Abortion

[el_boss]

What bitter irony it must be for those women who become unable to have children again after an abortion.

One of the worst things I have seen in my life was when I worked in a hospital for a month during my military service. I was in the post operation ward and almost everyday there would come in women who had gone trough what is called a hysterectomy, even the word gives me the chills. Hysterectomy is the name of the procedure where the uterus is removed, because of cancer or some other illness. Without fault all these women were crying and depressed. I think this experience effected me alot regarding my view on abortion.

I think it's obvious that a woman should be allowed to govern over her own body, I mean it's better to get it done in a hospital than try to get the fetus out with a coathanger. But still, the tought of what actually happens in an abortion leaves me with an unpleasant feeling.

[Kraco]

That's a good point. However, what comes to abortion, it needs to be remembered that even if the law allows it, it's still up to the particular woman in question whether to do it or not. Not nearly all of them would do it in any case. Some might or might not depending on what the doctor has to say. I have no idea how the system actually works but I suppose the women do change a few words with somebody before the abortion is performed (or prescription written). A few would do it no matter what; fly to some foreign country to have it done, or buy the service from some dark dealer of death.

When the choice is there, it certainly attracts many people who wouldn't do it otherwise. But this is how Western societies generally work. Information is made available, and people must make their own decisions. The greater the freedom, the greater the personal responsibility. Only when the freedom is being used to hurt especially others and the society, it's taken away, like happened with narcotics in the 20th Century.

[Assertn]

Originally posted by: God#2

Originally posted by: Xollence
Does it matter who's fault it is? How does the baby's life differ in the two situations? The baby's value isn't any less because the mother got raped.

Ok, I guess I didnt take enough consideration of the baby. But then that creates the problem where people can just go around having sex withou a worry because they can just abort the baby.

You like to bring up this concept that people going around having sex is a bad thing. You've done this in another thread, yet I'm still not sure why.

[The Heretic Azazel]

ARE YOU A FILTHY FUCKING CHRISTIAN, GOD #2??

[complich8]

As far as I'm concerned, conception is cheap. 15% of recognized pregnancies (by the stats of a cursory web search) are miscarried before the second trimester. And who knows how many are miscarried in the first month, before they're recognized? Not to mention later miscarriages, stillbirths, etc. For most people, it's pretty damned easy to concieve a child. So I have trouble seeing conception as some sort of precious gift.

On the other hand, actually giving birth is a different story. By the time you're dropping the kid out, a lot of investment has gone into it, both physically and emotionally. A human life is like a snowball. It starts tiny, and as time passes it rolls up more and more value.

I think that "life" per se starts at conception, but I wouldn't call a 16-celled embryo human life yet. It's not at that threshold where it has what I value as humanity. It only has potential. Humanity starts later, at some fuzzy threshold between the time they have discernable parts and the time they're old enough to crawl.

I'm pro-choice. I think that people who don't want to raise children, or aren't at a point where they're ready to, shouldn't. An unwanted child remains an unwanted child, that sentiment doesn't always go away. Kids who're raised with the family undercurrent "you're an accident, we didn't want you" lead much less happy lives.

I think that abortion is in the best interest of society, and I'm not alone in that belief. There's a contraversial study that suggests a link between Roe v. Wade and the dropoff of serious violent crime (backing: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/cv2.htm ). For those who don't know, Roe Vs. Wade was decided in 1973, effectively legalizing abortion nationwide. Beginning in 1993, serious violent crime nationwide began decreasing steadily. This is a 20 year lag behind Roe vs Wade, which would be about how long it would take for a generation of children to be born and grow old enough to be violent criminals. Of course, there are other confounds, society is never a simple machine, but the correlation is quite suggestive.

There's one form of abortion that I'm against: partial-birth abortion. I think that that's the sort of atrocity that should never have been dreamed up in the first place, and should never be allowed to happen. It can't save lives, it can't help parents, and it gains nothing over putting the child up for adoption. I think the closer to conception it is, the more justifiable abortion become.

I also don't think fathers need to consent or be informed. That's just some bullshit right there. For a woman, pregnancy is 9 months of discomfort followed by 18+ years of struggle. For a man, a woman's pregnancy can be 9 months of lying and stringing her along and then leaving her. With so little paternal obligation, there's no reason that guys should be able to dictate that.

Lastly, despite all of that, I still think abortion is a terrible thing. In a perfect world, we could have "indescretions" and not worry about conception happening, and we'd have full control of our bodies and nobody would get diseases and so on and so forth. But it's not a perfect world, and so this terrible thing has to continue existing.

[masamuneehs]

Heretic, just because someone brings in their religious/moral ideals to this argument does not make their points any less valid than you agnostic/heretical views.

Complich8, thank god for well thought out posts. I simply want to say that I posted my polls and opinions in the starkest of extreme opinions simply for the sake of invoking argument and creating a place where people would HAVE to defend their opinions. I also believe that many abortions are uneccesary and tragic. However, I value the possibility of humanity as much as I value recognized, mature, humanity. For there is still potential even in a 100 year old man like there is in a 1 month old embryo. Regardless, not all life is sacred, and those without power or voice shall be muted and oppressed.

What I personally oppose is the feeling in this thread that a father has NO say in the right whether a child should be born or aborted. He, if he is truly a complete human being, has just as much say as the woman. Man and woman are equal counterparts in the venture that is creating a new life. Rapists, dead-beats and the like do not count, for they do are not a true part of humanity if they take human life for granted in any way.

It is because such that I believe a father should have an equal say along with the mother in such difficult decisions.

Abortion is terrible, but it is as necessary as forgiveness in a world with humans. For to err is to be human. And such are those that populate this planet.

[The Heretic Azazel]

Originally posted by: masamuneehs
Heretic, just because someone brings in their religious/moral ideals to this argument does not make their points any less valid than you agnostic/heretical views.

There are different views than mine? What?

Who says I'm an agnostic or a heretic anyway...I was just having fun with the lad!

[Carnage]

Originally posted by: AssertnFailure

Originally posted by: God#2

Originally posted by: Xollence
Does it matter who's fault it is? How does the baby's life differ in the two situations? The baby's value isn't any less because the mother got raped.

Ok, I guess I didnt take enough consideration of the baby. But then that creates the problem where people can just go around having sex withou a worry because they can just abort the baby.

You like to bring up this concept that people going around having sex is a bad thing. You've done this in another thread, yet I'm still not sure why.

Really? Which thread? Well, its not so much sex, but more the fact tat she could just abort a child everytime the lady gets pregnant which doesnt just seem right (Im gonna have to think up a good reason later). And Im not against sex. I go in the Onepiece/Bleach Babes thread.[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

Oh, and also,

1.) Im not christian ( Though I know Heretic was just kidding of course)
2.) Im not religious, infact, Im sort of against how much influence religions have on people. It very often leads many people to commit many stupid acts. Infact, many wars are fought and have been fought because of relgion. Change that, most wars. Dont get, me wrong, I have my own beliefs, and I believe in god. But People should come up with some of their own ideas and follow what makes sense, instead of blindly following the faith they were born into.

[Mae]

Since I'm bored, I'll put in my two cents. I'm with the people that say that an unborn child is not a part of the mother's body. Sure, it's dependent on it's mother's body, but it's got it's own unique DNA and potential. I'm actually kinda torn on the whole issue of abortion though.

Now, most people believe that a newborn child is the moral equivalent of any other human being. Killing one is considered immoral. But what's the difference between a child two days before it's born compared to two days later? Nothing really, just where it's located. Essentually the same creature. How about two weeks? Again, a child born two weeks early does just fine. The same with a month early, no problems. Two months early? They don't do as well, but can survive with support and grow up normally. As technology progresses younger children will be able to survive independently of their mothers. So where do we draw the line? When the brain develops? When the heart starts beating? It seems to me like any distinction we make woud be arbitrary, and I don't like guessing about something like this. So although I see that calling a ball of cells equivalent to a human being doesn't make a lot of sense, well, they don't stay balls of cells for long, and really the whole idea of abortion leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Edit: And it's cool that we can have some kind of decent conversation about this without being at each other's throats.

[Uchiha Barles]

Yeah. I'm actually quite impressed that three pages of this included mostly intelligent posts and not a single instance of real flaming. Is the gotwoot community maturing?

edit: This will be the only post of this sort I promise.

[Kraco]

Here's actually an interesting Map of abortion laws.

Mae, aren't abortions to babies old enough to live outside of the mother quite rare indeed? I don't think such operations are performed regularly. In fact, I wonder if they are even legit. In that sense your point loses some relevance points and gains some hypothesis points...

[milfhunter]

Originally posted by: Uchiha Barles
I'm actually quite impressed that three pages of this included mostly intelligent posts and not a single instance of real flaming.

Yeah, it's awesome. There's a lot of that going on in the NY Transit Strike thread too. You'd love the maturity in there.

First off, I don't support abortion (for the contribution). However, I think it would've been better for the world if Chaoskiddo's parents had aborted him, or straight up miscarried him during their frenzied opium smoking marathons. It's too bad that they couldn't resist participating in any kind of sexual intercourse in the first place. I mean, they could've just done oral and then Chaoskiddo would be nothing more than a bad after taste in his mother's opium smoking mouth. Do you have any other explanation aside from the consumption of drugs as to why Chaoskiddo looks like a 10 year old? Scientists need to start cracking on an incubator made for people who look half their age. Better yet, maybe his opium smoking father should've just fucked his mother's opium smoking ass and then he could've just been shat out like the little shit that he is. Oh well, at least he's alive to provide fodder for thought.

[masamuneehs]

^^^damnit milfhunter. just after people started noticing that this subject has been handled well and that nobody has flamed anyone else, you come along.

i was quite sure that blatant flaming was a violation of forum rules. too bad i'm not a mod...

let's hold the tongue in cheek for the rest of this argument shall we?

@ Kraco. Thanks for the overview of abortion laws in different nations. I've been looking for a good, indepth time line of abortion policy, but all of them are country specific... I guess I'll just start posting timelines and actual text of laws if people would find it helpful.

And in reponse to an earlier question:

While democracy does allow for each individual to vote and act according to their self interest, I still don't think that any one group's moral/religious ideals should be imposed on law over anyone else's. Why? Because then the group that is forced to abide by those moral/religious ideals have then been robbed of their ability to vote and act according to their personal ideals and interests. I can say what I think. I can argue with others. Heck, I can even go out there and try to change lots of people's minds through commercials, billboards or whatever. I can even work towards getting the law changed to favor my interests. However, the law should not be bent to accomadate the majority. Even if 51% of Americans came voted on a referrendum and voted for abortion to be outlawed, it would still go against democratic values. If 51% voted that only Christians could vote in elections, or that criminals could do religious prayer in place of community service, it would be the same infringement.

I already know people won't agree with me.

[milfhunter]

Originally posted by: masamuneehs
Even if 51% of Americans came voted on a referrendum and voted for abortion to be outlawed, it would still go against democratic values.

Yeah, um, I don't know what public school you went to in NYC, but democracy is the rule of the majority. Read the Constitution, ok? USA is a republic, not a democracy.

If this country was a democracy, then we'd all be caucasian orthodox methodists and at the mercy of southerners with below average IQs. Read some books.

EDIT: If the United States of America was a democracy, then we'd all be at the mercy of illiterate southerners with severely below average IQs.

[masamuneehs]

Originally posted by: milfhunter

Originally posted by: masamuneehs
Even if 51% of Americans came voted on a referrendum and voted for abortion to be outlawed, it would still go against democratic values.

Yeah, um, I don't know what public school you went to in NYC, but democracy is the rule of the majority. Read the Constitution, ok? USA is a republic, not a democracy.

If this country was a democracy, then we'd all be caucasian orthodox methodists and at the mercy of southerners with below average IQs. Read some books.

EDIT: If the United States of America was a democracy, then we'd all be at the mercy of illiterate southerners with severely below average IQs.

Article III.
Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

However
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment V
No person shall...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

You need not remind me what the Constitution and Amendments say. And, if you read them you will find that nowhere does a majority of the people directly create or alter laws. Their elected officials, elected by a majority (sometimes not even a majority), can make laws. The Judiciary can repeal, reinstate or void laws.

When I was speaking of 'democratic values', i could see how people might reject that statement. My idea of what values our government stands for are not the same as anyone elses. A value, among other things, is worth in importance to the possessor of that value. It can also be a principle, standard, or quality that one considers desirable. I don't believe 'democratic values' under those definitions are STRICTLY declared in any law or document. Otherwise it would be against the law for me to disagree with you [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif[/img]

[el_boss]

Originally posted by: milfhunter
If the United States of America was a democracy, then we'd all be at the mercy of illiterate southerners with severely below average IQs.

Isn't this how it is now? I mean the fact that it's the state elections that count and not the total votes of the entire population. I agree that America isn't really a democracy. Since there is basically only two parties to vote for and the "losing" side doesn't get represented.

[Kraco]

I don't think democracy works in such a pure way anywhere, not even in the clockwork Switzerland. Everywhere people elect representatives who actually wield the power. And they are assumed to, and usually also do, know what they are doing. If every law was based on public referendum hardly anything would be done. That's why 51% of the eligible voters can't make stupid laws pass. They can vote for stupid candidates, but often those candidates in office aren't suddenly so stupid anymore, or at least they don't do so much damage even if they remain stupid.

[milfhunter]

Originally posted by: el_boss
Isn't this how it is now? I mean the fact that it's the state elections that count and not the total votes of the entire population.

Yep, I'm glad someone finally caught the irony in it all. Even more ironic is that someone from Sweden caught it. The best I can do is lead a camel to the water; I can't make the camel drink. So yeah, I'm glad you caught on. I said we would be at the mercy of an illiterate southerner with severely below average IQ, and lo and behold, George W. Bush is President of the United States. That should redefine "tongue in cheek" for masamuneehs.

Originally posted by: el_boss
I agree that America isn't really a democracy. Since there is basically only two parties to vote for and the "losing" side doesn't get represented.

I think that this is where we get a little bit confused though. If the losing side doesn't get represented, then it is a democracy (rule of the majority). What contributes to the confusion is that the popular vote is a "democratic value". Other than the abolishment of slavery, this confusion is what probably led to the Civil War the most. It's why we had the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers before we had the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In my opinion, George W. Bush has been making us regret the Union ever since 2000. New York State would be a lot better off if it didn't have to pay the most in tax dollars of any of the states for the development of New Mexico, Arizona, and now the re-development of Louisiana ... states that would just as well secede and become rivals of New York. This is why Abraham Lincoln is the most overhyped President ever.

But there isn't only two parties to vote for. Even though Encyclopedia Britannica says that the government here is a two-party system, they're full of shit and should lose all publishing rights. You don't even need to be associated with the two largest political parties to become an elected representative, much less the President of the United States. Take a look at Ross Perot. He ran for President against the Democrats and Republicans. But it's extremely hard to do what Ross Perot did without the campaign funding of a major political party, which is why Ross Perot's being a billionaire helped him out a lot. Take a look at the state of Vermont, also. That state has two elected officials who don't belong to any political party whatsoever. One is a Representative and one is a Senator. Interestingly enough, Vermont is a northern state. I hate southerners. It's just too bad that Texas has all the hot sluts and California has all the hot rich sluts.

Originally posted by: masamuneehs
It can also be a principle, standard, or quality that one considers desirable.

Do you desire to be a caucasian orthodox methodist Christian?

Originally posted by: Kraco
I don't think democracy works in such a pure way anywhere

I don't think so either. I'd go further by stating the obvious that a pure Republic never existed in USA.

[Carnage]

Originally posted by: el_boss

Originally posted by: milfhunter
If the United States of America was a democracy, then we'd all be at the mercy of illiterate southerners with severely below average IQs.

Isn't this how it is now?

Dam, You beat me to it. Oh well. Anyway, democracy is never good nowadays because everybody is just so dumb. And Republics dont work either, I mean look at our country! (U.S.A)

[el_boss]

Originally posted by: milfhunter

Originally posted by: el_boss
I agree that America isn't really a democracy. Since there is basically only two parties to vote for and the "losing" side doesn't get represented.

I think that this is where we get a little bit confused though. If the losing side doesn't get represented, then it is a democracy (rule of the majority).

Yes basically that is democracy, what I meant though was that a huge part of the population will have wasted their vote since the losing party gets no influence. In sweden there is a quite different system. Here every vote actually counts, and the results are based on the entire nations votes. If a party gets at least 4% support from the votes, they will get represented in the government and they will have some influence.

Originally posted by: milfhunterBut there isn't only two parties to vote for. Even though Encyclopedia Britannica says that the government here is a two-party system, they're full of shit and should lose all publishing rights.

I think everyone knows that there are more parties than reblicans and democrats in america. But the fact remains that these two parties get like 99% of the votes or something like that. There will probably be a long time before a third party will enter the scene, and compete equally with the republicans and the democrats.