Originally posted by Yoda
That's circular, though. You say it's none of your business...and it's not...unless the baby really is a human. In which case it is everyone's business...because everyone should be concerned with murder. You can say it's none of your business, but that statement is contingent on the real question: when does life begin?
Well, you think it starts a whole lot earlier than us pro-choicers, so it's kind of hard to even discuss this issue with you since we don't even agree on that.
BTW; while I respect and admire women for having the ability (and strength) to have children, I do not think you need to have that ability yourself to have an opinion on abortion. If that were true, would you need to be related to a murder victim to have a stance on murder? Would you have to be stolen from to speak out against theft?
Murder and theft are crimes, abortion is not - even if you would want it to be. Sure, you can have an opinion; we all can have opinions. But in the end it's up to the women to decide. It sounds to me like you want to abolish abortions, and that's more than just having an opinion, I think.
The population is irrelevant. I think we all agree that whether it helps that problem or not, all that matters is the sanctity of life here. That's the issue. If they really are alive...if they really are HUMAN...what else could POSSIBLY matter to override their lives?
This kind of contradicts what you say later... Anyway. I believe there's a differance between a feetus and a human being. That's where we have fundamentally different views. To me human life is always sacred - a feetus is not. That might sound coldhearted, but that's how I feel about it.
You don't have to be religious to value human life.
I hear you.
Are you implying that if you cannot comprehend what is happening to you at the time, it's okay?
No, I'm saying that an abortion isn't the same as killing a child.
I explained why it is a slogan: because it's *not* an argument. When the issue is "is it her body or not?" saying "It's her body" is not an argument, it's 100% rhetorical. It has no substance, it is simply an unsupported opinion. It gets us nowhere and makes no reasonable argument in any direction.
What you are saying here is that the woman's right to decide over her own body is not a valid argument for the pro-choice side. I can't see why. I think it's one of the strongest arguments in this discussion. And ask any woman if she thinks it's an "unsupported opinion". You value the feetus higher than the woman. I do the opposite. It's as simple as that.
I think your problem is that you've entwined Pro-Lifers with the Pro-Life issue. It doesn't matter who is supporting the Pro-Life agenda...the agenda itself is what matters. Or, put another way: it's interesting that you feel the need to sling mud at "rightwing, fundamentally christian men" rather than the actual ISSUES and ARGUMENTS being presented. As a general rule: when you find yourself arguing with PEOPLE rather than the IDEAS they represent, you're grasping at straws.
When did I sling mud? I believe that the "live-by-the-book" mentality is more wide spread among the Pro-Lifers than among the Pro-Choicers, wouldn't you agree? (Probably not, but anyway...). Religion
is an issue here, because a lot of Pro-LIfers use religion as an argument to support their cause. ("You will burn for this!!")
Why is it not important whether or not it is a human? Are you actually implying that something is more important in that situation than the life of a human infant?
Ok, it is important. I don't think it's a human. I think it's the beginning of a human.
People are going to do illegal things no matter what. We could clean up prostitution and perhaps the heroine market by legalizing those things, too. Would you support that?
I would not support those things, no. But I don't see what heroine has to do with abortion. You're constantly comparing abortion with crimes like murder, theft, prostitution and drug trafficing. I think that is totally irrelevant and to simplify a very complexed matter. I don't see the argument in that.
I don't know which of the above events is more tragic. I don't label and value human life like that. All I know is that we should go to any plausible length to protect it ALL. The life of one human (especially a defenseless infant) comes before the comfort or convienence of a teenager or adult who engaged in an act they knew MAY lead to a pregnancy. That's just common sense. The baby had no say, and at least deserves a right to life.
Have you had an abortion? Me neither. But I don't think it's very comfortable. I agree that young girls - and young boys too - should be careful and not use abortion in the same way as pills or condoms. But you have to consider what kind of life you're bringing the child into.
Our society forces views on other people all the time. It forces the view that we should not steal, murder, or rape. The fact that someone differs in opinion is irrelevant. You're not against forcing views on people...because obviously you support those laws. The argument there is moot.
To steal, murder or rape is against the law for obvious reasons. Abortion isn't against the law (at least not where I come from) for obvious reasons. I think standing outside clinics with offensive signs, shouting offensive words to pregnant women, killing doctors and so on is forcing one's view on other people. I don't think following laws is the same as accepting that behaviour.
I'm undecided. Part of me says rape would obviously be different...but another part of me says that it would just be MORE violence...a bad end to an already bad situation.
This also contradicts what you say later on and also what you've said before. Why isn't the life of an unborn child, created during a rape, equally valuable as the life of an unborn child, created during "normal" circumstances?
Another part of me wonders; if it's okay to abort an unwanted pregnancy due to rape, is it okay to kill that same child after its born for the same reason? If not, why not?
Yeah, exactly, why not? Since you think a feetus is the same as a newborn baby, for you there is no differance. But as before, it's here where we differ. Pregnancy due to rape is one of several reasons why a woman might not want to have the baby, and therefore should have the right to choose abortion.
If we have DNA evidence and the crime is severe enough, I support it. And no, there is no conflict here. On one hand you have what is clearly its own body...it has never committed a crime and so far has had no say in anything at all that has happened to it. On the other hand you have someone who went out and committed a horrible act that they can never take back.
And this is what I refer to when I said that you contradict yourself. Human life is
not sacred to you. You said before that abortion perhaps isn't the solution to a pregnancy due to rape because "it would just be MORE violence...a bad end to an already bad situation". I think it's always wrong to kill. And that goes for the state as well. "It's wrong to kill. If you kill someone - we will kill you." I could go on forever about this, but the death penalty isn't the topic here...
Now, it's my turn:
#1 - Is human life highly valuable and sacred? Why or why not?
Yes, always valuable. There might be situations however (war, self defense, protection of your family etc.) when it isn't always sacred. Why? I can't really explain why. Your life is your given right as soon as you are born. Noone but you yourself has the right to decide what to do with it or take it from you.
#2 - Should the man have as much say in the abortion as a woman? Clearly a baby is a joint venture...so, what happens if the man wants the baby, but the woman does not?
He will have to convince her to keep it. If she won't keep it he will have to convince her to let him take custody of it. If they come to the situation where she won't even let him do that and, for her, abortion is the only option - he will unfortunately just have to accept it. This is however a purely hypothetic and also a pretty unrealistic example without much relevance.
#3 - Why does it being a human not matter to you? After all, if we're legally killing 1.3 million humans a year, isn't that something that should be fought?
I don't see abortions as killings of humans. I do however consider killings of innocent people as someting to fight, yes. I admit that me saying that wether it's human or not is not the issue was wrong. Even though I think abortions are tragic and sad, I didn't reflect on the issue wether it's a human or not since it's crystal clear for me that it's not.