A good argument for pro-choice

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » February 11, 2004, 11:32 pm

http://home.comcast.net/~ann642/SCL.WMV

I think LIGHTNING BOLT has been dethroned.

Laliana · Post by **Laliana** » February 11, 2004, 11:35 pm

*page unavailable*

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » February 11, 2004, 11:55 pm

The heck. Works for me!

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » February 12, 2004, 12:17 am

Do you cache?

Im getting not available too...:/

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » February 12, 2004, 12:28 am

No workie here either...

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » February 12, 2004, 12:59 am

I guess it cached, yea. But I posted it right after I watched it. Harumph.

Laliana · Post by **Laliana** » February 12, 2004, 1:08 am

bastard!

Sanaelya · Post by **Sanaelya** » February 12, 2004, 2:20 am

pro choice is ironic in and of itself in that they deprive the unborn child of the right to choose if s/he would like to live

"The only people for abortion have already been born."
--Ronald Reagan
"the cultural environment for a human holocaust is present whenever any society can be misled into defining individuals as less than human and therefore devoid of value and respect."
--William Brennan

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » February 12, 2004, 7:08 am

Why does it appear that the majority of the most rabid pro-lifers are men?

I've always wondered that.

A couple of years ago we had a case in the UK of a guy trying to get a court injunction against his former partner preventer her from having a pregnancy terminated. He knew this wasn't possible but had identified a grey-area and was then trying to keep the case in court long enough for her to get so far along in her term of pregnancy that an abortion wouldn't be possible.
I found this very disturbing and it reinforced my suspicions that most male pro-lifers are more interested in controlling women than protecting unborns.

Denadeb · Post by **Denadeb** » February 12, 2004, 7:17 am

It all boils down to cirumstances with me. Each sides has some good arguments that make plenty of sense. Now if someone just went out and did something stupid and got pregnant I think they should have to live with the mistake they made and take resposiblity. Half the people that want abortions want it to rid themselves of taking responsiblity for something they did. Now if it involes health risk for either the mother or the child I think it should be the parents choice to make if they want to take the risk. If someone is raped and ends up pregnant it should be there choice if they want to go on with the pregnancy. There are a lot of diffrent exceptions that come to mind for me but doing it to rid yourself of responsiblity for something you did isn't one of them.

Kriista · Post by **Kriista** » February 12, 2004, 8:03 am

it gets particularly hairy in the what each person wants side

its in teh womans body, but its also the males child

all sorts of fucked up situations can(im sure do) arise

like woman wanting to keep it, male doesnt, he still gets stuck with childsupport etc...(he doesnt want it, but hes fucked)

or woman doesnt want, but man does, again, hes fucked,

personally im pro choice, ive always thought that sounded funny coming from a guy, since i dont see myself getting pregnant anytime soon, but i think the desicion should involve both parties in some way or another
legistically im sure it wouldnt be posible but itd be nice for there to be some safeguard for the male if theres a disagrement, like in the above 2 scenarios, since the woman is the one that gets to pick whats going to greatly effect the guys life

Kriista · Post by **Kriista** » February 12, 2004, 8:06 am

It all boils down to cirumstances with me. Each sides has some good arguments that make plenty of sense. Now if someone just went out and did something stupid and got pregnant I think they should have to live with the mistake they made and take resposiblity. Half the people that want abortions want it to rid themselves of taking responsiblity for something they did. Now if it involes health risk for either the mother or the child I think it should be the parents choice to make if they want to take the risk. If someone is raped and ends up pregnant it should be there choice if they want to go on with the pregnancy. There are a lot of diffrent exceptions that come to mind for me but doing it to rid yourself of responsiblity for something you did isn't one of them.

