Post Reply
Page 4 of 14  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 14 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Majority of Americans now ‘pro-life,’ poll says
5 years ago  ::  May 18, 2009 - 2:35PM #31
amcolph
Posts: 17,536

May 18, 2009 -- 1:58PM, Bei1052 wrote:



...And please tell me you can tell the fundamental difference between abortion and the rest of what you posted there.



For the 'pro-life' leadership there is no difference.


It's all about controlling sexual behavior--as Randall Terry and other 'pro-life' leaders have admitted.


That is why there can be no discussion of the question of whether a fetus is a human being subject to being murdered from the moment of conception.


That is why birth control, and comprehensive sex education in the schools--which reduce inadvertant pregnancies amongst those who do not chose to abstain from sex--are anathema.


Mind you, I do not approve of abortion, either.


However, I do not want to see the public policy issue of whether and under what circumstances abortion should be legal


overly influenced by the perverse and prurient advocates of 'biblical' morality.


 

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 18, 2009 - 4:59PM #32
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Of course it's a health issue, and all abortions are performed through the lens of the medical risk a woman would be consenting to take if the pregnancy continued, Bei.


Once again, no, it's not. How you are ignoring the fact that the overhwhelming majority of abortions are in no way, shape or form linked to health issues or complications arising from prengnacy is beyond me. The overwhelming majority-- And by that, I mean nearly all-- Abortions are elective abortions (i.e., don't want a kid, don't want to be a parent, raising a child would negatively affect my life, can't afford a kid right now, etc.). Your assertion that elective abortions are a health issue would be like calling plastic surgery a health issue. It's not, and constantly asserting that it is doesn't make it so. It's just tired old rhetoric. The vast majority of pregnancies pose no health risks to the female in question and the vast majority of abortions aren't performed because of health risks to the mother. It's as simple as.


What prolifers are really asking for is a special right for a fetus that no other living, breathing human person can claim ... the right to use another human being's body as a life support system, to the detriment of that person's health and well-being.


I love how you throw the words "living" and "breathing" in there, as it that's going to change anything. Fetuses' are alive and they don't need to breathe, as they receive all their nutrients from the umbilical cord. But, I digress.


Can a woman have an abortion any time she wants? The answer to that question is a "no". And unless you're willing to state that a fetus never has the "right to use another human being's body as a life support system" and support the ability for a woman to have an abortion at any time during pregnancy, then your argument is moot because, after a certain point in time, a fetus has a right right to "use another human being's body as a life support system", yet I don't see you complain about it.


And, again, why are you mentioning something which simply accounts for the minority of abortions performed and trying to pass it off as it accounts for the majority? It doesn't, and it's highly disingenuous of you.


No born, breathing child can demand legally that its mother or father donate so much as a bit of bone marrow to save its life.  No born, breathing child can legally demand of its parent a pint of blood, or a redundant organ, even to save its life, even (in the case of a blood donation) when the donation would not harm the parent at all or even cause him or her minor discomfort.


And you're ignoring the fact that there's a world of difference between the relationship between a ZEF and it's mother and a child who's already been born and its mother. The reason a child cannot legally "demand" anything from it's parent when it's already born, is becauase it's not biologically dependant on the female anymore, whereas a fetus is and, therefore, it can. Pretty easy to understand.


Likewise, no fetus has the right to demand that a woman turn over every major organ system in her body to aid its survival, either.  


Except, it already does. A woman cannot have an abortion whenever she please.


And, just so you know, a fetus doesn't demand that a woman turn over every major organ system in her body to aid its survival. That assertion is incredibily asinine.


Pregnancy is a medically taxing condition for even healthy women.  It strains every bodily system a woman possesses.  For a woman who wants to give birth and either keep the baby or give it up for adoption, she is willingly accepting a medical risk that is ten times the risk of an early abortion.  It's a beautiful choice.


You do realize just how minute that medical risk is, right? Especially in this day and age of modern medicine. It's always amazed me how some of you pro-choicers try to turn pregnancy into some insurmountable, life threatening, phenomena (In the U.S., the maternal death rate is 11/100,000 pregnancies or .011%. In many other countries, it's as low as 0/100,000 pregnancies) while passing off abortion as the infinitely safer choice.


But it must remain a CHOICE.  If an older sibling cannot demand to use its parent's body as life support, even in minor ways, it cannot possibly be legal for a fetus to make that demand successfully.


Except for the fact that, by the very nature of a ZEF/mother relationship when compared to someone who is already born and it's mother relationship, yes, you can and we already do.


And, luckily, it won't remain a choice for very long. Times are changing, and the whole "It's a choice" argument is losing ground, mainly due to the fact that it's indefensible and contradictory within itself :)

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 18, 2009 - 5:02PM #33
Cesmom
Posts: 4,863

The portion of the article that stood out the most to me...


"The terms pro-choice and pro-life no longer define the parameters of the debate, witnessed by the fact that in the Gallup Poll, a majority of people say they are both pro-life and that abortion should be legal," Richards said.


Ask 10 people the definition of pro-life and it's amazing how many answers you'll get.  I could say that I'm pro-life because I'd like to see abortion be a thing of the past, but since I don't believe it should be illegal under most circumstances, that by definition makes me pro-choice.  It's impossible to predict exactly what each of these individuals meant when they said they were pro-life.

Our need to learn should always outweigh our need to be right

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

More people would learn from their mistakes if they weren't so busy denying them.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 18, 2009 - 5:09PM #34
Bei1052
Posts: 986

For the 'pro-life' leadership there is no difference.


I'm gonna' have to issue a big, emphatic "no" here.


It's all about controlling sexual behavior--as Randall Terry and other 'pro-life' leaders have admitted.


*see above*


That is why there can be no discussion of the question of whether a fetus is a human being subject to being murdered from the moment of conception.


There is no discussion to be had here, because a ZEF is a human being.


That is why birth control, and comprehensive sex education in the schools--which reduce inadvertant pregnancies amongst those who do not chose to abstain from sex--are anathema.


You can give whatever education you want. Abortions still shouldn't be permitted except in the most extreme of cases.


(Speaking of which, I find it funny how the rationalization for legalizing abortion was that it would be used only limitedly and in the most extreme of cases. How'd that work out?)


Mind you, I do not approve of abortion, either.


However, I do not want to see the public policy issue of whether and under what circumstances abortion should be legal.


overly influenced by the perverse and prurient advocates of 'biblical' morality.


Abortion has nothing to do with religion. The people asserting as such do themseleves no favors. It has everything to do with killing another out of convenience. There is nothing philosophical about this debate, though most PC'ers try to make it as such since the only way to lose a debate in philosophy is to admit you're wrong (Which they won't do).


Anywho, I asked someone else this before, and received no response, so I'll ask this again. When, if ever, has the law been based around personal morality?

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 18, 2009 - 5:44PM #35
amcolph
Posts: 17,536

May 18, 2009 -- 5:09PM, Bei1052 wrote:


That is why there can be no discussion of the question of whether a fetus is a human being subject to being murdered from the moment of conception.


There is no discussion to be had here, because a ZEF is a human being.





My point exactly.  You can assert that it is self-evident that a ZEF is a human being in the full sense of the word, which absolves you of trying to convince anyone,


so you can proceed directly to denouncing PC'ers as being too callous to care that abortion is always murder.


Even people who might otherwise agree with you are put off by that kind of arrogance.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 18, 2009 - 5:48PM #36
Tolerant Sis
Posts: 4,201

May 18, 2009 -- 4:59PM, Bei1052 wrote:


Of course it's a health issue, and all abortions are performed through the lens of the medical risk a woman would be consenting to take if the pregnancy continued, Bei.


Once again, no, it's not. How you are ignoring the fact that the overhwhelming majority of abortions are in no way, shape or form linked to health issues or complications arising from prengnacy is beyond me. The overwhelming majority-- And by that, I mean nearly all-- Abortions are elective abortions (i.e., don't want a kid, don't want to be a parent, raising a child would negatively affect my life, can't afford a kid right now, etc.). Your assertion that elective abortions are a health issue would be like calling plastic surgery a health issue. It's not, and constantly asserting that it is doesn't make it so. It's just tired old rhetoric. The vast majority of pregnancies pose no health risks to the female in question and the vast majority of abortions aren't performed because of health risks to the mother. It's as simple as.


What prolifers are really asking for is a special right for a fetus that no other living, breathing human person can claim ... the right to use another human being's body as a life support system, to the detriment of that person's health and well-being.


I love how you throw the words "living" and "breathing" in there, as it that's going to change anything. Fetuses' are alive and they don't need to breathe, as they receive all their nutrients from the umbilical cord. But, I digress.


Can a woman have an abortion any time she wants? The answer to that question is a "no". And unless you're willing to state that a fetus never has the "right to use another human being's body as a life support system" and support the ability for a woman to have an abortion at any time during pregnancy, then your argument is moot because, after a certain point in time, a fetus has a right right to "use another human being's body as a life support system", yet I don't see you complain about it.


And, again, why are you mentioning something which simply accounts for the minority of abortions performed and trying to pass it off as it accounts for the majority? It doesn't, and it's highly disingenuous of you.


No born, breathing child can demand legally that its mother or father donate so much as a bit of bone marrow to save its life.  No born, breathing child can legally demand of its parent a pint of blood, or a redundant organ, even to save its life, even (in the case of a blood donation) when the donation would not harm the parent at all or even cause him or her minor discomfort.


And you're ignoring the fact that there's a world of difference between the relationship between a ZEF and it's mother and a child who's already been born and its mother. The reason a child cannot legally "demand" anything from it's parent when it's already born, is becauase it's not biologically dependant on the female anymore, whereas a fetus is and, therefore, it can. Pretty easy to understand.


Likewise, no fetus has the right to demand that a woman turn over every major organ system in her body to aid its survival, either.  


Except, it already does. A woman cannot have an abortion whenever she please.


And, just so you know, a fetus doesn't demand that a woman turn over every major organ system in her body to aid its survival. That assertion is incredibily asinine.


Pregnancy is a medically taxing condition for even healthy women.  It strains every bodily system a woman possesses.  For a woman who wants to give birth and either keep the baby or give it up for adoption, she is willingly accepting a medical risk that is ten times the risk of an early abortion.  It's a beautiful choice.


You do realize just how minute that medical risk is, right? Especially in this day and age of modern medicine. It's always amazed me how some of you pro-choicers try to turn pregnancy into some insurmountable, life threatening, phenomena (In the U.S., the maternal death rate is 11/100,000 pregnancies or .011%. In many other countries, it's as low as 0/100,000 pregnancies) while passing off abortion as the infinitely safer choice.


But it must remain a CHOICE.  If an older sibling cannot demand to use its parent's body as life support, even in minor ways, it cannot possibly be legal for a fetus to make that demand successfully.


Except for the fact that, by the very nature of a ZEF/mother relationship when compared to someone who is already born and it's mother relationship, yes, you can and we already do.


And, luckily, it won't remain a choice for very long. Times are changing, and the whole "It's a choice" argument is losing ground, mainly due to the fact that it's indefensible and contradictory within itself :)




 


1.  Once again, YES, it is.  Pregnancy is a medical condition, that you, lucky man, will never, ever have to face.  It is stressful to the body, and only the person who has to carry that medical risk, minute though YOU believe it to be, gets to decide whether she will continue to accept that risk.


2.  The definition of a 'person' (the only human beings infused with rights under common law) is first BREATH.  A fetus has not taken a breath, and its rights, though ascending after viability, are always subordinate to the woman who carries it.


3.  According to prolifers, there is no difference at all.  It's a child, not a choice, right?  If it's a child, it takes its chances.  If the woman -- the only person capable of supporting it -- elects not to do so, which is her right, same as if it were a day old and needed a full blood transfusion or a bone marrow transplant and she were the best candidate for a match -- the fetus dies, just like the neonate would.


4.  A neonate is not biologically dependent on its parents? You seriously believe that?  Have you ever HAD a child?  A breastfeeding mother certainly has a biological relationship between herself and the offspring, although no law requires her to breastfeed, even though it is the healthiest food for a baby.  Likewise, no law can force her to give a drop of blood if she refuses to do so, even to save that neonate's life.  So much depends on those four little inches, eh?


5.  You're right, the fetus can make no legal demands on the woman's body.  No more than its older siblings could do.  A woman can terminate a pregnancy until the fetus could live on its own, and even afterward, if the fetus is severely deformed or the woman's health is in jeopardy.  The fetus' rights, even after 'viability' are always subordinate to the woman's, which is how it should and must be.


6.  Spoken like a typical male.  The risk is small enough for you, so it should be small enough for everybody (especially since you'll never have to accept that risk!).  There is no situation in your life when you are forced to accept a medical risk you don't wish to accept.  A woman just died because she happened to contract the flu while pregnant, you know.  The risk isn't all that tiny if you end up dead or maimed.  35% of women undergo major abdominal surgery just to give birth.  The majority of us had infections and complications that ranged from minor to requiring complete hysterectomies to even death from c-sections.  The majority of women who DON'T have c-sections end up with other scar tissue from episiotomies and other minor surgeries.  No person unwilling to accept this risk should be forced into it because YOU happen to think the risk is 'small enough'.  And yes, abortion is ten times safer than childbirth.


7.  Not bloody likely.  Abortion is settled law now, and isn't going to be overturned based on public opinion, which may not even be a 'real' public opinion -- we'll see after a few more polls.  Why don't you and your little friends do something useful instead, like adopt one of the hundreds of thousands of kids from foster care who are already born and breathing and need a home because their parents weren't ready to be parents?  Or support your local after school centers and preschools and infant care centers so that poor working moms DON'T have to make a financial decision to have an abortion? Or make contraception free and charge impotent men $100 per script for Viagra? 


Oh, never mind, that would mean YOU had to take some responsibility.  Got it.

First amendment fan since 1793.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 18, 2009 - 5:54PM #37
Bei1052
Posts: 986

May 18, 2009 -- 5:44PM, amcolph wrote:

My point exactly.  You can assert that it is self-evident that a ZEF is a human being in the full sense of the word, which absolves you of trying to convince anyone,


so you can proceed directly to denouncing PC'ers as being too callous to care that abortion is always murder.


Even people who might otherwise agree with you are put off by that kind of arrogance.



It's not arrogance. It's a 100%, purely scientific answer in that a ZEF at all stages is human. Simply because most on the PC side disagree, and they do so on philosophical grounds, not scientific ones, doesn't mean that a fetus isn't human.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 18, 2009 - 5:57PM #38
amcolph
Posts: 17,536

May 18, 2009 -- 5:09PM, Bei1052 wrote:


For the 'pro-life' leadership there is no difference.


I'm gonna' have to issue a big, emphatic "no" here.


It's all about controlling sexual behavior--as Randall Terry and other 'pro-life' leaders have admitted.


*see above*





Then why are those who are 'pro-life' also insistent about opposing birth control, AIDS education and cure research, gay marriage and promoting abstinence/ignorance only sex "education?"


It's all of a piece, isn't it.  It's all about 'biblical' morality. which is about little more than controlling sexual behavior,


and serious consideration of the life of the fetus--which is what troubles the PC'ers who you portray as being indifferent to human life--becomes trivialized as as being useful to you for nothing but propaganda.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 18, 2009 - 6:19PM #39
mountain_man
Posts: 39,484

May 16, 2009 -- 9:56PM, Bei1052 wrote:


You know. There's a word for this. It's called "reaching". ....



Why is the fact that your body is not involved called "reaching"?



Oh, how clever of you. You make a statement, I ask you to prove it and then you turn around and say, "You prove they're correct!".




Christians do it all the time.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 18, 2009 - 6:24PM #40
mountain_man
Posts: 39,484

May 18, 2009 -- 5:54PM, Bei1052 wrote:


It's not arrogance. It's a 100%, purely scientific answer in that a ZEF at all stages is human.




It is arrogance in that arrogance is the only thing behind such an absurd statement. No one has ever claimed that the product of a human egg and a human sperm is anything but human. It's a strawman argument based on arrogance and supported by ignorance.



Simply because most on the PC side disagree, and they do so on philosophical grounds, not scientific ones, doesn't mean that a fetus isn't human.




Again, a strawman argument. I have not seen one PC claim the fetus is anything but human.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 4 of 14  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 14 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook