Jump to content

Recommended Posts

.............

Well...

I am pro-choice. Why should someone else decide for you whether you keep your baby or not? It's not their body, it's not their opinion, heck, it may not even be the same religion.

 

Plus, there's a separation of church and state. A large portion of the pro-life side is due to religious reasons. Therefore, it should be ignored.

 

Ethical issues? Again, it's not your body. Forcing your opinions on others is wrong. Period.

 

And that's my view. Anything I missed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I concur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I sort of float down the middle. My niece wouldn't be here if it wasn't for my brother fighting so hard to keep his GF at the time from having an abortion. She's the most immature 22 year old I've seen(she was 18 at the time). When she said she wanted an abortion we pretty much lost it. My brother was a train wreck for about 6 weeks. She shouldn't be able to go off and get one on her own like that and completely exclude a father from it.

 

She wanted an abortion for herself, my brother didn't want his child put away for such selfish reasons and I wouldn't either. He told her outright to have it and if she didn't want anything to do with her he would take all the responsibility from her and raise her himself.

 

If it was pro-choice then why should my brother not get a say in the matter when she could run off and have an abortion? There are other ways rather than that manner to not have the responsibility of raising a child.

---

Up until a certain point I agree that abortion should be allowed but only if both the mother and the father consent and the mother is old enough to understand the severity of the situation (at least 18) otherwise her guardians would have to consent. If they both consent and it isn't past that time period then it most certainly is their choice. But only under those circumstances.

 

 

If a woman is raped she should be given the right to an abortion at all costs and she has plenty of time to get one before that time period passes. Those catholic hospitals not giving morning after pills should have their asses kicked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand where you and your brother is coming from but I think that you might be forgetting one big part. If the woman does not want a baby in her womb for 9 months, why should she have to? Why does the baby, which is scientifically a parasite until birth, have the right to be in the womans body?

 

If your brother and his gf were in a long commited relationship than I really think that her wanting an abortion was an assholish thing to do, but I still believe it should be her right to get one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with Cannon. Both parties should agree to the abortion not just a female. It should probably be handled in a manner similar to divorce. In the case of rape then of course the female should be eligible to an abortion, perhaps even free of cost. It really pisses me off when pro-lifers say that it is the responsibility and fault of the woman in the case of rape. I really can't take a person seriously who honestly believes that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand where you and your brother is coming from but I think that you might be forgetting one big part. If the woman does not want a baby in her womb for 9 months, why should she have to? Why does the baby, which is scientifically a parasite until birth, have the right to be in the womans body?

 

If your brother and his gf were in a long committed relationship than I really think that her wanting an abortion was an assholish thing to do, but I still believe it should be her right to get one.

 

 

So the parallel must be true?

 

If the father wants the mother to have an abortion that she doesn't want then it is his right to force her to get one. Because it's his wallet. If she can have an abortion without male consent then why does child support exist?

 

Bullshit.

 

Just because she carries the baby doesn't make the child any less his than hers. Men aren't seahorses.

Want pro-choice? Don't have unprotected sex. If you do and you don't want the baby it should be at the consent of both parties.

 

scientifically a parasite until birth

Show me where an 8 month old baby in a womb is a parasite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*sigh* This is a topic I really don't like getting into. Overall, I'm against abortion, but I hate being viewed in the same group that many people think of as pro-life. Above everything, I try to promote responsibility, kindness, and overall good-will. Many people who claim to be pro-life for religious reasons are so totally hypocritical when it comes to their beliefs and faith. I'll never understand someone who can murder an abortion doctor, or who can yell and jeer at a young woman absolutely terrified because she thinks abortion is her only option. And what I hate even more is that these are the people many think of when they hear the word "Christian." Religious fanatics make me sick, and this is one of the places where they most stand out (the other being the homosexuality topic). So before I actually give my opinion, here's the one thing that I have to say to the fanatics, taken straight from the book which should be the basis of their faith:

 

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander." 1 Peter, ch. 3, verse 15-16.

 

So, now that I've got that out of the way, as I said I'm generally against abortion. The one major exception, as has already been mentioned, is rape. I fully support anyone having to face that horrible reality, and I support anything that could ease that burden. In other cases, however, I think abortion shouldn't be necessary; anyone who gets pregnant outside of rape knows the risk. It's as the old saying goes, "if you play with fire, you're going to get burned." Sex may be the most wonderful experience that mankind can have, but it also has consequences. We live in a society which shuns consequences, and leans heavily toward the "do what feels good" mentally. That's not healthy for anyone, and I can't promote it. Back when I was in high school, I overheard another class having a discussion on this topic, and one guy said (excuse the somewhat crude remark) "If you're responsible enough to open your legs, you should be responsible enough to deal with a kid." And I agree; if society were as it should be, there should be no need for abortions. The only people getting pregnant should be the those prepared to deal with a possible child. And when I say that, I don't just mean the woman; no man should be exempt from the responsibility of taking care of any child he fathers. I know the physical burden will always be on the woman, but the man should also be responsible for the wellbeing of that child.

 

Sadly, society is not the way it should be, so the need for abortion or some other form of 'child handling,' for lack of a better word, is needed. Far too many people get pregnant when they are not prepared to deal with a child, and again I refer to both the man and the woman. And while I still believe completely that they should shoulder the responsibility for that pregnancy, there is another, far more important matter to consider: the child. From the moment that the egg and sperm meet, the baby is a separate, living creature. It is a completely unique life, just as much as any other human is. Really, the decision to have an abortion is the decision to kill a baby; a living, human baby. So again, I really don't like abortion... but yeah, back to the topic of the child itself. If the parents are not ready to handle a child, the one who suffers the most will be the baby. Orphanages and foster homes are already pushed to handling more kids than they really can, and it will only hurt the children to force them to take more. So denying abortions to parents who cannot handle a child will only hurt that child. And as much as I believe the parents should be responsible, I put the child's wellbeing over the responsibility of the parents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm... another problem with the abortion controversy is the idea of the fetus being alive the second the sperm makes contact with the egg. I really don't see how anything such as a blastocyst, a mere collection of primordial undifferentiated cells smaller than a single pixel on the monitor you're staring at, counts as something as valuable as human life. Even after the first three weeks the fetus is nothing but a collection of cells being arranged into the right places and protein still being collected within the area of the uterus. Aborting that would be about the same thing as cutting down a tree. You are killing a living thing, however it has no conscience, does not feel any pain, has no remorse over it's death, and had no dreams to accomplish in its life. Of course what separates an early fetus from a plant is its human potential. It may not be one yet, but it will someday be a living, breathing, human being who is able to feel pleasure, joy, anger, sadness, intrigue, curiosity, love, and of course pain. But until then, its just a collection of cells being formed.

 

In fact, sensory nerves don't even form until the 5th week, and the fetus does not feel anything (although this is still under research) until the 7th week. And even then its still unconscious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only time I can see abortion being an option is if the woman was raped other than that if you are grown enough to have sex then you must accept the possibility that you can get pregnant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AHEM!

Show me where an 8 month old baby in a womb is a parasite.

A fetus is a parasite until birth. Parasites are defined as having a relationship beneficial to the parasite and harmful to the host. As a fetus, while developing in the womb, leeches nutrients from the "host", it's mother, forces the immune system to compromise itself (due to it needing the immune system to be suppressed because the fetus is a foreign body, and would be attacked if the immune system was left alone), to my knowledge, being pregnant isn't one of the most pleasurable experiences, if the baby experiences complications, it forces the "host", which is the mother, to experience complications as well. E.g. If the baby dies in the womb, it can kill the mother as well. While not necessarily physiological, it also makes it more difficult for the mother to have a job in many cases. Plus, there's obviously quite a lot of pain and stress as well.

 

It's not a mutual relationship because only the fetus benefits from the relationship.

It's not a commensal relationship because the mother isn't unaffected by the relationship.

Therefore, it's a parasitic relationship. The fetus benefits, while the mother does not benefit and the relationship is detrimental to her. So unborn babies are parasites. Of course, by benefit, I mean physically. Emotionally doesn't count in this sort of thing, because these relationships are determined by "fitness". The fetus is allowed to survive, or made "more fit", by leeching off of the mother, who is made less "fit", which makes survival for her more difficult.

 

Even outside of the wild, it makes life more difficult for the mother.

----

Okay, now that that is over with...

 

The woman has to carry a child for 9 months. While the father is equally responsible for the child's existance, he isn't forced to deal with the consequences that come with the child. Nothing is making him stay and help with it, and there are a lot of times in which the father doesn't stay and accept his responsibilities on the matter because he doesn't have to. And that is simply sad.

I do agree that getting an abortion must be a joint decision if both partners are together. It should not be a one-sided thing.

 

HOWEVER! Abortion shouldn't just be there as something for extreme cases. Just because there are "ethical issues" (which means absolutely nothing, as morals and ethics differ from person to person, and therefore it's, again, one person forcing their opinion on someone else, although there are basic morals that should apply to everybody) doesn't mean it shouldn't be made an option.

 

If ethical issues were that important, then there'd be no wars, guns, tobacco products, corrupt governments, use of torture to obtain information, no cruelty, no weapons, no racism, no sexism, no poverty, and many other things.

 

Yes, I know people protest ALL of those things. But if they were successful, then this world would be a wonderful place to live in for everyone. But abortion, with its "ethical issues" that are near infinitesimal compared to the things mentioned above, has had such a big stink made about it that it's become a legal issue.

 

Personally, I'm fine with someone not agreeing with abortion or not liking it. However, just because you don't like it doesn't mean that no one should be given that option. IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN IT.

 

If a mother is pregnant and is not ready for the baby, or is not able to support the baby, or is raped, or the baby's quality of life would be poor-to-terrible (due to mental retardation or structural deformation or something similar), or if the mother is too young, or if it would not be able to live in a good household, or even if the mother simply does not want the baby, the option to get an abortion should always be available to her.

 

Why can't she have that option available? Why should someone who doesn't understand her situation, who lives far away from her, who doesn't even know she exists, have the ability to deny that right to her simply because they personally believe that it's "wrong", or because they believe that it's her "responsibility" to the child to take care of it no matter the circumstances of the pregnancy?

 

Hell, why should the option only be available in extreme circumstances such as rape? Why can't it be available to the mother no matter what the circumstance? Why should anyone except the parents of the child in question have any say in the matter?

 

The whole pro-life thing is merely a show of attempting to shove one's opinion down someone else's throat. Frankly, they should stop bitching about abortion and stem cell research and start protesting about more important matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN IT.

 

You think that situation fits my brother?

 

Why can't it be available to the mother no matter what the circumstance?

 

A child in the womb is not an insect. Dudemaster, if you were to express an opinion that strongly in the presence of my brother he'd, for lack of a better phrase, kick your ass. Things are different when it's happening to you. A baby has no say in the matter. It can't speak for itself. A half-life is still a life.

 

What if you were the child and your mother wanted an abortion on you?

 

 

 

---

 

For my sake as well as Dude's I'm going to stop participating in this topic before I let personal feelings cloud my better judgment.

 

Jayon, if you see that this gets out of hand spare no measure in locking or deleting the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You got it, Chris. I've got no problem with people speaking their opinions, even if I disagree with those opinions, but I know how a heated topic like this one can get out of hand. I'll keep an eye on things and make sure nothing goes out of line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You got it, Chris. I've got no problem with people speaking their opinions, even if I disagree with those opinions, but I know how a heated topic like this one can get out of hand. I'll keep an eye on things and make sure nothing goes out of line.

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cannon, I do agree that both parents should have a say in it. Also, the "IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN IT." was not directed at you or anyone in the topic, it was more of a vent of annoyance. You see, I'm more annoyed about the whole "pro-life" thing. I don't mind if someone is against abortion. But, as I said, if you do not like the idea of something, you aren't obligated to partake in it, are you? But, why should others not have that option?

 

And remember, as SEELE said, during the time period in which it is possible to get an abortion, the fetus has about the same amount of consciousness as the average bacterium. It has no mind that could care about whether it's aborted or not. But, why should your brother kick my ass for having the opinion that the option should be available to all mothers, no matter the circumstance? Doesn't mean I'm criticizing your brother's choice. In fact, I agree with it. Both parents should discuss the matter at first, and they should make the decision together. However, as I said, the option should always be available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have nothing wrong with anyone expressing their opinion. It's important that you know however that if you were to maintain such a strong opinion as you did throughout that post in the presence of someone who has undergone a situation like my brother's you'll bring up a fair bit of painful memories and evoke a reaction. In the case of my brother he would lose his cool and someone would have to drag him off of you. Certain topics are more sensitive than others especially those that deal with small children. I don't want to log on here one day and see a topic along the lines of you having been beaten up by someone for saying something to them. Fights have started for far more trivial things.

