Now here's a pleasant topic…

MDLarson

MDLarson

Registered
Abortion!

Sorry to make the music grind to a halt and attract all stares, but I'd like to know what you folks have to say on the matter.

Right to choose, or death to the unborn?

(You might be able to tell from my avatar that I'm a Christian and tend to lean towards pro-life, which I do.)

<<edited because of stupid mistake - see page 3 of this thread for details>>
 
Intersting topic...

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Personally, when a friend suggested that I abort my make-your-own-PC project, I was at first shocked at the cruelty of the concept. Then I realised that it was deformed, and that even if it did develop properly, it would never be able to lead a normal life, because the Mac OS won't run on X86 chips.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The experience was a hurtful one, but it made me ask the question "what is this thing that we call a CPU anyway, and can we truely say that it has a right to word-process?"
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Since the traumatic experience (I had to go ahead, I just wasn't ready to bring a PC into the world at this time in my life) I have been posessed by an urge to do good - I don't want the death of my PC to be for no reason. So I joined a really helpful online OS X support community (who have been very supportive) and now I recommended macs to all of my friends on a daily basis.

Bernie :eek:)
 
Oh, and as a serious reply to your post:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I can see why people might be a bit surprised at this post (In the words of Roots Manuva - "that's some shit I was not ready for") But nethertheless, it deserves an answer:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I think the health of women giving birth is of paramount importence, then the next priority is that the people involved feel able to give a child a proper life, and then thirdly the life of the unborn child.

Bernie :eek:|

(the sign-off smilie isn't grinning inanely as usual today as an expression of the grave nature of this thread)
 
I was going to ask which trimester your PC was in before you aborted it, but... ;)

Yeah, thanks for the answer. I agree with you mostly except I'd switch one thing around:

1) Health / life of woman giving birth
2) Life of unborn child
3) "Convenience factor"* - being able to give child a proper life

Number 3 is certainly subjective, and can mean vastly different things to different people, but I understand your point. However, I believe there are many adoption agencies eager and waiting for mothers who don't want to keep the baby and don't want to abort it either.

*I also believe the majority of abortions are the result of irresponsibility and not wanting to make the gargantuan (sp?) task of raising a baby when they are not ready (like a teenage mother in high school).
 
if the mother doesn't want it, she shouldn't have done the dirty deed before it...

that's how i see it...

i don't care whether or not you do or don't have an abortion... it's up to the person....

that's how i feel about it
 
Originally posted by BlingBling 3k12
i don't care whether or not you do or don't have an abortion... it's up to the person....

that's how i feel about it
Click to expand...
Sage... ;o)

Bernie :eek:)
 
quite frankly I am very pro-choice.
I think people should have the right to do what they want. IF they dont want a pregnancy the should terminate it.

What I am opposed to though are "stupid" circumstances like for example woman wants kid then in the 8th months decides she doesnt want it (for NON medical reasons. Medical reasons OK. I would HATE to lose my loved one for something like this). Then my dear it's too late. Just have the child and put it up for adoption.


oh blingbling...unless you are castrated its very hard keeping it in your pants :p

Admiral
 
Very sticky issue!

I think ultimately the decision rests with the mother and father of the unborn child until the unborn reaches a certain stage in its development when it is legally considered an unborn human child as opposed to a lump of dividing cells. However, I VERY STRONGLY believe that if one or two people aren't ready for children, then they shouldn't be playing around - PERIOD! END OF DISCUSSION! Abstinance is the best form of birth control and it also helps prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. There are simply already enough children up for adoption, why bring another unwanted child into the world? Could this unborn child be the next Einstein? Possibly. Could this unborn child be a further burden to the state and bring increased hardship to the parents? Possibly. Tough questions to answer for which I have no answer.
 
my view
abortion is alright, if the woman decides in a reasonable time that's fair enough. wouldn't it be worse to bring a child into the world where the parents dont love him/her?

the worst thing though is the total control the mother has, if she doesn't want the baby she can have it aborted regardless of the father's choice, if she does want it and the father doesn't he has to raise him/her or pay the mother. damn sexism.
 
Originally posted by mrfluffy
abortion is alright, if the woman decides in a reasonable time that's fair enough. wouldn't it be worse to bring a child into the world where the parents dont love him/her?

the worst thing though is the total control the mother has, if she doesn't want the baby she can have it aborted regardless of the father's choice, if she does want it and the father doesn't he has to raise him/her or pay the mother. damn sexism.
Click to expand...
I don't understand this view. By saying that abortion is OK under some circumstances, you imply that you think that the ball of cells is not a proper human being. Thats quite fair enough, however, you then go on to say that you think the father should be able to decide too- implying you think that there is something special about the ball of cells.

I think the decision has nothing to do with the father - all he has invested is a bit of DNA, whereas the mother has the whole ordeal to go through... (yes I'm a closet feminist ;o)

Bernie :eek:)
 
well i am pro choice - about almost everything in life. choices are how we are able to exercise personal power.

however, i am neither a feminist nor a chauvinist. I am a humanist. and i think mr. fluffy's point about father's lack of rights has got some truth to it. both partners entered into conception on equal terms in most cases (not talking about rape here). So both should have some input into the final decision. perhaps equal input is not quite right, but the idea that a woman can have an abortion without even notifying the father still bothers me.

just remember one thing that people discussing this issue tend to forget, pro choice means just that, it is not advocacy of abortion or an implication that its proponents would choose abortion. it is advocacy of the right to decide. I would have a hard time deciding on abortion if that choice was before me, but i don't want to deny others the right to choose for themselves.
 
I'm going to extend this is stem cells, does anyone else feel an overwhelming sense of shock at the stupid policy the US has for stem cells?

We are quite far away from having organ farms, why put red tape up now, possibly endangering lives later? Sure, the american people have the right to decide the policies of their government, but I sure as hell hope they don't look back and ask why the US is performing less research and has longer lines for organ transplants than european nations without the same inhibitions.

The US's only hope is that the adult stem-cell ideas pan out.
 
Originally posted by Ed Spruiell
i am neither a feminist nor a chauvinist. I am a humanist. and i think mr. fluffy's point about father's lack of rights has got some truth to it. both partners entered into conception on equal terms in most cases (not talking about rape here). So both should have some input into the final decision.
Click to expand...
Good point Ed, but I think cases where both partners wanted to concieve and then the woman decides otherwise are rare. In most cases, it is entirely accidental, and then I think the father isn't qualified to make the decision - it's not his body we're talking about.

Bernie :eek:)
 
Matrix Agent - I couldn't agree more. My university here in England is doing some pioneering work using stem cells and it's opening new avenues. There's simply no alternative for doing some kinds of research.

When you see them in a lab (and I have) then you can't see them as humans - they're just a pale white smear on a petri-dish. I definitely don't believe in the existence of life before at least the development of nerve cells.

Bernie :eek:)
 
BHD - i think your point about it being the woman's body has its place in this issue. there are certainly too many variables for this to ever be clear cut. but even when it is an accident (again rule out times where a male deceives a woman on purpose), then both parties knew the risk to start with. a woman shouldn't have the right to say that only the man was responsible and so therefore she can do what she wants. this is not to mention that women hold a greater degree of potential control when it comes to birth control. They have a variety of choices that work better than condoms and require no responsiblity from the man.

i also think this point about a father's right to know is applicable if the woman decides to keep the child, not just if she decides to abort. of course that is less likely to happen since women normallly want support money, but it still happens that women do not tell the men in this case.
 
I see your point ed, but it has it's pitfalls.

Can you promise that the man will be around in 9 months?

And conversely:

Can you promise that the woman will not simply drop the child off at the father's after 9 months?

Without being completely certain of both, it is hard to know who truly should have rights in the decision.
 
Originally posted by bighairydog
…When you see them in a lab (and I have) then you can't see them as humans - they're just a pale white smear on a petri-dish. I definitely don't believe in the existence of life before at least the development of nerve cells.
Click to expand...

There's a problem with that… Life doesn't require nerves - take trees for example (I don't think they have nerves, unless you count the Wizard of Oz ;) )

I believe life begins at conception, and I think I am biologically correct.
 
Originally posted by MDLarson
There's a problem with that… Life doesn't require nerves - take trees for example (I don't think they have nerves, unless you count the Wizard of Oz ;) )

I believe life begins at conception, and I think I am biologically correct.
Click to expand...
I respect your view, and often have debates with Christian friends of mine, whose opinions I respect - I'm not going to start bashing religion...

But, Who's crying when I chop down a tree? OK, so as a technicality, trees are alive, and so are bacteria. What I meant by life not being present at conception (and by a strict definition it's present before conception too) is Human life - something which it's a crime to destroy.

I must admit that I see the death of stem cells as being as wrong as the death of bacteria, or a tree

Bernie :eek:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top