A Complicated Subject

[II]

Foamy, with all due respect:

Ironically, your statement reaffirms an anti-Woman attitude:
Does a man lose his right to choose when he impregnates the woman? Was he having sex not a risk? Your argument has a double standard.

And most conservatives are anti-contraceptive (as far as it being accessible to many people). Another major flaw in the right's argument.

Foamy said:

In answer to the Anti-woman aspect: again, I agree with logan that a woman has the right to choose, that sex is an assumed risk and that the right ends when the risk is taken. Here is where I come back to the point that birth control is free at the local health department but I would also like to add that it is the responsiblility of both parties.

[II]

Very well said, nanners.

By giving the horrific excuse that rape and incest is 1%, that is tens of thousands of women who must be subjugated to a traumatizing experience of being attacked over and over again.

But let us move onto the most important issue of all as far as abortion goes:

Do you want the government controlling the woman's body?

Don't conservatives want less government?

[e-mail] said:

Abortion means having the right to choose whether or not you want to bring a child into your life.  Having a child changes your life instantly.  The fetus in unborn.  Something that is unborn doesn't exist.  There is however the question of morality.  Why is our life more precious than other animals in this world?  We may be more complex, but we are animals.  More than half of all abortions occur only a few weeks into the mother being pregnant.  I don't think that it is fair to take away this option from a woman.  It is frightening to think of a society where a woman who might have made a wrong decision, and finding herself with no resort.  Rape and incest are certainly good reasons that an abortion could be necessary.  How could a woman control being attacked?  Is it her fault that she has to carry that burden with her for nine months, or even her entire life, if she chooses not to put it up for adoption.
You should not be able to take away this right for a woman.  Just because we are the least dominant sex in our culture doesn't mean that we don't have the right to make the decisions affecting our life, because the fetus is a part of us.

Here is something to think about.
Anti-Abortion is Anti-Life!!!

[II]

Yes we know Foamy, but you don't offer a solution.

may i correct you once again: you do not purport that sex is a risk; you purport it is a risk to the WOMAN.

Big difference.

Foamy said:

We have discussed how attack greatly complicates the matter; this is part of why the title reflects that this is a complicated subject.


Having unprotected sex is a risk and when folks take a risk they need to be ready to assume responsibility for the possible outcome. Does society now think that it is unnecessary for one to take responsibility for his or her own actions?

The notion that something unborn doesn't exist is a total cop-out. If a fetus doesn't exist then why consider aborting it if there isn't anything there. A ridiculous statement!

But even more ridiculous:  <br>
"Anti-Abortion is Anti-Life!!!"  

Let's see, anti-abortion means to be opposed to the KILLING of the unborn child. Seems to me that's why it is also called PRO-LIFE!

[Foamy Dog]

II,

Regarding:

"Ironically, your statement reaffirms an anti-Woman attitude:
Does a man lose his right to choose when he impregnates the woman? Was he having sex not a risk? Your argument has a double standard."

My argument is neither a double standard nor anti-woman. Though you quoted me you seem to have overlooked the last part of the quoted paragraph that states:

". . . but I would also like to add that it is the responsibility of both parties. "

I would also like to add that not only is birth control the responsibility of both parties but the child is as well. As for Conservatives being against the distribution of contraceptives, I did not state an opinion and the fact remains that they are still very accessible. Even if they were not, the choice not to have sex remains. Yes, I said choice. One has every right to make a choice BEFORE the risk is taken. After the risk is taken it is time to take the responsibility of the actions.

Regarding:

"Do you want the government controlling the woman's body?

Don't conservatives want less government?"


I stated a few posts earlier:

"That unborn fetus did not just appear--people need to take some responsibility for their actions. Furthermore, though the child is growing inside the mother's body, it is the child's body--another body altogether--not the mother's to discard like it was some wart on her big toe."

Yes, Conservatives do want less government but we don't wish to make murder legal.

