His point is those that kill people while calling themselves “pro-life”…..aren’t.
Understand? Now. Perhaps those in the pro-life movement that would never dream of killing another people would get their representatives to stop their “It’s murder!” or “Babies are torn apart!” or “unborn babies” rhetoric and condemn openly, vigorously, and vociferously violence, we can move forward as a nation.
jkshaw - as soon as Pro-Choice people start calling themselves “Anti-life” or “Pro-Death”
Both sides will try to frame the debate in their own terms that make them look good because they don’t wish to admit that the other side makes some good points.
Besides, one who is pro-life can also be called pro-choice. Women have all sorts of choices, which birth control to use, which men to procreate with, etc. They can be all for giving them choices. Why shouldn’t they ask women to accept consequences of their actions.
I think the labels “Pro-Life” and “Pro-Choice” need to go away. They need to be “Pro-Abortion” and “Anti-Abortion.” That is honest language with no confusion.
Pro-Choice people are not necessarily pro-abortion, they believe it is a woman’s choice to do as she sees fit.
The pro-lifers must put their money where their mouths are and take a more active stance in this issue. If they were to take a woman who wants an abortion and care for the baby throughout the pregnancy and then take that baby into their loving care and nourish that child to a well adjusted, productive adult, then and only then would they be credible. As it is they just appear rabid and foaming at the mouth.
So all you pro-lifers, adopt an unwanted child and show us that you REALLY care.
@Danielsangeo: If the anti-abortionists believe it’s murder, then they have every right to use the term. What they have to back off from doing is making it sound like abortionists are fully aware that they are slicing up babies because that isn’t the truth. Abortionists do not think they are killing children. Precious few people think murder is ok.
@MurphyHerself: I disagree. If you’re pro-choice it means that you believe abortion to be a viable and ethical option, ergo you support it, however reluctantly. Just like being pro-life automatically means you oppose abortion. As to helping unwanted children, there are many groups out there that have indeed put their money where their mouths are, and have adopted kids or created/helped institutions that help them. But I do agree that there is definitely a rabid fringe element that needs to be silenced, as their invective does little to further the debate and causes direct harm.
While I would never have an abortion (well, rape is an altogether different matter), I am certainly not going to tell someone else that she can’t have one, nor am I going to protest her having one and I certainly want her to have a safe abortion instead of a back alley hatchet job.
I would much rather see that baby not even conceived.
TrickyPickle, I’m glad you’ve joined the discussion board. You’ve shown yourself to be a respectful and energetic debater of ideas. I’m going to repost my response to you from another toon about the use of the term “murder” because I am interested in hearing your response:
TrickyPickle, I appreciate your comment (and your screen name, which has quite a bit of relevance to this debate). But I will maintain that the word “murder” elevates the debate to a more instinctively violent level. Whereas its use may be deemed accurate by some, there can be little denying its potentially harmful consequences.
By saying this, I do not mean that the use of the word “murder” leads necessarily to what happened to Dr. Tiller. By no means! But it does lead to a tendency to de-personalize other people who disagree with you. A pro-choice person becomes no longer a “person”. They are now a “supporter of murder”.
Check out the response to Tiller’s murder by a coalition of leaders on both sides of the abortion debate at http://tinyurl.com/qab4g9 .
As to your belief that the line between pro-choice and pro-life is so clean, I have to disagree. You say: “If you’re pro-choice it means that you believe abortion to be a viable and ethical option, ergo you support it, however reluctantly.”
I appreciate you trying to put this in generous language, but in my case, you’re incorrect. I am pro-choice because I know that abortions will happen, as they have for millennia, whether I believe it to be an ethical option or not. (For the record, I do not, except in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother’s health or life).
I maintain that it must be made safe, legal, and available because if it is not, then those women who will inevitably seek them anyway will likely be dreadfully harmed or killed in the kinds of botched back-alley procedures of the past. We cannot return to that. So in my view, keeping abortion safe, legal, and available is akin to distributing clean needles to heroin addicts (a limited analogy, I admit).
TrickyPickle, I’ll also welcome you to the discussion. It’s fun to have respectful and spirited debate.
For what it’s worth, I don’t believe there will ever be agreement on abortion – other than it is not an option anybody chooses lightly. Having said that, there are many who do not have an ethical issue with it because they view a fetus as not being a human being. There are many who see it as a person only past a certain point (eg., viability), and still others who call it a person from the moment of conception. This will always be the case, and it has been my position for many years that to demonize those who have or provide abortions will do little to actually reduce the number of abortions. Sex education has been shown to be a far better prophylactic than “just say no.” It always amazes me that so many who oppose abortion also oppose education and/or birth control.
However, in the end, no matter what side of the debate anyone stands on, we owe it to each other to be respectful. If we can’t care for those who are currently walking around before us (figuratively in our case), then how can we ever hope to care for those who aren’t even born yet?
This is also why I believe we must work to keep abortions rare. This is not a concession to the conservative position for the sake of seeking compromise. It is a deeply held moral conviction.
Murphy, love your second point. In fact someone in my family did that. It was my cousin, they took care of the girl until the baby was born and then adopted it. The girl who had the baby is now 18 and she is doing great. So I totally agree with you there. The first point, if you feel abortion should be allowed, then you are Pro-Abortion. It is not an emotionally loaded term, it just is an honest one. You may be somewhere in the middle. You’re also free to drop the labels all together, but pro-choice and pro-life are dishonest labels that stack the deck to one side or the other before the debate begins.
Brad, I’m sorry, but I had a hard time distinguishing your opinion there. Are you saying that I am “Pro-Abortion” because of the statement I made? Or perhaps you’re just responding to Murphy. In either case, I don’t believe that your assertion is supported.
brad: I am vehemently against abortion which is why I think we should have very good education before “new life” is produced and, if it happens and all other options are discussed in a confidential manner between the woman and her doctor and abortion is the only viable option for the woman, then she should confidentially get it without threats of incarceration.
This is a very touchy subject for a lot of people. Calling someone “pro-abortion” because they feel abortion should be allowed is the same as calling someone a “warmonger” because, in rare circumstances, when all other options have been explored and exhausted where this is the last option, they agree that war should be used.
C’mon, brad. I know you think “pro-abortion” is an honest term, but it isn’t. It’s an emotionally loaded term used to bludgeon people over the head with, to erect a strawman to attack, then humiliate and/or demonize those that you disagree with.
I think I made my views clear but there still seems to be confusion. If you believe Abortion should be completley legal, any woman should have the right to choose it, even if you personally wouldn’t, I will call you “Pro-Abortion.” This is not a loaded term emotionally. This is simply stating a fact, like someone who is “Pro-gun control.” If you do not believe Abortion should be legal, then you are “Anti-Abortion” pure and simple. There may be all sorts of gray area in the middle too, such as maybe it should only be allowed in some circumstances. Maybe these people don’t feel comfortable labeling themselves one way or the other, I’m fine with that.
Daniel, “warmonger” and “pro-abortion” do not equate. To a warmonger, war is an end onto itself. They look for reasons to cause war, not use it as a last resort. Are you trying to argue that “Pro-life” and “Pro-Choice” are less emotionally loaded?
Tpenna, see my early statement in this comment and make my opinion up for yourself.
Maybe “Pro-Abortion” and “Anti-Abortion” seem a little to black and white, but they are a lot more honest than “Pro-Choice” and “Pro-Life.” And my terms don’t carry with them the contradictions the current terms do. You can be neither “pro” or “anti” abortion, but by calling yourself one or the other you don’t have to deal with the contradictions people bring up because of those terms and no other reasons.
Wow, Brad. You managed to completely not deal with my argument at all (eighth comment up from here).
