Pro Life or Pro Choice

[The Batman]

Ok to steer us away from religion I decided to bring back an old favorite. How do you stand on abortion Pro Life or Pro Choice? I'm really Pro Choice about this because some people really can't raise children and the child would be better off aborted than with the mother. Also in special cases like if it can harm the mother giving birth, rape victims, or underage girls. What are your thoughts?

[Rutherford The Brave]

I'm pro life because isn't abortion murder? I mean sure the woman should be able to choose if she wants to have the child or not. Still though; this is a child we are talking about and if we just kill it we would be taking away it's chance to live its life.

[byee]

Oh, my! HEAD FOR THE HILLS! *ducks for cover*.

I personally would rather EAT GLASS while WALKING OVER HOT COALS than enter into this particular firestorm!

However, I WILL add my $1.02, and state that everyone is really 'Pro Life', that term has been hijacked by the anti abortionists to appeal (deceitfully, I might add) to emotionality, in an attempt to pursuade based on appeal to raw emotion. It really has little to do with the legal issue, which is the right to privacy, which is what Roe codified.

The issue isn't 'Pro life' v. 'Pro Choice', but rather which 'life' the emphasis is on, and if individual citizens are entitled to privacy in that matter, as stated in the US Bill of Rights.


Just a clarification (not that I think it will necessarily civilize the discussion here).

[Dolphus Raymond]

I don't like this issue. The definition of "life" seems cultural and arbitrary to me. I'm not big on legislating on an arbitrary definition. Then again, it is uncomfortably close to taking a life. Then again, I think women should have a right to control their own bodies...

Ick, ick, ick. I'm personally opposed because of the ambiguity. Legally, I don't know.

[CaptainObvious]

I'm pro life because isn't abortion murder? I mean sure the woman should be able to choose if she wants to have the child or not. Still though; this is a child we are talking about and if we just kill it we would be taking away it's chance to live its life.


Is it murder? To consider abortion murder, one must assume that a fetus is both alive (and they aren't, at least not for the first part of the pregnancy), and a person - which I don't actually think they ever are until they are born.

There are some arguments otherwise, but I tend to think that in the absence of a compelling argument to justify calling abortion murder (and by this I mean a strongly evidenced argument of a fetus's life and personhood), I cannot condone the imposition upon a woman's liberty that banning abortion constitutes.

Moreover, banning abortion is bad government policy in the sense that it has a lot of really bad side effects.

[Oblivion]

I am Pro-Choice based off the fact that since it is not illegal, and you can get an abortion before it even becomes this matter (because it isn't alive yet), I don't wish to make anyone do what i would want.

Personally I would never ask a girl i got pregnant to get an abortion, but I'm NOT going to tell everyone else not to.

[NextToNormal]

im pro choice. i feel that women should have the right to choose. there are some cases where abortion is the better option. im not saying its the best option but it is one nonetheless.

[Rutherford The Brave]

Is it murder? To consider abortion murder, one must assume that a fetus is both alive (and they aren't, at least not for the first part of the pregnancy), and a person - which I don't actually think they ever are until they are born.

There are some arguments otherwise, but I tend to think that in the absence of a compelling argument to justify calling abortion murder (and by this I mean a strongly evidenced argument of a fetus's life and personhood), I cannot condone the imposition upon a woman's liberty that banning abortion constitutes.

Moreover, banning abortion is bad government policy in the sense that it has a lot of really bad side effects.

So you would condone taking a life a way that could in fact alter history and what happens in the future? You would condone the death of a potential activist that could end the world's strife? You would condone the death of a mother/father who would raise the next generation of people who could change the world? YOU WOULD CONDONE THE DEATH OF THOUNSANDS OF PEOPLE WHO COULD CHANGE OUR WORLD AS WE KNOW IT? Excuse me, terrible sorry for the rant, but it is un-ethical in my mind.

[Zephyr]

Pro-Choice, but I'm not to hot on abortions past first term.
Accidents happen but for the love of god,
Get it taken care of swiftly and don't abuse abortion,
Then it just shows how careless some people really are.

[Yasmine]

i'm pro choice. i think it's better for the undeveloped baby to leave if they weren't wanted. i would hate it if my parents never really wanted me. everyone dies someday, and it does a favor for the mom and unborn baby. it's not like they crucify the fetus to death.

[theOperaGhost]

I'm am pro-life. I DO see that an abortion might be justified in the case of a rape, but a mother not wanting the baby is not a good enough reason to end what would be a life in my eyes. I'm am a very strong supporter of adoption. If a mother doesn't want the child, there are plenty of loving couples out there that can't have children that would be blessed to have a child. A woman doesn't just magically get pregnant. Maybe they should be a little more careful if they don't want children. Don't end the life that will be.

[Ryandel]

I'm am pro-life. I DO see that an abortion might be justified in the case of a rape, but a mother not wanting the baby is not a good enough reason to end what would be a life in my eyes. I'm am a very strong supporter of adoption. If a mother doesn't want the child, there are plenty of loving couples out there that can't have children that would be blessed to have a child. A woman doesn't just magically get pregnant. Maybe they should be a little more careful if they don't want children. Don't end the life that will be.

Somewhat ethical. I'm neutral on this topic though. It really depends on the situation.

[Hyper]

I am pro life all the way, call me a illusioned dreamer but it isn't right..

I realize there are circumstances but two wrongs don't make a right.

I just don't see it right that anybody could take the right to deny the life of another person no matter the circumstance..

Its a complicated issue but in the most simplest black & white to me abortion is wrong and life is invaluable.

[0=]

Neither. In most cases it is unacceptable and they need to accept responsibility for what they did and at least put the child up for adoption, but if a woman was raped she should be allowed an abortion.

[serial-thrilla]

Im pro choice as long as its early in the pregnanacy. Theres enough people on this planet. We dont need unwanted ones.

[thesphinx]

What if Einstein was aborted? or maybe Abraham Lincoln? there are some seriously important people that we may miss the opportunity to see what they might accomplish because the mother doesn't want the baby?
There is seriously something wrong with that I don't think it should be up to the mother to decide if she can Kill another human being.
And I am sure if they baby could have a say in the matter her/him would want to live but since it can't it is our responsibility to make the decision for him/her.

[raiders rule]

Im Totally against abortion in EVERY case except ONE and that is if she was a rape victim, but only for that, everything else i think doesnt matter or have an excuse, underage sex, should have never had sex in the first place, dont take the risk if you arent prepared to handle it!

[The Batman]

I'm on the bridge here I'm for it yet against it. I know I posted in my first post that I was for abortion but really I don't like it. To me it's all about choice if the baby isn't aborted then the mother will find another way to kill it rather it be alcohol, pills, or anything else. Yet, it's wrong to kill something that hasn't had a chance to live. Who knows what the baby will grow up and accomplish. But, I'd rather there be a baby never born than a baby abused and killed by an unloving mother.

[Lucid]

Pro life, in my opinion, if your pro choice, your pro death

[The Batman]

Pro life, in my opinion, if your pro choice, your pro death
Please elaborate don't just state your opinion and leave defend it please.

[Rutherford The Brave]

What if Einstein was aborted? or maybe Abraham Lincoln? there are some seriously important people that we may miss the opportunity to see what they might accomplish because the mother doesn't want the baby?
There is seriously something wrong with that I don't think it should be up to the mother to decide if she can Kill another human being.
And I am sure if they baby could have a say in the matter her/him would want to live but since it can't it is our responsibility to make the decision for him/her.

+rep because you are saying the same thing that I am.

[byee]

*sigh* no on listened to me. No one. It's very depressing.

Listen, the issue is 'Right to Privacy', that's what made abortion legal. It's not a 'morals' issue, there's this thing we have about seperation of Church and State, we in the US cannot legislate morality, b/c morality is a religious value. We recognize that if you don't want something or like something you are free to not do it. But, does that mean you have the right to impose it on others who might hold a different belief or value?

The question isn't the 'hot button', over emotionalized 'Pro life' or Pro choice', everyone likes life, and we all like a choice, right? And no one really knows when life actually begins. So, the issue to me is do you believe you (and others) are entitled to privacy, to make decisions that affect you, in privacy, or does the State have the right to determine what you can and cannot do?

Well?

[The Batman]

Sam I think that what people do in their private lives should stay that way. Only if it isn't harming anyone other than themselves. Women who have abortions know the consequences and they know that they have to live with that guilt for the rest of their life. So I'm going to take my personal feelings out of this and say that we should not deny the rights of others just because we think it's wrong.

[Junky]

If your dumb enough to get pregnant dont so blinded by people telling you its ok to kill your child that you do it. I mean come on theirs condoms, the pill, spermicide, the list goes on and on. I mean besides rape what are the excuses for getting pregnant, it was an accident? we didnt have a condom? Theirs no excuse..

[Oblivion]

*sigh* no on listened to me. No one. It's very depressing.

Listen, the issue is 'Right to Privacy', that's what made abortion legal. It's not a 'morals' issue, there's this thing we have about seperation of Church and State, we in the US cannot legislate morality, b/c morality is a religious value. We recognize that if you don't want something or like something you are free to not do it. But, does that mean you have the right to impose it on others who might hold a different belief or value?

The question isn't the 'hot button', over emotionalized 'Pro life' or Pro choice', everyone likes life, and we all like a choice, right? And no one really knows when life actually begins. So, the issue to me is do you believe you (and others) are entitled to privacy, to make decisions that affect you, in privacy, or does the State have the right to determine what you can and cannot do?

Well?

I agree 100%
If i could give you rep i would.
Even if i was religious, and didn't believe in abortion personally, I would not want to make others not believe in abortion either.
And since abortion is legal (because of the knowledge that babies aren't alive when you have an abortion), the only matter that makes it 'wrong' is the idea that not giving it a chance it live is essentially killing it.
But, i think it is the babies mother and fathers right to choose whether they think they are killing it by not letting it live.

If your dumb enough to get pregnant dont so blinded by people telling you its ok to kill your child that you do it. I mean come on theirs condoms, the pill, spermicide, the list goes on and on. I mean besides rape what are the excuses for getting pregnant, it was an accident? we didnt have a condom? Theirs no excuse..

So if someone makes a mistake, they shouldn't have the choice to abort their pregnancy, before the baby is even alive?
Accidents happen. There isnt an excuse, but that doesn't mean they should have to live with a child they can't take care of, and that a child should have to be brought up not being cared for.

[Junky]

So if someone makes a mistake, they shouldn't have the choice to abort their pregnancy, before the baby is even alive?
Accidents happen. There isnt an excuse, but that doesn't mean they should have to live with a child they can't take care of, and that a child should have to be brought up not being cared for.

Why does everyone assume they have to keep the kid? Theirs a thing called adoption.

[Kuervo]

i think its bad to have abortion. what if that new life discovers a cure to cancer or diabetes. that life can change the world ok osea me entienden no. so i say no to abortion.

[Oblivion]

Why does everyone assume they have to keep the kid? Theirs a thing called adoption.

Adoption is horrible for a child.
Sitting there everyday in an orphanage waiting for someone to come pick you, like a dog?
There are times of a pregnancy where the child is not formed, and it is not alive.

[Junky]

Adoption is horrible for a child.
Sitting there everyday in an orphanage waiting for someone to come pick you, like a dog?
There are times of a pregnancy where the child is not formed, and it is not alive.
I never said it was fun. But it sounds better than being dead. Dont use this fact to justify killing of the child

[Oblivion]

i think its bad to have abortion. what if that new life discovers a cure to cancer or diabetes. that life can change the world ok osea me entienden no. so i say no to abortion.

What if the that baby turns out to be a mass murderer?
Which i must say is more likely, since most people looking to get an abortion aren't fit to be parents, and would probably neglect their child.

You could fill the world with What-Ifs


I never said it was fun. But it sounds better than being dead. Dont use this fact to make killing the baby ok.

That is a good point. But still, i believe people should have the right to choose.

[Trademarked]

looks like i made it an even 10/10 split between pro-choice and pro-life.

i think that women should have the right to do what they want with their body. if i got knocked up by my crazy brother who had aids and a crippling disease, hypothetical situation, i'm a boy it could never happen. BUT IF IT DID, i know DAMN SURE i would get that baby aborted. unless there was a way i would know that that child would be okay, i wouldn't "punish" the child by bringing it into the world like that.

[CaptainObvious]

To all those arguing the "but look who might have been aborted..." argument: that argument is basically useless, in my opinion.

Future potential to do good things in life is an interesting argument, but it's not specifically tied to abortion in any way. For example, every time a woman has her period without getting impregnated, she is potentially wasting the future life of a child she could have had. And by the same token, every time a guy masturbates he could have been getting somebody pregnant and giving a child an opportunity for life. Sounds to me like we should make sex mandatory, right? Masturbation is murder!

The "potential" argument has other problems with it as well. First, our planet is already overpopulated - why would we possibly want to add restrictions to what is already becoming a major issue of population overgrowth? Second, abortions get rid of many potentially bad future lives along with the good. Does that mean we should love abortion? No, but I think it means we should regard "future potential" as a zero-sum game.

The bottom line is that abortion, while not particularly attractive and obviously fraught with moral concerns, is a necessary tool of policy in our current society. Further, I have yet to see any argument made against it that would justify the abrogation of a woman's most sacred right: her right to bodily (and reproductive) sovereignty. You can personally disagree with abortion all you like, for all the ridiculous reasons you want - but to parlay that into arguing in favor of restricting others' rights to it? Not acceptable, in my opinion.

Finally, a special aside:

If your dumb enough to get pregnant dont so blinded by people telling you its ok to kill your child that you do it. I mean come on theirs condoms, the pill, spermicide, the list goes on and on. I mean besides rape what are the excuses for getting pregnant, it was an accident? we didnt have a condom? Theirs no excuse..

Are you aware of how the pill works? It's called abortaficient contraception - because it prevents a woman from getting pregnant by preventing implantation of the fertilized egg into the uterine wall... causing it to abort. Why is it that that is OK with you? Where's your line at which point the fetus is "your child" to be "killed", as opposed to just a fertilized egg?

This is exactly the problem with the debate. Everybody has an opinion on when life begins and how it ought to be treated - but in absence of defining scientific consensus, I see no justifiable reason to restrict a woman based on that.

[theOperaGhost]

Adoption is horrible for a child.
Sitting there everyday in an orphanage waiting for someone to come pick you, like a dog?
There are times of a pregnancy where the child is not formed, and it is not alive.

Adoption is horrible for a child?? Do you know that I am adopted. I was never even in an orphanage...I was put with a foster family. Of course I don't remember that, because I was less than a month old. I was born September 8th and adopted on like October 9th. If a mother puts the child up for adoption right when it is born, there is a good chance the child will be adopted, I'd say within the first year of its life.

I don't think you have a good perception of adoption. There are children whose parents didn't put them up for adoption yet weren't able to take care of them. They are then taken away by social services (in some situations) and put in an orphanage. Those children DO have a harder time getting adopted because most couples that want to adopt, don't want to adopt older children, plus in general, those children have difficult behavioral problems. This is a generalization of course, not all cases are like this.

If you don't want a the child, put it up for adoption right after it is born, and there is a good chance it will be adopted by a loving couple unable to have children of their own.

Adoption is a much better choice than abortion in my eyes.

EDIT: oneshyguy, as you stated, it PREVENTS a woman from getting pregnant. Do I need say more? If it PREVENTS a woman from getting pregnant, how is it the same? I see what you are saying, that the egg is fertilized, but if you want to make a better point, don't say PREVENTS, because that is what we want, prevention of pregnancy, rather than ending of pregnancy.

[Maverick]

Listen, the issue is 'Right to Privacy', that's what made abortion legal. It's not a 'morals' issue, there's this thing we have about seperation of Church and State, we in the US cannot legislate morality, b/c morality is a religious value. We recognize that if you don't want something or like something you are free to not do it. But, does that mean you have the right to impose it on others who might hold a different belief or value?
If you look at it from that point of view of separation of church and state (which clear cut doesn't exist in practice in the US anyway) then its not a moral issue but a when does life begin issue.

Because the idea this country was based on is liberty, the right to do as you please without infringing the right of someone else. If you want to look at the perspective of this country's principles then you must think is having an abortion infringing the right of the unborn child.

Personally I don't think the federal government nor the Supreme Court should be legislating this issue. I think matters like these should be settled locally within the states and the people of the state decide without putting the will upon the whole nation. The idea of our system of government was for government to be local and NOT have every single issue settled in Washington.

All the Presidents and Congressman can say whatever they want about abortion but they are powerless to do it because the Supreme court has it in their control. They can pledge to put conservative justices during their administration but once a justice is appointed and confirmed they serve for life free from political pressure which makes them very unlikely to do anything about Roe v Wade.

[Antares]

I am pro-choice to any age before the first 3 months.
If it is a second time then they would need to make it on their own and keep it. Also, I feel that an abortion should remain on medical records and the guardian must always know that a teen is aborting.

[CaptainObvious]

EDIT: oneshyguy, as you stated, it PREVENTS a woman from getting pregnant. Do I need say more? If it PREVENTS a woman from getting pregnant, how is it the same? I see what you are saying, that the egg is fertilized, but if you want to make a better point, don't say PREVENTS, because that is what we want, prevention of pregnancy, rather than ending of pregnancy.

Right, but I think you're misunderstanding the issue surrounding it.

People who advocate against abortion are not opposed because abortion ends a pregnancy. A pregnancy is merely a process which produces a human baby. The problem people have with abortion is that they consider it to end a life. My point is that the pill (which was pointed to by another poster as being a good alternative) equally ends a "life" by aborting the fertilized egg via preventing its implantation into the uterine wall.

[theOperaGhost]

Ok, my last line was put badly. You said it prevents pregnancy, instead of ends pregnancy. I consider ending a pregnancy as ending a life. This, of course is were the dispute lies. Is a fetus living? Does it have any rights? It doesn't breath, but how do you expect it to? It does however have a heartbeat. A separate heartbeat than its mother. Wouldn't this make it living? When a person's heart stops beating, isn't that when a person is considered dead, so if a fetus has a beating heart, wouldn't it make it a living being, thus having rights? I think it has the right to live.

[Sapphire]

I am pro-choice. I do not view it as murder because I do not see the foetus as a person until it is viable outside of the womb. This, if I remember correctly, is about 24/25 weeks after conception.

One example of a case in which I believe it absolutely should be an option is to do with the health of the mother-to-be. Some mental illnesses are exacberated by pregnancy and some are even brought on by it leaving her at grave risk for the full nine months of pregnancy. If there are concerns over her mental health then abortion should be an option.

I disagree with previous claims that leaving the decision of an abortion into the second trimester is irresponsible. Some people need that time to be sure that they are making the right decision.

I also disagree with the claim that legislation should not be passed on a moral topic like this because morality implies religion. If you follow this through then you end up with the claim that legislation cannot be passed on any crime because the notion of what is right/wrong is a moral notion. In fact, the very notion of crime is based on a line being drawn between what is moral and what is immoral.

[Maverick]

I also disagree with the claim that legislation should not be passed on a moral topic like this because morality implies religion. If you follow this through then you end up with the claim that legislation cannot be passed on any crime because the notion of what is right/wrong is a moral notion. In fact, the very notion of crime is based on a line being drawn between what is moral and what is immoral.Well said.

[byee]

I still think it is a privacy issue.

Both sides take to emotion b/c it is easier to arouse passion by appealing to raw emotion than looking objectively about the facts. That might gain support for your position, but doesn't take into account that the argument against abortion is actually based more on emotion. It's not about the interpretation of the law. We are a country of laws, decisons are made based on their adherence to law, not personal feeling. When we look at it that way, the argument is not so inflammatory, and suddenly there isn't much to discuss about Roe. Roe codified each individual's right to make a decision about their own body based on a personal assessment of what is correct for them. The state, it was determined, has no right to interfere with that decision. And that determination was based on an interpretation of the Bill of Rights and Constitution, the documents that determine these things, by the highest court in the land.

You have the right in this country to do what you wish, as long as it is within the bounds of the law, but no one has the right to infringe on the freedom of another and impose their views of things on them. And since the issue of when life actually begins is unanswerable, then we, as a nation, have laws to protect the indivdual frredoms and rights of those that have already been born and are clearly alive, which in this case, is the mother.

That's what Roe is about, it is an obfuscation of this very simple fact, that although we recognize the value of human life, until it can be clearly established when that moment actually occurs, the issue of pregnancy termination is subject to the respect of privacy, until the moment of birth.

And, as an FYI, we do not legislate morality, laws are designed to protect society, the government does not enact laws to facilitate some ambigious determination of what is 'Moral'. The idea is that everyone who is born has a right to live, and live safely, anything that interferes with, or potentially interferes with that is therefore 'criminal'.

[Malcolm Tucker]

I'm strictly Pro-choice. I believe that a woman has absolute right to decide what happens to her body. It's her business and no one else's. The church, friends, other protesters have absolutely no right to make her keep a foetus which is not desired.

Please change my vote to pro choice thanks :D

[Whisper]

http://mommydaddyblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/baby6.jpg

[Sapphire]

there's this thing we have about seperation of Church and State, we in the US cannot legislate morality, b/c morality is a religious value.

This is what I was refering to when talking about morality and legality in my post. As I said before, if legislation were not allowed on moral issues then the very concept of crime is obsolete. This is because the notion of what is right and what is wrong lies at the centre of the legal system.

The laws on abortion are there to protect the rights of babies which can survive (with help) outside of the womb. I am wondering how you came to the conclusion that your legal system only aims to protect the people who are born.

[0=]

http://mommydaddyblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/baby6.jpg

A little unorthodox, but certainly effective. Interesting way to make a point :p

[CaptainObvious]

Ok, my last line was put badly. You said it prevents pregnancy, instead of ends pregnancy. I consider ending a pregnancy as ending a life. This, of course is were the dispute lies. Is a fetus living? Does it have any rights? It doesn't breath, but how do you expect it to? It does however have a heartbeat. A separate heartbeat than its mother. Wouldn't this make it living? When a person's heart stops beating, isn't that when a person is considered dead, so if a fetus has a beating heart, wouldn't it make it a living being, thus having rights? I think it has the right to live.

You're dancing around the issue. The problem is that the pill and other contraceptives don't prevent pregnancy; they end the pregnancy by preventing implantation. If you're opposed on the basis of ending pregnancy, you should be opposed to the pill equally as to other abortion methods.

As for the heartbeat issue, you're wrong. Clinically, a heartbeat is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to qualify a human as alive. For example, one can have a heartbeat but no brain activity and be declared brain dead; one can have brain activity but a stopped heart (cardiac arrest) and still be treated and recover fully.

Brain waves are the clinical standard for determining death - and should be the standard for determining life, as well. Brain waves first appear intermittently (basically meaningless) at about 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained around 22 weeks, and bilaterally synchronous (the last is the important one) around 27 weeks. Thus, before about 22-27 weeks, the fetus does not even meet the clinical standard of life. Therefore, it is not a living human being in my eyes, and has no rights - potential or not.

Since you base your view on the fetus being a life, wouldn't you agree with me? Based on personhood, the most we should be restricting abortion is from the third trimester onwards - and not really even then in my opinion, since I think privacy rights supersede, but I'm arguing on your terms here.

[Close102]

as i have said before i am pro choice. i dont think that if a 16 year old girl gets pregnant that she should have to care for the baby if she thinks she cant or if she wont. and i think abortion is almost a little better that adoption because there are already probably millions of kids throughout the world in foster care and adoption clinics.

[byee]

You're dancing around the issue. The problem is that the pill and other contraceptives don't prevent pregnancy; they end the pregnancy by preventing implantation. If you're opposed on the basis of ending pregnancy, you should be opposed to the pill equally as to other abortion methods.

As for the heartbeat issue, you're wrong. Clinically, a heartbeat is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to qualify a human as alive. For example, one can have a heartbeat but no brain activity and be declared brain dead; one can have brain activity but a stopped heart (cardiac arrest) and still be treated and recover fully.

Brain waves are the clinical standard for determining death - and should be the standard for determining life, as well. Brain waves first appear intermittently (basically meaningless) at about 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained around 22 weeks, and bilaterally synchronous (the last is the important one) around 27 weeks. Thus, before about 22-27 weeks, the fetus does not even meet the clinical standard of life. Therefore, it is not a living human being in my eyes, and has no rights - potential or not.

Since you base your view on the fetus being a life, wouldn't you agree with me? Based on personhood, the most we should be restricting abortion is from the third trimester onwards - and not really even then in my opinion, since I think privacy rights supersede, but I'm arguing on your terms here.


It's of little comfort to me that your logic is as flawed here as it is when you discuss drugs: Your opinion supported by a pinch of scientific data, and a dash of misinformation.

First, although I believe the whole abortion issue is really a privacy issue, I do understand how for some it isn't a matter of personal choice, but rather of morality. And although I disagree with that particular transgression, the problem I have with it is the imposition of those beliefs or values on others (and this goes for topics other than abortion).

That said, saying that contraceptives are abortifacents (maybe with the exception of the IUD) is not only plain wrong, but plain silly, as well. There's a huge difference between the prevention of something undesirable, and the process to terminate the results of what's already happened. Practicing contraception might prevent pregnancy (and therefore, 'life'), but it doesn't end it. It prevents the 2 necessary ingredients of life, the sperm and the egg, from joining. For life to happen 9 months hence, there needs to be conception. In the absence of that event, there's nothing, other than next month's opportunity. So, contraception is like wearing a seat belt. It's an avoidance technique. Abortion, on the other hand, is a response to the event of conception, which, if taken to it's 9 month gestation, will result in life, by anyone's standard. So the difference is that contraceptive use is basically an avoidance response, and abortion, although it avoids something, too, does so only after the event (conception), which is the preliminary step to life.

There's a lot of hair splitting and hand wringing that goes into differentiating what is life, or when it begins, or what's considered 'acceptable' morality here, but that's the risk when people take a legal ruling out of context because they do not like it or otherwise find it acceptable to them. The 'Life' side neglects this, instead feeling a sense of moral obligation to impose their strict interpretation of things onto others, thru law. And the 'Pro' side talks about standards of determining life after it has clearly occured and is viable: Using brain wave function as a crtieria evolved from our understanding of what that means on those clearly alive and ex utero. The real issue is that both look at it from unbridgeable perspectives, what the product of conception CAN become, what the potential is, and on the other side, what we already know to be scientificaly correct. That's why it's really a privacy issue, since there is little agreement when life actually begins, that's the 'Morality' issue, when it really begins. The Supreme Court determined that the needs of the mother, who is clearly alive, takes precedent. Every other argument, no matter how emotional ("Abortion stops a beating heart") is really irrelelvant in that context, because we do not legislate morality in this country.

[CaptainObvious]

It's of little comfort to me that your logic is as flawed here as it is when you discuss drugs: Your opinion supported by a pinch of scientific data, and a dash of misinformation.

Fine, here we go...

That said, saying that contraceptives are abortifacents (maybe with the exception of the IUD) is not only plain wrong, but plain silly, as well. There's a huge difference between the prevention of something undesirable, and the process to terminate the results of what's already happened.

One of the mechanisms by which the pill prevents pregnancy is by preventing the implantation of the fertilized egg into the uterine wall. Thus aborting the egg. Thus, abortaficient. Which is what I said (though admittedly I was a little unclear; when I referred to abortaficient contraceptives I was, of course, referring not to condoms or any of the other obviously non-abortaficient contraceptive mechanisms).

It's of little comfort to me that your attempts to correct me are still as wrong as they were the last time we debated. Oh well.

Side note:

There's a lot of hair splitting and hand wringing that goes into differentiating what is life, or when it begins, or what's considered 'acceptable' morality here, but that's the risk when people take a legal ruling out of context because they do not like it or otherwise find it acceptable to them. The 'Life' side neglects this, instead feeling a sense of moral obligation to impose their strict interpretation of things onto others, thru law. And the 'Pro' side talks about standards of determining life after it has clearly occured and is viable: Using brain wave function as a crtieria evolved from our understanding of what that means on those clearly alive and ex utero. The real issue is that both look at it from unbridgeable perspectives, what the product of conception CAN become, what the potential is, and on the other side, what we already know to be scientificaly correct. That's why it's really a privacy issue, since there is little agreement when life actually begins, that's the 'Morality' issue, when it really begins. The Supreme Court determined that the needs of the mother, who is clearly alive, takes precedent. Every other argument, no matter how emotional ("Abortion stops a beating heart") is really irrelelvant in that context, because we do not legislate morality in this country.

Unfortunately, much as I know what you're talking about, your position is just as unbridgeable with those of the pro-life contingent. Overall, I agree with you: on an issue with as much uncertainty and differing opinions as this, privacy and individual liberty should have precedence (as they have been ruled to have). However, if you say that to someone who is quite pro-life, they will respond that they do not consider it legislating morality to legislate about abortion - at least not any more than any other law is "legislating morality", such as laws against murder; abortion will be equated with a crime against another innocent life (since in their eyes, fetuses are people, or at least lives). And you'll say "but with differing opinions and not knowing for sure, we should let people choose for themselves"... at which point the response will be that we do know. So then you have to get back down in the trenches and point out why certain definitions of the beginning of life (conception, for example) are obviously stupid, so you can roll back the terms of debate from the often ridiculous and emotion- or religion-based places they start ("life starts at conception!" and all that). I don't think that's wrong at all.

[theOperaGhost]

as i have said before i am pro choice. i dont think that if a 16 year old girl gets pregnant that she should have to care for the baby if she thinks she cant or if she wont. and i think abortion is almost a little better that adoption because there are already probably millions of kids throughout the world in foster care and adoption clinics.

I don't think being young is any reason to get an abortion. People always say, "what if a 13-14 year old girl gets pregnant?" Well I say that's too fucking bad, maybe 13-14 year olds shouldn't be having sex. If they are old enough to take the risk and go and have sex, they are old enough to deal with the fucking consequences.

On a side note:

I would never use the "it could be the next Einstein" excuse for being pro-life either, because that is bullshit. I don't care if they turn out to be the next Hitler, every life deserves a chance at that, life. We always say in the "mental crisis forum" that everyone is important to someone, well that is how I feel about abortion to.

I think the reason I am so against abortion is because I was not wanted and put up for adoption. I could have just as easily have been aborted, but I wasn't. I think it is wrong.

Sam brings up that we don't legislate morality, and yes this is a morality issue to me. But isn't murder, rape, adultery and such also morally wrong? Isn't that why they are illegal? Answer me. I think I know a possible answer, but I want to see what Sam thinks.

[byee]

I don't think being young is any reason to get an abortion. People always say, "what if a 13-14 year old girl gets pregnant?" Well I say that's too fucking bad, maybe 13-14 year olds shouldn't be having sex. If they are old enough to take the risk and go and have sex, they are old enough to deal with the fucking consequences.

On a side note:

I would never use the "it could be the next Einstein" excuse for being pro-life either, because that is bullshit. I don't care if they turn out to be the next Hitler, every life deserves a chance at that, life. We always say in the "mental crisis forum" that everyone is important to someone, well that is how I feel about abortion to.

I think the reason I am so against abortion is because I was not wanted and put up for adoption. I could have just as easily have been aborted, but I wasn't. I think it is wrong.

Sam brings up that we don't legislate morality, and yes this is a morality issue to me. But isn't murder, rape, adultery and such also morally wrong? Isn't that why they are illegal? Answer me. I think I know a possible answer, but I want to see what Sam thinks.


I'm glad that you can see where your very strong pro life position comes from, Jared. And I hope that you also can see that you're not very objective or open minded as a result. But, try to keep in mind a couple of things: That many of us were unintentional, and many of our birth mothers faced the same agonizing choice yours did, and ultimately made the same choice. The only difference is that you don't know who she was, and maybe that makes the whole abortion issue that much closer and more poignant for you. But, it's really not. We all could have ended up in a specimen bottle somewhere.

Second, since the issue of when life begins is really unanswerable, I really do like keeping the emotion (and morality) out of the discussion. It's a privacy issue, the law protects the rights of the living, that's why murder and rape are all illegal, b/c there's harm and potential threat to life that is clearly and universally recognizable as such. The victim is clearly born, they're alive by anyone's standards. The unborn have the potential for life, but b/c they are unborn and therefore unable to sustain life independently of their mothers, they are in that transitional state. You might not like (or agree) with this, but the laws are designed to protect society, and the unborn don't qualify. By contrast, someone born is entitled at least to live, so murder is unlawful. Our gov't does not legislate morality, it is not in that business.

I hope that you and I and everyone else here never faces the tragedy of an unwanted pregnancy, but if we ever did, I surely wouldn't want a fellow mortal to feel entitled to limit my options based on their sense or interpretation of 'morality'.

[Rutherford The Brave]

If you decided have sex, your accepting the fact that you could in fact get pregnant. In so many people's eyes abortion is the mother and father's way of not accepting the consequences. If you decide to have sex you can't just say oh she's not going to get pregnant. So why can't people just suck it up and deal with the fact that they didn't take the right precautions and they weren't safe. So what your saying is that it's morally ok to just give up on something that you made from your own actions. So in essence your saying its morally ok to give someone else the HIV virus and kill them just because you feel like someone else should go through your pain. Is that morally ok with you? Than how the fuck can taking a fetuses' life away not be a morally bad as giving someone HIV just to kill them.

[theOperaGhost]

I'm glad that you can see where your very strong pro life position comes from, Jared. And I hope that you also can see that you're not very objective or open minded as a result. But, try to keep in mind a couple of things: That many of us were unintentional, and many of our birth mothers faced the same agonizing choice yours did, and ultimately made the same choice. The only difference is that you don't know who she was, and maybe that makes the whole abortion issue that much closer and more poignant for you. But, it's really not. We all could have ended up in a specimen bottle somewhere.

Second, since the issue of when life begins is really unanswerable, I really do like keeping the emotion (and morality) out of the discussion. It's a privacy issue, the law protects the rights of the living, that's why murder and rape are all illegal, b/c there's harm and potential threat to life that is clearly and universally recognizable as such. The victim is clearly born, they're alive by anyone's standards. The unborn have the potential for life, but b/c they are unborn and therefore unable to sustain life independently of their mothers, they are in that transitional state. You might not like (or agree) with this, but the laws are designed to protect society, and the unborn don't qualify. By contrast, someone born is entitled at least to live, so murder is unlawful. Our gov't does not legislate morality, it is not in that business.

I hope that you and I and everyone else here never faces the tragedy of an unwanted pregnancy, but if we ever did, I surely wouldn't want a fellow mortal to feel entitled to limit my options based on their sense or interpretation of 'morality'.

No shit, we all could have been aborted, but most people happen to be born to parents who actually want to have them. Thanks for pointing out that I am close minded, however I already knew that and have stated so before here on VT. There are actually people in this world that want to have children. I think that the people who make a mistake and get pregnant should have to deal with the consequences. It's like driving, you could make a mistake, get in an accident, become paralyzed and then you would have to live with the consequences. Mistakes often carry consequences, deal with them. And abortion isn't the way to deal with them.

[CaptainObvious]

If you decided have sex, your accepting the fact that you could in fact get pregnant.

And if you get raped? What about incest? Is abortion OK then because the person didn't really consent to having sex?

In so many people's eyes abortion is the mother and father's way of not accepting the consequences. If you decide to have sex you can't just say oh she's not going to get pregnant. So why can't people just suck it up and deal with the fact that they didn't take the right precautions and they weren't safe.

Why can't someone just say "we're going to abort the pregnancy"? Saying "pregnancy is a consequence of sex" is really not enough - why should it be a consequence that we avoid medically correcting, as we can correct so many other problems (elective and otherwise)?

I am floored by your saying that people should "just suck it up." Pregnancy is a complicated, emotional and very difficult thing, and for a lot of people, for a lot of different reasons, abortion is the best choice. Saying "but it's a consequence!" is not an argument against abortion.

So what your saying is that it's morally ok to just give up on something that you made from your own actions. So in essence your saying its morally ok to give someone else the HIV virus and kill them just because you feel like someone else should go through your pain. Is that morally ok with you? Than how the fuck can taking a fetuses' life away not be a morally bad as giving someone HIV just to kill them.

I'm quite confident that of the things you just ascribed as others' views, not a single one has been said by anyone but you. Moreover, the second ridiculous statement (and this is actually a new low in straw man arguments I've ever seen) isn't even related to the first.

I consider abortion to be morally ok because I do not consider a fetus to be alive until a certain point. I think you'd be hard-pressed to prove otherwise. That, then, is how I consider abortion moral and giving someone HIV (giving another, unequivocally living human being a deadly disease) to not be equivalent in immorality. You following?

I think that the people who make a mistake and get pregnant should have to deal with the consequences. It's like driving, you could make a mistake, get in an accident, become paralyzed and then you would have to live with the consequences. Mistakes often carry consequences, deal with them. And abortion isn't the way to deal with them.

...circular logic anybody?

You assert that abortion shouldn't be used because mistakes have consequences. To back that up, you offer the example of pregnancy, and then suggest that people should deal with the consequences. Faced with the fact that abortion is "dealing with the consequences" you employ a staggeringly subtle argument to affirm abortion as bad: you say "abortion isn't the way." Stunning.

Look, as I pointed out to KGTM, saying that abortion is wrong because pregnancy is a consequence of abortion is not an argument. The two are logically and factually separate.

[theOperaGhost]

Would "killing the baby" be a little less subtle for you?

I'm done in here, because I don't want to turn this into an argument. Thank you. :)

[Junky]

This whole thread makes me lmfao.

[Serenity]

Unconstructive spam posts make me unhappy.

You shouldn't do that :)

[Sapphire]

Iamsam, I am amazed at how long you can avoid the flaws in your own logic even when a number of us have questioned it. You keep saying that we cannot legalise morality. If this is true, then how is it that we still have laws in place?
You also stated that laws don't protect the unborn. This isn't true because once a child is viable outside of the womb (24-25 weeks) it can no longer be aborted. How is this not protecting the unborn child at all?

[Oblivion]

Dig it deeper:
Morals are not in laws, because morals are religious concepts.
Religion and government do not mix in the United States.
There are no laws based off moral.
There are laws based off the country and people within the country surviving.

[Sapphire]

The whole idea of what is right and wrong is a moral idea.
It is immoral to steal from someone and it is illegal to do so. It is immoral to injure someone and it is illegal to do so. It is immoral to force someone to have sex with you and it is illegal to do so.

Without morals we wouldn't have a basis for our conscience to develop. Morality is not purely a religious thing because you can be an athiest and still have a sense of morality.

[Oblivion]

Just because they overlap doesn't mean the laws are based of morality, and just because im atheist doesn't mean i have no thought process on whats right and wrong.

Stealing: Its just wrong to take from someone else
Injuring: Injures the human race and the US as a whole.
Rape: Injures the human race and the US as a whole.

[Sapphire]

Ok, lets look at it like this.
Our sense of morality is mirrored in our conscience. If people were to have no sense of morality then theft, assault and rape would not be seen as bad. They would not be seen as bad because people would be lacking in conscience and would not have an understanding of what is right and wrong. If the whole of humanity lacked this morality then no legal system could exist because no one would deem anything to be bad.

[Junky]

The way i see it its not religious its just been drilled into peoples heads for 1000s of years. Before laws if you stole and got caught they would just kill you, just because you took from them. This was passed down from generation to generation until people wanted to think of themselves as civilized and made it into a law. sorry if this dosnt make any sense i just wrote this at like 1 in the mornin lolz

[[[chickaroo92]]]

I am Pro-life.
I mean, its not the baby's fault if it's mommy decided to have a sexual relationship with her boyfriend (before marriageable age) just for the fun of it, and didn't use protection. She shouldn't get an abortion for that reason.

The only time the girl should get an abortion, is if she was an alcoholic (which may cause the baby some major birth defects) or if it will cause the mother harm.

[byee]

No shit, we all could have been aborted, but most people happen to be born to parents who actually want to have them. Thanks for pointing out that I am close minded, however I already knew that and have stated so before here on VT. There are actually people in this world that want to have children. I think that the people who make a mistake and get pregnant should have to deal with the consequences. It's like driving, you could make a mistake, get in an accident, become paralyzed and then you would have to live with the consequences. Mistakes often carry consequences, deal with them. And abortion isn't the way to deal with them.

Dig it deeper:
Morals are not in laws, because morals are religious concepts.
Religion and government do not mix in the United States.
There are no laws based off moral.
There are laws based off the country and people within the country surviving.

First, a shout out to my good friend Nick. Well said! Concise, articulate, to the point. And accurate. Glad you're able to recognize and understand my perspective and see that it is internally consistent. I've chosen well.

Jared, I didn't say you were 'closed minded', that's a perjorative term, it's a criticism. You know me better than that.

What I do observe, however, is that you're too close to this issue to be really objective, you're basing your opinion not so much on an interpretation of the law, or your open mindedness, the willingness to acknowledge that in a free society people are entitled to have differing values and not have others interfere with or otherwise impose their interpretations on them. For you, it's very personal, maybe too personal. Your opinion is based almost entirely on your own status (being adopted), and that blurs the other elements of the discussion for you, you're overidentifying with the baby (although I think that's the issue with most of the anti abortionists). They feel entitled to impose their understandings and values (and restrictions!) onto others, based purely on emotion. However, laws are designed not so much to make people feel good, but for the protection of society (i.e. those already born).

[Sapphire]

Iamsam, why do you propose there is a restriction on how far into the pregnancy an abortion is allowed?

It is to protect the unborn baby because at 24 weeks it can survive outside of the womb.

How you can still insist that laws are there only to protect those who have already been born is beyond me. Seriously.

[CaptainObvious]

Though I am (obviously) on Sam's side in this debate (I'm very, very pro-choice), I feel the need to play devil's advocate for a second:

Sam, you keep mentioning that laws must be for the protection of society, and restrict that to "those already born." This is where the incompatibility lies - in many people's eyes, a fetus is already alive and therefore a member of society. What is the criterion on which you base your distinguishing them as not members of society? Merely that they are yet unborn? Are you sure that that is a logically sufficient criterion in and of itself? If so, why?

Also, you keep stating that the US doesn't legislate morality. That is not true - the US legislates morality all the time. Drug laws are a great example of it, but even basic things like laws against murder are based on a moral code of their own. Where's the line at which it becomes unacceptable to legislate based on morality?

[antimonic]

I’m wondering why iamsam has a very persistent tendency to continuously ignore questions aimed at him :) Quite tedious no? mais c'est la.

[Whisper]

I’m wondering why iamsam has a very persistent tendency to continuously ignore questions aimed at him :) Quite tedious no? mais c'est la.

Stick to English!
And don't insight a fight

[antimonic]

hehe :D

[Whisper]

spam again and your getting an infraction

everyone bck on topic this was a really healthy debate lets keep it that way
please

[Rutherford The Brave]

As I was saying is it really ok just to kill a dam child just because you got raped, or just don't want a kid.What if your parents both got in trouble because of you would you like it if they said they were going to kill you because they don't want you anymore? Are you saying that its ok to kill someone who hasn't even told you its ok to kill them? These people we are talking about not posessions, besides why shouldn't you love a kid just because the father raped you. You being raped or you being careless has nothing to do with the child, so why punish the child?

[Sapphire]

You obviously have no idea about the mental anguish that rape inflicts onto the victim. People have been known to lose all of their sense of security in the world because of it. It is one of the two worst violations a person can impose on another and to say that the victim should have to have the child is downright heartless. If you talk with rape victims and get an insight into the horrors they have to live with then maybe you would be more compassionate.

And how can you compare being raped with not wanting a child? They are completely different situations with completely different reasons.

[antimonic]

let alone having to look at the child and recall the experience, in some cases can result in neglect, abuse, resentment etc. . .now is it really ok to put a child through that sort of upbringing?

[thesphinx]

If a child is properly given up for adoption and gets good parents that doesn't happen.
And I am sure no matter what happens to a child in the end they are grateful they are alive!

[Sapphire]

In some cases this distress can lead to the woman committing suicide because they just can't cope with it anymore. Would it really be in the best interests of the child to have them growing up with a mother who has attempted suicide a few times or actually succeeded?

[antimonic]

Yeah given up for adoption is an option, but think about it from the child’s point of view, sooner or later, assuming the mother does not commit suicide, the child will seek its routes and will learn:
1. Why the mother gave them up for adoption
2. That the child was conceived as a result of a sexual assault

I think that speaks for itself.

[Rutherford The Brave]

Yeah given up for adoption is an option, but think about it from the child’s point of view, sooner or later, assuming the mother does not commit suicide, the child will seek its routes and will learn:
1. Why the mother gave them up for adoption
2. That the child was conceived as a result of a sexual assault

I think that speaks for itself.

Really now? So it speaks for itself saying, she was going to kill him/her just because she didn't want a kid. So instead of wishing he/she met his/her real mom, he/she hates his/her mom becuase they would have been dead. So that speaks for itslef. As far as being raped goes, I have been before and I'm not ignoring the fact that it is destroying.

[antimonic]

Can you please rephrase that as I do not comprehend the statement. I also did not address the point of killing the child, only the adoption option and its resulting effects.

[Rutherford The Brave]

I am saying that if the child finds out that the mother was going to kill them, that could cause mixed feelings. The child might become depressed, hate her mother (wheather she is dead or alive), become anti social. Any number of things, my main point is, if you are careless and get pregnant don't kill the child. Give it up for adoption at least, so the child can know what it is like to live in this world. Also I think birth control should be used past like 12 because like shyguy said it prevents the egg from implanting in the uterine wall. If all women were on the pill they wouldnt get pregnant when raped.

[antimonic]

I dont think you understood my point tbh, please read my comment again, I was trying to say that it is NOT good for the child to grow up knowing that they were concieved as a result of a sexual assault and/or that their mother had commit suicide as a result. the child would be prone to severe mental disorders upon learning this or, as you said, become anti-social. Some people do not wish for the children to "know what its like to live in this world" when they are the result of rape, which is why they abort, not only for their sake but for the childs also. The proportions can be debated yes but that would be a more individualistic examination.

[Sapphire]

A child cannot be killed if it is not yet "living". I, as do many others, only deem the feotus to be alive and human when it is viable outside of the womb.

If a woman is on antibiotics then the pill will not work and they can fall pregnant. It also carries with it health risks which are too great in some cases. (Check this > http://www.birth-control-comparison.info/thepill.htm) It is not the devine solution to preventing pregnancies.

[theOperaGhost]

Yeah given up for adoption is an option, but think about it from the child’s point of view, sooner or later, assuming the mother does not commit suicide, the child will seek its routes and will learn:
1. Why the mother gave them up for adoption
2. That the child was conceived as a result of a sexual assault

I think that speaks for itself.

I said I was done in here, but people really need to look into the whole adoption system before making statements like this. I know from my own personal experience, as well as my sister's and several other adopted children that I know...we really don't give a shit who our birth parents are, because they aren't our parents. They are just other people who either didn't want us or couldn't take care of us. They just supplied the sperm and the egg and I carry their filthy genes. Plus, most of the time the adoption will be a closed adoption, meaning basically all records are well kind of untraceable. Not all records, because I do have a general knowledge of my birth parents such as age, height, weight, and family health history, such as heart disease and alcoholism. Everyone just seems to think adoption is hell or something, Jesus.

[The Batman]

I think some of you guys are taking this topic and looking at it from a personal view, you need to set aside your emotions and think of it from a fair point of view. Should we have the right to tell someone that they can't abort a baby they want?

[byee]

Though I am (obviously) on Sam's side in this debate (I'm very, very pro-choice), I feel the need to play devil's advocate for a second:

Sam, you keep mentioning that laws must be for the protection of society, and restrict that to "those already born." This is where the incompatibility lies - in many people's eyes, a fetus is already alive and therefore a member of society. What is the criterion on which you base your distinguishing them as not members of society? Merely that they are yet unborn? Are you sure that that is a logically sufficient criterion in and of itself? If so, why?

Also, you keep stating that the US doesn't legislate morality. That is not true - the US legislates morality all the time. Drug laws are a great example of it, but even basic things like laws against murder are based on a moral code of their own. Where's the line at which it becomes unacceptable to legislate based on morality?

The criteria is viability, without heroic medical technology. So, a fetus has "potential", in much the same way that a parked Ferrari does. However, it's 'life' is entirely dependent on it's remaining in its mother's body until 9 months, it is not a member of society, it is part of its mother. I believe this is logically sufficient b/c it uses fact and reason, not feelings and emotion.

Laws might seem based in morality b/c many laws parallel morality. Murder, rape, plunder, and pillaging are all bad things to do, regardless of the basis of one's judgement of these things. The difference is the context. In a secular society, the basis is protection for the citizenry. In 'Morality', which comes from religion, the context is spiritual, to make oneself 'purer', to attain 'redemption', etc, it's for service to God, and not necessarily to one's fellow man (or society). The outcome might be the same, but the purpose is very different.

Your opinion of drug laws notwithstanding, until the science can clearly demonstrate the long term safety of drugs, they would stay illegal to protect society, not to facilitate some sense of 'morality'. Those laws are based more on the developing science about them, and people's accomodation to that, rather than the 'morality' of their use. Maybe it's just that behavior and attitude change precede legal change, and these things need to evolve based on people becoming more accustomed to them. But the laws being reflective of legislative morality? Nah. Pot smoking isn't legal because it is seen as making you 'impure' or 'ungoldy', it's not an attempt to 'cleanse' you, or otherwise change your moral turpitude.

lastly, I personally never think it's OK to legislate based on 'morality', because that implies a sense of superiority in someone's judgement on things that frankly cannot be judged by mere mortals. Rather, I believe that in an enlightened society, the good of the people is the criteria for rules and regulations, determined more by reason and science (outcome), rather than pontification. I suppose part of that is the struggle to define those terms and the criteria used to make such determinations.

[Sapphire]

I said I was done in here, but people really need to look into the whole adoption system before making statements like this. I know from my own personal experience, as well as my sister's and several other adopted children that I know...we really don't give a shit who our birth parents are, because they aren't our parents. They are just other people who either didn't want us or couldn't take care of us. They just supplied the sperm and the egg and I carry their filthy genes. Plus, most of the time the adoption will be a closed adoption, meaning basically all records are well kind of untraceable. Not all records, because I do have a general knowledge of my birth parents such as age, height, weight, and family health history, such as heart disease and alcoholism. Everyone just seems to think adoption is hell or something, Jesus.

I am glad that your personal experience of adoption is a positive one. What antimonic was saying is that for some it isn't like that. Some people who have been adopted do want to find their birth parents. Some people who have been adopted do actually find their birth parents. It can be really hellish for some people when they find out that they have been adopted and antimonic was saying that this can be worsened when they find out that they are the result of rape.

The criteria is viability, without heroic medical technology. So, a fetus has "potential", in much the same way that a parked Ferrari does. However, it's 'life' is entirely dependent on it's remaining in its mother's body until 9 months, it is not a member of society, it is part of its mother. I believe this is logically sufficient b/c it uses fact and reason, not feelings and emotion.

Laws might seem based in morality b/c many laws parallel morality. Murder, rape, plunder, and pillaging are all bad things to do, regardless of the basis of one's judgement of these things. The difference is the context. In a secular society, the basis is protection for the citizenry. In 'Morality', which comes from religion, the context is spiritual, to make oneself 'purer', to attain 'redemption', etc, it's for service to God, and not necessarily to one's fellow man (or society). The outcome might be the same, but the purpose is very different.

Your opinion of drug laws notwithstanding, until the science can clearly demonstrate the long term safety of drugs, they would stay illegal to protect society, not to facilitate some sense of 'morality'. Those laws are based more on the developing science about them, and people's accomodation to that, rather than the 'morality' of their use. Maybe it's just that behavior and attitude change precede legal change, and these things need to evolve based on people becoming more accustomed to them. But the laws being reflective of legislative morality? Nah. Pot smoking isn't legal because it is seen as making you 'impure' or 'ungoldy', it's not an attempt to 'cleanse' you, or otherwise change your moral turpitude.

lastly, I personally never think it's OK to legislate based on 'morality', because that implies a sense of superiority in someone's judgement on things that frankly cannot be judged by mere mortals. Rather, I believe that in an enlightened society, the good of the people is the criteria for rules and regulations, determined more by reason and science (outcome), rather than pontification. I suppose part of that is the struggle to define those terms and the criteria used to make such determinations.

Sam, you have taken morality completely out of context and wrapped it up in your own opinion to try and make it look superior.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moral
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moral
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/morality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

None of these four mention that it is a religious concept. I don't know why you have convinced yourself otherwise. They do, however, talk about right action and conduct. If you do what is right then you are being moral. If you do what is wrong then you are being immoral. The whole concept of morality provides the basis for the legal system. Nothing more, nothing less.

Sam, you still have not answered my question. I feel I have asked it enough times.
Why do you propose there is a restriction on how far into a pregnancy an abortion is allowed? What purpose does it serve and who does it protect?

[byee]

I am glad that your personal experience of adoption is a positive one. What antimonic was saying is that for some it isn't like that. Some people who have been adopted do want to find their birth parents. Some people who have been adopted do actually find their birth parents. It can be really hellish for some people when they find out that they have been adopted and antimonic was saying that this can be worsened when they find out that they are the result of rape.



Sam, you have taken morality completely out of context and wrapped it up in your own opinion to try and make it look superior.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moral
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moral
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/morality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

None of these four mention that it is a religious concept. I don't know why you have convinced yourself otherwise. They do, however, talk about right action and conduct. If you do what is right then you are being moral. If you do what is wrong then you are being immoral. The whole concept of morality provides the basis for the legal system. Nothing more, nothing less.

Sam, you still have not answered my question. I feel I have asked it enough times.
Why do you propose there is a restriction on how far into a pregnancy an abortion is allowed? What purpose does it serve and who does it protect?


Listen, dear, it should be pretty clear to you by now that I do not wish to talk with you, regardless of which account you're speaking thru. You can interpret this anyway you wish, but I frankly do not need to engage in petty arguments with those merely looking to pick a fight. Your opinion is irrelevant to me, and I do not need to explain or convince you of anything.

[antimonic]

lol he still thinks dig is me? hahah sorry thats too funny, why not go to enotalone.com's forums and look me up? same name and all, and i was using that a while before, you can even see comments i made about my GIRLFRIEND. but yeah lol dont really know what to say to that :P

[Serenity]

What this debate is about: Pro Life or Pro Choice
What this debate is not about: whether or not antimonic has different accouts

How to properly debate a subject: state your case. Make arguments. Make rebuttals.
How not to properly debate a subject: making sarcastic and/or condescending remarks that have nothing to do with the subject of debate and refusing to actually participate in the debate.

This thread is in danger of being closed, gentlemen. Pull it together.

[Sapphire]

Listen, dear, it should be pretty clear to you by now that I do not wish to talk with you, regardless of which account you're speaking thru. You can interpret this anyway you wish, but I frankly do not need to engage in petty arguments with those merely looking to pick a fight. Your opinion is irrelevant to me, and I do not need to explain or convince you of anything.

I am not looking to start a fight. I am just asking you questions relevant to the debate. If anyone is insighting an argument then it is you with your arrogant attitude. Your debating skills are poor (refusing to take part in part of this debate because you simply do not like me) and need improvement.

[Bobby]

You've been warned, can't you just quit? This is a second warning by a staff member. STOP FIGHTING. Start debating.

[Serenity]

I am not looking to start a fight. I am just asking you questions relevant to the debate. If anyone is insighting an argument then it is you with your arrogant attitude. Your debating skills are poor (refusing to take part in part of this debate because you simply do not like me) and need improvement.

What this debate also is not about: Sam, or anyone else's, debating skills.

How also not to debate: Saying you're not looking to start a fight and yet continuing to insult people.

How not to act on these forums: Flagrantly ignoring instructions from staff members.

Thread locked :)