(didnt feel like editing other post)
i think circumstance is important, but circumstance shouldnt be the legally deciding factor
since by 'punising' them to have the child would really be punising the child born into an unpleasent situation where he/shes not wanted
maybe theyll be abandoned in a dumpster? or worse, grow up in an abusing household and take to a tower with a rifle

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » February 12, 2004, 8:17 am

The idea of "punishing" a woman and/or child for getting pregnant is one of the most retarded and despicable things I've read on this board lately.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » February 12, 2004, 11:04 am

Wow, the thread title was tongue in cheek, the clip had nothing to do with abortion... just embarassments to humanity.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » February 12, 2004, 11:16 am

The Vault is feeling very political this week.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » February 12, 2004, 11:18 am

It was the Reagan quote that set me off (>_<)

Deward · Post by **Deward** » February 12, 2004, 11:46 am

I can't imagine ever asking a woman to get an abortion but I am not going to tell other people what they can or can't do with their lives. I would much rather see an abortion than a child coming into a world unloved. My wife and I have discussed this and we agreed that if there was anything wrong with the baby then we would not hesitate to have an abortion. I couldn't handle having a mentally disabled child. I might be able to handle a child if it was slightly physically disabled but if it was caught early enough then I would want it aborted as well.

One thing I could never understand is that all these pro-lifers are screaming that it is murder but I don't see them stepping up to adopt children or present solutions for all the unwanted children.

Ennia · Post by **Ennia** » February 12, 2004, 12:28 pm

Deward wrote: My wife and I have discussed this and we agreed that if there was anything wrong with the baby then we would not hesitate to have an abortion.

I'd like to have a choice also, but what you said reminded me about an episode of one of those baby programs on TLC.
A pregnant couple was told that an ultrasound showed a pretty large tumor. I think they were actually shown the pictures and everything. They were mulling over terminating the pregnancy but eventually decided to keep the baby and do whatever they can to fight whatever it was once the kid was born.
When the baby was finally born all the xrays and scans showed not a sign of tumor or anything else suspicious. They were so happy that they dind't give up on the baby and abort it. Truly a tearjerking program it was.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 12, 2004, 12:47 pm

i'm with you deward, i love my daughter and she is the best thing that has ever happened to me. So i am very much "pro life" in that regard.

but if we had gotten bloodwork at 20 weeks that showed neural tube defects or other markers for major birth defects, we would have terminated the pregnancy. i am very happy - by all appearances so far - that we have a perfectly healthy child.

its a tough decision, and obviously something we would not have done lightly, but if that sort of thing is illegal, does the government want to take on the cost that health insurers, employers, and families will incur to keep children with major birth defects alive?

somebody has to pay, and pay a lot. I'm not saying it should simply be an economic decision, but that factor cannot be removed from the equation in my view.

Arundel Pajo · Post by **Arundel Pajo** » February 12, 2004, 1:00 pm

Short answer: It is medically highly debatable when an embryo actually becomes "human," and, therefore, valuable. Medical science is unable to define such an embryo as being definitively human, so the only real argument here is religious. As such, it should be kept the hell away from any sort of legislation. End of story. This should not even *be* an issue. Religion has little to no place in legislation.

(I, for one, have a very hard time seeing a replicating clump of 8 or 16 undifferentiated stem cells as being my equal, but I would never dream of forcing that view on anybody else - in this country, we are free to form and act on our own spiritual beliefs.)

Before any of you get to saying that we have laws against, say, murder - murder is not the gray area that conception is. Everybody can easily see and agree on when an adult life is taken in cold blood. Faith does not come into play in this case, and therefore, it is a suitable topic for legislation. As it is scientifically debatable when human life begins in an embryo, it should be up to each individual to act in accordance with their own beliefs, and to respect the beliefs of others - up to a certain point where it can be widely agreed on that there is human life. Hell, extending the fundies' logic, they're the only ones I could see being in favor of murder. I mean, the soul is eternal, right? You didn't *really* kill them, right? Maybe that's the logic that leads them to kill abortion doctors...pity that 16-cell embryos haven't apparently developed an eternal soul, yet. Guess that comes in the thrid trimester.

I am all for people living thier lives however they deem spiritually fit. Just keep religion out of politics. Contrary to popular belief, this country was *not* founded to be a Christian state - it was founded on a platform of religious and spiritual freedom. It was intended to be at least legislatively respectful of anybody's beliefs. For a real treat sometime, look up some of Thomas Jefferson's views on religion in politics. The man was remarkably anti-church. Franklin and Washington are perhaps even better examples, both being deeply religious, but firmly believing in keeping faith out of politics.

An amusing aside, much of the religious right, and pro-life crowd in general are very much in favor of fertility clinics helping prospective parents have children. In one fell swoop, in fact, Bush cut funding for stem-cell research (and banned new lines), vocalized his opposition to abortions, and increased funding for fertility clinics - all to pander to the same voter base.

People - fertility clinics are not an exact science. You take a sample of ova from the female, and a few samples of semen from the male, and you attempt to make an embryo. Over, and over, and over, and over to increase your odds of a success. It is not at all uncommon to wind up with shelves of viable embryos so that the happy couple can keep just one.

Now, time was when these unused embryos would go towards valuable medical stem-cell research - research that has the potential to solve some of the greatest medical mysteries of our time. These days, thanks to pro-life voters and GWB, these embryos are barred from being used in research - "saved from death." Horseshit. Now, instead of being a valuable resource, they are washed down the drain like so much dishwater. So many more embryos are destroyed in fertility clinics than are in abortion clinics, it's ludicrous...but yet you still don't see people shooting fertility specialists.

Ok..damn...I ranted on too long and too broadly. And probably said some things I'll regret saying. I've been up all night, and I'm a crank - I'm entitled to put my foot in it once in a while. =P

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » February 12, 2004, 1:06 pm

I thought the supreme court had ruled that life begins when the couple decide to move to the back seat?

Arundel Pajo · Post by **Arundel Pajo** » February 12, 2004, 1:13 pm

From Roe v. Wade:

US supreme court wrote: Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

Though various state supreme courts have attempted to argue that life begins at conception.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 12, 2004, 1:55 pm

I'm with Voro and Deward. If it can be medically determined that the baby will have major problems, then certainly terminate it even on a planned pregnancy. Women with unplanned pregnancies should also have the right to terminate within reason...whatever that is...like a month or two. You can debate the time period all you want but should actually focus on reducing unplanned pregnancies.

Take away the legal way to have abortions and it will be back to the clothes hanger days.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » February 12, 2004, 1:57 pm

Arborealus wrote:I thought the supreme court had ruled that life begins when the couple decide to move to the back seat?

No, life begins when the kids move out and teh dog dies.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 12, 2004, 2:02 pm

life really begins when you figure out what your peener is

Post by **Sylvus** » February 12, 2004, 2:04 pm

"The only people against abortion have already been born."
--Sylvus

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » February 12, 2004, 2:09 pm

Robert Anton Wilson quote, Sylvus?

Post by **Sylvus** » February 12, 2004, 2:11 pm

Yessir, I suppose I should have credited it.

But I find that particular quote resonates well with me.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 12, 2004, 3:06 pm

vn_Tanc wrote:It was the Reagan quote that set me off (>_<)

Huh? That quote makes a whole hell of a lot of sense.

I see the need for pro-choice, but I think it should anly be allowed in the first tri-mester and in cases where the mother could die or suffer greatly form the birth or in cases of rape, incest, crack whore mothers, etc.

Denadeb · Post by **Denadeb** » February 12, 2004, 3:13 pm

Well posting that thought drunk probably wasn't the best idea because it sure as hell didn't come out the way it was sapposed to.

Abortion shouldn't be Illegal and it should be the parents choice up to a certain stage of the pregnancy. From that stage it should allowable if health concerns come in. I didn't mean they shouldn't be able to have an abortion if they went out one night and got pregnant. I just personally feel thats a weak excuse and boils down to not taking resonsblity for your actions nothing more. However I would still rather someone have an abortion in that case if they are not gonna take care of the child like they would need to.

Fredonia Coldheart · February 12, 2004, 4:23 pm

I have always believed the statement that if men could have babies, abortion would be a sacrament!

I know of three women who have had abortions. The first was a high school junior - much to young to have a child. Though after both her and the father graduated college, they married, had four more children, and just celebrated their 15th wedding anniversary. If the baby had been born with them that young - who knows.

