pro-life vs pro-choice

[Arditezza]

Yes, there are currently well over 350,000 children in orphanges in the U.S. alone waiting to be adopted, and over a million in foster care waiting for a home as well. How about we think about moral rightness and start there instead?

I tire of the whole, "adoption should be the only choice" argument when nothing is being done about the children we currently have.

Not to mention it's the strawman argument of the abortion debate.

 

[Hapsburg]

i don't know why other people have to fucking get involved in another person's business, especially if you don't know them.

 

[okinrus]

the pro-life decision supports religion, and is therefore immoral.
its the woman's body, the woman's child, the woman's choice.

The spatial location of a baby is a weak argument. A baby outside the womb has signficantly more rights than one within the womb, even though in terms of development they could be the same. It doesn't make sense.

Where do we draw the line between enforcing a belief that is demonstrable in reality and enforcing a belief that is merely superstition held despite demonstrative evidence?

Tiassa, it's impossible for the courts not to enforce beliefs. They do so all the times. What they can't do, in direct constrast with a beliefs informed by religions, is to enforce relgious beliefs.

 

[Arditezza]

But why should your beliefs, force a woman to endure 9 months of discomfort and pain, and possible loss of life for something that only has a 1 in 3 chance of surviving? Why should you decide what is right for a woman's life, and what is not?

What about women with AIDS? Can they get an abortion since their child will be born with the virus? How about crack addicts who's fetuses have a 1 in 15 chance of survival, and more than that will suffer the effects like Delirium Tremors, skin so sensitive it hurts to be touched, brain damage and chemical imbalances for the remainder of their lives.

What about the 9 year old in Guatemala who was forced to carry a child as a result of incest and is now permanantly paralyzed and the baby died anyhow.

Why do we place more value on a potential life (33% chance of surviving to a viable fetus not including abortion statistics) than we do on a woman who made a bad choice, or was raped? Why should we force them to take a lesser role?

 

[Hapsburg]

it is the woman's baby, you know. ergo, it should be her choice to get rid of it or not before enduring nine months of long painful pain.
or do you just get off from seeing women suffer, okinurs?

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

I'm anti-life and anti-choice.
So if people want to have an abortion I'm for forcing them to have the baby and then beating them to death with it, killing the baby in the process.

No I guess I'm pro choice, for families, not individuals.
I think people should be able to do with their families as they will. But this goes for after the individuals are born as well. I'm with the pro-lifers on that one, there's no significant difference between fetus' and children in my view.
Nothing that makes it bad to kill one and not bad to kill the other.
It's ok to kill all of them.
Families should belong to themselves. If my family wanted to prune the leaves of our tree by offing some of the undesirable individuals, it should only be our business.
Why should the government have the power to force our family to degrade in quality?
If one of our females becomes pregnant and we aren't prepared to deal with an infant at that time we should have the freedom to kick her in the abdomen.
If an elderly individual is starting to have a parasitic affect on the cohesion of our social unit we should be able to knock them on the head with a large bone, if it becomes apparent that one of the youngsters has down's syndrome we should be able to form a taunting circle around him and stone him to death etc.
The individuals belong to the social unit, not themselves and not the government.

 

[Bells]

This whole debate is a load of crap!

No individual has the right to tell me what to do or not to do with my body. If I wish to have an abortion it is my business and my concern and not the business and concern of some religious fool who feels the need to impart his/her religious or moral beliefs on me. The same applies if I wish to die with dignity.

I am currently 14 weeks pregnant and having a lot of complications but I'm coping with them and it was my choice to do so because it was my choice to not terminate the pregnancy. I'd seriously considered it but decided against it. But it was MY choice to do so. I'd been told at one point that I may have to terminate because the risk to me might be too great, but the risk has passed and now it's just a matter of coping with the pain. Believe it or not, I felt violated when I was told I may have to terminate it because that choice was no longer mine to make.

I've seen the image of the feotus on the ultrasound. I've felt it moving. I even have some pictures of it sucking it's thumb. Do I think it's a baby at the moment? In all honesty, no. It's not viable. If I went into labour right now, it would not survive. Many women abort the child naturally (miscarry) in the first trimester. Are those women murderers because their bodies rejected the feotus or the parasite as my specialist refers to it? What a person does with their body is their own business. If you are either pro-choice or pro-life, apply it to yourself and not to others.

I'm strictly pro-choice. But that applies only to myself. I don't tell people to have an abortion or to keep the child as that should be up to each individual. Therefore it should not be up to any pro-lifer to tell any other that they must keep the child, because it is not their body and it is not their life. In short, mind your own business and do not try to cram your own personal beliefs down the throats of others and then call them murderers if they disagree with you.

As to the argument of the pro-lifer of putting the child up for adoption. Before any pro-lifer takes that stance, maybe they should start looking into adopting a child or fostering a child, because as Arditezza has pointed out, orphanages and foster homes are just about over-flowing. Supply has outstripped demand in such a way that these children are growing up in institutions that do not fully cater to their needs. This is especially so if the child is disabled or sick. If pro-lifer's really cared, they'd look to providing properly for the living before and instead of those not yet born. After all, if you feel the need to protect the life of children, why do you only look to those not yet born and turn a blind eye and ignore those already living and in dire need of care...

 

[Hapsburg]

exactly my point.

 

[Tiassa]

Tiassa, it's impossible for the courts not to enforce beliefs. They do so all the times. What they can't do, in direct constrast with a beliefs informed by religions, is to enforce relgious beliefs.

That a belief is informed by religion only becomes relevant in any context of the debate if that belief is inconsistent with reality. In other words, a belief informed by religion only stands out if that belief contradicts the facts on record.

If I believed chili peppers were an evil Jewish mind-control conspiracy, how could I enforce it? Does anybody think I would ever be able to prove that "Ancho the Jew" was out to get us all?

If I was to believe that there was an unobservable component of me that existed independent of my mortal body, that belief would be unenforceable. It can't be shown to be real. I'm welcome to believe it, but how do I compel the law to respect what cannot be shown to exist?

If I believed everybody was only a foot tall, I shouldn't be able to compel the law to force people to build doors a maximum of eighteen inches high in order to protect the environment. The belief cannot be demonstrated.

If I become popular, and suddenly there is a political demand for eighteen-inch doors, a reserved air-traffic corridor for the unobservable, say, "astral" parts of us to travel, and the eradication of all chili peppers everywhere, can a hundred million Americans possibly be wrong?

Yes. Quite obviously, the answer is Yes, they can be wrong.

 

[Baron Max]

If pro-lifer's really cared, they'd look to providing properly for the living before and instead of those not yet born.

Hear! Hear!

But, see, pro-lifers don't want to see that side of things because it's ugly and it causes them all kinds of problems ...not the least of which is government taxes. With abortion, they're not out any money, so they can be high n' mighty do-gooders. But when faced with having to fork over some of their OWN money to pay for all of those kids, ooooh, that's a different story!

Just so you know, today, some 8,000 kids in the world died due to easily-cured diseases that would have cost almost nothing per child. Did we try to save any of 'em? Nope! ...just let 'em die. And tomorrow another 8,000 will die of exactly the same simple illnesses! ...and the next day, too.

Baron Max

 

[Jinoda]

Just so you know, today, some 8,000 kids in the world died due to easily-cured diseases that would have cost almost nothing per child. Did we try to save any of 'em? Nope! ...just let 'em die. And tomorrow another 8,000 will die of exactly the same simple illnesses! ...and the next day, too.

However, you cannot lay the blame upon neither pro-lifers or pro-choicers for that.

Because I am pro-life, this doesn't obligate me to do or believe anything else, it's simple really: I'm against abortion. I'm not against helping kids out in other countries or whatever, and being pro-life should not label me as some rich greedy Christian. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Stereotyping is awesome.

If you want to blame pro-lifers for "8000 kids dying due to easily-cured diseases that would have cost nothing per child", then you must also lay the blame on pro-choicers. You guys aren't doing anything more or less than pro-lifers to help this dilemma.

One creed does not and should not obligate you to another.

You have to face the fact: No matter our opinion on this issue, we are all just a bunch of greedy first-world fat cats unwilling to agree on anything, let alone help a kid or two out.

 

[Naomi]

Jinoda, somehow I don't think you read Belle's post carefully enough. Her post gets right to the point.

I have an idea. Why not send all the orphans packing to the military? The military seems to be in need of fresh new recruits to swell the ranks. Would solve the problem of overflowing orphanages a bit and would solve the problem of lack of new recruits for the military. It would also give those orphans a future in the military if they give it their best efforts. Plus, they get paid, so they won't sink in poverty as much as they would. See all the good it would do?

 

[Jinoda]

My post was mainly in response to Baron Max, for like you said, Bells' was strictly to the point, and didn't have much to disagree with.

It doesn't make much difference, but I am actually an adopted child, and so is my brother. When my mother was pregnant with him (my brother), she felt she was in no position to take care of a child, nor did she want one. She gave him up for adoption when he was born, and we hadn't seen or heard from him for 18 years.

5 years after he was born, I was. I wasn't given up for adoption, because for some strange reason my mother thought she was a fit parent at the time. I lived with her and her problems until she finally hit rockbottom, and we were homeless. Eventually a family we knew sent her to a rehab and took me in, for which I am grateful. This family is the only reason I am in college now, and the reason why my mother is on the right track.

I know this does not seem relevant, and it's even contradictory to what I've been saying, but I just need to say that I am all for adoption. I know I cannot tell other people what to do, but I know if someone makes the choice to give their child up for adoption (and at least a fighting chance at life), there are people in the world (i.e., my new family, and even myself--when the time comes) willing to help as much as they can.

I seem to have lost my train of thought, so I'll end it there.

 

[okinrus]

But why should your beliefs, force a woman to endure 9 months of discomfort and pain, and possible loss of life for something that only has a 1 in 3 chance of surviving?

Artizzesa, both abortion and pregnancy have risks.

Why should you decide what is right for a woman's life, and what is not?

My decison protects innocent life.

What about women with AIDS? Can they get an abortion since their child will be born with the virus?

No, children with AIDS can still live a decent life. We don't go killing all those with AIDS, do we?

How about crack addicts who's fetuses have a 1 in 15 chance of survival, and more than that will suffer the effects like Delirium Tremors, skin so sensitive it hurts to be touched, brain damage and chemical imbalances for the remainder of their lives.

OK, this kind of things is really for the doctors to decide. If they believe the women's life is endangered, then it's the women's call. Euthanasia, too, is legal in the US. The same argument for killing crack babies can be used for killing the old, the sick, and the suffering, the difference being the fetus does not have a choice. Of course you'd likely want euthanasia to be allowed too. What I'm saying is there's no framework in place. If you don't think those with severely sensitive skin should exist, then kill them, either against or with their wishes. But if you don't think we should kill them, then you can't faithfully apply the same argument to the fetus.

What about the 9 year old in Guatemala who was forced to carry a child as a result of incest and is now permanantly paralyzed and the baby died anyhow.

We get into a car everyday knowing that sometime we may be paralyzed in an accident. In the same way, we can try to save a millions of lifes knowing a few might be paralyzed.

Why do we place more value on a potential life (33% chance of surviving to a viable fetus not including abortion statistics)

Well, your statistics here are estimates. There are other estimates that suggest lower risk. Second, these estimates either are based early on in the pregnancy, when there's more risk, or are skewed by the increase rate of deaths early on. Finally, it all really doesn't prove anything. The odds of a hundred-year-old man living a year with cancer are signficantly less than that of a twenty-year-old, but both lives are protected equally under the law. Again, our legal framework doesn't say killing an eighty-year-old deserves less punishment than killing a twenty-year-old.

than we do on a woman who made a bad choice, or was raped? Why should we force them to take a lesser role?

These issues might mitigate some of the woman's guilt, but they don't erase the effects of abortion. It's like a man who's mentally insane. We'll obligated to stop him from committing suicide, but we also understand it's not his fault.

That a belief is informed by religion only becomes relevant in any context of the debate if that belief is inconsistent with reality. In other words, a belief informed by religion only stands out if that belief contradicts the facts on record.

You can't have both, though.

If I believed chili peppers were an evil Jewish mind-control conspiracy, how could I enforce it? Does anybody think I would ever be able to prove that "Ancho the Jew" was out to get us all?

I don't see any difference between a judge informing his consciuos regarding religion and judge informing his conscious by reading a thick law book. With both, I'd hope they'd disregard what's illogical and accept what's logical.

If I was to believe that there was an unobservable component of me that existed independent of my mortal body, that belief would be unenforceable.

No, but in the same there are some who've said the mortal body doesn't existence. Both beliefs--that is, belief in the mortal body and belief in the spiritual body only--can be religious. It's not for the courts to enforce them, but for the courts to protect each and everyone's rights. To do their job, however, they need not only to accept the mortal body exists, they have to accept some body exists that deserves rights. You can't prove anyone deserves rights. It's a premise. But it really skirts the issue: as a premise, it's no more logically objectionable than assuming the soul exist.

 

[top mosker]

Bill Hicks had a lot to say about this subject. I highly recomend it.

"If you're pro-life, what does that make me?"

It's funny, ironic and sad all at the same time how the pro-lifers sudenly stop giving a damn about life once the baby is actually born. As long as it's a fetus and can't defend itself, they are more than happy to cast stones but as soon as the little runt is popped out, *poof* welcome to the cold, cold world where you will be eaten alive.

 

[Hapsburg]

pro-lifers make me sick.
republicans and liberals just need to stay the fFUCK OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S BUSINESS!!!

 

[spuriousmonkey]

My decison protects innocent life.

Your decision doesn't protect anything but your own belief system. You just want a pregnant woman to carry out a pregnancy because you are uncomfortable with the idea of an abortion. You don't seem to care about what this woman thinks. You are only thinking about your own good here. You are not going to take care of this unborn child when it is born or of all the other ones that are unwanted for whatever reason.

You are trying to enforce your beliefs on someone else. Someone who doesn't agree with you at all. I wonder why you can't see the moral dilemma in this, because you seem to be able to see the moral dilemma in other people's behaviour.

 

[top mosker]

I wonder why you can't see the moral dilemma in this, because you seem to be able to see the moral dilemma in other people's behaviour.

Freud called it the "ego."

 

[Perfect]

The way I see this; its society’s burden while it is her body.
But to be a cheap harlot who can’t cross her legs to save her life complaining about how it’s her body and her decision. Bullshit says I.
If it’s the woman’s body, the woman’s child and the woman’s choice... then it’s my fucking property crammed inside her. If that’s the way you feel you can call me the repo man.

It becomes your choice the minute you failed to practice birth control.
In my opinion women should be able to abort their children, after they are born. That would be a sufficient obstacle to climb over in means of showing commitment to the cause.
If abortion becomes too subtle and kind, it creates associations between acts and consequences that differ drastically from the self-evident and concrete realities. Without society’s warm cuddle and blindfolds things would present themselves as they truly are -brutal and unbearable to the pregnantee - but that’s not going to happen.

“It’s my business!” argument is plain bullshit. It’s the society’s business, we are exterminating and restricting populations left and right in order to manage the environment- yet when it comes to humans, or rather concerns the human individual- every little prickster has a seizure.
“I gots to have the right to… choose!” Yeah sure… but the reality is that you’ve already chosen, so shut the fuck up.

We seize maternal bliss from crack whores and I think it’s about time the same policies are applied to arbitrary women who abort children whilst knowing they want to have children in the future.
If one truly wishes to produce offspring, care for it and commit to it, then abortion is a truly selfish act. With mindsets like “these are my years of hedonism, I cant have a little rug rat running around here… yet.”, you have decided to add context to your life via this ‘necessity’ of life and therefore shouldn’t contradict yourself if you want to be taken seriously – by me.

Get a puppy instead.

And what about the women who are pregnant, with aids?
Well… Why are women with AIDS having sex? Sick fucking bitches they are if that’s what they’re into in their condition, parasites sucking their life juices out are a sufficient penalty.

And by the way, a man who rapes and impregnates a woman does surely benefit the society more when compared to the lady’s limb dick vacuum cleaner salesman husband impregnating her. We need more gene pools like these: People with decisive and authorative stances, people who take initiative and stand behind their beliefs!

Basically.., I’m sick of whores (not in the sense of repeated familiarity you witty, witty people). And people who make it their life work to promote either the pro-life or the pro-choice ideologies are plain fucking whores. Am I the only one who sees where the problem originates? Keep your legs crossed and your mouth will follow (unless it’s a rape then your life has been given a meaning). You know… don’t make a choice, make a decision.



Actually… this is kind of a provoking support for positions outside the box of “pro-choice vs. pro-life”

 

[Hapsburg]

all im saying:
its the woman's body, the woman's baby, the woman's choice.
simple.
as.
fucking.
that!