A good argument for pro-choice

Spang · Post by **Spang** » February 13, 2004, 8:02 am

40th trimester abortions are illegal!!!

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » February 13, 2004, 10:48 am

kyoukan wrote:think of this messageboard if atokal or cartalas was terminated in the womb and tell me abortion is wrong.

I dare not think of such a utopian message board for fear that I could never come back here.

Tindalarae · Post by **Tindalarae** » February 16, 2004, 12:23 am

a replicating clump of 8 or 16 undifferentiated stem cells

it's growing... once a person is born, it grows.... the way I see it, if it's growing, it's alive.

How can dead cells replicate?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 16, 2004, 12:48 am

So how responsible are you for your own sperm? Say you're having sex in a hotel room and you do the deed and some sperm squirts up on a lamp shade. The maid comes in and spots the goop on the lampshade and quickly takes it to a sperm bank and then artificially inseminates herself with the stuff.

Later, she sues "you" for being the father of her child and can prove that it's your kid.

Moral of the story:

Don't leave sperm lying around the bathroom or bedroom as you are responsible for that sperm until it dies. You could end up paying child support for 18 years because of a misfire.

Arundel Pajo · Post by **Arundel Pajo** » February 16, 2004, 2:55 pm

Tindalarae wrote:
a replicating clump of 8 or 16 undifferentiated stem cells
it's growing... once a person is born, it grows.... the way I see it, if it's growing, it's alive.

How can dead cells replicate?

As I said - "life on the cellular level." Sure, it's alive. So are all the cells of all our bodies, save some epithelial cells, hair, and teeth. Whether or not the clump of cells was alive was never in debate here. Being alive neither makes it self-aware, nor gives it a soul, nor makes it intrisically human, save for some strands of nucleic acid. Plants are alive, fungi are alive...you get the drift.

I mean, let's extend that rationale a little bit. Is all life on earth really that sacrosanct that clumps of dividing cells have inalienable rights? Have you ever stepped on a cockroach, used an antibiotic cleaning agent, or swatted at a mosquito? Eat meat? Hell, eat vegetables? Guess what, you've ended life. And that cockroach was a hell of a lot more complex than a zygote or morula after fertilization.

The real issue is not when after fertilization literal life begins. Literal life was there *before* fertilization ever started - it's there in the gametes. The question, rather, is when "human" life begins...when these cells become self-aware...when they develop that intangible element we refer to as a soul.

Seebs · Post by **Seebs** » February 16, 2004, 3:16 pm

Quit simply, we all believe it is alive. Spores, lichens and plankton are alive.

The question will always be, when does this life have a soul or conciseness?

Whomever can best answer that question will get 4MM VV's and a Nobel Prize. Until then I will continue to love my wife and thank God this decision and topic are foreign to me.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » February 16, 2004, 5:10 pm

When I was young and stupid I was totally against abortion. Since then I think my view of the world is a bit more realistic. I totally support a woman's right to choose. The issue isn't just one of carrying a baby for 9 months either. Having a baby is a life changing event with lifelong effects.

Now for the kicker. Men should also have the right to choose. If the man does not want the pregnancy he should have the right to participate or not. If the woman does continue with the pregnancy she should have no right to force participation from the male in any sense. I fully support a womans right to choose and they should choose wisely, I do not support a women's right to choose for the man.

PS> What is up with the current event posts in general forum?

Herod Hardrok · Post by **Herod Hardrok** » February 18, 2004, 1:52 am

Great work on a thoroughly thought-provoking topic. I even enjoyed the non-combatant views with which I disagree.

I would guess none of us are idiots and I applaud the general acceptance of people's right to disagree like rational human beings.

Someone quoted Roe v. Wade earlier, where different disciplines were mentioned as having dissonant views regarding this issue. What I've taken the time to write is a theologian's viewpoint. Science has had a lot of airtime for this topic within this thread. So has politics. I'll leave the philosophic discussion to another. What I've written will likely resonate with only a few, but they have a voice as well. It is not something to be disagreed with scientifically, philosophically, or politically because it is a different discipline entirely. I do not offer a rebuttal to the scientist who holds to the fact that the baby is not yet human by shouting "EVIL EVIL THE LORD SAYETH" and the like because we are dealing with two very seperate disciplines.

First, a philosophic point out of which I could not talk myself: the vehement proclaimations equating the disallowance of abortions to that of rape is an interesting viewpoint. To consider abortion as a male attempt to control women does great for soundbites, but I think many of the pro-life camp would counter that abortion is a woman's attempt to control the futures of the unborn, and perhaps the unknown.

What I mean is that to those who consider themselves theists, the error in abortion is less about the killing and more about the controlling. One previous poster mentioned their friend as having an abortion and later marrying and having 4 kids and a successful life. The question posed was essentially that if the abortion would not have taken place, "who knows" what would have happened then. And since the beginning of time, that's been our largest error--attempting to postulate on the unknown--and assuming that if we side on what is known, then we have made the better choice. It goes directly against the worldview of the thiest, assuming they hold to a belief in a sort of Providence.

It was the error of Adam and Eve not to eat the forbidden fruit, but to aspire to be God. The religious person's view on this topic is that when man or woman willingly removes the potential for human life (and by that, I do not mean a denotation to be used against this argument like the sperm on a lampshade) by unnatural means, they have removed the human being, but left its purpose unfulfilled. They have determined for themselves who lives, who dies, and whose right is more important. The theist contends that the unborn has purpose, and that cutting short the life of that human being, you have created a detriment to society.

Of course, I understand the view of some of the pro-choice camp in this thread to be exactly in line with what I just said--and that the issue is moot if science determines the baby is a human being at conception. And you would argue that until then, you cannot agree with me. And my response is that this is the view of a theist, not a politician, not a scientist, not a philosopher, not a woman, and not an unborn baby--though I side with the latest in this list, having been one.

This issue is personally important to me because the greatest person in my life is my wife, who was adopted. Her mother could have decided that it was better to have an abortion than to bring a child into an environment in which she could not be loved. Her mother could have chosen the abortion route because it was too scary to consider the alternative. Her mother could have chosen the known (abortion), but chose the unknown instead--and my life is enriched because of that brave choice.

The religious person should argue that sin is not doing that from which you are told to abstain. It is choosing to be God by proclaiming what you will and will not do. It is not sin that ruins your admittance to God's presence (as one mentioned way above), but our refusal to allow Him to change us into the people he originally made us to be--a people that brought him pleasure. One's choice to have an abortion at any point in their life does not revoke their value to God, in case there was any misunderstanding.

The ramification of rape was brought up. I can think of two things more horrific than the image of one's rapist being forever etched on the mind of his prey: the burden of carrying that less-than-human's offspring and the agony of watching it grow before your eyes to look exactly like its father. There is a surreal pain to this thought--and I cannot begin to empathise. The view of the Christian would be that there is someone who can. The providencial-theist should believe that God's will is for life, never for death. And so even in this brutal human atrocity, God's "best" will be better than the abortion--even if the mother has to give the baby up for adoption upon birth because of the emotional mutilation. The horror of rape is not made better by destroying the potential life God made out of the woman's emotional morosity.

The "you're not a woman so you don't know what it's like" argument is already in my ear. I could likely counter with "have you been raped yourself?" but it would serve my point no purpose. This is because the point of the providential-theist has nothing to do with what you have "been through," but has everything to do with what God can do in spite of errant humanity, in spite of pain, and in spite of the dreary hues with which we paint our world.

The final issue I wish to address is that of mental/physical handicaps. These are not terms God has ever used, so far as I have seen. These are man-made terms, man-made pigeon-holing, and man-made classification. The theist believes that God is in control of all, that He makes no mistakes, and that no person is devoid of purpose. It is useless to discuss mental, verbal, emotional, or physical capacity because the theist's concern is with the spiritual--and neither you nor I can place a barometer on it. Aborting those with special needs strictly on the basis of those special needs is elitism, the theist would contend.

One minor point I wish to make in defense of those who are religious. To blanketly assign the guilt and convictions of the abortion clinic bombers upon all religious is combatant and ill-advised. It is as though you were saying Americans should treat their Muslim friends suspiciously because of the evil commited by a few of the Islamic constituency.

Thank you for taking the time to read this, those who did so. I greatly appreciate the forum.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 18, 2004, 11:47 am

Jackass.

Arundel Pajo · Post by **Arundel Pajo** » February 18, 2004, 5:27 pm

Thank you

That was a very eloquent framing of a theist viewpoint. I do have one question for you, however, after reading that - what is your stance on legislation regarding abortion? You readily admit that your viewpoint stems from your faith, and that is certainly valid and respectable, but how then would you choose to legislate such a thing without the confirmation of science? ...or would you leave it up to each individual to act in accordance with their own faith?

This seems to me like a classsic example of why "pro-choice" legislation does not totally rule out "pro-life" on the individual level, which is exactly how I think it should be until there is some sort of consensus as discussed earlier...

I just sort of wish all parties and all ideologies involved could live and let live in the meantime, but - alas - each side must have its radical extremists.

Herod Hardrok · Post by **Herod Hardrok** » February 18, 2004, 11:11 pm

This is where I'll likely alienate many other theists, so bear in mind that it is not the consensus viewpoint, nor am I representing them regarding what I am about to say.

As one who professes allegiance with God, I find it increasingly difficult and sticky to remain an ally to the state, and therefore any legislation at all, whether that be in my favor or against it. There exists potential where my personal faith and belief system will butt directly against what the state requires me to do. For instance, if I were a teacher (as both of my parents are--so this is not a stretch) and I saw a child who was unloved in her/his home, I would feel compelled to not only love the child myself, but to share the love of God with that child. And yet this goes directly against what this country would allow me to do. I would have to choose between an allegiance to God and an allegiance to my state/freedoms.

For reasons similar to this one, I do not consider myself an American, but rather a Christian. There are too many instances where my faith directly opposes the rules of my state to attempt a feigned dual-allegiance. Jesus, not dealing with this subject directly (but using a principle that can apply here, I think), said "No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other" (Luke 16:13 NKJV).

I am certainly not an anarchist, nor do I believe (or take actions to ensure) that the state should be dissolved, ruined, or the like. Each person has their rights--some are God-given (as the Framers of the Constitution put it), and some are not. I respect the rights others have in this country and hope they enjoy them. I cannot expect others to consider my stance valid, much less feasible. There is another argument altogether about someone living here, garnished by its protection, without feeling the need to serve to either enrich or protect it. To follow it in this thread would be to derail the original point/discussion of this thread, however.

So let's try to bring it all back, shall we? As a theist, I do not attempt to change legislation because I believe meaningful change happens in the hearts of men, slowly and methodically; it blooms not from forced legislation. The theist is less concerned about the action and more concerned about one's spiritual development and the motive that drives men's hearts. For the theist to lobby for change in London or Washington is to deny her/his true calling, which is to make disciples of people in all nations and to pray for the leaders who make the legislation.

Enjoy the debate on Capitol Hill. The theist hardly remains passive, but fights a war on an entirely different front.

Arundel Pajo · Post by **Arundel Pajo** » February 19, 2004, 12:47 am

...and that I find to be not only rational, but commendable. Would that there were more with similar views.

As I understand it, the distilled point that you are making above (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that it is not the government's place to pass a faith-based law that could abridge the percieved rights of a large portion of the population in a way that was...oh...perhaps not in accordance with their own beliefs.

In other words - if something is predominantly a matter of faith, and I belive in it while somebody else does not, then the passing of a law that imposes my view onto them (without their personal convictions being behind it) is tantamount to a law being passed in their favor, and restricting me from acting in accordance with my faith. It's a catch-22 in which in either case, one side is going to be slighted in the favor of the other on the basis of religion. Therefore, no legislation should really exist either way, but rather those who want to sway the hearts and minds of others should do so on a personal level with their actions and testimonials - so seeking to gradually change public attitude.

If I'm correct in my reading, then I can back that 110%. That fits hand-in-glove with what I was saying earlier in this thread about keeping matters of religion and personal faith away from lawmakers (at least until such time as they become more than just matters of faith). Leave those things that are more black and white for the lawmakers to worry about, and let the individual act in accordance with his/her faith. Unfortunately, this does lead to the occasional sticky situation, such as that with public schools which you mentioned. Still, as imperfect as the strict separation of church and state is, it remains vastly better than the alternative, IMO - regardless of what faith one does or does not espouse.

Herod Hardrok · Post by **Herod Hardrok** » February 19, 2004, 5:15 pm

My position on the matter is that legislation is irrelevant to the theologian. I do not believe the religious should involve themselves in politics or the public arena at all because Christians are to be people of compassion, care, and devotion to others. Politicians are interested in pleasing their constituency. These two persons make odd bed-fellows because the Christian's fight is for the souls of men, while the politician's fight is for their votes.

So the theologian's view of legislation is "I don't give a shit." It is a tempting discussion, but if entertained too long, is devoid of compassion, care, and...well you get the picture.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » February 20, 2004, 3:00 am

oh shit, the pro-lifers read this thread and are plotting revenge!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/19/roev. ... index.html

Rasspotari · Post by **Rasspotari** » February 20, 2004, 8:40 am

have those men or women that are against pro choice experience a rape pregnancy or something similar and then make up their mind again. pretty sure only the very few hard core pro life will stick to their statement. which makes them a minority and majority rules.

or people which i respect for not just their views according to their beliefs but also for their conviction and intelligent way of expressing it.

/hugz Herod Hardrok