I spose if the women wants a child that bad cant she just adopt a child because it causes less grief and is less expensive and also there are quite a few children who need homes??? Your view aint strange lemming btw i think the same children are better off with two parents who both want it.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Abortion?
- Thread starter Lemming3k
- Start date
Of course thats a possibility, but i think its the passing on genetics and bringing up your own child case thats presented against this course of action, maternal instinct in a way i suppose.I spose if the women wants a child that bad cant she just adopt a child because it causes less grief and is less expensive and also there are quite a few children who need homes???
Im glad my view isnt too weird, i've always wondered if the law should be changed so that if the women doesnt want to keep the baby but the man does then he can raise the child, basically equal rights on all levels is what im getting at. I've always felt things could be fairer, if i wanted a kid my girlfriend didnt want i would like a law saying i could raise the child myself, although not an ideal situation it would probably be a fair law for the guys out there that want kids, and its better than an abortion or an unwanted child.
From another thread of mine on this same issue.-
The issue of abortion, whether it should be legal for a woman to terminate her pregnancy, highlights the question of who has rights and why do they have them. On one side of the debate the argument goes that a woman owns her own body (right to life) and has the right to do whatever she pleases to it. On the other side holds that the growing fetus within the woman is not actually her property to do with as she pleases and itself has the right to life and, morally, can not be aborted. The two main issues to tackle are:
1) does the fetus have rights, and
2) if so, does it also have the right to remain in the womb against the mothers wishes.
To analyze whether or not the fetus has rights, we must go back to what specifically are rights and why men in general possess rights. Rights define the guidelines for social interaction between rational people. They allow society to exist by banning the initiation of force between rational men. A fetus does not act, let alone act rationally. There is no reason to recognize fetal rights. Rights are not arbitrary handed out by edicts, they are corollaries of an entity's nature.
Even if a fetus did have rights, would it have the right to stay in its mothers womb against her wishes? The answer is no. There are no unchosen obligations or duties. If a woman does not want a fetus inside her she may use any means necessary to force it out just as she would force an unwelcome visitor in her house. Even if you invite a visitor in, you still have the right to ask him to leave.
There is very little grounds to rationally argue for a ban on abortions. Almost all "pro-lifers" get their bloody politics from their evil ethics which come from their irrational epistemology which comes from their mystical metaphysics which they call religion.
The issue of abortion, whether it should be legal for a woman to terminate her pregnancy, highlights the question of who has rights and why do they have them. On one side of the debate the argument goes that a woman owns her own body (right to life) and has the right to do whatever she pleases to it. On the other side holds that the growing fetus within the woman is not actually her property to do with as she pleases and itself has the right to life and, morally, can not be aborted. The two main issues to tackle are:
1) does the fetus have rights, and
2) if so, does it also have the right to remain in the womb against the mothers wishes.
To analyze whether or not the fetus has rights, we must go back to what specifically are rights and why men in general possess rights. Rights define the guidelines for social interaction between rational people. They allow society to exist by banning the initiation of force between rational men. A fetus does not act, let alone act rationally. There is no reason to recognize fetal rights. Rights are not arbitrary handed out by edicts, they are corollaries of an entity's nature.
Even if a fetus did have rights, would it have the right to stay in its mothers womb against her wishes? The answer is no. There are no unchosen obligations or duties. If a woman does not want a fetus inside her she may use any means necessary to force it out just as she would force an unwelcome visitor in her house. Even if you invite a visitor in, you still have the right to ask him to leave.
There is very little grounds to rationally argue for a ban on abortions. Almost all "pro-lifers" get their bloody politics from their evil ethics which come from their irrational epistemology which comes from their mystical metaphysics which they call religion.
Even if women got pregnant, gave birth, and raised kids with no input from males whatsoever, I think males would still be entitled to have an opinion on abortion.Fraggle Rocker said:I don't think that's enough to entitle us to have an opinion.
