Excessive Pro-Life

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Read a clip about this in my newspaper...

A 9 year old girl in Nicuagua (sp?) was raped and became pregnant.  As the country is heavily catholic they have strict abortion laws and basically, unless three different doctors agree that having the baby will risk her life, she can't get the abortion, even though her family and seemingly her desire to have the abortion.  The doctors think that she can safely have the baby so she can't get an abortion.  So now this 9 year old girl is going to suffer incredibly in addition to the suffering already experienced from the rape, all because the Catholic church is so strict on abortion.

Now, I don't hide that I'm pro-choice, even if one claims the fetus is human I think abortions should be allowed until the end of the second trimester because if a parent doesn't want the child or can't afford to be a parent, that child will have a crappy life.

While that is my view, I can certainly understand the pro-life people who think abortion shouldn't be allowed simply because someone doesn't want a baby.

But when the baby is the product of rape, incest, or any other sexual harrassment, or if the mother is below the age of say 16 or there are other health problems or deformaties, sticking to the pro-life stance to me is sickening.  By having the baby it adds excess suffering to that that would take place with the abortion.

Any comments?

[Mr. Lothario]

     No comments; I agree with you.

[cookie]

I agree with you on all but one thing

if a parent doesn't want the child or can't afford to be a parent, that child will have a crappy life

a crappy life is better than simply not living at all. plus, a crappy life is america is practically a luxury one in other countries.

anyway, i don't think abortion should be completely outlawed but I also think that people need to start being held responsible for their actions.

[Ace]

While this is about as extreme as circumstances could get, I still don't believe you can condone an abortion. The rape has happened and nothing is going to change it. If you kill the baby, does that make you any better than the rapist?

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Well, rape is immoral no matter how you look at it.  Abortion isn't.  Aborting a fetus does not cause pain and suffering to the fetus, it merely ends its life.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Yep, here's one.  You are back to shitty arguments.

all because the Catholic church is so strict on abortion.

So, it's the Catholic Church's fault?  Even though the government makes the laws?  Even though many non-catholics don't believe in abortion?  

Weaksause.

Now, I don't hide that I'm pro-choice, even if one claims the fetus is human I think abortions should be allowed until the end of the second trimester because if a parent doesn't want the child or can't afford to be a parent, that child will have a crappy life.Any comments?

First, I'll echo Cookie.  A crappy life is better then no life.

Second, I'll call BULLSHIT.  You just said that all those kids that have been adopted over all these many years of it happening have crappy lives.  Yep, Dave, the founder of Wendy's had a crappy life.  All the kids he adopted did to.  Oh, wait, they were all happy, healthy, and well off.  Wow.  I guess an adopted kid may have a good life after all.  Especially since, the peole that are going to raise him, want him.  Or her, as the case may be.  

Third, if you don't believe that the fetus is human, what difference does it make which trimester it's in?  I mean, if it's not human, 20 minutes before it's born should still be ok with you.  Or, for that matter, what's wrong with 20 minutes after?  A baby doesn't have much in the way of thinking going on, it's running on instinct for the first few weeks more then anything.  They don't even see right.  Why not abort it a day after it's here?  Give the parents a chance to see what they are getting first?  How is any of that different?  

Logically, you argue that the kid doesn't have any rights until they are born.  Well, they don't have full rights until they are 21, so what?  Does that mean we can abort them anytime before they are adults?  Ok, maybe because while in the womb, they are dependant on the mother, well, aren't they dependant on the mother post partum?  

You are drawing a line that says when a zygot/fetus/baby/child/adult have rights.  What makes your line the right one?  Why is it that life of innocents is precious to you, but you don't consider that life?

By having the baby it adds excess suffering to that that would take place with the abortion.
 

Gee, suffering.  And this rape is the fault of the unborn child any more then it is the child's that was violated?  So it should suffer (not pain, but consequences) so that the mother suffers less?

What happened was as shitty as it gets, but I really don't get why it's ok to stop someone from living, to ease the burden of someone else.  I really don't.  For any liberal, that was arguing how no innocent people should ever have to die to think that abortion is no big deal really floors me.  It is the ultimate in hyprocricy.

Innocent people should never suffer or die.  Guns are bad because they kill people.  Oh, but it's ok to single out that group.  We've decided that they don't have any rights.  We've decided that the rights of this group of people are much more important.  Why, no silly, we can't do it because of their sex, nationality, or race.  No, it's because of their age.  They haven't actually been born yet, so they don't count.

