Abortion A controversial topic. I as a conservative, completely disagree with abortion. For a good reason. A lot of people don't see and know the true harm of abortion. Let me throw you an example: Say you were a 6 month baby. Say you had the potential to be: President, Scientist, War-Veteran, Hero, Successful business man. But, you never had the chance. You didn't even had the CHANCE to breathe air into your lungs, and your fate has already been decided. You were aborted. There, you are done. Dead. Never to see the light of day and become and live up to your potential. Was that fair? Is it fair to have an innocent child's life been taken away and never to live the life you are living today. It isn't. This is the problem with abortion. Here's an appalling picture of abortion: Courtesy of National Right to Life News Look how sad that is. We have the nerve to call ourselves civilized human beings yet we STILL allow a defenseless, unborn baby to be RIPPED, piece by piece. Hope this changed your mine set. From the youngest political analyst, I bid you good day and bless the US of A. I hope you all reflect on this monstrosity, and please reply your opinions. -BTUSA
So far all I see here is a lot of propaganda and emotional fallacy. Got anything more substantial than, "Ew look at these pictures."?
Saddam Hussein's mother was talked out of an abortion by a Jewish family. Supposedly, Adolf Hitler's mother also considered abortion but was talked out of it by her doctor. So should we start having mandatory abortions to prevent future mass murderers? And what difference would that make for a fetus? If you and I were aborted, we would have never known nor had any ability to care. We were neither conscious or even capable of feeling the impulse of this painful sensation. It is impossible for the unborn to be harmed by abortion.
The potential of a fetus to be the President of the United States or a great scientist is not something that trumps a woman's right to her body becuase it's completely unmeasurable. I could just as easily make the argument that we should promote abortion so that hopefully the next Jeffery Dahmer or Hitler is stopped before he's born. Both of those arguments are completely and utterly stupid. Nobody ever said abortion is pretty. Nobody has made the argument that we should all celebrate it and that it's as joyful as bunnies having picnics. It is what it is. None of that changes in any way whether or not a woman should lose control of her body. If you don't like abortion and if thinking about it sickens you....don't think about it. Don't look up graphic pictures of the procedure because something being graphic is not a justification to ban a medical procedure. I once watched a video of doctors removing a huge parasitic worm from someone's body. That turned my stomach watching them pulling it out, which seemed to last forever, yet I'm not sitting here saying we should ban operations to remove parasitic worms because I was uncomfortable seeing it done.
The difference would be, let's say you actually made that argument. How could you determine "Who the next Hitler" would be? You can't make that determination. On the other hand, would we devalue life so as to defy Self-Determination? The principle of Self-Determination, for better or worse is what has allowed Human Society to progress. A woman's right to self-determination exists until the moment she has sex, up and including birth control. She has no right to determine however, whether or not that baby is born or not.. She has no right over its life, or any other's. Humanity period, has no right to violate the right to Self-Determination. Violating that principle, violates the very fabric of our existence.
How about a woman's right to "self-determination"? I guess that just disappears when she's pregnant? According to you, a woman's rights end "the moment she has sex". Now I suppose you're going to say forcing her to continue gestation is NOT a punishment for choosing sex.
Of course it's not, she chose to have sex. That means that she made the self-determination to be a mother. If she didn't want to be a mother, it's as fairly simple as either not having sex or birth control. But if we complain that birth control's not perfect(or the more favored argument around here that the male somehow "rigs" the birth control(though this works both ways), then again: Don't have sex. Our modern concept of sexual behavior is so flawed, as to have literally created not only thousands of unwanted children, but millions of adults who quite frankly would be poor parents. It's an ideology from hell itself, with virtually no benefits to mankind. You can't list a single one.
BTW, doesn't the OP's hypothetical work the OTHER way as well? What about if the "baby" has the potential to be Rev. Jim Jones or Charles Manson or Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy? What then? - - - Updated - - - Sure I can....women are no longer the property or sexual "toys" of men. And it pisses a lot of men off.
No, instead they whore themselves as sex prostitutes and engage in dangerous one-night stands. Yes, you gals have had such a step up When I say nothing, I mean nothing. You've only degraded since your revolution.
