What makes abortion rights liberal?

[Unrein]

1. There's no mother until there's a child.
Having been both a mother and a pregnant 15-year-old, believe me, I know where I'm coming from. Missing a period and then puking one morning does not a "mother" make.
There's far more to being a mother than that. Far more.
To suggest otherwise is an insult to mothers.

No need to argue semantics. I meant 'mother' to mean somone who is pregnant relative to the fetus (regardless of whether that fetus counts as a person). If you would preffer me to use the word "host" instead of "mother" that's fine.

2. Even if fetuses were "people", there's nothing "equal" about allowing them to occupy other people's bodies against their will and extract their bodily resources without their consent.
Nobody else is allowed to do that, under any circumstances.

Agree'd completely. You're exactly right, liberals ARE treating the fetus equally, giving them the right to physically siphon another persons nutrients against thier will would be utterly unequal.

Lasix needs to adress that.

 

[1069]

No need to argue semantics. I meant 'mother' to mean somone who is pregnant relative to the fetus (regardless of whether that fetus counts as a person). If you would preffer me to use the word "host" instead of "mother" that's fine.

I would prefer you to use the accurate term, which is "pregnant woman".
We're all intelligent people here.
There are no "unborn babies". There are no "mothers" who do not have children.
This isn't preschool, or a hallmark card.
This is reality, and I'm sure we're all aware of what's what.
It's not about 'semantics", it's about sounding like an intelligent human being instead of babbling in baby talk while trying to address a serious political issue.
That's what separates us from the antichoicers, after all.

 

[Unrein]

I would prefer you to use the accurate term, which is "pregnant woman".
We're all intelligent people here.
There are no "unborn babies". There are no "mothers" who do not have children.
This isn't preschool, or a hallmark card.
This is reality, and I'm sure we're all aware of what's what.
It's not about 'semantics", it's about sounding like an intelligent human being instead of babbling in baby talk while trying to address a serious political issue.
That's what separates us from the antichoicers, after all.

The difference between the word 'mother' and 'pregnant woman' had no significance to the point I was making, I think anyone reading it was aware of what I meant. I'am obviously not intentionally watering down words since I'am argueing for the pro-choice position. I typed 'mother' instead of 'pregnant woman' because it communicates the same f****** thing in that particular context yet takes less time to type, not because I'am trying to use baby-talk.

 

[lasix]

No that is not what I am talking about. What you are describing is not the definition of conservatism, you are describing libertarianism (aka what liberalism used to mean)

The American political spectrum is modern vs clasic liberalism. Today they devide up to conservative (right), liberal (left), and moderate (middle). I have discussed this throughout the thread. Please read the first post in this thread. I described in detail the 6 main differences in US politicts that designates rigth vs left. If I was discussing libertarianism, I would be supportive of people doing whatever they wanted so long as it does not effect another person... which aside from defining libertarianism, would be a move further to the right of the US conservative party on the political spectrum. Which further demonstrates where abortion rights would fit in the political spectrum... IE not liberal, a jump across from the far right all the way to the left while still being opposed by the right... I don't get it.

Conservatives say they are for small government, "freedom over equallity" to make them sound nobel but in actuallity they support no such thing.

I am not sure what your point is. I am not discussing individuals, or the republican/democratic party. The point of this thread is to discuss right vs left on abortion rights. My point was about using abortion as a litums test on where people stand on the political spectrum. I found it ironic that most who are conservative point to their record on anti-abortion, when it is clear that pro-abortion is much more conservative.

Freedom over equality is a conservative hallmark.

)

No, gay marriage is both liberty AND freedom, you are removing government AND thus creating freedom by preventing government intrusion.

Liberty IS freedom.

Creation of laws is liberal as defined by positive law. Marriage is a legally binding, agrement between 2 people recognized by the federal and state government. You are making a paradox as your point in an argument. The Government cannot make a law, thus removing itself from the law. Who will enforce the law if the government is not going to intrude in that area of the law? Who would provide oversite to make sure such laws are followed?

)

The relationship between equality and freedom is not as you describe it.

You weren't expecting to change my mind with that rebuttal were you?

Prove it. Show me how I am wrong in my understanding of cause and effect. Show me the game of just winners. Take me to the land of the free and equal.

)

The fetus is not a human being (human tissue sure). If any liberal believed that a fetus was a person of course they would be pro-life.

Many liberals support things that are outside the scope of "human life". Animal rights is one example that jumped out at me while I was reading your response. I hear it all the time on TV "the animal was treated INHUMANE"... Liberal correct? Giving rights and human qualities to those that do not deserve such rights... bringing things closer to equal... hence, why I do not understand why abortion rights is supported by people who lable theselves as "liberal".

 

[winston53660]

Many liberals support things that are outside the scope of "human life". Animal rights is one example that jumped out at me while I was reading your response. I hear it all the time on TV "the animal was treated INHUMANE"... Liberal correct? Giving rights and human qualities to those that do not deserve such rights... bringing things closer to equal... hence, why I do not understand why abortion rights is supported by people who lable theselves as "liberal".

Just tossing a monkey wrench in here. What about birth control/forced abortion for animals? Would you consider that liberal or conservative?

Often times female cats and dogs are pregnant when fixed. I wonder what PETA's view is on this?

 

[Bonnie1988]

Just tossing a monkey wrench in here. What about birth control/forced abortion for animals? Would you consider that liberal or conservative?

Often times female cats and dogs are pregnant when fixed. I wonder what PETA's view is on this?

I suppose a great shift on topics, but just the thought - could a parent require an under-aged teenage daughter to take birth control pills?

 

[winston53660]

I suppose a great shift on topics, but just the thought - could a parent require an under-aged teenage daughter to take birth control pills?

If I remember correctly there was a judge here in Texas who gave a underages girl probation on the condition that she did not have sex or get anymore tattoes. I'll google and see if I can find it.

 

[Bonnie1988]

If I remember correctly there was a judge here in Texas who gave a underages girl probation on the condition that she did not have sex or get anymore tattoes. I'll google and see if I can find it.

Sounds like very reasonable conditions.

 

[winston53660]

Sounds like very reasonable conditions.

I really don't think so. Still googling w/o very much luck. After 3 I'll put forth more effort.

 

[Bonnie1988]

I really don't think so. Still googling w/o very much luck. After 3 I'll put forth more effort.

You don't need to unless for your curiousity. Most under-age sex is illegal and doing a tattoo without parental consent I think is also illegal, isn't it?

 

[lasix]

Just tossing a monkey wrench in here. What about birth control/forced abortion for animals? Would you consider that liberal or conservative?

Often times female cats and dogs are pregnant when fixed. I wonder what PETA's view is on this?

What's the difference if you kill the animal in utero, or wait for it to reach a certain age after birth?

Following the outlined conservative vs liberal in the opening post... if a person is making a claim of equality, that animals have the same rights as you do... then that would be a rather liberal move.

 

[BlueKC]

What's the difference if you kill the animal in utero, or wait for it to reach a certain age after birth?

Following the outlined conservative vs liberal in the opening post... if a person is making a claim of equality, that animals have the same rights as you do... then that would be a rather liberal move.

And an insane one. Pretty sure we'd need to figure out whether an animal has an inalienable right to life before we decide if their fetus does.

 

[lasix]

And an insane one. Pretty sure we'd need to figure out whether an animal has an inalienable right to life before we decide if their fetus does.

liberal, correct?

 

[moolanus]

This might be a little late in the argument and I haven't read all of the pages, but on the ones I have read I haven't really seen the conservative argument.

The true conservative argument states that when the sperm meshes with the egg (conception) it is the beginning of life. It is from this point that conservatives believe the right to life begins. Conservatives are against murder and abortion would fall under this category.

To the original poster: You probably missed this because you over-thought your first post. In fact most of those statements about conservatives or what they believe are wrong.

 

[.daniel]

The woman gave consent when she engaged in sexual activities that resulted in the pregnancy. It isn't the fetus's fault that the mother had sex and now doesn't want to take responsibility for it.


1.) Whether you think the fetus is a person or not, biologists agree that human life startes at concept.

2.) If all humans are given the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness at their creation, then they are given these rights the instant they become human: conception.

3.) Ergo, the fetus is a human life with all of the rights that it is inherently owed.

Nine months of inconvience because of a consenual choice does not trump 70-80 years of life.

 

[kbdid]

Some would say that human life starts even BEFORE conception...so should contraceptives and masturbation be ruled out too?

Sure, an unwanted pregnancy can occur and often does during consensual sex...but this doesn't allow for failed birth control or failure on the part of a male to use birth control correctly - it's always the woman's fault, isn't it? Conception also unfortunately can occur in rape or incestuous intercourse.

Yes, if you consider life starts at conception foetuses are alive. They are also as foetuses part of the body of another life - and the consideration of the woman's life/ability to have a child trumps that of something growing inside of her body.

