|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 11:19 pm
divineseraph Being pro-life, we support MORE lives, counting fetal lives as lives. Honestly, not to be offensive, choicers are really only supporting convenience. Except: 1. Many Pro-Choicers also see unborn humans as alive (since they, and the sex cells they formed from, are very much alive). 2. Pro-Choicers are trying to fight for the right of all humans (including pregnant women) to control their own bodies. 3. One could just as easily and just as offensively say that "Pro-Lifers are only supporting oppressing pregnant women". The point is, that from the point of view of many Pro-Choicers (though not myself, actually), that is what Pro-Lifers seem to be fighting for. And from the point of view of many Pro-Lifers (like yourself), Pro-Choicers just seem to be fighting for the convenience of the woman. The truth is that Pro-Lifers are trying to fight for the rights of unborn humans, and that Pro-Choicers are trying to fight for the rights of pregnant women. In the case of abortion, the rights of these two humans conflict, and each "side" has come to the conclusion that a different human needs to have their rights more than the other human does (that an unborn human need to continue living more or that a pregnant woman needs to continue having the right to control her own body more). Savvy?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 3:20 pm
Winged Isis This may be irrelevant, but I'd like to mention that the ONLY case I know of personally of a woman dying in childbirth happened with NO warning signs at all. Her pregnancy was completely normal up until the birth itself. You cannot terminate EVERY pregnancy on the off-chance that a woman might die in childbirth. Pregnancies where there IS advance warning, yes. I would also like to point out, that like most advanced countries, our maternal deathrates are extremely low. In most cases the woman are fine (very few have serious live and death complication or permant damage but is most of those causes they have some warning). Abortion is more dangerous cause surgery adds more risks (risk of infection, risk of the abortion being botched, problems with anestetics (spelling?)- some cases giving too much, risk of not being able to concieve or carry anymore children, sometimes depression,ect.... in some cases it also resulted in the death of the woman).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 3:38 pm
sachiko_sohma Winged Isis This may be irrelevant, but I'd like to mention that the ONLY case I know of personally of a woman dying in childbirth happened with NO warning signs at all. Her pregnancy was completely normal up until the birth itself. You cannot terminate EVERY pregnancy on the off-chance that a woman might die in childbirth. Pregnancies where there IS advance warning, yes. I would also like to point out, that like most advanced countries, our maternal deathrates are extremely low. In most cases the woman are fine (very few have serious live and death complication or permant damage but is most of those causes they have some warning). Abortion is more dangerous cause surgery adds more risks (risk of infection, risk of the abortion being botched, problems with anestetics (spelling?)- some cases giving too much, risk of not being able to concieve or carry anymore children, sometimes depression,ect.... in some cases it also resulted in the death of the woman). In most cases of pregnancy, you mean? Because in most cases of life-threatening pregnancy, the woman is not "fine". Because when an abortion is recommended by a doctor the pregnancy is usually so dangerous that to not do surgery would add far more risk than to do the abortion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 3:49 pm
Well no, not really... Because the product of a pro-life world would be more children, thus more lives.
I am not so stupid as to assume that a pro-choice world would have EVERY or even many pregnancies aborted. However, there would BE abortions, which means less children, and thus less lives.
Mathematically speaking, pro-life would save, or at least allow for more lives to exist than pro-choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 7:11 am
divineseraph Well no, not really... Because the product of a pro-life world would be more children, thus more lives. I am not so stupid as to assume that a pro-choice world would have EVERY or even many pregnancies aborted. However, there would BE abortions, which means less children, and thus less lives. Mathematically speaking, pro-life would save, or at least allow for more lives to exist than pro-choice. However, forcing more women to keep pregnancies they don't want (because they would otherwise abort them) would definitely have some effect on the infanticide rate. I'm not saying that all of those "saved lives" would end "early", but I really feel that many unbalanced women would choose to kill their born children if they did not have the option to kill their unborn (and unable to feel pain) humans. I guess, because I'm Pro-Choice, I think that quality of life is more important than simply the number of lives in existance. The more people there are, the less resources there are to share. It isn't as though, if abortion were suddenly illegal, all those women who don't want to be pregnant and want an abortion would suddenly be thrilled to have a baby to take care of...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 12:44 pm
But it does give the child they would kill at least more of a chance to survive.
And I believe I have heard from someone here, I want to say Beware, but it may be Lyme... Or maybe Ebony...
But quality only exists over quantity unti you one of the ones at risk.
If there were a train, say, and you were captured by Nazi's and held there, and the living conditions were horrible partially due to overcrowding, would you kill yourself to make it easier for the others? Quality over quantity, after all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 3:44 pm
divineseraph But quality only exists over quantity unti you one of the ones at risk. If there were a train, say, and you were captured by Nazi's and held there, and the living conditions were horrible partially due to overcrowding, would you kill yourself to make it easier for the others? Quality over quantity, after all. No, I would probably kill myself because I wouldn't want the Nazis to do horrible experiments on me. And maybe I would think that it would make things easier on the others. Are you saying that forcing women to have children is like the Nazis cramming people onto a train? *wink*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 3:49 pm
But then, I'd rather live. See, that's the thing. If you're pro-life, you're giving a choice to someone, because you feel the mother's already made her choice when she chose to have sex. That action caused another human to need her body. If you're pro-choice, you're giving the same amount of people a choice when it comes to who lives and who dies, only, you don't give someone a chance over his or her own fate. You give someone a chance over her children's fate for them.
Edit: I just realized that didn't come out the way I meant to.
What I mean is, each person differs in what they think matters more, quality or quantity.
Arguing that you're for abortion because you care about the quality of the child isn't exactly a pro-choice motivation, because it's saying other people should decide whether a person should live or die. Basically, that the choice should be taken away entirely from that person. Of course, if a fetus isn't a person, it's pretty moot anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 4:24 pm
lymelady But then, I'd rather live. See, that's the thing. If you're pro-life, you're giving a choice to someone, because you feel the mother's already made her choice when she chose to have sex. That action caused another human to need her body. If you're pro-choice, you're giving the same amount of people a choice when it comes to who lives and who dies, only, you don't give someone a chance over his or her own fate. You give someone a chance over her children's fate for them. Edit: I just realized that didn't come out the way I meant to. What I mean is, each person differs in what they think matters more, quality or quantity. Arguing that you're for abortion because you care about the quality of the child isn't exactly a pro-choice motivation, because it's saying other people should decide whether a person should live or die. Basically, that the choice should be taken away entirely from that person. Of course, if a fetus isn't a person, it's pretty moot anyway. That particular point (that each side of this debate has different opinions on the two humans involved in abortion) is really hard to voice (type?) without sounding sort of mean. I think that the last time I tried to state it, there was a huge blow up... I understand at least some of the Pro-Life stance (I think). I would rather that there be a third (fourth if you count giving birth and then giving the baby up for adoption) option like fetal transplant. I heard some progress has been made, and I hope that something like this happens soon! I guess that saying that "well, unwanted children have really crappy lives, so abortion is a good thing" is wrong. No, not "I guess", it is wrong. I have no idea if most of the unborn humans who have been/will be aborted would have lived good, bad, ok, or terrible lives. But I don't feel that saying "well, Pro-Lifers are saving lives so that makes them better" is correct either...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 4:41 pm
I don't think there is an objective "better." How can there be? I mean, on the one hand, Women controlling their bodies. On the other, Humans living more.
But I thought it was basically him stating that we support more lives if we count fetal lives as human lives, which of course they are, though I don't know where that came from. It's very random to say, and the whole, convenience thing is an entirely different debate.
I may just be misunderstanding though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 6:43 pm
WatersMoon110 divineseraph But quality only exists over quantity unti you one of the ones at risk. If there were a train, say, and you were captured by Nazi's and held there, and the living conditions were horrible partially due to overcrowding, would you kill yourself to make it easier for the others? Quality over quantity, after all. No, I would probably kill myself because I wouldn't want the Nazis to do horrible experiments on me. And maybe I would think that it would make things easier on the others. Are you saying that forcing women to have children is like the Nazis cramming people onto a train? *wink* Ha, no, it was actually a reference to quality ofer quantity. And if quality is worth more than quantity, and you are part of the quantity, you should have no problem killing yourself or any of the others in order for there to be better quality for the rest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 10:01 am
lymelady I don't think there is an objective "better." How can there be? I mean, on the one hand, Women controlling their bodies. On the other, Humans living more. But I thought it was basically him stating that we support more lives if we count fetal lives as human lives, which of course they are, though I don't know where that came from. It's very random to say, and the whole, convenience thing is an entirely different debate. I may just be misunderstanding though. I don't know how you do it. Every time I misinterpret something someone says you come down (from on high *wink*) and explain it to me. Maybe I'm just secretly clueless. *laughs*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 10:04 am
divineseraph Ha, no, it was actually a reference to quality ofer quantity. And if quality is worth more than quantity, and you are part of the quantity, you should have no problem killing yourself or any of the others in order for there to be better quality for the rest. You're right. Saying that quality is more important than quantity of life does really make it sound like I am advocating for people with crappy lives to off themselves so that others might live more comfortably. Which I am not. I think that anyone who believes their life is bad and feels that suicide might be the right answer should talk to someone and find a reason to keep going.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 7:38 pm
WatersMoon110 lymelady I don't think there is an objective "better." How can there be? I mean, on the one hand, Women controlling their bodies. On the other, Humans living more. But I thought it was basically him stating that we support more lives if we count fetal lives as human lives, which of course they are, though I don't know where that came from. It's very random to say, and the whole, convenience thing is an entirely different debate. I may just be misunderstanding though. I don't know how you do it. Every time I misinterpret something someone says you come down (from on high *wink*) and explain it to me. Maybe I'm just secretly clueless. *laughs* I'm sorry! I don't mean to, I just always interpret things differently, probably because I'm pro-life and have a different point of view.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 11:01 am
WatersMoon110 divineseraph Being pro-life, we support MORE lives, counting fetal lives as lives. Honestly, not to be offensive, choicers are really only supporting convenience. Except: 1. Many Pro-Choicers also see unborn humans as alive (since they, and the sex cells they formed from, are very much alive). 2. Pro-Choicers are trying to fight for the right of all humans (including pregnant women) to control their own bodies. 3. One could just as easily and just as offensively say that "Pro-Lifers are only supporting oppressing pregnant women". The point is, that from the point of view of many Pro-Choicers (though not myself, actually), that is what Pro-Lifers seem to be fighting for. And from the point of view of many Pro-Lifers (like yourself), Pro-Choicers just seem to be fighting for the convenience of the woman. The truth is that Pro-Lifers are trying to fight for the rights of unborn humans, and that Pro-Choicers are trying to fight for the rights of pregnant women. In the case of abortion, the rights of these two humans conflict, and each "side" has come to the conclusion that a different human needs to have their rights more than the other human does (that an unborn human need to continue living more or that a pregnant woman needs to continue having the right to control her own body more). Savvy? 1. That doesn't say much. 2. No, they don't. Would a pro-choicer support a pro-lifers attempts to criminalize abortion? Clearly, pro-choicers too believe in stipulation of rights. For the record ladies and gents, the fatal flaw of Locke's beliefs was that humans in "absolute freedom" would eventually overstep each other's freedoms. You can't be absolutely free without inconveniencing others, eventually. Stop trying to deny this. Just like Pro-lifers may not be for ALL life, Pro-choicers are not for ALL choice. 3. Because you have a skewed way of viewing the opposition. If I was against women, would I not be for the abortion of female fetuses? Similarly, if we were for the oppression of women, technically, wouldn't some pro-lifers also believe in squelching the rights of unborn children as well? The door is both entrance and exit: if we are "oppressors", I'd imagine, some of us would be unfair to other people, as well. We fight for causes -- that is the most politically correct way to state something. To say anything else is just getting into a gray space, one that no one will reach a conclusion about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
