How can you be for abortion but against the death penalty?

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: neoholographic
How can you be for abortion but against the death penalty?

I don't think anyone is really "for" abortion... What Pro-Choice people are "for" is CHOICE. What they're against is having the government dictate what I do with my own body.

I've never understood this. It's not YOUR body we're talking about; it's the unborn child's. For whatever reason you chose to become pregnant. You know how babies are made, right? You know what to do to prevent that, right? So if you got pregnant, you chose to. Was it an accident? Might have been. Was it "someone else's" fault? Might have been. Was it forced upon you? Might have been, but statistically unlikely. Did you get pregnant because you are stupid? Maybe. But except in the case of rape that ends in pregnancy, you allowed it to happen by action or inaction.

And by so doing you effectively entered into a lease agreement for nine months. As a a landlord you are never allowed to simply kick out the renter, and you're definitely not allowed to kill him. But if you get an abortion, that's exactly what you do, kill the leasee, simply because you changed your mind and for your convenience.

Now you can give me some song and dance about how you "believe" a fetus isn't a person, but that's completely arbitrary on your part. Are you telling me that somehow a person becomes eligible for status as a human because he spent a few minutes in the birth canal and on one side he wasn't a human being, but on the other side he suddenly is? That makes no sense.

Now if you don't want to raise the child because you have better things to do, fine. The lease is up in nine months and you can go on your merry way and have some more fun and make more babies if that is the only thing you know how to do. Let someone who desperately wants a child do all the hard work. Claiming, "It's my body and I get to decide what to do with it" begs the question entirely and mind-numbingly selfish. It's -NOT- your body we're talking about.

a reply to: schuyler

Beautifully said.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: neoholographic
How can you be for abortion but against the death penalty?

I don't think anyone is really "for" abortion... What Pro-Choice people are "for" is CHOICE. What they're against is having the government dictate what I do with my own body.

I've never understood this. It's not YOUR body we're talking about; it's the unborn child's. For whatever reason you chose to become pregnant. You know how babies are made, right? You know what to do to prevent that, right? So if you got pregnant, you chose to. Was it an accident? Might have been. Was it "someone else's" fault? Might have been. Was it forced upon you? Might have been, but statistically unlikely. Did you get pregnant because you are stupid? Maybe. But except in the case of rape that ends in pregnancy, you allowed it to happen by action or inaction.

And by so doing you effectively entered into a lease agreement for nine months. As a a landlord you are never allowed to simply kick out the renter, and you're definitely not allowed to kill him. But if you get an abortion, that's exactly what you do, kill the leasee, simply because you changed your mind and for your convenience.

Now you can give me some song and dance about how you "believe" a fetus isn't a person, but that's completely arbitrary on your part. Are you telling me that somehow a person becomes eligible for status as a human because he spent a few minutes in the birth canal and on one side he wasn't a human being, but on the other side he suddenly is? That makes no sense.

Now if you don't want to raise the child because you have better things to do, fine. The lease is up in nine months and you can go on your merry way and have some more fun and make more babies if that is the only thing you know how to do. Let someone who desperately wants a child do all the hard work. Claiming, "It's my body and I get to decide what to do with it" begs the question entirely and mind-numbingly selfish. It's -NOT- your body we're talking about.

Never looked at it like that. well said.. You have swayed me a little to that side of the fence.

a reply to: neoholographic

i agree...there is a disconnect in the logic embraced by people of the political persuasion. Which, honestly, speaks more to how easily led the majority of humans are (even at the expense of logic).

Me personally? I am against both. But prefer to not wade into the waters of abortion, despite being quite vocal in opposition to the death penalty.

I am against abortion but its not my right to decide what a person does with there body.

I am against the death penalty, because its an easy way out for evil people, lock them up in cages, and keep them alive a for very long time, now thats punishment.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: neoholographic

Simply put, those that favor abortion don't see a developing child as human.

Those that are against the death penalty still see the criminal as human.


That being said, I am for the death penalty because the individual made the choice to abdicate his/her rights by their actions, and I am against abortion because a persons mere simple existence should not be cause to eliminate that life.

But it is a touchy subject.

Bravo

This is just simple common sense.

A baby is a human at the point of conception. At that point, the process of life starts and the DNA is present that makes him/her a distinct individual. Anytime you intentionally stop the process of life, you're taking a life. Whether it's 2 days after conception or it's 30 years after birth.

Science teaches without reservation that life begins at conception. It is a scientific fact that an organism exists after conception that did not exist before conception. This new organism has its own DNA distinct from the mother and father, meaning that it is neither part of the mother nor part of father. As the embryo grows, it develops a heartbeat (22 days after conception), its own circulatory system, and its own organs. From conception it is a new organism that is alive and will continue to grow and develop as long as nutrition is provided and its life is not ended through violence or illness.

Scientific textbooks proclaim this fact. Keith L. Moore’s The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003) states the following:

A zygote [fertilized egg] is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.

Moore puts it even more plainly in Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology (7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008, p. 2):

[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.

liveactionnews.org...

So it's no doubt that life begins at conception and the process of life starts to unfold at conception.

It just doesn't make sense to want the death of a baby on one hand because you've deluded yourself into thinking it's not life. It's the same way slave owners could treat blacks in a inhumane way because they convinced themselves that blacks weren't fully human.

If people were really comfortable with abortion they wouldn't have to lie to themselves and say a fetus isn't life.

On the flip side, a person goes into a house and murders a whole family and you don't want that guy put to death. Instead, they get 3 hots and a cot for the rest of their lives.

Here's a video of a guy who killed 16 people and says he looks forward to "retirement" and living a good life in prison with 3 hots and a cot. Why isn't this guy doing hard labor like digging ditches and chopping blocks of rocks all day? He's talking about having fun and playing slide ball in prison.



I just don't get it. The pitchforks are out for a baby but the tears of compassion from liberals are reserved for mass murderers.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: neoholographic
How can you be for abortion but against the death penalty?

I don't think anyone is really "for" abortion... What Pro-Choice people are "for" is CHOICE. What they're against is having the government dictate what I do with my own body.

I've never understood this. It's not YOUR body we're talking about; it's the unborn child's.

You seem to be confused on basic biology.

It is in fact the womans body...review the birds and the bees.

And calling a fertilized ovum "unborn child" is convenient semantics.

a reply to: Indigo5

In a society that demands, at gunpoint, the financial participation of both parents, its fairly obvious that we have a long way to go before finding that discussion settled.

While the body may be the womans, what is in the womb is a life that both parents share responsibility for. As a man, i find it detestable that I would have no input over what happens to my child until such point that money can be pulled from my forcibly to pay for said child.

a reply to: neoholographic

Oh goody what a great post, deranged criminal check, comparing abortion to slavery and the excuses used by slave owners check.

An opinion piece on when life starts check, but my favorite is pitchforks for baby's and compassion for bad bad people.

I'll play.

originally posted by: Wayfarer
When is a fetus life? What exact moment and how did you arrive and that conclusion?

Even before it's a fetus, at the zygote stage. I say that because, even at that moment, the developing human being already has its own unique DNA and is already undergoing the process of life. But just for the sake of argument, I'll even concede that maybe I'd be okay with saying that after the third week after conception, when the brain, heart and lungs begin to form, should be the limit for an abortion. (although it seems that the three-week threshold is not a scientific certainty, and it may be longer)

When should the rights of the mother be superseded by the rights of the child, and by what logic can one soul be valued over another?

Well, since everyone has a right to life (and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), I say that the child's right supersedes the mother's when the mother chooses to have sex and that act results in a pregnancy. We all know from about 7th grade on that there are no perfect methods of birth control other than abortion, so if you have sex and negligently (or otherwise) get pregnant, then that baby's right to life should be protected, just like anyone else's life is protected by law.

Do you think its possible for third parties to be able to accurately determine the validity of a womans' need for an abortion? By what criteria do you think these determinations should be based?

"Need" is a relative term, and one that I think is inappropriate in this discussion. Of course, medically speaking, there are necessary abortions to save the life of the mother, and in that instance, I'm perfectly fine with it (it's not the mother's fault that there were life-threatening complications), although I think it's a terrible thing for a mother to have to go through and live with.

I'm also generally okay when the pregnancy is a result of a verified rape (and I'll tell you, having been in the legal field for a few years, rape cases are hard to prove), but again, I'd like to see that decision made within that three-week period after conception.

Does Vengeance or Extreme Punishment of the perpetrator bring the mother/child back to life?

I'm not certain what you're asking, here. Are you meaning that, if it were illegal, would harsh punishments bring anyone back to life? Of course not--nothing brings anyone back from the dead. That's a ridiculous question.

Do we as a society benefit from engaging in the same kind of behavior that we persecute (death penalty)?

That's impossible to tell, because we have never had a situation where abortion was illegal. Sure, there is plenty of speculation that it would lead to illegal abortions in unsanitary spaces, or increase the poverty and homeless problem in America, and yadda yadda yadda, but none of that is a fact because that scenario has not been a reality.

I do, however, think that putting a bigger emphasis on the value of human life--even that of a fetus--would benefit us as a whole.

Do you think its possible to ever understand a situation/person to such an extent that you can be 100% certain of the righteousness of your judgment?

There is never 100% certainty in any event where someone passes judgment upon another person, but that fact should not stop us from doing what we think is right as a society (and it is the basis for the criteria of "beyond a reasonable doubt" in order to find someone guilty of something).

I'm a fence-sitter when it comes to the death penalty, mainly because of that last question that you posed. I'd love to abolish it, but at the same time, I know that there are some people so evil in their heart that have done so many terrible things that removing them from the earth does make the society better. So, I don't know--I'd like to see it used on a much more limited basis, I guess, but I don't think that it doesn't have a place in our society.

I'm much more clear on my stance with abortion, obviously.

While not a blob of 'nothing', I believe you can't also argue that a blastocyst is akin to a full human being. If you however can, then you could just as easily draw the line at the constituent elements (sperm, egg), ...

No, you couldn't because "potential life" is not akin to actual life, the same as kinetic and potential energy are not the same thing.

What's worse is that in their perfect world, prisoners would still be able to vote for them along with all the illegal aliens. But since the unborn won't be able to vote for at least 18 years, their small voices don't count for squat.

originally posted by: schuyler
I've never understood this. It's not YOUR body we're talking about; it's the unborn child's.

It's not necessary that you understand it. If you don't want to have an abortion, don't. What I choose for my body is really no one's business. If I choose to remove something from MY BODY, then I will. It's a matter of privacy. You don't have any more say over my body than I do yours.

When you regard the Fetus as a PARASITE then it's easy not to think of what we would call a child as a human being.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Indigo5

In a society that demands, at gunpoint, the financial participation of both parents, its fairly obvious that we have a long way to go before finding that discussion settled.

Cart before the horse...
I am not discussing the legal responsibility or rights of parents of a child, I am discussing the fundamental biological processes that place the burden of conception, development and birth squarely on the female sex.

The Catholic Church for centuries declared every sperm to be sacred and birth control to be a mortal sin.

I do not believe Sperm, despite moving of their own volition, qualify as an unborn child.

Nor do I believe sperm penetrating the ovum qualifies as an unborn child.

Nor do I believe cell replication or division qualifies. Tumors would be children by that definition.

I look to nature as nature has no religious or political agenda.

During the first 12 weeks nature aborts a huge percentage of fertilized ovum's at various stages of development. That danger dramatically drops from 25%-50% likelihood to less than 1% in a matter of days at the beginning of the second trimester. I place my bet there. It's the pivot where nature begins to gamble with the mothers health vs. aborting the process for the smallest of reasons. Until that point nature prioritizes the mothers health.

Am I 100% certain? No...but neither is anyone else, and until then the decision should reside with the woman who occupies the body that is singularly impacted in the near term.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
As a man, i find it detestable that I would have no input over what happens to my child until such point that money can be pulled from my forcibly to pay for said child.

Are you sure you had "no input" at all? What indigo says is true. Anti-abortionists are so quick to vilify the woman who chooses abortion because:

originally posted by: schuyler
You know how babies are made, right? You know what to do to prevent that, right?

This also is true of the man. He has 100% control (input) over whether or not a child is conceived. He makes his deposit, knowing full well what may result. If a man wishes to exercise HIS choice, he can.

The thing I truly don't understand is the fact that abortion is perfectly acceptable but telling a child "I brought you into this world and I can take you out of it too!" is not. I mean legally it should be, if one is acceptable the other should too just like it used to be when parents literally owned their children. Am I sounding ridiculous yet? Because I should. But the logic stands, if a person can legally kill their unborn child, why can they not kill their borne child that they are responsible for as well. I mean even people's precious bible where they get their morals from about treating everyone so great has the top prophet about to kill his son at the order of god.

I think I am for death sentence for murder with non painful execution. I am for at least 10 years imprisonment for a rape. I am pro abortion since every soul should be given a good start. I am also for limited rights to have children for the same reason. It is not about quantity of children but quality of upbringing you can provide for the soul/souls you take responsibility for.

a reply to: Indigo5

I am not only unreligious, but antireligious. So my sensisbilities aren't rooted in religious dogma.

The burden of conception isn't just on a woman. A man shares that. While it may be the cart before the horse, I as a father have a stake, and should therefore be allowed input.

While i am a fan of looking to nature for guidance, i have to admit that nature is not the ultimate authority, and that a hallmark of the human species is working around nature when convenient or needed. Psychopathy and arsenic are natural, afterall.

If we want to return to a feral human lifestyle, we can assert nature. But since we are living in a civilization, we have these issues arise. So, while rape may be common in nature...its not something that helps maintain a civilization. Thus, we have "rights". Rights, being a human construct that arises out of human dialogue, are typically in flux and can change. That is what I am talking about here. Because in nature, might makes right. Meaning that abortion law would be what the biggest person in the area says it is.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Indigo5

The burden of conception isn't just on a woman. A man shares that. While it may be the cart before the horse, I as a father have a stake, and should therefore be allowed input.

Still cart before the horse. You use the word "father" when in fact what you are is an investor that has made a deposit gambling on a highly uncertain and fickle biological process that may or may not in the future make you a father.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Indigo5

While i am a fan of looking to nature for guidance, i have to admit that nature is not the ultimate authority, and that a hallmark of the human species is working around nature when convenient or needed.

Ahem...So are you pro-life or pro choice?