Abortion Options

[*not_your_average*]

A lump of cells with arms, legs, and defined features of a face.  Sounds like a 9-month difference of bona fide selfishness.

Is it selfish to not want to be a mother at 14? Because that would be extremely messed up if it were. But it is extremely selfish to force your opinion onto a innocent young girl who made a mistake.

This post has been edited by not_your_average: Jul 1 2005, 11:32 AM

[ryfitaDF]

Kathleen and i were talking about this one night at her house, and from that conversation i can conclude that abortion is awesome! since there are abortions, there are less children put up for adoption! so impitant parents have to go to other countries to adopt. think of it: a little boy or girl gets to live in the great and wonderful america because the prom king's rubber broke! more ethnicities! more races! an equil amreica! and lets not forget stem cell research! they can do wonders with that stuff! all the diseases it can cure and how it will make the world a better place. and for all you poeple against stem cell research because it's "cruel" and it's "murder", remember the 1580 (and counting!) people that died in the war, you most likley support, to make the workd a "better place".

i'm on a roll with this sarcastic a-hole bit tonight. hahaha

[Paradox of Life]

Is it selfish to not want to be a mother at 14? Because that would be extremely messed up if it were. But it is exremely to force your opinion onto a innocent young girl who made a mistake.

Exactly.

This topic really gets on my nerves because people don't ever take a moment and put themselves into the shoes of a mother. And not_your_average gave a perfect example. It's the mother's child and why not just abort it rather than have to face being a mother at such a young age? And people who are young have a higher risk of being injured during childbirth because they're too weak to handle it. Abortion is the right of the mother because she created it. If you created a pot, you have a right to smash it.

Let's say, you're this 14 year old girl and decided not to abort it. You have the child, but your parents disown you for getting pregnant and you're forced to live from house to house with your friends. You bring your baby with you as well, but it's just way too much responsibility for someone your age. It's troublesome enough being homeless. You put the baby up for adoption and then it gets taken into care by abusive parents and lives a miserable life before it is killed by its own adoptive parents.

I know this is an extreme, but I'm sure this has happened in the roulette of events that happen out there. This could've ALL been avoided though, if she had just aborted the baby. The life could've been spared its beatings and misery. Adopted children have to go through a lot of drama in their life. Abort it if you want. It's entirely your right and it isn't murder because it's done for the good of another life. Whether it's yours or the baby's.

And it's not pro-abortion, it's pro-choice. Abortion is not a positive thing and should be used as a last resort.

[*CrackedRearView*]

Is it selfish to not want to be a mother at 14? Because that would be extremely messed up if it were. But it is exremely to force your opinion onto a innocent young girl who made a mistake.

Yes, it is. But how about the second, third, fourth, fifth, perhaps even sixth, and seventh times?

"It happens. You made a mistake."

Again -- we're using laws to coddle ignorance.

[*Libertie*]

I'm going to stay calm here and not get upset, because a lot of people refuse to look at the topic of abortion with an open mind. They just dive into the debate without reading any of the arguments and just type with all caps, "NO ITS WRONG DUDEZ DONT DO IT OK?!!!?!?!!"

A lot of people make the argument that abortion is wrong because it goes against Christian morals. That's NOT a valid argument. How much of the US population lives by Christian morals these days? How much of the LAW is based solely on Christian morals? I can answer that one; NONE. Why? Because of separation of church and state. Our nation may have been founded on Christian beliefs, but there was never a rule that said everyone HAD to be a Christian. So, wait.. What was that? No one has to be a Christian? So then.. No one's obligated to live by Christian beliefs? Zing!

That having been said, I'm a Christian. I personally don't agree with abortion in most cases, but if you're gonna allow it for some, you hafta allow it for all. You can't throw in a bunch of inconsistency; that doesn't make well with the public. And just because I can't make the thought of abortion sit well in my head, I can't hold the entire nation to the same moral standards that I hold myself. So, I'm on the pro-choice platform.

[*not_your_average*]

Yes, it is.  But how about the second, third, fourth, fifth, perhaps even sixth, and seventh times?

"It happens.  You made a mistake."

Again -- we're using laws to coddle ignorance.

The pro-choice law is a way of protecting women's reproductive rights. Now I don't agree with multiple abortions. I agree, getting more than one abortion is wrong. Which is why we need laws limiting the amount of abortions women get.

[Spirited Away]

That having been said, I'm a Christian. I personally don't agree with abortion in most cases, but if you're gonna allow it for some, you hafta allow it for all. You can't throw in a bunch of inconsistency; that doesn't make well with the public. And just because I can't make the thought of abortion sit well in my head, I can't hold the entire nation to the same moral standards that I hold myself. So, I'm on the pro-choice platform.

What about prescription drugs? Not everyone can buy prescription drugs because he/she would have to get a doctor's consent... Why? Because it's for our own safety. Prescription drugs isn't for everyone and we certainly do not "hafta allow" laws to make them available for everyone.

Likewise, it IS possible to have "inconsistency", as you called it, in the case with abortion. After all, allowing a few people to have what others cannot have is the same kind of inconsistency that lies in many of our fair laws, as is the case with prescription drugs. The lady who comes in for her sixth abortion because she got knock up by her 348567864987th boyfriend isn't as deserving as the lady who'll die because her fetus is in the way of her recovering from a fatal sickness. Not everything in life can be viewed as black and white.

[*Libertie*]

What about prescription drugs? Not everyone can buy prescription drugs because he/she would have to get a doctor's consent... Why? Because it's for our own safety.  Prescription drugs isn't for everyone and we certainly do not "hafta allow" laws to make them available for everyone.

Doctors hand out prescriptions in order to keep people from taking them for the wrong symptoms. This is after a checkup and consultation; the doctor makes a decision based on that particular person's body. Every body is different, therefore different prescriptions are for different people. This is *hardly* what one would consider 'unfair'. I'm afraid that I'm not seeing the similarity here between the two cases.

Likewise, it IS possible to have "inconsistency", as you called it, in the case with abortion. After all, allowing a few people to have what others cannot have is the same kind of inconsistency that lies in many of our fair laws, as is the case with prescription drugs. The lady who comes in for her sixth abortion because she got knock up by her 348567864987th boyfriend isn't as deserving as the lady who'll die because her fetus is in the way of her recovering from a fatal sickness. Not everything in life can be viewed as black and white.

Again, I don't see prescription drugs as being a supporting example here. Everyone has access to prescription drugs with doctor approval; and at least where I live, I've never heard of anyone being denied access OR of anyone simply being able to buy prescription drugs without approval. I agree that it's unfair for a woman to come in and get an abortion for no reason other than not wanting the baby. In my perfect world, women would have to have signifigant medical cause in order to go through with an abortion, and everyone else would be flat out denied. I have not seen or heard of any proposed legislation like this; although if it were possible, surely someone would have brought it up by now. Otherwise, government funded abortions without justifiable cause should definitely be out of the picture. If some girl who can't afford to have a baby and wants to get rid of it just because she doesn't want the shame of being pregnant, she can damn well figure out a way to pay for it herself. I WILL agree that it's not fair for taxpayers who don't believe in abortion to be paying for some girl with no insurance to frivolously get rid of a mistake and sweep it under the rug.

[Spirited Away]

Doctors hand out prescriptions in order to keep people from taking them for the wrong symptoms. This is after a checkup and consultation; the doctor makes a decision based on that particular person's body. Every body is different, therefore different prescriptions are for different people. This is *hardly* what one would consider 'unfair'. I'm afraid that I'm not seeing the similarity here between the two cases.

... I think you completely missed the point even though I tried to make it as simple as I could. So here goes another try. You're right, doctors prescribe medicines in order to prevent patients from taking the wrong things. You're also right to say that doctors make decisions depending on the person's needs. But that's not the point of my debate. What if I'm someone who do not need prescribed medicine but want it anyway? Lets say I don't have cancer, but I demand that a doctor prescribe me drugs used to treat cancer. Does that make sense to you? What if I don't have cancer but demand to get chemotherapy? I hope you see the connection I'm trying to draw.

I'm only trying to refute your comment about if we allow for some people, we have to allow for everyone. Well, guess what? That's not how things work. Some people just don't qualify. There are FAIR INCONSISTENCIES EVERYWHERE.

