«

[Sebatianos]

Originally posted by Chuck the plant@Sep 22 2005, 04:07 PM
EDIT: Well, reading about your home-country... don't you agree that the problem lies more in its society than in the general concept of abortion then? Honestly, I think what you are describing is far away from the happenings in almost any other european and/or american country (so not to use the term "western world"), in a sense that it is much more extrem. But the point is: It's not abortion that's to blame for it, and prohibiting it would in no way reduce the mess, but make it even bigger.

I admit the situation here is probably very specific. Communist regime abolished most of the christian influence, but it at first tried to impose it's own moral standards and faild which resulted in severely decresed socail morality. Don't know about other countries that were in a similar situation (that would mostly be other countries of the former Yugoslavia, but their situation would probably be different due to the fact that they had several year of war in between - forcing them to rething certain positions on life).

Adn YES, I deffinetly agree, that what I'm talking about has nothing more to do with the issue of abortion. It's just one of the unsolved problems of the society I live in.

I guess the first idea I had about this topic (Seb you said all you wanted to say - don't get involved in it anymore) was far better then this - sorry for straying so far off topic.

Trying ot be fully objective now - the arguments I've heard here so far had this effect on me (for the world wide law - if such a thing could exist - on abortion): I'm 35% for and 65% agianst it. Saying I can't really make up my mind, but I lean more towards NOT legalising abortion (and I guess this really is my final post in this thread - and sorry again for going completely off topic).

[marko river]

I can't understand this.

If planet is pile of sh*t and society can't take proper care of all children, we shouldn't allow them to be born?????

How many people had good conditions in Middle Age for example?

Children being created and born in love is ideal. Planing children is something that i can understand.

If two make baby before they think they are preapared, why aborting? Because it won't have the "proper" conditions?? There are many hungry people? One or both parents are not fine parents? So why would this baby have a chance of becoming a baby?

I don't understand you people. I thought that if there is the slightest, the minimal chance that this baby might have a fine life, then it should be born and parents should do everything to make it possible.

Noooooo. Someone gave you the right to terminate the embrio because you think that it won't have a good life.

You are not makeing decisions about your life!!!!! You are terminating the embrio, not yourself.

Who gave the right do deciede that bad life is worse than not living?????

[Fruit Pie Jones]

A few questions spring to mind while reading this thread. Only one is directly related to the topic of abortion, but they are all related to this thread. You don't have to answer them, but at least give them a passing thought:

1. Is it legally defensible (not "right," but "legally defensible") to base the legalization of abortion in general on special cases (e. g., rape, incest, and other unpleasant things)? An analogy: there are special cases in which it is legal to kill another human being - in war, for example, or in self-defense. Can this be used as an argument to support the position that the act of killing another human being should be legalized?

2. Is it even remotely possible for two people to hold differing, and even opposing, positions on an issue - any issue - without one of those people having been brainwashed by "outdated religious dogma" or some other term that is supposed to imply that the target is incapable of thinking for him/herself?

3. Is it at all hypocritical for someone to lament that there are too many people living on the planet while continuing to live on it?

4. Are we all - with our dreams, desires, urges, opinions, idiosyncracies, modes of expression, and dirty little secrets - nothing more than a product of our genetics?

[Chuck the plant]

Originally posted by marko_river@Sep 22 2005, 02:51 PM
Who gave the right do deciede that bad life is worse than not living?????

And who gave you the right to say that it is better to be born than not to be born?
How often do you come across people saying "I wish I hadn't been born at all", and they MEAN it. How many people commit suicide each day because they don't wanna live a live anymore that they never wanted to live?

Do you REALLY think it is "more responsible" to have a child at all costs? No matter if you can take proper care of it, no matter if you can afford to raise it in proper social conditions? No matter if you can even LOVE this child (because,as shocking as this might come to some: One simply CAN'T be forced to love anybody or anything)? Or wouldn't you think it's more responsible NOT to have this child at all?
All of the above conditions WILL lash back on the child in one way or another, and not in positive ways, that is.
I think the main problem with people like you is that you simply cannot comprehend that somebody could actually not love their own flesh and blood. But sadly that's the case often enough. So why force a child to live a life that will be punishment?
That's also to FPJ: You say people should be forced to face the consequences of their doing (e.g. having sex). What a great humanitarian view on life. So you basically say the baby is the PUNISHMENT for those irresponsible people? If not, why would anyone want to force those people to HAVE the baby, thus not only punishing the parents, but the child as well for reasons given above? You simply CAN'T force someone to love a baby they never wanted. You CAN'T force someone to be "responsible", and if they ain't, it's the child who suffers the most. So you're punishing the child more than the parents, actually.

As for your other points:
1. In most countries, there ARE restrictions and rules on having abortions. And if we're talking about the US specifically: If the state has the right to take life (death penalty, anyone?) in ONE case, why not grant it in another case as well (because the health-system is also department of the state)? In both cases, your analogy doesn't really hold water.
2. Well, if you want to fit into that shoe... all I said is, that most people who talk about "moral values" talk about those of our western society, which derive from christian tradition. That's a simple fact that can hardly be argued with.
3. Nobody "laments". It's just also a simple fact. It's not more hypocritical then people talking about forcing others to have babies they don't wanna have and claiming it's for the child's own good that way...
4. No. That's why the social factors are taken as ONE arguement again and again.

@ Seb: Well, I think those points you raised are also worth discussing... maybe in a seperate topic, but they are worth it. As for your "percentages" (allthough I wonder how one can come up with such clear separrations regarding - in the end - feelings... ): i think the case is clear then. If you can't say you're 100% against it, it should be allowed. Of course there should be restrictions and maybe even penalties (in cases of repeated abortions without the case of "extreme situations" like rape etc. for example), I am ALL for that. But it MUST be allowed. Already to prevent many miserable lifes from becoming even more miserable and spreading more misery.

@ topic again: What about the so-called "pursuit of happiness"? For many people, a baby just does not fit in there. On the contrary. You want to force these people to give up on their right?

And for a personal sidenote: I myself am so ure about not wanting a baby, I was even considering vasectomy. The thing is: You can't have one before the age of 26 (for obvious medical & psychical reasons) and without already HAVING at least one child here. Think about THAT.

[PrejudiceSucks]

The morning after pill is a pretty good idea in my opinion. There's your answer Taikara, just to stay on track and not argue.

*edit* : Seb, you have to realise that girls are more curious about sex at an early age (or so I believe) but then get over it faster than boys. Hence they would be more interested at an early age and would take it out on boys (remember, these children are in the main not really attracted to the opposite sex yet). They get over it at about 13/14 and boys at 15 still talk about sex a lot as if it was new to them and this does not impress the young women at the time.

[taikara]

Originally posted by FPJ
1.* Is it legally defensible (not "right," but "legally defensible") to base the legalization of abortion in general on special cases (e. g., rape, incest, and other unpleasant things)?* An analogy: there are special cases in which it is legal to kill another human being - in war, for example, or in self-defense.* Can this be used as an argument to support the position that the act of killing another human being should be legalized?

Let's consider for a minute the basis of why war and self-defense are exceptions to the law not to kill. War itself is a very messy subject, so it's best not to speak specifically as to the reason of a particular war, but the basic idea is that if a country goes to war, it is in the best interest of that country to do so, whether for defense purposes, or for the purposes of gaining resources to sustain that country's people.

In the case of self-defense, if another human being threatens your well-being, or the well-being of your family, you have the right to kill that human being.

The self-defense logic goes well for the argument of the mother's life being endangered by carrying a child to term. And you may be surprised at the likelihood of this occuring, especially now that more and more women are becoming pregnant at a later age. The case of being impregnated due to rape would probably also fall under this logic, in the sense that the rape itself is a violation of your well-being, and therefore the fetus inside the mother is also a violation... but rape is a special case that I feel should be put into its own category.

The war logic parallels the idea that population control is in the best interest of the country. Take Japan, for example, where abortion is not only legal, it is an encouraged necessity, in order for the country to sustain its population.

And it's somewhat curious to ask whether something is legally defensible when it has already been proven in courts that it is in fact legally defensible (otherwise, we probably wouldn't be having this debate, and abortion wouldn't be legal in some places. I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be having this debate in Japan).

Originally posted by FPJ+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FPJ)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>3.* Is it at all hypocritical for someone to lament that there are too many people living on the planet while continuing to live on it?[/b]

It is, but isn't it just as hypocritical to complain about the hypocrisy of others when you can't offer a viable and acceptable solution to the actual problem (overpopulation)?

And truthfully, we are all born in hubrous. The moment we are conceived, we are meant to die at some point. Those of us who actually have made it to this point that we can discuss the issue should at least do our best to ensure that the survival of our future generations is as likely as possible with the best quality of life as possible. If overpopulation and decadance of culture threaten our ability to sustain, then it should be dealt with, either via preventative methods (through education, birth control and abstinence) or proactive measures (the morning after pill, abortion).

<!--QuoteBegin-FPJ
4.* Are we all - with our dreams, desires, urges, opinions, idiosyncracies, modes of expression, and dirty little secrets - nothing more than a product of our genetics?[/quote]

If yes, then abortion is a viable option, as it is considered the removal of undesired genetic material. (I personally don't agree with this way of thinking.)

If no, then abortion is still a viable option, because that would suggest that our "humanity" is the product of nurture. A fetus in the womb has experienced only biological nurture - the basic support necessary to sustain life. If our civilization is a product of socialization, and all thoughts, dreams, desires, urges, opinions, idiosyncrasies, modes of expression, and dirty little secrets are derivatives of that socialization - then a fetus cannot lay claim to being fully human.

I apologize to all for being so argumentative. I am personally neither for nor against abortion. I simply feel that we should at least be given the option to choose for ourselves, and I do find it somewhat frustrating that throughout the course of this discussion, women have been dragged through the mud as wanton heathens who just want to have a good time with no consequences. If the majority of you actually were women, I doubt you'd think the same way. There are definitely some women like that, but on the whole, it's just not the case.

It also seems to me that when you have one argument that is extremely limited, and the opposing argument in and of itself includes the limited argument, there really shouldn't be an argument at all.

After all, how does it really affect you if Jane Doe in Corntown, Arkansas gets pregnant accidentally, and considers having an abortion? It doesn't. However, I bet it will have a profound impact on Jane's entire life, whatever she decides.

[PrejudiceSucks]

Actually, you're being the most cogent and indeed lest argumentative member here. The rest of us (other than Tom and a lot of other people who left long ago) have just been bickering.

[Tom Henrik]

This is going waaaay out of hand.

As far as I can see, everyone agrees (except marko_river) that abortion should be allowed in certain cases. Everyone states that.

So...
There is no more reason to argue over something 99% of the participants agree upon.

If we (the elite, as Sebatianos call us) were to rule this world, we would mess it up even more than it already is. We continue to argue about something we agree upon? Who are we to decide anything, when we can't even understand our own goals and statements?

So, to continue the debate; "Abortions are acceptable in certain conditions."
That leads us to the following questions:

• What are these conditions?
• Who shall decide upon these conditions?
• For how long should an abortion be allowed? First trimester? Second? Third?

Like FPJ says "It is legal to kill a person in self-defense and war". It states that it is legal to take a human life when you yourself is under attack and violation. Surely rape can be considered to fall under both of these terms. And, yes, the unborn kid is innocent, but it was left there by the attacker. It is an unwanted element that causes the mother nothing but pain. Much like an invasion force taking control of a foreign land (to still use the war image). Such invasions only destroy the land, and the soldiers are all innocently just following orders.

And what about incest-rapings?

What about mentally unstable girls, that are in no way fit to be mothers?

What about jerks (men) who seduces woman after woman claiming her to be "the one", getting her pregnant in the most romantic settings ever... just to suddenly disappear and find another woman? Should the mother be forced to go through with the birth? Should the man be unpunished for his acts?

And...
Who shall decide if a girl should be allowed to have an abortion?
A future mother?
A gynecologist?
A psychiatric?
A court of law?

In the case of the latter, let me just warn you that in order to actually get a case to the court there is a long waiting time with lots of paperwork. The more cases the court of law gets, the longer the waiting time. And if every potential abortion should go to a court of law... then their workload would be unbearable. We would have to build new courts to cope with all the work. And what if either the actorate or the defendant appeal for a second verdict? Time passes, and the child grows...

When the baby is so old that it would be illegal to perform an abortion in any case, why should we even use the courts? Those that are against abortions would simply win every trial, they would just have to let time pass.

And if the girl, out of desperation after a rape, performs an "illegal" self-abortion after noticing that she is pregnant. Should she be punished, or set free? After all, she is acting in a non-rational way due to emotions of despair. Should we send her to a mental asylum?

To me, the best law of abortion is that it should be an offer to those that want it. And a tool to be used if needed against the mother's will. But, as I said before... no-one should force a girl to GIVE birth against her will. And especially not men. Men who wants to have a vote in the topic of abortions should allow women to have votes in circumcisions and vasectomies.

To make it fair; every child needs two sexual participants, so..
If the girl should be forced (by the male population) to go through with the birth because she had casual sex for pleasure (without protection), then it would only be fair that the guy (who naturally didn't use protection either, and also had sex just for pleasure) should get a vasectomy at once. Obviously he will never learn, and will continue to have unprotected sex with other girls in the future, so he should not be physically able to produce kids in the future. But that verdict is up to the female population, of course. Males control abortions, females control the sperms. Seems fair to me.

[PrejudiceSucks]

I think that if a woman wants an abortion and can live with it then she should be allowed an abortion. She herself should decide.

Anyone should be allowed to have an abortion (obviously men are incapable of doing this) regardless of their mental health or how the child was created.

I also agree with the British policy of allowing abortion under normal circumstances up to 24 weeks. After this a child can just about live, hence should be allowed to. Anything less than this doesn't allow for time to decide on whether to have a child or not and also to make sure that a woman is pregnant.

[marko river]

You can't say that baby will most probably be the victim of everything and use it as your right to terminate pregancy.

We definately shouldn't create general aspect based on specific situations (rape, incest, health problem...)

If they don't want a baby, they don't love a baby, they can't earn enough for baby, or anything like that, i don't see the point of abortion.
If baby will suuffer in any way, it is bad, offcourse. Especially when it is obvious that baby will go through hell. BUT ABORTION IS NOT GIVING CHANCE. You shouldn't have baby in those conditions. But if two already made a baby, THEN they should work at all costs to create as mush as they can, or simpley give it for adobtion. But abortion is pointless. You are terminating a new life.

If you are aware that baby will mess you up, naturally, take care in sex. But if girl is pregnant, than you'll have to face the consequences. And i don't think that baby is punishment. If pair decides to keep the baby, no matter will they live toghether or separated, than more responsibility and less free time could be some sort of punishment. If they don't want it, than adoption is the case. But what is abortion? You still have to face the fact that you don't want baby, but you are also killing this new life. It is easier for both of them not to go through the pregnancy, especially for the female. Well, i don't see how that is the reason for something horrible like abortion.

How can you be so sure that it will surely live completely unhappy? You think that it will be better to kill it right away instead of giving it a chance to live and then decide to kill itself if it really grow up in such miserable person???? How the f*** have you done him a favour with that?