Is pro-choice a rational position?

[betsy]

The "fight" is over.... The religious are becoming fewer and fewer...

BC is now 44% Christian and 44% non-religious.

You think only Christians are pro-life? Read my response to Tim.

Edited July 24, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

Do you think that everyone has to be Christian? Is not why not? If I am correct I am assuming that you can accept that not everyone needs believe in your religion then why should everyone believe in your view of when life starts? Allowing individuals to make the choice that is right for them is the only reasonable government response on abortion given how these views are simply an extension of one religious beliefs.

Why do you think it's only Christians that are pro-life?

FYI, there are atheists and secularists that are fighting for pro-life.

In fact, several atheists/humanists and Christians were together on the same side at a debate in another forum! We all believe that the fetus is a human being.

Here are a couple atheist/humanist pro-life sites:

A "human being" is a member of the species homo sapiens. While there is much debate over when a human organism becomes a "person," there is not much debate over when a human organism begins biologically:

"Biologically speaking, fertilization (or conception) is the beginning of human development.

Secular pro-lifers find these personhood restrictions aribtrary and inconsistent. Many of the proposed

criteria would, if applied consistently, deny the personhood of newborns, people with disabilities, and

other vulnerable groups. For more on the practical problems of separating "person" from "human

being," see the "Related Articles" box at right.

http://www.secularprolife.org/#!mission/c13dm

Yes, There Are Pro-Life Atheists Out There. Here’s Why I’m One of Them

There was a time when the lines seemed clearer and the slogans said everything. Pro-lifers were Jesus-loving Pope-followers with a passion for sticking rosaries on ovaries, and atheists were quick to respond with “Keep your theology off my biology!”

But then lines began to blur. Atheist and civil libertarian journalist Nat Hentoff said that “Being without theology isn’t the slightest hindrance to being pro-life.” Atheist philosophy professor Don Marquis declared abortion is “immoral” because it denies developing fetuses “a future like ours.” The host of CFI’s Point of Inquiry, Robert M. Price, author of books like Jesus is Dead and The Case Against the Case for Christ, called abortion “second-degree murder” on one of his podcasts.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/03/11/yes-there-are-pro-life-atheists-out-there-heres-why-im-one-of-them/

http://www.prolifehumanists.org/

Edited July 24, 2016 by betsy

[TimG]

FYI, there are atheists and secularists that are fighting for pro-life.

The point is the question of 'what is a life' is fundamental to each person's individual religious outlook. If you expect others to respect your personal religious outlook then you must respect theirs. i.e. if someone else does not believe a fetus is a human then you have no business telling them otherwise just like they have no business telling you that Jesus is not real. Why can't you show others the respect for their beliefs that you demand from them? Edited July 24, 2016 by TimG

[betsy]

The point is the question of 'what is a life' is fundamental to each person's individual religious outlook. If you expect others to respect your personal religious outlook then you must respect theirs. i.e. if someone else does not believe a fetus is a human then you have no business telling them otherwise just like they have no business telling you that Jesus is not real. Why can't you show others the respect for their beliefs that you demand from them?

I beg your pardon. You better understand what you're arguing about.

I've never used religion for an argument in this thread. The religious argument for pro-life are on the other thread (Abortion on Christian ground).

Go back and read. All I need for you guys is to keep yapping away.....that's enough to support the title of this thread.

The title has been changed - and I never asked it as a question! It was a statement: Dysfunctional Minds prop Pro-Choice.

We see it through the rationale being given by pro-choice on this thread!

Edited July 24, 2016 by betsy

[TimG]

I've never used religion for an argument in this thread.

Actually, you did. There is no argument against abortion that is not rooted in one's religious beliefs. i.e. does one believe that a fetus is a human and deserving of the protections as if a human? There is no right or wrong answer but is someone disagrees with that statement there is no argument that will persuade them that abortion should be restricted.

Religious beliefs come in many forms and do not have to necessarily be rooted in traditional organizations but they are still religious beliefs.

Edited July 24, 2016 by TimG

[betsy]

Actually, you did. There is no argument against abortion that is not rooted in one's religious beliefs. i.e. does one believe that a fetus is a human and deserving of the protections as if a human? There is no right or wrong answer but is someone disagrees with that statement there is no argument that will persuade them that abortion should be restricted.

Religious beliefs come in many forms and do not have to necessarily be rooted in traditional organizations but they are still religious beliefs.

I did not! Read the OP!

