Pro life or Pro choice

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by sifreak21, Feb 2, 2012.

  1. sifreak21 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,671
    was listening to the radio and the issue came up. good points on both sides. so what do you all thing.

    I personally is pro choice.
    reasons I was adopted so that comes with a whole bunch of feelings that if your not you wouldnt understand.

    and If anything ever happened id rather have a choice and not use it than not have a choice at all

    I believe that life starts when it can sustain itself for an extended period of time. with no help IE.. heart beats oxygen is exchanged
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Let the mother have the right to decide, not me or others because she is the one responsible for her own decisions.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    Err shes not the only one responcible
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Rhaedas Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,516
    You can be pro-life and pro-choice too. I would say that most pro-choice are not pro-death. They just think it's not up to the gov't.

    Usually the ones that call themselves pro-life are really anti-choice. How many pro-lifers offer to adopt the baby of the one they're protesting against?
     
  8. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    But she has the control over her own reproductive organs, no one else does. Her husband can't tell what his wife should or should not do because it's up to her to make the final decision no matter what he says. Of course he would have input but the final word belongs to the mother.
     
  9. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    Then she and she alone should bare the reaponcibility for that decision, if he CHOSES to stay thats his choice, if he choses to leave then thats her problem.

    Oh and BTW not even.womens groups belive that concidering it was a feminist group which was pushing for a partners authorisation for a vecetomy
     
  10. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    As long as a fetus is a "parasite" on the mother she should have the final say about whether she wants to carry it to term. Would that those so concerned about that fetus before it is born would have the same concern after it is born.
     
  11. Me-Ki-Gal Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,634
    I am a Man so I really don't feel like I have a say in it seems I am not the one going through the hard ship of child birth but I prefer to ear on the side of "caution" so I go pro Choice . Let the Woman decide
    I am afraid of the soul of Woman . You know that fucking huge and I mean Huge Lizard creature that comes out of the bottom of the sea . Anyone else see that ? Fuck I'm I alone . Fuck Me running
    Shit ! Fuck !
    Ah
    You know somethings things about nature and the Human animal a person should just not know. Fuck .
    O.K. we are gonna change it . I think I can do it . Yeah I think I been doing it already .
    O.K. It is fine . All is good . I love every body
    Shit
     
  12. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,988
    YES! Choice means just that. If the unintended pregnancy will result in terrible hardship for the woman (or, in many cases, very young girl, who was perhaps forced into sex) and the baby, one kind of decision would be correct. If the delivery can be safe and the baby get a decent shot at life, that might be a different decision.

    Or make any other provision for mothers and children? Their interest ends at 'saving' a foetus.
    They are usually the same people who also vote against birth-control, prenatal clinics in poor neighbourhoods, post-natal care, women's health and nutrition, family services, schools and housing, creating living-wage jobs and making higher education available to the underprivileged. They're only interested in making ever more underprivileged people.
    (What do you bet the women in the upper 30% retain all the choices they wish to deny the lower 70%?)
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2012
  13. Thoreau Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,376
    Pro-choice. I actually think we need to enforce abortions or at least better birth control measures to manage out of control exponential population growth we're facing.
     
  14. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,175
    Pro-choice is pro-life! It makes sure that anyone born will be properly taken care of, it would be unethical otherwise. That being said, one does have to draw the line somewhere, as a premature baby is a real baby and it would be bad to kill it. I think our present laws in the US are a good compromise.
     
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,322
    Heart beat starts at 21 days and oxygen exchange starts around the same time. If you mean "can breathe air and survive outside the womb" that's dependent largely on surfactant production and can happen as early as 30 weeks without extraordinary measures, as early as 21 weeks with extraordinary measures.
     
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,550
    The world is already full of men who leave when they find out their girlfriend is pregnant. So, no news there.

    You seem to be randomly clutching at straws for some reason.

    What is your point? You think men should have control over women's reproductive systems? This is the 21st century, Asguard. Get with the program.
     
  17. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    And the law will hunt them down. and how exactly is it clutching at straws to say that concidering women groups want reproduction to be a right of the couple rather than of the indervidual and there for sterlisation would require the consent of your partner. That is the proposed legislation for South Australia james, a change to the consent act which would require your partner to give consent before you had a vesectomy and you know something, that doesnt bother me. Reproduction IS an issue for a COUPLE not an indervidual and I see no issue with it being an issue for the couple.
     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,550
    What? Who? Why?

    Which women's groups?

    I think that would be an extremely silly law. At what point does a "couple" cease to be a couple? How will it be established as to whether consent for a vasectomy is required from the partner or not? (Will this also apply to gay couples?)

    A woman can't force a man to get her pregnant, so why should she be able to force him not to have the vasectomy that he wants?

    Women having control over male reproduction is as stupid as men having control over female reproduction.

    Who is introducing/sponsoring this legislation in South Australia? And why? I doubt it will get the required level of support to pass. On the face of it, it seems ill-conceived.
     
  19. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    As for who it is i cant remember, if your interested look up my old post on the matter because i discused it when it first came up which was a few years ago. As for it being a "silly law" actually i disagree, i work in health and the whole "my body is mine and only mine" is actually VERY rare, even in traditional westen culture. Most couples will make decisions together about serious health care issues, a lot of children will be making decisions for there elderly parents even though they are compitant (though that debatable in my nan's case

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ) and outside our culture a lot of Asian patients EXPECT you to deal with the head of the family NOT the patient when it comes to decision making. Reproduction effects both partners in spite of what the femnazies argue and there is no reason why in commited relationship that things which effect it shouldn't be joint decisions, the conquences effect both partners after all.

    As for people who run off, that is illegal and therefore irrelivent. Thats like saying that women should all be sterlised because most baby killers are women.
     
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,550
    Asguard:

    But you're talking about mandating that others be included in decision processes affecting a person's own body and health. It's one thing if the patient himself or herself wants family involvement. It is quite another to force him or her to undergo or refrain from his or her own treatment on the basis of what somebody else wants.

    Right. But you're talking about making it compulsory to include partners in decision making. You're arguing, I assume, that if for example a woman wants an abortion and her partner does not, then he can veto it. And if a man wants a vasectomy and his partner does not, she can veto it.

    In other words, you want other people to have control over what you do with your body. I'd wager that the vast majority of the population would not want that. There is, of course, a segment of the population who want to control other people's bodies. They're all for it as long as other people won't be controlling them.
     
  21. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    Interesting assumption at the bottom james. Are you married? Do you have children? Lastly who decided how many you had and when? Your wife or both of you?

    In spite of what you might think most abortions aren't young girls who have been raped as was implied by someone above. Most are because of genetic conditions and other disabilities and the way its belived this will impact on the parents lives ie it has nothing to do with the 9 months its inutero, so the question is why do you belive that the mother is effected more than the father in these cases?
     
  22. Ivan Seeking Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    883
    And therein lies the key issue for me. Life begins when the egg is fertilized, but is that human life in the sense that we all think? No, it is just a small group of cells. The typical religious position is that a soul is present at conception, but that is clearly a statement of faith. And I am not bound by religious statements of faith.

    So at the heart of the matter is the question of when life is human and therefore protected by the Constitution. There is no clear answer, and that is why this issue never goes away. In principle I am anti-abortion, but pro-choice. At some point in the pregnancy abortion should not be allowed, but drawing that line is incredibly difficult. And it is not my place to make highly personal decisions for others where matters of faith are involved. I do certainly oppose abortions beyond the time when babies can survive outside of the womb. Modern medicine keeps moving this line farther back into the pregnancy, so this seems to drive the acceptable point for termination back accordingly.
     
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,550
    Asguard:

    Well, let me ask you. Would you be happy to let somebody else have the final say in any medical treatment or procedure that you may want to have?

    Sorry, but I usually don't answer these kinds of personal questions in the public forums. My private life is private.

    I don't recall claiming that most abortion are young girls who have been raped etc. Nor did I claim that in cases such as the ones you mention the mother is affected more than the father.

    If you want my opinions on such things, ask. Don't assume.

    What I want to know from you is: why do you think anybody other than the person concerned ought to have final say over that person's medical treatment?
     

Share This Page