Abortion

[acd]

A negative attitude towards gov't assistance wasn't in those posts...if anything, I think the posts were for more government assistance to people who need it. The posts were about really helping people--instead of punishing them or demonizing them and brushing the issue under the rug.

It's reasonable to acknowledge racial lines when one part of the population is more affected than another... and question why to do something about the disparity..

Minority women do not make up as much of the population... and yet they are more likely to have abortions. And you don't think it's important to ask why that might be? Some of us aren't content with the PC attitude: "Everyone's equal here! This 'Merica!" No. Obviously some populations struggle more than the dominant one.

 

[Lilchamor]

I simply meant that the same people who say "outlaw abortion!" are often the same people who are against raising taxes to fund government assistance for the poor (or raising taxes for children's welfare programs, or raising taxes for public school funding, or whatever). Well, IMO, one isn't going to work without the other.

As far as my other statement about minorities, I am simply pointing out that minorities are far more likely to have abortions (evidence by other users cites this), in addition, minorities have historically always been the ones hit hardest by poverty. I did not mean to imply that all "black/brown people" are poor, nor did I mean that European Americans do not have abortions or need government assistance--they do, it is just more prevalent among minorities. What I'm basically saying is that in order to end abortion, we need to address under-privileged populations and their needs, which comes full circle with my argument that ending abortion starts with recognizing humanitarian efforts.

 

[Lilchamor]

A negative attitude towards gov't assistance wasn't in those posts...if anything, I think the posts were for more government assistance to people who need it. The posts were about really helping people--instead of punishing them or demonizing them and brushing the issue under the rug.

It's reasonable to acknowledge racial lines when one part of the population is more affected than another... and question why to do something about the disparity..

Minority women do not make up as much of the population... and yet they are more likely to have abortions. And you don't think it's important to ask why that might be? Some of us aren't content with the PC attitude: "Everyone's equal here! This 'Merica!" No. Obviously some populations struggle more than the dominant one.

Spot on.

 

[just me]

Is there any room for education, proper education, regarding responsibilities? Wanting to have sex is a far different cry from wanting to bring a life into this world. A poor person should know by association the outcome of such. Why would they want to bring a child into the world knowing they cannot feed or clothe the child? It seems a bit selfish at some times to me.

China has a rather unique way of dealing with their population explosion. There will most likely be more theories.

 

[acd]

Is there any room for education, proper education, regarding responsibilities?

Yes.. But it's not called preaching abstinence..

Education would help.. It's the moralizing that's hurting.

 

[Azure_Knight]

Are you for or against? At what point would you say life "officially" begins?

I'm against it except in certain medical cases where the life of the mother is at risk (ex. ectopic pregnancy). There are other cases as well, but they are less clear cut than the example I provided.

When life begins? That seems like a question where one would draw an arbitrary line in the sand (saying this is where it begins (with conviction!)).

If I had to choose, it would be at the creation of a viable zygote. By definition, it would be the creation of a new organism that is defined as living in biology.

 

[just me]

It's the moralizing that's hurting.

Care to expound?

 

[slant]

I try to ztay neutral on political izzues...

there iz no frezh take on abortion that I can think of.

Pretty much:

You are for it becauze you think women zhould have a right to their body

OR

You are againzt it becauze you think it iz murder.

You would think that logically, being a vegan, I would be inclined to be againzt abortion, but....

i'm on the fence. I guezz I'm for it becauze if I waz ever impregnated I would get one in a heartbeat cauze the only zituation I would be pregnant would be unwanted and unwarranted.

 

[Bird]

I try to ztay neutral on political izzues...

there iz no frezh take on abortion that I can think of.

Pretty much:

You are for it becauze you think women zhould have a right to their body

OR

You are againzt it becauze you think it iz murder.

You would think that logically, being a vegan, I would be inclined to be againzt abortion, but....

i'm on the fence. I guezz I'm for it becauze if I waz ever impregnated I would get one in a heartbeat cauze the only zituation I would be pregnant would be unwanted and unwarranted.

Have you already explained why you are boycotting the letter s and I missed it?

 

[acd]

Care to expound?

Educate people on birth control methods, contraceptives...ways to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. Make the options and the resources to control one's own situation more available... This may be a more efficient in preventing abortion... instead of trying to deny individuals that power by campaigning for abstinence and just telling people what they can and cannot do according to someone else's convictions.

 

[just me]

Educate people on birth control methods, contraceptives...ways to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. Make the options and the resources to control one's own situation more available... This may be a more efficient in preventing abortion... instead of trying to deny individuals that power by campaigning for abstinence and just telling people what they can and cannot do according to someone else's convictions.

I really liked the way they started teaching young children at school the art of using condoms(sarcasm). If this is your form of education, I would have to say I believe education should start at home as the time approaches. Abstinence is the best way to teach your children, along with the knowledge of what can happen if they should choose to do otherwise. It may not be an acceptable way to many, which is I think more of the problem than the solution. A kid comes to pick up your daughter on her first date. Should you furnish him condoms? I like the old routine of sharpening a knife at the table(joke intended).

 

[acd]

I really liked the way they started teaching young children at school the art of using condoms(sarcasm). If this is your form of education, I would have to say I believe education should start at home as the time approaches. Abstinence is the best way to teach your children, along with the knowledge of what can happen if they should choose to do otherwise. It may not be an acceptable way to many, which is I think more of the problem than the solution. A kid comes to pick up your daughter on her first date. Should you furnish him condoms? I like the old routine of sharpening a knife at the table(joke intended).

How young are you talking?

High school age students should learn these things. Certainly.
I agree that it should start at home as that time or age approaches...you can teach kids to respect themselves and to protect themselves and to wait to be intimate.. but as they are another person--you don't have total control over their actions... especially a teenager--who is going to outright defy as often as they get a chance. Which is why I wouldn't want to command the issue to them.

You can encourage abstinence, but that doesn't make it a guarantee that they'll be compliant... and they should be prepared whatever decision they make. I'd rather have all the bases covered than not.

If I were a parent I would encourage my teenagers to wait until they are older and until they have found someone they can really trust, but I would also want them to understand what can happen and how it can be prevented--and I'd want them to feel empowered in making their decision, and not ashamed of those feelings. I wouldn't want to make sex seem like a dirty thing to them because it's not. It's a natural and normal basic need that becomes warped when people are shamed about it. I'd hope that I was able to teach them by then to be responsible with their bodies.. and that can be done abstinent or not.

I'd want them to feel comfortable to use the methods if they decided to. Not that I'd want to be all in their business about it. I certainly wouldn't hand my daughter's boyfriend a condom before a date as you joked about.. But I'd have already had a talk with her about sex and let her know where condoms are available to her. Same if I had a teenage son.

Yada yada. A bit off topic. Original point is that birth control to me, seems a more effecient way to prevent abortions. Assume people are going to have sex out of wedlock and not for the purposes of procreation--and make the knowledge and resources available to them to prevent preganancy in the event.

 

[just me]

How young are you talking?

High school age students should learn these things. Certainly.
I agree that it should start at home as that time or age approaches...you can teach kids to respect themselves and to protect themselves and to wait to be intimate.. but as they are another person--you don't have total control over their actions... especially a teenager--who is going to outright defy as often as they get a chance. Which is why I wouldn't want to command the issue to them.

You can encourage abstinence, but that doesn't make it a guarantee that they'll be compliant... and they should be prepared whatever decision they make. I'd rather have all the bases covered than not.

If I were a parent I would encourage my teenagers to wait until they are older and until they have found someone they can really trust, but I would also want them to understand what can happen and how it can be prevented--and I'd want them to feel empowered in making their decision, and not ashamed of those feelings. I wouldn't want to make sex seem like a dirty thing to them because it's not. It's a natural and normal basic need that becomes warped when people are shamed about it. I'd hope that I was able to teach them by then to be responsible with their bodies.. and that can be done abstinent or not.

I'd want them to feel comfortable to use the methods if they decided to. Not that I'd want to be all in their business about it. I certainly wouldn't hand my daughter's boyfriend a condom before a date as you joked about.. But I'd have already had a talk with her about sex and let her know where condoms are available to her. Same if I had a teenage son.

Yada yada. A bit off topic. Original point is that birth control to me, seems a more effecient way to prevent abortions. Assume people are going to have sex out of wedlock and not for the purposes of procreation--and make the knowledge and resources available to them to prevent preganancy in the event.

That was expounding. We see eye to eye regarding very much of what you just said. Thank you. Not a bit off topic, as we were discussing preparations for this at home (education from the parents when they see the situation approaching) and responsibility.

 

[Morpheus]

Having a child is something that must be deliberate. In my opinion no one should have children they don't want.

There is no real moral difference between using a condome and having an abortion (apart from the latter being more stressfull to everyone, ergo it should be avoided). A woman who gets accidentally pregnant and aborts the fetus commits no more evil than the woman who, to avoid pregnancy, simply doesn't have sex: in both cases a potential human is refused its existence. And there's nothing wrong with that: it's not like we don't have enough people walking this planet.

 

[Melkor]

There is quite a difference between a potential thing, and thing that has already begun dear Morpheus.
We are constantly denying things, and are in total ignorance of it, but does that mean we have the right to deny the things we are conscious of?
I'm against anything which results in the killing of a voice too weak to defend itself.

I'm also rather shocked that science hasn't came up with a means of supporting a foetus outside of it's mothers womb. Surely the placenta isn't so complex as to be incacpable of being replicated by a machine. If a dialysis machine can be used in place of a kidney...

I think perhaps the public are just too morally meek to allow such a machine to be built, thus bringing about worse dilemnas.

I'm not going to say every rape victim should birth a baby, and as I'm not a woman and will never bear children I can't say my opinion on the matter will ever be worthy or accurate, I just think it's an awful shame...

 

[Morpheus]

There is quite a difference between a potential thing, and thing that has already begun dear Morpheus.
We are constantly denying things, and are in total ignorance of it, but does that mean we have the right to deny the things we are conscious of?
I'm against anything which results in the killing of a voice too weak to defend itself.

What is the difference between a potential thing and a thing that has already begun? Both of them require others to take care of them, neither of them are consciouss. Life is a process and it begun eons ago: conception of a human fetus is not a special occurance, it's just biology, it's mechanical, and there's nothing sacred about it.

 

[Barnabas]

What is the difference between a potential thing and a thing that has already begun? Both of them require others to take care of them, neither of them are consciouss. Life is a process and it begun eons ago: conception of a human fetus is not a special occurance, it's just biology, it's mechanical, and there's nothing sacred about it.

The you should have no problem with some one wanting to put a bullet in your head, death isn't anything special just a another part of life.

 

[Morpheus]

The you should have no problem with some one wanting to put a bullet in your head, death isn't anything special just a another part of life.

Oh yes, in a wider sense that's true. Death is a part of life, and there's nothing evil to it. Actually it's quite nescessary.

But ofcourse I don't want to be shot dead.

Being a human, in my opinion, consists mainly of two things: consciousness and social existence. A fetus has neither (unless it's planned, in which case it kind of does exist socially), I have both. When an unwanted child is born, three lives are ruined. An abortion only denies one, and there's unfulfilled potential everywhere in the world: that's neither negative nor positive.

 

[Barnabas]

Oh yes, in a wider sense that's true. Death is a part of life, and there's nothing evil to it. Actually it's quite nescessary.

But ofcourse I don't want to be shot dead.

Being a human, in my opinion, consists mainly of two things: consciousness and social existence. A fetus has neither (unless it's planned, in which case it kind of does exist socially), I have both. When an unwanted child is born, three lives are ruined. An abortion only denies one, and there's unfulfilled potential everywhere in the world: that's neither negative nor positive.

so there begs another question, does one life equal another?

 

[just me]

Being a human, in my opinion, consists mainly of two things: consciousness and social existence. A fetus has neither (unless it's planned, in which case it kind of does exist socially), I have both. When an unwanted child is born, three lives are ruined. An abortion only denies one, and there's unfulfilled potential everywhere in the world: that's neither negative nor positive.

A fetus has a heartbeat of its own. In your opinion regarding a human, there are those in the hospital that are not humans any longer, though their heart still beats. It is pretty difficult being conscious and existing in society without such.