Pro Choice or Pro Life. Both sides have convincing arguments...

"

That_which_has_no_life wrote:

Pro-choice has no convincing arguments. Period.

"I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born." -RONALD REAGAN

"No woman wants an abortion as she wants an ice cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg." - FREDERICA MATHEWES-GREEN

"

DurianMcgregor wrote:

"

That_which_has_no_life wrote:

Pro-choice has no convincing arguments. Period.

"I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born." -RONALD REAGAN

"No woman wants an abortion as she wants an ice cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg." - FREDERICA MATHEWES-GREEN

"The fetus is not a living human being" is a convincing argument if you believe it. If that statement is true there is no reasonable pro-life position. If the statement is false there is no reasonable pro-choice position outside of medical necessity. The argument is basically impossible to evaluate objectively so here we are arguing about it.

"

deathflower wrote:

"

DurianMcgregor wrote:

"

That_which_has_no_life wrote:

Pro-choice has no convincing arguments. Period.

"I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born." -RONALD REAGAN

"No woman wants an abortion as she wants an ice cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg." - FREDERICA MATHEWES-GREEN

"The fetus is not a living human being" is a convincing argument if you believe it. If that statement is true there is no reasonable pro-life position. If the statement is false there is no reasonable pro-choice position outside of medical necessity. The argument is basically impossible to evaluate objectively so here we are arguing about it.

Wrong line of argument. Technically the fetus is not born yet, he does not exist and should not have legal rights. The defensible argument is from the moral point of view. The mother is the child legal guardian, and her decision supersede the fetus since the fetus cannot make any decision on its own. That is the reasonable argument for abortion.

"

DurianMcgregor wrote:

All of that falls out directly from what I said directly and trivially. If the fetus is not a living human being then obviously it has no rights to protect. You can not say the mother is acting as an agent for the fetus because it has no interests to protect and clearly abortion would never be in its best interests if it did have them.

"

Liberty consists of doing anything which does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of each man has only those borders which assure other members of the society the enjoyment of these same rights. These borders can be determined only by the law.

"

Crackmonster wrote:

There is no sound logic behind pro-life. I am sorry. If you have fallen for that nonsense, then it is time for you to stop all contraception and only ever fuck bareback. Never eat meat again. Consider for any serious illnesses to refrain from modern day medicine entirely.

This is one of the rare times when i actually agree with Charan. Pro-life is an absolutionist stand really - it foregoes any kind of logic and consideration of situations and is actually just an idea you convince yourself to believe in, and ideas when we implement them like that foregoes any reason or logic we just restate them till they become truth, for better or for worse. That is what convictions are(convince self -> conviction).

It is closer to religion than it is to what we base the rules of society around. See the old men were wise to separate religion from the government. To make laws based on scientific approaches to the world, reasoning and logic, a law system based around what can be proven, rather than laws based on conviction(devoid of logic, no longer critical thinking), thousand-year old man-written manuscripts(a major interest is conserving body of believers they do NOT want abortion), and most importantly patterns that are best suited for the most high exalted fraction of the people. That is right, to live righteously to the fullest degree of the various holy books is not a life for the common man, it is a tiny fraction of people for whom that dedicated life is, although we must all aspire to it.

Can you, reader, read between the lines of what i actually just said? I just said those few people who live the most righteously, that means morally most right, and probably those who would never ever dream of abortion because they understand it's ungodly nature(life is sacred), are actually the most high and exalted. That means i consider those ideals to be of the highest standard.

Now that you can appreciate that i do consider it the best personal choice never to have abortions(generally speaking), know that i can say that and at the same time say it would be absolutely foolish to base our laws on a righteous way of life that is meant for just a tiny fraction of people. Freedom is generally set up in our law systems as by the declaration of the rights of man and citizen written during the french revolution.

"

Liberty consists of doing anything which does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of each man has only those borders which assure other members of the society the enjoyment of these same rights. These borders can be determined only by the law.

Just blindly refusing abortion is to me nothing short of foolish. Abortion isn't something to be taken lightly, you shouldn't just pop down your doctor for your free abortion any time you please, but rather the laws should be refined.

At the end of the day, I've always told myself if it should happen that someone got pregnant by me on accident, it will ultimately be the mothers choice what to do with the child and if she is determined it will overrule what i want. I have no right to control that. I feel the same way about abortions, the thing is that it can be the best choice but only the child-bearer will really know this and that is why it is her choice and no one else's. In this western world we believe in someone's virtue until proven otherwise, and luckily not the other way around.

That is not even mentioning that moral laws in the real world can never be executed flawlessly. A good and holy person can choose abortion under the right circumstances as the best choice. You cannot actually uphold someone in court by a moral law and say that any tiny transgression was too much, it's practically impossible to act perfectly and be perfect. It starts even when you "choose" to eat, already there you are hurting someone else indirectly that could have eaten it. You chose yourself over bacteria or whatever. And that fight between choosing what you want and doing the right thing is what moral is all about - becoming better at doing the right thing rather than taking for yourself and hurting others by being selfish too much. But at the end of the day no one will be perfect, so everyone fails to act moral as well, so you cannot use it as a law basis then we would all be criminals. Laws restrict criminal behaviour(minimum level of behaviour), whereas moral guidelines(important "guidelines" not laws), guide you to raise your level above the minimum level.

So as i was saying.. they were wise to separate religion from government. Even those who are religious should at all times strive not to force(by law and punishment) everyone to follow the same moral guideline as that is simply suppressing each individuals right to be their own person.

But erm, go ahead and never ever use any contraception again. Go full tree hugger. After all, if any of you are against abortion from a pro-life conviction, then contraception is also cheating life the way god made you. So, if any of you are pro-life and at the same time using contraception, then it seems your time has come to shut the fuck up, being a massive hypocrite.