Pregnancy / Periods (2 Viewers)

[izniz]

natstar i think you make some good points, but you also have to see the other side of it, and that its not a clear cut good and bad argument. however you feel about whether or not the foetus is a living organism or not, the choice to kill something inside of you that has the possibility of life is one that cant be taken lightly, and it is being taken lightly.

yesss, i agree completely... but again as napstar said - if a person is unable, mentally or physically, to bring a child in the world they should have the right to kill the foetus...
think about it, if u had the argument of 'killing a living organism as being morally incorrect' then everytime u step on an ant, or everytime u eat chicken etc u are maiking the same sin...
a foetuc has no way of knowin it shall die, it knows NOTHING.. if it had a way to communicate i personally think it would be wrong..
oh and if the foetus has a disorder or a drug addiction etc... i think the mother has a right to kill it for its own good...

itll ALWAYS be an argument...mine is that there are tings that are against and for.. and will never be straight forward

 

[AlleyCat]

yesss, i agree completely... but again as napstar said - if a person is unable, mentally or physically, to bring a child in the world they should have the right to kill the foetus...
think about it, if u had the argument of 'killing a living organism as being morally incorrect' then everytime u step on an ant, or everytime u eat chicken etc u are maiking the same sin...
a foetuc has no way of knowin it shall die, it knows NOTHING.. if it had a way to communicate i personally think it would be wrong..
oh and if the foetus has a disorder or a drug addiction etc... i think the mother has a right to kill it for its own good...

itll ALWAYS be an argument...mine is that there are tings that are against and for.. and will never be straight forward

and by that same argument, we should have a right to kill people with downs syndrome and other mental/physical illnesses "for their own good".

you are forgetting that it isnt entirely the choice of the mother to "put down" an unborn child because of an illness.

if you have ever worked with people with disabilities as i have you will know that many of them have qualities that go beyond their physical body and mental state, and that the worls would be a worse place for not having these people in it. who are you to tell people that a disability should be "put out of their misery" when they are not in misery.

 

[JoeysBoy]

Sigh~~~ I just lost lie a 5000 word reply... lol! Poo!

Anyway... I'll keep going

"Tell me, what would you do if your gf got pregnant right now?
Alternativly, what would you do if you were a girl and got prenant right now" - Natstar

I would personally give her all the support she needed... though I do recognise that many other males would not do this. 5 people I know... after they were concieved... their fathers went away... but their mothers still kept them. If their mothers had been to lazy to support them... I would know five less people today. None of the mothers were in a good position... financially or emotionally.

One was a public school teacher that was having a nervous breakdown
Another made soap
Another had a degree in sandscript and ancient egyption history (languages included!!! WOW!!.... *cough*
Another was supported by her husband
Another worked in a factory.

(next part I pasted onto word incase I lost it... damn!)

Abortion is not murder. Its legal up to 3 months into the pregnacy, after that you can not have it.

So if (I know this is very over used, but it still communicates the point) a friend jumped off the empire state building and had asked you to follow him/her... would you do it? The law is not always moral... nor 100% just. You need to have more empathy... especially for a child.

Please take this next thing seriously... and I think I have already posted this... but actually put yourself in your younger shoes when you were 3 months or younger in your mother's womb... and she decided to have an abortion. What you are now, would disapear for ever. She would have killed you. Your own mother. The one you suposedly would have loved.

If you want to kill another human being... and that is EXACTLY what is... whether or not the law says it is write or wrong...

And someone compared killings ants with killing humans 3 months or younger... Thats why I make every effort to not step on an ant... or kill even a spider. I think all life is sacred... and unfortunatly, even your immoral one Nastar

(btw I agree that pro-abortionists tend to ignore the facts of the pro-life people... natstar included!! hehe...)

There is only one case I can think of that would put abortion into a possible acceptable state... and that's one where "your inner child" stated... a 9 year old girl rape victim. Though who can judge a 9 year old's life against a concieved child that may/may not live? Very hard~~~

 

[JoeysBoy]

think about it, if u had the argument of 'killing a living organism as being morally incorrect' then everytime u step on an ant, or everytime u eat chicken etc u are maiking the same sin...
a foetuc has no way of knowin it shall die, it knows NOTHING..

a) Thats why I'm a vego... and many other people as well

b) A disabled person with an I.Q of 50 (moderatly disabled) basically knows nothing. Are you going to judge whether that person would die or not?

--------------------

(Found new imputus to retype part of the message I lost)

(I can't remember her name...) but someone said that I shouldn't say if people don't want to get pregnant (e.g have an abortion afterwards), thats like saying to me, that as a male, I can listen to my very primitive violent instincts to "kill" other competetion. There are millions of other examples where everyday, we as humans go against our instincts.

Going against a very strong instinct maybe hard (e.g to have sex), but what price will you have to pay (e.g. murder) if you don't reject it until you are ready.

Though... we're going round in circles. I've said two points above before in this same thread... so... lol... weee! going round in circles! .... weeeeeeee!!!!

 

[AlleyCat]

Sigh~~~ I just lost lie a 5000 word reply... lol! Poo!

Anyway... I'll keep going

"Tell me, what would you do if your gf got pregnant right now?
Alternativly, what would you do if you were a girl and got prenant right now" - Natstar

I would personally give her all the support she needed... though I do recognise that many other males would not do this. 5 people I know... after they were concieved... their fathers went away... but their mothers still kept them. If their mothers had been to lazy to support them... I would know five less people today. None of the mothers were in a good position... financially or emotionally.

One was a public school teacher that was having a nervous breakdown
Another made soap
Another had a degree in sandscript and ancient egyption history (languages included!!! WOW!!.... *cough*
Another was supported by her husband
Another worked in a factory.

(next part I pasted onto word incase I lost it... damn!)



So if (I know this is very over used, but it still communicates the point) a friend jumped off the empire state building and had asked you to follow him/her... would you do it? The law is not always moral... nor 100% just. You need to have more empathy... especially for a child.

Please take this next thing seriously... and I think I have already posted this... but actually put yourself in your younger shoes when you were 3 months or younger in your mother's womb... and she decided to have an abortion. What you are now, would disapear for ever. She would have killed you. Your own mother. The one you suposedly would have loved.

If you want to kill another human being... and that is EXACTLY what is... whether or not the law says it is write or wrong...

And someone compared killings ants with killing humans 3 months or younger... Thats why I make every effort to not step on an ant... or kill even a spider. I think all life is sacred... and unfortunatly, even your immoral one Nastar

(btw I agree that pro-abortionists tend to ignore the facts of the pro-life people... natstar included!! hehe...)

There is only one case I can think of that would put abortion into a possible acceptable state... and that's one where "your inner child" stated... a 9 year old girl rape victim. Though who can judge a 9 year old's life against a concieved child that may/may not live? Very hard~~~

joeysboy i think you should have quit while you were ahead. your arguments are nonsensical and contradictory.

in my mind there is no real choice in the matter when a mothers life is at risk if she keeps the child. an unborn foetus does not take priority over the carrier. and to say it does is ruining your argument. a foetus cant live if the mother dies, whereas the mother can continue living if the foetus dies.

also, saying that you're a vegetarian and that you dont kill ants or spiders is all very well, but its really not the point in question.

and jumping off bridges? you're not making logical sense.

i think you should read up about the issue, from both sides, and then you will be able to speak with authority on a topic that is clearly one of great importance to you.

 

[JoeysBoy]

bos forums is being a fuking noob. I've lost three replies I've typed out.

Too lazy to write them out again, and what I say here won't be heard anyway... so meh.

 

[hipsta_jess]

soooooo....if you're anti abortion, because it is killing a "potential" life (whether or not it is a "life" as such is irrelevant to my question) does that mean you're also opposed to condoms and the pill and all other forms of contraception because the sperm are destined to "potentially" collide with the egg and form a "potential" life?
.'. Abstinence would be your only option?

 

[annastina]

ok

what is the point of this thread... this is about as useless as debating why christians have sex before they are married...

look

u arent going to change other people... and even if you do... they arent going to admit it on here...

people are who they wanna be... if they want to have sex... they'll have it.. and if you have a go at them all they are going to do is get defensive... so whats the point? its a circle filled with accusation and insult.


this is just so we can all sit around pretending like we have had enough life experience to know these things...

chances are... you would get to 30 and look retrospectivly (i cant spell.. yes i am aware of this) and always wonder what would happen if you took the other path.

weather or not you believe abortion is wrong... what makes your belief any more "right" than the one you are arguing with?

if you have sex... you take all these risks... and you no that... we all did year 9 PE. have sex.. and you might get pregnant. everyone knows it...

but

if you know it and choose not acknowledge the risks you take... then that is up to you. but whats the point of coming on bos and having a go at each other about it? people make thier own decisions. whats the point of hating each other for it?

 

[MiuMiu]

now i agree with your previous argument, but the above statement is a childish and irrelevant argument.

First of all, do not call me childish. You are not above me, don't pretend to be. Secondly, my point was that if you consider it murder to abort an embryo, it can only logically follow that you consider it murder to step on an ant.

i totally agree that abortion in cases where the mother had no control over her situation is the only humane course. however, i think that sexual urges are by no means an excuse for unprotected sex.

Feel free to actually read my argument anytime you wish. I was making the point that you can be as protected as you can get and a pregnancy can still occur. I was not advocating for abortion as a form of contraception in and of itself.

i have friends who have had pregnancy scares, and when i question them further about it found out that they use the "pulling out" method of contraception, which is not even contraception.

Your friends are not representative of the majority having abortions.

i think that women should be better informed and that contraception should be made readily available to women, without parental permission if necessary.

Absolutely.

too many of people i know have had abortions, when they should know better. you can only blame the condom or the pill failing so many times before taking responsibility.

Bit of a contradiction there, using the pill and/or a condom IS taking responsibility. No one WANTS to have an abortion, yet you seem to be pushing the point that people who are having sex are just asking for it.

also, ms 12, dont crack onto joeysboy for spelling. that's just childish.

At uni we are taught 'if you can't spell it, don't argue it'....poor spelling indicates that one is ill informed and greatly detracts from the credibility of an argument. Once again, do not call me childish.

And one last thing, since when did 'killing people you don't like' become a basic human instinct joeysboy? Did you ever listen in science? The three basic human instincts are survival (food, water, air), sex (self explanatory I would imagine) and power (no, this doesn't mean an urge to kill your enemies ). Don't make up things to try and rebut arguments.

 

[AlleyCat]

First of all, do not call me childish. You are not above me, don't pretend to be. Secondly, my point was that if you consider it murder to abort an embryo, it can only logically follow that you consider it murder to step on an ant.

i am not calling you childish, but instead saying that the line of argument that compares the killing of a human foetus with the stepping on of an ant is childish. i understand that you feel strongly about this issue, and i was not attempting in any way to put myself above you, however, with your attack on other peoples viewpoints and spelling it might be said that you are, in fact raising your own opinions above those of other people.

Feel free to actually read my argument anytime you wish. I was making the point that you can be as protected as you can get and a pregnancy can still occur. I was not advocating for abortion as a form of contraception in and of itself.

i have read your argument and there is no need for rudeness. my argument is that the vast majority of people who have abortions didnt get pregnant because of the pill failing or the condom breaking, they are simply not careful enough. you should realise that a far to large percentage of the population do not use protection all the time. i was using my friends as an example of this occurrence, that young people are relying on unreliable forms of contraception, or none at all. i never said that they were a cross section of the population, but trying to bring solid evidence into a speculative argument.

Bit of a contradiction there, using the pill and/or a condom IS taking responsibility. No one WANTS to have an abortion, yet you seem to be pushing the point that people who are having sex are just asking for it.

i have been sexually active since i was 15. i am in no way saying that abstinence is the key, but instead saying that perhaps you arent aware of the state of mind of some young couples who dont treat sex with the caution required for a mature relationship. you seem to think that everyone uses the pill and or a condom, but this is not the case.

At uni we are taught 'if you can't spell it, don't argue it'....poor spelling indicates that one is ill informed and greatly detracts from the credibility of an argument. Once again, do not call me childish.

your credability to argue a point is also greatly flawed by the use of spelling as a way of attacking anothers credability. again, sorry that you were offended by the 'childish' remark. but in future dont treat people as if theyre uneducated and stupid simply because their viewpoint differs from your own or because they are unsure of how to spell vasectomy.

