Log in to check your private messages
Abortion
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The EUCantina Forums Forum Index » The Meditation Grove View previous topic :: View next topic  
Abortion
 PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:08 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  MasterAndrew15
Administrator
Administrator

Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Posts: 941
Location: United States

A very popular topic, for sure. Feel free to discuss. Remember to back up your claims as well!
_________________
EUCantina.net Founder. Forum Admin.

New to the forums? Introduce yourself in the Spaceport!

Need help? Please feel free to post in Feedback & Suggestions


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 7:39 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Mara Jade Skywalker
Administrator
Administrator

Joined: 15 Feb 2008
Posts: 5586
Location: Beyond Shadows

Personally I think abortion is wrong. It's murder, plain and simple. Are they trying to say it's not 'alive' until it breaths air? A lot of people say, "But the mother should be able to choose." So somebody kills somebody else, and we label it as murder. But wait...shouldn't that man be able to choose? He wanted to kill so-and-so. Shouldn't that be his choice? And we say no. Murder is wrong. Period. But...! It's okay for mothers to kill their children because, "They should have a choice." If they don't want or can't take care of the baby, then offer it up for adoption. Or don't get pregnant in the first place. But you can't just kill your child. It's a living human being, and it deserves to have a life. You may not necessarily have to take care of it, because maybe that's not possible. But the child should be able to live, not be killed off because it's a problem. I just think that's awful.
_________________

"It's not about the legacy you leave, it's about the life you live." ~Mara Jade Skywalker



View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:04 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Darth Skuldren
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 6499
Location: Missouri

I too am against abortion personally. However I think it would be against the laws and beliefs of the US to hold abortion as illegal.

There are many key points in the debate. For starters there is the scenario where a woman is raped. Should she be able to have an abortion? What if the delivery of the child would threaten the life of the mother? And then there is the outcome of woman seeking illegal abortionisnt in order to have the operation done in unsafe, unsanitary conditions that threaten her own life as well.

Ultimately people are supposed to have a choice, whether right or wrong. The variety of what if conditions are so great that it is difficult to say what is right or wrong. I'm not really sure what it takes to have an abortion, but I do think it should require the approval of a judge. Such a decision should not be hastily made or lightheartedly done.
_________________

"I believe toys resonate with us as humans, we can hold them them, it's tactile, real! They are totems for our extended beliefs and imaginations. A fetish for ideas that hold as much interest and passion as old religious relics for some. We display them in our homes. They show who we are. They are signals for similar thinking people. A way we connect with each other...and I guess thats why I do toys. That connection." -Ashley Wood


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 7:50 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  BlueX-WingPilot
Knight
Knight

Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 170
Location: Cloud 9

Darth Skuldren wrote:
I too am against abortion personally. However I think it would be against the laws and beliefs of the US to hold abortion as illegal.


So let me be sure I understand what you are saying. You personally think it is wrong to kill a baby but you think the laws and beliefs of the US defends killing babies.

Darth Skuldren wrote:
There are many key points in the debate. For starters there is the scenario where a woman is raped. Should she be able to have an abortion?


The question you are asking is if a woman is raped should we kill a baby to rectify the situation.

Darth Skuldren wrote:
What if the delivery of the child would threaten the life of the mother?


Basically this question is saying if we think there may be a problem it is ok to kill a baby. How many times have doctors been wrong? Elizabeth Taylor stated in her autobiography that the doctors told her to have an abortion because her life was in danger. She refused and delivered the baby and didn't die. There is the story of a woman in Readers Digest who was diagnosed with a dangerous cancer and found out at the same time she was pregnant. She refused to abort her child and instead bravely carried it and delivered a healthy child and then took care of her cancer. I know personally of a woman who was pregnant and her doctor wanted her to abort because the child she carried was tested and found to have spinabifida. The woman refused and gave birth to a perfectly normal healthy child. She told me that every year she sends a photo of her child to the doctor. So if you see a child crawling out in front of a train it is not ok to try to save the child because we think that we may die.

Darth Skuldren wrote:
And then there is the outcome of woman seeking illegal abortionisnt in order to have the operation done in unsafe, unsanitary conditions that threaten her own life as well.


You seem to be saying we need a safe and sanitary way to kill a baby.

Darth Skuldren wrote:
Ultimately people are supposed to have a choice, whether right or wrong. The variety of what if conditions are so great that it is difficult to say what is right or wrong.


So, you don't know if it is right or wrong to murder a baby.


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger

 PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 1:56 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Salaris Vorn
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: 02 Feb 2008
Posts: 2225
Location: New York, USA

I agree with Darth Skuldren (except for the fact that I personally don't have any issues with abortion).

My reasons are: as I understand it many people who are against abortion take that position for religious reasons. Now in my opinion its fine people don't want to support abortion. However, I believe passing any form of legislation to ban abortion would be Un-Constitutional because the Bill of Rights prevents one person from forcing their religious views on another. In this case the religious view that abortion is bad and then passing legislation to outlaw it would be forcing people of different religious/world views to submit to another persons religion, clearly a violation of the Bill of Rights

Now the other reason I oppose passing anti-abortion legislation is because that will give the government the power to begin determining what we can and cannot do in our personal lives and could lead to abuse by the government. Basically, what might be done with the best of intentions results in a greater harm to our freedom because of governmental abuse of the power/precedent set than what harm is done by leaving things as is. For example, whose to say that some future government wouldn't use the precedent to forcibly sterilize people considered "undesirable?"

As far as rape goes why should the government force a woman to carry her rapists baby? If she is forced to against her will in my opinion it would only make healing mentally harder and if worse came to worse could negatively affect her ability to work at her job. If she wants to carry the baby fine but she at least deserves the choice.

I also don't get why a woman shouldn't have the right to at least chose whether or not to have the baby if it is a potential risk to her life. Its basically like saying its better for two people to die that just one. While its admirable that Elizabeth Taylor decided to have the baby anyway you forget that that was her choice and she was not forced to make that choice by anyone. Her story wouldn't have mattered at all if she hadn't had the choice, the only reason it does is because she had the choice. Ban abortion and she wouldn't even have had the choice and ergo her story wouldn't matter.


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 3:50 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  MasterAndrew15
Administrator
Administrator

Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Posts: 941
Location: United States

Quote:
However, I believe passing any form of legislation to ban abortion would be Un-Constitutional because the Bill of Rights prevents one person from forcing their religious views on another


While true, it's not a religious thing; almost every "major" religion is against it, but the fact of the matter is it's morally unacceptable, not religious.

Religions don't all say killing is wrong, yet murder is against the law. It's morally and civilly wrong, as well as religiously.

My point is that it isn't one religion placing beliefs on all, thus, it's not unconstitutional. Our fore-fathers were morally strong men, who I know would have opposed abortion. (Not know, but it's pretty obvious.)
_________________
EUCantina.net Founder. Forum Admin.

New to the forums? Introduce yourself in the Spaceport!

Need help? Please feel free to post in Feedback & Suggestions


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 5:16 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Salaris Vorn
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: 02 Feb 2008
Posts: 2225
Location: New York, USA

Son Of Skywalker wrote:

My point is that it isn't one religion placing beliefs on all, thus, it's not unconstitutional. Our fore-fathers were morally strong men, who I know would have opposed abortion. (Not know, but it's pretty obvious.)


Well I'll grant that some of the founding fathers might not all would. Specifically the strict constructionists such as Jefferson. The question in this case would be does the Constitution explicitly give the right to ban abortion or in the broader sense regulate more personal aspects of peoples lives.

Now I'll grant that abortion wasn't really known back then so its not surprising that abortion isn't explicitly mentioned. However, the Constitution does not explicitly give the right to the Federal Government nor State Governments the right to pass laws that interfere/affect the personal aspects of people's lives. Its my opinion that if Jefferson opposed a National Bank for Strict Constructionist reasons he would not support a ban on abortion for similar reasons.

Mind you that's not to say that Jefferson or any other founding father wasn't morally strong I just believe that in a case such as this it wouldn't be as black and white for them. After all these are the same people who debated whether slavery was good or not (slightly off topic but perhaps this indicates morales are highly subject to the attitude of the times?)

Edit: thought of this after posting. To what extent is the definition that abortion is morally wrong created by/influenced by religious beliefs? Basically by what means did people come to the conclusion that abortion is wrong? For example, the most liberal person agrees with the most conservative person that murder (as it is currently legally defined) is wrong but they don't agree that abortion fits into this category of murder so why is that?

Now my answer to the question is that to one degree or another the conservative anti-abortion view point is influenced by religious opinions which add abortion to the category of murder. Perhaps I'm wrong though and religion isn't in any degree influencing this definition of morality.



One thing I would like to clarify with my own opinions of abortion is that I'm fine with abortion up until the point where the cluster of cells begin to form an organism resembling a human (or mammal like creature anyway). After that point I think abortion should only be an option in extreme cases such as when the mother's life is at stake since it seems that it is the lesser of two evils to have the option to save one life at the expense of another than to needlessly sacrifice two lives when at least one could have been saved.


Last edited by Salaris Vorn on Wed Feb 27, 2008 5:27 pm; edited 1 time in total


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 5:27 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  MasterAndrew15
Administrator
Administrator

Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Posts: 941
Location: United States

Quote:
However, the Constitution does not explicitly give the right to the Federal Government nor State Governments the right to pass laws that interfere/affect the personal aspects of people's lives.


No, it doesn't. However, let's say a murder or robber needed the money for personal issues, such as being poor. Is it right, because it's personal issues, to steal and kill? Not according to my morals. My point is the principal of "personal rights" really shouldn't be given to the women, it should be given to the innocent child. The women's (and man's) choice came when they decided to have sex, not whether or not to keep the child.

A human is one from when it's conceived, until he/she dies. If you want to get scientific, you had ears lobes four days after you were born. You were once a "lump of cells," which means that it becomes a human, no matter what. You can't change that.
_________________
EUCantina.net Founder. Forum Admin.

New to the forums? Introduce yourself in the Spaceport!

Need help? Please feel free to post in Feedback & Suggestions


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 5:43 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Salaris Vorn
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: 02 Feb 2008
Posts: 2225
Location: New York, USA

Son Of Skywalker wrote:

No, it doesn't. However, let's say a murder or robber needed the money for personal issues, such as being poor. Is it right, because it's personal issues, to steal and kill? Not according to my morals. My point is the principal of "personal rights" really shouldn't be given to the women, it should be given to the innocent child. The women's (and man's) choice came when they decided to have sex, not whether or not to keep the child.


Except this is comparing apples to oranges in this case. Making murder and/or robbing legal would almost immediately result in anarchy and to the best of my knowledge legalized abortion has done nothing of the sort. A more relevant comparison (in my opinion anyway) would be regulating what you wear, who you associate with (as friends and romantically etc), what job you have and so on. Again the Constitution does not give the government the power to regulate such things and therefore the government does not have the Constitutional power to ban abortion.

I'm wondering though what's your opinion when the woman did not have the choice of having sex (i.e. rape) should she still forfeit her right to an abortion even though she did not choose to have sex much less have a child?


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 6:04 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  MasterAndrew15
Administrator
Administrator

Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Posts: 941
Location: United States

Quote:
Except this is comparing apples to oranges in this case. Making murder and/or robbing legal would almost immediately result in anarchy and to the best of my knowledge legalized abortion has done nothing of the sort.


I never said to make them legal-it would indeed have that effect. However, killing babies also has a profound effect. Not only are you killing a unborn child, you're killing a potential lawyer, leader, or garbage man.

But, killing off babies is something society is starting to think is okay; In fact, some health care insurances might even be covering it! If making abortion illegal is wrong, then why isn't this?

Quote:

I'm wondering though what's your opinion when the woman did not have the choice of having sex (i.e. rape) should she still forfeit her right to an abortion even though she did not choose to have sex much less have a child?


If the person is willing, stable, and loving, I see know reason why that baby shouldn't be allowed to be born with that parent. Also, there are plenty of people who can't have, yet love, children who are willing to adopt. There really isn't a reason a person should have to abort, unless it's harmful to both mother and child.
_________________
EUCantina.net Founder. Forum Admin.

New to the forums? Introduce yourself in the Spaceport!

Need help? Please feel free to post in Feedback & Suggestions


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 6:28 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Salaris Vorn
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: 02 Feb 2008
Posts: 2225
Location: New York, USA

Son Of Skywalker wrote:


I never said to make them legal-it would indeed have that effect. However, killing babies also has a profound effect. Not only are you killing a unborn child, you're killing a potential lawyer, leader, or garbage man.


I never said that you were supporting making murder/robbery legal. What I was observing was that murder and robbery, were they not illegal, would result in anarchy. Again abortion does not result in anarchy making it a comparison between apples and oranges.

As far as abortion killing a potential lawyer, leader or garbage man: war has the same theoretical potential on an even grander scale. So why should war be legal but abortion not be legal when it kills on a much smaller scale? I know the answer is "we need to defend ourselves" (and I agree we need to defend ourselves) but the comparison still remains that both have the same potential to kill a future lawyer, leader or garbage man.

What I'm driving at here is at what point do we stop making things illegal because of the outlined theoretical potential when the act remaining legal does not create anarchy or some similarly related issue in society.

Son Of Skywalker wrote:

But, killing off babies is something society is starting to think is okay; In fact, some health care insurances might even be covering it! If making abortion illegal is wrong, then why isn't this?


I'm not sure where your going with this are you suggesting that a legal medical practice shouldn't be covered under insurance? As long as its a legal medical practice I don't see why it shouldn't be covered by private insurance companies.

Son Of Skywalker wrote:

If the person is willing, stable, and loving, I see know reason why that baby shouldn't be allowed to be born with that parent. Also, there are plenty of people who can't have, yet love, children who are willing to adopt. There really isn't a reason a person should have to abort, unless it's harmful to both mother and child.


So then thats a "yes" if a woman is raped she forfeits her right to chose even though she didn't have a choice in engaging in the act which created the child if I'm reading your statement correctly.


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 7:26 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  MasterAndrew15
Administrator
Administrator

Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Posts: 941
Location: United States

Quote:
So why should war be legal but abortion not be legal when it kills on a much smaller scale?


Because war saves lives in the long run, unlike abortion, which just kills in long run and short run. The men who fought in the American Revolution, in WWII, they all were protecting us, our freedoms. With them, you and I may not have even be here; same goes for our mothers. Abortion kills a perfectly innocent child, while war causes the death of not-so-innocent people, in most cases.

There is a difference between the death of war and the death in abortion: The citizen who fought and died in the war lived a life (good or bad) and had a chance. The baby, which I'd like to remind some people we all once were Wink , never got a chance. They did nothing wrong, yet they were killed.

Quote:

I'm not sure where your going with this are you suggesting that a legal medical practice shouldn't be covered under insurance


Yes, I am. Like it or not, most of the women getting the abortions are doing it on our money; whether it be that there are on welfare supported insurance, or they are getting it in a public hospital. I don't feel comfortable allowing a murder to take place with the money that should be used to help, not kill. Also, private insurance is different. If you pay for your coverage, fine. But, I also wouldn't want to be covered by a company that covers it.

Quote:
So then thats a "yes" if a woman is raped she forfeits her right to chose even though she didn't have a choice in engaging in the act which created the child if I'm reading your statement correctly.


It's funny-someone's "right" only become important when it's questioned, not when it's just there. That child has rights like we do; they started when when we were made, and end when we die. That women has every right to have the baby or not. I, personally, feel that there's not reason to kill it. Like I said, adoptions are always possible. Nothing that is made is made by mistake; not you, not me, and not that child.
_________________
EUCantina.net Founder. Forum Admin.

New to the forums? Introduce yourself in the Spaceport!

Need help? Please feel free to post in Feedback & Suggestions


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:06 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Salaris Vorn
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: 02 Feb 2008
Posts: 2225
Location: New York, USA

Son Of Skywalker wrote:

Because war saves lives in the long run, unlike abortion, which just kills in long run and short run. The men who fought in the American Revolution, in WWII, they all were protecting us, our freedoms. With them, you and I may not have even be here; same goes for our mothers. Abortion kills a perfectly innocent child, while war causes the death of not-so-innocent people, in most cases.

There is a difference between the death of war and the death in abortion: The citizen who fought and died in the war lived a life (good or bad) and had a chance. The baby, which I'd like to remind some people we all once were Wink , never got a chance. They did nothing wrong, yet they were killed.


Well I can agree with most of that on war though I would amend that with war the innocent die more often than we'd all probably like (note that I am by no means suggesting that anyone here is unaware of this fact, I just feel that the death of innocent people needs to be mentioned more fully). Fire Bombing of Tokyo, Dresden, the A-Bomb, Sherman's March to the Sea in the Civil War etc. But further discussion of this would probably be more suited to a theory on war philosophy class so I'll leave it with that.

Back on abortion: yes it always "kills" (either killing an already existing human or killing what was the potential for a human depending on which definition you choose) but sometimes it can save lives such as when the mother may die without an abortion, so by my reckoning its not all together evil as you might suggest.

Quote:

Yes, I am. Like it or not, most of the women getting the abortions are doing it on our money; whether it be that there are on welfare supported insurance, or they are getting it in a public hospital. I don't feel comfortable allowing a murder to take place with the money that should be used to help, not kill. Also, private insurance is different. If you pay for your coverage, fine. But, I also wouldn't want to be covered by a company that covers it.


fine by me with not having Federal Health Plans cover abortion, though I would say a state has the right to decide whether or not abortion is covered in any state health care plan, same goes for private insurance.

Quote:

It's funny-someone's "right" only become important when it's questioned, not when it's just there. That child has rights like we do; they started when when we were made, and end when we die. That women has every right to have the baby or not. I, personally, feel that there's not reason to kill it. Like I said, adoptions are always possible. Nothing that is made is made by mistake; not you, not me, and not that child.


The fundamental question here is determining whose right supersedes whose. Obviously you have the opinion that the child's right does, which is fine, I just happen to believe the mothers right supersedes the child's. This issue of course is probably one that the greatest philosophers of all time could in all likelihood debate till the end of time and never get an answer to Wink so since I'm not one of those great philosophers, much less the one who knows the one true answer, I'll leave it at that rather than start lying trying to argue that I am privy to the one true answer to this question.

I do however take issue that nothing is made by mistake. Again I'll cite that rape would be a case where something was made by a "mistake" of sorts, at least on the part of the mother. I have a feeling though that I could debate the issue of abortion in the sole case of a rape victim with you till I was blue in the face and still end up saying in essence the same things I am right now.


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:15 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  MasterAndrew15
Administrator
Administrator

Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Posts: 941
Location: United States

Quote:
but sometimes it can save lives such as when the mother may die without an abortion, so by my reckoning its not all together evil as you might suggest.


This is very true. This day in age though, I think we're seeing less and less of problems with women that are unknown, and if are known, they can be addressed.

Quote:
The fundamental question here is determining whose right supersedes whose. Obviously you have the opinion that the child's right does, which is fine, I just happen to believe the mothers right supersedes the child's.


But should anybody have the "right" to kill anybody because they made a mistake? Like I said before, no creation is a mistake-the action is-and there's a plan for everyone. Imagine if your mom was selfish and thought because she'd lose her ability to stay out all night or something, she decided you weren't worth it. Aren't we all worth it? Personally, I think we are.
_________________
EUCantina.net Founder. Forum Admin.

New to the forums? Introduce yourself in the Spaceport!

Need help? Please feel free to post in Feedback & Suggestions


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:44 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Darth Judicar
Knight
Knight

Joined: 02 Feb 2008
Posts: 433
Location: Lehon (the Unknown World)

I think it's wrong. Killing in and of itself is bad, but killing a child that can barely even think, let alone defend itself? So wrong.
_________________

Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
-The Code of the Sith

In mourning . . . Crying or Very sad


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address

Post new topic   Reply to topic    The EUCantina Forums Forum Index » The Meditation Grove

Page 1 of 12
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12  Next

Display posts from previous:

  

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Jedi Knights 2 by Scott Stubblefield