Abortion

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 15 Jun 2004 07:46

Mega's point about drugs is good.
If it's gonna be legal, maybe we should toss out the laws that make it illegal to to massive drugs and alcohol while pregnant.

If it's just a choice and not a life at that point, for the sake of argument, then it should be her choice to get wasted all the time.

This could create an incentive for drug-abusing mothers-to-be with a crack-baby on the way.

Better abort that kid, or you're going to jail after it's born!

-n

Seath · Post by **Seath** » 15 Jun 2004 14:57

I was just thinking of something today. A woman should have the right to abort the fetus because it is part of her body right?

Well isn't that child always a part of her body through its whole life? It's made of the same cells, from it's mother. It's just as much a part of her body when it's born than when it's in the uterus, same cells and such. The only difference is the location of the child. No woman should have the right to choose to end the life of her child out of the uterus.

At the moment of conception cells start separating and a new life begins to grow and continue to grow until it is able to survive outside the mother. So is the mother just supporting that new life? Or is it still one life creating what will eventually be a new life when it's removed from the mother.. and not just the head removed, the whole body, then its two seperate lives.

Now I believe no one has the right to end a life at all, unless as a last possible scenario in the case that another life is directly threatening your own.

But then there's pregnancy complications where it's the baby or the mom. By this thinking, abortion would be ok in that situation.

This is where my confusion on the subject comes from. If the fetus is another life, then I don't think anyone has the right to end it to suit theirs better. Pain and suffering are part of life and to avoid pain and suffering at the cost of another persons life isn't right, IMO. We don't choose what happens to us, we have to deal with what we get. The fact that a child is handicapped or mentally retarded shouldn't warrant us to choose wether that life should be ended.

If the fetus is part of the mother, wheres that line that says the one life becomes two? It doesn't seem right to draw that line when the baby is removed from the uterus because there hasn't been any real drastic changes, except for the ambilical (sp?) chord being cut off or the baby breathing on it's own... But the only reason it had the chord was for the mom to support the..life?...

Partial birth abortions appaul me. Like come on, the baby is pretty much out, if you bore a hole in the babies head and the feet were'nt stuck in the vagina it would be murder. What if you stuck a babies foot back in there then stuck a rod through it's head?... Ok, that was gross.. I take that back... but seriously..

I'm confused, keep talking about this, it help's me form my opinions better.

P.S. What if the justation period on humans was 12 seconds? That would be crazy eh?

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 15 Jun 2004 14:59

If the fetus is part of the mother, wheres that line that says the one life becomes two?

When it doesn't need to cord.

Seath · Post by **Seath** » 15 Jun 2004 15:02

yea but isnt that chord just supporting the life? or is it a life?

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 15 Jun 2004 15:24

Sounds a lot like a parasite to me, it's a form of life, but it can't live on it's own.
I

Seath · Post by **Seath** » 15 Jun 2004 15:33

well I think everyone can agree that a fetus isn't a parasite, they do eventually grow into functional human beings, what changes by cutting the food tube?

and a parasite chooses what it eats, it decides to eat off whatever, a fetus can't make that choice

(Moderator's note)
Since I realize you don't have an edit button, I understand having had to double post. I combined the two for you.

Brad

ShredStylez · Post by **ShredStylez** » 15 Jun 2004 15:49

The fact that people can say that a fetus with a fully functional heart, brain, and fully developed bones is just a clump of cells because it is still atatched to the mother or becuause it wasnt born yet is astonishing to me.

I geuss i have to point something out. I don't even wanna say i agree with abortion in this case but i geuss the only reason it would be even remotely exceptable to me is if the mothers life is in danger.

Directed to Brad K: All I did was give my opinion and you started lashing out at me. Don't just start saying i dont know anything about human anatomy (which i know a great deal about) or that i dont know anything about being a woman. And why would u say i dont know how to be a man. Thats completely irrelevant and there was no basis for insulting me. I didnt direct any of my comments to one person but to a general audience. Please dont do it to me.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 15 Jun 2004 16:14

I'm not pro abortion, I'm pro choice btw.

bigdirtyfoot · Post by **bigdirtyfoot** » 15 Jun 2004 16:19

Tsiangkun wrote:I'm not pro abortion, I'm pro choice btw.

That's actually a very valid, and important clarification to make.

Seath · Post by **Seath** » 15 Jun 2004 21:02

That's where I'm on the fence, is a fetus a human life that deserves the same respect as normal human lives or is it a piece of the mothers body with any rights a finger has.

with any rights a finger has. = the same rights as a finger

haha im pretty drunk right now.

(Me again)
Same dilly as above.

Brad

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 16 Jun 2004 06:43

ShredStylez wrote:The fact that people can say that a fetus with a fully functional heart, brain, and fully developed bones is just a clump of cells because it is still atatched to the mother or becuause it wasnt born yet is astonishing to me.

I think it's important to clarify the age that most abortions take place between 7 and 15 weeks into the pregnancy. At this stage babies born under 20 weeks have a very low chance of survival - so it is obviouse that the babies being aborted do not have fully functional bodies at all, and if the mother has the right over her body (which I believe she does) than they have very little chance of surviving without her support.

Clearly a fetus developed to the level that you mention is much more complex than a clump of cells, but fetuses that are developed to that level are hardly ever aborted.

Were this a competition debate I would also point out that the human brain continues to develope long after child birth and would question your definitioin of fully functional. Just because something works to a limited degree does not mean it functions at the highests (full) level.

While I am definitly pro choice, there is an excellent pro life short story by Phillip K Dick called "The Pre Persons" which everybody should read. (Basically people under the age of 12 can be aborted

)

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 16 Jun 2004 08:00

Jeremy wrote:(Basically people under the age of 12 can be aborted )

Glad I'm in the clear.

Splint · Post by **Splint** » 16 Jun 2004 09:30

ShredStylez wrote:Directed to Brad K: All I did was give my opinion and you started lashing out at me. Don't just start saying i dont know anything about human anatomy (which i know a great deal about) or that i dont know anything about being a woman. And why would u say i dont know how to be a man. Thats completely irrelevant and there was no basis for insulting me. I didnt direct any of my comments to one person but to a general audience. Please dont do it to me.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

I'm sorry, I'm not laughing at you. I'm laughing at how you understandably misread what I had said... this is really funny.

I wasn't saying that you have no idea how to be a man or how to be woman. Seeing as how your name is 'Mark' I assume you're male so naturally you know about being a man, and for all I know you take hormone injections, dress up in drag and hit ladies night on Wednesdays at all the local hotspots. So maybe you know how to be a woman too.

Nevertheless, what I WAS saying is that it is my opinion that you have no idea what it means (whether you are male or female or transgender) to find yourself in a horrible helpless position where you have to make the worst decision of your entire life. Perhaps I should have punctuated it better in the original post

.

As for lashing out at you... I wasn't lashing out at you precisely, I was lashing out at your opinions. In my opinion your opinions are not very good ones. They are the same ridiculously unfounded opinions that had women in back allies using coat hangers and bleeding to death. In my opinion they are based on what appears to be immaturity.

I also have no idea what you know about anatomy. I don't think I said anything about it. If I did that would have been silly since "Dr. Mark Schwartz" sounds perfectly natural

. I believe I said you spoke like someone who knows nothing about childbirth and that's a position I feel pretty comfortable with.

Seath...
I don't really have time to go into all I want to about your stuff so I'll be brief (if possible).

You can say that a mother and child are part of the same body in the most philisophically metaphysical sense. You could make the same connection between Humans and the Earth, and look how much shit we destroy every day.
The egg may be from the mom, but it becomes something entirely different and unique as soon as that sperm hits and the egg splits.

So is the mother just supporting that new life? Or is it still one life creating what will eventually be a new life when it's removed from the mother

Yes.
The mother is supporting an organism that has the 'potential' to become a self-sustaining life.
The fetus is not capable of surviving outside of the womb except in rare cases until almost 8 months in utero.

That's all my time for now...thanks I'll be here all week.

Senor Grommet · Post by **Senor Grommet** » 16 Jun 2004 10:18

Actually, the women with coat hangers made a conscious choice to attempt back-alley abortions. It was not ideas like Mark's at all that forced them to do so.

And Mark, what else do you expect from the biggest dick in freestyle? Nice comments? Respect? Please! He had earned his title.

lets stick to the facts here, not personal vendetasand verbal tirades.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 16 Jun 2004 10:52

conscious choice

Is there a choice when no safe alternative is available ?

making abortions illegal won't prevent abortions, it just increases the chance of death for the host. Can you really be pro life while advocating policies that put lives at risk ?

Also, on my parasite comment . . .
1) take an egg donors egg, and a sperm donors sperm, and fertilize the egg in vitro.
2) Plant the fetilized egg into the womb of third party women.

Now is it a parasite ? The organism provides no aid to the life of the host, can't survive on it's own, and shares no DNA with the host organism.

Splint · Post by **Splint** » 16 Jun 2004 12:35

Senor Grommet wrote:Actually, the women with coat hangers made a conscious choice to attempt back-alley abortions. It was not ideas like Mark's at all that forced them to do so.

Don't be stupid. Here we've been staying out of eachothers way for MONTHS and I can't believe you're going to nitpick something so elementary. And for god sakes please don't put words into my mouth. I didn't say woman were 'forced' into anything. If it's really important for me to connect the fuckin' dots so that I am properly understood then I will reiterate.

My view is that ridiculously unfounded opinions such as the ones that Mark made are the same types of opinions/arguments that were used to keep abortion illegal for too long. If women had reasons not to carry to full term they had limited options. One extremely dangerous route was an illegal back alley abortion. The decision to have that type of procedure certainly couldn't have come easily, but without a safer legal alternative it was one of very few choices.

And Mark, what else do you expect from the biggest dick in freestyle? Nice comments? Respect? Please! He had earned his title.

I'm sure you said that with the utmost respect for my BDIF position.

lets stick to the facts here, not personal vendetasand verbal tirades.

Now I'm confused

You're whole message picked on me and not facts.

Senor Grommet · Post by **Senor Grommet** » 16 Jun 2004 16:54

I know. That last one there was not so nice. But truthfully, there are ways to criticise a person's perspective on an issue without attempting to make them look or feel like a complete moron, which it appears you attempt to do nearly every time you have a contradictory opinion. I believe that is what Mark was also trying to say. Now, I happen to agree with your views more than Mark's, but still, your arguments seem to be imbued with malice.

Anyway, about abortion: im pro choice. I dont really see how anyone can't be pro choice. We dont need others to make decisions for us (well, most of us). Why give up another right to the fuckin govm't? We've already given them waaaay too much control over our bodies and our lives. Pro-chioce!!!

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 16 Jun 2004 23:18

I think how things are defined is important.

Abortion supporters are usually refered to as "pro-choice".

While opponents are usually refered to as "anti-abortion" or "pro-life".

So abortion supporters should at least be able to admit that they are "pro-abortion", because pro-choice can mean anything.

---------------------------------------------

And what if things changed, and it was illegal in some states?

Who's that going to stop? nobody

Just go to your neighbor state and spend your abortion money there.

They could have advertising campaigns to draw abortion dollars away from other states, with big billboards:

-n

Splint · Post by **Splint** » 17 Jun 2004 05:08

Senor Grommet wrote:I know. That last one there was not so nice. But truthfully, there are ways to criticise a person's perspective on an issue without attempting to make them look or feel like a complete moron, which it appears you attempt to do nearly every time you have a contradictory opinion. I believe that is what Mark was also trying to say. Now, I happen to agree with your views more than Mark's, but still, your arguments seem to be imbued with malice.

Imbued with Malice!!! Those words look great together.

However, I would say it's brought on with less 'malice' and more irritation for ignorance. At a time when information is available at the touch of a button there is no reason for a person to be ignorant of just about anything. Of course learning how to process that information is another story.

Almost any time I post on a REAL topic, I go out and do even the smallest amount of research on it so that I'm not just spewing out random harebrained shit. Sometimes it'll take me over an hour to finish a serious post because I'm busy reading up on a subject (especially that one where I was head to head with Jeremy O'Wheel. I had to read up everytime I posted and that argument went on for over a week). I don't think that a topic such as this one deserves any less.

Also, as far as I'm concerned Marks last comment of his original detailed post was VERY personal. Not that it's anyones business, but 4 of the most important women in my life have had abortions for different equally justifiable reasons and for Mark to say:

And if a mother doesn't want a child quit screwing around and get ur life in check.

means that he is completely inexperienced, uneducated, and uncaring in this matter. If my comments offended him so much, then voila...a two way street has been paved.

Since this is often such a big deal, and in the spirit of enilightenment, I will make some small attempt to curb my disdain for ignorance in an effort to speak my words less harshly....but don't expect too much from the BDIF

.

wolfpac444 · Post by **wolfpac444** » 17 Jun 2004 05:17

I think that when Mark said

"And if a mother doesn't want a child quit screwing around and get ur life in check."

he meant that there are pretty easy ways to go about preventing a pregnacy from occuring if you make it a priority.