Abortion

I'm against the death penalty and abortion.

Last edited by Autobon on Sun Oct 05, 2008 12:11 am; edited 1 time in total

Since we've brought up the death penalty I think it might be good to bring up a question that was raised by Darth Skuldren earlier in this thread.

If abortion was made illegal what exactly do pro-life people suggest be done as punishment for the women who have an abortion anyway (and are therefore technically "murderers")?

This is just something I'm curious about. Now women who are well off won't have as much of a problem with hospital fees and such but what about the women who are single, and/or poor etc. They might not be able to afford proper medical attention to ensure a safe birth and/or afford the food to ensure proper development of the fetus (and later born baby). I might also point out that this might lead a mother abandon the baby once it is born (there is after all no reason this can't happen). To clarify yes I am aware such a person probably couldn't afford an abortion either, and yes I am for government programs that give assistance to the poor. I understand however if people don't think government insurance programs should pay for abortion and I've got no real problem with that exception, its public money so I would respect such a restriction so long as it isn't applied to the private sector. Anyway, so do you support government policies to assist such women to ensure that the baby can be properly taken care of during and after birth? It just seems like it would be hypocritical to be pro-life yet not want to support the baby after it's born (sort of pro-life up until the baby born).

This also puzzles me. I understand that there are both men and women on both sides of the issue (I'm a man fyi). What right do us men have to outlaw something that we will never experience? Voicing an opinion is fine and everyone's right, but if everyone is equal under the law shouldn't the men have no say in this matter since it doesn't affect them one way or the other?

I'm one of the people who is more along the lines of abortion up to X days/months. So since the issue came up of how can I believe that. I'm not arbitrarily stating at X point it is now human. Mine is based on the possibility of accidentally conceiving (and hey that would even be possible in a married couple) and giving the mother a period of time to 1) figure out she's pregnant and 2) decide if she actually wants the baby. Now my own opinion is after 1 month a mother should have a pretty good idea of whether she wants to go through with it (she'll probably know even sooner than a month), after that I think abortion should be limited to 1) a situation where the mother might die without an abortion (in my opinion since the mother will definitely live her life should come first rather than risking both dying since there would be no promise that the baby would live) or 2) a situation where the baby would be born with physical/mental problems where it would be too costly to provide the medical care for the baby (in which case the baby will most likely die anyway). Not saying this is a perfect system I have but its what I believe.
_________________

Last edited by Autobon on Sun Oct 05, 2008 11:03 am; edited 2 times in total

This is one of those topics where it's very difficult if not impossible to change someone's stance; once you've got one, you've got one. Now, when it comes to the mother at risk of dying in birth, which way do you go? Who's life is more important, if either? Should things be allowed to natural transpire since that's how it would without doctors, or do you save the life you know you can? Very interesting point, whether you're on one side or the other.

As for man's involvement, you don't have a pregnancy without one. Should they have a say? I would think so, so both should be involved in the process of solving the problem; equal rights, right?

If we really want to eliminate this problem, it isn't going to be solved by "you can not abort" or "you can abort," but eliminating the causes of unwanted pregnancies. Whether the causes are ignorance, parents, society, or something else entirely, I'm sure you'll find evidence on all sides. Will we ever eliminate all these causes? Well, I don't think so, but wouldn't it be more efficient to stop unwanted pregnancies than argue where life begins to at least start? Or is there some other way to deal with it?

I did have my stance on gun control changed because I found a new side of the argument. I felt really blind for not realizing that stance before hand, so I'm always, always open to hearing other stances on all topics, because how do I know I'm right if I never put my beliefs to the test? I think those who try to steer clear of these debates either fear dealing with people who will ignore what they have to say (which I try so hard to do, which is why I'll have to go back and read those past posts when I get the time) or fear that their beliefs may not be correct. No one likes to be told "you're wrong!", right? Just my thoughts on much more than just this topic, and I will check out those posts, Autobon Smile

EDIT: was writing this as Autobon added another post Smile

_________________
"Changes are nice--but so is continuity!"

"Then you saved my life. How disgusting. How unfortunate."
"No, don't gush on so. It was nothing, really."

First off thanks Autobon (and Aush) for your constructive answers, you gave me something to think about and I hope my post has done the same for you. Smile

Okay, I do want to apologize for perhaps trying to bash my beliefs against everyone's heads, and seemingly not really offer any thoughtful reasons why I believe what I believe. Sooo...I shall now attempt to debate more civilly. Smile

Salaris, you mentioned something about what should be done to the mothers that have abortions if abortion was illegal. I believe they should be treated as anyone else who commits a murder. Since that is what I believe it is. If it were illegal, then yes, I think they should be charged with murder. Or a varying degree thereof depending on the circumstances. But killing a human being is what I would classify it as, yes.

Somebody also asked how one would rate that against the death sentence. Personally, I think there is a major difference. The death sentence is for someone who has done something wrong. An unborn baby has done nothing wrong and therefore should not be punished for it. However, a serial killer (or whatever) should be punished for his crimes. If the court decides that the penalty should be the death sentence, well then he brought it upon himself. The unborn baby, on the other hand, never had a say in the matter. So I do see those as two totally different things.

Now, don't get me wrong by saying that I think people should go around killing all the criminals in the world so that they may atone for their crimes. No, that would make us as bad, if not worse, as the people who committed the crimes. It's up to the government, and therefore an appointed judicial system, to hand out the sentence.

I also don't think that abortion is the only issue here. We should also be dealing with the many teenage and/or unmarried pregnancies. To just go around having sex with everybody because you so wish isn't something that should just be done. There's a right and a wrong, and I believe it to be wrong to have sex when you're not married. Now I don't suppose there could be a law concerning that, necessarily, but I do think individual families should crack down on it. Kids should be taught differently. Right now it appears that the world (or at least our country) has degraded down to the point that having sex on this date or the other is really no big deal. I mean what was that about the teen pregnancy pact? That was insane! So why does nobody really care anymore? Because we just slowly allow things, more and more. One day kissing somebody before you're married is okay (and I'm not saying that's wrong, bear with me), the next having sex before you're married is okay. Before long nobody will even need to get married because everybody will be free to party with everybody, and it won't really matter.

Sorry, I didn't mean to go off on a rant about that. But I'm just trying to get across my point that it's not just abortion that's the problem here. And as you were saying about those instances where the mother can't afford to keep the child. Then I think she certainly needs help. I don't want to dump everything on our already overtaxed government, but if people everywhere cared and helped out...I don't know. It's one of those things that could never be completely perfect, but I do suppose it could be better.

Anyway, if any of that didn't make sense or if I contradicted myself somewhere, somebody please let me know. I'm typing fast cause I have to run. But thanks guys for being so...polite about it all. I dislike debates where we're all trying to shove our ideas down the other's throat. Stop me if I sound like I'm doing so! Smile

_________________

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

When abortion is called murder, should the punishment for the murder be done on the mother, doctor, or both? This may be a little off topic (or not?) but I thought this would be interesting. But my main point is if abortion is murder, then the punishment should be no different from killing an already living person, right? (I guess I better define "already living person" to be one who is already born.) By saying that the mothers (or doctors?) should be punished a little less than murderers makes it seem that those babies are less important/valuable. I don't mean to split hairs, but this does seem a bit contradictory if the "murderers"(?) of non-born babies are dealt less harshly than so called "regular" murderers.

This is an interesting thing I haven't notice until now; I guess it stood out after seeing others mention less punishment for abortions. Of course, it would depend on how the law defined it, if a law was ever past concerning this issue.

Mara Jade Skywalker, you bring up some good points about other issues related to this. Being a parent (correct me if I'm wrong since I'm not one Smile

) is a full time job. Some use television as a babysitter or entertainer whether they mean to or not. Since society is throwing more sex on television and making it look so entertaining, then it's no wonder these things are happening with teenagers and young adults (and this is just one example).

Also, a law telling who can and can't have sex seems a little too personal, and I think may be a big reason why people who say they are pro-choice fear if something like abortion was passed. For me, I think if you get pregnant, you're having a baby; however, an explicit law could start a possible domino effect. Of course, if Vietnam became communist, it was said the whole world would fall and that didn't happen, so who says a law banning abortion could domino into other "choice" laws being passed?

Now, that sounds a bit extreme, and I'll agree with you, but many believe such a thing. The question now is how do you get an extreme person to see reason that such a domino effect would not happen? Maybe the domino effect with communism?
_________________
"Changes are nice--but so is continuity!"

"Then you saved my life. How disgusting. How unfortunate."
"No, don't gush on so. It was nothing, really."

I'm not quite sure who you were referring to, but I never meant to imply that abortion should have a lesser punishment. I think it should be treated as full-fledged murder, as you said. If my previous post implied otherwise, sorry about that. The only thing I remember saying was 'varying degrees'. And by that I simply meant things such as 'negligent homicide', 'murder', etc. The different 'degrees', so called, of killing. But yes, I think it should be treated as full-fledged murder, because that's exactly what I believe it is.
_________________

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

Page 4 of 12		All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10, 11, 12 Next