I Am Pro-Abortion

[Stripe]

The hypothetical baby in question is gender-less.

You failed biology, right?

 

[Angeltress]

I agree, if a woman wants to keep her baby but is for whatever reason (finances, peer pressure, etc) unable to do so, programs like you describe would be a wonderful asset. In fact, in my state, these programs are already in place. However, by the same token, if a woman decides that she does not want to keep it, that is her call, not mine (or yours).

Then you also need to provide funds for counseling for her afterward. Unless you are lucky enough to have an abortion alternative center nearby where there are people who provide such counseling for free, the many women who need such help will cost one heck of a lot of cash.

 

[Quetzal]

You failed biology, right?

It certainly wasn't my focus. At any rate, Rusha and I have already addressed the issue of terminology.

 

[Quetzal]

Then you also need to provide funds for counseling for her afterward. Unless you are lucky enough to have an abortion alternative center nearby where there are people who provide such counseling for free, the many women who need such help will cost one heck of a lot of cash.

No doubt, you have a lot more experience in that arena than I do. It would be awesome if there was a discount/cost free program for women who would like to participate but can't afford it. I don't think financial cost should ever be an obstacle for care.

 

[Angeltress]

No doubt, you have a lot more experience in that arena than I do. It would be awesome if there was a discount/cost free program for women who would like to participate but can't afford it. I don't think financial cost should ever be an obstacle for care.

Wouldn't it be better if they didn't need such counseling in the first place?
The best thing would be to stop the slaughter. Let's turn back the clock to where abortion is only for medical need, not for "convenience". Then let's leave it between the parents and the doctor.
Let's quit glorifying sex.
And here's an idea...let's glorify family, instead. Quit talking as if kids are some sort of horrible burden, and emphasize the beauty of the parent-child relationship.

Let's start acting like Christians for a change, instead of politically correct parrots who repeat whatever is popular at the moment. Dare to stand up for the life God created...

 

[Stripe]

It certainly wasn't my focus.

The baby's sex is determined at conception.

 

[Tyrathca]

The baby's sex is determined at conception.

Genetically yes, physically and biochemically no.

 

[Quetzal]

Genetically yes, physically and biochemically no.

I typically think of it in the physical/biochemical sense. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Stripe]

Genetically yes, physically ... no.

 

[alwight]

The problem seems to be that pro-choice people think that a woman in a crisis pregnancy WANTS to have an abortion.
That is rarely the case.
All too often women who have abortions are desperate. Their friends and family have made it very clear that they have no intention of supporting any other decision. Often they have nowhere to go, no one to turn to. They feel alone and frightened.
What you are supporting is not empowerment for women. If you truly wanted to empower women you would lobby for federal funds to help women keep their baby. You would reach out to these women in love and compassion. That is what they need...not another idiot protecting their so-called "rights"...

My argument is about choice, not whether such choices when made were good or bad, it's about the right to choose intelligently based on the specific circumstances. I don't support compulsory diktats on people who are often very capable of deciding for themselves, based on their specific facts, not someone else's dogma.

Unless you do think that something magically special happens at conception that wasn't there before, other than a unique DNA, then typically I think we can all make rational assessments, based on the specific circumstances, about what is the best course of action or indeed inaction.
Denying intelligent women any right to make their own choices based on perhaps only a supposed "magical" moment at conception conclusion would be imo dictatorial arrogance.

 

[Stripe]

Unless you do think that something magically special happens at conception that wasn't there before.

There's a person there who wasn't there before.

You have an arbitrary and unjustifiable moment sometime later during the baby's growth where you will recognize him as a person. The reason for your undefined and malleable standard is an attempt to justify your disregard for their lives.

 

[alwight]

There's a person there who wasn't there before.

Your evidence of said "person" is...

You have an arbitrary and unjustifiable moment sometime later during the baby's growth where you will recognize him as a person. The reason for your undefined and malleable standard is an attempt to justify your disregard for their lives.

You are simply being provocative without a cause, maybe I should report you to the Mods Stripe? :think:

 

[quip]

2. In point of fact, there is an actual human being from the moment of conception, not a potential human being.

The argument that I gave for two is that human parents are univocal agents (they produce something which is the same in species as themselves). They produce the fetus which results at the moment of conception. Therefore, what results at the moment of conception is the same in species as the parents (ie, a human being or rational animal (rational, let us note, in first actuality, not in second actuality).



A person, according to the definition of Boethius, is a subsistent individual of a rational nature. If you grant my previous arguments, it's apparent that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception.

I simply don't grant your previous arguments. "First order" fetus rationality is neither ostensibly apparent nor a physiological possibility especially in early gestation.

Demonstrate the practical presence of rationality regarding the zygote.... beyond abstract/ideological assertion.

Being human is a sufficient condition for personhood. Necessarily, if x is a human being, then x is a person. It's not a necessary condition, however, since personhood extends wider than human beings (there are angelic persons and Divine Persons).

Notice where your equating/presuming "being human" as the equivalent to "human being". You're begging the very question here.

Qualify your assertions.

 

[TIPlatypus]

i can make one, murder is wrong no matter what situation

What about murdering someone in cold blood when you know that he is going to kill a load of people in the street tomorrow (assuming of course that there is nothing else you can do about it).

Now it is my turn to be the devils advocate.

I personally believe that if a woman has been raped, she should continue until the baby is born. I am not really convinced enough of either side of this argument to disagree with you.

 

[Stripe]

Your evidence of said "person" is...

Personhood is conferred. It's a standard that can be agreed to. We don't produce evidence for definitional claims. We define a circle as the set of points equidistant from a common origin, we don't then ask for evidence for the claim that a particular shape is a circle. We just look at it and the answer is immediately obvious.

The only reason to ask for a trait — evidence — of personhood is so that you can use the lack of that trait to call people non-persons; with the ultimate aim of killing them.

Examples in the past of traits that have been used as evidence for diminished or lack of personhood are skin color, religion, nationality and physical deformity. The pro-abort adds to those traits, detectable heartbeat, size, location and the fact that they haven't used their lungs to breathe yet.

Pro-aborts are modern-day fascists.

You are simply being provocative without a cause.

Nope. You invent a standard for who is and who is not a person in an attempt to justify your desire that those who do not qualify be killed.

Facts.

maybe I should report you to the Mods Stripe? :think:

:loser:

 

[Stripe]

What about murdering someone in cold blood when you know that he is going to kill a load of people in the street tomorrow (assuming of course that there is nothing else you can do about it).

That's called self-defense. lain:

Murder is defined as the unjustified and intentional killing of an innocent human being. Murder is always wrong.

 

[shagster01]

There's a person there who wasn't there before.

You have an arbitrary and unjustifiable moment sometime later during the baby's growth where you will recognize him as a person. The reason for your undefined and malleable standard is an attempt to justify your disregard for their lives.

I suppose that might be true if you could scientically prove the existance of a soul.

 

[Angeltress]

I have to agree...the only reason to try to claim that what is developing in a woman's womb is not a person is so that you can kill him.

A person's a person, no matter how small...

--Horton the Elephant

 

[Stripe]

I suppose that might be true if you could scientically prove the existance of a soul.

Nope.

All I have to do is prove the existence of people.

 

[alwight]

Personhood is conferred. It's a standard that can be agreed to. We don't produce evidence for definitional claims. We define a circle as the set of points equidistant from a common origin, we don't then ask for evidence for the claim that a particular shape is a circle. We just look at it and the answer is immediately obvious.

:yawn:

The only reason to ask for a trait — evidence — of personhood is so that you can use the lack of that trait to call people non-persons; with the ultimate aim of killing them.

I can draw a circle using the rules that define it, no opinion is required, a circle can be demonstrated to be a circle, there is no need for any subjectivity.
If you think that a "person" begins at conception then that's fine but you have no way of demonstrating it thus it remains a subjective opinion only. Other people may believe quite sincerely that a new person can only exist at a later time.
You have no justification to impose your beliefs on others, but by all means do implement them on yourself should you ever be in that situation.

Examples in the past of traits that have been used as evidence for diminished or lack of personhood are skin color, religion, nationality and physical deformity. The pro-abort adds to those traits, detectable heartbeat, size, location and the fact that they haven't used their lungs to breathe yet.

Nevertheless you have no right to impose your beliefs on those who think otherwise.
Btw I am not pro-abortion, I'm pro-choice.

Pro-aborts are modern-day fascists.

You are very entitled to believe what you will Stripe, even the utter nonsense you usually dispense.

Nope. You invent a standard for who is and who is not a person in an attempt to justify your desire that those who do not qualify be killed.

Facts.


:loser:

I'm not interested in killing anyone, I aim for what is a balanced responsible choice for the best outcome, based on the specific evidence of each case, not a third party's un-evidenced uncaring dogma. lain: