• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Pro Life or Pro Choice?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Pro Life or Pro Choice?

  • I'm Pro Life

  • I'm Pro Choice

Results are only viewable after voting.
What is more evil: a lifetime of poverty, violence, and malnutrition, or no life at all?

More to the point: anyone who has studied the problem not only of climate change but also the problems of industrial agriculture, of GMO crops, of the massive shit storms that occur as a result of large scale cattle cultivation, the destruction of fisheries, has to realize that it is incredibly irresponsible to just rely on the magic "technology will save us" genie.
 
karmypolitics said:
What is more evil: a lifetime of poverty, violence, and malnutrition, or no life at all?

More to the point: anyone who has studied the problem not only of climate change but also the problems of industrial agriculture, of GMO crops, of the massive shit storms that occur as a result of large scale cattle cultivation, the destruction of fisheries, has to realize that it is incredibly irresponsible to just rely on the magic "technology will save us" genie.
Click to expand...

I think most pro-life people believe in the magic god will save us genie. They are too stupid to be responsible for this shinning jewel of a planet and therefore we are doomed.
 
karmypolitics said:
What is more evil: a lifetime of poverty, violence, and malnutrition, or no life at all?
Click to expand...
How is "no life" evil? You can't feel bad about a state of non-existence. There are virtually infinite potential combinations of the human genome; the vast majority of these will never exist. Should we shed a tear for every possible DNA sequence that won't have an opportunity to experience life?
 
If I woke up one day to find out there was something living inside me that I didn't want living inside me, I enjoy the right to decide to remove it from my body, because it is my body. Everyone enjoys this same right, and any man that seeks to deny that same right to women by adovcating the denial of their rights to choose to terminate their own pregnancies is an ignorant, bigoted hypocrite. Period.
 
On one hand I believe it's a women's body to do whatever the hell she wants with it. On the other hand, I think it's absolutely wrong to be using abortion as a form of birth control. I've dated a couple women who claimed to have abortions just because "the time wasn't right", I couldn't help but feel a bit of disgust
 
kage69 said:
Pro choice. Women are the ultimate authorities on their own bodies, period. End of story.

Doesn't mean I approve of late term abortions though. In fact, I'm more pro-BC than anything, so that "choice" doesn't have to be made to begin with.
Click to expand...


So much this. all of it.
 
soulcougher73 said:
Yes, BUT one involves a personal choice and one takes away someone's personal choice. Pretty clear which one is superior.
Click to expand...

Is it EVER right to kill one human for the actions committed by another human, actions the human you wish to kill had nothing to do with?

Abortion says yes, the innocent should be killed for the actions of the guilty.
 
cybrsage said:
Is it EVER right to kill one human for the actions committed by another human, actions the human you wish to kill had nothing to do with?

Abortion says yes, the innocent should be killed for the actions of the guilty.
Click to expand...
Abortion proponents typically say that a fetus is not yet a human, so the semantics about killing a human don't enter into it. You can argue that life begins at conception, but you're not going to be speaking on the same terms as supporters of abortion, so your argument won't make any sense to them, just like an abortion supporter arguing that a fetus isn't human doesn't make sense to you. It's a fundamental divide that no amount of semantics will bridge.
 
Cerpin Taxt said:
If I woke up one day to find out there was something living inside me that I didn't want living inside me, I enjoy the right to decide to remove it from my body, because it is my body. Everyone enjoys this same right, and any man that seeks to deny that same right to women by adovcating the denial of their rights to choose to terminate their own pregnancies is an ignorant, bigoted hypocrite. Period.
Click to expand...

What do you think should be done on your own behalf to keep these "ignorant bigots" from infringing on your rights?

I am asking because it isn't the choice of the "something living inside you" to be living inside you. So, why kill it?

Why not try to prevent something from happening "inside you" that you don't want inside you?
 
Rob M. said:
You answered your own questions.

I was going to say just that - it depends on what's defined as a human, IMHO. Not sure I am right, though.
Click to expand...

A human is the a member of the species homo sapiens sapiens (since all others are extinct, we can limit it to just our species). A human during any stage of human development is always a human...in other words, we are never a different species, we are always human.

A human BEING, though, is a human who has already been born...an individual member of the human species. Until birth, the being is still a human, just not a human being.

Civil rights and liberties start to be applied once a human becomes a human being and are slowly gained as that human being ages (rights given depends on age and other laws of each country).
 
alzan said:
Obviously I'm not talking about someone kicking the pregnant woman's abdomen.

The potential life is inside the woman's body. If her body caused the fertilized egg to exit from the uterus or caused a first trimester miscarriage, then she should be just as responsible and accountable as an abortion provider.

Not trying to derail the thread; just looking for a little consistency from the percentage of pro-lifer's who believe abortion providers are murderers.
Click to expand...

It is a good point to bring up. If the miscarriage is caused by nature it should be treated no differently than if someone dies in your house by natural causes. Nature does what nature does and we either need to gain control over it or accept it as no one's fault.

The goal of an abortion is the death of a human. The goal of a pregnancy is the birth of a human. A natural miscarriage causes the death of a human, but it is not the goal of the pregnancy, it is just one of those things that happens naturally from time to time. It sucks, but it just is what it is.


IMO, if the life of the mother is at risk (or SERIOUS health issues - stretch marks are not serious health issues), then the fetus should be removed and all attempts should be made to have the now human being (due to being born alive) survive. If the baby dies, the baby dies. It happens...but it should not be the GOAL of medicine to kill humans. The goal should be to save lives, not take them.
 
cybrsage said:
Civil rights and liberties start to be applied once a human becomes a human being and are slowly gained as that human being ages (rights given depends on age and other laws of each country).
Click to expand...


exactly.


:hmm:

doesn't this completely reject your stance on this issue? Or do you not recognize that fact?
 
Rob M. said:
Just fyi, I am not putting it on lawmakers to ban abortions. My stance is that the person(s) involved should have a shred of respect for life by either keeping the child if sex results in one, or show some personal responsibility to take all measures possible to prevent pregnancy (non-abortive forms) if they don't want children.
Click to expand...

What if they do take all preventative measure to prevent it? Say she is on BC, the guy got the snip and uses condoms...AND she still gets prego? I mean whats the point of being responsible trying to prevent something you dont want and then having to keep the thing you didnt want in the first place?
 
Rob M. said:
What do you think should be done on your own behalf to keep these "ignorant bigots" from infringing on your rights?

I am asking because it isn't the choice of the "something living inside you" to be living inside you. So, why kill it?

Why not try to prevent something from happening "inside you" that you don't want inside you?
Click to expand...

what if it wasn't her choice to be raped and made preggo, either?
 
Atomic Playboy said:
Abortion proponents typically say that a fetus is not yet a human, so the semantics about killing a human don't enter into it. You can argue that life begins at conception, but you're not going to be speaking on the same terms as supporters of abortion, so your argument won't make any sense to them, just like an abortion supporter arguing that a fetus isn't human doesn't make sense to you. It's a fundamental divide that no amount of semantics will bridge.
Click to expand...

They are wrong, and easily proven so. The fetus is certainly alive. While we do not have a full definition of life, we all agree that a self replicating biological life form is alive. The fetus is certainly human - since humans do not start out as another species and turn into a human.

I have yet had anyone explain what species a human starts out as before it becomes a human. ALL life forms are classified into a species. In order to successfully argue the fetus is not human, one has to show what species it is.

Those who claim the fetus is not a human are simply ignoring reality...or they are confusing human BEING with human.

A fetus is simply one stage of human development and as such is no different than zygote, infant, toddler, teenager, adult, enderly, etc.
 
zinfamous said:
exactly.


:hmm:

doesn't this completely reject your stance on this issue? Or do you not recognize that fact?
Click to expand...

Nope. I can understand that it is not illegal to kill an innocent human for the actions committed by a different human while finding it repugnant to do so.
 
Atomic Playboy said:
Abortion proponents typically say that a fetus is not yet a human, so the semantics about killing a human don't enter into it. You can argue that life begins at conception, but you're not going to be speaking on the same terms as supporters of abortion, so your argument won't make any sense to them, just like an abortion supporter arguing that a fetus isn't human doesn't make sense to you. It's a fundamental divide that no amount of semantics will bridge.
Click to expand...

This is basically the answer i would have given you Cybersage. 🙂
 
Rob M. said:
Still looking over the info I found, but as long as those pill doesn't kill a fertilized egg (non-abortive), I'm all for using it. If it kills off sperm (non-abortive), I'd use it. Just to give you an answer.
Click to expand...

I've included part of my response to another poster as a clarification of my position.

"Most couples looking to get pregnant don't get a fertilized egg attaching to the uterine wall on the first shot (pun not intended). There are many factors that determine whether or not the fertilized egg attaches correctly and remains there for nine months. Getting pregnant via intercourse only works correctly 50% - 70% of the time. Multiply that by the number of couples across the world trying to get pregnant and you'll see that's a whole bunch of potential human beings not coming to fruition."

The other part that's more of a reply to your partial statement above is that, IMO, a fertilized egg or developing fetus, until they reach a certain stage of development are a potential human being, not a human being. A clump of dividing/growing cells is not a human being; in the same way that a partially germinated acorn is not an oak tree.

Like we agreed before; education, meaningful discussion and, IMO, unrestricted availability of morning-after and Plan B pills and other BC methods will eliminate the need for ~60% - 70% or greater of abortions now occurring.
 
soulcougher73 said:
What if they do take all preventative measure to prevent it? Say she is on BC, the guy got the snip and uses condoms...AND she still gets prego? I mean whats the point of being responsible trying to prevent something you dont want and then having to keep the thing you didnt want in the first place?
Click to expand...

Well, deal with it. That's how life is. There is an effect behind every single thing we do no matter how careful we are. Nothing's perfect.. EXCEPT.. NOT having sex when it comes to this (outside, again, of extreme circumstances which we've talked about). That's the only way to ensure you don't get pregnant.

I've accepted that, and so have many others.

The point of sex is first to re-produce.. so if we are having sex at all, it won't be super easy to prevent pregnancy.
 
cybrsage said:
The goal of an abortion is the death of a human. The goal of a pregnancy is the birth of a human. A natural miscarriage causes the death of a human, but it is not the goal of the pregnancy, it is just one of those things that happens naturally from time to time. It sucks, but it just is what it is.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't this warrant investigations of miscarriages? So one could determine if there was malicious intent on the part of some agent?

Do we have the ability to discern natural causes with regards to the pre-being stages of human development?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top