The second was a college senior who got pregnant on purpose (told the father she was on birth control) to trap the father into marrying her. He was trying to leave the relationship and she tried everything to keep him - including a suicide attempt. When he finally told her he would never marry her - she had the abortion. Five months after that he finally had the courage to leave.

The third was a wife who developed complications and would have put her life and the baby's at risk if she had continued the pregnancy. It was the hardest thing they ever had to do.

I will always believe in the right to an abortion - no questions asked. Having seen firsthand the devastation that a mentally handicapped child can have on a family, when there was a chance that my second child my be born that way, I was glad I had the choice. I had every test done to determine if he would have any defects. I am happy to say I now have a healthy 3 year old son.

Seebs · Post by **Seebs** » February 12, 2004, 4:44 pm

Such heavy topics.

I left a girl after discovering she had three abortions. It comes down to decisions and this basically showed a pattern of self-loathing and really poor decision making.

personally, I have no problem with early first trimester abortion. I feel that these are just splitting cells at this point.

I feel that after the cells take human form, and you see a heart, and its beating, you have a viable human and it should be protected.

I dunno. I'm not smart enough to discuss, plus I don't have a womb. If you believe in a higher power, I feel certain that they'll mention the ramifications of abortion on your admittance application.

I just hope there isn;t a skank section to fill out.

Ennia · Post by **Ennia** » February 12, 2004, 4:53 pm

Seebs wrote:personally, I have no problem with early first trimester abortion. I feel that these are just splitting cells at this point.

I feel that after the cells take human form, and you see a heart, and its beating, you have a viable human and it should be protected.

you can see the heart and hear it beat at 6 weeks, if a woman has regular periods 6 weeks is a lot of time to figure out she might be pregnant. What if she's not regular? then the dillema starts.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » February 12, 2004, 5:22 pm

It's a woman's body. Men have absolutely no right to dictate what a woman does with her body. Personally I see men forcing women to have children as being just like rape. I may not agree with what a woman does with her body, but it's not my place to enforce something upon her.

Religious individuals may inform a woman that she's going to hell when she dies for having an abortion, but it's not their place to take their God's judgement into their own hands. And as was said before, religion belongs NOWHERE near politics and the legal system.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 12, 2004, 5:29 pm

Siji wrote:It's a woman's body. Men have absolutely no right to dictate what a woman does with her body. Personally I see men forcing women to have children as being just like rape. I may not agree with what a woman does with her body, but it's not my place to enforce something upon her.

Every society has it's laws.

Killing a baby in the womb is in a sense, a large sense, murder. There are resonable legal and societal issues to be looked into here. It's just as simple as "ITS MY BODY I CAN DO WHAT I WANT!!!".

It's bigger than that and women are going to have to suck it up, lose some of the emotion and start to think like resonable human beings.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 12, 2004, 5:36 pm

its a tough call.

if somebody assaulted my wife and that caused her pregnancy to terminate, i think that is a more serious crime than simple battery, you know?

its all very complicated

Siji · Post by **Siji** » February 12, 2004, 5:48 pm

Killing a baby in the womb is in a sense, a large sense, murder.

And it could be argued that men are murderers every day that they masterbate too. They're killing potential life right? That's all a baby is in the early stages. A potential life. If the cells can't live on their own, I'd argue that it's not a human. Are we going to next start arresting women for involuntary manslaughter if they miscarry a child? They didn't mean to kill it, but they killed another human being. Right? Or how about women on the pill.. are they murderers too? Are condoms the new weapons of mass destruction?

It's bigger than that and women are going to have to suck it up, lose some of the emotion and start to think like resonable human beings.

When you're the one being forced to carry something inside of your stomach for 9 months or so, tell me how well you kept emotion out of your life. As was said before, make abortions illegal and the death rate and injury rate of women will sky rocket. Like it or not, society has gotten a lot more promiscuous and sex is a 'matter of fact' these days. We're certainly not going to be able to turn that around, it's only getting worse. Kissing in public was a shocker in the 50's. Fucking in public these days is a spectator sport, but certainly not shocking.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 12, 2004, 6:03 pm

sex is more than a procreative act in our species.

my wife and i havent had the intention of having hundreds and hundreds of children...

