Liberals being Pro-Choice :/

MungBean

thee glitz wrote: »

My thinking is that liberalism is the belief in the importance of freedom and equal rights.
And being a pro-choice 'liberal' meaning that you think some people are more equal than others.

Because you think an abortion is killing a child. You define it as a separate human being whereas they do not. Therefore they are not hypocrites they just disagree.

By calling them hypocrites your asserting they do consider it a separate human being but agree with the right to kill it which is a view tainted by your opinion that abortion is the killing of a child and cannot be anything else.

thee glitz

MungBean wrote: »

Because you think an abortion is killing a child. You define it as a separate human being whereas they do not. Therefore they are not hypocrites they just disagree.

I don't believe that accepting it as a separate human being ought to be a contentious point in informed conversation.

MungBean wrote: »

By calling them hypocrites your asserting they do consider it a separate human being but agree with the right to kill it which is a view tainted by your opinion that abortion is the killing of a child and cannot be anything else.

Yes, unfortunately my view is tainted by my own opinion.

MungBean

thee glitz wrote: »

I don't believe that accepting it as a separate human being ought to be a contentious point in informed conversation.

Yet its the basis for your entire argument in calling people hypocrites.

Yes, unfortunately my view is tainted by my own opinion.

Your view that they consider something as true is tainted by the fact you cannot see it as false.

strobe

Lemmewinks wrote: »

Okay people - I digress - I was wrong.

Fair play man. I salute you in all sincerity. If more people were willing to adopt your level of maturity interweb discussion dealies like boards would be far more productive, beneficial and pleasant places to frequent.

Yours in naive but unwavering optimism,

Strobe.

strobe

Terry wrote: »

Also, it has just turned midnight. That means it's my birthday. Happy birthday to me. Praise Jesus.

Happy birthday man.

Terry

rossie1977 wrote: »

speaking of hypocrites, pro-lifers :rolleyes:

http://tech.mit.edu/V116/N13/salvi.13w.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1902838,00.html
http://articles.cnn.com/1998-10-24/us/9810_24_doctor.killed.02_1_abortion-providers-abortion-rights-advocates-clinic-spokeswoman?_s=PM:US
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1118212/

Praise Jesus.

bronte wrote: »

Oh but that's okay...they were doin gawwwds work.

Praiiiiise the lawwwrd.

*chews straw*

Praise Jesus.

thee glitz wrote: »

Their abhorrent actions can't be defended but their motivations understood.

Praise Jesus.


He will save all you heathens.
"He" being me.
You're grand. Abortion is fine regardless of the circumstances.
Don't want to carry a child? That's none of my business. It's also no concern of anyone else reading this post.

I'd love a McDonald's for my Birthday. Praise Jesus.

thee glitz

MungBean wrote: »

Yet its the basis for your entire argument in calling people hypocrites.

They're only hypocritical if think themselves liberal (or conservative!).

MungBean wrote: »

Your view that they consider something as true is tainted by the fact you cannot see it as false.

I don't know what other people think but i thought that were there someone alive inside you you would consider it as such
and possibly acknowledge same by abstaining from addictive/harmful substances during pregnancy.

MungBean

thee glitz wrote: »

They're only hypocritical if think themselves liberal (or conservative!).



I don't know what other people think but i thought that were there someone alive inside you you would consider it as such
and possibly acknowledge same by abstaining from addictive/harmful substances during pregnancy.

They are only hypocritical if they accept your definition of the foetus being a separate being/child. Problem is you cannot accept that they can have an opinion different to yours in relation to defining a foetus.

Your view is that how you see it is the only way it can be and that everyone knows it.

I give up. Cant reason with someone who refuses to accept you can have an opinion.

thee glitz

MungBean wrote: »

They are only hypocritical if they accept your definition of the foetus being a separate being/child.

I genuinely don't find this a difficult concept. So it seems my opinion is set to differ.

moneyman

thee glitz wrote: »

I genuinely don't find this a difficult concept. So it seems my opinion is set to differ.

It's simple really. Would a 3 week old foetus survive independent of it's mother? Yeah, didn't think so. It can hardly be classed as living when it is not capable of independent life for any amount of time. It's about as alive as the sperm in my testicles, so you may as well argue that refusal of conception in any circumstances is plain murder which, as you can see, is just stupid.

Certainly not a difficult concept.

