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

[jackace]

Originally posted by: 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.

I'm not hounding anyone on their position on abortion. In fact I said it at least 2 times that no personal position matters in the argument I was making. How you can not see that is beyond me.

The OP said "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."

All I said was the 2 are the same thing and to try and say otherwise is not logical. You then blather on about how my personal opinion matters, I'm evading logic, etc. The logic and fact is both women used abortion as a form of birth control. Either it was right for both of them to do it or it was wrong for both of them. I don't care which you choose, but to say one is right and the other is wrong is just not logical, and makes no sense.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
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

If 6,000 years of the history of civilization has taught us anything, it's that - sad to say - humanity is incapable of giving up their religions and living in peace.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: shira

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.

When the right begins referring to aborted 4-week-old fetuses as "aborted 4-week-old fetuses" and not "murdered babies," maybe we can all agree on terminology. Until then, I couldn't care less what the anti-abortion right thinks about this or any other abortion-related topic. They're all loonies, as far as I'm concerned.

When the left begins referring to aborted 4-week-old fetuses as "murdered babies" and not "aborted 4-week-old fetuses" maybe we can all agree on terminology.

Hey, everyone, here's one of those loonies I mentioned. He thinks a 4-week-old fetus is a "baby." Not only that, he thinks an un-implanted two-day-old zygote is a "baby."

Is is surprising, then, that someone possessed of such a vivid imagination can look into the vacuum between his own ears and see God?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
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

If 6,000 years of the history of civilization has taught us anything, it's that - sad to say - humanity is incapable of giving up their religions and living in peace.

As if peace would happen if folk gave up religion. In my opinion about the most peaceful people on the planet not long ago were the Tibetans and one in 6 was a monk.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: sandorski
"God" is still the most prolific Abortionist of them all put together.

Approximately 50% of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion before the woman even knows she was pregnant. Of recognized pregnancies, one in five ends in miscarriage. God seems to be a huge fan of abortion.

Most abortions are performed early enough in the pregnancy that the foetus never even begins to develop a nervous system, so there is absolutely no chance of suffering (the exception being late term abortions, which I'm on the fence about, morally).

Perhaps the objection is to the idea of ending a potential human life. Well recent genetics research has shown us that every cell in our bodies is a potential life. Do you object to me scratching my ear and thereby causing a genocide the likes of which the world has never seen? Do you Christians have any idea how many potential human beings you left to crust up that sock in your laundry hamper this morning?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
As soon as you say God knows everything that will ever be, you destroy the concept of choice. I can't choose if somebody already knows what it will be.

I'd have thought you smarter than to fall for such a fallacy, Moonie. Even if an outcome is predetermined, you still have a choice if you don't know the predetermined outcome. Besides, prior knowledge of an event does not mean determination of that event. If I place some meat in front of a hungry dog, I can be fairly certain he'll eat it, but I will have had nothing to do with the dog making that choice.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: sandorski
"God" is still the most prolific Abortionist of them all put together.

Approximately 50% of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion before the woman even knows she was pregnant. Of recognized pregnancies, one in five ends in miscarriage. God seems to be a huge fan of abortion.

Most abortions are performed early enough in the pregnancy that the foetus never even begins to develop a nervous system, so there is absolutely no chance of suffering (the exception being late term abortions, which I'm on the fence about, morally).

Perhaps the objection is to the idea of ending a potential human life. Well recent genetics research has shown us that every cell in our bodies is a potential life. Do you object to me scratching my ear and thereby causing a genocide the likes of which the world has never seen? Do you Christians have any idea how many potential human beings you left to crust up that sock in your laundry hamper this morning?

JFC that made me LOL. :laugh:

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Most abortions are performed early enough in the pregnancy that the foetus never even begins to develop a nervous system, so there is absolutely no chance of suffering (the exception being late term abortions, which I'm on the fence about, morally).

Why is suffering relevant? Is murder only wrong if the victim suffers?

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
As soon as you say God knows everything that will ever be, you destroy the concept of choice. I can't choose if somebody already knows what it will be.

When you say that life begins at conception you create a paradox. Life at conception eliminates a woman't choice regarding her body.

So if you are religious, it seems to me, you have to say that God aborts babies by knowing who will chose that, and that personal freedom does not exist. Of course the universe may not give a fig about being consistent but in most cases it seems like it wants to give that impression.

I wish we had better words to define what we mean. To say "Life begins at conception" to me means the same thing as a virus is life too... A virus in a person lives... I would rather say that "the potential for independent life exists at conception" That "viability of that potential exists at some point and potential is no longer an operative description when viability exists.. it is independent..."
I think a woman has the right to terminate the virus and the potential independent life forms. The virus has no human potential ergo no potential to fundamental rights to exist... the Fetus does and therefore viability is the key. However, I would say the likely hood of viability increases every day... from day one... where along that line is the cut off...
Ideally before day one... but after day one... for me personally never.. for you I'd support a point a month or so down that line... arbitrary but acceptable to me.

