• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Pro Life / Pro Choice Debate

To continue this train of thought, what other legal restrictions would you like to put on pregnant women re; their own bodies, and when do you think those restrictions should begin?

Honestly, this is a nonsensical question that talks past the other side. No one (I don't think) is talking about limiting what one can do with their own body, the disagreement is about whether the unborn fetus is part of a woman's body, and at what point it ceases to becomes so, so putting it's more about putting limits on what one can do to another body (and when that distinction occurs). Some have viability as the benchmark, others heartbeat/receptivity to pain, others conception, apparently for some it's birth. That's the whole crux of the argument. To couch the discussion as reproductive rights assumes a position of personhood that not all accept. This is where the discussion has to happen, what happens to an aborted fetus has no bearing on the morality or legality of the abortion.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, this is a nonsensical question that talks past the other side. No one (I don't think) is talking about limiting what one can do with their own body, the disagreement is about whether the unborn fetus is part of a woman's body, and at what point it ceases to becomes so, so putting it's more about putting limits on what one can do to another body (and when that distinction occurs). Some have viability as the benchmark, others heartbeat/receptivity to pain, others conception, apparently for some it's birth. That's the whole crux of the argument. To couch the discussion as reproductive rights assumes a position of personhood that not all accept. This is where the discussion has to happen, what happens to an aborted fetus has no bearing on the morality or legality of the abortion.
You're wrong on that. If a non viable fetus is a person, deserving legal protection from its mother, than it should be due many more rights than just the prevention of abortion. Thats no logical leap whatsoever. A person is a person is a person.
 
Honestly, this is a nonsensical question that talks past the other side. No one (I don't think) is talking about limiting what one can do with their own body, the disagreement is about whether the unborn fetus is part of a woman's body, and at what point it ceases to becomes so, so putting it's more about putting limits on what one can do to another body (and when that distinction occurs). Some have viability as the benchmark, others heartbeat/receptivity to pain, others conception, apparently for some it's birth. That's the whole crux of the argument. To couch the discussion as reproductive rights assumes a position of personhood that not all accept. This is where the discussion has to happen, what happens to an aborted fetus has no bearing on the morality or legality of the abortion.

I kind of disagree with this. If the fetus is a human then they have equal rights to the mother IMO. If a fetus isn't viewed as a human, it's much easier to subordinate the rights of the fetus to a human.
 
Yeah, the arc of the moral universe is long, but it assuredly bends toward a reductive stance on reproductive rights. Good luck with that one.

Yeah I agree with this. If I'm choosing a conservative or liberal stance to take on social issues and I find out one will be deemed as acceptable and "correct" by future generations I'm never going to pick the conservative stance. When has the conservative position on social issues ever prevailed long term?
 
possibly, but we don't afford children full rights either.

And I do think more effort should be put into empowering the parent to care for the child (I think ~70% of abortions are economically driven, so if we do more to expand healthcare, especially prenatal care, educational opportunities, and affordable childcare, those efforts would do a lot more toward reducing/ending abortions than legislation).
 
Definitely agree with the latter portion, of course many pro-life people are against health care as a basic right from the government so that's problematic for advocacy and implementation purposes IMO.
 
Definitely agree with the latter portion, of course many pro-life people are against health care as a basic right from the government so that's problematic for advocacy and implementation purposes IMO.

Right, which as I've said before on here, I think the Democratic Party is actually the more Pro-Life party holistically (especially when you factor in healthcare, capital punishment, and war). I would welcome anti-abortion legislation, but only if those other measures are in place, because without them, I don't think legislation does much to limit abortions, just legal ones.
 
I think conservatives really see parental responsibility as the price for/buffer against sexual immorality, so abortion is an avoidance of punishment. Otherwise, why wouldn't this fervor for social justice among conservatives include children after they're born, or criminals?
 
Last edited:
I think conservatives really see parental responsibility as the price for/buffer against sexual immorality, so abortion is an avoidance of punishment. Otherwise, why wouldn't this fervor for social justice among conservatives include children after they're born, or criminals?

I don't think it's that so much as much of mainstream American religiosity stops as soon as it costs someone something. Legislate it to make sure other fall in line, but don't make me pay for it. People will extend generosity out of their excess, but not as a matter of first principles (or as Paul said, "Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others."). This is a tangent, but I think this more than anything is why the American church is up in arms at losing its place of privilege.
 
I don't think it's that so much as much of mainstream American religiosity stops as soon as it costs someone something. Legislate it to make sure other fall in line, but don't make me pay for it. People will extend generosity out of their excess, but not as a matter of first principles (or as Paul said, "Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others."). This is a tangent, but I think this more than anything is why the American church is up in arms at losing its place of privilege.

Yes this is a great post. People love to condemn others for their actions under a Christian theology but that talk stops when it's time to put money where the mouth is. Greed in a word
 
Jesus gave us VERY clear instructions:

Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."

The order of priests who ran the high school I went to use to talk about this passage often. They subscribed to living as closely to Jesus' word as the could. Any deviation was a conscious sin, and a failure in their eyes. Obviously, the commandments were their first priority, but any direct instruction straight from Jesus was huge.

I remember sitting in class around the 10th grade, and officially tapping out of organized religion because of the passage above. I knew I wasn't cut out for Christianity at that point. I knew myself well enough to understand I couldn't obey Jesus' word here.
 
2dguni0.gif
 
How many times are we going to have these false equivalencies? You don't see the difference between punishment for a heinous crime (such as raping and killing a teenage girl) and an unprotected child having their life taken from them? Seriously Clark? I am not even going to attempt to explain the difference. If you can't see that I can't help you brother.

If you're going to set a standard like, "[Murder] is the forceful taking of lives without permission. It is the powerful taking life from the weak," but won't defend it, that's not my fault.
 
I don't think it's that so much as much of mainstream American religiosity stops as soon as it costs someone something. Legislate it to make sure other fall in line, but don't make me pay for it. People will extend generosity out of their excess, but not as a matter of first principles (or as Paul said, "Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others."). This is a tangent, but I think this more than anything is why the American church is up in arms at losing its place of privilege.

I think by "American church" you mean white Christian conservatives.
 
Jesus gave us VERY clear instructions:

Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."

The order of priests who ran the high school I went to use to talk about this passage often. They subscribed to living as closely to Jesus' word as the could. Any deviation was a conscious sin, and a failure in their eyes. Obviously, the commandments were their first priority, but any direct instruction straight from Jesus was huge.

I remember sitting in class around the 10th grade, and officially tapping out of organized religion because of the passage above. I knew I wasn't cut out for Christianity at that point. I knew myself well enough to understand I couldn't obey Jesus' word here.

There was a great Key & Peele sketch along those lines last week.
 
I think by "American church" you mean white Christian conservatives.

Not really, while the example I used is definitely White Evangelicalism, it is widespread in all the church in this country. It is usually seen as second fiddle to the American dream, and usually a means to achieve that dream. Even among Liberal, progressive, moderate, mainline, Catholic, and many African-American churches there is a triumphalism that seeks comfort over the good of others and misappropriates the the understanding of what it means to be #blessed (and within all of these groups, including Conservative Evangelical, there are those who truly seek the good of others and their city over self as well, so #notallchurches, etc.). It goes beyond any particular denomination or political/theological ethos, it's in the fabric of our culture - our individualism, self-determination and drive that is a strength of the American culture in many ways is antithetical to the gospel.
 
Last edited:
I agree with that. I just think the "religiously stops as soon as it costs someone something" is unique to conservatives whose primary belief is not paying taxes.
 
H
Dr. Deborah Nucatola, director of Medical Services for Planned Parenthood, in her own words:

So then you’re just kind of cognizant of where you put your graspers, you try to intentionally go above and below the thorax, so that, you know, we’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m going to basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact. And with the calvarium, in general, some people will actually try to change the presentation so that it’s not vertex, because when it’s vertex presentation, you never have enough dilation at the beginning of the case, unless you have real, huge amount of dilation to deliver an intact calvarium.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...0001&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

Dear future generations of conservatives: When your generation studies the time period between 1950 and 2050, please take careful note: YOUR PARTY WAS AGAINST THIS PRACTICE AND THE OTHER PARTY WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THE IRAQ WAR.

Golly you pulled at my heart strings with that. Go find some stories about moms collecting their children's remains from the rubble in foreign lands and post it here too. I'll remember that you wanted to talk about abortion and didn't have the cherries in 15 pages of a thread to admit your favored killings were just as bad, just as gruesome and bloody.
 
Last edited:
I agree with that. I just think the "religiously stops as soon as it costs someone something" is unique to conservatives whose primary belief is not paying taxes.

Pft, nah. Applies to pretty much everyone, left or right, white or not.
 
Back
Top