Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-03-2019, 06:42 PM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,294

Are you pro-choice because you are smart?


Tell me.
  #2  
Old 09-03-2019, 09:44 PM
AHunter3's Avatar
AHunter3 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 20,603
There's a difference between "smart" and "wise". I'm pro-choice because I am wise.
  #3  
Old 09-03-2019, 09:47 PM
Mars Horizon's Avatar
Mars Horizon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Floriduh
Posts: 770
I’ll probably answer after this thread has run its course. Sound good?
  #4  
Old 09-03-2019, 09:57 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,556
I'm smarter than the clowns who say allowing abortion for rape victims is unnecessary because women who are raped never get pregnant.
Besides that, intelligence has little to do with this debate.
  #5  
Old 09-03-2019, 10:06 PM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 13,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
Tell me.
You first.
  #6  
Old 09-03-2019, 10:31 PM
Nava is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 42,762
I'm pro-choice because I'm compassionate. Some people would believe that makes me stupid.
  #7  
Old 09-04-2019, 12:19 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
Tell me.
Any relation to your "Do you believe you are an atheist because you are smart?" thread, where people gave their reasoned responses for being an atheist, then you popped in with your personal belief that didn't really match up with what was posted by others?
Why don't you tell us why you think people are pro-choice?
  #8  
Old 09-04-2019, 12:26 AM
skyr is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 99
My experience is that pro-life activists tend to be more informed about topics such as fetal development and abortion procedures than pro-choice activists are. Less savvy pro-choicers will often say absurd things like claiming that an embryo or fetus isn't alive or human, which is demonstrably false and sounds ludicrous to anyone who is informed about science.

Another problem I see with less sophisticated pro-choicers is that they often say that the fetal development or abortion photos that pro-lifers use are "fake", and they just stop thinking about it beyond that. What does a fetus ACTUALLY look like alive or after an abortion? They don't seem to have any interest or curiosity about these things. In their mind, it is enough to just dismiss the pro-lifers' evidence as "fake" and leave it at that. They just blindly trust that the "real" pictures are surely not that bad, without bothering to even look into it for themselves.
  #9  
Old 09-04-2019, 01:01 AM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,480
I feel it's the opposite. The basis of the pro-life position is the belief that some people are smarter and know more than the people who are actually involved in the situation. So these people feel that it's best to take the decision making away from the people involved and tell them what they should be doing.

I'm pro-choice because I don't believe that I'm smart enough to be making decisions like that for everyone. I feel that the people involved in the situation are going to be able to make better choices about it than I am and should be allowed to make those decisions for themselves.
  #10  
Old 09-04-2019, 01:14 AM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 13,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I feel it's the opposite. The basis of the pro-life position is the belief that some people are smarter and know more than the people who are actually involved in the situation. So these people feel that it's best to take the decision making away from the people involved and tell them what they should be doing.

I'm pro-choice because I don't believe that I'm smart enough to be making decisions like that for everyone. I feel that the people involved in the situation are going to be able to make better choices about it than I am and should be allowed to make those decisions for themselves.
*like*
  #11  
Old 09-04-2019, 05:03 AM
Treppenwitz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: UK
Posts: 954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
Tell me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
You first.
+1

j
  #12  
Old 09-04-2019, 08:06 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyr View Post
My experience is that pro-life activists tend to be more informed about topics such as fetal development and abortion procedures than pro-choice activists are. Less savvy pro-choicers will often say absurd things like claiming that an embryo or fetus isn't alive or human, which is demonstrably false and sounds ludicrous to anyone who is informed about science.

Another problem I see with less sophisticated pro-choicers is that they often say that the fetal development or abortion photos that pro-lifers use are "fake", and they just stop thinking about it beyond that. What does a fetus ACTUALLY look like alive or after an abortion? They don't seem to have any interest or curiosity about these things. In their mind, it is enough to just dismiss the pro-lifers' evidence as "fake" and leave it at that. They just blindly trust that the "real" pictures are surely not that bad, without bothering to even look into it for themselves.
Is this in answer to the OP? Are you pro-choice because you're smart? Otherwise, please provide cites for the above. My experience has been that pro-choicers say that fetuses are not yet a person (with the rights that come with personhood), not that they aren't alive or human.

To the OP -- intelligence has nothing to do with someone's stance on abortion, if you ask me. What do you think? Are you pro-choice because you're smart? Are you pro-choice? Are you smart?
  #13  
Old 09-04-2019, 08:10 AM
Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 56,566
I'm pto-choice because I don't believe anyone should be using a woman's body without her permission. I'm pro-choice because I do see something wrong with tying a woman to her rapist for the rest of her life. I'm pro-choice because I know that some women do not want to have a child and are incapable of handing a child over to strangers like a sack of dirty laundry.

Does that make me smart? I don't know. But I do know there are good reasons to be pro-choice.
  #14  
Old 09-04-2019, 08:48 AM
GuanoLad's Avatar
GuanoLad is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Where the wild roses grow
Posts: 24,924
I'm pro-choice because as a man it's none of my damned business what women do with their own bodies. Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion.
  #15  
Old 09-04-2019, 09:23 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,152
Are you pro-choice because you are smart?

In my case, it's utter coincidence.
  #16  
Old 09-04-2019, 10:11 AM
ASL v2.0's Avatar
ASL v2.0 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Various
Posts: 336
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
Tell me.
No. As in, no, I won’t tell you.

ETA: It’s a terrible question phrased terribly.

Last edited by ASL v2.0; 09-04-2019 at 10:12 AM.
  #17  
Old 09-04-2019, 10:15 AM
simster is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 11,327
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I feel it's the opposite. The basis of the pro-life position is the belief that some people are smarter and know more than the people who are actually involved in the situation. So these people feel that it's best to take the decision making away from the people involved and tell them what they should be doing.

I'm pro-choice because I don't believe that I'm smart enough to be making decisions like that for everyone. I feel that the people involved in the situation are going to be able to make better choices about it than I am and should be allowed to make those decisions for themselves.
+1
  #18  
Old 09-04-2019, 11:18 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,902
Yes. This isn't to say that smart people can't come to an alternate answer, but there's a difference between coming to an answer and accepting an answer and I would say that you fall under the heading of smart if you did the former.

Though, in general, I believe that most people who think about the question come down on the pro-choice side.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 09-04-2019 at 11:19 AM.
  #19  
Old 09-04-2019, 01:07 PM
Zyada is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Foat Wuth!
Posts: 5,312
I'm pro-choice because I believe in what I've heard was the original motto of Planned Parenthood: Every child a wanted child.

I'm pro-choice because I've seen what happens when a child is raised by parents who didn't want the child and resents their existence. And I think that was a far worse fate than never being born at all.

I'm pro-choice, because if we have laws that force someone to use their body to support another organism, we need to expand this. Let's make blood donation and bone marrow donation mandatory. Don't like that? Then why are you surprised when women don't want to be forced into the same position?

I'm pro-choice because someone was being charged with murder because someone else killed their unborn child and that only got dropped because of the public outcry. And the person that shot her "were dismissed after a failed indictment."

I'm pro-choice because women have been charged with illegal abortions when they had miscarriages, and it will happen again. See above.

I'm pro-choice, because pregnancy has a risk of death of the mother, and people should have a choice in that risk.

I'm pro-choice, because access to abortion is proven to be better economically for women and children.

I'm pro-choice because some unborn children have such severe abnormalities that if not aborted they are in tortuous levels of pain and won't survive birth, and I think the parents have the responsibility to end their child's suffering. If abortions are illegal, this becomes not an available option.

I'm pro-choice because I'm pro-sex. Sex isn't just for pro-creation, it strengthens love bonds in loving couples. I believe it improves mental health as well, although I can't find any research on it (most results that I find are about medical effects on sexual activity or on gender differences). It's a powerful force in our life. "Just don't have sex" is not a good approach to birth control.
  #20  
Old 09-04-2019, 02:06 PM
panache45's Avatar
panache45 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: NE Ohio (the 'burbs)
Posts: 47,683
I'm a pro-choice atheist. You tell me whether that makes me smart.
  #21  
Old 09-04-2019, 02:12 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by panache45 View Post
I'm a pro-choice atheist. You tell me whether that makes me smart.
I'm an atheist pro-choice Democrat, which means I'm the smarterest one in the whole thread.
  #22  
Old 09-04-2019, 02:26 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,003
I am pro-choice, but smart enough to recognize that this is an opinion based more on values than facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat
Though, in general, I believe that most people who think about the question come down on the pro-choice side.
I think it is like many issues - people decide what they think, and then decide later why. Not limited to abortion, or any other issue, of course.

Regards,
Shodan
  #23  
Old 09-04-2019, 02:32 PM
Der Trihs's Avatar
Der Trihs is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 38,890
Opposition to abortion is fueled by hatred of women, the pro-choice movement by compassion and fairness. Intelligence has nothing to do with it either way; it's a good versus evil issue, not a stupidity versus intelligence one.
  #24  
Old 09-04-2019, 02:32 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I think it is like many issues - people decide what they think, and then decide later why. Not limited to abortion, or any other issue, of course.
If someone can generate a sufficiently detailed and rational-sounding justification then, whether it was created as a rationalization for a belief that someone gave to them or that their gut gave to them for no rational reason, they are at least smarter than someone who can't say more than "Because...! Because, it's a HUMAN LIFE!" but then can't explain why abortion isn't murder and we shouldn't lock up both the mom and doctor and, instead, simply huffs, turns red, and gets angry that you're forcing them to think - probably to run away and dig in further in their position, without creating any greater logical underpinning.
  #25  
Old 09-04-2019, 02:39 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyr View Post
My experience is that pro-life activists tend to be more informed about topics such as fetal development and abortion procedures than pro-choice activists are. Less savvy pro-choicers will often say absurd things like claiming that an embryo or fetus isn't alive or human, which is demonstrably false and sounds ludicrous to anyone who is informed about science.
My wife, who is pro-choice, has a Masters in Reproductive Physiology, and knows a lot more about it than god-soaker anti-choice preachers and politicians. You are invited to provide a survey of experts on human reproduction saying that they are anti-choice.
As for your second point, a fetus is alive (but so is a bacterium) but what constitutes a human is a matter of philosophy and ethics, not science. So it appears you don't know much about science.
  #26  
Old 09-04-2019, 02:42 PM
Taesahnim's Avatar
Taesahnim is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Over there. No, further.
Posts: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuanoLad View Post
I'm pro-choice because as a man it's none of my damned business what women do with their own bodies. Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion.
This. Very well stated, GL.
  #27  
Old 09-04-2019, 03:19 PM
Jackmannii's Avatar
Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 32,195
Being smart does help in seeing through all the bad arguments and false information peddled by the anti-abortion crowd.

But like me, you can acquire the necessary critical thinking skills without having innate intelligence.
  #28  
Old 09-04-2019, 03:30 PM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 13,942
Being smart alone isnt sufficient to ensure someone is pro-choice. There are many highly-intelligent but also very cynical, amoral and dishonest people in the upper echelons of the pro-life movement.
  #29  
Old 09-04-2019, 03:40 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,442
It's not a question of smart vs. dumb.

It is a question of freedom and choice on one side, versus morality on the other. Apples and oranges, if you will, and both sides are seeing everything through their own particular lens tint, and reading the other's side's motives through that, when in fact, they're not that at all. Der Trihs' dumbass commentary is a perfect example.

Fundamentally, the two sides differ on fetal personhood. The pro-life side has a embryo/fetus-centric view, and holds the view that a fertilized egg is a person at the moment of conception- the rest is just growth and eventually birth, and that destroying it is tantamount to murdering any other absolutely defenseless person, especially when done for reasons of convenience or economic utility. The pro-choice side doesn't look at it that way- they have a more woman-centric view, and views that the woman is in charge of all that since it's her body and it's nobody else's business what she does with it.

Neither side is dumb or smart- it's a matter of perspective.

Last edited by bump; 09-04-2019 at 03:41 PM.
  #30  
Old 09-04-2019, 03:42 PM
kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 19,643
I'm pro choice because I am compassionate and also believe in a compassionate God and the experiences that this compassionate God has given me.