For those against abortion it is a matter of preventing murder. For those in favor of it, it is a matter of civil rights, and you'd hardly say that one is not entitled to have an opinion on, for example, slavery because one is not themself at risk of being enslaved.
the thing wiv men getting involved with if a women has an abortion or not is that at the end of the day its the womens body n shes gotta carry this around with her and at bith can get really attached to the child but i do think the men shud have a say in this cuase it can hurt them emotionally and if a child is born having a parent who doesnt want it can be a bd environment for a kid to grow up in!
L
laughing weasel
Guest
They can always give the child up for adoption and if necessary they can leave the child at a hospital in many states without there being any questions asked. Besides other than the virgin conception two thousand years ago, there have been no uncaused pregnancies and wile you might argue about rape a vast majority of abortions are not incest, rape or medically related. It might seem rough that they have to carry a parasite for nine months and the recover but convenience is not a very convincing argument for murder.
I find adoption quite cruel, we dont want you someone else can have you if they feel like it, and then even that might not last more than a year, its hardly fair on somebody, bring a child into the world knowing most likely they will have a crap life whether you keep them or not, thats rather unfair, and it isnt murder because they arnt technically alive, its like being on life support, without the mum the baby would die, so when you switch the life support machine off is that murder?
***I find adoption quite cruel, we dont want you someone else can have you if they feel like it
There are actually many "loving" couples (notice ads in the paper concerning this, that im starting to feel optimistic about the human race in genearl) out there who want to have a baby, yet they cannot. Adoption gives them an unbiological option. I hardly call that cruel when you look it from a different vantage.
***even that might not last more than a year, its hardly fair on somebody, bring a child into the world knowing most likely they will have a crap life whether you keep them or not, thats rather unfair, and it isnt murder because they arnt technically alive
Assumptions! Please, I can just as well say that most poeple who are adopted are living well and happy, having been given a chance in life to be able to do so. I've observed several adopted students at my school, and they're with parents who are able to provide and give them a beacon in a life, of which they might not have had, if they were actually aborted.
I think, from my observation, that girls who say aye to abortion, believes of the fetus merely as an "it". Same goes with guys.
There are actually many "loving" couples (notice ads in the paper concerning this, that im starting to feel optimistic about the human race in genearl) out there who want to have a baby, yet they cannot. Adoption gives them an unbiological option. I hardly call that cruel when you look it from a different vantage.
***even that might not last more than a year, its hardly fair on somebody, bring a child into the world knowing most likely they will have a crap life whether you keep them or not, thats rather unfair, and it isnt murder because they arnt technically alive
Assumptions! Please, I can just as well say that most poeple who are adopted are living well and happy, having been given a chance in life to be able to do so. I've observed several adopted students at my school, and they're with parents who are able to provide and give them a beacon in a life, of which they might not have had, if they were actually aborted.
I think, from my observation, that girls who say aye to abortion, believes of the fetus merely as an "it". Same goes with guys.
In the general population, the word "selfish" implies negative conotations.
My understanding of it does not.
However in this post I will use it as a negative as this is the most generally understood notion of it.
Anyone who is against abortion is of the upmost selfish.
They pertrude their own feelings and thoughts into an unborn baby and beleive they have the right to decide what is right for a womans life.
Anti-abortionists claim not only a right to their own life, but stake a claim on everyone elses.
It is always going to be a debate between what constitutes what a human being is.
A spirit, or of an independant mind.
When I say that these emotionalists intrude their own selfish feelings onto an unborn fetus, I am reminded of a commercial that went something like this,
The scene starts with this lamp in an apartment, suddenly the lamp notices that the owner has bought a new lamp. The music in the back ground implies worry. Then it show the lamp being carried down the stairs and tossed out onto the curb. The lamp watches his owner walk away, the lamp is very sad. Then the lamp looks up to see the new lamps light illuminate the owners apartment, the lamp looks down, broken hearted, then it begins to rain.
Then a voice comes over the screen, "Hey people! It's only a lamp!
My point is not that a fetus is a lamp, but providing an example of how easily it is for transference of emotions to be applied to things outside of yourself.
Mistaking your feelings for the object itself and the reality of the situation.
If you are a beleiver in the soul, your view on abortion will not be swayed one way or the other through reasoning.
The topic of abortion is only a symptom of your values.
This question is for an anti-abortionist.
Do you consider yourself the owner of that woman who is pregnant?
Do you claim to have the right, to abolish that womens rights?
Yes, or no?
Being practical, education and prevention of unwanted pregnacies is the only viable and long term solution.
Not whether or not you have the right to claim anothers life to your own bidding.
That is evil.
Fuck I'm awesome.
My understanding of it does not.
However in this post I will use it as a negative as this is the most generally understood notion of it.
Anyone who is against abortion is of the upmost selfish.
They pertrude their own feelings and thoughts into an unborn baby and beleive they have the right to decide what is right for a womans life.
Anti-abortionists claim not only a right to their own life, but stake a claim on everyone elses.
It is always going to be a debate between what constitutes what a human being is.
A spirit, or of an independant mind.
When I say that these emotionalists intrude their own selfish feelings onto an unborn fetus, I am reminded of a commercial that went something like this,
The scene starts with this lamp in an apartment, suddenly the lamp notices that the owner has bought a new lamp. The music in the back ground implies worry. Then it show the lamp being carried down the stairs and tossed out onto the curb. The lamp watches his owner walk away, the lamp is very sad. Then the lamp looks up to see the new lamps light illuminate the owners apartment, the lamp looks down, broken hearted, then it begins to rain.
Then a voice comes over the screen, "Hey people! It's only a lamp!
My point is not that a fetus is a lamp, but providing an example of how easily it is for transference of emotions to be applied to things outside of yourself.
Mistaking your feelings for the object itself and the reality of the situation.
If you are a beleiver in the soul, your view on abortion will not be swayed one way or the other through reasoning.
The topic of abortion is only a symptom of your values.
This question is for an anti-abortionist.
Do you consider yourself the owner of that woman who is pregnant?
Do you claim to have the right, to abolish that womens rights?
Yes, or no?
Being practical, education and prevention of unwanted pregnacies is the only viable and long term solution.
Not whether or not you have the right to claim anothers life to your own bidding.
That is evil.
Fuck I'm awesome.
It might be.Question: If someone forced you to change your life in a major and irrevocable way, would this be a crime?
While I don't think who's responsible is relevant to this discussion, in most of the cases it's consensual, unprotected sex and it's difficult not to find the women responsible.Unwanted pregnancies have this effect.
Pregnant mothers are usually are able to work until about four weeks before their pregnancy, and after the pregnancy the women should be able to have the baby adopted, so it does not seem to be all that much of a burden.Abortion, even if we accept the fetus as a living entity is more like self defence than murder, killing a woman's chosen future.
No, but I consider the true owner of the fetus to be the fetus, and while the fetus should be viewed as a minor, some rights are entitled to the fetus. The birth of the fetus is an arbitrary point that does not have any bearing the fetus' development. The argument that the fetus is undeveloped cannot be used unless if the means to determine when the fetus can be killed are based on development.Do you consider yourself the owner of that woman who is pregnant?
Yes, the constitution says "the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happyness."Do you claim to have the right, to abolish that womens rights?
Yes, or no?
shrubby pegasus
Registered Senior Member
no it doesnt
This is the quote that I was refering to was from the declaration of indep, not the constitution. "WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"
shrubby pegasus
Registered Senior Member
ok but the point is still irrelevent. the declaration of independence is not a legal document of any sort. even if it was, it comes down to each of us maintaining a different interpretation of what a human life is. until there is some common agreement amongst the pro lifers and the pro choicers threads like these will always be fruitless