Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

What does it actually mean to be pro-life?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 01:30 AM
link   
Pro life in its simplest form views all stages of a human as human that deserves a level of protection and recognition. Pro choice sees a human prior to birth as an "IT" and somehow "IT" magically transforms into a human at birth.

For me it is all about morality, and that morality decays as we redefine life. One must wonder what is the end state to it all will be?




edit on 6-6-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by benrl
Besides the hyperbole in your post I can agree with some of it,

Its always been my view, that "religious" People who are adamantly pro-life should lead by example and go adopt one of the many children in America instead of holding a protest sign.

More would be accomplished that way if every young mother facing the choice to abort knew that her child would be brought up in a good home and not languish in the system.

Every time I see these people who berate a women whose faced with making one of the hardest choices in life it saddens me, How bout offering the child shes carrying a home if you're so "christian".


whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me


You know that whole thing.


Spot on. And if that soul should be born here and live here a long time then "the existing one" (Jehovah) would make it happen by intervening (know that one from experiance). To some life here is more of a curse than a blessing since this planet is a bit barbaric. Fix society first and create the paradise it is meant to be for the children so life here will be a joy to live and then you can be all-loving and taking care of the children.
edit on 6-6-2013 by LittleByLittle because: Spellchecking



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 01:45 AM
link   
The argument makes no sense.

It's all about the "woman's body" and it being "her choice" etc, etc.

But what if the baby is 7 months along? Why isn't it the woman's choice to abort then? It's still her body; at no point in her pregnancy is her body suddenly not her body. It's still her choice right? At no point in her pregnancy is her choice suddenly not her choice anymore. WHY does this reason NOT apply throughout the whole pregnancy?

What "magically" happens between 7 weeks and 7 months that "magically" turns the baby into a being that is deserving of life and legal protection? When does this magical transformation occur? 7 weeks? 7 months? 5 months? 3 months? Is it an exact science? Is there some universal developmental marker that the whole world has agreed on that defines life itself? Is there even a consensus? Among scientists? Among laymen? Is it the same for every baby and woman? Is the timeline exactly the same for every pregnancy? Is there AN EXACT moment where WE KNOW that the being inside the mother's womb IS IN FACT a life?

It's absolutely ludicrous. I'd rather error on the side of life.

Multicellular lifeforms are considered life but not a beating heart in a woman's belly.

Absolutely, irrevocably deluded and illogical.

This has nothing to do with religion. It's biology. As a female, it's not difficult to understand the HUGE logical discrepancy of the pro-choice argument. If it was EVER valid it would be valid throughout the ENTIRE pregnancy. But it's not. Therefore it is mute. It's a logically invalid and unsound argument - formally and otherwise. It simply isn't admissible in the courts of reason.
edit on 6-6-2013 by followtheevidence because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 04:21 AM
link   
relating to some comments made earlier about Human Rights.
You cannot forfeit yoru human rights.
You either have them or you dont, you cant just have them until somebody decides you dont deserve them.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by ParasuvO
 



Originally posted by ParasuvO
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I seriously think you look at this as if a soul is not a part of the equation.


I don't know if a soul is part of the equation or not, to be honest. For me, when I got pregnant, that was my CHILD, soul or not, fetus or not, and I wanted to do everything possible to protect it. Unfortunately, the pregnancy threatened my life, so either it died or we both died. I made the choice to live. So, maybe soul didn't enter the equation for me.



Looking at this from an animal perspective will not do, we are not like any other creature.


I take it you think animals don't have souls? If so, that's your opinion. I don't know if they do or not. But I wouldn't discount it. And I do think we are animals, too.



This should not be handled in the manner in which you are defending, like it is some public funded necessary service for people who do not even care either way.


I said nothing that would indicate that I defend publicly-funded abortion services. You're making things up.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 



Originally posted by Xtrozero
Pro choice sees a human prior to birth as an "IT" and somehow "IT" magically transforms into a human at birth.


This is not necessarily true at all. Pro-choice means I don't make judgments for other women. Just for myself. Pro-choice means other women have the right to choose how to think of it. It's not my business. It's not my judgment to make for other women.

So many people misunderstand the position. It's not as though I've made the decision that a fetus isn't a human life or doesn't deserve to live. It's that in the situation of a pregnancy, only the woman should have the final decision as to what happens in her body and the government shouldn't be involved.

It should be her choice, regardless of my opinions on it. Her body is not a place that I have the right to tread.

reply to post by followtheevidence
 



Originally posted by followtheevidence
If it was EVER valid it would be valid throughout the ENTIRE pregnancy. But it's not.


It is to me.
edit on 6/6/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by AnonymousCitizen
 





I consider myself to be pro life. For me that means the right to life from the moment of conception up to a natural death.


I guess that means that you are also against most forms of contraception?



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
This is not necessarily true at all. Pro-choice means I don't make judgments for other women.


Pro-Choice is just a nice way to say Pro-Abortion. The ad campaigns would be horrendous to call it what it is...



So many people misunderstand the position. It's not as though I've made the decision that a fetus isn't a human life or doesn't deserve to live. It's that in the situation of a pregnancy, only the woman should have the final decision as to what happens in her body and the government shouldn't be involved.



So let me ask you a question since it is all about her body and her decision to let the thing inside her live or die what do you call it? Is it human or just a mass of cells like a tumor? If it is considered a human then how can anyone justify the taking of that life as a choice?

You kind of beat around the bush here as to whether that is a human inside and it is the mother's right to kill it or let it live...



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by AnonymousCitizen
 





I consider myself to be pro life. For me that means the right to life from the moment of conception up to a natural death.


I guess that means that you are also against most forms of contraception?


I see the word "conception". You are suggesting that preventing the sperm from entering the egg is a form of abortion, and many cultures agree and also suggest having sex for any other purpose but to make children is wrong.

I think if we push past this cultural view and still suggest that life doesn’t begin until conception.


edit on 6-6-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


No, I'm referring to type of contraception that creates an hostile environment in the uterus, making it nearly impossible for a fertilized egg to implant in the uterine wall: contraceptions like "The Pill", the IUD, Norplant and, of course, the morning after pills.

If laws were to be enacted that proclaim "life begins at conception", which it doesn't, those laws would outlaw these methods of birth control. Do you support such laws?



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 



Originally posted by Xtrozero
Pro-Choice is just a nice way to say Pro-Abortion.


You are simply wrong. I am not pro-abortion. I would not have an abortion unless it threatened my life. Even if I were raped, I would keep the child. I don't know of ANYONE who is "pro-abortion". The goal is to educate and provide contraception to lower the abortion numbers.



So let me ask you a question since it is all about her body and her decision to let the thing inside her live or die what do you call it? Is it human or just a mass of cells like a tumor?


I usually call it a fetus. But let me point you to a previous post of mine in this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
For me, when I got pregnant, that was my CHILD, soul or not, fetus or not, and I wanted to do everything possible to protect it.


That was MY personal choice.



If it is considered a human then how can anyone justify the taking of that life as a choice?


I cannot speak for others. It's not my place to justify others' decisions. I am only responsible for mine. But I do not judge them, because it's their body, their choice.



You kind of beat around the bush here as to whether that is a human inside and it is the mother's right to kill it or let it live...


No, I do not!
It is a human life. Life begins at conception. That is my OPINION. And based on that opinion, I will make choices for my body. Abortion takes that life. It kills the fetus. No beating around the bush here. That is MY opinion.

Not all woman share my opinion, however, and I respect that. It's THEIR body, THEIR decision on how to think of it and THEIR choice how to deal with it.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword

No, I'm referring to type of contraception that creates an hostile environment in the uterus, making it nearly impossible for a fertilized egg to implant in the uterine wall: contraceptions like "The Pill", the IUD, Norplant and, of course, the morning after pills.

If laws were to be enacted that proclaim "life begins at conception", which it doesn't, those laws would outlaw these methods of birth control. Do you support such laws?


Once again an egg is an egg and sperm is sperm nether are a human. Combined they become a human, so I'm not sure your point in preventing an egg from forming, or even not fertilizing an egg every time possible, or some guy using the pullout method and killing millions of sperm.

The law would not suggest preventing conception is wrong, but once/if conception happens it is now a growing human. Whether the egg never forms or is expelled monthly through natural means I'm loss as to how you figure this into the equation of conception.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 





Once again an egg is an egg and sperm is sperm nether are a human. Combined they become a human, so I'm not sure your point in preventing an egg from forming, or even not fertilizing an egg every time possible, or some guy using the pullout method and killing millions of sperm.


An egg and a sperm are human. They are not human beings. Contraception does not prevent an egg from forming. As a matter of fact, when your mother was still inside her mother's womb, the egg that finally became you was a fully, unique, one of kind egg. Before you mother was born, a crucial part of who you are existed, as a fully developed, ready for fertilization egg.

No "new" life is created from fertilization. life, that was already existent, is transformed through the process of chemical reaction. All the ingredients are, indeed, available, but a recipe still needs to be followed before the outcome of a "human being" is realized.


Different types of birth control target fertilization and implantation in different ways.

The copper IUD (ParaGard) causes an inflammatory reaction within the female organs and lessens the sperm’s ability to fertilize. However, should fertilization occur, the uterine wall is too irritated to maintain a pregnancy (implantation).

The hormonal IUD (Mirena) and other forms of hormonal contraception share the following same basic mechanisms of action:
Prevent ovulation. No egg means no fertilization.
Thicken the cervical mucus so sperm can’t easily pass into the uterus (thus preventing fertilization). Thin the uterine lining.
On the chance that ovulation and fertilization do occur, implantation becomes difficult or impossible.

We know how often women get detectably pregnant (with implantation) while on contraception, but we have minimal data on how often these therapies allow for fertilization but not implantation.




The law would not suggest preventing conception is wrong, but once/if conception happens it is now a growing human. Whether the egg never forms or is expelled monthly through natural means I'm loss as to how you figure this into the equation of conception.




Many in the medical and scientific communities, including The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, presume that pregnancy begins with implantation. Therefore, they don’t view contraception as abortive.

Organizations that are pro-choice, including Planned Parenthood, agree that pregnancy begins with implantation and that contraception should be encouraged to avoid unintended pregnancy.

Pro-life groups, however, argue that pregnancy begins with fertilization. From that standpoint, preventing implantation of a fertilized egg is abortive.
“We are as much opposed to the birth control pill as to abortion,” says Joe Scheidler, national director of the Pro-Life Action League.
www.thesurvivaldoctor.com...

Pro-life groups are, indeed, in favor of outlawing most types of birth control.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

You are simply wrong. I am not pro-abortion. I would not have an abortion unless it threatened my life. Even if I were raped, I would keep the child. I don't know of ANYONE who is "pro-abortion". The goal is to educate and provide contraception to lower the abortion numbers.


That may be you view but it is not the norm. Abortions have three undesirable consequences.

1. It is a money generating process for clinics and so they want to do all they can for profit.

2. States push abortions so they do not need to support poor children. I knew a girl that had three state paid abortions with the state offering not much else.

3. 90% of them are done out of convenience and not health/rape.

I'm not religious but I see this eroding societies' morality over time.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
For me, when I got pregnant, that was my CHILD, soul or not, fetus or not, and I wanted to do everything possible to protect it.

That was MY personal choice.


Your views then I do not have a problem with and I think are aligned with what most pro-life feel too. When one looks at yearly statistics of abortions it paints a truly ugly picture that is way beyond your views as to what pro-choice means.

I'm not suggesting abortions should be illegal nor do I suggest that all decisions are taken from the mother, but as things stand today the system we have is horrendous.

Our society is transforming into one that no one is personally responsible for their actions or inactions. I do think abortion laws can be tighten up into a narrower window of opportunity, and I don't think my tax dollars should pay for the responsibility of others just because a child might be inconvenient to them.

edit on 6-6-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword

Pro-life groups are, indeed, in favor of outlawing most types of birth control.


Yes, on the extreme end. Is it your point to use extremism as your argument? I'm pro-life in the sense that a fetus should not be aborted for the sole reason of convenience. I'm pro-life because I see a fetus as a human being and deserves recognition as one.

Maybe there should be a third category and not just pro-life and pro-choice as they stand.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by windword

Pro-life groups are, indeed, in favor of outlawing most types of birth control.


Yes, on the extreme end. Is it your point to use extremism as your argument? I'm pro-life in the sense that a fetus should not be aborted for the sole reason of convenience. I'm pro-life because I see a fetus as a human being and deserves recognition as one.

Maybe there should be a third category and not just pro-life and pro-choice as they stand.


I would disagree with your statement of a third category, and more so argue you may in fact be pro-choice.
Most folks I have met who are pro choice, do not use abortions for convenience, nor do they reach a decision to abort easily.

I have seen on this thread that it seems you agree at times an abortion is the best option available, no mater how repugnant the idea may be. I would state that that is pro-choice.

The only extreme is the "pro-life" where regardless of safety to the mother, or quality of life for the child (severe birth defects, not household) the child must be carried to term and born, even if the child will not survive outside of a hospital and will not last a year regardless.

"Pro-choice" is just that, pro (as in for) choice (being able to contemplate all options, and choosing the best one for the situation [preferable with advice from medical professionals]).



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by AnonymousCitizen
 





I consider myself to be pro life. For me that means the right to life from the moment of conception up to a natural death.


I guess that means that you are also against most forms of contraception?


Some, yes. There are some that prevent pregnancy such as condoms, and others that are really just chemical abortions after conception, such as the morning after pills.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 



Originally posted by Xtrozero
Abortions have three undesirable consequences.

1. It is a money generating process for clinics and so they want to do all they can for profit.

2. States push abortions so they do not need to support poor children. I knew a girl that had three state paid abortions with the state offering not much else.

3. 90% of them are done out of convenience and not health/rape.


Unless you have data to back these up, they are simply your opinion.



I'm not religious but I see this eroding societies' morality over time.


Again, that's your opinion.



Your views then I do not have a problem with and I think are aligned with what most pro-life feel too.


My views are NOT aligned with "pro-lifers". Most "pro-lifers" want to make laws that prevent women from having abortions. I want abortion to be offered as any other medical procedure. Are you reading my posts?



I do think abortion laws can be tighten up into a narrower window of opportunity,


I do not believe in abortion laws at all. The government shouldn't be involved at all. It should be treated like any other medical procedure between a patient and her doctor. What happens in women's bodies is none of your business (or mine). And you say my views align with "pro-lifers"???

You're not GETTING it. Choice means I make the choice for me and everyone else makes the choice for them.
edit on 6/6/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by AnonymousCitizen
 


In you opinion, when does pregnancy occur, after fertilization but before implantation or only after implantation. What do you consider a "chemical" abortion to be?



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by randomtangentsrme

I would disagree with your statement of a third category, and more so argue you may in fact be pro-choice.
Most folks I have met who are pro choice, do not use abortions for convenience, nor do they reach a decision to abort easily.


So explain the million plus abortions per year and 150k of them are in the second trimester. I think the norm is not the few of you debating this topic.



The only extreme is the "pro-life" where regardless of safety to the mother, or quality of life for the child (severe birth defects, not household) the child must be carried to term and born, even if the child will not survive outside of a hospital and will not last a year regardless.


I guess I'm either pro-choice that views a fetus as a human being or I'm pro-life without the religious aspect to it. The part that bothers me is that a mother can abort for even something as simple and selfish as she doesn't want to gain weight. It also bothers me that our society has evolved into one where there is no individual responsibility for one's actions.

Of the 1.3ish million abortions last year in America I would bet 1 million are based on selfish reasons, and to me is unconscionable.



"Pro-choice" is just that, pro (as in for) choice (being able to contemplate all options, and choosing the best one for the situation [preferable with advice from medical professionals]).


For me I can't honestly label myself as pro-choice when one of those choices is to use abortions as a birth control method. It really cheapens life and opens up a Pandora box of possible outcomes. Next we will see women getting pregnant to sell the stem cells of their child.


edit on 7-6-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join