Abortion

Pushtrak

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Saying that someone's argument is "weak" because they refuse to be "black and white" about a certain topic IS weak. Nothing in life is so simple that we can say "Oh A is always wrong, B is always right". There are always caveats, exceptions, and allowing for these does not make your argument flawed, it simpy reflects the fact that you are living in the real world, and are aware that it is,sadly, far far far from ideal.

I'm someone who is all out pro choice. I think the "It'll be used as contraception" or any such dialogue is distraction. It isn't for us to question motives. It is for us to discuss the rights or wrongs of an action. So, the question is more important about the stages of fetal development. That is what is important.

So, I actually appreciate that you try to have your perspective be not so black or white, but fundamentally I think the pro-life are basing their perspective on emotion.

OldNotWIse

Pushtrak wrote: »

I'm someone who is all out pro choice. I think the "It'll be used as contraception" or any such dialogue is distraction. It isn't for us to question motives. It is for us to discuss the rights or wrongs of an action. So, the question is more important about the stages of fetal development. That is what is important.

So, I actually appreciate that you try to have your perspective be not so black or white, but fundamentally I think the pro-choice are basing their perspective on emotion.

I assume you mean pro life? I understand the point, but this is as much as I can reconcile the logic of it with my own views. Perhaps they are emotive, but that's just how I am. Maybe that wont win me the argument on anonymous discussion boards but it will determine how I vote, and how I act my whole life through. I see your point re the importance of determing the stages of development and where things become right/wrong/ok etc.

Just as a side not to the argument, re if it is "either right or wrong" to do something but how many people here would be ok with the death penalty for someone who has kidnapped and raped and killed someones child? Surely there are plenty of people who would not have an issue with this but would have an issue with the original killing? If we are to take the argument of something being either right or wrong then surely both killings are ok, or both killings are wrong.

OldNotWIse

OldNotWIse wrote: »

For a start, if it were reserved solely for rape victims, there would be hundreds of thousands less every year. There is also the issue to consider that rape is a violation against a woman's body. Forcing her to carry her rapsts child is a further violation. This cannot be viewed in the same light as a woman who has had consensual sex and became pregnant as a result.

Ok, well your first post is basically saying that it's the number of abortions that bothers you. Which you don't give a justification for.

Your second point above states that a baby of rape is a violation on a woman's body. Do you think that a foetus of consentual conception should have rights, but a foetus of rape should not? Your reasoning is that it will cause the mother trauma, but any woman who gets an abortion does so because she believes that keeping it will cause her trauma. If you think keeping the baby will turn out ok, then you wouldn't get an abortion. Personally I believe that being forced to carry any foetus is a violation on a woman's body. How could you possibly go through labour because you were legally forced to, and not feel violated and traumatised???

Nothing in life is so simple that we can say "Oh A is always wrong, B is always right". There are always caveats, exceptions, and allowing for these does not make your argument flawed, it simpy reflects the fact that you are living in the real world, and are aware that it is,sadly, far far far from ideal.

And that's why I'm not arguing with people's choice of cut-off point for abortion, even if that's at conception. I'm arguing that the potential for it being a murder should not depend on where the male DNA came from. If abortion is wrong, and it is the death of a child, surely the crime of it's father should not suddenly make it's death ok?

OldNotWIse

true-or-false wrote: »

Ok, well your first post is basically saying that it's the number of abortions that bothers you. Which you don't give a justification for.

Your second point above states that a baby of rape is a violation on a woman's body. Do you think that a foetus of consentual conception should have rights, but a foetus of rape should not? Your reasoning is that it will cause the mother trauma, but any woman who gets an abortion does so because she believes that keeping it will cause her trauma. If you think keeping the baby will turn out ok, then you wouldn't get an abortion. Personally I believe that being forced to carry any foetus is a violation on a woman's body. How could you possibly go through labour because you were legally forced to, and not feel violated and traumatised???


