Abortion Right Or Wrong

[gaia.plateau]

The literary ramblings of the US senate's resident psychotic ideologue and internet sensation have been well documented in this thread. Review pages 1 and 2.

[TheScotsman]

Ron Paul also wrote an excerpt about abortion in his book "The Revolution".

It speaks of his residency as a doctor, and unknowingly going into an operating room thinking it was a childbirth. Instead, much to his surprise, it was an abortion of a 6 month-old fetus. Doctors removed the fetus from the mother and tossed it into a wastebasket while it tried to cry and gasp for breath. Everyone pretended the fetus was not even in the room.

I'm anti-abortion definitely. Why couldn't this be like the old days? Man up and take care of the kid...

Hmmm... You know, it's been a damn long time since I was in screwell, but I am sure bio hasn't changed to the degree that men are having babies. Now that would be a stretch, both of possibilities, and limits of basic anatomical dimensions. Ron Paul is full of crap, just another politician flapping his gob to anyone that will listen.

Politics... Poly (many) + ticks (blood-sucking-parasites) not exactly what you want in your sex life.

It's not a choice that anyone can (or has any right to) make for a couple, least of all, from some viewpoint of misguided religious zealotry. There is seldom a true right or wrong choice for many moral issues, and often the morality of letting people make their own choices entirely overrides the question itself.

[judgeposer]

Hmmm... You know, it's been a damn long time since I was in screwell, but I am sure bio hasn't changed to the degree that men are having babies. Now that would be a stretch, both of possibilities, and limits of basic anatomical dimensions. Ron Paul is full of crap, just another politician flapping his gob to anyone that will listen.

Politics... Poly (many) + ticks (blood-sucking-parasites) not exactly what you want in your sex life.

It's not a choice that anyone can (or has any right to) make for a couple, least of all, from some viewpoint of misguided religious zealotry. There is seldom a true right or wrong choice for many moral issues, and often the morality of letting people make their own choices entirely overrides the question itself.

I'm interested to know why you believe Ron Paul is full of crap, in particular, with respect to the issue of abortion.

What I find interesting in this and other seemingly intractable debates, particularly ones that have to do with ethics, is how people utter statements that deny any moral resolution, such as "There is seldom a true right or wrong choice for many moral issues," but soon thereafter, or sometimes prior, offer a moral assessment, such as "It's not a choice that anyone can (or has any right to) make for a couple, least of all, from some viewpoint of misguided religious zealotry," or "the morality of letting people make their own choices entirely overrides the question itself." In other words, instances of self-refuting, or self-referentially problematic statements amaze me. The issue of abortion remains only one example of many moral topics on which debators/contributors behave this way.

Why is abortion, in particular, a topic on or about which "There is seldom a true right or wrong choice"? - You should give an account for this - a "why." Also, have you suggested that any position of moral certitude comes from "religious zealotry"? In other words, can one have moral certitude without religious grounding? - or put another way, can non-religious people have moral certitude?

[Johnny_D]

It speaks of his residency as a doctor, and unknowingly going into an operating room thinking it was a childbirth. Instead, much to his surprise, it was an abortion of a 6 month-old fetus. Doctors removed the fetus from the mother and tossed it into a wastebasket while it tried to cry and gasp for breath. Everyone pretended the fetus was not even in the room.

Propaganda.

A fetus at 6 months old would have severely under-developed lungs and would not have the ability to cry. Unless this abortion was performed in 1960 or in Mexico, there is no way this ever happened.

The things people will believe because "I read it in a book".

The pictures they will show you on anti-abortions sites are extreme and 50 years old. At 12 weeks the fetus is the size of dime. HOWEVER, At 6 months old it will be significantly bigger, but they don't do abortions at 6 months old here, because the baby is already too big. You actually need a special vaccum to get the head out (or a C-section) and it's totally gruesome.

I suspect that Kikko has not bothered to read the thread... I suggested that this account by Ron paul was mostly bollocks.

Why is abortion, in particular, a topic on or about which "There is seldom a true right or wrong choice"? - You should give an account for this - a "why." Also, have you suggested that any position of moral certitude comes from "religious zealotry"? In other words, can one have moral certitude without religious grounding? - or put another way, can non-religious people have moral certitude?

What account do you want? Most of us live in a 'free' world with the ability to choose what we do based on some basic level of moral certitude.

I could, if I so desired, go out today and shoot lots and lots of people. However I choose not too. What more account do you want?

A lady may choose to use abortion or not. Her reasons are her own. She should not have to justify herself to you or anyone else (A Caveat to this would be misuse of abortion. In england, at one stage, more than 2 in your life would have raised some very demanding questions from your GP)

JD

[gaia.plateau]

I could, if I so desired, go out today and shoot lots and lots of people. However I choose not too. What more account do you want?

JD I'm concerned that you have not adequately evaluated the pros and cons of making this decision.

[judgeposer]

Why is abortion, in particular, a topic on or about which "There is seldom a true right or wrong choice"? - You should give an account for this - a "why." Also, have you suggested that any position of moral certitude comes from "religious zealotry"? In other words, can one have moral certitude without religious grounding? - or put another way, can non-religious people have moral certitude?

What account do you want? Most of us live in a 'free' world with the ability to choose what we do based on some basic level of moral certitude.

I could, if I so desired, go out today and shoot lots and lots of people. However I choose not too. What more account do you want?

A lady may choose to use abortion or not. Her reasons are her own. She should not have to justify herself to you or anyone else (A Caveat to this would be misuse of abortion. In england, at one stage, more than 2 in your life would have raised some very demanding questions from your GP)

JD

What I meant, err, to give an accout for something means to account for the supposed difference in treatment of two otherwise similar circumstances or things. So, in my reply, I wanted the previous poster, to whom I directed my comment, to account for why he thought abortion was one of those ethical 'topics' on which "There is seldom a true right or wrong choice." His assessment, I thought, seemed to imply that abortion was, unlike other topics in ethics in the respect that we can seldom arrive at a resolution of its ethical standing. So, your offering of your ability to shoot others, but will not, doesn't address this - it's inapposite. Likewise, so is your response that a woman's decision doesn't need justification to anyone else - while that might be true, that does't address my question to the poster who thought that on the topic of abortion "There is seldom a true right or wrong choice."

[Johnny_D]

Answer the question yourself?

I quite agree that there is no right or wrong answer... It's allmost purely based on personal opinion choice and moral bias.

A rape victim who gets pregnant - Ok?
A cheap slut who hasn't discovered condom's and is on abortion No.7 = Wrong?

I suspect that most people's moral compass would agree with above maybe.

Even then, sitting here in one's boxer shorts thinking about going to work, I can counter the above just with my own arguments....

It ain't black or white which ever way you want to toss it.

JD

[Sonthert]

Abortion? Wonderful. Make your own choice, its nobody else's choice to tell a woman one way or the other.

It smacks of hypocrisy to endorse the U.S. having a military (which by definition is for foreign operations) which ends up going out and killing innocent people, including children, in other countries while you prohibit a woman from killing her unborn child. You either are against killing innocents or you're not. I'm not, but I think its done too...well...non-judiciously. Do it, but infrequently, and for good reason.

[Yamin]

I believe abortion should be a priviledge. If you deserve getting pregnant, you should have to keep the child. If you're responsible and its and accident, then you should be able to abort.

I don't believe abortion is either right or wrong. I believe it depends on the person and it should be the person's choice only.

In my situation, I know I am going to marry the love of my life, and we aren't ready for a kid yet. If something were to happen, I'd like to be able to prevent my life and hers from being ruined by a child. We are ready for the consequences, but our readiness only goes as far as going with abortion. A child can ruin a relationship when parents come into play. If my girlfriends parents were to find out I got her pregnant, It would be over for us.

