Pages

Friday, November 7, 2014

Working it Out: Audience Participation Requested!

Taken from woodleywonderworks
I am a newer writer for Secular Pro-Life. I have been writing blog posts about logical fallacies (and will continue to do so occasionally), but now I’d like to move to another phase of blog posts that I’m really excited to start. I hope to hear perspectives from both sides of the debate, and to foster a respectful dialogue to “work out” some contentious points in the debate.

Some background: I used to be hardcore pro-life. As a Christian teenager, I engaged in blogs and debates on the subject for several hours per day, and I worked for a short period of time for a pro-life organization. I was pretty inflexible in my beliefs on the right to life, as 1) my brain had yet to finish developing, 2) I had never been taught critical-thinking skills, and 3) I had the blissful reassurance of "being right" that is common among fundamentalists. I had it in my mind that the pro-life side could answer any and all objections pro-choicers came up with, and I saw no nuance or gray area in the issue. I was honestly perplexed at how a pro-choicer couldn't read pro-life answers to their objections and not simply be assured that the pro-life side was the way to go!

My opinions on abortion began to change when I left religion and took some Women’s Studies courses. Having a better understanding of how women have been treated in a historical context suddenly brought a cloud of uncertainty regarding the entire issue, and I essentially became very-reluctantly pro-life. Today I would describe myself merely as “reluctantly pro-life”.

I am hoping to hear well-reasoned thoughts in these series of posts from both sides. My hope is to make a statement that is currently what I believe, and to have both sides either confirm or reject my belief, and provide me with reasons and evidence why. On the next post, I will highlight the comments that I found compelling on both sides, and then open up the discussion once more with the new information. 

Please note: while I will do my best to try and read all comments, if you would like to make a point to me directly, please comment with an ORIGINAL comment directly on the post. On our blog in particular, a lot of debate (both fruitful and tedious) occurs, and so if you have a great insight hidden deep into a debate thread I may not see it.

The goals of these posts (besides my selfish desire to have help in fleshing out my reluctant positions and to see if my middle-of-the-road outlook is truly reasonable) is to encourage respectful dialogue between both sides.

Current Statement: scientific information about fetal development does not answer the question of the worth of the fetus.

Reasoning: However a person views the fetus will be based upon their own personal value system. Scientific evidence may inform this view, but it does not dictate the view. Science can answer emphatically certain questions, such as "Is the earth is experiencing severe climate change?” or “Is evolution is a fact based on the evidence?”

So let’s see how this goes! We may have some kinks to work out, but I hope that everyone participating will find these discussions enlightening, helpful, and even fun!



846 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   801 – 846 of 846
secularprolife.org said...

Have you heard of pre-ejaculate? If not, look it up, but it is possible for a man to impregnate a woman without ejaculating at any point during vaginal intercourse.

secularprolife.org said...

That's what I said. DON'T have unprotected vaginal intercourse. The contribution of men toward birth ends at fertilization. The woman still has a hard roe to hoe.

secularprolife.org said...

I'm not saying that paying child support and giving birth are the same, but a man who is forced to pay support for an unwanted child is still being punished for having sex. You say "writing a check" as if child support was no more than writing some numbers and scribbling your name on a piece of paper. Believe it or not, those little pieces of paper can put a serious strain on a person's finances and considerably affect their life. Remember, not all men are doctors and lawyers making several hundred thousands a year. Also, you mention that a man can prevent unwanted children from being born, I suppose you're talking about abstinence? Because abstinence is the only surefire way a man can prevent an unwanted birth. Sure, you could be talking about birth control, but as you know, no birth control is 100% effective.

secularprolife.org said...

I was just pointing out your error in suggesting that ejaculation was a man's only possible contribution to procreation. Sometimes he doesn't even need to do that much.

secularprolife.org said...

I think you know very well what I mean, and are attempting to be argumentative. For that matter, there's artificial insemination. That doesn't change the fact that a man is perfectly capable of preventing a birth. No one ever gets pregnant (for example) from oral sex.

secularprolife.org said...

I don't recommend abstinence. I don't recommend forcing women through pregnancy. Learn the difference.

secularprolife.org said...

Well, to be fair, you corrected my use of "woman" instead of "vagina" in an earlier comment when you knew what I meant. Anyway, I'm not just arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm genuinely trying discuss this topic with you.

So you mention oral sex. That is just as good as saying "don't have sex"! You wouldn't tell a woman with an unplanned pregnancy, "oh well, should've tried oral instead ". We are discussing the consequences of unplanned pregnancy (which, you know, requires vaginal intercourse), not sexual alternatives.

secularprolife.org said...

So, I'm trying to understand whether you think that consent to sex (vaginal intercourse) is consent to support and/or raise a child. From what I gather, you think that the answer is "yes" for men, and "no" for women. I am curious as to why this is. If my assumptions are wrong, please tell me how so.

secularprolife.org said...

But you do recommend forcing a man to pay possibly large amounts of money for having had sex?

secularprolife.org said...

I recommend men and women supporting their born children. Yes, I do. Now if you find a case of any man being forced to pay support for a fetus, I'll stand behind you all the way. That's unfair. Neither men nor women must financially support fetuses.

secularprolife.org said...

Nope. I don't believe that at all. If she aborts, nobody is paying any support, or raising any child. For that reason, if I knew someone wasn't interested in doing that, I would abort.

secularprolife.org said...

Come on dude. You think I wouldn't tell a female with an unwanted pregnancy that she knows how she got that way? Now she has a choice to make. Those choices are birth and parenting, birth and adoption, or abortion. She has to deal with the pregnancy. You don't. You'll never be pregnant. You'll never need an abortion. I do recommend condom use. And vasectomy isn't a dirty word, either. We need Vasalgel here in the USA, and we need it YESTERDAY. It's about time the shoe was on the other foot for a change. Then I want to hear absolutely no whining about either abortion or child support. You'll have no excuses left.

secularprolife.org said...

We're not talking about paying child support for fetuses. We are talking about unwanted born children.

Suppose a woman got pregnant from a one night stand, and admitted that she had absolutely nothing against being pregnant, but just didn't want to be in any way responsible for that child. Even if the father wants to raise the child, she would still be on the hook for child support payments, so she can decline his offer and be free from ever having to so much as pay a cent for the unwanted child by having an abortion. Sure, the father may be upset that he won't get to raise the child, and she has no qualms about being pregnant, so she could have continued the pregnancy and handed the baby over to the father, but like I said, she would still have had to pay child support. She has complete control and can end the whole thing before a child is even born.

A man who unintentionally impregnates a woman with a child he doesn't want is not so lucky. He can ask her to abort, but if she doesn't want to, there is nothing he can do to stop the child from being born. Since he can't decide to physically not be a parent, like a woman can, I believe he should be allowed to legally not be a parent. If we don't force a woman to become a mother just because she is the one who carries the pregnancy, I don't think we should force a man to become a father just because he's the only one who can't stop the pregnancy.

If you believe that a man should be forced to support his child because "too bad, so sad, biology isn't fair" then couldn't I say that a woman should be forced to gestate, birth, and raise/support a child because biology isn't fair?

secularprolife.org said...

I'm very sorry, but a line is crossed when you have a born child on the ground. A man most CERTAINLY CAN decide physically not to be a parent. And you know it. Also, paying child support is not "being a parent." You are trying very hard to equate child support with the burden of pregnancy. I'm sorry, but that just never works. Once a child is born, BOTH parents have to support the child. So things are equal. NO, a man can never force either an abortion or childbirth. Men do not own the bodies of women, period. It sort of sounds like you think they should. That is NOT going to happen. It didn't happen when abortion was illegal, and it isn't going to happen now. Don't like it? Don't have one-night stands, or use protection, first time and every time. As a woman, I can tell you I would never take some man's word for it that he's "sterile." As a man, you should never be that stupid either. I'll tell you, Vasalgel cannot get here fast enough! That will end these silly arguments once and for all. You have a child and you aren't in a relationship? That's ON YOU! Deal with it. I think you men are just angry that you can't claim "It ain't mine! All my buddies had her too!" anymore with the advent of DNA testing.

secularprolife.org said...

You really keep dancing around my questions and what I'm addressing. So, I would appreciate if you could try to address what I have actually said, instead of making assumptions, and I will do the same. By the way, I am not a man, I'm a woman, and no, I absolutely do not think that a man should own a woman's body.

You keep saying that a man can decide not to be a parent. You said in an earlier post that he can do this by choosing to not have unprotected sex (for the sake of this argument, we can pretend that condoms are 100% effective). So that means that you think that once he makes the mistake of having unprotected sex, he should be responsible for any children that result from that sex, even if he doesn't want them right? So, I ask, why don't you hold women to the same expectations? Assuming she's not opposed to the physical state of being pregnant, and just doesn't want the resulting child, why shouldn't she be forced to to take her punishment for the unprotected sex just like a man would have to? If she can opt out just because she doesn't want a child, why can't he?

I think that if you want to be consistent, you either have to agree that a woman should be forced to gestate and the man be forced to at least pay support, or you can allow a woman to decide during the pregnancy that she doesn't want a child (abortion), but then have to also allow a man to decide that he doesn't want a child (signing away his responsibilities).

It's clear that you aren't being consistent, but you at least need to have a better reason for punishing only the man for sex than "the child has a right to support from both parents" and "if the father doesn't support it, the taxpayers will have to". Why does a child have right to support from a parent that never agreed to support it? Why should the man be forced into parenthood just because the mother made a choice to give birth to a baby she couldn't afford without government assistance?

secularprolife.org said...

Just wanted to add: I am only equating childbearing and support in the way that they are both burdens on unwilling parents. I am not saying that they are similar in any other way.

secularprolife.org said...

Because I have been down this road. I was married to a man who swore up and down he wanted the baby, and talked me out of aborting. Well, as soon as sleeping with me was no longer part of the deal, then he didn't want to be a father. Child support isn't "punishment." Do you actually believe the bile you spew? A real man not only wants to support his child, he wants to be an active part of the child's life. This is not the same as not wanting to go through pregnancy and birth. Child support never maims or kills. Let's get real. You are making an equation between the ability to abort, and the responsibility to a born child. A fetus doesn't HAVE financial needs. His choices are paying support, or taking custody himself, or signing off his parental rights and responsibilities to another through adoption. The only option *she* has that he doesn't is the option to abort. This is NOT discrimination. She is the only one who can abort because she's the only one who's pregnant. And as I already said, fetuses do not have financial needs. I don't think you're ever going to get taxpayers to agree to your plan. They'd rather the people who brought the child into the world support it, so long as both are able-bodied. Listen up, because this is the truth. Being stupid often comes with a stiff price tag. That's the case for both men and women who don't deal as adults do with other adults.

secularprolife.org said...

Back up. You keep talking about abortion as if women only or usually get them just because they can't bear the physical effects of pregnancy. This is not always or even usually the case. Most women get abortions because they do not, for whatever reason, want the end product: the born child.

REAL MAN, you say? A real man (whatever the F that means) should want whatever the hell he actually wants, and not what you think he should want.
You would never DARE tell a woman that to be a REAL woman she should want to spend time with the unwanted result of her night of sex, would you? "Suck it up buttercup, I know you want to abort so you don't have to raise a child when you're not ready, but a real woman should want to raise it anyway."

Yes, child support IS punishment (negative consequence, whatever you want to call it) when it is being paid for a child that you never wanted, just like it would be punishment to make a woman raise or support a child she didn't want. You keep acting like money is free, and paying child support is always easy breezy. Some men even end up in JAIL because they couldn't afford to pay. Unless he previously agreed to be a father, even if the man CAN afford to pay, it doesn't mean he should have to. I could probably afford to flush a 5 dollar bill down the toilet every week, but it doesn't mean I wouldn't rather keep it for myself.

secularprolife.org said...

If it was simply a matter of "dont want the kid" and pregnancy and birth were a breeze, then surely all these women would just go the adoption route, no? I mean, that would seem logical to me, if pregnancy were the equivalent of passing gas.

secularprolife.org said...

night porter, seeing you on here as much as I do, and knowing that you support a woman's right to abortion, I am almost certain that you know that simply not wanting to gestate is not, usually (or at the very least, always) the reason women give for wanting an abortion. I'm sure you've seen women say, that they wanted an abortion because they simply couldn't bear to give their baby up and not know what his future would hold.

secularprolife.org said...

