"small child"? Ah, hyperbole, revisionist linguistic deception. You are again bearing false witness.
a chance to live is an absolutely grusome prospect.
Nope, of course it isn't. Your emotional outburst has little to do with reality.
Abortion should be completely outlawed except in cases of rape or in some cases, incest.
Locke
Ah, so the embryou of getus, the "child" [sic] resulting from rape or incest somehow isn't like, and aborting it is not a problem?
 

Snoozin

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2005
Messages
97
Reaction score
0
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Locke said:
Abortion is clearly an act of murder. If a woman or girl is responsible enought to have sex, than she is responsible enough to have a baby and choosing to just kill it without giving the small child a chance to live is an absolutely grusome prospect. Abortion should be completely outlawed except in cases of rape or in some cases, incest.
Locke
I respect a pro-life person's stance, even though I don't agree with it (I'm very much pro-choice).

But one thing has always puzzled me about this argument. When people say abortion is murder and should be completely illegal *except* in cases or rape or incest, they've agreed that murder is permissible under certain circumstances. How do they come to this conclusion and how do they determine what qualifies as justifiable reasons for murder?

In addition, they are talking about circumstances that happen to the woman, not the fetus, so they are excusing murder based on the woman's status. ?? It doesn't make logical sense to me.
 
Joined
Sep 10, 2005
Messages
845
Reaction score
305
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
From my admittedly unique pro-death perspective, life is given value through self-determination. Forcing a woman to bear a child takes its toll on not just those bodily resources, it behooves her to tend to the child she brought into this world (eighteen years of financial support, lots of stress, and all those other wonderful opportunity costs of parenthood.) This constitutes a significant portion of someone’s life, and is most definitely not something to be undertaken with antipathy. Parents who resent their onerous role (and sometimes even those who lack the proper enthusiasm) tend to be negligent towards their children, depriving them of the emotional, physical, spiritual, and economic support necessary to become a productive member of our society. The results are many of the disaffected young who overtax our prison system, and make life a little less enjoyable for everyone else in society (via theft, assault, murder, property damage, hate crimes, and other lamentable social woes.)

I don’t mean to say that this is the inexorable path for all these poor bastards, (indeed, many hard working single mothers strive to prevent exactly this) it’s just what I see as the most probable course. I think that those women, who hold nothing back, burning up their youthful vitality and shouldering immense burdens to provide opportunities for their children, are mainly those who choose to keep their child without legal coercion.

Perhaps it is selfish of me to value ameliorated levels of crime and poverty over the potential lives of those conceived under inopportune circumstances. I’ve also wondered if their claim to experience life is greater than that of those who would be conceived once a woman (and hopefully her mate) is prepared to shoulder that burden.

I know that the option of adoption by-passes the obligation of raising children, but I’m under the impression that there are way more unwanted pregnancies than there are those willing to adopt (and that the forces of supply/demand mean they mainly favor the brightest apples of the bunch and let the rest fall to the bottom of the barrel.)

I don’t mean this as a pro-choice defense, merely an outline of my thoughts. Hopefully, I can learn something once youse guys start poking holes through ‘em.
 

ravens24

Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
82
Reaction score
2
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Snoozin said:
I respect a pro-life person's stance, even though I don't agree with it (I'm very much pro-choice).

But one thing has always puzzled me about this argument. When people say abortion is murder and should be completely illegal *except* in cases or rape or incest, they've agreed that murder is permissible under certain circumstances. How do they come to this conclusion and how do they determine what qualifies as justifiable reasons for murder?

In addition, they are talking about circumstances that happen to the woman, not the fetus, so they are excusing murder based on the woman's status. ?? It doesn't make logical sense to me.
Yes...good question. Heres an answer....

How would you feel if you had to give birth to YOUR FATHER'S CHILD!(incest) Pretty sick and wierd huh? That could ruin your life(emotional,physical,psychological problems...etc)

How would you feel if you gave birth to the child of the person you had sex with? You should be able to accept the consequence and decide to give that child a good life, whether with you or with somebody else.

You may say that having the child in the second example may also cause problems in in a persons life... but can you seriously say I don't want to give a life to a child because I made a choice i regret. That shows total selfishness and malice. If you made the choice to have sex then you must first accept the possibility of pregnancy and have the child due to your poor judgement. Why deny life? Because you didnt mean it? Not an excuse people. because your rights and free will were violated? That is an excuse. a person must be really loving to have the child caused by rape. But it should be a given that you cannot deny life because you dont want to.

Denying life = not letting one live
Murder=taking away someones life
you can say that the fetus isnt alive but you are still denying something to live.. think about it..maybe even pray about it...give life when YOU made the mistake.

I am in no way trying to yell at snoozin during this response whatsoever..sorry if i left that impression because it probably doesnt even pertain to you...I was just trying to give a strong response...PZ
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
ravens24 said:
Yes...good question. Heres an answer....

How would you feel if you had to give birth to YOUR FATHER'S CHILD!(incest) Pretty sick and wierd huh? That could ruin your life(emotional,physical,psychological problems...etc)

How would you feel if you gave birth to the child of the person you had sex with? You should be able to accept the consequence and decide to give that child a good life, whether with you or with somebody else.

You may say that having the child in the second example may also cause problems in in a persons life... but can you seriously say I don't want to give a life to a child because I made a choice i regret. That shows total selfishness and malice.
So? It is not anybody's job to take that decision away from the woman.
If you made the choice to have sex then you must first accept the possibility of pregnancy and have the child due to your poor judgement.
Nope, there is no "must" involved. You might WISH for her to do so. She has no such duty.
Why deny life? Because you didnt mean it? Not an excuse people.
Sure it is. And no, the woman doesn't need an excuse. All she has to do is decide that she doesn't want to remain pregnant. That is the only reason needed.
because your rights and free will were violated? That is an excuse. a person must be really loving to have the child caused by rape. But it should be a given that you cannot deny life because you dont want to.
No, it should not be a given (ignoring for now your revisionist linguistic claptrap).
Denying life = not letting one live
Murder=taking away someones life
:roll: GAWD. Another one of those ignorant nonsense postulations. "Murder" is the illegal killing of a person. YOU example is outright false.
you can say that the fetus isnt alive
It certainly IS alive.
but you are still denying something to live.. think about it..maybe even pray about it...give life when YOU made the mistake.
What mistake? The embryo implanted where it wasn't wanted. That's the embryo's mistake, not the woman's.
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I'm sexually active and use contraception. I accept the remote possibility of an unwanted pregnancy. However, I do not accept any possibility whatsoever that I will actually give birth to a child.

Sex is poor judgement? Right. So then you say I should only have sex twice in my life, the two times I actually intend to breed? I don't think so.
 

ravens24

Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
82
Reaction score
2
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
well i think sex should only be done in marriage and you can use a condom then but do what you wish

-pz
 

Snoozin

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2005
Messages
97
Reaction score
0
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
ravens24 said:
well i think sex should only be done in marriage and you can use a condom then but do what you wish

-pz
condoms are only 86% effective in preventing pregnancy. :(
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
ravens24 said:
well i think sex should only be done in marriage and you can use a condom then but do what you wish

-pz
Ah, so you have no objection to the 25% of abortions that happen to married women, nor the 58% that happen after the couple used contraception? That's good to know, at least.
 

ravens24

Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
82
Reaction score
2
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Thanks for putting words in my mouth and lying steen.
 

Elektra

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
73
Reaction score
0
Location
Ca
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
My take is that only someone who lives and not could potentially live can be murdered.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
IValueFreedom said:
I pose a question for you...

What if the woman having sex is ignorant of the fact that a baby can result from it. Is she then morally responsible for the baby, if she didn't know it was possible.

So... for an example, say a woman is diagnosed that she will never in her life become pregnant, something is wrong with her body. 100% she cannot have a baby. Then, as she is not able to have a baby or the reprocussions of her actions, would it not be fair to say, have as much sex as you want since nothing will ever come out of it.

Now, say that same women got pregnant. The doctors screw up or her body heals itself or it is just plain a miracle, is she then morally responsible to have the baby?

I would say she is not always. Here's why:

Let's say that you wake up from a deep sleep in a room that is not yours, with tubes coming out of your arms. These tubes drop to the ground, travel along the floor, and then climb up a bed next to you where they enter the arm of another man.

A doctor comes in and tells you that this man lying next to you has a problem with his liver, and you're the only one in the world that has the same blood that can save him. The doctor then tells you that he can fix the man, but it will take 9 months, so until then, you have to stay in this bed with these tubes coming out of your arm. You can't leave, take a break, or have the same life you once did while you're connected to this helpless man.

