Pro-Life Women Shift to Majority?
- Thread starter covermye
- Start date
Captain Chickenpants
Regular
Hmm, doesn't seem to be viewable for me.
Another article on the same subject. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3028820.stm
Seems to me to be a case of people forcing their beleifs onto other people. Also the quote you gave points out some of the hypocracy involved, if the foetus shouldn't be aborted because it is alive, then why are foetuses for rape victims allowed to be aborted? Surely they are just as innocent as a foetus from consenting sex.
I personally feel that it should be the womans choice. Sounds like the Center for Advancement of Women is actually restricting women.
CC
Another article on the same subject. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3028820.stm
Seems to me to be a case of people forcing their beleifs onto other people. Also the quote you gave points out some of the hypocracy involved, if the foetus shouldn't be aborted because it is alive, then why are foetuses for rape victims allowed to be aborted? Surely they are just as innocent as a foetus from consenting sex.
I personally feel that it should be the womans choice. Sounds like the Center for Advancement of Women is actually restricting women.
CC
The nature of abortion is so disgusting the pro-abortion lobby will constantly need to brainwash the public into supporting it. Using arguments such as rape abortions are allowed in order to rationalize using abortion as a form of birth control is a widespread fallacious argument. The numbers of children that actually are a product of rape are nearly zero. Choice is having the ability to say yes to intercourse. Abortion is a secondary choice and a direct result of the initial choice. Babies should not be held responsible for the poor choices of their creators. People should take having intercourse far more seriously then they do and be responsible for their actions. A baby is alive inside a woman with senses well in advance of birth.
horvendile
Regular
Sabastian said:
Especially the ones made with wire hangers.
(I'll go on vacation a few days and likely won't be able to answer to replies for a few days.)
I agree with partial-birth abortion being absolutely disgusting. When eddie and I read exactly what it was, we were completely horrified. Halfway birthing a baby, and then sucking the brains out with a hose is just awful, especially since partial birth abortions are only performed in the 3rd trimester.
However, abortions before fetal viability outside the womb I don't have an issue with, if the mother's life is in danger, or the mother was raped. I don't agree with an abortion simply because a couple forgot to use a condom and they don't want the kid. Abortion gives them an easy out.
So basically my beliefs on abortion contain shades of gray rather than absolutes. No clue on how to legislate it, but there are my ideas anyways. hehe.
However, abortions before fetal viability outside the womb I don't have an issue with, if the mother's life is in danger, or the mother was raped. I don't agree with an abortion simply because a couple forgot to use a condom and they don't want the kid. Abortion gives them an easy out.
So basically my beliefs on abortion contain shades of gray rather than absolutes. No clue on how to legislate it, but there are my ideas anyways. hehe.
Silent_One
Newcomer
Agreed. Question-Did congress ban partial birth abortion? Status?
Generally agree. However there are times and circumstances when the mother may be physically ill or incapacitated yet who's life is not in danger. That is a tough judgment call.
horvendile
Regular
I'm not on vacation quite yet! But very soon... should be packing. Anyway: If you have the time, this
http://www.who.int/archives/whday/en/pages1998/whd98_10.html
is a good page by WHO about abortions. It contains loads of facts, and a few good points, presented in a non-polemic manner.
http://www.who.int/archives/whday/en/pages1998/whd98_10.html
is a good page by WHO about abortions. It contains loads of facts, and a few good points, presented in a non-polemic manner.
horvendile said:
So, by the same logic we should legalize all forms of drugs, automatic weapons and explosive devices since the items found in their respected black markets are of much worse qualty than it would be if legal... good logic.
Hell, anything's of better quality than what's comming out of most people's kitchen meth labs, right?
Silent_One said:
I don't know. I don't think a ban has been done yet, but I believe some are fighting for it currently. Though some abortion activists are fighting to stop even that because they feel it'll be a slippery slope to rolling back Roe v Wade alltogether.
Silent_One said:
Yea, that's why I said it'd be extremely difficult to legislate my beliefs. The law doesn't really allow for shades of gray sometimes wrt situations like that, and requires the finesse of an individual rather than a monolithic legal statement.
Ok, first off, i do object to using such rhetorical devices as "pro-abortion" labeling.Sabastian said:
There is no such camp - its PRO-CHOICE. Your labeling is biased in the same way calling the two camps pro-life and pro-murder/death/slaughter would be.
Secondly, your entire argument is predicated along ONE line:
A couple of questions:
First, HOW long before birth is "well in advance"? IE, do you have problems with the so called "day after pills" or the (no longer much used) intauterine devices?
From what i can see, your argument comes down to "the baby is alive and so it is murder" - the thing is, WHEN is it alive, and WHY do you draw the line where you do?
Anyways, i'd appreciate that if you desire to continue in a real debate on the subject, that you try to stay away from loading your statements with intentionally emotional charges, like "Babies should not be held responsible for the poor choices of their creators" - because thats not really your argument - your argument is that a foetus is alive (thus, a "baby") even while in the womb - but most sane people agree that murder is wrong, so your argument SHOULD NOT be to emotionally con them into either agreeing with you or feeling like a tool (by use of statements like those that fill your post), but it should rather be to try and actually explain WHY you think a foetus is a "human", and at what point you think that occurs.
If you can do that, then this could be a productive debate - because i am decidedly pro-choice.
I do have a line when the foetus becomes "human". Its not 100% hard (in other words, i do take special cases into account) but for the most part, i dont think its human if it cant live outside its mothers womb. I know, its pretty broad, and you can argue all kinds of life support, etc issues, but lets leave that alone, eh, and set a forward time - say, anything earlier than the third trimester, roughly.
Note: I am NOT pro abortion! I do not advocate abortions! I do not chant "kill a foetus, kill a foetus" in the streets!
I DO think that a foetus is NOT human/alive until after a certain point, and up until that point, its not murder. Abortion is simply a means to remove a potential problem or unwanted complication that is functional and morally no different (IMO, and with the restrictions i have mentioned) from any other form of birth control.
Imo, the major problem with abortion is that it defines human life in a way that may be very dangerous as we enter this new age of genetic engineering. For example, the legal argument for abortion is that the fetus is not viable outside the mother's womb until after birth (or thereabouts, depending on whether the new PBA ban has modified that). Therefore, the fetus is legally part of the mother's body, and she has the right to do with her body as she pleases (up to the point of actually killing herself, which is illegal). So if the mother has the right to scrape either her skin or her womb to rid herself of a few unwanted cells, then she has the right to do almost anything else to her body that she wants.
Now pretend we are one hundred years in the future and there is a geneticist on every street corner, so to speak (a la Gattica). An indigent woman gets pregnant, and decides she wants to use her child to make money. So she goes to a geneticist and makes a deal wherein the geneticist will alter her baby and give it six arms, two heads, and four legs, and the mother will pay the geneticist 20% royalties from the all freak show and Jerry Springer appearances her child makes. If she can legally kill her fetus, then this is not only surely legal, it is also much less morally reprehensible and even profitable!
Today's abortion laws leave significant loopholes in their protection of human rights in the age of genetics. The choice we face in fixing this problem appears to be either to patch these laws piecemeal - eg a woman can end the life of her unborn child, but cannot genetically alter it in a way that is detrimental to the child if she decides to birth it (hypocrasy, anyone?). Or we can rewrite our laws so that they consistently adhere to a fundamental philosophy of the protection of human life. Me, I vote the latter.
Now pretend we are one hundred years in the future and there is a geneticist on every street corner, so to speak (a la Gattica). An indigent woman gets pregnant, and decides she wants to use her child to make money. So she goes to a geneticist and makes a deal wherein the geneticist will alter her baby and give it six arms, two heads, and four legs, and the mother will pay the geneticist 20% royalties from the all freak show and Jerry Springer appearances her child makes. If she can legally kill her fetus, then this is not only surely legal, it is also much less morally reprehensible and even profitable!
Today's abortion laws leave significant loopholes in their protection of human rights in the age of genetics. The choice we face in fixing this problem appears to be either to patch these laws piecemeal - eg a woman can end the life of her unborn child, but cannot genetically alter it in a way that is detrimental to the child if she decides to birth it (hypocrasy, anyone?). Or we can rewrite our laws so that they consistently adhere to a fundamental philosophy of the protection of human life. Me, I vote the latter.
fbg1 said:
Um, see, this is why I hate the movie Gattaca. It instills these wrongfull scenarios in people's minds that are so out there. You do realize that humans lack the biological foundation to support six arms, four legs and two heads. It would require such a fundimental change in the human gene line that it would probobly not even be considered a human anymore.
It's like the people who think you can just "add wings" via GE and you'll instantly have a human that can fly. This uncovered knowledge, as in any that has been discovered this side of the early 20th centuries quantum revolution has the ability to cause great harm; unfortunatly it's allways the ignorant [eg. not informed] opinion that tends to favor the doom & gloom scenarios that stall the progress of discoveries.
In 50 years we've gone from Godzilla and his nuclear genesis to the neo-Frankenstein endowed with six arms, 4 legs and two heads. Mary Shelley would be proud.
Oh, lets see…. Just what are you pro choice about? Anything? I am afraid that you have left out some important information. I simply made it more clear about what it is that you are pro about. An abortion clinic is a kind of a slaughter house I suppose. Just like the cattle being lead to the slaughter house doors unborn children don’t have much of a choice do they? The label pro-choice is used to hide the real agenda which is abortion. Can anyone say that this is not an organization without a hidden agenda?
I take offence to your suggestion that my labeling someone whom is in favor of abortion pro abortion simply because they don’t like being called that is biased. But let me take this a little further there is biased labeling in truth and then there is the politically biased labeling that the pro abortionist lobby uses. Pro-choice is entirely a biased political label that the pro-abortion movement has decided to label itself to confuse the matter. The choice of intercourse is primary and a serious choice IMO.
At 8 weeks of age the unborn child, is about half an inch long. The miniature human being is sheltered by the amniotic sac. The arms and legs have are longer, and fingers can be seen. The toes will develop in the next few days. Brain waves can be detected. One could argue it is the time that the child’s central nervous system is developed enough for sensory at or around week 10 of the pregnancy still in the first trimester.
Some argue that the life is in progress immediately after fertilization and they would still technically be correct, sense if you were to stop the fertilized cells from progressing intentionally it would essentially end the life of someone who would be otherwise. One less person who would have a chance to experience life, love, hate, think and be. All I know althornin is that the child is alive inside the uterus and would be in the vast majority of cases just as lucid thinkers and lovers of life as both you and I are if allowed to live out there lives.
Somehow sense I don’t use pro-abortion lingo I am not debating legitimately in some way. What of the babies choice in the matter? Do you suppose that these unborn children would agree that their destiny should be the floor in front of an operating table? Sense the child has no choice I can only assume that you truly believe that destiny, a worthy one for them.
Sense I do believe an unborn child is alive and the pro-abortion movement uses emotionally charged self labeling of their political lobby I do feel it is they whom SHOULD NOT use freedom of choice to rationalize poor behavior and use abortion as a form of birth control. You want to know why I think unborn babies are human? Why is it that the court has ruled that an unborn child is not human is the question. Why is it that they have to be outside of the womb before they are human? Sounds like being human is some sort of political label, funny that.
Your pro-choice what? Abortion? Or simply pro-choice …..anything. I thought a productive debate is where all avenues are explored even politically incorrect ones. If you are willing to have a debate that is open and honest without expectations of what words one can say so that the point can be driven home then I welcome that. Otherwise you seek to stifle the debate before it even begins with political correctness. Unfortunately I think it is the pro-abortion camp that falsely labels itself.
I loathe abortion more and more as time goes by. It is a barbaric medical procedure when done with cloth hangers or forceps and the end result of numerous choices that people have already made before the choice to have an abortion. Ahh, I can’t get over the fact that I don’t believe that I deserved such a destiny, or for that matter yourself. Human life ought to be held in a higher less clinical reverence then simply a mistake people made one night. Having intercourse should be taken more seriously then it is along with its repercussions. Never mind STD’s there is also the potential to create a whole seperate life while romping around under the sheets.
The label of pro-choice is one with a hidden agenda. It is false to cry freedom when it is precisely our use of our freedom that has given us an unexpected result. Freedom of choice is about being responsible for your choices and their outcomes, it does not preclude you from responsibility, it increases it. Pro abortion is more like some sort of godlike powers that deny people the consequences of their own actions. What of people whom use abortion to kill unwanted genders for example the female baby slaughter? I suppose maybe feminist wouldn’t mind it if they were male children. The argument that it needs life support to be human outside of the mother’s womb is fallacious as well, all sorts of humans need medical assistance outside of a womb to be alive, I hope you never need life support, I hear it disqualifies you from the human race.
.
You say that you are not pro-abortion but at the same time you support abortion.
Seems you are being just as grey as can possibly be on the being human and alive aspect, mayhap you would hold yourself to the same sort of etiquette you expect from others.
Abortion is a means of changing the outcome of a prior choices outcome. Funny though abortion can be used up to a certain point and then it is morally reprehensible or can even be labeled murder right? Again maybe you would like to elaborate on that.
What of the fathers choice in the matter, does he have one?
The fact of the matter is the unborn child is a completely separate human being with a set of genes separate yet similar from their mothers genes. If this is the case then it could be argued that indeed the sanctuary of the womb is an alien environment and not entirely her own body but a joint one where a whole separate individual provisionally resides, thus she does not have the right over that sanctuary absolutely.
16 weeks or 4 months.
Maybe the example was poorly thought out, but what about thousands of ted williams, or michael jordans. How about every baby being born extremely beautiful. What about giving your child and extra advantage by enhancing [insert physical/mental ability].Vince said:
How about this scenario:
create a clone of yourself, then grow it in a test tube/vat/whatever. Add growth hormones to make it age faster while still not out of the test tube, say make it age 20 years in 1 physical year. Remove brain, at some point you can insert your brain, voila new body.
at this point remove yourself from test tube. Might not happen for a long time, but whats stopping anyone from trying to do this.later,
well said. does the pro-abortion group even tell its clients that their is the option of adoption, or even keeping the baby. If im not mistaken they dont do anything.Sabastian said:
later,
scenario: one or two of the liberal supreme court justices retires. And Pres. Bush somehows gets them replaced with more conservative justices.Natoma said:
At some point an abortion case comes up. And Roe v Wade gets struck down, and only that.
question:Would abortion become illegal across the entire USA?
Answer:Prior to RvW, a majority of states had already made abortion legal through the legislature. So these states would still have abortion legal. Meaning any state could make abortion legal or not.
later,