73 replies to this topic

[Blaster]

I'm just adding my reply in refference to the abortion thing. In my mindset I think abortion is wrong. Just the thought of how they abort the fetus nearly makes me sick. In addition to that, seeing how developed some of the babies are while in the womb they just seem to human to be considered something you can just suck out of a hose and kill. I'm for woman's choice in that she has the choice to give up the baby after it's born or she has the choice to do any thing else she wants to do with it but killing just seems wrong. Once again just seeing how human these babies in the womb are makes me sick to think that someone believes it's their right and choice to kill it. I'm not a religious fanatic, far from it, but I cannot condone murder. This is part of the reason I don't quite agree with the death penalty. But that's a whole other argument for a whole other time. Anyway my point is, when you really give thought to abortion it's basically just murder but murder that has come to be an accepted part of our society.

[Vintage]

I need to take arguing courses from Blaster and Pineapple. My style doesn't go over well here.

Once again just seeing how human these babies in the womb are makes me sick to think that someone believes it's their right and choice to kill it.

Nice summary there, I couldn't have put it better.

~Vintage

[Famine]

Vintage, I owe you an apology. I assumed I was having an intellectual debate with someone who bases their arguments off of relevant information and is capable of viewing various social and economic problems from different viewpoints. I was wrong. I have now come to the conclusion that I am wasting my time with a religious fundamentalist who uses nothing more than inaccurate quotes taken out of context.

You said: Who would be responsible for more American deaths in the country right now?

I said: If it isn't counted in the National Census and it doesn't have a Social Security Number than it isn't an American.

And being prochoice means exactly what it says, you favor CHOICE. Not the contradictory and flawed moral standards of a corrupt religious organization whose beliefs you do not prescribe to.

[Vintage]

No, I must owe you an apology. For believing you meant what you said.

I asked who would be responsible for more deaths in America, the one who wants to eliminate partial birth abortion, or the one who wants to reinstate it.

You said "If it isn't counted in the National Census and it doesn't have a Social Security Number than it isn't an American."

I was explicitly talking about the deaths of the unborn. You responded by saying those unborn are not Americans. I did not take you out of context as you believe. If you did not mean what you said, then I retract my statement.

~Vintage

Edit: I am sorry you can't see other viewpoints on the matter. Life is life regardless of nationality. Sure I can see why someone who doesn't believe in morality would kill her own child, but anyone who has any kind of sense of right and wrong can't escape how wrong it is.

Edited by Vintage, 29 April 2004 - 10:37 PM.

[Oroku Saki]

I am sorry for labeling all Pro-Lifers as religous fanatics, however it seems that every single one that I talk to seems to follow this political stance based on just that: religious morals and beliefs.

Edited by Oroku_Saki, 29 April 2004 - 10:44 PM.

[neonerfer]

I hope that this isn't turning into more of a political argument. I'll watch this thread a bit more before I become involved, but just keep a few things in mind.

Present your facts, don't neccessarily try to change people's minds. The two worst things to argue about are religion and politics. Debating is great when it's constructive but in my experience it usually turns into an argument. Arguing about these things is for the most part a waste of time because religion and politics are for the most part just a matter of morals for most people. Religion in particular, is taught to children while they're still very impressionable, if they can believe in the easter bunny, why not God? They think their parents are the smartest people in the world so they naturally take a side with their parents on politics a bit later in life. If you're going to argue about something that they've had more or less shoved down their throat their entire lives(in the sense that the parent's views are presented to the child without the child's consent) you're just not going to get anywhere.

Lots of very good points from both sides here, but no matter your political/religious/moral standings, try to keep an open mind and keep the discussion productive. I think Merlinski made this topic to debate and not argue, so keep it at that.

Edited by neonerfer, 30 April 2004 - 12:08 AM.

[Pineapple]

I'm willing to see things your way - that abortion is unnecessary - if you will give me the following 3 things:

1. effective laws that force fathers to take responsibility for their children, monetary or otherwise;

2. universal healthcare so that all pregnant women can get the care they need, before and after giving birth; and

3. reformed child welfare services so that children stop falling through the cracks gaping holes in our country's foster care system.

