Pro-choice? Where do you draw the line?

[Granite]

Well, I could say trust in God's provision or think of all those who want a child and are physically unable yet would make excellent parents. Is it better to sacrifice a life or allow it to give rise to joy and fulfillment?

I consider that attitude to be completely reckless and a recipe for disaster. I've seen it happen with some very, very regrettable results.

 

[IMJerusha]

I consider that attitude to be completely reckless and a recipe for disaster.

You would.

 

[IMJerusha]

I've seen it happen with some very, very regrettable results.

And I've seen what happens to women who get abortions, not to mention what I went through.

 

[99lamb]

Continuation...
The people who would be allowed to procreate will be determined starting with the future parents first day of school. There will be evaluations and categories of persons, beginning with the least intelligent (D), then progressively moving to the most intelligent. There will be categories of persons who would be suited best for manual labor.
It is from these categories that persons will be allowed to have a government sanctioned marriage,with all the government provided benefits. So if a person is a (A) intelligence scale they could not have a government sanctioned marriage to a person of intelligent class (C)...

 

[Granite]

You would.

Having a kid you can't provide for is not prudent, and only a total pinhead would insist otherwise.

 

[Granite]

And I've seen what happens to women who get abortions, not to mention what I went through.

Point being, a family living in poverty because it's "the Lord's will" isn't demonstrating sense, or prudence, or good parenting. There is absolutely nothing wrong with family planning. That's what adults do. Plan.

 

[IMJerusha]

Having a kid you can't provide for is not prudent, and only a total pinhead would insist otherwise.

My point was that God can and does provide. Of course, if you don't believe in Him, why should He bother?

 

[Granite]

My point was that God can and does provide. Of course, if you don't believe in Him, why should He bother?

Well I've seen the exact opposite happen, IM, so, these quaint little platitudes mean absolutely jack. In the real world, poverty's a reality and a "full quiver" means "bounced check." It's heart-breaking, self-inflicted, and completely avoidable. As well as unnecessary.

 

[IMJerusha]

Point being, a family living in poverty because it's "the Lord's will" isn't demonstrating sense, or prudence, or good parenting. There is absolutely nothing wrong with family planning. That's what adults do. Plan.

Please explain how killing ones child is good parenting. I'm missing that somehow...

Listen, one man's poverty is another man's riches. It has to do with values. Abortion is NOT family planning! Abortion is murder.

 

[Granite]

Please explain how killing ones child is good parenting. I'm missing that somehow...

Listen, one man's poverty is another man's riches. It has to do with values. Abortion is NOT family planning! Abortion is murder.

...so it's a good thing I'm not discussing abortion. I'm talking about birth control and how we should act like adults, not reckless idiots rolling the dice with human life because "the Lord will provide."

 

[IMJerusha]

Well I've seen the exact opposite happen, IM, so, these quaint little platitudes mean absolutely jack. In the real world, poverty's a reality and a "full quiver" means "bounced check." It's heart-breaking, self-inflicted, and completely avoidable. As well as unnecessary.

You're speaking to a woman who lived in a cardboard box in an alley. I don't spout platitudes. Money is not the do all and be all of life and bounced checks occur everywhere! They certainly aren't a reason to dispose of a child! BTW, thanks for pulling your cheap shot; sadly, I got to read it before you did and that is another thing women who have had abortions have to contend with, the hypocrisy of pro-choicers! I survived my heartless, stupid, sinful action with God's help. My child did not. I will never forget, nor will I stop talking about the pro-choice fallacy that it's a woman's right to decide to murder her child or the repercussions of that action. It is the least I can do for what God has done for me!

 

[Granite]

You're speaking to a woman who lived in a cardboard box in an alley. I don't spout platitudes. Money is not the do all and be all of life and bounced checks occur everywhere! They certainly aren't a reason to dispose of a child! BTW, thanks for pulling your cheap shot; sadly, I got to read it before you did and that is another thing women who have had abortions have to contend with, the hypocrisy of pro-choicers! I survived my heartless, stupid, sinful action with God's help. My child did not. I will never forget, nor will I stop talking about the pro-choice fallacy that it's a woman's right to decide to murder her child or the repercussions of that action. It is the least I can do for what God has done for me!

No, they're not. But bringing another child into the world when you can't provide for what you have is, ultimately, selfish.

 

[IMJerusha]

No, they're not. But bringing another child into the world when you can't provide for what you have is, ultimately, selfish.

You know what's wrong with your reasoning?...the assumption that the haves will always have and the have nots will always have not. There are no guarantees in life but a little faith goes a long way!

 

[Granite]

You know what's wrong with your reasoning?...the assumption that the haves will always have and the have nots will always have not. There are no guarantees in life but a little faith goes a long way!

When you

a) tell your wife she can't work
b) are told using birth control is a sin, or, at least, questionable
c) insist on having as many children as possible, consequences be damned

Bad things tend to happen. Blithely insisting that "God will provide" doesn't cut it. I've seen this firsthand many times over the years. More than I care to think about, actually. It's beyond sad. And it doesn't need to happen.

 

[IMJerusha]

When you

a) tell your wife she can't work
b) are told using birth control is a sin, or, at least, questionable
c) insist on having as many children as possible, consequences be damned
Bad things tend to happen.

The Amish live this way, very comfortably I might add without electricity or automobiles. It's crazy the way folks spend money on their stuff. My Amish friend, John, doesn't understand it but he doesn't question God's providence.

Blithely insisting that "God will provide" doesn't cut it.

Would you like to talk to my friend John?

I've seen this firsthand many times over the years. More than I care to think about, actually. It's beyond sad. And it doesn't need to happen.

You're right. Everyone has a marketable skill or can learn one, even if they're uneducated. The secret is in their desire to do something about their circumstance and in the desire for folks around them to pitch in and help.

 

[Granite]

The Amish live this way, very comfortably I might add without electricity or automobiles.

Their entire way of life is different from the 21st century. Beyond apples and oranges. So, yeah, if you want to turn the clock back and send us back a few centuries, go right on ahead. That's not realistic for most of us and you know that full well.

You're right. Everyone has a marketable skill or can learn one, even if they're uneducated.

This is beyond naive.

This kind of ignorance and blithe, clueless whistling in the dark continues to contribute to a lot of suffering.

 

[meshak]

Pro-choice? Where do you draw the line?

This is not a Christian issue. I don't believe any Christians is pro-choice.

 

[IMJerusha]

Their entire way of life is different from the 21st century. Beyond apples and oranges. So, yeah, if you want to turn the clock back and send us back a few centuries, go right on ahead. That's not realistic for most of us and you know that full well.

The Amish live better in our present day world than we do.

This is beyond naive.

If you say so...

This kind of ignorance and blithe, clueless whistling in the dark continues to contribute to a lot of suffering.

And you, as a man, would know all about the suffering of women. Hey, don't mind me, I'm just an ignorant, blithe, clueless God fearing woman whistling in the dark! :chuckle:

 

[IMJerusha]

This is not a Christian issue. I don't believe any Christians is pro-choice.

You really would be surprised to find out just how many are.

 

[WizardofOz]

"Your initial moral position implies that the human blastocyst is the moral equivalent of you, I and the mother carrying it, thus we're not morally justified to kill it."

strawman of my position and a false dilemma to boot

There's nothing false about the dilemma...you simply refuse to answer it because it's the death knell for your argument...and you know it.

Dreaming of a 'gotcha' moment, eh? Once again, my position implies no such thing and there is no reason why it would or would need to.

Is a blastocyst the moral equivalent of the mother?
Yes - They are both members of the same species and both should have equal protection under the law.

No - While not a moral equal of the mother, it is immoral to needlessly kill any human regardless of its current state of development.

Your moral scale aside, there is still an issue of morality in general. It is immoral to kill a human unless there are objective extenuating circumstances (war, self defense, etc) whereby the killing may be justified. Therefore, elective abortion is not morally justifiable.

In the case of abortion, unless the mother's life is at risk it's a false dilemma to weigh the moral weight of the mother's life versus that of the unborn (your pitting of them against one another). If her life is not at risk, the unborn need not necessarily be viewed as a moral equal (my personal views aside).

Your perpetuating of this strawman does make perfect sense now. You must present one in order to obtain some fantasy 'gotcha'. This certainly isn't and it's quite laughable that you think your strawman can in any way be a "death knell" for my argument. Counter my actual argument(s) not what you think they must be or what you feel they imply.

No, you don't have to argue this point...not if you'd rather dodge my point ad nauseam. :chuckle:

I have not dodged a single thing. I am even entertaining your obvious fallacious rebuttals. You on the other hand have dodged the following:

- When pro-choice individuals make that switch following week X (the point at which the feel choice should be removed) are they morally dictating a woman's volition when the circumstances of her choice don't morally align to their self-serving moral view?

- What is immoral about aborting a 27-week-old fetus?

- Is the unborn being attached/physically reliant upon its host a reason/rationalization to allow legal abortion? The human under question is physically attached/physically reliant upon its host at 27 weeks as well yet this is the point when the majority of pro-choice individuals make the switch to being pro-life. :think:

Keep dodging if you'd like but for you to accuse me of dodging...well, pot and kettle and all.

No it's not moral because I've no opposing moral reason to stomp on kittens.

:idea:
The kitten is trespassing on your property. Is it immoral to kill the kitten?

Opposing moral reason? What is immoral about not allowing women to legally abort? What, exactly, is your opposing moral reason? If a woman asks her doctor for an abortion and the doctor says "no", is the doctor acting immorally by denying the woman an abortion?

:doh: Via placing your head in the sand by completely ignoring the constitutional rights of the woman....you've subsequently placed yourself in this indefensible position....

:doh: I'm not ignoring the constitutional rights I simply disagree that elective abortion should be viewed as a right at all. Since I believe in the right to life and liberty perhaps my view of human rights is that all humans should have a basic right to life, whether born or not yet born.

How is my position indefensible, your bland declarations aside?

Again, your being thick headed. There is no "pitting" of lives here...

Not by me anyway....

the abortion argument consists of the life of the unborn against the rights of the mother. My initial point: The life of the unborn must be equal to the mother's life because you've lumped them together in the "human" category.

And I've pointed out repeatedly that your initial point is an obvious attempt to strawman or otherwise pigeonhole my argument(s).

They are both human, therefore they both have moral worth. It is that simple. Beyond this, there is no reason a debate about "moral equivalents" need take place.

You've simply taken your own inference and obfuscated a straw-man out of it ... because you won't or can't qualify your "human" assertion.

:chuckle: What is there to qualify? You have never debated that a fetus isn't a human. Why do you think any other qualifiers must exist beyond the species the subject belongs to?

I don't have to qualify "human", which is why I use the term. Philosophical descriptions like "person" or "human-being" require subjective qualifiers, which is why it's largely a waste of time to use them or debate their meaning/qualifiers.