pro-life or pro-choice?

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by BoutyPunkrAurra, Oct 31, 2001.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. PurpleSaberJedi Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 30, 2001
    star 1
    I would just like to pop my head in and say, don't drag the whole God issue into this. 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. Although many of us have expressed that we are religious in some fashion or the other, someone here is bound not to believe in a god. Now is not the time to start critizing others for their beliefs in a god.

    To continue onto the subject matter:

    I have a question. There is no sarcasm in this question whatsoever. I want to know how you feel. If you are pro-choice: If abortion becomes illegal again, should we throw abortion doctors and nurses in jail?
  2. StarFire Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 31, 2001
    star 4
    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.
  3. Cailina Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 18, 1999
    star 4
    "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.
  4. TripleB Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2000
    star 4
    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.
  5. StarFire Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 31, 2001
    star 4
    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!
  6. womberty Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 21, 2002
    star 4
    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?
  7. Cailina Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 18, 1999
    star 4
    "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.
  8. McCartneysDirtySock Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2001
    star 1
    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.
  9. StarFire Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 31, 2001
    star 4
    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?
  10. PurpleSaberJedi Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 30, 2001
    star 1
    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.
  11. womberty Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 21, 2002
    star 4
    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. ;)
  12. AnakinsGirl Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 2, 2001
    star 4
    PSJ: they should throw abortion doctors/nurses in jail NOW, IMHO.
  13. AnakinsGirl Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 2, 2001
    star 4
    O YA PSJ! go you, using my argument! lol imjk
  14. McCartneysDirtySock Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2001
    star 1
    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.
  15. TripleB Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2000
    star 4
    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.
  16. womberty Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 21, 2002
    star 4
    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?
  17. goldbubbly Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 5, 2002
    star 4
    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...
  18. Darth was Mauled Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 22, 2000
    star 4
    That's quite funny, Triple B, because Dick Riordan is a major RINO, he is prochoice and he is also a gungrabber.
  19. Cailina Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 18, 1999
    star 4
    "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.
  20. womberty Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 21, 2002
    star 4
    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.
  21. McCartneysDirtySock Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2001
    star 1
    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.
  22. Crimson Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 18, 2002
    star 4
    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.
  23. StarFire Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 31, 2001
    star 4
    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 [face_mischief]
  24. womberty Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 21, 2002
    star 4
    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.
  25. McCartneysDirtySock Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2001
    star 1
    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.


Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.