 

They say your brain isn't fully developed until you are in your mid 20s. My niece's mother loves her daughter. I'm positive that if she could undo those thoughts she would. You aren't at your best thinking when you're afraid and your life is going to change so much. I agree that it should be allowed but not past a point and under those conditions. Even so the matter is still a very touchy one.

 

If you wish to discuss this with me any further Dudemaster you may do so in a pm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I had some points to make, but they were directed at Cannon so I don't really think they matter anymore. If you guys still want me to put them up here I will. Also, this topic needs to chill, I haven't seen this type of arguement since the debate about the Brawl tournies ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Chris here, and since I dislike these topics, I prefer to leave it like that.

 

I think an abortion should be made if both parents agree and ONLY if both agree. The baby wouldn't be there if it weren't for the father so enough with the feminism. Raped women should be able to get an abortion without second thoughts.

 

Babies are not parasites because parasites kill their hosts while a baby and its mother are especially designed to endure together. That's the hole point of the uterus you know? It's not like God decided that babies were to suck on their mothers and weaken her until death is inevitable, and then they are born. We're not wasps nor toads.

 

Be careful with the words you use, because even though I get what you mean by calling a baby a 'parasite', they're not nearly one. Parasites feed on their host, babies are accommodated by their mothers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They also aren't parasites because, in a sense, both creatures benefit. The baby benefits physically, and the mother and father emotionally I suppose. Ah, I'm just rambling.

 

I did see somewhere saying the most law makers are agreeing to making abortion illegal past the 7th or 8th week or something like that. I can't remember where I found it but it seems like a reasonable decision to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A parasite doesn't have to kill its host. In fact, many parasites don't. Fleas or mosquitoes for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's different, they're exoparasites. Exoparasites rarely kill their host (with the 'rarely' being namely those plants that stick to the barks of trees). A baby is inside, like an endoparasite, and endoparasites do kill their hosts. Babies don't kill their mothers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can, though. The mother just conveniently ejects the baby out of her body. If it wasn't removed from her body it would eventually kill her due to growing bigger or various other complications. A fetus is merely an endoparasite that is naturally forced out so that it doesn't kill the mother. ...Usually, anyway. Sometimes it does. Any parasite left to its own devices will kill the host. Nature just made sure that babies don't. Usually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more time Dudemaster, a parasite feasts upon an unprotected and victimized host. Mothers adapt their bodied to babies so that they fit perfectly, even taking into account the time the baby will be in there. Women are made to have babies and babies are meant to be given birth by women, it's a perfectly balanced relationship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A parasite is merely the being who is gaining from a parasitic relationship. The mother is neither benefiting physically, nor is she unaffected by the relationship. The only other option left is a parasitic relationship. Just because the fetus doesn't kill its mother doesn't make it any less of a parasite, nor does the fact that nature made it that way.

 

I'm talking about symbiotic relationships, and technically the relationship is parasitic. Also...

 

A parasitoid is an organism that spends a significant portion of its life history attached to or within a single host organism which it ultimately kills (and often consumes) in the process.

 

In a typical parasitic relationship, the parasite and host live side by side without lethal damage to the host. Typically, the parasite takes enough nutrients to thrive without preventing the host from reproducing.

 

 

True parasites don't intentionally kill their host. Why? Because that's an incredibly stupid thing for them to do, as they require the host to be alive so that they can reproduce and survive. If the host dies and the parasites don't get to a new one fast enough, they all die too.

 

A parasitoid kills its host. Why? Because it doesn't need the host to reproduce, only to grow to the stage of reproduction. Once the host has fulfilled its task, it's tossed aside and the parasitoid goes into the stage of reproduction.

 

 

A fetus is a true parasite, as it takes nutrients from the mother and doesn't give anything back to the mother at all. Along with surpressing the immune system and various other things. The mother gains nothing from being pregnant nor is she unaffected by it. Therefore it's a parasite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The mother gains nothing from being pregnant...

 

SHE GETS A BABY, YOU MONSTER! D=<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, it helps the species. But does it help the mother? Not 'till it's old enough to be self-sufficient, and god knows how long that takes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×