Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice

Son of JayJamJah · 06-21-2009, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hesher

For the most part I don't have a problem with people's individual beliefs; I begin to take umbrage when people attack a woman (who is already making a difficult decision) for something that is clearly not murder in the slightest. She doesn't need additional chastisement from someone who knows nothing of her situation and certainly doesn't need the government dictating what she is allowed to do with the contents of her own body.

Yes; again we are on exactly the same page here. I don't like the idea of abortion myself, I'd certainly not compare it to murder but I would try to take my children grandchildren out of the decision. Otherwise I'd keep my mouth shut and respect the individual(s) decision.

Miltamec Soundsquinaez · 06-21-2009, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

lol. I don't want to give you a sex ed. lesson but there's a bit of difference between a sperm's potential and an embryo's potential.

You don't need to. Obviously an embryo has much greater chance of becoming a human than a random sperm. I'm just saying if potential for human life is all that matters, we should treat every single sperm cell like a potential human, and never masturbate and never have sex, because you'll murder millions of innocent 'potential humans'

Son of JayJamJah · 06-21-2009, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheUsed2lguy

You don't need to. Obviously an embryo has much greater chance of becoming a human than a random sperm. I'm just saying if potential for human life is all that matters, we should treat every single sperm cell like a potential human, and never masturbate and never have sex, because you'll murder millions of innocent 'potential humans'

It's about playing the odds and staying in reality. Not having an abortion in cases where it is not medically necessitated is realistic (not suggesting it's the right or best option) getting people to stop masturbating is certainly not, I can personal vouch for this one. Literally over my dead body.

sleepy jack · 06-21-2009, 09:08 PM

It's a very radical stance to take - and the only the Catholic Church does take it. It's a very silly argument to take and no moderate person would make it because it's only purpose is to prove an extreme point in an argument.

Son of JayJamJah · 06-21-2009, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

It's a very radical stance to take - and the only the Catholic Church does take it. It's a very silly argument to take and no moderate person would make it because it's only purpose is to prove an extreme point in an argument.

I'd agree with that. But as you know extremists don't mind making silly arguments.

Ebony_and_Irony · 10-08-2009, 10:46 PM

I have a strong distaste for the terms "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice." It's obvious that both terms are just examples of political framing,(They show ones philosophy in the best light possible.) and are flawed and inaccurate. For example, I know many "Pro-Lifers who hunt animals and eat them. On the other side of things the term "Pro-Life" implies that the alternative view point is "Anti-Choice", which isn't necessarily true. I think it would be our best interests to refer to ourselves as people who are for or against abortion.

I for one, am for abortion, on the grounds that even if it were made illegal it wouldn't stop women, particularly young naive women from having an abortion. It would instead, increase the amount of dangerous and illegal back alley abortions, most of which will be performed by untrained or failed hacks who own out of date equipment if any at all.

Ebony_and_Irony · 10-08-2009, 11:42 PM

*On the other side of things the term "Pro-Choice" implies that the alternative view point is "Anti-Choice", which isn't necessarily true.

*Correction "Pro-Choice"

Guybrush · 10-09-2009, 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ebony_and_Irony

I for one, am for abortion, on the grounds that even if it were made illegal it wouldn't stop women, particularly young naive women from having an abortion. It would instead, increase the amount of dangerous and illegal back alley abortions, most of which will be performed by untrained or failed hacks who own out of date equipment if any at all.

I'm also for abortion and to some degree I agree with your post, but I don't think "back alley abortions" is a good enough reason for a society to base a "pro-choice" (excuse the term) politics on. I think we need some firm moral grounds for choices like this, some principles.

My moral stance on this was stated earlier many times. Basically, I don't think a fetus deserves much moral consideration when compared to the mother because of it's lack of capacity for feeling, reasoning and communication - it's less able to know pain or happiness in the broadest terms. Because of that, the mother's wishes are what's important because her needs get priority over her unborn child.

The popular idea is that all human lives are worth the same, but it's a naive ideal which is ultimately not true and usually not practiced when push comes to shove such as when lives are at stake. If a person had to die in your society and you had to choose which - one was an old, frail man at the end of his days and the other was a young teenager whose life had just started, who would you choose should live and die?

That was a rhetorical question but if you agree that the rightest thing to do would be to let the young person live, then you see people do have different worths. I think fetuses usually have comparatively less worth than their mothers.

OceanAndSilence · 10-09-2009, 07:46 PM

i am stuck in between. i'm pro choice, but i'm also pro-life. if you're irresponsible enough to have an unplanned pregnancy it is still your right to end the childs life, but in knowing that, why should you? if you are not able to raise a child that does not necessarily mean it should be 'killed'. foster parents, special organizations, etc. are usually available. i know it's more complicated than that, but that's my stance so far. maybe if i'm involved in such a situation i'll change my mind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by toretorden

Basically, I don't think a fetus deserves much moral consideration when compared to the mother because of it's lack of capacity for feeling, reasoning and communication - it's less able to know pain or happiness in the broadest terms. Because of that, the mother's wishes are what's important because her needs get priority over her unborn child. The popular idea is that all human lives are worth the same, but it's a naive ideal which is ultimately not true and usually not practiced when push comes to shove such as when lives are at stake. If a person had to die in your society and you had to choose which - one was an old, frail man at the end of his days and the other was a young teenager whose life had just started, who would you choose should live and die? That was a rhetorical question but if you agree that the rightest thing to do would be to let the young person live, then you see people do have different worths. I think fetuses usually have comparatively less worth than their mothers.

there's a duality in the "worth" of a human being, and you're right in that most people would want the teenager to live. i think this is the difference and the reasoning behind the thought process; the younger the human, the more potential they have. i agree that a fetus is unable to communicate and reason in a living capacity, however every single living thing has been in such a state. in a world where there is no "right or wrong", yet we still try to apply those terms to arbitrary topics, i believe the "right" thing to to would not get an abortion. this is irrelevant of the problems that the child would cause in the context of society, because no amount of money can create life.

Guybrush · 10-10-2009, 02:20 AM

^I don't actually think potential is that important, at least not with fetuses. You don't know if the child is going to survive birth or not or if something else is going to happen to it. There are arguments that say you could base your moral decisions on the future, but then you're basing it on a scenario which might not even happen so I think in those push-shove cases, you base it on the present - what you know and what is.

That might sound like a contradiction to my example above, but it's not. I already wrote that when push comes to shove like when lives are at stake, I think you have to choose what causes most happiness / least suffering. The old man would probably tolerate death more than the young man, he's had a life and is old and is probably more emotionally suited to deal with the idea of dying. The people who would be touched by his death would probably have an easier time accepting the death of 90 year old granpa than the close family and friends of the 14 year old boy.

By this moralistic thinking, you have to think a bit and evaluate the worth of your actions. There's perhaps a bit of predictive thinking in that, but at least not the sort where you don't kill the boy because he might have a family in 20 years.

I'm not really a utilitarian on a day-to-day basis. My moral ideals are usually quite normative and absolute, but I do realize that the "thou shalt not" sense of morale is a luxury for those who don't have to make tough decisions themselves. If killing 1 would save a million, would killing still be wrong? I believe in abortion when I believe the abortion causes more happiness/less suffering than the alternative.

10-10-2009, 02:20 AM	#180 (permalink)
Guybrush Juicious Maximus III Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Scabb Island Posts: 6,525	^I don't actually think potential is that important, at least not with fetuses. You don't know if the child is going to survive birth or not or if something else is going to happen to it. There are arguments that say you could base your moral decisions on the future, but then you're basing it on a scenario which might not even happen so I think in those push-shove cases, you base it on the present - what you know and what is. That might sound like a contradiction to my example above, but it's not. I already wrote that when push comes to shove like when lives are at stake, I think you have to choose what causes most happiness / least suffering. The old man would probably tolerate death more than the young man, he's had a life and is old and is probably more emotionally suited to deal with the idea of dying. The people who would be touched by his death would probably have an easier time accepting the death of 90 year old granpa than the close family and friends of the 14 year old boy. By this moralistic thinking, you have to think a bit and evaluate the worth of your actions. There's perhaps a bit of predictive thinking in that, but at least not the sort where you don't kill the boy because he might have a family in 20 years. I'm not really a utilitarian on a day-to-day basis. My moral ideals are usually quite normative and absolute, but I do realize that the "thou shalt not" sense of morale is a luxury for those who don't have to make tough decisions themselves. If killing 1 would save a million, would killing still be wrong? I believe in abortion when I believe the abortion causes more happiness/less suffering than the alternative. __________________ Something Completely Different

10-08-2009, 10:46 PM	#176 (permalink)
Ebony_and_Irony Groupie Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Planet Earth, duh! Posts: 18	I have a strong distaste for the terms "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice." It's obvious that both terms are just examples of political framing,(They show ones philosophy in the best light possible.) and are flawed and inaccurate. For example, I know many "Pro-Lifers who hunt animals and eat them. On the other side of things the term "Pro-Life" implies that the alternative view point is "Anti-Choice", which isn't necessarily true. I think it would be our best interests to refer to ourselves as people who are for or against abortion. I for one, am for abortion, on the grounds that even if it were made illegal it wouldn't stop women, particularly young naive women from having an abortion. It would instead, increase the amount of dangerous and illegal back alley abortions, most of which will be performed by untrained or failed hacks who own out of date equipment if any at all.

10-08-2009, 11:42 PM	#177 (permalink)
Ebony_and_Irony Groupie Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Planet Earth, duh! Posts: 18	On the other side of things the term "Pro-Choice" implies that the alternative view point is "Anti-Choice", which isn't necessarily true. Correction "Pro-Choice"