Abortion

[Wenty]

Thought i'd bring morality back into this forum and this was the first one i could think of.

Views...

There is a great article by an thomson i think her name is called 'in defence of abortion'. It basically said, through weird analogies, that you have no moral obligation to go through with the birth. You might ought to do it but you have a right not to. I think thats it...

[RedAnarchist]

In my opinion, abortion should be legal for all pregnant women up to the last few days of the pregnancy before a foetus cannot be aborted.

It should be entirely the woman's own decision.

[cubist]

this is the one thread i hate posting, it should be legal as its a matter of choice, but i don't agree with abortion i think its wrong but so is exploiting the poor and thats very legal

[monkeydust]

I don't agree with abortion in all cases, nevertheless, I don't support the 'Pro-Life' cranks either.

Aside from my personal morals, I believe it should be legal. This is largely because I believe that, legal or not, abortions will happen, if it is outlawed, the practice will only become more dangerous.

[Retro]

I believe abortion is wrong unless it is through an act that the female had no choice in such as rape, etc.

If a woman goes through the act of sex, she has subcounsiously signed a contract stating that she understands the risks involved.

If we could take back all our mistakes, life would be a bit different, wouldn't it?

Think if people could trade in bad cars, take back their bad investments, take backs lies, anything, the skys the limit. We'd have utopia pretty much.

We make mistakes, and our first fault is not accepting them and learning from them.

Sorry if i sound harsh, but im a strong beleiver in "every action there is a reaction."

[cubist]

retro i like your style i agree with you if you see previous threads on this. my reasons are more becuase i am adopted from one of those 15 year old mum scenarios and would rather see that happen tha abortion but at the same time to say you must live with it when you don't want it is harsh. a mother with a child she doesn't want is a sorry state

[redstar2000]

If a woman goes through the act of sex, she has subconsciously signed a contract stating that she understands the risks involved.

Sorry, "subconscious contracts" don't count. The real impact of your sentiment is that no woman should ever have sex unless she consciously wishes to become pregnant and have a child...which would mean that if she wished to enjoy a normal sex life and not have children, she would have to submit to sterilization -- fairly serious surgery for a woman and not cheap either.


If we could take back all our mistakes, life would be a bit different, wouldn't it?

Yes it would...so we take back as many as we can. We return the defective product to the manufacturer for repair or replacement. We split up with the partner that has proven to be a poor choice. We quit the job that turned out to be a shithole. We stop reading the book that turned out to be boring.

Is there any reason not to terminate a "mistaken" pregnancy?


We make mistakes, and our first fault is not accepting them and learning from them.

Why such passivity? If you are driving in an unfamiliar locale and discover you've taken the wrong road, do you just keep going? Of course not. You find a place where you can safely turn around and return to the point where you made the wrong turn.

There's no reason to "accept" a correctable mistake.

And further, there's no reason that you can't "learn from" a mistake even though it has been corrected. If the error was really yours, then you can take precautionary measures on the next occasion that the matter arises. On your next drive to an unfamiliar area, stop and pick up a map first.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Retro]

Sorry, "subconscious contracts" don't count. The real impact of your sentiment is that no woman should ever have sex unless she consciously wishes to become pregnant and have a child...which would mean that if she wished to enjoy a normal sex life and not have children, she would have to submit to sterilization -- fairly serious surgery for a woman and not cheap either.


Well it depends on your normal concept of sex life, sure some people are fairly active than others. It depends on your views of religion, morals, etc. To myself i believe a normal sex life, is one in which you are ready for the consequences of your actions. However everyone has their own points. :D

But we're supporting people for making mistakes. "Here's an abortion you crazy kid, don't do it again!" ::slap on hand:: It's as if we don't care.

If people are going to have sex, they should prepare themselves, there are many forms of protection, some greater than others. And if their protection does not work...we'll thats a chance they must take.

Let's put it this way: You go into battle wearing kevlar armor. You are going into battle here, you know there is a chance you are going to die, even if you don't admit it, you know it's may happen in your mind. We'll what if your armor fails, and you are shot? You can't just take back the bullet, and save your life. You knew it was coming, and your forced to accept it. Now of course you can go to the doctor and hopefully he will save you, but thats not always the case.

Sorry for the odd analogy.



Is there any reason not to terminate a "mistaken" pregnancy?

You need to elaborate a bit more on your definition of a mistaken pregnancy for me. Pregnancies are on a bit higher level of mistake then the examples you we're giving me.


And further, there's no reason that you can't "learn from" a mistake even though it has been corrected. If the error was really yours, then you can take precautionary measures on the next occasion that the matter arises. On your next drive to an unfamiliar area, stop and pick up a map first.

This is true, however in this world, these "mistakes" are being made multiple times by many of the same people! You are stating it's ok just to let them keep messing up and not learning.

In the case of this, the real way to make a person actually learn, is to have them accept their mistake. You learn much more from a mistake you've accepted, then one that you wen't back, corrected, and assumed you have that same fall-back method later on.

[LSD]

But we're supporting people for making mistakes. "Here's an abortion you crazy kid, don't do it again!" ::slap on hand:: It's as if we don't care.

Your argument is very strange. We shouldn't help people in trouble because it might seem that we "don't care"?

Well, I can honestly say I don't!

I have no right to tell you to have an abortion or not. We want a society that doesn't intrude on such levels, we want a society that, as you put it, "doesn't care" about such things.


If people are going to have sex, they should prepare themselves, there are many forms of protection, some greater than others. And if their protection does not work...we'll thats a chance they must take.

Why?

You keep stating that people must "take responsibility" and must "take chances" as if it is a goal in and of itself.

We take chances when we have to, not to make some sort of empty moral stand. If there is a way to end an unwanted pregnancy, than that is a chance that we do not have to take.


Let's put it this way: You go into battle wearing kevlar armor. You are going into battle here, you know there is a chance you are going to die, even if you don't admit it, you know it's may happen in your mind. We'll what if your armor fails, and you are shot? You can't just take back the bullet, and save your life. You knew it was coming, and your forced to accept it. Now of course you can go to the doctor and hopefully he will save you, but thats not always the case.

Sorry for the odd analogy.

That is indeed an odd analogy.

What if there was a way that you could "take back the bullet", would you suggest we not use it because then the soldiers wouldn't be "taking responsibility"?

Because that's the true analogy here. There is a way to end the pregnancy, you just don't want to let people use it.


You need to elaborate a bit more on your definition of a mistaken pregnancy for me. Pregnancies are on a bit higher level of mistake then the examples you we're giving me.

Yes and no.

Depends on the individual, which is why it needs to be an individual choice. To you it might be more important, it might not to others.


This is true, however in this world, these "mistakes" are being made multiple times by many of the same people! You are stating it's ok just to let them keep messing up and not learning.

Of course they're learning!

Are you saying that the only way someone learns is if they suffer the absolute full extent worst consequence?

So if I trip, you won't help me up because otherwise I "won't learn"?


In the case of this, the real way to make a person actually learn, is to have them accept their mistake. You learn much more from a mistake you've accepted, then one that you wen't back, corrected, and assumed you have that same fall-back method later on.


This has been the point you've made several times, but it's predicated on this strange idea that people shouldn't be allowed to correct their mistakes.

If I stay out in the cold too long and get sick, I've made a mistake, but shouldn't I see a doctor? If I do though, I'll be treated, probably recover quickly. I won't "take responsibility", I won't "accept my mistake", and I'll "assume I have that same fall-back method later on."

Maybe we should ban all medical procedures if the patient can't show they weren't "responsible" for their illness.

[iloveatomickitten]

Is a foetus something that you could consider "human" and as a result give rights? Though it has the ability to feel pain it is still incapable of thought and has no concept of death or life. To deny it life as an atheist equates to nothing other than emotional pain. What right does the feotus have to its mother body?

[redstar2000]

In the case of this, the real way to make a person actually learn, is to have them accept their mistake.

This is one of the oddest pedagogical theories I've ever come across. In fact, it suggests: pain = real learning.

It also suggests that we have some kind of obligation to "make" people "learn"...presumably without regard to their own desires in the matter.

I think it is a bizarre theory, myself.


...however in this world, these "mistakes" are being made multiple times by many of the same people! You are stating it's ok just to let them keep messing up and not learning.

Well, yes. What difference does it make to me if you get lost every time you get behind the wheel? At most, I might refuse any rides you might offer me...since I have better things to do with my time than ride around with some dummy who doesn't know what a map is. Or, I might bring a map with me...because I already know that you always get lost.

Otherwise, who cares? It's your problem, not mine. If some poor woman has 200 abortions throughout her fertile years...isn't that her business?


You need to elaborate a bit more on your definition of a mistaken pregnancy for me. Pregnancies are on a bit higher level of mistake then the examples you were giving me.

A "mistaken" pregnancy is any pregnancy that is unwanted by the woman in question...for any reason.

I don't see it as "higher" or "lower" than any other kind of mistake that can be readily corrected.

And I don't see why you do.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Wenty]

don't you think that the fact that abortion is even an ethical question doesn't make it as clear cut as right and wrong.

If i killed an innocent man walking down the street, the vast majority of people aren't going to be debating whether it was right or wrong for me to do that they would just say its wrong.

[revoevo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 02:53 AM

If a woman goes through the act of sex, she has subconsciously signed a contract stating that she understands the risks involved.

Sorry, "subconscious contracts" don't count. The real impact of your sentiment is that no woman should ever have sex unless she consciously wishes to become pregnant and have a child...which would mean that if she wished to enjoy a normal sex life and not have children, she would have to submit to sterilization -- fairly serious surgery for a woman and not cheap either.


If we could take back all our mistakes, life would be a bit different, wouldn't it?

Yes it would...so we take back as many as we can. We return the defective product to the manufacturer for repair or replacement. We split up with the partner that has proven to be a poor choice. We quit the job that turned out to be a shithole. We stop reading the book that turned out to be boring.

Is there any reason not to terminate a "mistaken" pregnancy?


We make mistakes, and our first fault is not accepting them and learning from them.

Why such passivity? If you are driving in an unfamiliar locale and discover you've taken the wrong road, do you just keep going? Of course not. You find a place where you can safely turn around and return to the point where you made the wrong turn.

There's no reason to "accept" a correctable mistake.

And further, there's no reason that you can't "learn from" a mistake even though it has been corrected. If the error was really yours, then you can take precautionary measures on the next occasion that the matter arises. On your next drive to an unfamiliar area, stop and pick up a map first.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas
redstar, I agree with you on most levels, but I don't agree with you treating the issue as though it's some common mistake. It's easy enough to agree that mistakes that can be fixed, should be fixed. And I agree that the person making the mistake can still learn from it if they are allowed to correct it.

The problem is with an issue, or a mistake, as big as pregnancy, things aren't that black and white. For one thing, there are multiple ways to fix this mistake. For instance, adoption. There are plenty of circumstances under which I wouldn't expect a woman to carry a child to put it up for adoption, like rape, and (obviously) if it posed a threat to her health. And I think it should ultimately be her choice and no one else's. But the point is that there is an alternative solution to the problem, another way to fix the mistake. Unlike driving into an unfamilliar area without a map, you won't merely get lost and maybe miss an appointment or something, you've created what has the possibility to be a life. Though it is your choice in the end you can't look at it on the same scale as getting lost or losing your keys or any other everyday commonly made mistakes.

I think if you were to choose to have a "normal" sex life without protection (there are other alternatives to sterilization), you need to invest more into fixing your mistake. You could have used protection, that was an easy and cheap option, but you didn't. There IS a reason not to terminate a mistaken preganancy - it's not on the same level as returning a defective product or breaking up with a poor partner. Whether or not it was with the intention of creating a possible life, that is what sex does. By not "accepting" a correctable "mistake" (I don't like using this word, even if it's often true, it seems to mask the seriousness of the issue) you would be devauling life. I mean, if it's so easy to fix the "mistake" of creating a life, then wouldn't life essentially be devauled?

Now that I've said that, I'd like to make it clear I'm not a Pro-Lifer. True, I am morally opposed to abortion under most circumstances (the obvious, like rape, are not included) and I think there is a better alternative. But I am even more morally opposed to taking away a living woman's basic rights. If a person doesn't have the right to their own body, they don't have any rights. I believe that abortion should be legal, and safely available to all women. I just have a problem with mistaken pregnancy being compared to mistakes that are on an obviously different scale, morally and otherwise.

[Retro]

Thank you RedStar for pointing out the fallacies in my arguements, im somewhat new to debates and discussions, so i was equally waiting for you to step in and smack myself with a large stick.

Really when i said mistakes, i didnt mean for the term to come out as broad as it did. The term mistake for my post's concern just meant the act of accidently getting pregnant. Sorry if i came out saying all mistakes.

I do think that there are some mistakes that if we have the power, should be corrected. However, i just feel as if many people don't learn their lessons from abortions. I can't make them stop, its not my say. However my feelings on abortion are strong, and i wish that for the most part, people would not rely upon them as much as they do.

Hopefully no hard feelings sir. :D

[cubist]

redstar one issue i wish to raise, you say the woman would have to undergo sterilisation, what about contraception? unless of course the woman is a catholic but then leisurable sex is possible for a short period in every month.

[BuyOurEverything]

Let's put it this way: You go into battle wearing kevlar armor.

:lol: :lol:

Man, that had me laughing for a while, great visual.


Really when i said mistakes, i didnt mean for the term to come out as broad as it did. The term mistake for my post's concern just meant the act of accidently getting pregnant. Sorry if i came out saying all mistakes.

I do think that there are some mistakes that if we have the power, should be corrected. However, i just feel as if many people don't learn their lessons from abortions. I can't make them stop, its not my say. However my feelings on abortion are strong, and i wish that for the most part, people would not rely upon them as much as they do.


The main problem with your argument is that you're relying on the assumption that abortion is 'a bad thing' without elaborating. Also, you're blaming women for getting pregnant, something that is not their fault. Not only is it often a chance occurence and something that is beyond their control (ie. the condom breaks) but you're completely excusing the guy, who should be equally 'at fault,' by your logic.

[Guest1]

You're also ignoring one of humanity's greatest and oldest inventions: Alcohol

Anyways, to me someone opposing abortion because it is ending the beginnings of human life is like someone opposing masturbation.

Think of the millions of spermatozoa we men kill all the time.

Each of us is a miniature Hitler! You extinguishers of human life! Shame on you, shame!

Sorry, if you get to masturbate, or if you get to get smashed and sleep with a woman you realize later you shouldn't have, then she gets to abort, she gets to assume the asshole put on a condom.

[revoevo]

Anyways, to me someone opposing abortion because it is ending the beginnings of human life is like someone opposing masturbation.

Think of the millions of spermatozoa we men kill all the time.

Each of us is a miniature Hitler! You extinguishers of human life! Shame on you, shame!

Ha... :lol:

But was that first part directed at me? If so, I oppose it (morally) because I believe there are better ways to resolve the issue of unwanted pregnancy. I support a woman's choice to abort, but under many circumstances I believe it's better to carry the child and put it up for adoption.


Sorry, if you get to masturbate, or if you get to get smashed and sleep with a woman you realize later you shouldn't have, then she gets to abort, she gets to assume the asshole put on a condom.

Excuse me for sounding rather right-wing-absitnence-only-sex-educator, but isn't getting drunk and then getting pregnant a tiny bit irresponsible? And why does she get to assume he used a condom? Shouldn't she make sure he does?

Maybe I 'm not taking into account the affects of too much alcohol. But more likely it's that I believe you need to use alcohol responsibly. And if you don't you need to be prepared for the consequences.

If for some reason the woman has to abort the child, like if it's going to hurt her or has a good chance of dying itself, etc., than I definitely support that. But should she terminate the possibilty of the life (which cannot realistically be compared to a sperm cell because it obviously has a much, much greater chance of developing into an actual human being, considering it is already a fetus) just because she was irresponsible?

I'm all for second chances, but this isn't exactly an everyday mistake. Actions have consequences, and that's something people need to not only learn, but live with. The only reason I oppose is because I believe life (or the very realistic potential) is not something that should be terminated without great need, and other than the extreme injustice of rape, the only need I can think of would be if it posed a threat to the mother and/or itself.


If I just took your post the wrong way, well, sorry for wasting the few seconds of your life it took you to read my post.... :unsure:

[Guest1]

I'm not saying she should assume that the guy put on a condom, I'm saying if she does, it's not her fault.

He's the fucker who didn't put it on!

Now she's stuck with a pregnancy and he gets off scotch-free, even though he's the womanizing asshole who put his moves on when he knew she was drunk as fuck.

I'm all for responsible sex, and responsible drinking, but people are allowed to make mistakes. They shouldn't have to pay for it with the rest of their lives.

Think of it as getting gonorrhea, you don't have to live with it for the rest of your life to learn your lesson and start practicing safe sex. You can get the damn treatment, and you'll still learn and make sure you never get it ever again.

Even if you're against sex before marriage or something, you live your life like that, but you don't support making the cure for gonorrhea illegal.

[redstar2000]

Hopefully no hard feelings sir

None at all; in fact, you raised a "new" argument...which is always useful.

Most of these threads (there have been at least a dozen or more on this topic), involve the same dreary themes over and over again.


redstar one issue i wish to raise, you say the woman would have to undergo sterilisation, what about contraception?

It's not 100% effective. Sterilization is.

So no matter how "responsibly" a woman (or a man) conducts their sex life, there remains a small possibility of a "mistaken" (unwanted) pregnancy.

Only sterilization and total abstinence are 100% effective.


...but under many circumstances I believe it's better to carry the child and put it up for adoption.

I can't imagine what those circumstances might be, but I know there are many thousands (millions?) of unwanted children in the world now.

When all of those living children are properly cared for, perhaps then we could turn our attentions to the "unborn".

I note in passing that our poor planet groans under the weight of more than six billion people...perhaps that's enough? Maybe???

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[RedAnarchist]

Dumb Republicans...

[revoevo]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 26 2004, 07:05 AM
I'm not saying she should assume that the guy put on a condom, I'm saying if she does, it's not her fault.

He's the fucker who didn't put it on!

Now she's stuck with a pregnancy and he gets off scotch-free, even though he's the womanizing asshole who put his moves on when he knew she was drunk as fuck.

I'm all for responsible sex, and responsible drinking, but people are allowed to make mistakes. They shouldn't have to pay for it with the rest of their lives.

Think of it as getting gonorrhea, you don't have to live with it for the rest of your life to learn your lesson and start practicing safe sex. You can get the damn treatment, and you'll still learn and make sure you never get it ever again.

