Liberals being Pro-Choice :/

Bottle_of_Smoke

K-9 wrote: »

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

Would disagree here. Someone could be a typical liberal but just consider abortion to be murder. I can see why people do.


On the OP, yes it does seem initially odd, however people who are pro-abortion often feel the choice of the mother is more important than the unborn child who will likely feel no pain, or is unlikely to have any kind of consciousness

B_Fanatic

strobe wrote: »

You can make an argument against the holocaust without having to invoke the concept of a soul.

Okay? I meant this argument specifically, not in general.

strobe wrote: »

Similarly, as far as I understand, the argument against abortion being put forward by Jakkass and others is "killing innocent humans is wrong, and I consider a foetus to be an innocent human".

And I think this can be whittle down to, "Is a foetus on par with an adult innocent Human? And if not, when does it become one?"

Terry

B_Fanatic wrote: »

Yes, I would agree that there is a point where it's safe to assume they aren't coming back. But that wasn't really the point. Let's pretend you were going to wake up after nine months

Already did the 9 month thing. I was awesome at being born.
The Mother miscarried twice and had a stillborn. I was the one that made it. All of 36 years and 5 hours ago.

I'm sure you would be devastated if my Mother had aborted me, but I wouldn't have known. You see, I don't really remember being in her womb.

Here's the thing. My Parents actually wanted a child. They tried for years to create the awesomeness that is me.

However, sometimes a woman gets pregnant and doesn't want to carry the thingy. It's not really up to me, you or anyone but that woman whether she carries a potential child or not. It's none of our business. You and your religious beliefs would do well to realise that we are no longer under the yoke of the Catholic Church, and that religions have no place in modern law making.


Praise Jesus?
I'd rather not.

B_Fanatic

Terry wrote: »

Already did the 9 month thing. I was awesome at being born.
The Mother miscarried twice and had a stillborn. I was the one that made it. All of 36 years and 5 hours ago.

Happy birthday yesterday!

Terry wrote: »

I'm sure you would be devastated if my Mother had aborted me, but I wouldn't have known. You see, I don't really remember being in her womb.

Here's the thing. My Parents actually wanted a child. They tried for years to create the awesomeness that is me.

However, sometimes a woman gets pregnant and doesn't want to carry the thingy. It's not really up to me, you or anyone but that woman whether she carries a potential child or not. It's none of our business. You and your religious beliefs would do well to realise that we are no longer under the yoke of the Catholic Church, and that religions have no place in modern law making.


Praise Jesus?
I'd rather not.

I'm athiest, and pro-choice. But I wasn't really arguing about pro-life/pro-choice, I was covering some biological fronts that's it. I don't think many people actually brought religion to this argument :P

K-9

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Would disagree here. Someone could be a typical liberal but just consider abortion to be murder. I can see why people do.

Yeah, but on this particular topic, liberal usually means pro choice. Tbh, I think the extreme "liberals" on this topic often aren't liberal at all, so I can see the Op's point there.

Personally I'd tend to be liberal, but on this issue "pro life", but then I'm a realist! I think recognising the reality and actually truely being pro choice, like advocating adoption and the father adopting, gives more choice and options. .

Not many might avail of it due to practical difficulties but it's still increased choice.

The extremes do more damage IMOin these debates, they turn people away.

On the OP, yes it does seem initially odd, however people who are pro-abortion often feel the choice of the mother is more important than the unborn child who will likely feel no pain, or is unlikely to have any kind of consciousness

And that I understand. Some people do, some people don't!

strobe

B_Fanatic wrote: »

And I think this can be whittled down to, "Is a foetus on par with an adult innocent human? [...]"

Oh, absolutely my man. That's the only question really ain't it?

Everything else is secondary.

Terry

B_Fanatic wrote: »

Happy birthday yesterday!



I'm athiest, and pro-choice. But I wasn't really arguing about pro-life/pro-choice, I was covering some biological fronts that's it. I don't think many people actually brought religion to this argument :P

Thanks, and allow me to introduce you to this person: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75456210

Best of luck avoiding religion with him.

smokedeels

Unless you're prepared to carry the child for 9 months and pay for it's education then you've no business supporting a law that prevents the person who does from ending the pregnancy.

It's only a fetus, I understand it's going to be a person someday but the stuff I use a condom to intercept could end up making people too, is it alright that I wear one?

philologos

B_Fanatic: This argument isn't about souls. A foetus is a human life, just one that is developing, it's the same life grows to birth, childhood, development and death. That's enough for me. The debate on personhood is for philosophy. It has no bearing on what is a life and what isn't as that is a biological definition. Laws on life shouldn't be based on arbitrary human opinions but rather on what is factual. We don't base our opinion as to whether or not murder is acceptable on the basis of whether or not we perceive the individual as a person. We base it on the fact that a human life with liberty is taken away.

K-9: You're the one making the claim. I've substantiated mine on this thread. It's only fair that you back up your claims.

K-9

philologos wrote: »

K-9: You're the one making the claim. I've substantiated mine on this thread. It's only fair that you back up your claims.

You made the claim that there has been an exponential increase in abortions in the UK and Europe, I'm saying I don't believe so. You never substantiated that.

For handiness:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2504499.html

As you said, you'll be happy when the number is closer to 0. Well abortion rates are decreasing and it isn't down to the ban on abortion here, it's a general European trend. So it seems you've a strange situation were legalising abortion decreases the rate in the long term and it has nothing to do with banning it.

nozzferrahhtoo

Lemmewinks wrote: »

Right, so the freedom... to kill a baby. I see... I understood it to be freedom of actions that don't harm others.

Now I'm not saying I'm for or against abortion - I'm just trying to see how this view is consistent with all of their other views.

I think it is perfectly consistent.

The rhetoric you use kind of highlights why. The phrase "the freedom to kill a baby" tells much about both your position and the issue.

People who are pro-choice are no more for "killing babies" than the people who are anti-choice. The issue is that both sides have differing opinions on the definition of words like life and baby.

Neither side of the issue wants to "kill baby's". The pro-choice side simply feel that the fetus before certain land marks in development has not achieved a level of development to which they feel we should be assigning rights, protection and labels like "baby".

If you continue to think of it as killing baby's you will continue to be confused about the inconsistencies you have imagined exist in their position.

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.

Most people who are pro-choice would agree with you on this. People who are prochoice are also often fighting for greater access to contraception and greater levels of sex education in schools and greater awareness that with power comes responsibility and sex is one of the biggest powers we have.

None of this negates the pro-choice argument however. We are not perfect and even if we tout all those ideals I just mentioned there will be still people who require the option of abortion.

Yet many people (not saying you, but the inference could be there in your post) act like doing the things listed above, and allowing choice on abortion, are mutually exclusive in some way and we should be doing one or the other. I, and many others, heartily support both.

philologos wrote: »

I believe that it isn't right to justify the taking of innocent life.

And as I said to the OP above, nor do many people who are pro-choice. The difference is where we define "life" to start and what we define it to be in this context.

It is merely underhand linguistic tactics when people say that pro-choice people are ok taking "innocent life" and "killing babys" and a tactic that should be highlighted when used, or even referred to lightly as you do here.

Most pro choice people share all the same desires to protect babys and the innocent that the pro life people do. The difference is just that each side defines differently what they mean by baby and innocent life.

philologos wrote: »

Wales actually has a smaller population, yet double the abortion rate.

Your figures do not appear to have been normalised in any way to account for the travel of people outside wales, into wales, to obtain the medical procedure that is unavailable in their own country.

So to use such a statistic to support the idea that "If X was legal there would be more X" is not really that valid. However there is still a certain amount of obviousness to the statement that if it was legal more people would do it. What your point is by highlighting this I am not sure. There is people who want the procedure now who wont have it because of the legal status.

philologos wrote: »

A foetus is a human life, just one that is developing, it's the same life grows to birth, childhood, development and death. That's enough for me.

But it is not that simple. "Life" is everywhere. Why is human life to be revered over the other life and therefore protected in the way you want? To answer that you would have to specifically define how you differentiate between human life and animal life.

And I think you will find that the things you define that bring the difference you want are all things that are not present in a fetus at 20 weeks of development like consciousness and the like for example.

Otherwise the only difference between a human fetus and a cow is that one has Human DNA and the other does not. What is so special about DNA?

Mike 1972

Mickeroo wrote: »

Wales is also not a predominantly catholic population either, a catholic population is less likely to opt for abortion than a non-catholic one.

Cuba 37.0
Romania 36.6
Estonia 34.4
Bulgaria 32.0
Martinique 31.6
China (PRC) 31.1
Hungary 30.8
Latvia 30.4
Moldova 29.0
Cocos Islands 28.6
Belarus 28.2
Georgia 28.1
Belize 1996 28.0
Kazakhstan 26.8
Sweden 25.8
Korea, South (ROK) 25.6
New Caledonia 25.2
French Guiana 25.0
Slovakia 24.3
Reunion 23.5
Singapore 23.4
Armenia 23.2
Serbia 23.2
Seychelles 23.2
Vietnam 23.2
United States 22.6
Ukraine 21.9
New Zealand 21.6
France 21.4
Norway 20.9
United Kingdom 20.9

old hippy

philologos wrote: »

B_Fanatic: This argument isn't about souls. A foetus is a human life, just one that is developing, it's the same life grows to birth, childhood, development and death. That's enough for me. The debate on personhood is for philosophy. It has no bearing on what is a life and what isn't as that is a biological definition. Laws on life shouldn't be based on arbitrary human opinions but rather on what is factual. We don't base our opinion as to whether or not murder is acceptable on the basis of whether or not we perceive the individual as a person. We base it on the fact that a human life with liberty is taken away.

K-9: You're the one making the claim. I've substantiated mine on this thread. It's only fair that you back up your claims.

A foetus is a foetus. With population levels a growing, we need less of the pesky little non humans, not more.

prinz

old hippy wrote: »

A foetus is a foetus. With population levels a growing, we need less of the pesky little non humans, not more.

In a large chunk of the world populations are decreasing, in something like 70 countries IIRC.

old hippy

prinz wrote: »

In a large chunk of the world populations are decreasing, in something like 70 countries IIRC.

Yeah, my wife's country, it's happening there. Less young people and more elderly. I think we should focus on helping those alreadly here rather than clumps of cells.

prinz

old hippy wrote: »

Yeah, my wife's country, it's happening there. Less young people and more elderly. I think we should focus on helping those alreadly here rather than clumps of cells.

You can't continue with less and less young people and more and more elderly, you'll end up with a top heavy demographic pyramid and a creaking social system trying to afford the pensions, health care and associate dother costs which is doomed to collapse (I saw recently that Russia and IIRC Slovakia are starting huge financial and other benefits packages to try and kick-start a babyboom). So we just may need those clumps of cells in the future to pay the taxes that help the elderly already here.

K-9

prinz wrote: »

You can't continue with less and less young people and more and more elderly, you'll end up with a top heavy demographic pyramid and a creaking social system trying to afford the pensions, health care and associate dother costs which is doomed to collapse (I saw recently that Russia and IIRC Slovakia are starting huge financial and other benefits packages to try and kick-start a babyboom). So we just may need those clumps of cells in the future to pay the taxes that help the elderly already here.

Maybe we should ban contraception then?

old hippy

prinz wrote: »

You can't continue with less and less young people and more and more elderly, you'll end up with a top heavy demographic pyramid and a creaking social system trying to afford the pensions, health care and associate dother costs which is doomed to collapse (I saw recently that Russia and IIRC Slovakia are starting huge financial and other benefits packages to try and kick-start a babyboom). So we just may need those clumps of cells in the future to pay the taxes that help the elderly already here.

Yer, that's just what the world needs - a baby boom. People should just stop reproducing, full stop.

prinz

K-9 wrote: »

Maybe we should ban contraception then?

Including cling film and tayto bags? My salt and vinegar sandwiches will be ruined.

K-9

State paid euthanasia at 70 as well, only leeches on the economy at that stage.

old hippy

K-9 wrote: »

State paid euthanasia at 70 as well, only leeches on the economy at that stage.

