Human Rights

[Retribution]

[quote name='Calypso'][COLOR="Sienna"]Why is it disturbing? Why make the baby suffer? who's in the pro-life camp?[/COLOR][/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]You're in the pro-life camp if you're against abortion, generally speaking. This is to say that you believe abortion should not be legal. This also includes people who want to make exception for extenuating circumstances (rape, incest, death of mother, etc).

I find it a radical position to not allow abortion in cases of rape and incest. While I understand the distaste one might have with abortion, it's almost ([I]almost[/I]) surprising that people would choose to put the rights of the mother below those of the unborn fetus.

However I still applaud those who take up this position -- it's very consistent and thus rather difficult to rhetorically attack aside from the notion of "personal opinions."

You ask "why make the baby suffer?" One could ask: why make the mother suffer an unwanted pregnancy? It's these questions that don't really get the dialogue anywhere. For instance, I don't really think the "baby" suffers when aborted before it has the ability to feel pain. And for the record, it's a "fetus" until after 8 weeks.

[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]And I also resent being thrown into a camp that is labeled simply as "pro life." Like most things, there are degrees of people who are liberal and conservative, angry and not angry, okay with group politics and not okay with group politics.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]
Unfortunately (fortunately?) group politics is a reality. Welcome to America. While people do exist on a continuum of belief, one is labeled based on where they fall on that spectrum. Sorry you take issue with that, but your views land you squarely within what is considered by the vast majority of America (and the world) to be "pro life." Similarly, you would be considered to be a "conservative" in America.[/font]

[Raiha]

[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]
Unfortunately (fortunately?) group politics is a reality. Welcome to America. While people do exist on a continuum of belief, one is labeled based on where they fall on that spectrum. Sorry you take issue with that, but your views land you squarely within what is considered by the vast majority of America (and the world) to be "pro life." Similarly, you would be considered to be a "conservative" in America.[/font][/QUOTE]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="times new roman"]Do not presume to lecture me on group politics when it's very clear that I have my own beliefs that can and have occasionally crossed paths with both conservatives and liberals. It must be a comfort to know that you can write off people that have differing opinions from you under labels that half the time fail to stay on properly. Since I don't give a fig whether or not the rest of the world or America thinks of my opinions short of: "Too bad you didn't brain wash me just yet," I resent your labels.

But since you have consistently decided to argue the "liberal" position and indeed belong to what some on the right have termed the "culture of death," I suppose you might as well enjoy it.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Retribution]

[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="times new roman"]Do not presume to lecture me [...] I resent your labels.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]Sorry, it's just that when I read "DONT LABEL ME" it's coming from an insecure high schooler.

[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="times new roman"]But since you have consistently decided to argue the "liberal" position and indeed belong to what some on the right have termed the "culture of death," I suppose you might as well enjoy it.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]
Absolutely! I love my liberal, dangerous, un-Christian culture of death.[/font]

[Mr. Blonde]

[quote name='Gavin'][SIZE="1"]You know normally I would bang my head off my desk several times in horror this thread has reappeared, proceed to quote several people and then engage in the pointless debate. This time around I'll skip the second part like most other people and just make my point and watch the drama unfold.
[/SIZE][/QUOTE]

I couldn't have said it better myself.

And I'm sure I won't even get the chance to hit the "submit reply' button before Raiha will have my throat ripped out, but here we go:

I'm not going to discuss pro life or pro choice. I do have an opinion on one but my side has already been discussed in this thread and if I were to continue to argue it I would just be reiterating the same point. So instead I will briefly discuss this worship of human life we all seem to suffer from. Most humans wouldn't think twice about taking the life of another creature because we consider all other creatures to be inferior to us, but the human life is sacred? I hardly agree.

I've known some squirrels that have done more good for this world than some humans. The fact is that most of us just take up space on this planet. Most of us don't do anything to benefit society, advance technology or help human kind. We just take up space. This planet is overcrowded. People are getting dumber because darwinism is failing. It's failing because unlike other animals where only the strong, the smart, and the intuitive survive, the idiots and know-nothing humans continue to breed with each other and are steadily watering down the human gene pool.

Do I believe human life is sacred? It depends on the life.

I think most of our society could be sterilized and it would only benefit us in the long run. The world doesn't need another 'Joe Six Pack." We need more teachers, scientists and doctors. We need intelligence, which we are sorely lacking.

Now you may say this is off subject, but I say it comes down to the root of the subject: the value of human life. I say that is a loaded question because that depends upon the value of the human. This obviously does not apply to unborn children who have had no opportunity to prove their worth.

Sterilize the stupid and abortion rates will plummet. If I ever run for Senate that will be my platform.

Oh and regardless of your stance on abortion... the government has no right to get involved in the matter. It's none of Uncle Sam's business.

[Raiha]

[quote name='Katakidoushi']Oh and regardless of your stance on abortion... the government has no right to get involved in the matter. It's none of Uncle Sam's business.[/QUOTE]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Do you really want your future daughter to be able to get an abortion at the age of 13 without you knowing it? I know this is a subject of serious debate and then not so serious debate in California, because for some... ...it's impossible to get serious, even when the stakes are the values of human life and death.

And I'm not here to rip people's throats out, I'm here to question their beliefs and see just what makes them justify their positions when pressed.

Now as far as Roe v. Wade goes, even if I was pro choice, I'd say that it was bad law. It was a poorly rendered choice and the "zone of privacy" they miraculously found in the Constitution still doesn't exist. You can't amend the U.S. Constitution by statute. But that's a question I'll save for the actual Constitutional Law majors. The notification of parents of an abortion when the child is in fact a minor in the eyes of the law is a serious matter. I really REALLY would question both why it's alright for a school principal to take an underage girl to an abortion clinic, and why said underage girl is pregnant in the first place. If I were a pedophile that routinely had sex with young women and impregnated them, then making parental notification illegal would be like the gift that just keeps on giving.

Think about it.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Mr. Blonde]

[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Do you really want your future daughter to be able to get an abortion at the age of 13 without you knowing it? [FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Um... And what does that have to do with government involvement? I absolutely think that parents of an underage girl should be notified but the government doesn't have to get involved in the actual process.

And I was being sarcastic about the throat ripping. You can't actually think I'm that big of a dick?

[Raiha]

[quote name='Katakidoushi']Um... And what does that have to do with government involvement? I absolutely think that parents of an underage girl should be notified but the government doesn't have to get involved in the actual process.

And I was being sarcastic about the throat ripping. You can't actually think I'm that big of a dick?[/QUOTE]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]The legislation of California is pushing an ammendment that'll make parental notification either legal or illegal depending on how the public decides to vote. That to me, is government involvement.

Furthermore, leave the sarcasm to me. I make it look much prettier. And I could think you were a dick if I really wanted to. I suppose you'll have to be nice to me to make it all better.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Mr. Blonde]

[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]The legislation of California is pushing an ammendment that'll make parental notification either legal or illegal depending on how the public decides to vote. That to me, is government involvement.

Furthermore, leave the sarcasm to me. I make it look much prettier. And I could think you were a dick if I really wanted to. I suppose you'll have to be nice to me to make it all better.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Well like I said government involvement of any kind I believe is wrong, and I never disputed that case wasn't government involvement. On either side; for or against abortion government involvement is pushing socialism. And as far as me being nicer to you...

Its really all your fault because you make it much more fun to argue with you.

[Nathan]

[FONT="Arial"]Lots of what I consider tl;dr posts. Well only one, but we'll leave it at that. And yes that's my way of saying I'm not going to join the drama here and simply post what I think.

Now as for the actual topic, my stance is pretty simple, I'm pro-choice. (I can just about hear some of you saying... what!?!) In that respect it becomes less simple. I disagree with the attempts to make it illegal since most of them are all or nothing. There are going to be cases where it's necessary. Most notably being when it's a genuine threat to the health of the mother.

As Darren already pointed out, rape is misunderstood since the option to take medicine right after the assault has happened already reduces the possibility of someone becoming pregnant. (hence the small numbers of someone actually becoming pregnant from an assault) However, even if the numbers are small, that doesn't mean we should abandon that choice.

In the end, I'm in favor of reform of the current system instead of abolishing it outright. I see abortion as the last choice possible, but still a choice that needs to be protected. [/FONT]

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Nerdsy'][color=deeppink]Why, exactly, is it not human? And why should I believe that it's not over "human life begins at conception?"[/color][/QUOTE]

If you can give me a scientific basis for when a mass of cells becomes a human being, then I will take it under consideration. The fact is, at the moment of conception and for some time after that, it is a simple mass of cells, it is not definable as a human being.

Saying life begins at conception usually comes with a religious view that the soul enters at that point. This is just a metaphysical argument with no supporting evidence.

[Raiha]

[quote name='TimeChaser']If you can give me a scientific basis for when a mass of cells becomes a human being, then I will take it under consideration. The fact is, at the moment of conception and for some time after that, it is a simple mass of cells, it is not definable as a human being.

Saying life begins at conception usually comes with a religious view that the soul enters at that point. This is just a metaphysical argument with no supporting evidence.[/QUOTE]
[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]There's no science to this. No scientist can agree because to have a basis for it, you'd have to legislate morality. And religion has nothing to do with it. You can still call it a human life without having to fall back on: "because my religion told me to say so." We're already into metaphysics just discussing when life is life without even having to ask if that's when eternal souls are created or body thetans come to indwell, and blah blah blah blah blah.

A mass of cells eventually divides enough to start developing into a fetus which starts developing into an unborn child which eventually is born or is tossed on the ash heap of a doctor's disregard for life. Again, you've failed to address the part where blastocysts become something more. And since the process is a good deal shorter than you're willing to admit... ...it's very hard to take you seriously.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Nerdsy]

[quote name='TimeChaser'] The fact is, at the moment of conception and for some time after that, it is a simple mass of cells, it is not definable as a human being.[/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink]I'll ask again, since you dodged the question. Why not?

I'll rephrase it to clarify. How does a blastocyst being only a simple mass of cells prove that it's not human? How does it not having a brain make it not human? How does not being able to suffer make it not human?

[u]When [i]does[/i] a blastocyst become a human life, and why is that line any less arbitrary than conception?[/u][/color]

[Retribution]

[quote name='Nerdsy'][color=deeppink][u]When [i]does[/i] a blastocyst become a human life, and why is that line any less arbitrary than conception?[/u][/color][/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]I'll chip in my two cents, even though no one asked me.

I have absolutely no idea when life begins.

Perhaps there is a definitional problem going on -- if we are to say "life begins at conception," does that mean we should start celebrating our birthdays nine months in advance of our actual birth? Is the nature of life different in a born human and an embryo? Are we prepared to say that aborting a (perhaps one day old) zygote is tantamount to murder of a 10 year old?

Personally, I think that line of reasoning is a bit too radical and literalist. I do not believe my shooting a 10 year old is equivalent to a woman taking the morning after pill (which, while classified as a "contraceptive" can destroy the embryo) and "aborting" her "baby."

But I'll also say that putting the marker at some stage of embryonic development is arbitrary.[/font]

[SunfallE]

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"][quote name='Raiha;824208][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]In some cases, DNA in a baby can be traced to a father, and if the rapist was up till then not caught... [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]And semen gotten from rape victims who seek immediate treatment can be used for the same purpose, DNA identification, so following through on a pregnancy isn't really necessary. If the attacker didn't use a condom or other means to cover their tracks that is. Though like it's been said, the option to take something to keep it from happening after the attack is the best option. [quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial']While I find it disturbing there are people who think abortion should not be allowed in cases of rape and incest, I also applaud them for their consistency of belief.[/font][/quote]I have to wonder how many who support this stance even understand or have experienced being raped. I can't speak for incest but rape, no one will ever convince me that it's acceptable to force someone to carry a child to term if that should happen. EVER.

Anyway, I should copy and paste Nathan's post since that fits what I think. I am not religious, I do not see abortion as a sin. What I see as wrong is a system that doesn't provide enough support and education to help prevent unwanted pregnancies and offer solutions such as adoptions. What I don't accept is blanket attempts to remove the process and make it illegal. But requiring comprehensive counseling before one can get an abortion, that's something I'd be interested in seeing.

Ah, before I forget, there is one concession, no late abortions, if it takes you forever to make up your mind, just have the child and give it up. The longer one waits, the harder and risker the procedure is. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='SunfallE'][COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"]I have to wonder how many who support this stance even understand or have experienced being raped. I can't speak for incest but rape, no one will ever convince me that it's acceptable to force someone to carry a child to term if that should happen. EVER.

Anyway, I should copy and paste Nathan's post since that fits what I think. I am not religious, I do not see abortion as a sin. What I see as wrong is a system that doesn't provide enough support and education to help prevent unwanted pregnancies and offer solutions such as adoptions. What I don't accept is blanket attempts to remove the process and make it illegal. But requiring comprehensive counseling before one can get an abortion, that's something I'd be interested in seeing.

Ah, before I forget, there is one concession, no late abortions, if it takes you forever to make up your mind, just have the child and give it up. The longer one waits, the harder and riskier the procedure is. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Thank you. I think people should really talk to those who have been through a rape before they pass a blanket judgment

And yes, the systems we have need a dramatic change:
- Sex education needs to be comprehensive.
- The adoption/foster care system needs a major overhaul
- The ability for someone to have an abortion should not be taken away completely, but should also be carefully regulated.

I'm not religious either, and of course that is really the main issue in the overall debate on abortion. Even if some people believe it is a "sin", they should not force their beliefs on others by trying to cement them in law.

[Guest Crimson Spider]

Looks like my entire post has been ignored.


Only 15% of rape victims who become pregnant actually abort the child. The other 85% feel it is better to carry the child with them. It is usually their friends and their family which try to convince them to get an abortion. It isn't a "punishment" to be pregnant at all, despite what all of those anti-teen pregnancy courses are trying to teach children lately.

Rape-spawned abortions make up only 0.5% of all abortions. To say that something should be legal because 1/200 cases resemble the actual ideology you have placed on the idea is to strain at the gnat and swallow the camel. It is easier just to make a special case for the 1 out of 200 women who abort the child because she was raped.

Thankfully, there are plenty of infertility and birth control drugs that can be taken after intercourse to make the woman infertile, so proper enforcement of those drugs should decrease that ratio.

[Nerdsy]

[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]if we are to say "life begins at conception," does that mean we should start celebrating our birthdays nine months in advance of our actual birth? [/font][/QUOTE]


[color=deeppink]If we do, we'd have to start calling them "conception Days" or "life Days," because "[b]Birth[/b]days" wouldn't be accurate anymore. ; )[/color]

[quote]To say that something should be legal because 1/200 cases resemble the actual ideology you have placed on the idea is to strain at the gnat and swallow the camel.[/quote]

[color=deeppink]I don't see anyone here using rape as a justification to allow abortion in any case [i]but[/i] rape.[/color]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

Oh woe to time constraints of my job

Anyway, someone hasn't outright made the statement that "You should allow all abortions because some women get raped". No one ever directly says that. They just imply and act on that idea. The moment someone questions abortions in their entirety, someone will always bring up "rape" as a justifyable cause. This is so closely associated that it was actuallyl stated in the topic.

It embodies the methodology behind the abortion movement, and this is primarly women's rights. The statement about rape is really about a woman's right over the contents of her body.


Personally, I don't think that molestation is a good enough reason to abort the baby. Calypso says it eloquently: "When you really think about it, it's not really the baby's fault the woman got raped. So why have the baby suffer for it?", though I chose the offensive method and argued that the reasons for why you abort the child weren't good enough.

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Personally, I don't think that molestation is a good enough reason to abort the baby. Calypso says it eloquently: "When you really think about it, it's not really the baby's fault the woman got raped. So why have the baby suffer for it?", though I chose the offensive method and argued that the reasons for why you abort the child weren't good enough.[/QUOTE]

Ah, but, if it is aborted early enough, does it really suffer, in the same way, say, someone dying of a ravaging disease suffers?

But anyway, I think this issue is not one anyone from either side can cover with blanket statements. It's a case by case thing, really. The important thing is that the choice not be taken away entirely, while we can hopefully improve the deficiencies in our society so that it is hardly ever needed.

[Nerdsy]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']They just imply and act on that idea.[/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink]Nobody has implied it either. They have either said "especially so" or "this is an exception," depending on whether the are for or generally against abortion, respectively. (Or, of course, they said abortion is always wrong.) I would classify it as inferring on your part rather than implying on theirs.

Saying that something isn't entirely is not the same as saying something entirely is.[/color]

[Lunar]

[quote name='Nerdsy'][color=deeppink]
Saying that something isn't entirely is not the same as saying something entirely is.[/color][/QUOTE]
:confused:
[COLOR="Sienna"]
*drowning in a sea of confusion* please make that more understandable because my brain hurts now.[/COLOR]

[Nerdsy]

[quote name='Calypso']:confused:
[COLOR="Sienna"]
*drowning in a sea of confusion* please make that more understandable because my brain hurts now.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink]Saying "abortions shouldn't be outlawed for rapes" is not the same thing as saying "all abortions should be legalized."[/color]

[Lunar]

[quote name='Nerdsy'][color=deeppink]Saying "abortions shouldn't be outlawed for rapes" is not the same thing as saying "all abortions should be legalized."[/color][/QUOTE]
[COLOR="Sienna"]
Oh! I was tired and I didn't read all the posts. You are right. They are not the same thing. Because that would be saying that all abortions are illegal but abortions for rapes are fine.[/COLOR]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

[quote name='TimeChaser']Ah, but, if it is aborted early enough, does it really suffer, in the same way, say, someone dying of a ravaging disease suffers?
[/QUOTE]

It suffers in the same way that it has had its rights and its freedom to become human, and to live removed.

[quote name='Nerdsy'][color=deeppink]Nobody has implied it either. They have either said "especially so" or "this is an exception," depending on whether the are for or generally against abortion, respectively. (Or, of course, they said abortion is always wrong.) I would classify it as inferring on your part rather than implying on theirs.

Saying that something isn't entirely is not the same as saying something entirely is.[/color][/QUOTE]

As I have done with my first post, I am addressing generalities in common place. If I was talking to someone specific, I would have either directed it at them, quoted them, or used them as an example.

Though you must understand that political and philosophical debates aren't always rooted in logic. People have, and always do, plead cases that aren't really logical. When I bring up that only a tiny fraction of abortions are over rape, it seems illogical to maintain the entire thing, but they are all too willing to keep abortion as an entirety legal. You can plead a case that extends rape into even nonsensical things like astrological signs, albeit shakey at best.

Though in retrospect, I think I should have made a better distinction between the first and second paragraphs. But, time constraints are time constraints. I couldn't finish everything I wanted to say.

[dd protector]

I personally am a little conflicted on this issue. I support the right for women to get abortions. I understand that some women have neither the means nor the want for children. On the other hand I know that there are options for adoption and many other things. I have 3 cousins who were adopted.
I personally would never be able to get an abortion. Aside from this though i do take birth control which i know kills any eggs that get fertilised by making my body and inhospitable enviroment. And yes, I consider embryos alive and babies. They have everything a person has, they are just smaller.
If a woman wants to kill hers, we are not going to stop her, better to create an enviroment where she can do it safely rather then in a back alley where she will definately die.
I actually had to get a litter of kittens aborted sadly..