Pro life or Pro choice

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by sifreak21, Feb 2, 2012.

  1. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    James you need to go back and study the law regarding medical treatment in this country. You NEVER have the final say, your doctor does, all you are alowed to do in Australia is REFUSE concent. You can jump up and down all you want but if your doctor says no then your not having it and most doctors are reluctent to do a vectectomy without the partners agreement wether its formalised or not.


    Then you will have to excuse me if i Assume your single with no children. Most relationships will not survive this kind of decision being made by one partner alone. As someone who has just gone through his partner having a misscarrage I can garentiee that there is no way i would still be with my partner if she had come home and said "honey i just had an abortion, I decided we aren't having this kid" and before you say anything relationships effect mental health and mental health is just as valid a medical concern as physical health is

    I don't recall claiming that most abortion are young girls who have been raped etc.[/QUOTE]

    Never said you did, dont be so paranoid. I couldn't find the post when i was on my phone

    Jeeves stated

    Firstly this goes back to a patriarcal steriotype that women dont want sex and secondly its simply factually incorect. Most abortions aren't young girls who have been raped its married middle aged couples who have either had as many children as they want OR the fetus has a disability that the couple belives will be a detriment to either the baby's or there own quality of life

    Then for the mental health of BOTH parties don't you think its better for the doctor to ensure both agree before carrying out the procidure. look at it a different way for a min, what do you think your mental health would be like if you have found out your baby which you and your partner want more than everything has down syndrome and your partners responce is "its your decision, if you want to kill it thats your choice, its not my responcibility" and therefore that decision of life or death is ALL on you with your partner compleatly passive (thats not even looking at a situation where your partner is openly against the idea). How do you think your going to feel?

    You really should have read the whole thread before assuming i was talking about you, makes you look naracistic

    As i have said previously they do, all you can do is say no and only in certain cirumstances. A couple of years ago my grandfather died and mum was telling me about the end of life decisions. He was lucid from what i know but just quite ill. It was still my grandmother who was the one who signed the not for ressuc order on his chart, not my grandfather and she did it without his knowlage because she would have been horified to think he belived she didn't want him anymore. Both of them sepratly talked about it with my parents and both of them were in agreeance with the decision but at the end of the day it was nan not pop who signed the paperwork.

    If everyone took a passive aproch to there partners health then there would be a lot of dead men from heart atacks because without there partner nagging them to get seen to a lot of men wouldnt do anything about it.

    and as i said above a lot of doctors wont (or will be very relectant to) perform a vecetomy if your partner isn't in agreement and at the end of the day the only person who has the right to say yes to a treatment under Australian law is the doctor performing it. Everyone else only has a right to say no. Dont belive me try it yourself. Next time you have a cold go to a compitant GP and demand a script for antibotics. If the GP is any good no matter how insistant you are you wont get them.

    Another example which you may not realise, under SA law (and possibly other states) if you let your partner die you can be charged with manslaughter and "she refused concent" wont be a defense. So lets say you come home from work to find your wife has cut her wrists and she tells you not to touch her. If you dont aply basic first aid and call the ambulance your guilty of causing her death IN SPITE of the fact she is refusing medical consent. You actually have the same duty of care for a spouse as an employer has for an employee and as you do as a parent over your child

    So as you can see there are lots of examples where the situation is a lot more complicated than "its my body and i will do what i want with it"

    specifically on me, am i comfertable with my partner making medical decisions for me? of course i am, i gave her medical power of attorney for a reason, I chose her as my partner for a reason. am i comfertable in her signing off on me having a vecetomy, yep, no problem what so ever, doesnt worry me in the slightest.

    I find it strange how easerly you seem to dismiss the word "partner" or rather its implications. Its obvious in this comment:

    Its almost like you have no idea what a relationship is. Every part of my life affects PB and every part of hers affects me, when i went back to uni you think it was my decision? Of course not it was both of ours. You think if she quit her job it would be her decision? again no, it would be a joint decision about what best works for both of us. You think trying for kids was her decision alone? You think if i had cancer wether or not to cese treatment would be my decision alone? If you do then either a) you have never been in a relationship and you have my sympathy or b) you have never been in a GOOD relationship and you still have my sympathy.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    What does his marital status have to do with anything? What does whether he has children or not have to do with anything? Do you think being married and having children gives one greater authority in this discussion?

    You have no right over your spouses/partner's/girlfriend's womb and/or ovaries. Just as she has no rights over your gonads.

    What you effectively argue each time this subject is brought up on this forum is that if a woman wants to keep the child, then the child's father should have the right to walk out on his responsibilities because the woman has the right to choose to have a child. It doesn't work that way. Once that child is born, it will have needs that will need to be met. You are demanding that men be allowed to be irresponsible and walk out on their offspring because the woman has the right to choose. When you have sex and she gets pregnant, you have to take responsibility if that child is born. Unless the child is put up for adoption, both parents are responsible for the care of that child. Advocating that men should be allowed to become deadbeat dad's because women have the right to choose over what happens to their own bodies is, well, insane and it shows a complete lack of respect for women and their rights over their bodies.


    What in the hell are you talking about?

    Are you saying that the father's is just as "affected" by the pregnancy as the mother's body? In some instances, pregnancy can be very very dangerous to the mother, if not deadly. Are you saying the father should have more say over whether that pregnancy is taken to term than the woman who has to carry it for 9 months? Really?

    Are you actually saying that men should have the right to force women to continue with a pregnancy the woman does not want? Keeping in mind that the man has the ability to simply walk away and be the deadbeat dad if he so wishes while the woman bears the sole responsibility of going through childbirth and facing the dangers associated with it. That is what you push for in this discussion each time. The straw clutching and advocating that father's should have the right to walk out on their children because women have the right to choose about what happens to their bodies is kind of pathetic really and shows a particularly vile attitude towards women.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    Concidering you argued that i had no right to judge your desire to COMMIT MURDER because im not a parent thats an interesting attitude from you bells. You are very quick to pull out an argument that if your not a parent you shouldnt comment but you object to effectivily the same argument here. hypocrite much?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    I would suggest you go back and read what I had actually said in that thread. My point to you then was that I would do anything and everything to protect them from harm and yes, I would kill if that is what it took to ensure their protection. That is completely different to a discussion about being 'pro-choice or pro-life'.

    What you brought up in this thread was to ask him if he had children so that he could understand the concept of 'choice' for the woman. That doesn't matter. Choice is about respecting the woman's right to choose for herself and her own body. Having children or not is irrelevant. Being married or not is irrelevant. Do you understand now?
     
  8. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    bells respecting the rule of law which this country is founded on is fundermental for any discussion of ANY law and as you have clearly stated you DO NOT respect the rule of law there is no point debating any issue with you

    edit to add: you also stated you were concidering murdering your husband for cheating on you so dont try to pretend that it was some high ideal you were sprouting. It was just plain clear disrespect for the rule of law
     
  9. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    And you have no respect for women or women's rights. Your history of posting here has proven that quite well.

    As for the rule of law... Really, my hypothetical situation applied to me, myself and I. I like the fact that you discuss the 'rule of law' and respecting it when you consistently show a complete lack of respect for women and women's rights. You advocate father's shirking their responsibilities for their off-spring, which would include not providing any financial support (which a parent is required to provide by law), because women dare to have rights over their wombs. The irony has probably escaped you since most things escape you.

    I'm sorry, what?

    Where did I actually say that I was thinking of "murdering my husband" for cheating on me? Do you have the link? Or do you mean I had said something to the effect of 'I could have killed him' or even 'I wanted to wring his neck or kill him', a saying that is very very common (ie an exclamation) but in no way shows murderous intent and is actually kind of a bit of a joke, unless of course you are you and desperate to clutch at any straws handy. I find this accusation of yours hilarious and desperate. To my knowledge, I have never once expressed any desire to murder my husband for cheating on me.

