The Abortion Debate... (4 Viewers)

[girlanachronism]

hey, what, pray tell, are the 'good' parts of child birth? is it the pain, the nausea, the decreased sexual enjoyment and bladder control...like, what exactly is the man 'missing out on' here?

 

[crazyhomo]

husbands? wives?

 

[ur_inner_child]

husbands? wives?

Say wha.....?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Most girls i talk to tell me they feel sorry for guys who never get to experience having something living inside them, feeling it grow, feeling truely 'connected'...

 

[crazyhomo]

Say wha.....?

So while i think it should come down to the womans choice, i don't think the husbands wishes should be taken too lightly, it could easily ruin even a great relationship for something like this to happen.

HE'S SUPPORTING THE FAMILY FINANCIALLY and she's not.
HE HAS TO KEEP POSITIVE EVEN WHILE HIS WIFE BITCHES AT HIM
HE HAS TO LOOK AFTER HIS WIFE THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE THING
HE DOESN'T GET TO EXPERIENCE THE GOOD PARTS OF CHILD BIRTH she does.
HE MIGHT HAVE TO DROP OUT OF SCHOOL TO PAY FOR THE CHILD

my baby shot me down

 

[girlanachronism]

oh boo hoo, my heart bleeds for them

 

[Not-That-Bright]

yes because childbirth is definately the worst thing that ever happened to anyone, no disease can match the pain

 

[girlanachronism]

oh ffs, did i say that?

grow up

 

[ur_inner_child]

you mean how Not-That-Bright used "husbands" and "wives" instead of just women and men?

*shrugs* We both knew what we meant, because we were assuming that the mother and father were going to stick with each other during this whole decision making thing, arguing the value of a man's opinion etc.

And yeah. The father may not be inclined to support the mother, which is sad, I hope that I never get into a situation where I fall pregnant and the father ditches it all.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

don't get pregnant under 17 then... apparently 70% of mothers under 17 get bashed by their boyfriends :S

 

[katie_tully]

*runs around squealing*

The guy stick his dodar into the womens hoorah, thus creating their spawn. Now, because the guy helped in creating this thing... it would be unfair to say he has no right.
Even if he was a one night stand
Even if he is the boyfriend
Even if he is the husband.
He has a right to know that you're pregnant, and has equal right to dicussing the proposed termination or birth of the child. Ultimately I guess it's up to the woman, but to say he has no right is a crock of shit.
It's women like this who then have the baby, and then decide the father can't have any part of the childs life.
it's women like this i harbour homicidal tendencies towards.

Keep in mind too, if the guy wants the child, he's going to be the one out slaving his azz off to support the woman and child, so to say he gets out of it easily is a crock of shatola. He's the one who is ALSO up at 3 am wiping the brats arse.

In short, because I've noticed this thread is full of people with space between their ears, what I'm saying is:
Provided the guy is going to stick around, he does have the right for input and he has the right to know that he has you up the duff. Dont terminate without telling him youre preggers, and take his side into consideration.
It'd be different if the shoe was on the other foot wouldnt it? Me thinks so.

 

[neo o]

no one owns a child you fuck.
If it's born its a person, thus you CAN'T own it.
If it's a feotus the woman as ultimate responsibility as it's in her body and dependent on her for its continued existance

Its been pointed out that many children are aborted whom could survive outside of the mother.

Also, under that logic, you think parents have a right to terminate their children regardless of age, since most kids are "dependant on their parents for their continued existance"

 

[katie_tully]

no one owns a child you fuck.
If it's born its a person, thus you CAN'T own it.
If it's a feotus the woman as ultimate responsibility as it's in her body and dependent on her for its continued existance

Redundant. Truly.
Once the baby is born, nobody "owns" it. Under that logic, nobody is responsible for it after it's born either, therefore it can be subjected to neglect.

 

[Lexicographer]

Ownership and responsibility are two very different things. For example, you don't OWN your three year old son, but if you fail to care for him in the proper manner you are guilty of neglecting your responsibility to him as his parent.

In the same way, a mother is responsible for her unborn child, yet does not own it. She is bound to make decisions which account for the continued wellbeing of the child and is expected by society not to do things that would harmit. When you see heavily pregnant women in the shopping centre smoking like chimneys, would you say they are upholding their responsibility to the child? Of course not, they are knowlingly and willingly endangering its continued health, despite the intention to proceed to term (evidenced by the late stage of the pregnancy).

I am against abortion as I believe that upon conception a child is truly and wholly human, with the incontestible right to a chance at life. This is not a religious stand, as sanctity is not an issue here. It is a moral position on the value of humanity. No person has the right to take the innocent life away (even capital punishment requires that the executed be convicted of a crime - there is no crime in conception).

There exists the argument that in some cases failing to abort a child will kill the mother. What has changed since the time before abortion? A former president of the family planning organisation "Planned Parenthood" Alan Guttmacher said "today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregancy alive, unless she suffers from a terminal illness such as cancer or leukæmia. If so, an abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save the life of the mother". This was in 1967, and our medical technology has only improved since then. How can people claim that failing to abort a child would kill the mother?

By confusing the intentional termination of the child with an unintended death due to treatment. There are many treatments that are used to cure illnesses which threaten a pregnancy - however this is not abortion. If a mother undergoes treatment to save her life and as a result her unborn child is killed she has not aborted the child but rather the child died in response to a treatment directed at saving the mother, so this is not relevant to the issue. What is relevant is the intentional termination of a child where such action is unnecessary, and at present there are no medical situations in which it is seen as necessary.

Also, I'm sure anyone who has looked at the medical side of the issue will find that an unborn child must always be viewed as a second patient - equal in importance to the mother. Doctors are expected to do all that is possible to bring both mother and child to health with least negative impact on one or the other. Obviously the needs of the mother often come first, as her deterioration would cause the demise of both patients, however this does not mean that the child can be treated as collateral.

 

[katie_tully]

That's your view
But tell me; Would you impose your view on another person? Do you think politicians have the right to make this decision, just because "they" disagree with it.
Personally, I don't believe any other person, apart from the two people involved, has the right to determine whether they can have an abortion of not.
it is not your body, it does not concern you, so do you believe what you think should be imposed upon other people?

 

[girlanachronism]

There exists the argument that in some cases failing to abort a child will kill the mother. What has changed since the time before abortion? A former president of the family planning organisation "Planned Parenthood" Alan Guttmacher said "today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregancy alive, unless she suffers from a terminal illness such as cancer or leukæmia. If so, an abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save the life of the mother". This was in 1967, and our medical technology has only improved since then. How can people claim that failing to abort a child would kill the mother?

Yet abortion is up to 10 times physically safer than childbirth. Although women are definitely at less risk now thanks to our infinitely higher standards of medical care, the fact remains there are still women who cannot physically carry a child to term without severe risks to their own safety. It doesn't matter how good our medical care is; that's just something that's always going to happen.

 

[Lexicographer]

Erin...sadly I agree with you, it is still very lucrative in those types of cases. But I can't bring myself to support the notion that one would destroy a life when there remains the chance that both have the chance to survive. It is just against my morality of life to take life away from one so another might keep it.

That's your view
But tell me; Would you impose your view on another person? Do you think politicians have the right to make this decision, just because "they" disagree with it.
Personally, I don't believe any other person, apart from the two people involved, has the right to determine whether they can have an abortion of not.
it is not your body, it does not concern you, so do you believe what you think should be imposed upon other people?

Katie, the baby is not your body either, it is its own body, and as such you have no more right to harm it than I do.

Let me demonstrate something. Read this statement: "I am opposed to abortion, but how can I impose my morality on someone else?" Now replace "abortion" with "rape" or "genocide". Sound ludicrous to you?

Why can we impose our opposition to such things as rape and murder on others? Because there is a third party, a victim involved. The child is a party seperate to the mother and in its destruction becomes a victim, just as much as the woman raped in the Devonshire St Tunnel is a victim. We have laws that criminalise rape and murder, nobody argues against those. The only difference with abortion is that the victim in this case does not have his/her own voice and thus can not be heard directly before the law. Consider the situation 50 years ago when Black people were second class citizens. These people effectively had no voice as well, and eventually had to band together to be noticed, and have racism criminalised. However, unborn children are completely helpless, they are totally powerless to oppose their own termination. Unlike a rape victim, or a beaten wife, they are not able to come out and demand justice - it is up to society as a whole to decide what is acceptable or unacceptable, enacting law accordingly.

Remember that politicians are YOUR elected representatives. They do not act on whim, because doing so would cost them office. If they put forth a bill it is in the knowledge that they have the support of their electorate (don't bring up the war, Howard doesn't count).

The saddest part of this is that people seem to care the least because the abortion can't happen to them. It's all well and good to say "I'm all for choice", but I wonder if you'd think the same way when looking at abortion as a mere extension of murder? You'd be pretty pissed off if some clever chap decided to make it legal to kill YOU, wouldn't you? I could come up with several reasons, just as convincing as those put forward for abortion, to knock you off Katie...but that wouldn't change anything.

The unseen victim is the most neglected and easiest ignored.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

About paying for abortions, i believe the government should only pay for the first abortion...
Girls are increasingly partaking in more than 1 abortion, some even having 4-5.. they're using abortion as their contraceptive.
This leads to problems if they want to have a child later in life, often girls who have too many abortions can't have children, have to get a hystorectomy.

 

[katie_tully]

Okay then

Let's put all of those words into the same sentence.

GIRL "RAPED", GIRL FALLS PREGNANT.
Happens every day. Should that girl then have to go on and have the pregnancy because YOU think MORALLY that ABORTION and RAPE fit into the same category?

The only victims in this are THE MOTHER and the FATHER because MEDICALLY, SCIENTIFICALLY and all other ally's, the feotus is NOT considered HUMAN until after a certain term in the pregnancy.
Now, tell me. Say you try and concieve a child, and at the 20 weeks find out it has down sydrome, or something equally as horrible.
If you had the choice, would you terminate the feotus, or would you give birth to this child KNOWING FULLY that it WILL NOT have the same quality of life as a healthy child?
Because they are the only abortions the government are trying to ban. Late term abortions. All other abortions will remain legal, but after 20 weeks you will not be legally allowed to terminate your pregnancy. This is for a variety of reasons, one being that it is recognised that before a certain amount of weeks, the feotus is not considered alive. After 20 weeks however is when we can tell whether the child as a deformality, yet you people think that it is more morally correct to give birth to this child, knowing it can die shortly after birth, 3 years down the track, or have a really shitty quality of life.
Not to mention the quality of life the parents have, knowing they will be caring for this human for the rest of their lives.



What I cannot get over is that you people that are against abortion try and bring other things into this. Abortion has nothing to do with whether rape or genocide are good or bad.
I don't know which part of it you understand, but there is a difference between A CHILD AND A FEOTUS. And if they make abortion illegal, they're only going to go to backyard abortions.

"I could come up with several reasons, just as convincing as those put forward for abortion, to knock you off Katie...but that wouldn't change anything."

Wake up. Seriously. Abortion is not the same as going and "knocking somebody off". IT'S A FEOTUS FOR CHRISTS SAKE. If I were terminated at 12 weeks, I wouldnt know. Therefore I wouldnt care. Thus, I would not be arguing with people who think abortion is immoral, yet the government allows "moral" things like injection clinics to run.
Bah. Ha. Ha.

Get off your moral high horse, stop and consider all the factors that would influence a woman to have an abortion. It isn't always because they just do not want the baby. The majority of abortions are done by women in their 30s, who in many cases are married and already have children. I know one who had 6 children, got her tubes tied yet got pregnany a 7th time. Reasonably enough she terminated the pregnancy.

Whether we elected these people into parliament or not has nothing to do with the fact that differing moral values have no place in political debate. Just because YOU disagree with abortion, does not mean it should be de-legalised.
If you or, if your girlfriend gets pregnant, MORALLY YOU SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHETHER YOU WANT THE CHILD OR NOT.

Go and chain yourself to a feotus now.

 

[Lexicographer]

Don't preach at me about "medically" and "scientifically" kid. In case you didn't know, neither medicine nor science have set definitions for when a child is alive beyond the traditional one, which is conception. These issues, like all related issues, are still under debate. You are no doctor, you are no scientist, and you are certainly not scientifically or medically literate regarding what is "alive" or "human" if you think that some universal standard exists telling us the precise moment when a clump of cells becomes a human, a citizen with all the rights and privileges afforded thereof.

You know what, I'm not going to bother arguing with you. I have put forward a logical and plausible point of view, open to discussion and debate. There may be other, equally logical and plausible points of view completely different to mine and I accept that willingly. Though from your first post I thought of you as an damned ignorant shitmuncher, I refrained from making my feelings known because I value honest discussion without the added weight of personal attack.

By going on with this "you people" nonsense you have once again destroyed any intelligent course this discussion may have run by turning it from debate to battle. Who the fuck do you think you are, saying a foetus isn't alive? Have you seen one? Have you measured it's pulse, watched its movements? A foetus is no less a human than a 97 year old woman, and much as I hate you for your arrogant disregard for the dignity of life I would oppose even YOUR abortion. Of course, then I'd come out and stab you in the face with a ten inch wang myself...but that's beside the point.

If anyone with something decent to say without personal attacks wants to comment on the posts before these I urge you to do so. Don't bother yourself with the rubbish posted here, even I get pissed off at rampant stupidity.