MovieChat Forums > Lake of Fire (2007) Discussion > Let's be Rational...

Let's be Rational...

posted 16 years ago by Oh_Daesu85
43 replies | jump to latest

Abortion is not something that should be legislated. It remains a personal choice. That's what pro-lifers fail to realize. Whether it is made illegal or not, women who are desperate for an abortion will pursue that avenue on their own initiative.

If a woman wants an abortion, she will have an abortion. Plain and simple. Isn't it reasonable to give her a safe, comfortable, and sterile environment to conduct it in? If you disagree, you fail to acknowledge the potential harm a woman can do to herself when attempting an abortion. Women have died conducting abortions on themselves. If that's okay with you, then what does this so-called "pro-life" stance mean exactly?

Those who are pro-life are entitled to their opinion...but don't be unreasonable. You need to acknowledge the fact that it is indeed a personal choice, and no matter how much you protest, and how much you want the law to change, a women's body is her own. The general public doesn't get to decide what is best for her.

Be realistic. Be considerate and humane. Don't relegate abortions to the home, or some dark alley. Abortions are taking place whether you like it or not, so let them be conducted safely.

[–] Chris10000 16 years ago

It's not a personal choice for the person who ends up dead.

Do you believe a woman should have the right to an abortion after 9 months of pregnancy?

[–] Oh_Daesu85 16 years ago

Of course not.

And as to whether or not a 3 week old fetus can be considered a person, that's dependent on personal choice and opinion.

Also, because you believe it's killing a person doesn't justify you telling a woman what to do with her body.

[–] twelvecolonies 16 years ago

The topic was titled "Let's be rational", clearly you missed the point. However, in answer to your question, yes. I think a woman has the personal right to have a pregnancy removed from her at any time. Though I can't conceive of any reason why any woman would decide a few weeks before her delivery date that she wanted an "abortion"? And even if for some reason she did, I can't imagine anyone performing it as an "abortion". The only reason I can think of would be if the woman's health or life were at risk by continuing the pregnancy any further, and in that case a doctor would either induce labour or perform a caesarian - both of which routinely occur as a result of danger posed to a woman.

On a separate note, I'm a guy and I'm guessing from your name that you're a guy (I could be wrong). I bring this up because I often feel unqualified to truly hold an opinion on the subject of abortion because I'm never going to be in that position. I've always wondered why some men (and it's mainly men depicted in the documentary, as well as elsewhere) hold such violently oppositional views on abortion. Could it be that deep down inside they fear a woman aborting their unborn child and this being a rejection of them? I know that if I were a woman who became pregnant by any of the right-wing whack-jobs in this documentary my first thought would be abortion. What about you?

[–] Oh_Daesu85 16 years ago

twelvecolonies,

Thank you for bring level-headed about this. You wrote, "I often feel unqualified to truly hold an opinion on the subject of abortion because I'm never going to be in that position." I too share these sentiments.

It is so unbelievably arrogant for men to assume they have the right to dictate what a woman choses to do with her body. Times have changed, and it's no longer 1952.

[–] boyhire21 15 years ago

I agree with You totally.

[–] Chris10000 16 years ago

If a woman wants to get plastic surgery, donate organs, or get euthanized, I really do not care because as it has been stated- it's her body.

But the case of pregnancy is different. It is no longer her body. It is a separate human being. The woman exercised HER CHOICE by having irresponsible sex (the vast majority of the time). While I still do not like the idea of abortion, if a woman was raped and became pregnant, I would not object to her having the pregnancy terminated.

I would like to state that I while I am a Christian, I do not use my religion as a basis for my beliefs, and seek to distance myself from those who say "God is against it, so you must be too".

I am absolutely against partial birth and late term abortion (unless in EXTREMELY RARE situations where the mother's life is in jeopardy)- and believe that doctors who commit them- such as Dr. George Tiller- should be put on trial for murder.

[–] Oh_Daesu85 16 years ago

Chris10000,

I agree with the majority of your points, however...

You consider a 3 week old fetus to be a "human being," others may not. This view must be respected. You may consider that murder, but that's only under the assumption a fetus is a human being, which is as far as I'm concerned, up in the air. You seem to consider life sacred (perhaps because you're Christian), other view the matter differently.

I think what we need here is a little understanding (which is what the Bible preaches, does it not?)

Also, how can you say that when a woman becomes pregnant, it is no longer her body? Pregnancy doesn't forgo ones right to CHOOSE. If she does not wish to incubate a child for 9 months, that's her decision. I don't think it's fair to believe a woman should lose her freedom of choice, and loose dominion over her body.

I think it's interesting that people overlook the reasons for abortion, which mostly remain a personal matter. A woman shouldn't have to divulge details to anybody as to why they are having an abortion.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Splarne 9 years ago

You consider a 3 week old fetus to be a "human being," others may not.

Seems that idea requires blinders. If it isn't a human, what is it? It certainly isn't a "growth", like a cancer.

There is but one reason for males to be "pro-abortion" and that's to ensure the pool of available sex partners is deep. Nothing says "she puts out" like a woman running for an abortion.

***

Go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Oh_Daesu85 16 years ago

dutchrebelp,

I said "Let's be Rational," so don't use god as an excuse. This thread exists for the purposes of constructive debate. Your solution remains irrelevant and unrealistic.

We are sexual beings, whether you like it or not. Sex will be had. Pregnancy's will occur. Deal with it.

As for god being the only one who can give and take life...well I disagree. I don't believe in god. I believe in humanity. I believe that human beings (and science HAS proven this) are responsible for life. And I also believe they are responsible for taking it away.

Although I believe reason and faith can coincide (as Chris10000 has demonstrated) I think you should remove your heard from your ass and actually say something useful.

[–] Cognition 16 years ago

I completely agree with the OP. Since Abortions will happen anyway why punish those who do them and/or make it difficult for them.

I guess since people will always murder others we should revoke homicide laws as well. I mean if people are always going to murder others then I guess we should rethink the legislation on that.

As a (atheist) woman, I could only hope that if I ever got pregnant at an inopportune time, I wouldn't be so selfish as to deny a person the right to live. If nine months of inconvenience in a world where infertile couples beg for newborn babies (and almost always pay the medical fees) is too much for me to bear, well then I guess I would be ashamed of myself.

[–] Chris10000 16 years ago

"You seem to consider life sacred (perhaps because you're Christian)"

No. It's because I am a human being. What in the world could possibly be more sacred than human life?

"I think what we need here is a little understanding (which is what the Bible preaches, does it not?)"

I agree. Believe it or not, I do try to understand those with whom I disagree. I just do not understand how someone can deny an innocent the right to live based on their own irresponsible actions.

"Also, how can you say that when a woman becomes pregnant, it is no longer her body?"

So if the woman is nearing full term, she can impale her stomach with a knife? Or attempt a "back alley" abortion? It's "her" body. If you believe legally that she should not be able to do this, at what point in the pregnancy should this become illegal?

"Pregnancy doesn't forgo ones right to CHOOSE"

You make it seem like because it is a "choice", it alleviates any wrong doing. If I decided to rape someone (not that I EVER would), it would be a "choice". If I picked up my gun and shot someone, it would be a "choice".

"If she does not wish to incubate a child for 9 months, that's her decision. I don't think it's fair to believe a woman should lose her freedom of choice, and loose dominion over her body."

If a woman does not wish to incubate a child for 9 months, she should not have put herself in a position to become pregnant. You think it's unfair that a woman should lose her freedom. I think it is unfair for a child to lose his/her life. I will always choose human life over a principle or a freedom, because without life, there is nothing else.

"I think it's interesting that people overlook the reasons for abortion, which mostly remain a personal matter. A woman shouldn't have to divulge details to anybody as to why they are having an abortion."

As stated earlier, there is almost NO REASON to abort a pregnancy. Use birth control pills and condoms! I just do not understand the logic that if a baby is inside his/her mother, it has no rights, but if it passes through the mother's vaginal walls, it becomes suddenly endowed with legal status, UNLESS the baby is killed without the mother's consent, then it's murder (Under the federal law enacted after Laci Peterson's murder)

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hsvtarget 16 years ago

"As stated earlier, there is almost NO REASON to abort a pregnancy. Use birth control pills and condoms!"

Interestingly enough, as is pointed out early in the film, it is almost exclusively the pro-choice faction that pushes for birth control and condom use -- "Planned Parenthood" derives its name from precisely this, in fact.

However, I think you've missed the primary point the OP was making -- fairness, reason, justification, right or wrong-doing, these don't matter when people feel sufficiently desperate. In this context, a woman who, for whatever reason, feels that she can't have a baby WILL seek ways to avoid having that baby; this isn't a hypothetical, it's a historical fact. Despite the misinformation campaigns launched by pro-life organizations, it's a statistical fact that ersatz abortions are far more likely to cause serious injury or death than those carried out by trained medical staff under proper medical conditions, by around an order of ten. Given that you think that abortion is always wrong, do you feel it warrants a death penalty or mandatory sterilization? If so, you probably don't mind sentencing these women to the painful consequences of their actions; but given the highly complex nature of this issue, it's my position that this is both simplistic and unconscionable.

Personally, I hate abortion. I really, really do. I also don't really believe I have much right to an opinion on the matter, as I'm male. My mother and sister, however, both originally dedicated pro-lifers, and both registered nurses, have converted to pro-choice. Why? Because of the consequences and effects, both on the children and on society as a whole, of a child being unwanted.

At one time it was taken for granted that any female, once she's given birth, would automatically and instantly develop the proper mothering instincts; and I think that most healthy women in reasonably conducive circumstances do just that -- you see your baby, this incredible miracle that has grown within you for so long, and the life-long loving bond between mother and child is forged.

But this isn't always the case. Unwanted children are at extremely high risk of being malnourished, abused (physically and/or otherwise), molested, neglected, abandoned, killed, or passed from foster home to foster home. Their situation is far more likely to be compounded by pre-natal issues such as maternal drug abuse or STD complications. It's again a historical fact that those who've suffered abuse are more likely to become abusers, or to exhibit a lifelong pattern of seeking out abusive environments for pathological reasons. None of this makes them any less human, any less deserving of love, compassion, concern, or care; they're unique individuals, all with tremendous potential -- but receiving that deserved care is sadly unlikely. Any kind of quality of life is an uphill struggle at best, and this misery tends to breed more misery, along with even greater numbers of unwanted pregnancies down the road. To any who have been through any part of this experience and have avoided this cycle, you have my most profound respect and admiration; you probably know better than anyone else how hard, and uncommon, it is to escape.

[–] Oh_Daesu85 16 years ago

hsvtarget,

I appreciate your comments. You've stated clearly what I've been trying to convey all along.

I too hate the fact abortion exists, but that's the reality. "fairness, reason, justification, right or wrong-doing, these don't matter when people feel sufficiently desperate. In this context, a woman who, for whatever reason, feels that she can't have a baby WILL seek ways to avoid having that baby; this isn't a hypothetical, it's a historical fact."

Very well said.

And Chris1000, you have been insulting my intelligence far too long. You know I don't agree with your extreme examples, so don't imply that I do.

[–] Oh_Daesu85 16 years ago

Chris 10000,

I'm not trying to pick on you here, but I feel I should reply to some of your comments.

I asked: "You seem to consider life sacred (perhaps because you're Christian)"

You replied: "No. It's because I am a human being. What in the world could possibly be more sacred than human life?"

I think all life on the planet is sacred. Plants, animals, etc. Not just human beings. I don't think nature has made us more sacred than the rest of our planet. We are a part of it, forever connected. I dislike the human arrogance which holds our species above all else. Our lives our no more sacred than that of of lion. Therefore, terminating a pregnancy, within reason, is not the loss of something miraculous. It's nature.

I asked: "I think what we need here is a little understanding (which is what the Bible preaches, does it not?)"

You said: "I agree. Believe it or not, I do try to understand those with whom I disagree. I just do not understand how someone can deny an innocent the right to live based on their own irresponsible actions."

You are not understanding others. You are not grasping other peoples views and opinions on the subject. You think abortion is wrong, period. Others don't. You think that a human life shouldn't be terminated because people have irresponsible sex. Some people don't believe it's a human life early in the pregnancy. You're displaying a lack of compassion and understanding.

You said:

"As stated earlier, there is almost NO REASON to abort a pregnancy."

Wrong. YOU don't believe there's a reason for abortion. You are unforgiving, which interestingly is non-Christian. People make mistakes when it comes to sex. We are sexual beings. Sometimes we get ahead of ourselves and in the moment, forget about the consequences. Of course, this shouldn't be a recurring excuse, but it happens. Abortions are not something that's treated casually, they are often a desperate measure (not always, but most of the time) You have to put yourself in the other person's shoes. You have to understand their views. Their desperation. And even if you don't agree with their choice, forgive them for their mistake. It's the Christian way, sir. Not only that, it's the human way.

[–] chamohlamb 7 years ago

Many people who are against abortion are against birth control as well. So I guess wait until you're married to have sex and then pop out 6 or 7 children.

[–] Oh_Daesu85 16 years ago

Cognition,

"why punish those who do them and/or make it difficult for them."

Because we risk the chance of women performing procedures on themselves, and possibly dying. Why is this any better? Abortion isn't easy for anybody, and I don't think Abortion Clinics make it any easier. It comes down to personal choice, which is what I've been arguing all along.

"I could only hope that if I ever got pregnant at an inopportune time, I wouldn't be so selfish as to deny a person the right to live."

If one wants to have children, ideally, they should be prepared to give their life to that child. Some folks are just not ready, for a multitude of reasons. And ultimately, a child will suffer from an unprepared environment.

Also, you say it's selfish to deny the right of a "person" to live. I don't see this logic. It's our choice to conceive a child, but once the child is conceived our ability to choose diminishes?

Furthermore, I disagree with your comparison of abortion to people who commit homicide. There's a difference between murdering a cognitive human being, and terminating a pregnancy in its early stages. I don't believe it's a "person" yet. If you do, that's fine. But your views should not affect other peoples choices, such as a womens right to choose abortion.

By the way, Cognition, if you don't agree with me, great. We are here to debate. But don't insult me by using sarcasm and condescending language. I may disagree with you on ALL you points, but I still respect your views. I'd appreciate the same treatment.

[–] hsvtarget 16 years ago

ahem -- You're the OP, Daesu85 -- Cognition was agreeing with you. The sarcasm re: homicide laws was in support of your point, not contesting it.

Of course, as always, I'm potentially dead wrong -- if so, please pipe in Cognition and correct me!

[–] Chris10000 16 years ago

"And Chris1000, you have been insulting my intelligence far too long. You know I don't agree with your extreme examples, so don't imply that I do."

No I don't know this. I don't see how I am "insulting your itelligence"- just by retorting your argument while staying within context. And if you don't agree with my extremes, when is the "cut-off".

IE: You don't believe in 9-month abortions, but you do believe in 1 month abortions. So when, in your opinion, is the "parasite" endowed with life and thereby given legal status?

[–] Oh_Daesu85 16 years ago

Chris1000,

"So if the woman is nearing full term, she can impale her stomach with a knife? Or attempt a "back alley" abortion? It's "her" body. If you believe legally that she should not be able to do this, at what point in the pregnancy should this become illegal?”

THIS is what I'm referring to. You're implying that I think a woman can "impale her stomach with a knife" when she's nearing full term. This is an extreme example. As I've clearly stated, and as you've acknowledged, I don't believe in late abortions. Surely one conducted in such a cruel, malicious way.

Another extreme example you used was:

"You make it seem like because it is a "choice", it alleviates any wrong doing. If I decided to rape someone (not that I EVER would), it would be a "choice". If I picked up my gun and shot someone, it would be a "choice".

Those are indeed choices, but they are out of context, and EXTREME. I don't think it's fair to compare abortion to rape or shooting someone. Where we differ, and you must realize this, is that I don't think a one month old fetus is a human being. It's a fetus. You probably disagree, and that's fine. Just don't suggest I think it's okay to rape someone because it's a "choice".

"just by retorting your argument while staying within context.”

I don't believe you have been staying within context. Equating abortion to rape and homicide is straying from the point.

“You don't believe in 9-month abortions, but you do believe in 1 month abortions. So when, in your opinion, is the "parasite" endowed with life and thereby given legal status?”

I never referred to a fetus as a parasite. I'm not that cold. That said, to answer your question, I think an abortion within the first couple of months of pregnancy is reasonable. I don't know why you ask, because no matter what my answer is, you'll disagree. But I digress.

Chris1000, answer me this: Are you against women having a safe place to conduct an abortion? Would you prefer abortion was illegal and women sought other means of terminating the pregnancy?

[–] Oh_Daesu85 16 years ago

hsvtarget.

I appreciate your concern but there was no way Cognition was agreeing with me haha.

She stated:

"I completely agree with the OP. Since Abortions will happen anyway why punish those who do them and/or make it difficult for them."

This certainly sounds like she's agreeing with me. Then she wrote:

"I guess since people will always murder others we should revoke homicide laws as well. I mean if people are always going to murder others then I guess we should rethink the legislation on that."

Wonderful sarcasm! How constructive.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Oh_Daesu85 16 years ago

gt004,

"The whole "personal choice" thing bothers the *beep* out of me. If it was my personal choice to rape a 13 year old, would you be cool with it? If it was my personal choice to kill my grandmother, would you be cool with it?"

Don't be a douchebag. You must understand that some people don't share your beliefs. Some people don't consider a fetus a human being. Do don't equate abortion to rape and homicide. You're reiterating Chris1000's points and they have no bearing in this argument because they are extreme and out of context.

A problem with pro-lifers is that they fail to see the larger picture. For example, abstinence-only sex education is worthless because it's in our nature to be sexual. Also, preaching to a woman about the "wrongs" of abortion is very much the same way. If a woman is desperate, and she wants to terminate the pregnancy, she will bloody do it. You may consider that "wrong," but abortion is legal and that's just the way it is. It's legal for a reason. So women can be helped, and not be left bleeding to death on a bathroom floor. ACKNOWLEDGE THIS. SEE THE WIDER PICTURE.

"If you look at the big picture, does abortion really sound like something God/Allah/whoever intended humans to do, when compared with conceiving children?"

NOT AN ARGUMENT. I respect the relationship between faith and reason, but this point doesn't prove anything to me. I'm an atheist. Does going to the moon sound like something "God/Allah/whoever" intended us to do? Hard to answer, yes?

Don't assume the intentions of a higher being.

[–] Chris10000 16 years ago

"A problem with pro-lifers is that they fail to see the larger picture. For example, abstinence-only sex education is worthless because it's in our nature to be sexual."

When did I ever say I support abstinence only education? I believe in an earlier post that I stated that if people have sex without the intent of conceiving, they should use condomns and birth control.

I also find it interesting that you keep talking about how women need access to safe abortions. HA! "Safe abortion". That's the biggest oxymoron I've ever heard!

[–] Oh_Daesu85 16 years ago

Chris10000,

I never said you supported abstinence only sex education. It was an example which you cut and pasted out of context. Thanks, man.

"I also find it interesting that you keep talking about how women need access to safe abortions. HA! "Safe abortion". That's the biggest oxymoron I've ever heard!"

What are you contributing here? Yes, safe abortions. As in a safe PROCEDURE. Women should have access to sanitary, and comfortable medical environments.

If all you want to do is point out pseudo-oxymoron's, be my guest. But you're not really contributing to the debate. You're stalling it.

[–] Chris10000 16 years ago

How can something designed to kill human life be considered safe?

I'm stalling a debate? What do we have left to debate? You support killing human life because of irresponsibility and convenience. I do not.

[–] Oh_Daesu85 16 years ago

"How can something designed to kill human life be considered safe?"

When a woman doesn't bleed to death on her bathroom floor. Once again, you fail to acknowledge a view other than your own. Some don't view a fetus as "human" life. You know this.

"You support killing human life because of irresponsibility and convenience"

Wrong. I support a woman's right to choose. You do not.

You are unable, or simply don't care to understand other peoples beliefs. Your view isn't absolute. It's a view. You have every right to it, but you don't have the right to pass judgment on those you don't agree with.

Abortion is not a black and white issue, hence, the debate. People don't often argue about the moral ambiguity of murder, because murder is undoubtedly immoral. Aborting a pregnancy is another, more complex matter. You must realize this.

Some consider a fetus non-human until it's viable. You seem to think it's a human from the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg. What makes you right? What makes anybody right on this issue? There is no right or wrong answer. There is personal belief, and personal choice. These things should be mutually respected.

[–] BingeOn 16 years ago

Please explain how we are sexual beings? Just because one person may have sex everyday doesn't mean the other person doesn't have sex only to procreate. Some people are too busy with their professional lives to even think about sex.

I believe responsibility should come before sex which is taught in Sex Ed for both genders (takes 2 to tango). However, by what I believe your saying about human beings being sexual, I think this is because media is ingraining dirty images into our head (very dirty - also I blame the internet). Children are having sex at any early age before they reach Sex Ed class and I'm blaming the media. Media is the apex to reasoning for abortions.

[–] Oh_Daesu85 16 years ago

"However, by what I believe your saying about human beings being sexual, I think this is because media is ingraining dirty images into our head (very dirty - also I blame the internet."

There is NOTHING dirty about sex. It's human. It's an expression of oneself. It's pleasurable. Sex is not something that should be considered dirty, it's natural. When we reach a certain age, we became sexually aware. We have sexual desires. There is a reason for this.

Of course I believe maturity and responsibility are key when engaging in sex, but as far as two consenting people are concerned, it's their business.

"Some people are too busy with their professional lives to even think about sex."

Honestly? You honestly believe this? Study human psychology. Study history! Sex has always been a part of human culture. Don't buy into stigmas. For example, sex is considered less taboo in Europe. North American cultural traditions have demonized sex into something sinful. It's not.

"Children are having sex at any early age before they reach Sex Ed class and I'm blaming the media."

How about you blame PARENTS. If younger folks are engaging in sex, they certainly understand what it is, and if they know this much, the parents should educate them on sexual responsibility, maturity, etc.

It is probable that the media presents sex to a younger, unsuspecting audience, but the media shouldn't be to blame for sexual responsibility. I do not believe in censorship, and I do not believe sex is dirty. Sexual images on TV can be tasteless, but that's another story. If a media outlet wants to depict tasteful sex or sexual imagery, they should be permitted within reason. It is a parents place to educate their children about sex. Not the medias.

"However, by what I believe your saying about human beings being sexual, I think this is because media is ingraining dirty images into our head (very dirty - also I blame the internet)."

Ever heard of paganism? Ancient Greece? Ancient Rome? Did the media inspire sexual exploration in these periods? Did the media influence Rome's many orgies? No, human beings did. Our natural desire for sex did.

The pre-Christian world had no misgivings about sex. Religious ideology and contemporary stigmas allow sex to be viewed as something dirty. So please, don't blame the media for irresponsible sex. The media is not a parental figure. It is a source of information and entertainment.

You want something to blame? Blame human psychology. Blame human instinct.

[–] BingeOn 16 years ago

"There is NOTHING dirty about sex."

I don't literally mean dirty as in "dirty". I meant naughty, explicit, etc... This is a movie forum, and the word explicit is thrown around a lot. I just used a synonym, dirty.

"Honestly? You honestly believe this? Study human psychology."

Honestly, I do believe people are too busy with their professional lives to think about sex. And I did study psychology and if you did too, basic knowledge is that it's not correct for every case. Also, psychology is always morphing to suit society. On top of that, psychologists do not have a solution for everything. Look at it statistically, we have outliers and unusual data. I work in the finance industry. There are a lot of us who work 80+ hrs a week (this includes weekends). The time we have off, we sleep. The time we are awake, we think about money and lots of it. Even in school, some people think more about studying and their future than sex. You seem to fail to see this.

"How about you blame PARENTS"

I never said I exclude blame on parents. There are bad parents, of course, who allow their children to be glued to televisions, and provide no good influence, and they are to blame too. I think media has a big role though. I've seen provocative ads for storage houses which is awkward, right dab in the middle of the city. To see the extent what media can do, you know what killed many Africans? Successful marketing and control of the market of diamonds. Commercial made diamonds popular and in turn it killed millions. Communism has spread through media propaganda. Also think of the less murderous McDonald's. You try as a parent to go against their marketing campaign which spends millions, maybe even billions a year, just to get your kid to eat their food.

"I do not believe in censorship"

Censorship is the reason we have ratings and age limitations on movies. We censor our children from watching adult rated films. How would you like your child hanging out with a group of friends going to see an R rated film with sex scenes throughout? I believe we need censorship to some degree just like freedom of speech (ex: slander).

"Ever heard of paganism? Ancient Greece? Ancient Rome? Did the media inspire sexual exploration in these periods? Did the media influence Rome's many orgies? No, human beings did. Our natural desire for sex did."

Individualism sparks a society and culture. Think of Thoreau. The culture you speak about expressed themselves sexually through media and probably started as a small group of people or one person. Similar to a fashion style. That is how all cultures erupted. I studied civilization, economics, and urban studies. Paganism has media too. Religions have media. Art, books, portraits, etc. Even The Bible is a type of media. If media was not tangible during their time, it was proclamation by word of mouth (old-age media). That opened doors to sexual freedom. However, what about the Amish, Iranians (women who in their culture cover up), cultures that don't believe in contraception, people in countries currently at war. You are generalizing that everybody is a sexual being but not everybody has sex on their mind.

"The media is not a parental figure. It is a source of information and entertainment."

Tell that to the many people who grew up on TV because their parents were too busy working to support the family. Or even those who can not see outside the box of television, who can't miss an episode of "Sex and the City". A huge portion of population spends their free time watching television. Media can be a bad influence, bad information. Think about all the children who go "oh, I saw it on TV" or the next kid that goes into a school with an artillery. Later we find out that written in his diary he states he was imitating a movie.

I'm pro choice on abortion because of the burden that unwanted children face. I'm not going against your argument because everyone has a right to their own opinion, but my intention was to point out your generalization of saying everybody is a sexual being. Psychologically that's correct. However, psychologically, abortion should have its detriments too. The morals of women who choose abortion seemed unscathed by their choice, ridding themselves of the life they created for their own selfish lives. You portray that everybody wants sex, and in our modern and diverse era, I think this falls into the cracks of modern psychology. Not all of us are sexually beings. Now from your reply, I learned you are so focused on your point that you fail to see the realm around you. It seems you want to negate the other side of the argument. There will always be, two sides of an argument. Instead of supporting your argument even more, you have shown to criticize other people's opinion. This is your thread, so I will no longer comment to your spearheaded justifications.

[–] BingeOn 16 years ago

Just so I don't seem like an jerk, here is your lack of credibility in "debate".

First the title: Let's be Rational...you have already chosen a side and in your post, you ask for the other side's opinions, stating already in your title they will be irrational.

"Abortion is not something that should be legislated. It remains a personal choice. That's what pro-lifers fail to realize. Whether it is made illegal or not, women who are desperate for an abortion will pursue that avenue on their own initiative.

If a woman wants an abortion, she will have an abortion. Plain and simple. Isn't it reasonable to give her a safe, comfortable, and sterile environment to conduct it in? If you disagree, you fail to acknowledge the potential harm a woman can do to herself when attempting an abortion. Women have died conducting abortions on themselves. If that's okay with you, then what does this so-called "pro-life" stance mean exactly?

Those who are pro-life are entitled to their opinion...but don't be unreasonable. You need to acknowledge the fact that it is indeed a personal choice, and no matter how much you protest, and how much you want the law to change, a women's body is her own. The general public doesn't get to decide what is best for her.

Be realistic. Be considerate and humane. Don't relegate abortions to the home, or some dark alley. Abortions are taking place whether you like it or not, so let them be conducted safely."

You belittle the pro-life side of the argument when you ask for their opinion. And to their responses you criticize them. How very open minded you are.

Those who can truly say people are entitled to their own opinion are reserved to people who are open minded, which you are not. This is a major problem to all problems, and in this case, not prolife or prochoice. The problem is being a brickhead, believing truly whatever you say is correct and neglecting everything and everyone else. That makes people fail. That makes society fail.

Although, let us forget the sides and better yet find a solution. I was wrong to say I'm pro choice. Don't call yourself pro-life or pro-choice. Don't put yourself as a republican or a democratic. Find your own reasoning. Find your own belief. Find yourself. Then unite with other individuals to aid people to benefit society. Don't just conform to a group.

If you want, in your argument, try substituting the word abortion with suicide and nouns to include everybody. It fits well. Or with little word changes, even pollution and how we are trying fix the world while we continuously ruin it. Don't think about abortion. Take a step back. Think about solutions for unwanted pregnancy.

[–] Oh_Daesu85 16 years ago

precocial-2,

You criticize me for generalizing and not understanding the other side. I don't think this is fair. I always make a point of saying the opposing side is entitled to their view because I truly believe that. I may not agree with the opposing view, but it wouldn't be much of a debate if I did.

It is true I make generalizations. We ALL do in a debate. You have yourself. For instance:

"I think this is because media is ingraining dirty images into our head”

This is a generalization. It is your opinion, and I respect it, but I don't agree. Many would choose to disagree with you, and I'm sure just as many would side with you. Regardless, it's a generalization. We are all guilty of making them.

"Communism has spread through media propaganda.”

Yes, and so has Americanism. What's the point? I have never undermined the influence media (and propaganda) has had on the world. I agree with you. The media is a powerful tool. Where we differ is that I don't think the media is solely responsible for heightened sexual awareness and practice.

"I believe we need censorship to some degree just like freedom of speech (ex: slander).”

I don't think we need censorship. Censorship decides what is right, and what is wrong. That's an individuals choice. A ratings system is not censorship. It's an information tool used to inform the public about subject matter and content. Of course, certain freedoms (such as freedom of speech) are abused. If someone is spreading using slander for personal benefit (or whatever the case may be), they are abusing their freedom of speech. Spreading lies and using deceitful language is immoral, I agree. However, I don't see how censoring art is the same thing as restricting slander.

"However, what about the Amish, Iranians (women who in their culture cover up), cultures that don't believe in contraception, people in countries currently at war. You are generalizing that everybody is a sexual being but not everybody has sex on their mind.”

It is in our nature to have sex. It's built in. We may not always think about it, but it's there. The Amish and other sexually repressive and/or oppressive cultures make a choice to not be overtly sexual. Be it ideology, or religious belief, it does not account for the fact we are meant to breed, spread the seed, keep the species going, etc.

19th century Victorian England was extremely sexually oppressive. It was believed that sex was succumbing to weakness, and should be acted upon only to procreate. And still, it was believed that no pleasure should be derived from it. Know what happened? An increase in incest. People were so desperate to have sex, they were unable to abstain. The Victorian Era's sexual oppression bled through in its literature. Dracula, for example, is not strictly about a vampire. It is about a being who unleashes sexuality, which in turn causes London to turn chaotic. It is a book about the fears and anxiety toward sex in this period. Even in the most sexually oppressive cultures, sex boils to the surface.

Another example, 1950's/60's America. What happened? The Sexual Revolution. I think you understand where I'm coming from. You may not agree, but that's cool.

"Think about all the children who go "oh, I saw it on TV" or the next kid that goes into a school with an artillery. Later we find out that written in his diary he states he was imitating a movie.”

You're generalizing. If a kid walks into a school with the intention of shooting his classmates, he is more often than not, mentally disturbed. There are more forces at work than merely watching TV and shooting up your school.

"but my intention was to point out your generalization of saying everybody is a sexual being. Psychologically that's correct. However, psychologically, abortion should have its detriments too.”

I don't understand your intention here. You admit that yes, sex is hardwired, but at the same time abortion has its "detriments." Generally speaking, a good portion of women who have an abortion performed are met with anxiety, even depression. This is because of the psychical and emotional bond forged upon pregnancy. So yes, abortion, on a psychological can be detrimental, but who said it wasn't?

"The morals of women who choose abortion seemed unscathed by their choice, ridding themselves of the life they created for their own selfish lives.”

You're generalizing and making snap judgments, two things you criticized me for.

"You portray that everybody wants sex, and in our modern and diverse era, I think this falls into the cracks of modern psychology. Not all of us are sexually beings.”

I never said everybody WANTS sex. I never even said that everybody needs sex. I stated we are sexual beings. If it's not at the forefront of our minds, it's in the background. And as you said, "Psychologically that's correct." Well, I'm basing my view on psychology. If you don't agree, that's fine. I understand there are folks that may not have the time to even think about it (folks such as yourself) but at the same time, somewhere in your mind, sex has its place. You may not be conscious of it, but it's there. It's how we survived as a species.

"This is your thread, so I will no longer comment to your spearheaded justifications.”

Please do. I appreciate your comments.

"Let's be Rational...you have already chosen a side and in your post, you ask for the other side's opinions, stating already in your title they will be irrational."

How did you come to this? Is it wrong to ask for rationality in a debate? I don't think so. You criticize me for choosing a side as well. I'm sorry, but what's the point in starting a thread without a point of reference? Of course I'm going to choose a side, just like you have done.

Also, you state "you ask for the other side's opinions, stating already in your title they will be irrational." How did I do this? I was asking for a discussion based on reason, not faith. I didn't assume those who responded to this thread would be irrational. I honestly don't know where you're coming from.

"You belittle the pro-life side of the argument when you ask for their opinion. And to their responses you criticize them. How very open minded you are.”

How do I belittle? When have I criticized? I've offered my views, opinions, and beliefs, but always with respect to the other side of the argument.

"The problem is being a brickhead, believing truly whatever you say is correct and neglecting everything and everyone else.”

Over and over again I've pleaded that making abortions illegal would cause harm to desperate women seeking the procedure with nowhere to go. This is a fact. I've also discussed my belief that a woman's body is her own, and she may do with it what she pleases. People have responded to these views, and I have retorted. At no point have I belittled, criticized, or told anyone they were outright wrong. I have admitted a difference of opinion, but I have never "[neglected] everything and everyone else.”

"Don't just conform to a group.”

I agree with you completely. The topic of abortion, like many other things, is not black and white. It is important we inform ourselves, and consider all aspects of the argument.

"Think about solutions for unwanted pregnancy."

Once again, I agree.

In closing, I think you have been very unfair to me. You stated, "Those who can truly say people are entitled to their own opinion are reserved to people who are open minded, which you are not." You have not justified this with an appropriate example. If you think I'm out of line here, please point it out.

Whatever your opinion is of me, I appreciate you comments. Keep them coming. You're obviously very intelligent. I just don't understand why you needed to stray away from the argument to criticize me without justification.

[–] BingeOn 16 years ago

“How do I belittle? When have I criticized?”

“You seem to consider life sacred (perhaps because you're Christian)” (an ignorant assumption)

“And Chris1000, you have been insulting my intelligence far too long.” (Your reply to an opinion.)

“Don't be a douchebag.” (Your reply to an opinion.)

“A problem with pro-lifers is that they fail to see the larger picture.” (Stereotype)

“Honestly? You honestly believe this?” (Rude)

“That's what pro-lifers fail to realize.” (Stereotype)

“If you disagree, you fail to acknowledge…” (You assume pro-life has not thoroughly thought about the situation unless they see your view.)

“Those who are pro-life are entitled to their opinion...but don't be unreasonable. You need to acknowledge…” (You begin your debate by assuming persons of pro-life will have unreasonableness in their argument (as if they are not smart). Was it necessary to say this? And again you support this unreasonableness by making an assumption that they have not acknowledged your view.)

“Be realistic. Be considerate and humane.” (What is your point here, as you like to say? You direct your discussion to believers of pro-life and ask them to explain themselves. Your claiming the pro-life argument will be of something unrealistic and not considerate or humane…. Of course, their reason is inhumane...sarcasm)

“Is it wrong to ask for rationality in a debate? I was asking for a discussion based on reason, not faith.” (Your title assumes there is irrationality and throughout your text you place it all on the other side of this argument, pro-life. You assume pro-life is all about faith and you assert these assumptions when you say “You fail to acknowledge…”)

“I think all life on the planet is sacred.”
“You may consider that "wrong," but abortion is legal and that's just the way it is.”
"You need to acknowledge the fact that it is indeed a personal choice, and no matter how much you protest, and how much you want the law to change, a women's body is her own."

You contradict yourself. You believe abortion should have reasoning, a 9 month old fetus compared to a 1 month old fetus. You put life into a 9 month old fetus and you consider it sacred. You do not believe in late term abortions. What about states that have a statute to allow late term abortions? Should we not protest? Is it futile? Don’t you think life is sacred? Again, should we not fight for reasoning? You tell believers of pro-life it is useless to protest abortion because it is the law. How do you think laws are made? It is through protest. Should we support gay rights if we are not gay? Should white abolitionists have done nothing for slavery? Gays and black slaves have their own body, legs, and mouth and we have our own, but it is American fundamental (as is others) to fight for what they believe is right and wrong even if it does not involve them. If you think a friend is harming his or herself or someone else, wouldn't you intervene? "You need to acknowledge" if looking at the other end of the argument, is the fetus the woman's body? Are women going through abortion hurting someone else? You say you look at both sides and already brought this notion up, but yet you neglect it here. Referring back to laws, you said you are an atheist but you make the government look like God. You say agree against conformity yet you believe we should abide by laws but what if they're wrong?

“Therefore, terminating a pregnancy, within reason, is not the loss of something miraculous. It's nature.”

How is it nature if you support abortion clinics? That is way beyond nature and in the realm of technological advances. Clinics are a place to have women in sterile conditions, having fetuses aborted by professional doctors, carried out by expensive equipment, and checks done so that “nature” does not have negative effects latterly on the mother.

“I do not believe in censorship… If a media outlet wants to depict tasteful sex or sexual imagery, they should be permitted within reason."

You do not believe in censorship but yet you believe censorship should work with reasoning. So yes to censorship?

“A ratings system is not censorship. It's an information tool used to inform the public about subject matter and content.”

Age restriction is a form of censorship. That is why legislation was pushed heavily to adopt rating systems, either to prevent law suits (suitability ie: toys) or censoring children (also to prevent litigation). These rating systems provide the basis for age restriction.

“Be it ideology, or religious belief, it does not account for the fact we are meant to breed, spread the seed, keep the species going, etc.”

Stating this comment does not support abortion. You call people sexual beings because they want to “spread the seed, keep the species going”. However this refutes the reason for abortion. Why do we need abortion if we want to keep the species going? The way it is stated in your context, you call humans sexual beings because we need to have sex for pleasure. Now, you contradict yourself and say its part of the human ideology. If we speak of the ideology, then abortion is unnecessary. Therefore your meaning for sexual beings can only be for pleasure.

“You're generalizing. If a kid walks into a school with the intention of shooting his classmates, he is more often than not, mentally disturbed. There are more forces at work than merely watching TV and shooting up your school.”

You bring up psychology but you steer away from it here. What creates mental disturbance? Externalities. It’s what the person absorbs around him/her. You cannot disconnect the world from their mind. The mind starts as a blank canvas. The major shootings that occurred at schools were linked to video games, internet, movies, and/or TV. That is a fact. Aggression and violence are linked to these externalities and this massive connection was linked to media. It may not be the reason for why the student kills his/her fellow peers but their actions reflect the influence of these externalities which is media. There is evidence. There are studies. The Virginia Tech student copied the game “counter-strike”. This is not a generalization, but I failed to state that I speak only of the “major” instances because that is where empirical evidence is widely available.

“Generally speaking, a good portion of women who have an abortion performed are met with anxiety, even depression. This is because of the psychical and emotional bond forged upon pregnancy.”

I had 2 classmates that I knew who had an abortion. Sure they felt the depression and anxiety, mainly because they did not want their parents to find out. They went ahead with the abortion. They did not care because like you say, it’s not murder because it is not life. Then what are you bonding to? I work in NYC where many rallies are held. There were many young women who preach gleefully that abortion is okay and state they know firsthand. Why? If they obtained depression and anxiety after the procedure, why are they rallying it is okay to be depressed? Why is it okay to face anxiety? They don’t know firsthand the feelings of giving birth to a child. They are not mothers. I heard a few of them state they had the procedure done more than once. Oh how great they learned how to deal with the anxiety and depression of abortion. You say there is a bond, but why are so many victims of unwanted pregnancy, who had an abortion, preaching others that this bond is negligent, that abortion is acceptable and to not worry. The bond between mother and child is disappearing and being felt by indifference. Being at these rallies and hearing their testimonies, they have portrayed themselves to be unscathed by abortion. Another harsh example that I saw in a report was on prostitution. Human trafficking is a large and lucrative business. They abuse abortion and in psychology, with abuse, an indifference will grow towards what is being abused. This effect will also raise the statistics on clinic effectiveness, and when these doctors boastfully and manipulatively present these high numbers (mainly to attract people to their clinics), people will believe abortion is accepted by the public and that it is okay.

"The morals of women who choose abortion seemed unscathed by their choice, ridding themselves of the life they created for their own selfish lives.” -My Comment

This I agree I generalize only because I’ve seen so many of these disrespectful rallies. I garnered first hand these rallies, seemingly a large sample of the pro-choice movement. They transform from the intention of helping women to profess abortion is okay and useful. They claim how productive women lives can be (with testimonies) because of abortion since they do not have to be a mother. They defined the choice to be between their life or the baby. And then they continue their rally for other people to make the same decision, your life or the baby. They soon place themselves on the same field as contraception. They lose track of their original intention. And they do so happily against any opposition.

I admire your dedication to your belief but when listening to an opposition, great minds have molded themselves to find a proper solution. You are headstrong to have others see your view than rather direct yourself to come to a median conclusion. Your posts reflect your intention to have others hear what you have to say and refute any other. You make yourself seem like the defense seeking a prosecution, when the real issue is, we need the jury. And if this is merely a debate, it doesn't prevent you from learning from the opposition. You use will, desperation, choice, and personal embodiment as the reason for abortion clinics, but do you look at your own flaws? These are same reasoning supporters of drug legalization (for medicinal and non-medicinal use) assert. I had a definitive dose of the abortion issue as of lately and regret to honestly say this will be my end here. I sincerely thank you for enlightening me with your contribution to this issue, even though abortion is in a gray area, we need people to point out the reasoning to each side. I hope others will continue to contribute their belief on the abortion issue here in this thread. Enjoy.

[–] Oh_Daesu85 16 years ago

A couple things...

You have a tendency to cut and paste what I said out of context. Yes, I called someone a "douchebag" but that wasn't because of their views, it was how they were conducting themselves in this debate. That same person I believe kept comparing abortions to rape and homicide (an extreme comparison, I think), and suggested that since I believe in the right to choose, I believe in rape and homicide by extension (because they too are choices?). He suggested it more than once, despite my defense, and it was insulting. Hence, "Don't insult my intelligence."

As for "Honestly? You honestly believe this?”--it wasn't meant to be rude. It was an honest curiosity. I'm sorry if you took it as an insult.

“If you disagree, you fail to acknowledge…” (You assume pro-life has not thoroughly thought about the situation unless they see your view.)

Wrong. I'm not pleading with anyone to agree with my view. But I think it's important to knowledge the potential harm women face if abortion clinics are shut down. I'm not saying all those who are pro-life have never considered this, I'm merely suggesting that it needs to be considered! It was a general statement, directed to all, not just the opposition.

“Those who are pro-life are entitled to their opinion...but don't be unreasonable. You need to acknowledge…” (You begin your debate by assuming persons of pro-life will have unreasonableness in their argument (as if they are not smart). Was it necessary to say this? And again you support this unreasonableness by making an assumption that they have not acknowledged your view.)

Wrong. You are taking what I said out of context. I'm not suggesting that those who disagree with my view will have an "unreasonableness in their argument". I presented an argument which I think is rational, and I think should be treated as such. I stated, "Those who are pro-life are entitled to their opinion...but don't be unreasonable." That wasn't a general remark. It was specific to an argument I was making.

“You seem to consider life sacred (perhaps because you're Christian)” (an ignorant assumption)

Not an ignorant assumption. He is Christian, and I was presenting a suggestion. Once again, you take what I said out of context.

I'm gonna stop there. Once again, I think you're being unfair. You can't simply cut and paste what I said, and present it here out of context to suit your argument. Not cool, dude. Also, I find this problematic:

"You use will, desperation, choice, and personal embodiment as the reason for abortion clinics, but do you look at your own flaws?"

What do my flaws have to do with anything? We all have flaws. But this is a thread about abortion, not about me. I have a strong opinion on the subject, and I have presented it it here. I think I have done so without insulting or belittling those who disagree with me.

"Your posts reflect your intention to have others hear what you have to say and refute any other."

That's how a debate works. This is why people come here. To argue! We learn more from people we disagree with. If we came to find a "median conclusion" there would be nothing learned. We would simply agree to disagree. People in this thread have opened my eyes to some things I hadn't considered. You have suggested otherwise:

"And if this is merely a debate, it doesn't prevent you from learning from the opposition"

That's rather presumptuous, yes? I don't come here to flex my ego, I come here to learn. To get peoples opinions. Don't make me out to be some message board tyrant who doesn't care about any view but his own. Not true.

"we need people to point out the reasoning to each side."

That's why we're here, dude. That's what this thread has been about. When hearing from the opposition, I wanted to garner responses based on reason, hence, "Let's Be Rational!" That was never meant to suggest pro-lifers are unreasonable. I wanted a debate which brought reason to the table, and for the most part it has.

I would respond to your other remarks, but it seems pointless considering your previous post was your last.

[–] Adam_Mccormick2 15 years ago

This sort of stupid extreme comment is what makes Pro Lifers look like over secular idiots who cant think for themselves and blindly follow the religious doctrine as preached by some fat hick from the South.

[–] wintermonk 16 years ago

"Abortion is not something that should be legislated. It remains a personal choice. That's what pro-lifers fail to realize. "

Can you give some logical reasons to back up this assertion?

"Whether it is made illegal or not, women who are desperate for an abortion will pursue that avenue on their own initiative. "

That is irrelevant. That's like saying, "Murderers are going to murder, whether we make it illegal or not, so we might as well not bother outlawing it, since they're going to do it anyway.

"If a woman wants an abortion, she will have an abortion. Plain and simple. Isn't it reasonable to give her a safe, comfortable, and sterile environment to conduct it in? "

Irrelevant. If a woman wants to take heroin, it's her body. Shouldn't she be provided with a safe, comfortable, and sterile environment in which to pump some chemical into her own body?

"You need to acknowledge the fact that it is indeed a personal choice, and no matter how much you protest, and how much you want the law to change, a women's body is her own. The general public doesn't get to decide what is best for her. "

Uh, yes it is a personal choice. Most choices are. Whether to burn the neighbor's house down or not is a personal choice. There have always been laws regarding sexual conduct, and we think of sex as a personal choice. There are still laws regarding sexual conduct (sex with a minor is illegal, prostitution is illegal, sex in public is illegal). Your basically saying "abortion should be legal because..." and all your reasons could be used for just about any other crime, because any other crime is a personal choice as to whether or not to do it. And the hole, "A woman's body is her own" isn't good enough. Because then a person should be allowed to take any and all drugs he/she wants (it's their body), they should not be prevented from suicide, they should not have to use seat belts, etc. There have always been laws, and always will be laws, that govern how we are to behave in society, sometimes with our own property and even our own bodies. This reason, therefore, is not good enough.

Also, it ignores the point. Is it moral? That's what laws are really about, expeecting a certain level of morality in society. We still are going to expect a certain level in the future (thought it might continue to get less and less as we "progress" and continue to be "enlightened")

And it also ignores the question. Is the baby a human being? People just sort of ignore that part of the issue (the pro-choice peeople do, anyway)

"Be realistic. Be considerate and humane. Don't relegate abortions to the home, or some dark alley. Abortions are taking place whether you like it or not, so let them be conducted safely. "

But if it's immoral, then it shouldn't be conducted anywhere at anytime. Sorry, but I can't make it moral for you or anybody else. It is what it is. We can go on ending the lives of human fetuses and convince ourselves that it is not wrong. But, people reap what they sow. There is always a consequence for an action. There are negative consequences to a society that allows abortion, and they will outweight, by far, the negative consequences of "dark alley" abortions. It is unavoidable, and that ultimately will be the unavoidable and unmistakable proof (and punishment) that abortion is wrong.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jmitchell1532 16 years ago

I feel as though there shouldn't be a definitive "yes" or "no," in the sense that I wouldn't be able to trust a government that puts mandates on what people can/cannot do with thier bodies. A human is not property of the government. I was raised in a very strict, Catholic household. To this day I have heated discussions with all members of my family in regards to the issue. I think that it should remain legal, but that people should always exercise correct judgement when it comes to the matter; a final option, if you will. The sad thing is, there are many who will, and may already, abuse the choice and use it as a form of last-minute birth control. This should not be the case, but sadly, it may well be. In my opinion, the government should never pass a law decreeing what is legal/illegal to do with one's body. Does that mean I agree with abortion since I am Pro-Choice. Not entirely. But like I said, I am not in support of a government that would tell someone that they couldn't simply because.

And I know I'm going to get heat for this, but isn't it ironic that the very Pro-Life, anti abortion Christians are the ones who do not actually follow one of God's simplest decrees, "Judge lest ye be judged?"

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]