Any ex-pro-life staunchly pro-choicers out there?

[LilyM]

It’s an interesting case though if both parents together decide to kill their newborn. Can society claim that they are committing an offense against society? My guess would be no.

Of course they can. Children are a present and future economic resource and a stimulus to the economy, and thus a benefit to the whole of society.

The children the current generation has contribute to society - their existence means extra jobs in childcare, child healthcare and education for those who otherwise would be out of work. It means more work for manufacturers of diapers and children’s clothing and food and toys and whatnot.

Finally, it means more wage-earning workers down the line, and a more secure base for future governmental costs. Ie better ability in the future to fund both public and private welfare, education and other social services. The greater number of children we have as a society, the less the financial burden will be on each of them as an individual.

It’s no coincidence that the times of greatest economic growth in a country’s history - such as the post World War II period - coincide with the greatest increases in population (hence it being called the ‘baby boom’).

 

[flyingfish]

Of course they can. Children are a present and future economic resource and a stimulus to the economy, and thus a benefit to the whole of society.

The children the current generation has contribute to society - their existence means extra jobs in childcare, child healthcare and education for those who otherwise would be out of work. It means more work for manufacturers of diapers and children’s clothing and food and toys and whatnot.

Finally, it means more wage-earning workers down the line, and a more secure base for future governmental costs. Ie better ability in the future to fund both public and private welfare, education and other social services. The greater number of children we have as a society, the less the financial burden will be on each of them as an individual.

It’s no coincidence that the times of greatest economic growth in a country’s history - such as the post World War II period - coincide with the greatest increases in population (hence it being called the ‘baby boom’).

I don’t know if I agree with your reasoning, I don’t think you want this to be your main reasoning either, because it wouldn’t apply in places with insufficient resources for the local population, if you run the numbers you might find that children with disabilities are more of a drain on the economy than a benefit to it.

But I think you could make this kind of an argument if human beings were in danger of extinction. In the modern world there are too many of us rather than too few.

 

[hosemonkey]

I don’t think we can agree because we don’t agree on what a person is.

You maintain that unless one is aware of himself, he is not a person,correct? Does that mean that people in coma are not persons? Does that mean that people in medically induced coma are not people? Does that mean that people in catatonic states are not people? Does that mean that people with dementia are not people? Does that mean that people on ventilators are not people? So let me see if I have this straight…Unless you are totally conscious, fully aware and hitting on all eight, you are not a person and are not entitled to “personhood”? Seems to me that black people and native Americans were once denied “personhood” as well. Under Nazism Jews were not “persons” either.
Fortunate for us non-elite, the majority of people do not share your rather twisted definition of “personhood.” Just a suggestion though, be sure that you provide your hospital with a “DNR” (do not resucitate) so that they will not waste time on a “non-person” should you by some mishap(God forbid) lose consciousness.

 

[flyingfish]

You maintain that unless one is aware of himself, he is not a person,correct? Does that mean that people in coma are not persons? Does that mean that people in medically induced coma are not people? Does that mean that people in catatonic states are not people? Does that mean that people with dementia are not people? Does that mean that people on ventilators are not people? So let me see if I have this straight…Unless you are totally conscious, fully aware and hitting on all eight, you are not a person and are not entitled to “personhood”? Seems to me that black people and native Americans were once denied “personhood” as well. Under Nazism Jews were not “persons” either.
Fortunate for us non-elite, the majority of people do not share your rather twisted definition of “personhood.” Just a suggestion though, be sure that you provide your hospital with a “DNR” (do not resucitate) so that they will not waste time on a “non-person” should you by some mishap(God forbid) lose consciousness.

I addressed all these questions in detail at earlier points in the thread, it should be somewhere in the middle of the thread if you’re curious about my views in detail.

The short answer is that if the brain ceases to be capable of generating a mind, there is no person there. I don’t think it has to be a particularly advanced mind, just a self aware being, even if the mind is limited (say as in the case of developmentally disabled).

But I’m not saying that people in comas should be killed, or that people shouldn’t try to repair damaged brains and restore personhood. That would obviously be decided on a case by case basis. If a society only has so many resources, should it use them to sustain a person in a coma or to do heart surgeries? Should it invest in research to cure comas, or cure cancer if there isn’t enough for both?

 

[hosemonkey]

I don’t think it has to be a particularly advanced mind, just a self aware being, even if the mind is limited (say as in the case of developmentally disabled).

Then you are condemned out of your own mouth, because babies, while their minds are “not advanced” are still capable of demonstrating “self awareness” as anyone who has ever had a child knows. The theory that memory pathways are not firmly engraved until around two years is merely that, a theory and has no bearing on wether someone is a person or not. Several posts back it was stated that “if you saw someone murdering a seven-year-old and you had a gun, would you kill that person to prevent the crime?” The answer is emphatically yes, because the defense of the innocent, even if deadly force is applied, is moral, by Church as well as civil law. And there is no age stipulated in that law.

 

[LilyM]

I don’t know if I agree with your reasoning, I don’t think you want this to be your main reasoning either, because it wouldn’t apply in places with insufficient resources for the local population, if you run the numbers you might find that children with disabilities are more of a drain on the economy than a benefit to it.

No, for by the time-honoured practices of emigration and immigration, people from resource-poor places can and do move to places with greater resources. And by the time-honoured practice of charity, quantities of resources can and do get to places where people need them as well.

The WORLD has more than enough resources for all its inhabitants in terms of food and whatnot, it’s just a matter of getting the right number of people to the right places, or else the right amount of resources to those countries that need them.

But I think you could make this kind of an argument if human beings were in danger of extinction. In the modern world there are too many of us rather than too few.

See above. In the modern West we don’t even have enough children to replace ourselves. That, sadly, is probably not going to change much in the future. We produce FAR more food and other resources than would be needed to feed and clothe the whole world, and waste an incredible amount of food every single day. We can and do absorb a huge number of immigrants each year. You cannot argue that there are too many people in the modern world when in quite a large area there in fact aren’t enough.

It’s distribution that’s the problem, and it wouldn’t be any less of a problem if there were less people in the world. We know this because there have ALWAYS been richer and poorer countries, ALWAYS been places of scarcity and places of abundance. In the past, however, it was the physical difficulty of travel and transport that prevented resources from matching up with need.

These days, it’s simply the pig-headed greed of a few in the First and Third Worlds on the one hand, and increasingly restrictive and insular immigration policies on the other, that are the main obstacles.

 

[flyingfish]

Then you are condemned out of your own mouth, because babies, while their minds are “not advanced” are still capable of demonstrating “self awareness” as anyone who has ever had a child knows. The theory that memory pathways are not firmly engraved until around two years is merely that, a theory and has no bearing on wether someone is a person or not. Several posts back it was stated that “if you saw someone murdering a seven-year-old and you had a gun, would you kill that person to prevent the crime?” The answer is emphatically yes, because the defense of the innocent, even if deadly force is applied, is moral, by Church as well as civil law. And there is no age stipulated in that law.

As I said, there is a threshold. There are many animals who are more sophisticated than newborns in terms of their minds, and far, far more sophisticated than embryos. There has to be consciousness and self awareness, not mere ability to respond to stimuli, plants have that too and I don’t feel bad when I eat salad (or steak for that matter).

To your second point, why aren’t you killing doctors who are about to perform an abortion? If you truly believe that they are people, why would you save the seven year old but not the 2 month old fetus? Just because civil law allows one and not the other?

 

[flyingfish]

See above. In the modern West we don’t even have enough children to replace ourselves. That, sadly, is probably not going to change much in the future. We produce FAR more food and other resources than would be needed to feed and clothe the whole world, and waste an incredible amount of food every single day. We can and do absorb a huge number of immigrants each year. You cannot argue that there are too many people in the modern world when in quite a large area there in fact aren’t enough.

It’s distribution that’s the problem, and it wouldn’t be any less of a problem if there were less people in the world. We know this because there have ALWAYS been richer and poorer countries, ALWAYS been places of scarcity and places of abundance. In the past, however, it was the physical difficulty of travel and transport that prevented resources from matching up with need.

These days, it’s simply the pig-headed greed of a few in the First and Third Worlds on the one hand, and increasingly restrictive and insular immigration policies on the other, that are the main obstacles.

There aren’t enough resources on the planet to provide everyone with a Western lifestyle. There are enough only if you’re willing to live a reduced quality life. The earth is able to sustain only about 2 billion people with everyone living an American lifestyle. But that number goes up to something like 20 billion if you’re willing to live the way the poor in Africa do (in a straw hut with a dirt floor and all that).

I’m sure you already think I’m a selfish and evil person, but I would not be willing to give up a house to myself, a car, electricity, air conditioner, meat, and all that so that someone else could have a larger family.

 

[LilyM]

There aren’t enough resources on the planet to provide everyone with a Western lifestyle. There are enough only if you’re willing to live a reduced quality life. The earth is able to sustain only about 2 billion people with everyone living an American lifestyle. But that number goes up to something like 20 billion if you’re willing to live the way the poor in Africa do (in a straw hut with a dirt floor and all that).

I’m sure you already think I’m a selfish and evil person, but I would not be willing to give up a house to myself, a car, electricity, air conditioner, meat, and all that so that someone else could have a larger family.

This 2 billion figure is a smokescreen. You have a false idea of the changes that would be necessary.

All we would really need to do is effectively reuse the waste the average Westerner produces, in terms of reusable or repairable appliances and cars that are trashed, wasted electricity that could be easily conserved with no appreciable dip in your quality of life, eliminating costly and absolutely unnecessary food packaging, not wasting drinkable water that gets squandered on watering lawns where grey water would do just as well, and so on.

Maybe promote the idea of having one or two less meat meals a week, for those who want to, which would probably be good (and maybe enjoyable) for 99% of people rather than a burden.

We can make cars and gadgets that use far less electricity or fuel. And if there were more people on the planet, there would naturally be the necessary incentives to develop and manage our resources in this way. The technologies would be cheap because they’d be widely produced and used (economy of scale).

So if we did it right, everyone probably COULD have a decent house (to themselves for those who want one to themselves), a decent car for those who needed and wanted one, aircon and the like … the only reason we don’t do it right now is because we’re too lazy and have no pressing incentives.

It’s not a matter of major lifestyle changes, it’s more a matter of rethinking how we produce and dispose of the things we use. Making them more energy efficient. It’s a matter of taking full advantage of renewable energy resources. Of designing and constructing our houses properly, but none the less comfortably (and it can be done) so we don’t NEED to use the aircon so often.

 

[flyingfish]

This 2 billion figure is a smokescreen. You have a false idea of the changes that would be necessary.

All we would really need to do is effectively reuse the waste the average Westerner produces, in terms of reusable or repairable appliances and cars that are trashed, wasted electricity that could be easily conserved with no appreciable dip in your quality of life, eliminating costly and absolutely unnecessary food packaging, not wasting drinkable water that gets squandered on watering lawns where grey water would do just as well, and so on.

Maybe promote the idea of having one or two less meat meals a week, for those who want to, which would probably be good (and maybe enjoyable) for 99% of people rather than a burden.

We can make cars and gadgets that use far less electricity or fuel. And if there were more people on the planet, there would naturally be the necessary incentives to develop and manage our resources in this way. The technologies would be cheap because they’d be widely produced and used (economy of scale).

So if we did it right, everyone probably COULD have a decent house (to themselves for those who want one to themselves), a decent car for those who needed and wanted one, aircon and the like … the only reason we don’t do it right now is because we’re too lazy and have no pressing incentives.

It’s not a matter of major lifestyle changes, it’s more a matter of rethinking how we produce and dispose of the things we use. Making them more energy efficient. It’s a matter of taking full advantage of renewable energy resources. Of designing and constructing our houses properly, but none the less comfortably (and it can be done) so we don’t NEED to use the aircon so often.

I admit I’m no expert in this area, but everything I have read about biocapacity suggests otherwise.

One place where you’re wrong is that if there were more people on the planet there would be incentives to develop the methods you listed. There are already so many people who live in squalor, just look a the poor in India, in Africa, in China. There are no incentives because those in power are not personally affected by it, even in the poorest countries the rich and powerful live well.

I mean the kind of thing you’re saying doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to be honest, the first world is what, 1 billion people? The idea that simply managing our waste better and maybe turning off those green indicator lights on electric appliances would save enough to provide our kind of lifestyle for the rest doesn’t make any sense to me whatsoever.

What you’re saying would be possible only given some great and yet unforeseen technological advance. As it stands, we need another Green Revolution comparable development to simply keep up with food demand the growing population creates. And we are at the peak of oil production too, farming simply requires fossil fuels to generate high yields.

I honestly don’t see how in light of this you can make an argument that more children is a good thing. It seems having 1 or no children is the best thing for the world.

 

[rainbowlitez]

Mental illnesses and disabilities are not on the level of not having a consciousness at all.

If someone is brain dead, I think they are no longer a person. I am not sure at what age babies start to have thoughts/become self aware. My own earliest memories are from about 2 years old.

Until the self awareness is there, I wouldn’t call it a person, but that’s my personal opinion.

Funnily enough I can answer this! We have two parts to our brain - the autonomic big makes your heart beat and stuff. The other bit has conscious thought and memory and stuff like that. There’s no exact point but between 20 and 24 weeks the ‘thought’ part of the brain is switched on (that’s 20 - 24 weeks while still in the womb). This means I’m a bit ‘jury’s out’ on the abortion issue because to me it seems timing makes a big difference when I think logically. However, I don’t know when the soul enters the equation. I personally find it hard to just go along with church teaching on this because of the fact that about 50% of pregnancies miscarry within the first 3 months - most of them within days or weeks. I can’t help thinking the soul and the body must be separate and that the soul is put into the body at some point…I just can’t see why God would create lots of new souls only to cull 50% of them…

And right or wrong, I do see a termination of a pregnancy early on as very different from terminating a pregnancy at the stage a baby could live outside the womb…which happens to fall around 20 weeks…the same as when the ‘conscious’ side of the brain comes on.

So I guess I’m pro-research, pro-understanding and pro-forgiveness…

 

[baylee]

I am pro-life, but I do struggle with outlawing abortion. I think what makes me stop and question it is when I ask myself, “Would I force a woman to complete her pregnancy if she were raped?” I couldn’t do it. Could any of you? And if you couldn’t, how is this any different from supporting outlawing her ability to get an abortion?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I am pro-life, but I do struggle with outlawing abortion. I think what makes me stop and question it is when I ask myself, “Would I force a woman to complete her pregnancy if she were raped?” I couldn’t do it. Could any of you? And if you couldn’t, how is this any different from supporting outlawing her ability to get an abortion?

And can you please tell me what ‘sin’ the baby has committed that you would kill that baby because the woman was raped? Can you tell me if killing the baby makes the rape ‘go away’? That the woman is ‘better off’ not only being raped but being complicit in the killing of her innocent child as well?

You seem to be forgetful that there are two people involved. All your concern is for the mother (and yes, we pro-life people are concerned for her as well. She has already been hurt. We don’t want to compound that hurt. That is the reason that we will help her through the pregnancy, not help her to kill her child and pat her on the back and call that a ‘good deed’ or a ‘regrettable necessity.’)

 

[baylee]

And can you please tell me what ‘sin’ the baby has committed that you would kill that baby because the woman was raped? Can you tell me if killing the baby makes the rape ‘go away’? That the woman is ‘better off’ not only being raped but being complicit in the killing of her innocent child as well?

You seem to be forgetful that there are two people involved. All your concern is for the mother (and yes, we pro-life people are concerned for her as well. She has already been hurt. We don’t want to compound that hurt. That is the reason that we will help her through the pregnancy, not help her to kill her child and pat her on the back and call that a ‘good deed’ or a ‘regrettable necessity.’)

Actually, I do recognize that there are two. Because I do, I recognize that this issue is very complicated. Oh, and I do consider myself pro-life…in fact, I have marched in DC in the past. I just wonder whether there are better ways to be pro-life than making abortion illegal.

I still ask, would you personally force a woman to remain pregnant after she was raped? I get that you would probably counsel her, but in the end would you force her if she couldn’t go through with the pregnancy?

 

[kage_ar]

Actually, I do recognize that there are two. Because I do, I recognize that this issue is very complicated. Oh, and I do consider myself pro-life…in fact, I have marched in DC in the past. I just wonder whether there are better ways to be pro-life than making abortion illegal.

There is way more to being pro-life than marching in DC (that is a good thing, but, if every pro lifer only marched once a year, we’d have abortion clinics in Wal Mart next to the cell phone kiosk).

Look at the numbers. How have abortions increased since abortion was made legal?

The numbers show you that the vast majority of people who have abortions would not have them if it were illegal.

a woman to remain pregnant after she was raped? I get that you would probably counsel her, but in the end would you force her if she couldn’t go through with the pregnancy?

Define force.

If by force you mean I will tie her up in my basement and hold her hostage, no.

If by force you mean that in the same way I am “forced” not to kill my neighbor when he does something that upsets me, then, yeah - I want to force her.

 

[baylee]

There is way more to being pro-life than marching in DC (that is a good thing, but, if every pro lifer only marched once a year, we’d have abortion clinics in Wal Mart next to the cell phone kiosk).

Look at the numbers. How have abortions increased since abortion was made legal?

The numbers show you that the vast majority of people who have abortions would not have them if it were illegal.

Define force.

If by force you mean I will tie her up in my basement and hold her hostage, no.

If by force you mean that in the same way I am “forced” not to kill my neighbor when he does something that upsets me, then, yeah - I want to force her.

But yet, these two situations are different. One is inside of another. It’s just not the same and I’ve come to realize that when we compare abortion to the murder of another person that lives on their own we simplify things.

Trust me, I respect and understand your position as I was once there. I just think more and more that, when I was there, I made it all way too simple.

 

[kage_ar]

But yet, these two situations are different. One is inside of another. It’s just not the same and I’ve come to realize that when we compare abortion to the murder of another person that lives on their own we simplify things.

Trust me, I respect and understand your position as I was once there. I just think more and more that, when I was there, I made it all way too simple.

It is ONLY different because it is against the law for me to kill Mr. Wilson.

If tomorrow murder were made legal, then within a year it would be socially acceptable. Then, when Mr. Wilson has that loud truck and dog that wake me and keep me from sleeping so I can go to work, or when Mr. Wilson gets drunk and bangs on my door all.night.long. When he ruins my belongings, tears up my yard and will not pay for it, - - - - my friends would sit at starbucks and say “it is your choice, you can put up with this selfish phycho or you can make your life better. Honey, you deserve it, you owe it to the nice new neighbor that will move into that house someday. Come on, I’ll drive you over to do it, then, we’ll rent movies and I will pamper you all weekend while you recover. Mr. Wilson is not a person like us, he is just a big, smelly glob of tissue.”

 

[baylee]

**It is ONLY different because it is against the law for me to kill Mr. Wilson. **

If tomorrow murder were made legal, then within a year it would be socially acceptable. Then, when Mr. Wilson has that loud truck and dog that wake me and keep me from sleeping so I can go to work, or when Mr. Wilson gets drunk and bangs on my door all.night.long. When he ruins my belongings, tears up my yard and will not pay for it, - - - - my friends would sit at starbucks and say “it is your choice, you can put up with this selfish phycho or you can make your life better. Honey, you deserve it, you owe it to the nice new neighbor that will move into that house someday. Come on, I’ll drive you over to do it, then, we’ll rent movies and I will pamper you all weekend while you recover. Mr. Wilson is not a person like us, he is just a big, smelly glob of tissue.”

And it is because you feel/believe this way is why you can’t get past your position to see the other position.

 

[kage_ar]

And it is because you feel/believe this way is why you can’t get past your position to see the other position.

Enlighten me. Show me how the legalization of abortion was a good thing.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

But yet, these two situations are different. One is inside of another. It’s just not the same and I’ve come to realize that when we compare abortion to the murder of another person that lives on their own we simplify things.

Trust me, I respect and understand your position as I was once there. I just think more and more that, when I was there, I made it all way too simple.

But shouldn’t that be the safest place for a baby, it’s own *mother’*s womb?