NationStates Jolt Archive

So eating meat equates murder?Well, after human law it's only killing, but on a grander scale there is no reason to limit murder to mean killing of members of the homo sapiens species.

Being a vegetarian doesn't work if you're going for ultimate pro-life. Plants are alive before they're harvested.

Maybe a fruititarian? One who plants the core/seeds of the fruit after eating it?

Oh, yeah. Well, my point was that it's impossible to be pro-life as that implies you will defend all life. Which is impossible, in any practical sense. It's a word people use to try and make it seem like they're the nice ones in the situation.

What are you blathering about? Did you even read the passages you quoted?

Yes, I did read the passages I quoted and I critiqued what you said. The fact that you may not like looking foolish doesn't equate to blathering on my part.

Anyway, please try to respond to what I wrote (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13546081&postcount=515) with something more than nonsense:

I am fully aware that "back alley abortions" are extremely dangerous, however, making abortion legal to reduce the risk of the operation is just not justifiable to me.

You rather spectacularly miss the point -- whether you do so deliberately or out of obtuseness, I don't know.

It is not just that legalizing abortion saves tens of thousands of lives and millions from injury -- although your dismissal of that fact is rather callous -- BUT ALSO that making abortion illegal doesn't actually do much to reduce abortion.

I agree with this statement so much that it makes me ashamed not to have mentioned it earlier. I do not believe that any woman takes pleasure in abortion and the idea that one would is disgusting. Education of both men and women on the issue is of the utmost importance, and if the abortion issue can be nullified through education then I will be the first one to support tax dollars being spent in such a way. Thank you for bringing this issue to light.

Um. Okey, dokey. But I wasn't talking about educating people on the issue of abortion. I was talking about sex education, family planning, and contraception. THOSE are what reduce abortions.

In fact most parolees must submit to drug testing and the "possession" of drugs is not really taken into consideration at all. As an example (of which there are copious more).

So now your comparing the rights of women to those of PAROLEES -- i.e., CONVICTS out on special release? Doesn't that tweak your sensibilities at all?

So now your comparing the rights of women to those of PAROLEES -- i.e., CONVICTS out on special release?

Yeah what the hell are you thinking Boothby? Why even give them that many rights?
;)

Maybe a fruititarian? One who plants the core/seeds of the fruit after eating it?

You're still killing countless millions of microbes. Maybe if you somehow managed to photosynthesize...

You're still killing countless millions of microbes. Maybe if you somehow managed to photosynthesize...

Well, on planet Earth, the only way to be really 100% "pro-life" is to die, because the way this planet works, every living thing exists at the fatal expense of other living things. Our lives always equate to something else's death. Every breath we take is a holocaust -- of microbes, Whos living on a spec of dust, whatever. So the only way we can say that we are out to protect and preserve all life is to stop destroying it by dying ourselves. That way, at least, we will finally stop fighting with all the things (microbes, Whos, etc) that have been trying to kill us since we were born. :)

When you really think about how life works, you soon realize that all lifestyles are balancing acts between absurd-but-true extremes. No one is completely 100% true to their professed beliefs. It is simply impossible. But we maintain balances, and that is good enough. That is why arguments that boil down to "I'm for life, but you're against life!!" are just so much pointless chin music. Every self-proclaimed "pro-lifer" is a killer, every day, without even thinking about it.

So eating meat equates murder? Moronic troll.

If we follow that vein... we could say that eating a chicken's egg is murder because that egg has the potential to be life. We just need to let nature take its course instead of separating the hen from the cock... :p

The rights of potential life are secondary to the rights of current life. Plus unwanted children bring a host of economic and social problems. I must say your attitude is depressingly predictable. To you a kid is some kind of punishment for a woman daring to have sex for pleasure. Me I don't see kids as punishment, well, some kids, but that's their parents fault.

Punishment implies negativity, which isn't nessecarly the case. Children are a consequence of sex, that fact cannot be avoided, since no contreception is 100% effective.

The only way a person could be called "pro-death" or "pro-abortion" is if they did nothing but support abortion - every pregnancy would end with termination, whether compulsory or not. And such an assumption is absurd.

The only thing that ever concerns me about any person's pregnancy is whether or not they use public funds to pay for it, money that comes out of my paycheck. Sadly, that's a reality everyone has to deal with, and I'd much rather there be an option for smart people who KNOW they can't afford to raise children.

But if pro-life people are all gung-ho for saving every fetus, then I think they should. I think they should put out a call to all pregnant women who are in dire straights financially, and sponsor them. Pay for the doctors, the delivery, and adopt the child when it's out (or allow the mother to raise it if she wants it). I mean, it's a small price to pay to save a baby, isn't it? And why should all other taxpayers who support legal abortion and personal responsibility have to pay for it out of THEIR pockets?

Give it to those who have made it a personal crusade to save the babies!

Punishment implies negativity, which isn't nessecarly the case. Children are a consequence of sex, that fact cannot be avoided, since no contreception is 100% effective.
A) Abortion is 100% effective (or as close to 100% as anything in this world can get).

B) As usual with this kind of argument, you are skipping vital steps in the process. Children are NOT a consequence of sex. Rather pregnancy is a potential result of sex. And children are a potential result of pregnancy (assuming the pregnancy is not aborted and nothing else goes wrong with it). And remember, pregnancy itself is not a single event, but is a series of events, each one of which has only a potential likelihood of successful completion.

So it is NOT a simple 1-step progression from sex to having a child. There are interim points at which the having-a-baby process can be interrupted (by design or accident), and there is neither a guarantee that any of the results of any of the steps will happen, nor any obigation to make them happen.

Oh, yeah. Well, my point was that it's impossible to be pro-life as that implies you will defend all life. Which is impossible, in any practical sense. It's a word people use to try and make it seem like they're the nice ones in the situation.

I haven't been paying attention to the debate, but I think you're making a caricature of the words 'pro-life'. It's a name chosen by a certain group in a debate, it's designed to sound catchy and make them feel good about themselves, not to describe their positions very nuanced.
Maybe they should rename themselves to pro-unborn-human-life, or even more accurate as anti-abortionists, but that doesn't sound as catchy or positive as simply pro-life.

The rights of potential life are secondary to the rights of current life.

In fact I think there are no rights for potential life, otherwise every time someone could produce life and doesn't he infringes on the rights of potential life. Masturbation or having periods would be manslaughter if potential life had rights.

I haven't been paying attention to the debate, but I think you're making a caricature of the words 'pro-life'. It's a name chosen by a certain group in a debate, it's designed to sound catchy and make them feel good about themselves, not to describe their positions very nuanced.
Maybe they should rename themselves to pro-unborn-human-life, or even more accurate as anti-abortionists, but that doesn't sound as catchy or positive as simply pro-life.

I said this about the term pro-life because I think it implies that these people are something more than just anti-abortion/anti-choice. Although that said, anti-choice implies that they disagree with choice in all forms.

I'm not sure whether legalising abortion does actually increase numbers, but it seems quite clear to me that someone getting an abortion is in a desperate situation anyway, and that if you are prepared to get an abortion, you'd do so, legal or not. Back-alley abortions are so much less safe, and hit the worst of in society hardest. Women who have abortions do so because they feel they need to, not just because they legally can.

It seems obvious to me that anyone who gets an abortion hasn't been convinced by religious rhetoric, and I fail to see how it's the right of a religion to dictate what a woman does with her body.

On a side note, someone is automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church for having an abortion, but not for murder. Figure that out.