Regarding:

"Yes we know Foamy, but you don't offer a solution." [This appears to refer to the subject of attack]

If you would have looked further back in the posts you would have found my thoughts on the matter of attack and my thoughts regarding solutions:

" 'What about rape victims?' Yes, this is something to be considered. There is still the point that there is a life at stake but no, a woman should not have to have the rapists child. Though there are some that would argue, I see this as too much trauma for the mother and it couldn't be good for the child either to be born under such circumstances. There really isn't a fit all answer for this one but one possible solution is to immediately give every rape victim something to prevent pregnancy so the decision doesn't have to be made. Again, this isn't a fit all answer for a very complicated and terrible situation. "

Regarding:

"may i correct you once again: you do not purport that sex is a risk; you purport it is a risk to the WOMAN."

Here again, though you quote me, you seem to overlook the fact that in that very quote I state:

"Does society now think that it is unnecessary for one to take responsibility for his or her own actions?"

Yes, unprotected sex is a risk to both parties. If folks are not ready to become parents, make the CHOICE and do not have unprotected sex.

[First timer]

I agree with the fact that unprotected sex is a choice that everyone has and no one should have it unless they are willing and able to become parents. However, a child should be brought into a loving family of any type but the child should be WANTED!!! Raising a child should never be a punishment for any mistake, stupid and preventable as it may have been. If two people are irresponsible enough to have unprotected sex without considering the consequences, how can they possibly be responsible enough to raise a child? By forcing unwilling parents to raise a child, even if it was due to their own foolishness, you are placing an unwanted child into a family with unwilling parents, and how much of a chance does an unwanted child have of growing up happily.
Why not abort an unfeeling, unconcious, unknowing fetus early in pregnancy when the potential life has not even developed the ability to feel pain rather than sentence three people to a life they do not want.

[Foamy Dog]

A child being born into a household where it is not wanted is a terrible thing for the child. This is one reason to stress responsibility in hopes that this happens less often. Still, there will be those foolish enough to take the risk but this is not reason enough to take away the child's chance at life.

One possible solution is to make adoption a stronger option. This system needs some refinement to make it more effective. There are plenty of loving folks unable to have children who very much want a child to love and care for.

For example, why can't we make it easier for the adoption process to begin before birth? Steps could be taken right away to begin the search for adoptive parents. This, of course can get a bit complicated but the effort would be well worth the result.

[logan42]

First off, I apologize ahead of time because this post will not reflect my normal style.
To first timer:
1. If I am dead I have 0 chance of being happy. If I am alive I have at least a 100% greater chance at happiness than if I'm dead. This may seem like strange but it's true. Dead people are not happy. They are dead. Therefore being alive is very very important.
2. Maybe I'm wrong here, but you seem to believe that a persons right to live is in direct relation to if it he or she is wanted or not? How does that make sense. Does that mean that cause I don't want my wife around anymore, I can just go out and shoot her in the head???
I'm sorry officer, but I didn't really want her around anymore.....
And then you mention that its ok to kill a child because it's "unfeeling, unconcious, unknowing fetus ". I notice that you use the word fetus instead of the word baby.
I mean if you said that it was ok to kill a child that would make you a monster wouldn't it. So why don't we change the vocabulary. It's not killing anymore, it's aborting. your not destroying, you just starting over fresh. Oh and it's not a baby. It's a fetus. See babys are cute and are on Gerber commericals and innocent beautiful (if only to the parents) things. A fetus is "unfeeling, unconcious, unknowing". Therefore it has no value.
This just makes me want to vomit. So please if your going to spew useless dripple about how it's better to be dead than alive, that's fine, I listen to it all day. But please don't try and hide your real feelings behind some sort of vocabulary and bizarre logic trick.
There are literrally millions of people in this country who can't have children. Whose sole purpose in life is to have a child to love. These people can't get pregnant and your telling me that
nevermind. it's not even worth it. What's the use debating with someone who would rather kill a child, (or abort a fetus) than give up 9 precious months of their life to save another persons.
Blech.... There I'm done puking now.

[Moe B]

I'm puking too. In response to the person talking about life awareness in particular! You could take that logic and say that it is O.K. to kill an infant, an alzehimers patient or even someone on a real good beer binge! Like Bob Dylan said: "When somethins' not right it's wrong."

