Pro-life V's Pro-Choice, What Is It Really All about?

Read this, would be interested in comments for discussion.

 

"""""We live in a culture today where the decision not to have sex is seen as ridiculous. Abstinence is the default choice, and the pro-choice movement has an obligation to make it a socially acceptable choice.""""
Only thing I disagree with is in blue.


I have no obligation to do any such thing..

And preaching abstinence, as proven by the documented history of the world, does NOT work. Abstinence, aside form short periods , is abnormal to human beings........

I think I'll just go talk to the sun and ask it to stay up for a few more hours.....same results....

 

While I agree with you, it would do no harm to teach it .. in fact when it fails it would give extra evidence to the pro-choice campaign.

 

you're right...

 

The writer lost me when he/she said that "Rational members of the pro-life movement do acknowledge that there is a difference in intent--abortion would be, at worst, involuntary manslaughter rather than murder--"

WHAT?! Abortion is "involuntary"? I didn't know that! And manslaughter is a homicide committed in the "heat of passion", so how does abortion fit that description? Maybe the act that precipitated it?

I will read the rest, but that passage did not impress me much (I know, you don't care whether I was impressed or not--there, I beat you to it).

 

"Abstinence, aside form short periods , is abnormal to human beings........"

I am absolutely going to have to have a talk with some people about that principle!

I have to say that if contribution to this culture and the world around us is any measure, some of you people are expendible. And I am not talking about the contributions that feed your bellies or egos, like practicing medicine or practicing law or, perish the thought, practicing PR. I'm talking about contributing to the ethos of this culture. You're setting us way back, and I think that puts you right there with embryos (fetal tissue, if you prefer). You had better hope that the majority in the country does not re-dedicate itself to building the character of the culture, because we may conclude that you are not able to survive without a lifeline to us and just cut you off!

 

Instead of going off on some sermon, why don't you address the situation and provide evidence to support your viewpoint that "Abstinence, aside form short periods , is abnormal to human beings........" is incorrect, and by evidence I mean proper evidence not something pulled from the bible.

- - - Updated - - -

The thread isn't about whether you are impressed or not, it is to try and stimulate discussion, hence why the article doesn't try to "take sides"

 

I hate to break it to you, but the crack about abstinence was a joke. Perhaps I should heed my own advice "if it is that obscure, it is obviously contrived."

I would take issue with your assessment of the article not taking sides. it attempts to make the statement that abortion is merely a religious issue and, since our government is secular, it cannot prohibit abortion. That is an absolutely, outrageously partisan postulate. We legislate the crime of murder and various other species of homicide. Government is entirely free to classify this homicide and prohibit it. It also postulates that, even if abortion were criminalized, it would not be murder, but negligent homicide or manslaughter, which can only be written by someone bent on minimalizing the offense. Negligence is mere accident precipitated by carelessness and that is not the that I understand abortions to take place. Manslaughter is a homicide committed in the heat of passion. Not sure how that works in.

Sounds to me like taking sides.

 

It's really about people who want to engage in hedonistic sex outside marriage and not have to worry about any consequences, even if that means terminating their own unborn children.

 

Oh right, sorry for the response then .. difficult to tell a joke in a forum.

I don't think it says it is merely a religious issue, though it does conclude that the mainstay of the pro-life stance stems from a religious view. You are right that the government could prohibit it .. but in doing so it would have to legislate for the temporary ownership of the woman's womb, thus breaking the Bill of Rights.

Well I suppose it could be argued that the negligence was precipitated by carelessness .. the woman carelessly got pregnant
On the manslaughter one, it would probably be voluntary manslaughter where there was an intent to kill, but there are mitigating circumstances which reduce culpability

 

Sorry Anders that viewpoint is invalid in the context of this thread, thought I must say that the above doesn't stop you wanting to kill DS children does it

 

My belief that those little lives afflicted with DS should undergo a mercy killing has nothing to do with wanting to personally engage in consequence-free sexual intercourse.

 

Ok, lets put it another way .. by what stretch of imagination do you think you have the right to dictate to others how they live their sexual lives .. are they breaking any laws, are they hurting any other person (please don't say the fetus or "baby" - you know I don't consider a fetus a person), what does it matter if they are not "married in the eyes of god" as hard as it might be for you to accept a fair proportion of the worlds population don't believe in your God.
Women do face the consequences of their actions, they make a choice whether to continue the pregnancy or to have an abortion, whether to accept the consequences or change the consequences .. in the end its her choice, not yours, not mine, not the state & certainly not religions.

 

Do you realize that sentence makes it look like you want to personally engage in consequence free sexual intercourse?


LOL! I think that's the problem here....

 

and yet you still can't answer by what right you can control another persons sexual lifestyle, would you be prepared to surrender your sexual lifestyle over to the state?

 

This is false. Most pro-choice individuals are also pro-life.

A pro-choice person simply doesn't believe that the government should be making a decision that the woman has the Inalienable Right to make based upon the Right of Sovereignty of the Person. A pro-choice person doesn't believe that we have the authority to dictate the actions of another person where the inalienable Rights of a Person are not being violated and the "preborn" are not "persons" based upon historical or legal precedent (Ref. Roe v Wade where this was undisputed).

The dispute is not between Pro-Choice and Pro-Life because most Pro-Choice individuals are also Pro-Life. The dispute is between Pro-Choice and Anti-Abortion. Pro-Choice supports the inalienable Rights of the Woman as a Person while Anti-Abortion seeks do deny the inalienable Rights of the Woman as a Person.

That is the dispute and everything else is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Many on both sides of the Pro-Choice/Pro-Life and Anti-Abortion/Pro-Life issue fail to accept that there is a solution to the issue that goes beyond Roe v Wade. Roe v Wade was actually a "success" for Anti-Abortionists because it did impose limitations upon the woman related to an abortion. They seem to ignore this fact. As a Pro-Choice/Pro-Life person I have often proposed that the resolution is in passing a Constitutional Amendment which establishes "personhood" of the Pre-Born.

Roe v Wade did establish "potential personhood" of a fetus at viability and established this as the "common law" of the United States under the Constitution but a revision to the Constitution is far superior to a Supreme Court decision. What we must understand is that in establishing "personhood" for the pre-born there is a pragmatic limitation related to it. The woman, as an established "person" under the Constitution has protected Rights and if we impart the legal status of "personhood" for the Pre-Born there pragmatically has to be a separation between the Rights of the Pre-Born and the Rights of the Woman.

Inalienable Rights cannot conflict with each other so a Constitutional Amendment establishing the inalienable Rights of the Pre-Born by imparting "personhood" to them would have to be explicit taking into account the Rights of the Woman as well. It would be very interesting to see how such an amendment would be composed so that it would meet the requirements necessary to be ratified by 3/4ths of the States but it is the correct path for our future and it would resolve the issue.

 

Unfortunately, people's "sexual lifestyle" choices can affect other people, besides the ones choosing to engage in it. That is where I have the right to step in.

 

please show how a persons sexual lifestyle has any affect on other people

 

How about "pro abortion rights" vs "anti abortion rights"? It captures all the essentials.

 

I just bet you would...LOL!!!!!


Hey! I don't know what my neighbors sexual lifestyle is... how do I know if I'm being affected by it or not??


Do you peek in their windows at night??

 

Or even better pro-women vs anti-women

 

The other side will just as easily say "Or even better, pro unborn child vs anti unborn child". Either way, it's fallacious and inflammatory. Stick with "pro abortion rights vs. anti abortion rights".

 

I know .. just couldn't resist

 

Wait a minute! You are not the same person who didn't have a persecution complex!?!

Oh, that's right, it was someone else. My apologies!

 

Its called sarcasm, not my problem if you don't have a sense of humour, try finding one its quite therapeutic sometimes