Should An Atheist Be Pro Life?

[Kurari]

We are questioning this claim: "even if a fetus was a person, a woman who initially consented to the use of her body should still be able to withdraw her consent to the use of her body."

 

I don't think that this is true. As I wrote to Kurari, it would be similar to a pilot of a two-man airplane suddenly refusing to fly the plane in midair. The passenger who relied on the pilot to safely land the plane will now die. And I suppose, to bring the metaphor more in line with abortion, the pilot safely ejects herself and deploys a parachute. 

 

If I were the passenger in that plane and I knew what the pilot was planning to do to me, I wouldn't have a problem with forcing the pilot to land the plane. I would see the pilot as the party who is responsible for the situation. And I would see the force as necessary to save someone else's life and justified under the circumstances.

 

I do not see the rescinding- consent situation as similar to sex because sex does not place anyone's life on the line. I mean, imagine if stopping mid-coitus would mean that the man died right there in bed. If that were the case, I'm sure our views on the role of consent and sex would see considerable shifts.

 

So what does this mean. The way I see it, it means that in order to defeat the consent argument, a pro-life advocate would need to show that abortions are always the withdrawal of consent. If they could show that, then the issue would be refocused on whether or not a fetus is a person. I would think, then, that a pro-choice advocate who is interested in skipping over the fetal-personhood issue via the consent argument would be extremely keen on arguing that abortions are not always the withdrawal of consent. Each pro-life argument for why abortions are always the withdrawal of consent would probably need to be refuted separately.

 

That's my analysis at the moment. Thoughts anyone? Please keep in mind that I'm just trying to frame the argument -- diatribes lobbed my way would be very much misdirected.

 

 

Hmm. My thought is, say for a moment I am the passenger on that plane and I'm in a vegetative state being transported by air to a hospital. I have no consciousness  no sentience, no self awareness, and no sense of pain. 

 

Something goes wrong with the plane, and the pilot needs to save herself and ejects, leaving the plane to crash and for me to die. 

 

I'm totally fine with that. There really is no question on right choice of action in my mind. I have no life really to speak of, except being on life support. The pilot's probably got a family, friends, a job, and people who rely on her out there so she stands a lot more to lose than I do.

 

There is a line the anti-choicers like to use which is, "What if your mother had aborted YOU?" 

 

My response to that is, "I don't presume my life is more important than my mother's."

 

Of course, if I otherwise was a the normal, aware, fairly healthy human being that I actually am on that plane, then I would certainly hope the pilot would do everything they could to help me as well. 

 

If I was suffering from terminal cancer or something, I was I would TELL the pilot myself to eject and save herself. 

 

I can just see so many scenarios where the pilot's actions could be right or wrong or a mix of both in this.

 

That's pretty much how I feel about abortion. In my case, I had a hell of a lot to lose in my life over my embryo, and my embryo was going to get dragged into a pretty horrible situation once it DID develop awareness. That wasn't something I could allow in good conscience.  My embryo had nothing to sacrifice. It didn't care one whit whether it was alive or dead and had no ability to suffer.

 

Now, say I was one of those rare women who did not have any idea that she was pregnant till past quickening. I would have ABSOLUTELY carried the pregnancy to term. Once the capability to suffer sets in, my concern is to do whatever I can to alleviate suffering for all of us involved. 

 

But if I had a wanted pregnancy and discovered that my baby had a genetic deformity that would probably kill him/her soon after birth with pain...I would opt for a late-term abortion for certain and give them a quiet, painless death. 

 

As I said before, life doesn't always give us any good choices...it just gives us choices. 

[Vigile]

False analogy

Jump to: navigation, search

A false analogy is a rhetorical fallacy that uses an analogy (comparing objects or ideas with similar characteristics) to support an argument, but the conclusion made by it is not supported by the analogy due to the differences between the two objects.^[1] Sometimes these differences are outright ignored by the person presenting the fallacy; other times, they may not be aware of the differences or that they apply. The fallacy occurs, and is common, because analogies are just that, analogies, and their parallels are always limited; the differences between things can often overpower their similarities. One thing people sometimes do for fun is extend a useful analogy or metaphor to the point of absurdity.

[Raul]

  But in the process, I have also understood that sex is highly over-rated.  PornHub.com and a strong right hand do the job just as well!  lol

 Good sex is immensely,qualitatively better,than masturbation. Well,at least that's how I feel about it.

[Akheia]

Yrth: Try reframing the argument with a metaphor that actually works. The "pilot landing a plane" one sounds drastically inappropriate for many reasons. I can see why forced-birthers like it though (you're not the first by a longshot who's trotted this one out)--it erases the true horror of an unwanted pregnancy by making it sound like a jolly plane ride that lasts at most a few hours, and it also equates a fetus with dozens or even hundreds of actual people. Why not something about slavery or rape or forced organ donation? Because an involuntary pregnancy is a lot more like a forced organ donation than a person practicing a profession for which she has trained for many years, and being forced to endure the involuntary utilization of one's body is a lot more like a state-mandated rape than, say, refusing to land a plane and potentially killing hundreds of actual living breathing *persons*. Whatever you do, your metaphor has to include the many physical risks to the mother if she goes through with the unwanted pregnancy, and also the duration of the horror. Further, a pilot who refuses to land a plane is putting her own life in danger, whereas an abortion--especially the early-term ones that make up the vast majority of elective procedures--is far, far safer than having a baby, so make sure you make the "what if" something that's way safer and easier for the woman than doing the task she was assigned.

 

Ever been involuntarily pregnant? I have. Such a metaphor is incredibly insulting to someone who has experienced the sheer horror of her body being hijacked against her will by a parasite that is busily sucking calcium right out of her bones and reshaping her entire body to suit its needs; such metaphors are not okay when put up against the reality of knowing that if you don't GET IT OUT GET IT OUT GET IT OUT GET IT FUCKING OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT, you will suffer unimaginable pain and even possibly die in a few short months. And that's just the merry beginning, whether you do what the antis chirpily insist and "just give it up" or if you keep it.

 

So it's back to the drawing board for you!

[Guest MadameX]

(Ack I wrote this response a couple days ago but the person I was responding to I think deleted their post?) Addresed to yrth who had some legalistic suggestion about consent:

 

 

Ah ha you all were expecting me to get all ad hominem weren't you. Sorry to disappoint.

 

I am picturing you like Sheldon Cooper or something:

 

"Oh, I'm so sorry, but before we are allowed to date, you will have to fill out this form and sign this release and consent form." Or do you wait until after the first date to whip it out - the consent form, that is.

 

No idea who you are and what you are like. This is not really about you, it's your suggestion. Which is ridiculous, sorry, and does pretty much nothing to address how people act in real life. Sort of like those abstinence-only programs - they don't work because people aren't like that.

 

Fail.

:-)

[Guest MadameX]

 

  But in the process, I have also understood that sex is highly over-rated.  PornHub.com and a strong right hand do the job just as well!  lol

 Good sex is immensely,qualitatively better,than masturbation. Well,at least that's how I feel about it.

 

Well, at least that's what I've heard about it

 

j/k

 

But db Paradox, I wish you the best and am hoping for the best for you with your marriage. It does not sound happy or healthy, and may you one day find true love and fulfillment. What a life story you have, and thanks for sharing it. I have shared my story elsewhere on this site, unfortunatelty we share some similar stories of our childhoods.

 

I sometimes wonder what people who thoughtlessly advocate a woman who knows her circumstances better than they do and has decided she cannot continue a pregnancy, will somehow once the child is born become a loving mother raising a wonderful child in a middle class home, or some sort of baseless fantasy like that.

[Akheia]

It's scary how many forced-birthers think that consent isn't allowed to be withdrawn once given--especially if that consent is paramount to whatever the forced-birther in question thinks needs to happen. The rape culture's done a lot to negate and nullify a woman's right and power to consent. I wonder how many of these selfsame people would object vehemently if their own power to consent were withdrawn mid-coitus or mid-vasectomy or mid-blood donation.

 

I don't think Yrth is a forced-birther so I'm not lobbing anything his way except an extreme contempt for the poverty of critical thinking on display. Even to "frame" the issue in such falsely analogous terms is vastly denigrating to those directly affected--a group that Yrth may be thankful he will never belong to. But he shares with SquareOne a certain lack of thinking-through on these concepts. Consent is vital to any process that involves another human being's physical body. And I fight for that right for not only women but men too; if the right to consent is abruptly understood to be set in stone and unable to be withdrawn, then men will be affected as well because, well, they have bodies too, and just because they can't get preggers doesn't mean there aren't other things that can be done to those bodies against their wills. Just because right now we're talking about babies doesn't mean that later on down the line there won't be a McCall v. Shimp case in the UK. (Look it up; it's pretty damned horrifying, and you can all but read the absolute terror on the part of the guy who was almost forced to undergo an organ donation on behalf of a male family member who tried both the "implied consent" AND "consent can't be withdrawn" ploys in a lawsuit filed to force the donation.)

[Guest MadameX]

Some rape victims have become pregnant and have kept the child, only to become very attached, and to have found therapy in getting over the trauma.  That's at least a negative scenario turned positive.  I know there was one very outspoken woman who talks about her decision to keep her child after being raped.  In NO WAY am I advocating this, I am simply pointing out that negative outlooks can have positive outcomes.

 

Andrew Solomon wrote a book 'Far From the Tree' which tells some stories like this. I have not yet read it but heard an interview with him.

 

Yes, we can have an optimism bias that gives us a tendency to retell our narrative in terms that make something that was terrible at the time into the proverbial blessing in disguise. A divorce, for example, an absolutely devasting event, becomes a turning point that leads to later discovering the love of one's life, for example.

 

When I reflect on my own experience, my impression is that the situation now for women who are unpleasantly surprised at discovering they have become pregnant, is better than it was. There is less stigma - gosh something like half of all women under age 30 who give birth are not married. I do not know if there is a better support system, whether through government programs or faith-communities, or if it is coercive and phony. I do wonder about our funky, unregulated and immensely profitable adoption business and how it connects to these 'crisis pregnancy centers' - um who really benefits there?

[SquareOne]

But he shares with SquareOne a certain lack of thinking-through on these concepts.

 

Akheia, I have thought a lot about these issues.

 

However, in all areas of life, people are going to disagree with you.  That does not mean they have not thought about the issues.

 

I have read everything that you have written in this thread, and thought about it.  I have expressed my sympathy with your position.

 

However, I do not believe that your argument from consent is the "trump" argument that settles the debate.  I understand it.  I have thought about it.  I do not agree with it.

 

...

 

I allow room for my own tendency to be wrong though.  Perhaps there are things I haven't thought about.  So if there is anything you would like me to think through now, please do raise it.  It would help me if you would ask specific questions, so I have something specific to reply to.  In giving direct responses, I hope that I can demonstrate that I have thought about the question.

[Vigile]

What I don't think Square has considered thoroughly is the imposition of his will upon others and the implications of this.

 

Imposing one's will on another demands a very high burden IMO.  "I'm not convinced by the arguments others are making" doesn't cut it.  It requires some intellectual offense, not just defense. 

[Akheia]

Oh hi, I thought you'd put me on ignore. You'd sort of pointedly ignored everything I'd written after you said you were going to stop engaging me, so I haven't particularly been talking to you But now that you're here, yes, you haven't thought things through. I wrote one of my typically long pieces a short while ago on a thread about what anti-abortion people are really trying to accomplish, and I do suggest you find it and read it; in it, I describe what the world would look like if fetuses were really accorded the legal protections and status of being actual people. You would not wish to live in that world, I posit, and I know I would not. Every miscarriage would suddenly become a criminal investigation (one state in the US is trying to push that legislation through now); since a huge percentage of pregnancies self-abort before the woman even knows she's pregnant, clearly laws will need to be written to govern her conduct at all times since you never know, any slut who sluts around could be pregnant and FETUSES: every woman's uterus becomes a state interest to control and "protect;" your own right to decline the use of your own body for other non-gestational purposes would instantly become up for grabs. Why don't you spend a little time formulating what the legal fallout would be of trying to make fetuses people? Start with the infamous rape/incest exceptions and life of the mother exceptions, and then start looking at legal cases that deal with forced organ donation (the Shimp case is the one I would recommend most, and then yes, do look at the Roe case's writeup about privacy) and see what real courts think of these issues.

