Pro-Choice and Anti-Capital Punishment?

A lot of the abortion issue seems to boil down to: How much do you value the life of a fetus?

Luckily you can put a price tag on that. If you think that a particular fetus is worth saving, pay the mother to carry it to term.How much do you value their life? More than the cost of a new video card for your computer? More than a high-definition television? More than a new SUV?

Cough up the dough and spend your money on what you really think is most valueable in the world.

On the other hand, if no one wants to pay, then a woman should have the freedom to get an abortion.

This avoids the trouble of letting the government dictate who can and can't have an abortion and allows us to balance the true cost of saving a fetus with the other wants and needs in our life.

I like to think of this position as pro-free-market-life.

Of course, some people might complain about women who get pregnant just for the money. But really, that's okay. If you don't want them to keep doing that, then let them abort. That's the beauty of this system, YOU get to decide how much their fetus' life is worth.

As far as I know this sort of activism doesn't even require any new legislation. Women have already entered into contracts as surrogate mothers; being paid to carry a fetus to term. So, as far as I know, there would be no legal impediment to doing this right now. In effect, we're already making the choice to let these unborn children die.

Grab your checkbook, head down to local abortion clinic and show us all what value you place on life.

It's plural of ad hom, which is short for ad hominem.

"Three traditionally identified varieties include ad hominem abusive, ad hominem circumstantial, and ad hominem tu quoque.
Ad hominem abusive
Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves merely (and often unfairly) insulting one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but damning character flaws or actions. The reason that this is fallacious is that — usually, anyway — insults and even damaging facts simply do not undermine what logical support there might be for one's opponent's arguments or assertions; argumentum ad personam short-circuits these potential arguments from logic in favor of a direct attack on the opponent's authority.

Example 1:
"You can't believe Jack when he says there is a God
This article discusses the term God in the context of monotheism. See deity, gods or goddesses for details on polytheistic usages. See Names of God for terms used in other languages or specific faiths. See God (disambiguation) for non-religious abbreviations.


The term God is capitalized in the English language as a proper noun when used to refer to a specific monotheistic concept of a Supreme Being in accordance with Christian, Jewish (sometimes as "G-d" - cf.
..... Click the link for more information. because he is a convicted felon."


Example 2:
Person A: "There is a God and archaeological records of the Middle East prove it."
Person B: "Well, that's what I'd expect a fundamentalist Christian to say."
"

No, not really. You just claimed those using the word baby were doing so for a manipulative purpose.

Pardon me in advance:

that is just bullshit of the highest order.

I went to high school with a pregnant girl! In fact, when she graduated, she looked like she could have delivered right there in the stadium. Even if she had missed a semester, she could have easily made it up in summer school or the next year.

And the life endangerment thing... that may happen in less than 1% of pregnanancies...

In the vast majority of these cases, abortion isn't about saving the mother's life. We're talking about people killing helpess human beings for their own convenience. I just can't see this as moral, ethical, or right in any way.

Ah but you don't mind paying for their abortions, eh? Great argument, Chip. You don't want to be burdened with paying for something, so let them be put to death. Let's extrapolate that to the eldery, terminally ill, and of course to people in jail. That financial burden is definitely more compelling than not killing someone.

Ah so in your suggestion, if someone is not willing to foot the bill for supporting life, then it's fine for it to be ended? Again, bring on the elderly, they are expensive as hell to care for and damned inconvenient. If someone can't pay for their care, then by all means, they should be euthanised. How someone being willing to pay for a life has anything to do with the value of that life is beyond me. It's not about financial value in determining if someone should live or die. In that case, kill off the poor too - they are just a burden on the system.

You're right: morality isn't decided by the courts OR the doctor. It's decided by society and what laws they make.

I know a few people who have had abortions. I have had two clse friends over the years who have had abortions. Every single one of those people did it because they simply didn't want a child. There was no medical need for them to end their pregnancy. I asked each of them: "couldn't you have carried the child to term and given it up for adoption?" Each of them replied, "no, I couldn't have carried a baby to term and then given it up."

That's not necessity or danger. That's choice and convenience.

And the one woman I know who had a kid with Cerebral Palsy: she knew the child was going to be this way while she was still pregnant, and still chose to have that child.

Most of the women I've known who had abortions regretted it later.


Having said that: our Legislative sysetem DOES decide what's a crime and what's not, and most of those crimes are based on society's idea of morality. Roe V Wade decided in the absence of Federal Legislation that states don't have the right to limit abortion. However, if Congress ever did pass a law specifically legalizing or banning abortion, it would take presedence over the Supreme Court decision.

What about murder, kidnapping, or theft? What do you call those?

From previous conversations with you (remember Wraith Jensen?) I seem to remember you're an Atheist, so you don't believe in a higher authority.

Call it "Sin", call it "morality", or call it "ethics": the end result is the same. At some point in our lives, we must make a personal decision about what we believe is right and wrong.

The trouble is that the whole concpet of morality is flawed when you dont' have a higher, abosolute authority that makes up that morality. You end up with what's known as "relative morality", which dictates that essientially that right and wrong are based on circumnstances or individual choice.

If there is no absolute law, Ulrika, then I can walk up to someone, kill them, take all their stuff, and nobody can say anything about it because "that's my choice".

If life is not sacred, then we have nothing. There has to be some absolute. Without that, then anarchy rules.

/rant on/ **ELDERLY??** what's this "elderly" thingie? I'm considered "elderly" and at 5'5" tall and 140 lbs, I could probably out run many of you whipper snappers sitting in front of your monitors, smoking Winstons and chowing down on donuts.

I take the stairs every day, I move furniture and my husband and I remodeled our entire house together.

Ok so I forget things once in awhile and SL has caused a few psychotic episodes...

BUT...

ease up on bumping off us old guys k?

/rant off/

'cept the ones at Century Village, there you have a point.

If it were only that easy, Billy. The fact is, that 'child' is a parasite living off of a host. I know, it's not nice nor pretty to call a fetus a parasite, but that's what it is up until the last part the gestation period.

I do not agree with overriding the mother's rights to make an adult decision about her own body. You may not agree with it, but attempting to legislate a decision for them is not the right approach - it will NOT stop abortions. The rich will go out of the country and the poor will resort to back alley clinics.

Early education and easy access to birth control devices and parental involvement will go a lot further than banning abortions.

yes

we already do that
We have medicare and social security because we care what happens to these people. WE PAY FOR IT

We don't do that, instead we make it drag out as long as possible regardless of their condition. Not a position I agree with, but someone is paying for it to happen

We do this too, people are starving all over the world. Companies pollute the air and water to make luxury goods.

Just because you don't think about it every day doesn't mean that your living and having things doesn't have an impact on other people's ability to live their lives.

To get back on track, though:

Can anybody explain the contradition in the thought that a person can walk from the abortion clinic (where they just finished their procedure) to the protest ouside the Governer's mansion against killing a known murderer?

I agree with Cristiano: it just makes no sense. If you're pro-choice for mothers and unborn children, why aren't you pro-choice for society and unwanted criminals?

Jeez... in the 1800's, they shot horse thieves on sight. Today, a convicted murderer will spend 25 years in jail and still not get the chair. The same state that legalized shooting that horse thief made abortion illegal then and allows it now. Agree with it or not, you have to admit that our values sure have changed over time.

Thanks for the full quoting of my remarks, but your analogy is a gross misrepresentation of what I said.

I am not in favour of killing all fetuses "before they reach the air." I think it would be wonderful if the world could be set up so that not a single fetus was killed or aborted.

Killing *anything* is regretable, but killing *something* every day of your life, is inevitable. One simply has to judge the pros and cons of one death over another. The worth of one life over another or one species/animal over another. We do it every day all day anyway, I am just saying that we should be honest and forthright about it. Call it what it is.

Eat a steak, kill a cow.
Save a baby, kill a mother.
Kill a fetus, save a mother.
Save a human, kill a chimp.

etc. etc. ad infinitum in a billion variations....

Aurael is right on.

Pro death for a fetus but pro life for a killer, it doesn't make much sense.
And those that are worried about making the mistake of killing a convicted murderer that might not have been guilty are you not worried about aborting the next Buddha, Christ, Gandhi, Da Vinci, Einstein etc.?

It is really just a case of common sense. Abortions are necessary in certain situations, not as birth control.
The death pentalty is to rid the world of people who will only bring harm to others.

Both need to be used responsibly.

One thing I might point out that makes this a little different, that damned inconvenient elderly person [probably] once raised a damned inconvenient young person. Most elderly have at least contributed something in their life times. Many, continue to contribute throughout their life time, well after they retire.

Before you throw them to the wolves, take a close look at who is doing the lions share of the volunteer work in this country and statistically, you will find that it's done by women over 50.

Does that justify their existance over that of a foetus? Has anyone ever had to choose?

It's a pointless discussion.

How is it luck?

Wait... is he talking about abortion or war???

Blueman Steele, abortion.

One more time and with feeling... Being pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. Much like being anti-abortion does not really mean that you are pro-life. It is your choice. I'm not here to argue or sway anyone to my way of thinking at all. This issue is quite the sticky widget, and one that really has no business being bandied about as any political platform.

As for the death penalty: it really has no place in civilized society. Look at the states that have the death penalty - the murder rate is HIGHER there than in states where the death penalty has been abolished. People are fallible. The courts are fallible. There have been innocent people executed - there's no restitution for that, is there? Yes, I am aware that there are "monsters" among us, even in civilized society. Vengeance will not bring back anyone they killed. Locking them away forever, with little human contact seems to be the way to go...

First of all, I am firmly pro-choice, and anti-death penalty.

However, interestingly - I had to argue this sort of thing for a paper in a college Philosophy class 10+ years ago. At the time, I had to argue Pro Choice and Pro Death Penalty.

I wish I still had the paper, but it was lost in a tragic accident invoving Magic Mushrooms and Tetris. But I digress...

The gist of it was: all living organisms have a certain amount of 'moral standing'. For the purposes of discussion, lets call it "MS".

Its impossible to place an exact value number on MS, but you can do comparisons:

A dog's MS < A human's MS
My MS = Your MS
A dog's MS > A rock's MS

You see where I'm going with this.

Anyway, using the ideas above, I proposed that:

-MS increases as the fetus develops. A fetus of 3months' MS < fetus of 6 months' MS.
Thus - a baby does has not developed enough "MS" until the last trimester for it to be on par with a human baby.

-It is possible to lose MS via crimes committed. If you murdered 50 people 'for fun' - you've lost enough MS for it to be considered acceptable to execute you.


I got a B+ on the paper, if memory serves. Then again, most of college was just a blur

Not meant to be offensive, but this will probably offend sensitive people. I really don't care if you think I'm a terrible person, so save it if that's all you have to say. If you are easily offended then don't highlight this text field:

A quick weigh-in:

Fetuses have accrued no value to society and have less worth than beings that have already begun learning things. That's why it's okay to destroy them if the mother (who has accrued years of experiences) decides that is what's best. Laws (and even morality) are largely about ownership and repayment. If we kill something fully sentient, then there needs to be a debt to justify it. A fetus is a blank slate, so we aren't really creating any significant debt that needs to be repayed if we destroy one.

The split in opinion on the value of human life arises because some people confuse the state of something as it is with the possibility of what it could become. The barely formed fetus could become a doctor that cures AIDS. That fetus could become a genius... Yes... well... The fetus could also become a mass murderer or might even be stillborn.

Reality is different than possibility. The same people who think it is their right to stop other people from destroying the fetuses that belong to them, and do so because of what those fetuses could become, are usually the same people who live their lives according to the belief that they could receive rewards after death.

Reality vs. Possibility. Which one is fantasy?

Of course there comes a point where possibility begins to approach reality and we have a responsibility to nurture that possibility into reality (which is why a healthy baby should not be thrown away in the trash), but a fetus who is little more than a tadpole doesn't even have a leg to stand on. So why pretend they do? Whether or not they deserve one should be the mother's choice, in my opinion.

I used to have this debate on the value of life a lot when I was younger. To me, this question summarizes it: If babies were used as currency in exchange for goods, which would be more valuable to you as a merchant- a smart, healthy baby or a retarded one?

Different states of life have different values. It is not all precious.




Have a nice day.

http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm

25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
7.9% of women want no (more) children.
3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.

Yes, 25.5% just to 'put it off'. 14.1% because of 'relationship issues'. 7.9% openly admit to using it as birth control. A mere 6.1% have a health reason.

But it's like cellular phone use and car accidents. Nobody admits their phone conversation caused them to crash, any more than they admit to resorting to abortion as a form of birth control.






I think there are many, many cases when yes, both parents should be held directly responsible for their actions and be told that no, you can't just have a string of serial abortions.

The choice came and went when they had sex, and the parents made their choice at that time. Now, if that means they are forced to spend 19 loveless, backbreaking years raising a child together and saving for that child's welfare, I have *no* sympathy.

To deny a child life because it may not have a Norman Rockwell childhood is simply a profound disregard for life.

My opinion as a parent.

If we knew this in advance would the anti-death penalty people want to let it live then?
"I don't want the baby, but it's going to be a murderer, and it's just not civilized to kill a murderer."

God I love sarcasm!

So it's ok to eat fetuses?