Jump to content

OT: The most poetic argument against abortion I've ever heard.


Recommended Posts

  • Members

I checked and I appear to be wrong:


 

 

Good to know.

 

Kind of scary to think about, because an incredibly high percentage of people have oral herpes. According to a study 68% of Americans have HSV1.

 

OMG the herpes simplex wikipedia page is sickening. You know you you can get HSV1 in the eye?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 208
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

To get back on topic, somewhat, that song is pretty well written, imo. I don't think abortion is a decision anybody takes lightly, at all. I really don't think there are women out here "using it as birth control", as I've heard some say.

I don't think it's a good thing, by any means, so I resent the term "pro-abortion", as opposed to "pro choice", which I very much am. I don't personally believe in abortion, and would never willingly have my own child aborted, but, I also realize that it's not my place to decide that for anyone else, and that there are legitimate reasons for it, some of which are personal, so I wouldn't favor basing the legality of it on the reason for it. Everybody has their own reasons for what they do, and everybody has to live with what they do, so I'll just leave it at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This might have been addressed here as it's a long thread but I'm not reading through all of it to find out. I'm just wondering for those of you that believe life begins at birth do you believe that if a mother is murdered when she is 8 months pregnant that only one life has been taken? I notice that whenever a mother is murdered they always want to try it as a double homicide but if that same mother walked in an abortion clinic it's not homicide it's "her choice". I don't get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

+1 bajillion






The problem w/ anti-choicers is they tend to be the same people who DON'T adopt, and DON'T fund and/or support those of us whose career it is to work w/ the kids that were born addicted to substances, and/or to abusive parents.


Nor do the anti-choicers want to fund the programs necessary to treat said population. And FWIW, many of these kids, will ALWAYS be dependent on others and the "system" that the anti-choicers tend to ignore.


It's really easy to wave the "pro-life" flag. But really, we're all pro-life. I mean, I'm certainly not pro-death. But I believe that every child should be a WANTED child.

 

 

 

Looks like you're backpedaling. You didn't address anything he mentioned in his post, rather you seemed to avoid it by making sweeping generalizations and creating labels.

 

The truth is, and this is the end all sentence of the abortion issue, is that a fetus is human life. A woman's arguement that it's "her body" and she can "do what she wants with it" is invalid, because it's NOT her body. It's a separate living body, that just happens to be dependent on hers. I believe it's entitled to life and liberty just like the rest of us, *whether it's existence is convenient or not*.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This might have been addressed here as it's a long thread but I'm not reading through all of it to find out. I'm just wondering for those of you that believe life begins at birth do you believe that if a mother is murdered when she is 8 months pregnant that only one life has been taken? I notice that whenever a mother is murdered they always want to try it as a double homicide but if that same mother walked in an abortion clinic it's not homicide it's "her choice". I don't get it.

 

 

Actually, it may vary somewhat, from state to state, but in Kentucky, there's been some debate over it, but ultimately, I don't believe anyone has been convicted of a double homicide, for killing a pregnant woman, but I wouldn't swear to it.

 

There was actually some controversy over a girl I used to know pretty well, who was hit by a driver who was high on pills, as she was on the way to hospital to have her second child. She was in labor, and her husband, who was driving, lived, as did their 2 year old, who was at home. They tried to save the baby, but they couldn't. They were trying to charge the driver with murder (which I don't agree with, in DUI cases, but that's a debate for a different day) of both of them.

 

While I knew her family, and they were the ones pushing for him to be tried for a double murder, I couldn't quite agree with them. For one thing, I believe murder involves conscous intent, but mostly, politicians were already starting to use the situation to jockey for position in an abortion debate. That slope looked kind of short and slppery, to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This might have been addressed here as it's a long thread but I'm not reading through all of it to find out. I'm just wondering for those of you that believe life begins at birth do you believe that if a mother is murdered when she is 8 months pregnant that only one life has been taken? I notice that whenever a mother is murdered they always want to try it as a double homicide but if that same mother walked in an abortion clinic it's not homicide it's "her choice". I don't get it.

 

 

I believe it is double homicide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Looks like you're backpedaling. You didn't address anything he mentioned in his post, rather you seemed to avoid it by making sweeping generalizations and creating labels.


The truth is, and this is the end all sentence of the abortion issue, is that a fetus is human life. A woman's arguement that it's "her body" and she can "do what she wants with it" is invalid, because it's NOT her body. It's a separate living body, that just happens to be dependent on hers. I believe it's entitled to life and liberty just like the rest of us,
*whether it's existence is convenient or not*.

 

 

If a rare bird decided to nest in my beard I couldn't disturb it even though it is my body.

 

Family Guy'd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Actually, it may vary somewhat, from state to state, but in Kentucky, there's been some debate over it, but ultimately, I don't believe anyone has been convicted of a double homicide, for killing a pregnant woman, but I wouldn't swear to it.


There was actually some controversy over a girl I used to know pretty well, who was hit by a driver who was high on pills, as she was on the way to hospital to have her second child. She was in labor, and her husband, who was driving, lived, as did their 2 year old, who was at home. They tried to save the baby, but they couldn't. They were trying to charge the driver with murder (which I don't agree with, in DUI cases, but that's a debate for a different day) of both of them.


While I knew her family, and they were the ones pushing for him to be tried for a double murder, I couldn't quite agree with them. For one thing, I believe murder involves conscious intent, but mostly, politicians were already starting to use the situation to jockey for position in an abortion debate. That slope looked kind of short and slippery, to me.

 

 

Double manslaughter. :poke:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Double manslaughter. :poke:

 

 

It's still only half right, imo. That's what I meant by the "jockeying" the politicians were doing, at the time. It would set precedence for fetuses being considered children, were it counted as "double".

 

I could see pregnancy being an aggravator to the manslaughter charge, but not a completely seperate manslaughter charge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I don't think it's a good thing, by any means, so I resent the term "pro-abortion", as opposed to "pro choice", which I very much am. I don't personally believe in abortion, and would never willingly have my own child aborted,
but
, I also realize that it's not my place to decide that for anyone else, and that there are legitimate reasons for it, some of which are personal, so I wouldn't favor basing the legality of it on the reason for it. Everybody has their own reasons for what they do, and everybody has to live with what they do, so I'll just leave it at that.

 

 

I agree with this to an extent. I also don't believe in theft but I realize it isn't my place to decide that for everyone else, and that there are legitimate reasons for it, some of which are personal. Cogito Ergo Sum yo.

 

However, if we specify that our government is in place to protect our most basic human rights- possession, life, and the pursuit of happiness, and interpretations of these rights are based on things people commonly don't have a problem with- science, logic, the concept of alive versus dead, then I'd say that the government should do something in order to help protect those rights for the unborn.

 

If we specify our government is in place to insure order, then the "clean and safe" can come in.

 

If we specify that law is supposed to be a preventative measure rather than a disciplinary measure, I think that would be ideal.

 

More readily available condoms for high riskers, better sex ed, improving adoption and making it a much more viable option would all be steps in the right direction.

 

Also you know having a better economy and getting rid of unemployment would help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think you're overestimating the population of the world a bit.




I agree with this to an extent. I also don't believe in theft but I realize it isn't my place to decide that for everyone else, and that there are legitimate reasons for it, some of which are personal. Cogito Ergo Sum yo.


However, if we specify that our government is in place to protect our most basic human rights- possession, life, and the pursuit of happiness, and interpretations of these rights are based on things people commonly don't have a problem with- science, logic, the concept of alive versus dead, then I'd say that the government should do something in order to help protect those rights for the unborn.


If we specify our government is in place to insure order, then the "clean and safe" can come in.


If we specify that law is supposed to be a preventative measure rather than a disciplinary measure, I think that would be ideal.


More readily available condoms for high riskers, better sex ed, improving adoption and making it a much more viable option would all be steps in the right direction.


Also you know having a better economy and getting rid of unemployment would help.

 

 

Theft has an external victim that everybody (for all practical purposes) can agree on, though. That's the real crux of the argument (the fetus's sovereignty/sentience), and the only clear "line", to me, is birth. That said, I certainly don't advocate abortions in the 9th month of pregnancy, or anything (not that I exactly "advocate" them, at all).

 

There is a huge difference between that, and the early stages of pregnancy, imo. But that's the thing...I have my vague opinion about where that line is, others have their own. Most agree that it's WELL before birth would occur, naturally, though.

 

The Catholic viewpoint is too absolute to apply through legislation (the "every sperm is potential life" view). It's all really just a matter of where one draws the line between that, and birth, and I honestly don't believe there's a clear, objective answer to where that is.

 

It's one of those things that is so open to interpretation, that I think we should let folks interpret it for themselves. Theft, otoh, is pretty clear cut, at least in what it is Though motives can change the morality of it, they don't affect the legality of it (except, perhaps, mercy in sentencing, which still has no bearing on the actual legal status).

 

As for a better economy, absolutely. That's what a whole lot of it (though not all) comes down to most of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

a sperm isn't a life because it can't become a human without an egg. Birth isn't a clear line, because you've got premature babies too. A girl was born 4 1/2 months premature last year. The only clear line is between that between a gamete and a zygote.

 

I'm not saying it should be made illegal, just that without questioning reality or the natural rights that 99% of the people in the world hold dear, there isn't a logical argument against it being wrong.

 

There are lots of things that are wrong to do, but I don't believe in state discipline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

lot's of men with opinions. :)

Look, nobody likes abortion, nobody thinks is fun and in most cases it would be prefereable for it not to happen, but there's no way I'm gonna say to a woman "you must have that baby, no matter what the circumstances"..........no {censored}ing way do I have that right, If you think you do then you are an asshole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Wow, for the few of you out there that agree, thanks for making me feel like I'm not the only person in the universe with a logical reason to be against abortion.

 

I question whether or not first trimester abortions ought to be legal, but no question afterward. At that point, the developing human has arms, legs, teeth, genitals, heartbeat and, most importantly, in the 2nd trimester, brainwave activity begins. Usually a heart beat and brain wave activity is how you check to see if a person is still living. That seems a lot more scientifically defined then birth, where the only change for the child is cutting the umbilical chord, a spank on the ass, and a change of scenery, it's still a helpless mess of a creature. People act like they come out with PHDs, cutting themselves steak sandwiches. Julian is right though, life does begin at conception, no matter how you look at it.

 

The only way I can see a justification after the first trimester is if the mothers life is in danger. While personally I'm unsure, I can see how that could be viewed as self-defense, and I think it's justified.

 

 

Should murder be illegal because it disrupts societal order or because it is wrong?

 

 

The first one, societal order. The only reason I think prisons should exist is if someone is a danger to others, and by prison, I mean the general concept of taking someone out of society. Prisons in their current state are absurd recipes for madness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

also fireincairo, you no longer have my blessing to use my suggestions to your band name thread. not because of your anti abortion views, though i find them despicable (i favour free expression of belief and would rather be aware of your opinions than have you hide them, just so i know which people to avoid), but more because of your pro ben folds five views, which are just utterly reprehensible and have no place in any society. sort it out, mate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...