Compelling Pro Life Argument

[jimmy eat jazz]

You conveniently left out when I said, "being forced to have sex". That is rape.

rape
noun (1)
\ ˈrāp \
Definition of rape
(Entry 1 of 4)

1: unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against a person's will or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception— compare SEXUAL ASSAULT, STATUTORY RAPE

What constitutes "forced" in your world? If a disempowered woman has sex with her lawful partner, even if she doesn't want to but feels no power to object, is that forced sex, ergo rape? If social/religious norms require that women submit to their husbands, even if they don't want to, is that forced, ergo rape? If a poor, disempowered woman has sex for money, because she is desperate and sees no choice, even if she does not want to, is that forced sex, ergo rape?

Women face any number of circumstances in which they have limited to no ability to exert countervailing power against a partner's demands for sex, are all of these forced sex, ergo rape?

You're not doing anything but continuing to demonstrate that you're incapable of nuanced thinking on this subject displaying for all to see your naivete, lack of insight into the human condition, lack of empathy, and tendency to frame the issue solely within the constraints of your narrow cultural milieu.

 

[LogGrad98]

I agree with most of this, but the science of when life begins is proven:

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

Imo, in the context of this discussion, there is a difference between "viability" and "human life". It is really the core of the discussion among people I know on both sides of this thing. A foetus may be viable and still not considered to be a human being with rights outside of the mother. That is a big part of the argument and really a purely philosophical argument.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Imo, in the context of this discussion, there is a difference between "viability" and "human life". It is really the core of the discussion among people I know on both sides of this thing. A foetus may be viable and still not considered to be a human being with rights outside of the mother. That is a big part of the argument and really a purely philosophical argument.

Indeed. What constitutes "life" is a largely philosophical argument. Science can inform it, but can't determine it, I think.

Even then, if we agree that life begins at X point, does this mean that the woman at point X suddenly loses control over her body and reproduction to the State?

Both sides are hypocritical to a degree on this issue. Conservatives, which usually argue against undue state regulation, have little qualms about the state regulating the most intimate matters for women regarding their personal healthcare. Liberals, which tend to favor state regulation, oppose any form of state regulation on this issue. Conservatives claim to be pro family or pro child, but once the child is born, oppose public policies to nurture and protect them at the state's expense. Liberals support policies to nurture and protect children once they're born, but oppose policies to protect them in the womb, even if viability can be demonstrated.

Surely, there's some common ground, right?

 

[latin jazz]

I am one of those people. I am personally pro-life, and will advocate for such, but I also won't vote for making abortion illegal, at least not as things stand now in this country.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey sets "viability" at 23 weeks as the standard for life (Roe v. Wade was 28 weeks), and there have been babies born that have survived earlier than that standard, as early as 21 weeks.This standard is a logical fallacy IMO. Especially since that same fetus is considered a life if the mother is shot or if the fetus is killed by a drunk driver. I've even heard pro-choice advocates go so far as to say those babies who die due to drunk driving/being shot/etc. should have no rights just to push their pro-choice argument. A fetus is a life with rights tomorrow, but not today, unless it is killed in certain ways by certain people. Let's just call a spade a spade. Our case law allows for the killing of babies at a certain stage to project a mothers rights. I think that devalues human life, and I will argue for the sanctity of life, but I will respect a woman's right to choose, even if the case law that got us there doesn't make a lot of sense to me. There is a lot involved in that choice for the mother, and it is almost never an easy one.

The young man in the video OP posted makes the argument that we are practicing a form of eugenics by allowing abortions, as a disproportionate number of poor people get abortions (I was surprised he didn't mention the black abortion rate which raises a similar argument). However, until we make it easier for this mother's to raise their children by providing them with support or opportunities for their children to thrive, who are we to condemn their choice? Until we provide these women with better education and learning opportunities how can we force them into parenthood (unplanned pregnancy rates are disproportionately higher with uneducated women).

Although I'm pro choice, this is a very solid and thoughtful post. Nice profile pic too

I wish more people would aproach this topic like this

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

As just another observation, IF one believes that unborn children are human and have rights, and if conservatives are so dead set on protecting them, then how is refusing to extend Medicaid or otherwise increasing affordable access to the health care system (including reproductive, pre-natal, and post-natal services) consistent with this goal? Unless, you want to argue that this conflicts with other principles, e.g., fiscal conservatism, limiting state involvement in economic/health system, etc.

However, in making these argument, you are, by implication, asserting that other factors must be considered in deciding whether to extent basic health care protections to the unborn, new born, and post-born to ensure that they are healthy and have an opportunity to thrive. So, IF you want to argue there are competing values/principles at stake, by what basis do you deny the left the same reference to competing values in the abortion debate (e..g, right to life absolute thus trump any concerns about women's reproductive freedom and undue state intrusion)?

You can't have it both ways. If you want to invoke competing values/principles the other side gets to invoke them as well.

 

[Heathme]

As just another observation, IF one believes that unborn children are human and have rights, and if conservatives are so dead set on protecting them, then how is refusing to extend Medicaid or otherwise increasing affordable access to the health care system (including reproductive, pre-natal, and post-natal services) consistent with this goal? Unless, you want to argue that this conflicts with other principles, e.g., fiscal conservatism, limiting state involvement in economic/health system, etc.

However, in making these argument, you are, by implication, asserting that other factors must be considered in deciding whether to extent basic health care protections to the unborn, new born, and post-born to ensure that they are healthy and have an opportunity to thrive. So, IF you want to argue there are competing values/principles at stake, by what basis do you deny the left the same reference to competing values in the abortion debate (e..g, right to life absolute thus trump any concerns about women's reproductive freedom and undue state intrusion)?

You can't have it both ways. If you want to invoke competing values/principles the other side gets to invoke them as well.

I bet conservatives won't let all the newly born babies die if abortions were to go away. What do you think jimmy?

 

[silesian]

Its a great socialistic argument in favor of centralized powerful government making moral decisions for people.

I'm pro life and I'd like to eliminate abortions by taking steps to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Putting women and doctors in jail for abortions seems like it might make some people feel good but I don't think it would be an effective way to stop unwanted pregnancies.

I don't get much response to this from many social conservatives on that, which makes me wonder about their true motivation.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I bet conservatives won't let all the newly born babies die if abortions were to go away. What do you think jimmy?

Is this supposed to be some kind of clever, gotcha question? It's framed like one, but, no offense, you suck at it.

No, I don't imagine they'd let them all die, that is clearly un unrealistic scenario and a dumb question. But, many of them will absolutely be calloused to their fate post-birth and see it as a low priority, as seen, for example, by the right's preference for giving the rich more and bigger tax breaks to ensuring that the poor have affordable access to the healthcare system. One is hard-pressed to conclude that conservatives care that much for the post-born given their opposition to things such as Medicaid expansion, ACA, Head Start, WIC, food stamps, etc., or anything approaching health sector reform that guarantees the poor (or even middle-class without access to good employer provided health care) access to affordable, quality health care.

 

[LogGrad98]

There are an estimated 2 million couples waiting to adopt. Often this covers all expenses from the birth mother. It's weird to me this is seldom part of the discussion in any meaningful way.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Its a great socialistic argument in favor of centralized powerful government making moral decisions for people.

I'm pro life and I'd like to eliminate abortions by taking steps to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Putting women and doctors in jail for abortions seems like it might make some people feel good but I don't think it would be an effective way to stop unwanted pregnancies.

I don't get much response to this from many social conservatives on that, which makes me wonder about their true motivation.

One way the Left could help promote adoptions is to remove objections to religious-based adoption agencies that use religious criteria to place children. My brother adopted 3 children through the LDS Church, which is no longer, I believe, offering this service due in part to this issue. (I could be wrong.) I do believe that laws that encourage women to carry to term and place children in adoption should be promoted.

 

[LogGrad98]

As an adopted child myself I am very pro-adoption.

 

[Heathme]

As an adopted child myself I am very pro-adoption.

As an adopter of my son, I am the same.