Disagree. A virus cannot be an adult human, or any human at all. Left to it's own nature, it will eventually become a dead virus. Left to it's own nature, a fetus will become an adult human being, as opposed to a human being at the earliest stage of development.

Who's to say that viability doesn't occur until 3 weeks after birth? As long as we're assigning arbitrary definitions to what a human being is, why should we not allow abortions after birth?

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Skoorb

He's fighting for our freedom and against religious barbarians.

You really ought to go a little easy on people who find some offense at extracting an unwanted baby out through a tube and squirting it into a biowaste container. Or you can continue to demonize, if it makes it easier to swallow.

The people he's fighting against aren't the quiet unassuming people who oppose abortion peacefully and from the privacy of their own homes. Rather, he's fighting against people issuing death threats and protesting outside of his clinic. Those people deserve to be identified for who they are. They want to transform the nation into a Christian theocracy, like a Christian Iran called Jesusland.

Somebody under a heavy medication doesn't exhibit much consciousness, either.

They have a consciousness and a human personality; they're just sleeping. In contrast, a fetus doesn't have and never had a personality or a human consciousness.

I can understand people disagreeing with abortion for religious reasons, but what I don't like is when they try to use secular justifications for their position, twisting themselves into pretzels to keep from saying, "I oppose it because it goes against my religious faith." Over the years, I must have debated this dozens of times and it always comes down to faith in the existence of a God that breathes a soul into an embryo at conception. I never expect to be able to change people's views on the subject, but I do want them to admit and acknowledge that their position is based on religious faith.

Disagree. My argument is entirely secular.

Reasonable claim #1: Murder can be defined as killing an innocent human being. Exceptions are made for self-defense, such as when the mother would die in childbirth. If you disagree here, we cannot contiue.

Reasonable claim #2: Negligent homicide can be defined as taking an action in disregard for the risk to someone's life, which then costs them their life.

Reasonable claim #3: Human Being-ness certainly exists in the child at birth. If you dispute this, we cannot argue.

Reasonable claim #4: Unborn children become human beings at some point. No scientist on earth could reasonably claim that a child isn't a human being 5 seconds before birth.

Conclusion #1: Human being-ness is bestowed at some point before birth.

Conclusion #2: If you abort your child after the point in Conclusion 1, you are guilty of negligent homicide at least, and murder at worst.


Is this not secular?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: sandorski
"God" is still the most prolific Abortionist of them all put together.

Approximately 50% of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion before the woman even knows she was pregnant. Of recognized pregnancies, one in five ends in miscarriage. God seems to be a huge fan of abortion.

Most abortions are performed early enough in the pregnancy that the foetus never even begins to develop a nervous system, so there is absolutely no chance of suffering (the exception being late term abortions, which I'm on the fence about, morally).

Perhaps the objection is to the idea of ending a potential human life. Well recent genetics research has shown us that every cell in our bodies is a potential life. Do you object to me scratching my ear and thereby causing a genocide the likes of which the world has never seen? Do you Christians have any idea how many potential human beings you left to crust up that sock in your laundry hamper this morning?

Most abortions are not performed before the third week. I suggest you watch a few videos of abortions, and watch the fetus's movements and reactions before making such a statement. I would start with "The Silent Scream".

edit: I would also suggest you review The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004. The court already recognizes unborn children as victims, and not some glob of DNA. Laci Peterson ring a bell?

 

[actuarial]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
As soon as you say God knows everything that will ever be, you destroy the concept of choice. I can't choose if somebody already knows what it will be.

I'd have thought you smarter than to fall for such a fallacy, Moonie. Even if an outcome is predetermined, you still have a choice if you don't know the predetermined outcome. Besides, prior knowledge of an event does not mean determination of that event. If I place some meat in front of a hungry dog, I can be fairly certain he'll eat it, but I will have had nothing to do with the dog making that choice.

And you fell into the fallacy that 'fairly certain' == knowing.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Atreus21Disagree. My argument is entirely secular.

Reasonable claim #1: Murder can be defined as killing an innocent human being. Exceptions are made for self-defense, such as when the mother would die in childbirth. If you disagree here, we cannot contiue.

How do you define what exactly constitutes a human being and what is it that makes murder bad and does that still apply to 2-day old embryos?

Reasonable claim #3: Human Being-ness certainly exists in the child at birth. If you dispute this, we cannot argue.

The issue isn't "human beingness" but rather, "Is there a person in there?"

Reasonable claim #4: Unborn children become human beings at some point. No scientist on earth could reasonably claim that a child isn't a human being 5 seconds before birth.

OK. I don't deny potentiality. However, the potential is not the actual.

Conclusion #1: Human being-ness is bestowed at some point before birth.

Conclusion #2: If you abort your child after the point in Conclusion 1, you are guilty of negligent homicide at least, and murder at worst.

What point before birth is "human-being-ness" bestowed in your view? What about a 2-day old embryo cell mass? Would aborting the cell mass make one guilty of negligent homicide. For that matter, why exactly is murder a bad thing in your view? Let's dig a little deeper into this. What is so awful about? What is it about murder that makes it wrong? The concept of individual rights is a very abstract concept. In your view, where do individual rights come from and why are they so right?

I think we disagree on whether fetuses can possess a human personality and consciousness and on whether killing one is immoral (murder, individual rights). I would even argue that in many cases it is the good and right thing to do and that not doing it would be immoral. I'm certain that all of this constitutes irreconcilable differences but I'd be interested to hear more about your basis for your views.

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: 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.

Missed the bottom part.

So it's ok to "kill an unborn child" if the woman was raped? I don't understand this. If they are offenses of the same order, abortion and murder, why can't a rape victim that has a child as a result, kill the child after it has been born?

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Atreus21Disagree. My argument is entirely secular.

Reasonable claim #1: Murder can be defined as killing an innocent human being. Exceptions are made for self-defense, such as when the mother would die in childbirth. If you disagree here, we cannot contiue.

How do you define what exactly constitutes a human being and what is it that makes murder bad and does that still apply to 2-day old embryos?

It's like I said. If we can't at least agree that murder is bad, and that you and I are human-beings, then we cannot continue.

Reasonable claim #3: Human Being-ness certainly exists in the child at birth. If you dispute this, we cannot argue.

The issue isn't "human beingness" but rather, "Is there a person in there?"

Do you claim that a child isn't human at birth?

Reasonable claim #4: Unborn children become human beings at some point. No scientist on earth could reasonably claim that a child isn't a human being 5 seconds before birth.

OK. I don't deny potentiality. However, the potential is not the actual.

Conclusion #1: Human being-ness is bestowed at some point before birth.

Conclusion #2: If you abort your child after the point in Conclusion 1, you are guilty of negligent homicide at least, and murder at worst.

What point before birth is "human-being-ness" bestowed in your view? What about a 2-day old embryo cell mass? Would aborting the cell mass make one guilty of negligent homicide. For that matter, why exactly is murder a bad thing in your view? Let's dig a little deeper into this. What is so awful about? What is it about murder that makes it wrong? The concept of individual rights is a very abstract concept. In your view, where do individual rights come from and why are they so right?

I think we disagree on whether fetuses can possess a human personality and consciousness and on whether killing one is immoral (murder, individual rights). I would even argue that in many cases it is the good and right thing to do and that not doing it would be immoral. I'm certain that all of this constitutes irreconcilable differences but I'd be interested to hear more about your basis for your views.

[/quote]

I hadn't gotten to the point of when a child becomes a human being.

My point is that since children are humans at some point before birth, we cannot ethically destroy them until we establish scientifically when that point occurs.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Atreus21


I hadn't gotten to the point of when a child becomes a human being.

My point is that since children are humans at some point before birth, we cannot ethically destroy them until we establish scientifically when that point occurs.

I think you make good points, and that is really the question: at what point? It certainly cant be at the point in which the fetus can survive on its own, because afterall a 2 month old baby cannot do that. Nor does it really make choices or have independent thought. I suppose it could be when it starts resembling the human form..in which case that would be between 3-6 weeks when nervous system, organs, spine, and a beating heart are detectable?

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Atreus21


I hadn't gotten to the point of when a child becomes a human being.

My point is that since children are humans at some point before birth, we cannot ethically destroy them until we establish scientifically when that point occurs.

I think you make good points, and that is really the question: at what point? It certainly cant be at the point in which the fetus can survive on its own, because afterall a 2 month old baby cannot do that. Nor does it really make choices or have independent thought. I suppose it could be when it starts resembling the human form..in which case that would be between 3-6 weeks when nervous system, organs, spine, and a beating heart are detectable?

That's certainly a step in the right direction, but I can't help but point out that your definition is arbitrarily applied. You're making an assumption. We don't know that with any degree of certainty, and therefore we are taking a big risk.

Frankly tho, if we were to adopt that definition as official policy, I'd welcome it. It beats the hell out of where we are now.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Atreus21


I hadn't gotten to the point of when a child becomes a human being.

My point is that since children are humans at some point before birth, we cannot ethically destroy them until we establish scientifically when that point occurs.

I think you make good points, and that is really the question: at what point? It certainly cant be at the point in which the fetus can survive on its own, because afterall a 2 month old baby cannot do that. Nor does it really make choices or have independent thought. I suppose it could be when it starts resembling the human form..in which case that would be between 3-6 weeks when nervous system, organs, spine, and a beating heart are detectable?

