|
Post by Sue on Nov 29, 2005 16:20:14 GMT -5
|
|
moonchain
Guide
It raises a fever of intense apathy.
Posts: 595
|
Post by moonchain on Nov 29, 2005 17:00:36 GMT -5
I believe it is. It does, as the article says, put both a racial and religious bias on those who wish to make the choice to have an abortion, especially if they need it to save themselves from harm.
|
|
|
Post by ophelia97 on Nov 30, 2005 12:11:39 GMT -5
What makes me angry is the moral views imposed on women. It should be the woman's choice if she decides to have an abortion, and nobody else should have the right to restrict her from it just because they believe it's a sin. If you think it's immoral or a sin to do a particular thing, then avoid doing it for yourself, but don't assume you know what's best for other people. God gave humans free will to do what they want; if someone chooses to do something immoral, it should be left between themself and God, not between themself and another person.
|
|
moonchain
Guide
It raises a fever of intense apathy.
Posts: 595
|
Post by moonchain on Nov 30, 2005 12:30:58 GMT -5
If you think it's immoral or a sin to do a particular thing, then avoid doing it for yourself, but don't assume you know what's best for other people. God gave humans free will to do what they want; if someone chooses to do something immoral, it should be left between themself and God, not between themself and another person. <sarcasm>Oh don't say *that* Ophelia. Then everyone else will start killing people and raping women and then just say it's between them and God.</sarcasm> Joking aside: I'm assuming you mean your statement in a way that means immorality that isn't a direct harm to society (which I don't believe abortion to be).
|
|
|
Post by ophelia97 on Nov 30, 2005 14:14:16 GMT -5
Thanks for pointing it out; I should have specified. I agree it's not a threat to society, but the argument is based on a belief by some that the unborn child is a member of society. While it's a living being, I think the rights of the mother override this, as preserving her health (both physical or psychological) should be the main concern. It's the same thing with stem cell research. I think saving the lives of people who are living with debilitating conditions is more important than preserving embryos. I wont go too off topic, though. It's just another example.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Nov 30, 2005 15:32:00 GMT -5
Please correct me if I am wrong, but last time I checked my biology book the women has made a choice (excluding rape etc.). It is immoral to make a choice and than kill an innocent being because you don't like the results of your choice.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Nov 30, 2005 16:46:57 GMT -5
but teancum, if abortion isn't illegal then surely there's no good reason for hospitals to offer free support for actually having a child and not offer women the option to abort (which would even be cheaper for the hospital)?
personally i'm undecided. the law (which is often a good indication of what the state deems morally acceptable or unacceptable) is a bit strange when it comes to unborn foetuses - there was a case of some guy in california who shot and killed a pregnant woman, also killing her unborn child, and he was given 2 life sentences, but at the same time abortion is not seen as murder and in other areas of law an unborn fotus is not capable of holding legal rights or duties (although there are even some exceptions, depending on which legal system we're talking about).
|
|
moonchain
Guide
It raises a fever of intense apathy.
Posts: 595
|
Post by moonchain on Nov 30, 2005 16:50:58 GMT -5
Please correct me if I am wrong, but last time I checked my biology book the women has made a choice (excluding rape etc.). It is immoral to make a choice and than kill an innocent being because you don't like the results of your choice. Okay. In many "low-income" areas, there is a high instance of teen pregnancies because teens there don't get proper sexual education. So they don't check their "biology books" and end up getting something they can't handle psychologically. In the cases of women who have certain diseases (i.e. cancer, heart failure) the women don't think the pregnancy will be affected and are then told by doctors that it will be worse for them, their baby, or both; they don't realize the severity of their problem or that they have a disease *until* they are already pregnant; or they have used protection and the protection failed and now they realize they can't deal with the "result" which wasn't their "choice" to begin with. There are also instances where women can't prove rape or they were drunk and don't realize that they've forgotten something important (i.e. the condom) or they don't realize the situation they were in could be considered rape. I'm not saying their *aren't* women who make the choice after a night of blatant sober irresponsibility, but you can't just limit the world of sexual encounters and pregnancies to "rape or not".
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Nov 30, 2005 17:04:35 GMT -5
1. There is no shortage of willing and able parents who want a baby. Adoption works very well in many cases. It is not perfect, but is most often better than a single uneducated parent.
2. Keep your paints up until you are married is a simple and effective system. It is inconvenient and unpopular, but it is wrong to teach our children that you can alter the results of your choices at a whim.
3. In cases where the mother’s life is in real jeopardy I would include that with the other extreme circumstances like rape and incest.
4. Cost for the hospital are you kidding? Almost nothing that is done at a hospital is inexpensive. Saving lives is costly. We spend small fortunes to keep people alive for a few more years or even hours in many cases. If the issue was saving the hospital money they could scrap the neonatal units abort the kids are too expensive and save the cheaper ones.
I’ve yet to understand why a human has no rights if it gets in the way of someone else’s personal life style. Normally when you kill someone who has hurt, upset or inconvenienced you it is called murder, but if you are not quite old enough yet we pretend it is just a medical procedure. A unborn child is not a parasite cancer or some other medical issue it is a freaking child and it desires an equal right to life.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Nov 30, 2005 18:30:01 GMT -5
cost for the hospital: i was simply referring to something in the article (and it's a simple utilitarian/commodification argument - the only moral dilemma is where you draw the line).
rights of an unborn child: not under current western legal systems (well, the US and the UK systems at least, not sure about the french, german, canadian etc.)
your other points are about whether abortion is right or wrong - given that abortion is a viable option, this sort of thing (the hospitals not offering free abortions yet at the same time offering free childcare) is at best someone imposing their own moral standards on a society which has different standards (someone's decided that abortion is wrong apart from extreme cases whereas society says abortion is ok in much less extreme circumstances too) and at worst it is discrimination (indirect discrimination, that is, as those who can afford it will be able to get abortions whereas those who want it but can't afford it can't get it).
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Nov 30, 2005 18:39:16 GMT -5
It is sad that our legal system has become a messed up as it is. Anyway my question is why should my tax dollors go to harm someone I'd much rather help?
|
|
moonchain
Guide
It raises a fever of intense apathy.
Posts: 595
|
Post by moonchain on Nov 30, 2005 18:40:00 GMT -5
1. There is no shortage of willing and able parents who want a baby. Adoption works very well in many cases. It is not perfect, but is most often better than a single uneducated parent. There is no shortage of people who want white babies. In many low income areas here in America, the adoption agencies are overflowing with a small number of white children, many African American children, and quite a few Hispanic children. It's funny how people keep telling me how much adoption works and refuse to look at agencies that can't even give away kids. It's also wrong to not teach our children how to properly protect themselves since keeping your pants zipped isn't a popular idea. You can't turn your back on people who don't believe in abstinence and then get all shocked when they get pregnant out of wedlock because there wasn't funding for free condoms or educating promoting proper self-respect for girls (who often put out because they don't feel their lives are worth shite, much less those of any children born of them). And yet, that's the problem with the amendment. It only occasionally acknowledges help for the mother. And what of the child? I'm sorry, but I would feel worse if I brought something to term that was going to either be a dead fetus or breathing via iron lung its entire life. But then that's your belief, inn'it? I don't think a 3 week old fetus is human. : : Sorry, that's just my truth.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Nov 30, 2005 18:55:21 GMT -5
Funny I met a girl a few weeks back (she talked to our social work class about putting her child up for adoption). She had dozens of families to pick from. I do know that older kids are not all that welcome which is sad, but often they have a lot of issues from abuse etc. when they are a bit older.
So is it right and correct to teach kids that the natural results of your choices do not matter at all?
As far as self esteem we do need to do a much better job with that however as long as "sex sells" and morality takes a back seat to free speech it is only going to get worse.
Why should I pay to encourage someone to sleep around? Is there a societal benefit to kids having sex? I've yet to find it. In fact (having nearly completed my senior research project on factors that correlate to people having multiple sexual partners) everything I've been able to find suggests that the teen-aged relationships that are engaged in are not healthy and even when they've been told to use a condom they often don't.
We need to teach kids to make good choices not that a little pill or a trip to the doctor will make up for countless bad chicories
Teaching people that if you don't like a person it is okay to have them killed can not be the right message.
What is it about not having as big of a brain or fingers that have not grown yet makes a person not human?
And why should the tax payer pay to kill. I can see my tax money being spent to keep people healthy, to save lives and to help the poor but to kill someone that does not set right with me.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Dec 1, 2005 8:34:53 GMT -5
surely you can take an objective look at things and realize that there is a double standard, can't you? what you really want is for abortions to made illegal, right? well, seeing as how they are legal and practically acceptable to much of society, why should a state funded health program discriminate in this way?
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Dec 1, 2005 9:44:30 GMT -5
There is no double standard
Yes I would like to have abortion made illegal.
I'm not an expert on Medicaid, but from my understanding it is a program to get basic health care to those who can't afford it. It does not cover cosmetic surgery nor other procedures that people can get by without. When I was working in physical therapy the state funded health care programs was not covering the needs of person for rehabilitation after injury so why spend those dollars on a procedure that is not needed?
I'm still waiting for a "good" reason for the state to spend my money to kill children because some people are not willing to accept the natural results of their own choices.
|
|