Why I'm becoming more pro-choice

Originally posted by DrKF
I am without reservation pro-choice: but the hypothetical of the father who says 'no' to abortion and the woman says 'yes' is troubling, because the result will be 'yes'. Similarly, if the man says 'yes' and the woman says 'no', the result will be 'no'.

This will always be the dilemma facing men who want sex without necessarily wanting a long term relationship. This will also always be the dilemma facing men who are allowed to freely lust after sex as a commodity.

The fact that women have been objectified as hardly anything more than an accomplice to the act of sensual gratification(and in the past few years that has cut the other way as well) and yet we wonder how it can be that men are sometimes unwilling participants in the adult responsibility game.

Given that the woman will much more likely stick around and shoulder the responsibility of caring for the unplanned consequences of sexual urgings, all men need to do to have a greater say in what happens, is stick around. It sounds too simple but when you think it through, its obscene for men to still pontificate over what women's choices should be. If they want a greater say, enter into sexual relationships after having established a bonded relationship, where what happens to the female, the ups and downs of her emotional and spiritual well-being is of actual real concern to the male.

You cant have your cake and eat it too. The only say a man can effectively exercise, is to help shoulder the burden and JUST BE THERE!

Originally posted by DrKF
I am without reservation pro-choice: but the hypothetical of the father who says 'no' to abortion and the woman says 'yes' is troubling, because the result will be 'yes'. Similarly, if the man says 'yes' and the woman says 'no', the result will be 'no'.

Being pro-choice means recognizing a woman's right to control over of her own body and her own fertility. That's it. Hand wringing about other issues is tangential. The woman's right in question supercedes the "rights" of a fertilized egg, and it supercedes the "rights" of the biological father. Those are merely factors in a discussion about a very real crisis but they do not negate the concept of being "pro-choice" which is a woman's right not a man's right and not some some hypothetical right for a sperm or an egg. The whole thing is inherently troubling - but, when it comes right down to it, being pro-choice means supporting the woman's choice and not the man's.

Originally posted by whodey
Careful now, you are starting to sound like a right winger.

In the left wing world in which we live, there is no right and wrong. No accountabiliy. All we know for sure is that the world we live in is relative and that Big Brother should endevour to see to it that we have all that we want or need....unless that means having large bank accounts, large hou ...[text shortened]... or guns. After all, why do we need such things when Big Brother is out there looking after us?

for once, I agree with you.

Originally posted by whodey
Yes but when immediately born the infant is still attached via the placenta. Therefore, I think it perfectly reasonable to be able to snuff them out before the woman passes the placenta. In fact, I'm pretty sure that is why God designed it to happen in this way. It is one last chance to kill them before they wreck our lives.

when you figure out that god doesn't exist, come back with a more informed opinion

Originally posted by uzless
when you figure out that god doesn't exist, come back with a more informed opinion

I know you just meant it as a snide remark... but just out of curiosity, are you saying that you KNOW that God doesn't exist?

If so, I'd be curious to understand how you know this.

Originally posted by uzless
when you figure out that god doesn't exist, come back with a more informed opinion

What does God have to do with the issue at hand? So I ask you, what is the difference between snuffing out a life inside the womb and doing so immediatly after it exits the womb? And please don't make some stupid remark about "suffering". I know that infants inside the womb try and evade foreign objects in the womb just as children outside the womb respond to a good slap on the rear. In fact, neither of them will remember anything of their ordeals later in life, assuming they life long enough to try and remember. So what is the difference? The only difference is, at some point in development, the infant can survive if birthed.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Because your understanding of "pro-choice" will be greatly enhanced if you do study the elementary basics of utilitarianism.

So I assume you agree with the utilitarianist point of view. If so, shouild we then snuff out the life of the elderly because they do not "contribute" to society at large?

Originally posted by whodey
What does God have to do with the issue at hand? So I ask you, what is the difference between snuffing out a life inside the womb and doing so immediatly after it exits the womb?

Not much, but why is this relevant for a discussion on abortion? Abortions are never performed that late.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Not much, but why is this relevant for a discussion on abortion? Abortions are never performed that late.

You are the one who brought up the whole issue of utilitarianism, not me. Therefore, you tell me.

Originally posted by whodey
So I assume you agree with the utilitarianist point of view. If so, shouild we then snuff out the life of the elderly because they do not "contribute" to society at large?

There is no "the" view of utilitarianism (it's not a religion). But if you think that utilitarianism implies that the elderly should be "snuffed out" then you do not understand it. The elderly are conscious human beings capable of suffering, and other people (family etc.) value their lives; moreover people value the thought of not being killed when they get old.

Originally posted by whodey
You are the one who brought up the whole issue of utilitarianism, not me. Therefore, you tell me.

Are you asking for the difference between a lump of cells and a newborn baby? Do I really have to explain that?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Are you asking for the difference between a lump of cells and a newborn baby? Do I really have to explain that?

At what point do these lump of cells become a baby?

Originally posted by whodey
At what point do these lump of cells become a baby?

A baby? At birth.

But before you go on, semantics isn't going to decide morality issues for me, so you're barking up the wrong tree.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
A baby? At birth.

But before you go on, semantics isn't going to decide morality issues for me, so you're barking up the wrong tree.

So when the infant in question passes out of the womb they magically become a baby? I would assume then that you have no problems with abortion at any point before this birth?

Originally posted by whodey
So when the infant in question passes out of the womb they magically become a baby? I would assume then that you have no problems with abortion at any point before this birth?

So when the infant in question passes out of the womb they magically become a baby

Well yes, that is how we define "baby" in the English language.

I would assume then that you have no problems with abortion at any point before this birth?

So whether or not I have problems with something is dependent on whether or not you label it "baby"? And you ask me this in a reply to a post where I say semantics aren't going to decide moral issues for me. Unbelievable.

To answer your question: I think there is little difference morally between killing a newborn baby and killing a foetus just before labour.