NationStates Jolt Archive

One of the central pro-choice arguments I have heard before is that

"The fetus's who had been aborted if they had been born would have had an extremely bad quality of life in most cases since abortion is often nessecaitated by poverty etc. So they would have such a bad quality of life that they would wish they had not been born"

However that then implies that there exists a quality of life, below which life is not worth having. To this way, by supporting this argument the pro-choice lobby would be supporting certian motives for suicide being valid (IE that it is ok to kill youself if your life gets X bad) because what they are saying is that you should not have to be alive at all if life gets a certian low level of quality of life

So my questions to the pro-choice lobby are

1. Do you believe this? (Its just that if you don't that argument does fall down)

2. Just how poor does quality of life have to be for you to be justified in killing yourself?

To get the answer to this question, perhaps you need to see the film Dasein Ohne Leben.

It answers your questions quite well.

I'm in favour of both abortion and euthanasia, so no conflicts for me.

As for question 2, terminal lung cancer would probably have me reaching for the consent forms.

Abortion is understandable in cases where having the child won't work out, ie a teenage parenthood or a handicapped mother. Killing one's self, however, does not because it shows cowardice.

What is inherently wrong with euthanasia of humans?

It's sad when certain kinds of people are labeled as not being worthy of life. I wonder how long it'll be before the government or the powers that be determine wether or not a life is worth having, instead of just the woman deciding now.

It's not natural and god doesn't like it.

http://www.uffl.org/vol%207/jlamonica7.pdf
http://baywood.metapress.com/index/K68E762E3U3EQRKX.pdf

It's sad when certain kinds of people are labeled as not being worthy of life. I wonder how long it'll be before the government or the powers that be determine wether or not a life is worth having, instead of just the woman deciding now.
Like in 1934?

http://www.uffl.org/vol%207/jlamonica7.pdf
http://baywood.metapress.com/index/K68E762E3U3EQRKX.pdf


Good call, thanks for the post.

One of the central pro-choice arguments I have heard before is that

"The fetus's who had been aborted if they had been born would have had an extremely bad quality of life in most cases since abortion is often nessecaitated by poverty etc. So they would have such a bad quality of life that they would wish they had not been born"

However that then implies that there exists a quality of life, below which life is not worth having. To this way, by supporting this argument the pro-choice lobby would be supporting certian motives for suicide being valid (IE that it is ok to kill youself if your life gets X bad) because what they are saying is that you should not have to be alive at all if life gets a certian low level of quality of life

So my questions to the pro-choice lobby are

1. Do you believe this? (Its just that if you don't that argument does fall down)

2. Just how poor does quality of life have to be for you to be justified in killing yourself?
People commit suicide everyday now, it's not a question of whether it is right.

People commit suicide everyday now, it's not a question of whether itis right.

How so? Slavery has happened every day since God knows when.... is there no question to its morality?

Abortion is understandable in cases where having the child won't work out, ie a teenage parenthood or a handicapped mother. Killing one's self, however, does not because it shows cowardice.
it disturbs me that you speak of having a child like one might of dinner plans, "oh, it didn't work out to go to the pizza place"

"The fetus's who had been aborted if they had been born would have had an extremely bad quality of life in most cases since abortion is often nessecaitated by poverty etc. So they would have such a bad quality of life that they would wish they had not been born"

Do note that the *official* reasoning is that at the time most abortions take place there is no individual yet. Which means that one is not killing an individual with a miserable life, but preventing the actual existence of such a person. There is a huge difference between looking from the point of view of a fetus which has not yet developed anything which it can be said to lose when it dies, or from that of an actual person.

That being said, I do agree with your point 1. I consider point 2 to be completely up to the indivual involved. If they think the loss of their toenail merits suicide - and keep convinced of that for a decent amount of time - let them die. Their life, their choice.
For me personally there are some circumstances detailed in my living will which are private.

it disturbs me that you speak of having a child like one might of dinner plans, "oh, it didn't work out to go to the pizza place"
I don't like to talk about that kind of stuff directly. Euphemisms work for me. Would you rather me say, "Childbirth for them could be the apocalypse, bringing their ruin and shame onto themselves, causing their own damnation, doom, and death?"

1. Do you believe this? (Its just that if you don't that argument does fall down)

2. Just how poor does quality of life have to be for you to be justified in killing yourself?

1. To a certain extent. If a child is born in a world where abortion is outlawed, and to a mother who didn't really want it in the first place, I would imagine there would be some instances where life would be very unpleasent. Espeically since adoption-places would be increasing rapidly in the numbers :\

2. There is no justifiing it. It's your own choice, no one else could possibly understand what you're going through and how well you deal with stress and pain. You're not really physically harming anyone but yourself, so it really shouldn't be anyone's decision but your own (unless you would trust someone else with that decision)

Abortion is understandable in cases where having the child won't work out, ie a teenage parenthood or a handicapped mother. Killing one's self, however, does not because it shows cowardice.


What's inherently wrong with cowadice, and is wanting to bring and end to your own pain and suffering really a sign of cowadice or common sense?

I have heard that suicide is the easy way out, hah thats all I shall say on that, really?

What's inherently wrong with cowadice, and is wanting to bring and end to your own pain and suffering really a sign of cowadice or common sense?

I have heard that suicide is the easy way out, hah thats all I shall say on that, really?
That's my belief, I'll stand by it. Suicide doesn't solve the problem, it merely brings an end to it. No learning from it, and learning is the primary purpose of all human life.

One of the central pro-choice arguments I have heard before is that

"The fetus's who had been aborted if they had been born would have had an extremely bad quality of life in most cases since abortion is often nessecaitated by poverty etc. So they would have such a bad quality of life that they would wish they had not been born"

However that then implies that there exists a quality of life, below which life is not worth having. To this way, by supporting this argument the pro-choice lobby would be supporting certian motives for suicide being valid (IE that it is ok to kill youself if your life gets X bad) because what they are saying is that you should not have to be alive at all if life gets a certian low level of quality of life

So my questions to the pro-choice lobby are

1. Do you believe this? (Its just that if you don't that argument does fall down)

2. Just how poor does quality of life have to be for you to be justified in killing yourself?


No I can't agree with the first point. How do we know what may have been in the future for that child if it was born? We don't, we can't so this argument is based on supposition.

It may be instead that the fetus was destend to be the next king of the world, is that then a valid argument in favour of abortion?

The choice to live or not to live, unless taken away by others rest soley on the shoulders of the individual. A right to live should also include a right to die, if you so choose to.

If you agree that every human has inate rights to live, or to live how they will, then to deny the right to choose the moment and method or our own deaths does seem a bit strange, either we have full rights and mastery over our selfs, or we do not.

That's my belief, I'll stand by it. Suicide doesn't solve the problem, it merely brings an end to it. No learning from it, and learning is the primary purpose of all human life.

According to YOU, that i the purpose of all human life.

However - you are not EVERY human life - so you don't get to speak for them.

