The irony is that the same people who tend to be anti-abortion ALSO tend to be anti birth control and anti sex education.
Or maybe the woman could choose to be with that guy she met who was nice, but that she turned down because he didn’t excite her like the “bad boy” type she ended up with, who treats her like shit.
At least they’re not a bunch of Jews, huh? I mean, could you be any more of a bigot?
Yes, I’m quite aware that you’re unaware of the point of linking to them. They are just one of the many, many pro-life groups that puts the lie to your characterization of pro-lifers.
Look, I’m well aware of the fact that there are insane, awful, idiotic, murderous pro-lifers out there. WHen I was in college, I interviewed a guy that terrified me with his support of murdering abortion providers, to the extent that I considered turning my tapes over to law enforcement. I have no illusions in this regard.
I am, however, aware that your brush is way too broad, and that there are pro-life groups that care very much for the pregnant woman and for the child after it’s born. You’re either ignorant or dishonest on this account; I genuinely don’t know which.
Daniel
Without consent, but not against their will… as they have none.
Also, since the fetus is utterly incapable of consent, we’d look to its known parent… who, by seeking abortion, is giving consent.
What of the other parent? What of some third party legal guardian for the fetus? Since a fetus has no interests, it’s difficult to make the case that they aren’t being served… and thus it’s a bit hard to justify reassigning such service to someone else.
You know, you can be pro-choice and pro-gun and pro-freedom of/from religion.
But what if he’s a stowaway? Then can’t you kick him out the airlock?
Really? Even with modern cloning techniques?
At best, this would be very rare; and were it well done, it would be a moooot point.
Daniel
[sub]sorry, that was low[/sub]
And how is is bigoted to regard religion, or a particular religion as stupid or untrustworthy if you apply the same standards to them all ? If I don’t trust a website run by the Republicans, does that make me a bigot ? How about Microsoft ?
No, I wouldn’t trust a website run in the name of Judaism ( as opposed to one run by people who happened to be Jews ). Or Islam, or Buddhism, or any of the manifold versions of the madness of religion. I simply don’t trust the honesty or rationality of anyone who speaks for such a thing.
Of course, I realize that this is another case where religion is supposed to be treated as a special case. No matter how dishonest or delusional or evil it is, I’m supposed to treat religion as deserving of respect.
No, I simply regard those groups for what they are : trivial at best.
I 'unno. Looked A-1 to me.
Cute, but it diverts attention from the meat of the issue.
With hesitation, I join a debate which has long since progressed from the OP. But it is OP I want to address, from a perspective I don’t think has been articulated. My own take on this familiar controversy is that I’m pro-abortion. That is, I think it’s plainly true that, in many situations, it is better both for the woman and her unborn child that the pregnancy be terminated. I’m only pro-choice in the sense that I respect the right of a woman to bring to term a child I think objectively should be aborted.
Returning, then, to the OP, I don’t think the difference between pro-life and anti-abortion is significant. The substance is the same and the values asserted are the same. Either a fetus is life or it ain’t. Or, if it is life, it’s entitled to protection or it ain’t. As stated, I think the answer is either no or no. But I don’t begrudge on semantic grounds those who feel otherwise. We disagree on SUBSTANCE, and that’s okay.
Meanwhile, I have to say that I think pro-choice is often used as a disingenuous euphemism. A popular bumper-sticker says, “If you can’t trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?” Balderdash. If you think one of your choices as a parent is to kill your child, I most certainly don’t trust you with one! The issue, as I admit, is whether a fetus is a child. If so, I’m wrong. You can’t duck the issue with a facile bumper-sticker.
All of which is a long way of saying, again apropos of the OP, that I don’t have any problem with the anti-abortion camp calling itself pro-life. I just wish we in the pro-choice/pro-abortion camp would be a little more forthright in accepting responsibility for the position we support.
What responsibilities would those be, again?
Smells like “conflict of interest” to me.
In case you didn’t notice, that was a joke.
I said “can never turn into a cow”. I did not say “cannot be turned into a cow”
No matter how long the steak sits there, without the interference from a laboratory and high tech equipment, the steak will never turn into a cow (or a frog or any other animal, which, given sufficiently high technology, it could turn into)
A fetus, on the other hand, needs no laboratory or high-tech equipment to turn into a baby.
In the future, we may be able to turn coal into gold by some high-tech equipment that changes its nuclear structure. Even if that happens, we cannot equate coal and gold.
What if it was a fetus produced though modern cloning or other fertility procedures? Fair game?
I’ve read this several times, and I can’t for the life of me figure out what your point is supposed to be. It sounds like you’re saying abortion is murder, but you’re in favor of it. I know that can’t be what you’re saying. Perhaps a re-write is in order?
Most obviously, that abortion means an unborn child will not be born. Less obviously, that a balance of interests has been chosen, in which the fetus whose interests have been valued less had no say in the matter. And others, but the present debate is over semantics, not abortion per se.
Sorry, I don’t understand. Do you dispute either premise, to wit, either a fetus isn’t life or it isn’t entitled to protection? Without one or the other, we don’t have murder. With either, we do. I accept that. Do you have another theory?
Missed the edit window. Third to the last sentence should say “With neither we do.”