America is "Pro-Life." Are You?

[Shadow Wolf]

Kind of like "every person that supports abortion has already been born...
Ronald Reagan


The next Einstein or someone who could have cured cancer, diabetes, or helped greatly with global warming could have been aborted.
We will never know.

So could the next Hitler or Pol Pot.

 

[We Never Know]

So could the next Hitler or Pol Pot.

Thinking positive is a plus.
Thinking negative is a drag.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Thinking positive is a plus.
Thinking negative is a drag.

Doesn't change the fact it's a poor argument because the next Marie Curie or Amelia Dyer could have been aborted. How we think about it will never change that.

 

[We Never Know]

Doesn't change the fact it's a poor argument because the next Marie Curie or Amelia Dyer could have been aborted. How we think about it will never change that.

True but regardless positive thoughts are better than negative thoughts.
And more productive.

 

[Heyo]

That's what I'm hearing on the news these days -- "America is Pro-Life." I'm trying to figure out what that means. So, I've thought of a few questions that might help to clarify -- or at least help us all understand whether we, ourselves, are "pro-life," whether the nation is or not. So here are some things to ask yourself:

Do you love the fetus in somebody else's womb (that will have no impact on your life), does that mean that you are pro-life? What if it were (hugely inconveniently!) in your womb? Or, through rape, your daughters? Do you love that fetus just as much, and can't wait for it to be born?

If getting rid of ubiquitous guns can be shown to save lives, are you still pro-life?

If saving the lives of refugees from war, famine or other catastrophe means letting them into your country and helping them go forward, are you still pro-life?

When you call for the death penalty, are you still pro-life?

If you think that private health care profits mean that public medicare and medicaid must be restricted, so as not to harm the bottom lines of those private firms, are you still pro-life?

If your lack of care for our planet and its environment will shorten -- or end -- the lives of future generations, are you still pro-life?

If caring for the impoverished, indigent or those incapable of caring for themselves is too expensive for you to vote your taxes for, are you still pro-life?

Do you thank that life is about more than just being born? Then you just might be pro-life.

I am. Are you?

According to all surveys, the majority of US citizens are pro choice, pro gun restriction, pro immigration, anti war, anti violence, pro public healthcare; in other words, decent people.
They only have to learn to vote people into office who have the same decency as the majority.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Statistically America is very pro-abortion rather than anti-abortion. At least 59% of American's are in favor of no to almost no limitations on abortion. Sadly this is a case of the Republicans using single issue voter politics to form a coalition of those against freedom while claiming the opposite.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Statistically America is very pro-abortion rather than anti-abortion. At least 59% of American's are in favor of no to almost no limitations on abortion. Sadly this is a case of the Republicans using single issue voter politics to form a coalition of those against freedom while claiming the opposite.

Source?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Source?

America's Abortion Quandary

I was out of date. Now it is 61%.

 

[Kenny]

Listing those who were conceived in rape has little value. It is an emotional appeal. Should we mourn the lost potential child every time a woman has her period? Please. The people you list were born, just as many others have been. Some have good lives, some fair, some terrible. There are lots of reasons in addition to abortion that potential babies are not born. Every potential child does not, and should not, need to be born. We would destroy the earth if that were to happen. A teenage mistake or a failure of birth control or an incidence of rape should in no way require a child to be born, especially if it will have a negative impact on the potential mother.

Where is your statistic for young mothers who never finish school due to pregnancy? Where is your statistic for single mothers trapped in poverty? How might things have been better for these women if children came later in life?

I'm just answering his question and since I haven't experienced it, I can't answer with wisdom.

It isn't an emotional appeal, they are verifiable facts.

To equate that to a period is illogical.

Whether we have good lives and some don't is just a fact of life. I've had both.

IMO, every child should be born if medically possible. We would not destroy the earth, You can have less people, have a war, and still destroy the earth.

Should you have been born? Or, if you shouldn't have, should we remedy that today to save the earth?

 

[Kenny]

One quick question, Ken. Do you support abortion in the case of an ectopic pregnancy (about 1 in 50), knowing that without being able to abort it is extremely likely to kill the mother and child?

A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

As a pro-life person, one would have to choose the best outcome possible. Have both mom and child die is not an option. So... yes. Pro-choice choosing life since both would probably die.

I'm sure there are other situations where these "rock and a hard spot" situations require it.

Some babies, like my wife in two occasions, naturally abort.

 

[Kenny]

And... I should have been aborted.

I'm glad that you are around!!!!!!!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As a pro-life person, one would have to choose the best outcome possible. Have both mom and child die is not an option. So... yes. Pro-choice choosing life since both would probably die.

I'm sure there are other situations where these "rock and a hard spot" situations require it.

Some babies, like my wife in two occasions, naturally abort.

So what is a medical abortion? Supernatural or what?

 

[MikeF]

I'm just answering his question and since I haven't experienced it, I can't answer with wisdom.

It isn't an emotional appeal, they are verifiable facts.

To equate that to a period is illogical.

Whether we have good lives and some don't is just a fact of life. I've had both.

IMO, every child should be born if medically possible. We would not destroy the earth, You can have less people, have a war, and still destroy the earth.

Should you have been born? Or, if you shouldn't have, should we remedy that today to save the earth?

For many, an ovum, sperm, a fertilized egg, or a fetus prior to birth has not yet achieved the status of a child.

I brought up a woman's period, because I assume you agree that we, as human beings, have the capacity to be more than mere instinctual animals. We can control and override our instinctual impulses. If you believe that every instinctual urge to copulate with the opposite sex should not be freely indulged, but instead, controlled such that it is indulged when appropriate conditions are met, then you have started to draw a line as to where this process can be interrupted. Perhaps in addition to abstinence, you might allow contraception. In either case, you are exerting limits on the potential birth of a child. In other words, there are conditions for you in which a potential child should not be born.

For many, there is nothing magical that happens at conception. The process is simply one step further along. And since there are many ways this process can be interrupted naturally and intentionally, it is appropriate to give careful and reasoned consideration on where limits should be placed on intentionally interrupting this process, for the woman involved is not a potential, but an actual living person who's life will be permanently impacted by this choice of where to draw the line.

As to whether I should have been born or not, it is silly to play those mental gymnastics. I may only have been born because my mother had a very early miscarriage in the months prior to my conception and not even known. If that fertilized egg had implanted and come to term, I would never have been born. The potentials and the what-ifs do not matter. All that matters is the care and security of a baby that is actually born.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Pro-life means opposing abortion and euthanasia.

Oppose means disapprove of and attempt to prevent, especially by argument.

That is what I am.

Out of curiousity, what are the benefits to forcing somebody to die in horrible suffering and fear, rather than comfortably at a time of their choosing, when death is inevitable anyway?

 

[Stevicus]

Kind of like "every person that supports abortion has already been born...
Ronald Reagan


The next Einstein or someone who could have cured cancer, diabetes, or helped greatly with global warming could have been aborted.
We will never know.

Well, it's easy to speculate and play "what if." Some of it seems to rest upon the "great man theory" of history, which implies that some people are born or destined to make some great historical achievement that no one else could have done. Such a view suggests that if they had been aborted or never conceived, history would be different.

If Marty McFly's parents never got together at the Enchantment Under the Sea dance, he never would have been born. A similar result if the Terminator had succeeded in killing Sarah Connor before John was born.

 

[MikeF]

Kind of like "every person that supports abortion has already been born...
Ronald Reagan


The next Einstein or someone who could have cured cancer, diabetes, or helped greatly with global warming could have been aborted.
We will never know.

How many potential great minds are lost through war? If not in the immediate generation, the generations that might have followed if those who died in war throughout history had lived?

 

[Kenny]

For many, an ovum, sperm, a fertilized egg, or a fetus prior to birth has not yet achieved the status of a child.

You are correct! And that is the issue at hand in as much as for many the creation in the womb after an egg is fertilized has already achieved the status of a child.

When my wife lost our first two of what you would call a "fetus", interestingly enough we said "We lost our child".

Obviously our world view makes a difference.

I brought up a woman's period, because I assume you agree that we, as human beings, have the capacity to be more than mere instinctual animals. We can control and override our instinctual impulses. If you believe that every instinctual urge to copulate with the opposite sex should not be freely indulged, but instead, controlled such that it is indulged when appropriate conditions are met, then you have started to draw a line as to where this process can be interrupted. Perhaps in addition to abstinence, you might allow contraception. In either case, you are exerting limits on the potential birth of a child. In other words, there are conditions for you in which a potential child should not be born.

In concept, I would agree. The only difference is when one delineates when it is "a child". For us, the potential of a child with every egg isn't the same as a fertilized egg that is a child.

The problem I also see is that we also have the problem of what we see trying to be codified in certain state. Some hold to the position that a 9 month gestation is still not a child until it is out of the womb.

So we now have states trying to figure out when is a child, a child. Is it with the heartbeat? Is it when it is out of the womb? Or is it animalistic in that it is just another animal that can be used for food and never really a child? (Exaggeration used only for the purpose of expression of a thought)

For many, there is nothing magical that happens at conception. The process is simply one step further along. And since there are many ways this process can be interrupted naturally and intentionally, it is appropriate to give careful and reasoned consideration on where limits should be placed on intentionally interrupting this process, for the woman involved is not a potential, but an actual living person who's life will be permanently impacted by this choice of where to draw the line.

Yes.

It is a matter of world view.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are correct! And that is the issue at hand in as much as for many the creation in the womb after an egg is fertilized has already achieved the status of a child.

When my wife lost our first two of what you would call a "fetus", interestingly enough we said "We lost our child".

Obviously our world view makes a difference.



In concept, I would agree. The only difference is when one delineates when it is "a child". For us, the potential of a child with every egg isn't the same as a fertilized egg that is a child.

The problem I also see is that we also have the problem of what we see trying to be codified in certain state. Some hold to the position that a 9 month gestation is still not a child until it is out of the womb.

So we now have states trying to figure out when is a child, a child. Is it with the heartbeat? Is it when it is out of the womb? Or is it animalistic in that it is just another animal that can be used for food and never really a child? (Exaggeration used only for the purpose of expression of a thought)



Yes.

It is a matter of world view.

Intent makes a world of difference. But even if it is a person that right to do what one wants with one's uterus still appears to be that of a woman and a woman only.

There have been examples given of a person needing to be attached to another for a matter of months to keep alive. and yet no anti-abortionist will say that person has a right to share their liver or kidneys. Yet for some reason it is different with a fetus. It appears to be a special pleading fallacy when one claims that the uterus is different.

 

[MikeF]

You are correct! And that is the issue at hand in as much as for many the creation in the womb after an egg is fertilized has already achieved the status of a child.

When my wife lost our first two of what you would call a "fetus", interestingly enough we said "We lost our child".

Obviously our world view makes a difference.



In concept, I would agree. The only difference is when one delineates when it is "a child". For us, the potential of a child with every egg isn't the same as a fertilized egg that is a child.

The problem I also see is that we also have the problem of what we see trying to be codified in certain state. Some hold to the position that a 9 month gestation is still not a child until it is out of the womb.

So we now have states trying to figure out when is a child, a child. Is it with the heartbeat? Is it when it is out of the womb? Or is it animalistic in that it is just another animal that can be used for food and never really a child? (Exaggeration used only for the purpose of expression of a thought)



Yes.

It is a matter of world view.

Certainly, different world views. Should the matter be resolved in political compromise, or do you feel that there are other factors involved that more heavily tip the scales one way or the other?

 

[robocop (actually)]

The key word is oppose.