Are you pro-life or pro-choice?

[Bodi]

Over the years I have noticed he is a very disingenuous debater. I won't bother next time.

How is debating the meaning of a word disingenuous?

 

[choiceone]

Like I said, "your body, your choice"........ but only up to a certain point. After viability she doesn't own her own body anymore?


Abortion is the killing of a human. It's the killing of a human no matter what stage the abortion happens. Murder is a legal term. Not all killing of humans is (or should be) murder.

I don't get how you decided this. After viability, the fetus is capable of life in itself, apart from the woman's life and body, so the issue is, you can have a fetus removed immediately by either abortion or induced labor/Caesarian section. That's a completely different set of choices than at, say, 6-8 weeks, when you can only have an embryo removed by abortion or continue the pregnancy.

I'm sorry, but I do not define abortion as if the woman's body doesn't exist: abortion ends a woman's pregnancy by disconnecting the embryo/fetus from the woman's body.

Actually, an embryo dies because it's disconnected from the woman's body, and a fetus does not necessarily die when it's disconnected - that depends on whether or not it's viable.

So your definition of abortion is a big mistake.

 

[choiceone]

Okay, I found it. So you can kill an unborn baby if it's before viability and if its a case of rape or incest where it's detrimental to the mother's life. Of course, rape and incest are not physically detrimental to her life, but could be very mentally detrimental.

Pregnancy is often physically detrimental to a woman's or girl's life, and that is especially true the younger she is.

Thus, you are pro imposing your choices regarding abortion. It never ceases to amaze me how people that call themselves libertarian always have all sorts of exceptions on libertarianism when it comes to using the government to impose their views on others.

Isn't it outrageous? Ayn Rand was completely pro-choice, and she stopped herself a political designation, because all sorts of supposed libertarians weren't pro-choice, and she thought that was totally wrong.

 

[jpevans]

So the inconsistency comes in after viability, right? If it's a choice between the woman, her family, her doctors, then it should be that way throughout the entire 9 months or it's inconsistent. Right?

Right.

 

[jpevans]

For me, the answer to those questions is yes, and yes. In vitro fertilization deals with actual "clumps of cells," and if someone raped my daughter, I'd not only want the abortion to happen, but I'd be happy to kill the rapist. Personally.

Oh, EDIT - but also, abortion is always the killing of a human. Sperm is human, the egg is human, the blastocyst is human, etc. These are all stages of human development. That is one factor in the analysis, but not the only one. The mother, too, is human.

One way I look at it is that abortion is hardly ever "desirable." But, sometimes it is necessary or the best course of action out of only bad options. Sometimes, life doesn't give you a "good" option. So, I'm with ya on the in vitro, and the rape issue, but I also have no trouble acknowledging that the embryo or fetus is human. It is. There isn't any getting around that. So, when one is in favor of abortion, it is definitely killing a living thing that is human - a stage of human development. And, sometimes, that's what needs to happen. But that doesn't mean that all times are equal - certainly, there are differences, and someone who gets an abortion because she just doesn't feel like taking care of a baby is one thing, and someone who gets an abortion because she's traumatized by a rape is quite another. That's just my view on it.

Where does jerking off rate on your murder scale?

 

[Individual]

I think the average pro-choice person has reservations, yet still remains pro-choice.
I do not know of anyone who is pro having abortions. It is a hard life changing choice for most, and I have never heard of a person having one for fun.

I have no reservations at all to a Woman's individual Right to exercise Her choice to have an abortion prior to birth, and even shortly after birth for reasons found by both Her and Her Doctor.

 

[Josie]

Where does jerking off rate on your murder scale?

Why do so many pro-choicers make this dumb argument? It doesn't make sense.

 

[Paul191145]

Simple question

Are you pro-life or pro-choice?

...and why?

Remember... Pro-Life means no exceptions. If you have any exceptions at all, you are Pro-Choice.

In this case of rigid interpretation, I am neither, but rather I do believe that according to the 5th amendment, life should be not be taken without due process. Now we enter into the scientific debate of "when life begins", since we have no definitive accepted determination, the unborn should be given the benefit of the doubt. Of course there are always extenuating and extreme circumstances for exception. Very few things in life are "black and white" we live in a world of grey mostly.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Where does jerking off rate on your murder scale?

Is that what you read from my post? Where did I say anything about murder at all? What are you on about?

This is one of the main issues at play in this debate. So many people lose their damn minds and they think words mean something other than what they say.

I said I support abortion rights - I answered the question, yes in vitro fertilization is fine and so is abortion after a rape. I even said I'd be happy to personally kill the rapist, if it was my daughter.

For some reason, you took from that a "murder scale," as if I thought killing sperm, eggs or blastocysts, etc. was murder. Where, exactly, do you think I said that?

Are you denying, though, that a human fetus is human? Yes or no?

I'm pro-choice - let me say this again and I'll type very slowly so you are sure to understand - I'm ****ing pro-choice. That doesn't change the fact, however, that the fertilized egg, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, etc. are all "human." What else are they? Some other kind of animal? Being "human" doesn't mean there isn't a rationale for abortion being legal. There are many instances in life where humans can be killed without legal penalty. That doesn't make the killings "good" or "right."

It's one of the things that pro-Lifers get wrong about the abortion debate. They think "oh, it's human," therefore abortion must be murder. No, that's not the case. There are times when the undesirable course of action must nevertheless be legal. Pragmatic concerns weigh in. The rights of the mother weigh in.

Until we lose the absolutes on both sides of this debate, the issue will never be solved. The countries that solved it are the countries that enacted compromises, which are most western European countries.

Murder scale, my ass...

 

[choiceone]

In this case of rigid interpretation, I am neither, but rather I do believe that according to the 5th amendment, life should be not be taken without due process. Now we enter into the scientific debate of "when life begins", since we have no definitive accepted determination, the unborn should be given the benefit of the doubt. Of course there are always extenuating and extreme circumstances for exception. Very few things in life are "black and white" we live in a world of grey mostly.

Why is it that the unborn should be given the benefit of the doubt, but women shouldn't be?

I don't see how the unborn should have a right to life when they are incapable of sustaining their own life by breathing. It's not as if anyone is demanding that they provide their own nutrition or oxygen - they demand only the capacity for breathing while medicine provides all the resources. The unborn aren't actually fully made when a zygote is conceived or a blastocyst implants.

We don't give anyone rights to life, liberty, and property till born because they come in a package to those capable of them. Certainly, infants need care to life and have to wait till adulthood for complete rights to liberty and property. But the idea that the legislature is going to guarantee that they have the right to life when they are incapable of living except in a parasitic mode as if part of some person's body is disgusting. That's why viability wasn't an arbitrary dividing line, while Mississippi's 15 week line is.

 

[Paul191145]

Why is it that the unborn should be given the benefit of the doubt, but women shouldn't be?

I don't see how the unborn should have a right to life when they are incapable of sustaining their own life by breathing. It's not as if anyone is demanding that they provide their own nutrition or oxygen - they demand only the capacity for breathing while medicine provides all the resources. The unborn aren't actually fully made when a zygote is conceived or a blastocyst implants.

We don't give anyone rights to life, liberty, and property till born because they come in a package to those capable of them. Certainly, infants need care to life and have to wait till adulthood for complete rights to liberty and property. But the idea that the legislature is going to guarantee that they have the right to life when they are incapable of living except in a parasitic mode as if part of some person's body is disgusting. That's why viability wasn't an arbitrary dividing line, while Mississippi's 15 week line is.

The unborn should get the benefit of the doubt because science still has not definitively determined "when life begins", I thought I made that clear already. There are plenty of other situations where people cannot live unassisted, such as comas or vegetative states et al, but we don't feel compelled to summarily kill them because of it. It's easy to marginalize things by redefining their existence or using words such as "just" or "only", but once again that enters into the realm of "when life begins", bald eagle eggs are legally protected as if they are already bald eagles, but humans are a different story somehow doesn't make sense. BTW, women are not being denied the benefit of the doubt, both the men and the women concerned possess individual liberty, and as such are inherently individually responsible, or at least they should be in most cases.

 

[choiceone]

The unborn should get the benefit of the doubt because science still has not definitively determined "when life begins", I thought I made that clear already. There are plenty of other situations where people cannot live unassisted, such as comas or vegetative states et al, but we don't feel compelled to summarily kill them because of it. It's easy to marginalize things by redefining their existence or using words such as "just" or "only", but once again that enters into the realm of "when life begins", bald eagle eggs are legally protected as if they are already bald eagles, but humans are a different story somehow doesn't make sense. BTW, women are not being denied the benefit of the doubt, both the men and the women concerned possess individual liberty, and as such are inherently individually responsible, or at least they should be in most cases.

This is ridiculous. Life began millions of years ago and has continued up to now. You should not use a vague expression such as "when life begins," when you actually mean "when an individual entity can be considered to have individual life apart from everyone else." Zygotes and unimplanted embryos, especially in petri dishes, have individual life apart from other live individuals because, once they are put into a freezer, they can survive indefinitely until defrosted. However, when any embryo is implanted, it can't do that any more.

The implanted embryo continues living as part of the woman's body, as her bodily organs substitute for those it lacks as they grow them. When those organs are all fully grown and developed, the fetus is truly viable and is transformed in the process of birth into an infant. When it's viable, it has the capacity for independent life outside the woman's body, and when it's born, it has that independent life outside the woman's body. The only points of value here are viability and birth.

People who cannot live unassisted are utterly different from the unborn, because the unborn have to be assisted by a person's body and can't be transferred from one body to another. The people who need help can be cared for by people who take turns, so that no one has to labor more than 8 hours, has meal and bathroom breaks, a big break every day for rest and sleep, and a weekend break. No pregnant woman gets any breaks. Her body is working 24/7 for nine continuous months.

To demand that of a woman is assuredly totalitarian cruelty. That's not about individual responsibility. It's about mass viciousness towards any girl or woman stupid enough to agree to marry or have sex or unlucky enough to be raped. It will serve the whole society right if women are brave enough to refuse to have sex or marry any man or commit suicide to refuse to give birth if they are raped.

That last is very important to tell you, since you are foolish enough to believe that a rape victim had "individual liberty" and so deserved to be forced to continue a rape pregnancy.

 

[vesper]

Simple question

Are you pro-life or pro-choice?

...and why?

Remember... Pro-Life means no exceptions. If you have any exceptions at all, you are Pro-Choice.

Well, Bodi if that is the case then pro-choice must include aborting a baby that can live outside the womb. A fully developed baby. So, I guess those who claim to be pro-choice support infanticide by the same standards. So, I guess we can put you down as a supporter of infanticide.

 

[Lursa]

The unborn should get the benefit of the doubt because science still has not definitively determined "when life begins", I thought I made that clear already. There are plenty of other situations where people cannot live unassisted, such as comas or vegetative states et al, but we don't feel compelled to summarily kill them because of it. It's easy to marginalize things by redefining their existence or using words such as "just" or "only", but once again that enters into the realm of "when life begins", bald eagle eggs are legally protected as if they are already bald eagles, but humans are a different story somehow doesn't make sense. BTW, women are not being denied the benefit of the doubt, both the men and the women concerned possess individual liberty, and as such are inherently individually responsible, or at least they should be in most cases.

Of course we know when life begins...at fertilization/implantation. That's basic biology. Science is no legal authority...it recognizes no rights for any species or stage of development.

So, what authority does recognize a right to life for the unborn? Is there one that Americans are obligated to follow? The Const specifically states they do not, so where is your idea coming from?

 

[a777pilot]

Simple question

Are you pro-life or pro-choice?

...and why?

Remember... Pro-Life means no exceptions. If you have any exceptions at all, you are Pro-Choice.

I am pro-life and pro-abortion.

I would much rather have people having sex to realize the consequences of that act and prepare for it. I also, understand people are stupid so if they f++k-up, sort of speak, then I have no problem with killing the child to cover up the stupidity of not being able to think.