| On the issue of abortion, are you pro-life or pro-choice? (Explain why.) |
|
|
|
Asked 2 years ago
by Deathwalker  United States |
|
About
Sole supporter of the What If Theory.
What if I didn't say that?
|
7 Points
|
I am Pro-life because I believe that human life begins before birth. Therefore, it is manslaughter.
Others that are Pro-choice believe that life begins at natural birth. Therefore, it is removal of foreign tissue from a woman's body.
I wanted to get this in before people started yelling at each other.
I believe you have the right to your opinion. No question. But then you tell me what I believe in? How do you know? Divine intervention? You are forcing your opinion about me, to others, and you do not know what my opinion is. How crass and indignant of you. BTW, see, no yelling. You have the right to your opinion, NOT MINE.
very well said-no yelling.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Good question. Deciding when a fetus becomes human is a philosophical and religious choice. (not scientific) Therefore, my beliefs can not force anybody to do anything. I just defined 90% of the difference between Pro-choice and Pro-life. (The last 10% is the nut jobs on both sides)
I did not go into the graduations between the two (pro or anti late term abortion, rape and incest or catastrophic health problems for the mother) because Deathwalker asked for a yes and no. I just pointed out that where we stand on when a life becomes human determines our stance. I even disclosed my own bias.
I think your view about Pro-choice people is wrong, well it is in my case.
I am Pro-choice for the individual and I know life begins before birth. Every woman who has carried a child and felt it move and kick knows life starts long before birth.
A person makes their individual choice and It's none of my business.
Sorry you feel that way. If it's a child, it's murder. It may not be against the law where you are, but most Western countries consider infanticide murder.
You can believe what you like, freedom of religion guarantees it. It also guarantees that my actions aren't bound by your belie3fs. THAT is the issue, in a nutshell.
But I wasn't talking about religion. People believe all sorts of things about when life begins. Some Fundamentalist Catholics believe that eggs and sperm are sacred. I believe that fetuses are unborn babies from sometime before viability and/or quickening. Other Christians believe it's when the baby is actually born. My beliefs are closer to a traditional Jewish position than a traditional Christian position and do not depend on my Christian beliefs.
It is about religion, whether you realize it or not. If it doesn't have a soul--a religious concept--it isn't murder to abort it. Pro-'lifers' say that their religious opinion of when the fetus becomes ensouled should be the law of the land.
Not me. And I'm a pretty religious guy.
You've never heard me refer to the soul when discussing abortion. I'm against abortion on demand because it can do the same thing to society as sanctioned genocide. As much damage as the sanctioned genocide of Jews in Germany or the Native population in the US.
Evidence doesn't support you. Remember the big predictions of a violent crime wave for the 1990s? And that it didn't happen? Well the best information on WHY it didn't happen is that the people most likely to commit those crimes--poor, broken families--weren't born--because their mothers had abortions on demand.
You asked, "Remember the big predictions of a violent crime wave for the 1990s?"
Sorry, I don't remember that. I was going toward a divorce in 1973 and consumed with that. All I remember from that time was that everyone I knew was horrified that a mother would want to kill her child.
I later came to realize that the thinking behind it was reasonable, but still didn't have a good feeling in my "gut". It wasn't until a pro-life Christian explained the difference as "life" should be protected and a "growth" in the body had no such protection that I understood how the pro-choice people could sleep at night.
I still believe that abortion after the 20th week is murder unless the mother's death is imminent. Nobody knows when the fetus becomes a baby. I want society to err on the cautious side because abortion is absolute and final. Just as I think society should be very careful when authorizing the death penalty in any other arena. Once it's done, you can't go back.
I'm not aware of any christian denomination to believe that life begins "when the baby is actually born".
It's unchristian in the very nature.
The Episcopalians do. (American denomination that came from the Church of England)
I think human life definitely begins some time before birth, but how long before is the question.
Here is one for you AND for malpractice attorneys too.. if a baby is human before birth and an OB-GYN fails to recommend a C-section in a case where the baby's position suggests umbilical strangulation is a sure thing, is the OB-GYN liable for manslaughter if he/she proceeds with a vaginal delivery and the baby is dead at birth with the causation being umbilical strangulation.
If you are right that human life begins at birth then why aren't more obstetricians charged with manslaughter in the majority of stillbirth events?
The last question is the easiest to answer. Unborn children have no legal rights. (as human beings)
The wife of a buddy of mine is an OB-GYN that works with couples with infertility problems. She says that it's not quite that simple. If the umbilical cord is twisted or the baby is in the wrong position to be delivered vaginally, the first question is, How long until the baby can be born live and healthy. A baby might survive at 23 weeks. (17% do) But they really need to wait until 27 weeks when 90% survive. If the baby dies in the womb any time after 23 weeks, the OB-GYN can be sued for malpractice. My friend's wife always discusses all the options with the parents. (including in the womb manipulation and an early c-section) But it comes down to playing the odds and sometimes, everybody loses.
That kind of issue is why her malpractice insurance for babies born in the hospital is nearly $80,000 per year.
If unborn children have no legal rights in a country many consider a Christian country, why aren't Christians working overtime to get the law changed? Than is, if they really do believe human life begins at birth.
They are. But there is an equally strong push back from anti-religious bigots and people that have an interest in population control.
We are not a Christian Country. We are a secular country founded by Christians. Most of us do not want the government telling us what to believe and many are uncomfortable taking a stand against anything. They would rather be positive.
Pro-choice, because the world is over-populated.
Ditto.
Really? then go to army and start kiling people, if you wanna make a change. Huh.
That's hell of an argumentation...
That sounds like fun, but honestly, I don't want to get killed, lol. There're other ways for more people to die. For example: large explosive fireworks should be legal. 'Nother example: seat belts shouldn't be required.
Yea, e.g. weapons of mass destruction should be reclassified as baby fireworks.
I'm amazed.
Pro-choice. It is nobody's business except the woman involved.
At the risk of upsetting the flock I will say it may also be, if to a lesser extent, the father's business.
Men can't have it both ways. If it's fetal matter removed from a woman's body, No one but her doctor and herself has the final say. (As TheSheep said, above)
If it's a baby, then they have equal say with a live birth being the tiebreaker. (because abortion is final)
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
I wonder how many convicted murders feel exactly the same way.
It surely is the baby's business.
Pro-choice, and I find the term "Pro-life" misleading, it suggests that Pro-choce is anti life. Removal of some fetal material in the early stage of pregnancy is certainly not the same as killing a baby to me. It will make the life of the unwanted-mother-to-be much better probably, and maybe its a blessing to the unwanted-child as well in some situations.
As is often the case I agree with you. With an emphasis on 'early stage'.
Ditto.
pollewop - You commented, "I find the term "Pro-life" misleading." I was going to say that it's no more misleading than "Pro-choice", but that misses your point doesn't it. Let's quit beating around the bush and call it pro-abortion and anti-abortion. That would be much more accurate.
No. I am not 'pro-abortion'. I am pro-not-conceiving-an-unwanted-child-in-the -first-place. That's the best option. An abortion is in a distant second place. The worst option is forcing, by the full weight of the law, the woman to have a child she does not want.
No I'm afraid that would not solve it. I am not "pro-abortion" either. If I were a woman I could imagine that I would be less inclined to undergo an abortion than the average woman for instance. The only thing that I want is that women have the choice, so pro-choice describes it well, "pro-life" could be substituted by "anti-abortion" indeed.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyOk so when is the exact moment when a tissue starts to be a human.
You know, I just want to be sure, that I'm not killing my baby.
No one can say definitively. It is a question of belief, not fact.
Belief of what? Religion? Law? Your own opinion? What is the definition?
Edited to add: YOU said definitively in your first comment
We, as a society have decided that we agree that murder is wrong. Many agree because they believe that God says murder is wrong. But others don't give it that much thought. That belief was codified throughout the Western world.
"Life" is a non-specific, descriptive term, so it can not be specifically defined in scientific terms. The law in the US says that Life starts at birth. Different Christian groups define it as beginning when the sperm meets the egg or at quickening or leave it up to your conscience. The majority of US society believes the Supreme Court is superior to all of us.
All of tht may be true JWB but it does not justify one lot of helievers using the law to impose their beliefs on the others.
The law, in the US, is used to codify society's wishes. My generation questioned everything that came before and we are more polarized than any time since the Civil War. Government rule by conciseness was common before the 1950s. Since then, not so much.
I don't care what law says. In this particular question. I just wanted to know your opinion. When exactly (please be as precise as you can) does the life starts?
Nope. And neither does anyone else.
Neither. I'm a man and will never be in such a situation, so how should I know what it's like, on either side of the argument?
I refuse to judge something I cannot and never will be able to relate to. It would not be right of me. I can imagine the situation, but can never know.
What if someone you have sex with gets pregnant? Assuming you have sex, of course (no effense intended). If you get a random girl pregnant, and don't want the child, would you ask her for an abortion?
As a gay man, I'm happy to say I'll never be in that situation.
Hence I really have no idea what it would be like.
The "life" in the very origin of your question implies, that ending it, means death.
It doesn't matter whether you're pro-life or pro-choice. What does matter is yours death sentence, or life sentence. It's up to you whether you dare to decide.
It doesn't help to dramatize it by calling it a "death sentence". Each time you scrape your skin for instance you will "execute" thousands of "innocent" skin cells that could perhaps in the future be cloned into full humans with a "soul" etc. (And let it be clear I am only referring to the fetus as a lump of tissue in the early stages of pregnancy)
You'll certainly get a Nobel if you are able to raise a clone of some skin cell.
You always need a zygote (a new human) to replace its core. And then, you change the body of the baby indeed. But the "soul" was already there. Before your intervention.
But now you'll probably argue that life begins with birth, what is obviously, logically wrong.
Because it is a violation of the Constitution to require that people follow religious laws.
And if you think the issue is anything BUT religious, google when various religions believe the soul enters the body.
Well since "thou shalt not kill" is in the bible maybe we should just ignore that and let anyone kill anyone. I mean ultimately that is a "religions" law is it not?
What if you are following the law of the Constitution, which is law, but the "thou shall not kill" is a religious belief? It is not law. It is your religious belief, NOT MINE. Therefore, abortion is legal by decision of the Supreme Court, which outranks Jesus...by law.
I definitely agree with you. It's not law like law.
But, shouldn't we reconsider the Constitutional law?
So it would be ok (legal) for me to kill you?
Uh, this doesn't make any sense, since it is against Constitutional AND Biblical law. But, whatever floats your boat, sir. Give it your best shot, you only get one :-)
I promise :-)
I think your the one that's not making sense. Where in the Constitution does it say that abortion is legal? If you feel that abortion is a protected by the constitution then why is all murder not legal?
I didn't meant for you to take my previous comment as a threat, it was just a question. But I WOULD only need one shot....I promise.
Because you can have an opinion about this, you should let people choose themselfs. 'Pro-lifers' want to force people with their ideas, 'pro-choicers' don't want to force anyone. So I am Pro-Choice
If it were my opinion that it should be ok to go out and kill people then you would argue that since I can have an opinion about this then I should be allowed to make my own choices and kill people if I want to?
If it is allowed by the law, probably yes. And there is no discussion about that killing a person is a crime.
Killing a person that has done no wrong is universally despised in Western culture. (and against the law) The question in dispute is always "When does life start?" and/or "Was the person killed an innocent?"
The questions are different in Chinese or Indian culture.
No. The question is "Are you pro-life or pro-choice".
Yes. And it doesn't matter if the ONE is innocent or not. It's about who can decide who shall be killed and who stays alive?
I only mentioned innocent because people often link pro-death penalty and pro-life in the same sentence. And I didn't think that argument had a place in this discussion.
I wouldn't argue with you. If you want to go out and kill someone, go for it. Thats why we have LAWS. Just don't try to pursuade me to kill someone, because you'll be waisting your time
But you would kill a baby...or at least think it should be legal for other people to do so??
No. Its not killing a baby. Its not alive. Nice try at wording that correctly. It cant think, nor feel pain. Thats proven.
Simple, u make the choice of whether to have sex or not. Whether an 'accident' or not you made the choice. Once made you sign the fine print of knowing the risk of sperm meeting egg. The choice is no longer yours.
Amen to that!
Its not anyones choice but your own to decide whether you are ready for a child or not. What if you clearly aren't fit to raise a kid? this will lead to a poor lifestyle for that kid, and thus increasing his/her likeliness of being a victim of peer pressure. Its a fact that children from "broken homes" usually end up living a bad life (prison, drugs, alcoholism, depression, low self-esteem, etc.). Forcing a person to bring a person like that in to our world is wrong, more wrong than "killing" it(even though its not even close to murder)
Well, you just found another way to state the disagreement. You said, "Forcing a person to bring a person like that in to our world is wrong, [I might agree so far.] more wrong than "killing" it. [I could not disagree more.] (even though its not even close to murder) [Purposely killing an innocent human being is exactly murder.]
It can not be murder if it is not a human being. A fertilized egg becomes a baby human some time. The only argument possible is, "When does it become a baby?"