| Click here to go to the original topic View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
spearsy23
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 5493
Location: Fulton, Ks
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 11:23 pm Post subject: Something that is often lost track of. |
|
|
Now i'm sure this has been said a million times, however it seems like people often forget it five seconds after it has been said.
Pro-choicers do not always agree with abortion however we do think the woman should be allowed the freedom to decide on what happens to her body. for example i would not want a girl i got pregnant to get an abortion because i don't think it's the best way to solve thing, however as the decision will affect her THE MOST i believe she should have the choice, although i would do all i could to talk her out of it.
Likewise, Pro-Lifers do not always think a person should be told what to do with their body (or more precisely what a woman should do with her body) however they do feel this is something that effects more than her. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Ek0nomik
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: La Fleur
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 1:09 am Post subject: Re: Something that is often lost track of. |
|
|
The Underground wrote: Now i'm sure this has been said a million times, however it seems like people often forget it five seconds after it has been said.
Pro-choicers do not always agree with abortion however we do think the woman should be allowed the freedom to decide on what happens to her body. for example i would not want a girl i got pregnant to get an abortion because i don't think it's the best way to solve thing, however as the decision will affect her THE MOST i believe she should have the choice, although i would do all i could to talk her out of it.
Likewise, Pro-Lifers do not always think a person should be told what to do with their body (or more precisely what a woman should do with her body) however they do feel this is something that effects more than her.
My question to you is, why would you try to talk her out of it? Is it because you the think fetus is considered as life? |
|
| Back to top |
|
WsTxRedRaider06
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 146
Location: Lubbock, Texas
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 2:24 am Post subject: Re: Something that is often lost track of. |
|
|
Ek0nomik wrote: The Underground wrote: Now i'm sure this has been said a million times, however it seems like people often forget it five seconds after it has been said.
Pro-choicers do not always agree with abortion however we do think the woman should be allowed the freedom to decide on what happens to her body. for example i would not want a girl i got pregnant to get an abortion because i don't think it's the best way to solve thing, however as the decision will affect her THE MOST i believe she should have the choice, although i would do all i could to talk her out of it.
Likewise, Pro-Lifers do not always think a person should be told what to do with their body (or more precisely what a woman should do with her body) however they do feel this is something that effects more than her.
My question to you is, why would you try to talk her out of it? Is it because you the think fetus is considered as life?
Well I can only speak for myself, but I think its safe to say that the reason you would want to talk the woman out of an abortion, would be because you wanted to keep the baby...either that or you look at adoption as a better option....I would try and talk someone out of an abortion, and at least let them hear why I think the child should have the chance to be born. |
|
| Back to top |
|
spearsy23
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 5493
Location: Fulton, Ks
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 9:49 am Post subject: Re: Something that is often lost track of. |
|
|
Ek0nomik wrote: The Underground wrote: Now i'm sure this has been said a million times, however it seems like people often forget it five seconds after it has been said.
Pro-choicers do not always agree with abortion however we do think the woman should be allowed the freedom to decide on what happens to her body. for example i would not want a girl i got pregnant to get an abortion because i don't think it's the best way to solve thing, however as the decision will affect her THE MOST i believe she should have the choice, although i would do all i could to talk her out of it.
Likewise, Pro-Lifers do not always think a person should be told what to do with their body (or more precisely what a woman should do with her body) however they do feel this is something that effects more than her.
My question to you is, why would you try to talk her out of it? Is it because you the think fetus is considered as life?
Because i think it should have a chance at life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Nicholas
Joined: 14 Aug 2005
Posts: 321
Location: Rural backwater
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:07 pm Post subject: Re: Something that is often lost track of. |
|
|
The Underground wrote: for example i would not want a girl i got pregnant to get an abortion because i don't think it's the best way to solve thing, however as the decision will affect her THE MOST i believe she should have the choice, although i would do all i could to talk her out of it.
It's not only the girl who suffers the consequences from having an abortion, but also YOU. Refraining is the only choice, not the choice made by her. In fact, maybe it might be worth anticipating in advance or mind-mapping the ramifications before you have an intercourse with female. This is only saves you the bother.
You are certainly right that, the life at conception should live the life like you, than cruelly terminated from an abortion.
Yes, an adoption or a fostering client would care for the new saved life and couples who are infertile, usually are desperate to start a family of their own. |
|
| Back to top |
|
spearsy23
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 5493
Location: Fulton, Ks
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 2:37 pm Post subject: Re: Something that is often lost track of. |
|
|
Nicholas wrote: The Underground wrote: for example i would not want a girl i got pregnant to get an abortion because i don't think it's the best way to solve thing, however as the decision will affect her THE MOST i believe she should have the choice, although i would do all i could to talk her out of it.
It's not only the girl who suffers the consequences from having an abortion, but also YOU. Refraining is the only choice, not the choice made by her. In fact, maybe it might be worth anticipating in advance or mind-mapping the ramifications before you have an intercourse with female. This is only saves you the bother.
You are certainly right that, the life at conception should live the life like you, than cruelly terminated from an abortion.
Yes, an adoption or a fostering client would care for the new saved life and couples who are infertile, usually are desperate to start a family of their own.
Like i said, it affects her the MOST. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Prole
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 2245
Location: Edinburgh
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I posted this in a different thread, but it seems more appropriate here. (Besides, pretty much everything in the abortion forum seems to be repeated quite a few times).
Anyway, regarding "pro-choice" versus "pro-life" you are missing the point; that being pro-life is a personal standpoint about your own morals and interpretation of what is right and wrong; whereas being pro/anti-choice is a standpoint about what should be legally ethical.
If you are trying to remove a woman's ability to choose to have an abortion then you are, by definition, anti-choice. If you support them being able to make that choice, you are pro-choice. It's pretty much just basic English. That does not mean that you necessarily want them to make that choice, or that you believe that choice is right; merely that you believe the choice should lie with them.
The opposite of pro-life is kind of hard to place exactly; in fact I'd say that everyone is pro-life, but that we just have different interpretations of when life deserves protection. I'm pro life after the third trimester, but agnostic as to whether I am pro or anti choice from that point onwards. I'd say that pro-life by itself is somewhat misleading; pro-life from when? We are all aware that pro-life refers to believing that killing is wrong (to some degree) from conception, but in the literal sense and without knowing the context, everyone is pro-life. I mean, no one's anti-life.
Ultimately, though, at some point, most people agree that the preborn human becomes not just alive, but a life. Then it is a question of which right should be superceded if an abortion is to occur or be allowed to occur; the mother's right to bodily autonomy, or the preborn human's right to life. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that the latter right supercedes the former in all instances, just as it is reasonable that the former right supercedes the latter. But to say that it is unimportant that either right is being violated is a shortsighted oversimplification of the subject.
Abortion isn't as simple as, "It's a person, so it's completely unjustified murder" or "It's her body, she can do whatever she damn well pleases with it." That might be the final conclusion. But some people believe that this should be solely a personal conclusion; it doesn't matter whether they are pro-life or not, as that has no effect by itself on the legality of a woman being able to abort or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
spearsy23
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 5493
Location: Fulton, Ks
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Prole wrote: I posted this in a different thread, but it seems more appropriate here. (Besides, pretty much everything in the abortion forum seems to be repeated quite a few times).
Anyway, regarding "pro-choice" versus "pro-life" you are missing the point; that being pro-life is a personal standpoint about your own morals and interpretation of what is right and wrong; whereas being pro/anti-choice is a standpoint about what should be legally ethical.
If you are trying to remove a woman's ability to choose to have an abortion then you are, by definition, anti-choice. If you support them being able to make that choice, you are pro-choice. It's pretty much just basic English. That does not mean that you necessarily want them to make that choice, or that you believe that choice is right; merely that you believe the choice should lie with them.
The opposite of pro-life is kind of hard to place exactly; in fact I'd say that everyone is pro-life, but that we just have different interpretations of when life deserves protection. I'm pro life after the third trimester, but agnostic as to whether I am pro or anti choice from that point onwards. I'd say that pro-life by itself is somewhat misleading; pro-life from when? We are all aware that pro-life refers to believing that killing is wrong (to some degree) from conception, but in the literal sense and without knowing the context, everyone is pro-life. I mean, no one's anti-life.
Ultimately, though, at some point, most people agree that the preborn human becomes not just alive, but a life. Then it is a question of which right should be superceded if an abortion is to occur or be allowed to occur; the mother's right to bodily autonomy, or the preborn human's right to life. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that the latter right supercedes the former in all instances, just as it is reasonable that the former right supercedes the latter. But to say that it is unimportant that either right is being violated is a shortsighted oversimplification of the subject.
Abortion isn't as simple as, "It's a person, so it's completely unjustified murder" or "It's her body, she can do whatever she damn well pleases with it." That might be the final conclusion. But some people believe that this should be solely a personal conclusion; it doesn't matter whether they are pro-life or not, as that has no effect by itself on the legality of a woman being able to abort or not.
Yes it was your post that made me think about this topic. You posted it, and not to much later it was back to 'you don't care about life', 'well you want to make women slaves'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Prole
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 2245
Location: Edinburgh
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Underground wrote: Prole wrote: I posted this in a different thread, but it seems more appropriate here. (Besides, pretty much everything in the abortion forum seems to be repeated quite a few times).
Anyway, regarding "pro-choice" versus "pro-life" you are missing the point; that being pro-life is a personal standpoint about your own morals and interpretation of what is right and wrong; whereas being pro/anti-choice is a standpoint about what should be legally ethical.
If you are trying to remove a woman's ability to choose to have an abortion then you are, by definition, anti-choice. If you support them being able to make that choice, you are pro-choice. It's pretty much just basic English. That does not mean that you necessarily want them to make that choice, or that you believe that choice is right; merely that you believe the choice should lie with them.
The opposite of pro-life is kind of hard to place exactly; in fact I'd say that everyone is pro-life, but that we just have different interpretations of when life deserves protection. I'm pro life after the third trimester, but agnostic as to whether I am pro or anti choice from that point onwards. I'd say that pro-life by itself is somewhat misleading; pro-life from when? We are all aware that pro-life refers to believing that killing is wrong (to some degree) from conception, but in the literal sense and without knowing the context, everyone is pro-life. I mean, no one's anti-life.
Ultimately, though, at some point, most people agree that the preborn human becomes not just alive, but a life. Then it is a question of which right should be superceded if an abortion is to occur or be allowed to occur; the mother's right to bodily autonomy, or the preborn human's right to life. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that the latter right supercedes the former in all instances, just as it is reasonable that the former right supercedes the latter. But to say that it is unimportant that either right is being violated is a shortsighted oversimplification of the subject.
Abortion isn't as simple as, "It's a person, so it's completely unjustified murder" or "It's her body, she can do whatever she damn well pleases with it." That might be the final conclusion. But some people believe that this should be solely a personal conclusion; it doesn't matter whether they are pro-life or not, as that has no effect by itself on the legality of a woman being able to abort or not.
Yes it was your post that made me think about this topic. You posted it, and not to much later it was back to 'you don't care about life', 'well you want to make women slaves'.
This is a blatant strawman; I never said any such thing. In fact, my final paragraph said the EXACT OPPOSITE. Eesh. |
|
| Back to top |
|
spearsy23
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 5493
Location: Fulton, Ks
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| What? i wasn't talking about you, i was talking about others posting in the same thread (or maybe a different one but regardless i'm sure they read it.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
Prole
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 2245
Location: Edinburgh
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Underground wrote: What? i wasn't talking about you, i was talking about others posting in the same thread (or maybe a different one but regardless i'm sure they read it.)
My mistake; that sounds like steen, I'm a bit more moderate with my views. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Plodder
Joined: 01 Nov 2005
Posts: 803
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: pro-life from when? always from concaption. it is incorecct to say that i am anti choicecause im all about choices, i want my burgers. i am pro life becuase i am agiant intentional death: was abortion euthanasia, ect. im aginst it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Gilbert1908
Joined: 26 Jan 2005
Posts: 5089
Location: Boston, MA
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 6:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Prole wrote: I posted this in a different thread, but it seems more appropriate here. (Besides, pretty much everything in the abortion forum seems to be repeated quite a few times).
Anyway, regarding "pro-choice" versus "pro-life" you are missing the point; that being pro-life is a personal standpoint about your own morals and interpretation of what is right and wrong; whereas being pro/anti-choice is a standpoint about what should be legally ethical.
If you are trying to remove a woman's ability to choose to have an abortion then you are, by definition, anti-choice. If you support them being able to make that choice, you are pro-choice. It's pretty much just basic English. That does not mean that you necessarily want them to make that choice, or that you believe that choice is right; merely that you believe the choice should lie with them.
The opposite of pro-life is kind of hard to place exactly; in fact I'd say that everyone is pro-life, but that we just have different interpretations of when life deserves protection. I'm pro life after the third trimester, but agnostic as to whether I am pro or anti choice from that point onwards. I'd say that pro-life by itself is somewhat misleading; pro-life from when? We are all aware that pro-life refers to believing that killing is wrong (to some degree) from conception, but in the literal sense and without knowing the context, everyone is pro-life. I mean, no one's anti-life.
Ultimately, though, at some point, most people agree that the preborn human becomes not just alive, but a life. Then it is a question of which right should be superceded if an abortion is to occur or be allowed to occur; the mother's right to bodily autonomy, or the preborn human's right to life. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that the latter right supercedes the former in all instances, just as it is reasonable that the former right supercedes the latter. But to say that it is unimportant that either right is being violated is a shortsighted oversimplification of the subject.
Abortion isn't as simple as, "It's a person, so it's completely unjustified murder" or "It's her body, she can do whatever she damn well pleases with it." That might be the final conclusion. But some people believe that this should be solely a personal conclusion; it doesn't matter whether they are pro-life or not, as that has no effect by itself on the legality of a woman being able to abort or not.
As you know you and I agree on the logical process you outline here and disagree on the outcome.
I have one quibble with the premise however. The term "choice" which of course is not a right for anyone has taken on a new meaning. To be prolife makes you "anti-choice" only in the newspeak of the day. There are long lists of things men and women can not "choose".
I realize that you are being specific to the topic, but the effective use of language is one of the main victories achieved by the pro-abortion groups. Oh yes they will deny being pro abortion, no one is proabortion they are prochoice, but of course the only choice being discussed is abortion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
cap'n queasy
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 34968
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 7:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The term should be pro-infanticide, if accuracy is a desirable trait in our society. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Il Principe
Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 721
Location: Fortress Europe
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 7:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| A woman has the right to do anything with her body, but not with the body of her child. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Plodder
Joined: 01 Nov 2005
Posts: 803
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 7:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| indeed, this is the case. her body is what she is and always will be. a baby a child will not always be inside of her, the baby will leave the womb eventually. |
|
| Back to top |
|
steen
Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Posts: 1430
Location: Upper Midwest
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cap'n queasy wrote: The term should be pro-infanticide, if accuracy is a desirable trait in our society. As accuracy IS a desired trait, and as an infant is a stage AFTER birth, if we at all are accurate, your nonsense will be rejected as ignorant blabbering. |
|
| Back to top |
|
steen
Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Posts: 1430
Location: Upper Midwest
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Il Principe wrote: A woman has the right to do anything with her body, but not with the body of her child. But then, the embryo is not a child anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
steen
Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Posts: 1430
Location: Upper Midwest
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Plodder wrote: indeed, this is the case. her body is what she is and always will be. a baby a child will not always be inside of her, the baby will leave the womb eventually. Rather, it doesn't exist until after birth |
|
| Back to top |
|
AllAmericanMan
Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Posts: 3606
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: But then, the embryo is not a child anyway. Seems the big problem with pro-death people is deciding when a child is a child. A person is created at conception. Everyone knows how people reproduce you pro deathers just want to deny it so you can have a care free sex life. Well sorry thats not reality and you shouldnt be allowed to murder your child for the sake of pleasure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Click here to go to the original topic |
|
