Why aren't the pro-lifers...

While I don't identify as pro-life, I don't see why this position has to be tied into a random bunch of other socioeconomic/political issues. I do see a direct interdependence with contraception and child care issues and find them relevant in the debate. It is my observation that many (not all) pro-life people often take stances on those issues that are counterproductive in the task of preventing abortion or producing well-cared-for and well-nourished children (which should hopefully be the goal)

Belk said:

And how many would become murderers or rapists? No offense but what if questions, while interesting and sometimes useful, are not an argument. I do not see possible future scenarios as a reason to change the here and now fact that an embryo is not self conscious and has no opinion on issues.

Click to expand...

But an embryo is an innocent human being that should have the same right to life that you and I have.

BelievingIsObeying said:

If people think other forms of murder are acceptable, they are anti-abortion and not pro-life.

Click to expand...

This ^

(I disagree, however, that killing is not morally permissible under any possible circumstances.)

Mariposa36 said:

also raising a hooplah about war, violence, hunger, lack of clean drinking water in the developing world (which kills far more innocent people than abortion), lethal diseases with no cures, curable diseases that people die from due to healthcare inequality, etc.?

Click to expand...

How do you know they don't?

K

TomZzyzx said:

But an embryo is an innocent human being that should have the same right to life that you and I have.

Click to expand...

Embryos before higher brain functions develop aren't persons, and do not have the same right to life that you and I have.

TomZzyzx said:

But an embryo is an innocent human being that should have the same right to life that you and I have.

Click to expand...

So... none.

ToddNotTodd said:

Embryos before higher brain functions develop aren't persons, and do not have the same right to life that you and I have.

Click to expand...

Since there is no definitive definition for person then that is your opinion. In my opinion a human being is a person from conception to death. Therefore embryos should have the same right to life that you and I have.

Belk said:

So... none.

Click to expand...

Wrong, everyone has a right to life. That's why we have laws against unjustified killing.

Mariposa36 said:

also raising a hooplah about war, violence, hunger, lack of clean drinking water in the developing world (which kills far more innocent people than abortion), lethal diseases with no cures, curable diseases that people die from due to healthcare inequality, etc.?

Click to expand...

You sound angry? Ur comparing apples with veggies.

Abortion is about killing an innocent human life. PERIOD.

TomZzyzx said:

...... a human being is a person from conception to death. Therefore embryos should have the same right to life that you and I have.

Click to expand...

an embryo = baby = human

Mariposa36 said:

also raising a hooplah about war, violence, hunger, lack of clean drinking water in the developing world (which kills far more innocent people than abortion), lethal diseases with no cures, curable diseases that people die from due to healthcare inequality, etc.?

Click to expand...

Because there is an obsession with this one, single area above all others. It doesn't matter what kind life/circumstance a child is born into - so long as he or she is born, regardless of the danger or damage to the mother and any other existing family members, and even regardless to the danger to the child after it is born. It's tunnel vision.

TomZzyzx said:

Since there is no definitive definition for person then that is your opinion.

Click to expand...

My opinion bolstered by logic. If it was possible to remove someone's brain and keep the body alive, is the body a person? What if you could then take the brain and put it in a robot. Is it a person? Is there two people?

The only logical conclusion to me is that the robot with the brain is the person, and the body is... nothing.

Therefore, the thing that makes us people are brains. Early stage fetuses don't have that, and hence, aren't people.

TomZzyzx said:

In my opinion a human being is a person from conception to death. Therefore embryos should have the same right to life that you and I have.

Click to expand...

In your opinion...

I think that the anti-abortion crowd are more interested in control rather than their stated "pro-life" argument.

both sides are all about control...just so we are clear

Killing an unborn child is just as bad as ignoring the dying children in third world countries....absolutely.

BUT

Pro-choicers don't get a pass on promoting murder hidden by some warped definition of freedom to choose to "not be pregnant".

jpcedotal said:

both sides are all about control...just so we are clear

Click to expand...

We are not clear. One side is advocating choice, left up to the individual and their physician. The other side, is not.

jpcedotal said:

Pro-choicers don't get a pass on promoting murder hidden by some warped definition of freedom to choose to "not be pregnant".

Click to expand...

You're going to have to establish, using facts - not religious argument, that abortion is murder if those of us who do not consider it to be so are going to agree with you here.

selfinflikted said:

I think that the anti-abortion crowd are more interested in control rather than their stated "pro-life" argument.

Click to expand...

This doesn't make sense. If you mean "control over a woman's body" (which would be consistent with your side's rhetoric), why aren't pro-lifers protesting against females getting tattoos, or boob jobs, or nose jobs? I'll give you a hint: tattoos don't kill people.

Hetta said:

It doesn't matter what kind life/circumstance a child is born into - so long as he or she is born, regardless of the danger or damage to the mother and any other existing family members, and even regardless to the danger to the child after it is born. It's tunnel vision.

Click to expand...

I don't understand this. It looks like you're saying that people in less than ideal circumstances should be killed, or that people who are inconvenient should be killed, or that people who might be in danger at some point in the future should be killed.

cgm5 said:

I don't understand this. It looks like you're saying that people in less than ideal circumstances should be killed, or that people who are inconvenient should be killed, or that people who might be in danger at some point in the future should be killed.

Click to expand...

Hmm .. didn't say any of that .. anywhere.

cgm5 said:

This doesn't make sense. If you mean "control over a woman's body" (which would be consistent with your side's rhetoric), why aren't pro-lifers protesting against females getting tattoos, or boob jobs, or nose jobs? I'll give you a hint: tattoos don't kill people.

Click to expand...

If one watches the actions of the pro-life movement instead of listening to their rhetoric, it makes perfect sense. They will fight tooth and nail for the 9 months that a fetus is in the womb for the mother to bring it to term, but once the baby has been born, they wash they're hands of the situation. They're actions indeed speak louder than their words. What else am I supposed to glean from the situation, if not my original supposition?

Further, when I said "control" I meant "control", in general, but yes, more specifically over a woman's body. It's acceptable for Christian women to get tattoos, boob jobs, nose jobs, etc. Why would they want to ban those things when they enjoy them themselves? It is not, on the whole, however, acceptable for Christian women to get abortions (which I'm sure they DO, they just don't say as much out loud). So it's easy to fight against something they themselves wouldn't be tempted to do. Really convenient if you ask me.

(I realize I am generalizing here, but it's mostly true from what I've seen)

selfinflikted said:

but once the baby has been born, they wash they're hands of the situation.

Click to expand...

Pro-choicers tend not to support infanticide, as far as I can tell, but if they did, pro-lifers would certainly oppose them on it. So no, pro-lifers don't have a secret agreement to wash their hands of it at birth.

Further, when I said "control" I meant "control", in general, but yes, more specifically over a woman's body.

Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by "control in general".

It's acceptable for Christian women to get tattoos, boob jobs, nose jobs, etc. Why would they want to ban those things when they enjoy them themselves?

Click to expand...

Not all Christian women pro-lifers (or pro-lifers in general) support these things.

So it's easy to fight against something they themselves wouldn't be tempted to do. Really convenient if you ask me.

Click to expand...

Just because you disapprove of something doesn't mean you aren't tempted to do it.