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.
You don't realize it, but you have just opened the door to the validation of abortion. All one need do to justify abortion is to present a reason for wanting to do it, and then it is justified. You justified the killing of Bundy, just by offering a reason. Therefore, the killing of a fetus can be legitimized, just by offering a reason. Many people have offered many reasons.
Ted Bundy was executed for murdering innocent people. Ted Bundy was punished for HIS crimes. What reason can be offered for killing a fetus? What CRIME did the fetus commit? By your reasoning, anyone can kill anyone for ANY reason. I don't see where my argument leaves open any room to legitimize the killing of fetuses.
Yes, I know a few die hard "pro-lifers". They are almost overwhelmingly hardcore religious folk who use dogma to back up their beliefs. The most extreme think woman who are raped should be forced to conceive and they even think using birth control is a form of "murdering the unborn".
What I have noticed regarding each and every one of them is that they only advocate for life when it is inside of the womb-not much thought once it is out. They have no real answers to the complexities of poverty, welfare, single parenthood, etc. No real answers to what should be done with the magnitude of unwanted children. They only point fingers at women who choose to abort and cry "evil, murder". This has been my personal experience with pro-lifers; others may be different.
It's called pro-life, not pro-good-life or pro-get-everything-you-want-life. There are no answers to poverty, welfare, single parenthood, etc because those are part of the HUMAN condition. It will always be with us. What is the pro-choice answer? Kill fetuses because they MAY go on welfare? That is the most pathetic selfish argument I've heard. You are not entitled to have a wonderful life, but you are entitled to LIFE and to make of it whatever you can. Should we kill orphans or the homeless? What about people on welfare? Or would it make you happier if they weren't born at all.
Ted Bundy was executed for murdering innocent people. Ted Bundy was punished for HIS crimes. What reason can be offered for killing a fetus? What CRIME did the fetus commit? By your reasoning, anyone can kill anyone for ANY reason. I don't see where my argument leaves open any room to legitimize the killing of fetuses.
Everybody does things that other people object to. Collateral damage occurs when we kill people who have done nothing wrong except to be in the way of killing someone for doing something we object to. A fetus is in the way of a woman who wishes to pursue happiness (an inalienable right, held to be self-evident) without the fetus.
Life sucks. It will still suck, even if everything is done your way. Deal with it.
The "Consistent Life Ethic" is maybe the closest thing to what you mean. I know, or know of, some associated to it. I think there are some people who agree to the "Consistent Life Ethic" who are also concerned with animal rights.
There might be someone close to what you want in the following groups.
The "Consistent Life Ethic" is maybe the closest thing to what you mean. I know, or know of, some associated to it. I think there are some people who agree to the "Consistent Life Ethic" who are also concerned with animal rights.
There might be someone close to what you want in the following groups.
It seems a little bit silly, to me, to run around looking for a "movement" that agrees with 90% of what I think, and then change the other 10% of what I think to agree with that movement. If there is no "group" that agrees perfectly with you, do you need to change what you believe to conform with one of the groups, just so you can feel solidarity with some validating handle? Why do you need to smile and wave from one of the floats in the parade?
Like, to put it simply, if the Dems come closer than the Reeps to reflecting your values, should you feel compelled to agree unquestioningly with the entire platform from the DNC? Then why would any of the groups above be "what you want?
This is not trivial. This kind of association mentality is a really serious problem in American philosophy, and accounts for a great deal of the inability of the nation to seriously address any if it escalating and spiraling issues.
That's not really what I meant. If one wants to be part of something beyond your own self that will mean being part of something that does not align with you 100%. It doesn't mean you change the 10% or 20% of what you think. It just means you support a thing in so much as you can and question it otherwise. Or something. I had like five hours of sleep or less Point being if the only politics you'll accept is your own than just vote for yourself for all offices.
I always find those that go by the label "Pro-life" confusing and hypocritical.
It seems to me if one is truly pro-life than not only are they against abortion but they would also;
... be against capital punishment
... be in favor of stem-cell research
... be a pacifist and anti-gun
... be against hunting, fishing, and trapping
... be against animal testing that requires death of animal
... be a vegetarian or a vegan
... be environmentally conscious and concerned about climate change.
