Home - List All Discussions

Help me with my Essay!

by: muffin

I am writing an essay on abortion and I am a little stuck for information. I would like someone to give me a general view on prolife and prochoice, and if someone would kindly explain why they think one or the other is better. I am trying to write this essay from a prochoice point of view, but I cannot back it up with out knowing the other side. Could someone please help? Thank you.
P.S. I am not looking to make anyone mad or have mean things said on this thread, I am simply looking for information.

reply from: muffin

I would like to know what you guys think of this paragraph.
The key issue in this context is that a fetus has no right to be inside the body of another human being, because no such right exists. Yet, this is the only kind of 'right' it requires to exist. To grant the fetus such a right, would make its host - the pregnant mother - a slave. Slavery is not a right.
Muffun

reply from: yoda

Welcome to the forum, muffin.
Sadly, you have opened your discussion here with what is probably the weakest of all the probabykilling arguments.
Nature (or God) defines the human reproductive process, there is no compromise possible. Every single human that is alive today or has ever been alive has gone through that process, there are no exceptions to it. No gestating human has any control over any part of it. No question of "rights" with regard to this process is therefore legitimate.
The injection of slavery into this debate is ironic, since no fetus can be considered a slave owner, nor in any way directs it's mother. However, the mother is analagous to a slave owner, in that she has explicit governement permission to kill her baby, much like slave owners of the past killed their slaves without any legal repercussion. Indeed, many probabykilling advocates claim that the mother "owns" her baby, or even that the baby is merely a part of her body.
It is a question of an all powerful entity (the mother) against a totally powerless and defenseless entity (the baby). Power usually wins, and the baby usually dies when the mother wants it to die.

reply from: Sigma

You are right the fetus has no right to be where it is. Equal rights would not grant it this power. However, using slavery is unnecessary and provocative. That disallowing abortion infringes and/or violates her rights would be enough.

reply from: yoda

Didn't the mother have the "equal right" to exist in her mother's womb? Is that not "equal rights"?
Is there any other way for two humans to both have the (equal) right to gestate and live their lives?

reply from: Sigma

Everyone has the equal right to gestate at the sufferance of the body they are attached to.

reply from: danib

Originally posted by: Sigma
You are right the fetus has no right to be where it is.
Wow. What a cold thing to say. Where does it have a right to be?

reply from: yoda

Okay. That's pretty much true, regardless of the legal status of abortion.
Now that we've established the reality of the situation, what is the moral justification for killing a baby?

reply from: yoda

In the incinerator, according to the probabykilling advocates.

reply from: Sigma

Given that the fetus cannot survive outside the woman's body during the time frame the vast majority of abortions are performed, this is a moot point.

reply from: AshMarie88

I am pro-life, muffin. I believe EVERYONE, viable or nonviable, dependant or independant, should have the right to live the life that was given to them, and not have their life taken away before they have the chance to grow, learn, play, have their own family, etc.
Abortion just mutilates the human inside the mother... If you think about it, would you do that to a newborn, or a human that does not look like a human? It doesn't make sense, then, to do it to the other most innocent of the human race.

reply from: MaleNurse

"Rights" is just word people have loosely created to assert an entitlement. The entity that assigns such "entitlements" and the authority of that entity is one debate issue.
A) Man/WoMan
B) Government
C) God/church
D) Nature/science
Each of these extends "rights" in a different manner.
You will have to decide and support in your essay the parameters to which each of these entities defines the "entitlee".
(I would suggest you make it easy on yourself and go with the pro-life angle)
The Pro-life community believes that life begins at conception. Cellular/metabolic/anabolic activity is well underway. Although very small, the embryo, is "alive" The pro-life community believes that a) being "alive" makes you an "entitlee" and b) what the embryo is entitled to is life and c) This fundamental entitlement supercedes any other entitlments the mother has.
The law of nature has already pre-ordained that woman matches up with carrying a fetus. It is absurd to believe that this is somehow a slavery relationship.
The whole bit about "reproductive rights" begins with the decision to have sex, later, with what type of contraceptive methods to use, and ultimately reproductive rights ENDS at conception when sperm meets egg. At that point the law of nature extends the right to life to the developing embyo, and the right to motherhood to the uterus owner.
Good luck!

reply from: yoda

Given that the fetus cannot survive outside the woman's body during the time frame the vast majority of abortions are performed, this is a moot point.
How fascinating!
Now, if we said that where you had a right to be was a "moot point", what would that mean?
Would that not mean that you were as good as dead?

reply from: yoda

Excellent summation, MaleNurse. And the fact that "rights" eminate from different sources explains the reason for the qualitative differences between various rights, as well.

reply from: MaleNurse

I don't think it's a moot point.
The answer to the question is: The only place it CAN be. And that would be in MOMA's uterus. The time period is the "moot" part. Location is unrelated to time. (unless you're heading this toward quatum physics)
With regard to the issue of "rights" I think this is critical to acknowledge the fetuses ONLY right is to be alive in the uterus.
Consider all the rights people are given by nature outside the uterus. The condition necessary to obtain the rights is that they are out of the uterus. In the uterus. you don't get many rights. In fact the only one nature gives is to live and grow. Anything outside this natural order is driven by man. In this instance Man/woMAN place there will above natural law and order. And that doesn't fly.
The will of man is imperfect, and subject to corruption. The will of man could never produce better judgement than natures laws. So if we're going with "rights" extended by natures law. Nature wins. And that'd be 1 point for the pro-life debate!
I have to confess as Yoda knows this thought stems from a previous thread.

reply from: muffin

Wow, I cannot believe how many people replied to this so quickly. I realize I opened this discussion with a prochoice point, I read it on another website and noticed most of you in this chat room his prolife. I wanted to hear what you had so say about it, which was alot.
Thank you for replying, it is greatly appreciated.
I have one question I would like answered, (it is kind of uneducated) but if we banned abortion and made woman have these children, with the intent of the mtoher's giving the baby's up for adoption, do you not think that this world would become over populated with children, and if they were not given up for adoption, do you not think that we would have alot more crime and violence in this world due to children not being raised properly?
Like I said before I would like honest answers, and I am not trying to make anyone upset. I am simply trying to write a paper.
Thanks,
Muffin

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Not for a while. The whole world's population can fin on th etiny island of Jamaca.
Abortion is violent.

reply from: yoda

Population control, if it is deemed necessary, can be achieved by many means other than abortion. China has seen fit to impose manditory sterilization to control it's population, and at least that does not kill a living human being.
That's two questions!
What is abortion if not the worst kind of violence? Is the proper cure for violence to kill those you suspect might commit it later in life? Isn't that a bit like the recent movie in which people were tried and punished for crimes they were predicted to commit?
If you sincerely think that we have the right to presumptively kill living human beings in order to have a lower crime rate, then I can see why the idea of abortion might be acceptable to you.

reply from: muffin

Thank you all very much, you have given me much to think about.
I do not think it is right to kill a human being to save from crime.
I believe woman should have the right to choose, but I do think that woman abuse abortion becuase it is convenient.
If abortion was to be illegal, I would want conditions to it. For example, no woman should be forced to carry a rapists child, that just adds to horror they went through. I also believe that if you are under a certain age you should have your parents consent, but I also believe if your child is sexually active under 18 or 19 then they are poorly raised.
I am young, and my opinions are probably very juvenile, but to be educated you must learn from the educated.
thank you
muffin

reply from: MaleNurse

For more essay info on population, go here:
http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/169/35/

Tough question. On the surface only one might think the answer is yes.
But consider all other factors that have contributed to crime.
How about "rap music"? and the rap-culture that followed. (If you're young, you may not accept this) How about over the counter sales of psuedoephedrine and the evolution of crystal - methamphetamine labs. (they titrate the pseudoephedrine into crystal methamphetamine) Television and Movie industry contributions. How about simply the fall of family values, church and God.
There's a million factors that contribute to crime.
Here's a statistical comparasine of the homocide crime rate pre-1973 to post 1973 (Roe v Wade)
You see the homicide rate was lower pre-RvW
in fact it continued to rise afterward. Oh you ask, what was the poverty level for that time?
You can see the poverty level decreased (half) but the crime rate as you saw previously rose. So the connection between greater poverty = more crime is invalid (at least statistically) furthermore legalized abortion leads to lower crime rates is also invalid (as well as the null hypothesis)
The answer to your question is raising children properly is the key. And you can't raise ''em if you kill 'em first.
http://www.ncovr.heinz.cmu.edu/Docs/Special_Project/Atlas/atlas_spatial_patterning.htm

reply from: Shiprahagain

Yoda, while mandatory sterlization is better than abortion, I hope you're not saying its acceptable. Also, China has forced abortion as well.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Originally posted by: muffin
Wow, I cannot believe how many people replied to this so quickly. I realize I I have one question I would like answered, (it is kind of uneducated) but if we banned abortion and made woman have these children, with the intent of the mtoher's giving the baby's up for adoption, do you not think that this world would become over populated with children, and if they were not given up for adoption, do you not think that we would have alot more /q]
It seems like you said before that the fetus could be legally killed because it had no right to be in the womb - but now you have created a second reason - that for global health some women must choose to kill their babies? Well, what if instead of fetuses we killed off blacks, the elderly, the deaf, or any other vulnerable/oppressed group for the good of others -- is that fair? If you feel the world is overpopulated and some people should lighten the load, that person should kill himself - he has no right to demand that another person die so that he has more access to resources -- this is basically the same a armed robbery-killing someone for goods.

reply from: nsanford

Yes Yoda, China knows best. As matter of fact, we should be exactly like them, by making protests illegal, and arresting anyone who speaks out.
Please. You want to make abortions illegal, then have forced sterilizations if Earth becomes too crowded? Do you even read what you type?

reply from: MaleNurse

I found another excerpt to drive this point home.
The article also throws in the increase in divorse rates

reply from: yoda

You know, "beliefs" are religious attitudes, unless they are based on empirical evidence. Do you view abortion as a religious subject?

reply from: yoda

The former, not the latter. And it's not an endorsement of China, just an observation of other ways "overpopulation" can be controlled.

reply from: yoda

Okay, if you say so. I sure didn't say any of that.
Usually when someone tells me "you want", there's always something after those two words that I don't want. And this case is no exception. I have no desire to see forced sterilizations, but if someone want to play the "we're about to explode with overpopulation" card, it's a convenient answer.
Personally, I agree with Mark Crutcher on overpopulation.
And yes, I do read what I type, do you?

reply from: AshMarie88

First, no one "forces" pregnancy... pregnancy happens naturally.
Second, why should a innocent child have to die for the crime of the dad? What is so different in the way childern are conceived? What makes one child less worthy of life than another?

reply from: jgalclassy

If the United States became to "overpopulated because of our irresponsible actions (unprotected sex), do you think it would be okay for the government to say, "Muffin, I think it's your family in which we will murder some of our own. How about if we cut their heads off, remove a few limbs and then dispose of them in acid." How would you feel about this? Just because they are outside of the mothers womb doesn't make them any less important now does it?

reply from: Shiprahagain

In my earth science resources class, we learned that the US is 5% of the world's population yet uses 30% of the resources, yet we support aggressive depopulation schemes in poor countries where the women are black, red, and yellow in the name of too many people for two few resources rather than just lowering our own consumption. Suspciously enough, our textbook cited not scientific sources for overpopulation but the UN and Worldbank - nothing like a little indoctrination from the worlds' best eugenics organizations in lieu of actual science to scare us into wanting to rid the world of other people's black and brown kids before they actually try to use their own countries tungsten or vanadium that we think we're entitled to instead of us recycling or carpooling and leaving other people alone. Abortion for overpopulation is like the big kid bullying the little kid out of his lunch money -- the superpower aborting some baby of color before she can deprive us of resources we think we're owed for merely being born American.

reply from: jgalclassy

We are so lucky to live in the U.S. We are able to decide what we do with our bodies and how we take responsibillity for our choices. As a country we definitly take that for granted.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Seriously, we could live in Sudan, Kenya, China, Mexico, or Peru where women are bullied in the abortions and sterilization by the UN in the name of feminism and development. If anyone ever forcibly removed my baby like these women face, I don't know what I'd do.