 

While you're at it, look up the many law cases and news pieces regarding the false claims and deceptions routinely practiced by "Crisis Pregnancy Centers" and anti-abortion groups, the harassment they regularly dole out to women seeking even basic healthcare services, and for good measure take a look at the Pearson CPC guide for a heaping dose of Christian lies and manipulation. As I said, take the null position and ask yourself: why all these lies, why all these deceptions, why all this abuse, if the cause is truly just? You don't have to write it out to me, but I think it's going to be important for you to do so you can progress past your old indoctrination.

 

As others have said on other blogs, look at what's actually getting accomplished with forced-birth rhetoric, look at who's financing the effort, look at who's really being benefited. You might be smart, but smart people can fall for faulty arguments. I don't think you'd even care about fetuses if the Christian Right hadn't brought it to the forefront in their effort to get sympathetic politicians elected in America. Think about all the crap you rejected when you rejected Christianity, and how untrustworthy that religion is with regard to every facet of life you saw. Why do you give it so much credence now, when the forced-birth movement is so rife with deception and lies?

 

As I've mentioned, the personhood of a fetus is absolutely irrelevant, however. I know it isn't a person, and you think it is despite knowing and having stated that biology was not on your side here. But this subjective opinion you have has no bearing whatsoever on what I do with my own body. I'm thankful that our legal system is well aware of the shortcomings of such opinions and hopeful that in time, the Christian Right will discover that, like their fight against gay marriage, this one's not a winner and move on to other repressive causes.

 

And I don't give a fuck how sympathetic you are about my past experiences if that sympathy doesn't translate into a desire for action to fix shit. Christians tell gays all the time that they love them, then sneak into voting booths to remove their right to marry and live free of hostility. Sympathy doesn't do much. Put shoes on your sympathy. I'm one of the ONE IN FUCKING THREE WOMEN who have had abortions. My story isn't much different from theirs. Why don't you start wondering why ONE IN FUCKING THREE WOMEN don't think fetuses are people whose rights override their own? Are we all stupid sluts? Or do we know something you don't yet?

 

ETA: This is already long, sorry, but I need to mention that in this day and age, it's thoroughly impossible to me that modern women don't know all the arguments about abortion and its concomitant fetus-fetish. So... I don't view this as an argument from numbers, since we've all been exposed to the same information.

[Akheia]

By the way, we've all seen this really awesome series by Libby Ann about abortion, right? I wish I could write half as well as she does.

[mymistake]

However, I do not believe that your argument from consent is the "trump" argument that settles the debate.  I understand it.  I have thought about it.  I do not agree with it.

 

Please explain the problems you find with the "argument from consent".  How many problems exist and how bad is each flaw?  Ultimately, why do your reject the argument?

[Akheia]

BO, I'm so disappointed. I thought when I returned to see you'd posted here that you'd have left some explosively awesome regressive screed and that was all you wrote? Pfft, I say! Pfft!

 

More fallout of criminalization of abortion due to "personhood" of fetuses:

* Many forms of assisted fertility become outlawed (whoops--Mitt Romney's son's wife would be SOL, huh?)

* Fetuses now require death announcements and burials as per normal human remains (get ready for newspapers' obituaries to skyrocket in size). I wonder how many young people could afford proper burials for every zygote that flushes out? How would you even know it happened though?

* How do you suppose they'll deal with women who spontaneously abort? How will authorities even know it happened? What kind of invasiveness do you see going on there? Are we going to arrest them on suspicion of manslaughter? Because you know you're not going to be able to just go after the sluts electively aborting fetuses. You make 'em "people," and "people" they will fucking be. If one dies, it gets "person" treatment. (Lest you think I'm overreacting, a law recently proposed in the American South suggested doing precisely this to miscarriages.)

