Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432:673:895]

[Zyphlin]

re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432]

Your example is not a comparable analogy because a born child is considered a person.

The OP simply claimed "You make choices for you and/or YOUR FAMILY. You do what you think is best".

A born child is considered a person; but IS part of your family. My statement goes absolutely in concert with his claim.

Now, you could say "Well, of course the Government has the ability to intercede on the part of your child if you're harming them".

At which case it becomes "not simple" yet again, unless one is so egotistical as to believe that their OPINION on when a human life should be granted rights and the protections related to them is somehow fact and the basis for which everyones arguments are spoken from.

At the time the vast majority of abortions take place only the woman and whomever she confides in is aware an unborn is even there.

Which is irrelevant to my above suggestion; unless we're to suggest that if you beat your child in private and don't let anyone else know then it's okay.

Look around you ...Can you tell which ones had an abortion by looking at them ?

Ignoring that this is a strawman dealing in no way shape or form with what I've actually stated or argued, can you tell which person beat their child by simply looking around?

Here's the issue with the OP...

The OP claims it's "SIMPLE", that you make choices for you and/or your family and he'll do the same and you shouldn't have to answer to anyone but yourselves. So I pointed out an instance of someone making a "Choice" for "their family" and was asking if that would apply.

If the OP suggests it doesn't, and that the government has a legitimate concern for the rights of a children being infringed upon to a significant degree by that parents "choice", then again he establishes that the situation ISN'T "simple" as it comes to Pro-Choice. This is because, despite the ego of some that ignorantly think differently, there is no universally provable or absolute edict as to when in a Human's life cycle they should have recognized rights. This is an entirely opinion based notion; it may be opinion based on various factual factors, but there is no verifiable way to determine that actual point.

As such, it is not as "Simple" as the OP suggests because if someone believes that the unborn has rights as any point prior to an attempted abortion, AND they feel it's reasonable for the government to interject into a persons "Choices" for his family if it's putting the rights of that family at significant risk, then it's entirely reasonable and logical within their mental frame work to be in favor of the government interceding on behalf of the unborn.

Note, this is all being stated without one reference to the OP's bigoted "magical sky-fairy" notion as this could be the case just as much with a jackass militant athiests as it could be with a fundamentalist zealot christian.

So no, it's not "Simple" at all...not unless one's ego is so massive that they ridiculous assume everyone in the world functions from the same stand point of opinion as ones self.

 

[faithful_servant]

re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432]

I make my choices for me and/or my family. I do what I think is best.

You make your choices for you and/or your family. You do what you think is best.

I won't make your choices for you, and in return you won't make my choices for me.

It's that simple.

Works for religion, pregnancy, sex, marriage, marijuana....

Should there be a magical sky-fairy with a long white beard and busty little angels floating around him playing harps....we'll both have nobody else to answer for except ourselves.
Our actions and motivations will be our own.

So by your logic, if I decide that painting my kids yellow and never allowing them to go to school, wear clothes or eat anything other than elk steak and then killing them when they turn 7 is what's best for them, that's my business.

Some people think that protecting the life of a child is important, others think that it's not important. Guess which side of the fence you land on???

 

[year2late]

re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432]

If is it so save her life than yes, that sometimes is necessary. But at 6 months a baby can be viable so I doubt a lot of doctors would perform abortions at that late time.

If it was urgently lifesaving for the mother at that stage of pregnancy, likely an urgent/crash C-section - so it would be a birth. Whether or not the baby is viable. Whether or not the family wants extraordinary measure to safe the very premature baby is another issue as well.

 

[Dragonfly]

re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432]

It really isn't. And can be demonstrated very easily that this mentality doesn't work across the board.

A man wants to beat his chlid to the point of near death and sexually abuse them.

By your logic, he should be able to make that choice for "his family" without intrusion?

Sure, and if someone believes in taking slaves and honor killing that's their own buisness too, right? Right.

Thanks for sharing, your opinion is dismissed.

So by your logic, if I decide that painting my kids yellow and never allowing them to go to school, wear clothes or eat anything other than elk steak and then killing them when they turn 7 is what's best for them, that's my business.

Some people think that protecting the life of a child is important, others think that it's not important. Guess which side of the fence you land on???

Yawn.....see, this is where you fail.

By using the same failed and broad-brushing logic, I could say that anybody who kills another person is a murderer, and should be face trial for murder regardless of the situation.

Right?

So a volunteer in a military situation that kills another human being is a murderer. Right?

Any US soldier, that has volunteered to be in the military, and killed any other human being for any reason is a murderer. Right?

No? Gee.....how convenient. :roll:

 

[michijo]

re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432]

Family life is war. Sometimes you lose soldiers. Just like when you choose to have your children sent off to war to protect your home or financial situation. Sometimes one child has to end up on a government military graveyard under a bland and meaningless cross to protect your finances or even to protect the bussiness of someone richer than you. Sometimes you sacrifice your own fetus to save the wealth of a member of the American elite who you will never meet in real life. Do you not complain about that?

 

[JayDubya]

re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432]

I make my choices for me and/or my family. I do what I think is best.

You make your choices for you and/or your family. You do what you think is best.

I won't make your choices for you, and in return you won't make my choices for me.

It's that simple.

Yes, your premise is simple. The situation is not as simple as the premise. The issue is complex. Your solution is simple and does not address the problem.

Works for religion, pregnancy, sex, marriage, marijuana....

Works for other drugs too. Works for prostitution. Works for a lot of things that are currently illegal despite being victimless. Some things are illegal that shouldn't be.

Doesn't really work for "pregnancy" the way you mean it... Doesn't work for theft, rape, kidnapping, homicide, fraud, or any of the other actions you can think of that are not victimless. Doesn't work for actions like this where your own family can contain the victim and the perpetrator. Some things are legal that shouldn't be.

Should there be a magical sky-fairy with a long white beard and busty little angels floating around him playing harps....we'll both have nobody else to answer for except ourselves.
Our actions and motivations will be our own.

So did you realize here that you were arguing that all of human justice should be suspended, that we just put our faith in some god and let murderers and rapists and whatnot run free?

Because, you are. That is what your argument means, in case you didn't know.

 

[nota bene]

re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432]

Family life is war. Sometimes you lose soldiers. Just like when you choose to have your children sent off to war to protect your home or financial situation. Sometimes one child has to end up on a government military graveyard under a bland and meaningless cross to protect your finances or even to protect the bussiness of someone richer than you. Sometimes you sacrifice your own fetus to save the wealth of a member of the American elite who you will never meet in real life. Do you not complain about that?

So do you have children yourself? And what's this business of choosing when your kid goes off to war?

 

[Dragonfly]

re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432]

Because, you are. That is what your argument means,

No I'm not. And no it does not. Have a nice day. :mrgreen:

 

[Removable Mind]

re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432]

Family life is war. Sometimes you lose soldiers. Just like when you choose to have your children sent off to war to protect your home or financial situation. Sometimes one child has to end up on a government military graveyard under a bland and meaningless cross to protect your finances or even to protect the bussiness of someone richer than you. Sometimes you sacrifice your own fetus to save the wealth of a member of the American elite who you will never meet in real life. Do you not complain about that?

Yes, life is hell for the unborn. Especially when abortions are for the sole reason of protecting the wealth of the American elitist.

As far as children being sent to war to protect...home, but especially "financial situations" - yeah, those who allow such an atrocity should be ashamed. Well, actually over the last 15 years are children are being sent to war and dying for fake causes...and let's not forget protecting the oil that belong to other countries that hate Americans.



I see you point. I'm going to call my Congressman today...and voice this complaint.

 

[Zyphlin]

re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432]

Yawn.....see, this is where you fail.

By using your logic and words?

By using the same failed and broad-brushing logic, I could say that anybody who kills another person is a murderer, and should be face trial for murder regardless of the situation.

Exactly! That's why YOUR statement suggesting that you "make choices for you and/or your family" as somehow being the basis for which the law is done is ridiculous and "Simple" only in the sense speaking of the intelligence of something.

The reality is that it's not as "simple" as you suggested. We are a society that by the very nature of our social contract suggests that no...you can't do ANYTHING you CHOOSE to do for you and your family, and I can't do ANYTHING I choose either. There are limits, and one such limit is that we can't infringe upon the rights of another.

And whether or not an unborn child / fetus should have said rights is entirely an OPINION based argument with legitimate claims from both sides, and as such is far from "simple".

So thanks for showing why YOU failed in your riduclous assertions and implications in your OP, and highlighting that it's not "simple".

Perhaps if you spent time actually thinking about the flawed logic of your post as opposed to needless bigoted pot shots at the religious you'd have realized that before posting your laughable failure of a premise.

 

[minnie616]

re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432]

...

And whether or not an unborn child / fetus should have said rights is entirely an OPINION based argument with legitimate claims from both sides, and as such is far from "simple"...

I agree that both sides may have different opinions .

The problem lies in the fact that pro life side wishes to impose their opinion on all.

From the following opinion piece:

I think one of the biggest problems with the abortion debate is that the two sides aren't in direct opposition.
The pro-life movement seeks to force their moral beliefs on others - grounded in their own religion or personal philosophy.
The pro-choice movement doesn't make claims on the morality of abortion - we leave that as an individual choice for every woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy.
If they feel abortion is wrong and they want to give their child up for adoption, or keep it, we will support their decision.
Pro-life people say "Abortion is wrong;" we only say "Abortion is."
Making abortion illegal won't stop abortions from happening, it will only stop them from being safe. 43% of abortions worldwide are illegal.
Changing laws doesn't solve the problem, making contraception available and affordable does.

If we are to maintain the separation of church and state so central to our nation's identity, we cannot have some people forcing their beliefs on us all.

MIT Pro-Choice -- Reasons

 

[sangha]

re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432]

It really isn't. And can be demonstrated very easily that this mentality doesn't work across the board.

A man wants to beat his chlid to the point of near death and sexually abuse them.

By your logic, he should be able to make that choice for "his family" without intrusion?

The child you refer to is born, and therefore a person

The fetus is not born, and not a person

Two very different situations.

 

[Dragonfly]

re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432]

Again, here's the thing some of you don't understand.

I can think sex is fine and fantastic. I can also think having sex with a child is wrong. Do you see what I'm doing here?

I can think drinking alcohol is fine and perfectly legal. I can also think driving drunk is wrong.

I can think killing a 2 month old child is murder and should be harshly punished. I can also think terminating a pregnancy before the 20th-22nd week is NOT murder and therefore NOT something that should be illegal.

I can also think that the decision to terminate or not terminate a pregnancy is none of my damn business, and only the concern of the person who is pregnant and her significant other.

I have never been a part of any relationship where even the remotest thought of having an abortion has ever been a concern.
I have no fear that I will be judged in any kind of after-life because some people in the world have had abortions.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432]

So by your logic, if I decide that painting my kids yellow and never allowing them to go to school, wear clothes or eat anything other than elk steak and then killing them when they turn 7 is what's best for them, that's my business.

Some people think that protecting the life of a child is important, others think that it's not important. Guess which side of the fence you land on???

They're born, though - see - they're whole, separate individuals at that point. That matters quite a bit to me. Once they're able to survive on their own in some fashion they then are a whole individual with individual rights.

No one is FORCING you to take on the task of raising 5 more kids, are they? If you want a more accurate reflection when it comes to 'living' children. How would you feel if someone showed up on your doorstep one day and just GAVE you a child?

No choice - there - you did something and TADA now you have a new kid to care for.

Every single person would go 'I don't think so'.

No one can FORCE your family to increase in size without your consent.

 

[code1211]

re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432]

I make my choices for me and/or my family. I do what I think is best.

You make your choices for you and/or your family. You do what you think is best.

I won't make your choices for you, and in return you won't make my choices for me.

It's that simple.

Works for religion, pregnancy, sex, marriage, marijuana....

Should there be a magical sky-fairy with a long white beard and busty little angels floating around him playing harps....we'll both have nobody else to answer for except ourselves.
Our actions and motivations will be our own.

So you are advocating a society with absolutely no agreed upon laws whatsoever?

 

[Risky Thicket]

re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432]

There is a distinct difference between pro-life and pro-birth. Most people I know who call themselves pro-life are in real terms pro-birth. I know very, very few "pro-lifers" who adopt children not related in some way to their own families. Most of the pro-lifers I know do not financially support children in need other than saying "my church supports needy children". That's fine, but it really isn't pro-life.

 

[Fruityfact]

re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432]

There is a distinct difference between pro-life and pro-birth. Most people I know who call themselves pro-life are in real terms pro-birth. I know very, very few "pro-lifers" who adopt children not related in some way to their own families. Most of the pro-lifers I know do not financially support children in need other than saying "my church supports needy children". That's fine, but it really isn't pro-life.

Great point.
Beyond that, I don't support Abortions, but I certainly support the ability to have one.

 

[Zyphlin]

re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432]

I agree that both sides may have different opinions .

Which conflicts with the notion of this being "simple" as the OP's topic suggests.

The problem lies in the fact that pro life side wishes to impose their opinion on all.

Which is irrelevant to the topic of the OP and how "simple" it is.

When and who has rights is, ultimately, an OPINION in all cases. Rights as a concept can not be actively measured and judged in some kind of factual, natural way. No one has a light over their head that flicks on when they're imbued with rights.

Whether an fetus/unborn child has rights, or rather a 5 year old has rights, are all largely a matter of the opinion of society and how that relates to the laws and protections it places upon it.

The difference is...most of society agrees with the opinion on the 5 year old, so it is "simple" to suggest the government can step in on that case and "impose that opinion on all". Most of society is conflicted as it comes to the fetus/unborn child, and thus the problem. But don't act as if society doesn't "impose" opinions on people....it happens every day.

Imagine, if you would, someone coming up to you and saying "Hey girl, you can't impose your opinion on me! If I want to kill my toddler I damn well should". You'd think the person crazy and would absolutely support "imposing your opinion" on him if he killed his toddler because you'd find it abhorrent that he killed a being who you felt had a right to life.

Well, for those that have a different opinion than you as it relates to fetuses/unborn children, and believe that they have just as much a "right to life" as that toddler, it's just as crazy and absurd to go to them and go "Hey girl, you can't impose your opinion on me! If I want to kill my unborn child I damn well should!" Because to them, that's as crazy and wrong as the previous suggestion.

It doesn't seem like it is to you because you hold a different opinion. And that's fine. But this ridiculous notion that somehow pro-choicers hold some kind of moral high ground because they're not "enforcing their beliefs" on people is ridiculous.

Coming from the issue with the mindset of a typical pro-choice person, it's immoral to "force [someone's] moral belief onto others as it relates to abortion. Coming from the issue with the mindset of a typical pro-life person, it's immoral to not have the government protect the right to life of an individual who is unable to protect themselves.

There's few people who would say it's immoral to "force moral beliefs" on others as it relates to disallowing someone to kill a toddler. Or rape their teenager. Or starve their mentally handicapped dependent. Why? Because these are individuals that the person see's as having rights and being incapable of protecting those rights, and thus it's the place of the government to step in and protect them.

That's no different than what's going on in the mindset of pro-life people...the primary difference being that in that case you simply disagree with their opinion as to whether or not that individual should have "rights".

If you don't think it's inherently WRONG to "impose" our "opinions" on society as it relates to those three things I listed two sentences up, then it's not inherently WRONG to suggest imposing the opinion as it relates to babies. You could DISAGREE and think the reasoning is flawed, but the action itself is not inconsistent with what routinely happens within our society.

All of which highlights the ridiculousness of the OP suggesting that this is in any way "simple".

 

[Zyphlin]

re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432]

The child you refer to is born, and therefore a person

The fetus is not born, and not a person

Two very different situations.

A male child is 1 years old. A female child is 10 years old. Those are very different situations as well.

Just because they're different in certain aspects doesn't invalidate my argument....it's simply a poorly attempted misdirect of someone who isn't putting forth an actual argument to what's being stated.

Last I checked, there is no clear, provable, indisputable indicator that declares "THIS ENTITY IS NOW A PERSON". And, all the more specifically, when said entity is vested with "rights". There may be laws in various countries dictating it, but laws are not scientific nor absolute, they're a creation of man an a codification of OPINION...nothing more.

YOU hold the opinion, seemingly if we're to guess that your response was actually meant to correspond to what I was saying and wasn't just going completely on a non-related tangent, that one must be a "person" to have rights and that one is not a "person" until they've been born. Which is fine, but that's what it is...an opinion. One that is no more absolute or provably correct than most others. It's an arbitrary notion that you've decided for yourself. Which is absolutely fine; as long as you don't attempt to act that all other peoples arguments are coming from that same mindset, regardless of whether that's true or not.

 

[Zyphlin]

re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432]

There is a distinct difference between pro-life and pro-birth. Most people I know who call themselves pro-life are in real terms pro-birth. I know very, very few "pro-lifers" who adopt children not related in some way to their own families. Most of the pro-lifers I know do not financially support children in need other than saying "my church supports needy children". That's fine, but it really isn't pro-life.

So what does this have to do with the question in the OP, or is it just wanting to take an anecdotal pot shot at pro-life individuals for the term used to describe them?

 

[Aunt Spiker]

re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432]

A male child is 1 years old. A female child is 10 years old. Those are very different situations as well.

.

We grant many rights and individualism in stages.

There are different things a 1 year old is granted that a 10 year old is not and vice versa.
How about a 10 year old and a 21 year old.

You grow in stages and at various points along the way - usually aligning with maturity and other things - you are granted more freedoms and rights. You are also burdened with higher expectations and restrictions.

I actually draw a line still in utero. To me - the biggest importance is giving the parent(s) time to acclimate ot the idea, and then choose. If they choose - then at a certain point they cannot reverse that choice while pregnant.

I don't support walk in abortions.
I don't support teens aborting without consent from a legal gaurdian unless alternative efforts are established (legal issue to protect abused minors)
I don't support late term abortion.

I have many limits I'd like to see - but the idea of banning aborting in general is not one of them.

 

[mpg]

re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432]

I make my choices for me and/or my family. I do what I think is best.

You make your choices for you and/or your family. You do what you think is best.

I won't make your choices for you, and in return you won't make my choices for me.

It's that simple.

Works for religion, pregnancy, sex, marriage, marijuana....

Should there be a magical sky-fairy with a long white beard and busty little angels floating around him playing harps....we'll both have nobody else to answer for except ourselves.
Our actions and motivations will be our own.

If it was that simple, I could kill anyone and everyone in my family.

 

[sangha]

re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432]

There is a distinct difference between pro-life and pro-birth. Most people I know who call themselves pro-life are in real terms pro-birth. I know very, very few "pro-lifers" who adopt children not related in some way to their own families. Most of the pro-lifers I know do not financially support children in need other than saying "my church supports needy children". That's fine, but it really isn't pro-life.

And the anti-abortion groups are generally not providing health care for women the way the Susan B Koman Association and Planned Parenthood are and many anti-choicers are opposed to provide public assistance to poor children.

 

[mpg]

re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432]

CHOICE allows anyone, with or without religious ideologies and beliefs, to make their own personal decisions without interference from others.

Unless you believe that there should be no laws whatsoever, you're contradicting yourself. It really is that simple.

 

[sangha]

re: Pro-Choice - It's Just This Simple[W:432]

Which conflicts with the notion of this being "simple" as the OP's topic suggests.

The fact some people disagree with a position, and that the issue itself isn't simple, that doesn't mean that the position itself isn't a simple one

Which is irrelevant to the topic of the OP and how "simple" it is.

Actually, it is

When and who has rights is, ultimately, an OPINION in all cases. Rights as a concept can not be actively measured and judged in some kind of factual, natural way. No one has a light over their head that flicks on when they're imbued with rights.

Whether an fetus/unborn child has rights, or rather a 5 year old has rights, are all largely a matter of the opinion of society and how that relates to the laws and protections it places upon it.

The difference is...most of society agrees with the opinion on the 5 year old, so it is "simple" to suggest the government can step in on that case and "impose that opinion on all". Most of society is conflicted as it comes to the fetus/unborn child, and thus the problem. But don't act as if society doesn't "impose" opinions on people....it happens every day.

The thing is, while it does boil down to opinion in the end, this is an opinion that derives from a document that has been validated by a supermajority and continues to receive the support of a supermajority.

The constitution was not simply agreed to by a majority of the states. Every state that formed this union, and every state that joined it after, has agreed to abide by the constitution. Furthermore, a supermajority has continued to support Roe v Wade and the logic behind it. So even if we used the law to enforce people opinions or morality (which would be unconstitutional), banning abortion would still be impossible.

The bottom line is that the anti-choicers want to impose their minority opinion on the majority which is decidedly non-democratic and unamerican.

Imagine, if you would, someone coming up to you and saying "Hey girl, you can't impose your opinion on me! If I want to kill my toddler I damn well should". You'd think the person crazy and would absolutely support "imposing your opinion" on him if he killed his toddler because you'd find it abhorrent that he killed a being who you felt had a right to life.

Well, for those that have a different opinion than you as it relates to fetuses/unborn children, and believe that they have just as much a "right to life" as that toddler, it's just as crazy and absurd to go to them and go "Hey girl, you can't impose your opinion on me! If I want to kill my unborn child I damn well should!" Because to them, that's as crazy and wrong as the previous suggestion.

It doesn't seem like it is to you because you hold a different opinion. And that's fine. But this ridiculous notion that somehow pro-choicers hold some kind of moral high ground because they're not "enforcing their beliefs" on people is ridiculous.

Coming from the issue with the mindset of a typical pro-choice person, it's immoral to "force [someone's] moral belief onto others as it relates to abortion. Coming from the issue with the mindset of a typical pro-life person, it's immoral to not have the government protect the right to life of an individual who is unable to protect themselves.

There's few people who would say it's immoral to "force moral beliefs" on others as it relates to disallowing someone to kill a toddler. Or rape their teenager. Or starve their mentally handicapped dependent. Why? Because these are individuals that the person see's as having rights and being incapable of protecting those rights, and thus it's the place of the government to step in and protect them.

That's no different than what's going on in the mindset of pro-life people...the primary difference being that in that case you simply disagree with their opinion as to whether or not that individual should have "rights".

If you don't think it's inherently WRONG to "impose" our "opinions" on society as it relates to those three things I listed two sentences up, then it's not inherently WRONG to suggest imposing the opinion as it relates to babies. You could DISAGREE and think the reasoning is flawed, but the action itself is not inconsistent with what routinely happens within our society.

All of which highlights the ridiculousness of the OP suggesting that this is in any way "simple".

The govt has a legitimate interest in banning the murder of persons. The legitimacy of govt power comes from the need to protect the rights of people balanced by the need to maintain and promote a civil society. Banning the killing of people serves both interests. Since the unborn are not people, and banning abortion does nothing to maintain or promote a civil society (it does the opposite), there is no legitimate reason for doing so.