Abortion. Pro Life or Pro Choice TS Men and Woman only please.

[Asfsd4214]

Yes, you most certainly do not agree.

Then I don't have a right to control my body, but you do.

The U.S. Supreme Court said it is a right, and a majority of Americans think it is a right.

As I said before, I don't care what the legality is. The government does not get to declare one thing right and one thing wrong. Some governments think women should be lashed for speaking with men she's not related too. So what the supreme court thinks doesn't matter to me.

You're Anti abortion "rights". Fair enough.

Interesting. Obviously it's your morality first, the law someplace else.

But it is not beyond anyone's control! It is in the control of the individual woman.


SusanKG

You're right, I believe that doing what's right is more important than doing what's written on some paper defining what the government will and will not prosecute.

Hate to be the person that starts this...

But from a biological perspective, to a point, a foetus is no more alive than  your hair is...

At the point where consiousness begins... yes, after that is murder... and its why abortion has limits of time...

I don't care, it still WOULD have been a human that could have led a life and have been just as much an individual as anyone else.

However, when the foetus is no more alive than a cut healing... (stem cells diferentiating to form something ie, in this case, skin cells.) I don't really belive its possible to murder something that isn't alive.

If you belive celular activity is life... then I demand you never again injure yourself... that kills cells... Murderer...

You don't seem to understand my point of view very well.

The way I see it, the fetus has the value of a human because uninterrupted it would have become a human. An individual person just like you or me. Because of that, they deserve the rights they would have as a person in advance of birth.

What stage the pregnancy is at doesn't matter to me, the reason for the pregnancy doesn't matter to me. I can't morally justify what I see as killing an innocent person.

I said in my first post, I've had these sorts of arguments before, and I'm almost always in the extreme minority, and as such people tend to get very secure in being abusive towards me because they know I'm in the minority opinion and they have plenty of support to justify themselves. 

Obviously none of you have to agree with me, but if you want to know my reasons and justifications I'm happy to give them. But maybe you'd get a better insight if you tried to understand my reasons rather than pick out perceived flaws in them.

From MY perspective, I'm only trying to advocate the protection of people's lives from a period wherein they can be legally murdered. I'm not unsympathetic towards people who've had to make the hard choice of abortion. And I certainly hate that people should have to suffer because of their pregnancy. But I just can not condone what I perceive as murder. And no amount of scientific or definitions of what is construed to be life, or a human being, is going to change for me the fact that this is a potential person who COULD exist and have opinions and relationships and friends and a live like anyone else.

It's really frustrating because I understand and respect WHY people are pro-choice, and generally I don't think badly of people for being pro-choice or having an abortion. Of course that's never meant they ever try to understand my point of view. My philosophical views on life mean I will never be pro-choice, or condone abortion. It is the same as murder in my eyes.

[Hannah]

The government does not get to declare one thing right and one thing wrong

Actually it kinda does, and as a former enforcer believe me you do not want to cross it. My peers and I have done a lot of things in the name of protecting our nation that would get me the chair otherwise. It's all perspective.

I think we established a week or so ago that right and wrong are human constructs and there is no such thing as right and wrong, just shifting moralities. I was at my brothers house earlier and he was watching some goofy program with a cartoon alien in it who said:

"I love your religion, it's like Harry Potter but causes genocide".

I was like  that's brilliant

[Asfsd4214]

Actually it kinda does and as a former enforcer believe me you do not want to cross it.

No, it doesn't. It declares what is and is not illegal. Right and wrong is an entirely different subject.

[Hannah]

Yes, it does lol. Don't make me pull your hair!

Eventually it is going to be made indisputable law and the issue will die out in the space of a few generations. People who resist will increasingly be marginalized, for example those who continue to insist that a woman's place is in the home. The very concept brings up images of bubba in a wifebeater. Unchecked abortions are not going to bring about armageddon or bring meteors smashing down on humanity. Right and wrong are decided upon by collective agreement and enforced (supposedly) by government.

Besides, getting an abortion is a relatively unpleasant experience. It throws the endocrine system out of wack, is gruesome, nasty, somewhat risky and just all around icky. It's never going to become widespread birth control so we're really beating a dead horse with the worst case imagery used by the people on the prolife side.

[Asfsd4214]

Yes, it does lol. Don't make me pull your hair!