In short, the soul of the baby is not in the body, but with God underground, so by killing the body it is not harming the soul who has a life with God. God simply has not given us the ability to murder in the womb.
  #31  
Old 09-04-2019, 03:42 PM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 13,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I think it is like many issues - people decide what they think, and then decide later why. Not limited to abortion, or any other issue, of course.

Regards,
Shodan
I absolutely disagree with this. I am pro-choice. I came to the full understanding of my position on this issue through a lot of self reflection, empathetic reasoning and analysis of facts. And I know I am but one of countless others who've arrived at the same position via similar paths. While neither of us can really speak to how anyone came to hold a position, other than ourselves as individuals, I feel like my assumption that the way i came to hold my position on abortion is one shared by many others on the pro-choice side, is much more well documented than is your assumption.
  #32  
Old 09-04-2019, 03:59 PM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 13,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Trihs View Post
Opposition to abortion is fueled by hatred of women, the pro-choice movement by compassion and fairness. Intelligence has nothing to do with it either way; it's a good versus evil issue, not a stupidity versus intelligence one.
How does one define what is good and what is evil? And anyway, you're just plain wrong. The vast majority of pro lifers arent "evil" human beings (whatever that means). They are just manipulated by forces who don't have their interests at heart. Those at the top off the pro life movement are very immoral people. Those are the people who have hatred in their hearts. But not your average pro lifer just living his life in America. He's just a person who's never really been taught or been able to critically think for himself so he listens to the loudest, most urgent, most strident voices around him. And as a result he's made to feel fear. Fear over change. And he is probably a bit bigoted due to living in a bubble and being fed nothing but propaganda while in that bubble. But "evil"? No, that's a bridge too far. Manipulated, conditioned and triggered, yes. But not evil. Humanity is much too mundane for that.
  #33  
Old 09-04-2019, 04:32 PM
Ulfreida is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: pangolandia
Posts: 3,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
I'm pro-choice because I'm compassionate. Some people would believe that makes me stupid.
This.
  #34  
Old 09-04-2019, 04:55 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I am pro-choice, but smart enough to recognize that this is an opinion based more on values than facts.
I agree. I don't think there's any major dispute about the facts around abortion; everyone agrees on what's happening.

The dispute is over the moral implications. And I don't see how anyone can claim they have a moral position that is objectively correct.
  #35  
Old 09-04-2019, 05:26 PM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 13,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I agree. I don't think there's any major dispute about the facts around abortion; everyone agrees on what's happening.
How on earth can you say this? Everyone does *not* agree that every time an abortion takes place, a murder has occured. Some, however, *do*.
  #36  
Old 09-04-2019, 06:03 PM
begbert2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,282
Yes. I'm pro-choice because I'm smart.

I think my intelligence played a part in keeping me non-religious, so there's that.

But more importantly I'm also smart enough to know that we shouldn't legislate something like this based on the corner cases. Given I don't have some priest telling me that fetuses have souls from conception, I conclude from what science tells me about the timing that the vast majority of abortions take place well before there's any real sign of a mind in there, and when it's later it's usually for a solid medical reason. Given that we should just stop worrying about it - people who want abortions aren't going to wait for there to be something sentient to kill, no matter what insane antichoice people might say. So there's no morality-based reason to prevent it.
  #37  
Old 09-04-2019, 06:07 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,867
Joining the chorus of posters who don't consider that their pro-choice principles are due to their intelligence.

I will note that a lot of anti-abortion people are anti-abortion because they are dumb. But I hasten to add that that doesn't mean that an anti-abortion position in itself is intrinsically dumb, or that anyone who opposes legal abortion must be dumb.

It's simply acknowledging the fact that the anti-abortion crusade among religious conservatives was largely an artificial issue deliberately chosen to provide some conservative partisan "red meat" after pro-segregation positions became socially unacceptable, and a lot of dumb people swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

The part about religious conservatives' original tolerance for abortion:
Quote:
Both before and for several years after Roe, evangelicals were overwhelmingly indifferent to the subject, which they considered a “Catholic issue.” In 1968, for instance, a symposium sponsored by the Christian Medical Society and Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of evangelicalism, refused to characterize abortion as sinful, citing “individual health, family welfare, and social responsibility” as justifications for ending a pregnancy. In 1971, delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention in St. Louis, Missouri, passed a resolution encouraging “Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.” The convention, hardly a redoubt of liberal values, reaffirmed that position in 1974, one year after Roe, and again in 1976. [...]

