Are You Pro Choice or Pro Life?

[Upsilon]

Answer the poll if you have any interest in this topic -- and you should considering you're reading this sentence -- then vote in the poll. You can summarize your justification if you so choose.

[Behemoko]

There be no poll yet, Atheist.

[Upsilon]

There be no poll yet, Atheist.

I just made one. And 'atheist' is with a lowercase 'A,' by the way (at least, generally...).

[Behemoko]

I just made one. And 'atheist' is with a lowercase 'A,' by the way (at least, generally...).

I honestly hope you're not that stupid to think I'm that stupid. :lol:

You're the one who used a capital A.

[Upsilon]

I honestly hope you're not that stupid to think I'm that stupid. :lol:

You're the one who used a capital A.

Most people capatilize the first word of a sentence...

[Behemoko]

Your name.. Dur to the tenth..

[Upsilon]

Your name.. Dur to the tenth..

I don't follow............:confused:

[bobabooy?]

Behe, just let it go, if it is true then they will deal with it

[Behemoko]

playing stupid isn't so much annoying as it is funny I guess.

You just happen to have the same IP address as him? It helps when you use atheistic sigs every time you make a new account. Saves a guy the trouble of looking for you. :-)

Behe, just let it go, if it is true then they will deal with it

Can't a guy have a little fun? :lol:

I know you're in the same situation as him, but Jeebus, lol..

[Upsilon]

Behe, just let it go, if it is true then they will deal with it

Are we not allowed to have religious or areligious stuff in our signatures?

[QuickSilverD]

Are we not allowed to have religious or areligious stuff in our signatures? If my memory serves right, all religious topics were banned in this forum, as well as the most prominent religios and anti-religious user (Atheist and Tzarcham), so I guess that could also be extended to user's sigs and avatars, maybe...

[bobabooy?]

playing stupid isn't so much annoying as it is funny I guess.

You just happen to have the same IP address as him? It helps when you use atheistic sigs every time you make a new account. Saves a guy the trouble of looking for you. :-)



Can't a guy have a little fun? :lol:

I know you're in the same situation as him, but Jeebus, lol..I know but they dont care bout me :p
..well he banned :(

[Behemoko]

If my memory serves right, all religious topics were banned in this forum, as well as the most prominent religios and anti-religious user (Atheist and Tzarcham), so I guess that could also be extended to user's sigs and avatars, maybe...

Did you not read the rest of this thread though? :lol:

My whole point is that Upsilon WAS Atheist. That's why he was banned, it has nothing to do with his Sig. ;-)

[QuickSilverD]

I know, I know, but, why were they banned the first place anyway, I think I wasn't around or what? the Religious disccutions got out of hand?

[Carsonal]

All that pro life, anti gun, middle centre right liberal, small government, black, green, purple, quasi bi hetero crap does nothing but divide people.
The last thing any person alive today needs is to be more divided.

[grcswoosh]

All that pro life, anti gun, middle centre right liberal, small government, black, green, purple, quasi bi hetero crap does nothing but divide people.
The last thing any person alive today needs is to be more divided.

Wow, you said it brother. I think the only thing left to say is be nice to each other.

[MiNiMaL_sAnItY]

I'm pro-boll.

oops, did I say that out loud?

[WonsAuto]

There's only one right answer to this question:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=regressive

[LetsGoMets]

Here's my opinion on the subject. Personally, I'm pro-life. I think its wrong and I oppose it. BUT... Politcally, I'm pro-choice. I don't think the government has the right to make this moral/philosophical decision for a person. That's my $0.02

[se7enthsign]

Originally Posted by Carsonal http://www.ps3forums.com/pimages/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.ps3forums.com/showthread.php?p=2785629#post2785629)
All that pro life, anti gun, middle centre right liberal, small government, black, green, purple, quasi bi hetero crap does nothing but divide people.
The last thing any person alive today needs is to be more divided.