Eventually it is going to be made indisputable law and the issue will die out in the space of a few generations. People who resist will increasingly be marginalized, for example those who continue to insist that a woman's place is in the home. The very concept brings up images of bubba in a wifebeater. Unchecked abortions are not going to bring about armageddon or bring meteors smashing down on humanity. Right and wrong are decided upon by collective agreement and enforced (supposedly) by government.

Besides, getting an abortion is a relatively unpleasant experience. It throws the endocrine system out of wack, is gruesome, nasty, somewhat risky and just all around icky. It's never going to become widespread birth control so we're really beating a dead horse with the worst case imagery used by the people on the prolife side.

I don't seem to recall me or anyone else coming up with any such worst case scenario.

Even if abortion becomes accepted by most all of society (which it more or less it already), that doesn't make it right.

Hopefully there will always be a pro-life lobby to push for what's right in the face of widespread condemnation.

[LordKAT]

Actually, I know a few people who have had multiple abortions and never gotten on the pill or any other kind of approved birth control. Don't say it will never happen because it already has.
quote from becca

Besides, getting an abortion is a relatively unpleasant experience. It throws the endocrine system out of wack, is gruesome, nasty, somewhat risky and just all around icky. It's never going to become widespread birth control so we're really beating a dead horse with the worst case imagery used by the people on the prolife side.

[Asfsd4214]

Actually, I know a few people who have had multiple abortions and never gotten on the pill or any other kind of approved birth control. Don't say it will never happen because it already has.
quote from becca

I've known people to do that too. But like Becca I don't think there's any danger of it becoming a routine and common form of birth control, legal or not.

[tekla]

The government does not get to declare one thing right and one thing wrong.

Ummm, yes they do.  Matter of fact, its pretty much the first thing they do.

[Suzy]

The government does not get to declare one thing right and one thing wrong.

Ummm, yes they do.  Matter of fact, its pretty much the first thing they do.

I soooo disagree.  Yes they declare what happens to be legal or illegal.  There are things that are legal I do not do because I do not think they would be good choices for me.  Was it right to discriminate against slaves or women right up until the time the government changed its mind and granted equal rights?  I do not ever think it was right.  Just because the government, by its commission or omission, makes a moral judgment for or against any particular action, I do not consider that my ultimate source.  In fact, it is quite impossible to do so.  Those things, such as abortion, have changed in recent history based on the prevailing political winds.  They are likely to change again.  Only time will tell.  Many other things change based upon which state a person happens to be in at the time. Where I live, some things even vary by county.  When I am on the road, the legality of some things changes several times by the time I get to my next appointment.   Equating legal permissibility with moral integrity is a slippery slope and, in the end, an exercise in futility.

Kristi

[The None Blonde]

As I said before, I don't care what the legality is. The government does not get to declare one thing right and one thing wrong. Some governments think women should be lashed for speaking with men she's not related too. So what the supreme court thinks doesn't matter to me.

You're right, I believe that doing what's right is more important than doing what's written on some paper defining what the government will and will not prosecute.

I don't care, it still WOULD have been a human that could have led a life and have been just as much an individual as anyone else.

You don't seem to understand my point of view very well.

The way I see it, the fetus has the value of a human because uninterrupted it would have become a human. An individual person just like you or me. Because of that, they deserve the rights they would have as a person in advance of birth.

What stage the pregnancy is at doesn't matter to me, the reason for the pregnancy doesn't matter to me. I can't morally justify what I see as killing an innocent person.

I said in my first post, I've had these sorts of arguments before, and I'm almost always in the extreme minority, and as such people tend to get very secure in being abusive towards me because they know I'm in the minority opinion and they have plenty of support to justify themselves. 

Obviously none of you have to agree with me, but if you want to know my reasons and justifications I'm happy to give them. But maybe you'd get a better insight if you tried to understand my reasons rather than pick out perceived flaws in them.

From MY perspective, I'm only trying to advocate the protection of people's lives from a period wherein they can be legally murdered. I'm not unsympathetic towards people who've had to make the hard choice of abortion. And I certainly hate that people should have to suffer because of their pregnancy. But I just can not condone what I perceive as murder. And no amount of scientific or definitions of what is construed to be life, or a human being, is going to change for me the fact that this is a potential person who COULD exist and have opinions and relationships and friends and a live like anyone else.

It's really frustrating because I understand and respect WHY people are pro-choice, and generally I don't think badly of people for being pro-choice or having an abortion. Of course that's never meant they ever try to understand my point of view. My philosophical views on life mean I will never be pro-choice, or condone abortion. It is the same as murder in my eyes.

I can understand your point of view perfectly fine Ashley... I however, cannot agree.

Your beliefs are your own,. I won't ask you to change them, although I do belive theres an element of nievety in them along with a lot of the pro life campaign. I'm gla you posted.

Potential for life, I put to the forum, is not life itself... And thus, ceasation of this potential is not murder... as it is not possible to 'kill' a life you freely admit doesn't exist yet.

Yes, I fully agree, it can stop the potential for a new life. However that falls into a similar category with wasted tallents, bad grades.... et cetera... It's loss of potential, however not a crime.

I'm not sure about you, but I'm a religious woman.... I belive in the soul, and God... the whole package deal... If a potential life is not allowed to continue in one form, I belive it simply transfers to another... That everyone gets the chance to be born and make a go of thier life... Tenuous I know, but a personal... image almost.

Overall Ashley, your argument is relatively tenuous, you use 'omg i'm a minority so I know people will bully me' as a crutch for lack of evidence.... morality is a fine defence to a point, where it becomes largely fragile due to lack of ... substance.

Considering you're on this forum... and relatively likely chances... I use this.... comparison.

From this day forth, due to your own moral beliefs... I demand that you cease any self stimulation (masturbation) you may partake in. Any ejaculation of genetic material is wasting the CHANCE of a life that could have happened had there been a vagina waiting to catch it, a favouring easterly wind, and good omens from the gods... no seriously... your standpoint is fairly clear and defined... but this fits in quite simply.... so hands off.... ok?

[Miniar]

You know, that's another good question;
Why is the potential of one egg and one sperm combined to become a fully grown human considered of more value than the potential of eggs and sperm uncombined?
Isn't every menstrual cycle allowed to go through without attempt to conceive a denial of that egg's potential to become a human being?

Why draw the line at that exact point?

And I still feel some of my questions haven't been answered.

[Silver]

I don't care, it still WOULD have been a human that could have led a life and have been just as much an individual as anyone else.

You don't seem to understand my point of view very well.

The way I see it, the fetus has the value of a human because uninterrupted it would have become a human. An individual person just like you or me. Because of that, they deserve the rights they would have as a person in advance of birth.

So, are you against condoms? Because uninterrupted, that sperm very well may have developed into an individual human, who deserves rights. Is that egg deserving of rights too? Really, by that logic any sexual activity with some measure that prevents pregnancy is negative. Maybe even masturbation, because you could be out having sex instead of wasting those sperm that could have ended up human lives.

Not meant as an attack, don't take it so. Just wanted to bring it up.

[Asfsd4214]

So, are you against condoms? Because uninterrupted, that sperm very well may have developed into an individual human, who deserves rights. Is that egg deserving of rights too? Really, by that logic any sexual activity with some measure that prevents pregnancy is negative. Maybe even masturbation, because you could be out having sex instead of wasting those sperm that could have ended up human lives.

Not meant as an attack, don't take it so. Just wanted to bring it up.

You know, that's another good question;
Why is the potential of one egg and one sperm combined to become a fully grown human considered of more value than the potential of eggs and sperm uncombined?
Isn't every menstrual cycle allowed to go through without attempt to conceive a denial of that egg's potential to become a human being?

Why draw the line at that exact point?

And I still feel some of my questions haven't been answered.

Obviously there's a line to draw somewhere.

The genetic material, the egg and the sperm, are just two halves that could with any other egg or sperm form a near infinite possible number of potential people. It can't be considered an individual life apart from a limitless number of possible lives until a specific egg and specific sperm come together, and it's only at that point, when there's a specific entity and thus a specific future person, that I feel it should be protected.

I can understand your point of view perfectly fine Ashley... I however, cannot agree.

Your beliefs are your own,. I won't ask you to change them, although I do belive theres an element of nievety in them along with a lot of the pro life campaign. I'm gla you posted.

Potential for life, I put to the forum, is not life itself... And thus, ceasation of this potential is not murder... as it is not possible to 'kill' a life you freely admit doesn't exist yet.

Yes, I fully agree, it can stop the potential for a new life. However that falls into a similar category with wasted tallents, bad grades.... et cetera... It's loss of potential, however not a crime.

I'm not sure about you, but I'm a religious woman.... I belive in the soul, and God... the whole package deal... If a potential life is not allowed to continue in one form, I belive it simply transfers to another... That everyone gets the chance to be born and make a go of thier life... Tenuous I know, but a personal... image almost.

Overall Ashley, your argument is relatively tenuous, you use 'omg i'm a minority so I know people will bully me' as a crutch for lack of evidence.... morality is a fine defence to a point, where it becomes largely fragile due to lack of ... substance.

Considering you're on this forum... and relatively likely chances... I use this.... comparison.

From this day forth, due to your own moral beliefs... I demand that you cease any self stimulation (masturbation) you may partake in. Any ejaculation of genetic material is wasting the CHANCE of a life that could have happened had there been a vagina waiting to catch it, a favouring easterly wind, and good omens from the gods... no seriously... your standpoint is fairly clear and defined... but this fits in quite simply.... so hands off.... ok?

Overall Ashley, your argument is relatively tenuous, you use 'omg i'm a minority so I know people will bully me' as a crutch for lack of evidence.... morality is a fine defence to a point, where it becomes largely fragile due to lack of ... substance.

I've given all the evidence I can give, this isn't an exact science. I don't see that I used that as a substitute for giving my views.

It is however true, it hasn't happened here yet, and I'd rather it not start, but I've gotten a lot of verbal abuse from well intentioned people over this.

In fact all of the counter arguments presented so far I've heard several times before. All I can do is reiterate what I've already said.

Potential for life, I put to the forum, is not life itself... And thus, ceasation of this potential is not murder... as it is not possible to 'kill' a life you freely admit doesn't exist yet.

I don't think I have quite the same concept of time. I do think it's possible to kill a life that doesn't exist yet, by actively preventing its existence.

[The None Blonde]

given all the evidence? What evidence did you ever give? Nobody is insulting you, so stop playing the victim card...


I'm not going to continue this... you just arent going to listen to anything, regardless of what argument or evidence is used. So whatever... remember... no touchy.. its against your morals

[Asfsd4214]

given all the evidence? What evidence did you ever give? Nobody is insulting you, so stop playing the victim card...


I'm not going to continue this... you just arent going to listen to anything, regardless of what argument or evidence is used.

What I said was, I've given all the evidence I can give, by which I mean, nothing. It's a philosophical viewpoint that I can't validate with any kind of scientific evidence.

So whatever... remember... no touchy.. its against your morals

Nobody's insulting me? Maybe I'm just hypersensitive but I find that remark insulting. Especially since you try to tell me what my own morals are.

[Miniar]

What I said was, I've given all the evidence I can give, by which I mean, nothing. It's a philosophical viewpoint that I can't validate with any kind of scientific evidence.

Well, then the question becomes, what gives you the right to impose your philosophical viewpoint on someone else?

[Asfsd4214]

Well, then the question becomes, what gives you the right to impose your philosophical viewpoint on someone else?

The idea that murder is wrong, not abortion but murder generally, is a philosophical viewpoint that life has a value that should be protected by society at large. So what gives the members of society the right to impose that viewpoint on other people?

Nothing does, and nothing needs too. Society accepts that murder is wrong and people who perpetrate it should be stopped.

Remember that to me, abortion IS murder. So I don't see prohibition against abortion any differently than the laws against murder.

[Miniar]

The idea that murder is wrong, not abortion but murder generally, is a philosophical viewpoint that life has a value that should be protected by society at large. So what gives the members of society the right to impose that viewpoint on other people?

Nothing does, and nothing needs too. Society accepts that murder is wrong and people who perpetrate it should be stopped.

Remember that to me, abortion IS murder. So I don't see prohibition against abortion any differently than the laws against murder.

But people generally don't agree with you on your view on abortion as murder.

And viewing murder as wrong is more practical and sociological than philosophical.

[LordKAT]

I have a tendency to agree with Ashley more than the rest of you. I did always figure that if choice was between mom and baby 's life, mom can choose. I have altered my viewpoint a tad recently. I still think that once egg and sperm meet, it is a new life.

[Asfsd4214]

But people generally don't agree with you on your view on abortion as murder.

And viewing murder as wrong is more practical and sociological than philosophical.

Yes, the majority disagree with me, and in a completely democratic society that should mean that abortion would be legal. But that doesn't change anything in my moral beliefs, I'll still speak out against abortion even if nobody wants to listen, and I'd still want to see it prohibited because to me, it's still murder.

If you think the law and government is wrong, you should have every right to advocate change to make it right.

Hypothetically, lets say that it were the other way around. Prolife was the massive majority, abortion banned everywhere. Would you think it's alright to impose your will to force people to be allowed to have abortions even if the majority want it prohibited?