Can anybody help me uderstand the thinking of pro-choicers? (vanity)

[Skooz]

people will still do it, whether in a back room with a coathanger like the old days ...

Actually, that is a myth. There is not one confirmed case of this ever happening.

[swilhelm73]

You should brush up on your reading comprehension. I said that there are alternatives that should be pursued that are better in terms of both solvency, and in mitigating damages than criminalization.

I can read your words just fine. However, you may want to consider using them to express something more then just pablum.

Let's hear your alternative that will save even a fraction of the lives that banning fetal homicide would.

Or perhaps your argument is that we should persue "alternative solutions" to homicide in general?

[fizziwig]

"Its kind of like the war on some drugs, people will still do it, whether in a back room with a coathanger like the old days or if rich, overseas, or if legal in a sanitary hospital, rich or poor. People have a difference of opinion on most laws and what part the government should play in them, abortion is another one of them."

Murdering an adult is illegal but people still do it anyway. According to this logic we should legalize "choice" for murdering adults as well.

Since you seem to be pro choice, do you also believe that a woman should have the legal right to murder her child in the 9th month? Are you also in favor of "choice" for partial birth abortion? Do you believe a woman should have the choice kill her unborn baby by sucking its brains out and crushing its skull?

[RogueIsland]

I'm talking about legal vs. illegal abortions. Now answer my question: Do you agree with the principle I set out above? If you do, we can move to evidence. If you don't, there's no point.

I guess there's no point then, as I can't accept your principle. To me it's like saying "let's make killing with rifles legal to cut down on killings with knives, since close quarters attacks with knives can lead to injury or death to the killer in the process."

[John Valentine]

The heart of this dispute runs straight through the distinction between law and morality.

These two are different and distinct. I will write more later. Consider this a ping to myself.

[Mr. Mojo]

What is the quantifiable nature of the nervous system at this (6th month) point that make it different at this moment at time from an hour previous?

That's the million dollar question, and one which no "pro-choicer" has ever answered to my satisfaction.

[visualops]

It's about many things, depending on the person. These things are; intellectual dishonesty, selfishness, moral relativity that elevates making one's life "easier" to a morally correct choice, fear, nihilism and depression, and the need to feel in control. The control is a false empowerment.
Now, most of these stem from a lack of honesty. Leftist thought is a lie. None of what they want can be achieved without dishonesty, and abortion is one of the many lies.
Man without God has no moral clarity. Man without God has no respect for life. Life without God is a lie.

[swilhelm73]

You might also scare them into ruminating about how easy it would be for governments to declare them as not being legal persons in some nightmarish fascist fantasy liberals have from time-to-time.

Well, if you read the work of Peter Singer and other cutting edge leftwing ethicists, humanity is defined as merely being of use to others. Currently they mean that in a socially interactive sense, but it is hardly a long walk to arrive at the argument that humanity should be defined by relative material worth to society (which led directly to the worst sins of communism)...

[Ichneumon]

Most of the "pro-choice" people with whom I'm acquainted believe that if an abortion is performed after the second trimester it's indeed murder (although they're extremely hesitant to use the "M" word). Abortions peformed before this seemingly arbitrary time are acceptable for some reason, and the reasons given vary.

The "third trimester" line is not entirely "arbitrary", as you seem to believe. It marks the approximate time that the fetus has a decent chance of surviving outside the womb:

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

[RogueIsland]

Thanks everyone. I have to go, but I appreciate the effort everyone has gone to on this. It actually has helped me think outside my mental box a bit and break the impasse. Don't get me wrong, I will never be pro-choice, but I do like to get a better understanding of those I disagree with -- I don't like not having an understanding of a mindset. It bothers me.

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

In a word, 'selfish'.

[HighlyOpinionated]

*****No political standing for the other being in "their" body.*****

It's also the lifeline of a baby. It's "their" body alright, Mom's and Baby's body. THEIR body.

On the other thread, I said and will say again that no one HAS to get pregnant. They can avoid the behaviors that lead to potential pregnancy, for heaven's sake! Unless a woman is raped (NOT a sex crime, but a POWER crime), she doesn't HAVE to get pregnant.

She can be celibate and chaste until marriage.
She can use contraceptive devices.
If she wants 100% protection, she doesn't have sexual intercourse or other behaviors that can lead to a pregnancy. It's called Abstinence. It works. 100% of the time.

It's MY body? Right, so do I want YOUR shizzle inside MY body?? Why would I?

[Ichneumon]

Man without God has no moral clarity.

Incorrect.

Man without God has no respect for life.

Wrong again.

Life without God is a lie.

Which God?

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

If you don't mind my asking, why do you thing abortion is wrong?

[ARCADIA]

There is not one confirmed case of this ever happening.

If you read the medical reports from the various field hospitals in WWI you may walk away with the impression that very few soldiers were wounded by bayonet. The reality is that those wounded by bayonet tended to die before they could be transported to a field hospital; so they were rarely picked up within the hospital statistics.

Perhaps the coat hanger story is ungrounded, perhaps not. The lack of information certainly does not prove the negative; and, I am biased in favor of thinking that desperate people can do desperate (and stupid) things.

[AuburnMan]

Javelina- "Yes. The evidence suggests that banning abortion will harm or kill more people than it will save. If we can pursue other policies to reduce abortions that will not have adverse effects, we should use these options."

What evidence? What study did you find this in, and where may I obtain it? I'm sorry but I cannot seem to wrap my brain around this "evidence." From a strictly Christian perspective, how could the end of abortion ever harm more than it would save? The Guttmacher Institute estimated that there were 1,313,300 abortions in the year 2002, in America alone. This is one year. We should not concede to a wrong because some deem it too entrenched in our societal mores to do anything about.

From an economic/philosophical perspective I could only conceive one possible argument. This argument would be that the children would be born into homes that did not want them; thus greatly increasing the possibility that they will grow up in a dysfunctional environment. And since populations reproduce exponentially that these people would propagate other dysfunctional children and so so on... This, though, assumes many things, namely:
- that adoption would not increase at least mildy proportionately;
- and, most importantly, that people would not longer be able to rely on this method to prevent childbirth and would adjust their behavior accordingly.

If you prevent the punishment, you condone the behavior. People now can count on, or fall back on, this method of prevention. If they could not, and they faced the financial, social, economic and emotional responsibilities of raising a child, or giving it away, no one could logically argue that more people would be harmed than saved by ending this practice. Perhaps I am completely wrong, but I cannot see it.