    Try harder Asguard. Defend deadbeat Dad's some more. Defend father's walking out on their off-spring some more because women have rights over their wombs.
     
  10. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    As i said bells your a hypocrit

    Your own comment shows that you dont concider men anything more than a check book. Lets see if i can remember your exact worlds

    Ie you do not concider men to be equal partners when it comes to children. Therefore your comment about "dead beat dads" is the hight of hypocracy
     
  11. michael_taylor Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    192
    I think it's a profound and dangerous error to restrict yourself to being either pro- or anti- "a vaguely defined emotive buzzword". Making a generalisation like that guarantees you'll be wrong eventually.

    Better to decide each case separately, because there will be times when it is for the best.

    Many people will make decisions which other people and maybe their later selves will see as being, on balance, wrong. But it is not for them to prevent anyone from deciding.

    (For me ideas about potential lives or instantaneous possession of human essence at conception don't enter into it. )
     
  12. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    And you, clearly, do not know what you are talking about.

    Ah yes, this was the discussion with Gendy when she demanded I give my children to my husband because she cannot conceive the very notion of having a child or caring for a child after he cheated on me because I had cancer, is that correct. For your information Asguard, since really, you don't understand simple things like human emotion and what exactly was going on at the time and context is not something you grasp for whatever reason or other, at NO time did I ever take a single cent of child support from him when he had left. Not a single cent. And he saw the children daily and had them sleep at his house every single weekend. So I would kindly suggest you take your opinion of my relationship with the father of my children and shove it up your coit.

    Coming from the boy who once famously declared that if his girlfriend smoked or consumed anything he did not control or approve of because he wanted to have a child with her that he would withhold sex or leave her if she did not do his bidding, you have some nerve making this ridiculous claim about my personal situation you obviously know nothing about, nor do you understand it. You know nothing about "equal partners" because since you control what your partner consumes because you want a child and have placed conditions upon her that if she does not comply, you'd either deny her sex or leave her. So should I be surprised that you encourage men on this forum to abandon their children if they can't be bothered being fathers because women have free choice...
     
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Choices

    I think the problem with your argument that leads to the pushback is more a matter of when than what, how, or who.

    Broader consensus suggests that people think a man makes his choice when he gets on the woman. You seem to think that he gets to make his choice after he's knocked her up.

    So let us get it out in the open:

    (1) You have sex with a woman, and a pregnancy results. She decides she wishes to have an abortion, but you want the child. Do you believe you should be able to force her to have the child?

    (2) You have sex with a woman, and a pregnancy results. She decides to carry the pregnancy to term. You don't want to be burdened with parenthood or financial responsibility. Do you believe that you thus have no obligations to the child?​

    The way I see it—and it seems to me that this is a widely-accepted sentiment—is that you agree to the terms when you have sex with her. Your choice is not what she does with her body and the processes taking place inside it. Your choice is to get on or not. Just because you help start a process inside another person's body does not mean you get another choice.

    By this outlook, your responsibility for the results of your actions kick in when you decide to have sex.

    It would seem, however, that this is unsatisfactory, distressing, or otherwise unfair in your perspective. It seems that you want another chance to decide, depending on the outcome of your prior choice.

    The pregnancy takes place inside her body. You made your choice when you helped that pregnancy occur.
     
  14. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    Problem with that argument is that it can just as easerly be used by the anti choice lobby groups. Ie if SHE didnt want to get pregant SHE shouldnt have had sex.
     
  15. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Exactly..

    Well said!
     
  16. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    So this is a better argument for you?

    Then she and she alone should bare the reaponcibility for that decision, if he CHOSES to stay thats his choice, if he choses to leave then thats her problem.

    Suggesting that father's shirk their responsibilities because she chooses to not have an abortion or vice versa?

    Every fertile person who has consentual sex makes a choice and pregnancy is always a risk. The thing with pro-choice is that women and/or yes, couples, should have access to an abortion if she chooses to have one. Pro-life believe there should be no abortions, period. Just because they might argue something does not mean the points Tiassa made are wrong.
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Asguard:

    Nice try at avoiding the question. Of course a doctor may refuse to treat a person under certain circumstances. But that's not at issue here.

    Hypothetical: you decide to have a vasectomy. That's an elective surgery. I asked you whether you think that your partner should be able to veto your decision to have that surgery. Your view is that yes, she should.

    Now, how far does this extend, in your opinion? Does it only extend to surgery that affects reproduction in some way, or do you think it should extend to ALL surgery. For example, suppose you want to get hair implants for your baldness. Does your partner get to veto that? What if you want a mole removed from your back? Can your partner veto that? What about preventative heart surgery?

    Why would I excuse you for making an assumption based on nothing? You are not excused. You are not justified in assuming anything about my personal life where you have no information to go on.

    If you insist on making assumptions about me, I will happily return the favour by posting assumptions about you. Would you like that?

    Your personal experience is one anecdote, and does not necessarily translate to "most relationships".

    Nevertheless, even IF what you say is correct, that's a personal matter between the partners concerned. We are talking about something different here. You want to write into the law a veto power (and perhaps a compulsion power) that one partner can exercise to override the wishes of the other - and one that would be legally enforceable.

    Why tell me this? Address your post to Jeeves if you're responding to something he wrote.

    No. In general I do not agree that one partner should have a veto right over the other's own body, or the ability to mandate that another person undergo a medical procedure. You have not yet said why you do support such a move.

    How would a legal compulsion change anything in that case? If the law says that the partner's consent is required for any procedure, and the partner says "Whatever s/he says is fine with me", then there's no possible legal issue.

    The legal problem comes when one partner wants one thing and the other wants something else. In such cases, I think it is vitally important to bear in mind whose body we're dealing with.

    If you address something to me, I assume you're talking to me. My mistake. Do you always mix up your responses to different people in the same post?

    In other words you support a right of somebody else to veto a decision made by you regarding your own body.

    And I assume your grandfather at some point had given your grandmother power of attorney.

    Again, we're not talking about that. We're not talking about friendly encouragement to get treatment. We're not talking about medical decisions discussed and agreed upon. We're talking about situations in which partners disagree about the treatment that one of them desires, and the (potential) right of one to veto the other's control over their own body.

    Again, you're going off on tangents. I accept that a doctor can refuse treatment on medical grounds. A doctor is there to make certain medical decisions on medical grounds which a patient is not necessarily equipped to make. And sometimes patients even need to be protected from themselves.

    A doctor's professional responsibilities are irrelevant to the question of a partner controlling his or her partner's body for selfish reasons.

    Again, you introduce an irrelevancy.

    You have jumped from a very specific set of situations that we were originally discussing to introducing a whole bunch of different situations that are quite different to the original ones. The justifications and reasoning in the various situations are all different. I don't think you know what you're arguing for.

    Good for you. What of men who aren't comfortable with the idea of their partner vetoing something like a vasectomy against their will? What of women who aren't comfortable with a man telling them that they aren't allowed to have an abortion or a tubal ligation? You want their partners to be able to force them to do something with their own bodies that is against their will.

    Once again, you pull a conclusion about my personal life out of thin air, based on nothing.

    I asked you what you believe. You respond by deflecting and telling me I don't know what a relationship is. How about you try an honest response instead? And perhaps one that isn't an insult.

    What if you'd said "I don't want to go back to uni" and she had had a legal right to force you to do it anyway? That's the kind of thing you're advocating here, remember.

    I certainly hope so. It's her life. It's great if you can discuss such things, but the idea of you being able to FORCE her to quit her job or to stay in a job she hates doesn't seem like the makings of a great relationship to me. But then again, what would I know? Apparently I know nothing about relationships.

    I hope not, because in this case a father should have responsibilities for kids that he has a hand in creating - provided of course that there is no prior agreement that the biological father should have nothing to do with the kids.

    Also, purely from a mechanical point of view, how could she make such a decision unilaterally? Stop using contraception and not tell you? That would be a massive breach of trust that I doubt your relationship would survive (unless you're a door mat). It usually takes two people to have sexual intercourse.

    I certainly hope so. I also hope you'd discuss you decision with your doctors and your loved ones. I don't at all like the idea of you wanting to continue treatment and your partner being able to say "No, stop the treatment now", and being able to legally enforce that against your will. Because that's what you seem to be arguing for.

    You're making assumptions again. Let's hope you don't try to pursue these fantasies in future posts. They are both presumptuous and massively impolite, and they lead you to faulty conclusions.

    A couple of comments on your replies to Bells:

    Bells expressed no desire to commit murder.

    Bells actually clearly stated that she does respect the rule of law.

    I'd like to see the post you're referring to.
     
  18. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Good luck with that. I also asked to see the post where I was apparently considering murdering my husband because he cheated. I'm still waiting.

    I apparently only married him and had children with him and then deliberately got cancer so he would cheat because I only wanted the child support cheques apparently. Because apparently, that is how I view men.
     
  19. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    I wonder why that is ....

    Well, that makes a certain amount of sense, since both you and the anti-abortion faction seem to resent the idea that a woman should have governance over her body and what happens inside it.
     
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Asguard:

    Now that's quite a good response.

    But you didn't answer the direct questions that you were asked:

    And your answers are?
     
  21. Mind Over Matter Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,205
    I have once attended a presentation by Scott Klusendorf one of the leading pro life speakers today. Scott has debated many pro choice people and his speech was centered on the differences in thought between the opposing sides in this ongoing controversy.

    Scott’s explanation as to why this debate continues to rage is because of our society’s indifference to truth. We tend to accept relativism instead of a definite truth. Instead of seeking what is true, we accept some middle ground that allows us to do what we would not do if we knew the truth.

    If we truly believed that an embryo was human, we would not permit it to be destroyed.

    Scott started his talk by outlining a few of the points his opponents make in their argument for a woman’s right to choose abortion.

    1. Pro life people do not have the right to impose their opinion on others
    2. Every person has the right to “choose”
    3. Abortion is a choice between a woman and her doctor. No one else’s business.
    4. Restricting abortion for the poor who cannot afford more children is unfair.
    5. Women should have the right to abort their pregnancy at any time though out the nine months of pregnancy.
    6. Women should not be required to give birth to an unwanted child that may be subjected to abuse, poverty, or illness.
    7. Abortion should be permitted in all cases of rape or incest.

    Scott surprises his opponent and his audience by agreeing with these arguments. He agrees with every aspect of their arguments; IF, the fetus is not human.

    Scott's point is that the whole controversy boils down to "is the fetus human?" Virtually no one would use any of these arguments to kill a 2 year old toddler. So, the question really is, "is the fetus human?" If the fetus is not human then all of the pro choice people are correct and we pro life people concede the right of a woman to have an abortion. The reason however, that we continue to oppose abortion is that all scientific evidence supports the fact that the fetus is human. If we were however, to concede for arguments sake that we do not know when the fetus becomes human; does that alone permit us to morally kill the fetus? If there is a doubt should we assume the fetus is human or assume it is not human? To illustrate this point, Scott uses the analogy of hunting with a friend and you see a bush rustling, and you are not sure if it is the deer you have been pursuing or your hunting partner, do shoot hoping it is the deer, or do you not shoot until you know it is a deer?

    The pro choice people seem to take the position that since they do not know if the fetus is human or not, It is okay to accept this as an unknown and an excuse to do what is convenient. The fact that they do not know does not mean there is no truth or correct answer. There was a time when people were not sure if slavery was right or if the world was flat or round, but there always was a correct answer, as there is for this question. We should always error on the side of morality.

    Some pro choice people like to make this an argument about religion. Religion has nothing to do with if we have the right to kill another human being. The most devout atheist does not believe we have the right to kill another human being. The religion argument is nothing but an attempt to change the subject and not face the real issue.

    Some pro choice people like to use the argument that the fetus is not fully human by using the well known argument of the laboratory fire. This argument goes like this; you are in a laboratory that is on fire, in one corner are several frozen embryos, in another corner is a 2 year old toddler, you have time to save only the embryos or the toddler, which do you save? Because most people would choose the toddler, the pro choice argument is that even you pro life people do not believe that the embryos are human. Scott’s rebuttal is that emotional feelings do not change the fact of what is human and what is not. His example was if his 8 year old daughter was in the auditorium with us and a fire broke out and he had the choice of saving his daughter or all of us, we would all be “toast”; this does not prove that none of us were human.

    Over the years of dialog I have had with those supporting the right to "choose" I have always been intrigued by the fact that they, almost without exception, have not watched, and refuse to watch any picture, video, or image of an actual abortion. Of course the excuse is always, "I refuse to watch such gory pictures" because they are offensive to me. Interestingly, these same individuals will pay good money to go to a movie which contains more graphic images then the abortion images. So, what is the real reason they do not want to see the images of an abortion; maybe, because they don’t want to subject themselves to the reality of abortion?

    This link will take you to a short video of not an actual abortion but the after math; if you have not seen these images, you need to see them at least once, once will be enough. If these images do not convince you that the fetus was human, I don't think anything will.

    http://www.prolifetraining.com/abortionvideo.asp
     
  22. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Abortion is murder because there is the intention to kill.

    Even if someone believes that during an abortion, all that happens is that some "tissue is removed,"
    it remains that the intention was to kill.

    Those who want abortions and who perform abortions know what would most likely happen if the abortion would not be performed: namely, that then that "tissue" would grow, take birth, and be a child and then an adult human like everyone else. And this is precisely what they want to prevent from happening, and this is why they perform an abortion.

    Whether the fetus is considered as alive or not, as conscious or not, as feeling pain or not, as a human or not,
    the intention in an abortion is always the same: to prevent it from growing, taking birth, growing into a child and then into an adult: it is the intention to kill.


    A parallel scenario:
    A man is hanging from an aeroplane on a rope, high above ground. If the man would fall down, he would surely die. If someone were to cut the rope, he would cause the man to die. To intentionally cut the rope, is to intentionally kill the man hanging on it.
    An abortion is no different from cutting that rope: the intention is to kill.
     
  23. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    One problem with pro-choice is connected to one person's choice creating a slavery class of others, who are then forced to support that choice, without any choice of their own.

    Let me give an example, the male participates in the pregnancy. If the women is the only one with a choice for abortion or not, the male should not be enslaved while not having any choice. If choice was important for all (pro-choice) the male also has a choice based on the female choice. If it is her choice, the male should be able to choose to opt out. If this means the tax payers has to foot the bill, pro-choice also means the tax payer can also opt out. This is pro-choice not PC based dual standard choice, where some don't have any choice.

    What we have is PC word play based on dual standards, which say women have a choice, but this will be instituted by taking away the choices of others and forcing them to be slaves. The pro-choice term is a con job, since it is not about choice across the board.

    At least the term pro-life is consistent across the board with everyone without choice. The mother has to have the child. The father has to particulate and if needed even the tax payer has to help. Pro-choice is really pro-female choice but the rest of the equation has no choice. The father still has to deal with this, without choice, and tax payers have to pay, without any choice. This is all based on the PC preferred list able to escape responsibility. The smoke screen is done word play. If you are not on the list, your level of choice does not count. This dual standard needs to be updated to all or not.

    A real pro-choice, compared to the PC illusion of choice, would go like this. The female has a choice. This level of choice also extends to all those directly or indirectly affected. You can opt out of taxes as well as responsibility since that is pro-choice.

    The term pro-choice never meant choice for all. Although pro-abortion is more accurate in terms of reality, the movement needed an illusion since reality was not as easy to sell. But it is time to brush away the smoke screen and give choice to all including the tax payer.

    What would happen if all had choice so pro-choice was not an illusion?
     

Share This Page