Your opinion is based on nothing. You're not making any sense. You're rambling. You reason like an obtuse teener.

Now you're saying all the humanists, secularists and atheists who support pro-life.....are all religious!

You also disregarded the reasons I gave in the OP.

I'll have to ignore you if you don't smarten up and start discussing as an adult, Tim.

Edited July 24, 2016 by betsy

[TimG]

Now you're saying all the humanists, secularists and atheists who support pro-life.....are all religious!

Yep. All humans have a set of religious views that allow them to make sense of the world. These views are always based on faith because they are not supported by any definitive proof. This is true even of atheists who say they believe in a universe that can be completely explained by science because they can't prove that the universe can only be explained by science. They simply have faith that science will eventually find the answers.

I realize that my views may be too complex for a literalist like you to understand but that does not make them wrong.

As for the OP: it makes the fallacious assumption that if there is some biological link between a bundle of cells and a human then it must be treated as a human. That leap of logic is not rational - it is a religious argument rooted in one's beliefs about what a human is and only makes sense to people who already believe that a fetus is human.

Edited July 24, 2016 by TimG

[Peter F]

If we can change laws (as what we've seen done to the unborn)....you bet, that can be changed too! It's not an easy battle.

There's one thing that could be on the pro-life advantage: religion.

Don't think that it's only Christians who are against abortion. If all religious groups (and secularist pro-lifers), come together to push for this, I don't know what opportunistic politician wouldn't suddenly become pro-life!

The only reason why abortion is legal is due to liberal-leaning judges!

It'd be no shocker to me at all that some opportunistic politicians may hitch their wagons to Pro-life anti-abortionist campaign. No shocker there at all and is an entirely allowable thing in a democratic society. However, this has not yet happened and the only reason that I can think of for it not happening is that the Pro-life movement doesn't have all those religious and secular pro-lifers that you wish they had. Maybe someday they will.

But for the last 25 years the pro-life movement has been chugging and belching a lot of smoke and is still stuck. Stuck even though those liberal supreme court justices who struck down the abortion laws came right out at the time and told everyone and their dog that the government could certainly legislate things in regards to abortions.

And still nothing.

Edited July 25, 2016 by Peter F

[dpwozney]

"In 1988, the Supreme Court ruled in Morgentalers favor, striking down the existing abortion law ..."

The so-called "Supreme Court of Canada judges" in "the Morgentaler Decision" stated their allegiance to Elizabeth the Second.

Elizabeth the Second is not Queen of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", contrary to the requirement in this Fifth Schedule, which states:

"Oath of Allegiance

I A.B. do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria.

Note. The Name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the Time being is to be substituted from Time to Time, with proper Terms of Reference thereto.".

Elizabeth the Second claims to be Queen of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

The provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick expressed their desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the Crown of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", not the Crown of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", according to the British North America Act, 1867.

Edited July 25, 2016 by dpwozney

[betsy]

It'd be no shocker to me at all that some opportunistic politicians may hitch their wagons to Pro-life anti-abortionist campaign. No shocker there at all and is an entirely allowable thing in a democratic society. However, this has not yet happened and the only reason that I can think of for it not happening is that the Pro-life movement doesn't have all those religious and secular pro-lifers that you wish they had. Maybe someday they will.

But for the last 25 years the pro-life movement has been chugging and belching a lot of smoke and is still stuck. Stuck even though those liberal supreme court justices who struck down the abortion laws came right out at the time and told everyone and their dog that the government could certainly legislate things in regards to abortions.

And still nothing.

Change happens, Peter. May not be in our lifetime.

Legalization of abortion had proven that nothing is cast in stone.

[betsy]

Pro-Choice doesn't care about women! That's a facade!

Pro-Choice is simply pushing for feminism. It's all about the ideology - not the individual.

Edited July 25, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

Is Pro-Choice a rational position? Of course, not! It's propped by dysfunctional thinking.

All you've got to do is read the responses in this thread.

Just look at their excuses and justifications for murder. They're ridiculous. Anyone with some brains can easily see that!

Edited July 25, 2016 by betsy

[Smeelious]

Couple things:

I don't think pro-life is necessarily a religious choice, so much as a moral one.

Pro-choice doesn't mean "Kill all the babiez!"

Finally, you can be pro-choice AND pro-life.

[TimG]

I don't think pro-life is necessarily a religious choice, so much as a moral one.

Morality and one's religion (i.e. the articles of faith one uses to make sense of the world) are indistinguishable. I realize that some people have an issue extending the word religion to cover an atheists faith in science but I think it makes more sense that trying to create a meaningless distinction between belief systems which are, at their core, questions of faith. Edited July 25, 2016 by TimG

[cybercoma]

If we can change laws (as what we've seen done to the unborn)....you bet, that can be changed too!

Youre forgetting or blissfully ignorant to the fact that the government can't just make any law. They're bound by the charter. The laws you want existed. They violated human rights. End of story,

[betsy]

Youre forgetting or blissfully ignorant to the fact that the government can't just make any law. They're bound by the charter. The laws you want existed. They violated human rights. End of story,

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.

Edited July 25, 2016 by betsy

[TimG]

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

You keep talking as if this is a fact. It isn't. Its your opinion. Nothing more. Nothing less. Whether you like it or not you live in a diverse society and that does benefit you because no one else is going to tell you what religion to follow. However, that freedom comes with an obligation: you must accept that others do not believe what you believe. Why can't you show others the same respect you expect them to give you?

[WestCoastRunner]

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.

"Currently, approximately 25% of the world population lives in many countries (mainly in Africa, Latin America and Asia) with highly restrictive laws that either ban abortion entirely or permit it only to save the life of the pregnant women. These restrictive abortion laws violate women's human rights based on agreements made at the UN International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights."

Not only that:

"Making abortion illegal does not reduce the number of abortions; it simply reduces the safety of abortion. According to The World Health Organization (WHO) 20 million of the 42 million abortions performed every year are illegal and unsafe. In every country, it is young, rural and low-income women who bear the most suffering from unsafe abortion. These women are often already mothers, struggling to support the children they already have. With no safe options, women try to abort using sharp instruments or unsafe chemicals, or they seek help from people with no medical training. As a result, a woman dies of an unsafe abortion every 10 minutes (about 47 000 women every year)."

https://www.womenonweb.org/en/page/508/abortion-a-matter-of-human-rights-and-social-justice

[Ash74]

Of course it is.

It would be irrational to keep a child that is not wanted and if the parent is ill suited to raise the child.

It is irrational for the medical expenses that come from child birth and right now the world is overpopulated.

It makes perfect sense for controls to be in place that limit people from having children if they are not responsible enough to raise them.

That is the rational argument.

It is not right to place these limits on people and would not be tolerated. Rightfully so.

[betsy]

"Currently, approximately 25% of the world population lives in many countries (mainly in Africa, Latin America and Asia) with highly restrictive laws that either ban abortion entirely or permit it only to save the life of the pregnant women. These restrictive abortion laws violate women's human rights based on agreements made at the UN International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights."

Not only that:

"Making abortion illegal does not reduce the number of abortions; it simply reduces the safety of abortion. According to The World Health Organization (WHO) 20 million of the 42 million abortions performed every year are illegal and unsafe. In every country, it is young, rural and low-income women who bear the most suffering from unsafe abortion. These women are often already mothers, struggling to support the children they already have. With no safe options, women try to abort using sharp instruments or unsafe chemicals, or they seek help from people with no medical training. As a result, a woman dies of an unsafe abortion every 10 minutes (about 47 000 women every year)."

https://www.womenonweb.org/en/page/508/abortion-a-matter-of-human-rights-and-social-justice

Who cares about that. Having murder illegal does not reduce murder either - but we do not sanction it, do we?

We have not legalized murder! It is still a crime to murder another human being.

There are other options other than abortion, even for those third world places!

The UN had revised its Declaration of Human Rights, to pander to feminism. Plain and simple. If it can be changed.......then the Declaration of their so-called rights, is not worth anything. There is no reassurance if laws can be changed depending on what ideology is currently popular.

Furthermore.....the UN has lost its credibility. Some members sitting in their security council are dictators and violators

of human rights. Go figure.

Abortion is a violation of human rights. You're violating the right of the unborn.

You're not really for EQUAL RIGHTS. Feminists who support abortion are hypocritical when they claim to fight for equal rights! You want a double standard! You've given women a special license to murder their own children.

Pro-choice doesn't know the meaning of EQUAL RIGHTS.

Edited July 26, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

Of course it is.

It would be irrational to keep a child that is not wanted and if the parent is ill suited to raise the child.

It is irrational for the medical expenses that come from child birth and right now the world is overpopulated.

It makes perfect sense for controls to be in place that limit people from having children if they are not responsible enough to raise them.

That is the rational argument.

It is not right to place these limits on people and would not be tolerated. Rightfully so.

