Is pro-choice a rational position?

[cybercoma]

No, I'm not forgetful or ignorant.

You just said it: violation of human rights.

That's what abortion is. A violation of human rights - that, of the unborn.

An evangelical who proselytizes to Internet forum doesn't have the power or education to decide that. The Supreme Court interprets the Charter and makes those decisions. Abortion does not violate human rights according to the courts that decide the things. You know what does violate human rights? Restricting access to or outlawing abortion.

[Smoke]

#2 It is the Pro Lifers that have no problem letting children wallow in sickness and poverty the second that precious life is born.

And of course you have a cite showing that pro-lifers have no problem letting children wallow in sickness and poverty. Lame, lame, lame!

[Smoke]

You still don't have the right to tell others they have to keep a lifeform living in their body.

Yet you think you have a "right" to make others pay (against their religion) to remove that lifeform from someone's body? You make the "mistake" you pay for it.

[BubberMiley]

Yet you think you have a "right" to make others pay (against their religion) to remove that lifeform from someone's body? You make the "mistake" you pay for it.

By that logic, Christ Scientists shouldn't have to pay any taxes for health care at all.

[overthere]

Btw, why do you use the term, PRO-CHOICE?

Pro-Choice? That's disingenuous!

What so-called pro-choice are you on about when the poor infant who's ultimately impacted by your decision....hadn't had any choice at all?

You should call it exactly for what it is: PRO-ABORTION!

Ah, the Semantic War of the argument has been won long ago by Pro Life. You know, because if you are not Pro Life you must be Pro Death.

C'mon Betsy, stop pussyfooting around- you mean Pro Death.

I'm not for or against abortion. It is none of my business how a woman chooses to manage her body. I find it grossyl offensive that others think they have control of another persons womb.

I don't possess a womb, but I am neither Pro Death or Pro Abortion. I am firmly Pro Choice. As in: your body, your choice. I respect your choosing to keep the fetus or abort the fetus, because it is none of my business..

[betsy]

As I said.....

The rational thing to do does not mean it is the right thing.

As I'm pointing out........your opinion is not rational either!

If you're going to terminate anyone over expenses, you should go for the root of the problem: start with women who have

repeat-abortions! They're the ones who's creating all these unnecessary expenses!

That shouldn't be too hard to figure out. At least you know you're terminating morons anyway!

It is not rational to be religious but I would never support a ban on it.

Actually, it is rational to believe in the Judeo-Christian God.

Atheists don't have any reasonable basis for the belief that God doesn't exists. Therefore, it is an irrational belief.

However.....

.....I will never support any movement that points to the irrationality of atheistic belief as the evidence that they're only half-human, and that therefore they don't deserve the same rights that we do, and that it's okay to exterminate them.

Edited July 26, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

Ah, the Semantic War of the argument has been won long ago by Pro Life. You know, because if you are not Pro Life you must be Pro Death.

C'mon Betsy, stop pussyfooting around- you mean Pro Death.

"if you are not Pro Life you must be Pro Death."

I don't know who coined that slogan, but it's flawed.

Nope....I don't mean pro-death. Stop trying to put words in my mouth, it's not the right name.

Pro-death doesn't fit the bill.

A pro-abortion can also be anti-capital punishment! There goes the "pro-death."

We're talking specifically about abortion. Pro-abortion is specific.

Edited July 26, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

Is it rational to attempt to force a pro-birth stance on everyone, yet support the death penalty, oppose social assistance, higher minimum wages and restrictions on firearms?

Your statement is not rational at all! Pro-life is about saving the life of the unborn.

Higher minimum wage? Are you kidding me?

How are those related to saving the life of an innocent child? What kind of rationalization is that?

[TimG]

Pro-life is about saving the life of the unborn.

I have asked this a number of times but you ignore. I suspect because you can't answer:

We live in a diverse society that represents different points of view. You benefit from this diversity since it means you are free to follow your faith as you see fit. So why are you not able to grant the same repsect to others? Whether you like it or not a lot of people in this country do not believe a fetus is human and you are not going to change their minds. Why do you think you have a right to impose your beliefs on people who disagree? Why can't other people follow their beliefs without interference from you? Do want people to start passing laws telling you what to believe?

Edited July 27, 2016 by TimG

[betsy]

I have asked this a number of times but you ignore. I suspect because you can't answer:

We live in a diverse society that represents different points of view. You benefit from this diversity since it means you are free to follow your faith as you see fit. So why are you not able to grant the same repsect to others? Whether you like it or not a lot of people in this country do not believe a fetus is human and you are not going to change their minds. Why do you think you have a right to impose your beliefs on people who disagree? Why can't other people follow their beliefs without interference from you? Do want people to start passing laws telling you what to believe?

I've explained it to you but you ignored it. You keep referring to my faith....and yet, on this thread I'd given secular arguments for my stance. Was it you who also implied that atheists who support pro-life are also religious?

Refer to the OP.

It is an obligation of every human to come to the aid of another human who's being oppressed.

Would you just stand by and watch someone being murdered before your eyes, without any attempt to help in any way at all, even to just call 911?

Something is wrong with the way you reason. It is twisted.

Edited July 27, 2016 by betsy

[TimG]

It is an obligation of every human to come to the aid of another human who's being oppressed.

In my opinion a fetus is not a human. Now I know you disagree but that is the point. You have your opinion. I have mine. And since we live in a society where, on points of widespread disagreement, I don't tell you what to believe and you don't tell me what to believe.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Would you be OK if the government decided that it was child abuse to tell children that bible stories are true?

There is no difference between what you are trying to do on abortion.

Bottom line: your opinion on abortion is your opinion. You have no right to force it on anyone else.

If you don't believe in abortion then don't have one.

Edited July 27, 2016 by TimG

[Big Guy]

What you see depends on your perspective:

Reality

[Guest]

Your statement is not rational at all! Pro-life is about saving the life of the unborn.

Higher minimum wage? Are you kidding me?

How are those related to saving the life of an innocent child? What kind of rationalization is that?

I'm commenting on a typical or common basket of, logically inconsistent, conservative positions. It is very common for cons to want to force the maturation and birth of fetuses calling this position pro-life. However, it is also common for conservatives to:

- favour the death penalty

- oppose universal health care

- oppose gun restrictions

- limit access to birth control

- oppose worker rights and benefits

- oppose salary increases for the poorest

- support tax breaks for the wealthiest

- often oppose social program spending

Positions like these are not consistent with a pro-life mentality, just pro-birth. Once a child is born common conservative positions seek to ensure it will be trapped in a cycle of poverty, leading to crime, health problems, drug problems and an increased chance of unplanned, unwanted pregnancies.

I am aware that not every conservative adheres to all of those positions, they are just common among those on the right. Tim and Ash for example do not oppose abortion, which is more logically consistent with the basket of conservative beliefs.

I also don't consider a parasitic lump of cells growing in a woman to be human, though it will eventually be one. I support a woman's right to choose to abort in the early stages and later term abortions being granted at the discretion of a physician. I also oppose granting rights over fetuses to fathers. Five minutes of fun does not give a man the right to force a woman to incubate a baby nor abort it against her wishes.

As someone that has had support and means from birth I would most likely have never attempted to convince a girlfriend/wife to abort a fetus, if an unplanned pregnancy occurred. However, not everyone shares my beliefs or the family and economic situation I was born into. Thus, I am in favour of our current situation here in Canada, where women have the right to choose.

Edited July 27, 2016 by Guest

[TimG]

- oppose salary increases for the poorest

You are framing these positions in terms that fit your prejudices. The fact is there is a lot of evidence that increases in minimum wage cause great harm to the most vulnerable by reducing the number of jobs available and making it harder for marginal people to get into the work place in the first place. This is one example among many where the typical conservative position is based on an understanding that policies that sound good to a liberal looking to stroke the ego cause great harm in practice. Many of the other items in your list have the same issue.

[Guest]

You are framing these positions in terms that fit your prejudices. The fact is there is a lot of evidence that increases in minimum wage cause great harm to the most vulnerable by reducing the number of jobs available and making it harder for marginal people to get into the work place in the first place. This is one example among many where the typical conservative position is based on an understanding that policies that sound good to a liberal looking to stroke the ego cause great harm in practice. Many of the other items in your list have the same issue.

Actually, your economic beliefs are non-evidential.

[betsy]

In my opinion a fetus is not a human. Now I know you disagree but that is the point. You have your opinion. I have mine. And since we live in a society where, on points of widespread disagreement, I don't tell you what to believe and you don't tell me what to believe.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Would you be OK if the government decided that it was child abuse to tell children that bible stories are true?

There is no difference between what you are trying to do on abortion.

Bottom line: your opinion on abortion is your opinion. You have no right to force it on anyone else.

If you don't believe in abortion then don't have one.

Your opinion is based on nothing! Mine is based on science and logic.

That's the big difference between your opinion, and mine! Yours, is dysfunctional!

That would be like me saying you're not human..........just because I say so.

Edited July 27, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

I'm commenting on a typical or common basket of, logically inconsistent, conservative positions. It is very common for cons to want to force the maturation and birth of fetuses calling this position pro-life. However, it is also common for conservatives to:

- favour the death penalty

- oppose universal health care

- oppose gun restrictions

- limit access to birth control

- oppose worker rights and benefits

- oppose salary increases for the poorest

- support tax breaks for the wealthiest

- often oppose social program spending

How is it inconsistent? What's being anti-abortion got to do with all those?

