A theory on abortion...

MattyJoe wrote:

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.

But you referred to pregnancy as merely an "inconvenience" and that's inaccurate and disrespectful to the women who have pregnancy complications.

You say she made her choice so now she should accept the consequences, but women do not choose to have pregnancy complications. If they were an expected part of pregnancy, they wouldn't be called complications.

You need to recognize what a toll pregnancy and childbirth can take on a woman's body. I don't understand how people can defend a fetus at all costs but think of a pregnancy as trivial.

(Although I should expect this given the disrespect people have for women, since the addition of the woman is the only difference between a fetus and a pregnancy.)

scb wrote:

But you referred to pregnancy as merely an "inconvenience" and that's inaccurate and disrespectful to the women who have pregnancy complications.

You say she made her choice so now she should accept the consequences, but women do not choose to have pregnancy complications. If they were an expected part of pregnancy, they wouldn't be called complications.

You need to recognize what a toll pregnancy and childbirth can take on a woman's body. I don't understand how people can defend a fetus at all costs but think of a pregnancy as trivial.

(Although I should expect this given the disrespect people have for women, since the addition of the woman is the only difference between a fetus and a pregnancy.)

For the third time, I would support abortion in cases on the mother's life being in danger.

Regarding the part of your post I embolded:

I don't understand how people can defend a woman's "right" to an abortion at all costs but think of killing a fetus as trivial.
You're comparing pregnancy to death, something I find very appalling. Again, talking in terms of when the mothers life is not in danger.

digster wrote:

Here you go, Matty. That website will also tell you more polls you can go to to show you that the majority prefers pro-choice. And if you can get back to me on my first point, I'd appreciate it.

Why not get back to me on mine in my very first post in this thread? Where do we get this notion that a woman has the "right" to have an abortion?

MattyJoe wrote:

Why not get back to me on mine in my very first post in this thread? Where do we get this notion that a woman has the "right" to have an abortion?

Well, let's clear this part up first. You said, and I quote that "it's about what the majority wants." The majority believe abortion should not be illegal. The majority believe it should be legal with some restrictions. The majority do not believe we should overturn Roe V. Wade.

So, this makes your point moot, according to your own standards.

digster wrote:

Well, let's clear this part up first. You said, and I quote that "it's about what the majority wants." The majority believe abortion should not be illegal. The majority believe it should be legal with some restrictions. The majority do not believe we should overturn Roe V. Wade.

So, this makes your point moot, according to your own standards.

Um, no. There's still the issue of whether or not it's constitutional. Of course, the court ordered that it was, somehow. But I'm disputing that very decision because I cannot see how it's constitutional to have an abortion.

The court cited the 14th Amendment as the basis for it's decision, and yet in that very same Amendment lies this text:

...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

To argue that the baby is somehow not yet alive is wrong. The cells themselves are alive, even before the baby is actually fully developed. The baby would never form if there wasn't life from the very beginning of the process. Therefore, you'd have to argue that the baby is somehow not yet human. Yet, if you were to look at it's genetic makeup, it's clearly a human being. When you say life doesn't begin at conception what are you talking about? The very fact that conception occurred means there's life.

MattyJoe wrote:

For the third time, I would support abortion in cases on the mother's life being in danger.

Regarding the part of your post I embolded:

I don't understand how people can defend a woman's "right" to an abortion at all costs but think of killing a fetus as trivial.
You're comparing pregnancy to death, something I find very appalling. Again, talking in terms of when the mothers life is not in danger.

If one thinks killing a fetus is trivial, why wouldn't they defend a woman's right to abortion? And how am I comparing pregnancy to death?

You don't have to make your claim about abortion for the third time, because I got it the first time. I'm not talking about your stance on aborton to save the life of the mother. I'm talking about your attitude about pregnancy in general.

If you and others want to be taken seriously on this issue, a good start would be for you to take pregnancy seriously and pay more reverence to pregnancy and to pregnant women. But instead I constantly hear pregnancy trivialized as just a minor "inconvenience". I think someone on here even once compared it to having gas for 9 months.

That kind of attitude is ignorant, is offensive, and expresses a total disregard for women and their experience of pregnancy.

MattyJoe wrote:

Um, no. There's still the issue of whether or not it's constitutional. Of course, the court ordered that it was, somehow. But I'm disputing that very decision because I cannot see how it's constitutional to have an abortion.

The court cited the 14th Amendment as the basis for it's decision, and yet in that very same Amendment lies this text:

...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

To argue that the baby is somehow not yet alive is wrong. The cells themselves are alive, even before the baby is actually fully developed. The baby would never form if there wasn't life from the very beginning of the process. Therefore, you'd have to argue that the baby is somehow not yet human. Yet, if you were to look at it's genetic makeup, it's clearly a human being. When you say life doesn't begin at conception what are you talking about? The very fact that conception occurred means there's life.

It's interesting to me how you said it's all about majority opinion, and then when majority opinion is not on your side you say it's about something else.

Fine - let's say it's about the Constitution. The Supreme Court said the Constitution gives women the right to abortion and it's their job - not yours - to interpret the Constitution. It looks like you lose on that front too.

scb wrote:

It's interesting to me how you said it's all about majority opinion, and then when majority opinion is not on your side you say it's about something else.

Fine - let's say it's about the Constitution. The Supreme Court said the Constitution gives women the right to abortion and it's their job - not yours - to interpret the Constitution. It looks like you lose on that front too.

Also, the quote he gives from the 14th....


...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

His plan to make abortions illegal is a flagrant violation of the woman's liberty. If you believe that the life of the unborn overwhelms that then fine, but you can't just ignore the following word.

fugawzi wrote:

So extract the baby prematurely, incubate it and eventually give it up for adoption so it can grow up to pay taxes and work it's ass off? Then in addition to paying taxes give the government more money somehow for the incubation period? I'd have to say that's a pretty bad idea. Sounds like it would be keeping it alive to be a glorified slave. That's just my opinion, let's see what the others have to say.

The made about about this I believe? I think Keanu Reeves and Laurence Fishburne were in it.

you're assuming that EVERY fetus will be desired by someone. nice, utopian thought, but i think not. i do not think people right now do enough to adopt the unwanted children already out there..the high/special needs children, the crack babies, the children with different skincolors from their own, etc. sure, you have celebrities adopting children of differing races, and i am sure many others do as well...but even MORE choose to adopt a baby on their own race, good or bad. this is also my 'issue' with the 'adoption argument' against abortion rights. NOT every baby is going to be wanted by someone. if the mother does want it.....what makes you so 100% sure someone else will? crack-addicted babies, babies with birth defects, fetal-alcohol syndrome...etc, etc, etc....not every baby, thus not ever fetus....is a *perfect* healthy being, nor necessarily the 'desired' ethnicity/race an adoptive parent may want. the foster system proves this all too well right now, today. beyond which...costs would be prohibitive. but hey, if you actually could get it to work....sure, why not? ANOTHER choice is always a good thing. however, i would not agree with FORCING a pregnant woman to do so if she would prefer another option.