What is the world comming to, its fine to kill a plant or a spider but kill an undeveloped baby and everybody is appalled.
After receiving an email with graphic pictures of aborted foetus's, i just wondered what peoples thoughts are on the fact an undeveloped baby's 'life' is worth more than anything elses life.

It isn't. Technically that life is just as precious as that spider those do gooders will so easily kill. The problem is humanities view of humanity itself...we seem to find ourselves higher on life's chain, something beyond animals. So if models can walk down runways with $2000 crocodile boots then don't compalin when a young woman chooses not to ruin her life with an unexpected preganacy.

My opinion on spiders, flies, roaches, etc: If you didn't give it life, you have no right to take it, unless in self-defence (threats do not include non-poisonous/non-deadly biting). Same for abortion, but other factors come up.

I believe that every human being has certain rights one of these is the right to life. I do not believe that animals have the same rights that people do. I fear that abortion is just one step in the dehumanization of everyone. Fifty years ago, no one would have considered abortion a child just because it was not wanted. Where is the cut off? autistics is doesn't show up until later and they really don't have productive lives their parents should be allowed to control their own lives. What about other handicaps? Where do you draw the line? Science is able to save earlier and earlier premature children at some point the line between a child that could be saved and killed will be crossed. Then the ethics of the situation really get messed up who is qualified to tell choose whose life is valueless.

So if models can walk down runways with $2000 crocodile boots then don't compalin when a young woman chooses not to ruin her life with an unexpected preganacy.
Actually i think you may have misinterpreted me, im pro choice, and sick of people claiming its bad whilst they happily kill bugs infront of me.
I do not believe that animals have the same rights that people do.
This is the opinion i dont like, its ok to kill animals but not an unborn child because its human, apart from that its not technically living as without the mum it would die, its dependant on someone and that isnt much of a life, also some abortions are needed as some people arnt ready for a child and its unwanted because its an accident.

My wife saw this thread on the screen, scrolled all the way up and down looking at the handles, and said, "Yup, a bunch of men pontificating about abortion again. I'll start giving a rat's ass what you S.O.B.s think about it just as soon as one of you gets pregnant."

Sooooo, it would be ok to kill Christopher reeves because he can not live on his own? You kill thousands of bacteria with every breath that you take does this mean that you oppose breathing? I believe that hurting animals is bad. I do not believe that it is any where near as bad as harming a human. If nothing else harming a human is a betrayal of ones species.

Hear here Fraggle. I recall a thread similar to this some time ago, and I recall a similar response you provided then equal to now - and I agree with you again.

This thread demonstrates our patriarchal society more than anything.

This thread demonstrates our patriarchal society more than anything.

Why are you assuming that women cannot choose to be pro-life? Considering both sexes are killed in abortion, I don't see why men should not care.


It isn't. Technically that life is just as precious as that spider those do gooders will so easily kill. The problem is humanities view of humanity itself...we seem to find ourselves higher on life's chain, something beyond animals. So if models can walk down runways with $2000 crocodile boots then don't compalin when a young woman chooses not to ruin her life with an unexpected preganacy.

From a purely socialogical and selfish view, it depends on how much you value your own life. If you wish to be treated like a spider, it's your own perogative. But besides you having a greater experience of life, I don't see the difference between you and a fetus. By commiting these types of crimes, the people's perception of the value of human life will go downn, contributing to further degradation.

As mentioned by laugher, killing those who are handicaped, like the Nazi's did, is able to gain the society more money that would otherwise been wasted on their care and since these they then won't able to reproduce, better offspring.

But our society chooses to waste money on them because success is neither monetary nor health. It's compassion.

okinrus
Why are you assuming that women cannot choose to be pro-life? Considering both sexes are killed in abortion, I don't see why men should not care.

I understand why my post might have given this (the first of your assertions) impression - an impression not indicative of my belief.

I believe women have the right to choose birth or no birth, without influence from our patriarchal political/social/religious environment(I live in N.America).

Furthermore, I also believe a mans' position on abortion should only be taken seriously when the human race is at jeapordy - which it's not. (please do not construe this position as a 'womans decision only' - the abortion debate stems from the out-of-the-ordinary circumstance)

I believe women have the right to choose birth or no birth, without influence from our patriarchal political/social/religious environment(I live in N.America).

I'm uncertain how you are classifying pro-life to be influenced by patriarchal society. In most cases, as long as it is not an agrarian society, it is the men who would benefit monetarily from less children because it means less money is spent on child care.


Furthermore, I also believe a mans' position on abortion should only be taken seriously when the human race is at jeapordy - which it's not. (please do not construe this position as a 'womans decision only' - the abortion debate stems from the out-of-the-ordinary circumstance)

Should a man's position on a women killing their newborn child also be taken seriously? By ruling out the men's decision on this, you are effectivly admitting the fetus is not a human being. Conversely, if the fetus is a human being, then all of society should have a stake on his future. Bottom line, I think, is you are deciding abortion is right by passivly allowing the decision to be made by women only.

Actually i think you may have misinterpreted me, im pro choice, and sick of people claiming its bad whilst they happily kill bugs infront of me.


It was my bad choice of words...I knew what your intial intent was.

My wife saw this thread on the screen, scrolled all the way up and down looking at the handles, and said, "Yup, a bunch of men pontificating about abortion again. I'll start giving a rat's ass what you S.O.B.s think about it just as soon as one of you gets pregnant.

After looking at the handles did she actually read what we posted before lambasting our "man" responses?

Sooooo, it would be ok to kill Christopher reeves because he can not live on his own? You kill thousands of bacteria with every breath that you take does this mean that you oppose breathing? I believe that hurting animals is bad. I do not believe that it is any where near as bad as harming a human. If nothing else harming a human is a betrayal of ones species.

Quick: A stranger is holding a gun to your daughters head, about to shoot. You have a loaded gun and an oppertunity to shoot him...do you?....would you betray your species then?

A fetus has no emotion, no life, no heartbeat, no concious, no thoughts, no use...only potential, now tell me how much potential do human beings waste everyday? To me a fetus isn't human yet....it is an open window to change the future from being a captive cell of uneeded responsibility and forced maturity. A crippled person is a living, breathing human being, still independant to a great degree and still a contributing member to society, a fetus is, at it's best, a parasite at it's stage....huge difference between the two.


EDIT- Upon further thought this thread really seems ludacris in its acitivity...why? because this issue simply boils down what your definition of life is. There is really no right or wrong answer but an opinion stemming from ones values and beliefs. To what extent is one willing to protect life and to what extent is one willing to waste it. The back and forth responses can be forthcoming all day but to what use really? For some freedom is more viable than preservation of societies values and preservation of life and for others vice versa...so in the end isn't it the mother-to-be's choice rather than ours....she has to bare the weight of it all and the guilt or hapiness of it all, no man can ever or should ever have to make that choice for her.

Women bear about 99 percent of the pain, inconvenience, work, and other responsibility and impact of pregnancy, childbirth, and childrearing. It was that way in the Stone Age and judging by what I see and hear it's still pretty much that way for the majority of women in our supposedly advanced society.

At our best, we come along at our convenience and teach the boys to hunt, camp, fight, play football, drive cars, drink beer, and chase some other sucker's daughters, and we occasionally show up in girls' lives too but we don't really know what to do with them. At our worst we sometimes remember to send an alimony check if we got paid that month and maybe to visit on their birthdays.

(To be fair I know about one guy who isn't like that, the "one-percenter.")

I don't think that's enough to entitle us to have an opinion.

My opinion is modest and purely rhetorical: I wish people would stop screwing around with euphemisms and have the guts to call themselves and each other "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion." The so-called "pro-life" crowd doesn't give a damn about the health, security, prosperity, or happiness of the fetus's life once it is born, and the so-called "pro-choice" crowd wishes that any woman harboring the slightest doubt could be convinced to choose abortion.

At our best, we come along at our convenience and teach the boys to hunt, camp, fight, play football, drive cars, drink beer, and chase some other sucker's daughters, and we occasionally show up in girls' lives too but we don't really know what to do with them. At our worst we sometimes remember to send an alimony check if we got paid that month and maybe to visit on their birthdays.

You not knowing enough legitimate men who are great fathers isn't not our cross to bare. I know many men like that. For a good deal of us a child's birth is almost as intense and wonderful as it is for the mother (sans the blinding pain of the actual birth ofcourse)


My opinion is modest and purely rhetorical: I wish people would stop screwing around with euphemisms and have the guts to call themselves and each other "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion." The so-called "pro-life" crowd doesn't give a damn about the health, security, prosperity, or happiness of the fetus's life once it is born, and the so-called "pro-choice" crowd wishes that any woman harboring the slightest doubt could be convinced to choose abortion.

The abuse is the the main concern to me. Abortion, to me, should be a LAST option, not the first because she or he doesn't like the feel of condoms so freebasing it because abortion is there is a horrendous thought. So far, to my knowledge, this doesn't happen because there exist more than one ways to prevent this in the first place but I do agree that "pro-life" fanatics can and will try to force abortion as an only option for a scared, young girl who just needs guidance.

A fetus has no emotion, no life, no heartbeat, no concious, no thoughts, no use...only potential, now tell me how much potential do human beings waste everyday?

Fetusus are living by a scientific definition and do have heartbeats after some number of weaks. I would think also that fetus' have emotions and thoughts as soon as their brain develops.


To me a fetus isn't human yet

The scientific definition is that a fetus is a member of the human species.


A crippled person is a living, breathing human being, still independant to a great degree and still a contributing member to society, a fetus is, at it's best, a parasite at it's stage....huge difference between the two.

Are we supposed to speculate on the fetusus net possible gain to society over time or not? I suspect that a fetus over a period of ten years has much more to offer than a crippled person who cannot move. Further, the cost to keep alive the cripple person may be in the millions of dollars, far more than a fetus.

[code]
There is really no right or wrong answer but an opinion stemming from ones values and beliefs.
[/quote]
This is arguable. Surely there's a right answer, given that we could see the entire result of any decision. I'm sure, then, we could agree which one is right, basing it upon scales such as higher crime rates, future wars, economic productivity, etc.


To what extent is one willing to protect life and to what extent is one willing to waste it. The back and forth responses can be forthcoming all day but to what use really?

I would think its best to even waste billions of dollars then destroying life. If we don't, then we making a statement that our young are not priceless, that money is more important. I'm afraid this already starting to occur, however.


For some freedom is more viable than preservation of societies values and preservation of life and for others vice versa...so in the end isn't it the mother-to-be's choice rather than ours....she has to bare the weight of it all and the guilt or hapiness of it all, no man can ever or should ever have to make that choice for her.

If we assume it is the mothers choice, then when does the mothers stop? I think this sort of killing destroys maternal love, which is necessary for human society. By destroying the love that a mother has for a child, abortion could have a large effect on peoples perception of life.

Upon further thought this thread really seems ludacris in its acitivity...why? because this issue simply boils down what your definition of life is. There is really no right or wrong answer but an opinion stemming from ones values and beliefs. To what extent is one willing to protect life and to what extent is one willing to waste it.
I just wanted peoples views, im curious, thats all, i guess there isnt any other purpose to this thread but to serve my curiousity.
Something else i wish to discuss is peoples opinions on why a man should/shouldnt have a say about abortion, i believe he should have input but ultimately its the womans choice, and if she chooses to keep it without the man agreeing the man shouldnt have rights or responibility for the child he didnt want.

Question: If someone forced you to change your life in a major and irrevocable way, would this be a crime?
Unwanted pregnancies have this effect.
Abortion, even if we accept the fetus as a living entity is more like self defence than murder, killing a woman's chosen future.
This is why it's primarily about what women think - it is their chosen life that is being placed in jeopardy.

I'm bowing out - not giving in - to this rediculous debate.

EDIT: ledas' post, in my opinion, is most logical - get out of the weeds people and examine the entire picture.

There is a real case in Texas about a husband and a wife who were having an artificial pregnancy they had several fertilized eggs. They got a divorce. The woman is trying to get custody of the eggs. The husband no longer wishes to have children with her. He is trying to get the eggs to have them destroyed. If it is not her body why should she be allowed to force him to have children? Remember that you cannot sign away the children’s right to parental support that is not fair to the child. I am pro-life. I do not think the eggs should be destroyed but that comes only from my belief in life. You can not take away a sentient life without that beings permission.

Thats an interesting case, i suppose since im pro choice i have the opposite view, having a child without the father wanting it will only cause problems, if he wishes to sign away his rights and responsibilities i'd consider it fair, and the women should understand she's on her own if she wants this kid, i can understand why she would want kids, i just feel she has no place to say he must father her child when he has no interest in it. Having a child is about 2 people wanting to have a family, not about 'im having your kid no matter what you want so you pay me benefits and look after it too', i suppose i may have a strange view but it just doesnt seem ethical.

I spose if the women wants a child that bad cant she just adopt a child because it causes less grief and is less expensive and also there are quite a few children who need homes??? Your view aint strange lemming btw i think the same children are better off with two parents who both want it.

I spose if the women wants a child that bad cant she just adopt a child because it causes less grief and is less expensive and also there are quite a few children who need homes???
Of course thats a possibility, but i think its the passing on genetics and bringing up your own child case thats presented against this course of action, maternal instinct in a way i suppose.
Im glad my view isnt too weird, i've always wondered if the law should be changed so that if the women doesnt want to keep the baby but the man does then he can raise the child, basically equal rights on all levels is what im getting at. I've always felt things could be fairer, if i wanted a kid my girlfriend didnt want i would like a law saying i could raise the child myself, although not an ideal situation it would probably be a fair law for the guys out there that want kids, and its better than an abortion or an unwanted child.

From another thread of mine on this same issue.-
The issue of abortion, whether it should be legal for a woman to terminate her pregnancy, highlights the question of who has rights and why do they have them. On one side of the debate the argument goes that a woman owns her own body (right to life) and has the right to do whatever she pleases to it. On the other side holds that the growing fetus within the woman is not actually her property to do with as she pleases and itself has the right to life and, morally, can not be aborted. The two main issues to tackle are:
1) does the fetus have rights, and
2) if so, does it also have the right to remain in the womb against the mothers wishes.

To analyze whether or not the fetus has rights, we must go back to what specifically are rights and why men in general possess rights. Rights define the guidelines for social interaction between rational people. They allow society to exist by banning the initiation of force between rational men. A fetus does not act, let alone act rationally. There is no reason to recognize fetal rights. Rights are not arbitrary handed out by edicts, they are corollaries of an entity's nature.

Even if a fetus did have rights, would it have the right to stay in its mothers womb against her wishes? The answer is no. There are no unchosen obligations or duties. If a woman does not want a fetus inside her she may use any means necessary to force it out just as she would force an unwelcome visitor in her house. Even if you invite a visitor in, you still have the right to ask him to leave.

There is very little grounds to rationally argue for a ban on abortions. Almost all "pro-lifers" get their bloody politics from their evil ethics which come from their irrational epistemology which comes from their mystical metaphysics which they call religion.

I don't think that's enough to entitle us to have an opinion.
Even if women got pregnant, gave birth, and raised kids with no input from males whatsoever, I think males would still be entitled to have an opinion on abortion.
For those against abortion it is a matter of preventing murder. For those in favor of it, it is a matter of civil rights, and you'd hardly say that one is not entitled to have an opinion on, for example, slavery because one is not themself at risk of being enslaved.

the thing wiv men getting involved with if a women has an abortion or not is that at the end of the day its the womens body n shes gotta carry this around with her and at bith can get really attached to the child but i do think the men shud have a say in this cuase it can hurt them emotionally and if a child is born having a parent who doesnt want it can be a bd environment for a kid to grow up in!

They can always give the child up for adoption and if necessary they can leave the child at a hospital in many states without there being any questions asked. Besides other than the virgin conception two thousand years ago, there have been no uncaused pregnancies and wile you might argue about rape a vast majority of abortions are not incest, rape or medically related. It might seem rough that they have to carry a parasite for nine months and the recover but convenience is not a very convincing argument for murder.

I find adoption quite cruel, we dont want you someone else can have you if they feel like it, and then even that might not last more than a year, its hardly fair on somebody, bring a child into the world knowing most likely they will have a crap life whether you keep them or not, thats rather unfair, and it isnt murder because they arnt technically alive, its like being on life support, without the mum the baby would die, so when you switch the life support machine off is that murder?

