NationStates Jolt Archive

You believe in abortion, but you don't believe in capital punishment.

I don't believe in abortion, but I do believe in capital punishment. Mainly because as long as you know the difference between right and wrong (and are of a reasonable age) and you murder someone, you are guilty of murder and deserve whatever punishment society deems fit. I don't know of many aborted fetus' who murdered anyone.

I believe in both. And both need to be used carefully and responsibily. for once the life is lost... it's lost.

I dont believe in that mid-way abortion, but I believe in everyother kind. See, the criminal has done something bad, like murdered five people, if you have murdered five people, you need something worse than life in prison.

I dont believe in that mid-way abortion, but I believe in everyother kind. See, the criminal has done something bad, like murdered five people, if you have murdered five people, you need something worse than life in prison.

What? One human life isn't as important? If someone you loved dearly was brutally murdered, and the creep had not killed 5 people or more, he shouldn't be put to death?

I believe in abortion because the infant is living off the mother, and she cannot legally be forced to consent to that. Everyone has the right to refuse consent when it comes to donating their body to another, no matter the circumstances.

I don't believe in the death penalty because there is an inherent risk that innocent people will recieve it, because a dispproportional amount of those sentenced will be the poor (unable to buy their own life through a good lawyer), because I do not trust the state with life-or-death decisions of fully grown adults, because I consider it hypocritical to kill someone for killing someone (not the lack of use of 'muder'? That's because the death penalty is legal, so cannot be murder).

The issues are apples and oranges. Now, the self-proclaimed 'pro-lifers' that are for the death penalty... *them* you can argue with (unless they do the smart thing and just deal with being 'anti-abortion')

I believe in abortion because the infant is living off the mother, and she cannot legally be forced to consent to that. Everyone has the right to refuse consent when it comes to donating their body to another, no matter the circumstances.

A child lives off the mother for the next several years too. By your explaination, you would allow 2 year olds to be terminated.

A child lives off the mother for the next several years too. By your explaination, you would allow 2 year olds to be terminated.

:rolleyes:

Yes, because 'sucking nutrients directly from her body' can totally be compared to 'bugging her for pocket money'.

Grow up and stop erecting strawmen to burn.

I believe in abortion. It is a woman's right to choose, and unlike some people I do not consider aborting a not-yet sentient collection of flesh murder, or even killing for that matter.

However, I do not believe in capital punishment. Giving a serial killer a quick death is a far more benevolent punishment then having them rot in prison for the rest of their miserable lives. Why kill someone who takes pleasure in the fact that they will die?

I believe in abortion. It is a woman's right to choose, and unlike some people I do not consider aborting a not-yet sentient collection of flesh murder, or even killing for that matter.

However, I do not believe in capital punishment. Giving a serial killer a quick death is a far more benevolent punishment then having them rot in prison for the rest of their miserable lives. Why kill someone who takes pleasure in the fact that they will die?

Most serial killers are cowards, they don't want to die anymore then you or I.

At 13 weeks, the baby's heart is beating. I do not believe abortions should be done after that period.

A child lives off the mother for the next several years too. By your explaination, you would allow 2 year olds to be terminated.

Depending on someone for daily things is very different from being wthin that person and depending on them for nutrients.

Yes, I am pro-abortion and anti-capital punishment. And I agree, I think the two issues are miles apart. Basically it comes down to teh fact that I think my position is the way of "least harm." (can anyone tell I've done medical ethics courses ? :p ) If abortion was to be illegal women would be forced to carry children they do not really want. They psychological consequences of that on the child and the mother can be horrible. Then there are physical sequelae. Women will seek backyard terminations at theri own risk.

In terms of capital punishment, there is the issue of innocent people being executed, juvenile executions and other things. Maybe if petty drug offenders weren't thrown in prison there would be more room for serious offenders? :rolleyes:

At 13 weeks, the baby's heart is beating. I do not believe abortions should be done after that period.

The detection of brain waves is my personal cut-off point, but at least you HAVE a cut-off point (rather than just being rabidly anti-abortion, that is)

Obviously, there should be a limit to abortions. However, I support the death penalty because it is more clement to annull a criminal than it is to force him into the pit we call the American penal system. We should be spending the money that would go into feeding the wretched victims of their own squandered lives on education, to prevent more people from becoming criminals. It is the sorry state of our schools that create them. Why else would so many minorities be in jail?

i believe that abortion is a tragedy that doesnt need to be compounded by the legal system.

a fetus is human but its not a person; its alive but its not a baby.

i fully support the supreme court guidelines that make abortion freely available in the first 3 months then increasingly "illegal" as the fetus grows to viability. i would not make "partial birth abortion" illegal as it is only done from dire necessity. to limit a doctors option for treating emergencies makes no sense.

i do not support the death penalty. i dont give a damn about the life of some vile serial murderer. but thats not my problem with the death penalty.

1) when you make a mistake with the death penalty you cant "take it back" NO ONE should be killed by the state by mistake. there is no amount of mistakes that are acceptable in taking the lives of criminals. we know that mistakes happen, even if the percent is fairly low. that we cant guarantee error free executions, and as humans we will always make mistakes, means the death penalty is not acceptable

2) it takes too long and is too expensive.

3) its cruel to the victims families. in 2 ways.

first of all, if your loved ones killer GETS the death penalty is means 10 to 20 or more years of hearing after hearing trying to get the penalty dealt out. instead of finding peace, they must spend their lives focused on revenge. that they are willing to do it doesnt change the fact that they shouldnt HAVE TO. it would be better to have it be "over" by the killer getting life in prison without possibility of parole. then they can focus on the life of their loved one instead of her death.

secondly when your loved one is murdered, and the killer DOESNT get the death penalty, its a slap in the face of the victims family. the neice of a friend of my family got killed for the gold rims on her car. the district attny didnt even ASK for the death penalty. what kind of insult is it to find that your daughters life isnt even WORTH ASKING for the maximum penalty? thats cruel.

i guess i could go on but thats the basics.

I'm not gonna be sucked into this, but i'd like to make an observsation. Why is it that this issue never considers the other human life in the equation, that of the mother. Even in technologically advanced countries death during childbirth still happens. In third world countries it is a very big risk. Why is this life not discussed during these debates? Is a convict or undeveloped fetus worth more than a woman who's only crime is that she became pregnant?

:rolleyes:

Yes, because 'sucking nutrients directly from her body' can totally be compared to 'bugging her for pocket money'.

Grow up and stop erecting strawmen to burn.
The argument works for breast-feeding until the child is weaned.

:headbang: :headbang: THAT SO CALLED FREELOADER THAT IS LIVING OFF HIS MOTHER IS CONCEIVED IN AN ACT THAT IS 90% CONCENTUAL BETWEEN TWO ADULTS. THE RIGHT TO LIFE SHOULD NOT BE EXTERMINATED BY A SELFISH WHIM TO FREE YOURSELF FROM RESPONSIBILITY. TAKING WHAT GOD HAS CREATED IS MURDER. TOO MANY TIMES TODAY BARREN COUPLES WILL GLADLY EXCEPT THE OPPURTUNITY TO RAISE YOUR FLESH THAT YOU WANT DESTROYED. AS TO THE DEATH PENALTY' THERE IS A MAXIMUM 17 YEAR APPEAL PROCESS THAT CAN BE USED BY THE GUILTY TO DELAY THE PROCESS. TODAY WITH DNA TECHNOLOGY AND ADVANCED INVESTIGATIONS IT IS RARE THE DECISIONS ARE VOID OF CREDIBILITY. TAKE A LIFE&LOSE A LIFE.IT IS CHEAPER THAN BUILDING PRISONS OR HOUSING INMATES FOR LIFE TERMS. IF SHEIK KILLER COMES INTO YOUR HOUSE.WOULD YOU WANT HIM TO LIVE ON YOUR TAX MONEY :headbang:

I don't believe in either abortion or the death penalty for the simple fact that taking another human life like that is wrong. State run murder should be unacceptable. At least people have reason to want to execute a murderer who took another life, emotion behind it, but an unborn child certainly did nothing wrong to deserve being killed.

Abortion saves a potential human from a childhood/life of misery (I go for the lesser of 2 evils argument BTW). Capital punishment is cruel and the mark of an uncivilised society

You believe in abortion, but you don't believe in capital punishment.
I’m all for abortion and capitol punishment :)

The detection of brain waves is my personal cut-off point, but at least you HAVE a cut-off point (rather than just being rabidly anti-abortion, that is)

Cockroaches have brainwaves, so I don't see how that can be considered a cut off, I believe there should be a general level of cognizant existence.

Flamefest du jour.

You believe in abortion, but you don't believe in capital punishment.
This is where I think politics become hypocritical (regardless of innocence or guilt, a life is a life)

I am both pro-life *and* against the death penalty.

Tho if I were elected to office, seeing that the liberals (I'm libertarian) would probably try to stop me from banning abortion, I'd reform abortion law and try to illegalize abortion in the 3rd trimester

Ask me in any situation involving life or death:

Tho if I were elected to office, seeing that the liberals (I'm libertarian) would probably try to stop me from banning abortion, I'd reform abortion law and try to illegalize abortion in the 3rd trimester
It is illegal in the thrid trimester.

hmmm. so people don't beleive in the death penalty. They're willing to lock a man up like an animal for the rest of their lives, giving them 3 squares a day, cable t.v., a paying (granted it's pennies) job... all off of taxpayers dollars no less.

[Quickly pulls out Hotdog on a stick and awaites the flames that will be heading his way.]

