- NEW!
by AntigoneRising on October 5th, 2006
Are you asking about abortion in general, or elective abortion? For instance, I had a miscarriage. The medical term for this is "spontaneous abortion." The pregnancy was aborted and terminated.
In any case, I do not believe that it is. Certainly not in the case of a spontaneous abortion.
Aside from whether or not abortion is murder, we have to ask quite a lot of other questions to get to any real understanding of elective abortion in society. Abortion is a complex social issue with a history dating back thousands of years. (My questions address the United States, as I am a member of that society.)
What happens if we scale back government benefits for single mothers and their children, yet require women to give birth?
Is it ethical to require a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, and incur the expense (not just financial expense, but the permanent changes to her body, the reaction of society, the pain and discomfort) against her will? If you are forcing her to be pregnant and give birth, does that come with an equal responsibility to share in the total cost (which, again, is not entirely financial) of that requirement? Is it Constitutional to deprive a woman of autonomy over her body without due process of law?
Why do women have abortions in the first place? How can those underlying problems be solved? Simply outlawing elective abortion will not solve those underlying social issues.
Will outlawing elective abortion stop it? History tells us that the answer to this question is no. It simply forces it underground to illegal practices (such as the family who recently forced a pregnant teenage girl to drink turpentine...an act that was already illegal...) that are unsafe. (This is one of the reasons people supported legalizing it in the first place.)
What about rape/incest victims? Are we now saying that they had to be forced to have sex and now we are going to further victimize them by forcing them to give birth to the child of their attacker?
What about the health of the mother? Does she not have equal rights to life? If the pregnancy is, purposely or not, threatening her life, does she not have a right to defend her life and health by ending that pregnancy?
Is it ethical or Constitutional to require a woman to do something with her body that is not required of a man?
Does defining a fetus as a live person mean that a woman has the obligation of maintaining that live person inside her own body against her will? I do not think that it does. I think this argument skips a few steps.
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortionuslegal/a/abortion.htm
Who performs abortions?
by Answerbag Staff on June 16th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
Pro-Choice people: Should a conjoined twin have the right to separate from their twin even if they know it would kill the twin?
by tibear on December 7th, 2011
| 3 people like this
How late can abortion be legally accomplished?
by Answerbag Staff on June 16th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
How much will an abortion cost if you are on Medicare?
by Answerbag Staff on June 15th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
To women who've undergone an abortion, how do you get over this depression? Esp. when you feel guilty to even forget about your baby.
by hazeeffect on November 28th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
You're reading Do you think that abortion is murder?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
I wish I could rate this- you raise some excellent points. It annoys me when people think simply illegalising abortion would make the world somehow better, without addressing the problems behind it.
by lady fuschia on October 6th, 2006
If abortions are outlawed, only outlaws will have abortions... and many women will die as a result. But killing adult women through bad policy is NOT murder so that's okay, apparently.
by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on November 18th, 2006
As far as the US Constitution goes: Most state do treat women's bodies diferantly than men. In most places, for instance, a woman can not bare her breasts in public. This is not true in Santa Cruz, California, where I live. You will occastionally see women walking around bare-breasted. The city council decriminalized it.
by branciforte3241 on December 2nd, 2006
As they should have. I don't know that the Constitution itself supports treating a woman's body differently than a man's...it is the laws that do that.
by AntigoneRising on December 2nd, 2006
The Constitution is oddly silent on the matter of breasts.
by branciforte3241 on December 3rd, 2006
Yeah, and that is surprising considering it was written by men. ;)
by AntigoneRising on December 4th, 2006
No comment....*wow*
by Miyaku on December 5th, 2006
Great answer.
by Mini_kilt on November 20th, 2007
Thanks.
by AntigoneRising on November 21st, 2007
Nuanced answer. A simple yes or no, please. If abortion is not murder of an innocent child (in many cases in a brutal and cruel way), then define what abortion is.
by Aldebaran on August 25th, 2008
Biased comment. If you are not a wackjob sitting in a sniper stand outside of Planned Parenthood, then define what you are.