Even if you're against sex before marriage or something, you live your life like that, but you don't support making the cure for gonorrhea illegal.
How is it not her fault? It's her fault almost as much as it is his for not protecting herself. She was irresponsible, she shouldn't have gotten so smashed and allowed herself to be in that situation. But then again, if she was drunk and being taken advantage of by a sober man who knew she was intoxicated and unable to think clearly and so used this to his benefit, couldn't you argue that's rape?

I agree that people make mistakes. My question is how does carrying a child and putting it up for adoption ruin the rest of your life? 9 months, not even a year. I suppose this sounds kind of heartless, but she made the mistake, and she shouldn't just take the easy way out. Plenty of women go through with the pregnancy and live completely normal lives afterwards, often having kids of their own when they are ready. If going through with the pregnancy were to cause a single woman to lose her only source of income with nothing to fall back on, though, you could argue that this could threaten her own health and safety. In this situation, abortion is probably the best option.

As for the gonorrhea metaphor, once again we are comparing two very different circumstances, morally speaking. By contracting gonorrhea you have not just created the realistic possibility of a human life, you have just caught a disease. Obviously, you would cure that disease. There is no morality attached.

And on the note of morality, you said you would not "support making the cure for gonorrhea illegal". I do not support making abortion illegal. We are discussing the morality of abortion, not whether or not it should be legal.

[revoevo]

QUOTE
...but under many circumstances I believe it's better to carry the child and put it up for adoption.


I can't imagine what those circumstances might be, but I know there are many thousands (millions?) of unwanted children in the world now.

When all of those living children are properly cared for, perhaps then we could turn our attentions to the "unborn".

I note in passing that our poor planet groans under the weight of more than six billion people...perhaps that's enough? Maybe???



Circumstances where the woman is not in danger, the fetus is not in danger, and the woman was not impregnated against her will. For example, a woman still in highschool gets pregnant and does not want to keep the child. She can carry the child and put it up for adoption. If for any reason it posed a threat to her well-being, or if the baby would almost definitely be stillborn or something similar, or if she was raped, i would not expect her to carry the child. But if she and her boyfriend just had unprotected sex and now she wants to get out of it, I don't believe that is morally right.

As for there being thousands, if not millions, of unwanted children in the world, you're right. But the fact is not everyone will adopt internationally. In the U.S. (I don't know about other places), families that cannot produce children biologically often wait for months to years at a time for to adopt a child through domestic adoption agencies. For whatever reasons, they cannot or will not adopt internationally. Perhaps they cannot qualify, or they are just uncomfortable with the idea of raising a child of a different cultural background, fearing they could not give the child all the insight into their culture that they deserved.

But the reasons are not important. The fact is that many people can or will not adopt internationally, and there will always be people like this. I fully support international adoption, and I hope that one day the number of homeless, unwanted, and orphaned children overseas will be significantly lower. But that still leaves hundreds of families every year unable to concieve a child on their own that would be adopting domestically. I doubt if any child put up for adoption in America over the past decade or two through an adoption agency has ever had trouble being placed in a home. The idea that abortion in the U.S. is to cure having unwanted children is a little far-fetched.

At the same time, I agree with you about global overpopulation. Maybe we really should put domestic adoption on hold and encourage people to adopt from overseas. The world is already crowded, and the number of children without families is truly saddening. I don't know if I have the most unbiased viewpoint - I was adopted (within the U.S.) and so my parents views and mine will probably always be different from people who aren't directly affected by the adoption/abortion issue. I can't really agree to aborting all unwanted pregnancies, because if I did I wouldn't be here to have an opinion. Maybe that clouds my judgement for the overall good and makes my case invalid, but I'm not quite sure.

[Guest1]

How is it not her fault? It's her fault almost as much as it is his for not protecting herself. She was irresponsible, she shouldn't have gotten so smashed and allowed herself to be in that situation.

Sure, but the guy doesn't have to deal with it for nine months. I think that's pretty unfair. Look, for you, you think it's wrong to abort. So your girl won't abort. However, that doesn't mean the girl shouldn't have the option. If we make a mistake like that, we live with it, if the girl does, she goes through 9 months of rollercoaster emotions and bodily changes.

It's only fair that she should choose.

[revoevo]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 27 2004, 07:33 AM

Sure, but the guy doesn't have to deal with it for nine months. I think that's pretty unfair. Look, for you, you think it's wrong to abort. So your girl won't abort. However, that doesn't mean the girl shouldn't have the option. If we make a mistake like that, we live with it, if the girl does, she goes through 9 months of rollercoaster emotions and bodily changes.

It's only fair that she should choose.

So your girl won't abort.

Er... I am a girl... :blink:

But anyway, I'm not saying she shouldn't have the option. I'm saying she has more than one option, and she should consider the other. I consider it morally wrong to just take the easy way out. I think if she was tha completely irresponsible, she should seriously consider adoption.

