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

Pro-choice.

It's no one else decision apart from the mothers. This is what many Pro-lifers fail to understand.

Originally posted by Hefficide

Originally posted by Subjective Truth

I look at this issues this way if my wife was pregnant and some thug shot her in the stomach and killed the baby would it not be murder?

This comparison doesn't work at all for me.

A woman who makes a personal and informed decision to terminate her pregnancy is not a victim of an unwanted procedure or assault.

Would you call a tonsilectomy a "throat slitting"?

Your missing the point does a fetus have rights in the womb? This is my point if a thug shoots a pregnant women and kills the baby and the women is still alive is this murder? YES


If you answer yes and are pro abortion you logic is faulty in my eyes.









[edit on 8-9-2010 by Subjective Truth]

Originally posted by Subjective Truth
Your missing the point does a fetus have rights in the womb? This is my point if a thug shoots a pregnant women and kills the baby and the women is still alive is this murder? YES
If you answer yes and are pro abortion you logic is faulty in my eyes.

Murder is a legal term with a legal definition.

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 Subjective Truth

Your missing the point does a fetus have rights in the womb? This is my point if a thug shoots a pregnant women and kills the baby and the women is still alive is this murder? YES

If you answer yes and are pro abortion you logic is faulty in my eyes.

[edit on 8-9-2010 by Subjective Truth]

Your analogy does not take into consideration a womans right to dominion over her own body. In fact your viewpoint seems to imply that a woman who chooses this course is either a cold blooded murderer or else is too unintelligent to understand the gravity of her actions.

Or are you simply saying that doctors who perform this procedure are cold blooded murderers?

I have already stated in this thread that I personally disagree with the concept of abortion. But a womans right to choose is just that, her right to choose.

If it's murder then it's between the woman who chooses to have an abortion, her conscience, and her God. It's not my place to impose my will or morals upon her.

Originally posted by Hefficide

Originally posted by Subjective Truth

Your missing the point does a fetus have rights in the womb? This is my point if a thug shoots a pregnant women and kills the baby and the women is still alive is this murder? YES

If you answer yes and are pro abortion you logic is faulty in my eyes.

[edit on 8-9-2010 by Subjective Truth]

Your analogy does not take into consideration a womans right to dominion over her own body. In fact your viewpoint seems to imply that a woman who chooses this course is either a cold blooded murderer or else is too unintelligent to understand the gravity of her actions.

Or are you simply saying that doctors who perform this procedure are cold blooded murderers?

I have already stated in this thread that I personally disagree with the concept of abortion. But a womans right to choose is just that, her right to choose.

If it's murder then it's between the woman who chooses to have an abortion, her conscience, and her God. It's not my place to impose my will or morals upon her.

NO offense but I think you might look into things a little to far. I find it hard to argue with logic like this because you wrap so many other issues in it.



My argument is simple and sound. Your insight is not.

Originally posted by Subjective Truth

NO offense but I think you might look into things a little to far. I find it hard to argue with logic like this because you wrap so many other issues in it.

My argument is simple and sound. Your insight is not.

When people go out of their way to say "No offense" it is usually because they already know that they intend to do just that.

By saying that I look into things "too far" I can only conclude that you have not looked into this very difficult and complex issue far enough. To form a sound opinion about a subject as serious as this, I feel beholden to weigh out all the variations and conditions which may apply to it and then to use my conclusions to make the best decision that I can possibly make.

My insight is based upon logic and reasoning and is as sound as I can humanly make it. Can you say the same for your emotional brand of reason?

reply to post by Hefficide





My statement was a simple what if. Yours was so far off what I asked, I actually thought you were responding to someone else.



I will ask you again this time personally---Is it murder if someone shoots your pregnant wife in the stomach and the baby dies?



And for the love of God please dont write 5 paragraphs of nothing for your answer.




[edit on 8-9-2010 by Subjective Truth]

reply to post by Subjective Truth


Yes, I will try to make this as simple as I can - now stay with me...

Somebody shooting your wife is not the same thing as your wife, or any other woman, having an abortion.

Are you with me?

Assault with a deadly weapon and an elective surgical procedure are not the same thing.

Your emotions may want it to add up. Your morality may demand that you think of these things as equal, but they are not.



[edit on 9/8/10 by Hefficide]

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by Subjective Truth

 

Yes, I will try to make this as simple as I can - now stay with me...

Somebody shooting your wife is not the same thing as your wife, or any other woman, having an abortion.

