Republicans push for an amendment that would ban abortion; even if the woman is raped - Page 5

*Xav* · 08-23-2012, 04:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Too many people, and at the rate and growth of resources we're expending is unsustainable. China is the model to follow, but no one will ever be the president or governor to make the tough decisions that need to happen (1, maybe 2 children per registered family, etc., and oh, you know that underage kid that squeezed out a kid? that wasn't a "freebie," that counts to the 1-2 kid total).

Really China is the model to follow? So we should force women to have abortions, and abort all the female fetuses so we have an imbalance of men and women?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mysterycolor

you are absolutely right- and that is why decisions involving pregnancy, abortion and anything else surrounding our reproductive system should be left for us to determine what is best. as if just being pregnant isnt tumultuous enough, add in a less than desirable, or absolutely tragic situation into that... and make it worse by having people hover around judging when they know nothing about what it is like. ever notice that during abortion debates people rarely bring up the situations where pregnancy has to be "terminated" because complications will result in the death of the mother- how dare anyone make that woman feel wrong for choosing to abort the fetus so she can live... it is disgusting the way we treat women in this country it is often referred to as the "invisible burka"- we may not come right out and cover our women... but politicians wont hesitate to slash their rights for a campaign promise... and the fact that it is effective proves just how deep the nastiness goes.

WTF, again your thinking in extremes that the only two views on abortion are abortion is ok no matter what, or ban abortion with no exceptions.

~~Leo656~~ · 08-23-2012, 04:36 AM

You're right, Spitfire, I do have a very dark sense of humor and I somewhat, and very reluctantly, apologize. I've taken the liberty of toning down my earlier statement, as I feel the rest of it is fine, if morbid. Morbid humor is still humor.

If anything I'm desensitized because I'm a lot closer to this debate than most people who argue so passionately about it, including, I'd argue, some women. At the very least I've known a disproportionate amount of women who've had one or the other. A lot of them also use dark jokes as a defense mechanism. Sorry if you or anyone else was offended, it's not the first time I've made that joke and honestly, it WAS the first complaint I've gotten, but I can see how some wouldn't like it.

The thing is Xav, it's not an all-or-nothing, it's about choice. Specifically, women NEED to be allowed to CHOOSE if they can have an abortion or not. A cancerous tumor growing in someone's brain is technically "life", but they have the choice of getting rid of it if they can.

Now I'm gonna get flak for comparing an unborn baby to a cancerous tumor. I can't win today.

PAAATE · 08-23-2012, 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leo656

You're right, Spitfire, I do have a very dark sense of humor and I somewhat, and very reluctantly, apologize. I've taken the liberty of toning down my earlier statement, as I feel the rest of it is fine, if morbid. Morbid humor is still humor.

Hey, I laughed :p

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leo656

The thing is Xav, it's not an all-or-nothing, it's about choice. Specifically, women NEED to be allowed to CHOOSE if they can have an abortion or not.

This.

**Jester** · 08-23-2012, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katie

See that exception thing I wrote?

Some states allow a second murder charge if the fetus is viable outside of the womb. Doubt any state would bring double murder charges if the woman was only a few weeks preggers

Since I loathe to post out of ignorance I went an looked around to see if I could find the "youngest" fetus protected by the Unborn Victims of Vilolence Act, and most I found were in the 3rd trimester, outside of most legal abortions. However, the law does call a "baby in utero," "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." The vagueness of the language made a lot of pro-choice people oppose the bill. 2004 Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry said he had "serious concerns about this legislation because the law cannot simultaneously provide that a fetus is a human being and protect the right of the mother to choose to terminate her pregnancy."

Abortion will always be a hot button because on one side, religiously minded or not, people will call for the right of the unborn to live, and on the other people will say that the mother's rights over her body trump those of the child. All sides have slippery slopes. There was a recent case of a couple who sued for "wrongful life" because their daughter was born with Down Syndrome and had they known, they would have terminated the pregnancy. What's to keep people from eventually choosing to abort children based on any sort of perceived issue before birth? Does the choice to end a pregnancy become ever become wrong because the choice was made because the child won't be perfect, or is just plain inconvenient?

*Xav* · 08-23-2012, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leo656

The thing is Xav, it's not an all-or-nothing, it's about choice. Specifically, women NEED to be allowed to CHOOSE if they can have an abortion or not.

Women NEED to CHOOSE to not have unprotected sex.

~~Leo656~~ · 08-23-2012, 05:45 AM

Again, sh*t happens. "Why can't I have paper towels to wipe up that milk I spilled?" "You shouldn't have spilled the milk in the first place, assh*le. Your fault for not knowin' better. Nobody gets paper towels ever again, they only exist to fix mistakes you shouldn't have made, so THERE."

Not very fair, is it? People are gonna make mistakes, and they need the resources to correct those mistakes. Again, a LOT of this comes down to one basic moral question: IS human life sacred? If you say Yes, you're probably anti-abortion. If you say No, you probably wonder why more people don't have them.

I say, "No, of course human life isn't sacred, what ever gave anyone a moronic assumption like that?"

Jester, you raise a good point, and again, I say let it be a CHOICE. I, for one, could never take care of a kid with HIV, Down's Syndrome, etc. I long ago decided that I can't take care of ANY kid. My biological need to f*ck trumps my societal obligation to breed. If something happened, and my wife got pregnant and it turned out the kid would have some serious problem, well, to me it would be horrible of me to even pretend I could handle that kind of responsibility. I know people that do, and they're great at it, *I* can't do it. I don't have the money, the patience, and the selflessness it takes to be a parent to anyone, especially a special needs child. And I see how many people with Down's and other diseases are treated in life by the people they meet... I can't exactly wish it on anyone. Not EVER going to say they'd be better off not being born, BUT, I strongly feel it is the parents' job to CHOOSE what will be best - for EVERYONE, and yes, that includes the parents. In the end, some will choose life and some will choose to abort life. But I believe everyone needs to choose for themselves, and you can NOT take that choice away.

Sadly... and this is gonna sound SO f*cked up, but it's the truth... MOST parents I know STRONGLY have some level of resentment for their kids. They resent the exorbitant cost, the lack of freedom, the neediness, the selfishness, the crying of the baby years, the arguing of the teen years... they resent, essentially, losing their entire lives for the sake of "someone else", someone who will never understand or appreciate the sacrifices that were made for them. For me, having kids is like smoking: Everyone I knew who did it wish they never started, so I never saw any reason anyone would want to, ever. If I got anyone pregnant, even by accident, my life would be entirely ruined, and I am not about to have that.

Selfish? Absolutely. But it's MY Choice. Everyone needs to make their own.

*mysterycolor* · 08-23-2012, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jester

There was a recent case of a couple who sued for "wrongful life" because their daughter was born with Down Syndrome and had they known, they would have terminated the pregnancy. What's to keep people from eventually choosing to abort children based on any sort of perceived issue before birth? Does the choice to end a pregnancy become ever become wrong because the choice was made because the child won't be perfect, or is just plain inconvenient?

You can already detect some genetic defects such as trisomy 13 (patau syndrome, trisomy 18 (edwards syndrome) & trisomy 21 (down syndrome) in the first trimester- so who is to say that people aren't aborting when they learn of the genetic abnormality? and who is to say they are wrong if they do? roughly 80% of babies born with patau syndrome die within their first year and at least half of babies born with edwards syndrome die within a week, that is if you actually make it to term as many of them are still born. As for down syndrome, many can live relatively long lives but are prone to health problems, developmental delays and a slew of other problems that will be around for their entire life... and this syndrome i know for sure has seen an uprise in abortion when detected- one article said 90% of fetus' diagnosed are then aborted in the United States...

*Master Splinter* · 08-23-2012, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xav

Women NEED to CHOOSE to not have unprotected sex.

Yeah because a rapist is going to take the time to put on a condom and choose a victim that has been on the pill. Get real!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xav

WTF, again your thinking in extremes that the only two views on abortion are abortion is ok no matter what, or ban abortion with no exceptions.

Actually you are wrong. There are three views. However the third view is so extreme nobody agrees with it. MysteryColors views are not extreme, they are neutral. Pro-Choice is a neutral view, it gives the option of having an abortion or not having one, it is not forcing anything upon anyone. Your view of making abortions illegal so that no woman can have an abortion is one extreme side of the view. The opposite extreme view would be to make every woman have an abortion, but it is so crazy nobody agrees with it. But that's the fact that you and others won't bring up. Our view for Pro-Choice is a neutral view, it's not extreme, it's right down the middle.

-ms

**Jester** · 08-23-2012, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mysterycolor

You can already detect some genetic defects such as trisomy 13 (patau syndrome, trisomy 18 (edwards syndrome) & trisomy 21 (down syndrome) in the first trimester- so who is to say that people aren't aborting when they learn of the genetic abnormality? and who is to say they are wrong if they do? roughly 80% of babies born with patau syndrome die within their first year and at least half of babies born with edwards syndrome die within a week, that is if you actually make it to term as many of them are still born. As for down syndrome, many can live relatively long lives but are prone to health problems, developmental delays and a slew of other problems that will be around for their entire life... and this syndrome i know for sure has seen an uprise in abortion when detected- one article said 90% of fetus' diagnosed are then aborted in the United States...

Just because it's already being done, doesn't mean it's right. It's eugenic, pure and simple. Heaven forbid we find the "gay gene." Would there be an uproar if parents all of a sudden started aborting their potentially gay progeny? And what about false positives and negatives, which may say that a kid will be just fine and then they're born with Down Syndrome or the tests say that the child may have Down and they wind up fine? Both cases exist. No test is 100% accurate.

This may sound callous, but I think we've gotten way beyond people caring about really extreme gallows humor, but how would we study and fight disorders without people born with them? Then again, if they are all aborted, then we don't have the disorder, right?

*Katie* · 08-23-2012, 12:45 PM

It should still be a choice. If you don't believe in abortion then your choice is to carry the pregnancy despite any birth defects. If you do not have moral issues terminating a pregnancy where the fetus is genetically damaged, then you should be allowed to do it. It's a personal choice that no one who isn't a biological parent of the fetus should be involved in. And if you are a rapist....your rights to parenthood are void.

If this was to pass (and it won't) it would open the door to changing the legal definition of life. Life at conception. So then what?

Do women get tried for murder if they have a miscarriage? Or manslaughter (wasn't intended, but it happened)
What about fertilized eggs which don't attach to the uterus? They would be legally alive....is it's the woman's fault? Is it suicide?

Also if all abortions are banned, what if the life of the mother is in danger? Whose rights are more important? A 15 year old in another country which does ban all abortions was denied treatment for acute leukemia because she was 12 weeks pregnant. Prognosis without treatment was only a month or so if I remember right. Baby would have died with her, but she was denied treatment.

What if?

This stuff will happen if a law like this were to pass.

ComicBookBoy · 08-23-2012, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mysterycolor

you are absolutely right- and that is why decisions involving pregnancy, abortion and anything else surrounding our reproductive system should be left for us to determine what is best. as if just being pregnant isnt tumultuous enough, add in a less than desirable, or absolutely tragic situation into that... and make it worse by having people hover around judging when they know nothing about what it is like. ever notice that during abortion debates people rarely bring up the situations where pregnancy has to be "terminated" because complications will result in the death of the mother- how dare anyone make that woman feel wrong for choosing to abort the fetus so she can live... it is disgusting the way we treat women in this country it is often referred to as the "invisible burka"- we may not come right out and cover our women... but politicians wont hesitate to slash their rights for a campaign promise... and the fact that it is effective proves just how deep the nastiness goes.

If a woman was going to die if she had the baby then I would not say it is bad for her to have an abortion, but I will not say it is right either. "The greatest way to express your love for another is by giving your life for them."

But if a woman has an abortion just because she doesn't want the baby then she is completely wrong in doing so. That is murder and nothing more.

ComicBookBoy · 08-23-2012, 12:58 PM

A lot of people seem to think it is okay for a person to abort a baby because the baby will be born with some kind of problem like "down syndrome" or some other kind of problem, but what if a one year old baby was accidentally dropped and as a result, now had complications? He was completely alive and was able to live but he would have complications. Should the parents be allowed to kill their kid just because he now has complications? If you say "No" then you should no longer use the excuse "we should abort him because he will have complications."

*Xav* · 08-23-2012, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katie

Murder shouldn't be used to describe an abortion.

Murder is a legal term whereby a human knowingly and with malice ends the life of another human. For it to be murder, the fetus would have to be considered legally alive. In the legal definition of life....life begins at birth not conception.

Exceptions are sometimes made when the fetus would be viable outside the womb as in the Lacy Peterson case.

And at one point blacks were legally 3/5 of a person.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leo656

You know when you're officially "a living person"? When you pop out. That's it. Not before. Anything prior to that is "A work in progress" and anything can happen. If I am on the road, just around the corner from work, but I'm not there yet, almost, but pretty close... I'm still not "at work", and I'm not given credit towards being so. Likewise, I don't count anyone as a member of the human race until they are present and accounted for... and usually, not even then. It's a rather broad, silly, and extreme way to make a point, I grant you, but all the intelligent arguements were taken already.

But people keep growing until their 20's aren't they too "A work in progress"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Splinter

Yeah because a rapist is going to take the time to put on a condom and choose a victim that has been on the pill. Get real!

You know damn well I am not talking about rape. Don't be a ****ing asshole.

*Katie* · 08-23-2012, 05:31 PM

I don't understand how the legal definition of when life starts has any comparison to the civil rights issues of the 19th century. No one ever said that a slave wasn't alive...they just didn't consider them to be anything much more than farm animals. Of course that was a stupid way to look at things.

I suppose though that bringing up the slave reference does present an interesting comparison. In the case of slaves, the white males deemed that slaves were not human (or no better than animals) to justify the opression of a group that was different fom them.

Similarly, people who would pass laws that dictate a certain moral standing do so to enforce their set of morals onto a group that has different beliefs.

I'm against abortion as a method of birth control......i'd likely never have an abortion (except for rape or if my life was in danger) because of my fundamental Christian upbringing. However just because that is my belief does not mean everyone should do as I do. Someone else may think differently.

Not my place to judge (that's in the bible, right?) Also not my place to save or convert anyone. No one should be forced into morality. Everyone should have a choice.

*Spitfire* · 08-23-2012, 05:54 PM

I like what Katie here has to say. Why can't more people understand this logic?

Also not a single anti-abortion person has told me how someone they don't know getting an abortion affects them.

ComicBookBoy · 08-23-2012, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spitfire

I like what Katie here has to say. Why can't more people understand this logic?

Also not a single anti-abortion person has told me how someone they don't know getting an abortion affects them.

People murder and rape others all over the country. It doesn't affect you, so should they legalize murder and rape?

*Samhain* · 08-23-2012, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComicBookBoy

People murder and rape others all over the country. It doesn't affect you, so should they legalize murder and rape?

I gotta ask you, do you believe in Dinosaurs?

ComicBookBoy · 08-23-2012, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samhain

I gotta ask you, do you believe in Dinosaurs?

I'm not quite sure what that has to do with anything but yeah.

*Samhain* · 08-23-2012, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComicBookBoy

I'm not quite sure what that has to do with anything but yeah.

Okay then, good to hear.

Type 97 Chi-ha · 08-23-2012, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katie

I suppose though that bringing up the slave reference does present an interesting comparison. In the case of slaves, the white males deemed that slaves were not human (or no better than animals) to justify the opression of a group that was different fom them.

Funny how you bring up "white males". Like everyone else was opposed to slavery? Slavery is still practiced today in many Muslim countries.

And BTW, slaves were considered human, as you couldn't kill a slave and not be charged with murder. (Look it up.) Also note that slaves were hardly considered subhuman if you look at the literature of the time. In the Mark Twain books; the slave Jim was talked to and treated like a person and not a piece of furniture. Even the cruel slaveowner Simon Legree in Uncle Tom's Cabin considered Uncle Tom human in the sense that Uncle Tom was able to humiliate Legree and make him feel small by being a good person.

08-23-2012, 12:45 PM	#90
Katie Just...way too serious. Join Date: May 2005 Location: purgatory Posts: 3,519	It should still be a choice. If you don't believe in abortion then your choice is to carry the pregnancy despite any birth defects. If you do not have moral issues terminating a pregnancy where the fetus is genetically damaged, then you should be allowed to do it. It's a personal choice that no one who isn't a biological parent of the fetus should be involved in. And if you are a rapist....your rights to parenthood are void. If this was to pass (and it won't) it would open the door to changing the legal definition of life. Life at conception. So then what? Do women get tried for murder if they have a miscarriage? Or manslaughter (wasn't intended, but it happened) What about fertilized eggs which don't attach to the uterus? They would be legally alive....is it's the woman's fault? Is it suicide? Also if all abortions are banned, what if the life of the mother is in danger? Whose rights are more important? A 15 year old in another country which does ban all abortions was denied treatment for acute leukemia because she was 12 weeks pregnant. Prognosis without treatment was only a month or so if I remember right. Baby would have died with her, but she was denied treatment. What if? This stuff will happen if a law like this were to pass. __________________ THE WORLD IS JUST AWESOME

08-23-2012, 05:31 PM	#94
Katie Just...way too serious. Join Date: May 2005 Location: purgatory Posts: 3,519	I don't understand how the legal definition of when life starts has any comparison to the civil rights issues of the 19th century. No one ever said that a slave wasn't alive...they just didn't consider them to be anything much more than farm animals. Of course that was a stupid way to look at things. I suppose though that bringing up the slave reference does present an interesting comparison. In the case of slaves, the white males deemed that slaves were not human (or no better than animals) to justify the opression of a group that was different fom them. Similarly, people who would pass laws that dictate a certain moral standing do so to enforce their set of morals onto a group that has different beliefs. I'm against abortion as a method of birth control......i'd likely never have an abortion (except for rape or if my life was in danger) because of my fundamental Christian upbringing. However just because that is my belief does not mean everyone should do as I do. Someone else may think differently. Not my place to judge (that's in the bible, right?) Also not my place to save or convert anyone. No one should be forced into morality. Everyone should have a choice. __________________ THE WORLD IS JUST AWESOME

08-23-2012, 05:54 PM	#95
Spitfire Writer • Director Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 12,035	I like what Katie here has to say. Why can't more people understand this logic? Also not a single anti-abortion person has told me how someone they don't know getting an abortion affects them. __________________ Check out my online portfolio http://www.christopherpelletier.com/

08-23-2012, 04:36 AM	#82
~~Leo656~~ Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: nWo Country Posts: 27,703	You're right, Spitfire, I do have a very dark sense of humor and I somewhat, and very reluctantly, apologize. I've taken the liberty of toning down my earlier statement, as I feel the rest of it is fine, if morbid. Morbid humor is still humor. If anything I'm desensitized because I'm a lot closer to this debate than most people who argue so passionately about it, including, I'd argue, some women. At the very least I've known a disproportionate amount of women who've had one or the other. A lot of them also use dark jokes as a defense mechanism. Sorry if you or anyone else was offended, it's not the first time I've made that joke and honestly, it WAS the first complaint I've gotten, but I can see how some wouldn't like it. The thing is Xav, it's not an all-or-nothing, it's about choice. Specifically, women NEED to be allowed to CHOOSE if they can have an abortion or not. A cancerous tumor growing in someone's brain is technically "life", but they have the choice of getting rid of it if they can. Now I'm gonna get flak for comparing an unborn baby to a cancerous tumor. I can't win today.

08-23-2012, 05:45 AM	#86
~~Leo656~~ Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: nWo Country Posts: 27,703	Again, sht happens. "Why can't I have paper towels to wipe up that milk I spilled?" "You shouldn't have spilled the milk in the first place, asshle. Your fault for not knowin' better. Nobody gets paper towels ever again, they only exist to fix mistakes you shouldn't have made, so THERE." Not very fair, is it? People are gonna make mistakes, and they need the resources to correct those mistakes. Again, a LOT of this comes down to one basic moral question: IS human life sacred? If you say Yes, you're probably anti-abortion. If you say No, you probably wonder why more people don't have them. I say, "No, of course human life isn't sacred, what ever gave anyone a moronic assumption like that?" Jester, you raise a good point, and again, I say let it be a CHOICE. I, for one, could never take care of a kid with HIV, Down's Syndrome, etc. I long ago decided that I can't take care of ANY kid. My biological need to fck trumps my societal obligation to breed. If something happened, and my wife got pregnant and it turned out the kid would have some serious problem, well, to me it would be horrible of me to even pretend I could handle that kind of responsibility. I know people that do, and they're great at it, I* can't do it. I don't have the money, the patience, and the selflessness it takes to be a parent to anyone, especially a special needs child. And I see how many people with Down's and other diseases are treated in life by the people they meet... I can't exactly wish it on anyone. Not EVER going to say they'd be better off not being born, BUT, I strongly feel it is the parents' job to CHOOSE what will be best - for EVERYONE, and yes, that includes the parents. In the end, some will choose life and some will choose to abort life. But I believe everyone needs to choose for themselves, and you can NOT take that choice away. Sadly... and this is gonna sound SO f*cked up, but it's the truth... MOST parents I know STRONGLY have some level of resentment for their kids. They resent the exorbitant cost, the lack of freedom, the neediness, the selfishness, the crying of the baby years, the arguing of the teen years... they resent, essentially, losing their entire lives for the sake of "someone else", someone who will never understand or appreciate the sacrifices that were made for them. For me, having kids is like smoking: Everyone I knew who did it wish they never started, so I never saw any reason anyone would want to, ever. If I got anyone pregnant, even by accident, my life would be entirely ruined, and I am not about to have that. Selfish? Absolutely. But it's MY Choice. Everyone needs to make their own.

08-23-2012, 12:58 PM	#92
ComicBookBoy Hench Mutant Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Virginia Posts: 321	A lot of people seem to think it is okay for a person to abort a baby because the baby will be born with some kind of problem like "down syndrome" or some other kind of problem, but what if a one year old baby was accidentally dropped and as a result, now had complications? He was completely alive and was able to live but he would have complications. Should the parents be allowed to kill their kid just because he now has complications? If you say "No" then you should no longer use the excuse "we should abort him because he will have complications."