Abortion

[filburt1]

Yet another controversial thread that Kovan is sure to piss somebody off in. That's why I'll only vote, not reply.

I'd be interested to see Katie's opinion. After all, she is a woman with kids...

[chrismitchell]

Personally I feel that it is the parents decision not any one elses.. also if it is a rape case then it is the mothers choice as she will have to look after the rapists baby... which could be bad....

[filburt1]

FYI, everyone, by accident I mean by not wearing protection, not thinking about the reprocussions beforehand, etc.

[CiberTHuG]

I can't vote in this... but regardless of my personal opinion, regardless of anyone's personal opinion, it is a very grave injustice for the federal government to take any measure to ban abortion. This country was not set up so the will off majority can crush the beliefs of the minority. Individual states may take whatever measures their communities deem appropriate, but the federal government should not allow itself to be tyrannical.

Thank you.

[filburt1]

Hey, that's the viewpoint of many women, apparently. But of course, there are a whole bunch of (please don't flame me!) extreme Christians and other religions that say "no way" to abortion. But then again, that would be the Church interferring with the State, something strictly forbidden in the Constitution.

[filburt1]

Originally posted by CiberTHuG
I can't vote in this...

You don't have to be female to vote, silly. I voted and I'm a 16 year old male.

[CiberTHuG]

It has nothing to do with the church interferring with the state. It is just the idea of people of a like mind living together. The federal government shouldn't bar gambling. Individual states should do that if and when their population wants to.

Which means, if you want to gamble, you can live with others who want to gamble. The federal government was not supposed to regulate this. It was set up to help for common defense and interstate commerce. The federal government can say "no gambling across state lines".

And I can't vote not because I'm male, but because any lot I cast will be that of hypocrite (sp?).

[filburt1]

Gambling increases crime, as it is likely that you will lose money (and so much that you have to resort to crime). I don't see the thread on society of having abortions...

[CiberTHuG]

Fil, you can't see the forest for the trees.

You can't see the precident for the issues. It doesn't matter what the issue is, abortion, gambling, what color you paint your house, the federal government was not set up to regulate any of this. You and your community have to decide. And people with a like mind should live together.

If you don't like gambling, then don't live in Nevada. But don't ask the federal government to make it illegal because you think it is bad. That is wrong, selfish, and conceited.

It is the same with abortion. I don't care if you hate it. I don't care if it is wrong, it is not the federal government's job to intervene. Each community can decide for itself. Each state can decide for itself.

If you disagree, then fine. Find some dictatorship and make yourself at home. I understand there is a party in Cuba right now, have fun.

[HarryW]

I agree with most of what CiberTHuG says here in principle - even though I don't live in the US I can see the idea - but the thread is supposed to be on personal opinion.

[filburt1]

I am for abortion.

[filburt1]

Who voted for 4?

[Beacon]

Depend what you mean by abortion?

I mean it legal up here in oz to have an abortion within 12weeks(or around then) of conception!
But not after!

Which seems a very good law!
Why?
Well if a girl gets raped she'll usually know about it especially within 12 weeks and can have it removed.
If it was an accident same thing!

After 12 weeks is considered illegal because of the stage it is at.
I think, i'm not up to date here!

[AgentBxb]

Same in Canada you have three months to have an abortion after that they won't do it and can be dangerous for a mother to abort... but everybody has a right to do with as they please with there own body... besides think of the children I wouldn't want to be brought up by parents who didn't want me who would of had an abortion if the could have... Besides we already have an overpopulation problem on this planet... Sure there are alternatives like adoption but after a mother has a baby it pretty hard for her to give it up and then there is less chance for her to do the other things in life like finish schooling if she young to be able to better provide for her baby in the future when she decides she is ready... Here in Canada Health care pays for these abortions though so there should be a 2 strike system first abortion is free everybody makes mistakes... Second time you should have a choice either keep the baby and use alternates methods like adoption or have the abortion but you have to have your tubes tides because you are abusing the system... Otherwise go and pay for it yourself and have as many abortions as you want but they say after your second abortion your chances of concieving again are greatly reduced... but anyways just my 2 cents and I voted for the first choice...

[kovan]

I will try to not piss anyone off
but i definately will reply

i musta really musta pissed honeybee off
i guess thats what happens when you no longer can keep up with a discussion and not say things that someone can turn around and slap you with themm
but n e whoz thats another story


i voted for 4, i felt that others dont justify what i wanted to say
so here is what i want to say

In Case Of Rape:

Abortion is upto the girl with conditions that the fetus does not pass a certain point
and this certain point should be defined by the community
or a international human right group
(given that they at least give it enough time so that the pregnancy is known before this point)

In any other case that lets the 2 parties have control
no excuse, tough
you decide to have sex, you deal with the choice you have made

[JungleMan]

I don't see why the damn government is getting into what women want to do...

[FATBOYPEE]

Seems like this thread is confusing what is Law, and who makes the Law with a personal opinion upon whether or not you beleive Abortion to be ethically & morally acceptabel and if so, under what circumstances.

For wat its worth on the first point:

Who makes your laws ?

If you don't like gambling, then don't live in Nevada. But don't ask the federal government to make it illegal because you think it is bad. That is wrong, selfish, and conceited.

It is the same with abortion. I don't care if you hate it. I don't care if it is wrong, it is not the federal government's job to intervene. Each community can decide for itself. Each state can decide for itself.

Before you get to the dizzy heights of accepting to live somewhere/with people etc who feel the same as you do about something, first you must reach the point that the law has been made to which you either adhere, or vehemently oppose.

Therefore my question is simple:

Who made the Law in the first place ?

We all trust in our respective governments to do what is right by us. Sometimes/often, by our personal standpoint , they screw it up. I don't agree that it's wrong to ask a government to change a law. I don't think it's conceited, selfish or bad, if enough of us want to change a law and make that request, , then a majority consensus should prevail and that law should be changed. It is the job of the government to make the laws on behalf of those they represent considering all views and standpoints (I'm not naieve enough to say this happens all the time !!!!), therefore it is their duty and their right to intervene should the majority require them to do so. That's democracy. If we really don't like the laws & decisions they make, whell hey, vote them out !

Second Point:

Is it ethically or morally right to allow abortion, if so, at what point ?

This really really is an emotive subject and calls directly upon a persons moral, religious, emotional and ethical postion, no to mention their personal circumstance.

But what, by law should be allowed (if anything) ?
For my money, I believe in the sanctity of human life, where cognitive response indicates the presence of a life can be emotive, it is considered by some that even pre-12 weeks the foetus responds at an individual level. I am in no position being male to author my opinion on what anyone should do, or decree what absolute should be law. I would say though, that the 12 week rule in OZ & Canada seem alot more humane than those in other places. I do feel though that if a society is to allow abortion, then there must be a law to govern how, when, where & by whom it is conducted.

FBP

[HarryW]

I am in no position being male to author my opinion on what anyone should do

This is not a female issue, it's a human issue. Sure, you're never going to need to have an abortion personally but you're just as entitled to an opinion on what your society should do about it as anyone else.

[kovan]

Originally posted by HarryW
This is not a female issue, it's a human issue. Sure, you're never going to need to have an abortion personally but you're just as entitled to an opinion on what your society should do about it as anyone else.

If your the father of the child, regardless of the circumstances on how the child got there
you might have a say in the aborting of the fetus

my personal opinion on this whole new technology and the age of science is making us some what immoral(if you dont like that word, use unethical)

[FATBOYPEE]

Ok, you're right, I should have an opinion upon what my society should do, however, to me, the issue is split between morality & ethicacy & the emotional impact that being permitted and , able to make the decision to have an abortion have on a woman. Being male I can only make my opinions known on the former.

The latter part (assuming you accept this premise) to me is as strong, if not stronger a standpoint, one I can only try and imagine.

To make the point more clear.

It is now law that abortion is legal in most western societies, that law empowers a woman to avail of that right. It does not stand in moral judgement of her in making that decision, it does not ask 'why', or enforce conditions other than legality of term.

The question as to whether any society can, or should now remove that right is one for debate. That debate is best served by consideration from all areas of community, whereas I do feel that men have the right to an opinion as members of that community, I still feel that the rights of the woman over her own body, under current application of the Abortion law is more important a consideration.

Though I also also have reservations as to the implications of such a law for myself.

But it's all a question of degrees for me at least. Where do we stop ? A more important question for me would be: Human Embryo research ? Lets ask that question:

if a woman reserves the right to terminate a pregnancy, why shouldn't that embryo be used for testing, if that embryo, being terminated, is not considered human life yet ???????

