Yeah, my main thought was...you can get as conservative

deleted

Rock Defender [54]

TigerPulse: 90%

Posts: 35

Joined: 11/30/98

Re: No. Pro-abortion would mean you support abortion

Feb 4, 2019, 4:30 PM

Pro-Choice means that one believe's a woman should have the right to choose what happens to her body.

Pro-Life means you are strictly against any option for a woman to have an abortion, and wholeheartedly support forcing women to carry fetuses to term and undergo the birthing process, often times forcing a women to undergo extreme amounts of pain, suffering, and brutal conditions that are potentially life threatening at worst or possibly resulting in permanent damage to her body at best.

My personal opinion, as someone who was adopted, I tend to lean pro-life. I will always personally advocate for pro-life and adoption over abortion. But, as someone who respects human rights and individual rights above all else, my political choices reside in the pro-choice camp. I dont believe the government, or society, has a right to pass laws which control what people may do with their bodies. I may disagree with their personal choices, and will not advocate for that course of action in my own private life, but I realize I have no business forcing someone else to not do it. The 10th amendment reinforces this, as it bars the federal government from having any jurisdiction in this debate.

That is a core tenet of Adam Smith's Natural Law, the school of philosophy our Constitution was built upon, in which Smith explicitly wrote ""Although I am never allowed to will evil, I am not always bound to prevent the existence of evils in the world at large, since I could not cure them without bringing other evils upon myself or my neighbor, so I may sometimes tolerate evil consequences from my own actions, if to abstain from such actions would bring grave evil on myself or others."

This idea, which came from Natural Law, that we are the rulers of our lives and possessions, became the foundation for the bill of rights. Someone may say evil things, like speak racist things on a street corner, but doing so isnt physically violating your rights. To stop that person from speaking freely, even if it were vile things they were saying, would require you cut out their tongue, lock them away in a hole indefinitely, or kill them. To stop them from speaking evil, you would have to commit greater evil to silence them, eventually you would have to resort to violence to do so.

Like it or not, a woman choosing to get an abortion does not violate your rights, or the rights of the greater individual citizenry. In order to ban abortion, we would have to commit greater evil by passing laws which would force women to subject their bodies to great pain, trauma, or dangerous and potentially fatal medical problems under threat of violence (meaning if they violate the ban on abortion the government would send armed men after said women to imprison them, and resisting would result in more government-sponsored violence leveraged against said women for breaking the "law").

I would agree that a late term abortion, aborting a fetus that is viable with no medical problems or fatal risk presented to the fetus or mother, is wrong and is the exception to what I stated above. I am appalled by the new law in New York and the bill in Virginia, but I do not reside in those states or pay taxes to them, thus I have no right to intervene in their policy decisions. I will simply choose to never live there. But in cases where the fetus is too young to be viable, or medical professionals have determined it is not viable and/or poses great health risks to the mother and fetus, our opinions are irrelevant in lieu of the woman's right to decide what she subjects her body to.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

Totally irrelevant. That is a completely different situation entirely.

You also lack context. For what purpose is an individual killing another? Self defense? Then yes, but that is not "murder".

Blatant homicide, simply to murder someone in cold blood? I already addressed that in my statement above. We do not have a right to violate the rights of another. The right to life is tantamount to the other list of human rights. A living, breathing, biologically autonomous human has the right to exist and defend its life. It can think freely, speak freely, act freely, and live autonomously.

A fetus is a symbiotic state, up to a point. It lives WITHIN the mother. It is symbiotic, not autonomous. It cannot speak freely, think freely, etc. It does not have its own nervous system, endocrine system, etc. The only difference is the point at which it is viable outside the womb. That is the only difference in it being autonomous and symbiotic.

In it's symbiotic state, a fetus is part of the mother. Once it is determined it can be viable outside the womb, at that point you have the argument to preserving it and preventing an abortion, if that is the battle you choose to fight in your state of residence. If you wish to pass laws banning the abortion of viable fetuses, you may do so within your state of residence as the 10th Amendment instructs (a glorified "stay in your lane" Constitutional right). If you live in SC, sure, you have the right to push for that ban in SC, but under the Constitution and Natural Law, it is only permissible to do so if it is determined that the fetus is viable outside the womb. Regardless, you dont have the right to try and influence what Virginia or New York do, and you dont have the right to get the Federal Government to enact a law banning abortion. You can only try and influence what happens in South Carolina, if that is the state in which you reside.

But, until it is determined viable, the mother's right to choose takes precedent and holds supremacy over whatever law you want to propose, as neither you, nor I, nor the government have any right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body, especially when us forcing her to take the actions we want her to take is enforced by government-sponsored violence.

A shoutout to moderate Democrats:

A small and getting smaller group

Well, one thing we got going is no ultra liberal

Re: Well, one thing we got going is no ultra liberal

You haven't gotten a full-on leftist, no

Re: You haven't gotten a full-on leftist, no

I hope you're wrong on both sides.

Or, you could have an “extreme moderate” like Trump***

Can you be pro-choice and against the murder of

"Pro-choice" is a disgusting euphemism.

But it sounds so much nicer

I will never call it anything other than

How do you feel about m a s t u r b a t I o n or the

Re: How do you feel about m a s t u r b a t I o n or the

What color is the number three?

Is potential lives totally unrelated?***

No. Pro-abortion would mean you support abortion

Re: No. Pro-abortion would mean you support abortion

Unfortunately, the child doesn't have much choice

Re: Unfortunately, the child doesn't have much choice

Do you support people having the choice

Re: Do you support people having the choice

Re: Do you support people having the choice

I couldn't care less what the laws or Constitution says.

Re: I couldn't care less what the laws or Constitution says.

I'm not trying to influence anything, anywhere.

Re: I'm not trying to influence anything, anywhere.

Well, like I’ve previously said on here, because of the

i'll get back to you in 2041***

You’d be sittin pretty in 2036.***

Re: A small and getting smaller group

Re: A small and getting smaller group

Just pulled out my copy of “The Little Red Book” ...

TigerBoard POTD