Pro-Choice and Anti-Capital Punishment?

c'mon kevn, if you're going to post something to prove a point, post something with some research to back it up.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf

this research says some of the same thing your post was trying to say. but it's not from a ridiculously badly designed website that is promoting an anti-choice agenda. if you personally don't believe in having an abortion based on any reasons of convenience, then by all means, don't. but it's not up to you to decide what decisions others choose to make.

How is a prohibition of abortion to be enforced?

If a pregnant woman finds a doctor willing to perform an abortion, and you find out about it, and you think they need to be punished, how do you punish them without threatening to do them bodily harm or kill them or imprison them?

How do you stop a place from offering abortion sevices without threatening to kill the people involved if they do so?

You can't enforce a law against abortion without making a threat of deadly force against someone. To provide substance to that threat of deadly force you can do it yourself by bombing abortion clinics and shooting doctors or mothers searching for abortions, or you can use the power of the State to accomplish the same goal without your taking personal responsibility for your actions.

I accept the idea that human life starts at conception. If there is any human with a claim to the right of ownershiip and control of a preborn human, it it the person that new human is inside of. Who could possibly have a better claim to have the right to make decisions about the fate of this brand new person than the person the new arrival is in?

No offense Dianne, but most of your comments here are just standard pro-choice ones that have been disproven before. When does the fetus magically become a child? If it is not a child, then why is it a double homicide to kill a pregnant woman? There is not some line you can draw and say ok, until day # 31, it's just a fetus, but then on day #32 - bam! It's a child. Simply calling it a fetus in clinical terms is a way to treat it like any other medical condition - like a tumor or a blood clot. It's just genetic material, not a baby, right? Until when?

To deny that people have abortions as a form of post-conception birth control because they did not mean or want to get pregnant has all kinds of evidentiary support and complete basis in fact.

There are a laundry list of "objective" reasons for having an abortion. How is a reason for having one any more objective than the reasons why you shouldn't? It is biased in either regard. It comes down to whether or not you believe that human life begins at conception, thus making abortion killing a child, not a fetus.

Ulrika,

Agreed, the state should never be involved.
People just need to be more responsible.
If you don't want a child then abstain...anything else is risking pregnancy.
Killing a fetus simply because it is not convenient for you now is not very responsible.
It is a moral issue not a social one.
The state should never tell you, within reason, what you should and should not do.
People should just have the common sense to do the right thing.

This is false. Performed by a responsible physician, abortions in the first trimester for reasons of convenience are perfectly acceptable. It is a choice the parents (not the state or you) make for themselves.

~Ulrika~

I quoted the former Surgeon General of the United States, Dr. C. Everett Koop. If you don't like his opinion, even though he discussed studies, that's fine. But at least read it before calling it "a ridiculously badly designed website that is promoting an anti-choice agenda".

cute.

- There is a magical moment in most everyones life called "birth" when you become a person. That is generally accepted as the point at which a fetus turns into a child.

There are no "unborn children." There are fetuses (of various staeges of development), and there are children. The whole concept of an "unborn child" is a pro-life one.

- It is "double homicide" to kill a pregnant woman because in the US they have no sense when they make laws it seems.

The poor logic of a bad law proves nothing to me other than the lack of sense of the lawmakers.

- Abortion *has* been used for birth control (never denied it), but most statistics place that as very low on the list of reasons (although pro-lifers make out like it's the *only* one as was done in the post)

My point (in my answer to your original question) was that to me, abortion as a question has absolutely nothing to do with "when life begins," but everything to do with when one becomes a person as opposed to just another unit of "life" on planet earth.

A fetus is clearly alive just like a nematode or anything else that lives.
A person's life is just "worth more" than a fetus' life IMO.

If it weren't for other people's opinions what would you have to say?

It's kind of like our policy dealing with Cubans. If they can get a foot of the ground they are protected by law. If we can kill them (fetuses) before they reach the air it's all good.

To me it's a matter of human life. The fetus is just as human as is an elderly person, whether the fetus has breathed air with her lungs or not.

i read it, and went to the website you got it from. the website IS poorly designed, and openly admits to promoting an anti-choice agenda. take a closer look.
http://www.pathlights.com/

you can quote whomever you choose, but i'm not going to take it seriously unless i see the research to back it up. while Dr. Koop may be reputible in some people's eyes, the excerpt you quoted makes no reference to actual research. the link i posted is ALL research. which, btw, finds some of the same conclusions as Dr. Koop. the difference is that they have science to back it up.

btw - the guttmacher institute is a "non-profit organization focused on sexual and reproductive health research, policy analysis and public education".

Actually I don’t know where you came up with your definition but in most people’s book pro-choice and pro-abortion are used synonymously.

See this from Wikipedia:

I do not think that most people would define being pro-life as being against using contraceptives or abstinence. At least I can speak for the majority of conservative Christians that I know.

If it makes you feel better feel free to substitute pro-abortion for pro-choice if you wish. What I said still stands.

Ok, I will ask a silly question. If my opinion is that it should be ok for me to shoot you in the head is that just as valid opinion as your belief that it shouldn’t be ok? This is obviously a ridiculous assertion but not all opinions are valid Anya.

Having said that, I am unsure what exactly I said for you to come to the conclusion that I do not value other opinions on this matter as valid. Perhaps you can point out where that comes from.

The way I read this thread is not to discuss whether abortion should be legal but how one could align themselves with two conflicting beliefs. I will refrain from debating in depth when life should be recognized but by most accounts, life is recognized while the child is still in the womb and I will leave it at that. One thing is for sure… do nothing and that glob becomes a baby… kill “something” and it doesn’t. It is semantics what you wish to call that “something” that you kill, but even you have to admit that an abortion kills something.

OK. I'm out. It's turning into another one of those Kevn threads. Enjoy.

~Ulrika~

When others quote people you agree with they it's "Good links. My favorite threads are ones that are informative.

~Ulrika~ "

But when I provide info that contradicts your opinion you attack me for lacking my own opinions.

Very funny, but from now on I will regard your ad homs as a cry for attention.

It is the "choice" of the woman and the man to have sex. To skirt the responsibility of the consequences is... well... irresponsible in my opinion. Most abortions occur as a form of birth control plain and simple. To be blunt, if you don't want to get pregnant perhaps you should keep your pants up.

I thought I made my point of view on that issue clear in my first posting.

Since these are opinions.

I agree with Ulrika, regardless of how contraversial her opinions are.

It's really about control. I don't trust the U.S. government's agenda, nor do I trust that they are making decisions in the best interest of the people.

Which means I certainly don't trust them to say who will or won't die whether we are discussing abortion or capitol punishment.

Therefore, I am pro-choice and against the death penalty.

Is it possible for someone to be rehabilited, not how likely is it, the question is, is it possible? If so, then you have put to death an good man. Let's take Mr. Williams as an example and assume he has been rehabilited. After all, his work while he was in prison got him nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Lets say he has truely been rehabilited and is truely sorry for what he has done. Then we put to death a good man. Which means we have crossed the line from rehabilitation (the purpose of prison) into vegeance for what he or she has done in the past. Amazingly, the christian concept of forgiveness eludes most christians in this regard. This doesn't even mention the fact that innocent men have been put to death because the judicial system is not 100% accurate.

With regards to abortion I am pro-choice because I do not believe it is the governments place to stand and say you are forced to have this child. Where do you draw the line between 'human' and 'not human' when discussing an unborn child? Should the government be allowed to draw that line? What cases is it okay to kill an unborn child? Rape? Threatening the Life of the Mother? Health of the Child? Again, should the government be allowed to draw that line?

The bottom line is this. The government can't force personal morality. What pro-life does is try and get the government to force the morality and personal decisions onto others which is something I don't agree with.

If your neighbor gets an abortion, does that infringe on YOUR rights? No, and that is precisely why the government should not be involved.

Personally, I am against abortion, but I am just as against the government trying to force me into choice.

Jessica

Just a quick question for the pro-lifers... how many of you have adopted someone else's unwanted child? How many of you plan to?

Another reason I'm pro-choice is that I don't want to raise your children. I don't want to pay for their medical care. I don't want to fund their schooling. I don't want to send them to college. I really don't want to have anything to do with them at all. Sorry if that sounds cold. It is. People who can't be responsible for themselves have no right to foist their responsibility off onto the rest of society. Unless that child is going to be adopted by someone who truly wants it, aborting it is the responsible thing to do. We pay a lot of lip service to how sacred life is, but we don't treat it that way. So many pro-life people care so much about the unborn and so little for the living. If you're not prepared to adopt a child, you're not really pro-life. You're pro-moralizing.

Like I said, I agree that it is not anyone's choice but the parent's.
But it is not just a question of choice. It is a question of morals and responsibility.

Why is life so easy to dispose of?
Does someone know the value and importance of life after they choose to abort a fetus because of an inconvenience?

To me it seems a selfish approach when it is based on convenience.
It is basically saying "I want to live the way I want, regardless of the consequences".
For every action there is a reaction, and when that reaction is the forming of life I think it is the responsibility of the parent to step up to the plate and make that sacrifice. It is not the child's fault that this is an inconvenience, it is the parent's fault for not understanding the consequences.

I will give you an example:
When I was 16 I was very much in love with a girl and very much enjoyed being a teenager. But I also understood what would happen if I were to get her pregnant.
I knew that my actions could have a reaction that I was not planning for. But I also knew that had I gotten her pregnant I would be forced to do whatever it took to support her and a baby. I was willing to make that sacrifice in my life because I knew, in my heart, that it was the more responsible and ethical choice.

Ultimately you are correct, the choice is up the parents.
What I'm saying is that people are very desensitized to importance of life and that, to me, is the big problem.

But to each his/her own.

Thankfully I have never had to deal with the emotional inner turbulance of an unwanted pregnancy. I have never had to weigh my options between keeping a baby, putting one up for adoption or aborting. However, I have always been pro-choice. Personally for me, I know now that if I did get pregnant that I would not be able to abort (unless something was terribly wrong and I would be at risk or the baby would be at risk when carrying to term).

So many are quick to judge those who have had abortions. But, if you or one of your partners have never had to go through determining what to do when an unwanted pregancy occurs I feel that you have no right to judge.

I personally know five women that have had abortions.
One was a teenager, one was raped, one was using both the pill & condoms, and two had to abort due to etopic pregnancy.
Out of the five, I was a witness to one of the abortions. And that alone is what made me realize that I could never go through with it, if I ended up pregnant by accident.

Every single one of these women had a very hard time with the decision that they made. Even the women that had to get them done for medical reasons. They have to live with that decision for the rest of their lives. It isn't easy for any of them. And I really take offense to someone that claims that women use abortion as a means of birth control. Not one of these five women ever wanted to go through with it again and none of them had more than one procedure. What is worse? Birth control or abortion? Abortion is much harder on the body than birth control and I find it hard to believe that any woman would want to subject herself over and over again to abortion.

No one should tell a woman that they can't choose. No one seems to remember how it was when abortions were illegal. Let's not go there again.

At the eye for an eye line, which is just revenge, everyone will be blind eventually. What ever happened to 'turn the other cheek' or similiar wisdom passed on through the ages? hmm?



And it's been shown that they're not always sure, yet still sentence people to death. The system isn't perfect. IF it were perfect, a death penalty would probably be acceptable.



This is kind of silly, you'd rather kill them straight off and here you're asking about the possibility that they're found innocent long their natural death? It should be obvious to anyone that KILLING them AND them being innocent is worse then just jailing them and them being innocent.



Yes I can, oh wait we did. The statistics show death row inmates cost TONS more than life without parole ones. What part of that did you not understand? Also what part of 'alive is better than dead' do you not understand in an inmates' preference?



If you killed them though, you would get tried for some degree of murder. It's not morally any different when the state kills the person. You're still murdering the murder.



Apparently you have very little respect for life these days and I believe it has a lot to do with the fact that you do not acknowledge other humans as yourself. You mock our justice system by allowing the state to murder murderers.

Actually, no. Decisions made based on law are the entire basis of our legal system and civilized society. To some extent a societies laws are refelctive of the societies morality, and sometimes those laws are not. It is not a court's job to make people better people, its the job of a court to ensure that the laws are constitutional and to make decisions of fact and resolve disputes regarding the interpretation of laws.

i don't believe the 2 are synonymous. pro-abortion implies that one is inherently "for" getting abortions. one can be pro-choice (believe someone should have the right to choose what happens to their body), without necessarily getting an abortion. as i said before, pro-choice involves much more than just abortions.

btw, in most people's book they think that keeping someone in prison for life is more expensive than sentencing that person to death. this is false. just because something is widely stated, does not make it true.

had to add this - the terms pro-life and pro-abortion are generally used by people who are anti-choice. they use these terms instead of anti-choice and pro-choice because of the connotations associated with them.



sure, people have similar opinions regarding others all the time. hence the high rate of murder by gunshot in the US. you are free to think whatever you want.



i was making a general statement that one person's beliefs are not necessarily more valid than another person's. i was not referring to something specific that you said.



as i said in my previous post, i don't believe the two stances are diametrically opposed (as you stated). imo, one can be pro-choice and anti-capital punishment. a woman who is pro-choice may not choose to get an abortion herself, but she believes that each woman should have the right to make that decision for herself.

everyone has different opinions on when life starts. which is why i believe in freedom of choice. if one person believes that life starts at conception, they have the choice not to get an abortion. if one person believes that life starts at birth, or somewhere in-between, they have the choice to get an abortion if they feel the need. everyone is definitely entitled to their own beliefs. the problem i have is when people try to force their personal beliefs on others. imo, pro-choice policies allows everyone to make a choice according to their own personal beliefs. as long as that choice is within the law, they have the right to make it.

What the hell does "ad homs" mean? Jesus, you are a piece of work.

~Ulrika~

So who is being irresponsible, the parent who doesn't want their child or the pro-lifers that you think should adopt?
I agree, people are not being responsible. Killing a fetus is more responsible than abstinence? On what planet?
We would not even be discussing this if people were being responsible.
That is truly where there is a problem.
I think we understand the source of the problem, just differ in our solutions.

Siro,



As I stated, I do not believe in turning the other cheek when it comes to murder.
I don't believe in avoiding issues because of what it might happen to my soul or if I'll get in trouble. I act on what I know is right and wrong and I believe it is wrong to allow someone a second chance to kill an innocent person.

Edmund Burke:
"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing."


Again, call it what you will. I understand what the laws are and I killed someone who murdered someone I care about you could punish me for the rest of my life or execute me, I don't really care. I could not live with myself for not removing that person from the path of another innocent being.

As for the death penalty and the costs, I am not denying that it is expensive.
I think the penalty should only be given out in cases where it is truly warranted.
When there is absolute proof. Otherwise you are correct, there is a margin of error and it is better to let them live in case the courts were wrong.
But keeping someone alive when there is no doubt that they are evil is just wrong.
I know you disagree, but that is my belief.

There are people in this world that are just evil, no matter how you slice it, and they will harm others no matter what you do. So what is the point in keeping them alive?



So my compassion for innocent human beings is not enough, I need to care for evil child killers and twisted maniacs?

There are enough people like you to do that.
I don't need to join that crowd.
There are some people in this world that can only be dealt with one way, deny it if you will, it is a fact of life.