Reviews for The debate on abortion: Prochoice

Reviews For: The debate on abortion: Prochoice

CatDog-runs-fast 2008-05-23 ch 1,	abuseI totally agree with this, it seemed very calm and well written. and hey, are you from New Zealand by any chance? You mentioned Nz a few times.
jadedmari 2008-05-22 ch 1,	abuseEloquently put. The example of the baby in the washing machine is extremely sickening.
lovesick melodyy 2008-04-28 ch 1,	abuseYour essay makes some really, really good points. I have been pro-life for a really long time until just recently when I found out that my good frien had an abortion. I think that the bottom line, without boring you with my reasons for agreeing, is that the government does not have a right to tell women what to do with their bodies. That, to me, is the most important point. "If a foetus were a human being it would be one on life support. A person on life support can be killed with the family's consent." This fact shocked me, and also pushed me towards pro-choice. I am still undecided, though. because i believe that people who have never been put in the situation really should have no say. you may be pro-life, but what will your thoughts be if you ever have to make the choice? im really glad you addressed this in such a mature and inteligent manner. kudos. Nicki
Athenry 2008-04-27 ch 1, anon.	abuseTo start, i would just like to say you're essay was one of the few intelligent pro-choice arguments i have seen. However, i would have to respectfully disagree. Most of what i planned on saying, Lanner Falcon said. I would love to debate the issue with you in person, but unfortunately this is the internet. It is completely selfish for the mother to put her wants ahead of the needs of a child. IF the mother and father do not want children, than they should not have sex. If they cannot control themselves, then they should at the very least use a condom. If they are to irresponsible to do that, then its their fault, and SS or CPS should take the kids away, and give them to people better suited. As for Rape and Incest victims, is it really the childs fault for the actions of the father, or mother?
Lolita 2008-04-26 ch 1, anon.	abuseYou made quite a few spelling and grammar mistakes, but good try. You presented a well-organized "opinion"...it seems you tried to be unbiased in the beginning, but in the end it just seemed like you were trying to convince people of your opinion that there should be other solutions to abortion. The day-after pill is very similar to a medical abortion, which I had at 5½ weeks. At this time, there wasn't even a fetus...it was an embryotic sac. The medical abortion consists of two sets of pills, one that stops the pregnancy and the others which cause the uterus to contract and expel what is inside. The day-after pill is actually two pills which pretty much does the same thing. The side-effects are awful for both situations. You are right about one thing. A fetus is a living being, but it is not considered human until it is born. Your third paragraph was a very interesting comparison.
Lanner Falcon 2008-04-26 ch 1,	abuseWell, I'm just against murder (not really "pro-life" in the cultural definition, because I approve of the death penalty, but that's another matter…), so I'll answer each point in turn (I'd like to add that I'm arguing from a purely atheistic point of view.) 1. Whether its murder is a matter of what the fetus is. I'll deal with this later. 2. It would only be manslaughter if the mother was doing something to willfully endanger the child's life. (which is a whole other subject). Look up "manslaughter" on Wikipedia. 3. A fetus certainly alive (the old "protoplasm" theory just doesn't cut it). 4. If it is alive, the question becomes "is it human". Now think about what happens if you deny this because of… Intelligence? Then murder the mental ward! Shape? Than why not kill invalids? Emotional maturity? Let's kill some teens! If you answer "yes" to a single question above, you're a nazi. And the list goes on… Furthermore, if he's born of human parents, than he's human. Where would the DNA that makes him something other than human come from? From birth till death, if he has human DNA, he's human. Thus we must respect him- Unless you want to go back to the system above… 5. The mother's future? Should a mother be able to deprive someone of his life, just because of her "future"? If so, then why not me? Why shouldn't I get to kill people, so I can ensure my "future?" Let's not even get started about emotions… And if "too much responsiblity" is an excuse to kill another human being, than why only in the womb? Why not use that model in the army, the family, and all civilization? The answer is that you sympathize more with her ambitions than mine. …Because there'd be nuclear war… 6. Mercy Killing? Yep, that's a great idea. Everyone knows its better not to be alive than to face suffering! Let me say this: I've dealt with a great deal of suffering, and I'd live through hell just to see one thing… (which isn't anyone's concern). If you think that killing someone is the best way to ensure their future, then you sir, are clinically insane. Suffering makes many stronger, like Supreme court Judge Clarence Thomas… Who was going to be aborted. Read his book. 7. Rational lifeforms (any being with the genetic code ultimately conducive to rationality), have weight far above that of irrational ones. What this "rationality" consists of is self evident, which means you don't need to use the nazi arguments. Furthermore, because its a matter of ultimate capacity (passed from parents through DNA), you can't say that a child is like an ape. That was all technically in answer four. 8. Many of the things you said are like bad economics- only considering what is visible. Its like saying that smashing a brick through a window helps the economy… 9. In cases where the father would take equal responsibility, you give the mother, (a temporary carrier), authority over what is not fully hers. The child is combination of two people's genetic code… Conclusion: You consider the mother's problems and believe they give her a right to kill. You consider humanity relative to physical state. You don't consider the father at all. I've given you a half complete argument- (I'd still have to defend my points), but I can already see blaring holes in your logic. I hope you actually read this- instead of discounting my words as absurdity and barely browsing it. None of this is meant to insult your person- only your incorrect theory. I don't have time to debate the matter, so I'm just giving your readers food for thought.

Return to Top