Morality of abortion

Nov 2018
3,755
1,839
Inner Space
I am pro life. But i do not believe in intervening or judging the reasoning of choices that goes through the minds of the private lives of others.
This is an interesting position. I don't know understand how one can be both "pro-life" and "pro-choice".

How would you vote on an issue that directly (or indirectly) changes the availability of constitutionally lawful abortion services?
If that is too vague a hypothetical, how would you vote on a proposal to prevent state (or federal) funding of abortion services?

Do you contribute to Planned Parenthood, if only for funding of contraception services?
 

Panther

Forum Staff
Jul 2013
5,568
3,187
North Texas
This is an interesting position. I don't know understand how one can be both "pro-life" and "pro-choice".

How would you vote on an issue that directly (or indirectly) changes the availability of constitutionally lawful abortion services?
If that is too vague a hypothetical, how would you vote on a proposal to prevent state (or federal) funding of abortion services?

Do you contribute to Planned Parenthood, if only for funding of contraception services?
I'm mot a morality voter. I no longer believe in my vote is best used wisely when it comes to legislating into the private lives of others.

I contribute to no organizations either.
 
Nov 2018
3,755
1,839
Inner Space
I'm mot a morality voter. I no longer believe in my vote is best used wisely when it comes to legislating into the private lives of others.

I contribute to no organizations either.
So you are a passive beneficiary of US government and society, I would say.
There are many lines of argument against that political position, but it is certainly your right.
However, are your truly "pro-life" or just "anti-abortion"?
"Pro-life" seems to imply a certain view of abortion that transcends personal opinion about one's own life or immediate surrounding.
 
Likes: Panther

Panther

Forum Staff
Jul 2013
5,568
3,187
North Texas
So you are a passive beneficiary of US government and society, I would say.
There are many lines of argument against that political position, but it is certainly your right.
Thank you. However, i wouldn't necessarily say i am a passive benefiairy of the USG or its society. I do vote and at my discretion. I observe more than i do in adding my two cents. Not that i am afraid, but everything that is already said has been said. The rest are insults. But sometimes there is a discussion that makes it worthwhile.


However, are your truly "pro-life" or just "anti-abortion"?
"Pro-life" seems to imply a certain view of abortion that transcends personal opinion about one's own life or immediate surrounding.
True. I am both. But i also believe in privacy rights and a persons right too make their own decisions. I believe we have enough judges and jury members in this society as it is.

I am curious. How would you separately define pro-life and anti-abortion?
 
Nov 2018
3,755
1,839
Inner Space
Thank you. However, i wouldn't necessarily say i am a passive benefiairy of the USG or its society. I do vote and at my discretion. I observe more than i do in adding my two cents. Not that i am afraid, but everything that is already said has been said. The rest are insults. But sometimes there is a discussion that makes it worthwhile.




True. I am both. But i also believe in privacy rights and a persons right too make their own decisions. I believe we have enough judges and jury members in this society as it is.

I am curious. How would you separately define pro-life and anti-abortion?
"Anti-abortion" would be those opposed to abortion in the "generic" sense but not absolutely so.
I think many (perhaps even most) people are "anti-abortion" just as they would be "anti-appendectomy" or "anti-tonsillectomy" as a routine procedure if other actions (in the case of those events, antibiotics) could avoid the procedure. When abortion is eventually chosen it is usually only done when alternatives fail or contraception does not occur properly, so someone could be "anti-abortion" broadly, but recognize the need.

"Pro-life" is typically part of a view that can be global (opposed to death penalty) or more commonly only specifically directed at pregnancy by any woman. "Pro-life" is usually indicative of activism against decisions made by other people and a certain self-certainty or missionary zeal that the pro-lifer knows more about the personal needs and obligations of the pregnant woman then she does. "Pro-life" tends to be intrusive and judgmental even if not expressly stated or acted upon.

Someone who is opposed to abortion and is "anti-abortion" would strive for and support the necessary funding or resources for sex education and contraception in lieu of abortion and see that only as a procedure of last resort. "Pro-life" believers often do not really focus on prevention and seem to think that sex education and contraception are not part of God's plan, or similar reasoning. Pro-life proponents tend to promote a political agenda to accomplish abolition of abortion driven by dogma or intense personal belief.

Anti-abortion is pragmatic; pro-life is dogmatic.
 
Sep 2015
6,830
3,786
Stage Left
That's one option, there are more, it's a choice.
actually TN is wrong again. Alyssa Milano didnt say just abstain from sex, she said stop having sex with fucking moronic RWNJs who want to control women's bodies. but of course all that went right over his empty head...
 
May 2019
92
6
US
"Conjecture" doesn't mean true either.

And the fact of the matter is neither the original study that statement is found in, nor the two studies being referenced at the end of that statement, were actually intended to or even designed to test the validity of that conjecture, despite numerous attempts by rather disingenuous pro-life individuals and organizations who present that statement as if it were some sort of proven fact.

:rolleyes:
No, that’s not what the studies were intended for, nor is it proven, but it is what the studies suggest. At least according to the pro-choice group that published this paper.
 
Last edited:
May 2019
92
6
US
This is an old thread, but I cannot find any images that your have posted. Why not enlighten us with your "images" compared side by side with the photos I posted in #67 this thread.
It’s the video put out by the iFind project of a 20 week old. It’s hailed as the clearest look inside the womb to date. It is reported on in left and right biased newsgroups. You already argued against it as invalid because yours goes back to 1900. Your comrades insist it is fake for literally no reason (other than desire).
Here is a mental floss article about it:
New Ultrasound Tech Captures Clearest Imaging Ever of a 20-Week-Old Fetus

And here is the video of the scan:

What I find interesting is the computer images (not actual images) used by apps and YouTube videos for expecting mothers vs those used for pro-choice advocacy. Do a quick google search. How could they be different?
 
Last edited:

Similar Discussions