And that's why I'm not arguing with people's choice of cut-off point for abortion, even if that's at conception. I'm arguing that the potential for it being a murder should not depend on where the male DNA came from. If abortion is wrong, and it is the death of a child, surely the crime of it's father should not suddenly make it's death ok?

I've explained my stance as best I can. I still maintain that forcing a womna who has been raped to carry her child is a violation. It cannot be put in the same box as someone who has had consensual sex.

I never said that my reason for being against abortion is because there are so many. This is silliness. I simply pointed out that if abortion were reserved soley for rape victims, there would be a lot less. Fact. And this (imo) would be a good thing. 10 abortions are not ideal but they are certainly better than ten thousand.

IzzyWizzy

PrincessLola wrote: »

You are: Pro-choice
Yet think abortion is a bad thing. Why? If its not murder and if the fetus is not a baby then why are you so against it?
You must believe the fetus is not a baby if you are pro-choice?

You're not really pro-choice, I'm guessing. Oh wait I know, you are pro-choice, but feel entitled to judge the f*ck out of women who choose to excercise that choice. Okay then.

Are you actually asking why I think abortion isn't desirable? Really? REALLY? On the offchance that you're not just trying to wind me up:

1) Abortion is free on the NHS. I can think of many better ways to spend that money, such as on cancer drugs and other treatments. Treatment is already rationed for other preventable conditions caused by lifestyle choices. People are dying all the time because they can't get drugs for a condition they had no choice whatsoever in developing.
2) Women having abortions take up resources that could be used in other ways.
3) Abortion can be psychologically scarring for some women

These are just three reasons that people might want to avoid having an abortion if they can possibly help it, but the fact you had to ask tells me a lot about you. I can always see the other side of an argument. I might not agree with pro-lifers, for example, but I can understand where they're coming from. Your head is so far buried in the sand that you're incapable of rational, normal thought on this issue.

You've gone from suggesting that no women takes an abortion lightly to asking what's wrong with taking abortion lightly. You do realise that?

lol, is 'victim complex' your choice derailing word of the day?
Seriously though, I know women are the ones that deal with the consequences (hence why I am pro-choice) I was just explainng that you were going down the whole 'don't open your legs if you don't wanna get pregnant you dumb slut' road, which is also the road of dumb f*ckery, just sayin'.

Except if you could read you'd say I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying 'it might be an idea to make sure you're on reliable contraception before you have sex' but that's not as dramatic, is it? So let's just pretend I said something completely different.

Except it is not always that simple. I know you like saying these words because they sound snappy to you, and they make sense if you don't think about it to hard, but women are going to have accidental pregnancies, they always have and they always will. Sh*t happens.

And? So what? I'm wrong for suggesting that we should at least try to prevent the many accidental pregnancies? Why do you think some liberal, non-Catholic Western countries have abortion rates which are much lower than others?

Anecdotal evidence you say? :pac:
We all know thats the best kind of evidence.

It is when you're claiming no women takes abortion lightly. Funnily enough, someone who actually lives in a country where abortion is legal and knows plenty of people who have had them might just have a clearer idea of how it's viewed than someone who's read something on the internet.

Yeah stupid wimminz can't use contraception. Seriously, what you are actually saying is "lolz dumb bitches only care about their weight so they don't go on the pill, why can't they practice abstinence and close their legs for once!11"

And you think that's controversial? That I think it's an idea to worry more about getting pregnant than your weight? To make the effort to find a method of contraception that suits you rather than stick with a method you know is unreliable and hope for the best? But do carry on, dear. You do realise that you're perfectly backing up my original point. For someone who claimed that nobody takes abortion lightly, you sure seem to.

Flippant? No, that story is emotionally charged and questionable and full of 'she said' like all anecdotal evidence stories.
Also: "shes not even careful with condoms"? where did you get that from? Because it slipped off? What is this logic?

Eh, no, because as I said, she didn't bother getting the morning-after pill. That's the least I would expect of someone who doesn't want to get pregnant. But why should she make the effort, right? It's not her fault she got pregnant, it takes two to make a baby. Wah wah wah.

Actually now that you mention it..

Yes, women can do what they f*cking want with their own bodies, THATS WHAT PRO-CHOICE IS IN CASE YOU'VE MISSED THE MEMO.

And the vast majority do not behave like the people in your 'stories' , I don't think you are pro-choice, you are pro-choice but love to judge the f*ck out of women who excercise that choice. Except it is in actual fact none of your business what these women do with their bodies, I think you just like being judgemental?

I believe that women can do what they want with their bodies, hence I am pro-choice. I'm not suggesting for one moment that someone who can't even manage to use contraception properly should take on the responsibility of a child. I'm simply telling you that plenty of women DO see abortion as a handy little back-up, because it's there. If my friend thought her lax attitude to contraception would result in a baby, she'd make damn sure she got on the pill. She said that herself. I don't understand why this is shocking or controversial for you. The statistics say it all. Most abortions are completely preventable, bar the small number done for medical reasons and cases of rape.

I think all women should have access to abortion. I also think that any women who thinks she's mature enough to have sex should be mature enough to protect herself from STI's and pregnancy. Cutting the abortion rate and reducing the number of STI treatments would save the country millions. Ooooh, so controversial, I know. :rolleyes:

Pushtrak

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I assume you mean pro life?

Yep. Am apt to moments of stupidity that can exceed that. But that was a blunder.

I understand the point, but this is as much as I can reconcile the logic of it with my own views. Perhaps they are emotive, but that's just how I am.

I know its easy to say, but I do recommend you try to give due consideration to the points being made on the other side.

Just as a side not to the argument, re if it is "either right or wrong" to do something but how many people here would be ok with the death penalty for someone who has kidnapped and raped and killed someones child? Surely there are plenty of people who would not have an issue with this but would have an issue with the original killing? If we are to take the argument of something being either right or wrong then surely both killings are ok, or both killings are wrong.

I'm generally against the death penalty. The problem with any analogy of a death penalty and an abortion is related to fetal development, and when is it alive. This isn't a thread for the death penalty though, but an interesting side discussion could be had on a seperate thread.

IzzyWizzy

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I dont agree. I do not like the idea of aboritons full stop, however my stance has always been that for rape victims, it is acceptable but not ideal. For a start, if it were reserved solely for rape victims, there would be hundreds of thousands less every year. There is also the issue to consider that rape is a violation against a woman's body. Forcing her to carry her rapsts child is a further violation. This cannot be viewed in the same light as a woman who has had consensual sex and became pregnant as a result. And no before you all start baying, it is not about "punishment" (who would that serve???). Saying that someone's argument is "weak" because they refuse to be "black and white" about a certain topic IS weak. Nothing in life is so simple that we can say "Oh A is always wrong, B is always right". There are always caveats, exceptions, and allowing for these does not make your argument flawed, it simpy reflects the fact that you are living in the real world, and are aware that it is,sadly, far far far from ideal.

I understand the logic in saying rape victims had no choice whereas someone who had consensual sex did, but surely the outcome is the same? There's an unwanted fetus. How can it be beneficial to anyone to force a woman to have a child she doesn't want? I'd hate to have that hanging over me for 18 years, 'I never wanted you and I would have had an abortion if I could have' :eek: As you see, I strongly believe that people should be more careful with contraception in the first place, but I see no value in abortion being used as punishment, which is what you're essentially advocating.

philologos

IzzyWizzy wrote: »

I understand the logic in saying rape victims had no choice whereas someone who had consensual sex did, but surely the outcome is the same? There's an unwanted fetus. How can it be beneficial to anyone to force a woman to have a child she doesn't want? I'd hate to have that hanging over me for 18 years, 'I never wanted you and I would have had an abortion if I could have' :eek: As you see, I strongly believe that people should be more careful with contraception in the first place, but I see no value in abortion being used as punishment, which is what you're essentially advocating.

Life is better than death. I believe great things can come of people who are born into awful circumstances. There's many testimonies we could hear about that. One of the key reasons why I will never applaud abortion-by-choice is that I believe strongly that all should have the same liberty to life that I have. Who am I to advocate the theft of the most important freedom of all, the freedom to live?

We're all humans. We're all in this life thing together. If there was a way of removing the burden of childbearing from a mother without killing the child, I'd be all for it. Since there isn't, I just can't be, it crosses a boundary.

nozzferrahhtoo

An entirely imagined boundary which you have not once defended except to say it "makes sense" to you.

Again: You need to stop pretending that the pro choice side are not just as interested in life and human life as you are. You hang on to this propagandist pretense like a security blanket.

Pushtrak

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

An entirely imagined boundary which you have not once defended except to say it "makes sense" to you.

It's emotion. There isn't getting past that, sadly.

nozzferrahhtoo

Pushtrak wrote: »

It's emotion. There isn't getting past that, sadly.

Indeed, nor would I try. My replies to such people showing how baseless or ridiculous their position is are more aimed at those reading their words, not at the person I am directly replying to.

The best we can do in the face of fundamentalist religious positions like his alas is just give up on him but make sure that the counter positions and arguments pop up beside them for others to see.

coffee_cake

Pushtrak wrote: »

It's emotion. There isn't getting past that, sadly.

which is fine except when he declares he's being logical

or when he claims people who disagree are being dishonest

philologos

Pushtrak wrote: »

It's emotion. There isn't getting past that, sadly.

The pro-life position is more based on what is biologically factual than the pro-choice position.

The more and more arbitrary we twist the definition of life, the more and more emotion that can be seen. You can even see this in some of the pro-choice posts on this thread.

It's factual that a foetus is a human life. It's factual that a zygote is also. It's the same human entity that grows and develops through birth, childhood, adolescence, adulthood and ultimately to death.

I can't deny that reality. It's actually dishonest to. I can't advocate something that is clearly wrong.

When we start justifying death as a mere matter of choice, I can't ever agree. To be pro-life and advocate death as a matter of choice is inconsistent. The liberty of life is worth defending, and I don't think one can really do that if they advocate death as a matter of choice.

OldNotWIse

Pushtrak wrote: »

Yep. Am apt to moments of stupidity that can exceed that. But that was a blunder.

I know its easy to say, but I do recommend you try to give due consideration to the points being made on the other side.

I'm generally against the death penalty. The problem with any analogy of a death penalty and an abortion is related to fetal development, and when is it alive. This isn't a thread for the death penalty though, but an interesting side discussion could be had on a seperate thread.

Sorry I wasn't being smart, just trying to clarify I do consider the points from the other side, and I can see the logic in these points (of course) but I still just feel that (in the majority of cases) abortion is wrong. I know that "just feeling" something is not going to "win" the argument of course .

Didn't mean to drag the thread off topic, just wanted to apply the argument to another situation to highlight that it wasn't...foolproof? I dont know if thats the right word in this context :rolleyes:

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

The pro-life position is more based on what is biologically factual than the pro-choice position.

Entirely false. Not just slightly but entirely. The only thing your position appears to be based on is taking very very vague definitions of what "life" is and then saying essentially "Since the zygote is life we can not kill it".

Your entire position therefore has little to do with biology and everything to do with simply linguistic propaganda trickery. In fact in the next paragraph you do exactly what I just described:

philologos wrote: »

It's factual that a foetus is a human life. It's factual that a zygote is also.

As long as you keep your definition of "Human Life" as vague as you can you can just slip in any kind of nonsense. Your problem which you are so furtively and desperately trying to crawl away from is that there is nothing in this vague and dilute definition of "human life" that allows one to argue for "Human rights" and I can almost smell the stench of your desperation to avoid that problem at this point in almost every post you spew onto this thread.

philologos wrote: »

I can't advocate something that is clearly wrong.

Then stop any time you want, no one is asking you to, yet you are. In Every. Single. Post. You are nothing but propaganda and nonsense linguistic trickery. All talk, no substance.

nozzferrahhtoo

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I do consider the points from the other side, and I can see the logic in these points (of course) but I still just feel that (in the majority of cases) abortion is wrong. I know that "just feeling" something is not going to "win" the argument of course.

I too have many powerful emotional reactions to many subjects. We all do. It is only human. Wisdom and intelligence however comes from making sure that ones emotional positions map on to reality in a useful or non harmful way and it would seem that many of the more emotional based positions on this particular topic rarely do.

Of course if you do not _want_ to do that and wish to run with your emotions then so be it. We are not here to cajole you into doing so. However if you realize your own position is just emotional and the counter position makes logical sense... one is left wondering why you bother taking part in the discussion at all.

I too am emotionally against many things so I simply do not buy/use/partake in them. My own emotional issue on those things never moves me to argue that anyone else should not be allowed buy/use/partake in them. All too often our species does not see the difference between "I do not like that so I will not use/do it" and "therefore no one else should be allowed to either".

OldNotWIse

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I too have many powerful emotional reactions to many subjects. We all do. It is only human. Wisdom and intelligence however comes from making sure that ones emotional positions map on to reality in a useful or non harmful way and it would seem that many of the more emotional based positions on this particular topic rarely do.

Of course if you do not _want_ to do that and wish to run with your emotions then so be it. We are not here to cajole you into doing so. However if you realize your own position is just emotional and the counter position makes logical sense... one is left wondering why you bother taking part in the discussion at all.

I too am emotionally against many things so I simply do not buy/use/partake in them. My own emotional issue on those things never moves me to argue that anyone else should not be allowed buy/use/partake in them. All too often our species does not see the difference between "I do not like that so I will not use/do it" and "therefore no one else should be allowed to either".

Perhaps, but I challenge anyone who has ever argued, ever voted (with their feet or with their pen) to stand up and say they have been completely 100% objective all the time, and that they have not been in any way biased. It's human nature, and we are all human (at least we can agree on this definition )

One also wonders if abortion were as totally "ok" as people are saying....why ANY of us are here having a debate.

Pushtrak

OldNotWIse wrote: »

One also wonders if abortion were as totally "ok" as people are saying....why ANY of us are here having a debate.

There are debates over all manner of things. We have to debate young earth creationists, geocentrists.. There are advocates of a flat earth. People holding an opinion tells us nothing of its accuracy.

king_of_inismac

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

king_of_inismac wrote: »

I was referring to the right to life. That right is afforded to children and adults alike.

Nice back pedal, that is clearly not what you said the first time, but let us run with it anyway.

king_of_inismac wrote: »

whatever point you choose is arbitrary. For me, the point of conception is the most sensible point to choose. Any other point is EVEN more arbitrary.

Quite the contrary. Some points can be argued with philosophical and moral points. Which makes them a lot less arbitrary that picking some point in time that sounds good or is easy. For example if the best argument you can come up with for using conception as the cut off point is "It makes sense to me" then you have not made any argument at all.

In fact it is quite easy to show you how your conception cut off does not work.

First for something to “Begin” we need someone to actually start at your conception point in time. What has begun exactly? The cells that produced the sperm and egg were alive. The sperm and egg were alive. So what is added at conception exactly that was not there before?

Sometimes however after conception the cell splits into twins. If life began only at conception then what has happened here? Has one life become two half lives? I would love to see you tell a room full of twins they are only half alive. Has a new life popped up AFTER conception? Not good for your arbitrarily and poorly informed decision to use conception as your cut off huh.

Why are there not more twins then if this happens so often? Often one twin reabsorbs the other. What happened here? Did half alive twins become one? Did one murder the other? Is one life suddenly dead, or if you are religious was one cast into eternal limbo as an un-baptised soul?

Clearly this arithmetic of souls/lives makes NO sense and nor does your “life begins at conception” idea.

Even then it gets worse because at conception all you have is a unique strand of DNA. The world is full of unique DNA in every person, animal or plant you look at. What makes one strand of DNA more important than another? To ground your wish to protect one strand of DNA with rights over countless millions of others you need to make further arguments and none of those arguments, to my knowledge, have yet coherently grounded the right to life anywhere near conception.

I don't know why youre making the discussion so confrontational. It doesn't has to be.

I wasn't "back pedaling". I think it's obvious in a discussion about abortion that the right I was referring to was the right to life, rather than the right to vote.

My point about the choice of date is that all dates are problematic. When pro-choice people say 24 weeks, I'm baffled at how they justify this date.

The strand of DNA you refer to has the potential to develop into a fully functioning human. That's the difference for me.

OldNotWIse

Pushtrak wrote: »

There are debates over all manner of things. We have to debate young earth creationists, geocentrists.. There are advocates of a flat earth. People holding an opinion tells us nothing of its accuracy.

Still? :eek: What?????

I am aware an opinion does not make or win an argument, I'm just making the point that if there is such a big divide down the middle and lots of people getting all worked up and stressed then maybe there is something controversial going on.

Pushtrak

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Still? :eek: What?????

Seriously.

I am aware an opinion does not make or win an argument, I'm just making the point that if there is such a big divide down the middle and lots of people getting all worked up and stressed then maybe there is something controversial going on.

Controversial doesn't really mean much. Again, I refer to my prior examples. You could also add in any conspiracy theory, like people who buy in to the moon landing being a hoax or vaccine denailism. In the case of the latter, it can cause significant harm. As, I would posit is the case of denying the rights of a person self autonomy and the right to have an abortion.

philologos

Pushtrak wrote: »

There are debates over all manner of things. We have to debate young earth creationists, geocentrists.. There are advocates of a flat earth. People holding an opinion tells us nothing of its accuracy.

This is a poor argument in respect to pro-life which is actually more based on what is biologically a human life than the pro-choice argument does. The pro-choice is based on arbitrary positions that humans happen to put on life.

For example, I could say that someone isn't truly alive until they juggle 1752 pears while cycling a unicycle up Kilamanjaro. Realistically one could put any point on when they think something becomes alive.

This is irrelevant when we already know biologically when a human life begins, that is when a sperm and an ova fuse to become a zygote. The continuous growth and development process from that point to death forms the human lifecycle. We don't need arbitrary opinion on the matter when we already know this biologically.

coffee_cake

philologos wrote: »

This is a poor argument in respect to pro-life which is actually more based on what is biologically a human life than the pro-choice argument does. The pro-choice is based on arbitrary positions that humans happen to put on life.

He was responding to someone else making a different point, it wasn't an invite for you to start going on about how logical you think you are again

philologos

There was an implication that a pro-life position was like arguing for a flat earth. I think it's acceptable to make a response to that. Are there rules on boards.ie as to which posts you can reply to now?

nozzferrahhtoo

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Perhaps, but I challenge anyone who has ever argued, ever voted (with their feet or with their pen) to stand up and say they have been completely 100% objective all the time, and that they have not been in any way biased. It's human nature

I certainly do my best to. I can not speak for anyone else.

I actively seek out areas in my mind that I have not rationalised and try to revisit the topics in question. Usually at great length. My position on abortion for example when I first started writing and thinking about it was a "pro choice" position based on very little. I was what people obsessed with labels would call liberal and atheist and that was the default position for me. So I sat down and read all sides of every argument and came to a conclusion as the link shows.

There are subjects on my to do list that I actually do not know my position on. I need to find the time to sit down and explore them in the light of my own world views. The Death Penalty for example is high on that list. I honestly do not know what my opinion is on that subject.

When I come to voting I try to be even more strict on myself and ask if I am voting based on what I think is right for society (which is why I would vote pro choice) or am I voting because of what emotionally attracts or disgusts me (which seemingly is why you would vote the opposite). To me it seems you are almost in that "I do not want it so no one should have it" camp and I am unable to hide my disappointment in such people.

By all means go with your emotion when its decisions about you. I would however advise, if one were to ask my opinion, that one goes with their brain when making decisions for society and the people in it.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

One also wonders if abortion were as totally "ok" as people are saying....why ANY of us are here having a debate.

Well clearly our conversation goes a long way to answering that. Many people like yourself vote with their emotions not with the facts, arguments, data and reasoning.

The religious factor of con-merchants like philologos/Jakkass above though also plays a significant part in it all.

OldNotWIse

Pushtrak wrote: »

Seriously.

Controversial doesn't really mean much. Again, I refer to my prior examples. You could also add in any conspiracy theory, like people who buy in to the moon landing being a hoax or vaccine denailism. In the case of the latter, it can cause significant harm. As, I would posit is the case of denying the rights of a person self autonomy and the right to have an abortion.

Some people view denying someone the right to life as a bigger controversy than denying someone the right to an abortion.

coffee_cake

philologos wrote: »

There was an implication that a pro-life position was like arguing for a flat earth.

No, there wasn't

claim: argument over something means it must be controversial
response: no it doesn't, e.g. flat earth

Pushtrak

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Some people view denying someone the right to life as a bigger controversy than denying someone the right to an abortion.

What is actually happening is denying the rights of those who can't afford the flight to England. That is a better approximation on reality.

OldNotWIse

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I certainly do my best to. I can not speak for anyone else.

I actively seek out areas in my mind that I have not rationalised and try to revisit the topics in question. Usually at great length. My position on abortion for example when I first started writing and thinking about it was a "pro choice" position based on very little. I was what people obsessed with labels would call liberal and atheist and that was the default position for me. So I sat down and read all sides of every argument and came to a conclusion as the link shows.

There are subjects on my to do list that I actually do not know my position on. I need to find the time to sit down and explore them in the light of my own world views. The Death Penalty for example is high on that list. I honestly do not know what my opinion is on that subject.

When I come to voting I try to be even more strict on myself and ask if I am voting based on what I think is right for society (which is why I would vote pro choice) or am I voting because of what emotionally attracts or disgusts me (which seemingly is why you would vote the opposite). To me it seems you are almost in that "I do not want it so no one should have it" camp and I am unable to hide my disappointment in such people.

By all means go with your emotion when its decisions about you. I would however advise, if one were to ask my opinion, that one goes with their brain when making decisions for society and the people in it.



Well clearly our conversation goes a long way to answering that. Many people like yourself vote with their emotions not with the facts, arguments, data and reasoning.

The religious factor of con-merchants like philologos/Jakkass above though also plays a significant part in it all.

I dont know about speaking for anyone else but I suspect not a lot of people vote like this, though I have been known to be wrong a few times One only needs to look at the amount of people who recently voted No to "get at the government"...

nozzferrahhtoo

king_of_inismac wrote: »

I wasn't "back pedaling". I think it's obvious in a discussion about abortion that the right I was referring to was the right to life, rather than the right to vote.

Not really. It pays to try and be clear in these things. For example note now how you are using "Right" singular rather than "rights" plural in the original post I replied to. That alone makes the position you have back pedaled to much clearer and instantly changes much of the meaning.

king_of_inismac wrote: »

My point about the choice of date is that all dates are problematic. When pro-choice people say 24 weeks, I'm baffled at how they justify this date.

Odd how you can be so baffled given we have a 94 page thread here punctuated by many of us explaining exactly how we justify it. I have also linked many times to how I personally justify it.

king_of_inismac wrote: »

The strand of DNA you refer to has the potential to develop into a fully functioning human. That's the difference for me.

Look very carefully at your choice of words here. It has the potential to "develop into" a human. Very precisely what that language says is that it is not human now. So see, you actually make the pro-choice point for them with your own words.

It either is human.... or it is not human. It can not be both ways. And if it only has the potential to become human then you are very clearly saying it is not human now.

And if it is not human now, then it does not get "human rights". Conversation pretty much over.