Gallup Poll says majority of Americans identify as pro-life - Page 3

AOII Angel · #1 06-09-2009, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

TWICE you didn't bother to read the insert in your birth control and/or in the antibiotics you were given in order to know any drug interactions? TWICE in one year (when you were 17)? Really? And you are a biology major?

For the record, you could have both gone to whatever college you wanted (maybe not when you had hoped to, but you could have) and joined a sorority had you chosen to give the babies up for adoption. One of my chapter sisters did just that - and one consideration in giving her a bid was the character she showed as a scared 17 year old.

Defining being human as having " reached the point of consciousness, or found the ability to feel pain" means that there are a great many people in comas you don't regard as human - and what of those who are born with the rare inability to register pain? Are they not human?

As to improving the lives of those around me - that's exactly what I do by supporting agencies that provide support for scared 17 year olds. I've referenced the Edna Gladney Center above. Women there can attend high school AND college, have counseling and medical care, and are able to both improve their lives and give life to their babies, and those who give them up for adoption contribute to improving the lives of infertile couples.

Just remember that every person is different and every town does not have a Edna Gladney Center. You're community is lucky to have that option, but it isn't available to everyone.

SWTXBelle · #2 06-09-2009, 08:47 AM

AOIIAngel - the unborn do have federal rights - see the above link to information on the Violence against Unborn act . . .

As to restraints - the laws should be enforced.

Pearlove · #3 06-09-2009, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

TWICE you didn't bother to read the insert in your birth control and/or in the antibiotics you were given in order to know any drug interactions? TWICE in one year (when you were 17)? Really? And you are a biology major?
* I read the label both times, no mention was made. As a biology major and med school attendee, I always read the label very carefully. Also, I never said it was twice in one year, the first time I was 17.

"For the record, you could have both gone to whatever college you wanted (maybe not when you had hoped to, but you could have) and joined a sorority had you chosen to give the babies up for adoption. One of my chapter sisters did just that - and one consideration in giving her a bid was the character she showed as a scared 17 year old."
I would not have been able to get into my choice college, as I would not have been able to finish high school, my high school does not allow for pregnant teens to attend. I would have had to wait and get my GRE. Also, to imply that I have less character than the girl who chose to keep her baby highlights your ignorance of this issue. This isn't an issue of character, I am fimly pro-choice and believe that my decision shows as much 'character as anyone else'.

"Defining being human as having " reached the point of consciousness, or found the ability to feel pain" means that there are a great many people in comas you don't regard as human - and what of those who are born with the rare inability to register pain? Are they not human? "
They have consciousness. That is what makes us human, I'm sorry if I may have confused you but the feeling pain part was a side note.

As to improving the lives of those around me - that's exactly what I do by supporting agencies that provide support for scared 17 year olds. I've referenced the Edna Gladney Center above. Women there can attend high school AND college, have counseling and medical care, and are able to both improve their lives and give life to their babies, and those who give them up for adoption contribute to improving the lives of infertile couples.

eta - I want to be clear that while I think you made an unfortunate choice (well, two), I am sympathetic to the plight of ANY woman who finds herself in that situation. I have 4 children - 3 of whom were "unplanned". I know what it is to feel the panic and fear of having your life turned upside down. Baby #2 came in the midst of our unemployment - no insurance, no real income - yikes! Baby #4 came a mere 15 months after baby #3 - and I was 38 at the time. But out of fear and panic can come opportunity, and often the things we fear most turn out to be blessings in disguise.

That's great that you actively support those around you, and I'm glad that you are happy with your decision. However, that does not give you the right to tell me that my decision was not right for me.

SWTXBelle · #4 06-09-2009, 02:30 PM

Oh drat. I didn't get the memo about losing the right to free speech. I really should try and make those constitutional meetings . . .

DrPhil · #5 06-09-2009, 02:39 PM

As I said when this thread first began, it was a peaceful discourse because it was a surface level discourse about a poll. The tone changed when depth was added to the discourse.

AOII Angel · #6 06-09-2009, 03:42 PM

I think the problem with the "human" or "potential human" debate is that people are using two definitions of what is "human." If you mean a "human" as in the species, then yes, a fetus is a human and can only become a human. If, however, you mean that a fetus is human because it has the traits one associates with "humanity," i.e. a more esoteric definition, then "potential human" is accurate. In the end, whether or not the fetus is part of the human species does not change the fact that it cannot survive outside the mother before the point of viability (and even then is just a parasite of a ventilator until 28-29 weeks.)

DrPhil · #7 06-09-2009, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

I think the problem with the "human" or "potential human" debate is that people are using two definitions of what is "human." If you mean a "human" as in the species, then yes, a fetus is a human and can only become a human. If, however, you mean that a fetus is human because it has the traits one associates with "humanity," i.e. a more esoteric definition, then "potential human" is accurate. In the end, whether or not the fetus is part of the human species does not change the fact that it cannot survive outside the mother before the point of viability (and even then is just a parasite of a ventilator until 28-29 weeks.)

I agree.

KSig RC · #8 06-09-2009, 03:52 PM

Also, polling on this issue is notoriously shitty - in one classic survey, 54% of the population noted they were "pro-life" while 60% said they were against limiting first-trimester abortions. The lobbying terminology (the equally-douchey "pro-life" and "pro-choice") serve to confuse the issue, as well.

I wouldn't consider this at all a solid indicator of overall views, nor the population's leaning, nor would I even begin to consider it as a basis for current abortion policies.