And I’m sure you’re against social safety nets too, to help the poor take care of their children. Pro life. As long as that life doesnt involve mine.
We define human life differently. That’s what it comes down to. I would submit that when it comes down to it, you also place a different value on the fetus versus a born child.
You also take a very anti-govt position yet seem to want the govt to help enforce your beliefs. It is a strange dichotomy but one you recognize but don’t want to admit.
Yep. Every other “argument” is pointless. As has been mentioned by Meri and Flameheart and others, the meaning beyond the biological technicality of “life” comes from their beliefs about God.
It just boils down to the religious right trying to force their beliefs into others. Granted, some people arent religious and still are pro life, but are in the minority.
Here’s a question: virtually any war will almost guarantee that innocent lives will be lost in crossfire or bombings. @Meriweather @FlameHeart @Guvnah are you against war in all circumstances? Or, do you recognize that sometimes the taking of innocent life is necessary for a greater cause, even if you arent the one directly doing it? The point of the question is not to compare abortion to war, but to compare whether or not there is a philosophical / ethical position that warrants an action knowing innocent lives will be lost.
Then you would be wrong. From the moments I knew I was pregnant, I recognized a new life was growing within me. That life was immediately valued, so much that I made changes in diet and exercise, studied up on pregnancy and birth, and even found a doctor and made appointments. I began preparing for the baby–clothes, a room, toys.
It’s a mistake to believe everyone thinks as we do. It would be a mistake for me to believe that you do understand the value of a fetus but have talked yourself out of it. And it is a mistake for you to believe I must somehow place less value on a fetus. The reason society is in this fight is because half of us cannot believe the other half sees no value in the beginning of a human life.
Don’t you have any friends or family who lost a child they were expecting? There are people who grieve these losses the rest of their lives. Are you going to argue they place less value on their loss than someone who lost a son/daughter sometime in their childhood?
Once again you are not listening. I don’t want government to enforce personal beliefs. I want government to manage the country’s business–transportation, trade, defense. I want individuals to manage any business that pertains solely to the individual. I feel so strongly about that, I would even like to see government out of education. Government has a way of weakening individualism.
So…the only strange dichotomy is that you are apparently reading what I am saying but not understanding any of it. At least do me the favor of not misinterpreting it.
And that’s your choice.
Pot meet kettle
No one is saying everyone believes as you do. And yes, there is a debate about abortion. So ?
I’d say this is a good thing to an extent. Strict/rugged individualism is a pretty terrible building block to a strong society.
Are you saying the Jewish faith supports abortion since they believe that life begins at birth? I’m not Jewish but I don’t believe that at all, in fact I don’t believe that “religion”, ancient or modern, believes in abortion whose only outcome is death of the infant.
It’s not that the other half sees no value in the beginning of a human life. The thing is that human life does not get to override a woman’s autonomy and self-determination when it comes to her body. That’s why I personally think the legal argument around the fetus being a “person” specifically in this context (never mind the ridiculous complexity it introduces in other scenarios) is immaterial. Even if it was granted personhood, a person doesn’t have a claim to another person’s body. Just the presence of the fetus introduces a level of risk that the woman has every right to not assume. Just the presence of the fetus introduces a scenario where it is taking bodily resources from the woman who has every right to forcefully stop it from doing so.
So to be clear, you would not use the force of govt to outlaw advertising for abortion by private agencies? You would not use the force of govt to tell private insurance companies to not cover abortion?
That seems to be what you are saying above. Correct?
I know someone that had two miscarriages and then went on to have 5 children. The grief she felt from those miscarriages pales in comparison to what she would have felt if any of those 5 had died as an infant.
I do agree to the point that there should be a balance. Today, however, I see we are tending towards being out of balance on the side of weakness. What I am trying to understand is how continually finding one group to pit against the other benefits society at all.
Is it the news media (and our interest in the news media) that has people lining up one group against the other? Are our two political parties at the root of dividing us? The name calling and the outright determination for one side to destroy the other is disturbing.
This is the root of the matter. The woman’s autonomy ends when she decides to engage in an activity that could result in pregnancy. Men don’t want women to see it this way, correct? (And to me honest, many women don’t want to see it in that light, either.) Life does override convenience to the woman. If people understood this, then engaging in sex would be given much more serious consideration–and it should be. Do most truly believe, “Life should not get in the way of me having sex! If it does, life must be destroyed.” That just seems barbaric.
When the abortion rate reaches between twenty-to-thirty percent of each generation, doesn’t’ that deserve taking a good second look at what we are doing? If twenty-to-thirty percent of each generation being aborted doesn’t deserve a second look, do you think there is a percentage number that does require we take a second look?
Asked and answered.
Has that grief vanished?
I wish you would just give direct “yes” or “no” answers to very direct questions. I’ve seen other posters similarly get frustrated with you as you give long-winded, albeit interesting, answers to questions and not providing any definitive response.
After all this, I still am unsure whether you would want the govt to outlaw advertising for abortion services or if you would want the govt to force insurance providers to not cover abortion.
I thin you have hinted that you would not but your generalized responses make me wonder.
Any chance you can provide that yes or no answe for the two questions?
She’s far too busy raising five kids to spend any time grieving. I am sure there remains some sadness but again it pales to what the loss of a 2 month baby would have been like.