A theory on abortion...

digster

MattyJoe wrote:

I still can't figure out where we have gotten this notion that it's a woman's "right" to have an abortion. Please someone explain this to me. As far as I can tell, abortion is murder. It is a human being. Even if not from the moment of conception, within a few months the embryo is without a doubt a living human, with a beating heart and functioning brain. As much as it may be an "inconvenience" that you're pregnant, you have no right to deny someone else's right to life, a choice that they cannot make for themselves. If we cannot guarantee that a person's right to life is protected from before they are even born, then we are essentially jeopardizing every person's right to life. I've heard stories where a baby was born extremely premature (like 2 months early, or something) and the hospital did everything it could to save the baby. Meanwhile, someone like Barack Obama would support another baby being aborted at the exact same age. Would we ever think to not do everything possible to save the premature baby? Why then allow a different baby at the same age to be legally killed?

There is another thread at the top of the board that's much better for this question, but basically, answer me this...

If you can prove that human life beings at conception, as opposed to birth, cognitive function, etc. etc. or any other arbitrary moment of a multi-step process that does not involve your own personal belief. Than you may have an argument. Until then, you are legislating your personal beliefs upon a population that in large part does not agree with you. Until you can prove this (and you can't, because the only person/entity that would know this is God), then you have no argument. You want the entire population to follow your own personal morality.

Mrs.Vedder78

MattyJoe wrote:

When it comes to the health of the mother, I will concede, because in that case it would be an issue of the lesser of two evils. Is it worse that the mother should die or the baby should die? That's a question that needs to be addressed and decided with the utmost care at the time.

And that's the way it is done.
The mother if she doesnt have a next of kin or a husband that would make that decision they are assigned a proxy that makes that decision, if they are unconscious and can not decide from themselves or made their choice known ahead of time.

But if it was my sister and I had to decide in between her life or her baby's life you bet I will go for my sister unless my sister herself requests for me not to do so.

_

saveuplife wrote:

My point is that 99% of all people do not wish to kill themselves. You are saying that the fetus "may want to kill itself". That requires the fetus to have "thought", and also makes them alive. If they are alive and have thought, and we already know they are human... they will follow the same trends as I already mentioned within a small range of error. Thus, if that's the case, it can be logically assumed that less than 1% of all fetus would want to kill themselves. lol this is crazy.

If the desire to die (or, more accurately, the desire to not be born) requires a fetus to have thought (as you say above) then the desire to live must also require a fetus to have thought, thereby proving my point that a fetus cannot desire to live.

Strangest Tribe

saveuplife wrote:

See, if you are serious. I agree with this. But, you are probably not serious.

Just messin saveup....

But I believe you are on the right track for a solution,

at least you're thinking

compromise...I'm not for abortions either... I just don't believe you can make them illegal without other considerations

_

digster wrote:

I am not saying anything. I'm not saying they are thinking. I am not saying anything.

All I am saying is you are comparing the suicide rates of adults to fetuses in the womb. I wish I knew how to bold that statement. I'm hoping you're just trying to make a point, and if so, go for it. If you really believe this, as I said, please think this through.

You just put a [ b ] before the sentence and a [ / b ] after the sentence (without the spaces). You can also reply to this post and see how I bolded your sentence above.

digster

The solution to this (or at least, I think the closest we can get to a solution) does not need to be "invented." It's already here. Every study on the topic seems to have shown that countries where abortions are legal that also have easy access to contraceptives consistently have the lowest rates of abortion. We should be teaching contraceptive use, we should be funding it properly. We should work to remove the stigma that it has in some sections of this country and in the mind of many people. That way, life is protected and the mother's choice is ensured.

And if some pro-lifers wanted to put their money where their mouth was, they'd demand more access for contraceptives. They'd want education in schools about it.

_

MattyJoe wrote:

I still can't figure out where we have gotten this notion that it's a woman's "right" to have an abortion. Please someone explain this to me. As far as I can tell, abortion is murder. It is a human being. Even if not from the moment of conception, within a few months the embryo is without a doubt a living human, with a beating heart and functioning brain.

So you're cool with abortion before this point then?

MattyJoe wrote:

As much as it may be an "inconvenience" that you're pregnant,

:rolleyes:
Not another person who has no idea about the severe pregnancy complications women have all the time, every day. (Or are you the same person who just keeps saying this in different threads? )

MattyJoe wrote:

you have no right to deny someone else's right to life, a choice that they cannot make for themselves.

That statement can go both ways: You have no right to deny someone's right to not be born, just because they can't make that choice for themselves.

MattyJoe wrote:

If we cannot guarantee that a person's right to life is protected from before they are even born, then we are essentially jeopardizing every person's right to life. I've heard stories where a baby was born extremely premature (like 2 months early, or something) and the hospital did everything it could to save the baby. Meanwhile, someone like Barack Obama would support another baby being aborted at the exact same age. Would we ever think to not do everything possible to save the premature baby? Why then allow a different baby at the same age to be legally killed?

Obama said in the last debate that he would support a ban on all late-term abortions. His stance on this subject has been mis-represented and thousands of people just like you have bought into it.

Edit: I see that Mrs. Vedder beat me to this point.

Mrs.Vedder78

scb wrote:

Obama said in the last debate that he would support a ban on all late-term abortions. His stance on this subject has been mis-represented and thousands of people just like you have bought into it.

Edit: I see that Mrs. Vedder beat me to this point.

No prob

It's worth repeating it as many chose to ignore that CRUCIAL piece of information when attacking Senator Obama.

catefrances

scb wrote:

Suicides of fetuses?

Plus, plenty of people don't want to live who don't take an active enough role to kill themselves. Plenty more would have chosen to never be born, if given that choice.

suicides of foetuses = miscarriages. imo.

_

digster wrote:

The solution to this (or at least, I think the closest we can get to a solution) does not need to be "invented." It's already here. Every study on the topic seems to have shown that countries where abortions are legal that also have easy access to contraceptives consistently have the lowest rates of abortion. We should be teaching contraceptive use, we should be funding it properly. We should work to remove the stigma that it has in some sections of this country and in the mind of many people. That way, life is protected and the mother's choice is ensured.

And if some pro-lifers wanted to put their money where their mouth was, they'd demand more access for contraceptives. They'd want education in schools about it.

If you keep making so much sense you'll have to be banned from this thread!

_

catefrances wrote:

suicides of foetuses = miscarriages. imo.

Haha! Good point. Maybe we should be looking at the miscarriage rate then, instead of the suicide rate. And we all know (I hope) that the miscarriage rate is HUGE.

MattyJoe

digster wrote:

You want the entire population to follow your own personal morality.

So do you. In any case, you'll always be denying someone something they think they should or shouldn't have or someone else should or shouldn't, in almost any process of law. It's about what the majority wants. Your point is insubstantial.

MattyJoe

scb wrote:

Not another person who has no idea about the severe pregnancy complications women have all the time, every day.

I said, if the life of the mother is in danger it becomes a case of the lesser of two evils.

Otherwise, last time I checked sex was primarily a means of reproduction. Do it at your own risk. Accept the consequences of your actions. You do not have the right to take away someone's right to live because you made a mistake. Put it up for adoption if you can't afford to take care of it, there's no shame in that.

I'm not saying people shouldn't have sex or anything crazy like that. All I'm saying is that it's illogical to do it without accepting any of the possible resulting consequences. I don't oppose the use of contraception or anything like that. I only oppose abortion because I feel it is just as wrong as killing someone.

digster

MattyJoe wrote:

So do you. In any case, you'll always be denying someone something they think they should or shouldn't have or someone else should or shouldn't, in almost any process of law. It's about what the majority wants. Your point is insubstantial.

No, I want the exact opposite of what you're asking. You are legislating your beliefs because you feel that life begins at conception and any form of abortion. I am saying it is impossible to answer such a question, and since that questioned cannot be answered, any legislation outlawing abortion would be based upon the personal belief of a minority. With no facts to back you up, this is unconstitutional.

And you're right...it is about what the majority wants. There is no overwhelming majority in this country, but 64% of this nation, to one degree or another, are pro-choice. YOU are the one that is proposing to limit the freedom of that 64%. Only 19% believe abortion should be illegal at all times: http://www.independentnation.org/moderate_majority.htm

catefrances

scb wrote:

Haha! Good point. Maybe we should be looking at the miscarriage rate then, instead of the suicide rate. And we all know (I hope) that the miscarriage rate is HUGE.

and im not even including those pregnancies that are simply absorbed back into the wombs lining and expelled through menstruation. not all fertilized eggs even make it to the embryonic stage.

Commy

Seems republicans are the pro-lifers.

they want to force you to have your baby. but they won't help you pay for.

then they want you to put it up for adoption if you don't want it.

then they don't want to pay for eduction. or welfare.

So, have your baby, we won't help pay for any of the costs, we won't pay for education.

So I guess they want a bunch of uneducated poor Americans running around...

_

digster wrote:

You want the entire population to follow your own personal morality.

MattyJoe wrote:

So do you. In any case, you'll always be denying someone something they think they should or shouldn't have or someone else should or shouldn't, in almost any process of law. It's about what the majority wants. Your point is insubstantial.

How do pro-choice people want the rest of the population to follow their own personal morality? That's an oxymoron. A pro-choice position, by definition, does not seek to tell women what to do in this situation.

If it's about what the majority wants, please note that the majority want abortion to be legal. So then I guess we won't be hearing any more complaints from you, huh?

MattyJoe

Commy wrote:

Seems republicans are the pro-lifers.

they want to force you to have your baby. but they won't help you pay for.

then they want you to put it up for adoption if you don't want it.

then they don't want to pay for eduction. or welfare.

So, have your baby, we won't help pay for any of the costs, we won't pay for education.

So I guess they want a bunch of uneducated poor Americans running around...

Whoever said anything about not paying for education???

catefrances

Commy wrote:

Seems republicans are the pro-lifers.

they want to force you to have your baby. but they won't help you pay for.

then they want you to put it up for adoption if you don't want it.

then they don't want to pay for eduction. or welfare.

So, have your baby, we won't help pay for any of the costs, we won't pay for education.

So I guess they want a bunch of uneducated poor Americans running around...

well who else is gonna fight in their wars? these forced birth babies are needed for the good of the nation. for the procurement and security of your freedoms.

MattyJoe

scb wrote:

please note that the majority want abortion to be legal.

Prove it.

Roe v. Wade was a court decision, and therefore does not, by any means, reflect what the majority may or may not want. Hopefully you know that already, but if you don't, there it is.

So if I believe it's immoral to kill someone, and that's a law, does that mean a set of morals is being imposed on you or someone else? If you claim to have no morals then why is murder wrong? How do we determine what's right or wrong if we can have no personal morals? What if someone thinks they should be allowed to kill someone else, aren't we imposing our personal view on them? What gives us the right to deny that person the "right" to kill someone?