Right on, Julie. Good to see it from the point of view of the one affected by it the most...a woman.

I am in agreement with you; for the most part there. I was referring to those who use abortion, whether chemically induced, or through the physical tearing apart of a fetus, as a means of retroactive birth control, because they lack neither the maturity for parenthood, nor the willingness to take responsibility for their own self-serving actions. Especially with all the encouragement to explore one's sexuality at an earlier age, nowadays. Abortion is seen as an alternative "way out" when people get carried away with themselves.

I believe there are circumstances, where due to medical difficulties, that when a mother's life is endangered by a pregnancy (which is actually a pretty rare occurence), that the termination of a fetus is inevitable. Why is that? Because it is quite senseless to allow a life-threatening circumstance to possibly cause the loss of BOTH mother and child. To argue to "let God take care of it" (as some Christians may say) is ridiculous. That is the only time where I could see a pregnancy termination as justified.

I am in agreement with your "3 things". Our country is in poverty. Not of money, nor technological genius, nor military might. Our country is in a shortage of character. We are in hope of legislation that will hold guys responsible for their actions, guarantee good health to growing children, and give kids a chance to live a fairly balanced life.

The real responsibility lies in the homes of America. Of parents (notice the "s" there; not just one) raising their kids in an environment that would see their greatest potential realized.

Please allow me one more Mother Teresa quote (yep, I'm a fan of hers, God rest her soul);

"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."

-Piney-

[rawray7]

On the 9-11 issue, I don't believe for a second that the Bush administration knew or could have expected terrorists to do what they did. No one before that day would have dreamed of it. Yes it was a terrible tradigy, but like Pearl Harbor we were blind sided, and probably too self assured of our own strength to believe anyone would dare such a bold act.

1) the columbine shooters actually had loose plans surrounding the topic of crashing planes into skyscrapers, specifically the world trade center. source: bowling for columbine

2) i wouldn't say that at pearl harbor we were blind sided. we had that coming since General Perry "opened" Japan, i think almost a hundred years prior to WWII...if you're dying to argue about this i can send you my friend's research paper aimed at proving that point, and we'll go from there.

3) i totally agree that we are to self assured. it's almost funny, the extent to which we rule the world, and yet a popular European joke is: "what's an american with half a brain?" "lucky"

on the whole abortion thing, i'm prochoice because at 49 weeks, when vintage claims most abortions are done, that baby doesn't stand a chance of living on it's own. it is still completely dependent on it's mother and i believe that the host (the mother) should not be told by her government that she can't rid herself of that dependent organism (human, if you insist). people make mistakes, often it's not even the women's fault. they have to carry the burden of bearing young, and if you don't let that burden come with responsibility and choice, you're basically forcing 1/2 your population to be housewives, homemakers, etc...and we spent that last 45 years getting over that issue.

[Vintage]

Very nice work Julie. And I also agree with you that many pro-lifers try too hard to eliminate abortions, while not putting time to think of ways to promote the alternatives first.

After talking with Oroku_Saki and now you, I do agree that the alternatives to abortion should be made easier before putting a law down. We should put responsibility on fathers, provide the care women need before and after birth (if funds are necessary), and fix the foster care system.

Thank you for putting effort into your post, and this has definitely been the best argument from the pro-choice perspective I have seen. But I do have a question for you. You say that you are "Pro-choice," but does that mean that you support abortion? You seem to be saying that you don't like abortion, but you are willing to tolerate it until better alternatives are promoted.

~Vintage

Edited by Vintage, 30 April 2004 - 09:06 AM.

[Oroku Saki]

Excellent points, Julie! Thank you for helping further explain the point of view of many Pro-Choice people. I do not want to force people to always agree with me on issues like this, however I do feel that it is important for them to look at the ENTIRE issue and find reasonable ways to solve it.

I find it sad that many people out there are not willing to open their minds and learn new things about the world around them. I know it can be hard sometimes, even if you cling to certain beliefs, but it is better to be informed instead of ignorant.

In educating their children about sex and other issues nowadays, parents need to be open, supportive, and understanding of what their children do, how they feel, and to guide them through hard times. They should be made aware of the possible dangers and consequences of choices made in life. If a son or daughter is not properly educated on what kind of options they have, it is possible that they could run into a situation where serious problems arise (teen pregnancy being a strong example). Communication is the key to having successful relationships and a strong, solid family, and that is how I intend to run a family when I do have one.

[Pineapple]

Communication is the key to having successful relationships and a strong, solid family, and that is how I intend to run a family when I do have one.

Exactly.

Communication is key, and that's how I'm raising my young family right now. You'd be surprised how young minds respond when parents give attention to their kids and their needs.

Despite the differences in opinion, I truly respect the way many of you presented your cases, and they are done with much passion and conviction for each opposing viewpoint. That's why I have hope for many of the younger whipper-snappers on this forum.

Then, again, it's mostly us nerdly types who enjoy the goodness of foam weaponry.

Thanks for allowing me to join the "political" debate. This is my last post.

Nerf on!

-Piney-

[Blaster]

I am sorry for labeling all Pro-Lifers as religous fanatics, however it seems that every single one that I talk to seems to follow this political stance based on just that: religious morals and beliefs.

That is very true, for the most part I've seen a lot of pro lifers waving bibles in the air and such, but I'm not basing my argument on a religious standpoint, I'm basing it on a moral standpoint. It's basically like what Vintage said, without morals our society would basically break down. I'm not trying to make choices for people. I'm just saying that this is murder. Plain and simple. The fact is, there were tons of things the parents of the child could have done to protect the child. A condom could have been worn, birth control pills taken, to be honest there were tons of things that could have been done before hand to prevent the life from even existing. But the fact is that those babies being aborted were lives that came into existence, and now they're being killed basically for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. As I said before, the mother could go through with the birth and put the child up for adoption if she needs to ( I know that giving birth is a pain beyond my comprehension, but it's still not worth resorting to murder, nothing really is). However killing it is just wrong. By the way Julie to state again, I'm pro-life and I don't support the death penalty. If anyone does care I believe that there is always possibility to reform (unless of course the person is mentally unstable to a point where reform is impossible. However I'm not a doctor and don't know if there is medication for all forms of homicidal mental instability). Basically I believe that the death penalty is stupid in that people are acting foolish thinking that killing will stop the killing. All it really causes is more loss. Once again though this is another argument for another time. To get back to my point, the only reason I do not agree with abortion is because it is murder, to me at least.

[Oroku Saki]

In the political world, it is debatable as to what constitutes as "life" in a pregnancy, but I really do not want to go there because I believe that it is a mess, both on a legal and moral standpoint. In many ways, I do not like to see abortion as a sole rightous birth control method, however I still do not feel right about taking the other extreme and banning it altogether.

Julie, I had a chance to read the article about why Christains should not vote for Bush. I highly recommend that anyone read it, especially those that oppose abortion. The other links that Julie posted also has some excellent information.

Reading what others had to say on this thread has inspired me to write to our political leaders, and that includes both Senator Kerry and President Bush (assuming he does get another term, which I really hope doesn't happen), and to call for a different approach on helping solve the abortion issue. One that promotes prevention and unbiased education among our youth, adoption and foster care reform, government support for family planning, and any other encouragement for abortion alternatives. If any of you feel that those ideas should be supported by our government, I invite you to do the same. We all have our First Ammendment Rights, and writing to our government is one of the best ways to exercise that.

Even though abortion is an important issue, we also need to think about the other issues for the coming election. I am sorry if I took the focus of this thread too far off topic, but I felt that the abortion issue was necessary to address.

Going back to the Bush/Kerry debate, I believe that Kerry would be most ideal for helping take care of our domestic problems, such as health care and our job market, however he should make sure that he makes good, informed decisions when it comes to foreign policy. Being a Vietnam vet, I am sure that he can relate to how our men and women in the military are going to react to certain decisions being made. I think that if Kerry can make our country better, clean up the mess Bush made in our country, and to make amends with our foreign connections, he will truly have my respect.

