Are you pro-choice because you are smart?

[iiandyiiii]

@Scumpup

You know what else I learned from these threads? That you, apparently, think everything really is about you. From your responses, one might gain the impression that I started these threads just to troll you because reasons.

Did you quote the wrong poster? I can’t tell what Czarcasm said in his past two posts that comes close to warranting this kind of response. AFAICT, he asked you about your own beliefs and answered the thread title question about his views on abortion. Why would that not be an appropriate post in this thread?

[carnut]

I’m pro choice because what you choose to do about your pregnancy is none of my business, and vice versa. What does being smart or not have to do with that?

[Rushgeekgirl]

I’m pro-choice because I never want anyone to go through being pregnant when they’re not ready to have children. I don’t know if that’s considered smart, compassionate, or vile and murder-hungry, but I don’t really see why anyone should dictate what sort of procedures other choose to have. It’s not anyone else’s business.

Maybe it’s empathy. I was 14 (I think. I could have turned 15 but I definitely got pregnant when I was 14 so it’s close) when I had an abortion. My kid is 14 now and still plays with ponies and needs to be walked to the bus stop. I cannot imagine him being forced to carry a pregnancy to term to avoid being accused of murder. I will forever be grateful to my mom for gently but firmly insisting that we go to the local women’s health clinic and have that pregnancy terminated. It was scary but it was over quick enough and she took me out for a treat and gave me lots of hugs and kindness when it was over, because I was a CHILD and she was trying to help me retain my innocence despite being coerced in to unprotected sex with an adult man.

[bump]

@Little_Nemo

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.

The thing is, the pro-life side don’t see it as a moral view or question of any sort- it’s as absolute as you describe up top about cannibalism or murder. In fact, they view it as a subset of murder- a curiously legalized version of murder. So they’re dead-set against it- the circumstances don’t much matter- would anyone condone the murder of a baby because the parents can’t afford it, or because it inconveniences someone who is young and wants to party more before settling down? Of course not. They’re just not drawing a distinction between an embryo, fetus and baby.

It’s not a question of control or imposition of views from their perspective; at least not in the typical Catholic view (what I’m describing here), and that’s what I think people overlook- the thinking is that once someone is pregnant, that life within them is as valuable as ANY other human life, so they want to protect it, even if it means that someone’s freedom is curtailed in the process. After all, you don’t have the freedom to run around murdering, so why should people have the right to run around aborting?

[begbert2]

@bump

The thing is, the pro-life side don’t see it as a moral view or question of any sort- it’s as absolute as you describe up top about cannibalism or murder. In fact, they view it as a subset of murder- a curiously legalized version of murder. So they’re dead-set against it- the circumstances don’t much matter- would anyone condone the murder of a baby because the parents can’t afford it, or because it inconveniences someone who is young and wants to party more before settling down? Of course not. They’re just not drawing a distinction between an embryo, fetus and baby.

It’s not a question of control or imposition of views from their perspective; at least not in the typical Catholic view (what I’m describing here), and that’s what I think people overlook- the thinking is that once someone is pregnant, that life within them is as valuable as ANY other human life, so they want to protect it, even if it means that someone’s freedom is curtailed in the process. After all, you don’t have the freedom to run around murdering, so why should people have the right to run around aborting?

Yep, the core of the discussion isn’t about really about a difference in morality so much as a difference of opinion about facts. The anti-choice side has decided that fertilized eggs are equivalent to bouncing bubbly babies; the anti-life side has decided that there’s clearly a developmental process going on in there and that it ain’t a cake until it’s at least partially done baking. The bulk of the moral outrage comes from viewing the other side through the lens of your own beliefs: the anti-choice side sees the other side as baby-killers, and the anti-life equation is to see the other side as oppressing women for literally no reason. Even when you intellectually know that the other person has some semblance of logic for their views, it’s hard to frame the situation in a mindset other than your own.

[Ambivalid]

@begbert2

Er, these are all questions of objective fact too. A guy was either defending himself or he wasn’t, and deciding that is a determination of fact. This determination may be influenced by opinion, but the opinions in question aren’t opinions about morality, they’re opinions about the facts.

Similarly, the question of whether a killing was justified/allowed by the rules of war is a question of fact, the question of whether it was an accident is a question of fact, and the question of whether the thingy in the woman’s tummy is a human yet is a question of fact. One that can come down to opinion, but it’s still a question of fact.

Honestly, the closest that laws come to morality is whether a given law should exist at all.

Exactly

[Kimstu]

@Scumpup

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.

Dude, the way to not reply to people is to actually not reply to them. Using the claim that you won’t reply to them as an excuse to respond to their remarks by calling them “loud” and “angry” and “spastically flailing” and “off-topic frothing” isn’t fooling anyone.

[Scumpup]

@Kimstu

Dude, the way to not reply to people is to actually not reply to them. Using the claim that you won’t reply to them as an excuse to respond to their remarks by calling them “loud” and “angry” and “spastically flailing” and “off-topic frothing” isn’t fooling anyone.

