Would you support a pro-choice liberty candidate?

[MelissaWV]

Then what's the difference between a parent who intentionally allows his child to starve on the one hand, and removing the tissue where a child is growing on the other hand? You know for an absolute fact that removing the tissue where the child is growing is going to cause the child to die.

And not removing it, and having the mother upon whom the child is dependent die, does what for that child?

 

[Brett85]

And not removing it, and having the mother upon whom the child is dependent die, does what for that child?

Yeah, exactly. I agree with you. I'm just pointing out that there's no difference between the procedures that Eduardo is talking about. Either procedure would cause the death of the child.

 

[eduardo89]

Then what's the difference between a parent who intentionally allows his child to starve on the one hand, and removing the tissue where a child is growing on the other hand? You know for an absolute fact that removing the tissue where the child is growing is going to cause the child to die.

Because in the case of an ectopic pregnancy the removal of the tissue with the unborn child inside is not intentionally letting the child starve to death, it is the sad result of a moral action, which is treating the woman who could die from complications of that having that tissue remain inside of her.

Whereas directly killing the child is simply that, deliberately and directly killing him.

 

[Brett85]

Because in the case of an ectopic pregnancy the removal of the tissue with the unborn child inside is not intentionally letting the child starve to death, it is the sad result of a moral action, which is treating the woman who could die from complications of that having that tissue remain inside of her.

It would still be intentionally doing something that would with absolute certainty cause the child to die.

 

[eduardo89]

It would still be intentionally doing something that would with absolute certainty cause the child to die.

Yes, it will lead to the unintentional consequence of the child dying, but the direct action is a moral one whereas in the other options the direct action is killing the child.

 

[asurfaholic]

Not reading the thread , it will depress me.

One word answer.

No

 

[Nirvikalpa]

I don't see why someone who is pro-choice would even care that abortion numbers are going down. That's more of that half-hearted positioning that I'm talking about. Most pro-choicers know in their hearts that they are supporting evil, and most pro-lifers have no idea just how evil that which they oppose is.

I'm pro-choice in a sense I think it's incredibly foolish to leave such a personal and ethical decision for the fools in our government to decide, when not even science can prove when "life" begins. From a scientific standpoint I do not believe 'life,' as complex as it is, begins at conception.

What the numbers declining mean to me: more women (and men, for that matter) have access to proper birth control, or are educated in natural family planning, and that to me is always a good thing.

Do you honestly believe pro-choicers go around celebrating each and every aborted fetus? That's asinine. My "pro-choice" hope is one day having enough education and outreach that eventually no child dies, and health care reaches a point no woman dies during gestation, labor, and birth either.

 

[Neil Desmond]

...not even science can prove when "life" begins. From a scientific standpoint I do not believe 'life,' as complex as it is, begins at conception.

Life either began either millions of years ago, or maybe there never was a beginning to life and it has always existed, so yeah in that sense, science cannot prove when life begins.

When it comes to a new organism or new being, as in that which is created or "spawns" from the DNA of its parents, then I think it's more like semantics or splitting hairs. I don't think it's as though there's somehow a starting (or stopping points) for life. The gene "fragments" that came from the parents were "alive" all along, and when they merge it's not like there's something dead there for a while - otherwise how can cell division take place from something that's dead?

 

[Christian Liberty]

I'm pro-choice in a sense I think it's incredibly foolish to leave such a personal and ethical decision for the fools in our government to decide, when not even science can prove when "life" begins. From a scientific standpoint I do not believe 'life,' as complex as it is, begins at conception.

What the numbers declining mean to me: more women (and men, for that matter) have access to proper birth control, or are educated in natural family planning, and that to me is always a good thing.

Do you honestly believe pro-choicers go around celebrating each and every aborted fetus? That's asinine. My "pro-choice" hope is one day having enough education and outreach that eventually no child dies, and health care reaches a point no woman dies during gestation, labor, and birth either.

No, I don't think that. But, I don't think most pro-choicers have logical consistency. Because, if they really believed that the life in the womb was "just a tissue" as they argue, they would not care how many abortions take place. Now, there are pro-choice theories, such as Block's eviction theory (which I do consider to be pro-choice, at least in 2014) that can avoid this problem, but they are a distinct minority of pro-choicers.

 

[Brett85]

Do you honestly believe pro-choicers go around celebrating each and every aborted fetus? That's asinine. My "pro-choice" hope is one day having enough education and outreach that eventually no child dies, and health care reaches a point no woman dies during gestation, labor, and birth either.

But I don't really understand why you refer to it as a "child" and say that you don't want it to "die" if you don't believe that life begins at conception. If life doesn't begin at conception, then it's just a clump of cells, and making it cease to exist doesn't make any difference.

 

[opal]

yes.. and this thread needs a poll

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Looks like this thread created a little trend. Good to see such lively debate between everyone, that's really all I wanted and it is also why I did not include a poll because I noticed with polls people usually just check the box and then leave the thread.

 

[Ender]

Life either began either millions of years ago, or maybe there never was a beginning to life and it has always existed, so yeah in that sense, science cannot prove when life begins.

When it comes to a new organism or new being, as in that which is created or "spawns" from the DNA of its parents, then I think it's more like semantics or splitting hairs. I don't think it's as though there's somehow a starting (or stopping points) for life. The gene "fragments" that came from the parents were "alive" all along, and when they merge it's not like there's something dead there for a while - otherwise how can cell division take place from something that's dead?

I was just about to log on with a similar reply.

My particular POV is that cells are all living beings. The body is a universe to the cell and each organism is important to life. To say that Life doesn't exist at conception is to not understand what we are truly made of.

 

[MelissaWV]

I was just about to log on with a similar reply.

My particular POV is that cells are all living beings. The body is a universe to the cell and each organism is important to life. To say that Life doesn't exist at conception is to not understand what we are truly made of.

You know what comes next.

 

[FriedChicken]

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm under the impression that sperm has the same DNA as the man who produced it- so it is regarded as his body's property so to speak.
And the same goes for a woman and her eggs. If her eggs are harvested or passed unfertilized then they are coded in her DNA.

However when the sperm fertilizes the egg it produces a new unique DNA strand. To me that is the end of the "what about sperm??" argument.

 

[fr33]

Yes. Abortion is pretty much the last issue I have any concern for.

This. I'm anti-abortion but for the most part I don't see anti-abortion politicians doing anything about it. It's always a topic that's brought up to win votes but is almost never something that is acted upon once elected.

 

[jkob]

Probably if that was the only issue and they respect state's rights

 

[philipped]

Yes, I'm waiting for one tbh.

 

[Nirvikalpa]

But I don't really understand why you refer to it as a "child" and say that you don't want it to "die" if you don't believe that life begins at conception. If life doesn't begin at conception, then it's just a clump of cells, and making it cease to exist doesn't make any difference.

Yes, at conception that's exactly what I believe. I don't understand what you're failing to grasp here? There is more to embryology and human development beyond conception. It's "life at conception" or nothing? Conception itself is a process, and isn't as instantaneous as most tend to believe, and can take 24 full hours for full fertilization to occur. It's complicated and fascinating. So I tend to ask people - do they believe life starts the second the sperm gets fused to the plasma membrane of the ovum, or not until the egg is "activated," and the sperm has penetrated it fully? Or is it hour 1 or hour 24?

 

[Brett85]

Yes, at conception that's exactly what I believe. I don't understand what you're failing to grasp here? There is more to embryology and human development beyond conception. It's "life at conception" or nothing? Conception itself is a process, and isn't as instantaneous as most tend to believe, and can take 24 full hours for full fertilization to occur. It's complicated and fascinating. So I tend to ask people - do they believe life starts the second the sperm gets fused to the plasma membrane of the oocyte, or not until the egg is "activated," and the sperm has penetrated it fully? Or is it hour 1 or hour 24?

It isn't real clear when exactly conception occurs, but for legal purposes I think it should be defined as occurring when the fertilized egg is implanted in the uterus. That way it would be clear that no forms of contraception would be banned. I thought you were just saying that you don't consider a baby in the womb to be a human being, so maybe I misunderstood you.