Jump to content


Abortion.. what are your views?


  • Please log in to reply
296 replies to this topic

#281 ill05nino

ill05nino

    Metal Detector

  • VIP Club Member
  • PipPip
  • 423 posts

Posted 28 October 2010 - 06:28 PM

View Postbunnysound, on 28 October 2010 - 05:11 PM, said:

Abortion is NOT murder. Murder is a legal term meaning the unlawful killing of one human being by another under specific conditions covered by law, usually involving malicious intent and premeditation. However you may feel about abortion, the fact of the matter is that abortion and murder are not the same.

I just noticed that you defined murder in an earlier post, so I should not need to explain to you that under those pesky legal conditions, abortion is not considered murder.

As for the question of which is worse, rape or murder, I would imagine that depends very much on the details of each case. I'm sure there are instances where being raped is worse than being murdered-- we've all got imaginations capable of painting the most horrific pictures, so I don't think I need to provide an example.


If you do not believe that a fetus is a human being, than your interpretation of the definition of murder would be correct. But I believ it to be a human being, which is killed, usually after premeditation. So my understanding of the definition would mean that abortion = murder.


Nowhere in my post did I suggest that you shouldn't have an opinion. I merely pointed out (quite truthfully) that you're expressing strong and narrow-minded opinions on subjects which you yourself will never have to face-- rape, unwanted pregnancy, and abortion. It is easy to point the judgmental finger at someone when you're secure in the knowledge that you will never, ever be in that same position. You also cracked several rape jokes a few posts above this one, so it seems that the gravity of rape hasn't yet impressed itself upon you.

I wouldn't say that I cracked "several rape jokes". What I said may have been out of line, I will concede that notion. However, though I may never be raped, pregnant, or have to think about having an abortion, I feel that my opinion is based on facts which support my choice to be pro-LIFE. I could easily say that you are the narrow-minded one by being the attacker in this debate. You feel like you have to defend your stance, and that is okay, but the personal attacks are quite childish.  

Excuse me? I don't even know where to start. There are very many problems, both physical and psychological, that can arise during a pregnancy. My own mother, for instance, suffered from preeclampsia and couldn't give birth to me-- I was delivered four months prematurely via C-section. Hypertensive disorders such as preeclampsia are fairly common (according to the Preecampsia Foundation's website, they are "a leading cause of maternal and infant illness and death... responsible for 76,000 maternal and 500,000 infant deaths each year.") This is only one of the many complications that can arise during a pregnancy.

I do recall saying that TYPICALLY they are mild side-effects. There are 133 million births world-wide EVERY SINGLE YEAR. So you're talking less than a percent. So still, I stand by my statement.
My argument was not JUST about rape, it was about all the reasons that people gave for having abortions, rape included.

No, I am not aware of these studies. Could you provide some references? Who funded this research? It can be difficult to conduct a survey of this nature because rape victims tend not to speak publicly about their experiences-- same with women who have undergone an abortion-- so the sample surveyed is often not indicative of the wider population.

U.S. Department of Justice. 2005 National Crime Victimization Survey. 2005.

On the topic of Rape Abortions -- <5% of rape victims ever get pregnant, and 3% of those victims are teenagers, who usually have a parent watching over them, who, when alone with a doctor, admit to consensual sex. So we're talking a VERY low number of people used for that study, you are correct.

Biologically, sperm contains part of the necessary genetics for a human being, as do ovaries. Out of curiosity, are you one of those who feels it is a sin to "spill one's seed," as they say?

Not that this is the business of the 17k+ members of TreasureTrooper, but yes, I am one who feels that way.

Nature taking its course... now, that's an interesting idea. Human beings have been tampering with nature for so long that I'm not sure we can even say for certain what Nature would do if left to its own devices. The laws of Nature, I suppose, dictate that I should have died shortly after my own birth. As I said, I was a premature baby and I required intervention from the doctors in order to survive: surgery, medicine, breathing tubes, an incubator. Similarly, my step-father is diabetic and requires daily insulin shots to regulate his glucose levels-- without such intervention, he would surely have died by now. At what point do you draw the line? If your argument against the termination of pregnancy is that we must let Nature take its course, then at what point is it acceptable to step in and tamper with Nature?

The difference between our arguments here is that my arguments supports life, while you are basically saying we should let people die, which is what I am against to begin with.

Plants are alive, biologically-- is pulling a weed tantamount to murder? Obviously that is an extreme and fairly silly exaggeration, but my point is that scientists and theologians have been arguing over the definition of "life" for years and have yet to reach an agreement. Morality is an entirely separate and equally complex thing on its own. This is a complicated issue with so many twisting moral pathways that neither one of us could say with certainty what the correct answer might be. That's why I am so adamant that you not be allowed to decide for me, that I not be allowed to decide for you.

In no way am I trying to decide FOR you. I am telling you how I feel about the topic. If you feel that things I say are a personal attack against you, maybe you need to step back, take a breather, and start over.

I am confused as to where you found this information, because frankly that is untrue. An embryo is entirely dependent on the mother for its survival. It is, essentially, a parasite which will die if it cannot feed off its host-- granted, it can be a rather adorable and beloved parasite, but it is a parasite nonetheless. ;)

Oh, so what you're saying is there is life there that is in need of survival, yet people should be allowed to kill it?

You're the one making the ridiculous abortion=murder association. I'm not even sure that I understand this analogy. Are you implying that pro-choice women are somehow a threat to you, and that if you withhold your judgment for too long, you'll end up dead? I still fail to see how a rape victim is like a murderer. Is this one of those Alice in Wonderland riddles? How is a raven like a writing desk?

I'm merely stating that you basically tell me that I am narrow minded, and shouldn't judge, because I will never be in that situation. I will never be raped, or pregnant. So should you be able to judge a murderer if you have never been threatened of murder? The analogy is quite simple actually.

This is true-- no man is an island. Yet while most of us are dog-paddling, you're running for the motorboat. If what you believe about abortion were to become a law, the beliefs of the individual (you, the religious right) would affect me and everyone else in the most personal areas of our lives.

This is a double edged sword. With abortion legal, women can choose to have an abortion for ANY reason, with no say from the father. Now in rape cases, the father probably doesn't care. But in other cases, the father may want the child. The father gets ZERO say when it comes to abortion. So it's okay for the government to say a woman gets her choice, but a man doesn't get his choice?

I judge you to have made a poor choice in an admittedly bad situation. However, your behavior shows you have no remorse for it, despite the potentially mitigating circumstances. Therefore I judge you a murderer with no sorrow for the willful killing of a human life. I judge the impact you have had on society in the past to be terrifically harmful and abhorrent.

I judge you human, however, so hope you might be better than this in the future. No one is perfectly corrupt.


Are you serious? Pardon my implied French, but who the f' are you? You're making some pretty big assumptions there. Maybe I should assume that you're a rapist who gets off on the thought of dozens of innocent young girls giving birth to your offspring-- except I'm not insane, so I don't make assumptions like that based off things I read in an internet forum.

I would also like to add that you call yourself a follower of Christ, yet Christ himself urged us over and over and over again not to judge. Perhaps I am not as familiar with the Bible as you are, so forgive me if I misquote this, but isn't there a passage in the Bible reminding us not to berate our neighbor for the splinter in his eye when we've got a log in our own? Isn't there another one urging only those of us without sin to cast stones-- the point being that none of us are in a position to judge another? You are not only judging-- which I feel is honestly part of our nature, we're judgmental creatures-- but you are judging harshly. You are judging victims of violent crime, you are judging innocent women, you are judging people who have been through things which you will hopefully never see in your lifetime. You are judging these people from your high throne of moral superiority, believing yourself untouchable. Well, I sincerely hope that your life is never personally touched by these things we're discussing. I hope that no woman you love is ever faced with this kind of choice, but it is not unthinkable. Try a little bit of Christian empathy, why don't you?


Again, if you felt that my saying 'your' was a direct attack on YOU personally, that is my fault. There was no implied finger pointing on my end. My implication was that women who continuously have abortions to have harmful impacts on society as a whole. Many women do have remorse for their actions, but MANY do not. If you think that is a false statement, you have a lot to learn, and should really get out and take a look at the big picture.

PS: This has nothing to do with oppression of women.

PS: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!  Educate yourself on the history of feminism and then say that again.

I believe myself to be HIGHLY educated, and I stand by my word. I am not opressing women. I am stating MY opinions. I am listening to yours. Opression is defined as "the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner". I am not exercising authority nor power, just opinion.

Thanks! :)

Posted Image

#282 ill05nino

ill05nino

    Metal Detector

  • VIP Club Member
  • PipPip
  • 423 posts

Posted 28 October 2010 - 06:31 PM

View Postbunnysound, on 28 October 2010 - 05:54 PM, said:

As an aside, I would just like to comment on this:

It's not the same at ALL. As indicated in Genesis 1:26, God gave man control over the rest of His physical creation: “And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea…and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing…”


I have always interpreted this passage to mean that we have a responsibility toward non-human animals-- that we are in a position of power and that we should use this power wisely. We have not used this power wisely at all. Apparently many people believe that our "God-given dominion" grants us the right to go nuts and destroy everything we see.


---Oh absolutely. Man people DO believe that means you can go nuts. I do not believe that however. I believe in killing animals for FOOD only.


When killing animals, you have to carefully discern the purpose and attitude. Is it truly for food? Or is it more for the sport or trophy? Keep in mind that animals are, after all, part of God’s creation and, as such, should be treated with a certain amount of respect. I do not agree with killing animals for sport, but when it is for food, I believe that God provided food for us through animals.


You and I agree on this point, although I personally do not kill animals for food, either. I also do not eat animals that have been killed for me. I've been a vegetarian since my childhood only because I can't bear the thought of causing so much unnecessary suffering and death. The way animals are harvested for food these days is in no way similar to the hunting and fishing practiced by Jesus and his disciples. What we have now is a multi-billion dollar industry, huge factory farms where animals are treated not as living beings but as commodities. The living conditions in these places are heart-breaking: sick animals left to die, corpses left to rot, the rest of the animals wallowing in filth. Insufficient exercise, fresh air, sunlight, clean water, healthy food-- cows being fed corn meal because it's cheaper than grass, cows being fed the ground-up bodies of other cows. I would suggest anyone to do some research on what really goes into that burger you ate for lunch, but honestly it is so horrible that I almost want to urge you not to look.

--- Yeah, there are sick people out there who just want to make an easy buck. But there are several companies who do it the right way as well. You can not categorize it all into one big cluster and say the entire industry is corrupt.



Posted Image

#283 TreasureTech

TreasureTech

    Programmer

  • Staff
  • PipPipPip
  • 565 posts

Posted 28 October 2010 - 07:01 PM

I look at it this way. If you don't want to get pregnant, BE ABSTINENT! Then you won't have that problem. I have a son, and I could not imagine for a moment what it would have been like if his mom chose to terminate his life because she "wasn't ready".
Guess what? Her and I were as UNREADY as you could POSSIBLY be! When she was pregnant, we lived in a 1 bedroom apartment making about 750$ a month total. Eating ramen noodles, splurging on Kraft Mac & Cheese once a month. But you know what?! We STILL had our child, and we did our best for him. While I am not with her (and by extension him) anymore, I can tell you without a doubt that "ready for a kid" or not, SHE is a wonderful mommy, and is proof that "We're not ready" doesn't mean "we have to end this child's life before he's born because we're too immature to face the consequences of our own actions." Any questions?
Posted Image

#284 bunnysound

bunnysound

    Metal Detector

  • Regular Trooper
  • PipPip
  • 264 posts

Posted 28 October 2010 - 07:38 PM


If you do not believe that a fetus is a human being, than your interpretation of the definition of murder would be correct. But I believ it to be a human being, which is killed, usually after premeditation. So my understanding of the definition would mean that abortion = murder.



What I am trying to convey-- and what you don't seem to be comprehending-- is that the word "murder" is a legal term and that, according to the specifications of that law, abortion is not an act of murder. Nor does considering whether or not to terminate a pregnancy constitute premeditation-- and there is certainly no evidence of malicious intent. In order for abortion to be considered a form of murder, the law would need to be changed to reflect your opinion. Until that point, abortion is not murder.

If the law were to be changed, then what would happen in those cases where you begrudgingly admitted that termination might be the best option-- in cases where the mother or child is likely to die during childbirth, where the child would be born with a debilitating illness or deformity, where the mother would pass AIDS onto the baby? If your new law would allow exceptions in cases such as those, then abortion could not be considered equal to murder because there are no exceptions for murder. I cannot legally murder my grandfather because he is dying of cancer. I cannot murder my enemy because I fear if I don't, he will likely murder me first. Even if anti-abortion laws are passed, there is no justification for the comparison of murder and abortion. The act of simply making that comparison is both ridiculous and offensive.

I wouldn't say that I cracked "several rape jokes". What I said may have been out of line, I will concede that notion. However, though I may never be raped, pregnant, or have to think about having an abortion, I feel that my opinion is based on facts which support my choice to be pro-LIFE. I could easily say that you are the narrow-minded one by being the attacker in this debate. You feel like you have to defend your stance, and that is okay, but the personal attacks are quite childish.  


Anyone with firm beliefs could be considered narrow-minded. The difference is that you're proposing an ideal situation where every woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy would be forced to do what you believe is correct-- whereas I am advocating the right of that woman to do what she believes is correct. I am at least open-minded enough to admit that what I feel is the right decision might not be the right decision for you or for any other individual.

If you weren't cracking rape jokes, then what were you doing? or do you object to the use of the word "several"? You're right, it was basically one bad joke with several parts. As for personal attacks, I won't quite swallow that from the guy who recently assumed that because I'm pro-choice, I've had an abortion.

I do recall saying that TYPICALLY they are mild side-effects. There are 133 million births world-wide EVERY SINGLE YEAR. So you're talking less than a percent. So still, I stand by my statement.
My argument was not JUST about rape, it was about all the reasons that people gave for having abortions, rape included.


What is your statement, exactly? That because not all pregnancies are complicated, dangerous, and painful, then all women who become pregnant should be forced to take that risk, regardless of the circumstances of their pregnancy, regardless of their physical and psychological well-being?

Not that this is the business of the 17k+ members of TreasureTrooper, but yes, I am one who feels that way.

Oh my. No wonder you're so uptight.  :huh:  :lol:

The difference between our arguments here is that my arguments supports life, while you are basically saying we should let people die, which is what I am against to begin with.

You seem to be confusing pro-choice with pro-abortion. If I haven't been clear, I apologize. Allow me to reiterate: I feel that the termination of a pregnancy is an issue of incredible weight and gravity, one that should be considered with the utmost care. I do not believe in aborting fetuses left and right like some kind of sick ping-pong game. I do not believe in using abortion as a form of birth control. I also do not believe that women use abortion in this way. I have known women who have made this decision and they did not take it lightly. They do not take it lightly. And, even if they did, I would still be pro-choice because I do not believe that it is within the government's power to make that decision for me or for any other woman.

In no way am I trying to decide FOR you. I am telling you how I feel about the topic. If you feel that things I say are a personal attack against you, maybe you need to step back, take a breather, and start over.


If you believe that abortion is tantamount to murder, and if you believe that a woman should not be allowed legally to terminate a pregnancy, then you are trying to decide for me. That is precisely what anti-abortion laws aim to do. Perhaps I've misunderstood, and you do not advocate anti-abortion laws-- in which case, I'm sorry but I am also confused because that seems to run counter to logic. If you truly believe that abortion is murder, then it stands to reason that you would believe that murder should be illegal.

Oh, so what you're saying is there is life there that is in need of survival, yet people should be allowed to kill it?

... Huh? No, I'm saying that a fetus is entirely dependent on the mother for its survival, contrary to what you said earlier about a fetus being entirely separate from the mother.

I'm merely stating that you basically tell me that I am narrow minded, and shouldn't judge, because I will never be in that situation. I will never be raped, or pregnant. So should you be able to judge a murderer if you have never been threatened of murder? The analogy is quite simple actually.

It may be simple-- as in, low-minded-- but it certainly isn't apt. Why would I feel that the only person capable of judging a murderer would be a murderer's intended victim? If we were to apply that analogy to my pro-choice stance, then my belief would be that the only person who can judge a woman who's had an abortion would be the aborted fetus. Which makes no sense whatsoever.

Again, I am not saying that you cannot have an opinion. I am saying that you cannot really understand what it would be like to be in a woman's position. Here is an analogy that actually fits: I am white. I may have an opinion on racism in America. I may believe, for instance, that since we've elected a black president, racism in America is on the decline. But I must be adult enough to admit that, honestly, I am not the authority on racism in America because I have never-- and can never-- experience it firsthand. I must be adult enough to admit that.

This is a double edged sword. With abortion legal, women can choose to have an abortion for ANY reason, with no say from the father. Now in rape cases, the father probably doesn't care. But in other cases, the father may want the child. The father gets ZERO say when it comes to abortion. So it's okay for the government to say a woman gets her choice, but a man doesn't get his choice?


Honestly, this is the most intelligent thing you've said in this entire debate. I don't even have an answer for you because I believe you've raised a really valid point here. I do believe that the father should have a say in these cases. However, if abortion is illegal, then a woman cannot have an abortion for any reason -- but if abortion is legal, then certain guidelines could potentially be laid down to prevent misuse of the law, or to give fathers the right to make a case in favor of continuing the pregnancy. I don't know for sure how I feel about those specifics-- I am not in a position to write this law. But it is interesting to think about and I am glad you brought it up.

Again, if you felt that my saying 'your' was a direct attack on YOU personally, that is my fault. There was no implied finger pointing on my end. My implication was that women who continuously have abortions to have harmful impacts on society as a whole. Many women do have remorse for their actions, but MANY do not. If you think that is a false statement, you have a lot to learn, and should really get out and take a look at the big picture.

So, when you say "you" in this paragraph, do you mean me me, or...? (kidding)

Who are these women who are going out and having multiple abortions just for the heck of it? And why on earth would you base a law on the actions of a few severely damaged women who do not in any way represent women as a whole? What is this Big Picture you speak of, and why are you in a better position than me to see it? It seems like you have a caricature in your head of a woman-- let's call her Loose-Morals Lucy-- who sleeps with tons of men, doesn't use protection because she's just bad like that, gets pregnant all the time and has abortions just as easily as eating lunch. I'm not saying that women like Lucy don't exist-- this world is made up of all types-- but she is not representative of most, or even a significant percentage, of women. To assume so is just ludicrous.

I saw a video the other day that a man recorded outside a Planned Parenthood office. He and his wife had just recently learned that their unborn baby had a rare disease known as Sirenomalia (forgive the spelling) or "Mermaid Syndrome," and that if they were to have the baby she would be born with her legs fused together and other severe deformities, and would most likely die within the first few weeks. After much deliberation and many tears, the couple decided to terminate the pregnancy. As the man led his wife into the office, Pro-Life protesters taunted them, calling the woman a murderer and waving signs with pictures of aborted fetuses. The husband was understandably devastated, and he decided to fight back. He recorded them on his cell phone camera, explained to them everything that he and his wife had been through these past few weeks, and asked them how they could call themselves Christians while causing so much pain to an innocent woman. The protesters were generally unresponsive. If you're interested in seeing this video, I'm sure I could dig it up for you. My point in sharing this story is that it's very dangerous to make sweeping generalizations. You cannot assume that every woman walking into a PP clinic is like your Lucy.


I believe myself to be HIGHLY educated, and I stand by my word. I am not opressing women. I am stating MY opinions. I am listening to yours. Opression is defined as "the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner". I am not exercising authority nor power, just opinion.

You aren't oppressing anyone, but I couldn't think up a better definition for anti-abortion laws: the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Perfect.

Edited by bunnysound, 28 October 2010 - 07:56 PM.

Ceci n'est pas une signature.

Posted Image x 2

Posted Image Posted Image

Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

#285 bunnysound

bunnysound

    Metal Detector

  • Regular Trooper
  • PipPip
  • 264 posts

Posted 28 October 2010 - 07:46 PM

View PostTreasureTech, on 28 October 2010 - 07:01 PM, said:

I look at it this way. If you don't want to get pregnant, BE ABSTINENT! Then you won't have that problem. I have a son, and I could not imagine for a moment what it would have been like if his mom chose to terminate his life because she "wasn't ready".
Guess what? Her and I were as UNREADY as you could POSSIBLY be! When she was pregnant, we lived in a 1 bedroom apartment making about 750$ a month total. Eating ramen noodles, splurging on Kraft Mac & Cheese once a month. But you know what?! We STILL had our child, and we did our best for him. While I am not with her (and by extension him) anymore, I can tell you without a doubt that "ready for a kid" or not, SHE is a wonderful mommy, and is proof that "We're not ready" doesn't mean "we have to end this child's life before he's born because we're too immature to face the consequences of our own actions." Any questions?


Yeah, I've got one: do you really believe that people who support a woman's right to choose are encouraging women to terminate their pregnancies? Do you expect me, as a pro-choice advocate, to read this story and think to myself, "rats! Another happy mother and father, another beautiful child-- my world is crumbling"? Jesus, no. Families are wonderful. I'm sure your son is wonderful. I'm so glad that you and your baby's mama overcame a difficult situation and made things work. That's beautiful. But why would this happy event make you want to take that choice away from other couples who are facing obstacles they can't overcome? No one is advocating the passage of a law that says low-income women can't have babies.

As for abstinence-- you know, I wish the world worked that way.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.

Posted Image x 2

Posted Image Posted Image

Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

#286 bunnysound

bunnysound

    Metal Detector

  • Regular Trooper
  • PipPip
  • 264 posts

Posted 28 October 2010 - 08:22 PM

This is the longest I've ever spent on the TT boards since I signed up!  :blink:

While there's a lull in the action I just want to say that I'm not this combative in everyday life, and also that I have nothing against anyone here. You all seem like nice people and I aim to play nice, I just get worked up.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.

Posted Image x 2

Posted Image Posted Image

Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

#287 runtslover

runtslover

    Metal Detector

  • Regular Trooper
  • PipPip
  • 112 posts

Posted 28 October 2010 - 10:11 PM

View PostTreasureTech, on 28 October 2010 - 07:01 PM, said:

I look at it this way. If you don't want to get pregnant, BE ABSTINENT! Then you won't have that problem. I have a son, and I could not imagine for a moment what it would have been like if his mom chose to terminate his life because she "wasn't ready".
Guess what? Her and I were as UNREADY as you could POSSIBLY be! When she was pregnant, we lived in a 1 bedroom apartment making about 750$ a month total. Eating ramen noodles, splurging on Kraft Mac & Cheese once a month. But you know what?! We STILL had our child, and we did our best for him. While I am not with her (and by extension him) anymore, I can tell you without a doubt that "ready for a kid" or not, SHE is a wonderful mommy, and is proof that "We're not ready" doesn't mean "we have to end this child's life before he's born because we're too immature to face the consequences of our own actions." Any questions?

I love it when people say be abstinent.... not everyone has sex by choice.

Just wanted to throw that out there.

Edited by runtslover, 28 October 2010 - 10:11 PM.

Slot Rewards
Posted Image

Posted Image
Posted Image

#288 Zach360

Zach360

    SuperTrooper

  • VIP Club Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1281 posts

Posted 28 October 2010 - 10:37 PM

I know what you mean. I usually try to avoid debates because I put way too much emotion and personal opinion into it. I can't help it! :)

View Postbunnysound, on 28 October 2010 - 08:22 PM, said:

This is the longest I've ever spent on the TT boards since I signed up!  :blink:

While there's a lull in the action I just want to say that I'm not this combative in everyday life, and also that I have nothing against anyone here. You all seem like nice people and I aim to play nice, I just get worked up.

Posted Image

#289 runtslover

runtslover

    Metal Detector

  • Regular Trooper
  • PipPip
  • 112 posts

Posted 28 October 2010 - 10:43 PM

Anyone who doesn't is not true to their views.
Slot Rewards
Posted Image

Posted Image
Posted Image

#290 ill05nino

ill05nino

    Metal Detector

  • VIP Club Member
  • PipPip
  • 423 posts

Posted 29 October 2010 - 12:50 PM


If you do not believe that a fetus is a human being, than your interpretation of the definition of murder would be correct. But I believ it to be a human being, which is killed, usually after premeditation. So my understanding of the definition would mean that abortion = murder.


What I am trying to convey-- and what you don't seem to be comprehending-- is that the word "murder" is a legal term and that, according to the specifications of that law, abortion is not an act of murder. Nor does considering whether or not to terminate a pregnancy constitute premeditation-- and there is certainly no evidence of malicious intent. In order for abortion to be considered a form of murder, the law would need to be changed to reflect your opinion. Until that point, abortion is not murder.

If the law were to be changed, then what would happen in those cases where you begrudgingly admitted that termination might be the best option-- in cases where the mother or child is likely to die during childbirth, where the child would be born with a debilitating illness or deformity, where the mother would pass AIDS onto the baby? If your new law would allow exceptions in cases such as those, then abortion could not be considered equal to murder because there are no exceptions for murder. I cannot legally murder my grandfather because he is dying of cancer. I cannot murder my enemy because I fear if I don't, he will likely murder me first. Even if anti-abortion laws are passed, there is no justification for the comparison of murder and abortion. The act of simply making that comparison is both ridiculous and offensive.


---I stand corrected, by the definition of murder. However, I feel that if someone comes on to my property, and tries to attack me, if I kill them in defense of my life, I have murdered them. However, by definition, I have not murdered them, I have just killed them. So I stand corrected. People who have abortions are killing babies not murdering them. Which in my opinions, I still find wrong.

I wouldn't say that I cracked "several rape jokes". What I said may have been out of line, I will concede that notion. However, though I may never be raped, pregnant, or have to think about having an abortion, I feel that my opinion is based on facts which support my choice to be pro-LIFE. I could easily say that you are the narrow-minded one by being the attacker in this debate. You feel like you have to defend your stance, and that is okay, but the personal attacks are quite childish.

Anyone with firm beliefs could be considered narrow-minded. The difference is that you're proposing an ideal situation where every woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy would be forced to do what you believe is correct-- whereas I am advocating the right of that woman to do what she believes is correct. I am at least open-minded enough to admit that what I feel is the right decision might not be the right decision for you or for any other individual.

If you weren't cracking rape jokes, then what were you doing? or do you object to the use of the word "several"? You're right, it was basically one bad joke with several parts. As for personal attacks, I won't quite swallow that from the guy who recently assumed that because I'm pro-choice, I've had an abortion.


--- Again, I have not once said that YOU, bunnysound, have had an abortion. I used the words 'you' in context of the argument. I should have clearly stated, BEFORE THE ARGUMENT, that it was a hypothetical situation, in which I would JUDGE a person, but since I was talking to you, I wrongfully was unclear and made you think I was talking about YOU. I apologize for that.  

I do recall saying that TYPICALLY they are mild side-effects. There are 133 million births world-wide EVERY SINGLE YEAR. So you're talking less than a percent. So still, I stand by my statement.
My argument was not JUST about rape, it was about all the reasons that people gave for having abortions, rape included.


What is your statement, exactly? That because not all pregnancies are complicated, dangerous, and painful, then all women who become pregnant should be forced to take that risk, regardless of the circumstances of their pregnancy, regardless of their physical and psychological well-being?

---Again, I am saying that MOST prognancies are NOT complicated and dangerous, meaning my use of the words TYPICALLY MILD, still apply. I guess I don't understand what you are not getting by my statement.

Again, if you felt that my saying 'your' was a direct attack on YOU personally, that is my fault. There was no implied finger pointing on my end. My implication was that women who continuously have abortions to have harmful impacts on society as a whole. Many women do have remorse for their actions, but MANY do not. If you think that is a false statement, you have a lot to learn, and should really get out and take a look at the big picture.

So, when you say "you" in this paragraph, do you mean me me, or...? (kidding)

Who are these women who are going out and having multiple abortions just for the heck of it? And why on earth would you base a law on the actions of a few severely damaged women who do not in any way represent women as a whole? What is this Big Picture you speak of, and why are you in a better position than me to see it? It seems like you have a caricature in your head of a woman-- let's call her Loose-Morals Lucy-- who sleeps with tons of men, doesn't use protection because she's just bad like that, gets pregnant all the time and has abortions just as easily as eating lunch. I'm not saying that women like Lucy don't exist-- this world is made up of all types-- but she is not representative of most, or even a significant percentage, of women. To assume so is just ludicrous.

I saw a video the other day that a man recorded outside a Planned Parenthood office. He and his wife had just recently learned that their unborn baby had a rare disease known as Sirenomalia (forgive the spelling) or "Mermaid Syndrome," and that if they were to have the baby she would be born with her legs fused together and other severe deformities, and would most likely die within the first few weeks. After much deliberation and many tears, the couple decided to terminate the pregnancy. As the man led his wife into the office, Pro-Life protesters taunted them, calling the woman a murderer and waving signs with pictures of aborted fetuses. The husband was understandably devastated, and he decided to fight back. He recorded them on his cell phone camera, explained to them everything that he and his wife had been through these past few weeks, and asked them how they could call themselves Christians while causing so much pain to an innocent woman. The protesters were generally unresponsive. If you're interested in seeing this video, I'm sure I could dig it up for you. My point in sharing this story is that it's very dangerous to make sweeping generalizations. You cannot assume that every woman walking into a PP clinic is like your Lucy.



--- Here are some stats for you that may help you understand where I am coming from...


The overwhelming majority of all abortions, (95%), are done as a means of birth control.
Only 1% are performed because of rape or incest;
1% because of fetal abnormalities;
3% due to the mother's health problems.
Source: Central Illinois Right To Life


Reasons Women Choose Abortion (U.S.)

Wants to postpone childbearing:  25.5%
Wants no (more) children:  7.9%
Cannot afford a baby:  21.3%
Having a child will disrupt education or job: 10.8%
Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy: 14.1%
Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy: 12.2%
Risk to maternal health: 2.8%
Risk to fetal health: 3.3%
Other: 2.1%

Source:Bankole, Akinrinola; Singh, Susheela; Haas, Taylor.  Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries.  International Family Planning  Perspectives, 1998, 24(3):117–127 & 152 As reported by:The Alan Guttmacher Institute Online:


Abortions Worldwide
Number of abortions per year: Approximately 46 Million
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 126,000

Legality of abortion:
About 26 million women obtain legal abortions each year, while an additional 20 million abortions are obtained in countries where it is restricted or prohibited by law.

Abortion averages:
Worldwide, the lifetime average is about 1 abortion per woman.

source: Center for Bioethical Reform

Look it up. 95% of abortions are people who just go around and have sex with anyone they desire, and use abortion as birth control. If you don't want to listen, or understand, my argument, just look at the FACTS!!! There are enough abortions every year, that statistics show an average of 1 per woman per lifetime. That's a VERY sad statistic. I understand you not agreeing with my arguments. But I think people need to really look at the facts before they make a decision to be Pro-choice OR pro-life, and really be informed of the numbers.
Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users