Being pro-life is utterly untenable and stupid

[xj0hnx]

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

Doesn't matter because the accident is what killed it. Hell, we are all going to die one day, that doesn't mean that killing someone is ok because we are going to die anyway.

 

[micrometers]

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

which is why I make a point that infanticide is no big deal. What is heartbreaking IMO is an 11 year old in poverty. A potential life? Not so much.

 

[Atreus21]

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.

Is killing a child immediately after it's born murder?

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.

I don't know what you mean. The default is not to have restrictions?

 

[xj0hnx]

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.

That's your opinion.

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.

More fail. If something is up for debate the default should be not killing something that isn't agreed upon yet. I'd hazard a guess that if your mother had sucked your brains out with a vacuum, you'd feel that was a little "draconian".

 

[xj0hnx]

which is why I make a point that infanticide is no big deal. What is heartbreaking IMO is an 11 year old in poverty. A potential life? Not so much.

Well hell, just kill the 11 year old since his life is so bad, and heartbreaking, put him out of your misery, probably should have been murdered 11 years ago huh?

 

[Atreus21]

which is why I make a point that infanticide is no big deal.

There really is no point in continuing this debate if you won't at least concede that killing an infant is evil.

What is heartbreaking IMO is an 11 year old in poverty.

Yes, killing him would've disabused him of his life, and us of the heartbreak. How humane and civil.

 

[micrometers]

the theory is that a drop in crime is because abortion was legalized in 1973. Look at the peak crime time. In the early 1990's. Most men are most "criminal" in their teens and twenties. That means that crime peaked in 1991 or so when most of the criminals (in their 20's) were born before Roe v Wade.

the drop in crime is because there are fewer men of "criminal" age.

 

[micrometers]

Is killing a child immediately after it's born murder?



I don't know what you mean. The default is not to have restrictions?

of course. you only restrict something when there is consensus on why it is being restricted.

With abortion, consensus is impossible due to the issue itself and the highly theoretical nature of fetal pain and so forth.

 

[Binarycow]

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

dont even bother arguing with these spinless assholes. their moms should have aborted their pathetic asses down the toilet right before giving birth to them. it is appalling how they have the nerve arguing about killing defenseless and innocent beings. it just shows how low-life these people are. do the species a favor and go kill yourselves.

 

[micrometers]

dont even bother arguing with these spinless assholes. their moms should have aborted their pathetic asses down the toilet right before giving birth to them. it is appalling how they have the nerve arguing about killing defenseless and innocent beings. it just shows how low-life these people are. do the species a favor and go kill yourselves.

I hope you're vegan then.

 

[highland145]

the theory is that a drop in crime is because abortion was legalized in 1973. Look at the peak crime time. In the early 1990's. Most men are most "criminal" in their teens and twenties. That means that crime peaked in 1991 or so when most of the criminals (in their 20's) were born before Roe v Wade.

the drop in crime is because there are fewer men of "criminal" age.

And this ignorant statement?.

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

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

Crime should have been going gang busters prior to roe.

 

[Darwin333]

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.

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.

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

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).

So in short, fetal life is no big deal and enforcement of any abortion ban would be a nightmare with real negative effects on (non-theoretical) people.

All of those reasons can be used as arguments for killing a child up to a year or a year and a half old. The only difference is it is outside of the mother and not inside.

Should that be legal too?

 

[Atreus21]

of course. you only restrict something when there is consensus on why it is being restricted.

So in other words you have no use for principles that conflict with societal consensus. Thank God slavery was criminalized before you arrived.

With abortion, consensus is impossible due to the issue itself and the highly theoretical nature of fetal pain and so forth.

Fetal pain is strictly irrelevant to the main debate. If the end result is to kill an innocent for no other reason than convenience, what difference does it make whether or not you caused them pain?

 

[highland145]

dont even bother arguing with these spinless assholes. their moms should have aborted their pathetic asses down the toilet right before giving birth to them. it is appalling how they have the nerve arguing about killing defenseless and innocent beings. it just shows how low-life these people are. do the species a favor and go kill yourselves.

I hope you're vegan then.

LOL. He's a peta person. Go figure.:biggrin:

 

[Darwin333]

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.

If only they took that stance for everything else. Sadly, they don't so the government does have the power to tell a woman what she can do with her body it just so happens that in this case the government does not.

 

[Fern]

-snip-

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.

Cannot agree, at least to a significant extent.

Firstly, many who are pro-life are not calling to "impose blanket abortion restrictions". Excluding some fundi christian types, many conservatives believe this should be determined at the state level. Many believe it was a mistake for the SCOTUS to have stepped in at that time to rule. It was (and in some cases still is) a highly contentious issue with people split about 50/50. There is some merit in letting our society 'work things out' and, IMO, SCOTUS, and some others, need to realize the Constitution does not hold the answer for every question.

