Being pro-life is utterly untenable and stupid

[soundforbjt]

I don't see these items being mutually exclusive. You can have one without the other.

What's the difference? Someone, other than GOD (if you are a believer) is deciding who gets to live or die.

 

[micrometers]

That is completely wrong. Have you never been around a woman who's happy to be pregnant, or even someone who knows a woman who's happy to be pregnant?

A miscarriage is a tragedy, but the death of a child is exponentially worse, since people have made investment in the child that they cannot in the case of a miscarriage. it is weird weighing degree of pain.

my point is more that a lot of the rhetoric is misleading, overwhelmingly on the pro-life side.

 

[Macamus Prime]

Keep your views, hands, bible and God out of a woman's vagina.

Our government is protecting the right for a woman to decide what she will do with her body once she becomes pregnant. If you don't like that, fuck off.



However, there are some slime bag pro-lifers who lie to pregnant women about their decision; http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/cpc.html.

I find it down right horrific that young women (who are scared and seeking help) are lied to, about what they can or could do. Furthermore, these righteous self serving assholes, are deceiving someone at their moment of need, all in the name of God. I doubt the Big Guy would approve, but, it's their life - they will face Him when they die and have to deal with the actions of their own lives.

I personally do not believe in using abortion as a form of birth control. There are plenty of other options available. None the less, it has been decided that women have the right to choose, up to a certain month. It's not like she can abort at 8 and 1/2 months.

That should be enough.

But, as zealots have proven over and over again, it's never enough. These delusional bags of puss and puke are so fucking pissed over the quality of their own miserable lives, that they force what some other bag of puss and puke planted into their head, onto someone like a young pregnant woman.

It's sickening how something ideal, such as an omnipotent loving being like God, is used to twist someone's life into whatever they themselves want it to be. He gave us choice. And with that choice comes responsibility and accountability. Accountability that will be called upon by Him and Him only.

Not the inbred trash that thinks they saw God in their poptarts, thus calling onto them to save the fetuses.

Not the corrupt preacher who screams against abortion because he is morally right, all the while he is cheating on his wife.

Not the armchair morality experts of these forums.

God.

Deal with it, you aren't His soldier. He has angels for war. Humans are just bags of meat with a soul and choice.

You are His creation - a creation that has a choice.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

What's the difference? Someone, other than GOD (if you are a believer) is deciding who gets to live or die.

It depends. One could appose abortion because they believe killing a human is always wrong. In that case you would be correct and they would appose the death penalty if they are being consistent.

However, someone could also believe that killing a human is wrong except a punishment for certain offenses. A fetus is certainly innocent so this is internally consistent.

You also don't need to believe in god to be pro-life. A secular humanist who believes that there is something special about human life could also appose it. There are plenty of philosophies in between evangelical christian and nihilist.

 

[Mursilis]

1. A 3 year old baby for instance will likely have been met with members of his or her community. So, the death of a person will likely result in a concrete feeling of loss by members of a community. A fetus OTOH cannot be made an attachment to unless you are religiously irrational.

How profoundly stupid. How old are you?

 

[micrometers]

Right. About 99% of the asshattery comes from the pro-life side. From the annoying dead fetus pictures that they unfurl to the amount of violence coming from them, to the sheer lies and deception that they practice. I'm generally moderate I feel in most political things but on this issue the pro-life side is almost entirely wrong.

 

[soundforbjt]

It depends. One could appose abortion because they believe killing a human is always wrong. In that case you would be correct and they would appose the death penalty if the being consistent.

However, someone could also believe that killing a human is wrong except a punishment for certain offenses. A fetus is certainly innocent so this is internally consistent.

You also don't need to believe in god to be pro-life. A secular humanist who believes that there is something special about human life could also appose it. There are plenty of philosophies in between evangelical christian and nihilist.

I see your point.

 

[tydas]

Well, its sad and morally wrong...however...none of my business since it is a personal matters...so much other bullshit to be worried about then this...

 

[Atreus21]

1. the concern about abortion is entirely theoretical. In other words, it really is up for debate on when a fetus has feeling.

2. Even if a fetus has feeling, it is no big deal. Seriously. He will not be conscious enough to really feel anything. None of us remember really what it was like being a baby, and at worst it would be a quick momentary flash of pain and then nothing. OTOH, given the extreme poverty in many parts of this world, there will be people who live 30-40 years of grinding poverty and suffering and they definitely are conscious of suffering.

Could be used to justify infanticide.

3. most babies aborted would probably lead a life of suffering. And for the mother as well, given the additional responsibility of caring and providing.

Could be used to justify infanticide. Extremely sick logic. Kill someone to save them from life.

4. Human tribes through the centuries practiced infanticide without issue.

Yes, without issue. Apart from, you know, they murdered children. No issue there.

If the pro-aborts must resort to arguments in favor of infanticide, then I think pro-lifers are winning.

5. If you ban abortion then you would make for serious problems in providing medical care for women. Doctors might let a woman die instead of providing procedures that might inadvertently induce abortions, for fear of being prosecuted. You might throw women in jail on account of a miscarriage (since there would likely be false prosecutions of legitimate miscarriages).

Medical care to improve someone's life does not include murdering someone to improve someone's life. Inadvertent abortion is always a risk with pregnant women, and I don't think any serious pro-lifer would support prosecuting anyone for accidentally inducing abortion, for example from an amniocentesis.

 

[xj0hnx]

Right. About 99% of the asshattery comes from the pro-life side. From the annoying dead fetus pictures that they unfurl to the amount of violence coming from them, to the sheer lies and deception that they practice. I'm generally moderate I feel in most political things but on this issue the pro-life side is almost entirely wrong.

lol@yourfeelings. Maybe it's that you OP sounds like it was written by a 6th grader, or that your trying to argue how your feelings make someone else's feeling wrong, but this thread is just silly.

 

[micrometers]

It depends. One could appose abortion because they believe killing a human is always wrong. In that case you would be correct and they would appose the death penalty if they are being consistent.

However, someone could also believe that killing a human is wrong except a punishment for certain offenses. A fetus is certainly innocent so this is internally consistent.

You also don't need to believe in god to be pro-life. A secular humanist who believes that there is something special about human life could also appose it. There are plenty of philosophies in between evangelical christian and nihilist.

Except the rhetoric and the appeal is towards a magical appreciation of "life". And life is wondrous, I agree, but they lack any magical appreciation of life for a prisoner who is about to be executed. Meaning that it's not really about magical appreciation of life. It's about religious dogma.

 

[highland145]

not too different. the rich had the resources to get abortions before Roe v Wade, but the poor often found themselves stymied by restrictions.

No. Violent crime has just in the last few years reached the levels of 1973 (roe v wade).

It's about religious dogma.

No, again.

 

[OutHouse]

1. the concern about abortion is entirely theoretical. In other words, it really is up for debate on when a fetus has feeling.

what does feeling have to do with anything. a human fetus is a human fetus. it should have all the rights as a born baby and in states it does. there was a local news story about a dui driver hitting another car with a pregnant woman. the impact killed the fetus and the DUI driver is now charged with vehicular manslaughter.

 

[micrometers]

Could be used to justify infanticide.



Could be used to justify infanticide. Extremely sick logic. Kill someone to save them from life.



Yes, without issue. Apart from, you know, they murdered children. No issue there.

If the pro-aborts must resort to arguments in favor of infanticide, then I think pro-lifers are winning.



Medical care to improve someone's life does not include murdering someone to improve someone's life. Inadvertent abortion is always a risk with pregnant women, and I don't think any serious pro-lifer would support prosecuting anyone for accidentally inducing abortion, for example from an amniocentesis.

The pro-lifers are obsessed though with ending all abortions. That's why they've backed stuff like personhood amendments and nation-wide bans on abortion, to blanket statements that they'd ban abortion even in cases of incest or rape.

So in other words, a pro-life regime would likely send criminal investigators to each and every miscarriage to ask questions and request records with the possibility of prosecuting the mother or doctor. Because they'd be obsessed with not letting any loopholes to a ban.

 

[OutHouse]

2. Even if a fetus has feeling, it is no big deal. Seriously. He will not be conscious enough to really feel anything.

how in the hell do you know that?

 

[micrometers]

No. Violent crime has just in the last few years reached the levels of 1973 (roe v wade).

No, again.

you have to give reasons.

edit: and violent crime has been steadily decreasing from the high in the 70's.

 

[Atreus21]

A few points:

1. A 3 year old baby for instance will likely have been met with members of his or her community. So, the death of a person will likely result in a concrete feeling of loss by members of a community. A fetus OTOH cannot be made an attachment to unless you are religiously irrational.

So a person's life is to be deemed expendable or not based on their perceived loss to society?

2. People who are privately pro-life in their personal life but are pro-choice for society as a whole tend to get squeezed in this current political climate. The pro-life movement demands that politicians impose blanket abortion restrictions. The pro-choice movement is where people can be anti-abortion in sentiment but against laws that restrict.

Prove this statement. Many pro-lifers simply want Roe v. Wade overturned and the issue left to state legislatures. In other words, returned to democracy, apart from oligarchy.

 

[xj0hnx]

Except the rhetoric and the appeal is towards a magical appreciation of "life". And life is wondrous, I agree, but they lack any magical appreciation of life for a prisoner who is about to be executed. Meaning that it's not really about magical appreciation of life. It's about religious dogma.

What are you talking about? It doesn't have anything to do with some "magical appreciation" of anything, for me it's a personal responsibility issue. If you want to spread you legs, or run around sticking your dick in anything that moves, then you should be responsible for the consequences. In cases of rape, incest, or medical emergency that threatens the mother life, I have no problem with abortion.

 

[Atreus21]

The pro-lifers are obsessed though with ending all abortions. That's why they've backed stuff like personhood amendments and nation-wide bans on abortion, to blanket statements that they'd ban abortion even in cases of incest or rape.

I'm certainly more willing to tolerate those who would impose a law saying, "You may not kill your own children," to those who would say, "We'd like you not to kill your own children, but if you decide you must, feel free."

So in other words, a pro-life regime would likely send criminal investigators to each and every miscarriage to ask questions and request records with the possibility of prosecuting the mother or doctor. Because they'd be obsessed with not letting any loopholes to a ban.

Is the difficulty in enforcing bans on murder used as justification to end bans on murder?

 

[soundforbjt]

it should have all the rights as a born baby and in states it does. there was a local news story about a dui driver hitting another car with a pregnant woman. the impact killed the fetus and the DUI driver is now charged with vehicular manslaughter.

This, I don't agree with. There's no way of knowing whether the baby would be born or not.

 

[micrometers]

So a person's life is to be deemed expendable or not based on their perceived loss to society?



Prove this statement. Many pro-lifers simply want Roe v. Wade overturned and the issue left to state legislatures. In other words, returned to democracy, apart from oligarchy.

1. my statement is utilitarian in nature, yes. But it is more about how little fetal "lives" matter. It really is not a big deal compared to a human being coming up. This is mainly to draw contrast on what human life means, and how it is misleading to call a fetus human life.

2. Mitt Romney. In a debate he said that he was effectively pro-choice as a politician even if in his personal life he opposed abortion. He's been forced to change his stance as a result of pro-life politics in this country. They've gotten more extreme I think over the years.

 

[Atreus21]

1. my statement is utilitarian in nature, yes. But it is more about how little fetal "lives" matter. It really is not a big deal compared to a human being coming up. This is mainly to draw contrast on what human life means, and how it is misleading to call a fetus human life.

If an infant is a human life after birth, then it is a human life before birth. The difference between a child inside the womb and a child outside the womb, and indeed an adult, is a difference in degree, not substance. It is a difference between a human at one stage of development, and a human at a later stage of development.

2. Mitt Romney. In a debate he said that he was effectively pro-choice as a politician even if in his personal life he opposed abortion. He's been forced to change his stance as a result of pro-life politics in this country. They've gotten more extreme I think over the years.

With good reason. Would you support someone who said "I don't mind that other people commit murder. But personally, I'd never murder anyone"?

 

[highland145]

you have to give reasons.

edit: and violent crime has been steadily decreasing from the high in the 70's.

 

[micrometers]

aborting a fetus is not murder. A person in contrast to a fetus has ties to a community and conscious thought, which is why a murder of a person is wrong. A fetus is a cluster of cells that is potentially life, but is not.

The main point is that when things are up for debate, the default is to not have restrictions. Well, abortion is up for debate but one side wants draconian restrictions.

 

[highland145]

aborting a fetus is not murder. A person in contrast to a fetus has ties to a community and conscious thought, which is why a murder of a person is wrong. A fetus is a cluster of cells that is potentially life, but is not.
.

True. True. One minute still in the womb=tissue. One minute out=person hood.