A question for anti-choicers

People who are pro choice shouldn't call people irresponsible for having large families. People who are pro choice shouldn't advocate or support china's one child policy. To truly be pro choice you have to support women's right to choose to have a baby or 10 babies. If you don't then you are not pro choice because you want the women to choose not to have the baby. Supporting women's rights is one thing but population control and women's rights do not allways go together. Women throughout the world keep having more children and this drives pro choice people crazy because they fear over population. To many pro choice people want women to choose to have an abortion. Babies shouldn't have an equal sign with carbon emmisions. Anyone who believes that china's one child policy is a great thing that protects the enviorement isn't pro choice. People who want countries around the world to modal population policies after china are not pro choice.
If you believe that governments need programs to reduce their countries birth rates you are not pro choice. To be trully pro choice you must support the woman's right to choose and not the governments right to choose for them. If you believe that abortion is essential to prevent over population then you are not pro choice because you care nothing about woman's rights. The idea that women make bad decesions should be irrelevant if you are pro choice. If too many human lives coming into the world terrifies you is talking about woman's rights your true motive. If you care more for the enviorement then you do for women you are not pro choice.
 
hotdog said:
People who are pro choice shouldn't call people irresponsible for having large families. People who are pro choice shouldn't advocate or support china's one child policy. To truly be pro choice you have to support women's right to choose to have a baby or 10 babies. If you don't then you are not pro choice because you want the women to choose not to have the baby. Supporting women's rights is one thing but population control and women's rights do not allways go together. Women throughout the world keep having more children and this drives pro choice people crazy because they fear over population. To many pro choice people want women to choose to have an abortion. Babies shouldn't have an equal sign with carbon emmisions. Anyone who believes that china's one child policy is a great thing that protects the enviorement isn't pro choice. People who want countries around the world to modal population policies after china are not pro choice.
If you believe that governments need programs to reduce their countries birth rates you are not pro choice. To be trully pro choice you must support the woman's right to choose and not the governments right to choose for them. If you believe that abortion is essential to prevent over population then you are not pro choice because you care nothing about woman's rights. The idea that women make bad decesions should be irrelevant if you are pro choice. If too many human lives coming into the world terrifies you is talking about woman's rights your true motive. If you care more for the enviorement then you do for women you are not pro choice.
Click to expand...


What's your point?
 
Beefy said:
Pro Choice. I'm pro choice, especially on things like a parents choice on where they send their child to school, ie vouchers, but most "pro choices" are anti-choice there. I'm pro choice on whether people should be able to determine their own retirement and opt out of the government's ponzi bullshit, but most who claim to be "pro choice" are not in favor of honest hard working people having the ability to have that choice. I'm pro choice on whether people should be allowed run their businesses in any way they please, even if it means allowing someone to smoke a cigarette in the bar that I built, slaved over and own. Most "Pro choice" people oppose that choice. I'm pro choice when it comes to allowing people to agree to terms of a service or product and a price, but most "pro choicers" oppose the free exchange without government intervention on every level.

Take your "pro choice" bullshit and shove it down your cock sucking throat. Anti choice? Look in the mirror you utter buffoon. Wait until you have to fend for yourself. Daddy's blanket isn't always going to be around fool. Ivory tower liberals. Whadda joke.
Click to expand...

This post is going in the Dude's Hall of Fame:clink:
 
Atheistmark said:
Late-second trimester babies can sometimes survive when taken out of the mother. But I don't think that viability is really anything more than an arbitrary point. We routinely slaughter and eat animals with a greater amount of cognitive ability than a second trimester fetus.
Click to expand...

an excellent rational for abortion.....it's akin to slaughtering and eating......only with humans....
 
Onceler said:
I also can't be convinced that there is something supremely magical that happens when a sperm combines with an egg;
Click to expand...

nothing "extremely magical" is required.....simple science tells you that certain things occur at the time of conception, that is, the fixing of the DNA of a new and unique being....our DNA marks us as being individuals who can be distinguished from any other human being.....can you propose an event anywhere along the cycle of development that suggests a more appropriate time to consider the unborn a "human being"?.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
nothing "extremely magical" is required.....simple science tells you that certain things occur at the time of conception, that is, the fixing of the DNA of a new and unique being....our DNA marks us as being individuals who can be distinguished from any other human being.....can you propose an event anywhere along the cycle of development that suggests a more appropriate time to consider the unborn a "human being"?.......
Click to expand...

The "fixing of the DNA"? Really? Combining a few proteins?

Whatever. Terminating 2 cells is not "murder." And I know you're a zealot on the topic, so it colors your attitude, and makes your parameters extremely rigid.

Like I said, I think viability & the development of certain characteristics, while arbitrary, are probably the best compromise.
 
Yurt said:
good points...it is a very complex issue and since it deals with life or potential life, a very emotional issue. to those who believe life begins at conception, that the state allows abortion is tantamount to the state allowing murder...i can see what you're saying about teh very early stages due to the fact i do not know exactly when life begins, but i'm with you in leaning heavily against the middle, later stages....my best friend's wife is due in a month, they've seen the sonograms and i can't help but believe that if (they would never) she aborted now simply because she didn't want the child, that this would not be murder

something i've never understood is: how can abortion be legal, but someone who is not the mother or doctor, kills the unborn child and gets charged with murder
Click to expand...

First and foremost, it is NOT a 'belief'... it is a scientific FACT that life begins at conception.

That said, the argument for when that life should be provided with basic human rights protection is up for debate.
 
Onceler said:
The "fixing of the DNA"? Really? Combining a few proteins?

Whatever. Terminating 2 cells is not "murder." And I know you're a zealot on the topic, so it colors your attitude, and makes your parameters extremely rigid.

Like I said, I think viability & the development of certain characteristics, while arbitrary, are probably the best compromise.
Click to expand...

the bold is probably accurate, though I would encourage those who believe in abortion on demand should contemplate the word arbitrary.
 
Superfreak said:
the bold is probably accurate, though I would encourage those who believe in abortion on demand should contemplate the word arbitrary.
Click to expand...

Arbitrary can be a troubling word, but it goes both ways; I think the considerations are very complex & beyond the thought process of most people (including me). That's also why many are so rigid about the moment of conception; it's cut & dry, and a very easy way to look at it.

Unfortunately, it's not so easy for the other side of the argument, which is the life of the potential mother & her control over her own body.

The pro life movement should focus their energy on things like education, birth control & changing the mindset of America in general to one of discouraging abortion & the need for it. The idea of outlawing it completely is bananas (imo)...
 
Onceler said:
The "fixing of the DNA"? Really? Combining a few proteins?

Whatever. Terminating 2 cells is not "murder." And I know you're a zealot on the topic, so it colors your attitude, and makes your parameters extremely rigid.

Like I said, I think viability & the development of certain characteristics, while arbitrary, are probably the best compromise.
Click to expand...
yes, really....you speak of compromise but ignore the fact that the fixing of the DNA is the most significant "development of certain characteristics" that the human body experiences throughout our entire life.....and stop with this "2 cells" bullshit.....no abortion of two cells has ever been performed and you well know it....

you're prepared to ignore science and take human life in the sake of "compromise" and you call ME a zealot?.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
yes, really....you speak of compromise but ignore the fact that the fixing of the DNA is the most significant "development of certain characteristics" that the human body experiences throughout our entire life.....and stop with this "2 cells" bullshit.....no abortion of two cells has ever been performed and you well know it....

you're prepared to ignore science and take human life in the sake of "compromise" and you call ME a zealot?.....
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

And the 2 cells is used for illustrative purposes. At the zygote stage, there is only a blueprint going on; not a being. A being entails much more than the rigidity of your thought process allows.
 
Onceler said:
Absolutely.

And the 2 cells is used for illustrative purposes. At the zygote stage, there is only a blueprint going on; not a being. A being entails much more than the rigidity of your thought process allows.
Click to expand...
It is, however, human life. The argument is philosophical as to whether it is yet a "person" and I can even see where people who say it isn't are coming from.

One thing that we know, at the point where it becomes a zygote it is a separate human life. Each measure that people use to allow directed abortions (as opposed to natural abortions, which often happen) are subjective, philosophical, and based in conjecture.
 
Damocles said:
It is, however, human life. The argument is philosophical as to whether it is yet a "person" and I can even see where people who say it isn't are coming from.

One thing that we know, at the point where it becomes a zygote it is a separate human life. Each measure that people use to allow directed abortions (as opposed to natural abortions, which often happen) are subjective, philosophical, and based in conjecture.
Click to expand...

I won't disagree with that last part. I certainly think they're subjective; the whole debate is, imo. You can say, as SF always does, that science is definitive on the idea that life begins at conception, but it's not definitive at all about the broader parameters of "life" as they apply to the debate.
 
Onceler said:
Arbitrary can be a troubling word, but it goes both ways; I think the considerations are very complex & beyond the thought process of most people (including me). That's also why many are so rigid about the moment of conception; it's cut & dry, and a very easy way to look at it.

Unfortunately, it's not so easy for the other side of the argument, which is the life of the potential mother & her control over her own body.

The pro life movement should focus their energy on things like education, birth control & changing the mindset of America in general to one of discouraging abortion & the need for it. The idea of outlawing it completely is bananas (imo)...
Click to expand...

That is why I encourage those who would use arbitrary measures in determining when it was acceptable to take a human life to reflect on the word arbitrary.

I don't look at its being 'cut and dry' as being the 'easy' way to look at it. It is the factual way to look at it.

With the exception of rape, the woman has control over her body. She controls whether or not she has sex or not. She controls whether or not she uses protection (and how much). I would assume that the vast majority of women understand how pregnancy occurs. Those are the CHOICES a woman (and the man for that matter) makes.

The pro life movement should focus their energy on things like education, birth control & changing the mindset of America in general
Click to expand...

Actually, the above is what the pro-abortionist should be focusing on. Pro-life by its very definition should be about protecting the LIFE that is taken by abortions.
 
Onceler said:
I won't disagree with that last part. I certainly think they're subjective; the whole debate is, imo. You can say, as SF always does, that science is definitive on the idea that life begins at conception, but it's not definitive at all about the broader parameters of "life" as they apply to the debate.
Click to expand...

Ah, but those broader parameters do not deal with 'life'. They deal with the arbitrary and subjective definitions of things like 'person'.

Again, I understand the viewpoint of the viability argument and the one that says the unborn child should not be entitled to human rights protections. Though I disagree with those opinions, they are valid arguments. That said, obviously I have a bit of a pet peeve about people trying to deny when the life begins.
 
Superfreak said:
Ah, but those broader parameters do not deal with 'life'. They deal with the arbitrary and subjective definitions of things like 'person'.

Again, I understand the viewpoint of the viability argument and the one that says the unborn child should not be entitled to human rights protections. Though I disagree with those opinions, they are valid arguments. That said, obviously I have a bit of a pet peeve about people trying to deny when the life begins.
Click to expand...

Well, we have our different pet peeves; mine is certainly calling the termination of something microscopic "murder" or equating it with killing babies. But we probably agree on more than you think. Certainly, as development progresses, it gets much fuzzier every step of the way, whether it's physical characteristics, viability, brain development, etc. Most peope who support abortion oppose late-term abortion, so obviously, something happens somewhere to shift a lot of minds.
 
Onceler said:
I won't disagree with that last part. I certainly think they're subjective; the whole debate is, imo. You can say, as SF always does, that science is definitive on the idea that life begins at conception, but it's not definitive at all about the broader parameters of "life" as they apply to the debate.
Click to expand...

can you give me a legally sustainable explanation of why broader parameters are required?......do you insist on human life plus something else when you talk about other actions involving death?........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top