The abortion debate

Post Reply New Topic

Misnomer - "a misapplied or inappropriate name or designation."

"Pro-life" is an inappropriate name to describe those who are anti-choice. It suggest that those who are pro-choice are "anti-life", which is not the case. It also suggests that those who choose pro-life value "life", period, which is demonstrably not true. Many who are pro-life are for the death penalty, support war, etc. It is the height of hypocrisy.



Actually, you don't have the right to tell me not to twitch my finger. However, you have the right for me not to pull the trigger, or to not put the gun to your head in the first place. The key is that my rights end when another individual is directly affected. No matter the fancy language used, an unborn baby is not an individual. It is still part of the mother's body, and in my mind that means it is the mother's property.

But you basically show that you don't understand my stance on personal liberties, trying to paint a picture that doesn't have anything to do with personal liberties.



We will apparently never see eye to eye on this. How can you possibly conclude the baby is not a part of the woman's body? It is physically connected, INSIDE.

Birth is the most obvious place to draw the line, it is where the baby ceases to be a part of the woman's body and becomes an individual.

The difference between a 9 month old fetus and a newborn is that the fetus is still a part of the woman's body.

Born infants breath through their own lungs. Fetuses have the O2 delivered to them through the umbilicus from the mother's lungs. Born infants take nourishment through their mouths. Fetuses have nourisment delivered to them through the placenta.

Fetuses are not persons. New born infants will become persons if they are properly cared for.

ruveyn

I did not have to mention those *specific people* because.....





Being pro-adoption doesn't mean that it works every time. There are far less people registered to adopt then there are kids being born, if every single aborted fetus became a baby and were born, the system would be clogged, and all of these unwanted kids would be passed around between foster homes and the stories are mixed, no all kids like it, and in their head the kids will know that they where not wanted.

And what would happen to the drug babies? Do you really expect a woman who became pregnant against her will and who does not want children to be the perfect mommy and care for her fetus? If she doesn't want it and is not permitted a abortion, god only knows what she will do... if she doesn't want it.... she does NOT want it, she's not going to care what she does, and if the fetus survives, it's quality of life could turn out horrible.

In some countries the kid might be sold off for who-knows what. Poverty makes people do awful things.

You really need to learn more about what goes on in this world, some babies are way better off not existing then be raised in the extreme poverty or violent life that could be awaiting them.

I know what the word means. Even if I didn't, google, wikipedia, dictionary.com, and so forth are only a mouseclick away.


We aren't anti-choice. What makes you think this?


Actually it doesn't suggest that. The word "pro-life" is about what we stand for, it isn't about you.

If you're going to object to being labelled "anti-life" (although I'm not labelling you that way), then you should not slap the analogous label "anti-choice" on me.





How is punishing a murderer with death not justified? How is it not pro-life to prevent him from killing again, or to deter others from killing? At the end of WWII, concentration camps were liberated. At the end of the Civil War, slaves were free. How is any of that un-pro-life?


How is swinging a fist not a personal liberty? How is pointing a gun not a personal liberty? It's just that there are certain things you can't point it at.


Yes.


If you get athelete's foot, then there is fungus physically connected, inside. That doesn't make you part fungus.


I don't see that a bright line at a definite event absolutely has to be drawn. But if it did, there is only one line that makes sense -- conception. At that point, it's existence begins.

It is never part of the woman's body. It is itself. I would say it's part of it's own body, but it's the whole thing, not a part of itself.

People who want women to continue with a pregnancy that they do not want tend to get that reputation.

But that isn't what we want. We want to keep the baby from getting killed. You're forgetting that there's another person involved.

And, yes, I know you don't think it's a person, but we do -- therefore the label "anti-choice" is simply wrong and inaccurate.

Then what is trying to take a woman's personal decision about her own body called? Encouragement? Yeah right.....

A woman who is raped and became pregnant did not get a say in that situation, are you suggesting that she remain a hostage? Trapped in trauma for 9 month? The man who raped her sure as hell did not give her any choices, why should pro-lifers take away another? Please don't be like SM and say that rape is no big deal compared to a tiny brainless blob.

There was a thread called 'ND House Passes Abortion Ban' in News and Current Events, EnglishLulu explained it the best:

WHAAA?!
How on earth does the fetus get its nutrients? How does it grow?

I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your response Ancalagon, I will try and respond.

Perhaps this is not the case, but I was under the assumption that the majority of the pro-life movement would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade. If that is true, then the label of "anti-choice" is appropriately applied to you, at least in the scenario. I suppose it would more correctly be said that you are "anti-the choice to have an abortion", but that is a very long title.



If you feel that life is sacred, then I think that should apply to all people, even those who have killed themselves.

I should make a point about U.S. foreign policy here. We do not fight wars for humanistic reasons. We entered WWII for economic reasons, specifically having to do with our Chinese interests being directly threatened, but it's definitely deeper than that. The Civil War had many layers to it, but freeing the slaves was only a minor consideration, again, economic reasons, the North needed the South, but not necessarily the other way around (again, somewhat more complicated than that).

Anyways, the point is that we do not fight wars for humanistic reasons. Even if that were the case, what then about Vietnam and Iraq? If you were to poll the entire pro-life population in the country, I think we can both agree that the numbers would show support for these wars.

You may not see the discrepancy, but to me there is a large contradiction here. What you seem to value is not life, in general, but unborn life, specifically. To me, life is experience.



But you can at least see how the label "anti-choice" ("anti-the choice of having an abortion"), is better applied to you, than the anti-life label is applied to me, yes? If you can see the difference, you can see why the pro-choice title is appropriate but the pro-life title is a misnomer.



Libertarianism 101. You have the right to do anything you want, so long as, it does not directly affect another persons rights. So, swinging a fist on someone is assault, which violates their right to not be assaulted. Pointing a gun wherever you want is your right, so long as there is no one within the vicinity. If there is, you have the right to practice proper gun safety. If you do not handle your gun in the proper manner, you are directly endangering the lives of those around you, which violates their right not to be placed in immediate danger.



Unfortunately, I don't believe in the Christian myth of conception. I don't have a definite view, but I think it's more likely that the baby always has been and always will be, if you will. As I said earlier, to me, life is experience. "Existence" is irrelevant and meaningless without being conscious of self.

What does pro-compassion mean?

ruveyn

It's killing that we're against, not choices. If you want, you can call me anti-abortion. But only if you are willing to be called pro-abortion, and I think you might not like that.


Yes.


Our interests had been threatened for quite some time, but we didn't do anything concrete about it. And then we were attacked without warning.


Slavery was the major bone of contention between north and south. There were other things, too, but it was not minor.


I have no idea what the numbers would show. In any case, most surveys about support for a war would not include questions about your position on abortion, and vice versa.

If you want my opinion on war, here it is: War is a terrible evil. But there are worse things.

Engaging in combat with enemy soldiers and dying on the battlefield in terrible pain is bad. Standing by and letting them take over your country and start killing everyone is worse. Neither is my idea of a fun thing to do on a Sunday afternoon.


I wish you guys would stop saying this kind of thing. It's both insulting and inaccurate.


No, not at all. But if I were trying to pick a label to insult you with (and I'm, not), I'd be more likely to go with "pro-death" than "anti-life". There are even nastier labels out there, but I'm trying not to start a flamewar, if possible.


Pro-life is accurate. Pro-choice is both inaccurate and misses the point. We could debate the label thing all day and not get anywhere.

It isn't her body she's deciding about -- it's her kid's body.


That is not a hostage situation.


This is a strange argument. It assumes that the trauma of rape ends at nine months, as if the baby was the cause of the trauma, rather than the rape.

It also assumes that no rape survivor (they apparently prefer this term to "victim", and I can see why) would ever have second thoughts, or ever cry herself to sleep thinking about what she'd done to her baby.

It ignores the possibility that a rape survivor could keep the baby, and love it, thereby refusing to be belittled or controlled by the rapist after he's gone. The baby, after all, is innocent and never did anything to her.


The "brainless blob" phase doesn't last long, you know. It is long over before the term fetus can be used.

I don't draw the line at conception (although I used to), but rather somewhere early, after the brain has developed. So any period in the pregnancy that I would object to, it has a brain.


Since she's not here to defend her own views (AFAICT), I won't pick apart her argument in detail. But I will mention that she heavily overstated her case.

I'd totally respond, but it's like shooting turkeys in a barrel here (which is like shooting fish in a barrel, only ever so much more fun).
<.<
>.>
Forget you saw me.

Carry on!

This article http://www.babytalk.org/materials/topic ... -brain.htm clearly indicates that the human brain is not mature even at birth. It is a gross mistake to assume consciousness in the early development stages of the brain. It has been demonstrated that the human brain does not reach its possible potentials even 20 years after birth. No way has yet been determined as to how to comprehend the sense of self in the various stages of a fetus' development. I cannot agree or disagree with the uneasiness of destroying a fetus at any later stage of development but an abortion is a traumatic event for all concerned even for those who favor it as a necessary step in the lives of the parents and there is no easy way out.

You know Ancalagon... you would be saving a lot of time of debate if you just went ahead and said that women don't have any worth and are only used to incubate babies, even when she doesn't want to.

The fact of the matter is mother trumps fetus. You said so yourself that the 'brainless blob' phase doesn't last.... of course not! Everyone knows that, that is why the abortion is done during that phase.... when it has no brain.
The only reason why I'd be in favor of a late term abortion is if it was a threat to the life of the mother.... but something tells me you would not give a hoot because as you said, the body belongs to the child, so you'd probably would not care if the mother dies.

I don't mean to come across as rude or mean.... really I don't, but reading the words of a man that is devaluing me to something that science had proved to not have brain value at 3 months, and has no acknowledgment of the physiological damage that rape and unwanted pregnancy has.

The fact that you believe that women would 'want' to keep her rape baby and 'love' it is naive, have you been to a woman's crisis center? Not every woman is the same and responses to counseling is extremely varied.

Ancalagon it's very easy for you post this stuff because according to your profile, you are a man, and you have no worries of these issues happening to you. Reading your post has brought me to the verge of tears and my husband to sock as to how low a nice, well-meaning person can rate the value of a living, breathing, adult woman.

There is nothing wrong about being pro-life... really there isn't, but please acknowledge that there is a woman involved in this and her needs require attention as well.

I really don't know what else to say...

I never said, meant, or implied this.


The mother doesn't trump the fetus, and the fetus doesn't trump the mother. The fetus's life trumps the mother's convenience.


Abortion is not only done in early stages, sadly. I don't know how they do things in Canada, but here in the US, there are hardly any limits at all.


Why would I (or any other pro-lifer) care any less about the life of the mother?


What???


If you read what I wrote, you'd notice that I mentioned this as a possibility, not as some sort of default. And would you mind not calling it a "rape baby", as if it were somehow morally tainted from the evil actions of it's genetic father?


If I were as heartless and selfish as you seem to think, why would I have a problem with abortion? Abortion is an even easier easy way out for a man than a woman. How hard is it to say, "Here's some money, go get that problem of yours taken care of."? It's a lot easier than raising a kid. Cheaper, too. My moral system would not let me try to weasel out of my responsibilities as a father, if I were to get someone pregnant. My beliefs and opinions on this are not without potential personal effects.


That was never my intent. If it upsets you so much, maybe you should leave it alone for awhile.


Did something that I wrote seem to imply that I thought this way??


Hasn't the whole point of most of your posts been that there essentially *is* something wrong with being pro-life?


Of course. What made you think I didn't think this?