Pro-lifers, please explain this to me

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Moonie, even slaves chose to live out their slavery over taking their own life. And their slavery lasted a lifetime, not simply 9 months. Slavery imposed on us by nature, whether it is bearing a parasite or existing in this facade of a world, is generally more bearable than slavery imposed on us by our peers.

Having to raise a child you don't want could demolish your entire life. What if you wanted to go to college and focus on your career? What if having a child you couldn't afford to have condemned you to poverty? (It's one of the reasons why poor people continue to remain poor and cannot advance economically.)

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
I don't consider this a question of religious belief but of practical start-of-life. Most people, religious or not, consider life to be sacrosanct. I consider life to start at point of conception because that's when you have unique DNA. It's enough to convict a felon. It's enough to call "life on Mars!". It's therefore enough to identify a unique human being. Once you have a unique set of DNA, I think you have a unique human being with rights.

Don't animals also have unique DNA? Couldn't it be argued that a fully grown adult cat with a brain is a higher form of life than a 16-celled human embryo that doesn't have a brain?

I completely understand those who consider the start-of-life to be at first breath. I expect that, though they disagree, they also understand me, who considers start-of-life to be at initial DNA. I would hope we could have mutual respect, even through we wage an opposite political campaign for rights.

I just want folks of your ilk to admit that their view on abortion is based on religious faith. I've debated this subject for years and consider myself to be somewhat of an expert on it. Invariably, the opponents of abortion will twist themselves into rhetorical pretzels to keep from admitting that their belief is based on religious faith and not reason and logic.

 

[Ballatician]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
My question for those who oppose abortion even in the case of rape:

Would you be willing to pay additional taxes--only those of you who believe that abortion should be illegal even in the case of rape--to compensate victims of rape who get pregnant? Since you are basically forcing your religious beliefs onto another person at gunpoint, would you be willing to pay a woman for the use of her body for nine months in addition to a tremendous amount of compensation for pain and anguish? Also, would you be willing to pay all of the costs (and any additional needed compensation) of raising these unwanted children? What I have in mind is, say, $1 million for each victim plus a couple hundred thousand more for any women who choose to raise the unwanted children.

A pro-abortion atheist like myself wouldn't have to pay any additional taxes, rather, what I envision is that the opponents of abortion even in the case of rape should be the ones made to foot the bill and pay for their religious beliefs.

Would you guys be willing to support a policy like that--one that makes you pay for the costs of your religious beliefs? I would be willing to join a pool of taxpayers paying for taxpayer funded abortions (since I know that the result would probably be a net tax savings for me in addition to other savings (lower population, less crime, etc.)).

Yes. It's the equivalent of asking me, with a gun to a child's head, if I would pay everything I owned to save that child's life. And that answer would also be yes.

I don't consider this a question of religious belief but of practical start-of-life. Most people, religious or not, consider life to be sacrosanct. I consider life to start at point of conception because that's when you have unique DNA. It's enough to convict a felon. It's enough to call "life on Mars!". It's therefore enough to identify a unique human being. Once you have a unique set of DNA, I think you have a unique human being with rights.

I completely understand those who consider the start-of-life to be at first breath. I expect that, though they disagree, they also understand me, who considers start-of-life to be at initial DNA. I would hope we could have mutual respect, even through we wage an opposite political campaign for rights.

Well said, especially the last part. You've obviously thought quite a lot about this.

Mutual respect is important even though people may disagree about the exact moment a fetus is given rights.

I feel that is why pro-choice makes more sense. Leave the decision up to the people. Someone who is pro-life can choose not to have one without forcing other people to adhere to their own beliefs. If abortions are banned then there is only one choice and it's as if any disagreement is being squashed. We don't have to agree on everything, let individuals make their own decisions.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
I don't consider this a question of religious belief but of practical start-of-life. Most people, religious or not, consider life to be sacrosanct. I consider life to start at point of conception because that's when you have unique DNA. It's enough to convict a felon. It's enough to call "life on Mars!". It's therefore enough to identify a unique human being. Once you have a unique set of DNA, I think you have a unique human being with rights.

Don't animals also have unique DNA? Couldn't it be argued that a fully grown adult cat with a brain is a higher form of life than a 16-celled human embryo that doesn't have a brain?

I completely understand those who consider the start-of-life to be at first breath. I expect that, though they disagree, they also understand me, who considers start-of-life to be at initial DNA. I would hope we could have mutual respect, even through we wage an opposite political campaign for rights.

I just want folks of your ilk to admit that their view on abortion is based on religious faith. I've debated this subject for years and consider myself to be somewhat of an expert on it. Invariably, the opponents of abortion will twist themselves into rhetorical pretzels to keep from admitting that their belief is based on religious faith and not reason and logic.

It is the source of the absolutism, the belief that their OPINION is also the opinion of God and that therefore they have divine blessing to impose that OPINION on others. It is the arrogance of bigoted, intolerant, inflexible, certainty that they and God think alike that binds these folk to their belief. To them, you are a mere secular humanist, a pawn of evil, over and against their divine truth. It is His will they impose on the world that makes their OPINION bigger than life. It is the manifestation of arrogance and ego, the very thing real religious belief is supposed to kill. I know Gods law and I can tell you what to do. I am the force of good, it says so right here in this book.

Take your fucking book and apply it to your own life and keep your fucking book out of mine. That's separation of church and state. And the reason for that is that in MY BOOK, the ONE AND ONLY REAL, REAL BOOK, you religious bastards should be aborted right now. So if you psychopaths keep pushing your agenda on us REAL BELIEVERS WHO KNOW THE REAL TRUE RELIGION, we're going to start applying our law on you.

What is it about a mirror that makes a person look so ugly?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
As soon as truth is absolute you face paradox. You absolutely can't enslave people and you can't kill people. You can't be pro life without being pro slavery and visa versa. The answer all practical people have realized is that truth is not absolute when it creates irreconcilable conflicts. Intelligent people have therefore declared that the fetus is not a person even though to an absolutist it is.

The virtue of pro life leads to the monstrosity of slavery but fanatics don't really care.

Moonie, even slaves chose to live out their slavery over taking their own life. And their slavery lasted a lifetime, not simply 9 months. Slavery imposed on us by nature, whether it is bearing a parasite or existing in this facade of a world, is generally more bearable than slavery imposed on us by our peers.

Cheers !

You are trying to impose slavery by peers. Our brains and our medical skills free us from nature. Look carefully at how up side down you are.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I'm Pro Choice, I hope the choice is life but the choice is not mine to make.

Agreed 100%, I think it's the logical position to take. Make your own decision based on your values, let others make theirs.

+1

Abortion should be safe, rare and legal.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: zeruty

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I'm Pro Choice, I hope the choice is life but the choice is not mine to make.

I pro-life. I just don't think it's the governments place to make laws regarding personal decisions. That's why Roe V Wade should be overturned, to place it back at the discretion of the state. I'd actually prefer to have each state have a vote among their citizens.

However, it is MY choice to consider woman who choose to use abortion as a form of birth control as discusting, vile, evil monsters.


I suppose really, I'm pro-choice. I am all for the woman's choice whether to have unprotected sex. That really is her choice. Being raped however, wasn't her choice, and in that case.. it's less reprehensible to choose abortion.

As for situations where the mother's life is threatened... in situations for example, where the mother already has children who depend on her, I would definitely support the choice to terminate.
If married however, I think the father of the child should have some say too... like if I were married, my wife was in labor, and for whatever reason she'd die unless the baby was terminated, and my wife chose to keep the baby and give up her own life... I'd be very upset if I wasn't part of that decision.

I don't think you'd find many people who would do that...if any. I sure as hell wouldn't allow my wife to make that choice and I'd seriously question her sanity if she did.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I am firmly Pro-Choice, this is my belief as a moral person and as a Father.

I sure as hell wouldn't allow my wife to make that choice

Seems that her choice isn't after all.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I go with the science, a pre-week 25 fetus is as brain dead as a born human that is clinically dead.

That's where i draw the line and i do it for that very reason.

I'm just curious though, how would a nation ensure that women did not get an abortion if it was outlawed? Lock her up?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I'm Pro Choice, I hope the choice is life but the choice is not mine to make.

I couldn't have said it better myself, in the end it is the womans choice to make and it's her right to make that choice because it's her body. Personally i don't give a shit what she chooses though as long as it's pre-week 25.

In REALITY, that is as simple as it is and i am aware of no constitution of no country in the first world that would allow either the state or fundamentalists to have any say so what so ever regarding any womans body.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I'm Pro Choice, I hope the choice is life but the choice is not mine to make.

I couldn't have said it better myself, in the end it is the womans choice to make and it's her right to make that choice because it's her body. Personally i don't give a shit what she chooses though as long as it's pre-week 25.

In REALITY, that is as simple as it is and i am aware of no constitution of no country in the first world that would allow either the state or fundamentalists to have any say so what so ever regarding any womans body.

Because it's settled in your mind it isn't in everyone's. There is no hard and fast rule as to when someone becomes a person. Therefore if you believe that the mark starts before you say then it's effectively murder. There's doubt in most peoples minds though, even if they are pro-life, so the vast majority don't believe in prison. That does not mean they believe it's right though. In your country a few years ago a British medical ethicist came out with this:

it was not "plausible to think there is any moral change that occurs during the journey down the birth canal". He questioned whether there was any moral difference between infanticide and a late abortion in the event of severe brain damage.

I hardly need to point out where one can run with that.

So what makes it right and wrong? The majority viewpoint. If most people believe that abortion is murder, then it's murder. If they believe otherwise then it's not. Right now there is no social consensus, so we have the current situation.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: winnar111
A new poll conducted jointly by CBS News and the New York Times finds just 31 percent agree with Barack Obama's position in favor of abortion throughout pregnancy. A majority of Americans say they support John McCain's pro-life position or want greater limits on abortions.

The first asked if they believe abortions "should be generally available to those who want it," "under stricter limits than it is now," or if abortions should "not be permitted."

Just 37 percent sided with Obama's position that unlimited abortions should be generally available where as 61 percent said abortions should not be permitted or subject to greater limits.

A second question broke down the abortion views further and just 31 percent agreed with Obama that abortions should be "permitted in all cases."

A much higher 47 percent sided with McCain's pro-life views and said abortions should only be allowed in cases of rape, incest or to pro-life the life of the mother; in only the latter case, or not at all.

Another 19 percent disagreed with Obama and said abortions should be subjected to greater restrictions than they are now.

Please show us a reliable quote where Obama says he's in favor of unlimited abortions, regardless of the stage of gestation.

Stop lying.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: zeruty

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I'm Pro Choice, I hope the choice is life but the choice is not mine to make.

I pro-life. I just don't think it's the governments place to make laws regarding personal decisions. That's why Roe V Wade should be overturned, to place it back at the discretion of the state. I'd actually prefer to have each state have a vote among their citizens.

However, it is MY choice to consider woman who choose to use abortion as a form of birth control as discusting, vile, evil monsters.


I suppose really, I'm pro-choice. I am all for the woman's choice whether to have unprotected sex. That really is her choice. Being raped however, wasn't her choice, and in that case.. it's less reprehensible to choose abortion.

As for situations where the mother's life is threatened... in situations for example, where the mother already has children who depend on her, I would definitely support the choice to terminate.
If married however, I think the father of the child should have some say too... like if I were married, my wife was in labor, and for whatever reason she'd die unless the baby was terminated, and my wife chose to keep the baby and give up her own life... I'd be very upset if I wasn't part of that decision.

I couldnt have said it better.

If that's true, you're as confused as zeruty.

Zeruty says personal decisions shouldn't be within the purview of governments. And then in the next sentence he tells us how state governments should make laws regarding personal decisions. The fact that the state laws would be a consequence of how the majority voted is irrelevant, as state governments would still be making laws regarding personal decisions.

 

[marvdmartian]

Johnjohn, the ultra-conservative pro-lifers will tell you that there's no exceptions to abortions, they should all be illegal.

Most conservatives, however, tend not to be quite so far to the right, and will understand that there's times when a woman is in no way responsible for the pregnancy, and shouldn't be held responsible for the fetus within her. Trust me, the conservative types would still like to see her carry the baby to term, and then put it up for adoption if she doesn't want it.

However, the vast majority of abortions, I'd be willing to bet, are not happening after rapes or cases of incest. They're more likely due to women who were too lazy/forgetful/ignorant to use contraceptives, and got pregnant "by mistake". I actually know a young woman here who was still (occasionally) breast feeding her second child when she got pregnant with her third. When I asked her why she wasn't taking birth control to hold off a while before she got pregnant again, she told me she didn't think she could get pregnant.....because she was breast feeding!!

There's a lot of people that would use abortion to replace responsibility. Those are the ones I have a problem with.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
I don't consider this a question of religious belief but of practical start-of-life. Most people, religious or not, consider life to be sacrosanct. I consider life to start at point of conception because that's when you have unique DNA. It's enough to convict a felon. It's enough to call "life on Mars!". It's therefore enough to identify a unique human being. Once you have a unique set of DNA, I think you have a unique human being with rights.

Don't animals also have unique DNA? Couldn't it be argued that a fully grown adult cat with a brain is a higher form of life than a 16-celled human embryo that doesn't have a brain?

I completely understand those who consider the start-of-life to be at first breath. I expect that, though they disagree, they also understand me, who considers start-of-life to be at initial DNA. I would hope we could have mutual respect, even through we wage an opposite political campaign for rights.

I just want folks of your ilk to admit that their view on abortion is based on religious faith. I've debated this subject for years and consider myself to be somewhat of an expert on it. Invariably, the opponents of abortion will twist themselves into rhetorical pretzels to keep from admitting that their belief is based on religious faith and not reason and logic.

I'm an atheist and I'm "pro life" (though I hate the terms "pro life" and "pro choice" as I think they are inaccurate and misleading). So there goes your theory...

 

[Ballatician]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I'm Pro Choice, I hope the choice is life but the choice is not mine to make.

I couldn't have said it better myself, in the end it is the womans choice to make and it's her right to make that choice because it's her body. Personally i don't give a shit what she chooses though as long as it's pre-week 25.

In REALITY, that is as simple as it is and i am aware of no constitution of no country in the first world that would allow either the state or fundamentalists to have any say so what so ever regarding any womans body.

Because it's settled in your mind it isn't in everyone's. There is no hard and fast rule as to when someone becomes a person. Therefore if you believe that the mark starts before you say then it's effectively murder. There's doubt in most peoples minds though, even if they are pro-life, so the vast majority don't believe in prison. That does not mean they believe it's right though. In your country a few years ago a British medical ethicist came out with this:

it was not "plausible to think there is any moral change that occurs during the journey down the birth canal". He questioned whether there was any moral difference between infanticide and a late abortion in the event of severe brain damage.

I hardly need to point out where one can run with that.

So what makes it right and wrong? The majority viewpoint. If most people believe that abortion is murder, then it's murder. If they believe otherwise then it's not. Right now there is no social consensus, so we have the current situation.

True there is no hard and fast rule but I believe what he is going by is the clinical definition of death which is zero brain activity which is the state the fetus is in before week 25.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Ballatician

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I'm Pro Choice, I hope the choice is life but the choice is not mine to make.

I couldn't have said it better myself, in the end it is the womans choice to make and it's her right to make that choice because it's her body. Personally i don't give a shit what she chooses though as long as it's pre-week 25.

In REALITY, that is as simple as it is and i am aware of no constitution of no country in the first world that would allow either the state or fundamentalists to have any say so what so ever regarding any womans body.

Because it's settled in your mind it isn't in everyone's. There is no hard and fast rule as to when someone becomes a person. Therefore if you believe that the mark starts before you say then it's effectively murder. There's doubt in most peoples minds though, even if they are pro-life, so the vast majority don't believe in prison. That does not mean they believe it's right though. In your country a few years ago a British medical ethicist came out with this:

it was not "plausible to think there is any moral change that occurs during the journey down the birth canal". He questioned whether there was any moral difference between infanticide and a late abortion in the event of severe brain damage.

I hardly need to point out where one can run with that.

So what makes it right and wrong? The majority viewpoint. If most people believe that abortion is murder, then it's murder. If they believe otherwise then it's not. Right now there is no social consensus, so we have the current situation.

True there is no hard and fast rule but I believe what he is going by is the clinical definition of death which is zero brain activity which is the state the fetus is in before week 25.

I understand his criteria. If everyone had the same then this discussion wouldn't be happening. I was just saying that there's reasons why the debate exists. It's not going away, and since there are people on both sides who are extreme (and vocal) it isn't going to be resolved any time soon.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I'm Pro Choice, I hope the choice is life but the choice is not mine to make.

I couldn't have said it better myself, in the end it is the womans choice to make and it's her right to make that choice because it's her body. Personally i don't give a shit what she chooses though as long as it's pre-week 25.

In REALITY, that is as simple as it is and i am aware of no constitution of no country in the first world that would allow either the state or fundamentalists to have any say so what so ever regarding any womans body.

Because it's settled in your mind it isn't in everyone's. There is no hard and fast rule as to when someone becomes a person. Therefore if you believe that the mark starts before you say then it's effectively murder. There's doubt in most peoples minds though, even if they are pro-life, so the vast majority don't believe in prison. That does not mean they believe it's right though. In your country a few years ago a British medical ethicist came out with this:

it was not "plausible to think there is any moral change that occurs during the journey down the birth canal". He questioned whether there was any moral difference between infanticide and a late abortion in the event of severe brain damage.

I hardly need to point out where one can run with that.

So what makes it right and wrong? The majority viewpoint. If most people believe that abortion is murder, then it's murder. If they believe otherwise then it's not. Right now there is no social consensus, so we have the current situation.

Why would you, my friend, just ignore everything i said and then include an opinion that has absolutely nothing to do with anything i said?

What the FUCK is your point?

SCIENCE deems when a brain functions, that is not something that is even FUCKING up for discussion, and if you were as braindead as a pre-week 25 fetus, you'd be fucking dead, that is not MY OPINION, that is the fucking way it is.

It either is or it isn't, when it comes to brain function and life, it's never maybe.

 

[KIRBYEE]

I love you John. You bring joy to my heart. :heart::sun:

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: KIRBYEE
I love you John. You bring joy to my heart. :heart::sun:

I want to nuke Pakistan.

Is that enough to get you off my butt?

 

[KIRBYEE]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: KIRBYEE
I love you John. You bring joy to my heart. :heart::sun:

I want to nuke Pakistan.

Is that enough to get you off my butt?

Your butt is mine.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Ballatician

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I'm Pro Choice, I hope the choice is life but the choice is not mine to make.

I couldn't have said it better myself, in the end it is the womans choice to make and it's her right to make that choice because it's her body. Personally i don't give a shit what she chooses though as long as it's pre-week 25.

In REALITY, that is as simple as it is and i am aware of no constitution of no country in the first world that would allow either the state or fundamentalists to have any say so what so ever regarding any womans body.

Because it's settled in your mind it isn't in everyone's. There is no hard and fast rule as to when someone becomes a person. Therefore if you believe that the mark starts before you say then it's effectively murder. There's doubt in most peoples minds though, even if they are pro-life, so the vast majority don't believe in prison. That does not mean they believe it's right though. In your country a few years ago a British medical ethicist came out with this:

it was not "plausible to think there is any moral change that occurs during the journey down the birth canal". He questioned whether there was any moral difference between infanticide and a late abortion in the event of severe brain damage.

I hardly need to point out where one can run with that.

So what makes it right and wrong? The majority viewpoint. If most people believe that abortion is murder, then it's murder. If they believe otherwise then it's not. Right now there is no social consensus, so we have the current situation.

True there is no hard and fast rule but I believe what he is going by is the clinical definition of death which is zero brain activity which is the state the fetus is in before week 25.

I understand his criteria. If everyone had the same then this discussion wouldn't be happening. I was just saying that there's reasons why the debate exists. It's not going away, and since there are people on both sides who are extreme (and vocal) it isn't going to be resolved any time soon.

I understand it too, religious people who want to pick and choose their parts out of the old testament picked that one part where God breathes life into the baby at the time of conception.

The problem is that no one will concede that that is their general issue and therefore impossible to institute in law.

Unfortunantly, these debates goes on and on and on because they are lying scumbags (and a lie is a sin, no sin is greater than any other but they don't buy their own religion) who really couldn't care less about babies, they REALLY don't give a fuck about the babies, it's just their church telling them what to do and that is IT.

If you were to ask me... well, we don't have these discussions, that a woman has a right to her own body is obvious in our "police state" and in every "socialist communist pinko country" in Europe.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: KIRBYEE

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: KIRBYEE
I love you John. You bring joy to my heart. :heart::sun:

I want to nuke Pakistan.

Is that enough to get you off my butt?

Your butt is mine.

*spanks KIRBEE's butt*

Now go away!

 

[Acanthus]

Pro Choice.

Theres enough people in the world.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I'm Pro Choice, I hope the choice is life but the choice is not mine to make.

I couldn't have said it better myself, in the end it is the womans choice to make and it's her right to make that choice because it's her body. Personally i don't give a shit what she chooses though as long as it's pre-week 25.

In REALITY, that is as simple as it is and i am aware of no constitution of no country in the first world that would allow either the state or fundamentalists to have any say so what so ever regarding any womans body.

Because it's settled in your mind it isn't in everyone's. There is no hard and fast rule as to when someone becomes a person. Therefore if you believe that the mark starts before you say then it's effectively murder. There's doubt in most peoples minds though, even if they are pro-life, so the vast majority don't believe in prison. That does not mean they believe it's right though. In your country a few years ago a British medical ethicist came out with this:

it was not "plausible to think there is any moral change that occurs during the journey down the birth canal". He questioned whether there was any moral difference between infanticide and a late abortion in the event of severe brain damage.

I hardly need to point out where one can run with that.

So what makes it right and wrong? The majority viewpoint. If most people believe that abortion is murder, then it's murder. If they believe otherwise then it's not. Right now there is no social consensus, so we have the current situation.

Why would you, my friend, just ignore everything i said and then include an opinion that has absolutely nothing to do with anything i said?

What the FUCK is your point?

SCIENCE deems when a brain functions, that is not something that is even FUCKING up for discussion, and if you were as braindead as a pre-week 25 fetus, you'd be fucking dead, that is not MY OPINION, that is the fucking way it is.

It either is or it isn't, when it comes to brain function and life, it's never maybe.

Well to be as colorful my fucking point is that not everyone agrees that your criteria is THE one to be used. I understand it, and I personally haven't an issue with how you go about it. It isn't fucking about fucking me. It also isn't about fucking you. It's about a debate in this country you may find illogical but it exists nevertheless. I was doing you the courtesy of offering a rational explanation about how irrational people view things. A counter argument to your point is that while the fetus will come out of that "coma", someone who has had a round put into their brain liquefying part of it isn't.

Like I said, this isn't my point, but it does come into discussion.