<sarcasim>Yeah, It all makes such perfect sense to me now. </sarcasim>

Cookie, I'm with you.  I think there are always cases where you can't say "oh, the death penalty is always wrong"  or "there should never, ever be an abortion for any reason."  I don't think the world is black and white enough for that.  But I also don't think that abortion should be used as birth control either.  I think that the fetus should have rights too.

One last quote by Bondo:

Well, rape is immoral no matter how you look at it.? Abortion isn't.? Aborting a fetus does not cause pain and suffering to the fetus, it merely ends its life.

So abortion isn't immoral?  I hear lots of people saying it is.  

<sarcasim> Oh, I get it, if I kill someone and don't cause them pain and suffering in the process, it's ok.  So if I just put a .45 to the back of their heads, making sure to hit the brainstem, stopping all pain, it's ok to kill them.  I shouldn't be punished at all.  Who's first?</sarcasim>

And if you say that causes suffering, I'm gonna ask how you know.  And then I'm gonna ask how you know that a fetus can't feel pain.

With that last post, welcome back the dumbassville Bondo.  You have used all the stupid arguments.

[cookie]

Aborting a fetus does not cause pain and suffering to the fetus, it merely ends its life.

That's an odd statement to make. It's like someone telling me "I'm not going to step on your toes or even shoot you in the foot, I'm going to kill you!" I also find it odd how you use "merely" in the context .o O

[tasty]

I agree with Bondo too. Good thing women have control over their own bodies in the USA and we don't have to worry about such things.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I agree with Bondo too. Good thing women have control over their own bodies in the USA and we don't have to worry about such things.

Oh man, I may have to get my rant on big time.

For anyone that believes completely in the "it's a womans body and she has the right to control it" argument, I have a quick question.  Then why is there child support?

I'm a guy (gasp).  And I have a woman that is pregnant right now (shock).  Now, lets say that I didn't want her to have it.  I wanted the baby aborted.  Can I make her?  No fucking way.  But can she still make me pay child support for the next 18 years.  Bet your ass.

Now let's turn that around.  She wants to have an abortion (because she doesn't want to lose her figure).  I want to keep the baby, even if she's not involved.  Can I stop her from having an abortion?  No fucking way.

Now, if the child is half my responsibility, then I should have half the say in what happens to it.  If I have no say, I should have absolutely no responsibility in it.  One way or the other.  But no.  That's not how it works.  There are no fathers rights, just mothers.  

[The Ghost of Bondo]

And Bucc, you are back to weakly criticizing my argument.

You say I shouldn't blame the Catholic Church...well guess what, it is the official religion of the country and thus has major influence on what is legal and not legal.  If it weren't for the Catholic church's stance on abortion, the country wouldn't have that same stance.  Therefore the blame lies exactly on the Catholic church.

About my drawing the line at the second trimester...well, it is called compromise.  I think it is the right of the woman to have the choice to get an abortion.  From a political stance you can't ignore that the opponents of abortion will accept one limit over a later one.  I think in general it is the most reasonable one.  You are trying to argue slippery slope.  It doesn't really apply to law, only to logic.  I wasn't trying to make a logical argument for when babies have rights, I was trying to say at what legal point abortions would be allowed.  No moral implication involved with that point.

As for adoptions.  Just because you give the right to have an abortion to people who don't want or can't raise a child doesn't mean they are going to take that right...just like now.  I logically assume that since I am not technically saying the law should change that it would be the same as it currently is with many going through with the delivery and putting the child up for adoption.

Now let me state this.  The people who currently carry the child and put it up for adoption will continue to do so.  The people who carry the child and don't put it up for adoption, will either continue to do so or abort it if it is made more avaliable.  So the only ones being aborted are ones that weren't going to be adopted...they were going to be raised by uncaring parents who can't provide and thus the children that would be aborted are ones with shitty lives.

As for men's rights to the baby.  This is biological based.  In nature, females take full responsibility for raising a baby and the father while it may provide some support is not as involved.  Biologically it is the woman who is responsible and thus has the control.  You can argue that in our culture that is sexist, but until you start carrying the developing fetus around for 9 months and the breastfeeding it for another 9, you really don't get that say.  You can easily have another baby, women can't as easily.  Women bear the burden in all respects so they also get the choice.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

That's an odd statement to make. It's like someone telling me "I'm not going to step on your toes or even shoot you in the foot, I'm going to kill you!" I also find it odd how you use "merely" in the context .o O

Merely was intentionally used.

There is a difference between someone killing you and the aborting of a fetus.  There would be pain/awareness as a result of you being killed.  A fetus has not been shown to have the capacity to feel pain or awareness of being killed, thus it is merely being done.

[abe]

what are u saying bucc, that youd rather have half a baby?? doesnt work like that....besides, your not the one trying to squeeze a baby out of your ass.....im sorry if im being a little crude here.
first off congrats on becoming a daddy....
second, fetuses, zygotes and embryos are neiter counted in the census, nor do they have a passport or birth certificate (duh, theyre not even born yet) so i dont think they are entitled to the same rights as you and I.

overall, my feelings on abortion are two-fold: my mind agrees with with the die-hard pro-choicers who say that its the womens right to decide what she does with her uterus and that until the baby pops out the "hatch" it is not a human being. at the same time, my heart understands the objection of the pro-lifers and pulls me towards a more moderate stance on the issue.

you are right that bondo is in no position to decide when life begins, but neither are you or anyone else. the compromise is that during the first trimester you can abort, the second trimester only in exceptional cases but at all not during the third. this seems reasonable and also accomodates my conflicting views on the subject.

[Ace]

You say I shouldn't blame the Catholic Church...well guess what, it is the official religion of the country and thus has major influence on what is legal and not legal.  If it weren't for the Catholic church's stance on abortion, the country wouldn't have that same stance.  Therefore the blame lies exactly on the Catholic church.

Could you please elaborate on how the Catholic Church should be "blamed" for believing in the sanctity of human life? You blame the Church for not letting this girl get an abortion when you should be praising them for saving a life.

About my drawing the line at the second trimester...well, it is called compromise.  I think it is the right of the woman to have the choice to get an abortion.  From a political stance you can't ignore that the opponents of abortion will accept one limit over a later one.  I think in general it is the most reasonable one.  You are trying to argue slippery slope.  It doesn't really apply to law, only to logic.  I wasn't trying to make a logical argument for when babies have rights, I was trying to say at what legal point abortions would be allowed.  No moral implication involved with that point.

Bondo, despite what you may think, this lies totally on the basis of the morality or lack thereof of abortion. Laws are based on the morality of the society, and apparently some people think it's moral if we kill a baby early enough so it has become legal. There is no legal reasoning why the third trimester is any different from the second trimester, but for some reason people believe that a baby magically becomes alive after a certain number of days in the womb. By setting this arbitrary date, they reveal their despicable hypocrisy as they realize that a baby is alive before it leaves the womb. However, in order to justify their murders, abortionists say that as long as you abort the baby soon enough it is "ok."

As for adoptions.  Just because you give the right to have an abortion to people who don't want or can't raise a child doesn't mean they are going to take that right...just like now.  I logically assume that since I am not technically saying the law should change that it would be the same as it currently is with many going through with the delivery and putting the child up for adoption.

Now let me state this.  The people who currently carry the child and put it up for adoption will continue to do so.  The people who carry the child and don't put it up for adoption, will either continue to do so or abort it if it is made more avaliable.  So the only ones being aborted are ones that weren't going to be adopted...they were going to be raised by uncaring parents who can't provide and thus the children that would be aborted are ones with shitty lives.

While it doesn't mean that they will necessarily have abortions, it means that they can do so legally. If we made rape legal, I doubt everyone would go outside and rape someone tomorrow, but I'm sure a bunch of sick fucks would. However, does it make it right just because it has been deemed legal? I'm sure you will agree with me when I say "Hell no."

Also, what gives you the right to say that a child will lead a "shitty life" and therefore should be killed. That seems pretty damn pompous and arrogant to me. In essence, you are playing God with the child's life.

[Ace]

As for men's rights to the baby.  This is biological based.  In nature, females take full responsibility for raising a baby and the father while it may provide some support is not as involved.  Biologically it is the woman who is responsible and thus has the control.  You can argue that in our culture that is sexist, but until you start carrying the developing fetus around for 9 months and the breastfeeding it for another 9, you really don't get that say.  You can easily have another baby, women can't as easily.  Women bear the burden in all respects so they also get the choice.

This will basically come off as a "Yeah, what Bucc said" but I just can't stand the bullshit flying around. First, the baby is half the man's. If you would like, I could arrange a basic biology lesson and explain the birds and the bees to you bondo. It doesn't matter that that the woman has to carry it for 9 months, the baby is still a living being that is half from the father, half from the mother. I don't see why a man should have to see his baby murdered while having ZERO say just because the woman doesn't want to carry it.

Second, in our society it is blatantly obvious that responsibility for the child rests at least half, if not more, on the father's shoulders. If a guy decided, "Hey, I don't want this kid." and left, he would get his ass tossed in jail for being a deadbeat dad. Ditto for if he stopped making child support payments. And all this is with NO guarantee that he would even get partial custody of his kid.

That's an odd statement to make. It's like someone telling me "I'm not going to step on your toes or even shoot you in the foot, I'm going to kill you!" I also find it odd how you use "merely" in the context .o O

Merely was intentionally used.

There is a difference between someone killing you and the aborting of a fetus.  There would be pain/awareness as a result of you being killed.  A fetus has not been shown to have the capacity to feel pain or awareness of being killed, thus it is merely being done.

Bondo, if you came up while I was sleeping and shot me so I died instantly, I would have neither the capacity to feel pain or awareness of being killed. However, we call this murder. Abortion is no different.

[*NADS Capt. Anarchy]

Thi has been bugging me for a bit, and i just have to point it out. In recent times, it seems that (almost) everyone who is pro-life is for this war in Iraq, and everyone pro-abortion (I refuse to call it pro-choice, sucha  stupid name) is against it. This is what this boils down to in my mind:

For the pro-life pro-war people, killing is not an acceptable thing to do to an unborn child, but is acceptable to do to thousands of adults.

For the pro-abortion anti-war people, killing is not an acceptable thing to do to thousands of adults, but is acceptable to do to an unborn child.

...right...

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

I think you are generalizing and assuming, Capt. There are many people from both parties for and against a war...it really doesn't boil down to the battle lines on the abortion issue considering virtually all democrats are "pro-choice," while many republicans are "pro-life" and some are "pro-choice."

If the lines of war were the same as the lines for and against abortion, a majority of Congress would be against war.

Added-on: Killing someone to save a life (in their personal opinion) is hypocracy (sp?). You can't justify the slaying of abortion doctors, regardless of your argument.

[kami]

Why should anyone be allowed to tell a woman if she's allowed to abort her child or not, it IS her body and not anyone elses. The fetus might have half the genetic material from the father but it's not like the father should have any control over it just because of that.

A fetus don't have a brain to think with and therefore it's not a person. That's what science says atleast. So in my opinion, aborting an unborn fetus is just like killing a bug. And you're right, I'm not christian at all and I don't believe in the ?sanctity? of human life...

[abe]

capt.anarchy: I mostly support bush's policy on iraq and ive made my views on abortion pretty clear, but i guess im an exception. that was a rather broad generalization on 2 completely unrelated issues, which led you to draw a pretty retarded conclusion. no offense, but you sound like zaitzev calling me a republican when in fact, i'm anything but that. quit labeling people and making lame observations. some people DO actually think about the issues and reach their own conclusions, instead of adopting the entire agenda of either side of the liberal/conservative spectrum.

[jn.loudnotes]

I'm going to generalize even further for the purposes of law, which is really what this debate should be about.  Due to religious and moral concerns, abortion is a completely polarizing issue.  Most people feel very strongly one way or another, and they're not easily changed.  

Therefore, I take issue with the idea of

I refuse to call it pro-choice, sucha? stupid name

See, the whole idea of the "pro-choice" movement is that law should not restrict abortion.  Some people, such as Bucc and Ace, are probably always going to be against abortion.  They have good reasons, which are difficult to argue against.  Likewise, people such as Bondo will always support choice, for similarly defensible and strong reasons.  

However, it shouldn't be the role of the government to impose restriction on such an issue, especially when it is so personal.  Although the majority rules the minority, our government is not designed for the majority to suppress the minority.  And if pro-life is the minority, they lose nothing if people retain the right to choose.  The lack of additional (unwanted) members does not harm our society.

Really, I think the idea of "pro-life" is that which is ridiculous.  It's inflammatory and intolerant of those who really want only to preserve the rights of women.  No one is for abortion.  No one is "pro-abortion" or relishes the idea, unless they have lost their humanity.  However, it is not morally wrong to acknowledge that some people will have an abortion if necessary.  Morality or otherwise, the government should not be there to step in the way.  (Now I would segue into my views on legalizing drugs; just think of it along the same lines)

----

Heh, I think I'm really beginning to enjoy this whole "middle-ground" positioning.

[Ace]

I agree that "pro-choice" it is a stupid name. It should be changed to either "pro-death" or "con-life" to properly relfect the postion opposite "pro-life."

Really, I think the idea of "pro-choice" is that which is ridiculous. It's inflammatory and intolerant of those who really want only to preserve the rights of babies. No one is for raped girls getting pregnant. No one is "pro-rape" or relishes the idea, unless they have lost their humanity. However, it is not morally wrong to acknowledge that some people will want to not kill babies if necessary. Morality or otherwise, the government should not be there to step in the way (of allowing these babies to live.)

Works both ways, doesn't it?