|
Post by Hussar on Nov 4, 2003 2:04:24 GMT -5
I tried this on another forum only to run into some very serious opposition in trying to run the discussion this way. Read through this and see what you think.
I went to a Catholic University. During my time there, I took a philosophy of Law course. Now, of course, at some point in the course, we had to talk about abortion. A somewhat difficult topic in a room full of Catholics. So, what he did was outline 4 situations and asked for a simple show of hands, without debate, as to whether or not you would allow an abortion. The four situations were:
1. An ectopic pregnancy. The baby is in sideways and if carried to term, will kill both the mother and child.
2. A girl is raped by her blood uncle and gets pregnant.
3. A 14 year old prostitute, addicted to crack and living on the street.
4. A 29 year old woman with a husband and a good job wants to go to Jamaica in six months and doesn't want to look bad in a bathing suit.
Now, even the die hard pro-choicers cringe at the last one. I know I do. But, the question is, does society have the right to ask? Is that not an invasion of privacy if you ask why a person wishes to perform a medical procedure? And, if you ask, where is the cut off? At what point can a society legitimately say, this is what's best?
Food for thought.
|
|
|
Post by Minion on Nov 4, 2003 6:49:48 GMT -5
Thats nearly impossible to say, as both prolifers and prochoicers have been warring over this for seemingly ever. For myself, I can't pretend to understand a life I haven't lived, and I won't tell someone I barely or don't know what to do with their own body. Yes, there is also a child involved, and it's no secret that the killing of another human being is murder. I also believe in absolute freedom of choice. If God says "choose for yourself, I won't tell you what to do" then it's hypocritical for christians to go putting pressure on that same freedom in other people.
I don't believe in abortion. But I believe in everyone's right do evaluate their own situation.
Some countries place laws on owners of cats, requiring them to be fixed. This is done because there are many homeless and sick cats out there. It's humane to prevent more kittens from suffering. Isn't it also humane to prevent a person being born into a miseable life? What kind of a mother would a woman make who considered killing me when I was a fetus because it would affect her figure? Not one I'd want to have, I'm sure.
Because I am against killing, but am not pretentious enough to believe I can walk in other people's shoes from my easychair, I have settled on prolife for me, prochoice for the rest of the world.
|
|
|
Post by CharleHu$$tle on Nov 4, 2003 11:51:40 GMT -5
Sorry but even at the cost of some retarded people like number 4 I am pro-Choice.
I do not like or agree with abortion.
but I think everyone has a Right to Choose
|
|
Slag
Soldier
F'n A, mate!
Posts: 157
|
Post by Slag on Nov 4, 2003 12:57:55 GMT -5
I think alot of it comes down to the question "when does life begin"? If life begins at birth, then an unborn fetus is not alive, hence aborting it is not killing. If life begins at conception then any abortion, even a morning after pill, is killing. For that matter, if sperm is considered "the seed of life" and each sperm a potential child, then any birth control can be considered killing (laugh all you want, but keep in mind that alot of religions and sects preach just this. People have been severely punished in years gone by for practicing safe sex). Hell, if any ovum is a potential life then the same could be claimed for monthly ovulation.
So where does life begin "officially"? If it begins between conception and birth, then who determines the date? One of the big issues about the legality of abortion rests on this philosophical question...
|
|
|
Post by CharleHu$$tle on Nov 4, 2003 13:15:50 GMT -5
OK once again I take the unpopular route. Now realise people sometimes I do not believe the side I am Arguing for. I do this so your forced to see other points of view. And So that I have a better understanding of the points that would be arguees against me.
As for Slags thing about when life begins.
Well Honestly does it really matter. We can Kill Entire Cities women, Children, Men, elderly, dogs, It all! When a Bomb in war. hell remember Hiroshima WW2.
We take lifes all the time. every Swat a Fly! Step on a Ant, go hunting, Eat a hamburger lately!
All day everyday we take lifes, Wither they be Man or Animal. Lifes are taken.
So why Should that matter. A Pregnate Women before Stage 4 (I believe is when it si illegal to abort ) The Fetise is basically Just Cells Dividing still. It's not intellgent. Doesn't Speak.
We Kill animals that are more intellegent then the fetise is in this stage...
But I know the real Reasons People say abortian si wrong. Cause babies are cute. ANd We can't Kill something that is going to be Cute.
|
|
|
Post by Wyrmfire on Nov 4, 2003 16:15:16 GMT -5
I would say no to all of the options except the first one. There are 6000 couples waiting in line to adopt, more every day, so there's no reason at all to have an abortion because of "quality of life" issues- just give your child to the state. As for disabilities- if a grown man got in a car accident and had permanent brain damage and was parapalegic, would you kill him? So why do it to a baby, just because they would be born that way?
|
|
|
Post by CharleHu$$tle on Nov 4, 2003 16:37:21 GMT -5
I would say no to all of the options except the first one. There are 6000 couples waiting in line to adopt, more every day, so there's no reason at all to have an abortion because of "quality of life" issues- just give your child to the state. As for disabilities- if a grown man got in a car accident and had permanent brain damage and was parapalegic, would you kill him? So why do it to a baby, just because they would be born that way? OK first about the Disablitities. WOuld you want to live like that. At least that man had a Chance to enjoy life. The Child is Born to torture. If not From Pyshical Problems From People around the World. Sorry But unless the MOmma is going to be there 24 7 for it's entire life that Child is Doomed from the start. Now as for adoptions. Yeah those 6000 only want Young brand Spanking new babies. We have a Over flow of orphans ready to be adopted but those kids are older not Little Cute babies. So they Get shafted. I bet most of those children wishes their parents would have been kind enough to abort them
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Nov 4, 2003 17:19:20 GMT -5
Personal read on that, since it's all that can be given, goes as follows:
Ectopic pregnancy- The mother has the unprejudiced call on it. Not all ectopic pregnancies end in death for both or either participant; but the chances are damned high so it's all down to choice.
Incestuos statutory rape- The mother, whether a minor or not, has the call on it. Period.
The minor prostitute/crack addict- Such a person has demonstrated no ability to govern her own affairs, so the court or legal guardian has the call. But, sentencing a new born to pre-birth crack addiction is unconsciousable. If it were myself in the postion of decison I would strongly advocate abortion and I'd suffer the moral and ethical weight of it. That is what responsibility is all about though.
Looking good in a bathing suit- This one doesn't make me cringe, it makes me want to vomit. The woman is also showing NO sense of responsibility herself, for either herself or that unborn who MIGHT be a human being that we don't yet have the science to legally recognize one way or the other. On the chance that it is a human life, such irresponsibility would, in my opinion, NOT be formal cause for it's termination.
Does society have the right? By being a part of a given society YOU are giving IT the RIGHT to make the choice of what it accepts as legal or illegal, ethical or unethical. If you disagree with the society remove yourself from it... or try your darndest to change it to your way of thinking... or shut the heck up.
Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Nov 4, 2003 17:24:59 GMT -5
Hi Wyrmfire,
If that man had a living will, like I do, that demanded that no life support machines be used and no artificial means of resuccitation be used... hell yes I would. I certainly would not want to live in such a state, nor would I condemn anyone else to such an existence.
As for the baby... have you ever seen a crack addict in withdrawls? It is a terrible sight... when it is an adult, when it is a helpless infant, it is heart breaking. I wouldn't force even serial murderers to live in such a state... never an innocent babe.
Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Wyrmfire on Nov 4, 2003 21:05:02 GMT -5
Hi Wyrmfire, If that man had a living will, like I do, that demanded that no life support machines be used and no artificial means of resuccitation be used... hell yes I would. I certainly would not want to live in such a state, nor would I condemn anyone else to such an existence. Draxy But, the point is not that the child will suffer. That is a given, and a horrible one. But, the point is, you do not decide when someone else commits suicide. If that child grows up, and decides for her/his own that they do not want to live, then, well, I wouldn't agree with suicide, but I think it is their right. But, how would you feel if someone walked in the door right now and shot you because he thought that life was too painful for you? So? The point is that he cannot enjoy life anymore, so he might as well die, right? And we shouldn't consult him on the matter at all?
|
|
|
Post by RowanMoonWynd on Nov 4, 2003 23:21:41 GMT -5
I personally do not believe in abortion, but I don't think we have the right to tell others what they should do with their bodies. On the other hand though, what about those that fathered the babies and want them, but the female decides to go ahead and terminate the pregnancy anyway. Males may not carry the babe to full term and have to deal with the pregnancy, but shouldn't they have a say since that child is just as much a part of them as the mother, and have just as much right to that baby as the mother does?
|
|
|
Post by Minion on Nov 5, 2003 3:50:13 GMT -5
In answer to Slag, it's neither. The catholic church preaches that to use a condom is to kill an unborn child. By that theory there are a lot of dead children on the showertiles of a lot of teenagers out there. An ovum, by itself, is also not an unborn child. By making sure semen and ovum don't meet, you are preventing the creation of a potential child, not destroying an existing one. By practicing abstinence, you also pervent the creation of unborn children. So much for catholicism.
A baby is very clearly alive before birth. They move, they react. My oldest son was extremely active in the womb. The dork kept making himself pass out by grabbing the umbilical cord and squeezing. Scared the hell out of the doctors until they figured out what the problem was, because repeatedly passing out does some weird stuff to your heartrate and brain activity. So they wiggled him around until he let go. If that's not signs of life.... My other 2 sons were premature. One was born in the 24th week and had to spend a long time in an incubator. From sitting endless hours in the neonatal unit with him I know he was very alive even though, technically, he wasn't supposed to be born. Life and birth do not coincide.
imo life begins within the first few days after the ovum is fertilated. In the hospital they showed us an ultrasound of an abortion being performed. The fetus was only 2-3 weeks old, and very obviously was trying to escape the needle before they skewered it. You wouldn't doubt that the child was trying to preserve its own life if you'd seen it with your own eyes.
My daughter died about 1 hour before she was born in the 24th week. I spent weeks before then feeling her kick and listening to her heartbeet. She wasn't born at that point, but you can't tell me she wasn't a living person.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 5, 2003 4:03:28 GMT -5
Minion, I would like to move away slightly from the idea of when does life begin. That issue has been and will be debated pretty much forever and, quite probably by smarter minds than ours, egos notwithstanding. Look, at least in North America, abortion is not illegal. In Canada or in America, you can go into a hospital and have an abortion. That is a fact. The question that I am asking is, does society have the right to invade the individual's privacy and ask for reasons for the abortion? If so, what gives society that right? How can we justify an invasion of privacy on that level? Despite what prolifers may say, an unborn fetus has NO rights under the law. NONE. It is NOT a person under the law. Should it be? Possibly. But that's not the question here. The question is, does society's right to protection outweigh an individuals right to privacy? Because that's what it comes down to. Society needs to grow and it needs babies in order to do that. Without babies, societies die. Abortion reduces the number of babies thus threatening a society as a whole. However, is that threat great enough to justify taking away an individual's right to privacy?
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Nov 5, 2003 7:28:46 GMT -5
To be pertinenet then: Does society have the right? By being a part of a given society YOU are giving IT the RIGHT to make the choice of what it accepts as legal or illegal, ethical or unethical. If you disagree with the society remove yourself from it... or try your darndest to change it to your way of thinking... or shut the heck up. Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Nov 5, 2003 7:36:37 GMT -5
But, the point is not that the child will suffer. That is a given, and a horrible one. But, the point is, you do not decide when someone else commits suicide. If that child grows up, and decides for her/his own that they do not want to live, then, well, I wouldn't agree with suicide, but I think it is their right. But, how would you feel if someone walked in the door right now and shot you because he thought that life was too painful for you? But Wyrmfire, don't you see that you are doing exactly the same thing, in reverse? You are telling that baby that because you do not want the responsibility of deciding on it's termination that it MUST live in unspeakable agony. You are advocating it's continuous and on going torture rather than let the torture end. The person walking through my door would be dealing from a position of ignorance. I have SEEN these children. If I am screaming myself raw every time I awaken for even a moment I will BLESS the kind individual that frees me of that, and I have an unusually high tolerance for pain. Draxy
|
|