Okay, another example. The poor, or lower class deserves financial aid. What if I'm a millionaire and I want financial aid? Should I be able to get financial aid simply because I want it? I don't think so.

The point is, if a person doesn't need an abortion, why do it? Because getting rid of the fetus is convenient? In my opinion, a woman getting her 2nd+ abortion because she got f**ked by her 23454th one night stand without protection isn't as neccessary as the woman who needs one in order to save her life. You're saying that it would be inconsistent to offer one woman an abortion but not the other. I'm saying, that's fair. Getting an abortion because one is irresponsible isn't as necessary as getting one because one may die without it.

Again, I don't see prescription drugs as being a supporting example here. Everyone has access to prescription drugs with doctor approval; and at least where I live, I've never heard of anyone being denied access OR of anyone simply being able to buy prescription drugs without approval.

Erm, if I don't have a sickness, a Doctor would not prescribe me medicine. I'm not sure where you live, but I've heard of doctors who would sell drugs to patients who don't need it in Mexico. Tell me, why would a doctor give you medicine that you don't need (except for placebo pills, but they don't count)? Yes, a doctor CAN deny a patient a prescription if he/she does not need it and so can ANY PHARMACY. It's illegal, thank goodness.

I agree that it's unfair for a woman to come in and get an abortion for no reason other than not wanting the baby. In my perfect world, women would have to have signifigant medical cause in order to go through with an abortion, and everyone else would be flat out denied. I have not seen or heard of any proposed legislation like this; although if it were possible, surely someone would have brought it up by now. Otherwise, government funded abortions without justifiable cause should definitely be out of the picture. If some girl who can't afford to have a baby and wants to get rid of it just because she doesn't want the shame of being pregnant, she can damn well figure out a way to pay for it herself. I WILL agree that it's not fair for taxpayers who don't believe in abortion to be paying for some girl with no insurance to frivolously get rid of a mistake and sweep it under the rug.

But... I don't understand what you're trying to say. First you said it would be an inconsistency to allow abortions for some, but not others, and now you're saying that you actually want only women who have significant medical concerns to have abortions? This is an inconsistency. I'm not sure what side you're on now.

[sadolakced acid]

Again, I don't see prescription drugs as being a supporting example here. Everyone has access to prescription drugs with doctor approval; and at least where I live, I've never heard of anyone being denied access OR of anyone simply being able to buy prescription drugs without approval.

a woman was refused birth control medication from a christian pharmacist. when asked, he said he couldn't morally fill her prescription, because he thought it was wrong. she then asked for her perscription to be transfered to another pharmacy, and he refused, again sighting moral reasons.

the pharmacist was reported; i'm not too sure what happened to him. but it happens.

and also; people shouldn't force thier sense of morality upon someone else. sure, i don't think people should have sex before they're married. that doesn't mean i should force them to not have sex if they're not married. It means i shouldn't have sex before i'm married.

likewise, if someone feels abortion is killing a human life, then sure. don't get an abortion. but if someone is going to get an abortion, is it right to force your sense of morality upon them?

[Spirited Away]

likewise, if someone feels abortion is killing a human life, then sure.  don't get an abortion.  but if someone is going to get an abortion, is it right to force your sense of morality upon them?

Out of context.

If someone murders a child and considers it a pleasure with no moral consequences, but it is morally wrong to you and me, should we not stop him from committing further actrocities or would it be imposing our sense of morality upon him, and therefore, he should be left alone? Sometimes, imposing our morality on others is for the good of society.

[sadolakced acid]

Out of context.

If someone murders a child and considers it a pleasure with no moral consequences, but it is morally wrong to you and me, should we not stop him from committing further actrocities or would it be imposing our sense of morality upon him, and therefore, he should be left alone? Sometimes, imposing our morality on others is for the good of society.

but for who's society?

our society or thiers?
and which society is the morally right one?

because we cannot know, we must give it the benefit of the doubt and assume that we might just be the morally wrong ones.

[Spirited Away]

I'm not even going to attempt defining what is moral. It has been done too many times before, so there are many opposing theories thought by those who are hundred times more intelligent than I. But, I'm going to approach this debate with something Socrates said in Plato's Republic because it is morality in its most simplified form.

Socrates said, in response to what is moral, "we are discussing no small matter, but how we ought to live". I don't think this has ever been refuted.

"Ought" cannot be substituted with "are" and "should". Morality isn't about how we are living or how we should live, it is how we ought to live.

So you tell me, Mr. Acid, should society ought to allow murderers run to loose? Should society ought to allow irresponsibility, and the perpetual acceptance of irresponsibility to rule us?

And as for whose society, why, it's for humanity.

[*Libertie*]

The point is, if a person doesn't need an abortion, why do it? Because getting rid of the fetus is convenient? In my opinion, a woman getting her 2nd+ abortion because she got f**ked by her 23454th one night stand without protection isn't as neccessary as the woman who needs one in order to save her life. You're saying that it would be inconsistent to offer one woman an abortion but not the other. I'm saying, that's fair. Getting an abortion because one is irresponsible isn't as necessary as getting one because one may die without it.

I assume we're on the same page here, just on opposite sides of the fence. I completely understand what you're trying to say, and you have a valid point; I just don't see it exactly the way you do.

But... I don't understand what you're trying to say. First you said it would be an inconsistency to allow abortions for some, but not others, and now you're saying that you actually want only women who have significant medical concerns to have abortions? This is an inconsistency. I'm not sure what side you're on now.

In the "perfect world", yes. Actually, I want abortion to be available not only for women with medical concerns, but also for rape victims. These women deserve a second chance, and it is their right to have one. However, any other cases without justifiable cause should recieve NO financial help, no matter what. Which means, yes, if a teenager somehow got knocked up and wanted to get rid of a baby without her parents finding out, she's out of luck, because they're most likely the ones paying for it. Unless a woman recieving an abortion has signifigant cause for the operation, it should not be covered by insurance or by government programs.

[Spirited Away]

Then why was I trying to refute you? LOL. Since the begining of the thread, that has been my view.

[*Libertie*]

lol It doesn't matter; it just seems like we didn't understand each others' views at first.

[sadolakced acid]

I'm not even going to attempt defining what is moral. It has been done too many times before, so there are many opposing theories thought by those who are hundred times more intelligent than I. But, I'm going to approach this debate with something Socrates said in Plato's Republic because it is morality in its most simplified form.

Socrates said, in response to what is moral, "we are discussing no small matter, but how we ought to live". I don't think this has ever been refuted.

"Ought" cannot be substituted with "are" and "should". Morality isn't about how we are living or how we should live, it is how we ought to live. 

So you tell me, Mr. Acid, should society ought to allow murderers run to loose? Should society ought to allow irresponsibility, and the perpetual acceptance of irresponsibility to rule us?

And as for whose society, why, it's for humanity.

no, because murders are forcing thier ideals upon those they murder.

how ought we live? is it the christian ideal of moral? live like monks, talk once a year? or is it the hindu ideal of moral? the buddhist? which way ought we live?

[*CrackedRearView*]

no, because murders are forcing thier ideals upon those they murder. 

how ought we live?  is it the christian ideal of moral?  live like monks, talk once a year?  or is it the hindu ideal of moral?  the buddhist?  which way ought we live?

It would be immature, and naive to believe that the human race could peacefully accommodate for Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Atheists, etc, etc simultaneously. As opposed to fighting the inevitable, futile loss, the human race segregates (and as much as we try to fight that, it'll never be eradicated).

Asking for such accommodation, especially from a government [in one light, a group of people taking constant, rapid fire from people just like yourself, but on a more massive plateau], is just unreasonable.

Sir Thomas More knew of the impossibility of his publication Utopia before he even began writing. This is exactly why he enjoyed the fun of writing about it in the absence of not being able to live it.

However, your question can't be answered. There is no right way to live, but the government can't accommodate for the human nature that would ensue should it try to bend laws around every theology.

[*disco infiltrator*]

so no one gets confused as in the recent confusosisity case, here's my view:

1st trimester abortions allowed if protection was being used and somehow didn't work under age 18, rape victims, damage to mother.
2nd trimester abortions allowed if patient just found out giving birth could be damaging to her health.

that's it.

however, if it comes down to all or none, i'd rather have all.

- sammi (touch my monkey)

[crazymonkey1785]

well, even if you were raped, have it then if you can't take care of it, put it up for adoption, even though it'd be hard, let someone that can take care of it take care of it, what if they weren't able to have kids, then you're giving them the chance to have the joy of a child!

i am totally 100% against abortion, and say the mother would die if she were to have the baby, i'd have the baby, you've had a chance to live, so give them the chance to live, if you have an abortion because you're about to die, that's like pushing someone out in front of a bus that you're about to get hit by so that you won't die!!! but that's my opinion!!
i'm AGAINST IT!!!

[sadolakced acid]

It would be immature, and naive to believe that the human race could peacefully accommodate for Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Atheists, etc, etc simultaneously.  As opposed to fighting the inevitable, futile loss, the human race segregates (and as much as we try to fight that, it'll never be eradicated).

which is why organized religion should be banned.

minda would aprove.

religion is useful for three things:

taking over a country
influencing people
collecting money.

all three we can do without.

[Joss-eh-lime]

when you are pregnant you are going to have a baby. the baby is there inside of you and killing that baby is the same as killing a person that no one knows yet.

[sadolakced acid]

when you are pregnant you are going to have a baby. the baby is there inside of you and killing that baby is the same as killing a person that no one knows yet.

1. read teh topic

2. abortion is not murder unless the baby can survive outside the mother.


the second has been defined by the supreme court. sure, it's controversial, but it's law.

and, as far was religious reasons go: religious morals cannot govern this country.

[Spirited Away]

no, because murders are forcing thier ideals upon those they murder. 

how ought we live?  is it the christian ideal of moral?  live like monks, talk once a year?  or is it the hindu ideal of moral?  the buddhist?  which way ought we live?

I'm not sure I understand your response so I'm repeating this: I asked if society ought to allow irresponsibility, and the perpetual acceptance of irresponsibility to rule us. I don't think I received an answer. If you'll allow "irresponsibility" to stand in for a woman who is having her 3rd abortion because she simply finds a baby inconvenient, then I think you'll understand why I asked the question.

The right way to live is simply how we ought to live, in my opinion.
How we ought to live has nothing to do with Christians or Buddhists and Hindus alone, but rather it has to do with the good that each culture can bring to humanity. The question of how we ought to live cannot have one answer because there isn't only one way to live, I think though it has to do with common sense.

You have B average in Chemistry so far. Your Mom tells you that you ought to study for a big exam next week so you can maybe pull that B up to an A. She will not force you to do it but you ought to because it is something beneficial to you. Are you going to do it? Well, here is where the common sense I talked about will kick in. If you want a positive outcome, then you'll study, which is something you ought to do.

[sadolakced acid]

I'm not sure I understand your response so I'm repeating this: I asked if society ought to allow irresponsibility, and the perpetual acceptance of irresponsibility to rule us. I don't think I received an answer. If you'll allow "irresponsibility" to stand in for a woman who is having her 3rd abortion because she simply finds a baby inconvenient, then I think you'll understand why I asked the question.

The right way to live is simply how we ought to live, in my opinion.
How we ought to live has nothing to do with Christians or Buddhists and Hindus alone, but rather it has to do with the good that each culture can bring to humanity. The question of how we ought to live cannot have one answer because there isn't only one way to live, I think though it has to do with common sense.

You have B average in Chemistry so far. Your Mom tells you that you ought to study for a big exam next week so you can maybe pull that B up to an A. She will not force you to do it but you ought to because it is something beneficial to you. Are you going to do it? Well, here is where the common sense I talked about will kick in. If you want a positive outcome, then you'll study, which is something you ought to do.

ban one you ban them all.

do we really want people getting multiple abortions? no. but if multiple ones are banned, it's that much closer to banning them completely.

the same reason why propoganda isn't banned. you regulate some speech, it opens the way for all speech to be regulated.

likewise, the FCC could choose to regulate the interenet and hold it to the same standards as radio, etc.

banning abortions will open that door.

basically, i'm saying; banning irresponsibility often infringes upon other civil rights. better that 10 people die than one innocent's freedom be taken away.

what i see in abortion arguments boils down to:

the feotus vs. the mother. which one has priority? which one should govern both?