But you just go ahead and use your wrong-headed black/white terminology. It’s entirely incorrect, mind you! But go ahead and use it. We’ll just ignore you.
So you are all for distributing clean needles to heroin addicts? Here are where the problems in your arguments lie. 1. You assume I believe the lines to be black and white, I just pointed out that I do not. 2. You did nothing to address my argument, we aren’t even having the same argument, you just started saying I’m incorrect. 3. Our views on abortion are similar, except you clearly care more than I do. 4. From an anti-abortionists view, legalizing it is akin to the government approving it. So is handing a heroin addict a clean needle for them to shoot poison into them. That is approving of their behavior. 5. I’m not taking sides, I’m pointing out holes in your argument. And to answer your question, under my terms, I would qualify you as a Pro-Abortionist. In case you were wondering.
Brad, you did not “point out” that your use of terms was not black and white. You merely asserted it (after clearly demonstrating that your argument was, in fact, black and white).
You’re correct that I do apparently care more than you do. Perhaps that’s why I put greater care into what terms I use in the debate.
You’ve attempted to defend your use of terms by saying “from an anti-abortionists [sic] view”. This merely presents a limited perspective without concern for accuracy.
So have fun making up holes in my argument that aren’t actually there!
Well, I’ve enjoyed our last clapping contest on here, but as my day is almost over here I’ll make this my last comment. tpenna, we both have a lot in common, one we both agree on Abortion, and two both of us think that we are right. I don’t get to hung up on these type of arguments, clearly you do. I’ve tried to keep my own view points from clouding the truth of my original position which you seem to have gotten way off topic in discussing. So answer this one question, how are my terms worse and less accurate than “Pro-Life” and “Pro-Choice?” Your viewpoint was that of a “Pro-Choice” person. What choice are you supporting? A woman’s right to have an Abortion. Therefore you are pro-abortion. Since you obviously care so much about their safety, you are obviously “pro-life” as well. See why I feel “Pro-life” and “pro-choice” are bad terms? Sure, there is a lot of gray area in the middle, I’ve never claimed there wasn’t. I’ve made my life in the gray area. But that is really beside the point here. Accept my arguments or don’t, I’m going home in 10 minutes so I won’t have time to respond anymore and will probably forget all about you by tomorrow. In the words of one Bill O’Riley, “I’ll let you have the last word, tpenna.”
Actually, i think the term pro-choice, although not as emotionally-loaded as some may want this debate to be, is an accurate label. We do not pressure women to get abortions, we just want to leave them the choice.
I’m tired, Brad, and you’ve heard my arguments, and I stand by them. I agree with CF’s last statement about the utility of the term “pro-choice” (my term of choice, if you will). So we’ll just agree to disagree on the use of terms.
Pro-choice and pro-abortion are not at all synonymous.
I can be against abortion for myself, but still be pro-choice in that I think it should be up to the woman, and not up to someone trying to impose their religious beliefs on her.
It’s also sad that many if not most of the anti-choice crowd are also anti-birth-control and anti-sex-education. If they’re so against abortion, why do they try to increase the number of women who need one?
@Tpenna: Thanks for your kind words, I’ll try to answer as best I can. I see a couple others here agree with you, like Corrosive Frog and.. Sooky is it? :) So the new piece of this debate is the accuracy of the term Anti or Pro Abortion and whether or not they add an unacceptable emotional charge. First off, I don’t think we should restrict any speech at all merely because it is emotionally charged, so long as it is accurate. Regarding Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Abortion, I think that Pro-Choice only means that you wish to defer the morality of the decision to the individual, while not addressing the morality of the act itself, which I think is dodging the main debate and therefore cannot be a term of the debate. It may not be the best term, but thus far I see Pro-Abortion being the more accurate of the two. Remember, you don’t have to like something to support it. You may think (as I see many of you have stated, albeit in different words) that it is sometimes a necessary evil that does more good than harm.
Regarding the use of the term ‘murder’. If abortion is murder (as the anti-abortionists believe) then using another term wouldn’t be accurate. I will defend the use of the word murder by anti-abortionists because I think it is a valid point from their perspective. Put yourself in the shoes of someone who truly believes that a child is being killed during an abortion, and you see that the term is correct. It *is* emotionally charged, I agree, but it is also an accurate illustration of their viewpoint and is relevant because it directly addresses a consequence of the ‘fence’ which I have described earlier and elsewhere. To discredit its use is to deny someone their opinion. One last point, is that simply trying to stop people from using the word is impractical, as followers of the camp will continue to use the term anyway. It’s hard to stamp that sort of thing out, especially if it’s firmly held belief. What do you guys think?
@Anthony 2816:
To your point#1:The anti-abortion camp is not only a religious viewpoint, many secularists don’t agree with it. It happens to have a great number of religious followers because most religions are against abortion, but that doesn’t mean non-believers can’t share the view.
To your point#2: Well this is fairly clear. Measures like the pill kill off fertilized eggs, so the anti-abortion camp think it’s just another form of abortion. Measures like condoms have mixed results, take for example the free condom drives in India which saw the population swell dramatically. Why only anti-abortionists seem to support this is unclear to me. I don’t think they want to increase the # of women that need them, they just believe there are other ways to do so.
To your point#3: I think that the answer here is that many parents believe that educating their children about a private matter like sex is their job, not the State’s.
TrickyPickle, thank you for your response. (I’m surprised you managed to get “crap” past the censors! Even such a mild word has gotten bleeped for me before.)
Regarding the use of the word “murder”, I have a couple of responses. The first comes from Susannah Heschel reflecting upon words from her father (the great rabbi and public intellectual Abraham Joshua Heschel):
“He used to remind us that the Holocaust did not begin with the building of crematoria, and Hitler did not come to power with tanks and guns; it all began with uttering evil words, with defamation, with language and propaganda. Words create worlds, he used to tell me when I was a child, and they must be used very carefully. Some words, once having been uttered, gain eternity and can never be withdrawn. The Book of Proverbs reminds us, he wrote, that death and life are in the power of the tongue.”
I believe that we must always consider the effects of our words in addition to their accuracy. Some terms may be applied accurately but nonetheless have unintended consequences that prove tragic. I do not doubt the good intentions of those who would like to outlaw abortion. I would merely have them reflect on the potential effects of their choice of terms.
Secondly, I do not wish to make people stop using the term. And I certainly do not wish to deny them their opinion. Instead, I attempt to persuade them to reflect upon the potential effects of deeply emotionally charged terms like “murder” or “kill”.
Point #1: True, but if I had to place a bet on whether or not a randomly chosen women’s clinic protester is a fundie christian, I know where I’d put my money.
Point #2: Other ways? Like telling people not to have sex? That doesn’t seem to be very effective in real life.
Point #3: I’m pretty sure most sex-ed classes have an opt-out option, but keeping kids ignorant about it doesn’t seem to be very effective in combating the need for abortions. As a matter of fact, it may just increase the chance that some will ignorantly look at abortion as a first-line method of birth control.
TP, if I may, I’d like to add some other thoughts to your discussion.
Regarding the term “murder”, it is essentially a legal term. I know that what I believe to be murder will not be counted as such unless the state defines it that way. For example, in my heart, I believe the death penalty is murder, but the state calls it something else, so technically speaking, it is not. Same with abortion. The state has defined it as something else.
To your points (as Anthony addresses them above),
1: I think you would find that most who oppose abortion do so on religious grounds.
2: It’s my understanding that the particular case of India failed because there was little training in how to use them properly, and there was little conviction on the part of those who received them that they were of any value. What’s more, if I remember correctly, most felt they interfered with their sense of manliness.
3: I’ve stated it before that the state has an abiding interest in having young people well educated in how sex works and what its implications are. There are some things the state has determined are too important to leave up to the whims of the parents. This would seem to clearly fall under that category.
Depends on which premies you mean, Puppy. Back when I did pediatric training, 26 weeks was about the limit, and that by no means meant a likely good outcome.
But if you’re referring to the late-term abortions Dr. Tiller was doing, well, most of them weren’t viable at all…otherwise, he wouldn’t have been doing the procedure.
I hate to bring up a long dead point in this thread, but I too agree with Brad and Trickypickle. “Pro-Abortion” is more accurate than “Pro-Choice.” The debate is not over a choice. If everyone agreed that abortion was right, then no one would disagree on the choice. Therefore you are disagreeing about abortion, not a choice, not life itself. So “Pro-Abortion” and “Anti-Abortion” are the better and more accurate terms. I myself am Pro-Abortion, I support it’s legal status. If you feel Pro-Abortion is too emotionally loaded to describe you, then maybe you are on the wrong side of the debate.
I disagree, Extremist. My position is that I don’t feel my own personal feelings about abortion should affect some woman that I’ve never met and know nothing about.
I feel the choice for whether or not she has an abortion is best made by her, not by me.
Therefore, I am pro-choice, irrespective of whether or not I’m pro- or anti-abortion.
Agree or disagree as you will Anthony. I still say that if everyone agreed Abortion should be legal, then no one would dispute that it should be a choice for the woman, her family, and her doctor, whether or not they themselves personally like it. Calling them “Anti-Choice” is suggesting they think Abortion decisions should be made by committee. As I see it, saying your pro-choice is like saying your pro-food. Conversely, everyone is in favor of life, so “Pro-Life” is a bad term too. Pro-Abortion doesn’t mean you like it, just that you think it should be legal, which you, I, and apparently most of the people in this board do too. Maybe you’d prefer the term Pro-Abortion-Legalization, though that wouldn’t be good since Abortion is legal.
“Calling them “Anti-Choice” is suggesting they think Abortion decisions should be made by committee.”
Calling them anti-choice means they think the woman should not be able to choose whether or not to have an abortion. Instead, that choice is made for her by people she’s never met, who insist on applying their religious beliefs on her.
“As I see it, saying your pro-choice is like saying your pro-food.”
I don’t quite see the analogy. I’m pro-choice because I think the pregnant woman should be allowed to make the choice, rather than some stranger who puts their own religious beliefs ahead of what’s best for the woman.
“Pro-Abortion doesn’t mean you like it, just that you think it should be legal”
I don’t think that’s clear. “Pro-abortion-choice” would be more accurate. Let the woman decide, with input from her family, doctor and friends, but without input from some self-righteous religious intruder.
Choice, choice, many people seem to think abortion is nearly a caprice, that women who have them are just too irresponsible to face the consequences of their actions. I heard it from a montreal columnist that he was outraged because somebody told him a woman once chosed abortion because the foetus had a minor facial difformity.
Okay, miss thing there didn’t act like the most responsible person of all (do we need any more proof that she wasn’t fit to be a mom?) but just to punish her and impeach what he calls eugenism (and in that particular case, it was pretty much that) thousands of other women’s lives would be in danger.
I’ll take the example of what could have happened to me but didn’t (thank heavens!); I had a miscarriage after my boyfriend and I were trying to have kids for two years. I passed an ultrasound to see if there was anything left there. The doctors wanted to make sure it wasn’t an ectopic pregnancy (where the embryo implants itself in the falopian tube instead of the womb http://tinyurl.com/ectopicpregnancy ). If it had been one and hadn’t naturally miscarried (like it happened to my friend), I’d have to get an abortion even though BF and I wanted that kid for so long because I’d die, so would the kid. That wouldn’t be choice.
In the end, Mother Nature took the tragic decision for me, so I didn’t had to.
Should we close the door to life-saving abortions like that just because there are some abuses?
In the old days, when a delivery was going very wrong, the physician asked the father that dreaded question; (should I save ) the mother or the child? Nowadays, we don’t have to ask that because of late-term abortions are possible (but not desirable)
I generally steer clear of discussions about abortion, but I will wade into this one about whether it is more accurately called “pro-choice” or “pro-abortion.” Being pro-choice means just that — I don’t believe I, nor others, have the right to impose my beliefs on someone else. That’s not being pro- anything other than personal choice and personal responsibility.
Sometimes standing the argument on its head (or reversing the positions for a moment) can add some clarity. So:
The legislature has a stake in deciding abortion, since they are political, and politics is about emotion, which puts it squarely on the table.
The legislature has just decided that any unmarried pregnant minor must have an abortion. Is that a just position? Do you see who would be howling?
That’s why it’s called a choice. A choice among unpleasant outcomes, to be sure, but properly left to the prospective mom, and her physician, and whatever other advisors she can enlist. Not mine, not yours, not any bureaucrat.
If men could bear children, abortions would be free!
“If men could bear children, abortions would be free!”
If self-righteous christians would stop trying to impose (what should be) their personal religious beliefs on others, then a woman’s right to choose would not be an issue.
And gays would already be treated equally regarding marriage.
And our science classes would be free of intrusion by religious mythology.
I personally think all of these things would be advantageous.
Well, while I disagree I cannot discount that me, TrickyP, and Brad seem to me a minority here. Anthony, yes Abortions would be free and a civil right if men could have children, and religion should butt out of the lives of people who do not hold their beliefs. pbarnrob, you are proving my point, thank you.
“The legislature has just decided that any unmarried pregnant minor must have an abortion. Is that a just position? Do you see who would be howling? ”
This means that choice is not the issue here. Because you are taking away the choice from the other side and they are howling, and I think the Pro-Abortion crowd would be howling too, this proves choice is not the issue.
CF, sorry to hear about your child, my wife and I were afraid we were going to lose the second one, thankfully we didn’t. It’s hard to imagine the pain you must of felt and I don’t really want to. No one would. Deciding between my wife and child was my nightmare.
The gist of what I’m trying to say here is that before you can debate the choice of an abortion, you must finish the debate on abortion itself. One could argue I suppose that since it is legal it has been settled, but we wouldn’t have what seems to be an even 50/50 split still going on, so I feel that this issue must be debated before the choice of it all could be debated.
Lastly, if you are just going to tell me what pro-choice means again for the 25th time on this thread, skip it, we all know what you mean by “Pro-Choice” that you believe the woman has the choice blah blah blah. I agree a woman should have the choice, so would a pro-lifer if they thought abortion was right. Anyone (sane) who agrees abortions should be legal would agree with that statement. If you want to reply to my statement, reply to it with something new. Address my point that if we agreed on abortion, we’d agree on choice, so therefore Abortion is the issue, not the choice.
I still don’t see your distinction, Extremist. If the legislature passed the hypothetical law you mentioned, they’d be taking away the choice.
By concentrating on the question of choice, we don’t need to worry so much about agreeing on abortion itself. If you don’t believe in abortions, choose not to have one.
Kind of like gay marriage in that regard.
I’m not sure it’s possible to ever get agreement on abortion itself. As long as you have one group claiming that a fertilized eggs should have the same rights and consideration as a 20 year old adult, there’s going to be an impasse. I personally think that outlawing birth control pills (including morning-after pills) and IUDs is ludicrous, but obviously there are others who consider them the same as murder.
BCS, yes, I read that quote years ago and it was atributed to Flo Kennedy. If men could get pregnant abortion would be a sacrament- that’s how stuff gets turned around.
I agree with MurphyHerself ( and no, I did not read up the post at past comments - It mostly looks like Anthony[ who is also a sock-puppet] talking to another sock-puppet, Mr.Extremist. Anthony mostly attempts to bait conservatives with his/her simplistic arguments. ) Until the matter can or would be addressed by a constitutional amendment process or by legislative focus like it received under the ‘94-‘06 Republican Congress, a national law against abortion is moot and the question should be left up to the adults or guardians involved while that is the case. Executive orders are temporary and dishonest. If this issue will not be pursued in a manner that will decide the issue on its merits on a federal,state,or local level; then the issue belongs to the individual. Please God, help us.
Abortion is wrong. This is my opinion. And from what I’ve seen it amounts to murder. You can call it “choice” and hide behind your neutral non-intervention position, but it amounts to giving your okay to murder and placing (this is key) your will on a higher plane than God’s will. You talk “choices” but never consider ALL the available choices because , in general in America, the choice to have an abortion is for convenience’s sake and there is usually only one choice seriously considered.
“The man does not have a legal interest” is false the sperm is just as important as the women’s egg, and ability to carry the baby to term has been rendered meaningless by surrogacy. You geniuses believe you have all the answers…you worship the efficacy of man-created law: give us your clear cut “truthful” ruling on when life begins and when it does not. If you are honest you’ll adnit, for your aims at least, it is impossible to define when abortion becomes killing a human being. The sad thing is _you do not want _ the responsibilty of having compassion on these children and to let them be born.
Haha, Anthony. I read your response to my preemie question. This is why it is so useless to debate here. Tiller’s late-term abortions weren’t viable or they wouldn’t have have been done? Facetious and dishonest! And you call me a “liar”…
Abortion may be wrong, (I believe it is also) but married couples don’t usually get them do they? So who are these murders? Oh that’s right, fornicators. God’s law applies to that also. were you a virgin till your wedding day? As far as a man’s legal interest… if he doesn’t have any say so in the matter he shouldn’t have legal responsibility either.
Oh and by the way, anthony, gay marrige is not possible. Simply put, marriage is an institution that was created by religion, religion is against homosexual acts(not homosexuals) so with that in mind the only ones in the eyes of God that can wed two partners, is a religeous figure. So don’t make the gay argument…too many holes in it for you.
Superfly, I wish marriage was only a religious institution, but unfortunately it has been woven into our legal system.
I think a great fix would be to have the government have nothing to do with marriage. The government would offer civil unions to any couple, straight or gay, and these unions would grant all the benefits and obligations currently assigned to marriage.
Couples could also get married in whatever church they’re compatible with.
Having a civil union has no effect on marriage, and getting married has no effect on how the government views the couple.
That’s how it should work…separation of church and state.
But in the real world, marriage is a government function (as well as religious), and as such, shouldn’t be discriminatory.
Only non-married couples have abortions??? WTF? So ectopic pregnancies (a major threat to a woman’s life if carrie to term) only happen to unmarried women?
Gosh, you make it sould like it’s only a caprice, just because we’re too lazy and irresponsible.
So, “super” fly, you’d be strong enough to answer that quesion if the doctor asked it to you while your wife was giving birth; (should I save) the mother or the child?
Please, don’t decide for people you can’t even consider humans before you consider them fornicators.
1: I believe we agree here. The statement of ‘most’ Pro-life people are from religious camps is true, but certainly not all. As I said, this is due to abortion being against many religions and therefore the makeup of this camp will include followers of said religions. However, it is still not grounds to dismiss the rational arguments of the camp as being ‘forcing of religious beliefs upon others’.
2 Regardless of why the attempt in India failed, it still failed. Issues faced in India will be faced in one form or another anywhere you go and indeed, have been. It’s not a question only of the effectiveness of the equipment, but of social, enonomic and cultural idioms which may affect and alter outcomes in a given society. As I said, the results are mixed, being more successful in some areas and less in others. I think the argument remains valid here.
3 Personally I like the idea of sex ed classes. You asked for a reason why anyone would be opposed to it and the only one with merit I’ve heard is that parents have the right to educate their own children on issues such as their sexuality. Give Jack his jacket, that seems good enough for me to agree that classes should be opt-out.
As to the use of the term murder Tpenna, I understand very clearly what you’re saying. And I agree that the term is emotionally charged. But from the person who believes life in the womb is human life, then ending it is going to be either murder or self defense in cases where it’s life threatening. Asking them to stop using that word would be akin to forcing your own beliefs upon them.
Corrosive: Sorry to hear about your experience. My wife and I lost one ourselves that way.
I agree with the separation of marriage and civil unions. Solves a lot of problems doesn’t it?
Anthony says that Pro-Life is really Pro-fetal-life. I think there is enough merit in this statement to make it true, in the sense that the camp is fighting for the rights of unborn children. however, I disagree that it means the camp doesn’t care about life after birth. That’s like saying the NAACP only cares about African Americans and the rest of the planet could just fall of the face of the Earth.
The views on this board vary from extreme pro-abortion (life begins only at birth) and extreme anti-abortion (it begins at the moment of conception). The truth, as in most things, must surely lie somewhere between.
About Gay-Marriage: I’m all for it. Gays should have the right to be married. Churches should not be forced to marry people they don’t want to for whatever reason. “Marriage” carries a stronger connection of love than “Civil Union” that is why it is unacceptable for non-religious marriages to be called “Civil Unions.” Marriage is an ancient human custom influenced by biology and evolution that predates most religions around today and is not the exclusive property of any one religion.
Right_On: ??? While I understand your comments, and think they are the height of idiocy, I am having one problem understanding something, what does your point have to do with the quoted portion of my comment? I was making the point that biology and evolutionary study have shown the benefits of male female pairings long before anyone had any notions of religion. Quoting “Gays should have the right to be married.” would have made more sense.
Dtroutma almost 15 years ago
The result of O’Reilly’s invective and ranting?
riley05 almost 15 years ago
That’s an amazing leap you made there, Eddie. Guilty conscience or something?
I think you might have missed his point. Look closely at the comic…notice how the gun barrel is an extension of the pro-lifer’s mouth?
danielsangeo almost 15 years ago
IEOH: Alcaraz’s point went right over your head.
His point is those that kill people while calling themselves “pro-life”…..aren’t.
Understand? Now. Perhaps those in the pro-life movement that would never dream of killing another people would get their representatives to stop their “It’s murder!” or “Babies are torn apart!” or “unborn babies” rhetoric and condemn openly, vigorously, and vociferously violence, we can move forward as a nation.
jkshaw almost 15 years ago
Actually, calling these people Pro-Life is a misnomer. The more mundane label is “Anti-Choice.”
brad.galloway almost 15 years ago
jkshaw - as soon as Pro-Choice people start calling themselves “Anti-life” or “Pro-Death”
Both sides will try to frame the debate in their own terms that make them look good because they don’t wish to admit that the other side makes some good points.
brad.galloway almost 15 years ago
Besides, one who is pro-life can also be called pro-choice. Women have all sorts of choices, which birth control to use, which men to procreate with, etc. They can be all for giving them choices. Why shouldn’t they ask women to accept consequences of their actions. I think the labels “Pro-Life” and “Pro-Choice” need to go away. They need to be “Pro-Abortion” and “Anti-Abortion.” That is honest language with no confusion.
MurphyHerself almost 15 years ago
Pro-Choice people are not necessarily pro-abortion, they believe it is a woman’s choice to do as she sees fit.
The pro-lifers must put their money where their mouths are and take a more active stance in this issue. If they were to take a woman who wants an abortion and care for the baby throughout the pregnancy and then take that baby into their loving care and nourish that child to a well adjusted, productive adult, then and only then would they be credible. As it is they just appear rabid and foaming at the mouth.
So all you pro-lifers, adopt an unwanted child and show us that you REALLY care.
TrickyPickle almost 15 years ago
@Brad: Well said.
@Danielsangeo: If the anti-abortionists believe it’s murder, then they have every right to use the term. What they have to back off from doing is making it sound like abortionists are fully aware that they are slicing up babies because that isn’t the truth. Abortionists do not think they are killing children. Precious few people think murder is ok.
@MurphyHerself: I disagree. If you’re pro-choice it means that you believe abortion to be a viable and ethical option, ergo you support it, however reluctantly. Just like being pro-life automatically means you oppose abortion. As to helping unwanted children, there are many groups out there that have indeed put their money where their mouths are, and have adopted kids or created/helped institutions that help them. But I do agree that there is definitely a rabid fringe element that needs to be silenced, as their invective does little to further the debate and causes direct harm.
MurphyHerself almost 15 years ago
Well, said, TrickyPickle.
While I would never have an abortion (well, rape is an altogether different matter), I am certainly not going to tell someone else that she can’t have one, nor am I going to protest her having one and I certainly want her to have a safe abortion instead of a back alley hatchet job.
I would much rather see that baby not even conceived.
A very touch issue indeed.
tpenna almost 15 years ago
TrickyPickle, I’m glad you’ve joined the discussion board. You’ve shown yourself to be a respectful and energetic debater of ideas. I’m going to repost my response to you from another toon about the use of the term “murder” because I am interested in hearing your response:
TrickyPickle, I appreciate your comment (and your screen name, which has quite a bit of relevance to this debate). But I will maintain that the word “murder” elevates the debate to a more instinctively violent level. Whereas its use may be deemed accurate by some, there can be little denying its potentially harmful consequences.
By saying this, I do not mean that the use of the word “murder” leads necessarily to what happened to Dr. Tiller. By no means! But it does lead to a tendency to de-personalize other people who disagree with you. A pro-choice person becomes no longer a “person”. They are now a “supporter of murder”.
Check out the response to Tiller’s murder by a coalition of leaders on both sides of the abortion debate at http://tinyurl.com/qab4g9 .
tpenna almost 15 years ago
As to your belief that the line between pro-choice and pro-life is so clean, I have to disagree. You say: “If you’re pro-choice it means that you believe abortion to be a viable and ethical option, ergo you support it, however reluctantly.”
I appreciate you trying to put this in generous language, but in my case, you’re incorrect. I am pro-choice because I know that abortions will happen, as they have for millennia, whether I believe it to be an ethical option or not. (For the record, I do not, except in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother’s health or life).
I maintain that it must be made safe, legal, and available because if it is not, then those women who will inevitably seek them anyway will likely be dreadfully harmed or killed in the kinds of botched back-alley procedures of the past. We cannot return to that. So in my view, keeping abortion safe, legal, and available is akin to distributing clean needles to heroin addicts (a limited analogy, I admit).
cdward almost 15 years ago
TrickyPickle, I’ll also welcome you to the discussion. It’s fun to have respectful and spirited debate. For what it’s worth, I don’t believe there will ever be agreement on abortion – other than it is not an option anybody chooses lightly. Having said that, there are many who do not have an ethical issue with it because they view a fetus as not being a human being. There are many who see it as a person only past a certain point (eg., viability), and still others who call it a person from the moment of conception. This will always be the case, and it has been my position for many years that to demonize those who have or provide abortions will do little to actually reduce the number of abortions. Sex education has been shown to be a far better prophylactic than “just say no.” It always amazes me that so many who oppose abortion also oppose education and/or birth control.
However, in the end, no matter what side of the debate anyone stands on, we owe it to each other to be respectful. If we can’t care for those who are currently walking around before us (figuratively in our case), then how can we ever hope to care for those who aren’t even born yet?
tpenna almost 15 years ago
This is also why I believe we must work to keep abortions rare. This is not a concession to the conservative position for the sake of seeking compromise. It is a deeply held moral conviction.
brad.galloway almost 15 years ago
Murphy, love your second point. In fact someone in my family did that. It was my cousin, they took care of the girl until the baby was born and then adopted it. The girl who had the baby is now 18 and she is doing great. So I totally agree with you there. The first point, if you feel abortion should be allowed, then you are Pro-Abortion. It is not an emotionally loaded term, it just is an honest one. You may be somewhere in the middle. You’re also free to drop the labels all together, but pro-choice and pro-life are dishonest labels that stack the deck to one side or the other before the debate begins.
tpenna almost 15 years ago
Brad, I’m sorry, but I had a hard time distinguishing your opinion there. Are you saying that I am “Pro-Abortion” because of the statement I made? Or perhaps you’re just responding to Murphy. In either case, I don’t believe that your assertion is supported.
danielsangeo almost 15 years ago
brad: I am vehemently against abortion which is why I think we should have very good education before “new life” is produced and, if it happens and all other options are discussed in a confidential manner between the woman and her doctor and abortion is the only viable option for the woman, then she should confidentially get it without threats of incarceration.
This is a very touchy subject for a lot of people. Calling someone “pro-abortion” because they feel abortion should be allowed is the same as calling someone a “warmonger” because, in rare circumstances, when all other options have been explored and exhausted where this is the last option, they agree that war should be used.
C’mon, brad. I know you think “pro-abortion” is an honest term, but it isn’t. It’s an emotionally loaded term used to bludgeon people over the head with, to erect a strawman to attack, then humiliate and/or demonize those that you disagree with.
brad.galloway almost 15 years ago
I think I made my views clear but there still seems to be confusion. If you believe Abortion should be completley legal, any woman should have the right to choose it, even if you personally wouldn’t, I will call you “Pro-Abortion.” This is not a loaded term emotionally. This is simply stating a fact, like someone who is “Pro-gun control.” If you do not believe Abortion should be legal, then you are “Anti-Abortion” pure and simple. There may be all sorts of gray area in the middle too, such as maybe it should only be allowed in some circumstances. Maybe these people don’t feel comfortable labeling themselves one way or the other, I’m fine with that.
Daniel, “warmonger” and “pro-abortion” do not equate. To a warmonger, war is an end onto itself. They look for reasons to cause war, not use it as a last resort. Are you trying to argue that “Pro-life” and “Pro-Choice” are less emotionally loaded?
Tpenna, see my early statement in this comment and make my opinion up for yourself.
brad.galloway almost 15 years ago
Maybe “Pro-Abortion” and “Anti-Abortion” seem a little to black and white, but they are a lot more honest than “Pro-Choice” and “Pro-Life.” And my terms don’t carry with them the contradictions the current terms do. You can be neither “pro” or “anti” abortion, but by calling yourself one or the other you don’t have to deal with the contradictions people bring up because of those terms and no other reasons.
tpenna almost 15 years ago
Wow, Brad. You managed to completely not deal with my argument at all (eighth comment up from here).
But you just go ahead and use your wrong-headed black/white terminology. It’s entirely incorrect, mind you! But go ahead and use it. We’ll just ignore you.
brad.galloway almost 15 years ago
So you are all for distributing clean needles to heroin addicts? Here are where the problems in your arguments lie. 1. You assume I believe the lines to be black and white, I just pointed out that I do not. 2. You did nothing to address my argument, we aren’t even having the same argument, you just started saying I’m incorrect. 3. Our views on abortion are similar, except you clearly care more than I do. 4. From an anti-abortionists view, legalizing it is akin to the government approving it. So is handing a heroin addict a clean needle for them to shoot poison into them. That is approving of their behavior. 5. I’m not taking sides, I’m pointing out holes in your argument. And to answer your question, under my terms, I would qualify you as a Pro-Abortionist. In case you were wondering.
tpenna almost 15 years ago
Brad, you did not “point out” that your use of terms was not black and white. You merely asserted it (after clearly demonstrating that your argument was, in fact, black and white).
You’re correct that I do apparently care more than you do. Perhaps that’s why I put greater care into what terms I use in the debate.
You’ve attempted to defend your use of terms by saying “from an anti-abortionists [sic] view”. This merely presents a limited perspective without concern for accuracy.
So have fun making up holes in my argument that aren’t actually there!
brad.galloway almost 15 years ago
Well, I’ve enjoyed our last clapping contest on here, but as my day is almost over here I’ll make this my last comment. tpenna, we both have a lot in common, one we both agree on Abortion, and two both of us think that we are right. I don’t get to hung up on these type of arguments, clearly you do. I’ve tried to keep my own view points from clouding the truth of my original position which you seem to have gotten way off topic in discussing. So answer this one question, how are my terms worse and less accurate than “Pro-Life” and “Pro-Choice?” Your viewpoint was that of a “Pro-Choice” person. What choice are you supporting? A woman’s right to have an Abortion. Therefore you are pro-abortion. Since you obviously care so much about their safety, you are obviously “pro-life” as well. See why I feel “Pro-life” and “pro-choice” are bad terms? Sure, there is a lot of gray area in the middle, I’ve never claimed there wasn’t. I’ve made my life in the gray area. But that is really beside the point here. Accept my arguments or don’t, I’m going home in 10 minutes so I won’t have time to respond anymore and will probably forget all about you by tomorrow. In the words of one Bill O’Riley, “I’ll let you have the last word, tpenna.”
CorosiveFrog Premium Member almost 15 years ago
Actually, i think the term pro-choice, although not as emotionally-loaded as some may want this debate to be, is an accurate label. We do not pressure women to get abortions, we just want to leave them the choice.
tpenna almost 15 years ago
I’m tired, Brad, and you’ve heard my arguments, and I stand by them. I agree with CF’s last statement about the utility of the term “pro-choice” (my term of choice, if you will). So we’ll just agree to disagree on the use of terms.
riley05 almost 15 years ago
Pro-choice and pro-abortion are not at all synonymous.
I can be against abortion for myself, but still be pro-choice in that I think it should be up to the woman, and not up to someone trying to impose their religious beliefs on her.
It’s also sad that many if not most of the anti-choice crowd are also anti-birth-control and anti-sex-education. If they’re so against abortion, why do they try to increase the number of women who need one?
TrickyPickle almost 15 years ago
@Tpenna: Thanks for your kind words, I’ll try to answer as best I can. I see a couple others here agree with you, like Corrosive Frog and.. Sooky is it? :) So the new piece of this debate is the accuracy of the term Anti or Pro Abortion and whether or not they add an unacceptable emotional charge. First off, I don’t think we should restrict any speech at all merely because it is emotionally charged, so long as it is accurate. Regarding Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Abortion, I think that Pro-Choice only means that you wish to defer the morality of the decision to the individual, while not addressing the morality of the act itself, which I think is dodging the main debate and therefore cannot be a term of the debate. It may not be the best term, but thus far I see Pro-Abortion being the more accurate of the two. Remember, you don’t have to like something to support it. You may think (as I see many of you have stated, albeit in different words) that it is sometimes a necessary evil that does more good than harm.
Regarding the use of the term ‘murder’. If abortion is murder (as the anti-abortionists believe) then using another term wouldn’t be accurate. I will defend the use of the word murder by anti-abortionists because I think it is a valid point from their perspective. Put yourself in the shoes of someone who truly believes that a child is being killed during an abortion, and you see that the term is correct. It *is* emotionally charged, I agree, but it is also an accurate illustration of their viewpoint and is relevant because it directly addresses a consequence of the ‘fence’ which I have described earlier and elsewhere. To discredit its use is to deny someone their opinion. One last point, is that simply trying to stop people from using the word is impractical, as followers of the camp will continue to use the term anyway. It’s hard to stamp that sort of thing out, especially if it’s firmly held belief. What do you guys think?
@Anthony 2816: To your point#1:The anti-abortion camp is not only a religious viewpoint, many secularists don’t agree with it. It happens to have a great number of religious followers because most religions are against abortion, but that doesn’t mean non-believers can’t share the view.
To your point#2: Well this is fairly clear. Measures like the pill kill off fertilized eggs, so the anti-abortion camp think it’s just another form of abortion. Measures like condoms have mixed results, take for example the free condom drives in India which saw the population swell dramatically. Why only anti-abortionists seem to support this is unclear to me. I don’t think they want to increase the # of women that need them, they just believe there are other ways to do so.
To your point#3: I think that the answer here is that many parents believe that educating their children about a private matter like sex is their job, not the State’s.
TrickyPickle almost 15 years ago
Crap! That last post was long, sorry folks!
tpenna almost 15 years ago
TrickyPickle, thank you for your response. (I’m surprised you managed to get “crap” past the censors! Even such a mild word has gotten bleeped for me before.)
Regarding the use of the word “murder”, I have a couple of responses. The first comes from Susannah Heschel reflecting upon words from her father (the great rabbi and public intellectual Abraham Joshua Heschel):
“He used to remind us that the Holocaust did not begin with the building of crematoria, and Hitler did not come to power with tanks and guns; it all began with uttering evil words, with defamation, with language and propaganda. Words create worlds, he used to tell me when I was a child, and they must be used very carefully. Some words, once having been uttered, gain eternity and can never be withdrawn. The Book of Proverbs reminds us, he wrote, that death and life are in the power of the tongue.”
I believe that we must always consider the effects of our words in addition to their accuracy. Some terms may be applied accurately but nonetheless have unintended consequences that prove tragic. I do not doubt the good intentions of those who would like to outlaw abortion. I would merely have them reflect on the potential effects of their choice of terms.
Secondly, I do not wish to make people stop using the term. And I certainly do not wish to deny them their opinion. Instead, I attempt to persuade them to reflect upon the potential effects of deeply emotionally charged terms like “murder” or “kill”.
Now this one has gotten long, and I apologize.
riley05 almost 15 years ago
TP:
Point #1: True, but if I had to place a bet on whether or not a randomly chosen women’s clinic protester is a fundie christian, I know where I’d put my money.
Point #2: Other ways? Like telling people not to have sex? That doesn’t seem to be very effective in real life.
Point #3: I’m pretty sure most sex-ed classes have an opt-out option, but keeping kids ignorant about it doesn’t seem to be very effective in combating the need for abortions. As a matter of fact, it may just increase the chance that some will ignorantly look at abortion as a first-line method of birth control.
cdward almost 15 years ago
TP, if I may, I’d like to add some other thoughts to your discussion.
Regarding the term “murder”, it is essentially a legal term. I know that what I believe to be murder will not be counted as such unless the state defines it that way. For example, in my heart, I believe the death penalty is murder, but the state calls it something else, so technically speaking, it is not. Same with abortion. The state has defined it as something else.
To your points (as Anthony addresses them above),
1: I think you would find that most who oppose abortion do so on religious grounds.
2: It’s my understanding that the particular case of India failed because there was little training in how to use them properly, and there was little conviction on the part of those who received them that they were of any value. What’s more, if I remember correctly, most felt they interfered with their sense of manliness.
3: I’ve stated it before that the state has an abiding interest in having young people well educated in how sex works and what its implications are. There are some things the state has determined are too important to leave up to the whims of the parents. This would seem to clearly fall under that category.
riley05 almost 15 years ago
Besides, it’s obvious a fetus isn’t a full-fledged person.
Otherwise they’d be countable for car pool lanes, and they’re not. I checked.
:)
NoFearPup almost 15 years ago
How early are preemies viable nowadays? Are they human? Human when you want them…non-human when you don’t.
riley05 almost 15 years ago
Depends on which premies you mean, Puppy. Back when I did pediatric training, 26 weeks was about the limit, and that by no means meant a likely good outcome.
But if you’re referring to the late-term abortions Dr. Tiller was doing, well, most of them weren’t viable at all…otherwise, he wouldn’t have been doing the procedure.
iamthemodextremist almost 15 years ago
I hate to bring up a long dead point in this thread, but I too agree with Brad and Trickypickle. “Pro-Abortion” is more accurate than “Pro-Choice.” The debate is not over a choice. If everyone agreed that abortion was right, then no one would disagree on the choice. Therefore you are disagreeing about abortion, not a choice, not life itself. So “Pro-Abortion” and “Anti-Abortion” are the better and more accurate terms. I myself am Pro-Abortion, I support it’s legal status. If you feel Pro-Abortion is too emotionally loaded to describe you, then maybe you are on the wrong side of the debate.
riley05 almost 15 years ago
I disagree, Extremist. My position is that I don’t feel my own personal feelings about abortion should affect some woman that I’ve never met and know nothing about.
I feel the choice for whether or not she has an abortion is best made by her, not by me.
Therefore, I am pro-choice, irrespective of whether or not I’m pro- or anti-abortion.
iamthemodextremist almost 15 years ago
Agree or disagree as you will Anthony. I still say that if everyone agreed Abortion should be legal, then no one would dispute that it should be a choice for the woman, her family, and her doctor, whether or not they themselves personally like it. Calling them “Anti-Choice” is suggesting they think Abortion decisions should be made by committee. As I see it, saying your pro-choice is like saying your pro-food. Conversely, everyone is in favor of life, so “Pro-Life” is a bad term too. Pro-Abortion doesn’t mean you like it, just that you think it should be legal, which you, I, and apparently most of the people in this board do too. Maybe you’d prefer the term Pro-Abortion-Legalization, though that wouldn’t be good since Abortion is legal.
riley05 almost 15 years ago
“Calling them “Anti-Choice” is suggesting they think Abortion decisions should be made by committee.”
Calling them anti-choice means they think the woman should not be able to choose whether or not to have an abortion. Instead, that choice is made for her by people she’s never met, who insist on applying their religious beliefs on her.
“As I see it, saying your pro-choice is like saying your pro-food.”
I don’t quite see the analogy. I’m pro-choice because I think the pregnant woman should be allowed to make the choice, rather than some stranger who puts their own religious beliefs ahead of what’s best for the woman.
“Pro-Abortion doesn’t mean you like it, just that you think it should be legal”
I don’t think that’s clear. “Pro-abortion-choice” would be more accurate. Let the woman decide, with input from her family, doctor and friends, but without input from some self-righteous religious intruder.
CorosiveFrog Premium Member almost 15 years ago
Choice, choice, many people seem to think abortion is nearly a caprice, that women who have them are just too irresponsible to face the consequences of their actions. I heard it from a montreal columnist that he was outraged because somebody told him a woman once chosed abortion because the foetus had a minor facial difformity.
Okay, miss thing there didn’t act like the most responsible person of all (do we need any more proof that she wasn’t fit to be a mom?) but just to punish her and impeach what he calls eugenism (and in that particular case, it was pretty much that) thousands of other women’s lives would be in danger.
I’ll take the example of what could have happened to me but didn’t (thank heavens!); I had a miscarriage after my boyfriend and I were trying to have kids for two years. I passed an ultrasound to see if there was anything left there. The doctors wanted to make sure it wasn’t an ectopic pregnancy (where the embryo implants itself in the falopian tube instead of the womb http://tinyurl.com/ectopicpregnancy ). If it had been one and hadn’t naturally miscarried (like it happened to my friend), I’d have to get an abortion even though BF and I wanted that kid for so long because I’d die, so would the kid. That wouldn’t be choice.
In the end, Mother Nature took the tragic decision for me, so I didn’t had to.
Should we close the door to life-saving abortions like that just because there are some abuses?
In the old days, when a delivery was going very wrong, the physician asked the father that dreaded question; (should I save ) the mother or the child? Nowadays, we don’t have to ask that because of late-term abortions are possible (but not desirable)
riley05 almost 15 years ago
To answer your last question, CF, just remember that “pro-life” really means “pro-fetal-life”.
believecommonsense almost 15 years ago
I generally steer clear of discussions about abortion, but I will wade into this one about whether it is more accurately called “pro-choice” or “pro-abortion.” Being pro-choice means just that — I don’t believe I, nor others, have the right to impose my beliefs on someone else. That’s not being pro- anything other than personal choice and personal responsibility.
pbarnrob almost 15 years ago
Sometimes standing the argument on its head (or reversing the positions for a moment) can add some clarity. So: The legislature has a stake in deciding abortion, since they are political, and politics is about emotion, which puts it squarely on the table. The legislature has just decided that any unmarried pregnant minor must have an abortion. Is that a just position? Do you see who would be howling? That’s why it’s called a choice. A choice among unpleasant outcomes, to be sure, but properly left to the prospective mom, and her physician, and whatever other advisors she can enlist. Not mine, not yours, not any bureaucrat. If men could bear children, abortions would be free!
believecommonsense almost 15 years ago
I think it was Florynce Kennedy** who said many years ago: If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.
** corrected for proper attribution
riley05 almost 15 years ago
“If men could bear children, abortions would be free!”
If self-righteous christians would stop trying to impose (what should be) their personal religious beliefs on others, then a woman’s right to choose would not be an issue.
And gays would already be treated equally regarding marriage.
And our science classes would be free of intrusion by religious mythology.
I personally think all of these things would be advantageous.
iamthemodextremist almost 15 years ago
Well, while I disagree I cannot discount that me, TrickyP, and Brad seem to me a minority here. Anthony, yes Abortions would be free and a civil right if men could have children, and religion should butt out of the lives of people who do not hold their beliefs. pbarnrob, you are proving my point, thank you.
“The legislature has just decided that any unmarried pregnant minor must have an abortion. Is that a just position? Do you see who would be howling? ”
This means that choice is not the issue here. Because you are taking away the choice from the other side and they are howling, and I think the Pro-Abortion crowd would be howling too, this proves choice is not the issue.
CF, sorry to hear about your child, my wife and I were afraid we were going to lose the second one, thankfully we didn’t. It’s hard to imagine the pain you must of felt and I don’t really want to. No one would. Deciding between my wife and child was my nightmare.
The gist of what I’m trying to say here is that before you can debate the choice of an abortion, you must finish the debate on abortion itself. One could argue I suppose that since it is legal it has been settled, but we wouldn’t have what seems to be an even 50/50 split still going on, so I feel that this issue must be debated before the choice of it all could be debated.
Lastly, if you are just going to tell me what pro-choice means again for the 25th time on this thread, skip it, we all know what you mean by “Pro-Choice” that you believe the woman has the choice blah blah blah. I agree a woman should have the choice, so would a pro-lifer if they thought abortion was right. Anyone (sane) who agrees abortions should be legal would agree with that statement. If you want to reply to my statement, reply to it with something new. Address my point that if we agreed on abortion, we’d agree on choice, so therefore Abortion is the issue, not the choice.
MurphyHerself almost 15 years ago
And it’s nobody’s business but the woman involved. NOBODY.
riley05 almost 15 years ago
I still don’t see your distinction, Extremist. If the legislature passed the hypothetical law you mentioned, they’d be taking away the choice.
By concentrating on the question of choice, we don’t need to worry so much about agreeing on abortion itself. If you don’t believe in abortions, choose not to have one.
Kind of like gay marriage in that regard.