There's no way I could legitimately make that argument because it deals with completely unmeasurable future events. That's why the flip-side argument is equally baseless and stupid. Nope. Wrong and completely arrogant. That mother is the master of her own body...AT ALL TIMES. At no point, ever, does a person stop controlling their own body. They may not be able to control where their body will be(i.e. prison), but they are always in control of it and what's inside of it, and when a person isn't, even a death row inmate, that is a tragic injustice. Here you are talking about how humanity has no right to violate the right of self determination in the same post in which you want to violate a woman's right to self determination. That makes, literally, zero sense.
And once again, through all their denials, we clearly see.....the misogyny of rightwing/"pro-life" males/
It's not my fault feminists are unable to look at reality, to what should we blame teen pregnancy on? The "lack" of contraceptive options? No, how about how http://norwalk.patch.com/groups/dr-annie-abram-phd-lcsw-certified-psychoanalysts-blog/p/bp--the-over-sexualization-of-girls-in-the-media-and-00fff9c651 openly sexual and perverse the media is? Feminism, and its outlook on sexuality and all things "freedom" have led to this disaster. But sure, keep blaming men if that makes you feel better
There have always been prostitutes, it's the oldest profession. The couldn't exist without Johns, though. Do they get a pass?
Welcome to Political Forum! Anyway, the pro-choice community's position differs a bit from what you're arguing against above. A man walks down an alley at night and is jumped by a robber, the robber lunges with a knife, and the man reluctantly shoots him dead. Should he be locked up? The man had a right to life, after all. The man who raped and killed 10 kids in the electric chair, should he be set free? He has a right to life after all. The point is, there are exceptions related to the right to life. All the pro-choice are saying is that abortion is another one of these exceptions. What they all have in common is consent - they all tried to deprive the individual of his person and property, and having aggressed against the individual have invited retaliatory force in response. The pro-choice argue that pregnancy is in most cases non-consensual. Why is a topic that takes some explaining, but I'd have no problem posting it if you're interested. Thanks
Are you speaking as one who has never once engaged in sexual activity for pleasure and not procreation?
I feel like some of these men would like to take us all back to these kinds of dark ages where women and even little girls are nothing more than a piece of property for them. http://www.examiner.com/article/yemen-8-year-old-girl-dies-from-internal-injuries-on-wedding-night
NO, no, no, you're not getting it. The prohibition on sex for pleasure is for WOMEN. Maybe you could explain to me what is meant by "our modern concept of sexual behavior"? I thought people had been doing it the same way for thousands of years.
That's right, don't you know? Women may only have sex in one position, the only holy position is on her back facing God and asking him for forgiveness for the horrible thing she's about to do, and she must try her best not to enjoy the sex at all and she may only do this with all intentions and purposes of procreating. lol Obviously I am being facetious but sometimes it feels like this is what the opposition wants...
Actually it doesn't, she made the self-determination to have sex. consent to sex is not, and never has been, a consent to pregnancy. Even in legal terms the assumption of consent to sex is implied consent to pregnancy is incorrect, sex is not the same condition as pregnancy, it only creates the risk that pregnancy will occur. The law does not require a person to consent to injuries just because that person consented to take a risk. Irrelevant to the actual legal position, this is akin to saying that if you take part in a dangerous sport and use the relevant protection but still get injured you should not be entitled to medical help to remedy the injuries. Whether protection is used or not is irrelevant, the fact still remains that sex only creates a risk of pregnancy (approx 20-30% during a standard cycle) .. if pregnancy was 100% guaranteed with every sexual intercourse encounter then you would have an argument for implied consent until that time you don't. In your opinion That is due to the continuous attacks on, not only abortion but contraception and decent sex education, 1 in 3 teenage girls in the USA think they can't get pregnant the first time they have sex, and who are you to decide who are poor parents. The biggest benefit to mankind is that women need no longer be chattel to anyone, they can control their own reproductive decisions.
So you admit that abortion is immoral. - - - Updated - - - That's because they are uneducated. However, their ignorance does not justify killing an innocent child in an abortion.
Why do so many in these discussions completely misrepresent comments from others? Where there is a valid point, it only serves to diminish it. Where there is no valid point it only serves to make those doing it look foolish.
