Legal or Illegal: Abortion?

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Bond

We must first examine the role of a modern government. In the most basic sense, its role should be to protect its citizen’s civil liberties and security. The government, in order to be impartial, must protect the civil liberties of all of its citizens. Encompassed among this phrase “all citizens” is the least among us – the poor, the disabled, and the unborn. In fact, if the government cannot protect the least among us, how can we have confidence in our government?

Then is it not the governments responcibility to protect the rights and liberties of its women citizens? These women who are most definitely, unarguably, human. There is no gray line.

The largest fallacy I see in your argument, and the argument of every other pro-life person, is that you belittle the concept of pregnancy, you downgrade it and make it look like it's no big deal. Like anyone could do it with little effort, and that it won't cost them anything. Men make this assumption all the time. I can't think of a way to explain to you how serious, painful, and BIG OF A DEAL that pregnancy is. It's not something that just "happens", and it isn't cheap, and trying to raise a child is certainly not cheap. You just need to understand this. Talk to some women in your life that have given birth. Talk to some girls who haven't given birth yet, and see how they feel about the concept. More than likely terrified. That is why I feel that men have no right to make this choice, none.

I know the argument is often made as to when precisely this mass of cells becomes a true human, but I find this argument irrelative. The truth is we just don’t know, and frankly, we don’t need to know. Having unprotected sex is a risk. It’s a risk that could produce a human, and that risk must be accepted, in fact, it is the responsibility of those engaging in unprotected sex to be aware of the possibility of a child – there is no excuse.

---

I don't understand what you're getting at. I don't believe I advocated rape? I apologize if that was the misconception.

You pretty much did. Ninety percent of what you have written so far is not pro-life, it is anti-woman. You act like it's the woman's fault for getting raped. You act like they should just have the baby of a man who invaded their body, and not have second thoughts. Again, you have no idea what an ordeal pregnancy is, and you're letting a man who already possibly ruined her life just make it worse by giving her a baby she didn't even want.

We are talking about the mass of cells that creates a human, correct? When do you think this mass of cells becomes a human? A month? Two months? Three months? ... ?

I have to ask, what is the difference between a 1-year old and a 15-year old? The 1-year old is less developed, so certainly it is less entitled to life than the 15-year old, right? You haven't clearly stated where you stand on when life begins, but at DNA fertilization a human is indeed conceived.

Honestly, it depends. If you were immediately aware of being pregnant very shortly after it happened, then yes, I feel like you should have to decide within your first trimester; unless you were raped. Most women are afraid to tell anyone they were raped, because they think no one will believe them, and having to admit you're also pregnant just makes things even more terrifying. Once again, you're being anti-woman and assuming decisions like these are easy. You're not having any empathy -at all-. You're just spitting out words and acting righteous, but you never actually put yourself into the shoes of a woman facing this choice.

Originally Posted by KG

If the abortion is premeditated, that is to say, if the mother knows she is killing the baby, by many moral codes this is reprehensible. It is morally wrong. You are thinking in terms of reactions, not moral standards, and in a sense you are actually missing out on a great argument.

And sometimes the medical complications that could cause harm to the woman aren't known until further into the pregnancy. The above quote just further propagates the anti-woman philosophy that I'm talking about. Once again, you're not having any empathy. What right do you have to tell a woman she has to choose an unborn baby over her own life? What right do you have to tell someone she has to die? You have no right to take away a beautiful life from something that hasn't even started its yet.

Originally Posted by KG

You aren't in a position to answer that question because you aren't deciding if you want to live or die. I can't answer that question either. But, I would hope that a parent would not make a morally reprehensible decision to abort their child because they found it it will be born with down syndrome. There is such a thing as adoption.

Did anyone even read what I originally wrote about adoption? And stop acting like spitting a baby out of your body is something easy to do. I'm sick of hearing men say, "Eh, just have it and let someone adopt it." And no, I can't personally answer that question for everyone, but I think it's up to the parents. Personally I think it is cruel to do that to a person; to give them a half life.

This is absolutely NOT TRUE. Read the biology stuff I posted.

Really? A guy's sperm doesn't have the potential for life? A woman's egg doesn't have the potential for life? Even simple carbon has the potential for life. That's why potential life isn't life, just like potential energy isn't real energy. It just could be someday. Maybe.

Originally Posted by Bond

If a pregnant woman is murdered, why is the murderer charged with double homicide?

Because they should be. That's a terrible way to argue this; you know why a murderer would be charged with double homicide. Because he killed a pregnant woman and we still live in a world where we don't go easy on those people.

I guess that lets me sum up when I think life begins: whenever the fetus becomes wanted by the mother, whenever she wants it to be her baby. After it's fully formed and waiting to be born, or after birth, it is a human regardless. I do think there should be a limitation on how long you could wait, but it needs to be longer than the first trimester, because of rape cases and because some women just do not realize their pregnant that fast. Some women have irregular periods, so when they miss one or two they don't really notice.

But, KG, if you really want to bring this back to nature, some mothers of certain species eat their born babies. So really, don't act like because natural abortions occur only during that very very very early stage that it means that's the only time its okay for a human to do it.

But I leave you with some closing comments:
Try to have some empathy for the women. Really consider how this is for them, and how they must feel with a bunch of men in Washington deciding for them. And if I get one response to this that says "It doesn't matter, it's morally wrong." Then I'm saying now that I'm done with this thread and this argument, because according to my moral code, -you- are wrong.

@Bond: Also, the government doesn't count an unborn as a citizen, as I mentioned with my "census" comment.

And finally, try to understand that being forced into an unwanted pregnancy can ruin the lives of most women, it can change things. I know that there is a member of GameTavern who would not be here if his mom had not had an abortion early in her life; it would have changed things completely. I won't say his name, unless he wants to come in and talk about it.

[Bond]

Vampyr - I'm sorry you didn't like this discussion. I was going to reply to your reply, but if you're done with this thread, then I won't. I can't help but feel that you confused me with a right-wing-pro-life-wacko-nutjob, which, I assure you, I am not. The primary basis for my argument is the Constitution, not God's will. I would like to point out though that I do not support rape, am not anti-women, and never said that abortion is worse than the Holocaust.

KG - Here is my response to how to deal with legislation concerning abortion (assuming our agreements that we made last night):

First and foremost, I consider Roe v Wade unconstitutional. I believe abortion is a state, not a federal, issue. Therefore, I believe abortion should be decided state by state and the federal government should not legislate abortion. That being said, if I was a state legislator, this is the bill I would propose:

I would first state that life begins at the moment of conception. I would then cite Amendment XIV, Section 1 of the Constitution which states: "No State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." I would then state that abortion is unconstitutional, when the mother's life is not threatened by the baby, given the agreement that: 1) life begins at conception and 2) the citation of Amendment XIV, Section 1 of the Constitution. This is an example of a government's fundamental responsibility to protect life, and to curtail violence.

I would then address situations where the mother's life is threatened by the baby. The government does not have a right to interfere in these situations. If the government were to decide one way or another (either against the mother, or against the child), the government is failing to protect the liberties of either the mother or the child, and is advocating violence.

Therefore, I believe the government should not interfere in situations in which the mother's life is threatened by the child. I believe it should be a decision between the mother, the father, and the doctor (ideally).

[Professor S]

Who determines when a mother's life is in jeopardy? A doctor who can decide whether or not the law is morally correct, and start a black market abortion clinic with excuse that the very act of giving birth is life threatening or just make up an affliction that threatens her life.

Once again, we end up in a mess. Thats why I think there needs to be sonme form of comprimise that is somewhat tolerable to both sides, or nothing will get accomplished. There has to be some steadfast law that will save many of the unborn, but also give pro-abortion people options and choices that they can tolerate.

Both sides need to give a little, or we will be stuck with Roe v. Wade forever, and not only is it unconstitutional, but is also horrible law as it is legislation from the bench. Law is specific, RvW is NOT.

[KillerGremlin]

This is true. There was an article about a pharmacist that wouldn't fill someone's birth control prescription because they didn't think it was moral. But, it's not the job of the pharmacist to have moral opinions. I believe the pharmacist worked for Meijers. Meijers could adopt a stance where they don't sell contraceptives, but they do sell them, so that pharmacist was way out of line.

[Jason1]

I dont understand why this is still an issue. Abortions are legal. Roe Vs. Wade. Killing people is illegal. Rape is illegal. This is America.

The sun will rise tomorrow.

Get over it people.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Jason1

I dont understand why this is still an issue. Abortions are legal. Roe Vs. Wade. Killing people is illegal. Rape is illegal. This is America.

The sun will rise tomorrow.

Get over it people.

I actually had a really insulting response to this post, but I quickly realized there was no need.

[mickydaniels]

Originally Posted by Professor S

I actually had a really insulting response to this post, but I quickly realized there was no need.

I bet it had something to do with apathy.
Right?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by mickydaniels

I bet it had something to do with apathy.
Right?

Apathy is a kind way to put it, I suppose.

[BlueFire]

lolwat

[Jason1]

Oh please Professor, the only reason anyone posts topics of this nature is to stir people up. Admit it, you like acting like my opinion is crap and your shit dosent stink.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Jason1

Oh please Professor, the only reason anyone posts topics of this nature is to stir people up. Admit it, you like acting like my opinion is crap and your shit dosent stink.

Jason, quite honestly, how can you objectively think that way? Vampyr and I don't agree on abortion AT ALL, and yet we are able to have a constructive conversation on the topic. Xantar and I historically don;t agree on ANYTHING yet we have a cordial relationship going back YEARS and multiple forums. I don;t agree with them, but I respect his opinion because he took the time to reason it out and made thoughtful statements.

Meanwhile your idea of a political or social issue conversation is two sentences of emotion filled, knee jerk, thoughtless cliches in response to thoughtful opinion. Regardless of agreeing or disagreeing with my opinions, you will always have a explanation as to how I came to those opinions.

Whenever challenged as to what lies beneath your rhetoric, you simply state that you feel no need explain yourself but you have reasons. In my opinion, if your not willing to show anyone that your opinion is worth consideration, you should just simply stay out of the conversation. No one should consider an opinion simply because it happens to exist.

If you don't respect your opinions enough to test them, then they aren't worth the time it took for you to post them.

[KillerGremlin]

The reason politics are so messed up these days is because politicians don't know a damn thing about what they are talking about. I'd like to hear McCain or Bush attempt to explain the ramifications of abortion using Biological and Philosophical terms. Or, how about D-Bag Stevens, that guy thinks the Internet is a series of tubes.

Maybe if politicians weren't so ignorant we would have more funding towards valuable scientific research and maybe we would actually start to have a progressive western culture.

I can only dream. That's the problem with being apathetic about important topics like abortion.

[uber_paddler]

French toast.