On abortion and self-defense.

[Tucker]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x197785

gorfle  (1000+ posts)      Thu Jan-15-09 04:12 PM
Original message
On abortion and self-defense.
 I am both pro-choice and pro-firearm.

Why is it that so many people who have no problem with personal decisions to terminate an unborn baby have a problem with people's personal decisions to terminate other people in self-defense?

 

gorfle  (1000+ posts)      Thu Jan-15-09 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Weighing humanity vs. innocence.
 Even if I grant you that an unborn fetus is not a person (which I do not believe, by the way), what you are saying is that the balance of being a person outweighs the balance of not being a person.

But what about also weighing the innocence factor? The unborn fetus is completely innocent of any wrong-doing to merit termination. The criminal assailant, on the other hand, is guilty of trying to commit an act of violence against someone, and thus is about as far from innocent as you can get. So on the whole, what weighs more? Humanity or innocence?

I have never bought into the "it's not a person until its born" logic, because there is a point for all babies where they are completely viable on their own if they were removed from the uterus at that point. But this point is vague, and changes all the time thanks to medical technology. Because there is no firm "line in the sand" where one can say, "Beyond X weeks this is a life", to me, there are only two definitive lines that can be drawn. Either birth, which I have already discounted for reasons above, or conception. Thus I say that life begins at conception, and that terminations of pregnancies are, in fact, terminations of life. Note that I am still pro-choice, though now, being a father, I could never see myself making that choice as I thought I could when I was single.
 

Wow. Just Wow.

fingrpik (509 posts)        Thu Jan-15-09 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Having Witnessed Both Births And Deaths,
 It is obvious to me that the soul enters the body when the first breath is taken, and that the body becomes just a piece of meat when the last breath is exhaled. "Life" may begin at conception, but those multiplying cells comprise only the potential for becoming a human being. I think we inherently know this to be true; otherwise we would hold funerals every time a woman suffers a miscarriage. While even the termination of a "potential" human life is tragic, it can not be compared to the tragedy of terminating the life of a human being.

But back to the OP, I think a more interesting phenomenon is that, in my experience at least, the vast majority of people who proclaim themselves "Pro-Life" are also pro-death penalty and pro-war. I have the utmost respect for anyone who is truly "pro-life", but these hypocrites are merely anti-abortion, not pro-life.

Armorypk

gorfle  (1000+ posts)      Fri Jan-16-09 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #8
18. I agree and disagree.
 It is obvious to me that the soul enters the body when the first breath is taken, and that the body becomes just a piece of meat when the last breath is exhaled. "Life" may begin at conception, but those multiplying cells comprise only the potential for becoming a human being.

The problem here is the potential is constantly changing from conception to birth. At conception, the potential is low, just before birth the potential is great. There is some point at which the potential of the unborn is not much different than the potential of the just-born. Because this line cannot be readily defined, to me the safest place to place the line is again at conception.

I think we inherently know this to be true; otherwise we would hold funerals every time a woman suffers a miscarriage.

And people do just that depending on the stage of the pregnancy.

While even the termination of a "potential" human life is tragic, it can not be compared to the tragedy of terminating the life of a human being.

I don't know. Again it comes back to weighing innocence as part of the judgment. The violent criminal may be imminently more viable than a fetus, but does this make him imminently more valuable simply because he is more viable? I don't think so.

But back to the OP, I think a more interesting phenomenon is that, in my experience at least, the vast majority of people who proclaim themselves "Pro-Life" are also pro-death penalty and pro-war. I have the utmost respect for anyone who is truly "pro-life", but these hypocrites are merely anti-abortion, not pro-life.

I agree with you, but I can understand their position. To them, all are equally alive, but some lives, such as the lives of the innocent, are worth defending while others are not, such as convicted murderers.

To me the greater hypocrisy is the fact that most pro-lifers seem hell-bent to save the fetus but want no part in supporting the mother once the child is born. They are willing to save the child from death but not from poverty. That is hypocrisy.
"We are coming out of an 8 year period of stunningly bad government. I mean bad in every way--corrupt, malicious, incompetent, dishonest, and deeply, deeply stupid." - Plaid Adder

Scout  (1000+ posts)      Fri Jan-16-09 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #6
17. "innocence" and "guilt" have nothing to do with abortion n/t

gorfle  (1000+ posts)      Fri Jan-16-09 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. But they do in my context.
 I'm comparing abortion to killing someone in self-defense, and what makes one entity acceptable to terminate while the other is not.

There are people on this forum who are adamantly pro-choice but just as adamantly anti-self-defense, or at least anti-lethal-self-defense.

You have stated that the primary difference is location - one is inside a uterus and the other is not. I don't regard this as a valid metric for gauging the value of an entity.

At a minimum, the relative innocence or guilt ought to count for something.
 

iverglas  (1000+ posts)      Fri Jan-16-09 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #28
37. and, of course,
 
if there was an ACTUAL PERSON in my uterus ...

... if there were faeries at the bottom of my garden, and if wishes were horses, and if pigs could fly ...

And the 2nd DUmbest person in the internet kicks in.

This one's burning.

[MrsSmith]

I wonder if these "people" have looked at any of the medical literature on the unborn?  We now know that they dream, suck their thumbs, and can feel pain at a very early stage of development.  But it's "obvious" that the soul doesn't enter until the first breath?  It's far more obvious that most of these "people" have so abused their own souls as to have small, black smears instead of the shining image of God within.

[DumbAss Tanker]

A few surprinsingly thoughtful points in there, for DUers.  In my entirely-empirical experience, at some point the unborn have cognition and even personality.  I don't buy the "Soul enters at the first breath" bilge, that's just a product of mixing their unfounded pseudo-science with their mysticism. 

[The Village Idiot]

I want to know what the 'potential' to become human means? What is the chance that it will not be a human??? These people know that childbearing is a natural process and not a disease... right?

right?

Bueller?

[Airwolf]

They don't care about the innocent but yet the guilty have far more rights then we do? The ****ing level of stupid there at DU could power the planet for years.

[DumbAss Tanker]

I want to know what the 'potential' to become human means? What is the chance that it will not be a human??? These people know that childbearing is a natural process and not a disease... right?

right?

Bueller?

Are those crickets I'm hearing...?

[thundley4]

They don't care about the innocent but yet the guilty have far more rights then we do? The ****ing level of stupid there at DU could power the planet for years.

That is obvious, since pro-abortionists always try and bring up the death penalty argument.  I don't need to be called a pro-lifer, that is a name the left gave out to go along with their pro-life name that they adopted.  They didn't like being called pro-abortion, because it defines them too well.  Call me anti-abortion, not pro-life, because I have no problem with the death penalty being meted out to those found deserving of it.  I have a problem with the taking of an innocent life just for the convenience of the mother.

[rich_t]

I am not pro-life.  I am anti-abortion.

[Airwolf]

That is obvious, since pro-abortionists always try and bring up the death penalty argument.  I don't need to be called a pro-lifer, that is a name the left gave out to go along with their pro-life name that they adopted.  They didn't like being called pro-abortion, because it defines them too well.  Call me anti-abortion, not pro-life, because I have no problem with the death penalty being meted out to those found deserving of it.  I have a problem with the taking of an innocent life just for the convenience of the mother.

Right. Besides an unborn child hasn't had the chance to commit a crime or even sin let alone grow up to learn the reasons of why its wrong to commit both . The unborn are being punished for no reason then its inconvenient to the s o called mother.

[MrsSmith]

Right. Besides an unborn child hasn't had the chance to commit a crime or even sin let alone grow up to learn the reasons of why its wrong to commit both . The unborn are being punished for no reason then its inconvenient to the s o called mother.

The abortion doesn't stop the woman from being a mother...it merely makes her the mother of a dead baby.

[thundley4]

The abortion doesn't stop the woman from being a mother...it merely makes her the mother of a dead baby.

Nope, I have to disagree. It makes her the previous biological host/donor to a murdered baby.