Log in

View Full Version : Abortion, help my asrguements.


1 4 the 4 1 1
2006-04-21, 05:18
TO THE MODS: I felt this belonged here because abortion is a religious issue, although this paper is discussed from a mostly, nonreligious point of view.

Abortion is a serious issue, and is often unspoken by teachers, politicians, or other public offices for this exact reason. People generally have strong feelings regarding this issue, and often do not respect other people’s views. There exist many courses of action, as to what to do when one becomes pregnant. Some people believe the mother should birth the child, and either raise it, or put it up for adoption. Some people claim Abortion is another viable method of birth control, while others consider it murder, killing at least. I believe that abortion does not solve any problems, and certainly is not a method of birth control.

Pro-choice lobbyists argue that freedom of choice is a woman’s right, since it is her body. While I do not dispute her right to do what she wishes with her own body, I do dispute her right to maim, torture, and murder the unborn child living inside of her body. THE LAW defines an unborn child as “the unborn offspring of human beings from the moment of conception (when the sperm cell pierces the egg), through pregnancy, and until live birth including the human conceptus, zygote, morula, blastocyst, embryo and fetus.” This means that when a woman aborts her baby, she is murdering an unborn, defenseless child. Does that child not deserve the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Current statistics brought to you by nrlc.org show that the number one primary reason that a woman in the United States gets an abortion is because she feels unready for the responsibility. To this, I have two arguments: One- if you are unready for the responsibility, what made you think you were ready for sexual relations? Your lack of responsibility and common sense should never become the downfall/expense of the unborn child that lies in your womb. And Two- If you are unready for the responsibility, give it a chance, birth the child, and put it up for adoption.

Some people will speak for their unborn children and say that the number of suicides a year PROOVES that a bad life, is worse than no life. And this statement is false, because the people that say this, have the advantage of being alive to say it. People say “I would rather be dead than have a bad life”, have the advantage of being alive to say it, and to have experienced life. You cannot ask a child if they want to be born.

nrlc.org shows that the number two reason that a woman in the United States gets an abortion is because she feels she cannot afford a baby. To this, I repeat my above arguments, DO NOT HAVE SEX IN THE FIRST PLACE, and/or put it up for adoption after birth.

The number three reason that a woman in the United States gets an abortion is because she feels concern for how a baby would change her life. To this I have three arguments, the first being how dare her selfishness and unwillingness to change be the downfall of her unborn child. How dare she put her WANTS above a defenseless child’s right to live, and be happy? And above that, she doesn’t have to keep the baby, put it up for adoption, and give it a chance. But all of it would be avoided if she hadn’t been selfish, and had sex in the first place.

Other reasons that a woman in the United States gets an abortion is because she has all the children she wants, or she was a relationship problem. So what? People do not have the right to kill each other because they do not want each other near. These people, who are getting abortions, are making selfish actions. Single parents can, and do, raise successful children all by themselves. No, it is not easy, but it IS possible.

Pro-choice lobbyists argue the “hard cases” as grounds for the other 93%’s right to abort. The “hard cases” include mother or child’s health at risk, or the child would be conceived of rape or incest. Before I voice my opinion on these issues, I would like to discuss the views of puritan times backward, regarding childbirth deformities and anomalies. Puritans and back, believed that is a child was born with ANY physical ailment, that it was god punishing the family, and the child for the sins of the mother or father. That the child was the manifestation of their sins(more often than not, irredeemable ones)in his flesh. Now today, we know this is not true. Now, if a child is a product of rape, incest, or any other “hard case”, it should not be forced to assume the sins of the father. And therefore, be given a chance to live.

For my final solution, I call upon the religious leaders of the world. Every church can help pregnant mothers from all backgrounds. Utilize there member, and we can crumble this problem to the ground. Use everyone, Use the older experienced woman, and educate the new mothers. Use the mechanics; fix the car for cost of parts alone. Use the lawyers, Help them with any legal problems that might arise. Throwing money at this problem will help it, but it is neither effective, nor realistic. More people are willing to give time and energy than are willing to give a few bucks. If every church asks their congregation to use there skills to help one woman at a time, we will be better off. If they ignore this problem, or condemn these young mothers, we are doomed.

What happens once the church is unable to help the amount of expectant mothers? Recruit more churches to join you. What happens when there are no churches left in a city? Recruit businesses. This would make a great public relations campaign for any business.

The problem of abortion and unplanned pregnancy is a serious one. But it is not uncontrollable. Not helpless. Do not have sex in the first place, problem solved. Put the baby up for adoption, problem solved. Call upon the church for assistance, problem solved.

The fact of the matter is that a baby, human conceptus, zygote, morula, blastocyst, embryo and fetus are all smaller human beings. They are all unique to themselves, from the time you realize you are pregnant, a baby is already beating its own heart, with different blood than the mother. Already starting to develop fingerprints, and has a unique brainwave pattern. We no more have the right to terminate there life, than kill a sleeping human being, for the sake of making our lives more convenient. Give life a chance.



[This message has been edited by 1 4 the 4 1 1 (edited 04-21-2006).]

ArgonPlasma2000
2006-04-21, 05:20
This is more of a Humanities area, if I may be so bold to say so.

Also, please correct the spelling errors.

ohhi
2006-04-21, 08:03
People who ban abortion are stupid.

Real.PUA
2006-04-21, 08:20
I am for reducing human suffering and increasing personal freedom. Abortion accomplishes both and has major benefits for society and the environment. It's win-win-win-win.

The female is ultimately the one to control reproduction, banning abortion is a means to shift this control away from her. Religion is simply a smokescreen.

quote:The fact of the matter is that a baby, human conceptus, zygote, morula, blastocyst, embryo and fetus are all smaller human beings. They are all unique to themselves, from the time you realize you are pregnant, a baby is already beating its own heart, with different blood than the mother. Already starting to develop fingerprints, and has a unique brainwave pattern. We no more have the right to terminate there life, than kill a sleeping human being, for the sake of making our lives more convenient. Give life a chance.

Read a biology textbook instead of propagandist pro-life "literature" ...

Fate
2006-04-22, 01:23
quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:

I am for reducing human suffering and increasing personal freedom. Abortion accomplishes both and has major benefits for society and the environment. It's win-win-win-win.

The female is ultimately the one to control reproduction, banning abortion is a means to shift this control away from her. Religion is simply a smokescreen.

Fucking A. Where can I get more guys like you?

First of all, there are way to many people on this planet already and a lot of them are suffering. I'll paraphrase what I said in another thread here and simply say that we could be focusing our energy on helping the people who are already here and already poor or starving or diseased or whatever instead of preoccupying ourselves with pointless semantics over when sacred fucking life begins.

Life is not sacred. Plants are life. We eat plants. Animals are life. We eat them, too. And sometimes they eat us. It's the way it fucking works. Things live, and things die. If some things must die for the overall betterment of mankind, human or otherwise, I say so be it.

Let's think about it this way. You raise such a stink over aborting the poor defenseless babies that it draws your attention away from the fact that real, actual, living and breathing and walking on their own children are being killed by the boatload right now in the middle east.

"Tut, tut," you say to yourself, and go about your daily business. Hello? Double standard? Or do they not count, just because they're filthy ragheads?

Fuck you.

What it boils down to is the fact that you are entitled to - nay, have the right to form your opinions and your morality as you so choose. You do not have the right to dictate, legislate, control, or otherwise disparage the right of other people to make their own decisions in turn.

If you're against abortion, fine. Don't do it. But don't go shoving your bullshit morals off onto other people to feed whatever complex you've got.

Beta69
2006-04-22, 01:40
"We no more have the right to terminate there life, than kill a sleeping human being,"

Yet many anti-choicers* are pro-death penalty.

*Yes I say anti-choice not pro-life, if pro-lifers were really so pro life not only would the death penalty be questioned by many would be spending time helping pregnant mothers or working on easy and cheap adoption methods but for most as soon as someone choose life over an abortion their job is done.

Rust
2006-04-22, 03:29
quote:Originally posted by 1 4 the 4 1 1:

Pro-choice lobbyists argue that freedom of choice is a woman’s right, since it is her body. While I do not dispute her right to do what she wishes with her own body, I do dispute her right to maim, torture, and murder the unborn child living inside of her body. THE LAW defines an unborn child as “the unborn offspring of human beings from the moment of conception (when the sperm cell pierces the egg), through pregnancy, and until live birth including the human conceptus, zygote, morula, blastocyst, embryo and fetus.” This means that when a woman aborts her baby, she is murdering an unborn, defenseless child. Does that child not deserve the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

That definition of "unborn" is, not surprisingly, only present in the jurisprudence of states which outlaw abortion. That proves nothing. If I were to cite legal texts defending abortion, in states where it is legal, would that prove that a fetus is not a living human being to begin with - or that a woman should be able to choose? Of course not. Similarly, you citing anti-abortion laws means absolutely nothing.

You provide no other argument against a women having control of her body, other than that legal definition which is ultimately trivial, so it seems you have no point other point.

quote:Current statistics brought to you by nrlc.org show that the number one primary reason that a woman in the United States gets an abortion is because she feels unready for the responsibility. To this, I have two arguments: One- if you are unready for the responsibility, what made you think you were ready for sexual relations? Your lack of responsibility and common sense should never become the downfall/expense of the unborn child that lies in your womb. And Two- If you are unready for the responsibility, give it a chance, birth the child, and put it up for adoption.

Pro-choice does not equal a position against adoptions or a position against the overall promotion of personal responsibility. It merely means allowing the possibility for an abortion to exist.

Your argument (i.e. that women should be responsible and not get pregnant if they are unready) is an argument in favor or couples being careful, not an argument in favor of removing the right to an abortion all together.

We should promote responsibility. We should promote safe-sex, or other means to prevent pregnancy. We shouldn't, however, remove the right of a woman to choose to abort her pregnancy.



quote:Some people will speak for their unborn children and say that the number of suicides a year PROOVES that a bad life, is worse than no life. And this statement is false, because the people that say this, have the advantage of being alive to say it. People say “I would rather be dead than have a bad life”, have the advantage of being alive to say it, and to have experienced life. You cannot ask a child if they want to be born.

Suicide rates are not the only measure of a "bad life". Health issues, physiological issues, and economic issues - all of which could be affected by not having an abortion - are directly related to a "bad life". So suicide rates is not the only thing which is cited for this point, though it certainly is among the data provided.

Hell, data exists which points to abortions reducing the number of crime - which, if we take a 'by-the-numbers' approach to the issue - would show that abortion could in fact be a benefit that outweighs any possible "life" that is being ended, by reducing the lives being taken by crime itself.

quote:nrlc.org shows that the number two reason that a woman in the United States gets an abortion is because she feels she cannot afford a baby. To this, I repeat my above arguments, DO NOT HAVE SEX IN THE FIRST PLACE, and/or put it up for adoption after birth.

Which, again, is not an argument for removing the right to an abortion, but merely on in favor of promoting economic assistance, carefulness on the part of couples, or both.

The same applies to the arguments the follow (which I'm not quoting for that very reason).

quote:Pro-choice lobbyists argue the “hard cases” as grounds for the other 93%’s right to abort. The “hard cases” include mother or child’s health at risk, or the child would be conceived of rape or incest. Before I voice my opinion on these issues, I would like to discuss the views of puritan times backward, regarding childbirth deformities and anomalies. Puritans and back, believed that is a child was born with ANY physical ailment, that it was god punishing the family, and the child for the sins of the mother or father. That the child was the manifestation of their sins(more often than not, irredeemable ones)in his flesh. Now today, we know this is not true. Now, if a child is a product of rape, incest, or any other “hard case”, it should not be forced to assume the sins of the father. And therefore, be given a chance to live.

1. So then because you believe a fetus should not have to "pay" for the "sins" of his father, it mother should? That argument holds no moral ground. You are sentencing a woman to suffer, instead of an unborn fetus which has contributed nothing to society, and has not entered into any meaningful social contract.

2. You ignored incidents where there is no "sin" from the father, and only a matter of life and death based on the pregnancy of the mother. Should she die there? Should the woman then lack the ability to terminate the pregnancy there? That would be a death-sentence - which, again, is a position that holds no moral ground.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-22-2006).]

kenwih
2006-04-22, 04:32
you paper sucks. i lost interest in the first 3 lines. the only people that will read your paper are your teacher and mabye your peers. rewrite it with a good hook to make people interested. combine that with a compelling conclusion and it doesn't matter what is in the rest of your paper, you will get an a.

Garfunkel
2006-04-22, 05:39
Who gives a fuck what any of us think? It's a fucking choice. Womens bodies are their own business, case closed. The church and whoever else has strongs beliefs can shut the fuck up and keep out of it because basically.. it has nothing to do with them.

"Don't care at all about abortion. It's your choice, case closed, the end, bottom line. And by the way, that 3 month old kid in your belly is not a fucking human being, okay? It's a bunch of little congregated cells. You're not a human ... till you're in my phonebook." - Bill Hicks

kaos_ill
2006-04-22, 09:42
quote:Originally posted by Garfunkel:

Who gives a fuck what any of us think? It's a fucking choice. Womens bodies are their own business, case closed. The church and whoever else has strongs beliefs can shut the fuck up and keep out of it because basically.. it has nothing to do with them.

- Bill Hicks



What about the father?

hyroglyphx
2006-04-22, 15:58
At what point does a fetus become a human?

Spungo
2006-04-22, 19:21
Pro-life stance summed up in one sentence:

"GET YOUR ASS BACK IN THE GODDAMN KITCHEN, BITCH."

Seriously, abortion is such a fucking retarded, overrated issue it sickens me. How anyone in their right mind could be more concerned with clumps of goo than with millions of starving, diseased children in Africa, or thousands of kids who aren't even old enough to drink being shipped out to a pile of shit in the middle east to die, by the exact same people who are trying so valiantly to restrict abortion, is beyond my level of understanding. Can anyone tell me why all those religious cretins keep pushing this garbage when they're already convinced Jesus is going to come back someday and kill all of us anyways?

[This message has been edited by Spungo (edited 04-22-2006).]

ChickenOfDoom
2006-04-23, 04:06
What this boils down to is whether babies dying is a bad thing. Opinion on whether something is bad is entirely emotional, and therefore it cannot be debated. ABORTION CANNOT BE LOGICALLY DEBATED DIRECTLY.

Personally I don't care when something dies if it doesn't affect me even indirectly. But that's just how I feel.

However, you could look at it from a societal standpoint (whether it's better or worse for our culture). From that angle, I'd say that a few religious people being upset would be far outweighed by the benifit of having fewer people raised by inept parents.

Fundokiller
2006-04-23, 12:30
quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

"We no more have the right to terminate there life, than kill a sleeping human being,"

Yet many anti-choicers* are pro-death penalty.

*Yes I say anti-choice not pro-life, if pro-lifers were really so pro life not only would the death penalty be questioned by many would be spending time helping pregnant mothers or working on easy and cheap adoption methods but for most as soon as someone choose life over an abortion their job is done.

Straw-man, I know at least one anti-abortion person who is against the death penalty (Digital Saviour). However assuming that preserving life and encouraging adoption is the way to go here are a few issues that the same people should take a "pro-life" stance towards.

1. War

2. Allowing gays to adopt

3. Stem-cell research

4. Effective sexual education programs.

5. Famine in africa

6. Death penalty

7. Euthanasia

8. Gun-control

9. Drug control, including alcohol and cigarettes

I am well aware that people take a pro-life stance to some of these issues but please, be consistent.

Beta69
2006-04-23, 16:24
A strawman is where you attack a fake or lesser argument and declare it a blow to your opponent. It's often used too much.

That was not a strawman, I was mearly pointing out that many (not all) anti-choicers were for death in other forms.

Digital_Savior
2006-04-23, 20:01
quote:Originally posted by ohhi:

People who ban abortion are stupid.

Thank you for posing such a convincing argument.

Digital_Savior
2006-04-23, 20:02
quote:Originally posted by Garfunkel:

Who gives a fuck what any of us think? It's a fucking choice. Womens bodies are their own business, case closed. The church and whoever else has strongs beliefs can shut the fuck up and keep out of it because basically.. it has nothing to do with them.

"Don't care at all about abortion. It's your choice, case closed, the end, bottom line. And by the way, that 3 month old kid in your belly is not a fucking human being, okay? It's a bunch of little congregated cells. You're not a human ... till you're in my phonebook." - Bill Hicks

Then only women should perform abortions, make laws concerning abortion, and vote on abortion issues.

Men haven't got any rights to their children.

God bless the feminazi's !

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 04-23-2006).]

Digital_Savior
2006-04-23, 20:05
quote:Originally posted by Fundokiller:

Straw-man, I know at least one anti-abortion person who is against the death penalty (Digital Saviour).

You know two. Sephiroth is anti-death penalty, and pro-life as well.

Nightshade
2006-04-24, 07:38
People should realize that everytime they have sex with someone there is always a chance for a woman to conceive and to become pregnant. If you are sexually active and do not want to conceive a child then use birth control. Having an aborton for birth control purposes is just simply being irresponsible about your own body.

Oh, and I am pro-choice.

[This message has been edited by Nightshade (edited 04-26-2006).]

Fundokiller
2006-04-28, 08:37
quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

You know two. Sephiroth is anti-death penalty, and pro-life as well.

Didn't know he was for the criminalization of abortion.