Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 10 to 18 of 54

Thread: Anti-abortion on non-relgious grounds

  1. #10

    Default Re: Anti-abortion on non-relgious grounds

    Quote Originally Posted by FloggingSully View Post
    I don't disagree about what she should do, I'm talking about what the government should/shouldn't force her to do.
    We force the father to pay for the baby when it's born. Why can't we force the mother to do her part before it's born.




    If the mother abandons the newborn, it's murder.

    If she aborts the embryo/fetus then it's ok.

    When do we draw the line? 1st trimester? 2nd trimester?

    In my opinion based on my understanding of biology, I feel the embryo, fetus & newborn are one in the same.

  2. #11

    Default Re: Anti-abortion on non-relgious grounds

    Coming from a legal perspective, here is my problem with those who oppose abortion. If the government has the power to prohibit abortion, and therefore refuse to recognize the fundamental right a woman has to choose whether or not to have a child, what is to stop the government from one day demanding that all women are limited to 2 children and forcing women to get abortions if they exceed that limit.

    Regardless of whether this policy would ever be enacted (which I highly doubt it would), the simple fact remains that the prohibition of abortion means that a woman does not have a fundamental right to choose whether or not to have children. The right not to have a child (end a pregnancy) is the flip side of the same fundamental right to choose to have a child.

    I don't want women to end their pregnancies anymore than the next person, but I don't believe it should be my choice or the government's choice. Neither of us is going to raise that child, thus we should have no choice in determining whether that child comes into this world.
    "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice."
    -Martin Luther King, Jr.

  3. #12
    Super Moderator Zapp Brannigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Staten Island, NY
    Posts
    8,269

    Default Re: Anti-abortion on non-relgious grounds

    Quote Originally Posted by Jacob311 View Post
    Coming from a legal perspective, here is my problem with those who oppose abortion. If the government has the power to prohibit abortion, and therefore refuse to recognize the fundamental right a woman has to choose whether or not to have a child, what is to stop the government from one day demanding that all women are limited to 2 children and forcing women to get abortions if they exceed that limit.
    What's to stop them from doing any of that? That's a long stretch to get to what you're talking about. It seems repugnant to me to allow someone to kill a fetus because they are irresponsible. But then the problem becomes how do you police that?

    Regardless of whether this policy would ever be enacted (which I highly doubt it would), the simple fact remains that the prohibition of abortion means that a woman does not have a fundamental right to choose whether or not to have children. The right not to have a child (end a pregnancy) is the flip side of the same fundamental right to choose to have a child.
    It doesn't ahve to mean that. It can be worded however you want. But again, the problem really is enforcement, in my mind.

    I don't want women to end their pregnancies anymore than the next person, but I don't believe it should be my choice or the government's choice. Neither of us is going to raise that child, thus we should have no choice in determining whether that child comes into this world.
    There is an easy way not to have kids: Don't have sex. The vast majority of people understand that. If you have sex, you run the risk of getting pregnant. What abotu personal responsibility?
    Jacob Schlottke---Gone too soon, and the world is a little less bright because of it. RIP, brother.

    One, two, Evans is coming for you...

  4. #13

    Default Re: Anti-abortion on non-relgious grounds

    Quote Originally Posted by Jacob311 View Post
    the simple fact remains that the prohibition of abortion means that a woman does not have a fundamental right to choose whether or not to have children. The right not to have a child (end a pregnancy) is the flip side of the same fundamental right to choose to have a child.
    I agree with Zapp's reply.

    The fundamental right to choose to not have a child is only violated in cases of rape.

    Pregnancy resulting from any other means requires some degree of choice from the mother.

    Prohibiting abortion isn't denying the mother her right to choose to have a child. It's prohibiting her from killing the child after she regrets her choice to have unprotected sex.

    The fact that the mother regrets the choice in the morning, is not the fetus' fault.


    To frame my opinion again, I believe that biologically speaking, that human life begins at conception. Therefore, that life should have some rights and protection by law.

  5. #14
    Super Moderator Zapp Brannigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Staten Island, NY
    Posts
    8,269

    Default Re: Anti-abortion on non-relgious grounds

    G&P,

    To play the counterpoint, how do you effectively police it, though? Don't you think this just encourages people to make false rape claims?
    Jacob Schlottke---Gone too soon, and the world is a little less bright because of it. RIP, brother.

    One, two, Evans is coming for you...

  6. #15

    Default Re: Anti-abortion on non-relgious grounds

    There is a lot of gray in this issue.

    I don't have all the answers.

    I'm not ready to carry a sign in at a pro-life rally, but I definitely lean pro-life and believe that abortion ends a human life.

    I also think that if our society continues to evolve and become more and more civilized, that someday an embryo/fetus will have full civil rights.

    I'll admit that we may not quite be there yet.

  7. #16

    Default Re: Anti-abortion on non-relgious grounds

    I guess my problem is that I am not opposed to ending a human life. I did it enough times. To end a life, before it has awareness, and before bringing an unwanted child into the world, to me has no moral stigma.
    It has always facinated me that most people who oppose abortion will favor capital punishment - and those who favor abortion will oppose capital punishment.
    Killing people is killing people. I did it with a rifle. Some do it with a needle. If it needs doing, it needs doing.

    R.I.P. Cyrano and Roxanne.

  8. #17

    Default Re: Anti-abortion on non-relgious grounds

    Quote Originally Posted by Ground&Pound View Post
    We force the father to pay for the baby when it's born. Why can't we force the mother to do her part before it's born.
    We can't force the mother to 'do her part' for the same reason we can't force anyone else to lend their organs to another person. Would you be ok withe the government forcing people to donate their kidneys, lungs, etc to others who needed them to stay alive?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ground&Pound View Post
    If the mother abandons the newborn, it's murder.

    If she aborts the embryo/fetus then it's ok.
    The embryo/fetus is using her internal organs without her concent, the newborn isn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ground&Pound View Post
    When do we draw the line? 1st trimester? 2nd trimester?
    You should be able to physically remove a fetus/embryo/baby from the mother at any point. If the fetus/embryo/baby can live detached from the mother then it shouldn't be killed, if it can't then it can't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ground&Pound View Post
    In my opinion based on my understanding of biology, I feel the embryo, fetus & newborn are one in the same.
    Biologically speaking, the embryo, fetus and newborn are not the same. The embryo and fetus are parasites, the newborn isn't.
    There's no such thing as a pretty good aligator wrestler.

  9. #18

    Default Re: Anti-abortion on non-relgious grounds

    Quote Originally Posted by M Richardson View Post
    To end a life, before it has awareness, and before bringing an unwanted child into the world, to me has no moral stigma.
    I respect this stance.

    At least you are willing recognize abortion for what it is and then choosing to morally/ethically accept it.

    You are correct to point out that society accepts killing in various forms. Why not this one as well?


    What I have a problem with is people who claim abortion is not killing.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •