pro-life or pro-choice?

Over? Don't count on it.

I'm Pro-Life all of the way.

I am against abortion in all situations. If a woman has "willing" sex, then she should except the consequences of her actions. If a woman is raped, she should be strong and not take it out on her baby. And even though it seems like the end of the world, what Satan works for evil, God can work it out for good.

No Blasters!, about "unwanted" children... You obviously never saw that statistic that clearly shows that the number of "unwanted" children available for adoption was slightly less than the number of couples that wanted to adopt.

You don't see anyone scrambling to help those in need? Well, that's another issue that I would enjoy bringing up but it is not the point of this discussion. And I may get banned for the things that I would say about certain fellow human beings. And I'm not talking about you.

On another issue, perhaps you should look this Bible verse more closely:

Exodus 21:22-23

"And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there's any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life."

I myself did not notice how deep this sentence went until recently. I am sure that this "fine" that the woman's husband would often demand would probably not involve money, or livestock, or anything of the sort. I believe that if he wished, he could have fined the other man for his life. The judges would quite probably have no argument against it, and the sentence would be no different than if the woman had been killed as well.

When a couple loses a baby, you'd be surprised how often the woman would say,
"My baby's dead..."

Not my fetus is dead or my embryo is dead.

The husband would say, "We lost the baby..."

Not we lost the fetus or we lost the embryo.

God had that law formed that way for a reason. The woman's husband would not take that sort of wrong against him and his wife lightly.

 

Yes, I've seen the statistic and know it to be true. So you're suggesting that all abused children are wanted? By your reckoning, all unwanted children get adopted out, but that doesn't explain the child abuse cases. Just because someone is incapable of taking care of a child doesn't mean they give them up for adoption.

As for the Exodus passage, that is your interpretation of the word "fine". "Fine" generally does not mean "sentence to death", so I think your supposition is a bit of a stretch.

As for the terms couples use to describe miscarriages, well of course they use that term. ("Baby".) You get no arguments from me there, but then, of course, we're talking about people who are thrilled to be parents and want to carry the pregnancy to term. Do women who have abortions talk about their "babies"? No.

Semantics I think is the term...

Finally, since we don't live in a theocracy, I'm not too concerned with passages from Exodus. (Though it curiously treats miscarriages differently than the death of a woman.)

FE, yes I agree that reason and compromise are woefully absent from the national abortion debate. I suppose it's due to each side's fear of losing anything to the "opposition".

 

o good! maybe its just fading not disappearing altogether. may i restate that i am pro-life in all cases?

 

At least pro life in all cases (which I strenuously object to) is a consistent theory. (Unlike the "against abortion in cases of rape and incest" argument which contradicts itself.)

 

Contradicts itself? How so? Every child created has a purpose, and that purpose is destroyed if the child is aborted. Like I said, what Satan meant for evil, God can turn it into good.

 

I don't believe in god, I just believe in me.

 

OWM: Then I pity you, and I'm sorry if that makes you mad, but it's the truth.

No Blasters!: As for child abuse, if I felt that it was mine to avenge, I would enjoy five minutes in an enclosed room with a child abuser tied to a chair and with a medival battle axe in my hands.

Child abuse is a horrible thing and I hate the fact that it happens. I hate it. But I find it amazing that pro-choice people would abhor the beating of children while they themselves advocate, support, and cheer for the killing of children. Is it just me, or is that a little weird?

Lack of reason and compromise, you say? Does that mean that you wish that pro-lifers refuse to, say for example, accept no abortion except in cases of rape and incest? I am a pro-lifer, and I know that you either are pro-life, or not. There is no in-between. And as a pro-lifer, I say that any true pro-lifer will not negotiate.

It is sad that any self-proclaimed pro-lifer will compromise his/her values for convinience. As for me, I've lived a very sheltered life compared to some people, and do not know what is like to be raped or otherwise, but I know the stories. I know whats happened to some people, and its horrible.

But some people do not stop and think about their choice, and what they are really doing, and what the consequences will be. And I'm not just talking about abortion, but that's another issue.

Just because abortion is a choice, it does not make it right.

One more thing: As for abortion in cases such as for the sake of the health of the mother, I still say that it's wrong. Now, if you are wondering about ectopic pregnancy, that does not count as murder, because the baby is by no mean viable, whether or not it is alive when the procedure is performed. And in most cases, it is not. Ectopic pregnancy is not an issue here.

Okay, that's all I have to say, for now...

 

jedi-thespian, I'm sure there are Secular Humanists who pity you for your belief in a being that doesn't exist. (I believe in god, btw.)

As for your question concerning those who would never harm a child, but support abortion rights: No, it isn't weird. Yes, it is you (and other anti-choice people).

As for how the anti-choice (except in cases of rape and incest) position contradicts itself, just read back over my posts. I've already explained that.

Finally, as for the statement "just because it's a choice doesn't make it right"...

I could equally state "just because you disagree with it doesn't make it wrong".

 

"Contradicts itself? How so?"
She was saying it contradicts yourself to be pro-life except for rape and incest. Which you later agreed with.

"But I find it amazing that pro-choice people would abhor the beating of children while they themselves advocate, support, and cheer for the killing of children. Is it just me, or is that a little weird?"
We don't(or rather I don't..shouldn't speak for all pro-choicers) advocate, support, or cheer for the killing of children. I think that a mother should be allowed to abort a fetus before it is a child. I still don't cheer for it since it goes against my morals/religious beliefs. I would try to persuade someone not to have an abortion...I hardly call that advocating, supporting and cheering for killing "children".

 

Oh yeah, and what Cailina said about "cheering".

 

I'm still pro-life.

 

Okay, here's my take on it. I haven't yet gone through all 33 pages of this thread (heavy reading!), so if someone's already said it, sorry for any redundancy.

The abortion issue is about choices and rights.

Those who favor leaving abortion as a legal method for terminating a pregnancy say that it's a woman's choice, and a woman's right.

I believe that women have a choice. However, I think their right to choose extends just as far as a man's does: they have the right to choose whether or not to become pregnant.

After conception takes place, however, the new individual's rights should take over.

A mother has no right to kill her child once it has been born. The teenage girls who throw their babies into dumpsters are prosecuted for murder. If they had simply allowed a physician to displose of their children for them, there would have been no problems under the current legal system.

If you say that a woman has a right to destroy her child while it is developing within her body, tell me why she does not have the same right to destroy it after birth. I don't buy the "it's a woman's body" argument: during pregnancy, the mother and child are still separate bodies, and the newborn infant is just as helpless and dependent upon his mother as it was in the womb. It's the same child. Why do its rights only begin once it is outside its mother's body? If that was the standard for measuring the individuals rights, then perhaps all aborted fetuses should be given at least a chance to survive after removal from the mother's womb. Put it in the incubator, hook it to life support, let it fight for its life like any other prematurely delivered baby.

As I said before, it's about choices and rights: your right to choose ends where another's begins. And I would argue that the vast majority of unborn children, given a choice, would choose life. And that is their right.

Are there exceptions? Sure. Self-defense: if a woman's life is endangered by a pregnancy, she does have the right to choose to end her child's life, rather than risking both lives by continuing the pregnancy. The case of rape is trickier, since the pregnancy is not the child's fault. I would understand if this exception were made, since I understand the burden that it would place on the mother, however, it should not be the standard excuse for every woman who wants an abortion. Any woman claiming that she was pregnant as a result of rape should file charges against her attacker - preferably before she realizes she's pregnant, not because.

I hope this all makes some sort of sense. Thanks to anyone who took the time to read through my viewpoint. If you want to disagree, go ahead; I'll try to check back to see if anyone is interested in further discussion.

 

You've summed up all the pro/con arguments so far quite nicely, and addressed the inevitable break on the issue quite reasonably, in my humble opinion.
My only problem: Why didn't you post thirty-three pages ago and save us all a lot of time?

 

"Why do its rights only begin once it is outside its mother's body?"

Read the past couple pages....most of us Pro-choicers do not believe that the rights of the child only start at birth however we also don't believe that the fetus has rights from conception. For me the determining point is when the fetus has brain waves. For some others it is when the fetus can survive outside the womb.

 

Why didn't you post thirty-three pages ago and save us all a lot of time?

Forgive me; I'm a newbie (note the registration date).

 

Read the past couple pages....most of us Pro-choicers do not believe that the rights of the child only start at birth however we also don't believe that the fetus has rights from conception. For me the determining point is when the fetus has brain waves. For some others it is when the fetus can survive outside the womb.


As far as I know, under the current system, a child's rights are not recognized until it is born. The challenge, then, is defining a different - and measurable, for the sake of making law - point where those rights should begin.

If it is the point where a fetus can survive outside the womb, would you then, as I suggested, give every aborted fetus a fighting chance for survival? If you destroy it in the womb (for easier extraction) you haven't proven that it couldn't survive.
And even then I don't think the line can be drawn there. You are saying that the child has a right to live when it can live on its own. Yet, if abandoned, a newborn has no more chance to survive than an underdeveloped fetus. It is still very dependent on others - specifically, in most cases, still its mother - for survival. As far as I know, no one who is pro-choice would advocate allowing mothers to kill their newborn children simply by abandoning them, because they recognize their rights to live. My question, then, is why it is so different before the child is born.

Your argument about brain waves is a new one for me. For me to accept it as a reasonable determining point, I would need to know:

1. Is it possible to measure a fetus' brain waves? (I would assume it is.)
2. Is it possible for someone who has no measurable brain activity to still be alive? I'm thinking about comatose/brain dead patients here. I'm pretty sure comatose people still show some level of brain activity, and no measurable brain waves is one reason to declare someone brain dead, but I'd like confirmation on that.
3. Is it possible to produce brain waves in someone who is no longer alive?


The answer to number 1 determines whether this could reasonably be used in a legal definition of life. Questions 2 and 3 address whether the presence of brain waves can reliably determine the presence of life.

 

Studying for exams so this will be quick.

I want to use brain waves because according to my friend who talked to doctors at Princeton Hospital(NJ) for a project, ceasation of brain waves are what is used to determine that someone is clinically dead. If they heart stops, you can bring it back, if they're not breating you can get them to breath, when the brain waves stop there isn't anything you can do about it. And yes brain waves are detectable...I am told that for a fetus you can first detect brain waves at 40 days.

 

That makes more sense to me than fetal viability, at least.

This way you would be applying the same definition of "life" in all cases.


Now I just have to sit here and think of a reason why it shouldn't be used.

 

Wow. This thing is still going.

"OWM: Then I pity you, and I'm sorry if that makes you mad, but it's the truth."

Oh yeah, he's pissed. It made me mad and it wasn't even directed at me.

"As far as I know, under the current system, a child's rights are not recognized until it is born."

This is true and was a major point when I was majorly involved in the debate and who knows how many pages back. It simply states that the child has no rights until being born. The Constitution applies only to citizens and you cannot be a citizne until you are born. And that's all there is to it. The only way to illegalize abortion would be to add an Amendment to the Constitution. Even just making a law wouldn't matter because it would be unconstitutional and so declared by the Supreme Court after not too long.

 

The Constitution applies only to citizens and you cannot be a citizne until you are born. And that's all there is to it. The only way to illegalize abortion would be to add an Amendment to the Constitution.

That is fine with me. The way I see it, this debate is about what the law should be. Under our legal system, in order to implement any law to prohibit abortion, we would have to amend the Constitution.

So, in my mind, the question is: what should that Amendment be?

It would probably be one of two things:

1. An amendment specifically outlawing certain forms, or all forms, of abortion.

2. A clear definition of who is protected under the law that would effectively extend rights to unborn children.

I am not sure that one is better than the other.

Your thoughts?

 

I'd like to make this clear--while the United States Constitution may not apply to people who are not citizens, it guarantees people within any state the equal protection of its laws.

 

Oh god. Ok, I'm NOT going to debate THIS with you again.

 

No no--this time I'm not going out on some insane limb. Seriously. And I'm talking about a slightly different situation, so . . . no worries

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


So what is needed, then, is a definition of what qualifies as a "person".

If the definition of "person" includes unborn children, then abortion could be outlawed because their rights as "persons" would preclude women from killing them. If -- and only if -- fetuses at some point in their development could be defined as "persons", aborting them at or beyond that point would be murder.

The question is where to place that point; where to draw the line.

I think that most people who consider themselves "pro-choice" would, if presented with the situation, agree that it was just as wrong to kill a baby the moment before it leaves its mother's body as it is the moment after it is born.

The dispute is how far back in the development of the child it became a person.

If it is possible to draw the line somewhere, should we? I'm sure that the "pro-life" camp would insist that we take it at least that far, though some will still push for the definition to apply all the way back to conception.

I'm wondering how far back the "pro-choice" people are willing to go.

And the other thing I am wondering: if such a point existed, but it was impossible to determine, on whose side would you prefer to err? The mother's or the child's?

 

Yes Wombarty and that is what the discussion comes back to time and time again: what is a "person". I already gave my opinion on this matter and yes I would consider myself pro-choice because I do not want them completely outlawed.