Buddrow_Wilson

I believe that it would certainly NOT be in the best interest of society to force women to carry a fetus to term when they very much do not want to. The options are 1) A baby born and raised by someone who will likely always resent it. 2) A baby born and raised by the state. 3) baby is adopted. The first two options are in my opinion much less desireable than a lifeless fetus. The third option frankly is not sufficient to take care of the multitude of unwanted children that would exist in such a society.

Pro-choice isn't really an opposite to Pro-life. An opposite would be a political movement advocating abortion in all situations for any reason. Wouldn't that be silly???

Theli

First of all, I apologize for the short post. I wasn't trying to simplify a complex question. I have been without internet for a few days, and have been unable to respond or elaborate.
Perhaps I subconsciously simplified the question, as getting rocks thrown in your face I believe is the reward for asking it.

"No" means that abortion should be rendered illegal in whatever country the question is presented (if the question is based only on morality).
"Yes" simply means that the woman baring the child should be able to make that choice herself (within certain age boundaries of the fetus) and should not be forced not to by law.

It's difficult to just choose "yes" or "no", but that's why we also have the thread for people to discuss.

L. Noctivagans

If someone doesn't want to carry a baby to term, maybe they should think about that before engaging in baby-risking behaviors. Fetuses aren't like tapeworms; you don't go swimming and suddenly the next day you find a fetus has invaded your womb.

I object to the notion that a contraceptive accident during recreational sex is an offense punishable by death... of the ultimate victim.

Here's a question: Would you rather be - (A) Raised by someone who resented you, (B) raised by the state, or (C) killed? And if the answer is (C), why aren't orphanage residents doing vast lemminglike procedures of mass suicide? Perhaps they like being alive, even if the conditions aren't optimum.

Garbles18

If I was still in the womb, I would not be conscious of the fact that I was alive and I would therefore not care what you did with me. I would imagine that orphanage residents aren't doing vast lemminglike procedures of mass suicide because they either aren't old enough to recognize their existence or they are and they value what they recognize as life.

Melusina

Yeah, if men don't want to carry a baby to term, they shouldn't have sex, the filthy little sluts.



Maybe people who feel so strongly about this should only have sex with people who feel the same way.

L. Noctivagans

How do you know? Isn't that sort of a 'faith' thing, especially considering that brain wave functions are detectable at about 40-43 days after conception?

<edited to add source: Baruch Brody, Abortion and the Sanctity of Human Life: A Philosophical View (Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press, 1975).>

Non-Sequitur. What does this have to do with anything? Just because men don't have to worry about getting pregnant means the whole thing is a non-issue? Men aren't the ones who have to pass the sucker through the birth canal, so maybe it should be ok for the woman to kill the baby as it's being born.

Are you meaning to suggest that if only one gender has to deal with the consequences of their actions, even the most grisly solution possible shouldn't be a legal question?

Melusina

This was a sarcastic comment on the fact that it takes TWO genders to create a pregnancy (but only one to catch hell and punishment over it). How do you end up with a woman killing her offspring as she is in the middle of giving birth to it?

Quote:

Are you meaning to suggest that if only one gender has to deal with the consequences of their actions, even the most grisly solution possible shouldn't be a legal question?

I mean to suggest that it's pretty grisly to force anyone to have a child against their will (health risk, labor pains, episiotomy, loss of job and income, etc etc). I sure don't mean to suggest that any child forced to come into existance will be cared for properly. I don't mean to suggest that there is no such thing as child abuse when a child has parents unfit to care for it. I don't mean to suggest social services can even begin to take up the slack (hey those two hundred or so children who just went missing from the system in FL, including the one that never turned up until she was found dead, were accidents, could have happened to anyone). I don't mean to suggest that every child born will be adopted or even adoptable, since there are crack babies, birth defects, other handicaps, etc.

And as for dealing with the consequences of their actions - what about victims of rape or incest? Are you all about punishing them too?

I mean to suggest that a child is a responsibility, not a consequence or a punishment. I mean to suggest that whether or not it gets you all lathered up, I think a woman's right to choose whether or not she has a child is one that should be protected. And I mean to suggest that whatever you think or feel about it, it's still legal in this country and I for one intend to do whatever I can to make sure it stays that way.

Hope that wasn't too suggestive for you.

Mel

Garbles18

Are you saying that having brain wave functions is the same thing as knowing that you are a living, breathing being?

L. Noctivagans

Garbles: And how do you know it's not? Yes, I know, it's a classic "God of the Gaps" argument, but you seem so *sure* of yourselves.... you've got to have some positive evidence to support your side of the issue, right?

Melusina:
Maybe that means one should be more careful, since that one has the greater risk of an undesireable result? If I have a genetic predisposition to alcoholism, I'm going to have to take greater precautions around alcohol than my spouse. If you have a genetic predisposition towards getting pregnant, perhaps you should take greater precautions about sex.

Why's that any worse?

Yes, it is definitely grisly to force someone to have sex unprotected against their will.

Wait, what do you mean that's not the only time this becomes an issue?

Again, maybe someone should have be aware of the possibility before engaging in risky sex practices. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? "Oh, I don't really want a dog, so I'll just drown it" would be an appaling attitude towards a pet... but it's an acceptable attitude towards a child?

"Improperly cared for" is a damn sight better than "dead".

In general, "abused" is still a damn sight better than dead. Does anyone ever say "Oh, that poor abused child! It's a good thing he died so he wouldn't have to suffer that anymore"?

So instead of one turning up dead, you'd prefer they ALL have turned up dead (in the dumpster behind the clinic)?


All of which, arguably, are damn sights better than "dead". Any crack babies ever get adopted to lead fulfilling lives? Why are you so hell-bent on denying them that opportunity?

That's a trickier area. I don't want to punish the women for a crime they were a victim of... but I also don't want to punish the child for a crime it was also a victim of.

It's both a responsibility AND a consequence. Again, it's not like a tapeworm that just shows up in your intestine one day. With the exception of the events mentioned above, you have to engage in a willful, consentual act to risk getting pregnant. If you do engage in such an act, and are not prepared to get pregnant, why is that a capital crime for the child?

Why does a woman have a "right" to commit preemptive infanticide? Whether or not you want to call it a person while it's still living inside you, given the natural course of things it WILL be a person when it comes out. You can't get around the fact that you ARE, ACTIVELY, denying an individual his or her right to existance. But your right to shirk all responsibility and not have to worry about adoption paperwork is much more important. Not to mention your right to not take a maternity vacation from your high-powered career. That's more important, too.

Say a mother has a day-old child, and he/she came down with pneumonia. Would it be acceptable for her to say "Sorry, my job is more important than your life", not take off work, and leave the kid to die? If not, why was it acceptable yesterday to say "I don't want to take maternity leave, my job is more important than your life"?

Arguments from emotion are nice, and have their place in politics. But no amount of emotion is going to cover up the fact that a fetus will most likely become an individual... unless you kill it first.

I'll say it again: It's NOT your body. That little zygote in your uterus? That's NOT your body. Arguably, it's already the body of another individual. Unarguably, it will probably become the body of another individual. If you don't want to care for another individual, use some of the before-the-fact contraceptives, or for god's sake, use the Plan B pill, rather than deciding a month down the road that your temporary peace of mind is more important than a human life.

In an orphanage is better than dead.
A ward of the state is better than dead.
Improperly cared for is better than dead.
Neglected is better than dead.
In most cases, even abused is better than dead.
What part of "dead" is better than even the worst-case scenario of an unwanted baby, not counting that, in general, the worst-case scenario is also "dead"?

Take some precautions not to end up with a bun in the oven in the first place, rather than just killing him for the heinous crime of actually having the gall to start cell division without your written permission. And if YOU won't take personal responsibility over it, the government's gonna have to force some personal responsibility on you.

You want to use lethal force on your child? Then you better be able to prove self-defense. The line between "infanticide" and "choice" is between day 270 and day 275? I don't buy it. If it's murder today, it was probably murder a week ago.

Jagged

There are any number of reasons people will NOT commit suicide, even if they'd like to. I can personally attest to this. I think the biggest reason is that people are afraid of the pain involved in dying, not dying itself. There's not an easy, painless way to kill yourself once you're a big kid. And for that matter, children under 12 are not capable of putting together and executing a plan to destroy themselves. (resists using a long string of expletives) So just get them out of the womb and after that your job is done, eh? Who cares if they get beat on later? Better to spend your time picketting the abortion clinic than be a mentor to an abused child? (Love that Christian compassion) Have you ever spoken with anyone who was improperly cared for? Have you? You might be surprised if you ask them if they wish they had not been born.Hell yes! Very interesting that you are not moved by abuse of a child once it's been born, but the same abuse in the womb? And which do you think is more painful and violent: beating up your kid regularly for the first, say, 14 years of his life, or having a short medical procedure before he even is able to feel pain? Again, have you ever spoken with anyone who has gone thru the hell of constant childhood abuse? Why don't you ask them if it would be better to have a child even if it will be abused.Preemptive infanticide? Are you serious? So I take it you're also supportive of locking up every woman who's ever had an abortion (as many as 1 in 2)? What about the millions of sperm which traveled to the egg but were beaten to the punch by the first one there? If conditions had been just slightly different, a different combination would've been formed. Probably if either partner had moved in a slightly different way, a different sperm would've fertilized the egg. Is the "winning" sperm guilty of preemptive infanticide? Did not one sperm "preempt" all the others? Other sperm which would've formed different combinations if given the chance? Why are you not accusing the winning sperm? Why are you not saving every sperm a man has ever produced so it can later be made into a baby?

Did God guide the right sperm (one among several million) to the egg? How do you know this? What about animals other than humans? Is each fishy sperm drawn to a particular egg? Frogs? If so, God must be pretty damn busy. But why can't he give someone who's starving the winning lottery numbers instead of some already-rich building contractor? And why does he allow humans and other animals to be born with gross birth defects? If he knew that a different sperm would've produced a healthy offspring while the "chosen" one would produce one suffering from chronic disease and die young, why would he be so cruel?

While we're at it, what about contraception itself? If the use of contraception will prevent sperm from reaching egg, is this not also "preemptive infanticide," as you put it? Is not a condom an artificial barrier to a natural process? What about not having sex at all? Do you deny that more children would get a chance to live if more sex takes place? So why are you not preaching for everyone to stop what they're doing and get busy? What is so sacred about the moment the sperm and the egg get together? Why is THAT the point at which you say "it's a potential person"? One second, two seperate cells; next second, a zygote. What happened there that is so monumental? And why are you not lamenting the millions of other "potential children" that were lost when only one sperm got to hook up with the egg?Why? Why is the condition of being alive so "holy"? Perhaps you don't want to face the fact that you might not have been born? Just one sperm to the right, one headache that night... But if you hadn't been, you never would've known it. I find that it is often the people who take the least joy in life that are so adamant in asserting that it is all-important.

You said "in most cases... abused is better than dead." I'm interested to know in which particular cases you think it is NOT better.

I know where you're coming from, I really do. I used to spout very similar ideas myself. I think one of the roots of the issue is fear. Fear of the unknown, specifically. What if I had not been born. What if my sister had been a brother. What if I had not had a sister. People become so attached to the way things are that they don't want to face the fact that they might have been different. This is possibly why people fear abortion so much. It's not so much about showing respect for the life of an individual (your callousness on the issue of abuse would lend weight here) as it is about being able to believe there's a divine order being worked out thru it all. Then again, why could not God find a way to work around this stuff?