Abortion - your views.

[Bun]

Ok. A post without any beliefs about abortion in is on its way.



It has been a bit back and forth. Frankly I find it hard to just go away when people quote hack me to peices, laugh at my argument and throw it back at me. So I do the same to them. Yes, it is a circle, and yes nothing new is coming out of this, I'm just repeating myself as I'm assuming people aren't understanding as they simply aren't letting me keep that view, and because I feel my need to defend my view because of the gang-bang we have going on here.



I don't feel special. I just don't appreciate you trying to put down my character, sense of personality, and making me out to be a bad person just because I don't happen to agree with some of your views. Lots of pro-choicers have been much more agressive, much more cocky, sarcastic and unwilling to accept other viewpoints than I have been. It may be that, just because you're on their side of the debate (if you are), you count it as a valid point, laugh at it yourself, etc.

Yes other people than me have had this treatment, and frankly that is why I joined this debate, as I wasn't happy with how they were treated.
I think this debate realy is too hot for a forum like this, and attacks are just getting pointlessly personal now.

I'm just wondering, and don't go assuming I mean anything bad about you as a person or your views (in no way, state or form did I directly tell you that your views were wrong, and that you shouldn't have any in the first place), if maybe you would consider the possibility that the reason people are "attacking" you, as you so put it, is because of your general attitude?

You've already admitted that you got a little snotty in order to defend your views, which is fine, the whole part about defending yourself, just not so much the way you go about it. I'm not attacking you as a person or your pro-life stance. In fact, I'm very glad that you've formed your own opinion of the situation. What I am attacking you for is the entire way you've gone about it. This may just be me (and I know I could be wrong), but when you snap at someone, you've got to realize that there is a good chance they are going to snap back.

Getting heated is not always the best way to get your point across, will you agree with me on that? If so, is it possible to go about this in a different manner?

You don't see me in here, as I, too, have participated in the thread, coming back to reiterate my stance on the issue a gillion times over just because someone with a different opinion than mine decided to pick apart my argument. I'm onto a different matter, and that's finding out why you seem to be--in my eyes--so hostile.

Again, not trying to attack you as a person, or your beliefs; that's far from what I'm doing here. Just trying to get a better understanding, and maybe open your eyes a bit, to the way in which this subject is being discussed.

 

[Bun]

I admit, it got heated. To come onto my computer after all the crap I was facing in real life, to find that everyone on the internet thinks I'm crap too made me boil. Arguments aren't as best as they can be when someone is like that. I don't think my overall attitude was any different than some other people on this thread though. Perhaps the way I got about it, but my attitude can appear different when reading words on a screen to how I was when actually typing them in, it all depends on how you read them and the tone you think I am typing in.

If this were a person to person conversation I don't think my attitude would be a problem, I am a calm person, when I get angry yeah I might state something, but I don't scream my head off, unless I feel claustrophobic and everyone is surrounding me pointing and laughing... And I don't beleive the way I have written in this thread realy applies to how I am as a person in real life. To be honest I was just countering sarcasm, that made me feel like shite (I don't swear, so that means I mean it), with my own (which made me feel a little bit better). But yes I agree this is not the best way to go about this debate. I'm not going to resort to naming certain people, but there are some people in this thread that have milked all of this out of me.

Would it make you feel better if wagged a disapproving finger at Cerridwen, Kuja and everyone else who is opposing you? I really don't think that blaming other people, or insinuating that others are at fault is going to help your argument; it only makes you look more guilty of getting out of control for no good reason. I'm not entirely devoid of merit here in using you as an example, and that's because you are the testiest of the bunch; although I can say Katsky is getting up there...

Actually, I'm not going to bother anymore, at least not for now. Like you, I've got many RL issues to deal with and I cba to have this conversation at the moment.

BTW, I'm pro-choice.

 

[Erythritol]

I am both Pro-choice and an advocate of applied eugenics. Hitler believed in a pseudo-scientific "racial" eugenics. There's a difference.

So, uh, just out of curiosity, have you ever heard anything about the Holocaust, like, ever? Hitler didn't just try to kill the Jews or Gypsies or Blacks. He also went after the mentally ill and the handicapped. Kind of like what you're suggesting. Yeaaah. I'm sorry to break this to you, but when it comes to eugenics, there's not really a difference between "oh the blacks are inferior" and "oh those with autism are inferior." Being a certain race or having a condition like autism are things that a) the person has no control over and b) do not significantly lower any quality of living.

Yes, let's continue the rapid spread of defective genes, and allow not only overpopulation, but an unequal society of defectives and healthy people.

Hey, you might wanna start checking your facts. Guess what? Autism isn't necessarily genetic. A lot of conditions aren't necessarily genetic. There are millions of couples with autistic children who are not autistic themselves. And hey, where do you draw the line at "defective"? Hm? I have a friend who has epilepsy. Should she be sterilized? What about people who have cancer? Cancer can be hereditary! Who exactly are YOU to dictate who is defective and who is healthy? See how eugenics suddenly turns into a very slippery slope? Who determines who is "healthy" and who is "defective"?

Please read about "Fascism". Hitler was not a fascist by any means, one only has to look at the Third Reich's social and economic structure to understand this.

So, I looked up fascism on wikipedia, as per your request:

"Fascism is a totalitarian nationalist political ideology and mass movement that is concerned with notions of cultural decline or decadence, and which seeks to achieve a millenarian national rebirth by exalting the nation or race, as well as promoting cults of unity, strength and purity."

Oh shit, that sounds kind of familiar doesn't it? Sort of like, why, the Nazi party! And let's have some FOCUS here please. We aren't dicussing whether the Nazi's economic infrastructure was fascist; we are discussing their policies towards those whom they considered "inferior." And yes, they were VERY fascist with those policies. Before you tell others, much less someone whose major is government, to look up something, you should be able to understand it yourself. Perhaps not all aspects of the Nazi regime were fascist, but the aspects in question in this thread certainly were. So you might want to get comfortable with the fact that you share a common social point of view with the Nazi party. Not something I'd brag about, personally...

Oh yes, because you know, my economic views, belief in racial equality and social liberalism obviously make me a Neo-Nazi.

*Looks around* Well isn't that the funniest thing....I don't see anything regarding economics on this thread title. So let's just stick to the topic at hand, eh? Good! Now, if you really think that you believe in equality, I think you might be delusional. Last I checked, those who believe in equality don't think that those who have handicaps or are what you call "defective" should be sterilized and wiped from the gene pool. As far as I understand equality, it's about everyone being allowed the same opportunities and benefits in life. What you are suggesting, indeed the entire concept of eugenics, is not based on equality. It is, in fact, based on racism and white-supremecy.

If they have have a history of ancestral non-education and they themselves have shown to be less-than-able to be educated then yes.

Why, that's not ridiculous at all! Oh wait, yes it is. Never mind the social and economic factors that often keep people (especially certain minority groups) in poverty and make them unable to educate themselves. Instead of working to better the social conditions that keep people down, let's just sterilize them 'cause they're all retards. Anything else you'd like to add, perhaps about how this ties in with your idea of equality?

As I said to Erythritol, please research Fascism before using that argument.

No u

But we can make it happen.

No. There will never be a society where everyone is perfectly equal or is afforded the same opportunities. But if you would like to get to that point, I'm pretty sure sterilizing the people you deem "defective" isn't the way to go about it. Why? Well, um, because by doing that you've already created inequalities. If not everyone is afforded the right to procreate, then not everyone is equal. I know, you're going to say BUT ERHTYRITOL! IF WE WEED OUT THE RETARDS, THEN WE WILL BE LEFT THE SUPER RACE. To which I will sadly inform you, as I've said already, that not all disabilities are genetic. So you will have to continuously sterilize people, thus creating inequalities. Sorry, your plan fails

Yeah, well next time you see someone who was born with Cerebral Palsy or Multiple Sclerosis, crying over how he/she can't do this or that like a regular person, you keep believing that.

Oh god, I know. That Stephen Hawking just doesn't stop crying. Or coming up with absolutely brilliant contributions to physics.

...So are you starting to understand the absurdity of your argument? Or do you still want to "put people out of their pain"? (PS: You sound like a bad Final Fantasy villain. I think Seymour had a similar idea...)

The disabled people I've talked to, who can comprehend such concepts smile at the idea. It's not like I'm advocating their deaths or mistreatment.

Um. Yeah, I'm gonna go with my previous statement. You are DELUSIONAL. And disabled people who can "comprehend such concepts"? I hope you aren't getting altitude sickness on your GIANT pillar. The disabled people you've spoken with are probably smiling at the idea of wiping out a disease. Did they smile when you called them defective and said you wanted to sterilize them?

Edit: Quite frankly, I don't give a shit if this is a violation of the rules or if it's rude. Eugenics is an unbelievably insulting topic, and for someone to suggest that those who were born different, with conditions that don't hamper their quality of life, should be sterilized is abhorrent to me.

 

[Mitsuki]

Alright. Enough of the personal attacks and sarcasm, everyone. Final warning - and those who ignore it will be issued an infraction. I suggest that the Debate Rules should be read once again.

 

[der Astronom]

To be honest the reason I haven't let it go is because people aren't letting me go. I'm not leaving this with four people hacking me to peices, being rude, telling me I am stupid because I don't view it their way. Sorry, but I have a bigger fight than that.

You don't have to respond to them if you really have nothing else to say. It's not uncommon in any given argument, however, to think the opposition slightly less intellectual than your own views--unless they state this explicitly, I cannot do anything about that. But because the fundamental definition of life by which others abide by that you don't cannot be changed by you or anyone else, trying to make them see your view, and therefore, trying to make them see that you're not stupid is almost pointless. Anything else you add wouldn't clear much of this up; it would be more of the same arguments. But since a moderator has told people to be more courteous, that should not be a problem anymore.

And I'm not trying to shove my views down peoples faces though. I started off just stating an opinion, my opinion.. Then I saw how pro-lifers were treated, so I joined in more. It's just got a little heated from then on. Some people just aren't letting me go and accepting that I view a human life differently to them.

Then there's no need to get personal about it. If you can't do that, then just step down for awhile. It might help.

I've not tried to imply that a foetus does have feelings. That argument is faulty. I have instead stated that foetus when it develops into a baby, is born it will have feelings, thoughts and processes. It is a human all the same.

I did not say you did; that was only an example to explain what I mean.

I wish that was how it was. This is how it was originally meant to be anyway. I came here to state my opinion, but it's hard to do that in a topic like this without people thinking you are ordering them about.

If they think that, it's because of the way you're coming off to other people. Keep in mind that other people might also seem that way because they are overly enthusiastic to get their point across--try not to get too intimidated. A debate is never meant to be personal. If it ends up that way, don't make it worse.

 

[Donald Trump]

And slavery. And manipulation. And a disregards for their needs. Yes it is in the past, but it is on the shoulders of the western world. What we must carry, thought it is not our fault as people living today.

I'm not going to reply to the next post unless it is particulary striking, because we're off topic. This whole page for example has not been on topic.

Actually no. We took the slaves from Africa.
Also western colonisation provided them with technology and infrastructure. Without us they'd probably still be living in huts. Or dead if the Arabs moved to the south.
There is also the fact that there has been quite a few dictators. I can't remember off the top of my head, but the Worl bank and the IMF have a name for them.
Also the Oil price shock in the 70s fucked up their economies.

Whilst creating a advanced race through selective breeding may seem nice( from a non-moral or ethical view) it is unrealistic. We aren't going to be able to stop people having children, without resorting to sterilisation.

If we were to get rid of defective genes we'd be left with too few people left. We need people to grow food, make food etc. We also need massive amounts of people to be labourers. So we can't get rid of the unhealthy people unless we learn to exist with very little food.

Whilst the status quo isn't perfect, I think it is doing just fine. I don't think any change is needed.

 

[Sephiroth Crescent]

Always the Jews first eh?

Yeaaaaaahh, too bad I'm not advocating their death or mistreatment.

Yes there is, saying "blacks are inferior" has no scientific foundation to stand on. Saying autistics are defective humans does, as I have pointed out before, I also have autism.

When you have autism, please come back and tell me what you think then. Autism severs social interaction heavily.

Yes. It really is. Autism - Wikipedia

Yes, you can carry a gene without actually being impaired by it.

When did I advocate sterilization? Please quote where. I'm sick of you people making shit up to try and suit your arguments. But no, it would be immoral for your friend to have children, though.

Certain cancers yes. But it doesn't really affect physical/mental capacity so I see no reason for people who carry cancer genes to not have children, if they want.

Someone's a nihilist. Nobody can dictate anything because everything is subjective.

Physicians, Psychiatrists, etc...

NSDAP also advocated animal rights (before any other nation) and heavy environmentalism (Hitler was a vegetarian), preserving forests and cutting down on industrial pollution. And by your logic, anyone who advocates these things today, are evil Nazis, oh wait, that's everyone.

Yeah, so let's abolish the Paralympics and make paraplegics and the disabled participate in the regular Olympics, because they're not defective right?

Again, where did I say they should be sterilized? But yes, I do believe defective genetics should be "wiped" from the gene pool.

I also believe this, heavily. But not everyone does, people are born with disabilities and can't achieve their dreams like everybody else.

You believe the white race is superior? Because I don't, and I never advocated racism of any kind, even so, if anything East Asians have superior intellectual capacity. But that's besides the point, for it to be racist, I'd have to see conclusive scientific evidence that non-whites are actually not humans and are incapable of any cognitive thought. Oh wait...

Someone's scarecrow is showing, repeatedly. But maybe in your hell hole of a country where you have no social welfare you have shit like poverty, but in the civilized world, most people are more or less of middle class so we don't have to worry about that toss.

Quote where I said this.

No, not a perfect society, but we can aspire to it.

If you're disabled for a non-genetic reason but able to care for children financially and psychologically, I don't see any problem with you having children.

Yeah, because you know, Stephen Hawking is the only disabled guy on the planet, and every disabled person just wants to be a physicist.

Again with the sterilizing... And they understand too, when I say I am defective for autism and bipolar.

Yeah, except I never advocated sterilization.

Heya Katsky, been a while since we've talked =P, how ya been?

When you say you want defective genes wiped, your kind of implying sterilization, also you haven't directly supported it, I'm just curious as to what you want to do about this issue exactly...

- Sephiroth

 

[Sergeant_P]

Abortion

I think in the interest of equality, men should have the right to choose too. After all it's the woman's body, but it's his sperm. So he should have a say in the matter too.

I'd also like the right to abort other people's babies. Namely the ones that cry behind me on long plane trips. Obviously it's their babies, but it happens to be my ears that are ringing, and therefore, my body.

Also I believe that some people were meant to be aborted but for some reason were not due to some mistake in the paper work. I think we should all have the right to abort these individuals on sight.


Better late than never.
​

 

[The Illusive Man]

With abortion being a sore subject for many, heres how I feel about it, but be warned my views may shock and upset some...

With abortion im highly anti-abortion in certain circumstances, i.e teenagers getting knocked up from being little sluts and "accidents", this is there fault and they should have to deal with the consequences of there actions...

These selfish people that go for abortions for the wrong reasons do not realise, they are taking a life away that never had a chance, how would they like it if someone decided that there life was to be taken away because of some "slip-up accident", they wouldnt!

However in the terms of rape and the couple agreeing they DO NOT want the child, I agree with abortion...there is no point bringing a child into the world that has been concieved against a persons will or is going to enter to world loved by neither parent.

now an argument would be the "accidental" child might be unloved, or the teenage slut....this is 90% of the time untrue, as these types usually wanted a child at some point in there life but not just yet....so chances are they would be able to love and care for the child....if not them then the father would!

However like i said if one of those catagories falls into the mutal agreeance or rape catagory then yes, I agree with the abortion...but never agree based on some accident where one potential parent wants rid and the other doesnt or the teen slut who was sleeping around, but the father wants the child now he knows, but she doesnt.


Abortions are one of the cruelist and heartless operations known to human-kind, Its basically agreeing to assisted murder and taking away life from a living thing, hense why I feel very anti-abortion except in a few circumstances.

just my 2cents on the matter.

 

[der Astronom]

With abortion im highly anti-abortion in certain circumstances, i.e teenagers getting knocked up from being little sluts and "accidents", this is there fault and they should have to deal with the consequences of there actions...

These selfish people that go for abortions for the wrong reasons do not realise, they are taking a life away that never had a chance, how would they like it if someone decided that there life was to be taken away because of some "slip-up accident", they wouldnt!

Actually, I thought it was the other way around--that you exist only because of a slip-up accident, and not because a slip-up accident caused you to stop existing. If that happened, then it's not any different from being murdered, killing yourself, contracting a terminal illness, or any other way in which people die. I think you mean to ask how people would like it if they were conceived by accident and then had their chance to live taken away from them--but I was never meant to be to begin with--technically, I should not exist. If someone took additional measures to keep it that way, I could not object. My system wouldn't be developed enough to even comprehend such a concept at that time.

However in the terms of rape and the couple agreeing they DO NOT want the child, I agree with abortion...there is no point bringing a child into the world that has been concieved against a persons will or is going to enter to world loved by neither parent.

That could also happen to teenage sluts.

now an argument would be the "accidental" child might be unloved, or the teenage slut....this is 90% of the time untrue, as these types usually wanted a child at some point in there life but not just yet....so chances are they would be able to love and care for the child....if not them then the father would!

That's rather simplified, don't you think? What if the mother wants the child, but the father doesn't? The father wouldn't be willing to look after the child. Or what if neither of them want a child yet because they don't currently have the money or time to deal with having a child? Please keep in mind that child support is not available in certain places. Teenagers still in school wouldn't have the time or ability to make enough money to support a child. They wouldn't be able to love and care for a child.

Abortions are one of the cruelist and heartless operations known to human-kind, Its basically agreeing to assisted murder and taking away life from a living thing, hense why I feel very anti-abortion except in a few circumstances.

Letting people who have bad parents that can't make enough money or can offer love or care to their children live is arguably worse than death. It is not cruel to offer the option that is the lesser of two evils; it might actually be necessary.

I also don't consider it murder to get rid of a ball of cells, with not even the slightest characteristics shared by the majority of living human beings. But I suppose that matter is up to the scientists to decide when they want to call a human being alive and separate from his or her mother.

 

[Sergeant_P]

My wife points out that abortion is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. "Just because you don't love your child doesn't mean you should kill it and forget it."


I on the other hand believe that Abortion should never be an option.
It should be mandatory.


Welcome to our household.​

 

[Daenerys]

I on the other hand believe that Abortion should never be an option.
It should be mandatory.

Excuse me? That's just...sick. Why the hell should people who want to have children be forced to abort them? Especially if they can support and raise the child correctly - like 95% of parents can.

And, if Abortion was mandatory...well, the worlds population would just shrink to nothingness.

And, abortions can be traumatizing to many women. some require counseling to get over it - how can you suggest that everyone should have to go through this?


I think abortions should only be carried out if the parent isn't able to raise the child, or if the child would have a poor quality of life, or if the child is the product of rape. Abortion isn't birth control =/

 

[Sergeant_P]

There's nothing sick about it. We wouldn't be killing a person, it's just a ball of cells.​

And, abortions can be traumatizing to many women. some require counseling to get over it - how can you suggest that everyone should have to go through this?

First women are traumatized by having to give birth to a child they don't want, then they're traumatized by having an abortion. I believe that some women are in for some traumatization no matter what path they choose.

Regardless, the child might be unloved or in a broken home when it's born. Therefore it's better for us to decide for the child and just never let it live in the first place.​

 

[phantasmor]

i personally think that abortion should never be an option except in life or death situations if a woman gets raped she should have the child and if she does not want to keep it she should give it up for adoption i would also like to point out that most of the abortions are because it is simply inconvenient to have the child

 

[oOTidusOo]

okay i am for and against it..
i dont think it should be a "quick way out" i.e for couples or even one night stands who arent careful with their protection, but if it meant ruining someone life, i.e if a girl gets raped,and falls pregnant, i totally agree with it.
and say if your careful but still somehow get pregnant, and cant afford to have a baby, then yes to me its acceptable.
i dont agree with abortion when its women just going out, slutting around getting preggers and aborting, if your not gonna try and be careful, you have to face what comes next.

 

[Sergeant_P]

How is the law going to distinguish the two? How would you word the law to distinguish the times when it's legal and times when it's illegal?​

 

[oOTidusOo]

im not saying its got anything to do with being illegal or legal, in this country its legal,
my point was, i was saying from view, in what scenarios i think it is appropriate for a girl to have an abortion.
i would never be for it being dubbed as illegal.

 

[Dirges for Damcyan]

I believe that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception (and have arrived at that conclusion through a self-searching study of a variety of philosophies, including religious ones).

I also believe that women have a reproductive right to choose what happens to their bodies.

The struggle comes in trying to find a balance between the two: At points to the rights of one outweigh the rights of another? It is something that I struggle with.

On a side note, if you want to read a philosophically tenable but personally horrifying take on the subject, read some Peter Singer: He comes to the conclusion that a fetus is just like a baby: Thus is should be ok to kill babies. I think it is sort of tongue-in-cheek, a sort of new age Modest Proposal, but I also can't help but think that part of him believes it. Kinda gives me the creeps

D4D

 

[WolfSpiritofRain]

For me, the issue of abortion is like the issue of gay marriage in that it shouldn't be an issue.

I am highly pro-choice. I don't care what the woman's reason to get the abortion is, it's her choice to do it. Many places don't offer abortion services and then we get horrible outcomes. For example, last year I believe a woman put her 8 week old baby in the microwave until the baby died, radiated from the inside out. Why did she do this? She didn't want her boyfriend to know that the baby wasn't his. She could not find an abortion clinic. If I had to choose between infanticide or abortion, I'll turn towards the latter.

However, I do find stipulations that should be put on said abortion. For instance, if the woman is passed a certain point, say she's already on her second trimester, then I am against abortion and would suggest putting the baby up for adoption.

I find that if something is your decision about yourself, no one should be able to tell you what to do. And I wasn't raised under secular beliefs, I'm actually the only one in my family to not be a Republican or a very strict Christian. This doesn't mean I'm loose on my morals, it just means that I think a person's body is their own. God gave you a body as your own temple, do with it as you see fit.

 

[Sylvanius]

I believe that late term abortion should be illegal. At that point I consider it murder, killing a baby as it is being born is not acceptable in my opinion.

However beyond that I believe it is a personal choice. While I admit that some people are just careless (I know a woman who has had 12) it still boils down to personal beliefs. I believe that the issue of abortion is up to you and whatever god or moral code you follow and that it should NOT be a government issue.