pro-life or pro-choice?

As you can see from my previous post, I am clearly pro-life on the abortion issue. However, unlike some people who call themselves pro-life, I am pro-life the whole way through: I am against the death penalty.

My opposition to the death penalty does not stem solely from the fact that it is racially/economically biased (which it is), but from the fact that the only time in which the kling of another person is acceptable is in the defense of yourself or others. In today's times, we have the ability to withdraw a person from society without going so far as to kill them.

For all you pro-choicers out there, if you want some true pro-life arguments to go up against, check out Pope John Paul II's teachings. They are the whole pro-life argument.

 

I can't believe anyone who believes so strongly in the sanctity of life as you pro-lifers would allow a barbaric, racist, class-driven institution like the death penalty

Were you not the guy who was complaining about innocent people killed in the Vietnam Conflict?

If you feel so strongly about the wrongness these people were killed, I can't believe you support organized murder.

Abortion a zillion times more barbaric and brutal than war, capital punishment, etc. War should be avoided at all costs, sometimes madmen get into power like Adolf Hitler or Lyndon B Johnson and they take their country to war and millions of innocents are killed, sad yes, speaking militarily civilians are accidental deaths (usually from time to time you get a loon soldier on the loose).

How can you protest war killing civilians and support the womans right to choose to murder.

How can any of you just say "well, a few innocent people die, but who cares?"

I do care, but people who beyond a shadow of a doubt killed someone, such as Charles Manson should be put down to sleep for eternity.

As for the evil criminals, I'll speak to you Christians. Don't you think they deserve at least the time in jail to repent their sins? Isn't every living soul capable of forgiveness?

As a Christian I know that after a certain amount of time God will give up on people if they keep ignoring him, so not every person surviving has the potential for saving.

And the Bible itself tells us "You will reap the seeds you sew." In other words, you might be saved after you kill someone but you will get yours, just like the saying what comes around goes around.

 

God seems to support killing babies in the OT?


Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.



Samuel 15:3 (KJV)


the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt...

-Exodus 12:29 (KJV)


He sure found life sacred.

 

"Responsibility."

Choosing whether to allow an unwanted pregnancy to continue or not is "taking responsibility", but because you disagree with it, you refuse to acknowledge it as such.

 

"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 is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life." (Exodus 21:22-23)

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5)

"For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and he will drink no wine or liquor; and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, while yet in his mother's womb." (Luke 1:15)

But when He who had set me apart, even from my mother's womb, and called me through His grace, was pleased (Galatians 1:15)

As always Ender the Bible can be viewed more than one way.

 

"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 is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life."

The second part of the above statement refers to injury to the woman. If she suffers a miscarriage, the penalty is what the husband demands, but if *she* should suffer death, then the penalty is a "life for a life".

The fetus and the woman are not on equal footing here.

 

And this one:

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."

Here the Bible refers to Jeremiah specifically. Not humanity in general.

edit: Ack! I wish I had more time right now. I love these Biblical passages debates!

 

As always Ender the Bible can be viewed more than one way.

Yep. Those that will not bow down before him get wiped out. If you're one of his followers then your babies are worth more than if they are Egyptian, Midianite, or Amalek.

 

Well Ender who are you to judge what God does? He is all knowing and does things for a reason, in all cases though he gives warnings and people blatantly ignore them.

God's descision to take life is his own, what abortion is, is man taking life as his/her descision. They make themselves God, just as murderers and madmen, to me they are all in the same boat.

 

Well Ender who are you to judge what God does? He is all knowing and does things for a reason, in all cases though he gives warnings and people blatantly ignore them.


Gee, I didn't know babies could heed these warnings? Forgive me for judging someone who slaughters babies for something the parents do. I guess people didn't have freewill back then? Also, the only transgression these people made against the god of Abraham was to refuse to worship him. They had their own gods.

 

""Responsibility."

Choosing whether to allow an unwanted pregnancy to continue or not is "taking responsibility", but because you disagree with it, you refuse to acknowledge it as such."


No, the individual got pregnant. That is the consequence of the sexual act. The responsability is to live with that consequence, being responsible about it, and raising the child you brought into the world. Aborting it is denying your role in the process, is saying I did not want this, I will not have it even if I took part in the actions that created it and despite the fact that the consequence of sex could be a child (or could be a disease). You have to suck it up, learn and live with the consequences of your actions. Too many people don't.

I call them Democrats.


Just kidding folks, haha, let's all not bite each others' heads off.

 

"They make themselves God, just as murderers and madmen, to me they are all in the same boat."

//rolleyes



"No, the individual got pregnant. That is the consequence of the sexual act. The responsability is to live with that consequence, being responsible about it, and raising the child you brought into the world."

You view this through the anti choice prism, though. You do not like abortion, therefore you view abortion as an act of irresponsibility. The consequence of sex is reproduction? No, not always. Most sexual activity does not wind up in a pregnancy. Therefore pregnancy is not an inevitable consequence. It's a sometimes thing. *And* we have abortion as a safe alternative to unwanted pregnancy. Do you honestly think women blithely make this decision? Or that they're somehow "not right" either morally or mentally? Controlling one's reproduction and possible motherhood is responsibility.


"Aborting it is denying your role in the process, is saying I did not want this,"

I would argue that it's not denying. True denial would be the young women who refuse to even acknowledge their pregnancy and wind up having the baby because they can't face the truth. And yes, clearly it's saying "I don't want this." Obviously.

"I will not have it even if I took part in the actions that created it"

Yes. Why not? We already have established that not everyone views the fertilized egg the same way. You consider it on par with a living, breathing child. I do not.

"and despite the fact that the consequence of sex could be a child (or could be a disease)."

Yes. No argument from me on this.

"You have to suck it up, learn and live with the consequences of your actions. Too many people don't."

Here comes the punitive part. I don't get it, truly. This comes across to me as being judgemental and mean spirited. "You had sex. You deal with it." Opting not to drag another unwanted life into the world *is* "dealing with it". You just don't want to accept it because you disagree with the act of abortion.

Too many people don't live with the consequences of their actions? Yup, plenty of people already have children they don't want, are incapable of caring for and yet they still hang onto them. My husband and I are involved year round with our school system, a 4-C day care nearby and the foster care system in Seminole county.

There are literally hundreds of unwanted and uncared children in the custody of the state (various agencies). **

Why in the world do we want to drag any more unwanted (dingdingding!) babies into this world? We already don't take care of the unwanted ones we already have.

** We live in Orange County, Florida, where one in four children live in poverty and I don't see anyone clamoring to help them.

edit:

BTW, when the Bible says "He knew" or "God knew", it refers to believers, not non-believers. And the earlier quote from Jeremiah still refers just to Jeremiah. Anyway. Carry on.

 

We have many unwanted children because many people, I would say, abuse sex. But that is another argument.

I understand your points, and you sort of nailed my view - it is a mean-spirited sort of thing. If I remember the terminology corretly, it's called "tough love." Or tough ****, but that's splitting hairs.

I see abortion as an easy out. It's as simple as that. An easy out that will and is being abused as a way of birth control. Mostly by those with the money to use it, however. I hail from a wealthier suburb of Chicago and looking back at my high school graduates (I'm presently a junior is college), more than a mere one or two have gotten pregnant and used abortion as a secret (well, nothing is exactly secret in suburbs) way to get rid of their "problem" and go back to their activity.

Some people should get little punch cards: ten abortions, get a free sub. I find it just outrageous. I'd prefer a highly regulated abortion system, in the major hospitals, not clinics, that uses methods tested decades on end before introduction to the public. There is a lot of physical and psychological trauma that accompanies abortion, as has been discussed in probably a fifth of the posts in here.

 

"I'd prefer a highly regulated abortion system, in the major hospitals, not clinics, that uses methods tested decades on end before introduction to the public."

I'm familiar with the history of abortion in this country and how it was handled. Why would you prefer a return to it?

//curious


And because I cannot seem to find any time right now in my personal life to finish my response to Frank Slade, I'm just going to post the response I started and will attempt to finish it online later...

Frank, your question, based upon my answer to the 7 month question is whether I think the fetus' viability is secondary to the woman's right to control her reproduction, yes? My answer to that question implied that I believe fetal viability is paramount?

Do I believe a woman has a right to control her reproduction?

Yes.

Do I believe abortion should remain a safe and legal option for women?

Yes.

Should abortion be allowed for all nine months of pregnancy for any and all reasons, no matter what?

No.

Why?

Because there is little difference in my mind between a newborn and a fetus 2 hours away from being born.

If that is so, then why don't I see anything wrong with terminating the growth of a blastocyte?

Because I consider one a "person" and the other one is not. I do not think that a clump of human cells with the potential to one day become a human being, providing the conditions are right, is somehow imbued with "personhood" with all the legal rights of same. I do not think that this lump of human DNA should be considered a "child". It is merely potential life since it couldn't possibly exist outside of the host (mother) and in the earliest stages only remotely resembles a human being. DNA alone does not constitute personhood.

Should the host (mother) wish to continue the pregnancy, so be it, but then, that is her choice.

Let's use a hypothetical example. A woman knows she's one day pregnant. She would rather not carry the pregnancy to term. If she swallows a pill to dislodge the fertilized egg, is she murdering "someone"? A cluster of cells? I think it could only possibly be considered murder *if* you thought that those cells had a soul. Since we are not a theocracy, this religious theory is not enough to base a law upon. Furthermore, I personally do not think that cells can have a soul so I see no problem ending the unwanted pregnancy.

So. Now we're at opposite extremes of the nine month pregnancy. I feel that abortion is perfectly acceptable at end end, but only acceptable at the other end if extreme conditions exist.

What is the difference? The development of the fetus, of course.

Society has an interest in the welfare of human beings. We regulate many things in an effort at protecting the citizenry.

What is a citizen? What is a member of society? A blastocyte? I find that argument laughable at best.

Traditionally, society and the laws upon which we base our society have considered only those who have been born citizens. Fetuses cannot inherit property unless they are born alive. Parents cannot claim a child tax credit until it's born. Census takers do not count pregnant women as "two people". Some people believe that one can only enter heaven after being baptized. Only beings which have been born can be baptized. Does that mean that fetuses do not go to heaven should they perish before being born?
The only time the law counts a fetus as a person is in the case of grievous bodily injury to a pregnant woman and it results in fetal death. Then, yes, the law "recognizes" a fetus as a "person". The reason for this is simple. The prosecutor is throwing as many charges at the defendent as possible hoping for a plea bargain or trying to get the maximum sentence possible. It is a common, strategic tactic. They do it all the time, every day, in every case concerning every crime they hope to win and it in no way reflects anything beyond that.

So the concept that embryos/fetuses are not "people" is not so outside the mainstream of society as some would cont

 

I have delayed getting into this because there is no way to win, but I'll state where I am.

I am in the middle on this one. On the one hand, I don't think a fetus is the same thing as a baby. But I also don't think it's like a little bug. I think it is an individual from conception.

Therefore, I am for abortion in cases of rape or where it would seriously harm the mother. No more.

It all comes down to when you think the fetus is on equal footing with a grown person.

 

hello everyone, i am back and it seems i have missed about 10 pages of debate!!!! wow.

i mgiht get back in later, but right now my life is rediculousely hectic so i cant spend all my energy here, passionately arguing

wow, i didnt even think my thread would grow to be this large. almost 800 posts! and i didnt even have to keep it alive (for the most part) wow. thank you everyone, for caring enough about whatever side you are on to fight for it here.
no blasters! purplesaberjedi, and starfire particularly. theres more but im to lazy to look back and hunt them down. just...wow. this is so melon.

 

//feels old

//doesn't know what "melon" is

 

"//feels old

//doesn't know what 'melon' is"

I'm 16 and I dunno what "melon" is either.

 

melon is my word for cool. so is "roast beef" "beefy" and any other types of foods.


i hate saying "cool". so mainstream....

marvy=marvelous
fab=fabulous
get it?

 

Ahh, a personal thing.

Thanks, AG.

 

NB,

Great post - I'll reply when I get some more time, although I'll say now that I understand the position much more than I have in the past. I still disagree (heh) but nicely put back there.

 

happy late new years.

 

And best wishes for the new year.

 

No Blasters!

I've been around the block when it comes to views on abortion, and it IS a difficult philosophical issue.

There are a few obstacles to rational discussion in this debate:

1)Misconceptions and propaganda that cloud our ability to really examine the issue.

2)Extremists who view any step in what they consider the wrong direction as a disaster.

3)Bizarre linkages and inconsistent philosophical views.

4)Political organization and competition above the ability to allow for reasoned individual stances.

To critique the pro-life side first, I'd say that while religion also infused the abolitionists with vigor and indeed formed the basis of their views, it is too simplistic and insufficiently comprehensive to bring religion into the debate. It must be ONE of many arguments. Now, most knowledgeable pro-lifers are indeed equipped with new material.

There's no understanding of abortion's history, nor much compromise it seems. Abortion wasn't something that was made legal with Roe v Wade, it was practiced as far back as history records. No, this does not render it moral, but it provides a context to the claims that are made.

I'd also say the way that even morning-after pills are attacked as abortofacients is a bit bizarre. Surely, they'd prefer the likely chance that the egg would not be fertilized over an abortion during the 5th month of pregancy? Often though, the view is that as soon as the egg is fertilized it is sacred and one cannot risk even "abortofacients."

That is just one side of the coin. Pro-choice leadership has shown a shocking disregard for the immorality of the partial birth abortion procedure. If a nine-month old baby can have its brains sucked out of its head and not move the moral compass of the pro-choice leadership, then it suffers from some serious lack of foresight and moral character.

I'd say that I also have difficulty(this is more personal than anything else) that pro-choice groups and their advertisements speak so highly of "liberty" and "choice" about the right to terminate a life growing inside you, but are the SAME people(with some exceptions) that continually oppose liberty in every other aspect of the political arena. It rings hollow.

I find it an interesting historical fact that the early women's suffrage movement leadership was almost completely pro-life(statements made by Stanton, Anthony and others.) Statements they have made would have rendered them excommunicated from the modern feminist/pro-choice organizations.

I, for one, do not believe that the government should be in the business of invading the sovereignty of a person's body, man or woman. Yes, there is another life in there, but I think all pro-life arguments should focus on moral suasion and not legal coercion. I feel the same about the drug war, which is another invasion of the sovereignty of one's own life. A heroin user or a woman who gets an abortion in non-emergency circumstances in the late 2nd trimester may be committing immoral acts, but I don't think we should be locking them in prison.

Pro-lifers should know that Brazil forbids abortion and there are more women who get abortions there than the US, in terms of proportion.

 

*sighs* i suppose ths thread is finally over? o well. good times.