On Being Both "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice"

This is one of those topics that I rarely get involved with for the simple fact that I am "depends on the circumstances and person". It is hard to have conversations of such standings with politically/religiously involved people.

I also have other opinions in regards to the right to choose for the man. It is in the realm of accepting personal responisibilty. I disagree with you on you not being qualified, if a male and female choose to play without protection and a pregnancy occurs, I feel that the man and woman should have to sign on the dotted line. (except in rape, incest or other non-consenting, medically dangerous situations)It may be her body, but the responisibility to maintain her body should not be after conception, but before.

I bet there are a lot of men out there who would be more than happy to raise their child out of wedlock, as a single parent. Where are their right to accept responsibility for their actions? Don't men have a right to choose?

Who knows, if this type of decision has to be mutual, maybe both male and female will realize sex is not just a past-time, but a true commitment to another human being.

I am a controversy.
MJ

Now you got me going...

I also feel that if an unmarried female chooses to have a child without the consent of the male, she should NOT be entitled to child support. The "Against religious belief" excuse for birth control or abortion is not acceptable after pre-marital sex.

Todays society is so sexually focused that women lie. "Yeah, I'm on birth control." When they really are not. If women want to play they need to be held accountable for their actions as well as the man. Some men just get so screwed because of greedy, lazy women.

I am a controversy.
MJ

....whether abortion is 'right' or 'wrong' - who's to say?

All I know is that up to a certain point foetuses can be considered to be parasites (oh gawd, the blasphemy! >_< ) in that they display all the functions and mannerisms of such. After that certain point, they could be considered symbiotic (in that both parties benefit).

I think a person is considered such at that point when they are able to survive outside of the womb on their own, with no help from the mother/host.

But then you have the point in time when the foetus develops nerve endings, thus developing a sense of pleasure and/or pain.....which is, I guess, why they don't allow abortions after a certain length of pregnancy.

i.e. illegal to get without a doctor-approved need for them.

---Uncle MythMan (http://www.geocities.com/jmythh2k5) & the Xombies Help You with Money, Love, God etc. Use Your Evolved Mind & GET PAID BY SAVING THE DIALOG STARTERS!

Good call.

Unless we are discussing the Second Coming, a woman cannot get pregnant without a sperm donor. On the other side of what you mentioned about men getting screwed, I believe that a woman who gets pregnant and signs up for welfare should be required to name the father of the child and he should be charged for her welfare as child support. Maybe that will keep the fatherless rates down in certain inner cities that create an illegitimacy rate of over 70% for certain ethnicities. The idea that a woman can have three or more children by different fathers, out-of-wedlock, and the taxpayer be fully responsible for raising the children is beyond absurd.

I understand that there are certain situations where the mother would not want the father involved, but that shouldn't be used as an excuse for unaccountable promiscuity.

JOIN XOMBA IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD!

What I find difficult to support from the side of "pro-life" is the idea that the government or any organized religious group should be able to tell me or any other "free" citizen what they can or cannot do with their own body. If someone wants to smoke, I don't have a problem with it just so long as I don't have to breathe the smoke. If someone wants to drink, I don't have a problem with it, either, just so long as I don't have to listen to drunken caterwauling at 3am or worry about getting in a DUI-caused car collision. If someone wants to do recreational drugs on their own time, I don't have a problem with it as long as it is in the privacy of their own home and their performance in public and/or at a job is not affected.

The real crux of the abortion debate is whether we believe that free citizens have a fundamental right to control our own bodies. I find it ironic that a specific religious group that complains so loudly that the "heathens" are infringing on their religious freedoms are the first ones to demand that the same government infringe upon the rights of others.

JOIN XOMBA IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD!

There was a time in my life that I was on welfare. I had to give the name of my children's father and the welfare department started a case with the DA for child support. Granted, they screwed up the paperwork and it took over a year, it was accomplished and his pay was garnished.

The problem sometimes is that the father knows his wages will be garnished, therefore he changes jobs every three months (that is how long it takes for the authorities to track your employment down) or they work "under-the-table".

Child birth, child support and men's rights of non-consensual conception, (they consent to sex, but may not consent to conception)are difficult and touchy subjects. For example, if you are told that she is on birth control and she really isn't, than you are being tricked, lied-to and manipulated and you should not have to pay for that for the next 18 years or life. On the same note, protection of conception is a responsibility of both parties.

Bottom line:
When in doubt, go without or at least wear a jacket!

I am a controversy.
MJ

stop using the word pro-life as it is a joke propagated by religious lunatics who are fully prepared to be anti-life when it comes to killing post-natal fully formed adults.

It is a tyranny of the body, like anti-euthanasia.

Money for your Thoughts - join now
OWO-HP

Let's say that a young married couple decides to have 2 children, concieved in love with hopes of having a boy and a girl. The first child is born a healthy boy. The second pregnancy ultrasound is a girl but shows signs that the child may have down syndrome so they decide to abort the pregnancy. They try again. The third pregnancy ultrasound is a boy so they decide to abort the pregnancy and try again. The fourth pregnancy ultrasound is 2 boys and a girl so they decide to go through with the pregnancy. As consenting adults they are prochoice. The question is, would society see this as acceptable.

Bummba, where's the dilemma?
Nobody can see the future, so each decision has to be taken on its own.

people are stupid and selfish. having the technology that allows them to be stupid and selfish with foetuses rather than with neonates is just a small step in harming fewer live organisms. When the technology is perfect they can be stupid and selfish and harm nothing. A great leap forward... perhaps.

Money for your Thoughts - join now
OWO-HP

achieve perfection perhaps even the stupid and the selfish could predict the future.A dilusional thought to say the least

I am a controversy. As much as I feel abortion is dependent on the circumstances and the person, using abortion as a "gender-getter" is not a reason I personally accept.

At the same time, it is your life, you have talked it over with hubby, the decision is joint and we do live in a free country with, u-humm - freedoms? So, ultimately the choice is yours.

MJ

the word is delusional (Xomba even has a spell checker to help you). Anyway, what's your point?

Money for your Thoughts - join now
OWO-HP

As a man who has been recognized for his wisdom throughout history and society.
King Solomon posed a question to 2 women who claimed the same child. Cut the child in half and they could each have possesion of 1 half of the child. The real mother declined. The false mother accepted. The real mother was prolife and could not accept the fate of her child. The false mother was prochoice and could have accepted either fate. You vs. Society

If this story was in modern day America, the so-called lover of life pro-life mother would have gladly sacrificed her son by allowing him to be shipped off to die in some Godforsaken piece of desert in the Middle East. That is the inherent hypocrisy of many pro-lifers. They oppose the "killing" of the baby in the womb, but they gleefully support the investment of eighteen years in the child's life before giving the child to the State to be killed in "service" to the State while murdering the sons and daughters of people living in other countries.

Either a person is pro-fundamental preservation of life or he/she is not. The moniker "pro-life" is not an accurate description of the belief system.

JOIN XOMBA IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD!

The abortion debate will probably never be settled or have a chance at being settled until one thing is cleared up:

When does life begin according to science/medicine and the law?

All the debates in the world will not satisfy either side unless the scientific/medical community reaches agreement about when life begins and that beginning is recognized by law. We can argue in perpetuity in the meantime, but it will not settle a damn thing.

Does anyone think it's about time that a species and civilization that is as "advanced" as ours should be able to come up with a definition as remedial as that? What's the point of arguing "pro-life" or "pro-choice" if nobody can clearly decide/define when life begins?

Who is Publius?
Join Xomba and get PAID to write - CLICK HERE!

In our civilization, deciding and defining controversial issues belong to the political, legal, and religious sects, not the scientific.

I mean think about it, look at the process of defining marriage in California.

I am a controversy.
MJ

Marriage is another topic altogether...and it's been defined for quite some time.

Defining when "life" begins needs to start with the people who would know best - scientists and medical doctors. Once they can determine it - as a collective community - we'd have something to debate in the political arena as far as laws are concerned. I actually don't think religion has a role in that process. Religion, by definition, relies not on scientific inquiry, but on faith

Deciding abortion issues isn't really practical until we can at least figure out that much.

I actually don't think religion has a role in the defining process. Religion, by definition, relies not on scientific inquiry, but on faith. Faith is not based on science or reason and a reliance on faith is wholly incompatible with logical debate.

Who is Publius?
Join Xomba and get PAID to write - CLICK HERE!

I agree that the issue of abortion is going to go on for quite a while until some "authority" can decide when life begins or for that matter at what stage of life is it considered a human being.

I am a controversy.
MJ

The abortion-one stems from a combination of man's desire to 'be as good as his words-from-God/FSM' and man's desire to 'police his dominion and make IT "good as his words".'

... And after eating that 'cake'; the man wishes to be again known as 'one who HAS "cake",' but realizes the 'cake' one is to be said to have CAN NO LONGER BE that 'cake' once the 'cake' is eaten ...

---Uncle MythMan (http://www.geocities.com/jmythh2k5) & the Xombies Help You with Money, Love, God etc. Use Your Evolved Mind & GET PAID BY SAVING THE DIALOG STARTERS!

"I want to jump off this overpass, but I don't want to land!" lol

---Uncle MythMan (http://www.geocities.com/jmythh2k5) & the Xombies Help You with Money, Love, God etc. Use Your Evolved Mind & GET PAID BY SAVING THE DIALOG STARTERS!

i.e. someone signing-off on mass-murder V someone signing-off on possibly-murdering possible-murderers

One would hope that during the eighteen years of LIFE, a parent would give`r children the wisdom to choose the best necessity required for service, and then the wisdom to devote enough study to the required regimens in order to appropriately operate within the armed forces---'appropriate' here meaning 'in such a way as is best promoting life.'

As our leaders 'appropriately' need positive support (even if their ideas are stupider than attempts to conquer the center of the sun), the people know that the most-appropriate behavior is 'offering their wise children to the leaders' "positive support-group".'

(I know that 'armed-force life' is not depicted as being so ~positive~, but the positivity gotsta start somewhereses!)

---Uncle MythMan (http://www.geocities.com/jmythh2k5) & the Xombies Help You with Money, Love, God etc. Use Your Evolved Mind & GET PAID BY SAVING THE DIALOG STARTERS!

I've read comments in the newspaper by pro-choice doctors that say they, they meaning the medical profession, know when life begins ... at conception. Abortion is legal from conception until just before the baby is born and takes the first breath. It's interesting because in ancient Greece the man decided in abortion or not, not the woman since the argument was, "it was his sperm, and it was his body, meaning the sperm came from his body".

And I know there are people are out there that will adopt, and become foster parents for special needs children whether they were conceived by siblings or not.

And you all know where I stand. I agree with Bummba. Human nature doesn't change. Bible stories display human virtues, and vices that cross centuries. You have to recognize that the culture has shaped your views on this. Just look at ancient Greece.

Anyway for any one is interested in becoming adoptive parents, or giving up your baby for adoption check out my website below which I believe will provide you with some basic information to get started.

http://www.xomba.com/national_adoption_month

If someone is planning to be a parent the last place to go would be a Planned Parenthood Clinic. Most all of them specialize in abortion which ruduces the odds and percentages of becoming a parent considerably. Thanks for getting it.

The end result of abortion is not about the pregnant woman. Nor is it about the man who caused the pregnancy. It's about the baby that could have been.

Who knows what that child would have become. Does anyone have the right to refuse that child a chance to prove it's a worthy member of society?

Abortion is wrong ... period. The only exception is where the mother's life is in jeopardy. I could not ask (nor expect) a mom to give up her life for an unborn baby. Neither would I accept her to take the life of a child in her womb.

We are a very sick society. Life is cheap. So; why not just give up yours and die? That's what we are doing to these millions of unborn infants. They have no voice. Does that make them less than human? I think not.

Should these babies die just because we cannot control our own sexual desires?

What is wrong with us? Sure; we all make mistakes. And we usually pay for those mistakes. Why make an unborn infant pay when that child has no voice in the matter?

In most cases; abortion is a selfish decision. It's inconvenient to have an unwanted child. Come on people. Get a grip.

SK Yes,it is not a perfect world.There can never be so.With each passing day,though we develop,but contradictions come in lasrge number.So searching for perfectionism is futile.For my posts visit www.xomba.com/user/sanjay

is already in the two cells that join through fertilization. If we had the technology, we could get an ovum and a sperm and fertilize them in vitro, nourish them, care for them until the nine months are over. Would the donor of the ovum have any right to terminate that life? The mother is nothing more than the producer of an ovum that, when fecundated, becomes a living "thing". It is not a tumor or a wart that is useless and can be justifiably discarded.

If the embryo would be given a choice, that choice would be LIFE. But because the embryo cannot make a choice, someone else is making it.

On the other hand, if life does not begins at conception, when does it begin? It's not a matter of medical or scientific decision, the conclusion is clear from the scientific point. It's a matter of morality and ethics, a matter of respect for life

To read my posts and articles click here:

http://www.xomba.com/xombyte/lmorovan

• Login or register to post comments
|

I'm not for abortion. Maybe, You can find some solice in the idea that not everyone is for shipping their kid to war. I'll step up to the plate if I have to, but I really don't want my kid going to war over some stupid argument that the governments are having. I won't mind watching the two head leaders fist fight it out though. Now if they come over here though, well, I don't want to hand my kid over to the government because the government don't care about him, but I will still insist on my kid standing side by side with me to make certain that our lands stay free. My boy is the last of his father's line. To say the least, I don't like his father, but he deserves to have his name sake. I also love both my kids more than my own life I guess even though the name Bill makes me cringe anymore. It wasn't a good marriage. Let's leave it at that.

My biggest pint thought though is that it is a life. If you can't kill a human being you shouldn't be able to kill an unborn infant. It is human. You may not have wanted it, but it is there. I also understand that the woman may have conceived during rape. I wouldn't volunteer the kids father's identity to anyone then. I would probably say I was at a bar and got drunk after the trauma and don't know who or what I was doing at the time. After all if she tells them that it was him, he gets to see the kid. I think that is just sick. Why should a rapest see any kid including his own? But as for the kid, I don't see punishing it for the crime of the father. Might as well scream death tho the children of rapest if you are going to say that a woman should be allowed to murder a fetis because it belonged to a rapist. Still that too is sick. Real sick.

I do believe the government goes to far on things, like gun laws, cigarettes and other laws that have taken away from peoples rights. If people would use common sense though, they wouldn't be asked to get in the middle. It is a shame in a world of so many personal freedoms that we do have people getting in our face about how things are handled.

I personally don't want to see someone telling me how to raise my kid or how to educate them. If I choose private school, home school, or public school that is my right. If I see a baby in a hot car, I'm going to freak. That is child neglect, and very simular to what you are doing to that fetis if it dies from the cold or heat. I watch the news about women murdering their kids, fathers breaking kids or babies bones in arms, legs, ribs. I listen how they died from internal lasserations, and it makes me wonder why was the baby allowed to be born at all. What stupid evil creatures humans have become? Do we not think about what we do? Do we not care about anyone but ourselves? Sometimes I wonder. It makes me cry, because all I want to do is hold my kids. I never hit them or hurt them. My PSR's told me I was an excellent mother, so why did the courts take them away? It was because my psychiatrist wrote the appointment date down wrong and I was diagnosed Asperger's, ADHD, and having pitmal seizures. So the courts gave them to the man who used to verbally abuse and humiliate me, and beat me. They said that his environment was better. So much for government.

My kids used to be afraid of monsters under the bed. I would look under the bed, in the closet, and tell them I don't see anyone there. I also told them the only monsters are humans who hurt other humans, that they shouldn't worry about imaginary creatures and that I wouldn't let the bad people get them. I failed. One got them, and the government gave them to him. I agree sending our kids to war is wrong, but it is very wrong to purposely kill one that can't fight back.

I'm sorry. It is only my point of view about abortion. I don't support it, but if it came to vote, I wouldn't be able to vote. I would abstain. I just wanted to share a point of view.

Reverend Conner
I affilliate for: River Offers-- htt://ld.net/?the_future

MetaPot- http://www.metapot.com/affSN22/idevaffiliate.php?id=219

Jiaogulan- http://www.projectgoodlife.com/hc/scripts/t.php?a_aid=Lee1973&a_bid=b9fd8b64

Until then--to the government (the law-making body, ~ja?~)--the offspring is the property of the two citizens from which it is made.

I own an electric-keyboard; were that keyboard to develop human-intelligence, we could talk about when it's life starts---but--to the government--it's still my property ... if you think that keyboard is 'an abomination or what-have-you' and destroy it, you're destroying my property and will repay me as such.

If *I* think it's 'an abomination or whatev' and *I* destroy it, maybe I'll 'cry' ... whatev ...

---Uncle MythMan (http://www.geocities.com/jmythh2k5) & the Xombies Bring-about World-Peace by Discussing Your Opinions on the Beauty Above & the Beauty Among!