Blarghagh Posted August 27, 2006 Share Posted August 27, 2006 No, I'm pretty sure it's not anti-abortion. It just means that you shouldn't abort a child you would normally have if not for the chance that it will have (a) handicap(s) because you could be aborting the next Beethoven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted August 27, 2006 Share Posted August 27, 2006 I think that that is the point. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> no, i think the point is that you shouldn't commit abortion because you could be aborting the next beethoven. taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blarghagh Posted August 27, 2006 Share Posted August 27, 2006 NO. It doesn't pass judgement on that AT ALL. It's just a commentary on the reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Checkpoint Posted August 27, 2006 Share Posted August 27, 2006 I think you're kinda splitting hairs, TN. ^Yes, that is a good observation, Checkpoint. /God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted August 28, 2006 Share Posted August 28, 2006 No, I'm pretty sure it's not anti-abortion. It just means that you shouldn't abort a child you would normally have if not for the chance that it will have (a) handicap(s) because you could be aborting the next Beethoven. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> no, really, this is one of the arguments the pro-life proponents use. i've seen this same silly logic in other "pamphlets" released by extreme right christian organizations... same message, different clothing. taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted August 28, 2006 Share Posted August 28, 2006 (edited) I still like to know how the hell can they think they have the right to dictate and regulate a woman's reproductive system. What sort of malfunction is going on in there telling them that they should be able to tell someone what they can and cannot do with their own body. Edited August 28, 2006 by Judge Hades Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted August 28, 2006 Share Posted August 28, 2006 Because the argument is that they are no longer just affecting their own body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted August 28, 2006 Share Posted August 28, 2006 It is still their body. End of discusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted August 28, 2006 Share Posted August 28, 2006 Is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted August 28, 2006 Share Posted August 28, 2006 Is it? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Are you saying a woman shouldn't have control over her own body while the man can just because of physiological differences? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted August 28, 2006 Share Posted August 28, 2006 (edited) Is it? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Are you saying a woman shouldn't have control over her own body while the man can just because of physiological differences? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's not what I asked or said in any way at all. I commented that "the argument is that they are no longer just affecting their own body." To which you replied "It is still their body. End of discusion." I'm not sure where I made any comments about whether or not woman should have control over her own body while the man can just because of physiological differences. Edited August 28, 2006 by alanschu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted August 28, 2006 Share Posted August 28, 2006 A woman's physiology allows her to have babies while a man's doesn't in case you didn't notice. That is the point. Just because a woman can get pregnant pro-lifers wish to eliminate a woman's right to control her own reproductive system. They may say its to protect the "life" of the unborn child but it is control that is the issue here. Who should be allowed to control the woman's reproductive system? Government or the individual woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted August 28, 2006 Share Posted August 28, 2006 A woman's physiology allows her to have babies while a man's doesn't in case you didn't notice. That is the point. Just because a woman can get pregnant pro-lifers wish to eliminate a woman's right to control her own reproductive system. They may say its to protect the "life" of the unborn child but it is control that is the issue here. Who should be allowed to control the woman's reproductive system? Government or the individual woman. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm pretty sure physiology is not the correct word here. I think you're also making to sweeping of a generalization. Is it that farfetched that some people may actually think that the unborn fetus is now a human life, and should be protected like any human life? In any case, you're dodging the question I asked. Is it really still just the woman's body when there is an unborn fetus in the body. You're trying to blow the issue up, but that's not what I asked. You made a point about how you thought it was absurd that people felt they could "control" a woman's reproductive system, and I stated that some argue that they are no longer controlling just their own body. To which you replied (rather matter of factly) that it was, "end of discussion." Are they really just affecting their own body if they are pregnant? That's what I'm asking. I have said nothing about control over the reproductive systems of men and women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted August 28, 2006 Share Posted August 28, 2006 Cf.: murder (as the pro-lifer lobby are want to do): if some person ends the life of another, it is murder (unlawful killing / manslaughter / whatever terminology); that is what the extremists are analogizing. In the case of a capital crime, people are quite prepared to limit the freedoms of other people. NB I have stated no support for either side in this statement; it is merely to assist in clarifiying the two sides. OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted August 28, 2006 Share Posted August 28, 2006 I have not stated that I am on a side either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted August 28, 2006 Share Posted August 28, 2006 (edited) Well, I am squarely on the Pro-Choice side of things mainly because this is a woman's issue and it is the woman's body and not mine nor any man's. It is an issue that needs to be decided by a woman on a case by case basis based on how they, as individuals, view life. Since I, nor any other man, can get pregnant we men need to stay out of it. As for the life of a fetus I have already stated my views on what I consider a human being in another thread and til that point in a person's development he or she is just another animal, no different from any other primate. An unborn should have no rights that supercedes that of the mother. Edited August 28, 2006 by Judge Hades Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Checkpoint Posted August 28, 2006 Share Posted August 28, 2006 You make it sound like men have sex and women deal with the consequences. You also make it sound as though a woman loses a limb in an abortion when the bigger issue (to the vast majority which I shan't pretend you represent) is that you take a life. At what stage and in what circumstances does life become something untouchable? That seems to be the big issue to me. ^Yes, that is a good observation, Checkpoint. /God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted August 28, 2006 Share Posted August 28, 2006 Aye, there's the rub. OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krookie Posted August 28, 2006 Author Share Posted August 28, 2006 You make it sound like men have sex and women deal with the consequences. You also make it sound as though a woman loses a limb in an abortion when the bigger issue (to the vast majority which I shan't pretend you represent) is that you take a life. At what stage and in what circumstances does life become something untouchable? That seems to be the big issue to me. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hypethically speaking, with one abortion you could wipe out an infinite number of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosbjerg Posted August 28, 2006 Share Posted August 28, 2006 Hypethically speaking, with one abortion you could wipe out an infinite number of people. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> or save an infinite amount.. who knows.. I would like to state that I definitely support pro-choice.. But I would prefer women to give their babies up for adoption, if they themselves feel they are unfit to raise children or provide a proper home. Fortune favors the bald. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted August 28, 2006 Share Posted August 28, 2006 Well, I am squarely on the Pro-Choice side of things mainly because this is a woman's issue and it is the woman's body and not mine nor any man's. It is an issue that needs to be decided by a woman on a case by case basis based on how they, as individuals, view life. Since I, nor any other man, can get pregnant we men need to stay out of it. As for the life of a fetus I have already stated my views on what I consider a human being in another thread and til that point in a person's development he or she is just another animal, no different from any other primate. An unborn should have no rights that supercedes that of the mother. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What about women that are against abortion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted August 28, 2006 Share Posted August 28, 2006 Then that is their choice not to have abortion then but their choice should not interfere with the choice of women who do want an abortion. Like I said it should be handled on a one on one basis. A woman who chooses not to have an aborion made a choiced based on her own morals and should conduct herself as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 Then that is their choice not to have abortion then but their choice should not interfere with the choice of women who do want an abortion. Like I said it should be handled on a one on one basis. A woman who chooses not to have an aborion made a choiced based on her own morals and should conduct herself as such. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You essentially said that it's an attempt by men to control the reproductive organs of women. How does this explain the women that want abortion made illegal? This all started because you are curious why people think that they can tell someone what they can and cannot do to their own body. Is it so fantastic to think that just maybe some of these people feel it includes more than the woman's body. As for a case by case basis, there are many "pro-lifers" that understand that there may be situations that call for an abortion. A great many of them are willing to allow abortions in these situations. Why do you think it should be handled on a case by case basis. Your argument seems to be indicating that you should allow it, no questions asked. What's the point of looking at it on a case by case basis, when you seem quite adamant that it's the woman's body and what she wants to do with it she can. I don't understand the need for a case by case basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 Case by case? All I am saying that it should be up to the individual woman if she has an abortion or not. That is all. One woman who finds abortion abhorent will choose to carry the child to term while another woman who does not want to go through that ordeal can have the abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Checkpoint Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 It is an issue that needs to be decided by a woman on a case by case basis based on how they, as individuals, view life. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> " ^Yes, that is a good observation, Checkpoint. /God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts