Bowler 0 Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 oh yeah? what did she say? Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 Watch all the US democratic candidates flip-flopping all around the issue. "Yes, we are Pro-Choice, definitely. But... but... we hope that women won't actually choose to have abortions, and we'll try to make life nice so they won't want to..." So Democrats, what's the problem with abortions if foetuses are just tadpoles or whatever you say they are...? Link to post Share on other sites
ug 0 Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 Whats the problem? Well for a start it's an operation, which always has risks. Then on top of that there's all the psychological effects and stress, etc Link to post Share on other sites
barok 0 Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 back on this, eh. . . Ocean, please explain to me how you can call yourself "pro-choice" and still argue against the right of rape victims to choose abortions. Small percentage it may be, but it does happen. Surely you don't think these women choose to be raped. Speaking of politicians on the weird side of issues. I never get how Right-wingers can 1) Argue against a woman's right to abort her pregnancy, 2) Argue against a terminally-ill patient's right to end their own life, 3) Argue in favor of the state's right to kill it's prisoners. You must give unwanted life. You must suffer through the painful remnants of your life. You must be killed. These fools give up compassion only to people who don't ask for it. Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 barok, First, I agree with you about the right-wing view. It is patently absurd. Personally I don't see how anybody can be on the 'right' or the 'left' of this issue. Right wingers would retort that left wingers want to execute the innocent, whereas they will only execute the guilty. The only moral middle ground is not to wantonly kill people at all, whether born or unborn. That is the only valid 'pro-life' stance (to my mind anyway...) As to your point about rape victims, I can't give an entirely satisfactory answer. I do question your use of 'right' and 'rights'. A bald assertion of a 'right' is often at root a completely sterile statement. First, a wrong is done to a woman. Then another wrong is done to the unborn child. That is her 'right'? (This may sound like word play, but it's far more than that.) It can be argued that abortions may be necessary and even morally acceptable in some cases. The 'self defence' argument is acceptable to me. If a woman is likely to suffer permanent damage due to the foetus, then I believe it is her right to abort it. In the case of rape, the likelihood of her suffering permanent damage is open to question. It may sound harsh, and not very politically krek, but the option to 'get over it' is still available. You can get over all sorts of shit that life throws at you if you try. The choice for a woman in this case is whether or not to compound a wrong done to her by doing a wrong to another. A tough choice I admit, but nobody said morality is easy. But anyway, this abortion that some women claim as their 'right' is in the vast majority of cases just for the sake of convenience. It's not because they've been raped, or are in danger from the child. It's because they can't be bothered to carry it for 9 months, a small fraction of their lives, and look after it afterwards. If you have any doubt about this, refer to what ug said above. "Well for a start it's an operation, which always has risks. Then on top of that there's all the psychological effects and stress, etc" As somebody who has had major operations to remove a benign tumour, I can assure you that there was really no psychological effects and stress, etc involved. That only comes to women who have the knowledge that they're doing something wrong, and most women who have abortions feel it at some level. Link to post Share on other sites
miteyak 0 Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Quote: Originally posted by barok: back on this, eh. . . Ocean, please explain to me how you can call yourself "pro-choice" and still argue against the right of rape victims to choose abortions. OK, I'm not Ocean, but can I comment... If abortion is murder, then it is NEVER acceptable. The whys or the hows are irrelevant. If one views the child as a human with rights from the day of fertilization, then nothing should stand in the way of it's protection. On the issue of the right... fully agree. Their hypocracy knows no limits. "Stem cell research, no, no, no, no, er, Nancy, is that you, what? you say stem cell research could help cure your hubby, well, I guess it aint so bad, yes, yes, yes, cell research, the wave of the future... Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 > If one views the child as a human with rights from the day of fertilization, then nothing should stand in the way of it's protection. I understand you don't hold that view. But assuming for the sake of argument that you did, do you think the self-defense justification is entirely without merit? In cases where a person or persons present a clear and present and persistent danger to your life, do you think it is acceptable to kill them, if there is no alternative? I do, even if they are an otherwise innocent foetus... Link to post Share on other sites