reply from: prolifejedi

hi muffin,
I don't think abortion should be allowed in the case of rape (or ANY case) because the abortion WON'T take away the pain that the woman went through. Also, pregnancy resulting from rape is extremely rare. Some women who chose to go on with their pregnancies find their babies to be blessings despite the circumstances of the conception.

reply from: muffin

yodavater
I am seeing people who are religious have more of an opinion towards prolife, most of the people that I do talk to are prochoice( non religious people). I find catholics to be against abortion more than any other religion ( based on websites and hear say).

reply from: pray4em

An unborn child is dependent on their motherfor life, but that is not the whole truth.
The unborn have their own DNA, their own heart beat, their own brain waves, their own body, their own fingers and their own free will to move those fingers. The unborn have their own life and abortion takes that life away.
What's fair for me is fair for you. The only difference between the baby that lives and the baby that dies has nothing to do with the baby, and that's not fair for them.

reply from: sowerjr

"Everyone has the equal right to gestate at the sufferance of the body they are attached to."
And if the body they're attached to doesn't suffer them to gestate? Your logic is as flawed as any I've seen.
Isn't it interesting that everyone who is in favor of giving someone the right to kil the unborn has already been born.
Our Declaration of Independence says that "all men are CREATED equal, and they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life..."
This was not plucked out of thin air, as so many of today's ideas are. It was based on the fact that GOD creates each person in His own image, that He loves each person so much that He would rather die than harm us, and that He is the author of our rights and our responsibilities.
All the commands He gave us can be summed up as follows: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. And the second is like it; love your neighbor as yourself.
Loving God requires that you love what he loves - the people he has created.
Loving your neighbor requires that you do no violence to your 'neighbor' [every other human being.]
This renders all the discussion about rights moot, when I'm trying to find a 'right' to kill an innocent human being.

reply from: sowerjr

Abortion for overpopulation is like the big kid bullying the little kid out of his lunch money -- the superpower aborting some baby of color before she can deprive us of resources we think we're owed for merely being born American.
On a related note, most of America's abortion clinics are in minority neighborhoods; last statistics I recall, black people comprised about 12% of the population but account for >30% of abortions.
Also on a related note, since SD has banned abortion except to save the life of the mother, a leading Indian woman on Pine Ridge Indian Reservation has vowed to open a Planned Parenthood clinic there, so she can abort little Indian kids.

reply from: Sigma

Then the body their attached doesn't suffer them to gestate. Hence it is at the sufferance of another.
Where is the flaw in this logic? The Declaration is not the founding document of this country, that would be the Constitution. The Constitution does not demand we obey God.

reply from: sowerjr

"I believe woman should have the right to choose..." Finish the sentence.
You're saying, "I believe woman should have the right to choose to kill her child."
I believe woman ought to have the right to choose to say "No" to sex when the man who wants it is not her husband. [And if he's a decent guy, he'll take "Not tonight, Honey," for an answer. But that's not the answer he'll get every time.]
I believe woman ought to have the right to choose what she wants to eat, drink, drive, and wear, where to live, what career she wants - including full-time homemaker.
I believe woman ought to have the right to choose Jesus Christ, or to reject Him, to believe and speak what she believes.
I do not believe that woman or anyone else ought to have the right to choose to kill another human being - particularly an innocent human being!

reply from: sowerjr

" I would like someone to give me a general view on prolife and prochoice, and if someone would kindly explain why they think one or the other is better."
Muffin, there is really only one issue that is at the heart of this question.
"Pro-choice" people focus on the mother's right to do with her own body what she wants. This obscures the fundamental issue where abortion is concerned.
Each of us has responsibilities that accompany our rights; no right is absolute. Free speech does not entitle us to endanger others by yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater. I'm sure you've heard that one. The right to do what we want with our own bodies does not entitle us to harm someone else.
Which brings me to the fundamental question: Is the thing in the womb a human being?
I see that Male Nurse has given you the scoop on the definition of human life - in fact, at the moment of fertilization a new human being has been created. He or she already has all that is needed to grow into an infant, except for time and nutrition. There are a number of stages to human life; a fertilized egg is just the youngest stage.
There are a lot of side issues that can complicate your thinking on this, like, it's not fair about rape, the population thing, and what if mom can't afford the baby, and all the rest. The bottom line is still, is this a living human?
Not, is it conscious, does it know it's alive yet, but is it human, and is it alive?
This is not a matter of opinion, but of scientific reality. YOU and I WERE once fertilized eggs. A sperm will die. An egg will die. A fertilized egg, left in its environment, grows, because it is a living human.
If your mother, God forbid, had gone to an abortion clinic when she was pregnant with you, YOU would have been killed.
So I side with the right of the baby to live, because the right to life is the most fundamental of all rights. The rest of the stuff, we have to deal with - but killing the baby is not the solution.

reply from: Sigma

Close, but no. I am saying "I believe a woman should have the right to choose to kill the fetus that is attached to and living off of her body."
I also believe a woman should be able to kill you if you were attached to and living off of her body. Neither you nor me nor the fetus have the right to live attached to and living off of another's physical body.
Really? If a woman were attacked and was being raped, you do not think she should be able to kill him to stop what he is doing, were she able to?

reply from: Sigma

And thus, life is not an absolute right in every situation. None have the right to live attached to another against that other's will.

reply from: sowerjr

OK, so in fact, if the mother doesn't let them, they don't.
So I take back what I said about the logic being flawed ...
The Declaration of Independence was the document on which the War for Independence was fought, so I contend it IS the founding document.
The Constitution does not demand we obey God; God demands that. He supercedes every man-made constitution, no matter how well-written.

reply from: sowerjr

They HAVE the right to live, but not the power to exercise it, if the person with the power chooses to destroy them.
You are right, the right to life is not absolute. The person who murders another has forfeited his right to life. "He who sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." The "shedding of innocent blood" is one of the most heinous crimes, according to God.
God has such a high view of human beings that to tamper with the life of an innocent human being is a crime worthy of death.
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen... Without faith it is impossible to please him, for he that comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek HIM."

reply from: Sigma

The Constitution is the foundation on which our society was built. The Declaration was not meant to create a workable society.
That holds no authority over those who do not believe God exists.
Were you to believe the Declaration, the right to life is absolute and cannot be forfeited or surrendered or transferred or infringed upon. Thus no killing is justified; no capital punishment, no self-defense and no war is justified.
It is only due to the Constitutional Due Process that life can be taken away by States.

reply from: MaleNurse

Disagree. The law of Nature provides that right.
I think we shouldn't get stuck on the "attached to woman against her will" thing.
It comparable to making a decision and being held to it.
The "her will" part started with the decision to have sex.
She knows the possible outcome going into the act. (the guy does too)
So her "will" starts with the decision that includes those possible outcomes.
You selectively exclude her knowledge of the possible outcomes when you talk about her "will".
Therefore, it follows that it can not be "against her will."
Analogy:
I have a peptic ulcer
I choose to eat hot-spicey foods because they taste good.
Later in the day, I have a burning stomach-ache.
I can NOT legitimately say "I aggravated my ulcer against my will"
The law of nature is absolute.
Please dont pick at the analogy, its to illustrate the point.

reply from: Tennischamp

Read the artical,, called Responsibilities takes precedent over personal desires.
A rational view of why abortion is wrong.
Holy matrimony, a marriage ceremony, commited love between two individuals, the blessing of the church, and the acknowledgement of the community provide a means for two individuals to stay married.
Broken hearts, betrayal, shame, rejection and sadness are always by products of non-married sex.
Sex outside of marriage is called fornication, and instead of abortion, why not choose marriage. Sex in the context of marriage is what God will bless, never will he bless sex without the blessing of the church, community and both families supporting the marriage act.

reply from: Sigma

What authority does the law of Nature have over what we may or may not do?
Then allow me to provide some analogies as well.
You know that you have a chance to get hit by a bus when you cross the street. Taking a step out into the street is tacit acknowledgement that you may indeed be hit. You can take steps to avoid being hit, being careful and the like, but the fact remains that you may be hit by the bus each and every time you cross the street. And, since you acknowledge that this is a possibility, you should not recieve medical attention since you need to accept the consequences of your actions, isn't that right?
How about this: Lets say you got smashed, walked home and unlocked your door. Being smashed, you don't realize that you left your keys in your door; in fact you left your door ajar! A burglar comes into your house, since you basically invited him in when you irresponsibly left your door agap, and you hear him in your drunken supor lying in bed. You call the police. Do they say "I'm sorry but you caused this to happen through your irresponsible behavior. We will not help"?
No. Despite being irresponsible, you are not required to accept any and all consequences for your actions. There is no law stating you cannot change them if you are able to. You can even shoot the burglar in your home in some states, protecting your property.

reply from: MaleNurse

By this question I can tell you didn't understand.
The law of nature dictates Everything that you may or may not do.
You can't fly because nature didn't give you wings. You can travel faster than a worm because nature gave you legs. You can't breath water but rather air. Obviously this isn't rocket surgery.
So referring back to your original statement
This would fall under nature. Nature created the ability to reproduce / gestate / ect via the uterus it is conclusive then in saying nature gave the right to be attached to anothers body.
I'm running out of time at the library, so I have to quick
I ask you which siamese twin attached at the trunk has the right to precede over the other and determine his outcome?
Tricky one huh?

reply from: Sigma

Nature determines physical limitations but does not determine what we may or may not do within those limitations. We have no wings but can fly in airplanes.
That isn't a right, that is an ability. One we may deny to the fetus.
Not really, no. It is proposed quite a bit. Which one "owns" the body, and thus can deny the other its use? In the pregnancy relationship, the body being used is clearly the woman's.

reply from: sowerjr

You say, "That holds no authority over those who do not believe God exists."
Whether you believe God exists or not does not change whether or not He does exist. You are living in a dream world, making up your own 'truth.'
Much like the guy who jumped off the Eiffel Tower, thinking he could fly. The law of gravity worked even though he didn't believe it; his false believe killed him.
God will not force anyone to obey Him. You can do whatever you like. You defy God at your own peril.

reply from: jgalclassy

Prolifejedi, I was just wondering, I know you do not believe in abortion in the case of rape, but what if your 10 yr old daughter was raped and became pregnant? How would you feel?

reply from: AshMarie88

Not many 9 and 10 year olds get pregnant... Heck, not a lot of 11-13 year olds do get pregnant! It barely happens. 12 and 13 maybe, but 9 (mentioned to me earlier) and 10?

reply from: Shiprahagain

Jgal, a girl once became pregnant at 5, decades ago, and delivered the baby healthily. She's still alive and living in Latin America. She didn't need the abortion for her mental health, and she is fine right now. The baby was raised as her brother until she was old enough to really understand. I'd think the abortion would have been ultimately more horrible. Also - this girl was a freak of nature to get pregnant at her age -- she wasn't menstruating, this normally cannot happen.

reply from: prolifejedi

If I had a daughter, I would protect her as well as I could. I would never let her go anywhere without my knowledge, have friends whose parents I didn't know and NEVER let her go places like the movies without an adult.
And most 10 year olds are not MENSTRATING.

reply from: MaleNurse

Nature didn't give people the "right" to fly in airplanes.
Nature DID give birds the right to fly using hollow bones and feathered wings.
I'm talkin' "nature" here. Not man made stuff or manipulations of nature.
Staying focused on the statement:
You certainly understand that when we speak of the "rights" nature provides that those are in there undisturbed state. If you chopped off the wings of a bird, would you conclude that nature didn't give the bird the right to fly? Of course not.
And following this test in logic:
If the airplanes wings fell off, could you conclude that nature didn't give airplanes the "right" to fly? Yes!
When nature creates something, by default it gives it the "ability" to do whatever. By creating the "ability" it extends the "right" to use that ability.
We have the ability to breath, wouldn't you call it a "right" given by nature?
Stick with the term you used "attached"
The S-twins are attached via nature given right. Regardless if one half has dominance over vital function or not. Nature has created an ability to be attached.
The fact that the fetus is "using" the woman's body is irrelavent. Nature gave it this ability. It follows that this would be a nature given right.
Admittedly; you could kill it, and deny the fetus it's nature given rights. Or as you proposed earlier, create an external uterus machine,translocate the fetus, and manipulate nature. But that's NOT the nature given right.

reply from: MapleGrovesMrRight

In the book, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, author Stephen R. Covey uses an experience which was told by Frank Koch in Proceedings, the magazine of the Naval Institute, as an illustration of the existence of principles or natural laws.
Two battleships assigned to the training squadron had been at sea on maneuvers in heavy weather for several days. I was serving on the lead battleship and was on watch on the bridge as night fell. The visibility was poor with patchy fog, so the captain remained on the bridge keeping an eye on all activities.
Shortly after dark, the lookout on the wing of the bridge reported, "Light, bearing on the starboard bow."
"Is it steady or moving astern?" the captain called out.
Lookout replied, "Steady, captain," which meant we were on a dangerous collision course with that ship.
The captain then called to the signalman, "Signal that ship: We are on a collision course, advise you change course 20 degrees."
Back came a signal, "Advisable for you to change course 20 degrees."
The captain said, "Send, I'm a captain, change course 20 degrees."
"I'm a seaman second class," came the reply. "You had better change course 20 degrees."
By that time, the captain was furious. He spat out, "Send, I'm a mighty battleship! Change course 20 degrees!"
Back came the flashing light, "I'm a lighthouse."
We changed course.

The author goes on to explain that, "principles are like lighthouses. They are natural laws that cannot be broken".
Or as Cecil B. deMille states in the movie, The Ten Commandments, "It is impossible for us to break the law. We can only break ourselves against the law."
I contend that basic human rights are like natural laws, because whether it happens immediately or over a long period of time they will justify themselves.
This justification manifests itself in the form of consequences and these consequences can manifest themselves in many different ways towards: individuals, couples, families, organisations, and of course societies.
Choosing to kill INNOCENT humans for mere narcissistic reasons will always be a violation of natural law.
No amount of mind-bending justification can change the existance of these laws.

reply from: MaleNurse

Well Said MGMR !
And welcome to the forum

reply from: yoda

Well stated, MGMR, and welcome!
You've expressed very well the absolute horror I feel every time I read the words of a probabykilling advocate telling us how "this or that" makes it okay to kill an innocent human being, as if this was merely a philosophy debate, and no one was getting hurt or killed.
I know in the history of our (human) race there have been many times when the slaughter of innocents was approved by many societies, especially if it was some other society being slaughtered.
But I keep hoping that we have risen above that animalistic thinking, and my hopes keep getting dashed by the probabykilling advocates.
Thanks for a thoughtful contribution to this debate.

reply from: newgirl

rights? does it have a right to life? because if it does (and it cannot live outside the mother) that suggests it has a right to be there...? or do the mothers rights to her body override the foetus' right to life?

reply from: newgirl

try searching for some of the philosophers. peter singer is well known for his controversial pro choice arguments(kicked out of places in germany for it). and he can present the other sides arguments concisely and deconstruct them. micheal tooley uses some interesting arguments as well.
good luck

reply from: yoda

As long as someone calls an unborn baby an "it", probably not.

reply from: MapleGrovesMrRight

MaleNurse:
Much appreciated sir.
I have thoroughly enjoyed your dialogues with Sigma and others.
My above post was to add and assist you in your debate with Sigma.
Forgive me please, I am not implying that you need any assistance - you are doing perfectly well on your own, of course!
Yodavater:
Likewise, thank you sir.
From the handful of posts that I have read by you, you are a great man. Keep up the good fight; your 5000+ posts most certainly are making a positive difference, probably have saved lives.
Yodavater:
In a way, you must ignore the "probabykilling advocates", do not think that you can necessarily change their hearts, rather focus your energy instead on those whom are most receptive and impressionable.
It is for this very reason that I am adamant about confirming Supreme Court justices who are strict constructionists and will HOPEFULLY overturn "Roe vs. Wade", thus sending the so called "absolute right to abortion" back to the states.
One may ask, "why not strive for a Supreme Court that is made up of justices whom will not only overturn "Roe" but also make abortion illegal in a broad Federal mandate, rather than send it back to the States which may or may not ban it to some degree or another"?
This is admittedly hard to answer since the immediate and obvious benefit would be that you will save lives (short term at least) by making abortion illegal in every State.
I however view the above method/reasoning to be antithetical to the common Pro-Life stance (others stances included) that Justices ought not to create law, rather they should interpret the Constitution and leave law-making up to the people via their elective representatives and their respective legislative branches to decide specific laws.
One may ask, "People are not always very rational or smart, some believe in Sasquatch (Big Foot), others that Elvis still lives, and some that the Holocaust was made up by Jews in Hollywood, or that Man never stepped foot on the Moon. Why leave the existence of innocent unborn humans to the mercy and whims of mere people"?
My answer would be because, people have the capacity to be influenced towards good and towards evil, right or wrong, and this is naturally part of being Human, thus we must strive towards proving why the pro-life position is good and just.
This can be done.
I am thoroughly confident that "Pro-Life" positions are centered upon correct principles and therefore if they are argued and or presented effectively, will change the hearts and minds of good people.
Not all will be changed but most will... and in a Democracy/Constitutional Republic such as the United States of America, that is all we really can ask for.
Thank you for reading,
Jon

reply from: jgalclassy

Shiprahagain, I know that some girls can have made it through and delivered just fine, but I'm just wondering if it was your daughter and she had in fact been raped would you be okay with her choice to abort if that in fact was her choice?

reply from: jgalclassy

Prolifejedi, Your right most aren't but some are. I started menstrating at 9. There are more girls today starting sooner and sooner. The question is even though were against abortion if this situation would occur is it okay for your raped daughter to choose?

reply from: AshMarie88

Peter Singer is pro-abortion, pro-infantcide, pro-euthanasia, etc.
I will never listen to someone who's okay with killing the most innocent of the human race, and who thinks animals are more important.
He's only pro-ethics when it comes to the animals.

reply from: AshMarie88

It doesn't matter if he/she is viable or not. Life is one of the most basic human rights, but that right is being violated.
Viable or not, EVERYONE has the chance to live the life that was given to them.

reply from: Shiprahagain

If my daughter had been raped, the only thing that would keep me from shooting the rapist would be knowing that I couldn't be of help to my daughter in prison. So after fully prosecuting the man to the extent of the law, I still wouldn't be okay with my daughter's decision to have an abortion. I'd have to protect my grandbaby and the daughter. If she really didn't want the baby, I'd raise her myself. But I would raise a prolife daughter in the first place.

