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

I am pro life for a number of reasons, however I am smart enough to know that going into them will only cause flame wars. LOL

reply to post by Punisher75


better to work karma out here
than in the hereafter though.

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by igor_ats

 

I THINK THE THREAD IS ABOUT PRO LIFE OR PRO ABORTION DEATH .
If you want to have why pro life is not protesting there then start a new thread. okay?

It is very much on topic.

If "the right to life" begins at conception why why do pro-lifers ignore life when it's not in a woman they can shout at?

I guess it's just not the same when the "Life" is in a test-tube in an IVF clinic.

reply to post by igor_ats


perhaps because the life is not attached to a placenta?
Do they not just fertilize the egg and then freeze them?

reply to post by slugger9787


So now placenta attachment is the criterion for the existence/nonexistence of human person? Why such arbitrary thing? Humans no longer attached to placenta after birth will loose their rights?

reply to post by Maslo


Please re read my post concentraring on the white leters.
Since it was two sentences long, also avoid the gap betwen the two.

I think austronauts wear a space suit and earlier that
even had an unbilical cord conecting them to the spacecraft.

A womb is a natural environment, a testtube is an unnatural environment.

reply to post by slugger9787

Do they not just fertilize the egg and then freeze them?

And then they implant some of the best developing embryos and abort the rest. Thats how assisted reproduction in IVF clinics works. And prolife activists are not complaining and protesting against them, even if its the same process than in early-term abortion.

A womb is a natural environment, a testtube is an unnatural environment.

So life in a natural environment must be protected, but THE SAME human life (in all measurable ways) differing only by unnatural environment surrounding it can freely be aborted? Where is logic in that? Either embryo is human person with rights, and then must be protected no matter what environment surrounds him/her, or it isnt, and then doesnt have to be protected as human person, no matter if its in a test tube, womb or anywhere else, and can be aborted for any reason its owner deems sufficient (if its not a person, therefore it is a thing).

Thats the illogical position of prolifers who are prochoice in cases of rape, incest, stem cell research and IFV clinics.

I have a few thoughts on the matter: First, if a woman has the right to choose if the baby is to be born, then a man should have the right to choose if he wants to take care of it,,,,it's only fair in my opinion.

Along another line of thought, and I will probably be lambasted for it, but a few months back I saw a story that got me thinking. It was a story with a video that showed a chinese man in a dark room with a small open stove. as the camera came in closer you could see that on the skillet the man was cooking what appeared to be a fetus. Easily could have been a fake,but none the less, the story was highly critical.
Now, logically speaking, I feel like this posed a double standard. By law, at least in the states, a human fetus is not considered a person. If it were, an abortion would be considered murder. So if it is not a person, and can be destroyed, why can't it be eaten by a person. I'm sure this will highly offend pro-lifers, but for the pro-choice people...whatcha think?....okay to eat em?

Lastly, I would like to come to the defense of the pro-lifers, as I have heard the argument many times "how can u be prolife and support the death penalty?" to answer....innocence versus guilt.

Originally posted by dangerish
By law, at least in the states, a human fetus is not considered a person. If it were, an abortion would be considered murder. So if it is not a person, and can be destroyed, why can't it be eaten by a person. I'm sure this will highly offend pro-lifers, but for the pro-choice people...whatcha think?....okay to eat em?

Government doesn't want ppl to do as they please with aborted fetuses. The things ppl will do for money. Sell em to unscrupulous pharmaceuticals in 3rd world countries etc.

Abortion is legal but it's illegal for someone to help a woman have an abortion who is not a licensed practitioner, I find that strange but understand where to government is going with that. I'm not even talking about medical procedures, something as simple as giving someone an abortion pill will also count as a seperate offense from a drug charge. Weird isn't it.

Technically ppl should be allowed to keep their own fetuses. If a women self aborts I guess she can, not too sure. Guess that's another topic.

Originally posted by dangerish
Lastly, I would like to come to the defense of the pro-lifers, as I have heard the argument many times "how can u be prolife and support the death penalty?" to answer....innocence versus guilt.

I'm not a big fan of applying innocence or guilt to brainless organisms.

A womans body created the zygote by bringing it into existence, something which only benefited the zygote. Fertilization is neither illegal nor negligent so no obligation can be derived from it (to carry to term).

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by Maslo

 

A womb is a natural environment, a testtube is an unnatural environment.

Nice try with the rationalizations.

What happened to "life begins at conception"? The pro-life camp has already gone on record about IVF (and arguably spontaneous abortions if we allow logic to follow).

When President Bush discussed this issue with the Pope back when he had to make the decision to sign the bill banning stem cell line creation, the Pope suggested that all of the embryos currently in deep storage in fertility clinics should be brought to life by other women who wanted to carry the children, and then put up for adoption by good Catholic families.

While abortion is quite understandably a very controversial/emotional issue, I am personally PRO-CHOICE.

We must consider the real nature and possible necessity of abortion biologically, historically, socio-economically, and ecologically.

1. Biologically:
If the birth of a baby endangers the mother's or its own life, or is the result of rape/incest, or is similarly undesirable to that extreme extent, then we must provide for the choice to abort a pregnancy. On a separate note- humans are born DRIVEN to reproduce (i.e. have sex) and we cannot (nor should we) deny that urge in humans. The best solution is to use contraception. Simple fact is- people (including teenagers) will always have sex... there's no use in trying to stop it, as it's exactly what keeps a species alive.

2. Historically:
Throughout human history (and the history of other species) mothers practiced infanticide if they could not properly raise a child within their environment and/or community. The cold/simple truth is that we cannot always sustain extra people in conditions of limited resources or desperation/scarcity. The most humane thing to do when times are scarce/desperate or in need of balancing is to maintain sustainable populations. There is no sense in endangering an entire community, family, or species in the name of raising every single baby that is conceived. If every human/animal throughout history ALWAYS raised their child and never practiced selective infanticide then many species might not be alive today, or certain families/cultures/communities may have died out. We MUST look at abortion as an extremely favorable/humane alternative to infanticide. Infanticide is an extreme act (at least to us in modern/western times) but abortion is essentially a medically/scientifically-enabled humane version of infanticide which may sometimes be necessary, albeit controversial/difficult. The people it most harms are the baby and the mother, and since the majority of mothers are inherently/automatically loving of their children, it should be their choice/burden to have and nobody else's (especially if they are complete strangers to the mother).

3. Socio-economically:
This follows along the same vein of mothers not being able to raise/support a child due to desperate conditions such as- scarcity of resources, harsh environments, or in modern times, lack of financial support, family/community support, unsafe/unhealthy living environment, etc. Sometimes it's less humane to bring a child into a bad/lacking environment than to have an abortion.

4. Ecologically:
Let's face it, the planet is FILLED with humans and is past the point of being overpopulated. Now I'm sure some of you dont believe this and attribute it to some NWO conspiracy. However, the VAST realm of science is untouched by any such conspiracies, regardless of how theorists propose certain science will be perverted to tyrannical ends. Scientists are largely very humble, intelligent, honest, and curious/truth-seeking people. They are composed of thousands of worldwide researchers/experts and related institutions which can and should be respected for their work. If indeed NWO conspiracies are true, then they will represent a PERVERSION of the science (as Eugenics did) and not necessarily proper use. I digress... in a planet that is overpopulated, we must also make extra considerations for increasing population of the national/world community (since we are all consumers of national/world resources). With this issue in mind, we must add an extra variable to the decision to raise children or not. Though this may seem a strange logic- in times like this we CANNOT be "greedy" about adding human lives. Certainly it feels rewarding to save peoples' lives and bring more humans into the world to (hopefully) enjoy life, I too feel this same empathy and love for my fellow humans. However, by the same token, that very same empathy/love can be used to argue the opposite- which is that overpopulation makes CURRENTLY LIVING people (and ecosystems) suffer more than they need to, and that adding more people due to some naive religious/ideological/moral belief is dangerous and counter-productive to lessening human suffering. Some people use the cop-out argument, "But what if that baby was gonna be the next Gandhi or Einstein?!?" My answer to that is that for every FAMOUS Gandhi/Einstein there are a million others who did not gain public notoriety. In essence... they already exist, and to some extent exist in everyone.


Once again, this is an understandably CONTROVERSIAL and MESSY issue that is not easy to figure out. I remember looking at pictures of abortions (certainly sensationalist shock value is involved) and actually becoming more confused on where I stand. It's a harsh/cold reality, but is arguably necessary and far more humane than similar/necessary practices throughout history and amongst many species.

reply to post by igor_ats


www.priestsforlife.org...

this explains it beter than me and for me.

I'm pro-choice and proud of it!

There are many reasons why I'm pro-choice like the fact that I don't like kids to there's too many humans overpopulating this planet. I do have to say that many people would not be so inclined to get an abortion if sterilization was an option for them.

Many men and women have known from a very young age that they simply do not want children and when they go to a doctor to get a vasectomy or tubal ligation(or implants), they are turned away time and time again because the stupid doctors think that they might change their minds later on down the road. Since no form of birth control is 100%, there is still the possibility that they could become pregnant with a child they simply do not want. If the stupid doctors out there would create forms that state what the patient wants to do and that if they happen to change their minds later on in life, the patient cannot come back to the doctor to sue in any way, shape or form. Many people would be more then happy to sign the form and it would show the doctors out there how serious people are when it comes to sterilization.

I've even heard from people who did have children but decided that they did not want anymore and they still were turned away from either getting a vasectomy or tubal ligation/implants! WTF?!

Originally posted by TokiTheDestroyerI myself am pro-choice, simply because I'm a man, and as a man I should have no say whatsoever about what a woman does to her body.

YES! It's so good to hear a man say this because it's true!

While yes, it does take the sperm from a man along with the egg from a woman to make the baby, the men are NOT the ones who are put at risk for the many complications and stress that can arise from pregnancy and not to mention how it can change your body afterward. They are also not the ones to have to push that large thing out of their crotches either.

If the human anatomy were to change to imitate the seahorse then I assure you that many men would be quickly changing their minds as to whether the opposite sex should have a say in what goes on with their body!

*For those of you who don't know about the seahorse, while it still takes two to tango with them as it does for humans, what goes on is that once the sperm is in the female, she fertilizes the eggs and then she puts them into the male. From then on, he's the one who carries them around until he's ready to give birth and after every single one of those babies are born, he's the one who raises them. The female just sticks around for moral support. Humans have so much to learn from the animal kingdom.*

reply to post by Red_Rose


How do you account for the right to life
that is being denied the baby human in the womb?

reply to post by slugger9787


Actually, I as well as many people don't classify the "baby" that's in the womb as a baby until it's actually born. While it's still in the mother, it's more of a parasite then an actual baby because it can not live on its own. It needs a host to breathe, eat, etc.

Also, if you are trying to make me feel somewhat guilty whenever someone has an abortion or for my beliefs you are just wasting your time. I don't care much for humans. Never have which is why I'm all for being pro-choice.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


I'm also pro-choice and have posted here (twice) before that went something along the lines of what you posted, albeit less organized and in less detail.

But have you noticed that nobody replies to the well-thought out and all-encompassing arguments, but most simply engage in flame wars about a certain opinion or religious/nonreligious view?

The most dangerous place to be in America is a mother's womb.

1 in 4 will never see their first birthday.

Originally posted by igor_ats

Originally posted by dangerish
By law, at least in the states, a human fetus is not considered a person. If it were, an abortion would be considered murder. So if it is not a person, and can be destroyed, why can't it be eaten by a person. I'm sure this will highly offend pro-lifers, but for the pro-choice people...whatcha think?....okay to eat em?

Government doesn't want ppl to do as they please with aborted fetuses. The things ppl will do for money. Sell em to unscrupulous pharmaceuticals in 3rd world countries etc.

Abortion is legal but it's illegal for someone to help a woman have an abortion who is not a licensed practitioner, I find that strange but understand where to government is going with that. I'm not even talking about medical procedures, something as simple as giving someone an abortion pill will also count as a seperate offense from a drug charge. Weird isn't it.

Technically ppl should be allowed to keep their own fetuses. If a women self aborts I guess she can, not too sure. Guess that's another topic.

are you trying to answer my question?...kinda skirted it if u are. but i'll take that as a "yes it's ok to eat a fetus"

Originally posted by dangerish
Lastly, I would like to come to the defense of the pro-lifers, as I have heard the argument many times "how can u be prolife and support the death penalty?" to answer....innocence versus guilt.

I'm not a big fan of applying innocence or guilt to brainless organisms.

A womans body created the zygote by bringing it into existence, something which only benefited the zygote. Fertilization is neither illegal nor negligent so no obligation can be derived from it (to carry to term).

Again....is this directed at my comment? Aborted fetuses are not always brainless, but that's beside the point. Why can't you call a brainless object innocent....example...this bullet is innocent of murder as it did not have the choice to be fired or not.... Innocent of a crime which calls for the death penalty , which I am not for by the way, is the meaning here. The Zygote can obviously be called innocent of a crime which calls for the death penalty. I guess it's a moot point, but if I were trying to understand the argument....innocence versus guilt is where the understanding lies.

reply to post by dangerish

are you trying to answer my question?...kinda skirted it if u are. but i'll take that as a "yes it's ok to eat a fetus"

It would be disgusting and maybe immoral, but orherwise it would be ok, in the sense that no law should prohibit eating a fetus, and if someone wants to eat a fetus, I would not be against it. Just like for example porn is immoral and very often disgusting, but we but if someone wants to do it, noone should impede heim/her, certainly not law. You must be able to do whatever you want, as long as you dont harm other person, either directly or indirectly. And eating a fetus, as long as its your fetus, does not harm others in any way.