Although a few evangelical voices, including Christianity Today magazine, mildly criticized the ruling, the overwhelming response was silence, even approval. Baptists, in particular, applauded the decision as an appropriate articulation of the division between church and state, between personal morality and state regulation of individual behavior.
The part about cutting off federal support for segregated schools:
Quote:
In May 1969, a group of African-American parents in Holmes County, Mississippi, sued the Treasury Department to prevent three new whites-only K-12 private academies from securing full tax-exempt status, arguing that their discriminatory policies prevented them from being considered “charitable” institutions. [...]

Under the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which forbade racial segregation and discrimination, discriminatory schools were not—by definition—“charitable” educational organizations, and therefore they had no claims to tax-exempt status; similarly, donations to such organizations would no longer qualify as tax-deductible contributions. [...]

Paul Weyrich, the late religious conservative political activist and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, saw his opening.

In the decades following World War II, evangelicals, especially white evangelicals in the North, had drifted toward the Republican Party—inclined in that direction by general Cold War anxieties, vestigial suspicions of Catholicism and well-known evangelist Billy Graham’s very public friendship with Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon. Despite these predilections, though, evangelicals had largely stayed out of the political arena, at least in any organized way. If he could change that, Weyrich reasoned, their large numbers would constitute a formidable voting bloc—one that he could easily marshal behind conservative causes.

“The new political philosophy must be defined by us [conservatives] in moral terms, packaged in non-religious language, and propagated throughout the country by our new coalition,” Weyrich wrote in the mid-1970s. “When political power is achieved, the moral majority will have the opportunity to re-create this great nation.” [...]

But this hypothetical “moral majority” needed a catalyst—a standard around which to rally. For nearly two decades, Weyrich, by his own account, had been trying out different issues, hoping one might pique evangelical interest: pornography, prayer in schools, the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution, even abortion. “I was trying to get these people interested in those issues and I utterly failed,” Weyrich recalled at a conference in 1990.

The Green v. Connally ruling provided a necessary first step: It captured the attention of evangelical leaders , especially as the IRS began sending questionnaires to church-related “segregation academies,” including Falwell’s own Lynchburg Christian School, inquiring about their racial policies. [...]

The IRS was not placated. On January 19, 1976, after years of warnings—integrate or pay taxes—the agency rescinded the school’s tax exemption. [...]

Weyrich saw that he had the beginnings of a conservative political movement [...]
The part about how abortion was selected as the "principled" conservative common cause:
Quote:
But Falwell and Weyrich, having tapped into the ire of evangelical leaders, were also savvy enough to recognize that organizing grassroots evangelicals to defend racial discrimination would be a challenge. It had worked to rally the leaders, but they needed a different issue if they wanted to mobilize evangelical voters on a large scale. [...]

Weyrich, Falwell and leaders of the emerging religious right enlisted an unlikely ally in their quest to advance abortion as a political issue: Francis A. Schaeffer [...] considered by many the intellectual godfather of the religious right, was not known for his political activism, but by the late 1970s he decided that legalized abortion would lead inevitably to infanticide and euthanasia, and he was eager to sound the alarm. [...]

Between Weyrich’s machinations and Schaeffer’s jeremiad, evangelicals were slowly coming around on the abortion issue. [...]

[...] leaders of the religious right hammered away at the issue, persuading many evangelicals to make support for a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion a litmus test for their votes.
  #38  
Old 09-04-2019, 06:50 PM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 13,942
And those in this thread saying compassion helped inform their pro-choice stance, you don't think the pro-lifers are saying the exact same thing about themselves? They have compassion for the lives of all those innocent little (unborn) babies being annihilated on a large scale by abortionists and their socialist patients.

Last edited by Ambivalid; 09-04-2019 at 06:51 PM.
  #39  
Old 09-04-2019, 07:38 PM
skyr is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I feel it's the opposite. The basis of the pro-life position is the belief that some people are smarter and know more than the people who are actually involved in the situation. So these people feel that it's best to take the decision making away from the people involved and tell them what they should be doing.
If that is true for pro-lifers, then why isn't it also true of laws against other forms of killing too? "Who am I to tell that guy he can't murder his ex-wife? He knows better than I do what their marriage was like. Maybe he has a very good reason for wanting her dead."
It seems like you are presupposing that the life of a fetus is less significant than the life of a born person with this line of thought. Pretty much all pro-lifers that I know consider fetuses to be living human beings and think it is wrong to kill them, so of course they don't agree.

Quote:
I'm pro-choice because I don't believe that I'm smart enough to be making decisions like that for everyone. I feel that the people involved in the situation are going to be able to make better choices about it than I am and should be allowed to make those decisions for themselves.
This is why I am against gun control of any kind, because I don't think I am smart enough to decide for everyone the limits of their constitutional rights to own firearms.
If you think you need to own an AR-15 or a fully automatic machine gun, then that's between you and God. Surely gun enthusiasts know more about weapons than I do and are going to make better choices about what guns they should own than I can. They should be able to make that decision for themselves, instead of having those decisions taken away from them by a bunch of old men in Washington.
  #40  
Old 09-04-2019, 07:41 PM
panache45's Avatar
panache45 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: NE Ohio (the 'burbs)
Posts: 47,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
I'm an atheist pro-choice Democrat, which means I'm the smarterest one in the whole thread.
I'm a gay atheist pro-choice ex-Objectivist Democrat, which means I'm the smartest one in the whole world.
  #41  
Old 09-04-2019, 07:56 PM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 13,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyr View Post
If that is true for pro-lifers, then why isn't it also true of laws against other forms of killing too? "Who am I to tell that guy he can't murder his ex-wife? He knows better than I do what their marriage was like. Maybe he has a very good reason for wanting her dead."
It seems like you are presupposing that the life of a fetus is less significant than the life of a born person with this line of thought. Pretty much all pro-lifers that I know consider fetuses to be living human beings and think it is wrong to kill them, so of course they don't agree.


This is why I am against gun control of any kind, because I don't think I am smart enough to decide for everyone the limits of their constitutional rights to own firearms.
If you think you need to own an AR-15 or a fully automatic machine gun, then that's between you and God. Surely gun enthusiasts know more about weapons than I do and are going to make better choices about what guns they should own than I can. They should be able to make that decision for themselves, instead of having those decisions taken away from them by a bunch of old men in Washington.
That's what the big difference between pro-choice and pro-life positions boil down to: whether or not a murder is occuring when an abortion is performed. If abortion isn't murder, and what is considered murder is governed by man made laws and enforcement, then abortion is no different than removing the placenta after birth. So in this sense, *pro lifers* are the ones treating what they claim is murder that is just like all other forms, differently than all those other forms.
  #42  
Old 09-04-2019, 08:05 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyr View Post
If that is true for pro-lifers, then why isn't it also true of laws against other forms of killing too? "Who am I to tell that guy he can't murder his ex-wife? He knows better than I do what their marriage was like. Maybe he has a very good reason for wanting her dead."
It seems like you are presupposing that the life of a fetus is less significant than the life of a born person with this line of thought. Pretty much all pro-lifers that I know consider fetuses to be living human beings and think it is wrong to kill them, so of course they don't agree...
You seem smart, but you sure don't seem pro-choice. Are you sure you're in the right thread? Any chance for those cites I requested above?

OP: I'm going to assume you haven't signed in again and that's why you're not replying to questions directly asked of you. Because otherwise, that would be pretty rude in your own thread.
  #43  
Old 09-04-2019, 08:40 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
How on earth can you say this? Everyone does *not* agree that every time an abortion takes place, a murder has occured. Some, however, *do*.
The facts of an abortion is that a pregnancy is terminated. Whether or not an abortion is a murder is a question of morality.
  #44  
Old 09-04-2019, 08:41 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyr View Post
If that is true for pro-lifers, then why isn't it also true of laws against other forms of killing too? "Who am I to tell that guy he can't murder his ex-wife? He knows better than I do what their marriage was like. Maybe he has a very good reason for wanting her dead."
As Ambivalid noted, though, the difference is that murder is officially a crime. Pro-lifers are trying to tell abortion-rights supporters that they ought to consider abortion the same as murder, even though abortion (in the form that abortion-rights supporters are defending, at least) is not a crime.

In which respect, pro-lifers are no different from militant PETA-type vegetarians trying to tell everybody else that meat-eating is the same as murder. They're entitled to regulate their own behavior in accordance with their own views, but they're not entitled to impose their beliefs on people who don't agree with them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyr
It seems like you are presupposing that the life of a fetus is less significant than the life of a born person with this line of thought.
Well, that's exactly the position that abortion law, based on longstanding tradition in most human societies, explicitly establishes, so not much of a shocker, really.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyr
Pretty much all pro-lifers that I know consider fetuses to be living human beings
Except most of them don't actually believe that in a logically consistent way. For instance, ask any self-identified pro-lifer you know to do the "fire in a fertility clinic" thought experiment---the one where you suppose that a fire breaks out in a fertility clinic, and there's one 6-month-old baby in a child carrier at one end of the clinic and an insulated medical transport case containing a thousand viable fertilized eggs at the other end, and it's only possible for you to rescue one of the two while the other will be burned up in the fire, so you have to choose which will survive---and they will almost certainly plump for rescuing the one 6-month-old living human being instead of the one thousand "living human beings".

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyr
This is why I am against gun control of any kind, because I don't think I am smart enough to decide for everyone the limits of their constitutional rights to own firearms. [...] Surely gun enthusiasts know more about weapons than I do and are going to make better choices about what guns they should own than I can. They should be able to make that decision for themselves, instead of having those decisions taken away from them by a bunch of old men in Washington.
Well, you seem willing to let the bunch of old men in Washington take away from them the decisions about whether they can own nuclear missiles or anti-aircraft weapons, for example. I think it's kind of hypocritical to arbitrarily declare that a certain category of weapon must be completely free from government regulation while so many others aren't.
  #45  
Old 09-04-2019, 08:50 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyr View Post
If that is true for pro-lifers, then why isn't it also true of laws against other forms of killing too? "Who am I to tell that guy he can't murder his ex-wife? He knows better than I do what their marriage was like. Maybe he has a very good reason for wanting her dead."
It seems like you are presupposing that the life of a fetus is less significant than the life of a born person with this line of thought. Pretty much all pro-lifers that I know consider fetuses to be living human beings and think it is wrong to kill them, so of course they don't agree.
There are moral issues in which one side is clearly right and the other side is so clearly wrong it's virtually non-existent. You don't find people arguing whether or not murder is moral. Or slavery or cannibalism.

But there is no such consensus about abortion. People may feel their side is right but you won't find anyone saying that everyone agrees that their side is right.

Pro-choice people acknowledge two sides exist - and don't impose their moral views on the other side. Nobody is ever forced to have an abortion if they think it's wrong.

It's the pro-life people who want to impose their moral views on people who don't agree with that moral view.
  #46  
Old 09-04-2019, 09:07 PM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 13,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
The facts of an abortion is that a pregnancy is terminated. Whether or not an abortion is a murder is a question of morality.
No, whether something is murder or not is determined by whether or not the being that was killed was human and that it was committed in a premeditated fashion. There is no morality influencing those facts. Are you saying our laws are dictated and shaped by moral judgments? Or just abortion law?
  #47  
Old 09-04-2019, 09:40 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Fundamentally, the two sides differ on fetal personhood. The pro-life side has a embryo/fetus-centric view, and holds the view that a fertilized egg is a person at the moment of conception- the rest is just growth and eventually birth, and that destroying it is tantamount to murdering any other absolutely defenseless person, especially when done for reasons of convenience or economic utility. The pro-choice side doesn't look at it that way- they have a more woman-centric view, and views that the woman is in charge of all that since it's her body and it's nobody else's business what she does with it.
For the record, I hold neither of these positions and I am hesitant to state without a qualifying statement that many hold the first.

No one, cracking open a chicken's egg* and finding plain ol' white and yolk inside feels the same thing as if they had just smashed a living chicken's head in and watched it die under their hands.

Instinctively, we recognize the difference between goo and life and, obviously, the baby-creation process is not a magical switch. The transformation from goo to life is a progression through stages.

Bringing up "a woman's right" is unnecessary when we are talking about goo. Goo don't give a jack and we don't give a jack about goo. That some do in the case of humans is capricious and anything logical is, by definition, not capricious. By similar rights, it is capricious for harder drugs to be legal than some illegal drugs and that shouldn't be the case regardless of whether you're pro or con of legalized recreational drugs.

If we consider chicken goo to be goo, then human goo is goo. If we happily go around slapping insects on the walls, because we understand that they have 1 brain cell and that brain cell doesn't do anything in the realm of understanding the self, well then anything with a single brain cell is pretty clearly on the "we don't really give a jack" list.

Many people, not trained to be cold and merciless, would feel uncomfortable to take a rock, hold down a live dog, and bash its head in. Vegetarianism has a long history even before an age where mankind could safely trust his ability to consistently put food on the table. There is a point where we recognize that things are getting fishy and that the morality is more questionable.

Humans are just nerves, brain cells, and protein the same as everything else living on the planet. The rules should be relatively consistent.

Historically, abortion and infanticide seems to have been wildly common. Female babies would simply be taken into the forest and abandoned or quickly put out of their misery if they weren't going to be productive and would simply cause the family to starve. That I'm aware, the belief that a newly born baby is more in the realm of a human and less in the realm of a cat so far as the morality of killing goes, is largely a product of Judeo-Christian thought. Minus that and our natural instincts go the other way.

So I would hold that people don't feel like fetuses are human nor even newly born babes - that doesn't seem to be the way it has worked over the vast expanse of human history - they're told that it's the case and maintain it out of indoctrination. That's a slightly different thing from feeling like a murder has happened and, thusly, you note that there's no real push to punish anyone for the crime - just to disallow it.

* This is a discussion of abortion. Yes, I know that your average store-bought chicken's egg is not fertilized. Thank you. A fertilized egg, however, is nigh-indistinguishable from a non-fertilized one (so long as the farmer gathered it within 24 hours of it being laid and refrigerated it) and you would never know if someone gave you one. Any farm-bought, organic-y egg you have ever bought or perhaps been fed at a nice restaurant may well have been a fertilized egg.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 09-04-2019 at 09:45 PM.
  #48  
Old 09-04-2019, 09:47 PM
Gatopescado is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: on your last raw nerve
Posts: 22,454
I'm pro-choice because I ride bikes.
  #49  
Old 09-05-2019, 06:41 AM
DorkVader's Avatar
DorkVader is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: boise idaho
Posts: 2,866
I'm pro choice, for several reasons, being smart or intelligent are not two of those reasons.
I'm lazy, apathetic, male (I'll never have to deal with carrying a baby to term in my own body), vasectomized (never have to deal with raising more kids unless I actively work hard at getting someone elses kids) and kimstu's post above provides some clarification and justification for a vague notion about the whole issue I've had for quite some time.

Also, I don't get paid for my stance sooo, wouldn't that be amateur choice instead of pro choice?
__________________
"The Wonka will show you the true nature of the chocolate, He is your master now."
Darth Desserticola, Sith Hare

Last edited by DorkVader; 09-05-2019 at 06:43 AM.
  #50  
Old 09-05-2019, 11:41 AM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,294
Thanks for all the replies, even the ones that were just to bitch at me. In this thread, and its predecessor, I have learned some valuable things about dopers who I never really noticed before. They gave me a lot of thoughtful, detailed answers that really were thought-provoking. I also had my opinions confirmed on several posters, though I scarcely needed more evidence on that account. These threads are of great value, no matter what your opinion of me may be, if you set aside your desire to jump in and tell me how I am wrong (though I didn't offer an opinion of my own in this one) and use them as a tool to view how dopers view themselves. For the loudest and angriest among you, there is a Pit thread about me that has been going on for some time. You should consider spending more of your energy in it and less spastically flailing in threads like this one when you know I won't reply to your off-topic frothings.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:58 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017