There are reason(s) for each and every one of those you mentioned as to why a conservative might either favor or oppose them. You've got to know and understand what those reasons are before you can say they're inconsistent.

You're not being logical in your argument.

As an example"

Being pro-life does not have to mean you have to oppose the death penalty - you're talking apples and oranges here, Slick!

You're comparing saving the unnecessary murder of an INNOCENT, vulnerable human being from the punishment of death being meted to a criminal:

The man on death row knew the possible consequence of the crime. He had his choice.

The unborn, on the other hand, had done nothing, and has no choice at all.

If there's any comparison to be made, it would have to be between that convict and the woman who got pregnant!

Both knew the possible consequence(s) of their actions, and both had the choice.

But one thing I can tell you, pro-choice are inconsistent when they claim they're fighting for equal rights, human rights, and social justice! They're inconsistent when they claim to be against discrimination!

Edited July 27, 2016 by betsy

[TimG]

Mine is based on science and logic.

NO IT ISN'T. You throw out a bunch of scientific facts but the question of which blobs of biological material are entitled to special treatment because they are designated as 'human' is a moral/ethical question. It is not a scientific question.

[betsy]

NO IT ISN'T. You throw out a bunch of scientific facts but the question of which blobs of biological material are entitled to special treatment because they are designated as 'human' is a moral/ethical question. It is not a scientific question.

Science says it's a fact!

If you're in denial, that's your problem.

The OP provided credible sources supporting my statement.

Take it, or leave it.

Edited July 27, 2016 by betsy

[TimG]

Science says it's a fact!

If you cut off your finger, is your finger human? It has human DNA after all it must be human. A dead body, is that human? It has all of the parts and organs? Simply being composed of biological material shared with humans does not make something human. The decision on which blobs are human or not is a moral question. It is not a scientific question.

[betsy]

If you cut off your finger, is your finger human? It has human DNA after all it must be human. A dead body, is that human? It has all of the parts and organs? Simply being composed of biological material shared with humans does not make something human. The decision on which blobs are human or not is a moral question. It is not a scientific question.

You're only embarrassing yourself with your dysfunctional response.

Edited July 27, 2016 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

Science says it's a fact!

If you're in denial, that's your problem.

The OP provided credible sources supporting my statement.

Take it, or leave it.

If they're human, then they should be freed from the confines of the womb that doesn't want them. Why are you insisting on imprisoning these fetal humans for nine months? Set them free!

[TimG]

You're only embarrassing yourself with your dysfunctional response.

My response is rational and logical. You just appear to be unable to refute it.

[WestCoastRunner]

The OP provided credible sources supporting my statement.

Take it, or leave it.

One of your sources in the OP from the 'DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD' has no mention of abortion' :This was the basis of the Convention of the Rights of the Child adopted by the UN General Assembly 30 years later on 20 November 1989. The Convention on the Rights of the Child was entered into force on 2 September 1990.'

Now this article:

REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS UNDER THE CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD' states:

"The Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) has strongly advocated for the realization of children’s right to sexual and reproductive health services, urging states to “ensure universal access to a comprehensive package of sexual and reproductive health interventions.”1 To this end, the CRC recognizes that adolescents should have access to short- and longterm contraceptive methods, including condoms, hormonal contraceptives and emergency contraception;2 “safe abortion and post-abortion care services, irrespective of whether abortion itself is legal;”3 and maternal health services."

"In P&S v. Poland, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) addressed human rights violations stemming from hospital personnel and clergy members intentionally obstructing access to abortion services for a 14-year-old who became pregnant as a result of rape.9 Recognizing the petitioner’s vulnerability as a child, the court ruled that the state violated her rights to liberty, respect for private and family life, and to be free from inhuman and degrading treatment."

Another quote from the 'Convention of the Rights of a Child': "The Convention repeatedly emphasizes the primacy and importance of the role, authority and responsibility of parents and family; it is neutral on abortion; and is consistent with the principles contained in the Bill of Rights."

So, if you are going to use the 'Convention of the Rights of a Child' as your source, you should probably read it first.

[Ash74]

It all comes down to is I feel I do not have the right to tell another human being what to do with their body.

My first child was a surprise and I accepted the responsibility. The question of abortion never came up because I loathe it as does my now wife.

But neither of us judge others that make different choices because it is none of our buisness.

My wife goes visits her cult every Sunday with our children (the oldest quit going) I don't pester her about it because that is her choice.

Abortion is legal and it will not change because a majority of people in this country are prochoice and only those that are committing political suicide bring it up.

(lol post 666 that's funny)

Edited July 28, 2016 by Ash74