For the record I do not believe we should go around throwing women and physicians in prison for abortions, and if you want to curtail them there are better options.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Being pro-life is utterly untenable and stupid.

It is neither.

The question is when 'life' begins. This is the question the SCOTUS had to deal with in Roe v Wade. At this point in time, it is more of a philosophical question as opposed to a scientific one. The SCOTUS is expert in neither but did the best they could with what they had at that time. It's hard to argue (reasonably) that their decision wasn't somewhat arbitrary if only because no one knows the answer. Many have opinions, but no one definitively knows. Moreover, science has advanced much since the ruling. Will they go back and revisit their decision, basing it upon newer/better science? If not, why not?

The vast majority agree that it is wrong to take innocent life, so let's brush aside this rubbish about "a life of suffering". There are plenty of people suffering in this world, we do not go around 'putting them out of their misery' like some stray animal at the pound.

And there are more than the choices you present: abortion or a life of misery. If the mother kept the child it may well work out not to be a life of misery. And adoption is neither mythical or difficult. I have known a number of people who were adopted at birth and not one thought of their life as one of misery. I have also known several couples who were unable to have their children and adopted. It is difficult because there are very few babies available for adoption. All but of the couples had to go outside of the USA at great expense to adopt a baby.

But my point here is that is that since we don't know when life begins, my conservative instincts tell me the right thing to do is err on the side of caution. If I'm not sure I'm not killing life I wouldn't do it. Maybe some day science will have better answers, but until they do I think we should be careful.

Fern

 

[CPA]

By the OPs own logic, we should probably kill the mentally retarded no matter what their age.

or puppies.

 

[Ausm]

By the OPs own logic, we should probably kill the mentally retarded no matter what their age.

You better buy a lottery ticket because you definitely got lucky.

 

[sourceninja]

I don't have a problem with putting limits on abortion based on societal norms and science. What I do have a problem with is the growing zero tolerance approach to everything in this country.

I just read that Rick Perry said there is NEVER a good reason for abortion. That's pretty strong and obviously flawed words. Anyone who uses the word never has already exposed the fact they don't understand the issue. In the time it took me to write this post I have already come up with reasons I would most defiantly want my wife to have an abortion.

1) If the pregnancy was going to kill my wife. - This is simple really, but I guess only unborn life is scared....
2) Parasitic twins - http://english.pravda.ru/society/anomal/27-11-2008/106755-pregnant_baby-0/ should this newborn get an abortion?

 

[micrometers]

Cannot agree, at least to a significant extent.

Firstly, many who are pro-life are not calling to "impose blanket abortion restrictions". Excluding some fundi christian types, many conservatives believe this should be determined at the state level. Many believe it was a mistake for the SCOTUS to have stepped in at that time to rule. It was (and in some cases still is) a highly contentious issue with people split about 50/50. There is some merit in letting our society 'work things out' and, IMO, SCOTUS, and some others, need to realize the Constitution does not hold the answer for every question.

For the record I do not believe we should go around throwing women and physicians in prison for abortions, and if you want to curtail them there are better options.

Fern

as I said, the pro-choice movement has already said that abortion is an awful procedure and that they dislike it. That in a way is being "pro-life" since no one really actually *likes* an abortion happening.

But politically, pro-life effectively means supporting a legal restriction on abortion for other people. pro-lifers want to impose their personal beliefs on everyone.

 

[First]

Some abortion polls for those interested located here and here

The most interesting result to me is that vast supermajorities of Americans (all poll results show over 70% and some over 80%) support some form of legal abortion, be it extreme 3rd trimester abortions or abortions only when the life of the mother is threatened.

Americans have a very solid consensus on abortion, and it's not particularly close.

 

[SilthDraeth]

the theory is that a drop in crime is because abortion was legalized in 1973. Look at the peak crime time. In the early 1990's. Most men are most "criminal" in their teens and twenties. That means that crime peaked in 1991 or so when most of the criminals (in their 20's) were born before Roe v Wade.

the drop in crime is because there are fewer men of "criminal" age.

Hey, do you need a shovel to help you dig your hole?

 

[Fern]

Some abortion polls for those interested located here and here

The most interesting result to me is that vast supermajorities of Americans (all poll results show over 70% and some over 80%) support some form of legal abortion, be it extreme 3rd trimester abortions or abortions only when the life of the mother is threatened.

Americans have a very solid consensus on abortion, and it's not particularly close.

Jeebus, you're miss-stating those polls to an incredible degree.

Fern

 

[BoberFett]

You better buy a lottery ticket because you definitely got lucky.

Says the backwater hick who doesn't understand simple numbers...

DUUUURRRRR, HALF OF MY TOWN MAKES $100K/YR!!!!!!!