.
Abortion is a very nuanced subject.
If you want to view it that simplistically then birth control is murder too and anybody who ever bought a box of condoms deserves execution; a common punishment for premeditated acts which result in loss of life.
I could go on at length, but I somehow sense that any intelligence you may have is strait-jacketed by dogma that prohibits free thinking... or even thinking except to recite the party line.
by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on August 26th, 2008
Ad-hominem attacks are not effective on me. Please just define what abortion is if it is not murder of innocent children, if you can.
by Aldebaran on August 26th, 2008
Abortion - Medical procedure performed to terminate a pregnancy.
.
For purposes of this conversation, let us consider the unborn to NOT be a child yet. If you wish to argue this point, then let's go elsewhere. That debate has been raging for a LLOOOOONNGG time and arguing it here would merely be a digression.
.
Since you SEEM to consider abortion murder AND are against nuances, I can only logically assume that you are against abortion even if it is deemed necessary to save the life of the mother. Am I correct?
If I am incorrect, then I must assume that either:
1) You DO find nuances acceptable and thus are just being a hypocrite in complaining about nuances, or...
2) Your assertion that Abortion is murder is wrong, or...
3) Murder is acceptable to you, at least under certain circumstances
by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on August 26th, 2008
So far, I have yet to meet a logical, rational thinking pro-lifer that didn't at least have some form of nuance to their opinion. Are you the first? Would you blast THEM for being nuanced?
.
I merely want to see where you are coming from because what I've seen of you so far makes me shake my head and chuckle.
by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on August 26th, 2008
Direct abortion is always murder of an innocent child.
.
In the case where a situation exists that is incompatible with human life, like an ectopic pregnancy, then the Mother should do what is natural to preserve her life. In this case, the abortion that often occurs is a tragic side effect of the Mother preserving her life and not the direct end intended.
.
Ectopic pregnancies occur at a rate of 19.7 per 1000 pregnancies. This does not account for the 50,000,000+ children murdered since 1973.
.
Your personal reaction to what I write is of no concern to me nor to the argument in general.
by Aldebaran on August 31st, 2008
Opinion, and one that is not universally shared. Until you are elected to run the Universe and be allowed to define everything irrefutably, I will disagree.
.
You call is tragic side effect, I call it a nuance. While you and I are actually mostly in agreement there, I still must take issue with you for being a hypocrite. Your own position is nuanced. How DARE you complain that another holds a nuanced opinion!
.
I think you and I agree that all non-life-threatening unwanted pregnancies would end in adoption. Unlike you though, I am a realist. You think outlawing abortion will end them? Phhht!
You think even having the baby will go right? Well, "dumpster babies" are a minority too, but it has happened often enough (and likely far more than publicized) that it can't be disregarded.
And what of those that will cause FAR more problems than they are worth. I'm not talking merely Downs Syndrome or crack babies either.
by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on August 31st, 2008
Add in child abuse, poverty-induced malnutrition and lack of proper medical coverage, the drain on public assistance, etcetera, and you'll either admit that the world is FAR from ideal or that you are totally detached from reality.
So tell me, are we merely on opposite ends of the "ideal versus real" spectrum, or do you fit the clinical definition of Schizophrenia?
.
No, I notice that you and your ilk generally disregard the positions of others anyways. You know best. You are all-wise and always right.
Your reaction to what I write is of little concern to me except insofar as I am annoyed by your hypocrisy. All I really want is for you to admit that your position is nuanced as well.
As for what I write not being a concern to the argument in general, it is as relevant as your assertion that Abortion IS murder. Are you invalidating your own argument?
by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on August 31st, 2008
I would like the Roe v. Wade overturned and the issue put to the electorate on a state-by-state basis. Don't you think it is time the electorate got a say in the matter? 50,000,000+ of our fellow citizens have been butchered. For every three friends I have, I am supposed to have another, but that friend was exterminated before he was born, sacrificed at the altar of "choice".
.
My position is consistent. Direct abortion is intrinsically evil. It is murder of the innocent. I am sorry that you can not distinguish between a life saving operation with a tragic side effect and frivolous murder of the innocent. Maybe Mr. Obama will be elected and the war against the unborn can continue to be waged, and pro-abortion folks can kill all the babies they want.
.
I am not always right, but I do know how to make an argument and articulate a position without resorting to hyperbole and far-fetched, unreal examples.
.
You have the last word. Take care and God bless you and yours.
by Aldebaran on September 1st, 2008
I feel you are making a mistake by assuming "pro-choice" automatically means "pro-abortion, kill all babies and feast on their entrails". I personally interpret it as "if you believe abortion is murder then don't get one", but that is just me.
.
I don't know if you noticed or not, but I did state above that I am not entirely cool with abortion, mostly because MANY are unnecessary.
We are not as far apart as you think.
Besides, I think I pointed out the problems we'd face if our population were higher. bear in mind that the poor have more children than the rich; the most children are born to those least able to care for them.
.
My life has been full of hyperbole, and I like to think that my actual life isn't fiction as it would seriously make me question reality. What you call "unreal", I call "historical observation".
.
But I agree that neither of us will change the other's mind and would like to agree to disagree and walk away peaceably.
Take care, Aldeberan
by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on September 1st, 2008
hooooly crap you type alot!
by supersai20 on December 22nd, 2008
"Don't you think it is time the electorate got a say in the matter?" No, of course not. This is the same as I believe about same-sex marriage, voting, free speech, and other rights. Individual rights have never been put to legislative vote, they are reserved. The idea is to protect individual rights against the minority. Even if it were put to a vote, btw, abortion would be legal. Far less than half of the US support overturning Roe V. Wade.
by AntigoneRising on January 13th, 2009
No body has a right to murder innocent children. Period.
by Aldebaran on January 13th, 2009
Alde - While I think it's safe to say that everybody agrees on that, whether a fetus can yet be considered a child, an independent life rather than a tumor growing within a woman's abdomen, is pretty much the core of the whole abortion debate.
Your position is not the only valid one any more than there is only one true religion or political party. It's not invalid either, but I will go out on a limb here and guess that we all are pretty much decided on the issue and nothing either side says will get anybody to alter their views.
by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on January 13th, 2009
If it the fetus is a tumor, then when precisely does it stop being a tumor? This question can't be answered by the pro-abortionists because they know this tumor premise is indefensible.
.
In this country, we error on the side of life in every other instance. Why not so with abortion? Largely because of the money the abortion industry makes by murdering children. And largely because of the contraceptive mentality and using abortion as secondary contraception so people can fool themselves into thinking they are free to act irresponsibly.
by Aldebaran on January 13th, 2009
Pro-abortionists? That is inflammatory as hell! Okay, show of hands; who here wants ALL pregnancies to be aborted? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
.
Define life.
.
An inert lump of undifferentiated cells is no different than the callus on my foot. A little thing with an independent heartbeat capable of surviving outside of the mother is alive. In between though... THAT is where the battle is.
If you want to argue POTENTIAL life then answer me this; have you EVER masturbated or had a wet dream ? If so then I am hailing you in front of the judge for MASS murder. If you want to be an extremist then I will do so to in the opposite direction.
My real goal here is to be the voice of reason though. I just want people to understand both sides even if they don't agree. However, that comment makes me think that you AND ALL OTHER PRO-LIFERS are unreasonable zealots.
by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on January 14th, 2009
There is nothing wrong with having an opinion, but you go so far beyond anything I have ever heard from the pro-choice side that I may actually start advocating abortions for all merely to bring balance to the world and counter your zeal. Is that what you are after, or do you want people to act reasonably?
Before hearing vitriol like yours, I was for all unwanted pregnancies ending in adoption. Thanks to you and people like you, I am drifting to the other side.
Be proud of yourself.
by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on January 14th, 2009
"No body has a right to murder innocent children. Period." Well, the problem we have here is definition. First of all, I do not think a lump of joined cells numbering in the hundreds is a child. Sorry. By legal definition, it isn't a person and never has been (see the history of abortion in the US covered in the Roe V. Wade decision). Murder is, by definition, unlawful killing. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder Let me be clear, I'm not pro-abortion. I do not advocate abortion or requiring anyone to have one (the opposite of the pro-lifers). I recognize and support choice, and that a decision is best made by those in the situation in conjunction with medical personnel.
by AntigoneRising on January 14th, 2009
"If it the fetus is a tumor, then when precisely does it stop being a tumor?" The definition of the point of viability is included in the Roe V. Wade decision, as is the legal allowance for limiting abortion procedures after the point of viability, SO LONG AS AN EXCEPTION IS MADE FOR THE HEALTH OF THE PREGNANT WOMAN. This last part seems to be a sticking point for many in the pro-life movement (and is why several so called partial birth abortion bans were struck down, because they didn't contain it as the Supreme Court clearly said they must). http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/gov/bl_roe_a.htm I do not think the Supreme Court is out of line in considering the health of the woman. Do you?
by AntigoneRising on January 14th, 2009
"Okay, show of hands; who here wants ALL pregnancies to be aborted?" Not me. I've not met anyone with this view.
by AntigoneRising on January 14th, 2009
Let me quote Roe V. Wade for you: "For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [410 U.S. 113, 165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."
by AntigoneRising on January 14th, 2009
"Not me. I've not met anyone with this view." - Exactly my point, though according to many pro-lifers, ANYBODY who isn't on their side attributes that viewpoint to us pro-choicers.
That sort of misuse/twisting of the language makes me wonder is pro-lifers are actually evil, selfish bastards or merely linguistically inept morons. Or maybe they are evil morons! Stupidity and moral corruption are not mutually exclusive.
by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on January 14th, 2009
Agreed. I'd also like to know why, if a fetus is a child, you don't get to claim them as exceptions on your tax return and the census has never counted them. Why do people respond with a question about the number of children with, "2 and one on the way"? Why wouldn't it just be "3"?
by AntigoneRising on January 15th, 2009
My question was: "If it the fetus is a tumor, then when precisely does it stop being a tumor?"
.
The answer is no where to be found in your sophistry. You have no answer...
.
Roe v. Wade establishes arbitrary definitions. It is not infallible nor is it scientific. Futher, the SCOTUS imposed this on the citizens. In the United States, judges don't legislate from the bench.
.
Roe v. Wade is not authentic law, and must be opposed.
by Aldebaran on January 17th, 2009
Too wordy for this space.
.
YOU have no answer either, other than dogma.
.
As do you.
.
It is as authentic as it gets. Just because it doesn't go along with YOUR beliefs, that doesn't necessarily make it invalid, and there are enough people FOR it that repealing it would be problematic at best.
The Patriot Act is a more universal threat than Roe v. Wade.
by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on January 17th, 2009
Now, if you want to get all high and mighty about life then you might want to check out the state of the world and ask whether things are all you make them out to be.
Of course, I guess you have no problems with living in poverty with parents who resent your mere existence. I have to wonder also if you are as extreme as Sarah Palin; do you oppose abortion even in cases of rape and incest?
by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on January 17th, 2009
Aldebaran if abortion is legal it is not murder as murder is the legal definition for the unlawful taking of a human life.
by Gingerminx on July 7th, 2009
It used to be legal to own slaves. Did that make slave owning authentic law? Of course not.
.
Just because something is called "legal" does not make it authentic law. The SCOTUS, which should not be legislating from the bench in the first place, makes tragic mistakes (see Dred Scot v. Sanford).
.
Abortion IS the unlawful taking of human life. That is the point. What crime does the unborn baby even stand accused of? None. Then why is the ultimate punishment that society can meet out to an individual given to the baby? An what about "cruel and unusual punishment"? When's the last time someone on death row had their brain sucked out or was poisoned with salt or was ripped limb from limb? The abortion industry's torture that I have described is truly barbaric. Wouldn't you agree? Do you want any child subjected to this hell?
by Aldebaran on July 12th, 2009
Whether or not the unborn are considered human is largely a matter of religious/philosophical belief. Or are you saying that any belief system other than yours is invalid? Re-read the First Amendment before you answer that.
You also overlook that there are *serious* restrictions on late-term abortions in most places, and those are usually only performed out of medical necessity. Therefore a good chunk of your last paragraph is irrelevant and borders on bullshit, though you are wound up and letting your emotions shut off your brain so I will overlook your little tantrum and hand you a hankie.
by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on July 12th, 2009
Now, are you claiming to be the highest moral authority in the land?
The ultimate arbiter of right and wrong?
Are you claiming to be God?
by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on July 12th, 2009
What are you talking about, authentic law? You can not decide for yourself whether a law is legal or not. If abortion is legal it is not the unlawful taking of a human life and therefore not murder. If owning slaves was legal then it is not unlawful. If you don't like the laws lobby for change. Who says it has to commit a crime? A virus doesn't commit a crime but I don't intend to allow one free rain of my body.
by Gingerminx on July 12th, 2009
Jerv, either the unborn baby in the womb is human or it is not. The objective reality is that the babe in the womb is human, and no amount of sophistry will refute this fact. And no amount of wanting something different is going to change the truth. Religion and philosophy have nothing to do with it. The unborn baby in human and innocent. Period. Also, since you mention Founding Documents, do the phrases "right to life" and "endowed by their Creator" appear verbatim? (P.S. Why do all of my questions go unanswered? Also, please look up the term "ad hominem attack" and learn about its consequences in a debate).
.
Ginger, authentic law is sometimes called the moral law. It is the law imprinted on your heart by the Creator. Every culture instinctively knows that certain things are wrong -- slavery, incest, and murder of the innocent are big examples. The irrefutable fact that I have laid out that people with a pro-abortion mindset can not or will not see, is that abortion is the murder of an innocent. 9 men legislating from the bench in 1973 and 50,000,000+ murders later will never efface this fact.
by Aldebaran on July 14th, 2009
I do not have a creator and every human being has their own moral codes. Your so called 'authentic' law is nothing more than than your own personal moral codes. Every culture does not know those things are wrong at all or they wouldn't exist. I am not pro abortion, I have never and will never advocate that all women should have abortions. Abortion is not murder as murder is a legal term and therefore does not apply if abortion is legal. You can call it killing a life I have no problem with that but it is not murder.
by Gingerminx on July 14th, 2009
Huh?
Your second sentence contradicts your first, which tells me before I read any further and without even remembering/rereading your past posts that you are utterly illogical.
Your claim that religion and philosophy have nothing to do with it are so utterly false that I barely feel the desire to attempt to prove something so obvious, but I will.
Basically, whether or not that unborn (insert pronoun here) is a human depends on what you consider "human". It also depends on morality, as does whether or not it should be preserved and allowed to grow. And no amount of wanting something different is going to change the truth.
Admit it, you are arguing morality here.
I find your references to "Authentic Law" pretty fucking funny too. I mean, I agree with you that there *ARE* certain things that are universally perceived as wrong, BUT ABORTION IS NOT ONE OF THOSE THINGS!!
You say that the unborn is a human YET THAT IS NOT UNIVERSALLY AGREED UPON!!
And no amount of wanting something different is going to change the truth.
I ask again, are you claiming to be GOD? If not, your opinion is no more valid than mine, and if so then you need psychiatric care.
by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on July 14th, 2009
I have had this discussion with pro-lifers far more logical and reasonable than you and yet my position has not changed. The difference is that they at least gave the appearance of having a grasp of reality.
As for your repeated claims of ad-hominem attacks, different people have different manners of speech, and mine tends to be a little snarky at times. Don't take it personally. Either deal with it, learn to cope, or STFU.
by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on July 14th, 2009
Now let us back up for a second.
First off, do you agree or disagree that "life is sacred" is a moral judgement?
