Reply With Quote
So one hour before that kid is born, it's alright to kill him.
I get it now.
Yes.... that was the risk you were taking. Let me rephrase your question, "should I commit murder because I don't want a child around who will hamper my style, my finances, and take a considerable chunk of my time away?" No matter what you say (and not to say that you are not en led to your own opinion) that's a selfish at ude.
So one hour before that kid is born, it's alright to kill him.
I get it now.
I don't know. I was answering the question of when the unborn child's 4th amendment rights kick-in.
I guess "Life, liberty and the persuit of happiness" only applies to the selfish mother...
Bottom line is that abortion, in the immense majority of the cases, is due to a selfish act of two (or one) human beings who were not able to live with the consequences of their acts.
In a perfect world, abortion would not exist. And that shows you why abortion is wrong.
That's a ridiculous argument. In a perfect world medicine would not exist, so is medicine wrong?
Well, you have the "risk" of pregnancy when you engage in intercourse. You already have a choice.
In addition, if you don't want the kid, give it up for adoption.
and persons born
I am ardently anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, and anti-assisted suicide. I wouldn't ever want my girlfriend to abort a baby. That being said, out-lawing this practice won't stop it from happening. The law was not designed to be an instrument of social change. When the law gets ahead of the societal movement, the law cannot be enforced because the laws govern the minority, not the majority.
For instance, it is morally reprehensibile to kill another human being to collect his life insurance policy. We have laws in place to stop such things from happening, and when some of us do (say less than 1% of the population), we "bring them to justice."
However, alcohol prohibition did not work because the percentages were flipped. We had law enforcement officers going to speak easys. We allowed the black markets and the mob rise up and fill the appe e for alcohol.
Given these two scenarios, I believe the nation is closer to alcohol prohibition than murder when it comes to the issue of abortion. Change coming in our laws will simply put more lives as risk, and ultimately put more people on the government payroll we call prison. The avenue to changing this practice is to make it morally irresponsible in our society, and then let the law do what it is supposed to do - police the fringes of what is considered the norms of our society.
Brilliant analogy you pulled out of thin air Peabody.
Equating unborn children with a desease.
This is a wedge issue, and it's used by both sides as we can see in this thread.
Interesting viewpoint with much unfortunate truth. Again, this speaks volumes of where we as humans are going... when the decadence of society can not be stopped who will oppose the mainstream current???
Where did you get that? Your statement was -
I was merely showing you that merely because an action or item does not exist in a "perfect world" it does not make that action or item imperfect or wrong.
In a perfect world, there would not be abortion, not because abortion is wrong, but because there would be no such thing as an unwanted pregnancy. There would be no such thing as an unwanted pregnancy, not because everyone would want to be pregnant, but rather because people who did not want to become pregnant would not get pregnant.
Medicine is similar. It would not exist in a perfect world, not because it is wrong or imperfect, but because no one would get sick in a perfect world.
The 'pro-choice' argument I've yet to see which I feel is the strongest is that without it being legal, a woman would have to prove she was raped. By this standard what is required? Is it merely notifying the authorities?
The only way to change the majority is to not be a part of it and to realize that not all things are solved in one lifetime.
I think judgement is the most dangerous thing we can do. As animals, our baser instinct of survival is not challenged everyday in this nation. If you look at the generally accepted morals of most cultures - murder, suicide, incest, and sexuality - these things are in place because if 100% of the population indulged in them, the species would ultimately not survive.
Historically speaking, as pleasure becomes the motivator for actions over survival, these activities are indulged by a small segment of the population. These activites have been used in art, especially in Christianity, and depitcted as evil acts.
Has anyone seen "The Devil's Advocate?" What does Al Pacio, who plays Satan, ultimately want - he wants his son, Keanu Reeves, to have sex with his biological sister to birth the anti-Christ. And this is but the latest juxtaposition of these immoral acts, in this case incest, and evil in art.
I'm all over the map here, but the basic concept is: "If it's wrong to you, don't do it. You can preach a better sermon with your life than with your words. Don't pass judgement on others."
The most challenging thing I have ever had in my life to be there for others, give them solid advice, and not judge them if they don't take it. And that's all you can do. You can't change the actions of everyone across this country, just do you and be in position to help the rest.
Jumping ahead from my immediately prior post, if a woman is raped but there is a doubt as to whether she was impregnated by the rapist or her spouse/lover, would she still be free to terminate the pregnancy?
That is a good question: What is the burden of proof, and who does it lie with?
Last edited by Darrin; 03-03-2006 at 04:54 PM.
The burden as well as the degree. Must the rapist be caught, tried and convicted before she can proceed?
This is definitely a male society.
That would be nearly impossible, as we are dealing with, at most, a nine-month window of opportunity. I would hope that the allegation would be enough.
Also, there is the additional problem of most rapes never being reported.
What happens if a woman is raped, doesn't report it, and months later, finds out she is pregnant? Do you punish her for not reporting the rape initially?
You see.... that's why I've been saying it all along... the lie detector test they developed at MIT would eliminate perjury or at least detract others from attempting to do so.
Here's another: incest. If I am not mistaken, incest is illegal in most states (save for Arkansas). Does a woman have to admit committing a crime in order to be able to seek an abortion?
Again though, it's not about judging the mother but rather about saving an innocent life... And I would hope that the latter have some weight over the former.
This is about the mother. This is about the decision to give that child a loving home for 20 years and the added burden that places on that woman. This is the added financial responsibility. This is about having to look into the face of your rapist every single day as you care for this child. The arguments for abortion are about the life of the mother and the quality of life for the child.
We can't poo-poo that away to save what some see as an "abstract" baby in the sticky argument of "where does life begin?" This is especially true if you are male. It's too easy to assume that some abstract moral stance by a man is simply another case of the discrimination of females in this society. Like it or not, in order for an anti-abortion movement to take place and really change society, it's the concerns of the mother that will have to be addressed.
While I may agree with most of what you just said... I believe it is not a matter of abstractness... either the baby is alive or it is dead. So if there were scenarios that would cause undue burden to the quality of life for the child that's where the adoption token should be used. Unfortunately, the regulations governing adoption make it so difficult, time-consuming, and expensive for the families that are trying to adopt to succeed. Many times those families get so frustrated with the whole process that they don't continue to pursue it.
Anyways... rape is one of the extreme cases that would require some allowance especially if the woman were underage. But more often than not (and the statistics for something like this would be hard to come by or even guage) abortions are being performed for reasons other than health, rape, or incest. Those using it for birth control should be put in jail. We should start acting more 'humane' and less like animals.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions