Political Crossfire Forums

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

responsibility for actions

Why is this not a good argument? well you are responsible for many things during your day, did you drive your car? killed someone indirectly with pollution. Smoked a cigarette in public? killed someone indirectly with lung cancer. Read the paper? deprived someone indirectly of oxygen which led to their death in the future. Water the plants? start a vicous water war sometime in the future which kills thousands.

Hypothetical, you cross the road at a crossing and get hit by a car, you took precautions (crossing), unfortunately its not infallible, so we should leave you on the side of the road to die. Because you are responsible for your decision to cross the road, you knew it was possible to get hit.

This argument has no merit. Taking responsibility is having medical insurance, in case you are in an accident, having an abortion if you don't think you can't be pregnant for some reason, or adoption if you can't take care of an infant. It is not a punishment for someones mistake.

Lumina · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 14795

Well, that's a new one for me--an abortion's being an example of responsibility, I mean.

Gitana · Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 4:57 am Post subject:

Of course it's taking responsibility - doing NOTHING would be not taking responsibility. It just happens that it doesn't fit with how the prolife movement also wants to take control of the definition of responsibility, ie, only our definition of responsibility is correct.

Lumina · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 14795

Gitana wrote: Of course it's taking responsibility - doing NOTHING would be not taking responsibility. It just happens that it doesn't fit with how the prolife movement also wants to take control of the definition of responsibility, ie, only our definition of responsibility is correct.

Oh, really?

Which is easier? Using reliable birth control responsibly or deciding whether another's life, one which your irresponsibility created, is worth living? Why would you trust someone who couldn't take care of lighter business to decide the fate of another?

And no, please don't trot out the rape/incest thing or the life-of-the-mother stuff. We all know the stats, and I don't think there's much disagreement about these rare circumstances. Most abortions are performed for the purpose of birth control and for the reason of convenience.

And in regard to that majority of abortions, I just can't see why those who cannot be responsible for themselves have the right to make life-or-death decisions for others.

Germanstudent · Joined: 15 Sep 2006 Posts: 6 Location: Baden - Württemberg

Quote: And in regard to that majority of abortions, I just can't see why those who cannot be responsible for themselves have the right to make life-or-death decisions for others.

That is my opinion, too. If a woman is pregnant, I think, there is always a solution, that the baby can be born.
If the pregnant has got financiall problems, adoption ist much more better than abortion. I think, abortion is murder.
If a baby is born an than adopted, because the mother has got no money, than it has the chance to live. I don't know the situation in the USA, in Germany there are much more couples who want to adopt a child than children who can be adopted, so that the Youth welfare office is able to choose the best couples. So the couples who are allowed to adopt a children, have to fulfill high criteria.

straw man · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 2948

Gitana wrote: Quote: It has it's own brain, is metabolizing on its own and is a completely separate entity. It is it's OWN body which happens to live inside of its mother's body.
So then you must not have any problem with very early abortion, when it is simply a microscopic clump of dividing cells, or with Plan B. That's reasonable.

If you're talking about the morning after pill, you're absolutely right that's reasonable. (and responsible I might add). I don't think of this as an abortion per se so much as it's emergency retroactive birth control. (in other words steps are being taken to make sure that the sex does not result in a pregnancy, and the steps are taken right away, so it's essentially birth control.) That's ethically different then finding out you are pregnant down the road and then saying after the fact, "oh looks like the sex resulted in a pregnancy. Better just kill it."

Lumina · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 14795

straw man wrote:
If you're talking about the morning after pill, you're absolutely right that's reasonable. (and responsible I might add). I don't think of this as an abortion per se so much as it's emergency retroactive birth control. (in other words steps are being taken to make sure that the sex does not result in a pregnancy, and the steps are taken right away, so it's essentially birth control.) That's ethically different then finding out you are pregnant down the road and then saying after the fact, "oh looks like the sex resulted in a pregnancy. Better just kill it."

You make a point. I think many of those who are profoundly troubled by abortion might accept this argument of degree and the basis of a compromise.

Gitana · Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 3:22 pm Post subject:

Quote: I don't know the situation in the USA, in Germany there are much more couples who want to adopt a child than children who can be adopted,

Unfortunately, in the US there are many more babies that never get adopted than there are couples who are both suitable AND who follow through. Maybe Germany can work something out with the US to make international adoption easier, because if we outlaw all abortion, there are going to be hundreds of thousands of additional babies added to the unwanted rolls. There are at least 140,000 available now.

Quote: If you're talking about the morning after pill, you're absolutely right that's reasonable.

In order for it to be a viable solution, it must be cheap and over the counter, or it immediately loses it's value as a 'next-day' contraceptive.