SO yes Controversy: ABORTION

[loka]

dice, your post made me lol a bit because it always seems men are the majority who are against abortion. It really puzzles me as to why men are so against it, if they don't go through the whole ordeal. I'm prochoice myself. I see benefits to it and I see no reason for it. Funny though that those who are against abortion are for the death penalty. I guess eye for an eye is far less of a sin.

[Superman]

dice, your post made me lol a bit because it always seems men are the majority who are against abortion. It really puzzles me as to why men are so against it, if they don't go through the whole ordeal. I'm prochoice myself. I see benefits to it and I see no reason for it. Funny though that those who are against abortion are for the death penalty. I guess eye for an eye is far less of a sin.

Men are against it cause women who do such things are killing OUR kids. There is only 2 reason to get an abortion, 1, you get rapped, that kind of mental abuse would not be healthy for a child or the parent. 2, you are molested by your father/brother/uncle and get prego, that kind of mental anguish on a child growing up would make him turn out to go physco on people and shoot up schools. Thats it. There should be NO other reason.

[loka]

So by your logic a baby born with AIDS should be born and put into this world because the mother wasn't raped or a victim of incest. Or the mother will suffer severe complications (possibly death) to birth the baby. There are a lot of consequences that come up in a pregnancy before a child is born. So no. There is more to abortion than just to cater to victims of sexual assault. Far more. And this is why I already said men get big headed with the whole abortion thing. THEIR kid. You have no idea just how bad an abortion can cause mental anguish in a mother than the father. Yeah, you helped being a sperm donor and all, but like I said, it seethes inside a man so much that a woman has that right to say no before a certain time in pregnancy to abort without the father's consent.

In conclusion holy sonic, your mom would more likely suffer a miscarriage than actually give birth to the child anyways. Take it more as a blessing and shit happens rather than be sad. Be happy your mom has the right and your father is supportive and isn't a raging douche who wants the child for his selfish reasons. He's taking a more proactive look at the consequences of both your family and your mothers well being.

[Steamer]

The death penalty is way to costly. If they made it cheaper I could care less... Either way... I could care less.

On topic, Most woman know whats best for them and it's ultimately their decision. Seeing both sides of the outcome personally, having one or not acquires some kind of anguish depending on the situation.

Example: Woman has tubal pregnancy, abort and not die or keep and both die... What would you choose? You who get all high and mighty and its OUR kid and are completely against abortion think about that one...

[loka]

The death penalty is way to costly. If they made it cheaper I could care less... Either way... I could care less.

Thing about abortion is it's either paid for by the woman or private health insurance, but about 74% pay for it from their own pocket. We pay to kill people for their crimes... whatever they were.

On topic, Most woman know whats best for them and it's ultimately their decision. Seeing both sides of the outcome personally, having one or not acquires some kind of anguish depending on the situation.

This is essentially the argument. They know what's best.

Really, to each their own.

[Disflux]

If you guys really want to get into a good Abortion discussion you should read up on Michael Tooley (supports abortion), Judith Jarvis Thomson (Supports woman's choice), and Peter Singer. The abortion argument, at it's core, is actually very simple. It's the exact same as the killing/murder argument. The argument is basically, as follows:
1. Every person has an equal right to life.
2. Depriving somebody of their right to life is morally wrong.
3. Killing another person deprives them of their right to life.
4. Thus, killing another person is morally wrong.

The problems in the abortion argument pop up, normally, in two places. Most people attack the first premis, on 2 different levels. You can attack the first premis by looking at the idea of "personhood', and what constitues that somebody is, indeed, a person. Some take a religious standpoint, others a medical standpoint. The religious standpoint normally takes the foundation that personhood is created the instant that "god" breathes into clay, and thus conception is when a fetus is considered a person. A more medical standpoint lies on the foundation of "consciousness". A fetus is only considered a person when they create a conscious (where many believe that our personalities lie. Just ask yourself, where are you on yourself?). Why is this relevant? Well, if a fetus isn't considered a person, then by killing them, you do not go against the above argument. Thus, killing a fetus in a case of consciousness would not be depriving that fetus of a right to life, since they didn't have one to begin with.

The second part of the first premis that people attack is normally the idea of a "right to life", which Judith Jarvis Thomson looks at. Thomson argues that a female has a greater right to control her body than the right to life of the fetus, but most people argue against Thomson stating that the right to life is a "greater right" than that of having a right to control one's own body.

I myself, do not choose a side, either pro-life or pro-choice. Because, I find that each case is "situational". You could have an obvious case where the birth of the fetus could have a high chance of death for both the mother and the baby, in which case I would be pro-choice. But then you can have the choice of a well-off family wanting an abortion just because they "accidentally" got pregnant, where I would stand on the pro-life side. But it's the issues in between, that are more convoluted, that determine the reason as to why I have a fluctuating approach to Abortion.

[superbatranger]

If taking care of your child is out of the question for whatever reason, then adoption should be the first and only choice. But, there are situations where the mother could be inclined to choose to abort the fetus, like being a victim of rape for instance. Just for the record, I am neither entirely pro-life or pro-choice. There are just too many unknown variables, in my opinion, to completely support one over the other. But, if taking care of your child or giving it up for adoption are viable options, then they should be chosen over abortion. In the end though, it should only be the choice of the mother. It shouldn't be taken lightly.

[elpolloloco]

It really puzzles me as to why men are so against it, if they don't go through the whole ordeal. .

How is it puzzling? The basis for the pro-life argument is pretty clear cut. Pro lifers believe that

a) It is wrong to terminate a life unless in self defense.
b) Life begins at conception.

I don't think there should be any haziness on why people are pro-life. If you don't think men have the right to complain, then by that argument, they shouldn't have the right to complain if the mother shoots the baby in the head the second she gives birth. I mean, after-all she's the one that "went through the whole ordeal". Just playing devil's advocate here. I'm not going to give my opinion on the subject.

The argument takes total sense. It's just a matter or whether or not you believe that a fetus is "enough" of a life.

[elpolloloco]

To me these arguments make sense:

pro-life: Life begins at conception, and it's wrong to take a life. Pretty clear cut. Hard to argue with that.
pro-choice: The baby is basically just a mass of cells and not aware. It's more of a hamburger roll than a human. Also makes sense.

The arguments that DON'T make sense are

pro-life: It's wrong to take a life, period. I find that most pro-life people seem to be pro-death penalty or even worse... indifferent to engaging in war. This seems like hypocracy to me. For the record: I am pro-death penalty myself, but if my loved ones were to be murdered, I would likely be my choice to ask the judge not to execute the culprit. I'd prefer the person to life in agony the rest of their life

pro-choice: The baby is just going to be a burden. This argument makes NO SENSE whatsoever. If that argument were valid then by that logic it should be legal to execute your kids until they're 18 years old because they cause annorance, burden, discomfort, etc all the way up until adult-hood.

Like I said, I totally understand and sympathize with BOTH sides when it comes to logical, consistent arguments like the ones above. It comes down to whether or not your own religious beliefs let you consider a fetus a human life with all the same rights a BORN baby should have. This is a pretty grey area.

What I can't stand are arguments for pro-choice people who give a reason WHY abortion should be legal which make no sense: "The mother has to go through it". Well in that case, a single mom has to suffer all her life until the kid turns 18. If you're going to use that argument to justify "murder: then you have to admit it's OK to murder a toddler because a single mother is still suffering and going through hell to raise that kid.

It comes down to one thing: Whether or not it's MURDER or not. You can't justify MURDER by saying the kid is going to be a drain, or it's a scary experience or "it's a woman's choice". If you're pro-choice it comes down to just arguing that it ISN'T murder, plain and simple.

---------- Post added at 03:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:48 PM ----------

It comes down to one thing: Whether or not it's MURDER or not. You can't justify MURDER by saying the kid is going to be a drain, or it's a scary experience or "it's a woman's choice". If you're pro-choice it comes down to just arguing that it ISN'T murder, plain and simple.

That being said. I get furious when I hear about some guy that gets into an accident, killing a pregnant woman and getting charged with killing two people. It's legal for the MOM to kill the unborn baby, but it's MURDER if someone else does it. It makes no sense. The gov't needs to decide IS IT MURDER OR NOT. You can't decide to charge the killing for one person and not for another. The gov't needs to be CONSISTENT or step aside.

In the end, I'm libertarian too. I don't agree with abortion, but I'm not going to lecture anyone. Like ZERO said, it's between you and God. I personally think Rowe vs Wade should be repealed and the STATES themselves should decide on abortion along with other issues dealing with everything from gay marriage, drug legalization to whether or not fireworks should be legal. If you don't like the laws in your state, go move to a state you agree with. It's America. Every topic has people divided down the middle, so why do we all act like the federal gov't has a one-size-fits-all answer for all the issues that pertain to 300,000,000+ people? The states, counties, and cities know whats' best for their own people.

[Steamer]

After your second post pollo I immediately thought of the Civil War. I just can't think of why I did...