Pro-life

[Gatx]

This is why the abortion debate doesn't go anywhere. In an argument you need to have to points on opposing sides. Obviously no one wants to be anti-life or anti-choice, so everyone just keeps arguing in circles.

 

[DeimosMasque]

Penn Jillette said it best for me to paraphrase: "Everyone is pro-life and pro-choice. It's for or against allowing abortions that's the issue."

Honestly both sides are responsible for using a misnomer to make their cause sound better. Me personally? I'm not against allowing abortions. I'm not sure if I could condone my wife having one either, but that's for us to discuss and decide if it ever becomes necessary. It is not up to the church, the government or neighbor Bob down the street to decide it for us. Nor is it my responsibility to make that decision for someone else.

 

[octafish]

You made me think of that great Bill Hicks quote...
"I, ah...this abortion issue in the States is dividing the country right in half. You know, and even amongst my friends - we're all highly intelligent - they're totally divided on the issue of abortion. Totally divided. Some of my friends think these pro-life people are just annoying idiots. Other of my friends think these pro-life people are evil fucks. How are we gonna have a consensus? I'm torn. I try and take the broad view and think of them as evil, annoying fucks."

You don't like that quote? Take it up with Bill...

 

[JoesshittyOs]

I actually adamantly disagree with that quote. That's utter bullshit. As much as "pro-life" sensationalizes their choice, saying that "they hate women" sensationalizes the pro-choice movement.

No. For the most part, they believe that the fetus is a human. Perhaps misguided, and maybe they don't really get the concept of a conscious state, but trying to pinpoint them as women haters is extremely childish

 

[Monkeyman O'Brien]

I had this argument not that long ago with this preachey christian nutjob who was collecting signatures to stop a abortion clinic being built in town.
His argument was that there are much better ways of handling unwanted children like adoption and teaching better sex education.
I just asked then why was he not collecting signatures to increase funding for these things instead of just being a **** and trying to take away peoples options.
This was right in the middle of town too, busy ass street.
It ended after like 15 minutes of arguing when I pointed out he was just being a judgmental prick who was more interested in forcing his opinions on people and taking away their options than helping them.
He responded by just smiling right at me and flicking through his 3 pages of signatures (not impressive seeing as how many people just ignored him and carried on) which resulted in me grabbing his clipboard and walking away with it.
Pansy ass could not even swear at me since it was a public place and he was after all a christian.

And just for funsies.

 

[brainslurper]

Regardless of the context, there is a legitimate moral issue with killing a fetus because you don't want to have a baby any more. It's not like gay marriage where you can simply dismiss someone as being close minded, and any sensible person makes no relation to sexism whatsoever.

 

[brainslurper]

I had this argument not that long ago with this preachey christian nutjob who was collecting signatures to stop a abortion clinic being built in town.
His argument was that there are much better ways of handling unwanted children like adoption and teaching better sex education.
I just asked then why was he not collecting signatures to increase funding for these things instead of just being a **** and trying to take away peoples options.
This was right in the middle of town too, busy ass street.
It ended after like 15 minutes of arguing when I pointed out he was just being a judgmental prick who was more interested in forcing his opinions on people and taking away their options than helping them.
He responded by just smiling right at me and flicking through his 3 pages of signatures (not impressive seeing as how many people just ignored him and carried on) which resulted in me grabbing his clipboard and walking away with it.
Pansy ass could not even swear at me since it was a public place and he was after all a christian.

And just for funsies.

That lacks a picture of a person with "this is not a corporation"

 

[AMMO Kid]

21 Weeks in the womb: A baby reached out and grabbed the finger of a surgeon (Sarah Marie Switzer). A picture during the incident was taken by Michael Clancy.
"I was totally in shock for two hours after the surgery...I know that abortion is wrong now - it's absolutely wrong." Michael Clancy, Photojournalist, 1999.

Babies are alive, they feel pain after only a few weeks. Sometime to get the babies out of the womb they just cut them into pieces and pull them out (without killing them first). A baby will grow and be birthed unless there are interruptions, and cutting these unborn people into pieces is apparently "pro-choice." Adoption is ten times better than being "pro-choice."

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

So I assume that Hitler killing 8 million Jews was our business, and as such we went to war, but not Americans killing 40 million unborn babies?

 

[wintercoat]

I take a simple stance on the subject of abortion: if it ain't mine, it's none of my business.

Also, adoption is not the answer. With how poorly funded adoption agencies and foster homes are, and how unregulated the system is, for the majority of foster children it's hell. The percentage of runaways climbs ever higher every year, and cases of drug addiction and repeat criminal offenses is even higher. To claim that putting someone into that system is the noble choice when if they increased taxes to fix it would get the majority of these so-called "pro-lifers" into a froth is ignorant. If you don't care what happens after the birth, you don't get an opinion on what happens before the birth.

 

[Kanatatsu]

This debate is a matter of law, not morality.

In most western countries there is the legal concept of an inalienable right. A person can not legally surrender one of these rights--they are literally unable to be given up.

For example, surrogacy contracts that purport to prohibit the surrogate mother from aborting are illegal. No court would or could enforce that clause of the contract and you would have no legal remedy if she then chose to do so because she is not permitted by law to surrender her bodily autonomy to anyone (even the state).

Just as she cannot surrender her autonomy to you or the state, she cannot surrender it to the fetus due to the inalienability of this right. It makes no difference if one considers the fetus a fully formed human being--her right to bodily autonomy trumps any rights the fetus may have.

You may think she is wrong to abort, and that's fine, but she must have the right to do so if we are to retain the concept of an inalienable right. And retaining that concept is of incalculable value to any civilized society.

 

[Mad World]

Way I look at it, it's murder. Being against abortion does not make me anti-woman.

 

[Skin]

I think abortion rules should be more stringent, because I believe that all innocent human beings, including the unborn, should have the right to life. This isn't about a war on women's rights. That is bullshit.

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.

There are plenty of laws that invalidate autonomy we have over our bodies. Some things are legal, and others aren't, and abortion falls into the former.

 

[NiPah]

Its weird, but in the end I find myself defining a fetus as a parasitic life form, the act of abortion is more akin to removing someone off life support then simply killing it. Without a female body to provide the nutrients from her own body (which harms her as a host) the fetus would die.

I would say I'm pro-life and pro-choice, I don't like the idea of aborting a fetus, but I certainly understand it should be a choice open to women.

 

[LilithSlave]

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

The "unborn" aren't human beings.

The people who are starving as we speak are human beings.

We should worry about them, instead. They have thoughts and emotions, and are sentient.

 

[Skin]

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

The "unborn" aren't human beings.

The people who are starving as we speak are human beings.

We should worry about them, instead. They have thoughts and emotions, and are sentient.

So... Should we misanthropes support the fetuses over starving humans? Seems so.

 

[Darkmantle]

Can't be pro-life if you allow a woman to die by refusing her an abortion. I can also guarantee that if the movement was called "anti-abortion" it would be less popular, as "anti" is a negative word, people don't want to be anti something, they want to be PRO something. People aren't anti-gay, the are PRO traditional marriage! etc etc.

 

[Darkmantle]

Way I look at it, it's murder. Being against abortion does not make me anti-woman.

What about in rape cases or in the case of life saving abortions? I believe abortion should be legal for those two reasons alone.

 

[the clockmaker]

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?

EDIT: So people don't misunderstand: The Carlin quote is ofcourse part of a stand-up and is not to be taking literal, but he's pointing out that the women aren't being thought nearly as much of in this matter as they should.

I have the feeling that when your opening move in a discussion is to claim that the essence of an entire movement of diverse reasonings, backgrounds and beliefs is simply that they hate women then you are not mature enough to enter into the debate.

I mean, this argument has all the intellectual integrity of claiming that the pro choice crowd all hate babies.

Perhaps, and in fact this can go for any debate in the history of anything, you would gain some benifit in putting yourself in the opposition's shoes, why do they think the way that they do? how do they see the things that I see? what do they find objectionable about my point of view and conversly, what do I really find objectionable about theirs.

Importantly for that last point, remember that inside your mind is a safe space do not be afraid to strip down the buzz words and gotcha points that you use in debates because this is not a place to try and score points against your opponents. I am guilty of the same thing, in that I build upon my deep, personal reasons for my beliefs to create a coherant model to debate people with. Look at the core of your reasoning.

Remember that the internet is a vacuum when it comes to disscussion, I can't see your face or hear the tone of your voice and I don't know who you are or where you are coming from. All we are left with is the content of your post and as such, the claim that you are not meant to be taken literally is not really the best defence.

Another issue that you may need to work on is the view of the opposition as the 'other' remember that these are people just like you and that they have many of the same desires, hopes and beliefs, from there, you will be less likely to make misinformed, pointlessly dismissive blanket statements.

I hope this helps you in bringing a more reasoned point of view to this debate in the future. And before I am accused of trying to derail the thread, let me point out that there was negligable real discussion value here in the first place. I would also like to say that I get the feeling that you are not informed by hate and that you mean well, so I hope that you carry on debating, but that you do it better.

I had this argument not that long ago with this preachey christian nutjob who was collecting signatures to stop a abortion clinic being built in town.
His argument was that there are much better ways of handling unwanted children like adoption and teaching better sex education.
I just asked then why was he not collecting signatures to increase funding for these things instead of just being a **** and trying to take away peoples options.
This was right in the middle of town too, busy ass street.
It ended after like 15 minutes of arguing when I pointed out he was just being a judgmental prick who was more interested in forcing his opinions on people and taking away their options than helping them.
He responded by just smiling right at me and flicking through his 3 pages of signatures (not impressive seeing as how many people just ignored him and carried on) which resulted in me grabbing his clipboard and walking away with it.
Pansy ass could not even swear at me since it was a public place and he was after all a christian.

And just for funsies.

See, this is a post that is informed by hate and that does not mean well and is a fantastic example of what I would like to see people avoid. Before I begin, I would like to note that the content and feeling of the post, not the side that it supports, is what I find objectionable. Overall, the issue of recounting a debate that you have had in the past is iffy, as it rarely brings any new points into a discussion and, more often than not, serves to massage the ego of the poster rather than actually discussing the topic at hand.

1-"Preachy Christian nutjob"
-this is a horrible way to begin a post as it shows immediate and hostile dismissal of the other side. Note that the religion is specifically identified with regards to negative identifiers, because the poster finds it important that we know that the nutjob was christian. Now, remember that a thread is a vacuum and that, without any prior knowlege of the poster or his actions, we are led towards seeing him/her as pointing to religious extreamism as a core part of being against abortion, this not only puts christains who are against abortion on the defensive, damaging any possibility of a real discussion, but it also alienates christians who are pro choice and athiests who do not support abortion. So my initial impression is the poster does not want to discuss the topic, he/she wants to feel smart and to feel as if they've won.

2-"I just asked him"
-Showing an avatar of the oppositon being unable to respond to a good argument is an effective, if slightly underhanded technique, but it hinges on actually showing the results. The phrasing ' I just asked him' should be followed by the oppositions counter arguement and why that counter is ineffective.

3-"Instead of being a ****"
-Being abusive is rarely an effective means of convinceing third parties, by which I mean that if I abuse were to abuse you, I may bully you into submission, but when I tell others of the debate it does nothing to show why I am right. The only time that it is acceptable is when the opposition is clearly in the wrong, for example 'Jim stole my pen today, but when I called him a ****, he realised what a **** he was being and dropped it from his cunty fingers'

4-"when I pointed out"
-this is another instance of treating a debate as if it is already settled, not a 'this is how I convinced him' which could be effective, but rather 'I told him that he was wrong'. This does nothing to further your cause.

5-"Judgemental prick that was more interested in forcing his own opinions and taking away their options than helping people"/"resulted in me taking his clipboard and walking away"
-I picked these two phrases to go together to bring up the whole 'walk a mile in their shoes things' that I brought up earlier, before you do something, consider whether it would be okay for the oposition to do it, and if it would not be, why is it acceptable for you. Also, with regards to hypocrisy do not talk about the opposition taking away people's options and then forcibly take away a petion, because you are forcing your opinion and taking away those people's option.

6-"Pansy ass"
-Do not attempt to belitle your opponent for being weaker than you, it makes you look like a bully and makes them look like the sainted pacifist, turning the other cheek.

7- The picture
-Remember that 99% of the people on the other side are reasonable people, treat them as such, in this incidence, remember that, in my experiance at least, most people do not equate sperm+egg as instant person, the debate primarily ranging about when that collection of cells becomes a person. The addition of the phrase 'this is not a difficult concept' adds to the point scoring and belittling tone of the post, capping off a general debate with a link to the extreamist viewpoint, attempting to tar all oppositition with the sane brush.

So Steinar Valsson, I hope that you can avoid the minor mistakes that you made and the major ones that Monkeyman Obrien commited in the future. Monkeyman, I ask only that you take a step back and give me enough respect to assume that I am a reasoning being even though I disagree with you.

 

[OniaPL]

If abortion is murder, then blowjobs are cannibalism.

And because that sounds both silly and nasty, I'm gonna be on the "Yay abortion" -side.

Now let's all go for pancakes and ice cream.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

21 Weeks in the womb: A baby reached out and grabbed the finger of a surgeon (Sarah Marie Switzer). A picture during the incident was taken by Michael Clancy.
"I was totally in shock for two hours after the surgery...I know that abortion is wrong now - it's absolutely wrong." Michael Clancy, Photojournalist, 1999.

Babies are alive, they feel pain after only a few weeks. Sometime to get the babies out of the womb they just cut them into pieces and pull them out (without killing them first). A baby will grow and be birthed unless there are interruptions, and cutting these unborn people into pieces is apparently "pro-choice." Adoption is ten times better than being "pro-choice."

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

So I assume that Hitler killing 8 million Jews was our business, and as such we went to war, but not Americans killing 40 million unborn babies?

While the story you referenced is genuine, your dates are off. A quick google search noted the baby was born nine weeks premature, therefore near the seven month mark. Abortion is only possible during very early stages of pregnancy, approximately twenty weeks, although it varies from state to state. A fetus does not feel pain initially and it remains uncertain if it does until the third trimester, when abortion is no longer permitted. Nevertheless, the probability remains low, as brain development does not begin until the twenty-sixth or seventh week. Further damning to your story is at twenty-one weeks, bones have not yet developed, making your cited timeline scientifically impossible.

A fetus can be likened to a parasite by clinical definition, as another poster has mentioned. It exists by living off the nutrients of the host while providing her no benefit, and in fact, could cause harm, however infrequent such occurrences are in present day. Should the woman decide she does not want the fetus, then it becomes an invasive organism taking from her body without consent, otherwise known as the aforementioned parasite.

What anti-abortion people fail to consider is abortions will never go away, regardless if laws were set against them. It would simply mean young women might expose themselves to dangerous procedures by unlicensed doctors, hence why in our past, numerous women have died for these precise reasons. Abortion provides a safe outlet for women who have made this choice, one they should be entitled to. Citing adoption as a suitable alternative is informing a woman she must endure punishment and allow her body to undergo changes she does not desire. If a couple opted for the proper contraceptives but fell in the incredibly low percentile where neither worked. Is it then fair to force them to continue the pregnancy, interrupting and interfering with their lives, when they did everything right to begin with? Likewise, ignorant as teenagers may be, forcing an eighteen year old to endure pregnancy after she has expressed her desire to terminate it, is unjust punishment.

A comparison to the Holocaust is both inaccurate and somewhat insulting. People (abortions are not limited to America) are not killing unborn babies, they are terminating a fetus. They are not the same, and this understanding needs to be realized. I have already described above the significant differences, which separate the two. By citing baby, even with the "unborn" tag, we install the image of a living infant and people come to the wrong conclusions. A fetus, the correct term, is not a "baby" nor does it even begin to resemble one, with proper brain function, until abortion is no longer an option.