Would you consider yourself pro-choice, or pro-life?
Pro-Choice
83%
[ 5 ]
Pro-Life
0%
[ 0 ]
Pro-what?
16%
[ 1 ]
Total Votes : 6
Author
Message
Partisan Newbie First Class
Joined: Aug 29, 2008
Posts: 33
Location: Dominican Republic
Posted:
Wed Nov 12, 2008 10:47 am
Hey everyone
After reading the topic thread ("Obama’s Election may Lead to the Overturning of Roe versus W"), I realized I only had a very vague and blurry stance on the entire pro-choice/pro-life issue; I think I'm pro-choice, but thats about all I can say.
So, I was curious if anybody on the forums knew of any good sites that discussed this. Any help is good help.
Thanks,
Partisan
_________________ "Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious. "
-Sam Harris
SvZurich Forum Master
Joined: Oct 07, 2003
Posts: 19051
Location: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington DC
Posted:
Wed Nov 12, 2008 11:57 am
I am pro-Right to Privacy. It's none of our business what a woman chooses to do with her own body.
_________________ Kimberly (HSBUH) aka
Baroness Sylvia von Zurich (the only Goldwater Conservative) endorses the Meadow Party's Bill and Opus for the 2008 Presidential election!
MockingGods Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 4005
Location: USA
Posted:
Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:29 pm
SvZurich wrote:
It's none of our business what a woman chooses to do with her own body.
I agree, but this doesn't address the real issue, the other "body".
I hear the "pro-lifers" say, "life begins at conception". This statement is, in my opinion, intentionally obtuse, after all, the egg and sperm are also alive before mitosis begins. The real question should be, "when does the collection of cells in the women's body become human with human rights". I rather doubt the fetus, regardless of internal development, has any conception of self or death. These two concepts are probably the two defining attributes that make a human... human. So while the fetus will eventually develop these human traits, they probably don't acquire them until sometime after birth. Even though the fetus is technically alive, I feel the women's decision concerning the unborn fetus should trump any emotionally or religiously driven concerns, especially when the women's health is in question.
SvZurich Forum Master
Joined: Oct 07, 2003
Posts: 19051
Location: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington DC
Posted:
Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:34 pm
The Pro-Murderers (protect the fetus, murder those who are born and make war) are doing this based on a Biblical basis, correct?
The Bible says life begins when you draw first breath, aka after birth. A fetus is not a living human yet. Bible says so, I believe it, so there!
_________________ Kimberly (HSBUH) aka
Baroness Sylvia von Zurich (the only Goldwater Conservative) endorses the Meadow Party's Bill and Opus for the 2008 Presidential election!
MockingGods Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 4005
Location: USA
Posted:
Wed Nov 12, 2008 1:01 pm
SvZurich wrote:
The Pro-Murderers (protect the fetus, murder those who are born and make war) are doing this based on a Biblical basis, correct?
There's probably a reasonable few who have taken up the banner of "pro-life" that aren't doing so because of biblical reasoning. But yes, I agree the pro-life/pro-war folks are woefully conflicted in their stance.
Quote:
The Bible says life begins when you draw first breath, aka after birth. A fetus is not a living human yet. Bible says so, I believe it, so there!
Ah yes, the soul comes with the breath of life. Biblical thought, especially early thought, awards little in the way rights to the fetus. Personally, I don't believe the baby immediately after birth is any more human then the fetus was before birth. It still cannot care for itself nor is it self-aware.
Eon Newbie First Class
Joined: May 03, 2008
Posts: 39
Location: Stirling, Scotland
Posted:
Thu Nov 13, 2008 3:41 am
One thing I've always found interesting is the fact that the biggest "pro-lifers" tend to also be the biggest supporters of war and capital punishment. In fact I think I've only ever known one person who was "pro-life" as well as being
opposed
to war and capital punishment. I've never understood how you can argue with the one hand that life is sacred and must be protected, while on the other hand arguing that war is not only necessary, but morally justified and that murderers (or even rapists) deserve to die. In the majority of cases, I really don't think it has anything to do with believing that life is sacred. I think most "pro-lifers" really just want to punish women for having sex, because most of them will make an exception for abortion in rape cases. The only difference in a rape case is that sex was forced upon the woman.
For me it's a simple matter of individual liberty. A woman is a human person and her right to choose what happens to and in her own body must take precedence over any rights a cluster of cells that is only human in a biological sense can be thought to have. Furthermore, it's hardly fair to force a child to be brought into the world if it is unwanted and unloved. Too many children are already in that situation as it is.
View next topic View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
* You can syndicate our news and blog using the file