Pro-choice questions?

[ncgolf]

Why does the choice stop at all?

Could you support aborting to the point of just before the medical practioner cuts the umbilical cord? or maybe some time period after birth?

I ask this not as an off putting question but rather what happens at or after birth that is any different (from the baby’s point of view) than before birth?

What qualities (physical, scientific, etc) change the dynamic from the woman’s choice to end a pregnancy to the baby’s side (i.e. the woman can no longer choose)?

 

[06convert]

I’m not pro-choice. But many of them say that once the baby is “viable” there needs to be restrictions. Of course they can’t define exactly when “viable” is, but that’s what they say.

I think only the really extreme supporters believe that abortions should be allowed at will and unregulated up until the baby is actually born.

I think this thinking stems from the idea that up until a certain point that baby can’t survive outside of the mother, so up until that point the mother has the “license” (not choice) to kill the baby.

Once the baby is able to survive without the mother a very high percentage of people believe there should be at the very least restrictions.

 

[baltobetsy]

I think only the really extreme supporters believe that abortions should be allowed at will and unregulated up until the baby is actually born.

Like our new president? The one that many Catholics voted for because they wanted “hope and change?”

Betsy

 

[ncgolf]

I’m not pro-choice. But many of them say that once the baby is “viable” there needs to be restrictions. Of course they can’t define exactly when “viable” is, but that’s what they say.

I think only the really extreme supporters believe that abortions should be allowed at will and unregulated up until the baby is actually born.

I think this thinking stems from the idea that up until a certain point that baby can’t survive outside of the mother, so up until that point the mother has the “license” (not choice) to kill the baby.

Once the baby is able to survive without the mother a very high percentage of people believe there should be at the very least restrictions.

Is there not agreement in the pro-choice camp on these questions? It seems not.

 

[Shannon9791]

First off, let me say that I believe that the names that were given to either side of the abortion issue are a slap in the face of all who will choose to be recognized as one or the other. I’m very much pro-choice. I like going to a resturant and having the choice of steak or chicken or pork or if I’m feeling healthy a salad. I also like chocolate milk and watermelon jelly-bellys. I am also pro-life, although there was one time in my life where I made a very shallow attempt at suicide, and in that moment I would call myself pro-death. Most abortions supporters are also probably pro-life, in that they haven’t done anything to make their life stop. Those names are a farce and I firmly believe in calling a spade a spade.
Now that I’m done with my rant, I believe that the more leeway given to abortionists, the more they will try to take. It’s the old “give em and inch and they take a yard” type thing. Why stop when someone is cutting the umbillical cord? If junior won’t behave in 3rd grade, and he’s causing you undue stress because you have to go to his soccer games, put him down, odds are he’s lived a good life. I know that is a bit extreme, but I think the problem will snowball until it is either completely cut off, or left so open to interpretation we’ll be able to “abort” anyone at any time.

 

[ncgolf]

Now that I’m done with my rant, I believe that the more leeway given to abortionists, the more they will try to take. It’s the old “give em and inch and they take a yard” type thing. Why stop when someone is cutting the umbillical cord? If junior won’t behave in 3rd grade, and he’s causing you undue stress because you have to go to his soccer games, put him down, odds are he’s lived a good life. I know that is a bit extreme, but I think the problem will snowball until it is either completely cut off, or left so open to interpretation we’ll be able to “abort” anyone at any time.

This is part of what I am trying to decipher … does the pro-abortion know when to stop and if so how? I find the first x weeks solution just a stab in the dark with no real meaning. Why not lessen the burden of families economically by giving them a choice to have fewer mouths to feed … like you I see this as extreme but what moral ground would the abortion lobby not be able to support even the most radical of its own elements.

 

[Shannon9791]

This is part of what I am trying to decipher … does the pro-abortion know when to stop and if so how? I find the first x weeks solution just a stab in the dark with no real meaning. Why not lessen the burden of families economically by giving them a choice to have fewer mouths to feed … like you I see this as extreme but what moral ground would the abortion lobby not be able to support even the most radical of its own elements.

I don’t think it’s truly a question of when to stop, so much as it is why stop at all? I think that Canada has some pretty open laws regarding abortion in that they can be done anytime before birth. I’m not 100% sure about that, though. I also think they allow partial birth abortions, which is the strangest concept ever. “Partial birth?” That’s like saying my wife is half pregnant. Abortion is a very slippery slope, and I think it’s going to get a lot worse before it gets a little better.

 

[DustinM]

Most of the pro-choice people I talk to seem to believe that “personhood” starts when a human organism is capable of thinking.

One atheist was a pro-choice as they come before a fetus can emit brain waves. Once it can emit brain waves, he was a pro-life as the Pope (as far as I can remember), because his criteria for personhood was then met.

The argument is that, although you exist as an organism before you can think, you as a person do not yet. It’s sort of based on “I think therefore I am.”

Most of the pro-choice people I meet are well aware that human life begins at conception, but a non-thinking, non-pain-feeling human organism is not enough to be considered a person.

 

[Shannon9791]

Most of the pro-choice people I talk to seem to believe that “personhood” starts when a human organism is capable of thinking.

One atheist was a pro-choice as they come before a fetus can emit brain waves. Once it can emit brain waves, he was a pro-life as the Pope (as far as I can remember), because his criteria for personhood was then met.

The argument is that, although you exist as an organism before you can think, you as a person do not yet. It’s sort of based on “I think therefore I am.”

Most of the pro-choice people I meet are well aware that human life begins at conception, but a non-thinking, non-pain-feeling human organism is not enough to be considered a person.

My response to that would be do people fall out of personhood when they go to sleep? When I’m knocked out, I don’t think I’m truly capable of thinking. Unfortunately, they would probably be in favor of euthanizing someone in a coma, so I won’t even go there.

 

[Scoobyshme]

Evil always continues to get worse unless it is checked. The easiest time to check it is when it begins. Allowed to fester, as “legalized” abortion has, and it becomes a monster.

Any time we allow a segment of humanity, such as the Jews in Nazi Germany, or the unborn in our country, to be defined as less than human based on some trait or functionality (or lack thereof), then we open the gate for evil to take over. Satan was a liar and a murderer from the beginning. Anytime he can spread a like (like the Nazi’s saying that the Jews were “Untermensch” or “subhuman” or that the unborn child is not a human being but a “fetus” or some other name), then he can introduce murder and misery. He’s been very successful at this throughout history. He is being more successful now than at any time during history.

 

[Other_Eric]

Why does the choice stop at all?

Could you support aborting to the point of just before the medical practioner cuts the umbilical cord? or maybe some time period after birth?

I ask this not as an off putting question but rather what happens at or after birth that is any different (from the baby’s point of view) than before birth?

What qualities (physical, scientific, etc) change the dynamic from the woman’s choice to end a pregnancy to the baby’s side (i.e. the woman can no longer choose)?

The answers to these questions are irrelevant. To even ask them grants the pro-choice side of the argument an air of legitimacy. Serious Christians ought not care what sort of twisted logic a pro-choicer will call into service in order to justify the slaughter of the unborn.

 

[06convert]

Like our new president? The one that many Catholics voted for because they wanted “hope and change?”

Betsy

I actually have no idea. People voted for this guy without ever getting any answers to these questions. We all know he is pro-choice, but what are the details? John McCain said he was pro-life, but he would have been ok with aboritions in certain circumstances, is that really Pro-Life?

So does Obama support a womans license to kill her baby for any reason as long as it’s still inside her? I have no idea. The fact that he supports it at all is enough to make me worry about him. In fact I was worried about McCain, the only benefit he would have served in the battle for life is that he wouldn’t actively pursue overturning ProLife legislation like Obama. Holding ground would have been better than going backwards.

 

[DustinM]

My response to that would be do people fall out of personhood when they go to sleep? When I’m knocked out, I don’t think I’m truly capable of thinking. Unfortunately, they would probably be in favor of euthanizing someone in a coma, so I won’t even go there.

You are capable of thinking in your sleep whether you think you are or not.
You are also capable of experiencing pain, suffering etc.

I’m not an expert on how a coma works, but I’m pretty sure the brain is still active, as are the nerves, etc in the body.

I do know that unconsciousness is not the same thing as no brain activity.

 

[06convert]

Is there not agreement in the pro-choice camp on these questions? It seems not.

Everyone on the pro-choice side has a different description of when life beings.

Everyone on the pro-life side is united in believing that physical life for sure beings at conception.

It’s been said many times in this thread that it’s illegal to destory the eggs of a Bald Eagle. How distorted our priorities are.

 

[Shannon9791]

You are capable of thinking in your sleep whether you think you are or not.
You are also capable of experiencing pain, suffering etc.

I’m not an expert on how a coma works, but I’m pretty sure the brain is still active, as are the nerves, etc in the body.

