Abortion Poll

[Tangnefedd]

Sorry there are so many posts on this thread, I cannot go through them all, life is too short!

 

[D'Ann]

Hi ej,

You are good at playing the devil's advocate. Very interesting thread. You can guess how I voted... LOL

 

[Jacob4Jesus]

I voted wrong


I voted for only when the mother would die, and I should have gone for 'other'.

I would consider it acceptable only when the mother would die, the child cannot survive, and as a result of rape.

Never as a lifestyle choice.

I feel the same way.

 

[KirstinT84]

I voted that abortion is fine until the fetus can survive ex utero.

 

[Tangnefedd]

When the baby is viable, but a termination is inevitable because of the health of the mother, I think the baby should be delivered normally in the hope that it might survive.

 

[Archivist]

This is the problem that I have with the "so-called" Pro-Choice crowd. You say that you don't want to kill babies yourself, but it's still OK for others. That to me is still promoting the Killing of Babies

I am allergic to peanuts and could die in I accidently eat them. However, I think that others should have the right to eat them. Does that mean that I am "promoting" the eating of peanuts? Hardly.

You didn't have to say you were bothered. Either you are or you have just run out of amunition for the debate and decided to pick on my choice of words....lol I think my wording (murder) is close enough to death for most people to understand what I am saying. If we end up in a court of law, I will remember your Legal advisory, but we are just having a conversation here, so I will stick to my thinking of Abortion = murder.

Again, if you want to make up your own definitions that is up to you. Pointing out that you are using the word incorectly is hardly running out of ammunition for the debate as you have claimed.

If we were talking about the woman getting a tatoo or something, I would agree with you. However, we are talking about the Killing of a baby! You are not convincing me that you don't support this....lol

No we are not talking about killing babies.

I disagree....lol

Again, you think that all who disagree with you are "wrong" rather than accepting that people can have differing opinions on the subject.

 

[e=mv^2]

I voted that abortion is fine until the fetus can survive ex utero.

Surprise! A child was recently delivered via Caesarean that developed for 9 months OUTSIDE THE UTERUS. That is the definition of ex utero (ex = out from, utero = uterus).
The egg , upon fertilization, implanted on the *outside* of the uterus and was carried full term. Born healthy.
So - with a little luck and a whole lot of grace - a child can survive from conception ex-utero.

Welcome to the "From conception" camp!

 

[Kroger99]

I am allergic to peanuts and could die in I accidently eat them. However, I think that others should have the right to eat them. Does that mean that I am "promoting" the eating of peanuts? Hardly.

So from this, I can assume that you equate the value of a peanut to that of a child...right?

Again, if you want to make up your own definitions that is up to you. Pointing out that you are using the word incorectly is hardly running out of ammunition for the debate as you have claimed.

I'm not so sure of that. We were talking about abortion. Now you seem to want to discuss the dictionary...lol

No we are not talking about killing babies.

Funny..and here I thought that was the who basis behind this thread.

Again, you think that all who disagree with you are "wrong" rather than accepting that people can have differing opinions on the subject.

psst...want to know a secret. I'm not sure what Webster thinks about it, but that is what "Disagree" means.

**********************************************************​

Now again....if we can get back on topic.....
I think that anyone who has an abortion is killing their Baby. I equate this to murder. My prayer is that one day, Murdering unborn babies will be a legal issue, but for now, I will just tweak the Pro-Abortion crown with it....lol
I completely understand that this is a legal practice in many places. A few here has even stated that this is a moral thing to do. I do not agree! this means....I think you are Wrong!

I understand that in rare, and I mean rare cases, taking the childs life is neccesary do to complication during delivory and a decision must be made...either mom or the baby. As much as I hate it, the most savable must live. I think that most will agree that this will be few and far between.

 

[Archivist]

So from this, I can assume that you equate the value of a peanut to that of a child...right?

Those are your words not mine. I never said that. I am spaeking of my refusal to force my views on others, which is what you want to do.

I'm not so sure of that. We were talking about abortion. Now you seem to want to discuss the dictionary...lol

Again, where did I say that I want to discuss the dictionary? I simply pointed out that you want words to mean waht you say they mean rather than what the dictionary says they mean. Of course, you are the same person who described the difference between millions and a few as "splitting hairs."

Funny..and here I thought that was the who basis behind this thread.

What is a "who basis?" Perhaps you really do need to spend more time with the dictionary.

psst...want to know a secret. I'm not sure what Webster thinks about it, but that is what "Disagree" means.

Wrong.

Now again....if we can get back on topic.....
I think that anyone who has an abortion is killing their Baby. I equate this to murder. My prayer is that one day, Murdering unborn babies will be a legal issue, but for now, I will just tweak the Pro-Abortion crown with it....lol
I completely understand that this is a legal practice in many places. A few here has even stated that this is a moral thing to do. I do not agree! this means....I think you are Wrong!

I understand that in rare, and I mean rare cases, taking the childs life is neccesary do to complication during delivory and a decision must be made...either mom or the baby. As much as I hate it, the most savable must live. I think that most will agree that this will be few and far between.

I've been on topic all along. Again, you are entitled to your opinion. Were I a woman I would not have an abortion myself unless my life were in danger or it was a case of rape or incest. However, I do not believe in forcing my views on others. I do think that the most important thing that we can all do is to work together to reduce the number of abortions.

 

[Kroger99]

I'm not going to play the game of dictionary tag anymore, so I will only address the following......

Those are your words not mine. I never said that. I am spaeking of my refusal to force my views on others, which is what you want to do.

******************************************​

I've been on topic all along. Again, you are entitled to your opinion. Were I a woman I would not have an abortion myself unless my life were in danger or it was a case of rape or incest. However, I do not believe in forcing my views on others. I do think that the most important thing that we can all do is to work together to reduce the number of abortions.

When it comes to killing children....yes, I will try and force my views on others. Not for just my own children or my own grandchildren, but All Children. I personally think they deserve a chance at Life. It saddens me that you disagree.

However...I promise to never try and force Peanuts on you.

Good Day

 

[Charlie V]

I selected "other."

Abortion is an unfortunate reality which should, for a variety of reasons, remain legal, but should be made rare by education and economic opportunities, access to birth control and by providing better health care.

For one example of the "better health care" issue,

Suppose a woman and her husband want to have a child. She becomes pregnant, but learns late in her pregnancy that the fetus developed an incomplete spinal chord and, if carried to term, will suffer excrusiating pain and die within six months.

Even late, the termination should be an option. The mother shouldn't be forced to inflict such agony on her child as to cause it to be born in suffering agony leading to certain death. It is inhumane.

However, by ensuring she has access to the best health care possible, it's possible that the incomplete spinal chord's cause might have been detected and averted, thus allowing her to have a healthy baby.

Charlie

 

[Charlie V]

When it comes to killing children....yes, I will try and force my views on others.

That's why I oppose the war in Iraq.

Charlie

 

[KirstinT84]

Surprise! A child was recently delivered via Caesarean that developed for 9 months OUTSIDE THE UTERUS. That is the definition of ex utero (ex = out from, utero = uterus).
The egg , upon fertilization, implanted on the *outside* of the uterus and was carried full term. Born healthy.
So - with a little luck and a whole lot of grace - a child can survive from conception ex-utero.

Welcome to the "From conception" camp!

Then perhaps I should have chosen the "whilst the fetus is inside the mother" option then. The piont was that I myself would not have an abortion after the the point where the fetus could survive on its own under relatively normal circumstances. I was not taking test tube babies or very special circumstances such as the ones you mentioned above into accout, because let's face it, that's not the norm. I would have one early in the pregnancy, and I don't particularly have a problem with other women having them later on in their pregnancies. Just because I wouldn't have a late abortion doesn't mean no one should and just because you wouldn't have one period doesn't mean no one should. I, personally, just HIGHLY value my (and other women's) right to choose.

 

[immortalavefenix]

Well for anyone who has read my post my position will come as no surprise.

I personnally find abortion to be a repulsive concept. I can find few, very few cases where it could argued from some kind of moral justification. I am very in pro of family unity, and the idea of killings one's own child is just not right for me.

Irregardless I have a change of positions.After many years of debate I have come to a new conclusion. I am now pro-choice.

I will now give my reason's for this.

When, from the law's point of view, one is confronted with a situation of a woman wanting to abort, the varibles are these. 1. I can override the womans right to selfdetermination to save the child. 2. Allow the woman to override the childs selfdetermination to save the right of all woman to universal selfdetermination.

Seems simply right? Well here is the problem. There is a BIG differance between ACTUALLITY and POTENCIALLITY.

The woman in fact at this very moment ACTUALLY has certain rights. Her "child" will POTENCIALLY have rights. Any number of natueral events can result in the "child" not obtaining personhood.

It is the higher ethical imperative to preserve the right of ACTUAL people, then to violate those very same rights in the name of POTENCIAL people.

Simple as that.

Now you may say, and why not extend the definetion of personhood to the unborn? After all exiting a vagina is not some speacil trick that magically bestows upon the child "personhood" or at least shouldnt be.

Good question. For late term unborn, these can be a VERY good argument, after all said creatures can survive on their own, or at least, could almost do so. More importantly they feel pain and have nueral activity. They display emtion and somekind of awareness. Some research even says they dream. I can see how an argument can say "well though unborn, they display charataristics that would qualify them as ACUTALLY human, and therefore deserving of personhood, as the potenciallity that this "thing" is something else is VERY LOW"

Reasonable. Lest agree to that. I can accept that compromise

lets move the "line" back to that point, but what happens when we go even futher back? What about when the child is little more then a self replicating tumor? For about the 1 1/2-2 tirmester? Before any neurological activity is picked, and where in a VERY REAL way the clump of flesh of represents a only a concentration of POSSIBLITY for LATER in time turing into something we could call a person. At this point, there are MANY natureal occurances that could terminate the collection of flesh from EVER obtaining personhood. The futher back we go the more of a porbobility it becomes. Until we get to the point of eggs and sperm united which represents and EXTREME off chance that those chemicals MAY turn into a human after some time.

So back again to our definetion of personhood. At some point we must draw the line. And this is were absolute morallity fails. Horriblly. People would so much more like definetions as things as EITHER dead or alive, this OR that. Unforunately the naturel world never conforms to being labled. A growing fetus is both human, AND NOT HUMAN. At some point an absolute legal line must be draw on what is a VERY fuzzy term.

My stance.

At some point, so far as opinon is concerned, were the fetus displays attributes and qualities that can classigy it as an ACTUAL person, though in very unstable health, then that creature should be given the rights of personhood. Anything before that point is a chemcial substance with the POSSIBILITY of turning into a human [ not an ACUTAL person ] That can be disposed of.

My stance personally. Abortion really should be highly limited and regulated. People just cant go around aborting for no good reason. There are also instances were even late term abortions could be justified, but even those are rare.

 

[Niemand3D]

Does Pro-choice equate to "I just don't want to take the responsibility for someone else's decision"?

 

[KirstinT84]

In my opinion, pro-choice does not equate to "I just don't want to take responsibility for someone else's decision." Pro-choice means just that, pro-choice. It means that every woman should be able to make her own choice regarding abortion, and that I don't have the right to take responsibility for her decision. Nor do I want to have that right; I would not want someone else to have the power to make my decision for me. The only person's decision I have a right to take the responsibility for is my own.

 

[Tangnefedd]

A woman has rights over her own body, so if she gets pregnant and does not want the baby she should seek a termination as soon as possible. It is possible to know you are pregnant almost as soon as you conceive these days, so it is not difficult to get rid of the collection of cells before it is a fully formed foetus!

 

[Archivist]

The woman in fact at this very moment ACTUALLY has certain rights. Her "child" will POTENCIALLY have rights. Any number of natueral events can result in the "child" not obtaining personhood. It is the higher ethical imperative to preserve the right of ACTUAL people, then to violate those very same rights in the name of POTENCIAL people.

Very well said.

Perhaps this same reason was what motivated America's great leaders of the Civil War era to include language in the 14th Amendment that specifically stated that U.S. citizenship begins at birth, not at conception. This principle was likewise recognized much earlier by English Common Law.

 

[Kroger99]

Very well said.

Perhaps this same reason was what motivated America's great leaders of the Civil War era to include language in the 14th Amendment that specifically stated that U.S. citizenship begins at birth, not at conception. This principle was likewise recognized much earlier by English Common Law.

My guess is that they never dreamed that people today would be Killing un-born children.

 

[Prince Lucianus]

That happened in their time as well.

Lucy