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 12, 2004, 6:05 pm

And it could be argued that men are murderers every day that they masterbate too. They're killing potential life right? That's all a baby is in the early stages. A potential life.

Actually it doesn't become life until the spem and the egg get together. That is when life begins.

When you're the one being forced to carry something inside of your stomach for 9 months or so, tell me how well you kept emotion out of your life.

I'm not asking for emotion to be gone from life. A world without emotion would mean a world of machines only. No thanks. When it comes to very touchy, gigantic issues like this I think they need to remove that awful explamation, and think more sensibly is all.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 12, 2004, 6:24 pm

Seebs wrote:
I left a girl after discovering she had three abortions. It comes down to decisions and this basically showed a pattern of self-loathing and really poor decision making.

That was half your fault for not wearing a rubber Seebs!

Seebs · Post by **Seebs** » February 12, 2004, 6:28 pm

The argument that 'Its my body and I'll do as I please, while well intended, is not true in the United States.

You cannot legally drink before 21.
You cannot legally ingest 'street' drugs
You cannot drive a car without a license.
You cannot surpass posted speed limits.
You cannot have sex before a certain age legally.
Attempting suicide is illegal in certain respects.
If under 18, there are curfews in many areas where you cannot be outside.
Must be 18 to get a tattoo.
Can't see an R rated movie unsupervised until 17

Anyway, it may be your body, but there are parameters and protections on how it can and cannot be displayed, used and defiled.

Not saying I agree with these ideals one way or another, just pointing out the hole in your philosophy.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » February 12, 2004, 6:31 pm

think of this messageboard if atokal or cartalas was terminated in the womb and tell me abortion is wrong.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » February 12, 2004, 6:55 pm

What about in instances of rape? Do you think it's right for a woman to carry a child that was forced on her?

Arundel Pajo · Post by **Arundel Pajo** » February 12, 2004, 7:00 pm

Midnyte wrote:Actually it doesn't become life until the spem and the egg get together. That is when life begins.

I'm not asking for emotion to be gone from life. A world without emotion would mean a world of machines only. No thanks. When it comes to very touchy, gigantic issues like this I think they need to remove that awful explamation, and think more sensibly is all.

Midnyte wrote:Killing a baby in the womb is in a sense, a large sense, murder.

I knew it was only a matter of time before the murder card was played, hence me calling it out in my prior post.

While I agree with you 100%, Mid, that "It's my body" is flawed and simplistic logic at best (and should rightly be abandoned by reasonably intelligent people), so is the analogy to murder. To wit - until such time as doctors, theologians, religious leaders, and philosophers can roughly agree on when during gestation human life is bestowed, then the analogy to murder is specious at best. I think we can all reasonably agree that late-term abortions (barring cases of extreme risk to mother) cross the line, but we really get into a quagmire when people start discussing early and mid-term abortions.

There is no question that murdering your co-worker, for instance, is terminating a life. It's silly to argue that it's not. Thus, it is something that laws can reasonably be made to deal with.

An abortion, prior to a certain debated point in gestation, is much less clear. When religious and scientific leaders are so divided on the issue, and there is no clear consensus, then the matter largely becomes one of faith and what each individual/group believes.

As such, until such time as there *is* a consensus across the various theological and scientific boudaries, there should be no law mandating this, that, or the other where the legality of abortion is concerned. Go ahead and make it mandatory for parents to be notified for minors' abortions - that's fine (and good, too, IMO - until age of majority, the parent is the legally responsible party, and thus has a right to know). Just don't mandate the illegality of the procedure itself yet. Matters of faith and religion are not matters of state. Somebody find me *one* instance in history when, after science and religion butted heads, religion was proven in the long term to be in the right. In order to be a law, it needs to be more than just faith. It needs to be fact.

Now, if 20 years down the line medical science and theology advance to the point where a clear bulk of the population can look at a pregnancy and say, "yup, we agree - that there is life...right here, at this particular point," then legislate the shit out of it. At that point, the murder analogy is valid, but not until. Until then it's valid only on a personal level, as a matter of personal faith and belief.

I respect people that view life as starting when sperm and egg meet. That is a sacred belief to them, and they are entitled to it, as they are entitled to live their lives accordingly. Myself, I believe life as we experience it happens somewhere further down the road. Formation of a zygote, morula, gastrula, blastula, etc...is a biochemical reaction that takes place when two compatible haploid gametes meet. It's life on the cellular level, yes, but I could say the same for every cell in my body. There's something else...something intagible that happens at a vague point of time in the womb. Until we advance to the point where that vagueness is clarified, then we should leave it a matter of personal faith and choice.

Seebs · Post by **Seebs** » February 12, 2004, 7:00 pm

That was half your fault for not wearing a rubber Seebs!

Winnow you bastard!!

If that person was me, I'd have three kids .. all probably would have 666 on their scalp somewhere, but I'd have kids none the less.

No three abortions, same guy.

Deward · Post by **Deward** » February 12, 2004, 7:08 pm

Winnow wrote:Take away the legal way to have abortions and it will be back to the clothes hanger days.

I have an aunt-in-law that had a back alley abortion in the sixties and was never able to have children afterwards. I would much rather have it legal and supervised by professional doctors.

Post by **Sylvus** » February 12, 2004, 7:24 pm

Oh Arundel, when are you and your "forward-thinking" bretheren going to realize that we aren't made out of cells, that's just cockamamie gibberish spouted by so-called "scientists" in an effort to support their preposterous notions of evolution.

Any reasonable person can quite clearly see that a human life has begun the moment God wills it, and a man achieving erection is the sign that He has willed it. At that point, spilling the seed on the ground is equivalent to murder.

Right then and there you have a viable human life that is capable of existing outside of the womb, the nine month "gestation" as you like to call it is quite simply a period of preparation for the parents to begin getting ready to raise their child according to His will.

My actual stance on abortion is that you should try to avoid abortions on viable human beings, but that point isn't until after they are capable of living without relying on their mother's systems to deliver food and oxygen. So I guess you could say that I don't really dig on third trimester abortions, but first trimester is simply a growing cluster of cells.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 12, 2004, 7:41 pm

if you were wondering when a fetus is viable, it is 22-25 weeks gestational age if you have access to a large degree of medical technology. Surfractants to coat the lungs so that the alveoli can accept oxygen, most likely respirator to pump the lungs, and probably a feeding tube as well. not to mention a hospital with a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. think 25 weeks born in a hospital with a NICU and access to the technology.

they don't survive before 22 weeks at all.

This is an "extremely premature birth", and if the baby survives, it has substantial risks for long term chronic conditions, learning disabilities, etc. I have a neighbor whose twins were born at 28 weeks and one died. My twin nephews were born at 30 weeks and one was in NICU for 6 weeks after birth and had to have a heart monitor on for 6 months after birth when you fed him.

37 weeks is the breakoff point for "premature". but if you want to know when one is viable without substantial medical intercession, it is probably on average 34+?

Vailex Darkfury · Post by **Vailex Darkfury** » February 12, 2004, 7:55 pm

all hail the Spider Queen!

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » February 13, 2004, 7:26 am

Actually it doesn't become life until the spem and the egg get together. That is when life begins.

That's an arbitrary statement.

Again all I see is angry men in favour of "pro-life" directing their bile and bullshit at the women of the world. And the ladies here taking the more pragmatic and balanced view.

I take the view that until the foetus can survive birth unaided it's ok for a woman to choose termination for any reason. But then I believe women are rational creatures (not a popular view here it seems) and abortions are sufficiently unpleasant as to be their own deterrent. After that I'd prefer to restrict it to medically sound reasons such as severe defects or threat to life. There isn't really any need to defer a voluntary termination until that late anyway.