Why are people who are pro-life demonized?

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="famicommander"] I'm completely non-religious and I am against abortion on the grounds that it constitutes aggression against an innocent. It is non-compatible with the nonaggression principle. Your reasoning that pro-lifers should just not have abortions themselves is exactly the same thing as saying that if you're against theft or murder your only course of action should be to not commit theft and murder. That's obvious, but it doesn't address the problem of OTHER people murdering and stealing. The whole debate is patently dishonest. When you say, "Nobody should have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body" you ignore the fact that the woman getting the abortion is herself telling someone else what to do with THEIR body; namely, she's telling the unborn child to die. This is not the same thing as prohibiting someone from taking drugs, which is wrong because it truly does only involve THEIR body. An abortion by definition involves TWO bodies; that one resides inside the other doesn't change the fact that they are distinct.famicommander

But when is it a person?

It's not really it's own entity, because up until a certain point in development it cannot physically survive outside the womb

[QUOTE="Chris_Williams"]

Because who are they to tell a woman what she can or can't do with her body. 

AdamPA1006

well actually it is

Most are over 99% effective. Murderstyle75

[QUOTE="famicommander"][QUOTE="lostrib"]

But when is it a person?

lostrib

It's not really it's own entity, because up until a certain point in development it cannot physically survive outside the womb

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]I usaually favour giving people a choice. Being pro-choice doesn't force anything on anyone. 

toast_burner

oh my

Do you have an actual argument?

Is that it? You really do sound like a stereotypical libertarian then.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="famicommander"] I'm completely non-religious and I am against abortion on the grounds that it constitutes aggression against an innocent. It is non-compatible with the nonaggression principle. Your reasoning that pro-lifers should just not have abortions themselves is exactly the same thing as saying that if you're against theft or murder your only course of action should be to not commit theft and murder. That's obvious, but it doesn't address the problem of OTHER people murdering and stealing. The whole debate is patently dishonest. When you say, "Nobody should have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body" you ignore the fact that the woman getting the abortion is herself telling someone else what to do with THEIR body; namely, she's telling the unborn child to die. This is not the same thing as prohibiting someone from taking drugs, which is wrong because it truly does only involve THEIR body. An abortion by definition involves TWO bodies; that one resides inside the other doesn't change the fact that they are distinct.famicommander

But up until a certain stage, the fetus literally cannot survive even with medical intervention.  Unless you count removing embryonic stem cells and culturing them as surviving outside the womb

[QUOTE="AdamPA1006"][QUOTE="Chris_Williams"]

Because who are they to tell a woman what she can or can't do with her body. 

lostrib

well actually it is

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="famicommander"] It is a person at the moment it becomes a living thing (conception). It is a unique, living entity with unique, human DNA. If it is not a person then what is it? Any other definition is necessarily arbitrary. Before conception it is simply two cells of its parents and therefore not a unique entity; at any point past conception it is its own entity in any of many different stages of development. To say that a fetus is less deserving of its right to live because it is in a less complex stage of development is logically no different than saying it's okay to kill retarded people or babies; both are less developed than a healthy adult.famicommander

It's not really it's own entity, because up until a certain point in development it cannot physically survive outside the womb

Different situations.  

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="AdamPA1006"] Fetus =/= womens body. famicommander

well actually it is

once again entirely different situations

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

oh my

Storm_Marine

Do you have an actual argument?

Is that it? You really do sound like a stereotypical libertarian then.

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="famicommander"] I'm completely non-religious and I am against abortion on the grounds that it constitutes aggression against an innocent. It is non-compatible with the nonaggression principle. Your reasoning that pro-lifers should just not have abortions themselves is exactly the same thing as saying that if you're against theft or murder your only course of action should be to not commit theft and murder. That's obvious, but it doesn't address the problem of OTHER people murdering and stealing. The whole debate is patently dishonest. When you say, "Nobody should have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body" you ignore the fact that the woman getting the abortion is herself telling someone else what to do with THEIR body; namely, she's telling the unborn child to die. This is not the same thing as prohibiting someone from taking drugs, which is wrong because it truly does only involve THEIR body. An abortion by definition involves TWO bodies; that one resides inside the other doesn't change the fact that they are distinct.famicommander

But when is it a person?

At conception it has not yet developed a neural system. It is not capable of thought or action. It is no more alive than a flower. 

[QUOTE="famicommander"][QUOTE="foxhound_fox"] Your position requires the unborn child being defined as an autonomous entity separate from the mother. Until about 5-6 months, a foetus cannot survive outside the womb (as it has not developed enough), and even then, will struggle it's entire life with malformed organs (due to punctuated gestation) and other complications. I don't like the idea of abortion, and wouldn't choose it myself if found in such a situation, but given the state of foster care, the state of NICU care for premature babies and the feasibility of allowing every life created to be given a chance, financially and emotionally, to live life, abortion is the only logical option at the moment. When funding for unwanted children materializes, the technology comes about that allows an unwanted foetus to be transplanted and religious nutjob politicians who enforce abstinence only sex ed die off, then I'll be first in line to vote on the criminalization of abortion. There isn't a feasible non-religious position against abortion currently. Idealism is nice until the cost of implementing it comes up. And I doubt an anarcho-libertarian society could realistically tackle such a massive undertaking.lostrib

But up until a certain stage, the fetus literally cannot survive even with medical intervention.  Unless you count removing embryonic stem cells and culturing them as surviving outside the womb

Pro lifers are pro facism 

[QUOTE="Murderstyle75"]Most are over 99% effective. foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="famicommander"][QUOTE="lostrib"]

But when is it a person?

Tropictrain

At conception it has not yet developed a neural system. It is not capable of thought or action. It is no more alive than a flower. 

[QUOTE="lightleggy"] The funny part is that we're actually at the lowest point of teen pregnancies since like the 1950s or something like that.XilePrincess

It still surprises me that there are schools out there that don't do that. I was taught of pregnancy and contraception when I was in grade 5. And this was back in the 90's. 

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="famicommander"] Viability is an arbitrary and nonscientific measure decided upon by a judge. Being able to live without assistance is not what qualifies one as a person or gives said person their right to live. Think of all the people living in the world right now that cannot live without external existence: -people on iron lungs, life support, oxygen tanks, pacemakers, et cetera. Would it be okay to stroll through an ICU unplugging people's life support? -newborns themselves. A newborn is 100% dependent on other people for their continued existence; does this mean it's okay to kill newborns?famicommander

But up until a certain stage, the fetus literally cannot survive even with medical intervention.  Unless you count removing embryonic stem cells and culturing them as surviving outside the womb

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="famicommander"] Viability is an arbitrary and nonscientific measure decided upon by a judge. Being able to live without assistance is not what qualifies one as a person or gives said person their right to live. Think of all the people living in the world right now that cannot live without external existence: -people on iron lungs, life support, oxygen tanks, pacemakers, et cetera. Would it be okay to stroll through an ICU unplugging people's life support? -newborns themselves. A newborn is 100% dependent on other people for their continued existence; does this mean it's okay to kill newborns?famicommander

But up until a certain stage, the fetus literally cannot survive even with medical intervention.  Unless you count removing embryonic stem cells and culturing them as surviving outside the womb

relevant because of your claims that it is it's own unique, separate entity.  It's not.  And once again comparing two different situations

[QUOTE="famicommander"][QUOTE="lostrib"]

But up until a certain stage, the fetus literally cannot survive even with medical intervention.  Unless you count removing embryonic stem cells and culturing them as surviving outside the womb

toast_burner

you're a monster!

Pro lifers are pro facism 

osirisx3

Wait pro lifers are demonized?

people who are pro choice are called baby murderers, you cant get more demonized than being called a baby murderer.

[QUOTE="osirisx3"]

Pro lifers are pro facism 

Murderstyle75

well the question is, why should the man or the government be able to force a woman to carry a baby to term?

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="famicommander"] I'm completely non-religious and I am against abortion on the grounds that it constitutes aggression against an innocent. It is non-compatible with the nonaggression principle. Your reasoning that pro-lifers should just not have abortions themselves is exactly the same thing as saying that if you're against theft or murder your only course of action should be to not commit theft and murder. That's obvious, but it doesn't address the problem of OTHER people murdering and stealing. The whole debate is patently dishonest. When you say, "Nobody should have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body" you ignore the fact that the woman getting the abortion is herself telling someone else what to do with THEIR body; namely, she's telling the unborn child to die. This is not the same thing as prohibiting someone from taking drugs, which is wrong because it truly does only involve THEIR body. An abortion by definition involves TWO bodies; that one resides inside the other doesn't change the fact that they are distinct.famicommander

But when is it a person?

I'd say a human is something that has a functioning human brain, which the fetus has at about the 23 week.

[QUOTE="famicommander"][QUOTE="lostrib"]

But up until a certain stage, the fetus literally cannot survive even with medical intervention.  Unless you count removing embryonic stem cells and culturing them as surviving outside the womb

toast_burner

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="Murderstyle75"]Most are over 99% effective. Murderstyle75

Wait pro lifers are demonized?

 

people who are pro choice are called baby murderers, you cant get more demonized than being called a baby murderer.

BeardMaster

not by the damn leftist media!

[QUOTE="famicommander"][QUOTE="lostrib"]

But when is it a person?

MakeMeaSammitch

I'd say a human is something that has a functioning human brain, which the fetus has at about the 23 week.

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="famicommander"] And again, in what way is this relevant? The inability to survive a hypothetical situation does not invalidate its personhood. An embryo is a living thing and it is human; it is simply less developed than other humans. To say that this lesser stage of development entitles you to kill it is to say that a nine year old should be entitled to kill a six year old. The logic is the same.famicommander

A new born can't register memories. That's different. 

[QUOTE="famicommander"][QUOTE="lostrib"]

But up until a certain stage, the fetus literally cannot survive even with medical intervention.  Unless you count removing embryonic stem cells and culturing them as surviving outside the womb

lostrib

relevant because of your claims that it is it's own unique, separate entity.  It's not.  And once again comparing two different situations

[QUOTE="osirisx3"]

Pro lifers are pro facism 

Murderstyle75

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

[QUOTE="famicommander"] It is a person at the moment it becomes a living thing (conception). It is a unique, living entity with unique, human DNA. If it is not a person then what is it? Any other definition is necessarily arbitrary. Before conception it is simply two cells of its parents and therefore not a unique entity; at any point past conception it is its own entity in any of many different stages of development. To say that a fetus is less deserving of its right to live because it is in a less complex stage of development is logically no different than saying it's okay to kill retarded people or babies; both are less developed than a healthy adult.famicommander

I'd say a human is something that has a functioning human brain, which the fetus has at about the 23 week.

cells are living organisms though

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="famicommander"] And again, in what way is this relevant? The inability to survive a hypothetical situation does not invalidate its personhood. An embryo is a living thing and it is human; it is simply less developed than other humans. To say that this lesser stage of development entitles you to kill it is to say that a nine year old should be entitled to kill a six year old. The logic is the same.famicommander

relevant because of your claims that it is it's own unique, separate entity.  It's not.  And once again comparing two different situations

[QUOTE="famicommander"][QUOTE="toast_burner"]Life is valueless. I kill millions of life forms every day. What people mean when they say life is priceless is actually sentience. An embryo is not sentient. 

toast_burner

A new born can't register memories. That's different. 

[QUOTE="famicommander"][QUOTE="toast_burner"]Life is valueless. I kill millions of life forms every day. What people mean when they say life is priceless is actually sentience. An embryo is not sentient. 

toast_burner

A new born can't register memories. That's different. 

not where me and foxhound live

If you're pro-life then don't have an abortion. That's about as far as your say-so extends and should extend.

worlock77

If other people want to murder, that is their business and nobody else's.

:roll:

[QUOTE="famicommander"][QUOTE="lostrib"]

relevant because of your claims that it is it's own unique, separate entity.  It's not.  And once again comparing two different situations

toast_burner

[QUOTE="Tropictrain"]

[QUOTE="famicommander"] It is a person at the moment it becomes a living thing (conception). It is a unique, living entity with unique, human DNA. If it is not a person then what is it? Any other definition is necessarily arbitrary. Before conception it is simply two cells of its parents and therefore not a unique entity; at any point past conception it is its own entity in any of many different stages of development. To say that a fetus is less deserving of its right to live because it is in a less complex stage of development is logically no different than saying it's okay to kill retarded people or babies; both are less developed than a healthy adult.famicommander

At conception it has not yet developed a neural system. It is not capable of thought or action. It is no more alive than a flower. 

A newborn child is capable of thought and action. So is an unborn when you're late enough in development. Do you seriously believe an infant can't think? Can't play and learn? It doesn't dream? Doesn't love? Doesn't show emotion? None of this is present at conception. It's less developed than a flower. And far less developed than the bugs you likely kill when you find them in your home. If you spare those bugs, then you have my respect. However, I highly doubt you consider picking a flower murder. And why is that? 

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="famicommander"] And again, in what way is this relevant? The inability to survive a hypothetical situation does not invalidate its personhood. An embryo is a living thing and it is human; it is simply less developed than other humans. To say that this lesser stage of development entitles you to kill it is to say that a nine year old should be entitled to kill a six year old. The logic is the same.famicommander

relevant because of your claims that it is it's own unique, separate entity.  It's not.  And once again comparing two different situations

so what? My sperm cells' DNA is completely unique to it

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="famicommander"] A newborn child is not sentient either. But it will be, unless someone uses violence to prevent that from happening.famicommander

A new born can't register memories. That's different. 

they have the ability to feel.  

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="famicommander"] A newborn child is not sentient either. But it will be, unless someone uses violence to prevent that from happening.Storm_Marine

A new born can't register memories. That's different. 

not where me and foxhound live

[QUOTE="famicommander"][QUOTE="lostrib"]

relevant because of your claims that it is it's own unique, separate entity.  It's not.  And once again comparing two different situations

lostrib

so what? My sperm cells' DNA is completely unique to it

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="famicommander"] It is its own unique, separate entity. Its DNA is completely unique to it. famicommander

so what? My sperm cells' DNA is completely unique to it

no it doesn't

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="famicommander"] It is its own unique, separate entity. Its DNA is completely unique to it. famicommander

so what? My sperm cells' DNA is completely unique to it

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]Actually it is. The brain starts beecoming active late in the pregnancy (roughly the same time it becomes illegal to have an abortion)

A new born can't register memories. That's different. 

toast_burner

not where me and foxhound live

there isn't one, one of the few countries where that's the case

[QUOTE="famicommander"][QUOTE="lostrib"]

so what? My sperm cells' DNA is completely unique to it

toast_burner

OT really needs to take some science courses

Me and the girl I was seeing this summer recently were actually talking about abortion a few times. Her main thing was "a guy cant tell a girl what to do with her body". The guy vs. girl aspect of it. Just throwing that out there. BUt like I said, a fetus, even those group of unique cells, isnt your body. Its in you, its not you. If you swallow a quarter, no one thinks that your body.

cells are living organisms though

lostrib