K-9

Liberal would mean pro choices, simple as that. Just being pro life and anti other choices isn't liberal, simples.

I don't personally agree with abortion but I can see the benefit in having more choices. I think adoption and fathers caring for the baby should be more publicised and considered.

As for the restrictions on abortion here, I don't like the hypocrisy of it. I think it should be legalised and the numbers having abortions seriously addressed. as it's the best chance of actually reducing the numbers. Not a chance of that though with the opinions of so many "pro lifers".

partyatmygaff

moneyman wrote: »

It's simple really. Would a 3 week old foetus survive independent of it's mother? Yeah, didn't think so. It can hardly be classed as living when it is not capable of independent life for any amount of time.

Your made up definitions of life that contravene biology are fine for thinking things tbrough for yourself but are completely worthless when it comes to society at large. A three week old foetus is alive as you are. It is ridiculous and downright absurd to suggest otherwise.

moneyman

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Your made up definitions of life that contravene biology are fine for thinking things tbrough for yourself but are completely worthless when it comes to society at large. A three week old foetus is alive as you are. It is ridiculous and downright absurd to suggest otherwise.

How is it alive if it cannot survive independently? A foetus certainly has the potential for life, but that doesn't make it alive. You can insist that my definition is made up all you want if it makes you feel more secure, but it doesn't make it true. To claim a three week old foetus is as alive as myself is absolutely ridiculous, and literally makes no sense.

partyatmygaff

moneyman wrote: »

How is it alive if it cannot survive independently? A foetus certainly has the potential for life, but that doesn't make it alive. You can insist that my definition is made up all you want if it makes you feel more secure, but it doesn't make it true. To claim a three week old foetus is as alive as myself is absolutely ridiculous, and literally makes no sense.

Biochemically speaking you're essentially a bag of chemicals interacting with each other. You started off as a smaller bag of chemicals interacting with each other. All that has really changed over time is scale.

Size isn't a factor in determining whether an organism is alive or dead. Your definitions of life are at odds with reality and general scientific consensus. I'm not the one being ridiculous here.

moneyman

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Biochemically speaking you're essentially a bag of chemicals interacting with each other. You started off as a smaller bag of chemicals interacting with each other. All that has really changed over time is scale.

Size isn't a factor in determining whether an organism is alive or dead. Your definitions of life are at odds with reality and general scientific consensus. I'm not the one being ridiculous here.

Nah, you're being facetious and intentionally obtuse. You know full well a three week old foetus is not an independent living being. You're absolutely mental if you think scale is the only difference. Massive biological developments occur over time - a foetus that young simply isn't developed enough to live. End of story.

Mark200

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I haven't. The point of fertilisation is not an arbitrarily chosen point in time. On the contrary it's a very specific, fixed point in time that no two people competent in the life sciences could reasonably argue on.

Arbitrary and specific are not mutually exclusive.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Biochemically speaking you're essentially a bag of chemicals interacting with each other. You started off as a smaller bag of chemicals interacting with each other. All that has really changed over time is scale.

Size isn't a factor in determining whether an organism is alive or dead. Your definitions of life are at odds with reality and general scientific consensus. I'm not the one being ridiculous here.

Something being 'alive' does not make it a human life.

Mike 1972

partyatmygaff wrote: »

From a purely biological point of view, a distinct and disparate human individual begins life at fertilisation.

So how do you explain identical twins ?

Whatever about 12/18/24 week embryos How in the name of Elvis can a clump of undifferentiated stem cells be considered a human being when there isint even a brain for crysakes.

LETHAL LADY

Is liberalism anything to do with this guy?

http://youtu.be/dioRwB4RvrQ

LETHAL LADY

Mike 1972 wrote: »

So how do you explain identical twins ?

Split guggy eggs?

partyatmygaff

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Your made up definitions of life that contravene biology are fine for thinking things tbrough for yourself but are completely worthless when it comes to society at large..

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Your definitions of life are at odds with reality and general scientific consensus. I'm not the one being ridiculous here.

You've talked a lot about the definition of life. Care to share yours, since you're so scientific??

philologos

Being pro-life could be argued to be supporting the liberty of others to live. Personally I couldn't care less whether or not people regard me as liberal or conservative. The only thing I try to live for is doing the right thing. If the right thing makes me an arch-conservative or an arch-liberal depending on the context so-be-it.

Dudess

Lemmewinks wrote: »

Most liberals I know will argue against any harm to life; the death penalty, animal poaching, animal testing, fox hunting, etc; they they seem fine with aborting babies... It just strikes me an inconsistent.

Well by that logic it's also inconsistent of hardline conservatives to be pro-life yet pro death penalty.

Andy-Pandy

I've always thought that being pro-choice is not being either pro or anti but believing that a woman has a right to choose. That each person has the right to choose what happens to their own body.

yutta

Andy-Pandy wrote: »

I've always thought that being pro-choice is not being either pro or anti but believing that a woman has a right to choose. That each person has the right to choose what happens to their own body.

What about the father's choice and the child's choice?

philologos

Andy-Pandy wrote: »

I've always thought that being pro-choice is not being either pro or anti but believing that a woman has a right to choose. That each person has the right to choose what happens to their own body.

It sounds so eminently reasonable until you hear of cases of women having multiple abortions (I've heard as many as 8) as is the case here in Britain.

Personally, I believe the choice begins earlier. If people aren't willing to have children at a particular juncture in time surely it should be the case that they should either take contraception seriously, or seriously think about abstaining until they would be capable of bringing a child into the world.

I'm pro people choosing whether or not they should have children of certainty, but this can be done without abortion can't it? I'm pro-choice until it involves taking innocent life.

Edit: To note I'm in support of abortion by medical necessity but not by choice.

smokedeels

Women being in control of their bodies seems like a basic belief for a "liberal" to me.

The conservative "we'll fight for you until your born, then you're on your own" approach is the confusing one.

philologos

smokedeels wrote: »

The conservative "we'll fight for you until your born, then you're on your own" approach is the confusing one.

Who says that is the approach? - I wouldn't sharply define myself as a conservative but I think that the State should seriously provide welfare for those who need it most. I believe that everyone should have a chance to succeed irrespective of class.

Dudess wrote: »

Well by that logic it's also inconsistent of hardline conservatives to be pro-life yet pro death penalty.

Absolutely. I'd say they aren't earnestly pro-life. Pro-life goes beyond mere abortion. It also looks into the debate of pallative care vs euthanasia, and issues such as the death penalty.

smokedeels

philologos wrote: »

Who says that is the approach? - I wouldn't sharply define myself as a conservative but I think that the State should seriously provide welfare for those who need it most. I believe that everyone should have a chance to succeed irrespective of class.

You don't sound like a "conservative" to me, why do you define yourself as one?

philologos

philologos wrote: »

I'm pro people choosing whether or not they should have children of certainty, but this can be done without abortion can't it? I'm pro-choice until it involves taking innocent life.

Edit: To note I'm in support of abortion by medical necessity but not by choice.

Nobody (with the exception of a handful of mentally disturbed people out there) is pro taking innocent life. The problem is that different people have different opinions on what constitutes life, be it innocent or otherwise.

Although out of curiosity, if you think that a foetus is an "innocent life", what's your reasoning for abortion by medical necessity?

yutta

Catholic thought says that abortion is wrong in all instances. So too is euthanasia and the death penalty.

yutta

true-or-false wrote: »

Although out of curiosity, if you think that a foetus is an "innocent life", what's your reasoning for abortion by medical necessity?

I'd say 99% of mothers would risk their own life for their own flesh and blood.

philologos

I don't define myself as one strictly. What I do define myself as is quoted below:

Being pro-life could be argued to be supporting the liberty of others to live. Personally I couldn't care less whether or not people regard me as liberal or conservative. The only thing I try to live for is doing the right thing. If the right thing makes me an arch-conservative or an arch-liberal depending on the context so-be-it.

This hooks into my beliefs. I believe that it isn't right to justify the taking of innocent life. I also don't believe it is right to deprive the most marginalised and the most deprived in our societies of the help that they desperately need to succeed.

I believe in both because I believe that it is the right thing to do. My values inform me of that.

yutta

yutta wrote: »

Catholic thought says that abortion is wrong in all instances. So too is euthanasia and the death penalty.

This isn't me arguing your point, this is a genuine question - Where does the bible address abortion?

smokedeels

yutta wrote: »

Catholic thought says that abortion is wrong in all instances. So too is euthanasia and the death penalty.

....not everyone's Catholic.

philologos

true-or-false wrote: »

Nobody (with the exception of a handful of mentally disturbed people out there) is pro taking innocent life. The problem is that different people have different opinions on what constitutes life, be it innocent or otherwise.

