Nixon On Abortion

Archives
#9

Obama is as white as black, yeah. I don’t know why they call him “The first black president of the USA”.

By the way, Nixon was being a racist obsioulsy.

I think abortion should be allowed up until a point. The whole “it’s a life” reasoning will work for me when someone defines life.

Abortion must’nt be used as a protection method, obviously. If someone thinks that the doesn’t know what abortion or a protection method is. Anyway, I think abortion morally works the same as a protection method. If someone practises abortion someone will no be birth. If you use protection method someone will not be birth. It’s the same. We could talk about determinism, particles, causality, Richard Dawkins and Dr Manhattan here but I don0t feel like it.

About the rape. Imagine you have an accident. You wake uo in a hospital. You find you’re connected with an strange machine to anocher patient. The doctor tells you that they had to do that to maintain the other patient alive. You could stay there for six months and let him live. Or you could go and he would die. What happens? You CAN decide. But the hospital and the doctors and nobody must not tell you what you have to do.

Laws shouldn’t be created to infiltrate in everybody’s internal logic and private life.

And… even if you forbide abortion… there will be abortions. This is not 1984, and it’s not going to be -I guess we can’t be as organizated as despicted in that book- so…

And this is why I would kept abortion free. Until a point of pregnancy. What point? Choose deliberately. There is no other thing you can do about it.

PS: We’re going to die, despite the difficult posibility of you and me being here… and that makes us the lucky ones.

#10

Luke: It’s that kind of selfish thinking that results in the self-destruction of mankind. If many Singaporeans rebel against the moral values for practical reasons everytime, we would live in a very tragic country. Every single shred of life is precious, no matter how you define it, no matter if there’s any pain inflicted. I’m not saying that everyone should sacrifice their lives to save other lives, but it is completely selfish if you are just going through abortion because your weak mind cannot handle the pressure of pregnancy. If you could physically go through it and you abort the baby, no matter how many months have passed since the pregnancy, that’s murder.

As a great philosopher once said, “Taking a life has many reasons, excuses and motives, but saving one doesn’t require a logical answer.”

It’s just sick to go through abortion under such circumstances. I would be glad if my country issue a death penalty for abortion. Too bad that isn’t so - I was mistaken. There is only a penalty for abortions that are issued in conditions that do not fit the code of law (rape victim, health conditions, etc.), but to me, a rape victim could also go through the birth, no matter how tragic her situation might be.

~ Flare

#11

That’s murder? Protection methods are murder, also?

You completely misundertood some of my points. I said “up unitl a pont of pregnancy”. You say “no matter how many months have passed since the pregnancy”. Man that’s murdering.

And what do you know about the presssure I cand handle or not. I can handle it by the way. But I don’t want any law to come in and decide saying that. What do the people know about other people?

I agrre with him.

You realize what you said? I’ll give you the oportunity to reconsider what you typed.

Death penalty of any kind wtf? Death penalty never has made any sense to me.

#12

Define your so called ‘protection methods;’ I’m unclear of what’s your argument here.

It is in my opinion that once a life is created in the course of… say a few months of pregnancy (maybe even earlier), destroying it is a little sickening and unacceptable.

As for the pressure, I wasn’t referring to you in particular but everyone in general. If someone’s able to take it and he/she aborts the baby, it can be considered as murder.

Yes, I realized what I said, and I’m not going to change a word of it. The law is just. If anything, it’s the humans that create the wrong sets of law that’s flawed. In my opinion, a death penalty, though it would also destroy another life, is necessary to (I wouldn’t say threaten, but more like warn) people not to do such a thing. The law keeps people in place and civil. I never really supported America’s freedom of speech or freedom of right… whatever. If Americans want to do whatever they want because they want to practice their freedom, then they might as well have a law-less country.

~ Flare

#13

I meant contraception methods. I din’t know what the word was. :laughing:

I, I… I just disagree with all that. People are going to abort anyway. You support death penalty? You don’t like freedom of speech? My country was that way a few years ago. I can assure you it is not a good idea.

It is that scared thinking why humankind destroys itself. “Oh we need protection… oh no we need to be organizated… oh no we need to be threatened be dead and continue doing the same… oh no we can’t live in peace without opression!”

You’re adding law to a thing that would work without law.

Re-think death penalty. We all will die and the result will be the same whatever our life has been. We’ll be dead. The why bother on murdering people? The thing tha should be done is modify the society to create a society where crime doesn’t exist. Societies like that have existed the majority of humankind history. Why allow crime and horrible things to exist and add to that oppression? Isn’t that stupid? Remember, the people act like an only silly person. You hurt this silly person but he continues doing the same. Why don’t just take the rocks away form it’s path so he can’t bump into them?

#14

Okay, then. Remove all law on abortion. Let every woman in the world abort to their will, then have s** again, then abort again, THEN HAVE S**UAL INTERACTION AGAIN, THEN ABORT AGAIN! Is that what you want? Have life being treated like dirt? With such disrespect?

~ Flare

#15

I said use contraception methods. I just said I 'd let abort up until a reasonable point, when the fetus or the kid or whatever is able to survive out of the mother. Please read my comments.

And I think I’m being more respecteful to life than you. You allow death penalty. You don0’t like freedom of speech. In a place like that I could be sent to the electric chair for saying what I’m thinkibg. isn’t that unrespecteful to life? Maybe you’re not sure what a phenomena like life on earth deserves.

PS: with the no need of law I was referring to the system itself.

#16

We don’t use the electric chair here. You commit murder, you get the nook on the neck, suffering for that half a minute so that you pay for your crime. And don’t tell me whether if I respect life. That’s a great insult to me. I never said you never respect life, I asked if you would rather have life being treated with disrespect.

In Chinese, we have this phrase that goes, “beating is caring, scolding is loving,” something like that. By using force to restrain people from hurting others and themselves is a disrespect to life? I never said a death penalty for commiting abortion is absolutely necessary; I’m just saying that it annoys me because the law is a little bit lenient when it comes to restraining healthy people from abortion. If retraining people from acting like barbaric freaks who want to do whatever the F they want is wrong, I don’t want to be right.

~ Flare

#17

Though I am against quick abortion when you were stupid and your stupidity caused a child, I would like to bring up an arguement someone (I think it was FONY) told me that was quite good.

As with many cases, the parent of an unwanted baby would be completly incapable of raising a child well. The child then may be neglected, abused, or put in foster care, all of which can ruin a life and turn someone to crime, gangs, and and overall bad lifestyle. What is better, aborting the child to remove that possiblility, or letting it live and run the risk of it living a horrible life?

And the truth is, there are more children waiting to be adopted then there are those willing to adopt. Plus, once a child gets a little older, their chances of being adopted are slim. People would be quicker to adopt a 2 year old then a 12 year old.

I have a friend who’s mother put her up for adoption when she was a baby. (she was in the seventh grade when she got pregnat with her) Though she was luckily adopted by a very nice couple and lives a very good life, she once told me about how much she hates her birth mom, despite never knowing her. She told me she was “scum” and that she hated her with a passion. Now, imagine a child with that hatred inside, but doesn’t have nice parents or a lot of friends to support her. That could be a very bad case.

#18

What you are referring to, Rac_Rules is, in my opinion really, not really good enough of a reason to abort a baby. Whether if a child could live a good life or not is not really decided by you. Crap happens and if you are just going to abort babies because of a judgment you made that could be right or wrong, it wouldn’t be fair; it wouldn’t be justice. If the baby would turn out to live a really good life after you put him/her up for abortion, but you have already abort him/her, are you going to be responsible for it? No, because you don’t know that it’s going to happen. It’s a very gray line there. We couldn’t really say if it’s right or wrong, fair or just; we are all humans and we could only use a system that restrains our non-sentient flaw as much as possible to save as many lives as we can.

~ Flare

#19

So you do agree that there is a grey area with the issue of abortion, pertaining to what point in the pregnancy it would be un-acceptable from that point to get an abortion? Am I right in saying that from that point, whatever it may be, or earlier, it may be ok in some circumstances to get one then? Just clarifying.

Also, I’m very surprised that you are opposed to abortion, but still support the death penalty. If you value all life, then you should be opposed to the death penalty, I would think. You can still stop someone from murdering someone else or doing harm to others without taking away their life, such as jail for life or even solitary confinement.

I’m going to use your country as an example, sorry, but in Singapore they give the death penalty for drug trafficking. How is drug trafficking a justifiably capital punishment offence? If someone chooses to take drugs, supplied inadvertently by the drug trafficker, how is that a crime on the same level as murdering someone? To go even further, in Singapore if you are in possesion of more than 30g of cocaine, they will be given a mandatory death sentence. I don’t know how much drug a drug dealer usually carries, but how would a person taking drugs themselves harm anybody else? To put to death a murderer I can understand (even though I disagree… I think), but a recreational drug user…?

As for a mandotory death sentence for women getting an abortion, again, that would boil down to when life begins. A two-week old fetus having to be “aborted” because if the pregnancy continues, say if it was growing in the fallopian tube instead of the uterus, is much different from aborting a 20-week old fetus because the mother chooses to, or doesn’t think they could handle it. I can understand the deterrent capital punishment would be, maybe, but I think thorough sexual and contraceptive education programs may work better, and is at least a humane way of dealing with the problem of “oopsie” abortions.

My main point is that this world isn’t black and white, but varying shades of grey, which is why debates like these are so interesting. Btw, don’t take my points personally. I really like debating and looking at things from all points of view, as well as reading others’.

Well, I’m not an ethnic minority, but as far as I know, people of mixed race will usually identify with the group that is the ethnicity of the minority parent, and be accepted by that group, but not in all cases. Probably since those who are traditionally minorities have more dominant genes and pass on physical characteristics that “overpower” the more recessive, European physical traits. So even if you’re only “half-black”, you’re still “black”, so to speak…

#20

See, that’s the thing you don’t understand. That’s what separates us; Westerns and Asians. Most of the time, we practice this kind of tough love, which, in a way, I must say is very noble and honorable because in this sense, we take responsibility for all citizens. I would love to believe that America is peaceful with its free system, but take a look between the two. In America, how many hobos and homeless people are out there? I’ll bet that for every 10 hobo in America, 4-6 of them would be kicked away and ignored. It’s not the world that’s cruel; it’s your country because of the practices you people take up upon. If you have used tougher methods of restrain, none of that would have happened. Being nice to people, taking up responsibilities for actions would be a very common day-to-day action. This tough love is absolutely necessary.

Of course, no matter how I explain, in the end, the next day, our views will still be separated, you would still disagree, the truth is still not revealed, so, no offense, but this is getting a little bit pointless and frustrating. It’s giving me a headache and a heartache.

To take an example, look at the Evolution and Creation thread. Several threads later and here it is still today.

~ Flare

#21

Ok, I’m still a bit confused because you didn’t answer my questions. I’m sure you could explain to me your stance and justification on murdering those who have abortions. Is the murder and drug trafficking rate lower than those countries who don’t have capital punishment as an punishment for those offences? If it is, then I may be able to understand your point of view a bit better.

When you say “this tough love is absolutely necessary”, I assume you’re talking about capital punishment? For what crime - possessing drugs or murder? Why is it necessary to use capital punishment, rather than locking up a criminal for life? If taking away a life via an abortion is murder, than why is it ok to murder a murderer? It seems like such a double-standard to me.

I don’t know the statistics of homeless people in each country, sorry. Does that point really have place in this discussion? I don’t think you can compare Western and Asian countries like that though because they are all so different with their laws and way of dealing with issues, but every country has it’s own problems. Would you compare Japan to the US? Taiwan to Australia? Sweden to Vietnam? They all have different value systems, and can’t so much be easily lumped together or compared.

Actually, I admire the “tough love” parenting style of some Asian countries, to some extent because it can help kids to keep on the straight and narrow. I read on a book about child development that in an Asian country (I don’t remember specifically which country, it could have been China) with child-rearing, the emphasis to deter bad behaviour is put on what you are doing to the group with that behaviour, rather than what you’re doing to yourself, which is how US parents typically address bad behaviour of children.

Anyway, I guess I’m getting a bit off-topic. If you would care to explain your views on abortion a bit more as well as address my questions, then I’d like to read them, Dragon.

#22

Because humans tend to deter from doing the right things. No matter how strong a person’s determination is, when it comes to desperate situations, people would still make selfish decisions to do these things (abortion, drug-trafficking; whatever). It’s this impending thread of death penalty that makes making such decisions that much harder and, as proven by the lack of chaos in my country, it works.

Again, I must emphasize that this is only applied to people who are hurting others for their own needs. If people really must do certain stuff to save their lives, the law will make sure that those people are treated fairly and given the proper judgment as appropriate. As I’ve said a lot of times, the law is fair; it’s the humans who made them that aren’t at times (when we are faced with corrupted politicians and such).

Yes, I could… assume, at best, that countries who practice capital punishments do have a lower rate of murder and drug-trade. My mum had always told me about how chaotic America is, that many people carries guns and murder occurs there everyday. Here, in Singapore, it’s not that big of a problem because of the serious penalties that come with murder and drug-trade. Kidnapping also results to a death penalty, too, most of the times (or all of the times; I couldn’t remember which) as the possibility of the kidnapper killing off the kidnapped is very high in many of such scenarios.

Between a death penalty and a lifetime imprisonment, which would you say is more threatening? Naturally, it would be the former. Again, you must remember, the code of law states the word, 'punishable," meaning that the criminal may or may not be punished with a death sentence. It’s a case by case basis. It’s just that when everyone starts talking about how murder is punishable by death, it would sound more threatening and, thus, less murders would happen because of that fear, that threat. Do note that, however, I’m not indicating that a country should be ruled by fear. As I would like to say, “If your conscious is clear, there’s nothing to fear.”

~ Flare

#23

In my opinion abortion and the death penalty are completely wrong. However, with the death penalty your punishing a grown adult who knew better. With
abortion you’re killing an unborn child… a completely innocent unborn child! And is it right that that child should be killed for it’s parent’s mistake? In in case of rape, it’s still bad. If the child is not able to be cared for, he/she should be given up for adoption.

#24

That’s a queer view. And I’d much rather have a free nation with it’s few problems then one that’s restrictive.

Isn’t there already a thread for this topic? Coulda sworn there was.

#25

Fix’d.

~ Flare

#26

Hey! A totalitarian state’s got no problems, eh?! :smiley:

#27

Not true (Singapore’s a democratic country, just for your info). As I said, the law is fair; it’s the humans that made them that’s flawed. That’s why having total human control by a government system in a country is only a recipe for disaster. No system is perfect, as humans will always be flawed. But are the correct sets of law fair? You bet.

~ Flare

#28

I know.

So these flawed humans somehow were able to create laws that are not flawed? Also don’t understand how any government is not human controlled. Maybe there’s computers in some country making every decision.