(Moved from Tinker DG) Abortion

[Desiree]

haha, one of my friend's mom would smoke and drink whens he ws pregnant, all it did ws give her child an attitude and a taste for cigarrettes and alchohol ::)

[eclipse0]

well, you have to remember that theres a lot of pain involved in childbirth.

 

i dont know if there is, or how much pain is involved in abortion, but its most likely less than in full childbirth.

 

I'm sure there is less pain endured through an abortion than through childbirth.  There are other risks which go along with abortions though that aren't always talked about.  Once you have one, it mayincrease your chance of having a miscarriage once you do decide you want a child.  I say 'may' because there hasn't been a sufficient study yet to convince either way, but the testimonials I've read/heard were enough for me.

 

not to mention it means things like you cant drink alcohol or smoke, and after a short while it becomes a physical emcumberance.

 

Yes, and where we disagree on this point will be here.  If you made the choice to be sexually active, you take the risk of getting pregnant and I feel there's a responsibility there to accept the consequences of you're actions.  I no you don't believe in that responsibility because it's a moral one and you don't recognize the existence of 'true morality'.

 

say 3 months without that being an affect, that means 6 months of a rather debilitation condition.

 

rather unfair, no?

 

I feel it's rather unfair and selfish to terminate a developing being because you don't want to bother with the responsibility of the consequences of your own actions.  Just to clarify, this post is written giving exception of termination for health reasons as in my preious post.

[Simon the half-demon]

yeah, i think weve reached the point where all the facts are out and the only thing left is too leave it up to people to declare its selfish, despite its only as selfish as everything else, which i could justify, but i think ive gone into that before, or to think that abortion is aceptable.

 

and once again, taking the 'risk' of getting pregnant is hardly fair, its like saying to someone;

 

heres something you really, really want, and the longer you dont have it the more youl want it, but if you take it, theres a percentage chance i might kick you in the head repeatedly.

 

also, that doesent take into account nyphomaniacs and similar, and you can argue they dont have much of a choice.

 

but if they dont have a choice, so abortion would be acceptable for them, why does it matter if someone who doesent have a choice aborts? its the same thing, but with two closer examples it looks close enough for people to think about.

[eclipse0]

Yeah, no one ever said life's choices were going to be easy.  There are always things you can do to decrease the chances of pregnancy.

 

Nymphomania is a psychological disorder.  It's an addiction similar to gambling and requires therapy.  The body may actually have a physical dependency on the endorphines released during the act. This could qualify as a medical excuse.

[Simon the half-demon]

ah, but that basically means they go through far more discomfort when refraining from sex.

 

in that case youd have to define where the discomfort becomes 'mild enough' that abortion wouldent be allowed. but then people lower than the barrier would complain, because that makes anyone above the discomfort barrier has an advantage, since it doesent just even it up.

 

you see, anyone above that barrier, would then get to have sex as much as they like, and abortion would be fine. however anyone below would most likely have to limit their amount of sex.

 

which as you can see, is a clear advantage to the one side. you think people would be happy with that?

[eclipse0]

No, they don't have to get sex whenever they want.  It's an addiction that can be overcome.  I said they may have a physical dependency, though it's still considered a psychological condition which, with treatment, can be overcome.

[Simon the half-demon]

i never said it was a physical dependancy, but its hard for them to abstain, yes?

[eclipse0]

Doesn't mean that they shouldn't abstain.  Believe it or not, it's better for their condition the longer they abstain.

[Simon the half-demon]

thats immaterial, its still an advantage

[eclipse0]

You see it as an advantage, it's not from there perspective or anybody's perspective who understands the disorder. Nymphomaniacs don't have sex for the same reason you do. It's not because they enjoy it and find it gratifying.

[Simon the half-demon]

regardless, people will still see it as such.

[Desiree]

umm... you guys are really weird, ya know that? you've changed discussion topics >.>

 

and I'm not sure it's such a good thing

[eclipse0]

No we haven't the base argument is still there, whether or not abortion should be acceptable as a whole, and nymphomania was being considered as an acception

[Talya]

I don't think that we have the right to dictate to every women whether she should carry a baby full term or not. At the end of the day it is her body and her dicision and they have the right to choose. The issues over whether to have a child or not, are not as cut and dried as it suggests and there can be so many different reasons for someone not wishing to have that child. How can anyone sit in judgement and say that one reason is better than another. So No I'm against a ban.

 

On a personal note, however, I would never have an abortion, I don't even know if I could have it done if I had been raped. Depsite the fact I went through 3 hellish months before the birth of my daughter and a few years of problems afterwards, I would still go through that rather than abort a child. However, what right do I have to inflict my opinion on others and decide for others what they should do.

[eclipse0]

The issue I have with that argument is that it's not just her body. There is another individual involved who has no voice of their own. In my opinion, if it illegal to abandon a child in an ally one second after birth, then we shouldn't abandon them before birth either.

 

The arguing on behalf of those who cannot defend their own civil rights is close to home for me.  My mother is a nurse at an agency which houses and takes care of the developmentally disabled.  Some of them are cannot speak and therefore cannot communicate when they are in pain or any other reason for that matter. She has been advocating on their behalf for decades and I have been advocating for the unborn for just as long.

 

I am not one of those fanatics who get in peoples faces and parade around with pictures of aborted fetuses. I just like to inform people of the real facts and my own point of view and hope they agree with me on their own recognizance. If not, what will be, will be.

[Talya]

I do not believe it is something that should be able to happen easily, I believe over here it requires two medical doctors to agree to ir before it can happen, and only then before 24 weeks (though it may have changed to one doctor.) I would like to to see this stricter and the latest time this can be arried out earlier. Like I said before I don't think it is easy for anyone to decide what is a good reason and what is not. You either have to ban it altogether, or not, there is no inbetween because who will decide what is a good excuse to carry it out and what is not, that is what I'm trying to say. Some of the reasons can be so complicated, that each should be viewed on it's own merit.

 

I agree that those that cannot defend their own human rights should have them defend at every opportunity, and I disagree with aborting a baby at 24 weeks, having seen my sister in law give birth to a 23 week old baby girl (sadly she didn't make it longer than 10 days). As I said before I think this should be a lot stricter.

 

I just don't want to see a total ban on this, that would then lead to back street abortionist, where a bottle of gin and coat hangar surficed.

 

If I ever decide to have another child again, or if something happened and I found myself pregnant, I still wouldn't abort it, despite the fact I know I could spend the majourity of the pregnancy in a wheel chair, and maybe for while after too. There maybe some who could not cope with this, so should they be forced to go ahead with it.

[eclipse0]

You're absolutely right, who's to decide where to draw the line? It's not an easy task, by any means.  There will always be people who won't  be happy with any sort of a compromise. There are absolutists on both sides of the argument, but until humanity as a whole can learn to put anger aside when dealing with such issues, harmony will be hard to come by.

[Talya]

I totally agree, but will that ever happen?

 

[eclipse0]

One can only hope.

[Talya]

True, and one day it may happen..

[Desiree]

OK, I actually learned of a new process watching CSI the other day. My reason for being against the ban was because I thought later I might not have a choice. I ws born with gastrocesis, where my insides were on the out. Now, everything isn't where it's supposed to be and I don't know if it'd be safe (or even possible) for me to carry a baby to full term without permanent damage to myself.

 

but I may be against a ban, but I still wouldn't get an abortion - I'd get a surrogate to carry my baby to full term for me. This process takes the fetus out of the mother's womb and places it in another woman's womb. The baby is then given back at birth. So no forced abortion, and no ban for me!

[Simon the half-demon]

i agree mostly with talya.

 

once again, i re-iterate i think that if someone thinks abortions are wrong, then that person doesent have one, simple.

 

however, im VERY much against choice being taken away from people. even if the choice doesent affect me, in most cases i still think there is absolutely no reason why we should be able to force other people to conform to what WE believe.

 

name something you think is perfectly aceptable, but others dont. its the amish that dislike technology, right?

 

wouldent you be annoyed if suddenly they managed to force their believes in place and all technology was banned?

 

its the SAME principle.

 

just because any amount of people think its right doesent make it so.

 

and having seen that thing about the people that cant communicate, i will say im for euthinasia, but i dont think people should be euthenized unless they can communicate that they wish so, or that they made it clear that should they be in such a position they would want it to happen.

 

now, ultimatly if they ban it and it never affects me, i can cope, because its not my problem, simply put. i only care about 'ethics' in the sense that they dont cost me. if it was not going to inconvienience me either way, i have 'moral' standing points. and i put ethics and moral in ' ' because things arent ethical or moral just because people believe in them. argue as much as you want about there being the potential to assue that they are eclipse, as i know thats what you believe, but even you admit that there is nothing that makes it so, just what humans feel, and that doesent make it a physical absolute, just a concept.

 

however, on the 'ethical' issues, why is it fair that people can push there views on others? its not. nothing gives them a right to. however nothing gives the people a right to not be pushed on. no such thing as rights. all there ever really is, is powerful people and manipulation. all there ever will be too. its a sorry state of affairs but thats how humans work

[eclipse0]

I don't think I've had enough caffeine yet to understand what you just said...

[Simon the half-demon]

dear god, you havent had your caffeine fix??

 

O_O

 

*caffeine syringe*

 

crisis averted!

[Desiree]

that's funny. I understood him. but I have no comment that I havent' already stated *nods*