I am pro-abortion, not just pro-choice

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Interesting analogy.
But I'm still "pro-lumpectomy".

And not hoping for a reduction in how often lumpectomies are necessary?

 

[Revoltingest]

And not hoping for a reduction in how often lumpectomies are necessary?

It's not something for me to invest hope in.
Here's another way to see it....
The "legal but rare" suggests that there's something wrong with abortion.
Perhaps it should be more difficult a right to exercise.
Hurdles might be erected.
I reject that.
If fewer are desired as a result of some positive developments, that's fine.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's not something for me to invest hope in.
Here's another way to see it....
The "legal but rare" suggests that there's something wrong with abortion.

In a way there is: it often indicates that something has gone wrong "upstream": maybe contraception wasn't available, maybe the woman was coerced into pregnancy, maybe the woman is worried that she doesn't have the means to raise a child.

Perhaps it should be more difficult a right to exercise.
Hurdles might be erected.
I reject that.
If fewer are desired as a result of some positive developments, that's fine.

Sounds like we're mostly in agreement. I see abortion like food banks: if the day came because neither one was used because people had enough food (or control over their reproduction) without them, great.

... but I don't see anyone who says that food bank use should be rare suggesting that the way to make it rare is to turn away hungry people.

I take the "safe, legal and rare" stance on abortion in a similar spirit.

 

[Revoltingest]

In a way there is: it often indicates that something has gone wrong "upstream": maybe contraception wasn't available, maybe the woman was coerced into pregnancy, maybe the woman is worried that she doesn't have the means to raise a child.

My point is that if someone is facing the choice of aborting or not,
there is nothing inherently wrong, immoral, illegal, or sinful with abortion.

Sounds like we're mostly in agreement.

But I can still wring an annoying argument of minutiae.

I see abortion like food banks: if the day came because neither one was used because people had enough food (or control over their reproduction) without them, great.

... but I don't see anyone who says that food bank use should be rare suggesting that the way to make it rare is to turn away hungry people.

I take the "safe, legal and rare" stance on abortion in a similar spirit.

Dang it......it seems that I've no argument against that.

 

[Willamena]

Thought this was an interesting article: http://www.salon.com/2015/04/24/i_a...we_must_support_the_procedure_and_the_choice/

I don't care for the terminology (pro-abortion), but I agree with the sentiments in the article. Good article, thanks.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Not a human or a child, a foetus that has the capacity to develop into a human child. By anti-choicer logic, this

is a sapling.

So when, exactly, does a fetus become human?

 

[Reggie Miller]

You say this in a very alarmist fashion, as if support for abortion hadn't long gone mainstream in many countries, including the USA, most of the West and some of the countries with the largest populations like China.

"Mainstream" support doesn't make anything right. Fornication isn't right, either, but most people do it.

 

[Kirran]

"Mainstream" support doesn't make anything right. Fornication isn't right, either, but most people do it.

I agree, it doesn't. But being all surprised about it like it's some rare barbarity isn't merited. If that's your perspective, it's a common barbarity!

Personally I think it should be regulated pretty strongly, but by no means illegal. As for fornication, by which I assume you mean extra-marital sex, if it doesn't hurt anyone let them have at it. Although it does not interest me personally.

 

[Revoltingest]

"Mainstream" support doesn't make anything right. Fornication isn't right, either, but most people do it.

But the mainstream does determine what political compromises are made.
Abortion isn't objectively right or wrong. There are just diverse opinions
which determine the eventual unhappy compromise made into law.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So when, exactly, does a fetus become human?

It was always human... in the same way that your hair or arm are human.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

So when, exactly, does a fetus become human?

When it's born.

 

[columbus]

It was always human... in the same way that your hair or arm are human.

@Nous
This is the attitude I was referring to with "Abortion is the moral equivalent of tumor removal ".
Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@Nous
This is the attitude I was referring to with "Abortion is the moral equivalent of tumor removal ".
Tom

FWIW, an entire human being is also human.

What I was trying to get at was that the adjective "human" (i.e. of our species, as opposed to some other species) does not necessarily mean that the thing we're talking about can be described as a human, i.e. the noun.

 

[columbus]

FWIW, an entire human being is also human.

What I was trying to get at was that the adjective "human" (i.e. of our species, as opposed to some other species) does not necessarily mean that the thing we're talking about can be described as a human, i.e. the noun.

The language can be confusing. It appears that post #51 had the same confusion.
It can even be found in the USA founding documents. In "all men are created equal" the definition of men was rather more restricted than the modern usage normally is.
Tom

 

[Willamena]

It can even be found in the USA founding documents. In "all men are created equal" the definition of men was rather more restricted than the modern usage normally is.
Tom

But the sentiment was precisely the same.

 

[columbus]

But the sentiment was precisely the same.

That's arguable, to be charitable.
The author possessed extensive property cleared by genocide and owned a bunch of slaves.
Tom

 

[Willamena]

Do you know how long the waiting list is for adoption? How wonderful if those unwanted babies could have been offered a loving family instead of the scrap heap.

Trump can fix it, make America great again.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The language can be confusing. It appears that post #51 had the same confusion.

...or the Scotsman was making an inference at Reggie's intended meaning. Personally, I felt more like calling out the false equivocation.

 

[McBell]

And how do you judge a double standard Mestemia?

You only call "playing god" the interference in life you think is bad.
Interfering with life in what you consider a good way does not illicit the "playing god" accusation.

Classic text book double standard.

 

[McBell]

@Deeje it may be worth making you aware that when you speak in a way that totally assumes your view of God is correct and that it has an effect on other people, it tends to make those who don't believe what you're saying switch off. More equivocal language i.e. 'in my understanding', 'I believe', 'based on my study of scriptures and teachings that makes sense to me' and whatever might get people to listen to you more readily. Also, it would fit in better with RF's ethos!

um...
How else is she supposed to speak of her beliefs?
Don't get me wrong.
I disagree with most of her beliefs.
However, how is she supposed to speak of her beliefs if not in a manner that reveals she believes them true?