Well, even if we sorted all of that out, we would just find new things to be divided over. Conflict is human nature. We must have an "us" and a "them".

As for abortion, I don't think anyone is "pro" abortion or a fan or enjoys destroying fetuses, but until there are better, cheaper forms of birth control, abortion will be a necessary evil. Accidents happen, and some people simply are not fit to be parents. When those two things meet, it's time for an abortion.

It is simply better for all parties that the fetus is destroyed before it develops a conscienceness and becomes aware of its existance. I'd rather see that than see another mother smashing her 5 year old child's head in with rocks, or drowning them in the bathtub, or beheading them with garden shears, or any of the other violent acts I've heard of. I'd rather continue with abortions than see children who are unwanted by their families turn to gangs, cults, and other groups and live a life of crime and violence. I'd rather see more abortions than see kids who are deformed and born with drug addictions because their mothers couldn't be bothered to put down the heroin while they were pregnant.

I think that the hardcore pro-life people are shielded from some of the reality. They believe that ALL children are beautiful and will be productive, wonderful people if given the chance. What they don't realize is that some children have no chance at all. There are simply some living conditions that are so damning that a child has no possibility of anything at all but a tragic end.

[sonyfan6]

As for abortion, I don't think anyone is "pro" abortion or a fan or enjoys destroying fetuses, but until there are better, cheaper forms of birth control, abortion will be a necessary evil. Accidents happen, and some people simply are not fit to be parents. When those two things meet, it's time for an abortion.

It is simply better for all parties that the fetus is destroyed before it develops a conscienceness and becomes aware of its existance. I'd rather see that than see another mother smashing her 5 year old child's head in with rocks, or drowning them in the bathtub, or beheading them with garden shears, or any of the other violent acts I've heard of. I'd rather continue with abortions than see children who are unwanted by their families turn to gangs, cults, and other groups and live a life of crime and violence. I'd rather see more abortions than see kids who are deformed and born with drug addictions because their mothers couldn't be bothered to put down the heroin while they were pregnant.

I think that the hardcore pro-life people are shielded from some of the reality. They believe that ALL children are beautiful and will be productive, wonderful people if given the chance. What they don't realize is that some children have no chance at all. There are simply some living conditions that are so damning that a child has no possibility of anything at all but a tragic end.

I'd like to compliment you on a well thought out post and add a couple points of my own.

In addition to the issues mentioned above there is the very real question of how can one stop abortions? You cannot force a woman to carry or care for a child that she does not want. You can stop doctors from performing the procedure, but prior to abortion clinics there were coat hanger abortions for the poor (not to mention intentional physical damage to the abdomen from the outside) and for the rich there have always been flights to other countries where the procedure is legal. So the issue of making abortions illegal is really one of making them unsafe for those without the financial means.

Second is the issue of current unwanted children. We can't care for all the unwanted children that currently exist in this country. It is socially irresponsible to suggest policies that increase that number. We need to decrease the number of unwanted children. If the organizations that support pro-life spent a fraction of that effort supporting pro-quality-of-life the current population of unwanted children might be in better shape. I'm talking more incentives for loving parents to adopt or keep a foster kid. More community assistance for orphanages. How about affordable and quality child care for working parents and rehab programs to get mothers to be off dangerous substances before it harms the child. Let's solve these problems and ensure that every child that is brought into this world has a chance at a good life then we can discuss bringing more children into this world.

Third is that the issue of abortion is an issue that disproportionately affects women. Until our country begins electing more women to office (and I'm talking basically 1 out of 2 not 1 out of a 20 like it is today) it is grossly unfair for our legislatures to outlaw abortions.

That about wraps up the points I wanted to make. I'll say again that I fully agree with se7enthsign's points, especially that of no one being pro-abortion.

[Pipes75]

Why can't we all just love ALL living things?
Guess I'm still dreamin cuz this is sumthing that will never happen :(
John Lennon had more knowledge then most give him credit for and the lyrics to Imagine hit home for me ;) - the jist of that being, no countries, no religion and no war - you may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one ....

[QuickSilverD]

I don’t really think there is much of a “be Pro-Choice or be Pro-life” thing, let’s get real, everyone is pro-choice and everyone is pro-life, we all like our freedom and capasity of choosing things and I don’t think any of us would be too happy of killing things.

I can not speak for the women that had abortions but I don’t think that such desition could be as easy as, well is my body I can do whatever the **** I want, nor I can say that they will all be traumatized for doing it.

If we would live in a perfect world there would be no abortions, because there would be no unwanted pregnasies, but we do not and probably will never live in a perfect world, so, what is really the right stance about this issue?

If you ask me, I belive we should focus more on teaching “family planing” and “bird control metods”. Condons are one, but there are also plenty of ways for women not to get pregnant, there are both natural and artificial metods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods), I also believe that people should take responsability for their actions, so I don’t really see abortion as a justificable thing to do, so you could say I’m against it, most of the time anyway.

However besides the obvious, ****s up commited by idiots, one has also take in consideration the other two posibilities for wanting an abortion, for example in the case that the a medical proceding requieres to abort a baby to save his/her mother somehow, this is a no brainer, and in this case one really can’t say abortion is wrong, and then there is rape victims that end up pregnant by their violators, do they have the right to abort? IMO best thing to do, is give away the creature, but not kill it

[GuitarrassDeAmor]

Did you not read the rest of this thread though? :lol:

My whole point is that Upsilon WAS Atheist. That's why he was banned, it has nothing to do with his Sig. ;-)

You can be banned for being atheist? I am not...but thats stupid as hell.

[HellsJester]

Well i hate the pro-life people that act like if abortion is available they have to get one.
Abortion is a choice.
If you dont want one then dont get one.
This is a option for people that want it.
Same thing with gay marriage
If you dont want it then dont get gay married if you are not gay you have no business to say anything on the matter.

[Behemoko]

You can be banned for being atheist? I am not...but thats stupid as hell.

That would be quite stupid indeed.

His name was Atheist. That's what I meant when I said he's Atheist, I was talking about a guy who used to be a member here. He was perma-banned, and Upsilon was his newest account.

[seebs]

Both, really. I think that most abortions are probably poor choices, but I also think it is not my place to dictate terms in the matter to other people. I have too many friends who have been hospitalized for ectopic pregnancies and other life-threatening emergencies to favor an absolute ban, and I know too many people whose lives are different from my own to try to determine what they should be "allowed" to do.

Given a vote, my preference is that in general, if people are likely to survive trying to carry a child to term, and the child won't be short-lived and miserable (say, harlequin babies), I'd rather see them do so, and I've been willing to try to help with the expenses some.

As an example of how I can hold both positions, there are groups (e.g., Scientology's "Sea Org") which actively coerce people to have abortions, even if they don't want to, and pretty much everyone can agree that this is bad.

[LeisureSuitLarry]

Killing another human being should always be illegal. I don't care if it is a convicted murderer or an unborn child. That is all I am going to say.

[seebs]

Killing another human being should always be illegal. I don't care if it is a convicted murderer or an unborn child. That is all I am going to say.

Do you know what an ectopic pregnancy is?

[Pipes75]

Killing another human being should always be illegal. I don't care if it is a convicted murderer or an unborn child. That is all I am going to say.

ALWAYS is a strong word - what about the 13 year old girl that gets raped by her dad? Is she not allowed an abortion. I think abortion like many other topics is a grey area but there can be extreme cases made for both sides. Abortion shouldn't be a form of birth control neither but as sony said accidents happen and sum people are not fit parents. All that being said generally I think abortion is wrong, as I believe in an ideal world, we would love ALL living things and we would think unitely not individually. However we don't live in the world I dream of, we live in a world full of control.

[Sam_From_Space]

Choice. Difficult to describe, but choice is always a good thing.

[Lionel Hutz]

Here's my opinion on the subject. Personally, I'm pro-life. I think its wrong and I oppose it. BUT... Politcally, I'm pro-choice. I don't think the government has the right to make this moral/philosophical decision for a person. That's my $0.02Are you for laws against rape? Certainly, deciding to rape someone is a moral decision. Do you think the government should not make a stance on rape? Wow.

[Vulgotha]

Ah, is it really you atheist? It's been quite some time.

I remember everything as if it were yesterday....

Pro-Life btw.


What's funny:

If a woman's pregnant and you attack her (mug her, w\e) and it leads to the accidental death of her unborn child (at any trimester or stage) you can be charged for murder in the US.

But abortions are a "Personal choice".

Right.

[vudumonkey25]

I chose pro choice because the couple (although they should have thought about it before it happened) should have the right to help clean up a mistake. Why have a child get brought into this world by parents that don't want them? or can't afford them? It is not fair to the child.

[Vulgotha]

So arbitrarily exterminating it's existence...is fair.

I can understand that argument, I've heard it made many times. But still, the metaphysics of it .... Well it's just bad. It's like the "Rape" argument that is eventually and always thrown out.

[sonyfan6]

Ah, is it really you atheist? It's been quite some time.

I remember everything as if it were yesterday....

Pro-Life btw.


What's funny:

If a woman's pregnant and you attack her (mug her, w\e) and it leads to the accidental death of her unborn child (at any trimester or stage) you can be charged for murder in the US.

But abortions are a "Personal choice".

Right.

There is no moral equivalence between a woman choosing to have an abortion and a pregnant woman who wants to give birth to a child having her pregnancy terminated through violence. In the first case the woman chooses to terminate the pregnancy by having an abortion. Due to the mother's choice to not have a baby the fetus was never going to mature and be born. In the later case, you are talking about a woman who has chosen to give birth to a child . In this case the fetus was going to mature and be born as a baby. When the mugger violently terminates the pregnancy he is murdering not the fetus but the baby that the woman intended to give birth to. The mugger is not charged with the death of the fetus but the death of the baby-to-be that the mother had decided to give birth to.

Of course that's US law. The bible, interestingly enough, does not allow one to charge a person who causes a woman to lose a pregnancy with murder. It specifically lays out the punishment, in Exodus 21:22 that the person is fined. Whereas if the mother is killed the punishment is death. Frankly, US law is more strict than the bible when it comes to the prosecution of violence causing a miscarriage. US law is also more strict regarding abortions as we limit how far into a pregnancy one can have an abortion, whereas the bible actually allows for a man to force his wife to have an abortion if he suspects that she committed adultery, in Numbers 5:12-31. So US law places more value on the fetus than the bible. I bring this up because the pro-life movement is championed by the church and claims the bible as the reason for taking away a woman's right to chose. Of course, the bible is at odds with the "morality" expressed by the pro-life movement showing that it's much more about controlling women then because g-d said so for the people motivated by religion. Please note that this argument is intended only for those that use religion as the reason to support pro-life. It is not for use against those who are using their own set of morals not derived from religion to determine when life begins.

[Vulgotha]

Um. You're completely out of sync with the bible and doctrine, so I wouldn't advise even bringing it up.

That verse is stating that God is the final judge in the matter, not man. Again, I do not mean to convey "Arrogance" in this matter, but you're not going to win a "Bible fight". Assuming one even takes place on these forums at this point (as prohibited by the rules).

Besides, you're sidestepping the issue of "Life" and focusing purely on a woman's "Choice" and "Intent". That's not addressing the issue that's dancing around it.

Nice try.

If cellular division is occurring, it's alive. This is the first stage of life. It cannot participate in the other acts of "Living"* until it's fully formed. But it's still living.




*Reproduction, homeostasis, etc.

[seebs]

Ah, is it really you atheist? It's been quite some time.

I remember everything as if it were yesterday....

Pro-Life btw.


What's funny:

If a woman's pregnant and you attack her (mug her, w\e) and it leads to the accidental death of her unborn child (at any trimester or stage) you can be charged for murder in the US.

But abortions are a "Personal choice".

Right.

The argument from the current state of the law is uninformative, because the law is the result of fierce political infighting and maneuvering between factions both of which have long since lost sight of the actual questions they were originally arguing.

I would say that, of the two laws, the former is incorrect. There's a long history of study of that question in the law, and the oldest source I know off the top of my head views it as a property crime. It's the law (well, religious text/law) of a group of nomads who used to wander around the Middle East. They specifically distinguish between a miscarriage (which is a property crime against the father) and any actual injury to the mother (which is a crime against a person).

Vulgotha, I really like you most of the time, but do not mistake the modern Evangelical spin for the history of the book. The Bible is absolutely explicit on that one, and it really is a property crime. Now, you might argue (and I'd personally agree) that Moses got that one wrong. But the original text was pretty clear.

[Vulgotha]

I was being sarcastic Seebs. You people apparently lost the fact that I was scoffing at the double standards in society.


I don't see how it's incorrect. The woman was bound to the man via the bonds of marriage (or promise of marriage). If she committed adultery it was AGAISNT him, but it was not man who enacted an "Abortion" in that verse, it was God.

If she had slept with another, God punished her and the act.

Sure it was "Possessive". She was his. Or however you'd like to describe the culture back then.

People didn't arbitrarily decide to kill it off. Don't mistake me for a fool Seebs. I also laugh at the fact many of you people point out those verses like it's some great "Achilles heel" to Christianity.

It isn't. lol. If any of you understood doctrine whatsoever you'd realize it isn't some great weakness.

I also grow weary of your continual remarks and subtle comments about me not possessing facts, or being a typical "Evangelical". Your previous comments regarding the Catholic church for instance when you doubted I knew anything on the subject.

Subsequently the conversation ENDED there... As religious conversation was banned rather swiftly after the chaotic events of those days and atheist.. You think I lack information based only off a difference of beliefs. Interpretation is the difference between us Seebs.


Edit: Further clarification. I'm quite the student of history, politics and government seebs. The reason I wrote that post was out of the contempt I have (and thus my mocking) of the whole ordeal.

It's become a joke. Politicians only dip their hands into it for the votes and perks involved, whereas die hard believers (like you, I or Playstation4life) are caught up in the middle, waging the real ideological war here.

Roe v. Wade has become the litmus test for many positions in government, most especially the Supreme Court (see my disdain for it in previous threads).

[MiNiMaL_sAnItY]

Nice to see the usual suspects fighting out the good fight... again.

I'm pro-choice btw.

[Vulgotha]

Although I foresee an immediate closing of this thread (for reasons obvious) I'd prefer it not be shut down due the religious discussion taking place here.

I'd like to point out I did NOT engage in any kind of religious talk here initially. I started nothing.

Seebs if you'd like to continue this, I ask you pm me. Same for Playstation.


Seebs you and I rarely quibble over religious facts. Like with most arguments between intellectuals we debate the interpretations of these facts. Our arguments of course, subject to our upbringing and walk(s) in life.

By no means am I omniscient, but I'm quite educated in this arena.

[seebs]

I was being sarcastic Seebs. You people apparently lost the fact that I was scoffing at the double standards in society.

Sorry, I missed that.

The woman was bound to the man via the bonds of marriage (or promise of marriage). If she committed adultery it was AGAISNT him, but it was not man who enacted an "Abortion" in that verse, it was God.

I'm not talking about that verse.

I'm talking about the one establishing the punishment for causing a miscarriage.

If the woman is injured, you've injured a person and are subject to what are essentially criminal penalties; retaliatory punishment. If the woman is fine but the baby miscarries and dies, you pay the father a fine.

People didn't arbitrarily decide to kill it off. Don't mistake me for a fool Seebs. I also laugh at the fact many of you people point out those verses like it's some great "Achilles heel" to Christianity.

It isn't. lol. If any of you understood doctrine whatsoever you'd realize it isn't some great weakness.

I don't think it's a weakness, and I didn't say it was. What makes you so sure I don't understand doctrine? I've spent years in theological debates.

I also grow weary of your continual remarks and subtle comments about me not possessing facts, or being a typical "Evangelical". Your previous comments regarding the Catholic church for instance when you doubted I knew anything on the subject.

Sorry. You've said a lot of things that led me to assume that you only have real familiarity with one particular branch of Christianity.

Subsequently the conversation ENDED there... As religious conversation was banned rather swiftly after the chaotic events of those days and atheist.. You think I lack information based only off a difference of beliefs. Interpretation is the difference between us Seebs.

No, I don't think you lack information based only off of a difference of beliefs. I think you lack information because your descriptions of beliefs you don't hold are consistently wrong. I don't agree with a lot of Catholic doctrine, but most Catholics will admit that I can describe it correctly. I can explain the rationale for the priesthood, and confession, and so on. I don't believe that they are correct, but I can describe it so that they are convinced I am describing their beliefs correctly.

It might be fun to get together on a board which allows religious discussion as such (freethought forum, despite the implications of the name, is quite open to such chatter and offers a wide range of views) and talk about this more.

[Vulgotha]

Edit: Hold on a tick.

To my knowledge I've seldom spoken about Catholicism or it's set of beliefs. I can only recall 2 occasions, both of which I never went into detail, period. I just pointed out some of the rather interesting things I've heard the Vatican officials state about Mary.

[Lefein]

Can I be Pro Death? Seriously, stupid people need to stop breeding...

NOW!

[Vulgotha]

Well I'm starting a new political party with Euthanasia as our party platform.

How do you like our new insignia?


http://imagehost.epier.com/38431/HELGHAST_LOGO_1.JPG

[FantasyStar]

Can I be Pro Death? Seriously, stupid people need to stop breeding...

NOW!

We should be anti-******ed. Seriously, let social-darwinism take its course and kill off the weak. Not trying to be a biggot, but we spend so much money helping the homeless and aiding the disabled that people just stopped caring all-together. I guess I believe in mercy-killings. Does that make me pro-choice?

Well I'm starting a new political party with Euthanasia as our party platform.

How do you like our new insignia?


http://imagehost.epier.com/38431/HELGHAST_LOGO_1.JPG

You win the thread! I'd follow you.

[MiNiMaL_sAnItY]

We should be anti-******ed. Seriously, let social-darwinism take its course and kill off the weak. Not trying to be a biggot, but we spend so much money helping the homeless and aiding the disabled that people just stopped caring all-together. I guess I believe in mercy-killings. Does that make me pro-choice?

As the 21st century began, human evolution was at a turning point. Natural selection, the process by which the strongest, the smartest, the fastest, reproduced in greater numbers than the rest, a process which had once favored the noblest traits of man, now began to favor different traits. Most science fiction of the day predicted a future that was more civilized and more intelligent. But as time went on, things seemed to be heading in the opposite direction. A dumbing down. How did this happen? Evolution does not necessarily reward intelligence. With no natural predators to thin the herd, it began to simply reward those who reproduced the most, and left the intelligent to become an endangered species.

I think eveyone needs to see the movie at least once in their lifetime.

[Kromosomi]

I wouldn't consider early stage embryos even mammals, let alone humans with their hefty brains. It takes three weeks to get even the most basic nervous structure to appear but no brains to process info before week 8, and even with brain it starts to function 3 weeks later when neural network has formed the groundings.
I'm pro-choice all the way to the 3rd month of pregnancy, after that I really question the reasons for abort so I'm also pro-life.

[Laser]

I think each potential abortion case should be looked at in order to make the decision.

Someone close to me has had no choice but to go through with an abortion, but overall I'm kinda more "pro-life".

Anyways I don't think its a matter federal government should tend to, leave this matter for individual states to decide.

Did not vote in the poll btw.