The big abortion rant thread.

Remove all ads!

Shoshino........not very PC and yes, a lot of people are going to whine about your comments but it has a twisted logic. Good for you!

 

I see your point. But it's a point only a person without children could make.

 

While there is some logic involved, this appeals more to faith, which also, in some cases defies logic. It's the faith that while what you did was difficult, it was the right thing to do. It's about finding peace with the decision. That option just does not present itself in the case of abortion.

One form of contraception is: Abstinence. If you aren't prepared for pregnancy, then should you be having intercourse?

I also am not certain of overpopulation. I believe that the distribution of necessities is not well handled. I believe that excess food produced in one area of the world could be shipped to other areas of the world. I believe that if real estate values would return to reasonable levels, then more people could affors shelter. It is greed and gluttony that prevent the flow of food to where it's needed, causing waste. It prices the bare necessities out of the range of the poorest of the people. It even reduces the means of those workers perceived the least desirable. Until these things are looked at, I won't buy overpopulation as a justification for abortion.

 

I am against abortion. Killing babies? I don't understand how any can justify it or condone it.

I'm not sure if you are serious or are going for shock value. Taking you seriously, then why stop with the unborn? If life is cheap, and the planet is over populated, then why not go the distance? What about parents who think they can support (or want) the child, then decide two years later that they no longer want it? Should they be allowed to kill it? If not, why not?

Have you read Phillip K. Dicks excellent short story, The Pre-People? It was his response to Roe v. Wade. In it, the government has decided that children don't have souls until they are 12 years old. Parents are free to call the Abortion Truck to come pick up their kids to be killed up until that time. Alarmist? Certainly. But the arbitrary nature of deciding when life begins is absurd. Mr. Dick does an excellent job of pointing out this absurdity.

One of the most disturbing things about abortion is the argument that the unborn child is part of the mothers body. With each day, medical technology improves. There will come a time when a baby is viable outside of the mothers womb on day one. What will the argument be then?

 

Ahh, but then Jack there would be no need for abortion.
The mothers who don't want(or can't take care of) them can have them removed from their bodies & let the state raise them for adoption without going through the 9 month bonding process that prevents a lot from going the adoption route.

 

I don't believe that will happen. The US alone averages 1.3 million abortions per year. In the 35 years since RvW, that is over 45 million abortions. I hate to be cynical, but is the government going to agree to pay for millions of babies to grow in an incubator? Who is going to adopt them?

Let's be honest, many of the pregnancies that end in abortion would not occur if abortion were not legal and easily obtained. Were there 1.3 million more adoptions per year before legalized abortion?

 

Well, we will never know as no one is going to admit to doing illegal medical procedures are they?

Also if we get to the point that medicine can make a day old birth viable than they will probably have advanced the anti-pregnancy medicines to the point that unwanted pregnancies will drop significantly.

 

Brilliance! Unadulterated Brilliance! By asserting something that nobody knows you can claim anything to justify everything, as long as it is only remotely conceivable - and discount all contradicting information as irrelevant - after all, we will never know the truth! Genius! You squared the circle!

 

Shoshino, Jack made a point I was thinking. Yes, the perception of sex has changed a great deal, but how much of that was influenced by abortion?

Martaug, the problem with that is that any contraceptive will cost money, and most of the unprepared pregnancies are for the poor who can't afford much of anything.

Ragusa, there's plenty of anecdotal evidence from the period to support illegal abortions, and some doctors that have even admitted to performing them, and have said they would do so again if abortions were banned. Worse, most of our anecdotal evidence doesn't include doctors.

Anyway, the point isn't that these were illegal abortions, but more that many of the pregnancies at question may not have come about in the first place if ready abortions funded by others were not available.

 

I'm not arguing facts, and I don't bother involving myself any deeper in this thread. I'm commenting on a particularly weak and unproductive method of argument (no, proof!) that I encountered a few times lately: The anecdote, and it's cousin, the assertion that the absence-of-evidence-is-not-the-evidence-of-absence of some asserted whatever.

You are aware that evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay is called anecdotal if there is doubt about its veracity? It means that the evidence itself is considered untrustworthy or untrue. Conclusions based on that are unreliable; they might happen not to be untrue, but it doesn't follow from the 'evidence'.

