Political Crossfire Forums

[Chiron.Ferox]

payden wrote: may i ask... (since you are pro choice) what about the choice of the baby?? the baby does not GET the choice. think about it. [/quote]

I assume that the vast majority of pro-choicers are not pro-murder. So I ask this question- At what stage in a childs life is that child considered a valid entity of this world?

I'm on the fence about the issue myself, but I will say this- Most people, save for the parents involved, seldom count the "loss" of a baby in the pregnancy stage to be a valid death. So should the loss of a baby much earlier be counted as one, wither they are extenuating circumstances or not?

[Subzero]

Chiron.Ferox wrote:
I assume that the vast majority of pro-choicers are not pro-murder. So I ask this question- At what stage in a childs life is that child considered a valid entity of this world?

When it has the number of chromosomes that define us as human organisms.

Quote:
I'm on the fence about the issue myself, but I will say this- Most people, save for the parents involved, seldom count the "loss" of a baby in the pregnancy stage to be a valid death. So should the loss of a baby much earlier be counted as one, wither they are extenuating circumstances or not?

Yes, they should be counted as actual human deaths. I'd be very reluctant to prosecute someone for accidentaly bringing on a miscarriage, but that a human life has died cannot be denied for the purpose of mere social convenience.

[gamingguy]

I believe that outlawing abortion won't get rid of it. It'll just make it harder to get and more dangerous, like marijuana. I think that back-ally abortions will become more common, causing a greater health risk to women. Also, if someone will die in childbirth, they should have the choice to live. I don't think you should have an abortion for very many reasons, instead you should just put the kid up for adoption, but I won't deny them the choice. Also, we need LESS people here, not more. We should practice lowering our population. We have 6 billion people on this Earth. We're not rebuilding after the flood anymore, pro-lifers.

[steen]

AmericaFirst wrote: Abortion would be a LOT less offensive to us if it were a drastic measure and a rarer occurance rather than a form of birth control.... Given how much pro-life in general have objected to sex-ed, contraception and support of pregnant women, that rings hollow and almost hypocritical (Except that I don't generalize you into the typical pro-lifer yet).

How many abortions do you think could have been prevented over the years if pro-life as a political block had NOT objected to these three points?

[steen]

Subzero wrote: Chiron.Ferox wrote:
I assume that the vast majority of pro-choicers are not pro-murder. So I ask this question- At what stage in a childs life is that child considered a valid entity of this world? When it has the number of chromosomes that define us as human organisms. So the person with Downs Syndrome or Turners Syndrome will never be "a valid entity"? And a hydatidiform mole is considered to be one? That just sounds nuts, sorry.

Quote: Yes, they should be counted as actual human deaths. 65-75% of all zygotes fail to implant and end up in the sewer. How will you list them all?

[LostSoul3412]

The big issue for me isn't that abortion is an acceptable thing. Believe me, I would never want any of my potential (and I use that word there purposefully) to be aborted, unless in extreme circumstances. I suppose that would make me pro-life.

Yet, I also feel that I have no right to tell other potential parents what to do with their potential children, so I find myself pro-choice. If abortion is such a horrible thing, then don't have one; but don't tell the neighbor down the street not to have one either. Laws and morals coincide far too often, and we should be working to change that, not feed into it. Morals are a personal choice, and despite what others say, so is life itself. Everyday, we are given the choice to live or die. Fortunately, most people find suicide to be a little extreme. Regardless, we have the power to end our own lives any time we choose.

Beyond that, an unborn child is only the potential to become a child, not a child itself. Before birth, I believe that the child has no independent thought, and therefore is not alive. "I think, therefore I am."

While I still would not want an abortion on my potential children, I also would not want to oppress others into conforming to my views. The initial post had it all wrong, at least to me. It's not about how bad the "pro-life side" is, and it's not about how good abortions are. It's about individual choice, individual liberty, and individual opinion. I said before that I would only want an abortion to be done in extreme circumstances, but you never know what will happen tomorrow...

All I'm saying is, leave the option there for the people, and stop trying to force everyone to think the same way you do.

[Gilbert1908]

LostSoul3412 wrote: The big issue for me isn't that abortion is an acceptable thing. Believe me, I would never want any of my potential (and I use that word there purposefully) to be aborted, unless in extreme circumstances. I suppose that would make me pro-life.

Yet, I also feel that I have no right to tell other potential parents what to do with their potential children, so I find myself pro-choice. If abortion is such a horrible thing, then don't have one; but don't tell the neighbor down the street not to have one either. Laws and morals coincide far too often, and we should be working to change that, not feed into it. Morals are a personal choice, and despite what others say, so is life itself. Everyday, we are given the choice to live or die. Fortunately, most people find suicide to be a little extreme. Regardless, we have the power to end our own lives any time we choose.

Beyond that, an unborn child is only the potential to become a child, not a child itself. Before birth, I believe that the child has no independent thought, and therefore is not alive. "I think, therefore I am."

While I still would not want an abortion on my potential children, I also would not want to oppress others into conforming to my views. The initial post had it all wrong, at least to me. It's not about how bad the "pro-life side" is, and it's not about how good abortions are. It's about individual choice, individual liberty, and individual opinion. I said before that I would only want an abortion to be done in extreme circumstances, but you never know what will happen tomorrow...

All I'm saying is, leave the option there for the people, and stop trying to force everyone to think the same way you do.

Why would you object to an abortion personally if you do not believe that a fetus is a human life?

What is your personal objection based on?

[LostSoul3412]

Gilbert1908 wrote: Why would you object to an abortion personally if you do not believe that a fetus is a human life?

What is your personal objection based on?

Because I would rather entrust my child with an adoption agency (assuming the mother's health is not an issue with giving birth). Even if he/she is not wanted, he/she is still my child, and I would want the best for him/her. I know there are thousands of couple that would gladly adpot a child and give it the life I would I could.

But that is just my view. And I have no right to push it on others, or try to turn it into a law.

[Gilbert1908]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Why would you object to an abortion personally if you do not believe that a fetus is a human life?

What is your personal objection based on?

Because I would rather entrust my child with an adoption agency (assuming the mother's health is not an issue with giving birth). Even if he/she is not wanted, he/she is still my child, and I would want the best for him/her. I know there are thousands of couple that would gladly adpot a child and give it the life I would I could.

But that is just my view. And I have no right to push it on others, or try to turn it into a law.

I am not seeking to impose my view either, but expressing an opinion or a preference does not impose anything.

If you believe that a fetus is a human life how then do you justify NOT expressing the belief that abortion should at least be restricted more than it is today.

[LostSoul3412]

Gilbert1908 wrote: I am not seeking to impose my view either, but expressing an opinion or a preference does not impose anything.

If you believe that a fetus is a human life how then do you justify NOT expressing the belief that abortion should at least be restricted more than it is today.

I am not saying that an unborn embryo is a human life, I am saying that it is the potential to become human life, much like the relationship between an egg and a chicken. The reason I stated that I would not want an abortion done on my potential children (except in extreme circumstances), is for the simple fact they are my potential offspring.

Besides that, a law would only go toward imposing one group's morals on another group's lives. I am not advocating abortions by any stretch of the means, but I am advocating the option for abortions if the parents of the potential child decide to have one. I suppose that those who are pro-life

Besides, laws are the bane of freedom, and when you feed a monster it only grows bigger.

[Ek0nomik]

LostSoul3412 wrote: I am not saying that an unborn embryo is a human life, I am saying that it is the potential to become human life, much like the relationship between an egg and a chicken. The reason I stated that I would not want an abortion done on my potential children (except in extreme circumstances), is for the simple fact they are my potential offspring.

Besides that, a law would only go toward imposing one group's morals on another group's lives. I am not advocating abortions by any stretch of the means, but I am advocating the option for abortions if the parents of the potential child decide to have one. I suppose that those who are pro-life

Besides, laws are the bane of freedom, and when you feed a monster it only grows bigger.

While your argument won't appeal whatsoever towards the opposing group, I can't help but agree. :-D

[Gilbert1908]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: I am not seeking to impose my view either, but expressing an opinion or a preference does not impose anything.

If you believe that a fetus is a human life how then do you justify NOT expressing the belief that abortion should at least be restricted more than it is today.

I am not saying that an unborn embryo is a human life, I am saying that it is the potential to become human life, much like the relationship between an egg and a chicken. The reason I stated that I would not want an abortion done on my potential children (except in extreme circumstances), is for the simple fact they are my potential offspring.

Besides that, a law would only go toward imposing one group's morals on another group's lives. I am not advocating abortions by any stretch of the means, but I am advocating the option for abortions if the parents of the potential child decide to have one. I suppose that those who are pro-life

Besides, laws are the bane of freedom, and when you feed a monster it only grows bigger.

A fetus IS a human life, now some argue it is not a "person" but it is nearly impossible to argue that biologically it is neither human nor alive. Is potential life like being a "little" pregnant?

But in either case if you do not believe that it is human or alive what is your personal hesitance to abortion? It would seem that either a pregnant woman is pregnant or not pregnant, and if she is pregnant then by definition she would have to be carrying a living thing otherwise an abortion would not be an option.

Perhaps it is for another forum, but laws ARE codified social morals whether you want them to be or not.

[LostSoul3412]

Gilbert1908 wrote: A fetus IS a human life, now some argue it is not a "person" but it is nearly impossible to argue that biologically it is neither human nor alive. Is potential life like being a "little" pregnant?

Not at all, potential life simply means that it has the potential to become an individual life, but is not there yet. I used the analogy of a chicken and an egg before, saying that an egg is an unborn chicken, and is left undisturbed, will become a chicken. The same applies to an embryo. It is not yet a person, but has the potential to become a person if left undisturbed by harmful forces. I see embryos as the potential to become a human, but they are not already human at the time of conception.

Gilbert1908 wrote: But in either case if you do not believe that it is human or alive what is your personal hesitance to abortion? It would seem that either a pregnant woman is pregnant or not pregnant, and if she is pregnant then by definition she would have to be carrying a living thing otherwise an abortion would not be an option.

I already stated that my personal hesitance to abortion is because it would be done on my potential children. It is a personal choice that I would make, and I wouldn't want the government, or anyone else, to make it for me. Even if I agreed with the law, I am certain that many other citizens would not.

Gilbert1908 wrote: Perhaps it is for another forum, but laws ARE codified social morals whether you want them to be or not.

Which is why humanity must eliminate laws to be truly free.

[LostSoul3412]

Ek0nomik wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: I am not saying that an unborn embryo is a human life, I am saying that it is the potential to become human life, much like the relationship between an egg and a chicken. The reason I stated that I would not want an abortion done on my potential children (except in extreme circumstances), is for the simple fact they are my potential offspring.

Besides that, a law would only go toward imposing one group's morals on another group's lives. I am not advocating abortions by any stretch of the means, but I am advocating the option for abortions if the parents of the potential child decide to have one. I suppose that those who are pro-life

Besides, laws are the bane of freedom, and when you feed a monster it only grows bigger.

While your argument won't appeal whatsoever towards the opposing group, I can't help but agree. :-D

Glad to see I'm not alone. :-D

[steen]

Gilbert1908 wrote: A fetus IS a human life, So is a tumor. So is a kidney. So?

Quote: now some argue it is not a "person" but it is nearly impossible to argue that biologically it is neither human nor alive. Is potential life like being a "little" pregnant? Who have claimed doubt about the speciation?

[Plodder]

what was that last word? Quote: So is a tumor. So is a kidney. So? ah no. Those are organs that are part of a human life. just like a zygote had DNA which is an organelle of it

Quote: Who have claimed doubt about the speciation?