Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Since you're here, GhostWriter, you wouldn't care to outline a defence of natural rights theory, would you? I think we could get a halfway decent discussion going on the topic.
an abortion thread with no personal attacks
- Thread starter caketastydelish
- Start date
Isn't natural rights theory the "no, duh!" version of "is this right one of those that we should mutually protect for everyone?"
classical_hero
In whom I trust
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/Pro-Choice-Americans-Record-Low.aspx
Thankfully the tide is starting to turn in this debate.
Thankfully the tide is starting to turn in this debate.
IdiotsOpposite
Boom, headshot.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/Pro-Choice-Americans-Record-Low.aspx
Thankfully the tide is starting to turn in this debate.
I really don't see any tides turning, at least not definitively. Looks to me like it's sticking pretty close to 50-50. And it'll probably keep doing that.
What's going on with the unintentional pregnancy rate? That's the most important determinant of abortion, usually.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
I think the transformation from closed adoptions(no contact with birth mother after placement) to open adoption(letters, pictures, maybe annual visits) has had a small but significant impact on the pro-life pro-choice debate. Not usually on the hardcore wingnuts, but more on the quieter people in the middle that don't want abortion blanket banned while still being very saddened by it's use in non-dire circumstances.
Closed adoptions had a large amount of shame and stigma attached to the birth mother. I think open adoption goes a long way towards eliminating some of that stigma and making it a more attractive option.
Closed adoptions had a large amount of shame and stigma attached to the birth mother. I think open adoption goes a long way towards eliminating some of that stigma and making it a more attractive option.
Akka
Moody old mage.
Holy crap, and I thought it was hyperbole when people joked about USA backwardnesshttp://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/Pro-Choice-Americans-Record-Low.aspx
Thankfully the tide is starting to turn in this debate.
IdiotsOpposite
Boom, headshot.
Holy crap, and I thought it was hyperbole when people joked about USA backwardness
'Fraid not
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
Holy crap, and I thought it was hyperbole when people joked about USA backwardness
Eehh. That's a gross oversimplification. One graph asking an either/or answer on a complicated issue doesn't tell us much at all. I know a lot of people who are personally pro-life(myself included) who would probably give that answer on a survey. I in no way support the pro-lifers who demand the overturn of Roe v. Wade or that a secular government adopt a religious pro-life stance. Which makes me pro-choice politically.
But roll with the sound byte if it makes you feel better.
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
Unfortunately that's not a great way to actually stop abortions, but I guess it's nice if it makes you happy.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
Interested in speculating regarding the shift in adoption practices and how birth mothers are treated in respect to their decision to abort or not abort a pregnancy?
GhostWriter16
Deity
Eehh. That's a gross oversimplification. One graph asking an either/or answer on a complicated issue doesn't tell us much at all. I know a lot of people who are personally pro-life(myself included) who would probably give that answer on a survey. I in no way support the pro-lifers who demand the overturn of Roe v. Wade or that a secular government adopt a religious pro-life stance. Which makes me pro-choice politically.
But roll with the sound byte if it makes you feel better.
Than you are pro-choice. To say you are pro-life would be a blatant lie, and answering that way on the poll I would see as nothing more than an attempt to skew the results.
This is a very simple debate. Either you respect the rights of the unborn, or you don't.
Plus, Roe VS Wade not only allows the killing, but forces state governments to stand by and watch as well. I applaud all the states like Mississippi that have tried to pass personhood amendments, even if they haven't passed
Death to the barbaric institution.
rugbyLEAGUEfan
Deity
Not entirely, that presumes that the rights of the unborn exist at conception and can therefore actually be disrespected.
I have no respect for or recognize or attribute the quality of "life" to a collection of cells that have acquired no sentinence. A just formed zygote means no more to me than a scab on my knee.
The conundrum for me is at what point does the status of this fetus change to sentiment being and deserved of the protections that all people should be afforded. This I am less sure of.
GhostWriter16
Deity
But you have to admit, at some point or another, that baby is going to have human rights and so be worthy of life, and when that point arrives, you can't cop-out with "Well, I'm personally pro-life but who am I to judge?" anymore.
That line of thinking might work for other issues, but never for abortion, which is a very exact issue.
I generally don't even bother to defend the rights of zygotes, I believe they exist, but you generally can't abort a zygote anyway, and even if you could, it would probably be impossible to prove. I do know that after 18 days the heart starts beating, and (In my opinion) its utterly ridiculous to claim that a human being with a beating heart does not have human rights. And most abortions don't even happen until AT LEAST a couple months after that.
End the barbaric institution.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
No I don't.
rugbyLEAGUEfan
Deity
I know you take umbrage with the concept of "human rights", but if we remove this term and simply state that at some point, a fetus takes on the status of a person, do you agree with this definition and therefore conclude this person deserves protection from violence?
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
Well, I said I am personally pro-life and I am. I find abortion in non-critical situations abhorrent. I also recognize that in a secular democracy not everybody is going to see things the way I do and that, sometimes, on important issues where the right of the issue is unclear, pragmatism must hold dominion even if I do not like the specific application. Only Sith deal in absolutes(I'm kidding here for the record
)!At the end of the day, which is more important: one permutation of a political idea I profess or how I choose to live my life and the differences I choose to try and make? My son's adoption should finalize in a couple months and I couldn't be happier.
I'm quite serious when I think that a change in messaging from pro-lifers away from legislating against female choice and focusing more on the social context surrounding adoption would be more effective and save more unborn lives than the tripe approach that is being used now. I am pro-life even if you think I am "doing it wrong." I can sincerely state that I think you are "doing it wrong" as well. I do not attribute duplicity to you in our difference of opinions.
GhostWriter16
Deity
I'm proud to be Sith
(Proceeds to go change avatar)That said, I couldn't care less about democratic consensus on this point, the right to life is much more important, and toying with it much more dangerous.
This isn't an "Either or" question.
I agree that there's a right and a wrong war in doing it. For instance, to scream at people while picketing isn't going to accomplish much, and bombing abortion clinics would accomplish even less. So, even though the theoretical point of "If you really believe life is sacred from conception, why haven't you blown up any abortion clinics" is sometimes postulated, there's a darn good reason we don't do it.
However, just because you focus in a different area doesn't necessarily mean you wouldn't sign the anti-abortion bill were it to come to your desk. That's really what it comes down to. If you had the power to ban abortion, or to overturn Roe v. Wade, would you do it? It sounds like your answer is "No." So even if you're against abortion, I would not consider you "Pro-life" rather I would consider you "Pro-choice." You can't be "Both." Romney tried that and I didn't believe him either
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I don't think that anyone has an unqualified entitlement to anything. What concerns me is the actual outcome of our actions.
You reject the need for democratic consensus on the matter of abortion, but think that it's necessary on the matter of slavery. Interesting double standard.
But, given that the terms refer to artificial political orientations, you could quite easily be neither.So even if you're against abortion, I would not consider you "Pro-life" rather I would consider you "Pro-choice." You can't be "Both." Romney tried that and I didn't believe him either
GhostWriter16
Deity
When did I say that again?
That said, abortion is much, much more evil than slavery. At least slavery wasn't murder (More akin to kidnapping, which is bad enough.)
I agree, but you can't be both. That said, the majority of people are one or the other...