 

edited

No comment.

 

Bull. My wife is a pro-life mother of 2, and last I checked, she's female. I, on the other hand, am male and believe abortion should be safe and legal for the first trimester and illegal thereafter, but there's no reason to point to anecdotes. Polls have borne out time and time again that men and women have roughly the same views on abortion.

In a January 2003 CBS News/New York Times poll, 37% of women asked felt abortion should be generally available, 37% of women felt it should be available but with stricter limitations, and 24% felt it should be illegal. Men were about the same. 40% felt it should be generally available, 40% felt it should be available but with stricter limitations, and 20% felt it should be illegal. The statistical margin of error was +/- 4%. I dug up 7 other polls that reached basically the same conclusions. Contrary to popular belief, men appear to be slightly more permissive on the subject of abortion, but the difference tends to be within the statistical margin of error.

 

Ragusa, I'll agree that anecdotal evidence is not ideal, but when there's little to nothing else, it's better than nothing. What we do have is backed up by a few court records, admissions, and the like, but they are far to scarce to come to any real conclusions.

Also, a lack of evidence isn't evidence of a lack, though it is equally not evidence of existence of the thing.

Dragonfly, I'm sure it was a terrible experience for you, but please understand from my perspective you killed someone because they were involuntarily going to make you vomit for nine months. Ok, I may just do that myself, but I'd expect to go to jail for it. I'm not going to say you're a horrible, evil person, just that I think you made a bad choice under bad circumstances.

 

It's all very well people saying that abortion is wrong but unless you've been in a situation where that has seemed like your only option, you aren't qualified to comment. No amount of polls or articles or church teaching is ever going to make you understand. You might think that having an opinion based on facts is the be all and end all and your church might tell you that us women who've had abortions are evil harlots from the ninth circle of Hell but really, the difference between what you think you know and what us who've been there know is the same as telling a blind person you know how it feels because you walked around with your eyes shut for a day

 

There are many laws that some feel are fair and others do not. Race car drivers may think speed limits are nonsense. Does that make it so? Sociopaths may think that kidnapping and torture should be legal. Should it?

Just because something is convenient for someone in a particular situation, does not mean it should be legal. When my brother was murdered, it was inconvenient for me that revenge killing is illegal. If I had hunted down and killed his murderer, I would have been jailed. Should I have been allowed to do it? To use your words, are those who have never been in that position qualified to comment? From my perspective, it made perfect sense. They don't understand my position...

 

Sorry about your brother honey but that's not what we're talking about. Yes, you're in a posistion to comment on revenge killing but have you ever been pregnant? have you ever felt that having a child would destroy your life, your family and mean that the child had no decent quality of life? Have you ever had to make the decision about it totally alone because there was nobody around to support you?

 

The point is, that you don't have to be in any particular situation to believe something is objectively wrong. Most laws are made from this position.

My opinion is valid whether I've been a pregnant female or not. I believe killing babies is wrong.

 

Ah, I see the mistake I made there. I thought you objected because you cared about the kids...... I didn't realise that you just enjoy seeing families living in poverty and not giving the children a decent quality home...My bad

 

Humans are animals, plain and simple, a mating instinct is interwoven with our very being, we are here to breed plain and simple. if any other species of animal on this planet were to spread as much as we have, we would be culling it to protect it from its own annihilation.

Im the kind of person who does what needs to be done, makes the choices noone wants to make, the opinion is based simply on logic, mankind is stretching the planet to its very limits, ergo we need to reduce the population.

Dont get me started

Im sure we could find one

I think the attitude towards sex has simply reverted to what it is naturally, the attitude from lets say, 50 years ago was effected by religion.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, for your pleasure we have someone who cannot (or will not) debate there position without resorting to insults.

I will ask, as I asked before, if that is the justification for abortion, then why stop with the unborn? There are families who decide to have the child and end up regretting the decision, often because of the financial burden. If you feel that the threat of poverty is justification for killing a child, then why would you have a problem with those living in poverty killing their (already born) children? They can't "provide a decent quality home".

For me, it is about the child. I find your argument, and all of the arguments for abortion, flimsy. If having a child is inconvenient, then don't get pregnant. Killing a child because it is inconvenient? I find that repugnant.