• 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

RChildress107 said:
When you label your movement "black lives matter" and bitch about double standards it is certainly not a strawman to point out that the "black lives matter" political party supports some pretty "blacklives-meh" (defending failed educational infrastructure from reform) and outright anti-blacklivesmatter (open borders, perpetual, unconditional multigenerational subsistence entitlements) positions.
Click to expand...

FIFY
 
Wrangor said:
Sorry...didn't see this. Yes I believe it is murder if you kill an innocent life. You either allow the baby to live or you kill it. Once the baby is born you have two options. Raise it or kill it. Just because the responsibility of caring for the life of a child falls upon the mother for the first 9 months doesn't make the life any less valuable.
Click to expand...

Or give it up for adoption to someone who won't kill it.
 
RChildress107 said:
You certainly can be, most conservatives just aren't.

I'd be curious to hear you articulate what it means to be pro-life and then explain how that definition squares with the conservative positions I outlined earlier. I won't hold my breath though.
Click to expand...

Pro life to me means you value innocent life. I don't have a huge issue with the death penalty in the cases where guilt is proven and the punishment fits the crime. I wouldn't have a huge issue if we banned the death penalty, but I also don't have any moral repugnance for it. I believe that actions have consequences, and at a certain point three meals and conjugal visits aren't a proper punishment for some crimes. I don't have a problem with just wars where life is being preserved in the process. I thought Bernie Sanders put it well when discussing this issue (although he was talking about the common conception that he is pacifist because he is cautious about war). For me being pro-life does not mean you have to be a pacifist. It means that you are actually evaluating the war for the ability of fighting to save innocent lives. There is always a death cost to war, so before entering in you should be sure that your motives are pure, and that you end goal is the protection of innocent life. If it isn't you shouldn't fight. Not sure how to answer the common refrain that conservatives don't love poor people and so it is hypocritical for them to want to avoid killing babies (it is a ridiculous argument in the first place). I am very passionate for the downtrodden in our society, and spend a great deal of time working to fight poverty and social injustice. I don't think you have to believe in a huge government safety net to have passion for the poor. I lean very moderate on those sort of issues anyway which puts me way left of my friends here in Mississippi, but would be way right of most of you on this board due to the liberal lean. I think we should investing way more in education than anything else. My big solution for poverty is more like Francis Underwood's America Works program than I would probably like to admit.

I hope that clears up any questions you. Next time avoid the 'i won't hold my breath' comment. I am here to engage. Just because my viewpoint on abortion is completely opposite of yours doesn't mean we can't discuss an issue honestly. I honestly feel a child is a child when they are conceived. I think that is validated medically. That child is unique from the moment the egg and sperm join. Any intentional effort to destroy that life is murder in my opinion. Fetus die, miscarriages happen, babies die, people die.....the two stages of life where we are most vulnerable are at the beginning and the end. We spend trillions of dollars protecting the last 10 years of life which half the time are miserable, while at the same time we have no issue crushing a young baby in the womb's head for convenience. I find it to be a disheartening sickness upon our generation, and my hope that is that one day our eyes will be opened to the horrors we have committed. I don't think slave owners in the US necessarily knew they were committing atrocities at the time. I think they rationalized, thought it was convenient, and couldn't imagine a world without slaves. My hope is that we move past abortion in the same manner we moved past slavery. I believe one day that will occur. Science is certainly on the side of life. We will see when our nation's conscience will catch up.
 
Last edited:
Wrangor said:
Pro life to me means you value innocent life.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty shitty position, IMO. I'm assuming you believe in original sin, meaning no life is truly innocent. I'm guessing what you meant by "innocent" is people who have not done something for which they deserve to die. Ignoring the circularity of this position for a moment, it seems that rather than being pro-life you are actually anti-unjustified taking of life.

This places your positions on the death penalty and just war into the same murky waters you believe pro-choice advocates to be in. Supporting the death penalty and any war (just or otherwise) requires prioritizing the rights of others over innocent lives.
 
Wrangor said:
I don't have a problem with just wars where life is being preserved in the process. I thought Bernie Sanders put it well when discussing this issue (although he was talking about the common conception that he is pacifist because he is cautious about war). For me being pro-life does not mean you have to be a pacifist. It means that you are actually evaluating the war for the ability of fighting to save innocent lives. There is always a death cost to war, so before entering in you should be sure that your motives are pure, and that you end goal is the protection of innocent life. If it isn't you shouldn't fight.
Click to expand...

In your opinion, what was the last "just war" the U.S. participated in?
 
Wrangor said:
I hope that clears up any questions you. Next time avoid the 'i won't hold my breath' comment. I am here to engage. Just because my viewpoint on abortion is completely opposite of yours doesn't mean we can't discuss an issue honestly. I honestly feel a child is a child when they are conceived. I think that is validated medically. That child is unique from the moment the egg and sperm join. Any intentional effort to destroy that life is murder in my opinion. Fetus die, miscarriages happen, babies die, people die.....the two stages of life where we are most vulnerable are at the beginning and the end. We spend trillions of dollars protecting the last 10 years of life which half the time are miserable, while at the same time we have no issue crushing a young baby in the womb's head for convenience. I find it to be a disheartening sickness upon our generation, and my hope that is that one day our eyes will be opened to the horrors we have committed. I don't think slave owners in the US necessarily knew they were committing atrocities at the time. I think they rationalized, thought it was convenient, and couldn't imagine a world without slaves. My hope is that we move past abortion in the same manner we moved past slavery. I believe one day that will occur. Science is certainly on the side of life. We will see when our nation's conscience will catch up.
Click to expand...

That's a perfectly legitimate position to hold. But it is certainly not a medically accepted position. For the overwhelming majority of people that believe life begins at conception, that belief is a religious or philosophical one.

That position has some weird consequences, however, about what it means to be alive or what it means to be a person.
 
Abortion: When will we as a country wake up to the truth?

Removed
 
Last edited:
Wrangor said:
Pro life to me means you value innocent life. I don't have a huge issue with the death penalty in the cases where guilt is proven and the punishment fits the crime. I wouldn't have a huge issue if we banned the death penalty, but I also don't have any moral repugnance for it. I believe that actions have consequences, and at a certain point three meals and conjugal visits aren't a proper punishment for some crimes. I don't have a problem with just wars where life is being preserved in the process. I thought Bernie Sanders put it well when discussing this issue (although he was talking about the common conception that he is pacifist because he is cautious about war). For me being pro-life does not mean you have to be a pacifist. It means that you are actually evaluating the war for the ability of fighting to save innocent lives. There is always a death cost to war, so before entering in you should be sure that your motives are pure, and that you end goal is the protection of innocent life. If it isn't you shouldn't fight. Not sure how to answer the common refrain that conservatives don't love poor people and so it is hypocritical for them to want to avoid killing babies (it is a ridiculous argument in the first place). I am very passionate for the downtrodden in our society, and spend a great deal of time working to fight poverty and social injustice. I don't think you have to believe in a huge government safety net to have passion for the poor. I lean very moderate on those sort of issues anyway which puts me way left of my friends here in Mississippi, but would be way right of most of you on this board due to the liberal lean. I think we should investing way more in education than anything else. My big solution for poverty is more like Francis Underwood's America Works program than I would probably like to admit.

I hope that clears up any questions you. Next time avoid the 'i won't hold my breath' comment. I am here to engage. Just because my viewpoint on abortion is completely opposite of yours doesn't mean we can't discuss an issue honestly. I honestly feel a child is a child when they are conceived. I think that is validated medically. That child is unique from the moment the egg and sperm join. Any intentional effort to destroy that life is murder in my opinion. Fetus die, miscarriages happen, babies die, people die.....the two stages of life where we are most vulnerable are at the beginning and the end. We spend trillions of dollars protecting the last 10 years of life which half the time are miserable, while at the same time we have no issue crushing a young baby in the womb's head for convenience. I find it to be a disheartening sickness upon our generation, and my hope that is that one day our eyes will be opened to the horrors we have committed. I don't think slave owners in the US necessarily knew they were committing atrocities at the time. I think they rationalized, thought it was convenient, and couldn't imagine a world without slaves. My hope is that we move past abortion in the same manner we moved past slavery. I believe one day that will occur. Science is certainly on the side of life. We will see when our nation's conscience will catch up.
Click to expand...

Please Wrangor, don't hurt 'em.
 
Wrangor said:
The U.S. makes it very difficult to adopt. I would open up the federal coffers to encourage families to adopt.
Click to expand...

Or if we wanted it done well we could let people handle this issue, rather than government.
 
Wrangor said:
I disagree completely. Abortion in 95% + of the cases is prioritizing convenience over life. Not life over life. There is a massive difference. Convenience never trumps life. If the mothers life in danger you would have a point but that is rare, and in those cases I would support a mother choosing because her life is literally at stake. I would never force someone to kill themselves for someone else.

Your comparison is completely invalid.
Click to expand...

Even if we accept for the sake of argument that life begins at conception (which again has some very strange logical consequences), Abortion is about prioritizing a woman's right of autonomy over the life of the fetus. It has nothing to do with convenience. It is a definitive statement that A is more important than B.

The death penalty does not prioritize life over life.
 
Wrangor said:
Good question. Probably world war 2. As far as boots on the ground on a large scale. I am sure there have been many other more minor actions that would consider justified. I was 12 during desert storm so I would have to look back at that one. You definitely get into grey area as you define what it means to protect life. WW2 is an easy one to claim as a just war.

What about you?
Click to expand...

Probably WWII as well. Even during WWII, however, we were engaged in prioritizing certain lives over others, and certain people's rights over the lives of others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top