(July 25, 2014 at 6:26 pm)Godslayer Wrote: Pro-life is more akin to a Pro-death and Pro-negligence position.

Nope. It's the pro-birth position. Once the kid is born it becomes straight up the don't-give-a-fuck-'bout-you-or-your-kid position.

(July 25, 2014 at 7:24 pm)GalacticBusDriver Wrote:

(July 25, 2014 at 6:26 pm)Godslayer Wrote: Pro-life is more akin to a Pro-death and Pro-negligence position.

Nope. It's the pro-birth position. Once the kid is born it becomes straight up the don't-give-a-fuck-'bout-you-or-your-kid position.

That's just Republicunts.

Personally, I think there's a case for reduced or properly-protected sex for those who don't want (more?) children. It's not wrong to think of sex as part of the reproductive process, and to see pregnancy as a product of irresponsible behavior or at least pointless hedonism. And this is coming from a guy who has enough kids and still has sex, and whose wife has had one abortion purely from choice-- it was an event that caused serious self-reflection and a realization that some of our values had put us in a situation that was really unnecessary.

Either way, a kid shouldn't be a life-sentence. A well-established social and health system should treat kids as a national asset. A pregnant girl should be seen as performing a useful and beautiful natural function-- not a morally shamed loser who needs to be made to suffer for her mistake. If the Republicunts want every baby to be born, they need to be willing to provide great health care to the mom, before and after the birth, and to invest in an infrustructure that can deal with problems-- better foster care/adoption systems, etc. THAT would be "pro life."

(July 24, 2014 at 10:30 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote:

(July 24, 2014 at 9:38 pm)Polaris Wrote: I'm pro-life in the truest sense of the term (except when it comes to PETA aka People for Eating Tasty Animals).

I think other pro-lifers would disagree with you on that. Didn't you say you would allow early term abortion? That doesn't sound like a pro-lifer to me. Just out of curiosity, how early is that? How late in the pregnancy would you deem in acceptable to abbort? Would you therefore, force women further along in their pregnancies, to carry the feutus to term?

I wouldn't accept it, but that's very different from saying I would enact laws against it either.

I thought the law in many nations was no abortion after the third trimester.

Hello, new user here so I apologize if my arguement has been "beat to death" already. I read as much of the 95 pages of posts on the subject as I could, and saw no mention of it, so I thought I would put it out there and see what people thought.
I come at the question of abortion from a slightly different angle. I look at it more of a question of implicit responsibility and informed consent. Let me preface that this is my MORAL view, NOT my legal view on abortion - as you all well know the two are not interchangeable.
A simplistic analogy would be if I offerred you a trip to Paris(or Amersterdam or Denver ) and access to a great private party there where we would have lots of fun. The only catch is that there is a 1:1000 chance that my kidneys are going to fail and I would need 1 of yours. I don't expect it, but it could happen. You don't have to go, and you know the conditions before we leave. If you willingly accept the proposition and then my kidneys do fail then would you still be responsible to assist me and my health? Obviously if you didn't undestand the conditions (informed) or didn't agree (consent) then this issue is moot, but if you did then what are your moral obligations?
I contend that unless the condition have changed that would make the agreement unreasonable (eg you lost 1 of your kidneys and need your only remaining 1 to survive) you would be MORALLY responsible to assist me and it would be wrong not to.
What is the consensus on this and the obvious extension to abortion.

Seperately I do personally think fathers are not obligated enough during the pregnancy to necessarily be more responsible prior. I think it would do wonders if fathers were required to attend pre-natal visits with expectant mothers and as such atleast have some required inconvience as a consequence of their actions if they are not willing to otherwise be a part of the pregnancy that they caused, but that is an entirely seperate issue.

Look forward to hearing the responses.

---

Additionally, I don't think this arguement has anything to do with autonomy as people give up their personal autonomy willingly all of the time (eg joining the Armed Forced you can be required to do all kinds of things - within certain bounds) so I personally start at a position that a person can willingly give up a portion of their personal autonomy. Just wanted to clarify, thanks

Perhaps the contract should include a zipper surgically installed above the kidney so as to show that the conditions are fully understood.

(July 26, 2014 at 6:35 pm)Polaris Wrote: I wouldn't accept it, but that's very different from saying I would enact laws against it either.

So you don't like the idea of abortions but you wouldn't enact laws to prevent them? Sounds pro-choice to me. Do you recognise that a womans bodily autonomy trumps the rights of an unborn foetus?

If you don't want an abortion, or don't believe in abortion... Don't have one.

(July 26, 2014 at 8:38 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote:

(July 26, 2014 at 6:35 pm)Polaris Wrote: I wouldn't accept it, but that's very different from saying I would enact laws against it either.

So you don't like the idea of abortions but you wouldn't enact laws to prevent them? Sounds pro-choice to me. Do you recognise that a womans bodily autonomy trumps the rights of an unborn foetus?

I think the more liberal Christian position is that abortion is wrong, but that denying the capacity of people to choose wrong goes against the purpose of God-given free-will. This is not so much about the woman's rights being more important than those of the fetus, but about the importance of letting the woman choose what is right or wrong on her own terms.

Well as long as they don't want to make abortions illegal, I don't care.

(July 26, 2014 at 8:00 pm)answer-is-42 Wrote:

---

Hello, new user here so I apologize if my arguement has been "beat to death" already. I read as much of the 95 pages of posts on the subject as I could, and saw no mention of it, so I thought I would put it out there and see what people thought.
I come at the question of abortion from a slightly different angle. I look at it more of a question of implicit responsibility and informed consent. Let me preface that this is my MORAL view, NOT my legal view on abortion - as you all well know the two are not interchangeable.
A simplistic analogy would be if I offerred you a trip to Paris(or Amersterdam or Denver ) and access to a great private party there where we would have lots of fun. The only catch is that there is a 1:1000 chance that my kidneys are going to fail and I would need 1 of yours. I don't expect it, but it could happen. You don't have to go, and you know the conditions before we leave. If you willingly accept the proposition and then my kidneys do fail then would you still be responsible to assist me and my health? Obviously if you didn't undestand the conditions (informed) or didn't agree (consent) then this issue is moot, but if you did then what are your moral obligations?
I contend that unless the condition have changed that would make the agreement unreasonable (eg you lost 1 of your kidneys and need your only remaining 1 to survive) you would be MORALLY responsible to assist me and it would be wrong not to.
What is the consensus on this and the obvious extension to abortion.

Seperately I do personally think fathers are not obligated enough during the pregnancy to necessarily be more responsible prior. I think it would do wonders if fathers were required to attend pre-natal visits with expectant mothers and as such atleast have some required inconvience as a consequence of their actions if they are not willing to otherwise be a part of the pregnancy that they caused, but that is an entirely seperate issue.

Look forward to hearing the responses.

---

Additionally, I don't think this arguement has anything to do with autonomy as people give up their personal autonomy willingly all of the time (eg joining the Armed Forced you can be required to do all kinds of things - within certain bounds) so I personally start at a position that a person can willingly give up a portion of their personal autonomy. Just wanted to clarify, thanks

---

No. No no no. Worst argument ever and I don't have the energy right now.
All I can say is this, "as a consequence of their actions" automatically rules your argument invalid in my eyes. Sex is not illegal and governments have no business imposing moral consequences.
And
"people give up their personal autonomy willingly all the time" well yea, willingly being the key word