* Stem cell research outlawed as it uses fetal cells, blocking important research into the worst killers of our age (sorry, cancer and HIV--fuck you, because FETUSES)

* Most heartbreakingly, therapeutic abortions become impossible to get either, as hospitals must now carefully weigh the legal ramifications of all requests. Remember that lady in Ireland who died as a result of her miscarriage? Well, we got one similar here in sunny Idaho: a woman's desperately-wanted late-term fetus was dying. She knew it was dying thanks to her pediatrician's tests. She was forced to carry the dying fetus inside her womb for TWO MORE FUCKING WEEKS before it died and dropped out of her. The excuse for such sadistic intrusiveness? "Oh we thought you'd want time to say goodbye." FUCK YOU ALL, FORCED-BIRTHERS, FUCK YOU ALL, FUCK YOU FUCKING ALL SO FUCKING MUCH.

* Women who have babies they neither want nor can afford do not magically turn into loving mummies with white-picket middle-class homes upon delivery. Studies support that forced-birth laws lead to higher crime rates as these kids grow up and act out. And to those who chirp about adoption, who benefits there? And how many kids are already in foster homes awaiting adoption? How much money do you suppose these kids will cost? Texas is already looking at millions in unexpected support dollars for the forced-birth position they've already taken--millions they just don't have. Why does the "pro-life" platform stop at birth?

* Sex becomes even more marginalized--since "well, don't spread your legs then, you slut" is the primary rejoinder to any concerns about forced-birth laws. Forced-birth groups aren't shy about lying about abortion's putative ties to cancer and infertility, nor are they even hesitant about lying about abstinence or "purity"'s (lack of) effectiveness or even about aspects of basic biology.

* Do you suppose that if abortion gets criminalized, women will finally get easy and consistent access to reliable contraception? OH WAIT what was I thinking

* Wow, those rape victims who get impregnated (some 30,000/yr in the US) are just going to have to suck it up and drive on. Nothing seems like it'd make a rapist happier than knowing his victim's going to be victimized long after he's withdrawn his penis from her body.

* Successful first push to get Christianity enshrined into law. There's a reason that fundies view abortion rights as the biggest hurdle they must face in Christianizing the West again. They rightly view a woman's reproductive rights as the first building block to female equality--an equality they oppose on almost every single level. Removing those rights chains a woman's destiny to her biology.

* Do you wonder, as I do, what support lawmakers are going to give all these babies? Michigan passed one of the nation's most hardcore forced-birth laws EVER last year--while at the same time greatly slashing welfare benefits for the poorest children in their state. What's the real message here?

* And last but not least, women start dying from illegal abortions again. No matter how much logic one tries to use, one cannot logic out of thin air a fetus whose rights trump those of its carrier to her own bodily autonomy. No matter what a law made by misogynistic white fundie men says, women know they have the right to bodily autonomy. They'll look at a deck stacked largely against them, and they will give those laws the bird and take what risks they must to ensure their own safety and futures.

 

That's just off the top of my head too. I bet I could think of some more sordid and unpleasant ramifications to outlawing abortion. SquareOne, I challenge you to come up with a few more of your own.

[Yrth]

Yrth: Try reframing the argument with a metaphor that actually works. The "pilot landing a plane" one sounds drastically inappropriate for many reasons. I can see why forced-birthers like it though (you're not the first by a longshot who's trotted this one out)--it erases the true horror of an unwanted pregnancy by making it sound like a jolly plane ride that lasts at most a few hours, and it also equates a fetus with dozens or even hundreds of actual people. Why not something about slavery or rape or forced organ donation? Because an involuntary pregnancy is a lot more like a forced organ donation than a person practicing a profession for which she has trained for many years, and being forced to endure the involuntary utilization of one's body is a lot more like a state-mandated rape than, say, refusing to land a plane and potentially killing hundreds of actual living breathing *persons*. Whatever you do, your metaphor has to include the many physical risks to the mother if she goes through with the unwanted pregnancy, and also the duration of the horror. Further, a pilot who refuses to land a plane is putting her own life in danger, whereas an abortion--especially the early-term ones that make up the vast majority of elective procedures--is far, far safer than having a baby, so make sure you make the "what if" something that's way safer and easier for the woman than doing the task she was assigned.

 

Ever been involuntarily pregnant? I have. Such a metaphor is incredibly insulting to someone who has experienced the sheer horror of her body being hijacked against her will by a parasite that is busily sucking calcium right out of her bones and reshaping her entire body to suit its needs; such metaphors are not okay when put up against the reality of knowing that if you don't GET IT OUT GET IT OUT GET IT OUT GET IT FUCKING OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT, you will suffer unimaginable pain and even possibly die in a few short months. And that's just the merry beginning, whether you do what the antis chirpily insist and "just give it up" or if you keep it.

 

So it's back to the drawing board for you!

 

I haven't unfairly equated fetuses with persons. Your claim assumed fetal personhood for the sake of argument and I was just responding to it.

 

I see your point about the difference between being forced to perform practice, professional skills versus a foreign, dangerous ordeal. And also your points regarding risk and duration. They are important aspects to consider -- exactly what did the person consent to do and how do you weigh that against the consequences? (Regarding organ donations -- the big difference there is that organs may be donated by many different donors, whereas a fetus can only be made viable by the mother. Maybe the case you mentioned will discuss this)

 

I think you also lost sight of the issue you raised: withdrawing consent at the expense of someone else's life. But I see you referenced it in a later post.

 

 

It's scary how many forced-birthers think that consent isn't allowed to be withdrawn once given--especially if that consent is paramount to whatever the forced-birther in question thinks needs to happen. The rape culture's done a lot to negate and nullify a woman's right and power to consent. I wonder how many of these selfsame people would object vehemently if their own power to consent were withdrawn mid-coitus or mid-vasectomy or mid-blood donation.

I don't think Yrth is a forced-birther so I'm not lobbing anything his way except an extreme contempt for the poverty of critical thinking on display. Even to "frame" the issue in such falsely analogous terms is vastly denigrating to those directly affected--a group that Yrth may be thankful he will never belong to. But he shares with SquareOne a certain lack of thinking-through on these concepts. Consent is vital to any process that involves another human being's physical body. And I fight for that right for not only women but men too; if the right to consent is abruptly understood to be set in stone and unable to be withdrawn, then men will be affected as well because, well, they have bodies too, and just because they can't get preggers doesn't mean there aren't other things that can be done to those bodies against their wills. Just because right now we're talking about babies doesn't mean that later on down the line there won't be a McCall v. Shimp case in the UK. (Look it up; it's pretty damned horrifying, and you can all but read the absolute terror on the part of the guy who was almost forced to undergo an organ donation on behalf of a male family member who tried both the "implied consent" AND "consent can't be withdrawn" ploys in a lawsuit filed to force the donation.)

 

Look, with respect, I think your contempt is unnecessarily inflammatory and only serves to impede clarity and alienate members. Cathartic, yes. Helpful, no. This isn't speaker's corner.

 

Notwithstanding that, I'm actually very interested in looking up the case you mentioned. The decision probably laid out a good synopsis of the arguments on each side, which is what I am interested in. I know what your conclusions are, I want to know your reasons. Until then.  

[dB-Paradox]

This is a long thread.  Over the years I've been an atheist, I have remained pro-life, but have also come to respect the pro-choice side.  In fact, I've said it before...I'm also pro-choice, but pro-life would be my primary position.  I have indeed come to respect the phrase "Don't like abortions?  Don't get one!"  How many pro-life advocates, such as myself, can say, "Want an abortion?  Then get one!"  Sometimes it feels like when we let others choose freely, we are advocating their position, but that's simply not true.  And we pro-lifers are making a bad name for ourselves when we don't realize that.  Of course, I think pro-choicers make a bad name for themselves when they don't respect differing positions.  Really, as long as one group doesn't impose their beliefs on another, I see no reason why we can't agree to disagree.  I think the problem is hardcore pro-lifers against hardcore pro-choicers.  I'm not a hardcore pro-lifer, even if abortion is something that makes me feel uneasy or even sad.

 

So, with that...I'm going for a drink!

[pandora]

http://billmoyers.com/segment/jessica-gonzalez-rojas-and-lynn-paltrow-on-abortion-rights-activism/

 

Very good video including TV footage from when Roe v. Wade was originally passed.

