Anybody out there "pro-choice"?

[Calliso]

First, are you actively trying to fight prenatal murders that occur after point x in development?

Do you believe killing the child before point x should have any consequences?

For instance the governement penalizes smokers with a several dollar a pack tax as a means of discouraging behavior that effects no one other than the individual. Do you think something like this would be appropriate for killing the child early in term? Or are you against ciggarette taxes as a violation of peoples right to choose?

Currently no see in real life I am way to shy to get active and vocal about things. And I have never seen anyway around where I live to get active.

I believe that once you hit maybe 4 0r 5 monthes…there probably should be some penalties like perhaps the abortionnist being fined . And the mother should be fined as well. Once the fetus hits reasonable viable. *meaning 20 weeks wouldn;t be reasonable…but maybe 26 would. The penalty probably should get much harsher…jail time…,losing of lisences that sort of thing. Of course these are just ideas…I think this is a pretty complicated subject therefore it is hard to come up with fair but harsh enough penalties.

Actually people who smoked do affect the health of those around them. Not as much as themselves obviously but no breathing in smoke has health affects. But I think the heavy taxes are more about the all mighty dollar then they have to do with discouraging smokers.

 

[ryecroft]

Wow - I’m really getting amazed at where some of these threads wind up. But one of the last posts reminded me of something -please respond if you had heard about this or maybe I dreamed it up when I was ill and had pain meds in me. Did anyone hear about something occuring in Spain that gave some kind of ape rights? I almost feel silly asking about it but I’m very certain I heard something - actually I did find a little snippet and I’m amazed that this hasn’t caused more of a stir:

“Parliament’s environmental committee approved resolutions urging Spain to comply with the Great Apes Project, devised by scientists and philosophers who say our closest genetic relatives deserve rights hitherto limited to humans.” reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL256586320080625

I’m wondering if rights are now going to depend on how developed or how well your brain works. I love all animals and I truely believe that when I die that if I make it to Heaven that it wouldn’t be a Heaven without not only my loved ones that are human but also my loved ones that were cats and dogs.(Of course I also believe God has a special place in hell reserved for those that hurt animals just to be cruel).

God Bless

Annie aka Rye

 

[MarysGirls]

Currently no see in real life I am way to shy to get active and vocal about things. And I have never seen anyway around where I live to get active.

I believe that once you hit maybe 4 0r 5 monthes…there probably should be some penalties like perhaps the abortionnist being fined . And the mother should be fined as well. Once the fetus hits reasonable viable. *meaning 20 weeks wouldn;t be reasonable…but maybe 26 would. The penalty probably should get much harsher…jail time…,losing of lisences that sort of thing. Of course these are just ideas…I think this is a pretty complicated subject therefore it is hard to come up with fair but harsh enough penalties.

The book What to Expect when You’re Expecting (which, by the way, is approved by Dr. Richard Aubry, Director of Obstetrics, Upstate Medical Center in Syracuse, NY) says this about the end of the first month:

In the next two weeks, the neural tube (which becomes the brain and spinal cord), heart, digestive tract, sensory organs, and arm and leg buds will begin to form.

Sounds like a human to me. Hope this helps.

 

[royal_archer]

Currently no see in real life I am way to shy to get active and vocal about things. And I have never seen anyway around where I live to get active.

I believe that once you hit maybe 4 0r 5 monthes…there probably should be some penalties like perhaps the abortionnist being fined . And the mother should be fined as well. Once the fetus hits reasonable viable. *meaning 20 weeks wouldn;t be reasonable…but maybe 26 would. The penalty probably should get much harsher…jail time…,losing of lisences that sort of thing. Of course these are just ideas…I think this is a pretty complicated subject therefore it is hard to come up with fair but harsh enough penalties.

Actually people who smoked do affect the health of those around them. Not as much as themselves obviously but no breathing in smoke has health affects. But I think the heavy taxes are more about the all mighty dollar then they have to do with discouraging smokers.

I could except the argument that you are against abortion but not as much as the rest of us as being possitive. But what I see here is you not advocating for the baby killers to stop at any point and at the same time you are trying to convince pro life people to be less pro life. As a result I believe you’re activity is more to the bennefit of the pro abortion movement than to the pro life movement.

I am also saddened that you would find a grown adult smoking in private to be worse than a mother killing her own baby. If this is not teh case please say so because that is my interpretation of your comments.

 

[Calliso]

I could except the argument that you are against abortion but not as much as the rest of us as being possitive. But what I see here is you not advocating for the baby killers to stop at any point and at the same time you are trying to convince pro life people to be less pro life. As a result I believe you’re activity is more to the bennefit of the pro abortion movement than to the pro life movement.

I am also saddened that you would find a grown adult smoking in private to be worse than a mother killing her own baby. If this is not teh case please say so because that is my interpretation of your comments.

Ummm I have said I am against late term abortions and have even suggested possible penalties. How does that make me for abortions at anytime?
Actually the smoking comment was just to point out that it is actually harmful to other people not just the smoker, not to say it was better or worse then abortion.

 

[royal_archer]

Ummm I have said I am against late term abortions and have even suggested possible penalties. How does that make me for abortions at anytime?
Actually the smoking comment was just to point out that it is actually harmful to other people not just the smoker, not to say it was better or worse then abortion.

But you are actively trying to convince pro life people here to be less pro life as it relates to the early months of pregnancy and you admitted you are doing nothing to push for penalties against mothers who kill their children later in the pregnancy. It seems like you are actively pushing the side of killing over pushing the side of life. Maybe you should be dedicating at least as much time on pro abortion boards trying to convince them that late term abortion is bad.

So right now we have about a 2 dollar penalty for buying a pack of cigarettes. Do you feel there should be at least this amount of penalty for a mother killing her child even at the earliest stages of development?

 

[Calliso]

But you are actively trying to convince pro life people here to be less pro life as it relates to the early months of pregnancy and you admitted you are doing nothing to push for penalties against mothers who kill their children later in the pregnancy. It seems like you are actively pushing the side of killing over pushing the side of life. Maybe you should be dedicating at least as much time on pro abortion boards trying to convince them that late term abortion is bad.

So right now we have about a 2 dollar penalty for buying a pack of cigarettes. Do you feel there should be at least this amount of penalty for a mother killing her child even at the earliest stages of development?

Yeah your right I probably should spend some more time on the prochoice type boards. As for a two dollar penalty. I am not for any penalty of very early term abortions. But if I was I would actually want a much more hefter fine. Cause would two dollars really discourage people?

 

[royal_archer]

Yeah your right I probably should spend some more time on the prochoice type boards. As for a two dollar penalty. I am not for any penalty of very early term abortions. But if I was I would actually want a much more hefter fine. Cause would two dollars really discourage people?

Using this logic, how can I not come to the conclusion that you feel buying ciggarettes is a worse evil than killing babies?

 

[Calliso]

Using this logic, how can I not come to the conclusion that you feel buying ciggarettes is a worse evil than killing babies?

I am not sure how you can come to that conclusion simply from what I have wrote here. I was just trying to point out…if you are going to put a penalty on something make it meaningful. Of course maybe I am wrong and two dollars would be enough of a discrouagement. By the way I donlt think buying cigarettes is evil.

 

[royal_archer]

I am not sure how you can come to that conclusion simply from what I have wrote here. I was just trying to point out…if you are going to put a penalty on something make it meaningful. Of course maybe I am wrong and two dollars would be enough of a discrouagement.

Right now the government penalizes us killing a few cells in our body by taxing alcohol and cigarettes. If you feel a woman has the right to kill a few cells in her body, do you also Believe I have the right to choose to kill cells within my body by purchasing booze or tabacco with out encuring a federal penalty through taxes?

Do you believe that the penalty for killing a baby within days of conception should be penalized more than purchasers of ciggarettes or do you think these women should be punnished less?

 

[NCSue]

OK, so I admit that I haven’t read every post. I was in on this thread from the start, but it has attracted a lot of interest, lots of posters. Great!

But all of the sudden I’m R-E-A-L-L-Y confused! How in the world did a a thread about pro-choice versus pro-life turn into a conversation about tobacco?

Huh???

 

[royal_archer]

OK, so I admit that I haven’t read every post. I was in on this thread from the start, but it has attracted a lot of interest, lots of posters. Great!

But all of the sudden I’m R-E-A-L-L-Y confused! How in the world did a a thread about pro-choice versus pro-life turn into a conversation about tobacco?

Huh???

It is commonly believed that people shouldn’t smoke even though they have a right to do what they want to their OWN bodies. Our government penalizes people for exercising this right. This penalty in the form of a sin tax is one of the most minimal ways the government can penalize someone. If we can penalize smokers why can’t we penalize women who kill their own babies? The discussion involves someone who says we should not outlaw abortions early in the term but says they are against it. I am using the sin tax as a point to try to understand if this person realy thinks abortion is wrong and if so find out if they are willing to accept even the smallest of penalties on it.

 

[Calliso]

Right now the government penalizes us killing a few cells in our body by taxing alcohol and cigarettes. If you feel a woman has the right to kill a few cells in her body, do you also Believe I have the right to choose to kill cells within my body by purchasing booze or tabacco with out encuring a federal penalty through taxes?

Do you believe that the penalty for killing a baby within days of conception should be penalized more than purchasers of ciggarettes or do you think these women should be punnished less?

Well if we are going to put a penalty on early term abortions then it would have to be at least equal if not more. Also I think the taxes are a bit high on cigerettes and alchohol. I am just not convinced a couple dollars would really be enough of a deterent I mean I donlt know of any smokers that have quit because of the insane prices on ciggarettes . Oh they complain but they keep on smoking. Personally I think keeping women out of abortion clinics in the first place is the best thing to do. But then there is the question of how to do that.

But I guess I wuoldn;t really be against a couple dollar penalty. Like I said before I just question the affectiveness.

 

[royal_archer]

Well if we are going to put a penalty on early term abortions then it would have to be at least equal if not more. Also I think the taxes are a bit high on cigerettes and alchohol. I am just not convinced a couple dollars would really be enough of a deterent I mean I donlt know of any smokers that have quit because of the insane prices on ciggarettes . Oh they complain but they keep on smoking. Personally I think keeping women out of abortion clinics in the first place is the best thing to do. But then there is the question of how to do that.

Great I think we are starting to see the same picture. So would you be willing to advocate putting a tax on abortions that is higher than the taxes on other “sins”?

How about a tax on the abortion shops?

Such a tax may only be symbolic but it is a public recognition that abortion is wrong and a starting step that can be built upon in other areas.

 

[twinklers]

If you are advocating that the punishment should be proportional to the development of the child. I can see your case. If you think we have the right to murder children because they are less aware, then how do you not apply that same logic to the newley born, those in a comma, those in a vegatative state, those with dimminished mental capacity, or those with less than normal mental capacity?

I would never advocate punishment for the innocent. When I was a child I had very little fear of consequences or death. To me death was the way to heaven, period: because I had not committed serious sin; I was a child incapable of that.
We cannot, at this time anyway, know for certain at what embryonic age a human feels pain or fear, but we do know that a 4-6 month old fetus does indeed have a fully formed body, brain and nervous system and can feel pain and fear. It is apparant that the law considers these OBVIOUS babies to be unhuman.
If I saw a child being tortured or harmed I would certainly jump to its defense. The ones I cannot see I cannot save. Do I ignore the pain of the ones I see in order to not be able to save the ones I cannot see? Of course not, I will run towards what I can see first, then deal with the ones I cannot.
I don’t know if that makes me pro-choice, and I dont really care about the label, I simply want to make a difference today, not in some utopian society which does not exist today.
We need to act according to our belief. Is there a merciful God who will welcome us into Paradise when we die? If so, then death isn’t the worst thing that can happen. Suffering is the worst thing we have to fear. Lets start where we can do the most good, stopping the suffering we can clearly see.
This issue has become a war of theology and it ignores what can be clearly seen in favor of what, for many is not clear at all.
Given the same scenario, if I were tied up and unable to help the child being tortured, I would have to bring it to someone elses attention. Would you run to the child in front of you? How about the child I was raving about that you couldn’t find? Which one? Or would you stand there and say, “If I cannot save both, I will save neither”!

 

[Calliso]

Great I think we are starting to see the same picture. So would you be willing to advocate putting a tax on abortions that is higher than the taxes on other “sins”?

How about a tax on the abortion shops?

Such a tax may only be symbolic but it is a public recognition that abortion is wrong and a starting step that can be built upon in other areas.

I could do with a tax on abortion clinics that is higher then the tax on ciggarettes for instance.

 

[ryecroft]

TWINKLERS<<We cannot, at this time anyway, know for certain at what embryonic age a human feels pain or fear, but we do know that a 4-6 month old fetus does indeed have a fully formed body, brain and nervous system and can feel pain and fear. It >>

Not to be rude, but I would like to know where you got your information on a fetus feeling fear - I’ve read some fairly unbiased, convincing arguments on pain but never, ever heard a non biased, convincing argument on a fetus dealing with or feeling psycological issues such as fear.

 

[royal_archer]

I would never advocate punishment for the innocent. When I was a child I had very little fear of consequences or death. To me death was the way to heaven, period: because I had not committed serious sin; I was a child incapable of that.
We cannot, at this time anyway, know for certain at what embryonic age a human feels pain or fear, but we do know that a 4-6 month old fetus does indeed have a fully formed body, brain and nervous system and can feel pain and fear. It is apparant that the law considers these OBVIOUS babies to be unhuman.
If I saw a child being tortured or harmed I would certainly jump to its defense. The ones I cannot see I cannot save. Do I ignore the pain of the ones I see in order to not be able to save the ones I cannot see? Of course not, I will run towards what I can see first, then deal with the ones I cannot.
I don’t know if that makes me pro-choice, and I dont really care about the label, I simply want to make a difference today, not in some utopian society which does not exist today.
We need to act according to our belief. Is there a merciful God who will welcome us into Paradise when we die? If so, then death isn’t the worst thing that can happen. Suffering is the worst thing we have to fear. Lets start where we can do the most good, stopping the suffering we can clearly see.
This issue has become a war of theology and it ignores what can be clearly seen in favor of what, for many is not clear at all.
Given the same scenario, if I were tied up and unable to help the child being tortured, I would have to bring it to someone elses attention. Would you run to the child in front of you? How about the child I was raving about that you couldn’t find? Which one? Or would you stand there and say, “If I cannot save both, I will save neither”!

I can understand the concept of focusing attention on the most winnable battle first. Saying that abortions on dayone are wrong but something we will deal with later is a valid approach. However I get the impression that you have gone one step further and are saying that not only are you not going to stand against it you are going to support a woman’s “right” to kill her child in the early days of the pregnancy.

Is this a case of focusing resources or a case of out of sight out of mind for you? AKA a child spanked in public vs a child beaten to death in the privacy of the home?

 

[twinklers]

I can understand the concept of focusing attention on the most winnable battle first. Saying that abortions on dayone are wrong but something we will deal with later is a valid approach. However I get the impression that you have gone one step further and are saying that not only are you not going to stand against it you are going to support a woman’s “right” to kill her child in the early days of the pregnancy.

Is this a case of focusing resources or a case of out of sight out of mind for you? AKA a child spanked in public vs a child beaten to death in the privacy of the home?

The public child in my scenario was being murdered, not spanked in reference to the situation of late term abortions, re: (fully formed and interactive child versus unformed).What I am getting at is we could be saving the ones who most people, even non-christian would agree are indeed children rather then take on the whole opposition at the expense of those who we would most likely be able to gain support for thier cause. The ones we cannot gain support for are not less important, just much, much harder to reach. Do we fight to make a point or do we start where we can make a difference?
I have cleaned up extreme messes in my life, this is an extreme mess, an explosion of carelessness and disregard. The mess we are looking at requires some successes to build momentum and if, by focusing on the ones we have access to we save only half of the children, its still half as opposed to none. Time is slipping by and neither side is budging. Only God himself can intervene to stop this, in the meantime we must do what we can do and not stand by and scream out our position, as if our point was more important then the children involved.
We need a new camp. Pro-life and Pro-choice positions are creating a public stalemate and children are dying who COULD be saved. It looks to me like both sides are so fearful of losing ground that niether side is going to win and we, pro-lifers are becoming responsible for the millions we could be saving.
While those of us who are Catholic must abide by the Catholic doctrine, many will never be Catholic and those are the ones we may be able to at least curtail if not completely stop. All or nothing is diversionary and accomplishes nothing.

 

[royal_archer]

The public child in my scenario was being murdered, not spanked in reference to the situation of late term abortions, re: (fully formed and interactive child versus unformed).What I am getting at is we could be saving the ones who most people, even non-christian would agree are indeed children rather then take on the whole opposition at the expense of those who we would most likely be able to gain support for thier cause. The ones we cannot gain support for are not less important, just much, much harder to reach. Do we fight to make a point or do we start where we can make a difference?
I have cleaned up extreme messes in my life, this is an extreme mess, an explosion of carelessness and disregard. The mess we are looking at requires some successes to build momentum and if, by focusing on the ones we have access to we save only half of the children, its still half as opposed to none. Time is slipping by and neither side is budging. Only God himself can intervene to stop this, in the meantime we must do what we can do and not stand by and scream out our position, as if our point was more important then the children involved.
We need a new camp. Pro-life and Pro-choice positions are creating a public stalemate and children are dying who COULD be saved. It looks to me like both sides are so fearful of losing ground that niether side is going to win and we, pro-lifers are becoming responsible for the millions we could be saving.
While those of us who are Catholic must abide by the Catholic doctrine, many will never be Catholic and those are the ones we may be able to at least curtail if not completely stop. All or nothing is diversionary and accomplishes nothing.

If you believe it is wrong to kill a child at any time, even day one, but are only trying to refocus efforts start with saving the 9 month babies first, then the eight monthers, and so on, I agree with your strategy. We should be focusing our limmited resources on where we get the most impact. However, I also believe it is a waste of resources to engage the more purist pro life people to try to convince them that they should not be trying to save the day one babies also.