However in practice, just the opposite seems to be the case. Do you know of anyone who is truly pro-life? I sure don't. Some of the Amish may come close but none of the "lifers" I have ever met.
Interesting, I don;t know any who are not in favor of life! In fact, I would be disturbed by anyone whose first instinct were not to be in favor of life.
I also know no one who is not in favor of women rather than the State having the rights over her body. Against, this right should not have limits, even for those who seem to breed welfare children. However, I would hope that such women could be convinced to get sterilized as a way to gain some sense of economic stability for her and her children.
We should end state-sponsored, unconditional welfare and with it incentives to be a burden on the state. At the same time, incentives for charity, volunteerism, and man helping his fellow man should be increased (or disincentives eliminated)
I am in favor of selective capital punishment and see absolutely no moral quandry or inconsistency in being pro-life and selective-death. But if someone is anti-death penalty and pro-rehabilitation, then I invite them to host those who have been released for good behavior or paroled from their murder rap.
I am in favor of morally implemented science, but acknowledge that under extraordinary circumstances some flexibility might be warranted and again with consent and full transparency.Sometimes, this position can get uncomfortable, but I have to believe in principled living. At the margin, if testing must be done, then let it be done on animals. Those who disagree can offer themselves or their children as guinea pigs.
I am very pacific in nature as a rule, but acknowledge that appropriate actions must be taken. I would seriously those who would dare to free-ride on the sacrifices of others.
I think that people have the right to bear arms, although that right can be removed under certain circumstances such that Constitutional rights continue to be upheld for those who are somehow involved.
I am in favor of hunting and fishing because I not only eat meat and fish, but would not infringe upon the rights of others to gather their sustenance. I find those who argue against hunting/fishing but who indulge in meat and fish products to be ignorant hypocrites of the highest order.
I care very much about the environment--my environment above all else. I have great respect for the bounty and wrath provided for by Mother Nature. I observe that there are great cycles in climate over the mammalian period and most certainly before then. And I am distressed at the wanton destruction of our environment by those who seek a free lunch, particularly those whose consumer habits are completely divorced from their rhetoric. I also believe in economic reality, both locally and globally.
I always find those that go by the label "Pro-life" confusing and hypocritical.
It seems to me if one is truly pro-life than not only are they against abortion but they would also;
... be against capital punishment
... be in favor of stem-cell research
... be a pacifist and anti-gun
... be against hunting, fishing, and trapping
... be against animal testing that requires death of animal
... be a vegetarian or a vegan
... be environmentally conscious and concerned about climate change.
However in practice, just the opposite seems to be the case. Do you know of anyone who is truly pro-life? I sure don't. Some of the Amish may come close but none of the "lifers" I have ever met.
Theres no hypocrisy with people trying to take a stand for the most defenseless among us . It is the right thing to do in a society whos favorite pastime is apathetic and out of control Sexual Hedonism often leading to pregnancy (95% of all abortions performed) . As for capital punishment, what is so aweful about expecting a Perpetrator to recieve the same punishment he willfully inflicted upon another innocent person ? Do you believe in justice ? I think you would if it were a close loved one who was the victim. Was your own Mother ProLife or did she kill you in her womb ... and, is she against recreation fishing ?
Last edited by 007.5; 12-27-2009 at 07:45 PM..
Reason: add
Interesting, I don;t know any who are not in favor of life! In fact, I would be disturbed by anyone whose first instinct were not to be in favor of life..
Now you know someone. I am in favor of legislation that permits voluntary medical euthanasia, like Dr. Kavorkian's procedures. There is very little opposition to the do-not-resuscitate provision in living wills. I don't think there are very many people who are opposed to putting down a dog that is in a state of permanent terminal suffering.
Being absolutely in favor of life is as irrational as being absolutely for or against anything else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 007.5
out of control Sexual Hedonism often leading to pregnancy (95% of all abortions performed) ?
In the USA, 20% of all abortions are performed on married women. How do you determine which married couples are sexual hedonists?
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.
Point being if the only politics you'll accept is your own than just vote for yourself for all offices.
