Why Pro-Abortion Is Anti-Science

[manifold]

Funny, I've still never met a single person that is "Pro" abortion.

So you don't know anyone that's had one then? Is a woman who has one 'pro abortion' in your view then? Or are you naively stating that no one is pro abortion even though there are millions of them going on every year in this country?

point taken

But I still maintain that Pro-choice =/= Pro-Abortion.

 

[manifold]

If you don't want an abortion, don't have one.

It is really that simple.

Exactly.

And if you don't want to burn a Koran, don't burn one.

It is really that simple.

 

[Foxfyre]

It isn't that simple for people who believe that developing baby is a human life though. Saying that to such people is the same as saying if you don't want to murder somebody then don't.

 

[manifold]

It isn't that simple for people who believe that developing baby is a human life though. Saying that to such people is the same as saying if you don't want to murder somebody then don't.

I understand your point, but I still disagree.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Which argument is based on science, and which one is all about opinion?

Neither is based on science, as I've argued above and you've so helpfully demonstrated. As the poster above noted, these are questions of philosophy and social definitions of value. That's why even a "pro-lifer" like yourself will obviously--though apparently self-consciously--allow the termination of a non-socially sanctioned life (i.e. one conceived through rape or incest), despite the fact that they meet the biological definition of life.

This is ethics, not biology.

Yes, and ethics should be decided without referral to scientific fact . . . if the scientific fact contradicts what you've decided you want to do.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Neither side is anti-science. There might be anti-science folk on both sides, but on the whole it's a philosophical disagreement over the value of tissue and the value of mind.

Science simply can't answer such philosophical questions.

What he said.

Science cannot answer the question
"when do we give a fetus the right to not be killed?"

No, it can't. What it CAN do is provide us with the facts to base our decision on . . . unless they contradict what someone is determined to do anyway, in which case that person can pretend that moral and ethical questions are made in a scientific vacuum.

What's odd is that those most vociferously insisting that science can't make this decision also feel free, when they wish, to accuse the other side of being "anti-science". Please don't just gloss over THAT little tidbit and pretend it isn't there.

 

[Charles_Main]

Funny, I've still never met a single person that is "Pro" abortion.

Fail!

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm not sure what kind of honest discussion could be had in the first place when the OP's thread title is "Why Pro-Abortion is Anti-Science."

Funny, I've never met a Pro-Abortion person in my life. Words have meaning, and in this case they are used to mischaracterize the position of those who the author disagrees with even before the discussion is started.

So "honest discussion" can only take place when everyone in the discussion agrees with your opinion? If someone is going to advance an opinion that disagrees with you, no "honest discussion" can happen?

Words DO have meaning, which is exactly why I and others like you refuse to allow you to mischaracterize your position as something it's not in order to feel better.

But hey, if you're too thin-skinned and scared to deal with anyone who doesn't pat you on the back and say, "No, of COURSE you're a good person, no matter what you do", then I'll understand and you can run along.

 

[Charles_Main]

If you don't want an abortion, don't have one.

It is really that simple.

Yep, and don't complain when Obamacare takes your tax dollars to fund them right.

 

[Ravi]

If you don't want an abortion, don't have one.

It is really that simple.

Yep, and don't complain when Obamacare takes your tax dollars to fund them right.

I won't.

 

[Foxfyre]

Neither side is anti-science. There might be anti-science folk on both sides, but on the whole it's a philosophical disagreement over the value of tissue and the value of mind.

Science simply can't answer such philosophical questions.

What he said.

Science cannot answer the question
"when do we give a fetus the right to not be killed?"

No, it can't. What it CAN do is provide us with the facts to base our decision on . . . unless they contradict what someone is determined to do anyway, in which case that person can pretend that moral and ethical questions are made in a scientific vacuum.

What's odd is that those most vociferously insisting that science can't make this decision also feel free, when they wish, to accuse the other side of being "anti-science". Please don't just gloss over THAT little tidbit and pretend it isn't there.

It really comes down to whether that developing baby is a human being or it isn't. And for myself, I can't think of any point in that development, in or out of the womb, that is more or less important and/or necessary to the man or woman it will be than is any other stage of that development.

And that is why I am staunchly pro life. There are means to prevent starting a baby, but once one is on the way, for me the issue involves two lives, not one.

But I don't want my government getting involved in the matter except at the local level on the expressed votes of the people. If a community doesn't want abortions, it should not have to allow them. But that community should not have the ability to dictate matters of conscience for the next community.

The Federal government should not be involved at all other than to secure the rights of the people and then leave it to them to work out the sort of society they wish to have.

 

[Ravi]

What he said.

Science cannot answer the question
"when do we give a fetus the right to not be killed?"

No, it can't. What it CAN do is provide us with the facts to base our decision on . . . unless they contradict what someone is determined to do anyway, in which case that person can pretend that moral and ethical questions are made in a scientific vacuum.

What's odd is that those most vociferously insisting that science can't make this decision also feel free, when they wish, to accuse the other side of being "anti-science". Please don't just gloss over THAT little tidbit and pretend it isn't there.

It really comes down to whether that developing baby is a human being or it isn't. And for myself, I can't think of any point in that development, in or out of the womb, that is more or less important and/or necessary to the man or woman it will be than is any other stage of that development.

And that is why I am staunchly pro life. There are means to prevent starting a baby, but once one is on the way, for me the issue involves two lives, not one.

But I don't want my government getting involved in the matter except at the local level on the expressed votes of the people. If a community doesn't want abortions, it should not have to allow them. But that community should not have the ability to dictate matters of conscience for the next community.

The Federal government should not be involved at all other than the secure the rights of the people.

Are you okay with communities outlawing Republicans?

 

[Foxfyre]

No, it can't. What it CAN do is provide us with the facts to base our decision on . . . unless they contradict what someone is determined to do anyway, in which case that person can pretend that moral and ethical questions are made in a scientific vacuum.

What's odd is that those most vociferously insisting that science can't make this decision also feel free, when they wish, to accuse the other side of being "anti-science". Please don't just gloss over THAT little tidbit and pretend it isn't there.

It really comes down to whether that developing baby is a human being or it isn't. And for myself, I can't think of any point in that development, in or out of the womb, that is more or less important and/or necessary to the man or woman it will be than is any other stage of that development.

And that is why I am staunchly pro life. There are means to prevent starting a baby, but once one is on the way, for me the issue involves two lives, not one.

But I don't want my government getting involved in the matter except at the local level on the expressed votes of the people. If a community doesn't want abortions, it should not have to allow them. But that community should not have the ability to dictate matters of conscience for the next community.

The Federal government should not be involved at all other than the secure the rights of the people.

Are you okay with communities outlawing Republicans?

Only if they also outlaw Democrats and require candidates to run on their own convictions and track record.

And I would like for the people to decide social policy such as abortion. That should not be legislated at the state or federal level because that too often violates the unalienable rights the Constitution was intended to protect.

 

[Samson]

It really comes down to whether that developing baby is a human being or it isn't. And for myself, I can't think of any point in that development, in or out of the womb, that is more or less important and/or necessary to the man or woman it will be than is any other stage of that development.

And that is why I am staunchly pro life. There are means to prevent starting a baby, but once one is on the way, for me the issue involves two lives, not one.

But I don't want my government getting involved in the matter except at the local level on the expressed votes of the people. If a community doesn't want abortions, it should not have to allow them. But that community should not have the ability to dictate matters of conscience for the next community.

The Federal government should not be involved at all other than the secure the rights of the people.

Are you okay with communities outlawing Republicans?

Only if they also outlaw Democrats and require candidates to run on their own convictions and track record.

And I would like for the people to decide social policy such as abortion. That should not be legislated at the state or federal level because that too often violates the unalienable rights the Constitution was intended to protect.

The Legislature IS the representative of the people.

The problem is they haven't Legislated, but have instead allowed the courts to decide the legal question of abortion.

 

[HUGGY]

Why Pro-Abortion Is Anti-Science

CC said "Science".

 

[jillian]

The Legislature IS the representative of the people.

The problem is they haven't Legislated, but have instead allowed the courts to decide the legal question of abortion.

constitutional rights are not up for majority vote.

that issue HAS been explored and HAS been legislated and corrected by the Courts.

 

[Ravi]

And I would like for the people to decide social policy such as abortion. That should not be legislated at the state or federal level because that too often violates the unalienable rights the Constitution was intended to protect.

The people are the government...and local governments are no more welcome to violate the constitution than state and federal governments.

 

[Foxfyre]

Are you okay with communities outlawing Republicans?

Only if they also outlaw Democrats and require candidates to run on their own convictions and track record.

And I would like for the people to decide social policy such as abortion. That should not be legislated at the state or federal level because that too often violates the unalienable rights the Constitution was intended to protect.

The Legislature IS the representative of the people.

The problem is they haven't Legislated, but have instead allowed the courts to decide the legal question of abortion.

Yes, but you can find nothing in the Constitution that addresses social issues of conscience. It was the intent of the Founders that the federal government would NOT decide such issues but rather would focus on securing and defending the rights of the people so that THEY would be free to form whatever sort of society they wished to have. It was a document allowing the people to govern themselves, not be dictated to by government.

Abortion as a legislated 'right' would have been unthinkable to the Founders. To a man, I believe they would have seen that as a disgusting and immoral act, but I think to a man they would not have seen it as the prerogative of the Federal government to legislate.

 

[Ravi]

Only if they also outlaw Democrats and require candidates to run on their own convictions and track record.

And I would like for the people to decide social policy such as abortion. That should not be legislated at the state or federal level because that too often violates the unalienable rights the Constitution was intended to protect.

The Legislature IS the representative of the people.

The problem is they haven't Legislated, but have instead allowed the courts to decide the legal question of abortion.

Yes, but you can find nothing in the Constitution that addresses social issues of conscience. It was the intent of the Founders that the federal government would NOT decide such issues but rather would focus on securing and defending the rights of the people so that THEY would be free to form whatever sort of society they wished to have. It was a document allowing the people to govern themselves, not be dictated to by government.

Abortion as a legislated 'right' would have been unthinkable to the Founders. To a man, I believe they would have seen that as a disgusting and immoral act, but I think to a man they would not have seen it as the prerogative of the Federal government to legislate.

From what I understand, abortion was quite common in those times. And based on biblical principals, a non-quickening fetus was not a living being.

If the founders cared about the issue at all they would have addressed it.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Legislature IS the representative of the people.

The problem is they haven't Legislated, but have instead allowed the courts to decide the legal question of abortion.

Yes, but you can find nothing in the Constitution that addresses social issues of conscience. It was the intent of the Founders that the federal government would NOT decide such issues but rather would focus on securing and defending the rights of the people so that THEY would be free to form whatever sort of society they wished to have. It was a document allowing the people to govern themselves, not be dictated to by government.

Abortion as a legislated 'right' would have been unthinkable to the Founders. To a man, I believe they would have seen that as a disgusting and immoral act, but I think to a man they would not have seen it as the prerogative of the Federal government to legislate.

From what I understand, abortion was quite common in those times. And based on biblical principals, a non-quickening fetus was not a living being.

If the founders cared about the issue at all they would have addressed it.

Nope. They had the ability to separate the role of government from those matters of conscience that they cared about. They were extricating the American people from a long history of governments dictating what people must care about and allowing the people to govern themselves.