Pro-life or pro-choice?

[the_paul]

Several of my friends are adopted and I dated an adopted girl for awhile. Every single one of them is fine. They were grateful that, for whatever reason, a responsible decision was made with their best interests in mind. You make it out to be much worse than they ever have.

[T3l Ca7]

The reason why I am pro-choice is that I have faith in people making the right choice. The same reason why we trust drivers with cars, adults with guns (in some countries), alcohol and poison. We have the faith that the others will make the right choice.

By taking away those choices, we are literally saying that we (including you and I) can not be trusted that we need to be looked after by the nanny state.

I am pro-choice, because I have faith in humanity, that the majority of the adults are responsible and can make the right choice.

[DoTheFandango]

Ok all joking aside.

I've actually had to get an abortion (well, go with a girl to get one).

I did listen to Paul Simon's Graceland while I waited in the car, and it wasn't because I love that album its because it's the only album that cheers me up when I listen to it 100% of the time. It was a sickening time of regret, second-guessing and all together anger and sadness.

My girlfriend (more a girl I was seeing, in actuality, which is part of the reason this happened) and I were irresponsible. We weren't planning, and like Bioture said we were really dumb. We were both in our early 20s, she was finishing college and moving to Korea to teach English afterwards, I was finishing my second year. We had a small discussion about the situation. I couldn't provide for her, she didn't see a future together past the summer, we both couldn't have our lives dedicated to a child at the moment. We had made a mistake, and I'll be the first to admit it, but it's not as simple as just putting it up for adoption or . Doctor's visits, family discussions, most likely her having to stay in the US, it was all too much for me to handle as an emotionally immature and a financially insecure frat boy. I let her make the decision, even though I told her where I stood. She made the choice, calmly as day, I drove her, comforted her, and stayed with her when she asked.

Our relationship was ruined though. Soon thereafter we lost touch, she moved and that was it. She's engaged now to a really cool dude, and I couldn't be happier for her. And I know she couldn't be happier. I think about it every day. It was a horrible horrible mistake that we made, but it's part of our lives now that has inevitably ended up for the best. I understand people that are pro-choice, and I understand people that are pro-life, but whatever someone is, you just have to respect it.

[Welfare]

kill babies

[genocidal]

that was quite a tale dtf. i'm wondering if you had the couresty to snowbll the creampie (probably a better urban dictionary term for this) after you made the mistake.

[Tone]

Ok all joking aside.

I've actually had to get an abortion (well, go with a girl to get one).

I did listen to Paul Simon's Graceland while I waited in the car, and it wasn't because I love that album its because it's the only album that cheers me up when I listen to it 100% of the time. It was a sickening time of regret, second-guessing and all together anger and sadness.

My girlfriend (more a girl I was seeing, in actuality, which is part of the reason this happened) and I were irresponsible. We weren't planning, and like Bioture said we were really dumb. We were both in our early 20s, she was finishing college and moving to Korea to teach English afterwards, I was finishing my second year. We had a small discussion about the situation. I couldn't provide for her, she didn't see a future together past the summer, we both couldn't have our lives dedicated to a child at the moment. We had made a mistake, and I'll be the first to admit it, but it's not as simple as just putting it up for adoption or . Doctor's visits, family discussions, most likely her having to stay in the US, it was all too much for me to handle as an emotionally immature and a financially insecure frat boy. I let her make the decision, even though I told her where I stood. She made the choice, calmly as day, I drove her, comforted her, and stayed with her when she asked.

Our relationship was ruined though. Soon thereafter we lost touch, she moved and that was it. She's engaged now to a really cool dude, and I couldn't be happier for her. And I know she couldn't be happier. I think about it every day. It was a horrible horrible mistake that we made, but it's part of our lives now that has inevitably ended up for the best. I understand people that are pro-choice, and I understand people that are pro-life, but whatever someone is, you just have to respect it.

Translating

The girl moved or wasnt compatible in some other way that didnt have to do with abortion

You are both in a relationship or sleeping around. Both cheaters & players & corrupted

[Epinephrine]

I am going to add some substance to this bullshit. I may have wasted my time, but here goes. As a preface, I am a Christian and consider myself a libertarian.

I think abortion is a violation of human rights. I'm actually a little surprised that most progressives are so adamantly pro-abortion, as I think it's actually the next human rights hurdle that needs to be overcome. In Roman times, infantacide was common, because children were perceived to be property of their parents, without rights for themselves. Now, we recognize the personhood of children, and killing children is universally accepted as morally wrong. Two hundred years ago, slaves were considered as the property of their owners, and had no human rights. Killing a slave was merely just destroying something that you owned. Now, it's nearly universally accepted that those slaves were persons, and deserved their own human rights.

Which brings us to today. I understand the argument that a woman should be able to do what she wants with her body and I agree with it, so long as it does not infringe on the basic human right of life of someone else. I know that all (if not most) pro-choice people out there do not consider a fetus as a human life, deserving of human rights (if so, I don't think you would be pro-choice!). However, 200 years ago, slave owners viewed slaves as sub-human, as did parents to children even longer before that. Slave owners would have objected that they should have the right to do what they wanted to their property.

Yes, I understand that infantacide, slavery, and abortion are all different issues, with different societal implications and cultural nuances. However, the point is that we see in history that society has progressed to recognize various "peoples/groups" to be persons deserving of human rights, and I think/hope that the same will be true for unborn babies. These changes come not only with legislation, but with a general shift in thinking. It goes much deeper than just politics to general worldview. Progressives have led us in the fight for human rights in so many different areas, and it is a little surprising to me (and a little sad) that for the most part, they aren't also fighting for human rights in the realm of abortion.

Well we can all go trying to predict what will be considered barbaric in the future ad infinatum but it makes no difference. Perhaps one day it will be considered barbaric to eat meat, and then all you meat eaters are KILLERS. And then it will be barbaric to be eating plants because plants are alive. Only processed artificially created compounds will be allowed for ingestion (carbon paste for all!).

In the same vein, one day masturbation will be illegal, because potential children (sperm) will be killed. Birth control pills will be illegal, because eggs will be harmed. Then again so will sex without the intention of creating children for the same reasons. And then... oh who knows?

The fact is, there is a huge difference between a born baby and an unborn baby. Some people morally believe that an unborn baby = alive person, some people disagree. I think that's all there is to it. At some point, we will have to make a moral cutoff as to what we consider something that has 'rights'. And for me, I strongly believe that the cutoff begins after birth, period.

[Bioture]

Well we can all go trying to predict what will be considered barbaric in the future ad infinatum but it makes no difference. Perhaps one day it will be considered barbaric to eat meat, and then all you meat eaters are KILLERS. And then it will be barbaric to be eating plants because plants are alive. Only processed artificially created compounds will be allowed for ingestion (carbon paste for all!).

In the same vein, one day masturbation will be illegal, because potential children (sperm) will be killed. Birth control pills will be illegal, because eggs will be harmed. Then again so will sex without the intention of creating children for the same reasons. And then... oh who knows?

The fact is, there is a huge difference between a born baby and an unborn baby. Some people morally believe that an unborn baby = alive person, some people disagree. I think that's all there is to it. At some point, we will have to make a moral cutoff as to what we consider something that has 'rights'. And for me, I strongly believe that the cutoff begins after birth, period.

No where in any of my posts in this thread suggests that masturbation be illegal, birth control be illegal, or eating meat be illegal (as funny as that would be.) This is an ethical debate that I've had many, many times. I don't believe the solution is more LAWS.

I understand where you're coming from. Your last statement (where life begins) can be broken down:



1.)It is universally agreed that murder is wrong.

2.)It is universally agreed that killing a birthed child is murder. You agree with me here.

3.)It is not universally agreed that an embryo is a child. This is then the point of contention.

4.)If an embryo is indeed a child, that makes its termination murder. That lends a significant amount of gravity to this argument, enough to demand a clear resolution of the argument. (i.e. the question of murder or not is a serious one)

5.) It is clear that at some point an embryo (if it is not already a child) becomes a child.

6.)Therefore, there are 3 possibilities that can be put forth to use for determination as to when an embryo becomes a child. A.) at birth, B.) at some point during development, or C.) at conception. For you, it is c)

7.)The first possibility is defeated by the argument that birth times are not absolute. Babies can be born early, or late, and we are improving the technology to enable the survival of premature babies daily. Birthed embryos are universally considered children; therefore it is reasonable to state that an embryo at the stage of development where it can be birthed is also a child. Since the date of birth is not static, possibility A falls by the wayside as an argument. (of note, this also has legal precedent, in the case of criminals who were accused of and successfully tried for murder upon terminating a woman's late term pregnancy against her will)

8.) Possibility B is also not viable because there is no agreed upon line in development as to where an embryo becomes a child. Given the severity of murder as a crime, it should be necessary to be able to define whether or not an embryo is a child on a given day of development. (lesser crimes than murder, such as statutory rape, require an accuracy of at least 24 hours) However, due to lack of consensus in the scientific and medical community, this is not possible either. To make an analogy, everybody knows what black and white is, but nobody can agree conclusively upon where they become grey.

9.)Therefore, we are left with the third option, which defines conception as when an embryo is also a child. Unlike the other two possibilities, conception is a static point, and not prone to the fallacies of the other two arguments. However, if we adopt this standpoint, it clearly indicates that an embryo at any stage of development is also a child. This then means that termination of this life would indeed be murder, making it abhorrent and wrong.

[T3l Ca7]

6.)Therefore, there are 3 possibilities that can be put forth to use for determination as to when an embryo becomes a child. A.) at birth, B.) at some point during development, or C.) at conception. For you, it is c)

7.)The first possibility is defeated by the argument that birth times are not absolute. Babies can be born early, or late, and we are improving the technology to enable the survival of premature babies daily. Birthed embryos are universally considered children; therefore it is reasonable to state that an embryo at the stage of development where it can be birthed is also a child. Since the date of birth is not static, possibility A falls by the wayside as an argument. (of note, this also has legal precedent, in the case of criminals who were accused of and successfully tried for murder upon terminating a woman's late term pregnancy against her will)

8.) Possibility B is also not viable because there is no agreed upon line in development as to where an embryo becomes a child. Given the severity of murder as a crime, it should be necessary to be able to define whether or not an embryo is a child on a given day of development. (lesser crimes than murder, such as statutory rape, require an accuracy of at least 24 hours) However, due to lack of consensus in the scientific and medical community, this is not possible either. To make an analogy, everybody knows what black and white is, but nobody can agree conclusively upon where they become grey.

9.)Therefore, we are left with the third option, which defines conception as when an embryo is also a child. Unlike the other two possibilities, conception is a static point, and not prone to the fallacies of the other two arguments. However, if we adopt this standpoint, it clearly indicates that an embryo at any stage of development is also a child. This then means that termination of this life would indeed be murder, making it abhorrent and wrong.

Your logic is flawed. Just because the sperm got in a egg, it does not make it a human. Would you call a fertilized hen egg a chicken?

Animals share a few basic traits: 1) they can move on their own 2) they have an digestive system, starting from a mouth (or equivalent)

And to me, an animal almost always have a will of their own, meaning, they can make independent decisions on what to do next, and this separates animal from other living organisms. Embryo is not human just like a fertilized hen egg is not chicken ... until it hatches.

[Epinephrine]

First of all Bio, you cannot make an argument based on the fact that historically, we have been expanding on rights throughout history, but state somehow that your definition is the end point of it all. If your argument is that because rights are continually expanded, we should expand it to what I believe in, then it is absolutely not wrong to say, well if rights can be expanded to fit your definition, then they can be expanded even further.

This is very important because we have already seen real-world examples how once the idea that abortion is morally wrong is accepted, it can definitely go 'further'. The most obvious example is the huge opposition to stem-cell research in the USA, and how public money cannot go into funding of this research. If unfertilized embryos cannot be used for research, what is next?

Secondly, you use very pejorative terms in your own first few points:

1.)It is universally agreed that murder is wrong.

2.)It is universally agreed that killing a birthed child is murder. You agree with me here.

3.)It is not universally agreed that an embryo is a child. This is then the point of contention.

4.)If an embryo is indeed a child, that makes its termination murder. That lends a significant amount of gravity to this argument, enough to demand a clear resolution of the argument. (i.e. the question of murder or not is a serious one)

While people generally would agree that 'murder' is wrong, people do NOT generally agree that KILLING is wrong. For instance, many people believe in capital punishment (funny enough many of these same people are so called 'pro-life'). Many people believe that killing someone in "self defence" does not count as murder (funny enough the same gun nuts who are usually also 'pro-life').

Expanding beyond individuals, we get greater 'acceptable' ideas of killing. Many people believe in the idea of 'just wars'. Wars involve the killing of people, and huge amounts of what is coldly termed as 'collateral damage', which certainly does involve the killing of innocent children from time to time. Yet this is somehow 'morally' acceptable if there is a 'greater cause' that is to be achieved. (funny enough, a lot of military supporting people also tend to be so-called 'pro-life').

Looking at this from a more 'liberal' view, there is the growing consensus of the idea of 'assisted suicides', just as we've had widely accepted ideas of 'mercy killings' for animals.

Then there's the very important fact that fetuses are killed ALL THE TIME in order to save the life of the mother. For instance, ectopic pregnancies are one of the most dangerous life-threatening conditions that face young women bar none. If you wait too late to treat this (i.e. wait till the fetus has no heartbeat), it may be far too late to save the life of the mother. This is generally uncontroversial except to the most die-hard fundamentalists and once again is a huge 'grey area'.

If the killing of other people and even fetuses are generally widely acceptable to so many people, then I would say your points are just completely off the mark.

And then you say something as completely trivial as this:

7.)The first possibility is defeated by the argument that birth times are not absolute. Babies can be born early, or late, and we are improving the technology to enable the survival of premature babies daily. Birthed embryos are universally considered children; therefore it is reasonable to state that an embryo at the stage of development where it can be birthed is also a child. Since the date of birth is not static, possibility A falls by the wayside as an argument. (of note, this also has legal precedent, in the case of criminals who were accused of and successfully tried for murder upon terminating a woman's late term pregnancy against her will)

Actually there is an absolute time when birth happens. IT HAPPENS WHEN THE BABY COMES OUT OF THE MOTHER.

If this was actually a grey zone, then how could the current laws regarding murder even be enforced, considering abortion is legal in the USA? Think for a second here Bio.

8.) Possibility B is also not viable because there is no agreed upon line in development as to where an embryo becomes a child. Given the severity of murder as a crime, it should be necessary to be able to define whether or not an embryo is a child on a given day of development. (lesser crimes than murder, such as statutory rape, require an accuracy of at least 24 hours) However, due to lack of consensus in the scientific and medical community, this is not possible either. To make an analogy, everybody knows what black and white is, but nobody can agree conclusively upon where they become grey.

Good point. This is why there is no world-wide standard for this and every country has it's own laws regarding this.

9.)Therefore, we are left with the third option, which defines conception as when an embryo is also a child. Unlike the other two possibilities, conception is a static point, and not prone to the fallacies of the other two arguments. However, if we adopt this standpoint, it clearly indicates that an embryo at any stage of development is also a child. This then means that termination of this life would indeed be murder, making it abhorrent and wrong.

Unfortunately, unlike birth, it is basically impossible to know when contraception actually happens. Therefore, say someone has unprotected sex, and then gets shot and killed 10 minutes later. Is that a double murder? When you actually start thinking about things thoroughly like this, you will realize that your option 9 is a complete grey zone.

[gran guerrero]

What if you were racist and pro-life?

Would you mind if someone of a different race had an abortion?

[Soup du Jour]

In response to the original question: I am "pro-choice". I don't really want to repeat what epi has done a nice job of saying already, aside from that there are a few holes in Bioture's logic and I don't understand how "pro-life" people don't see them.

I think the strongest "pro-life" argument is what DTF has brought forth about the emotional stress an abortion can cause. However, I assume in most cases, the stress of actually having a kid would be far greater, thus the reason for the abortion in the first place.

The only thing I want to know from the anti-abortionists out there is if you are for or against the morning after pill (emergency contraception, plan b, whatever you call it)?

[gran guerrero]

the real questions is whether or not pro-lifers are against masturbation

[Ephemeral]

…I have always been a NASA fan and have a keen interest in Astronomy/Astrophysics. In contrast, faith in human race is not something I have a lot of. …

In the thread quoted above you started (named “Faith in Humanity”) you stated that you had no faith in humanity and went on to say, “that human are generally design to be not very bright” and that “cockroaches would be a more successful specie if there is to be a nuclear war”. Reading that post you make it sound like humanity is doomed by its own hand.

…I am pro-choice, because I have faith in humanity, that the majority of the adults are responsible and can make the right choice.

Yet now in this thread you say you have faith in humanity and that the majority of humans have the ability to make correct choices. Mark Twain once said, “It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt”.

I agree, people need to be responsible for their actions. …

So question now is, will you accept responsibility for your obvious vacillation or will you try to obfuscate the facts and troll more? Good money is on denial and more trolling.
eph

[Bioture]

First of all Bio, you cannot make an argument based on the fact that historically, we have been expanding on rights throughout history, but state somehow that your definition is the end point of it all. If your argument is that because rights are continually expanded, we should expand it to what I believe in, then it is absolutely not wrong to say, well if rights can be expanded to fit your definition, then they can be expanded even further.

This is very important because we have already seen real-world examples how once the idea that abortion is morally wrong is accepted, it can definitely go 'further'. The most obvious example is the huge opposition to stem-cell research in the USA, and how public money cannot go into funding of this research. If unfertilized embryos cannot be used for research, what is next?

Specifically, human rights. At some point we stopped believing in slavery, for example. And we agreed (to some extent) to expand those rights. This isn't the sole argument - the point was that progressives have been very forward in expanding what is considered a human right, but in the case of abortion, it doesn't seem to be an issue. Similarly, conservatives are against contraception for some reason. If they wanted to stop abortion, contraceptives should be made more widely available. I was simply pointing out the contradiction in their historical behavior. I don't know all the specifics of stem cell research, but if we are killing embryos for research, I would be against that - it comes at too high a price.

While people generally would agree that 'murder' is wrong, people do NOT generally agree that KILLING is wrong. For instance, many people believe in capital punishment (funny enough many of these same people are so called 'pro-life'). Many people believe that killing someone in "self defence" does not count as murder (funny enough the same gun nuts who are usually also 'pro-life').

Expanding beyond individuals, we get greater 'acceptable' ideas of killing. Many people believe in the idea of 'just wars'. Wars involve the killing of people, and huge amounts of what is coldly termed as 'collateral damage', which certainly does involve the killing of innocent children from time to time. Yet this is somehow 'morally' acceptable if there is a 'greater cause' that is to be achieved. (funny enough, a lot of military supporting people also tend to be so-called 'pro-life').

Looking at this from a more 'liberal' view, there is the growing consensus of the idea of 'assisted suicides', just as we've had widely accepted ideas of 'mercy killings' for animals.

I think now we need to define what is killing and what is murder. Do we kill animals and murder people? Or do circumstances permit us to consider each separately? When we abort a fetus, are we doing so in self-defense? When we have a lot of abortions, is this a "just war" against the unborn? Does a fetus give us the "okay" to proceed with terminating its life, thus making it a mercy killing? Is the fetus a complete vegetable, with no potential whatsoever of ever being more than that, justify its killing? Your belief that killing is acceptable doesn't mean that abortion stops being a human rights issue.

Then there's the very important fact that fetuses are killed ALL THE TIME in order to save the life of the mother. For instance, ectopic pregnancies are one of the most dangerous life-threatening conditions that face young women bar none. If you wait too late to treat this (i.e. wait till the fetus has no heartbeat), it may be far too late to save the life of the mother. This is generally uncontroversial except to the most die-hard fundamentalists and once again is a huge 'grey area'.

If the killing of other people and even fetuses are generally widely acceptable to so many people, then I would say your points are just completely off the mark.

In my previous posts, I've never said that abortions are to be made illegal, and I've said that in severe cases, it should be permitted. My concern is that these instances of health danger, or incest and rape are very much in the minority. The overwhelming number of abortions come from people acting irresponsibly.

Actually there is an absolute time when birth happens. IT HAPPENS WHEN THE BABY COMES OUT OF THE MOTHER.

If this was actually a grey zone, then how could the current laws regarding murder even be enforced, considering abortion is legal in the USA? Think for a second here Bio.

At what time does an embryo become a baby? At birth? Google "death inside the womb" and see what a late pregnancy abortion looks like. Basically, the doctor takes a pair of clamps, inserts it into a woman's womb, and severs the spinal column of the fetus. The argument was that as long as the fetus dies within the womb, there would not count as a life. Let's think of that "for a second." Again, the severity of murder (and in this case, the "killing" of a non-child), is a serious issue, and needs a definite answer. Just because we don't have a law against the killing of a non-child, doesn't mean this is not an issue and that people should drop it. Abortion is legal, and every year I'm reminded of it because they have a giant parade outside my office in protest of it. And yes, I've thought about this more than a second.

Unfortunately, unlike birth, it is basically impossible to know when contraception actually happens. Therefore, say someone has unprotected sex, and then gets shot and killed 10 minutes later. Is that a double murder? When you actually start thinking about things thoroughly like this, you will realize that your option 9 is a complete grey zone.

Personally, I would say whenever an egg is fertilized. This is the polarizing issue. The moment when the possibility that it will develop into a baby. I think it takes at least 48 hours [citation needed] for this to happen, so the morning after pill wouldn't be considered an abortion and perhaps 10 hours later wouldn't be a double murder. But I understand what you're talking about and the answer is I don't know. But if this is a grey zone, and neither of us can say for sure when conception happens (the moment when an embryo turns into an actual human being) then the seriousness of the issue should give us pause.

If we're so eager to say that anything in the womb is sub-human, and adamant that the termination of anything in the womb as being anything less than a serious gray area, we're not giving this grave issue the respect it deserves. It is more than an opinion of when a "human being" happens. We need to know for sure. And if we don't, we need to consider whether or not what we're doing is wrong.

As for telcat, I checked out at the part where she said she believed people would "do the right thing."

Thank you for making this a real conversation, however.