NationStates Jolt Archive

Before you vote in the poll, I want it to be clear what I'm asking. I'm not asking if you are pro-abortion or anti-abortion, I'm not asking if you would have an abortion or not. I'm asking if you, given the choice, would choose to BE ABORTED. Hypothetically (I realize that some are not capable of handling these situations, but bare with me), hypothetically, you can choose to be aborted or not. You, in your present state of mind, regardless of "I wouldn't care because I'd be dead" crap...You, thinking about it right now at home or wherever in front of your computer, would you choose to be aborted or to be born?

Also, before you vote: We're going to assume that this isn't a rape case. Why? Because rape cases are only 1% of all abortions in America, and there are no documented cases of abortion because of incest. So this abortion is more than likely to be nonMedical and not rape related.

Also also before you vote: HYPOTHETICALLY, the choice is yours, not your mother's.

This has got to be, by far, the most idiotic thread I have ever seen.

In my present mental state, I am not in a womb or existing soley off the body of another, so I could not be aborted. However, if I were existing soley off the body of another, I would want to be removed.

This is completely absurd. All you're liable to measure with this poll is the extent to which people despair their predicament in life. That is, apart from those who'll answer yea or nay just for the hell of it.

Before you vote in the poll, I want it to be clear what I'm asking. I'm not asking if you are pro-abortion or anti-abortion, I'm not asking if you would have an abortion or not. I'm asking if you, given the choice, would choose to BE ABORTED. Hypothetically (I realize that some are not capable of handling these situations, but bare with me), hypothetically, you can choose to be aborted or not. You, in your present state of mind, regardless of "I wouldn't care because I'd be dead" crap...You, thinking about it right now at home or wherever in front of your computer, would you choose to be aborted or to be born?
im voting yes because this is a biased poll and a slanted question

I'm entirely neutral about the whole thing...I could lie and make up an answer, but I dont see the point even if I didnt have objections to lying generally.

Lemme be born. Of course in the case my mother was rapped or her life was in danger, I would want to be aborted.

im voting yes because this is a biased poll and a slanted question

Me too.

This is the single worst thread I have seen since joining.

Before you vote in the poll, I want it to be clear what I'm asking. I'm not asking if you are pro-abortion or anti-abortion, I'm not asking if you would have an abortion or not. I'm asking if you, given the choice, would choose to BE ABORTED. Hypothetically (I realize that some are not capable of handling these situations, but bare with me), hypothetically, you can choose to be aborted or not. You, in your present state of mind, regardless of "I wouldn't care because I'd be dead" crap...You, thinking about it right now at home or wherever in front of your computer, would you choose to be aborted or to be born?

Voting yes. Then I wouldn't have to deal with what I'm dealing with now.

I think this question is both stupid and crazy. Anyway, I think that I wouldn't like to be aborted if I were alive.

This is completely absurd. All you're liable to measure with this poll is the extent to which people despair their predicament in life.
That, and prove that people want to live. If you want to live, chances are an unborn baby about to be aborted wants to live too. It's actually a cunning anti-abortion trick. That is, if you don't think it through. The question shouldn't be wether or not unborn children want to live (even years after they're born), but wether or not the parents want it. If the baby never gets to raise it's opinion, then what does it's opinion matter?
In my books, the parents come first.

i would have existed with enough consciousness to make that decision.

at any rate, it is irrelevant to me as i was planned for... my parents wanted kids, thus they started to have them and i'm the first such kid.

being that my parents are in a stable relationship (and were when i was born) were (and are) financially stable, had (and still have) a place to live and were undergoing no severe financial, emotional et c hardships around the time i was born, nor did they have such problems throughout my childhood, especially as a result of me being born... i'm quite glad i was born. perhaps if i had been born unwanted and a burden to the family, i might not feel the same way.

I want you to be aborted. Why isn't that an option?

That, and prove that people want to live. If you want to live, chances are an unborn baby about to be aborted wants to live too.
not true. it can't think, nor can it want.

not true. it can't think, nor can it want.
True, bad choice of words on my account. I more ment that it might want to live when it's in the same situation as you - grown up and reading an internet forum about wether or not he would've wanted to be aborted.

if I were the result of rape or a non loving violent relationship where I wasnt planned or wanted then yes

give me another chance with someone who wants me, loves me and will nurture me tbh

True, bad choice of words on my account. I more ment that it might want to live when it's in the same situation as you - grown up and reading an internet forum about wether or not he would've wanted to be aborted.
But if it never develops to that stage then your point is moot.

Ok, I did say hypothetically, didn't I?

im voting yes because this is a biased poll and a slanted question
How so? I didn't even say whether or not it was pro- or anti-abortion. It is a simple question...would you want to be aborted? You could say, as others have, Yes, because I don't want to invade another's body...
And voting as such only makes it more biased.

However, if I were existing soley off the body of another, I would want to be removed.
Well, you did for 9 months...

I'm entirely neutral about the whole thing...I could lie and make up an answer, but I dont see the point even if I didnt have objections to lying generally.
Thank you for your honesty.

if I were the result of rape or a non loving violent relationship where I wasnt planned or wanted then yes

give me another chance with someone who wants me, loves me and will nurture me tbh
We're going to assume that this isn't a rape case. Why? Because rape cases are only 1% of all abortions in America, and there are no documented cases of abortion because of incest. So this abortion is more than likely to be nonMedical and not rape related.

But if it never develops to that stage then your point is moot.
Actually what you just said there was exactly my point. Did you read my entire post?

Actually what you just said there was exactly my point. Did you read my entire post?
I didn't get it. I was a little rushed. Sorry.

I want you to be aborted. Why isn't that an option?
Get in line. ;)

How so? I didn't even say whether or not it was pro- or anti-abortion. It is a simple question...would you want to be aborted? You could say, as others have, Yes, because I don't want to invade another's body...
And voting as such only makes it more biased..
it is called a "loaded question" look it up.

your question is "would you want to be aborted or not?" if you answer no, you can go into them being hypocrites if they support abortion, if they say yes, you can go on something about them wanting to be dead.

your poll is completely biased to be pro-choice or at least anti-abortion

And you could go the other way, you know...I could say that if you say no you're selfish for forcing the mother to have an unwanted child, and if you say yes than you're hypocritical for being pro-life...

If you think there is such a thing as a completely unbiased question, especially in politics, and ESPECIALLY here on NS, you are sadly mistaken.

I even took the liberty of not saying something like, "Yes, I want to be sucked out with a vaccuum" or "No, I want to feed off the living tissue like a tapeworm."

And actually, i don't have a response if everyone says yes...other than y'all must have crappy lives, and I advise you to seek conselling.
I was just goin' for the whole hypocracy thing...which is all fine, because it is hypocritical...

Aside from the fact that this question is STUPID, I'll humour you.

Yes, I would have chosen to be aborted. Why?

Because my mother was put through anguish, wondering if I would be a boy or girl (if I had been a girl, I would have had a 9/10 chance of passing away days after birth. As it is, I was born male, and had a 1/10 chance of the same thing). She had the anguish of knowing that she might lose yet another child (she had lost two already). And aside from that, she had the anguish of working double over-time to keep my safe, warm, and fed. She practically lived on caramel popcorn for, like, two and a half years. Things are alot better now, but for those reasons I'd have to say, yes, I would have chosen to be aborted.

Aside from the fact that this question is STUPID, I'll humour you.

Yes, I would have chosen to be aborted. Why?

Because my mother was put through anguish, wondering if I would be a boy or girl (if I had been a girl, I would have had a 9/10 chance of passing away days after birth. As it is, I was born male, and had a 1/10 chance of the same thing). She had the anguish of knowing that she might lose yet another child (she had lost two already). And aside from that, she had the anguish of working double over-time to keep my safe, warm, and fed. She practically lived on caramel popcorn for, like, two and a half years. Things are alot better now, but for those reasons I'd have to say, yes, I would have chosen to be aborted.

A fair and honest answer...thank you.

im voting yes because this is a biased poll and a slanted question
Well not really ... he is not drawing a conclusion from it ... it is just a question till he trys to prove something with it

For convenience (mostly mine)...the link to Dempublicents' response thread:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=387038

If i'd know what I was to grow up with, I would want to be aborted.

Try living with hard-to-control diabetes.

Aside from the fact that this question is STUPID, I'll humour you.

Yes, I would have chosen to be aborted. Why?

Because my mother was put through anguish, wondering if I would be a boy or girl (if I had been a girl, I would have had a 9/10 chance of passing away days after birth. As it is, I was born male, and had a 1/10 chance of the same thing). She had the anguish of knowing that she might lose yet another child (she had lost two already). And aside from that, she had the anguish of working double over-time to keep my safe, warm, and fed. She practically lived on caramel popcorn for, like, two and a half years. Things are alot better now, but for those reasons I'd have to say, yes, I would have chosen to be aborted.
And why the increased fatality rate for female?

It's a genetic thing that effects my family (luckily I'm not a carrier). I think it's a problem with the chromosomes, but I've never looked into it.

Just because something can't communicate to you that it doesn't want to live does not, per se, mean that it does not want to live.

The #1 goal of living things -- our basest instinct -- is to perpetuate life. We want to live. There are exceptions (suicide being one) but by and large living things want to live. That fetus is growing; it wants to live.

So what is the lesser of two evils:

a)Lack of choice

or

b)Lack of life

?

I am 50/50 on abortion... to me, both sides raise salient and moving points.

If i'd know what I was to grow up with, I would want to be aborted.

Try living with hard-to-control diabetes.
Wow Pets, I never knew...
Thanks for the honest answer, though.

I would choose to be aborted.

So I wouldn't read this fucking idiotic poll.

How exactly is this idiotic? Can't fathom a hypothetical?

It's not idiotic, really. A little biased towards the pro-life viewpoint, yes, and perhaps a truly impossible to answer question...

Just because something can't communicate to you that it doesn't want to live does not, per se, mean that it does not want to live.

The #1 goal of living things -- our basest instinct -- is to perpetuate life. We want to live. There are exceptions (suicide being one) but by and large living things want to live. That fetus is growing; it wants to live.

So what is the lesser of two evils:

a)Lack of choice

or

b)Lack of life

?

I am 50/50 on abortion... to me, both sides raise salient and moving points.
i disagree that every living thing has a goal, or wants, I dont believe such things exist without sentience, and frankly I dont believe that sentience is a sufficient cause for the existence of either wants or goals.

How exactly is this idiotic? Can't fathom a hypothetical?
I knew some wouldn't be able to...I thought more would have been able to, though.

How exactly is this idiotic?
it appears to be idiotic because in the first place the question seems silly to those who understand that if you were aborted you wouldnt be worried about it now, but mostly because the motivation behind it, whether rightly or wrongly construed by readers, appears to be transparent, banal and disengenious and lacking in good sense....of course appearences can be deceiving, but personally in this case I dont think that is the case...

Do you want to die? Is this a rhetorical question? Or another form of an abortion debate?

Sure, abort me. Reincarnation rocks!

Of course, what I would want is moot; it'd be my mother's decision whether to or not. And if it gave her a halfway chance at a decent life rather than the crap she had to live through, more power to her.

That aside, your poll is biased in its simplicity. Your position is revealed in your use of the verb "want".

Do you want to die? Is this a rhetorical question? Or another form of an abortion debate?
Depends on your level of disingenuity... ;)

I would happily be aborted if my mum was some dirty uneducated unmarried 16 year old working class slag on a council estate. That way I would avoid having to live a miserable life at the bottom of the social heap with no chance of doing well for myself.

Do you want to die?
Essentially, that's what I'm asking, yes.

Of course, what I would want is moot; it'd be my mother's decision whether to or not. And if it gave her a halfway chance at a decent life rather than the crap she had to live through, more power to her.
[big and bold and highlighted...neon lights and flashy signs]Hypothetically[/stuff]...if the choice were up to you.

i disagree that every living thing has a goal, or wants, I dont believe such things exist without sentience, and frankly I dont believe that sentience is a sufficient cause for the existence of either wants or goals.

if a car is coming at you, do you move to get out of the way?

you don't even think twice, right?

that's your base instinct saying, "I don't want to die, so I'd better get my ass in gear and get out of the path of this vehicle."

wanting to live is engrained in us

for us to want to die... we have to be facing horrible circumstances. or at least circumstances that are awful to us. (or have a severe mental condition)

Do you want to die?Essentially, that's what I'm asking, yes.That's not what you're asking. If it were, the question would have been, "Do you want to die?" One can not die if one has not lived. And a fetus has not lived.

Of course, what I would want is moot; it'd be my mother's decision whether to or not. [big and bold and highlighted...neon lights and flashy signs]Hypothetically[/stuff]...if the choice were up to you.Your hypothetical is nonsensical then as it creates a situation that can not exist.

Thus, it's "hypothetical." Hypothetical being having to do with a hypothesis, a hypothesis being Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.

And I said essentially, not exactly. Difference.

Well, you did for 9 months...

Well, in truth, I can only be said to have lived off another (as an organism) for roughly six.

However, I can also say that:

(a) I was not consciously able to make the decision to live off that person or not
(b) The person whom I was living off of wanted me to be doing so.

Well, in truth, I can only be said to have lived off another (as an organism) for roughly six.
How so? Whether you are viable or not, you're still living soley off your mother until you are born, and then you are usually living solely off of your parents until you move out or get a job.
Some 40-year-olds still live soley off their parents ;)

However, I can also say that:

(a) I was not consciously able to make the decision to live off that person or not
(b) The person whom I was living off of wanted me to be doing so.
Fair enough. That's why I asked the question.

This has got to be, by far, the most idiotic thread I have ever seen.


What's far more idiotic is that people actually would have liked to have been aborted.

What's far more idiotic is that people actually would have liked to have been aborted.
I survived abortion (and yes I'm a teen distortion). :(


Did it never occur to you people were taking the piss?

I took this question as meaning if you had a choice to not have ever lived (past preborn) would you had? Basically a question of .. do you like your life.. or are you happy to be alive. Are you glad you were born!

I am!

What's far more idiotic is that people actually would have liked to have been aborted.
i voted yes in protest and i stated my reasons,

if a car is coming at you, do you move to get out of the way?
Unless you can substantiate that every living thing is identical to me, or identical in this particular respect, what I would or would not do is irrelevent.

you don't even think twice, right?
that's your base instinct saying, "I don't want to die, so I'd better get my ass in gear and get out of the path of this vehicle."
And yet some people intentionally jump into the path of vehicals with the specific intention of killing themself. Apart from proving that not every living thing desires to live, this raises the question of why my decision to jump out of the way is any more representitive than the decision of others to intentionally jump in the path of oncoming vehicals. It makes as much sense to measure the desires of every living thing according to the desires of suicidal people, as it does to measure such desires according to mine.

wanting to live is engrained in us
Well that explains suicide....hang on, it doesnt...

[/quote]for us to want to die... we have to be facing horrible circumstances. or at least circumstances that are awful to us. (or have a severe mental condition)[/QUOTE]
Maybe so, maybe not, but we (human beings) do not constitute the group every living thing, in fact we dont even constitute half the group, in fact we make up a rather small fraction of it. As pointed out no one has established that every living thing has sentience, much less a sentience that facilitates desires and wants as is normatively meant by the words.

i voted yes in protest and i stated my reasons,
But that's not an honest answer. I wasn't asking whether or not you liked abortion, but whether or not you yourself would choose to be aborted. I'm sorry you have such a hard time grasping hypothetical questions, but as the idiom goes, "If you can't say anything intelligent..."

Or something like that...

Unless you can substantiate that every living thing is identical to me, or identical in this particular respect, what I would or would not do is irrelevent.


And yet some people intentionally jump into the path of vehicals with the specific intention of killing themself. Apart from proving that not every living thing desires to live, this raises the question of why my decision to jump out of the way is any more representitive than the decision of others to intentionally jump in the path of oncoming vehicals. It makes as much sense to measure the desires of every living thing according to the desires of suicidal people, as it does to measure such desires according to mine.


Well that explains suicide....hang on, it doesnt...

for us to want to die... we have to be facing horrible circumstances. or at least circumstances that are awful to us. (or have a severe mental condition)
Maybe so, maybe not, but we (human beings) do not constitute the group every living thing, in fact we dont even constitute half the group, in fact we make up a rather small fraction of it. As pointed out no one has established that every living thing has sentience, much less a sentience that facilitates desires and wants as is normatively meant by the words.

Actually, the vast majorities of suicides are not actually about dying, but rather, gaining the attention they feel they do not have. Ask any psychologist.

And to my knowledge, humans are the only things that actively seek death.

But again, they're not really seeking death.

Actually, the vast majorities of suicides are not actually about dying, but rather, gaining the attention they feel they do not have. Ask any psychologist.

And to my knowledge, humans are the only things that actively seek death.

But again, they're not really seeking death.
I very deeply resent that statement. There are very many people that aren't of the transiently depressed teen type, but that are of another that want their pain to end, whether mental or physical. I dislike most psychologists since they tell me what I and others feel, when we don't feel that way. This being an example of that.

Then again, why listen to someone who has been suicidal? They just want attention.
[/SARCASM]

Actually, the vast majorities of suicides are not actually about dying, but rather, gaining the attention they feel they do not have. Ask any psychologist.

And to my knowledge, humans are the only things that actively seek death.

But again, they're not really seeking death.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Sorry, wrong.

They aren't seeking attention, the majority are seeking an end to serious, long-term, clinical depression.

I'll give you half a point for being right about the 'not seeking death' thing.
Humans aren't the only things the actively seek death, there are reported and documented cases of the first bottlenose dolphins kept in captivity commiting suicide (refusing to eat, drowning themselves, bashing themselves against the cement walls of their tanks, and so on...).

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Sorry, wrong.

They aren't seeking attention, the majority are seeking an end to serious, long-term, clinical depression.
Which they have because they feel like no one loves them. So they kill themselves to make people pay attention and love them. Trust me, my best friend's ex worked in a psyche ward.

I voted yes. So blow me. This poll sucks.

And all of you should have been aborted as well, 99.99% of you contribute nothing to society any more than your other millions sperm/egg brethren would have done, and so therefore, we are all expendable.

That said, understanding the overpopulation crisis, I would also being willing to sacrifice myself, even if I am smarter as a fetus than a family of 8 in Missouri.

Which they have because they feel like no one loves them. So they kill themselves to make people pay attention and love them. Trust me, my best friend's ex worked in a psyche ward.Oooh, still wrong. Suicides aren't depressed because no one loves them. That's patently false since many suicides are quite loved by their family and friends. Depression is a disease, most likely caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain. Suicide is attempted when there is no hope of living a normal life.

Your best friend's ex may have worked in a psych ward but they either didn't have a grasp on the people they were supposed to be helping, or possibly, you heard what you wanted to hear.

Which they have because they feel like no one loves them. So they kill themselves to make people pay attention and love them. Trust me, my best friend's ex worked in a psyche ward.
Do you know how little psych wards know about the people in them?
Hint:
They don't listen to a thing you say.
They make up your story for you.
At least, the ones I've been in.
Also:
Clinical depression is not about feeling unloved. Clinical depression is about a chemical imbalance. Whether or not they feel loved, they will still be depressed.

Oooh, still wrong. Suicides aren't depressed because no one loves them. That's patently false since many suicides are quite loved by their family and friends. Depression is a disease, most likely caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain. Suicide is attempted when there is no hope of living a normal life.

Your best friend's ex may have worked in a psych ward but they either didn't have a grasp on the people they were supposed to be helping, or possibly, you heard what you wanted to hear.

Yep. That's true. A swing and a miss by a humble psych ward (the perfect job for an intelligent and reliable human being).

We depressed people are usually quite loved, respected blah blah blah.

We just can't get happy. The end. You lose. It's all genetic.

No free will. Blah blah blah.
Homosexuality? Genetic!

We lose again. Now I'm goign to go cut myself because I lack free will AND dieties. Lovely, eh?

Before you vote in the poll, I want it to be clear what I'm asking. I'm not asking if you are pro-abortion or anti-abortion, I'm not asking if you would have an abortion or not. I'm asking if you, given the choice, would choose to BE ABORTED. Hypothetically (I realize that some are not capable of handling these situations, but bare with me), hypothetically, you can choose to be aborted or not. You, in your present state of mind, regardless of "I wouldn't care because I'd be dead" crap...You, thinking about it right now at home or wherever in front of your computer, would you choose to be aborted or to be born?

Also, before you vote: We're going to assume that this isn't a rape case. Why? Because rape cases are only 1% of all abortions in America, and there are no documented cases of abortion because of incest. So this abortion is more than likely to be nonMedical and not rape related.

Also also before you vote: HYPOTHETICALLY, the choice is yours, not your mother's.
i would never presume to make that choice for my mother, since to do so would be contrary to several of my most deeply held values. the choice to end a pregnancy belongs ONLY with the woman who is pregnant, nobody else, and i find the suggestion that any human can hold claim to another's body to be obscene and disgusting.

Do you want to die? Is this a rhetorical question? Or another form of an abortion debate?

It's using the fear of death which plagues sentient creatures to put pressure on them to figure such fears into an equation that does not include said sentience. I would not have cared if I were aborted as a fetus, hence playing on my fear of mortality now is out of the question. I would have wanted my mother to have the option, and that is relevant.

RhynoD, your mother likely went through hundreds of eggs before your were conceived. I pose to you the question, "Should we be farming eggs from women to save the potential lives that would be lost if we let the dread process of menstruation take them?" How would you like to be one of those eggs?

0 Yes, flush me!
0 No, let me be born!

This is just basically asking if you hate your life enough to want to never have been born. You take away all the reasons people are prochoice-the fact it should be the mothers choice, the fact it could be due to rape or medical reasons and the fact the foetus can't feel anything. Therefore the only people to choose to be aborted are suicidal people making it seem like all prochoice people are hypocrites. When actually they're not cause this situation is totally different to an abortion.

Of course i would chose to be born, i come from a stable family with 2 stable parents who wanted and planned for me. What about the 16 or 17yr old girl who slept with her boyfriend cus he "loved her so much" and then he bails on her the next day? And i know all the conservative bullsh*t about if you make the decision you have to deal with the consequences but and i know this sounds heartless but abortion is one of the ways to deal with those consequences and i don't think it's right to ban that. If you don't agree with it there are other alternatives but you don't have the right to deny that option to anyone else because YOU don't agree with it, it's America and you have the freedom of choice here.

"This is just basically asking if you hate your life enough to want to never have been born. You take away all the reasons people are prochoice-the fact it should be the mothers choice, the fact it could be due to rape or medical reasons and the fact the foetus can't feel anything. Therefore the only people to choose to be aborted are suicidal people making it seem like all prochoice people are hypocrites. When actually they're not cause this situation is totally different to an abortion."


That's a lot of facts you cited that are not, um... facts. You obviously feel threatened by it.

Ok, lets go ahead and see what our author was getting at, shall we?
He took rape and "medical" abortions out of the equation for a reason, didn't he? Wha?? but all the best pro-choice arguments are based around these cases. Well:

A) These cases are clearly the minority of all abortions. Any argument centered around them (which is often the case with pro-choice arguments) can only truly address part of the issue. This moral dillema is clearly dissasociated with the convenience abortion.

B) Most pro-life advocates do not oppose abortion in cases where the mother's life is in danger or the mother was raped, or involved in incest. Why debate the special cases that both sides agree upon?

So, if those are the only reasons that you are pro-choice, then you are really pro-life. And yes, the oft repeated "Pro-Life people are hypocrites because they value the baby's life over the mother's" is completely irrelevent.


Now as far as other arguments go, many of them do not hold water.
The foetus does not feel anything is a rather poor argument, as it cannot be used to justify any other termination of human life. (or else the guillatine would not seem horrific in the least...) It is also inaccurate. abortions are still legal long after nerve endings are formed.

The other form of the no feeling argument is that the baby has not developed emotions or any awareness at all. There is plenty of evidence aside that the baby is indeed a feeling thing before it is born. (for example, a baby can recognize it's parent's voices because it could hear them from the womb suggest a pre-birth memory)

The only other "fact" you cited is "it should be the mother's choice." why? its more like a default than anything, but if you cannot ethically justify the act itself, it really doesn't matter whose choice it is.

"This is just basically asking if you hate your life enough to want to never have been born. You take away all the reasons people are prochoice-the fact it should be the mothers choice, the fact it could be due to rape or medical reasons and the fact the foetus can't feel anything. Therefore the only people to choose to be aborted are suicidal people making it seem like all prochoice people are hypocrites. When actually they're not cause this situation is totally different to an abortion."


That's a lot of facts you cited that are not, um... facts. You obviously feel threatened by it.

Ok, lets go ahead and see what our author was getting at, shall we?
He took rape and "medical" abortions out of the equation for a reason, didn't he? Wha?? but all the best pro-choice arguments are based around these cases. Well:

A) These cases are clearly the minority of all abortions. Any argument centered around them (which is often the case with pro-choice arguments) can only truly address part of the issue. This moral dillema is clearly dissasociated with the convenience abortion.

B) Most pro-life advocates do not oppose abortion in cases where the mother's life is in danger or the mother was raped, or involved in incest. Why debate the special cases that both sides agree upon?

So, if those are the only reasons that you are pro-choice, then you are really pro-life. And yes, the oft repeated "Pro-Life people are hypocrites because they value the baby's life over the mother's" is completely irrelevent.


Now as far as other arguments go, many of them do not hold water.
The foetus does not feel anything is a rather poor argument, as it cannot be used to justify any other termination of human life. (or else the guillatine would not seem horrific in the least...) It is also inaccurate. abortions are still legal long after nerve endings are formed.

The other form of the no feeling argument is that the baby has not developed emotions or any awareness at all. There is plenty of evidence aside that the baby is indeed a feeling thing before it is born. (for example, a baby can recognize it's parent's voices because it could hear them from the womb suggest a pre-birth memory)

The only other "fact" you cited is "it should be the mother's choice." why? its more like a default than anything, but if you cannot ethically justify the act itself, it really doesn't matter whose choice it is.
how about this argument? i've yet to hear ANYBODY give a logically consistent response:

As a human being, I have the right (at least in my country), to refuse to donate my blood, organs, tissues, or life to any other being. I have the right to refuse this even if I not longer need them (am dead). I have the right to refuse them if the being in question is my wife, parent, best friend, and even my own child. I have the right to refuse them even if the need was caused by my own negligence (a car accident for example). I have the right to refuse even when that negligence is criminal (drunk driving). And most importantly, I have that right even when I intentionally cause the damage that creates the necessity in a purposeful criminal act (I.E. If I shot you).

So why should pregnant women be the ONLY persons to be denied the right to choose what happens to their own body, and why should fetuses be the ONLY persons granted status that allows their health to trump the rights of another person?

oh, and anyone who is arguing for reletivity should be intelligent enough to know that he's wrong.
any scientist or philosopher will tell you that truth is not subject to opinion. gravity works whether you believe in it or not.
ethical questions are similar in that they can be answered. see Imanual Kant for details.

Laws prohibiting abortion do not impose upon your beliefs any more than the police imposed upon the beliefs of charles manson when they arrested him.

oh, and anyone who is arguing for reletivity should be intelligent enough to know that he's wrong.
any scientist or philosopher will tell you that truth is not subject to opinion. gravity works whether you believe in it or not.
ethical questions are similar in that they can be answered. see Imanual Kant for details.

prove it. i've read Kant, and written two papers deconstructing his theory of moral objectivism, so i'd like to hear YOUR explanation now. unless you can prove that morality is objective, don't expect anybody to listen to your pitiful little commands.

Laws prohibiting abortion do not impose upon your beliefs any more than the police imposed upon the beliefs of charles manson when they arrested him.oh, so forcing a human being to donate their body and tissues against their will is not an imposition? interesting fantasy world you live in...you should try reading up on an Earth concept called "justice," as well as the distinction between "freedom" and "slavery. " you might find it enlightening.

let me clear something up: the ending of life is not at issue. the ONLY issue in abortion is the rights of a human person to dictate what happens to their own body. a female has the right to refuse to donate her tissues to another person at any time and for any reason, so why should she not be able to exercise that right when it comes to a fetus? if you want a fetus to have human rights, then why insist on granting it rights no human being has?

Yep. That's true. A swing and a miss by a humble psych ward (the perfect job for an intelligent and reliable human being).

We depressed people are usually quite loved, respected blah blah blah.

We just can't get happy. The end. You lose. It's all genetic.

No free will. Blah blah blah.
Homosexuality? Genetic!

We lose again. Now I'm goign to go cut myself because I lack free will AND dieties. Lovely, eh?Should I detect (missing) sarcasm tags, I'll come and beat you senseless myself. Seriously.

If you're serious, quit cutting. It's only temporarily helpful. And yeh, having the genetic predisposition to depression sucks big hairy roots. But knowing that you do lets you take steps to minimize the suckiness of it all. And good god, no one said being happy was the be all end all of life.

"how about this argument? i've yet to hear ANYBODY give a logically consistent response:

As a human being, I have the right (at least in my country), to refuse to donate my blood, organs, tissues, or life to any other being. I have the right to refuse this even if I not longer need them (am dead). I have the right to refuse them if the being in question is my wife, parent, best friend, and even my own child. I have the right to refuse them even if the need was caused by my own negligence (a car accident for example). I have the right to refuse even when that negligence is criminal (drunk driving). And most importantly, I have that right even when I intentionally cause the damage that creates the necessity in a purposeful criminal act (I.E. If I shot you).

So why should pregnant women be the ONLY persons to be denied the right to choose what happens to their own body, and why should fetuses be the ONLY persons granted status that allows their health to trump the rights of another person?"


you mis-phrased your question. it's their life to trump the rights of another person, not their health. If you were capable of removing the baby without killing it, then it would not upset anyone, would it?

Ok, I'll tell you why your situation is different. In my country, there actually are laws that force people to help each other out under certain circumstances. They are often called "Good Samaritan Laws"

you are driving along and you see a man bleeding by the side of the road. You stop and he asks you for help. He hurt himself, and will die if you do not drive him to the hospital.
You leave him to die. The police find out that you were there, and that you did nothing. You are not convicted of murder by any stretch of the imagination, but you are lawfully punished.

Another situation. You recieve a letter in the mail that informs you that if you do not send one hundred dollars thirty people will die. Of hunger.
You ignore it.
They die, but it is not directly related to you. You are not punished.

No one is legally punished for not giving money to charities or for not giving blood, but they are punished for not rendering assistence when confronted face on. So that portion of your argument is unrelated to the face on characteristics of a pregnancy.

In the second part of your argument, you related the woman's right to choose what happens to her own body. There are plenty of cases where we do not allow a person full rights to her own body. Drugs are the first ones that come to mind. Is it her right to shoot heroin? Is it her right to persue anorexia? Is it her right to suicide? Is it a woman's right to cut off her arms?

We control unnatural things that she would do to herself. Things that would harm her. Things that might make her harm those around her. Why can we not extend this to the baby aswell?

"let me clear something up: the ending of life is not at issue. the ONLY issue in abortion is the rights of a human person to dictate what happens to their own body. a female has the right to refuse to donate her tissues to another person at any time and for any reason, so why should she not be able to exercise that right when it comes to a fetus? if you want a fetus to have human rights, then why insist on granting it rights no human being has?"

Of course the ending of life is an issue. It's one of Kant's first laws, you have to protect the source of pure practical reason- Ie. Life. You said you read him.

And- having donated an organ, it is not the female's right to ask for it back please.

Yes- that's my answer.

"All truth is relative"

That statement cannot possibly be true, as it is internally inconsistant. If all truth is relative, then this statement can only be true sometimes, etc.

It's like saying, "All generalizations are false." The statement disproves itself.

It's a logical proof.

"let me clear something up: the ending of life is not at issue. the ONLY issue in abortion is the rights of a human person to dictate what happens to their own body. a female has the right to refuse to donate her tissues to another person at any time and for any reason, so why should she not be able to exercise that right when it comes to a fetus? if you want a fetus to have human rights, then why insist on granting it rights no human being has?"

Of course the ending of life is an issue. It's one of Kant's first laws, you have to protect the source of pure practical reason- Ie. Life. You said you read him.

i said i refuted him. provide your proofs or go away :).


And- having donated an organ, it is not the female's right to ask for it back please.

please describe the point in human gestation in which a female's organs become a part of the fetus' body. please explain how the female then gets the organs back at the end of the pregnancy, if they have been irrevocably donated to the fetus.


Yes- that's my answer.
and it is both logically inconsistent and insufficient.

you mis-phrased your question. it's their life to trump the rights of another person, not their health. If you were capable of removing the baby without killing it, then it would not upset anyone, would it?

exactly. if it is possible to remove a fetus intact, and with no more danger to the female, then that is fine. i don't especially care what happens to the fetus, since that is not the issue here. the issues is that there is no other situation in which one person may be FORCED to maintain the life of another person against their wishes. withholding the use of your body or tissues is your right as a human being, and there is no case in which one human may be compelled to allow their body to be used to maintain the life of another human. please explain why this should be the single exception.


Ok, I'll tell you why your situation is different. In my country, there actually are laws that force people to help each other out under certain circumstances. They are often called "Good Samaritan Laws"

you are driving along and you see a man bleeding by the side of the road. You stop and he asks you for help. He hurt himself, and will die if you do not drive him to the hospital.
You leave him to die. The police find out that you were there, and that you did nothing. You are not convicted of murder by any stretch of the imagination, but you are lawfully punished.

those laws are unjust. many unjust laws exist, that doesn't mean we should make more unjust laws.


Another situation. You recieve a letter in the mail that informs you that if you do not send one hundred dollars thirty people will die. Of hunger.
You ignore it.
They die, but it is not directly related to you. You are not punished.

No one is legally punished for not giving money to charities or for not giving blood, but they are punished for not rendering assistence when confronted face on. So that portion of your argument is unrelated to the face on characteristics of a pregnancy.

as i have said, the laws you referred to are as unjust as laws punishing those who don't give to charity would be. just because there are some unjust laws doesn't mean we should make more.


In the second part of your argument, you related the woman's right to choose what happens to her own body. There are plenty of cases where we do not allow a person full rights to her own body. Drugs are the first ones that come to mind. Is it her right to shoot heroin? Is it her right to persue anorexia? Is it her right to suicide? Is it a woman's right to cut off her arms?

i believe all persons have the right to choose what happens to their body. it is unjust to forbid the use of drugs. it is unjust to forbid a person to choose their own diet. it is unjust to forbid a person to end their life if they wish to do so. it is unjust to forbid a person to cut of their limbs if they wish to.


We control unnatural things that she would do to herself. Things that would harm her. Things that might make her harm those around her. Why can we not extend this to the baby aswell?
it is unjust to forbid a person to harm themself. it is also unjust to forbid them to choose what happens to their own body. a female has the right to have a pregnancy ended at any time, and for any reason, if a fetus is given the same rights as all other human beings. whether or not the fetus survives is irrelevant to her rights in this case; no human being may be forced to donate their body to another against their wishes, that is called "slavery."

I think that kind of questions sould be more clear or even never be puted this way!
how can we vote to be aborted if we are born alredy doing abortion???????

Which comes first

A. Depression

B. The Chemical imbalance

Or phrase it a different way, Which comes first

A. Being obese

B. Eating to much

?

Just so you all know. There have been studies that prove that to much salt doesn't cause high blood pressure. Consuming to much salt is just an indicator of high blood pressure. High blood pressure causes a loss of taste, salt intensifies tastes.

There have also been studies that show that frogs don't come from floating wood and flies don't come from rotting meat. Those are all older studies though, as I am sure most of you will agree with them by now.

Which comes first

A. Depression

B. The Chemical imbalance

according to modern research, clinical depression is a symptom of a chemical imbalance, therefore the imbalance comes first. if the imbalance does not exist then it is not clinical depression; that is an artifact of our definition, to be sure, but at least it answers your question :).

I would let myself be born. because it gave my mom great pleasure to finnaly have a family of her own. THough i would change some aspects.

This is the most loaded question I've heard in a long time.