Delirium wrote: » How's it hypocritical to be pro-choice when I've said in principal my mother should have had the choice to abort?
Delirium wrote: » No it doesn't as a pregnancy can't be transplanted to another womb.
Delirium wrote: » there is no "anybody" in the early parts of the pregnancy. There are certain basics required for a person to exist.
Delirium wrote: » You do realise that women can die as a result of pregnancy/childbirth? Somewhat patronising to refer to it as an "inconvenience".
Delirium wrote: » The problem here is that you're essentially saying that sex is purely for reproduction. Many people don't hold that view and take a lot of precaution to avoid becoming pregnant.
Delirium wrote: » But some still become pregnant even though they didn't want to. Why should they then be required to carry a foetus for nine months because of your particular view of sex?
Delirium wrote: » Indeed, we only recently had a deceased womans body hooked up to a machine in an attempt to continue the pregnancy. How is it moral to do that and not allow the family bury her?
J C wrote: » If my neighbour said that he was going to kill somebody I didn't know, would this affect me? It probably wouldn't affect me personally, even if he went ahead and did it. Would I have a moral responsibility to report my neighbour to the authorities none the less ... of course I would. ... and the ultimate reason is very simple ... if I allow injustice by others against others ... it may very well result in the same injustice being visited upon me (or somebody I deeply care about) ultimately ... and the principle of do unto others what you would have others do unto you applies to all forms of killing. She is free to fly wherever she wishes ... and I have no right to hassle her in any way. Of course, if she freely sought my advice and support to not go through with an abortion, I would freely give her both.
Kiwi in IE wrote: » Pro 'life' logic at its best! People should behave responsibly when it comes to sex. Safe sex should not be promoted in public places.
J C wrote: » If my neighbour said that he was going to kill somebody I didn't know, would this affect me? It probably wouldn't affect me personally, even if he went ahead and did it. Would I have a moral responsibility to report my neighbour to the authorities none the less ... of course I would.
J C wrote: » Its hypocritical to hold two positions at odds with each other. If you value your life, it is hypocritical to simultanelously believe that somebody else has the right to take away your life, in either the past, present or future.
J C wrote: » Really safe sex should be promoted ... so how does making condoms available to drunks make sex safer? ... it's as ridiculous as making car keys available to drunks ... and then wondering why they crash !!!
The principle is still the same ... you shouldn't damage or kill your child when waiting for an adoption of a born child or the end of pregnancy for an unborn one.
There is much more than 'anybody' ... there is a human child involved ... whether they are two months in gestation or 20 years born.
Its an extreme rarety that pregnant women dies ... and the risk of death from abortion is always much greater for a healthy pregnant woman.
... and that is fine ... but they have to live with the consequences, if they don't take precautions or they do so in a grossly irresponsible manner, for example, while imaired due to drugs or drink. Nobody would make excuses for a drink driver who kills ... and nobody should excuse the killing of an unborn child that is conceived whilst drunk.
It's not my view of sex ... its because of the Human rights to life (the right to life of both the mother and her child) that is involved.
I'm not sure that it is right. It is certainly using extraordinary means to do so ... and I wonder if a viable child will be born at the end of the process. If the child can be born successfully, then perhaps it is morally justifiable ... the mother loses nothing, as she is already clinically dead ... and her burial is merely being delayed ... which can occur for many reasons anyway ... and the child gains the chance to live - so where is the moral problem with this?
aaakev wrote: » Some "Pro lifers" imo are the most vile human beings the way they treat people who have made the very tough decision to have an abortion. Its not an easy choise to make but for that person at that particular time in their lives its the best decision for them and is no one elses business.
aaakev wrote: » If you think its morally wrong to have one thats perfectly fine, dont have one but dont try make a woman who already feels terrible feel worse.
aaakev wrote: » Its probably among the hardest decision they will make in their lives and it will affect most greatly for a long time but that does not take away from the fact that its their best choice at the time
aaakev wrote: » Imo it should be available as it is in the uk for anyone who needs it
frag420 wrote: » What positions would you suggest for really safe sex? How would not providing condoms to drunks make sex safer?
J C wrote: » I have nothing but absolute compassion for any woman who has had an abortion.
The Randy Riverbeast wrote: » Should we deny medical treatment to people who crash when driving? They knew there was a risk of getting in an accident. If you are going to drive you need to accept the consequences.
J C wrote: » The same way as taking car keys off drunks, who approach cars to drive will make them and everybody else safer ... by stopping them driving. Of course, if they are really determined, they will drive even after you give them a lift home ... but the law cannot account for complete idocy !!! Similarly, two drunk people may have sex anyway, even without a condom ... but Society shouldn't be saying that drink and condoms are a good mix by making both available in pubs !!! Safe sex implies sex between trusting sober adults in a stable long-term relationship who aren't impaired by drink or drugs ... not jumping into bed with somebody they know nothing about, including their sexual history, after their inhibitions have been lowered by a few pints ... and readily available condoms in the pub jax.
Overheal wrote: » well, no, because acknowledging someone could have chosen to abort your fetal state would simply cause you to appreciate your life proportionately more. I myself am rather thankful the sperm and egg that bore me happened. That doesn't itself mean I don't acknowledge that sometimes reality is not so rose petal and the choice must be there for those circumstances.
J C wrote: » Of course we should provide medical treatment to anybody who is ill or injured ... however, pregnancy is neither an illness nor an injury ... and abortion isn't any form of medical treatment for the child involved.
J C wrote: » Either you are happy that you should have been aborted or you're not.
Kiwi in IE wrote: » Really? I thought you believed that abortion was murder? Do you have 'nothing but absolute sympathy and compassion' for all murderers, regardless of the circumstance? What if she doesn't regret the abortion or feel any remorse and maintains that she made the right decision?
Kiwi in IE wrote: » Would you feel 'nothing but absolute sympathy and compassion' for someone who intentionally killed a 5 year old child in a playground, didn't regret it or feel any remorse, and maintains that they are glad that they killed the 5 child?
Kiwi in IE wrote: » We're talking about the same thing here after all aren't we? The woman who has had the abortion is the same as the person who murders a 5 year old child?
Kiwi in IE wrote: » I'm happy that I could have been aborted if my mother had chosen to do so. What is the point you are trying to make here?
Kiwi in IE wrote: » Well it is really, because if there is a child involved in any abortion scenario, she has clearly been the victim of sexual assault/abuse.
J C wrote: » ... and now your 'solution' is to further violate her with an abortion?
J C wrote: » I never said that women who have abortion are murderers ... they clearly aren't murderers as the law declares abortion as an exception to murder. Morally speaking, she is ... legally speaking, she isn't. Would it make it any morally better if she killed a one year old? ... or a newborn? ... or a pre-born? Of course, in mitigation, the actual killing in abortion is not done by the woman herself ... she merely consents to it by a third party ... and it is legally sanctioned in many juristictions.
J C wrote: » Either you are happy that you should have been aborted or you're not. You don't seem to be happy about being killed ... so why would you support any law that allowed you to be killed?
Delirium wrote: » Personally, viability is where I wouldn't be comfortable allow abortion at (or after). It's currently 26 weeks for a >90% viability rate.
Delirium wrote: » Given that most countries with legal abortion have the majority of the abortions happen under 13 weeks, I'd allow for it without restriction.
Delirium wrote: » How's it moral relativism? I don't have a time machine so I can't say I'm okay for someone to abort me
Delirium wrote: » I don't support infanticide as the child can be placed with a responsible adult for care if the parent(s) can no longer care for it.
Delirium wrote: » A fertilised egg and 20 year old person with a mental/physical impairment are two very different entities.
Delirium wrote: » actually, forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her wishes would be considered immoral by a lot of people.
frag420 wrote: » @ JC/Fenetre/Cattolico (when ever you come out of hiding)..a question for you all... If my neighbour decides tomorrow morning that she wants and abortion......how will this affect you? Will it prevent you from working? Will it prevent you from caring for your family? Will it really affect you in any way? Now I have asked this before and did not get an answer so perhaps one of you would be decent enough as to answer this question!!
frag420 wrote: » You do realise that women can die as a result of pregnancy/childbirth? Somewhat patronising to refer to it as an "inconvenience".
frag420 wrote: » Indeed, we only recently had a deceased womans body hooked up to a machine in an attempt to continue the pregnancy. How is it moral to do that and not allow the family bury her?
Delirium wrote: » So you reject the concept of personhood?
Kev W wrote: » How is it a violation if it's what she wants?
The Randy Riverbeast wrote: » But pregnancy can lead to illness or injury. Abortion would prevent these. For a group who claims to consider the woman and child equal there is a lot of glossing over the health of the mother.
J C wrote: » ... and ironically, the people who can least cope with children are the ones who have the most children ... and don't have abortions. The eugenics movement of the 1930s had somewhat similar views to your posting ... they thought that the people who were having the most children were 'wrong' people to do so ... and they also bemoaned the fact that the self-termed 'top of society' weren't having enough children. Their solution was to make contraception and abortion as widely available as possible to what they considered to be the 'lower classes' in society ... and to encourage the 'upper classes' to spread their genetics far and wide through Artificial Insemination and larger families. Suffices to say it had no moral basis.
