Any pro-choicers out there?
Hey...if you read the Roe-Bots section of this website, you would have a difficult time defending your pro-choice position. Are you pro-choice? Why in the world would you be?
Yea, i'm pro-choice. about to go read the roe-bots section. want to start a dialogue?
Seen all these arguments before. none of them are very convincing.
Always willing to dialogue. Start talking. Why are you pro-abortion? Do you believe it's a baby, and think it is okay to kill it anyway? Go ahead- defend your pitiful position.
First of all, "pitiful" position? Do i get any respect at all?
I do believe that during pregnancy, there is a child growing in the womb. But I also believe that the woman always has the right to decide to stop sharing her bodily resources (water, calories, proteins) with anyone she wants. If she wants to keep those resources, that is her right. If the only method for her to keep these is to remove the growing child, then i also support that act. If there is no way to preserve that child's life while respecting this right, it is an unfortunate biproduct of the procedure. If it were possible to abort a pregnancy AND preserve life, i would make the life preservation (within technological and financial restraints) required by law. That is, if I ran the world...
Well...what about children they are aborting at 22,24, and 30 weeks? Couldn't they be saved rather than aborted? Surely they can survive outside the womb- why should abortionists be allowed to rip them limb from limb and suck their brains out (read Roe-Bots again) . Roe legalized abortions in all nine months of pregnancy- The real question is whether the "Child" as you call it is a person. If so, they deserve all the protection any person does.
Abortion isn't a "right".
And you certainly cannot call abortion safe... over a million people die each year because of it, and many other women are injured!
Also, when you say "removing the growing child", you make it sound like abortion isn't violent. Why not call it what it really does? Mutilating or ripping an innocent human being to shreds?
If abortion currently requires that a child die, then i am against that form of the procedure. And the viable fetuses ought to be saved and put up for adoption. I mean, what didnt you understand about my position?
I also feel as though you are attacking abortion as you see it, rather than abortion as i envision it. That is, if abortion practices do not follow the guidelines i set in my above post, then i am, at least moderately, against those forms of abortion. But if there is no medical technology within economic reach, or if there simply is not the funding to support the child after the abortion, it is my opinion that, though unfortunate, we ought to allow that life to pass.
if you support abortion in any way politically, than you support abortion for any reason thru all nine months pregnancy. That is what we are trying to say. As for "Letting that life pass" call it killing the child- because that is what is being done. If we base the value of a person on "resources" etc- than why are ER's required to sustain life? When you allow the most innocent of society to be murdered legally, than you endager everyone.
i do support abortion for any reason through all nine months of pregnancy, but you are creating a false dilema: all or nothing.
if you had read my explanation of an ideal abortion, it is NOT killing a child.
doctors have chosen to enter a profession in a society which dictates that persons of that profession under certain circumstances are required to preserve life. we've decided that as a society, and if the doctor doesn't want to do that, it is up to him to deal with the consequences. i don't really understand where you are going with this.
Do you have anything to support this claim?
can you deal with this one issue at a time?
I have a scenario..
What if a 14 year old girl is raped by her father, and she gets pregnant. She later finds out either
a. having the baby could be a huge risk to her health due to lack of body maturity
b. she will be having a stillborn
I certainly think she should have the option of abortion, incest is scientifically proven a very unhealthy circumstance (especially concerning the child's health).
I find Abortion apalling, have any of you heard Fire & Ice?
The Abortionists are killing our generation, I find it hard to stand up for Pro-Choice
The killing of the Innocents, its wrong
You Said ****doctors have chosen to enter a profession in a society which dictates that persons of that profession under certain circumstances are required to preserve life. we've decided that as a society, and if the doctor doesn't want to do that, it is up to him to deal with the consequences. i don't really understand where you are going with this
Exactly my point...it also answers the question of 'examples that killing the most innocent puts us all in danger.' If "society", a "woman", or a "doctor" can "Choose" what PERSON lives or dies, than we are all at risk. Since abortion has become legal, several others have been at risk. There have been many recent reports of handicapped and coma victims who have been killed by the medical community. You even admitted that babies who can "Survive" on their own should be removed from the mother who no longer wants them and be kept alive and yet, why do we not do this? We used to value human life because it is created in the image of God and thus should be protected- but now we put a value on humans like they are a commodity- we base their value on importance to society, a woman, finances, health, etc. Those criteria will certainly affect you and me. Not only that, but an anti-life society sends a message that YOU are #1. Therefore, if you have something I want.... the most important thing is I. If I happen to kill you going afer what I want, than so what? It sends a message that born babies who are no longer wanted should be tossed out car windows or thrown in the trash. It says that if I get picked on at school, I am justified in arming myself and shooting anyone in sight to get even. All human life thus becomes cheap and expendable by whomever.
Replying to the " I have a scenario.. "
I have some more common scenarios, answer these:
a) What if a woman or girl is pregnant because she had sex with her boyfriend? She wants the abortion because she does not want to get "Fat" and for no other reason.
b) What if she does not know that having the abortion could endanger her health and even kill her.
c) What if having the abortion could put her in a vegetative state ,a coma, or paralyze her?
d) What if having the abortion could give her an infection so bad that she gets gangrene and her arms and legs would need to be amputated before she eventually dies.
e) What if, the abortionist rapes her , fondles her , and takes photographs of her private parts.
f) What if at the abortion clinic they use unsterile instruments on her and botch the procedure so bad that she has to be hospitalized? But instead of calling an ambulance they sneak her out the back door and send her home...
g) Or perhaps they drive her by car to a hospital miles away passing other ER's along the way- taking her only where their buddies will cover for the abortionist's mistakes.
h) What if they call an ambulance, but they waste precious life saving time debating with the 911 operator on why they should arrive without lights or sirens that she dies anyway.
These are true stories of legal abortion on demand, answer these scenarios first.
not true. we are all only at risk when we are in situations which have been deemed acceptable by the democratic society in which we live to permit the ending of a life.
can you prove a link to aborton?i advocate for maximum reasonably possible preservation of young life. we don't already have such policies because you will not submit to the authority of my arstocratic state.who does? do you? i don't. and you can't legislate the "in god's image" argument...how?i've never gotten that message. in fact, i think that to really hear that message from these folks, you would have to be trying to get them to say it, and do a lot of word-twisting.i've never heard THIS eithernor have i heard thisi don't believe that all human life has become cheap and expendable, nor do i believ that it will solely on the basis of abortion laws or even laws permitting euthanasia.
So you think it is fine if she withholds these resources after her baby is born and watches it die. What if the mother decides to have someone come kill her child days after birth?
Abortion is not about a mother making a decision to withhold resources. Abortion is a decision to have the baby dismembered and mutilated. She cannot tell her body to stop giving resources. She can either selflessly give up these "Sacred Resources", or kill the child. What if every mother in the world decided these resources were more important than a baby? We would not even be having this discussion. I am very thankful that I had more value than calories to my mother.
Our law currently requires mothers to take care of their children or put them up for adoption. Watching them die or having them killed is illegal and horrendous.
do you folks read my entire posts, or just enough to get offended? my ideal for abortion is all that i am defending.
Are you inserting your foot in your mouth? You typed it not me.
