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

[Blackjack200]

I didn't read the article, but I'm pro-choice and have absolutely no problem with abortion. I don't see it as a big deal.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: manlymatt83

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: manlymatt83

What do you find so horrible about abortion? It's not murder--there isn't a human consciousness inside of the fetus to kill--there's no person in there. You should feel worse or just as bad about eating meat.

I disagree. To me, they are humans. But again, I'm pro-choice. And I'm not religious.

then how do you logically/morally reconcile your position? If you believe a fetus is a human then what you are in favor of is the "choice" to murder a human. I don't believe a group of cells constitutes a human, so I have no problem with scrapping it.

I am pro-choice because I fundamentally don't believe that I have the right to tell another person what to do with their body. I'm liberal in that sense. So yes, I do sort of believe that abortion = ending the life of a baby, but I still don't blame women for sometimes having to make that choice about their body. I do get upset when the choice is made selfishly though.

You must be internally weighting the worth of a woman's choice over a baby, though. If a baby is just meat it's easy to reconcile with a woman's wishes but if it is a true person it's almost impossible, so for you the baby must be somewhere in between.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
the only probably is that a fetus is not a baby, so your argument, as always, is mute.

So, how exactly was Scott Peterson convicted of the murder of both his wife and unborn child?

I could see him being convicted of murder of his wife but since his unborn child has no rights how could he have been charged with its murder?

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: manlymatt83

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: manlymatt83

What do you find so horrible about abortion? It's not murder--there isn't a human consciousness inside of the fetus to kill--there's no person in there. You should feel worse or just as bad about eating meat.

I disagree. To me, they are humans. But again, I'm pro-choice. And I'm not religious.

then how do you logically/morally reconcile your position? If you believe a fetus is a human then what you are in favor of is the "choice" to murder a human. I don't believe a group of cells constitutes a human, so I have no problem with scrapping it.

I am pro-choice because I fundamentally don't believe that I have the right to tell another person what to do with their body. I'm liberal in that sense. So yes, I do sort of believe that abortion = ending the life of a baby, but I still don't blame women for sometimes having to make that choice about their body. I do get upset when the choice is made selfishly though.

Do you think suicide should remain illegal? Euthanasia?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: manlymatt83What about the men who want the fatherhood?

Are you proposing that men should be able to essentially enslave women and force them to continue their unwanted pregnancies for them?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

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.

But right now they have nothing. You're saying they WILL when they wake up. Like a baby will when it's born

The difference is that an unconscious person or a sleeping person already has an actual personality. In contrast, in the case of a fetus, it's merely a potentiality.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: PatranusSo, how exactly was Scott Peterson convicted of the murder of both his wife and unborn child?

I could see him being convicted of murder of his wife but since his unborn child has no rights how could he have been charged with its murder?

The lawmakers wanted to assuage the anti-abortion crowd as well as to provide extra punishment for the murders of pregnant women.

 

[kylebisme]

It is disturbing how the anti-choice crowd has manipulated our language to refer to fetuses and embryos as "babies". I wonder if they are logically consistent in not saying "she had a baby" from the time of birth but rather following conception. Then of course they should be adding some months on to the question of how old one is.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
It is disturbing how the anti-choice crowd has manipulated our language to refer to fetuses and embryos as "babies". I wonder if they are logically consistent in not saying "she had a baby" from the time of birth but rather following conception. Then of course they should be adding some months on to the question of how old one is.

You've never heard someone talking to "the baby" of a pregnant woman? I think it is you who doesn't understand or want to admit the language is being manipulated by the RABID "choice" people.
Riddle me this - why is it a "baby" to a woman who wants to keep it and just a bunch of cells to the rabidly "choice" people?

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: kylebisme
It is disturbing how the anti-choice crowd has manipulated our language to refer to fetuses and embryos as "babies". I wonder if they are logically consistent in not saying "she had a baby" from the time of birth but rather following conception. Then of course they should be adding some months on to the question of how old one is.

You've never heard someone talking to "the baby" of a pregnant woman? I think it is you who doesn't understand or want to admit the language is being manipulated by the RABID "choice" people.
Riddle me this - why is it a "baby" to a woman who wants to keep it and just a bunch of cells to the rabidly "choice" people?

The woman who wants to keep it is projecting her feelings and hopes onto the embryo.

 

[Red Dawn]

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.

What do you find so horrible about abortion? It's not murder--there isn't a human consciousness inside of the fetus to kill--there's no person in there. You should feel worse or just as bad about eating meat.

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

But you still do on occasion unlike a 4 week old fetus.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: manlymatt83

What do you find so horrible about abortion? It's not murder--there isn't a human consciousness inside of the fetus to kill--there's no person in there. You should feel worse or just as bad about eating meat.

I disagree. To me, they are humans. But again, I'm pro-choice. And I'm not religious.

As far as people celebrating having an abortion goes, I can definitely see the men facing unwanted fatherhood celebrating their good fortune and I can envision some women celebrating their having made a rational decision.

What about the men who want the fatherhood?

They should hook up with a woman who wants parenthood, not just a good time.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: kylebisme
It is disturbing how the anti-choice crowd has manipulated our language to refer to fetuses and embryos as "babies". I wonder if they are logically consistent in not saying "she had a baby" from the time of birth but rather following conception. Then of course they should be adding some months on to the question of how old one is.

You've never heard someone talking to "the baby" of a pregnant woman? I think it is you who doesn't understand or want to admit the language is being manipulated by the RABID "choice" people.
Riddle me this - why is it a "baby" to a woman who wants to keep it and just a bunch of cells to the rabidly "choice" people?

It IS a bunch of cells.
Ask the woman who wants to keep it why she calls it a baby. Thats her choice.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
the only probably is that a fetus is not a baby, so your argument, as always, is mute.

So, how exactly was Scott Peterson convicted of the murder of both his wife and unborn child?

California specifically includes fetuses, distinct from persons, and with an exception for abortion in it's murder statute.

I could see him being convicted of murder of his wife but since his unborn child has no rights how could he have been charged with its murder?

Nobody gets to decide to abort a woman's pregnancy but that woman herself. When you think (I know, that's a lot to ask) about the reasons why nobody can force a woman to have an abortion, you will also know the reasons why nobody can force a woman to remain pregnant.

 

[Arkaign]

This divide will only be settled once the government inevitably pursues mandatory sterilization, after which you have to apply for a license to have a child. Impregnation will be a medical procedure. Of course, that will be hopefully a long long way after I'm dead, but it will happen. Under either right-wing or left-wing gov'ts, power and law continue to centralize and accumulate.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
This divide will only be settled once the government inevitably pursues mandatory sterilization, after which you have to apply for a license to have a child. Impregnation will be a medical procedure. Of course, that will be hopefully a long long way after I'm dead, but it will happen. Under either right-wing or left-wing gov'ts, power and law continue to centralize and accumulate.

Now I know why all the grocery stores are out of aluminum foil.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Arkaign
This divide will only be settled once the government inevitably pursues mandatory sterilization, after which you have to apply for a license to have a child. Impregnation will be a medical procedure. Of course, that will be hopefully a long long way after I'm dead, but it will happen. Under either right-wing or left-wing gov'ts, power and law continue to centralize and accumulate.

Now I know why all the grocery stores are out of aluminum foil.

Well think of logical progression. People in 1909 couldn't imagine today's world. At each stage of development, the gov't has gotten larger and more complex along with the world around us. This is not an example of any conspiracy, it's just the nature of things. With technology and population ever-increasing, it is only logical that eventually a central government will want to be able to manage the size of the population (as well as who gets to have children) for the 'good' of society. It makes sense on many levels, and in fact does address many ills that we currently endure. Children born to households under the poverty line are exposed to much greater odds of premature death, disease, starvation, addiction, etc. I'm not talking about a great political conspiracy of any type, rather the nature of technology and society evolving, and how the primary governments will react and utilize things.

One truth is that our government structure is an ever-increasing organism, and unlike some trolls who would say that the GOP or right-wing groups are for smaller government, I will say that it is the same for any period/party that holds major power. The things that one side signs into law and expands are almost never regressed or rescinded when power shifts. Rather, the new laws / agencies stay in place, and the new power base pursues expansion and laws pursuant to their own needs. Accumulate, accumulate, accumulate. If you don't believe me, just look at the last 150 years of our nation, and indeed the standards of world gov'ts.