 

[MiuMiu]

i am not calling you childish, but instead saying that the line of argument that compares the killing of a human foetus with the stepping on of an ant is childish.

Think what you will. If your opinion of my analogy is that it is childish, then so be it.

i have read your argument and there is no need for rudeness. my argument is that the vast majority of people who have abortions didnt get pregnant because of the pill failing or the condom breaking, they are simply not careful enough.

Simply not true.

you seem to think that everyone uses the pill and or a condom, but this is not the case.

Your comprehension is a problem. Not once did I say that everyone uses the pill or a condom, or even allude to that. I said, that of those who DO, pregnancies do still occur, and women have the right to choose.

your credability to argue a point is also greatly flawed by the use of spelling as a way of attacking anothers credability. .

Not its not, its a valid point. If you can't spell something it means you aren't well versed in it, and as such you should not purport to be providing an informed opinion. If someone has a valid point to make, go for it, but do not make up points about things you know nothing about.

 

[AlleyCat]

What about young couples say 16 years old (which is the legal age) having sex responsibly everytime they do it, then they suddently get pregneant becuase contrception fails.

well in these extenuating circumstances then yes, abortion is the only solution if the parents arent in a position to keep the child.

 

[nwatts]

soooooo....if you're anti abortion, because it is killing a "potential" life (whether or not it is a "life" as such is irrelevant to my question) does that mean you're also opposed to condoms and the pill and all other forms of contraception because the sperm are destined to "potentially" collide with the egg and form a "potential" life?
.'. Abstinence would be your only option?

Eerr.. no. Life begins at conception. There's nothing else to it.

 

[Calculon]

How does abortion different from executing someone who is on death roe. Isent that murder also

The line of argument is that the foetus has done nothing wrong and hence it is murder, rather than "eye for an eye" type rhetoric. For the record I'm pro-choice and anti-death penalty

 

[MiuMiu]

In regard to the death row thing, Im loathed to answer it cos Im in two minds.

When someone asks me about capital punishment my response is always 'two wrongs do not make a right.....no one has the right to end the life of another human being'.

However, that argument in this arena obviously leaves me open to the whole 'well abortion is ending the life of another human being'. My response to that would be that an early pregnancy (that is the initial 3 months in which an abortion is legal) is not a human being and it is not the same thing.

However being a lawyer makes it even harder for me again because I am inclined to look at what life means in the legal sense.

Legal execution is not murder because murder is a construct of the legal system and the legal system excludes capital punishment from the definition of murder. It also does this (albeit in a roundabout kinda way) with abortion. The two are not murder because they are not characterised as such.

The argument comes down to ending human life. I do not believe that abortion is ending human life. Even so, the subject of ending human life is not really what I am concerned with when I look at abortion, my overiding concerns are to do with the rights of the mother and the quality of life for both the mother and the resulting child.

 

[MiuMiu]

Eerr.. no. Life begins at conception. There's nothing else to it.

Actually, there is a lot more to it.

 

[AlleyCat]

How does abortion different from executing someone who is on death roe. Isent that murder also

should i let natstar know that since she cant spell "death row" she shouldnt be able to talk about it?

essentially the argument stems from the simple differing in opinion on whether the foetus is a life form or not. if you dont believe that it is, then there is no moral dilemma on whether or not it is murder. if you believe that it is, then understandably you have qualms on killing something you believe to be alive.

 

[Calculon]

The argument should revolve around what the rights of an unborn foetus are and whether they overrule those of the mother who is carrying it. It's my opinion that the latter is the case because the mother is indisputably a sentient being, whereas the foetus is not as yet. The killing of a foetus, imo, is comparable to killing any non-sentient being, such as a pig, sheep or bovine.

 

[MiuMiu]

should i let natstar know that since she cant spell "death row" she shouldnt be able to talk about it?

I won't type the first two-word phrase that popped into my head when I read this. All I will say is 'now whos being childish'?

 

[MiuMiu]

Im inclined to agree with Calculon.