PDA

View Full Version : Is it possible to be Pro-Life AND Pro Choice?



marinejcksn
07-19-2009, 11:24 PM
Just something that's been on my mind lately, not trying to start too huge a debate on the subject I'd just like some honest opinions on it. I've gotten into heated discussions about Abortion with other Conservatives before and I'd like to hear what you inteligent people have to say as well.

I feel most connected to Libertarians and while we're closest to Conservatives (I feel) rather than Liberals, here's some of my broad feelings on the whole Abortion issue:

First of all, I believe it's an immoral, barbaric process. I would never and have never supported any women in my life (mother, sister) having an Abortion because of said beliefs. I feel the Federal Government owes no dime of taxpayer money to compensation for subsidizing Abortions for anyone and I feel that Roe vs Wade should be overturned on the basis that the Supreme Court ignored the Tenth Amendment and States, not the Feds, should be able to pass their own Abortion or Anti-Abortion legislation only.

BUT, when it comes to a woman making a choice regarding her own body I feel she has the Right to do whatever she wish. In my opinion it's no place to pass judgement on anyone else (like the Bible says) and in order to be a Free people we should respect the Rights and privacy of every citizen no matter how much we may personally disagree with their choices.

So is it possible to be Pro-Life and Pro-Choice? I wonder...:confused:

Rockntractor
07-19-2009, 11:32 PM
To be pro life is to give the government the responibility to protect all unborn children. Not just to be against the practise. One could say I don't want any off my family or friends to murder anyone but who am I to cast judgement on anyone else that wants to murder someone. I see little middle ground here but I no exactly what you are saying. I myself feel that way at times and I have to remind myself that all human life should have the right by law to live. How can they protect themselves.

samurai
07-19-2009, 11:39 PM
Just something that's been on my mind lately, not trying to start too huge a debate on the subject I'd just like some honest opinions on it. I've gotten into heated discussions about Abortion with other Conservatives before and I'd like to hear what you inteligent people have to say as well.

I feel most connected to Libertarians and while we're closest to Conservatives (I feel) rather than Liberals, here's some of my broad feelings on the whole Abortion issue:

First of all, I believe it's an immoral, barbaric process. I would never and have never supported any women in my life (mother, sister) having an Abortion because of said beliefs. I feel the Federal Government owes no dime of taxpayer money to compensation for subsidizing Abortions for anyone and I feel that Roe vs Wade should be overturned on the basis that the Supreme Court ignored the Tenth Amendment and States, not the Feds, should be able to pass their own Abortion or Anti-Abortion legislation only.

BUT, when it comes to a woman making a choice regarding her own body I feel she has the Right to do whatever she wish. In my opinion it's no place to pass judgement on anyone else (like the Bible says) and in order to be a Free people we should respect the Rights and privacy of every citizen no matter how much we may personally disagree with their choices.

So is it possible to be Pro-Life and Pro-Choice? I wonder...:confused:
To be truly pro-life, I feel you must believe there is a life at stake. If you feel "it's a woman's right to choose because it's her body", you don't seem to believe there is a 2nd person there, a person whose life is at stake. Pro-lifer's are not anti-choice... they believe that it is a person's right to decide what to do with their own body. It's just that they believe there is a 2nd living person that will be killed rather than a tumerous growth in the woman's stomach that is still part of her own body, and that people should not be able to kill another person because doing so is more convenient for them.

So, at what point to you really believe life, and a separate human being, begins? At birth? At conception? Or at some point in between, such as the start of brain activity in the 2nd trimester?

For myself, it's brain activity... before that point, I feel it's not yet a separate, thinking human being, and can be aborted (though it's still a potential human being and deserves respect and due consideration.) After that point, I feel it's a separate human being, and the mother has no right to kill it unless it is necessary to save her own life or as a mercy killing due to severe physical defects that would result in a prolonged and agonizing death for the child.

RobJohnson
07-20-2009, 02:57 AM
So is it possible to be Pro-Life and Pro-Choice? I wonder...:confused:


Yes, as it sounds like you are both.

megimoo
07-20-2009, 03:24 AM
Just something that's been on my mind lately, not trying to start too huge a debate on the subject I'd just like some honest opinions on it. I've gotten into heated discussions about Abortion with other Conservatives before and I'd like to hear what you inteligent people have to say as well.

I feel most connected to Libertarians and while we're closest to Conservatives (I feel) rather than Liberals, here's some of my broad feelings on the whole Abortion issue:

First of all, I believe it's an immoral, barbaric process. I would never and have never supported any women in my life (mother, sister) having an Abortion because of said beliefs. I feel the Federal Government owes no dime of taxpayer money to compensation for subsidizing Abortions for anyone and I feel that Roe vs Wade should be overturned on the basis that the Supreme Court ignored the Tenth Amendment and States, not the Feds, should be able to pass their own Abortion or Anti-Abortion legislation only.

BUT, when it comes to a woman making a choice regarding her own body I feel she has the Right to do whatever she wish. In my opinion it's no place to pass judgement on anyone else (like the Bible says) and in order to be a Free people we should respect the Rights and privacy of every citizen no matter how much we may personally disagree with their choices.

So is it possible to be Pro-Life and Pro-Choice? I wonder...:confused:I feel that the choices we make in this life have an effect on our spiritual life and we are held accountable for them .To me the terms are mutually exclusive. That is the one opposes the other.To be pro life and pro death at the same time is impossible .Isn't pro choice the same thing as choosing between life or death ?

!My beliefs are that at the moment of conception a life is formed and if uninterrupted will it develop into a new born baby !If we intentionally stop the process and abort the child we have committed infanticide !

Partial birth abortion is a step further and is demonstratably murder most foul .The child is delivered it's spinal cord cut and at one time reinserted into the womb.Now they don't even bother reinserting it .

FlaGator
07-20-2009, 06:11 AM
It would be like having your cake and eating it too. Sorry for the cliche but it is apt here. I am for the life of the child. I believe that the time for choice was upstream when there was a choice to prevent the conception of the child possible. When people engage in an action then they are saying that the will take responsibility for any consequences of that action. It is implied consent. In most cases abortion is a way to wiggle out of the responsibility they agreed to when they engaged in the behavior that lead to the choice to kill a child or not. Do you think that someone should be given the choice to take a life in order to rectify a bad decision they made?

FeebMaster
07-20-2009, 07:44 AM
Of course it's possible. You just have to be able to separate your personal morals from the proper role of the state.

marinejcksn
07-20-2009, 07:46 AM
Do you think that someone should be given the choice to take a life in order to rectify a bad decision they made?

Absolutely not. I think Samurai made a great point for me personally with deciding when exactly it's a 2nd life and past the point debating it, personally I feel once there's brain activity present or a heartbeat on a sonogram it's another Human Being and Abortion shouldn't be allowed unless the mother's health will be seriously impacted as a result of carrying the child to term. I'm not convinced on the arguement that life begins at conception.

Space Gravy
07-20-2009, 08:15 AM
I think it is possible.

I constantly hear some folks get worked up abortion is murder, people that have them are baby killers, etc... but they don't have a problem with it in the case of rape or danger to the mother.

I don't think those people should be labled pro choice.

noonwitch
07-20-2009, 08:51 AM
Sure, there is a way to be both. One can choose one code to live one's own life by, and support a different rule as the law of the land.

linda22003
07-20-2009, 08:54 AM
I'd be content with having abortion be legal only during the first trimester. However, pro-lifers would probably realize that that's about 90% of all abortions and wouldn't go for it.

(Question to Megimoo: what would be the point of "reinserting" the fetus??)

linda22003
07-20-2009, 08:57 AM
I'm not convinced on the arguement that life begins at conception.

Life certainly begins, in the sense that the ability to continue to grow and develop is there. That doesn't answer why the needs and interests of a blastocyst outweigh the needs and interests of a grown woman, which I do not believe they do.

Rockntractor
07-20-2009, 09:35 AM
There are some Christians that argue that God does not Issue a soul at conception. They feel the soul is given later possibly at birth so if a fetus is terminated a human with a soul does not die. God the gives the soul to another being and life goes on. That is not my view but many Disciples of Christ held that view during my short stay there.

Gingersnap
07-20-2009, 10:10 AM
I would say, "No".

While there isn't a positive societal obligation to preserve unborn life at any cost, I think there is a positive societal obligation to preserve innocent life at natural costs.

I would argue that that there are two actors in any pregnancy who have potentially competing claims on liberty. The woman obviously can object that her body is being held captive for 9 months. This is true but it's only for a short time. She is under no obligation to care for any child and the State has no power to make her do so. The injury she has endured during the pregnancy (discomfort, weight gain, reversible medical issues, etc.) is repairable on one level or another. It's vanishingly rare that she would suffer permanent physical disability or death. She can resume her life.

The child also has a claim to liberty. Through no fault of his own, he is required to endure the potentially haphazard conditions of the womb for 9 months. He may be permanently injured by maternal neglect (or maternal assault) during this time with no recourse to compensation. His only hope is life itself (life being the absolute foundation of liberty). If he is killed, there is no remediation or compensation that can be made to him.


Given that the woman's hardships are transitory but the dead child's condition is permanent, I would say that his claims on her body are greater than her desire for him to instantaneously vacate his life.

wilbur
07-20-2009, 10:40 AM
Its absolutely possible to have that stance; and contrary to what people are saying in this thread, its possible to do without any self-contradiction, at all. I think quite a number of 'pro-choice' voters actually feel the way you seem to.

One can believe that abortion is murder and have a personal distaste for it, while recognizing that there is no avenue with which to empirically establish this belief. The question of when exactly life and rights begin is a personal value judgment that is not verifiable in any rigorous sense and is based on one's own aesthetics. One can recognize that many, many people disagree with one's distaste for the act, and one might even recognize that many of these people have arguments that are challenging or impossible to completely refute - as such, it is immoral for government to interfere.

Hence the slogan: "Pro-choice, not pro-abortion"

Rockntractor
07-20-2009, 10:49 AM
Its absolutely possible to have that stance; and contrary to what people are saying in this thread, its possible to do without any self-contradiction, at all. I think quite a number of 'pro-choice' voters actually feel the way you seem to.

One can believe that abortion is murder and have a personal distaste for it, while recognizing that there is no avenue with which to empirically establish this belief. The question of when exactly life and rights begin is a personal value judgment that is largely arbitrary and based on one's own aesthetics. One can recognize that many, many people disagree with this, and one might even recognize that many of these people have arguments that are challenging or impossible to completely refute - as such, it is immoral for government to interfere.
Wilbur I am sure your entire family and their friends rethought abortion after you were born!
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/widget_afC2wTlJDd7OEzVwsD5DTY-1.jpg?t=1248101230

megimoo
07-20-2009, 10:49 AM
I would say, "No".

While there isn't a positive societal obligation to preserve unborn life at any cost, I think there is a positive societal obligation to preserve innocent life at natural costs.

I would argue that that there are two actors in any pregnancy who have potentially competing claims on liberty. The woman obviously can object that her body is being held captive for 9 months. This is true but it's only for a short time. She is under no obligation to care for any child and the State has no power to make her do so. The injury she has endured during the pregnancy (discomfort, weight gain, reversible medical issues, etc.) is repairable on one level or another. It's vanishingly rare that she would suffer permanent physical disability or death. She can resume her life.

The child also has a claim to liberty. Through no fault of his own, he is required to endure the potentially haphazard conditions of the womb for 9 months. He may be permanently injured by maternal neglect (or maternal assault) during this time with no recourse to compensation. His only hope is life itself (life being the absolute foundation of liberty). If he is killed, there is no remediation or compensation that can be made to him.


Given that the woman's hardships are transitory but the dead child's condition is permanent, I would say that his claims on her body are greater than her desire for him to instantaneously vacate his life.

Bravo,Well said !

PoliCon
07-20-2009, 11:33 AM
First of all, I believe it's an immoral, barbaric process. I would never and have never supported any women in my life (mother, sister) having an Abortion because of said beliefs. <SNIP>

BUT, when it comes to a woman making a choice regarding her own body I feel she has the Right to do whatever she wish. In my opinion it's no place to pass judgement on anyone else (like the Bible says) and in order to be a Free people we should respect the Rights and privacy of every citizen no matter how much we may personally disagree with their choices.

So is it possible to be Pro-Life and Pro-Choice? I wonder...:confused:

Tell me - if it is wrong enough for you to call it barbaric - why are you willing to allow it? Are there other "barbaric" acts you are also willing to allow? Rape maybe?

PoliCon
07-20-2009, 11:36 AM
I'd be content with having abortion be legal only during the first trimester. However, pro-lifers would probably realize that that's about 90% of all abortions and wouldn't go for it.

(Question to Megimoo: what would be the point of "reinserting" the fetus??)

I'll do you one better - I'll allow for abortions on demand in the case of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother - since those are the three reasons for abortion that most people support.

linda22003
07-20-2009, 11:49 AM
Ultimately, there's no reason to keep harping on this issue. Women have always had abortions whether they were legal or not, and they are not likely to become illegal again - less so under this administration than at any other time. Why not focus on issues that matter?

Gingersnap
07-20-2009, 12:16 PM
Ultimately, there's no reason to keep harping on this issue. Women have always had abortions whether they were legal or not, and they are not likely to become illegal again - less so under this administration than at any other time. Why not focus on issues that matter?

They aren't arguing about its legality, just about whether or not you can simultaneously hold a right to life view alongside a pro-choice view without compromising either position. ;)

linda22003
07-20-2009, 12:29 PM
If the argument isn't about legality, why is PoliCon graciously saying under which circumstances he would "allow" abortion (as if he could allow or disallow any!)?

Molon Labe
07-20-2009, 01:07 PM
For me personally, I just don't think you can have it both ways. It seems to be in direct violation of anothers liberty. Giving rights to one and denying them to others. There is only one case in which I can fathom it being the other way and that is when the life of the mother and the baby are in jeopardy as that brings the threat to life into play. That would be the only case I can fathom.

It's the taking of a human life plain and simple. If you believe that, it's very clear. If not then, that's where the waters get muddy. That's what the left likes to do; confuse themselves on something by making it abstract. There are few things more statist or left wing than the Pro choice stance on abortion. Especially since the federal government is so involved in the process.

Trying put a specific time on where life begins after pregnancy has begun ignores biology and gets into some pretty ambiguous areas. If you label something "potential" etc. then you're treading down the slippery slope that leads one to believe the same things about the elderly or infirmed. Liberals like words like that. Trying to call it a personal value judgement is akin to suggesting a baby is a choice, like whether to choose chocolate of vanilla at the Ice cream shop.

The lefts "facts are that it stops "unwanted" children who won't have "quality" lives. But the facts are that Abortion on demand has increased out-of-wedlock births and single parenthood and "unwanted" pregnancies. Quite an interesting trade off huh?

If a woman doesn't want a "baby" then it's probably a good idea not to engage in practices that lead to them or take precautions.

Oh yeah...that bullcrap that liberals troll out about "even in the event of rape and incest" is less thna 1%, so it's a non issue. I have alot of gray areas, but innocent human life isn't one of them.

Wanna see something pretty cool? How about this great lady. She was ones considered "Potential life"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPF1FhCMPuQ&feature=related

there's two parts to this.

linda22003
07-20-2009, 01:18 PM
But the facts are that Abortion on demand has increased out-of-wedlock births and single parenthood and "unwanted" pregnancies.

Abortion is the CAUSE of those things? I think changing societal mores in general has increased all of those things, but I don't think abortion per se is the cause of all that. I think you've got a case of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc", here.

samurai
07-20-2009, 01:22 PM
I don't really see brain activity as a slippery slope, I see it as being consistent with the accepted determination of death. If a person stops breathing, they used to be considered dead, which is why the 1st breath was similarly called the start of life. But today, they can be kept alive and maybe resuscitated when they stop breathing. Instead of breath, when brain activity ceases we now declare the person dead. Using the same logic, I feel that breath (at birth) is no longer the best determination for start of life, but instead we should use the start of brain activity, to be consistent.

FlaGator
07-20-2009, 01:22 PM
Speaking as a former fetus, I believe that abortion is wrong. To be pro-choice but anti-abortion is really stradling the fence and attempting to be on both sides of the issue at the same time. To say that the choice is wrong for you but right for someone else is moral relativity its most extreme. This is like saying that it's ok for Iranians to kill homosexuals but personally not approving the practice.

PoliCon
07-20-2009, 01:25 PM
If the argument isn't about legality, why is PoliCon graciously saying under which circumstances he would "allow" abortion (as if he could allow or disallow any!)?

Any discussion about the right or wrong of it - is a discussion of what would be allowed. Abortion for sake of birth control is selfish and evil. I'm all for a woman's right to control her own body - the choice for control comes with the spreading of the legs though. It cracks me up that women insist that they not be forced into parenthood but are damn well ready to do it to men and feel justified in doing it! :rolleyes: Lets be fair - if a woman can't be forced to have a baby and be allowed to have an abortion - the father of the child should have the same rights.

PoliCon
07-20-2009, 01:27 PM
Abortion is the CAUSE of those things? I think changing societal mores in general has increased all of those things, but I don't think abortion per se is the cause of all that. I think you've got a case of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc", here.

I'm thinking that no fault divorce and the "great society" making it cheep and easy to slut around - are more to blame than abortion.

PoliCon
07-20-2009, 01:28 PM
I don't really see brain activity as a slippery slope, I see it as being consistent with the accepted determination of death. If a person stops breathing, they used to be considered dead, which is why the 1st breath was similarly called the start of life. But today, they can be kept alive and maybe resuscitated when they stop breathing. Instead of breath, when brain activity ceases we now declare the person dead. Using the same logic, I feel that breath (at birth) is no longer the best determination for start of life, but instead we should use the start of brain activity, to be consistent.

I can go with that.

Molon Labe
07-20-2009, 01:37 PM
Abortion is the CAUSE of those things? I think changing societal mores in general has increased all of those things, but I don't think abortion per se is the cause of all that. I think you've got a case of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc", here.

I don't mean it's the only reason, but certainly it hasn't helped. If you don't see how it's easier for someone to say "who cares, Ill just get an abortion" when it becomes easy to do so.....sorry. I've witnessed it first hand.

FeebMaster
07-20-2009, 01:49 PM
I don't mean it's the only reason, but certainly it hasn't helped. If you don't see how it's easier for someone to say "who cares, Ill just get an abortion" when it becomes easy to do so.....sorry. I've witnessed it first hand.

Do you really want people that dumb reproducing?

linda22003
07-20-2009, 02:11 PM
Abortion for sake of birth control is selfish and evil.

More to the point, it's incredibly inefficient.



I'm all for a woman's right to control her own body - the choice for control comes with the spreading of the legs though.

"Spreading the legs" - the code term for "women are sluts if they have sex outside of marriage". :rolleyes:


It cracks me up that women insist that they not be forced into parenthood but are damn well ready to do it to men and feel justified in doing it! :rolleyes: Lets be fair - if a woman can't be forced to have a baby and be allowed to have an abortion - the father of the child should have the same rights.

I knew we'd get to your REAL objection eventually. :cool: If women are that evil, I'd either wear a rubber or stay away from 'em completely, if I were you.

wilbur
07-20-2009, 02:12 PM
Again, truth is, abortion is no different than any other moral issue. Its baffling to see so many stumble over the simple idea in the OP.

Here's an analogy:

If you believe use of narcotics is a moral wrong, does that obligate you to outlaw it? Of course not.

linda22003
07-20-2009, 02:12 PM
I'm thinking that no fault divorce and the "great society" making it cheep and easy to slut around - are more to blame than abortion.

I knew we'd get to "sluts" eventually, but why are you making a bird noise in the middle? :confused:

PoliCon
07-20-2009, 02:21 PM
"Spreading the legs" - the code term for "women are sluts if they have sex outside of marriage". :rolleyes:If the hooker pumps fit . . . . :rolleyes: We all know that most men are horndogs and lack all self control when it comes to sex - and ready to screw just about anything that has a hole - so why dance around? But it's not just that. It's in general. If a woman does not want to have a child she needs to take precautions BEFORE she does the deed to see that it does not happen.




I knew we'd get to your REAL objection eventually. :cool: If women are that evil, I'd either wear a rubber or stay away from 'em completely, if I were you. I have no children and no prospects of having children so it's not an issue for me. But I do know of guys who have been forced into parenthood. Why is it that only she gets to choose? Why not the father? and why not the child?

Gingersnap
07-20-2009, 02:24 PM
Here's an analogy:

If you believe use of narcotics is a moral wrong, does that obligate you to outlaw it? Of course not.

It's a poor analogy. Immorality itself is no reason to automatically regulate behavior and outcomes have always been a critical factor in discussions of moral versus immoral behavior.

PoliCon
07-20-2009, 02:26 PM
Again, truth is, abortion is no different than any other moral issue. Its baffling to see so many stumble over the simple idea in the OP.

Here's an analogy:

If you believe use of narcotics is a moral wrong, does that obligate you to outlaw it? Of course not.

it does if using narcotics infringes upon the rights of others. If you wanna sit in your house and do heroin on your own dime all day - be my guest. The moment however you start looking for government handouts - which they all do - then you are infringing upon my liberty.

Abortion is in 98% of the cases - murder.


MURDER
The precise definition of murder varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Under the common law, or law made by courts, murder was the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. The term malice aforethought did not necessarily mean that the killer planned or premeditated on the killing, or that the killer felt malice toward the victim. Generally, malice aforethought referred to a level of intent or recklessness that separated murder from other killings and warranted stiffer punishment.

FROM (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=murder&gwp=13) (law encyclopedia)

linda22003
07-20-2009, 02:32 PM
If the hooker pumps fit . . . . :rolleyes: We all know that most men are horndogs and lack all self control when it comes to sex - and ready to screw just about anything that has a hole - so why dance around? But it's not just that. It's in general. If a woman does not want to have a child she needs to take precautions BEFORE she does the deed to see that it does not happen.



I agree that both sexes should take precautions. I do not accept the "boys will be boys" argument for the double standard.

FeebMaster
07-20-2009, 02:34 PM
Again, truth is, abortion is no different than any other moral issue. Its baffling to see so many stumble over the simple idea in the OP.

Here's an analogy:

If you believe use of narcotics is a moral wrong, does that obligate you to outlaw it? Of course not.

Wrong forum for that analogy.

Molon Labe
07-20-2009, 03:19 PM
Do you really want people that dumb reproducing?

:D That is a dilemma...I admit it. Kind of like Idiocracy?

I guess I have a smidge of faith that the child will at least have the chance to be smarter than the imbecile who produced it.



Again, truth is, abortion is no different than any other moral issue. Its baffling to see so many stumble over the simple idea in the OP.

Here's an analogy:

If you believe use of narcotics is a moral wrong, does that obligate you to outlaw it? Of course not.

Wilbur.....that's one heck of a stretch of an analogy.

wilbur
07-20-2009, 03:20 PM
It's a poor analogy. Immorality itself is no reason to automatically regulate behavior and outcomes have always been a critical factor in discussions of moral versus immoral behavior.

I'm glad to see you are such a consequentialist;)

But the way the OP was phrased simply referred to abortion as immoral and barbaric; he didn't express that it was murder (later marinejackson also expressed misgivings about the 'life at conception' idea) so I don't see him agreeing with the consequences that you believe are part and parcel to abortion (ie, the murder of a human being).

wilbur
07-20-2009, 03:21 PM
Wrong forum for that analogy.

Ehh, there are a few here who get it.

Gingersnap
07-20-2009, 03:36 PM
I'm glad to see you are such a consequentialist;)

I'm no such thing. I never said outcomes were the only determinative factor in discussions like this - only that they were part of the discussion.

Molon Labe
07-20-2009, 03:37 PM
Ehh, there are a few here who get it.

I haven't seen the Night Owl in a while. :D

megimoo
07-20-2009, 03:39 PM
They aren't arguing about its legality, just about whether or not you can simultaneously hold a right to life view alongside a pro-choice view without compromising either position. ;)There lies the paradox .How can one be pro life and pro choice when the choice is life or the death of a child ? "I Lay Before You Life And Death, Good And Evil."It's a simple choice but please don't be a hypocrite about it !

Rockntractor
07-20-2009, 04:03 PM
Again, truth is, abortion is no different than any other moral issue. Its baffling to see so many stumble over the simple idea in the OP.

Here's an analogy:

If you believe use of narcotics is a moral wrong, does that obligate you to outlaw it? Of course not.
To Murder or give life. To get high or stay sober. Oh yeah ! I see the connection. Moron.

wilbur
07-20-2009, 04:41 PM
To Murder...

This little bombshell nugget that you (and others) just simply assert all over the place (as if its a matter of fact) is precisely where the fundamental disagreement lies between those who are pro-choice and those who are anti-choice.

Do you guys really grasp this concept? The whole debate is whether the fetus is morally significant enough to have a right to life... pro-choicers would actually claim that abortion IS NOT murder. Sometimes I don't think anti-abortion folks around here actually understand this.

Molon Labe
07-20-2009, 04:48 PM
This little bombshell nugget that you (and others) just simply assert all over the place (as if its a matter of fact) is precisely where the fundamental disagreement lies between those who are pro-choice and those who are anti-choice.

Do you guys really grasp this concept? The whole debate is whether the fetus is a morally significant being with human rights... pro-choicers would actually claim that it IS NOT murder. Sometimes I don't think anti-abortion folks around here actually understand this.

I do. And your'e right about the concept of rights being the issue.

But then the "murder" term may be as blatantly loaded as your term "fetus". Both words give a certain connotation to our beliefs don't they?

Rockntractor
07-20-2009, 04:51 PM
This little bombshell nugget that you (and others) just simply assert all over the place (as if its a matter of fact) is precisely where the fundamental disagreement lies between those who are pro-choice and those who are anti-choice.

Do you guys really grasp this concept? The whole debate is whether the fetus is morally significant enough to have a right to life... pro-choicers would actually claim that abortion IS NOT murder. Sometimes I don't think anti-abortion folks around here actually understand this.

Even if you think it is not murder do you honestly think your analogy was appropriate?

linda22003
07-20-2009, 08:10 PM
Nobody thinks it's murder.

No one has suggested that if abortion were illegal, that a woman should get the death penalty for having an abortion - even if they believe in capital punishment. Very few people think the woman should even be imprisoned, that any fines or jail time should accrue to the doctor only.

That's in no way similar to any penalty for murder.

PoliCon
07-20-2009, 08:29 PM
This little bombshell nugget that you (and others) just simply assert all over the place (as if its a matter of fact) is precisely where the fundamental disagreement lies between those who are pro-choice and those who are anti-choice.

Do you guys really grasp this concept? The whole debate is whether the fetus is morally significant enough to have a right to life... pro-choicers would actually claim that abortion IS NOT murder. Sometimes I don't think anti-abortion folks around here actually understand this.

Lets put aside spin terminology no one here is going to be moved by it - we all know it for what it is. Terms like pro-life and pro-choice - and the even stupider anti-choice and anti-life are pointless.

The nub of this "debate" is a question of murder. Is killing an unborn child murder under the legal definition of the term?

The precise definition of murder varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Under the common law, or law made by courts, murder was the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. The term malice aforethought did not necessarily mean that the killer planned or premeditated on the killing, or that the killer felt malice toward the victim. Generally, malice aforethought referred to a level of intent or recklessness that separated murder from other killings and warranted stiffer punishment.

For the sake of simplicity - lets take the common law definition. Now for it to not be murder A) the victim has to either not be human or B) the killing has to not have Malice aforethought.

Which do you propose it is?

PoliCon
07-20-2009, 08:30 PM
Nobody thinks it's murder.

No one has suggested that if abortion were illegal, that a woman should get the death penalty for having an abortion - even if they believe in capital punishment. Very few people think the woman should even be imprisoned, that any fines or jail time should accrue to the doctor only.

That's in no way similar to any penalty for murder.

No - she should face accessory charges. The Abortionist is the one who should face the death penalty.

linda22003
07-20-2009, 09:25 PM
No - she should face accessory charges. The Abortionist is the one who should face the death penalty.

Good luck with that. Even in the text of the law against "partial birth" abortion the suggested penalty for the doctor was a monetary fine or "up to two years" imprisonment...and no penalty for the woman. I've never heard of a person planning a murder who isn't prosecuted when the hit man she hired is. :rolleyes:

samurai
07-20-2009, 09:41 PM
Lets put aside spin terminology no one here is going to be moved by it - we all know it for what it is. Terms like pro-life and pro-choice - and the even stupider anti-choice and anti-life are pointless.

The nub of this "debate" is a question of murder. Is killing an unborn child murder under the legal definition of the term?

The precise definition of murder varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Under the common law, or law made by courts, murder was the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. The term malice aforethought did not necessarily mean that the killer planned or premeditated on the killing, or that the killer felt malice toward the victim. Generally, malice aforethought referred to a level of intent or recklessness that separated murder from other killings and warranted stiffer punishment.

For the sake of simplicity - lets take the common law definition. Now for it to not be murder A) the victim has to either not be human or B) the killing has to not have Malice aforethought.

Which do you propose it is?

Something else to consider... let's say a person stabs a pregnant woman to death, killing both her and the fetus. In several real life instances like that, the person was charged with 2 murders, 1 for the mother and 1 for the child. Is it right to say it is a separate child, worthy of an additional murder charge, in cases like that, but not when the mother chooses to abort the child? Shouldn't there be consistency?

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/may/28/news/mn-3539

But two dozen states, including California, already have laws on the books that treat fetuses as independent victims.

Just this month, for instance, a San Diego man was charged with murder for kicking and punching his pregnant girlfriend in the stomach five days before her due date. She survived, but the baby girl she was carrying died. So, under California law, the boyfriend was charged not only with assault but with homicide.

Also this month, in Missouri, St. Louis County prosecutors are weighing whether to seek a death sentence for a man accused of stabbing his pregnant girlfriend to death. She was in her first trimester of pregnancy; the fetus was about 12 weeks old. But Missouri law treats a fetus of any age as a victim, so the assailant faces double murder charges--and multiple homicide is a capital offense.

In a similar case in Utah, prosecutors may seek a death sentence for a man charged with fatally shooting his ex-girlfriend as she sat at her office desk. Two bullets hit her stomach, killing a fetus of 13 to 15 weeks' gestation. As in the Missouri case, the fetus was not viable outside the womb and could have been legally aborted. Yet Utah's law considers any "unborn child" a potential victim.

Like the federal bill and other state statutes, Utah's law exempts abortion and does not permit charges to be brought against a pregnant mother who causes her own fetus' death.

"We want to protect the fetus as a human being with certain rights and dignities, while still protecting the right of the mother to make decisions about her body," explained Blake Gunderson, a Fresno County prosecutor who recently won a double murder conviction against a woman who dismembered a pregnant mother.

Gunderson frames the issue this way: "Does a fetus deserve any less protection than a grown adult, just because it hasn't been born yet?"

Unborn victim laws deeply disturb many abortion rights activists because they enshrine into law the concept of fetus as person. Critics see that as a brash first step toward criminalizing abortion.

"The law cannot hold both that a pregnant woman is two persons and, at the same time, allow her to have an abortion," said Heather Boonstra, senior public policy associate at the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit corporation for reproductive research, policy analysis and public education.

The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act "is on a collision course with Roe vs. Wade," agreed Monica Hobbs, legislative counsel for the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy. "If it becomes law, we would have the debate about where life begins in federal courthouses all across the country."

PoliCon
07-20-2009, 10:38 PM
Something else to consider... let's say a person stabs a pregnant woman to death, killing both her and the fetus. In several real life instances like that, the person was charged with 2 murders, 1 for the mother and 1 for the child. Is it right to say it is a separate child, worthy of an additional murder charge, in cases like that, but not when the mother chooses to abort the child? Shouldn't there be consistency?

Which is why the pro-abortion crowd are so very much such laws.

FlaGator
07-20-2009, 10:51 PM
Again, truth is, abortion is no different than any other moral issue. Its baffling to see so many stumble over the simple idea in the OP.

Here's an analogy:

If you believe use of narcotics is a moral wrong, does that obligate you to outlaw it? Of course not.

It would depend upon how important one's morals are to them. They may feel a moral obligation to outlaw things that they view are immoral.

FlaGator
07-20-2009, 10:54 PM
Nobody thinks it's murder.

No one has suggested that if abortion were illegal, that a woman should get the death penalty for having an abortion - even if they believe in capital punishment. Very few people think the woman should even be imprisoned, that any fines or jail time should accrue to the doctor only.

That's in no way similar to any penalty for murder.

There are a lot of people who feel it's murder. I am one of those people. However, I can also sympathize with a woman seeing it as her only choice. The doctor should be prosecuted and if the woman makes a habit of having abortions and uses it as a form of birth control then she should be prosecuted. If that sounds contradictory or hypocritical then so be it.

Rockntractor
07-20-2009, 11:03 PM
I am a not after conception person but I am not so critical of people that think it is an option of last resort during the first month. What bothers me are the people that are so flippant they think of it like trimming their toe nails or having a wart removed. There are people like that. Just visit DU!

wilbur
07-20-2009, 11:28 PM
I do. And your'e right about the concept of rights being the issue.

But then the "murder" term may be as blatantly loaded as your term "fetus". Both words give a certain connotation to our beliefs don't they?

That is an interesting point... the terms are often loaded on both sides.

I don't particularly like the bias laden terms pro-choice or pro-life, but generally use them for convenience. Pro-abortion, anti-abortion seems better to me.... the connotation of abortion is in the eye of the beholder.

But I don't thin fetus is a particularly loaded term, anymore than zygote or blastocyst. Its the proper and precise medical term to use when referring to an in utero organism at a particular stage of development. The technical term is fetus up till birth... so even I believe at some point in time (namely the development of the cerebral cortex), fetuses have basic rights, including the right to life.

Describing a zygote, blastocyst, or early term fetus as a "baby" in an abortion discussion is incredibly loaded though...

wilbur
07-20-2009, 11:35 PM
Lets put aside spin terminology no one here is going to be moved by it - we all know it for what it is. Terms like pro-life and pro-choice - and the even stupider anti-choice and anti-life are pointless.

The nub of this "debate" is a question of murder. Is killing an unborn child murder under the legal definition of the term?

The precise definition of murder varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Under the common law, or law made by courts, murder was the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. The term malice aforethought did not necessarily mean that the killer planned or premeditated on the killing, or that the killer felt malice toward the victim. Generally, malice aforethought referred to a level of intent or recklessness that separated murder from other killings and warranted stiffer punishment.

For the sake of simplicity - lets take the common law definition. Now for it to not be murder A) the victim has to either not be human or B) the killing has to not have Malice aforethought.

Which do you propose it is?

In the case of an abortion that occurs before the ~22nd week of pregnancy, no human "being" is killed at all. Human cells, sure. But no human being (ie. person).

marinejcksn
07-20-2009, 11:41 PM
Tell me - if it is wrong enough for you to call it barbaric - why are you willing to allow it? Are there other "barbaric" acts you are also willing to allow? Rape maybe?

Never. Rape isn't only a barbaric and heinous crime (for which I feel the sentance deserves life in prison without the possibility of parole), it's an infringement on another Human Beings Rights; i.e. the moment a man or woman forces themselves on another person sexually they've violated the very Rights we all have. AND on that topic, some can (and have) argued that Abortion is infringing on the Rights another Human Being, the child. It's a noodle scratcher. I guess I have the hardest time determining when it's exactly a Human Being. There's all kinds of ways to split hairs on the subject but I think Samurai has given me the clearest idea on the subject, the moment brain activity starts, for me.

And speaking of Rape, why exactly do a lot of hardcore Anti-Abortion Christians think Abortion is okay in the case of Rape? If life begins at conception and each life is considered sacred why is it okay to kill the fetus because of the nature of how it was conceived? That doesn't make any sense at all. :confused:

PoliCon
07-20-2009, 11:49 PM
Never. Rape isn't only a barbaric and heinous crime (for which I feel the sentance deserves life in prison without the possibility of parole), it's an infringement on another Human Beings Rights; i.e. the moment a man or woman forces themselves on another person sexually they've violated the very Rights we all have. AND on that topic, some can (and have) argued that Abortion is infringing on the Rights another Human Being, the child. It's a noodle scratcher. I guess I have the hardest time determining when it's exactly a Human Being. There's all kinds of ways to split hairs on the subject but I think Samurai has given me the clearest idea on the subject, the moment brain activity starts, for me.

And speaking of Rape, why exactly do a lot of hardcore Anti-Abortion Christians think Abortion is okay in the case of Rape? If life begins at conception and each life is considered sacred why is it okay to kill the fetus because of the nature of how it was conceived? That doesn't make any sense at all. :confused:

for me - since I have first hand experience of rape - I can tell you that it is a horrible thing to go through and what could would be forcing a mother to carry a child of such a thing to term and lose her sanity in the process?

wilbur
07-20-2009, 11:51 PM
There's all kinds of ways to split hairs on the subject but I think Samurai has given me the clearest idea on the subject, the moment brain activity starts, for me.


Human life is the time between your first thought and your last...



And speaking of Rape, why exactly do a lot of hardcore Anti-Abortion Christians think Abortion is okay in the case of Rape? If life begins at conception and each life is considered sacred why is it okay to kill the fetus because of the nature of how it was conceived? That doesn't make any sense at all. :confused:

Some do so out of compromise... they feel it would be acceptable to compromise if it would help them get their agenda realized, but they don't actually beleive it is acceptable to abort, even in tragic circumstances like rape... in principle, there is no consistent way to claim that life begins at conception while claiming its morally acceptable to allow rape victims/incest victims to abort, period.

marinejcksn
07-20-2009, 11:53 PM
It would depend upon how important one's morals are to them. They may feel a moral obligation to outlaw things that they few are immoral.

Not to get off topic but I thank you SO much for making this exact point! My mother and I were just arguing about this topic of personal morals tonight;

They were showing a news story of a local man arrested for soliciting Prostitution and I commented on how even though I don't approve of it morally in MY life, I feel Prostitution should be completely Legal because what 2 consenting Adults do sexually (even if it involves money trading hands) has absolutely nothing to do with the Government and she just flipped the heck out on me so fast! :(

She argued that it degrades morality (which I don't entirely disagree with, although I feel morality is a personal choice rather than a societal one) and it's wrong according to God and the Bible (which I agree with totally), so the Government should ban it and make it illegal. That's where I can't stand for something, even if I feel it's not right. The Government has no place trying to legislate Morality. It didn't work during Prohibition, it's not working now on the idiotic "War on Drugs" and it'll never work.

Sorry I got off track. :p

Rockntractor
07-21-2009, 12:01 AM
Not to get off topic but I thank you SO much for making this exact point! My mother and I were just arguing about this topic of personal morals tonight;

They were showing a news story of a local man arrested for soliciting Prostitution and I commented on how even though I don't approve of it morally in MY life, I feel Prostitution should be completely Legal because what 2 consenting Adults do sexually (even if it involves money trading hands) has absolutely nothing to do with the Government and she just flipped the heck out on me so fast! :(

She argued that it degrades morality (which I don't entirely disagree with, although I feel morality is a personal choice rather than a societal one) and it's wrong according to God and the Bible (which I agree with totally), so the Government should ban it and make it illegal. That's where I can't stand for something, even if I feel it's not right. The Government has no place trying to legislate Morality. It didn't work during Prohibition, it's not working now on the idiotic "War on Drugs" and it'll never work.

Sorry I got off track. :p
I agree with what you say. I am a libertarian but I separate with them on abortion. It differs from other moral issues in that the life that is forming should be protected until it to can make choices!

FlaGator
07-21-2009, 06:21 AM
Not to get off topic but I thank you SO much for making this exact point! My mother and I were just arguing about this topic of personal morals tonight;

They were showing a news story of a local man arrested for soliciting Prostitution and I commented on how even though I don't approve of it morally in MY life, I feel Prostitution should be completely Legal because what 2 consenting Adults do sexually (even if it involves money trading hands) has absolutely nothing to do with the Government and she just flipped the heck out on me so fast! :(

She argued that it degrades morality (which I don't entirely disagree with, although I feel morality is a personal choice rather than a societal one) and it's wrong according to God and the Bible (which I agree with totally), so the Government should ban it and make it illegal. That's where I can't stand for something, even if I feel it's not right. The Government has no place trying to legislate Morality. It didn't work during Prohibition, it's not working now on the idiotic "War on Drugs" and it'll never work.

Sorry I got off track. :p

Your mother wants the secular world to coincide with the morals of the faithful but in many cases the two are incompatible. I believe that prostitution should be illegal but the world will do as the world will do and I have no right to expect the world to comply with my morality. The only exception I make to this is abortion because it extinguishes a human life that never gets the chance to decide on if he or she will be "worldly" or live in Way. The New Testament is about how Christians should behave and its commandments are for the faithful. It is a mistake to force those who do not live in faith to live in the Way of faith. They don't understand it and will not accept it. I do vote on laws based upon my moral code but I don't expect the world to go along with me so if I am in the minority of a vote then so be it.The world got what it wanted and I remained true to my principles. As I said the only exemption I make to this is abortion and for the reasons previously stated.

FlaGator
07-21-2009, 06:30 AM
In the case of an abortion that occurs before the ~22nd week of pregnancy, no human "being" is killed at all. Human cells, sure. But no human being (ie. person).

You say no human life is being killed, I say there is. You side with a more liberal view of life because you must in order for your beliefs to feel morally correct to you. I and those like me are not under the same limitations as you. For you to say that life begins at conception and then to still support abortion means you would be advocating murder. You will naturally gravitate to the point of view that allows you to feel morally vindicated. It doesn't mean that you are right it just means the you can live with your choice. Your morals based on those things you believe are right. What I believe is right is based on my morals. There is a significant difference. I try to keep the cart and the horse in the proper alignment.

linda22003
07-21-2009, 07:46 AM
And speaking of Rape, why exactly do a lot of hardcore Anti-Abortion Christians think Abortion is okay in the case of Rape? If life begins at conception and each life is considered sacred why is it okay to kill the fetus because of the nature of how it was conceived? That doesn't make any sense at all. :confused:

Because Good Girls aren't supposed to have sex and like it. If a woman has sex and enjoys it, she should have to carry any conception that happens to its conclusion as "payment". If she's raped, that's sex she didn't want, so she doesn't have to pay the price.

If you think that's far-fetched, just look at PoliCon's comments about "sluts" and "hooker pumps" - there's that idiotic attitude, right there.

linda22003
07-21-2009, 07:47 AM
She argued that it degrades morality (which I don't entirely disagree with, although I feel morality is a personal choice rather than a societal one) and it's wrong according to God and the Bible (which I agree with totally), so the Government should ban it and make it illegal. That's where I can't stand for something, even if I feel it's not right. The Government has no place trying to legislate Morality. It didn't work during Prohibition, it's not working now on the idiotic "War on Drugs" and it'll never work.

You're on the correct side, in that one.

wilbur
07-21-2009, 08:45 AM
You say no human life is being killed, I say there is. You side with a more liberal view of life because you must in order for your beliefs to feel morally correct to you. I and those like me are not under the same limitations as you.


Well, I am constrained by reality... not the outlandish flights of fancy of ancient middle eastern primitives... so yes, in that sense I am "limited"... if thats what we really want to call it;)


Your morals based on those things you believe are right. What I believe is right is based on my morals. There is a significant difference. I try to keep the cart and the horse in the proper alignment.

Not sure exactly what you mean... but it sounds like you are rehashing the same ol' canard - that me and other atheists simply want disguise immorality as morality, under mountains post hoc rationalizations and justifications so we can be guilt free.

If that is what you are trying to say, once again, I assure you - it is not the case. Listen: My conscious would be far less clear, if I told a woman in dire straits that I will be taking away her power to make her own decision about her life and the nature of the life in her womb, according to her conscience. I would have to violate everything I know and believe about morality, in order to do so.

FlaGator
07-21-2009, 09:24 AM
Well, I am constrained by reality... not the outlandish flights of fancy of ancient middle eastern primitives... so yes, in that sense I am "limited"... if thats what we really want to call it;)



Not sure exactly what you mean... but it sounds like you are rehashing the same ol' canard - that me and other atheists simply want disguise immorality as morality, under mountains post hoc rationalizations and justifications so we can be guilt free.

If that is what you are trying to say, once again, I assure you - it is not the case. Listen: My conscious would be far less clear, if I told a woman in dire straits that I will be taking away her power to make her own decision about her life and the nature of the life in her womb, according to her conscience. I would have to violate everything I know and believe about morality, in order to do so.

If science decided today that life begins at conception then how would you feel about abortion?

Molon Labe
07-21-2009, 10:00 AM
Never. Rape isn't only a barbaric and heinous crime (for which I feel the sentance deserves life in prison without the possibility of parole), it's an infringement on another Human Beings Rights; i.e. the moment a man or woman forces themselves on another person sexually they've violated the very Rights we all have. AND on that topic, some can (and have) argued that Abortion is infringing on the Rights another Human Being, the child. It's a noodle scratcher. I guess I have the hardest time determining when it's exactly a Human Being. There's all kinds of ways to split hairs on the subject but I think Samurai has given me the clearest idea on the subject, the moment brain activity starts, for me.

And speaking of Rape, why exactly do a lot of hardcore Anti-Abortion Christians think Abortion is okay in the case of Rape? If life begins at conception and each life is considered sacred why is it okay to kill the fetus because of the nature of how it was conceived? That doesn't make any sense at all. :confused:

I'm sure someone will try to debunk my research, but I believe brain functioning is like 40 days in. The heart starts working after18 to 22 days. It is really complicated..that's why I think you have to err on the side of caution.
I hope I didn't suggest it was OK in the event of Rape. It's pretty rare, but it seems to get alot of play for being such a non issue.




If science decided today that life begins at conception then how would you feel about abortion?

My Science book always said it did. Usually in the first paragraph of the life Science book.

Lager
07-21-2009, 11:53 AM
What does it say about a society when abortion is used so frequently as a form birth control? Especially a society that has such a multitude of the most effective forms of birth control in history, (many that will also be provided, free of charge, ) and a society that also has the greatest access to information about conception, prevention, as well as the fact that access is available equally to everyone?

Sometimes I believe that question is actually more relevant than one on when life begins.
Wilbur actually believes that taking away a woman's choice is the greater moral lapse here. But what he actually means is taking away a woman's "final" choice. There are plenty of choices available and made right up to the moment someone chooses abortion.

wilbur
07-21-2009, 12:14 PM
If science decided today that life begins at conception then how would you feel about abortion?

I don't think that science could tell us this, really. You can see why if you rephrase the question a little, (in a way where the meaning is still kept): "If science decided today that moral significance begins at conception, then how would you feel about abortion?" Moral significance is not an innate quality... it can't be measured... its only self-assigned by a sentience, or recognized by other sentient beings. The moral significance comes into play because we understand that beings can experience (many of) the things we experience... and we place value judgements on those experiences; suffering, pain, desires, joy, happiness, etc. Well, maybe it is a bit measurable after all.



In some weird hypothetical reality, say the brain was the first thing to happen in pregnancy, and the fetus had the capacity for pain, thought, experience etc right away. In that universe, I think almost all abortions would be wrong, with life saving exceptions.

Gingersnap
07-21-2009, 12:32 PM
I don't think that science could tell us this, really. You can see why if you rephrase the question a little, (in a way where the meaning is still kept): "If science decided today that moral significance begins at conception, then how would you feel about abortion?" Moral significance is not an innate quality... it can't be measured... its only self-assigned by a sentience, or recognized by other sentient beings. The moral significance comes into play because we understand that beings can experience (many of) the things we experience... and we place value judgements on those experiences; suffering, pain, desires, joy, happiness, etc. Well, maybe it is a bit measurable after all.

In some weird hypothetical reality, say the brain was the first thing to happen in pregnancy, and the fetus had the capacity for pain, thought, experience etc right away. In that universe, I think almost all abortions would be wrong, with life saving exceptions.

Measurable self-awareness is too narrow a criterion for me. We haven't reached the pinnacle of understanding about consciousness yet and it may well be that most of what we assume to be true about it will be swept away by a different understanding in 100 years.

The moral significance of unborn human beings will remain the same, however, to those of us who recognize their significance.

Rockntractor
07-21-2009, 12:51 PM
I don't think that science could tell us this, really. You can see why if you rephrase the question a little, (in a way where the meaning is still kept): "If science decided today that moral significance begins at conception, then how would you feel about abortion?" Moral significance is not an innate quality... it can't be measured... its only self-assigned by a sentience, or recognized by other sentient beings. The moral significance comes into play because we understand that beings can experience (many of) the things we experience... and we place value judgements on those experiences; suffering, pain, desires, joy, happiness, etc. Well, maybe it is a bit measurable after all.



In some weird hypothetical reality, say the brain was the first thing to happen in pregnancy, and the fetus had the capacity for pain, thought, experience etc right away. In that universe, I think almost all abortions would be wrong, with life saving exceptions.

I am tired of this philosophical load of crap. It is plain and simple. Left alone it will develop into a fully functioning living and breathing human being. If it is aborted it will die and rot. The question is do you have the right to do this to another human being. Right now the law says kill at will. There is a higher authority that you will answer to. Save your brilliant philosophical arguments for God. Some day you will have the chance to explain them.

FeebMaster
07-21-2009, 12:54 PM
These moral considerations are interesting and all, not that anyone is ever going to convince the other side to change their minds, but how about the practical considerations?

Imagine that abortion is completely illegal. Do you think that's going to stop people from getting an abortion if they want one? Are you going to require that every pregnancy be registered with the state? Are you going to investigate every miscarriage as a potential criminal matter? What sort of criminal penalties are there going to be for the doctor involved, assuming that person is even an actual doctor? What sort of penalties for the mother? If the father knew, what sort of penalties should he face?

linda22003
07-21-2009, 01:00 PM
Imagine that abortion is completely illegal. Do you think that's going to stop people from getting an abortion if they want one?

It never stopped women before, and that was before there were pills instead of surgical options, and when travel was more expensive than it is now. Do you restrict the travel options of any woman who is pregnant? Do you have a Uterine Border Check to make sure she returns in the same gravid condition as when she departed? :rolleyes:

PoliCon
07-21-2009, 01:03 PM
It never stopped women before, and that was before there were pills instead of surgical options, and when travel was more expensive than it is now. Do you restrict the travel options of any woman who is pregnant? Do you have a Uterine Border Check to make sure she returns in the same gravid condition as when she departed? :rolleyes:

It apparently stopped plenty of women from getting them since the rate shot through the roof after the debacle that is Roe v Wade.

linda22003
07-21-2009, 01:05 PM
It had always been illegal, so it was not easy to obtain unless you "knew someone". If it became illegal again after decades of legality, you'd have the same situation you had under Prohibition - people openly flouting the law because they did not recognize its legitimacy.

PoliCon
07-21-2009, 01:11 PM
It had always been illegal, so it was not easy to obtain unless you "knew someone". If it became illegal again after decades of legality, you'd have the same situation you had under Prohibition - people openly flouting the law because they did not recognize its legitimacy.

I disagree. Since when have abortions always been illegal?

linda22003
07-21-2009, 01:18 PM
You're right. There were no state laws against abortion at all until 1820. I was speaking of the lifetimes of those in modern times, however.

Lager
07-21-2009, 01:41 PM
These moral considerations are interesting and all, not that anyone is ever going to convince the other side to change their minds, but how about the practical considerations?

Imagine that abortion is completely illegal. Do you think that's going to stop people from getting an abortion if they want one? Are you going to require that every pregnancy be registered with the state? Are you going to investigate every miscarriage as a potential criminal matter? What sort of criminal penalties are there going to be for the doctor involved, assuming that person is even an actual doctor? What sort of penalties for the mother? If the father knew, what sort of penalties should he face?

You are correct that if a society doesn't find some moral abhorrence in an act, then making it illegal will not serve to stop it.

FeebMaster
07-21-2009, 01:52 PM
You are correct that if a society doesn't find some moral abhorrence in an act, then making it illegal will not serve to stop it.

That too, I suppose. Although, to be fair, laws can't even stop things society does have moral abhorrence for.

My point was more along the lines of people rarely seem to think this all the way through. From my point of view, at least, the likely cure is worse than the disease.

wilbur
07-21-2009, 02:00 PM
I am tired of this philosophical load of crap. It is plain and simple. Left alone it will develop into a fully functioning living and breathing human being. If it is aborted it will die and rot. The question is do you have the right to do this to another human being.


That is NOT the question. The position that murder is wrong is nearly unanimous and totally uncontroversial.

A better approach is to ask yourself why it is wrong to murder, and then see of those reasons apply to a fetus. For me, they do not. Your explanations for what its wrong to murder will probably be laden with all kinds of "God this... God that" etc... but I do not recognize those reasons, and neither does our legal system (nor should it).



Right now the law says kill at will. There is a higher authority that you will answer to. Save your brilliant philosophical arguments for God. Some day you will have the chance to explain them.

I sit here calmly with complete confidence, that neither you, nor anyone on the pulpit, or in Rome, or in the pews in church actually knows a damn thing about what, if anything happens, after death. ;)

Molon Labe
07-21-2009, 02:00 PM
That too, I suppose. Although, to be fair, laws can't even stop things society does have moral abhorrence for.

My point was more along the lines of people rarely seem to think this all the way through. From my point of view, at least, the likely cure is worse than the disease.

You get it very right. Most laws tend to increase the problems they were made to reduce.

megimoo
07-21-2009, 02:33 PM
That is NOT the question. The position that murder is wrong is nearly unanimous and totally uncontroversial.

A better approach is to ask yourself why it is wrong to murder, and then see of those reasons apply to a fetus. For me, they do not. Your explanations for what its wrong to murder will probably be laden with all kinds of "God this... God that" etc... but I do not recognize those reasons, and neither does our legal system (nor should it).



I sit here calmly with complete confidence, that neither you, nor anyone on the pulpit, or in Rome, or in the pews in church actually knows a damn thing about what, if anything happens, after death. ;)
In your case that's easy !

Gingersnap
07-21-2009, 02:42 PM
A better approach is to ask yourself why it is wrong to murder, and then see of those reasons apply to a fetus.

Because you are depriving a complete innocent of liberty forever.

PoliCon
07-21-2009, 03:27 PM
You're right. There were no state laws against abortion at all until 1820. I was speaking of the lifetimes of those in modern times, however.

So - when they started passing anti-abortion laws - was there a change or not? Did people openly flaunt the law?

PoliCon
07-21-2009, 03:32 PM
Because you are depriving a complete innocent of liberty forever.

You mean that abortion results in depriving them of life, liberty, and the chance to pursue happiness.

Gingersnap
07-21-2009, 03:34 PM
You mean that abortion results in depriving them of life, liberty, and the chance to pursue happiness.

You can't have liberty or pursue happiness without first having life itself. ;)

PoliCon
07-21-2009, 03:36 PM
You can't have liberty or pursue happiness without first having life itself. ;)

true - but the three walk hand in hand :)

Gingersnap
07-21-2009, 03:37 PM
true - but the three walk hand in hand :)

For some of us.

PoliCon
07-21-2009, 03:41 PM
For some of us.

Under US law - they are supposed to be available to all of us.

Jumpy
07-21-2009, 03:45 PM
The child also has a claim to liberty. Through no fault of his own, he is required to endure the potentially haphazard conditions of the womb for 9 months. He may be permanently injured by maternal neglect (or maternal assault) during this time with no recourse to compensation. His only hope is life itself (life being the absolute foundation of liberty). If he is killed, there is no remediation or compensation that can be made to him.


Given that the woman's hardships are transitory but the dead child's condition is permanent, I would say that his claims on her body are greater than her desire for him to instantaneously vacate his life. I wonder if a lawsuit will ever be filed by a born person, who suffers fetal alcohol poisoning.. or some other type of disability that can be traced to maternal assault. Interesting..

linda22003
07-21-2009, 03:46 PM
So - when they started passing anti-abortion laws - was there a change or not? Did people openly flaunt the law?

Oh, yes. The history of contraception and abortion in the nineteenth century is really interesting. Lots of publications had open advertising for drugs that solved "women's problems", such as "restoring regular menses". They were all abortifacients (some effective, many not). Look up "Madame Restell" sometime; she was only the most famous of a number of practitioners who did business openly if euphemistically.

wilbur
07-21-2009, 03:46 PM
Because you are depriving a complete innocent of liberty forever.

Heh... innocent.... another one of those loaded and booby-trapped words... and one doesnt have to be innocent to be murdered unjustly.

Now that I think on it, maybe this approach doesn't help much anyways, since it invariably leads back to how exactly do you classify a zygote, a fetus at what stage in development etc. I certainly wouldn't classify a being with zero experiential capacity as 'innocent'. An amoeba can't be innocent... nor can a zygote or early term fetus.

MrsSmith
07-21-2009, 08:22 PM
Heh... innocent.... another one of those loaded and booby-trapped words... and one doesnt have to be innocent to be murdered unjustly.

Now that I think on it, maybe this approach doesn't help much anyways, since it invariably leads back to how exactly do you classify a zygote, a fetus at what stage in development etc. I certainly wouldn't classify a being with zero experiential capacity as 'innocent'. An amoeba can't be innocent... nor can a zygote or early term fetus.

Talk about a FacePalm...:rolleyes::rolleyes: Of course they are innocent. They are unable to commit sin, therefore are completely innocent.

wilbur
07-21-2009, 10:42 PM
Talk about a FacePalm...:rolleyes::rolleyes: Of course they are innocent. They are unable to commit sin, therefore are completely innocent.

Wow.

You don't even understand the implications of your own doctrine. Perhaps you should read up on original sin.

But, lets examine your claim.... which states that anything unable to commit sin is innocent. Really? No other requirements there? My computer is an innocent? Plants are innocents? The rocks in my yard are innocents?

Rockntractor
07-21-2009, 10:45 PM
Wow.

You don't even understand the implications of your own doctrine. Perhaps you should read up on original sin.

But, lets examine your claim.... which states that anything unable to commit sin is innocent. Really? No other requirements there? My computer is an innocent? Plants are innocents? The rocks in my yard are innocents?
Plants and rocks. Two things you have much in common with!

Zathras
07-21-2009, 11:05 PM
Heh... innocent.... another one of those loaded and booby-trapped words... and one doesnt have to be innocent to be murdered unjustly.

Now that I think on it, maybe this approach doesn't help much anyways, since it invariably leads back to how exactly do you classify a zygote, a fetus at what stage in development etc. I certainly wouldn't classify a being with zero experiential capacity as 'innocent'. An amoeba can't be innocent... nor can a zygote or early term fetus.

Wow...so much stupidity in one post...time to break out.....

SUPER FACEPALM!!!!!!!!!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v602/HeroesAtWork/facepalm.jpg

wilbur
07-21-2009, 11:14 PM
Wow...so much stupidity in one post...time to break out.....

SUPER FACEPALM!!!!!!!!!

Well then I have a challenge for you... pick the stupidest part of the post, and actually *gasp* explain why it is stupid.

I bet I will come out looking like the smart one in the end... so much so that no sassy image (aka. crutch to compensate for a pittance of actual wit) will help you save face. Up for it? Same goes for Rockntractor.

Rockntractor
07-21-2009, 11:23 PM
Well then I have a challenge for you... pick the stupidest part of the post, and actually *gasp* explain why it is stupid.

I bet I will come out looking like the smart one in the end... so much so that no sassy image (aka. crutch to compensate for a pittance of actual wit) will help you save face. Up for it? Same goes for Rockntractor.
This is page 11 and the light bulb just keeps getting dimmer you are like a vegetable or a rock. There is no possible way to break through to you. No words! Nothing!

wilbur
07-21-2009, 11:37 PM
This is page 11 and the light bulb just keeps getting dimmer you are like a vegitable or a rock. There is no possible way to break through to you. no words! nothing!

Keep in mind, that I don't think I have ever resorted to a post such as this, on this forum or any other.... With no argument present, even when its claimed there are obvious intractable problems in a particular post. Never have I offered only insults (misspelled ones at that) in lieu of actual criticism when a post demanded it (though often both come as a package;))... contrast that with the posts of you and some others..

So actually spell out where I went wrong... if not to convince me, do it for the benefit of all those lurkers who might be reading, and may be tempted by my devilish words! Come to their rescue and show them the truth!

Gingersnap
07-21-2009, 11:39 PM
Wow.

You don't even understand the implications of your own doctrine. Perhaps you should read up on original sin.

Original sin is an endemic condition of the Fall. While it is part and parcel of all of human life (and of Creation by extension) it is not morally equivalent to the intentional harm people do to each other.

An unborn child is incapable of intentional harm. An unborn child is capable of causing maternal harm through original sin but this is not intentional - it's natural.

Intentional harm is the only harm that counts morally. Your rock, computer, car, or dog cannot commit a moral harm - only a natural harm. Natural harms are the result of the Fall but not the result of individual intentions.

Or to put it in purely secular terms: an unborn child is incapable of intentionally inflicting harm on its mother or any other person. The child lacks the capacity, resources, or motive for crime. Any harm that results is accidental in the purest sense of the word.

Rockntractor
07-21-2009, 11:59 PM
Keep in mind, that I don't think I have ever resorted to a post such as this, on this forum or any other.... With no argument present, even when its claimed there are obvious intractable problems in a particular post. Never have I offered only insults (misspelled ones at that) in lieu of actual criticism when a post demanded it (though often both come as a package;))... contrast that with the posts of you and some others..

So actually spell out where I went wrong... if not to convince me, do it for the benefit of all those lurkers who might be reading, and may be tempted by my devilish words! Come to their rescue and show them the truth!

Your basic crime is you are an atheist. Most atheists don't bother me but for some reason you do. You have more faith than I will ever have. You can dogmatically claim there is no God. Have you traveled to every corner of the universe? Do you have all knowledge of everything? In the endless reach of time you say man evolved from nothing yet a supreme being you can state with all certainty is impossible. Your support for the slaughter of unborn children will not go unnoticed. It is cowardly. Zygote, fetus all the impersonal terms you use for a developing baby don’t hide that it is indeed human life.
Sometimes I think you are begging us to disprove you in sincerity. You want to believe but can’t. You are getting old and you know your day is coming soon. Some morning in the not to distant future six men will carry you from a car to a freshly dug hole. Where will you go from there Wilbur. Will you rot. Will your soul go to torment? Will you be received into heaven? Honestly Wilbur you do not know. You say you do but you don’t. Your last years on this planet you will think about this. It won’t go away!

wilbur
07-22-2009, 12:29 AM
Original sin is an endemic condition of the Fall. While it is part and parcel of all of human life (and of Creation by extension) it is not morally equivalent to the intentional harm people do to each other.

An unborn child is incapable of intentional harm. An unborn child is capable of causing maternal harm through original sin but this is not intentional - it's natural.

Intentional harm is the only harm that counts morally. Your rock, computer, car, or dog cannot commit a moral harm - only a natural harm. Natural harms are the result of the Fall but not the result of individual intentions.

Or to put it in purely secular terms: an unborn child is incapable of intentionally inflicting harm on its mother or any other person. The child lacks the capacity, resources, or motive for crime. Any harm that results is accidental in the purest sense of the word.

Well, then we should revise your answer: "Murder is wrong because it deprives innocents of liberty" to "Murder is wrong because it deprives those who have no capacity to commit crime, of liberty". I think we can see the obvious problems with that.

Murder is obviously a bad thing, even when the victim has the capacity to commit crime.

wilbur
07-22-2009, 12:39 AM
Your basic crime is you are an atheist. Most atheists don't bother me but for some reason you do. You have more faith than I will ever have. You can dogmatically claim there is no God.


Have never said that.


Have you traveled to every corner of the universe? Do you have all knowledge of everything? In the endless reach of time you say man evolved from nothing yet a supreme being you can state with all certainty is impossible.


Have never said that either.



Your support for the slaughter of unborn children will not go unnoticed. It is cowardly. Zygote, fetus all the impersonal terms you use for a developing baby don’t hide that it is indeed human life.


As I expressed earlier, I believe, that once the cerebral cortex has formed and starts functioning, I don't believe we can be certain the fetus is not an individual person, and does not possess various capacities which elevate its moral status and require us to treat it as if it has a right to life... so, depending on the stage of development, I believe fetuses do have a right to life.... but I still call them fetuses, because that is what they are called.

Trying to refer to a zygote or a blastocyst as a baby is nothing more than an attempt to project human qualities that would normally trigger our empathy and emotion, onto beings that possess none of them. Its like calling them "innocents"... or referring to abortion as murder, all over the place, when that is the conclusion you are trying to support, and on and on.



Sometimes I think you are begging us to disprove you in sincerity. You want to believe but can’t. You are getting old and you know your day is coming soon. Some morning in the not to distant future six men will carry you from a car to a freshly dug hole. Where will you go from there Wilbur. Will you rot. Will your soul go to torment? Will you be received into heaven? Honestly Wilbur you do not know. You say you do but you don’t. Your last years on this planet you will think about this. It won’t go away!

Actually, I said earlier I do not know what happens after death... but guess what? Neither do you! Ask yourself how you actually know what you think you know about this... and why this information should be treated as credible. How do the apologists of religion, Christianity or the others, actually substantiate the claims they make about life and the afterlife? They don't in any rigorous way, because they cant.

Rockntractor
07-22-2009, 01:31 AM
Wilbur are you or are you not an atheist?
Really, suit yourself, on which ever you want to use, it doesnt really matter. The important part is consistency. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and all the other "big names" in "atheism" (and myself) are actually agnostics by your definition, so this needs to be kept in mind when throwing around the terms. Sometimes, I wish they would go with the common usage and call themselves agnostics, even though its not really technically appropriate.... simply because I've had this conversation waaaaay to many times.
http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=14556&page=2&highlight=atheist
If I read you correctly you say by the definition of others you are agnostic but by your own definition atheist.

Rockntractor
07-22-2009, 01:34 AM
Actually, I said earlier I do not know what happens after death... but guess what? Neither do you! Ask yourself how you actually know what you think you know about this... and why this information should be treated as credible. How do the apologists of religion, Christianity or the others, actually substantiate the claims they make about life and the afterlife? They don't in any rigorous way, because they cant.
Guess what? If I am wrong I will never know it. If you are wrong........ Well lets just say you will know it!

wilbur
07-22-2009, 01:37 AM
Wilbur are you or are you not an atheist?
http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=14556&page=2&highlight=atheist
If I read you correctly you say by the definition of others you are agnostic but by your own definition atheist.

Depends on who you ask. To be precise, I am an atheist (ie I lack a belief in a deity). In less precise common parlance, which you seem to be using, I would probably be called agnostic.

wilbur
07-22-2009, 01:45 AM
Guess what? If I am wrong I will never know it. If you are wrong........ Well lets just say you will know it!

Well, if you really want to optimize your chances to spend eternity in the best place possible for you (or to avoid the worse place possible ), what we really should do is devise a personality test that matches your personality type, with the common afterlifes as described in all the world's current and past religions... to find the afterlifes which are personally geared towards you and your own personal tastes. Then you can decide on which religion to hedge your bets, intelligently and appropriately.... you can rest with peace of mind, knowing that you made the best choice, for you.

For instance, if the idea of being chained down while your liver is devoured by a vulture every single day for all time sounds worse than burning in a lake of fire for all eternity, you might want to worry about kissing Zeus's ass, instead of Yahweh. If you are wrong, at least you will spend eternity in a hell that is slightly less disagreeable to your tastes when compared with some other possible hell. However, if lakes of fire scare you more, you might want to look at appeasing Yahweh.

It only makes sense.

Gingersnap
07-22-2009, 09:44 AM
Well, then we should revise your answer: "Murder is wrong because it deprives innocents of liberty" to "Murder is wrong because it deprives those who have no capacity to commit crime, of liberty". I think we can see the obvious problems with that.

Murder is obviously a bad thing, even when the victim has the capacity to commit crime.

I never really chimed in on your interest in the definition of murder. :rolleyes:

MrsSmith
07-22-2009, 07:12 PM
Wow.

You don't even understand the implications of your own doctrine. Perhaps you should read up on original sin.

But, lets examine your claim.... which states that anything unable to commit sin is innocent. Really? No other requirements there? My computer is an innocent? Plants are innocents? The rocks in my yard are innocents?

Original sin has to do with human nature..none can remain perfect except Christ. However, until a child can understand the difference between right and wrong, he cannot sin. Sin is intentional.

And every THING that cannot can must therefore be innocent of sin. A rock CANNOT sin, so how can it be guilty? :rolleyes:

ExLiberal
10-10-2009, 07:45 AM
It seems like a lot of people forget why people are pro-life, and why they want to ban abortion. We don't fight against abortion because it's a messy procedure, or because it has some mysterious link to breast cancer, or because the woman will go through depression afterwards, or because women should embrace the role of motherhood, or because abortion makes us sad. We fight against abortion because it is murder. And murder should be illegal, should it not? If it were anything but a life in there, we wouldn't be fighting against it. If you think trying to ban abortion is wrongfully presuming our morals upon another person's life then banning rape would be doing the same. Banning murder would be doing the same thing. Banning theft would be doing the same thing. What if I feel I have the right to steal food from a supermarket because I'm hungry? Doesn't matter what I think...the gov't must ban theft to protect the property of someone else. Even if I feel they're imposing their beliefs about wrongful stealing on me...the government still MUST protect the other person's property. What if I strongly believe it is my right to murder my husband who cheats on me? What if I strongly believe it is my right to murder a burglar in my house if he serves as no threat? What if I strongly believe in my right to kill my kids painlessly and peacefully because they'll have a miserable life and I feel sorry for them? What if my religion tells me to go out and kill people with blue hair? The government must PROTECT and DEFEND innocent life regardless what anyone thinks or believes. We want to ban abortion, not because we "don't like it", but because it's murder! It's the brutal taking of innocent life for the sake of convenience. We do it to PROTECT the life of a child. Not to force our beliefs upon anyone else, or encroach upon a woman's right to privacy. Now obviously the encroachment upon a woman's privacy rights is an inevitable by-product of trying to save the child's life. But it's not our goal. The reasoning behind criminalizing abortion is because the right to life is the single most important right any human on this planet can have, for it's the foundation of all other rights. The right to not be murdered precedes the right to not give birth. Though both are irreversible, only one is irremedial. When I hear conservative libertarians say "I don't like abortion- but the government has no right to bar a woman from getting one" I think to myself "well why don't you like abortion?" The answer must be "because it's the taking of innocent life"....otherwise there's literally NO reason to dislike it. And if it is the taking of innocent life, then the government has not only the right to stop it, but the obligation to. The government's first priority should be the protection of innocent human life.

It's understandable how people feel killing a fetus is different from killing a child outside the womb, or killing any other person. Obviously this is a very difficult situation, as the baby IS in the body of another human, who does not want it there. So I won't pretend like there's NO difference in circumstance between this and murder that occurs outside the womb. Nobody's saying that. They are however saying that although the circumstances are very sad and unfortunate for the mother, it does not warrant the murder of the innocent child (whose circumstances are even sadder).

There are times when we have to sacrifice our bodies if it means saving the life of someone else, especially someone helpless. Let's just pull a hypothetical and say I gave birth to my child, and the only thing my child could survive on was my breastmilk. Let's say we're stranded on an island or something, I dunno. But there's no one else and no food and the only thing it can take to live is my breastmilk. What if I don't feel like breastfeeding, because it's uncomfortable? It's my body, my choice, my child has no right to it, so I have the right to let my child starve to death to avoid sacrificing convenience and comfort? Would you justify that? A woman's breasts are just as much her own body as her womb, no?

Anyways the pro-choice movement in this country is moving swiftly toward the pro-abortion movement. You wouldn't believe some of the things I've heard and read from PC-ers. It's disgusting. People are demonized for simply PREFERRING life over abortion, or for suggesting to a woman that she not have an abortion, or praising women for choosing life instead of abortions. I've heard people say that abortion is absolutely no different from any other medical procedure, like getting a tumor removed or getting your wisdom teeth pulled. Many people don't see anything wrong with abortion whatsoever. Sarah Palin was even mocked for not aborting her down syndrome baby. A school in Pennsylvania ordered it's science teacher to remove models of fetuses from the classroom, which were there for the instruction of human development, because it would "confuse the students on the issue of choice". Do you see how hard pro-choice America is trying to escape reality? They don't want to face the facts. They don't want their kids to see a human fetus and suddenly think "gee that looks like a person!" because that would serve as a threat to America's wickedly arbitrary de-humanizing of babies inside the womb. Remember the movies Juno and Knocked up? When those movies came out feminists were angry that the women in the movies, both who chose life, did not debate HARDER on the issue of abortion, and they felt the movies took a preference to life over abortion...and thus were spreading evil pro-life propaganda. Director Judd Apatow had to actually defend himself and reassure people that he was pro-choice. Actress Khloe Kardashian (now pregnant) admitted that she had considered abortion but had a talk with her doctor and then decided to choose life. She said the doctor SIMPLY told her she would haveno regrets having the baby, but could potentially have regrets aborting it. This sparked anger with a lot of people online demonizing the doctor for his oh so anti-choice remarks. Oh noez, the poor woman was practically prolesytized with his incessant religious dogma! Or how about the pro-life pregnancy crisis clinics that are being viciously smeared and slandered by the pro-choice movement. Go to life decisions international website and read about it. It's just sickening. In an aggressive and lie-laden attempt to destroy pro-life clinics, planned parenthood and others in the PC movement got a bunch the government (people like Henry waxman, etc) to team up on these clinics and start doing aggressive partisan anti-prolife investigations on them, completely blowing off the law of "presumption of innocence" and trying to raise "awareness" about these "evil" clinics that don't offer abortion. It makes my gut sink to see all of this sheer cold-hearted iniquity being committed by the feminists just because they're angry at people who think it's wrong to murder. So disgusting. Anyways the examples are endless. I've been looking into this pro-choice movement ever since I became pro-life, and now I'm realizing what utterly horrible, lying, deceitful, morally depraved people the majority of them are. Moving, as I said, swiftly into the "pro-abortion", anti-anything-related-to-the-support-of-life category. Long passed the days of "abortion is a tragic necessity that should rarely occur" are we. No, pro-choicers won't even have that. Why? Because even thinking like that, they feel, threatens their right to kill. Pro-choice people are so adamant about their position that they're just falling deeper and deeper into iniquity to defend it....they don't care what the cost (of truth, reason, their morals, and other people's rights).

I know not all PC-ers are pro-abortion....but MUCH MORE are than you think. As much as I would hope that no human being is actually "pro" something as sickening and tragic as abortion.... it simply isn't true. Not anymore. Times they are a changin', hearts they are a blackenin'.

R.I.P. Morality, Compassion, Unselfishness, and Justice. You will be greatly missed.