I don't see this as a political issue - it is more of a philosophical or religious issue, and as more religious folks tend to be conservative, more conservatives are prolife. I know fiscal/social conservatives who are prochoice, and libs who might be prochoice but who personally consider abortion wrong for the reasons stated above or are prolife for religious reasons. I would say the liberal viewpoint is more apparent in that it might promote individual choice and reject controlling reproductive rights based on others' philosophical or religious grounds...

 

[.daniel]

Some would say that human life starts even BEFORE conception...so should contraceptives and masturbation be ruled out too?

Sure, an unwanted pregnancy can occur and often does during consensual sex...but this doesn't allow for failed birth control or failure on the part of a male to use birth control correctly - it's always the woman's fault, isn't it? Conception also unfortunately can occur in rape or incestuous intercourse.

Yes, if you consider life starts at conception foetuses are alive. They are also as foetuses part of the body of another life - and the consideration of the woman's life/ability to have a child trumps that of something growing inside of her body.

I don't see this as a political issue - it is more of a philosophical or religious issue, and as more religious folks tend to be conservative, more conservatives are prolife. I know fiscal/social conservatives who are prochoice, and libs who might be prochoice but who personally consider abortion wrong for the reasons stated above or are prolife for religious reasons. I would say the liberal viewpoint is more apparent in that it might promote individual choice and reject controlling reproductive rights based on others' philosophical or religious grounds...

And I would say those people are wrong. Semen by itself is just a biological fluid. Sperm is just a reproductive cell. That is scientifcally correct.

However, if you join an egg and sperm and they fertilize, you have a human being. Again, biologists agree about this. The argument is whether or not it is a person.

Failed contraceptives are still not enough. If you engage in sex, you know the risks. Sure, it feeds off of you for nine months, but it isn't the fetus's fault. It has decades of life ahead of it, and you're going to cut that off simply because you don't want to put up with the consequences of your actions? Sorry, that isn't a good enough reason.

Rape is wholly different, especially if they carry it out immediately afterwards. Some girls can't physically support it or give birth without risking their own health.


I see it as a human rights issue. If we agree that feti are indeed human life, something scientists agree about, then are they not entitled to the same rights granted to every American "at creation"? I think even you agree that the human baby isn't spontaneously "created" at birth. If not then, when? Answer: at conception, when the sperm fertilizes an egg and they both go from being seperate reproductive cells to an embryo that is developing.


I mean, if you want to say that just because it is in a lower stage of development it doesn't have rights, why can'y we kill children? they are in a lower stage of development, they are dependent on others for care...using your line of reasoning, it's perfectly just.

 

[Shewter]

Rape is wholly different, especially if they carry it out immediately afterwards. Some girls can't physically support it or give birth without risking their own health.

Sorry to be "That guy". But I'm going to have to let you in on a little secret.

Most women after they are raped take a long, OVERLY cleansing shower. They try to rid themselves of the "Disgust". This makes rape kits useless.

So, are these women to be punished further based on their natural reaction?

If so, would you be okay with telling a rape victim that they HAVE to alter their body, and mind in order to birth a child that was not of their choice? Are you okay with FORCING rape pregnancy?

If not, how would we go about protecting these unfortunate victims?

 

[OKgrannie]

And I would say those people are wrong. Semen by itself is just a biological fluid. Sperm is just a reproductive cell. That is scientifcally correct.

Sperm is "just" a reproductive cell that is human and alive.

However, if you join an egg and sperm and they fertilize, you have a human being. Again, biologists agree about this. The argument is whether or not it is a person

.

Biologists do not even agree on the definition of "a human being." If you join an egg and sperm, you have human life and it may grow. If you have an egg, or a sperm, you still have human life.

Failed contraceptives are still not enough. If you engage in sex, you know the risks. Sure, it feeds off of you for nine months, but it isn't the fetus's fault. It has decades of life ahead of it, and you're going to cut that off simply because you don't want to put up with the consequences of your actions? Sorry, that isn't a good enough reason.

It's not a good enough reason for YOU. It's a good enough reason for thousands of others, and there is no reason they should be bound by YOUR reasoning.

Rape is wholly different, especially if they carry it out immediately afterwards. Some girls can't physically support it or give birth without risking their own health

.

That's true of any pregnancy.

I see it as a human rights issue. If we agree that feti are indeed human life, something scientists agree about, then are they not entitled to the same rights granted to every American "at creation"? I think even you agree that the human baby isn't spontaneously "created" at birth. If not then, when? Answer: at conception, when the sperm fertilizes an egg and they both go from being seperate reproductive cells to an embryo that is developing.

Fetuses are indeed human life, "human" as in adjective, not a human noun. Of course the human baby isn't spontaneously created at birth, neither is it spontaneously created at conception. It is a nine month process. Babies aren't instant.

I mean, if you want to say that just because it is in a lower stage of development it doesn't have rights, why can'y we kill children? they are in a lower stage of development, they are dependent on others for care...using your line of reasoning, it's perfectly just.

Children are socially dependent, not physically dependent. Zefs are physically dependent, meaning they are dependent upon one particular person for survival. In no other circumstances, is a provider forced to provide care. The elderly, the comatose, children, the mentally deficient, are all cared for voluntarily. There is a consensus in our society that we don't purposely kill children, someone will voluntarily care for them, there is no such consensus for zefs.

 

[kbdid]

I was not stating when I thought life began, I was simply pointing out different views - some would believe that life exists before conception...does anyone want to join me in a rousing rendition of "Every Sperm is Sacred"?

My own opinion - it's none of my business whether someone wants to be pregnant or not. That's the liberal view, IMO.

 

[Shewter]

I was not stating when I thought life began, I was simply pointing out different views - some would believe that life exists before conception...does anyone want to join me in a rousing rendition of "Every Sperm is Sacred"?

My own opinion - it's none of my business whether someone wants to be pregnant or not. That's the liberal view, IMO.

Well, since they can make a baby out of ****ing bone marro now... I have to say I am less inclined to give a microscopic mixture of sperm+Egg the credit it might have had before.

Meh.

 

[.daniel]

Sorry to be "That guy". But I'm going to have to let you in on a little secret.

Most women after they are raped take a long, OVERLY cleansing shower. They try to rid themselves of the "Disgust". This makes rape kits useless.

So, are these women to be punished further based on their natural reaction?

If so, would you be okay with telling a rape victim that they HAVE to alter their body, and mind in order to birth a child that was not of their choice? Are you okay with FORCING rape pregnancy?

If not, how would we go about protecting these unfortunate victims?

Huh. I distinctly remember stating that rape victims do have the right to an abortion. Perhaps you misread?

 

[.daniel]

Sperm is "just" a reproductive cell that is human and alive.

.

Biologists do not even agree on the definition of "a human being." If you join an egg and sperm, you have human life and it may grow. If you have an egg, or a sperm, you still have human life.



It's not a good enough reason for YOU. It's a good enough reason for thousands of others, and there is no reason they should be bound by YOUR reasoning.

.

That's true of any pregnancy.




Fetuses are indeed human life, "human" as in adjective, not a human noun. Of course the human baby isn't spontaneously created at birth, neither is it spontaneously created at conception. It is a nine month process. Babies aren't instant.




Children are socially dependent, not physically dependent. Zefs are physically dependent, meaning they are dependent upon one particular person for survival. In no other circumstances, is a provider forced to provide care. The elderly, the comatose, children, the mentally deficient, are all cared for voluntarily. There is a consensus in our society that we don't purposely kill children, someone will voluntarily care for them, there is no such consensus for zefs.

But it isn't human life on its own. There is a difference.


Yes, but virtually all agree that a fertilized egg is human life.


It has nothing to do with it being my reasoning. I mean, hey, serial killers aren't bound by my reasoning, so should law enforcement say "**** it" because the killers are misunderstood? If this was a victimless crime I would be supporting your reasoning, but we are discussing humans, even if they are small, stupid ones.


Dependence is dependence. It doesn't matter which one. So if society as a whole decides they are tired of the burdern, they can kill mentally retarded, handicapped, or elderly people? It isn't up to society. EVERYONE has the right to life. If the woman didn't want to care for that life, she shouldn't have engaged in sex.

And, again:

Nine months of pain-in-the-ass < Decades of life

ESPECIALLY if the woman actually chose that to begin with. Jeez. We don't pass kids in high school no matter what, do we? If the kid makes a mistake and fails, than that is the consequence. You live with that. You deal. And after nine months of someone that YOU created depending you, you're done. The child can live with a loving family, and you can have some sense of peace knowing you didn't kill an innocent person to get yourself out of trouble that you put yourself in.

 

[.daniel]

I was not stating when I thought life began, I was simply pointing out different views - some would believe that life exists before conception...does anyone want to join me in a rousing rendition of "Every Sperm is Sacred"?

My own opinion - it's none of my business whether someone wants to be pregnant or not. That's the liberal view, IMO.

And I wouldn't care if it wasn't a human they were carrying.

 

[1069]

And I wouldn't care if it wasn't a human they were carrying.

Good. Because I wouldn't care if it was.