miteyak 0 Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 As murder is to manslaughter is to justifiable homocide, I believe I would take the point of view that a life-threatening pregnancy as a result of rape could be aborted. However, whether the rape is the issue (or should even be part of the equation) or the life threatening nature of the pregnancy... The issues here are more about medical ethics I think... obviously if the mother dies, so does the unborn child. If it comes to weighing up a viable productive life over the 'yet to be realized' potential life, i'd go for the actalized existance. On the note of abortion though, what's with the morning after pill? Doesn't that 'drop the egg' before fertilization? How does that sit with you, Ocean? Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 ... though we might get round to that question soon. I don't really know enough about it to comment ... but I'll comment anyway. If what you say is right, that would seem to fall into the zone of contraception which I have no problem with at all. I don't believe that '♪every sperm is sacred♪', nor every egg. In terms of timing it seems more like contraception, although it might not be in fact. When a woman actually reports a rape, I understand that it's a standard procedure in some countries to give her a 'morning after' pill just in case. I'd like to find out more about this, but I don't have the time now. Link to post Share on other sites
Bowler 0 Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 why's that Ocean? u too busy on snowjapan? Link to post Share on other sites
ug 0 Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 Quote: As somebody who has had major operations to remove a benign tumour, I can assure you that there was really no psychological effects and stress, etc involved. Er, maybe - in your case, but that doesn't mean that it applies to everyone. Quote: That only comes to women who have the knowledge that they're doing something wrong, and most women who have abortions feel it at some level. Well, I just don't agree with that. It might be the case with some/many cases, but certainly not all. Many women don't feel it's wrong, but just don't like the fact that they have gotten into the situation and have to go through an operation. And also the effects that an abortion have on their bodies. Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 Oh the horrible inconvenience of having your child surgically excised! ug, I have yet to meet anybody who has faced an operation to cure a genunine ailment with anything but positive feelings - and I have known people having tumours removed, hip replacements, vile things involving ingrowing hair around the rectum - all of them glad to be getting it sorted out, however grim the actual procedures. But I have yet to meet a woman who didn't feel niggling guilt about having had an abortion. I've heard anecdotally of women who didn't, but not met any. (And in case you're wondering, I have never, ever asked a woman about this - they've come and told me off their own bat, and I said "Oh, I see".) I believe there are good reasons for these contrasting reactions. Link to post Share on other sites
nekobi 0 Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 Quote: Originally posted by Ocean11: they can't be bothered to carry it for 9 months, a small fraction of their lives, and look after it afterwards. i know this is an old argument, but really, laws concerning abortion are overwhelmingly written and passed by men. men don't have the chance to become pregnant. they dont have their bodies transformed for 9 uncomfortable months, possibly not to return to their prior state. they don't have to take at a substantial amount of time off from work or school (either college or high school). after the birth, if the child isn't given up for adoption, they don't have to either juggle school/work and the child, for 18 years. if the pregnancy was unplanned, there's a chance the woman will raise the child on her own. if men father a child, they have the option to do nothing. the courts will make them write check every month. but for women, having a child completely changes their lives. even if the child is given up for adoption the mother still must deal with the pregnancy and that disruption on their life, not to mention the psychological effects of adoption. therefore, i really don't think men should make legal decisions or judgements about what women chose to do with their bodies and their lives. Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 That old 'boys shouldn't decide for the girls' argument is totally bankrupt. If you actually make the effort to think about it, you'll see why. (For a start, who wrote the laws making abortion legal in so many countries...? You in your woman's body have to stop at traffic lights - outrageous. Are men and women separate species to which different morality is applied...? Is 'the inconvenience of something' generally accepted as a defense for homicide...? "Your Honour, it was inconvenient for my client to have the pregnant woman getting in the way of his work, that's why he killed her.") Besides being riddled with illogic, non-sequitur, and straightforward untruth, even if it were wholely valid, it can't eliminate the guilt that women (and men too) feel in doing it. Link to post Share on other sites
damian 0 Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 So what if others feel guilt. Why do you care so much? I feel guilty about plenty of things but it doesn't mean there need be a law against the act that caused my guilt. Other peoples guilt is a weak crutch for your argument. I suggest you stop leaning on it and stick to the reasons why abortion is bad, rather than reasons why others should feel bad about it. Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 I think I've covered most of the other arguments, dob. If you want to focus on just a small part of my argument for the needs of you own ego, feel free. I don't think you'll convince anybody that way though... (This is your second emotional outburst in this thread. I wonder why you're so sensitive about this...) Link to post Share on other sites
damian 0 Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 Hey Yogurt11, that was not an emotional outburst. You wanted it to be one, and you are looking for one, but this was not one. I do not care what quality of response you give, but I really think that the above is more like that which comes from your mate, ski. Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 Ooh you bastard! That really stung! (Please note though that I actually posted a shitload of bonafide content before I came out with a yogurty expression... ) OK, so that wasn't emotional, but it's still irrelevant. I've explained why I think it's bad. Can you explain why you think it's not bad, and furthermore, why it's necessary? Link to post Share on other sites
damian 0 Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 yeah, that must smart like hell! haha. re the topic: all I am saying is that the existence of other peoples guilt does not lend strength to your augment for outlawing the act. I agree that abortion is bad and imagine that extensive guilt comes from it.... but this does not lead me to favour a legal prohibition and nor do I see that it strengthens your argument for it. If you have strong reason in your arguments, which I am sure you are confident that you do, then you do not need to feed on the guilt aspect. If you do then you may be accused of wanting or needing other people to feel guilt so as to satiate your emotive source of vigor for this issue. Yes, you did submit substance to back your opinion earlier in the thread. In fact, the whole topic has been done over several times and is now in the cows fourth stomach. Link to post Share on other sites
Siren 0 Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 Ocean, it is necessary because, in life, shit happens. Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 Guilt can be a good indicator of awareness of wrongdoing, in people of sound mind and good conscience. I presented arguments as to why abortion is wrongdoing, and then noted that some people feel guilt having had an abortion. Of course this doesn't prove it's wrong, as people sometimes are prone to inappropriate guilt. But it does provide a useful hint that for many people it is different from other kinds of operations and is not morally neutral. There are plenty of other, stronger reasons why the legal basis for it needs to be reviewed. The general tone of the current Democratic candidates in the US about the issue suggests it might occur reasonably soon in the States. Expect there to be plenty of nonsense bruited about concerning 'men wanting to control women's bodies'... Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 Siren, was that meant to be a joke or what? "Your Honour, Siren annoyed me with his tone so I aborted him. Hey, shit happens." Link to post Share on other sites
Siren 0 Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 I am on your side in that I think it is a an irresponsible (not immoral) thing to do and that it would scar the person concerned. However, I do think that there are circumstances (e.g. 'unintentional' pregnancy at very young age) where the pregnancy would be too great a burden on the person concerned that the long term interest of that person must take precedence. Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 That's not so much an issue of morality as of welfare. Ways could be found of dealing with that without resorting to killing. To my mind, nothing is worse than unjustified killing - everything else can be sorted out to some extent if there's a will. Until widespread abortion stops, not much attention will be paid to such welfare issues though... FWIW, I used to be in favour of abortion, but thinking about it and finding out about it have brought me to this view. Link to post Share on other sites
guzzlers-baps 0 Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 Wow, I can't believe some of the views here. I wouldn't be jumping up and down with joy - far from it - but I would not feel guilty about or morally wrong having an abortion if I were put into a situation where I became pregnant and really did not want to have a child. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts