Abortion - What do you think about it?

[roadwarrior]

Since when have legally purchased and registered guns of any sort become weapons of mass destruction? I could, it is true, kill many people with a gun, if you let me sit in a crowded room with a machine gun in a relatively short time. But to say it is a weapon of mass destruction? A nuclear warhead, or a chemical missile, or a deadly biological agent is a weapon of mass destruction. We are talking about hundreds or thousands or millions of indiscriminate deaths. That doesn't really sum up guns, even when they are used in the worst way possible. (Note, I am talking about a single gun, not every gun in the country, so don't say that millions of people die from gunshots every year or whatever. A single firearm is not a weapon of mass destruction.)

 

[Fez_Monk]

.

 

[amadeus]

Here in America, I've got a better chance of buying SCUD missiles than I would a hand pistol.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Guns are valid entertainment, it's keeping them out of the hands of those that can't control themselves (or the safety of others) that we need to be doing.

Guns are valid entertainment, but sex?

No sir! Do the right thing and abstain!

Mr. rmsharpe, I finally thing you may be losing perspective after all.

Signed,

Richard III
an english king
who thinks guns and single-contraceptive nookie
can go hand in hand

 

[MrPresident]

Here in America, I've got a better chance of buying SCUD missiles than I would a hand pistol.

Here in England I have a better chance of catching a train on time than buying a handgun.

Gasoline and fertilizer, both of which are easily obtainable, can be made into bombs, which are weapons of mass destruction.

A can of beans and a lighter are also easily obtainable........think about it.

the main reason for gun ownership is self defense.

self defense against who? Oh yeah other people with guns. Can anyone see the problem here?

i think that abortion is not murder until the foetus developed a nerve system

Now back on topic, I have to agree with Philippe (thats strange four horsemen have just flown by). If, for example, a driver hits a preganent women and she loses her baby as a result, there is only minor damage to the woman, is the driver a murderer? could they be put on trial and jailed for life/killed for the crime?

 

[Fez_Monk]

Originally posted by MrPresident

Here in England I have a better chance of catching a train on time than buying a handgun.

A can of beans and a lighter are also easily obtainable........think about it. Well, I agree with you there. Ban beans!

self defense against who? Oh yeah other people with guns. Can anyone see the problem here?I am not afraid of law abiding
gunowners. I am concerned with those who are not law abiding,
such as violent criminals. I'm all for ending this debate because I'm jacking the thread, and there is no way I can convince you that my position is right and vice versa. When guns are banned, we will see, but until then, lets end this.

 

[NY Hoya]

monk, I posted a gun control thread...

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by MrPresident
self defense against who? Oh yeah other people with guns. Can anyone see the problem here?

Hehe...
The other ones are evil. That's enough of a reason. Right?

Anyway, I don't see the connection between guns and abortion. (Well, some really ugly thoughts come to my sick mind, but well...)

I also have to agree with philippe. Nobody should be forced to abort as well as nobody should be forced to get a child that is unwanted.
There's one problem with it though (in my opinion). How about the father? I don't think that it should be the mother's choice alone. In fact the father should have the right to "force" his child's mother to give birth to it. That would then have to result in the father having to take responsiblity for it ALONE. But as he can't give birth himself, there's no other choice. And I think no father should be forced to watch his child getting aborted.
Just my strange ideas...

 

[NY Hoya]

Originally posted by Hitro
There's one problem with it though (in my opinion). How about the father? I don't think that it should be the mother's choice alone. In fact the father should have the right to "force" his child's mother to give birth to it. That would then have to result in the father having to take responsiblity for it ALONE. But as he can't give birth himself, there's no other choice. And I think no father should be forced to watch his child getting aborted.
Just my strange ideas...

There is one problem I see with your argument. The moment you allow someone other than the potential mother to take part in the choice, isn't it admitting that we aren't only discussing something (the fetus) that is simply a part of the mother's body, but something more than that? (an individual life) I can only accept abortion if the woman really thinks that it isn't a life she is getting rid of, but something less than that.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by NY Hoya
There is one problem I see with your argument. The moment you allow someone other than the potential mother to take part in the choice, isn't it admitting that we aren't only discussing something (the fetus) that is simply a part of the mother's body, but something more than that? (an individual life) I can only accept abortion if the woman really thinks that it isn't a life she is getting rid of, but something less than that.

Well that's basically the problem I mean. There are obviously very different views on that, this thread shows it only once more. So it may well be that the mother sees it exactly as you describe while the (then potential) father has the opposite view. And don't tell me that is impossible, if the mother want's to abort it's not a wanted child (or an "accident") and that can also happen to people with an anti-abortion attitude. Not everyone is abstinent.
So what to do in that case? I simply think it would be unbearable for the father to see what is life (even his own child) in his opinion dying. So he should have kind of a "veto" against her decision which would of course give him full (including financial) responsibility for the child. That's because on the other hand you shouldn't force someone who think's it's just a part of her body to take responsibility of the child. So it would be a compromise if they can't agree.

 

[Fez_Monk]

Originally posted by NY Hoya
monk, I posted a gun control thread...

