Man Abortion gets me riled up.

[HollowedPumkinz]

Right to privacy, rights to life. Weighing one against the other, I think it the most human and obvious to choose life. However, the question remaining, what is life? When does it begin? For me, I believe most fervently that it begins at CONCEPTION, not 3 months down the road, not when the child is born, at Conception. Why? Because right then when that child has been conceived, it has already overcome a monumental task of traveling amongst thousands of other sperm cells into the egg and fertilizing successfully, it is right then, potential life, a potential human being, who is ANYONE, bar your God(s), to take life away once it has been conceived, snuff it out like a bug? Why can I not do the same for someone else? Yet the Mothers still claim it their own right. No, if it does not endanger the child or the mother, their is no humane reason for such an action.

Allow me to say words of emotion from a heavy heart, for such a topic is impossible for one to not feel: If you're ashamed of the child, can't afford the child or was forced to have the child through rape, that doesn't give you the right to snuff out the greatest and most marvelous thing in the world, the right to live the right to be, the right to experience the world and all its majesty. The child did nothing, and never will be able to do anything if not given the chance, some say the child is better off dead, than to be at the mercy of an angry Mother who has contempt for their very being, yet not existing to begin with is a far worse thing than suffering, for one cannot suffer without knowing happiness. Furthermore, It kind of makes me incredibly fucking sick, and No, I don't give a fuck if emotion sways judgment, I'm no robot and I bleed like the lot of us, if there is ever a time when there is no passion, no fervor, no honor for human life, then please stick a gun into my mouth and you can be happy merely "existing" but I'll have no stake in that.

Now allow me to step back into a reasonable state: To say the child is the property of one sole person would be incredibly incorrect, how one comes to that conclusion is beyond me, the Father should have a say, some stake in that child's life, not solely decided by the Judge Jury and Executioner of one. For it takes two to tango, correct? How is half that child not the Father's? How come suddenly because the women is in possession of the child for 9 months, that grants full ownership? This isn't a dog or a CD we're talking about here, having it be in your possession for a long period of time shouldn't grant total ownership.

And a final emotional conclusion:
It's just...I find the entire notion entirely wrong. Why is it that I am the only one that sees that restricting someone's right to be is the most awful, most contemptuous, and heinous crime one can EVER and I do mean EVER commit? You can never tell me one thing, one single thing worse than someone making you non-existent, taking away your life before it can begin, never knowing, love, pain, hate, pride, and the entirety of the human experience. There will never be anything worse, nothing at all. I find it, and I really do mean this, to be the most inhumane of all practices in ALL of history and ever will be. And to think that the legality of this is upheld by something as whimsical and unimportant in comparison as "rights to privacy" its like the worst fucking joke in history right there. For 9 months and a little pain in the long run, you can give someone the greatest thing to ever be, the right to live. And yet this would be denied because of something as petty as money? Something as trivial as privacy? Disgusting, inhumane, insulting to the very core of which humans build all moral foundation. I think I'll end it with a quote from Tolle, "The child's right to live is superior to that Women's right to privacy" End of story.

Can you tell me a single thing worse than Non-existence? No? Didn't think so.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

until the 6 month mark by medical science its considered a parasite and you can do with it whatever you please.

and how will I get my fetus Milkshakes?

[HollowedPumkinz]

At 10/27/12 01:21 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: until the 6 month mark by medical science its considered a parasite and you can do with it whatever you please.

It's not worth my time retorting, but sure why not? Once again, regardless of what medical science says, the potential of human life is still there, thus, should not be taken away, by anyone, period. Doesn't matter what anyone says about it, pull in all the experts from all the corners of the globe, when you stop relying on everyone's opinions and make your own, you look at it and you realize that the potential for human life still exists, no matter what any expert in any field tells, you. You want undeniable fact? That's an undeniable fact: Every fetus is a potential human being, with a far higher chance of coming into existence than any single sperm cell. I don't need a doctor to tell me that, I know that because its common sense. And if I know that, then I can come to the opinions I have formed and explained. You follow my way of thinking now?

and how will I get my fetus Milkshakes?

You could go to Stem Cells and Sons, and order a frosty one with a side of dead animal carcass

ask for the fresh stuff, it's to DIE for. (cwutididthar)

[Dawnslayer]

Allow me to challenge your view on abortion, based on your own sense of right and wrong, as described by you in the original post. Imagine a situation where the pregnant woman will beyond all doubt die unless she aborts the child. However, if she does not abort the child, then it will beyond all doubt survive. For the purposes of this question, the mother has no choice in the matter, and outside circumstances such as origin and prospective social status of the child are no object.

Who do you save? Why? What makes the life of the one you saved more worthwhile than the life of the one you did not?

[Camarohusky]

Pony up the dough.

If you want several million more indigent children on Medicare every year, as well as other programs, pony up the dough.

[MOSFET]

What riles me up are people who are self-righteous on this issue, but ignore all the issues surrounding it. From women getting raped or coerced into having sex, to neglecting the life of the child as soon as it's born, there is wickedness beyond this single event. Where was the outrage then? Where was the compassion? To me, abortions are a tragedy not an act of villainy.

[Warforger]

You're basing your whole argument as if everyone agree's life begins at conception. Using that logic though birth control in general is abortion.

[Saen]

At 10/27/12 01:18 AM, HollowedPumkinz wrote: Right to privacy, rights to life. Weighing one against the other, I think it the most human and obvious to choose life. However, the question remaining, what is life? When does it begin? For me, I believe most fervently that it begins at CONCEPTION, not 3 months down the road, not when the child is born, at Conception.

Sure life begins there, however that stage of development is nearly identical to fish, frogs, rabbits, etc. Throughout development an embryo has to successfully pass through multiple biological differentiation checkpoints. If the embryo fails any one of these differentiation processes, it is determined unviable and naturally aborted by the impregnated woman by a process categorized under spontaneous abortion.

So what is your opinion on spontaneous abortion? Should these women who have failed pregnancies be prosecuted for murder and be condemned as some of the most vile people on earth?

[orangebomb]

At 10/27/12 01:18 AM, HollowedPumkinz wrote: wall of text

Fixed.

So what your saying is that abortion is wrong because it's wrong to snuff out a parasite's life that lives inside of the woman's belly, even if it has Down's syndrome or other such abnormalities, or it was conceived because of rape and/or incest. With all due respect, you're fucking wrong.

Let's use your logic for a minute, a child is born with Down's Syndrome or another debilitating disease which would make the child forever dependent on someone else and/or the government. You're willing to accept the kid suffering and the parents possibly going bankrupt supporting a child that will never get past the condition, and most likely never amount to anything of worth to society. That's not a good thing, because the child is going to be a burden to them in one way or another, no matter how much they want to spin it.

I honestly do not understand why abortion is so reviled within the religious community, {especially Christian groups} even in cases where the mother's life is threatened, in case of rape/incest, or the child is going to be born with a debilitating disease. Take the religious aspect out of this, and realize that normal children are expensive enough already from birth until adulthood, and a child who is severely disabled is a big enough burden for the taxpayers and the parents themselves, and to have that put on anyone hurts far worse than any abortion.

Simply put, all men are not created equal. While I do have some sympathy and even pity for the children and adults with crippling disabilities that would make them unable to function in a normal society, to oppose abortion because all life should be equal under God's rule {even in cases of rape and incest, never mind birth control.} is simply garbage. Ultimately, it up to the parents, the mother specifically, to decide whether to keep the child or get rid of it for whatever reason, not anyone else and certainly is not up to God, Allah, or whatever deity. This is simply a Darwinian principle of life that has been going on for a pretty long time, and will not change.

[Gustavos]

At 10/27/12 07:18 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:
That's really the million dollar question. As a fierce pro-lifer, I consider that to be the only real moral dilemma attached to the subject. The way I see it, both lives are equally valuable, and the thought of sacrificing one to save the other just makes my skin crawl.

I could contemplate that question for days, and still not have an answer.

Well going by the logic of saving "potential life", you should save the mother's life, as she can have another child. The next one will not be the same child, but assuming the couple wanted a baby of their own to raise, it at least completes that desire while both partners are alive to raise it. The choice of the mother dying also carries the unwanted burden of that woman's partner, family, and friends having to mourn her death for years to come. The same can't be said about the baby. Honestly, if the love of my life were faced with this choice, I would beg her to save her own life for me, the future child, and everybody else we care about. If there is a god, he clearly didn't want that child to be born, sad to say.

[orangebomb]

At 10/27/12 09:09 PM, TNT wrote:

At 10/27/12 06:41 PM, orangebomb wrote:

That's disgusting. I know a family that has a Down's Syndrome child and he's improving drastically. Sure he won't be capable to do everything, but he can at the very least live on his own. Stating that the family will go bankrupt on a child with Down's Syndrome is incredibly arrogant, and quite frankly you should be ashamed for saying that.

Ok, perhaps I should've clarified that not all families with Down's Syndrome children would go bankrupt for taking care of their kids and so on, and for that I will apologize. But with that said, you cannot deny that it is a still a heavy burden to deal with for everyone {financially speaking}, and for a lot of people, particularly in impoverished neighborhoods can't afford to do so, the government has to pick up the slack, and we end up footing the bill as taxpayers. People complain enough already about taxes being too high already, whether that's a legit excuse or not is for a different discussion.

As you said, someone with DS could improve to the point where they could live on their own and get a job. But in the bigger picture, society doesn't put a high expectation, if any, on disabled people to do very much beyond living an average life, which is probably why you hear so many stories of veterans who were disabled in combat, and yet the government does very little to aid them, and generally rely on charitable aid to make ends meet. Once again, this doesn't happen in every case, but it is very noticeable.

I personally have no problem with early or mid term abortions, if they are able to detect a mental deficiency with the child, or of rape and incest. In my view, a child is considered alive after he/she breathes for the first time outside the womb and before that, it's a part of the mother's belly and she can do what she wants to it. I just hate it when the ultra-religious assholes think that all life {including underdeveloped fetuses} is considered equal before God, when in reality, not all men are created equal in birth and upbringing, which kind of makes it a double standard into itself.

[BUTANE]

At 10/27/12 01:37 AM, HollowedPumkinz wrote:

At 10/27/12 01:21 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: until the 6 month mark by medical science its considered a parasite and you can do with it whatever you please.

It's not worth my time retorting, but sure why not? Once again, regardless of what medical science says, the potential of human life is still there, thus, should not be taken away, by anyone, period. Doesn't matter what anyone says about it, pull in all the experts from all the corners of the globe, when you stop relying on everyone's opinions and make your own, you look at it and you realize that the potential for human life still exists, no matter what any expert in any field tells, you.

So the potential of human life is what needs to be maintained? That would mean that any girl that is not currently pregnant and is able to become pregnant, should be impregnated by someone. The potential of human life is there, so why not make sure it happens? Force people to breed continuously because the "potential" is there. That sounds like a fantastic idea.

The reason abortion is acceptable, is that "potential life" is not life.

[Memorize]

At 10/28/12 01:56 AM, Profanity wrote:

My point is that American Pro-Life Legislators cause much more harm than good along the way, acting with religious fervor against abortion, stem cell research, genetic editing, cloning, in vitro fertilization, contraception, and even cesarean sections... yes, really.

Then explain me.

An anti-war
Anti-death Penalty
Pro-legalizing all drugs
Pro-legalizing prostitution
Pro-stem cell research, genetic editing, cloning ect..

Tell me what my reason for my positions are.

[camobch0]

Woman's body, their choice.

[BumFodder]

A woman can do whatever the hell she wants to her womb and whatevers in it.