On the subject of abortion

[Pwnzerfaust]

Before I ask this question, allow me to make my position on abortion clear: It should be entirely up to the mother whether or not to have an abortion, except in the third trimester, at which point I'm not entirely sure.

Now, here's my question: Why do certain groups of people feel it is in their power to control the lives of others? Why do they feel they have the right to decide what a woman can and cannot do to her own body?

Not intended to flame or troll or anything. Just trying to understand.

 

[Verv]

Before I ask this question, allow me to make my position on abortion clear: It should be entirely up to the mother whether or not to have an abortion, except in the third trimester, at which point I'm not entirely sure.

Now, here's my question: Why do certain groups of people feel it is in their power to control the lives of others? Why do they feel they have the right to decide what a woman can and cannot do to her own body?

Not intended to flame or troll or anything. Just trying to understand.

It's quite simple, really:

We believe it is a human life.

It is not about controlling others but preventing what we view as a murder.

If you view something as a human life and it is being destroyed it is only natural to move to save the life.

 

[Washington]

It's quite simple, really:

We believe it is a human life.

It is not about controlling others but preventing what we view as a murder.

If you view something as a human life and it is being destroyed it is only natural to move to save the life.

And preventing is not a form of controlling? Give me a break! Your toying with words may assuage your sense of guilt---"Gee, I'm not a controlling person."---but it sure doesn't change the facts.

 

[DeathMagus]

And preventing is not a form of controlling? Give me a break! Your toying with words may assuage your sense of guilt---"Gee, I'm not a controlling person."---but it sure doesn't change the facts.

What are you talking about? JM is absolutely right. While I don't agree with his assessment of when human life begins, he and those like him are not out to dictate unreasonably from on high what people can and cannot do. Rather, they honestly are defending the idea that fetuses are individuals who should have the same rights as any other human in the United States.

Do you have any particular reason to believe his motives are impure?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It's quite simple, really:

We believe it is a human life.

It is not about controlling others but preventing what we view as a murder.

If you view something as a human life and it is being destroyed it is only natural to move to save the life.

At the risk of sounding condescending...

Why should others have their definitions of things determined by the interpratations of those who have a completely different set of beliefs?

That would be like me saying that since I feel the Bible is false, anyone who depicts it as truth is a liar; and then trying to force everyone else to accept my definition of "liar"...

 

[Washington]

What are you talking about? JM is absolutely right. While I don't agree with his assessment of when human life begins, he and those like him are not out to dictate unreasonably from on high what people can and cannot do. Rather, they honestly are defending the idea that fetuses are individuals who should have the same rights as any other human in the United States.

Do you have any particular reason to believe his motives are impure?

Whether or not his dictate is unreasonable doesn't chang the fact that it is still a dictate: telling someone else what they can or cannot do. And it doesn't matter if his reasons are pure or impure. Dictating is still an attempt to control the actions of another. And it's doing much more than "defending the idea that fetuses are individuals who should have the same rights as any other human." It is controling the actions of others. So let's not dance around the issue. To prevent someone from doing something means you are controlling them.

 

[PassionFruit]

Before I ask this question, allow me to make my position on abortion clear: It should be entirely up to the mother whether or not to have an abortion, except in the third trimester, at which point I'm not entirely sure.

Now, here's my question: Why do certain groups of people feel it is in their power to control the lives of others? Why do they feel they have the right to decide what a woman can and cannot do to her own body?

Not intended to flame or troll or anything. Just trying to understand.

While I understand that there are people who believe that life begins at conception. I don't like the idea of making the fetus seem more important than the mother. Even though they believe that fetuses should have the same rights a any other person, these rights would in the end trump the rights of the mother.

If anyone wants to prevent abortion from occurring they should do so by allowing women to have access to family planning, and try to understand why women have abortions in the first place.

 

[daniel777]

At the risk of sounding condescending...

Why should others have their definitions of things determined by the interpratations of those who have a completely different set of beliefs?

That would be like me saying that since I feel the Bible is false, anyone who depicts it as truth is a liar; and then trying to force everyone else to accept my definition of "liar"...

people as a society have to agree on certain definitions in order for society to function as a whole. a society needs laws for instance.

in the case of life, the definitions are most important since life is the most important and most treasured thing any of us have.

 

[daniel777]

While I understand that there are people who believe that life begins at conception. I don't like the idea of making the fetus seem more important than the mother. Even though they believe that fetuses should have the same rights a any other person, these rights would in the end trump the rights of the mother.

if you want to throw the whole abortion debate up onto a scale of uncertainty, most of the time, it tips in favor of the child.


comfort-----life. . . . . which is more important?


I personally think that most of the pro-choice support comes from the all too American (all too human) desire to have everything now, my way, and best benefitting to me. I don't see much else that could motivate someone to swing pro-choice from uncertainty other than confusion. . . . (but some people may have always been certain in their own mind. this doesn't include them.) it's easier, why not swing this way.... it's life, why not swing the other. but that's just me.

 

[DeathMagus]

Whether or not his dictate is unreasonable doesn't chang the fact that it is still a dictate: telling someone else what they can or cannot do. And it doesn't matter if his reasons are pure or impure. Dictating is still an attempt to control the actions of another. And it's doing much more than "defending the idea that fetuses are individuals who should have the same rights as any other human." It is controling the actions of others. So let's not dance around the issue. To prevent someone from doing something means you are controlling them.

So your beef is with government and laws as a whole? It seems silly to focus in on such a sensitive issue if your position is that creating any type of restrictions on how people behave is inherently bad? The position JM represents is not any more about control than laws making murder or theft illegal. Why are you focusing on abortion?

 

[PassionFruit]

if you want to throw the whole abortion debate up onto a scale of uncertainty, most of the time, it tips in favor of the child.


comfort-----life. . . . . which is more important?


I personally think that most of the pro-choice support comes from the all too American (all too human) desire to have everything now, my way, and best benefitting to me. I don't see much else that could motivate someone to swing pro-choice from uncertainty other than confusion. . . . (but some people may have always been certain in their own mind. this doesn't include them.) it's easier, why not swing this way.... it's life, why not swing the other. but that's just me.

How does it swing in the favor of the child? And where are you getting this belief about pro-choice supporters? Abortion is a complex issue, abortions will occur no matter how much people try place value on the fetus.

The reason why I'm pro-choice is because first and foremost I recognize the reality that abortions happen. Whether they're illegal or not or whether people like it or not.

 

[daniel777]

How does it swing in the favor of the child? And where are you getting this belief about pro-choice supporters? Abortion is a complex issue, abortions will occur no matter how much people try place value on the fetus.

you never answered my question, and i asked first.

The reason why I'm pro-choice is because first and foremost I recognize the reality that abortions happen. Whether they're illegal or not or whether people like it or not.

so does murder. should we set up shooting ranges so the murderer doesn't get scuffed up in the process?

 

[Washington]

So your beef is with government and laws as a whole?

Excuse me? What the heck are you talking about?

Why are you focusing on abortion?

?????????

All I've done so far is address the matter of jmverville's remark, that preventing is not a matter of controlling, and your implication that dictating is not a matter of controlling. The fact that abortion is the subject of the thread is not relevant to the substance of my remarks.

 

[flicka]

you never answered my question, and i asked first.


so does murder. should we set up shooting ranges so the murderer doesn't get scuffed up in the process?

Once you compare abortion to murdering a living breathing human being and honestly don't think there is a difference you might as well step out of the conversaton since nobody will bother trying to discuss things with you.

That is not a good debating style.

 

[True_Blue]

Laws against illegal drugs won't entirely eliminate drug use, but they limit drug use by raising the street price of drugs and making it less affordable. Otherwise, we'd be able to buy heroin for five bucks a pop at 7-11. Laws against abortion won't eliminate abortions, but they would reduce the incidence from 1M+ per year to a few thousand per year. Saving 950k lives per year is worth it.

All laws are controlling to some extent--society isn't possible without laws that control.

For those who are unsure about when life begins, ask yourself where the burden of proof lies. When human life is the subject, does it not make sense to err on the side of caution? I've heard that by the time a mom even knows she's pregnant (when the first period is missed), her baby already has brain waves and a heartbeat. The responsible thing is the bear the child to term and make the necessary life adjustments (perhaps adoption or marrying the father, or, in the case of rape, making sure the father is sent to prison).

 

[daniel777]

Once you compare abortion to murdering a living breathing human being and honestly don't think there is a difference you might as well step out of the conversaton since nobody will bother trying to discuss things with you.

That is not a good debating style.

as i explained perviously, i was initially measuring them on a scale of uncertainty. . . . . I was saying that even in doubt of whether or not a fetus is a child, the scale still tilts towards the life of the child/or fetus. It carries the greatest moral risk.


when she jumped beyond that, so did i.

read everything next time.

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

When do people think is the moment a new, individual human being comes into existence? My personal opinion would be that the fetus is not a person until brain activity starts. Until that point it's just a culture of cells.

 

[daniel777]

When do people think is the moment a new, individual human being comes into existence? My personal opinion would be that the fetus is not a person until brain activity starts. Until that point it's just a culture of cells.

possibly.

i think that purpose carries the meaning of personhood. physically, though, and in a progressive cause to effect reality, i don't know. but for the above reason, purpose, i don't think it's something we should interfere with, and i think the mere existence of a fetus implies that it may have some purpose.

well, there's my personal opinion.

 

[diekatzen]

When do people think is the moment a new, individual human being comes into existence? My personal opinion would be that the fetus is not a person until brain activity starts. Until that point it's just a culture of cells.

I'm not certain when life begins, but I think human rights start when the baby is capable of survival outside of the womb. I'm in opposition to third-trimestre abortions. Actually, I'm not 'in favour' of abortion at all, but it's not my choice to make for anyone but myself.

I personally think that most of the pro-choice support comes from the all too American (all too human) desire to have everything now, my way, and best benefitting to me.

That makes it sound easy. It's actually a terribly difficult choice for most people.

 

[daniel777]

That makes it sound easy. It's actually a terribly difficult choice for most people.

I didn't mean to imply it was easy, either way. But this definitely enters into the decision making process. i would say, most of the time.

btw, i view the women as victims.