So, ATS, Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

reply to post by earthdude


Thank you.
I was not debaing, i was trying to administer a dose of unpalatable medicne called reality.
not all the medicine you have to take to grow up tastes good.
thanks again for the sugar.
Social worker types need the boost

reply to post by igor_ats

Wrong. If you called it Pro-FEMALE-choice, then okay. But just as "Pro-Life" is a misnomer because they only focus on one type of "life," Pro-choice" is even less honest because it only supports one sexes' "choice". Whereas the "pro-lifer's" are at least earnest in their belief that they are attempting to protect life, "pro-choice" proponents actually disenfranchise half the population's "choice," and do so with a righteous sense of entitlement. If I saw "pro-choice" proponents fighting for male reproductive rights EVER, then they may have some claim to that all-encompassing term. "pro-choice." The logic that you agree with when it applies to the other side, actually has more relevance when applied to your side's labeling technique. Theirs is a "sin of omission," while yours is actual doublethink. It's obvious on its face.

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by JR MacBeth

 

JR

You're the only sane person left on this thread and I'm not ignoring you, I am reading your threads...

Thanks! Not sure I'm terribly sane, but I'm glad maybe someone is getting where I'm coming from.

You know, it seems to me, probably most of us, if we have not actually had direct experience of this issue ourselves, still know someone who has gone through it. A friend from school, a co-worker perhaps, even a young family member.

For me, knowing people who have dealt with it, regardless of the decision they ultimately made, puts a face on it. The horrific "damned if you do, and damned if you don't" torments. The confusion of the moment, seemingly not always helped, by even those with the best intentions. And then, almost worse, the poor person faces an entire society seemingly as callous at their critical moment, as it was indifferent, before that moment.

When thinking back to our own experiences, how did we conduct ourselves? Did we do the best we knew how to do at that critical "moment", for the ones we knew? Did we later philosophize, rationalize, or even start to see a bigger picture, afterwards?

Modern Western culture has in many ways become a "surpra-national" culture. As various forms of Western entertainment saturated the planet, especially over the past half-century, haven't we all begun to "melt" together? Even the biggest differences, let's call them "religious" (really, they are paradigm differences, more generically), today take a back seat to the "culture of the world". This means that maybe WE Westerners do need to start figuring some of this out, because the whole world is following right behind us. We lead, whether we like it or not.

I still recall being surprised when I found out that my seriously religious Muslim Pakistani college roommate, knew every Eagles song, better than I did! That was a long time ago, immigrants were really just starting to "go West" at that time and place, but what was cool was that we had something in common, and it was totally unexpected. And yes, he made sure to let me know that he thought Islam was the "right" religion, but bottom line, he was just a normal guy, who grew up a bit different than I did.

I don't know if the Eagles can help with this abortion issue, but their old song "Take It Easy" sure seems to help me sometimes when I'm feeling like things are getting a bit too much (sorry to you younger folks who probably have no idea who the Eagles are!).

No, I'm not trying to trivialize the obvious seriousness of what we're talking about, but I do think that we need to start seeing each other differently. Which is to say, maybe we need to see that we're all essentially the SAME, in all the most important ways.

I'm not a religionist myself, but I like the old saying that goes, "But for the grace of God, there might go I."

Or maybe better, the Indians might remind us to walk in the "moccasins" of another, before making judgement.

Maybe these two old sayings are a better starting point, not only to help us with this important issue, but also with the rest that are facing us too.

JR

I think both sides would love to see the abortion rate down. I think that's been unaminously agreed on both sides, just a different way of going about it. One side definitely is not having much success. There is not one example in history where restrictive abortion legislation has been successful in stopping abortions. The biggest factor in reducing abortion is legal abortion access and access to artificial contraception and unbiased sex education. Something the pro-life crowd are also against too last time I checked - see "abstinence education" in U.S. schools.

Sex education has been a compulsory subject in schools in Sweden since 1956, and today Swedish adolescents who are sexually active have a high rate of contraceptive use and a low number of abortions. In Poland Catholic instruction has been made compulsory in schools and look how things have turned out.

Anyway, if the pro-choice side were really "pro-abortion" - like some ppl here claim - they would want to see more abortions whether women want them or not. I consider "pro-abortion" a political stance (like pro-life / pro-choice) where there is a universal desire to see more abortions. As it is, there is no group that I can reference on the internet or otherwise that is "pro-abortion" under this definition... including the recognized population control groups.

reply to post by TokiTheDestroyer


I, like all good people, am against the murder of unborn children.

reply to post by JR MacBeth


I appreciate your thoughts on this. For me, it is about more than "correct terminology," however. I believe both sides are attempting, dishonestly, to manipulate emotion, not merely avoid it, as you suggest. I haven't actually stated my opinion on the matter of abortion because this thread is tilted "so, ats, pro-life or pro-choice?" For me, the importance of pointing out the labeling technique employed by both sides trumps, by far, my insignificant opinion on the matter.
We cannot avoid the emotion inherent in this issue. The attempt to re-frame the question in a dishonest and manipulative manner, does a disservice to our basic humanity. It offends me deeply, as you can probably tell. If I responded to the question as though I did not understand the attempted mind-control, I would only be helping to further it.

edit to add: NPR agrees with me, though the authors of this article clearly don't:
newsbusters.org...
to be fair the other side dislikes the change as well:

www.huffingtonpost.com...

reply to post by joechip


Excellent, I couldn't agree more. I have not stated my "opinion" yet either, although perhaps both "sides" have already put the little black hat on me, who knows? How does it look?

You are so right. Our little opinions aren't all that important, are they? Even in nations that imagine they are "democratic", we can vote all day long, and never accomplish a thing! Such is reality.

Can we change ourselves? I think so. If enough people start doing right things, or good things, or even just "better" things (at least), shouldn't we expect progress then?

I'll repeat again that I personally think your idea of using terms that are less propagandistic is a huge step in the right direction. Imagine if both sides could mutually accept a "label" for each other! Just that "one little thing" would be almost enough to start heading in the right direction, who knows?

Well, I sure appreciate people like you enhancing the quality of the debate. Let's hope others will join us, and stop handing out those horrible little black hats!

JR

Originally posted by joechip
Wrong. If you called it Pro-FEMALE-choice, then okay

Choice involves more than one option though. Pro-man+woman choice doesn't work.

Lets follow through with it - do you support the man having the choice to abort his womans pregnancy? Or only the "choice" that you want them to take - to not abort. One choice = no choice after all.

Originally posted by joechip
reply to post by igor_ats

 

Pro-choice" is even less honest because it only supports one sexes' "choice".

If you look at Roe v Wade the only person who's body is being host to an unwanted organism is the womans so she is the only relevant party here when it comes to who has the choice to abort.

Lets say someone "created" another persons requirement for blood and/or organs through grevious/actual bodily harm - they might be thrown in jail or fined, but they are not required to make restitution with their own blood or organs.

The same principle should apply to pregnant women. For a law to hold women to a seperate standard would be to deliberately descriminate against women and not pay attention to legal precedence.

Since the zygotes/embryos/fetuses are not persons in any legal sense any responsibility on the womans part to the fertilized egg is not the governments to dictate. Similarly, people have no responsibility to another person to donate their organs or blood much less be their life support for nine months even if they caused the person the damage to the organ(s) or predicament - and these are people already born, not developing zygotes, embryos and fetuses. To give these rights to z/e/f's would give them rights no born person has. Hence Roe v Wade ruled accordingly that women are the relevant party in regards to the laws invoved, not men.

Sure men aren't given a say, but then neither is the government or anyone else because they're not the one who has to gestate an unwanted fetus and then endure labor against their will. Something no one should have the right to dictate on someone.

reply to post by igor_ats


PRO choice as defined in todays poitically correct atmosphere of illusion and mirage and smoke and mirrors is focused of course on the woman, and the woman alone. Ant that choice unfortuantely means the death of another human.

So lets back up in time and make the woman, POWERFUL, EMPOWERED, and have her exercize this CHOICE in terms of to not engage in the life creating act of sexual intercourse. Abstinence, which has been known for thousands of years. So you pro choice women get off your lazy rear ends and become empowered and exercize your PRO CHOICE before you take your pants off----not afterwards.

See afterwwards when the life, unique in time and humanness, is living inside of you there are now four people involved, if you are going to make an honest intellectual effort at integrity, the pregnant woman, the living baby, the biological father and the original creator of this special power given in LOVE, not LUST, yes I will say it GOD.

Four people if you truely get honest woman, man, baby and God.

Hell in Genesis God even said. "Know these two things are always in front of you. Life and Death, therefore choose life."

Yes pro choice for WOMEN.
HALF the ABORTED babies ARE WOMEN.

Very disingenuous and disintegrated psychology here.

Lets hear it for one out of three American children missing.

The rest of your statistice are a riddled with deciet as well.

reply to post by igor_ats


You misrepresent my point and make several errors in presenting your own.
For example, take Roe v. Wade, the language of the decision cites "emotional readiness" and "financial stability," and other such arguments, not the oft-misrepresented idea that the court held a woman's body as her own sacrosanct "property." It dealt with the government's overreach in forcing parenthood upon her. This to my mind, would equally apply to men.
My argument, involving "choice" has more to do with owning your own choices, including the responsibilities involved. In other words, a man should have the same rights to waive his parental rights and responsibilities that a woman does. Especially since the ultimate decision to even have the child lies with the woman, not the man. It is not hyperbole to consider the current system tyranny.
Furthermore you claim that "the zygotes/embryos/fetuses are not persons in any legal sense any responsibility on the womans part to the fertilized egg is not the governments to dictate," except that's not exactly true. If someone kills your "future human", except you, of course, they ARE treated as persons and the appropriate murder charge is made against the perpetrator. Clearly in some "legal" senses your fetus is considered a "person." Apparently, whenever it suits you as a woman. And you would deny the "government's" right to dictate YOUR responsibility, while using the government to dictate and enforce a MAN's responsibility.
These often contradictory laws and social expectations are (hopefully) a part of an unfinished process. I find it interesting that feminist groups no longer support the ERA, in their own words (I'll try to find a quote) because they have already achieved the social goals such as abortion rights and equal pay. My own thought is that they fear the social upheaval and financial setbacks they would incur if men were not forced (due to equal reproductive rights) to finance their unwed progeny.
Think about it, I never claimed that you could or could not have an abortion. Merely that your concept of "choice" is extremely selective, and an unfair, untrue term for your movement.

Originally posted by slugger9787
PRO choice as defined in todays poitically correct atmosphere of illusion and mirage and smoke and mirrors is focused of course on the woman, and the woman alone.

Of course, she is the one who has the gestate it for nine months and then endure labor. That was what Roe V Wade was about.

Originally posted by slugger9787
And that choice unfortuantely means the death of another human.

Only the sloppyness of English grammar allows you this equivocation between "human" (an adjective, as in "human toe", "human ovum", "human corpse" or "human cell culture") and "humans" (a noun in its plural form). A lots of things may be human, but only those which are born and alive are given a higher legal status.

So, why don't pro-lifers protest outside IVF clinics for all those dead "humans" killed each year in their hundred of thousands?

Originally posted by slugger9787
So lets back up in time and make the woman, POWERFUL, EMPOWERED, and have her exercize this CHOICE in terms of to not engage in the life creating act of sexual intercourse. Abstinence, which has been known for thousands of years.

Except when it comes to rape and failed contrcaeption pro-lifers drop the responsibility argument and argue that it doesn't matter anyway because the "baby has a right to life". Besides abstinence education doesn't work.

Originally posted by slugger9787
So you pro choice women get off your lazy rear ends and become empowered and exercize your PRO CHOICE before you take your pants off----not afterwards.

Sex is not a contract to carry any resulting pregnancy to term.

Sex is not negligent and carries no obligation to become pregnant and stay pregnant. The unwanted embryo starts the process of embedding in the uterine lining. It uses special methods for avoiding the immunity responses. So it is active involvement on the zygotes part not some innocent passive involvement. Additionally the woman's body caused a situation which only benefited the fertilized egg - by bringing it into existence.

If fertilization is neither illegal nor negligent, no (legal) obligations of the actors can be derived from it. Which is why IVF clinics have no obligation to store fertilized eggs indefinitely until a host is available (like the pope said they should).

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. There is a risk that pregnancy might result - should anyone become pregnant for whatever reason (contraception failed, forgot to take pill, rape etc) they have no legal obligation to continue that pregnancy against their will.

Originally posted by slugger9787
See afterwwards when the life, unique in time and humanness, is living inside of you there are now four people involved, if you are going to make an honest intellectual effort at integrity, the pregnant woman, the living baby, the biological father and the original creator of this special power given in LOVE, not LUST, yes I will say it GOD.

If pro-lifers were honest in their claims they would have no choice but accept spontaneous abortion is humanities biggest killer and IVF is a holocaust of sorts.

If a fertilized egg has the same ontic and moral equivalent of a neonate then I'd expect pro-lifers to do something about the "holocaust" that is IVF. . . yet I don't see any pro-lifers protesting outside clinics where "human beings" are deliberately created and deliberately destroyed. I guess waving placards and shouting at a test tube in a fridge just isn't the same.

reply to post by bluemirage5

I'm sure you've heard by now that there are countless married couples who are ready and willing to stand up and take that baby/child. Every child is wanted by someone. I chose adoption because at 18 I had no support.
I have no regrets at all about my decision. I got to choose from profiles which family she would go to and the parents both had degrees in education and had already adopted a boy baby and that had gone well enough for the agency to place my daughter with them. I held her three times and then I let her go knowing she was going to a better life. It was a good choice and not very hard to deal with.

If fertilization is neither illegal nor negligent, no (legal) obligations of the actors can be derived from it.

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. There is a risk that pregnancy might result - should anyone become pregnant for whatever reason (contraception failed, forgot to take pill, rape etc) they have no legal obligation to continue that pregnancy against their will.

.


Can you see how your statements above make my point about male reproductive rights? "No "legal obligations of the actors can be derived from it." I mean really, if consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, how can it be argued that consent to sex is consent to parenthood and/or the financial responsibilities thereof? Really, now. Be consistent.

As a Liberal I am wholeheartedly Pro Choice in most cases and I passionately defend Womens Rights where abortion is concerned. I think that you will find that the Supreme Court, The Senate & Congess agree.

The only exeption should be Jewish children, for obvious reasons.

What the "pro life" crazies and bombers fail to take into account are the strategic social benefits of abortion on demand, in terms of in-voluntary immolation of undesirable fetuses. If you study the demographic of terminated pregnancies the positive aspects of abortion are clear. I believe that those in power in the US undrstand this very well, hence the cheap & easy facilities & positive portrayal of "choice" in the media.

Originally posted by joechip
For example, take Roe v. Wade, the language of the decision cites "emotional readiness" and "financial stability," and other such arguments, not the oft-misrepresented idea that the court held a woman's body as her own sacrosanct "property."

Well, it is her property. I'm pretty sure the main basis for Roe v Wade was very much about the right to privacy. They may have mentioned other factors but that's certainly not the reason abortion was ruled legal.

Removing the rights of privacy involved in abortion is basically a proposition that a womans body can be invaded without her consent, and she has no say in the matter being denied the ability to make her own decisions regarding the use of her own body and her specific objections being ignored and disregarded. Kind of like if we took you and injected an alien inside your body, then legally prevented you from having it removed.

A woman has the absolute right to determine whether she will or will not host another organism in her body for 40 weeks and endure labor, because it is her body that must be the life support for this fetus. A surgeon who operates without the consent of the patient can and will be sued for battery, among other things, and that is an historical precedent that dates to 1900 in the U.S. The basis for that is the right of the person to the integrity of his/her own body. To forstall the "z/e/f are persons with their own bodily integrity", no, z/e/f's do not have such rights. They do not have their own bodily integrity independent of the woman and a "right to life" at the expense of someone else - even persons born don't have such a right.

Originally posted by joechip
Furthermore you claim that "the zygotes/embryos/fetuses are not persons in any legal sense any responsibility on the womans part to the fertilized egg is not the governments to dictate," except that's not exactly true. If someone kills your "future human", except you, of course, they ARE treated as persons and the appropriate murder charge is made against the perpetrator.

Fetal homicide laws still quite effectively protects the reproductive rights of all women. Fetal homicide laws in general contain clauses that specifically exclude consideration of:

- Abortion procedures,

- Medical treatment, such as the removal of a uterine cancer or termination of a ectopic pregnancy which kills the embryo or fetus as an unintended side-effect, or

- Any action by the mother herself.

Fetus is still not a person despite ruling. Fetus is distinguished from human being. At no time was the legal status of a fetus changed in any way by this verdict.

Originally posted by joechip
Think about it, I never claimed that you could or could not have an abortion. Merely that your concept of "choice" is extremely selective, and an unfair, untrue term for your movement.

The legal choice is based on who has to gestate the unborn for nine months and then endure labor. Since this is unquestionably the woman, the man cannot have a say in her decision to abort or not to abort because he is not the life support for it. To summarize Bodily Autonomy trumps "male reproductive rights".

As far as a man having a say in a pregnancy it seems to me it only goes so far as to correlate to what type of say you want them to have. Male reproductive rights = only the pro-life "choice"? Can't have it both ways.

Whether it is the right to become a parent or to avoid becoming a parent, then, the pregnant woman's choice trumps that of the father of the pregnancy. Furthermore, if the woman chooses to go to term with the pregnancy, the father is legally liable for child support. It may not be equal in that a mans consent to sex = liability, whilst it doesn't with the women but that's because of design engineering. Recent changes in some states mean they do have a say if the woman agrees to discharge his responsibility by some form of contract relinquishing his parental responsibility, but that's going off-topic. It can be proven it's his (or not) with dna, unfortunately the child support system isn't that great and many men do not pay.

Originally posted by joechip

If fertilization is neither illegal nor negligent, no (legal) obligations of the actors can be derived from it.

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. There is a risk that pregnancy might result - should anyone become pregnant for whatever reason (contraception failed, forgot to take pill, rape etc) they have no legal obligation to continue that pregnancy against their will.

Can you see how your statements above make my point about male reproductive rights? "No "legal obligations of the actors can be derived from it." I mean really, if consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, how can it be argued that consent to sex is consent to parenthood and/or the financial responsibilities thereof? Really, now. Be consistent.

I would argue the context is whether or not to remain pregnant. Fertilization - "actors" the zygote and woman?

After all fertilization doesn't require a man. . . can't get an IVF clinic to pay child support.

reply to post by igor_ats


You really mean to claim that you meant zygote and woman as the "actors" you were referring to? We both know that's a lie. You just got called out using your own logic, and wouldn't stand by your own words. I have no interest in debating the intellectually dishonest.
Good day, ma'am.

reply to post by Lionel

If you study the demographic of terminated pregnancies the positive aspects of abortion are clear.

You've got a great sense of humor Lionel, hope others can appreciate it too!

Well, you brought up an issue I think is important, the demographic element. This is one that can turn into a powder-keg of course, with racial connotations usually the most volatile. Of course, we wouldn't want to forget elite agendas that likely play into it. Maybe others are familiar with this issue too?

JR