Being pro-life is utterly untenable and stupid

[cybrsage]

By that logic I am committing murder every time I cut my hair.

Do you die when you cut your hair? If not, then it is not nearly the same thing.

The big picture is that reproductive health and birth control are a major way to make a better world.

Birth control is a good thing, reproductive heath is a good thing. Both can be accomplished without killing anyone.

 

[cybrsage]

So, the mother commited a crime by being raped?

All offspring have two parents. I thought you already knew this.

Since you do not, it requires a male human and a female human to create a new human via any kind of reproduction. The woman creates the needed X in an egg and the father creates either a needed X or a Y in a sperm.

 

[micrometers]

If I cut my hair, yes, the cells will eventually turn to dust and thus will die.

 

[cybrsage]

so the "magic of life" is a man holding a knife to a woman while he brutally rapes her. Uh-huh. Spelled it out for ya.

You have reading comprehension problems. You need to save that emotional appeal for someone who thinks the "magic of life" is something to use as an argument.

Do you feel sad your stupid phrase failed? You wanted to use it so badly you had to ignore me saying the "magic of life" is meaningless.

 

[micrometers]

All offspring have two parents. I thought you already knew this.

Since you do not, it requires a male human and a female human to create a new human via any kind of reproduction. The woman creates the needed X in an egg and the father creates either a needed X or a Y in a sperm.

and the father is often holding a knife too! left out that detail.

 

[Jaskalas]

I am pro-life but I would never want abortion to be banned outright and I certainly don't want the government telling me whether or not it is allowed.

Abortion is a medical procedure -- that is a decision between the pregnant woman and her doctor, period.

As a culture however, we should be advocating for the preservation of ALL life and discouraging abortion on demand. I am especially talking about discouraging abortion due to 'inconvenience' (i.e. accidental pregnancy due to teen sex carelessness, prioritizing career/materialism over life, etc). But it HAS to be available to incest and rape victims. Bans for even those terrible situations is simply outright cruelty to the victim.

I think the Clintons had it most right when they stated abortion should be 'safe, legal, and rare'.

Abso-fing-lutely. :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[cybrsage]

If I cut my hair, yes, the cells will eventually turn to dust and thus will die.

Do you die when you cut your hair? If not, then it is not nearly the same thing.

 

[micrometers]

Do you die when you cut your hair? If not, then it is not nearly the same thing.

the cells die. since in this analogy I am the one making the "choice" to rid myself of hair cells.

 

[Jaskalas]

Question... do you feel empathy for others, or are they all disposable cells? Your arguments really suggest locking you up behind a very thick wall.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Now you are being stupid.

Nothing that I said was false. I suppose one can only surmise that you think truth is stupid. I guess that's par for the course.

pro-abortion and pro-choice are the same thing.

Now you're being stupid. Answer my question: are you "pro-having-a-penis-in-your-rectum"? Do you think choosing to have a penis in one's rectum should be illegal?

 

[soundforbjt]

I'm wondering if all the people posting here that are against abortion are for welfare, food stamps, education, healthcare etc., for the child?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I would not imprison a person's offspring if his parent commited a crime, so why would I support killing a person's offspring for the crimes committed by the parent?

Fetuses are not "offspring" -- they haven't yet "sprung off," as it were.

And what crime has a mother committed by becoming unwillingly pregnant?

 

[cybrsage]

the cells die. since in this analogy I am the one making the "choice" to rid myself of hair cells.

Of course, when you change my question to something ELSE, you can say anything you like.

But when you actually keep my question as it was written, you find you are wrong.

Do you die when you cut your hair? If not, then it is not nearly the same thing.

Abortion kills the human. If cutting hair killed that human, then you would be killing a human if you cut a human's hair. Since it does NOT kill a human to cut that human's hair, it is not the same as a procedure which DOES kill a human.

 

[child of wonder]

But this is of course false. Waivers to fundamental rights must be explicit. You might as well suggest that drivers involved in traffic collisions do not have grounds for claims with their insurance companies -- since after all, a collision is something that could arise from operating a vehicle on public motorways.

A poor analogy. Consensual sex leading to pregnancy would be more akin to driving drunk and then having no grounds for an insurance claim.

The individual has performed an action that they know has a high degree of probability to result in "X."

Consenting to the possibility of something is not the same as consenting to the thing that is possible. This should be obvious. It is possible that I could be struck by a falling airplane when I go outside for a walk. I am not consenting to be struck by said plane when I consent to its possibility by going outside.

This again is a tenuous example.

What if you decided to go for a walk on a landing strip? Since you're aware of the high degree of danger involved, you've consented to the possibility of being struck by a plane.

There is a big difference between, as you've stated, undertaking what should be a low risk exercise leading to an unintended and unforeseen consequence versus a high risk exercise that has an inevitable and foreseeable consequence.

Pregnancy is a natural, biological, and evolutionary consequence of sexual intercourse. To have consensual sex then claim the pregnancy is "unconsensual" or, as you put in another post, "an unwelcome fetus violating the body of the mother" grossly misrepresents the scenario.

A pregnancy as a result of rape, incest, or birth control failure I would say fits your descriptions. However, should someone have consensual and unprotected sex they do not get to play the victim when that activity inevitably leads to pregnancy.

We're in agreement that a woman should be able to have an abortion if she so pleases. What we don't agree on is that the pregnancy itself is "unintended," "unconsensual," or "a violation."

Your argument stirs up "The Violinist" from Judith Thomson.

 

[micrometers]

A woman having an abortion does not die. The fetus does die. The fetus is arguably life. It is arguably a clump of cells like a lock of hair.

 

[sourceninja]

Many people do, but it is not needed...and it not really even metaphysical. The unborn human is still a human...a 100% unique human who simply has not yet been born.

Being born is where the legal line has been placed to determine personhood - which is a requirement for any rights at all. Much of the debate is simply a discussion about if that is the correct place for the line to be at, or if it should be earlier.

Both sides usually end up falling into the emotional appeals trap, which clouds the issue and prevents any meaningful discussion.

IMO, abortion should not be legal except in the case where the mother will die and that resulting death will also kill the child. I believe all attempts to save both the mother and child should be made, even if we expect the child to not live after extraction from the mother.

Abortion is the purposeful killing of the unborn human...if the human is removed knowing it will almost certainly die, but the intent is to try and prevent the human's death, then it is fully acceptable and is then no different than any other risky operation.

If you know your wife will die, but the child will live, you do not agree we should have an abortion?

So you are saying unborn life is more valuable than born life? I'm sorry, that is like saying that it is immoral to kill someone killing your wife because their life is more valuable than her life.

 

[cybrsage]

Fetuses are not "offspring" -- they haven't yet "sprung off," as it were.

Point taken.

Then he supports forced abortions for all pregant women if the father of their unborn child commits a crime. I think that is still horrible.

In the US, we do not execute the children (born or unborn) of those who commit crimes.

 

[micrometers]

Point taken.

Then he supports forced abortions for all pregant women if the father of their unborn child commits a crime. I think that is still horrible.

In the US, we do not execute the children (born or unborn) of those who commit crimes.

lol, if only we could force abortions.

more accurately, you would prevent a rape victim from obtaining an abortion.

 

[cybrsage]

If you know your wife will die, but the child will live, you do not agree we should have an abortion?

Correct

So you are saying unborn life is more valuable than born life? I'm sorry, that is like saying that it is immoral to kill someone killing your wife because their life is more valuable than her life.

You, your wife, and your son are all rock climbing for fun. All tied together and using piton, etc. Something horrible happens and you are left holding the rope, your wife and son dangling downward. You can only save one of them, but in doing so you must cut the other free and let that one fall to their death.

Is it immoral to allow your wife to die to save your son or must you kill your son since you have arbitrarily determined that the mother is more important than the child?

 

[cybrsage]

lol, if only we could force abortions.

You can.

more accurately, you would prevent a rape victim from obtaining an abortion.

Yes.

I feel it is wrong to execute one human for the crimes committed by a different human. You obviously think it is acceptable to do so.

 

[child of wonder]

You, your wife, and your son are all rock climbing for fun. All tied together and using piton, etc. Something horrible happens and you are left holding the rope, your wife and son dangling downward. You can only save one of them, but in doing so you must cut the other free and let that one fall to their death.

Is it immoral to allow your wife to die to save your son or must you kill your son since you have arbitrarily determined that the mother is more important than the child?

In this scenario, if you were standing on an adjacent cliff watching it unfold, would it be your right to tell the father which person he should choose? Would you have the right to arrest him if you didn't agree with his decision?

If you were in that terrible position, would you want someone telling you how to decide?

 

[micrometers]

You can.



Yes.

I feel it is wrong to execute one human for the crimes committed by a different human. You obviously think it is acceptable to do so.

YOu are imposing your metaphysical belief on someone else in this case. You are free to express your disapproval, sure, but in this case you want to legally ban her from aborting the fetus.

 

[soundforbjt]

I'm wondering if all the people posting here that are against abortion are for welfare, food stamps, education, healthcare etc., for the child?

crickets?

 

[micrometers]

And no, we cannot force abortions, although there are certain cases, I'm talking mentally impaired having children of their own, that it should be forced, frankly.

 

[cybrsage]

In this scenario, if you were standing on an adjacent cliff watching it unfold, would it be your right to tell the father which person he should choose? Would you have the right to arrest him if you didn't agree with his decision?

If you were in that terrible position, would you want someone telling you how to decide?

My scenario was not to be analogous to abortion, but to show that a child (born or not) has no more or less value than the mother of that child. It does not work past that point.