If your problem is your life, and you don't want it any more - why SHOULD anyone else have the right to stop you from ending it?

What do you own, if not your OWN self?

(As a note - I am not in favour of suicide, and would never do it (except euthanasia in case of terminal sickness)... but that's just because I don't 'work that way'. But - I do not have a right to comment on how valid that choice is for another).

it disturbs me that you speak of having a child like one might of dinner plans, "oh, it didn't work out to go to the pizza place"
Nothing personal, but it disturbs me that you think the average woman getting an abortion is so callous about the process. The studies on the subject don't bear that out, and the women I know who've had them don't act that way. An abortion is a major deal--it's outpatient surgery at the very least, and can be more serious than that. It's not at all like deciding for Thai instead of Pizza.

That's my belief, I'll stand by it. Suicide doesn't solve the problem, it merely brings an end to it. No learning from it, and learning is the primary purpose of all human life.


I have no problems with your choice, and of course it is your life, live it how you will. But is learning really the primary purpose of human life? I mean can you prove that? or is this just what you think, what your lifes experiances have lead you to belive?

Hmm
Personally i would never ever ever abort a child.
Although if people choose to do so, its up to them. HOWEVER its my opinion they should undergo a massive amount of education in the matter and the "Standard of living" thing sucks ass, unless physically or mentally handicapped. Economically handicapped means nothing, adoption people!

According to YOU, that i the purpose of all human life.

However - you are not EVERY human life - so you don't get to speak for them.

If your problem is your life, and you don't want it any more - why SHOULD anyone else have the right to stop you from ending it?

What do you own, if not your OWN self?

(As a note - I am not in favour of suicide, and would never do it (except euthanasia in case of terminal sickness)... but that's just because I don't 'work that way'. But - I do not have a right to comment on how valid that choice is for another).
I am lenient as far as others go. If someone feels that life is that horrible, that's their choice. These are the principles that guide my life, my judgments, and advice.

People commit suicide everyday now, it's not a question of whether it is right.

Indeed, but what the pro-life lobby are arguing (By saying that there is a quality of life that is not worth living) is that there are cases where sucicide is a good thing to do.

One of the central pro-choice arguments I have heard before is that

"The fetus's who had been aborted if they had been born would have had an extremely bad quality of life in most cases since abortion is often nessecaitated by poverty etc. So they would have such a bad quality of life that they would wish they had not been born"

However that then implies that there exists a quality of life, below which life is not worth having. To this way, by supporting this argument the pro-choice lobby would be supporting certian motives for suicide being valid (IE that it is ok to kill youself if your life gets X bad) because what they are saying is that you should not have to be alive at all if life gets a certian low level of quality of life

So my questions to the pro-choice lobby are

1. Do you believe this? (Its just that if you don't that argument does fall down)

2. Just how poor does quality of life have to be for you to be justified in killing yourself?

That IS one of the arguments - but not the ONLY one... so, even if one disagrees on the dichotomy you suggest - that doesn't deflate the 'pro-choice' platform.

The matter of quality-of-life argument is valid - if you cannot afford to put food on the table for 6 mouths, then you have the choice of not ACQUIRING the sixth mouth, or of letting ONE of the six starve.

Some would argue that the RESPONSIBLE thing to do - is to avoid the pregnancy... and, if one cannot avoid the pregnancy (rape, incest, marital-rape... or just coming from a background that says the woman MUST submit to her husband) - then one can, at least, avoid the birth.

If one weighs the good and bad in each situation, the 10 week conceptus feels no pain, and will not suffer if it is terminated. The 10 week-old-baby feels pain and WILL suffer, if you let it starve.

The 'kind' thing to do, is to not have the baby.

1. Do you believe this? (Its just that if you don't that argument does fall down)
If someone commits suicide, whatever, it's their choice.
2. Just how poor does quality of life have to be for you to be justified in killing yourself?
Depends on mental state; stress level; breaking point.. etc.. I geuss..

Indeed, but what the pro-life lobby are arguing (By saying that there is a quality of life that is not worth living) is that there are cases where sucicide is a good thing to do.

Fascinating deduction. A link to a source arguing this, please?

it disturbs me that you speak of having a child like one might of dinner plans, "oh, it didn't work out to go to the pizza place"

It disturbs me that there have been laws that disallowed women from choosing what to do with the content of their own uteri.

It disturbs me that I live in a part of the country that frowns on birthcontrol, chooses NOT to offer sex-education, and trains women to be subservient to men.

It disturbs me that there have been laws that disallowed women from choosing what to do with the content of their own uteri.

It disturbs me that I live in a part of the country that frowns on birthcontrol, chooses NOT to offer sex-education, and trains women to be subservient to men.

Then move to Virginia.

It disturbs me that there have been laws that disallowed women from choosing what to do with the content of their own uteri.

It disturbs me that I live in a part of the country that frowns on birthcontrol, chooses NOT to offer sex-education, and trains women to be subservient to men.
Could be worse--you could live in Ecuador, where the law is that abortion is only legal in cases of rape and where the mother is insane or mentally retarded. And to add insult to injury, if a woman miscarries, she can be forced to submit to a pelvic examination by a government obstetrician who will look inside her for signs of an abortion.

I believe that the child, born or not, should be given a chance. I think it's just wrong to kill a baby before it's even born, I'm not saying it's okay afterword. It seems like such a ruthless thing to do. Pull a baby out of it's mother and kill it. Instead of abortion, the women could always give it up to adoption, or, as a friend of mine suggested, the church. Now I'm not religous at all but at least they can teach it decent enough values.

Another friend of mine said that, "If a woman is raped, why should we make her go throught he trauma of giving birth after the trauma of rape." To which I said, "We'll a woman can get over the rape, there's a million and one organizations out there to help her to no end. But the baby can't get over being dead."

Then there's that standard of living thing, if they want to abort the baby because they can't take care of it, we'll again there not thinking of giving it up for adoption.

One thing that I heard is that adoption might make things worse for the kid when they find out about it and ask the real parent why they did it. That might be bad, but is killing the baby better then a bump in the road like that?

Then there's the whole, "it's the mother body, she can do what she wants." Yes, it is the mother body, and she can do what she wants. But, were not talking about the mother, it's the baby who's about to die, the mother just said for it to be done.

Someone here said that the parents take the abortion very seriously. FOr the most part yes, but I have seen people(My own sister) who was so calm about it too the point I think she was making fun of it. "Yeah yeah I don't wan tto hav a kid so I'm just going to abort it before it becomes a problem." Now, I was nearly aborted, and so was my sister. To hear her say that disgust me. I knew she was a selfish bitch but I never knew she could sink so low that she would think so little of what was supposed to be her own child. In case your wondering, she did abort it.

We'll, I guess thats my whole view on this. I just like the idea of adoption more then abortion only because I think the child deserves a chance at life, it might be a bad chance with abortion, but a bad chance is better then no chance at all.

Abortion is understandable in cases where having the child won't work out, ie a teenage parenthood or a handicapped mother. Killing one's self, however, does not because it shows cowardice.

whats wrong with that? I am pro choice and support euthenasia. I do not support abortians but would not deny others the choice, but euthenasia poses no problem for me. There are many situations which justify suicide, but to me the quality of life arguement does not work for abortion. people have abortions for themselves, not for the unborn child. not that I wouldnt have one, but it would be for my own benefit.

One of the central pro-choice arguments I have heard before is that

"The fetus's who had been aborted if they had been born would have had an extremely bad quality of life in most cases since abortion is often nessecaitated by poverty etc. So they would have such a bad quality of life that they would wish they had not been born"

That's a "central pro-choice argument"???

Strangely enough, the only place I've ever seen your little strawman is right here in this thread, where you wrote it.

Meanwhile, I do think that, should a sane person with a terminal illness decide to end things on their own terms, they should certainly have that right. I doubt that it is a choice I would make for myself, but I wouldn't fight a loved one who made it.

Nothing personal, but it disturbs me that you think the average woman getting an abortion is so callous about the process. The studies on the subject don't bear that out, and the women I know who've had them don't act that way. An abortion is a major deal--it's outpatient surgery at the very least, and can be more serious than that. It's not at all like deciding for Thai instead of Pizza.
you assume too much, I was commenting on their specific comment, not assuming anything about the "average woman getting an abortion"

1. Do you believe this? (Its just that if you don't that argument does fall down)
I am Pro-Choice, and no, I don't believe that is a good argument. My reason is that the future is unknowable, and we should not make such important judgements today based on what 'might be' down the line.

you assume too much, I was commenting on their specific comment, not assuming anything about the "average woman getting an abortion"
My apologies, then. Without saying anything more about your personal beliefs, then, let me just say that the attitude I described is fairly common among the more active anti-choice crowd, and it's easily found on their websites.

I dont know what kind of "abortion lobby" you "hear" things from, but this isnt the strongest argument for abortion rights. It isnt even a compelling one.

You are obligated by integrity to engage your opponent's strongest argument, &c.

Then move to Virginia.

It's a possible. It's on the list. For now - I'm stuck in the arse-end of Georgia.

Re: Quality of Life

That might be a commonly used argument, but it's not one I would use.

(thought I do endorse the right to suicide, and frankly, it should be unconditional.)

The fundamental point is that personhood resides in personality. If brain death is the end of life, brain startup is the beginning. So abortions before there is a differentiated brain _cannot_ be a crime.

Even after there is one, I would argue that there can be no possible "personality" given the womb environment and that abortion even after there is a brain but before there is anything meaningful in it is not a crime either.

I will freely admit this is not an argument most people would like, because the _main_ defense is "it's not a person". However, Americans have shown by their opinoin polls that the majority of people think fetuses are person-like enough to provoke serious aversion to destroying them.

So saying "yes, it's killing, but you're not killing a person" won't sit easy with them.

Myself, I believe in death when necessary. Euthanasia, suicide, the death penalty (in the very very rare cases of absolutely incontrovertable evidence, of which there are maybe 1 in 10 if that) and abortion. It is consistent. Most people don't like being consistent though, you'll find.

I believe that the child, born or not, should be given a chance. I think it's just wrong to kill a baby before it's even born,


Appeal to emotion. Abortions are usually carried out while the foetus is pre-vital... no capacity to feel, no senses. Little more than a set of dividing cells. The word 'baby' is emotionally charged, and not appropriate to a bundle of cells, unless you would attach the same degree of emotion to words 'sperm' or 'egg'... or 'spleen'.

Also - if you can not verify that the bundle of cells is 'a life', you cannot 'kill' it.

I'm not saying it's okay afterword. It seems like such a ruthless thing to do. Pull a baby out of it's mother and kill it. Instead of abortion, the women could always give it up to adoption, or, as a friend of mine suggested, the church. Now I'm not religous at all but at least they can teach it decent enough values.


Another set of appeals to emotion.

You ignore the fact that pregnancy is no picnic. Even one that functions perfectly, is damaging to the female body.


Another friend of mine said that, "If a woman is raped, why should we make her go throught he trauma of giving birth after the trauma of rape." To which I said, "We'll a woman can get over the rape, there's a million and one organizations out there to help her to no end. But the baby can't get over being dead."


Another set of appeals to emotion - ironic since you are so callous about the emotions of a raped female. I've known a number of rape victims. None of them EVER 'get over' it.

They may learn to move on, they may learn to adjust. But they never 'get over' it.


Then there's that standard of living thing, if they want to abort the baby because they can't take care of it, we'll again there not thinking of giving it up for adoption.


And again - you ignore the biology of pregnancy. If a woman is carrying a baby she will not be able to afford to feed, clothe, or get medical care for... does it not occur to you she might have the SAME problems feeding, clothing and medically providing for herself?

Would you really wish a 4-week-foetus another 8 months of poor nutrition, health-risk, and physical-hardship-by-proxy?


One thing that I heard is that adoption might make things worse for the kid when they find out about it and ask the real parent why they did it. That might be bad, but is killing the baby better then a bump in the road like that?


Another appeal to emotion. A foetus that is aborted will never suffer... neither physically nor emotionally. It will never KNOW it was aborted.

Thus - psychologically, it is 'kinder' to abort than to put up for adoption.


Then there's the whole, "it's the mother body, she can do what she wants." Yes, it is the mother body, and she can do what she wants. But, were not talking about the mother, it's the baby who's about to die, the mother just said for it to be done.


Again with the appeals to emotion. You cannot 'kill' something that is not 'a life'.

Against which we should weigh - who really owns a uterus?


...but a bad chance is better then no chance at all.

Try telling that to the six-month-old daughter who's mother claimed she was 'divinely inspired' to slowly saw it's arms off with a kitchen knife.

My apologies, then. Without saying anything more about your personal beliefs, then, let me just say that the attitude I described is fairly common among the more active anti-choice crowd, and it's easily found on their websites.
to be fair, I do have personal beliefs that are at odds with my pro-choice stance, I can't figure out how to combine them logically so I keep them as seperate as possible. I don't think that a fetus is a lump of cells, or that it's somehow not human, I think killing a fetus is way bad, however I don't think making abortions illegal is an intelligent solution..........

see? I even confuse myself.

to be fair, I do have personal beliefs that are at odds with my pro-choice stance, I can't figure out how to combine them logically so I keep them as seperate as possible. I don't think that a fetus is a lump of cells, or that it's somehow not human, I think killing a fetus is way bad, however I don't think making abortions illegal is an intelligent solution..........

see? I even confuse myself.


Think of it this way:

A healthy person - ie, a person who has chosen a lway of living causing him to be healthy - cannot be compelled by the government to donate an organ so that another person can live.

In the same way, a woman cannot be compelled to give her body over to a fetus so that it - even if it is somehow a person - can live.

It's a possible. It's on the list. For now - I'm stuck in the arse-end of Georgia.
You would probably enjoy Northern Virginia.

You would probably enjoy Northern Virginia.

:D Oh, MORE than likely... It's one of those... from the bottom of the pit, anywhere is up... situations. :)

Think of it this way:

A healthy person - ie, a person who has chosen a lway of living causing him to be healthy - cannot be compelled by the government to donate an organ so that another person can live.

In the same way, a woman cannot be compelled to give her body over to a fetus so that it - even if it is somehow a person - can live.
yeah, that doesn't work for me either. I am probably better off seperating the two.

1 I think abortion is wrong
2 I don't think it should be illegal.

yeah, that doesn't work for me either. I am probably better off seperating the two.

1 I think abortion is wrong
2 I don't think it should be illegal.

My sentiment exactly. Abortion is such a murky issue. You wanna have an abortion, fine. You just might have to go and have a few words with God after you die, I don't know.

yeah, that doesn't work for me either. I am probably better off seperating the two.

1 I think abortion is wrong
2 I don't think it should be illegal.


Well, is it wrong to refuse to let a dying person take an organ if it will make him live?

Well, is it wrong to refuse to let a dying person take an organ if it will make him live?
I am not going to debate this with you. ;) It's just not enough for you that I am not out on the pro-life picket line is it? you want me to denounce everything I believe to make you more comfortable with my stance.

You know most people would be happy to have an evangelical that didn't want abortion made illegal.

You are obligated by integrity to engage your opponent's strongest argument, &c.

Its an argument I have seen elsewhere, I see no reason not to engage it here. If you can think of a stronger argument then please, put it up in antother thread and we can discuss it there.

So my questions to the pro-choice lobby are

1. Do you believe this? (Its just that if you don't that argument does fall down)

2. Just how poor does quality of life have to be for you to be justified in killing yourself?

It can be absolutely perfect. Doesn't matter. If you want to kill yourself, that's your decision, and there's no reason you should be forced to "justify" i to the outside world, unless the outside world has some ownership of your body. If one has to "justify" suicide to others by proving that their life really does meet a certain objective standard of misery, one should likewise have to "justify" getting a nose job by proving that their present nose meets some objective standard of ugliness, or "justify" getting a tattoo by proving that the tattoo meets some objective standard of coolness. If I want to die, that's my right; it doesn't mean it's a good decision, or that I'd help someone else kill themselves, but, in the end, no one has the right to require me to use my body for something I don't want, whether that be living or carrying a child to term.

And that is a much more central pro-choice argument than any nonsense about doing the fetus a kindness by sparing it early. (Granted, I do think that never existing might often be better than existing in misery, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with why I support the right to have an abortion.)

yeah, that doesn't work for me either. I am probably better off seperating the two.

1 I think abortion is wrong
2 I don't think it should be illegal.

I think an awful lot of people feel that way, really.

Its an argument I have seen elsewhere, I see no reason not to engage it here. If you can think of a stronger argument then please, put it up in antother thread and we can discuss it there.


I'm fairly certain it has been addressed ad nasueam in other threads, which i'm fairly certain you could find with the search feature.

I dont like to contribute to rehashing things for the nth time.

I think an awful lot of people feel that way, really.
you think it's awful that I don't want to make it illegal?

you think it's awful that I don't want to make it illegal?

No, an awful lot, like, a big 'lot'.

you think it's awful that I don't want to make it illegal?

No, no, no. "Awful" modifying "lot," i.e. "a very large number." That's how many people, like you, dislike abortion but dislike criminalizing it even more. :)

No, no, no. "Awful" modifying "lot," i.e. "a very large number." That's how many people, like you, dislike abortion but dislike criminalizing it even more. :)
OMG, I totally skipped some words LOL

I saw

"I think it's awful that people feel that way, really"

that's totally different, sorry. :p

Those who oppose leaving the choice about continuing a pregnancy up to individual women say the zygote or fetus is a human. However, some ani-choice advocates say that there should be an exception that allows women to get an abortion in the case of rape or incest.

Does the anti-choice lobby in this forum support an exception for rape or incest?

If so, how do you defend making that exception, if the fetus is indeed a human being with individual rights regardless of how it was conceived?

If not, then why do so many anti-choice individuals include the rape/incest exception in their opposition to allowing individual women make the choice?

Those who oppose leaving the choice about continuing a pregnancy up to individual women say the zygote or fetus is a human. However, some ani-choice advocates say that there should be an exception that allows women to get an abortion in the case of rape or incest.

Does the anti-choice lobby in this forum support an exception for rape or incest?

If so, how do you defend making that exception, if the fetus is indeed a human being with individual rights regardless of how it was conceived?

If not, then why do so many anti-choice individuals include the rape/incest exception in their opposition to allowing individual women make the choice?

You may want to make another thread on this instead of hijacking this one.

OMG, I totally skipped some words LOL

I saw

"I think it's awful that people feel that way, really"

that's totally different, sorry. :p

Heh. No problem. :)

You may want to make another thread on this instead of hijacking this one.

Dude, it's a fair question that is directly relevant to the one you posed. Anaswring it will not significantly derail the thread.

Dude, it's a fair question that is directly relevant to the one you posed. Anaswring it will not significantly derail the thread.
maybe he doesn't want to answer.....

to be fair, I do have personal beliefs that are at odds with my pro-choice stance, I can't figure out how to combine them logically so I keep them as seperate as possible. I don't think that a fetus is a lump of cells, or that it's somehow not human, I think killing a fetus is way bad, however I don't think making abortions illegal is an intelligent solution..........

see? I even confuse myself.
You just described the conundrum many pro-choicers face--the tug between the belief that abortion is not right for you, but that you don't want to determine the lives of others. That's why the struggle is over choice, not over the rightness or wrongness of abortion.

I'm a guy who's had a vasectomy, so I don't have to face the choice personally, but I do have a teenage daughter, and I want her to have the widest array of options available should she need to avail herself of them, which is why when we look at colleges, abortion law is an issue (at least for me).

Those who oppose leaving the choice about continuing a pregnancy up to individual women say the zygote or fetus is a human. However, some ani-choice advocates say that there should be an exception that allows women to get an abortion in the case of rape or incest.

Does the anti-choice lobby in this forum support an exception for rape or incest?

If so, how do you defend making that exception, if the fetus is indeed a human being with individual rights regardless of how it was conceived?

If not, then why do so many anti-choice individuals include the rape/incest exception in their opposition to allowing individual women make the choice?



However that then implies that there exists a quality of life, below which life is not worth having.

Same question.

Dude, it's a fair question that is directly relevant to the one you posed. Anaswring it will not significantly derail the thread.

Umm...I don't really think it's "directly relavant". The thread was about a common pro-choice stance.

Umm...I don't really think it's "directly relavant". The thread was about a common pro-choice stance.



However that then implies that there exists a quality of life, below which life is not worth having.

Same question.

Umm...I don't really think it's "directly relavant". The thread was about a common pro-choice stance.

And the question he gave back is a question on Pro-Life views.

And the question he gave back is a question on Pro-Life views.

So it is a question pro-choice people are expected to struggle with, but anti-choice people get a free pass? Perhaps the anti-choice folks have solved this problem and can enlighten those in the pro-choice camp?

Is the life of a fetus conceived through rape or incest any less valuable than a fetus conceived in love or lust? To me that seems like the very same question about quality of life posted at the beginning of this thread.

My blunt feeling on the matter is, if you know a baby would not be in a caring, nuturing environment then DON'T SCREW EACH OTHER IN THE FIRST PLACE. Then that solves all of this, and don't give me any of that "what if they were raped?" crap, i've heard it, and even if they were they should birth the child...it's not the babies fault he/she was an accident.

My blunt feeling on the matter is, if you know a baby would not be in a caring, nuturing environment then DON'T SCREW EACH OTHER IN THE FIRST PLACE. Then that solves all of this, and don't give me any of that "what if they were raped?" crap, i've heard it, and even if they were they should birth the child...it's not the babies fault he/she was an accident.
I hate every single word of this.

Same question.'

You were talking abut the supposed value of the life being determined by the manner of conception. This thread was about the stance that a poor life in the future is justification for stopping that from happening. They aren't the same, and making a topic's not all that hard. I know, I've done it.

...don't give me any of that "what if they were raped?" crap, i've heard it, and even if they were they should birth the child...it's not the babies fault he/she was an accident.

Interesting.

Perhaps you also agree with the Bible, in Deuteronomy 20:10-14?

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

And the question he gave back is a question on Pro-Life views.

Which, incidentally, are different from pro-choice views. Hence the different topic suggestion.

I hate every single word of this.

Even the 'an'?

'

You were talking abut the supposed value of the life being determined by the manner of conception. This thread was about the stance that a poor life in the future is justification for stopping that from happening. They aren't the same, and making a topic's not all that hard. I know, I've done it.

Both are value determinations about the worth of a life, are they not? The only difference is who gets to make the choice.

Interesting.

Perhaps you also agree with the Bible, in Deuteronomy 20:10-14?

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

I do agree with it, but something tells me that rapists don't exactly follow biblical guidelines...

Even the 'an'?
That one was ok but I still find it suspect.

Both are value determinations about the worth of a life, are they not? The only difference is who gets to make the choice.

However they're based on different things, and this topic isn't about both. You can make another for yours.

I do agree with it, but something tells me that rapists don't exactly follow biblical guidelines...
So, you're saying that you're some sort of monster?

what, exactly, do you find so objectional in my post?

I do agree with it, but something tells me that rapists don't exactly follow biblical guidelines...

I wish all pro-life/anti-choice supporters were as honest.

Thank you.

Is the life of a fetus conceived through rape or incest any less valuable than a fetus conceived in love or lust? To me that seems like the very same question about quality of life posted at the beginning of this thread.

Very good point regarding the overused 'rape or incest' excuse. While I have no strong beliefs on the moral status of the fetus, it seems silly to say that children born from rape or incest are any less valuable in themselves than normal children. Perhaps to the mother those children have a certain stigma, but in themselves they may well be of the same moral value.

And in regards to quality of life, in a thread in another forum from a long time ago, someone told me that a mother should have an abortion if her child will be born into a life of poverty. My reply was that then why don't we go down to the slums of the city and machinegun everyone there who is in a life of poverty - the point being, if that fetus is indeed of the same moral value as an adult human, a life of poverty is no excuse for ending its life.

My blunt feeling on the matter is, if you know a baby would not be in a caring, nuturing environment then DON'T SCREW EACH OTHER IN THE FIRST PLACE. Then that solves all of this, and don't give me any of that "what if they were raped?" crap, i've heard it, and even if they were they should birth the child...it's not the babies fault he/she was an accident.

Question: do you think the fetus gives a fuck ?
And yes, this IS a trick question.

So, you're saying that you're some sort of monster?

You make absolutely no sense Desperate...

what, exactly, do you find so objectional in my post?

That you expect a woman who has been raped to keep a baby that was never planned for, or even expected to have (Even, say, if she'd been going on a date) and would essentially have no father, or a father forever in prison that would not love it? That you're saying a woman should have to bear this godaweful event and have a constant reminder of it?

Very good point regarding the overused 'rape or incest' excuse. While I have no strong beliefs on the moral status of the fetus, it seems silly to say that children born from rape or incest are any less valuable in themselves than normal children. Perhaps to the mother those children have a certain stigma, but in themselves they may well be of the same moral value.

And in regards to quality of life, in a thread in another forum from a long time ago, someone told me that a mother should have an abortion if her child will be born into a life of poverty. My reply was that then why don't we go down to the slums of the city and machinegun everyone there who is in a life of poverty - the point being, if that fetus is indeed of the same moral value as an adult human, a life of poverty is no excuse for ending its life.

Well, if they all wanted to be gunned down I don't see why not.

what, exactly, do you find so objectional in my post?
Imagine this woman:
1. Gets raped.
2. Is forced to have the child of her rapist.
3. Her father is paid 50 pieces of silver, benefitting from her misfortune.
4. She is forced to marry the man who raped her.

Gee. Can you figure it out?

That you expect a woman who has been raped to keep a baby that was never planned for, or even expected to have (Even, say, if she'd been going on a date) and would essentially have no father, or a father forever in prison that would not love it? That you're saying a woman should have to bear this godaweful event and have a constant reminder of it?

I said no where that adoption wasn't an option, in fact, I would expect most women to put he/she up for adoption...but not abortion.

no i dont see that as the central justification of abortion at all.

as far as im concerned, as a woman and a mother, no one should be forced to bear a child she doesnt want. subject to reasonable restrictions such as are enforced in most states of the united states.

when faced with the circumstance of finding out that a very much wanted baby has a grave defect, i feel that it is a great good to have the parents of that fetus decide whether or not they want to bring it to term or abort it before it ever takes a breath. the government should only be allowed to make sure that the defect actually exists, it should have no other part in the decision.

and third, i think its none of my business how other people chose to live. abortion is a personal tragedy that is best left to the people involved to deal with.

i would suggest that you are too young to know what used to happen to babies with defects such as downs syndrome in the past. those babies werent kept in a loving family to be brought to the fullness of their potential. as soon as they were born, the doctor strongly recommended that they be put into an institution where they lived less than 20 years. it was the rare family that chose to take that baby home to love and raise. probably about the same number as choose to bring such a baby into the world today. the availability of abortion has improved the lives of handicapped children since more of those born are chosen and their families dont have to worry about an increasing burden of additional children.

I do agree with it, but something tells me that rapists don't exactly follow biblical guidelines...

You are aware I hope that according to the Bible God is pro-choice and does not care about the fate of unborn children ?
Admittedly He gives the father all rights instead of the mother, but still.

You make absolutely no sense Desperate...
Are you my evil clone, opposite from me in every way? Do things fall up in your parallel universe?

I said no where that adoption wasn't an option, in fact, I would expect most women to put he/she up for adoption...but not abortion.

Why not? Who suffers if she does have an abortion?

Imagine this woman:
1. Gets raped.
2. Is forced to have the child of her rapist.
3. Her father is paid 50 pieces of silver, benefitting from her misfortune.
4. She is forced to marry the man who raped her.

Gee. Can you figure it out?

the 50 silver is a biblical term for modern dowry, or wedding presents...a.k.a. If the rapist had sex with her, he's keeping her...a.k.a. sex is a binding marriage contract.

Are you my evil clone, opposite from me in every way? Do things fall up in your parallel universe?

Left is Right, Black is White, Eddie Murphy is funny...

the 50 silver is a biblical term for modern dowry, or wedding presents...a.k.a. If the rapist had sex with her, he's keeping her...a.k.a. sex is a binding marriage contract.

...


But she was raped. You know, against her will? And she should have to mary the person who forced her to have sex, against her will?

the 50 silver is a biblical term for modern dowry, or wedding presents...a.k.a. If the rapist had sex with her, he's keeping her...a.k.a. sex is a binding marriage contract.
That is what you take issue with? My god....

You are aware I hope that according to the Bible God is pro-choice and does not care about the fate of unborn children ?
Admittedly He gives the father all rights instead of the mother, but still.

Show me where...in the bible

Well, if they all wanted to be gunned down I don't see why not.

Heh, we'll have to discuss euthanasia in another thread.

Are you my evil clone, opposite from me in every way? Do things fall up in your parallel universe?

But then his name would be Ser Usaemet Arepsed

Heh, we'll have to discuss euthanasia in another thread.

*shrug* Fair enough.

But then his name would be Ser Usaemet Arepsed
If this were true, we'd be forced to fight to the death. And believe you me, I will not be the one wearing the mustache.

Show me where...in the bible

See this thread:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=485409

I asked for counterquotes.. instead I got many more references to God having no problems with the killing of pregnant women. As well as a nice bit in leviticus that even called just born babies worthless...

But she was raped. You know, against her will? And she should have to mary the person who forced her to have sex, against her will?

Now the option to marry the woman a man rapes only applies if she was not raped in the city. If she is raped in the city then she is to be stoned to death.

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

Deuteronomy 22:23-24

http://www.uffl.org/vol%207/jlamonica7.pdf
http://baywood.metapress.com/index/K68E762E3U3EQRKX.pdf
I'm not saying any of this stuff is right or wrong, but I will say this:
If we were to look at the rules of evolution you would notice that the Nazi plan was actually just continuing evolution in a much more timely matter and pushing or race into something that they think would make it better. Evolution says that bad traits are destroyed from the genepool because they won't survive in a specific environment, but so far humans have solved that problem so we are actually going in reverse.

Show me where...in the bible

Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'

Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die."

2 Samuel 12:11-14

I'm not saying any of this stuff is right or wrong, but I will say this:
If we were to look at the rules of evolution you would notice that the Nazi plan was actually just continuing evolution in a much more timely matter and pushing or race into something that they think would make it better. Evolution says that bad traits are destroyed from the genepool because they won't survive in a specific environment, but so far humans have solved that problem so we are actually going in reverse.

Your SS insignia is in the mail...

Barbara Bush, W's own mother, during the 1992 campaign said that abortion is a topic for a woman and her doctor, and has no place in a political platform.

Of course the Bible, as well as other religious writings, makes judgements about the value of life. As do all people.

Your original question about the validity of a given life is one every person must make, which is, I believe, the pro-choice position. The reason for my question about the exception for rape and incest was to point out that most pro-life supporters also make that choice. Polls show that all groups, including pro-life supporters, are in favor of the rape/incest exception.

But, of course, they are then making a judgement about the value of a life based upon conception and the trauma to the mother. If they are willing to make that judgement for those mothers it makes it difficult to say that other mothers cannot make those judgements for themselves rather than leaving the decision to the government.

Similarly to Ogiek's thing, that argument has nothing to do with what I think. Personally, I'm against abortion in most cases, but I believe that all people are created equal - so, since when do I get to make that decision for someone else? That implies that I'm more equal than others! Nope, it's not the place for the government to make that decision - again, it implies that someone is more equal...

1. Do you believe this? (Its just that if you don't that argument does fall down)

I don't believe that particular question is relavent to the subject of whether or not abortion should be legal, though such considerations may be important to the individual woman making the decision about whether or not to continue her pregnancy.


2. Just how poor does quality of life have to be for you to be justified in killing yourself?
You are justified in killing yourself whenever you choose. Your life belongs to you, and you may end it whenever you like.

Umm...I don't really think it's "directly relavant". The thread was about a common pro-choice stance.

Or not so common, as it were. I have yet to see a single pro-choice person argue that abortion should be allowed because the person resulting from a pregnancy carried to term might wish they were dead or that they had never been born.

I do agree with it, but something tells me that rapists don't exactly follow biblical guidelines...

You think that a woman should be forced to marry her rapist!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

What the hell is wrong with you?!

You are justified in killing yourself whenever you choose. Your life belongs to you, and you may end it whenever you like.
Just hit Right, L2, Down, R1, Left, Left, R1, L1, L2, L1.

You think that a woman should be forced to marry her rapist!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

What the hell is wrong with you?!
He doesn't really have an answer as of yet.

Very good point regarding the overused 'rape or incest' excuse. While I have no strong beliefs on the moral status of the fetus, it seems silly to say that children born from rape or incest are any less valuable in themselves than normal children.

And yet, no one is saying that. They are saying that a pregnancy conceived in rape will most likely have less value (and will be more damaging) to the woman than one conceived willingly. They are saying that forcing a woman to go through nine months of pregnancy and then labor to bring the child of a rapist into this world is cruel.

No one is making any judgements on the value of a life of any child.

And in regards to quality of life, in a thread in another forum from a long time ago, someone told me that a mother should have an abortion if her child will be born into a life of poverty. My reply was that then why don't we go down to the slums of the city and machinegun everyone there who is in a life of poverty - the point being, if that fetus is indeed of the same moral value as an adult human, a life of poverty is no excuse for ending its life.

Your problem is bolded.

Or not so common, as it were. I have yet to see a single pro-choice person argue that abortion should be allowed because the person resulting from a pregnancy carried to term might wish they were dead or that they had never been born.

I've seen it around here, nooblets mostly. I imagine it becomes more common elsewhere.

I've seen it around here, nooblets mostly. I imagine it becomes more common elsewhere.

Really? I go into most of the abortion related threads and I have never seen it. The closest I have seen is when a person says something like, "That fetus could become the next Einstein," and the retort is "Or the next Hitler."

I've also seen people who argue that it would be better for the fetus never to be born. But I've never seen the argument that the child resulting from the fetus would wish they had never been born.

Your problem is bolded.

Your bolding includes my "if." Some people do believe a fetus formed after conception is of the same moral value as a grown person. Not saying it's right but it does have to be taken into consideration because it nixes the 'poverty excuse' if it is indeed true. I believe we will never know the truth of that anyway.

Your bolding includes my "if." Some people do believe a fetus formed after conception is of the same moral value as a grown person. Not saying it's right but it does have to be taken into consideration because it nixes the 'poverty excuse' if it is indeed true. I believe we will never know the truth of that anyway.

But your "why don't we go shoot up the slums" argument assumes that it is true.

But your "why don't we go shoot up the slums" argument assumes that it is true.

Yeah, you're right. In all honesty, I made that argument long ago when I did believe that the fetus is a person in the same sense that you and I are. If this is not the case, I would have to concede that it may be the better decision for the woman not to have the baby.

Really? I go into most of the abortion related threads and I have never seen it. The closest I have seen is when a person says something like, "That fetus could become the next Einstein," and the retort is "Or the next Hitler."

I've also seen people who argue that it would be better for the fetus never to be born. But I've never seen the argument that the child resulting from the fetus would wish they had never been born.
I have seen it, they say "but what about the mom who has 15 kids and is on welfare and can't afford another, you would force her to have the child?! but that's not fair to the baby, he would grow up in poverty, he didn't ask to be born into that, he would probably rather be dead"

then they add in how they were born into a bad situation and they didn't ask to be born and somehow it's someone else's responsibility to make it all better for them :rolleyes:

Just hit Right, L2, Down, R1, Left, Left, R1, L1, L2, L1.Or conversely, take the controller and jam it into your left temple. Make sure it goes all the way in by pounding it with a ball peen hammer. :D

Those who oppose leaving the choice about continuing a pregnancy up to individual women say the zygote or fetus is a human. However, some ani-choice advocates say that there should be an exception that allows women to get an abortion in the case of rape or incest.

Does the anti-choice lobby in this forum support an exception for rape or incest?

If so, how do you defend making that exception, if the fetus is indeed a human being with individual rights regardless of how it was conceived?

If not, then why do so many anti-choice individuals include the rape/incest exception in their opposition to allowing individual women make the choice?

I support an exception in the case of rape and not incest, simply because my secular objection to abortion relies upon the consent of the woman in sex for it to be valid before law. Therefore non consent voids it.

One of the central pro-choice arguments I have heard before is that

"The fetus's who had been aborted if they had been born would have had an extremely bad quality of life in most cases since abortion is often nessecaitated by poverty etc. So they would have such a bad quality of life that they would wish they had not been born"First, I would like to point out that I rarely see this as a principled pro-choice argument.

People who are pro-choice on principle believe that a woman has a right to determine the course of events in her body. It doesn't matter whether she is dirt poor or she's married to Bill Gates. It doesn't matter whether the child would have been an impoverished quadriplegic or the Queen of England. It's a woman's body. It's a woman's choice.

More commonly, this argument is advanced by people who feel some conflict between the rights of the woman and the "rights" of the fetus. While they may lean pro-choice, they do worry about the fact that this means a child will never get a chance in the world. They comfort themselves with the fact that, while some women may get "frivolous" abortions (a stupid notion in my idea, but whatever), abortion should not be illegal because the state does not make any quality-of-life guarantee to the child.

Thus, this is not a "central" pro-choice argument, and someone who is pro-choice does not have to buy it. Many do... and some others use it as a sort of crowbar into the feelings of the anti-abortion crowd, hoping to convince them that at least some abortions may be justified.

However that then implies that there exists a quality of life, below which life is not worth having.Only if you take it as a principled approach to the pro-choice argument, which it is not. It is treated, generally, as mitigating evidence, not an argument on principle. In other words, no one has to posit an "objective" quality of life below which it is "not worth living." They merely contend that there is a point at which life becomes so unpleasant that it is reasonable to believe (without being certain) that a person would not choose to live it. This mitigates the weight of the decision to abort a child: it does not determine that decision.

To this way, by supporting this argument the pro-choice lobby would be supporting certian motives for suicide being valid (IE that it is ok to kill youself if your life gets X bad) because what they are saying is that you should not have to be alive at all if life gets a certian low level of quality of life.Well... so what?

Regardless of what I think of the "quality of life" argument vis-a-vis abortion, I agree with Freud that you cannot always "talk someone out" of suicide, because sometimes suicide--ultimate escape--is the best coping mechanism a person has for her/his situation. Freud himself committed suicide rather than continue suffering the effects of his cancer. Can one really argue with that? Can you tell someone, "No, it's really not that bad that you lost your jaw, you can't eat normally, and you experience intense and unceasing pain. It's not worth killing yourself."

I think the only way you can make this argument is by relying on some religious belief about what "God" wants for your life. And however you feel about that, it has no place in the public policy of a secular republic.

Just how poor does quality of life have to be for you to be justified in killing yourself?Since value is relative, so is the value of life. Thus, it depends on the person.

Appeal to emotion.
<snip>
Another set of appeals to emotion.
<snip>
Another set of appeals to emotion - ironic
<snip>
Another appeal to emotion.
<snip>
Again with the appeals to emotion.
<snip>

Try telling that to the six-month-old daughter who's mother claimed she was 'divinely inspired' to slowly saw it's arms off with a kitchen knife.

LOL, you did that on purpose didn't you? And no one called you on it.

Killing one's self, however, does not because it shows cowardice.Since when? Is it braver to undure endless hours of suffering because you are afraid of what "God" will do to you if you end it... or is it braver to choose to end your suffering in this life and face the unknown--whether it turns out to be Heaven, Hell, another round in this world, someplace else... or just nothing at all?

What is so brave about desperately clinging to life when all that is valuable in life is gone?

I support an exception in the case of rape and not incest, simply because my secular objection to abortion relies upon the consent of the woman in sex for it to be valid before law. Therefore non consent voids it.
So your position has nothing to do with the rights of the fetus.

It's sad when certain kinds of people are labeled as not being worthy of life. I wonder how long it'll be before the government or the powers that be determine wether or not a life is worth having, instead of just the woman deciding now.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have discovered a new phenomenon. Closely related to the "slippery slope," we shall call this one the "icy hill."

Our subject has not merely stepped down into an increasingly unlikely progression from abortion to eugenics. Oh no. He has miraculously skipped from one to the other without a moment's pause in between.

Kudos. Well done!

it disturbs me that you speak of having a child like one might of dinner plans, "oh, it didn't work out to go to the pizza place"Ah yes.

And isn't it nice that people who would treat having a child like going out for pizza... don't have to be parents until they grow up and understand the responsibility involved?

I'd say the utter lack of responsibility in our culture with respect to children is a fine, fine argument for abortion.

That's my belief, I'll stand by it. Suicide doesn't solve the problem, it merely brings an end to it. No learning from it, and learning is the primary purpose of all human life.

1) Sometimes there are extremely good reasons to believe that one's "problems" will not end in this life. A painful terminal disease is the customary example.

2) Who are you to claim (for everyone) that the "primary purpose" of life is "learning"? I happen to think that the chief end in life is joy--having fun. Why should we legislate such that people may not choose death when they can still "learn," but they can no longer have fun?

Who are you to decide why other people should live?

Nothing personal, but it disturbs me that you think the average woman getting an abortion is so callous about the process. The studies on the subject don't bear that out, and the women I know who've had them don't act that way. An abortion is a major deal--it's outpatient surgery at the very least, and can be more serious than that. It's not at all like deciding for Thai instead of Pizza.You are right, of course.

But I am an absolutist. I say, even if women were nonchalant or cavalier about abortions... so what? It's still their choice.

You are right, of course.

But I am an absolutist. I say, even if women were nonchalant or cavalier about abortions... so what? It's still their choice.

They should make it an extreme sport

I don't believe a person needs any justification to kill themself. Every person has a right to thier own life, including destroying it. The current legislation is (imo) a hangover of Christian dogma which states suicide is a sin.

There should be precautions taken by the law in the case that a person is not thinking clearly, though when is a person ever thinking completely clearly?

Abortion, on the other hand, is a different logisitc altogether. There should be strict regulations on what is legal to abort and what is not--a fully developed baby days from birth is most certainly not, while a cluster of 100 cells most certainly is. The cutoff lies somewhere between those.

What is the difference between destroying a fetus and killing, say, a house cat? In this case, the cat is *more* aware--more capable of suffering--than a fetus.

One of the central pro-choice arguments I have heard before is that

"The fetus's who had been aborted if they had been born would have had an extremely bad quality of life in most cases since abortion is often nessecaitated by poverty etc. So they would have such a bad quality of life that they would wish they had not been born"

However that then implies that there exists a quality of life, below which life is not worth having. To this way, by supporting this argument the pro-choice lobby would be supporting certian motives for suicide being valid (IE that it is ok to kill youself if your life gets X bad) because what they are saying is that you should not have to be alive at all if life gets a certian low level of quality of life

So my questions to the pro-choice lobby are

1. Do you believe this? (Its just that if you don't that argument does fall down)

2. Just how poor does quality of life have to be for you to be justified in killing yourself?


That's not the central argument. That's a response to one of the arguments made by the anti-choice side.

The central argument of the pro-choice side is "it's not your fucking decision you utero-fascist, get your hands off of my medical decisions and get your christo-terrorists out of our clinics."

Your post is a strawman.

I do agree with it, but something tells me that rapists don't exactly follow biblical guidelines...

Wow. I very rarely feel like using obscenities on these forums, but all I can really think here is: "What the everloving fuck?!"

How in the hell can you be so utterly insane as to believe it is just, reasonable, or anything other than monstrous to force a woman to spend the rest of her life married to her rapist?

Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'

Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die."

2 Samuel 12:11-14

THIS WAS A PUNISHMENT! God is never pro-choice and will never be, because if he was then David, Who slept with Bathesheba out of marriage, would have lost his son, in which the blood line of David would have never spawned. That means JESUS THE SON OF GOD would have never been born if God was pro choice.

THIS WAS A PUNISHMENT! God is never pro-choice and will never be, because if he was then David, Who slept with Bathesheba out of marriage, would have lost his son, in which the blood line of David would have never spawned. That means JESUS THE SON OF GOD would have never been born if God was pro choice.

Do you know what the word choice means? Pro-Choice doesn't mean abort all fetuses. It doesn't mean never have kids. It means let people make their own decisions.

Jesus is pro-choice. Know where? "Judge not lest ye yourself be judged." There.

yeah, that doesn't work for me either. I am probably better off seperating the two.

1 I think abortion is wrong
2 I don't think it should be illegal.

Most of the people on the pro-choice platform have reservations about abortion, but feel it is not their place to legislate against it.

LOL, you did that on purpose didn't you? And no one called you on it.

(Shhh... I was getting away with it...) :)

(It was actually to test if those who accepted the appeals to emotion in the original post, would be similarly accepting of an 'appeal to emotion' against that post... to see how they reacted to my calling the other poster on their 'appeals'... and, basically, to see if people can even SPOT an appeal to emotion. So - I'm actually glad you did spot it... although I don't know your position, so I don't know if you were really the target I was aiming for.)

Do you know what the word choice means? Pro-Choice doesn't mean abort all fetuses. It doesn't mean never have kids. It means let people make their own decisions.

Jesus is pro-choice. Know where? "Judge not lest ye yourself be judged." There.

Glad you pointed that out. Some people do not seem to be able to differentiate between 'the woman should be allowed to choose what happens in her own uterus' and 'let's barbecue all the foetuses in the world'...

My blunt feeling on the matter is, if you know a baby would not be in a caring, nuturing environment then DON'T SCREW EACH OTHER IN THE FIRST PLACE. Then that solves all of this, and don't give me any of that "what if they were raped?" crap, i've heard it, and even if they were they should birth the child...it's not the babies fault he/she was an accident.

1) Consent to sex, is NOT consent to preganancy.

2) Not all pregnancy is caused with consent.

3) If you think those who are in poor environments should not 'screw'... are you not basically saying 'poor people shouldn't breed'?

4) WHY should the victim of a rape be forced to carry the result of that rape to term?

5) "...it's not the babies fault..." is an appeal to emotion.

6) "...he/she was an accident..." is a dubious concept, in the light of rape.

7) "My blunt feeling on the matter...": All I can say is, it's a good job the law requires more than just 'your opinion'.

(Shhh... I was getting away with it...) :)

(It was actually to test if those who accepted the appeals to emotion in the original post, would be similarly accepting of an 'appeal to emotion' against that post... to see how they reacted to my calling the other poster on their 'appeals'... and, basically, to see if people can even SPOT an appeal to emotion. So - I'm actually glad you did spot it... although I don't know your position, so I don't know if you were really the target I was aiming for.)


Hmm, position as far as this thread goes?
Quality of life is a bogus stance. It is used by some Pro-Choice advocates, but it is weak and nothing like a central tenet of the Pro-Choice platform that I'm aware of.

If there's no life/individual to be concerned with, then the quality of life consideration is no different than planning parenthood for when you are most capable of caring for children.
If there is a life/individual to be concerned with, then taking away that life on an arbitrary decision about their quality of life is indefensible.

So, this issue should be a non-issue for either side of the debate, and is only debated by people that don't understand the underlying differences in their positions.

Hmm, position as far as this thread goes?
Quality of life is a bogus stance. It is used by some Pro-Choice advocates, but it is weak and nothing like a central tenet of the Pro-Choice platform that I'm aware of.

If there's no life/individual to be concerned with, then the quality of life consideration is no different than planning parenthood for when you are most capable of caring for children.
If there is a life/individual to be concerned with, then taking away that life on an arbitrary decision about their quality of life is indefensible.

So, this issue should be a non-issue for either side of the debate, and is only debated by people that don't understand the underlying differences in their positions.

Typical. The only person who draws attention, is the person who followed much the same thought process I would... so, I shouldn't really be surprised then, should I...