Any Other Abortion Clinic Protesters Here?

Post Reply New Topic

I can be sure that "ownership" is something that the pro-life advocates don't agree with and I suppose some pro-choicers wouldn't either.


Abortion after the third trimester is pretty much illegal, that assersion seems odd unless you want the law to permit late-term abortions.

It is our collective responsibility not to potentially destroy all evolutionary chances of the human race by making us all fall into the trap of eugenics. So, either ban eugenics or ban abortion, If you want to keep abortion, ban eugenics themselves (which is what I am proposing). I think eugenics are a bigger issue and honestly, the gene pool is mankind's property and regardless of how much ownership you think you have of your children, it should still be unders your responsibility to prevent mankind from falling into it.

What is legal or illegal is the arbitrary decision of lawmakers who are ten hairs away from being baboons.

ruveyn

I think it has been proven in a quite of few cases that eugenics doesn't work. Considering that humans are lucky if they are able to see three generations of their progeny is probably why only the crazy see eugenics as a means to an end.

Abortion is an indvidual decision in part because society doesn't want to have the responsibilty to care for that potential being. Also the whole idea of a collective gene pool just rubs me the wrong way. Sure we are all the same species but that doesn't mean that you get a vote in what I do and don't do with my own DNA.

This is an almost completely separate debate from 'should abortion be legal'. This puts me into the same postition as Orwell has regarding abortion, ie i can see both sides of the debate.

I am politically pro-choice, but I find this argument highly flawed. It completely ignores the fact that what is inside that body is a unique and living being, with its own destiny. The woman doesn't own it, she has been charged with the care of it. This argument is like claiming I own my children after birth, because they live in my house. There was a time people thought that way, but we no longer do.

More appropriate is to understand that no one knows what the destiny of that life is, for until birth it can be effectively argued that it is more potential life, than actual life. And more appropriate is to ask how far the obligation of the woman charged with its care goes. Does the world have the right to ask her to put her own health, goals, and well being behind that of the unborn life?

A lot of issues and moral considerations surround each and every one of those points, and to deny the complexity of it is an overly simplistic and self centered view, and one that bears no weight at all with the opposing view, or with those undecided on it. The more appropriate question is whose moral values take precedence, who is in the best position to weigh all the varying factors, and whose beliefs will carry in the situation. For that, the answer is, to me, the person who is carrying the child. She is one given the gift or the burden, and the only one who bears all the costs or the benefits. We can and should ask that she make those judgments with a sense of responsibility towards the entity she is carrying, which she may or may not sincerely view as a human life v. a bundle of cells, but that is as far as an outsider's interference in the process should go.

Van Gogh was probaby BiPolar

Too much information can be a mistake, as genetic prescreening proves, to me at least. The problem is, future parents are scared. Our society makes every little thing sound scary and burdensome, in ways that people never thought about even 100 years before. We put way, way too much pressure on parents. The people I know who wait anxiously for the results of their amnios don't feel they, themselves, have the strength to raise a child with special needs. Its a complete loss of confidence in their own ability to adapt and confront, and it comes from a world that expects too much of, well, everyone. Without that fear, no one would screen.

I agree but at the same time, weren't children with disabilities sent off much more readily back then? I think its really the economic stress - that both members of a household have to work, job competition is stiff, by the time you get home from a solid 8 to 5 you barely feel like you have much energy to live your own life let alone clean the house, take care of the kids, help out with homework, etc.. With people being stretched that thin it makes sense that they'd wonder if they have anything left in reserve to raise a child with special needs.

What if the Mother (or fetus) has some sort of prenatal infection with a high (94% - 100%) fatality rate which would cause it to perish the moment it was born? Should it be the woman's choice then? I highly doubt that ANY woman would want to go to term if she knew she would suffer a stillbirth.

Charged??? By whom or by what? Autonomy and person-hood can only come to be ex utero. While the fetus is in the mother's body it is her's to dispose of as she will. Every atom except the sperm, was produced by the labor of her body and she bears the risk at every instant between conception and whatever end the fetus undergoes.

The fetus in her womb is hers, not society's, not God's, not yours and not mine.

ruveyn

I'm pro-choice, but I'm up for methods to reduce abortion instead of outright banning it.

This is why I strongly advocate teaching comprehensive sex-ed in public schools. I think the whole "dont' have sex" argument is ludicrous because, being humans, we are going to have sex regardless. More comprehensive sex education=less unwanted pregnancies=reduced abortions. I think that's a lot better than the current "don't have sex until you're married and if you end up pregnant that's because you're a dumb skank who should have listened to us" method.

I think abortion should be legal, but after some threshold like (three months of pregnancy) be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

We are all allowed to carry guns, but that does not mean we are allowed to go and shoot people.

I am saying, abortion should be considered a gun. I disagree completely about people claiming ownership over fetuses. I do know that -specially on the current world- most reasons to abort are completely legit and they should be accepted. However, I do not agree with a future in which parents will abort merely because their kid would not have blue eyes, would fall on the autistic spectrum or would not have the correct gene disposition to be an architect... I cannot accept such thing as being right.

You are absolutely correct ruveyn.

Conservatives only care about one thing. 'Taking'
They only want to take rights from people and mold society into the way they want it, without regard to what other people feel. They want to take away peoples free will to make choices and decisions for themselves, they also act in passion for their own personal beliefs, which causes pain and needless suffering.

Conservatives don't just want to 'take' they like to 'interfere'. They like to tell people how to live, despite not having any experience in the decisions that many people make. They want to tell people who and who they cannot marry, they want to tell women that they must become parents, despite their situation.

Conservatives are bossy, selfish and uneducated in real facts.
If you are pro-life, good for you, get pregnant and keep it for yourself. You cannot tell others what to do.
If you are pro-life and do not have kids, then you are a hypocrite, you have no idea on what it is to find yourself suddenly pregnant, and have to make a difficult decision.

iamnotaparraket... you need to grow up, and get out of that nightmare world of yours where people cannot make their own decisions and live under a dictatorship. What do you have to gain if I keep a 3 week-old fetus?

Do I sound mean? I should, because men like you who are telling me what to do in a situation that they know nothing about is being mean to me.

By whose criteria? How can we ontologically determine such a thing as correct, semi-correct or incorrect? Many would disagree with his notion, and many from those would be pro-choicers themselves, as they would not consider that a proper argument against the conservative position towards abortion nor would they consider it a proper justification. I get that Ruveyn is physicalist but also a cynic, according to his posts, so it is plausible to consider that approach as plain cynicism.

However cynic Ruveyn might be, he sometimes makes very spot-on and intelligent comments. (Putting aside his old ethnic intolerance habits)