An important difference there is after a baby is born anyone can take care of it, not only the mother. It's not unreasonable to demand she give it to another willing person if she doesn't want it. When someone is pregnant, this is not possible and so the stakes are much different.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
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

If 6,000 years of the history of civilization has taught us anything, it's that - sad to say - humanity is incapable of giving up their religions and living in peace.

As if peace would happen if folk gave up religion. In my opinion about the most peaceful people on the planet not long ago were the Tibetans and one in 6 was a monk.

I'm not sure how long ago you mean by "not long ago." Tibet has a long history of warfare dating back to the 7th century, and some their history of conflict was to impose Buddhism (or a particular brand of Buddism) on others. For example, the Geluk school imposed their religion on the Jonang school in the mid 1600s, and the Jonang were effectively in exile (or hiding) until the current Dalai Lama gave them recognition and support.

But religions aren't intrinsically the problem. The problem is people. I say that giving up religion would be a good thing, but that's not because a lack of religion would make any difference (it wouldn't). Rather, the abandonment of religion would be a sign that humanity had evolved beyond the need to insist on "the one" truth, and the intolerance and oppression that follows.

Unfortunately, Lennon was wrong when he wrote "It isn't hard to do." Not only is it hard, it's impossible.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Atreus21


I hadn't gotten to the point of when a child becomes a human being.

My point is that since children are humans at some point before birth, we cannot ethically destroy them until we establish scientifically when that point occurs.

I think you make good points, and that is really the question: at what point? It certainly cant be at the point in which the fetus can survive on its own, because afterall a 2 month old baby cannot do that. Nor does it really make choices or have independent thought. I suppose it could be when it starts resembling the human form..in which case that would be between 3-6 weeks when nervous system, organs, spine, and a beating heart are detectable?

That's certainly a step in the right direction, but I can't help but point out that your definition is arbitrarily applied. You're making an assumption. We don't know that with any degree of certainty, and therefore we are taking a big risk.

Frankly tho, if we were to adopt that definition as official policy, I'd welcome it. It beats the hell out of where we are now.

The statement I made is medical fact....

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Atreus21


I hadn't gotten to the point of when a child becomes a human being.

My point is that since children are humans at some point before birth, we cannot ethically destroy them until we establish scientifically when that point occurs.

I think you make good points, and that is really the question: at what point? It certainly cant be at the point in which the fetus can survive on its own, because afterall a 2 month old baby cannot do that. Nor does it really make choices or have independent thought. I suppose it could be when it starts resembling the human form..in which case that would be between 3-6 weeks when nervous system, organs, spine, and a beating heart are detectable?

An important difference there is after a baby is born anyone can take care of it, not only the mother. It's not unreasonable to demand she give it to another willing person if she doesn't want it. When someone is pregnant, this is not possible and so the stakes are much different.

Obvious statement is obvious Im not sure medically why that would matter, but I understand the point.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I hadn't gotten to the point of when a child becomes a human being.

My point is that since children are humans at some point before birth, we cannot ethically destroy them until we establish scientifically when that point occurs.

It is really irrelevant. No person has the unqualified right to occupy the body of another person against that person's will.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I hadn't gotten to the point of when a child becomes a human being.

My point is that since children are humans at some point before birth, we cannot ethically destroy them until we establish scientifically when that point occurs.

It is really irrelevant. No person has the unqualified right to occupy the body of another person against that person's will.

Perhaps, but the crime doesn't merit a death sentence.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

the reason i am pro-choice is because i dont care about other peoples behavior that does not directly negatively affect me. i dont care about the people having abortions, i dont care about the aborted babies, i dont care about the doctors performing the abortions.

 

[imported_inspire]

To start, I'd just like to say that I personally don't like abortion, and my feelings are quite strong. The entire argument of its morality occurs in an ivory tower, where 'intellectuals' and 'religious' alike mince words and hurl fallacies to and fro ad nauseam.

Invariability, any logical treatment of the matter regresses to a difference of definitions of where life begins - a difference, which, many would simply continue to argue over, but barring any implied inconsistency, one definition is no more appropriate than another.

Semantics. That's the world these stupid fuckers live in - semantics. In the real world, an abortion is a traumatizing event to all involved - regardless of whether a woman chooses to turn around in front of the clinic or go through with the procedure. In some countires, the procedure is illegal, but it still occurs - in basements and hotels, where women are often maimed, and worse - exploited, due to its uncontrolled, criminalized nature.

Two wrongs have never made a right; more eloquently quoted as, 'An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind'. So before the rest of you go back to ascending your heights of indignation, consider that nobody directly involved gives half a fuck what you think - there are real human beings suffering on both side of this, and if playing armchair quarterback is the best you can do for the situation, you have failed to contribute anything meaningful to humanity.

@ The OP - I think we can all agree that abortion as Birth Control is appalling.