Let's kill the "pro-life" classification

[Anonymous]

I like "pro babies being born" and "pro killing little innocent babies" the best. that way, both sides can be "pro".

[takoma]

Anonymous wrote:As long as the body is in the womb you can kill it. If you fing a women with a really big cooch and shove the infants head inside you can kill it. Similarly, if hitler just would have built the gas chambers to resemble a giant cooch he would have been golden.

This receives my nomination as the sickest sounding posting I have seen on the political forum. I think you are making the point that birth does not make that much difference that it should decide whether it is legal to destroy the incipient life. But you managed to make your statement in such a way that my first impulse was to lash out at you for turning my stomach.

If you are really interested in accomplishing anything, either to explain your viewpoint or to change some minds, I suggest you not use shock as a tool. It's a real turn-off.

[Anonymous]

abortion is a real turn-off as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From here on out let's call it what it is: "Anti-Choice". I'm actually not vocal on the abortion debate, but I was just reading an Off Topic thread where someone said they'd be upset if their kid grew up to be "pro-life" and it struck me that there should be a larger movement to change this classification. The issue is choice. Many people who want choice to remain legal are pro life. I've never understood why advocates of choice, continue to refer classify people as "pro life."

Choice? Choice for what? How about "pro murder?"

[Anonymous]

Perhaps "Pro Termination of Life" would be better? or "Pro Termination of the Unborn?" Pro-Choice is too vague.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If they are willing to call us pro-choice, I am willing to call them pro-life. Those who call us anti-abortion, I label anti-choice (or anti-woman).

Of course, if allowed to live, some/many of those female unborn babies might not agree with your "anti-woman" terminology. Don't you ever wonder what contributions they might have made to the music, art, science communities? I do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Actually the issue isn't about choice it is about abortion. So let's stick to pro-abortion or anti-abortion.

I am good with that.

Agree

[TheManWithAUsername]

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As long as the body is in the womb you can kill it. If you fing a women with a really big cooch and shove the infants head inside you can kill it. Similarly, if hitler just would have built the gas chambers to resemble a giant cooch he would have been golden.

This receives my nomination as the sickest sounding posting I have seen on the political forum. I think you are making the point that birth does not make that much difference that it should decide whether it is legal to destroy the incipient life. But you managed to make your statement in such a way that my first impulse was to lash out at you for turning my stomach.

If you are really interested in accomplishing anything, either to explain your viewpoint or to change some minds, I suggest you not use shock as a tool. It's a real turn-off.

I took it as (very) dark comedy. Granted, infanticide and holocaust jokes aren't for everyone, but Swift was pretty dark too.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually the issue isn't about choice it is about abortion. So let's stick to pro-abortion or anti-abortion.

I am good with that.

Agree

"Anti-abortion" is perfectly accurate. "Pro-abortion" obviously isn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is murder. But we humans are weak and flawed. Remember slavery? Some day when abortion can be avoided by technology, people will think the same about abortion paractice as they do about slavery today. The abuse of a helpless innocent is never a proud moment for us humans.

If it's murder, then it should only be justified when infanticide would be justified, i.e., never. I don't think there's any "but" that can reasonably follow infanticide.

As long as the body is in the womb you can kill it. If you fing a women with a really big cooch and shove the infants head inside you can kill it. Similarly, if hitler just would have built the gas chambers to resemble a giant cooch he would have been golden.

I guess Panty Sniffer is back. Didn't Jeff Steele ban you? What have you done to circumvent that?

Please, just get some treatment for your psychosexual fixation with politics. Tell your therapist that you have intrusive thoughts about genitalia, gay sex, body odor, and other physical traits when you are contemplating politics. I am sure they have seen this somewhere before.

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:21:18/21:51 here. Manwithausername could you tone it down a bit? Your disrespect for people you disagree with makes people want to drop the conversation. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that isn't your aim.

I appreciate your bringing that to me civilly.

I'm really not being sarcastic - I don't get what seems to me to be an inconsistency here.

BTW, I'm not rabidly pro-choice. Also, I've always found the militant - literally - antiabortionists admirable in a sense.

Are you referring to the inconsistency of thinking the early fetus is a form of life but also thinking there are circumstances under which it is permissible to end it?

I think this is the hard hard issue. In no other area of life do you have two possible claims that compete as you do with the unwillingly pregnant woman and the unformed entity that, if left alone, may become another full human being. I don't think it is morally unhinged to say that we don't know how to draw the line but know where it is in some circumstances. If we are weighed two competing claims, we might conclude that one wins in some circumstances (rape) but the other wins in others (failed birth control/pregnancy beyond a certain point).

As I said, I don't have an answer but I don't think it is inconsistent to think the embryo/fetus has some claim to protection without having an absolute claim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps "Pro Termination of Life" would be better? or "Pro Termination of the Unborn?" Pro-Choice is too vague.

While we're tinkering with labels, I just want to say what a perfect, meaningless, question-begging phrase "The Unborn" is. What's your position on The Undead, prithee tell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they are willing to call us pro-choice, I am willing to call them pro-life. Those who call us anti-abortion, I label anti-choice (or anti-woman).

Of course, if allowed to live, some/many of those female unborn babies might not agree with your "anti-woman" terminology. Don't you ever wonder what contributions they might have made to the music, art, science communities? I do.

I think of this when masturbating. What might each of these precious Unborn souls some day become if only we hadn't thwarted God's will by not allowing them to fuse with other gametes?

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:Are you referring to the inconsistency of thinking the early fetus is a form of life but also thinking there are circumstances under which it is permissible to end it?

Yes.

Anonymous wrote:I think this is the hard hard issue. In no other area of life do you have two possible claims that compete as you do with the unwillingly pregnant woman and the unformed entity that, if left alone, may become another full human being. I don't think it is morally unhinged to say that we don't know how to draw the line but know where it is in some circumstances. If we are weighed two competing claims, we might conclude that one wins in some circumstances (rape) but the other wins in others (failed birth control/pregnancy beyond a certain point).

As I said, I don't have an answer but I don't think it is inconsistent to think the embryo/fetus has some claim to protection without having an absolute claim.

I don't have a problem with this position, but you've taken yourself away from "abortion is murder," which was the statement of the PP to whom I originally responded. How would those circumstances justify murder? Even where the mother's life is at stake, why would the mother's rights automatically trump?

I think you're where I suggested, that the fetus is a kind of subhuman, less than a human but more than an animal. But it seems to me that most people with that perspective put the fetus at much closer to an animal.

Think about the anti-abortion exceptions as applied to infanticide. You can't kill your baby unless...the baby was a product of rape or incest? That's crazy. If "killing" a fetus is OK in those circumstances, the fetus must be far below a human in status.

That's why I have some appreciation for the militants. I think the judgment of when a fetus gains human rights is mostly arbitrary, so I don't consider the position that it starts at conception to be completely nuts. (Basing it on a 2000-year old work of obvious fiction is, though.) And if it is a human at that point, then no abortion is ever acceptable. Moreover, there is therefore a worldwide holocaust occurring right now, just as they say. I would hope that if I believed a holocaust were occurring, I would similarly devote myself to stopping by almost any means available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps "Pro Termination of Life" would be better? or "Pro Termination of the Unborn?" Pro-Choice is too vague.

While we're tinkering with labels, I just want to say what a perfect, meaningless, question-begging phrase "The Unborn" is. What's your position on The Undead, prithee tell.

Anyone using the words "prithee tell" (an English major, perhaps?) is perfectly able to understand the meaning of "Pro Termination of the Unborn." In fact, given your reasoning, "Pro Choice" is a meaningless, question-begging phrase because the subject of choice is completely absent from the phrase. Why don't you just say that you have no problem with the fact that millions of abortions have occurred since the Supreme Court made its decision in 1973?