Pro-choice vs Abortion

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Yes.

I did.

Saying so doesn't make it so. You didn't.

I have seen very few Christians who were all that certain that fetuses go to heaven...especially not Calvinists. I'm not a Calvinist.



It's about knowledge vs belief, I suppose.

Have I used the fireman analogy here yet? Probably...but I'll break it out again here anyway.

We have two adjacent apartments on the fifth floor of a building. In both apartments, at the same time, we see that a man has tossed a woman out of the window. Both women land at the same time, and both live and are without injury. One man is hailed as a hero. The other is arrested, tried and convicted for attempted murder.

What's the difference?

Knowledge and intent on the part of the men.

The building is on fire. The 'hero' is a fireman who has tossed the woman into a huge rescue air bag, saving her life. His intent was to save her life, since the window was the only way out of the building.

The next door neighbor wasn't paying attention to the fire, his lack of escape routes or the airbag; he was just trying to kill his wife. However, she landed in the airbag, too, so instead of killing her, he saved her.

According to the logic of 'fetuses go to heaven,' both men should have been seen as heros, right? After all, if the fireman knew what he was doing and why, should it matter that the other guy was motivated to murder, not lifesaving?

It doesn't MATTER whether innocent foeti go to heaven or not. We don't KNOW that they do, so we can't use our belief that they might as an excuse to kill them. GOD knows...so He, like that fireman, can do what He wants. He KNOWS where they are going. We don't. Indeed, I rather doubt that many, if any, women who want abortions get them because that's the way to insure that their babies go to heaven.

Not to mention that murder is rather against the rules, no matter where we think the victims may spend eternity.

Abortion isn't murder though. By definition.

 

[Niblo]

Has anyone in the history of ever planned to have an abortion prior to having sex?

In a sense, yes. As when a woman says (and I recall around four or five female friends and relatives of mine who have) that should she experience an unwanted pregnancy then an abortion will follow. A form of contingency planning, if you like.

On the other hand, I do get your point: I can't recall hearing, or reading, of any woman saying 'Let's have sex....if we mess up, I'll get an abortion!'

 

[Willamena]

I don't believe in natural rights. Therefore, in my perspective legislation is what allows rights to exist in the first place.

Fair enough.

But rights existed long before legislation did.

 

[Willamena]

If a woman does not wish to become pregnant, she must have taken the precautions during her sexual activities like contraception to prevent that. Once she is pregnant and unless there are medical reasons for terminating a pregnancy, abortion is simply an act of murder that society should not tolerate without punishment in place for that act. That means abortion requires legislation on when it is permissible.

Contraception isn't a helpful argument once she is pregnant, and it's only once she is pregnant that abortion becomes an issue.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Abortion isn't murder though. By definition.

Apparently, dianaiad believes it is, but her objection to it "does not apply to women who are raped, incest victims, women who are not legally responsible for their actions ... or in cases where the mother's life is in danger, or when the fetus is so badly damaged that s/he cannot live outside the womb even if carried to full term."

 

[Shantanu]

Contraception isn't a helpful argument once she is pregnant, and it's only once she is pregnant that abortion becomes an issue.

You seem to be suggesting that a judge presiding over a case does not have to take contraception as an evidential indication of the attempt and willingness to avoid the pregnancy in the first place when deciding whether an abortion has been lawfully carried out.

 

[Koldo]

Fair enough.

But rights existed long before legislation did.

Did they? What right existed before legislation ?

 

[BSM1]

Abortion isn't murder though. By definition.

Here's another one of those "good luck using common sense and facts" in this argument.

Apparently, dianaiad believes it is, but her objection to it "does not apply to women who are raped, incest victims, women who are not legally responsible for their actions ... or in cases where the mother's life is in danger, or when the fetus is so badly damaged that s/he cannot live outside the womb even if carried to full term."

Soooooo...she's saying abortion is okay as long as it meets her criteria. This is why many, if not most, "pro-life" advocates are simply "anti-choice".

My question is how does any abortion affect anyone else's life other than the mother's? And if saving children is the end game, why are they not in third world countries trying to save children who are starving to death before their very eyes (I know, dead horse...).

 

[Shantanu]

And if saving children is the end game, why are they not in third world countries trying to save children who are starving to death before their very eyes (I know, dead horse...).

I do not suppose that saving lives is the end game: the end game is justice being done and being seen to have been done. That only comes from pursuing truth and determining correct behaviour. Also they do not consider the justice system in other countries as being their problem as they wish to sort our their own society to make it a decent place to live. That would be my guess.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Apparently, dianaiad believes it is, but her objection to it "does not apply to women who are raped, incest victims, women who are not legally responsible for their actions ... or in cases where the mother's life is in danger, or when the fetus is so badly damaged that s/he cannot live outside the womb even if carried to full term."

Pretty movable definition, then. I'm always bemused by people who claim "abortion is murder", who then go on to list exceptions. Logically, if they actually believed it was murder, that would be it. Hard to imagine being a product of rape makes murdering you OK, if you actually believe that killing you if you were the product of consensual sex would be murder.

Of course, as has been fairly clearly implied, the life of the foetus isn't nearly as important as making pregnancy a punishment for "loose women" is.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Here's another one of those "good luck using common sense and facts" in this argument.




Soooooo...she's saying abortion is okay as long as it meets her criteria. This is why many, if not most, "pro-life" advocates are simply "anti-choice".

My question is how does any abortion affect anyone else's life other than the mother's? And if saving children is the end game, why are they not in third world countries trying to save children who are starving to death before their very eyes (I know, dead horse...).

Nice to agree.

 

[BSM1]

I do not suppose that saving lives is not the end game: the end game is justice being done and being seen to have been done. That only comes from pursuing truth and determining correct behaviour. Also they do not consider the justice system in other countries as being their problem as they wish to sort our their own society to make it a decent place to live. That would be my guess.

Which makes judging others danged convenient...

 

[BSM1]

Nice to agree.

Believe it or not, I don't have horns...lol,

 

[Shantanu]

Which makes judging others danged convenient...

The judges decide and set the tone of the law in the countries where abortion is an issue because of pressures from religious institutions.

 

[Willamena]

You seem to be suggesting that a judge presiding over a case does not have to take contraception as an evidential indication of the attempt and willingness to avoid the pregnancy in the first place when deciding whether an abortion has been lawfully carried out.

A judge should not have to take into consideration the attempt and willingness to avoid the pregnancy in deciding whether an abortion should be lawful, yes. Absolutely. Why should willingness to avoid the pregnancy matter?

 

[Shantanu]

A judge should not have to take into consideration the attempt and willingness to avoid the pregnancy in deciding whether an abortion should be lawful, yes. Absolutely. Why should willingness to avoid the pregnancy matter?

It would not matter to a judge who did not consider life as being a sacred gift of God to be cherished and nurtured to fruition.

 

[Willamena]

It would not matter to a judge who did not consider life as being a sacred gift of God to be cherished and nurtured to fruition.

But why should it matter to even such a judge?

 

[Shantanu]

But why should it matter to even such a judge?

To treat life as a sacred gift of God to be cherished and nurtured to fruition means that the legislation that is based upon this consideration will compel the judge to obtain proof that the woman who got pregnant was obeying that law of the country and if she did not wish to have a pregnancy that creates life she would have used contraception.

 

[columbus]

Abortion isn't murder though. By definition.

Apparently, dianaiad believes it is,

Did she actually say this?

Perhaps she did, but I don't remember that. I strongly suspect that you're putting words in her mouth because what she really said doesn't fit your usual method of finding a reason to dismiss it.
It's something I have noticed about pro-feticide people. They aren't any more honest than Christian prolifers.

In this conversation, I avoid words with subjective meanings. Words like person and murder. I stick to more objective terms like human being and killing.
Tom

 

[whirlingmerc]

PRO:
I am pro-choice, not because I encourage women to have abortions, but because I reserve the right to not have abortions.

Legislation takes the right away.

In a pro choice view the unborn have no rights,

President Obama even 'anonymously' authored a paper in Harvard and it was his only paper which was on why a fetus should not be allowed to sue for protection of His interest.