Based on your argument, it will only be logical to exterminate anyone who cannot contribute to society.

Anyone who'll be a drain to our resources.

Following your views......here are suggestions:

By golly.........we should start by exterminating all women who have repeat-abortions! That would be progressive!

A step in the right direction. In keeping with the 21st century - killing two birds with one stone.

It's not like as if we don't have any means to prevent pregnancy!

We shouldn't pander to stupid, moronic women who can't even be relied upon to show some responsibility for not getting themselves pregnant, never mind eventually passing that moron gene to, and raising a gaggle of children who'll have the same stupid mentality. They shouldn't be allowed to breed! Stop the senseless breeding. Abortion is costing us! Terminate them!

After we've done with them.....

........ we systematically move on to exterminate all retarded people......and the quadriplegics. Any disabled person on welfare has to go. They're all a drain on our resources.

Elderly who live in poverty, especially now that we've got so many seniors - off with them! They're past their expiration date for productivity!

Anyone who uses a lot of sick leave - especially government workers who're under union - they should be the next in line.

Then we do everyone who's not healthy - we've got the medical records to check and find out who they are.

And what about the refugees who can't even speak our language - shouldn't we pick and choose who we let in?

On one hand we'll be killing unborn citizens of this nation, and on the other you're bringing in foreign free-loaders! Duh?

So I assume you'll be against bringing in refugees who'll be a drain to our resources.

You've got to be consistent when you're talking EXPENSES and RATIONALITY!

While we're at it, we better not forget the importance of recycling.

We harvest and re-use their organs - for the affluent and privileged ones who sit in power.

And we make organs become trade commodities.

You want to score points as a world leader? The ultimate recycle: go Soylent Green!

Edited July 26, 2016 by betsy

[Ash74]

Based on your argument, it will only be logical to exterminate anyone who cannot contribute to society.

Anyone who'll be a drain to our resources.

Following your views......here are suggestions:

By golly.........we should start by exterminating all women who have repeat-abortions! That would be progressive!

A step in the right direction. In keeping with the 21st century - killing two birds with one stone.

It's not like as if we don't have any means to prevent pregnancy!

We shouldn't pander to stupid, moronic women who can't even be relied upon to show some responsibility for not getting themselves pregnant, never mind eventually passing that moron gene to, and raising a gaggle of children who'll have the same stupid mentality. They shouldn't be allowed to breed! Stop the senseless breeding. Abortion is costing us! Terminate them!

After we've done with them.....

........ we systematically move on to exterminate all retarded people......and the quadriplegics. Any disabled person on welfare has to go. They're all a drain on our resources.

Elderly who live in poverty, especially now that we've got so many seniors - off with them! They're past their expiration date for productivity!

Anyone who uses a lot of sick leave - especially government workers who're under union - they should be the next in line.

Then we do everyone who's not healthy - we've got the medical records to check and find out who they are.

And what about the refugees who can't even speak our language - shouldn't we pick and choose who we let in?

On one hand we'll be killing unborn citizens of this nation, and on the other you're bringing in foreign free-loaders! Duh?

So I assume you'll be against bringing in refugees who'll be a drain to our resources.

You've got to be consistent when you're talking EXPENSES and RATIONALITY!

While we're at it, we better not forget the importance of recycling.

We harvest and re-use their organs - for the affluent and privileged ones who sit in power.

And we make organs become trade commodities.

You want to score points as a world leader? The ultimate recycle: go Soylent Green!

As I said.....

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

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

[Guest]

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?

[Ash74]

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?

I have never understood that argument.

As a gun owner and man that loathes big government I have always been the outcast for when the right gets involved in the "bedroom" of people.

[Guest]

I have never understood that argument.

As a gun owner and man that loathes big government I have always been the outcast for when the right gets involved in the "bedroom" of people.

Your pro choice position is certainly more consistent with traditional conservative policy positions. I don't understand why some want to force the birth of unplanned, unwanted children and then back policies that dramatically increase the likelihood that a lump of cells will grow into a person plagued by money, health, drug and crime problems.

Conservative Christians are even more inconsistent. They want to force birth on people because god/Jesus, yet simultaneously back policies that hurt the poor and help the already wealthy. Plus, so many oppose access to birth control which reduces the need for abortions and if only their god can take a life, why do so many back the death penalty? I don't think their favourite middle eastern, Jewish hippie would approve. I guess the Christian right feels good about a camel's chances of passing through the eye of a needle.

Edited July 26, 2016 by Guest