I’m not sure it’s possible to ever get agreement on abortion itself. As long as you have one group claiming that a fertilized eggs should have the same rights and consideration as a 20 year old adult, there’s going to be an impasse. I personally think that outlawing birth control pills (including morning-after pills) and IUDs is ludicrous, but obviously there are others who consider them the same as murder.
deadheadzan almost 15 years ago
BCS, yes, I read that quote years ago and it was atributed to Flo Kennedy. If men could get pregnant abortion would be a sacrament- that’s how stuff gets turned around.
NoFearPup almost 15 years ago
I agree with MurphyHerself ( and no, I did not read up the post at past comments - It mostly looks like Anthony[ who is also a sock-puppet] talking to another sock-puppet, Mr.Extremist. Anthony mostly attempts to bait conservatives with his/her simplistic arguments. ) Until the matter can or would be addressed by a constitutional amendment process or by legislative focus like it received under the ‘94-‘06 Republican Congress, a national law against abortion is moot and the question should be left up to the adults or guardians involved while that is the case. Executive orders are temporary and dishonest. If this issue will not be pursued in a manner that will decide the issue on its merits on a federal,state,or local level; then the issue belongs to the individual. Please God, help us.
NoFearPup almost 15 years ago
Abortion is wrong. This is my opinion. And from what I’ve seen it amounts to murder. You can call it “choice” and hide behind your neutral non-intervention position, but it amounts to giving your okay to murder and placing (this is key) your will on a higher plane than God’s will. You talk “choices” but never consider ALL the available choices because , in general in America, the choice to have an abortion is for convenience’s sake and there is usually only one choice seriously considered. “The man does not have a legal interest” is false the sperm is just as important as the women’s egg, and ability to carry the baby to term has been rendered meaningless by surrogacy. You geniuses believe you have all the answers…you worship the efficacy of man-created law: give us your clear cut “truthful” ruling on when life begins and when it does not. If you are honest you’ll adnit, for your aims at least, it is impossible to define when abortion becomes killing a human being. The sad thing is _you do not want _ the responsibilty of having compassion on these children and to let them be born.
NoFearPup almost 15 years ago
Haha, Anthony. I read your response to my preemie question. This is why it is so useless to debate here. Tiller’s late-term abortions weren’t viable or they wouldn’t have have been done? Facetious and dishonest! And you call me a “liar”…
riley05 almost 15 years ago
Puppy, your argument became void as soon as you said we should base our laws on your mythology.
superfly-tnt almost 15 years ago
Abortion may be wrong, (I believe it is also) but married couples don’t usually get them do they? So who are these murders? Oh that’s right, fornicators. God’s law applies to that also. were you a virgin till your wedding day? As far as a man’s legal interest… if he doesn’t have any say so in the matter he shouldn’t have legal responsibility either.
superfly-tnt almost 15 years ago
Oh and by the way, anthony, gay marrige is not possible. Simply put, marriage is an institution that was created by religion, religion is against homosexual acts(not homosexuals) so with that in mind the only ones in the eyes of God that can wed two partners, is a religeous figure. So don’t make the gay argument…too many holes in it for you.
riley05 almost 15 years ago
Superfly, I wish marriage was only a religious institution, but unfortunately it has been woven into our legal system.
I think a great fix would be to have the government have nothing to do with marriage. The government would offer civil unions to any couple, straight or gay, and these unions would grant all the benefits and obligations currently assigned to marriage.
Couples could also get married in whatever church they’re compatible with.
Having a civil union has no effect on marriage, and getting married has no effect on how the government views the couple.
That’s how it should work…separation of church and state.
But in the real world, marriage is a government function (as well as religious), and as such, shouldn’t be discriminatory.
cdward almost 15 years ago
Anthony, that’s how it works in most of Europe. And that’s how a lot of us clergy would LOVE it to be here!
CorosiveFrog Premium Member almost 15 years ago
Only non-married couples have abortions??? WTF? So ectopic pregnancies (a major threat to a woman’s life if carrie to term) only happen to unmarried women?
Gosh, you make it sould like it’s only a caprice, just because we’re too lazy and irresponsible.
So, “super” fly, you’d be strong enough to answer that quesion if the doctor asked it to you while your wife was giving birth; (should I save) the mother or the child?
Please, don’t decide for people you can’t even consider humans before you consider them fornicators.
riley05 almost 15 years ago
Really, CD? I didn’t know that. It’s good to hear.
TrickyPickle almost 15 years ago
Responses:
1: I believe we agree here. The statement of ‘most’ Pro-life people are from religious camps is true, but certainly not all. As I said, this is due to abortion being against many religions and therefore the makeup of this camp will include followers of said religions. However, it is still not grounds to dismiss the rational arguments of the camp as being ‘forcing of religious beliefs upon others’.
2 Regardless of why the attempt in India failed, it still failed. Issues faced in India will be faced in one form or another anywhere you go and indeed, have been. It’s not a question only of the effectiveness of the equipment, but of social, enonomic and cultural idioms which may affect and alter outcomes in a given society. As I said, the results are mixed, being more successful in some areas and less in others. I think the argument remains valid here.
3 Personally I like the idea of sex ed classes. You asked for a reason why anyone would be opposed to it and the only one with merit I’ve heard is that parents have the right to educate their own children on issues such as their sexuality. Give Jack his jacket, that seems good enough for me to agree that classes should be opt-out.
As to the use of the term murder Tpenna, I understand very clearly what you’re saying. And I agree that the term is emotionally charged. But from the person who believes life in the womb is human life, then ending it is going to be either murder or self defense in cases where it’s life threatening. Asking them to stop using that word would be akin to forcing your own beliefs upon them.
Corrosive: Sorry to hear about your experience. My wife and I lost one ourselves that way.
I agree with the separation of marriage and civil unions. Solves a lot of problems doesn’t it?
Anthony says that Pro-Life is really Pro-fetal-life. I think there is enough merit in this statement to make it true, in the sense that the camp is fighting for the rights of unborn children. however, I disagree that it means the camp doesn’t care about life after birth. That’s like saying the NAACP only cares about African Americans and the rest of the planet could just fall of the face of the Earth.
The views on this board vary from extreme pro-abortion (life begins only at birth) and extreme anti-abortion (it begins at the moment of conception). The truth, as in most things, must surely lie somewhere between.
TrickyPickle almost 15 years ago
I really need to work on shortening my responses :/ Sorry! Sorry again folks.
iamthemodextremist almost 15 years ago
About Gay-Marriage: I’m all for it. Gays should have the right to be married. Churches should not be forced to marry people they don’t want to for whatever reason. “Marriage” carries a stronger connection of love than “Civil Union” that is why it is unacceptable for non-religious marriages to be called “Civil Unions.” Marriage is an ancient human custom influenced by biology and evolution that predates most religions around today and is not the exclusive property of any one religion.
Right_On almost 15 years ago
“Marriage is an ancient human custom influenced by biology”
Square pegs don’t fit in round holes.
When you are driving, do you drive the wrong way down the streets that say One Way, Wrong Way, and do not enter?
I’m pretty sure GI doctors and Proctologists (forms of Biologists) would tell you that the “back door” is exit only.
iamthemodextremist almost 15 years ago
Right_On: ??? While I understand your comments, and think they are the height of idiocy, I am having one problem understanding something, what does your point have to do with the quoted portion of my comment? I was making the point that biology and evolutionary study have shown the benefits of male female pairings long before anyone had any notions of religion. Quoting “Gays should have the right to be married.” would have made more sense.
riley05 almost 15 years ago
Tricky, as long as your posts are rational, well-stated and thought out as they have been, don’t worry about the length.
riley05 almost 15 years ago
Right_On: “I’m pretty sure GI doctors and Proctologists (forms of Biologists) would tell you that the “back door” is exit only.”
I visited a GI specialist last month for a colon cancer screening, and trust me, they do NOT think the “back door” is exit only.