Edited by Oroku_Saki, 30 April 2004 - 07:22 PM.

[merlinski]

Thank you Julie for representing the pro-choice side of the debate in such an effective way. Just to elaborate on one of your points:

Edit: I am sorry you can't see other viewpoints on the matter. Life is life regardless of nationality. Sure I can see why someone who doesn't believe in morality would kill her own child, but anyone who has any kind of sense of right and wrong can't escape how wrong it is.

Yes the death penalty is right for these people, and yes it is a very humane way to deal with it. Both for the murderer and the general public.

So life is life regardless of nationality, but not regardless of past? You can't just say that all life is sacred if you support the death penalty. In a large percentage of cases, the death penalty is used against someone who is innocent or mentally ill. Are these people just necessary sacrifices? Does their life not matter? I got the impression that you would be against killing innocent people, from your "morals".

Vintage, how can you definitively say that your morals are better than mine? Or Julie's? Or Oroku-Saki's? What you are saying is that you are right and we are wrong, and you offer no justification. I, as a pro-choicer, believe that everyone has a right to their own moral opinion, and that it would be improper for me to tell other people (even you) that you are wrong. In fact, I support your right to disagree with me. I just don't want you to force your standards on other people.

[rusty]

I'm going to start off by saying that my response is biased by my age, and "ethnicity."

Now using it as a justification to go to Iraq, that I am willing to buy. I think GW came into office itching to do something about Saddam, and 9-11 gave him that chance. I don't think that he allowed 9-11 to happen.

Not even the most imoral American's with the most twisted agenda's possibly let 9-11 happen. I bet if I tried most of the sites that say Bush allowed 9-11 to happen, also say diet soda makes you go crazy later on in life.

The US soldier's were instructed to burn villages/kill people in order to prevent geurilla warfare. Geurilla soldiers were disguised as normal people, requiring burning villages that were just captured to be destroyed.

If a decorated vet isn't allowed to be an anti-war protester, who is? Seriously, I really want to know. Rather the opposite of someone who joined the National Guard sending soldiers to another country to die.

The real problem are the beaurocrats wearing suits, sitting in their offices, telling those in the military what to do.

I believe that only people who have served in a war should be able to criticize/start wars, and the reason I think that is simple: Who knows what you would do? Morales are fickle things. Just like like morales might turn someone into a consciences objector, I'm sure there were times when morales drove U.S. soldiers to seek vengenance for atrocities they saw the vietnam commit.

That, and the fact that our leader isn't the most elequent of speakers nor is he able to handle questions on the fly surely paint a dismal portrait of what an American President should be.

To be honest I don't care if our president has cerebral palsy and has to communicate through a keyboard. If he can do his job and even improves this country I'll vote for him. Also what is an american president supposed to be? It's stereo types like that, that make 'real" equal opportunity impossible.

I am in agreement with your "3 things". Our country is in poverty. Not of money, nor technological genius, nor military might. Our country is in a shortage of character.

Right on Pineapple but, this lack of character is worse than you think. It's time for a story: I went to Six Flags last weekend. Up here in six flags: new england the big attraction is Super Man: Ride of Steel. I'll just cut to the important part me and my friends got to keep cutting the hours long lines, and getting back on the coaster the attendent was afraid of me....

Just because I'm "ethnic" I wasn't wearing a swastika or anything rediculous just because I'm ethnic.

3) i totally agree that we are to self assured. it's almost funny, the extent to which we rule the world, and yet a popular European joke is: "what's an american with half a brain?" "lucky"

This is one of those reasons that I wish another super power would arise. That way we'd have someone to spot us, someone who could stop before we did something stupid.

Finally I'm not going to make a serious comment on abortion because i think i'm to young to comment. So instead i've got this quote from a site.

I have a different stance on abortion: I'm against abortion, but for killing babies. That way everyone loses, and I win.

FYI: A friend showed me this site and frankly it makes no sense to me so don't hold the site against me.

Edit: Posting the site would only be a catalysct for this sites downfall to nerfhq

Edited by THEengineer, 30 April 2004 - 08:09 PM.

[Oroku Saki]

I have a different stance on abortion: I'm against abortion, but for killing babies. That way everyone loses, and I win.

I know where you got that quote. I do think that many of Maddox's articles are humorous, but he usually does it for satirical and sarcastic purposes. I think he was merely pissed off about hearing too much about the abortion issue. I never take everything he says seriously, and neither should anyone else. Even Maddox said that if people take his site too seriously, they are truly stupid.

Also, I find it funny that in that same article, he states that if he ran the world, Vampire Hunting would be a government sanctioned profession. Now I have a use for that cross, holy water, and stake that I have been keeping in my closet for the last 10 years.

Edit:

Just to let those Kerry-haters know, I finally got around to watching the "Winter Soldier" video, and I found it to be the most absurd, biased, and shitty piece of propaganda that I have ever seen, which seriously lacks credibility in their points.

They sure did a great job photoshopping pictures and ripping off Metallica for their little video that labels Kerry as "unpatriotic". The next person I see labeling others as "unpatriotic" without having any true grounding is going to have my steel-toed boot buried deeply up their ass (*cough* Bill O'Reilly *cough*). People like that make me sick.

I also find it funny that they mentioned Heffner publishing anti-war articles in Playboy. Yes, I am one of those few guys that actually read Playboy for the articles. A lot of their articles are excellent writing, and I view Heff as a genious to make a good, lasting statement on the face of America. I remember reading the 50th anniversary issue that came out a few months ago, and found that they published a condensed version of the "Playboy Philosophy". When I read this, I agree it does make sense, and has much, much more to it than just sex and publishing pictures of naked women.

Edited by Oroku_Saki, 01 May 2004 - 04:38 PM.

[Vintage]

Edit: I am sorry you can't see other viewpoints on the matter. Life is life regardless of nationality. Sure I can see why someone who doesn't believe in morality would kill her own child, but anyone who has any kind of sense of right and wrong can't escape how wrong it is.

Yes the death penalty is right for these people, and yes it is a very humane way to deal with it. Both for the murderer and the general public.

So life is life regardless of nationality, but not regardless of past? You can't just say that all life is sacred if you support the death penalty. In a large percentage of cases, the death penalty is used against someone who is innocent or mentally ill. Are these people just necessary sacrifices? Does their life not matter? I got the impression that you would be against killing innocent people, from your "morals".

I did not want to get into the death penalty debate, and I will not elaborate on this. The man who murders another has done something very wrong. The child in it's mother's womb has done nothing wrong.

Vintage, how can you definitively say that your morals are better than mine? Or Julie's? Or Oroku-Saki's? What you are saying is that you are right and we are wrong, and you offer no justification. I, as a pro-choicer, believe that everyone has a right to their own moral opinion, and that it would be improper for me to tell other people (even you) that you are wrong. In fact, I support your right to disagree with me. I just don't want you to force your standards on other people.

I had this topic while PM-ing Oroku_Saki, but you probably wouldn't believe my defense anyways. I will give it from a different angle:

You talk about rights. What is a right? A privelege. Sometimes it means giving fairness to everyone. When you are deprived of a right, you say "that's not fair." But how can there be fairness if everyone's morals are different.

When you claim that you are not being treated with fairness, you are appealing to some kind of law of what's fair and what's not. There has to be a set of rules of what right and wrong are. Otherwise, we have no concept of fairness, justice, or morality.

If everyone has differing views on morality, then you cannot send someone to trial on the basis of theft, for that thief might not believe theft is wrong.

This is why I believe that in order for us to have a sense of "fairness," "justice," and "morality," they have to be absolutes. I will very kindly take objections to this, but I would like you to think of a world where everyone's morals differ. (By morals, I mean the understanding of right and wrong)

~Vintage

[merlinski]

You talk about rights. What is a right? A privelege. Sometimes it means giving fairness to everyone. When you are deprived of a right, you say "that's not fair." But how can there be fairness if everyone's morals are different.

