Pro-Choice and Anti-Capital Punishment?

You can de-humanize a fetus by calling it a "lump of tissue" but the plain and simple fact is that that lump of tissue is going to be born as a baby if not killed. This "lump of tissue" at a minimum is part of an unborn baby and if you kill it you kill what would become a baby.

I still say that the vast majority of abortions are so the parents can skirt the responsability of their actions with no regard to their unborn baby. To support a killer's right to life while giving what will become a baby no rights is illogical and makes absolutely no sense to me.

*edited*

Pity you see so little value in rationalism and logic. A point you seem to be missing is that empathy and the golden rule are inherantly rational, practical, and logical. Why do you think most cultures throughout history have arrived at the same basic moral tenets? (no, it's not because they're divinely inspired).



The rational choice is to walk away. The guy is obviously a nutcase.

Yes, but all these things cost money and as a nation we are not willing to do what it takes to provide education, birth control, consoling, medical support and all the other things it takes to make a real difference. The truth is that it's cheaper to let people have abortions than to do something about it. People can talk about fine lines and definitions, morality and legality, but until people willing to step up and put the time, effort and resources forward to make a difference, nothing will happen.

agreed

Oh... ok... let's kill all the mentally ill people then... let's kill all of the sick old people then... God forbid you ever go in a coma... under your criteria might as well kill you right then no matter your prognosis.

Can any baby that was just born really understand life and death. Is that 1 day old baby "capable of experiencing it's demise in any kind of aware and traumatic way"? Might as well kill all the female babies if you are looking for a male, aftert all... what's wrong with that?

Just read my living will. It'll instruct you to do exactly that. I'm not so selfish that I believe my entire family should have to become bankrupt and lose any ability to achieve their aspirations just so I can stay plugged in to a respirator. I'll be in a coma so I'm pretty sure I won't mind. It always amazes me that the people who most fervently believe they're going to a happy place when they die are usually the most terrified of their mortality.

We all know that you don't believe in God Chip but just because that is so does not make you right. I respect you and your opinion but completely disagree... but that is fodder for another thread.

I'll just follow you around.. and if you pass out for any reason finish you off... I assume you are ok with that.

Many people temporartaly go into comas to be just fine in a few days when they wake up.

Actually why read your living will at all under your criteria? No need really.

just as other people's belief in god does not make them right.

Never said I was... just pointing out that because it is said over and over here does not make it true... either way.

Well, Billy. I'm arguing the extreme view mostly for the sake of argument. This is after all a matter of philosophy as much as practicality. Personally, I'm a complete pacifist and would have a very hard time ever placing the value of my life above that of someone else's. Had my conception created an undue burden on my family that would have dramatically impaired their ability to be happy or fulfill their goals in life, I'd rather not have been born. I'm not at all afraid to die. I'm only afraid to suffer. I doubt there's anything less stressful than non-existence.

I respect your beliefs but that unborn baby will not be given the chance to speak for itself as you are able to do. Don't care if you were ever born, that's your own thing, kill someone else in the womb and you show no respect for their right to live.

You make the choice when you drop your pants, after that you should be man or woman enough to take the consequences of your actions.

That's nice. It's all the woman's responsibility? Reproduction still takes 2 people last time I checked - even with all the technology available (just not as fun in some cases). Still, it all falls to the woman? I'll be sure to tell that poor woman who got pregnant as a result of rape by her husband (yes, you can even be raped by your husband, marriage is not implied consent) that she should have kept it zipped or been sterilized.

Did you know that up until the 1800's it was accepted to have an abortion up to 17 weeks gestation? We all know that times change, people's opinions change... Of course, there really wasn't much public discussion about abortion until after Roe v. Wade, but I'm pretty sure public opinion was probably as divided about abortion as it is now. Abortion is a medical procedure, it is also a private decision to be made by the woman and whomever else she decides should be in on the discussion.

http://www.answers.com/topic/history-of-abortion

I was not signaling out woman in my statement. My apologies if I was not clear. I was thinking of men when I said to keep your pants zipped but it could go both ways. I should have added get snipped for men too.

To be very clear, I have no respect whatsoever for men who shirk their responsibility either. In my opinion it is just as much the mans responsibility as the woman.

Point is being, take responsibility for your actions. Don't kill a defenseless baby in the womb because it is inconvenient for you to care for it.

Empathy and the golden rule are not inherently rational, practical and logical.

Two possibilities.

One, that everyone else not holding your viewpoint is simply irrational.
Or two, that rationality and empathy are vastly different things.


And no, even today most cultures do not have the same basic moral tenets. Not even within one culture, not even within this forum. This thread is proof.

This is why I am so passionate about the issue.


Mark Twain wrote of such differences - remember the passage about a steamboat explosion, where one character says "nobody was hurt, just killed a nigger?" Nazi soldiers wrote home to mom about warm, sentimental things, and killing a few Jews by the way.

The banner of practicality and logic has no shortage of blood on it. Few genocides lacked some practical justification.

This is not 'seeing so little value' in logic. It is simply not allowing the logic du jour to justify atrocity.



When you are finally old enough to be a burden, remember this. Your offspring may gain great compassion and understanding of the value of life, by caring for you.

And in the process learn from you, carry your best ideas forward, and miss you terribly when you are gone. That may ultimately be your biggest contribution to mankind, when all else has turned to dust.

My best bet if I'd like other people not to commit atrocities towards me, pillage all my stuff, or abuse me for no reason, is for me to not do those things to other people. That's completely rational and logical. That you can't see it and want to make it seem far more complicated than it actually is is your own problem. Then again, not everyone is gifted with rationality or logic.

Don't kill. Don't steal. Those basic moral tenets are common to virtually every culture on earth regardless of religious affiliation or geographical location. Common sense is so named because it's common.

Well, Chip, with you having said that, I will point out that a big part of the issue on the abortion side comes down to many people believing that an abortion is killing a child - they are following the basic moral tenets you are speaking of, so it is very hard to reconcile an abortion in those circumstances. That is what it comes down to, and again, you don't seem to see that as well. Many people feel it is an act of killing.

For all the talk of man's responsibility in this, it is interesting that men have zero rights when it comes to whether or not a woman has an abortion. If he wants the child and she doesn't, there is nothing he can do. The reverse is also true. It is the responsibility of both people involved, but again, men have no real decision in the situation.

It seems reasonable that if abortion is legal and accepted as a way to "choose" not to be a parent, the father could opt-out in the first trimester by paying half the bill to get an abortion. Then if the mother chooses to keep the child, it will be her responsibility.

I would be against it, but I'm against abortion in general.

And many people beleive that it is not. There is no brightline scientific evidence for when a foetus becomes a person and stops being a body part. Therefor it is a moving target. But the law has to draw a distinction to balnce between competing views. It has done this, and I think it arrived a a compromise that pro-choice people can live with. It is reall the pro life movent that will not accept abortions under any circumstances that drive the debate.

Exactly because there is no legal vehicle for them to do so. Nor can such a vehicle be farbicated. Under the law a foeatus is either a body part or a person. If it is a body part the woman has ultimate control over her body. this is consistent with legal precedent: the law cannot make a woman remove a kidney, nor casn it keep her from donating a kidney. It is the same with a foetus.

however, once the line is crossed, then the law will only look at the interests of the baby, and not those of the father. I don't want someone else having the right to prevent me from having a vasectomy, or to force me inot having one. Control over medical procedures done to my body is my fundamental right. No matter what other people in my life want. We men don't have babies, so yes. In a real sense we are screwed if we get a woman pregnant-we have no say in the process.

I say tough shit. I would rather retain the rights in my body as inviolate, rather than have some say in the decision to have a baby or not.

This is one of the most ignorant hateful misogynistic comments I've ever seen in this forum. This is absolutely unacceptable.

~Ulrika~

I agree with you there, kinda... When men are able to do what women can do, I'm sure we'd be happy to let you take over pregnancy - at least most of us. Most miserable 18 months of my life (yes I have 2 children). Barfing, high sensitivity to smells, lactation, hormones running amok, weight gain, hemorrhoids... but I digress. Men DO have a decision - prior to impregnation. Birth control is not just the woman's responsibility.

The key to reducing the number of abortions on demand is education.

If the mother decides to keep the lump of cells, shouldn't the father have the right to opt-out of fatherhood early on? Not demanding she have an abortion mind you. Only dissolving himself of the responsibility of 18 years of child support. If we agree the first trimester the child is not a human, then at that time either parent should be able to opt-out of parenthood. Of course, whether the child lives or dies would depend on the mother's decision.

Dang this is still going ?? We need Korg in here.