You believe in abortion, but you don't believe in capital punishment.

a fetus isn't a human being and a woman shouldn't have to be an incubator if she doesn't want to be one and the justice system isn't perfect enough to only convict and execute guilty people.

though i'm not sure how i'd go on capital punishment even if it was the case that it was perfect and everyone who was guilty was convicted and everyone who is innocent was let go. it's still rather wasteful of a life not to mention that an the justice of an eye for an eye is hardly justice.

hmmm. so people don't beleive in the death penalty. They're willing to lock a man up like an animal for the rest of their lives, giving them 3 squares a day, cable t.v., a paying (granted it's pennies) job... all off of taxpayers dollars no less.

[Quickly pulls out Hotdog on a stick and awaites the flames that will be heading his way.]
Are you advocating killing criminals to save money?
haha.

It's most logical to be against the death penalty and for abortion if you believe that fetuses are not people, and criminals are.

There, that was easy.

hmmm. so people don't beleive in the death penalty. They're willing to lock a man up like an animal for the rest of their lives, giving them 3 squares a day, cable t.v., a paying (granted it's pennies) job... all off of taxpayers dollars no less.

it costs less to put the guy in jail for life than it does to put him to death.

I'm not gonna be sucked into this, but i'd like to make an observsation. Why is it that this issue never considers the other human life in the equation, that of the mother. Even in technologically advanced countries death during childbirth still happens. In third world countries it is a very big risk. Why is this life not discussed during these debates? Is a convict or undeveloped fetus worth more than a woman who's only crime is that she became pregnant?
exactly. the mortality rate for carrying a pregnancy to term is still much higher than the mortality rate for an abortion. why should someone have to go through the unnecessary risk if they don't want to?

Many people that oppose abortion support the death penatly, which is highly hipocritical.

First Abortion: I don't think it should be legal, except in cases of where the mother's life is in danger (for some, having a baby is life threatening) or in the cases of rape.

So, for that part.. i'm pro-life.

And as far as Capital Punishment goes: Ok, let's look at how it's applyed. In texas, a poor mexican immigrant, with the mental capacity of a 6 year old had murdered a teenager. During the trial, he couldn't understand what he did, or what he was doing there, so he talked with his lawyers about what colors he likes, and his favorite animal. He was found guilty and dispite being retarted, was executed for it, dispite the evidence against him largly circomstancial, but the defence couldn't mount a defence beyond his being retarded. Conversly, a middle class white woman who murdered 6 children was not exicuted, because people were going "oh that poor woman, she has had all her children die before her. Well of course she has.. she killed them. Everyone knew it, all the evidence pointed to it, and she admitted it.. her sentence for the murder of 6 children: a 5 month stay at a mental hospital and then probation.

And then i could always bring up several cases where, unfortunatly post execution, DNA evidence comes into play, and... oh would you look at that, the guy was innocent. To which police go "my bad". But it's too late.. they've killed an innocent man. It's happened several times. It's a sickeningly high proportion of those executed. Although happily, it's illegal here in Canada, just as it is in the entire post-industrial world, minus the U.S. (Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan)

So, as far as capital punishement: once again i'm pro-life.

To review: I'm Pro-life and... Pro-life.

I'll concede to your points of view... after all, it was and still is my opinion, and I'm no fanatic. of course like everything else, Abortion and Capital Punnishment needs to be used responsibly. those involved need to really think about it.

and no in the long run, keeping them locked up for the rest of their lives cost more... don't forget to factor in the manpower it takes to keep those without any chance of leaving jail in jail. that includes not only pay, but benefits and such. Hawaii is shipping their convicts out to the mainland for housing... we are paying for that also. besides, knowing you might end up on Death Row can be a deterrent for committing crimes... if done right that is.

[bites into Hot dog] hmmm. could be cooked a little longer... SMORES anyone

[pulls out bag of marshmellows]

The argument works for breast-feeding until the child is weaned.
Uh, hello? Bottle feeding? ALTERNATIVE?

Honestly :rolleyes:

When there is an ALTERNATIVE to abortion that gets the infant out of the mother (ie, an ability to keep them alive), *then* I'll be more likely to be against abortion.

Until then, it's the only viable way for the mother to exercise a totally valid and logical right.

:headbang: :headbang: THAT SO CALLED FREELOADER THAT IS LIVING OFF HIS MOTHER IS CONCEIVED IN AN ACT THAT IS 90% CONCENTUAL BETWEEN TWO ADULTS. THE RIGHT TO LIFE SHOULD NOT BE EXTERMINATED BY A SELFISH WHIM TO FREE YOURSELF FROM RESPONSIBILITY. TAKING WHAT GOD HAS CREATED IS MURDER. TOO MANY TIMES TODAY BARREN COUPLES WILL GLADLY EXCEPT THE OPPURTUNITY TO RAISE YOUR FLESH THAT YOU WANT DESTROYED. AS TO THE DEATH PENALTY' THERE IS A MAXIMUM 17 YEAR APPEAL PROCESS THAT CAN BE USED BY THE GUILTY TO DELAY THE PROCESS. TODAY WITH DNA TECHNOLOGY AND ADVANCED INVESTIGATIONS IT IS RARE THE DECISIONS ARE VOID OF CREDIBILITY. TAKE A LIFE&LOSE A LIFE.IT IS CHEAPER THAN BUILDING PRISONS OR HOUSING INMATES FOR LIFE TERMS. IF SHEIK KILLER COMES INTO YOUR HOUSE.WOULD YOU WANT HIM TO LIVE ON YOUR TAX MONEY :headbang:

Abortions are a way of taking responsibility. Saying a woman has to take responsibility, but only the way you want is moronic.

Barren couples are usually extremely picky about what they're willing to adopt. There are ALREADY too many children up for adoption or in foster care, without adding thousands of extra unwanted children.

Most women don't want the infant 'destroyed'. They just want it out of their body. If you want to stop needless deaths, help fund the science that will allow infants to be raised from conception outside of the womb.

Unless your only aim is to 'punish' women for enjoying sex, of course.

Cockroaches have brainwaves, so I don't see how that can be considered a cut off, I believe there should be a general level of cognizant existence.

Well, it's hard to rationalise that sort of stuff. I'm lucky in that my stance doesn't rely in any way on arbitary cut off points, and I think it's a great shame that people get side-tracked by the debate about 'humanity'. It's really not important at all whether the fetus is alive or human.

So, essentially, I'd be more likely to agree with you in a debate consisting soley of pro-choicers, but I tend to dumb my opinion down to compromise with raving anti-abortioners.

Rember, sex is biologically designed for reproduction. A women who is raped, yes, should be allowed an abortion without problem.

Once a woman willingly spreads her legs, however, both she and the man involved need to accept the fact that every action has a reaction. So if the woman becomes pregnant for having sex, YES, that is a reaction from the intercourse.

Abortion is not a form of birth control. If you want to have sex, you have to be willing to accept every result. A man should also have a say as to whether or not the woman has an abortion. It does take sperm to creat a fetus... right?

Women who don't want a kid, should either:
A. not have sex
B. have thier tubes tied
C. not have sex with a man who hasn't been 'cut off.'

Sex is meant for reproduction. Is it fun? Hell yeah. But everything in life has consequences that people need to accept, and sex has a life-long consequence if you are not responsible enough to handle it.

Will a clump of fertilised cells (human) live outside a human body?
Yep. For a while. (We are *not* talking about cancer cell-lines!)
Is it a human?
Nope, not at all. It's human in potential.
Should we use such to help other humans (stem cell research, or, say, recycled bits of a later-stage foetus for retinal implants)?
Yep.
Can we produce human babies outside of a human woman's body?
Not yet. And cant see why we should aim for this. There's far too many wasted children (born, but die for all kinds of remedial reasons) every day, already.

As someone who lives waaay outside of the USA, and has no desire to ever visit the place, I find the huge amount of energy placed on 'saving' foetal material, and killing adult humans (well, hell, some of them arnt even adults±!!) without even considering the *medical* worth of these *people* is ...just very very strange-

Rember, sex is biologically designed for reproduction. A women who is raped, yes, should be allowed an abortion without problem.

Wrong. Biology isn't 'designed', sex isn't only for reproduction (humans, dolphins and bonobo chimps have sex for pleasure). There is no logical reason a woman who is raped deserves a right to an abortion while a woman who wasn't doesn't.

Unless you're trying to punish women for enjoying sex which...

Once a woman willingly spreads her legs, however, both she and the man involved need to accept the fact that every action has a reaction. So if the woman becomes pregnant for having sex, YES, that is a reaction from the intercourse.

...apparently you are. A suitable reaction to pregnancy is an abortion. So if a woman get's an abortion, is IS a reaction to getting pregnant. It's a way of taking responsibility, a way you have no right to remove.

Abortion is not a form of birth control. If you want to have sex, you have to be willing to accept every result. A man should also have a say as to whether or not the woman has an abortion. It does take sperm to creat a fetus... right?

While you are correct that abortion is not a form of birth control (the term 'birth control' refers only to things which *prevent* pregnancy), the rest of your points are incorrect. Consent to sex is not consent to forced child-birth, because abortion is a LEGAL option. Men cannot have equal rights until they have equal responsibilty. They are not responsible for carrying the child, so they must logically have less say in the matter.


Women who don't want a kid, should either:
A. not have sex
B. have thier tubes tied
C. not have sex with a man who hasn't been 'cut off.'


Your opinions cannot be legalised without good reason. You have provided no good reasons, just illogical non-points. And your B point isn't 100% effective regardless. Should women who's surgery fails be allowed to have abortions? If so, why can't women who's other preventatives (condoms, the pill etc) fail? Both were making obvious attempts to prevent pregnancy, and failed due to no fault of their own. Seems pretty arbitary to say 'this group can, but this group can't'.

Also, why are you against abortion? Obviously it's not about the infants life, since women who have been raped are allowed to have them. I find it amusing that you can be so obviously biased against women, and not consider your opinions seriously flawed.

Sex is meant for reproduction. Is it fun? Hell yeah. But everything in life has consequences that people need to accept, and sex has a life-long consequence if you are not responsible enough to handle it.

Sex is NOT soley for reproduction, unless you are an animal other than a dolphin, bonobo chimp or (get this) HUMAN. Humans are social, and use sex as a bonding tool, as stress relief, and for pleasure. Again, abortion is a reasonable consequence of pregnancy, and you have provided absolutely no reason why this should be questioned.

Abortion is a way of taking responsibility. Don't like that way? Don't have one.

Acutally I have nothing against women. Quite the contrary, I think women are the Perfection of nature.

My problem is with the ignorance that goes along with abortion issues.

If a woman is raped, yes, she should be given the right to chose an abortion. My opinion comes from the fact that abortion is in nature similar to the childish behavior of hiding the fact that one did wrong. No, I am not saying sex is wrong.

And yes, sex is meant for reproduction. Why do you think it is pleasureable? Also, dolphins and other species do not go around having abortions, to counterpoint your argument that sex is a social behaviour.

I am not condoning the concept of "punishing" a woman for chosing abortion. But if the woman wants the easier way out of a situation, the most effective way to prevent an unwanted birth is to NOT have sex.

I agree that women do much more in terms of "caring for" an unborn child. Except, if a woman has an abortion, she is forfeiting the right to that title, because she is terminating the "child." I do not think that there is a point where a fetus becomes human. In all equality, however, someone who kills a pregnant woman should not be charged for more than the murder of the woman, since most people do not beleive that the fetus is yet a child.

The problem with the abortion issue is that, because it is solely focused on the definition of life, it is almost impossible to get a general consensus.

I have no desires to see punishment, nor have a problem with accepting a role as a parent. I find it rather disturbing that you call my idea of action-consequence false, yet use abortion-reaction as an excuse. You cannot prove yourself right with the same principles which disprove another person's theory. You cancelled yourself out.

Ultimately, as was stated in my previous entry, abortion is NOT illegal (and I enver claimed such.) What I did post, however, was an opinion based on my experiences, in which abortion has been used by immature teenagers who are unable to care for the child, both due to age, income and level of maturity.
You are right in that the options I provided would not guarantee 100% effectivness, except the first. But, as Humans, we are too selfish to accept responsibility if it means limiting our abilities to "interact socially" and irresponsibly.

Snip

The problem with the abortion issue is that, because it is solely focused on the definition of life, it is almost impossible to get a general consensus.

More Snip

No, it's not about the definition of life. Anti-abortioners have made it so for no good reason.

Feel free to read my former points, which went into this at length.

I guess if you refuse, I might have to repeat myself for about the trillionth time.

The basic point is that abortion is not AT ALL about when life begins, but about why on earth pregnant women should be the SOLE exception to a logical and accepted rule (that you cannot EVER be forced to donate an organ against your will to another person, no matter what the context).

Firstly, I must ask, are you capable of developing a distputing position without completely attacking mine?

I am simply stating that through my experiences, this has been the basic principle of abortions.

furthermore, you are arguing one statement against every issue regarding abortion, and yes, there is more than ONE.

You are also defending the belief that abortion is based solely on a woman's choice, and it is NOT. Unless she ONLY has sex by herself.

I agree that abortion should not be ILLEGAL, however:

To give the choice and justifications to woman exclusively is bias, sexist and irresponsible.

Firstly, I must ask, are you capable of developing a distputing position without completely attacking mine?

I am simply stating that through my experiences, this has been the basic principle of abortions.

furthermore, you are arguing one statement against every issue regarding abortion, and yes, there is more than ONE.

You are also defending the belief that abortion is based solely on a woman's choice, and it is NOT. Unless she ONLY has sex by herself.

I agree that abortion should not be ILLEGAL, however:

To give the choice and justifications to woman exclusively is bias, sexist and irresponsible.

Eh, if I seem like I'm attacking, it's because I've sat through 5 threads on this topic, with people bringing up the same arguments over and over again without reading the rest of the threads.

Abortion IS only about choice. I support 'paper' abortions for men, where they can legally sign away all rights and responsibilities to the child, but only up to the cut-off point for abortions. Then both parents have a say in supporting the child, but the woman isn't forced against her will to gestate an infant she does not consent to carrying.

So I don't support giving the choice to be *responsible* for the child only to the woman. I do, however, give the choice of responsibility for the womans own body only to the woman. This is the way it is in *every other case* regarding one person needing bodily donations from another... and no one yet has given any reason why pregnant women should be the sole exception.

Wrong. Biology isn't 'designed', sex isn't only for reproduction (humans, dolphins and bonobo chimps have sex for pleasure). There is no logical reason a woman who is raped deserves a right to an abortion while a woman who wasn't doesn't.

I can see plenty. A woman who was raped didn’t have a choice in the matter, while a woman who wasn’t had the choice of not getting pregnant. (See rest of post.)

Unless you're trying to punish women for enjoying sex which...



...apparently you are. A suitable reaction to pregnancy is an abortion. So if a woman get's an abortion, is IS a reaction to getting pregnant. It's a way of taking responsibility, a way you have no right to remove.

How about not getting pregnant in the first place?

While you are correct that abortion is not a form of birth control (the term 'birth control' refers only to things which *prevent* pregnancy), the rest of your points are incorrect. Consent to sex is not consent to forced child-birth, because abortion is a LEGAL option. Men cannot have equal rights until they have equal responsibilty. They are not responsible for carrying the child, so they must logically have less say in the matter.

Yes, but it would be a whole lot simpler if you don’t have THAT KIND of sex in the first place. There are plenty of other ways of having sex that don’t result in birth.

Your opinions cannot be legalised without good reason. You have provided no good reasons, just illogical non-points. And your B point isn't 100% effective regardless. Should women who's surgery fails be allowed to have abortions? If so, why can't women who's other preventatives (condoms, the pill etc) fail? Both were making obvious attempts to prevent pregnancy, and failed due to no fault of their own. Seems pretty arbitary to say 'this group can, but this group can't'.

Sheesh, I hate this argument. Apparently, you believe that any opinion other than your own is an “illogical non-point”. Seriously, someone could say that about your points and be just as true as you were. (I can see both sides of the argument, even thought I have my own opinion. I tend to not like people who resort to calling their opponent’s information “non-facts” and refuse to listen to any of their points.)

Also, why are you against abortion? Obviously it's not about the infants life, since women who have been raped are allowed to have them.

Women who were raped didn’t have the choice to NOT have sex. If you don’t want a baby, don’t have sex. It’s that simple. I don’t want to punish anyone for enjoying it, I just feel that people should take responsibility for their (conscious) actions.

I find it amusing that you can be so obviously biased against women, and not consider your opinions seriously flawed.

What part of “take responsibility for your actions” means, “I hate women”?



Sex is NOT soley for reproduction, unless you are an animal other than a dolphin, bonobo chimp or (get this) HUMAN. Humans are social, and use sex as a bonding tool, as stress relief, and for pleasure. Again, abortion is a reasonable consequence of pregnancy, and you have provided absolutely no reason why this should be questioned.

Using that logic, birth is a reasonable consequence of sex.

Abortion is a way of taking responsibility. Don't like that way? Don't have one.

Not having sex is a way of taking responsibility that is cheaper and less painful.

Eh, if I seem like I'm attacking, it's because I've sat through 5 threads on this topic, with people bringing up the same arguments over and over again without reading the rest of the threads.

It's not that easy to wade through all the threads containing the word, "abortion" to find those five threads, and too time-consuming to read all of them before stating your opinion.

I believe in 1 abortion off your own account, and unlimited if you were raped.

I believe in capital punishment for rapist and attempted-/murdurers.

I don't believe in capital punishment because it costs our government too much darn money in court fees and appeals. Otherwise, no biggie.

I believe in a woman's right to choose. I don't believe in abortion. I don't think I could deal with losing what could have been my child, but a woman has the right to decide what goes on in her body.

Snip...

Not having sex is a way of taking responsibility that is cheaper and less painful.

So women can take responsibilty, but only the way anti-abortioners agree with? Sounds like a Hobson's choice to me. Having an abortion is just as responsible (if not moreso) than adoption - and I've never met an anti-abortioner against adoption. Funny that. It truely seems that as long as the woman suffers, through rape or through childbirth, anti-abortioners don't give a toss what happens to the child.

It's not that easy to wade through all the threads containing the word, "abortion" to find those five threads, and too time-consuming to read all of them before stating your opinion.

Fair enough, but I reserve the right to be annoyed at having to say the same damn thing over and over and over again for people who don't. When I state an opinon in a thread that has previous offshoots, if someone says 'I've already addressed that', I don't PRESIST in repeating old points. I do a search to find their posts that address the issue.

Maybe I just have too much time, and too much interest in not pissing people off for no reason.

Originally Posted by Grigala
Snip...

Not having sex is a way of taking responsibility that is cheaper and less painful.

LOL, abstinence. It's never worked, and it never will. I'd be pretty pissed off if people told me I couldn't have sex with my boyfriend.

And come on, if used correctly the oral contraceptive pill is approximately 99.5% efective. That's almost as good as abstinence. :p And much more fun. Ithink it does come down to punishing people for sex, particularly women.

Oh, and I think the guy should have a say, moreso if he and the woman are in a relationship.

An it's definitely more than just donating an organ, so to speak. It's also donating the next 20 years of your life! So I'd say it is people who are pro-choice who are REALLY pro-life.

So women can take responsibilty, but only the way anti-abortioners agree with? Sounds like a Hobson's choice to me. Having an abortion is just as responsible (if not moreso) than adoption - and I've never met an anti-abortioner against adoption. Funny that. It truely seems that as long as the woman suffers, through rape or through childbirth, anti-abortioners don't give a toss what happens to the child.

Women can take responsibility, so long as it dosen't prevent a baby from ever living.

Au contraire, what happens to the child is my prime reason for being anti-abortion. I think that we should take a good deal of taxpayer's money that's going toward killing iraqis and use it toward improving adoption services and education.

LOL, abstinence. It's never worked, and it never will. I'd be pretty pissed off if people told me I couldn't have sex with my boyfriend.

You can have sex with your boyfriend, it's just a fact that anal sex results in pregnancy, so deal with it, or have sex some other way.

You can have sex with your boyfriend, it's just a fact that anal sex results in pregnancy, so deal with it, or have sex some other way.
I'm a woman :rolleyes:

I think that abortion should be agaisnt the law. Also and only let abortion be legal for certin people. People that like will either die when the baby is born or the baby will die when its born. Have any of you see what those pictures look like? Of the babies from abortion? If you haven't let me tell you its sooo sad. My sister was showing me some and you know what just because they're not big and stuff doesn't mean they're not alive. I've seen pictures of babies from abortions laying on quarters and they're smaller then quarters and they have their bones and everything. It's really really really REALLY sad to see that. You feel bad for those little unborn babies. It is really sad and I do feel very strongly on this subject. :headbang:

Originally Posted by <b>Sukafitz</b><p>At 13 weeks, the baby's heart is beating. I do not believe abortions should be done after that period.

So the foetus has a heartbeat,but so do sheep and cows! You could argue that sheep and cows are less intelligent than people so killing them doesn't matter, but at this point so is the foetus, so if you are anti-abortion, how can you not be vegetarian as well?

Women can take responsibility, so long as it dosen't prevent a baby from ever living.

Au contraire, what happens to the child is my prime reason for being anti-abortion. I think that we should take a good deal of taxpayer's money that's going toward killing iraqis and use it toward improving adoption services and education.

it doesn't affect a 'baby'. 'Baby' is the term for after birth, if you're partaking in a debate. Otherwise you're just using overly-emotive language to push a point. I'm sorry, but it really devalues your points.

I agree with improving education. But until it's improved, women can't be forced to donate their bodies to an infant.

You are yet to explain why pregnant women should be the sole exception to this logical and standard system. I'd be very interested in your reasoning.

(Note: 'because it kills an infant' won't work, because any other person can refuse to donate part of their body even if it DOES cause death. You can't use 'it was her fault for having sex', because even if I cut out someone's liver, no one could legally force me to donate my OWN liver to them.)

I think that abortion should be agaisnt the law. Also and only let abortion be legal for certin people. People that like will either die when the baby is born or the baby will die when its born. Have any of you see what those pictures look like? Of the babies from abortion? If you haven't let me tell you its sooo sad. My sister was showing me some and you know what just because they're not big and stuff doesn't mean they're not alive. I've seen pictures of babies from abortions laying on quarters and they're smaller then quarters and they have their bones and everything. It's really really really REALLY sad to see that. You feel bad for those little unborn babies. It is really sad and I do feel very strongly on this subject. :headbang:

And since when do we judge the merits on a surgical procedure on the 'ookiness' factor? Yes, it's bloody, there's lumps of flesh lying around. It's surgery. Having your appendix removed would be just as gory.

And I'm very sorry, but no; embryos don't have bones. They have cartilage frames, which become bones. The term 'unborn babies' is an oxymoron, since the term 'baby' only applies after birth.

You should not base your opinions on propaganda photos. It leads to poor opinions. I don't care if you are anti-abortion, but at least have something to back it up.


And please explain why 'mother dying' = abortion, but 'mother suffering a whole host of psychological problems, often leading to suicide or homicide-suicides (victims often being the children) =/= abortion.

If a woman doesn't want to carry it, she can't be forced to.

Let's move forward as a society and find a way to save the infants that have to be removed, so they can grow *outside* of the womb. Then we can give them to the anti-abortioners, and the problem will go away (naturally :rolleyes: )

Eh, if I seem like I'm attacking, it's because I've sat through 5 threads on this topic, with people bringing up the same arguments over and over again without reading the rest of the threads.

Abortion IS only about choice. I support 'paper' abortions for men, where they can legally sign away all rights and responsibilities to the child, but only up to the cut-off point for abortions. Then both parents have a say in supporting the child, but the woman isn't forced against her will to gestate an infant she does not consent to carrying.

So I don't support giving the choice to be *responsible* for the child only to the woman. I do, however, give the choice of responsibility for the womans own body only to the woman. This is the way it is in *every other case* regarding one person needing bodily donations from another... and no one yet has given any reason why pregnant women should be the sole exception.

To be honest I did not feel attacked. Rather I was trying to verify where you stood on the matter. Based on your statement now, I am much more apt to agree with your points, especially after acknowledging a man's desire to have a say in the matter. And I do agree that the woman unlitmately has the final say, but I am glad to hear you acknowledge that both parents should consult.

In final summary, yes abortions should be legal, however as it was previously posted, vaginal intercourse is not the only method of engaging in sex, and therefore alternatives are available. Perhaps it is just me who is willing to make sacrifices in order to prevent child birth (not to say others are not, but I am refering to the fact that I will abstain if necessary). At least we can end our "debate" on more level and less artillery-stricken terrain.

To be honest I did not feel attacked. Rather I was trying to verify where you stood on the matter. Based on your statement now, I am much more apt to agree with your points, especially after acknowledging a man's desire to have a say in the matter. And I do agree that the woman unlitmately has the final say, but I am glad to hear you acknowledge that both parents should consult.

In final summary, yes abortions should be legal, however as it was previously posted, vaginal intercourse is not the only method of engaging in sex, and therefore alternatives are available. Perhaps it is just me who is willing to make sacrifices in order to prevent child birth (not to say others are not, but I am refering to the fact that I will abstain if necessary). At least we can end our "debate" on more level and less artillery-stricken terrain.

Yay.

I also apologise for being overly-snippy.

No sleep + posting = baaaaaaaaaaaad

I also agree people *should* go out of their way not to get pregnant if they don't want children. I'm by no means saying 'let's encouarage sex and throw wild orgies and then go down to the clinic tomorrow to 'sort things out''. I'm just idealistic enough to believe that (if education gets more bloody funding), abortions could be brought to the point where they are only used in extreme circumstances.

The problem is; that the majority of abortions are not from women that have been raped, not from women that might die in labor, not from deformities or severe illnesses - it is women having abortions just because they don't want the baby.

Secondly these abortions are being carried out through the second trimester and in rare case into the 3rd trimester after the 24th week.

The cut off point should be at the 13th week because the fetus has a heartbeat; is kicking, and moving from side to side; is beginning to swallow and suck its thumb; the baby is alive and responds to certain stimuli such as the mother's voice.

http://www.epigee.org/pregnancyhelp/graphics/18week-sm.jpg

Uh, hello? Bottle feeding? ALTERNATIVE?

Honestly :rolleyes:

When there is an ALTERNATIVE to abortion that gets the infant out of the mother (ie, an ability to keep them alive), *then* I'll be more likely to be against abortion.

Until then, it's the only viable way for the mother to exercise a totally valid and logical right.
Yes, there are alternatives to breast-feeding, but that avoids rather than addresses the argument.

Originally Posted by Shaed
I believe in abortion because the infant is living off the mother, and she cannot legally be forced to consent to that. Everyone has the right to refuse consent when it comes to donating their body to another, no matter the circumstances.

The breast-fed infant is living off its mother, dependant on her for all its nutrition. If hers was the only available source for the child’s nutrition then she could be legally forced to donate her body to keep the infant alive.

The point I would like to see by anti-abortionists that I don't think is addressed enough is why you believe your beliefs on the matter should have any bearing in someone else getting an abortion. I understand being against abortion, but I don't understand the justification.

Also, I am surprised that no pro-abortionists have tried the "All anti-abortionists who don't actively adopt are hypocrites" line yet.

Yes, there are alternatives to breast-feeding, but that avoids rather than addresses the argument.

Originally Posted by Shaed
I believe in abortion because the infant is living off the mother, and she cannot legally be forced to consent to that. Everyone has the right to refuse consent when it comes to donating their body to another, no matter the circumstances.

The breast-fed infant is living off its mother, dependant on her for all its nutrition. If hers was the only available source for the child’s nutrition then she could be legally forced to donate her body to keep the infant alive.

That has little to nothing to do with the argument. There are quite viable alternatives to breast-feeding a baby. Formula works adequately. There are no alternatives to carrying a child to term other than the womb. If a particular woman doesn't want to breast-feed a baby, she doesn't have to. If said woman doesn't want to carry a child to term, she shouldn't have to.

You believe in abortion, but you don't believe in capital punishment.
i believe that every human has the right to their own body, and the right to refuse to allow their body to be used for other people's purposes. therefore, a female has the right to refuse to allow her body to be used to incubate a fetus, just as any other person has the right to refuse to donate organs or blood. additionally, i do not believe fetuses are human people, but even if they were human people i would still 100% support the right of a woman to have a fetus removed from her body at any time, for any reason.

i cannot currently support capital punishment (though i support it in principle) because i believe our legal system is critically flawed; the likelihood that an innocent person will be executed is unacceptably high, in other words, so i cannot endorse using such a final method.

That has little to nothing to do with the argument. There are quite viable alternatives to breast-feeding a baby. Formula works adequately. There are no alternatives to carrying a child to term other than the womb. If a particular woman doesn't want to breast-feed a baby, she doesn't have to. If said woman doesn't want to carry a child to term, she shouldn't have to.
:-)

It is the argument that *I* raised so it has everything to do with it.

It's not a matter of practicality, it's a matter of principle, and that would be the answer I'm looking for. ;-)

Because there is an enormous difference between a ball of cells that might possibly become a human being, and a human being.