Join Our Community!
Share
Debate Forums > Abortion Debate Forum > NeutralUserName - You & Me, 1 on 1
For a scientific spectator analysis, please choose your position and try not to interrupt us!
Pro-Life / Anti-Choice
Pro-Choice / Anti-Life
Hey, don't get me involved in your petty little hootenanny! This issue is none of my beeswax.
0%  0%  [ 0 ]
33%  33%  [ 1 ]
66%  66%  [ 2 ]
Total Votes : 3
User Profile
Q: NeutralUserName - You & Me, 1 on 1
asked by: DamianaRaven on March 19th, 2009
Experienced User
My name is Jenna (What's your's? *offers a cyber-handshake*) and I'd like to talk to you about your views on abortion, a 1-on-1 debate if you will. I understand your position that life is sacred and any conceived child deserves the chance to be born. On this point, I'm in complete agreement with you. Abortion sucks, and people who have one after another without compunction ought to be slapped and sterilized. However, as much as I may feel compassion for the unborn, I feel every bit as much for the terrified, unprepared woman/girl who doesn't want to be pregnant, have a baby, or get any more involved in the reproductive process than she already is. I don't pass judgement or feel contempt and declare that since she made one little mistake (and trust me, the mistake itself can seem INCREDIBLY trivial compared to the consequence) she should suffer whatever fate nature has intended.

I feel that until a human is capable of drawing its own breath and consuming its own food, it's a part of its mother's body, same as an arm or a leg. I don't wish to bestow upon women the right to kill so much as to have that part of her body removed. (If we could just invent an artificial uterus or perfect uterine transplantation, we could fix it all but alas!) I've had an abortion, so I know the mentality of a frightened and overwhelmed young girl. I didn't go into the clinic thinking "kill it, kill it, kill it" so much as "get it out of my body before it DOES develop into a baby that requires my care and attention." To this day, I feel that given the situation I was in and the monumental fool I had sex with, I did that embryo an ENORMOUS favor. I didn't want the child inside me, and I even resented it for being conceived. No child should be incubated or born with that kind of vibe coming out of its mother. I believe in chi & spiritual energy and trust me, it's just bad voodoo all around.

Too existential for you? Yeah, I figured. OK, here's what would have actually happened. The drunken goober who knocked me up and wanted me to be his woman for eternity would have (figuratively speaking, of course) grabbed that baby by the ankle and used it to beat me into submission for the rest of everyone's life or until he got bored with the game. I actually planned on sucking it up and going through the adoption process but he swore he'd put a stop to that, fight for custody and if I wouldn't be with him, sue me for child support and win 'cause awwww, doesn't everyone just love a devoted daddy? He made no secret of the fact that our baby was his ticket into my life for all eternity. Clearly, he underestimated me. I went crying to MY daddy, got his platinum card, and hauled my bumpkin butt to the big city for one of them there suckification procedures. (Indeed, devoted daddies are a wonderful thing!) Nothing anyone says could ever make me sorry I did it!

What I'd like to ask you is if you're serious about wanting abortion prohibited in all but exceptional cases, i.e. rape, incest, and immediate threat to the mother's life? Are you one of those tree-whispering whackaloons who believes that even rape babies and incest deformities should be incubated at whatever the cost? If so, what justification do you provide for exerting that sort of control over another person's body? Do you believe that the world would be a better, more harmonious place if every single fertilized egg were protected and defended until (and only until, it sometimes seems) it's born? Can you not concede that as unpleasant, reprehensible, tragic and unfortunate as abortion is, it is sometimes the only logical and humane choice for a desperate woman? Why would you want to take the option away altogether instead of merely discouraging it and working to offer practical & viable alternatives more intricate than merely "suck it up and take your punishment like a big girl"?

I'll stop here and give you space to answer my questions and ask whatever you will of me. I eagerly await your reply!
Did you find this post useful?
|
Users who thank DamianaRaven for this post: motherofhighspiritedones  diamondsz 
Replies(14)
Avatar
aochriss
replied on March 19th, 2009
Extremely eHealthy
Can't wait to see this!
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
NeutralUsername
replied on March 19th, 2009
Active User, very eHealthy
I will just give some of my views concerning the abortion debate for right now:

1. I am an atheist who leans more on the pro-life side. Not just for the unborn. I am against the killing of any innocents. I am against the war. I am against the death penalty, because just one innocent possilby being executed is one too many.

2. I am for exceptions (like physical health or serious mental health), only because I see it as a form of self-defense. I am not against self-defense. The unborn is still innocent, but it's natural to want to live.

3. If I had the say to make abortion illegal, I wouldn't want it to be so overnight. However, I think aborting for gender reasons should be outlawed completely. I find it to be the WORST reason to abort and it can become dangerous. I'll get into that later. I also think there should be more limits and restrictions.

4. I believe in better sex education. Abstinence only educations is a really horrible idea. If I had my way, ALL birth control would be free, but that would only happen in a fantasy world.

5. I know not many people notice, but I tend to fight for RESPECT of the unborn, not really for the right for them to be born. I believe those who like to consider the unborn nothing but parasites or balls of cells are just in denial or just want to justify it.

I'll get into more later. I have to start work!
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
NeutralUsername
replied on March 19th, 2009
Active User, very eHealthy
I couldn't answer the poll by the way. I don't think this issue is black and white. I like to say I'm "mostly Pro-life".
Did you find this post useful?
|
User Profile
DamianaRaven
replied on March 20th, 2009
Experienced User
Another reason that I think abortion should remain legal - and even be encouraged in some cases - is that there are simply too many people on this planet. I, too, am opposed to the killing of innocents but I find the SUFFERING of the innocent slightly more intolerable. A lot of the pro-choicers on this forum mention the oppression of women. However, when it comes to oppression, abuse, and the general denial of human rights, no group can hold a candle to the plight of children. All over the world and throughout time, children have been considered the property of their parents.

One story in particular blew my mind and broke my heart. A New York girl named Mary Ellen, discovered savagely beaten by her (adoptive) parents in 1874, is often cited as the first "recorded case" of child abuse in America. The compassionate folks looking to rescue her and punish the filth who brutalized her ran into a problem: there weren't really any laws against beating your own child! The only way they could prosecute the case was with the help of the SPCA - the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to ANIMALS. You can read the whole story here: http://www.cisaustin.org/pebbleproject/htm l/mary_ellen_s_story.html but I warn you - it will be painful for the tender of heart.

The point is that right here in America, as recently 136 years ago, children were considered less worthy of legal protection than animals. All over the world, children suffer and I believe this to be because children aren't a valued enough "commodity" in the grand scheme of things. After all, any fool can crank out a handful of them, so it isn't like they're rare or hard to come by.

I believe that if we reduce the number of children on this planet, the ones who remain will be more valued, if not by their parents then by the increased number of childless people who suddenly seem A LOT more outraged by the idea of someone mistreating such a desperately wanted creature. The market is flooded, so to speak, and that problem will compound itself if we tell women that they need to go ahead and pop out every baby they accidentally conceive, whether they want to or not. The assumption is that surely SOMEBODY will want a child for SOME reason or another. As it happens, some people adopt children just to mistreat them.

The statistics don't lie, and I find the national and worldwide numbers of abused, neglected, and exploited children appalling and UNACCEPTABLE! The only effective way I can imagine to increase the value and worth of children to the adult population is to reduce their numbers. Providing an abortion to anyone who wants one is a great start!
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
NeutralUsername
replied on March 20th, 2009
Active User, very eHealthy
DamianaRaven wrote:
Another reason that I think abortion should remain legal - and even be encouraged in some cases - is that there are simply too many people on this planet. I, too, am opposed to the killing of innocents but I find the SUFFERING of the innocent slightly more intolerable. A lot of the pro-choicers on this forum mention the oppression of women. However, when it comes to oppression, abuse, and the general denial of human rights, no group can hold a candle to the plight of children. All over the world and throughout time, children have been considered the property of their parents.

One story in particular blew my mind and broke my heart. A New York girl named Mary Ellen, discovered savagely beaten by her (adoptive) parents in 1874, is often cited as the first "recorded case" of child abuse in America. The compassionate folks looking to rescue her and punish the filth who brutalized her ran into a problem: there weren't really any laws against beating your own child! The only way they could prosecute the case was with the help of the SPCA - the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to ANIMALS. You can read the whole story here: http://www.cisaustin.org/pebbleproject/htm l/mary_ellen_s_story.html but I warn you - it will be painful for the tender of heart.

The point is that right here in America, as recently 136 years ago, children were considered less worthy of legal protection than animals. All over the world, children suffer and I believe this to be because children aren't a valued enough "commodity" in the grand scheme of things. After all, any fool can crank out a handful of them, so it isn't like they're rare or hard to come by.

I believe that if we reduce the number of children on this planet, the ones who remain will be more valued, if not by their parents then by the increased number of childless people who suddenly seem A LOT more outraged by the idea of someone mistreating such a desperately wanted creature. The market is flooded, so to speak, and that problem will compound itself if we tell women that they need to go ahead and pop out every baby they accidentally conceive, whether they want to or not. The assumption is that surely SOMEBODY will want a child for SOME reason or another. As it happens, some people adopt children just to mistreat them.

The statistics don't lie, and I find the national and worldwide numbers of abused, neglected, and exploited children appalling and UNACCEPTABLE! The only effective way I can imagine to increase the value and worth of children to the public is to reduce their numbers. Providing an abortion to anyone who wants one is a great start!


Reducing the amount of children will not stop abuse. Abuse is abuse. There are many different reasons for it. Many of them personal. Sometimes they're taught that way. Sometimes they just like to do it (if it isn't kids, it will be another group of people or animals). Some do it because they like control. Would reducing the amount of women stop men from mistreating them? Would reducing the amount of old people stop elderly abuse? Killing doesn't solve the problem. Abortion wouldn't make a difference, either. Since it's legal in the US, why are there still abuse going on? Abuse has not gone down ever since abortion became legal. Unfortunately, many people who DO abuse kids actually WANT kids! That's why I believe in STRICTER laws concerning child abuse. No more slap on the wrists. Then maybe people will see that it's NOT okay to hurt kids.
Did you find this post useful?
|
User Profile
DamianaRaven
replied on March 20th, 2009
Experienced User
I never said that abortion would solve the problem of abuse. Come on, dude (If you won't tell me your name, make one up so I'll have some formal way of addressing you.) give me some credit for my intelligence! Smile It's clear that abuse is still rampant, and I mentioned abortion as a START toward lowering the number of children and making them more valuable.

I believe that fewer children WILL make a HUGE difference because that's when the stricter laws will naturally fall into place. Right now, one of the main reasons laws remain ambiguous is because there's not enough volunteers and public resources to take care of all the children who'd be homeless without the support of their abusers.

I'm in favor of sterilizing anyone who's ever been convicted of hurting a child. There are tons of cases the world sees and responds, "Jeez! That person should never be allowed to have kids." and yet that person can get out of jail (let's say, in three years, for beating a toddler nearly to death) and be pregnant or impregnating within the month. Naturally, common sense would have to be applied so that we don't go around sterilizing people who just couldn't afford to pay the power bill. Inexplicably, I have faith enough in the basic common sense of man (and our government) to support such legislation.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
NeutralUsername
replied on March 20th, 2009
Active User, very eHealthy
DamianaRaven wrote:
I never said that abortion would solve the problem of abuse. Come on, dude (If you won't tell me your name, make one up so I'll have some formal way of addressing you.) give me some credit for my intelligence! Smile It's clear that abuse is still rampant, and I mentioned abortion as a START toward lowering the number of children and making them more valuable.

I believe that fewer children WILL make a HUGE difference because that's when the stricter laws will naturally fall into place. Right now, one of the main reasons laws remain ambiguous is because there's not enough volunteers and public resources to take care of all the children who'd be homeless without the support of their abusers.

I'm in favor of sterilizing anyone who's ever been convicted of hurting a child. There are tons of cases the world sees and responds, "Jeez! That person should never be allowed to have kids." and yet that person can get out of jail (let's say, in three years, for beating a toddler nearly to death) and be pregnant or impregnating within the month. Naturally, common sense would have to be applied so that we don't go around sterilizing people who just couldn't afford to pay the power bill. Inexplicably, I have faith enough in the basic common sense of man (and our government) to support such legislation.


In what way would children be more valuable if there were fewer of them? There are different meanings of valuable and being valuable doesn't stop one from being abused. Some abusive parents may think that their kids are valuable to them.
Did you find this post useful?
|
User Profile
DamianaRaven
replied on March 20th, 2009
Experienced User
Fewer children would be more greatly valued by SOCIETY AT LARGE on the basis of simple economics. The price (or "value") of anything is largely based on supply vs demand. The less there is of something people like to have, the more it's worth. Selfish abusers do consider their children valuable to THEM but the problem is that they're not valuable enough to SOCIETY AT LARGE for them to be taken away from anyone who isn't providing them a basic level of care and nurture.

I'm sure your argument will go back to the death and the killing that's involved with abortion. You have to (somewhat) get over your disdain for death. It's a part of life and sometimes even a vital part. Every person who dies immediately stops consuming resources, thus leaving more for those who survive. Without death in all its agonizing splendor, reproduction would very soon have to stop altogether or things would get nasty! In the grand scheme of things, I'd rather see fetuses aborted than children devalued and mistreated.
Did you find this post useful?
|
User Profile
DamianaRaven
replied on March 20th, 2009
Experienced User
Is there some reason you won't tell me your name?
Did you find this post useful?
|
User Profile
Jules
replied on March 21st, 2009
Extremely eHealthy
DamianaRaven wrote:
Is there some reason you won't tell me your name?


No-one is obliged to give their name here; it is an anonymous forum. Please respect it if someone does not wish to reveal their identity and don't read things into it.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
emmasmom25
replied on March 21st, 2009
New User
The Abortion subject..
I would not do it myself but below there are a few instances that I think(i'm not gonna say its ok because its not my place to say)but just a few things to think about.
1.A young girl thats been rapped.How could she carry her attackers child?
2.A drug addict , prostitute, ECT.Should they have children?Theres so many diff. things to think about before pointing fingers.
Everyone has there own choices to make who am I to tell them what they can & can not do, we really don't know where someones been untill we have walked a mile in their shoes.
Did you find this post useful?
|
User Profile
DamianaRaven
replied on March 21st, 2009
Experienced User
Jules wrote:
DamianaRaven wrote:
Is there some reason you won't tell me your name?


No-one is obliged to give their name here; it is an anonymous forum. Please respect it if someone does not wish to reveal their identity and don't read things into it.


Okie dokie. I wasn't trying to be pushy... just personable. I understand about some people wanting to keep it anonymous, but in that case couldn't one just say "Call me Jane, as in Jane Doe." LOL
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
NeutralUsername
replied on March 23rd, 2009
Active User, very eHealthy
DamianaRaven wrote:
Fewer children would be more greatly valued by SOCIETY AT LARGE on the basis of simple economics. The price (or "value") of anything is largely based on supply vs demand. The less there is of something people like to have, the more it's worth. Selfish abusers do consider their children valuable to THEM but the problem is that they're not valuable enough to SOCIETY AT LARGE for them to be taken away from anyone who isn't providing them a basic level of care and nurture.

I'm sure your argument will go back to the death and the killing that's involved with abortion. You have to (somewhat) get over your disdain for death. It's a part of life and sometimes even a vital part. Every person who dies immediately stops consuming resources, thus leaving more for those who survive. Without death in all its agonizing splendor, reproduction would very soon have to stop altogether or things would get nasty! In the grand scheme of things, I'd rather see fetuses aborted than children devalued and mistreated.


I have no issue with natural death or even assisted suicide (because someone chooses to die). It's intential killing of others that I have a problem with.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
NeutralUsername
replied on March 23rd, 2009
Active User, very eHealthy
DamianaRaven wrote:
Jules wrote:
DamianaRaven wrote:
Is there some reason you won't tell me your name?


No-one is obliged to give their name here; it is an anonymous forum. Please respect it if someone does not wish to reveal their identity and don't read things into it.


Okie dokie. I wasn't trying to be pushy... just personable. I understand about some people wanting to keep it anonymous, but in that case couldn't one just say "Call me Jane, as in Jane Doe." LOL


Well, you can call me neutralusername or NUN for short like everyone else! Smile Or A. like my profile says. I did have my real name on my profile but I changed my mind about it (for personal reasons).
Did you find this post useful?
|
Quick Reply
Search