Yet none of that changes the fact that pregnancy is still, objectively, not a state of health.

And don't kid yourself, if they already have children, they are definitely not handwaving away birth, even if they don't say so on these particular questionnaires. Very few women enjoy the physical effects of pregnancy.

secularprolife.org said...

Well, now you're just lying out your teeth. If women didn't object to pregnancy they would stay pregnant. So that's a big fail. And you are STILL trying to equate caring for a born child with a pregnancy. STOP DOING THAT. You lose all credibility. Women cannot be forced to care for children and neither can men. Abortion and non-support are NOT the same thing!

secularprolife.org said...

LIKE I SAID many times, (let me make it very f'ing clear, and please quote me) I DO NOT think that abortion and choosing to not support a child are the same thing . I don't think that the act of raising a child and supporting them monetarily are the same thing. What you obviously don't understand is that I'm saying that forcing a woman to bear a child that she doesn't want and forcing a man to financially support a child that he doesn't want are both ways of "punishing" each of them for sex that they had in which they did not intend to procreate. Do you understand now? If you think that the only reason that a woman should be allowed to abort is because she just objects to the physical state of being pregnant and not for any other reason, say so now, and at least you'd be consistent. Simply put, you believe that a woman should not be enslaved just because the act of vaginal intercourse in which she participated resulted in conception, but you think it's fine and dandy for a man to be enslaved for the very same act. There is no mistaking that. You've made it very clear. I know you don't need my pity, but it's obvious that your opinion is colored by the experiences you have had with one of your children's father, and I am sorry that he didn't stick to his promise to be there for your child, but that is no reason to force fatherhood on men that never agreed to be there. By the way, I have been pregnant, very much unplanned, as a teenager, and despite what pregnancy threw at me and how fucking terrified I was, I found it a hell of a lot easier than raising and financially supporting a child all these years. Don't kid yourself by thinking giving birth makes you a fucking saint, because it doesn't.

secularprolife.org said...

It doesn't matter if it is a state of health or not, not wanting to be pregnant is still not the reason that all women have for wanting an abortion, and I know this personally. There is a point in my past, when I had already been through a pregnancy that, if I had gotten pregnant with the person I was having sex with at the time, I would have considered abortion. Not because I disliked being pregnant (like I said, I had already been pregnant, and would have been willing to bear it again for a wanted child), but because I was still in love with the father of my child , I wanted all of my children to have the same father, and even if I didn't have to raise or financially support it, I wouldn't have wanted a gentetic combination of me and this other guy to even exist.

secularprolife.org said...

Irrelevant what they give as their "reason". It still isn't a state of health, period.

secularprolife.org said...

It doesn't have to be inherently deadly, the point is, it isn't a risk free condition.

secularprolife.org said...

Of course not. I can't think of many things that are risk free, and I'm certainly not saying pregnancy is. My only point to you was that, sometimes, the reason that women have abortions has nothing to do with simply not wanting to be pregnant. Some women have no objection to pregnancy itself, but rather abort for other reasons.

secularprolife.org said...

" I say that a fetus is different from a born baby. And common sense says that even if they will one day all be born human beings, they are in different stages and are not the same. "

Some of that science you talk about? "I say" and "common sense"? Sounds pretty irrefutable.

secularprolife.org said...

Ad hominem

secularprolife.org said...

I say you have a choice, you can save innocent born babies, children and adults or you can let them die and save a fetus instead. Your choice is to let innocent babies die. I say common sense says one should not murder babies to save fetuses.

Is that what I say that bothers you?

secularprolife.org said...

You're the one that supports killing about 1 million human beings a year in this country. sad

secularprolife.org said...

What politicians are advocating to change the law or add new laws prosecute pro-lifers for murdering babies just because they are pro-life? Certainly there has to be a liberal out there on your side and is trying to change the law...

secularprolife.org said...

It is a grass roots movement. No person I know of wants to prosecute pro lifers. We just want you to stop murdering babies.

secularprolife.org said...

You have a choice to save babies or to murder them. I just want you to stop murdering babies. Will you do that for me?

secularprolife.org said...

A 'grass roots movement' of one? lol

secularprolife.org said...

I'm not murdering anyone. I'm not supporting the killing of unborn children either. You shouldn't support the killing of unborn children either.

secularprolife.org said...

Since your definition of 'human beings' has a bar so low, that there is no inherent value whatsoever to that status, no, I've no 'objection' to it.


If you want to raise the bar of what it means to be a 'human being', then I would have numerous objections. However, then your precious widdle zef would not qualify.


I'm not going to play your equivocation fallacy games, and let you assign 'rights' to 'human beings' based on a mental definition of that word, then switch over to a biological definition of that word so you can sneak the precious zef through, and allow you to retain the rights granted under the OTHER definition.

secularprolife.org said...

So you do support the killing of about 1 million unborn children a year. so sad.

secularprolife.org said...

Let this sink in. There are innocent babies being raped and murdered. You ---could--- make the choice each day to stop them from being raped, abused and then raped and abused and then raped and abused again, again and again. If pro lifers had been paying attention to the little boys at the alter that were sexually abused, instead of listening to the priest BS'ing about abortion, then the priests would have been prosecuted instead of promoted. If you had looked into the face of the girls at your church that were raped by the "youth minister" instead of listening to his "pro life" sermon, there would be less unmarried girls carrying around the babies of youth ministers.
You are the whole problem today. You have the choice to save innocent babies and you make the intentional choice to let them die. You are a murderer, your friends are rapists and your ministers are the fathers of the unborn babies that you force to be born. You are all insane.

secularprolife.org said...

A grass roots movement with 42000 likes on one page and tens of thousands of other likes.

secularprolife.org said...

So, because some alter boys were raped, abortion is OK? your 'logic' stinks and makes absolutely NO SENSE. I didn't know the rapes were going on. It wasn't my fault. I don't know who is planning on killing their born children. I donate time and money to help families so that families aren't stressed. But just because I spend some time trying to save the lives of unborn children doesn't mean I'm letting born children die or supporting their death. The lives of ALL innocent human beings matter - born and unborn.

secularprolife.org said...

Just because someone likes your page doesn't mean they agree with all of your ideas.... Have you started a petition to support prosecuting pro-lifers? if so, how many people signed your petition.


p.s. way more people than that are against abortion after 12 weeks - over 1/2 the people in this country.

secularprolife.org said...

"But just because I spend some time trying to save the lives of unborn children doesn't mean I'm letting born children die or supporting their death."

Well, no, you are wrong. It DOES mean that you choose the life of a fetus over the life of an innocent baby. You do in fact cause the death of babies. The fact is that the zef you attempt to save will die 70 percent of the time. So you will save no zef and a baby will die most of the time. In that case you are responsible for both deaths.

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah, sure, they like my page because they don't agree. And I guess with that logic when they say they are against abortion at 12 weeks it means they are for abortion after 12 weeks. I think I get your point. Its nuts.

secularprolife.org said...

Nope, no scientific proof. Made up twisting of numbers in a lame attempt to justify the killing of unborn human beings.


Yea, you go try to petition the government to show women at abortion centers that they are doing a good thing by killing their unborn child because somewhere a newborn baby has just been saved. You'll be laughed out of whatever government building you go into.

secularprolife.org said...

"Nope, no scientific proof."

The scientific proof is that you murder innocent babies and you are welcome to come up with a valid defense. This post of yours is not one.

"Made up twisting of numbers in a lame attempt to justify the killing of unborn human beings."

The proof is that you are letting millions of born babies die and instead helping fetuses. Any second you spend saving a fetus is a second you don't spend saving a baby. You are a murderer of babies. You choose to let babies die.

"Yea, you go try to petition the government to show women at abortion centers that they are doing a good thing by killing their unborn child because somewhere a newborn baby has just been saved."

The proof is that before Roe there was a decrease of millions of babies. And after Roe there was an increase of millions of babies. You are responsible for all those lost babies. You are scientifically proved to be a murderer of innocent life.

" You'll be laughed out of whatever government building you go into."

Most people support what I say and my laws. I have thousands of likes and only a few murderers dislike what I say. There has been no pro lifer, scientist or government official that has disproved what I say. That means that most people consider you a murderer.

«Oldest ‹Older   801 – 846 of 846   Newer› Newest»