Plans to relax law on early abortion

**anonymouswhitefemale** · 07-10-2008 07:48 PM

First off, I'm tired and it's late, so if I dont make sense or miss something out, bear with me.

Originally Posted by hello_pitty

Anon, I have a right to defend my beliefs just as you do. No need to pick apart my posts and point the "finger of God" at me!

I have a right to questions beliefs too, especially if what they are saying could be hurtful to people, and not based in fact.

Originally Posted by hello_pitty

CW, I don't mean to hurt your feelings, but I am talking about women who KNEW what they are doing, women who say "oh well if I get pregnant I can get an abortion anyways"...it's sick!!

I don't know of anyone who thinks like that, but maybe you do - obviously that isn't good for anyone.

Originally Posted by hello_pitty

Did you even read all of my post before hitting that quote button? I said if the girl was raped by some complete stranger, or even someone she knows...if she UNWILLINGLY had sex, then I can see abortion as being an option, but to use abortion as a scape goat for her mistake is RIDICULOUS!!! I am 23 and have never had kids...how hard is it to keep from getting pregnant?

So abortion CAN be ok? As even damd agreed, no protection is fool-proof, and in fact a large number of people get caught out even using protection. I believe those people are as unnessarily impregnated as a rape victim. Choosing to have sex in this day and age doesn't mean your opting responsibility for a child.

Originally Posted by hello_pitty

Human over population? Give me a break!! If we were as densely populated as you say, we would be bumping shoulders on the highways and we would be fighting over scraps of food from someone from Japan!!
Using over population to right abortion is just a weak attempt to get me to accept your beliefs...sorry hun, ain't going to happen.

Well, overpopulation is very real, and you wouldn't be bumping shoulders, but there wouldn't be enough food to go round..

Originally Posted by hello_pitty

As for aborting with knitting needles, maybe we should start doing that instead of the way it's done now...just hand the would-be mom and long knitting needle, and some pain killers then send her home...hey free of charge too! But really, in reality, it wasn't "all the rave" for inconsiderate women who decided to "open up". At least not all of them.

Sorry hun, you've just been raped. Just fish out the spawn with these needles, have a nice day.

Nice.

------------------

Originally Posted by damd

Does it matter when a person recieves their soul? I'm not for sure I have one. Can you provide 100% proof that you have one? This is not about religion it's about morality and logic. Although I do admit morality is mostly governed by religious and spiritual influences. But I think the better question would have been, when does a person become a person? How far into development is it considered a person? What is a person? What ever your answer is, I don't think you can deny that at what ever stage of development it is a sperate entity. While in the womb it is parasitic in nature but it is seperate. But unlike a parasite this organism will grow into a person, a person like you and me.

I don't personally even believe in a soul, but that's what most people tend to base their critera of as to whether its acceptable to kill something or not. And, well, most pro-lifers are religious. So yes, when does a person become a person? Not when they're 12 weeks old that's for sure. And a sperm, in the right circumstances, will grow up to be like you or me.

Originally Posted by damd

Do I mourn for the loss of the millions, billions, trillions of sperm cells that you sent off to their demise, of course not. Just like I don't mourn the loss of the thousands of skin and other cells that I lost today. Although I should mourn the loss of brain cells that I lose while drinking. I don't think I need to point out the differences to you, between sex cells and a zygote. Are you your father? Are you your mother?

So two zygotes magically create a "person". Why is one pair of zygotes suddently so important when millions of individual ones die all the time?

Originally Posted by damd

Abortion is totally about a life being killed. A life that already exist. Contraception is an attemp to negate a life from ever taking place. There is a huge difference between these two.

It is about ending a life, yes, but it is about ending a life that is comparable to a spider or something, in terms of mental capacity. Abortion fits into your negating a life from happening definition.

Originally Posted by damd

Yes I am aware of the different stages of development of a fetus and that there is a cut off point. However I don't recognize the significance that those stages have in the determination of whether this is a person. Is a newborn a fully developed human? An infant? Toddler? Adolescent? Are any of their lives less significant because of their development?

Yes, well, difficult question. In a way I'd agree. But once you reach a certain cut off point you've just gotta treat it equal... That point isn't after day 1, it's after like, 5 months. Or whatever. Scientists know best.

As for your next text, I dont care what a partial birth abortion is, as miffed says, look at the statistics, something like 82% are before 21 weeks or something. Also, I'm not too fussed about that film.

Originally Posted by damd

Population growth is a different topic and the answer to it is not mass abortions.

Nope, contraception is, but if we already have too many children, and we can effectively stop extra lives from developing, just an extended version of contraception, then there's no need to birth them all for the sake of it.

Originally Posted by damd

You are absolutely right about an infallible birth controll. But done right, the stastistics are extremely low. Like less than .02%

Well, in practice they seem higher than that. If that's each time you have sex it all adds up. Anyway, that means you have say 1% of people that do need abortions legitimately, and didn't just get drunk and have a shag without caring. Those people dont need to be told that they might as well have put their newborn in a toaster.

Originally Posted by damd

Yes my comment was cold hearted, but a lot less cold hearted than a person playing God with another persons life.

For someone who shyed away from the word "soul" you're playing it a bit close with the "playing god" remark. I mean what does that mean. Before we worked out how fire worked a cigarette lighter would be playing god.

Originally Posted by damd

Hypothetically, would you support your mother aborting you? I can't imagine anyone wanting someone with that amount of control over their life... their existence.

Let me give you a better example. My brother has a terminal disease, which nowadays could have been picked up very early and the foetus aborted, and another attempt made. That would mean that the brother I love today would never have existed, but another one would have. It's a very difficult thing to process. However, it's just the mysteries of life. As an objective onlooker, it would be the better option.

**hello_pitty** · 07-10-2008 11:44 PM

You missed my point.

We should be focusing on the "unwanted" children that are here right now, instead of worrying about ones that "might" be conceived later on. Prevention is key here, not extermination!

Why not teach the new generation of today what we know about sex, contraception, abortion, birth, parenthood etc..why not make a law to make sex-ed mandatory? (I know i'm gonna get flamed for that one) but if we don't want extra unwanted kids on this earth, why not educate? I know we've tried that path, but why give up? If you're so concerned about over population or having to pay for a womans life through tax dollars, then why not try prevent?

Why does it matter when the fetus is a human or not? Why would it even matter if a woman DOES have an abortion? Because it shows that we have GIVEN UP on todays children and allowing them to find out on their own the hard way what sex and babies is! What happened to the good ole "birds and the bees" talk we used to have? most girls today don't even know they can get pregnant if they have sex on their periods! Most don't know about the myths of sex and conception!

All I envision right now is this in 10-20 years after this law is passed:

DAUGHTER: I'm pregnant.

PARENT: Again? oh well off to the abortion clinic again! I wonder if they have deals on the 2nd visit? Don't worry sweetie, it's normal to have abortions. I aborted 3 times before I was ready to have you....

Now I am not saying women who do have them are cold and don't suffer after wards...what I am saying is that, if they want the luxury of aborting, then they should pay for it out of their own pocket, and even for the counseling afterwards.

I believe we are reaching a more sexual, and experimental generation of kids here...we should be nourishing their curiosity instead of hiding it from them. Look at the sexuality on even PG rated SHOWS today! Now don't you think they would be curious about what going on? They should know that sex is beautiful, but only when you are married and/or ready to have kids...because you know you go into a sexual relationship KNOWING there is a chance you could get pregnant, even with protection right? So why not pass this onto youth?

But I really don't think allowing abortions easily is going to stop teenage pregnancies or welfare bums. In fact, ALOT of young women, brought up on no values in life or taught that "nothing in life is free" and you have to work to make a living, get pregnant JUST so they can get a welfare check every month...heck the more kids the bigger the check...and the kids? Who cares, they can raise themselves, what with TV and peer pressure..

THAT is the REAL problem today!

Originally Posted by anon

Sorry hun, you've just been raped. Just fish out the spawn with these needles, have a nice day.

Nice.

hilarious...in such a gruesome way...man you really know how to crack them don't cha? hahaha

*tips hat*
Nuff Said

C · 07-11-2008 12:31 AM

Originally Posted by hello_pitty

You missed my point.

We should be focusing on the "unwanted" children that are here right now, instead of worrying about ones that "might" be conceived later on. Prevention is key here, not extermination!

Why not teach the new generation of today what we know about sex, contraception, abortion, birth, parenthood etc..why not make a law to make sex-ed mandatory? (I know i'm gonna get flamed for that one) but if we don't want extra unwanted kids on this earth, why not educate? I know we've tried that path, but why give up? If you're so concerned about over population or having to pay for a womans life through tax dollars, then why not try prevent?

Why does it matter when the fetus is a human or not? Why would it even matter if a woman DOES have an abortion? Because it shows that we have GIVEN UP on todays children and allowing them to find out on their own the hard way what sex and babies is! What happened to the good ole "birds and the bees" talk we used to have? most girls today don't even know they can get pregnant if they have sex on their periods! Most don't know about the myths of sex and conception!

All I envision right now is this in 10-20 years after this law is passed:

DAUGHTER: I'm pregnant.

PARENT: Again? oh well off to the abortion clinic again! I wonder if they have deals on the 2nd visit? Don't worry sweetie, it's normal to have abortions. I aborted 3 times before I was ready to have you....

Now I am not saying women who do have them are cold and don't suffer after wards...what I am saying is that, if they want the luxury of aborting, then they should pay for it out of their own pocket, and even for the counseling afterwards.

I believe we are reaching a more sexual, and experimental generation of kids here...we should be nourishing their curiosity instead of hiding it from them. Look at the sexuality on even PG rated SHOWS today! Now don't you think they would be curious about what going on? They should know that sex is beautiful, but only when you are married and/or ready to have kids...because you know you go into a sexual relationship KNOWING there is a chance you could get pregnant, even with protection right? So why not pass this onto youth?

But I really don't think allowing abortions easily is going to stop teenage pregnancies or welfare bums. In fact, ALOT of young women, brought up on no values in life or taught that "nothing in life is free" and you have to work to make a living, get pregnant JUST so they can get a welfare check every month...heck the more kids the bigger the check...and the kids? Who cares, they can raise themselves, what with TV and peer pressure..

THAT is the REAL problem today!

hilarious...in such a gruesome way...man you really know how to crack them don't cha? hahaha

*tips hat*
Nuff Said

I applaud your words.....Well said...Caroline

**rain380** · 07-11-2008 03:53 AM

I agree wholeheartedly with everyone here talking about education being the key. The birds and the bees talk has gone out the window. I am 25 and have several grown friends who think "the pull out method" is a legitimate form of birth control. I have known males that thought if they washed off their penis after sex they could not catch an STD.

Abstinance only education programs have been proven over and over again to be completly ineffective and have had no impact on std infection and teen pregnancy.

The grownups of this world have to WAKE UP, and relize that the youth are having sex wether or not we like it.
If we do not educate our youth as to proper prevention teenage mothers are the LEAST of our worries. Personally I would be far more concerned with my future children contracting AIDS. We have to buck up as adults and be their not just for our own children but for ALL young people, wether or not we like it, wether or not it's comfortable, regardless of our religious and moral choices.

We need to teach our children about safety, please, please by all means teach your children your views and morals, tell them what your beliefs are about sex, but do not be so niaeve as to think they are bound by some invisiable force to follow them. Educate them, it's as simple as telling your child clearly "these are my beliefs and they are the beliefs I exspect you to practice under my roof, now let me educate about sexual health, as your health comes above and before my beliefs and what I what I want you to practice ."

Personally I believe atleast half of all teen abortions happen because children are 2 afraid to tell their parents they are pregnant . Yes, I know if they are having sex they should be old enough to own up.... but that doesn't mean that they are, that doesn't mean that people don't make mistakes. I knew to many girls that made that choice in highschool because they were afraid they would get thrown out of moms house if they were pregnant.

Ok to the poster who said if you don't want to get pregnanat just don't have sex. Um, I could be wrong but am under the impression that you are assuming all abortions are from unwed swingers . Married people useing contraception have unwanted pregnancies all the time, so married couples living together, useing contraception should not have sex if they don't want babies?

Oh yeah that 2% failure rate from contraception that is when the contraception is at best, that is when it works in harmony with your body the way it should and your body works with it, and then that means that you NEVER make a mistake like taking your pill late, u don't even have to foget one completly, just get busy and take it late and it's effectivness has lessoned.

I haven't noticed it brought up and maybe I shouldn't but I hear the argument that to many people who want babies can't have them so put it up for adoption. the foster system is so overcrowded DCF has admittedly LOST how many kids in the system. Where are all these "fit" parents hiding, oh yeah thats right, they want a newborn, a baby. They have love in their heart for a newborn but forget about all the actual children living in overpacked boarding houses that spend their whole childhood in foster care.

BTW Pro choice is not "anti-life". It is simply what it says, PRO CHOICE, it means I believe that you must do whatever you feel is right and so must I. Many pro-choice people don't believe in abortions, they just don't believe that anybody else should decide what is right for anybody else.

Sorry feel very strongly about this.
I have never been pregnant btw.

Just my personal opinon that I would rather NOT have the governement or anybody else deciding what can and can't go on in the confines of MY vagina.

and yes I think laws on EARLY term abortions should be lessoned. It's an agonizing enough choice without all the BS surrounding it.

**anonymouswhitefemale** · 07-11-2008 05:19 AM

Originally Posted by hello_pitty

You missed my point.

Sorry if I did, it was rather late. However, I believe i just didn't address the fact that todays youth needs to be looked after and eduacted, which is painfully obvious.

Originally Posted by hello_pitty

We should be focusing on the "unwanted" children that are here right now, instead of worrying about ones that "might" be conceived later on. Prevention is key here, not extermination!

It is your view that abortion is extermination, it is my view that abortion is prevention. Obviously a room of judges and scientists whose job it is is to work out when soemthing becomes a sentient being agree with me.

Originally Posted by hello_pitty

Why not teach the new generation of today what we know about sex, contraception, abortion, birth, parenthood etc..why not make a law to make sex-ed mandatory? (I know i'm gonna get flamed for that one) but if we don't want extra unwanted kids on this earth, why not educate? I know we've tried that path, but why give up? If you're so concerned about over population or having to pay for a womans life through tax dollars, then why not try prevent?

Personally, I had sex education ever year between 10 and 16, which I thought was ridiculous. All this teaching about deadly diseases blah blah, most people agree that it doens't work campaigning against it. So sure, we can eduate, but when we get these freak pregrancies even though she's on the pill, why not abort?

Originally Posted by hello_pitty

Why does it matter when the fetus is a human or not? Why would it even matter if a woman DOES have an abortion? Because it shows that we have GIVEN UP on todays children and allowing them to find out on their own the hard way what sex and babies is! What happened to the good ole "birds and the bees" talk we used to have? most girls today don't even know they can get pregnant if they have sex on their periods! Most don't know about the myths of sex and conception!

Most girls (and guys) just don't care. They are incapable of rationalising their actions more than twenty minutes into the future - and this is generally because those people were birthed from a fifteen year old, who has no clue how to bring up children because she is one herself.

Originally Posted by hello_pitty

All I envision right now is this in 10-20 years after this law is passed:

DAUGHTER: I'm pregnant.

PARENT: Again? oh well off to the abortion clinic again! I wonder if they have deals on the 2nd visit? Don't worry sweetie, it's normal to have abortions. I aborted 3 times before I was ready to have you....

Yeah, and maybe they'll take a box of popcorn while they watch the whole internal show in high def, then have a stem-cell sandwich

... Abortion isn't gamorised, it's not fun, and it definately should be covered on public health (or in capitalist America, insurance).

Originally Posted by hello_pitty

Now I am not saying women who do have them are cold and don't suffer after wards...what I am saying is that, if they want the luxury of aborting, then they should pay for it out of their own pocket, and even for the counseling afterwards.

Yes, aborting is just so luxurious.... If this is the direction of health that you take, anyone who eats too much and gets fat should have to pay for treatment when they get a heart attack, I mean, they did bring it on themselves, arguably even more ly than a pregnant woman. Smokers all need to pay for their treatment. In fact, if you play football and break a leg, then you should pay for your treatment because you decided to play football.

Originally Posted by hello_pitty

I believe we are reaching a more sexual, and experimental generation of kids here...we should be nourishing their curiosity instead of hiding it from them. Look at the sexuality on even PG rated SHOWS today! Now don't you think they would be curious about what going on? They should know that sex is beautiful, but only when you are married and/or ready to have kids...because you know you go into a sexual relationship KNOWING there is a chance you could get pregnant, even with protection right? So why not pass this onto youth?

Preaching abstinence till marriage? Guess what, it doesn't work. And that's beacuse it's stewpid. Now that we've mostly grown out of the idea that god will strike us down with thunderbolts for premarital sex, there's no stopping it. It's hardwired into our genetics. For teaching, I was taught, a lot, mostly about pregnancy and diseases, to the point where I stopped listening. Did I stop wanting to have sex? HeIl no.

Originally Posted by hello_pitty

But I really don't think allowing abortions easily is going to stop teenage pregnancies or welfare bums. In fact, ALOT of young women, brought up on no values in life or taught that "nothing in life is free" and you have to work to make a living, get pregnant JUST so they can get a welfare check every month...heck the more kids the bigger the check...and the kids? Who cares, they can raise themselves, what with TV and peer pressure..

Well, if we don't allow abortions, then we will have easily quadruple the number of teenage mums bring up children, they won't be able to teach their children properly, and the problem with todays youth will further degenerate you. I never said abortion was the answer to all the worlds problems, but not aborting for some holier than thou "Yeah well it's you're fault, and collections of cells without a brain is a human soul" rubbish.

**hello_pitty** · 07-11-2008 06:24 AM

Man, you just have nothing nice to say don't you...all full of negativity and hopelessness. Oh well you don't have to listen to me at all, unless what I say really bugs you to the point where you need to pick apart my posts and twist them around on me...not to mention scarecrows all over the place. No matter how much you on my posts and turn them into something entirely different and pointless, I will never agree with abortion as birth control/ population control or a scapegoat for a womans mistake.

My feelings on abortion flat out and simple...Medical? Yes. For Mistakes? No.

I will just quietly step out of this conversation now before it gets too heated and I get myself into trouble...I know when to quit and "zip it". I've made my point, contributed my opinions on the matter and debated my beliefs, I see no more reason to sit here and waffle on like an over-opinionated child.

If you really wish to cram your beliefs down my throat, please feel free to PM me and we'll have a lovely conversation in private, instead of making ourselves look like fools.

Kapeesh?

*bows and walks out the door*

**CHANDLERS WISH** · 07-11-2008 07:58 AM

hello pitty
My feelings on abortion flat out and simple...Medical? Yes. For Mistakes? No.

Mmmm... Don't blame you for your last comments, can be overwhelming in a dispute.

But, your contridicting yourself? Medical Yes? Mistakes No? CW nothing against you? I'm talking about those whom choose to do it as a means of who cares?

Perhaps this is why you are getting a bit of misinterpretation here, nothing against you either but?

Sorry...

I call a spade a spade too.

I agree totally in the 6 times in a row, lets make money off the government, lets not care about condoms, pill, i dont' give a ...

But truly, you just said you don't care about mistakes.

I"m going to put that down to the fact that your standing up to yourself, in an arguement of sorts, as apposed to TRULY feeling that, otherwise, don't apologise, as frankly, we all can make those..... MISTAKES.

Sorry.

Just threw me a tad.

SMILE

CW

**damd** · 07-12-2008 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by miffed23

I disagree completely,there is nothing out there promoting abortions, wherever you look, everything is pro-life and 'you will go to if you abort'. What promotes abortion?

In my opinion, nobody has a right to judge those women, unless theyve been in the same situation.... youve no possible idea what they go through.

Its completely narrow-minded to judge any circumstance unless youve experienced it. Your opinion counts, youre judgement does not.

I don't know where exactly you are from, but where I am at there is a huge movement to censor anything that will discourage a woman for getting an abortion.

You are absolutley right I have never and will never be in that position.

I think this last statement is naive. Generations have been, and always will be, judged. Have you lived the life of a German officer durring 1942? A Japaneese soldier on the march to Baton? An American soldier forcing an Iraqi detainee to pose in an inhumane maner? The life of Andrea Yates? OJ Simpson?

Besides isn't giving a person the right of abortion judging that the life that is about to be killed is less significant?

Originally Posted by miffed23

Person -
"A human body (usually including the clothing)."

"Generally, a human being. Legally, a "person" may statutorily include a corporation, partnership, trustee, legal representative, etc"

Foetus -
"The medical term for the baby from eight weeks after conception until the birth"

So, seeing the point that anon raised about statistically the majority of women abort prior to eight weeks - this makes the vast proportion of abortions irrelevant to the comparison of a foetus being a "person."

You had it right the first time. Person = Human
But technically, there are several definitions of "person" not only legal but medical, theoligical, spiritual. I find it intresting that legally an adult with limited mental abitlities might not be considered a person.

As for what a fetus is you are correct. It not being a person, not correct. However, the statistics are irrelevant as my arguements are directed at the significance of life no matter what the stage of development the person is in.

Originally Posted by anonymouswhitefemale

I don't personally even believe in a soul, but that's what most people tend to base their critera of as to whether its acceptable to kill something or not. And, well, most pro-lifers are religious. So yes, when does a person become a person? Not when they're 12 weeks old that's for sure. And a sperm, in the right circumstances, will grow up to be like you or me.

Are you sure about that? You have proof, right?

That is not correct. Sperm will never grow into anything more than what it already is. -continue below-

Originally Posted by anonymouswhitefemale

So two zygotes magically create a "person". Why is one pair of zygotes suddently so important when millions of individual ones die all the time?

This was an error on my part when I had assumed that you did know the difference between sex cells and a zygote. Sex cells are male sperm and female eggs. A zygote is the result of the fussion or ferilization of these two cells. Sperm in your body are produced then are expelled or they die and are reabsorbed. You are loosing millions of sperms cells all of the time and more are created to replace the ones lost. Sex cells are not people they will never become people. They are the essential ingrediants of a zygote. Which if allowed, will grow into a child then into an adult.

This is why I asked if you are your father? Are you your mother? Your sex cells belong to you just like all the cells in your body except they contain half of your genetic code. A zygote is not the father or the mother. It's genetic code is unique to itself, yes it got that code from a father and mother but their code is not like it's code. It is a seperate entity. A person. Underdeveloped, yes.

Originally Posted by anonymouswhitefemale

It is about ending a life, yes, but it is about ending a life that is comparable to a spider or something, in terms of mental capacity. Abortion fits into your negating a life from happening definition.

No it does not. Killing a life does not negate it from happening. Think of a fire. Abortion is a fire extinguisher. You have a fire, you use a fire extinguisher and put it out. You killed it. Contraception is the removal of the fuel that would start a fire. By which the fire never takes place. With abortion life had already began and it was killed, snuffed, extinguished.

Originally Posted by anonymouswhitefemale

Yes, well, difficult question. In a way I'd agree. But once you reach a certain cut off point you've just gotta treat it equal... That point isn't after day 1, it's after like, 5 months. Or whatever. Scientists know best.

Are you grasping here? Why now? What has transpired at whichever point you are talking about that makes it different now?

As much as I admire science and the scientific method, scientist don't know everything. They are constantly discovering and redefining things. However, I would hate to see a world that was controlled an judged by scientist. -cont. below-

Originally Posted by anonymouswhitefemale

As for your next text, I dont care what a partial birth abortion is, as miffed says, look at the statistics, something like 82% are before 21 weeks or something. Also, I'm not too fussed about that film.

I think you said it yourself
"...remember 76.8% of statistics are made up to prove your point."
I am not saying that your statistics are wrong but they are irrelavent. Abortion is wrong regardless how far along the person is.

Originally Posted by anonymouswhitefemale

Well, in practice they seem higher than that. If that's each time you have sex it all adds up. Anyway, that means you have say 1% of people that do need abortions legitimately, and didn't just get drunk and have a shag without caring. Those people dont need to be told that they might as well have put their newborn in a toaster.

Refering to the 99.8% effectivness of BC. Lets do some math, lets say you had sex everday for a year and practice proper birth control. 365 X .002 = 0.73% that you got some one pregnant for that year. Here is something else though, a women is not fertile a whole year or even a whole month. So there are days when possible conception is absolutley zero. So its actually less than .73%.

Originally Posted by anonymouswhitefemale

For someone who shyed away from the word "soul" you're playing it a bit close with the "playing god" remark. I mean what does that mean. Before we worked out how fire worked a cigarette lighter would be playing god.

It was a term used for a lack of better words. I don't believe that I shyed away from the word soul. I simply stated that I am unsure that I have one and such it is not relevant to me if you or anyone else including a fetus has one.

Originally Posted by anonymouswhitefemale

Let me give you a better example. My brother has a terminal disease, which nowadays could have been picked up very early and the foetus aborted, and another attempt made. That would mean that the brother I love today would never have existed, but another one would have. It's a very difficult thing to process. However, it's just the mysteries of life. As an objective onlooker, it would be the better option.

Why can't you answer the question I possed? As for your example, you had three brothers, one was viewed not fit and killed. Further this example show a possible glimpse of the future of selective breeding. With the mapping of the genitic code it is going to be possible for doctors to test an unborn baby and tell the would be parents what the child will look like. So what if they wanted a child with blue eyes? Currently they will be allowed to abort and try again, and again, and again, until they get what they want. Playing God for a lack of a better term. However, if a God does exist I would hate to think that s/he or it would would view a life so trivial.

-cont- Your example also shows another person enforcing their beliefs of what would be best for another individual. Now refering to the scientist remark, how about a world where "scientist knows best" and abortion is a tool used to weed out the hadicapped? As a teen I enjoyed watching Star Trek TNG, a particular episode had to do with a people who lived in a biosphere. A community that was genitcally controlled. Any embryo that was found to have any flaws would have been destroyed. As it turned out, this biosphere was saved by the technology that allowed Geordi (a blind man) to see. His line "Who gave them the right to decide whether or not I should be here... whether or not I might have something to contribute? " That concept, that logic, that is the essence of my arguement. People speak pro-choice it's not a choice for the ones who has the most to loose. Who asked them what they want. Where are their rights. Right to decide, what about the right to live?

Originally Posted by rain380

BTW Pro choice is not "anti-life". It is simply what it says, PRO CHOICE, it means I believe that you must do whatever you feel is right and so must I. Many pro-choice people don't believe in abortions, they just don't believe that anybody else should decide what is right for anybody else.

I could not disagree with you more.

Does any one know who Norma McCorvey is? In 1973 the US Surpreme Court rulled in her favor. She was better known as Jane Roe as in Roe v. Wade. She is currently a pro-lifer and advocates against abortions.

**Fallen1** · 07-12-2008 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by damd

-cont- Your example also shows another person enforcing their beliefs of what would be best for another individual. Now refering to the scientist remark, how about a world where "scientist knows best" and abortion is a tool used to weed out the hadicapped? As a teen I enjoyed watching Star Trek TNG, a particular episode had to do with a people who lived in a biosphere. A community that was genitcally controlled. Any embryo that was found to have any flaws would have been destroyed. As it turned out, this biosphere was saved by the technology that allowed Geordi (a blind man) to see. His line "Who gave them the right to decide whether or not I should be here... whether or not I might have something to contribute? " That concept, that logic, that is the essence of my arguement. People speak pro-choice it's not a choice for the ones who has the most to loose. Who asked them what they want. Where are their rights. Right to decide, what about the right to live?

This is a very good question here.

I will be the first to say that I do not know at what point in the development of an unborn child (for some reason I cannot stand the term fetus and never have) becomes more than just a group of cells and is what everyone would consider as a person. No matter what anyone believes we and scientist just do not know for an absolute fact as we have no proof.

With that being said, I will bring up the debate on circumcision. One of the biggest issues with it is that it is performed on the individual without their consent/input.

The aborted child has no say so here.

I have always been of the opinion that if it is something that you really don't have all the answers to it is better to stay away from it just to be on the "safe side".

Bottom line on this is that we as individuals have to do what our conscience(s) will allow.

**damd** · 07-13-2008 01:51 AM

Originally Posted by damd

Why can't you answer the question I possed? As for your example, you had three brothers, one was viewed not fit and killed. Further this example show a possible glimpse of the future of selective breeding....

I made an error, should be two.

Thread: Plans to relax law on early abortion

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions