NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you eat meat?

Do you eat meat?

What about eggs? :eek:

What about eggs? :eek:

That...that...that...

*brain explodes*

I really hate those terms, pro-life and pro-choice, because I am both. I do believe abortion is killing a human being, and nobody is going to change my opinion on the matter, but I do recognize that it is ultimately more beneficial to keep it legal. Better to be legal and safe than illegal and deadly for both parties involved. Just because you make something illegal doesn’t mean people will stop doing it.

To answer your question, I do not eat meat.

I really hate those terms, pro-life and pro-choice, because I am both. I do believe abortion is killing a human being, and nobody is going to change my opinion on the matter, but I do recognize that it is ultimately more beneficial to keep it legal. Better to be legal and safe than illegal and deadly for both parties involved. Just because you make something illegal doesn’t mean people will stop doing it.

To answer your question, I do not eat meat.

*Hands over a cookie*

We have an ideological realist! You deserve a prize. All I have is an internet cookie.

I eat meat and am pro-life.

I really hate those terms, pro-life and pro-choice, because I am both. I do believe abortion is killing a human being, and nobody is going to change my opinion on the matter, but I do recognize that it is ultimately more beneficial to keep it legal. Better to be legal and safe than illegal and deadly for both parties involved. Just because you make something illegal doesn’t mean people will stop doing it.

To answer your question, I do not eat meat.
I agree wholeheartedly (except for the meat bit). I call that kind of position a pro Choose Life position.

Originally Posted by Undelia
I really hate those terms, pro-life and pro-choice, because I am both. I do believe abortion is killing a human being, and nobody is going to change my opinion on the matter, but I do recognize that it is ultimately more beneficial to keep it legal. Better to be legal and safe than illegal and deadly for both parties involved. Just because you make something illegal doesn’t mean people will stop doing it.


I find it too personally disconcerting to say that it is better for the taking of an innocent human life be legal, just because we cannot prevent it. Granted, there is a precedent for it, inasmuch as a law which cannot be enforced isn't much of a law at all. Nonetheless, the pro-life position isn't (or shouldn't) be just about politics and law. Even if abortion is illegal, we won't have won until we reach the hearts and minds of other people as well.

I really hate those terms, pro-life and pro-choice, because I am both. I do believe abortion is killing a human being, and nobody is going to change my opinion on the matter, but I do recognize that it is ultimately more beneficial to keep it legal. Better to be legal and safe than illegal and deadly for both parties involved. Just because you make something illegal doesn’t mean people will stop doing it.

To answer your question, I do not eat meat.
You've basically described my position on the issue, except the meat part. I love meat.

*Gives an Internet cookie to Undelia*

I find it too personally disconcerting to say that it is better for the taking of an innocent human life be legal, just because we cannot prevent it. Granted, there is a precedent for it, inasmuch as a law which cannot be enforced isn't much of a law at all. Nonetheless, the pro-life position isn't (or shouldn't) be just about politics and law. Even if abortion is illegal, we won't have won until we reach the hearts and minds of other people as well.
I have a possible solution for you then. In Germany, we have an institution called the "Babyklappe". Basically, a Baby Mailbox. Mothers are allowed to drop off their children anonymously. While it might not be a wonderful thing, it helps keep the kids dead and from ending in a trash can...

I have a possible solution for you then. In Germany, we have an institution called the "Babyklappe". Basically, a Baby Mailbox. Mothers are allowed to drop off their children anonymously. While it might not be a wonderful thing, it helps keep the kids dead in a trash can...

Places in the US are allowing that, now. Firestation or Hospital, actually, with some other stuff...

Erm, don't remeber the specifics except Firestation or Hospital.

it helps keep the kids dead in a trash can...

I'm hoping that you meant "keep the kids from being dead in a trash can". 'Cause that typo is MUCH too "A Modest Proposal"-esque.

A more apt question would be whether or not they support the killing of full grown adults by our government (at home by execution or abroad by smart bombs and puppet regimes.) I can't respect someone who screams themselves hoarse about a dead American fetus while blithely endorsing the deaths of thousands of foreign adults and children by voting for a "pro-life" party. What a fucking joke.

I have a possible solution for you then. In Germany, we have an institution called the "Babyklappe". Basically, a Baby Mailbox. Mothers are allowed to drop off their children anonymously. While it might not be a wonderful thing, it helps keep the kids dead in a trash can...

It's a small step, but no solution for a majority. You have to be in a position to carry out the entire pregnancy, you have to give birth at home which is an incredible risk for both mother and child, you cannot seek medical attention or aftercare....
It's no alternative to abortion.

Places in the US are allowing that, now. Firestation or Hospital, actually, with some other stuff...

Erm, don't remeber the specifics except Firestation or Hospital.
I don't live in the US, so I wouldn't know, but it would give pro-lifers much more credibility if they held up signs urging women to do that instead of calling them murderers.

It's a small step, but no solution for a majority. You have to be in a position to carry out the entire pregnancy, you have to give birth at home which is an incredible risk for both mother and child, you cannot seek medical attention or aftercare....
It's no alternative to abortion.
True enough, but it is most certainly an alternative for soffocating the baby and hiding it in a trash can.
I personally believe much more could be achieved if American society weren't so damn polarized and people were willing to find ways of reducing the problem instead of condemning it outright. The media gets its fair share of blame in this.

I really hate those terms, pro-life and pro-choice, because I am both. I do believe abortion is killing a human being, and nobody is going to change my opinion on the matter, but I do recognize that it is ultimately more beneficial to keep it legal. Better to be legal and safe than illegal and deadly for both parties involved. Just because you make something illegal doesn’t mean people will stop doing it.

To answer your question, I do not eat meat.


I agree with you 100 %, on all fronts

Laerod, I would certainly have no real problem with that, if it's basicly a kind of anonymous orphanage arrangement, and not an actual box you slip your baby into. ;)

One more comment on "safe and legal" abortions. If someone believes that an abortion ends a human life, how can you call it safe? An operation that killed one half of those who received it would never be allowed. A medicine that killed 50% of test subjects wouldn't make it off the drawing board. Admittedly, if abortion was illegal, there would still be those who procured the procedure. But does anyone think that the number would be anywhere near the number that do now? Hypothetically, if abortion rates dropped by 75%, but unsafe conditions raised the mortality rate (for the mothers, since infant mortality is 100%) to 25% of operations, that would still be hundreds of thousands fewer dead...fewer innocent dead. Is that not a worthy enough reason to ban abortion?

I'm hoping that you meant "keep the kids from being dead in a trash can". 'Cause that typo is MUCH too "A Modest Proposal"-esque.
Oops... you're right of course. I'm not advocating any Swiftian ways of dealing with problems.

I don't live in the US, so I wouldn't know, but it would give pro-lifers much more credibility if they held up signs urging women to do that instead of calling them murderers.

Or saying "Hilter's Holocaust" and "America's Holocaust" and trying to defend it against a Jew.

Took two heavy friends, both of which are about double my weight, to keep me from killing the bastard.

>.< Definatly not a high point in my tolerance of others.

But the fact is, certain people just want to stop something without taking consideration what is causing it.

Let me take an example from the Good Old Golden State of Idiocty, California.

California is a great place! If there's going to be a revolution, California is going to be where it starts. Its the best breeding ground for it because the citizens can take control of the state government very quickly.

But its also home to some of the biggest idiots.

Y'see, obesity is a problem in the US. Why is it a problem? My views is, is that humans were built for a low-intake and low-vitamen diet, definatly not one high in anything except roughage. Yet, now that good nutrition (Or at lieast high0value items) are available, we have not altered our eating habits to match. So, people are going to be rounder. Kind of a duh, IMO.

Yet, people have decided that they're fat because they eat too much fast food. Kinda the same as what I said, right? I mean, the answer, then, would be STOP EATING FAST FOOD.

...instead they sue McDonalds (again. Burger King: Ha ha!) for making them fat. In response, most of the fast food chains (Thank god not the ones I frequent) over here changed their menus to have 'Light, nutritious food'.

...bwhu?

Thats not the answer, hun...

Laerod, I would certainly have no real problem with that, if it's basicly a kind of anonymous orphanage arrangement, and not an actual box you slip your baby into. ;)

One more comment on "safe and legal" abortions. If someone believes that an abortion ends a human life, how can you call it safe? An operation that killed one half of those who received it would never be allowed. A medicine that killed 50% of test subjects wouldn't make it off the drawing board. Admittedly, if abortion was illegal, there would still be those who procured the procedure. But does anyone think that the number would be anywhere near the number that do now? Hypothetically, if abortion rates dropped by 75%, but unsafe conditions raised the mortality rate (for the mothers, since infant mortality is 100%) to 25% of operations, that would still be hundreds of thousands fewer dead...fewer innocent dead. Is that not a worthy enough reason to ban abortion?
The idea about safe and legal abortions is that it prevents women from getting it done illegally, which tends to be out of the way and without proper treatment. That, in my opinion, is more likely to cause the death or permanent damage to "the patient".
It is difficult for me to advocate the ending of human life, but I feel that since the human isn't fully developed yet, an abortion seems an "acceptable" answer. It's a personal judgement because I feel reasons for an abortion can outweigh the necessity to give birth to that child.
I doubt any of your arguments will be able to convince me otherwise. I don't like abortion, but I feel it can be a necessity. I've made that compromise with myself and I'm not really interested in abandoning it.

I definitely favor any effort to lower the number of abortions. A law would not get at the root causes of abortions, but I think it would be a start. In response to some other good questions raised, I oppose the death penalty, though I do not see an inherent hypocrisy in being anti-abortion and pro capital punishment. Let us remember that an infant has committed no crime, while in an ideal justice system, the executed prisoner has commited one, or more, rather heinous crimes. As for the war in Iraq, I was against it from the beginning, but at this point I do not think there is an easy way to get out. Does anyone really think that the killing will stop if every American soldier was suddenly pulled out tomorrow? Granted, there wouldn't be any American casualties, but people are people, here or abroad. I'm no armchair general, though, and refuse to discuss tactics, leaving it to those more qualified.

Poverty will need to end before abortion (legal or otherwise) ends. So long as women are financially unable to raise their babies without dwelling in the squalor of poverty women will opt to end their pregnancies. If the government wants to stop abortion it should:
1. Make all prenatal care free
2. Use tax cuts or a subsidy to acknowledge that staying home raising a child is work. ( I believe Norway has this policy already)
3. Subsidize the minimum wage so that when women are ready to return to work they can live outside of poverty so long as they are working
4. Teach birth control in schools and make it accessible and affordable to everyone

Laerod, I would certainly have no real problem with that, if it's basicly a kind of anonymous orphanage arrangement, and not an actual box you slip your baby into. ;)

One more comment on "safe and legal" abortions. If someone believes that an abortion ends a human life, how can you call it safe? An operation that killed one half of those who received it would never be allowed. A medicine that killed 50% of test subjects wouldn't make it off the drawing board. Admittedly, if abortion was illegal, there would still be those who procured the procedure. But does anyone think that the number would be anywhere near the number that do now? Hypothetically, if abortion rates dropped by 75%, but unsafe conditions raised the mortality rate (for the mothers, since infant mortality is 100%) to 25% of operations, that would still be hundreds of thousands fewer dead...fewer innocent dead. Is that not a worthy enough reason to ban abortion?


Legal abortions don't end human life, as they will abort it before it begins.
Illegal abortion are highly likely to kill human life, as they WILL take place after the 3rd month of pregnancy. And the risks of killing the mother in the process are immense.

So, on the one end you have an operation that removes a lump of cells, on the other you have one that will kill a baby and risks the mother. Which is better?

Poverty will need to end before abortion (legal or otherwise) ends. So long as women are financially unable to raise their babies without dwelling in the squalor of poverty women will opt to end their pregnancies. If the government wants to stop abortion it should:
1. Make all prenatal care free
2. Use tax cuts or a subsidy to acknowledge that staying home raising a child is work. ( I believe Norway has this policy already)
3. Subsidize the minimum wage so that when women are ready to return to work they can live outside of poverty so long as they are working
4. Teach birth control in schools and make it accessible and affordable to everyone

I agree 100%

Or saying "Hilter's Holocaust" and "America's Holocaust" and trying to defend it against a Jew.

Took two heavy friends, both of which are about double my weight, to keep me from killing the bastard.

>.< Definatly not a high point in my tolerance of others.
You have my blessing. I'm part German and I hate it when people abuse my nations history by taking it's shamefule parts out of context for their own purposes. Abortion is nothing compared to what the Nazis did.

Y'see, obesity is a problem in the US. Why is it a problem? My views is, is that humans were built for a low-intake and low-vitamen diet, definatly not one high in anything except roughage. Yet, now that good nutrition (Or at lieast high0value items) are available, we have not altered our eating habits to match. So, people are going to be rounder. Kind of a duh, IMO.

Yet, people have decided that they're fat because they eat too much fast food. Kinda the same as what I said, right? I mean, the answer, then, would be STOP EATING FAST FOOD.

...instead they sue McDonalds (again. Burger King: Ha ha!) for making them fat. In response, most of the fast food chains (Thank god not the ones I frequent) over here changed their menus to have 'Light, nutritious food'.

...bwhu?

Thats not the answer, hun...
Ooh, wish I had that problem... I'm barely scratching ideal weight from the bottom end. Maybe I should eat more fast food... :(

I agree 100%

I don't. Not on the minimum wage issue.

If the mother has any sort of skills or even experiance, she can get a job that's over minimum wage. Hell, most Highschool grads had a job that pays more than minimum wage. I started my first job about a doller over the state minimum wage, and that was with no job experiance and having more social problems than a middle school classroom.

Also, while the ideas are well founded, I'm seeing many cases of abuse of the system we have already for having children, many more abuses than uses. I don't have any data to back me up because my opinion is based on evidence I've gathered myself. *shrug*

Besides, right now the US Government can't even afford the services it has now. Certainly California can't.

Laerod, well of course legal abortions prevent women from getting an illegal abortion. Does that mean that everything that is illegal should be legalized so that it can be done in the safest possible manner? Prostitution, drugs, incest, even murder? ("Now remember, always slit the throat away from yourself, so that there is less risk that you'll cut a finger or god-forbid a wrist!") I know, I know...I'm engaging in hyperbole, among other things. It is a tricky question, "Is there anything more important than human life?" Certainly, there are times when it seems that way. But if we make other options available to mothers in desperate positions, we can offset the impact of an unwanted pregnancy. (Don't get me started though on unwanted pregnancies...I'll just sound callous.)

Incidentally, I don't really think of the mother's as murderers. It might be a contradiction in my logic, but I can't really feel anything but pity for most of them. They're in a tough situation, with no apparant way out, and often feel forced into it. The doctors, on the other hand, are murderers. I don't see how you can get a medical degree, know everything you know about anatomy and medicine and human physiology, and then think of an abortion as being square with the "first do no harm" principle.

Murkiness, I agree with your solution 75%. I don't support birth control, and would not want my tax dollars going to fund it or educate my children about it. But my reasons for this are primarily religious, so I wouldn't try to make public policy out of it. I'd just cheat on my taxes. ;)

Cabra West said:

Legal abortions don't end human life, as they will abort it before it begins.

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree, as this is probably not the place to start a debate on when human life begins. I'll just say that you, too, are just a "clump of cells". For that matter, if you get down to a subatomic level, we're mostly nothing! What's the harm in destroying something that's 99% empty space? I'm going to blow away the noisy brat who lives next door now, and it won't matter, really...he's not really there.

Laerod, well of course legal abortions prevent women from getting an illegal abortion. Does that mean that everything that is illegal should be legalized so that it can be done in the safest possible manner? Prostitution, drugs, incest, even murder? ("Now remember, always slit the throat away from yourself, so that there is less risk that you'll cut a finger or god-forbid a wrist!") I know, I know...I'm engaging in hyperbole, among other things. It is a tricky question, "Is there anything more important than human life?" Certainly, there are times when it seems that way. But if we make other options available to mothers in desperate positions, we can offset the impact of an unwanted pregnancy. (Don't get me started though on unwanted pregnancies...I'll just sound callous.)

Incidentally, I don't really think of the mother's as murderers. It might be a contradiction in my logic, but I can't really feel anything but pity for most of them. They're in a tough situation, with no apparant way out, and often feel forced into it. The doctors, on the other hand, are murderers. I don't see how you can get a medical degree, know everything you know about anatomy and medicine and human physiology, and then think of an abortion as being square with the "first do no harm" principle.

Murkiness, I agree with your solution 75%. I don't support birth control, and would not want my tax dollars going to fund it or educate my children about it. But my reasons for this are primarily religious, so I wouldn't try to make public policy out of it. I'd just cheat on my taxes. ;)


Question. (Answer.)

What about if having the baby will threaten the mother's life? As in, if she contines on with the pregnancy, she'll die.

Laerod, well of course legal abortions prevent women from getting an illegal abortion. Does that mean that everything that is illegal should be legalized so that it can be done in the safest possible manner? Prostitution, drugs, incest, even murder? ("Now remember, always slit the throat away from yourself, so that there is less risk that you'll cut a finger or god-forbid a wrist!") I know, I know...I'm engaging in hyperbole, among other things. It is a tricky question, "Is there anything more important than human life?" Certainly, there are times when it seems that way. But if we make other options available to mothers in desperate positions, we can offset the impact of an unwanted pregnancy. (Don't get me started though on unwanted pregnancies...I'll just sound callous.)

Incidentally, I don't really think of the mother's as murderers. It might be a contradiction in my logic, but I can't really feel anything but pity for most of them. They're in a tough situation, with no apparant way out, and often feel forced into it. The doctors, on the other hand, are murderers. I don't see how you can get a medical degree, know everything you know about anatomy and medicine and human physiology, and then think of an abortion as being square with the "first do no harm" principle.

Murkiness, I agree with your solution 75%. I don't support birth control, and would not want my tax dollars going to fund it or educate my children about it. But my reasons for this are primarily religious, so I wouldn't try to make public policy out of it. I'd just cheat on my taxes. ;)

First, what's wrong with legal prostitution? A number of countries legalised it, and it's been helping both the prostitutes and the customers. The prostitutes because they have legal status now and won't need to fear prosectution, the customers because medical checkups are compulsory now and can be traced.

Second, so you would force mothers to have children but are not ready to support them with your taxes?
I don't think I can take your ideas about morality serious any more...

I definitely favor any effort to lower the number of abortions. A law would not get at the root causes of abortions, but I think it would be a start. In response to some other good questions raised, I oppose the death penalty, though I do not see an inherent hypocrisy in being anti-abortion and pro capital punishment.
It's only hypocritical if you call yourself pro-life. You seem to deserve that title though. :D

*eats plethora of internet cookies*

Also, while the ideas are well founded, I'm seeing many cases of abuse of the system we have already for having children, many more abuses than uses. I don't have any data to back me up because my opinion is based on evidence I've gathered myself. *shrug*

Yep. While the things mentioned would be great, they are subjective, prohibitively expensive in a society like the US, and easily abused (like you said).

I also take issue with the statements by other posters that it would end all abortion. Most, yes. Common sense would certainly lead us to believe that the poor partake in abortion more commonly that others due to a variety of factors. However, I have personally known people who were not poor who had abortions for various reasons.

*eats plethora of internet cookies*



Yep. While the things mentioned would be great, they are subjective, prohibitively expensive in a society like the US, and easily abused (like you said).

I also take issue with the statements by other posters that it would end all abortion. Most, yes. Common sense would certainly lead us to believe that the poor partake in abortion more commonly that others due to a variety of factors. However, I have personally known people who were not poor who had abortions for various reasons.


To set that straight, I don't think it would end all abortion.
I think that if you want to force women to have children, you are responsible for providing an environment that allows them to raise their children in a human way, not in poverty, squalor and crime. You have to create a society that won't look down on a single mother, you have to provide adequate adoption processes, and you have to provide free contraception.
Before that, you can't start to demand anything.

Lanquassia asked me about a case where a mother's life is threatened by the pregnancy. That's an exception I would make, and I'll explain why for two reasons. First, I still think it's wrong. The child is being, for all intents, executed, having done nothing wrong. Now this is done, however, for a good reason, that being the saving of a human life. (The mother's). I do not believe that the ends justify the means. If something is intrinsically evil, then it is wrong, even if you're doing it for a good reason. HOWEVER, I would not try an pass into law that the ends do not justify the means, and would therefore, if I had my way, except cases where the mother is in SERIOUS DANGER OF DEATH as judged by a competent doctor familiar with the mother's health. Even so, one could argue that the mother may not die if she gives birth, while the baby will die if an abortion is performed. I do not argue that, however.

The second reason is rather personal. I'm married, and I have a 2 year old daughter. If my wife's life had been threatened in pregnancy, I would have assented to saving her by sacrificing my daughter. I would have mourned, and probably become depressed, but I don't think I could live without my wife. I don't think anyone should be told that they or their wife must die because I don't think the ends justify the means.

Cabra West asked me two questions.

First, what's wrong with legal prostitution? A number of countries legalised it, and it's been helping both the prostitutes and the customers. The prostitutes because they have legal status now and won't need to fear prosectution, the customers because medical checkups are compulsory now and can be traced.

Second, so you would force mothers to have children but are not ready to support them with your taxes?
I don't think I can take your ideas about morality serious any more...


The first, I'll kind of pass on, because it was really just an example. My reasons for opposing protitution are the same as my reasons for opposing birth control: they are matters of faith. Consequently, I'd much rather have legal prostitution than legal abortion.

The second question, I answer no. I am more than willing to support programs for needy mothers and children with tax money. What I said was that I would not like my tax money to go to something I am morally opposed to, namely: birth control. Furthermore, I put a little winking smiley after my statement about cheating on taxes, to indicate that the statement was tongue in cheek, and not some sort of solemn moral pronouncement.

The second question, I answer no. I am more than willing to support programs for needy mothers and children with tax money. What I said was that I would not like my tax money to go to something I am morally opposed to, namely: birth control. Furthermore, I put a little winking smiley after my statement about cheating on taxes, to indicate that the statement was tongue in cheek, and not some sort of solemn moral pronouncement.

So you are trying to impose your own moral values on others? You are not willing to help financing the prevention of unwanted pregnancies and you oppose their termination?

Let them all get pregnant and let's wait and see how many billions of humans the planet can take???

Laerod, well of course legal abortions prevent women from getting an illegal abortion. Does that mean that everything that is illegal should be legalized so that it can be done in the safest possible manner? Prostitution, drugs, incest, even murder? ("Now remember, always slit the throat away from yourself, so that there is less risk that you'll cut a finger or god-forbid a wrist!") I know, I know...I'm engaging in hyperbole, among other things. It is a tricky question, "Is there anything more important than human life?" Certainly, there are times when it seems that way. But if we make other options available to mothers in desperate positions, we can offset the impact of an unwanted pregnancy. (Don't get me started though on unwanted pregnancies...I'll just sound callous.)
Well, I don't offer legalizing everything. My personal opinion is that the Netherlands deal really well with some of the issues you list, though. Prostitution needs to be legal for the reason that it always has and always will be around (Saddam managed to reduce it by rounding up all prostitutes he found one night and chopping their heads off for public display...). As you might know, it's legal in the Netherlands. What I discovered when I was there was that a religous group stood in front of the entrances to the red light district waving red flags. They've been doing it for quite some time, showing that they disapprove of it but not intervening. The fact that they've been doing this has called a lot of problems to attention and made the job of prostitution much safer. In Germany, prostitution is legal too. It has only recently been made so, and it entitles prostitutes to health care and pension benefits, reducing the risk that they will be stuck with aids in a poor house some day.

Incidentally, I don't really think of the mother's as murderers. It might be a contradiction in my logic, but I can't really feel anything but pity for most of them. They're in a tough situation, with no apparant way out, and often feel forced into it. The doctors, on the other hand, are murderers. I don't see how you can get a medical degree, know everything you know about anatomy and medicine and human physiology, and then think of an abortion as being square with the "first do no harm" principle.
Sometimes, the mother's life is endangered because of the birth. In Germany, there's no time limit regarding such cases. I also oppose forcing a raped woman to give birth to a child from that act. In such a case, her emotional well being is deeply in danger.

Murkiness, I agree with your solution 75%. I don't support birth control, and would not want my tax dollars going to fund it or educate my children about it. But my reasons for this are primarily religious, so I wouldn't try to make public policy out of it. I'd just cheat on my taxes. ;)
At least you've got morals to stick by. I oppose not educating for birth control, or reducing sex ed in general. That's mainly because of STDs though. Being opposed to using condoms becauset they prevent life from occuring is one thing, but preventing AIDS is quite another. Besides, I think using condoms is better than abortion in the first place. ;)

Let them all get pregnant and let's wait and see how many billions of humans the planet can take???

I'm not getting anyone pregnant, friend. There is such a thing as consequenses for your actions. Sex, believe it or not, is about reproduction. Therefore, if you have sex, there is the chance that you will reproduce.

Lanquassia asked me about a case where a mother's life is threatened by the pregnancy. That's an exception I would make, and I'll explain why for two reasons. First, I still think it's wrong. The child is being, for all intents, executed, having done nothing wrong. Now this is done, however, for a good reason, that being the saving of a human life. (The mother's). I do not believe that the ends justify the means. If something is intrinsically evil, then it is wrong, even if you're doing it for a good reason. HOWEVER, I would not try an pass into law that the ends do not justify the means, and would therefore, if I had my way, except cases where the mother is in SERIOUS DANGER OF DEATH as judged by a competent doctor familiar with the mother's health. Even so, one could argue that the mother may not die if she gives birth, while the baby will die if an abortion is performed. I do not argue that, however.

The second reason is rather personal. I'm married, and I have a 2 year old daughter. If my wife's life had been threatened in pregnancy, I would have assented to saving her by sacrificing my daughter. I would have mourned, and probably become depressed, but I don't think I could live without my wife. I don't think anyone should be told that they or their wife must die because I don't think the ends justify the means.

Cabra West asked me two questions.



The first, I'll kind of pass on, because it was really just an example. My reasons for opposing protitution are the same as my reasons for opposing birth control: they are matters of faith. Consequently, I'd much rather have legal prostitution than legal abortion.

The second question, I answer no. I am more than willing to support programs for needy mothers and children with tax money. What I said was that I would not like my tax money to go to something I am morally opposed to, namely: birth control. Furthermore, I put a little winking smiley after my statement about cheating on taxes, to indicate that the statement was tongue in cheek, and not some sort of solemn moral pronouncement.


My god, someone who is Christian and SANE!

I've running into those recently. Mmm.

I don't like the idea of abortion. I think its stupid and it is killing someone that, who kows, could have been the Messiah that Judaism are waiting for, or the world leader that will finally end war.

Most likely not, I know. But still, what ifs haunt me.

But at the same time, I repusled by the standard Anti-Abortion stance to the point that I want to start protesting THEM, and want to take the other side just to spite them.

I'm against second or third trimester abortions, period, and I think that first trimester abortions should be cut down alot.

The problem lies with that the women may not be ready, for multiple reasons, to have a child, and while I don't want to end it before it can begin, what are we going to do with it?

...throw it into the over crowded and under funded adoption agencies?

The second question, I answer no. I am more than willing to support programs for needy mothers and children with tax money. What I said was that I would not like my tax money to go to something I am morally opposed to, namely: birth control. Furthermore, I put a little winking smiley after my statement about cheating on taxes, to indicate that the statement was tongue in cheek, and not some sort of solemn moral pronouncement.


What is wrong with family planning, contraception and birth control?
What is it in your faith that prohibits it?

Im sort-of pro-life.
I think that abortion should be legal within the first trimester only, after that it should be illigal only in cases where giving birth would kill the mother, the child, or both.
And yes, I eat meat. Mostly chicken and fish. And yes, I consider fish a meat. And I eat eggs to. And I just used and about six times in this one paragraphette...isnt that amazing?

It's a small step, but no solution for a majority. You have to be in a position to carry out the entire pregnancy, you have to give birth at home which is an incredible risk for both mother and child, you cannot seek medical attention or aftercare....
It's no alternative to abortion.

Why wouldnt you be able to get acess to a hospital?

Why wouldnt you be able to get acess to a hospital?

Because women who deposit their infants in these "babyklappen" have no way of legally putting it up for adoption. In most cases, this is a social problem of some nature. Therefore, they won't tell about their pregnancy, and they will have the baby at home, as they fear going to the hospital.
If you habe your child in a hospital, the birth will be registered, you have to identify yourself. You cannot just leave the baby anywhere afterwards without getting into a world of legal trouble.
That is also why these women won't go to any doctors or hospitals for aftercare.

What does eating meat have to do with the Pro-Life movement?

Does meat cause abortions? Was there some scientific study?

I am pro-life, and Catholic. Simultaneously. People always ask me how, since the Catholic church has gotten more and more conservative recently. Well, it's fairly simple. Don't listen to the pope. (He's wrong)
What really gets me is people joining the Republican party and voting against their own best interests and the country's best interests, just because they believe the Bible condemns abortion and gay marriage. Well, the bible condemns a lot of things. Do they think it should be illegal to wear cotton-polyester blends? Because the Bible condemns it. The Republican party, in fact, supports capital punishment. The Bible condemns that too. Who was the most famous victim of capital punishment? Jesus.

The list goes on and on. Also, all major religions support charity and helping the poor, while the Republican party does not.

Just my two cents.

<< Pro-life meat eater...have a problem with that?

What does eating meat have to do with the Pro-Life movement?

Does meat cause abortions? Was there some scientific study?

No, not really.
There was this other "Pro-life" thread around where somebody claimed that abortions are disgusting and cruel crimes against nature ... something along those lines.
The argument that followed is that humans comit worse artrocities against living, feeling, sentient creatures while raising them, slaughtering them under appaling conditions in order to finally eat them.

The Republican party, in fact, supports capital punishment. The Bible condemns that too. Who was the most famous victim of capital punishment? Jesus.
Yeah... but that actually worked out well for everyone involved.

No, not really.
There was this other "Pro-life" thread around where somebody claimed that abortions are disgusting and cruel crimes against nature ... something along those lines.
The argument that followed is that humans comit worse artrocities against living, feeling, sentient creatures while raising them, slaughtering them under appaling conditions in order to finally eat them.
Ahh. Ta.

My response to that would be, Yes, abortions are disgusting, possibly cruel depending upon the circumstance, but in no way against nature. Nature does abortions, too.

Do I eat meat? I see where this is going... nice try.

I do eat meat.

And I do not agree with abortion.

Doesn't make my a hypocrite.

The way I see it, abortion should not be an easy way out. It should only be performed as a life saving measure (in case the pregnancy endangers the health of the mother), and not as a method of birth control. You don't want to have a baby? Take better precautions... or don't have sex at all. And don't half ass it with a condom. Use birth control pills, they're more reliable.

And as for eating meat... we're omnivores, us humans. It's what we do. We eat animals. Does a lion have a hangup when it slaughters a gazelle? Does a bear think twice before swatting a salmon out of the water? Then why do we have to? Oh... right, the cruelty thing. Yes... growing food animals is a cruel thing, and sometimes it can be needlessly cruel (especially for unscrupulous types). But you know what else is cruel? Threshing an entire field of wheat or corn and starving the lifeforms dependant on that field, or a lion eating a gazelle alive. At least as humans, we can try to make the killing of an animal as quick and painless as possible.

Yeah... but that actually worked out well for everyone involved.
Wow.

Do you people honestly not have a problem with blasphemy? I'd at least be playing it safe instead of telling jokes that aren't really that funny to begin with.

No, not really.
There was this other "Pro-life" thread around where somebody claimed that abortions are disgusting and cruel crimes against nature ... something along those lines.
The argument that followed is that humans comit worse artrocities against living, feeling, sentient creatures while raising them, slaughtering them under appaling conditions in order to finally eat them.
Don't complain too much. If people hadn't eaten meat hundreds of years ago, you wouldn't be here today. If you have a problem with someone killing a SOULLESS chicken so that we'll have something to eat, then you have bigger issues my friend. Don't fall into the PETA propaganda. What about all those mice that get killed in biological labs in order to find treatments for life threatening illnesses?

What about eggs? :eek:
LOL took me about 4 seconds to realize the connection … when I did I ended up with a new lcd monitor full of mountain dew :p

Don't complain too much. If people hadn't eaten meat hundreds of years ago, you wouldn't be here today. If you have a problem with someone killing a SOULLESS chicken so that we'll have something to eat, then you have bigger issues my friend. Don't fall into the PETA propaganda. What about all those mice that get killed in biological labs in order to find treatments for life threatening illnesses?

First of, how do you know if a chicken has no soul? How do you know two cells in a human body have a soul?

Second, I for one would have been infinitely grateful if my mother had aborted me. I would have spared me that living hell of a childhood that haunts me to this day, thank you.

Wow.

Do you people honestly not have a problem with blasphemy? I'd at least be playing it safe instead of telling jokes that aren't really that funny to begin with.
Nope why should we?

Do you eat meat?

Lol, I know that the real reason of this thread has already been discussed but I had to reply to this stupid question.

Yes I eat meat, and yes I am a pro-lifer.

Wow.

Do you people honestly not have a problem with blasphemy? I'd at least be playing it safe instead of telling jokes that aren't really that funny to begin with.

Well, I was laughing about it. It's a rational and clever observation.

First of, how do you know if a chicken has no soul? How do you know two cells in a human body have a soul?

Second, I for one would have been infinitely grateful if my mother had aborted me. I would have spared me that living hell of a childhood that haunts me to this day, thank you.
Know the feeling some days …
Though they could have spared me a lot of my childhood by choosing another school besides the elementary catholic school they choose but yeah
Anyways ... lol

Wow.

Do you people honestly not have a problem with blasphemy? I'd at least be playing it safe instead of telling jokes that aren't really that funny to begin with.
It's only blasphemy if you're a Christian.

Second, I for one would have been infinitely grateful if my mother had aborted me. I would have spared me that living hell of a childhood that haunts me to this day, thank you.
::sadface::

(there's no sadface icon)

First of, how do you know if a chicken has no soul? How do you know two cells in a human body have a soul?

Second, I for one would have been infinitely grateful if my mother had aborted me. I would have spared me that living hell of a childhood that haunts me to this day, thank you.
I believe that man was placed on earth as a superior to animals, but if you want to bring us down to their level, then so be it. Two cells in a human body is nowhere near an abortion.

I'm sorry to hear that you had such a bad childhood, but abortion is not the answer. You have had or will have a positive impact on someone's life at sometime.

Do you eat meat?

i'm pro-choice, but only because i think the government could get more years of work out of a newborn then somoene halfway through their life.
i'm also anti-vegitarian, because plants are just as equal as the animals, killing them is discriminatory, as humans are omnivores, so eat them both. however, i'm against large farm buisinesses and such, the animals are mistreated and all of the animals are killed. in the wild, only the ones that would survive do, and the weak ones don't, it's evolution. therefore, i'm for hunting fishing and gathering(with some types of farming, but not specifically farming) for all the food. i recently got two turkies, want some meat?
and as is always added the these arguements, so i'll include it, i'm pro-death penelty, as if they're going to be a problem, get rid of them.

The idea about safe and legal abortions is that it prevents women from getting it done illegally, which tends to be out of the way and without proper treatment. That, in my opinion, is more likely to cause the death or permanent damage to "the patient".
It is difficult for me to advocate the ending of human life, but I feel that since the human isn't fully developed yet, an abortion seems an "acceptable" answer. It's a personal judgement because I feel reasons for an abortion can outweigh the necessity to give birth to that child.
I doubt any of your arguments will be able to convince me otherwise. I don't like abortion, but I feel it can be a necessity. I've made that compromise with myself and I'm not really interested in abandoning it. Technically, if you set up a system whereby people could kill those they had vendettas against with the aid of the state, murders would be safe and legal. I mean, murder goes on a hell of a lot in the US, but it's still illegal. (Note, I don't live in the US, so kindly don't assign me any kind of stereotype.)

It's true that you can't just ban abortion full-stop and expect that to work on its own, though. Something which the far-rightists forget.

BINGO! I'm pro-life and I eat meat.

I believe that man was placed on earth as a superior to animals, but if you want to bring us down to their level, then so be it. Two cells in a human body is nowhere near an abortion.

I'm sorry to hear that you had such a bad childhood, but abortion is not the answer. You have had or will have a positive impact on someone's life at sometime.

In what way would humans be superior to animals?
And if it's not two cells, how many cells does it take? 4? 100? When the own heart starts beating? When the brain functions can be measured?

Oh, trust me, abortion would have been the answer. It would have saved me abuse, sexual molestation by my father, it would have saved my parents marriage, and it would have saved me several severe depressions and two suicide attempts. I really don't care if THAT has any positive influence on somebody else...

Ooh, wish I had that problem... I'm barely scratching ideal weight from the bottom end. Maybe I should eat more fast food... Me too.


On the other hand, I'm pro-choice and eat enough red meat to keep my brain growing, so the original topic isn't really aimed at me to answer. ^_^

Technically, if you set up a system whereby people could kill those they had vendettas against with the aid of the state, murders would be safe and legal. I mean, murder goes on a hell of a lot in the US, but it's still illegal. (Note, I don't live in the US, so kindly don't assign me any kind of stereotype.)


Well, in the US, that system already exists. It's called capital punishment.
If you have a vendetta with somebody because he killed your uncle, you take it to the courts and they will then kill him for you.

In what way would humans be superior to animals?
And if it's not two cells, how many cells does it take? 4? 100? When the own heart starts beating? When the brain functions can be measured?

Oh, trust me, abortion would have been the answer. It would have saved me abuse, sexual molestation by my father, it would have saved my parents marriage, and it would have saved me several severe depressions and two suicide attempts. I really don't care if THAT has any positive influence on somebody else...
Wow your life sounds a lot like mine (take out marriage … take out father (well parental father) and replace it with priest and ya got a lot of my life story)

Though I am past the point of wishing to have not existed (not too far beyond though) I am to easygoing to keep that up for ever

Anyways getting off topic

4. Teach birth control in schools and make it accessible and affordable to everyone

Not gonna happen. That is the ONE of the things that the Pro-Choice side has been trying to do for years. Guess who fires it down? Reasoning that if teenager know about sex, they'll do it. Abstinence Only BS is exactly that, BS.

If the Pro-Life side HONESTLY wanted the rates of abortion to go down, they would be pushing REAL sex education and affordable BC. Viagra is covered almost automatically by rhe vast majority of health insurance in the US. BD isn't. Must be more important for a male to get a woodie than preventing pregnancies.

Instead, what shows up loud and clear is a desire to PUNISH females for daring to engage in unauthorized sex. There are Pro-lifers that do not fall into this thinking, but in the on-line communities that I have been involved with, it is rather prevalent - and it is the rare PLer who doesn't eventually show his true colors of "'she had sex, she has GOT TO PAY for it" and "have that baby as punishment"

Not gonna happen. That is the ONE of the things that the Pro-Choice side has been trying to do for years. Guess who fires it down? Reasoning that if teenager know about sex, they'll do it. Abstinence Only BS is exactly that, BS.

If the Pro-Life side HONESTLY wanted the rates of abortion to go down, they would be pushing REAL sex education and affordable BC. Viagra is covered almost automatically by rhe vast majority of health insurance in the US. BD isn't. Must be more important for a male to get a woodie than preventing pregnancies.

Instead, what shows up loud and clear is a desire to PUNISH females for daring to engage in unauthorized sex. There are Pro-lifers that do not fall into this thinking, but in the on-line communities that I have been involved with, it is rather prevalent - and it is the rare PLer who doesn't eventually show his true colors of "'she had sex, she has GOT TO PAY for it" and "have that baby as punishment"


It is disheartening to see is it not … you would figure they would be doing all they can to keep people healthy and safe.

Question. (Answer.)

What about if having the baby will threaten the mother's life? As in, if she contines on with the pregnancy, she'll die.


typical response? Would be something along the lines of ....

'She should not have had sex, therefore if she dies, it is her own damn fault."

PS. I am pro-choice. this is NOT the posistion that I take. Pregnancy can be very risky. It is a risk that ONLY the pregnant woman knows if she is willing and/or able to make. For someone to blithly do the ' only nine months routine' is getting more and more grating. If it is ONLY a mere nine months, how come post-mortems can tell rather easily, the difference between a woman who has had borne a child and one who never has? hmmmm.

The way I see it, abortion should not be an easy way out. It should only be performed as a life saving measure (in case the pregnancy endangers the health of the mother), and not as a method of birth control. You don't want to have a baby? Take better precautions... or don't have sex at all. And don't half ass it with a condom. Use birth control pills, they're more reliable.

Precautions doesn't help all the time.
I used both and became pregnant. I was 15 years old. I made an abortion.
I used another contraceptive, became pregnant again. It was this winter. I made my second.
Both times was "safe" periods.
Now I try yet another one hoping to avoid this dangerous operation.
But I will do it again if I do become pregnant.
No child should have to have me as a mother as I am now.

In a few years we will see.

In my opinion, life begins at conception, thefor obortion is killing a person. (After all, all of the genetic code that makes them up, all their genes, is made up at that point)
However, animals are NOT human, they are non-sentient beings that where created to be eaten (or some other job, like pigs, which is too eat trash) so yes, I do eat meat.

Most birth control CAUSES abortion...so saying that birth control should be used instead is kind of pointless.

And "when the life of the mother is at risk" is something that with todays medical technology almost never happens. I have only ever heard of this happening once. And that was a number of years ago. Then you have to think "Do I kill my child so I can live, or die so my child can live." Tricky question. (No sarcasm intended)

Also, a high number of women who get abortions also suffer from breast cancer and depression later in life. A lot of them also regret it later.

And I do eat meat. Animals are for the use of mankind...although the American Indians had it a little more right with the "take only what you need" stuff...o well. And meat is an important source of protein. I knew some one that did not eat meat. But then they got really sick from a lack of protein. So now they eat meat again. You could just eat a lot of nuts, but who wants to do that?

Do you eat meat?
What kind of question is that? In order to survive, something, be it meat or plants (which ARE living entities) must die.

Poverty will need to end before abortion (legal or otherwise) ends. So long as women are financially unable to raise their babies without dwelling in the squalor of poverty women will opt to end their pregnancies. If the government wants to stop abortion it should:
1. Make all prenatal care free
2. Use tax cuts or a subsidy to acknowledge that staying home raising a child is work. ( I believe Norway has this policy already)
3. Subsidize the minimum wage so that when women are ready to return to work they can live outside of poverty so long as they are working
4. Teach birth control in schools and make it accessible and affordable to everyone


Ummm...poverty stricken people aren't the only ones who have abortion.


Also if you are at the poverty level the pre-natal care is free. So is post natal care.

Birth Control is taught in schools and it is affordable to everyone although not easily accessible. Many teenage girls won't go get birth control, even though the exam and birth control are both free, due to the intrusiveness of the physical exam.

Also, a high number of women who get abortions also suffer from breast cancer and depression later in life. A lot of them also regret it later.

BREAST CANCER IS NOT CAUSED BY ABORTIONS.

I know, shouting, but... how often must that lie be exposed before it sinks in. Breast cancer is NOT a causel of abortions.

Depression? yes, some women do have regrets, hell, I'll even go so far as to say that some go into a full fledged depression that they will never recover from because they had an abortion. Some don't. *yet you never hear the PFL'ers admit that some women DO NOT REGRET getting an abortion. BUT AGAIN, some women also have PPD. Are we too forbid pregnancy because it hits some women harder?

And, having your ilk scream "MURDERER, FOUL MURDERER" is supposed to help, how??? Hells bells, the numbers of abortions would be cut in half if the Pro-Fetal lifers weren't flipping hypocrites. The abortion that they need because their daughter got preggo* by the wrong boy, or that right now is just not a good time to pop out a baby is the only just one, but anyone else, 'its a convience... 'selfish to abort'. snort. * maddening and saddening about the issue is that IF there had been REAL sex eduaction, maybe the girl would have known enough NOT to get pregnant in the first place.

Also,

How Dare you assume what level of risk acceptable TO YOU for another person to continue a pregnancy. Don't dare spot off the 'do the adoption route instead.' Adoption IS a good thing* Surprised to hear an 'selfish pro-choicer say that, eh?, yet making unwillingly pregnant females be brood mares, says something about the PFL side, and it isn't a nice thing.

Completely Healthy, correct race, correct gender INFANTS are rather fast to get adopted. Children over the infant stage, racially mixed, those with serious medical, emotional and/or physical issues, uhm, if "LIFE IS SOO PRECIOUS and JUST ADOPT, why are ANY ever languising in either foster care or in orphanages.... ? Its easier to scream 'don't murder your precious widdle babee', instead of actually making sure that the 'widdle babee',once born, actually has a decent shot at a good life. oh, I forgot, once born, a bag of diapers (if that much) and then off to go rescue the next widdle fetus in line....

Newsflash. The ProFetalLifers were NOT around pre Roe vs Wade. THERE were abortions being LEGALLY carried out in those days. (if rich enough, or well connected, it is amazing what was shoved under the table..")

Ummm...poverty stricken people aren't the only ones who have abortion.

true, but since when do facts get in the way of the PFLers?

Also if you are at the poverty level the pre-natal care is free. So is post natal care.

Once, maybe true. That type of care is a 'convience' and tends to be early to go under budget knifes.

Birth Control is taught in schools and it is affordable to everyone although not easily accessible.

BWA HA HA... No, the Abstincence Only BS does NOT teach birth control They PREACH 'have no sex', not 'ok, no sex is PREFERRED, because of A, B, and C... but if you just can't wait for sex, this, this and this are preventatives, this and this is why you use condoms. No, just have them do a 'virgin card', don't teach them a dang thing about sexuality. They won't have sex if they aren't 'taught' about it... May explain why the states that are so strongly pushing the Abstinence Only BS have the highest teen pregnancy rates.

Many teenage girls won't go get birth control, even though the exam and birth control are both free, due to the intrusiveness of the physical exam.

I take it you are unaware of the trend of pharmacists who REFUSE to sell BC because it violates their conciseness.(sp) Teens are embarrassed enough about getting condoms, how many do you know who have enough chutzpah to deal with this on top it?

Yes... I really don't see what eating meat has to do with being pro-life, but ok.