I'm against abortion myself, but....

[Magic Man]

See - but everyone fits pretty well into my groups. There may be some switching sides depending on which piece of legislation is being voted on, but it's pretty black and white: Would you vote to allow abortions or to not allow abortions?

But, still, what about the people who don't know which they would want? What about the people who completely don't want abortions to happen, but aren't sure they want to tell others what to do with their own bodies?

 

[SoyLeche]

But, still, what about the people who don't know which they would want? What about the people who completely don't want abortions to happen, but aren't sure they want to tell others what to do with their own bodies?

We'll call them "undecided" for the moment.

My purpose isn't to put people into compartments. It is to create terms for the different sides of the issue that actually address and define their side of the issue. "Pro-choice" and "Pro-life" do more to confuse then they do to clarify.

 

[Magic Man]

We'll call them "undecided" for the moment.

My purpose isn't to put people into compartments. It is to create terms for the different sides of the issue that actually address and define their side of the issue. "Pro-choice" and "Pro-life" do more to confuse then they do to clarify.

OK, I won't argue with that...unless you want me to, in case you're bored.

 

[Scott1]

There may be some switching sides depending on which piece of legislation is being voted on, but it's pretty black and white: Would you vote to allow abortions or to not allow abortions?

I guess I just don't see it as a "voting" issue... to me it is simply a matter of "right" and "wrong".

That arson and kidnapping (for instance) are wrong never comes to the point that people will say "I don't personally want to set fire to a building.... but I support the rights of those who wish to do so".... I just don't get it.

 

[SoyLeche]

I guess I just don't see it as a "voting" issue... to me it is simply a matter of "right" and "wrong".

That arson and kidnapping (for instance) are wrong never comes to the point that people will say "I don't personally want to set fire to a building.... but I support the rights of those who wish to do so".... I just don't get it.

It is a very political issue, and the easiest way to define the sides is by how they would vote if given the chance.

I agree that it is a matter of "right" and "wrong", but trying to define it that way will simply lead to more confusion.

 

[rheff78]

But, still, what about the people who don't know which they would want? What about the people who completely don't want abortions to happen, but aren't sure they want to tell others what to do with their own bodies?

Then they would be Pro Choice.

 

[Magic Man]

Then they would be Pro Choice.

By your definition.

 

[SoyLeche]

By your definition.

Well - by logic If you are in favor of allowing a choice on abortion, then by definition you are "pro-choice", reguardless of what you would choose under the circumstances.

The sticky part of your example is the "they are not sure..." part.

 

[Magic Man]

Well - by logic If you are in favor of allowing a choice on abortion, then by definition you are "pro-choice", reguardless of what you would choose under the circumstances.

The sticky part of your example is the "they are not sure..." part.

Yes, the sticky part is the entire point of the comment.

 

[SoyLeche]

Yes, the sticky part is the entire point of the comment.

I know - which is why I made the first post I made. Of course, if they are not sure, but their default position is "until I'm sure, let them have a choice", then they are "Pro-choice" unless and untill they decide that "they shouldn't have a choice".

If their default is "until I'm sure let's not have it a choice", then the oposite would be true.

 

[Willamena]

"What's allowed" is entirely the issue. The fact that grand theft auto isn't allowed doesn't make it stop - but it is still not allowed, and there are penalties if you are caught doing it. If there is no legislation, then it is "allowed".

:no: There's no legislation about what type of toilet paper we should be using, so does that mean the government or society or We The People "allows" every type of toilet paper? No. It means they have no say.

 

[SoyLeche]

:no: There's no legislation about what type of toilet paper we should be using, so does that mean the government or society or We The People "allows" every type of toilet paper? No. It means they have no say.

Yes - I'd say that the government "allows" us to choose which toilet paper to use. If it is not "not allowed", then by definition it is "allowed".

Theoretically, they could use the power that has been reserved for the government (that of being able to legally take away your life, liberty or property) to "not allow" certain toilet papers. That would be a very sad day though. So, I wouldn't go so far as they have "no say", just that they don't exercize any "say".

I think you are trying to get into semantics a bit too much.

 

[Magic Man]

Yes - I'd say that the government "allows" us to choose which toilet paper to use. If it is not "not allowed", then by definition it is "allowed".

Theoretically, they could use the power that has been reserved for the government (that of being able to legally take away your life, liberty or property) to "not allow" certain toilet papers. That would be a very sad day though. So, I wouldn't go so far as they have "no say", just that they don't exercize any "say".

I think you are trying to get into semantics a bit too much.

Isn't semantics the whole point of this thread?

 

[SoyLeche]

Isn't semantics the whole point of this thread?

A good part of it.

We can switch the groups to "Pro-Make-Abortion-Illegal" and "Anti-Make-Abortion-Illegal" if you like. Tomato/Tomato (you're going to need to do the pronunciation yourself).

 

[Evelyn]

I guess I just don't see it as a "voting" issue... to me it is simply a matter of "right" and "wrong".

That arson and kidnapping (for instance) are wrong never comes to the point that people will say "I don't personally want to set fire to a building.... but I support the rights of those who wish to do so".... I just don't get it.

Neither do I. I mentioned something similar earlier:

That's the thing, as a society we do intervene in people's lives if the choice harms others. And in this case, it's the ending of a life.

 

[Evelyn]

It is a very political issue, and the easiest way to define the sides is by how they would vote if given the chance.

I agree that it is a matter of "right" and "wrong", but trying to define it that way will simply lead to more confusion.

IMO, politicizing it is what confused it. Politics is the weapon of choice against religion.

It started with the protestants fighting off anticlericalism (mega-churches) and it slowly developed into kicking out all things religious of the public arena. Particulary in the 19th century an increasing specialization was encouraged, calling for clergy to stick to their business of saving souls while governors would do the governing.

Anyways, that's my opinion on that.

 

[Draka]

And yet no one has responded to my earlier post. What about those of us who are personally anti-abortion, support a right to choose for so long into the pregnancy, and then want a cut-off limit as to when an abortion can be allowed. Right now, legally, a woman can have an abortion at any time. Even if the child could be born naturally fully and healthy two weeks later. Some of us believe that once the fetus reached a stage of development inside the womb that they could survive outside the womb, that abortion should not be allowed. That the child should be born and perhaps put up for adoption.

Are we only pro-choice for 2 to 3 months and then pro-life for the 4th month on? Or what?

Pro-choice and pro-life ARE NOT black and white terms. You can certainly be both, both personally and politically. If certain people can't see that it is probably because they want to maintain their feeling of moral superiority over those who would support any allowance of choice when it comes to the subject of abortion.

Oh, and as a side note: I, as well as some others I am sure, am really tired of comparing the delicate subject and decision of abortion to the likes of pedophilia, murder, rape, and the like. A woman that goes in for an abortion does not do so with malice on her mind as the other things require. She does not do what she does with the outright intent to cause harm (no matter if you think she does harm or not). She does not go into this lightly and has taken a lot of time, personal self-reflection, research, emotional weighing of the pros and cons, and has sat through a lot of tears coming to a decision such as this. She will be confronted with her decision for the rest of her life as well. To level what she has done or plans to do with a vicious, uncaring, psychotic rapist or the like is just sickening emotional warfare. Those who do such a thing only appear to do it to either belittle the woman and make her feel even worse (that's right you animals...drive her to suicide as if she hasn't already contemplated it) or because they have no better argument and grasp at ridiculous straws that only insult and have nothing to do with argument. Shame on you! :tsk:

 

[DallasApple]

Alceste! Where are you..Im in the mood to burn down someones house ..but only after I kidnap one of their children...I know we had a busy night last night..But why not start the day off with a little devience and criminal activity!..Come on finish your coffe and lets go!

(((Hugs)))

Dallas

 

[blackout]

Wow. It's funny how you mention certain words, and all of a sudden you have a 20-page discussion. I still don't understand why the need for categorizing everyone into two groups. Life isn't black and white. People can say they are "pro-choice" with a twist, or the reverse. I don't see what the big deal is.

I know. So by whoever's "play on words" I"m whatever.

According to Rheff I'm Pro-choice then.
So what.
Then I'm Pro-choice. And so is the christian God.
Whatever.

 

[Scott1]

And yet no one has responded to my earlier post. What about those of us who are personally anti-abortion, support a right to choose for so long into the pregnancy, and then want a cut-off limit as to when an abortion can be allowed. Right now, legally, a woman can have an abortion at any time. Even if the child could be born naturally fully and healthy two weeks later. Some of us believe that once the fetus reached a stage of development inside the womb that they could survive outside the womb, that abortion should not be allowed. That the child should be born and perhaps put up for adoption.

I believe that life should be defended from CONCEPTION.

If certain people can't see that it is probably because they want to maintain their feeling of moral superiority over those who would support any allowance of choice when it comes to the subject of abortion.

I hope you can recognize that some of us "can't see" because we have strong beliefs about the sanctity of life... and that some of us don't feel or desire to feel any sort of "superiority"... and I hope that you will forgive me and accept that I'm being honest and respect you enough not to "mince" words so to speak.

Oh, and as a side note: I, as well as some others I am sure, am really tired of comparing the delicate subject and decision of abortion to the likes of pedophilia, murder, rape, and the like.

I can't speak for others... but I have done this not to compare the things... but to illustrate that I didn't understand the hesitance to speak out on certain things (such as a crime) but "keep to myself" on this particular issue.

A woman that goes in for an abortion does not do so with malice on her mind as the other things require.

I don't generalize in this way.... I'm sure that some do and some don't... what is at issue for me is that procured abortion is the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth.

She does not do what she does with the outright intent to cause harm (no matter if you think she does harm or not). She does not go into this lightly and has taken a lot of time, personal self-reflection, research, emotional weighing of the pros and cons, and has sat through a lot of tears coming to a decision such as this.

Again... I'm sure some do....and some don't...

She will be confronted with her decision for the rest of her life as well. To level what she has done or plans to do with a vicious, uncaring, psychotic rapist or the like is just sickening emotional warfare.

I agree that it will be with her for eternity.... but I'm not sure of what you mean by the last sentence here.

It sounds like you are hurt... and I hope that I don't add to that... but I appreciate you discussing this with me.