Welcome to Gaia! ::

I get along fine with pro-choicers. However, my intimate and closest friends are all pro-life, and I don't think that's a coincidence. I think one has to have a certain worldview and perhaps even personality to be one or the other, the former of which is very, very important to me. I don't mind talking to and hanging out with people of differing beliefs, but the reality is that I'm going to be able to love someone more if I can understand them and they me.

Abortion is also a very emotional issue for me, I'm afraid. I completely understand that pro-choicers don't see abortion as an issue of taking lives, but I do, and it is very, very hurtful to me and could cause psychological and mental distress if I were to be close to someone who thought it was okay to kill children. cry

I believe that both sides have logic that backs up their arguments.

Are you saying that Pro-Lifers don't tend to think more about the fetus involved than the woman involved? There is nothing wrong with doing so, I just feel that most Pro-Lifers I have talked with tend to have thought more about the life of the fetus than the woman involved. If you feel that you or other Pro-Lifers don't do this, feel free to explain how and why you feel this statement is untrue.

I hardly see any working logic in their arguments, unless the subject is rape or the mortality of the mother.

No, we don't think more about the fetus. I'm not sure why you're asking this when we've said it so many time in areas that choicers can easly access, Including the abortion debate.

We see the life of the fetus. We see the life of the woman. Neither are worth more then the other to us. They're lives are equal in our eyes. The idea that we care more about the fetus comes form the choicer mentality to favor the mother (for any reason) over the unborn. Since you see the mother is frequently having more worth or rights or what ever then the one she created, you automaticly assume that since we come to the defence of the unborn, we favor them over the born. Untrue.

We see both entities as equal in rights and deserving the same chances in life, both deserving a chance at life. What we see is a human who says they're worth is greater then the other, as such they claim they should have the right to kill that other human for any reason they wish. We see both the mother and fetus as humans, as "people" and so we defend each equally. No human has more worth then another to us, for any reason unless ones mortality is threatend. So, for us comign to the side of a fetus in danger of being killed by it's mother is no diffrent to us then comign to the defence of a toddler indanger of being killed by its mother. And vice versa, if a toddler was trying to kill its mother, we would try to do somethign with out having to end the life of the toddler, same wiht the fetus. If the fetus was threatenign the life of the mother (her mortal life mind you, I care nothing for financial or social.) we would come to the mother's aid and try every thign we could to keep them both alive.

We only look that way gto you because of how you preceive the situation. (You, meaning the choicer mentality in general) It goes for us too. You look as though you only care about the woman in volved, and many choicers wouldn't have a problem admitting this because, well, they do.

I'll explain this again. We see the right to life of the fetus as worth more then the right of the mother to be comfertable. We will try to see to it that she is comfertabel through out her pregnancy, but we will not support her claim that she should have an abortion becuase she is uncomfertable. Its no diffrent then a man trying to kill his neighbor becuase his neighbor walks across his lawn frequently to get to the bus stop. They neighbor is on his property, and that makes the man uncomfertable, but no one supports the man's self claimed right to kill his neighbor. In the same instence, just because the pregnancy may make a woman uncomfertable, we do not support her self claimed right to kill the child. I fail to see how this favors the fetus over the mother. I see it as favoring life over comfterbility.

Thank you for admitting that both of us are biased on this issue.

If you want to debate this, I'm willing to do so in PMs or in the Debate (or behind the school yard after school *grin* ).

Most Pro-Choicers see the woman's ownership of her body as trumping all. I, at least, see this as a logical step from current legal precident, which has established that one can control the use of one's body even if those needing it would die without help. So we don't see ourselves as being any more only about the women as you see yourself as being only about the fetus.

if you caused that person to be in that situation, assume that they will not press charges if they live. if they live, nothing happens to you. if they die, you will be charged with manslaughter. although you don't have to help them, if they die, you go to jail.


the same should be with a fetus. of course a child will not and can not press charges for being born. but the mother has acted consensually to create the child, it is there by her actions. if it dies by her actions, she should be charged with manslaughter.

So you're saying that her choosing to have sex means that she should be forced to keep anything caused by that sex. But this doesn't apply to STDs, as I doubt you would want people to be denied medical treatment just because it was a product of them choosing to have sex. So only when sex produces a human life (as opposed to say, the AIDS virus) do you think that people should be denied the right to (certain) medical treatments.

If the woman is able to do whatever she likes when it involves a virus (or bacteria, or lice) but not remove the offending organism from her body (offending only in that she wants to remove it, I find neither fetii nor lice offensive, I just don't want them living off of me) when it is a human fetus, then you obviously care more about the fetus than the woman's choice to control what is living off of her body. This is part of why I previously said it seems to me that many Pro-Lifers think more about the fetus involved than the woman involved.

I don't think I will ever understand why Pro-Lifers believe that all fetii deserve to live unless they were conceived by rape. If a fetus' continuing life is so important, why do people who have been raped (or, were this legally imposed, anyone who claimed raped) get a "Get Out of Pregnancy Free" Card? I've heard this phenomena called "Pro-Punishment", though it isn't fully assuming that you don't support forcing those who catch STDs to live with the products of their choice. But I see believing that rape fetii don't deserve life as much as consentual sex fetii as a sort of strange belief for someone who claims to believe that all human life is important.

Not that I don't hold some conflicting beliefs. I think everyone does.