New poll: Majority in U.S. is now 'pro-life'

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: between
I'm pro-abortion (too many people on the planet already) and also pro-infanticide (there should be a "cooling off" period after birth, where you can request to have the infant humanely euthanized if you decide you don't want it). When will people understand that a fetus or newborn infant is not a person? If you have ever interacted with a new born baby, you quickly realise it is little more than a bundle of reflexes. A pet dog or cat is more of a person.

WTF ?
You think people should have the right to kill their children if they decide they don't want it ?

A baby is not a thing. It isn't something that you just throw away because you were stupid. Comparing it to a pet dog or cat ? I thought I had met some sick people online, but you just trumped them all.

 

[between]

...

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: between

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: between
I'm pro-abortion (too many people on the planet already) and also pro-infanticide (there should be a "cooling off" period after birth, where you can request to have the infant humanely euthanized if you decide you don't want it). When will people understand that a fetus or newborn infant is not a person? If you have ever interacted with a new born baby, you quickly realise it is little more than a bundle of reflexes. A pet dog or cat is more of a person.

WTF ?
You think people should have the right to kill their children if they decide they don't want it ?

A baby is not a thing. It isn't something that you just throw away because you were stupid. Comparing it to a pet dog or cat ? I thought I had met some sick people online, but you just trumped them all.

For too long the debate has been about whether a late-stage fetus is a person. We need to push the debate forward, and start questioning the personhood of newborn infants, in my opinion. I think we need to set emotions aside, and think about the issues in a rational way. Just because a cute baby makes you go "awww" doesn't mean it is a person.

This has to be a troll.

 

[between]

...

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: between

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: between

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: between
I'm pro-abortion (too many people on the planet already) and also pro-infanticide (there should be a "cooling off" period after birth, where you can request to have the infant humanely euthanized if you decide you don't want it). When will people understand that a fetus or newborn infant is not a person? If you have ever interacted with a new born baby, you quickly realise it is little more than a bundle of reflexes. A pet dog or cat is more of a person.

WTF ?
You think people should have the right to kill their children if they decide they don't want it ?

A baby is not a thing. It isn't something that you just throw away because you were stupid. Comparing it to a pet dog or cat ? I thought I had met some sick people online, but you just trumped them all.

For too long the debate has been about whether a late-stage fetus is a person. We need to push the debate forward, and start questioning the personhood of newborn infants, in my opinion. I think we need to set emotions aside, and think about the issues in a rational way. Just because a cute baby makes you go "awww" doesn't mean it is a person.

This has to be a troll.

lol, actually it's not. I'm not suggesting people should be encouraged to rush out and kill their newborn infants. However I think it should be an option, especially in situations where the newborn infant has serious birth defects and would possibly be in significant pain. Also, deciding that a fetus somehow turns into a person simply because it has been squeezed out of the womb doesn't really make a lot of sense. it's just as reasonable to say a fetus becomes a person one month after birth, than to say it is a person a moment after birth. there needs to be more of a debate about what constitutes personhood.

I believe that for the vast majority of people that the debate IS over what constitutes "personhood". Your first post is pretty sick IMO. An infant IS a person, there is no debate there. To think otherwise is sick. If you've ever had a baby, you'd quickly realize that it is much more than a bundle of reflexes, to suggest otherwise is disturbing.

I'm pro-choice, but it's people like you that make the rabid anti-abortion freaks look reasonable.

 

[between]

...

 

[sandorski]

Sandorski's Compromise

Females will have full Right to choose Abortion. Males who choose Abortion will be Bubbas GF for at least 5 years.

That's a pretty even split and solves this issue! You're welcome!

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: between

having a child is to my mind one of the most selfish acts an individual can engage in. (I'd say it is a marginally less selfish act that say killing a person.) the cold hard fact is you can never get consent from a child (to be born) before you give birth to that child. Without that consent, I just don't think bringing a person into the world can be justified. if we were truly moral creatures, we would collectively agree to allow the human race to die out. in fact, there is no reason to have a child that is not rooted in selfishness. given we have 6 billion people on the planet right now, the decision to have a child can only be regarded as criminal. but that's another debate.

As far as the newborn infant goes, you haven't said anything that persuades me that such a thing is a person. To my mind, it's just a little bundle of flesh and reflexes - cute, maybe, but not a person. I see the death of a newborn infant along the same lines as say putting a pet cat or dog to sleep. Or maybe a chimpanzee or elephant or deep sea whale. And please don't pretend what I am saying is somehow radical or unusual. the courts have long recognised that the life of a newborn infant has less value than the life of an older individual who can be regarded as having obtained personhood. for example, mothers who kill their newborns on account of mental illness often will receive little more than a slap on the wrist.

Please lead by example and don't have any children.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: between

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: between

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: between

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: between
I'm pro-abortion (too many people on the planet already) and also pro-infanticide (there should be a "cooling off" period after birth, where you can request to have the infant humanely euthanized if you decide you don't want it). When will people understand that a fetus or newborn infant is not a person? If you have ever interacted with a new born baby, you quickly realise it is little more than a bundle of reflexes. A pet dog or cat is more of a person.

WTF ?
You think people should have the right to kill their children if they decide they don't want it ?

A baby is not a thing. It isn't something that you just throw away because you were stupid. Comparing it to a pet dog or cat ? I thought I had met some sick people online, but you just trumped them all.

For too long the debate has been about whether a late-stage fetus is a person. We need to push the debate forward, and start questioning the personhood of newborn infants, in my opinion. I think we need to set emotions aside, and think about the issues in a rational way. Just because a cute baby makes you go "awww" doesn't mean it is a person.

This has to be a troll.

lol, actually it's not. I'm not suggesting people should be encouraged to rush out and kill their newborn infants. However I think it should be an option, especially in situations where the newborn infant has serious birth defects and would possibly be in significant pain. Also, deciding that a fetus somehow turns into a person simply because it has been squeezed out of the womb doesn't really make a lot of sense. it's just as reasonable to say a fetus becomes a person one month after birth, than to say it is a person a moment after birth. there needs to be more of a debate about what constitutes personhood.

I believe that for the vast majority of people that the debate IS over what constitutes "personhood". Your first post is pretty sick IMO. An infant IS a person, there is no debate there. To think otherwise is sick. If you've ever had a baby, you'd quickly realize that it is much more than a bundle of reflexes, to suggest otherwise is disturbing.

I'm pro-choice, but it's people like you that make the rabid anti-abortion freaks look reasonable.

having a child is to my mind one of the most selfish acts an individual can engage in. (I'd say it is a marginally less selfish act that say killing a person.) the cold hard fact is you can never get consent from a child (to be born) before you give birth to that child. Without that consent, I just don't think bringing a person into the world can be justified. if we were truly moral creatures, we would collectively agree to allow the human race to die out. in fact, there is no reason to have a child that is not rooted in selfishness. given we have 6 billion people on the planet right now, the decision to have a child can only be regarded as criminal. but that's another debate.

As far as the newborn infant goes, you haven't said anything that persuades me that such a thing is a person. To my mind, it's just a little bundle of flesh and reflexes - cute, maybe, but not a person. I see the death of a newborn infant along the same lines as say putting a pet cat or dog to sleep. Or maybe a chimpanzee or elephant or deep sea whale. And please don't pretend what I am saying is somehow radical or unusual. the courts have long recognised that the life of a newborn infant has less value than the life of an older individual who can be regarded as having obtained personhood. for example, mothers who kill their newborns on account of mental illness often will receive little more than a slap on the wrist.

Wow. I thought you were kidding but damn. :shocked:

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Evan
Except a huge majority of Americans, 70%+, want to keep abortion legal federally in at least some cases. Fact is, nearly half of all self-described pro-lifers still want abortion to stay legal in limited cases and other pro-lifers in less limited cases. The end result is one and the same for 70%+ of Americans; don't make it illegal again in all cases, i.e. do not overturn the SC's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling because there's simply far too much downside to overturning this particular federal law, not even close to appropriate. But it medically dangerous back-alley abortions, higher crime rates from discarded children, etc.

And lmao at people downplaying abortion as a wedge issue. It's hugely important.

EDIT: Here's the link to the 70%+ polls and an excerpt from the OP's article:

"The terms 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' no longer define the parameters of the debate, witnessed by the fact that in the Gallup Poll, a majority of people say they are both pro-life and that abortion should be legal," Richards said.

I disagree. I'm ardently pro-life, and I believe abortion should be legal in one circumstance: when it threatens the mother's life.

I don't think Roe v. Wade is necessary to protect that one exception.

Rape?

Incest?

Congenital or other quality of life problems revealed during pregnancy?

Or just the simple fact that sometimes people make mistakes and shouldn't have to raise children they're not capable of raising responsibly, financially, or morally.

not good enough reason.
Take birth control or just dont have sex.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: between

having a child is to my mind one of the most selfish acts an individual can engage in. (I'd say it is a marginally less selfish act that say killing a person.) the cold hard fact is you can never get consent from a child (to be born) before you give birth to that child. Without that consent, I just don't think bringing a person into the world can be justified.

First you say they are not a person, then you say we can't get their consent , you are contradicting yourself.

As far as the newborn infant goes, you haven't said anything that persuades me that such a thing is a person. To my mind, it's just a little bundle of flesh and reflexes - cute, maybe, but not a person. I see the death of a newborn infant along the same lines as say putting a pet cat or dog to sleep.

Such detachment from humanity. Seriously get some professional help.

Or maybe a chimpanzee or elephant or deep sea whale. And please don't pretend what I am saying is somehow radical or unusual. the courts have long recognised that the life of a newborn infant has less value than the life of an older individual who can be regarded as having obtained personhood. for example, mothers who kill their newborns on account of mental illness often will receive little more than a slap on the wrist.

What you are saying is radical. The last people I heard talk like that were Nazis killing the handicapped under the premise that they were doing them a favor.

Anyone that kills while mentally ill gets a different sentence than normal. The courts are very clear that newborns are equal to any other living person. Even killing a pregnant woman can cause a person to be charged with two counts of murder.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: sao123

Take birth control or just dont have sex.

Agree.
A ton of the problems we see now in society are because people are not being held accountable for their actions. Can't run your business ? Here is some money. Bought a home with bad terms ? It wasn't your fault. Get pregnant because you were not prepared ? You can always get an abortion.

I was raised with the understanding that your actions have consequences.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: between

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: between

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: between
I'm pro-abortion (too many people on the planet already) and also pro-infanticide (there should be a "cooling off" period after birth, where you can request to have the infant humanely euthanized if you decide you don't want it). When will people understand that a fetus or newborn infant is not a person? If you have ever interacted with a new born baby, you quickly realise it is little more than a bundle of reflexes. A pet dog or cat is more of a person.

WTF ?
You think people should have the right to kill their children if they decide they don't want it ?

A baby is not a thing. It isn't something that you just throw away because you were stupid. Comparing it to a pet dog or cat ? I thought I had met some sick people online, but you just trumped them all.

For too long the debate has been about whether a late-stage fetus is a person. We need to push the debate forward, and start questioning the personhood of newborn infants, in my opinion. I think we need to set emotions aside, and think about the issues in a rational way. Just because a cute baby makes you go "awww" doesn't mean it is a person.

This has to be a troll.

lol, actually it's not. I'm not suggesting people should be encouraged to rush out and kill their newborn infants. However I think it should be an option, especially in situations where the newborn infant has serious birth defects and would possibly be in significant pain. Also, deciding that a fetus somehow turns into a person simply because it has been squeezed out of the womb doesn't really make a lot of sense. it's just as reasonable to say a fetus becomes a person one month after birth, than to say it is a person a moment after birth. there needs to be more of a debate about what constitutes personhood.

I believe that for the vast majority of people that the debate IS over what constitutes "personhood". Your first post is pretty sick IMO. An infant IS a person, there is no debate there. To think otherwise is sick. If you've ever had a baby, you'd quickly realize that it is much more than a bundle of reflexes, to suggest otherwise is disturbing.

I'm pro-choice, but it's people like you that make the rabid anti-abortion freaks look reasonable.

Actually, anyone who ever supported partial-birth abortion should not have so much disagreement with Between. The stretch from killing the baby just before birth to just after is not difficult to make, and the differences in quality entirely arbitrary.

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Actually, anyone who ever supported partial-birth abortion should not have so much disagreement with Between. The stretch from killing the baby just before birth to just after is not difficult to make, and the differences in quality entirely arbitrary.

Well, kind of. I'd agree with the general statement though that the debate is no longer over "it should be the woman's choice" but it's now "when does a fetus become a person." Is it truly the act of birth that makes a person a person? I mean what is really the difference between a fetus 10 minutes before birth and 10 minutes afterward, many times beyond the doctor arbitrarily deciding when to induce labor?

Fact is, nobody knows when a person becomes a person, but for sure, it's not right at birth every time, and it's not based on some sort of cognitive development. That's why, in my mind, we should err on the side of caution rather than convenience, but it's still my opinion. This really is an issue that should have been left up to the individual states, as a national issue, as previously said, it has become a wedge issue to get votes and detract from other issues that desperately need the public's attention.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: themusgrat
Well, kind of. I'd agree with the general statement though that the debate is no longer over "it should be the woman's choice" but it's now "when does a fetus become a person." Is it truly the act of birth that makes a person a person? I mean what is really the difference between a fetus 10 minutes before birth and 10 minutes afterward, many times beyond the doctor arbitrarily deciding when to induce labor?

I think the "when does a fetus become a person" has always been the crux of the debate, because it is on "personhood" which hinges the accusation of immorality for those who have abortions. In other words, it is far more permissable to kill something that isn't a human being than something that is. All of this talk of "choice" and "reproductive freedom" is nonsense if the subject of killing is (1) a human being and (2) innocent.

Fact is, nobody knows when a person becomes a person, but for sure, it's not right at birth every time, and it's not based on some sort of cognitive development. That's why, in my mind, we should err on the side of caution rather than convenience, but it's still my opinion. This really is an issue that should have been left up to the individual states, as a national issue, as previously said, it has become a wedge issue to get votes and detract from other issues that desperately need the public's attention.

It's more than just your opinion; it has legal precedent. When we are uncertain about the threat our actions involve, such as shooting a gun into a bush, we are criminally negligent if we hurt someone as a result.

When a person becomes a person is a matter of philosophy for the time being. I don't see how it's a stretch to assume a fertilized, implanted egg is a person at the very earliest stage of development.

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: themusgrat
Fact is, nobody knows when a person becomes a person, but for sure, it's not right at birth every time, and it's not based on some sort of cognitive development. That's why, in my mind, we should err on the side of caution rather than convenience, but it's still my opinion. This really is an issue that should have been left up to the individual states, as a national issue, as previously said, it has become a wedge issue to get votes and detract from other issues that desperately need the public's attention.

It's more than just your opinion; it has legal precedent. When we are uncertain about the threat our actions involve, such as shooting a gun into a bush, we are criminally negligent if we hurt someone as a result.

When a person becomes a person is a matter of philosophy for the time being. I don't see how it's a stretch to assume a fertilized, implanted egg is a person at the very earliest stage of development.

Whether something like this has legal precedent or not is largely irrelevant, because it was still someone's opinion, unless you want to claim that there is some judge out there capable of correctly deciding once and for all when a fetus achieves "human" status. I do put this in "" because in my mind the fetus is always human.

Also, whether you see this as a stretch or not is largely irrelevant, because to the general populace, to legally be carrying another person at the moment of conception is very, very, very impractical. It's also likely not true, I mean in some form the fertilized egg is human life, but if it constitutes a person at the moment of conception, I think that gives way too much credit to both sperm and egg. Sperm aren't trillions of halves of people sitting around in your balls, they're just sperm. Personhood has got to be at some point pretty far past conception, I think most people would agree.

edit: retarded quote thingies...

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: sao123

Take birth control or just dont have sex.

Agree.
A ton of the problems we see now in society are because people are not being held accountable for their actions. Can't run your business ? Here is some money. Bought a home with bad terms ? It wasn't your fault. Get pregnant because you were not prepared ? You can always get an abortion.

I was raised with the understanding that your actions have consequences.

You left out - have the baby and let the state pay for it. That's the other option which has even less accountability.

This is the crux of the issue with those who are anti-choice, they are on one hand brow beating people about having children that perhaps they aren't ready financially or emotionally ready to cope with and on the other hand they are seeking to limit or deny financial or other assistance all the while condemning these people as the deadbeat loafers in our society.

So a single mother either has the option to go to work and leave the raising of her children to "others"(probably again payed for by the state) or sit at home and collect benefits. Ultimately, this hurts the child and is a large part of why our prisons are stuffed over capacity right now.

I don't have the source handy, so I cringe at pulling numbers out of my ass, but just a few weeks ago I was reading a study about latino women, and how ~50% - (this is the number I'm not sure of, it's very high) are pregnant before they're 20.

These young women in many cases have a hell of a lot of hurdles to overcome to even give their kid a shot, not to mention the absolute absence of the fathers in many of these situations.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: sao123

Take birth control or just dont have sex.

Agree.
A ton of the problems we see now in society are because people are not being held accountable for their actions. Can't run your business ? Here is some money. Bought a home with bad terms ? It wasn't your fault. Get pregnant because you were not prepared ? You can always get an abortion.

I was raised with the understanding that your actions have consequences.

You left out - have the baby and let the state pay for it. That's the other option which has even less accountability.

The other option is the state doesn't give a free ride to the mother. It should be a difficult and hard time for the mother. Not one of "it is okay, you made a bad choice, let us make it all better" solution like the current systems provide.

There has to be consequences for actions and currently we are doing away with those. Keeping the current system in the USA where people expect the government to fix things every time a person makes a bad decision will only lead to disaster.

This is the crux of the issue with those who are anti-choice, they are on one hand brow beating people about having children that perhaps they aren't ready financially or emotionally ready to cope with and on the other hand they are seeking to limit or deny financial or other assistance all the while condemning these people as the deadbeat loafers in our society.

How about we teach people that if you are going to be irresponsible it will have consequences , not give them a free ride because they have a child. My cousin is in charge of my counties social services. She tells me all the time about woman who are having children just to get benefits.

So a single mother either has the option to go to work and leave the raising of her children to "others"(probably again payed for by the state) or sit at home and collect benefits. Ultimately, this hurts the child and is a large part of why our prisons are stuffed over capacity right now.

Place the child in day care and put the mother to work until she can pay to support the child. Teach the mother that if you can't pay your way you will have to work not wait for the government to bail you out while you sit at home. Some states already do this. NC requires the mother attend job training and the family is only eligible for benefits for 2 years then must wait 2 years before they can reapply. It doesn't matter how much the mother makes for working, it is the requirement to work , to show that you have to work to get things in life that is important.

 

[between]

...

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

Originally posted by: Hacp
Democrats have used the abortion for too long to lure female votes. It distracts them from the bread and butter issues like taxes, the economy, and the illegals.

Lure females:laugh:

You mean the rebublicans have driven away females that don't want their bodily functions controlled by the goverment

We should really be thanking Republicans for their "value voters" who insist on making abortion a hot-button issue every election cycle. That's a good portion of the female vote that they'll NEVER get.

Abortion must always remain legal. Should we actively provide abortion alternatives to women (like family planning, free/cheap birth control, promoting adoption, etc.)? Absolutely. Anything to make abortions less frequent. But having a child is the mother's choice, not the decision of an unborn fetus.

Do you want to see unwanted pregnancies drop dramatically (including less welfare babies)? Our government should negotiate a contract with big pharma for dirt cheap birth control, and then offer it for free/cheap to any woman 18 and over. We'd have less teen mothers, less single mothers, less parents who live off the state, and a higher quality of life for the entire nation.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: between

The US courts are the exception to the rule. In many first world countries there is actually a specific category of killing, infanticide, which attracts lesser penalties than the killing of an actual person.

Those same countries consider killing of women for adultery legal and rape being the woman's fault.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Evan

Or just the simple fact that sometimes people make mistakes and shouldn't have to raise children they're not capable of raising responsibly, financially, or morally.

not good enough reason.
Take birth control or just dont have sex.

Welcome to reality, where birth control isn't 100% effective and people make mistakes. Get used to the idea that abortion will always be legal.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
[L=STORY] So if this poll indicates a subtle shift I'm very pleased and hope it continues to go in that direction, because that's how real change would have to happen.

It doesn't. Others have pointed out that it depends what kind of language you use when polling people. Not surprised OP can't see the nuances though.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Originally posted by: between

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: between
I'm pro-abortion (too many people on the planet already) and also pro-infanticide (there should be a "cooling off" period after birth, where you can request to have the infant humanely euthanized if you decide you don't want it). When will people understand that a fetus or newborn infant is not a person? If you have ever interacted with a new born baby, you quickly realise it is little more than a bundle of reflexes. A pet dog or cat is more of a person.

WTF ?
You think people should have the right to kill their children if they decide they don't want it ?

A baby is not a thing. It isn't something that you just throw away because you were stupid. Comparing it to a pet dog or cat ? I thought I had met some sick people online, but you just trumped them all.

For too long the debate has been about whether a late-stage fetus is a person. We need to push the debate forward, and start questioning the person-hood of newborn infants, in my opinion. I think we need to set emotions aside, and think about the issues in a rational way. Just because a cute baby makes you go "awww" doesn't mean it is a person.

And just because you have some arbitrary "person" line when it comes to killing a human does not make you any less in support of murder.

Time was women, blacks, poor, indians and many others were not "person"s and killing them was acceptable as well. As each group progresses to person hood they do so on the back of the next.

It's just the human-fetus has very little money to spend on lobbying efforts.

having a child is to my mind one of the most selfish acts an individual can engage in.

you don't know do you... there actually ARE lots of resources on this planet.. more resources than we can exploit with 10billion people... more land, food, energy and air than is necessary for 100billion people.

Sure we need to be environmentally minded as we go about our growth, but everyone could live in a "Texas" metro-plex and be fed by just half of the bred-basket of the US... with proper planing and controls.

The point being that more people does nothing but increase the quality of life for everyone.

You left out - have the baby and let the state pay for it. That's the other option which has even less accountability.

but an outcome of more life, life with potential... life that is much more likely to add to society than take from it.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: sao123

Take birth control or just dont have sex.

Agree.
A ton of the problems we see now in society are because people are not being held accountable for their actions. Can't run your business ? Here is some money. Bought a home with bad terms ? It wasn't your fault. Get pregnant because you were not prepared ? You can always get an abortion.

I was raised with the understanding that your actions have consequences.

And having an abortion is the consequence ones actions, one that won't cost us taxpayers out the ying yang to support.