Why are people who are pro-life demonized?

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="wis3boi"]

a cluster of ~100 cells isn't a person...unless your image of abortion is doing it with a knife in the 9th month of pregnancy

BeardMaster

you might have a sperm rattling around in your shaft right now that could eventually create the cure for cancer... get off your baby murdering ass and go make it happen.

[QUOTE="BeardMaster"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"] How many abortions take place that early? It certainly makes it a lesser evil the earlier it takes place... but it's difficult to determine at what point it's permissible. I'm sure you don't support the killing of infants but, what the difference is between that and abortion at a late stage, I don't know.SolidSnake35

you might have a sperm rattling around in your shaft right now that could eventually create the cure for cancer... get off your baby murdering ass and go make it happen.

Sure im fine with murdering people that wont do anything useful with their life, such as a doctor taking a patient in a persistant vegatative state off life support.

If you aren't ready to be a responsible parent you shouldn't do things that would force you to be one and then instaquit. Ending a life isn't the answer.

Stop having sex if you're not ready for the consequences.

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="BeardMaster"]

 

you might have a sperm rattling around in your shaft right now that could eventually create the cure for cancer... get off your baby murdering ass and go make it happen.

BeardMaster

Sure im fine with murdering people that wont do anything useful with their life, such as a doctor taking a patient in a persistant vegatative state off life support.

define useful?

If you aren't ready to be a responsible parent you shouldn't do things that would force you to be one and then instaquit. Ending a life isn't the answer.

Stop having sex if you're not ready for the consequences.

lowkey254

are you sure? ending a life is the answer to a lot of things

[QUOTE="BeardMaster"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"] Which egg would you pair it with? That potential person might well cure cancer, you're right. What that has to do with murder, I don't know, though. I guess it's okay to murder those that won't do anything useful in their life? Also, the difference between me doing nothing, the sperm dying, and thus the potential person with it, and a doctor actively killing a fetus is an interesting one.lostrib

Sure im fine with murdering people that wont do anything useful with their life, such as a doctor taking a patient in a persistant vegatative state off life support.

define useful?

Basically people in a persistent vegatative state.

Also fine with the death penalty in extreme cases of aggregious crimes and certain guilt.

Thats probably the extent of my ok with people murder stance.

bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors tends to leave a bad stain.

"today, we stand together all around the world, joined in a common purpose to remake the planet into a haven of joy and understanding. No one should have to suffer, especially our children"

A foetus is genetically autonomous and has the ability to reproduce foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"] There are an infinite number of "potential people". They don't exist to die until they are conceived of..SolidSnake35

a cluster of ~100 cells isn't a person...unless your image of abortion is doing it with a knife in the 9th month of pregnancy

Pro life is a terrible term. It seems most of the 'pro life' don't seem to want to help the children that are born. They're pro birth. Once its born they don't give a shit about it, especially if its born into poverty. HoolaHoopMan

[QUOTE="BMD004"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

And that's a completley subjective feeling, hence why choice is best.

theone86

So with abortion, people will fight for their side of the argument. It's a war of opinions, and one opinon may eventually win out. Choice isn't "best" just because there is disagreement.

There's subjectivity in everything, but that does not mean everything is subjective.  I find that people who make this claim are usually too lazy to hammer out the intracacies involved in separating subjective experience from objective reality.  For instance, rape and murder objectively negatively impact a society if allowed.  We didn't decide they were wrong as a society, they're wrong as a result of them being harmful.

People don't need to fight for their side of the argument, they can concern themselves with their own affairs and let others do the same.  Choice isn't best because there is disagreement, but when there isn't one objectively right standard then it's best to defer to personal choice, in this case of the person actually responsible for the consequences of the action, the mother.

Because they are demons. 

People who are pro life are not demonized. XilePrincess

Pro life is a terrible term. It seems most of the 'pro life' don't seem to want to help the children that are born. They're pro birth. Once its born they don't give a shit about it, especially if its born into poverty. HoolaHoopMan

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]Pro life is a terrible term. It seems most of the 'pro life' don't seem to want to help the children that are born. They're pro birth. Once its born they don't give a shit about it, especially if its born into poverty. radicalcentrist

Because the people who are pro life are assholes pretty much.

They have no business butting into the very personal lives of complete strangers. The pro life people care about the unborn, but once they are born they dont give a shit anymore what happens to it. Every year the child gets older the less people care about it, once its like 16 or 17 all those people who wanted it to have a life no longer care if they live or die anymore. They just want something to get upset about, to yell about, to justify their hatred.

There is a lot of gray area but as far as Im concerned if the baby is inside the mother she has the right to chose because its a part of her body. Thats the only way I can justify it is if I draw a strict line down the center. If its part of her body then its her choice because its her body, end of story.

Would I abort a baby? No. But Im also not going to tell another person what they should and should not do because it is none of my business.

At first I misread the topic title as saying "demoralized" not "demonized". I was going to say that I don't think pro-lifers by and large are demoralized currently, in fact I think they are rather energized. I think though that a lot of pro-lifers were demoralized in the 1990s after Clinton got elected, but some of them shifted their efforts from legislative and political advocacy to running crisis pregnancy centers.

No, you ignored my reply. Your basic argument was that since the woman is physically carrying the baby, that she has 100% of the say. And I'm saying that you may disagree, but it isn't some crazy idea to think he should get a say also. BMD004

I'm not sure exactly what it means to be a 'pedantic dick,' but I'm pretty sure that's my intention. I go to places like OT and SW to give free reign to my most controversial opinions. My original comparison to divorce was to illustrate the oddness of society in requiring two people to enter into marriage and two people to end the arrangement, whereas two people consent to unprotected sex, but only one has a say in ending the life resulting from that decision. In most states, you can't shoot someone to death for breaking into your home and stealing your property. Therefore, life is supposed to be more valuable, and therefore better protected, than property. But ending a life created by two people only takes the authority of one person just because of where it grows? That's just crazy.

El_Zo1212o

[QUOTE="Zuzuvela"]Because of the extent they go to when trying to get support. shoving pictures of aborted babys in peoples faces in busy streets and practically harassing themlightleggy

If anyone is interested, there is a show, "Defending Life" that airs on EWTN on Thursdays at 11:00 p.m. that deals with pro-life issues.

they are demonized because they try to push their views on others--just like how some religious people are demonized for doin the same

i'm pro-life, but i'm not gonna bring that stance into my political life and try to rally to outlaw em. it's someone's personal decision to get one, and it's their conscience they have to live with. live and let live, i say

Who cares? Unless you are a complete **** you will say what you want regardless. 

[QUOTE="radicalcentrist"]

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]Pro life is a terrible term. It seems most of the 'pro life' don't seem to want to help the children that are born. They're pro birth. Once its born they don't give a shit about it, especially if its born into poverty. El_Zo1212o

"today, we stand together all around the world, joined in a common purpose to remake the planet into a haven of joy and understanding. No one should have to suffer, especially our children"

HyperWarlock

[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"][QUOTE="radicalcentrist"] Does the phrase "Catholic social teaching" ring any bells? Christ alive, I was normally skeptical of platonic realism, but I think the post to which I am responding is the platonic essence of bullshit. 

radicalcentrist

[QUOTE="HyperWarlock"]

"today, we stand together all around the world, joined in a common purpose to remake the planet into a haven of joy and understanding. No one should have to suffer, especially our children"

TheWalkingGhost

not my point, it's a quote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaAd_kpzSas&t=1m7s

Because these are usually the same people who believe in war before diplomacy, executions, promote policies that lead to the death of innocent Americans like stand your ground, and oppose policies that help Americans stay alive like health care and other safety net programs. In other words, many people who claim to be "Pro-life" give true pro-lifers a bad name because they are hypocrites.genfactor

most idealogues are hypocrites, pro-choicers included

[QUOTE="genfactor"]Because these are usually the same people who believe in war before diplomacy, executions, promote policies that lead to the death of innocent Americans like stand your ground, and oppose policies that help Americans stay alive like health care and other safety net programs. In other words, many people who claim to be "Pro-life" give true pro-lifers a bad name because they are hypocrites.lostrib

most idealogues are hypocrites, pro-choicers included

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="genfactor"]Because these are usually the same people who believe in war before diplomacy, executions, promote policies that lead to the death of innocent Americans like stand your ground, and oppose policies that help Americans stay alive like health care and other safety net programs. In other words, many people who claim to be "Pro-life" give true pro-lifers a bad name because they are hypocrites.Nibroc420

most idealogues are hypocrites, pro-choicers included

whoops. oh well

[QUOTE="genfactor"]Because these are usually the same people who believe in war before diplomacy, executions, promote policies that lead to the death of innocent Americans like stand your ground, and oppose policies that help Americans stay alive like health care and other safety net programs. In other words, many people who claim to be "Pro-life" give true pro-lifers a bad name because they are hypocrites.lostrib

most idealogues are hypocrites, pro-choicers included

Because they hate women. Democrats and fake Republicans, however, care so much about women that they think it should be legal to murder them before they're born.

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="genfactor"]Because these are usually the same people who believe in war before diplomacy, executions, promote policies that lead to the death of innocent Americans like stand your ground, and oppose policies that help Americans stay alive like health care and other safety net programs. In other words, many people who claim to be "Pro-life" give true pro-lifers a bad name because they are hypocrites.genfactor

most idealogues are hypocrites, pro-choicers included

yep, people are a continuous disappointment

Because they hate women. Democrats and fake Republicans, however, care so much about women that they think it should be legal to murder them before they're born.

Crushmaster

if we want to be strong like china, we have to realize that only boys are important. Girl children are useless

so, the government is either there to support abortion and birth control or it is there to support people who have kids? how about neither? . surrealnumber5

The only ones that should be demonized are the ones that attack or kill people in "defense of the unborn".  If you value life, you shouldnt be killing anyone.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]so, the government is either there to support abortion and birth control or it is there to support people who have kids? how about neither? . Serraph105

There is a place for abortion I believe. But I think people need to realize that both sides have some pretty valid arguments. Pro-choice will argue that banning or restricting abortions infringes upon the liberty of the woman. Meanwhile, pro-life people will argue that having an abortion (at certain stages of pregnancy or any stage depending on the person) infringes upon the liberty of the unborn child.

It may sound fine and dandy for us to try to reach a compromise on this where we just let people do what they want on the issue. But that gives de facto admittance to the pro-choice side. And any intelligent pro-lifer would see that.

Viewing abortion solely as a social issue isn't really adequate. The most full view comes from viewing it as an issue of liberty. It is the job of the government which is founded on Enlightenment principles (as the United States was) to protect and not infringe upon the liberty of each person. So this brings us to the question: who's liberty does the government protect? The liberty of the woman? Or the liberty of the unborn?

The heart of the issue is rather very philosophical or religious. Clearly the USA cannot consider religious arguments due to the nature of the government. At what point the soul enters or leaves the body of a person, should it exist, has no place under the law. So this leaves us with very little to go on. When does one go from being a mere cluster of cells to becoming a person with liberty that shouldn't be infringed? Science has made it nearly impossible to argue that an unborn child at 8 months is a mere cluster of cells. Botched abortions and early deliveries clearly show that. But science has also made progress. It's now possible for a 6 month old unborn child to be completely viable. But judging the boundaries of liberty based on changing circumstances in science is utterly incompitible with the philosophical ideas of personal liberty. It would mean that liberty itself is not absolute or timeless since it would be changing its definitions according to human capabilities. That is a contradiction. So clearly basing the liberty of the unborn person on the viability of the unborn person is a contradiction, and shouldn't be done.

At which point, we've arrived back at the original question: Who's liberty should the government protect? The government cannot protect one person's liberty and infringe upon another's. That would be a clear act of unwarranted aggression thus making it authoritarian or tyrannical. So ultimately it is only going to be settled when we as a nation philosophically define the beginning of personhood which would automatically entail the beginning of personal liberty. Until then, we are in a paradox.

Abortion = Murder.TheKingIAm

No it doesnt

Abortion = Murder.TheKingIAm

So then, Murder = Abortion?

that doesnt seem right.