reply from: prolifejedi

1) My daughter would know from a young age all about fetal development
2) My daughter would know what abortion is and how it can cause problems later in life - sterility, miscarriages, early labor (premature labor)'
3) My daughter would be raised Pro-Life and pray with me @ an abortion clinic.
4) Hopefully by the time I marry and have a daughter, abortion would be illegal.

reply from: jgalclassy

Prolifejedi, I hope to instill that same knowledge to my daughter but if she decided to abort in this horrible situation, I would stand by her.

reply from: AshMarie88

What if your daughter was older? Say, over 14, and was raped? Would you still support her killing/aborting her child?

reply from: jgalclassy

Ashmarie88, I would do everything I could to let her know I'd be there for her and that I think she should give the child a chance at life. I just think if she chose to have an abortion I would have to stand by her in these harsh circcumstances.

reply from: AK4LIFE

Get the little 80 page book called "Pro-Life Answers" by Mark Crutcher. That will really help you.

reply from: yoda

I see we have reached the same conclusion on that matter.
Quite so. I view my responsibility as that of presenting the case for life as best I can, as consistently as I am able. The rest is out of my hands.

reply from: yoda

As opposed to what? As opposed to throwing her out of your home? As opposed to letting her know how disappointed your are in her? Would you reinforce her decision by telling her everything is "okay"? Would you try to keep her from feeling any guilt or responsibility for killing her baby?

reply from: muffin

I think you guys are so wrapped up in other peoples lives with this abortion issue that you cannot even support your own children, maybe you should not be having any.
Your children have the right to choose their own path in life, and believe in what they chose to. If a child doesn't believe what you believe in, are you going to disown them? If so then you should not have a child, what kind of support system would you be for your child. I know if my parents acted like this I would run away. You should support your child no matter what their beliefs or sins are.

reply from: yoda

What a coincidence, that's what we think about you probabykilling advocates too!
Wow, I'll bet you'd support your child even if he/she was a serial killer of children, right? Cheer him/her on, maybe even help him/her once in a while?

reply from: AshMarie88

One, I don't have kids, and I don't know for sure if I want them. I'll probably change my mind in the future tho.
Tho, we're "wrapped up" in other peoples' lives? Is that anything like the saying "You're not minding your own business"?
Many parents are pro-life and support their kids. What are you talking about?
Yea, exactly. But unfortunately, over 46 million children won't get that chance.
Nope.
And also, if I have kids, I'm going to raise them to be pro-life, but still have an open mind as to what they would want in life.
What kind of parent is a parent who KILLS their child? Not a very good one!
I know if my parents acted like this I would run away. You should support your child no matter what their beliefs or sins are.
Uh huh.
Just because someone is very pro-life and is a pro-life activist, doesn't mean they don't support their kids.

reply from: MapleGrovesMrRight

Originally Posted By: Muffin
In my opinion you are mostly correct, Muffin.
Unconditional love towards another person is a correct principle which people should always strive to live by.
Surely you would agree however, that unconditional acceptance and or agreement towards someone else's choices is NOT a correct principle.
Like the saying goes, "hate the sin and not the sinner" (or something like that).
When I do eventually get married (crossing my fingers) and have children, I will from the beginning be teaching them correct moral principles that I have been able to both learn and detect through out my life.
When my children are old enough to understand the basics of life, I will certainly be teaching them why I know abortion to be incorrect, unnatural, and evil.
Equally important to teaching them about correct principles is to deprogram their mushy brains regarding the incorrect principles that they will have inevitably been taught in our secular public schools.
Personally, if I had to choose between adopting a child which shared and respected my beliefs versus a biological child which spat upon them I would prefer the former.
This would assume that I could somehow know the choices they will make ahead of time in life.
Since that is of course impossible, I would be obligated as a parent to love them as a person of inherent worth and not permanently abort them from the family or from my love.
Nevertheless, to overlook or pardon your child's incorrect decisions is simply antithetical to the duty of a good parent (IMO).
Jon

reply from: MaleNurse

Being a parent. I know this to be absolutely true.
If you don't give them a "standard" to measure actions by, their only means of distinguishing right and wrong is the penalty or reward. We know in life that most of our actions don't provide this kind of feedback until you hit the extreme ends of the spectrum. Okay when they're in the "good action" extreme...they get a reward. But they'll pay a price at the "bad action" extreme.
Anyways, setting a standard is important.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Yeah, maybe during the Holocaust and slavery people shouldn't have been so wrapped up in the lives of Jews and blacks and jus stuck to their own kids. Maybe they should have let their kids to choose to be Nazis or slave owners -- you know, follow their own paths.

reply from: Sigma

MaleNurse,
Nature gives us no "rights". Nature isn't an entity to tell us what we may or may not do within our own technological limitations. Give it up.
No, I would not conclude that.
No, I would not. "Nature" is not an entity to enforce strictures against breathing underwater. "Nature" has no authority over what we may do within our technological limitations because "nature" is not an entity with authority. It's a meaningless concept.
Using your logic, any natural process cannot be interfered with using technology because "nature" has extended a 'right' to whatever is causing that natural process. This is a specious argument.
MapleGrovesMrRight,
This is not as common as you may wish to believe. I daresay most pro-life people would support a national ban in spite of the Constitution.

reply from: MapleGrovesMrRight

Posted By: Sigma
You may be correct with that assessment - many would like to see the quickest possible action in order to save lives. True.
If I may clarify what I meant by, "antithetical to the common Pro-Life stance"?
I am inferring that, by supporting such a sweeping ban on abortion made by a Conservative SCOTUS would essentially be no different than their very opposition to "Roe V. Wade" over the past 30 plus years.
If such a ban did occur, I fear that it would be relatively short lived and possibly back-fire against Pro-Lifers in the long-term and most importantly... innocent little humans.
For those who disagree with such a prediction, imagine this for a moment.
An endless barrage of sensational news stories by the liberal-leaning media regarding the horrors of not allowing women to, "choose their destiny", "have control over their bodies", or the "back-alley abortions", etc...
Equally as well, imagine the inevitable daily activism performed by tenured teachers and professors towards their often: uninformed, apathetic, and impressionable students.
All this and much more would certainly shift the pendulum of public opinion far away from the Pro-Life side and back towards the Pro-Abort/Anti-Life side.
Pro-life politicians then would be kicked to the curb by voters and replaced by Anti-life politicians ready to confirm more Justices in the mold of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and dare I say - Harry Blackmun!
Like I have said before, one ought to support pro-life politicians who will vote to confirm "strict-constructionists" to the Supreme Court (along with other Federal Courts), and thus in turn hopefully overrule "Roe" and send it back to the states and to their respective legislatures.
Next,
The ferocious battles at various State legislatures would be critically important for two primary reasons: to debate the other side publicly and to more fully inform the public about the issues of abortion. (ie: fetal pain and 4D ultrasound photos, etc.)
Since I am thoroughly confident that the Pro-Life argumentation is the strongest, I feel that taking this debate to the people instead of succumbing to the judgment of nine unelected Justices; will be the most effective for HUMAN LIFE in the long-term.
Note: If you think I am too much of an idealist on this issue please respond, I am always willing to re-examine my reasoning!
Jon

reply from: ProBoth

This is why I think banning abortion would do more harm.
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=1363989
http://www.proboth.org

reply from: AshMarie88

This is why I think banning abortion would do more harm.
http://www.americanprogress.or...J8OVF&b=1363989
<br ">http://www.americanpro....or.....F&b=1363989
http://www.proboth.org
Banning abortion would be saving more babies. How would it do more harm?!
You're either pro-life or pro-choice.

reply from: Sigma

Under what authority would SCOTUS be able to do such a thing? The reasoning in Roe cannot be used, as far as I can tell, to effect a ban on abortion.
What sort of "strict-constructionist" thinking do you wish to employ?
Given that most of the nation is pro-choice, I don't quite see that happening.

reply from: AshMarie88

Actually, there have been recent polls... More people are turning over to being pro-life. The majority of them are high school students.
I don't have the link anymore, I think someone posted it on here once...

reply from: Sigma

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Jan. 6-8, 2006. N=1,003 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?"
1/6-8/06: 53% pro-choice, 42% pro-life, 1% mixed, 2% don't know what the terms mean and 2% are unsure

reply from: nsanford

I've posted that poll before. They denied it's results.

reply from: yoda

How much harm did the state by state bans do before 1973? I find it curious that those who oppose the criminalization of abortion sometimes claim they also want to reduce abortion, and think that making it illegal would hurt their "cause". But they never seem to really oppose abortion for any particular reason that makes sense to us, they just seem to want the label of "antiabortion" while still supporting it's legal status. They won't actively try to convince anyone that abortion is immoral or wrong, they just want to talk about why it should stay legal.
Pardon me if I am a little skeptical of their sincerity.

reply from: yoda

Ah yes, probabykilling central! The folks who phone PP and ask them what to publish, before we get to see their "results".

reply from: MaleNurse

You're still missing the point. I don't know what "give up" means
You're still missing the point.
The laws of nature dictate (have authority) what happens within the laws of physical science. Anything outside of those parameters are manipulations of those natural laws. (technology-->airfoils, ect.)So forget about technology for a second. I'm speaking within the boundries of nature. Natural law says "for fetus to live, it must stay in uterus." Natural law also says "action of human reproduction occurs in woman's uterus"
Back to your original comment:
I said "nature gives it the right"
Can you say with honesty that nature didn't give it the right to be attached?
If you "un-attach" it, the fetus will die. Nature, still prevails, (as oxygenation of blood ceases-->biochemical natural laws)
Again, if you had the embryo transplanted into the artificial uterus machine, that would be a technological manipulation. That is NOT under the dictates of natural law, but rather a manifestation of the womans choice.
I don't know if I can articulate this in such a way for you to understand. But MGMR's post was appropriate. The lighthouse was an absolute.. It couldn't be argued with, it wasn't gonna move. Nature is an absolute. Nature gives the right to the fetus to be attached because this is how we reproduce. It can't be argued with. It is just a Fact.
BTW: aside from the proof for my argument on rights, the whole concept of the woman being somehow violated by the attached fetus is invalid. Especially in light of the often sited stats on reasons for abortions. I haven't seen the reason for abortion sited as "I felt violated by a fetus that was attached to me". Perhaps underscoring this lack of citation is that they are NOT feeling violated as this is in fact a natural process.

reply from: yoda

Exactly. But we've come to expect the probabykilling crowd to argue the unarguable, to say white is black and up is down, in a desperate attempt to make babykilling sound reasonable and decent.
They'd rather stand on their heads and lie than stand on their feet and tell the very obvious truth.

reply from: Sigma

Natural also states: "If you take excessive amounts of vitamin C, your body may abort the fetus". Natural law also states: "Faster moving air creates less air pressure". We do not manipulate natural law, we use natural law.
"Nature" has no authority to give or take rights (as in entitlement).
Except we can change it.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

You didn't change it - you killed it!

reply from: yoda

"Nature" creates reality. It is reality that we are all put in the vulnerable position of being in a woman's womb for the first 9 months or so of our lives (IF we live that long), that IS the reality.
You claim that the reality created by nature "entitles" us to remove and destroy any unborn human being. YOU are claiming that nature "gives us a "right/entitlement" to kill unborn humans!!
Who is being hypocritical here????

reply from: MaleNurse

I see what you mean by this. My point seems so clear to me. I am frustrated that she doesn't understand this very basic truth. And critical to understanding where a pro-lifer is coming from. (Maybe instructions to never yield on the laws of nature are in the pro-choice argument play-book)
I wonder if the perfect pro-life argument was made, a totally locked-in, irrefutable, solid argument was made for pro-life. All the bases are covered. The grand-unified-pro-life-theory. I wonder if sigma would change her mind. Or would she hold onto a pro-abort belief that she could no longer prove to be correct. Much the same way Christians (myself included) believe in something that can not be proven. On the premise then that she believes in a unprovable argument, but has "faith" in it none-the-less, it is reasonable to say that being pro-abortion is a religeon to her.
I don't mean this in a derogatory sense, rather a mind-set.
In such a case there could be nothing I could say to convince her otherwise. Just as nobody could convince me that there is no God in heaven.

reply from: yoda

I was with you all the way there until you said "prove to be correct". There is no such a thing as "proof" in the basic area of disagreement between pro and anti-babykilling advocates, it's about values and moral opinions. Unless a probabykilling advocates agrees with us on basic moral values, there is no way we can make an "irrefutable" argument for them. And I haven't seen a probabykilling advocate yet that does agree with us that innocent human life is the most precious thing we have in this world. No, they will tell you that many things are more important than innocent human life, among them the right to KILL innocent humans, of course.
But of course, they mean that the lives of people OTHER THAN themselves. THEIR own lives are of course the most important thing in the world to them, but other people's lives are worth much less, in their view. Some other people's lives (like unborn babies, for example) are almost worthless in their view, just something to throw away for the sake of convenience.
(edited to add) Yes, there is a religious nature to the probabykilling advocates positions. It is so religious sometimes that they will actually deny what is black and white in front of them (like definitions) and tell us they disagree with the dictionary because "they believe" such and such".

reply from: tabithamarcotte

I see what you're saying. It'd be like the Unified Theory of physics, but all they have now is the String Theory. Anyways, we need a unified theory, and we've got biology and the Constitution.

reply from: MaleNurse

This "Pro-both" stance is INDECISIVE.
Sounds like it's roots are in the modern "politically correct" movement.
Sorry, charlie.
There is no "grey" and being indecisive about the abortion issue will not save lives.
When you say "pro-both" you have to remeber that the two sides (BOTH) are just words we created as more of a team name. The "life"part is easy to understand. The "choice" part is misleading. (nobody would call there team pro-death they'd have a tough time in the marketing dept) Well the "choice" is "murder"
Just keep in mind that If given the available option - they'll take it.
It is impossible to be "Both"
I don't recognize this as being valid.
Think it through and make a decision. I could care less about being called "anti-choice" Again those are slogan names. Think a little deeper than what you see on the surface of these words.
Good Luck

reply from: MaleNurse

Yes, you're right about this. This is why I attempted the science nature approach - to no availe.

reply from: MaleNurse

If God Himself came down from heaven, and smacked the pro-abort in the face, they would STILL be pro-abort.

reply from: Sigma

tabithamarcotte
Which indeed changed whether or not the fetus was attached.
yodavater
Come again?
I claim no such thing. Nature gives us no such right, our society does. Our morality can give us a moral right.
MaleNurse
If I cannot refute an argument then I would have to accept it. I have seen no compelling argument for the pro-life position. Were God Himself to appear before me then I would accept that God exists. God has yet to do this.

reply from: MaleNurse

Since attempt a refutal to every pro-life argument, I'm assuming you mean one that your refute is proven invalid? by who? you? As yoda pointed out, we could never do this (proof) on the moral stance. The argument must be one of logical inferences leading to a conclusion. Previously you expressed a distaste for logic. Are you willing to go this road and if the logical argument is made would you agree to change your opinion on abortion? And state it so publicly in this forum additionally make the deal sweet, you serve one month on our team in the forum making pro-life arguments. What do you get? We'll show you the secret hand-shake ! What do you say? We go strickly by accepted rules of logic.

reply from: yoda

Come again?
Nature IS reality, how's that?
I claim no such thing. .
Then why do you constantly harp on your assertion that the "attachment of the fetus" gives a woman the right to kill it?
"Our society"??? You call 9 old perverts in black robes "OUR SOCIETY"????
WHAT "morality" tells us it's "moral" to KILL BABIES??????

reply from: MapleGrovesMrRight

Note: I must state that I am neither a lawyer, nor a student of law. So my analysis regarding constitutional/state law is admittedly nothing more than that of a layman.
Sigma:
Under the same authority they have to announce that there is an expansive or general "right to privacy" in the constitution.
You may very well be correct, but I read an interesting excerpt on this very notion in a book titled, Men in Black, by Mark R. Levin.
"Of course, from an analytical and logical point of view, a ban on abortion could have been upheld regardless of whether a fetus is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment as a "person". Americans are fined or imprisoned for destroying endangered wildlife or even wetlands, and these laws have been ruled constitutional."
Rather, I did not necessarily mean that a conservative SCOTUS would discover law to enact a ban on abortion in the same breath that they overturn "Roe v. Wade".
I more or less meant that having SCOTUS force feed a controversial law (abortion ban) down Americans throats could very likely backfire in the subsequent elections for "pro-life politicians" and in turn possibly stack the court with "pro-abort" justices.
Personally I believe the most effective way to sway public opinion towards the "Pro-Life" side is analogous to how you would boil a frog.
Place frog into luke-warm water and gradually turn up the heat, versus, dropping it into water already boiling.
I think this method was similarly used by the "gay-rights" crowd over the past 15 or so years, and look at how successful it has been for them. Note: I do not intend to get off subject by mentioning "gay-rights", it is merely an analogy of methodology.
Sigma:
My running definition of a "strict-constructionist" Judge/Justice:
Views his/her role of Justice as a function of the Constitution and it's plain meaning, not as a function of societal or peer pressure.
He/she does not look to foreign law for guidance.
His/her views do not "grow" or change dramatically while on the court.
More could be added I am sure, but this is a good start.
Sigma:
Then it is imperative to ask, why is the majority of Americans "pro-choice"?
I would contend that one of the primary reasons is that SCOTUS through their ruling in "Roe v. Wade" essentially robed the American people of having an effective debate on the issue of abortion.
Thus people have been insulated from confronting their own beliefs or ignorance's on the matter because, GEE-GOLLY who cares what you or I think about abortion, it is irrelevant, SCOTUS has already told us what to think!!!

reply from: Sigma

Really. Could you explain how the reasoning would go, then?
Yes, a State ban on abortion could be upheld. However, this is not support for a Federal ban generated by SCOTUS.
I see no way for SCOTUS to create a ban on abortion. The reasoning in Roe cannot be used in this way, as far as I can tell.
Could you explain the process you intend to use further? In what way would you intend to "turn up the heat"?
How do you believe the "plain meaning" has been overlooked and must change?
What about this do you believe is invalid?
What about this do you believe is invalid?
I see. So the majority of America is pro-choice because they don't know any better? Would it be the same if the majority were pro-life with no Roe decision?


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics