Pro-life

[Steinar Valsson]

No, it is not. Refuting points made by the opposition is.

Ofcourse it is, if their motives are religion based, the matter has shifted from the point to the religion. The point being that they don't care about the people involved, they just don't want to invoke the wrath of the skyman plotting to condemn them in hellfire. Instead of thinking about the woman, man and the child that might be, the REAL subject. Not God or any other invisible things. I find it so immoral that they should take this in such a self-righteous way claiming they are the "good" side because the guy in the sky is with them. So if they would shift their motives, the outcome would probably be different as they might see that without God, this is about persons that don't like what they are about to do, but sometimes don't have a choice.

That is an action, not a positon.

This example was to show the different perspectives of the same action and how we form 2 positions on the same action. In this case if his motive is that he can't afford food and is dying, we sympathies with him and are likelier to allow it, but if he steals it because he think he can get away with it, we report him. " motives, 2 different positions. Motives matter.

No, what matters is whether they are right in their decisions or not. Their motive does not determine that.

Their decision is based on their motive. So how can the motive not matter? (In this case, the motive is Bible related, in general)

Further, all this motive stuff... it is utterly unsubstantiated. What kind of argument is "Oh well you're doing it because of this!"? It isn't one. It's a petty, childish, accusation. It lacks any substance. At the very least if you're going to attack someone's motives have some evidence, not simply the words of someone else who himself lacks evidence.

Again, motives do matter whan taking a stance on a matter. If people aren't motivated to do anything, they don't do it and if they do it they are motivated. So if they do anything, their motives matter. The definition of "motive" is:

something that causes a person to act in a certain way, do a certain thing, etc.; incentive. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/motive

It's what drives people to take these positions, it's what makes them think like they do. It IS what matters. The end resault is the resault of their motives.

Do you know what semantics are? Pointing out that your argument is flawed because it targets the wrong things is not semantics. In fact semantics would be more like some guy, oh I dunno who it would be, complaining about a term when it doesn't matter much. You know, a term like pro-life. Complaining about that and making silly points about how everyone is 'pro-life' is a matter of semantics.

From Wikpedia now:

Semantics (from Greek sēmantiká, neuter plural of sēmantikós)[1][2] is the study of meaning. It focuses on the relation between signifiers, such as words, phrases, signs and symbols, and what they stand for, their denotata.

Yes, my arguments are semantics, itðs about the meaning of what they call themselfs and why. Which was the point of this thread. But perhaps I didn't use the right words for your reply, so I guess I'll have to call it something else. I guess over-critic would fit.

Either make a decent post or accept that you will receive criticism for a bad one. Don't whine that I should be doing something else. You can't make me do anything.

...

Or you could make a decent post. I think that's the better option instead of whining that someone dared to criticize your post instead of doing what you'd prefer they do.

I like criticism in a constructive form. But yours is bitter and feels angry. Criticism is about saying here's what wrong and here's what you could do better. But you decide to just say what's wrong and how you are above it. every forum has atleast 5 persons per hour like that. Like to criticise but can't do it in a nice way.
Yes, this post could have ben written better but people got what I ment. Maybe you feel that arguing about the semantics of a word is pointless, but for me and anyone else that don't share that opinion we want to. So again, either criticise instructively or have an opinion on the matter at hand.

 

[MammothBlade]

I don't remember what comedian I am quoting, but I rembmber the message. Everybody is pro-life. If people wouldn't be, they would have killed them selfs years ago.
The notion "pro-life" was made so those people could feel better about who they are, calling it something that sounds better. And to quote Geroge Carlin:

They're anti-woman. Simple as it gets, anti-woman. They don't like them. They don't like women. They believe a woman's primary role is to function as a brood mare for the state.

I say people shouldn't interfere in what is not their buisness.

Thoughts?

This sort of strawman argument does you no favours.

I think abortion rules should be more stringent, because I believe that all innocent human beings, including the unborn, should have the right to a healthy life (and conversely, the right to die if life is too painful). This isn't about a war on women's rights. That is bullshit. However, I can't swallow the argument that this is a matter of property rights, namely the right to treat whatever lies on the other end of the placenta as part of your body, and not a being in their own right.

 

[MammothBlade]

Can't have one without the other mate. Wanting to ban abortion means dictating what goes on inside a woman's body, a direct violation of the primary human rights.

Because of the inevitable and so horrible consequences, there is no middle ground. Either someone is not opposed to the right of abortion, or they are fascists who believe that women's bodies are state property (because they want legalislation to dictate what they can do with their bodies).

Wrong. There has to be a balance between women's rights to their bodies, and unborn humans' rights to life. You take it all the way and say that this is purely a matter of women's rights, unborn babies become little more than garbage. You take it all the way and say women have no rights to decide whether or not to become pregnant, indeed they might as well be little more than beasts of burden. No-one is saying that. We're talking about the rights of unborn humans to live provided that their mother has consented to pregnancy and will not die as a result.

Yet again, your dogged ad hominem attacks on the pro-life/anti-abortion camp degrade the level of argument.

Now obviously anti-abortion freaks don't like the inconvenient truth that their views belong in classical fascism, christofascism to be more precise. They also don't like accurate terms like anti-freedom or anti-choice, so they call themselves 'pro-life' instead.

...

The fact that anti-choicers don't like hearing what they are, doesn't change what they are though. If anything, it's a clue that even the anti-choicers themselves know in the back of their mind that trying to ban abortion is just evil.

...

Then again, all anti-abortion freaks are from sheltered environments. None have ever been pregnant from rape, or been through something difficult in their life. Without exceptions they live isolated from reality, passing judgement about others from their ivory tower.
Even the one or two flagship girls who had an unwanted child are just dumb twats who got themselves pregnant out of ignorance and then didn't have the guts to make a decision for themselves, and let their conservative Christian background decide for them.

Now that is untrue, you can't make stupid generalisations like that. Your hatred is showing itself.

Don't be surprised if that causes more than a little resentment. If one is to make an accurate judgement of how unethical 'pro-life' is, you'd need to look down on them from such a height, they'd think god himself was staring at them.

Believe it or not, I don't view this from a religious perspective. Shock horror.

 

[Erttheking]

Uh, this may belong on the religion and politics thread, it might be better there.

 

[AngleWyrm]

And yes, if they coudn't watch theyr prick, they should be responsible for their actions. But that still is a personal thing between the woman and man.

So consensual sex and family planning is an agreement between TWO people, but unplanned pregnancy is the man's fault? If unplanned pregnancy is the man's fault, then the man should have legal authority to abort unplanned children.

 

[AngleWyrm]

I mean really, if we were to follow the twisted logic of giving the right to decide to whoever was at fault then rapists would always get it since they're clearly at fault every time.

The difference is that rape is an act of violence that cannot be retroactively removed. Birthing a child can be prevented long after impregnation. The decision to actually have the baby is still on the table for a few months.

Pro-life vs Pro-choice is about making that decision. At what point is it another human being with the right not to be killed? Can a pregnant woman be charged with murder? Can a father claim during those months that he does not want or is incapable of supporting a family, or is it suddenly the exclusive decision of the woman?

 

[AngleWyrm]

It doesn't matter if it cannot retroactively be removed. Neither can having sex with someone.

Rape is a crime. Consensual sex is not a crime. The comparison does not hold.

 

[Lilani]

hmmm....thats surprising coming from geroge carlin (he's the man)

anyway I see what you mean, "pro-life" certianly makes it sound good

personally I dont belive in taking away somones choice, and although the Idea of killing a fetus is disturbing to some...I dont find it "as" bad

and if it is illigal it will just go underground

Really? You find that surprising of Carlin? To me that sounds exactly like something he'd say.

Anyway, being the good Christian that I am and all that, I am most certainly pro choice. No woman should be forced to carry a baby to term, if she feels moved to not do so. Plus, it's better to offer the abortions in legitimate, clean, and sanitary environments rather than opening up a black market for abortions and letting people prey and profit off of all those women.

 

[Thaluikhain]

We're talking about the rights of unborn humans to live provided that their mother has consented to pregnancy and will not die as a result.

Er...if the mother is consenting to being pregnant, presumably she'd choose not to get an abortion?

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

I don't remember what comedian I am quoting, but I rembmber the message. Everybody is pro-life. If people wouldn't be, they would have killed them selfs years ago.
The notion "pro-life" was made so those people could feel better about who they are, calling it something that sounds better. And to quote Geroge Carlin:

They're anti-woman. Simple as it gets, anti-woman. They don't like them. They don't like women. They believe a woman's primary role is to function as a brood mare for the state.

I say people shouldn't interfere in what is not their buisness.

Thoughts?

This isn't about a war on women's rights. That is bullshit.

It is different in my country.
http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/02/miscarriage-death-penalty-georgia
We have some crazy people in the pro-life movement.
OP: I don't consider a clump of cells to be a person, sorry. I view it on a slider with my comfort level with abortion decreasing the longer a person is pregnant. At a certain point, I say no abortions.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

Come on, dont just blindly make out the pro lifers to be women haters. This is a serious issue and of course theres going to be people on both sides of the fence.

Im pro choice though, but I think the debate is good. It reminds people to take this issue seriously and to not simply treat it as another form of contraception.

 

[dyre]

Oh look, it's this thread. I suppose it's convenient for some pro-choicers to see pro-lifers are people who just don't care about the woman.

 

[lacktheknack]

I propose a ban on George Carlin quotes in political issues.

THEY.

NEVER.

SAY.

ANYTHING.

TRULY.

WORTH.

PAYING.

ATTENTION.

TO.

OT: Bad job trying to undermine the pro-lifers. You've done nothing to make me rethink my anti-abortion stance, if anything, you've made me more solid because of the ridiculous Carlin quote.