I personally would not abort under the circumstances that I was too irresponsible, but I do agree that every woman should have the option to do so. It's her body and her choice. The point of my posts have been focusing on my reasons why I personally would not abort and why I don't believe it is always the right thing to do. I'm not saying abortion should be illegal.

[Retro]

But anyway, I'm not saying she shouldn't have the option. I'm saying she has more than one option, and she should consider the other. I consider it morally wrong to just take the easy way out. I think if she was tha completely irresponsible, she should seriously consider adoption.

I personally would not abort under the circumstances that I was too irresponsible, but I do agree that every woman should have the option to do so. It's her body and her choice. The point of my posts have been focusing on my reasons why I personally would not abort and why I don't believe it is always the right thing to do. I'm not saying abortion should be illegal.

A lot of what people are saying are being misconstrued. People are making assumptions about people based on a few things they have said. This is what causes a problem in important discussions such as this.

Im not a statician but im pretty sure that abortion numbers outweight adoption numbers. It is quite sad really, i agree with you. However the moral state of today's society is dwindeling... :unsure:

[redstar2000]

But if she and her boyfriend just had unprotected sex and now she wants to get out of it, I don't believe that is morally right.

Why ever not? Why shouldn't she "get out of it"?

Is having "unprotected sex" a "crime" for which she must be "punished"?


I consider it morally wrong to just take the easy way out.

How does morality "intersect" with the "ease" or "difficulty" of "a way out"?

Or, if something is really "hard" to do, does that make it "more moral" than something that's much "easier" to do?

I don't understand the "correlation" here.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Guest1]

Alright, I'm sorry I assumed you were a guy, it even says companera. That's the first time I've done that, I usually don't assume anything about people on the net.

Anyways, if it's your own way of living your life, that's completely different. That's your choice, I'm personally pretty sure I would never encourage a girlfriend to abort, not that I would discourage her either. I too would prefer she go for adoption, but I believe firmly in the right of a woman to choose for herself. I would also not look down upon her for it, not one bit.

[Comrade BNS]

Is there any reason not to terminate a "mistaken" pregnancy?

I would like to say that this thread has shown majority compassion towards life, which was surprising. I do believe it is the choice of the female, and accpet their are some circumstnces where the pregnancy cannot continue and abortion is necesary or is the best possible option.

But redstar think about what you are saying here... how can you so callously disregard something so precious as life? what about compassion, sympathy or empathy? I wonder would you be so callous concerning your own life, or the life of someone you care about?(assuming you do in fact care about other people) Consider your own life, and how precariously it was entrusted to your mother, what if she had decided to have an abortion with you in the womb?

Again, I believe it should be legal and be the woman's choice, although If the baby is really unwanted, what is wrong with adoption... I think i am pretty much agreeing with alot of views already posted...but felt i needed to comment on Redstar's callous attitude towards life.

Comrade BNS

[revoevo]

Why ever not? Why shouldn't she "get out of it"?

Is having "unprotected sex" a "crime" for which she must be "punished"?


No. I'm not saying that carrying out the pregnancy should be a punishment for not being responsible. I believe she shouldn't "get out of it" because she irresponsibly took part in creating the realistic possibility of a life. To quote myself:


Whether or not it was with the intention of creating a possible life, that is what sex does. By not "accepting" a correctable "mistake" (I don't like using this word, even if it's often true, it seems to mask the seriousness of the issue) you would be devauling life. I mean, if it's so easy to fix the "mistake" of creating a life, then wouldn't life essentially be devauled?

This isn't about "crime" and "punishment". It's about creating the realistic possibility of a life, and then simply throwing that away. Whether or not you meant to do that, you knew when you had sex the possible outcome. I disagree with devauling life, and so I believe it's best to put the child up for adoption.



How does morality "intersect" with the "ease" or "difficulty" of "a way out"?

Or, if something is really "hard" to do, does that make it "more moral" than something that's much "easier" to do?

I don't understand the "correlation" here.

I'm not saying something harder to do is more moral than the easy way out. But in this situation the easy was out means terminating the realistic possibility of a life, which I believe to be immoral. I'm not focusing on making mistakes and finding ways out, as you are. I'm focusing specifically on the actual issue, on the morality of throwing away the a probable life.

[revoevo]

Comrade BNS : I agree with you completely. But why are you surpised that many people on this board are compassionate towards life? We're not all heartless. ;)

[redstar2000]

But redstar think about what you are saying here... how can you so callously disregard something so precious as life?

Because it's not "life" in the sense that you are using the word.

It's something about the size of a mouse (or smaller) and even less intelligent.

Do you conduct funeral services for retarded mice?


What about compassion, sympathy or empathy?

Well, what about them? What do you think they have to do with this thread?


Consider your own life, and how precariously it was entrusted to your mother, what if she had decided to have an abortion with you in the womb?

Then I would never have known about it -- lacking consciousness of even being alive...and I wouldn't be here talking people's ears off.

Did you know that about half of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, usually in the first couple of weeks after conception?

Maybe you should take the matter up with "Allah"...since "He" seems somewhat more active in this matter than I am.


If the baby is really unwanted, what is wrong with adoption?

Pregnancy is not "fun" -- why should a woman have to go through it to bring yet another unwanted child into the world? As I noted earlier, there are millions of unwanted children in the world right now.

Where is your "compassion, sympathy, or empathy" for them?

Think they have a "good life"? Think there's anything "precious" about life to them?


...but felt I needed to comment on Redstar's callous attitude towards life.

Sure you did. :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[redstar2000]

This isn't about "crime" and "punishment". It's about creating the realistic possibility of a life, and then simply throwing that away.

What is so important about the "realistic possibility of a life"? It's not as if there was a "shortage" of real, existing lives...many of which, by the way, are pretty hellish.

Consider the children who live in the streets of Mexico City, who sniff glue to kill the pangs of hunger. Was there anything gained -- besides human suffering -- by bringing them into a heartless world? Would anything have been lost -- besides human suffering -- had they all been aborted?

Exactly how is it "moral" to increase the net total of human suffering in this world?


I disagree with devaluing life, and so I believe it's best to put the child up for adoption.

I have news for you: human life is, on most of this planet, pretty damn close to worthless! Something like a billion people "live" on less than $1.00 a day...imagine living for 20 or 30 or 40 years and never not being hungry!

Thousands of children are born every year in places in Africa, exist for two or three or four years of pain and suffering...and then die.

How "moral" is that?


I'm focusing specifically on the actual issue, on the morality of throwing away a probable life.

Focus away, then. But it seems to me that your conception of "morality" is completely divorced from actual human suffering.

Therefore, what good is it?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[revoevo]

QUOTE
What about compassion, sympathy or empathy?


Well, what about them? What do you think they have to do with this thread?


This is a thread about morality. Most of us have compassion, sympathy, and empathy, and this ties in with what we believe to be moral...


Focus away, then. But it seems to me that your conception of "morality" is completely divorced from actual human suffering.

My concept of morality is focused at ending human suffering. I do encourage abortion if the child would definitely suffer in life (and I don't mean be depressed, I mean be starving or stricken by uncurable disease, etc.). But in America, and I assume many other countries like the UK and Australia and Canada, children put up for adoption do not enter a life of suffering.

You cannot expect to fix human suffering with abortion. If all of the hungry and suffering children in Mexico and Africa, and the rest of the world for that matter, had been aborted, they obviously wouldn't be suffering. But then after the adults of that area died, it would be unpopulated. We wouldn't end human suffering, it would just become irrelevant. Abortion should definitely be an option, it would keep many people from suffering, or at least existing to suffer. But there is a lot more to be done to fix the problems over there.

Anyway, here in America children put up for adoption are almost always placed in good homes. We generally don't have orphanages any more, we have waiting lists. The families waiting to adopt are screened, and it is assured that the children will have decent homes. They can eat, and they will be educated. Children are not adopted into poor families with no oppurtunities.

You seem to base your argument on either the idea that if no one could adopt domestically they would all adopt internationally and at least save some people from suffering or that we should abort every single fetus that may grow up and suffer in life, and thus drastically decreasing the world population. Both of those are too generalized, and the second one is completely unrealistic.

Maybe we should just abort all mistaken pregnancies, and try to adopt from overseas. Maybe we should encourage abortion in Third World countries instead of focusing on fixing problems on the basis that people are alive. But would this really end human suffering? Maybe it would help, I don't know, but I think it's a bit idealistic.

[redstar2000]

But in America, and I assume many other countries like the UK and Australia and Canada, children put up for adoption do not enter a life of suffering.

No, it is the pregnant woman who suffers. As I stated earlier, pregnancy and delivery are not "fun". They hurt...a lot!

You seem to think this pain is intrinsically "moral"...I do not.


You cannot expect to fix human suffering with abortion.

What an extraordinarily silly thing to say...especially to a communist!

I am saying that termination of unwanted pregnancies reduces human pain and suffering and is, therefore, "morally good".


If all of the hungry and suffering children in Mexico and Africa, and the rest of the world for that matter, had been aborted, they obviously wouldn't be suffering. But then after the adults of that area died, it would be unpopulated.

Nonsense. Some of the people there are not suffering...nor are their children.

Those places might have much smaller populations than they do now, but they would not become depopulated.


Anyway, here in America children put up for adoption are almost always placed in good homes. We generally don't have orphanages any more, we have waiting lists. The families waiting to adopt are screened, and it is assured that the children will have decent homes. They can eat, and they will be educated. Children are not adopted into poor families with no opportunities.

