Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

I'm pro choice and always have been, but...


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#16 Zod

Zod

    YOUR RULER

  • MFCEO
  • 20,086 posts

Posted 15 November 2012 - 08:04 AM

I am anti-abortion and pro choice.

#17 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,950 posts

Posted 15 November 2012 - 08:17 AM

Hypothetical for our tech advances?

What if we found the "gay gene"
What if people were aborting babies at an extremely high rate when finding their baby would be gay
Would there be "rights" attached to them at that point?


I suspect a similar approach to pre-natal gender testing in India- it would be illegal to test for

#18 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,869 posts

Posted 15 November 2012 - 08:19 AM

That was the "hypothetical" umbrella

#19 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,950 posts

Posted 15 November 2012 - 08:26 AM

Its not really hypothetical, its the exact same situation. Male babies are much more valued, its easy to test for gender (even illegally) and its created a gender gap in India.

Though if they found a gay gene many states would care enough to outlaw abortions because of it. Probably the same states where you can be fired for being gay

#20 Inimicus

Inimicus

    Life is better in a kayak

  • ALL-PRO
  • 6,135 posts

Posted 15 November 2012 - 08:39 AM

Hypothetical for our tech advances?

What if we found the "gay gene"
What if people were aborting babies at an extremely high rate when finding their baby would be gay
Would there be "rights" attached to them at that point?


I would hope that no one would choose to abort over something so trivial.

But I will always believe that the government has no business making that choice for people.




Furthermore trying to give rights to a fetus is nothing more than attempting to codify a set of religious beliefs into law and that's a non starter in my book.

#21 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Moderators
  • 23,952 posts

Posted 15 November 2012 - 08:54 AM

I am anti-abortion and pro choice.



Pretty much.

#22 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,504 posts

Posted 15 November 2012 - 08:59 AM

I would hope that no one would choose to abort over something so trivial.

But I will always believe that the government has no business making that choice for people.




Furthermore trying to give rights to a fetus is nothing more than attempting to codify a set of religious beliefs into law and that's a non starter in my book.


We codify laws all the time based on what's deemed an appropriate age to do something in particular. Rights to a fetus post second trimester? Rights after a trip out the mom? Has nothing to do whatsoever with religion. People may attempt to express their religous beliefs, but legally there's never any religous equivocation to why something's being done. If that is being done...it's a poorly written law and stupid to begin with.

#23 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,869 posts

Posted 15 November 2012 - 09:06 AM

I would hope that no one would choose to abort over something so trivial.

But I will always believe that the government has no business making that choice for people.




Furthermore trying to give rights to a fetus is nothing more than attempting to codify a set of religious beliefs into law and that's a non starter in my book.


So your response is based on hope?

People do not want a downs syndrome baby, not a problem, don't want a girl baby, not a problem, but don't want a gay or lesbian child and that is trivial? I am sure you have heard of designer babies. I guess if you can engineer what you want, you might as well be able to get rid of what you don't want. We HOPE not.

#24 Panther17

Panther17

    HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,910 posts

Posted 15 November 2012 - 09:07 AM

Ah. Lol. Yeah but he was planned. (For a long time.) But if you really want Irony, I'm adopted. I met my Bio mom when I was 20. She burst into tears when she saw me and then told me she'd tried to abort me... Twice.


Why the hell would she tell you she tried to abort your ass twice? How the heck did that come up in the conversation?

#25 Darth Biscuit

Darth Biscuit

    Dark Lord

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,323 posts
  • LocationWilmington, NC

Posted 15 November 2012 - 09:25 AM

I am anti-abortion and pro choice.


I'm the same... I used to be completely anti-abortion, but I have come to change my opinion on it. I agree that the government needs to stay out of our private lives as much as possible, but I'm conflicted on what amounts to the death of a human being.

Obviously there is never going to be a complete consensus on when that embryo/fetus is a person... some people believe that happens at the moment of conception, and some people believe that doesn't happen until the kid pops out... and I'm sure there's some that even think it's after that...

#26 natty

natty

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,756 posts

Posted 15 November 2012 - 09:33 AM

...someone posted this on facebook and I honestly can't give them a good answer.


"Why is a bacterium on Mars considered life when something with a heartbeat here on Earth isn't?"


It's the first time the pro lifers have put it to me in a way that made me think "Hmmmm...."


It's an intentionally loaded question. It assumes someone that's pro-choice doesn't care about humanity and is a heartless monster. It implies scientists that look for life on mars have some twisted, immoral view of life. It's simply an ignorant question that can be answered with a dictionary.

#27 natty

natty

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,756 posts

Posted 15 November 2012 - 09:41 AM

Here's a question: the human body contains 10X as many microbes as human cells, most of which are bacteria, and most of which are vital to us(i.e. we would die without them). Now what exactly are we?

#28 Inimicus

Inimicus

    Life is better in a kayak

  • ALL-PRO
  • 6,135 posts

Posted 15 November 2012 - 09:46 AM

So your response is based on hope?

People do not want a downs syndrome baby, not a problem, don't want a girl baby, not a problem, but don't want a gay or lesbian child and that is trivial? I am sure you have heard of designer babies. I guess if you can engineer what you want, you might as well be able to get rid of what you don't want. We HOPE not.



Yes its based on hope. I hope that you (the general you) make choices that I would agree with on a moral level but I can force you to and as we have learned you cant legislate morality.

I would disagree with someone choosing to end a pregnancy for any reason other than true danger to the mothers own life.

However making it against the law to make that choice... Sorry I cant get behind that.

#29 FurdTurgason

FurdTurgason

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 954 posts

Posted 15 November 2012 - 09:52 AM

It's an intentionally loaded question. It assumes someone that's pro-choice doesn't care about humanity and is a heartless monster. It implies scientists that look for life on mars have some twisted, immoral view of life. It's simply an ignorant question that can be answered with a dictionary.


You may be reading too much into it. It assumes that we all get excited when we find out there's a bacterium on Mars, because life on Mars excites us, even if it's just a microbe.

Then they are saying why can't we be so excited about the life of an unborn child down here.

I realize it's apples and oranges, but the contrast does make you think. Because a lot of us DO take life for granted on this planet.

I'm still pro choice, by the way. But the way they put it made me look at it in a new light is all.

#30 Inimicus

Inimicus

    Life is better in a kayak

  • ALL-PRO
  • 6,135 posts

Posted 15 November 2012 - 09:53 AM

We codify laws all the time based on what's deemed an appropriate age to do something in particular. Rights to a fetus post second trimester? Rights after a trip out the mom? Has nothing to do whatsoever with religion. People may attempt to express their religous beliefs, but legally there's never any religous equivocation to why something's being done. If that is being done...it's a poorly written law and stupid to begin with.



Yes we have and accept all measure of laws based on age.

But determining an age to vote, drink, drive, or serve in the armed forces are in no way analogous to the concept of assigning rights to a zygote. Granting "human rights" to a collection of cells that have no viability outside of the womb is an extension of the religious belief that God is infallible and that He creates every life. If it was secular as you suggest then we would base the decision on hard science and not some notion of the "miracle" of life.


And saying "nu-uh" doesn't make it any less true.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com