***I find adoption quite cruel, we dont want you someone else can have you if they feel like it

There are actually many "loving" couples (notice ads in the paper concerning this, that im starting to feel optimistic about the human race in genearl) out there who want to have a baby, yet they cannot. Adoption gives them an unbiological option. I hardly call that cruel when you look it from a different vantage.

***even that might not last more than a year, its hardly fair on somebody, bring a child into the world knowing most likely they will have a crap life whether you keep them or not, thats rather unfair, and it isnt murder because they arnt technically alive

Assumptions! Please, I can just as well say that most poeple who are adopted are living well and happy, having been given a chance in life to be able to do so. I've observed several adopted students at my school, and they're with parents who are able to provide and give them a beacon in a life, of which they might not have had, if they were actually aborted.

I think, from my observation, that girls who say aye to abortion, believes of the fetus merely as an "it". Same goes with guys.

In the general population, the word "selfish" implies negative conotations.
My understanding of it does not.
However in this post I will use it as a negative as this is the most generally understood notion of it.
Anyone who is against abortion is of the upmost selfish.
They pertrude their own feelings and thoughts into an unborn baby and beleive they have the right to decide what is right for a womans life.
Anti-abortionists claim not only a right to their own life, but stake a claim on everyone elses.
It is always going to be a debate between what constitutes what a human being is.
A spirit, or of an independant mind.
When I say that these emotionalists intrude their own selfish feelings onto an unborn fetus, I am reminded of a commercial that went something like this,
The scene starts with this lamp in an apartment, suddenly the lamp notices that the owner has bought a new lamp. The music in the back ground implies worry. Then it show the lamp being carried down the stairs and tossed out onto the curb. The lamp watches his owner walk away, the lamp is very sad. Then the lamp looks up to see the new lamps light illuminate the owners apartment, the lamp looks down, broken hearted, then it begins to rain.

Then a voice comes over the screen, "Hey people! It's only a lamp!
My point is not that a fetus is a lamp, but providing an example of how easily it is for transference of emotions to be applied to things outside of yourself.
Mistaking your feelings for the object itself and the reality of the situation.

If you are a beleiver in the soul, your view on abortion will not be swayed one way or the other through reasoning.
The topic of abortion is only a symptom of your values.

This question is for an anti-abortionist.
Do you consider yourself the owner of that woman who is pregnant?
Do you claim to have the right, to abolish that womens rights?
Yes, or no?

Being practical, education and prevention of unwanted pregnacies is the only viable and long term solution.

Not whether or not you have the right to claim anothers life to your own bidding.
That is evil.

Fuck I'm awesome.

Question: If someone forced you to change your life in a major and irrevocable way, would this be a crime?

It might be.


Unwanted pregnancies have this effect.

While I don't think who's responsible is relevant to this discussion, in most of the cases it's consensual, unprotected sex and it's difficult not to find the women responsible.


Abortion, even if we accept the fetus as a living entity is more like self defence than murder, killing a woman's chosen future.

Pregnant mothers are usually are able to work until about four weeks before their pregnancy, and after the pregnancy the women should be able to have the baby adopted, so it does not seem to be all that much of a burden.

Do you consider yourself the owner of that woman who is pregnant?

No, but I consider the true owner of the fetus to be the fetus, and while the fetus should be viewed as a minor, some rights are entitled to the fetus. The birth of the fetus is an arbitrary point that does not have any bearing the fetus' development. The argument that the fetus is undeveloped cannot be used unless if the means to determine when the fetus can be killed are based on development.


Do you claim to have the right, to abolish that womens rights?
Yes, or no?

Yes, the constitution says "the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happyness."

no it doesnt

This is the quote that I was refering to was from the declaration of indep, not the constitution. "WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"

ok but the point is still irrelevent. the declaration of independence is not a legal document of any sort. even if it was, it comes down to each of us maintaining a different interpretation of what a human life is. until there is some common agreement amongst the pro lifers and the pro choicers threads like these will always be fruitless

I see several people every day that had they been aborted life for the general public would be safer.

lol, i have no arguements with that laidlaw.