[Ro-bear]

Comparing a fetus to a passenger on a plane is ridiculous. The pilot knows what he has committed himself to.  He willingly took on this passenger and has a social contract to fulfill.  The woman having sex did not consent to taking on a passenger.  It's more like a stowaway on a plane: possible, but not desirable.  Maybe even not safe.

[Yrth]

Comparing a fetus to a passenger on a plane is ridiculous. The pilot knows what he has committed himself to.  He willingly took on this passenger and has a social contract to fulfill.  The woman having sex did not consent to taking on a passenger.  It's more like a stowaway on a plane: possible, but not desirable.  Maybe even not safe.

We're assuming that the woman did initially consent. That's why we are talking about the withdrawal of consent. It's all right there in the thread.

[mymistake]

Never in history has a zygote asked for permission to implant in a mother. 

[Guest ThereIsNoGod]

I'm pro-responsible sex, but not opposed to abortion.....I hate the term pro-life anyway. The term pro-life can mean anything. It can mean that you enjoy life. It could even mean that you are opposed to the death penalty.

 

I think churches should pull down their signs opposing abortion and replace them with signs encouraging safe-sex. The main cause of abortion is casual, unprotected sex. I think abortion or STD is the worst consequence of a casual attitude towards sex and it fair for some organisations to caution people, BUT I stil think that one should be able to choose whether or not to have their child. I feel if there is any guilt in abortion, it should be on the parents, that is, it shouldn't be the responsibility of the general public to save the feotus. 

 

As for those who say that abortion is a sin even in cases of rape or potentially fatal pregnancies, frankly I think morons like that should have been aborted themselves.

[dB-Paradox]

I'm pro-responsible sex, but not opposed to abortion.....I hate the term pro-life anyway. The term pro-life can mean anything. It can mean that you enjoy life. It could even mean that you are opposed to the death penalty.

 

Pro-life, like the word faith, can be abused.  Ray comfort is one of those people who abuses faith. 

[SquareOne]

Hi Akheia, thanks for your reply.  I wasn't ignoring you, I have read all of your posts above.  I just didn't think that I had anything else to add at that point.

 

As I said in my last post, please can you post some specific questions that you would like me to answer?  You've asked a few questions in your post, but they seem like rhetorical ones.  If they weren't meant to be, that's fine, but please can you just clarify which you would like me to answer.  Thanks.

 

Case in point, see mymistake's post.  Short, clear questions.  I have to think hard about how to answer these.  If you did the same, that would help me.

 

I will reply to mymistake tomorrow, and I will reply to you too if you can provide those questions.  Thanks.

 

 

 

Never in history has a zygote asked for permission to implant in a mother. 

 

Yeah.  Jesus was the only one who could conceivably (pun intented) have asked for permission ahead of time - and even he didn't!  Talk about presumptuous.

 

(Just in case it's not obvious, the above was a joke.  I don't believe in God.  Thanks). 

[Ro-bear]

 

Comparing a fetus to a passenger on a plane is ridiculous. The pilot knows what he has committed himself to.  He willingly took on this passenger and has a social contract to fulfill.  The woman having sex did not consent to taking on a passenger.  It's more like a stowaway on a plane: possible, but not desirable.  Maybe even not safe.

We're assuming that the woman did initially consent. That's why we are talking about the withdrawal of consent. It's all right there in the thread.

The thread is fifteen pages long.  I thought I had read the relevant comments among the 300 or so, but I must have missed that assumption.

 

Even if consent is assumed, it means nothing unless the fetus has standing.  Now the debate moves to personhood, which is a legal state that is by nature subjective.  At present, a fetus lacks that legal status in the U.S., so consent is a moot point.

[nobodyyouknow]

Comparing a fetus to a passenger on a plane is ridiculous. The pilot knows what he has committed himself to.  He willingly took on this passenger and has a social contract to fulfill.  The woman having sex did not consent to taking on a passenger.  It's more like a stowaway on a plane: possible, but not desirable.  Maybe even not safe.

 

Maybe not the best analogy but then again I'm not sure yours is quite right either

 

 

Unless you are implying that it's o.k to push the stowaway off the plane (while flying) because there was no consent to them being there.