ofiba Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 Could the people who are "pro-choice" please explain to me your reasons for wanting to keep abortions legal? Please try to leave out cases of rape or saving the mother's life because I can understand the thinking behind that. I am trying to understand why people thing killing an unborn child is ok. I'm not trying to attack you, I truly just want to see what your thoughts are on this issue and why you are "pro-choice". I feel that the woman has the choice to choose not to get pregnant in the first place, and she should make that choice before it even gets to pregnancy. After that, it is the woman's (and father's) responsibility to take care of the child they created. By the way, "Jane Roe" from Roe vs. Wade later admitted that she was not actually raped and has since tried to pass laws to abolish on demand abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 IMO, the whole concept of "pro-choice" is clever marketing. The left has successfully swung the debate from "should it be legal to kill my unwanted, unborn child" to this debate about a woman having the "right to decide what happens to her body". You correctly point out that she did have the control over her body at the time she became pregnant. Now, having said that, I favor keeping abortion legal even though I find it personally distasteful. Why? Hell, if YOU don't want your kid here, I don't either. He'll probably end up on the dole or in prison anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 Could the people who are "pro-choice" please explain to me your reasons for wanting to keep abortions legal? Please try to leave out cases of rape or saving the mother's life because I can understand that. I am trying to understand why people thing killing an unborn child is ok. I'm not trying to attack you, I truly just want to see what your thoughts are on this issue and why you are "pro-choice". I feel that the woman has the choice to choose not to get pregnant in the first place, and she should make that choice before it even gets to pregnancy. After that, it is the woman's (and father's) responsibility to take care of the child they created. 105584[/snapback] I think a popular pro-choice argument is, "Exactly when does the fertilized egg become an unborn human?" I'm not a fan of abortion, but I feel it's not my place to impose my values on others regarding a choice that personal, so I guess that makes me pro-choice. Similarly, I don't have a problem with a terminally ill patient recieving assisted suicide, it's their choice, not mine. Who knows, maybe I'm just pro-death I guess I'm something of a Deist in that I believe God gave us the ability to think and reason for ourselves and make the choices that we feel are best for ourselves, not neccesarily for others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted November 7, 2004 Author Share Posted November 7, 2004 I think a popular pro-choice argument is, "Exactly when does the fertilized egg become an unborn human?" I'm not a fan of abortion, but I feel it's not my place to impose my values on others regarding a choice that personal, so I guess that makes me pro-choice. Similarly, I don't have a problem with a terminally ill patient recieving assisted suicide, it's their choice, not mine. Who knows, maybe I'm just pro-death I guess I'm something of a Deist in that I believe God gave us the ability to think and reason for ourselves and make the choices that we feel are best for ourselves, not neccesarily for others. 105598[/snapback] But if you do believe that an unborn child is still a living human being, which i do, what seperates abortion with killing your 2 month old son when you decide you just can't care for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 But if you do believe that an unborn child is still a living human being, which i do, what seperates abortion with killing your 2 month old son when you decide you just can't care for it? 105616[/snapback] For me, what separates it is pretty clear. Some people believe that a collection of cells implanted in a female womb is a child (I happen to agree). Other people believe that a collection of cells in a female womb is a collection of cells in a female womb. I completely disagree with that, but realize that there *might* be, just *maybe* two different ways of looking at this issue, and refuse to impose MY moral values on people who don't share them. Reasonable people cannot (and do not) disagree that a 2 month old child isn't a human being. Reasonable people can (and do) disagree about whether a collection of cells (what I call life) inside a mother's womb is a child, or not. I think people who have an abortion are going to have alot ot answer for when it comes time to 'meet the maker'. That doesn't mean that I think that there is no chance that I am wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted November 7, 2004 Author Share Posted November 7, 2004 For me, what separates it is pretty clear. Some people believe that a collection of cells implanted in a female womb is a child (I happen to agree). Other people believe that a collection of cells in a female womb is a collection of cells in a female womb. I completely disagree with that, but realize that there *might* be, just *maybe* two different ways of looking at this issue, and refuse to impose MY moral values on people who don't share them. Reasonable people cannot (and do not) disagree that a 2 month old child isn't a human being. Reasonable people can (and do) disagree about whether a collection of cells (what I call life) inside a mother's womb is a child, or not. I think people who have an abortion are going to have alot ot answer for when it comes time to 'meet the maker'. That doesn't mean that I think that there is no chance that I am wrong. 105627[/snapback] But I think the only reason there's a difference to people is because they can see a child at birth, but cannot necessarily look at a child when it is forming. From very early on, if you look at pictures, it is obvious that the unborn child is developing tiny hands and feet. If a child is born premature, does that mean it's ok to kill the child before 9 months are up just because it hasn't completely developed into a baby? I agree that you shouldn't impose your morals on other people, but at some point, you have to draw the line. There could be people that think beating their children is a good way to repremand them. Now this decision isn't affecting you, but don't you agree we should do what we can to protect the innocent, defenseless child? Some people say it may be extreme to compare abortion to child abuse, but I don't think so. What is worse, beating a child, or killing a baby before it even gets a chance to get to childhood? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 Answers, both republican and democrat. Both are equally stupid: Democrat Stupidity: Easy. It's OK to kill a fetus, but it's not OK to kill a criminal. Republican Stupidity: Additionally, it's not OK to Kill a fetus, but it's OK to kill a human being if they are guilty of a crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted November 7, 2004 Author Share Posted November 7, 2004 Answers, both republican and democrat. Both are equally stupid: Democrat Stupidity: Easy. It's OK to kill a fetus, but it's not OK to kill a criminal. Republican Stupidity: Additionally, it's not OK to Kill a fetus, but it's OK to kill a human being if they are guilty of a crime. 105644[/snapback] There is quite a difference there Todd. One of those is innocent and cannot avoid being killed. The other one is guilty of a crime and knew very well the consequences of his/her actions. Comparing a convicted criminal to an unborn child is laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 If you make abortion illegal, you are inviting all sorts of desperate measures from women who simply cannot afford to have a child, or cannot care for one because they are so young. To me, THAT is more suffering and deplorable conditions for a CHILD who is really born to one of those women, instead of a fetus which hasn't even been born yet! I cannot imagine a more horrible thing than FORCING a woman to give birth under such conditions. I KNOW you will come back with 'Well, she shouldn't have been stupid and gotten pregnant in the first place' and 'The KzooMike shouldn't be protected from their poor choices', but the alternative is MUCH MORE horrible; a young mother who is caring for a child she obviosuly cannot care for, or a mother who is poor and either lets her child suffer, or the whole family lives in deplorable conditions. I myself could NEVER let anyone be forced into that, and that is my reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 But I think the only reason there's ... Exactly... YOU think. Other people think differently. You're entitled to your opinion, shouldn't others be entitled to theirs? After all there is only one true judge, rigth? And isn't His punishment going to be worse than anything you can come up with? I agree that you shouldn't impose your morals on other people, Good, then we agree. but at some point, you have to draw the line. You've come up with your own problem... What do you think about 'the pill'? From my understanding about how 'the pill' works, a woman can actually get pregnant (egg fertilized, implanted in the womb), but 'the pill' tricks the body (thru hormones) into menstrating; in effect, 'aborting' that child... Would you ban 'the pill'? If not, why is that collection of cells not life, but a one month old fetus is? Where to draw the line, indeed... (Note: I may be wrong about what 'the pill' does, but this is my understanding of how it works... If I am wrong, anyone, please chime in and tell me) There could be people that think beating their children is a good way to repremand them. Reasonable people do NOT make this argument. There is no argument to be made for 'beating' children. None. A spanking? Sure. Some people think that's effective, others don't, and BOTH of those people are free to parent their children in their own way. What is worse, beating a child, or killing a baby before it even gets a chance to get to childhood? You keep calling it a baby. Other people don't call it that. Are you right? I'm sure that you believe that you are. I am equally sure, however, that 'other' people think that they are right as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 There is quite a difference there Todd. One of those is innocent and cannot avoid being killed. The other one is guilty of a crime and knew very well the consequences of his/her actions. Comparing a convicted criminal to an unborn child is laughable. 105646[/snapback] Why don't we require the government to counsel each individual prior to having sex...that may resolve some abortions. Show me proof that a 2 week old fetus can think, reason, feel pain......cells are alive in a plant, in my cat...we don't consider them human....but hell they are full of living cells....damn guess i cannot go shop down the old tree in my backyard. Please define for me the characteristics of a human being Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 There is quite a difference there Todd. One of those is innocent and cannot avoid being killed. The other one is guilty of a crime and knew very well the consequences of his/her actions. Comparing a convicted criminal to an unborn child is laughable. 105646[/snapback] But all life is precious! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 Sure, I can explain. Actually I was very surprised about Kerry when he talked about his abortion views in the debate. I believe they are similar to mine. I think abortion is immoral. I feel that the only legitimate argument against abortion is that it is the same thing as murder. When someone is murdered, why is it immoral? Because you took that person's future experiences away - whether he was going to be killed in 1 second or 100 years from now its still immoral. You are doing the same thing to a fetus that you are doing when you murder someone - taking away someone's future experiences. (Gore Vidal wrote an essay with this theory in the 1970s I believe for the New York Times if anyone is interested) However, while I believe this, there are some legitimate philosophical arguments that are for abortion. Its a long standing debate between contemporary moral philosophers during our time. I recognize that it is a very divided issue. There is no clear right or wrong on this issue - just two conflicting schools of thought. As such, I don't think that we should have laws on this to decide for us what to do. Our country was founded on the idea of freedoms and liberties, and it should be each person's right to decide this moral issue for themselves, and I don't mean by voting - that is society's overall collective view. I think it should be each individual peson's morality choice and not a legal choice. There is a big difference. I also am concerned about the emergence of underground, nonsafe abortion clinics with a ban on abortion, endangering many more mothers lives then necessary (if people feel like abortion is their only option, they are going to get an abortion no matter what the laws). This is why I am pro-choice, but anti-abortion. BTW, in response to anyone saying its the woman's choice to get pregnant so they should not be able to have an abortion: I know one thing that I've learned in my life time. People are going to have sex. To take a slogan from ten - Sex happens. Every human gets horny and quite often I must say, and humans have a natural (whether it be from mother nature or god) to have sex. Irresponsible people are going to ahve sex, and so are reponsible people with ineffective contraceptives. Its not just reality to think its not going to happen and expect everyone to choose to stay abstinent if they don't want a child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted November 7, 2004 Author Share Posted November 7, 2004 Why don't we require the government to counsel each individual prior to having sex...that may resolve some abortions. Show me proof that a 2 week old fetus can think, reason, feel pain......cells are alive in a plant, in my cat...we don't consider them human....but hell they are full of living cells....damn guess i cannot go shop down the old tree in my backyard. Please define for me the characteristics of a human being 105656[/snapback] I'm sure they have limited thinking and feel some amount of pain, just not as much as us. Just like babies are less developed than humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 I'm sure they have limited thinking and feel some amount of pain, just not as much as us. Just like babies are less developed than humans. 106157[/snapback] I disagree...a four week old fetus does not have same brain functions of a newborn...there is just not enough actual development of organs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted November 7, 2004 Author Share Posted November 7, 2004 I disagree...a four week old fetus does not have same brain functions of a newborn...there is just not enough actual development of organs 106331[/snapback] I didn't say that they have the same brain functions as a newborn. I said they have underdeveloped brain function. Just like babies have underdeveloped (although more than a fetus) brain function. Under your reasoning, it's better to kill a baby than an adult because babies don't have as complex brains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 But all life is precious! 105691[/snapback] Tell that to the families of the victims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 I didn't say that they have the same brain functions as a newborn. I said they have underdeveloped brain function. Just like babies have underdeveloped (although more than a fetus) brain function. Under your reasoning, it's better to kill a baby than an adult because babies don't have as complex brains. 106482[/snapback] Is the ability for a cell to divide by mitosis...the same as a thinking human being...life (as a living human being) starts at birth. sorry my opinion. I would never want to be part in an abortion....but i will not force my beliefs on others...they shall be able to choose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wham Rocks Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 The only righteous thing to do is join the Army of God! We must stop the baby killing abortionists before there are no children left! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 From the Courant's Sunday commentary page... For years, Republicans have been appeasing an conservative base with legislation chipping away at Roe vs. Wade and women's health choices. Ironically, these measures have led to an increase in abortions, which neither conservatives nor social moderates want. The United States experienced a 17.4 percent decline in the abortion rate in the 1990s because of education and family planning. But after four years of Republican control, abortion rates increased in Kentuckey by 3.2 percent, in Michigan by 11.3 percent and in Colorado by an overwhelming 111 percent. There are common-sense measures that both sides can embrace to reverse this trend. But social conservatives prefer to mislead and battle for turf rather than accept solutions.... With 73 percent of Republicans and more than 80 percent of Democrats supporting a woman's right to choose (according to an American Viewpoint poll), the reversal of Roe will be the Dred Scott case of our time. Staunchly adhere to all the principles you want, but they don't make the number of abortions go down. I agree with the others who've said that while abortion isn't something I personally would endorse. I'm not going to tell other people what to do with their bodies. They must live with the decisions they make. It's also questionable whether Roe would be overturned even if Bush gets an anti-choice judge on the high court. After being the law for 30+ years, it's a little late in the day to be saying Oh, now you can't do this. The Latin phrase translates to Let the law stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts