The Abortion Thread Ex Ultra!

[Exodus]

After talking to some people, I've decided that I'd still support enforcing adoption over abortion. Yes, there are an overwhelming amount of children who are homeless, but there a boatload of people waiting for a baby to be born for them to adopt. Letting them adopt the baby doesn't make the other childrens' situations any worse. Couples know what they want already, and having fewer babies born will not help out the other children for the most part.

I simply have to argue against this. The parents may be picky, but if there are no babies up for adoption in the first place, they're going to look for another child. It's plain ol' simple logic. You can't have one thing, you take another.

I also digress that your use of enforce, as though you should be able to force these people to do things they don't want to, disturbs me.

[Mystik3eb]

After talking to some people, I've decided that I'd still support enforcing adoption over abortion. Yes, there are an overwhelming amount of children who are homeless, but there a boatload of people waiting for a baby to be born for them to adopt. Letting them adopt the baby doesn't make the other childrens' situations any worse. Couples know what they want already, and having fewer babies born will not help out the other children for the most part.

I simply have to argue against this. The parents may be picky, but if there are no babies up for adoption in the first place, they're going to look for another child. It's plain ol' simple logic. You can't have one thing, you take another.

I think there's a smaller margin of those people than you think. When couples sign up to adopt a baby, they're told immediately that they're on the waiting list. Chances are, if they were willing to take an older child instead, they would've done so right when they were told they were on a waiting list for a baby. That's logic. Given, there are those who would decide after an indeterminate matter of time that they would settle for an older child, but I believe those are in the minority. At least they are according to my old sociology teacher, who adopted a three-year-old, back in my senior year.

I also digress that your use of enforce, as though you should be able to force these people to do things they don't want to, disturbs me.

You're right, it was more forceful than I intended. Taking the word 'enforce' out is more what I wanted to get across.

[Exodus]

After talking to some people, I've decided that I'd still support enforcing adoption over abortion. Yes, there are an overwhelming amount of children who are homeless, but there a boatload of people waiting for a baby to be born for them to adopt. Letting them adopt the baby doesn't make the other childrens' situations any worse. Couples know what they want already, and having fewer babies born will not help out the other children for the most part.

I simply have to argue against this. The parents may be picky, but if there are no babies up for adoption in the first place, they're going to look for another child. It's plain ol' simple logic. You can't have one thing, you take another.

I think there's a smaller margin of those people than you think. When couples sign up to adopt a baby, they're told immediately that they're on the waiting list. Chances are, if they were willing to take an older child instead, they would've done so right when they were told they were on a waiting list for a baby. That's logic. Given, there are those who would decide after an indeterminate matter of time that they would settle for an older child, but I believe those are in the minority. At least they are according to my old sociology teacher, who adopted a three-year-old, back in my senior year.

You have brought up a valid point I hadn't thought of, so I'll have to revert to my argument that a fetus is not human.

You're still taking away chances from the children-- from other babies, even, by allowing a nonhuman fetus to develop and put it up for adoption, which still creates stress and competition amongst the children.

[Burning Zeppelin]

Firstly, the definition of life is:

In biology, a lifeform has traditionally been considered to be a member of a population whose members can exhibit all the following phenomena at least once during their existence:

   1. Growth, full development, maturity
   2. Metabolism, consuming, transforming and storing energy/mass; growing by absorbing and reorganizing mass; excreting waste
   3. Motion, either moving itself, or having internal motion
   4. Reproduction, the ability to create entities that are similar to, yet separate from, itself
   5. Response to stimuli - the ability to measure properties of its surrounding environment, and act upon certain conditions. This property is also called homeostasis.

A fetus cant reproduce, can it? Doesnt this contradict me? Why am i saing it?

I put the word "possibly" in there for a reason, buddy. It has happened. Way too much.

Edit: I forgot something, about the self-sustaining. I have a cousin, now 12 years old, who was born at only 6 months of pregnancy, at 1lb. She's still around, though she had a multitude of physical handicaps for years and still has a speech impediment. She's still a bit slow of mind, but not really "stupid", and is physically rather capable these days. I doubt her problems was simply a result of leaving the womb so early, there was something already wrong with her, or else she wouldn't have been born 3 months early. The only thing wrong with her as a result of being born so early was the size of her lungs; she was completely reliant on equipment to help her breathe, since her lungs were too weak to help themselves, but otherwise she was fine. And if being reliant on equipment to help keep oneself alive means they aren't self-sustaining, then why do we consider loads of our elderly (and others) alive?

Oh, and about this sentence in my earlier post:

Unless you have sex without your reproductive systems disabled, then you can't go in and expect to always evade the chance of birth.

I would replace birth with conception. My mistake.

We have already talked of this. My argument was that humans like elders and vegetables are considered human because we created a love, bonding, friendship, commitment, loyalty... to them and therefore seeing them die is still seen as manslaughter if you remove the life supporting system.[/quote]

[Lord J Esq]

And I'm still not in favor of letting people just sleep around, which is a 'right' by all means but not an action that lies without consequence, and just let them escape the natural responsibilities. I don't care that's it women who are pregnant, I'd say the same thing if it were males. Unless you have sex without your reproductive systems disabled, then you can't go in and expect to always evade the chance of birth. It's just not right. You can't steal and always expect to get away. You can't smoke and expect not to die much sooner as a result. You can't drink and not expect to possibly get drunk, and you can't get drunk and not expect to possibly do something incredibly stupid, like kill yourself, or kill others.

I was expecting someone else to point out that you are using a false analogy here. The reason people should be able to have sex and not suffer an unwanted pregnancy, but should not be able to steal and expect to be pardoned by the authorities when caught, is because sex is not a crime and stealing is. All your analogies are flawed in this same way. What you're trying to say is that actions have consequences that cannot be avoided, which is true, but you are completing failing to comprehend--or at least take into account--the fact that not all acts are equal and not all consequences are weighted the same. The law must balance civil liberties with justice and order. Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term is a deep intrusion upon her human rights to privacy and self-determination, an intrusion which by no coincidence sets her at odds with the ruling sex, leading to the subjugation of women as a whole. And what is gained by enslaving half the human race in this matter? Only more of the same! In stark contrast, laws against robbery uphold the peace and make life safer for everyone. That is but one of the reasons why stealing is a crime, and sex is not.

You say you're "still not in favor of letting people just sleep around." In other words, you want to control them. And, since it's women who get pregnant, what you're really talking about is controlling women. For what purpose? To reduce them to the role of domesticated babymaking factories? That'd be an awfully religious position to take, and I would like to think that such an idea is furthest from your mind, but you need to know that, regardless of your intentions, the implications of your stated position on this matter lead to just that: Sexism.

And if being reliant on equipment to help keep oneself alive means they aren't self-sustaining, then why do we consider loads of our elderly (and others) alive?

The unborn are an onus upon their mothers, and the rights of the mother trump their own. Once brought into the world, there is no one left to trump an individual's rights in that fashion. Your comparison between the elderly and disabled is invalid.

[Mystik3eb]

What you're trying to say is that actions have consequences that cannot be avoided, which is true, but you are completing failing to comprehend--or at least take into account--the fact that not all acts are equal and not all consequences are weighted the same.

I didn't say they were the same. I pointed out other events that have possible consequences, as in comparison, but I never said they were the same. Everyone seems to be misunderstanding all my points. I suppose I need to work on being clearer in the future.

...Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term is a deep intrusion upon her human rights to privacy and self-determination, an intrusion which by no coincidence sets her at odds with the ruling sex, leading to the subjugation of women as a whole. And what is gained by enslaving half the human race in this matter? Only more of the same!...

You say you're "still not in favor of letting people just sleep around." In other words, you want to control them. And, since it's women who get pregnant, what you're really talking about is controlling women. For what purpose? To reduce them to the role of domesticated babymaking factories? That'd be an awfully religious position to take, and I would like to think that such an idea is furthest from your mind, but you need to know that, regardless of your intentions, the implications of your stated position on this matter lead to just that: Sexism.

Responsibility. That's my opinion on it all. No, I'm not in favor of people just sleeping around. It's not wise, and that's because it has consequences that, obviously, people aren't willing to suffer (for clarity, don't use this word literally. I feel it rather tedious to have to spell this out, but it's proven that I have to, unfortunetely). I'm not in favor of drinking, smoking, doing any drugs, or any of that stuff. I'm not in favor of trying to ignore those consequences. But I'm not gonna stop people from doing it. I already said I won't get in the way of pro-abortion laws. I just don't agree with them.

If I were to vote in favor of a pro-abortion law, I'd wanna make sure the women abort the baby immediately once she's discovered she's pregnant. Maybe she's given a two-week deadline or something.

And I'm definetely not sexist, there's no need to implicate that on me. I already said it wasn't "because they are women" who get pregnant, I'd have the same opinion if it was men. I hold women to be in the same equality as men, and I rather like them more ^_^.

The unborn are an onus upon their mothers, and the rights of the mother trump their own. Once brought into the world, there is no one left to trump an individual's rights in that fashion. Your comparison between the elderly and disabled is invalid.

I was referring to my little cousin, already out of the womb, who was able to survive by living off of equipment after only 6 months in the womb, just like many other people of higher age considered "human" and/or "alive".

[GrayLensman]

The law must balance civil liberties with justice and order. Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term is a deep intrusion upon her human rights to privacy and self-determination, an intrusion which by no coincidence sets her at odds with the ruling sex, leading to the subjugation of women as a whole. And what is gained by enslaving half the human race in this matter? Only more of the same! In stark contrast, laws against robbery uphold the peace and make life safer for everyone. That is but one of the reasons why stealing is a crime, and sex is not.

You say you're "still not in favor of letting people just sleep around." In other words, you want to control them. And, since it's women who get pregnant, what you're really talking about is controlling women. For what purpose? To reduce them to the role of domesticated babymaking factories? That'd be an awfully religious position to take, and I would like to think that such an idea is furthest from your mind, but you need to know that, regardless of your intentions, the implications of your stated position on this matter lead to just that: Sexism.

The unborn are an onus upon their mothers, and the rights of the mother trump their own. Once brought into the world, there is no one left to trump an individual's rights in that fashion. Your comparison between the elderly and disabled is invalid.

Isn't that a little extreme?

When, at some scientifically determinable point in gestation, a human fetus develops the capacity of cognition, society should recognize its fundamental human rights.  I strongly disagree with the idea that one person's rights should ever take precedence over another.

A woman has a fundamental right to control her body.  But, at some point, the fetus also has a right to life.  It is due to the unmerciful laws of nature that the rights of the mother are put in opposition to the rights of the fetus.  Unfortunately, since women are the ones who get pregnant, they are discriminated against by nature.  The laws of nature do not respect individual human rights; human mortality is a similar tresspass which affects everyone equally.

Given this unequal situation, society has to adapt to create the best possible solution.  Which is worse, the loss of liberty of the mother or the loss of life of the cognitive fetus?  I strongly disagree that the rights of the fetus should be superseded by the mother due to her superior mental ability and depth of experiences.  I have equal rights with even the most mentally handicapped, cognitive individual.  I think that a temporary infringement on the freedom of the mother is preferable to the ultimate destruction of the fetus.  The abortion of a cognitive fetus should only be performed if it is medically necessary.  This situation is tragic and currently unavoidable.  Of course, we as a society have the responsibility to provide the highest standard of care for the mother, and act to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the future.

I'm not sure what point in gestation a human fetus would become cognitive, but I think it would still leave ample opportunity for any woman who desires an abortion to have one, which should be as safe, free, confidential and readily available as any standard medical procedure.

[Lord J Esq]

Edit: In reply to Mystik

You and I are usually in agreement on the various issues that pop up here on the Compendium. But it's nice for people to have some contrast between one another every so often. In that regard I appreciate the opportunity to disagree with you.

Anyhow, I stand by my insistence that your position--that any antisex position--whether you realize it or not, supports the subjugation of women, and diminishes the cultural horizons of all people. This is irrespective of whether or not premarital celibacy also promotes "responsibility," although in that regard I would ask by what measure you define responsibility. Why is abstaining from casual sex responsible? But I digress.

[SilentMartyr]

I put the word "possibly" in there for a reason, buddy. It has happened. Way too much.

You make it look like the majority in the way you worded it. and putting possibly in there takes all the wind out of the point. Hell I could possibly become religious and then start killing people who are not believers in my religion.

[Lord J Esq]

I strongly disagree with the idea that one person's rights should ever take precedence over another.

In reality, where we all live, human rights are sometimes at odds. This is unavoidable. When such instances arise, we cannot speak in the absolute language of all people having an inherent equality. Either by our action or inaction, one party will always be favored over another. The best recourse is to make sure that the outcome is as equitable and just as possible. In this regard, it would be unconscionable to ever prefer the rights of an unborn fetus to those of a developed human being. A woman old enough to bear children has an identity--she has a personality and a memory and a sentient will. A fetus is brand new; it has only a book full of empty pages. When you ask yourself what about us as human beings is meaningful, our identity is at the heart of the answer. The mother has an identity; the fetus does not. I mentioned in my long post at the beginning of this topic that the inception of cognition is a good point to "certify" the humanity of an unborn child. I don't deny that; I dismiss it as insufficient justification for making an abortion policy. Why? Because we still have this little problem of the rights of the mother. We simply cannot have the rights of the fetus trump those of the mother under any circumstances. Abortion isn't about the fetus. It's about the woman. It's not about killing fetuses. It's about saving women...saving them from our own human weaknesses to impose our judgments upon other people's reality.

[Mystik3eb]

You make it look like the majority in the way you worded it. and putting possibly in there takes all the wind out of the point. Hell I could possibly become religious and then start killing people who are not believers in my religion.

I find it disturbing that you don't seem aware of the thousands of deaths that occur each month because of drunk driving.

[Exodus]

The whole thing is, there is no way to prove a fetus even has cognition, so it's only logical to assume it doesn't.

I'm honestly very tired of this whole "responsibility" argument being used. You make mistakes, do you not? Do you not fuck up? It would be a whole-hearted LIE to say you haven't screwed up due to irresponsibility, and an even larger lie to state that you didn't want somebody to help you with that error.

I really should tote this around in my signature:

IT AIN'T YOUR CALL, PAL.

[Mystik3eb]

And it would be a lie to say I would've been better off if I'd not paid the price for fucking up. We learn best by suffering consequences of our actions, not by getting away with them freely. Sometimes we get lucky, but we can't live a life depending on luck to get us out of holes we dig ourselves into. Life just ain't that easy. Sure we want help when we're in those situations, but do we deserve it? If not, then we shouldn't get it. Sounds cruel, but I apply this even to myself.

I got in an accident last night driving my little sister to her honors choir concert. It was a light accident, I must've hit the lady in front of me at about 5mph. It was a result of looking down a moment to change the air, looking up and suddenly seeing this car completely stopped about 20 yards ahead. I still don't know how I didn't see it before; from what I remembered, the car in front of me was not too far ahead and was going no slower than me, and I was only going about 25mph as is. They must've moved out of the way really quick while I wasn't looking or something. I slammed on the brakes, which failed miserably, and hit her lightly. Neither of our bumpers suffered any damage or scrapes at all, yet she still called the cops on me (which was smart on her part, really). We got nailed because apparently, in Louisiana, once a cop is called on an accident, it's considered an accident and the driver at fault is nailed with a citation, regardless of whether any damage of injury occured or not. By the way, there was no injury either. As a result, we missed the entirety of my sister's concert and got nailed by a $90 ticket and a hefty rise in our insurance, which is already too high for my family to afford.

What did I do as a result? I offered to revoke my license and cancel my drivers insurance so it wouldn't cost my family anymore. I immediately offered to bake a cake for my sister (I never cook, by the way. Ever. Cuz I'm terrible at it, and I hate doing it), and when there weren't enough pieces for everyone in the family, I gave mine up. When my parents offered to pay for the ticket (even though they have no money), I told them no, I'd pay for it on my own, even though I'm still job hunting, have a student loan to pay off, am trying to fly out to MA to start going to school out there hopefully before winter semester, and have no money anyway.

Did I try to escape the consequences, place all the blame on someone else, and get away with making a mistake? No, I took full responsibility of my actions, even though it's of extreme inconvenience to myself.

I don't consider myself perfect by a LOOOOOONG shot, but I'm proud of the way I handled the situation. I don't find it fair that I'm willing to pay the price of my actions, even though I didn't do anything that no one else who drives does, AND the accident was of no consequence physicall to anyone (it hardly deserves to be called an accident), and we're struggling to provide a law that allows people to revoke themselves of their responsibility simply because they don't want to accept the consequence of their actions. That's why I'm personally not supportive of it.

[GrayLensman]

In reality, where we all live, human rights are sometimes at odds. This is unavoidable. When such instances arise, we cannot speak in the absolute language of all people having an inherent equality. Either by our action or inaction, one party will always be favored over another. The best recourse is to make sure that the outcome is as equitable and just as possible. In this regard, it would be unconscionable to ever prefer the rights of an unborn fetus to those of a developed human being. A woman old enough to bear children has an identity--she has a personality and a memory and a sentient will. A fetus is brand new; it has only a book full of empty pages. When you ask yourself what about us as human beings is meaningful, our identity is at the heart of the answer. The mother has an identity; the fetus does not. I mentioned in my long post at the beginning of this topic that the inception of cognition is a good point to "certify" the humanity of an unborn child. I don't deny that; I dismiss it as insufficient justification for making an abortion policy. Why? Because we still have this little problem of the rights of the mother. We simply cannot have the rights of the fetus trump those of the mother under any circumstances. Abortion isn't about the fetus. It's about the woman. It's not about killing fetuses. It's about saving women...saving them from our own human weaknesses to impose our judgments upon other people's reality.

I hate this sort of ethical uncertainty.  Honestly, I don't really care whether women have abortions or not; I'm only trying to be objective.  I don't really think a fetus at any stage of development has much in the way of cognition going on, anyway.  I just feel that it is callous to destroy what may be defined as a person.

That is why I desire a technological solution.  The human condition, as it stands, is completely unacceptable to me.

[Exodus]

And it would be a lie to say I would've been better off if I'd not paid the price for fucking up. We learn best by suffering consequences of our actions, not by getting away with them freely. Sometimes we get lucky, but we can't live a life depending on luck to get us out of holes we dig ourselves into. Life just ain't that easy. Sure we want help when we're in those situations, but do we deserve it? If not, then we shouldn't get it. Sounds cruel, but I apply this even to myself.

... This is a FUCKING CHILD WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, NOT SPILLED MILK, MAN.

You're suggesting that parents not do abortion, because they have to "suffer" through having a child to learn their lesson?

And if life permits you to get an abortion, it IS that easy. People keep looking at this with a moralist viewpoint, and it's pissing me off.