Please visit this website. We need to put a definition on what abortion really is.
Please open 10w-03.
This happened to 1/3rd of my generation. Because their Mom's had no support and fell into despair, and now the poor women have to suffer with this memory their whole life.
oh yes it is!
Animals are living breathing creatures. They have a beating heart, they feel pain and are intelliget creatures. They are loved by children and portrayed as one of the ultimate innocnets. Yet we go and mercilessly slaughter them to feel our own selfish desires. This, my friends and foes, is an example of what abortion is. We have other places to obtain food, protein and iron sources in general, but eat it anyways. If you eat meat, you show how, even though you feel pity towards the creatures, you don't give a tiny rats ass about them as long as they, eventually end up in your fat bellies! SAme thing goes for abortion, yet fetus' AREN'T intelligent, are innocent, have a beating heart(most times) and depending on what stage, can or cannot feel pain. Thus, you are a hypocrite if you eat murdered animals and call abortion wrong because it pretty much discards a fetus, or pretty much, though i personally hate to say it, bacteria that brings about a ruined life for the mother at hand.
get it through your head-you are aline in the world. there never is divian intervention, that's what they call pychology. where the mind creates feelings based on desires and thoughts the mind creates.
wouldn't it be kinder to put a baby out of it's misery, instead of sending it to an orphanage or forcing yourself to look at the kid every day and think- this is what ruined my life. my career. it's all because of you?
god didn't intend anything and it's partially his fault for people requesting it.
preists go all over the world saying it's wrong to use a condem.
right there. the anti-abortion(religious) side gets a big kick in the face.
and, even if you did manage to illeagalize it, you think that's gonna stop them! even when it was illegal, women still went through AMAZING and horrifying measures to get them. and because of the unsafe laws, they were killed along with the baby.
Personal Attacks and inappropriate language will not be tolerated on this forum
Survivor, you're making a straw man argument, not a counter to the man's point. He said "bodily resources," meaning things inside a body, not things that can be withheld from a baby after it is born. Nor did he imply that these resources were Sacred; don't put words in other people's mouths. Water, calories, and proteins are very valuable though, since they are neccessary for human life! I suggest that you learn about biology, nutrition, and constitutional law. Our law does not ban all abortions because the government recognizes the importance of letting individuals have control over their own bodies. Just like it would be unconstitutional to force men to ejaculate, it's unconstitutional to force women to give birth (both sperm & embryo have potential for viable human life and neither have a chance if isolated).
I also suggest stepping outside of your religious assumptions box for a moment (who are you to demand that God wants abortion banned? God? Don't presume to know exactly what God thinks.) and thoroughly think about the consequences of banning abortion before passing judgment on public policy.
canbprolife: "if you read the Roe-Bots section of this website, you would have a difficult time defending your pro-choice position."
Quotes are not evidence or reasons for or against abortion. I could quote people saying that they don't regret their abortion; that the procedure was clean and the staff courteous and professional; that they feel less anxiety after aborting; that women introspected, asked confidants, and did research before making their decision, etc., but you wouldn't find such quotes sufficient enough to change your mind, would you? Well, a biased collection of supposedly real quotes, taken out of context, and attributed to people whom you don't much know about would have even less validity.
If you're pro-morality and pro-liberty, you'd be pro-choice. Anti-choice is part of a totalitarian mind set, just like the current Chinese government in forcing women not to give birth. For more on why pro-choice, go to http://www.xanga.com/NaLalina/476713457/planned-parenthoods-description-of-a-case-involving-an-anti-abortion-center.html?#viewcomments
First of all, let me say that i LOVE your post, NaLalina. second, let me respond to that last paragraph.
That rather depends on what morality you are talking about. Kant would tell us that abortion will destroy the race, while Mill might say that is creates more happiness, and still others like Locke would agree with the pseudo-economic argument above. Marx would probably suspend judgement, while Novak would be with Locke.
A child dies in EVERY abortion, 1003.
Rizz, a fetus is not a child, just like a child is not an adult. If a zygote=child, then an unfertilized egg + a sperm=child. So, your argument fails, unless you think we should fertilize every possible egg because not fertilizing them would prevent them from becoming the persons that God intended them to be.
1003, everyone follows some form of utilitarianism, but most don't know it and some go off on tangents because of dogma, like the anti-choicers here. According to you, Kant opposed abortion because it would "destroy the race," which means that he thought abortion would cause more harm than happiness. I don't know Locke's reasoning, but "pseudo-economic" sounds utilitarian. I don't know about Novak. Marx was too dogmatic about his ideology of who should own methods of production to take a stance on anything that didn't fit the ideology, although I suppose he could've argued that women should own the method of producing babies since they are the ones in labor. I guess you didn't read my comment at the link I provided, b/c in that comment, I explained that the universal general moral guideline is utilitarianism and provided a link to Mill's essays.
Oh? It isn't? So you're saying that a split second before birth, it is just a blob of cells, but a split second after birth, it is a child? Birth does not creat anything, NaLalina. If it isn't a child, the woman isn't pregnant.
I only go with this argument when it comes to contraception that deliberately seperates the egg and the sperm to reject conception.
rizz: "you're saying that a split second before birth, it is just a blob of cells, but a split second after birth, it is a child? Birth does not creat anything"
No, I didn't say that. My point is that you're using misleading rhetoric by calling a fetus a child, instead of calling it what it is: a fetus. It would be equally dishonest for a pedophile to call a child an adult in order to justify having sexual relations with children.
You oppose "contraception that deliberately seperates [sic] the egg and the sperm to reject conception." "Reject" and "deliberately" are just more misleading rhetoric. Withdrawal, abstinence, and timed-abstinenced (AKA "natural family planning") are deliberate actions taken to prevent fertilization. If you argue that all fertilized eggs must be allowed to develop into fetuses that must be born, then why don't you believe that all eggs must be fertilized?
NaLalina, you're a killer. Keep it up. I read fast, sometimes missing stuff. I did miss the utilitarian comment, and i almost never click links in forums. Are you in college?
"Fetus" means "little one" in Latin.
And yes, you did. You are saying a baby is not a baby until it is born.
You're not getting what I'm saying. Sometimes the pill makes a sperm and an egg separate, therefore making them reject each other. This is what I think is wrong. I have no problem with natural family planning, withdrawing (for these two, as long as the couple is married), and abstinence.
rizz: "You are saying a baby is not a baby until it is born."
Nope. I'm saying that different words are used to refer to humans at different stages of development. It's dishonest to mislead people by using the wrong words. You want people to equate humans at the child stage with humans at the fetal stage in order to further your agenda. If it's fine for you to mislead people, then it's fine for pedophiles to mislead people by implying that there's no difference between children and adults.
rizz: "You're not getting what I'm saying."
I know what your stance is. You haven't answered my question, "why don't you believe that all eggs must be fertilized?" Did you get my question?
rizz: "Sometimes the pill makes a sperm and an egg separate, therefore making them reject each other. This is what I think is wrong. I have no problem with natural family planning, withdrawing (for these two, as long as the couple is married), and abstinence."
No pill can cause sperm and eggs to "separate" or "reject each other," so you can't oppose pills. Ingesting pills, withdrawing before ejaculation, abstaining from sex, etc., are all forms of contraception (actions taken to decrease the likelihood of a spermatozoon fertilizing an ovum). So, if you oppose pills, why don't you oppose other forms of contraception?
I'm guessing that you avoided answering my last question because you had no good answer. Your opinions are fundamentally flawed because they're based on the premise that it is God's opinion that abortion is wrong. This premise is unacceptable because it's based on two other bad premises: 1. God exists and 2. you know God's opinion. It all comes down to this: anti-choicers have turned their personal religious beliefs (AKA strong superstitions, strong convictions based on weak or no evidence) into mandates that everyone must follow (everyone must do whatever the anti-choicers believe their deity wants). Everyone knows that such totalitarianism is unacceptable, so the anti-choicers fool people (including themselves) by calling it "religious morality." Realize this: "Do whatever (insert name of deity or cult leader) wants you to do" is not a good moral philosophy b/c it can make people do silly/wasteful/harmful things. It has made you inconsistent in always opposing pills and abortion while always accepting withdrawal and timed-abstinence. It has also made a few anti-choicers harass women and murder people who perform or obtain abortions (they think God wants them to save "innocent" fetuses by executing "sinful" aborters. How do you want aborters to be punished? Execution? Jail until death?).
If you follow the universal moral guideline (minimize harm, maximize well-being), then you will be on common ground with everybody (except those who lack the physiological capacity for following the moral guideline, like babies, really substance-intoxicated ppl, those who lack neurons for empathy, etc.). I oppose abortion bans (government forcing impregnated women to nurture fetuses in their bodies and to go through labor, or get C-sections) b/c I think such coercion would be more harmful than helpful to society. If you can show that banning abortion will increase the well-being of society more than it will harm society, then I'll be pro-abortion bans. (I will not be anti-choice, since I'll still allow people to choose from safe methods of contraception). For more info on morality and some factors to consider in making a decision about abortion bans, go to
A fetus is the woman's offspring. An offspring is a child. You are a child of your mother's (regardless of how old you are), I am a child of my mother's (regardless of how old I am), everyone is a child of someone's.
Because an egg is not a person. A egg + a sperm is a person, yes, but no sperm alone or egg alone is a baby.
Ok, so the pill can't do that. But the pill does sometiemes kill the newly concepted baby by starvation because it does not allow it to implant into the uterus.
Actually, laws are based on Christian morals. You don't want morals in this country? Fine. Make everything legal. Because you know what? Some people might think murder and rape are not bad at all.
Ah. So now we're stereotyping?
Abortion is harmful to society. It tells us that some people are unfit to live.
Oh, and since you have no problem calling people who don't agree with you names and stereotyping them, I think I'll call pro-abortion people pro-babykillers.
where did NaLalina stereotype OR name-call? quote?
where did NaLalina stereotype OR name-call? quote?
Of course it's a child.
child Audio pronunciation of "child" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (chld)
n. pl. chil·dren (chldrn)
1. A person between birth and puberty.
1. An unborn infant; a fetus.
2. An infant; a baby.
3. One who is childish or immature.
4. A son or daughter; an offspring.
The preborn ARE humans, and they're in a stage of development, just like other small children or adults.
...ehh not really
A dictionary lists all sugestions for what child could mean to a writer... most of the time only the first one is correct. see how it list the correct term for
... if you don't believe me call webster (they do have a phone number I don't remember anymore but i had to use it for a school paper)
...ehh not really
A dictionary lists all sugestions for what child could mean to a writer... most of the time only the first one is correct. see how it list the correct term for
... if you don't believe me call webster (they do have a phone number I don't remember anymore but i had to use it for a school paper)
If it's not a child, what is it? An alien? A hamster? A penguin, maybe?
A fetus is an unborn child. Fetus is the MEDICAL term for unborn child. It means the same thing.
so what if it is a child? what IS your point?
And thus the slippery slop begins...So what if it is unborn? So what if it is handicapped? So what if it is sick? So what if it is Elderly? So what ...So what...So what....It is all about choice...the mother's choice, the doctor's choice, the government's choice. Human Life is valued only as someone who can support themselves, feed themselves, and give back to society. Child or not- KILL IT! That is what the pro-choicers really believe.
Abortionist William Harrison, said this on Nightline, : "My conscience tells me to do abortions because I consider the mother's life much, much, more important than that tiny, little blob of tissue. When fertilization occurs, that is a new life. And that's why I say that I kill life, that I kill something that's potentially a person? It's not a person."
Abortionist Theodore Lehrer, performs abortions at the All Women's Clinic, in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
" As a pro-choice physician I acknowledge that the fetus is alive, but do not view it as a separate individual."
Abortionist William Harrison"It's not a baby to me until the mother tells me it's a baby," ( NOW THAT IS GOOD MEDICAL SCIENCE FOR YOU)
I think you meant to send a PM on this one. The only piece of truth that has come out of your posts.
You guys are disgusting. I am very fortunate God did not create me in NaLina's womb.
You must be kidding. Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy. I would consider myself "pro-choice," and you have NEVER heard me say kill it because i don't MEAN to say kill it. You may end a pregnancy, but i don't agree with intent to kill a child. By the by, my girlfriend is handicapped, and i live with my grandmother. i mean... what is your point?
i sent a pm, too. but i wanted to publicly show my support, too.
NaLalina isn't pro-choice. And she wouldn't abort for just any reason.
anyway, do you need to say "you guys are disgusting"? it's a little rude. and the twisting of my words into some kind of ... attack, is it? whatever. show your maturity by sticking to the issues.
The slippery slope may be a theoretical fallacy in the logic world, but "theory" does not take into account the practical notion of the effect of devaluing life.
Once the argument is made and accepted that some life - inconvenient, too expensive, conceived at the wrong time or by the wrong means (ie. rape) ect. - the threshold of the sacredness of life has been crossed and any life is subject to the same scrutiny based on illogical, subjective, and selfish criteria. And we have seen, these practices do not have to be embraced by the whole of a society for them to become accepted or even common. There are ample examples in both the abortion issue ( 90% + of all Down Syndrome children are aborted in America), euthanasia (everyday in hospitals and nursing homes lives are being deemed to miserable to carry on and are being ended.), ethnic cleansing (across the globe people groups are deemed unworthy to live for a variety of reasons), gender cleansing (China, need I say more).
So yes, under the pseudo science of college logic theory there is ample evidence that there is no slippery slope. However, there is ample evidence in science, engineering, geology ect. That theory and practice are two different worlds.
Uhm... no. Science relies on the reasoning afforded it in philosophy. If philosophy says that you can't make a conclusion from the premises, science accepts that.
That fails when reality proves philosophy wrong. Philosophy may say I am the only being in the Universe, science may accept that initially, however when through experimention - see what happens when you go to the front of the line at the opening weekend of a new Star Wars movie and quickly being reminded that there are other beings- and casual observation - wow, look at all the people at the OU footbal game - prove the philosophers wrong science jettisons the theory - unless of course it is evolution - and latches on to the reality.
wait... what are you saying? that the spectre of a slippery slope is a valid reason to prevent any action?
I have a scenario for 1003
You said that because the embryo or fetus is attached to the mother and sustaining life by that connection, the mother has the right to remove the fetus or embryo. You didn't say it in those words so correct me if I'm wrong but I think that is what you meant.
So... there were these Conjoined Twins in South America that were attached at the heart. They faced eachother and were connected at the chest. One twin had more of the heart (3 of the 4 chambers) while the other twin had only one chamber. Both were living healthy lives attached to eachother but if they ever were to be separated, the twin with more of the heart would live while the other would die.
So what if the twins hated eachother and the one with more of the heart wanted to be separated but the other obviously didn't because he would die. Do you think that the twins should be allowed to be separated?
You may say that this scenario is not analogous to a pregnancy because a fetus can't talk and say "no please don't separate me from my life source!" and a conjoined twin can. But what if the twin was in a coma and couldn't speak- would the other be able to make decisions for the life of the other twin?
I don't see how a mother has a right to separate herself from the body of an embryo or fetus just because the fetus is dependent on the mother. The fetus is a unique indvidual human that has its own genetic code.
There was a comment earlier that moral and liberal people are pro-abortion but I thought moral people valued all human beings regardless of race, gender, culture, religion, or degree of dependency. Abortion is a human rights issue and people are attacking unborn humans because they cannot speak for themselves, because they are dependent, and because they are inconvenient. How is this not discrimination? Everyone knows and basic science tells us that an embryo is human and an individual distinct from his mother. So why are we denying them basic human rights? Because they are in the womb? Because they are dependent? Because they are small?
Where's Terry, the moderator, saying that inappropriate language and personal attacks won't be tolerated? Someone like you could not be my child anyways, since I will not indoctrinate my children to be religious. I will encourage them to think for themselves, to be freethinkers, and to not harm or insult others.
I apologize for calling you disgusting. But after reading your posts you make the womb seem like such a violent place. Noone would want to be inside of a violent womb. The womb was supposed to be the safest place in the world. I was very safe inside of my mother's womb, and I thank God and my mother for it. She was a strong woman who chose sacrifice her body for me. Every person who breathes air had a mother who chose to make a sacrifice.
canbprolife: "Child or not- KILL IT! That is what the pro-choicers really believe."
Stop lying. Pro-choicers aren't tell anyone to kill anything. They're just saying that gov't shouldn't coerce all pregnant women to continue being pregnant and go through labor/have a C-section. Gov't coercion may be appropriate late in the pregnancy when the fetus is far enough along that the woman might as well continue to be pregnant until birthing/C-section, but there's still need to be exceptions for the woman's health and life. Basically, pro-choicers are anti-abortion-ban (public policy), not pro-abortion (individual action). Pro-choicers would prefer that nobody have an unintended pregnancy and get an abortion, but we don't live in a utopia.
Anti-abortion-ban. Double negative, Anti and ban cancel out..........and.......what you have left is..........drum rolllllll................. Pro abortion!!! Abortion is Baby killing............... Pro Baby Killing!!!!!!!!!!!
I have seen much better rhetoric than this. You continue to prove our point, but your heart is hardened.
It's not just what they tell women, it is what they do not tell them as well.
It amazes me how the so-called doctors, nurses, in the abortion industry are so confused about what "IT" is within the womb. Why in the world would anyone trust them?
Quote: "It's very clear to me that it's killing a potential life. And I found that hard at first."
administrator of Routh Street abortion Clinic in Dallas
Quote: " I think abortion is a kind of killing. What we are killing is not clear. You know you do a sonogram and there's something alive. You do an abortion; it's not alive anymore. This is not a secret."
Abortion clinic nurse
Quote: (Describing what she witnessed in the recovery room after the girls had their abortions), She stated they would lie in the recovery room and cry, " I've killed my baby. I've killed my baby." She went on to say, " I don't know what to say to these women. Part of me thinks maybe they are right."
Absolutely. Either twin has the right to stop sharing their portion of the heart. Perfect analogy to pregnancy. bravo.
I don't see how you can make an ethical argument for that - the other twin is a human being with his own brain and life and experiences and value.
What would you do if you were in the operating room with the twins and the twin with one chamber looked you in the eyes crying asking you for help because he wanted to live?
What would you do if you were that twin with one chamber? Would you support your brother's right to choose?
i would support that right.
You would actually support your brother's taking away of your life? You would willingly say "oh absolutley, kill me in the name of choice, it's your right"? That just dosn't seem plausible to me, especially since you aren't the one being chosen; you've already survived Death Roe.
1003- I don't know you at all but I think that most people in this situation would protest in some way for their life and I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't either but like I said, I don't know you but I know that you are a human being and we all have an instinctual desire to survive.
If you continue to advocate abortion, I would suggest another argument to add to your case besides the embryo's dependency on the mother.
Those in the pro-life movement are not trying to infringe on women's rights, we are just advocating human rights for all human beings, regardless of superficial factors like age, gender, religion, race, etc. You are saying that person's right to live depends on their sustainence, abilities, and burden on others. Why are you basing the right to life on this criteria? The pro-life side says that human beings should have the right to live simply because they are human. Not because they have a certain brain capacity, not because they can feel pain, not because they can run 10 miles. The pro-abortion mindset is discriminating based on external factors like being in the womb, size, degree of dependency, and level of development. This mindset creates a culture that starts to devalue not only the unborn but the born.
i have very strong principles, and am unwilling to compromise my beliefs on morality just because it is incovenient. Just because you would cower in fear means neither that you should, nor that everyone else would.
I am very glad that you strongly adhere to your morals. But I don't understand what your morals are founded on. You are discriminating against those who are fellow human beings. What makes it about an embryo or conjoined twin that gives them less rights than another person? If it is because they are receiving sustainence from another person to survive, why wouldn't this logic extend to other people who are attached to some sort of nourishing assistance or are a burden to society? Like diabetics or the homeless or the handicapped? Do you think that as a society we have a moral obligation to care for those who are dependent- like financial assistance to the blind? Or do you think that because we are able to see and they would be required to depend on those who can see for survival, we don't have an obligation to support their survival?
I too am like you and would be unwilling to compromise my beliefs on morality just because it is inconvenient. And I believe that if you are alive and human, I don't have the right to kill you even if you are inconvenient to me.
I understand your logic in that you believe that we do not have an obligation to serve those who are dependent and so therefore if you were to separate yourself from a fetus which would thus result in the fetus' death, that would not be morally wrong according to your logic. But you must understand and admit that abortion today does not happen that way. The only scenarios that I can think of that follow that sort of procedure would be ectopic pregnancy removal and removing a cancerous uterus (that is pregnant). But abortion as we know it today is not like that. It directly kills the human before completely removing him from the woman's body. I know that you earlier described some sort of abortion ideal but your ideal is nowhere near to reality- so why do you still describe yourself as "pro-choice"?
Do you think it would be okay for instead of separating the twins described in the previous scenario, to rather rip off the twins limbs first and head thus killing it before making the final separation?
no less rights. But i have no right to your body. If i did, rape would be legal, right? we respect people's rights to their own body and resources. if my cojoined twin wants to live without my 1/4 of a heart, and does not want to give me the support of 3/4, that IS his right. to claim anything else in tantamount to endorsing rape.
you are right. abortion does not happen to my ideal. but i would never imagine denying someone the right to their body just because they exercise that right in a way with which i disagree.
You didn't answer my question of :
"Do you think it would be okay for instead of separating the twins described in the previous scenario, to rather rip off the twins limbs first and head thus killing it before making the final separation? "
You are right, you have no right to my body. Rape is illegal and wrong.
But abortion does not simply separate the connection between mother and child to thus allow the child to die outside of the womb (notice I said child because the fetus would be living outside of the womb until his death.) Abortion rather, intentionally KILLS the fetus inside of the womb and then the separation is made.
You make a good point in that we all have personal autonomy but sometimes the choices that we make with our own bodies are morally wrong and also illegal. For example, illicit drug use, suicide, wearing a seat belt- these are all individual choices that only effect the individual but are made illegal by the government in order to protect its citizens.
So now that we have established that there are laws that protect people from making choices that might harm them even though we believe in personal freedom, we can therefore extend that logic and say that because the twin or the fetus is a human being, the other twin or mother has no right to inflict harm or separation of the other that might result in death. Yes this does inflict on the choices the mother and the twin have over their body but just as is the case with seat belt laws and drug laws, certain choices need to be restricted to allow protection of the individual.
Seat belt laws are mostly enforced because even though one could argue that people should have the right to choose whether to wear a seat belt or not to protect their own body and not have to be forced, seat belts are also meant to protect other passengers and drivers on the road who might be injured from your body becoming a projectile through the windshield.
So when our choices of what to do with our own bodies inflict on the rights and welfare of other human beings, society has a duty to protect the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all of its members and restrict choices that infringe on other people's fundamental rights.
You are right, no one has the right to rape you, but no one also doesn't have the right to rip your limbs apart because you are attached to another person.
hrm.... if that is the best way we have to remove them... if there is no other viable alternative to dismemberment, then, that's a sad limitation. maybe aenesthize the fetus.
There is a better way to remove the baby from the mother- it is called "Cutting the cord" and it allows both HUMANS to live.
i thought that we had agreed that forcing a woman to carry a child to term was equivalent to rape.
WHOA........... we most certainly did not.
I'd really appreciate it if you would read my posts thoroughly- Here is a copy of what I said regarding rape and how it is wrong and no one has the right to do that but that by that same token, no one has the right to pull your limbs apart and kill you to separate you from another person's body.
oh, i read it. but i think that all of those laws are immoral, as well. again, i compare substance control among consenting, willful adults to be effectively governmental rape.
Tell that to a family who has a member suffering from drug addiction. Drugs kill people. Addiction and overdose can happen to anyone.
Thomas Jefferson once said, "The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government."
For the protection of mankind, we need laws against homicide, which thus should include laws against abortion.
God is prochoice.
heaven or hell.
Thats actually kind of funny. But uhhh a couple of flaws with that one:
Bear with me, I'm not going to read all the replies, so forgive me for obvious multiplications.
1. At some point about halfway thru pregnancy, a fetus is viable and can be kept alive without it's mother. Your utopia would lead to an enormous increase in preterm births and lifelong disabilities, plus unfathomable medical bills on a large scale.
2. What if conjoined twins don't want to share their resources, should it be legal for one to kill the other? Who makes the choice?
3. Once a baby is born, the mother will always be sharing her resources to sustain that child, whether she's the birth mother or not. Should it be legal for that woman to withold basic needs from any person in her care, which would result in that person's death, if no one else could be found to give care. Or would you draw a line at a certain age?
4. Should husbands be allowed to kill their wives, if they are the only breadwinners?
Though you try to be objective in your reasoning, you are clearly assuming age and developmental capability, which is discrimination.
Or are you assigning property rights for resources to persons metabolizing them first? That would of course put property rights above civil rights, which hasn't been done since the dark ages.
You can call abortion safe if you redefine the word, clearly, using the current definition, abortion is NOT safe, in fact it's probably the most dangerous activity one can take part in in the U.S.
You sure are hung up on rape, aren't you? I never agreed with you. The key word to the above statement is "CHILD" . We are all "FORCED" to do a lot of things we do not want to do. Parents have to feed and provide for their children if they let their children starve, they will be charged with abuse. I for one would like to not be "FORCED" to fund abortionists like Planned Parenthood.
God is prochoice.
heaven or hell.
God created us with free wills. God NEVER created hell for people, hell was only created for Satan and his demons- read the Bible. You do not "Choose" hell you reject Jesus and because of sin, you are not allowed into Heaven. It is a matter of His saving grace and your rejection of that gift. Do not attribute evil with God.
Let's say my house is by a busy street with no sidewalks.
This kid is coming down the road and a car comes barreling down the road at 60.
And the kid comes onto my property! He steps on my daffodils!
So I can push him off my property back into the street, right? Not my business what happens after that. If someone else wants him, he can go loiter on their property.
and it is their right to engage in drug activities.
he was discussing military and its importance as compared to other governmental roles, as well as the importance of diplomacy. try context-appropriate quotes.
abortion is not homicide. it is abortion.
he is? prove it.
so? isn't maximum preservation of life the goal? who cares if they're crippled or retarded, as long as they're alive...
each twin has been medically determined to control portions of the body. the portions which they control are theirs to do with as they please. therefore, if a twin says "i want my own cardiovascular system," rogardless of whether it will kill the twin seeking the seperation or the twin not seeking it, they have the right to find and pay for a doctor to perform the procedure.
she may stop sharing resources, and give the baby up for adoption.
of course not, but they may get a divorce and stop sharing their resources
i am assuming property rights for individuals who acquire them first. property rights are civil rights. and so what if it hasn't been done since the middle ages? does that somehow prove it to be a bad concept? in itself, it does not.
right. i agree it's a child. let's move on to a real debate.... see above no taxation without representation. write your rep and have it fixed.
can you prove that one with a Bible verse or two?
assumedno. damage is already done. press civil charges. well... not quite. see, that, at the very least, is manslaughter. there was no need for you to kill him to remove him. that's just excessive... though... i don't know. locke might say it is ok. fine. kill the kid. you're the one who has to deal with it.
assumedno. damage is already done. press civil charges. well... not quite. see, that, at the very least, is manslaughter. there was no need for you to kill him to remove him. that's just excessive... though... i don't know. locke might say it is ok. fine. kill the kid. you're the one who has to deal with it.
I'm not killing him. Just getting him off my property. After all, that property is a resource that belongs to me. If him being removed from my property causes him to die, why am I responsible?
Didn't i just relieve you of responsibility?
Just checking how heartless you are, 1003. If we can prove that pro-choice advocates do not support a right-to-life for other groups as well, they lose a lot of face among the uncommitted crowd.
Word games are meant for entertainment around the kitchen table on rainy afternoons.
Homicide is the killing of another human being by one or more persons - There is no question as to the meaning of the word. There are however accepted defenses for killing of another human being that do not have a penalty attached. (Self defense for instance)
Additionally, there are varing degrees to punishments given out for different types of homicides (negligent homicide, manslaughter, provoked)
Just as manslaughter is a type of homicide in which the penalty takes in to account certain facts surrounding the event - such as acrime of passion, the husband find his wife in the arms of another, abortion is homicde is a correct statement.
There should be no argument about that - 1003 if I read you correctly you are saying that convenienceissues, handicaps, ect... are defenses that should be accepted for this type of homicide.
But, why make exceptions for abortion? The law already respects the child in the womb as a living being deserving protection of the law - people are charged with two counts of homicide after killing a pregnant mom and her baby, one count if only the baby was killed.
Imagine the person being tried using the defense "I over heard the pregnant woman in a restaurant say that she found out her baby had a birth defect so I killed it, I couldn't go on knowing this child was in the world"
In this case:
The law agrees with your statement above - the law was designed to protect that baby (regardless of his physical, financial, whatever, condition) through the threat of punishment to those who want to take that child's life.
The weird thing is that holds true unless the person taking the life is an abortionist who defends his act of homicide by pointing to his occupation.
That's the equivilent of the BTK killer saying - I did it because I am a professional executioner.
it's a medical procedure to end pregnancy. and what was that about word games? i made a clear, concise, and correct statement, and you spend an entire post making a muddled mess trying to play your own word games.
There will always be people that will never have a broken heart for the aborted babies. It's sad that you talk so casually about aborting a baby. Like someone just getting rid of a cyst or tumor. It's a baby. Life shouldn't be taken so casually, but It obviously is, because our jails are full of people who don't think killing is all that bad.
You are not being consistent.
but then further down you said
Secondly, in response to:
And we completely agree with you! But what would she be charged with if she didn't make those plans to place her baby in an adoptive family? That takes a lot of time and effort to do that. If she doesn't do that, she would be charged with abandonment and neglect of her child- because her child is a human being that requires care and if she fails to do that- whether herself or ARRANGING the care with someone else, she's going to jail
she can call child-services and say "i can't take care of this child." come on, now.
So why can't a pregnant woman do that to arrange care after the baby is born?
I know you are going to say stuff about a woman's right to withhold her bodily resources but she does NOT have the right to kill people. And that is what abortion does.
You didn't comment on how you admitted that it was a child but that abortion is not homicide.
deaths due to abortion are a sad coincidence. they may even be the condition. but they are not, in my eyes, the intent. ask any woman considering abortion if she would rather just end the pregnancy AND preserve the child's life. she'll tell you she would.
Just how many "Women seeking abortion" do you know and talk to? She is not even told it is a "Child" - She is not shown the humanity of the "Child" , so how then can you know for certain that she would want to "preserve the child's life" ?
I have counseled hundreds of abortion-minded pregnant women and they have ALL said that they would never choose adoption because they don't like the idea of someone else raising their child. They don't want to parent the child themselves, but they also don't want anyone else to either. So they instead choose to kill it.
Killing the child is the direct intent
meh. fine. doesnt mean it should be illegal.
So what about the woman who pushed her three children off a pier in San Francisco to die last October?
Should that have been illegal?
Thank you very, very much. Just to establish who I am and what I'm doing here, I'm pro-choice, first of all. That shouldn't have to be a dirty word, so please don't be mean about it. I respect everyone's opinion and I think I have the right to my own.
I've basically read (or skimmed) through the posts under this topic and I was pretty disgusted with all the logical fallacies people were making. It's not constructive in the least to say, "a fetus is a child and to kill it is to kill a child," because that's based completely on an assumption. Nor, on the other hand, is it any better to call people who are pro-life religious zealots. If you have an opinion please be kind enough to thoroughly explain what you believe and why you believe it.
Props to "katewkeeley" for being the first to make any progress on the pro-life side of the debate.
Props also to "NaLalina" for pointing out the completely abusive use of rhetoric. If people are allowed to substitute the word "killing" for "abortion", that automatically makes the two equal. Therefore, I can't in any way support abortion rights because that would make me a killer. In effect, it means that there is no point in discussion or debate at all because one side hogs the arena.
A bit of clarification about Roe v. Wade -- as someone did mention, the case did legalize abortion during all nine months of pregnancy (or so I believe -- don't take my word for that because I could be mistaken). Anyways, we've since realized that that was a mistake. We've realized that it's inhumane to perform abortions after the pregnancy has progressed to a certain point, and that it's also dangerous to the mother. That's why since Roe v. Wade was first decided, legal limitations have been placed on abortions, including the ban of partial-birth abortions (which, from what I understand, is what most of the "pro-life" advocates here are against).
users keep comin, and this is the best i've ever seen an abortion debate: almost entirely intellectual. Props to all involved.
[It's not constructive in the least to say, "a fetus is a child and to kill it is to kill a child," because that's based completely on an assumption.]
You had a very respectable way to voice your opinion and I appreciate that. The only problem I have is with the quote above from you. I've said this before on this forum, I had a miscarriage at 14weeks and I gotta tell ya something, our baby had a perfectly formed body, eyes, ears, nose, arms, fingers, toes, legs, feet and a heart that used to beat. Maybe I imagined it, maybe it wasn't a child. Oh wait a minute, my other children looked just like it only bigger when they were born. Funny, must have been my own assumption.
Roe v. Wade did give the states the rights to regulate abortions in the 3rd trimester. Not every state places restrictions on 3rd trimester abortions first of all. Secondly, where there are restrictions, they allow abortions for so-called health issues. Health is often defined as "mental Health", "Financial Health" etc...which ends up being for any reason, and the ability to decide is left many times to the abortion doctors (profiteers). Take a look at your local yellow page ads, you will clearly see that many abortion clinics advertise abortions through 24 weeks (The very end of the 2nd trimester, 6 month babies). However, it is impossible to absolutely determine the exact date of conception, so often even if the state does restrict 3rd trimester abortions- they are being done.
If anyone is assuming anything in regards to late term abortions, it is the so-called pro-choice people out there that have closed their eyes to the fact that abortions are done in all months of pregnancy. The abortion clinics openly advertise this- it doesn't take a pro-lifer to prove this-you just have to look for yourself.
Read The Roebots section of this website for the actual testimony and quotes of abortion clinics workers and doctors admitting to seeing fully formed arms, legs, heads...etc. Their words not the pro-lifers words.
Here are just a handful of abortion clinics that do them late term:
Women's Health Care Services- Kansas- Abortionist Tiller - 2nd and 3rd trimester
Orlando Women's Center- Florida- 2nd and 3rd
Liberty Women's Health Care: NY- Thru 24 weeks (6 months)
Choices Women's Medical Center-NY- thru 24 weeks (6 Months)
Boulder Abortion Clinic- Colorado- Thru 36 weeeks
Abortion Advantage- Texas- Thru 24 weeks (6 Months)
Atlanta Surgi Center- Georgia- Thru 24 weeks (6 Months)
Hope Clinic for Women - Illinois) Thru 24 weeks (6 Months)
Feminist Womens Health Center - Georgia- Thru 25 weeks (7 Months)
ACTUALLY, sinnamonkat, it is completely based on SCIENCE.
In the abortion debate, no one is arguing about whether or not the fetus is a human being because that cannot be debated, it is a biological undisputable fact. Open any biology book and you will see that the embryo is homo sapien (it is not a carrot, it is not a pig, it is human) and that it is alive. The embryo even has a unique genetic code different from his mother.
