Why would anyone support the practice of abortion?

[Little Raven]

"Maximum level of freedom possible" sounds awfully slippery.

Not quite as slippery as it sounds. As I said, I'm quite willing to limit individual freedom if it can be demonstrated to serve a social good. For instance, restraining people from killing each other is demonstrably good for society. So even though a law saying that I will be punished if I kill betazed limits my freedom as an individual, I'm willing to live with it for the good of society.

But I don't think the same can be said for abortion. (or, at least, I haven't seen a compelling social case for outlawing abortion) In fact, I think our brief experience with outlawing abortion made it quite clear that banning abortion was bad for society. Since I can find no social justification for banning abortion, I return to my default position: leave it up to the individual involved.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Not quite as slippery as it sounds. As I said, I'm quite willing to limit individual freedom if it can be demonstrated to serve a social good. For instance, restraining people from killing each other is demonstrably good for society. So even though a law saying that I will be punished if I kill betazed limits my freedom as an individual, I'm willing to live with it for the good of society.

That's another kettle of fish; it's certainly possible to allow people freedoms that are hurtful to society as a whole.

Anyway, this is a threadjack; I shouldn't've started up.

 

[Benderino]

So it is a whole species in its own?

No. Not at all.

 

[Ian Beale]

That's fine, but what give you the right to speak for those that disagree with you. Abortions may not be a good thing, and you may choose to never have one, but why deny it from those who would seriouly benefit from one?

I think you misinterpreted what i had typed! I am saying that i have my view and cannot force others to do what i believe to be right, instead i can only to what i believe is right in MY life. (it was late when i typed the original post!!)

 

[Stuck_as_a_Mac]

I'm just jumping into this, but I would just like to make a quick statement. I'm kinda stealing this from Ron Reagan, but here it goes anyway.
I respect those whose belief it is that Abortion is wrong. They are doing what they believe to be best as we are doing what we believe to be best. Those who use these issues as a political ax are using it for the wrong reason. If it is your belief that it is wrong, I respect that. But if you are doing it to bug other people and impose on their rights, it is not your place to be in.

 

[Little Raven]

Egads. I missed shadowdude's post. Sorry about that, man.

Ohhhh...ok, I'll die of dehydration and hunger then.

You might, if you can't procure food and water for yourself. Such is the way of things. For what it's worth, I hope you don't die. But if you can't feed yourself, it's not the responsibility of anyone else to feed you. Especially if it requires sacrificing their body to do so.

Thats a topic for another thread, another time.

No, not really. You're saying that it's wrong to kill fetuses because they are human and therefore have a 'right to life.' Ok, fine. The people of Darfur are also human. Don't they have a 'right to life?' And if they do, aren't we violating that right by failing to make sure they have everything they need in order to live?

WWJD

Help me out here. Are you suggesting that we change the law to force people to pay for the medical care of others because 'its what Jesus would do?' You may be perfectly happy giving to charity and be a better person because of it, but do you want to make that giving compulsory?

 

[ainwood]

FL2 isn't saying that he advocates those penalties...

Well, I'd like him to confirm that.

 

[Vietcong]

Calling something murder is not the same thing as it being murder. Second what right do you have to tell a women what she can and can't do with her own body? You have none!

u fool
the babie in her is not her own, its her/his self. its a living thing seapreat from the mother, but only temprealy with in her. it is mudered, its a genocied and any one who says other wise is a nazi
Moderator Action: Flaming - warned.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Vietcong]

What if the woman will die giving birth, or has a high chance of dying giving birth? Or she was raped and concieved the rapist's child?

regardless of that, its a liveing thing and she is as muchs of a facist pig as the rapeist for killing the unborn chiled.
if a chiled will kill the mouther during birht, o well. she has no right to take its life.

 

[Vietcong]

When does the 'blob' come alive? at birth? What about premature birth? Who can say 'Here life begins?'

its alive from the second the sperm joins the eeg.
to kill a human is mudered, no mater how u put it.. its just like nazies, thay kill jews and others cus thay bealve ther not human, u kill a fetus cus its not human or not live, to saport that is to saport the killing if millions.

 

[Little Raven]

to kill a human is mudered, no mater how u put it..

Interesting. I would think that virtually every military in the world would disagree with that. I mean, killing people is their job. Is every policeman who kills a criminal a murderer? Every soldier who shoots an enemy? Every doctor who inserts a needle into the arm of a person on death row?

 

[Vietcong]

Interesting. I would think that virtually every military in the world would disagree with that. I mean, killing people is their job. Is every policeman who kills a criminal a murderer? Every soldier who shoots an enemy? Every doctor who inserts a needle into the arm of a person on death row?

im not a conservataive to let u ppl know
a millitray man gose to war for resion, a police oficer kills some one in denfes, or to brign aobut justice, exacutions allso dispince justice, if some one kills some one with our a proper reions such as self defens or for socity, but for ur own good for for the greed of another, thne u ur self shold die.
if a man kills a woman with a unborn chiled, y dose he get extra time in jail??
if that woman kill her own chiled her self, y dose nothing happen?
all murdered shld be bunihsed harshly, i dont mean jail or a painles exacution

i mean eather forced slave labor, or a painfull death such as being qurted in public, while ppl are Forced to watch to show them that rebletion asgisnt the law of the supream state will not be tolerated at all.

