| Author |
Topic:
pro-life or pro-choice?
|
StarFire
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
1/25/02 8:23pm
Subject:
RE: pro-life or pro-choice?
|
If abortion becomes illegal again, should we throw abortion doctors and nurses in jail?
If they continue dealing out abortions, yes. But there's no justice in trying someone for a crime they committed when it wasn't a crime.
-----signature-----
"Nobody stops Venezuela." - President Hugo Chavez
"Experience must be our only guide. Reason may mislead us." - John Dickinson
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Cailina
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
1/25/02 9:06pm
Subject:
RE: pro-life or pro-choice?
|
"The fact is, while I find it hard to not believe in a god, many people do not believe in a god. Therefore, I'm sure that there are people here who have posted in this thread that do not believe in a God, but just haven't admitted it. To them, the bible passages (which I agree with) will not waver their choice either way."
Nor will biblical passages sway those of us who believe in a god other than the Abrahamic God.
"If you are pro-choice: If abortion becomes illegal again, should we throw abortion doctors and nurses in jail?"
Well if abortion becomes illegal and they preform an abortion than they are breaking the law so yes.
-----signature-----
Head Staff for MomoCon,
GA Tech`s Free Anime and Gaming Convention
Visit www.momocon.com for more information
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
TripleB
Registered:
Oct '00
|
Date Posted:
1/25/02 9:11pm
Subject:
RE: pro-life or pro-choice?
|
I have said in the past that I am pro choice only as far as that I prefer it when they choose life.
Unfortunately, the Pro-Choice movement does not respect nor want the LIFE aspect of the abortion debate to have any merit whatsoever.
However, I will say this. It is Unconstitutional for Public Tax dollars to be given to tax payers to put their child in a private/religous school because those tax payers who might object to the said religion doctrine.
So, why should it be different, to spend Tax Dollars on publically funded abortions when there are those that object on religious grounds to abortion?
Unfortunately, liberals rarely spend much time thinking about the hypocrisy of their positions.
-----signature-----
11/07/2006 is going to be a bad day for the Dem's, a great one for the gop
because my political realities always pan out & because I will have seen
Mel Gibson's THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST 100 times by then!!!
VIVA OBI-WAN McCARTNEY!!!!
Ep1&2<most EU
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
StarFire
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
1/26/02 9:38am
Subject:
RE: pro-life or pro-choice?
|
Corinne Wood, one of the recent candidates in the gubernatorial race her in Illinois, has been annoying me.
She's been basing her campaign on the close-minded and idiotic position that pro-life is a synonym for anti-choice.
She's running against two other Republican candidates, and both of her commercials to date have done nothing but propogate the ludicrous implication that pro-life is anti-choice. (Going so far as to label, in big red letters, the two other candidates as ANTI-CHOICE)
This implication is ludicrous, because a woman's choice has never been the real issue here. Pro-life has never been about denying choice, and any debate which does not empathize with the opposition's position is, in such a case where there is an obvious logical argument, close-minded.
No one should have a legal choice to murder someone. That's what pro-life is about. So.
That's just my little rant 
I will return later to mucho annoy you all. Be warned!
-----signature-----
"Nobody stops Venezuela." - President Hugo Chavez
"Experience must be our only guide. Reason may mislead us." - John Dickinson
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
womberty
Registered:
Jan '02
|
Date Posted:
1/26/02 9:51am
Subject:
RE: pro-life or pro-choice?
|
don't drag the whole God issue into this.
I was deliberately trying to debate against abortion without bringing up the God/morality issue. While religion has its place in our society, we cannot take our laws from a particular religion unless we are going to be a theocracy.
Instead, we must base our laws on individuals' rights.
My argument is that an unborn child should be considered an individual and protected under our laws.
I do think that women have a right to control their reproductive processes; however, with the birth control methods available today, women have the ability to prevent pregnancy in the first place.
The problem now is that we need to change the popular mindset. Women have been told (and many believe) that it is their inherent right to terminate a pregnancy at their discretion. Instead, I think we should teach that the inherent right is the control of whether or not to conceive. This is the same right that men currently have. If I were to suggest that a man could make the decision to abort a child he had fathered -- without the mother's consent -- I'm sure you would all agree that he had no such right to make that decision.
But you allow the mother to do the same. Why? Because "it's her body". But what people often overlook is: it's the child's body, too. The child is not just some extension of the mother's body; it is not a limb, an organ, a cancerous growth. It is a separate human being, and should be regarded as such.
There are some here who agree with me that a child should be considered human even beore it is born, but we do not necessarily agree on where the line is crossed between "a clump of cells" and "a human being".
One argument I can make in favor of drawing the line at conception is: it's a measurable point. I think it is convenience that causes us at this time to recognize a child at birth; it is an observable, measurable event.
So, even if only for convenience's sake, why can we not use conception as the determining point?
You will come back and tell me that a woman has a choice. But as I said, a woman already has the choice not to become pregnant. I need a convincing argument why we should extend that choice to allow the pregnancy to be terminated. We don't extend a man's choice beyond conception -- why should we extend the woman's if she has just as much control over the process?
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Cailina
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
1/26/02 10:39am
Subject:
RE: pro-life or pro-choice?
|
"It is Unconstitutional for Public Tax dollars to be given to tax payers to put their child in a private/religous school because those tax payers who might object to the said religion doctrine."
No it's unconstitutional because it would go against the establishment clause of the first ammendment...not because we object to the religious doctrine.
Oh and as for having a choice about becoming pregnant...don't forget that contraceptives aren't flawless. So have you thought about an argument for why it shouldn't be when brain waves are detectable? I've already said my opinion on when I think the line should be drawn so I don't have anything else to comment now.
-----signature-----
Head Staff for MomoCon,
GA Tech`s Free Anime and Gaming Convention
Visit www.momocon.com for more information
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
McCartneysDirtySock
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
1/26/02 11:01am
Subject:
RE: pro-life or pro-choice?
|
See, for me, especially after having taken a year of college biology, I just don't see a fetus as a human. It's not a human being in fact, legally or physically. It is a genetic mass of cells with the capacity to someday be a human if properly fed and nurtured and under the right conditions.
Kind of like Sperm cells and Egg Cells. Yeah, they are human cells. Your sperm cells are human cells. They have 23 chromosomes, but if you know anything about DNA you'd know that having 23 means the information for all 46 chromosomes are in sperm cells. Why do you people insist on drawing the moral line at when the sperm meets the egg? Most probably because of religion. Just curious, is their an athiest pro-lifer among us? Because if you don't believe in the divine you probably don't worry about the undeveloped mass of fetus' soul.
-----signature-----
"Always remember; Others may hate you, but those that hate you don't win, unless you
hate them. And then you destroy yourself."
-President Richard Milhouse Nixon
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
StarFire
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
1/26/02 2:53pm
Subject:
RE: pro-life or pro-choice?
|
It is a genetic mass of cells with the capacity to someday be a human if properly fed and nurtured and under the right conditions.
And when does it become a human being, then? After it has been delivered? The child is the exact same child in the minutes before and after. Such an illogical distinction could hardly be seen as a reasonable basis/justification for such a crime.
Kind of like Sperm cells and Egg Cells. Yeah, they are human cells. Your sperm cells are human cells.
But we're talking about human beings, so . . .
Why do you people insist on drawing the moral line at when the sperm meets the egg?
After conception, when cells begin to divide, it's just as human as you and I. Less developed, certainly. Far less developed. But mentally retarded people are also simply less developed. Are they not human?
-----signature-----
"Nobody stops Venezuela." - President Hugo Chavez
"Experience must be our only guide. Reason may mislead us." - John Dickinson
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
PurpleSaberJedi
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
1/26/02 5:09pm
Subject:
RE: pro-life or pro-choice?
|
|
McCartneys: If you don't see a fetus as a baby, then what is it? Is it dead? It has a heart beat, a brain, and it has all of the chromosones (sp?) it needs. If you still say it isn't a baby just because it is growing, can I call an 8 year old not a human because he is still growing? He is growing outside of his mother's womb, but he's still not fully developed. Same thing applies here. It's a human, with human DNA. the egg and the sperm TOGETHER create a human being. Not an egg by itself, or a sperm by itself but together the chromosones fit and we become human. Also, if you still don't think they're babies, then at what point do they become babies? the second they come out of the womb? because, they looked acted and were the exact same thing the few days before their birth, and the day of their birth.
-----signature-----
"GGGGGGGG SEVON!!!!!!" 
"You just pressed G8" 
"If you like pina coladas..." 
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
womberty
Registered:
Jan '02
|
Date Posted:
1/26/02 6:40pm
Subject:
RE: pro-life or pro-choice?
|
Just curious, is their an athiest pro-lifer among us? Because if you don't believe in the divine you probably don't worry about the undeveloped mass of fetus' soul.
I don't label myself as "atheist" because I haven't formally come to the point where I can say that I believe there is no God. However, I don't have any belief in God and I'm not a religious person (still trying to recover from the religion with which I was raised, so right now I want nothing to do with religion).
And I'm what you would call "pro-life", not because I'm concerned about souls, but because I'm concerned about lives. I believe that a child is a living human being long before it is born.
Have you ever seen a preemie? It's smaller than a child that was born at nine months, but it's still a recognizable human being and can still grow up into a normal adult (maybe a little more petite than average, but not necessarily noticeable).
So if a child that is born at 6 or 7 months has the same basic characteristics as one born at nine months, why does anyone have a right to kill that child simply because it hasn't yet emerged from the womb?
I know that many "pro-choice" people have a problem with late-term abortions; I'm not accusing anyone of being in favor of partial-birth or other late-term abortions. My question to those people is where we can draw the line, because I think we should. As long as the option is open, I think we will still have some mothers looking for a late-term abortion and killing children who, if given a chance, would be able to survive even though they hadn't come to term.
Oh and as for having a choice about becoming pregnant...don't forget that contraceptives aren't flawless.
I do realize that, but consider this: if everyone who ended up unintentionally pregnant these days had used some form (or multiple forms) of birth control, how many of those pregnancies do you think would have been prevented? Given that birth control methods (when used properly) are over 99% effective, and given the odds of actually becoming pregnant if the method fails (e.g. a condom breaks or something), I think that you would find that only a very small amount of people would actually be left in the same situation. If we were to have a birth control method that was 100% effective (besides abstinence -- I'm not talking about that case here), would you agree with me that we would no longer have a need for abortion, except in the cases of rape and threats to the mother's life?
And when two people who did not intend to conceive do anyway, who has a choice about what will be done? How can we give only the mother the option to destroy the fetus or keep it? The mother is given the option to force a man to take responsibility by going ahead and having the child, or destroying the child without necessarily having the man's consent. If two people were involved in the decision to have sex, then shouldn't both be involved in the decision on what to do about the resulting pregnancy?
So have you thought about an argument for why it shouldn't be when brain waves are detectable?
Not yet; not anything I can argue convincingly yet. All I can say at this point about why I don't like it is it allows people to postpone the decision to take responsibility for their actions. This doesn't quite fit with my other lines of reasoning, and I'm not sure that it's enough reason to make a law based on it. I'll get back to you when I think of something, though. 
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
AnakinsGirl
Registered:
Nov '01
|
Date Posted:
1/26/02 11:13pm
Subject:
RE: pro-life or pro-choice?
|
|
PSJ: they should throw abortion doctors/nurses in jail NOW, IMHO.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
AnakinsGirl
Registered:
Nov '01
|
Date Posted:
1/26/02 11:15pm
Subject:
RE: pro-life or pro-choice?
|
|
O YA PSJ! go you, using my argument! lol imjk
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
McCartneysDirtySock
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
1/27/02 2:33am
Subject:
RE: pro-life or pro-choice?
|
When I argue about choice, I do believe there is a difference between first term, second term, and third term.
I draw the line as the law does. The line the law of the United States draws is A-OK with me. Nobody ever really has to worry about myself. I don't believe a fetus to be the same as a human. When it becomes a viable separate life is when it leaves the mother's womb. I'm not saying there isn't a total grey area and that it's cut and dry in any way, but first term fetus are not human beings.
But I am an amoral liberal, especially my crazy ideas about fetal research, cloning, and saving the lives of our elderly.
-----signature-----
"Always remember; Others may hate you, but those that hate you don't win, unless you
hate them. And then you destroy yourself."
-President Richard Milhouse Nixon
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
TripleB
Registered:
Oct '00
|
Date Posted:
1/27/02 10:07am
Subject:
RE: pro-life or pro-choice?
|
On FoxNewsSunday out here, during the commercial break, Gray Davis, the democrat governor of California, ran an attack ad, accusing former Los Angeles Mayor and Gubenatorial candidate Richard Riordan of being 'Anti-Choice'. prety mean spirited commercial and when an incumbent has to run an attack ad BEFORE the primary, it is a good indication that the candidate is running scared.
Being ProLife is not being Anti-Choice, just as being ProChoice is not being Pro-Death. But I see a pattern and it appears that this must be a new pattern among democrats.
-----signature-----
11/07/2006 is going to be a bad day for the Dem's, a great one for the gop
because my political realities always pan out & because I will have seen
Mel Gibson's THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST 100 times by then!!!
VIVA OBI-WAN McCARTNEY!!!!
Ep1&2<most EU
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
womberty
Registered:
Jan '02
|
Date Posted:
1/27/02 10:49am
Subject:
RE: pro-life or pro-choice?
- Date Edited:
1/27/02 10:50am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
womberty
|
When it becomes a viable separate life is when it leaves the mother's womb.
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that it only becomes a "viable separate life" when it naturally leaves the mother's womb? I.e. most would only be considered a "viable separate life" at 9 months?
I would have to disagree. I think that a fetus could be considered "viable" at least as far back as 6 months. A child born prematurely at that point has a reasonable chance of survival. What would give anyone a right to destroy the same child simply because it hasn't yet exited the womb on its own? In fact, I bet that in most partial-birth abortions, where the child is delivered halfway before its brains are sucked out, if the child were delivered completely and given a chance to live, you would probably find a large number of survivors.
I also don't think it's reasonable to draw the line based on "viability". If you think about it, a newborn child without any help from its mother (or another adult) is no more "viable" than a fetus removed from its mother's womb prematurely. If a newborn baby were left alone to fend for itself, it would invariably die. It needs someone to feed, protect, and nurture it. The only thing it can do for itself that it couldn't do in the womb is breathe. And even that can't be used to determine viability, because many premature babies cannot breathe on their own, but no one would have the right to kill them simply for that reason.
Once a child is born, the government forces the parents to take responsibility; they are not allowed to simply abandon the child, and they certainly have no right to kill it simply because it is theirs. What gives them the right to abandon or kill the child before birth? What makes the unborn so different from the newborn?
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
