Abortion

Originally posted by Bardock42
Nowadays, but if you can have the possibility to have smart children, that look like you want them to look...what would be wrong about that...WHAT?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I have to say I don't dig Uma Thurman much...she is a decent actress...but well...to be honest skill is not all I am looking for in actresses...I'm shallow as that.

Hmm that's what I want my children to have a genetically engineered sense of cool.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
As my progeny, my children will be intelligent and attractive, so it's not really a concern of mine. I think it's more a case of to each their own. There isn't anything wrong or right with it per se... as both those concepts are subjective.

True she isn't as easy on the eyes as say Scarlett Johannsen etc. but she has a sense of cool that gives her appeal.

Hmm that's what I want my children to have a genetically engineered sense of cool.

Reminds me of a fun anecdote I am unable to reproduce....
Anyways...I agree it should be up to everyone themselves, but the thing is that if it becomes predominant it might be a social necessity...oh well.

I don't know, she played in Batman and Robin....

And with genetic engineering you can have all that....happiness.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If you're just going to ignore fact then I'll just continually refer you back to the OTF, because this is a place for relatively serious debate, not childish attempts to be the centre of attention.

-AC

Originally posted by Alliance
NOT at all. Honestly, no one want to go around killing things. But I do believe in Human rights and the rights of people to make PERSONAL decisions.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
i guess i can agree with you there.
like if a girl gets pregnant, has the baby, then decides to give it up for adoption, thats prochoice.
most people i talk to about it think prochoice means choosing to have an abortion or to have the baby.

Pro-choice is simply being for whatever the woman wants to do.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Pro-choice is simply being for whatever the woman wants to do.

-AC

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
isnt that what i just said?

You said a woman choosing adoption is pro-choice.

-AC

well, adoption is one of the many choices that she has. have the baby, abort it, adoption, these are all choices.
if she opts to give it up for adoption, she is exercising her right to choose.
right to choose=pro choice.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
well, adoption is one of the many choices that she has. have the baby, abort it, adoption, these are all choices.
if she opts to give it up for adoption, she is exercising her right to choose.
right to choose=pro choice.

I was just pointing out that choosing to put it up for adoption isn't always the result of being pro-choice.

-AC

but it is one of the possible results, correct?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
but it is one of the possible results, correct?

Yes, it's one of the possible results of pro-choice. It's not exclusively pro-choice.

-AC

point. she could elect to dump it in a dumpster, throw it in a lake, or even bar b q it.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
point. she could elect to dump it in a dumpster, throw it in a lake, or even bar b q it.

Good point. Does "pro-choice" support all possible choices? If you rule out infanticide as a choice, then you're back to just being anti-abortion again. 😉

After all, the "pro-life" people support multiple alternatives too, just not certain alternatives. If infanticide is out for "pro-choice" people, then the only real difference between the 2 sides of the argument is abortion, and we return to the pro- and anti-abortion labels.

Isn't semantics fun 😛

The thing that annoys me about alot of pro-life people (at least here in ireland), is their tendency to display the most unsettling images on the steps of churches and on lamposts... we get it, you think its murder, that doesnt mean you have the right to shove imagery in my face...

Pro-life should mean all life, including the four year olds who see these kinds of images and lose a little more of whatever innocence they have in the modern world...

Originally posted by docb77
Good point. Does "pro-choice" support all possible choices? If you rule out infanticide as a choice, then you're back to just being anti-abortion again. 😉

You're the one making all this bs up about who takes what stance. We all get it, you don't. Why are you trying to make things up? It's simple.

Me? I'm pro-choice all the way. I honestly don't give a shit what she chooses to do with the foetus. None of my business at all. I might not condone her leaving it in a dumpster, but if that's what she wants to do, I'm not gonna waste my time and effort trying to stop her.

Originally posted by docb77
After all, the "pro-life" people support multiple alternatives too, just not certain alternatives. If infanticide is out for "pro-choice" people, then the only real difference between the 2 sides of the argument is abortion, and we return to the pro- and anti-abortion labels.

Isn't semantics fun 😛

Why are you being silly? I've explained it to you. Either you view it as pro-choice or pro-life, or you don't. If you don't, fine, I can see why as there are lots of variants, many stances people can take.

However, you don't need to label EVERY single possible variation of a stance. It's not only impractical but it causes more confusion than it's worth. If someone isn't what we consider to be pro-life or pro-abortion, then simply ask them to describe their stance and move on.

Stop clinging to this debate with semantics.

-AC

Originally posted by docb77
Good point. Does "pro-choice" support all possible choices? If you rule out infanticide as a choice, then you're back to just being anti-abortion again. 😉

After all, the "pro-life" people support multiple alternatives too, just not certain alternatives. If infanticide is out for "pro-choice" people, then the only real difference between the 2 sides of the argument is abortion, and we return to the pro- and anti-abortion labels.

Isn't semantics fun 😛

You realise that all you two are doing is rehashing things that were discussed a hundred pages ago, then probably a hundred before that?

I recognise you're both new to the thread, and that's cool, but some of us have been over this.

-AC

if you dont like the post, why are you responding to it?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
if you dont like the post, why are you responding to it?

Because I'm trying to get that simple and impractical aspect of this discussion out of the way so that we can discuss a point that has...a point.

Not one that, in the grand scheme of things, doesn't matter and has also been discussed tens of times over these pages.

-AC

who are you to say that it doesnt matter? so what if it is being discussed for the umpteenth time? why does this upset you so?