[ischuldt]

I have a different view of abortion then most people seem to. I believe life begins at conception, but I am still pro-choice. I believe going through with a pregnancy is a heroic jesture on the part of a mother. In fact I think risking your body and suffering through the pain of child birth would be the equivalent of a fire fighter risking his body and suffering through the health risks of charging into a burning building in order to save a life that already exists.

To me a woman who chooses abortion is no different than a soldier who sounds retreat to early, or a fire fighter who exits a burning building with people still inside. Are they heros? Definately not, but are they criminals? Again I'd say absolutely not.

I would like to se mothers day get the same level of respect as veterans day, and I would like to see women who go through with child birth treated as heros, but to call a woman who chooses to abort a murder or attempt to charge her with a crime to me that's just insane. A coward? Sure, but a criminal? No.

[Feral]

Meh. I wouldn't call it any more heroic than... any other biological function. Heroic is the women who know their baby is going to come out deformed or retarded or something, and still manage to give them an amazing life, or the ones who can't have babies at all, but adopt a shitload of them, or have their own, but STILL adopt a shitload of them.

Much like buying a horse is the cheapest part of owning one, the pregnancy and birth has been pretty much the easiest part of being a parent for me. Nothing more natural in the world, but I wouldn't call it heroic in and of itself.

[Sumwun]

You have a pretty fair view, even if I find the argument that a fetus is a baby is farfetched.

As for Mother's Day becoming respected, I don't see it happening. There's too much misogyny in our culture for it to happen.

[Distance]

Who wants to be a hero or have a big deal made of them? Not me. That said, I wouldn't abort but uphold women's rights to do so.

[ischuldt]

	Originally Posted by Sumwun To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You have a pretty fair view, even if I find the argument that a fetus is a baby is farfetched.

Well people who are against abortion believe the fetus is a baby. So in order to attempt to make an argument to them to stop trying to ban abortion being able to make it even considering the fetus to be a life is about the only shot you have.

I think this is the primary reason for the success of the violinist arguments. They work from the assumption that the fetus is a life, and still prove abortion should be legal in some circumstances like rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother. To me this takes it to the next step and covers all abortions.

[themuzicman]

Originally Posted by ischuldt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I have a different view of abortion then most people seem to. I believe life begins at conception, but I am still pro-choice. I believe going through with a pregnancy is a heroic jesture on the part of a mother. In fact I think risking your body and suffering through the pain of child birth would be the equivalent of a fire fighter risking his body and suffering through the health risks of charging into a burning building in order to save a life that already exists. To me a woman who chooses abortion is no different than a soldier who sounds retreat to early, or a fire fighter who exits a burning building with people still inside. Are they heros? Definately not, but are they criminals? Again I'd say absolutely not. I would like to se mothers day get the same level of respect as veterans day, and I would like to see women who go through with child birth treated as heros, but to call a woman who chooses to abort a murder or attempt to charge her with a crime to me that's just insane. A coward? Sure, but a criminal? No.

The difference is that the fireman didn't put the people in the burning building, nor did he consent to their safety before setting the building on fire.

[ischuldt]

	Originally Posted by Feral To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Meh. I wouldn't call it any more heroic than... any other biological function.

I'm pretty sure there is significantly more danger, pain, and everything else that comes along with child birth then there is with taking a shit. I'd be surprised if most women agreed with your view.

[Equinox]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The difference is that the fireman didn't put the people in the burning building, nor did he consent to their safety before setting the building on fire.

I agree that the situation is different in terms of the mother (generally) consenting to her initial pregnancy, or at least the possibility of pregnancy by fooling around, whereas the firemen and soldiers didn't consent for accidents and wars to happen. However, I believe we should nonetheless treat all three the same and hold them accountable for being heroes, since that's what they signed up for. If a soldier deserts or a fireman deliberately leaves people behind, we hold those people criminally responsible. If a mother chooses to risk getting pregnant, actually gets pregnant, and aborts, then she ought to be criminally responsible as well. If anything, she's even more culpable than the soldier or fireman because she not only knew the risks, but even consented to this particular incident (as opposed to impossibility to consent to individual fires or wars).

[ischuldt]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The difference is that the fireman didn't put the people in the burning building, nor did he consent to their safety before setting the building on fire.

When you choose to become a fire fighter you do so with the knowledge that part of the job description is to enter burning buildings and attempt to save lives. You do infact consent to do significantly more than an average person to save the life of someone in that building. If you don't do it you might lose your job, but certainly you wouldn't go to jail for it.

Secondly putting people in a fire you started, and simply having sex is not remotely close to equivalent. Maybe if the fire fighters were having a practice fire where they start a building on fire in order to practice putting it out, and they didn't do enough to insure that the building was clear before they start it on fire that might be equivalent. like having un-protected sex you know there is a chance that a pregnancy could happen and you know there's a chance there could be someone in the building before you light it up.

But even in that scenario you could not force a firefighter to risk his life to save someone still in the building. Someone would probably lose there job over the mess no doubt, but go to jail? No.

Also, it would depend on what precautions were taken to try and clear the building up front. If the fire fighters checked every room in the building before they lite the fire it would be hard to blame them if some kid was hiding under a bed some where. By the same token if a women uses contraception it's hard to blame them if it doesn't work.

[Equinox]

	Originally Posted by ischuldt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	By the same token if a women uses contraception it's hard to blame them if it doesn't work.

She still took the risk in the first place. Every time you have sex, you consent to potentially become pregnant/cause a pregnancy.

[Distance]

It's seriously annoying when pregnancy is viewed as a gender blame situation. Why not point to the guy and ask him why he didn't get a vasectomy, prior to getting sexual with anyone?

[ischuldt]

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If a soldier deserts or a fireman deliberately leaves people behind, we hold those people criminally responsible.

Do we actually hold fire fighters criminally responsible for leaving people behind? Maybe if some invesigation shows obvious neglect, but when you are in a burning building it's hard to know when your life or body is in enough danger that it's ok to pull out. To a certain extent we have to give the fireman the benefit of the doubt. Even if you're a fireman yourself you can't know what it looked like or felt like inside this specific building. Call the guy a coward maybe, but put him in jail? No.

As far as soldiers go I would equat it more to a soldier retreating prematurly rather than simply deserting. None of us can know how we would truly act if we were put in the same situation we like to think we would be brave, but we can't guarentee it. Even if you are a soldier who's been in battle yourself and hung in there, judging another soldier for not being able to live up to your expectations is one thing, but calling them a criminal is another.

---------- Post added 10-24-2011 at 12:01 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's seriously annoying when pregnancy is viewed as a gender blame situation. Why not point to the guy and ask him why he didn't get a vasectomy, prior to getting sexual with anyone?

This is true. If you're going to say it's the woman's fault for putting the child there the man is every bit as much at fault for putting the child there as the woman is.

To me that would be like letting your son swim to far out in the ocean under the assumption a life guard would save him if he's in trouble. If the life guard didn't save your child your every bit as much a criminal as the life guard is.

[Equinox]

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's seriously annoying when pregnancy is viewed as a gender blame situation. Why not point to the guy and ask him why he didn't get a vasectomy, prior to getting sexual with anyone?

Yeah, the guy is also to blame, hence why I said "cause a pregnancy."

Originally Posted by ischuldt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Do we actually hold fire fighters criminally responsible for leaving people behind? Maybe if some invesigation shows obvious neglect, but when you are in a burning building it's hard to know when your life or body is in enough danger that it's ok to pull out. To a certain extent we have to give the fireman the benefit of the doubt. Even if you're a fireman yourself you can't know what it looked like or felt like inside this specific building. Call the guy a coward maybe, but put him in jail? No. As far as soldiers go I would equat it more to a soldier retreating prematurly rather than simply deserting. None of us can know how we would truly act if we were put in the same situation we like to think we would be brave, but we can't guarentee it. Even if you are a soldier who's been in battle yourself and hung in there, judging another soldier for not being able to live up to your expectations is one thing, but calling them a criminal is another.

Nevertheless, if they don't do their job, then they shouldn't have taken firefighting or soldiering as a profession in the first place. Once you assume the responsibility, you're obligated to carry it out. Society's expectations are that they'll do their jobs; if they don't, then due to the importance of what they're doing, we hold them criminally responsible to 1) make sure that people who enter those careers are serious about what they do and 2) setting a standard that people in those careers are held to, just like their coworkers.

Retreating prematurely is called cowardice, and traditionally the penalty for it is that your officer would shoot you in the back when you passed by him. On the Eastern Front in World War II, the Russians had whole squads of people whose only job was to stand at the back of an advancing army and shoot any cowards. There were other squads of more senior officers behind them who would shoot any of the coward-shooters who refused to shoot. I think this went up to 3 or 4 ranks of coward-shooter-shooter-shooters.

[Distance]

I don't view it as a blame thing. Accidents happen and different individuals will address the problem different ways, whether they choose to abort, adopt out or keep it.

[ischuldt]

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	She still took the risk in the first place. Every time you have sex, you consent to potentially become pregnant/cause a pregnancy.

That's like saying every time you open a swimming pool you consent to potentially ending up with kids that could be drowning in it. If as a life guard you don't dive to the bottom of the pool and save a child in time you might get sued for a lot of money by a parent, and you might lose your life guard license, but go to jail?

[Equinox]

	Originally Posted by ischuldt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That's like saying every time you open a swimming pool you consent to potentially ending up with kids that could be drowning in it. If as a life guard you don't dive to the bottom of the pool and save a child in time you might get sued for a lot of money by a parent, and you might lose your life guard license, but go to jail?

Yes, you do end up with kids who could drown in it. You also might go to jail for involuntary manslaughter due to the fact that you were negligent.

---------- Post added 10-24-2011 at 01:08 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't view it as a blame thing. Accidents happen and different individuals will address the problem different ways, whether they choose to abort, adopt out or keep it.

Some people do choose to abort in response to "accidents." And these people should be jailed. Just because they choose to act in a certain way doesn't mean their actions are justified.

[ischuldt]

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Nevertheless, if they don't do their job, then they shouldn't have taken firefighting or soldiering as a profession in the first place. Once you assume the responsibility, you're obligated to carry it out.

Of course you should, but A you don't go to jail if you don't. You might loose your job, but go to jail? No. Secondly, society can't know the specifics of each situation. Even as a fireman or a life guard society wouldn't expect you to actually die or risk permenant damage to your body to save someone else. Without being in the fire ourselves though knowing what it was like for the fireman to be in that first is all but impossible, and some benefit of the doubt must be given.

Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Retreating prematurely is called cowardice, and traditionally the penalty for it is that your officer would shoot you in the back when you passed by him. On the Eastern Front in World War II, the Russians had whole squads of people whose only job was to stand at the back of an advancing army and shoot any cowards. There were other squads of more senior officers behind them who would shoot any of the coward-shooters who refused to shoot. I think this went up to 3 or 4 ranks of coward-shooter-shooter-shooters.

Back in the day there were probably lots of idiotic practices that happened all to often. Something tells me you would not see that is on any modern battle field, and for a good reason. Saying that the Russians did this back in the days of stalin isn't exactly a good way to prove that it was a morally justified thing to do.

[Distance]

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Some people do choose to abort in response to "accidents." And these people should be jailed. Just because they choose to act in a certain way doesn't mean their actions are justified.

Why jail? It's not illegal to abort in many jurisdictions.

So if someone walks down the street, they too should be jailed because you don't like the way they walk? Should cheaters be jailed? Should people who eat meat be jailed?

[ischuldt]

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes, you do end up with kids who could drown in it. You also might go to jail for involuntary manslaughter due to the fact that you were negligent.

I would like to see a recent example of a life guard or fire fighter going to jail for this?

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by ischuldt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	When you choose to become a fire fighter you do so with the knowledge that part of the job description is to enter burning buildings and attempt to save lives. You do infact consent to do significantly more than an average person to save the life of someone in that building. If you don't do it you might lose your job, but certainly you wouldn't go to jail for it.

That's because there is no consent given to the individuals in each fire to save them. There is only a general consent to follow a set of guidelines with respect to fires and saving people.

In pregnancy, OTOH, there is specific consent to the formation of a new life (or multiples thereof), and this represents a more specific form of consent to that specific unborn human, and thus a different level of expectation.

	Secondly putting people in a fire you started, and simply having sex is not remotely close to equivalent.

They're exactly the same thing.

In a normal fire, either the fire happened because of someone else's actions, to which the fireman must respond.

Pregnancy happens specifically as a result of the woman's choice and consent to have a human formed in her uterus. Again, different, unless the fireman set fire to a building knowing that there were people in there himself.

Maybe if the fire fighters were having a practice fire where they start a building on fire in order to practice putting it out, and they didn't do enough to insure that the building was clear before they start it on fire that might be equivalent. like having un-protected sex you know there is a chance that a pregnancy could happen and you know there's a chance there could be someone in the building before you light it up.

Again, not the same. In this case, another individual made the choice to hide in this building and avoid the fireman.

In the case of pregnancy no choice was made beyond the woman's choice to pay her homage to the "O" god for the unborn human to be formed.

Even in the case where an unconscious person was placed where fireman didn't detect the person, the fault lies with the person who placed the unconscious person there, and there would be legal charges.

	But even in that scenario you could not force a firefighter to risk his life to save someone still in the building. Someone would probably lose there job over the mess no doubt, but go to jail? No.

But either the individual who chose to remain in the building in spite of fireman clearing it would be responsible for his own injuries, or the individual who placed an unconscious person there would have legal responsibility.

In the same way, the woman who consented to the unborn human being formed in her uterus has a greater obligation to that unborn human than the fireman who unknowingly puts another at risk due to that individual (or someone else) creating that risk.

	Also, it would depend on what precautions were taken to try and clear the building up front. If the fire fighters checked every room in the building before they lite the fire it would be hard to blame them if some kid was hiding under a bed some where. By the same token if a women uses contraception it's hard to blame them if it doesn't work.

LOL... You don't think a fireman would be legally responsible for not checking under each bed before setting a house on fire as a practice? You're delusional.

And, again, that individual there because of their own or someone else's choice. There isn't anyone else that makes a choice in pregnancy. Just mom and dad. And, thus, there is a greater level of responsibility there.

(There's also the obvious difference between not saving someone because of the risk to one's own life, and the natural process of pregnancy and birth, which is intentionally interrupted by killing.)

[Seriously]

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	She still took the risk in the first place. Every time you have sex, you consent to potentially become pregnant/cause a pregnancy.

So do you. Unfortunately men don't have to deal with getting pregant so it's real easy for them to have this attitude.

[ischuldt]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	They're exactly the same thing. In a normal fire, either the fire happened because of someone else's actions, to which the fireman must respond. Pregnancy happens specifically as a result of the woman's choice and consent to have a human formed in her uterus. Again, different, unless the fireman set fire to a building knowing that there were people in there himself.

That is absolutely insane. When you have sex you do not know you are going to get pregnant. You know there's a chance you might, but even without contraception there's maybe a 1 in 3 chance at best a pregnancy will result, and that's with maximum negligence. Any attempt at using condoms or birth control significantly lessons that.
That is no different then being a life guard and knowing full well there's good chance you'll have to dive into the water to save a life. If you put up signs that say no running, or require all children to be supervised by an adult you'll not be in legal trouble for a drowning child you'll probably avoid a lawsuit as well.

Whether it's a specific life is completely irrelevant. You don't the child that you might have to give birth do when you have sex any more then you know the child you might have to save from drowning in a pool if your a life guard.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Again, not the same. In this case, another individual made the choice to hide in this building and avoid the fireman.

kind of like the fertilized egg chose to hide in the womb, or the sperm chose to avoid the diaphragm or condom. If you actually think life begins at conception then the fertilized egg is every bit to blame for choosing to hide in that specific womb as a 5 year old child would be.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	LOL... You don't think a fireman would be legally responsible for not checking under each bed before setting a house on fire as a practice? You're delusional.

Fired from their job? sure. Sued? Absolutely. Put in prison? No. If you have an example of this ever happening please share.

---------- Post added 10-24-2011 at 01:16 PM ----------


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Here's an example of a police officer who chose not to give CPR. He was suspended, not jailed. Even in the article which is critical of the officer it argues he should be fired not simply disciplined. No where does it argue he's a criminal for it though.

Even if the girl had the asthma attack because police broke down her door and scared her there would be no criminal charges against the police officer. He would probably be fired. The department would be sued and lose, but criminal charges? No.

[Storm]

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If a mother chooses to risk getting pregnant, actually gets pregnant, and aborts, then she ought to be criminally responsible as well.

How far are you going to take this? If a mother eats a bad diet and the baby dies or has a birth defect, you going to hold her criminally responsible as well?

What if she has an abortion because there's a 90% chance she'll die otherwise? What if it's only a 60%? 30% chance?

[Equinox]

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why jail? It's not illegal to abort in many jurisdictions. So if someone walks down the street, they too should be jailed because you don't like the way they walk? Should cheaters be jailed? Should people who eat meat be jailed?

Abortion is far different from the way people walk or a person's vegetarian habits, and even though it's not illegal to abort in many places, I think it should be. Cheaters should be jailed though, at least married people who cheat. The law shouldn't protect cohabitators because they've opted not to get married and therefore run the risk of getting cheated on.

	Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So do you. Unfortunately men don't have to deal with getting pregant so it's real easy for them to have this attitude.

I'm a virgin and I never plan on having sex unless I get married, and the odds of that are slim to none, so...I never will have to deal with this problem.

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	How far are you going to take this? If a mother eats a bad diet and the baby dies or has a birth defect, you going to hold her criminally responsible as well? What if she has an abortion because there's a 90% chance she'll die otherwise? What if it's only a 60%? 30% chance?

If the mother causes the death of the child through negligence, then she's at fault. Birth defects aren't her fault unless she negligently or recklessly exposed herself to things known to cause birth defects. If there's a significant (more than 50%) chance that the mother will die, and we're talking death being that likely and not just some sort of inconvenience being that likely, then MAYBE the mother should be able to choose whether to have an abortion or not, but it certainly shouldn't be performed without her informed consent.

[Dru]

what if that soldier chooses to bow out of his duties because it includes killing women and children who have done nothing?

the concept of this decision is one that belies more personal strength than going with the grain and doing what's expected of you, because he knows the consequences, and chooses them over the authority. he's doing it because he realizes that in the long term, it may be the better course of action.

likewise, a pregnant woman who chooses abortion knows fully the consequences - she is killing a life she created. the situation differs greatly from the soldier's example, but the concept is the same. nobody wants abortion like they want ice cream. they want it like a trapped animal wants to gnaw its own leg off to escape. there is sacrifice in everything, because everything comes with both benefits and consequences. to blindly call it cowardice is just as asinine, ignorant, and self-serving as calling the soldier cowardly for choosing dire consequences over the "glorious personal sacrifice" of killing other human beings.