(May 26, 2010 at 3:10 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

(May 24, 2010 at 3:38 pm)Meatball Wrote: So you believe there is a point at which the government can tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body?

There is a point when it becomes two bodies. The question is... when is that point? I certainly think that shortly before birth the foetus is obviously a baby, and shortly after conception it is obviously NOT baby, for instance.

EvF

If you really want to boil it down to rights, at what point does one have to enslave their body to the growth of what is functionally a parasite for 8.8-9.2 months against their own will?

When I think of other examples, one that comes to mind is having one's rights taken away as dictated under terms of imprisonment. Comparing these two together, it appears, that at a basic level, an unwilling pregnant female at any stage is being punished effectively, as they have no way to release themselves, except through drastic means. Drastic as in abortion, transplantation, etc,. Read the former with the meaning of "unexpected" or "unnatural".

A few quotes that make me love my country:

The Supreme Court of Canada in "Morgentaler et al. v. Her Majesty The Queen, (1988) Wrote:"The right to liberty... guarantees a degree of personal autonomy over important decisions intimately affecting his or her private life. ... The decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is essentially a moral decision and in a free and democratic society, the conscience of the individual must be paramount to that of the state."

and also...

"forcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction, to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations" and that the law "asserts that the woman's capacity to reproduce is to be subject, not to her own control, but to that of the state"

Samson Wrote:Since I do not believe in banning Abortion, and believe that to be an option for women/children who are raped and molested, then it is "Their" choice to have an abortion. Some choose not to, some choose to....So it is a "Choice" of that person in situations such as rape and molestation.

If a state/country bans abortion, then it no longer becomes a "Choice" for said person(s). (Unless of course you have the money to leave your country/state and travel a bit.....But then again, I guess a fifty cent clothes hanger is just as much a choice, right?.....)

DId I say ban abortion, ever? No... you specifically noted women who have been raped/molested were eligible... implicitly stating that other women should not be allowed abortion. It may not have been intended, but 'twas implied.

It is indeed a choice, though a less attractive one to many ^_<

Quote:Well, this would be a BIG depend....It would depend on if it was federally paid for (I.E.) by the tax payers. If it was, then I would not want my tax dollars going towards a person who can't seem to grasp the concept of what a BC pill is or for that matter the hundreds of contraceptives that are cheap and available.

This would also answer my "a" right below this post for your other "Why"... If paid for by them, then whatever they want to do with their body, is their decision/Choice.

You do realize that BC's still fail, right? Also... some people who want sex are considered by society as 'too young' or something silly like that, and whilst sex might be available to them: BC pills are not necessarily.

Also... there are actually people broke to the point they can't even buy BC, let alone pay for anything more than a 'back alley abortion'... and this is part of the reason for socialized medicine. also have no problem with some of my taxes going towards abortions... it would be much more useful than wasting it all on a bloated war budget: take the money needed from there.

Quote:

I Wrote:And is what you believe also what the woman believes? If not: why should your beliefs have any particular precedence over her own? Is this not her body we are referring to here? Would you presume to have rights over her own in regards to her body?

Of course not, unless I'm having to pay for this woman to have abortions as a form of Birth Control or pop out babies that I will eventually be paying for, hence the reason stated about the children being taken away by the state.

Nobody wants to use abortion as a form of birth control... it is more expensive, less comfortable, more painful, more embarrassing, and what have you. You do realize that if the state takes the child you are paying for it with taxes... don't you? :S

Quote:

I Wrote:Oh? And when should it not be available...? Your examples above seem rather silly in my eyes... but perhaps you will explain them?

Define 'medically subscribed danger' for me... then tally that with the facts that bearing children is often 'the ruiner of vaginas' (and other features of one's body); possessing the damn things is often damn near psychological hell; supporting their continued existence is a massive expenditure of one's time, money, and often happiness.

I'll give you two medical reasons, out of many more....
1. If a small child is raped and becomes pregnant, it should already be known that there are many risks that can and has happened with someone so young trying to carry a baby long term. (Yes there are risks even for an adult, but I would hope you and everyone else is smart enough to know the difference)..
If the "Child" does not get an abortion in the beginning, and 6 months later starts having these complications, which could risk her life, then the doctors should have the option at their disposal to abort the fetus.

And this applies how to what I asked? I am asking for reasons it should not be available, as the bold above asks, and as you argued at least originally.

Quote:2. As I stated before, even adults can have complications throughout a pregnancy..If any one of those come into place, then aborting during their term should at least be an option. In other words, Mother's life comes first.....But of course, if the mother wanted to die and not abort, then that's a totally different debate.... Point is, that I would never want that "Choice" (Abortion) for the woman to be illegal.

Strange... you did say specifically that it was to be regulated in your first post, if I am not mistaken...

I don't disagree with the option to abort... but I do disagree with requiring 'special circumstances' for it, which you continue to imply (even if not intentionally).

Quote:

I Wrote:Frankly, I do not understand why anyone would want children at all if it weren't for maternal instinct... indeed that functions even in me. Past that though, one can easily recognize the sodding blighters for the costly parasites they are... and why anyone would want to curse a woman with forcing her to deal with one of these when she doesn't yet want to seems to me not only cruel, unfair, and insensitive... but positively unnerving that people can be so ignorant of how horrible children are that they would value children (that aren't even infants yet!) more than the poor fucker that would bear the damned thing.

Sae, after reading your last paragraph on this post...Are you saying that you are Pro-Choice as well now?? Or not?

Fuck, now you have me confused....LOLOL

It has been said, "Never ask a philosopher for an answer... for they shall tell you both yes and no."

I rather thought my stance was clear: I see nothing beyond instinct to make someone want children (outside of special circumstances at any rate)... and think that denying a woman an abortion (essentially forcing her out of either legality or the ability to abort the development of the child) is ridiculously cruel. I am as far "pro-choice" as I know one can go regarding this issue... not only all for abortions, but deeply against the belief that a person should not be allowed one for any reason.

---

Tacky Wrote:@Sae.. yes it was intended originally as just a little poke and I'm glad you can see how that quote could have been used for a case for thought police.. luckily I know you are far too sensible, most of the time As far as that tirade.. sure whatever yoou'd like, this is your house, not mine.

You think I'm sensible?!

Quick! I must do something outlandish! But what?! :S

---

(May 21, 2010 at 2:30 pm)tavarish Wrote:

(May 21, 2010 at 1:03 pm)Meatball Wrote: To those that declaire themselves "ProChoice/Anti-Abortion"

Why don't you approve of abortions?

Because it's not something I could see myself doing or condoning for a partner of mine. The potential for life is also an important factor, just like the medical complications that could arise with an abortion later in the pregnancy, not to mention the mental toll it can take on the would-be parents. I don't condone it, but I won't condemn others for choosing something, as they're not in my shoes, nor am I in theirs.

Random protein chains also have a potential for life... what should it matter? Even if the infant is alive and born... if it is unwanted and will cost one more than it will gain them: they can still kill it. It may be slightly excessive to do so, though... especially with the option of putting it up for adoption available

You do condone it. To condone is to "accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue". You might dislike it, and be unable to accept it in a partner of your own (though I honestly rather think that if an abortion can upset a relationship, it wasn't much of one anyway)... but you do condone the action (at the least you do so in others).

methinks the lady doth protest too much

I was right with you until you proposed a time limit. But then... I view a child as an economical, time, and stress burden... and frankly do not often enjoy my time with children. The only reason it lives is that it is valued by someone, so much that they give great portions of their time, money, and general happiness for it. Simply (as i see it)... it is not the baby's life that makes it worthy of keeping alive... but another's investment in its continued life.

Being a passive person though... and not one likely to throw away resources she can see a use for (such as children)... i think it would be rather brutal and 'expensive' to kill it outside of the womb.

---

(May 26, 2010 at 3:10 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

(May 24, 2010 at 3:38 pm)Meatball Wrote: So you believe there is a point at which the government can tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body?

There is a point when it becomes two bodies. The question is... when is that point? I certainly think that shortly before birth the foetus is obviously a baby, and shortly after conception it is obviously NOT baby, for instance.

EvF

And the further question is "wtf does it matter that the parasite is no longer directly connected to the host?"... it remains in dire need of support from birth to several years after said birth. Someone (or something) must be that support if it is to survive. Frankly... i don't see how it's being a baby changes much at all. Now the parasite walks and causes more trouble than it is initially worth... and it isn't a very wise long term investment in many cases either.

---

(May 29, 2010 at 5:02 am)tackattack Wrote: methinks the lady doth protest too much

Protest?

I just disagree is all And I missed a lot of posts...

Seems the debate is over then, both sides having made their final remarks.

http://usualrhetoric.blogspot.com/2010/0...lking.html
http://aristophrenium.com/ryft/more-fail...-rhetoric/

Personally, having followed the discussion, I'm now anti choice and no longer pro choice. From conception it seems clear that there is life of it's own. Deserving of consideration as such.

There are then very difficult decisions following on from anti choice. None of which were really covered here. Rape; child pregnancy; risk of death etc to either mother or child.

Quote:Deserving of consideration as such.

More, apparently, than you are willing to give the actual woman who you sentence to carry it and care for it for 18 years or so....minimum.

No. Equally. Lives begin and end.

I don't pretend there aren't problems. I just see it's taking a life. Lawful or not, the fact remains.

I just keep wondering what business it is of yours what another person does with her life. What's your interest in the case?

I actually went from anti-choice to pro-choice on this one. I think the better solution would be a societal approach of lessening the factors that would force women in to having to have or desire an abortion. Increasing parenting classes, less stigmatism and better conditions for orphans and adoptions, lowering sexual crime rates, inreasing awareness, etc. I don't think a normal woman under normal circumstances with a normal child and a means to care for the child would intentionally choose to give up that child, so my switch to pro choice actually falls on the character of humanity and relies less on the definition of life.