Joking aside, I will be seeking out that option when I'm too sick to go on.

K-9

old hippy wrote: »

Joking aside, I will be seeking out that option when I'm too sick to go on.

Yeah, having watched my father pass away, I can see the argument for having it.

old hippy

K-9 wrote: »

Yeah, having watched my father pass away, I can see the argument for having it.

I think it should be a right to chose a dignified way to end your days, if you so wish.

prinz

old hippy wrote: »

I think it should be a right to chose a dignified way to end your days, if you so wish.

I'd be very careful with the word you use on this topic. There is nothing undignified about the end of people who choose to struggle on against the odds, it's a wording that has always bothered me as if the alternative must be an undignifed end. Dignity is shown in many ways.

old hippy

prinz wrote: »

I'd be very careful with the word you use on this topic. There is nothing undignified about the end of people who choose to struggle on against the odds, it's a wording that has always bothered me as if the alternative must be an undignifed end. Dignity is shown in many ways.

I've seen people dying in agony & I can tell you I know which way I'd rather go.

prinz

old hippy wrote: »

I've seen people dying in agony & I can tell you I know which way I'd rather go.

That's you. I too have seen relatives suffer in pain until the end and it pisses me right off if anyone tries to tell me they didn't meet a dignified death. Pain and suffering does not equate to dignity in my book. Just one of my little quirks.

old hippy

prinz wrote: »

That's you. I too have seen relatives suffer in pain until the end and it pisses me right off if anyone tries to tell me they didn't meet a dignified death. Pain and suffering does not equate to dignity in my book. Just one of my little quirks.

Indeed, which is why I'm in favour of the choice to die without pain & suffering.

iguana

prinz wrote: »

You can't continue with less and less young people and more and more elderly, you'll end up with a top heavy demographic pyramid and a creaking social system trying to afford the pensions, health care and associate dother costs which is doomed to collapse (I saw recently that Russia and IIRC Slovakia are starting huge financial and other benefits packages to try and kick-start a babyboom). So we just may need those clumps of cells in the future to pay the taxes that help the elderly already here.

In a world where the overall population is increasing at a rapid rate, we are over 7 BILLION now, there is a very, very, very, very, very simple solution for countries with ageing populations.

Immigration.

prinz

old hippy wrote: »

Indeed, which is why I'm in favour of the choice to die without pain & suffering.

Good for you, just try not to imply that dying without pain and suffering is the only dignified end. It isn't.

iguana wrote: »

In a world where the overall population is increasing at a rapid rate, we are over 7 BILLION now, there is a very, very, very, very, very simple solution for countries with ageing populations. Immigration.

Yes. In fact immigrants are making up a large whack of our current baby boom here in Ireland. Then again it's not an either/or and immigration can have it's downsides too.

old hippy

prinz wrote: »

Good for you, just try not to imply that dying without pain and suffering is the only dignified end. It isn't.

You said "Pain and suffering does not equate to dignity in my book"...

pajunior

EverEvolving wrote: »

I refer you to the meaning of the word Liberal:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal



Number 4 sums it up for me really.

But that depends on whether the protection of life extends to the unborn.

For instance if you are 100% libertarian you believe that everyone should be allowed to whatever they want once they don't harm/kill someone. If you consider an unborn child to be "someone" then it makes perfect sense that you can be a libertarian and against abortion.

prinz

old hippy wrote: »

You said "Pain and suffering does not equate to dignity in my book"...

It doesn't. You can die in pain with dignity and you can die without pain with dignity. So saying you are choosing a dignified death without pain and suffering can imply that someone who died with pain and suffering died without dignity and that bothers me. Catch my drift now?

old hippy

prinz wrote: »

It doesn't. You can die in pain with dignity and you can die without pain with dignity. So saying you are choosing a dignified death without pain and suffering can imply that someone who died with pain and suffering died without dignity and that bothers me. Catch my drift now?

To me a dignified end is one that ends peacefully, without pain & suffering.

Lavezzi

The modern liberal mindset present in the majority of Irish females is truly messed up. These Women are entirely focused on their careers from a young age with no real intention of rearing a family. Then they want to go out and be total s****, spreading their legs to the top 15% of most 'desirable' men, aborting the baby should they get pregnant. Now I know there are generalizations in there many people won't agree with. But the fact of the matter is, traditional women from poorer countries would never murder their unborn child, even though they are often in no position to afford to raise one. And no, it's not because they see it as a financial investment, as many fools think. It's because loving their family is the most important thing to them in the world.

Manginas who support pro-choice are supreme idiots. The majority of them are not going to be on the receiving end of any of that promiscuous behavior so why should they support their sisters and daughters behaving like that. Joke.

old hippy

Lavezzi wrote: »

These Women are entirely focused on their careers from a young age with no real intention of rearing a family. Then they want to go out and be total s****, spreading their legs to the top 15% of most 'desirable' men, aborting the baby should they get pregnant. ..... Joke.

I really, really hope it is on your part. A very poor one, I may add.

Mike 1972

Lavezzi wrote: »

Now I know there are generalizations in there many people won't agree with.

You dont say ?

prinz

old hippy wrote: »

To me a dignified end is one that ends peacefully, without pain & suffering.

Whoosh, quite the circle. Good stuff, glad you put some people who were dear to me as having had undignified deaths.

prinz

Lavezzi wrote: »

Manginas...

Love it.

Lavezzi

old hippy wrote: »

I really, really hope it is on your part. A very poor one, I may add.

OK, if you disagree, tell me why.

Don't just say that is wrong, and leave it at that.

old hippy

Lavezzi wrote: »

OK, if you disagree, tell me why.

Don't just say that is wrong, and leave it at that.

I wouldn't dignify such tripe with a detailed respons. Clearly you have not a clue about men, women and relationships.

" Manginas who support pro-choice are supreme idiots. The majority of them are not going to be on the receiving end of any of that promiscuous behavior so why should they support their sisters and daughters behaving like that."

My friend aborted because our situation was impossible, neither of us could have raised a child. How dare you refer to pro choicers as idiots?

Go out and expericence life a bit and then come back. :mad:

old hippy

prinz wrote: »

Whoosh, quite the circle. Good stuff, glad you put some people who were dear to me as having had undignified deaths.

I lost people dear to me to in what I would call undignified deaths. Doesn't mean they, as a person, weren't any less loved. I just wish they had a choice in the manner of their exit.

Lavezzi

old hippy wrote: »

I wouldn't dignify such tripe with a detailed respons. Clearly you have not a clue about men, women and relationships.

" Manginas who support pro-choice are supreme idiots. The majority of them are not going to be on the receiving end of any of that promiscuous behavior so why should they support their sisters and daughters behaving like that."

My friend aborted because our situation was impossible, neither of us could have raised a child. How dare you refer to pro choicers as idiots?

Go out and expericence life a bit and then come back. :mad:

If you aren't willing to sacrifice your own personal comfort for the sake of your child, don't have sex. Simple as that. If you do have sex and are faced with a dilemma where you might have to sacrifice your own personal comfort for the sake of your child, don't expect the laws to bail you out by allowing you to unnaturally remove the fetus.

old hippy

Lavezzi wrote: »

If you aren't willing to sacrifice your own personal comfort for the sake of your child, don't have sex. Simple as that. If you do have sex and are faced with a dilemma where you might have to sacrifice your own personal comfort for the sake of your child, don't expect the laws to bail you out by allowing you to unnaturally remove the fetus.

Some things you can't prepare for. For instance, I'm not prepared for someone like you to tell me how to live my life.

Where do you get off, dictating your standards on sexual behaviour to others?

bronte

Lavezzi wrote: »

The modern liberal mindset present in the majority of Irish females is truly messed up. These Women are entirely focused on their careers from a young age with no real intention of rearing a family. Then they want to go out and be total s****, spreading their legs to the top 15% of most 'desirable' men, aborting the baby should they get pregnant. Now I know there are generalizations in there many people won't agree with. But the fact of the matter is, traditional women from poorer countries would never murder their unborn child, even though they are often in no position to afford to raise one. And no, it's not because they see it as a financial investment, as many fools think. It's because loving their family is the most important thing to them in the world.

Manginas who support pro-choice are supreme idiots. The majority of them are not going to be on the receiving end of any of that promiscuous behavior so why should they support their sisters and daughters behaving like that. Joke.

They're everything that's wrong with the world, aren't they?
I think we should lock the rotten bitches up.
Perhaps some kind of chain attaching them to the kitchen sink would suffice?
That way they could still cook and do the dishes.

I'll make some calls....

Lavezzi

old hippy wrote: »

Some things you can't prepare for. For instance, I'm not prepared for someone like you to tell me how to live my life.

Where do you get off, dictating your standards on sexual behaviour to others?

Of course the modern liberal Irish can and will do whatever they want sexually. I'm not even too concerned with abortion laws because they won't change the attitude of the people, which is the real problem. I'm just here to try and get people to acknowledge that this impure lifestyle is not good for you or anyone else, despite how it might make you 'feel' momentarily.

I just don't understand how 9 out of 10 people can say they would die to save their child. Yet, 9 out of 10 would also kill their unborn child, not for the sake of their own lives, but for their physical comfort and lifestyle. It's illogical and the only thing that can be drawn from it is that most Irish people are a bunch of sheep.

prinz

bronte wrote: »

That way they could still cook and do the dishes. ...

She's down to doing the dishes now. Tried her out on the cooker and she burnt the dinner. There's a reason the top chefs are male.

old hippy

Lavezzi wrote: »

Of course the modern liberal Irish can and will do whatever they want sexually. I'm not even too concerned with abortion laws because they won't change the attitude of the people, which is the real problem. I'm just here to try and get people to acknowledge that this impure lifestyle is not good for you or anyone else, despite how it might make you 'feel' momentarily.

I just don't understand how 9 out of 10 people can say they would die to save their child. Yet, 9 out of 10 would also kill their unborn child, not for the sake of their own lives, but for their physical comfort and lifestyle. It's illogical and the only thing that can be drawn from it is that most Irish people are a bunch of sheep.

I tend to turn off when I hear the sheep word mentioned. There's no such thing as an impure lifestyle (unless you're Torquemada?).

You have no idea about why people chose to make difficult decisions and your sneering misogyny would indicate that you probably don't operate in regular circles - you know? The type where you interact with real people and deal with real dilemmas and choices.

I know this is AH but frankly, what utter offensive bobbins.

desertcircus

Lavezzi wrote: »

The modern liberal mindset present in the majority of Irish females is truly messed up. These Women are entirely focused on their careers from a young age with no real intention of rearing a family. Then they want to go out and be total s****, spreading their legs to the top 15% of most 'desirable' men, aborting the baby should they get pregnant. Now I know there are generalizations in there many people won't agree with. But the fact of the matter is, traditional women from poorer countries would never murder their unborn child, even though they are often in no position to afford to raise one. And no, it's not because they see it as a financial investment, as many fools think. It's because loving their family is the most important thing to them in the world.

Manginas who support pro-choice are supreme idiots. The majority of them are not going to be on the receiving end of any of that promiscuous behavior so why should they support their sisters and daughters behaving like that. Joke.

Wow. Just wow. Any evidence for your inflammatory claims, or are you just a hate-filled misanthrope who thinks even rape victims should be forced to carry their pregnancy to term?

Lavezzi

desertcircus wrote: »

Wow. Just wow. Any evidence for your inflammatory claims, or are you just a hate-filled misanthrope who thinks even rape victims should be forced to carry their pregnancy to term?

Evidence? You mean like the agenda driven fake statistics people on here usually provide?

I stated my opinion. If you disagree, SAY WHY YOU DISAGREE. Don't just start name-calling like a toddler.

Lollipops23

Lavezzi wrote: »

Evidence? You mean like the agenda driven fake statistics people on here usually provide?

I stated my opinion. If you disagree, SAY WHY YOU DISAGREE. Don't just start name-calling like a toddler.

I was going to write a well-reasoned argument out, but I realised you have many many of your own problems without me taking you to pieces.


Good luck fighting your demons, man.