Although out of curiosity, if you think that a foetus is an "innocent life", what's your reasoning for abortion by medical necessity?

I think a foetus is life. Yes, it's the same life that is born, lives and dies again. Foetus in Latin actually means "young one".

I believe it is fundamentally unjustified to take that life. I believe that I have had the liberty to live and I believe that they should too.

I'm pro-choice until it involves killing. That means use contraceptives carefully, or else abstain until you feel you are ready to. That's the value that I will be living out. It's horrendously difficult and I understand that, but life is the most important right of all. Without life, all other rights die. They are irrelevant and non-existent.

I'm pro-life because I'm pro-liberty.

K-9

philologos wrote: »

It sounds so eminently reasonable until you hear of cases of women having multiple abortions (I've heard as many as 8) as is the case here in Britain.

Personally, I believe the choice begins earlier. If people aren't willing to have children at a particular juncture in time surely it should be the case that they should either take contraception seriously, or seriously think about abstaining until they would be capable of bringing a child into the world.

I'm pro people choosing whether or not they should have children of certainty, but this can be done without abortion can't it? I'm pro-choice until it involves taking innocent life.

Edit: To note I'm in support of abortion by medical necessity but not by choice.

8 Abortions is a sign something is seriously wrong, could even be some Irish women. Maybe if it was legal here we could do something about Irish women doing that, like not sending them abroad and not having a clue how many they are having.

philologos

If it was legal in Ireland it would no doubt increase. At present the abortion rate of Irish women is half that of Wales with the exact same population.

Less abortions = the right thing to encourage as far as I'm concerned. Therefore I am pro-life. I recognise it is a difficult debate, but at the same time, I must support what I believe is right. I can't do otherwise.

Pace2008

yutta wrote: »

Catholic thought says that abortion is wrong in all instances. So too is euthanasia and the death penalty.

Cheers man, that's it settled then.

Lads, time to pack up and head off home.

philologos

philologos wrote: »

I think a foetus is life. Yes, it's the same life that is born, lives and dies again. Foetus in Latin actually means "young one".

I believe it is fundamentally unjustified to take that life. I believe that I have had the liberty to live and I believe that they should too.

I'm pro-choice until it involves killing. That means use contraceptives carefully, or else abstain until you feel you are ready to. That's the value that I will be living out. It's horrendously difficult and I understand that, but life is the most important right of all. Without life, all other rights die. They are irrelevant and non-existent.

I'm pro-life because I'm pro-liberty.

I thanked your post not because I agree but because it's rare with a topic like this to get genuine explanations for people's opinions. I see your point.

I suppose the difficulty is that while we have different opinions, my opinion affects only me whereas your opinion would affect both of us. In that it's easy for me to say pro-choice, sit back and let people make their own decisions, whereas if I felt that a foetus was a human life, I'd feel a responsibility to stop people from getting abortions.

But given that women in this country can get abortions in other countries, what purpose does it serve here to have it illegal? Legal abortions in this country would increase the number of abortions by Irish women, but it would also decrease mental and emotional trauma for the women who are going to get it anyway, decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies and births that women are forced to undergo (an unimaginable ordeal to my mind) and decrease the number of unwanted children being put up for adoption.

P.S. what about the fact that even carefully used contraception can fail?

Logical Fallacy

philologos wrote: »

It sounds so eminently reasonable until you hear of cases of women having multiple abortions (I've heard as many as 8) as is the case here in Britain.

I hear lots of things.

Where did you hear this magical number?

K-9

philologos wrote: »

If it was legal in Ireland it would no doubt increase. At present the abortion rate of Irish women is half that of Wales with the exact same population.

Less abortions = the right thing to encourage as far as I'm concerned. Therefore I am pro-life. I recognise it is a difficult debate, but at the same time, I must support what I believe is right. I can't do otherwise.

What statistics are you basing that on?

Always thought we could give better care and options by having it here myself.

pragmatic1

yutta wrote: »

Catholic thought says that abortion is wrong in all instances. So too is euthanasia and the death penalty.

Well then Catholic thought is retarded, with the exception of the death penalty.

Eric Cartman

philologos wrote: »

I think a foetus is life. Yes, it's the same life that is born, lives and dies again. Foetus in Latin actually means "young one".

I believe it is fundamentally unjustified to take that life. I believe that I have had the liberty to live and I believe that they should too.

I'm pro-choice until it involves killing. That means use contraceptives carefully, or else abstain until you feel you are ready to. That's the value that I will be living out. It's horrendously difficult and I understand that, but life is the most important right of all. Without life, all other rights die. They are irrelevant and non-existent.

I'm pro-life because I'm pro-liberty.

would you support having a tumor removed ? because at 8-10 weeks the difference between a foetus and a tumor isnt very much at all. Its a womans right to do what she wants, why should her life have to be put on hold for 18 years to look after something she doesnt want, especially in the case of not being able to afford a child, rape, incest or anything else.

Mark200

yutta wrote: »

Catholic thought says that abortion is wrong in all instances. So too is euthanasia and the death penalty.

And contraception.

partyatmygaff

moneyman wrote: »

Nah, you're being facetious and intentionally obtuse. You know full well a three week old foetus is not an independent living being.

No I don't. On the contrary, a three week old foetus is a completely different individual to its mother. Its survival may be almost completely dependent on its mother at that stage of development but that does not mean the foetus is just another clump of cells in that woman's body.

Mark200 wrote: »

Arbitrary and specific are not mutually exclusive.
Something being 'alive' does not make it a human life.

As far as i'm concerned a zygote is a human life. A viable human life it may not always be but it's still a human life.

Mike 1972 wrote: »

So how do you explain identical twins ?

What does it matter? Replace "individual human life" with "individual human lives". The point is that the embryo(s) formed is/are not just any old group of ordinary body cells. They're still different individuals to their mother.

Whatever about 12/18/24 week embryos How in the name of Elvis can a clump of undifferentiated stem cells be considered a human being when there isint even a brain for crysakes.

When did you start being a human being? Was it when neurogenesis began? Was it when you started moving around in the womb? Or was it when you were born?

Look at the age the average Irish person lives to... About 75 years. 75 years is 900 months. Add 9 months to that. That's about 3950 weeks of life. Let's say said average foetus was fully developed at around 37 weeks. I don't find it at all reasonable to suggest that that particular person was not human for the first 0.0094% of their life.

true-or-false wrote: »

You've talked a lot about the definition of life. Care to share yours, since you're so scientific??

The same definition of life that you'll find in most biology textbooks, i.e. the one that most of the world seem to agree on.

Mike 1972

partyatmygaff wrote: »

When did you start being a human being? Was it when neurogenesis began? Was it when you started moving around in the womb? Or was it when you were born?

When do you stop being a human being ?

Its generally accepted that its around about the time that all detectable brain activity has irreversebly ceased

Therefore why should one be considered a human being before any brain activity has even started ?

Mickeroo

Imho until there's a functioning brain & nervous system I don't think it can be classed as a human life. Once a certain stage of development is reached i think it is ethically wrong to abort, before that it's fair enough as far as I can see....

partyatmygaff

partyatmygaff wrote: »

The same definition of life that you'll find in most biology textbooks, i.e. the one that most of the world seem to agree on.

Which is? If you're prepared to criticise other people's definition, you should produce the one you believe "the world" agrees on.

partyatmygaff

Mike 1972 wrote: »

When do you stop being a human being ?

Its generally accepted that its around about the time that all detectable brain activity has irreversebly ceased

Therefore why should one be considered a human being before any brain activity has even started ?

Is it reasonable to suggest that you were not a human being for the first six weeks of your life? What were you, if not a human being? Some special strain of microorganism that became human when a certain group of cells started being electrically active?

true-or-false wrote: »

Which is? If you're prepared to criticise other people's definition, you should produce the one you believe "the world" agrees on.

Simple enough...

All life is

• Composed of cells
• Structurally organised
• Capable of respiration and metabolism
• Capable of self-regulation... Homeostasis.
• Capable of cell growth and reproduction.

A human embryo meets all the above criteria as do fully developed humans. Both are alive, just one is the more developed form of the other.

Mike 1972

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Is it reasonable to suggest that you were not a human being for the first six weeks of your life? What were you, if not a human being? Some special strain of microorganism that became human when a certain group of cells started being electrically active? .

People might argue on the six week figure and come out with a shorter less clumsy scientific term to describe what youre referring to but otherwise yeah sounds reasonable enough.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

[*]Composed of cells .

Just to be clear we are referring to cells in the plural as this kinds contradicts your earlier assertion ?