| Author |
Topic:
pro-life or pro-choice?
|
goldbubbly
Registered:
Jan '02
|
Date Posted:
1/27/02 11:04am
Subject:
RE: pro-life or pro-choice?
|
|
I'm Pro-life. People have reasons for pro-choice being ok, but I don't see them holding up, in my heart and brain at least, to the brutal harshness of abortion. It's nice to think of it dispassionately or even just in theory. I could not and would not do it if faced with the choice. And that's all I should worry about truly. So as abortion carries on I mourn the loss and the crulety of it all, for there is nothing i can do to stop them...
-----signature-----
AYFFABTU-ALL YOUR FANFORCE ARE BELONG TO US-DFWFF Squid Head, Moulin Rouge, Rocky Horror, and more at ALL-CON http://www.all-con.org
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Darth was Mauled
Registered:
Jun '00
|
Date Posted:
1/27/02 11:07am
Subject:
RE: pro-life or pro-choice?
|
|
That's quite funny, Triple B, because Dick Riordan is a major RINO, he is prochoice and he is also a gungrabber.
-----signature-----
God Bless America
Go Blue!
I am not ashamed of the Gospel (see Romans 1:16-17)
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Cailina
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
1/27/02 11:15am
Subject:
RE: pro-life or pro-choice?
|
"So as abortion carries on I mourn the loss and the crulety of it all, for there is nothing i can do to stop them..."
Sure you can. You could write to your Senators and Congressman and ask them to support a bill outlawing abortion. Although personally I think a Constitutional ammednment would be necessary to oulaw it however you could try.
-----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
|
womberty
Registered:
Jan '02
|
Date Posted:
1/28/02 11:19am
Subject:
RE: pro-life or pro-choice?
|
That's quite funny, Triple B, because Dick Riordan is a major RINO, he is prochoice and he is also a gungrabber.
That's why Gray Davis sees him as a threat. If he wins the Republican primary, as a "moderate Republican" who is pro-choice he might win over some Democrats and moderates who would otherwise have supported Davis.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
McCartneysDirtySock
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
1/28/02 11:48am
Subject:
RE: pro-life or pro-choice?
|
Abortion will never be illegal in this country. Not while 80% of Americans believe in a woman's right to choose.
If the baby can be takne out of the mothers womb as a premie and live and grow up, that's cool in the gang, child should be protected. However, if the child is not a child, and an undeveloped mass of cells then it is not yet a human being. Just like sperm and egg cells aren't human beings, and if some of the right-wing lobbyiests would realize that, then perhaps we could move forward at a faster pace developing stem cell research and saving actual human lives.
It's odd how most of the people in this thread are pro-life while an overwhelming majority of Americans are pro-choice.
-----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
|
Crimson
Registered:
Jan '02
|
Date Posted:
1/28/02 11:48am
Subject:
RE: pro-life or pro-choice?
- Date Edited:
1/28/02 11:51am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Crimson
|
Why does pro-life automatically have to negate pro-choice??? It doesnt! But the option of abortion needs to remain open. Americans need to stress on prevention, instead of intervention. Abstinence or birth control are the only ways to prevent abortion legally. If Right-Wingers want to make sure abortion is no longer done, they need to stress to teenage females to either abstain from intercourse, or to get proper birth control devices such as "The Shot", "The Pill", and a simple little piece of latex called a Condom.
I personally have no moral dillema with abortion and here's my main logic for thinking this. Everything has a cause, and everything has an effect. All events will eventually cause another effect and in the case of unwanted pregnancies, certain events in that unwanted child's life generally can mold that child into a criminalous, viscious person, who would in turn, cause harm, even death to others. So by preventing this child from being born, you are preventing the possibility of a poverse child growing up to only make a life of crime for him/herself, which only brings America down. So in a sense, Im pro-choice AND Pro-life at the same time. But im pro-choice first, and foremost.
But again, ill reiterate, prevention before intervention. Dont get pregnant. But a woman should have the liberty to make her own choice regarding her own personal body. Nobody else should be able to decide that for her, especially a congress made up of a majority of rich, white, men.
-----signature-----
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
StarFire
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
1/28/02 12:03pm
Subject:
RE: pro-life or pro-choice?
|
McCartneysDirtySock: However, if the child is not a child, and an undeveloped mass of cells then it is not yet a human being.
What makes a human being human and a fetus an undeveloped mass of cells, in your opinion?
Crimson: No offense, but you've just made my list of one-million people I'd never want to be my judge if I ever have a trial. Following your reasoning, people who have had a hard life are less responsible for their actions than those who've had relatively little struggle along the way (logically, their actions may be more understandable, but the suspects/criminals are no less responsible). Following your directive, we might as well start breeding people so they won't do illegal stuff like jay-walking and assassinating the President. All I can say is: Hmphhh!
PS, Crimson: There are more white men in Congress because there are are more whites, period, and more men interested in running for those offices. Also, ALL members of Congress are rich to some degree, not just the white ones.
The things I write when I should be doing other stuff 
-----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:
1/28/02 12:21pm
Subject:
RE: pro-life or pro-choice?
|
All events will eventually cause another effect and in the case of unwanted pregnancies, certain events in that unwanted child's life generally can mold that child into a criminalous, viscious person, who would in turn, cause harm, even death to others. So by preventing this child from being born, you are preventing the possibility of a poverse child growing up to only make a life of crime for him/herself, which only brings America down.
By your logic, could we also start sterilizing poor people? After all, aren't poor inner-city neighborhoods the source of gang violence and a lot of criminals? We should stop these people from reproducing so they'll stop ruining are country! Plus, since the poor inner-city communities are usually minorities, that means we'll have more rich white people to make this great nation even better!
I think that's the wrong reason to support abortion. After all, just because someone is likely to have a hard life, that doesn't mean they wouldn't appreciate the opportunity to live that life to the fullest.
Let's say you knew that a child was going to be born with a severe disability. Let's suppose the child was going to be deaf. Or have cerebal palsy. Would you then abort it so it didn't have to suffer? You might end up destroying the next Stephen Hawking or the next Beethoven.
The prospect of a difficult life is no more reason to kill a baby before birth than it is to kill it immediately afterward. I don't think anyone has the right to decide that a baby doesn't deserve life simply because it might turn out to be a criminal. Anyone might turn out that way. Do you think rich people with loving parents never commit crime?
Unwanted pregnancies aren't the only ones that result in criminal adults. And I'm sure that many children who were "unwanted" at first still end up with loving parents -- either biological or adopted. Perhaps if every "unwanted" child was matched with parents who were more than willing to adopt, we would have even fewer of these "unwanted" pregnancies turning into problem children.
The bottom line is, every life has a potential. Yes, a person may grow up to become a criminal, but it could also grow up to be a good person. You can't presume that a child is guilty before it is even born.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
McCartneysDirtySock
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
1/28/02 7:35pm
Subject:
RE: pro-life or pro-choice?
|
Personally I don't see the difference between having an abortion in the first term and having used a condom or not having sex at all. All three result in NO CHILD.
Just to reinforce the pro-choice position, most of us believe abortion is wrong, but legally acceptable. Kind of like many of you who believe killing is wrong, but the death penalty is legally acceptble.
I also believe a woman has a fundamental right to decide whether she wants to carry a baby to term.
and STARFIRE, I have no idea when exactly a fetus becomes a human. I know that newborn baby is a human and a newly fertalized egg is not a human. So I don't believe a child is really a human until sometime late in the second or third term. Basically if you can take the child out pre-maturely but it can still live, you know, like "pre-mies," they are human.
But classifying is hard. Because if you look at the rules the scientific community uses to judge whether something is alive or not alive can suggest that fire is alive and that sterile people aren't human. So I can't get into a semantic war on when human life begins, because we can't uniformly argue what a human being is.
Pro-women deciding what to do with their own bodies. I don't believe anyone has the right to tell a woman what she has to do with her own body. When it leaves her body, all bets are off.
-----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
|
womberty
Registered:
Jan '02
|
Date Posted:
1/28/02 9:00pm
Subject:
RE: pro-life or pro-choice?
- Date Edited:
1/28/02 9:02pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
womberty
|
I don't believe anyone has the right to tell a woman what she has to do with her own body.
But what makes the child part of her body? I see it as a separate body. It is very dependent upon its mother to survive and develop, but it's not really part of her body.
Out of curiosity, would you support a law that prohibits abortion beginning in the late second trimester? (Ignoring the Constitutional requirement that this be an Amendment -- I'm asking whether you would agree that abortions at that stage should be illegal.)
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Obi-Wan McCartney
Registered:
Aug '99
|
Date Posted:
1/29/02 12:39pm
Subject:
RE: pro-life or pro-choice?
|
Until much much later in the pregnancy, the child is a part of the mothers body, and if you don't know why then I'm not going to explain it to you!
I would never support such a constitutional amendment, because it would just open the gate for you pro-lifers to shove your moral and religous values down everyone elses throat, making it easier to outlaw abortion.
-----signature-----
God Bless J-Rod's Wife!
Obi-Wan McCartney: Model Forum Member since 1999!
America's Beatles are far better than England's precious Rolling Stones
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
womberty
Registered:
Jan '02
|
Date Posted:
1/29/02 1:27pm
Subject:
RE: pro-life or pro-choice?
|
Until much much later in the pregnancy, the child is a part of the mothers body, and if you don't know why then I'm not going to explain it to you!
No, please ... I'd like an explanation.
I'll explain my reasoning: An egg leaves a woman's ovary. It has her chromosomes and was generated by her body. I don't exactly think it counts as "part of her body", but that doesn't really matter to me at this point.
A man's sperm enters a woman's body. It is not "part of her body". It is contained within her body, but those are not her cells. That sperm fuses with the egg to create a single cell. That cell is not part of the woman's body. It has a different DNA. It does not act as part of any tissue or organ in the woman's body. At best, it could be compared to a parasite -- drawing its nutrients from her body -- but it is not part of her body. (No, I am not saying that children are parasites, I am trying to explain how that I don't believe that a child can be considered, biologically, as part of its mother's body.)
Now, if you disagree with that, I would like to hear your explanation. It will help the rest of us understand why you consider an unborn child to be part of its mother's body until later in the pregnancy.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
StarFire
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
1/29/02 1:36pm
Subject:
RE: pro-life or pro-choice?
|
No, please ... I'd like an explanation.
If McCartney stays true to his word, then I'd best sub for him. It doesn't make sense, IMO, so don't shoot the messenger.
The argument, as I've debated against, is that since the mother and child are connected through a physical bond, and that the child is completely dependent on its mother for life through her delivery of nutrition, etc., that it is her's to do with as she pleases, regardless of the fact that it is still an independent entity (as far as standards of humanity are measured).
Also, even though this simulation is re-enacted almost perfectly when someone is on life-support, it doesn't count because that person has ALREADY been human.
Those are, believe it or not, the opinions as I have heard them.
-----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
|
Wylding
Registered:
Aug '00
|
Date Posted:
1/29/02 1:38pm
Subject:
RE: pro-life or pro-choice?
- Date Edited:
1/29/02 1:47pm (2 edits total)
Edited By:
Wylding
|
1st trimester=pro-choice
2nd and 3rd=pro-life except in cases where the mothers life is in danger, the fetuses life is in danger, or both.
Edit: I believe, as do some Taoists, that the spirit moves into the fetus at the end of the first trimester. Does anyone know at what point brainfunction shows up?
-----signature-----
Jedi Master
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
womberty
Registered:
Jan '02
|
Date Posted:
1/29/02 1:42pm
Subject:
RE: pro-life or pro-choice?
- Date Edited:
1/29/02 1:45pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
womberty
|
I would never support such a constitutional amendment, because it would just open the gate for you pro-lifers to shove your moral and religous values down everyone elses throat, making it easier to outlaw abortion.
Please point out one place where I argued based on morals or religion.
I realize that a lot of people who are against abortion -- and probably most of the vocal opponents -- are against it for moral or religious reasons.
However, those same people would be against any form of murder for moral and religious reasons as well.
Does that mean that we cannot make a law against murder?
The fact that a religious person supports something does not mean it cannot be incorporated into the law. We just can't make a law soley on religious grounds.
We can't outlaw murder because the Bible says that God said "Thou shalt not kill."
However, we can make a law against murder because it deprives someone of their right to live.
We cannot outlaw abortion simply because some people find it morally wrong, or say that it is forbidden by God.
However, we can outlaw it because it deprives a human being of its right to live.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