Are you with me?

Assault with a deadly weapon and an elective surgical procedure are not the same thing.

Your emotions may want it to add up. Your morality may demand that you think of these things as equal, but they are not.



[edit on 9/8/10 by Hefficide]

Once again you are not answering the simplest of questions. The question is really does the fetus have rights.



I will ask it in another way if your wife gets shot and the baby dies and your wife does not want to press charges against the shooter is there a crime?



If you say Yes in your mind why?

[edit on 8-9-2010 by Subjective Truth]

Originally posted by Subjective Truth

Once again you are not answering the simplest of questions. The question is really does the fetus have rights.

I will ask it in another way if your wife gets shoot and the baby dies and your wife does not want to press charges against the shooter is there a crime?

If you say Yes in your mind why?

My opinion about fetal rights is irrelevant to this topic because the law of the land, as handed down in Roe v Wade, Planned Parenthood v Casey, and Gonzales v Carhart says that abortion, with certain considerations is legal. The concept of "fetal rights" has already been decided. Until legislation is passed which overturns or alters the existing legislation the matter is considered settled.

What I am saying is that my personal moral position cannot and should not have bearing upon anothers right to decide for themselves.

If my wife were to be shot and chose not to press charges I would have to live with her decision as it is her decision.

Originally posted by Hefficide

Originally posted by Subjective Truth

Once again you are not answering the simplest of questions. The question is really does the fetus have rights.

I will ask it in another way if your wife gets shoot and the baby dies and your wife does not want to press charges against the shooter is there a crime?

If you say Yes in your mind why?

My opinion about fetal rights is irrelevant to this topic because the law of the land, as handed down in Roe v Wade, Planned Parenthood v Casey, and Gonzales v Carhart says that abortion, with certain considerations is legal. The concept of "fetal rights" has already been decided. Until legislation is passed which overturns or alters the existing legislation the matter is considered settled.

What I am saying is that my personal moral position cannot and should not have bearing upon anothers right to decide for themselves.

If my wife were to be shot and chose not to press charges I w




I did not ask what the supreme court justices think, I asked what you think. But like the 10 posts before this you only dodge the question.


But I do understand if you are incapable of having your own opinion by all means refer your thoughts to them.

It is illegal for:

- Person to harm Mother…

- Person to harm Mother’s unborn…

- Mother to harm herself…

Yet, it is legal for:

- Mother to harm her unborn?…

Also, I believe the child does not belong only to the mother. The father's input and wishes should carry as much weight as the mother's.

Below is a part of an essay…The Contradiction of Abortion and Morality

“One might argue about the rights of the mother. Doesn't she retain the right to choose what happens to her own body? The mother has every right to choose what happens to her body. She also has the right to seize her free will and make her choices without being forced into a decision by others. However, in the case of abortion, the woman has already exercised her free will and taken advantage of her right to choose. If she knowingly and consensually chose to have sex, she also knowingly and consensually accepted the consequences that follow. The moral disallowance of abortion does not violate the rights of the mother to choose. It only requires her to take responsibility for the choice that she already made.”

www.123helpme.com...

My pro-life views aside, what disturbs me the most is the “who cares” attitude. I know tempers flare but at least there is passion… without passion in our own beliefs we’d just walk around like a bunch of zombies!

I will not go into any legalities here as we are a diverse community from many different lands.
There are so many different variables.

A young lass is gang raped and falls pregnant. Should she be allowed to have a termination? Of course she should.

A married woman has too many children, and her husband refuses to
wear protection. Plus 'the pill' is detrimental to her health.

Incest.

Disease.

All of the above should be allowed to terminate, but no later than the first trimester.

Pro-choice though should not be used as a 'mistake mender' for the too-lazy to use contraceptives.

Why not take away the shame (or inconveniece) of seeing a pregnancy to the end, with help from TPTB financially, if the child is allowed to be adopted. How many go overseas in search of children to be adopted and loved and cherished.

Peace.

Great question, and hats off to the OP for asking it.

I am pro people. For the mother, the father, and the child.

Or, for the humans involved, to put it another way.

Yes, that's irony, but it is the truth. Pushing one of the people in this equation to the side is the real failure I'm afraid of.

All are equal, and someone who chooses the child over the mother doesn't understand the needs of either, imo.

I choose both. That's reality and I'm sticking to it.

If there is agreement between the man and woman then...

I am pro-choice all the way because i) there are too many hoomans on this planet as it is so a few less can only be a good thing. and ii) if the couple believes they are incapable of caring for a child, would it not be cruelty to bring it into this world with the understanding that suffering, hardship and, likely neglect are it's future?

If there is no agreement between the man and woman then...

I am pro-life since it takes two to tango and they should have thought about the ramifications of doing the nasty beforehand. So long as one of the two is capable and willing to make that commitment then their needs can not be dismissed.

It's a sticky issue, for sure, because in the case of differing opinions, someone will lose(...and how many times have you heard the BS phrase "no one's a loser"?). Having said that, I do not believe a foetus is life and that, ideally, if the kid can survive without medical aid outside the mother, it can live. If it can't, it should be left to it's natural demise.

I am pro choice, because I think its better for the child to not live then to live in poverty and suffering, because the parents cannot take appropiate care of it. Also, embryos are not conscious, because they dont have functioning brain - therefore killing embryos is even less crime to me than killing conscious animals.

en.wikipedia.org...
The definition of something alive ""Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (biology) from those that do not,[1][2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.[3]

In biology, the science of living organisms, life is the condition which distinguishes active organisms from inorganic matter.[4] Living organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations. More complex living organisms can communicate through various means.[1][5] A diverse array of living organisms (life forms) can be found in the biosphere on Earth, and the properties common to these organisms—plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea, and bacteria—are a carbon- and water-based cellular form with complex organization and heritable genetic information.

In philosophy and religion, the conception of life and its nature varies. Both offer interpretations as to how life relates to existence and consciousness, and both touch on many related issues, including life stance, purpose, conception of a god or gods, a soul or an afterlife. ""

That being said, If you boil it down, life is just a chemical reaction and when you die you feed other organisms. If energies do pass on, why can't your energies stay in your body until organisms consume your energy and that organism lives on? Maybe when you eat something your actually eating energies from the plant/animal that was used to keep you alive. We kill animals and plants 24/7 to keep us alive, but when we destroy seeds of our own kind this is taboo? Maybe if we look through the religion and the notions of afterlife, we are murdering machines with almost no care for mother nature.

Which makes me pro-choice, but in situations where the woman was raped and its confirmed and through strict testing that woman should be able to get rid of that child.Also if the woman is a teenager and unable to financially raise a child she should have 1 chance to fix her life, with her abortion her tubes should be tied so she signs away her right to raise a child until she is older and financially fit. Look at Africa. Disease, crime, lack of medical facilities, rogue gangs of armed militia coming and stealing everything you have. A high % of those children that are born there die, period. If those women had the chance to try and save their life just once that would be ultimately good all away round.

In nature, you are not born with a guarantee to fair birth conditions. If the outside world kills you before you are allowed to live then I'm sorry that is natural selection. Its blunt but hell man that is life, every seed of life dies either early from when they start the life cycle or later when they grow to adults and die of old age.

[edit on 8-9-2010 by Quasar_La-Zar]

Originally posted by OceanStone
It is illegal for:

- Person to harm Mother…

Because mother is a separate conscious human person.

- Person to harm Mother’s unborn…

Because you destroy mothers property, or beyond 4 months, kill human being.

- Mother to harm herself…

It is not. Anyone can harm himself freely, or do we prosecute people after failed suicide which damages their health?

Yet, it is legal for:

- Mother to harm her unborn?…

Because unborn fetus is not a person, it does not have consciousness, which requires functioning brain. After 4 months, when the brain is sufficiently developed for consciousness to emerge, I am pro-life, but till then, I am pro-choice.

[edit on 8-9-2010 by Maslo]

reply to post by Subjective Truth


Your argument makes no sense. Reasons...

#1. You said baby, not fetus. So, she obviously didn't plan on aborting and if someone killed the Baby...it's murder.

#2. If someone shoots your wife and she lives baby dies, that person was trying to murder her, and to say what if she doesn't press charges is ridiculous. SOMEONE TRIED TO MURDER HER

#3. A 14 year old gets beaten and raped and becomes pregnant. Her parents decide abortion is the best choice...and you are gonna tell me that it is in the same category as some thug shooting a pregnant woman and killing the baby?

Conclusion: You have no logic. You really need to think about what you say because you sound like pro-life extremist who is so against abortion you will make ridiculous arguments to get your point across.

reply to post by sagitta


I agree with what you say except for the woman with too many children who's husband refuses to wear protection and the pill is detrimental to her health...that is not a good reason for an abortion. She should tell that son of a...gun no glove no love. period.