Why do 'pro lifers' only care about life inside the womb?

Without derailing things too much, I basically agree.

More than anything, we should decriminalize harder drugs. Drug addiction isn't a crime -- it's a mental problem.

Rehabbing users is a lot cheaper (and usually more effective) than jailing them.

 

I think we have to cut the line when they form, but people on both sides are going to have a really difficult time making a definitive case.

I'm left with this as a defense: I think life is in the blood. When blood appears, I believe that is the time. My primary reason for moving the time frame up to 3 weeks is simple:

What cannot be accomplished wrt abortion/termination in 3 weeks that would take 7?

I think women who do not want a pregnancy should be taking morning after pills; I think victims of rape should do likewise.

Who does that leave, who cannot do these things within that time frame?

Because we don't really know when a human soul actually appears, we should err on the side of the most cautious feasible minimum standard, IMO.

 

Uh huh...so tell us, what is the goal of anti abortionists, if not to see an end to abortion?

Oh...wait....I get it....that's not really the goal at all, is it, the goal of anti abortionists isn't to ensure that abortion is a thing of the past, it's merely so they can create an illusion of a moral high ground, beneath which would lie....many people having abortions.

I happen to think the state have quite enough power, without giving them the power of attorney over the body of another person.

I am quite happy to look at the cut off point for terminations, on a country by country basis, a compare and contrast may be interesting to the thread.

I am quite happy to discuss which nations who don't have an abortion ban, also have the smallest % of people having abortions, to see if there is something that can be learned from that?

Interested in either avenue?

 

Agreed.

Now agree with the notion of allowing abortion only up to the point "where the blood moves".

 

Hey, as long as the morning after pill is legal, sure.

But again... you'd still allow emergency abortions though, right?

 

The human 'soul' has no protection or true identity, in law.

That's a religous thing.

 

So why do you want to reduce abortions? What's the problem?

 

Um...I don't want to get into a dick swining match, but the first member to mention the MAP, esp being effective up to 36 hours after sex was....me. Not you. But me. So again, you are not reading carefully enough.

However, if for some reason the women didn't or couldn't take the MAP, or it didn't work, in your time span of 14-21 days after being raped, NO, I would not force her to have a baby to a rapist.

I trust that makes my position clear on the matter of punishing a raped women twice.

Thanks

 

Would you feel more comfortable using the term "self-awareness"?

 

Well, I would have thought it rather obvious that if you can educate more people, to use contraception, then you reduce unwanted pregnancies, and the entire dilemma that we have been discussing on here.

Not to mention that it would save the NHS money, which could then be spent in other areas.

 

Yes you ARE a cynic and that is probably why when you read left wing sources, you tend to buy into it wholeheartedly. The picture you have of pro-lifers is much worse than the situation actually is. Some of them are turds, sure. But any group has its turds.

The alternatives to abortion aren't worse. Not in 95% of the cases. I'm glad you get the point on using abortion for contraception, by the way.

And they don't stop caring about life once it's born. That doesn't even make sense. Why WOULD they stop? I know you don't know. Well, they WOULDN'T.
(your left wing sources have limited your thinking)- think it through -- why WOULD they stop caring?

I think that most pro-life people (maybe not the extremists) want abortion to be allowed if health of the mother is in grave danger (physical, not mental). And rape and incest.

They want to begrudge financial assistance to slackers, not everyone, and they want to ease off on financial assistance to those who use it instead of working but know better and if not given help, will help themselves. THAT IS the issue, pro-lifers want people to be able to help themselves. That takes effort.

How can you get the idea that a gigantic group of people called pro-lifers, or even Conservatives as a whole don't care about others? That's ridiculous. It's not even logical that such a large group of America human beings would not care about others.

And with a few exceptions, those who are willing to send others to fight overseas are doing it for the general good of the country. The best way to insure freedom? Maybe yes, maybe no, but it's not because they care less about human life than Liberals. I've seen better arguments for LIBERALS not caring about human life.

Get a real picture of humanity. That is, if you WANT a real picture, Jack.

And I believe you DO want a real picture. You know how to balance your view of the world with regard to your sources?...

...ask a Liberal how NOT to do it. Then do the opposite of what they say.

 

Sure, but if they pay for it themselves, and they don't want to use contraceptives and instead want to abort all fetuses, what's the problem? Why does there need to be any "education" there?

 

Have never given it much thought.

I was merely pointing out the fact that in law, the 'soul' is not recognised, or given protections, and there is no scientific evidence of it, but then it really depends what one means by the 'soul'.

If they mean it as something which, upon death, can almost up and leave the body, then no, this has no worth in law or science.

 

Is this like those inane selt belt commercials I see in Wisconsin? "Use your Seat Belt, so we can attain ZERO DEATHS IN WISCONSIN"?



You're describing a goal of perfection - again. Only fools actually expect to attain such a goal, and put in place. Here's what reasonable pro-life people are fighting for:

1) Not supporting the notion of killing unborn children by codifying it into law.

2) Making any abortion that takes place as rare an occurence as possible, and shifting responsibility for deaths directly on the mother, and not on the taxpayer in any way.

Further, my own goals are as follows:

1) Compel "life begins at conception" advocates to soften their stance to the "life begins when blood moves" position;

2) Integrate the "morning after pill" into sexual behaviours for those who (irresponsibly) choose to engage in intercourse without wanting to accept the possibility of a child.

3) Make it illegal to have an abortion after 3 weeks (confirmed via scan)

How many, Jack? You have refused to answer that question as well: isn't fewer abortions a noble goal? Despite your rants about the Phillipines, etc, you didn't cede that the number of abortions under a law restricting them would go down.

Probably sharply.

Particularly if the policies I personally endorse are enacted.

What about the body of the baby?

Sure. Do it.

I bet there would be. It's mostly about cultural permissiveness. Morality - a topic to which you reply: whose morals?

The answer to which is "the morals that recoil from the notion of killing an innocent, no matter how young". In short: apparently not your morals.

Absolutely. In fact, this is where this conversation should have gone to start. But you didn't read my position, and assumed something else about it.

 

Have you met many women like that?

Or any?

 

Well, I would guess Ron Paul would argue that people should educate themselves about contraception to avoid getting pregnant in the first place. He's pro-life.

 

@Sub.

I think we are maybe going to have to do that study of nation's that do offer termination, but who have the least % of instances of terminations, in the West, on another thread, as I fear that this one is about to close.

I would not like to get into it, then for it to close.

The 500 posts rule.

 

My comment was more towards your comment: That's a religous thing.

A soul, or self awareness, is not a "religious thing". Souls do exist no matter what religion a person is.

 

Sorry I know that was for Jack but I can not resist.

You can not cut benefits on those with children unless you do not care about the children. Mom gets support of a few hundred a month and works full time at a low wage job. Without rental, health, food, monetary, power and phone assistance she could not make it. You say the conservatives as a whole care? Then please give away more money and stop trash talking the Pres.

I am rather independent and I am very conservative on most things but don't you right wingers think I am paying for your little wants without trash talking you.

You and your ilk can pay!!! Do not ask others to do it while you tax us for corp welfare at the same time.

 

Prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Prove science wrong. I believe there is a human spirit but I can not prove it.

It is faith.

 

Not looking for 'perfection', at all.

That is why I accept that people will always get pregnant.

And that there will always be those that seek to terminate.

And that they will find those means, whatever way.

I just not see it as progressive to ban abortion, thus shifting it all underground (or for those that can get on a plane, to another country)?

I don't see what it is achieving?

It would be about as workable as banning 'being gay'.

The best you can do is keep chipping away by educating about contraceptive options, offer support to girls who do want to go ahead and have the baby, and offering a safe and prof environment for those that do not.

Those are my views.

 

A "soul" is self awareness. Do you exist? Can you think? Do you attempt to preserve your life? In some cultures, the term "soul" means "the mind".

Now claiming that there is a "spirit" that leaves the body and travels on after death...that is a religious thing.

 

The concept of a 'soul' is a religous one, of course it is, and not exclusive to Christianity.

Depends what one means by soul though, as I have said.

I can say a singer has ''soul', and that wouldn't be an admission on my part that there is evidence of some invisible life force that leaves the body, upon death.

Self awareness is not a religous thing, but the religous can be self aware.

 

They often refer to it as the 'soul'.

Hence it has it's origins in religion.

 

On a case by case basis, and only if the mother agrees.

How many of these are there, anyway? My only concern is those with an agenda pushing this notion and using "need" as an excuse.