What the abortion debate is about is whether or not the unborn human has the rights of personhood. That is something we as a society get to decide and vote on. The fact that the embryo is a biological living human is already decided.
Today in our society, we have said that human beings receive the rights of personhood at birth. And also recently, we have said that wanted unborn humans are also protected under the law under the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Therefore, we have said that the unborn are persons either at birth, or if they are wanted before birth.
And the pro-life movement is saying that birth and wantedness are not good criteria for personhood and that all human beings regardless of race, age, religion, gender, size, level of development, or degree of dependency all deserve the right to live and be protected under the law.
One might add that wantedness is too subjective. There are thousands and thousands of childless couples waiting to adopt an infant, no matter what his or her disabilities or ethnic background might be. There are many more who would be willing to do that if there were more adoptable infants and the waiting lists were shorter. Keeping that in mind, it is irresponsible to claim that any preborn child is truly unwanted. His or her parents may not want that baby, but someone does.
Okay, I'm really sorry about the "fetus isn't a baby" part. I understand that there are various ways to support whether or not a fetus is in fact a baby. I just meant that it's not constructive to merely say it, you need to back up why you think so.
Sorry again for any confusion that may have caused.
Alright, well, we backed it up. The fetus is a living human being and therefore deserves the same rights of personhood as any other human being. Done.
To say anything less than that is discrimination. The Supreme Court said in the Dred Scott decision that African-Americans did not have the rights of personhood and were merely "property." The Nazi's declared Jewish people as subordinate and made it legal to kill them. Society now recognizes these tragedies as crazy! How could any country make it legal to kill another innocent human being?
We are seeing history repeat itself. In 1973 when abortion was made legal, we didn't have ultrasound, we didn't have embryology like it is today. And now we are starting to see all too clearly what abortion really is. And very few people now are arguing whether abortion kills a human being because that can no longer be argued because we know the truth that it does. What abortion advocates are now reverting too is arguing that it is a necessary evil, in that, yes, it is killing, but women need it as some sort of fundamental right to survive in this country.
Well, I am sick of that. I am sick of our country not providing for women and children in poverty, and I am sick of fathers abandoning their chidren, I am sick of the USA subjecting themselves to the vicious cycle of the oppression and explotation of the abortion industry and I can't wait until it is all over and we stop hiding behind our selfishness and open our eyes to see that we are killing our generation, ruthlessly and as horrifically as the genocide in years past.
So called pro-lifers are all living in a childish fantasy land.
As long as there are unwanted pregnancies there will be abortions. Simple as. If a women really doesn't want a child she will not have that child. Den of story.
I live in a country where abortion is illegal. In six years in my nice, middle class, all girls Catholic high school I was evidence of two coat hanger abortion in the bathrooms, and heard of one more. I mean, if that's what I randomly happen across, then it's just the tip of the ice berg.
Fact: you do not get to decide whether or not a woman has an abortion. As long as pregnancy and child rearing as both a burden and a taboo women will use coat hangers, throw themselves down stairs, overdose on drugs, go to shady back alleys, and even commit suicide to avoid carrying babies to term.
That's just how it is. To think that banning abortions will make things anything but worse is delusional.
So you're choice is that, illegal methods of abortion that are undeniably dangerous or legal methods of abortion that are as safe as any other medical procedure.
If you have both a grip on reality and a conscience you must choose the latter.
The abortion mills today are the same back alley abortion mills before 1973, the only difference is now they can advertise. The oldest abortion mill in Texas was an illegal back alley abortion mill. Abortion mills are so dangerous.
We are just as much against illegal abortions as legal abortions. They both kill a baby and put a mother's life at risk.
If you can prove to me that the unborn child is not a human being, then I will completely abandon my pro-life view. If you can prove that to me, I will apply to medical school so that I can become an abortionist and terminate these pregnancies myself.
But the problem is, you can't do that. No matter what argument that you have to legalize abortion, because it results in the killing of an innocent human being, no justification for abortion is adequate. There are thousands of mothers every year who kill their newborn children. Should we make that safe and legal too? If you can prove to me a difference between a mother holding a baby in her arms and saying that she doesn't want to be a mother anymore, and a pregnant woman saying that she doesn't want to be a mother anymore- then we might get somewhere.
People get hurt robbing banks but we don't legalize that, people get hurt doing drugs but we don't legalize that either, because it is in society's best interest to protect people from harm, REGARDLESS OF BIRTH STATUS.
To reply to NoNonsense:
We live in a country where abortion is very legal in all months of pregnancy. Yet... Girls are shooting themselves in the stomach and other violent means to kill their babies. Men are attacking their girlfriends to end the pregnancy and they often will kill the women and the baby in an attempt to get rid of the pregnancy. Girls delivery the baby then drop them in a trash dumpster. I do not think we should make all those acts of violence legal because they will be done anyway?
Abortion on demand creates an atmosphere of violence for the mother and the child. If the baby's life is not sacred-then hers isn't either. If the baby can ruin a women's life-than the women can ruin a man's life and so it goes on.
Just because some women will still seek out illegal abortions is no reason to make them legal. Today we have close to a million reported abortions every year and abortions have nearly doubled from those reported prior to Roe v, Wade despite the fact that our population has decreased https://iier.isciii.es/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5407a1.htm
On the Illegal is not safe issue- that is the fault of the abortion industry and supporters. Anyone who injures themselves from either legal or illegal abortion is the 100% blame of the abortion pushers. Even now there are so-called legitimate abortion proponents posting recipes for "DIY-Do-it-yourself" abortions. One thing you need to understand- Margaret Sanger who founded Planned Parenthood wanted to decrease the numbers of the so-called "Un-desireables". Do you really think that the population control freaks and the abortion lobby cares if women die or are sterile in the process of an abortion? Of course not- as long as they never pro-create and increase in numbers than that is just fine to them.
The abortion lobby continues to push pills on women like RU-486, before they are fully tested. Today many women are injured, mamed, and killed by legal abortion-and the abortionists do their best to "cover it up". It is all fraud in my opinion. Abortion kills a human baby, murder is just that MURDER- whether the murder is approved by the government as legal or not- it is still MURDER! The intent of abortion is to always produce a dead baby-PERIOD!
that is not the intent. not always. i think the usual intent is to end a pregnancy, and i defy you to prove that wrong. if you ask any woman whether she wants to kill her child, or stop being pregnant, i bet she'll pick "cease pregnancy"
She knows the abortion will remove the baby- without the baby- you have no pregnancy. Don't be ignorant.
Aha, aha, you've all certainly convinced me that you don't like abortion alright.
The issue you've failed to grapple with is that you can't do a damn thing about it except make the conditions under which abortions happen worse.
I woman's ownership of her body is inaliable. However much you may wish to deny her that rght, however high you might consider your motivation to be, you are doomed to failure. Legally or Illegally millions of fetuses (that's teeny tiny babies to those who can't give up that particular fantasy) will continue to be aborted year in, year our.
If you could deal with this issue, you might be better served by giving up the fight on Roe and fighting instead the various prejudice against motherhood that motivate abortions.
Tax breaks for families, strong systems of support for single mothers, adaquate and secure maternity leave, fully state funded child care, increased funding for foster care and adoption service... these are the things that could lower abortion rates if any of you have a mind to do something constructive.
Thank you NoNonsense for being practical about this. As long as it is easier for some women not to have a baby than to have one, abortions will happen.
But even if you want to look at this from an abstract point of view, I mentioned this elsewhere on this forum but the fetus really doesn't have rights. That is kind of harsh but I think it holds with how I percieve our society works.
Rights are guaranteed by the state, or the government, whatever. It protects us and our liberties. In return we pay taxes and shape our government. Our children, in most states people under eighteen, aren't considered by the government members of society. They don't pay taxes and aren't mature enough to vote, so therefore they aren't guaranteed Constitutional rights. The juvenile court doesn't grant offenders due process rights.
The fetus, on the other hand, is completely non-operational as far as society is concerned. Why should it have rights if juveniles much older barely have rights?
I mean, I don't think rights are inherent to mankind. The Constitution says that all people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That's not true. It's true in the US because the government protects those rights, but if I move somewhere else that doesn't believe those are rights, then BAM I don't have those rights.
So I don't see how you can just say the fetus has the right to life just BECAUSE.
So the reason why I'm pro-choice can be summarized into several points:
1. I don't believe one way or another that God has an opinion on abortion. If He does, I don't know it and I can't see how anyone can claim to know it. I don't pretend to understand God. You can live a good life without drawing conclusions that are as likely to be true as they are to be false.
2. I don't believe that the fetus has rights. I explained why. Rights are given, granted, by the state. Human beings aren't entitled to anything, we don't deserve anything. All we have is a creation made possible by the structure of society.
3. I wouldn't abort my own pregnancy, but I wouldn't ever impose my will on anyone either. People who try to spread their beliefs aren't really doing it. They're just adopting an in-your-face attitude that offends people. Jesus Christ never imposed His beliefs on anyone even though people were all around him doing things I'm sure he wouldn't have approved of. You don't have the authority to tell other people how to live their lives. I'm pro-choice because I realize people do own themselves and should be allowed to choose. Personally, I wouldn't choose abortion and I wouldn't engourage anyone to, but if they should then it's their own choice.
Does that make sense?
I understand that there is something noble at stake here: the woman's right to choose. The "mother's choice" euphamism has been held in such high esteem by the pro-choice crowd, and it's not like that at all. There's a story, of two men coming on a boat to America, one man sticks his hands out and says "aaah! America" but accidently hits another man in the nose, who gets angry about it. The man who stretched says "This is america, it's my choice". When does your right to choice end? When it infringes on another persons. That's what abortion is, I'm not against woman's choice, I'm against infringing on the baby's right to life with the mother's choice. Also, I'm curious, why wouldn't you abort your own pregnancy? Is it because you find it morally wrong? What about financial advisors who try hard to convince woman to have an abortion, do you think they should be able to?
1003! What happened?
Why did you just repeat the exact same thing I refuted earlier?
You said that women just want to cease the pregnancy? I had already replied to when you said that before with:
"I have counseled hundreds of abortion-minded pregnant women and they have ALL said that they would never choose adoption because they don't like the idea of someone else raising their child. They don't want to parent the child themselves, but they also don't want anyone else to either. So they instead choose to kill it. "
and you replied:
"meh, doesn't mean it should be illegal"
So why did you repeat that same claim about women just wanting to "end the pregnancy" THAT IS COMPLETELY NOT TRUE IN MOST ABORTION CASES IF NOT ALL.
No, sinnamonkat, it doesn't.
You are right in that society gets to vote on who has the rights of personhood. But many times in our nation's history governments have denied the fundamental right to life to fellow human beings simply because they were different. For example, the Dred Scott decision said that African American slaves were mere property and their owners had a right to hang them from trees. Germany made it legal to kill Jewish people in their country because they considered them a subordinate race of people. There have been countless other genocides against human beings in which the government has decided to deny human beings the right to life. And we all know that just because the governement denied those humans the right to life does not mean that it was just.
I've said this before but obviously I need to repeat it. You said that you don't know why the fetus has rights "just BECAUSE." Well currently you obtain the right to life at birth or if you are wanted before birth, according to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. If someone attacks a pregnant woman and her child dies, and that child was wanted, that attacker will be charged with murder.
The pro-life movement is trying to express that wantedness and birth status are not valid criteria for personhood and that those rights should be granted to all human beings regardless of race, religion, gender, size, level of development, or capabilities. And that SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY ARE HUMAN they should be granted the rights that all human beings share. Abortion is a violation of human rights.
You asked why a fetus should have rights if it is completely non-operational to society. Well why couldn't we apply that logic to homeless people, they are a burden, they smell bad, they don't work, why shouldn't we be able to vacuum them into little pieces? Oh, because they are human??? Well, isn't that interesting. Oh, it's because they are born? Since when did six inches down the birth canal change anything inherent about human nature? Oh, it's because he can survive on his own? So, we should be able to kill people on respirators and diabetics on insulin! You see where this is going I hope.
Finally, to explain how your summary of why you are pro-abortion doesn't make sense, let me explain, point by point.
1. You said that you don't know what God thinks about abortion. I'm assuming that you believe the God of the Bible because you mentioned Jesus Christ later in your summary. So, with that assumption, please read Psalm 51:5, Jerimiah 20:17, Luke 1:44, Psalm 139:13, there are many more!
2. Read what I wrote above
3. Read John 2:13-16 and see what Jesus REALLY did when he saw something of disapproval. And finally, do you think that Martin Luther King Jr. was adopting an "in-your-face attitude that offends people"? Many people highly disapproved of his non-violent protests of discrimination against African Americans. People called him an extremist. And now look!
There are striking paralells to abortion today and slavery in the 1800's. The arguement of "I would never have an abortion, but I wouldn't stop other people from doing it" is the exact same arguement that the slaveowners used in the 1800's. They said to the abolitionists who were trying to free the slaves, "If you don't like slavery, don't own a slave!" We have all heard, "My body, my choice!" But that eerily echoes the cries of the plantation owners as they would say to the abolitionists, "My slave! My property!" We know that these arguements are ludricrous because these slaves are human beings, equal in dignitiy to other human beings.
Saying, "I would never have an abortion, but I support a woman's right to choose" is like saying, "I am personally opposed to lynching black people, but I support a slaveowner's right to choose to lynch his slaves!"
A human being, is a human being, is a human being. Science has proved it, what more do you need?
What do you think we have been doing for the past 33 years? The pro-life movement has single handedly started the largest grass-roots movements in our nation's history with over 3,000 Crisis Pregnancy Centers (that's six for every one abortion clinic) that offer food, shelter, job opportunities, scholarships, prenatal care, daycare, and supplies FOR FREE.
The only choice the abortion industry offers is a dead baby. And you can pay cash, Visa, or Mastercard.
Wow, I wonder who really cares about women?
And by the way, a woman has the right to her own body but she does not have the right to harm other people with her body, hence the teeny tiny little baby you were talking about earlier, with the heartbeat and brainwaves and fingerprints and unique genetic combination that will never be repeated in history. The way you talk about humans who look different from the way you do makes me wonder what you think about handicapped people, or little people, or people of a different race. Seems like you are discriminating against another human being based on size and level of development. Now that's not very nice.