Loosening my pro choice stance.

[Reforged]

Just because it looks like a baby doesn't mean it is a baby.

Just because it doesn't yet look human doesn't mean it isn't one.

No. The fact it has no human sentience, humanoid shape, developed organs or a viable chance at life at that present moment does.
Examples; a rock isn't a human, a tree isn't human, Michael McIntyre demonstrably isn't human.

[brewer]

Not. Change to ....."potential" human life begins at conception....millions of things...need to take place to develop into a viable human that can sustain life on it's own.

An infant cannot sustain life on its own. Everyone is born vulnerable and dependent on others for care and sustenance.

For complex organisms life starts as a fertilized egg. Someone can still believe abortion should be allowed on other grounds, just not a scientific one. Your proposed addition of 'potential' shows that when it comes to the issue of abortion you are anti-science.

Did you look up any of those examples? My guess is not. Not gonna bite on the anti science jab except to say that you are pro dick.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm pro-abortion.  Forced childbirth is a primary factor in female impoverishment.  If the government could offer abortions instead of welfare ( which the christards hate, too!) it would be better for all concerned.

I'll just suggest that you're describing being anti-forced childbirth.  Framing pro-choice as pro-abortion was just a way to manouver the discussion into a position where jackasses could pull some "They're -for- killing babies!  See!" nonsense and ignore the reality of the situation entirely, the ugly consequences and implications of using the state to force a person to carry and deliver against their will. It's not as if you're running up and down the streets suggesting that people abort. Those christards are gonna find a reason to lose their shit regardless, granted.

As far as abortions instead of welfare...that would be another issue. I think we should offer both to those who qualify. It's not as if we need fewer poor people (mothers or children), we need upward mobility. The wife and I werepregnant for about 6 years near nonstop. Two sets of irish twins. We also lost everything we had at the time. If the only way the state was willing to help us get through that was by aborting a child, we'd have had 4 kids suffering...not 3. I wouldn't be proud to live in a place like that.

[Chas]

bold mine

Not. Change to ....."potential" human life begins at conception....

Define conception. Easiest is fertilization of ovum with sperm. That's a sad definition for human life. That does not take into account of the millions of things that need to take place to develop into a viable human that can sustain life on it's own, even with the aid of medical science.

Want evidence? Look up Molar Pregnancy. Look up Ectopic Pregnancy Stats. Look up the stats for estimate of fertilized eggs that do not implant. Look up fatal birth defects stats (cdc). Go to any pathology web site and look at placental/uterine pathology.

You can give credence to this over simplified wiki essay if you like. I choose not to.

A few cells is not a person.  Abortion in the first 6 months does not kill a person.

[Chas]

Just because it looks like a baby doesn't mean it is a baby.

Just because it doesn't yet look human doesn't mean it isn't one.

A few cells is not a human being.

[Chad32]

Until two nights ago i used to think the pro lifer movement was just another faction of religiously charged pseudo science like Young earth creationism.But after reading this essay in opposition to abortion on RW I'm uncertain if I could ever call myself "pro-choice" anymore. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Why_I...e_abortion

"In the late 1960's the pro-choice movement made a deliberate, strategic decision to trivialize the abortion debate by dismissing all pro-life arguments as mere Catholic dogma. This made it easy to gloss over the inconvenient, undeniable scientific embryological fact that human life begins at conception in favor of specious arguments regarding church/state separation and accusation that religion "is being forced down our throats." Planned Parenthood today still insists that the question of when life begins is a religious one which varies from woman to woman, apparently mind-dependent rather than reality-dependent. They do draw the line at the old Mayan practice of throwing infants into volcanos, although I don't see why, under their theory, that wouldn't be a protected exercise of religion as well. I've seen more of a reliance on science - embryology, ultrasound - on the pro-life side than on the pro-choice side. In fact, the mainstream pro-choice organizations oppose showing women who are considering abortion ultrasound pictures of the child on the grounds that they are "confusing." It should be noted that the pro-choice side isn't opposed to raising religious arguments when it suits them. Planned Parenthood has hired clergy to promote abortion from a theological standpoint. The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice devotes its very existence to that endeavor. Ironically, even the atheistic Freedom from Religion Foundation employs a religious argument when it comes to abortion - it argues that the practice should be permitted because it isn't expressly forbidden by the Bible."

Yeah, it's always going to be a Human zygote, embryo, fetus, or whatever. But until a certain point it's not a thinking, feeling being. While I did use this argument when I was anti abortion, once someone explained the specifics to me, I relented in my pro-life stance somewhat.

[Ben Davis]

Until two nights ago i used to think the pro lifer movement was just another faction of religiously charged pseudo science like Young earth creationism.But after reading this essay in opposition to abortion on RW I'm uncertain if I could ever call myself "pro-choice" anymore. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Why_I...e_abortion

---

"In the late 1960's the pro-choice movement made a deliberate, strategic decision to trivialize the abortion debate by dismissing all pro-life arguments as mere Catholic dogma. This made it easy to gloss over the inconvenient, undeniable scientific embryological fact that human life begins at conception in favor of specious arguments regarding church/state separation and accusation that religion "is being forced down our throats." Planned Parenthood today still insists that the question of when life begins is a religious one which varies from woman to woman, apparently mind-dependent rather than reality-dependent. They do draw the line at the old Mayan practice of throwing infants into volcanos, although I don't see why, under their theory, that wouldn't be a protected exercise of religion as well. I've seen more of a reliance on science - embryology, ultrasound - on the pro-life side than on the pro-choice side. In fact, the mainstream pro-choice organizations oppose showing women who are considering abortion ultrasound pictures of the child on the grounds that they are "confusing." It should be noted that the pro-choice side isn't opposed to raising religious arguments when it suits them. Planned Parenthood has hired clergy to promote abortion from a theological standpoint. The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice devotes its very existence to that endeavor. Ironically, even the atheistic Freedom from Religion Foundation employs a religious argument when it comes to abortion - it argues that the practice should be permitted because it isn't expressly forbidden by the Bible."

---

If you're seriously changing your views away from pro-choice on the basis of that essay, you need to review your critical thinking faculties. It's full of rhetoric, hyperbole, fallacies and gross misrepresentations. The only sources provided are opinions of other writers, no medical stats or actual facts that might support the author's claims. I wouldn't give a high-school passing grade to this 'essay'.

[Minimalist]

I'll just suggest that you're describing being anti-forced childbirth.  Framing pro-choice as pro-abortion was just a way to manouver the discussion into a position where jackasses could pull some "They're -for- killing babies! 

I'm being provocative.  You know, there is no fucking shortage of people.  We aren't clawing our way back after the Black Death.  We are closing in on 9 billion assholes running around on this planet and that is just too many.   If you want a kid then fine but the least we can do is cut down on the unwanted ones.  And they aren't "babies."  They are gobs of goo.

[The Grand Nudger]

I understand, just venting, I suppose, about the automatons who keep pulling levers at the polls like they were loaded guns.

[loganonekenobi]

It is natural for humans to use any and every thing they can to convince their fellow humans to see things in their way. We use science, emotion, and moral accusation often in these abortion arguments.

I would want to see the true reasoning behind this from the religious side. If it where just about saving lives then I could go with that however, when i look to the Bible it seems to me that God had no problem killing children. If i where to live by that example then it would be okay to kill children as long as they where non believers or children of non believers.
plus, as has been said, the question remains about what happens to the unwanted baby after it is born. It appears that the caring side of the protesters fade away.
With all this in mind it is difficult for me to believe that the true intention of the religious protesters stands the on a high moral ground of saving lives.

Controlling women's reproductive rights, however, does seem like a viable reason for the religious protester. Throughout the Bible God often gives rules of sexual conduct. It would not be inaccurate to say that these rules where more strict on women than men. In most of western history women have born the brunt of sexual oppression. So between religion and culture women where given little to no choice over their bodies.

With but a scant few years ago (Roe vrs Wade) this control was greatly diminished. Their are other examples of expanding women's choice such as birth control and the ability for divorce at the woman's choice but I'll stick with the subject. It is natural that 1000's of years of culture and religion would fight to take back the choice that was once given to man (literally) and God.

So from what I see it's not about "saving babies" it's about taking women's reproductive rights in the name of God and culture little by little or as much as they can at once. Abortion is a form of birth control and birth control of any kind gives women the ability to be sexual at their discretion. This is something for which most religious communities are against. Envision a world where all sex outside of marriage (including masterbation) is illeagal and then you have what the Christians want. Women would be painted into a sexual corner where as men would be free to try to have all the sex they want with little to no repercussions as it was when I was growing up in small town USA in Bible belt kansas.

If the religious push stopped at abortion (and not on to birth control and premarital sex) then I might be okay with the pro-life movement. History and other countries under such rule (theocracy) have shown that they wont.

Please try to see the forest for the trees of this issue and understand that the real reason is not so noble as they claim.