Second, do you believe that any code of morality that differs from yours has *any* validity at all?
Your words here have pretty heavily implied that the answer to the second one is "no", but that is mere speculation based on observation and may not be true.
by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on July 14th, 2009
Ginger, if you think that you willed yourself into existence, then I would suggest that you seek professional psychiatric help because you seem to be totally detached from reality.
.
jerv, all I can say to you is that I am glad for your sake that your mother didn't demonstrate the same hatred and coldness of heart that you display towards the unborn when you were growing inside of her.
.
God Bless You Both!
by Aldebaran on August 12th, 2009
Nope, I think my parents had sex and I was the result, but they did not create me.
by Gingerminx on August 12th, 2009
Ald - My mother didn't have a choice, and if she did then I wouldn't be around to regret it.
If you knew me better then you might understand a bit more. You seem to think that life is the greatest thing ever; the perfect gift. That is NOT an opinion I share, I merely make the most of what I have.
I did that when I was thrown across the room and broke the sheetrock wall.
I did that when I was picked on in school, something that many teens nowadays will commit suicide over.
I am doing that now, being unemployed long enough to need to file on an extension of my benefits and enduring the abuse of those who feel I CHOSE to be unemployed.
I didn't ask to be born. I didn't ask for the life I have had. It happened (and is happening) so I make the best of it. Nothing more.
by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on August 12th, 2009
I am the product of my environment. A little place I like to call "Reality" You might want to visit is sometime.
I acknowledge the intent of your blessing and respect it, but I want you to respect AND UNDERSTAND where those of us with whom you disagree come from also.
And my biggest quarrel is with those who seek to impose their version of righteousness into issues where the perception of right and wrong is not agreed on.
Most sane humans admit that murder is wrong, with murder being defined as the unlawful taking of life. However, we don't all agree on what life is, which makes abortion so contentious an issue.
Most humans agree that rape is also wrong, but is making a woman who is already scarred for life by a brutal assault have to drop out of the workforce for a while and endure 18 years of expenses any more humane? Having a constant reminder of that brutality in their face every day for the rest of their life? You are wiling to torture an adult in order to save a clump of cells that *might* become a serial killer or someone like me who doesn't share your appreciation of life?
If so, you are narrow-minded and selfish.
Don't forget than many people who HAVE had abortions are tortured by what might have been. Those that take such a decision lightly are types of people that are unbalanced in ways that make abortion irrelevant.
Many of those that get abortions are seeing things in a more merciful manner; they do not want to bring an unwanted, unloved child into the world.
I won't get into my own circumstances, but I *do* believe the world would've gone on just fine without me.
by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on August 12th, 2009
Well put Jerv.
by Gingerminx on August 12th, 2009
"Ginger, if you think that you willed yourself into existence, then I would suggest that you seek professional psychiatric help because you seem to be totally detached from reality."
Ald- in this same post you also said god bless you.
If you think that a big man n the sky willed you into existence, then I would suggest you seek professional psychiatric help because you seem to be totally detached from reality.
by BooneLee on November 24th, 2009
Rising, you talk about ethics. How about, is it ethical for a woman to have an abortion because it is inconvenient to her when she made the choice to perform an act, that without a condom, usually ends up in pregnancy. You bring up rape/incest, how about the fact that only 1% percent of abortions are done because of that. Why do women have abortions you ask, because they fear ridicule and taking responsibility for their actions. If abortion was illegal unless circumstances such as to protect the mothers life, rape/incest, or another good reason applied, maybe more women would stop giving their body to anyone and everyone, pregnancy rates might just go down, as would transmission of stds, and maybe just maybe, the overall moral fiber of society might just reach a higher standard than we see today. We give women the right to decide whether or not to have sex, and if they choose to without protection, why shouldn't they take responsibility?
by Dirty-Jarvis on December 2nd, 2009
DJ- I think you have a GRAVE misunderstanding about human nature and an even more egregious misunderstanding about American culture. Hell, we don't even want to teach teens sex-ed because of some mistaken notion that sex-ed will lead to promiscuity. Truth is that the lack of sex-ed leads to things like Bristol Palin; unwed teenage mothers!
While I agree with your point about personal responsibility, I think you miss the point of the original question which is merely one of legality.
However, if you want to stick with ethics, I want you to remember one simple thing:
NOT EVERY HUMAN HAS THE SAME CODE OF ETHICS AS YOU DO!!!!!!!
Once you accept that simple fact, things might become a little clearer to you... and, dare I say, you might have a more realistic view of the abortion issue.
As for choice, remember that EVERY poor person CHOOSES to be poor. There are high-paying jobs EVERYWHERE so if you don't earn enough to buy insurance, a house, and still have enough left over to save for a decent retirement then it's entirely because you are lazy!
I do not expect you to agree with me (I'd be disappointed if you did) but I DO want you to take a look at the facts, and to look at them objectively and logically, without hysteria, emotions, or a quest to impose your idea of morality.
by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on December 2nd, 2009
"...maybe just maybe, the overall moral fiber of society might just reach a higher standard than we see today." - Sarah Palin tried that. Why do you think she has a grandchild? If someone who is such a supporter of family values can't even control her own daughter, what chance do you think you have trying to control millions of total strangers?
Be realistic, not idealistic.
by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on December 2nd, 2009
Although I deeply disagree with your views on abortion, I can safely say that you are very well spoken about your views. You are incredibly correct that lack of sex-ed leads to unwed teenage mothers, just as the D.A.R.E. program leads to drug addicts. Don't give people the information they need and shit happens. As far as ethics goes, it seems that in today's society, most people don't even know what their own ethics or moral beliefs are anymore, people just don't care. I'm not so sure I missed the original point, my comment is a response to the person in which I noted whom brought up more than just legality issues. Can't comment too much on anything Palin tried, think she is kind of a joke. Also, I'm not sure what realistic view on abortion I am supposed to have. In your response, leave out Palin, I want to hear about her just as much as I want to hear about Obama.
by Dirty-Jarvis on December 2nd, 2009
"I'm not sure what realistic view on abortion I am supposed to have."
First off, there are some people that are so anti-abortion that they won't even allow it to save the life of the mother. I find that pretty unreasonable considering that the whole reason to be anti-abortion in the first place is the sanctity of life.
Second, some people seem to assume that outlawing abortions will stop them entirely. Well, the activation process of Windows hasn't prevented bootleg copies, the law didn't keep some guy in a neighboring city from shooting four cops, and people were still getting drunk during Prohibition, so that should tell you how much bearing the legality has on whether or not it occurs, and it's unrealistic to think that a law will be a total panacea.
by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on December 2nd, 2009
Abortion was illegal many years ago and women went to back yard abortionists with coat hanger mentality and many of them died.
by Gingerminx on December 2nd, 2009
Jerv, I believe in acceptions. Most abortions are done on women under the age of 25 and the top reason for abortion is because the child would be inconvenient. It is accentually now used as a form of birth control in a sense. Thats what I want to end. Ginger, you seem like a common pro-choice person who uses the same excuses over and over, backyard abortions did not happen constantly. Most people go straight for the "what if a woman is raped?" which occurs for only 1% of abortions. Regardless, I think we need to do something to stop all the random abortions that occur just because of sex crazed irresponsible women. I am not against protecting the mother's life, I'm not against helping rape/incest victims(I do believe there needs to be a time limit), and whatever good reason someone may have. We need to do more than just stop the bullshit abortions, such as, like Jerv mentioned, push sex-ed programs, give knowledge. Compromise can be pursued i'm sure.
by Dirty-Jarvis on December 2nd, 2009
I don't beleive I said they happened commonly, what I said was that at one time it was illegal and women went to back yard abortionists, are you trying to tell me they didn't? Wait, sex crazed irresponsible women? I suppose the mans penis was no where near her at the time. Of course education is needed, along with other things like free contraception, I have always said discussing abortion is like closing the stable door when the horse has already bolted.
by Gingerminx on December 2nd, 2009
I know you didn't say it happened commonly but bringing it up in that manner seems to imply that thought. As well, I didn't say it didn't happen, I specifically said that it didn't happen constantly so that I wouldn't seem to imply that and no one could use that idea against me. As far as the man's penis, the woman generally has the final decision. When a woman says she is on birth control and a condom isn't needed we usually fall for it. I did and got lucky, I think. But the final responsibility rests on the woman, plain and simple. Free contraception is generally available at health departments, people just don't go get it. Should it be mailed to them?
by Dirty-Jarvis on December 2nd, 2009
Personally, I think people that lazy should be sterilized. If they can't be bothered with a little BC then chances are that they are not even close to being good parenting material.
by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on December 2nd, 2009
Jarvis, I am not sure what your point over backyard abortionists was then. It is the womans responsibility? What about all the men who convince a woman not to use a condom because, well they don't like the feel, and if you really loved me. So the man is absolved of responsibility because she says she is on birth control? What a bunch of bullshit. Free contraception is not available at health clinics where I live. Uneducated is what I would call them Jerv, not necessarily lazy.
by Gingerminx on December 2nd, 2009
Jerv, I don't know what BC is. And yes, it is the womans responsibility, as soon I read what you wrote, my wife chimed in to answer this for me. She agrees, it is the womans vagina, she decides what does or does not enter. Just as womEn give into peer pressure to have sex in the first place, they fall for that lame shit about the feel, or if you love me. Guys out there are trying to get what they want, and continue to do so to not have to wear a condom in some cases. But women have the CHOICE to have sex. It seems the only people who don't get the whole thing where woman actually have to have some responsibility are feminists. Seriously, how hard is that to understand, WOMEN NEED TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY. And yes Ginger, Jerv is right, they are lazy. And Ginger, what do you not understand about my point over backyard abortionists, you were the one that brought it up.
by Dirty-Jarvis on December 2nd, 2009
Men have the choice whether to have sex or not as well, they also have the choice to wear a condom or not. How irresponsible of them not to wear one when you consider the diseases out there. I never said women were not responsible, but men are equally responsible. My comment on backyard abortionists was in response to Jervios talking about pro life people thinking that outlawing it would stop it, I was pointing out that it had been outlawed and it didn't stop it. I am not sure why you even commented on it at all.
by Gingerminx on December 2nd, 2009
This is the longest thread I've ever seen. DJ - Only an ignorant turd would compare slavery and abortion. Gingerminx - You're wasting your time, but you know that. Merry Christmas cat lover.
by evandad on December 2nd, 2009
I guessed as much Evandad, why thank you :). Merry Christmas to you as well.
by Gingerminx on December 2nd, 2009
What are you talking about evandad, I never brought up slavery. I was actually trying to have an intellectual conversation with Jerv, and everything was staying pretty respectful until your dumbass came in here. Even though Ginger falls very short of Jerv's intellect, the conversation still wasn't bad, thank both of you so much for ruining that. Apparently neither one of you can remain somewhat civil.
by Dirty-Jarvis on December 2nd, 2009
I apologize. It was Aldebaran who made that comparison. I attributed it to you because you were the last "no choice" responder in a very long thread. You're not a turd. Ignorant is still with the jury.
by evandad on December 2nd, 2009
Thank you, but what do you mean by "no choice" responder?
by Dirty-Jarvis on December 2nd, 2009
Anti abortion
by evandad on December 2nd, 2009
If you have read my posts you would see that I want compromise. I'm not an ignorant idealist. I just don't believe in handing out abortions left and right like another form of contraception to women who get pregnant and refuse to be responsible for their own actions. I can agree with rape/incest issues as well as safety for the mother. Read through and let me know what you think.
by Dirty-Jarvis on December 2nd, 2009
I do not believe I was uncivil.
by Gingerminx on December 2nd, 2009
Congratulations! You have Broke A World Record! Most comments on a social networking statement!
by J.P113 on March 4th, 2011