TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- So my friend is driving his ex girlfiend up to DC for an abortion.
Pages (7): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 »

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles I was definitely put off by the flippant and "celebratory" tone used by the thread-starter.

me too!

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Although I support unrestricted access to abortion for the first trimester and think that the Bible and Christianity are a big load of crap, I was definitely put off by the flippant and "celebratory" tone used by the thread-starter.

I agree that one abortion is not really an occasion for celebration but in the larger scheme of things I believe it is a very small step in the right direction. When I consider what the effects would most likely be if all those parents who are either unwilling or unable to raise their children properly aborted instead... now that would be something worth celebrating.

Eh, I find it hard to take most things seriously as I'm not offended by anything. So yes, my initial post will probably offend somebody, and I knew that going into it. It doesn't negate the fact that yes, I'm celebrating the death of a potential form of life, and I'm okay with that. I'm not going to apologize for it either

quote:

Originally posted by miamitrance04 there is no way that you can argue that abortion is ok unless it is from rape or extinuating circumstances, not iresponsibility and carelesness!!

For the most part I agree with you. I do think that a lot of people are careless because they believe that they can always just get an abortion. And there are certainly cases of abortion happening in this country that should have been avoided. It should definitely never factor into the equation unless deemed completely unavoidable. However, I do believe that because of those cases, it should exist as a legal option.

And whether celebratory or not, I still find it unsettling that someone would post about a friend's very private, personal matter like that online. I'm sure the emotions they are experiencing right now are pretty debilitating. Or at least that is the way it should be.

quote:

Originally posted by Demoted Eh, I find it hard to take most things seriously as I'm not offended by anything. So yes, my initial post will probably offend somebody, and I knew that going into it. It doesn't negate the fact that yes, I'm celebrating the death of a potential form of life, and I'm okay with that. I'm not going to apologize for it either

I'm pro-choice, and I still find that attitude upsetting. I don't know the circumstances of your friend's situation, nor do I want to. But I'm hard-pressed to find cause to celebrate the need to terminate a pregnancy like that. And I am very sorry for you if nothing in life has ever given you pause to think really deeply about it, and grapple with emotions. That's a pretty unfulfilling life. You must be pretty damn desensitized to see your friend's dilemma as a joke.

hey man do what u got to do, i prefer the old ski mask and bat in the subway station trick, but whatever floats ur boat

Re: So my friend is driving his ex girlfiend up to DC for an abortion.

quote:

Originally posted by Demoted She's a minor, and DC is coincidentally the only place in the States where a minor can have an abortion without parental intervention. He left at 11:30 this morning to go and get a Dirt Devil taken to her vagina. And I'm chuckling. Aheh heh... hooooooooo not that any of you cared or whatnot.

One of my e-tard friends had an abortion two months ago. not pretty.

quote:

Originally posted by Ian abortion as an intelligent option is all well & good, but it shouldn't be used as a secondary contraception. If someones stupid enough not to use any protection or at least be careful (i mean there is the morning after pill too to be safe) then they deserve 18 years of financial commitment.

Allowing a child to live to punish a stupid couple is one of the worst reasons to bring a baby into this world.

Personally, I think that you should be allowed 2 abortions in your lifetime. If you come for a third, the baby is aborted AND your tubes are tied. Problem solved. If you can't take care of yourself and practice safe sex, you obviously are not capable of taking care of a child, and subsequently should have the privelage of procreating taken from you.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira There's no right for the state for do that, the same way I'm claiming the woman has no right to claim ownership over the foetus' body

The foetus has no right to claim incubation rights either. She isn't claiming the foetus as her own entity, she is claiming that the "baby" is residing within her entity. If she wishes for it not to be there, as the "owner" of the body, she has the right to "evict" anything residing within.

I believe women should have the right to abortion, but should not have the right to abuse it, and use it as a form of contraception.

quote:

Originally posted by Theresa I believe women should have the right to abortion, but should not have the right to abuse it, and use it as a form of contraception.

Better said than I've been able to.

+1

thomson's argument against abortion..


"I propose, then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. . . . But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you -- we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you.

To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but you've now got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this: all persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons.

Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous. . . "

quote:

Originally posted by Theresa I believe women should have the right to abortion, but should not have the right to abuse it, and use it as a form of contraception.

..but how can you ever be certain that a woman isn't using it as a form of contraception? self-defense, rape, and incest are the only options that i feel abortion is justified.

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_Blue thomson's argument against abortion.. "I propose, then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. . . . But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you -- we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but you've now got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this: all persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous. . . "

Awesome response!

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_Blue thomson's argument against abortion.. "I propose, then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. . . . But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you -- we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but you've now got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this: all persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous. . . "

bollocks, the violinist is a living, sentient being.

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_Blue ..but how can you ever be certain that a woman isn't using it as a form of contraception? self-defense, rape, and incest are the only options that i feel abortion is justified.

Well, as I said previously in the same post, I think it should be regulated, and that upon a third encounter, she would have her tubes tied.

And on the same token, how can you really prove that abortions are or aren't self-defense (which would be the same as rape... wouldn't it?) or incest?

Perhaps I am reading that post wrong, but I am taking that as him being pro-abortion.

heh. a quick thing to ponder before i go to bed...

let's say people aren't born, they grow from seedlings that float through the air.

perhaps one day you leave your windows open. and suddenly a little people seed floats in your house and takes root in the middle of your living room floor. is it morally justifiable to pull the people seed out?

now let's say you put a screen on your windows to block out the people seeds. but somehow, they still get in and take root in the middle of your floor. NOW is it morally justifiable to pull the people seeds out?

one of my close friends gf had an abortion and even as much as he trys to joke about it i can always see the pain and regret in his eyes anyone who does not sympathize with life being taken be it your own or some one elses is truely a sick individual

quote:

Originally posted by Theresa Well, as I said previously in the same post, I think it should be regulated, and that upon a third encounter, she would have her tubes tied. And on the same token, how can you really prove that abortions are or aren't self-defense (which would be the same as rape... wouldn't it?) or incest?

augh theresa i need to go to bed.

self-defense is different than rape/incest. self-defense is the notion that the mother will die unless she has an abortion. then i feel it is morally justifiable to have an abortion.

i think a "three strikes" rule and you're tied is a bad idea. that's three dead babies before they say "nope, that's too many." therefore killing one or two babies is morally acceptable, but 3 is not. i think in that situation it's better not to have a "three strike rule" and just say, "rape, self-defense, or incest." that's it.

quote:

Originally posted by Theresa Perhaps I am reading that post wrong, but I am taking that as him being pro-abortion.

No, he's saying that even if you're saddled with a violinist against your will, it would be immoral to be the cause of his death, even if by killing him you free yourself of a burden.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov No, he's saying that even if you're saddled with a violinist against your will, it would be immoral to be the cause of his death, even if by killing him you free yourself of a burden.

yeah. now say the violinist's "poisons" are slowly draining into your body, slowly killing you. then it's ok to pull the plug.

edit: most people argue with this argument by saying "yeah, but i don't give a fuck about a damn violinist." which is obviously not the point. meh.

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_Blue yeah. now say the violinist's "poisons" are slowly draining into your body, slowly killing you. then it's ok to pull the plug.

I still think the correlation between living, breathing violinist and foetus is sketchy at best. And as of right now, so does the Supreme Court. Like I said in a previous post, it depends on what stage of the pregnancy you're talking about. If you're talking late term, then yes, it is a feasible analogy. But not if we're talking first trimester or so (the period up to about week 8).

quote:

Originally posted by chach one of my close friends gf had an abortion and even as much as he trys to joke about it i can always see the pain and regret in his eyes anyone who does not sympathize with life being taken be it your own or some one elses is truely a sick individual

See, but you are mourning the loss of a POTENTIAL life.

"About 15 percent of all known pregnancies end in miscarriage. About half of all conceptions are also believed to be lost, normally before the mother is aware she is pregnant."

Should we be in constant mourning?

I think your claim of them being "a sick individual" is ridiculous. How can you mourn over potential human cells that were never formed into anything?

SOURCE

quote:

Originally posted by Theresa See, but you are mourning the loss of a POTENTIAL life. "About 15 percent of all known pregnancies end in miscarriage. About half of all conceptions are also believed to be lost, normally before the mother is aware she is pregnant." Should we be in constant mourning? I think your claim of them being "a sick individual" is ridiculous. How can you mourn over potential human cells that were never formed into anything? SOURCE

I think the comment you're responding to was mainly directed at the threadstarter who admitted to being "celebratory" over his friend's abortion. It's certainly not murder. But it's also certainly not something to be exuberant about. imho.

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_Blue augh theresa i need to go to bed. self-defense is different than rape/incest. self-defense is the notion that the mother will die unless she has an abortion. then i feel it is morally justifiable to have an abortion. i think a "three strikes" rule and you're tied is a bad idea. that's three dead babies before they say "nope, that's too many." therefore killing one or two babies is morally acceptable, but 3 is not. i think in that situation it's better not to have a "three strike rule" and just say, "rape, self-defense, or incest." that's it.

So instead you propose that unwanting parents should be forced to raise a child? Or that these children should be born and then thrown into the system? That a woman who wishes not to have a growing entity in her body should be forced to anyway?

And saying that there are "three dead babies" is beyond silly. They were never babies, they were barely functioning cell formations.

I don't think it comes down to what is moral, or what is not moral, because who on this entire planet is on some moral high ground to judge which is which? But I am saying that there is a point where it is obvious that someones stupidity/irresponsibility outweighs their common sense, and at that point, there should be action taken to prevent their stupidity from causing more harm on society as a whole.

Bringing unwanted children into this world who have the potential of being neglected, abused etc. and later becoming dysfunctional adults, is detrimental to all of society, and completely unfair to the individual.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov No, he's saying that even if you're saddled with a violinist against your will, it would be immoral to be the cause of his death, even if by killing him you free yourself of a burden.

"Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous. . . ""

I'm reading this as him saying "a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body is outrageous".

Maybe I am over-tired and am interpreting it wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Theresa I'm reading this as him saying "a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body is outrageous". Maybe I am over-tired and am interpreting it wrong.

I'm pretty sure you're getting it right.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.