[deej5871]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

A pro-choicer? yes. All pro-choicers? no. You could easily take 3 different pro-choice advocates and have one that wants there to be fewer (or almost no) abortions, one who doesn't care if there are more or fewer, and a third who wants more (though I've never heard of or met one of these). But they all believe that it's not the government's place to make a law banning all abortions.

So a pro-legalized-abortionist does agree with a pro choicer. Good, that's what I've been saying (see below).

Ok, here's the problem. It is shorter, but it doesn't mean the same thing. If you can stop shortening it, we can stop talking about it.

You keep talking about pro-abortion meaning that someone wants more abortions. But what about pro-life? Pro-lifers don't necessarily want more life, just less death. If the life never existed in the first place, they don't care. But if it did, they don't like it dying. Just because a name isn't completely accurate doesn't make it wrong.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by deej5871

You keep talking about pro-abortion meaning that someone wants more abortions. But what about pro-life? Pro-lifers don't necessarily want more life, just less death. If the life never existed in the first place, they don't care. But if it did, they don't like it dying. Just because a name isn't completely accurate doesn't make it wrong.

Pro-X means you're in favor of X. Many people oppose abortion but are still pro-choice. How do you explain that?

If a groupd chooses to call themselves something that's inaccurate, that's fine. If someone arguing against a group insists on calling that group something that's inaccurate instead of the group's more accurate chosen name, that person is an idiot. If that person had legitimate issues to argue with the group, that person would be letting those issues stand on their merits and not be wasting time on name-calling.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Okay..I'll fill you in. You don't have to take my word for it though, so we'll just assume this is a hypothetical debate based on the notion that what I'm saying is true:

Currently, if a woman can prove whose semen it was that she chose to take into her body which fertilized the egg she chose to allow to grow to a infant, he must pay a certain percentage of his income to the woman in order to help support the result of her choices. Do you support this denial of choice on the part of the man, or do you believe that only one gender has a constitutional right to such a thing and that one gender should be forced to pay for 18 years for the choices of a woman where they had no choice?

So this is entirely a financial argument? Women are objecting to being compelled to surrender their bodies for the public good, and men are objecting to paying money? I still can't say I care about this issue, but if it's such a big deal, I guess you have to ask yourself what the money is for. If it's for the interest of the child, then I guess you would argue for it being paid by tax dollars. If it's as punishment for something the father did (sex? leaving?), then I guess you could argue that the woman should have to pay the same punishment for the same infraction. Does that leave anything out?

[deej5871]

For the sake of shorter posts I'm cutting out stuff that is inconclusive (i.e. "food for thought" and others).

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Whatever, I hadn't thought there were a lot of unexpectedly pregnant couples where the man wanted a child and the woman didn't (outside of tv drama scenarios involving sabotaged birth control). But the point is, I think the pro-choice thing is about pregnancy, not child-rearing. And didn't you scold me last week just for bringing up child-rearing? Anyway, a man's desire for a child doesn't really compare to a woman's desire to not be reduced to an incubator for a parasitic life form for 9 months.

I thought of DH too, but I agree that I don't think that happens too often.

Anyway, you may be right that it isn't the raising the child that should be the problem, because adoption is always available. But nine months out of your life isn't too bad. It's not like the woman is stuck in prison or anything. Besides, this again comes back to "she had sex, she's responsible".

Well, ok, but I thought you said for you it was a potentiality issue. What makes this potentiality potent enough to fight for, and not that of a sperm and egg who never met but are still working towards becoming a child? Also, when a fertilized egg fails to implant, why shouldn't we fight for that potentiality to have a chance at life?

Think of it this way: If the sperm and egg don't meet, it is impossible that they would ever become a living child. However, If they do, there is a very great chance that it will end up being a child. That's the difference.

If a fertilized egg fails to implant, I'd like to think the doctors tried their best, and didn't just say "oh well" if a problem came up. Besides, I never said every single life could be saved. As before, I said that if the mother's life is in danger, it's okay that the fetus dies. If it's impossible to save the fertilized egg, I think it's okay that it dies. Realistically, not every child can be saved. Besides #2: It's not like implantation failure is the same as deliberately terminating the fetus.

edit: ok, I don't think the above will sound like what I wanted to ask, so here's another try. But I will leave the above because I don't believe in deleting (non-redundant) posts after the fact. The way I see it, either one objects to killing the fetus/zygote/blastocyst to protect what it is, or to protect what it might some day become (please correct me if I've missed a third reason). Sounds like you subscribe to both. So for the first, I ask for clarification: is it wrong to kill any collection of cells with human DNA? And for the second, I ask is it wrong to prevent a child from being born? Does that include abstinence and/or birth control?

I think it's wrong to kill any collection of cells that have a very great chance of becoming a living, breathing child. A collection of regular body cells will never become a child themselves.

No, prevention is fine. As I have reasoned before, it is because the sperm and egg haven't met yet.

Ok, but if I refuse to support my grandmother, would I be a murderer when she dies? Will that be the next law? What if she and I are currently in a bitter dispute over abortion when I decide to stop supporting her?

If you don't care for your child (a little different from grandmother, but I think it answers your question) and it dies you can be charged with criminal negligence. And that's just being negligent. Abortion is even worse than that. The mother isn't just negligent, she goes and makes sure the fetus is terminated.

