Our City Online

Messageboard - Politics

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Can you be Pro-Life and Pro-Choice at the same time?

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Politics Can you be Pro-Life and Pro-Choice at the same time?

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 15 posts - 181 through 195 (of 202 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #333337

    TaraK
    Participant

    Roland wrote >>
    I remember seeing the ultrasound at 10 weeks. There’s no mistaking that beating heart. Could I make the decision to extinguish that? Legal or not, and with varying situations, that’s an awful decision for anyone to have to make. While personally, I would make a pro-life decision unless dire circumstance, I support that the choice exists for modern medical practices to be available for those who opt for it, and for practitioners opting to perform it.
    I’m giving society the benefit of the doubt that those having abortions are doing so for good reason. I know that there are cases where people do so as a form of birth control and I think that’s horrible. Personally responsibility is not a universally accepted virtue.
    Seeing the fetus develop changed my opinion on what I personally find acceptable on the matter. It’s a life that would have come to term if left to natural process.

    What a very respectable post. And I think you nailed it — abortion is never easy, even if it is the best choice for someone’s situation. It’s a last resort.

    I knew a woman who had two abortions because her husband wouldn’t use condoms and she had no access to birth control. She knew from a previous miscarriage (and broken arm) that he would beat her especially badly if he found out she was pregnant. It took her years to leave that relationship. I asked her if she would have carried out the pregnancies (wanted the children) if he wouldn’t have beat her. She said that, at the time, she couldn’t imagine bringing a child into that house and she had no way of seeing how she could escape herself, so it was to painful to imagine the what-ifs.

    Sometimes babies just aren’t the epicenter of life.

    #333338

    greenhouse1014
    Participant

    gramarye wrote >>

    greenhouse1014 wrote >>
    @gram-
    In your perfect world, why would you advocate excusing the mother from criminal responsibility while holding the doctor responsible. To your wish, wouldn’t the mother be complicit in the “murder”. It seems that inclusion of this kind of exception is merely a way to get restrictive legislation passed.

    Presumed state of mind (which is almost always a factor in any criminal culpability analysis), presumed knowledge, and the added crass incentive of profit on the part of the doctor. The two people are presumptively in different emotional states, have differing degrees of familiarity with the process of what an abortion truly is, and one is making a business out of it. Perhaps you wish to argue that those differences should not matter, but they do to me and to most people who promote the pro-life cause. I’ll listen to arguments about why those should not matter, of course, but they nevertheless remain the answer to your question.

    Whatever happened to the idea that ignorance of the law does not absolve you of responsibility. State of mind should have no bearing. It’s 2010. I think everybody pretty much knows what an abortion is and it shouldn’t matter whether someone knows how “horrible” it can be. Does a killer get off just because he doesn’t realize how hard it can be to kill someone? You could say that the mother stands to profit from the abortion, albeit not monetarily. The mother is actively seeking out the abortion, which would make it premeditated murder. I don’t think there’s anyone out there who doesn’t have some concept of the abortion procedure.

    #333339

    DonnaTate
    Member

    While personally abortion is not something I would choose for myself under any circumstance, I also don’t think it’s my place to judge other people and their decisions. I certainly can’t believe it’s an easy decision to make, and truly feel for any woman who has to do so.
    Does that make me Pro-Life and Pro-Choice? I don’t think so. In an ideal world, I think a woman’s choice should be whether or not to have sex and to use sufficient protection.

    #333340

    gramarye wrote >>

    spookygoddess78 wrote >>

    gramarye wrote >>

    Cookie wrote >>

    gramarye wrote >>
    That’s why, as always, it gets back to the issue of the moment that life begins.

    To you.

    … everything that … Cookie … ha[s] been saying flows from the premise that the fetus is *not* a human being.

    No, it doesn’t. Whether or not a fetus is a human being might matter to, say, a lawyer, but it’s completely irrelevant to me.

    So you would seriously concede that it’s a human being, but give the mother a right to terminate it anyway? We “lawyers” have an unflattering term for the intentional taking of a human life.
    That may be one of the more disturbing comments that I’ve read during my years on CU.

    Okay, I’m going to basically re-iterate my previous post which speakds to your issue. My definition of life would be at birth. Once the fetus is born, it is no longer a potential but rather, an actual being (in my view) with the ability to have independent organ function and free will. Now let’s say for the sake of argument that fetuses are the same as live people. In this case, the fetus exists by permission of the woman since the womb is in her body. There is no such thing in the US as any living person (if you view a fetus as living) having a lawful right to live by the efforts of others. Those who live by the efforts of others in any case can only do so if those others give and maintain the permission and resources for that to occur. I don’t see why it should be any different in the case of unborn ‘babies’.

    No such thing as a lawful right to live by the efforts of others? None that are quite as intimate as the umbilical cord, of course, but all legal dependents are, well, called “dependents” for a reason. And as for “independent organ function”: babies have that well before birth.
    No human being needs the “permission” of another to live. The right to life arises on its own from the mere fact of human existence. A state that recognizes this and protects that right to life is a more just one than one that does not, even if this means infringing on lesser rights, including the right to personal autonomy.

    I think you missed my point or are purposefully avoiding it. The point is that no one has the lawful right to live off the efforts of others. In the case of a fetus in it’s natural state, it cannot survive unless it is housed and nurtured by the woman’s body. In that case, the fetus is completely reliant on another person for it’s very ‘life’. There are no circumstances that I’m aware of under the law where individuals have the right to live off the efforts of others, particularly in that capacity. Even ‘dependents’ don’t have a right to have their life sustained by others – I mean, can’t parents drop their kids off to the hands of strangers pretty much the second they are born and avoid all legal responsibility? I guess I just don’t understand your argument even if you do think that the life begins with conception.

    #333341

    It’s interesting – I’m wondering how many folks in this discussion are vegans and feel bad when they kill a spider. I wonder this because it makes me think that the issue people have with abortion is primarily about this ‘life’ question which is really rooted more in religion than anything – specifically, the type of religion that identifies human life as somehow ‘special’ or ‘more important’ compared to other forms of life that exist. In that case, would it really be appropriate or necessary for the US to legislate this particular religious moral? Wouldn’t that religion’s God take care of the judging and such? I mean, there are other religious morals that are legislated that make sense such as murder of existing societal members, stealing from societal members, etc… Although, I’d argue that a lot of those rules have been a part of societies LONG before most modern day religions and have purpose and societal benefit beyond ‘it’s the right thing to do’ or the ‘sanctity of human life’ argument. So, I guess I wonder what the societal benefit to a law against abortion would be? There didn’t seem to be any the last time it was illegal in this country.

    #333342

    gramarye
    Participant

    spookygoddess78 wrote >>
    It’s interesting – I’m wondering how many folks in this discussion are vegans and feel bad when they kill a spider. I wonder this because it makes me think that the issue people have with abortion is primarily about this ‘life’ question which is really rooted more in religion than anything – specifically, the type of religion that identifies human life as somehow ‘special’ or ‘more important’ compared to other forms of life that exist. In that case, would it really be appropriate or necessary for the US to legislate a religion’s morality? Wouldn’t that religion’s God do that all on his own?

    You’re the one who brought religion up, not me. I have deliberately made all of my arguments in this thread on secular grounds. It is not only religious philosophies that identify human life as somehow “special” or “more important” than non-human life; in fact, I know extremely few religious or secular philosophies that don’t. Jainism, perhaps.

    I think it’s self-evident that human life is morally different than plant or non-human animal life. Otherwise, killing 6,000,000 chickens would be as morally abhorrent as killing 6,000,000 people.

    #333343

    gramarye wrote >>

    spookygoddess78 wrote >>
    It’s interesting – I’m wondering how many folks in this discussion are vegans and feel bad when they kill a spider. I wonder this because it makes me think that the issue people have with abortion is primarily about this ‘life’ question which is really rooted more in religion than anything – specifically, the type of religion that identifies human life as somehow ‘special’ or ‘more important’ compared to other forms of life that exist. In that case, would it really be appropriate or necessary for the US to legislate a religion’s morality? Wouldn’t that religion’s God do that all on his own?

    You’re the one who brought religion up, not me. I have deliberately made all of my arguments in this thread on secular grounds. It is not only religious philosophies that identify human life as somehow “special” or “more important” than non-human life; in fact, I know extremely few religious or secular philosophies that don’t. Jainism, perhaps.
    I think it’s self-evident that human life is morally different than plant or non-human animal life. Otherwise, killing 6,000,000 chickens would be as morally abhorrent as killing 6,000,000 people.

    I think the impact to society upon the killing of 6,000,000 existing societal members is significant and stands to destroy said society which can be dangerous for people in those societies which is why it’s a big deal. The death of 6,000,000 chickens doesn’t stand to destroy a society (unless it’s a society reliant on chickens to survive, in which case, it could be just as devastating). I’m not sure that I’d make the argument that there is a moral difference. But, that’s me. What is the societal benefit to making abortion illegal if you are keeping your argument secular? There weren’t any that I”m aware of the last time abortion was illegal.

    #333344

    berdawn
    Member

    gramarye wrote >>

    spookygoddess78 wrote >>
    It’s interesting – I’m wondering how many folks in this discussion are vegans and feel bad when they kill a spider. I wonder this because it makes me think that the issue people have with abortion is primarily about this ‘life’ question which is really rooted more in religion than anything – specifically, the type of religion that identifies human life as somehow ‘special’ or ‘more important’ compared to other forms of life that exist. In that case, would it really be appropriate or necessary for the US to legislate a religion’s morality? Wouldn’t that religion’s God do that all on his own?

    You’re the one who brought religion up, not me. I have deliberately made all of my arguments in this thread on secular grounds. It is not only religious philosophies that identify human life as somehow “special” or “more important” than non-human life; in fact, I know extremely few religious or secular philosophies that don’t. Jainism, perhaps.
    I think it’s self-evident that human life is morally different than plant or non-human animal life. Otherwise, killing 6,000,000 chickens would be as morally abhorrent as killing 6,000,000 people.

    Your central point that life begins at conception would be a religious argument. I think the pope uses that one for a lot of things, too.

    #333345

    berdawn
    Member

    TaraK wrote >>

    Roland wrote >>
    I remember seeing the ultrasound at 10 weeks. There’s no mistaking that beating heart. Could I make the decision to extinguish that? Legal or not, and with varying situations, that’s an awful decision for anyone to have to make. While personally, I would make a pro-life decision unless dire circumstance, I support that the choice exists for modern medical practices to be available for those who opt for it, and for practitioners opting to perform it.
    I’m giving society the benefit of the doubt that those having abortions are doing so for good reason. I know that there are cases where people do so as a form of birth control and I think that’s horrible. Personally responsibility is not a universally accepted virtue.
    Seeing the fetus develop changed my opinion on what I personally find acceptable on the matter. It’s a life that would have come to term if left to natural process.

    What a very respectable post. And I think you nailed it — abortion is never easy, even if it is the best choice for someone’s situation. It’s a last resort.
    I knew a woman who had two abortions because her husband wouldn’t use condoms and she had no access to birth control. She knew from a previous miscarriage (and broken arm) that he would beat her especially badly if he found out she was pregnant. It took her years to leave that relationship. I asked her if she would have carried out the pregnancies (wanted the children) if he wouldn’t have beat her. She said that, at the time, she couldn’t imagine bringing a child into that house and she had no way of seeing how she could escape herself, so it was to painful to imagine the what-ifs.
    Sometimes babies just aren’t the epicenter of life.

    this is why I think women, left to make their OWN decisions, always try to what is best not only themselves but for the potential children they would bring into their lives.

    #333346

    TaraK
    Participant
    #333347

    I think the pope uses that one for a lot of things, too.

    Also, biologists.

    #333348

    berdawn
    Member

    Core_Models wrote >>

    I think the pope uses that one for a lot of things, too.

    Also, biologists.

    I don’t think the pope and biologists agree on too many issues related to behavior.

    #333349

    Your quote was “Your central point that life begins at conception would be a religious argument. I think the pope uses that one for a lot of things, too.”

    Again…biologists also would consider the biological organism at conception life. Not just the pope. It isn’t a religious argument.

    #333350

    Core_Models wrote >>

    I think the pope uses that one for a lot of things, too.

    Also, biologists.

    Some biologists. Most biologists (and scientists in general) over the last 20 years have rejected the genetic view that life begins at fertilization due to a variety of findings that you can read about (i.e. fertilization as an ongoing process, twinning, etc…). However, the genetic view is still a popular public view. The genetic argument is primarily a religious one, actually.

    #333351

    If you took the fertilized egg and placed it on Mars, picked it up in a rover, it would be defined as “life on mars”. It is a biological organism at that point, and I haven’t seen any biologist who would define it differently. You can argue if its a person, life as defined by self sustaining, etc., but by the pure biological definition…its life. Not religious at all.

Viewing 15 posts - 181 through 195 (of 202 total)

The forum ‘Politics’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe below: