U of C Abortion protests

[enthused]

Usually I try to be very open minded about things, but I have a very hard time being neutral on a subject like this.

What gives anyone the right to criticize a woman for making a decision about her OWN body and her OWN life? Maybe I'm biased because I am a woman, but if I were ever in the situation where I needed to get an abortion, there is not a single person who could make me feel bad about making a decision that I know is right for myself.

Anyone who is pro-life, good for you, maybe that makes you a better person than me in the end, but your beliefs are your beliefs, and mine are mine.

Comparing abortion to genocide is extremely ridiculous and over the top. The reasons for aborting a fetus and committing genocide are not even on the same scale, so I really find it absurd to even compare the two.

I almost wonder, if many of these pro-life activists (the female ones, obviously) found themselves unwillingly pregnant, would they feel the same way that they do now? Its so easy to criticize something you've never experienced. I would imagine that if they actually found themselves in that situation, they would at LEAST like to have a choice. Or wait, why don't we go back just a few decades ago where women had no choice what so ever! Yay!

The thing about abortion is that its not just for "sluts and skanks" who get knocked up. There are so many reasons a woman might require an abortion. She could have been raped, or doctors may even advise her that for medical reasons its not safe for her to have a baby. So should she be forced to still carry a baby if it risks her own life? Also, even women who are extremely careful with birth control can end up pregnant. Should they be punished, even though they took every precaution? If they are using birth control, they obviously don't want a baby, so is it right for her to be forced to have the baby anyways? Who is that benefiting?

I have no shame in saying that if I were to get pregnant at this stage in my life, I would get an abortion. I'm still in university, I have so many things I still want to do before "settling down", and frankly, I am nowhere near ready to have kids. I am very careful with birth control, so if anything happened, it certainly wouldn't be due to lack of prevention methods.

Anyways, the point of this jumbled rant was just to say that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but pro-lifers have no right to make anyone who at least wants a CHOICE seem like a bad person. And vice versa... pro-lifers are free to their beliefs too, but they have no right to push them on themselves.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by evman150

Whether a fetus is human can be doubted. Whether a human is a human cannot be doubted, it is tautologically true.

And for what it`s worth, QED has a colloquial sense in popular use outside of math. This is what I was using, and I apologize for being ambiguous.

I suppose, but it cannot be doubted that a fertilized egg contains the complete blueprint of a human being. Something entirely unique.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

Pro-life is wrong as a blanket policy.

Pro-choice is wrong as a method of birth control.

Pro-life should be valid after a certain scientific cut-off where it has been legally decided that the fetus is a living person with a mature enough mind that it will evolve into a normal human being.

Pro-choice should be valid in all cases prior to this cut-off fetus age, particularly for rape victims, etc. Pro-choice should also be valid until the fetus gains legal status because that is the law. Until it becomes a person, it is the property of the mother and part of her body and she can do whatever she sees fit.

If a couple is considering abortion, there needs to be a reason for it other than "oops", but I think it should be a legal and morally accepted option.

I also consider this to be a relatively moderate point of view, which is what most people actually believe.

Edit: I realize I mixed up pro-life with "allow all fetuses to live no matter what" and pro-choice with "kill all babies!!" but that's tough. I'm just trying to say that the moderate view is preferred.

In a perfect world you may be the most correct. Who makes the choice in the bolded section? Certianly the religious right dont buy into the scientific notion of when life begins. So who?

[Kipper is King]

Originally Posted by enthused

.

What gives anyone the right to criticize a woman for making a decision about her OWN body and her OWN life?

What about the baby? What gives anyone the right to kill them? There is two humans involved here.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by peter12

I seem to hear your voice in another thread. Skepticism is the foundation of honest discourse. The rest, we can leave to the sophists.

Science is foundationalist by its very nature. Assumptions need to be made.

It`s like we`re trying to find the best possible combination of skepticism and assumption. Too much assumption and we never know the truth from the pretty lies. Too much skepticism and discourse isn`t possible.

I am reminded of Aristotle`s doctrine of the mean. It is that which is the mean between excess and deficiency which is to be striven for. I think something like that applies here.

[RougeUnderoos]

http://www.ucalgary.ca/news/november2008/pro-life

Last spring, CPL requested that the University take additional steps to avoid an escalation of physical conflict. In doing so, it acknowledged the risks to members of the campus community.
Last spring, CPL ignored a legal notice to vacate. It has once again brought the GAP display on campus.
There has been no effort on the part of the CPL to mutually address concerns.
Accordingly, the University is this week taking the following steps:
• It has asked Calgary Police Service, at its discretion, to issue summonses to the individuals ignoring the legal notice of trespass, or take other appropriate steps to enforce the directive.
• The University will follow with the appropriate legal action.
• The University will not seek to remove the group or its signs. This action would elevate the risk of confrontation and give the organization the publicity it is seeking.

[The Ditch]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

What about the baby? What gives anyone the right to kill them? There is two humans involved here.

A fetus isn't a baby.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by peter12

I suppose, but it cannot be doubted that a fertilized egg contains the complete blueprint of a human being. Something entirely unique.

I guess on that basis the last tissue I threw in the garbage contained millions of half blueprints for unique human beings!

j/k

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by evman150

A murderer is a human. A fetus is not. QED.

Come on now... Just because you have written something down does not make if proven. Euclid would be rolling over in his grave if he could read that.

Many people do believe a fetus is a human, especially after a certain point in its development. Your complete lack of ability to see the situation from the other sides perspective is just as incompassionate as equating abortion to Holocaust. This is the kind of thinking that leads to the extreme polarization that always comes about with these emotional topics.

If you want people to see your point of view, you need to understand theirs. Antagonizing them is going to get you nowhere. That's why your doing a disservice to the pro-choice camp.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

http://www.ucalgary.ca/news/november2008/pro-life

For several years the University of Calgary has attempted to find a reasonable compromise with Campus Pro-Life (CPL) that would give members of the University community the choice to view or not view the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) display.
These efforts, including requests that CPL turn its display signs inward, have been unsuccessful.
CPL’s statements and actions made it clear that it is not interested in a discussion or debate. Rather, it is seeking publicity and using the media to advance its objectives. The University will not engage with CPL on this basis.

[enthused]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

What about the baby? What gives anyone the right to kill them? There is two humans involved here.

But that brings us to the problem of "when is a fetus ACTUALLY a human"? I don't know a whole lot about the specifics, but in my mind, in the early stages a baby isn't a baby. Maybe it technically is, but in my mind its not... and frankly, if its my body... I really couldn't care less what anyone else thinks.

Like I said before, no one can influence the decisions I would make regarding MY OWN body.

[Kipper is King]

Originally Posted by enthused

I have no shame in saying that if I were to get pregnant at this stage in my life, I would get an abortion. I'm still in university, I have so many things I still want to do before "settling down", and frankly, I am nowhere near ready to have kids. I am very careful with birth control, so if anything happened, it certainly wouldn't be due to lack of prevention methods.

If you have a human being developing inside of you, deal with it.

Not everything goes exactly the way you imagine it will. A human is not a inconvenience...but a being that has every right to live it's life as you do for yours.

Yeah, carrying a kid for nine months and raising it/putting it up for adoption is hard. Not everything in life is easy.

It sounds like you'd go for an abortion out of lazyness and selfishness. Disgusting. All because you want to "settle down".

I'm sure your kid would want to live their life too...oh, wait, you wouldn't give them a chance.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by peter12

I suppose, but it cannot be doubted that a fertilized egg contains the complete blueprint of a human being. Something entirely unique.

That is true, but is that (fully) what it is to be human?

A man has a parasitic twin attached to his side. Is that a human? It has the human genetic code. But does it possess what it really means to be human?

A person with Down Syndrome does not technically have the "correct" human genetic code. Are they not human?

It's not quite black and white.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by peter12

So should we extend this way of thinking to the mentally handicapped or chronically ill?

Honestly, my libertarian streak says perhaps.

With mentally handicapped, it gets murkier, but if someone was to abort a child after finding through amniocentesis or other testing that it has severe mental/physical disabilities, is that wrong? Don't be so quick to say yes. That child will not have a full life, it may only live for a short painful time, that child will be totally dependent on its parents (until they die) and then society. That is a tremendous undertaking that a lot of people are simply not capable of. That doesn't make them evil people either.

As for chronically/terminally ill people, who are we to say they must stay alive until even the most modern technologies can no longer sustain them. Some American states are starting to recognize this.

When it comes to abortion, I'm somewhere in the middle, but I lean towards pro-choice. Abortion is rather ugly, but so is the consequence of bearing an unloved child, or a child of rape, or a child to unfit and unready parents. Women have a right to control their bodies... however, to me, once the baby gets to the point where it can sustain itself, the right to abort ends. Until it can sustain itself, it is not independent, it is part of the host.

Really, who are we to decide personal private acts like that. Unless the question is "Should Public dollars be used to pay for abortions?", or something like that, the public has no place in the disussion. SSM is a different societal debate because it asks for public recognition and to be attached to a preexisting social institution. The right to be homosexual is untouchable to me, they have every right to exist and thrive, largely because this is a personal private act.

Abortion is not public domain.

[enthused]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

If you have a human being developing inside of you, deal with it.

Not everything goes exactly the way you imagine it will. A human is not a inconvenience...but a being that has every right to live it's life as you do for yours.

Yeah, carrying a kid for nine months and raising it/putting it up for adoption is hard. Not everything in life is easy.

It sounds like you'd go for an abortion out of lazyness and selfishness. Disgusting.

You can think whatever you want, but I am not a bad person, and you wont be able to make me feel like one.

I wouldn't get an abortion out of laziness, because trust me, I work hard to prevent it in the first place. I'd rather not find myself in the situation where I would need an abortion, trust me. But I would never bring an unwanted child into this world.

And not to go all "feminist" here, but as a man you don't have to worry about becoming pregnant, and you never will. You'll never have to experience an unwanted pregnancy, or deal with the reprecussions. Maybe if you put youself in someone else's shoes (a woman's) you'd see things from a different light. Just a thought...

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by peter12

As taxpayers though, where should we spend our money? Preventative measures or abortion?

Both. They are not mutually exclusive. Preventative measures are not infallible.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

If you have a human being developing inside of you, deal with it.

Not everything goes exactly the way you imagine it will. A human is not a inconvenience...but a being that has every right to live it's life as you do for yours.

Yeah, carrying a kid for nine months and raising it/putting it up for adoption is hard. Not everything in life is easy.

It sounds like you'd go for an abortion out of lazyness and selfishness. Disgusting. All because you want to "settle down".

A man comes up to you and puts handcuffs on you and him - you are handcuffed to him. He says that you have to be handcuffed to him for 9 months or he'll kill himself.

What do you do?

[REDVAN]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

If you have a human being developing inside of you, deal with it.

Not everything goes exactly the way you imagine it will. A human is not a inconvenience...but a being that has every right to live it's life as you do for yours.

Yeah, carrying a kid for nine months and raising it/putting it up for adoption is hard. Not everything in life is easy.

It sounds like you'd go for an abortion out of lazyness and selfishness. Disgusting. All because you want to "settle down".

Only a man says this.

I'm sorry Kipper Is King, and I think I met you in real life so I can say that you are in fact a dude... but only a man thinks this way. Don't attack someone's free will and right to chose what happens to themselves because you go to church on Sundays. Don't try to say you know what it would be like for a woman having a baby she did not want (imagine if she was raped!). I still think a moderate viewpoint would be seriously considered by those on the pro-life side.

I have to stop reading this thread. Before I say something that the God-lovers are going to hate.

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Natural abortion is the consequence and trade-off of being human. Medical science can only prevent this in so many ways. I would also be against artificial insemination. I don't know why these two views can't be concurrent.

Natural diseases are the consequence and trade-off of being human, yet we go to extreme efforts to prevent or fix diseases. To value the unique combination of a egg and a sperm to the same degree there should be herculean efforts to prevent the 1/3 of all babies that die due to the inaction of society!

And how could you be against artificial insemination, you'd deprive people who have desired to love and care for a child their whole lives a chance to do so? How much more would they care for a child that they've worked so hard for vs. a person who had to have a child because abortions were illegal and didn't care for it at all?

(See, appeal to emotion can be used to support any viewpoint).

Although some would disagree, an emotional appeal is a central part to the morality of this debate. Human life can't be measured in utilitarian terms.

See above, I'm not saying human life has to be measured in a utilitarian fashion, but I don't think emotions have any place in a morality debate; they cloud the issue. Not every issue is cut and dried and tough choices require clear reason.

Originally Posted by peter12

Within ethical debates, there is no such thing as generalizations. In a democracy, everyone has their own view which bears weight. The wisdom of crowds means something.

Sometimes the wisdom of the crowd has to be overcome by a small vocal minority. See slavery, racism, women's rights, etc. The majority isn't always right.

[Kipper is King]

I have a great deal of empathy for women. I consider myself a feminist of sorts.

Also, I can't fathom how difficult giving birth to a child is, or being raped. I don't try to discount that.