Even with abortion being available, people still resort to physical violence to end pregnancies. If this right was revoked, I don't know waht would happen. Abortion should always be a choice.

[kikkoman1231]

It speaks of his residency as a doctor, and unknowingly going into an operating room thinking it was a childbirth. Instead, much to his surprise, it was an abortion of a 6 month-old fetus. Doctors removed the fetus from the mother and tossed it into a wastebasket while it tried to cry and gasp for breath. Everyone pretended the fetus was not even in the room.

Propaganda.

A fetus at 6 months old would have severely under-developed lungs and would not have the ability to cry. Unless this abortion was performed in 1960 or in Mexico, there is no way this ever happened.

The things people will believe because "I read it in a book".

The pictures they will show you on anti-abortions sites are extreme and 50 years old. At 12 weeks the fetus is the size of dime. HOWEVER, At 6 months old it will be significantly bigger, but they don't do abortions at 6 months old here, because the baby is already too big. You actually need a special vaccum to get the head out (or a C-section) and it's totally gruesome.

I suspect that Kikko has not bothered to read the thread... I suggested that this account by Ron paul was mostly bollocks.

Abortions were largely legal in the United States until the 1960's. Most states did not even recognize Roe v. Wade as a "moral law". Abortions were in fact done for decades, but I don't see how this account is propaganda. Is any "experience" in human life deemed propaganda just because of one's background?

It is evident that you have not read his book, as this account is explicitly stated in his book. One's personal account cannot be tossed aside, but I guess you needed to be in the room to believe it, eh?

[kikkoman1231]

In my situation, I know I am going to marry the love of my life, and we aren't ready for a kid yet. If something were to happen, I'd like to be able to prevent my life and hers from being ruined by a child. We are ready for the consequences, but our readiness only goes as far as going with abortion. A child can ruin a relationship when parents come into play. If my girlfriends parents were to find out I got her pregnant, It would be over for us.

Even with abortion being available, people still resort to physical violence to end pregnancies. If this right was revoked, I don't know waht would happen. Abortion should always be a choice.

"Ruined by a child"? That's one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever read. Producing life is a blessing. Tens of thousands of couples desire children, but fail to produce one because of biological reasons. Give the child to an adoption agency, a convent, a police station, anything. What's the difference between killing an unborn child and an infant? Nothing. That's the truth. You are murdering someone with no stories, no experiences, and no choice in the matter. Certainly one would choose life over death, not become a statistic to some ill practice.

It doesn't matter if "God said so" or not, because it's not a matter of religion, it's a matter of human life. Put it this way, if your girlfriend's parents find out that you "knocked up" their princess and you break up, then you're with the wrong girl, sorry to say. Edited January 9, 2009 by kikkoman1231

[Johnny_D]

It is evident that you have not read his book, as this account is explicitly stated in his book. One's personal account cannot be tossed aside, but I guess you needed to be in the room to believe it, eh?

One's personal account CAN be tossed aside as it will contain personal bias as is
liable to personal editing especially given any length of time.

I suppose that you believe people who have been probed by aliens because they
have personal account....

Either way It still sounds like bollocks.


JD

[bradleyclark86]

Whether you're pro-life or pro-choice, we all have the same goal: to see a day where abortion is no longer needed; where there's no longer an interest in it. No one is glorifying the idea of abortion. There's no abortion clinic at the end of the rainbow. But because people are fighting for it, there's obviously some interest. The one-size-fits-all approach of illegal or legal will not make abortion go away. You have to look at the many factors that go into it. Or in other words, you have to analyze the situations that women are in that makes them even consider abortion. I've seen on the thread people mentioning that "well, if he didn't want a child, then he should've worn a condom." Here's the thing about birth control: none of them are 100% effective. I say we try to find a means of birth control that works 100% of the time. I know someone will mention abstinence but c'mon...honestly. Don't deny me the greatest past-time on this planet (followed by hookah...hehe). Another thing is that I ready an article about how this one group's research showed that areas whose high schools taught abstinence-only sex ed also had high abortion rates. Proper education about contraception will help cut down on the interest in abortion. Granted abstinence works best buuuuuut...I've been gettin my rocks off since I was 16. I knew the risks, but I wanted to anyways. I'm not the first, nor the last. People are gonna do what they wanna do. There's also the ever-popular rape argument. Let's educate women about staying safe, harsher punishments for rapists, and all that good stuff. Did anyone know that there's an anti-rape condom? It's a female condom. It's lined with teeny tiny metal barbs that dig into...well, you get the idea. Attacker is incapacitated and the woman can make a get away. Also, the barbs must be surgically removed so the attacker must be admitted to a hospital, and later arrested.

I'm just trying to offer some ideas from a neutral party. I'm neither pro-life or pro-choice. I'm...what I call pro-change (NOT an Obama reference).

[tinyj316]

My philosophy on abortion:

I am not a woman. I have no uterus. I have not gotten a woman pregnant.

I have no say on what women want to do with their bodies.

[kikkoman1231]

It is evident that you have not read his book, as this account is explicitly stated in his book. One's personal account cannot be tossed aside, but I guess you needed to be in the room to believe it, eh?

One's personal account CAN be tossed aside as it will contain personal bias as is
liable to personal editing especially given any length of time.

I suppose that you believe people who have been probed by aliens because they
have personal account....

Either way It still sounds like bollocks.


JD

Understandable. But you're entitled to believe what you want to believe.

Bias will always exist. There's two sides to every story, yada-yada, and that's that. Propaganda or not, it still makes one think or second-guess any social taboo, be it homesexuality, racism, abortion, etc. Edited January 17, 2009 by kikkoman1231

[dead_lemons]

I believe that woman should have the right to have a abortion. And if she is late into her pregnancy and decides she does not want it then putting the child up for adoption would be the right thing(in my opinion). I do not recognize a fetus as a actually being until it can live without the umbilical cord. Until then it is literally a part of the woman and it should be her choice. I believe( from what i understand) that after ~24 weeks a fetus can survive off the umbilical cord(if it had to be removed for some reason dude to complications), and therefor becomes its own being, even if still in the womb.

just my belief on this subject.

[engineonmute]

In my situation, I know I am going to marry the love of my life, and we aren't ready for a kid yet. If something were to happen, I'd like to be able to prevent my life and hers from being ruined by a child. We are ready for the consequences, but our readiness only goes as far as going with abortion. A child can ruin a relationship when parents come into play. If my girlfriends parents were to find out I got her pregnant, It would be over for us.

Even with abortion being available, people still resort to physical violence to end pregnancies. If this right was revoked, I don't know waht would happen. Abortion should always be a choice.

"Ruined by a child"? That's one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever read. Producing life is a blessing. Tens of thousands of couples desire children, but fail to produce one because of biological reasons. Give the child to an adoption agency, a convent, a police station, anything. What's the difference between killing an unborn child and an infant? Nothing. That's the truth. You are murdering someone with no stories, no experiences, and no choice in the matter. Certainly one would choose life over death, not become a statistic to some ill practice.

It doesn't matter if "God said so" or not, because it's not a matter of religion, it's a matter of human life. Put it this way, if your girlfriend's parents find out that you "knocked up" their princess and you break up, then you're with the wrong girl, sorry to say.

having a child could "ruin your life." it depends on how you look at it. if people aren't financially ready or even mentally ready for children, they should have the option to not take that. besides, parent who aren't ready to be parents probably shouldn't be raising a child. Children shouldn't be raised in such environments, and many abortions are done because of this case.

So if your girlfriends parents find out that you "knocked up" their princess and you break up, is she really gonna be able to handle a baby anyways? i image mom and dad would have to help out. her teen/young adult life is cut right there. no more going out at night, little time for college, probably won't get that great of an education/career. great life, huh. ---ruined your life.

"producing life is a blessing" - pure opinion held by many who are ready for it