HAGANE NO RENKINJUTSUSHI
HAGANE NO RENKINJUTSUSHI
full metal alchemist
full metal alchemist
 



Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

53 Pages V  « < 50 51 52 53 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Abortion, I'm serious...
Are you for or against abortion?
You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Total Votes: 240
Guests cannot vote 
IceSkadi
post Mar 20 2010, 04:16 AM
Post #766


Citizen
*

Group: Members
Posts: 97
Joined: 7-December 09
From: Italy
Member No.: 72,103
Gender: Female



I'm against it. Leaving out the speech about if the fetus is already a living being or not and all the religious stuff, I think that if you don't really want that baby for whatever reason (it was a mistake, you were raped, you cannot raise him/her because of economical problems) then you should "simply" give him/her up for adoption. Yes it sounds cruel, but in my opinion it's way better than abortion.
I don't know how the whole adoption system works in other Countries, but here you can refuse a just born child and the hospital will take care of the child (and all the bureaucratic stuff) till he will be sent to a shelter, and both the parents can ask to remain anonymous. The disadvantage is that not always the child will have the luck to be adopted and so he/she may be will never have a proper family, but at least he/she will be able to live his/her life.




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Chiyo
post Mar 20 2010, 07:45 AM
Post #767


Moderator Emeritus
******

Group: Members
Posts: 6,073
Joined: 27-January 05
From: a land called Honah Lee
Member No.: 6,466
Gender: Not Telling



But those children may grow up knowing they weren't wanted, being passed between households and adoption centre's until they are old enough to "look after themselves" and end up getting themselves/partner pregnant for the whole cycle to start over again. Even if they didn't want it, giving up a child can emotionally destroy someone. They carry a child for 9 months knowing they simply cannot give that child a decent life...who is anyone to say that is the better option?

As far as I'm concerned, unless you have been in that situation, you simply don't have the right to judge either way. It should be up to the individual, and as long as she doesn't abuse her right (i.e, use it as a form on contraception) to decide.


--------------------

Avatar & Sig by me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
IceSkadi
post Mar 20 2010, 08:48 AM
Post #768


Citizen
*

Group: Members
Posts: 97
Joined: 7-December 09
From: Italy
Member No.: 72,103
Gender: Female



QUOTE (Chiyo @ Mar 20 2010, 03:45 PM) *
But those children may grow up knowing they weren't wanted, being passed between households and adoption centre's until they are old enough to "look after themselves" and end up getting themselves/partner pregnant for the whole cycle to start over again. Even if they didn't want it, giving up a child can emotionally destroy someone. They carry a child for 9 months knowing they simply cannot give that child a decent life...who is anyone to say that is the better option?


Personally I think that the remorse of having maybe killed a baby it's worse than being unsure about that baby's future. I mean at least you're giving him/her a possibility.
Probably it will end as you said, but maybe he/she will learn something by his/her personal story, knowing that being abandoned is painful, and will try to be more careful about wanting or not a baby. It sounds too optimistic I know, it's unlikely, but it's better than nothing I think.

QUOTE
As far as I'm concerned, unless you have been in that situation, you simply don't have the right to judge either way. It should be up to the individual, and as long as she doesn't abuse her right (i.e, use it as a form on contraception) to decide.


I agree with you in fact I won't go all "you are an assassin/ you'll go to hell" if a woman decide to have an abortion. I maybe will try to convince her to not do it with all my might, but the last decision is her not my.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ScarMySoul
post Mar 20 2010, 10:02 AM
Post #769


Gallery Mod Emeritus
******

Group: Members
Posts: 5,095
Joined: 3-June 06
From: Tippin' one back with Dillinger
Member No.: 36,754
Gender: Female



You know I voted on here for "Depends on the situation."

I was raised in a strict Christian home, and it was pressed into my brain, pro-life! pro-life! I've also seen both sides.

We had a friend who was raped, she decided to keep her child and love that child. But in truth this woman was in agony. She told me at one point that she wasn't sure why she kept her child, she said she saw both side, the baby didn't have a choice in the way it was concieved. She said she didn't feel like she could just kill a child. So she decided to keep it, but not give it up for adoption. She said the hardest part of that, is that her child reminded her of what she went through, and who did this to her. In a sense she was in between a rock and hard place. She loved the child but hated the man that raped her, and she saw him in her child everyday.

To me, I feel that's unfair to a child. BUT she still loved her child. She was protective of her child. Its almost tragic if you can see what I mean.


------------

There was a guy that I knew in collage, and he was in my writing class, we had to write a paper about anything but it had to be pure discription. He wrote about him and his fiancee dealing with the descision to abort their unborn child. Its a very emotional decision, it took a toll on their relationship, they ended up parting ways, he said she suffered from depression, mostly struggling with the fact of whether she did the right thing. It was almost like a deep wound that stayed open and they ended up parting ways.


--------------

My Two Cents:

In my opinion, no one is perfect. Its a touchy subject, because people feel, the baby is a living breathing, human, when in fact, when the proceedure is taken place, the baby doesn't have developed lungs or brain. Just a heartbeat. People say well that's proof enough that this child is alive. The issue will never come to a complete even plain so there will always be controversy over abortion.

I do believe that if people are safe, i.e. use condoms, use birth control, or other forms of contraceptives.... unnecessary things can be avoided. Yes, condoms break. I'm 25, and married, you can say experience laugh.gif ..... not that anyone needed to know that, but to prove a point, yes they do break.

In the case of rape, I think that's its purely the womans decision on that issue. If you keep it great, if you don't, then so be it.

---------------

With that said I'd like to address this comment:

QUOTE
Let me begin by saying that I find it tremendously ironic to be reading some of the comments contained within this thread on an FMA forum, an anime that I believe accomplishes much in terms of highlighting the inherent value of each and every human line, regardless of its form or appearance.


I see what you're saying, but I"m sure that Arakawa wasn't intending to spread the word about pro-life choices. FMA has nothing to do with abortion so if someone feels that they are pro-choice but still like the anime, that doesn't seem off to me. huh.gif FMA is mostly about selfish gain and how to go about getting what you want, dealing with the consequences and trying to make them right. BUT that's my opinion on the anime laugh.gif Not saying that its anyone elses. happy.gif

Okay I'm done tongue.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Chiyo
post Mar 20 2010, 12:21 PM
Post #770


Moderator Emeritus
******

Group: Members
Posts: 6,073
Joined: 27-January 05
From: a land called Honah Lee
Member No.: 6,466
Gender: Not Telling



IceSkadi - I think we can all agree, if the world were a easier place to live in, such a decision would be a great deal easier. If a woman could believe her child would have a happy life, with her or not, the idea of aborting a potential life could be reduced.


--------------------

Avatar & Sig by me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Edward Cardinal ...
post Mar 20 2010, 02:05 PM
Post #771


Citizen
*

Group: Members
Posts: 56
Joined: 27-May 08
From: Herndon, VA
Member No.: 59,819
Gender: Male



QUOTE (Chiyo @ Mar 20 2010, 09:45 AM) *
"But those children may grow up knowing they weren't wanted, being passed between households and adoption centre's until they are old enough to "look after themselves" and end up getting themselves/partner pregnant for the whole cycle to start over again. Even if they didn't want it, giving up a child can emotionally destroy someone."

The problems that I see with this line of reasoning include:

Too many assumptions
One cannot possibly know what will happen to an individual child that is given up for adoption. Children raised both within a traditional family structure and the adoption system can have very positive or negative life outcomes. Attempting to analyze the respective probability of a single child having a positive or negative overall life experience is myopic, subjective, and downright impossible. Additionally, always assuming the most negative outcome possible hardly strikes me as a fair analytical approach.

No consideration given to the wishes of the unborn child
As we have at this point established fairly concretely that the foetus constitutes a unique, living human person, it seems only logical to me that equal consideration be given to this stakeholder (especially in light of the fact that he or she is most intimately reliant on the final decision that is to be made). Given that direct communication with the foetus is not possible, and thus he or she cannot even consent to any particular course of action, it seems only right to err on the side of caution. Most current legal constructs that I know of always assume, by default, that a person wishes to continue living (this is why DNR orders exist). As such, I believe that a rigorous legal approach would indicate that preserving the life of the unborn is necessary.

Asserting that a difficult or painful life is not worth living
These types of arguments genuinely confound and frustrate me. No person's life can ever be perfectly happy, and inversely no person's life can ever be comprised solely of pain and anguish. Although it is a highly unfortunate reality that many children suffer deeply within the adoption system (as well as other circumstances), this by no means indicates that such lives are better left unlived. Being in the FMA forum, I feel quite compelled to point toward the intense suffering of the Elric brothers throughout both of the animes and the manga. After seeing how love has allowed the Elrics to transcend their dire life circumstances, I doubt that anyone would argue that they would have been better off dead from the onset of the series. I believe that we, particularly those in the more prosperous nations of the world, need to realize and accept that not everyone needs to be wealthy and pampered in order to be happy.

QUOTE (Chiyo @ Mar 20 2010, 09:45 AM) *
"As far as I'm concerned, unless you have been in that situation, you simply don't have the right to judge either way. It should be up to the individual, and as long as she doesn't abuse her right (i.e, use it as a form on contraception) to decide."

As I said before, this really is not a question of restricting individual liberty. Because an innocent third party is involved, society at large has both the legitimate ability and duty to safeguard the wellbeing of the unborn child. Furthermore, firsthand experience is not necessary to judge the rightness or wrongness of an action governed by natural law. For instance, I need not have committed a robbery or been the victim of a robbery to assert that robbery itself is unjust.

QUOTE (Chiyo @ Mar 20 2010, 09:45 AM) *
"They carry a child for 9 months knowing they simply cannot give that child a decent life...who is anyone to say that is the better optio?"

Perhaps the unborn child whose very life depends totally on the mother's decision?


--------------------


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Broken Chouchou
post Mar 20 2010, 03:09 PM
Post #772


State Alchemist (Lt. Colonel)
****

Group: Members
Posts: 802
Joined: 21-January 08
From: The cold, icy north
Member No.: 55,758
Gender: Male



Very interesting discussions going on, I'll read all these walls of texts through when I feel a bit more collected, and see If I can contribute with anything at all to this debate XP Not that I've studied this topic very thoroughly... maybe I'll learn something new here.

Glad to see that there are people here who like to debate, anyway. If nothing else, I like following debates and hearing peoples opinions, even if I'm not very good at argumenting myself.


--------------------

Sig and ava by Forsaken Love :3

Bye bye, Edward Elric :(
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Katya Martin
post Mar 20 2010, 06:35 PM
Post #773


Alchemists
***

Group: Members
Posts: 410
Joined: 14-December 09
From: on a train to somewhere new
Member No.: 72,181
Gender: Female



Another facet of the argument I've been seeing a lot of lately is the "adoption is always possible" vs "the adoption system is broken" argument.

Well, does it have to be? Why isn't more being done to fix the broken system? I'd think both sides would at least be able to agree that someone who has been born has the right to a decent life. So why aren't we doing more to ensure that?

Again with the "can't be considered human" thing: The thing that bothers me with the "it's not a human" argument is this: So at some point, and this point varies, pretty much everyone agrees that an unborn child is now a human baby that shouldn't be killed. Conception, heartbeat, has a brain, movement, second trimester, third trimester, nobody can really agree on the "when." But in general people think there is a "when" before the baby's born. I found a blog post a while back that spells out the problem with this a lot better than I can:
QUOTE
once you draw that line and say this is the moment itís a human beingÖyouíve lost the argument. Because itís arbitrary. On this date itís a baby, but yesterday it was just a bunch of cellsÖthis blob of a nothing and you can do anything you want with it, itís okay.
Nuisance today, human tomorrow. Can we honestly believe that?

"Right to choose." Yes. Women have the right to choose: We have the right to choose whether or not to act in a way that may result in the creation of a new human being.


--------------------



awesomeness by Arakawa, Project FMA banner by Aribelle, avatar by me
I draw things.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Popogeejo
post Mar 20 2010, 10:43 PM
Post #774


Master Alchemist
******

Group: Members
Posts: 6,914
Joined: 18-February 06
From: Wrapped in my own Ego
Member No.: 31,420
Gender: Male



QUOTE
"Right to choose." Yes. Women have the right to choose: We have the right to choose whether or not to act in a way that may result in the creation of a new human being.

How many times does one chose to be raped? How many times does one chose for contraception to fail?
And either way this is once more grandstanding rubbish. It's all well and good to say "They shouldn't do it so they shouldn't get help" but that passiveness just adds to the problem and denies reality.
"Oh, your car crashed? Well you shouldn't have driven it then. No help for you. What? You wore your safety belt and drove as safely as possible? Still your fault for driving."

The pro life argument always boils down to "we should live in a perfectly moral world" which is insane.
If not that then it's the philosophical quagmire of "What is human?" because tangents that go no where sure beats addressing the practical issue at hand.
Look at the world for what it is, don't deny human folly and find a practical way to deal with it.


--------------------

>Click the picture for me gushing over over Summer Wars shenanigans!<
The various works of FKMT are something you should read
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Chiyo
post Mar 21 2010, 02:02 AM
Post #775


Moderator Emeritus
******

Group: Members
Posts: 6,073
Joined: 27-January 05
From: a land called Honah Lee
Member No.: 6,466
Gender: Not Telling



QUOTE
No consideration given to the wishes of the unborn child


Neither do they have rights to chose what happens to them until they legally become an adult. Unlike the foetus, a 12 year old is CERTAINLY aware of what is happening to them and they still don't have a great deal of say in it.

In simple summary Cardinal, you class the initial clump of cells as a person who has a right to live....I class it as a clump of cells...thus in no way will we ever agree.


--------------------

Avatar & Sig by me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Katya Martin
post Mar 21 2010, 10:27 AM
Post #776


Alchemists
***

Group: Members
Posts: 410
Joined: 14-December 09
From: on a train to somewhere new
Member No.: 72,181
Gender: Female



QUOTE (Popogeejo @ Mar 21 2010, 01:43 AM) *
It's all well and good to say "They shouldn't do it so they shouldn't get help"


They should get help. Even now there isn't enough help out there for women who choose to keep the child. They should be well-informed of all their and their child's options, given medical attention, and be provided with support for living in a society that often looks down on them for having an unplanned child. People always talk of "removing crisis pregnancies"; why is more focus always put on removing the pregnancy than removing the crisis element?

Of course contraception can fail. But that's something you think of before you decide to use it. You know the risks, you know your body-- a woman's only capable of getting pregnant on a few days out of each month when she's not on the pill (when she is, it's a lot harder to tell). Is it honestly that much of an imposition to say, "Honey, it's about that time of month again, we don't want to risk that now, so let's not do it tonight?" Giving proper consideration to the risks still won't stop unplanned pregnancies, but it would certainly reduce them.

People keep bringing up "rape's not her choice OH WHAT NOW" and yes! That's a much tougher decision! But it only accounts for 1% of abortions at this time! (cite) In 2006, there were 846,181 abortions reported to the CDC in the U.S. (cite) So roughly 8,500 of those likely were because of rape. That's pretty horrific. But even worse is the number who weren't raped, the hundreds of thousands who felt that they had no choice or that a child would be too much of an inconvenience.

I'm not arguing for "ban abortion and who cares about the women." I'm arguing for "support the women so that they don't feel that abortion's the only option, and educate them so that they don't get into a situation that would cause them to consider it in the first place." Mistakes and unexpected circumstances will always happen, but we can reduce them.


--------------------



awesomeness by Arakawa, Project FMA banner by Aribelle, avatar by me
I draw things.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Popogeejo
post Mar 21 2010, 11:46 AM
Post #777


Master Alchemist
******

Group: Members
Posts: 6,914
Joined: 18-February 06
From: Wrapped in my own Ego
Member No.: 31,420
Gender: Male



QUOTE
So roughly 8,500 of those likely were because of rape. That's pretty horrific. But even worse is the number who weren't raped, the hundreds of thousands who felt that they had no choice or that a child would be too much of an inconvenience.

You've got to remember though that these numbers only go on reported rapes but it's been said by numerous women's charities and legal and medical professionals that rape is one of the most under reported crimes there is. I doubt that if it were possible to include these unreported crimes in the statistics it would suddenly bump it up to something dramatic but it would certainly give it an increase.

QUOTE
I'm arguing for "support the women so that they don't feel that abortion's the only option, and educate them so that they don't get into a situation that would cause them to consider it in the first place." Mistakes and unexpected circumstances will always happen, but we can reduce them.

Totally agreed. I wish I could say more but there isn't.


--------------------

>Click the picture for me gushing over over Summer Wars shenanigans!<
The various works of FKMT are something you should read
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Edward Cardinal ...
post Mar 21 2010, 07:35 PM
Post #778


Citizen
*

Group: Members
Posts: 56
Joined: 27-May 08
From: Herndon, VA
Member No.: 59,819
Gender: Male



QUOTE (Chiyo @ Mar 21 2010, 04:02 AM) *
Neither do they have rights to chose what happens to them until they legally become an adult.

I am not sure that I follow this line of reasoning. As a minor, a twelve year old child undeniably has significantly truncated legal status, but he or she is most definitely entitled to all of the basic human rights, including the right to life. This being the case, I do not see how this argument constitutes a valid analogy. The abortion debate is not a matter of parental rights in relation to the control of children as the action involved is forbidden by law (i.e. a parent of a twelve year old child cannot lawfully kill that child).

QUOTE (Chiyo @ Mar 21 2010, 04:02 AM) *
Unlike the foetus, a 12 year old is CERTAINLY aware of what is happening to them and they still don't have a great deal of say in it.

Speaking quite specifically to the "awareness" point of contention, I believe that there is a logical flaw in the proposition that killing is illegal or wrong because it imparts pain on another individual. The very act of taking the life of another person is objectionable in and of itself as it deprives another of an incontrovertible, natural right. One defined as a living human need not exhibit awareness or consciousness in order to be entitled to protection under the law. As an example, if I were to murder someone in their sleep, I could successfully deprive a person of his or her right to life whilst he or she lacks consciousness and awareness and without causing him or her pain. This action would still be defined as murder under the law. Furthermore, as topics of metaphysics, nebulous concepts such as awareness and consciousness are impossible to pin down precisely and therefore ought not to be used as legal qualifiers.

QUOTE (Chiyo @ Mar 21 2010, 04:02 AM) *
In simple summary Cardinal, you class the initial clump of cells as a person who has a right to live....I class it as a clump of cells...thus in no way will we ever agree.

I am not assigning the title of living human to the foetus of my own accord; I utilize this description only under the guidance of rigorous scientific analysis. As I explained at length earlier in this thread, the foetus is more than a simple clump of cells because science has defined otherwise. I reiterate the fact that this debate is not a matter or religion or conviction, but of science, philosophy, and law.




--------------------


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Le Monkey
post Mar 24 2010, 01:32 PM
Post #779


Major General
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 3,545
Joined: 11-November 04
From: Wales
Member No.: 2,167
Gender: Male



QUOTE (Popogeejo @ Mar 21 2010, 05:43 AM) *
(Snip)


You are the reason I miss posting so much, ^^

QUOTE (Chiyo @ Mar 21 2010, 09:02 AM) *
In simple summary Cardinal, you class the initial clump of cells as a person who has a right to live....I class it as a clump of cells...thus in no way will we ever agree.


I would agree completely here,
As I seem to remember the discussion leading this way a while back, I distinctly remember Bacon using a very simple and somewhat effective analogy to this, Goes something like this: "Untill the 'feotus' has taken form and its cells have taken a direction towards making organs, tissue, ect. then it is a gloryfied parasite."
As my own responce to this analogyis that it is very crude one, but still essentially sums up how I personaly feel on the subject of the argument of the clump/baby argument. Please for the love of god don't flame or get irate at me for this, it is an opinion, and as an opinion, it cannot be wrong, just not your own.

~ If I hadn't just finnished a 12h shift and felt more awake I would reply to more posts, smile.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Edward Cardinal ...
post Mar 24 2010, 05:13 PM
Post #780


Citizen
*

Group: Members
Posts: 56
Joined: 27-May 08
From: Herndon, VA
Member No.: 59,819
Gender: Male



QUOTE (Le Monkey @ Mar 24 2010, 03:32 PM) *
As I seem to remember the discussion leading this way a while back, I distinctly remember Bacon using a very simple and somewhat effective analogy to this, Goes something like this: "Untill the 'feotus' has taken form and its cells have taken a direction towards making organs, tissue, ect. then it is a gloryfied parasite."
As my own responce to this analogyis that it is very crude one, but still essentially sums up how I personaly feel on the subject of the argument of the clump/baby argument.

This is a very backwards argument from a purely scientific perspective as it relates the substance of a living organism to an amorphous and immeasurable value such as relative overall size and/or appearance. The genetic material contained within the foetus contains the biological "definition" of a complete adult human complete with organs and full human appearance. A unicellular organism, such as an amoeba, contains much simpler genetic code that defines it simply as an eternally tiny creature with no destiny beyond such future. I think that we have all relate to the saying "don't judge a book by its cover", and I believe that this argument applies here in a scientific sense. To base the value of something based on nothing more than a gut reaction is misguided, immature, and certainly not intellectually respectable.

QUOTE (Le Monkey @ Mar 24 2010, 03:32 PM) *
Please for the love of god don't flame or get irate at me for this, it is an opinion, and as an opinion, it cannot be wrong, just not your own.

Only if you ascribe to the idea of moral relativism (that is a whole different discussion).


--------------------


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

53 Pages V  « < 50 51 52 53 >
Fast ReplyReply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 30th June 2016 - 09:00 AM



Copyright ©2003-2004 PhoenixNetworks, LLC. All rights reserved.
Copyright Notice. Privacy policy. Acceptable Use Policy. Terms of Service.
Page Generation Time: 0.0655 seconds.
Currently Selected Stylesheet: css/default.css