Danielinthewolvesden…
I disagree. Based on what I’ve seen of of Pro-life propaganda, they seem to be more “Pro-consequence”. That is, they believe, “If you screw up, tough shit for you, pal.” Which, of course, would certainly demand abstinence to ensure that someone wouldn’t screw up in the first place…
What the anti-abortion group is really
afraid of is female sexuality. Men have
wanted to control that since forever.
Notice how they use the terms “pro-life”
and “pro-abortion.” I am “pro-choice” and
“anti-abortion.” I don’t see that as a
contradiction.
Even if the fetus is a human being, does
that give them the right to use your
body against your will?
In my opinion, pro-choice people are pro-the choice/right to have an abortion. Anti-abortion people are against abortion. I see that as a bit of a contradiction. Can you explain it to me better? Or am I seeing into this the wrong way?
And as a pro-life person (and hence anti-abortion) I’m not afraid of human sexuality as much as you’d think . . . most of my fear there comes from a completely different thing.
SPOOFE: “I disagree. Based on what I’ve seen of of Pro-life propaganda, they seem to be more “Pro-consequence”. That is, they believe, “If you screw up, tough shit for you, pal.” Which, of course, would certainly demand abstinence to ensure that someone wouldn’t screw up in the first place…”
To a certain extent, yes, but not so harshly as you’ve depicted it. I think that (rape cases excepted here) if you knew you’d have to have to carry your baby to term if you get pregnant, it would perhaps make you more cautious having sex or possibly not have sex at all. In a strange way it’s a bit like Russian Roulette . . .
I don’t like abortion at all. I dislike the notion that one human can kill another (I see unborn babies as humans). I know it’s probably going to happen, and I don’t think it should be banned by states so much as I don’t think the option should exist. Rather naive of me, I know, but that’s me.
AHunter3: You would die to allow your mother the chance to kill your sister/brother? Why is that? What did said brother/sister ever do to you?
Techchick68: “My main point was the idea of a fetus or zygote (sp) being able to survive otuside the womb without the aid of technology, does this make the “baby” a human or not?”
I don’t think that (not) being able to survive outside the womb or otherwise makes someone human. For instance: I have a cousin who was born without a brain. I think he might have had part of his brain stem, but beyond that nothing. His skull wasn’t developed much past his eyebrows. He was very much human, but he was unable to survive outside my aunt’s uterus, as he died 15 minutes after being born.
I’ve heard “afraid of female sexuality” before. What the hell is that supposed to mean? I know a lot of conservative guys, and they’re horny as hell. Never in a million years would I say they were afraid of female sexuality. They want all they can get!
And given the fact that I have heard plenty of stories (from friends and even on the SDMB) about women refusing to have sex unless they get their way, but have never heard of a man doing this, I would say it’s women who are doing the controlling.
Hmm. I would say that if having a baby was against the mothers will, she should of thought of that before spreading her legs.(And the guy should’ve, too.) Obviously, rape and incest are a little different. But in every pregnancy, the unborn child did nothing to bring about its own presence. To say they are “using” the mother’s body is to reduce them to a level of a parasite. What a way to talk about a human being.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by iampunha *
**
Someone can be both pro-choice and anti-abortion. It means that the person supports the right of a woman to get an abortion and does not think the state should be able to forbid or prevent her from getting that abortion, while at the same time not believing in or approving of actually having an abortion.
Triskadecamus:
Do you apply this reasoning to all areas of “morality”? Murder? Robbery? Gay-bashing?
Annie-Xmas:
Not necessarily a contradiction. But, in most cases, simply untrue. In the vast majority of cases, people who use this line (and that of Triskadecamus) are simply trying to avoid having to defend their pro-abortion opinions.
Isn’t this like saying that a person cannot both support the First Amendment right of Larry Flynt to publish Hustler while at the same time being anti-pornography?
I have a little trouble seeing this as a man’s issue. The woman is the defacto responsible party. Her life will be disrupted during pregnacy. Her morals will be questioned if she is not married. And she will be harshly judged by a large portion of society if she aborts. And for all intents and purposes, she will be the one saddled with the legal burden of the childs care.
I’m not saying there are no responsible guys out there. But our present system makes it very easy for males to duck their responsibilty and very difficult for females. When society puts the same judgements and responsibilties on the men, I think this issue will go away on it’s own.
Preview, then post, dammit.
I don’t like abortions either. I certainly don’t think it should be used as birth control. But, at present, I think it should remain an option.
This is a bit trickier than you are presenting it as. While it is generally agreed by cell biologisits that they are alive…in a fashion anyway, this definition is mostly because they exist in a cell. Sperm and eggs do not show two of the most basic characteristics of life: the ability to reproduce themselves, and the ability to grow. In fact, the egg shows even less characteristics than the sperm. Just a thought…
On another note, there is the issue over when it becomes human life. Most of us would see no problem ending the life of a few insects that are annoying us, for example. NOw, the main argument I’ve heard so far is that it’s alive, in some sense, and that it has human DNA and such. So here’s my question: what about the mouse that has human DNA in it?
I have, sitting right by my foot, a biologist’s paper on methods of introducing human DNA into mice for various purposes (which I won’t bore you with the details of). Now, I hate killing things (I always find a way to let the mouse live…somewhere else), but it is generally considered acceptable to kill the mouse if I need to/want it out of my home. It is very much alive, and it has human DNA in it. It’s not a human life, though, is it?
I could have sworn I said that it is not necessarily a contradiction. A person can support the “First Amendment” rights of Larry Flynt and be at the same time anti-pornography. But a person can also be pro-pornography, and obscure that fact (and avoid the need to defend the position) by claiming falsely that they are basing their position solely on First Amendment grounds.
The way to tell two such groups apart, is to discern their attitude towards pornography when it is brought up in a context not related to First Amendment issues.
I have never seen any genuine oposition to abortion of any sort from anyone spouting the “pro-choice-but-anti-abortion” line. I am therefore convinced that it is, in most cases, a fraud. (I am not accusing anyone in particular, obviously. I mean most cases.)
IzzyR, you did say it is not necessarily a contradiction. But you also said, “But, in most cases, [it is] simply untrue. In the vast majority of cases, people who use this line (and that of Triskadecamus) are simply trying to avoid having to defend their pro-abortion opinions”; and “I am therefore convinced that it [being both pro-choice and anti-abortion] is, in most cases, a fraud. (I am not accusing anyone in particular, obviously. I mean most cases.)”
I took your statements to mean that in your opinion, although it is not necessarily impossible to be both pro-choice and anti-abortion, most of the people who lay claim to that way of thinking are probably not being completely honest with themselves or with anyone they debate the topic with. I don’t happen to agree with you, but if that has been your experience, then that has been your experience and I understand why you would think the way you do.
I also agree that in many cases “pro-choice but anti-abortion” is a fraud, or at least a misrepresentation. In saying this, I am referring to the pro-abortion rights political force in this country, not necessarily to individuals.
Ever see an interview after protesters target an abortion clinic? Clinic personnel or NOW/NARAL spokespeople always point out right up front the “not one fewer abortion was performed today” or “no woman was denied her right to an abortion because of this protest.”
If they were truly “anti-abortion” they would celebrate a woman who changed her mind or otherwise chose to keep her child. I guess pro-choice is okay as long as the choice ends up in an abortion.
They would be loathe to admit that maybe a woman had her conscience pricked and decided against the abortion. This would be anathema to the pro-choicers. It would compromise their position politically to have women changing their mind about abortion in favor of life, especially on the evening news.
Murder, Robbery, and Gay-bashing are acts against the public peace, and against the freedoms of the entire society. While it would be far better if the control of such things were maintained on a personal basis, the State is far more justified in intruding into personal freedoms when they involve breech of peace. Abortion is not such an act. Neither are pornography, kinky sex, drugs, praying, and making sanctimonious judgments on other people.
So, I am a cowardly liar?
You have no information on my actions in any instance where the matter of abortion became my business. You certainly never will, unless you come to me and ask for my council on your own pregnancy, and how to deal with it. If you do, part of what you will get from me is an absolute assurance that pissant moralists on public bulletin boards won’t hear your story.
But who would take the word of a liar and coward?
Tris
Triskadecamus:
Do I see an emphasis here on “freedoms of the entire society”. Is this to be a new Triskadecamus policy - only freedoms of the entire society cannot be jeopardized?
Actually the common thread in all that society outlaws is things that threaten others. You may do what you please, as long as others are not harmed. In the case of abortion, clearly the fetus is being harmed. Therefore society may outlaw it, without leaving its morality to the judgement of every individual who wishes to have an abortion. Of course, one may say that the fetus is an object, not a human life, and does not qualify for protection. This is a position described as pro-abortion. Someone who claims to have not made this judgement, but still would refuse to allow society to intervene, is holding an untenable, and suspect, position. Most of those who claim to hold this opinion are indeed copping out.
Calm down there a bit. I did not say all people. I said most. You may be one of the few who came up with this contorted logic honestly.
Maybe I’m not remembering correctly, but in high school biology we learned that sperm reproduce by essentially making copies of themselves. How they do this? No clue.
As for eggs, I dunno as much. I have heard that eggs “eat” on their way down the fallopian tubes, as when they leave the ovaries they’re carried down in a sort of “pad” of what are called nurse cells, which from what I understood act to feed/protect the egg.
This is why I struggle with my definition . . . how to differentiate between, for example, between the mouse who’s growing a human ear on his or her back and a human being?
Other than my spiritual beliefs I have trouble defining a human scientifically except for this: some being with 46 or 47 chromosomes is human. I don’t know of another collection of beings with 46-7 chromosomes each (per being). So for now I use that to tell what is human and what is not, among other things.
Damn! I used to enjoy reading those kind of articles . . . various purposes, btw, such as the one I suggested above?
It has human DNA in it. Its primary natural function is that for which mouse DNA was designed (or whatever you believe in this case). its primary design is not to have an ear grow on its back. That scientists have injected it with human DNA does not mean that its nature is human, IMO.
FWIW, I don’t like killing in general - of anything. I’m not a vegetarian because, basically, I have the willpower of a child. Bad excuse, I know, but that’s me.
The definition given wasn’t very usefull because it used the word it was trying to define! It was “someone whose body operates under the organic presence of a human . . . someone whose body is human flesh”. In order to know what human flesh is, one would have to know what a human is, which is what the definition is supposed to be about.
This is like defining “animal” as “something whose body is animal flesh”.
I’m saying that human cells do not have human rights, even though they are alive and genetically human. Therefore, not everything that is a live and genetically human has human rights.
I have no idea what you are saying here. Perhaps I am wrong, but nearly everyone I talk to agrees that abortion is not something people enjoy doing; it is, at best, a neccessary evil. That’s why I said that, in a perfect world, abortion wouldn’t happen.
We don’t have good traditions or social institutions for establishing/respecting his rights (because historically his wife had none against which his would be measured in this area). I would say that if ANYONE (male or female) intends on entering into a co-parenting relationship, they should bang out some kind of contract instead of assuming that certain rights should inherently apply; otherwise, they each get stuck with the default set, which isn’t necessarily what they want. For instance, I as a male would not consider fathering without some clauses establishing the equality of my parental relationship to the kids and specifying joint and equal custody until the kids reach adulthood or one or the other parent dies, unless direct physical endangerment can be proven; otherwise, I would consider it likely that I could be separated from my own kids and yet held responsible for them financially.
On to the case at hand: if the prospect of your wife or girlfriend aborting that which you fertilized fills you will dread and shivers, get a contract stipulating that she agrees to waive her rights to abort except that doing so becomes necessary for the preservation of her physical health. In the absence of that, you know how the system works and you have no room in which to cry and gnash your teeth if she decides you are a bad idea and she wants no kid of yours to grow in her bod. In particular, if you haven’t specifically discussed the matter before inserting your protruberance, she has every right to claim that the entire matter doesn’t concern you.
Just out of curiousity, how many men in this thread make a habit of having sex with women who you would not expect to seek your counsel/input/advice if an unplanned pregnancy resulted? And for those who do, why would you want to have sex with someone you don’t trust and who doesn’t trust you? That would be some really lousy sex, IMHO.
Myrr: A mouse harboring human tissue is not, of course, human. But the human tissue (or DNA) it contains is human. But so what? It is not illegal or morally questionable to kill human tissue or cells. Every time you scratch your arm you do that. The whole picture includes more, though. The fetus is not just human tissue, it is a unique individual as well, in the earliest stages of development, and because it consists of a very small amount of tissue it is very delicate. Scratching a fetus to death is not the same as scratching your arm or killing a mouse carrying human DNA, IMO.
iamphuna: Sperm cells don’t reproduce; they are produced by cells in the testes that are not themselves sperm cells.
BK:
Would you say that every individual member of the species Homo sapiens is human? Do all humans so defined have human rights? If not, why not?
I think techchick has raised an interesting point a couple of times now. Consider the following thought experiment:
At present, in vitro fertilization can be done, and the resulting zygotes kept alive briefly before implantation in a uterus. On the other end of gestation, premature babies can be placed in artificial incubators and brought to term. These incubators are getting better, and it is not outrageous to imagine at some point the existence of a completely artificial womb. By this I mean a technology whereby a child could be transplanted at ANY point in a pregnancy and brought to term.
So if such an artificial womb existed, do you think there would be instances in which abortion would be preferable to transplantation? Why, exactly? If you would oppose killing a fetus under such circumstances, i.e. when the mother’s life/quality of life can be divorced from the fetus’ death, does that not imply a recognition of some value to a fetal life?