Pro Life or Pro Choice?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Some people just systematically refuse to see existence of potential. There is potential in every child, as they do eventually grow to be adult human beings. Indeed who knows what kind of genius mind we deny of existence?

The fact that I have the "potential" to speak Norwegian or walk a tightrope doesn't mean that I actually have these abilities... or that I should be treated as if I do.

Did the mother not set things in motion when she got pregnant? Its not like women turn pregnant spontaneously. It takes effort, in the case you didn't know. So much so that some couples never get it. And in the age of preventive pills, condoms and other things, it takes refined skill to get pregnant if one is using the combination of all the preventive measures. Of course, it is easy if one was just sloppy and didn't really care. And it is my belief that no human being should be denied of existence and potential on the basis of somebody not being careful enough. Burden of responsibility weighs heavy in life, not just here but in general.

I understand abortion if the pregnancy is because of rape. That is something that really is the "exception to the rule". There I agree to abortion: it was not the woman's decision in the first place. Thus, responsibility is not hers either.

So for you, it's about punishing the woman. Interesting.

 

[Willamena]

Did the mother not set things in motion when she got pregnant?

You make it sound like something she DID, rather than a medical condition that has afflicted her.

 

[Leftimies]

The fact that I have the "potential" to speak Norwegian or walk a tightrope doesn't mean that I actually have these abilities... or that I should be treated as if I do.


So for you, it's about punishing the woman. Interesting.

Well, following the logic of pro-choice, any father should be allowed to just bail out the moment there is an unexpected pregnancy. I mean, its his choice. Its his choice to abandon the mother and child because the child was something he wasn't ready for. But we all know such men are full of poo.

It is something I believe should never be advocated. But it goes both ways. Both father and mother should be committed to the child, regardless of their personal opinions. Cycle of life goes beyond any of that, it is bigger than any of us - by the very definition. Of course, some people are too self-centered to get grasp of this.

A parent, regardless of gender, has a duty for the offspring. Killing him/her is not one of them, it stands in blatant violation to all of them.

The moment a parent orders the hit of his/her own child, I lose my faith in that person. If you really want to get rid of the child, give the child to be adopted. You know, for parents who would do anything to be able to have one. This whole abortion thing is completely ludicrous, since there is no need for the child to die. Give me one reason why the child should die, instead of being given to a loving family? The mother gets to keep her much-desired convenience in both cases.

Why abortion. Why not adoption. Why?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, following the logic of pro-choice, any father should be allowed to just bail out the moment there is an unexpected pregnancy. I mean, its his choice. Its his choice to abandon the mother and child because the child was something he wasn't ready for. But we all know such men are full of poo.

Once a child exists, the well-being of the child has to be considered... hence why fathers are still on the hook for children they fathered but didn't want. Even so, we never go so far as to require a father to violate his bodily security for his child's well-being... for instance, if a child needs a bone marrow donation and the father is the only match, we don't forcibly remove the bone marrow if the father doesn't want to cooperate. If he refuses, that's it: the child dies.

It is something I believe should never be advocated. But it goes both ways. Both father and mother should be committed to the child, regardless of their personal opinions. Cycle of life goes beyond any of that, it is bigger than any of us - by the very definition. Of course, some people are too self-centered to get grasp of this.

A parent, regardless of gender, has a duty for the offspring. Killing him/her is not one of them, it stands in blatant violation to all of them.

The moment a parent orders the hit of his/her own child, I lose my faith in that person. If you really want to get rid of the child, give the child to be adopted. You know, for parents who would do anything to be able to have one. This whole abortion thing is completely ludicrous, since there is no need for the child to die. Give me one reason why the child should die, instead of being given to a loving family? The mother gets to keep her much-desired convenience in both cases.

The fact that you support a rape exception tells me that you don't actually believe any of this.

Why abortion. Why not adoption. Why?

Why not force everyone to be organ donors? The arguments are very similar.

 

[Leftimies]

The fact that you support a rape exception tells me that you don't actually believe any of this.

For example, rape victim may be severely underage, as it is in many African countries. In such cases, where the mother's body may not be able to withstand the labor, as it has been done to her against her will, at age it should not be done, of course I want to save the mother. Otherwise, they both die.

Am I at fault for supporting this specific exception?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

You make it sound like something she DID, rather than a medical condition that has afflicted her.

This. ^

This times 1 kabillion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For example, rape victim may be severely underage, as it is in many African countries. In such cases, where the mother's body may not be able to withstand the labor, as it has been done to her against her will, at age it should not be done, of course I want to save the mother. Otherwise, they both die.

Am I at fault for supporting this specific exception?

So now a rape exception has become an exception about the life of the mother? Interesting moving of the goalposts. :sarcastic

No, you're at fault for not supporting this exception in all cases. The fact that you make this one exception but no others makes your position hypocritical.

 

[Willamena]

For example, rape victim may be severely underage, as it is in many African countries. In such cases, where the mother's body may not be able to withstand the labor, as it has been done to her against her will, at age it should not be done, of course I want to save the mother. Otherwise, they both die.

Am I at fault for supporting this specific exception?

What is unacceptable about the exception is that it suggests that it's okay to kill babies if their mothers were victims of violence, but not okay to kill babies if their mothers were victims of circumstance.

 

[Revoltingest]

What another woman do with her body doesn't concern me. What I do with mine doesn't concern them.

It is all individual, personal and different situations that have to be dealt by the concerned individuals.

I'm more than pro-choice, ie, I favor broader body autonomy than most, eg, abortion, selling one's organs, selling sexual services, suicide. But I see a potential conflict if a pregnant woman plans to carry the child to term, & behaves in a fashion which will harm the fetus, thereby harming the future child, eg, drug abuse. Society & the child have an interest in what the mother does while pregnant, since it can harm another person. Similarly, if a father, due to his behavior were able to induce genetic damage in the future child, this would also bear scrutiny. This is why nearly everyone (even minarchistic libertarians) favor limiting environmental toxins.

Note: I'm raising the issue...not proposing regulatory prohibitions or civil remedies.
But they're up for discussion

 

[Maldini]

Some people just systematically refuse to see existence of potential. There is potential in every child, as they do eventually grow to be adult human beings. Indeed who knows what kind of genius mind we deny of existence?

Did the mother not set things in motion when she got pregnant? Its not like women turn pregnant spontaneously. It takes effort, in the case you didn't know. So much so that some couples never get it. And in the age of preventive pills, condoms and other things, it takes refined skill to get pregnant if one is using the combination of all the preventive measures. Of course, it is easy if one was just sloppy and didn't really care. And it is my belief that no human being should be denied of existence and potential on the basis of somebody not being careful enough. Burden of responsibility weighs heavy in life, not just here but in general.

I understand abortion if the pregnancy is because of rape. That is something that really is the "exception to the rule". There I agree to abortion: it was not the woman's decision in the first place. Thus, responsibility is not hers either.

Back to my original point, the stuff that exists in my scrotum has the potential to turn into human beings and who knows, maybe if I let every single one of my sperms turn into humans all of them become Einstein, but to suggest that It is immoral for me to not turn all these sperms into human beings is ridiculous.

You accept abortion for a raped woman because it was not her choice. Well what if someone get pregnant accidentally? What if someone thinks they are not ready to be a parent?

If someone wants to get pregnant and wants to have a baby, well they obviously won't go for an abortion. It's not like pro-choice means no one should deliver babies.

In specifc cases I would try to dissuade the woman form getting an abortion, but in some cases it's absoultely thr best choice. My mom had an abortion like 3 years ago, she was 43 at the time and my parents had absoultely no means to raise another kid anymore. It was done illegally, but as someone who felt the danger of the unwanted birth I can assure you many times abortion is the moral decision.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Back to my original point, the stuff that exists in my scrotum has the potential to turn into human beings and who knows, maybe if I let every single one of my sperms turn into humans all of them become Einstein, but to suggest that It is immoral for me to not turn all these sperms into human beings is ridiculous.

You accept abortion for a raped woman because it was not her choice. Well what if someone get pregnant accidentally? What if someone thinks they are not ready to be a parent?

I think some people have a problem understanding the difference between acknowledgment of risk and consent.

I acknowledge that there's a risk I'll be in a collision when I drive, but this doesn't mean I consent to someone running into me. Similarly, the fact that there's a risk of pregnancy even during protected sex does not imply that the people having sex consent to become parents.

 

[Leftimies]

So now a rape exception has become an exception about the life of the mother? Interesting moving of the goalposts. :sarcastic

No, you're at fault for not supporting this exception in all cases. The fact that you make this one exception but no others makes your position hypocritical.

Sigh. I just wanted to come halfway. I knew none of you would listen to me if I were to express my opinion bluntly. I know that is just the way it is. So I wanted to make concession, so that my view would be more approachable. Certainly, this was a mistake.

So yes, lets say it frankly: I don't support abortion unless it can prevent the mother from dying. All other cases are void. I have zero sympathy towards those who seek convenience and end up ordering the death of their own child to get this desired outcome of convenience. Sorry. Its disgrace upon the responsibilities of parent, it stains the cycle of life, and serves as a giant slap to the face for all those who want child badly and those who value human life. Every child is a gift, and it takes more than a jerk to throw away one.

There. I said it. You made me play Mr. Grumpy.

Besides, you are very adept at avoiding the points made by your opponent. Even now, you made no response to my point about adoption vs. abortion. Why would you circle about such a central point about my post? You could've ignored my post altogether.

So let me re-iterate: why not give all unwanted children into adoption, so that they would end up in loving families? Why not establish societal structures to facilitate this? Why kill them? What purpose could this possibly serve?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Again, pregnancy and childbirth are not "inconveniences."

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Sigh. I just wanted to come halfway. I knew none of you would listen to me if I were to express my opinion bluntly. I know that is just the way it is. So I wanted to make concession, so that my view would be more approachable. Certainly, this was a mistake.

So yes, lets say it frankly: I don't support abortion unless it can prevent the mother from dying. All other cases are void. I have zero sympathy towards those who seek convenience and end up ordering the death of their own child to get this desired outcome of convenience. Sorry. Its disgrace upon the responsibilities of parent, it stains the cycle of life, and serves as a giant slap to the face for all those who want child badly and those who value human life. Every child is a gift, and it takes more than a jerk to throw away one.

There. I said it. You made me play Mr. Grumpy.

Besides, you are very adept at avoiding the points made by your opponent. Even now, you made no response to my point about adoption vs. abortion. Why would you circle about such a central point about my post? You could've ignored my post altogether.

So let me re-iterate: why not give all unwanted children into adoption, so that they would end up in loving families? Why not establish societal structures to facilitate this? Why kill them? What purpose could this possibly serve?

I agree with a lot of what you say. The reason why I am pro-choice despite that is because I don't want to push my opinion on someone else. Not to mention I am a man and I feel any opinion I may have on the subject would be diluted if not removed entirely.

However on the last part about putting people up for adoption. Its not as easy as all that and if it were then we would have such a failing foster system that promotes using children as free cash cows.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sigh. I just wanted to come halfway. I knew none of you would listen to me if I were to express my opinion bluntly. I know that is just the way it is. So I wanted to make concession, so that my view would be more approachable. Certainly, this was a mistake.

So yes, lets say it frankly: I don't support abortion unless it can prevent the mother from dying. All other cases are void.

But that describes all cases of pregnancy. Every pregnancy has the risk of killing the woman.

... or are you talking about cases where death is imminent and highly likely? If so, then I'd say that what you want would set the stage for many more cases like Savita Halappanavar's.

[
I have zero sympathy towards those who seek convenience and end up ordering the death of their own child to get this desired outcome of convenience. Sorry. Its disgrace upon the responsibilities of parent, it stains the cycle of life, and serves as a giant slap to the face for all those who want child badly and those who value human life. Every child is a gift, and it takes more than a jerk to throw away one. [/quote]
A gift that ignores the needs and wants of the recipient isn't a gift; it's a burden

There. I said it. You made me play Mr. Grumpy.

The fact that you hid your true position suggests to me that you knew that it was offensive.

Besides, you are very adept at avoiding the points made by your opponent. Even now, you made no response to my point about adoption vs. abortion. Why would you circle about such a central point about my post? You could've ignored my post altogether.

So let me re-iterate: why not give all unwanted children into adoption, so that they would end up in loving families? Why not establish societal structures to facilitate this? Why kill them? What purpose could this possibly serve?

Abortion is irrelevant when it comes to abortion law and policy. They're fine as options, but the fact that they are options doesn't mean that abortion shouldn't also be one. Adoption does not address the core issue of bodily security.

 

[Leftimies]

But that describes all cases of pregnancy. Every pregnancy has the risk of killing the woman.

... or are you talking about cases where death is imminent and highly likely? If so, then I'd say that what you want would set the stage for many more cases like Savita Halappanavar's.

[
I have zero sympathy towards those who seek convenience and end up ordering the death of their own child to get this desired outcome of convenience. Sorry. Its disgrace upon the responsibilities of parent, it stains the cycle of life, and serves as a giant slap to the face for all those who want child badly and those who value human life. Every child is a gift, and it takes more than a jerk to throw away one.

A gift that ignores the needs and wants of the recipient isn't a gift; it's a burden


The fact that you hid your true position suggests to me that you knew that it was offensive.



Abortion is irrelevant when it comes to abortion law and policy. They're fine as options, but the fact that they are options doesn't mean that abortion shouldn't also be one. Adoption does not address the core issue of bodily security.[/quote]

Oh, this world is filled with all kinds of people who find reality offensive. It doesn't say much about the opinion itself. People get offensive about the most trivial of things.

What exactly are you talking about when you address this 'bodily security'? Perhaps you can enlighten me.

I just cannot see the pregnancy as the child's fault. It never is. So why punish the child?

 

[Leftimies]

I agree with a lot of what you say. The reason why I am pro-choice despite that is because I don't want to push my opinion on someone else. Not to mention I am a man and I feel any opinion I may have on the subject would be diluted if not removed entirely.

However on the last part about putting people up for adoption. Its not as easy as all that and if it were then we would have such a failing foster system that promotes using children as free cash cows.

My reason for voting 'other' was precisely this. I don't feel like I really have a right to say. I will never know the pain of birth-giving for example.

But still, at personal level...at the level of worldview, philosophy and spirituality, I am pro-life, just like my wife is.

I guess you could put it like this: towards others, pro-choice. Personally, pro-life.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You make it sound like something she DID, rather than a medical condition that has afflicted her.

I don't think it's helpful to think of pregnancy as a medical affliction. It's not cancer, ffs.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Because IM BLESSED that I wasn't aborted..
Many here are also blessed that they too, were not aborted O-O
See my point? Were glad they chose sacrafice.. and life for us.. whether it was an option for them or not -.-

So how terrible do you feel on a daily basis you're the 250 some million other sperm you beat out to be born ?
What about them?

 

[Wirey]

So how terrible do you feel on a daily basis you're the 250 some million other sperm you beat out to be born ?
What about them?

250 million? Way to go Dad!