Right to Life or Right to Choose?

[Daedelus]

Instead of worrying about this, we should just kill all the rapists and pedophiles etc. Problem solved.

Bad idea. There was actually a thread about this on Fark a couple days ago that I participated in (I am SomeBigFarkingMan) about something like this. Maine took their sex offender (read: not all pedophiles) list off the 'net because a guy killed two people on the list. Check that thread for the ensuing moral debate. I realize there are morons, but believe me - conscious thought did take place.


I am in favor of a woman's right to choose - in certain situations. If she was the victim of rape or incest (more on incest later) then let her choose. Pregnancy is a ton for a woman to go through physically, emotionally, spiritually et al. She shouldn't be forced into it. The incest should be proven (not sure how, I would guess psychological examination or something of the sort even though that is subjective) to have been a product of mental abuse, torture or something of the lot. If the woman willingly shagged her brother... tough luck.

From that same stem, I also support the "morning after" pill. A lot of people in opposition to it see this as a "Oh wow I can have sex with no consequences" type thing. I see it more as a last-resort measure if something goes wrong (i.e. condom broke, came off during insertion).

This story gets a little personal here. I had a friend in high school who had sex with his then 3-week-long girlfriend. The condom slipped off. They tried going to get a morning after pill the next day... but the clinic was closed. The only place that offered them (that clinic) was open every Wednesday, and it was then Saturday. They got the pill on Wednesday but alas it was too late. I haven't heard from him in a while, last I knew he had broken off his engagement to her and I believe she had custody of the child. He was going to take a year off of school to save money, move out and go to a large university. Instead he became a police officer like his father and step-father before him, something he didn't want to do.

Why should he be penalized for this? He did all the right things. He practiced safe sex. Something went wrong, as does happen in this world. We are lucky enough to come as far as a culture to be able to right this sort of wrong. Yet funding is short and this solution can't be distributed out because people pushing their own moral agenda just can't let that happen.

[Ellen]

Maine took their sex offender (read: not all pedophiles) list off the 'net because a guy killed two people on the list. Check that thread for the ensuing moral debate. I realize there are morons, but believe me - conscious thought did take place.

Sex offenders would mean those who have committed sexual assault and rape as well, no? I don't see how that can be considered better than pedophilia. I did say that line facetiously, since killing is just as bad as their actions. Although if it were possible to eliminate this type of behaviour, it would solve a lot of problems

I am in favor of a woman's right to choose - in certain situations.

That's the thing, There is a distinction that has to be made as to what causes and cases is acceptable for abortion.

Why should he be penalized for this? He did all the right things. He practiced safe sex. Something went wrong, as does happen in this world. We are lucky enough to come as far as a culture to be able to right this sort of wrong. Yet funding is short and this solution can't be distributed out because people pushing their own moral agenda just can't let that happen.

The opposition for this line of thought is that they should not have been having sex in the first place. If they aren't ready for all possible consquences. Regardless of the percentages we learn about contraceptives, there is always the possibility of getting pregnant. When you make the conscious decision to ignore that and engage in intercourse anyway, then the the possiblity of having a child is a result of your decision.

[Daedelus]

Sex offenders would mean those who have committed sexual assault and rape as well, no? I don't see how that can be considered better than pedophilia. I did say that line facetiously, since killing is just as bad as their actions. Although if it were possible to eliminate this type of behaviour, it would solve a lot of problems

Yes, it includes them but is not exclusive to them. Many states (Maine and my home state Michigan included) have laws on the books that make urinating in public a sex offense that lands you on the list. Just killing people because of some crime is not the answer to society's problems.

The opposition for this line of thought is that they should not have been having sex in the first place. If they aren't ready for all possible consquences. Regardless of the percentages we learn about contraceptives, there is always the possibility of getting pregnant. When you make the conscious decision to ignore that and engage in intercourse anyway, then the the possiblity of having a child is a result of your decision.

No one is ever ready for all possible consequences. You can't use that argument seriously. While I agree that the child is a result of your decision to have sex, the fact that a viable option that should be readily available wasn't there for him. You couldn't honestly expected to predict the series of events that unfolded. I'm not saying dodge responsibility. We have the ability to prevent this sort of thing. I say we use it.

[vtwahoo]

I am in favor of a woman's right to choose - in certain situations. If she was the victim of rape or incest (more on incest later) then let her choose.

There's a legal problem here though.

How can you argue -=legally=- that a fetus is a human being but not if it was produced by rape or incest?

You made a moral argument for abortion in certain circumstances. Now, if you were to become pregnant you seem to have established the parameters by which you would seek an abortion. That's great and I admire the fact that you know what would work for you.

But the legal issue, as Killfile detailed, is a totally different question. A fetus either is or is not a human being. If it is a human being, and thousands of years of common and codified law say that it isn't, abortion is murder. If, however, a fetus is a human being we have a different question.

[The Fallen]

I dont want to hear anyone argue against abortion unless they themselves have adopted a child. It sounds all nice to say "oh, you dont have to kill them, you can put them up for adoption" but look at all the kids who dont get adopted, there are literally millions. Orphanages aren't exactly the happiest places in the world either. What about places like africa? The reason they are having so many problems is overpopulation.

Some say that by having abortions you could be eliminating the world's next great leaders, but you could also be eliminating its next great oppressors. The world doesnt know the difference. What if hitler's mom would have had an abortion? What if Bush's mom would have had an abortion? What if Jesus's mom would have had an abortion? at least then we wouldnt have this whole christian mind fuck disease lingering around, infecting innocent children.

Also, some say that life starts in the womb, I dont know about you guys, but i dont remember being inside my mom's womb. So i dont think the so called "baby" would even know the difference. Whether you think its morally wrong or not, no one has the right to tell a woman that she has to carry a child.

[Arresty]

I am pro-choice, but your argument could have almost sent me the other way. Your argument seems so cold, but I do agree with some of what you say.

Side note on your argument about not remembering being in the womb, most of us don't remember the first year or so of our life either, but it is not right to kill a newborn baby.

[psi29a]

Your parents brought you into this world, they have every right take you out of this world too.

Damn spoiled brats.

[Arresty]

But the better option to cure overpopulation is not aborting babies, but by limiting the ability to reproduce.

[Killfile]

Personally, I'm in favor of 75th Trimester Abortions. I think it would do the world a lot of good*. Abortion isn't about dealing with over population or anything like that. It's about the status of the Fetus in our society, the status of Women in our society, and the rights of women to control their bodies juxtaposed against the right (if any such right exists) of a fetus to live.

One question I'm interested in is this -- let's imagine we live in a world wherein a fetus can, at any stage of gestation, be removed simply, painlessly, and risk-free from a woman's uterus and grown artificially to the point of birth.

In this world - can a woman abdicate her roll as a parent to the state? The reason I ask is that we spend a lot of time talking about how abortion is wrong because it kills a fetus. What if it didn't. What if a woman could remove an unwanted pregnancy from her life without killing anything. Would the state have an obligation to take over custody of the child?

Given the choice between this an letting her have an abortion - would you be willing to pay higher taxes to save that "child's" life?

* That's sarcasm for those of you that didn't catch it. Still, if those damn kids don't get off my lawn....

[panasonic]

this may be a bit harsh, but i wouldnt want to pay for someone else's child, they should take care of their own, and if they dont.... someone who wants to can, but others that dont care shouldnt be burdened by the whatever hundreds of thousands of "abortioned living kids"

[Arresty]

I agree, abortion would be better than having the government pay for them all. But Killfile was being sarcastic.

[Quest]

i say abortion or not is the decision of the parent, more skewed towards the mother's.
the state wants to act nice and 'save' a life to... i dunno... please a particular group. but really, who wants to care for somebody else's burden?
saying it is one thing but to bring a child into this world when nobody actually wants him/her and abandon him/her into a life of broken childhood and ostracism, thats just horrible.

[Arresty]

That is definitely true. I do think it should be the mother's choice mainly, though the father to some extent should have a say in helping make the decision but it all comes down to the woman, since she does have to carry it for 9 months.

[newbified]

I posted this on another forum back in March that was also having the abortion/pro-choice debate. Although that topic started off with graphic pictures.

There are more than half a million children and youth in the U.S. foster care system, a 90% increase since 1987. Three of 10 of the nation’s homeless are former foster children. A recent study has found that 12-18 months after leaving foster care:
27% of the males and 10% of the females had been incarcerated
33% were receiving public assistance
37% had not finished high school
50% were unemployed

Children in foster care are three to six times more likely than children not in care to have emotional, behavioral and developmental problems, including conduct disorders, depression, difficulties in school and impaired social relationships. Some experts estimate that about 30% of the children in care have marked or severe emotional problems. Various studies have indicated that children and young people in foster care tend to have limited education and job skills, perform poorly in school compared to children who are not in foster care, lag behind in their education by at least one year, and have lower educational attainment than the general population.

80 percent of prison inmates have been through the foster care system.

Children are 11 times more likely to be abused in State care than they are in their own homes.

Children died as a result of abuse in foster care 5.25 times more often than children in the general population.

So what kind of life would these children most likely be living if they were indeed brought into a household that considered them an unwanted inconvenience? Most likely a life of abuse, trouble with law enforcement, and incarceration at some point in their lives.

[Quest]

I posted this on another forum back in March that was also having the abortion/pro-choice debate. Although that topic started off with graphic pictures.

There are more than half a million children and youth in the U.S. foster care system, a 90% increase since 1987. Three of 10 of the nation’s homeless are former foster children. A recent study has found that 12-18 months after leaving foster care:
27% of the males and 10% of the females had been incarcerated
33% were receiving public assistance
37% had not finished high school
50% were unemployed

Children in foster care are three to six times more likely than children not in care to have emotional, behavioral and developmental problems, including conduct disorders, depression, difficulties in school and impaired social relationships. Some experts estimate that about 30% of the children in care have marked or severe emotional problems. Various studies have indicated that children and young people in foster care tend to have limited education and job skills, perform poorly in school compared to children who are not in foster care, lag behind in their education by at least one year, and have lower educational attainment than the general population.

80 percent of prison inmates have been through the foster care system.

Children are 11 times more likely to be abused in State care than they are in their own homes.

Children died as a result of abuse in foster care 5.25 times more often than children in the general population.

So what kind of life would these children most likely be living if they were indeed brought into a household that considered them an unwanted inconvenience? Most likely a life of abuse, trouble with law enforcement, and incarceration at some point in their lives.

yes thats my standpoint as well.
the government may be genuinely trying to advocate what they think is best: saving a life. but this may end up aggravating the social problems than helping.

[Killfile]

I really wasn't being sarcastic - I was proposing a thought experiment. Unwanted children can already be turned over the to state - either directly or indirectly (if you abuse your kid badly enough the state will collect them -- horrible as that is). What if aborting a child didn't have to mean that the fetus died? What if you could just turn over custody of your 2 week old fetus to the state and they'd remove it from the uterus and raise it from there?

Would you (more specifically the anti-choice crowd) be willing to deal with the tax hike that would necessitate to pay for the raising of those saved lives?

I'm asking because this line of reasoning attacks the central problem of abortion. If you're not willing to assume some tiny fraction of the burden of raising a stranger's child, what right have you to force her to assume the enormity of that whole burden?

[newbified]

The thing with the Pro-Life crowd, is that much of it goes hand in hand with religious beliefs and ethics. And when you bring up the thought of taking a fetus from the womb at 2 weeks and raising it outside of the mother in a laboratory somewhere, it somewhat reminds me of a recent news story:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12738144/

So even if the child is allowed to live, the Pro-Life crowd would most likely then change their stance to the fact that it wasn't birthed by the biological mother, and therefore goes against the churches teachings.

And I really have to agree with Killfile's last paragraph. In a world where abortions are illegal, it's most likely going to be up to everyone (taxpayers) to involuntarily care for these children in some way or another. Tax hikes, food drives, welfare and social assistance. And if you aren't willing to accept those responsibilities, then you don't have room to tell others what they should do.

Where as I don't feel like taking on those responsibilities (come on now, Ontario already has a 15% tax rate) and therefore I feel that if women who become pregnant feel they are not ready for the responsibility required to raise a child, they should have the option for abortions.

My wife had an abortion with her first pregnancy because she was 18 when she first became pregnant (with another man, not me). And we then went through with her second pregnancy (that one's mine). We felt we were in a financial and social position to care for a child, whereas she obviously didn't feel that way 4 years ago.

There's a popular quote that I like:

"If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns."

And believe me, if we outlaw abortions, "outlaws" will have abortions. But do we really want to make outlaws of women who aren't ready for the huge financial and emotion burden that is an unwanted child?