Abortion: Amoral, or necessary evil?

[fury]

I apologize in advance for hitting any sore spots.

Save for when the mother is at a significant risk of death, nah. If it is a teen mother who got drunk and had a fun night with the guy she dumped the next day, then for the rest of her life, she has a responsibility to try her best to raise the child. I know it sounds cold, well tough. Burger King didn't wrap his whopper, so Dairy Queen has to pop out the little princess. Fetuses might not be able to think or function like adults, but that doesn't give them any less of a right to live. However, in certain circumstances, abortion is a must, e.g. to save the mother's life (and by life, I don't mean their social life)

How about you?

 

[s4]

I have never completely made up my mind about abortion. However, I really think that options such as putting the child up for adoption should be strongly considered. There are many couples that would love to have kids but for some reason or other they can't. Adoption should be considered a positive alternative to abortion. Under some circumstances like the one you mentioned where the mothers' life is at risk, the child might have no more of a chance than the mother which must be weighed heavily in the decision making process.

 

[Kruz]

I'm not touching this one

 

[flavio]

flamebait

 

[s4]

Not necessarily. In case you haven't noticed Xi is not overflowing with topics lately. There are a lot of people reading posts but not much actual posting going on. We haven't got enough people posting to have a good flame war.

 

[Professur]

My opinions on this are well enough known that I'm not going to inflict my manifesto on the membership yet again. One word : Murder.

'Nuff said.

 

[unclehobart]

Everything else of an unimportant nature is licensed for permision. Fishing, parking, building... everything. The one most overwhelming and dire thing on this planet is having kids. It should be licensed as well. All kids should be loaded up with Norplant or its modern equivalent as soon as they hit puberty. The only way to be taken off of it is to apply for fit parent status. I don't know what the qualifiers should be... but I guess I could throw out a few ideas... : a minimum wage to be able to raise the kid in above squalorous conditions... convicted felons would be denied ever having kids wether its a civil or violent crime... and most likely a minimum age. There are probably a few things like genetic defect minimums that I won't touch as they smack too closely of the SS population control and race purity hooey that I dislike.

 

[flavio]

Burger King didn't wrap his whopper, so Dairy Queen has to pop out the little princess.

that's just bizarre

 

[Professur]

hey Unc, here's an idea. instead of licensing, drugs, and all that crap, how about we make the parents RESPONSIBLE!!! The kids have sex and get knocked up ... parents do time for failure to prevent statutory rape? Maybe that'll help motivate the parents to control their kids? Here's another idea. Open abortion policy. Yep you heard me. You want an abortion, you got one. Just one catch. It's a hysterectomy. You refuse one child it's chance at life, you don't get a second chance. With a little luck, the entire uterus can be transplanted and some sterile woman can have a chance.

Enough ****ing codling.

 

[krusty]

Originally posted by flavio
flamebait

gimme, gimme gimme

 

[unclehobart]

My method assures baseline responsibility in the first place... or at least a shot at much higher odds that a baby won't be born to irresponsible crap people in the first place.

 

[Gonzo]

It's kind of odd. Unc wants people to get licensed to have children, and Prof wants forced imprisonment if they aren't licensed.

One question to the both of you-who gave a government the power to practice birth control? I will yell until I'm blue in the face about irresponsible parenting & lack of cohesion in the modern family, but I will start a revolution the minute MY government gets involved with who & with whom one may conceive.
Money is not an evolutionary ladder-about 90% of the brightest, richest people in the world came from less than ideal situations. The rich kids were too busy driving beemers & popping the prom queen to worry about investment in life altering idealism.

Re: abortion-I'll not write a dissertation on this subject but will add my two cents worth. it is & should remain legal up to the point that said fetus would be viable outside the womb, under less than heroic measures. Upon the point that said fetus reaches such a stage-abortion is murder.

why is it that many of those who are against abortion bend if the mothers life is endangered? what makes her life more valuable?

 

[unclehobart]

When I said financial minimums I didn't set it at a godawful high level. My intent was really quite low... just the ability to earn a few ticks over minimum wage and the mindset to stay employed. That would only cut out the bottom 5% of society.

I made no considerations towards any type of of special intrests. Your premise is wrong on that point so I see no need to defend it.

I said convicted felons. Thats a very low %. Your premise that 80% are active criminals is way low. 99.9997% of the worlds population are guilty of some felony or another. Your premise here again isn't accurate against what I said... so I see no need to defend it.

Who has a right to say? I do... you do... we all do.. We can all pretty much say what we want. Thats a basic freedom. Acting on it is a bit stickier.

I didn't say anything about my method being a way to instant hapiness either... but it raises the odds a smidge. I know a helluva lot more bittery raised ultra poor crack baby teen mom wrong side of the tracks kids than middle class ones. Lets just say that I'm trying to lift the general 'well adjusted adult' quotient from 50% to 52%. A little goes a long way.

The road to hell may be paved with good intentions, but the path we're on now isn't far off that mark. My meager suggestions will most likely adjust the path to a better direction hopefully with less cost to our general souls. Its a lesser of two great evils in my eyes.

In specific, I avoided the entire engineering strata used by the nazis by name... and yet you still chose to bop me over the head with it. Hitlers idea was to slaughter and weed out based on genetics and percieved enemies within the moment. My method weeds out based upon actions and ability. Under nazi rules you are done at the moment of birth. Under my method all are born equal... it is your actions that determine your future as it is in everything else in life. You aren't born as a convict. You aren't born having druggie teen sex. You aren't born being a slack ass who can't hold a job at McDonalds... thats all choice. My method actively promotes an atmosphere of achievement.

 

[unclehobart]

Originally posted by Gonzo It's kind of odd. Unc wants people to get licensed to have children, and Prof wants forced imprisonment if they aren't licensed

Truth be told, I despise the control government already has on our lives and I would fight the very measures I am arguing for here with every fiber in my being as being pure big brother. I'm just doing it because someone here has to play the part of the asshole to get this subject rolling... otherwise, this thread would die in 2 seconds

 

[s4]

I would like to make one thing clear. I would never try to actively engage anyone at Xi to the level of it being personal.

I think this is a pretty good debate we have here. Uncle is correct in that he has a right to his opinion whether I or anyone else agrees or doesn't agree. It's clear that he and I do not share the same opinions on some things, but I have all the respect in the world for Unc. Many people would not care to enter into this discussion because they are afraid to defend their views on the subject.

I don't agree that criteria can be set on who should be able to have kids and those who can't based on a economic premise. However, I think that those who are contaminated with disease like Aids or some other dire condition that could be passed on to the offspring should be informed of the likelihood of the child having a shortened life or a potential difficulty in it's lifespan and should be informed of the abortion option early in the stage of pregnancy. However, even then it should be the siblings' parents that make the decision if they are mentally able to.

 

[unclehobart]

Then you have to determine what constitues mentaly able. same ol' same ol'

 

[Gonzo]

Unless the guardians of "mentally unable" people take their responsibilities, it's still not up to us to decide. It ain't right. It ain't reasonable. Hell, it ain't even moral. But, "we the people" cannot decide who procreates.


Just so many of you know where I base many of my ideals-Imagine, 9000 thermonuclear devices going off around the globe, nearly simultaneously. Now, imagine how important your SUV, or your microwave, or your job is. Puts things in perspective doesn't it?

 

[fury]

Originally posted by Gonzo
why is it that many of those who are against abortion bend if the mothers life is endangered? what makes her life more valuable?

What I mean is the doctors are certain the baby will not survive its first hour (or will even be a stillborn), and the mother is in significant danger of death if she still gives birth to the baby. That would be the only time I bend.

 

[s4]

I was basing mentally able partly on physical condition. As for the mental condition, that would be dependant upon the circumstances. This topic is too broad to even begin to surmise any conclusions based upon what is said so far.

 

[Professur]

Gonz, you might wanna reread what I wrote. I never said anything about licensing.

I mentioned parental responsablility. I mentioned an existing law about under age sex. I mentionned enforcing that law. I mentioned that parents of pregnant minors should be investigated for neglect, or possibly even contributing to the delinquency of a minor (both already existing laws). I mentioned that maybe parents should be held responsable for the acts of the children in their care.

IMHO parents are responsable for the upbringing of their kids. Any arguments with that statement? That upbringing involves teaching those kids morality, respect, and responsability. Any arguments there? The morality includes to not do stuff that you wouldn't want to own up to. Respect includes not doing stuff to others that you wouldn't like having done to you. That responsability includes owning up to what you did and not trying to hide it, or pass it off as someone else's problem. Everyone with me this far?