What makes you think I believed I was fooling anyone about anything? This thread and its predecessor had no ulterior motives. I asked about what I wanted to know. Several higher/louder profile members have been in a three foot hover since. But, see, it wasn’t about them, or you, or anyone specific. I can’t control the egocentricity of other dopers.

[begbert2]

@Kimstu

Dude, the way to not reply to people is to actually not reply to them. Using the claim that you won’t reply to them as an excuse to respond to their remarks by calling them “loud” and “angry” and “spastically flailing” and “off-topic frothing” isn’t fooling anyone.

To be fair, he was criticized for not responding too. Pesky people, expecting him not to driveby his own threads.

[Kimstu]

@Scumpup

What makes you thought I believed I was fooling anyone about anything?

Your claim that you wouldn’t reply to the posters whom your insulting remarks in fact were replying to.

@begbert2

The anti-choice side has decided that fertilized eggs are equivalent to bouncing bubbly babies

Except that, as I noted in post #44, they haven’t really, not in a logically consistent way. Most of them would still think that one bouncing bubbly baby’s life should be prioritized over a thousand fertilized eggs’ lives, if it really came down to a choice.

[Kimstu]

@begbert2

To be fair, he was criticized for not responding too.

Well, he was criticized for not stating his own opinion on the topic of the thread he started. Not for refraining from getting into a flame war with people whose answers to his OP he didn’t like.

[Scumpup]

@Kimstu

Your claim that you wouldn’t reply to the posters whom your insulting remarks in fact were replying to.

Dude/ette, just declare yourself the winner of the thread, slam a 4 Loko, and triumphantly rub one out as you re-read how you bested me. :rolleyes:

[begbert2]

@Kimstu

Except that, as I noted in post #44, they haven’t really, not in a logically consistent way. Most of them would still think that one bouncing bubbly baby’s life should be prioritized over a thousand fertilized eggs’ lives, if it really came down to a choice.

I figure that the anti-choice side is a mix of a couple approaches:

1. My preacher says god says that abortion is murder!

2. Well, clearly it’s a baby ten minutes before birth, and there’s no clear dividing line anytime before then, so, er, screw it. Baby all the way.

3. Option 2, but also somebody told me that abortions are happening ten minutes before birth!

[Kimstu]

@Scumpup

Dude/ette, just declare yourself the winner of the thread, slam a 4 Loko, and triumphantly rub one out as you re-read how you bested me. :rolleyes:

My, you don’t cope well with being disagreed with.

[Kimstu]

@begbert2

I figure that the anti-choice side is a mix of a couple approaches:

1. My preacher says god says that abortion is murder!

2. Well, clearly it’s a baby ten minutes before birth, and there’s no clear dividing line anytime before then, so, er, screw it. Baby all the way.

3. Option 2, but also somebody told me that abortions are happening ten minutes before birth!

All of which is arguably, dare I say it, kinda dumb by the standards of rational argument.

[Scumpup]

@Kimstu

My, you don’t cope well with being disagreed with.

What do you believe I said with which you disagreed? I made no statement supporting either side of the abortion debate. You should probably get yourself two 4 Lokos.

[Dangerosa]

@Ambivalid

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?

In addition to some of the previous cases…

Legal execution, is not murder, although the thing that was killed was human and it was done in a premeditated fashion.

Legal euthanasia is not murder - again, premeditated and you are killing a person.

Legal abortion - premeditated arguably human (and I think that is very arguable), also not murder.

[Kimstu]

@Scumpup

@Kimstu

@Scumpup

What makes you think I believed I was fooling anyone about anything? […]

Your claim that you wouldn’t reply to the posters whom your insulting remarks in fact were replying to.

Dude/ette, just declare yourself the winner of the thread, slam a 4 Loko, and triumphantly rub one out as you re-read how you bested me.

@Scumpup

What do you believe I said with which you disagreed?

Oh, I recognize this part: this is where you ask an apparently serious question that I’ll reply to in good faith, at which point you’ll just duck out of the exchange with a sneering obscene suggestion. No thanks, not again.

[Voyager]

@bump

It’s not a question of control or imposition of views from their perspective; at least not in the typical Catholic view (what I’m describing here), and that’s what I think people overlook- the thinking is that once someone is pregnant, that life within them is as valuable as ANY other human life, so they want to protect it, even if it means that someone’s freedom is curtailed in the process. After all, you don’t have the freedom to run around murdering, so why should people have the right to run around aborting?

However they don’t act that way. I don’t know how many miscarriages there are in a year, but if there were as many babies dying as fetuses dying from natural causes, thee would be a massive effort to fix this disaster. I know many miscarried fetuses have issues, but we don’t let babies die with genetic defects.
Miscarriage - unfortunate, but not the death of a baby. Abortion - at the same time as the miscarriage - murder of a baby.

[Ambivalid]

@Dangerosa

In addition to some of the previous cases…

Legal execution, is not murder, although the thing that was killed was human and it was done in a premeditated fashion.

Legal euthanasia is not murder - again, premeditated and you are killing a person.

Legal abortion - premeditated arguably human (and I think that is very arguable), also not murder.

Murder: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

None of your examples have either of those qualities ive highlighted in the definition of murder. Your third example doesnt match any of the qualities.