Even if your panglossian picture is accurate, so what?

What about the millions of kids who do live in atrocious conditions in America.

Maybe these couples who are so eager to adopt an unwanted child should spend their money on those kids who may be wanted by their parents but are definitely unwanted by the existing society.

(How do I know that? Consider the resources devoted to educating kids in Harlem compared to the resources devoted to educating kids in suburban Connecticut.)


You seem to base your argument on either the idea that if no one could adopt domestically they would all adopt internationally and at least save some people from suffering...

Yes, that would be a "morally good" approach in my view.


...we should abort every single fetus that may grow up and suffer in life, and thus drastically decreasing the world population.

Also a "morally good" approach...and good for the planet as well.

If we want a high-tech (civilized) existence for the human species, this planet cannot support more than a couple of billion humans at the most!

A world of seven or eight or nine or ten billion people is going to be hell for a very high percentage of those people.

You call that "moral"?


But would this really end human suffering?

We will never "end" human suffering. But any "moral judgment" that not only fails to reduce it but actually increases it stands self-condemned!

It is obviously "evil"!

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

I think the world could easily support 10 billion+ people if the world's resources were responcibly managed. I'm sure you all know my "misogynist" ideas on abortion, and I'm sticking with them.

[redstar2000]

I'm sure you all know my "misogynist" ideas on abortion, and I'm sticking with them.

Of course you are!

You'll never be pregnant so you'll never suffer the consequences of your vicious woman-hating position.

The pain of others is "sweet", isn't it? :angry:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[DarkAngel]

Womens body, womens choice. And BUSH or whoever other fucking idiot male should have no say in what a women does with her body. While the baby is in the mother its her choice, what did the man do to deserve it besides fuck? Thats my opinion.

[cubist]

so if thatcher said it was worng is it allowed to be illegal?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I think I concur with cephas in his first post on this topic (assuming I understood him correctly) my personal views are that abortions are wrong while I think its still the womyn's choice on a political level and niether the feds nor the father have a right to take that away. Correct me if I am wrong cephas

[cubist]

petey you're right,

abortion is my least favourite option, i believe better education will be needed aswell becuase abortions shouldn't be as common as tea of coffee. but it is the womans choice, and i would rather it done profesionally and properly than to be done on the black market.

how ever why women get up the duff accidently when condoms and other forms of contraception are freely availible is beyond me, but that is niether here nor there

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 10:09 PM

I'm sure you all know my "misogynist" ideas on abortion, and I'm sticking with them.

Of course you are!

You'll never be pregnant so you'll never suffer the consequences of your vicious woman-hating position.

The pain of others is "sweet", isn't it? :angry:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas
Vicious woman hating position? Wanting a man to have some rights over the baby is woman hating? Sorry if I recognize the bond between a man and his child, but I think that since it takes two people to create a fetus, it should take them both to abort it. Perhaps you don't agree with me, not because you think that I am a woman hater, but because you do not understand since you have never had a child of your own? Suddenly, since I want men to have a equal rights to fetuses, that makes me a masocist?

[redstar2000]

Suddenly, since I want men to have a equal rights to fetuses, that makes me a masochist?

When advances in bio-technology make it possible for you to carry that fetus in your own belly and she doesn't want it...then, by all means, you can have it!

You'll just love the hormone shots. :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Unfortunately, biotechnology hasnt reached that point. Even if it did, the woman would STILL be able to go off and have an abortion without giving the father his child if he wanted. I don't feel that I should be deprived all rights to my child simply because of my biology.

[Regicidal Insomniac]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 12:58 AM
Unfortunately, biotechnology hasnt reached that point. Even if it did, the woman would STILL be able to go off and have an abortion without giving the father his child if he wanted. I don't feel that I should be deprived all rights to my child simply because of my biology.
Hum, well it isn't exactly a "child" just yet you see.
So you may want to change that to "my fetus"

And once you think about it then, it's not yours at all! :o

[∞]

I think most of you guys are missing the point. If women don't get a right to abortion then they would do it themselves. How many instances of these self-induced abortions may I have to bring up? Theres been thousands of cases in third-world countries where women use rusty hangers as tools for abortion. Disregard all philosophical inquiries and look at the facts! Regardless if you think it's moral or not, it's not up to you, it's the mother's choice. Thats freedom, if you don't like it, don't do it. (A)

[RedAnarchist]

I think most of you guys are missing the point. If women don't get a right to abortion then they would do it themselves. How many instances of these self-induced abortions may I have to bring up? Theres been thousands of cases in third-world countries where women use rusty hangers as tools for abortion. Disregard all philosophical inquiries and look at the facts! Regardless if you think it's moral or not, it's not up to you, it's the mother's choice. Thats freedom, if you don't like it, don't do it. (A)

Please don't necro six year old threads, thanks.