I do know that unconsciousness is not the same thing as no brain activity.

If unconsciousnes and no brain activity are different let’s just say that at conception, there is an unconscious being inside the womb. Does one have to have serious cognitive abilities to qualify as human? If so, I know a few people who should be looked at very closely.

 

[DustinM]

If unconsciousnes and no brain activity are different let’s just say that at conception, there is an unconscious being inside the womb. Does one have to have serious cognitive abilities to qualify as human? If so, I know a few people who should be looked at very closely.

Well, my definition of a person is: Any unique individual human organism
(Emphasis on “human organism” preferred.)
So I’m probably not the best person to argue with you. (My pro-choice arguments here are not really coming from me, they are examples of what I’ve seen.)

I’ve actually seen a pro-choice person suggest that personhood should start at “sentience” when another pro-choice person stopped them saying “Then some adults may not qualify” (as a joke to indicate that sentience itself is tricky to define).

I guess I mostly agree with you.

The one that still trips me up is to define personal rights based on the ability to suffer. If something/someone is literally completely incapable of suffering, are you allowed to destroy them? I want to say no as a knee-jerk response, but then when I ask myself “why?” I get confused.
I ask myself: “If I couldn’t possibly suffer; no matter what happened to me, I literally wouldn’t care, even if I was being raped or killed, should I still have rights?” My answer so far is yes, I would, but I still get caught trying to answer “why?” to that.
Another way of wording it: “If I literally didn’t care if I had rights or not, should I still get them?”

 

[ncgolf]

The answers to these questions are irrelevant. To even ask them grants the pro-choice side of the argument an air of legitimacy. Serious Christians ought not care what sort of twisted logic a pro-choicer will call into service in order to justify the slaughter of the unborn.

Well the cat is out of the bag already … if anything it makes a pro-choicer commit to black and white whythey think and act as they do … to often it is the easy way out just to agree … without any reason at all.

 

[Shannon9791]

Well, my definition of a person is: Any unique individual human organism
(Emphasis on “human organism” preferred.)
So I’m probably not the best person to argue with you. (My pro-choice arguments here are not really coming from me, they are examples of what I’ve seen.)

I’ve actually seen a pro-choice person suggest that personhood should start at “sentience” when another pro-choice person stopped them saying “Then some adults may not qualify” (as a joke to indicate that sentience itself is tricky to define).

I guess I mostly agree with you.

The one that still trips me up is to define personal rights based on the ability to suffer. If something/someone is literally completely incapable of suffering, are you allowed to destroy them? I want to say no as a knee-jerk response, but then when I ask myself “why?” I get confused.
I ask myself: “If I couldn’t possibly suffer; no matter what happened to me, I literally wouldn’t care, even if I was being raped or killed, should I still have rights?” My answer so far is yes, I would, but I still get caught trying to answer “why?” to that.
Another way of wording it: “If I literally didn’t care if I had rights or not, should I still get them?”

It would seem to me that if we base rights solely on the ability to suffer, or feel pain we would turn into a very sadistic society. Why can you not destroy someone who doesn’t have the ability to suffer, and why should that person still have rights? Because they’re still a human life, and that seems like the bottom line to me. I’m sure we can argue what constitutes life all day until our fingers fall off, but I think that’s what it all boils down to.

 

[fix]

Why does the choice stop at all?

Could you support aborting to the point of just before the medical practioner cuts the umbilical cord? or maybe some time period after birth?

I ask this not as an off putting question but rather what happens at or after birth that is any different (from the baby’s point of view) than before birth?

What qualities (physical, scientific, etc) change the dynamic from the woman’s choice to end a pregnancy to the baby’s side (i.e. the woman can no longer choose)?

You point out how arbitrary the pro abort position really is.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Why does the choice stop at all?

Could you support aborting to the point of just before the medical practioner cuts the umbilical cord? or maybe some time period after birth?

I ask this not as an off putting question but rather what happens at or after birth that is any different (from the baby’s point of view) than before birth?

What qualities (physical, scientific, etc) change the dynamic from the woman’s choice to end a pregnancy to the baby’s side (i.e. the woman can no longer choose)?

First, as some of you already know, I refuse to call infanticide “choice.” Do not allow the pro-abort crowd win this war of words.

It’s not CHOICE. It’s ABORTION.

Second, aren’t they already butchering babies as they’re being born? Isn’t that the horror of partial-birth abortion?

And if we’re going to embrace that, why not simply remove all laws against murder at any age?