Are you morally responsible to keep this man alive?

Now what if the doctor told you that instead of 9 months, it is going to be for the rest of your life. Your life as you know it is over. The rest of your days will be spent in a bed, next to a helpless man. Now are you morally responsible to keep this man alive?

I do not think you are. There was no consent, explicit nor tacit, so one cannot judge you negatively for taking out the tubes therefore killing this helpless man.

Now what if the doctor said instead of 9 months, it was 3 hours. In 3 hours this helpless man will be able to get up and live a full, good life. Are you morally responsible then? Is 3 hours of lying in a room worth it to save someone's life, even though you hadn't agreed to it explicitly nor tacitly?

Do you see my point? If it were a lifetime, then nobody could say you're immoral for taking the tubes out of this helpless man, but if it were 3 hours, even though you have no obligation to this person, most would generally think that it was an immoral act.

On one end, you have a minimally decent samaritain, who helps others when it is of little or no hinderance upon themself. And on the other end, you have an unreasonable request, one that any person could choose to end if they do not feel like making a huge self sacrifice.

Now, where do you draw the lines? Up until what point is it a minimally decent samaritan who is morally obligated to keep this man alive? 3 hours? 2 days? 4 months? 15 months? 5 years?

At the same time, when is it morally acceptable to take the tubes out of your arms and say, this is unfair. This is not what I want, and what you're asking is unreasonable. 2 months? 5 months? 3 years? 10 years?

The point is that this point is subjective. Everyone in this situation must find their own path. There is definative answer for all people. So, as such, It is possible that someone who is 100% ignorant that they can have a baby feels that 9 months is too long to ask for something she doesn't want nor censented to.


*This idea is not my own, it is from an MIT philosphy/ethics professor. Well, I believe that where she teaches.

I just thought I'd give you that to read over and think about.
Next time you encounter the professor, remind her that the objective of the abortion procedure is to deliberately kill the living, growing, developing human unborn child which is residing in it's mother's womb. Nothing hypothetical about that. It's actual. It's final.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Ryanmodcon said:
How do you kill something that was never born?
You might want to pose this question to Scott Peterson who was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment in the death of the unborn child his wife was carrying in her womb when he murdered her. He was separately convicted in the killing of his wife.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Snoozin said:
I respect a pro-life person's stance, even though I don't agree with it (I'm very much pro-choice).

But one thing has always puzzled me about this argument. When people say abortion is murder and should be completely illegal *except* in cases or rape or incest, they've agreed that murder is permissible under certain circumstances. How do they come to this conclusion and how do they determine what qualifies as justifiable reasons for murder?

In addition, they are talking about circumstances that happen to the woman, not the fetus, so they are excusing murder based on the woman's status. ?? It doesn't make logical sense to me.
There are varying types and degrees of homicide. However, prior to Roe v. Wade, the crime was "performing an illegal abortion". The abortionist was charged with this crime and prosecuted. The mother was never charged.
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Fantasea said:
You might want to pose this question to Scott Peterson who was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment in the death of the unborn child his wife was carrying in her womb when he murdered her. He was separately convicted in the killing of his wife.
So the American legal system is contradictory? That's amusing to know, but proves what, exactly?
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
ravens24 said:
Thanks for putting words in my mouth and lying steen.
Huh? Didn't you just say that sex was fine within a marriage? As such, the unwanted pregnancies that may occur in marriage are also accepted as candidates for abortions, right? So why are you spewing that nonsense above?

And accusing me of lying? Where? Please cease your false and dishonest attacks, thanks.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Fantasea said:
Next time you encounter the professor, remind her that the objective of the abortion procedure is to deliberately kill the living, growing, developing human unborn child which is residing in it's mother's womb. Nothing hypothetical about that. It's actual. It's final.
No, you are lying.

There you go again, with those absolutist and outright false claims. Couldn't you please stop that? It is such an annoyance to have to continuously correct your lies instead of dealing with the issues.
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
"It's final 'cause I said so!"

Hehe.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
vergiss said:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
You might want to pose this question to Scott Peterson who was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment in the death of the unborn child his wife was carrying in her womb when he murdered her. He was separately convicted in the killing of his wife.
So the American legal system is contradictory? That's amusing to know, but proves what, exactly?
When you finish laughing, why don't you tell me. (That is, if you can.)
 
Top Bottom