Pro-choice vs Abortion

viole said:

There is nothing to fix. Well, in North Europe at least. Really.

Ciao

- viole

Click to expand...

Hundreds of thousands of not-yet-born children are killed every year in the U.S.

900 black babies are aborted every day in the U.S.

This is massacre and genocide, which need fixing.

Prestor John said:

Hundreds of thousands of not-yet-born children are killed every year in the U.S.

900 black babies are aborted every day in the U.S.

This is massacre and genocide, which need fixing.

Click to expand...

Why don’t you use the day after pill? It acts on embryos, if any, that cannot possibly be called babies, since at that stage they are hardly differentiable from amoebas..

Ciao

- viole

Prestor John said:

Every person is a bunch of cells.

Every person begins in the womb.

The not-yet-born qualify as human life.

Destroying a human can be considered murder.

It makes sense. It is no stretch.

Click to expand...

Well, that is your opinion. In Europe we do not see that.
We just do not consider a few duplicating cells a person. Obviously.

Ciao

- viole

Kangaroo Feathers said:

I tried to be concise, but it's basically what I said. I, personally, believe abortion is morally wrong (although I also think there are occasions when it is understandable, if not justifiable). However, I acknowledge that my personal beliefs are not, in and of themselves, justification to compel anyone to do anything they don't agree with. Believe me, I've been working this debate through from multiple directions for years, and I come to the conclusion that there is no objective reason to restrict anyones access to abortion. Ultimately, every argument against abortion can be reduced to either an appeal to authority or an appeal to emotion, and, as such, no one should be compelled to abide by them against their own beliefs.

I have similar views about quite a few things. There are very, very few "objective" moral arguments. I try to put my personal, subjective views aside from anything that doesn't directly cause harm to non-consenting parties. For me it comes down to enlightened self interest. I have a number of opinions, some quite strong, on what is and isn't moral. However, I recognise that if I go about trying to impose my subjective opinion on others regardless of their opinion, I lose any right to complain when someone else seeks to impose his subjective opinion on me despite my disagreeing.

Click to expand...

Very John Locke, really. Well done.

Bob the Unbeliever said:

First? There is HOPE that you have recognized that Blaming The Victim is Immoral--

-- or so it seems --

Then? You reverse yourself, and go right back to Blaming The Victim. Typical anti-choicer.

Click to expand...

This tells me that you have no idea what the difference is between 'blaming the victim' and 'preparing for self defense.'

The Victim is seldom, if EVER, to blame. However, it's a good idea, when wandering around among predators, to go armed and ready to defend oneself.

However moral/nice it is for a victim to avoid blame and assign it to the correct person (the assailant or irresponsible jerk) , isn't it better not to be a victim in the first place?

So each partner is responsible for his/her own birth control, and responsible for making sure that his/her partner isn't lying about his/her own birth control. That's just common sense.

However, the one who gets to deal the most with the consequences is the woman. Perhaps that's not politically correct, but it's scientifically so, and I'll go with that. I have empirical evidence...five kids and y'know what? My husband didn't give birth to any of 'em.

So, out of sheer, cussed, 'I'm the one who'll get pregnant' realism, I strongly advise the women to be extra careful about birth control....and I would dump like rotten eggs a guy who doesn't, or lies about it.

That's not 'blaming the victim." that's "don't BE a victim."

Bob the Unbeliever said:

So according to your inconsistent worldview?

"Murder" is just fine, so long as there is a Victim involved?

Interesting. Inconsistent as all heck, though...

Click to expand...

Your post makes absolutely no sense.

Prestor John said:

This argument is what prompted me to say (in the very same post),

"We need anti-abortion laws in place for those who argue that abortion is not murder."

I also said in the very next post,

"We just need to legally define abortion as murder."

I understand that the amoral like to engage in "hair-splitting" over this issue.

However, if you want to remain intellectually consistent on this issue, then there is no other alternative.

Human life begins at conception.

Click to expand...

By the way, you know that the bible has no problem with abortion and infanticide, I take it?

Prestor John said:

Try to explain the logic of this statement.

You will soon see how ridiculous it is.

Click to expand...

You think that the state has the right to order women to carry fetuses to term or suffer the penalties for murder.

And you promote that view, meaning that you think women must be forced breeders.

How ridiculous is that?

How reasonable is choice?

UpperLimits said:

It is wrong because it violates the sanctity of life. The point of sex, pregnancy and childbirth is to bring life to the earth - NOT to populate heaven. My life is sacred. Your life is sacred. The child's life is sacred. The prize is life experienced here on earth. That doctrine's just a consolation prize and has all the value of a participation trophy..

Click to expand...

Whole lotta begging the question there, but anyhoo...

dianaiad said:

Your post makes absolutely no sense.

Click to expand...

No-- it makes perfect sense-- if you truly believe that all abortions are murder?

Why would you care what motives were involved in the conception? Why would you bother to worry about the mother dying, so long as the precious fetus is preserved?

It would appear that the "murder" label is circumstantial-- and that you actually don't think abortions are murder after all...

Prestor John said:

This argument is what prompted me to say (in the very same post),

"We need anti-abortion laws in place for those who argue that abortion is not murder."

I also said in the very next post,

"We just need to legally define abortion as murder."

I understand that the amoral like to engage in "hair-splitting" over this issue.

However, if you want to remain intellectually consistent on this issue, then there is no other alternative.

Human life begins at conception.

Click to expand...

Lot's of begging the question, there. You don't get to just make up laws without compelling reasons. Any move to define abortion as murder is built on purely circular logic, i.e. "abortion is wrong because it's murder, it's murder because it's wrong".

Kangaroo Feathers said:

I tried to be concise, but it's basically what I said. I, personally, believe abortion is morally wrong (although I also think there are occasions when it is understandable, if not justifiable). However, I acknowledge that my personal beliefs are not, in and of themselves, justification to compel anyone to do anything they don't agree with. Believe me, I've been working this debate through from multiple directions for years, and I come to the conclusion that there is no objective reason to restrict anyones access to abortion. Ultimately, every argument against abortion can be reduced to either an appeal to authority or an appeal to emotion, and, as such, no one should be compelled to abide by them against their own beliefs.

I have similar views about quite a few things. There are very, very few "objective" moral arguments. I try to put my personal, subjective views aside from anything that doesn't directly cause harm to non-consenting parties. For me it comes down to enlightened self interest. I have a number of opinions, some quite strong, on what is and isn't moral. However, I recognise that if I go about trying to impose my subjective opinion on others regardless of their opinion, I lose any right to complain when someone else seeks to impose his subjective opinion on me despite my disagreeing.

Click to expand...

The problem being that imposing our opinions on others is at the very essence of democracy ( and republic ). There is no escape.

blü 2 said:

So you think of women as breeding cows and their bodies as public property, eh?

Click to expand...

This sort of post really doesn't help.

Kangaroo Feathers said:

Whole lotta begging the question there, but anyhoo...

Click to expand...

And a whole lot more misunderstanding the point, but anyhoo...

Bob the Unbeliever said:

No-- it makes perfect sense-- if you truly believe that all abortions are murder?

Click to expand...

Well then, it doesn't apply to me, so of course it wouldn't make sense. "Murder" is a legal term. Right now, no abortions are considered to be murder, though if someone kills a pregnant mother, he is likely to be charged with the murder of the fetus, as well. That's another thing, though.

I do think that MOST abortions are like murder, in that the motive for most abortions are pretty much the same as the motives for premeditated murder, but 'like' and 'are,' are two different concepts.

Bob the Unbeliever said:

Why would you care what motives were involved in the conception? Why would you bother to worry about the mother dying, so long as the precious fetus is preserved?

It would appear that the "murder" label is circumstantial-- and that you actually don't think abortions are murder after all...

Click to expand...

Oh, get a grip. I'm tired of including the 'disclaimer' and having it be ignored. Pay attention.

Most abortions are sought by women who have entered into consensual sex, understanding that sex makes babies. They have either not used birth control, used it irresponsibly, or something beyond their control went wrong. These are the women who choose to abort because it is not convenient for them to be pregnant 'right now.', who have changed their minds because it's not convenient for them to be pregnant right now, or are using abortion as primary birth control...or at least, back up birth control. The point is, the vast majority of abortions are sought because a kid would be very much in the way, and so....kill the kid before it's born. It's OK to do that, because society doesn't view doing this as murder. In fact, a whole bunch of people figure that it's almost admirable to abort a pregnancy; it's almost a gilt edged membership card into the liberal feminism movement. You can't really BE a modern woman unless you've had one.

That's MOST abortions.

There are times when abortions are a necessary tragedy, and should be seen as such. In the case of rape, incest, non-consensual sex with minors (there is no legal way a minor can give consent),, when the life and health of the mother is at risk, or when the fetus is so malformed that it has no chance of survival outside the womb even at full term.

"Murder" is a term that relates to the killer, not the victim. The difference is....I'm driving down the street at the speed limit, and someone runs out into the street between cars. I hit him...there is absolutely no chance to avoid hitting him. He dies. I have killed him. I have not committed murder, but he's still dead.

However, if I'm driving down that street and I see the guy about to cross, and instead of trying to avoid hitting him, I AIM for him and hit him, and he dies, that's murder.

Murder is about the motive. And in my view, when an abortion is about 'getting rid of the kid because I don't want to bother with it,' That qualifies.

Koldo said:

I have none of those rights, which doesn't prevent me from doing what I want to do. The fact there is no natural right to freedom doesn't entail I must submit. Don't worry, I know what I am talking about. How much are you willing to bet ?

Click to expand...

Just because you don't recognize the rights doesn't mean you don't have them.

Koldo said:

This sort of post really doesn't help.

Click to expand...

It gets straight to the point. Why isn't that helpful.

Why should the state dictate to women whether they'll continue the fetus to term? When does the fetus get rights? Doe v Wade gave answers that make sense.

And as I said, the bible's views are far more pro-abortion and infanticide than mine are ─ to repeat myself:

dianaiad said:

Most abortions are sought by women who have entered into consensual sex, understanding that sex makes babies. They have either not used birth control, used it irresponsibly, or something beyond their control went wrong. These are the women who choose to abort because it is not convenient for them to be pregnant 'right now.', who have changed their minds because it's not convenient for them to be pregnant right now, or are using abortion as primary birth control...or at least, back up birth control. The point is, the vast majority of abortions are sought because a kid would be very much in the way, and so....kill the kid before it's born. It's OK to do that, because society doesn't view doing this as murder. In fact, a whole bunch of people figure that it's almost admirable to abort a pregnancy; it's almost a gilt edged membership card into the liberal feminism movement. You can't really BE a modern woman unless you've had one.

Click to expand...

I think you entirely understate what 'convenient' means. Convenience doesn't happen because of a whim, like Trump's foreign policy. It happens because people responsibly recognize that they cannot afford to have a child because there just isn't enough money to go around, and never will be; it happens because people responsibly recognize that they are not ready and able to be a parent, unlike those gazillions who have a child and criminally mistreat it; and it happens because people face the daunting prospect of having to raise a child alone, without the support of groups like Planned Parenthood, because the State has put them out of business.

People ought to have the right to not be a parent. It's against their will, which means it is against free will.

blü 2 said:

It gets straight to the point. Why isn't that helpful.

Click to expand...

I think he just meant that it's rhetoric. Misplaced rhetoric can be very unhelpful.