Okay, hopefully without this becoming an overly heated topic, what is everybody's opinions on abortion? Where do you stand on it? Do you see it as a legitimate means of birth-control, or do you see it as a total disregard for the sanctity of human life? Or perhaps you're riding the fence on this, and haven't thought too much about it. Still, what are your opinions?
I've read some very convincing points of view from both sides of the fence on this, and of course have an opinion myself, but I'll hold it back until some of you folks sound off. Posted by Neo (Member # 1891) on :
OOH! This one is not only touchy, but since each persons situation is so very different, it is very hard to even get on the same page with such an intricate topic. You can keep it simple and debate right and wrong, but it will lead to varied examples that will break every rule no matter what the belief. This may be one of the longest lasting topics of history that will haunt generations to come.
Posted by fanatic66 (Member # 991) on :
I'm not touchin' this one! This topic is a bomb waiting to go off. Posted by Elzbennet (Member # 1234) on :
Hi. I think itīs a little dangerous topic, because people who never had to go through an abortion see things differently and thatīs my case. But in my point of view, it canīt be accepted as a birth control option. It must be seen as the last resource. Thereīs so much info about sex and ways of avoiding pregnancy, that in many cases, it does not justify an abortion, specially when the person knows about these options and still takes unnecessary risks. If someone starts itīs sexual life then should assume itīs resposabilities. On the other hand, ignorance also happens, and the lack of info can be a problem. I canīt agree with abortion but i canīt be totally against it. In cases of rapes, who can blame a woman of wanting to abort? And the cases when the child will have serious health problems wich will cause him great suffer? I suppose each case is a case and must be very well analized. This topic has a lot to be said, no doubt about it. This is just my humble opinion. Posted by Midnite (Member # 1797) on :
i dont agree with it, but bottomline, its gotta be the womens choice... and if they make a law against it, it had better be made BY a group of women, cuz i wouldnt want a woman decided something about my sack or something lol
Posted by Lou Gojira (Member # 983) on :
Thanks for the opinions so far everybody. Anybody else got an opinion before I launch into mine? Posted by Elzbennet (Member # 1234) on :
quote:Originally posted by Midnite: i dont agree with it, but bottomline, its gotta be the womens choice... and if they make a law against it, it had better be made BY a group of women, cuz i wouldnt want a woman decided something about my sack or something lol
Now that you mention that, i see i forgot that aspect on my message. I do not agree. I think the decision cannot be given exclusively to women. Men also must have a word on the it, for i give them as much importance as women have on this subject. I do not think that the fact that women carry the child, gives them total authority over his birth or not. And usually itīs one of the justification given by women, that they can do whatever they wich with their body and therefore with what is inside it. The decision should be made by both, specially when there is no strong reason for the abortion, like those i mentioned on my previous message.
[ May 10, 2004, 09:45 AM: Message edited by: Elzbennet ]
Posted by Midnite (Member # 1797) on :
true true, i was just being stupid for a laugh, i agree with you Elz. dont agree with it, but theres just too many variables for argue if you want to try and make a be-all end-all law for it. so its just one of those tough ones
Posted by Lou Gojira (Member # 983) on :
This is some thought-provoking material folks. I think I'll sit on my opinion a little while longer. Thanks for the insight so far y'all. Posted by 187 (Member # 2073) on :
Thanks for the topic, Lou.
Here's how I stand on abortion:
I support it.
Why? Because the first situation is for rape victims. They are raped by someone who impregnates them in an act of lust, not love.
The second is teenagers that are stupid and have sex unprotected or make mistakes. Teenagers (even though I am one myself) are pretty stupid, and we make mistakes. This is still a baby concieved in lust, not love.
So I support both cases, and any other case in which the baby is considered a "mistake" because I believe that if a baby is not concieved in a state of love between two people, then the baby should not be born. It's a human life that was created out of pure lust, and not love as it was meant to be.
...I also support gay marriage, which is a very racy topic because of how people stand on that. I am far from gay myself, but I don't have anything against those who are. Much like having a foot fetish, it's built into someone's chemistry and psychology. It's who we, or they, are. Some things just are.
Why I mention the gay marriage ideal is because the option of having an abortion may be considered to not, in order to have a gay couple have children. I still don't believe this is a baby concieved in love, but it's a baby concieved with the idea that it will be loved as if it were concieved in love. I hope this all makes sense, and I'm waiting to hear how brother Lou and the rest of you feel about this.
Peace out.
Posted by Lou Gojira (Member # 983) on :
Okay, I think I've dilly-dallied on posting my opinion on this long enough, especially since I started this thread. Before I get started, I want to thank everybody again who chimed in with their thoughts on this. They're all very much appreciated.
I also want to say that by me stating my opinion on such a controversial subject, I am by no means trying to say that anybody that differs from my train of thought is wrong. Brother Neo said it best when he wrote:
quote:OOH! This one is not only touchy, but since each persons situation is so very different, it is very hard to even get on the same page with such an intricate topic. You can keep it simple and debate right and wrong, but it will lead to varied examples that will break every rule no matter what the belief.
I agree with this, because ultimately, there will be certain instances, points of view, differing mind-sets, that can counter and cancel each other out. All this is is my personal opinion.
First and foremost, I think the subject will break down into a matter of responsibility or lack thereof. The arguements about the sanctity of life I believe come second to this, because there isn't a concrete, etched in stone world view on the value of life, as borderline barbaric as that may sound.
On that note, I think abortion, used as a means of birth-control, is wrong. I could site a few examples of why, but the one that drove the nail in for me (because I was waffling back and forth for a long time on this) was a law that I noticed back in the late 80's.
This law, and please excuse me for not being able to quote a direct source at the moment, stated, simply, that if a person were to crush the egg of an American bald eagle, they would get slapped with a $500 fine. To top that off, if a person were to kill a bald eagle, they could get either life in prison or the death penalty.
This really rattled my cage, because if the government will go so far as to enlist a law protecting the unborn bald eagle (our nation's bird), why then is the same government so lax in its laws, or lack of laws, in protecting unborn humans? Is human life any less important than a bald eagle's? I couldn't figure this out.
Now, about the responsibility point. Picture this: Imagine, for the sake of arguement, that your parents become old and feeble. They get to the point of not being able to do for themselves, and to be blunt they really start to cramp your style. Would it then be okay to, say, slip some arsenic in their mashed potatoes and feed it to them? Or, would it be okay to put a garden hose on the exhaust of your car, strap your folks in, and let the engine run until the carbon monoxide eventually turned their lights out?
Of course killing your old feeble parents after they become a burden is wrong. So, on that same note, why is it okay to have a baby, forming in the womb, able to suck it's thumb, register sounds, have dreams, move it's little legs and get comfortable, cut to pieces and suctioned right out? Because it might cut into party time? Because you might not be able to afford to raise it? This is the same scenario, only the victim this time is different.
Now, you might say that rape constitutes an acceptable reason for abortion. Picture this: You leave your house for a week to go out of town, and while you're gone, somebody breaks in, steals a bunch of things, shits in your toilet, jerks off on your big screen TV (providing they don't steal that too) and essentially ruins in one night what took you years to build up. You return home, and what you see is traumatizing. The extent of total disregard for you and your things, the way they vandalized what you thought was a safe sanctuary from the outside world, in short, the whole situation is like a blunt trauma to the head with a ball-pin hammer.
What do you do to repair yourself and your home? Would you throw your arms up, say fuck it all, and burn the house and what's left down? Would you take a chain-saw and proceed to destroy the rest of your belongings to get this bad situation out of your life all together? Or, would you realistically settle your nerves, eventually, and then start to rebuild what was destroyed.
The point of that example is this: Rape is a terrible, de-humanizing act that I wouldn't wish on anybody, even my ex-wife (and some of you know what I think about her). But the way to remedy it is not to do further damage to human life, or rather humanity, by getting a forming baby killed and then removed. You don't repair barbarism with barbarism no sooner than you'd use a knife to heal a deep cut in your arm. There are lots of people out there, couples that can't have babies for whatever reason, that would dive at a chance to adopt. The scumbag rapist should be hanged by the balls, no doubt about that, but why should an innocent child that had no say or control in the matter be put to death?
187, I'm not meaning to disrespect you because you seem to be a cool person to me, but what you wrote here kind of answers itself on it's face:
quote: The second is teenagers that are stupid and have sex unprotected or make mistakes. Teenagers (even though I am one myself) are pretty stupid, and we make mistakes. This is still a baby concieved in lust, not love.
So I support both cases, and any other case in which the baby is considered a "mistake" because I believe that if a baby is not concieved in a state of love between two people, then the baby should not be born. It's a human life that was created out of pure lust, and not love as it was meant to be.
Let me ask you this: If a teenager re-enacts his favorite gangsta' rap lyrics, get's totally irresponsible, doesn't really put any forethought into it, and actually does go out and "kill a motha'fucka' like it ain't no thang", should they be excused of any and all consequences because it was a "mistake"?
The thing is, people make mistakes all the time, but sweeping them under the rug and escaping from the consequences is not a way to learn from them. If a couple of teenagers screw around with unprotected sex, and a baby is the result of it, don't you think it's only right that they are made to face up to their responsibility and raise the child? You have a few cases of this, and people would get a lot less promiscuous in record time. You say yourself that this is a human life conceived, and I agree with you. So why should this innocent human life get snuffed out because of the irresponsibility of others? That would be like saying: "It's okay that my cousin died in a car crash with a drunk driver, he just made a mistake and drank too much before he got behind the wheel of his car." That logic couldn't apply to this, so how can it apply to an abortion? Again, not knocking you or your opinion, but your opinion made me think about this aspect. I mean nothing but repsect for you.
So that's it. I'll hop off the soap box now. Posted by Elzbennet (Member # 1234) on :
quote:Originally posted by 187: Thanks for the topic, Lou.
Why? Because the first situation is for rape victims. They are raped by someone who impregnates them in an act of lust, not love.
The second is teenagers that are stupid and have sex unprotected or make mistakes. Teenagers (even though I am one myself) are pretty stupid, and we make mistakes. This is still a baby concieved in lust, not love.
So I support both cases, and any other case in which the baby is considered a "mistake" because I believe that if a baby is not concieved in a state of love between two people, then the baby should not be born. It's a human life that was created out of pure lust, and not love as it was meant to be.
Hi! Thatīs exactly one of the reasons i cannot be completly in favour of abortion. The baby is not the mistake, Itīs the action of irresponsability people have! Some people take sexuallity in a very light way, and itīs something that should be considered with responsability. If you donīt have it, donīt practice it. Allowing abortion in any case is giving reason to those who canīt face that responsability. Itīs like with any other type of crime, we know it will always exist but does not mean we will accept it because we canīt avoid it. The same with abortion, women will continue to do it but that does not mean that it must be accepted it in all cases. Babies conceived in lust are exactly the same as babies conceived with love, both have the right to live. But again i repeat each case is a case and there must be some kind of balance on the judgement over women that do it. Serious health problems that cause great pain to the child and even later death or rape cases should be analised in a different way. Kisses.
Posted by TK for smile (Member # 1882) on :
i am with elz!!
a baby have the rigth of the live!! who are we? we are not gods. we are human beans, and... the love is our strength.
kisses elz
Posted by imation_pc (Member # 1480) on :
I am wondering, what you all think, ok lets think of this. I am not trying to sound perverted, but an anchor man on I believe, either Fox or CNN, made a good point about abortion. What if, say, a 12 or 13 year old girl, were raped by her own father, was pregnant, and would be in danger of losing her life if she had the baby? What do you all think of that?
Posted by imation_pc (Member # 1480) on :
Also, if the baby were to be born, It might run the risks of having serious birth defects?
Posted by Lou Gojira (Member # 983) on :
That's a thought-provoking question imation. I'd say just montior the progress of the child's forming for starters, because in-breeding, as weird and disgusting as it is, doesn't necessarily automatically make the child retarded or deformed. If it poses a definite threat to the girl's life, as in 90-100% certainty that she'd die, then I'd have to say abortion would be a viable and realistic option, just like it would for any woman who's life may be at stake. At which point, the decision should be that of the girl's (or any woman's), with no special interest groups prying in and swaying her either way.
What the reporter sounds like they're doing, as intriguing as the question is, is in my opinion trying to change the arguement to get a desired answer. For example, if I walked up and shot a guy in the face for looking at me the wrong way, I would deserve the death penalty, no questions asked. If I shot a guy in self-defense or in protecting an innocent victim of the guy, then the death penalty can and should stand a good shot at being waived. But just because the final actions are the same (in this case me killing somebody) doesn't make both scenario's right.
I remember reading an interview years ago of Gwen Stefani when she talked about No Doubt playing at some pro-choice rally. She was on-stage and said to the crowd something to the effect of: "If I got pregnant, I wouldn't get an abortion, but isn't it great to have that freedom of choice?" She said that after she got back-stage, some pro-choice representatives ripped her ass for saying what she did. She said the whole experience turned her off to the whole pro-choice campaign, and she said they weren't really pro-choice at all, they were pro-abortion!
I can't help but wonder this myself about the pro-choicers out there. Don't get me wrong, I think there are a lot of pro-choicers who truly are looking out for the interests of the woman. However, a lot of it comes across to me as legalized genocide masked as women's supposed liberation. The women's liberation movements of the 60's have already wrecked a lot of the morals and standards in this society, and it's taken all these years to finally get some of these aspects back on track. So I'm left thinking that supposed rights to abortion is but another way for man-hating lesbians and left of liberal crack pots to force their sick opinions and self-destructive ways onto the masses.
Again, I recommend everybody to read the book "The Failure of Feminism" by Nicholas Davidson to see the real mind-sets of the originators of this "movement". If you could only see and read some of their original plans for the women's lib movement to entail, it would shock and repulse anybody to no end, no matter where they sat politically.
Posted by Lord (Member # 2465) on :
I dont care if your pro choice or not. What i dont understand is how anyone could support Partial birth abortion. They induce labor then pull the baby out until only its head is still left inside. If you pull it all the way out you cant proceed to kill it. With the head still in the doctor takes a pair of long scissors and makes a cut in the lower part of the skull then proceeds to suck out the brains. This is done becuase the baby might not die otherwise. Im sorry I believe in a womans choice but if the baby is old enough that it might live if not killed thats wrong.
Posted by gs3647 (Member # 2418) on :
If people don't want a baby, they should have safe sex. I believe it should be used if a young girl (say, 15 or 16) is raped. If she really doesn't want to have a baby, then she should have the option of abortion, because if she did have the baby, she'd be a single mother who'd have to drop out of school early to take care of the kid. I think it's unfair to force someone to have a baby, but people should be careful of it, and try to avoid it if they don't want it.
Posted by Lou Gojira (Member # 983) on :
quote: I believe it should be used if a young girl (say, 15 or 16) is raped. If she really doesn't want to have a baby, then she should have the option of abortion, because if she did have the baby, she'd be a single mother who'd have to drop out of school early to take care of the kid. I think it's unfair to force someone to have a baby
What if there was a 100% guarantee the child would be adopted by a loving couple who can't have children? The thing about adoption is that there appears to be a shortage of babies. Couples are adopting kids from countries like Russia and China, so it stands to reason that they would just as happily adopt a kid born here in the States.
I totally understand what you're saying though, rape is a dehumanizing attack, and I have no sympathy at all for the perps of this. In fact, I could write paragraphs on what I think should be done to convicted rapists, and you'd probably think I have a bloodlust to beat the band.
The thing that makes this such a volatile subject though is the fact that a third party is at stake here; the baby. If all an unborn child is is a blob of cells and tissue, then there wouldn't even be an issue to discuss. But now, thanks to technology advancing the way it has for pregnant women, scientists are finding out that unborn babies are developing faster than what was previously thought, therefore bringing up the question on what constitutes life and the sanctity thereof. I've heard some pro-choicers argue that by this same logic, cancer cells could be considered life, but this seems nuts to me. The day a cancer cell can have dreams, register sounds, suck it's thumb, and kick it's legs then that arguement may hold water.
Not going after your opinions though. I just get on rants sometimes. Posted by feet lover (Member # 2048) on :
the only way i see abortion being acceptable is if the woman was forced into having sexual relations with someone or was raped.othe rthan that it should be her choice with what she wants to do.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
This topic is a bomb waiting to go off. ![[kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)