I see that now. I would have posted one, but forsome reason I couldn't make a new thread. Sorry about my rantings. I'll take them to your thread.

 

[VoodooAce]

First off, I'd like to join the chorus agreeing with Phillippe on the first page of this thread.

Perhaps?

Also, this is very similar to the way Fox would manage a poll. Just completely leave an entire option (and the one 2 out of 3 Americans would choose) out of the poll.

What about pro-choice? Not that this is the option I would choose, but that fact isn't reason enough to exclude it from the poll.

Anyway, I chose the second option. Cases of rape, etc....

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Here in America, I've got a better chance of buying SCUD missiles than I would a hand pistol.

What? What are you talking about?

Guns are a dime a freakin' dozen, here.

This is America, after all. All you need to do is look.

Obviously you were being a little sarcastic, but you're trying to give the impression that getting a gun is hard. Its not.

There are tons and tons of guns out there. 90% of them were originally bought legally.

Most guns used in the US in the commission of a crime are stolen from the original and legal purchaser.

Sheesh, if you can't find a gun HERE then....then I question your gun finding ability. No gun finder, you. Ha! I mock your ability to find a gun.

BTW, what is the NRA's stance on scud missilies? Probably that you should be able to buy them at gun shows with no backround check. And that we'd all be safer if we knew the guy next to us just may have a scud missile tucked away.

 

[Grisu]

Originally posted by VoodooAce

Also, this is very similar to the way Fox would manage a poll. Just completely leave an entire option (and the one 2 out of 3 Americans would choose) out of the poll.

What about pro-choice? Not that this is the option I would choose, but that fact isn't reason enough to exclude it from the poll.

As I said earlier, I left the pro-choice-option out only because it is not an option in the upcoming voting. furthermore i didn't realize it was different from the third option. Perhaps it would help me if someone could tell me what excactly pro-choice means.

I guess next time i post a poll, i'll first start a thread asking what options to give

and forcing an abortion on the mother is absolutely out of the question to me, it really should be her own decision. sadly forced abortion was widely practices up to the 70s in many countries (on allegedly "mentally ill people so the can't spread their genes"

 

[VoodooAce]

Pro Choice.....in America, anyway.....means that a pregnant woman has the choice that you pretty much spelled out in the third option, but without the distress part.

Meaning she just has the choice, up until a certain point....12 or 16 weeks or something. No need to explain, no questions.

 

[ainwood]

How to suggest this would work when the woman categorically doesn't want the child and the man does. Are you suggesting that these people go to court to to allow the judge to deciede what happens to the fetus? And if say a judge rulled in the mans favour are you seriously going to make this woman carry the child for the whole 9 months only to give birth and give this child away. Then when the child is older he might ask about his/her birth mother, is this woman then to suppost to pretend to be happy about seeing a child she never wanted. In any eventuallity by the time the couple went to court it would be too late for a 1st trimester termination and she would have to have a more risky 2nd trimester termination.

Abortion is a womans decision what a man wants is irrelevant!

 

[andyo]

i go back and forth on the issue - i think both sides have valid arguments, and i guess i tend to side with the right to lifers on a more theoretical level, and the right to chose group on a more practical level - but because I'm not really all that sure how i feel about it, i definately don't feel strongly enough about it to tell someone else what to do, so i voted other0

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by andyo
i go back and forth on the issue - i think both sides have valid arguments, and i guess i tend to side with the right to lifers on a more theoretical level, and the right to chose group on a more practical level - but because I'm not really all that sure how i feel about it, i definately don't feel strongly enough about it to tell someone else what to do, so i voted other0

I tend to waffle on the issue, myself.

I've just come to believe more and more that a fetus becomes a life fairly early on.

Both sides have good arguments for and against this....too good, at that.

When you are cursed with the ability to see both sides of an argument as I am issues like this become issues that I have a hard time figuring out where I stand.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by ainwood
How to suggest this would work when the woman categorically doesn't want the child and the man does. Are you suggesting that these people go to court to to allow the judge to deciede what happens to the fetus?

No. For example here in Germany a woman has to get counsel before she's allowed to abort. In that process there could be room for the man's veto without delaying it long. Of course this is a theoretical thing, but the current system is already a big mess, so why not messing it up a little more?

Then when the child is older he might ask about his/her birth mother, is this woman then to suppost to pretend to be happy about seeing a child she never wanted.

That's the same with every father who leaves his suddenly pregnant girlfriend. Not to speak about adoption. Sad but already reality!

Abortion is a womans decision what a man wants is irrelevant!

I think it should be the couples decision, and there should be no abortion if that decision is not unanimous.

Besides that I think that abortion shouldn't be misused as a matter of birth control. Everybody should be smart enough for the pill or condoms. If that fails, okay, but people who simply don't care are irresponsible.

 

[Akka]

Abortion is a serious subject that SHOULD be discussed between the man and the woman. Though, the last word is to be given to the woman, as she's the one that would have to stay pregnant. It's her body, it's her final call.
Besides, if one of the parent want to enforce the birth against the will of the other, what it will happen is that this one will force a baby to come that will not have been desired. I would not want to be this child.