Pro-life
- Thread starter Steinar Valsson
- Start date
And this is what's wrong with conservatives. They refuse to acknowledge the difference between born children, the latter stages of pregnancy, and the early stages of pregnancy, all at the expense of the woman who is the one giving birth.jdun said:
An acorn is not a tree, and pregnancy is not static.
I'm sure you'd like to imagine pro-choice people dancing giddily on a pile of foetus' (sorry, 'children'), but the truth is we're just not naive enough to view things through a stupidly narrow, so-called 'moral compass'.
I have no problem with adoption. It is the lesser of two evils. There are plenty of loving future parents that cannot have children and are willing to spend a lot of money and love on the aborted child.mental_looney said:
Again you fuck up you man up. You take responsibility for your own actions. Killing your own child because you don't want the responsibility is pathetic.
If I fuck up I man. I do what's it right. I don't take the easy way out. It's called being an adult.
"Protecting babies that can't defend or speak for themselves is not wrong."jdun said:
Of course not. But we're not talking about babies. That's rather a key concept you need to get your head around.
Is it right to tell women what to do with their bodies? Is it right to persecute them for something they may have had no control over? Is it right for someone to put into place legislation that actively tells her that she must give birth, no matter the circumstances? Is that what you're suggesting?
Attempting to bring in morals (and I'm going to go out on a limb here and say religion too, since I get the feeling that's where you're coming from) into legislation is a dangerous game.
You know what? In this kind of debate, I'm Pro-Shut-Up. I generally don't say much of anything about it myself because I don't have an extreme opinion on the matter. And in return, I wish to god people would shut up about this stuff. Both sides of the argument pull shit that makes me hate you both, to the point where...
...becomes the general response I want to give to the whole thing. There comes a time when some outsider should walk in, go "What the HELL is going on?", and flip over tables until they start over with better methods of practice. This shit never gets properly resolved and I'm fast on the line of thinking that it never will.
...becomes the general response I want to give to the whole thing. There comes a time when some outsider should walk in, go "What the HELL is going on?", and flip over tables until they start over with better methods of practice. This shit never gets properly resolved and I'm fast on the line of thinking that it never will.
You keep using the word "babies" but you're using it wrong. Killing babies? No, that's some awful shit right there. Killing some mass of cells? That's the right of the mother if she so chooses. Hell, the way your logic is going, anyone who masturbates is a child murderer because of all the "unborn children" they're smothering into a wad of tissue.jdun said:
We're placing varying values on lives now? That's cool, I guess. I thought liberals were all about treating people equally and making sure everyone has the same rights.Woodsey said:
My bad. I guess we should sterilize people with disabilities, then. Or just go ahead and kill them. Life's not worth living for them, right?
About masturbating...I'm not going to say I know "when life starts" or "when you have a soul," but if a woman is pregnant, she's going to have a baby. It's definitely going to happen -- unless she has a miscarriage (which is really unfortunate). A life has already started being created. Individual sperm aren't going to make babies on their own.
A foetus is not a person. That is not a point of debate (no matter how much you want it to be), that is a fact. Their potential life is not worth as much as someone who is born, sentient, and conscious.CATB320 said:
"My bad. I guess we should sterilize people with disabilities, then. Or just go ahead and kill them. Life's not worth living for them, right?"
Being continuously obtuse isn't helping your argument; if you seriously think I'm just talking about people who are unable to walk, or have learning disabilities, then you are far too naive to have this debate. If someone told you your child was to be born with a series of disabilities that seriously inhibit their life span, their ability to do practically anything, and would lead to them being at a certain degree of pain and/or discomfort for much of their life, then would you really say it would be kinder to allow them to be born? Would it be fair on the parents to also suffer and struggle through all of that?
To be honest, I had heard that first argument and never liked it, personally. Weren't we all a fetus at one point?El Danny said:
As for the second. . . .I fail to see the connection. Rape culture=child safety? Other than the child being a victim which is not the topic here, I don't see how its quid-pro-quo. Please elaborate.
We were also a sperm, doesn't stop millions of frustrated teenage boys giving the ol' bishop a bash. That's billions of potential lives in one sitting, one teenage boy can end far more potential lives in one sitting then abortion ever could.katsa5 said:
By defending yourself from an 'unwanted' partner, you're also might be preventing a 'childs' chance of life.
In order to avoid hypocrisy abortion is a nessicary evil, especially seeing criminalising it won't stop it, just make abortion far more dangerous.
The subjective point that nobody can apparently agree with is "When is that mass of cells a person?"
And everything I see revolves fruitlessly around this point.
It's safe to say that an unfertilized ovum and/or sperm represents potential and nothing more.
But what about going beyond that? Wherein lies the proverbial point of no return? Zygote? Fetus? Baby?
It depends solely on how much the beholder values human life.
Some argue that all potential new life must be given a chance.
Some argue that it's up to the point before the brain forms that it's still ok. (similar to abortion)
Some would argue that killing the baby before it can talk is fair game, as the loss will reduce the burden on the parents and society before anyone becomes attached. (population control)
Some would argue that we have so many people in the world, that the death of any human life won't be missed at all. (culling)
As the value decreases, the scope of acceptable loss increases. A simple, if rather dark observation to make.
So it's ultimately subjective. Science can show when the child's brain begins to function (assumed developing sentience), but that alone does not define what ones values for human life are, nor is it fair to assume as such.
And I am hardly qualified, nor willing, to bother with this damn subject again any more than I have. I've seen how fruitless it is, and had the issue forced on me by others for their respective propagandas (community college had two warring factions on the topic, and it was a huge topic for the requisite speech class).
And everything I see revolves fruitlessly around this point.
It's safe to say that an unfertilized ovum and/or sperm represents potential and nothing more.
But what about going beyond that? Wherein lies the proverbial point of no return? Zygote? Fetus? Baby?
It depends solely on how much the beholder values human life.
Some argue that all potential new life must be given a chance.
Some argue that it's up to the point before the brain forms that it's still ok. (similar to abortion)
Some would argue that killing the baby before it can talk is fair game, as the loss will reduce the burden on the parents and society before anyone becomes attached. (population control)
Some would argue that we have so many people in the world, that the death of any human life won't be missed at all. (culling)
As the value decreases, the scope of acceptable loss increases. A simple, if rather dark observation to make.
So it's ultimately subjective. Science can show when the child's brain begins to function (assumed developing sentience), but that alone does not define what ones values for human life are, nor is it fair to assume as such.
And I am hardly qualified, nor willing, to bother with this damn subject again any more than I have. I've seen how fruitless it is, and had the issue forced on me by others for their respective propagandas (community college had two warring factions on the topic, and it was a huge topic for the requisite speech class).
But isn't that a little extreme? For both sides? For example, I've heard the point made that 'masturbation is abortion and thereby murder' because of wasted material; but that's ridiculous. May as well hold it against a couple that tried for years with no success. I'd admire they steps being taken, but trying to make one set of reasoning fit for every situation is not necessarily a matter of avoiding hypocrisy, its just not trying hard enough. Reminds me of the crippling thought process that SFDebris spoke of in this 'Prime Directive Discussion'. (^^ Go find him on blip. He's smart and funny!)El Danny said:
Rape is a terrible, terrible thing. If I had my way, I'd say "kill the rapist!" every time. But I know not to, because that rapist has a family of his/her own that now had to deal with their son/daughter did. Same for if a child is involved. All I can do is hope that adoption is chosen for the innocent victim, but its not my decision. I'm not the one bearing the child.
If I may use myself as an example, I have a little daughter on the way myself. I remember seeing that tiny being and hearing that tiny heartbeat when it was only a month in utero; watching it wiggle made me see just how much that little one depended on me. And yet I can only imagine the strange feeling it must inflict on a woman who sees that same little darling and think of nothing but that horrible event. Makes me wonder what that little one would think too, if it could know.
So I agree with you that abortion shouldn't be 'criminalized' otherwise you'll have to include the all extremes including medical-necessary abortion (but for god's sake, let's not talk about that! Too close to home!), I just wish it was an option that didn't have to exist. I wish adoption was more discussed than it is. I wish alternatives would be more discussed. Surely the resources used to fight this issue would be better off finding alternatives. Surely there has to be a balance to protect both mother AND child alike. One step at a time, I guess.
A few replicating cells do not a person make.
Also, did you know that a christian invented "the pill" and the ONLY reason that women still have a period every month while on the pill is because of his religious guidance (aka priests)? In fact, they could very easily make the pill cause a woman to never have a period, or at least restrict them to a couple a year.
In fact, historically when women pretty much were meant to be brood mothers (or rather, that's just how it was because children died so frequently) - and this is actually true right now in remote tribal communities - women only had a couple dozen menstrual periods in their life because they were usually with child. The modern women has several hundred times more menstrul cycles now than ever before in history, on average, and the worst part is that this means that modern women are also significantly more prone to cervical cancer, as there's a chance for mutations whenever cells have to replicate (heal) over and over. I read all this in a book... um... "What the Dog Saw: And Other Adventures" by Malcolm Gladwell. Very neat book.
Also, did you know that a christian invented "the pill" and the ONLY reason that women still have a period every month while on the pill is because of his religious guidance (aka priests)? In fact, they could very easily make the pill cause a woman to never have a period, or at least restrict them to a couple a year.
In fact, historically when women pretty much were meant to be brood mothers (or rather, that's just how it was because children died so frequently) - and this is actually true right now in remote tribal communities - women only had a couple dozen menstrual periods in their life because they were usually with child. The modern women has several hundred times more menstrul cycles now than ever before in history, on average, and the worst part is that this means that modern women are also significantly more prone to cervical cancer, as there's a chance for mutations whenever cells have to replicate (heal) over and over. I read all this in a book... um... "What the Dog Saw: And Other Adventures" by Malcolm Gladwell. Very neat book.