I thought that you were arguing that even with protection, accidents could still happen. This is all very confusing, I don't know who's thinking what.
Well I was basically arguing that you could prevent it by just not having sex, as that's pretty much the only true prevention.
As far as rape goes, many people are diverse with that no matter what they believe.
I am against abortion, even though I tend to believe it's ok in some cases. Very few though.
Like, god forbid, if I ever got pregnant when I couldn't handle it, I know I wouldn't be able to go through with an abortion. No matter what. I just couldn't do that to myself or the baby. I'd never live with myself if I did.
But saying that, There is some cases in which abortion is a sort of 'right option'.
I know I'm a hypocrite but this topic is a hard one. There's so many differant opinions.
I get really infuriated by the pro-lifers' arguments of the pro-choice crowd being 'murderers' or 'sluts who don't want to have to take responsibility for their actions', nor do I share their support of adoption in place of abortion.
First of all, pro-choice doesn't necessarily mean pro-abortion. I would never hope to have an abortion, but if I found myself in trouble I would be very grateful for that option. I am on the Pill, and my boyfriend always uses condoms There are a lot of couples like that, and in the very unfortunate case that an accident should happen, is it really fair to deny such people a way out of a potentially devastating situation, after they took every precaution necessary and just had bad luck?
Secondly, abortion cannot be viewed as murder, in the early stages of development. Up to a certain point, a developing zygote is just that- NOT a baby. It simply cannot be called that; it is a ball of undifferentiated cells, indistinguishable from a pig, cow, dog...even that of a patch of skin or lock of hair. Therefore saying early abortions are 'taking a human life' is absurd. Following that logic: cutting your hair is murder, scratching your arm is murder, ejactulation is murder...people need to get a grip on perspective here.
Finally, abortion is not the 'miracle cure' that pro-lifers assume it to be. Childrens' homes are not a good, stable environment for a child to grow up in, and many children spend their whole childhood there, then are turfed out when they hit 18 and often end up homeless and unemployed. Yes, there are some children who are snapped up by loving families, but many are forgotten. Children can be adopted into families that are simply not up to the challenge, or even worse, deliberately abusive and cruel to the child. As a victim of child abuse myself, and knowing many who have gone through even worse than me, I'd rather an unwanted child was terminated before even being aware of its own existence, than have to face a fate like that.
I get infuriated by the stereotypical pro-choicers who think everyone who is prolife thinks that people who get abortions are sluts. They say things like that trying to create a negative image so they can sway peoples opinions for all the wrong reasons.
And yes, it does. You see, "pro-choice" people try and sugarcoat their opinion by calling it pro-choice instead of pro-abortion, just like pro-life people say they're pro-life instead of anti-abortion. The issue at hand is not life or choice, it's abortion. You should have the guts to actually say how you really feel without sugarcoating anything.
And yes, it is fair, because they made the choice to have sex. No one forced them to, it was their choice. If they choose to do so anyways, they need to be prepared for such consequences. No matter how safe you are, it could happen. They are fully aware of that before they have sex, and if they aren't they should be.
And no, because those cells aren't like hair cells or skin cells. Anyone with any biological knowledge of the different types of human cells can tell you that. I don't know why people who support abortion thing their ignorance to cellular biology is an acceptable arguement in favor of abortion.
The cells that make up a the blastocyst phase (which is reached within 4-5 days of fertilization) can differentiate. They aren't just a mass of cells that you can't identify like all the pro-choice propoganda likes you to think. Of course it doesn't look like a human yet, it's a developing human. Read this, it will enlighten you, and then maybe you can get a grip on your perspective.
Childrens' homes are not a good, stable environment for a child to grow up in,
Well, you see, you don't know that, seeing as how they were aborted and never made it to be children. There are all kinds of people in the exact same situation as people who choose to have abortions, and they make it work. Is it hard? yes. Is it difficult? Yes. But that doens't make it impossible, it's inconvienent and requires people to deal with the consequences of their actions and they don't like that. I don't think you have the right to terminate anyones existence because it isn't your life. It isn't the "mother's" life either. The mother of a 6 month old baby wouldn't be able to terminate her babies life if things got difficult, and you can hardly call a 6 month old aware of their existence. That arguement is illogical.
What I find highly vexing is that people who are strictly against abortion because "no one should ever have the right to take another human's life" usually do find it permissible if the woman was raped. Well, you can't have it both ways. Isn't it highly hypocritical to accuse pro-choice parties of "playing god" by choosing who or what lives and who or what does not, yet they do the exact same thing according to their logic based on how the fetus was conceived?
This sanctity of human life, although the latter term is highly debatable, is the argument "pro-lifers" use most frequently, yet there is such a glaring inconsistency here that I don't even feel it's worthy to argue about medical facts and people's rights before one of the parties doesn't sort their perspective into not quite having the texture of the Grand Canyon.
A week later, can I have some explanation of this massive inconsistency from one of the pro-lifers, please?
And yes, it does. You see, "pro-choice" people try and sugarcoat their opinion by calling it pro-choice instead of pro-abortion, just like pro-life people say they're pro-life instead of anti-abortion. The issue at hand is not life or choice, it's abortion. You should have the guts to actually say how you really feel without sugarcoating anything.
You missed my point.
Pro-choice does not always mean pro-abortion. I am not in favour of abortions as a means of birth control, or for it to be viewed as a commonplace practice to relieve people of responsibility. HOWEVER, accidents do happen, and I am in favour of abortion being available as a last resort.
Quote
And yes, it is fair, because they made the choice to have sex. No one forced them to, it was their choice. If they choose to do so anyways, they need to be prepared for such consequences. No matter how safe you are, it could happen. They are fully aware of that before they have sex, and if they aren't they should be.
That is absurd. Even though the hypothetical couple took every precaution to make the chance of impregnation almost nil, but by some stroke of bad luck it still happened, the woman should be forced to have a child? Doesn't sound fair to me. By that logic you could refuse treatment to anyone mauled in a plane crash, because they willingly boarded the plane, aware of the tiny chance it could crash. Where to draw the line?
No, I didn't miss your point, it would be pretty hard to do so, seeing as how 50 million people have said the exact same thing as you did. People who are in favor of the death penalty don't think it should be used all the time. People who are in favor legalizing drugs don't think everyone should use them, but they still call them self pro(whatever) or anti(whatever). Being in favor of something doesn't mean you think it should be used all the time. The topic here is abortion, not choice, not life. You are pro-abortion, regardless of when or how much you think it should be used.
Your plane example makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Abortion results in the termination of a life for concvienence. Medical treatment is something totally different. Yes, you are aware the plane could crash. You are also aware that emergency medical teams exist to treat people in accidents like that, or any accident for that matter. It's their job to do so. Treating plane crash victims saves lives, abortions end them. You can't compare those two things.
Earlier you said that developing humans coudln't be called humans at all, that "it is a ball of undifferentiated cells" (which, by the way, is only true for the first 4-5 days of pregnancy). So why would you have any objections to when an abortion could occur and when it couldn't? You said it shouldn't be used as birth control, but if it's just a bunch of cells, why does it matter?
That is absurd. Even though the hypothetical couple took every precaution to make the chance of impregnation almost nil, but by some stroke of bad luck it still happened, the woman should be forced to have a child? Doesn't sound fair to me. By that logic you could refuse treatment to anyone mauled in a plane crash, because they willingly boarded the plane, aware of the tiny chance it could crash. Where to draw the line?
You couldn't refuse them treatment- it wasn't their fault that the plane crashed. However, it is their fault if they choose to have sex- with or without protection.
That is absurd. Even though the hypothetical couple took every precaution to make the chance of impregnation almost nil, but by some stroke of bad luck it still happened, the woman should be forced to have a child? Doesn't sound fair to me. By that logic you could refuse treatment to anyone mauled in a plane crash, because they willingly boarded the plane, aware of the tiny chance it could crash. Where to draw the line?
You couldn't refuse them treatment- it wasn't their fault that the plane crashed. However, it is their fault if they choose to have sex- with or without protection.
Not to mention that having an abortion and treating an injured person cannot even be compared.
That is absurd. Even though the hypothetical couple took every precaution to make the chance of impregnation almost nil, but by some stroke of bad luck it still happened, the woman should be forced to have a child? Doesn't sound fair to me. By that logic you could refuse treatment to anyone mauled in a plane crash, because they willingly boarded the plane, aware of the tiny chance it could crash. Where to draw the line?
You couldn't refuse them treatment- it wasn't their fault that the plane crashed. However, it is their fault if they choose to have sex- with or without protection.
Not to mention that having an abortion and treating an injured person cannot even be compared.
That is absurd. Even though the hypothetical couple took every precaution to make the chance of impregnation almost nil, but by some stroke of bad luck it still happened, the woman should be forced to have a child? Doesn't sound fair to me. By that logic you could refuse treatment to anyone mauled in a plane crash, because they willingly boarded the plane, aware of the tiny chance it could crash. Where to draw the line?
You couldn't refuse them treatment- it wasn't their fault that the plane crashed. However, it is their fault if they choose to have sex- with or without protection.
If a couple takes all possible precautions and still somehow get pregnant, how can you say it is their fault?
The chance of pregnancy occurring in that case is about equal to the chance of being maimed in a plane crash.
That is absurd. Even though the hypothetical couple took every precaution to make the chance of impregnation almost nil, but by some stroke of bad luck it still happened, the woman should be forced to have a child? Doesn't sound fair to me. By that logic you could refuse treatment to anyone mauled in a plane crash, because they willingly boarded the plane, aware of the tiny chance it could crash. Where to draw the line?
You couldn't refuse them treatment- it wasn't their fault that the plane crashed. However, it is their fault if they choose to have sex- with or without protection.
If a couple takes all possible precautions and still somehow get pregnant, how can you say it is their fault?
The chance of pregnancy occurring in that case is about equal to the chance of being maimed in a plane crash.
Because they had sex.
They could just...not. Simple as that. If they're not ready to have a baby, then don't have sex. Precautions don't always work. So, to eliminate the risk completely, don't take the risk. It's logic. Otherwise, if you're still taking that risk- however small it may now be- you're still at fault. It's YOUR risk to YOUR life.
That is absurd. Even though the hypothetical couple took every precaution to make the chance of impregnation almost nil, but by some stroke of bad luck it still happened, the woman should be forced to have a child? Doesn't sound fair to me. By that logic you could refuse treatment to anyone mauled in a plane crash, because they willingly boarded the plane, aware of the tiny chance it could crash. Where to draw the line?
You couldn't refuse them treatment- it wasn't their fault that the plane crashed. However, it is their fault if they choose to have sex- with or without protection.
If a couple takes all possible precautions and still somehow get pregnant, how can you say it is their fault?
The chance of pregnancy occurring in that case is about equal to the chance of being maimed in a plane crash.
Because they had sex.
They could just...not. Simple as that. If they're not ready to have a baby, then don't have sex. Precautions don't always work. So, to eliminate the risk completely, don't take the risk. It's logic. Otherwise, if you're still taking that risk- however small it may now be- you're still at fault. It's YOUR risk to YOUR life.
I'm going to have to take Kurtni's point in saying- the principle of treating an injured person and killing another is not the same- at all.
However, on my own point, the plane crash isn't your fault. You took the risk, yes, but the plane crashing had nothing to do with what you did. If you have sex, well then yah, it's most definitely your fault if you get pregnant.
It's not hard to draw the line- one is death, the other is life.
NeoSteph Basket Case Age: 36 Gender: Female Posts: 16494
December 31st, 2007 at 10:26pm
plane crash dear me i think I can sum up a better analogy.
Every part of your life is dictated by other sources. The time of the day that you need to be awake is told to you by the sun, the way you are treated medically in an emergency is dictated by a doctor. Communications of foreign affairs of the up most importance are decided for you by someone else (even in a democracy) and because of the world we live in the little freedom we do have is getting smaller and smaller, we can be held against are will without being charged because it is seen as the right thing to do (;terror laws). We are unable to voice our opinion in case it offends (;discrimination act) because it is seen as the right thing do.
Now we have the argument that a women can't have control over her own body because it is the apparent right thing to do and you may well be right, it is a life but until you are in the position and i hope none of you are where you have to consider an abortion you cannot judge a girl put in that position, because it is not your life.
Now we have the argument that a women can't have control over her own body because it is the apparent right thing to do and you may well be right, it is a life but until you are in the position and i hope none of you are where you have to consider an abortion you cannot judge a girl put in that position, because it is not your life.
it's not your body.
Well, by that logic, I cannot judge a murderer because I haven't been in his position or a rapist because I've never raped anyone. The thing with abortion is, it affects more than just her body. It affects a developing human life that isn't hers to abort. The fetus she is aborting isn't her body, she doesn't have the right to end it's life for her own benifit.
ily.