 

[zjl56]

No because most of the people that are killed in the military were threats to the people who killed them. Most fetuss' are no where near a threat to anyone. I see that abortion an act of violence and people are just trying to cover it up. This practice is a crime against humanity.

 

[zjl56]

im not a conservataive to let u ppl know
a millitray man gose to war for resion, a police oficer kills some one in denfes, or to brign aobut justice, exacutions allso dispince justice, if some one kills some one with our a proper reions such as self defens or for socity, but for ur own good for for the greed of another, thne u ur self shold die.
if a man kills a woman with a unborn chiled, y dose he get extra time in jail??
if that woman kill her own chiled her self, y dose nothing happen?
all murdered shld be bunihsed harshly, i dont mean jail or a painles exacution

i mean eather forced slave labor, or a painfull death such as being qurted in public, while ppl are Forced to watch to show them that rebletion asgisnt the law of the supream state will not be tolerated at all.

Surprising of you to say this. You in your signnature say that you want Bush out of office. Bush is the one trying to outlaw abortion. So why do you want Bush out and Kerry in?

 

[Little Raven]

if a man kills a woman with a unborn chiled, y dose he get extra time in jail??
if that woman kill her own chiled her self, y dose nothing happen?
all murdered shld be bunihsed harshly, i dont mean jail or a painles exacution

I just want to establish that the 'right to life' is not universal. You and zjl both seem to agree that it is not: that humans can be killed under certain circumstances. (though presumably neither of you agree that most abortions falls into that category)

That said, I'm curious: If you believe that it is ok to kill a person who is threatening you, is it ok for a mother to abort a child when bearing the child would represent a considerable threat to her health? I'm not claiming that this is the case in most abortions, but it certainly is the case in some of them. In those cases where the mother will be threatened by carrying the child, is she within her rights to abort it?

 

[Vietcong]

Surprising of you to say this. You in your signnature say that you want Bush out of office. Bush is the one trying to outlaw abortion. So why do you want Bush out and Kerry in?

bush is a bad presadent, and i much rather have one that will reverse his taxs and bills back to the way good ol clinton had them then g w bush. he is doing to lil to fix the econamy and our deficat.*sepllign*

hmmm, since i think more on it, certant conditions may be ok.. but Under no way is Partial berth abotion ok

 

[Little Raven]

hmmm, since i think more on it, certant conditions may be ok.. but Under no way is Partial berth abotion ok

I suggest you think a bit more about it. Here's something to think about.

About 5000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus each year in the U.S. This is not usually discovered until late in the second trimester. Some cases are not severe. After birth, shunts can be installed to relieve the excess fluid on the newborn's brain. A pre-natal method of removing the excess fluid is being experimentally evaluated. However, some cases are much more serious. "It is not unusual for the fetal head to be as large as 50 centimeters (nearly 20 inches) in diameter and may contain...close to two gallons of cerebrospinal fluid." In comparison, the average adult skull is about 7 to 8 inches in diameter. A fetus with severe hydrocephalus is alive, but as a newborn cannot live for long; it cannot achieve consciousness. The physician may elect to perform a D&X by draining off the fluid from the brain area, collapsing the fetal skull and withdrawing the dead fetus. Or, he might elect to perform a type of caesarian section. The former kills a fetus before birth; the latter allows the newborn to die after birth, on its own.

Conditions like hydrocephalus are virtually the only reason any surgeon will ever consider a PBA. In cases like this, where the death of the child is certain, why expose the mother to the additional risk of giving birth to a child with a head diameter of 50 centimeters in diameter?!? Who are you helping by doing that?

 

[zjl56]

To answer your question everyone has a right to life but they do not have the right to do it purposely. Criminals are threatening people at their own will and killed that is their fault. If a fetus is threatening is causeing health problems the baby should not just be killed since it has done nothing wrong. The baby did not choose to hurt the mother.

 

[betazed]

If your smart, you don't worry about paying me a dime,

I gave it a lot of thought last night trying to mull everything I said and everything your said. I came to this conclusion finally, which I can use about the analogy that you used above.

If I decline the promise I made, I will be smart but not honorable.

I guess that is what was bothering me all this time. I think I finally agree that a woman is within her legal (and only legal, as opposed to moral) rights to abort. But I personally find that very dishonorable and a huge shirk of responsibility (when the original act of sex was done in consent).

Huh. Must have missed that one.

I see you have found it.

Water's getting a little deep, here, my friend.

Yes, it is deep. In fact I think it is deep enough to hold both our pov and still be consistent.

 

[Little Raven]

I gave it a lot of thought last night trying to mull everything I said and everything your said. I came to this conclusion finally, which I can use about the analogy that you used above.

If I decline the promise I made, I will be smart but not honorable.

I guess that is what was bothering me all this time. I think I finally agree that a woman is within her legal (and only legal, as opposed to moral) rights to abort. But I personally find that very dishonorable and a huge shirk of responsibility (when the original act of sex was done in consent).

Exactly. The woman must have the legal right to abort, because the implications otherwise simply cannot be tolerated. But that doesn't make the abortion any more palatable, or free the woman from her moral obligations. I must retain the right to refuse TLC the use of my machine, or the concept of property rights flies out the window. But personally, I could never forgive anyone who let TLC die because they didn't want to share their machine.

It's the difference between being a bastard, and being a criminal.