Pro-life and Pro-choice question

[Lake_Travis_Horn]

I understand people who oppose abortion (and - full disclosure - agree with them), and I understand people who feel it is acceptable and should be a personal choice. What I don't understand is people who say they are personally opposed to abortion, but feel it should be a personal choice. I don't know why you'd personally oppose it unless you believe that the fetus is, or could be, a human life. If you do believe that, how can you declare that other people should have the right to destroy that life?

 

[Texanne]

Perhaps they feel that it's not their place to make such a difficult decision for somebody else.

 

[pasotex]

I am personally against abortion, but do not think it is my place to tell others what to do on this very personal choice. I don't think it is a life at least until brain activity commences, but I personally would have huge qualms with it.

 

[Coelacanth]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Bernard]

I'm personally against religion, but if someone else wants to base their life on fairy tales they are welcome to do as they please.

I have the same policy toward pot, cocaine and heroin: not my cup of tea, but people should do as they wish.

It's called freedom. Too bad so many Americans don't value freedom enough to allow others to enjoy it.

I wouldn't burn a US flag, but if others want to, let them.

Bernard

 

[accuratehorn]

A lot of people would like to reduce the number of abortions by education rather than going back to the back alley abortion days which banning the procedure created.

 

[I_Live_In_OK]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[accuratehorn]

The obvious answer, which those with their minds made up refuse to understand, is that many people disagree with the definition of when a fetus is to be considered as having all the rights of a human being. Everyone has a different definition, and your definition may not be the same as most other peoples' definition, and this impass is unlikely to ever change.
But if people focused on making abortion safe, legal and rare, then most people would agree on the policies involved.

 

[LITNIN HORN]

So...if I am personally opposed to wearing pink shorts, it should be wrong for anyone to wear pink shorts?

 

[Wild Bill]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[I_Live_In_OK]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[JohnnyM]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[kgp]

I can certainly understand hesitance to impose restrictions on the freedoms of others. As a rule, this country would be far better with far more of the freedom to which we are by birthright and Constitution entitled.

I can also make an excellent scientific/humanistic case for an absolute or near-total ban on abortions in addition to the obvious religious ones that are bandied about. From the moment of fertilization, a qualitative change has occurred resulting in something/someone that is most certainly human and most certainly alive.

No other qualitiative change undergone by the new entity will ever occur on par with this transformation, including at delivery, not until its death. Even at birth, the life will not be capable of independent survival. Long before birth it will have functional organs. Many humans who have been born lack arms, legs, speech, reason, and other outward signs of typical human life but enjoy the rights of personhood.

Personhood is the rub. This novel distinction from humanity has been developed to resolve the moral dilemma of killing baby humans in the womb. By describing them as human tissue but not persons, we forgive ourselves their destruction. Personhood attaches, currently, at arbitrary times corresponding to the limited understanding current thinkers have of various characteristics of unborn humans, including "survivability."

Human life starts at fertilization. Personhood starts when those in power say it does. Legal protection of natural rights enjoyed by one's conspecifics begins when an authority grants personhood, and not before. Few would consider legalizing infanticide because we do not distinguish born humans as not persons yet. Having an infant is a tremendous burden on a parent, as is having a toddler. We don't abort toddlers, and we don't let parents walk away from them. We don't let fathers disavow them when they are excluded from certain aspects of decision-making. It is technically a burden not to be allowed to dispense with one's progeny, this I will not deny.

 

[Coelacanth]

This is exactly the sort of issue that the founders intended to be left up to the states to decide separately. You know, 10th Amendment and all that.

But then who really cares about the Constitution?

 

[BattleshipTexas]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Smurfette]

Another vote for personally opposed to abortion but don't believe in telling others what to do.

I've had three students get abortions in the last year that I know of. I have two that are pregnant right now, and will keep the baby. The two students having babies come from families who are dependant on welfare, single parent homes, history of abuse, neither parent graduated from high school. The reality is, these babies have very little chance of making it in this world, which is very very sad. One of the moms might have managed to graduate, but it's very doubtful that she will now...

 

[The Eyes of Texas]

I think what the original poster is implying is that if you are opposed to abortion, you consider an abortion to be murder. That being the case, you can't anymore say,"I personally oppose abortion, but it should be a personal choice," than you could say "I couldn't personally blow my neighbor's head off, but killing your neighbor should be a personal choice."

The original poster didn't take into account that some people may be opposed to abortion, but not consider it murder

....at least that's my take on the post.

 

[rickysrun]

Bernard nailed it, especially with the reference to the American Flag.

In reply to:

---

---

 

[IRC]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[JohnnyM]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[IRC]

So are we now going to only allow abortions at two weeks or less, Johnny? Is that your new stance?

 

[JohnnyM]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[IRC]

I used to be like you.

Then one day a nurse placed a 7 lb slimy little bundle of amazing life into my arms. That little bundle was just a minute out of the womb.

Everything changed for me.

My wife and I had actually discussed abortion. She already had a ten year old from a prior marriage, and we hadn't planned on having any more.

In the days and weeks and years that followed, I often thought about how very close he came to never being born and it still turns my blood cold.

That little slimy life, who very nearly never saw the light of day, is the most important thing in the world to me. It changed everything.

I hope you too know that joy one day. I hope you too realize that the ease with which we as a society so carelessly toss those little lives aside is truly evil and abhorrent.

I hope you see that one day.

 

[JohnnyM]

IRC - I understand your position and there are probably a lot of folks like you, but that is not enough to mandate women to go through pregnancies when they are unwilling and unwanting. You, like many others, forget the 9 months of hell that a woman goes through to bring that life into existence.

My wife is due in 2 weeks and I can't wait to hold my own slimy bundle of joy. But going through this 9 month experience with her has made me realize that even though this is exactly what we wanted, not everyone is like us. I value women having the liberty to handle their situation in ways that are best for them. I hope some day you feel this way too and don't take your personal position and apply it to everyone.

 

[IRC]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[kgp]

A zygote is at the opposite end of the developmental spectrum from an adult but is no less human and no less alive. It makes people uncomfortable to think they are agreeable to infanticide so they imagine there is some transition point at which a human becomes a person. There is no physiologic moment of personification but rather a slow expression of more and more of the traits we recognize. If indeed having protection under the law is to be premised on arbitrary cutoffs, then that is the law. Under current legal reasoning which permits "partial birth abortion," to behead someone's baby which is 80% through a foot-first delivery is not murder, but to do so in a conventional delivery is. It doesn't sound like consistent or wise reasoning, but this is where we have come in an effort to have a distinction between humans and persons.

 

[Smurfette]

Actually, Johnny M, and 2 week old embryo does have a heartbeat-- at least a very primative one. By the time the baby is 8 weeks, it already looks human....

 

[TX-EX_98]

So, kgp, you would ban abortion at conception. At that point in development you feel it is human life, with all rights appurtenent thereto.

As such, if a 13 yo girl is viciously and savagely raped, and inpregnated by the rapist, that 13 yo girl should be required to have the baby? Otherwise, its murder, right? Or do fertilized eggs, zygotes, and fetus have qualified rights?

 

[JohnnyM]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[kgp]

If I had a daughter raped, I would not add a death sentence for my grandchild on top of the prison time for the rapist. It is not murder because the law says so. The unborn do not enjoy the same rights we do but I believe they have the right not to be killed despite lack of recognition by the stronger. Do you believe infanticide should be legalized? Forced euthanasia of the demented? What qualities do people need to be sure others know they retain to avoid losing personhood status?