Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

In some parts of the world, mainly the Arab World it is punishable by death to give an abortion.

_________________

*shuffles feet*

I usually make it a point to keep the more hotbedded opinions to myself. Yet after reading through all this, I did want to put yet another female's two cents on the counter. First of all, I suppose I still consider myself to be a liberal Protestant. (Whatever that means.) However, I am quite pro-choice, which is possibly one reason why I've felt so alienated from the religion for many years. (Not from the spirituality -- no, not by a long shot. Just from the conceptually massive "organization.") In my opinion, I simply see far too many frightening things going on amongst the generalized members of it today, things which I cannot approve of in good faith or good conscience ... such as all this continual striving for the union of church and state -- after all, I don't believe that's what even Msr. Christ wanted -- and most of all, hate disguised as "family values." Hate is hate, and I'm rather tired of sidestepping those who cannot see that.

To anyone who is pro-life, my next tentative question is, all right then, when are you going to adopt the child whose parents didn't want them and now must sink or swim through the already-overloaded foster care system in this country? To my mind, those who consider abortion as a valuable form of contraceptive are not fit to be parents in the first place. A parent is more than a mere sperm and an incubated egg -- a parent is someone who will love and care for a child. And if that child is unwanted and then birthed anyway, I very much regret the sort of life they're going to have to slog through. And speaking from some amount of outer-familial experience, which I certainly do not think appropriate to go into here, the foster care system is NOT a good place for a child to grow up. You don't hear about this "other side" of the problem very often, which is I why I ventured to speak of it today. It's certainly worth musing on from both sides, methinks.

Personally, I do believe that using abortion as a contraceptive is wrong. I believe that people should accept responsibility for their actions -- and I don't believe that anyone should be having sexual intercourse without realizing that, hey, this could result in a baby here; we're risking life, and we'd better darn well be prepared for such or -- gasp, how novel! -- just don't do it. (For that matter, I don't believe that anyone should put up with having sex without love. At the very LEAST. But I digress. Shuffle shuffle.) I would certainly not carry a rapist's child to term, nor would I expect any other woman to do so. We do not live in a perfect world where everyone accepts their responsibilites or thinks before they jump, however, and thus I simply cannot approve of banning pro-choice. If we do, as others here have stated, nothing would change but for the return to back alley abortions, and that is just not right. Last but not least, for a woman, you see, the thought of a panel of white male judges taking away the rights of how we deal with what happens to our own bodies is completely frightening. Because if so, all that WILL happen is a return to ... well yes, sadly enough, the days of hangers.

Fact is, I don't really know how to solve this problem. It's a big one, and it will probably go on brewing and boiling until the end of time. I can, however, freely admit that I am well-aware that I don't have all the answers ... an ever-thinking concept from which, methinks, many an ardent pro-ANYTHING could benefit.

_________________

OMG MY WEBSITE IS YOUR MOMMA!

Well, I've already stated my opinions on this in other threads.
I digress only because I know no one budges on this issue either way - everyone has their own opinions on it... it's not like taxes... some people, like myself, believe that it is a life and that abortion is simply murder. And I don't think murder is justifiable because the life happens to be undesirable.
That being said I can't stand people who are pro life but aren't for other human rights, that annoys me.

But also, you're forgetting that giving birth hurts. A lot. If a woman goes through the trauma of being raped as Queenie-C said, how can they also be expected to go through childbirth. I believe that that's asking too much. This is one of the only cases I'd believe that abortion is actually RIGHT to do. There's also another scenario being overlooked. That is genetic disease in the infant. If it's discovered that the child is going to have Tay-Sachs or another like disease, should they be aborted? I say why make a child and parents suffer? I'd consider it SAVING the child from a life of pain and misery. Also, if the pregnancy really puts the mother in life-threatening danger I think she should be able to choose. As for using abortions as contraception, I'm mostly against that.

_________________

There are many hypocrites like that. There are people I know that are pro-choice but against the death penalty... as though a criminal has more right to live than an unborn.

That's different though. I believe that the reason most people who are against the death penalty are is because they believe that death would be letting them off too easily. That's what I believe at least. I think that if someone commits a heinous crime, they should suffer. Ending their life is just an easy way out of them having to suffer.

_________________

The point is, when you get right down to it, is that people think that it's okay to kill babies and not okay to kill mass murderers.

But I digress.

As to the topic of abortion, I don't have much of an opinion either way. There's not really any good moral or religious support for abortion, but if a woman is willing to kill a child inside her, well, I wouldn't think she'd be a very good mother.

The only justifiable abortion would be if there is a very good chance that the mother would die in birth. This is especially true if the mother already has children, because the lives of the many outweigh the life of one, in my belief.

I believe that the ones that should be making the decision on this would be women, since, well, no man is ever going to get pregnant, thus never would a man have an abortion. However, the women seem to all be pro-choice.

In summary, I'm neither pro-life or pro-choice, but pro-necessity.

Well, if you go back to my disease scenario, then I'd think the woman would be a good mother. If DNA tests confirmed that the fetus would have Tay-Sachs disease, then I think that abortion would be justifyable. The woman wouldn't want the child to suffer. That's being a good mother.

_________________

Is it? I was unaware killing those with disailities was a good thing. You know Hitler started with the handicapped and said he was just "helping them not to suffer" when he killed them.

Anyhow, there are obviously exceptions - rape, mother's life, incest.
But arguing the exception doesn't help your case in my opinion. Because there would be a clause that said "Excepting rape, incest, and the mother's life..."

After thinking about it, I'm not so sure that Adoption is the best alternative, either. You're basically asking a woman to nurture a baby to term, then to give him or her to somebody she doesn't know after the birth. That's got to be painful, too.

But I do believe that the best alternative in any case is that Christians and other good people should help support the woman in the process. If we expect her to choose to carry the child to term, then we should be willing to help her raise that child. The reason most women get abortions is because they do not feel that there is any support to help them raise their child. I want to see that changed. That is, we ought to actually Help and Care For mothers (what a novel idea!).

And good sex education (one that emphasizes waiting until adulthood) needs to be taught to help women make wise decisions regarding their sexuality. And like Christa said, people shouldn't be having sex if they are not willing to face the consequences of an unwanted birth (and/or venereal disease, etc.).

_________________

I'm not sure you know what Tay-Sachs disease is, LOLC2k. It is a disease where a child is perfectly normal for a couple of months, but then it's mind starts to degenerate. It suffers for almost all of its life. There's no chance of recovery and there's an absolute certainty of death. It's like, if you're poisoned with a painful, slow-acting toxin and you also have a gun next to you, you'd probably rather die quickly and painlessly rather than suffer. In my opinion, a child with Tay-Sachs is a wasted life. That child could have been special, they could have made a difference in the world, but for some reason, they were struck down with a disease that prevents them from achieveing any kind of life at all. To say that you'd rather torture a child than put it out of its misery is, in my opinion, worse than murder. It's sick to want a human being to go through neverening torment. I'm not saying "kill all the cripples." People with disabilities still have a chance. Tay-Sachs children don't. Why should they suffer? Give me a good reason.

_________________

If you are morally against abortions because you believe that a zygote is every bit a human being as, well, a person, then you must also agree, that every single miscarriage must be investigated for criminal activity.

If a pregnant lady goes skiing and has a bad accident crashing into a tree which causes her to miscarry, then she should be held as much accountable as if she was carrying a baby in her arms and went skiing and crashed into a tree. Which would probably be manslaughter.

A lot of young mums would be going to jail for not looking after their bodys very well.

If you disagree with this, you must accept that there is a difference between a human embryo and a human being.

And as for the death penalty? Sure, there are similarities - if the government decides to perform abortions on women against their will.

remember kids - the rest of the first world, much of the second and some of the third world consider the US backwards when it comes to government sanctioned killing.

I would certainly agree that a woman who is pregnant ought to be careful how she treats her body to ensure the health of her unborn child. That's just plain common sense. The example you gave (of the skiing mom) is a rather extreme example, though, and therefore I do not believe a basis for determining policy for all other cases of miscarriage. It would be like trying to prosecute parents in every case of SIDS based on a single case of child abuse.

On the other hand, if a woman was known to smoke, drink, or abuse drugs during her pregnancy, and the child died or had birth defects, then there should be legal repercussions. (You'd probably find that much more common than the skiing mom).

_________________

so why aren't misscarriages investigated? why only if it is 'know' that the mother abuses her body then there should be repercussions? If you are found dead in your bed tomorrow, it's not as if it isnt suspicious because you are not 'know' to be involves with criminals.

If any human being dies prematurely, the cause of death must be determined. If something indicates death was caused by the actions of another human being, it is investigated. SIDS babys are found to have died from SIDS, but the parents would be prosecuted if they were found to be responsible due to gross negligence.

I am arguing that a zygote is not a human being, so there is no need to investigate miscarriages. Of course, if a woman abuses her body during pregnancy, she needs help. not a conviction.

Where are the pro-lifers holding rallys at hospitals demanding miscarrying alcoholic mothers be found guilty of murder? There arent any, because they hate abortion due to warped religious convictions, not because they care for the human beings/foetuses/embryos/zygotes.

What bothers me, as a Christian, are those who bomb abortion clinics and say they're doing God's work (which IMHO, they aren't); why would someone kill to prevent killing? It makes no sense.

_________________

Actually, Cos, I think you ought to shut up now before you make a complete idiot of yourself. It is precisely because of my respect for human life that I do oppose abortion. And I don't appreciate you calling my religious views "warped." All I did was introduce a little bit of realism into your red herring argument. You then resorted to an ad hominem attack against people's motives, of which you have no real understanding. That is poor form on your part.

So just to give you an idea just how sick and twisted my beliefs are, I'll tell you a little bit about my philosophy of human life. I believe that being pro-life is more than just being anti-abortion. It means caring about people in their life circumstances.

That is why I support crisis pregnancy centers. Not only do they try to help potential mothers make wise, informed decisions about their pregnancies, they also try to help them live with those decisions through support and assistance.

The abortion clinic philosophy, on the other hand, seems to be, "Get 'em in, chop 'em up, and move 'em out." I have yet to see any abortion clinic offer psychological screening or post-abortion counseling to assist those mothers after they've made the decision to end their pregnancies.

So there it is: I support life both on a qualitative and quantitative level. I am in favor of caring for and supporting people before, during, and after these tough life circumstances. And according to you, this is warped. Instead, you propose that we start treating every mother of every miscarried child like a criminal, even if they have done nothing wrong. While I would agree that neglegent behavior that leads to miscarriage ought to be punished, I do not agree that ever miscarriage ought to be treated as a case of neglegence. And you have the nerve to call my views "warped."


And upon what scientific evidence do you base this? According to the science classes I took, they bear human DNA, and in my book that makes them human.

_________________

I have the feeling that Coztopia is taking my perspective on this issue to an extreme degree. From what I can glean from his/her posts, (s)he thinks in a similar way to myself regarding conscious thought in fetae.

I will agree with Didymus, though, that Coztopia went about his/her argument the wrong way.

We don't bash other people's beliefs here, Coztopia. We all do our best to respect the opinions of others here, although we may not share them. Please don't make others feel as though their opinions (in Didymus' case, based on his religious beliefs) are worthless. If you want to stick around, that is.

In another case, I might chastise a user for telling another to "shut up", but here I think Didymus was justified. He's a smart, reasonable man who doesn't deserve to be labelled as "warped".

_________________

I haven't posted in this topic yet, as I don't have a fully-formed opinion on abortion. I'm currently a fence-sitter who's flip-flopped on the issue many times, so this is a tentative submission. So be nice.

It seems to me that those who oppose abortion should, logically, oppose birth control. If you don't intend to have a child, is there a difference between not letting it into the womb in the first place and killing it off once it's there? In effect, there is no difference between these acts.

Thoughts?

_________________
"You get the Most Annoying Transsexual I've Ever Spoken To award." -The Zephyr Song

Woah, hold on a second.



"They" being pro-lifers holding rallys at abortion clinics. No reference to Didymus there.

Though I still don't still dont belive that if one belives a couple of dozen cells in a womb is human being with fully fledged human rights, they can dismiss cases of misscarriage. how is it different? If what you call a human being dies, how can you just let it slide?



I believe this is more a problem to do with funding. I think everyone would agree that abortions aren't pleasant. And should only be carried out after consultation with a doctor, and psychological assessment should be a part. However, due to the pitiful state of the US public health service, the most comprehensive care is not always available.

Plus, i think what you have said would be highly offensive to the doctors who must perfom the abortions.



Straw-man, much?



again?

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying pro-lifers should regard mothers of miscarried children as potential criminals if they are to be consistient in their beliefs.

I also believe this to be wrong. My mother miscarried. I don't consider her a criminal in the slightest.

My aunty had an abortion a few years ago. I dont consider her a criminal. If she didnt have the abortion, she would have died when the embryo grew to near birth age. I dont consider her a criminal. I am very much glad she did have the abortion so she is alive today. Do you?



human zygote != human being.

same evidence on which i call an apple an apple, not an apple tree.

And, taking things to the extreme, i know, but if you cant call someone who would like to see people who have had abortions or those who perform abortions dead 'warped', then there is no point discussing the values of life.

And who are you talking about here? Extremists? But what you have done in what you were saying was attributing their extremism to all pro-lifers. But as I read your post, I did not see any attempt to distinguish between extremists and moderates like myself.

Instead, you called the religion I hold dear "warped." That's a far cry from addressing a particular extremist behavior or attitude. And that's why I responded the way I did. I will not tolerate you insulting my religion like that. And, from what MHG said, neither will the mods.


And what's wrong with rallies? There were plenty of them in the Sixties when people were fighting for civil rights.

And that part about dismissing miscarriages: I think you've got us wrong there, pal. We recognize miscarriage as a tragedy. Heck, I can testify to that first hand: I had a dear cousin who suffered a miscarriage, and was even asked to pray at the meal afterwards. My cousin can certainly tell you a thing or two about what she suffered. Heck, she couldn't even go to my uncle's church (her father) because her child was buried in that cemetary.

You've proposed that, unless we treat every case of miscarriage as a criminal activity on the part of the mother, even when there is no malicious intent or negligent behavior on the part of the mother, then we are not consistent in our beliefs. To which I respond, Be Realistic Here! No one ever claimed that miscarriage is not tragic. But to treat all mothers of miscarried babies as criminals in all cases is an extremist approach. For that reason, I do not buy your argument.

So how is it different? Because miscarriages occur naturally, just like disease and other natural causes of death. And unless there is evidence or probable cause to suspect negligence on the part of the mother, then why subject her to further grief?


But this is a clear case where it was either her life or the child's. On a case like this, I cannot comment, particularly since I do not know the agony that she probably suffered as a result.

However, the majority of cases of abortion are not on account of health reasons or danger to the mother's life. The vast majority are essentially a type of retroactive birth control. I.e., people who really ought to be more responsible in their sexual conduct who want a quick fix to the problem of pregnancy. My philosophy is very simple: if you cannot handle the responsibility of bringing a new life into the world, then don't take the risk. Be responsible in your sexual conduct (I've also done an extensive amount of research on sexual addiction as part of my CPE training, so I can testify that there are detrimental psychological consequences to irresponsible sexual conduct).

My stance: if it can be medically attested that the mother's life is in real danger, then I would say the abortion should be allowed (since it is essentially one life or the other). However, for those people who are simply irresponsible in their sexual conduct, they should not be afforded the easy solution of killing their children.

Your apple/apple tree analogy. Here's an essential flaw: the human zygote does not correspond to the apple. A human zygote corresponds better to an apple seed that has been planted and is starting to sprout.

And just as every apple seed that takes root and sprouts has the potential to become a great tree, so every human zygote that attaches to a mother's womb has the potential to become a great human being. Imagine what the world would have looked like if Martin Luther King Jr's mother had aborted the zygote that became him. Or Albert Einstein's mother. Or if the mother of your best friend. Or your own mother. The world would have been deprived of a great person, or at the very least, a person who has touched your life in some way (or if not yours, then others). Every human being on the face of this earth was once a zygote. Who are we to judge that anyone on the face of this planet should never have the chance to become who they were destined to become.

Well, I might not mind it if it were that Really Mean German Guy Whose Name Your Not Supposed To Mention, but at that stage of development, how can you tell? The point is, by killing the zygote, you are robbing a human being of great potential.

_________________

Here's the thing:

If you're so against having a child that you're willing to snuff out the proverbial candle before it's lit, then here's a thought: There's only one way to have a baby, and it's not something you do by accident. Abstinence people!

I do understand that rape is a different issue, but if someone's just "fooling around" and accidently gets pregnant, well, that's no grounds for an abortion, in my view.



How many trees do you know of that kill their own fruit?

Exactly. Also, my dad was an illegidamite under circumstances I don't know, and may not care to know. (he was adopted) I would be dead, along with my future children, and their children, etc... The excuses of uncomfortableness and needlessness make me cringe. The existance of the Earth depends on these "non-humans." The Earth has been changed in so many ways because of this mass abortion. I'm positive that somewhere in the long line of un-needed biological objects, there was someone who would find a cure to diabetes, alsheimers, als, or another great feat. Didimus is obviously very knowledgeable about this, You're begining to step in it Coz.

_________________

Credit for this avy-turned-sig goes to a friend from another forum named "Unknown" (no joke)

Well, well. I'm kinda new to this forum (although I used to hang out a lot on a now-defunct H*R forum), and I'm glad to see the old debates raging again.

I will preface my statements by saying that I am male and pro-life with reasonable reservations (i.e rape, threat to mother's life). I am also a Christian, but I will try not to base my arguments on religion.

As some others in this thread have said, I believe that human beings have inherent value. I believe abortion is wrong for the following reasons:

1. An infant, a fetus, an embryo, even a zygote is made up of genetically distinct cells (well, the zygote is just one). Therefore, although dependent on the mother, it is not a part of her body.

2. Adoption is an available alternative to abortion. And while some may claim that the life of an adopted child "might" be a miserable one, I would argue that there are plenty of happy adopted and even foster children (though the system needs work, I'll admit). At the same time, is everyone who was "wanted" and "planned for" necessarily happy? Hardly. Every person has trials to go through in their life.

3. I am "pro-life" in general. I believe it is hypocritical to favor abortion and oppose the death penalty, as it is to favor the death penalty and oppose abortion ("favor" refers to legality here). War is a different issue, so I won't try to work it in to this argument.

4. I do not wish to oppress women or abridge their rights in any way, but I do believe that there are two people involved in an abortion: the mother, and the unborn. Even if the mother votes "no" on that unborn's life, there will always be that "yes" vote from the child. We need to learn to listen for it. The unborn can't talk, and maybe can't even think yet, but the fact that it is constantly growing and developing biologically is evidence enough for me that the unborn "wants" to live. Plus, wouldn't half of aborted people be female themselves? I don't think an abortion is a good example of a "woman's right".

5. Abortion can be painful to the unborn in later stages, and can have negative psychological effects on the mother. Even if an unborn is aborted before this stage in development, it is still the destruction of a human life, and the destruction of that life's potential.

6. This may not be a valid reason for a legal argument, but I think people should be held accountable for their actions, even if it is "just one mistake" that got them pregnant. What if you make "just one mistake" while you're driving a car? You die. It has nothing to do with fairness, it's just how the world works: there are consequences for our actions. And so it doesn't sound like it's just the ladies I'm targeting, I should also say that the father in such a situation should bear at least half the financial burden. We have technology these days that can identify who the father is, if there is a question.

Well, there are more, but that's a start. To those who agree and to those who don't: please reply and tell me why (rhyme intended).

Oh no i hate abortion Anyone who supports it is a @)(#&!!!!!! (Dont ban me for this)

_________________
What idiot thought the idea of putting the hole on the BUTT of them?Take a look one day!Notice those holes on top?Well thats where the Salt come out right?Well if you put the opening on butt guess what!When you go to fill them it is is going to spill and make a freaking mess all over myfloor!-Didy

Elaborate please. Do you believe that abortion is morally wrong under EVERY circumstance?

_________________

no i jus think its just plain WRONG i mean why people want to kill there children?

_________________
What idiot thought the idea of putting the hole on the BUTT of them?Take a look one day!Notice those holes on top?Well thats where the Salt come out right?Well if you put the opening on butt guess what!When you go to fill them it is is going to spill and make a freaking mess all over myfloor!-Didy

That is pretty blunt. Kind of hard to debate.

_________________

1. Punctuation, grammar and spelling are your friends.
2. Some people don't believe that human life starts at conception (I don't have a stance on that particular topic.)
3. If a woman is raped, do you think they'd be able to emotionally and physically deal with pregnancy and childbirth?
4. If a woman is in poor health that could result in both the death of her and the fetus is she stays pregnant, why should both of their lives be ended when only one has to be?
5. You can't just say things that broadly. It's the kind of thing that gets people who disagree with you to really hate the way you present your ideas.

_________________

Alright. point well taken. Perhaps Tay-Schay's is ONE case where it may be better of not living. The problem that I have with a lot of people is they continiously argue the minority of cases to defend abortion. Most abortions take place in the middle/lower middle class and are not rape, incest, or to save the mother's life, or Tay-Schays. I've alread given my opinon - saving the mother's life is not wrong, and although I believe it is still sad for the baby to die - a woman who is raped should be allowed to make that choice. What I am saying is that the vast majority of the time, I do not believe abortion is right. I will accept certain minority cases where it should be allowed, but normally people argue the majority of cases.

As for the death penalty I am against that also, except in VERY rare cases, but I believe that it would be better to do away with it altogether because those rare cases happen so very rarely. (The people I talk about here are people who kill many, many people and have strong political support, people such as Hitler, for example)

LOLC2K I like how you refer to Terri Schivo as Tay-Shay.

I am against abortion unless in certain cases, actually one case. If the baby is gonna be a danger to it mother life then, it is ok. When it comes to me and my personal life I say "Keep that baby." We can put it up for adoption if we can manage it. In rape cases, she should keep the baby. There is Exhibit , in the case.

_________________