adam@section118 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Is it possible to be both pro life and pro choice at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Here's my problem with this: The state should have absolutely no control over a human being's reproductive capabilities, ever. Forced sterilization, even temporary, is flat-out wrong.Even if women were allowed to opt-out of the birth control program, I think it would be a difficult for those women to then argue for a right to an abortion. Anyone who consciously chooses not to use birth control has much less justification for pursuing an abortion in my mind.Make contraception easy, universally available, and foolproof, and you take away the reasons for getting an abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Is it possible to be both pro life and pro choice at the same time. don't know why not I'll kill to protect your life,while reserving the right to to take it if I deem you a threat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 twa is a control freak like that. :pfft: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 They're sick of me in the other thread, so I'll do everyone a favor and stay out of this one. My vote will probably surprise some. Also, why not have a choice for those confused about the issue? I bet a lot of people have misgivings on both sides of this issue. I know I do. What? You mean that every person in the world isn't absolutely, fanatically, committed to one side or the other? I think I'm going to vote (haven't yet) "agnostic, pro choice", because I guess that's the closest. But to me, my opinion on what our government position ought to be is a lot more utilitarian. (To me, the utilitarian viewpoint, which I summarize as "which position will produce the greatest possible benefit for society?", is almost always the best yardstick to use when the question is "what should the government do?") (Although I also have to observe that, to me, having government stay out of individual decisions is certainly a "plus" for society. IMO, the only powers government have, is to confiscate things or to restrict freedom. And they should never do either without a really good reason.) I think that there's a definite societal benefit, if children are brought into the world by parents who want them. Who have studied their personal life situations, and have spent a great deal of time contemplating what a huge commitment this is, and have made a conscious, informed decision to make that commitment. I think we'd all agree that it would be best if this period happened before the sex. I think we'd also all agree that a lot of time, it doesn't. So, I think that the next best thing would be a situation where, when a woman finds out she's pregnant, if she (hopefully "they") had some time period (at least a week. I think a month would be better) in which she (again, hopefully "they") could do the thinking that she should have done, before. I think that permitting abortions, gives babies a batter class of parents. Because those parents had the chance to think it over, and they chose to commit. That said, though, I also agree with the current situation, where the further along in the pregnancy you are, the more committed you are. I don't think that she should be able to "take it back to the store", one minute before birth. It appeals to my belief that we shouldn't allow society to adopt too narrow a definition of what a "person" is. And, as I understand it, that's pretty much what we've got, now. At least as I understand it, (and I'm rather grateful that I've never been forced to actually learn what all the rules and methods of abortion are), For the first few months, abortion is safe, routine, and readily available. (Although unlike Kilmer, yes, I do believe that there is a very powerful movement, which fervently want to outlaw all of them, in all cases. And that they are close to having the political power to achieve their goal.) Early in the pregnancy, "I changed my mind" ought to be a good enough reason. (IMO). Later on in the pregnancy, abortion is much more expensive, more complicated, requires all kinds of government hurdles and restrictions, and is very rare.Happening only in vary rare cases where there are very clear, specific justifications. ---------- Post added February-17th-2012 at 06:05 PM ---------- Make contraception easy, universally available, and foolproof, and you take away the reasons for getting an abortion. But isn't contraception easy, available, and like 99.99% effective, right now? How many abortions do you figure happened to couples who used a condom? And what percentage, you figure, didn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Is it possible to be both pro life and pro choice at the same time. Nope. If you are you are pro choice. Pro-life allows for no wiggle room 0r very, very little, but if you pro-life persnally or pro-life insome circumstances, but believe there are loopholes or that individuals have the right to choose...then you are pro-choice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Nope. If you are you are pro choice. Pro-life allows for no wiggle room 0r very, very little, but if you pro-life persnally or pro-life insome circumstances, but believe there are loopholes or that individuals have the right to choose...then you are pro-choice I am pro choice until a certain stage, and pro life after a certain stage. I can't tell you when that stage is, but I am both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 In my book, that makes you pro-chice. Probably the def I choose to use though For the most part, I wish no one would ever have an abortion, but I don't feel I know enough to control everyone else's behavior. That's why I consider myself pro-choice. I'm really not pro-abortion I'm pro-the right to make personal decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I happen to be atheist. I happen to be pro-choice in reproductive freedom for women. I'm also a feminist. I'm a mother. I'm a woman who had an abortion. I'm a lesbian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Here's my problem with this: The state should have absolutely no control over a human being's reproductive capabilities, ever. Forced sterilization, even temporary, is flat-out wrong.For those getting ready to say, "The same argument can be used FOR abortion: Abortion is not associated with reproduction -- the human life is already "produced". It ENDS the human life -- it doesn't prevent it. I'm a libertarian and even I understand the need for some sort of state "birth" control with regards to population and fiscal responsibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forehead Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Christ...here we go again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Christ...here we go again. Had to bring your religion into it, didn't you? Sarcasm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 And, to repeat myself, if anyone's going to wave a banner of being pro-life or utilize concepts like "protecting innocent life", than I can take it more legitimately on those claims if they are also a true pacifist and thus don't support the inevitable collateral damage (which is often deliberate killing of innocents, simply justified and rationalized in a socially acceptable fashion) and are against the death penalty, as well as a few other things I won't go into. I really am ok with most reasonable labeling, but I would press for some pretty demanding integrity of standards for such on this topic. With sadness, I accept many of those other things with similar conflict, and know I pay $$ towards them. So Roe v Wade joins that list for me of another unpleasant (stated mildly) set of contexts that leave me in a reality far less than what I desire. Most people in here, nonetheless, are, as I have, describing a shared gestalt of basically conflicted feelings and thoughts--only our details differ. And I'm sure various people are "sick" of many of us to varying degrees as our views or wording will at times disturb or annoy each other. But I also think a number of people, from twa & WD to Burg & Larry, to LSF & Popeman & Predicto & Kilmer17 have all made for some very solid and productive discussion from very diverse viewpoints. A lot of the sturm und drang that does happen with this topic is not only expected, it's also often helpful (believe it or not) as long as it is balanced out by the same people with less confrontational commentary and a genuine willingness to try to "hear" each other. Most people here, no matter what their position is, seem to read like pretty caring and thoughtful human beings as a bottom line, and not "murderers" or "wannabe controllers-of-others'-lives." Note I did say "most people." :pfft: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P.S.---some of my own emotions (and I always try to apply logic and reason to my feelings, too) not only arise from working with my fair share of people in this exact situation (and doing all I can to find alternatives to abortion), but some of my volunteer work with returning Iraq/Afghanistan vets with various mental health issues often included significant impact from "collateral damage" situations and how it ate away at many of these guys. It's a detailed and complicated matter and I don't go into it here,and rarely even mention it at all (or most other such stuff) in all these years I've been posting, but that is a real loss of innocent life too. And it features humans of undisputed definition who have already made connections of family and friends and developed hopes, relationships, beliefs etc. in their journey outside the womb for x years. Yet they are cut tragically short because (essentially) they're in the wrong place at the wrong time but "we know it can't be helped" and "accept it as an ugly reality (consequence) of "what we need to do for important reasons." I absolutely see this as related to certain terms and concepts used so commonly in the abortion topic. Like I said elsewhere, it's not whether we draw these lines about the "sanctity of life" because we do it all the time and have throughout history. It's just which context society will accept and which they'll reject at the moment. IMV, we're all "pro-death" at some point, unless you fit that rare description I outlined earlier. But if you don't, and are just isolating abortion and claiming you're "pro-life" because you're against its legality (otherwise you're also at least somewhat "pro-choice"), than I think that's, I'll just say for now...unfortunate. <edited member issue productively cleared up in PM:)> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drtdrums Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 I'm a libertarian and even I understand the need for some sort of state "birth" control with regards to population and fiscal responsibility. Key word: Control. Birth control is an individual's decision. If you believe that the government should supply it, or force insurers to supply it, fine -- I disagree, but we can at least have that discussion. But if we're talking about required birth control, no freaking way. Not in a million years should a government of free people have say over whether or not its citizens can reproduce. (see: Eugenics in North Carolina) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurseReversed Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Had to bring your religion into it, didn't you? Sarcasm hahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Deleted post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 I happen to be atheist. I happen to be pro-choice in reproductive freedom for women. I'm also a feminist. I'm a mother. I'm a woman who had an abortion. I'm a lesbian. And as such, the most qualified in this thread thus far to form an opinion on the issue. Not that I'm suggesting there's a right and wrong here, or mine or anyone else's opinion doesn't count. Just that IMHO, the highlighted rite above deems you the most qualified. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 18, 2012 Author Share Posted February 18, 2012 Key word: Control. Birth control is an individual's decision. If you believe that the government should supply it, or force insurers to supply it, fine -- I disagree, but we can at least have that discussion. But if we're talking about required birth control, no freaking way. Not in a million years should a government of free people have say over whether or not its citizens can reproduce. (see: Eugenics in North Carolina) I agree with you. That would be a scary path to go down. I'll just add that anyone saying "My spouse and I would never have an abortion but we would not tell other people what to do with their bodies" - that is cleary a pro-choice position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 And as such, the most qualified in this thread thus far to form an opinion on the issue. Not that I'm suggesting there's a right and wrong here, or mine or anyone else's opinion doesn't count. Just that IMHO, the highlighted rite above deems you the most qualified.Hail. GHH, it's not so much that I am qualified as that I am experienced in these particular issues, where men are not and cannot be. And women still have to hear men pontificate and attempt to control us. Having contraception and abortion available by no means that people are required to avail themselves of same. It merely means that the choice is available and can be acted upon or rejected, in accordance with one's conscience, one's doctor, and one's own ethics. Nothing more, nothing less. Reproductive freedom it's called. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurseReversed Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 I think Larry mentioned it in the other thread, but I do believe there are scientific/technological solutions for this issue.If we had 100%-effective female-controlled contraception, then I think it would become much more difficult to argue that abortion should be legal. Basically, we would need technology that would place women in a default state of not being able to get pregnant, but being able to explicitly choose when they want to be pregnant. Like if there were a shot we could give all women once they reach puberty that would prevent them from getting pregnant, but then they could take a simple pill that would last a few days whenever they wanted to be able to get pregnant. An alternative technological solution would be a relatively inexpensive artificial womb, so that when an abortion is performed, the embryo or fetus could be placed into the womb, carried to term, and then given up for adoption. Abortion clinics would then just become adoption clinics where women could give up their babies during pregnancy rather than waiting until after the babies are born. While I think some of these ideas might help to decrease the overall problem, they do not address the core issues of legality. From my perspective, no matter how easy technology can make the pregnancy, even terminating it without killing the baby, or how easily it can prevent it, any female who chooses not to participate in any way should not be in a position where she looses any choice or right she might have had before those techniques were available. For example in the situation where an artificial womb could be developed, I would agree this could be a better option in some circumstances. But I do not think you can say that because some woman does not choose it as one, that her rights to an abortion necessarily change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 18, 2012 Author Share Posted February 18, 2012 I have to say that the voting has not gone exactly as I expected. However, it is a small sample, and perhaps not representative of America as a whole either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 GHH, it's not so much that I am qualified as that I am experienced in these particular issues, where men are not and cannot be. And women still have to hear men pontificate and attempt to control us. Having contraception and abortion available by no means that people are required to avail themselves of same. It merely means that the choice is available and can be acted upon or rejected, in accordance with one's conscience, one's doctor, and one's own ethics. Nothing more, nothing less. Reproductive freedom it's called. 'Qualified' maybe wasn't the best use of words if taken literally, but that was pretty much what I was alluding to LSF. If in a less eloquent manner. As I mentioned on the first page, as conflicted as this always gets me, ultimately I don't think it should be anyone's place to decide what a woman does to her own body other than the individual herself. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 While I think some of these ideas might help to decrease the overall problem, they do not address the core issues of legality. From my perspective, no matter how easy technology can make the pregnancy, even terminating it without killing the baby, or how easily it can prevent it, any female who chooses not to participate in any way should not be in a position where she looses any choice or right she might have had before those techniques were available. For example in the situation where an artificial womb could be developed, I would agree this could be a better option in some circumstances. But I do not think you can say that because some woman does not choose it as one, that her rights to an abortion necessarily change. I think I would disagree with your hypothetical. I think there's a big difference between a woman saying "I don't want to be pregnant any more" and "I want this thing killed, even though I have the option of walking away from it with no obligation". Although, as I typed that, I thought of an even more hypothetical hypothetical: 1). The artificial womb exists. 2). A woman is raped, and becomes pregnant. Does the woman have the right to decide that she doesn't want a child of her rape to be brought into the world? Even if she doesn't have to carry it. Even if she doesn't have to see it, after it's born. Does she have the right to decide that she doesn't want to go through life knowing that somewhere out there is a child tat somebody FORCED her to have? It's an interesting off the wall hypothetical. ---------- Post added February-17th-2012 at 08:28 PM ---------- I have to say that the voting has not gone exactly as I expected. However, it is a small sample, and perhaps not representative of America as a whole either. Are you kidding? If ES were representative of America, Ron Paul would have locked up the GOP nomination by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 nice example of advances simply expanding conundrums Larry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 nice example of advances simply expanding conundrums Larry. just remember sometimes conundrums fail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.