Nekkoru wrote:

GPFontaine wrote: I would like to propose a trade. The USA will take 100 people from Poland. They will be selected at Nekkoru's discretion. In return Poland will take 100 priests convicted of sexual crimes. Trade accepted. You will take: Me, myself, I, my friend Fred and his family (that's about four people), my friend Monika and her family (about six), my mom, Cool Kids Of Death (six people), Kazik Staszewski, my dad and his girlfriend, the authors of Wilq, Konrad Okoński of A Quartz Bead as well as Robert Sieniecki. That's 28 people so far. That's all you need to take.

Fine, but we are still sending the full 100 to Poland.

mjl1783 wrote:

Quote: The term pro-choice means that the choice should be up to the individuals and not the government. It doesn't define the choice as good or bad, it simply states that it is not murder to have an abortion. Nothing in that first sentence says abortion isn't murder.

You are correct, my sentence didn't correctly state my position or the truth.

I'll rephrase it and try to do so in a way that explains my perspective.

I think that the choice should be made by the individual. To me that is what pro-choice means.

Modded: Unprovoked flaming

Pro-abortion to me, means a person who has unprotected sex on purpose and doesn't care about the responsibilities of trying to avoid getting pregnant by accident. Someone who thinks that an abortion is an easy fix to the problem of pregnancy. While pro-choice gives this type of person the right to do this, I disagree with it morally.

Do you understand why I see a difference between the terms?

mjl1783 wrote:

Quote: Rape is one of the few exceptions I'm ok with. Incest and the mother's physical health being the others. Why? Is it the baby's fault its father is a rapist? How does rape make that life worth any less than it would be if it were concieved consentually?

This is the heart of the debate, right here. When does the life created by two people become a person?

I think that the answer to this question defines where most people stand with regard to their abortion beliefs.

So, I think everyone can agree on a few facts.

1.) A new life begins when the sperm and egg meet and the formation of a new human begins.
2.) The new life form does not have higher brain function (thoughts) until 24 weeks into the pregnancy. Until this point it is a collection of cells working together, but there is no consciousness.
3.) An abortion (regardless of morality or legality) is the termination of a human life prior to birth. After birth it is clear and concise we all call it murder.

For pro-life people, usually they state that once #1 above begins, that is the point where the new life is human and has the rights of a human being. Killing the cells at any point would be considered murder.

My thoughts differ. I think that until the fetus reaches a point (#2) where it has higher brain function its destruction is not murder. If the life of the fetus will have negative consequences on the life of the host parent, a termination of that fetus should be the choice of the host. (I'm not going to discuss what if the guy wants to have the kid but the mother doesn't, lets just ignore that for the purpose of this discussion.)

mjl1783 wrote:

Yes, but I still call "bullshit." The only distinction you made between the two terms is that "pro-choice" denotes your moral objection to abortion as birth control. If we're both taking the same position on the legality of abortion, what difference does our moral objection make? It sounds to me like you're using the distinction to make yourself feel better about arguing for a woman's right to have abortions indiscriminately. I say fuck that. If a woman has a right to make that choice, she has a right to make it without any reference to what I think of that choice morally. It's the same thing with the concept of murder. What's so wrong with calling it murder? You're intentionally taking a human life that doesn't pose a threat to you or anyone else. That sounds like murder to me. Why do we have to say "terminate?" Just because it sounds more moral?

We have to say these things because humans are complicated.

We have to say these things because if you can't tell the difference between shooting someone in the face, terminating a brain dead coma patient, and aborting a fetus... well, you are over simplifying things.

It isn't bullshit. It isn't justification. It is classification. If you can see the difference between a zebra and a horse, then you understand this concept. Two similar things that are not identical. A lion might see them both as food, but as humans we define them and classify them as different.

It isn't an easy way out, it isn't bullshit. On the other hand, telling a person that moral objection is meaningless is in fact bullshit. Isn't moral objection the reason why you are pro-life? Do I feel better with my choices because of my morals? Of course I do. However this isn't a question of what comes first, the morals exist prior to the choices, not the other way around.