What's wrong with abortion?

Pro-choice, pro-life, or pro-hypocrite?

from JoeUser Forums

My biggest pet peeve is pandering. Pandering is such a slimy tactic, which explains why politicians do it all the time! John “War Criminal” Kerry even made it a cornerstone of his presidential campaign during the 2004 election!

What is pandering? Pandering, of course, is defined in the dictionary.com as “arranging for sexual partners for others.” It’s a very disgusting act, and only the most pernicious dare condone such an activity. That is why it pisses me off when both pro-choicers and pro-lifers pander.

Pro-lifers are usually pro-life because they believe abortion is murder. Some of these pro-lifers believe that even though abortion is murder, it should be allowed in cases of rape and incest?

What the fuck? Why is it all right in those situations? A child conceived out of rape or incest is as much of a child as one conceived out of non-rape and non-incest. It’s still murder, even if the woman was raped by her own father. The child didn’t rape his mother, so he shouldn’t suffer the death penalty for his father’s crime! Sure, pro-choicers will think pro-lifers who hold such a view are heartless, but those who pander to others by justifying murder when convenient are condoning mass murder.

“Those pro-lifers sure are hypocrites! It’s a good thing I’m a pro-choicer, because we don’t pander at all!” WRONG! Pro-choicers want women to have the right to have abortions, but so as to not sound as though they support abortions, some of them say stupid shit like “abortion should not be used as birth control” or “the abortion rate rising is a bad thing.”

What the fuck? What’s wrong with using abortion as birth control? It hurts nobody! And what’s wrong with a rising abortion rate? If I was pro-choice, I would applaud an increase in abortions! That’d mean that women are becoming more responsible and not bringing unwanted children into the world! Everybody’s a winner! Sure, the woman might suffer some damage with each abortion she has, but that’s her fucking choice. Excessive masturbation is unhealthy too, but I don’t see people who support the right to masturbate making a big deal out of an increase in masturbation or masturbation done frequently and casually. Why don’t they? Because, masturbation, like abortion, affects nobody except the doer!

If abortion is murder, then it’s always murder, even if the woman was raped by her own father. If abortion isn’t murder, then it’s nobody’s business if women use abortion as birth control or even if they abort fetuses with the “gay gene” en masse. Except in cases when the mother’s life is at stake, the abortion issue is not complex. People want to make it more complicated than it is though because they want to kiss everybody’s ass like the pandering hypocrites they are.

politics
23,542 views 21 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Interesting article.

You do a good job of summarizing the central question: Is abortion murder or not?

This, in turn, becomes a question of whether or not a thing is human because we say it is, or because it is whether we say so or not.

Another example would be the Declaration of Independence, which specifies that a human's right to life is endowed by a Creator. The declaration doesn't grant that right; it only recognizes a right that was there all along.

Yet another example would be the recognition of Africans in European (and American) society. For many years, it was widely believed that certain "races" were not actually human at all. But black slaves did not become human only when the abolitionists began to speak out. Rather they were human all along, regardless of European (and American) society's opinion on the subject. That is why we say slavery was always wrong, and why we say those who believed otherwise were wrong in their beliefs. Note that the inalienable and absolute humanity of the slave races did not depend on majority opinion, either.

So it is with abortion. Those who insist that feti are not human may one day find themselves on the wrong side of history, reviled by future generations who are horrified by their commitment to convenience over humanitarian principles.

On the other hand, future generations may instead laugh at the pro-lifers, whose foolish sentimentality and superstion held us back for so long.

I, for one, hope that we never meet an enlightened race of advanced extraterrestrials, because I would be too embarrassed to explain stem cell research cloning to them...

"So let me get this straight: You breed and slaughter your own kind, simply to harvest their biological material?"
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Colorful, and I even agree with most of it!!!

The way I see it, "Pro Choice" and "Pro life" are merely political buzzwords, used by people who either won' t, or can't get themselves to admit what they really think about it (so your word "pandering" works pretty well).

For me, I see basically 4 camps in the abortion issue:

1: There are those who truly believe it is murder, and do not condone abortion for any reason. (Truly anti abortion).

2: Those who believe abortion on demand is wrong, but see legitimate medical justifications for it. (against "abortion on demand", but not really "anti abortion).

3: Those who are for abortion on demand, but believe it should be a "last resort" option.

4: Those who are just plain for abortion, and do not consider it any different than liposuction or lancing a boil.

The last one could kind of be considered "pro choice", except for the word "choice" only seems to apply to women and only for abortion, so in most cases, it is still just a buzzword.

I fall into #2. There is no scientific definition of "Life" and "Human Being (Homo Sapien)" that justifies exempting Fetuses. However, existing protocols regarding triage (and other situations) do require paramedics, doctors and other caregivers to decide which patient has the best chance of survival, and treat accordingly. It is a tragic decision, but one that (at times) needs to be made.

I don't think abortion can be considered "murder" (at least not with existing laws), because murder is a legal term which requires a premeditated criminal act, which causes death. Since abortion is not illegal, it can't be murder.

I have posted more details on my thoughts on this issue, if you feel like reading them. Link
Galactic Civilizations IV
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think that it is reasonable to say that when a man and a woman have consensual sex, they are responsible for any children that are created as a result.

I think that it is too much for the government to mandate that a woman carry the child of her rapist.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
2: Those who believe abortion on demand is wrong, but see legitimate medical justifications for it. (against "abortion on demand", but not really "anti abortion).


What makes abortion wrong?

I think that it is reasonable to say that when a man and a woman have consensual sex, they are responsible for any children that are created as a result.


If abortion isn't baby killing and is harmless to everybody but the woman who has the abortion, then how is abortion less responsible and worse than any other form of birth control?

I think that it is too much for the government to mandate that a woman carry the child of her rapist.


If abortion is baby killing, then no, it isn't too much for the government to mandate that a woman carry the child of a rapist, because to say that a woman can kill the child of a rapist sets a very slippery slope. Why make exceptions for children in the womb? If that's child killing, then how is that any better than killing a six-year-old child who happens to be the son of a man who ends up raping his wife?
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
The original laws concerning abortion were concise, to the point and understandable. What they have done to them since is unmentionable. So in parting do you support partial-birth abortions?
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
If abortion isn't baby killing and is harmless to everybody but the woman who has the abortion, then how is abortion less responsible and worse than any other form of birth control?


Because it's a waste of the state's funds. In Australia at least abortions are covered by Medicare, so women who get them can get a refund of some sort for the procedure. It's much cheaper (and costs other Australians nothing) to just buy a condom, so having an abortion is wasteful and irresponsible. And then you've got the costs if they inflict mental damage on themselves; it's just a waste of money all over, kind of like choosing to bathe in ass's milk rather than water. I'd call that irresponsible too.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Mmh, that's a very good thread i must admit. It's always easy to condemn something such as abortion until you have to deal with it personally. I like to think that i wont abort if i'm confronted with an unwanted pregnancy. But then again i'll only know what i'll decide when it happens if it does.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Because it's a waste of the state's funds. In Australia at least abortions are covered by Medicare, so women who get them can get a refund of some sort for the procedure. It's much cheaper (and costs other Australians nothing) to just buy a condom, so having an abortion is wasteful and irresponsible. And then you've got the costs if they inflict mental damage on themselves; it's just a waste of money all over, kind of like choosing to bathe in ass's milk rather than water. I'd call that irresponsible too.


So it's only irresponsible because you have to pay for it? The solution is simple then! Make it not covered by Medicare!

And then you've got the costs if they inflict mental damage on themselves; it's just a waste of money all over, kind of like choosing to bathe in ass's milk rather than water. I'd call that irresponsible too.

If the government was forced to pay for it, then I'd call it irresponsible, but if people bought ass' milk themselves and bathed in it, I'd be a hypocrite to judge them for it, when we all do things we don't need to do or that could be done other ways.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
So it's only irresponsible because you have to pay for it? The solution is simple then! Make it not covered by Medicare!


Hey, you're setting the scope for this debate - there are plenty of other reasons, just none I personally believe in (and for the record I think my argument is pretty lame too).

But you can't just make it 'not' covered by Medicare. Medicare exists to help people. Sometimes it's necessary to save the life of the mother. Should a woman and her potential child die because she's too poor to afford the abortion? Not in my country (or at least I hope not; the current government seems to have other ideas, but that's a story for another place).
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
But you can't just make it 'not' covered by Medicare. Medicare exists to help people. Sometimes it's necessary to save the life of the mother. Should a woman and her potential child die because she's too poor to afford the abortion? Not in my country (or at least I hope not; the current government seems to have other ideas, but that's a story for another place).


Well, in that case, then you're going to have to accept that people will have abortions when they don't need them. It's the same with anything in life. So, I guess it'd be irresponsible to have an abortion as a means of birth control, but then again, so is anything else people do that requires Medicare without taking full advantage of every other option first.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, in that case, then you're going to have to accept that people will have abortions when they don't need them. It's the same with anything in life. So, I guess it'd be irresponsible to have an abortion as a means of birth control, but then again, so is anything else people do that requires Medicare without taking full advantage of every other option first.


Exactly, which is why I reckon the irresponsible nature of abortion is completely irrelevent. We all put up with a lot of irresponsible behaviour; why should this be any different? Just base any cases on whatever you think is most important, rather than caring at all about the few who are certainly going to play the system for everything they can get.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

What the fuck? Why is it all right in those situations? A child conceived out of rape or incest is as much of a child as one conceived out of non-rape and non-incest. It’s still murder, even if the woman was raped by her own father. The child didn’t rape his mother, so he shouldn’t suffer the death penalty for his father’s crime! Sure, pro-choicers will think pro-lifers who hold such a view are heartless, but those who pander to others by justifying murder when convenient are condoning mass murder.

That got you a very insightful!  It is exactly what I have been saying.  Very well put.

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

I don't think abortion can be considered "murder" (at least not with existing laws), because murder is a legal term which requires a premeditated criminal act, which causes death. Since abortion is not illegal, it can't be murder.

Killing Blacks at one time was not illegal.  But it was still murder.  Just because something is not illegal does not negate whether it is murder or not.

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
From today's news:

Lufkin, Texas — The teenage girl arrived by ambulance last May, her belly bruised, the twin fetuses she carried for five months gone and her lips tightly sealed.

Authorities assumed 16-year-old Erica Basoria had been beaten and charged her boyfriend, 18-year-old Gerardo (Jerry) Flores, with murder under the state's new law protecting the unborn.

It wasn't that simple. Ms. Basoria told authorities she had been trying to kill the fetuses for weeks and finally asked Mr. Flores to help by stepping on her stomach.

“When I was four months pregnant, I began to show, and at that time I decided that I should have gotten an abortion,” Ms. Basoria wrote in an affidavit.

Although Mr. Flores faces prosecution, Ms. Basoria cannot be charged because the new law – like many others across the nation – bans prosecution of mothers on the grounds that they have a legal right to end pregnancies. The case has lawyers on both sides questioning the fairness of a statute that considers one person's crime another person's constitutional right.

“How can two people conspire to do something like this and only one of them be punished? How can that be fair?” defence attorney Ryan Deaton asked.

Prosecutor Clyde Herrington said it was startling that “they completely leave the female out of the criminal penalty.”

“It doesn't seem entirely fair,” Mr. Herrington said.

www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050304.wtexa0304/BNStory/International/

David St. Hubbins
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
That's a very interesting article, David St. Hubbins. It's relieving to see that even people outside the blogosphere understand how retarded people make the abortion issue.

I wish people would just make up their minds on if it was child killing or not, and why if it's child killing, it's all right in some occasions, and why if it isn't, why it's wrong in some occasions.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
I wish people would just make up their minds on if it was child killing or not, and why if it's child killing, it's all right in some occasions, and why if it isn't, why it's wrong in some occasions.


I don't know. I kind of like the hypocrisy. It seems so much more... human than making sense all the time and being logical. We're not robots, and hypocrisy is practically our ground-state. I'd be a little disappointed if it was possible for people to make a definitive decision and then stick to it (and yes, that's probably a tautology. I don't care though).
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
I wish people would just make up their minds on if it was child killing or not, and why if it's child killing, it's all right in some occasions, and why if it isn't, why it's wrong in some occasions.


Those of us who beleive that life begins at conception, have never wavered. Others use situational ethics to defend their waffling. John Kerry is a perfect example. I have no respect for him on this issue, but can respect those who disagree with me on when life begins and support abortion. They are honest and honorabla in their belief, even if we disagree.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't know. I kind of like the hypocrisy. It seems so much more... human than making sense all the time and being logical. We're not robots, and hypocrisy is practically our ground-state. I'd be a little disappointed if it was possible for people to make a definitive decision and then stick to it (and yes, that's probably a tautology. I don't care though).


Also extremely pessimistic. I would hope that we can transcend it, and I think some do. But as a rule, I would have to agree with you, and that is a shame.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Also extremely pessimistic. I would hope that we can transcend it, and I think some do. But as a rule, I would have to agree with you, and that is a shame.


Yeah, some of us transcend it and they become saints or villains. It's a damn shame that all humans can't (won't?) do it, but a world where everyone sticks to their world would be frightening in my eyes. Sure you'd have a lot of good people, but there'd be a lot of really, really despicable bastards as well, who'd probably be able to run rings around the saints. I'd rather just have a sort of neutral mass and a few transcendants around.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't know. I kind of like the hypocrisy. It seems so much more... human than making sense all the time and being logical. We're not robots, and hypocrisy is practically our ground-state. I'd be a little disappointed if it was possible for people to make a definitive decision and then stick to it (and yes, that's probably a tautology. I don't care though).


It's not about being a robot. It's about sticking to one's word, and one doesn't have to be a saint or a villain to stick to one's word. It's just about not saying things and then doing the complete opposite. If hypocrisy is a good thing, then nobody should ever complain about the hypocrisy and double standards of anybody else, including the people that approved of segregation and whatnot while saying "Everybody deserves the same rights" and "all men are created equal."

Those of us who beleive that life begins at conception, have never wavered. Others use situational ethics to defend their waffling. John Kerry is a perfect example. I have no respect for him on this issue, but can respect those who disagree with me on when life begins and support abortion. They are honest and honorabla in their belief, even if we disagree.


That's why I respect them. Sticking to one's word isn't impossible. It's just that others aren't serious enough about their own beliefs to truly embrace them.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
What's wrong with abortion?? Isn't that like asking what's wrong with not breathing??? I use to be against abortion unless it was a rape victim or incest. Now, I think it should be reserved only for incest because of the jeans problem associated with it. In the last 5 years I have become friends with a couple of people, that by anyones standards, are common people. One is a doctor and the other is a computer programmer. Both have made their mark in their field and both are highly respected. What makes them different? They are the children of rape victims that decieded to have their babies rather than abort them. Obviously that is a very tramatic situation and hopefully the rpaists were caught and convicted. But what does it say for the victims?? As far as I am concerned, they are among the bravest people on this planet. Not too many people "forget" their rape experience but to decide to live with a daily reminder for the rest of their lives is just plain heroic!! Is it fair to say all rape victims should keep their babies? Of course not!!! It takes alot, alot more than 90% of the people in this world can bare. My point is, if someone that gets raped can live up the responsibility (which no one can ask them to do) then why can't people with normal circumstances do the same?? I am so tired of people talking about "choice". You know what, you have the "choice" to keep your pants on and you have the "choice" to make sure you are using a condom or that you and your mate are protected in some way shape or form. No, the responsibility isn't just on women, it's equal with men. Dude, no condom, keep your pants on. The tragedy of this situation si neither take responsibility and guess what? A baby is created. You know what, it's both of your faults, it's not the baby's. But for some reason the government says it's ok to terminate this life because you're stupid (once again, talking to the men as well as the women). I'm sorry but that is such bull! As the old saying goes, "don't play if you can't pay." But the one situation that ticks me off more than any other is the career woman that get's pregnant and get's an abortion because they don't want it getting in the way of their career. Sorry, that has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard in my life!! Millions of women have careers and kids, get over yourself.