Differance Between Pro Life & Pro Choice And I Need Help Posted: 12-12-06 14:43pm
Well after a good while off from this
site... I have made a conclusion about
the difference between a pro life person
and a pro choice person
1. The pro life person thinks of the
issue in terms of protecting the weak and
the vulnrable
2. The pro choice person thinks of the
issue in terms of being told what they can
and cant do.
I can see both points, it is wrong to take
the life of another human being and its
wrong to force a person to do or not do
something contary to what they want... So
this leaves me in a quandry.
Its a either/or situation I cant have it
both ways I must make a choice.
Am I on the side of protecting our right
to do as we like
or am I on the side of protecting the
right to life of the child
does our right to do as we like outweigh
the right of the child to live?
I firmly believe every human being has the
right to life and I also believe every
human being has the right to make choices
for themselves especially about their own
bodilly attonomy
i believe the unborn child is a child a
human being and a person with the
undeniable right to life but I also
believe a woman should have control over
her body...How do I find peace with in
these conflicting ideology.. I must
support one or the other I can not simply
say it is wrong to kill a child but its
another persons choice or it is wrong for
pro life to take away a womans right over
her body and simply not oppose the pro
life movememt
do I protect the womans right to *choose*
abortion
or
do I protect the child's right to life
that is my quandry
|
jenn_smithson
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Nov 2004 Posts: 808 Location: Texas
Re: Differance Between Pro Life & Pro Choice And I Need Posted: 12-12-06 15:37pm
izzy
wrote:
well after a good while off
from this site... I have made a
conclusion about the difference between a
pro life person and a pro choice person
1. The pro life person thinks of the
issue in terms of protecting the weak and
the vulnrable
2. The pro choice person thinks of the
issue in terms of being told what they can
and cant do.
the prochoice person can
think of the issue in terms of protecting
the historically weak, vulnerable, and
disenfranchised - namely the woman.
Actually, the difference between "prolife"
and prochoice is where value is placed.
Do you place more value on potential human
life or actual, living, breathing,
thinking, feeling, existing, independent
human life. I place more value on the
woman, her life, her desires, her health,
and her rights as a human being than I do
on a fetus that there is no guarantee that
it will be born at all, most statistically
(even when not considering abortion) are
not.
Quote:
i can see both
points, it is wrong to take the life of
another human being and its wrong to force
a person to do or not do something contary
to what they want... So this leaves me
in a quandry.
it is more than simply
forcing someone to do something that they
don't want and you know that. It is
forcing someone to do something with their
personal body against their will or
against their health. Forced pregnancy
is .N.O.T the same as forcing people to
abide by simple traffic laws, it is in
fact much worst. Don't simplify the
realities of the situation simply in order
to defeat it later. That is called a
straw-man fallacy.
Quote:
am I on the side
of protecting our right to do as we
like
am I on the side of
protecting a woman's right to own her own
body and make decisions about it
herself.
Quote:
or am I on the
side of protecting the right to life of
the child
does our right to do as we like outweigh
the right of the child to
live?
there is no "right to
live." there never has been. The
preamble to the constitution is not
established law, it is simply an
introduction.
Quote:
i firmly believe
every human being has the right to life
and I also believe every human being has
the right to make choices for themselves
especially about their own bodilly
attonomy
i believe the unborn child is a child a
human being and a person with the
undeniable right to life but I also
believe a woman should have control over
her body...How do I find peace with in
these conflicting ideology.. I must
support one or the other I can not simply
say it is wrong to kill a child but its
another persons choice or it is wrong for
pro life to take away a womans right over
her body and simply not oppose the pro
life movememt
do I protect the womans right to *choose*
abortion
or
do I protect the child's right to life
that is my
quandry
it's not that hard of a
concept. First, pregnancy is no
guarantee that a child will be born.
Even when you dismiss abortion, more than
half of all pregnancies end naturally. Therefore, a
fetus is, .A.T. B.E.S.T,
merely potential human life. The
potential exists but can be end at any
moment for any reason and is usually
outside of our control. The .Woman,
however, exists! She is real, she is
actual, she has overcome the uncertainty
of potential. By placing value, dignity,
and respect on the woman, we choose to
acknowledge her independent existence and
that her body is her own, it belongs to no
one else but her during the span of her
life from birth to death. Without
acknowledging that fundamental fact of
existence, you open the possibility that
all human persons, not just women, can
have their bodies used in ways that they
do not agree with or wish. Simply, if
you force women to donate the use of their
bodies and organs during pregnancy, what
is to keep the government from requiring
donations from all of its citizens despite
what the owners of those bodies and organs
want and need.
It is a question of values. Do you value
the woman who actually exists or do you
value the fetus which only has the
potential to one day exist independently?
And before anyone replies, no, you cannot
value you them both equally since one is
using the other's body as life support.
They are not two separate intenties to
where you can choose to value them both
equally because they are attached to one
another through the woman's actual body.
|
diamond splinter
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 611 Location: ,
Re: Differance Between Pro Life & Pro Choice And I Need Posted: 12-12-06 17:01pm
izzy
wrote:
well after a good while off
from this site... I have made a
conclusion about the difference between a
pro life person and a pro choice person
1. The pro life person thinks of the
issue in terms of protecting the weak and
the vulnrable
2. The pro choice person thinks of the
issue in terms of being told what they can
and cant do.
I can see both points, it is wrong to take
the life of another human being and its
wrong to force a person to do or not do
something contary to what they want...
So this leaves me in a quandry.
Its a either/or situation I cant have it
both ways I must make a choice.
Am I on the side of protecting our right
to do as we like
or am I on the side of protecting the
right to life of the child
does our right to do as we like outweigh
the right of the child to live?
I firmly believe every human being has the
right to life and I also believe every
human being has the right to make choices
for themselves especially about their own
bodilly attonomy
i believe the unborn child is a child a
human being and a person with the
undeniable right to life but I also
believe a woman should have control over
her body...How do I find peace with in
these conflicting ideology.. I must
support one or the other I can not simply
say it is wrong to kill a child but its
another persons choice or it is wrong for
pro life to take away a womans right over
her body and simply not oppose the pro
life movememt
do I protect the womans right to *choose*
abortion
or
do I protect the child's right to life
that is my
quandry
izzy you know in your heart whats right
hun don't let them get you an all
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3939 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 120
Thanked:12
Posted: 12-12-06 18:35pm
I certainly understand where you are
coming from! It can be easy to see both
sides of this issue.
I have come to the conclusion that a
fetus, (with the exception of a late term
fetus-6mo+, & i'm not entirely sure
how I feel about that, either...) simply
does not have more "value" than the woman
carrying it. It is inside her body, and
she is fully responsible for it. Part of
that responsibility may mean ending it's
existence, it may not, but either way, it
is absolutely none of my business to tell
her what to do.
If it is a moral dilemna, society should
allow her to decide what her morals are,
and she can either be happy with that or
face the consequences later.
Regardless, I don't think legislating
against abortion is going to solve any
problems. Fifteen year olds get
pregnant, birth control fails, and women
get raped. Outlawing abortion is not
going to stop these unwanted pregnancies
from occurring.
|
Izzy
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 16 Oct 2004 Posts: 883 Location: Earth
Posted: 12-12-06 19:27pm
"the prochoice person can think of the
issue in terms of protecting the
historically weak, vulnerable, and
disenfranchised - namely the woman."
thats true
"actually, the difference between
"prolife" and prochoice is where value is
placed. Do you place more value on
potential human life or actual, living,
breathing, thinking, feeling, existing,
independent human life. "
well you see I dont believe the unborn
child is merely a potential human life, I
do actually agree with biology that the
unborn child is a living actual human
being
and if the issue were merely value between
a actual dependant less developed human
life in the unborn child vs actual human
life of a fully developed independant
human life in the woman, then I would
fully agree with a womans right to choose,
the whole issue of the unborn child taking
presidence over the woman is to me totally
wrong. I can not deny if the mothers life
is in danger that she should not be made
to carry the child to term, that in itself
is a blatant disregard for the life of the
mother.
I have no quandry in that respect.
Also I dont have issue with the
reproductive choice of a woman since I
believe the child to be biologically
speaking an actual human being I believe
that the woman has already reproduced...
The choice is no longer a matter of
chosing to reproduce or not she has
already reproduced
that issue is not a quandry to me.... It
is quite clear to me that there is no
further choice in that matter it has
already been choosen willingly or
accidently...There is no longer a choice
in that regard and no concern for me in
the issue of reproductive choice, the
issue of abortion simply dosnt effect that
right.
The problem that occurs for me is when the
life of the mother isnt at risk when it
isnt the value of a actual dependant, less
developed human life (unborn childs life)
vs the fully developed independant actual
human life (mother)
its when its the actual human life of the
dependant, less developed life (unborn
child) vs the social, ecconomic, lifestyle
choices ect of the actual independant
fully develioped human life (mother)
i believe that any and every human
being..I.E person (inc unborn human being)
has the right to life but I also believe
that every adult person should be free to
exersize their own social ecconomic
lifestyle choices....So can the social,
ecconomic lifestyle choices of an
independant actual human beings outweigh
the right to life of dependant actual
human being?
As an adult, a fully developed actual
human being... Should I be allowed as a
matter of a social, ecconomic, lifestyle
choice to choose to abort (end the life
of) my dependant, less developed 2 month
old actual human life new born baby?
Or should I be allowed to end the life of
my 2 month old new born disabled baby or
rape baby?
This really is a quandry?
On the one side all actual human life is
in my opinion deserving of the right to
life (keep on living) yet it is also my
opinion that adults have the right to make
social, ecconomical and lifestyle choices
for themselves without pressure from
government or religious sources.
So then if I do believe in the right to
life of all actual living human beings and
I believe in the expert biological
testimony that the unborn child is a
actual living human being but I also
believe an adult should be free to make
social ecconomic and lifestyle choices for
themselves where should my allegiance
be?
With the unborn child who I believe has a
right to life
or
with the right for adults to be free to
make their own social,ecconomic and
lifestlye choices which includes when in
the case of the mother who wishes to end
the life of her unborn child infringes
upon the right to life of her unborn
child.
I sure am stumped!
Is their no way that we could defend the
right to life of the unborn child and the
right for adults to make social, ecconomic
and lifestyle choices?
Would it not be possible for us to
restrict the right to exersize these
choices over the right to life of the
actual dependant human being (the unborn
child) as we do with other actual
dependant less developed human beings
namely the dependant 2 month old baby?
Or would that consitute a massive
infringement of our right to make social,
ecconomic and lifestyle choices if that is
the case then I think we should also try
to remove other massive infringements
imposed upon adults regarding other
dependant, less developed actual human
beings... Namely the new born child up
until they are of an age where they can
exist without any dependancy on adults and
are fully developed and are at least
developed past puberty.
"forced pregnancy"
jen the issue is not forced pregnancy....
The woman is already pregnant no one
forced her to become pregnant... She is
pregnant... Reproductive choice has
nothing at all to do with the issue!
"it is forcing someone to do something
with their personal body against their
will or against their health."
like I have said jen I do believe in a
choice in a life or death situation I have
no quandry with that but I do agree it
would mean forcing a person to do
something (gestate) with their own body
often against their will... That I grant
is something I am well aware of but to
abort would mean to remove the right to
life of a human being and also their own
bodily attomany too.
"don't simplify the realities of the
situation simply in order to defeat it
later."
i take your advice seriosuly but I also
request that you dont over complicate the
relalities of the situation simply in
order to protect it...Surely that would be
a straw man fallacy too!
For example "forced pregnancy" is over
complicating the issue her pregancty is
not forced it maybe an accidental
pregnancy and could even be a planned
pregancy but it is certainly not a forced
pregnancy except perhaps in the case of
rape and then we would have to know the
motives of the rapist.
"am I on the side of protecting a woman's
right to own her own body and make
decisions about it herself. "
hey jen so am I that is why it is so hard
but what about the unborn childs right to
life and also her own bodily attonamy
too?
"there is no "right to live." there never
has been. "
so I can legally kill you, wow I didnt
know that!
I am not talking about law here but what
should be law, you say it is legal for me
to kill you, that we have no right to
life... Do you think that is how it
should be?
"first, pregnancy is no guarantee that a
child will be born. "
true
"even when you dismiss abortion, more than
half of all pregnancies end naturally.
Therefore, a fetus is, .A.T. B.E.S.T,
merely potential human life. "
that again is over complicating the issue
in order to protect it, I could say the
same thing about born children in
countries with high fatalities rates such
as africa... Probably more than half
perish before they reach adulthood before
they reach a level of indepenancy and are
fully developed would it be fair to say
these children are at best "merely
potential human life" your statement has
to be a strawman fallacy!
"the potential exists but can be end at
any moment for any reason and is usually
outside of our control. "
again the same can be said of children in
africa etc
"the .Woman, however, exists! She is
real, she is actual, she has overcome the
uncertainty of potential. "
but the unborn child is real, she is
actual and is beyond merely potential
otherwise their would be no pregnancy and
no need for abortion again this has got to
be another straw man!
"by placing value, dignity, and respect on
the woman, we choose to acknowledge her
independent existence and that her body is
her own, it belongs to no one else but her
during the span of her life from birth to
death. "
i agree with placing value, dignity and
respect on all human beings.
By placing value, dignity and respect on
the unborn child we choose to acknowledge
her dependant but actual existance and
that her body is her own... It belongs to
no one else but her durring the span of
her life from conception unto death.
This is not deminishing the persons
rights.... It is extending them.
"you open the possibility that all human
persons, not just women, can have their
bodies used in ways that they do not agree
with or wish."
no not at all I am protecting them even
from an earlier time in their life.
However please consider this by removing
the right to life of unborn human beings
you are jepordising the right to life of
all human beings...Even you admit that you
believe that no one has the right to
live!
"simply, if you force women to donate the
use of their bodies and organs during
pregnancy, what is to keep the government
from requiring donations from all of its
citizens despite what the owners of those
bodies and organs want and need."
no I am not doing that I am not forcing
women to donate their bodys and organs
durring pregnancy, that is just the
natural process... It is not forced its
just the way it is...Thats nature... If
you have a problem with your gender I am
sorry you were born a woman but that is
the card you have been delt.
However if you permit your government to
remove the right to life of the unborn
child what is to stop the government from
removing your right to life as you have
already pointed out the right to life is
already in a perilous situation.
"it is a question of values. Do you value
the woman who actually exists or do you
value the fetus which only has the
potential to one day exist "
i value both the woman who actually exists
and the unborn child who acttually exists
"no, you cannot value you them both
equally since one is using the other's
body as life support. They are not two
separate intenties to where you can choose
to value them both equally because they
are attached to one another through the
woman's actual body."
yes and I agree that in cases where the
life of the mother is at real risk then I
do beleve in choice but both have an
actual body and both are human beings and
both are alive and both have a right to
life and both have a right to bodily
attonomy
i do agree it is a question of
values....It is actually a question on
the value of human life vs the value of
social, ecconomical and lifestyle choices.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 12-12-06 23:24pm
izzy
wrote:
"the prochoice person can
think of the issue in terms of protecting
the historically weak, vulnerable, and
disenfranchised - namely the woman."
thats true
"actually, the difference between
"prolife" and prochoice is where value is
placed. Do you place more value on
potential human life or actual, living,
breathing, thinking, feeling, existing,
independent human life. "
well you see I dont believe the unborn
child is merely a potential human life, I
do actually agree with biology that the
unborn child is a living actual human
being
once more as i've seen so many other
places, the terminology is making you (and
others) confused.
The fetus is a human. I think a better
term for jenn is "potential person", as
that is something the fetus is not.
Quote:
and if the issue
were merely value between a actual
dependant less developed human life in the
unborn child vs actual human life of a
fully developed independant human life in
the woman, then I would fully agree with a
womans right to choose, the whole issue of
the unborn child taking presidence over
the woman is to me totally wrong. I can
not deny if the mothers life is in danger
that she should not be made to carry the
child to term, that in itself is a blatant
disregard for the life of the mother.
I have no quandry in that respect.
Also I dont have issue with the
reproductive choice of a woman since I
believe the child to be biologically
speaking an actual human being I believe
that the woman has already reproduced...
The choice is no longer a matter of
chosing to reproduce or not she has
already reproduced
that issue is not a quandry to me.... It
is quite clear to me that there is no
further choice in that matter it has
already been choosen willingly or
accidently...There is no longer a choice
in that regard and no concern for me in
the issue of reproductive choice, the
issue of abortion simply dosnt effect that
right.
The problem that occurs for me is when the
life of the mother isnt at risk when it
isnt the value of a actual dependant, less
developed human life (unborn childs life)
vs the fully developed independant actual
human life
(mother)
well, that's the issue, in my opinion.
There isn't any more to it. Once you
concede to this fact; that the woman is
worth more than the fetus (or however you
want to phrase it, if "worth more" doesn't
sit quite right), there is no morally
right way you can say "she cannot/should
not abort if she's not going to die" or
any other excuse. A right to one's body
is the right to one's body.
You may not like a woman's reason to
abort, but unless you want to remove her
right to do as she pleases with her body,
then you cannot tell her not to.
Quote:
its when its the
actual human life of the dependant, less
developed life (unborn child) vs the
social, ecconomic, lifestyle choices ect
of the actual independant fully develioped
human life
(mother)
i understand what you are saying here; and
something important to remember is that
the quality of the mother's life is just
as important to keep in mind as the
potential quality of life of the fetus.
It is no more fair to put a baby into an
adoption agency than it is to put a woman
through the discomfort of pregnancy and th
epain of labor, combined with the
potential 18 years of barely making the
bills each month. A woman who gives the
child up for adoption may also feel pain
the rest of her life. People tend to
focus only on protecting the fetus's
future, but you also have to remember the
mother's.
Quote:
i believe that
any and every human being..I.E person (inc
unborn human being) has the right to life
but I also believe that every adult person
should be free to exersize their own
social ecconomic lifestyle choices....So
can the social, ecconomic lifestyle
choices of an independant actual human
beings outweigh the right to life of
dependant actual human
being?
yes. They can. Because until we become
independant from our mother's body (and I
mean literally seperated, umbilical cord
cut) we are dependant and thus lesser.
Her desicions matter more than us.
Quote:
as an adult, a
fully developed actual human being...
Should I be allowed as a matter of a
social, ecconomic, lifestyle choice to
choose to abort (end the life of) my
dependant, less developed 2 month old
actual human life new born
baby?
no... If it's a newborn, then it is no
longer connected to your body. It is
seperate, it is its own identity.
Someone, anyone else, can care for that
baby now. It is no longer surviving soley
off your body and nutrients. It is no
longer occupying your womb.
Quote:
or should I be
allowed to end the life of my 2 month old
new born disabled baby or rape
baby?
same thing here. If they are born, they
are "independant" from you, and you no
longer have the right to do anything to
them.
Quote:
on the one side
all actual human life is in my opinion
deserving of the right to life (keep on
living) yet it is also my opinion that
adults have the right to make social,
ecconomical and lifestyle choices for
themselves without pressure from
government or religious sources.
So then if I do believe in the right to
life of all actual living human beings and
I believe in the expert biological
testimony that the unborn child is a
actual living human being but I also
believe an adult should be free to make
social ecconomic and lifestyle choices for
themselves where should my allegiance
be?
With the unborn child who I believe has a
right to life
or
with the right for adults to be free to
make their own social,ecconomic and
lifestlye choices which includes when in
the case of the mother who wishes to end
the life of her unborn child infringes
upon the right to life of her unborn
child.
remember what you said way up there...
You believe the mother is more worthy than
the fetus. That's all that needs to be
said. The fetus is totaly dependant on
the mother; as it is not independant in
any way shape or form, it has no rights.
It is occupying your body as a guest, and
guests can be kicked out.
Quote:
is their no way
that we could defend the right to life of
the unborn child and the right for adults
to make social, ecconomic and lifestyle
choices?
that depends. I personally like the fact
that social abortions are not allowed past
a certain time marker, unless to save the
woman's life or due to severe fetal
anomalies.
Quote:
would it not be
possible for us to restrict the right to
exersize these choices over the right to
life of the actual dependant human being
(the unborn child) as we do with other
actual dependant less developed human
beings namely the dependant 2 month old
baby?
we do; like I siad above, in many places
abortion is illegal for social rasons
after a certain stage of development.
Quote:
or would that
consitute a massive infringement of our
right to make social, ecconomic and
lifestyle choices if that is the case then
I think we should also try to remove other
massive infringements imposed upon adults
regarding other dependant, less developed
actual human beings... Namely the new
born child up until they are of an age
where they can exist without any
dependancy on adults and are fully
developed and are at least developed past
puberty.
as you can clearly see from above (again)
such resrtictions already exist; and they
harm no one.
Quote:
"forced
pregnancy"
jen the issue is not forced pregnancy....
The woman is already pregnant no one
forced her to become pregnant... She is
pregnant... Reproductive choice has
nothing at all to do with the
issue!
jenn means pregnancy as the whole nine
months up until birth. Forcing a woman to
remain pregnant, in other words. And
that's trying to control her body.
Quote:
"it is forcing
someone to do something with their
personal body against their will or
against their health."
like I have said jen I do believe in a
choice in a life or death situation I have
no quandry with that but I do agree it
would mean forcing a person to do
something (gestate) with their own body
often against their will... That I grant
is something I am well aware of but to
abort would mean to remove the right to
life of a human being and also their own
bodily attomany
too.
who's bodily autonomy? The fetus's? It
has no bodily autonomy nor any rights
thereof; because it is dependant as
opposed to independant like a newborn.
Abortion in no way removes the woman's
bodily autonomy, so I think you meant the
fetus'.
Quote:
"don't simplify
the realities of the situation simply in
order to defeat it later."
i take your advice seriosuly but I also
request that you dont over complicate the
relalities of the situation simply in
order to protect it...Surely that would be
a straw man fallacy too!
For example "forced pregnancy" is over
complicating the issue her pregancty is
not forced it maybe an accidental
pregnancy and could even be a planned
pregancy but it is certainly not a forced
pregnancy except perhaps in the case of
rape and then we would have to know the
motives of the
rapist.
as stated above... "pregnancy" means the
whole nine months. Outlawing abortion
would mean that you would literally force
a woman to remain pregnant, thus removing
her rights to her body. I think you are
meaning "forced conception", which of
course, the woman has already concieved.
Quote:
"am I on the side
of protecting a woman's right to own her
own body and make decisions about it
herself. "
hey jen so am I that is why it is so hard
but what about the unborn childs right to
life and also her own bodily attonamy
too?
they don't have any because they are
dependant, not autonomous.
Quote:
"there is no
"right to live." there never has been.
"
so I can legally kill you, wow I didnt
know that!
no, murder is illegal. "right to
life" is not the same thing as "right to
not be killed". "right to not be killed"
means no one has the right to invade your
space and take away your life. "right to
life" means that every single egg and
sperm out there has a right to become a
person. In my opinion, anyway. "right to
not be killed" means you can't have your
alrady-there rights removed. A fetus
doesn't have removable rights... Since it
has none at all.
Quote:
i am not talking
about law here but what should be law, you
say it is legal for me to kill you, that
we have no right to life... Do you think
that is how it should
be?
please read my above comment.
Quote:
"first, pregnancy
is no guarantee that a child will be born.
"
true
"even when you dismiss abortion, more than
half of all pregnancies end naturally.
Therefore, a fetus is, .A.T. B.E.S.T,
merely potential human life. "
that again is over complicating the issue
in order to protect
it
no... It is a fact related to abortion
and pregnancy. This is important bcause
pro-lifers rant abut how every pregnancy
is precious and no baby should ever die.
But the female body by itself kills half
of them... Horrible, right??
Quote:
I could say the
same thing about born children in
countries with high fatalities rates such
as africa... Probably more than half
perish before they reach adulthood before
they reach a level of indepenancy and are
fully developed would it be fair to say
these children are at best "merely
potential human life" your statement has
to be a strawman fallacy!
"the potential exists but can be end at
any moment for any reason and is usually
outside of our control. "
again the same can be said of children in
africa etc
the african children are born.
Quote:
"the .Woman,
however, exists! She is real, she is
actual, she has overcome the uncertainty
of potential. "
but the unborn child is real, she is
actual and is beyond merely potential
otherwise their would be no pregnancy and
no need for abortion again this has got to
be another straw
man!
actually it has not overcome the
potential. Misscarriages happen at all
stages of pregnancy. Until that child is
born, there is no way to say "it will
absolutely survive".
Quote:
"by placing
value, dignity, and respect on the woman,
we choose to acknowledge her independent
existence and that her body is her own, it
belongs to no one else but her during the
span of her life from birth to death. "
i agree with placing value, dignity and
respect on all human
beings.
but you stated waaaaay up there that you
think the woman has more right to control
her body than the fetus has to survive.
You contradict yourself.
Quote:
by placing value,
dignity and respect on the unborn child we
choose to acknowledge her dependant but
actual existance and that her body is her
own... It belongs to no one else but her
durring the span of her life from
conception unto death.
This is not deminishing the persons
rights.... It is extending
them.
which person, I ask again? The fetus is
not a person. So, how is placing equal
value on the fetus and mother extending
the mother's rights? It is not. It is
extending the fetus' rights, and possibly
removing the mother's rights. That's not
good.
Quote:
"you open the
possibility that all human persons, not
just women, can have their bodies used in
ways that they do not agree with or
wish."
no not at all I am protecting them even
from an earlier time in their
life.
protecting the fetus removes all rights
from the woman.
Quote:
however please
consider this by removing the right to
life of unborn human beings you are
jepordising the right to life of all human
beings...Even you admit that you believe
that no one has the right to
live!
not if you delcare that birth is one of
the defining moments.
Quote:
"simply, if you
force women to donate the use of their
bodies and organs during pregnancy, what
is to keep the government from requiring
donations from all of its citizens despite
what the owners of those bodies and organs
want and need."
no I am not doing that I am not forcing
women to donate their bodys and organs
durring pregnancy, that is just the
natural process...
that can be ended by abortion or
miscarriage
Quote:
it is not forced
its just the way it is...Thats nature...
If you have a problem with your gender I
am sorry you were born a woman but that is
the card you have been
delt.
we don't have a problem with our gender,
and I find that slightly offensive. We do
have a problem with men assuiming and
forcing us to be slaves and to not have
reproductive control. We want to be able
to have sex without the worry of a baby.
Men can do it. Birth control helps.
Abortion is a last resort that we have an
absolute right to.
Quote:
however if you
permit your government to remove the right
to life of the unborn
child
it never removed it since the fetus never
had rights in the first place.
Quote:
"it is a question
of values. Do you value the woman who
actually exists or do you value the fetus
which only has the potential to one day
exist "
i value both the woman who actually exists
and the unborn child who acttually
exists
but you value the woman more; you said you
did. Have you forgotten?
Quote:
"no, you cannot
value you them both equally since one is
using the other's body as life support.
They are not two separate intenties to
where you can choose to value them both
equally because they are attached to one
another through the woman's actual body."
yes and I agree that in cases where the
life of the mother is at real risk then I
do beleve in choice but both have an
actual body and both are human beings and
both are alive and both have a right to
life and both have a right to bodily
attonomy
i do agree it is a question of
values....It is actually a question on
the value of human life vs the value of
social, ecconomical and lifestyle
choices.
|
nightangel73
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 2460 Location: ,
Thanks: 14
Thanked:7
Posted: 12-13-06 00:09am
eiri
wrote:
we don't have a problem with our gender,
and I find that slightly offensive. We
do have a problem with men assuiming and
forcing us to be slaves and to not have
reproductive control. We want to be able
to have sex without the worry of a baby.
Men can do it. Birth control helps.
Abortion is a last resort that we have an
absolute right to.
men have no reproductive control. They
have to worry more than women because
women can have the abortion, men are just
plainly forced to fatherhood whether they
are against it or not.
|
diamondsz
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 3173 Location: , Candyland-Canada
Thanks: 74
Thanked:104
Posted: 12-13-06 01:15am
nightangel73
wrote:
eiri
wrote:
we don't have a problem with our gender,
and I find that slightly offensive. We
do have a problem with men assuiming and
forcing us to be slaves and to not have
reproductive control. We want to be
able to have sex without the worry of a
baby. Men can do it. Birth control
helps. Abortion is a last resort that
we have an absolute right to.
men have no reproductive control. They
have to worry more than women because
women can have the abortion, men are just
plainly forced to fatherhood whether they
are against it or
not.
i am pro-choice in every aspect in my life
I believe choice are there to stimulate
the human mind.
As per jen she said we have to abide by
traffic regulations and we dont we have a
choice to break the rules or to follow
them, it is completely our decision.
Now now nightangel, no man man is forced
to be a father, it is a choice to be made,
if he stay in the childs life and care for
it he is a father if not he is a sperm
donor.
A person has a right to life a human does
not, therefore when you are born you
become a human/person and that entitles
you to rights.
You can choose to call it baby/child but
in reality it is a human fetus, fetus
regards to being dependant on the
mother.
Why shouldnt people have right?
So why shouldnt people have rights when
they are breathing,eating,thinking
beings?
What does a fetus do?
Aboslutly nothing but grow withint the
mothers uterus.
Why should someone be forced to carry a
child against their will? Why should
they?
Explain to me why a human being with
rights should be forced to do something?
Choices are what makes the human species
so interesting, without choice we would
have never evolved, if you take a choice
away you cause a ripple effect that can
cause a negative impact so choose
wisely?
If you believe in choice you have the
right to choose!
If you believe in pro-life you do not
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 12-13-06 02:46am
nightangel73
wrote:
eiri
wrote:
we don't have a problem with our gender,
and I find that slightly offensive. We
do have a problem with men assuiming and
forcing us to be slaves and to not have
reproductive control. We want to be
able to have sex without the worry of a
baby. Men can do it. Birth control
helps. Abortion is a last resort that
we have an absolute right to.
men have no reproductive control. They
have to worry more than women because
women can have the abortion, men are just
plainly forced to fatherhood whether they
are against it or
not.
no they don't have to worry more. They
don't have to worry about getting
pregnant, or having to deal with those
emotions that a woman has to deal with if
she accidentally becomes pregnant.
You do realise the percentage of guys that
will get a girl pregnant and leave her?
That's one of the reasons so many girls
need and want
abortions; because they know their
boyfriend isn't mature enough to deal with
a baby.
|
nightangel73
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 2460 Location: ,
Thanks: 14
Thanked:7
Posted: 12-13-06 07:32am
eiri
wrote:
you do realise the percentage of guys that
will get a girl pregnant and leave her?
That's one of the reasons so many girls
need and want
abortions; because they know their
boyfriend isn't mature enough to deal with
a baby.
and do you realize the percentage of women
that get pregnant on purpose to trap the
men they are after for?
|
diamondsz
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 3173 Location: , Candyland-Canada
Thanks: 74
Thanked:104
Posted: 12-13-06 10:09am
nightangel73
wrote:
eiri
wrote:
you do realise the percentage of guys that
will get a girl pregnant and leave her?
That's one of the reasons so many girls
need and want
abortions; because they know their
boyfriend isn't mature enough to deal with
a baby.
and do you realize the percentage of women
that get pregnant on purpose to trap the
men they are after
for?
sad to say the guy made a choice to have
sex so hes not 100% innocent
|
jenn_smithson
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Nov 2004 Posts: 808 Location: Texas
Posted: 12-13-06 11:12am
Why did any of us even reply to this? I
knew, knew, from the very depths
of my being that izzy was not actually
interested in fairly seeing both sides of
this issue. In fact, all of both of the
incredibly long diatribes are simply a way
to reintroduce overemotional rhetoric,
ignore basic human biology and anatomy in
favor of beliefs, and to construct straw
men fallacies.
The only difference between this and past
attempts to do the same thing is that this
one is at least couched in language that
does not make izzy look completely insane,
only marginally so.
Be honest izzy, you didn't post that
because you actually are conflicted about
anything. You posted it to reiterate
the same position you've been preaching
from in a way that people would, for once,
take seriously because it wasn't complete
demaghogic rhetoric as it has been in the
past.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 12-13-06 11:25am
nightangel73
wrote:
eiri
wrote:
you do realise the percentage of guys that
will get a girl pregnant and leave her?
That's one of the reasons so many girls
need and want
abortions; because they know their
boyfriend isn't mature enough to deal with
a baby.
and do you realize the percentage of women
that get pregnant on purpose to trap the
men they are after
for?
still the girl's desicion, even if it is a
wrong one. And he has just as much a
right to leave her in that situation as he
does when she's accidentally pregnant;
which is why abortion needs to be an
option
Re: Differance Between Pro Life & Pro Choice And I Need Posted: 12-13-06 12:35pm
izzy
wrote:
well after a good while off
from this site... I have made a
conclusion about the difference between a
pro life person and a pro choice person
1. The pro life person thinks of the
issue in terms of protecting the weak and
the vulnrable
2. The pro choice person thinks of the
issue in terms of being told what they can
and cant do.
I can see both points, it is wrong to take
the life of another human being and its
wrong to force a person to do or not do
something contary to what they want...
So this leaves me in a quandry.
Its a either/or situation I cant have it
both ways I must make a choice.
Am I on the side of protecting our right
to do as we like
or am I on the side of protecting the
right to life of the child
does our right to do as we like outweigh
the right of the child to live?
I firmly believe every human being has the
right to life and I also believe every
human being has the right to make choices
for themselves especially about their own
bodilly attonomy
i believe the unborn child is a child a
human being and a person with the
undeniable right to life but I also
believe a woman should have control over
her body...How do I find peace with in
these conflicting ideology.. I must
support one or the other I can not simply
say it is wrong to kill a child but its
another persons choice or it is wrong for
pro life to take away a womans right over
her body and simply not oppose the pro
life movememt
do I protect the womans right to *choose*
abortion
or
do I protect the child's right to life
that is my
quandry
i used to be staunchly pro-life; as far as
I was concerned, foetuses are human beings
so intentionally killing them (no matter
what the circumstances, because that
doesn't change them being human beings)
was murderous and totally unethical. I
changed my mind (i'm now very pro-choice)
when I read that the concept of personhood
is different to humanhood (foetuses are
humans but not persons) and the parasitic
nature of foetuses, I changed my mind.
I also read a philosophical theory which
is something along the lines of "if you
woke up physically attached to someone
else via tubes and this other individual
had to live and feed off your body, use
your organs etc. For nine months
(otherwise s/he would die), and you chose
to have the wires removed before the nine
months were up (resulting in his/her
death) would you think that's fair?". I
looked at this and realised that, yes, it
was fair, and thus so is abortion (because
this can be completely compared to
abortion). Some pro-choicers say that it
doesn't matter if the foetus is a person,
because the woman's right to control her
body comes first. Also, as foetuses,
tumours, teeth, skin cells, and hair
strands contain human dna, yet nobody is
fighting for their 'fundamental right to
life'.
The reasons why and how many times a woman
aborts is totally not the point: her body,
her right, her choice. Simple as. I
strongly advocate contraception but should
a woman choose not to wear it that's her
choice, however silly it would be to do
that.
On another note, I would never want my own
child aborted. And that's why I am
pro-choice.
Kypros
|
jenn_smithson
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Nov 2004 Posts: 808 Location: Texas
Posted: 12-13-06 13:46pm
izzy
wrote:
well you see I dont believe
the unborn child is merely a potential
human life, I do actually agree with
biology that the unborn child is a living
actual human
being
cute but incorrect.
First, at least you admitted that this was
simply a personal belief and not a fact.
As we all know you can believe any insane,
dishonest, or unfactual thing you want to
and no one is going to stop you.
Secondly, the fetus is only a potential
human person (and you knew full
well what I was actually saying) because
there is
.N.O guarantee that a pregnancy will
result in an actual child.
Statistically, more than half of all
pregnancies end .N.A.T.U.R.A.L.L.Y.
There cannot be an actual human person
without a successful birth of some sort.
You cannot have an independent, actual,
right-bearing person without birth.
Lastly, since you knew full well that I
was talking about personhood, your
attempts to be snarky are duly noted with
the last part of your statement.
Quote:
and if the issue
were merely value between a actual
dependant less developed human life in the
unborn child vs actual human life of a
fully developed independant human life in
the woman, then I would fully agree with a
womans right to choose, the whole issue of
the unborn child taking presidence over
the woman is to me totally
wrong.
then what's the problem?
.That is
the essence of this entire issue.
Quote:
also I dont have
issue with the reproductive choice of a
woman since I believe the child to be
biologically speaking an actual human
being I believe that the woman has already
reproduced...
if you want to warp
language, go right ahead, but don't expect
anyone else to agree with you or support
you in your quest to do so.
Quote:
the choice is
no longer a matter of chosing to reproduce
or not she has already
reproduced
and if the pregnancy
ends early, naturally, as more than 50% of
all pregnancies do? We don't, nor have
we ever, considered a woman or a couple to
have reproduced until a live birth has
taken place. Miscarriages are not
reproducing by any stretch of the
imagination. Again, barring fate,
genetics, illness, etc - reproduction can
only take place once the couple has, in
fact, successfully reproduced after a live
birth. You do not claim that a mere
pregnancy, over half of which end
naturally, is reproduction because if it
ends - and most do - there is no
reproduction. This is as simple as I can
make biology for you.
Quote:
its when its the
actual human life of the dependant, less
developed life (unborn child) vs the
social, ecconomic, lifestyle choices ect
of the actual independant fully develioped
human life
(mother)
no, it's not. The
woman either has a right to her own body
or she does not. And if she does not,
then equal protection under the laws of
this nation goes into effect and either
no
one has the right to their own body
or the argument is false and women reclaim
their rights. You cannot stipulate that
women take on the burden and risks of
pregnancy without stipulating that
everyone, including men, take on the same.
Since that is not possible without
forced organ donation, it is unlawful
and unethical to expect or
require women to assume the risks of
pregnancy.
Quote:
i believe that
any and every human being..I.E person (inc
unborn human
being)
your personal beliefs
are not facts. Fetus' are not persons.
Quote:
has the right to
life
your personal beliefs
are not facts.
Quote:
but I also
believe that every adult person should be
free to exersize their own social
ecconomic lifestyle
choices
.Strawman
.Fallacy. your over-simplification
of a very serious issue is noted, again.
However, this is more and far more
important than deciding where you will
shop today or what you will eat today.
The basic human right (and yes, unlike the
"right to life" it actually exists) to own
your own body is at stake.
Quote:
....So can the
social, ecconomic lifestyle choices of an
independant actual human beings outweigh
the right to life of dependant actual
human being?
strawman fallacy, again.
This is more than just about shopping,
going out, or anything else you are trying
to make it seem like.
Quote:
should I be
allowed as a matter of a social,
ecconomic, lifestyle choice to choose to
abort (end the life of) my dependant, less
developed 2 month old actual human life
new born
baby?
fallacy, two of them in
fact. First, as I have stated before,
this is more than just about the woman's
lifestyle choices. The question would
have better been stated, "should I be
allowed as a matter of owning my own body
and deciding for myself what happens to it
the choice to obtain an abortion and end
the life of.."
and the second fallacy occurs when you
change the debate. We have been talking
about fetus', not newborns or other
independent persons. Further, while
fetus' are absolutely physically dependent
upon the woman, newborn neonates are .S.O.C.I.A.L.L.Y
dependent upon society. There is a huge
difference between the two. anyone
may take care of a neonate, it does not
have to be the woman. But only the woman
must sacrifice her body to the fetus.
And it is her body, not simply her wallet
or social life.
So, the actual statement should read:
"should I be allowed as a matter of owning
my own body and deciding for myself what
happens to it the choice to obtain an
abortion, thereby terminating the
absolutely physically dependent, less
developed fetus using my body and its
resources?"
Quote:
or should I be
allowed to end the life of my 2 month old
new born disabled baby or rape
baby?
again, don't change the
debate in the middle of it. We were
talking about fetus', not actual children.
If you would like to return to the
actual debate, please feel free to do so.
Quote:
on the one side
all actual human life is in my opinion
deserving of the right to life (keep on
living) yet it is also my opinion that
adults have the right to make social,
ecconomical and lifestyle choices for
themselves without pressure from
government or religious
sources.
fallacies.
Quote:
so then if I do
believe in the right to life of all actual
living human beings and I believe in the
expert biological testimony that the
unborn child is a actual living human
being but I also believe an adult should
be free to make social ecconomic and
lifestyle choices for themselves where
should my allegiance
be?
fallacies. And, it
sounds as though you made up your mind
prior to all of this drivel. If that's
the case, then why post it?
Quote:
with the unborn
child who I believe has a right to life
or
with the right for adults to be free to
make their own social,ecconomic and
lifestlye choices which includes when in
the case of the mother who wishes to end
the life of her unborn child infringes
upon the right to life of her unborn
child.
fallacies.
Quote:
i sure am
stumped!
no, you're not and
you're not a good actor either.
Quote:
is their no way
that we could defend the right to life of
the unborn child and the right for adults
to make social, ecconomic and lifestyle
choices?
fallacy.
Quote:
would it not be
possible for us to restrict the right to
exersize these choices over the right to
life of the actual dependant human being
(the unborn child) as we do with other
actual dependant less developed human
beings namely the dependant 2 month old
baby?
fallacy and
medically/biologically dishonest.
Quote:
or would that
consitute a massive infringement of our
right to make social, ecconomic and
lifestyle choices if that is the case then
I think we should also try to remove other
massive infringements imposed upon adults
regarding other dependant, less developed
actual human beings... Namely the new
born child up until they are of an age
where they can exist without any
dependancy on adults and are fully
developed and are at least developed past
puberty.
fallacies.
Quote:
jen the issue is
not forced pregnancy.... The woman is
already pregnant no one forced her to
become pregnant...
you know, again, full
well what I meant. You would be forcing
her to remain pregnant, and thus donate
her body and resources, against her will.
Please stay on topic. Your attempts to
muddle the debate are noted but not
appreciated.
Quote:
like I have said
jen I do believe in a choice in a life or
death situation I have no quandry with
that but I do agree it would mean forcing
a person to do something (gestate) with
their own body often against their
will...
and in a pregnancy, this
can occur at literally a seconds notice or
no notice at all. The risk of death is
inherent within each pregnancy. You
cannot wait until the woman is actually
dying before you grant her the right to
her own body. That is sadistic and
absurd.
Quote:
i take your
advice seriosuly but I also request that
you dont over complicate the relalities of
the situation simply in order to protect
it...Surely that would be a straw man
fallacy too!
please point out where I
have done so and no, it would be a
different fallacy altogether.
The fact of the matter is that you don't
know the realities of pregnancy nor can
any of us predict how any pregnancy will
turn out. Because pregnancy .I.S so
uncertain, you cannot force women to
assume those risks against their will.
They have to be willing to risk their
health and life (and yes, many women never
recover from their pregnancies) freely,
not by state compulsion.
Quote:
for example
"forced pregnancy" is over complicating
the issue her pregancty is not forced it
maybe an accidental pregnancy and could
even be a planned pregancy but it is
certainly not a forced pregnancy except
perhaps in the case of rape and then we
would have to know the motives of the
rapist.
if you force a woman to
remain pregnant against her will, you are
forcing pregnancy on her. That is not a
leap in logic.
Quote:
hey jen so am I
that is why it is so hard but what about
the unborn childs right to life and also
her own bodily attonamy
too?
no, you're not nor have
you ever been.
Quote:
so I can legally
kill you, wow I didnt know
that!
there are laws against
unlawful killing. It would be unlawful
to kill me. However, that does not
equate to a "right to life." legally, you
do not have a "right to life." you may only
have the right not to be unlawfully killed
but that can be easily waved in a variety
of different circumstances.
Quote:
i am not talking
about law here but what should be law, you
say it is legal for me to kill you, that
we have no right to life... Do you think
that is how it should
be?
fallacy. I did not say
that you have the legal right to kill me.
Quote:
Quote:
"even when you
dismiss abortion, more than half of all
pregnancies end naturally. Therefore, a
fetus is, .A.T. B.E.S.T, merely
potential human life.
"
that again is over complicating the issue
in order to protect it, I could say the
same thing about born children in
countries with high fatalities rates such
as africa... Probably more than half
perish before they reach adulthood before
they reach a level of indepenancy and are
fully developed would it be fair to say
these children are at best "merely
potential human life" your statement has
to be a strawman
fallacy!
first, you should
education yourself about logic and debate
before you make claims about fallacies
that you cannot substantiate. Secondly,
my comments are biologic fact, over half of
all pregnancies end naturally. That is
not overcomplicating the issue, that is a
fact of the issue. Thirdly,
because it is fact and not merely an
opinion, again you cannot compel women to
assume the risks of continuing a pregnancy
against their will. Fourthly, again, we
were talking about fetus', not actual
people in africa or anywhere else - please
stay on topic.
Quote:
again the same
can be said of children in africa
etc
except I was talking
about fetus' and not actual children in
africa. Please stay on topic.
Quote:
but the unborn
child is real, she is actual and is beyond
merely potential otherwise their would be
no pregnancy
the fetus has not
overcome the uncertainty of potential.
When the fetus does so, it is born.
Before birth, there only exists the
potential that a live birth will take
place. After birth, there exists the
actual. A pregnancy is a chance,
potential, that a live human person will
be born. It is not a guarantee. To say
that the fetus is the same as the woman
carrying it, is dishonest at the very
best.
Quote:
i agree with
placing value, dignity and respect on all
human beings.
you don't respect women,
.Actual human persons, by compelling them
to continue pregnancies against their will
and health. That is the very hei
