S
Sniffles
Guest
I must say this discussion took a rather weird turn upon being revived.
That's the whole point behind having choices and controlling your life, you accept the fact you can control yourself to such an extent and take responsibilities for those choices you make - otherwise you're not fit to be in that situation.
I should also mention that in order to truely appreciate the fact one has the freedom to make choices and control their lives involves a certain appreciation for life as an end in itself. That means concluding that existence is better than non-existence. It doesn't take long to figure out where this leads in terms of discussing abortion.
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/890331-post348.html
Everyone is "pro-life". The difference lies in just whose life we are "pro". Who are we willing to see involuntarily die a preventable death? An unborn fetus? A convict on death row? A child who misses out on critical medical treatment because his family cannot afford it? Innocent Afghans caught in an attack on suspected Taliban?Still I think Democrats should get on the front end of the trend and move toward a more pro-life stance. I think with time they are going to find themselves on the right end of most issues, but they could lose a lot of voters if they stay pro-choice. There are a fair amount of people who vote Republican just because of this one issue, and the public is just going to become more pro-life over time.
Everyone is "pro-life". The difference lies in just whose life we are "pro". Who are we willing to see involuntarily die a preventable death? An unborn fetus? A convict on death row? A child who misses out on critical medical treatment because his family cannot afford it? Innocent Afghans caught in an attack on suspected Taliban?
(If you're a kid living in Iraq, it's sad to see you go, but in order to blow up the bad guys, you're regretfully labeled as collateral damage if you get hurt.)
My point exactly. The use of this term is merely an attempt by religious fundamentalists to frame the debate in a way that will make them look good and their opponents evil. This ignores the complexity of the issue. If "pro-life" really means "anti-abortion", then proponents should use the term "anti-abortion". I would then maintain, though, that everyone is "anti-abortion". Even people who want to keep it safe, legal, and accessible tend to view it as at best a last resort, a necessary evil that should be used very sparingly.Pro-life, in its most common use, is a term used to mean anti-abortion. It can be expanded to other issues but that's beside the point. LL means anti-abortion.
...and rely on gentle persuasion and practical assistance to reduce the numbers of elective abortions performed, something almost everyone would view as desirable.
People 100 years ago said "eh well, everyone's racist." And looking at it now, that's poor morality.
No, for reasons that have already been discussed. A spontaneous abortion frequently happens when the fetus is not viable. Most people who oppose abortion consider themselves religious, and believe in an afterlife in the presence of God. Any soul already associated with a miscarried fetus would then return to its creator; not such a bad fate after all.This raises the interesting question -
Would it be as desirable to reduce the number of spontaneous abortions?
And what about those who use the term "pro-Choice"? I mean "Birth Control League" changed its named to "Planned Parenthood" as well.My point exactly. The use of this term is merely an attempt by religious fundamentalists to frame the debate in a way that will make them look good and their opponents evil. This ignores the complexity of the issue.
Tawanda: was your question directed at me? I do not consider a woman who aborts an unviable fetus to be a murder in any circumstance. If the fetus is viable in terms of size/age, the threshold is higher. Still, pregnancy is a singular state. Nowhere else does one human place such constant, untransferrable, and unique demands on another. I place high value, then, on the self-determination of the "host being".
Any soul already associated with a miscarried fetus would then return to its creator; not such a bad fate after all.
For a thousand years we were told the soul of a miscarried fetus or a spontaneous abortion would go to Limbo for all eternity.
But just recently we were told that Limbo had been abolished and I want to know what happened to all those little babies!
It was more directed to the OP, but I'd like to hear several opinions on this.
Apparently the Catholic Church doesn't agree.
Nun Excommunicated For Allowing Abortion : NPR
I feel like they see it more as mother<potential child (not saying all Catholics do, just those with high power in the Church for the most part).
It depends on what they are really doing. If all they advocate is birth control, then "Birth control league" is most descriptive. If they expand to include prenatal care, abortion, even infertility treatments, then "Planned parenthood" is more descriptive, since their work addresses all aspects of planning one's reproductive life, whether that includes many children or none at all. My experience of PP is limited, but in some areas where I have lived, women can get basic ob/gyn services at PP clinics, and not just birth control or abortion.And what about those who use the term "pro-Choice"? I mean "Birth Control League" changed its named to "Planned Parenthood" as well.
those of us with mothers who wanted us would still be here. Forcing women to keep children in an environment where the mother is unwilling or unable to care for it properly will not end well for the child.And to be honest, if more people agreed with abortion, just how many of us would even be here? I know if my mother had been like most of the teenage mothers now days, I wouldn't be sitting here debating this topic.