Do You Think It's Alright To Have An Abortion If Your Child Is Diagnosed Ill In Utero

[Seil]

The question I want to ask that I couldn't really fit into the title box was "Do you think it's okay to have an abortion if your child is dignosed with an incurable condition while in utero?"

With medical technology, we can discover prblems with a new born before they're born, but I want to ask about down syndrome specifically. It's a disorder characterized by the presence of an extra twenty-first chromosome. There's a list of complications involved with down syndrome, like increased risk for heart disease, eye problems and epilepsy.

Some people have their own opinions on abortion of a child with the disorder. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGIuCmhh5Bw)
While those with down syndrome speak out. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIcbFrt4F_c)
Some parents actually choose to have babies with disorders. (http://www.biopsychiatry.com/misc/genetic-defects.html)

A study of 78 parents of Down's syndrome children shows that, while most were in favour of abortion for a handicapped fetus, they were divided equally on whether euthanasia (no distinction made between active and passive euthanasia) was an acceptable practice. Only a third considered an average Down's syndrome child could be a suitable candidate for euthanasia. While parents argued that the degree of handicap of the child was the crucial factor in making this decision, in fact the social class of the parents themselves was the only variable which was statistically significantly related to their opinions. Differences arose from the parents' lack of agreement on what constituted a sufficiently severe handicap.

KIE: A 1981 study of parents of Down's syndrome children in South Wales surveyed parents' attitudes toward abortion and euthanasia for severe congenital handicaps. Of the 78 parents responding, 60 approved of abortion for a handicapped fetus. They were equally divided on whether euthanasia, active or passive, was acceptable but only a third approved of euthanasia for the average Down's syndrome infant. Although parents considered the degree of handicap the crucial factor in their decisions, researchers found social class to be the only statistically significant variable.


A deaf couple hopes to have a deaf child. (http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=1516)
A deaf man speaks out against handicapped abortion. (http://open.salon.com/blog/diotima/2009/06/03/eugenasia_on_abortion_and_disability)

Not many people look at medical technology going both ways. Yes we've discovered a way to diagnose illness before the child is born, but we've also taken strides to help the disabled:

Things like cochlear implants are available. (HTzTt1VnHRM)
A cochlear implant is major surjery, though. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwvlBDZkVJI) It's not as easy as sign language. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYeqPSdtNFU)

What's your opinion on abortion if the child is kown to have a condition or disorder tat's "incuable?"

[The Sevenshot Kid]

I'll say the same thing about abortion that I always say. What a woman chooses to do with her own body is none of our concern and we should take measures to protect a woman's rights. Personally, I don't think that getting an abortion because a child has an illness is a good decision but I'm not a woman and I wouldn't have to deal with the problems that come with raising a sick child.

[Premmy]

It depends, and there's a lot to say concerning Ableism

Sighted:"Oh it must be soooo terrible being you, I couldnt LIVE if I was blind"
Blind Guy: "I'm going to start kicking your ass now, tell me what it looks like"

If I learned that the child would have a condition that would cause it to suffer for two weeks, get worse, then die? Yes I'd probably abort it. If I found out my child would be born with a mental or physical disability? probably not.

[Amake]

Am I going to tell someone to keep or not keep their baby? Probably not.

Would I keep a such disabled baby myself? Well right now I can't think of any reason not to that isn't selfish or fascist. But who knows what you might think when it's happening to you? I might pussy out. I really don't want to have to make that choice. But then, why not leave it to the kid when he or she is old enough?

[Insert horrible old Viking saying about leaving prisoners alive since it can be remedied later]

[Kim]

Depends on whether or not the person having the child wants an abortion. If it's a matter of deciding whether or not you want one, I think it would largely depend on your ability to raise a child with that condition.

[Aldurin]

Unless the child will be in constant physical pain (and mental pain resulting from it), there will be a medical way around it that does not involve killing babies.

[tacticslion]

It depends, and there's a lot to say concerning Ableism

Sighted:"Oh it must be soooo terrible being you, I couldnt LIVE if I was blind"
Blind Guy: "I'm going to start kicking your ass now, tell me what it looks like"

If I learned that the child would have a condition that would cause it to suffer for two weeks, get worse, then die? Yes I'd probably abort it. If I found out my child would be born with a mental or physical disability? probably not.

Both my wife and I find the idea of abortion reprehensible in general. Killing a living person usually for the sake of personal convenience: this is what most abortions are. I understand those who say, "I've the best interests of the child in mind" - you really want to help. Even so, who's to say that child would agree? Autistic children, those with Downs, they can live long, healthy lives, even do great and interesting things. Destitute families who "couldn't afford" their children have resulted incredible, world-changing people throughout history. "Incurable", "inevitable" death isn't always - my mother survived a cancer that was "unsurvivable". It's not easy, and I don't wish make light of people's decisions, but ultimately, when abortion is decided (one way or the other) a person is deciding to take someone else's life into their own hands without that other persons' opinion or consent. Would I like to go through life without feet? No. But I'd surly rather have my feet amputated and continue to live than die just so I could keep my two walking thingies. Similarly, sight, hearing, even taste: these are things I wouldn't want to give up, but I'd rather live, just because there might be something, somewhere out there that I find that makes my life worth living for.

This is why "incurable" diseases aren't something that sways me. I know I don't want to live life 'disabled', but I'd much rather live disabled than die. Life sucking right now? Well, I'm not going to kill myself because of it. I'm also not going to kill someone else because of it.

For me, one personal example, is that my twelve year old niece. She was "supposed" to die anyway shortly after being born: four months premature, infected with disease, her twin brother also dying, and my sister likely to die during the delivery. My sister refused an entire medical staff when they indicated that abortion was the only way to save her life. My sister is fully recovered (and went on to have a second set of beautiful, healthy twins), and now, my niece is healthy, having survived her "certain death" disease, has grown out of her "life-long" asthma, and is a math and music prodigy.

To clarify, while I know that this isn't a board for deep religious debates, I have to explain that much of both my wife's and my own opinions come from our deep faith in the Lord. We're Christians, very committed, and we believe strongly in principle of the sanctity of human life. Further, we have friends - people who are in our lives - who have had abortions. Christian or not, universally, with no preaching or prompting on either of our parts (we aren't into the whole "guilt you" thing with our friends), there is a very long-lasting regret.

One other thing about the tests: they aren't always right. My god-daughter was "known" - mind you the doctors claimed certainty - to have downs. She did not, and shows absolutely zero signs of the disease. She is, in fact, above average in every category at her school.

And, to dispel any question, all these doctors I've mentioned were from across the east coast of the USA. North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, the Bahamas, and several in California and (if I recall correctly) New York and Illinois - people from across our fair country performing tests and making claims of certainty. These tests have been done across the course of two decades, the most recent three years ago. Medical science, though very advanced, and something I am personally very thankful for, isn't perfect, and can be wrong. My life and family have proven that over and over again.

Oh, and I had no discernible heart beat for quite some time while I was in the womb. My mother was told I was probably dead and would likely need to be aborted. *checking my pulse* I seem to be doing okay.

What my wife and I have decided is to take whatever comes, and love that person, doing the best of our ability to create a good life for as long as they (or we) have it. It might not be easy, but "easy" rarely comes packaged with "life".

EDIT:
Depends on whether or not the person having the child wants an abortion. If it's a matter of deciding whether or not you want one, I think it would largely depend on your ability to raise a child with that condition.

That brings up another reason often given for abortions - the inability to raise the child. Adoption agencies do exist. While adoption isn't easy, infants are often adopted rapidly. And simply not wanting to give up your child to someone else is pure selfishness. On a final note, "inability" normally is little more than "unwillingness". We're spoiled here in the States. If we can't give clean running water, three squares, and a warm bed, we presume that we have nothing. Try telling that to those who lived in abject poverty in Lithuania. I lived there for several years after the Soviet Union fell. When we first arrived, people were thrilled when they had "meat" (a piece roughly equivalent to the length of a cut nail, and half as wide) in the entire pot of "chicken noodle soup". In restaurants too. Usually a single-family apartment had three or four living in it. The water had to be boiled in five iterations to separate out the junk that was in it (pouring off the top each time), and hot water was only turned on when the Pope was in town or when it had been below -5 degrees for five days in a row (specifically, this was so the pipes didn't burst). I learned really quickly that life did not revolve around what we normally consider 'necessities' here in the States. This is not easy living. And this was some far sight better than tribal villages I've visited in the Philippines who live without medical assistance or electricity or running water at all, yet somehow still manage to have babies who grow up to have fulfilling lives. Again, I'm not making light of how difficult such a life is. It's hard. I know this. But there are many options here in the States to help with that. There are people who are willing to raise children with disabilities. I know a couple in North Carolina who sought out a retarded child because she was retarded, and raised her, so that she'd have someone to take care of her.

[Premmy]

That's a very interesting post that has very little to do with mine that you chose to quote.
My post said:
Baby-twenty-four hour head-explodey disease? abort
Anything else?keep
edit: actualy I guess it does kinda have something to do with my post, it's just lost in all the other stuff. Carry on.

[Odjn]

Would I keep a such disabled baby myself? Well right now I can't think of any reason not to that isn't selfish or fascist.

Fascism only applies to nations and has nothing to do to with abortion.

Personally, if my S.O. had asked me for my input, I would say abort it if it's something that's going to be more than something moderate.

[Kim]

Killing a living person usually for the sake of personal convenience: this is what most abortions are.

On a final note, "inability" normally is little more than "unwillingness".

http://i29.tinypic.com/jrwqr6.png

[krogothwolf]

I'd have to say, as with any abortion. It's up to the person who's carrying the baby.

If the person feels they can handle taking care of said baby, they should go along with it, if they can't, they should abort if that's what they feel like doing. They could always surrender the baby but that would probably be like screwing the baby over so it might not be the greatest idea ever.

[tacticslion]

edit: actualy I guess it does kinda have something to do with my post, it's just lost in all the other stuff. Carry on.

Yeah, I ramble. Sorry.

http://i29.tinypic.com/jrwqr6.png

Hey, I never claimed not to be an arrogant, self-righteous, upstart religious hypocrite who hates all who disagrees with me, rawr!

In truth, this is what my experience has been, and who I've talked to through most of my life. What I've got is my own experience to give examples. Most of the time when people say "I can't" to anything, what they are saying is "I don't see the way in which I can, because I have all these other things that seem important to me which get in the way". In other words, we (and I include myself in this) let our desires get in the way of what we really can do, but don't feel like putting the effort.

For whatever reason, a parent decides it's not worth it to give this new person a life if the parent can't provide (of their own ability, i.e. without going to others for help) access to clean water, plenty of food, and new clothes. Never mind the fact that the new parent(s) decided to pleasure themselves with the very real likelihood of pregnancy (and a new life) coming along with it.

The majority of abortions don't go, "oh, well my baby may have downs/MS/autism/deafness/blindness/club foot, they'd be better off dead" (itself a fallacy). Just because of our own thoughtlessness, we compound that with, "Whelp, I can't provide the life to which I'm accustomed with a baby, so the best bet is to kill them." This is wrong. Adoption, help clinics, all sorts of agencies to give alternatives to abortion. It's a materialistic mindset that we can all easily fall into applied to a very real aspect of determining whether or not someone else lives or dies. Its the inability to see past ourselves that often leads us to incorrect decisions - abortion (in my mind) being one of them.

With that, I should really probably pull out of the discussion. I've given my opinion, which is all Seil asked for. I recognize I'm not the majority in this forum, and can't debate someone into accepting my view. But I hope at least it makes what I said a bit clearer.

[Kim]

Your posts ignore so many things and fail to grasp very simple concepts. "People get abortions because they're lazy/selfish/etc." Rapes, risk to the mother, parents who have neither the financial means nor parental skills necessary to support said child. Your posts accuse others of being selfish but fail to look outside your own selfish world view.

Never mind the fact that the new parent(s) decided to pleasure themselves with the very real likelihood of pregnancy (and a new life) coming along with it.

http://i31.tinypic.com/2z5t0l3.jpg

[Odjn]

http://i31.tinypic.com/2z5t0l3.jpg

Nonsy stop flooding the thread with pictures of yourself! It's a classy thread, after all.

[Yumil]

Your posts ignore so many things and fail to grasp very simple concepts. "People get abortions because they're lazy/selfish/etc." Rapes, risk to the mother, parents who have neither the financial means nor parental skills necessary to support said child. Your posts accuse others of being selfish but fail to look outside your own selfish world view.

He's talking about a majority of abortions, which I think I can safely say don't include Rape or danger to mother and child. Your quote isn't a direct quote, so it's not helping you dismiss his argument. He seems to have a differing opinion on financial means, so I wont argue that.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

As for the "just give it up to adoption agency things"for fiances it's not so easy. Not everyone can afford to take the time off work, can afford to wreck their health, can afford the new clothes, the extra food, the hospital bills. And then the hassle of arranging adoptions and things.

Just wanted to say the finances are not so easy as is being made out. My opinion is that people shouldn't be allowed to have children pretty much at all so I probably don't have much to add on this issue.

[Lithp]

Children are not adopted rapidly. I'm not sure where you heard that, but putting a child up for adoption isn't exactly selfless & noble either. You're not making sure that child gets a good home, you send the "your parents didn't want you" message, & honestly, putting the baby up for adoption because one feels it's somehow "wrong" to abort just comes across as satisfying one's own ego.

Also, I think that people should be responsible during sex, but I don't like the "deal with the consequences" mentality that goes with pregnancy. Birth control is not 100% effective. Why should we penalize the woman if it fails? Two words: Vaginal. Tearing. I don't know about you, but the possibility that my genitals would rip ALONE would be enough to make me not want to carry a fetus to term, if I was a woman.

So, getting to the point, I would say that the reason a woman gets an abortion is entirely irrelevant. Is it really "selfish" to want to have control of your own body? As for wanting to do what's best for the child, there's the old saying, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." It's really a personal judgment call. You can say that the child could live a perfectly fulfilling life, but they could also...not. There's no way to know, you're just making a prediction based on the little information that you have.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

How would society maintain its rich white guy dominance if we let women control their own bodies! Such a situation would lead to skipping on the streets, singing about bluebirds and frilly dresses before leading to total societal collapse. Unthinkable!

[BitVyper]

Killing a living person usually for the sake of personal convenience: this is what most abortions are.

Really? I thought most abortions happened before there was anything with even a vague human form or singular identity involved.

[The Wandering God]

I wish I had been aborted. I'll spare the details as to why I feel this way, but my parents never should have had me.

What? Someone has to feel this way.

[Kim]

Children are expensive. Not only do they detract from the money the parents already have, but in many situations they can make it harder for the parents to get into better financial situations where they would be able to support a child.

Not every parent is able to raise a child. It's not just "unwillingness". Teen parents, single mothers, or people who are just plain not equipped to handle the responsibility of another life are just a few examples. Say it's their responsibility/fault all you want, but in the end you're arguing that a child should have a hard life because of their parent's mistakes, and that the parent's life should be harder because they made one mistake. Taking care of a handicapped child is even more of a burden, both psychologically and financially.

You accuse people who have abortions of being selfish, but have you ever thought about how ridiculously selfish it is to have a child in the first place, especially if you aren't equipped to be a good guardian? People who choose to become parents do so because they want to be. There really is no other reason. In what way is bringing another life into the world simply because you want it not selfish? Most parents underestimate the responsibility required, or, in far too many cases, are just plain awful parents. Child neglect, child abuse, etc.

Adoption doesn't guarantee the child a good life, and adoption isn't always quick and easy. I don't really need to explain that one.

[Premmy]

I wish I had been aborted. I'll spare the details as to why I feel this way, but my parents never should have had me.

What? Someone has to feel this way.
I personally feel like my parents and their parents(on at least one side, I don't know my father or his family at all) were not fit to raise children, so I kinda see where you're coming from in that regard.

[Fifthfiend]

.
http://i606.photobucket.com/albums/tt148/fifthfiend/emoticons/seil2.png
.

[Nique]

I'm not sure I understand the question exactly - it is immaterial if you start with the premise that abortion is acceptable. If it is an option available at the discretion of the woman or both parents (in itself another debate), I don't see what difference it makes, morally, if the baby would have been healthy or diseased.

As a debate the only direction this thread can really take is 'Pro-abortion rights' V. 'Anti-abortion rights'. I mean, are you going to tell me that you're OK with an early abortion but not ok if the parents find out their baby will have down-syndrome? Or that you fall into the 'pro-life' camp except when a baby might have a deformity or severe health condition? What could possibly be the reasoning behind such a stance?

As far as extreme examples I think that most reasonable people agree that if the baby is pretty certainly doomed (like being born with no brain or heart or some other serious condition) than an abortion is just going to prevent undue suffering.

[tacticslion]

I understand the difficulty with adoption well. I've two sisters. One I've spoken of - she's given birth to two sets of twins, and her only son was still-born.

The other has adopted. Three times. Every single time it was a struggle, a pain, a terribly horribly difficult thing. I know adoption isn't fast and easy. It's still an ongoing struggle sometimes with the government watching them often.

Please don't misunderstand - I'm not advocating that everyone goes and has children. That is selfish and irresponsible. But if someone isn't ready to have a child don't perform actions that lead to childbirth.

If I'm not equipped to handle the expense of buying a new car, I really shouldn't go shopping at all the auto-dealerships. If I'm not ready to handle the responsibility of being in management, I shouldn't be asking my boss for promotions.

However, I grant that sometimes things come that we don't expect. A raffle drawing suddenly wins me a new Porsche - that I can't afford. I'm promoted to a position I can't handle responsibly. I tried protections, because I'm not ready, but am pregnant anyway. Okay, so now what happens? The smart and responsible thing would be to sell the car, step down for the job, place the child up for adoption. The not responsible thing would be to destroy the car, ruin the company, or kill the child. People can handle situations in destructive ways or in constructive ways.

As to children having issues about being adopted? Does that really justify killing them? Sure, TWG, you wish you'd been aborted now, but what about tomorrow? Two years from now? A decade from now? Can you know for sure that you won't change your mind? Should suicide be considered an "acceptable" way to protest your current life? No, it shouldn't. Killing and death should always be the last resort. There are situations in which it has to happen, but those are very, very bad situations.

As far as hard life goes, look at Andrew Carnegie. Poorest of the poor, hard family situation, but ends up one of the wealthiest men in the U.S. Not everyone can do this, but just because someone's life might be difficult, does that justify killing them? There's always the possibility that life could suck. There's also the possibility that suckiness isn't so bad later on. You don't know until you get there.

Not every parent is able to raise a child. It's not just "unwillingness". Teen parents, single mothers, or people who are just plain not equipped to handle the responsibility of another life are just a few examples. Say it's their responsibility/fault all you want, but in the end you're arguing that a child should have a hard life because of their parent's mistakes, and that the parent's life should be harder because they made one mistake. Taking care of a handicapped child is even more of a burden, both psychologically and financially.

Yes, I get this. That's why I say behave responsibly. As far as the difficulty goes, more anecdotes! A good friend of our family, a pastor in the middle east coast had a mentally handicapped boy. Lived his whole life in a wheel chair, and maxed his mental ability out at five years old. The young man died at thirty. NOT. EASY. But love continued and persisted. The pastor was not "ready" in any sense. Being a pastor is a full-time job: you must take care of buildings, take care of grounds, take care of people, and everyone comes to you in a time of crisis. His church (and thus income) was relatively small. He had two other children. Life was hard, but he always told us, no matter how hard things got, it was fulfilling. By choice - he chose to be fulfilled and he was. Would you tell him he should have killed the boy he lived with and loved for thirty years, because he wasn't ready, and it wouldn't have been responsible? Or perhaps my sister should never have adopted her autistic son. Perhaps that beautiful baby boy should have been killed instead of being welcomed into our family. My sister didn't know he was autistic when she adopted him. We've only discovered this over time. Also, they aren't exactly rolling in dough, what with her husband working for the U.S., been forcibly moved twice, and having neither house sold for the price they paid for it. They wouldn't give him up for the world. Neither were prepared in any sense for this. But they've committed to him and will see this through to the end.

Don't tell me that people can't find some other way. I've lived it. A hard life has one thing going for it: it's a life. There is always, always the chance, no matter how small it seems, that it can get better.

One other thing, Nonsy. You've accused me of being selfish - that my world-view is selfish. I gain nothing - nothing - from my position. Tell me, what do I possibly have to gain? Not being aborted? It's a bit late for that. I've already been born. Feelings of superiority? Nah, I know I'm no better than anyone else. At all. I'm not superior to anyone on these forums. Others here are smarter, better educated, and probably even morally superior. I have my moments were I do things I regret - or worse, don't do things I know I should. My world view puts me in the exact same boat with everyone else - not even close to being "better". I don't gain anything. I'm not even wealthy. We've lived the last year off of one teacher's salary - private school, so it doesn't even pay as much as public. Hey, congratulations to us: my wife and I aren't ready to have children yet, financially. But we've decided - she even more vehemently than I - that abortion is not an option.

Me? I love my wife. I chose her, out of all the people I have ever known, to spend my life with. Our potential child, not so much. I can't choose boy or girl, tall or short, blue eyes or brown. I have no choice, no preexisting relationship, and no knowledge with a child that isn't born. Forced to choose between them, I'd prefer the woman I know and love and chose. I get nothing from my stance, and stand to lose who is most important to me.

Look, we aren't going to agree. I get that. You think I'm a self-righteous holier-than-thou cretin who sits behind his computer screen smug and vindictive, thundering out about who's righteous and who's not. I'm not. You don't know me, and don't know who I am. I understand that you can't, as we haven't met, haven't spent real time with one another. You've probably met plenty of people with my position who meet the description I gave above - I know I have. But I don't think I'm better than anyone - in fact, according to my beliefs, I'm a murderous adulterer, because once in my life, I've hated a kid who bullied me, and lusted after a women I'm not married to: yay for my beliefs! In my admittedly short life, I've run into a lot. I've lived in three countries, and spent a good deal of time in more. Many of the situations you've brought up about "people simply can't", I've seen people do, and live with, and live "well" - not wealthy, certainly, and not easily, but live nonetheless, and be completely satisfied with their life. I'm backing out of any further argument here. Nique's right - if it's a given that a mother can kill her child before it's born, than it's a non-issue. This is boiling quickly into a pro-life/abortion debate, and that's really not the point. To answer Seil's question, no I don't, in general. I should have stopped there, and I apologize for going on so long.

EDIT:
Also, Fifth? 'Zat really you?

[Azisien]

Do I think it's alright? I guess so. My thoughts on abortion are kind of like a sliding scale based on the age of the fetus. I'm not an expert on when this or that disease can be reasonably, accurately diagnosed enough to make a decision on the matter.

Humans are pretty overrated too. I say nuke them children, and nuke the majority of the healthy ones too. Actually I'll just join Smarty's bandwagon.

On top of that, I guess in response to "letting the child decide" and all that, I don't really consider the fetus or even the child sentient, aware, or rational enough to really be anything other than the property of the parents in question, until their age reaches at least double digits, and probably a good deal older than that.



This thread question seems similar to one that came up in bioethics years back: People's opinions on using medical technology, assuming it existed/was developed, to outright remove certain diseases from fetuses on a genetic (or early hormonal) level. Some considered this wrong in the hidden premise that all of these conditions are wrong and bad and need to be eradicated so we can all be born more "normal."

[Kim]

Tactics the plural of anecdote is not data, and I don't think your anecdotes really address the issue as well as you seem to think it does.

Also: Don't tell me what I think.

Also also: I called your world view selfish, where I probably meant self-centered. Basically, you don't really look outside your own belief system and personal experiences when looking at this situation, and you personalize the whole thing. Both are not the way to do things.

[tacticslion]

Tactics the plural of anecdote is not data, and I don't think your anecdotes really address the issue as well as you seem to think it does.

Also: Don't tell me what I think.

Also also: I called your world view selfish, where I probably meant self-centered. Basically, you don't really look outside your own belief system and personal experiences when looking at this situation, and you personalize the whole thing. Both are not the way to do things.

I apologize for attempting to tell you what you think. I really, really do. I inferred that from what you said. If I was wrong, I didn't mean to disparage you.

A minor point: anecdotes are personal stories. Without giving away others' personal information, that's as close as I can come.

Again, apologies for anything I've said that seems purely offensive - it's not meant that way.

As far as looking outside of my own belief system, whether I do or not and how I present what I believe is off topic, though I'd love to discuss such things with you in PM, if you like. Please PM me, if you so choose.

[Mesden]

You know tactics, what I desperately dislike about the position of denouncing any form of abortion is that your position is something you're forcing on women and wish to do so despite the possibility of death of the mother, or long-term negative side effects.

I can understand not wanting abortion to happen from a logical, moralist, or religious standpoint, but what I don't get is that by your machinations you will cause women to die against their will, or that you will cause women who are so desperate for an abortion to commit to wholly unsafe procedures to getting rid of the child when the clinic says, "No, that's illegal." Your position does not stop abortion, it at the very most causes unsafe abortion and will inevitably cause forced death of mothers who were forced to have their children by a society who thinks entirely one-dimensionally. The stance is so unambiguously against the safety and freedom of women that the fact it still proliferates sickens me.

I am not a supporter of the act of abortion itself. I think highly of mothers who decide to have their children despite what difficulties they may have -- for entirely personal reasons -- but I do not look down upon, or force my position on those unwilling to do so, as that is unfair and bordering barbaric to those women.

[Kim]

I inferred that from what you said.

Don't do that.

A minor point: anecdotes are personal stories. Without giving away others' personal information, that's as close as I can come.

...

Looks like you missed the point. The point is that a single person's personal experiences and second-hand stories are not representative of situations. "I know a guy who was able to!" says absolutely nothing when it comes down to it. Furthermore, the example you gave doesn't even come close to the sort of thing I was referring to.

As far as looking outside of my own belief system, whether I do or not and how I present what I believe is off topic, though I'd love to discuss such things with you in PM, if you like. Please PM me, if you so choose.

The topic is "Is abortion right in this instance?" I think that you are failing to see outside your own beliefs and are basing all your arguments from that viewpoint is relevant the discussion.

[Nique]

Ok so guys I'm having a pretty difficult time seeing the difference as far as the validity of your arguments.

NonCon: 'Abortion is ok becuase, hey! Having a kid might be difficult (insert anecdotal evidence)'

tactics: 'Abortion is bad becuase, come on, life can only get better from here (insert anecdotal evidence)'

I mean, you two seem to be getting awfully worked up over what is turning out to be not very good arguments.

You know tactics, what I desperately dislike about the position of denouncing any form of abortion is that your position is something you're forcing on women and wish to do so despite the possibility of death of the mother, or long-term negative side effects.


Are you 100% sure this is what he is saying?

[Kim]

Ok so guys I'm having a pretty difficult time seeing the difference as far as the validity of your arguments.

NonCon: 'Abortion is ok becuase, hey! Having a kid might be difficult (insert anecdotal evidence)'

tactics: 'Abortion is bad becuase, come on, life can only get better from here (insert anecdotal evidence)'

I mean, you two seem to be getting awfully worked up over what is turning out to be not very good arguments.

When did I ever offer anecdotal evidence? No. Seriously. Unless the definition of anecdote changed while I was taking a shower, I haven't.

[Nique]

Eh, ok I can edit it to say that 'NonCon is generalizing and tactics is being anecdotal' but I don't see how that's better.

EDIT: I mean, ok here's my issue with your arguments. It's like 'Oh! Look at all these bad things that can happen becuase of having a kid!' Well, ok but that doesn't address the moral issue. Do those difficulties outweigh the value of a life? tactics isn't much better 'Look at these people havin' abortions, not taking responsibility for their actions!' it fails to address why they should have to take responsibility for their action. I'll be honest and say I'm not sure what I'm looking for but it seems like you guys aren't really addressesing the core of your disagreement.

[Kim]

'NonCon is generalizing'

No. I'm not. My posts have been to point out the problems with Tactic's generalizations. He said "Unable is just unwilling" and I tried to explain that that wasn't the case, and explained why. Children are expensive. There are people who wouldn't be able to properly raise a child, especially a handicapped one, and I gave non-specific examples of people who might not be. That is not a generalization. The only time I generalized was when I said most parents underestimated the responsibility involved in raising a child. All said, that statement didn't really matter in the post it was in. My argument did not hinge upon that fact, and were you to argue against that point of mine, although I would disagree with you, pretty much all my other points can stand on their own without it.

In conclusion: Both of you need to stop telling me what I'm saying/thinking because you aren't very good at it.

[tacticslion]

You know tactics, what I desperately dislike about the position of denouncing any form of abortion is that your position is something you're forcing on women and wish to do so despite the possibility of death of the mother, or long-term negative side effects.

I can understand not wanting abortion to happen from a logical, moralist, or religious standpoint, but what I don't get is that by your machinations you will cause women to die against their will, or that you will cause women who are so desperate for an abortion to commit to wholly unsafe procedures to getting rid of the child when the clinic says, "No, that's illegal." Your position does not stop abortion, it at the very most causes unsafe abortion and will inevitably cause forced death of mothers who were forced to have their children by a society who thinks entirely one-dimensionally. The stance is so unambiguously against the safety and freedom of women that the fact it still proliferates sickens me.

I am not a supporter of the act of abortion itself. I think highly of mothers who decide to have their children despite what difficulties they may have -- for entirely personal reasons -- but I do not look down upon, or force my position on those unwilling to do so, as that is unfair and bordering barbaric to those women.

Yay, this is exactly what I didn't say! (non-Edit, Nique's right)
First, let me reiterate: I've got friends who've had an abortion. I don't preach at them about the evils of it. That makes it kind of hard for me to "force" my beliefs on them, since, you know, they're aware of what I feel, if they ask, but I don't approach it if they don't, as it's a sensitive topic.
Second: this thread? Asked what we think. I gave what I thought, but admittedly went too far.
Third: I'd rather my wife live. Seriously, I would. I'd pay virtually any cost. That doesn't mean that it'd be the right decision.
Finally: My view, when upheld, causes a woman to do something unsafe? That... that doesn't even begin to make sense. I cannot force a woman to act in a particular way. She can choose to do so or not, but it's her choice. Based off of your words, because I believe something is wrong, I cause someone to commit an act I don't like dangerously? Does that extend to other elements of life too? Perhaps I don't like people to commit suicide. If someone asks, I'll explain this. That, of course, means that people will have to go and perform it in ways that aren't comfortable now, because it's illegal, and difficult to get people to help them with it. The problem with that statement Mes, is that the woman who desires it is the one who's desperate for it. But also, what about those women (one of which I know) who didn't want a baby, got pregnant anyway, wanted to keep it, but because abortion is legal, the father of the child (from her point of view) "forced" her to get it "taken care of", as he couldn't pay child support. She now regrets that decision horribly. You say that my position (when enforced legally) can be the cause of pain, but so can any position. When it's an option at all bad things can arise that cause people life-time trauma and pain.

You believe I'm against the safety of women? That's what your words indicate - that my stance is "so unambiguously against the safety and freedom of women". Welp. I suppose I should make sure to stick my wife back in her burqua, and make sure I've got a good leather belt in case she doesn't cook me dinner. Also, she'd better squeeze out a few more kids, or else! Oh, and don't let them vote... that'd be bad! Really, is this what you see when I talk?

The freedom of a woman is important, of course it is, but what about the freedom of the child? Yes, I get it, the ideas of the "sliding scale", the "baby isn't sentient yet", etc. The problem comes, again, religiously, and, if I follow this up, will be way off topic, that of the soul. It's a point we can't get into without eventually going off on "you superstitious nuts hate all science!" territory, so really, as indicated before, we're at an impasse.

Also, I know that life doesn't always get better. It's life, it goes up and down, and sometimes it really sucks. My stance, though, is take the time to wait and see and do the best you can. The difference is, I guess, I've got hope that it will and, even if not in this life, the life to come, which I believe in. Because I believe in the afterlife, I have an obligation in this one to a behavior. Goody for me.

Non-edit: if the baby is already dead, it's a non-issue. The baby is dead, you can't kill it again. I understand this and am not endorsing that a dead child be carried to term.

Non-edit two: Nique, again, is right. I'll try and be done and not emotional here. I promise nothing, however! I'm an egotistical jerk at times, and find it hard to let things slide. I'm working on it, I swear!

Non-edit three: Anecdote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdote)! For all our wordy needs!
An anecdote is a short, free-standing[1] tale narrating a curious and biographical incident, often related to a topic. It may be as brief as the setting and provocation of a bon mot. An anecdote is always presented as based on a real incident[2] involving actual persons, whether famous or not, usually in an identifiable place.

[BitVyper]

based on the age of the fetus.

Most abortions (close to 90%) take place before there is a fetus to speak of.

[Kim]

I mean, ok here's my issue with your arguments. It's like 'Oh! Look at all these bad things that can happen becuase of having a kid!' Well, ok but that doesn't address the moral issue.

1. I'm in favor of the right to abortion, but my main point has been to point out problems with Tactic's generalizations. I haven't been arguing why abortion is fine. I've been arguing why Tactic's posts make my head hurt. Kinda why my first post in response to him was just ugh.gif in response to two quotes that were both awful generalizations. I also explained how although he accused people who got abortions of being selfish, people who have children are also selfish, so it's a hypocritical angle to attack from.

2. I can't get into the moral without getting into religion.
2a. I don't want to get into religion.
2b. It's against the rules to get into religion.
2c. Really, really, really don't want to get into religion.

[Nique]

jesus NonCon do you need to be this touchy? I really don't think anyone bought into tactics overly defensive WALL OF TEXT and he already apologized for that.

Also I belive that the antithesis of 'specific' is 'general' so, yeah? Just becuase you aren't saying 'Ugh! No one could raise a handicapped kid! EVAR!' doesn't mean you aren't being at least somewhat vauge.

EDIT: Sorry, got Ninja'd like 3 times.

I'm in favor of the right to abortion, but my main point has been to point out problems with Tactic's generalizations.

I'm not sure this really makes a difference in what you are effectivly doing except that the intent is more nuanced.

2. I can't get into the moral without getting into religion.


It might be worth trying?

[Archbio]

Also I belive that the antithesis of 'specific' is 'general' so, yeah? Just becuase you aren't saying 'Ugh! No one could raise a handicapped kid! EVAR!' doesn't mean you aren't being at least somewhat vauge.

Being vague does not a generalization make.

[Kim]

I'm not sure this really makes a difference in what you are effectivly doing except that the intent is more nuanced.

It does. They're two entirely separate arguments. One is about whether or not abortion is okay. The other is that Tactics generalizations are biased and inaccurate.

It might be worth trying?It isn't. It really, really isn't.

Being vague does not a generalization make. If I was being specific I'd be using anecdotal evidence, wouldn't I? After all, I've just been saying "These are things that happen and affect these things", which is true. If I were more specific it would just be telling an anecdote about Uncle Ben's handicapped puppy.

[Nique]

Being vague does not a generalization make.

Hey! I'm not on trial here. See me up here? On my argument pedestal, insulting everyone else?

It does. They're two entirely separate arguments. One is about whether or not abortion is okay. The other is that Tactics generalizations are biased and inaccurate.

Then your arguments for abortion rights are only incidental? I mean if you aren't invested in the topic itself than to what end are you pointing out flaws in his arguments?

It isn't. It really, really isn't.

Then, again, I don't think you're going to be able to get to the crux of the issue.

[POS Industries]

2. I can't get into the moral without getting into religion.
2a. I don't want to get into religion.
2b. It's against the rules to get into religion.
2c. Really, really, really don't want to get into religion.
First, let me preface by saying I agree with you on the topic at hand. Now let me note that this is a cop out, since valuing human life--which is where the moral quandary lies--is in no way purely within the jurisdiction of religion. No one's brought up making abortions making Baby Jesus cry so far and I'm confident no one will.

So it's totally cool to make a case on the moral argument over, say, which life to value more: the mother or the child? That's really the root of the issue, after all, as both concerns are perfectly valid.

And I have faith in all of you to keep it cool and collected for me, naturally.

[Kim]

Hey! I'm not on trial here. See me up here? On my argument pedestal, insulting everyone else?

Yes. Knock it off.

So it's totally cool to make a case on the moral argument over, say, which life to value more: the mother or the child? That's really the root of the issue, after all, as both concerns are perfectly valid.

The problem is that much of the argument in favor of valuing the child's life as much or more than the mother's is based in religious thinking, so I'm really not sure that I could explain why I disagree without getting a bit into religious debate.

[BitVyper]

So it's totally cool to make a case on the moral argument over, say, which life to value more: the mother or the child? That's really the root of the issue

Depends on if you consider the embryo (occasionally very undeveloped fetus, and like 1 or 2% of the time a more developed fetus) a child or not, which pretty much DOES come down to secular vs non-secular responses. Since the subject of the thread is mainly related to Down Syndrome, which CAN be detected at very early stages of pregnancy, that does come into it.

[Premmy]

My view, when upheld, causes a woman to do something unsafe? That... that doesn't even begin to make sense. I cannot force a woman to act in a particular way.
If you enforce your opinion of "don't do thingx" you're preventing someone from doing it, and thereby, forcing someone to do "not thingx". Pretty simple.

She can choose to do so or not, but it's her choice.
It's her choice as much as it's my choice not to murder a thousand people. Sure, I can always choose to kill anyone, and if I'm determined enough, I'll find a way, but it's illegal and there are quite a few signifigant hurdles to that. Making abortion illegal is exactly like making anything else illegal, it forces the vast majority of people into not getting abortions, or, doing it illegally, and therefore, dangerously.

Based off of your words, because I believe something is wrong, I cause someone to commit an act I don't like dangerously?
You forgot the whole, "enforce" part of it.

Does that extend to other elements of life too? Perhaps I don't like people to commit suicide. If someone asks, I'll explain this. That, of course, means that people will have to go and perform it in ways that aren't comfortable now, because it's illegal, and difficult to get people to help them with it.
Edit: You also know that Suicide is illegal in many places, and Euthanasia as well, right?


I always feel like people who are "against abortion but are also against doing anything about it" need to detail this a whole damn lot before saying anything, first, they need to say it to themselves to get some perspective


I believe, that even though I don't like something, my way of thinking should have no real signifigance to the world in any way whatsoever, because that's just and fair. Any thing I say about it is done purely for the sake of wanting to say it.

Now before continuing, they, the "I'm against this but I don't feel it's right to do anything" person should consider these things:

1: There are people actively preventing others from doing the thing you dislike but don't want to do anything about, who share the first half of your opinions
2: These people have the authority to enforce their opinions.
3:They also have the audience to espouse their opinions and garner support for their actions, which you, presumably are against.
4: If you believe that what you think should not be acted on, the only thing you are doing by saying it is giving support to these people.

Again, free country, say and feel whatever damn thing you want, but think about the context of what you are saying.

The problem with that statement Mes, is that the woman who desires it is the one who's desperate for it.
And if she's desperate and CAN'T? because people who don't want her to can make her NOT ABLE TO? If you're desperate to do something, and you can, easily, safely, and with the proper information concerning how to go about it and the pros and cons of it, you'll make proper decisions.

But also, what about those women (one of which I know) who didn't want a baby, got pregnant anyway, wanted to keep it, but because abortion is legal, the father of the child (from her point of view) "forced" her to get it "taken care of", as he couldn't pay child support
Freedom to do something is nothing at all like Inability to do something. That's pretty much the exact opposite.

We let people own guns. Guns exist to kill. people kill other people with guns.
We let people drive cars, cars aren't made to kill, but do so easily and frequently.

She now regrets that decision horribly. You say that my position (when enforced legally) can be the cause of pain, but so can any position. When it's an option at all bad things can arise that cause people life-time trauma and pain.

When it's not an option it will most assuredly do the same if not worse, as opposed to when it is an OPTION that people can realistically CHOOSE, where the possibility exists, like car accidents.

[POS Industries]

Depends on if you consider the embryo (occasionally very undeveloped fetus, and like 1 or 2% of the time a more developed fetus) a child or not, which pretty much DOES come down to secular vs non-secular responses.
Naw.

Just informed versus ill-informed ones. http://i606.photobucket.com/albums/tt148/fifthfiend/emoticons/smug.gif

[Nique]

Yes. Knock it off.

I'm fairly surprised that I could be bothering you this much but, ok. I'm really not trying to piss you off, your arguments just seemed kinda *off* which I guess we'll just go ahead and attribute to me misreading your intent and call it a night.

[Fifthfiend]

Nobody actually believes that a fetus is a human being and that aborting it is killing because nobody is actually willing to follow through on the necessary consequences of that belief and if they did they'd be obviously monstrous, morally reprehensible human beings, because they'd be advocating for lengthy prison sentences for mothers and the arrest and criminal investigation of mothers who miscarry. Everyone else is just appropriating the rhetoric of murder because it makes them feel better about judging the fuck out of people for things that aren't any of their business and that they don't know a damn thing about.

[Mesden]

Yay, this is exactly what I didn't say! (non-Edit, Nique's right)
First, let me reiterate: I've got friends who've had an abortion. I don't preach at them about the evils of it. That makes it kind of hard for me to "force" my beliefs on them, since, you know, they're aware of what I feel, if they ask, but I don't approach it if they don't, as it's a sensitive topic.
Second: this thread? Asked what we think. I gave what I thought, but admittedly went too far.
Third: I'd rather my wife live. Seriously, I would. I'd pay virtually any cost. That doesn't mean that it'd be the right decision.
Finally: My view, when upheld, causes a woman to do something unsafe? That... that doesn't even begin to make sense. I cannot force a woman to act in a particular way. She can choose to do so or not, but it's her choice. Based off of your words, because I believe something is wrong, I cause someone to commit an act I don't like dangerously? Does that extend to other elements of life too? Perhaps I don't like people to commit suicide. If someone asks, I'll explain this. That, of course, means that people will have to go and perform it in ways that aren't comfortable now, because it's illegal, and difficult to get people to help them with it. The problem with that statement Mes, is that the woman who desires it is the one who's desperate for it. But also, what about those women (one of which I know) who didn't want a baby, got pregnant anyway, wanted to keep it, but because abortion is legal, the father of the child (from her point of view) "forced" her to get it "taken care of", as he couldn't pay child support. She now regrets that decision horribly. You say that my position (when enforced legally) can be the cause of pain, but so can any position. When it's an option at all bad things can arise that cause people life-time trauma and pain.


No, you brought up every pointless soundbite from the anti-abortion argument from the woodwork -- stuff like "Oh but there's adoption!" and backhandedly calling it "Killing a person," -- your every post in this thread has been undermining any position opposite of yours with falsely placed sentimentality. You do nothing to address actual points like this little gem--

You believe I'm against the safety of women? That's what your words indicate - that my stance is "so unambiguously against the safety and freedom of women". Welp. I suppose I should make sure to stick my wife back in her burqua, and make sure I've got a good leather belt in case she doesn't cook me dinner. Also, she'd better squeeze out a few more kids, or else! Oh, and don't let them vote... that'd be bad! Really, is this what you see when I talk?

Look at this ridiculous strawman. You do your absolute best to go on a completely different tangent from what I stated to completely undermine what I said and make yourself come off as an optimistic hero because you have a wife who agrees with you. I don't care about your wife, that means nothing in the context of the discussion and you constantly bringing her up as a talking point is dismissive at best. The thinly-veiled anti-muslin statement was fucking classic, too.

I never said a damn thing about other women's rights issues. My statement was entirely within the context of the abortion argument and you do your damndest to take it as far away from that as possible.


Now that that awful tangent is out of the way, let me address your statement about a father "forcing" a mother to get an abortion -- some people are horrible. Some husbands are horrible. If he truly FORCED her to get an abortion, I doubt the legality of it was anything more than an way to convince her. We cannot stop beings from being horrible sometimes, but that doesn't take away from the terrible harm caused to women by outlawing it. You force many to die through giving birth, or many to harm themselves by doing riskier abortions. It doesn't matter that you disagree with the choice to get an abortion, that's not an issue and never was.

You bring up every anti-abortion argument and anecdote (I like how you said nique was right then used another anecdote) I can possibly wrap my head around to denounce it as something bad, but that's not an issue. I support abortion not because I think the act is a good thing or a good idea, but because it is an option that women should have legally available to them for safety reasons and to avoid the cliche'd "back alley" abortions.

You obviously disagree, because you bring up contrived and rare situations where it's possible that abortion being legal is a bad thing. It's pretty damn easy to extrapolate that you don't want legal abortion for things like this. There is an insidious undertone to your posts that you then say you didn't mean -- then you go on to repeat the exact same thing while pretending to be the saint.

The freedom of a woman is important, of course it is, but what about the freedom of the child? Yes, I get it, the ideas of the "sliding scale", the "baby isn't sentient yet", etc. The problem comes, again, religiously, and, if I follow this up, will be way off topic, that of the soul. It's a point we can't get into without eventually going off on "you superstitious nuts hate all science!" territory, so really, as indicated before, we're at an impasse.

That's not the issue at all. You will not stop abortions. Abortions have been around forever and they will continue to be around until the world goes Orwellian.

You care only for the potential child's position, and I am incredibly sympathetic to that for personal reasons, but I am going to restate that my distaste in the act of abortion itself means nothing. It's trivial to think that my opinion of an act should influence another woman's life either for or against abortion because I am not her.

Also, I know that life doesn't always get better. It's life, it goes up and down, and sometimes it really sucks. My stance, though, is take the time to wait and see and do the best you can. The difference is, I guess, I've got hope that it will and, even if not in this life, the life to come, which I believe in. Because I believe in the afterlife, I have an obligation in this one to a behavior. Goody for me.

Aaah, we get it, you're religious. Stop bringing it up. It doesn't matter in the discussion and the only other purpose is to flaunt that you are.



EDIT -- You know I was just gonna leave this point out of this because I think I've probably been over aggressive with my post already, but I just can't standby and watch something so unwaveringly odd and contradictory be here:

First, let me reiterate: I've got friends who've had an abortion. I don't preach at them about the evils of it. That makes it kind of hard for me to "force" my beliefs on them, since, you know, they're aware of what I feel, if they ask, but I don't approach it if they don't, as it's a sensitive topic.
Both my wife and I find the idea of abortion reprehensible in general. Killing a living person usually for the sake of personal convenience: this is what most abortions are.

You equate abortion with killing. There is no ambiguity in your first post and pretending otherwise will further discredit you. You used "But I have friends who've had abortions!" anecdote the same way racists go "I have friends who are black," -- pretending that being "friends" with someone further credits your position against those people in the first place. You call it killing, yet you are open about having friends, multiple people, who you, by your own damn logic, consider killers. I do not know how you rationalize this, only that it is a completely backwards stance that you preach and live.

Basically I'm just waiting for how you spin "Killing a living person" into "not being murder actually!" because I'm sure it'll be grand.

[Raiden]

Personally, I'm in the camp that I don't like abortion. Of course, by saying I don't like abortion I put it in the same position of "I don't like putting down a dog because it doesn't have a home". I may not like it, but it doesn't make it any less necessary sometimes.

My whole belief just kind of came from a whole young adulthood of being told that if I'm willing to have sex, I damn well better be willing to raise what happens. And a lot of the time, excluding circumstances such as rape, the whole situation could have been avoided simply by not having sex if you weren't ready. But having been in certain situations, I realize that's not always the case. The heat of the moment, etc. I've been guilty of it myself, though I did create a small back-up plan in case the emergency ever came up.

As for this specific situation, I'd honestly leave it up to the mother. It's not an easy choice, and they're going to be handling consequences regardless of the outcome. I know a friend of mine still cries every year on the day the child would have been born and doesn't trust herself at all to be a mother. It's not an easy decision and not one done lightly. So while I personally detest abortion, and in an event that the child had been healthy and little risk to the mother I'd advocate giving birth, in this situation it's not my call to make.

[Funka Genocide]

Its kind of hard to make a concise argument for or against abortion from a purely secular perspective due to the fundamental nature of birth and death and how integral both phenomena are to human life.

The value of one human life vs. another is a matter of perspective inherently. You've got to appropriate a wide-angle view to make any relevant commentary, which leads to a lot of supposition and generalization by necessity.

I tend to see it in purely utilitarian terms and work forward from that. To be precise: the value of a human life is directly proportional to the positive effect that life will have on other lives; which is to say an increase in longevity measured in duration and gross number of humans affected, as well as the general standard of living of those persons.

However this worth is a calculated risk as only future potential is pertinent. A person might have pioneered some new technology which helped to feed billions and elongate their lives, however once that event transpires it becomes less likely that this person will contribute an equivalent action for the duration of their life. In this manner we come to a stark conclusion that most elderly people are worthless.

Or rather, that a human being, no matter how useful to the species, will inevitably approach a certain event horizon after which they will be rendered functionally useless and become more of a detriment to society than an asset.

Which really leads us to the conclusion of sentimentality and a sort of intrinsic worth to any and all human life, which must be true otherwise we'd be living out Blade Runner.

So, in my estimation, the crux of the abortion debate is merit versus intrinsic worth.

Intrinsic worth is hard to pin down logically for me. On the one hand it could merely be an extension of merit based survival, working under the assumption that every human has the potential, however slight, to promulgate and promote the species. In effect, its a philosophy of betting maximum bet on all available lines before pulling the handle on the slot machine.

On the other hand it could be a purely sentimental, abstract construct built on a faulty premise of baseless morality. Which isn't to say that this conclusion would be any less valid, as not all endeavors within human purview are logically mandated, nor do they need to be.

Which really leads us to a matter of consensus, and of course a circular argument.

Shit.

Well anyways, I think that foreknowledge of severe health and mental problems is just another reason to get an abortion, amongst a myriad others. There are a lot of reasons, probably as many reasons as there are abortions. The difference here being that the people concerned might have wanted a child and only decided on abortion once these problems were known. This countermands the general stereotype that its only irresponsible people that get abortions, as in this circumstance they'd, actually, be doing the more responsible thing from a certain perspective.

I think another pertinent question this raises is the motivation of parents to have children. It's a big decision which effects nearly all aspects of both parents lives. The motivation is central to the issue. Are they reproducing for the opportunity to produce a superior person, out of some sense of religious duty, dumb luck? The motivation for pregnancy, if any, really changes the circumstances of the decision to abort in the face of severe birth defects.

However, to answer the question posed by this thread, I think its a valid reason to get an abortion. Personally I don't see the point in bringing a person into the world that is doomed to a practically subhuman existence from square one, not to mention the hardship raising such a person would entail. I suppose it's a very selfish answer. Then again I don't find any real worth in altruism for its own sake, and so there you have it.

[Lithp]

Please don't misunderstand - I'm not advocating that everyone goes and has children. That is selfish and irresponsible. But if someone isn't ready to have a child don't perform actions that lead to childbirth.

The actions that lead to childbirth are the actions that lead to a sexual orgasm. It's easy enough to say, "Don't have a kid," but that's not what they're doing it for. I can't make my sperm come out sterile any more than a woman can prevent her egg cell from fertilizing. In order for this logic to be valid, the point would have to be to have a kid. This is roughly like saying, "Don't want to get into a wreck? Don't perform the actions that lead to it--driving a car." The person is driving the car to get to work, not to have a wreck. Should we throw them in jail if they lose control of the vehicle & hit a tree? And, keep in mind, I'm assuming that the woman wasn't raped.

The not responsible thing would be to destroy the car, ruin the company, or kill the child. People can handle situations in destructive ways or in constructive ways.

Now pass that car through your genitals.

Yeah. Apples & oranges.

As to children having issues about being adopted? Does that really justify killing them?

Hold on here. How is it you can claim that adoption makes it wrong to abort but I can't claim that difficulty in adoption makes it okay? That's a double standard.

Also, a fetus is about as much of a child as a sperm cell is.

As far as hard life goes, look at Andrew Carnegie.

I raise you a Hitler.

You don't know until you get there.

Yes. That's why I'm saying it's a bad argument. The kid could be Andrew Carnegie. He could be Hitler. He could be rich & successful with a great love life, or he could spend years floating in the adoption system, be turned loose with nothing, become depressed, & jump off of a bridge. You can't say it's wrong because of the potential any more than I could say that it's right because of the potential.

Because it's not even about what the fetus may become, it's about what the fetus IS.

I gain nothing - nothing - from my position. Tell me, what do I possibly have to gain?

A feeling of righteousness. You are the one speaking out against infanticide. The one who sees a great injustice. While others are "killing for convenience" & don't even see it, you stand resolute in your conviction. You are proud of that.

Now, that's kind of a dickish thing to say, but would you disagree with it? You HAVE used the phrase that abortions are "killing babies" as well as the phrase that they're "for convenience.

You think I'm a self-righteous holier-than-thou cretin who sits behind his computer screen smug and vindictive, thundering out about who's righteous and who's not.

I know you're talking about Non Con here, but I just want to say that I don't think that, despite what my brashness might suggest. I merely posit that you are, in fact, morally judging women who get abortions, even though you're doing it to an ambiguous group. What you "stand to gain" is the feeling of righteousness. Most people enjoy the feeling of doing good things, do they not?

[Nique]

Nobody actually believes that a fetus is a human being and that aborting it is killing because nobody is actually willing to follow through on the necessary consequences of that belief and if they did they'd be obviously monstrous, morally reprehensible human beings, because they'd be advocating for lengthy prison sentences for mothers and the arrest and criminal investigation of mothers who miscarry. Everyone else is just appropriating the rhetoric of murder because it makes them feel better about judging the fuck out of people for things that aren't any of their business and that they don't know a damn thing about.

Such a hypothetical person would have to believe that any taking of human life was wrong 100% of the time even in self-defense. That, say, involuntary manslaughter would warrant the same punishment as aggravated murder. And they would also fail to understand that aborting a fetus is a completely unique scenario that has no truly proper analogy and needs to be discussed on it's own terms.

I do genuinely believe that abortion is wrong and, yes, means taking of the life of another human being. But I don't blame people for being (what I believe to be) wrong, or confused, about whether or not the fetus they carry is a human life, or whether it is ok to take that life if they believe it is one. It's a complicated issue and although I know I am right, I am not dogmatic about my personal feelings becuase I can understand how someone could reach a different conclusion.

It would be futile and cruel for me to try and treat such a person as a murderer, becuase even if I am right, they clearly had little or no context or reason with which to agree with me. How could I judge them for making the best decision they felt they could?

tl,dr: Yes murder is the wrong analogy for abortion, but your argument suggests that there are no reasonable stances to take if you belive that a fetus is a human life. That is incorrect.

[Lithp]

I know I am right, I am not dogmatic about my personal feelings
They clearly had little or no context or reason with which to agree with me.

I have deduced from these 2 quotes that you clearly live in a separate reality from everyone else.

[Funka Genocide]

Seeing someone as a murderer and merely lacking recourse to your own proposed justice isn't acceptance.

Its the same paradox as espousing one religion while pretending towards accepting other spiritual outlooks. One state emphatically and by definition makes the other state impossible.

Its an obvious and egregious contradiction. You might not head out with a shotgun to wreak street justice on the baby killers, but your personal condemnation is no less real.

Then again I feel most convictions of this sort are feigned, and seldom tested under meaningful circumstances. Talking about it and spewing rhetoric entails very little consequence if people remain civil, its what's beneath the civility that's most important and least encountered however.

[Lithp]

Actually, I disagree with that. Accepting outlooks is as simple as accepting differences in opinion.

Let's say you hated The Dark Knight. I loved The Dark Knight. How is it a contradiction for me to accept that people hate The Dark Knight?

[Premmy]

Nique, let me try to clarify this, tell me if I'm right.

You're categorizing different kinds of murder.
Killa is not the same/as bad as
Killb

So, like, you personally wouldn't condemn the guy who kille in self-defense, or killed via car crash, but you would could condemn the serial killer, and liken people who have abortions as more the former than the latter

[Funka Genocide]

I believe you recently made an allusion to fruit, of varying species.

Whereas liking or disliking an awesome movie like The Dark Knight is a matter of opinion derived from taste, its ultimately trivial. Its that triviality that breeds acceptance. You liking or disliking the caped crusader saving Gotham city from the depredations of his arch nemesis has very little effect on my way of life or worldview. It doesn't call into question my particular view of the creation myth or the tenants of my culture.

In the same manner, the term murderer carries with it an inherent gravity which I'd like to think is obvious and requires no explanation.

What you are looking at is a question of magnitude. Disagreeing about trivial matters cannot be equated to disagreeing about fundamental aspects of our worldview.

Another way to look at it is that I can accept without questioning fundamental aspects of my personality that you like or dislike The Dark Knight. I can assume that your life experiences differed from mine and led to different predilections in fine cinema. I can accept that your outcome is correct for you and my outcome is correct for me without encountering a contradiction.

However, if I've accepted certain principals as integral to my worldview, I can't comfortably question them or knowingly contradict them. In effect, if I say I believe the flying spaghetti monster has touched us all with his noodly appendage, I must designate all opinions contary to this belief as wrong. I cannot, by the very tenants of my espoused worldview, accept another outcome as correct.

Sure, I can smile and nod and be friendly, but I cannot truly accept.

Murder carries the same weight. Calling an act murder is a serious outcome. If I truly believe that abortion is murder, then I see those who practice it as murderers, and I cannot truly reconcile this opinion with acceptance. If I truly believe someone is a murderer, I can't abide that they go unpunished unless I skew the meaning of murder, in which case the sentiment becomes false.

[Nique]

I have deduced from these 2 quotes that you clearly live in a separate reality from everyone else.

Ruuude.

What I mean is that I can separate my sentimental feelings about the issue from my belief. 'What I know/ believe' V. 'how I feel about it'. I'm not going to try and stop someone from having an abortion by guilt tripping them, or protesting at an abortion clinic.

Seeing someone as a murderer and merely lacking recourse to your own proposed justice isn't acceptance.

What is my own proposed justice exactly? Do you really think you know? I'm not irritated exactly, I'm just curious as to exactly what you are gleaning or inferring from my posts becuase it seems different than what I mean.

Its an obvious and egregious contradiction. You might not head out with a shotgun to wreak street justice on the baby killers, but your personal condemnation is no less real.

What? Ok so... I've been convinced beyond a doubt that abortion is, morally, wrong. But how exactly is this irreconcilable with accepting that many people will disagree with me. Or that it would be equally wrong if not worse for me to force others, if I were somehow able to do so, to abide by my morals?

This is the best analogy I can come up with at the moment (i.e. not very good) but let's see where it goes: What if it was proven to me that, say, ants were fully sentient on the same level that humans are, but it would be extremely difficult to show this proof to everyone else - Should I condemn all who step on ants as murderers? What they're doing is wrong yes, and their ignorance doesn't make the act less wrong, but the error is understandable and condemning ant-squashers as serial killers would be as counter productive as it is wrong - I'd just be imposing my will on others regardless of consequences, which is what I'd, ideally, like to see all us big-bad ant-squashers stop doing. Will I take action? Yes. But it will be done carefully, with respect to the worldview of others.

So, like, you personally wouldn't condemn the guy who kille in self-defense, or killed via car crash, but you would could condemn the serial killer, and liken people who have abortions as more the former than the latter

Killing is sometimes necessary or the lesser evil, yes. Don't take that and run with it without some clarification but I mean there it is. Because of that, and the specific issues surrounding abortion, I can understand why our society has begun to accept the practice, and would view the action as wrong but not necessarily the intent behind it.

If I truly believe someone is a murderer, I can't abide that they go unpunished unless I skew the meaning of murder, in which case the sentiment becomes false.

If this wasn't directed at me I apologize, but it seems like it is.

Murder implies intent. So, yeah, all the pro-life groups that say 'Abortion is murder?' It isn't. Whether the fetus is 'alive' or 'alive enough' or not. If a person get's an abortion, they are in general convinced that the fetus 1) isn't alive, or 2) alive enough to matter. To me it is taking a life but I can't call it murder if the person doing it doesn't know or believe that they are taking a life, and I don't feel they are a danger to society. It's not murder.

However, if I've accepted certain principals as integral to my worldview, I can't comfortably question them or knowingly contradict them.

No. But one can entertain an idea and tolerate it's existence - Tolerating the worldview of others and showing those people respect is also an important principal in my own worldview, even if I believe what they are doing is wrong. I mean, I guess this could get into semantics about what it truly means to accept...

Also I wasn't sure where to fit this in but I wanted to say that the issue could be better served by each sides proponents spending less time forcing their viewpoint down everyone's throat and more time looking for methods to eliminate the need for abortions at all. Sex education isn't a bad place to start.

[Bob The Mercenary]

Nobody actually believes that a fetus is a human being and that aborting it is killing because nobody is actually willing to follow through on the necessary consequences of that belief

The thing that always aggravates me is how fuzzy our laws can be when it comes to deaths of the unborn, not so much the morality/legality of abortion itself. Take Scott Peterson for example. He was convicted of the murder of both his wife and unborn child. But then of course you have instances of accidental miscarriages and intentional abortions that are placed into a different class. If we want to "solve the problem", the first step would be to clear up the language of the law.

The second would be to allow abortions. There is an argument out there (I'll be damned if I'll remember where I found it) that complete legalization and a massive increase in sex education spending would slowly widdle away the total number of abortions performed per year. I'll do my best to find the actual science behind that.

The last point I'll make before skipping out of here is that I myself am a Christian (for the very very few of you who didn't already know =/ ) and my arguments for a lot of different political topics used to stem from the "sanctity of life", the "sanctity of marriage", and other empty rhetorical statements. Not until later did I realize that, even if you believe in the existence of sin, we were not put here to prevent it. Whether or not abortion is sinful or murder is irrelevant to the issue. And I think that, in part, splits the horns of the dilemma put forth by the one Funka.

However, if I've accepted certain principals as integral to my worldview, I can't comfortably question them or knowingly contradict them. In effect, if I say I believe the flying spaghetti monster has touched us all with his noodly appendage, I must designate all opinions contary to this belief as wrong. I cannot, by the very tenants of my espoused worldview, accept another outcome as correct.

Wow. I just wrote something pro-choice and...it doesn't hurt anymore! :D

[Azisien]

Most abortions (close to 90%) take place before there is a fetus to speak of.

I would have thought it was a good deal more than that, like up around 99% considering natural abortions (I think they're called...EPLs?) are already above 30% with no contraception or intervention whatsoever, or that conception has a 30-40% chance even at the best of times.

[BitVyper]

I believe the statistic I used doesn't include those, but I'm not bothering to look it up because I'm a douche.

[Premmy]

This is the best analogy I can come up with at the moment (i.e. not very good) but let's see where it goes: What if it was proven to me that, say, ants were fully sentient on the same level that humans are, but it would be extremely difficult to show this proof to everyone else - Should I condemn all who step on ants as murderers? What they're doing is wrong yes, and their ignorance doesn't make the act less wrong, but the error is understandable and condemning ant-squashers as serial killers would be as counter productive as it is wrong - I'd just be imposing my will on others regardless of consequences, which is what I'd, ideally, like to see all us big-bad ant-squashers stop doing. Will I take action? Yes. But it will be done carefully, with respect to the worldview of others.
That doesn't really work.

If a grown-ass man went around beheading other grown-ass men and when we caught him he said

"They were'nt real humans, they were minions of Zoorg, the evil overlord, and I banished them with my mighty axe of light!"

We'd lock his crazy-ass up because he was killing people, and we wouldn't allow him to keep doing it.

If you are anti-killing people, and you think abortion is killing people, you are either anti-abortion or operating under a fundamental contradiction if you think it's just fine for people to go out and have abortions.

[Funka Genocide]

Yes but what if they actually were minions of Zoorg, and only a small percentage of the population (or even a large one! just not all.) could detect their presence?

Why then you'd have a debate on your hands!

(which is to say the entire argument is based on the classification of a cell cluster as either the biological product of copulation or the holy seed of human life, or rather a matter of opinion.)

@Nique: my comment about your own proposed justice was just that, whatever method you'd feel adequate to punish and contain a murderer. I wasn't implying that it was overly sadistic or anything, just that its a logical conclusion that you'd seek to see all practitioners of the act you call murder treated equally, as befits a logically consistent worldview.

I think there is a clear distinction between tolerance and acceptance however, it would appear you meant tolerance in the first place. I agree that someone can tolerate a contradictory viewpoint, but that's not the same thing as agreeing or accepting as valid. It's rolling your eyes and changing the subject really.

(Although obviously tolerance is an important virtue. If we didn't have tolerance we couldn't have this discussion, I'm simply trying to illustrate that it is different from acceptance.)

[bluestarultor]

I've been avoiding this because I know it's hot-button, but reading these past few comments (which is really all I've read), let me just drop something in here before I go back to cringing at the thought of this thread.

Abortions take place long before the fetus is capable of surviving on its own. On top of that, any number of things could potentially go wrong in the time between then and birth.

What you have here is something that's barely more developed than a fish at best and which has no way of surviving outside the womb, even with modern medical technology at its finest.

Now, whether that counts as a person to you is your opinion, but I think people need to be aware of what they're discussing here.

[Osterbaum]

What you have when most abortions take place is a ball of cells. Ask yourself: Do you consider skin flakes to be alive?

[Nique]

If you are anti-killing people, and you think abortion is killing people, you are either anti-abortion or operating under a fundamental contradiction if you think it's just fine for people to go out and have abortions.


You're starting to loose me - I don't think it's just fine, I just recognize that it's a complicated issue in which an attempt to exert control could prove just as (morally) bad as I percieve abortion to be, if not worse.


@Nique: my comment about your own proposed justice was just that, whatever method you'd feel adequate to punish and contain a murderer.

We probably need to clarify that we are working under the same definition of murder, which should be 'killing + intent'. I clearly said that while I feel (or know) that abortion is killing, it is not murder and thus would not warrant the same punishment as murder, if any.

...as befits a logically consistent worldview.

You're oversimplifying my worldview, which is sort of getting into strawman territory although I highly doubt you're trying to. My worldview is consistent, it's just... complicated. Or rather it recognizes that the world is complicated. These simple 'pro-life' 'pro-choice' stances are highly emotional appeals and laregly related to more political issues I have no interest in.

Your statments would seem to imply that I need to pick a side of those two camps, which is a false choice.

EDIT:

(which is to say the entire argument is based on the classification of a cell cluster as either the biological product of copulation or the holy seed of human life, or rather a matter of opinion.)


I think there might be an argument to be made that extending our definition of humanity or life, our empathy, to an embryo/fetus etc. could be, socially, very healthy. Sort of a 'how we treat those lower than us' idea. I'm not really ready to make this argument at the moment but my point is that there are other avenues to argue for something like inherit value than just the religious one.

Now, whether that counts as a person to you is your opinion, but I think people need to be aware of what they're discussing here.

Right. I agree with you that it really should be facts alone that color one's opinion of this issue and it's severity. I feel like this is what I'm trying to accomplish.

What you have when most abortions take place is a ball of cells. Ask yourself: Do you consider skin flakes to be alive?

This doesn't really address... anything. Just becuase these things are similar it does not make them the same. There are really much better arguments for abortion than this.

[bluestarultor]

This doesn't really address... anything. Just becuase these things are similar it does not make them the same. There are really much better arguments for abortion than this.

For some reason, this reminded me of an argument from a girl on Gaia of all places. To quote as best I can from memory, she said something like

"If I have a tapeworm that is taking my nutrients and doing me a small amount of harm in the process, a doctor will immediately prescribe me medication to kill it so I can be better. If I get a surgery, while they're already in there, they will take out my appendix, even though it's doing me no harm at all. So why is it that when I have a ball of cells inside me, rapidly growing, feeding off me, throwing my hormones out of whack, and doing my body GREAT harm from which I will never be the same, I am told that I have to let it stay inside me until it's big and heavy as a watermelon, eject it in the most painful experience of my life, and take care of it for eighteen years, whether I want to or not?"

Girl had a point. Kind of goes back to the argument of "if you can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?" Women have a LOT more stake in the decision than men give them credit for. It's not a simple matter of "getting pregnant and having a baby." It's a matter of "a guy squirts fluids into me and I'm left to carry a growing mass in my body for most of a year which is heavy, screws with my physiology, and then will give me pain unlike I've ever had before when it comes out." And that's disregarding the adoption system if she doesn't want it, which is at best a car with three flat tires, a missing wheel, and only a cup of gas in the tank.



Edit: Just to make my position clear, I am anti-abortion, pro-choice. I don't agree with abortion myself (I'd rather be a father), but I'm not the one having the baby, and I simply cannot justify forcing my views on other people just because I feel a certain way.

[Osterbaum]

This doesn't really address... anything. Just becuase these things are similar it does not make them the same. There are really much better arguments for abortion than this.
Oh, you missunderstand me. I'm not participating in the argument, I'm just making random comments.

[Nique]

Oh, you missunderstand me. I'm not participating in the argument, I'm just making random comments.

If there's a joke here or some higher point I'm supposed to glean... I'm not getting it.

[TDK]

What you have here is something that's barely more developed than a fish at best and which has no way of surviving outside the womb, even with modern medical technology at its finest..

This as a grave insult to the long and glorious evolutionary history of fish, many of which could out-survive you (let alone a fetus) in a second. See: sharks. Fish are some of the oldest and, in some cases, some of the most genetically complex, animals on the planet, and equating them, no comparing them unfavorably to an undeveloped fetus barely yet bearing its first blastopore, is insulting to the noble fish.

[Azisien]

The mention of animals alongside Nique's suggestion that humanity should adopt stronger morals towards our "lessers" actually gives me a little bit of a warm feeling. Of course, most or all animals would immediately gain whatever accords/rights we would perscribe to a fetus, in such a magical world.

[TDK]

What? Animals can suck it (especially fish*!), I was just making a point.

I'm pro-choice.

*fishes?

[Aldurin]

I'm pro-choice.

I'm feel so much better knowing that there are people out there (besides the fascists and eugenicists) who think it is perfectly civilized to kill babies out of personal convenience.

It should only be necessary if there is risk of death of the mother or if the child will a vegetable at best. We have adoption programs, there are people out there who would care for children if the parents are incapable or refusing to raise him/her.

[Bob The Mercenary]

Poor thread. Here I thought it had a bright future ahead of it.

[Kim]

I'm feel so much better knowing that there are people out there (besides the fascists and eugenicists) who think it is perfectly civilized to kill babies out of personal convenience.

It should only be necessary if there is risk of death of the mother or if the child will a vegetable at best. We have adoption programs, there are people out there who would care for children if the parents are incapable or refusing to raise him/her.

http://i32.tinypic.com/33wa549.jpg

[TDK]

I'm feel so much better knowing that there are people out there (besides the fascists and eugenicists)

Okay, first of all fascism and eugenics have little if anything to do with each other, and you're insulting a science which is actually a pretty good idea but for the fact that people think its evil because Hitler thought it was a good idea and tried to use it for racial cleansing.

who think it is perfectly civilized to kill babies out of personal convenience.

One of the main arguments here is, again, that fetus =/= baby, but at the time abortions are allowable = barely formed ball of cells.

That and you're purposefully ignoring pretty much everything but the negatives, and phrasing things in such a way that they necessarily sound as evil as possible. To the mother who is raped and might be forced to bear a child of her rapist, you are saying "You're killing a baby out of personal convenience!" rather than "You are terminating an embryo at an early stage so as to prevent further growth and prevent you from having to pass it vaginally."

Sounds a lot better the way I say it, doesn't it? Appealing to someone's emotions by biased choice of words is a backhanded way to debate.

It should only be necessary if there is risk of death of the mother or if the child will a vegetable at best. We have adoption programs, there are people out there who would care for children if the parents are incapable or refusing to raise him/her.

Have you ever experienced the adoption system? There's a reason many US couples adopt from other countries. There is a years long waiting list to adopt a US child, and while that's bad enough for the parents, imagine being the kid and being introduced to the back of the line in that waiting list.

Not to mention the fact that childbirth is incredibly painful etc etc.


You're also making absolute statements about morality by stating your opinion is so when it is just that: an opinion.

[Mirai Gen]

I'm feel so much better knowing that there are people out there (besides the fascists and eugenicists) who think it is perfectly civilized to kill babies out of personal convenience.

It should only be necessary if there is risk of death of the mother or if the child will a vegetable at best. We have adoption programs, there are people out there who would care for children if the parents are incapable or refusing to raise him/her.

http://www.nuklearforums.com/showpost.php?p=1058642&postcount=49

:knowledge:

[Aldurin]

Okay, first of all fascism and eugenics have little if anything to do with each other, and you're insulting a science which is actually a pretty good idea but for the fact that people think its evil because Hitler thought it was a good idea and tried to use it for racial cleansing.



One of the main arguments here is, again, that fetus =/= baby, but at the time abortions are allowable = barely formed ball of cells.

That and you're purposefully ignoring pretty much everything but the negatives, and phrasing things in such a way that they necessarily sound as evil as possible. To the mother who is raped and might be forced to bear a child of her rapist, you are saying "You're killing a baby out of personal convenience!" rather than "You are terminating an embryo at an early stage so as to prevent further growth and prevent you from having to pass it vaginally."

Sounds a lot better the way I say it, doesn't it? Appealing to someone's emotions by biased choice of words is a backhanded way to debate.



Have you ever experienced the adoption system? There's a reason many US couples adopt from other countries. There is a years long waiting list to adopt a US child, and while that's bad enough for the parents, imagine being the kid and being introduced to the back of the line in that waiting list.

Not to mention the fact that childbirth is incredibly painful etc etc.


You're also making absolute statements about morality by stating your opinion is so when it is just that: an opinion.

Your right, what I said is my opinion and I am damn well entitled to it.

Eugenics would be a good idea, but the problem is that most of us sane people prefer the random mix of two genomes over a pre-modified embryo in a lab as a source of a child. And we like to exercise the choice of who we want to marry and have kids with. And the removal of those "unfit" for the standards would at best involve a mass exile but could easily move to enslavement or partial genicide.

Oh, and yes, a fertilized and growing fetus is a baby. The moment it was started right from that one moment (college party, honeymoon, etc) that the egg was fertilized. It now has the potential to be a human who could just as easily be a great mind of his/her generation as a standard, productive member of society. I'm not saying it's an abortion to avoid getting drunk enough that a pregnancy happens, but once the woman is pregnant, the child is there and to kill it even when it's still one cell is still killing it.

For your rapist argument, yes that is bad and yes the mother might not want to go through with it. And unless she plans on using the child as a source of her frustration via mental and/or physical abuse, she should go through with it and consider other options.

And if the adoption system is really bad enough to consider abortion, the adoption system can be reformed and improved. Abortion should really be the only-if-absolutely-necessary last resort for a pregnancy situation.

I'm sure childbirth hurts like hell, but women have gone through with it since the beginning of mankind. We'd be extinct by now if no one wanted to go through with giving birth.

And yes, this is my opinion. And this is how I word it.

[Kim]

Oh, and yes, a fertilized and growing fetus is a baby. The moment it was started right from that one moment (college party, honeymoon, etc) that the egg was fertilized. It now has the potential to be a human who could just as easily be a great mind of his/her generation as a standard, productive member of society. I'm not saying it's an abortion to avoid getting drunk enough that a pregnancy happens, but once the woman is pregnant, the child is there and to kill it even when it's still one cell is still killing it.

Why stop there? Every sperm has the potential to become Einstein or Ghandi. You're committing genocide every time you masturbate!

As for the rest of your post?

http://i27.tinypic.com/2up4ihk.jpg

[Mirai Gen]

Oh, and yes, a fertilized and growing fetus is a baby.
It now has the potential to be a human
:wtf:

[Bob The Mercenary]

http://www.clubxb.com/forums/attachments/f4/11876d1249664659-carving-lover-souls-white-gasp-friday.jpg

[Fenris]

Will anybody be too upset if I just go ahead and close this one?

[Kim]

Will anybody be too upset if I just go ahead and close this one?

I might be a little upset. EvilEarl's posts are absolutely hilarious.

[Aldurin]

Why stop there? Every sperm has the potential to become Einstein or Ghandi. You're committing genocide every time you masturbate!

Oh, and yes, a fertilized and growing fetus is a baby. The moment it was started right from that one moment (college party, honeymoon, etc) that the egg was fertilized. It now has the potential to be a human who could just as easily be a great mind of his/her generation as a standard, productive member of society. I'm not saying it's an abortion to avoid getting drunk enough that a pregnancy happens, but once the woman is pregnant, the child is there and to kill it even when it's still one cell is still killing it.

If I had to describe this thread in one sentence.

"Thermonuklear flame war!!"

[Fenris]

I might be a little upset. EvilEarl's posts are absolutely hilarious.

We are operating under vastly different definitions of hilarious.

EDIT: Earl your reply has literally nothing to do with that post. Just... back out of this thread and like, read a book or something. You're not doing yourself or your cause any justice by posting for it, so it would be in your best interest to just stop talking and move on.

[Mirai Gen]

You know what else he could read?

http://www.nuklearforums.com/showpost.php?p=1058642&postcount=49

[Nique]

I hope I can go on record as the anti-abortion guy who didn't cause this to be a

"Thermonuklear flame war!!"

EDIT: Seriously, Earl, tactics, you guys are killin' me here.

[Kim]

EvilEarl, there is no basis for where you draw the line. "Once she's pregnant it can become a person!" Any sperm can become a person. Any embryo. This is why the Catholic church is anti-condom, after all, in spite of all the horribleness that could at least be deterred by their use. The line you draw is completely arbitrary and exists only to support your predecided point of view.

We are operating under vastly different definitions of hilarious.

There's a certain point where I can't even get upset at someone's opinion and just have to laugh that they actually believe it.

[TDK]

Why stop there? Every sperm has the potential to become Einstein or Ghandi.

Or Hitler. [/Godwin's Law]

[Kim]

You heard it here first! Abortions could have prevented World War 2.

[Mirai Gen]

Killing a man or a woman should have more dire consequences. I mean that's valuable embryos and semen you're killing! Could've been a famous doctor or lawyer.

[Aldurin]

EDIT: Earl your reply has literally nothing to do with that post. Just... back out of this thread and like, read a book or something. You're not doing yourself or your cause any justice by posting for it, so it would be in your best interest to just stop talking and move on.

But what reason would I be here besides talking and posting Deadpool pics in the image thread?

I think people are assuming that I'm fuming over every counter to my post when I just do this to see how people would defend their side.

And why me and not the other guys who are on the pro-life side of the argument?

[Fenris]

And why me and not the other guys who are on the pro-life side of the argument?

Because you're very bad at defending your argument.

And making one, for that matter.

[Bob The Mercenary]

And why me and not the other guys who are on the pro-life side of the argument?

Because the points you are using are weak and have been well-refuted. They are what a friend of mine calls "well inside the box groupthink talking points."

[Kim]

But what reason would I be here besides talking and posting Deadpool pics in the image thread?

I think people are assuming that I'm fuming over every counter to my post when I just do this to see how people would defend their side.

And why me and not the other guys who are on the pro-life side of the argument?

Because Mesden already punked Tactics into the ground, and Nique hasn't said things on the same level of awful as your last few posts. I mean, you reached China and kept on digging.

Plus, I mean, they actually read the thread.

[Mirai Gen]

I think people are assuming that I'm fuming over every counter to my post when I just do this to see how people would defend their side.
Um.

We call this a "Troll."

Like, wow, signed written confessional "I Am A Goddamn Troll."

[Kim]

Um.

We call this a "Troll."

Like, wow, signed written confessional "I Am A Goddamn Troll."

That's racist against trolls (http://i30.tinypic.com/344fp7q.jpg), and you should know better.

[Nikose Tyris]

But what reason would I be here besides talking and posting Deadpool pics in the image thread?

I think people are assuming that I'm fuming over every counter to my post when I just do this to see how people would defend their side.

And why me and not the other guys who are on the pro-life side of the argument?

Because other people have arguements and aren't saying things that make me laugh so hard I'm crying.

I swear I just want to put you in a bear costume and make you hand out balloons outside an abortion clinic, because you are just fucking adorable.

[Aldurin]

Plus, I mean, they actually read the thread.

I don't have that kind of time to actually read, so I scan the last fifteen or so posts before I post.

Oh, and I have no expectation of anyone to say "You're right, I was wrong about everything. You have brought me the truth." If I did, I wouldn't be here.

[Fenris]

Um.

We call this a "Troll."

Like, wow, signed written confessional "I Am A Goddamn Troll."
No, he's not trying to piss people off, he's attempting to get people to defend their beliefs, which is fine, so long as the intent isn't to piss people off.

I mean as much as I'd like an excuse to force him out but he's not really breaking any rules here.

Because you're very bad at defending your argument.

And making one, for that matter.

I mean dude your entire argument is "this is my opinion and if you disagree with it you are wrong because it is my opinion"

[Kim]

I don't have that kind of time to actually read, so I scan the last fifteen or so posts before I post.

This is a serious debate thread. (Or as serious as they get)

If you can't be bothered to read the thread don't post in it.

[Fenris]

Okay thread over