Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I do believe you shouldn't care about another random woman's choice enough to want to change it, especially seeing as it doesn't effect you in any way that impedes your life.If that's what you can call apathy, then yes.
-AC
"I don't care" = apathy
I think its good to care for others. I'm not Christian, but "Love thy neighbor as you love thyself" isn't a bad philosophy to have, imo.
Originally posted by crazylozer
Here's my problem with the "human potential" argument. Everyone has potential. That guy serving burgers at Mcdonald's could have cured cancer. That homeless person downtown might have painted the next Mona Lisa. Who knows for sure?But really, it's impossible to say because people aren't given the chance to release their potential to the fullest extent due to their lot in life. So why force children into harsh situations where they may never do what they could have?
Exasctly. Instead of people trying to get the earth as populated as possible they should instead worry about the best way to maximize the potential of the people already here.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The Pro-Life movement did not exist on any level before the formation of the first Pro-Life organization in 1967. This organization would later be incorporated into the National Right to Life Committee in 1973. Three years later, the only Pro-Life resources were the National Right to Life Committee and the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment.So yes, one organization did start the Pro-Life movement. And while I do not pretend that this organization speaks for the Pro-Life movement in its entirety, by all means, name the numerous other Pro-Life organizations that do not believe that life begins at conception.
The law is not Pro-Life. The law weighs the right of the mother to control what happens in and to her body with the right to life of the child. The point at which the law has determined it is illegal to have an abortion is the point at which the law believes the right to life of the child is stronger and more stringent than the right of the mother to control what happens in and to her body. This is what the debate is about.
Geez, Adam, Pro-Life is older than the political movement of one country, you know. And it is more than just a name.
And that bottom paragraph you put there? That IS Pro-Life. It says once the foetus is alive, the woman no longer has a choice. See? That's what Pro-Life is all about.
And that, pretty much, is what EVERYONE believes. And that is why the debate is not about choice, and why all this talk of choice is an enormous dostraction.
The debate is about time.
Originally posted by StyleTime
Has anyone else noticed that the pro-life side has given NO good reason why abortion should be banned?
If it were banned, women would be forced to have a baby, even if it would kill them. You couldn't make it legal for one lot of women, and legal for a few, it couldn't work like that.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The difference being that the puppies are already born.
Okay, here's a question. What about people who take their cat or dog to the vet to abort their unborn kittens or puppies? It can happen. As the cat or dog in question doesn't have a say in the matter, is it right for the owners to take their animal to the vet to have their kittens or puppies aborted, which may be against the animals will? Do animals have a say in what happens to their bodies?
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Geez, Adam, Pro-Life is older than the political movement of one country, you know. And it is more than just a name.And that bottom paragraph you put there? That IS Pro-Life. It says once the foetus is alive, the woman no longer has a choice. See? That's what Pro-Life is all about.
And that, pretty much, is what EVERYONE believes. And that is why the debate is not about choice, and why all this talk of choice is an enormous dostraction.
The debate is about time.
By all means, cite a source which states that the Pro-Life movement began earlier than 1967. By the way, we are all still waiting for you to name the numerous Pro-Life organizations that do not believe life begins at conception.
Moreover, the paragraph in question does not describe a Pro-Life view. The law does not determine at which point an abortion is illegal based on when the fetus is considered alive.
The law never denies that the fetus is alive, or that the fetus has a right to life.
The law determines at which point an abortion is illegal based on at which point the right of the mother to control what happens in and to her body infringes upon the right to life of the fetus.
Before this time, the law considers the right to life of the fetus to be infringing upon the right of the mother to control what happens in and to her body.
It has nothing to do with personhood, and everything to do with individual rights.
Originally posted by Makedde
Okay, here's a question. What about people who take their cat or dog to the vet to abort their unborn kittens or puppies? It can happen. As the cat or dog in question doesn't have a say in the matter, is it right for the owners to take their animal to the vet to have their kittens or puppies aborted, which may be against the animals will? Do animals have a say in what happens to their bodies?
Housepets are spayed and neutered, i.e. have their sexual organs completely removed, and declawed, i.e. have their P3 digits completely removed, against their will. Apparently, animals do not have a say in what happens to their bodies.
Originally posted by Makedde
Okay, here's a question. What about people who take their cat or dog to the vet to abort their unborn kittens or puppies? It can happen. As the cat or dog in question doesn't have a say in the matter, is it right for the owners to take their animal to the vet to have their kittens or puppies aborted, which may be against the animals will? Do animals have a say in what happens to their bodies?
Well according to many in these forums, human life is no different than that of a cat or dog..so yeah going by that logic, abortion is okay.😉
note: obviously I'm "pro life" I'm just being sarcastic.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
That IS Pro-Life. It says once the foetus is alive, the woman no longer has a choice. See? That's what Pro-Life is all about.And that, pretty much, is what EVERYONE believes. And that is why the debate is not about choice, and why all this talk of choice is an enormous dostraction.
The debate is about time.
Just a query, are you saying that everyone believes that once the foetus is alive, the woman no longer has a choice? Because I don't believe that. I may have read you wrong, however 😕