Pro Life, pro choice?

by got my forty homey? 47 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  shamus

  None of anyone's business, thank you very much. Why would anyone care to know? Why would anyone care to even discuss it?
• 

  Xena

  Pro-choice.

  I have been with a friend to an abortion clinic too Petty...not real fun is it? People think women just whip in and out of there....bit more to it than that....and it does impact your life forever, but sometimes you have to make tough choices and decisions, for yourself and others who might be impacted by your choice.

  Condoms don't always work....birthcontrol pills don't always work....rape happens....you don't know other people's circumstances. Make your own decisions and live with them and leave me to make mine and live with them...
• 

  Euphemism

  Yerusalyim... I agree with you, I'm glad this has been civil! I just wanted to reply to a couple of the points you raised, but I want to emphasize that I do respect your opinion.

  First of all, you said:

  If we were talking about medically necessary abortions I don't think too many people would holler

  But then you also said:

  how is it different than killing the baby after it's born?

  If you feel that abortion is no different from killing a born baby, then what entitles you to allow it in the case of medical necessity or rape? A born baby cannot be killed for medical reasons, or because it was a product of rape. So apparently, you do recognize a difference between a born child and an embryo or fetus.

  You also stated:

  most "pro-choicers" want unlimited access to abortion up until the birth of the baby itself

  That doesn't seem to be the common sentiment on this board. Personally, as I mentioned, I'm very ambivalent about anything after the first trimester (other than medical reasons). Pettygrudger mentioned that she only thinks it should be allowed in the first 3-4 weeks. And others, based on the way they have expressed their position, no doubt feel similarily.

  So perhaps it might be best if you addressed the opinions of the people in this discussion, rather than of outside activists.
• 

  Xena

  we don't target innocent people though they are often killed by the action.

  Interesting comment....so collateral damage of innocent lives is ok...but not a woman making a choice regarding her own body within the 1st few weeks of pregnancy?
• 

  pettygrudger

  Condoms don't always work....birthcontrol pills don't always work....rape happens....you don't know other people's circumstances. Make your own decisions and live with them and leave me to make mine and live with them...

  No truer words have ever been said in such a simple way.
• 

  Abaddon

  got my forty:

  The different names present the different lobby groups as they wish to be seen; pro-choicers don't really think they are pro-death, nor do pro-lifers see themselves as anti-choicers.

  As for other opinions;

  Any arguement based on 'abortion is not a form of birth control' is to me a statement of the obvious, and in no way solves the argument of whether it is right or wrong. Only people with poor sexual educations use abortion in such a way, the 'cure' is better sex education, not banning abortion.

  Any argument based on 'how can it be a choice, the child has no choice' is to me based on belief, religious or otherwise, that an inch long unborn with less brain matter than a pet rat (sorry if that's a distasteful way to put it but it is true) is somehow human (as in a self-aware entity) or has a soul. These are unscientific or religiously argued viewpoints. Just because a unborn LOOKS like a tiny human at the end of the first-trimester doesn't mean it is. To me there is no more moral issue in a first trimester abortion than there is in switching off a life support of someone with no brain activity.

  Any arguement based on 'lost potential of life' is also redundant. Many fertilised eggs don't implant or spontaenously abort before the mother is even aware she's conceived. What of the 'lost potential' then? How come 'lost potential' ceases being an arguement when a child is born and consigned to poverty? Surely active anti-abortionists should be highly active in fighting social inequality too, or their entire stance is unbalanced?

  As for pro-lifers being oopposed to the death penalty; never seen the two issues linked in any news item or web site; can you prove the link Yeru? I was under the impression that a certain sector of the right-wing had placards in their boot with "Rights for the unborn" on one side and "A life for a life" on the other, to make doing a double header abortion clinic pickets and execution watch was easier (yes, it's a joke).

  I also think anyone favouring a ban on abortion should perform one on their daughter in an alleyway; if they're happy to do that, then I can take them wishing to consign tens of thousands of women a year to illegal, dangerous back-street abortions seriously.

  Also, any one opposing single parent benefits AND abortion had better sit down and think through their stance logically, as it doesn't make sense.

  Likewise, any one against abortion should be a passionate advocate of comprehensive non-religiously influenced sex education, as this is the only method shown to reduce pregnancy rates.

  The most 'Amazing' opinion is;

  "I no longer hold a "JW" view of this."

  By a person who then (just like a cultist) says they look forward to anyone who disagrees with them dying out. Yes, you really got rid of ALL your cultic thinking, didn't you?

  Yeru, we've been down this route before, so please take what I say in the context of 'you're a nice bloke even if some of your opinions suck'. I hope you feel the same about me;

  "That baby growing inside her is NOT her body...it has seperate DNA. What gives a mother the right to kill that baby...and how is it different than killing the baby after it's born?"

  Because after it's born it's seperate. Before it's born it depends upon the mother for life. Hell, if certain animals can absorb fetuses in times of famine, what is wrong with a human using artiface to prevent having a child in the wrong circumstances?

  If you answer 'humans are different', you have to show how a human fetus IS different at that stage. Potential, as I discuss above, is an illogical argument unless applied consistantly.

  "Here's a problem as I see it...most "pro-choicers" want unlimited access to abortion up until the birth of the baby itself. Most of the PC crowd I've talked to include Partial Birth Abortion in that circle of acceptable abortions."

  Sorry Yeru, I'm calling you on that one. Cite your evidence for this being a representative opinion of people who are in favour of freedom of choice. I have been unconvinced by arguments in the past where you have advanced a strawman arguement on the basis that 'some people say'. Show it. Also, I think you'd choose your lady over your baby in an emergency... and if I were a woman, I wouldn't let a man that would put me after even a third-trimester child touch me.

  And please show me a medical textbook detailing the procedure of partial birth abortion... as was testified before the Senate, a law has now been passed that refers to a procedure described more frequently by anti-aboprtionists than actually practised, and is I believe a phrase coined by anti-abortionists. Curious how, just as with anti-porn campaigners, extreme anti-abortionists often spend more time talking about it than those who are generally in favour.

  Most 'pro-choice' people are less happy with late term abortions than with ones in the first trimester. In the first trimester, it ain't human, in the sense of a self-aware entity. Through the second and third trimester it becomes more human. There's no magic day it becomes human. To try and canalise an argument into a arena where you feel you can make a convincing argument ('partial birth abortions') by claiming everyone and their dog is in favour of partial birth abortions (don't forget to show me the textbook)
  is just distorting the facts. If you need to do that to win an arguement, you've already lost it.

  Oh, and if killing an unborn is wrong, then why is it okay (as Euph points out) if a crime has been commited against the mother? If you want to 'protect the innocent' your entire argument falls on this inconsistancy. If killing pople is wrong, killing people is wrong.

  gypsywildone;

  excellent material, thanks for bringing it to the discussion.

  elamona;

  Is your argument really 'outer Mongolia is under populated therefore abotion is wrong'? Most people having abortions would not cite an overcrowded envirnoment as their main reasons for it. Your argument (if that is it) is illogical as is doesn't have anything to do with most people's reasons for aborting. Oh, and Outer Mongoli is a bad example; if you want to see why, read a few textbooks and work out the theoretical maximum population density the land is capable of supporting in that area.

  In all, everyone is entitled to their opinion; I am sure there are those who find my opinion as insulting or stupid as I find theirs. However, the difference is they would often force inaction on those who disagree, whilst those who disagree with them would never force action on them.

  Maybe that's why they call themselves pro-choice...
• 

  donkey

  I used to be vehemently anti-abortion.

  I am now unconvinced that all abortion is murder. The clincher for ne was reading the essay on the subject by Carl Sagan. He essentially says this:

  Pro-lifers says "abortion is murder". If we accept that then we need to define murder. Murder is the killing of another human being. Murder is not the killing of an animal for instance. So then Sagan said "what makes you a human being?"

  We know that a chimpanzee has 99% DNA match to us. Yet they are not considered human and killing a chimpanzee is not murder (although perhaps for us animal lovers it could be). A chimpanzee is as intelligent as a 5 year old. A potato has more genes than a human being so it is not genetic complexity.

  Thus we eliminate intelligence as the defining factor for what makes us human otherwise we might be ok killing everyone under 5 years of age if its not murder to kill a chimpanzee.

  At some point a growing fetus becomes a human being. Where that point lies is a matter of arbitrary definition based on ones viewpoint and the law always draws an arbitrary line in the sand - eg being allowed to drink at 21 (you suddenly in the space of one day mature enough from age 20 and 264 days when you could not drink to 21 and 0 days where its ok). The same is true in human fetal growth.

  So accepting the definition that murder is the killing of a human being we need to answer and provide solid logical (not mystical or religious) evidence to support our views. I am unable to make that decision sufficiently for myself let alone anyone. I challenge anyone to provide evidence to the contrary and I will gladly change my viewpoint.
• 

  elamona

  Abaddon I was replying to a post that someone made in reference to the overpopulation belief many have. It was a response to her/his post. You are correct-it didn't have any more to do with abortion than the original post she/he made but I felt that it needed to be addressed.