I'm not advocating than men don't be supportive of a woman's choice (whether she chooses to carry a baby to term or abort the pregnancy)...of course men should be supportive, but only after a woman has made her choice; and that's not even to say that a woman couldn't or shouldn't ask for advice from her boyfriend or whoever...if she wants to solicit advice from loved ones, that's totally her choice. I'm just insisting that in the end the decision is hers and hers alone for a man to support or neglect as he so chooses.
I don't think it is right to compare abortion to the Holocaust. Abortion is not murdering millions of people in a cruel and sick manner. Abortion should not compared to the Holocaust. Abortion is not murder, in fact one is preventing a life from coming into this world from being unwanted, or possibly abused. Wouldnt another person want to prevent such a horrible thing to happen to a child? And i am not saying that abortion is right in all cases. Abortion is ok if you have been raped...if there was a problem with the birth control.... and there are probably many other special circumstances. i am not saying that abortion is an effective way of birth control, that is not the message i am trying to send. I believe that abortion is a desision that someone has to make and it is usually very painful, they should not be called murderers for this. Besides there are six billion people in this world. can you count how many unwanted and uncared for children in this world already?
The only person that should have a say in what a woman does with her body is the woman herself...unless another body is involved, which in this case it is.
your line of thinking is the same justification for why so many men abdicate their resposibilities towards a pregnancy - hey, if men don't have a womb, then why bother supporting a woman's pregnancy? if what men think bears no weight in the situation, then why should men bother to contribute anything?
while i respect the fact that men will never 100% empathize with situations involving pregnancy and abortion, it is naive to think that you can operate in a vacuum. should suicide counselors only be people that have tried suicide before? is the advice of a healthy person worthless to a patient with a terminal disease? it's extremely limiting to view people in such a black and white contrast. some people's experiences and advice are more compelling and helpful than others. but that doesn't make other's contributions worthless.
I don't care if they agree or disagree with me on this subject, but no male person should really have any say on this matter whatsoever. No man or boy will ever know what it is like to be pregnant; miss a period; carry a life; endure labor; endure the critcism and shame of a teenage pregnancy; tell his parents that he's knocked up; retain water; not get to walk at graduation; have to transfer to a different school; get fat; get swollen; get hungry for EVERYTHING; have to sleep on his back for four months, all because he is going to have a baby. What right does any man have to say anything at all about what a woman will do with her body.
If you got pregnant right now, what would you do? If you got a girl pregnant right now, what would you do? You don't know. What makes me the angriest about this discussion is that it's a hard situation to empathize with.
I think that I would have an abortion if I were to get pregnant right now, but maybe I wouldn't. Maybe I would get support from my friends and family that I can't imagine getting...maybe I could try to make a marriage work in a few years...maybe I would put it up for adoption... maybe I would find myself willing to put off my plans for the chance to bring a child into the world. Or maybe I would do what I think I would and have an abortion and continue on with the future I have planned. These are things I don't know. But what I do know is that these are choices that are and should be mine, not anyone else's: not some boy's, not my parents', not my school's, and not my government's.
Well, well. A couple days ago, in bible class, we learned that a fetus isn't considered a life. It was in a case that a pregnant woman got beaten; if she died, it was a 'tragedy' amd if she lived bt the baby died it wasn't considered a 'tragedy' because it was NOT considered a life. So all those anit-choicers claiming the bible supported them? Think again.
Court Won't Hear Anti-Abortion Tag Case Gina Holland (AP) 2 Dec 02
WASHINGTON D.C. -- The Supreme Court ended an effort to block specialty car license plates in Louisiana with the slogan "Choose Life."
Louisiana is one of seven states that have authorized such car tags, and abortion rights supporters argued that the state was giving a forum only to anti-abortion views.
Justices on Monday refused without comment to review the tag opponents' appeal.
In 2000, a federal judge had stopped the state from distributing the plates, which have a picture of a baby wrapped in a blanket in the beak of a brown pelican, the state bird. But earlier this year an appeals court said the groups did not have standing to sue.
Lawsuits have been filed in other states over the plates, contending they violate the separation of church and state. Besides Louisiana, states with "Choose Life" laws are Alabama, Florida, Hawaii, Mississippi, Oklahoma and South Carolina. Leaders in other states are considering offering them.
Louisiana charges an extra $25 for the special tags to raise money for organizations that counsel expectant mothers about adoption. A council of religious groups advises the state on how to spend the money.
Simon Heller with the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, representing the plate opponents, told justices in court papers that the "scheme creates a `symbolic union' of the state of Louisiana with fundamentalist Christian organizations" and could promote religion.
Roy Mongrue Jr., an assistant attorney general in Louisiana, said that the legislature may use license plates to encourage pregnant women to consider adoption and other alternatives to abortion. "The state, acting through ... its democratic process, has the right to speak this message," he wrote in court papers.
if all life is the same, what about other animals? what about the potential tree that is an acorn? There's either something more to value than life, or you're paralyzed for fear of killing any microscopic organisms.
Is a life is a life. There's no point in denying it...Everyone has a right to live, as well as to breathe cool air, to have a good time, even if that life is unborn.
I really am not one to say wether abortion is right or wrong. but seeing as there are so many others answering from the same posistion, here is my opinion: deciding whether to abort a birth is like keeping kosher, being a vegetarian, etc. you do it based on whether you personally think it is right, wrong, or not worth it. If the government would just legalize abortion, everybody should be happy. on the one hand, nobody is forcing you to abort. it will remain the mothers choice. on the other hand, it is an available option to those who remain unopposed. Is it not guarenteed in the consitution each persons right to freedom? and is choice not one of our most valueble freedoms? just because abortion is legal does not mean it is mandatory for anybody under a certain age! You take the high road and I'll take the low road! who says that people should agree on everything? Legal an mandatory are to very different things.
quote:I was an unwanted pregnancy, I was an accident, becuz my parents' love & relationship was prectically over anyway. If I had a choice to go back to that conception (the unwantedness, the feeling of being unloved & worthless) i would have chosen death!!
You don't have a coice, though. And your mother chose to give birth to you; even if she didn't plan you, when she found out she had a choice whether to abort you or not, and she chose not to. Unless she found out while in labor, and I doubt that.
By your post, I didn't really understnad if you're anti abortions or not. Again, to all anti=choicers: If you're against abortions, don't have one.
so, you're saying animals don't have souls?? mental anyone? hearts can't beat when they have yet to form. shouldn't we all be stating our opinions instead of TRYING to discourage others, or put them down, or make them feel bad??! you know what? I was an unwanted pregnancy, I was an accident, becuz my parents' love & relationship was prectically over anyway. If I had a choice to go back to that conception (the unwantedness, the feeling of being unloved & worthless) i would have chosen death!! & don't even think I tell this story for pity, and don't tell me what probably would've happened had they gone thru w/ it. I'm glad I'm alive; I have 2 beautiful little boys to show for it. and as if you haven't been reading past posts, adoption is a long & trying process! kids are there now that be will until their 18th birthdays; what would you tell them? if/when you qualify to adopt, most people want newborns, not teens, not adolescents, not even toddlers. millions of kids, unwanted, unloved, no family but the other kids who have the same life. what would you tell them? "oops? adoption's a better choice, but you don't count."? Faula420@earthlink.net
jstar - i am simpling stating that i don't buy the arguments that an embryo "feels" unwanted or unloved and therefore you cannot simply draw parallels between a fetus and a child. i never said that a fetus wasn't deserving of life, i simply wrote that i don't recognize logic that assumes a fetus/embryo is simply a small person.
regardless if my point is clarified or not, it's really a moot point because it hinges upon the definition of life. if agreement cannot be reached on this point (which is worthy of controversy), then the rest of the arguments remain unnecessary because there was never a common ground for them in the 1st place.
I believe I already responded to most of what you said about harm and such. Unless you anything more constructive to say or if you want to draw from what you said and make a conclusion or assertion of sort that pertains to the topic at hand, then I will consider this moot.
quote: You said that “feeling and fact are two separate things.” Ever thought that sometimes feelings can be a hint at what you should do?
It has been said you should 'follow your heart' but that has nothing to do with morality. I belive in passion and emotion, but not as a moral dictate or a constraint on actions. Especially not on the actions of others. And if you rest your argument on emotion then all I have to do is feel neutral about abortion. I am personally fine with it and I feel for the mothers as well. Therefore, following your line of thinking, my emotions justify abortion.
quote: I believe that I am morally obligated to save somebody’s life if the situation clearly presented itself and I am capable of doing so without putting my life on the line.
Again, that is a belief, a feeling and entirely subjective and at the mercy of your passions, your upbringing, your culture and society, as well as any number of factors that fail to put any reason or logic or moral obligation there to back it up.
quote: And I don’t mean that that means I am obligated to go out and find people whose lives are endangered
Why not? We've established proximity shouldn't be a concern. Hell, if people are dying and you are obligated to save them, what is the minor cost to you, compared to your death? At what point do your financial concerns and things you would consider petty in relation to the death of another human being, significant enough to relinquish all feelings of guilt? This is serious. If all it is, is a little pain or money, for someone from America, that shouldn't be too much to ask? Why shouldn't you be morally obligated to use your dying breath to save someone? Where do you draw the line?
quote: …but if somebody is drowning a foot away from you and you are fully capable of saving them without putting your life on the line…than yeah, you should reach down and help them.
Why? We might even shun a cruel person who watches others die, but again, that is emotion, not morality, not logic. It's a subjective and conditioned response to a stimulus. We can say It would be nice of you to do that. You might even be called a hero, but it's supererogatory. You would not get chaged with murder if you did nothing. In fact, we would consider it a gross violation of personal liberty and rights and justice to require everyone to help everyone else (why that's 'socialism'..ooooo dirty word). What right does anyone have to tell anyone else how to use their body or to force them to be a certain way or act morally. What is morality if we're all forced to do it? How can anyone ever be truly good then?
quote: I agree with you on the topic of emotions…yet, like you said, they should in certain cases “guide actions.” This is such a case.
I never said that. It is a misinterpretation of my words. I said sometimes that they do guide actions, not that tehy should, but it is irrelevant; whether or not you act on emotion does not create obligation to yourself or others to act that way. We often choose other than our impulses. We choose to do homework instead of play, we choose to obey instead of doing what we really want. We choose to obey te law (again, disclaimer: question laws). Not that these are necessarily good things to curb our impulses, but it shows that there is no link and no logical connection between what we feel and what we do, or should do.
baby adj 1: being or befitting or characteristic of an infant; "baby rabbits" [syn: baby(a), infant(a), infantile] 2: (of crops) harvested at an early stage of development; before complete maturity; "baby carrots"; "new potatoes"; "young corn" [syn: new, young] n 1: a very young child (birth to 1 year) who has not yet begun to walk or talk; "isn't she too young to have a baby?" [syn: babe, infant] 2: (slang) sometimes used as a term of address for attractive young women [syn: sister] 3: a very young mammal: "baby rabbits" 4: the youngest member of a group (not necessarily young); "the baby of the family"; "the baby of the Supreme Court" 5: an immature childish person; "he remained a child in practical matters as long as he lived"; "stop being a baby!" [syn: child] 6: a project of personal concern to someone; "this project is his baby" v : treat with excessive indulgence; "grandparents often pamper the children"; "Let's not mollycoddle our students!" [syn: pamper, featherbed, cosset, cocker, coddle, mollycoddle, spoil, indulge]
KG: I’ve already established the fact that the belief of when life begins is one of the largest dividing factors between pro-life and pro-choice. I know that you’re for abortion because you believe that a fetus is not…well, human. You know that I believe the fetus is human…will grow to be an adult… and therefore deserves life. You have “a hard time buying” the idea that embryos deserve life because you “have no recollection of being in the uterus.” Do you remember the day you were born? What about your 1st birthday? Your 2nd? I remember none of these days…yet there is no doubt in my mind that I was both human and deserving of life despite the fact that I was not fully grown or developed. I also have no doubt that I had emotions at each of the aforementioned days in my life. As far as the whole drowning person idea…I didn’t even come up with it. Ask Dante or maybe even read the previous posts.
Dante: Once again, you shouldn’t compare a baby to a burglar because the burglar is not innocent…he has the intent to harm/kill. When I said that the argument was for a later time, I was referring to cases in which the pregnancy is life threatening to the mother. I’m sorry for not being clearer.
You said that a pregnancy is potentially more harmful than any potential burglar. This is not true, burglars can kill…babies do not. (I’m not including life-threatening pregnancies by the way… which would be foreseen by the doctors.) Yes, there are pains associated with childbearing. Even so, it seems pretty selfish to me for a mother to decide that she’d rather have her child killed than go through stomach pains, fatigue, even childbirth. By the way, I will continue to call the fetus a baby… dictionary.com says that “baby” can be defined as an “unborn child” or “fetus.”
You said that “feeling and fact are two separate things.” Ever thought that sometimes feelings can be a hint at what you should do? I believe that I am morally obligated to save somebody’s life if the situation clearly presented itself and I am capable of doing so without putting my life on the line. And I don’t mean that that means I am obligated to go out and find people whose lives are endangered…but if somebody is drowning a foot away from you and you are fully capable of saving them without putting your life on the line…than yeah, you should reach down and help them. I agree with you on the topic of emotions…yet, like you said, they should in certain cases “guide actions.” This is such a case.
To All: I feel like this topic has been obscured with metaphors and hypothetical situations from both sides. (Ironic that I opened a new idea with “I feel” right after downplaying emotions!) When you get down to it, the argument is drawn simply between those that are arguing for the rights of the baby or the rights of the mother. The rights of both are important. Yet the desire to fully grant rights to both parties is idealistic, because they clash. To fully grant complete rights to both mother and child is impossible…so you must look at the importance of each right. I believe that the right to life has priority over the right to choose. This is what divides us.
Topics 
