American's More Pro-Life

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]orion wrote:
colleend78 wrote:
orion wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Growing_Boy wrote:

What gives us the power to determine what a woman wants to do with her body?

Once again, can we please throw this argument on the trash heap? It is not part of her body, it is IN her body, dependent yes, but as a separate biological organism.

I find your argument that it is not a person as much more compelling (you said ‘human being’, but I think mean ‘person’–correct me if I’m wrong. It is clearly human).

Hell, I’d even find the argument that the fetus is a parasite more persuasive than what you just wrote. I’d still find that particular argument fetid but at least it would be on a higher level.

I am afraid that that argument is still valid for you force her to support an embryo with her body against her wishes.

Being a woman myself the ‘right to choose’ ends when you chose to have sex. If you don’t want to be pregnant, don’t have sex. End of story. As in the cases of rape and abuse I think that what to do about it is a deeply personal decision and we don’t have any reason to dictate what goes on there.

That makes you pro choice, for all practical purposes.

[/quote]

Wait, what? How is the traditional pro-life stance now defined as pro choice?

202

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
orion wrote:
colleend78 wrote:
orion wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Growing_Boy wrote:

What gives us the power to determine what a woman wants to do with her body?

Once again, can we please throw this argument on the trash heap? It is not part of her body, it is IN her body, dependent yes, but as a separate biological organism.

I find your argument that it is not a person as much more compelling (you said ‘human being’, but I think mean ‘person’–correct me if I’m wrong. It is clearly human).

Hell, I’d even find the argument that the fetus is a parasite more persuasive than what you just wrote. I’d still find that particular argument fetid but at least it would be on a higher level.

I am afraid that that argument is still valid for you force her to support an embryo with her body against her wishes.

Being a woman myself the ‘right to choose’ ends when you chose to have sex. If you don’t want to be pregnant, don’t have sex. End of story. As in the cases of rape and abuse I think that what to do about it is a deeply personal decision and we don’t have any reason to dictate what goes on there.

That makes you pro choice, for all practical purposes.

Wait, what? How is the traditional pro-life stance now defined as pro choice?[/quote]

Because she says that it is a personal matter whether a women wants to carry out a child conceived by rape or abuse.

Since we do not know whether a woman was raped or not and since we have no way of knowing that, it means that government should stay out of the whole affair.

203

I don’t see how rape would make any difference. If it’s murder, then it’s murder regardless, and it’s not the child’s fault the woman was raped.

204

[quote]eigieinhamr wrote:
I don’t see how rape would make any difference. If it’s murder, then it’s murder regardless, and it’s not the child’s fault the woman was raped.[/quote]

The argument is that it’s justified. That it’s more just and fair to PREVENT an undifferentiated mass of cells from developing a brain and sentience than it is to force the woman (already a conscious, sentient being) to undergo the emotional torment of bringing the baby of her rapist to term.

205

[quote]eigieinhamr wrote:
I don’t see how rape would make any difference. If it’s murder, then it’s murder regardless, and it’s not the child’s fault the woman was raped.[/quote]

The further argument is that choice has been taken out of the mattet. In the normal situation, the woman has accepted the risk of sex and must live with the consequences (so the argument goes). It’s not fair for her to prevent a life from coming into being beause she started the ball rolling, even if she took steps to prevent pregancies. There was always a chance it would be a consequence of her voluntary actions. That’s not the case with a rape victim.

206

[quote]pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
I’ve already been through this. If your above statement was true, then the 9 old guys in robes had no authority whatsoever to legalize abortions with Roe v. Wade because they were men. Tell me you don’t really believe that.

Actually, I do. What goes on inside a woman, is none of your business (or that of "the 9 old guys in robes).

They have been treated like breeding machines for far too long. And this anti-abortion stance of yours is just the continuation of that age-old tradition which denies them their rights.

This is a Red Herring. The only question that matters is whether or not the person in utero is a human being. If the thing you are killing is a human being, any other reasoning is completely irrelevant. [/quote]

And this is the crux of the matter. Most are against late-term abortions where science has proven that the brain has already developed. But anti-abortion people believe life begins the moment of conception. And people who accept early abortions typically believe that an undifferentiated mass of cells with no brain developement cannot be called a living being.

Of course that is not the only question. It is the only question when the baby is a product of voluntary intercourse and all signs point to the fact that it would be born healthy. When the amnio shows that the baby would be born severely developmentally diables or suffer from a serious disease. Or when the baby is a product of rape, other issues and value judgments come into play.

207

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:

If true, I don’t see that as ridiculous at all. Why should a person be forced to participate in murder? Just so you can sleep at night: this won’t prevent ANYONE from getting what they wish to obtain.

I didn’t realise anyone thought the morning after pill was considered murder. I thought most of you anti-abortionists didn’t mind it because it acts before fertalisation.

I’m not saying I believe it’s murder - I’m saying that IF a person believes it’s murder, or aggregiously sinful, or whatever, they should not be forced to participate in what they believe to be wrong. [/quote]

Are you talking about pharmacists? I guess I would agree. There are other non-objecting pharmacists who can provide the pill. But the problem arises in the event that the pill would not be unavailable in particular areas in pharmacists were given the choice, thus depriving the woman (maybe a rape victim) from this choice.

209

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:

If true, I don’t see that as ridiculous at all. Why should a person be forced to participate in murder? Just so you can sleep at night: this won’t prevent ANYONE from getting what they wish to obtain.

I didn’t realise anyone thought the morning after pill was considered murder. I thought most of you anti-abortionists didn’t mind it because it acts before fertalisation.

I’m not saying I believe it’s murder - I’m saying that IF a person believes it’s murder, or aggregiously sinful, or whatever, they should not be forced to participate in what they believe to be wrong.

Are you talking about pharmacists? I guess I would agree. There are other non-objecting pharmacists who can provide the pill. But the problem arises in the event that the pill would not be unavailable in particular areas in pharmacists were given the choice, thus depriving the woman (maybe a rape victim) from this choice. [/quote]

That just means though that governments try to solve a problem they created themselves because it is not carved in stone that some items can only be sold by pharmacists.

211

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Mr. Brook, I find it humorous to see you here on this thread after posting this, "jsbrook wrote:

Can’t. This isn’t my first rodeo. I know exactly what this thread will be…50 pages of each side talking AT each other, saying the same thing over and over again. Neither side listening with an open enough mind to understand the other’s arguments, let alone budge even an inch. But, enjoy…" on the ethics thread.[/quote]

I find this more interesting. And also less likely to dissolve into a shitfest despite the fact that it is also a very controversial issue.

212

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
I don’t see how rape would make any difference. If it’s murder, then it’s murder regardless, and it’s not the child’s fault the woman was raped.

The further argument is that choice has been taken out of the mattet. In the normal situation, the woman has accepted the risk of sex and must live with the consequences (so the argument goes). It’s not fair for her to prevent a life from coming into being beause she started the ball rolling, even if she took steps to prevent pregancies. There was always a chance it would be a consequence of her voluntary actions. That’s not the case with a rape victim.[/quote]

Some members here have said they believe a born child starving to death to be as bad as an abortion in moral terms. Therefore if a woman is raped and theoretically doesn’t realise she is pregnant until very late term and is told there would be complications threatening her health if she went ahead and had the abortion, could she have the child and starve it to death and that would be justified?

213

[quote]eigieinhamr wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
I don’t see how rape would make any difference. If it’s murder, then it’s murder regardless, and it’s not the child’s fault the woman was raped.

The further argument is that choice has been taken out of the mattet. In the normal situation, the woman has accepted the risk of sex and must live with the consequences (so the argument goes). It’s not fair for her to prevent a life from coming into being beause she started the ball rolling, even if she took steps to prevent pregancies. There was always a chance it would be a consequence of her voluntary actions. That’s not the case with a rape victim.

Some members here have said they believe a born child starving to death to be as bad as an abortion in moral terms. Therefore if a woman is raped theoretically doesn’t realise she is pregnant until very late term and is told there would be complications threatening her health if she went ahead and had the abortion, could she have the child and starve it to death and that would be justified?[/quote]

Of course not, at least for most people’s definition of “justified.” It’s clear that you understand that one option cannot be exchanged for another to make amends. (For example, non-abstinence, then abortion because you expect a miserable life for the child. These cannot be considered equal decisions) There are different factors in every decision to be made. But unfortunately (or fortunately if you are very pro-choice) the woman in the hypothetical situation you created just doesn’t have the choice of a “safe” abortion anymore, just like when she was raped and didn’t have the choice of consensual sex.

I find it interesting that we’re all arguing about whether or not abortion is right or not, whether than how much the government can say about it.

Generally most people agree killing is wrong. Killing involves life, and though we have an opinion none of us know for a fact (and may never know) when exactly “life” appears because our definition of life differs, too.
Then there’s the argument of choice, and the degree to which the choice is up to someone to make. Of course the obvious differences between man and woman come up to be a factor as well. There was an argument about how men will never be able to completely understand the changes a woman goes through. I find this slightly insulting (though I’m a girl) because it’s saying guys won’t even try to make an effort to empathize with a situation unique to a girl. We all have the capability to try and think in another person’s point of view… that being said, only a small fraction of people do. This is more a statement about people in general and how self-centered they are. Do I know exactly what it will be like for the guy who’s responsible and sticks by a pregnant girl and supporting her what it is like to deal with temper tantrums of a woman with child, have to help her get out of a car every single time? No, and I try not to pretend, but I can try to understand. The point is, if both parties involved are responsible, they’ll both be greatly affected by the pregnancy.

Ah, crap. To me it’s all gray.

214

[quote]eigieinhamr wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
I don’t see how rape would make any difference. If it’s murder, then it’s murder regardless, and it’s not the child’s fault the woman was raped.

The further argument is that choice has been taken out of the mattet. In the normal situation, the woman has accepted the risk of sex and must live with the consequences (so the argument goes). It’s not fair for her to prevent a life from coming into being beause she started the ball rolling, even if she took steps to prevent pregancies. There was always a chance it would be a consequence of her voluntary actions. That’s not the case with a rape victim.

Some members here have said they believe a born child starving to death to be as bad as an abortion in moral terms. Therefore if a woman is raped theoretically doesn’t realise she is pregnant until very late term and is told there would be complications threatening her health if she went ahead and had the abortion, could she have the child and starve it to death and that would be justified?[/quote]

It is ridiculous to try to equate the two, and I think even the most ardent abortion oppositionist will agree with that. No matter how awful you think abortion is, intentionally starving a living thing is that much worse. There is no burden in this case of forcing a mother to carry a child to term. There is no coercive aspect here. The child is born. She made that choice. How can you possibly say the mother is justified in murdering a child she has already birthed? The mother doesn’t need to care for it. Others can. We have a system set up for that. THe mother would be actively keeping this child from being adopted or put into foster care with the goal of killing it.

215

[quote]LittleAsianDoll wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
I don’t see how rape would make any difference. If it’s murder, then it’s murder regardless, and it’s not the child’s fault the woman was raped.

The further argument is that choice has been taken out of the mattet. In the normal situation, the woman has accepted the risk of sex and must live with the consequences (so the argument goes). It’s not fair for her to prevent a life from coming into being beause she started the ball rolling, even if she took steps to prevent pregancies. There was always a chance it would be a consequence of her voluntary actions. That’s not the case with a rape victim.

Some members here have said they believe a born child starving to death to be as bad as an abortion in moral terms. Therefore if a woman is raped theoretically doesn’t realise she is pregnant until very late term and is told there would be complications threatening her health if she went ahead and had the abortion, could she have the child and starve it to death and that would be justified?

Of course not, at least for most people’s definition of “justified.” It’s clear that you understand that one option cannot be exchanged for another to make amends. (For example, non-abstinence, then abortion because you expect a miserable life for the child. These cannot be considered equal decisions) There are different factors in every decision to be made. But unfortunately (or fortunately if you are very pro-choice) the woman in the hypothetical situation you created just doesn’t have the choice of a “safe” abortion anymore, just like when she was raped and didn’t have the choice of consensual sex.

I find it interesting that we’re all arguing about whether or not abortion is right or not, whether than how much the government can say about it.

Generally most people agree killing is wrong. Killing involves life, and though we have an opinion none of us know for a fact (and may never know) when exactly “life” appears because our definition of life differs, too.
Then there’s the argument of choice, and the degree to which the choice is up to someone to make. Of course the obvious differences between man and woman come up to be a factor as well. There was an argument about how men will never be able to completely understand the changes a woman goes through. I find this slightly insulting (though I’m a girl) because it’s saying guys won’t even try to make an effort to empathize with a situation unique to a girl. We all have the capability to try and think in another person’s point of view… that being said, only a small fraction of people do. This is more a statement about people in general and how self-centered they are. Do I know exactly what it will be like for the guy who’s responsible and sticks by a pregnant girl and supporting her what it is like to deal with temper tantrums of a woman with child, have to help her get out of a car every single time? No, and I try not to pretend, but I can try to understand. The point is, if both parties involved are responsible, they’ll both be greatly affected by the pregnancy.

Ah, crap. To me it’s all gray.[/quote]

Interesting post here. I tend to think that both the right/wrong issue and the gov’t issue play here. The primary is definitely the ethical issue IMO, but issues of policy are also present and are affected by the ethical issue.

216

The issue is whether or not it is life all the other debates are mental masturbation.

217

[quote]orion wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
orion wrote:
colleend78 wrote:
orion wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Growing_Boy wrote:

What gives us the power to determine what a woman wants to do with her body?

Once again, can we please throw this argument on the trash heap? It is not part of her body, it is IN her body, dependent yes, but as a separate biological organism.

I find your argument that it is not a person as much more compelling (you said ‘human being’, but I think mean ‘person’–correct me if I’m wrong. It is clearly human).

Hell, I’d even find the argument that the fetus is a parasite more persuasive than what you just wrote. I’d still find that particular argument fetid but at least it would be on a higher level.

I am afraid that that argument is still valid for you force her to support an embryo with her body against her wishes.

Being a woman myself the ‘right to choose’ ends when you chose to have sex. If you don’t want to be pregnant, don’t have sex. End of story. As in the cases of rape and abuse I think that what to do about it is a deeply personal decision and we don’t have any reason to dictate what goes on there.

That makes you pro choice, for all practical purposes.

Wait, what? How is the traditional pro-life stance now defined as pro choice?

Because she says that it is a personal matter whether a women wants to carry out a child conceived by rape or abuse.

Since we do not know whether a woman was raped or not and since we have no way of knowing that, it means that government should stay out of the whole affair.
[/quote]

Except that when a woman is raped her CHOICE has been obliterated as is the case with abuse. I’ve never been in that situation, but I would hope that women would be willing to at least have the baby and perhaps let someone adopt it instead of just ending an innocent’s life. It wasn’t the babys fault that it came to be because of a violent, selfish act. That being said and being the mother of four kids I know exactly how life changing and difficult it is to go through pregnancy. We can’t tell someone who has been impregnated by rape or abuse what she is to do about it.

And no - I am not pro choice. Like I said - the woman’s choice was clearly already taken away and whatever she decides to do is her business.

218

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
I don’t see how rape would make any difference. If it’s murder, then it’s murder regardless, and it’s not the child’s fault the woman was raped.

The further argument is that choice has been taken out of the mattet. In the normal situation, the woman has accepted the risk of sex and must live with the consequences (so the argument goes). It’s not fair for her to prevent a life from coming into being beause she started the ball rolling, even if she took steps to prevent pregancies. There was always a chance it would be a consequence of her voluntary actions. That’s not the case with a rape victim.

Some members here have said they believe a born child starving to death to be as bad as an abortion in moral terms. Therefore if a woman is raped theoretically doesn’t realise she is pregnant until very late term and is told there would be complications threatening her health if she went ahead and had the abortion, could she have the child and starve it to death and that would be justified?

It is ridiculous to try to equate the two, and I think even the most ardent abortion oppositionist will agree with that. No matter how awful you think abortion is, intentionally starving a living thing is that much worse. There is no burden in this case of forcing a mother to carry a child to term. There is no coercive aspect here. The child is born. She made that choice. How can you possibly say the mother is justified in murdering a child she has already birthed? The mother doesn’t need to care for it. Others can. We have a system set up for that. THe mother would be actively keeping this child from being adopted or put into foster care with the goal of killing it.

[/quote]

I’m equating them because I asked fox and he said they were equally horrible.

What about if she didn’t bother going to hospital and the baby needed treatment when it was born, and as a result died. She had no choice to have the baby, but some anti-abortionists think she should have had the right to abortion. If she takes the baby to a foster care centre as soon as it is born (dead or about to die) then she is not actively keeping the child.

219

[quote]colleend78 wrote:
orion wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
orion wrote:
colleend78 wrote:
orion wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Growing_Boy wrote:

What gives us the power to determine what a woman wants to do with her body?

Once again, can we please throw this argument on the trash heap? It is not part of her body, it is IN her body, dependent yes, but as a separate biological organism.

I find your argument that it is not a person as much more compelling (you said ‘human being’, but I think mean ‘person’–correct me if I’m wrong. It is clearly human).

Hell, I’d even find the argument that the fetus is a parasite more persuasive than what you just wrote. I’d still find that particular argument fetid but at least it would be on a higher level.

I am afraid that that argument is still valid for you force her to support an embryo with her body against her wishes.

Being a woman myself the ‘right to choose’ ends when you chose to have sex. If you don’t want to be pregnant, don’t have sex. End of story. As in the cases of rape and abuse I think that what to do about it is a deeply personal decision and we don’t have any reason to dictate what goes on there.

That makes you pro choice, for all practical purposes.

Wait, what? How is the traditional pro-life stance now defined as pro choice?

Because she says that it is a personal matter whether a women wants to carry out a child conceived by rape or abuse.

Since we do not know whether a woman was raped or not and since we have no way of knowing that, it means that government should stay out of the whole affair.

Except that when a woman is raped her CHOICE has been obliterated as is the case with abuse. I’ve never been in that situation, but I would hope that women would be willing to at least have the baby and perhaps let someone adopt it instead of just ending an innocent’s life. It wasn’t the babys fault that it came to be because of a violent, selfish act. That being said and being the mother of four kids I know exactly how life changing and difficult it is to go through pregnancy. We can’t tell someone who has been impregnated by rape or abuse what she is to do about it.

And no - I am not pro choice. Like I said - the woman’s choice was clearly already taken away and whatever she decides to do is her business.[/quote]

It does not matter. For all practical reasons you are still pro-choice if you think that a woman can decide for herself if she was raped. They will simply all claim that they were raped.
“Jane Roe” of Roe vs Wade claimed to have been raped but as she herself later admitted she was not.

Also, it is not true that a woman that has been raped has no choice later on. The moment the rape stops she is fully capable of making choices again.

220

[quote]tom63 wrote:
The issue is whether or not it is life all the other debates are mental masturbation.[/quote]

Untrue. What if it is substantially certain that the mother will die if she carries to term? Then it is a choice between two lives. Those who could blithely condemn a mother to substantially certain death scare me. In such a case, it is a very difficult issue and decision to say the least.