Just curious.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Views of the other side in the abortion debate
- Thread starter 9-10ths_Penguin
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I went with number two. The latest actions of the antichoice people regarding the pregnant 10 year old tells us that at least most of them know that it was wrong to make that illegal for that little girl. We can see by the endless deflection and attempts to shift the blame that occurred and no apologies when the false claims of the anti abortion crowd were all shown to be wrong. That clearly looks like guilt to me. But I am not sure that all of them feel guilt for such a situation. They should. And if they would only own up to their guilty there could be hope for a rational discussion.
I dislike generalizations. Far better would have been formulations like "most pro-choice" and "most pro-life."
I assume that most "pro-lifers" are, in fact, pro-life and believe that they are taking an important ethical stand.
I assume that most "pro-lifers" are, in fact, pro-life and believe that they are taking an important ethical stand.
I chose, "I identify as pro-choice. I think "pro-lifers" are doing what they consider to be good," but I want to add that their definition of good is not mine, and that what they consider good I consider harmful.
Also, I reject divine command theory, which defines good as anything the deity says or does and evil as anything it is believed to disapproves of - a position so far from what I consider moral that I cannot call people who are willing to let so much harm come to so many and who show no evidence of empathy good. As @Subduction Zone indicated, they aren't interested in women or fetuses, so their motivation has to be virtue signaling to their god and tribe.
Nevertheless, I such people fit choice 1 in their own minds if not a humanist's.
Pro-choice. Meaning:
Women are expected to do anything to avoid unwanted pregnancies . If despite contraception, they get pregnant, they can have an abortion.
After considering the idea of giving the baby for adoption. Unless the pregnancy and the delivery can compromise her psychological and physiological welfare.
Women are expected to do anything to avoid unwanted pregnancies . If despite contraception, they get pregnant, they can have an abortion.
After considering the idea of giving the baby for adoption. Unless the pregnancy and the delivery can compromise her psychological and physiological welfare.
Last edited:
Few have voted, but I find it somewhat disconcerting that a slight majority of those who did question the motives of the other side.
I picked the first option, but I doubt they pro-lifers have been very diligent and objective in their assessment of what is "good". They are idealistic and myopic, and these types of folks seldom can see the problems their idealisms create and cause. So the "good" they see is a limited and shallow assessment, and they ignore the bad. Look at the testimony from a congressional hearing last week and she denied that the 10 year old girl getting an abortion was actually getting an abortion. Her mental gymnastics was an obvious example of a people who has to mangle facts (ending a pregnancy is an abortion) to cope with their failure to acknowledge the weakness and harm in their view. She did want to admit there was a useful purpose for an abortion, so lied (to herself). Many conflicted idealistic people can lie to themselves in order to tell the (false) truth to others. This is what many wonder about Trump, has he lied to himself about voting fraud that he is telling the truth about his Big Lie? This is an important legal question and these anti-abortion folks may use this "sincere belief" in false ideas to protect themselves legally. This sincere belief is really just deliberate ignorance and denial, and I hope any legal actions against such people does not allow them to get away with crimes.
I do question their motives, but I suspect many pro-lifers have been duped. So while their motives are superficially sincere the depth of their motives is not, as I explain din my previous post. They have been played by political and religious actors.
That's moral reasoning, but the concern is with legal reasoning, pro-choice advocates for the right to abort.
No...it's juridical reasoning. It is what the law says about abortion in Italy
Btw...I chose the first option.
Suave
Simulated character
I am a pro-choicer who realizes most pro-lifers fail to distinguish between persons and fetuses. I am confident most pro-lifers can be persuaded to become pro-choice upon their realization fetuses neither have self-awareness nor have experienced human consciouses and embryos should therefore not be considered as being persons. Once the pro-lifers understand fetuses are not people, they will realize embryos cannot possibly ever be murdered by abortions.
I won't waste my time with devil's advocacy. Let me just note that I find your position more than a little contemptible (although I'll allow that your motives may be "superficially sincere").
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That may be possible. I have tried to have a rational discussion with antichoice people here and I have yet to see one agree to one. I often start by an offer to limit elective abortions to before a fetus is viable by even the most extreme standard and that is not even a good enough starting point for them. They have a belief that they cannot justify rationally or even Biblically.
That's the thing, though: while they say that they consider fetuses and embryos to be people, their actions don't actually reflect this.
For instance, I've seen anti-choicers react to the news of a loved one's miscarriage on several occasions, and in none of those cases did they react as if it was the death of an actual child.
This. I believe a minority of people who identify as pro-life may act inconsistently with their stated ideal of maintaining human life, just as a minority of pro-choice people may act inconsistently with their stated ideal of upholding bodily autonomy.
For the majority of people on either side, I have no reason to believe their motives aren't genuine. I often find pro-life arguments logically and factually unconvincing, but that's different from the underlying motives.
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
I reject the false dichotomy of pro-life versus pro-choice.
I picked pro-choice and unsure because I don't think people who are pro-life or pro-choice have monolithic reasons for being so. I don't even think individuals always have consistent reasoning for highly emotionally charged topics like this, and see lots of conflicting qualifiers as people try and understand how the topic makes them feel.