Gallup Poll says majority of Americans identify as pro-life

SWTXBelle · #1 06-09-2009, 02:01 PM

Once more into the breech -

Quote:

Originally Posted by starang21

you're still comparing the two. it's an incorrect and silly example because the underlying circumstances and reasons for either one are completely different. again, your logic is way off. people aren't getting abortions at the same rate or reasons as tattoos or speeding. this comparison is about as valid as tax evasion and jay walking.

Once more - I am contrasting the two. You were the one who phrased it in terms of "doing" something to a woman's body. The CONTRAST is that when a woman decides to get a boob job, she is indeed doing something to her body which does not affect anyone else. When she choses to have an abortion, then she is "doing" something which DOES have an impact on another body. Please do point to where I said anything about the rate or reasons for tattoos or abortion. I didn't - so quit with the red herrings.

it IS a woman's body at the forefront. without the woman's body, that fetus is dead. the text book definition of that is that the fetus is a parasite. it needs another being to live and grow.

There is a difference between arguing that "a woman's body is at the forefront" and that a woman's choice always outweighs any possible rights of the fetus. A parasite? Really? Wow.

sounds pretty good to me.

So you DO believe that the right to abortion should only extend until the point of viability - 24 weeks on? Again, that's a starting point for rational discussion.

DrPhil · #2 06-09-2009, 02:09 PM

I believe starang21 agrees with the restriction of abortion at the 23-24 week mark.

Isn't the political term for late term abortions "partial birth abortion?" That's when the baby is aborted 4 months and beyond; and many consider this to be inappropriate because the baby is viable or almost viable. I only condone 4 month and beyond abortions if the mother and/or baby's lives are in danger.

SWTXBelle · #3 06-09-2009, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrPhil

I believe starang21 agrees with the restriction of abortion at the 23-24 week mark.

Isn't the political term for late term abortions "partial birth abortion?" That's when the baby is aborted 4 months and beyond; and many consider this to be inappropriate because the baby is viable or almost viable. I only condone 4 month and beyond abortions if the mother and/or baby's lives are in danger.

Noted.

I believe "partial birth" is a particular procedure used for late term abortions, but that there are other methods (depending on how late we are talking).

Munchkin03 · #4 06-09-2009, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I believe "partial birth" is a particular procedure used for late term abortions, but that there are other methods (depending on how late we are talking).

Even the use of the term "partial-birth" is a term created for political purposes and doesn't reflect what happens medically; in fact, the term has been used to describe several types of late-term abortion.

SWTXBelle · #5 06-09-2009, 03:04 PM

Okay, "pro-choicers" - are you at all concerned that this shift in thinking (the fact that many more label themselves "pro-life" than in the past) will result in a de facto limitation of access to abortion? If so, what if anything do you think should be done?

starang21 · #6 06-09-2009, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Okay, "pro-choicers" - are you at all concerned that this shift in thinking (the fact that many more label themselves "pro-life" than in the past) will result in a de facto limitation of access to abortion? If so, what if anything do you think should be done?

no. because for the last 10 years, the majority of this "poll" has been pro-choice. this could be a valid "shift" or it could be an aberration and/or faulty sample. i wouldn't get excited over the results of one poll. and no, i wouldn't worry about it even if it was a valid shift, because i'd prefer the woman i'm dealing with to not have an abortion, anyway.

DrPhil · #7 06-09-2009, 03:56 PM

Yes, yes...thanks for amusing me SWTX.

SWTXBelle · #8 06-09-2009, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Yes, yes...thanks for amusing me SWTX.

Oh, apparently it's my raison d'être - or so I've been told.

DrPhil · #9 06-09-2009, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

Even the use of the term "partial-birth" is a term created for political purposes and doesn't reflect what happens medically; in fact, the term has been used to describe several types of late-term abortion.

It is a "pro-life" term.

texas*princess · #10 06-09-2009, 08:45 PM

So is this supposed to be a discussion about the poll or what?

AOII Angel · #11 06-09-2009, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by texas*princess

So is this supposed to be a discussion about the poll or what?

Ah we left that topic a long time ago! Then again, GC threads NEVER wander do they?!

DrPhil · #12 06-09-2009, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Again, that's a starting point for rational discussion.

This is why this is a very strange discourse.

SWTXBelle · #13 06-09-2009, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrPhil

This is why this is a very strange discourse.

Strange? Eh. Maybe. But too often everything is painted in terms of black and white that leave no room for the grey areas - and that's where I want to start. Not "NO ABORTIONS EVER!", nor "ABORTIONS WHENEVER!" but at "This is the point beyond which we can agree to no abortion on demand." (If we introduce the whole life of the mother/rape/incest thing, we'll derail again). Having established a point of agreement, then it's easier (I would hope) to work on things like helping each group work towards eliminating much of the NEED for abortion - something I hope everyone would get behind and support.

eta - and I'm missing the humor in referencing the original point of the thread, and whether or not there is a de facto limitation of abortion access. Ha ha? I've also somehow missed what it is that a fetus/potential human can become other than a human.

DrPhil · #14 06-09-2009, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Strange? Eh. Maybe. But too often everything is painted in terms of black and white that leave no room for the grey areas - and that's where I want to start. Not "NO ABORTIONS EVER!", nor "ABORTIONS WHENEVER!" but at "This is the point beyond which we can agree to no abortion on demand." (If we introduce the whole life of the mother/rape/incest thing, we'll derail again). Having established a point of agreement, then it's easier (I would hope) to work on things like helping each group work towards eliminating much of the NEED for abortion - something I hope everyone would get behind and support.

This discussion is circular now.

While some people believe in a NEVER and a WHENEVER with no exceptions, most people realize that life is much more complex than that. ETA: Even if they won't admit it because they want to present themselves in a particular light.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

eta - and I'm missing the humor in referencing the original point of the thread, and whether or not there is a de facto limitation of abortion access. Ha ha? I've also somehow missed what it is that a fetus/potential human can become other than a human.

I find your attempts to direct the discussion funny.

Yeah, it wasn't fetus, but we discussed what happens if the embryo does not develop into a fetus. Is an embryo also a potential human? When does potential human begin?

Those are rhetoricals.

SWTXBelle · #15 06-09-2009, 02:50 PM

It's not recognizing my message, so here goes -

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrPhil

This discussion is circular now.

While some people believe in a NEVER and a WHENEVER with no exceptions, most people realize that life is much more complex than that.
That was my point, which I've made several times, to no avail. YES of course it is - and that's why trying to paint me into a corner with NEVER, or assuming that those who consider themselves pro-choice are in another corner with WHENEVER is counter productive.

I find your attempts to direct the discussion funny. As the op, I felt I had a right to try and get back to something closer to the original purpose of the thread. I realize there is a certain irony to my doing so due to the fact that the derailing came about to a certain extent because I clarified and tried to defend my beliefs when asked and/or challenged. I certainly didn't intend to become the pro-life poster child. I responded because I hate the fact that often the two most extreme sides are the ones which get media attention, and that as someone who is "pro-life" but not an extremist I am sometimes the only one to explain why the many who think like I do have the opinions we do. Because I was once "pro-choice", I think I am more sympathetic to that whole belief system than some, and can recognize that they are usually not absolutists, but instead are on a spectrum of support for legal abortion. (A point I have tried but fear I have failed to make.)

But I'm glad to have amused you.

Yeah, it wasn't fetus, but we discussed what happens if the embryo does not develop into a fetus. Is an embryo also a potential human? When does potential human begin?

Those are rhetoricals.

eta - just saw your response, MC. Yes, you have - sorry not to have recognized that.

And KSig - "piling on" was used as a bit of hyperbole- see, I need that tongue in cheek smiley again!