Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

What is everyone's thoughts on it? Are you pro-life or pro-choice?

Pro-choice. I think it's wrong to force a woman into motherhood, and the only thing that could change my mind if some new sort of evidence showed that the embryos (that's the correct term, isn't it? It's the direct translation from the Icelandic word, so I'll use that until someone corrects me) have developed a conscience and can feel pain.

I'm pro-choice. Women should have the right to choose what they want to do with their own bodies.

I am pro-choice, though like legion I don't believe it should be used as a sort of birth control.

I must agree with that as well. Abusing it is bad.

I agree, using it as birth control is an awful thing to do.

I'm the same as Legion but I consider myself Pro-Life if I have to choose.

Why shouldn't it be used as birth control?

Ah but what about the children inside who were a result of said woman's fun? Don't they get a chance to live and shouldn't the women deal with her choices?

Considering the fact that their lives are ended before they are begun, it's not like we're killing them. And most people seem to agree that abusing this system is bad, however, how would you make the distinction between women that are allowed to abort and those that are not? Can't the ones who had children because of their own mistakes not just lie and say it was forced on them? If they were denied abortions, would rape victims be denied as well? 

I would think checking the womans background would help. If the woman was known to get drunk alot and do other retarded things then she has to have the baby. She stuck herself in a situation where somebody could easily rape or have drunk fun with her. People need to learn to live with their decisions and stop abusing the system for themselves.

I suspect one of you will talk about the womans privacy or the ability to bribe said doctors.

Actually I was going to mention how inaccurate any test of determining "how retarded the things the women do" would be. And also, can people not change their minds? Surely, not if that means hurting someone, but I think everyone agrees that abortions are only justified if the embryo is not at a level where it can feel pain.

If the woman was known to get drunk alot and do other retarded things then she has to have the baby....People need to learn to live with their decisions and stop abusing the system for themselves.

Yes, those are great opinions. Not only are you saying that children are simply the consequences of bad decisions, but that we should allow (in fact force) women who are known to make bad decisions, to raise children. Man, with those kind of ideals the future of humanity is bright indeed.

(Now it's time for my extreme opinion)

The best way to deal with the issue of abortion is prevention. By that I mean sterlizing criminals, and those who are shown to be unfit as parent, or those who are just plain stupid. Let them have sex as much as they want, but there's no reason for them to be able to bring a child into this world.

That being said, people would think it infringes on the rights of others, so my standpoint is pro-choice.

Murdering and sterlization aren't the same lol. But I understand your point.

And he DIDNT find a way to get back home.  Sweet pretty darling dont cry (I will sing you a lullaby!)

When did I say the woman got to raise the child?

When did you say otherwise?

Woman's privacy, corrupted doctors, and drunks raising children... not that good of an idea.

Killa beat me to it. We shouldn't be forcing people who make bad decisions to raise children. (I don't agree with his forced sterilisation views, though.)

I never said the bad people would raise said child! Why does everybody think this?

You said that the bad person would be forced to have it so naturally we assumed you meant they have to raise it too. It doesn't seem like that far-fetched of a conclusion to come to.

Having a baby because it MIGHT become a child is like putting a man in jail because he MIGHT commit a crime.

I don’t think there should be an age limit to abortion. I should have the choice to terminate any person that inconveniences me. Anyone that disagrees is just trying to shove their morals down my throat.

It's only abortion if it's done to someone while they're in the womb. Otherwise it's murder, or manslaughter, and it's illegal. But hey, if you want to, go ahead.

I'm split, too.  If the mother and baby will survive together, then why kill it?  Having an abortion has its own risks.  If the mother wants to survive in a Life/Death situation, I have no comment, since the mother AND child have a sort of equal value (mom hasnt died of natural causes/child hasnt started living yet.).

Again, you can't kill what isn't alive.

yeah

But clearly, from a biological sense, a fetus is a living thing (and thus ‘alive’). Whether it is sentient or has a soul are different questions.

A woman should be forced into motherhood to avoid hurting something that doesn't feel pain yet?

I agree that Abortion should be an option in the case of Rape/Incest/Danger to mother/etc...

But there are some indications that a fetus (at viability) can feel pain and does respond to the intrusion of surgical instruments into the womb (actually pushing them away).

So the ‘it doesn’t feel pain/is not a person yet’ argument doesn’t hold any water with me.

I agree that Abortion should be an option in the case of Rape/Incest/Danger to mother/etc...

The problem with that is anyone can say they were raped though.

But there are some indications that a fetus (at viability) can feel pain and does respond to the intrusion of surgical instruments into the womb (actually pushing them away).

Can I have a link to that?

Crying Rape: I'm OK with someone lying about it in this case (just to get an abortion), because that's on them, not the law. We still need Speed Limits (for example) even though many people still ignore them.

On the Linkage:

Lots of interesting stuff at:

http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_14.asp#What of The Silent Scream?

Note:

A Realtime ultrasound video tape and movie of a 12- week suction abortion is commercially available as, The Silent Scream, narrated by Dr. B. Nathanson, a former abortionist. It dramatically, but factually, shows the pre-born baby dodging the suction instrument time after time, while its heartbeat doubles in rate. When finally caught, its body being dismembered, the baby’s mouth clearly opens wide — hence, the title (available from Heritage House '76 at http:www.heritagehouse76.com). Proabortionists have attempted to discredit this film. A well documented paper refuting their charges is available from National Right to Life, 419 7th St. NW, Washington, DC 20004, $2.00 p.p. A short, 10-minute video showing the testimony of the doctor who did the abortion in Silent Scream definitely debunks any criticism of Silent Scream’s accuracy. The Answer, Bernadel, Inc., P.O. Box 1897, Old Chelsea Station, New York, NY, 10011.

I would need to see the Silent Scream video but at this point, I can't make any real argument against it.

That site looked pretty pro-life by the way.

That site looked pretty pro-life by the way.

Would you count sperm cells as alive? If not, at what point does it become alive? 

Sperm cells have to find an egg. It must be "alive" to fetilize said egg, you can't fetilize dead eggs or use dead sperm.

Hmm... I guess vasectomies are out of the equation then :p

If we are gong with no abortion because it kills a living fetus and if you count sperm to be "alive" then you should never use a condom because all those spermies will die very quickly. NO MORE CONDOMS!!

Zombies are technically living depending on the type but don't feel pain.

Sperm can move and have a purpose, that makes them alive to me.

So every time you ejaculate you're commiting mass genocide on a scale only seen during the Holocuast?

"Zombies are technically living depending on the type but don't feel pain.

Sperm can move and have a purpose, that makes them alive to me."

You'd have to define life in order to say Zombies are or are not living, just like sperm cells. Sure a zombie can move around and bite people, but it has no thought process or working organs, so it all boils down to how general or specific your definition of life really is.

Your definition of what is or is not living right now is something that can  move and have a purpose, which can only be validated if you accept robots, washing machines, cars, footballs, mobile homes, doors, chairs, bicycles, water, planets, air conditioners (like the washing machines, they vibrate which is a form of movement) and shoes to be living, just to name a few things. You can use that definition if you want, but it's obviously flawed.

I'm going to go ahead and stick with the biologically accepted requirements of what can or cannot be considered living: 1.) Complex Organization (more than one cell) 2.) Posessing metabolism 3.) Response to stimuli 4.) Growth over time 5.) Reproduction 6.) Adaptation/Evolution over time and 7.) Ecology (Able to alter or be altered by the environment).

So, because your definition is invalid, we must accept the scientifically accepted definition, which does not allow sperm cells to be considered living things.

Please don't make me think about that story. . . .

100% Pro-Life no doubt about it!

I think I put this in the wrong place, so I'll put it down here.

"Zombies are technically living depending on the type but don't feel pain.

Sperm can move and have a purpose, that makes them alive to me."

You'd have to define life in order to say Zombies are or are not living, just like sperm cells. Sure a zombie can move around and bite people, but it has no thought process or working organs, so it all boils down to how general or specific your definition of life really is.

Your definition of what is or is not living right now is something that can  move and have a purpose, which can only be validated if you accept robots, washing machines, cars, footballs, mobile homes, doors, chairs, bicycles, water, planets, air conditioners (like the washing machines, they vibrate which is a form of movement) and shoes to be living, just to name a few things. You can use that definition if you want, but it's obviously flawed.

I'm going to go ahead and stick with the biologically accepted requirements of what can or cannot be considered living: 1.) Complex Organization (more than one cell) 2.) Posessing metabolism 3.) Response to stimuli 4.) Growth over time 5.) Reproduction 6.) Adaptation/Evolution over time and 7.) Ecology (Able to alter or be altered by the environment).

So, because your definition is invalid, we must accept the scientifically accepted definition, which does not allow sperm cells to be considered living things.

"...I'm going to go ahead and stick with the biologically accepted requirements of what can or cannot be considered living: 1.) Complex Organization (more than one cell) 2.) Posessing metabolism 3.) Response to stimuli 4.) Growth over time 5.)Reproduction 6.) Adaptation/Evolution over time and 7.) Ecology (Able to alter or be altered by the environment)."

Does the above standard require all or most of these to fit? For example, a human child cannot reproduce until after puberty. So the above cannot be valid if it requiers all, because clearly a living ten year old is 'alive'. If Reproduction works, as long as it is something that the organism can do in the future, then by that definition, a fetus fits all of the above....

I've personally never been too fond of following definitions to the letter, ever since the Icelandic definition of vegetables made it apply to Pizzas, and instead of changing the definition (as Pizza is obviously not a vegetable), the just said "sure, Pizza is now vegetable".

I think Obama passed something classifying pizza as a vegetable, either that or I misinterpereted the information

According to my former Biology textbook, it needs to be all of them. A human child is still a human, and humans can reproduce after puberty, which you can link into requirement 4. (Even though you always see the advertisements about 11 and 9 year olds having children :P)

Actually, we had that question when we were learning this section in Biology, but I know it was missing one requirement (because I said it met them all and got it wrong :P).  I think it might have to do with the definition of reproduction or metabolism, but I'm not too sure.

This so brings me back to the debate over whether sentient androids would be alive or not.

And Also, I was using it in the argument that the sperm cells themselves are not alive, not that fetuses are not alive.

I had the same thoughts, one of the few arguments I've admitted that I lost.

Taht I was wrong*

I've lost several debates haha, but I wasn't normally persuaded

Half of debate is finding the logic, the other half is convincing others your logic is true. You find your logic, then piss everybody off with it so it doesn't do much good :P

Whenever there's a political debate on these boards, I'm surprised at how conservative people are. In Denmark abortion has been legal, if the fetus is under a certain age, since the 70'es. And noone is talking about changing that back.

Of course, you can argue, that it's killing a kid, but what kind of life will the kid have if his/her mother blames the kid for preventing her from achieving whatever she wanted to do before starting a family.

Oh right, I always forget the heartwarming stories orphans have about their wonderful times in foster care :P

Cool, you're using Bradhal's "Even though you cna't see them, I have several" argument.

Hmm, I never really thought of the people here as conservative. I thought we were more along the lines of moderates or liberals. (Mostly moderates though.)

Yeah, but moderate by your american standards is very conservative by danish standards.

yeah, but danishes taste much better than your typical american  ;)

I'll keep that in mind the next time I'm zombified.

I'm conservative in most areas, and I'm very pro-choice (that's probably why I'm pro choice). But yeah, America was founded on the principle of not wanting the government to tell us what to do (on a very, very basic level), so even very liberal Americans are normally more conservative than Europeans.

Abortions are the same as murder, but you would committ a murder of a someone, that is clearly, by your standards, an innocent living human being every bit equal to the life in danger?

It's very strange for me, too. Basically everybody my age in Australia is either politically apathetic (the majority) or left-leaning. It was a little bit of a shock to come on CYS and see young people support conservative views.

Norway, Iceland, Denmark and all those countries are definitely places that I wouldn't mind living in, provided I could speak the language.

Love the new pic.

Thanks man!

What is it of?

It's the cover of the 7" record I play the most - a split release by Touché Amoré and La Dispute (that's what the TA and LD stand for).