Pro-life

[Xanadu84]

Pro lifers believe that a fetus is alive. Consciousness is a sticky subject, so how can we call that crazy? Now going from that reasonable but wrong assumption, we arrive at the conclusion that abortion is murdering a tiny, helpless, otherwise healthy human being. Look at it from there reasonable but wrong perspective. Should a woman have the right to kill a child? Of course not. Pro choicers simply see that that thing is not a child.

Life is determined by an entirely opinion based subject like 'consciousness' now? So, simply being a living member of the species, even if of limited mental capacity(Which is a necessary stage in the beginning steps of our life), isn't enough? The expression of consciousness in interpret-able ways doesn't even really begin until more than a year after birth in some cases, when the baby really begins interacting with other people, and isn't just an entirely instinct driven eating machine/poop factory. If mental activity determines the humanity of an organism, abortions should be legal at any age potentially, as there will be humans who fail to meet the standards at them as well.

I am pro-choice, but the whole idea that something isn't a human because it doesn't meet an arbitrary list of human mental qualities is sillier than the idea that a human in the fetal stage of their life is a member of our species. The point I'm getting at is pro-choicers should focus on the fact that women deserve the right to control their own bodies, a fetus, while still human, is occupying space in their body, consuming resources, and can potentially pose a health risk. They have every right to decide if allowing another human to exist is worth the potential dangers and responsibilities that they will personally be forced to deal with by the nature of the situation.

It isn't like murdering a random other person in the street, a person who posed no threat and didn't stand to literally become the most time/resource consuming aspect of their life. It is a justifiable homicide, not murder.

Homicide (Latin: homicidium, Latin: homo human being + Latin: caedere to cut, kill) refers to the act of a human killing another human.

I don't think you appreciate the broadness of consciousness. All I mean by that is that there is something...ANYTHING to kill. End the life of a mass of undifferentiated cells, who cares? But even the simplest of humans have a vast emotional complexity. I am against third. Trimester abortions because I cant say with certainty that that child is not self aware, is not an entity in a manner besides a mass of cells. Honestly, killing an infant may very well not be murder, but it is unconciouable to risk that. I have an opinion, but my opinion could be wrong, so I play it very safe. Its fine to end a mass of cells that don't have a brain to be conscious with. And while a lifer may be silly in not connecting the brain with personness, being overly cautious is hardly insane, considering the stakes. Yes, that's my opinion, but it is an opinion based in the objective, with vast allowances for shortcomings.

 

[Caverat]

I don't think you appreciate the broadness of consciousness. All I mean by that is that there is something...ANYTHING to kill. End the life of a mass of undifferentiated cells, who cares? But even the simplest of humans have a vast emotional complexity. I am against third. Trimester abortions because I cant say with certainty that that child is not self aware, is not an entity in a manner besides a mass of cells. Honestly, killing an infant may very well not be murder, but it is unconciouable to risk that. I have an opinion, but my opinion could be wrong, so I play it very safe. Its fine to end a mass of cells that don't have a brain to be conscious with. And while a lifer may be silly in not connecting the brain with personness, being overly cautious is hardly insane, considering the stakes. Yes, that's my opinion, but it is an opinion based in the objective, with vast allowances for shortcomings.

I don't understand what you mean by that first line? My point was that whatever a person's opinion on another's level of consciousness, I disagree with the view that an organism is magically not a member of a species because it doesn't meet what they feel are the standards.

The brain/spine starts developing in the third week after conception. Same as the heart, although the heart doesn't begin pumping on its own until week 6. Still in the first trimester.

Oh, and an opinion isn't objective when it is arbitrarily made. I understand your view, you don't see something as human because it doesn't think/react in a way that people who are post-birth typically do. Alright, but an objective opinion wouldn't decide that something wasn't human when every single human who has ever lived began life in the exact same way. The embryonic stage is an early stage of a human life. It is still a human.

Again, I am pro-choice. But objectivity isn't sticking to an opinion that relies on scanty logic(An organism isn't a member of its own species because it hasn't been exposed to the environment that promotes/requires obvious signs of mental development), or entirely opinion based concepts ('Personness- when someone is/is not a person') as reasoning for it.

There is a solid reason to be pro-choice, one that doesn't rely on pseudo-facts and is beyond reproach. It's where the view gets its name. Women have the right to choose not take potentially serious health risks (up to and including death) coupled with a guaranteed emotional, physical, and even financial burden of epic proportions. It'd be wrong to force such a thing upon anyone.

The draft was wrong, so too should it be for the denying of abortions to those women who don't want the risks associated with childbirth/childcare.

 

[Grant Hobba]

I'd say this is about to get very heated, and I'm very anti pro-choice. After all you had the choice to put this in R&P and you messed up.

so if a woman is raped and falls pregnant you believe she should not be able to terminate the child?

I'm not for or against I just believe that is is 100% circumstantial and every case if different.

 

[Lionsfan]

I'd say this is about to get very heated, and I'm very anti pro-choice. After all you had the choice to put this in R&P and you messed up.

so if a woman is raped and falls pregnant you believe she should not be able to terminate the child?

I'm not for or against I just believe that is is 100% circumstantial and every case if different.

I guess I should have said I'm very anti pro-choice. After all you had the choice to put this in R&P and you messed up.[footnote]and just in case you don't know the hot pink is for sarcasm[/footnote], I wasn't being serious. I mostly meant he had the choice to put it in R&P [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/index/528-Religion-and-Politics] where this stuff belongs, but chose not to, ergo he screwed up the choice, so sometimes we don't deserve choice on where to put threads.

It wasn't really a strong snark comment, but that's what I was trying to say

 

[Chanel Tompkins]

I don't like it personally, but for national policy I agree with Roe Vs. Wade. It's against a woman's rights to not let her do what she wants with her body, and trying to ban it will just drive desperate women to dangerous alternatives to a reasonably safe procedure.

 

[Wintermoot]

I sort-of agree pro-lifers sound as people that think that woman can't choose for them selfs.

 

[dobahci]

Pro-choice all the way, for me. It's hard for me to imagine any kind of decent civilization legally forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. Sounds rather barbaric, if you ask me.

 

[deidara]

I'm pro choice. Forcing an unwilling woman to undergo nine months of pregnancy is ridiculous.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

I'm certainly pro choice, but what I don't understand is why so many pro life people seem to be on the far right, to the point where they completely lose interest in the well being of the foetus as soon as it's actually a baby and out of the womb.

Do all you can to make sure that fuck ends up being a baby, but as soon as it's out, cut education, healthcare, welfare and anything else that might improve it's life, and then soon as it's 18, send it off some where to get shot at for your oil share prices.

If by some miracle it makes it past 60, then you become interested in its health again, making sure it isn't allowed to die no matter how much pain it's in.

If I had my way I'd have a fingerprint reader built into everyone's body at birth, and at any time, you can just rest a fingertip on it for 10 minutes and it shuts down the brain and heart painlessly and wirelessly calls the authorities. With some kinda failsafe that you have to be awake, cos that'd be a mean prank to play on those passed out at drunken parties.

We've got way too many people, and people should have the right to end their life if they feel it's the only option left to them. Same goes for anything growing inside them. The mother knows far better than any group of aged, rich men in suits, what's right for her and any potential children she chooses to have.

I've always said, if you want to force someone to have a child against their will, I'd make it legal for you to do that, but you get legal custody of that child at birth.

 

[Ledan]

One day we won't have to worry about all this. Artificial sperm, embryos and wombs are being researched into right now (all of them seem to work, but they need to go through boards of ethics to allow more testing).
In the future it might be considered stupid and dangerous to have a child by "natural birth", and instead it will be standard to be born from an artificial womb. After all, it would mean that women don't have to take 9 months pregnancy leave, and they aren't risking their bodies to have a child. Plus the child isnt at risk from what its mother is doing (drinking, accidents etc).
When we get to that point, there won't have to be any talk of women's right when talking about abortion. We can then focus on when we consider a fetus to be alive.

As for my opinion right now: No one should be forced to have a child. A person who was raped should be allowed to have an abortion, or request one (like if a guy got raped and impregnated the rapist). Once we can accept that, then we can admit that if the reasons are valid an abortion should be allowed.

TLDR: Pro choice, rape shouldnt lead to birth, future wont have to worry bout woman's right in childbirth cause we'll have artificial wombs.

 

[Smithburg]

If I had my way I'd have a fingerprint reader built into everyone's body at birth, and at any time, you can just rest a fingertip on it for 10 minutes and it shuts down the brain and heart painlessly and wirelessly calls the authorities. With some kinda failsafe that you have to be awake, cos that'd be a mean prank to play on those passed out at drunken parties.

That could mess up so many ways lol, you faze out during a class and absentmindedly place your finger on it, then drop dead on your desk.

OT: I've always been prolife, it doesn't have anything to do with christianity or conservatism, I just think that once a woman is pregnant, they are carrying a life, and that life should be given the chance to live. The only thing I could think of that would change it would be the mothers life is in danger if she were to finish the pregnancy. People keep saying women's rights, but at that point it's also about the rights of the child.

 

[katsa5]

OMG, he brought up abortion. Well, I'm a woman and I'm very pro-life. I don't think its right to blame and thereby harm the baby for something he/she/it/potato has no control over. But that doesn't matter. In regards to this topic, I wish to quote another comedian Ron White. "Here's the Ron White heightened state of awareness system. It only has two heightened states of awareness. Go find a helmet. Put on the damn helmet."
-_- Time to put on the damn helmet.

 

[Xanadu84]

I don't think you appreciate the broadness of consciousness. All I mean by that is that there is something...ANYTHING to kill. End the life of a mass of undifferentiated cells, who cares? But even the simplest of humans have a vast emotional complexity. I am against third. Trimester abortions because I cant say with certainty that that child is not self aware, is not an entity in a manner besides a mass of cells. Honestly, killing an infant may very well not be murder, but it is unconciouable to risk that. I have an opinion, but my opinion could be wrong, so I play it very safe. Its fine to end a mass of cells that don't have a brain to be conscious with. And while a lifer may be silly in not connecting the brain with personness, being overly cautious is hardly insane, considering the stakes. Yes, that's my opinion, but it is an opinion based in the objective, with vast allowances for shortcomings.

I don't understand what you mean by that first line? My point was that whatever a person's opinion on another's level of consciousness, I disagree with the view that an organism is magically not a member of a species because it doesn't meet what they feel are the standards.

The brain/spine starts developing in the third week after conception. Same as the heart, although the heart doesn't begin pumping on its own until week 6. Still in the first trimester.

Oh, and an opinion isn't objective when it is arbitrarily made. I understand your view, you don't see something as human because it doesn't think/react in a way that people who are post-birth typically do. Alright, but an objective opinion wouldn't decide that something wasn't human when every single human who has ever lived began life in the exact same way. The embryonic stage is an early stage of a human life. It is still a human.

Again, I am pro-choice. But objectivity isn't sticking to an opinion that relies on scanty logic(An organism isn't a member of its own species because it hasn't been exposed to the environment that promotes/requires obvious signs of mental development), or entirely opinion based concepts ('Personness- when someone is/is not a person') as reasoning for it.

There is a solid reason to be pro-choice, one that doesn't rely on pseudo-facts and is beyond reproach. It's where the view gets its name. Women have the right to choose not take potentially serious health risks (up to and including death) coupled with a guaranteed emotional, physical, and even financial burden of epic proportions. It'd be wrong to force such a thing upon anyone.

The draft was wrong, so too should it be for the denying of abortions to those women who don't want the risks associated with childbirth/childcare.

There is an objective truth that my subjective opinion is meant to reflect. In my opinion, third trimester abortion is likely fine. But I have no certainty to match the high stakes. So evaluating the risk of murder as high, I push back my opinion to an extremely safe position. Who cares about a heart? Its a poetic, meaningless talking point. I care about a brain that might possibly imply a self awareness. Even if I bet its not self aware, I need to have great certainty since the alternative is literally murder. In certain cases, sure, you consider abortion in the late term for health reasons. But in that case, you are weighing possible murder against certain murder.

When we are talking about a mass of cells that can eventually become a person, pro choice is self evident. Of course a woman has the right to choose. Its her body. But if a child's brain has developed into possible self awareness, then a woman's choice regarding her body ends when another body begins, regardless of the physical location of said body. Murder isn't okay if you eat the person, after all. The only thing that matters is the sentience of the fetus. The real test is to only tell women that they cant kill children, regardless of that child's location, and not restrict any non murder based freedom. The abortion argument can be diverse from that simple, universal truth.and if the debate focuses on that, we may actually get some where. As far as I see, the lifers are the only ones really harping on the relevant points.

 

[El Danny]

OMG, he brought up abortion. Well, I'm a woman and I'm very pro-life. I don't think its right to blame and thereby harm the baby for something he/she/it/potato has no control over. But that doesn't matter. In regards to this topic, I wish to quote another comedian Ron White. "Here's the Ron White heightened state of awareness system. It only has two heightened states of awareness. Go find a helmet. Put on the damn helmet."
-_- Time to put on the damn helmet.

It's called a foetus because it isn't a baby, the difference is a foetus isn't actually 'alive' in the sense that it's human. It doesn't learn, think, even feel pain, in fact the foetus stage is far closer to a plant then an animal.

Criminalising abortion because it prevents potential children from coming into existence is as stupid as legalising rape for the same reason.

 

[Woodsey]

Abortion ends a potential life. That?s the point. Problem is, I thought we were all supposed to be given the rights to things like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Normally, when someone?s right to life is taken away, we call that murder.

Give me a reason a child doesn?t deserve to live. Is it because they would grow up poor? Because they would have mental/physical disabilities? Because they?re the ?product? of rape or incest?

Tell me how that makes them less of a person, and why they don?t deserve a chance to live.

Problems with pro-life argument:

- Women will seek to get abortions anyway, and probably kill themselves in the process
- Women have to go through 9 months of pregnancy (and everything from the health problems that entails to things like work issues), and then a lot of fucking pain at the end of it
- Claiming all 'life' is equal when its not, a ball of cells does not have the same rights as an actual human being
- There can be a severe impact on someone whose been subjected to rape, let alone if they're forced to give birth to the result child
- The majority of pro-lifers are men, who never have and never will have to put up with any of the shit above
- Life means fuck all if you have zero quality of life
- Likewise, what if the baby's likely to be still-born? Should the parents have to go through the pregnancy and then suffer that, when they could have avoided it?
- If a woman doesn't want the baby and doesn't want to give birth, she shouldn't have to

Even if you disagree with people getting abortions, anyone arguing against Roe v Wade (if you're in the States) is living in a fucking fantasy world: women will still get abortions. They'll just be far less safe.

OT: You know, George Carlin should appeal to me, but I find him as annoying/dull/irritating as every other American stand-up I've ever seen.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

OT: You know, George Carlin should appeal to me, but I find him as annoying/dull/irritating as every other American stand-up I've ever seen.

Off topic even more, but I have to agree with you in part, I really like George Carlin and many other US comics, but since when is it the idea of the comedian to get cheers and applause from their audience? If you see British audiences watching stand up, they're mainly laughing, not showing their agreement with stuff.

I saw a Bill Maher special and it seemed to be closer to a rally than a stand up event, even when he'd say something particularly funny, he'd get cheering and applause over the natural reaction of laughter.

We've got political comedians over here too, but I think it's a bit dodgy when you're concentrating more on the politics than the comedy, as a comedian.

 

[CATB320]

Abortion ends a potential life. That?s the point. Problem is, I thought we were all supposed to be given the rights to things like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Normally, when someone?s right to life is taken away, we call that murder.

Give me a reason a child doesn?t deserve to live. Is it because they would grow up poor? Because they would have mental/physical disabilities? Because they?re the ?product? of rape or incest?

Tell me how that makes them less of a person, and why they don?t deserve a chance to live.

Problems with pro-life argument:

- Women will seek to get abortions anyway, and probably kill themselves in the process
- Women have to go through 9 months of pregnancy (and everything from the health problems that entails to things like work issues), and then a lot of fucking pain at the end of it
- Claiming all 'life' is equal when its not, a ball of cells does not have the same rights as an actual human being
- There can be a severe impact on someone whose been subjected to rape, let alone if they're forced to give birth to the result child
- The majority of pro-lifers are men, who never have and never will have to put up with any of the shit above
- Life means fuck all if you have zero quality of life
- Likewise, what if the baby's likely to be still-born? Should the parents have to go through the pregnancy and then suffer that, when they could have avoided it?
- If a woman doesn't want the baby and doesn't want to give birth, she shouldn't have to

Even if you disagree with people getting abortions, anyone arguing against Roe v Wade (if you're in the States) is living in a fucking fantasy world: women will still get abortions. They'll just be far less safe.

OT: You know, George Carlin should appeal to me, but I find him as annoying/dull/irritating as every other American stand-up I've ever seen.

-If we're going to use the "they'll do it anyway" logic, why do we even bother with laws in the first place?
-Wait, you mean pregnancy is stressful? Crap, now I have to re-think my entire argument.
-You're just a ball of cells. How about I abort you right freakin' now?
-There can be a severe impact on a fetus when unnatural death is forced on them, too.
-Irrelevant. My argument is that taking away a soon-to-be human being's right to life is taken away through an abortion.
-So I guess we should just sterilize all poor people? I mean, they probably all wish they were dead because they have such a low quality of life. My mom grew up in a house with a dirt floor and bamboo walls that would break during a heavy storm, dude. There's this thing called "moving up in the world" and "improving your life" that actually can happen.
-???? So if there's a chance that the baby would die, we're just going to completely ignore the chance that it could live? Because, screw it, a life just isn't worth the trouble?
-Why not? It's called the right to life.

Nice try, but you didn't actually answer any of the original questions I posed. Seriously. Explain to me why someone wouldn't deserve to live.

 

[Burst6]

Abortion ends a potential life. That?s the point. Problem is, I thought we were all supposed to be given the rights to things like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Normally, when someone?s right to life is taken away, we call that murder.

Give me a reason a child doesn?t deserve to live. Is it because they would grow up poor? Because they would have mental/physical disabilities? Because they?re the ?product? of rape or incest?

Tell me how that makes them less of a person, and why they don?t deserve a chance to live.

So by your logic all men are mass murderers and unless a woman gets pregnant at every opportunity, she murders a baby.

Just because it's an opportunity for life doesn't mean it is life. Until it starts developing brain function (at around the 3rd trimester i think), it's just as alive as a sperm is.

Before it develops brain function, it's a part of the mother. It's not a separate living being, it's an organ growing inside the mother. At that point she has the right to take it out.

 

[Woodsey]

-Wait, you mean pregnancy is stressful? Crap, now I have to re-think my entire argument.
-You're just a ball of cells. How about I abort you right freakin' now?
-There can be a severe impact on a fetus when unnatural death is forced on them, too.
-Irrelevant. My argument is that taking away a soon-to-be human being's right to life is taken away through an abortion.
-So I guess we should just sterilize all poor people? I mean, they probably all wish they were dead because they have such a low quality of life. My mom grew up in a house with a dirt floor and bamboo walls that would break during a heavy storm, dude. There's this thing called "moving up in the world" and "improving your life" that actually can happen.
-???? So if there's a chance that the baby would die, we're just going to completely ignore the chance that it could live? Because, screw it, a life just isn't worth the trouble?
-Why not? It's called the right to life.

Nice try, but you didn't actually answer any of the original questions I posed. Seriously. Explain to me why someone wouldn't deserve to live.

Because their potential life isn't worth as much as someone who is already alive.

I take it you flagellate every time you have a wank, to compensate for those thousands of potential lives you waste each time.

"-So I guess we should just sterilize all poor people? I mean, they probably all wish they were dead because they have such a low quality of life. My mom grew up in a house with a dirt floor and bamboo walls that would break during a heavy storm, dude. There's this thing called "moving up in the world" and "improving your life" that actually can happen."

I meant if they're riddled with disabilities, genius.

 

[jdun]

OMG, he brought up abortion. Well, I'm a woman and I'm very pro-life. I don't think its right to blame and thereby harm the baby for something he/she/it/potato has no control over. But that doesn't matter. In regards to this topic, I wish to quote another comedian Ron White. "Here's the Ron White heightened state of awareness system. It only has two heightened states of awareness. Go find a helmet. Put on the damn helmet."
-_- Time to put on the damn helmet.

Good for you. You're not brainwashed by the liberal media telling you it's alright to murder your own baby.