Does anyone here consider themselves pro-choice, but this article bothers them?

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

The choice to have sex is not tantamount to the choice to become and remain pregnant.

Hmm, I'm pretty sure that pregnancy is almost exclusively dependent upon sex and that the overwhelming majority of people who engage in sexual intercourse understand where babies come from.

When a person chooses to have sex with someone they know that there is a possibility that a pregnancy will result. Just because the dice roll didn't come up like the person wanted doesn't justify ending the life of an unborn child.

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

The choice to have sex is not tantamount to the choice to become and remain pregnant.

Hmm, I'm pretty sure that pregnancy is almost exclusively dependent upon sex and that the overwhelming majority of people who engage in sexual intercourse understand where babies come from.

When a person chooses to have sex with someone they know that there is a possibility that a pregnancy will result. Just because the dice roll didn't come up like the person wanted doesn't justify ending the life of an unborn child.

And what if the woman was raped? Oh wait, it was her "choice" to walk down that dangerous street, right? Just because the dice roll didn't come up like she wanted doesn't justify her ending the life of an unborn child.

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

And what if the woman was raped? Oh wait, it was her "choice" to walk down that dangerous street, right? Just because the dice roll didn't come up like she wanted doesn't justify her ending the life of an unborn child.

Read up a couple posts. I stated that in the case of rape I believe abortion should be an option.

 

[jackace]

Originally posted by: manlymatt83
I can understand someone who chooses abortion because she had an unplanned pregnancy. I can't understand someone who uses abortion as a means of birth control.

I'm not sure what the difference is with your 2 statements. In both cases the women is using abortion as a means of birth control.

 

[LunarRay]

That women need abortion as a choice is cuz they be the ones who have the babies... IF men had babies they should have the choice.
Folks value life of the unborn on the one hand and drop bombs on the already born on the other hand. That is counter intuitive, I think...
I think in all cases, the only two folks involved in the decision should be the woman and the man who enabled their issue. It should not be a societal issue until after this potential human is viable... You may call it a baby or a fetus or embryo or mass of cells or what ever... unless it has to do with you it don't... UNTIL... That what ever you want to call it is viable... can survive (as if it would want to) in the world with out the two DNA donors.

Churches and Un Churches are part of Society and have a voice but only as individuals... and only to the extent those individuals don't try to thwart individual rights... God bess the constitution :+) But for that we'd most likely be alterboys and girls..

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: jackace

Originally posted by: manlymatt83
I can understand someone who chooses abortion because she had an unplanned pregnancy. I can't understand someone who uses abortion as a means of birth control.

I'm not sure what the difference is with your 2 statements. In both cases the women is using abortion as a means of birth control.

The difference is in the former case the abortion wasn't necessary the first birth control option the woman tried. Since you couldn't see that difference, I'm guessing you simply believe a woman shouldn't have sex unless she is ready to have a child, and keep it even if latter circumstance puts her in a position where she isn't even realistically capable of providing for a child?

Just to make my position clear; I am anti-abortion, and vehemently argued against it the one time a friend confided in me that she was considering one, but I am pro-choice as well.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Folks value life of the unborn on the one hand and drop bombs on the already born on the other hand. That is counter intuitive, I think...

They excuse that based on inane propaganda about WMD or whatever, pretending none of our guys ever target civilians, and many don't care simply because we don't kill white Christian folk.

 

[jackace]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: jackace

Originally posted by: manlymatt83
I can understand someone who chooses abortion because she had an unplanned pregnancy. I can't understand someone who uses abortion as a means of birth control.

I'm not sure what the difference is with your 2 statements. In both cases the women is using abortion as a means of birth control.

The difference is in the former case the abortion wasn't necessary the first birth control option the woman tried. Since you couldn't see that difference, I'm guessing you simply believe a woman shouldn't have sex unless she is ready to have a child, and keep it even if latter circumstance puts her in a position where she isn't even realistically capable of providing for a child?

Just to make my position clear; I am anti-abortion, and vehemently argued against it the one time a friend confided in me that she was considering one, but I am pro-choice as well.

I still don't see why there is a difference between the 2 situations. Both girls used abortion as a form of birth control, end of story. Why is one "better" than the other? If abortion is an acceptable form of birth control, then why do we (society) care if people tried any preventative methods first?

Edit- replaced "OK" with "an acceptable form of birth control".

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Folks value life of the unborn on the one hand and drop bombs on the already born on the other hand. That is counter intuitive, I think...

They excuse that based on inane propaganda about WMD or whatever, pretending none of our guys ever target civilians, and many don't care simply because we don't kill white Christian folk.

ok.. thanks for that

Sorta reminds me of Viet Nam... who are the civilians and who are Charlie.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: jackace

Originally posted by: kylebisme
...I'm guessing you simply believe a woman shouldn't have sex unless she is ready to have a child, and keep it even if latter circumstance puts her in a position where she isn't even realistically capable of providing for a child?

I still don't see why there is a difference between the 2 situations. Both girls used abortion as a form of birth control, end of story. Why is one "better" than the other? If abortion is an acceptable form of birth control, then why do we (society) care if people tried any preventative methods first?

If you'd be so kind as to answer my question, I'd be happy to reciprocate by answering yours.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: ElfearAbortion, for the most part, is a result of people not wanting to have consequences associated with their actions. Let's kill the unborn child (or potential for a child, however you see it) rather than exhibit some self-control.

Sure, but why isn't then choosing to have an abortion a legitimate act of responsibility or self-control?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Are you really THAT obtuse? "had" designates the action of delivery in your little snip.

Rather, I'm sharp enough to realise "had" refers to delivery, because a fetus doesn't become a baby until it is delivered.

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
People refer to unborn babies as "babies" all the time.

I know, as I know that if such people were logicly consistant they would say "she had a baby" upon conception rather than waiting until after delivery.

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I am just fine with many pro-choice people and have nothing to "come to terms with" - however if you had actually read what I posted you'd have realized that I wasn't talking about those types.

I read what you posted, it is a false dichotomy.

Well, you answered it - you are just being obtuse. I figured as much... You should actually read what I posted and you'll see it is not a false choice and also if you'd have read, you'd not have bleated the "come to terms with" BS. Pssttt - you are the exact person I'm talking about, so I'll give you a hint - "rabid".

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper


What's the difference between having an abortion in the event of an unplanned pregnancy and using it as a means of birth control? Aren't those really the same thing?

Whats the difference between shooting a guy because he looked at me funny or because I walked in on him raping my daughter? Isnt it the same thing?

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: ElfearAbortion, for the most part, is a result of people not wanting to have consequences associated with their actions. Let's kill the unborn child (or potential for a child, however you see it) rather than exhibit some self-control.

Sure, but why isn't then choosing to have an abortion a legitimate act of responsibility or self-control?

Because somebody gets killed as a result. No one is harmed if the woman (or man) chooses not to engage in behavior that would result in an unwanted pregnancy. The range of choices gets considerably narrowed as a result of the first choice to have sex. Abort it, keep it, or give it up for adoption. I have a hard time seeing why the 3rd option isn't used by women who feel they can't take care of a baby. There are so many couples out there looking to adopt that resorting to abortion seems very selfish (except in the event of rape or if the mother's life is seriously at risk).

 

[jpeyton]

I'm pro-choice and I like the article.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

The choice to have sex is not tantamount to the choice to become and remain pregnant.

Hmm, I'm pretty sure that pregnancy is almost exclusively dependent upon sex and that the overwhelming majority of people who engage in sexual intercourse understand where babies come from.

Absolutely irrelevant.

When a person chooses to have sex with someone they know that there is a possibility that a pregnancy will result. Just because the dice roll didn't come up like the person wanted doesn't justify ending the life of an unborn child.

It justifies the defense of one's body against the unwanted infringement of her fundamental rights. Waivers to those rights must be explicit.

Think about what you're saying. Consent to riding in a car is not consent to be in a car wreck. Consenting to swim is not consenting to drown. Letting someone in your house is not permission for them to take things from you. The notion that consent to sex is the same as consent to pregnancy flies in the face of well-established legal principles.

Besides consent can only be given to a person. There is no fetus to which to give consent when one consents to sex.

 

[Vic]

I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion.

 

[jackace]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: jackace

Originally posted by: kylebisme
...I'm guessing you simply believe a woman shouldn't have sex unless she is ready to have a child, and keep it even if latter circumstance puts her in a position where she isn't even realistically capable of providing for a child?

I still don't see why there is a difference between the 2 situations. Both girls used abortion as a form of birth control, end of story. Why is one "better" than the other? If abortion is an acceptable form of birth control, then why do we (society) care if people tried any preventative methods first?

If you'd be so kind as to answer my question, I'd be happy to reciprocate by answering yours.

What does my personal opinion have to do with my statement. It's a logical argument not an emotional one. Adding my personal opinion to the mix turns it into an emotional argument, and I have no desire to argue the emotional side of abortion considering it has been done too many times on this very forum.

All I'm asking is why do some people think abortion is acceptable, but then if a girl/women uses it "too much" she is now somehow doing something wrong. Logically to me that makes no sense whats so ever. Either abortion is acceptable or it's not. You can't say Sally screwed up once and needed an abortions so that's OK. Jenny on the other hand screwed up 3 times and needed an abortion but she is a now a baby killer or some other BS.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: ElfearAbortion, for the most part, is a result of people not wanting to have consequences associated with their actions. Let's kill the unborn child (or potential for a child, however you see it) rather than exhibit some self-control.

Sure, but why isn't then choosing to have an abortion a legitimate act of responsibility or self-control?

Because somebody gets killed as a result. No one is harmed if the woman (or man) chooses not to engage in behavior that would result in an unwanted pregnancy. The range of choices gets considerably narrowed as a result of the first choice to have sex. Abort it, keep it, or give it up for adoption. I have a hard time seeing why the 3rd option isn't used by women who feel they can't take care of a baby. There are so many couples out there looking to adopt that resorting to abortion seems very selfish (except in the event of rape or if the mother's life is seriously at risk).

I presume that a woman's take on the issue is different to that of a man. I know of a woman who became pregnant having not had a child delivered of her previously and said (I can't vouch for the veracity) They "had" to get an abortion because they were not ready to have a child. Have a child! Not to raise one or have one and give it up for adoption but simply to have it and endure the months preceeding that event.
Other women might view the event of getting pregnant regardless of the event that caused it as the beginning of life that proceeds until death. They may give that child up for adoption or keep it. They'd not destroy life because they can't.
I tried to think like a woman who was pregnant and I just can't with any feeling of accuracy. The best I can do is still guess. And even guessing I can't conclude anything after observing the thinking process of wife, daughter, grand-daughter. They see things with a different slant.
So I can only conclude that until viabilty, or some time before that perhaps, a woman ought to have that choice.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Well, you answered it - you are just being obtuse. I figured as much... You should actually read what I posted and you'll see it is not a false choice and also if you'd have read, you'd not have bleated the "come to terms with" BS. Pssttt - you are the exact person I'm talking about, so I'll give you a hint - "rabid".

Rather, your branding me as "rabid" only serves to further demonstrate how pea-brained your argument is; as while I am ardently pro-choice, I hold much more regard for fetuses than to disparage them as "just a bunch of cells".

Originally posted by: jackace
What does my personal opinion have to do with my statement. It's a logical argument not an emotional one.

I'm asking you to address the logical conclusions of your argument, as an argument can't be well considered without doing so.

Originally posted by: jackace
Either abortion is acceptable or it's not. You can't say Sally screwed up once and needed an abortions so that's OK. Jenny on the other hand screwed up 3 times and needed an abortion but she is a now a baby killer or some other BS.

I can say both killed fetuses, and I can say I have no right to force them to do otherwise regardless of how much I disagree with their choices to do so.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: manlymatt83
Text

People who are proud to call themselves "abortionists" bother me. While I'm pro-choice, I still think abortion is a horrible thing, and I think people's attitudes should be that it should be a last resort.

I can understand someone who chooses abortion because she had an unplanned pregnancy. I can't understand someone who uses abortion as a means of birth control.

He's "takes pride" in being called an abortionist because it's the primary service he performs and pro-lifers have tried to demonize the term for a medical procedure they find objectionable. People don't celebrate having an abortion.

I agree. As soon as you demonize a term in favour of a euphemism, you begin to demonize the associated action. While I also consider abortion to be a last resort procedure, I fully support it as an option for women to choose.

It's not a celebration, it's a serious, life-changing procedure. Many women feel that their lives will be better off by not carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term, so they choose an abortion. So this abortionist is making a positive difference in the lives of the women who choose his services, and that is laudable.

If the procedure is referred to differently, it doesn't change the procedure, it just changes people's impression of it, which I don't like. We shouldn't be "softening" it as it's not something to take lightly. The term is correct and it should stand.

How is that abortionist making a positive change in the snuffed out life of the child?

 

[jackace]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Well, you answered it - you are just being obtuse. I figured as much... You should actually read what I posted and you'll see it is not a false choice and also if you'd have read, you'd not have bleated the "come to terms with" BS. Pssttt - you are the exact person I'm talking about, so I'll give you a hint - "rabid".

Rather, your branding me as "rabid" only serves to further demonstrate how pea-brained your argument is; as while I am ardently pro-choice, I hold much more regard for fetuses than to disparage them as "just a bunch of cells".

Originally posted by: jackace
What does my personal opinion have to do with my statement. It's a logical argument not an emotional one.

I'm asking you to address the logical conclusions of your argument, as an argument can't be well considered without doing so.

Originally posted by: jackace
Either abortion is acceptable or it's not. You can't say Sally screwed up once and needed an abortions so that's OK. Jenny on the other hand screwed up 3 times and needed an abortion but she is a now a baby killer or some other BS.

I can say both killed fetuses, and I can say I have no right to force them to do otherwise regardless of how much I disagree with their choices to do so.

I gave you the logical conclusion to my argument in the last part of my post, which you quoted. I'm not trying to argue for or against abortion here. I'm saying if it is an acceptable form of birth control then how is one person who uses it better than another person who uses it based on the circumstances or occurrences?

Either they are both in the right or they are both in the wrong. Saying one is wrong and the other is right makes no sense. I never asked if you agreed with what they were doing or even said whether or not I agree with with what they are doing. My personal opinion (or yours) on abortion has no bearing on the argument what so ever. Either abortion is acceptable or it's not.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: jackace
I gave you the logical conclusion to my argument in the last part of my post, which you quoted.

Rather, you are evading logical conclusion to your argument, my question on that stands.

Originally posted by: jackace
I'm not trying to argue for or against abortion here.

Sure, you are trying to aviod stating your postion on women's right to choose while hounding others about theirs.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: jackace

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Well, you answered it - you are just being obtuse. I figured as much... You should actually read what I posted and you'll see it is not a false choice and also if you'd have read, you'd not have bleated the "come to terms with" BS. Pssttt - you are the exact person I'm talking about, so I'll give you a hint - "rabid".

Rather, your branding me as "rabid" only serves to further demonstrate how pea-brained your argument is; as while I am ardently pro-choice, I hold much more regard for fetuses than to disparage them as "just a bunch of cells".

Originally posted by: jackace
What does my personal opinion have to do with my statement. It's a logical argument not an emotional one.

I'm asking you to address the logical conclusions of your argument, as an argument can't be well considered without doing so.

Originally posted by: jackace
Either abortion is acceptable or it's not. You can't say Sally screwed up once and needed an abortions so that's OK. Jenny on the other hand screwed up 3 times and needed an abortion but she is a now a baby killer or some other BS.

I can say both killed fetuses, and I can say I have no right to force them to do otherwise regardless of how much I disagree with their choices to do so.

I gave you the logical conclusion to my argument in the last part of my post, which you quoted. I'm not trying to argue for or against abortion here. I'm saying if it is an acceptable form of birth control then how is one person who uses it better than another person who uses it based on the circumstances or occurrences?

Either they are both in the right or they are both in the wrong. Saying one is wrong and the other is right makes no sense. I never asked if you agreed with what they were doing or even said whether or not I agree with with what they are doing. My personal opinion (or yours) on abortion has no bearing on the argument what so ever. Either abortion is acceptable or it's not.

It seems to me one must start with some agreement as to when that (insert term) attains the right on its own to exist - has fundamental rights of a human and citizen of the US. That is a society issue that the courts have considered and will continue to, I suspect.
I think it fruitless to loop a moral thought into a legal knot. One must accept, it seems to me, that the legal position reflects the moral wants of society. IF they don't then it ought to. There is processes to effect equilibrium between law and society's view.
To not agree with the law as it exists is fine but it is what it is.