If I drive drunk, what happens? It's possible nothing unwanted will happen, just like having sex. But, if something does happen, like I kill someone (or get pregnant), then it is my problem. I could go to jail for the rest of my life

That's different because there the government is imposing a punishment, not denying you access to an option that would otherwise save you from the consequences of your risky behavior.

Good point. I suppose that's true (I think it's impossible to come up with a perfect comparison to an existing law for this issue. The ability to kill a child before it's born is something that technology has brought us and ethics still need to catch up [kind of like Schiavo again..]), but in both cases it's because the government likes to save lives. If I say that the killing someone was just like an abortion, then I could say that the government is trying to save lives in both cases.

Oh fiddlesticks, back to basics. So is there a third possible rationale for believing abortion evil, besides potentiality or cruelty? Can I limit my consideration of this issue to those two explanations, or am I missing something?

I think you can limit it to just potentiality. I won't argue that it's cruel. I'll still term things like "kill the unborn child" but I don't think it's cruel. For me, it's still about it becoming a baby.

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Pro-X means you're in favor of X. Many people oppose abortion but are still pro-choice. How do you explain that?

If a groupd chooses to call themselves something that's inaccurate, that's fine. If someone arguing against a group insists on calling that group something that's inaccurate instead of the group's more accurate chosen name, that person is an idiot. If that person had legitimate issues to argue with the group, that person would be letting those issues stand on their merits and not be wasting time on name-calling.

If you're pro-choice and consider abortion wrong, you might want to think about changing sides. I mean, seriously, anyone who thinks that abortion is taking a potential child's life and still supports it being legal just doesn't make sense. You'd be advocating murder.

The point of my comparison is that the words don't always mean what is implied. Pro-life does not mean more life, so pro-abortion doesn't mean more abortions. Pro-abortion, when I used it, was used as I defined it, meaning that they wanted legal abortion.

Better example: Pro-choice doesn't simply mean you want choice. If it did, then pro-choicers must mean that want me to have the choice to kill my boss, or rape some woman, or choose to do anything I want to do. That would technically fit for the term pro-choice. But that isn't what it means. It means what people want it to mean. Therefore, pro-abortion is not necessarily implying anything untrue about the position. That is, unless, you think pro-choice implies those things I said.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

So this is entirely a financial argument?

We've already determined that it's an argument concerning "choice". If "choice" is a constitutional right for one, it should be so for all.

Women are objecting to being compelled to surrender their bodies for the public good, and men are objecting to paying money?

One is inconvenienced physically for 9 months having to carry a child. The other is inconvienced for 18 years, both physically (having to engage in physical labor with the compensation going elsewhere) and the emotional toll such a situation brings about. If it's fair for one to chose not be inconvenienced in such a way for such a short time, then it can hardly be fair to expect the other to PAY for that woman's choice.

I still can't say I care about this issue, but if it's such a big deal, I guess you have to ask yourself what the money is for. If it's for the interest of the child, then I guess you would argue for it being paid by tax dollars

WHY ON EARTH should other taxpayers have to pay for the choices of individual women? With choice comes responsbility. What we find out that this debate isn't about choice, it's about the right for women to be irresponsible. Otherwise, everyone would have the right to chose.

If it's as punishment for something the father did (sex? leaving?), then I guess you could argue that the woman should have to pay the same punishment for the same infraction. Does that leave anything out?

If a women can chose, how can it constitutional that a man has no choice and must pay for the results of her choices? It's illogical and immoral.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by deej5871

Think of it this way: If the sperm and egg don't meet, it is impossible that they would ever become a living child. However, If they do, there is a very great chance that it will end up being a child. That's the difference.

I think it is better put like this: Put a zygote in a suitable environment and feed it nutrients it will develop into a child. Put either sperm or egg in any environment and feed it nutrients it will not develop into a child.

A zygote and a child are the same thing but at a different stage of development. Egg/sperm change genetic structure dramatically after conception and therefore the being you are dealing with is different to that of before.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by krankklown

What is being chosen? To have or not to have? Why can't that choice be made prior to getting laid?

Indeed, if you choose to have sex, you choose to be a parent. Directly, or indirectly.

I know that makes people like, you know, responsible for their actions, but hey.

And yes, if you are pro-choice like it or not, you are pro-abortion.

Directly, or indirectly you ARE supporting it.

That would be like me saying, I was pro- having the courts decide if someone needed the death penalty, but was against the Death Penalty.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Indeed, if you choose to have sex, you choose to be a parent. Directly, or indirectly.

No, you are choosing to have sex. Simple as that

Being a parent is optional, adobtion is a option, abortion is a option and condoms and birth control are options. With so many optionals how can you say its a choice to be a parent

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Athens

No, you are choosing to have sex. Simple as that

Being a parent is optional, adobtion is a option, abortion is a option and condoms and birth control are options. With so many optionals how can you say its a choice to be a parent

With this type of logic, you can have the following equally intellectually vapid example:

When you choose to use a gun to kill someone, you choose to murder

..uh..no you don't, you chose to pull a trigger of a gun.

Going to jail for murder is optional, them actually dying or just living the rest of their life as a vegetable is an option. With so many options, who can say it's a choice to murder?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Athens

No, you are choosing to have sex. Simple as that

Being a parent is optional, adobtion is a option, abortion is a option and condoms and birth control are options. With so many optionals how can you say its a choice to be a parent

With so many options available in trying NOT to become a parent, how can you say that potential parenthood has no bearing on sex???

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Athens

No, you are choosing to have sex. Simple as that

No, no it isn't. Sex causes pregnancy, and since there is no single way to make 100% sure one doesn't get pregnant, you are directly or indirectly choosing to have kids.

Now whether you decided to take the responsibility for your own actions, or cop out and not, well that is up to you.

Being a parent is optional, adobtion is a option, abortion is a option and condoms and birth control are options. With so many optionals how can you say its a choice to be a parent

Yes and a lot of those are NOT I repeat NOT taking responsibilities for your own actions.

So by all means, stick it in whoever you want.

But one day when you get a child support request in the mail, don't whine about it. You choose to have sex.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

No, no it isn't. Sex causes pregnancy, and since there is no single way to make 100% sure one doesn't get pregnant, you are directly or indirectly choosing to have kids.

Now whether you decided to take the responsibility for your own actions, or cop out and not, well that is up to you.

Yes and a lot of those are NOT I repeat NOT taking responsibilities for your own actions.

So by all means, stick it in whoever you want.

But one day when you get a child support request in the mail, don't whine about it. You choose to have sex.

by not using birth control, by not using condoms, by not blah blah blah then you are chosing to have a kid. If you dont want a kid and you dont take any mesures to prevent having a kid then your stuck with the responsibilities of having a kid unless adoption is a option. What about guys and girls that get fixed. Sex still to get kids? Nope its just sex.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by deej5871

But nine months out of your life isn't too bad. It's not like the woman is stuck in prison or anything.[/b]

Hmm, being in a confined cell or having your body disfigured, stretched and kicked from the inside by an unwelcome parasite, perhaps never to fully recover, having your hormones go nuts and being out of control of your emotions and gastrointestinal stability...doesn't really seem comparable. Besides, who said it was ok to imprison women for 9 months to save that ball of cells, which probably won't have a loving home to live in after it becomes a person?

Pregnancy is physically a horrible experience, on par with torture. For most cases, that punishment is outweighed by the emotional benefits of love for and from the child that will hopefully result. If instead that emotional component is negative, because the whole mess is being forced on you against your will, it only makes the physical part worse.

Besides, this again comes back to "she had sex, she's responsible".

That is a moral argument, and is debatable but not decisive. I think it has run its course, and I will only address it again if some evidence is given why it should be a legal argument as well.

Think of it this way: If the sperm and egg don't meet, it is impossible that they would ever become a living child. However, If they do, there is a very great chance that it will end up being a child. That's the difference.

What chance is that, exactly? Anyone know or can find out? PS: if they haven't met, there is a chance they will meet, just as after they have met, there is a chance they will eventually become a child.

I think it's wrong to kill any collection of cells that have a very great chance of becoming a living, breathing child.

Ok, but what does that mean exactly? Why is it wrong? Is it because the collection of cells is a person right now, or because at some point in the future it has a certain chance of becoming a person? And if that's it, what chance should that be? Let me elaborate on that last one. There is a certain (distinct) chance of survival (past birth) of a zygote at each point in time during its development. If the chance is 1% at conception, and 50% at 4.5 months, at what percent should the cut-off be for calling that zygote a person? How do you decide such a thing? I can't imagine ever saying "sorry, you only have (x-1) percent chance of surviving, and you need (x) percent to be a person." It seems to me when I think of it like that, you can really only evaluate person-hood on the basis of the here-and-now, like is that ball of cells a person right now, or just the prelude to one? Am I missing something?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by deej5871

If you're pro-choice and consider abortion wrong, you might want to think about changing sides. I mean, seriously, anyone who thinks that abortion is taking a potential child's life and still supports it being legal just doesn't make sense. You'd be advocating murder.[/b]

It's your line of reasoning that doesn't make sense. You said yourself that you (for example) don't consider it murder, as you're arguing against abortion at the same time. Yet in the above reasoning you've gone from "oppose abortion" to "advocating murder."

There are plenty of reasons to oppose abortion without wanting it outlawed. You might think abortion is a huge waste of resources compared with better contraception, plus it has a certain risk of fatality. Also perhaps you want to encourage the US population to catch up to our competitors like China and India; that's certainly no excuse for enforcing increased population. Or perhaps you are waiting to adopt, and reduced numbers of abortions would get you a child faster, but that doesn't mean you consider it murder. Or perhaps you believe abortion is wrong (not murder, just wrong) for entirely religious reasons, but you believe in the separation of church and state. All these people oppose abortion on a level of personal choice, but not as a matter of law.

Pro-abortion, when I used it, was used as I defined it, meaning that they wanted legal abortion.

I'm sorry, no. You can't just redefine words in the language as part of a debate. And even if you could, you didn't (you never said "pro-abortion (which I hearby define as "in favor of legal abortion")).

It means what people want it to mean.

No, it means what people have agreed it means. The Pro-Life side has established what you have shown is a less than accurate term to describe themselves, and their opponents have not objected, and now it is a term on its own, and that is what makes it mean something different than the words it's composed of. Furthermore, by agreed-on, I mean that both sides of the debate agree with each other, not that members of one side agree with each other.

