So you think the US is in a moral downfall....

Darth Fierce: I think since the woman will be responsible for raising the child for 18 plus years, and be the biggest influence on the child's life, "restricting her freedom for a short amount of time" is a little bit of an understatement.

 

What the hell is that suposed to mean? My wife should die because you have to make choices?

 

Sorry, I didn't see it.

1. How can you know for certain she will die?

2. This is has been answered before in history. The Nazis were particularly fond of the murder of imperfect babies. I don't like following their example.

The first point is a good issue. The second is scary.

 

It's her medical condition. In order to carry a baby to term she would have to go off her meds (which would kill her) or stay on them and risk severe health repercussions for her and the child.

 

Whoa, whoa - calm down folks. Happy emoticons, happy ones...

 

KesselRunner, calm down. That is not what I meant.

I was trying to say that whichever one (your wife or child) was easiest/safest/most sure of saving, that would be the one to go for.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

So by getting pregnant she places her life in danger?

 

I realize that the holocaust analogy dosen't quite fit, because we are debating if we are destroying anything worthwhile, or if something (a fetus) less worthwhile than something else (a choice in a certain situation). My point is, is that it is perfectly acceptable to 'force' your belife on others, but only if it is the opinion of the majority.

 

TreeCave, you were right in your last post. We are becoming more moral (I think) as a whole. And I think slavery, child labor, etc in the past was as immoral as it is today. Rights don't change. They are linked to each individual person no matter what they look like or when they lived or where.

 

That is correct. We are safe as we can be, but we don't have the money for birth control and that is also a bit of a danger to her.


I was just tying to make the poin that trying to legislate it for one way and one way only inherently means you're ignoring the grey area in between the extreem positions. I think TreeCave has done an excelent job of arguing this middle, but no one on the right (with the exception of cy) seems wiling to listen to it.

 

Well, I can't answer that then because anything I say will probably upset you. And it is not my place to interfere anyway.

 

But, what it comes down to, is this:

You can have an opinion, as staunchly and positively as you may stand behind it, chances are, you are ignoring the exceptions to the rule by supporting your opinion. And to argue it, is to argue the necessary death of grown women.

 

No, it means I consider personal options other people will not.

For example, if abortion were outlawed, I would be perfectly willing to support total government payment for medical services for people in your place.

There is no situation that cannot somehow be dealt with in an acceptable manner if you take a stand.

But from a realistic point of view, nothing will change people's actions.

 

ag That's if the mother chooses to raise the child. I'm saying at the minimum, her freedom is restricted somewhat for 9 months, and then she can give up the child for adoption or let her family take over if they choose.

 

The right to live is more important than the right to be happy or rather to pursue happiness.

I feel exactly the opposite, personally.

JediFlyer, you quoted AG but addressed it to me in one post, so I'll just not respond (I think she already did anyway). I just want to point out something to you: I respect your views, whether I agree with them or not. What I would like you to do is to show me that you have really, really tried to imagine these situations you're discussing from a woman's POV. Have you ever known a rape victim, male or female? Have you ever known a responsible woman who got pregnant by accident despite her best efforts not to? Have you ever talked to someone who's had an abortion? Even though I'm female, I have never been pregnant. Therefore, my opinion on abortion remained fluid until I had talked to people falling into each of those categories.

Fierce, pregnancy is temporary. Motherhood is permanent, whether she raises the child or not - unlike men, women can't sire little bastards all over the landscape and be blissfully unaware, you know. It changes who you are (unless you're psycho). You are forever taking away the woman's freedom. You're only taking away one of the baby's lives, and more humans than not agree that everyone has many lives. By the way, I am not saying I believe in reincarnation. I'm making an argument.

Palpazzar, you said: "For example, if abortion were outlawed, I would be perfectly willing to support total government payment for medical services for people in your place. "

That's a great idea, and noble too. Unfortunately, pregnancy is simply not 100% preventable, except by abstaining from, er, the specific act of intercourse which causes it. To be absolutely sure they will never conceive, KR and his fiance would have to abstain from that particular act altogether. I just wanted to point this out because too many people (not you) are forgetful of the fact that birth control simply does not work anywhere near 100% of the time.

 

Treecave I'm sure having a child and giving it up changes who you are. But, can't the same be said for getting pregnant and having an abortion?

 

This thread has earned a lyric posting - the most depressing song ever, by The Smiths. Kind of sums up the impossibility of dealing with this issue in a 100% satisfactory way.

"THIS NIGHT HAS OPENED MY EYES"

In a river the colour of lead
immerse a baby's head
wrap her up in the News Of The World
dump her on a doorstep, girl

this night has opened my eyes
and I will never sleep again

You kicked and cried like a bullied child
a grown man of twenty-five
he said he'd cure your ills
but he didn't and he never will
so, save your life
because you've only got one
The dream is gone
but the baby is real

oh you did a good thing
she could have been a poet
or, she could have been a fool

oh you did a bad thing
and I'm not happy
and I'm not sad

A shoeless child on a swing
reminds you of your own again
she took away your troubles
oh but then again she left pain
so please save your life
because you've only got one
The dream is gone
but the baby is real

oh you did a good thing
she could have been a poet
or, she could have been a fool

oh you did a bad thing
and I'm not happy
and I'm not sad

 

Fierce, the same thing could be said for anybody. But I think it's a weirdly male perspective to think you get your freedom back once the kid's out of the womb, as long as you don't go on to raise it. Sorry, I don't mean that to be offensive - fact is, men and women have very different things at stake when it comes to sex, pregnancy, rape and parenting, and this falls under 3 of those categories.

 

And TreeCave's point has not been missed on me. Let's move on from Abortion to some other aspect of morality. we've argued this as far as we can without having flame wars start .

Let's go down a different road of ethics/morality (since abortion is heading down a more moral/religious road anyway). Is it right for the U.S. to enforce its moral judgment on other nations and their internal policies?

 

Is it right for the U.S. to enforce its moral judgment on other nations and their internal policies?

I don't think so. A nicely complex example of this issue is the fine line between defending countries between aggression by, say, Communists and forcing another form of government on nations that want to be Communist.

I'm not convinced the US has always managed to stay on the right side of that balance.

 

Treecave That is a bit offensive, because you're making a judgement while losing the context. I said that mother nature dictates a child and mother's freedoms are co-dependant for 9 months. If you say a woman's freedom is forever compromised as soon as she is pregnant, that's fine, but then you're oustide the context of the abortion issue. Of course the mother's life is forever impacted no matter what happens, and yes I realize that even though I'm a male. And there are some males who would be forever impacted by their partner's pregnancy too, believe it or not.

 

To be totally honest on this, if it is in the TRUE best interests of the American people for defense or security, then yes.

 

oh I'm fully convinced the U.S. has never kept a good line on this matter. However, I think that sometimes they get it right and sometimes they blow it royally. Perfect examples of blowing it is when we support or insert violent dictators (i.e. Pinochet) or when we refuse to act fully in cases of genocide (i.e. Bosnia).

 

KR, yeah, there was a whole lot of installing dictators going on during the 80's. Grenada, Afghanistan... boy, with the advantage of hindsight, don't we look dumb on that one?

Fierce, you said: "And there are some males who would be forever impacted by their partner's pregnancy too, believe it or not."

You're getting very defensive here and missing the point of what I'm saying. I do not have a bias when it comes to genders and parental qualities. Women are much better at being cold and unloving than men, and it scares the willies out of me that any woman can get pregnant anytime she likes and have herself a kid to abuse.

What I was trying to get at is this: there is always a big gap between what males stand to gain/lose in sexual contact and what females stand to gain/lose. I think most of us aren't even aware of it, particularly consciously, because we live it everyday and it becomes part of the scenery. But it's a simple fact of nature. And I believe our biological programming is a bit different, too - which makes sense, given how men have more child-siring years than women have child-bearing years, etc. The end result is that it colors our views, no matter how we'd like to believe we know what the other gender goes through. Then again, I don't think I understand other women very often - the more I know them, the more they freak me out. I guess I'm sort of androgynous, myself.

 

Treecave
Let me rephrase: We're talking about individual freedoms, and how they should be limited at the point they encroach other people's individual freedoms. For a woman who is pregnant, mother nature dictates that her freedom, and the freedom of the child (if that's your belief), intrinsically encroach one another for 9 months. After that, the child's freedom, by definition, can be made an independent issue from the mother's freedom, if she feels her freedom is best realized by giving up the child. Thus the original premise is back in order.

From this, you suggested that my "male perspective" precludes me from recognizing the effects upon the woman after choosing to give up her child. Call me defensive if you want, but I'm just trying to tell you it's irrelevant to the crux of the argument.