 

[n yusef]

Quality of life is much better today than in 1909. Pray that the trend continues.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: n yusef
Quality of life is much better today than in 1909. Pray that the trend continues.

Yeap, things will get interesting soon though. Population expansion cannot be limitless forever without consequences. We are also facing environmental challenges as well, I'm not talking hypothetical MMGW arguments, but the indisputable facts that our oceans are becoming very sick, with pollution and species extinction reaching critical levels. I see a very difficult century approaching, and society will be forced to evolve to make things work in this new world. Part of that is more central planning as I believe will happen, including eventually central control of population by means of determining exactly how many children are born and to whom.

When you separate the obvious contemporary reaction to such an idea, it actually makes a lot of sense. Free from an emotional response, there are a lot of benefits to be found when contemplating it. It offends my personal sensibilities, as I yearn for a less intrusive world, but the world is changing in the opposite direction all the time.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: kylebisme
It is disturbing how the anti-choice crowd has manipulated our language to refer to fetuses and embryos as "babies". I wonder if they are logically consistent in not saying "she had a baby" from the time of birth but rather following conception. Then of course they should be adding some months on to the question of how old one is.

You've never heard someone talking to "the baby" of a pregnant woman?

Sure I have. However, I've not seen someone say "she had a baby" in regard to a pregnant woman, which again isn't logical consistent with the claim that fetuses and embryos are "babies".

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I think it is you who doesn't understand or want to admit the language is being manipulated by the RABID "choice" people.

Well this is far from the first time I've been unimpressed by your thinking.

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Riddle me this - why is it a "baby" to a woman who wants to keep it and just a bunch of cells to the rabidly "choice" people?

If you could come to terms with the fact that many people who are pro-choice also make the choice to have children, you'd be on the way to answering your question for yourself.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: kylebisme
It is disturbing how the anti-choice crowd has manipulated our language to refer to fetuses and embryos as "babies". I wonder if they are logically consistent in not saying "she had a baby" from the time of birth but rather following conception. Then of course they should be adding some months on to the question of how old one is.

You've never heard someone talking to "the baby" of a pregnant woman?

Sure I have. However, I've not seen someone say "she had a baby" in regard to a pregnant woman, which again isn't logical consistent with the claim that fetuses and embryos are "babies".

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I think it is you who doesn't understand or want to admit the language is being manipulated by the RABID "choice" people.

Well this is far from the first time I've been unimpressed by your thinking.

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Riddle me this - why is it a "baby" to a woman who wants to keep it and just a bunch of cells to the rabidly "choice" people?

If you could come to terms with the fact that many people who are pro-choice also make the choice to have children, you'd be on the way to answering your question for yourself.

Are you really THAT obtuse? "had" designates the action of delivery in your little snip. People refer to unborn babies as "babies" all the time.
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.

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

California specifically includes fetuses, distinct from persons, and with an exception for abortion in it's murder statute.

I never knew California law read like that. Seems a little ridiculous that a fetus is considered an unborn child and can thus be murdered but when it comes to an abortion the fetus than reverts back to a bunch of cells thereby alleviating the mother/doctor of any wrong-doing.

Originally posted by: manlymatt83

I am pro-choice because I fundamentally don't believe that I have the right to tell another person what to do with their body. I'm liberal in that sense. So yes, I do sort of believe that abortion = ending the life of a baby, but I still don't blame women for sometimes having to make that choice about their body. I do get upset when the choice is made selfishly though.

My own opinion is that by having sex that woman has made her choice. In that regard I am pro-choice. You don't want to get pregnant, than choose not to have sex. Abortion, 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.

There are of course those instances when a woman had no choice in her conception. In those circumstances I think abortion should be an option, although an option that should be chosen only after a lot of thought has gone into it.

 

[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.

 

[sandorski]

"God" is still the most prolific Abortionist of them all put together.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

California specifically includes fetuses, distinct from persons, and with an exception for abortion in it's murder statute.

I never knew California law read like that. Seems a little ridiculous that a fetus is considered an unborn child and can thus be murdered

It is not considered an "unborn child." It is considered a fetus. It's just incorporated into the murder statute.

but when it comes to an abortion the fetus than reverts back to a bunch of cells thereby alleviating the mother/doctor of any wrong-doing.

You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension.

My own opinion is that by having sex that woman has made her choice.

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