ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
Up till now I've used the term 'pro-life'....(88 Posts)
Usually in quotes...but even so...
Clearly enough in the light of the tragic case in Galway, this is an oxymoron.
I want a more accurate term - should it be 'anti-choice' or is there something better I should use?
* OneMoreChap Tue 20-Nov-12 16:28:32
Always astonishes me how many pro-lifers (particularly in the US) are also pro death penalty....*
To me, there is a world of difference in an innocent baby who has done no harm to anyone and hasn't even had a chance at living, and a brutal, sadistic killer who has caused untold devastation to families and people's lovedones.
But they are both human lives.
Which is what the pro-forced-birthers are pretending they're all about.
I use the term "forced birther" for the reasons stated above.
What annoys me about the abortion debate, is that we're always stuck trying to defend abortion rights, when I really I think the bigger fight would be to give women much better services to reduce unwanted pregnancies, abortion is necessary, but it would great if fewer women had to have one. Likewise, I believe in subsidised childcare, etc so women have a true choice.
I'm furious at the upswing in forced birther fuckery. I drove past a clinic the other day and there were swarms of them outside
I've always said I'm both. I do believe in life from conception and that affects my choices for contraception (complicated when you add in that I have thrombophilia) but I believe that it's an answer that no one can definitively give which makes it a moral decision - I do think there comes a point when if the baby would survive outside it's different, so I do think there needs to be a cut off, unless it's for not compatible with life. Even amongst Christians there are those who believe that life begins at 50-something days because of a particular Bible verse. Because I see it as a moral decision I don't believe it is anyone's place to dictate to anyone else.
For myself I have taken MAP following an assault which was with the support of my pastor and church counsellor (in fact I was asked why I was bothering to ask them, just get on and take it! The counsellor put it a lot politer than our pastor and told him off). I'm not sure whether I would put my life at risk, I guess that would totally depend on the situation and whether I could get to a decent gestation - particularly as I don't do term anyway - the current case is a no brainer to me. I wouldn't for disability. I once read someone say that they knew at some point they would have to remove their child's life support, making their body the life support they removed seemed much kinder to the child - I can understand that.
Of course if abortion choice was removed we'd end up back with knitting needles and horrible concoctions.
SethStarkadder, paedophiles are people who are attracted to children, not necessarily people who abuse children, so there is certainly a distinction. Most of them actually spend their time trying not to go there, so I think it is important to make the distinction. A person can be either one without the other or can be both.
GrimmaTheNome, back in the good ol' days when women had to be fertile, miscarriage was not a good thing and of course if you were to have more than one the chances are you will keep having them and they had no way to prevent them (which reminds me, where's my needle...)
>Because I see it as a moral decision I don't believe it is anyone's place to dictate to anyone else.
Yes, exactly. (I think the same applies to euthanasia/assisted suicide)
There are a million things that aren't right and wrong, just moral. As a Christian I don't believe other religions are right, but that's my morals, they have a right to their own morals and following them as their morals dictate. If I wish freewill then I have to accept it for others too - sadly that means a lot of bad things in the world but if I allowed freewill to be taken away from other people I'd have to be prepared for mine to go too.
There comes a point though, at which laws have to be written - civilized society demands that a psychopath is not allowed to exercise freewill by his moral code. The knotty issues are those where society at large doesn't have a clear consensus and there are competing genuine ethical questions. The introduction of religious reasoning into such cases is usually a large part of the problem in resolving them.
That's different though, it is a clear right or wrong. I'm not saying laws shouldn't be written against freewill, just the whole "why is there bad in the world" thing, it's there because we all have the same freewill to choose, just some people don't choose well. Morals are when there's no clear right and wrong answer. There's no clear right and wrong answer on when life starts, on which is the right faith, decisions within a faith (why you get denominations and extremists), assisted suicide. On another thread the morality of keeping an engagement ring is in debate!
For myself I believe that life is from conception and I'm confident in my faith but believe trying to force others to live by it is as useful as telling them Father Christmas won't bring their presents if they're naughty. I believe preventing same sex marriage is no different than preventing a couple from a different faith from getting married in front of their god. I believe if you don't believe in something then don't do it - if God doesn't like it, He will deal with it but he's not best pleased with all your actions either. As a Christian my beliefs are probably quite strong on rights and wrongs, difference is I accept them as mine. But again, all of this is about living within the law.
I believe preventing same sex marriage is no different than preventing a couple from a different faith from getting married in front of their god.
Can I fairly politely suggest that if you don't want a same sex-marriage, don't have one. Like I'd say if you don't want an abortion, don't have one.
I'd be very grateful if people with imaginary friends kept their neb out of other people's morals, and lived according to their own holy texts. Which most don't.
Wow, you just agreed with me. Thanks.
hate phrase prolife,no one is anti life.
the antiabortion lobby dont have moral high ground on valuing life
i value life and i value a woman right to chose her life path and how to control contraception
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
I thought I was agreeing with her - as in personal choice for each individual ( e.g. If you don't like women priests, don't go to their services - don't try and stop the rest of the congregation. When I was a churchgoer I opposed women clergy... Until I saw who else did. Then became pro, then became atheist FWIW)
Join the discussion
Please login first.