Everything else you said leading to this quote is true. Agreed-on terms are not always the same as the literal meaning of their words. And if you want to start a debate on the accuracy of the term "pro-choice," you can. But the fact is, that fight was settled a long time ago, and "pro-choice" now has its own agreed-on meaning, it means "against outlawing abortion." "Pro-abortion" has a (strong) implied meaning, in that in English "Pro-X" means "in favor of or supporting X," and that meaning is different from the agreed meaning of "pro-choice." But if you want to start your own organization and call it "Pro-abortion," I'm sure after enough time you will be able to claim that term as your own and in doing so change its meaning (if your organization is significant enough that anyone cares).

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

We've already determined that it's an argument concerning "choice". If "choice" is a constitutional right for one, it should be so for all.[/b]

It is well known that "pro-choice" refers to one's choices about their own body. I'm sorry if that juicy nugget has eluded you for this long. Without knowing that, I'm surprised you haven't been suggesting that "pro-choicers" probably never pay any of their taxes, because they choose not to.

both physically (having to engage in physical labor with the compensation going elsewhere)

The law (I assume) doesn't care where the money comes from. If he doesn't want to work to get money, I don't think he has to, does he? I still don't care about this child-support thing. If it's such a big deal, what was the justification for enacting the child-support laws in the first place?

If a women can chose, how can it constitutional that a man has no choice and must pay for the results of her choices? It's illogical and immoral.

So you're arguing to abolish child-support? Go for it. This is so off-topic.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by undotwa

I think it is better put like this: Put a zygote in a suitable environment and feed it nutrients it will develop into a child. Put either sperm or egg in any environment and feed it nutrients it will not develop into a child.

How can you even bear typing this?

If you want to use variable logic, only one thing can vary. But here, not only do you have sperm/egg and zygote varying, but you have "suitable environment" and "any environment." Both environments in which BOTH can "develop into a child" (yes, both can despite your claims that a sperm and egg cannot) are the same: in the woman's reproductive system. The zygote grows here and depends on the host body (Mom). The sperm can fertilize the egg here and, once combined, will depend on the host body. Same environment...so what's your argument? Greater potentiality? Potentiality is not an argument.

You, potentially, could have had sex with her that one night, but you chose not to. That egg got flushed out of her system within the month, and a few million spermatazoa of yours have since "passed" as well. You killed the possibility of a child being born, just as a young girl at an abortion clinic does... The point in time might be different, but the argument is basically the same: you're avoiding letting a child be born and you're letting some microorganisms die.

And going back to your comparison. A zygote cannot become a human baby without a dependence on its host (Mom). A spermatozoon, however, can fertilize an egg in a petri dish.

Originally Posted by undotwa

A zygote and a child are the same thing but at a different stage of development. Egg/sperm change genetic structure dramatically after conception and therefore the being you are dealing with is different to that of before.

And the zygote has other dramatically different structural qualities than a baby...where is your argument?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by undotwa

Put a zygote in a suitable environment and feed it nutrients it will develop into a child. Put either sperm or egg in any environment and feed it nutrients it will not develop into a child.[/b]

Put the sperm and egg in the same dish and they would be right behind the zygote. This is not the slightest bit convincing.

Egg/sperm change genetic structure dramatically

No more dramatically than every cell at every stage of the cell cycle. DNA-based arguments for what defines a human are weak to start with. To base them on the quaternary structure of DNA is just silly.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

And yes, if you are pro-choice like it or not, you are pro-abortion.

Hello, sir or madam. Thank you for posting in this discussion without addressing the previous evidence against your assertion. I know it's difficult, reading all those words and stuff, so for your convenience I will restate the important parts. I eagerly await your resonse.

1. If I am opposed to all abortion on a religious level, but I believe that the separation of church and state is more important than imposing my faith on others, are you saying you would call me "pro-abortion?"

2. If you are saying that "pro-abortion" means the same as "pro-legalized-abortion," doesn't that mean the word "legalized" is meaningless? If you don't think the aspect of it being legal is of any importance, wouldn't that mean that it doesn't matter to you what the law is, and you should leave the decision on what the laws are to people who do think that the law is important?

3. If you were outside an abortion clinic protesting, and a doctor came out with a fresh zygote and offered to implant it in you for you to nurture until birth, would you accept his offer?

That would be like me saying, I was pro- having the courts decide if someone needed the death penalty, but was against the Death Penalty.

Ah, an excellent example. Many people are against use of the death penalty for reasons that don't prevent them from being opposed to removing it from the government's options. For example: Ligitating capital cases costs the taxpayers more than life-imprisonment cases. The death penalty is a lesser punishment for child-molesters than lifetime abuse by other prisoners would be. Some think the death penalty should only be applied in cases of confession or being caught red-handed. Some might think it should only be used for mass murderers, not the normal kind. Many believe it is currently used to discriminate against African Americans, but they still support it for fair use against the worst criminals. Anyone holding any of these beliefs would fit the conditions in your quote.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

It is well known that "pro-choice" refers to one's choices about their own body. I'm sorry if that juicy nugget has eluded you for this long. Without knowing that, I'm surprised you haven't been suggesting that "pro-choicers" probably never pay any of their taxes, because they choose not to.

So AGAIN, why is that men have to pay 18 years for what some other person choses to do with THEIR bodies? If it's unconsitutional to make someone live with the results of the actions they take regarding sex in the case of women, how is it not unconstitutional to do the same for men?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

I still don't care about this child-support thing. If it's such a big deal, what was the justification for enacting the child-support laws in the first place?

It is a big deal. If "choice" is a big deal, then it matters. One side of the equation is being given "choice", while the other side is being denied it. It's phoney to pretend to be for "choice" in this issue but only for one side. I refuse to hear people support "pro-choice" then hypocritically either ignore choice for all sides or wish to deny it to all. You can't logically have one and not the other. Of course, the debate for "choice" never has been a logical one.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

One side of the equation is being given "choice", while the other side is being denied it. It's phoney to pretend to be for "choice" in this issue but only for one side. I refuse to hear people support "pro-choice" then hypocritically either ignore choice for all sides or wish to deny it to all. You can't logically have one and not the other. Of course, the debate for "choice" never has been a logical one.

The choice is about personal liberty, not about money. One side has the choice of their own bodies and the other is whining about money. If that's all you object to, then make a case to eliminate child-support (because you don't believe in it, or because birth-control is no longer all the man's responsibility, or because it's society's responsibility not just the one man's, for example). This has nothing to do with whether abortion is wrong or should be outlawed. Have you heard the expression "it's time to **** or get off the pot?" Either propose some way to fix your child support spasm or stop whining about it.

As I understand it, a lot of men just neglect to pay child support. Maybe you could be one of those if this offends you so much. I still don't care.

And you almost got me to forget (nice work). What was the reasoning for enacting child support laws in the first place? I'm asking since you agreed to be my information source on this topic, not rhetorically.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Athens

by not using birth control, by not using condoms, by not blah blah blah then you are chosing to have a kid. If you dont want a kid and you dont take any mesures to prevent having a kid then your stuck with the responsibilities of having a kid unless adoption is a option. What about guys and girls that get fixed. Sex still to get kids? Nope its just sex.

The ONLY time when sex is just sex is when one of the people having sex is sterile. Or say homosexual sex.

Otherwise, there is ALWAYS a chance that pregnancy can occur.

And UK, I used to be against abortion before I was even spiritual.

Being against abortion isn't a religious thing.

Separation between church and state has nothing to do with it.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Otherwise, there is ALWAYS a chance that pregnancy can occur.

Which is why we have birth control and abortion.

And UK, I used to be against abortion before I was even spiritual.

Being against abortion isn't a religious thing.

Well, being against abortion IS a religious thing most of the time, but you're right, you can still be against it and not be religious (it's just less likely).

You can also disagree with the practice but be pro-choice.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Which is why we have birth control and abortion.

With Birth Control it isn't always effective, and abortion isn't taking responsibility for your actions, like I said in the first place.

Well, being against abortion IS a religious thing most of the time, but you're right, you can still be against it and not be religious (it's just less likely).

You can also disagree with the practice but be pro-choice.

You are pro that abortion is legal. That sir is pro abortion in way it is used.

"pro choice" is just a feel good word used to make people forget about the killing bit.

It's a choice we really shouldn't have.

No one knows when life really starts. And until we do, we shouldn't be killing any living growing human being on purpose. And most of the time, It's used for nothing more than a replacement for birth control.

And believe it or not, that is the most reason given for abortions done in America today.

But you know, I would be willing to even give a little.

Say, make abortions used as birth control illegal.

Start making people take responsibility for their actions.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Being against abortion isn't a religious thing.

It is for some people. Please try to stay focused here, I understand that it might be hard for you. I'll try to help:

Zimp: pro-choice = pro-abortion, don't deny it
Skel: no, they're not the same. what if you oppose abortion for religious reasons but support religious freedom more than you oppose abortion?
Zimp: don't try to pawn off abortion as a strictly religious thing.

Is that a fair summary? Do you remember what we're talking about now? Incidentally, this is what the quote tags are for, so you know what you're responding to. Anyway, my response to you is that I wasn't saying abortion is all this or all that, I was giving an example of someone who is against abortion but still pro-life. Was it a clear enough example for you? If not, what about it was confusing to you so I can help you understand?

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

It is for some people.

I didn't say either way Skeley ol pal.

Some religious people are against murder too. But being against murder isn't a religious thing.

Please try to stay focused here, I understand that it might be hard for you. I'll try to help:

How pretentiously condescending. I actually chuckled to my self a bit there.

Zimp: pro-choice = pro-abortion, don't deny it
Skel: If I am opposed to all abortion on a religious level, but I believe that the separation of church and state is more important than imposing my faith on others
Zimp: don't try to pawn off abortion as a strictly religious thing.

BTW I just fixed that little quote above for you, to a more honest approach.

Is that a fair summary?

No, as I said I fixed it.

Do you remember what we're talking about now?

I remember what *I* was talking about. It's not my turn to keep track of what you ramble on about.

Incidentally, this is what the quote tags are for, so you know what you're responding to. Anyway, my response to you is that I wasn't saying abortion is all this or all that, I was giving an example of someone who is against abortion but still pro-life.

I know what your example was. I still don't agree. If you are pro-choice you are either DIRECTLY, or INDIRECTLY for abortion.

You don't have to believe abortion is right to indirectly support it.
Understand?

Was it a clear enough example for you? If not, what about it was confusing to you so I can help you understand?

I am wondering how you think you are going to teach me anything, when it's clear you are full of it.
(See, I can play your silly game too which is what I was doing in the first place)

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

With Birth Control it isn't always effective, and abortion isn't taking responsibility for your actions, like I said in the first place.

Birth control, when used properly, is 99%+ effective. Responsibility is in the eye of the beholder. Some would argue that it's less responsible to bring up that child in an unwelcome environment...then again, you'd probably argue that it was irresponsible to have sex in the first place. Humans are programmed to procreate; however, we are at a point in history where the process doesn't always demand extended results.

Originally Posted by Zimphire

You are pro that abortion is legal. That sir is pro abortion in way it is used.

"pro choice" is just a feel good word used to make people forget about the killing bit.

It's a choice we really shouldn't have.

What do you not get? One can be pro-choice and let others make such choices while being morally against abortion. One can be pro-choice and still refuse to have an abortion, as well. The "pro-abortion" wording that you throw around is a conservative "feel good" word that makes conservative people feel morally superior.

Pro-legalized-abortion is different than pro-abortion. If you throw around the emotionally-filled "pro-abortion," the other crowd should be able to throw around "pro-choice," which is perhaps even less emotionally-charged.

Originally Posted by Zimphire

No one knows when life really starts. And until we do, we shouldn't be killing any living growing human being on purpose for most of the time, nothing more than a replacement for birth control.

"When life starts" is subjective and will remain subjective. The eggs are produced early in the girl's life. Sperm is produced regularly in a boy. Both are "alive." Eggs are alive, fertilized or not.

[Deimos]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

No one knows when life really starts. And until we do, we shouldn't be killing any living growing human being on purpose.

Then we need to expand the definition of killing an unborn baby to accommodate the choice of the mother. If you want to call it murder, then by all means do so. The right to abort a pregnancy should be a given, whatever you, or the law wish to call it, IMO.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Birth control, when used properly, is 99%+ effective.

Yes, and my sister has gotten pregnant twice when she was on BC, that was 99% effective. Much to her husbands dismay.

Though he bit the pillow and took responsibility for his actions.

Responsibility is in the eye of the beholder.

In other words, people can talk themselves into not feeling responsible when they really should be.

Some would argue that it's less responsible to bring up that child in an unwelcome environment...then again, you'd probably argue that it was irresponsible to have sex in the first place.

Indeed. If you don't want any children, don't have sex, or get permanently fixed.
Feeling that way, and having sex and not doing these things is selfish.

Humans are programmed to procreate; however, we are at a point in history where the process doesn't always demand extended results.

Then we need to use self control.

What do you not get?

I don't remember mentioning not getting something.

One can be pro-choice and let others make such choices while being morally against abortion.

I agree, but you are still indirectly supporting abortion. Choose to or not. Admit it or not.

One can be pro-choice and still refuse to have an abortion, as well. The "pro-abortion" wording that you throw around is a conservative "feel good" word that makes conservative people feel morally superior.

Actually the term is Pro-Life. And it fits perfectly. Maybe we should change it to "Pro-not-having-sex-until-you-can-be-responsible-for-your-actions.

Maybe if people's attitude towards sex would change, and it was less of a casual "no big deal" type of thing, you'd see a difference.

"When life starts" is subjective and will remain subjective.

Exactly and since there is no way to prove it either way, we shouldn't be doing it.

See I am against the death penalty too. Only for the reason that we might send someone to death that isn't guilty.

Unless we know 100%, we shouldn't be doing it.

At least I am consistent.

If someone doesn't want a child, there is always adoption.

[Deimos]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

"When life starts" is subjective and will remain subjective. The eggs are produced early in the girl's life. Sperm is produced regularly in a boy. Both are "alive." Eggs are alive, fertilized or not.

I take the view that even if the foetus is able to do a song 'n' dance in the womb, the mother (and father if he is around), hold the decision as to whether or not they wish to have the baby.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Deimos

Then we need to expand the definition of killing an unborn baby to accommodate the choice of the mother

LOL! Yes, expand the definition, dishonest or not, just so the mommy wont feel bad.

If you want to call it murder, then by all means do so. The right to abort a pregnancy should be a given, whatever you, or the law wish to call it, IMO.

You mean the right to kill a growing living being that did nothing wrong because it's cramping your lifestyle. Right?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

and abortion isn't taking responsibility for your actions

I'm confused by this argument; perhaps you can explain it in a little more detail. Seems like this is implying that having heart surgery is not taking responsibility for a lifetime of poor diet habits. And having a tapeworm removed is not taking responsibility for enjoying a vacation to the amazon. And using the internet to submit your taxes is not taking responsibility for procrastination.

No one knows when life really starts.

"Life" doesn't start. Life does not come from non-life (not lately at any rate). What we are disagreeing over is when one form of life begins to be a "person" as defined as something that is the same as the rest of us. So let's start finding out. When do you think it starts, and what's your basis for thinking that?

If you are pro-choice you are either DIRECTLY, or INDIRECTLY for abortion.
You don't have to believe abortion is right to indirectly support it.

So you're actually saying that someone who is opposed to abortion for reasons of faith you would call "pro-abortion?" Would you call me "pro-reality-tv?" (if you still haven't read this thread through, I am not indifferent to reality tv, I DESPISE it. But I don't think it should be illegal).

Have you responded to my question about whether you think the word "legalized" is meaningless or not? (and if not, would you please do so?)

[Deimos]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

LOL! Yes, expand the definition, dishonest or not, just so the mommy wont feel bad.

I'm quite sure many mothers who wish to abort their pregnancy, aren't doing so because it's an inconvenience to them.

You mean the right to kill a growing living being that did nothing wrong because it's cramping your lifestyle. Right?

Parent's choice.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

I'm confused by this argument; perhaps you can explain it in a little more detail. Seems like this is implying that having heart surgery is not taking responsibility for a lifetime of poor diet habits. And having a tapeworm removed is not taking responsibility for enjoying a vacation to the amazon. And using the internet to submit your taxes is not taking responsibility for procrastination.

Wow comparing a growing living human to a tapeworm and having an abortion to heart surgery. Way to show me!

I am beginning to understand why you think the way you do now.

"Life" doesn't start.

So tell me, when does life begin then? Are we always alive?

Life does not come from non-life (not lately at any rate).

Oh I am a big fan of biogenesis myself.

What we are disagreeing over is when one form of life begins to be a "person" as defined as something that is the same as the rest of us.

No, no WE aren't. You may be. But *I* am not.

I am saying WE DON'T KNOW when life begins. Stop putting words in my mouth.

So let's start finding out. When you you think it starts, and what's your basis for thinking that?

I have no clue. None. I wouldn't even begin to imagine.

So you're actually saying that someone who is opposed to abortion for reasons of faith you would call "pro-abortion?"

No, I am saying that someone that is against abortion, but still supports it being legal is STILL pro-abortion indirectly.

Have you responded to my question about whether you think the word "legalized" is meaningless or not? (and if not, would you please do so?)

Probably because it was a silly question.

Of course the word legalized has meaning.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

I agree, but you are still indirectly supporting abortion. Choose to or not. Admit it or not.

You're supporting the choice of abortion, it doesn't mean you are pro-abortion.

Originally Posted by Zimphire

The term is Pro-Life. And it fits perfectly. Maybe we should change it to "Pro-not-having-sex-until-you-can-be-responsible-for-your-actions.

The term conservatives use for the people they disagree with is the emotionally-charged "pro-abortion." The other term they use to emotionally describe themselves are "pro-life." Maybe you should change it to "anti-legalized-abortion."

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Maybe if people's attitude towards sex would change, and it was less of a casual "no big deal" type of thing, you'd see a difference.

Oh, if only things were so simple.

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Exactly and since there is no way to prove it either way, we shouldn't be doing it.

Proof has nothing to do with it. The way you address it is philosophical. Are you a vegetarian?

Originally Posted by Zimphire

If someone doesn't want a child, there is always adoption.

Because adoption-rates are so incredibly high as is right now, right? If abortion was eliminated and every pregnancy was given up for adoption, can you imagine the potential problem?

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Deimos

I'm quite sure many mothers who wish to abort their pregnancy, aren't doing so because it's an inconvenience to them.

Oh I am sure there are! But that is the reason MOST abortions are made.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/poli...abreasons.html

"unready for responsibility" 21%

"can't afford baby now" 21%

"concerned about how having baby would change her life" 16%

Parent's choice.

Well how about later on when they are older? Can the parents end their life then too? What's the real difference?

[Deimos]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Of course the word legalized has meaning.

Are you willing to go back to the days of back-street abortion "clinics" in which women would be brutally cut apart in botched attempts at aborting their pregnancy? You do know that if you make it illegal, this is what will happen. Given the choice, I think we can safely assume it'd be better for women to have this done in a regulated, and safe environment.


Also, making it illegal would not make it automatically ethically right, IMO.

[Deimos]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Oh I am sure there are! But that is the reason MOST abortions are made.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/poli...abreasons.html

"unready for responsibility" 21%

"can't afford baby now" 21%

"concerned about how having baby would change her life" 16%

So for the other percentage who are genuine, and not for the reasons you outlined above, should they be lumped in with these groups of women? Is that fair?

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

You're supporting the choice of abortion, it doesn't mean you are pro-abortion.

Not directly no.
But indirectly you are indeed supporting abortion. AGAIN, like it or not, admit it or not.

The term conservatives use for the people they disagree with is the emotionally-charged "pro-abortion." The other term they use to emotionally describe themselves are "pro-life." Maybe you should change it to "anti-legalized-abortion."

The term pro-life suits fine. And it is emotionally charged because IT'S AN EMOTIONAL MATTER. So should it be.

It surely shouldn't be "hidden" or "made nicer"

If a lot of gals would actually see what happens when they get abortions, or see the many women that are emotionally scarred for life because they had an abortion, they might think twice.

You know, instead of treating it just like a choice, a walk in the park.

Oh, if only things were so simple.

Oh the choice is simple. Getting people to do it is not. Some people don't want to be bothered with reality and responsibility.

Proof has nothing to do with it.

Uh, would you send a guy to the gas chamber without proof he was guilty?

Would you bury a man without proof he was dead?

It's the same thing.

Because adoption-rates are so incredibly high as is right now, right? If abortion was eliminated and every pregnancy was given up for adoption, can you imagine the potential problem?

I know people right now that are dying to adopt a child.

They have to wait in line.

new born babies aren't hard to get adopted. Not at all.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Deimos

Are you willing to go back to the days of back-street abortion "clinics" in which women would be brutally cut apart in botched attempts at aborting their pregnancy?

This is my favorite excuse for abortions.

"IF you don't legalize it, people are going to do it anyhow, and botch it up!!11"

People are going to do A LOT OF THINGS illegal. That is on them. NO ONE IS MAKING them get an abortion. They are making their own life choice. And they then would have to take responsibilities for their actions. It's not up to the gov to make sure they don't harm themselves in that way. And it didn't happen as much as you think it did.

No one is making them use abortion as birth control.

And again, I am not taking about making ALL abortion illegal.

Also, making it illegal would not make it automatically ethically right, IMO.

Huh? Make what ethically right.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Deimos

So for the other percentage who are genuine, and not for the reasons you outlined above, should they be lumped in with these groups of women? Is that fair?

You know what, I would be happy if they were just more strict on who could get abortions.

Those who got pregnant because of laziness AKA using abortion for birth Control should be made to have the kid anyhow.

If it's going to harm the mother or kill her, then I can see were abortion would be an option.

But just because the baby is going to cramp your style, or you can't afford it, no. Those aren't valid reasons. You can always give it up for adoption.

There are a high demand for new born babies.

I've even heard females says "I don't want to give it up for adoption. I don't want it, but I don't want anyone else to have it either"

How selfish, and self centered can you get?

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Wow comparing a growing living human to a tapeworm and having an abortion to heart surgery. Way to show me!

I am beginning to understand why you think the way you do now.

The comparison is apt enough. All have life/death consequences for an action taken in enjoyment. If someone eats unhealthily and can only be saved by heart surgery, shoud he instead just be responsible for his actions and die?

Originally Posted by Zimphire

So tell me, when does life begin then? Are we always alive?

Technically, yes. We come from a continuous stream of life. As far as beginnings, go, you could argue that sperm and eggs are created (though they are created from life, as well); they are living things and when combined they can develop into another living thing.

Originally Posted by Zimphire

No, no WE aren't. You may be. But *I* am not.

I am saying WE DON'T KNOW when life begins. Stop putting words in my mouth.

You'd be better off agreeing with him. Life as we know it right now on Earth does not begin (though it perhaps once did); it's a continuous process.

[zerostar]

>And again, I am not taking about making ALL abortion illegal.

What abortion situations would you deem legal?

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

You're supporting the choice of abortion, it doesn't mean you are pro-abortion.

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Not directly no.
But indirectly you are indeed supporting abortion. AGAIN, like it or not, admit it or not.

So if you hate the sin, you indirectly hate the sinner, like it or not, admit it or not?

[Deimos]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

This is my favorite excuse for abortions.

"IF you don't legalize it, people are going to do it anyhow, and botch it up!!11"

People are going to do A LOT OF THINGS illegal. That is on them. NO ONE IS MAKING them get an abortion. They are making their own life choice. And they then would have to take responsibilities for their actions. It's not up to the gov to make sure they don't harm themselves in that way. And it didn't happen as much as you think it did.

It's not an excuse, it's a reality. It will come to that if you outlaw it, that';s the way oit was long before it was legal. I make no pretence as to my backing of abortion, but to brush under the carpet what would happen if it was illegal, is short-sighted.

So, again. You'd prefer that it was illegal, knowing that women would indeed undertake the procedure by unskilled people, but that's ok then, because they are then responsible?

They're responsible for their actions whether or not it's illegal. Making it illegal won;t make every pregnant woman suddenly have a flash of realisation that what they are doing must be wrong.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

The comparison is apt enough.

Your opinion.

If someone eats unhealthily and can only be saved by heart surgery, shoud he instead just be responsible for his actions and die?

Well that is just effecting HIS life now isn't it? That is why the comparisons aren't valid.

Technically, yes. We come from a continuous stream of life.

Proof?

As far as beginnings, go, you could argue that sperm and eggs are created (though they are created from life, as well); they are living things and when combined they can develop into another living thing.

Sperm and egg cannot create anything living by themselves.

You'd be better off agreeing with him. Life as we know it right now on Earth does not begin (though it perhaps once did); it's a continuous process.

That is your opinion. One not based on fact.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by AKcrab

So if you hate the sin, you indirectly hate the sinner, like it or not, admit it or not?

Is this a thread derail I smell?

And no. Not the same, not comparable (Even though I know you'll try, so start your own thread please)

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Life as we know it right now on Earth does not begin (though it perhaps once did); it's a continuous process.

This I will agree with, the way I see it aborting a zygote is no different then unused sperm or a montly cycle design to KILL an egg.

They are both life, they are both alive.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Deimos

So, again. You'd prefer that it was illegal, knowing that women would indeed undertake the procedure by unskilled people, but that's ok then, because they are then responsible?

No I would prefer it to be illegal, and have everyone be responsible for their own actions.

If a woman decided to take her own babies life, well that is on her, and the consequences that come from that will also be on her.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by zerostar

This I will agree with, the way I see it aborting a zygote is no different then unused sperm or a montly cycle design to KILL an egg.

They are both life, they are both alive.

Difference is, one is a growing living human being that may or may not have a living soul (we don't know), one is not, and does not.