• 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

Wrangor said:
What right is worth killing a baby for? You keep saying autonomy, but have not given any example of what that autonomy would grant the mother of the child. I'll ask again: Autonomy to do what?
Click to expand...

To control what goes on with her body.

What right is worth killing a person for? I'm not sure I have an answer to that. Death Penalty advocates and hawkish republicans sure seem to though.

I personally don't believe we should be in the business of valuing one person's life over another. Being pro-choice does not require me to do so.
 
I doubt that PP makes moral judgments on abortions versus adoption referrals since, again, both are legal and the organization handles both. Casting a judgment on the abortion rate compared to referrals as if it is some condemning factor presupposes that it's wrong when in reality they're both legal. I know you think abortion is wrong Wrangor and that's the lens through which you're speaking, but it's not really persuasive to pro choice people who think abortion should be legal IMO
 
Wrangor said:
I will end with this, as my point is getting repetitive. The moment that child is conceived that woman is sharing her body with another person.
Click to expand...

I'll buy that idea as your belief. Do you support abortion for victims of rape?
 
Wrangor said:
I will end with this, as my point is getting repetitive. The moment that child is conceived that woman is sharing her body with another person. I don't believe the pain, burden, and inconvenience of pregnancy and child birth (which are a great burden to bear, and not one I would ever want to bear) are not superior to the right for a human being to live. I think the abortion stance is clearly duplicitous by nature, and also feel very certain that as science advances you will see the reasoning for abortion change in popular culture to come up with a new excuse. Right now it is viability, but viability changes, and will continue to become less and less reasonable when considering destroying a fetus. The mere reality that we have double homicides for the murder of a pregnant woman as a part of our legal system is evidence to the reality that our stance as a nation on abortion is a foolish one. We are destroying millions of children in the womb and can't seem as a nation to open our eyes to the atrocity. Much like slavery we will look back on this period of our existence as a nation and weep for the unborn that we have destroyed.

Good discussion Chill and others. I could not disagree with some of you more, but it was an interesting discussion that made me think. Back to work.
Click to expand...

I'll respond in depth in a separate post as to why viability is the correct standard, but just wanted to point out that while the timing of viability may change, the concept does not.
 
My main problem with Wrangor's position is that it (at best) confuses a moral/religious standard with a legal/scientific one or (at worst) thinks that a moral/religious standard should trump a legal/scientific one.

The important question in the Abortion debate is not when human life begins or what constitutes a person. The important questions are 1. at what point during fetal development does the State gain an interest in protecting the further development of the fetus and 2. at what point does the State's interest trump a woman's interest in her own autonomy.

Question 1 is more difficult and likely depends on personal beliefs about when life begins. The earliest reasonable answer to Question 1 is conception.

Question 2, IMO, is easier and turns on when the State is able to effectively and independently exercise its interest. The earliest reasonable answer to Question 2 is viability.


The State certainly has an overwhelming interest in protecting the lives and well being of persons within its jurisdiction. This interest extends to children. Individuals have an overwhelming interest in personal autonomy. This extends to women. In order for the State's interest to trump an individual's interest the State must have the power to independently protect that interest.

Ex. If a parent is neglecting their child, the State can take the child away from the parent and provide for that child's life and well-being independently from the parent.

Prior to viability, however, the State is powerless to independently protect any interest it has in the fetus.
 
TownieDeac said:
Except they're not making a sales pitch or moralizing. That's not their job. They do give adoption referrals, especially in situations where women are looking for them. They have a purview, however, to provide medical care and advice to women in need.
Click to expand...

I think Wrangor honestly believes that Planned Parenthood has a widespread practice of pressuring women into getting abortions.
 
Wrangor said:
I will end with this, as my point is getting repetitive. The moment that child is conceived that woman is sharing her body with another person. I don't believe the pain, burden, and inconvenience of pregnancy and child birth (which are a great burden to bear, and not one I would ever want to bear) are not superior to the right for a human being to live. I think the abortion stance is clearly duplicitous by nature, and also feel very certain that as science advances you will see the reasoning for abortion change in popular culture to come up with a new excuse. Right now it is viability, but viability changes, and will continue to become less and less reasonable when considering destroying a fetus. The mere reality that we have double homicides for the murder of a pregnant woman as a part of our legal system is evidence to the reality that our stance as a nation on abortion is a foolish one. We are destroying millions of children in the womb and can't seem as a nation to open our eyes to the atrocity. Much like slavery we will look back on this period of our existence as a nation and weep for the unborn that we have destroyed.

Good discussion Chill and others. I could not disagree with some of you more, but it was an interesting discussion that made me think. Back to work.
Click to expand...

Is this wishful thinking or do you honestly believe that we are going to reverse course?
 
I wonder where that idea could have come from? Oh no I don't - one of the nation's two major parties has engaged in a slanderous and systematic effort to distort what PP actually does. Quite frankly it's disgusting.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I wonder where that idea could have come from? Oh no I don't - one of the nation's two major parties has engaged in a slanderous and systematic effort to distort what PP actually does. Quite frankly it's disgusting.
Click to expand...

This part is accurate.
 
Against sex ed in schools, against contraceptives, against welfare, against abortion. In favor of yanking on them bootstraps. That's a winner.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Against sex ed in schools, against contraceptives, against welfare, against abortion. In favor of yanking on them bootstraps. That's a winner.
Click to expand...

For a party in favor of this practice, it's curious how little you actually want to discuss it.

"You can't be against abortion, you're against welfare!" isn't a very vigorous defense of the practice of abortion on its own merits.
 
Wasn't intended as a defense I've posted my views on abortion plenty of times on this thread. It was intended to show how implausible those four policy positions are in conjunction with one another in the real world. "Kids shouldn't have sex" is not a practical solution.
 
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...
Yeah, specific states, such as Michigan, have lately been making it even more difficult to adopt for some strange reason...same people making it more difficult to adopt are also the ones trying to keep women from having abortions. What sense does that make?
 
jhmd2000 said:
For a party in favor of this practice, it's curious how little you actually want to discuss it.

"You can't be against abortion, you're against welfare!" isn't a very vigorous defense of the practice of abortion on its own merits.
Click to expand...

TownieDeac said:
Put another way, I know for me personally I'd be much closer to a pro life position if it weren't for the people making the pro life arguments. Because they're also the people who harp on two parent households (abortions be damned), refuse to consider paid maternity leave (abortion be damned), refuse to speak frankly about sex to their children in schools (abortion be damned), and could generally give two shits once a kid is born into abject poverty (abortion be damned).

Not one of those reasons alone is sufficient to me to warrant feticide. I think abortions should be avoided at all costs and for now, safe, legal, and rare is better than dangerous, illegal, and common.
Click to expand...

I think this represents the views of a large portion of Americans that identify as pro-choice. There is a huge difference between defending a practice and defending the right to engage in a practice.
 
Holy fucking shit: someone made the argument that sitting in traffic is equivalent to carrying and delivering a child? Fuck you. Seriously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top