When you claim that you are not being treated with fairness, you are appealing to some kind of law of what's fair and what's not. There has to be a set of rules of what right and wrong are. Otherwise, we have no concept of fairness, justice, or morality.

If everyone has differing views on morality, then you cannot send someone to trial on the basis of theft, for that thief might not believe theft is wrong.

This is why I believe that in order for us to have a sense of "fairness," "justice," and "morality," they have to be absolutes. I will very kindly take objections to this, but I would like you to think of a world where everyone's morals differ. (By morals, I mean the understanding of right and wrong)

~Vintage

I'm not advocating moral relativism. I believe that there are certain rights that can be considered to be absolute, but these rights are beyond religion. They are basic natural rights, such as the right not to be murdered, the right not to have stuff stolen, etc. Basically "right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness". However, I do not believe that this moral standard comes from religion. I believe it comes from the basic rules that are necessary to maintain order in a human society. Anything above these rules is personal opinion. That's why I believe that the "right to life" of an organism dependent on another human is not necessary to maintain. When abortion is allowed, we don't see a cataclysmic downfall of human morality, or a collapse of society. That's why, for me, it's not a issue of a right essential to humanity. The morality in this case is entirely a matter of personal opinion. Obviously, our country makes laws above and beyond those basic natural rights. However, those laws are a product of majority rule, and do not by any stretch mean that the morality behind them is right and any contradicting morality is wrong.

[THIRST]

Your also forgetting that some women have a disease which may kill them if they give birth.

Thats a big sacrifice even if you do have a choice. And if yo dont, the government is basically killing you.

THIRST

[texmustache]

Just my two cents...
For anyone that is pro-life, let's just say that the baby lives. Okay, fine. Now what happens? A couple of things could. The baby could not be put up for adoption, and live in the home of parents that didn't even want him/her. Tell me that can't be a good life. Or, the baby is put up for adoption. Not only does he/she go through life knowing that his/her parents didn't want him/her, but he's in a strained, poor-quality adoption system as well. Even if they don't find out that they were adopted, they will sometime, and that's going to be very mentally hurtful.

Edited by texmustache, 01 May 2004 - 10:27 AM.

[Oroku Saki]

I'm not advocating moral relativism. I believe that there are certain rights that can be considered to be absolute, but these rights are beyond religion. They are basic natural rights, such as the right not to be murdered, the right not to have stuff stolen, etc. Basically "right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness". However, I do not believe that this moral standard comes from religion. I believe it comes from the basic rules that are necessary to maintain order in a human society. Anything above these rules is personal opinion. That's why I believe that the "right to life" of an organism dependent on another human is not necessary to maintain. When abortion is allowed, we don't see a cataclysmic downfall of human morality, or a collapse of society. That's why, for me, it's not a issue of a right essential to humanity. The morality in this case is entirely a matter of personal opinion. Obviously, our country makes laws above and beyond those basic natural rights. However, those laws are a product of majority rule, and do not by any stretch mean that the morality behind them is right and any contradicting morality is wrong.

This is partially why I still do not feel that abortion is entirely morally wrong, and why I do not support banning it. Threre are absolute morals our society and government follows, however issues such as the rights of an organism dependant on another human were never covered when this country started. Also, I never read anything in the Bible stating that abortion and contraception as wrong.

Because of this, I believe that many of the Pro-Lifers are going the wrong way in solving their concern with this issue. Since the basic rights and morals off of which this country was founded are to help give people the freedoms to reasonably make choices in life, and to be able to have their basic human needs met, we should instead fight for government reform to make our foster care and adoption systems better instead.

Unwanted pregnancy is usually caused by a lack of education and improper contraception use. To help take care of this, our government needs to have better family planning programs, as well as better sexual education programs for our youth. When my parents forced me into Catholic school as a kid, our sexual education consisted of the basics "When a man and a women love each other very much........." and then ended with "Do not have sex until after you are married." As far as I remembered, that was pretty much it. In my opinion, abstinence based sexual education programs are biased and ineffective. Telling a bunch of kids that "It's cool to wait until you are married" is not going to stop them from having sex, especially if they do not know the consequences. Abstinence sexual education may have worked before more effective contraception came out, but nowadays young people need to be educated of their other options instead in case something does happen.

[Nello]

Not only does he/she go through life knowing that his/her parents didn't want him/her,

but he/she will still know that their parents were thoughtful enough of them to give them life. Abortion is selfish. Sure, you could just kill that baby and all those worries and problems will go away, but you still killed someone out of your selfishness. I don't think there are many children out there who wish that they never got to live. I'll take a tough life over no life.

Edited by Nello, 01 May 2004 - 07:33 PM.

[Vintage]

I believe that there are certain rights that can be considered to be absolute, but these rights are beyond religion. They are basic natural rights, such as the right not to be murdered, the right not to have stuff stolen, etc.

Basic, natural rights? How can such things exist if humans evolved from chance? Just by chance everyone agrees it's wrong to steal? Or murder? Or a whole list of things. My point I tried to make is: Try to picture a world of chance. A world where everyone makes their own decisions concerning morals.

It's very hard to take an inbetween view. Either you believe in a world of chance (something that morals cannot exist in an absolute manner), or you believe in a world of order (one where we all inherit the same sense of morality).

If the world evolved by chance, then who decided that murder is wrong and forced everyone to believe him?

~Vintage

[Jappo]

Not only does he/she go through life knowing that his/her parents didn't want him/her,

but he/she will still know that their parents were thoughtful enough of them to give them life. Abortion is selfish. Sure, you could just kill that baby and all those worries and problems will go away, but you still killed someone out of your selfishness. I don't think there are many children out there who wish that they never got to live. I'll take a tough life over no life.

And a mother, who lives in very low class, who gets diddled should have to give a child a very unfortunate life style, knowing that they are not only unwanted, but the product of violence?

No man on this forum has any fucking right to say what a woman can and can not do. I wouldn't even go there. And guess what... Bush did.

[Oroku Saki]

You know, I think many of us have made several excellent points on either side, and I thought that the issue was cleared, but I guess I was wrong. It seems like all that has been going on lately is pointless arguing, instead of intelligent debating.

For those who are looking at this issue from a religous standpoint, think about this: If breakthroughs in scientific research are made and they piss off a group of people, then why did the discovery take place? Why did God (for those that believe in him) allow abortion to become available? I believe that things in this world can be used for positive things, even things that others may view as evil. Yes, I do feel that it is wrong if someone wants to get an abortion if they simply do not want the child, but I feel that I have no right to say that because I am not a woman. If we do get rid of abortion entirely, it will cause several problems that were previously mentioned on this thread (rising populations, foster care overcrowding, dangerous medical problems, etc.) Also, as Rawray said,

on the whole abortion thing, i'm prochoice because at 49 weeks, when vintage claims most abortions are done, that baby doesn't stand a chance of living on it's own. it is still completely dependent on it's mother and i believe that the host (the mother) should not be told by her government that she can't rid herself of that dependent organism (human, if you insist). people make mistakes, often it's not even the women's fault. they have to carry the burden of bearing young, and if you don't let that burden come with responsibility and choice, you're basically forcing 1/2 your population to be housewives, homemakers, etc...and we spent that last 45 years getting over that issue.

I mean, if we do make it illegal, this is going to piss off or affect one of the largest demographics in our country: women. If you are going to take a side and press for a certain legislation, look at the possible consequences first. Our constitutional rights were created for a reason, and I would hate to see the whole thing fucked up just because a bunch of ignorant people don't know what they are doing because they were going on a "moral crusade."

A few of the most notorious "moral crusades", including eco-terrorism, prohibition, and recent terrorist attacks (if you have been reading up on your current events, terrorists like Bin Laden claim to be fighting what they think is "morally wrong") ended up causing more problems than anything else. Study your history, and you will see what kinds of problems conflicting religous beliefs can cause.

Also, I am interested in hearing this from the Pro-Lifers out there: If you are fighting for making abortion illegal, what positive things are you going to accomplish in doing this?

Edited by Oroku_Saki, 01 May 2004 - 09:42 PM.