Real simple:

[americanwoman]

Pro-choice or Pro-life and why.




I am pro-choice. The reason is why although I don't agree with abortion I think woman have a right to choose since it is their life. I don't know every simple circumstance and I have no right to judge anyone. I don't know for sure when a fetus becomes a baby but I don't think it happens at conception.

 

[Voidwar]

Simplicity.

 

[Jerry]

I am neither PL nor PC, I am Anti-Abortion.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/13583-best-describes-your-view.html

 

[Felicity]

Pro-choice or Pro-life and why.




I am pro-choice. The reason is why although I don't agree with abortion I think woman have a right to choose since it is their life. I don't know every simple circumstance and I have no right to judge anyone. I don't know for sure when a fetus becomes a baby but I don't think it happens at conception.

Your reason is the same process of thought as a position that says the life in the womb should have a right to "choose." The life that is inconvenienced is the woman's, the life that is exterminated is the young human in her womb. Why not err on the side of the life that is in jeopardy of termination? Especially if you ADMIT you don't know.

Secondly, it is just bull-puckey or cowardice when a person claims he or she has no right to judge. Every person judges every day in myriad ways. You would be catatonic if you didn't "judge"--in fact, when you say you "don't agree" with abortion, you admit you have judged the act. When you get out of bed, you have "judged" the day worthy of your conscious action within it.

What you are really saying is that you believe in a relative morality--one that depends on no set of absolute definitions or facts. IOW--Other people's perspectives are just as accurate as yours are NO MATTER WHAT. Relative morality is that which bases its determinations on an ever-changing "relationship" between two specific frames of reference. And, since there is no "absolute" reference that is the "correct" perspective, ANY reference is correct. So basically--there is no "right" or "wrong"--merely a "relationship" among various perspectives.

Ultimately, if you leap way ahead on the logic path, that means that everything everywhere is without meaning anywhere. Is that what you really think? And if so--how can you have an opinion about ANYTHING? Can you see it is chaos and nihilism?

 

[Purple]

Pro choice because it's a privacy issue.
What one does with their body is their choice. The government has no right to interfere.
Also I believe that the woman has rights the fetus doesn't. A woman's life is more important than an undeveloped/unborn fetus.

 

[ngdawg]

Your reason is the same process of thought as a position that says the life in the womb should have a right to "choose." The life that is inconvenienced is the woman's, the life that is exterminated is the young human in her womb. Why not err on the side of the life that is in jeopardy of termination? Especially if you ADMIT you don't know.

Secondly, it is just bull-puckey or cowardice when a person claims he or she has no right to judge. Every person judges every day in myriad ways. You would be catatonic if you didn't "judge"--in fact, when you say you "don't agree" with abortion, you admit you have judged the act. When you get out of bed, you have "judged" the day worthy of your conscious action within it.

What you are really saying is that you believe in a relative morality--one that depends on no set of absolute definitions or facts. IOW--Other people's perspectives are just as accurate as yours are NO MATTER WHAT. Relative morality is that which bases its determinations on an ever-changing "relationship" between two specific frames of reference. And, since there is no "absolute" reference that is the "correct" perspective, ANY reference is correct. So basically--there is no "right" or "wrong"--merely a "relationship" among various perspectives.

Ultimately, if you leap way ahead on the logic path, that means that everything everywhere is without meaning anywhere. Is that what you really think? And if so--how can you have an opinion about ANYTHING? Can you see it is chaos and nihilism?

Into those funny mushrooms again, eh?:mrgreen:
There's a difference between judging and forming an opinion. Maybe YOU judge people, that's been pretty obvious, but not everyone does with the voracity such as above.
Some of us simply don't make those kind of 'good person', 'bad person' judgements when it regards something like this. A choice is between the person making it and their own conscience/God/whatever.
There are basic rights and wrongs; your 'perception' is ridiculous, really. But in normal every day life, right and wrong comes down to the person who has to make the choice. Logic and the choices within it are not absolute.
And, by the way, fetuses, embryos, etc., can't make choices. We make the choice to carry, not carry and if/when we have kids, we make choices regarding their young lives while (hopefully) teaching them to make the choices that would be right for them.
Sometimes you're so off-base, you're not even in the game, Dear.....

 

[jallman]

Your reason is the same process of thought as a position that says the life in the womb should have a right to "choose." The life that is inconvenienced is the woman's, the life that is exterminated is the young human in her womb. Why not err on the side of the life that is in jeopardy of termination? Especially if you ADMIT you don't know.

Except that the life in the womb does not have the capability of choosing. And it is feeding off the life of its host.

Secondly, it is just bull-puckey or cowardice when a person claims he or she has no right to judge.

I believe the word you are looking for is "nonjudgemental". You know, some of us still subscribe to the idea of living our own lives and letting others do the same.

Every person judges every day in myriad ways. You would be catatonic if you didn't "judge"--in fact, when you say you "don't agree" with abortion, you admit you have judged the act. When you get out of bed, you have "judged" the day worthy of your conscious action within it.

Ummm...except that the situations you listed are personal judgements relating to the person doing the judging only. Not judging others as a certain religious figure asked not to be done...

What you are really saying is that you believe in a relative morality--one that depends on no set of absolute definitions or facts. IOW--Other people's perspectives are just as accurate as yours are NO MATTER WHAT. Relative morality is that which bases its determinations on an ever-changing "relationship" between two specific frames of reference. And, since there is no "absolute" reference that is the "correct" perspective, ANY reference is correct. So basically--there is no "right" or "wrong"--merely a "relationship" among various perspectives.

And that is all true when you are dealing with personal choice. What's your grand point?

Ultimately, if you leap way ahead on the logic path, that means that everything everywhere is without meaning anywhere.

You are right...that's quite a leap. A stretch in fact...no...no...its an outright lie.

Is that what you really think? And if so--how can you have an opinion about ANYTHING? Can you see it is chaos and nihilism?

Why don't you tell her...you've done such a fabulous job of telling her what she is really saying and meaning so far...:doh

 

[Felicity]

There are basic rights and wrongs; your 'perception' is ridiculous, really. But in normal every day life, right and wrong comes down to the person who has to make the choice. Logic and the choices within it are not absolute.

This is what I don't get...and maybe if you could explain it to me, I could understand your position better.

What ARE the basic "rights and wrongs" that are beyond the "ridiculous perception"??? You are expressing relativism here--but you are saying there is some "basic" point of reference that is understood. But that in and of itself contradicts your claim that "in normal every day life, right and wrong comes down to the person." How can the right and wrong be "basic" if there are as many options as there are individuals making choices?

I simply don't understand how that contradiction makes logical sense to you--YOU SAY: there "are basic rights and wrongs" but they are determined by "the person who has to make the choice."

Could you please explain how that says anything other than EVERYTHING and ANYTHING is right ....AND..... EVERYTHING and ANYTHING is wrong.

 

[Jerry]

In school we all have our own way of framing a wall, of shingling a roof, etc., but we all have to use the same blue print. We all have to use Standard units of measurement. A thing is either "square" or it is not. A thing is either level or it is not. A thing is either flush or it is not. A thing is either plumb or it is not.

In my field relativism has it's place, but in the end we all have to use the same basic systems.

I often wonder what sort of societal structure relativists are trying to create, given that they use whatever system of measurement they please.

The only conclusion I have reached thus fare is that relativists don't care about a solid structure, they just want to hammer and saw how they please and forget about building something of value and quality which serves a purpose.

 

[Iriemon]

Niether.

I'm not "por-life" because I don't believe that a single celled fertilized egg constitutes a human being and I'm not pro-choice because I don't believe it is a woman's sole authority to make a choice about having an abortion up to the day before birth or after.

 

[ngdawg]

This is what I don't get...and maybe if you could explain it to me, I could understand your position better.

What ARE the basic "rights and wrongs" that are beyond the "ridiculous perception"??? You are expressing relativism here--but you are saying there is some "basic" point of reference that is understood. But that in and of itself contradicts your claim that "in normal every day life, right and wrong comes down to the person." How can the right and wrong be "basic" if there are as many options as there are individuals making choices?

I simply don't understand how that contradiction makes logical sense to you--YOU SAY: there "are basic rights and wrongs" but they are determined by "the person who has to make the choice."

Could you please explain how that says anything other than EVERYTHING and ANYTHING is right ....AND..... EVERYTHING and ANYTHING is wrong.

If I stab you and take your wallet, is that wrong or right? (Here's a hint: only the certifiably insane don't know the difference)
If I tell you do what you want as long as it doesn't bother you or harm me, is that wrong or right? That is relativism...the other is law/conscience.
It's such a simple concept yet you make a big navel-contemplation, pseudo-philosophical scenario out of it.
A) Judge not lest ye be judged and B) Walk a mile in my shoes.
I have no more right to take your wallet as I do to tell you how to live. I can't make it any simpler.

 

[Jerry]

If I stab you and take your wallet, is that wrong or right? (Here's a hint: only the certifiably insane don't know the difference)
If I tell you do what you want as long as it doesn't bother you or harm me, is that wrong or right? That is relativism...the other is law/conscience.
It's such a simple concept yet you make a big navel-contemplation, pseudo-philosophical scenario out of it.
A) Judge not lest ye be judged and B) Walk a mile in my shoes.
I have no more right to take your wallet as I do to tell you how to live. I can't make it any simpler.

Using a Jesus quote to establish the authority of your claims undermines the authority of your claims.

Matthew 7:1 and Luke 6:37, btw.

 

[Felicity]

If I stab you and take your wallet, is that wrong or right? (Here's a hint: only the certifiably insane don't know the difference).

If I conceive you and then suck you out of my womb to die, dismembered in the drain of a clinic, is that wrong or right?

I still don't get the "basis"--How do you determine what conclusion is so obvious that "only the certifiably insane don't know the difference?" I would argue that only those in certified self-centered denial are willing to support the killing of those that cannot defend themselves simply because it is a killing that is legal and can be hidden behind "privacy" claims.

A) Judge not lest ye be judged and B) Walk a mile in my shoes.

Jeremiah
23
But this people's heart is stubborn and rebellious; they turn and go away, ......Their houses are as full of treachery as a bird-cage is of birds; Therefore they grow powerful and rich, fat and sleek. They go their wicked way; justice they do not defend by advancing the claim of the fatherless or judging the cause of the poor.

To address your navel-contemplation comment...

A) Go ahead and judge me by the standard I judge. I am "advancing the claim of the fatherless" and "judging the cause of the poor."

B) Been that mile in those shoes--uneducated, unmarried, unemployed, unsupported--didn't abort. My son is a jewel!

 

[Iriemon]

If I conceive you and then suck you out of my womb to die, dismembered in the drain of a clinic, is that wrong or right?

...

I for one am mightily impressed by ngdawg's ability to write posts from the womb. A true prodigy.

 

[Felicity]

I for one am mightily impressed by ngdawg's ability to write posts from the womb. A true prodigy.

She is indeed talented! Though somewhat "under-developed" in her argument.

 

[IAmMrTea08]

well apparently i'm the first person to vote pro-life in that poll.

I'm pro-life. I don't support "baby-killing"

Every man woman and child is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property, what ever floats your boat). They are unalienable rights. All men are created equal

In embryonic state, they are closest in age to the moment they were actually conceived or "created." the declaration does not state "all men are born equal," but "all men are CREATED EQUAL" Fetuses who are considered as candidates to be aborted are all CREATED in the same place: the womb.

I'm against abortion at any stage in pregnancy unless from incest or rape.

If you didn't want the baby, use a condom, if it broke, thats their fault, they took the risk in the first place.

The baby has rights. Its just that simple

Supporting abortion is supporting capital punishment to the innocent!

 

[Monkey Mind]

If pro-choice means abortion on demand up until birth, then I am pro-life.

If pro-life means no morning after pill, no contraception, or no exceptions for the health of the mother then I am pro-choice.

 

[ngdawg]

She is indeed talented! Though somewhat "under-developed" in her argument.

judgement or opinion?
as an underdeveloped embryo/fetus, i wouldn't know nor would I care what you do to me or anyone else. you're trolling at this point, a game I do not participate in.

 

[Felicity]

judgement or opinion?

I formed a critical assessment of your argument--I find it wanting... It is both a judgement and an opinion. Look the words up in the dictionary.

as an underdeveloped embryo/fetus, i wouldn't know nor would I care what you do to me or anyone else. you're trolling at this point, a game I do not participate in.

Don't have an answer to the contradiction you present, do ya... Not a particularly graceful exit ngdawg, but then, that has never been your forte.

 

[Felicity]

If pro-life means no morning after pill, no contraception, or no exceptions for the health of the mother then I am pro-choice.

My exception is only for the life of the mother. She has a right to self-preservation. Other than that--induced surgical abortion and abortifacient medicine is possibly trampling on the right to life of the unborn unjustifiably and I believe the right to life is preeminent.

 

[ngdawg]

I formed a critical assessment of your argument--I find it wanting... It is both a judgement and an opinion. Look the words up in the dictionary.

Don't have an answer to the contradiction you present, do ya... Not a particularly graceful exit ngdawg, but then, that has never been your forte.

What contradiction might that be? That I don't believe in shoving beliefs down another's throat? Hand over your wallet....:roll:
You find it wanting because you appear to enjoy either playing dumb or trolling...not sure which, don't rightly care much...see, this is why no one wants to play with you. Your pattern of 'what do you mean by this/that?' gets old, Dear...you make compelling remarks and can't take simple ones in response-guess that screws with the game plan or something....but it's evident in every thread you try to play in, been pointed out by more than 2..your 'forte' borders on legend. Mine? I say my piece and move on. Simple language. Sometimes I'll beat a deadhorse, but even then, I move on.
A 10 year old could get the simplicity pointed out by any one of us in this and other threads and yet....you don't? Bah...I call BullSh!t.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Pro-Choice.

I am pro-choice because I do not believe that human beings have rights-- including a "right to life"-- until they are established members of a society, which does not occur until they are formally and legally named. I do not think it is possible for this to occur earlier, because until an unborn child is biologically separated from its mother, it cannot logically be the responsibility of anyone except the mother.

I do support some restrictions on the procedure of abortion, on the principle that the later in the term that a fetus is aborted, the more of a waste of resources it represents and the more social and emotional impact it has on other people.

 

[Felicity]

What contradiction might that be?

YOU SAY: there "are basic rights and wrongs" but they are determined by "the person who has to make the choice."

That I don't believe in shoving beliefs down another's throat? ....... Your pattern of 'what do you mean by this/that?' gets old, Dear...

The reason I ask is so that you can see your own inconsistency. For example, Korimyr the Rat (above) presents his pro-choice position without contradiction. I do not agree with his stance, but without the obvious contradictions, a discussion with him on his stance would have to first center on that idea of "society" and "formal/legal" definitions being important to the issue of defining life. And then, another issue would be does physical dependence preclude freedom, and where exactly that line is defined. Korimyr is willing to say no human has rights except and unless a "society" agrees upon it. That is pretty absolute. I might ask if he considered the Nazi regime tolerable because it was a society's dictates, but from the way he puts it here...no glaring contradiction such as is present in your posts.

Furthermore--his stated stance on later term abortions has nothing to do with the morality of the issue, but rather is consistant with the utilitarian position. If he is willing to claim as his own the ramifications on human life and our own perception of life as a society that is brought about by seeing humans through the lens of utilitarianism, then what is there to argue about with him? He remains consistant--wrong, IMO--but consistant.

You, ngdawg, have elements of both sides of the argument in your position and it ultimately comes down to you not liking that I challenge your inconsistency because you are LAZY and want your cake and eat it too. You want to claim to value life as the pro-life side does, but you also want to be able to do what you want--when those two world collide--there's your inconsistency.

 

[ngdawg]

Getting to personal attacks now, are we? That's twice here now....
OK, let's pretend you really are that moronic and have no clue...I've already pointed out to you what the basic rights and wrongs would be...nice snip, but totally off the mark.
Again, hand over your wallet. See, now that would be wrong of me, wouldn't it? It's against the law and violates you. I know it's wrong, but don't care, I want the wallet.
Personal choice of what's right or wrong: Marrying for money. Wrong for me, might not be for you. Doesn't violate any laws or person, really. It's a choice.
Both examples are those of personal monetary satisfaction, but one is lawfully wrong, one might be morally wrong, depending on your view.
Choice/ consequence. See how simple? Good....:roll:

 

[americanwoman]

Your reason is the same process of thought as a position that says the life in the womb should have a right to "choose." The life that is inconvenienced is the woman's, the life that is exterminated is the young human in her womb. Why not err on the side of the life that is in jeopardy of termination? Especially if you ADMIT you don't know.

Secondly, it is just bull-puckey or cowardice when a person claims he or she has no right to judge. Every person judges every day in myriad ways. You would be catatonic if you didn't "judge"--in fact, when you say you "don't agree" with abortion, you admit you have judged the act. When you get out of bed, you have "judged" the day worthy of your conscious action within it.

What you are really saying is that you believe in a relative morality--one that depends on no set of absolute definitions or facts. IOW--Other people's perspectives are just as accurate as yours are NO MATTER WHAT. Relative morality is that which bases its determinations on an ever-changing "relationship" between two specific frames of reference. And, since there is no "absolute" reference that is the "correct" perspective, ANY reference is correct. So basically--there is no "right" or "wrong"--merely a "relationship" among various perspectives.

Ultimately, if you leap way ahead on the logic path, that means that everything everywhere is without meaning anywhere. Is that what you really think? And if so--how can you have an opinion about ANYTHING? Can you see it is chaos and nihilism?

:roll: I guess real simple sometimes ain't real simple. I wanted to know what you feel not for you to judge my position. I guess you can't have an opinion, you just have an attack mode.