"Pro-choice” is such a misnomer. The dead don’t have a choice.
likwidshoe - 12:01am on 01/23/2008
Rob,
When it comes to abortion they’re all “keep the government away from our bodies.”
That’s why I’m pro-choice.
they’re pro-choice because they want to be able to dispose of any unwanted and unborn children before they actually have to deal with the consequences of their irresponsible sex lives
That’s also why I’m pro-choice.
For me, it’s about limiting government AND cynical barbaric convenience.
AND
I vote conservative because conservatives are about small government, and all that pro-life nonsense = the democrats’ populist universal healthcare nonesense. No one is turning Roe v. Wade over anymore than impoverishing our country with universal health (those are both demogogic talking points and nothing more).
ALSO
That’s the big lie behind the pro-choice movement.
I don’t think most pro-choicers are against big government, many just want to be able to have abortions. You assumed what you set out to prove, that’s called circular reasoning.
Minor point: Despite the fact that I’ve disagreed with you on some other issues, I’ve only ever been able to point out purely logical flaws in your reasoning when you post about abortion—odd that.
Hairy Polemic - 06:01am on 01/23/2008
I vote conservative because conservatives are about small government, and all that pro-life nonsense = the democrats’ populist universal healthcare nonesense.
You might have a point, except that in order to get there you have to ignore the fact that abortion is murder. When a woman gets pregnant a life is created, and I fail to see why that life’s rights hinge on nothing other than the “choice” of the mother.
It’s not logical, just convenient.
Rob - 06:01am on 01/23/2008
Despite the fact that I’ve disagreed with you on some other issues, I’ve only ever been able to point out purely logical flaws in your reasoning when you post about abortion—odd that.
But there are no flaws in my reasoning on abortion. Life begins at conception. Even doctors agree on this. The only reason we define unborn children as not living is for the convenience of abortion.
Again, life begins at conception and is an uninterrupted continuum of development and growth until death by natural causes.
Or a doctor punctures the little tyke’s skull and sucks the brains out.
Rob - 06:01am on 01/23/2008
Rob,
I meant purely logical flaws in your post’s reasoning, not in your general reasoning about abortion. There is a difference between description and prescription, you are perfectly entitled to your values; it’s when you try to prove that your values are better than others that you run into the is-ought gap.
Here’s an example:
When a woman gets pregnant a life is created, and I fail to see why that life’s rights hinge on nothing other than the “choice” of the mother.
I hate to do this (because I don’t believe in the following), but I can easily make the argument that we make a “choice” to kill people when we deny them universal healthcare. We could, after all, with one choice (and a little sacrifice) save millions of LIVES.
Hairy Polemic - 07:01am on 01/23/2008
but I can easily make the argument that we make a “choice” to kill people when we deny them universal healthcare. We could, after all, with one choice (and a little sacrifice) save millions of LIVES.
Looking at the cancer survivor rates between the US and Canada/Great Britain/etc., I actually don’t think you can make that case at all.
There is a difference between description and prescription, you are perfectly entitled to your values; it’s when you try to prove that your values are better than others that you run into the is-ought gap.
But we impose values on others every day. Do I run into an “is-ought gap” when I impose my values about rape on rapists? Is your line of argument, in defense of mothers killing their babies for no other reason than those babies being inconvenient, that we can’t impose values on others?
Because that’s pretty absurd in its own right.
Abortion is murder. Pro-choicers could at least be honest enough to confess to the monstrous nature of their beliefs.
Rob - 07:01am on 01/23/2008
This is a 2 part question:
#1. Is it Human Life?
It is no longer just the religious zealots & Christians claiming that it IS human life. Doctors and scientist are also concurring that it is NOT a blob of tissues. It is human life, and that fact can no longer be disputed.
#2. Why are we as a society allowing human life to be destroyed? What is it that makes the baby’s life less valuable than the mother’s life?
Our society tries to tell you that if you are old, cripple, paralyzed, unwanted, or not contributing to society in a “visible” way, then your life is worthless and you can be eliminated from the gene pool.
The pro choice views are now: Well, yes it’s human life, but it’s inconvenient so lets kill it.
Ace25 - 08:01am on 01/23/2008
8 weeks and a beating heart starts in the womb. Is that when life begins?
But, Carl Sagan once talked about how killing an 8 month baby was equivalent to the killing of an animal of equivalent consciousness; a dog, dolphin, and or even insect.
My thoughts? A woman who has sex unprotected by HER consent should bear all the burdens of a child. Rich or poor, drunk or sober, it was her choice. She was conscious of it. She had better bear the choice she makes rather than cheat it by such a weighty consequence. Grrrr..
But, if it’s incestuous rape, or just rape, I’d have to say she has more of a right to deny the birth of the child.
Move_Zig: out of pure curiosity, does Betty Friedan really support pro-choice?! I know she’s all about the choice of women, but is she about this?
Can we abort the abortionists after they’ve been born?
How ‘bout we puncture the back of Betty Friedan‘s skull, suction her brains out and call the entire endeavor ’choice?’
Yessur.
On this we couldn’t agree more!
"Pro-choice” is such a misnomer. The dead don’t have a choice.
Rob,
That’s why I’m pro-choice.
That’s also why I’m pro-choice.
For me, it’s about limiting government AND cynical barbaric convenience.
AND
I vote conservative because conservatives are about small government, and all that pro-life nonsense = the democrats’ populist universal healthcare nonesense. No one is turning Roe v. Wade over anymore than impoverishing our country with universal health (those are both demogogic talking points and nothing more).
ALSO
I don’t think most pro-choicers are against big government, many just want to be able to have abortions. You assumed what you set out to prove, that’s called circular reasoning.
Minor point: Despite the fact that I’ve disagreed with you on some other issues, I’ve only ever been able to point out purely logical flaws in your reasoning when you post about abortion—odd that.
You might have a point, except that in order to get there you have to ignore the fact that abortion is murder. When a woman gets pregnant a life is created, and I fail to see why that life’s rights hinge on nothing other than the “choice” of the mother.
It’s not logical, just convenient.
But there are no flaws in my reasoning on abortion. Life begins at conception. Even doctors agree on this. The only reason we define unborn children as not living is for the convenience of abortion.
Again, life begins at conception and is an uninterrupted continuum of development and growth until death by natural causes.
Or a doctor punctures the little tyke’s skull and sucks the brains out.
Rob,
I meant purely logical flaws in your post’s reasoning, not in your general reasoning about abortion. There is a difference between description and prescription, you are perfectly entitled to your values; it’s when you try to prove that your values are better than others that you run into the is-ought gap.
Here’s an example:
I hate to do this (because I don’t believe in the following), but I can easily make the argument that we make a “choice” to kill people when we deny them universal healthcare. We could, after all, with one choice (and a little sacrifice) save millions of LIVES.
Looking at the cancer survivor rates between the US and Canada/Great Britain/etc., I actually don’t think you can make that case at all.
But we impose values on others every day. Do I run into an “is-ought gap” when I impose my values about rape on rapists? Is your line of argument, in defense of mothers killing their babies for no other reason than those babies being inconvenient, that we can’t impose values on others?
Because that’s pretty absurd in its own right.
Abortion is murder. Pro-choicers could at least be honest enough to confess to the monstrous nature of their beliefs.
This is a 2 part question:
#1. Is it Human Life?
It is no longer just the religious zealots & Christians claiming that it IS human life. Doctors and scientist are also concurring that it is NOT a blob of tissues. It is human life, and that fact can no longer be disputed.
#2. Why are we as a society allowing human life to be destroyed? What is it that makes the baby’s life less valuable than the mother’s life?
Our society tries to tell you that if you are old, cripple, paralyzed, unwanted, or not contributing to society in a “visible” way, then your life is worthless and you can be eliminated from the gene pool.
The pro choice views are now: Well, yes it’s human life, but it’s inconvenient so lets kill it.
8 weeks and a beating heart starts in the womb. Is that when life begins?
But, Carl Sagan once talked about how killing an 8 month baby was equivalent to the killing of an animal of equivalent consciousness; a dog, dolphin, and or even insect.
My thoughts? A woman who has sex unprotected by HER consent should bear all the burdens of a child. Rich or poor, drunk or sober, it was her choice. She was conscious of it. She had better bear the choice she makes rather than cheat it by such a weighty consequence. Grrrr..
But, if it’s incestuous rape, or just rape, I’d have to say she has more of a right to deny the birth of the child.
Move_Zig: out of pure curiosity, does Betty Friedan really support pro-choice?! I know she’s all about the choice of women, but is she about this?