Nah…pro-choice by no means implies pro-abortion. I support a woman’s right to choose in this regard 100% including choosing abortion. However I personally find abortion to be the ‘worst’ of the choices on offer to her. I’d much rather see her put the baby up for adoption for instance. To further illustrate I absolutely support anyone’s right to burn the American flag but I hate it when I see it happen so I am not a ‘pro-flag burner’. I’m a ‘pro-Your Right to Burn the Flag’ person.
Anti-abortionists however are, by definition, anti-choice. They are trying to take away a choice that is currently available to women. Hence…anti-choice. (Yes you can say they have a choice to eat steak or fish for dinner but we are talking within the realm of abortion rights.)
By your definition, yes. By theirs, no. By their definition, your side is supporting an environment where abortions are commonly allowed - thus, you are pro-abortion.
By that definition, Shodan, folks who support the first amendment are “pro-lying,” as they are advocating an environment where it is legal to tell untruths.
A gret number of “pro-choice”/“pro-abortion” folks hate abortion, myself included.
This has nothing to do with slavery. Oldest dishonest trick in the book – exaggerate the other persons’ opinions to discredit them. This forum is about fair and honest debate with facts on the issue.
Yes, this has something to do with choice and privacy, but not as much as it has to do with LIFE.
The core issue here is whether a baby in his/her mother’s womb is a life worth protecting [based upon whatever value system and world view our culture (or the majority of some legislative or judicial body)embraces at the time].
Start with these two questions about the “thing” that would be aborted:
Biologically/genetically, is “it” human? Don’t get ahead of me. Just answer that question.
Biologically/genetically, is it a separate and disctinct “entity” from its mother? Or is it part of HER body, like an appendix or tonsils. I didn’t ask if it is dependent upon her body. I asked if it is part of or an extension of HER own body.
If all you want to do is rant and rave, then base the discussion on slavery, rights, privacy, choice. You’ll not have a fruitful discussion, but maybe it’ll make ya feel good to blow off steam.
Just answer those two questions for me — with proof, by the way. And stay on the point, please.
I don’t see how that follows at all. I thought my analogy to burning the American flag illustrated my point nicely but I’ll try again.
“Pro-abortion” implies advocating abortion itself. That is by no means true. I do not run up to pregnant women and say, “Have you considered an abortion? You should! There’s a lot to be said for them!” I do NOT advocate abortions. As I already stated I do not like the notion of abortions just as I do not like seeing the American flag burnt. However, I will support your right to have an abortion if YOU decide that is what you have to do just as I will support your right to burn a flag if you think you must.
No, it is not a human. A chicken egg is not a chicken (even fertilized). At least, I’ve never seen anyone point at a chicken egg and say, “Look at the chicken!” Both have the potential to become a human or chicken but they are not a human or chicken in that state.
If it is not human, what is it in the biological world? If you performed DNA tests on it, where would you find that it fits on the life chain? Duh, it’s human.
It’s a human that is still developing to the point where it can live outside the mother’s whom. When a baby kangaroo climbs its way up and into its mother’s pouch for nourshment, protection and final development, it’s still a kangaroo while it’s climbing. It doesn’t hop yet. But is that what makes it biologically and scientifically a kangaroo?
What biological event or process makes it “become a human”? Is there some sort of cell split, brain wave, heart beat, chemical process, pain sensation, movement, swallowing?
What event or process takes it from what you call “potential” to actually being human?
Utter twaddle. Both sides have self-preferred designations where an argument can be made that the name is not technically, comprehensively accurate. But we’re not documenting chemical reactions here. They are names, all of which invariably connote and denote any of a number of things.
You’re pro-choice? Do you support the right to choose robbing someone? The right to choose to default on legal obligations? Are pro-lifers against the right to choose what school one can send one’s kids to? Then using “pro-choice” to distinguish that side of the debate is silly, one might argue.
“But everyone know the ‘choice’ in this sense relates to abortion. Pro-choice is perfectly clear.” Right. And everyone knows that “pro-life” refers to those who are against abortion, also perfectly clear and requiring no clarification. So why would you refuse to refer to those in that camp by what they prefer unless it is to be discourteous?
I, myself, do not refuse to give such a simple courtesy to the pro-choice camp, and I firmly believe (to paraphrase that great philospoher, beagledave) that those who do refuse say more about themselves than about their opponents in the debate.
Thank you. That my point. Maybe you are coming around.
To use your illustration, the blood contained human DNA. So the conclusion is NOT that the blood is human, but that the “it” from which that blood came is a human.
To make another illustration (bear with me here). Assume there was an explosion at a zoo and dozens of animals died and made a big mess. Assume further that scientists and caretakers took blood and flesh samples and tested them to see which types on animals died. Please ignore that they could really just take inventory to answer that question. What if they perform DNA-matching tests and found blood that contained human DNA? Again, so the conclusion is NOT that the blood is human, but that the “it” from which that blood came is/was a human.
Don’t work so hard at resisting the obvious scientific evidence and logic.
More twaddle. The question was “is it human”? Since this is an animate being, it is of some species. If it is not human, what is it? A fertilized chicken is, well, a chicken, a member of that revered and esteemed species, chickenus foghornleghornus. Really, why would this be arguable (or even important)?
If you are defining some form of “personhood,” then be more specific and don’t try an argument that is by definition false (and you can use the search function to find where this has been dispensed with on numerous occasions, generally by beagledave and JThunder).
And are you actually familar with the term “entity”? If so, please provide an actual argument, as opposed to some form of “Uh uh, no way.”
Back to the position that the “it” which gets aborted is merely POTENTIAL life.
Please answer my previous question …
"It’s a human that is still developing to the point where it can live outside the mother’s whom. When a baby kangaroo climbs its way up and into its mother’s pouch for nourshment, protection and final development, it’s still a kangaroo while it’s climbing. It doesn’t hop yet. But is hopping what makes it biologically and scientifically a kangaroo?
What biological event or process makes it “become a human”? Is there some sort of cell split, brain wave, heart beat, chemical process, pain sensation, movement, swallowing?
What event or process takes it from what you call “potential” to actually being human?"
It is not a matter of being discourteous. It is a matter of how the various camps wish to place themselves to ‘look’ better and perhaps mask their true intentions.
Who can argue with ‘pro-life’? Who isn’t except for the odd deranged lunatic? Unfortunately there is an insidious implication that if I am opposed to the pro-life movement I must therefore be the opposite and be anti-life. I certainly am not that so I won’t apply ‘pro-life’ to those I oppose. If they want to throw ‘anti-life’ at me they are welcome to…in fact I would like that as I think it would discredit them more than me. Calling the ‘pro-life’ movement ‘anti-choice’ to me seems perfectly applicable and accurately descriptive as it realtes to their stance on the abortion debate. If discourtesy was my intention I would come up with much more colorful speech than ‘anti-choice’.
I do not agrre that we are talking about an “animate being”. Is it comprised of genetic material? Yes…so is your appendix.
Sure…
What’s the problem? I do not think the zygote has ‘BEING’ or ‘EXISTENCE’ with an independant or separate self-contained existence. I do not think the zygote has a distinct existence with its own conceptual reality.
Is challenging me on definitions the best you’ve got?
**Which is true in either case. Pro-lifers are not generally against choice, as the term pro-choice implies. This is not that difficult.
**This would be called a straw man, since I did not argue that genetic material = human. Animate, however, is defined thusly (since you seem enamored with definitions):
**A being is something that exists. An animate being is one that lives (as distinct from plant life). A zygote is an animate being. This ain’t that tough and, again, I don’t know why you would consider this either arguable or important.
I can see the best you’ve got. Once again you have offered as an argument some form of, “I don’t think so.” Why do you believe that a zygote does not have a distinct existence?
When does the gal dang “it” become a human? You said it wasn’t a human, but merely potentially human. So what event transforms it from a G,Z,E,F to become a human? When does the potentiality become actuality?
Pro-lifers are against the choice of a woman who wants to have an abortion. Pro-choicers are for defending the choice of a woman to have an abortion. So, it follows that pro-lifers are anti-choice as without doubt they are trying to restrict a choice people currently possess. To label pro-choicers as anti-life you have to make the assumption a murder is being committed. This is clearly debatable. Anti-choice? No question. Anti-life? Very debatable.
These definitions are only relevant within the scope of the abortion debate. This is not that difficult.
First off it is you who called into question definitions by asking if I knew what ‘entity’ meant. I showed you waht it meant and showed how my use of it was appropriate. If you are in GD expecting people to let challenges like that slide you are in the wrong place.
I do not view a zygote as an animate being. As to why it is important I am shocked that you think it isn’t! Perhaps no single issue in the abortion debate is MORE relevant than this.
This goes somewhat to what Actuary is asking about. I do not see a cell that has been fertilized as having some magical ‘existence’ conferred upon it. It is a cell or soon to be collection of cells that has as much existence as your appendix. That is, it exists but is not an ‘animate being’ or ‘entity’. Obviously this changes somewhere during the pregnancy. I certainly do not support later term abortions except in extreme and extraordinary cases. To be sure it is somewhat subjective to draw a line and say this day the fetus is the equivalent of an appendix that the mother can choose to remove and the next day the fetus is a living human being deserving of rights and protection. I personally have no problem outside of that gray area considering the zygote an inanimate collection of cells (even if that collection start to look human and even if you start showing me movies of first trimester fetuses twitching…lots of things in my body twitch and aren’t considered ‘animate beings’).
What’s more however is that if you wish to remove a right it is incumbent upon you to show clear reasons why that right should be suspended. As such the question comes back to you. Why do you believe that a zygote does have a distinct existence?
This has been such a stupid thread from the instant the OP was vomited forth.
Honestly, people. “Pro-abortion”? “Anti-choice”? You don’t have anything better to argue about? The actual abortion debate going on (“fetus,” “entity,” “human,” and so on) is just so much semantics, to say nothing of being off-topic given the (admittedly useless) OP.