Spoiler! At least we know one group who isn't happy with the new Buffy plot....

Yes...because every child who is put up for adoption ends up like Sarah McLachlan. Darla's story might have been more righteous, but Buffy's is a tad more realistic.

No they don't, not every adoption ends up with the child becoming another Sarah McLachlan, if it did, I'm sure everyone would be putting their children up for adoption. but at least every adoption ends with a story to tell, for better or worse. Rather than to have never been born at all.

Most adoptions work out great by the way, just like most Parenting jobs. There is a false stigma surrounding adoption, in reality the prevalence of domestic abuse is actually below that of staying with your parents. The reason being, parents don't have to be psychologically assessed before they're allowed to look after children, on the other hand, Guardians wishing to adopt do have to be assessed!

Furthermore Angel essentially put Connor up for adoption by wiping his memory, and didn't that work out just fine for both of them?
 
However, I have a huge problem with abortion being used as a form of birth control which with Buffy's drunken one night stand it was.

I don't think this is what Buffy's doing. This is not birth control, it's not "oh damn it, this time they got me...well there's always a solution.."! This is "I am a slayer. I'm not emotionally ready. I really CANNOT raise a child."


But at least every adoption ends with a story to tell, for better or worse. Rather than to have never been born at all.

When someone says this as an objection to abortion I'm always doubtful. Don't you think that 9 months of pregnancy are hard to bare if you don't want your child? What about all those emotions during the pregnancy, the formation of the "imaginative child" that necessarly leads to a healthy mother/child relationship...being pregnant is part of motherhood, you can't force a woman to undergo that if she doesn't want to.

But I agree with everything you said about adoption, it usually works great and it's too often stigmatised.
 
I don't have an objection to abortion when the mother's life, and by extension, the child's, is clearly demonstrated to be in serious medical danger, if an abortion is not preformed.
However the argument that the Mother simply doesn't want the baby because it would be an inconvenience, is about as selfish a thing imaginable.

True 9 Months of pregnancy is hard to bare, or might include the possibility of as you say 'emotions', but as Buffy said herself 'suck it up' and 'it's not the end of the world'. However it will be the end of the world for the developing child/'fetus' inside her, an act she will be responsible for if she seeks an abortion.

A Miscarriage is a tragic thing, but no one is to blame for that, no one went out of their way to snuff the life inside them out. It really doesn't compare. It's like an accident where someone dies, tragic but nonetheless incomparable to murder.

And the whole argument that 'you can't force a woman to carry the pregnancy' is pretty rich in my humble opinion. Every day we force people to do things, for example we force fathers to give up their wages for child allowance, child payments that continue for decades. We force men to do this because it is in the interest of the Child, the Mother, and society as a whole. I hope we can all agree that child payments are something we all whole heartedly agree with. My position is that the same could be said for ensuring a healthy Woman carries her child.

Pregnancy and birth are wondrous things, not something to be ashamed of, or stigmatized. Perhaps if society changed its attitude towards pregnancy and aided pregnant women, then we wouldn't have to 'force' anyone to do anything. Fathers and Mothers would simply feel compelled and want to do what is right.

There is a great quote by Isiah Berlin that I've always pondered on, it's in relation to libertarian idealism - 'Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow'.
Meaning if you give the pike/a person complete freedom, that translates into taking the freedom to exist away from others/the Pike fish eats the minnow.

The Pike and Minnow analogy is important to this question of freedom. Should richer,stronger or smarter people be given the freedom to kill the weaker or unintelligent in our society? certainly not, and no one in their right mind would entertain such a thought, even if the 'smarter' person may feel that having to deal with dumb people somehow takes away from their 'freedom'.

In this case we curtail the 'freedom' of the smarter person, to protect the weaker in our society. Turning it around a bit, a good example is, should Stephen Hawking be wheeled off a cliff because he's unable to defend himself? No, not simply because he contributed to Physics, so has 'value' in our society, but because by protecting the innocent and the infirm we demonstrate the greatest quality of humanity, that of compassion. The inalienable right to existence should be extended to all of our species, whether they be in the early weeks and months of growth/gestation or not.

Freedom is, like most humanitarian things, a balancing act.


When someone says this as an objection to abortion I'm always doubtful. Don't you think that 9 months of pregnancy are hard to bare if you don't want your child? What about all those emotions during the pregnancy, the formation of the "imaginative child" that necessarly leads to a healthy mother/child relationship...being pregnant is part of motherhood, you can't force a woman to undergo that if she doesn't want to.
 
Last edited:
I don't think this is what Buffy's doing. This is not birth control, it's not "oh damn it, this time they got me...well there's always a solution.."! This is "I am a slayer. I'm not emotionally ready. I really CANNOT raise a child."

I'm not arguing with Buffy's decision to not raise the child (she's probably right). I'm arguing with her irresponsiblility which led her needing to face the decision and terminate an innocent life in the first place, which could have been avoided if Buffy had shown the same level headedness she displayed on the TV show.

And I'm well aware that birth control does not always work. I've had 4 friends who all got pregnant while they were faithfully taking the pill. But when you are 25-26 and you are so drunk that you can't even remember who you slept with you are putting yourself in more danger than just an unwanted pregnancy. Joss wrote Buffy as a responsible person who tried to do the right thing and occasionally slipped up on the TV show. The last six seasons of the show are written around the fact that Buffy is selfless enough to give up Angel because their relationship could hurt others. At that time, Joss was aware that young girls looked up to Buffy. Now, since Buffy's audience is grown, he apparently has no problem writing her as a person who steals, puts sex with Angel ahead of people's lives, hits on Xander cuz she's lonely (never would've happened on the tv show), has drunken one night stands etc. Comic book Buffy is a completely different person. Even if Joss were able to convince me that Buffy was rebelling in her late twenties because she never got to in high school, I'm still not sure I would buy it. I can see this topic being addressed on the tv show, but I feel it would either be done with a different character or done with Buffy in a different way, and that is why so many of us have a problem with the comics.
 
Last edited:
Totally agree with Sweet J and Caritas on this matter. Would rather have just rep'ed, but i cant. Smh.
 
Totally agree with Sweet J and Caritas on this matter. Would rather have just rep'ed, but i cant. Smh.

Yeah! Why is rep'ing no-worky?

I basically hate reading (Why am I on a forum? I know, right!), so I skimmed... but long story short: I'm only a-ok with abortion if Mommy's life is in danger (and even then, it should be a ridicu-hard decision). ...and I understand* (but could never do it myself) why people would want to in the case of rape. ... but I definitely think that adoption is the best option (and it rhymes, so 10 points there!). It scares me thinking of where my child might end up, but at least that way (s)he has a chance. Anyway, they do pretty extensive checks on adoptive parent, and sometimes the girl can even choose (Think Juno). I couldn't take a life just so mine doesn't have to change...

...but I definitely won't be judging Buffy (or whomever) if she makes the decision I'd consider to be the wrong one. I believe everyone should get a second chance. ...and in the case of unborn babies, if it can be helped, a first.
 
I think the whole matter comes down to how you view things. I think that the mother's will comes before a mass of cells. Life to me does not begin with conception. That's it 🙂 it's not matter of one of us being right or wrong, it's just different sides of seing the thing that each lead to a different decision 🙂

---------- Post added at 12:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:20 AM ----------

So I'm sorry if I didn't answer properly to your arguments but I think it's kinda useless as our whole arguments start far behind from a different point of view, and all that follows is just an effect of that difference 🙂
 
I think the whole matter comes down to how you view things. I think that the mother's will comes before a mass of cells. Life to me does not begin with conception. That's it 🙂 it's not matter of one of us being right or wrong, it's just different sides of seing the thing that each lead to a different decision 🙂
So I'm sorry if I didn't answer properly to your arguments but I think it's kinda useless as our whole arguments start far behind from a different point of view, and all that follows is just an effect of that difference 🙂

I wonder, aren't you technically also just a ''mass of cells'', albeit a much bigger mass of cells? Where is the division for you between a ''mass of cells'' and an unborn baby?


The 'mass of cells' argument is pretty weak, wouldn't you say?
 
No they don't, not every adoption ends up with the child becoming another Sarah McLachlan, if it did, I'm sure everyone would be putting their children up for adoption. but at least every adoption ends with a story to tell, for better or worse. Rather than to have never been born at all.

Most adoptions work out great by the way, just like most Parenting jobs. There is a false stigma surrounding adoption, in reality the prevalence of domestic abuse is actually below that of staying with your parents. The reason being, parents don't have to be psychologically assessed before they're allowed to look after children, on the other hand, Guardians wishing to adopt do have to be assessed!

Furthermore Angel essentially put Connor up for adoption by wiping his memory, and didn't that work out just fine for both of them?

Except that in real life...you can't wipe a kid's memory. My cousin's birth mother seriously should have just had an abortion. She dumped my cousin with some people she hardly knew and she was thrown into the system because they didn't believe that she and her sister (who were homeless at the time) were really related. She was adopted by my aunt...after years of abuse from her horrible foster parents and who knows else. Yes, adoption does work out sometimes, but if a mother is not in her right mind/just does not give a crap, she should have an abortion. My cousin's mom didn't have one because she thought that doing so would be "wrong" at least my cousin would have a "chance" if she just left her with some friends.

She has suffered. She shouldn't have had to. She now has a son and she is not the best mother. It's like a 12 year old child trying to raise a child. Her life has been hell. She used to cut herself and has tried to kill herself at least once. Sometimes, abortion is in the best interest of the child when the situation is that awful. This woman (my cousin's mother) had at least 5 children, and she dumped them all with random people. I feel bad saying this because my cousin and I were best friends growing up, but it just isn't fair. I personally would not have an abortion because I am the "What if?" queen, but if someone else chooses to, that is up to them. I mean my cousin's situation is just an absolute worst case scenario. People like her mother should be sterilized.

So if Buffy feels as if this kid is going to be put in danger, then maybe this decision would be in the best interest of the child. Obviously Buffy isn't a drug addict/completely out of control, but her life is chaotic and if she made the decision to have one, it would be a valid one. I wouldn't see it as birth control because she would be doing it to potentially protect her child. Also, what if she put the kid up for adoption and some evil mastermind found the kid and threatened to kill him...I could totally see something like that happening in "the verse". So maybe she wouldn't feel comfortable having someone raise her child...yet she isn't ready to raise the kid herself. That sounds selfish, but raising a child is so unbelievably hard. I get stressed out when I babysit my one year old sister for a few hours. I can't imagine juggling being a slayer and taking care of a child. Holy hell.
 
Last edited:
I wonder, aren't you technically also just a ''mass of cells'', albeit a much bigger mass of cells? Where is the division for you between a ''mass of cells'' and an unborn baby?
The 'mass of cells' argument is pretty weak, wouldn't you say?

The difference is all in the nervous system to me 🙂 once it starts do develop - and with this I don't mean the plain neurulation that starts around the 20th day but the complete division in prosencephalon, mesencephalon and rombecephalon and the beggining of the brain first actual activities - then it's possible for me to start talking about fetus (so after 2 or 3 months, I can't remember) and only then abortion is acceptable just for health reasons, like if the mother's life is endangered of if the fetus has some really bad disease that wouldn't make him live past a month after birth or something like that.
Before that it's the mother's decision to me, and every motivation is valid because it's nobody else's business...especially in cases like Buffy's where she's alone.

Also, this is what italian law about abortion generally says, which I think it's one of our best laws. I don't know how it works in the US.
 
What I don't get is the idea that just because you support a woman's right to choose what to do with her OWN body how that somehow implies that the woman *will* get an abortion. Being pro-choice is exactly that. If someone doesn't want an abortion then that's fine, but if they do then that should be up to them.

The idea that someone can tell me what I shouldn't be doing with my own body is appalling imo. If you can't even allow women the choice to make up their own minds about something predominantly affecting their own lives, then how can you trust them to care for a child? If I somehow (God forbid) ended up in that situation I'd terminate straight away regardless of what some celibate guy in a dress thinks of my choice. And I should have every right to do that, screw what anyone else thinks. Kids aren't for me and there's no way I'd go through the hell of pregnancy if I didn't want the kid.

Using it as a method of birth control seems a bit irresponsible, but if you've taken precautions and still ended up in that situation then it should be your own decision nonetheless.

But the furore over what is a Buffy plot makes me laugh in all honesty. It's a show where demons kills people and even some of the 'heroes' kill people, yet you don't see the same hysteria.

I do wonder if she'll actually go through with it though. I can't see her actually having the baby but I think something will happen to make her miscarry or something before she gets the chance to abort. That would be interesting to see, can imagine there'd be a lot of mixed feelings from Buffy, especially when we find out who the father is.
 
VisionGirl
VisionGirl
[No message]
T
Tofik vampie
great arguments
But the furore over what is a Buffy plot makes me laugh in all honesty. It's a show where demons kills people and even some of the 'heroes' kill people, yet you don't see the same hysteria.

This. If people can accept Willow wanting to destroy the world or Anya, the funny serial killer, I don't see how an abortion can be such a big deal. Mind you, I'd much rather not have any of the "good" guys be murderers but since many of them are the line has already been crossed long time ago.
 
I know there is a preception that all ''pro-life'' people are dogmatic and tribalistic morons. If you have this view, don't worry, I partially agree with you! sometimes they annoy me too with their leaky arguments especially when they invoke the 'God argument' which is a non sequitur. By all means, my point of view is not set in stone, and I am open to criticism.

''Pro-choice'' arguments however are also not without their faults, in my opinion, major faults. Of both camps ''Pro-choice'' people annoy me the most, as they patronize people with caricaturizes of complex and important issues, triviallizing monumentally important moral and social issues.
I enjoy a good laugh as much as the next person, but some of the Pro-choice slogan campaigns are not at all funny, especially when they are without a basis in reality, and are designed to influence public opinion.

This. If people can accept Willow wanting to destroy the world or Anya, the funny serial killer, I don't see how an abortion can be such a big deal. Mind you, I'd much rather not have any of the "good" guys be murderers but since many of them are the line has already been crossed long time ago.

It's a show where demons kills people and even some of the 'heroes' kill people

The thread has evolved from one discussing Joss' Buffy abortion story, and how it seems completely uncharacteristic of her, especially due to her previously being a role model of 'Protecting the innocent'. To now being a discussion generally debating the morality of Abortion in the real world.

SPOILER - Willow never killed anyone, as revealed in Season 8, furthermore wanting to kill 7 billion people, and actually doing it, are two completely different things.

Anya - As a human, she never kills a single person. On reverting to being a Demon again she ultimately does kill those college guys, but once again she is stripped of being a demon and reverts back to being human again.

Like Anya, is Angel guilty of all those murders when he had no soul? I personally don't think so, but would like to hear other points of view.

True there is a questionable moral message in the episode 'Once More With Feeling' it could be construed that Xander is an accessory to murder. But at best this argument really doesn't stand up.

Both Faith and Andrew, and to a degree Giles, all have killed at least 1 person. Giles' murder is morally justified, Faith spent time in jail and repents and begins to make amends, but importantly her immoral actions are never forgotten. The same applies to Andrew.


If someone doesn't want an abortion then that's fine, but if they do then that should be up to them.

The idea that someone can tell me what I shouldn't be doing with my own body is appalling imo. If you can't even allow women the choice to make up their own minds about something predominantly affecting their own lives... screw what anyone else thinks.
The attitude of ''screw what anyone else thinks'', or ''it's may body I can do what I want'' is something I too have subscribed to at one time. However as I got over my irrational adolescence I realized that, these attitudes are morally bankrupt
Here's an example why:
Is tax money not forced out of your wallet in order to fund research for STD's, and Abortion clinics etc? Money forced out of your pocket to help those who selfishly and irresponsibly conducted sexual activities? How then was the sexual act a private matter between two consenting adults when it clearly has a much larger impact than you wish to acknowledge?

I'm certainly glad in my country Money that could be better spent on more virtuous tasks like child education and adoption services, isn't being squandered on abortion clinics.
Granted it is being squandered in other ways but at least I'm not paying for murder- which is the case in many countries, like Canada were a woman can have an abortion right up to her deliverly date, right up to 9 months.
Surely no sane minded person can stomach that, I sure can't.


So how then can you honestly say ''screw what anyone else thinks''?

I have sympathy for young people, or drunk people who did not know what they were doing and end up with an STD or become accidentally pregnant with a random person.

However if a grown person presents themselves with the attitude ''Screw what anyone else thinks'', I think that person should really think about what they are actually saying, by imagining what the world would be like if everyone acted like that.

As Cordelia eloquently puts it in How she was bad - 'Spank your inner moppet, and get over it/yourself'.


As I've already mentioned we have no qualms about Male Conscription, and mandatory male military service. Men getting told they have to do certain 'things' with their bodies.

Many nations ensure that their male youth are trained in war, despite a lot of men not being too keen on the idea of spending 2+ years in boot camp.

(the following isn't a popular opinion, I know, but I'd still like to hear criticism and responses)

It is the responsibility of men to defend their home and country (even if they don't want to), much like it is the responsibilty of women to, once they get pregnant, to have the baby.

Both Genders have to do things they may not 100% want to do, but that's life.

At the end of the day, most abortions are simply women shirking their responsibility.

I can imagine that feminists would not agree, and many of you might be outraged, but the way I see it, I am not blind women do have a role, as they do things much better than men. Likewise men do certain things better than women.

We all have our parts to play, to help each other and keep the world safe and protect the innocent.

I know this is controversial, but as ever, would love to continue to discuss it with you.

But the furore over what is a Buffy plot makes me laugh in all honesty, It's a show where demons kills people and even some of the 'heroes' kill people, yet you don't see the same hysteria.[/I]

The Show also includes moral lessons and real world analogies. Fact of the matter is, people look up to the Buffy character, she is a role model to millions of men & women. BtVS is not in its own hermetically sealed bubble, its stories are very real and do have an impact on readers and the real world, a reality that Joss is clearly aware of, even if you disagree.

Furthermore you are caricaturizing the opposition to this story. I'm not seeing any hysteria at all. Could you perhaps point it out?
 
Anything I post in response will probably get me banned, I refuse to discuss things with people who insult my intelligence, call me irrational and act patronising simply for not sharing the same view.
 
SPOILER - Willow never killed anyone, as revealed in Season 8, furthermore wanting to kill 7 billion people, and actually doing it, are two completely different things.

Oh, really? Yet you already called Buffy "The Baby Slayer", never mind she hasn't committed an abortion yet. And by the way, Willow killed Rack and is guilty of torture and attempted murder of Warren. Not to mention that he died when the magic keeping him alive ran out, so in the end she sort of killed him after all.

As I've already mentioned we have no qualms about Male Conscription, and mandatory male military service.

What do you mean "we"? Plenty of people are against conscription and plenty of countries don't use it. Generalization much?

Anya - As a human, she never kills a single person.

Does it matter? Her being a demon only gives her superpowers, doesn't change her personality in the slightest. She cracks jokes about her murders for crying out loud, even when she is human. If that's not irresponsible portrayal of murder and its consequences I don't know what is.
 
T
Tofik vampie
great arguments
Oh, really? Yet you already called Buffy "The Baby Slayer", never mind she hasn't committed an abortion yet. And by the way, Willow killed Rack and is guilty of torture and attempted murder of Warren. Not to mention that he died when the magic keeping him alive ran out, so in the end she sort of killed him after all.



What do you mean "we"? Plenty of people are against conscription and plenty of countries don't use it. Generalization much?



Does it matter? Her being a demon only gives her superpowers, doesn't change her personality in the slightest. She cracks jokes about her murders for crying out loud, even when she is human. If that's not irresponsible portrayal of murder and its consequences I don't know what is.

I agree with all of this. I would rep you if I could.
 
Oh, really? Yet you already called Buffy "The Baby Slayer", never mind she hasn't committed an abortion yet. And by the way, Willow killed Rack and is guilty of torture and attempted murder of Warren. Not to mention that he died when the magic keeping him alive ran out, so in the end she sort of killed him after all.

You are mistaken,😕

I never called Buffy 'the baby slayer' if you re-read my post you will find that what I did say was:
''Joss should just rename the franchise to 'Buffy the Baby Slayer', or 'Joss Whedon's political soap box'. I mean isn't Buffy's job protecting the innocent?''

Please, by all means, point out where I said Buffy was a baby slayer. I suggested a name change to the franchise, I did not, as you claim, call buffy(the character) a baby slayer, as she hasn't killed any babies yet.

Devil in the details friend.

As for The rest of the scoobies crossing the line:

Rack was,
1. Aiding and abetting a murderer-Warren,
2. probably going to kill her if she didn't kill him first, as he was paid by Warren to take care of Willow.

Warren
1. Killed 2 people, and sunk an axehead into Willow's chest before she caught him,
2. As he didn't take any measures to heal his skin in Season 8, he is culpable in his own demise,
3. thus Warren effectively committed suicide.
4. Even if we neglect the season 8 story, he was executed for his crimes, which is my interpretation of 1 of the issues the episode was dealing with, The question - should murderers, that are too much of a liabilty, be executed?

Have you any qualms about Saddam Hussein being tortured & executed? I certainly don't.

The point and divide still exists, the scooby gang have never killed an innocent human, let alone a baby. They have not crossed that line.

What do you mean "we"? Plenty of people are against conscription and plenty of countries don't use it. Generalization much?

True, Plenty of countries don't use it in times of peace, the 'we' was in terms of globally people have little issue with conscription and mandatory military service. No one is crying out for men who have to spend 2+ years of their life in boot camp, and unless I'm mistake, usually the argument against peacetime mandatory military service is that it is time men could use to better the community by greater means, if they didn't have to spend time drilling for war with enemies that may never come, effectively wasting time.

The same cannot be said of conscription in times of a country under siege. Practically EVERY country has the means to bring about conscription if the country declares war.

That is a realty, and not a generalization. Neither is it all that big a deal, it is their responsibilty to defend their country. You and I owe our lives to conscripted men.

Does it matter? Her being a demon only gives her superpowers, doesn't change her personality in the slightest. She cracks jokes about her murders for crying out loud, even when she is human. If that's not irresponsible portrayal of murder and its consequences I don't know what is.

Does Anya have a soul when she is a Demon? when she committed all those murders? like I wrote in my previous reply, is she responsible for them?
 
Please, by all means, point out where I said Buffy was a baby slayer. I suggested a name change to the franchise, I did not, as you claim, call buffy(the character) a baby slayer, as she hasn't killed any babies yet.

You said that a proper name for the franchise would be Buffy the Baby Slayer and yet now you are saying that this no way, shape or form would imply that you think Buffy the character is a baby slayer? Seriously?

The same cannot be said of conscription in times of a country under siege. Practically EVERY country has the means to bring about conscription if the country declares war.

Are you seriously comparing such extreme situations to abortion? Slippery slope doesn't even begin to describe this argument. Even with abortion being legal around much of the world humanity is facing a huge overpopulation troubles, so no, abortion doesn't threaten any nation's very existence. And of course, nowadays if a country is really fighting for survival they will accept women in the army too (see Israel for instance). The "men will fight, women will have the babies" attitude is very anachronistic.

Does Anya have a soul when she is a Demon?

She does have conscience as we see with Anyanka 2.0 in S6-7, so yes I think her being a demon is no excuse whatsoever.
 
the world humanity is facing a huge overpopulation troubles.
Are you for real?

Firstly, Why do you believe this? Not only is the world not overpopulated, but the world population has been increasing the standard of leaving with each passing year, meaning less and less people are in poverty.
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth.html

The overpopulation idea is a tired ancient myth, As Malthus before you, And paul Ehlrich in the 1970s with his 'Population bomb' piece of fiction, this is mere conjecture, Both of these men were wrong. The doomsdayer nonsense they proclaimed never came to pass, and never will.

Technology and farming improvements, are the two major things Mathus and Ehlrich failed to take into account.

Paul Ehlrich proclamed that India would be having mass famines and starvation in the 2000s. Was he right? Nope! just have a look at India now!
Norman Borlaug essentially prevented this from coming to pass-->

http://www.examiner.com/environment...man-borlaug-global-warming-and-overpopulation

The world is not overpopulated, you may think it is, but it is not.

Here's a run down of some organizations and academics that do not entertain such nonsense:

The UN,FAO & WHO, Has Rosling(UN population statistican), and George Monbiot...the list of course, goes on and on.

By all means, take your tired nonsense up with them, I'm certainly not going to spend any more time with someone with their heads up their proverbial.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom