Americans Becoming More Pro-Life

[Vousielle]

Our fascisms are different?

Are you trolling me, or are you a Fascist?

Alaje, if you would be willing to describe your beliefs in detail, ill make a thread for it

[Alaje]

Are you trolling me, or are you a Fascist?

Alaje, if you would be willing to describe your beliefs in detail, ill make a thread for it

Maybe later, I don't have the time ATM to write down my beliefs in detail.

[Bontivate]

If those republicans were really pro-life, they'd be vegetarians.

A fetus is certainly dumber than a deer.

[Hallistar]

Lets do some comparisons:

Fetus: Is just a chemical structure, does not know or think anything, is just there, never had anything to lose

Everyone else who can't talk: Already is sentient, metacognitive, yet disabled

I don't mean to attack, but what if Einstein was aborted, what if MLK, JFK, etc etc were aborted. I know that ethical and cleanse abortion techniques did not exist back then, but it makes me wonder. That "chemical structure" could go on to be the being that cures cancer, you just don't know. Just some food for thought.

If they were aborted then most likely someone else would have arisen to their same status. Everything is a possibility, from hitler to a druggie to einstein based on the combinations of genes and childhood environment. Your 'food for thought' has already been debated before.

[Deus Regis Tyrannorum (Ancient)]

Alaje, if you would be willing to describe your beliefs in detail, ill make a thread for it

Maybe later, I don't have the time ATM to write down my beliefs in detail.

Just briefly some core tenets, 'k?

[Deus Regis Tyrannorum (Ancient)]

Freedom of having certain properties one cannot change, like gender and sexuality.

While you can't change your sex or what you are attracted to sexually, you can change the way you present yourself.

AKA you can choose whether to be yourself or stay in the closet. And choosing the former usually results in discrimination and segregation.

[Risottia]

NSG, why do you think support for the American right-to-life movement is growing?

Simple: fundies, and politicians scrambling for their votes.

Anyway, who cares about opinions? Rights are ABOVE opinions, and a person's right to her own bodily autonomy is above political squabbling.

I consider myself and voted "pro-life". But I have a suspicion my own feelings on the matter may be what produced this poll. I consider myself pro-life, but I don't want laws stopping abortion. ...

I would say that "pro-choice" would be the accurate descriptor then.
Then again, I see your point about the intrinsical bias: if one says he's not "pro-life", that sounds like being "anti-life", which means people are istinctively biased towards saying "pro-life".

[No Water No Moon]

The higher fertility rate among religious conservatives than among the general population. Also, because Americans are beginning to realize that life is sacred.

I think that's a horrible abuse of the word 'sacred'.

If life was sacred to Americans, they'd actually care about it. And that would mean that we wouldn't roll tanks into foreign nations on a whim, or execute people casually, or abandon the unborn as soon as they became the born. Americans don't care about 'life', they just feel increasingly squeamish about abortion.

[No Water No Moon]

Oh god no, think of the debt!...

Well exactly.

I'd pay for it, but would the "personal responsiblity" ideologues pay for it? I don't think they would. I think they'd put the responsibility for caring for unwanted children on those "responsible" for the existence of the children. Then, when those people could not pay (particularly for neonatal services, but also for all the costs of raising a child) they'd turn their backs and say "not my problem".

They'd bring children into the world, blovinating about how they all deserve "a chance at life" and then abandon them. That's the pro-life agenda in a nutshell: quantity not quality of human lives.

"Go forth an multiply all the problems of the world". It's a despicable and barbaric ideology. It was wrong a thousand years ago, it was wrong two or five thousand years ago. It's just wrong.

This.

[No Water No Moon]

I am pro life and so is my girlfriends mom who was rapped and still had her child who is now my girlfriend. Her mom views her daughter as the only bright spot from all of it and that without her daughter she would not be nearly as happy. Also there is the case of adoption.

The problem with anecdotes is that they feel like evidence, but they're notoriously unreliable, and largely appeal to emotion.

As a counter-anecdote - if you will - it's about a decade and a half since I lost a fairly close friend to suicide. After getting pregnant, she desperately wanted an abortion. She hated the thought of carrying a pregnancy to term, it literally horrified her. She also considered herself completely incapable of dealing with the pregnancy, or it's aftermath.

She had a very religious family and unfortunately, they had a lot more power over her than her support network of friends. She ended up opting not to abort. She carried a pregnancy to term that she hated, and brought an unwanted child into the world. When that child was four, his mother took her life. All because she wasn't allowed to get the abortion she wanted.

Perhaps that has skewed my perspective on the 'choice' debate. Or perhaps anecdotes are just not reliable.

[No Water No Moon]

"Next thing you know" is a huge tell, that what follows isn't the sincere opinion of the writer.

Congrats on saying "moot" instead of "mute" though.

First off, thank you.

Second, as a pro-lifer myself, and knowing many pro lifers, all of us (around 12 of us) wouldn't go that far. We have come to the conclusion that as soon as sperm touched egg, that is when it becomes an egg. Now unless the complete idiot pro lifers, who want to adopt anti-masturbation ideals... I mean, they can have their opinion, but if your pro life, you usually believe that life begins when sperm joins with egg.

MY POINT IS:
Unless the far far far far far right holds a majority in a government organ, I think that fear is not rational.

From a biological point of view, that's an impractical position. A sperm cell touching an egg cell is not fertilization. Hundreds of sperm cells might touch one egg, and only one will fertilize it.

Perhaps more importantly, 'conception' is not a moment - it's a slow process that takes days. There is no 'moment' at which life is suddenly formed, just a gradual change in existing cells.

[No Water No Moon]

Lets do some comparisons:

Fetus: Is just a chemical structure, does not know or think anything, is just there, never had anything to lose

Everyone else who can't talk: Already is sentient, metacognitive, yet disabled

I don't mean to attack, but what if Einstein was aborted, what if MLK, JFK, etc etc were aborted.

A pointless question. What if someone far more potentially groundbreaking than Einstein died as a child during World War Two? What if the next MLK was one of the roughly half of all pregnancies that fail to go to term without intervention from doctors? What if JFK had died from polio?

There's simply no point in the question. What if? You don't even actually want an answer to that 'what if' - you just want to make an appeal to emotion. And not even one of substance, like the 'here's what abortion looks like' appeal - yours is just a 'hey, the world MIGHT HAVE been a lot more terrible if...' argument.

Of course... if there'd been no Einstein, there might also have been no Stalin. No MLK... no Mussolini. No JFK... no Caligula. Let's not pretend that altruists are the only likely candidates for abortion. Indeed, if we're going to start talking about all the people that might never have happened with abortion - well, there are a lot more people that are NOT Einstein, than that are.

[Rick Rollin]

But it originates without invitation. It's the same principle. If someone isn't allowed bodily sovereignty, we live in a fucked up world.

The woman invited these in:

What did she think they'd do?

Our world is screwed up for valuing nine months of one person's life over eighty years of another person's life.

The woman invited these in:

What did she think they'd do?

Next thing you know Sperm cells will be considered human, which would make masturbation Genocide.

And oral sex could be considered cannibalism!

That would make for some interesting death metal songs.

THAT'S CALLED ADOPTION.

NO its not. There are not going into a system, there going directly to someone who wants a kidbut cannot for whatever reason. I'm not say put them in foster care, which is clearly what everyone thinks im refering to.

The system is there for a reason.

Carrying the fetus to term for another is surrogacy.
Giving the child to them is adoption.
TWO SEPARATE ACTS.

Let me run by a senario:

A women has sex with her significant other, she gets pregnant unwantingly. She considers getting an abortion. She then runs into this couple who are heartbroken because the woman cannot have a child do to health risks. She makes an agreement with them to keep the baby and when it is born, give it to them.

What is wrong with that?

A contrived coincidence.

It seemed apparent earlier, when you didn't realize that the human immune system attacks embryonic tissue unless there is an immunosuppressant - that your grasp on biology was perhaps not really adequate for this particular debate.

So let me help you with this one:

Adoption is where you gain custody of a child from another person or entity - surrogacy is where a woman carries a pregnancy for someone else.

What you're talking about is adoption. If the woman was willing to carry the pregnancy, we wouldn't be discussing abortion - so we're not talking about surrogacy.

The woman would be carrying the pregnancy for someone else. which is surrogacy. My argument is, is that not a better option than abortion?

So either way, you are forcing her to undergo significant costs to herself, just because you are a commie?

I assume it's along the lines of, "Well she's just dumb and should do it anyway because killing babies is wrong!!! ;_____;"

Thats it...

[2]She should not kill the baby, rather give it to someone else, because its not fair to the developing human. Why should the developing human not be able to experience life [1]because 2 idiots could not control their passions?

1. "Well she's just dumb"
2. "and should do it anyway because killing babies is wrong!!! ;______;"

Here's the thing though, referring to a fetus as parasitic is factually correct while referring to it as an infant or newborn is not.

A fetus may be a "parasite" in a biological sense, but surely when a woman welcomes it in her body it has some other quality?

Like that it carries on her genes, or provides her with a child which she wants. Isn't it more like a symbiote in that case, which serves her interests as well as its own?

You have no right to say whom other's interests should be.

The hell is going on in the US? Moving backwards, are you?

The US and the World have been going downhill for quite a time, Liberals and Conservatives fuck everything up.

Don't haton '76 'coz yuh hate muh natura rights. It's been givin' us one fine bounty. Like 'em electromagnetic technologies.

If that's the case no one's morals matter, and all laws are subjective.

Morals =/= laws.

Laws = based on rights and occasionally efficiency/survival.

All rights are natural.

Morals =/= laws.

Laws = based on rights and occasionally efficiency/survival.

Wrong, all laws are based on morality, otherwise we wouldn't be arguing about "rights". "Rights" are irrelevant to a functioning and efficient state.......i.e [1]Nazi Germany, [2]Pre-Civil RIghts USA, [3]Imperial Japan, [4]Singapore, [5]South Korea...etc.

Rights are guaranteed and ignoring them is inherently immoral.

1. Godwin's law exists for a reason.
2a. Tha antebella South for all blacks and many whites too.
2b. The Great Depression
3. Suxed.
4. Sux
5. NK

Laws are based on morality, but they are not morals themselves. They are rules.

Historical fiction is based on history but that doesn't make it history.

Laws are morals, the two are inseparable. Let's see it is morally right for a person to be able to breathe air, SURPRISE no laws saying otherwise. It is morally wrong to kill your fellow countrymen, SURPRISE a law against it!!!

Governments have as much control over morality as they do over psychology.

I don't mean to attack, but what if Einstein was aborted, what if MLK, JFK, etc etc were aborted. I know that ethical and cleanse abortion techniques did not exist back then, but it makes me wonder. That "chemical structure" could go on to be the being that cures cancer, you just don't know. Just some food for thought.

Conversely what if [1]Ghengis Khan, Adolf Hitler, Elizabeth Bathory, Charles Manson, etc. had been aborted?

Why do you hate metal?

[AiliailiA]

A fetus may be a "parasite" in a biological sense, but surely when a woman welcomes it in her body it has some other quality?

Like that it carries on her genes, or provides her with a child which she wants. Isn't it more like a symbiote in that case, which serves her interests as well as its own?

You have no right to say whom other's interests should be.

And I wasn't doing that. In fact, I'm allowing that the value of the fetus is up to the woman to decide. Not me.

I'm saying it's only a "parasite" if she wants to see it that way. If she wants to see it as her future child (ie, wants to keep it growing inside her) then it's more like a symbiote. It serves her interests just as she serves its.

Clear now?

[Christian Democrats]

I'd support penalties similar to those that were imposed before Roe v. Wade. For example:

Criminal Code of Georgia, 1973

CHAPTER 26-12. ABORTION.

26-1201. Criminal Abortion. Except as otherwise provided in section 26-1202, a person commits criminal abortion when he administers any medicine, drug or other substance whatever to any woman or when he uses any instrument or other means whatever upon any woman with intent to produce a miscarriage or abortion. . . .

26-1203. Punishment. A person convicted of criminal abortion shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 10 years.

Note that the abortionists were the ones punished, not the women.

Why would you support imprisoning murderers for only ten years? Surely murder is murder, as a foetus is an equal person with actual people, and therefore should carry life without parole or death, depending on the state?

Murder is the unlawful killing of a person by another person with malice aforethought.

Do you think there is malice aforethought when an abortionist kills an unborn child, or do you believe that the abortionist is acting on the perverted notion that he is actually helping the mother by bringing an end to her pregnancy and the child's life?

In most cases, I would assume that abortionists are not seeking to kill babies just because they feel like it. Rather, their state of mind prevents them from fully seeing the wrongfulness of their actions. This would be a mitigating circumstance. Thus, most abortionists would be committing a form of wrongful homicide other than murder.

Also, in multiple U.S. states, 10 years in prison falls within the range of sentences that murderers can receive. Putting abortionists in prison for 10 years for each abortion performed would seem to be a reasonable sentence.

I do not support the death penalty.

[No Water No Moon]

Do you think there is malice aforethought when an abortionist kills an unborn child, or do you believe that the abortionist is acting on the perverted notion that he is actually helping the mother by bringing an end to her pregnancy and the child's life?

I'd imagine that, as a healthcare provider, the abortionist probably feels like he's providing some form of health care, and probably doesn't care either way about the ridiculous emotional baggage you believe he or she should attach.

[Hallistar]

Why would you support imprisoning murderers for only ten years? Surely murder is murder, as a foetus is an equal person with actual people, and therefore should carry life without parole or death, depending on the state?

Murder is the unlawful killing of a person by another person with malice aforethought.

Do you think there is malice aforethought when an abortionist kills an unborn child, or do you believe that the abortionist is acting on the perverted notion that he is actually helping the mother by bringing an end to her pregnancy and the child's life?

In most cases, I would assume that abortionists are not seeking to kill babies just because they feel like it. Rather, their state of mind prevents them from fully seeing the wrongfulness of their actions. This would be a mitigating circumstance. Thus, most abortionists would be committing a form of wrongful homicide other than murder.

Also, in multiple U.S. states, 10 years in prison falls within the range of sentences that murderers can receive. Putting abortionists in prison for 10 years for each abortion performed would seem to be a reasonable sentence.

I do not support the death penalty.

Except you unsurprisingly fail to understand the difference between a fetus and a child. Many people have thought over the whole abortion process through, and they still go with it. Once you stop thinking "OH YOU MURDERERS JESUS WILL GET YOU!!!" and you actually analyze everything, you realize that its an undeveloped fetus, not a child, that the fetus is just a chemical possibility as are all the unfertilized eggs in a woman's body, and that it is in no way equatable to the termination of a sentient human's life. The fetus once again loses nothing by not existing. "But so and so could have been the next einstein!" Yeah well plenty of fetuses have been aborted so far and the world hasn't gone to hell yet, and possibilities are just possibilities.

[Risottia]

Wrong, all laws are based on morality, otherwise we wouldn't be arguing about "rights".

Because rights and morality are the ONLY concepts touched by laws. There's nothing like money, choices of political and social model. Yeeeesss...
You know, what you said looks to me like a lot of wishful thinking on your part.

[Confederate Socialist States of America]

I find it ironic that the polls are reversed on this forum.

[No Water No Moon]

Murder is the unlawful killing of a person by another person with malice aforethought.

Do you think there is malice aforethought when an abortionist kills an unborn child, or do you believe that the abortionist is acting on the perverted notion that he is actually helping the mother by bringing an end to her pregnancy and the child's life?

In most cases, I would assume that abortionists are not seeking to kill babies just because they feel like it. Rather, their state of mind prevents them from fully seeing the wrongfulness of their actions. This would be a mitigating circumstance. Thus, most abortionists would be committing a form of wrongful homicide other than murder.

Also, in multiple U.S. states, 10 years in prison falls within the range of sentences that murderers can receive. Putting abortionists in prison for 10 years for each abortion performed would seem to be a reasonable sentence.

I do not support the death penalty.

Except you unsurprisingly fail to understand the difference between a fetus and a child. Many people have thought over the whole abortion process through, and they still go with it. Once you stop thinking "OH YOU MURDERERS JESUS WILL GET YOU!!!" and you actually analyze everything, you realize that its an undeveloped fetus, not a child, that the fetus is just a chemical possibility as are all the unfertilized eggs in a woman's body, and that it is in no way equatable to the termination of a sentient human's life. The fetus once again loses nothing by not existing. "But so and so could have been the next einstein!" Yeah well plenty of fetuses have been aborted so far and the world hasn't gone to hell yet, and possibilities are just possibilities.

More importantly, the "but it could have been the next Einstein" argument somehow doesn't stop spontaneous abortion, failure to implant, infertility, disease, or infant mortality. It's a nonsense argument, even if you ignore that - of all the billions of pregnancies that were NOT aborted, only one ever produced Einstein.

[Hallistar]

Morals =/= laws.

Laws = based on rights and occasionally efficiency/survival.

Wrong, all laws are based on morality, otherwise we wouldn't be arguing about "rights". "Rights" are irrelevant to a functioning and efficient state.......i.e Nazi Germany, Pre-Civil RIghts USA, Imperial Japan, Singapore, South Korea...etc.

Laws are ideally based on the best interests of the populace, regardless of 'morality'. Torture, homicide and theft are criminalized not because Jesus said so, but because we all (well most of us anyways) don't want it happening to us.

[Christian Democrats]

Murder is the unlawful killing of a person by another person with malice aforethought.

Do you think there is malice aforethought when an abortionist kills an unborn child, or do you believe that the abortionist is acting on the perverted notion that he is actually helping the mother by bringing an end to her pregnancy and the child's life?

In most cases, I would assume that abortionists are not seeking to kill babies just because they feel like it. Rather, their state of mind prevents them from fully seeing the wrongfulness of their actions. This would be a mitigating circumstance. Thus, most abortionists would be committing a form of wrongful homicide other than murder.

Also, in multiple U.S. states, 10 years in prison falls within the range of sentences that murderers can receive. Putting abortionists in prison for 10 years for each abortion performed would seem to be a reasonable sentence.

I do not support the death penalty.

Except you unsurprisingly fail to understand the difference between a fetus and a child. Many people have thought over the whole abortion process through, and they still go with it. Once you stop thinking "OH YOU MURDERERS JESUS WILL GET YOU!!!" and you actually analyze everything, you realize that its an undeveloped fetus, not a child, that the fetus is just a chemical possibility as are all the unfertilized eggs in a woman's body, and that it is in no way equatable to the termination of a sentient human's life. The fetus once again loses nothing by not existing. "But so and so could have been the next einstein!" Yeah well plenty of fetuses have been aborted so far and the world hasn't gone to hell yet, and possibilities are just possibilities.

So you believe that the birth canal is a magic portal that converts chemicals into human beings?

[David Williams]

Hopefully, this trend will continue to gain monentum so we can outlaw abortion for good.

Yeah, fuck go women's rights!

This. Unborn women deserve rights too! Go anti-abortion feminism!!!

I don't relish the idea of giving women Anti-women "rights" to sentence a human child (possibly female) to death. So yes, I that respect...fuck Go women's rights!

Totally a child.

Wow, i never knew that before 1/3 of the way through the pregnancy the kid has fingers! Not to mention that even way before that it already had Sex organs, a Brain, And a Heart, 2 of which pro-abortionists don't have (and another that they don't deserve).

When you say that you are against abortion, you are saying that the "life" of a single celled organism is more valuable to you then the life of a grown woman.

Striked out the word grown because it is ageist. as for the bold text, in 50% of cases they're the same thing. Saying that unborn men only should be aborted is sexist.

Next thing you know Sperm cells will be considered human, which would make masturbation Genocide.

Since when did male genitals start becoming pregnant?

[Risottia]

Murder is the unlawful killing of a person by another person with malice aforethought.

Do you think there is malice aforethought when an abortionist kills an unborn child, or do you believe that the abortionist is acting on the perverted notion that he is actually helping the mother by bringing an end to her pregnancy and the child's life?

Does not apply because a foetus is not a person.

Anyway, let's assume the foetus was a person. Persons have rights and DUTIES... including the duty of respecting other people's rights. And since a person has the right to bodily integrity and autonomy... why should a person invade another person's genitalia when the latter isn't consenting to the activity anymore?
That's why the very idea of considering a foetus a legal person entails a war on women: because by doing so you effectively imply that pregnant women lose their rights to bodily integrity and autonomy.

Unborn women deserve rights too!

A foetus isn't a woman. Get over it.

[AiliailiA]

Why would you support imprisoning murderers for only ten years? Surely murder is murder, as a foetus is an equal person with actual people, and therefore should carry life without parole or death, depending on the state?

Murder is the unlawful killing of a person by another person with malice aforethought.

Do you think there is malice aforethought when an abortionist kills an unborn child, or do you believe that the abortionist is acting on the perverted notion that he is actually helping the mother by bringing an end to her pregnancy and the child's life?

In most cases, I would assume that abortionists are not seeking to kill babies just because they feel like it. Rather, their state of mind prevents them from fully seeing the wrongfulness of their actions. This would be a mitigating circumstance. Thus, most abortionists would be committing a form of wrongful homicide other than murder.

Also, in multiple U.S. states, 10 years in prison falls within the range of sentences that murderers can receive. Putting abortionists in prison for 10 years for each abortion performed would seem to be a reasonable sentence.

And for the woman?

Surely any claim that the medical procedure is "wrongful homicide other than murder" makes anyone who pays someone else to perform an abortion a criminal accomplice? And the woman is an accomplice materially too, by bringing the fetus to a place where it is to be killed. Without her active co-operation the abortion would not be possible.

So you'll have to propose further legislation setting out why the woman should never be prosecuted. I can't even begin to imagine how you'd do that.

I do not support the death penalty.

Well that's nice. I suppose we were bound to agree on something eventually.