I really want to be Pro-Choice, but...

[Jake]

If I ever become pro-life, I'll never fit in. How many pro-gay marriage, Jewish-agnostics, legalize flag burning, pro-extensive sex education, anti-school prayer, thinks Roy Moore is an idiot, people go to pro-life meetings?

You can be pro-life for purely secular humanistic reasons.  Don't let your comrades convince you that being pro-life forces you to become an evangelical Christian.

Good point.  One of my friends is opebo like in his opposition to religion, but has a very pro-life position on abortion.  Not all pro-lifers are fundies, not all of us even believe in God.

[dazzleman]

Here's a good idea Akno, don't be pro-Choice.

The slaughter of thousands of innocents just makes me sick. It's a national disgrace.

If I ever become pro-life, I'll never fit in. How many pro-gay marriage, Jewish-agnostics, legalize flag burning, pro-extensive sex education, anti-school prayer, thinks Roy Moore is an idiot, people go to pro-life meetings?

It's a sign of a thoughtful person to not be able to predict his positions on all major issues by his position on one or two issues.  Congratulations if you decide to join that club.

[dazzleman]

Dazzleman, I the abortion figure I had was more of a total number of abortions in the country ever, not per year.

It's a test of whether you really are un-racist, if you would adopt someone of another race. I hope we are all past that, but you never know.

Some are, and some aren't.  I would adopt a child of another race.  I think a lot more people would now than before.  It was pretty rare in the days before legal abortion.

[dazzleman]

Like dazzleman mentioned abortions are a lot like a "pre-emptive" death-penalty, because those that are being aborted wouldn't have been positive members of society to begin with and increasing demand for cops and what not. It is a lot cheaper for society to pay for an abortion than it is for society to pay for a muderer and then his subsequent death penalty.

That's not exactly what I said.  I mentioned a theory in which I could place some credence that abortion has in fact led to fewer children who grow up to be criminals.

I should mention that I am philosophically anti-abortion, but I was trying to shed light on all aspects of the subject. 

The idea of abortion as a pre-emptive death penalty is repulsive, in my opinion.  Even with abortion, we have far too many children being raised by horrible parents, many of whom had them by choice, and we need to find a way besides killing innocent babies to address the issue.

[Nym90]

I pretty much concur with Akno and Gabu on this.

Abortion is clearly a terrible thing, and we should all have it as our goal to reduce abortions.

I personally feel that the exact moment at which a fetus becomes a human being is unclear, and depends on the fetus. It's ridiculous to say that it isn't a human being until it's born, but it's equally ridiculous to say that it's a human being the moment that the sperm fertilizes the egg, as well.

I would personally use the earliest date at which a fetus has ever been born and survived, which I believe is currently after about 5 months of pregnancy. Since it's been proven that the fetus can, at that time, at least theoretically survive without its mother, that seems like a reasonable place to draw the line.

I don't think that throwing people in prison, whether they be mothers or doctors, is going to solve the problem. I think the most effective way to reduce abortion is to improve education about alternatives to abortion, and to remove any and all economic necessity for abortion by ensuring that everyone has an equal opportunity to suceed in life.

[David S]

I used to be very supportive of abortion although less so now. Two things have altered my opinion at least in the late term.
1) Once a baby is born it is a person in the eyes of the law, and if anyone killed it that would be murder in any state in the union. But back up a few hours when the baby is still in the womb. Basically it is the same baby. Nothing has changed. Should it now be legal to kill that baby? I don't think so.

2) On the internet you can find pictures of late term abortions. In some cases the fetus is cut into pieces so it is easier to remove. When you see tiny amputated arms and legs and a decapitated head lying on an operating table you have to ask yourself; do I support this? Some of you probably think I'm a cold hearted bastard and maybe you're right, but I'm not cold enough to support that.

[Akno21]

I pretty much concur with Akno and Gabu on this.

Abortion is clearly a terrible thing, and we should all have it as our goal to reduce abortions.

I personally feel that the exact moment at which a fetus becomes a human being is unclear, and depends on the fetus. It's ridiculous to say that it isn't a human being until it's born, but it's equally ridiculous to say that it's a human being the moment that the sperm fertilizes the egg, as well.

I would personally use the earliest date at which a fetus has ever been born and survived, which I believe is currently after about 5 months of pregnancy. Since it's been proven that the fetus can, at that time, at least theoretically survive without its mother, that seems like a reasonable place to draw the line.

But whenever you perform the abortion, the fact is that the baby would be born if the abortion did not occur. So you preventing life from occuring by stepping in.

[phk]

Like dazzleman mentioned abortions are a lot like a "pre-emptive" death-penalty, because those that are being aborted wouldn't have been positive members of society to begin with and increasing demand for cops and what not. It is a lot cheaper for society to pay for an abortion than it is for society to pay for a muderer and then his subsequent death penalty.

That's not exactly what I said.  I mentioned a theory in which I could place some credence that abortion has in fact led to fewer children who grow up to be criminals.

I should mention that I am philosophically anti-abortion, but I was trying to shed light on all aspects of the subject. 

The idea of abortion as a pre-emptive death penalty is repulsive, in my opinion.  Even with abortion, we have far too many children being raised by horrible parents, many of whom had them by choice, and we need to find a way besides killing innocent babies to address the issue.

Can society generate enough adoptions to cover those kids and abortions?

The reason abortion has had an impact on the crime rate is the high incidence of abortion among mothers whose children are most likely to be at risk for future crime: teenagers, unmarried women and black women have higher rates of abortion, and their children are statistically at a higher risk for crime in adulthood.

Is there a point in bringing in more criminals to society?

[opebo]

StatesRights, the more you expand the death penalty, the more you open it up for people to be wrongfully executed. What if evidence comes up 5 years later that they were innocent, that the prosecution messed up the case, messed with evidence? If he's in jail, you can give the guy a nice check, and let him off with his life. If he's dead, it's too late.

That's why you reform the death penalty, not eliminate it.  A death penalty case cannot be built like Scott Peterson's was. There must be solid and unequivocable proof that they committed the crime.  That solves the problem for 99.99% or more of cases.  I personally don't think rapists/child molestors should receive the death penalty.  See the Rape thread and peruse it to see what should be done to them.

The weakest argument anti death penalty people have is, "What if they didn't do it." Well over 95% of people in jail actually DID commit the crime and as everyone knows most criminals are obviously going to say "I didnt do it!".

95% is an astonishingly low rate of accuracy!  You want to kill the 5% who did not break the rules?

I hope you're never falsely accused of anything, StatesRights, or framed.  It happens all the time.

[Gabu]

However, by not masturbating, one is not creating a what would be living thing. But by not having an abortion, one is letting life occur, the baby will be born. Plus, it's not like you have a limited amount of sperm, you can masturbate and still transfer sperm during sex to create a kid.

Well, you focused on one of the three things I listed, which admittedly, in retrospect, may not have been the best thing to list, but what about the other two?  It seems to me that, if you don't abstain from sex and if you don't use contraceptives during sex, there's no real difference between that and not having an abortion during the embryo stage (unless you believe in life beginning at conception, of course).

The weakest argument anti death penalty people have is, "What if they didn't do it." Well over 95% of people in jail actually DID commit the crime and as everyone knows most criminals are obviously going to say "I didnt do it!". I love it how liberals always use the most extreme extraordinary exaple to argue their point. And why not execute unreformable child molestors? What does the world lose by it? Maybe that little girl in Homassassa would still be with us if that bastard had been sent to his maker when he was jailed for B&E and child assualt a few years earlier. Even most experts agree that child molestors are unreformable.

Which is worse:

1. Killing an innocent person.
2. Not killing a guilty person.

One innocent person receiving the death penalty is already far too many.  I'm against the death penalty when we're not 100% sure because the fact of the matter is that there's always that tiny possibility.  If you lock someone up, subject him to hard labor or whatever other punishments you want, and then later find that he was innocent, you can let him go and compensate him for the lost time, productivity, and life.  If, on the other hand, you execute someone, and then later find out that he was innocent, we will have done a horrible, irrevesable thing.

I can respect it if you see things differently, but I see human lives, and because of that, I want to go off of absolute certainty in this case, not statistical likelihood, due to the irreversability of the death penalty.  If you want to accuse me of being an apologist for criminals, go ahead, but my stance is there to protect the innocent, not to prevent the guilty from receiving what they may well deserve.  It's impossible to only kill the guilty while saving all of the innocent because there always will be that slight grey zone where you honestly don't know and on which you have to apply a standard of judgement.  If you think that it's worth it to know that some innocent people are being killed just to enable the guilty people to also be killed, that's your business.

[opebo]

1. Killing an innocent person.
2. Not killing a guilty person.

'Innocence' and 'guilt' are just subjective value judgements anyway - personal preferences.  I think we all need to engage in a little intelectual and rhetorical humility when dealing with rule-making and rule-breakers.

[Gabu]

'Innocence' and 'guilt' are just subjective value judgements anyway - personal preferences.  I think we all need to engage in a little intelectual and rhetorical humility when dealing with rule-making and rule-breakers.

Er, I'm not sure what you mean there... if you taped yourself murdering a guy and then sent it to the police, I think it's pretty clear  that you're guilty of murder.

Everything that gets people the death penalty is not exactly stuff that the government just arbitrarily decided was bad.

[opebo]

'Innocence' and 'guilt' are just subjective value judgements anyway - personal preferences.  I think we all need to engage in a little intelectual and rhetorical humility when dealing with rule-making and rule-breakers.

Er, I'm not sure what you mean there... if you taped yourself murdering a guy and then sent it to the police, I think it's pretty clear  that you're guilty of murder.

Everything that gets people the death penalty is not exactly stuff that the government just arbitrarily decided was bad.

I guess I meant 'right' and 'wrong' more than innocence and guilt in the whodoneit sense.  Anything society makes illegal is not objectively wrong, just something a majority or consensus has decided is a freedom worth sacrificing to Leviathan for security.

[A18]

Thomas Jefferson might disagree.

[opebo]

Thomas Jefferson might disagree.

Yes, anyone might.  That's the whole point.  Subjectivity.

[A18]

That's what Thomas Jefferson might disagree about.

[Akno21]

However, by not masturbating, one is not creating a what would be living thing. But by not having an abortion, one is letting life occur, the baby will be born. Plus, it's not like you have a limited amount of sperm, you can masturbate and still transfer sperm during sex to create a kid.

Well, you focused on one of the three things I listed, which admittedly, in retrospect, may not have been the best thing to list, but what about the other two?  It seems to me that, if you don't abstain from sex and if you don't use contraceptives during sex, there's no real difference between that and not having an abortion during the embryo stage (unless you believe in life beginning at conception, of course).

There are plenty of people who try very hard to have kids, and can't do it. By having protection-free sex you are not guaranteeing that a baby will be concieved. There's a chance. But, assuming the baby and the mother are healthy, the baby will naturally be born if nothing is done. It will be born, not might be born.

[Jake]

Thomas Jefferson might disagree.

Yes, anyone might.  That's the whole point.  Subjectivity.

So, there is no right and wrong.  Everything is subjective.  Now I know why you're the way you are.  I couldn't quite dig deep enough before, now I realize why screwing kids is okay to you. 

[Akno21]

Thomas Jefferson might disagree.

Yes, anyone might.  That's the whole point.  Subjectivity.

So, there is no right and wrong.  Everything is subjective.  Now I know why you're the way you are.  I couldn't quite dig deep enough before, now I realize why screwing kids is okay to you. 

Of course there is no right and wrong, no black and white. Of course, there are very dark shades of gray for certain crimes, but when we can generalize "Gay Marriage is WRONG", the term is being used. Does gay marriage fall in place with murder and rape?

[Jake]

Of course there is no right and wrong, no black and white. Of course, there are very dark shades of gray for certain crimes, but when we can generalize "Gay Marriage is WRONG", the term is being used. Does gay marriage fall in place with murder and rape?

I don't see a person being physically harmed by gay marriage.  Most oppose it for moral reasons or out of dislike for homosexuals.

[Brandon H]

I think pro-life people need to mind their own business and stop enforcing their idea of responsibility and morality on others.

That is one of the big problems today. People do not want to take responsibility for their actions and instead always want to take the easy way out.

[dazzleman]

I think pro-life people need to mind their own business and stop enforcing their idea of responsibility and morality on others.

That is one of the big problems today. People do not want to take responsibility for their actions and instead always want to take the easy way out.

Exactly.  The attitude of these people is, effectively, I'll do what I want, and I want somebody else to take the negative consequences.  Responsibility and morality are meant to prevent bad situations from occurring, though some people are too shallow and immature to understand that.  They support the nice "clean" solution of cutting up a baby inside the womb and extracting it piece by piece, or with a vacuum cleaner.

[Akno21]

Of course there is no right and wrong, no black and white. Of course, there are very dark shades of gray for certain crimes, but when we can generalize "Gay Marriage is WRONG", the term is being used. Does gay marriage fall in place with murder and rape?

I don't see a person being physically harmed by gay marriage.  Most oppose it for moral reasons or out of dislike for homosexuals.

But when I ask people why they oppose gay marriage, they say it's "wrong". That's a gross misuse of the word.

[dazzleman]

Of course there is no right and wrong, no black and white. Of course, there are very dark shades of gray for certain crimes, but when we can generalize "Gay Marriage is WRONG", the term is being used. Does gay marriage fall in place with murder and rape?

I don't see a person being physically harmed by gay marriage.  Most oppose it for moral reasons or out of dislike for homosexuals.

But when I ask people why they oppose gay marriage, they say it's "wrong". That's a gross misuse of the word.

Some people consider gay relationships to be "wrong."  They have a right to their opinion.  It's not necessarily a gross misuse of the word wrong.

I don't believe in gay marriage because I don't believe gay relationships conform to the definition of marriage as it has existed for thousands of years, and I see no reason to change it.  The primary reason that marriage was created - to provide a stable basis for raising children - does not apply to gay couples, since gay relationships are biologically barren, and I don't believe in changing the definition of marriage.

I don't judge whether gay relationships are wrong or not.  I am very friendly with a few gay couples.  But overall, I don't support the gay political agenda, which is an outgrowth in my opinion of some dangerous trends in society, which involve tearing down every traditional belief system and thinking only in terms of self-centered rights.

[Jake]

Of course there is no right and wrong, no black and white. Of course, there are very dark shades of gray for certain crimes, but when we can generalize "Gay Marriage is WRONG", the term is being used. Does gay marriage fall in place with murder and rape?

I don't see a person being physically harmed by gay marriage.  Most oppose it for moral reasons or out of dislike for homosexuals.

But when I ask people why they oppose gay marriage, they say it's "wrong". That's a gross misuse of the word.

My arguement is that gay marriage will open the door to gay adoption and I don't think that the effects of the child growing up with gay parents, and how others view this is a problem that needs to be studied some more.