[FRED accordingtofredcom]

Modern science has eclipsed the GOD threshold and created a whole new set of rules. If science can remove your fetus and GOD cannot stop it than who is really GOD here. There is talk of healing and extending life with fetal cells and cloned embryos. If there was a GOD and he did not want this to happen he would have made it a sin or impossible for humans to figure out. But back when the bible was written nobody, including GOD knew of such wonders. Without the GOD part of the discussion it is up to man to decide and man has spoken. As for my opinion of abortion, I think it is wrong; however I would drive my daughter right down to the clinic if she was raped or pregnant from a total loser and since there is no GOD I will not be judged for my selfish action.

Make no mistake about a woman’s right to have an abortion. Men do not want kids from women who want abortions, if they do they are really stupid. It's hard enough to raise a kid from a woman you love never mind one who wants to kill your seed like a virus that is growing in her. Us men want to stand up and make a point but we would be fools to fight for the right to spend 18 years passing around a kid who’s mother wanted it dead.

To me abortion is not my topic; I really don't have strong feelings either way.

[Foamy Dog]

Fred,

If abortion isn't your topic then why reply? It looks like you want to talk about whether God exists or not. We don't have that topic yet but you are free to start a new topic in General Rants if you wish.

As for whether He would allow us to figure out how to do things that are wrong, sure, He allows us to make mistakes. How else do we know the difference between right and wrong?

Again, if we want to discuss this, feel free to start a new topic.

--FD

[FRED]

I always thought that Abortion was a religious topic since animals do not have souls we are free to slaughter them as we wish but humans have souls so we cannot slaughter them. Without GOD we are all just blobs of cells destroying and consuming other blobs of cells for our own survival making abortion just another iteration of self preservation by a living organism. So what’s left to argue about???

[Foamy Dog]

Abortion seems to me to be more of a moral issue than a religious issue. True, a lot of morals have roots in religion, however; one does not have to subscribe to a religion to have morals.

For example, most people, whether they subscribe to a religion or not, feel that it is wrong to just go out and shoot someone for no particular reason.

One of the things that make abortion more of a moral issue is that both religion and people who subscribe to no religion are divided on the issue.

To me, this just means that people are still hashing out what is morally right from what is morally wrong.

[logan42]

Fred,

I agrea with Mr. Dog. It seems your beef is more with GOD than abortion, and while I would love to discuss that with you, it is a bit outside of our discussion here.
When you said that animals don't have souls so it's ok to kill them. Remember that Animals also don't have abortions, or drive cars or live in cities. Man is above the animals. My thought is that man cannot be evolved from an animal because of the fact that we allow abortions.


You know abortion is not about men or women, it's about the unborn who never get a chance at life because their parents are to selfish or stupid to give them up for adoption.

[FRED]

If we would all just measure things by our instant gut reaction we would probably be in much better shape as collective culture. You know that feeling you get when you hear about some bizarre or heinous thing for the first time, before the logical or illogical mind tries to rationalize it into something we can swallow. It is the sense of right and wrong that comes from our tiny prehistoric brain and reacts with the intuition of thousands of years of survival instinct. We all have it and when we hear about abortion we all get the same reaction in our gut. That is the one truth, it simply goes against nature and that is why it is cloaked in the shroud of “Rights”, “Choices”, “Medical Procedures”, to keep us from feeling that un-natural twinge in the gut that tells us it is wrong.

The sad fact is that millions of people have been lulled into this state of disbelief over a great many un-natural things that take place in our society everyday. It is a shell game of words designed to confuse the heart of every issue. An act like homosexual intercourse is now a “Lifestyle Choice”; it’s funny how we all laughed at the “Sanitation Engineer” reference to the trash man but it seems we’ve all been suckered in by “A woman’s right to choose”.

This topic is growing on me. There may be hope for my ability to debate abortion yet.

[logan42]

Fred,
You know from your posts I think we would probably disagree on a great number of things. However I think you really nailed it here.

"That is the one truth, it simply goes against nature and that is why it is cloaked in the shroud of “Rights”, “Choices”, “Medical Procedures”, to keep us from feeling that un-natural twinge in the gut that tells us it is wrong"

Great way to phrase what everyone feels at one point or another.
Glad your posting here. As the saying goes. "understanding is only reached thru confrontation".