Geee that should liven this up......!

[CiberTHuG]

Originally posted by FATBOYPEE
Who made the Law in the first place ?

We all trust in our respective governments to do what is right by us. Sometimes/often, by our personal standpoint , they screw it up. I don't agree that it's wrong to ask a government to change a law. I don't think it's conceited, selfish or bad, if enough of us want to change a law and make that request, , then a majority consensus should prevail and that law should be changed. It is the job of the government to make the laws on behalf of those they represent considering all views and standpoints (I'm not naieve enough to say this happens all the time !!!!), therefore it is their duty and their right to intervene should the majority require them to do so. That's democracy. If we really don't like the laws & decisions they make, whell hey, vote them out !

Fatboy, it is a matter of jurisdiction. You and your community need to decide this. Your city, your county, maybe even your state. But this is not a matter for a federal law. Using gambling as an example. If it was voted for on a national level, it would be illegal, nation wide. Now why are you going to be so arrogant as to force the idependent state of Nevada to bend to your selfish whim?

It is a matter of civics. Most people in this country think the civil war was fought because of slavery. It was fought because of state's rights. Slavery was the vehicle the federalists used to force their opinion on the states.

'Course, the federal government was two-faced. If they were going to make slavery a national issue, then they needed to stick to the few national laws. In other words, every man should have a vote, even the blacks. The federal government was just as racist, but they weren't agri based, so they could get over the loss of slaves. They had no desire to make them equal citizens, so they only gave them an eight of a vote (or maybe it was three eighths).

Point is... if the federal government steps in to ban abortion, then they have to go all the way. They have to stick to the consitution, and they have to give that fetus full human rights. Which may be fine, I'm not saying it isn't. But there are complications. Preganant mothers can now drive in the HOV lanes alone. Anyone who kills a pregnant mother is guilty of double homicide, even if he didn't realize she was pregnant. Healthcare must cover the mother and child seperately, not the pregnant mother as one person. The list goes on.

As to the civil war. Well, the independent states who felt strong enough about it should've declared open war on the slave states. The federal government shouldn't've gotten involved unless they were prepared to give every man a vote.

[HarryW]

Ciber, you live in a republic, we live in a democracy. We don't have state laws in the same ways you do. Or at least if we do I had no idea.

In the case of the US perhaps you are right. The UK doesn't work like that though.

[FATBOYPEE]

Yep, concept of Law in the UK is rather one dimensional really, Federal boundaries etc arent really an issue, still, Ciber, if you say the list goes on, what is the feeling about the question I posted as part of th my last post ? Federality or not, Law wasn't really the point of the original post was it ?????

FbP

[Guv]

If your the father of the child, regardless of the circumstances on how the child got there you might have a say in the aborting of the fetus.

I have seen the above opinion expressed many times and consider it invalid.

If I got some woman pregnant, it would not be me that would carry the embryo for nine months and go through labor. Even if we were in a committed relationship, it would probably be her, not me, who would provide most of the child care effort (at least in the first 2-3 years).

The roles of the male and female are just not equal when it comes to pregnancy and child rearing. Therefore, the male is entitled to no rights in the matter of abortion. I think the woman should show courteously and respect for his opinion, allowing him to express it. Then she has the right to make up her own mind.

A male not in a committed relationship does not even have the right to express his opinion.

BTW: I prefer the terms ethical/uneithical rather than moral/immoral. The latter suggest some particular theology, while the former suggest a concept related to the nature of human beings and their society.

[HarryW]

Everyone has a right to express their opinion. In my opinion anyway

I agree that it shouldn't be any man's decision whether a woman has an abortion or not, but if you're talking about people having opinions on the ethics of abortion in general, I don't see why the subject should be limited to only women's opinions. For individual cases, though, clearly it's the individual's issue.

[CiberTHuG]

Originally posted by HarryW
Ciber, you live in a republic, we live in a democracy. We don't have state laws in the same ways you do. Or at least if we do I had no idea.

In the case of the US perhaps you are right. The UK doesn't work like that though.

Yeah, sorry. I didn't notice that Fatboy wasn't in the States. He was just responding to something I said. But yes, my rants are localized to America. I'm not taking a side on whether or not abortion should be legal. I'm taking a stand on which governing body should react.

As to the UK being a democracy. It is just as much as Republic as America is. The difference being our National government is a Federation of Republics. The UK is a single Republic (with a Symbolic, Theocratic Monarchy). You only have to vote for one governing body, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. We have to vote for two congresses, State and National. That is if the State is itself a Republic. That is the case by and large, but not a requirement.

You know... on a complete tangent... I would love to push the American or EC idea to a global level. Have a single government overseeing serveral seperate governments. You would have to draw the distinctions between the local and global more harshly than they are here. If two nation-states want to go to war, that is acceptable, but the global nation will arbitrate that confict. Any failure to do so is like breaking from the union, and should be dealt with accordingly.

Anyway... I imagine Earth will find itself so small one day that something like that happens. In the mean time there has to be a viable global economy.

[HarryW]

The UK is a republic? That's news to me

[CiberTHuG]

Well, as I understand it, a Republic is a Representative Democracy. Since you don't vote personally on every point of order, you have representatives to do that, then yes, it is (as far as I know) a Republic.

There are no Democracies on Earth. Well, none on a national level. There are also no national Communisms on Earth. There are (and were) Socialist nations that were called Communist, but they varied just slightly. Cuba is more appropriately called a Socialist Dictatorship.

[nabeels786]

i think it should only be done if the woman life was in danger (like she could die from the pregnancy), or if she was raped.

otherwise, she chose to have sex(or whatever she was doing to get pregnant), knowing the concequences.

[kovan]

Originally posted by Guv
I have seen the above opinion expressed many times and consider it invalid.

If I got some woman pregnant, it would not be me that would carry the embryo for nine months and go through labor. Even if we were in a committed relationship, it would probably be her, not me, who would provide most of the child care effort (at least in the first 2-3 years).

The roles of the male and female are just not equal when it comes to pregnancy and child rearing. Therefore, the male is entitled to no rights in the matter of abortion. I think the woman should show courteously and respect for his opinion, allowing him to express it. Then she has the right to make up her own mind.

A male not in a committed relationship does not even have the right to express his opinion.

BTW: I prefer the terms ethical/uneithical rather than moral/immoral. The latter suggest some particular theology, while the former suggest a concept related to the nature of human beings and their society.

I believe the male should have a say
even if the woman doesnt want to even concider his say

case:

if i got a girl pregnant, and i really want to take care of the child,
i believe that i should have a say weather that child is terminated or not

and vise versa
if i dont want the child (this is where i REALLY think the male should have a say and his say should be equal to of the womans)
she might carry the baby for 9 months, and the first few years
but the male has to pay childsupport, time for the kid, etc
so if the male doesnt want the child due to financial reasons because he cant afford it, then the woman cant and shouldnt decide for both of them

unless they agree that he will have NOTHING to do with the child when its born

to sum my opinion up in short
i am up for life, abortion is a easy way out for those that make bad decisions, and a life is destoryed because of that

[filburt1]

Originally posted by kovan


I believe the male should have a say
even if the woman doesnt want to even concider his say

case:

if i got a girl pregnant, and i really want to take care of the child,
i believe that i should have a say weather that child is terminated or not

I think you should have thought about the reprocussions beforehand.

[kovan]

i was only using me as an example so i dont piss anyone off

i feel that if 2 people make a choice and decide to phuck
they should bare with the conciecouncess
abortion is a easy way out for these people and it should in my opinion be stopped

[filburt1]

Please, watch your language...

[kovan]

oh ya
forgot
my apologies to you fillburt, i will keep adding words to my list that you find unapproperiate, and i will definately make an effort not to use those words in threads you post

[filburt1]

Thanks.

[kovan]

anything for filly

[filburt1]

[nabeels786]

lol. i agree with filburt. they decided to do it.

[CiberTHuG]

I do want to say two things...

If you've never had to make the decision, it is entirely different. Count yourself lukcy.

I've known someone who died from a blood clot that formed from a D&E abortion. Imagine how many dead people you would know if the procedure were only practiced underground.

My other advice is... instead of working to remove options for expecting mothers (making abortion illegal) how about work to give expecting mothers more choices, like streamline adoption, reducing social stigma, helping with the price of prenatal and neonatal care. Just a thought.

[CiberTHuG]

Originally posted by kovan
if i got a girl pregnant, and i really want to take care of the child,
i believe that i should have a say weather that child is terminated or not

What is the saying? Possession is nine tenths of the law?