Warning: Parameter 1 to wp_default_styles() expected to be a reference, value given in /homepages/16/d202020116/htdocs/worldwide/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 601

Warning: Parameter 1 to wp_default_scripts() expected to be a reference, value given in /homepages/16/d202020116/htdocs/worldwide/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 601
Worldwide Ace » All About Eve

Worldwide Ace

Because a true Ace is needed everywhere…

Entries Comments


All About Eve

21 June, 2004 (01:03) | Politics

It all started with a thread asking the question of whether the liberals in Boulder are stifling and suffocating conservatives with the passive threat of ostricization. But a side argument has set me off.

Let me begin by saying I am pro-choice, pro-abortion, anti-life, pro-fetus-killing, or however else you want to phrase it so it’s politically correct or not. I am not a woman. If you couldn’t tell, come find me and ask that I drop my pants. It’s not pretty, but it’s evidence enough for most people. I will never have to decide if I want an abortion, nor will I be allowed to decide if someone else has one. I can certainly try and persuade people one way or another, but I’m pro-choice, which means I don’t think it’s my place to convince people to have one or not have one. That being said, there are many arguments for and against abortion, and hopefully, I’ll get most of them. Please feel free to comment with others.

Life is the greatest gift we can give. Spare me. A life of suffering is no life at all. We can’t know if life will turn out good or bad for these people-to-be, but we can make an educated guess. A poor household of 7 in the city is not necessarily going to offer a good life. If a family cannot economically support themselves, the child is more likely to be abused and even killed according to studies done in the last 5 years.

Fetuses have a right to life. And women have a right to equal protection. I’m sure pregnancy can be a wonderful thing, but when I was born, I seriously fucked my mother up. She couldn’t have kids again. If it weren’t for medical science, she and I might both be dead. If I knew that my birth would’ve killed my mother, I would’ve preferred to be aborted. If the mother’s life is at risk, it’s not worth trying to save a child. The woman has already been born, and therefore deserves the rights she’s been given rather than having an unborn baby supersede that. There will always be other chances to have kids if the woman lives, and if she can’t, there’s always adoption.

Putting it up for adoption is a better option. For every adoption that works out, there’s 2 children that aren’t adopted. Couples want babies and children they can mold. They want healthy kids. The families that can actually afford to adopt generally will pay to see that it happens. This means that because of race, mental deficiency, anger management, and age, children up for adoption are often discriminated against. In addition, with the advent of in vitro and fertilization drugs, there are fewer families actually looking for children to adopt. The world population is growing exponentially, and even now, we don’t have the resources to support everyone just in the US. For adoption to be a viable option every time, we’d need to be living in a utopia.

Abortion is against God’s will. I’m an atheist. This country may have been founded by the religious, but it is not a religious issue. If you really think it is, lobby in your church, but leave us Godless or other goded people alone.

Fetuses are people too. For me, this is the most compelling argument against abortion. Does a fetus or embryo have rights? Children don’t. The law states that we can still legally beat our children, that they can’t complain, and that it’s our right as parents to apply discipline. While we can no longer put our kids to death (the last law was abolished sometime in the 1950s, I believe), we can still beat them to within an inch of death legally.

And going along with that:
It’s a baby, not a fetus Technically, until 2 weeks after fertilization, the “baby” is a zygote, morula, or blastocyte. Then it becomes an embryo until 9 weeks when it becomes a fetus until birth. Laws still state that you cannot have an abortion in the third trimester, though the “baby” is still a fetus and not a child. This further blurs things for me, so no longer is it a question of fetus or baby, but instead of cellular mass or person.

I don’t know when a human becomes goes from cellular growth to person. Is it the formation of a heart? Is it the formation of a brain? if we follow Descartes definition I think therefore I am, is it the beginnings of thought? I can’t remember when I was a fetus or if I could think, can you? I also can’t remember if I was thinking as a baby or even last week, so that argument may be moot. But regardless, pro-choice argues that the fetus, by living in a woman, acts as a parasite while pro-life argues it’s the woman’s responsibility to keep the “child” alive.

The way I see it, there’s a very simple solution. Fetal transferral. Let any pro-lifer take responsibility for the fetus and the child born after by transferring it from one woman’s body to hers. I’m not sure how scientifically feasible it is, but I guarantee that if it were possible, you would not have the same number of women stepping up and arguing against abortion. They don’t want those kids any more than the potential mothers do.

That’s it. I don’t have the energy to argue anymore…

«

  »

  • sorry if i spawned this or whatever, but i am on your side, even if i am pro-adoption. *shrug*

  • sorry if i spawned this or whatever, but i am on your side, even if i am pro-adoption. *shrug*

  • That’s absolutely fantastic. I agree with you 100%.

    That’s a funny solution, although if possible, it would definitely work. Of course, you’d end up with several religious freaks pregnant constantly to save all these children (and some men, if the world got THAT scientifically advanced!).

    The only thing I saw that this first line
    pro-choice, anti-abortion, pro-fetus-killing
    Er, you meant pro-abortion, right?

    Also, an argument to add may be what happened with abortion was illegal.. under-the-table jobs, clothes hangers… One of my aunts never had kids because she had an abortion before abortion was legalized. (In that case, it wasn’t so great a tragedy that she never had children when she was older and more responsible, but for some it may just be the mistake of a girl when she’s 17 vs. when she’s 28 and perfectly capable and willing to have a child. But because of that mistake as a teenager, she could never do that.

    Adoption is a great thing, but most people do want healthy babies. Can you blame them? Who would adopt a baby with obvious problems because of a heroin-addicted mother when they could just as easily get pregnant on their own accord? Not to mention that due to a law in most states that says the couple adopting the child can’t view certain records, a lot of people who adopt older children get stuck with kids with severe emotional issues. (I remember hearing about “Holding therapy” one time.. all these people adopted kids who seemed perfectly normal, but as the months wore on and they became close to their adopted family, the child became violent and unreasonable. Turned out to be something about as a baby, the kid’s parents never nurtured them or held them. Who’d want anything BUT a baby knowing something like that?

    Not to mention that those kids obviously got taken away from their parents… parents who probably would have (SHOULD have) gotten an abortion immediately.

    If people didn’t make such an issue about abortions, maybe there wouldn’t be so many families in poverty and crack-addicted with babies.

  • That’s absolutely fantastic. I agree with you 100%.

    That’s a funny solution, although if possible, it would definitely work. Of course, you’d end up with several religious freaks pregnant constantly to save all these children (and some men, if the world got THAT scientifically advanced!).

    The only thing I saw that this first line
    pro-choice, anti-abortion, pro-fetus-killing
    Er, you meant pro-abortion, right?

    Also, an argument to add may be what happened with abortion was illegal.. under-the-table jobs, clothes hangers… One of my aunts never had kids because she had an abortion before abortion was legalized. (In that case, it wasn’t so great a tragedy that she never had children when she was older and more responsible, but for some it may just be the mistake of a girl when she’s 17 vs. when she’s 28 and perfectly capable and willing to have a child. But because of that mistake as a teenager, she could never do that.

    Adoption is a great thing, but most people do want healthy babies. Can you blame them? Who would adopt a baby with obvious problems because of a heroin-addicted mother when they could just as easily get pregnant on their own accord? Not to mention that due to a law in most states that says the couple adopting the child can’t view certain records, a lot of people who adopt older children get stuck with kids with severe emotional issues. (I remember hearing about “Holding therapy” one time.. all these people adopted kids who seemed perfectly normal, but as the months wore on and they became close to their adopted family, the child became violent and unreasonable. Turned out to be something about as a baby, the kid’s parents never nurtured them or held them. Who’d want anything BUT a baby knowing something like that?

    Not to mention that those kids obviously got taken away from their parents… parents who probably would have (SHOULD have) gotten an abortion immediately.

    If people didn’t make such an issue about abortions, maybe there wouldn’t be so many families in poverty and crack-addicted with babies.

  • *applauds*

  • *applauds*

  • Thanks for pointing out the error. It’s been fixed.

    As for under the table jobs, I don’t think that’s a good argument for legalized abortion. The rich white folks would still be flying off to god knows where to get abortions done where it’s legal, basically enforcing a classist sturcture discriminating against those that can’t afford trips elsewhere. Certainly, closet abortions create a greater risk of injury and death, in addition to being inhumane, but those go on even now when people can’t afford abortions.

    I hadn’t heard about “holding therapy,” but I’ll have to look into it.

  • Thanks for pointing out the error. It’s been fixed.

    As for under the table jobs, I don’t think that’s a good argument for legalized abortion. The rich white folks would still be flying off to god knows where to get abortions done where it’s legal, basically enforcing a classist sturcture discriminating against those that can’t afford trips elsewhere. Certainly, closet abortions create a greater risk of injury and death, in addition to being inhumane, but those go on even now when people can’t afford abortions.

    I hadn’t heard about “holding therapy,” but I’ll have to look into it.

  • I try not to get angry about it any more. I argue because I am bored, and I hope that somewhere they will see one tiny little bit of what I am saying. It’s difficult to discuss things like this with someone who is totally emotionally caught up in the issue and unwilling to think about it.

    I did find a couple of excellent philosophical writings by this one dude that may make you feel better though.

    Why Abortion is Moral
    Why Abortion is Biblical

  • I try not to get angry about it any more. I argue because I am bored, and I hope that somewhere they will see one tiny little bit of what I am saying. It’s difficult to discuss things like this with someone who is totally emotionally caught up in the issue and unwilling to think about it.

    I did find a couple of excellent philosophical writings by this one dude that may make you feel better though.

    Why Abortion is Moral
    Why Abortion is Biblical

  • Thanks. I appreciate it.

  • Thanks. I appreciate it.

  • Very good points.

    A lot of the abortion debate seems to rest on the question of whether or not a fetus is a “person”. If a fetus is a person, it’s generally argued, of course they’re entitled to all the same rights as any other human being, or US citizen, or what have you … And abortion debates tend to devolve into nit-picky semantic and pseudo-scientific arguments about if and when an unborn fetus can be defined as a “person”.

    In my Critical Thinking in Philosophy class we looked at a pretty compelling counteragrument for the whole problem – one that supports the right to choice, even if fetuses are defined as “people”. The argument basically runs: If Person B needs another person’s body to survive, is Person A morally obligated to forfeit the use of her body to Person B? Probably not. Of course, Person A can choose to do so, and it may be a right honorable and self-sacrificing choice – but there’s nothing morally repugnant about Person A choosing not to let Person B live off of her flesh.

    It’s a bit more complicated than that, but if you can find it (and you’re interested) look up Judith Jarvis Thomson’s violinist argument. It’s kind of a cool read. (And as an adamant Pro-Choice person, I was happy to have an extra solid argument in my pocket. Heh.)

  • Very good points.

    A lot of the abortion debate seems to rest on the question of whether or not a fetus is a “person”. If a fetus is a person, it’s generally argued, of course they’re entitled to all the same rights as any other human being, or US citizen, or what have you … And abortion debates tend to devolve into nit-picky semantic and pseudo-scientific arguments about if and when an unborn fetus can be defined as a “person”.

    In my Critical Thinking in Philosophy class we looked at a pretty compelling counteragrument for the whole problem – one that supports the right to choice, even if fetuses are defined as “people”. The argument basically runs: If Person B needs another person’s body to survive, is Person A morally obligated to forfeit the use of her body to Person B? Probably not. Of course, Person A can choose to do so, and it may be a right honorable and self-sacrificing choice – but there’s nothing morally repugnant about Person A choosing not to let Person B live off of her flesh.

    It’s a bit more complicated than that, but if you can find it (and you’re interested) look up Judith Jarvis Thomson’s violinist argument. It’s kind of a cool read. (And as an adamant Pro-Choice person, I was happy to have an extra solid argument in my pocket. Heh.)