The divide between America's liberals and conservatives

[nelly <3]

How do you not? Barring rape, which at least by common definition is unwilling sex, there is only willing sex. i.e. there was a choice not to have sex

This is probably the most insulting thing I've heard in my 21yrs of life. Are you serious? How is rape "Willing Sex". Women who get raped DON'T have the choice. They didn't choose to have intercourse with the idiot who decided to stick their d#cks up them.
Makes me think you don't even know what the definition of rape means.

Seriously Ragnell, watch what you say.

Holy crap, I did not intend to start such a shitstorm. I don't want to turn this into a hate-fueled debate (or Abortion Thread 2.0), since the whole point of this thread was to try and share thoughts in a civil manner. But since people asked questions, I'll answer. And I do genuinely want to see other people's logic on this topic since it is such an intensely debated area and I'm always looking to see new viewpoints.

I'll answer these three for you:
1) This might've not been your intention but you basically just told all the woman who got raped that they choose to make that decision? Now I'm telling you from a first-person's point of view. I was a 16 yr old girl, sleeping in my bed, not knowing wtf was going to happen. In my innocence of my youth, and my weak body. How the f/ck was I supposed to endure the strength of a 06ft, 275 lb man. I was ALONE in my house when all of the disgrace had happened. I'm not asking for a pity party, but I'm lucky enough I didn't get pregnant. And I'm glad I didn't because If that were the case. I'm sorry but Abortion would be the way to go. And that goes for all the woman out there who experience such thing. After such event a woman has more of a chance to get Depression, PSTD, Alcohol & Drug abuse and even suicide. If a woman has a hard time loving herself after that, how is she going to have the love for the child? You start to feel a great amount of disgust after that, and I can only imagine how a woman would have a kid from the result of rape, the hatred and reminder of such event when she would look at the child's eyes. A Child deserves love from two loving parents that want to bring someone into this world. I don't believe in bringing them to a world of misery.

2) My thoughts on abortion aren't based on hate. I don't hate you (specially since I don't know you) but I completely disagree on what you said. So we are sharing thoughts on a civil manner. We're just merely responding to your opinions.

3) Did you know that 1 out of every 6 women have been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime? and if they're not now, they will? No one knows when such thing is gonna happen. About 15% of woman result in having a pregnancy because of rape. I can't stress how much a child deserves love & happiness. And this is one of the reasons why I strongly support Abortion.
What if the woman lives in poverty, what if the woman is a drug addict, what if the woman just doesn't have the means to support that child? Does the child deserve to suffer because of that?

I do think children should pay for parent's mistakes as little as possible

A child never deserves anything of such sort. It wasn't their fault, so they shouldn't live through misery.

How do you or anyone else have the right to decide before a child is born whether it will be happy enough for it to be worth living?

Every child should be a wanted child.

Do they not even get a chance?

Theoretically speaking they should. However, I don't think it's very common a woman all of the sudden wakes up one day "Hey! I'm going to be irresponsible today, get pregnant and abort the child because I want to!?" or even "Hey! let me go get raped today and have a child as a result because none of it was wanted!" Have abortion for a reason, not just because. It is the woman's choice to go pro choice but it's also the babies' right for a life of happiness.

Even if the birth parents don't want him or her, there is always adoption. And yes, I'm aware that adoption does not always result in a happy sunshine ending.

You just answered your own question.

Still, isn't it worth not killing the child to at least try to give them a good life?

You're not killing the child if it hasn't been born yet.

Abortion may sound like a selfish choice from the face of it. But when pregnancy that occurs in the wrong place at the wrong time can have a lifelong/ negative impact on a woman's ability to raise a family and earn a living. A child needs a loving family and a happy household.

[Ragnell 37]

]It's because your opinions are bad and you should feel bad. Your post receive so much flak because you essentially told women that their body wasn't their own and you fell into logical pit holes. if you are oblivious to the fact that your opinion is very unpopular (and quite frankly stupid) then you should probably take a step back and read your posts.

I appreciate discussion and people helping me to understand their beliefs. Your first post did neither. I welcome your second post, though. That was an interesting view. And, for the record, I did no such thing. I should probably reword my original post, but I know I'll get tremendous backlash if I do. Like I've tried to clear up several times now, a woman's body is absolutely her own. However, the embryo is not her body, and if she had willing sex then she consented to having the embryo present in her body.

And I do know my opinion is not popular on the internet in general, however most of the outrage about it was due to misunderstanding.

Except these "people" don't have the right to life because they aren't yet people. The rights of the people who have their own lives, hobbies, friends, families, ideas, jobs, etc, the living and breathing people's rights take precedence over a clump of cells.

This is the major issue, and the part that I don't understand the opposing view. What is it that occurs during the 2nd or 3rd trimester that is so revolutionary? Is breathing what makes someone a human? If so, are people who have disorders that don't allow them to breathe human? Is it having "hobbies, friends, families, ideas"? Because that rules out pretty much anyone younger than 2 or 3 as people. So is killing them okay? Is it so-called sentience? I'm not sure when people become self-aware, but I'm pretty sure it's well past birth. I don't believe killing embryos is okay because there is not a clear point that I know of that can divide a person from a non-person.

This is probably the most insulting thing I've heard in my 21yrs of life. Are you serious? How is rape "Willing Sex". Women who get raped DON'T have the choice. They didn't choose to have intercourse with the idiot who decided to stick their d#cks up them.
Makes me think you don't even know what the definition of rape means.

Seriously Ragnell, watch what you say.

WHAT? Rape is unwilling sex. That's what I said. I would never dream of implying otherwise. I don't know the exact legal definition, but the general definition is unwilling sex, like I said. It's awful, and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

I'll answer these three for you:
1) This might've not been your intention but you basically just told all the woman who got raped that they choose to make that decision? Now I'm telling you from a first-person's point of view. I was a 16 yr old girl, sleeping in my bed, not knowing wtf was going to happen. In my innocence of my youth, and my weak body. How the f/ck was I supposed to endure the strength of a 06ft, 275 lb man. I was ALONE in my house when all of the disgrace had happened. I'm not asking for a pity party, but I'm lucky enough I didn't get pregnant. And I'm glad I didn't because If that were the case. I'm sorry but Abortion would be the way to go. And that goes for all the woman out there who experience such thing. After such event a woman has more of a chance to get Depression, PSTD, Alcohol & Drug abuse and even suicide. If a woman has a hard time loving herself after that, how is she going to have the love for the child? You start to feel a great amount of disgust after that, and I can only imagine how a woman would have a kid from the result of rape, the hatred and reminder of such event when she would look at the child's eyes. A Child deserves love from two loving parents that want to bring someone into this world. I don't believe in bringing them to a world of misery.

I said the exact opposite. Someone who is raped did not choose it, so that's why I can let instances of rape by as acceptable times for an abortion. Women have the right to do what they want with their body, so if they were not involved in the decision to have sex (which is the case with rape), then I can see how an abortion would be passable.

2) My thoughts on abortion aren't based on hate. I don't hate you (specially since I don't know you) but I completely disagree on what you said. So we are sharing thoughts on a civil manner. We're just merely responding to your opinions.

I wasn't directing this at you. You've been very civil, which I greatly appreciate. And, like I said, I like hearing other viewpoints. And if there is a problem in my thinking I would very much like it pointed out. There was just a small bit of nonconstructive name-calling.

3) Did you know that 1 out of every 6 women have been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime? and if they're not now, they will? No one knows when such thing is gonna happen. About 15% of woman result in having a pregnancy because of rape. I can't stress how much a child deserves love & happiness. And this is one of the reasons why I strongly support Abortion.
What if the woman lives in poverty, what if the woman is a drug addict, what if the woman just doesn't have the means to support that child? Does the child deserve to suffer because of that?

I don't doubt it. I've heard even higher numbers. And, again, I can see rape as an acceptable reason for an abortion.

A child never deserves anything of such sort. It wasn't their fault, so they shouldn't live through misery.

True. But can you really judge before a child is alive that they will be so miserable that it is worth killing them?

Every child should be a wanted child.

Absolutely. But like I said in my very first post, abortion doesn't make children wanted, it just makes the unwanted ones dead.

Theoretically speaking they should. However, I don't think it's very common a woman all of the sudden wakes up one day "Hey! I'm going to be irresponsible today, get pregnant and abort the child because I want to!?" or even "Hey! let me go get raped today and have a child as a result because none of it was wanted!" Have abortion for a reason, not just because. It is the woman's choice to go pro choice but it's also the babies' right for a life of happiness.

If the baby is a person, which is the crux of the debate, really, then they not only have this "right for a life of happiness" they also have the very important right to life at all. If the child likely having a bad life is a good enough reason to abort it, then shouldn't parents be allowed to abort babies as well? They are still not intelligent enough to even be compared to adult humans, and they might not have a happy life.

You just answered your own question.

I don't see "they might potentially be unhappy" as a justified cause to kill someone.

You're not killing the child if it hasn't been born yet.

Again, this is the crux of the argument. I've yet to see any sort of solid reasoning why an embryo is any less person than a 3rd trimester baby or a just-born infant. If it is not a person, then yes, killing them is okay. But I don't see why they aren't a person.

Abortion may sound like a selfish choice from the face of it. But when pregnancy that occurs in the wrong place at the wrong time can have a lifelong/ negative impact on a woman's ability to raise a family and earn a living. A child needs a loving family and a happy household.

I do agree that children should have loving households. But abortion does not give them a loving household. It kills everyone who might not have a good household.

[Cosmic+Amarna]

Do you know how many people would not exist or be who/what they are today if they were not permitted existence because their childhood would have been difficult perhaps even horrible? There would be quite a few things and people missing from the world if that was the case. A lot of the people who are successful or whatever you would like to call it came from unhappy or difficult upbringings. A lot of people who have discovered shit or been revolutionary in some way have not all come from happy, rich, privileged upbringings. I'm in the middle on both sides, because I think that there is some validity sometimes on refusing the life to exist because their life would have faced many difficulties. But then should children with disorders or diseases or whatever aliment be aborted too, because life for not only them, but their parents will be difficult? We have the knowledge and capability today to do such things as make the decision as to whether or not the life should be aborted or not based off things like the level of difficulty for the child and parent. I just feel like it may become an excuse for lazy ass people. I agree with some instances where it legitimately may be an act of mercy, but then again, how is it truly up to someone who is not that person to decide in an opposing instance? If I am asked now and told by my rents, Sam has your life been difficult, too difficult? Sam, do you yourself enjoy or have any attachment or pleasure from being alive? My answer would be: sometimes I have faced difficulty and yeah I enjoy being alive despite it's difficulties sometimes. But they then say, well we don't agree with you about that your thoughts on your own life and we think you should not exist.

Of course I do exist so what I just said is just an example that illustrates, one who is not born can not comment as I have, who is indeed alive. But does anyone see what I'm saying at all? Other than some blatant, obvious instance, why should the value and meaning of someone's life be pre determined based off future predictions that the child's life and adulthood by someone who is not that person? Abortion should be allowed, but surely it must be known that it will be abused by some.

[SHAWTYS #1 FAN]

Slightly semantic, but I see your distinction, so I'll go with it. Yes, I spoke incorrectly if you want to differentiate people from humans. I meant that I consider embryos both people and human. They have all the qualities to naturally develop into a sentient human being. I don't understand how some arbitrary point in development should be the only factor that determines someone's "personhood". People continue to develop for years after birth. Hell, people continue to develop physically and, more important, mentally late into their teens at the very least. Everyone always uses the phrase a "cluster of cells". But is that not what we all are? A very large cluster of cells? What is the magic number that determines someone's personhood? Why does that number of cells make such a difference?

There's nothing semantic about it at all. Let me clarify -- 'human' is a biological condition, and 'person' is a social/legal/philosophical condition. I'm not throwing these terms around to confuse you. They matter.

I already addressed the tentative rights argument. It just doesn't hold weight. Find me a legal precedent for that kind of mentality. My cousin is six, but she'll presumably continue to develop for years and years into the future. Should we grant her the right to consume alcohol on that basis, since she'll some day be 21?

The 'magic number' of cells that it takes to determine personhood is however many it takes for a consciousness to form (which is why I am against late term abortions). Slight tangent, but the argument that I use in favor of abortion is actually the same argument I use in favor of euthanizing people in persistent vegetative states, minus the women's rights angle. Remember Terri Shiavo? Did you think she was alive? I did. Did you think she was a person? I didn't. Biologically, she was definitely alive (albeit through artificial means) but without her personality, her memories, her awareness, or any of the other things that comprised her identify, she was not a person. She was an object. And fetuses are the same way. Until they reach a certain point in gestation, they are objects, and we don't grant rights to objects.

And Sentience? How do you define that? How do you measure that? By your statements I'm assuming you consider an infant sentient?

"Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive or be conscious, or to have subjective experiences."
-Wikipedia

And yes, I do.

Due to large head size of human infants and the difficulty of birth compared to many animals, human infants are very underdeveloped in their early years. Not what I would call sentient.

Then you're probably defining sentience incorrectly, or you don't understand child development very well.

Why is some specific point somewhere around 2nd and 3rd trimester so important?

Because that is when we begin to see sentience develop.

It could be argued, but I don't see a 2nd or 3rd trimester embryo as being so much more sentient that a 1st trimester embryo. Neither are really self-aware.

No, it really couldn't. Neonatal perception is something that's actually been studied and tested. We don't know everything about it, but we know a lot more than what you seem to want to admit.

I could have worded this more clearly, but obviously no. A person's body is their own, however an embryo is not the mother's body. Nor was it against her will to conceive. She chose to have sex and take the risk of conceiving. Except, that is, in the case of rape, which at least partially answers your question for how rape is different than regular conception. And, to answer what I assume will be the next comment, yes, even if the mother doesn't want a baby it is still consent. When you know a possible outcome to an action and then commit that action and net the outcome you knew could happen, is that not consenting that the outcome could happen? Can I point a partially loaded gun at someone Russian Roulette-style and when it kills them claim that I wanted a blank to go off? They consented to risking fertilization of an egg, so the egg being fertilized and developing is not a violation of their right to do what they want with their body. They have done what they wanted with their body. A child developing is simply a result of what they wanted.

I think Victor and Paolo already responded to this better than I could, but it does tie into the issue that I'm going to be addressing at the end of this post.

How do you not? Barring rape, which at least by common definition is unwilling sex, there is only willing sex. i.e. there was a choice not to have sex

Hey! I think you just answered your own question.

I just don't understand how people are okay with mass mercy killings just because the children might have had an unhappy life. How do you or anyone else have the right to decide before a child is born whether it will be happy enough for it to be worth living? Do they not even get a chance?

I'm not simply talking about an unhappy life, I'm talking about imposing the responsibilities of parenthood on people who are so determined to avoid them that they'd even seek an abortion in the first place. We're not dealing with just entrusting those people with the well being of a child -- you want to impose it on them.

The point I'm trying to make here is that if you're genuinely concerned about the welfare of children, it's a bit myopic of you to end your considerations at birth, as if quality of life was never a factor.

Even if the birth parents don't want him or her, there is always adoption. And yes, I'm aware that adoption does not always result in a happy sunshine ending. Still, isn't it worth not killing the child to at least try to give them a good life?

Adoption systems are overcrowded and ineffectual, and usually leave children spending their lives getting shuffled through different foster homes. For the record, it's not my opinion or blind speculation that these kids have lower qualities of life. It is a statistically verifiable fact. 50% of them drop out of high school, and only 1% of them ever go on to earn a college degree. 30% of America's homeless population were formerly in foster care. In some cases, I genuinely would think it was more merciful to prevent a person from ever existing in the first place than to get them tied up in adoption and foster care bureaucracies.

That is not at all what I meant. I find that as sick as you do. Honestly, rape is a tough issue for me. It's basically the right to life of a child up against a woman's right to do as she wishes with her body. I don't know the answer to which is more important, so I err toward letting the parent do what she wants. But a child is not a punishment, nor would I ever wish a child to grow up in a home where it is not wanted. I have no desire to see anyone saddled with a baby they don't want, nor a baby with parents who don't want it. I fully wish that contraceptives worked 100%, and people could have all the sex they wanted risk-free. However, if you still accept for the sake of the argument that an embryo is a person, then outside of rape I believe a child's life is more significant than a mother's convenience. Yes, bringing a child to term is freaking hard and painful, and as a guy I will never fully understand how difficult it is. But that does not supersede a person's right to life.

You didn't address my question at all, and I couldn't have phrased it any more clearly than I did the first time, so I can only think to repeat myself: is abortion wrong or isn't it, and why do the circumstances surrounding a conception hold any bearing on the value of (what you consider to be) a human life?

EDIT: I don't know who gave Ragnell negative repuation, but I wish that you hadn't. He's a nice dude, and he's allowed to have different opinions than we do.

[Ultima Keyblade]

Technically, a fetus is part of the mother's body. It is part egg info and part sperm info. All cells developed from those two persons. If both the cell owner and sperm owner agree to have an abortion, then logically they should have the right.

Look. Either abortion is legal or illegal. It can't be open or closed depending on the condition of the mother and fetus. Rape, medical issues, or simply unable to take care of the potential child, all cases have to be ok. And the mother should have the bloody right to choose. She came first. She actually has rights. It is within HER body. It was made by HER body. Having it aborted makes no difference to the fetus because it can't think or feel. It would not care. The only people who care are people who want to force people to do something. They just want to have power over one little woman's life. Once the baby is born, they won't follow it and be friends to the family. Just one chance to force their views on others and have the support.

Stop it. Stop denying women rights please. It is my body, not yours. Keep your beliefs out of my life.

[kazukifafner]

Stop it. Stop denying women rights please. It is my body, not yours. Keep your beliefs out of my life.

Look, I don't disagree with your position, but I hate this statement. I really do. I hate it every time I see it.

Why? Not because I think women shouldn't have rights, but because it's just distracting from the actual point that people who are pro-life are often trying to make.

It's like your trying to demonize someone for having another viewpoint by making a claim that, and I'm sorry to say it, isn't related.

And why isn't it related? Because that's not what pro-life people (or most, I would imagine) are talking about.

[keyblade2222]

Your first post did neither.

No, my first post pretty much summed up what I thought of every point you made. Further posts just elaborated.

[HadesDragon]

Do you know how many people would not exist or be who/what they are today if they were not permitted existence because their childhood would have been difficult perhaps even horrible? There would be quite a few things and people missing from the world if that was the case. A lot of the people who are successful or whatever you would like to call it came from unhappy or difficult upbringings. A lot of people who have discovered shit or been revolutionary in some way have not all come from happy, rich, privileged upbringings.

A lot of women who have abortions of children they simply aren't prepared to have later go on to have planned pregnancies. If I'm not mistaken, our own Johnny Stooge was such a case. If his mother had birthed the first child he might not exist today. Also, your child could grow up to be the next Albert Einstein...or the next Adolf Hitler. I see what you're saying, but it goes both ways.

[ZoroxX]

I could have worded this more clearly, but obviously no. A person's body is their own, however an embryo is not the mother's body.

The embryo is symbiotic. Take it away from the mother and it dies. You better damn well bet it belongs to her, and if she doesn't want it, who are you to impede that area of free will?

Nor was it against her will to conceive.

Rape. :(

[Cosmic+Amarna]

A lot of women who have abortions of children they simply aren't prepared to have later go on to have planned pregnancies. If I'm not mistaken, our own Johnny Stooge was such a case. If his mother had birthed the first child he might not exist today. Also, your child could grow up to be the next Albert Einstein...or the next Adolf Hitler. I see what you're saying, but it goes both ways.

Well yes I concur, it does go both ways, like much of everything. I was just addressing the premise of 'simply because it is going to be difficult, get an abortion' sort of notion. I even said myself that there are cases in which it is merciful to abort, but of course there will be other instances in which that person is just being lazy/selfish.

[Ultima Keyblade]

Well yes I concur, it does go both ways, like much of everything. I was just addressing the premise of 'simply because it is going to be difficult, get an abortion' sort of notion. I even said myself that there are cases in which it is merciful to abort, but of course there will be other instances in which that person is just being lazy/selfish.

You know, having potential life ripped out of you isn't easy to do or think about.

[Cosmic+Amarna]

You know, having potential life ripped out of you isn't easy to do or think about.

...What are you talking about? Are trying to tell me that abortion is not a pleasant experience (literally the procedure itself)? Cus if you are--I'm aware.

Not sure how what you said relates or what you're trying to convey about your statement and mine...

[Professor Ven]

Aborting a child is really just a choice of the mother/both parental spawners of the embyro to discard it.

Aborting a child shouldn't be a crime - though conservatives and religious organizations would say otherwise. However, I don't recall a divine miracle heralding down from the heavens every time a child was conceived. It takes a man and a woman to conceive, but I don't recall it taking a man, a woman, and an entire religion.

Religion shouldn't stick its fingers in abortion rights because it simply shouldn't, unless it factors in the mother/parent of the embyro's choice to remove or keep the spawnling.


However, in regards to your child being the next Albert Einstein or Adolf Hitler - that's more relative to how the child is nurtured by its parents within nature's confines, though I'm sure everyone knew of that already.

[Luap]

Technically, a fetus is part of the mother's body. It is part egg info and part sperm info. All cells developed from those two persons. If both the cell owner and sperm owner agree to have an abortion, then logically they should have the right.

In that case:
Developed humans are part egg info and part sperm info. All cells developed from those two people. If the cell owner and sperm owner agree to killing their child, then logically they should have the right.


I'm not saying that there aren't good arguments for abortion, but this one you're using is crap.

Look. Either abortion is legal or illegal. It can't be open or closed depending on the condition of the mother and fetus. Rape, medical issues, or simply unable to take care of the potential child, all cases have to be ok.

Another bad argument. This logic is stating that something can't be bad in one way and good in another- which is completely untrue. It isn't illegal to kill in self defense, but it is illegal to murder. It isn't illegal to take something you own, but it is illegal to steal.

And the mother should have the bloody right to choose. She came first. She actually has rights. It is within HER body. It was made by HER body. Having it aborted makes no difference to the fetus because it can't think or feel. It would not care. The only people who care are people who want to force people to do something.

The fetus wouldn't care when it happens. But if right now you got shot in the head, without knowledge it was going it happen, and died instantly with no pain, you wouldn't care either. Should that person be allowed to shoot you?

They just want to have power over one little woman's life. Once the baby is born, they won't follow it and be friends to the family. Just one chance to force their views on others and have the support.

Bullshit. Bull diddlying shit. Abortion has nothing to do with women's rights. Nothing. At. All. Fetuses don't appear without a penis ejaculating into a vagina. It's the collective rights of the Parents. A woman shouldn't have the right to get an abortion without consent from the father, and the father shouldn't be able to force the women to get an abortion. There's two diddlying sides to it.

[HadesDragon]

The fetus wouldn't care when it happens. But if right now you got shot in the head, without knowledge it was going it happen, and died instantly with no pain, you wouldn't care either. Should that person be allowed to shoot you?

That's a really bad comparison because the person in question is a, well, person. They have memories, feelings, ambitions, personality, etc, they have a LIFE instead of merely being alive. If you did such a thing that's flat out murder. A fetus is not a person and so the two cases aren't equal.

Bullshit. Bull kupoing shit. Abortion has nothing to do with women's rights. Nothing. At. All. Fetuses don't appear without a penis ejaculating into a vagina. It's the collective rights of the Parents. A woman shouldn't have the right to get an abortion without consent from the father, and the father shouldn't be able to force the women to get an abortion. There's two kupoing sides to it.

I think the father should definitely have some say in the decision considering he is, well, the father, but ultimately the one who has to go through pregnancy and birth the child is the woman, so it is partly a woman's rights problem, especially considering cases of single mothers.