Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've wrestled with that a lot - I haven't made up my mind on that one.
I do support the right to an abortion in the case of rape or if the life of the woman is in danger.
Most people do and that makes them pro choice by default. There is no difference between the fetuses of a healthy or sickly mother or a woman who was raped and a "party girl" . We make these allowances for the sake of the woman and her emotional well being. And since we can't possible begin to know the emotional state of each and every pregnant woman, and give a thumbs up or thumbs down on her case for abortion, we can only leave it up to her and her doctor. As much as we would like to know all the details and decide for ourselves if someone else's abortion is warranted, we can't.
But we can act on our pro life beliefs by making sure each and every baby that is actually born gets the support they will need.
But we can act on our pro life beliefs by making sure each and every baby that is actually born gets the support they will need.
My wife almost died at work trying to protect a baby that was born, but not wanted. The father threw the baby at her. My wife was seriously injured in protecting the baby. My wife was successful. The father went to jail for attempted murder. My wife is now 100% disabled.
I want all children to have the love, support, and nurture that will enable them to grow into happy, healthy, responsible adults. This desire of mine is why I posted the question originally, "Can someone be pro-choice and pro-life at the same time?"
The arguement by some that the only choice is pro-life, seems to me to be self-indicting. Very few of these people have reached outside of their own homes to try to help an unwanted child. Very few have adopted a child (not a baby). As a result, these people are arguing from some sort of ideological basis that they feel they are not expected to act on.
Most people do and that makes them pro choice by default. There is no difference between the fetuses of a healthy or sickly mother or a woman who was raped and a "party girl" . We make these allowances for the sake of the woman and her emotional well being. And since we can't possible begin to know the emotional state of each and every pregnant woman, and give a thumbs up or thumbs down on her case for abortion, we can only leave it up to her and her doctor. As much as we would like to know all the details and decide for ourselves if someone else's abortion is warranted, we can't.
But we can act on our pro life beliefs by making sure each and every baby that is actually born gets the support they will need.
I believe that abortion is murder and, thus, would support any attempts to ban it. I can't accept the logic that we should simply leave it up to her and her doctor.
The reason I support the rape and life of the mother exceptions is:
1) Rape - She had no say in becoming pregnant. I'm unwilling to support forcing a woman to go through a pregnancy if she had no choice at all. I do think that this exception should apply only in the first trimester.
2) Life of the mother - I wouldn't support legislatively forcing anyone to give up their life for anyone else, for obvious reasons.
I believe that abortion is murder and, thus, would support any attempts to ban it. I can't accept the logic that we should simply leave it up to her and her doctor.
The reason I support the rape and life of the mother exceptions is:
1) Rape - She had no say in becoming pregnant. I'm unwilling to support forcing a woman to go through a pregnancy if she had no choice at all. I do think that this exception should apply only in the first trimester.
2) Life of the mother - I wouldn't support legislatively forcing anyone to give up their life for anyone else, for obvious reasons.
If it's murder then there should be NO exceptions.
I asked you a question about adoption...any answer?
If it's murder then there should be NO exceptions.
It's about balancing the rights of the woman with the rights of the child. A good analogy is the right to shoot and kill someone who breaks into your house.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcashley
I asked you a question about adoption...any answer?
Can one be anti racist but support theright to choose to discriminate on grounds of race? Probably not. Can one be against anti semitism but support the right of Nazis to lynch jews? Probably not.
It is natural to try to bridge pro choice and pro life as some have tried to do here but is it intellectually inconsistent except and only if one is a libertarinan anarchist who believes in no social laws at all. If one is not then one believes a pre birth foetus has human rights or does not. If it has then they ought to be defensible. If not then not.
As I say except for the anarcho libertarian who supports no laws limiting behaviour this circle simply cannot be squared.
Do you personally see any contradiction here? I mean, to prevent murder some people would be forced to have children that they can't care for. Yet, many will try--at least for a short period. When the child is 3 or 4 or 5 years old--beyond the "cute baby" stage, it is extremely difficult to find an adoptive family. Yet, it is at that point most of these ill-prepared parents have their children removed by the county--for GOOD reasons. ...and then these poor children wind up living in foster homes, probably one of the two or three worst environments. They need parents. Parents who love them, care for them, and will ...be parents.
You know it is easier to find a loving home for a four year old dog, than a four year old child. It is nearly impossible to find an adoptive home for a seven year old child. These children need parents. They need love.
So, I ask again, do you personally see any contradition between the statements, "Pro-choice is allowing murder" and "I have not adopted"?
So, I ask again, do you personally see any contradition between the statements, "Pro-choice is allowing murder" and "I have not adopted"?
I mentioned before that I am pro-choice. Nevertheless, I need to say this. Dcashley, I think that you are painting with very broad strokes. Your over-generalizations are detracting from your main argument. If a person believes that "pro-choice is allowing murder -- and have not adopted," does that really have to be a contradiction? I mean, that person may not have the financial resources to adopt any children. They may care that there are several children looking for families to adopt them. However, they may not be well-positioned to adopt the child themselves.
It's about balancing the rights of the woman with the rights of the child. A good analogy is the right to shoot and kill someone who breaks into your house.
No I haven't adopted.
Just as a point of information there is no right at common law to shoot to kill someone who breaks into your house.
I mentioned before that I am pro-choice. Nevertheless, I need to say this. Dcashley, I think that you are painting with very broad strokes. Your over-generalizations are detracting from your main argument. If a person believes that "pro-choice is allowing murder -- and have not adopted," does that really have to be a contradiction? I mean, that person may not have the financial resources to adopt any children. They may care that there are several children looking for families to adopt them. However, they may not be well-positioned to adopt the child themselves.
Couldn't that be a possibility?
Yes, that is a very real issue. However, the issue I was attempting to explore is more on a policy level. If one group of people tells another group of people that they must do something against their will, and the second group does it. THEN the first group has responsibility to help the second group when the second group is unable to follow through.
In simpler terms: the consequences of a "no abortion" law would be more unwanted children. Since the pro-lifers insist this is the right way to go, shouldn't they step forward and help those unfortunate unwanted children by adopting them? True, not every one of them can adopt--but many can...most probably.
If I cause a problem, through my actions or my beliefs, it is my responsibility to deal with the results. Failing to do that is not living by my beliefs, but is hypocritical.
So, yes, maybe I am oversimplifing, ...but I honestly don't know how to conduct this discussion without doing that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
