Pro-freedom vs. pro-life

[marklang500]

Before I make my statement, I want to preface it with this: I am, and always will be, against abortion. I believe that conception is the beginning of life, and that at some point during gestation, abortion becomes murder. Where that line is in the gestation period isn't know to me. It may be precisely at conception. But clearly, late term, partial birth abortion is murder. Just because the head of the baby is still "in" doesn't mean it's not a baby yet. Seriously.

Now, on with the show.

It seems to me that abortion is an "activity". Some people want to do it some people don't, and some people think that nobody should even be allowed to. But it is still an "activity". Peoples motives to do it or not to do it vary widely.

Freedom is not an activity. Freedom is a state of being. Without freedom, pregnant women could be forced to have an abortion against thier will. Without freedom, rape victims could be forced to carry the baby to term. Without freedom, men and women could be forcibly paired for optimal breeding. (I know that one is extreme, but it's true...without freedom) Without freedom, your 3 year old child could be taken from you and put into military early education schools.

I just read reviews on Naomi Wolf's book "Give me Liberty" at Amazon. It has 11 reviews. 10 reviews saying how "on target" the book is (with 5 stars), and 1 review saying how hypocritical she is, since she is pro-choice (with 1 star). That reviewer wants to throw out the whole of her message becasue she is pro-choice.

But the whole of her message is that we are about to lose our freedom.

And so it occurs to me: pro-lifers like me have been voting to remove freedom for the sake of a moral activity. Not only that, but the result of voting for the pro-life canidates has been less freedom and yet legal abortion remains!

We need to stop kidding ourselves. Voting for the pro-life canidate at a time when freedom is on the line is just plain dumb. These canidates say they are against abortion, get elected because of this position, yet time and time again they do nothing to stop it.

It's like arguing over how much food each person gets when you are on the top deck of the sinking Titanic. Of course we should split the food evenly among everyone, but that's the least of our worries. Stop voting for the guy that will split the food the right way and start voting for the guy that will organize the life boats. We'll deal with the food later!

Does this sound like an Obama endorsement? I suppose it does. Personally, I don't think that Obama is interested in reversing the pre-fascist policies that have already been passed by the current administration. You know, once you get the power, it's hard to let it go.

But even more troubling is the notion that Obama won't even get the chance.

Check Naomi WOlf out here:
YouTube - Interview - Naomi Wolf - Give Me Liberty

I've been following this stuff ever since 9-11. She is bringing it all into focus.

[JMan]

Interesting points. I too am personally pro-life, anti-death, and have had the same thoughts regarding freedom. As far as this issue is concerned, I am becoming more and more content with my belief that ultimately God will allot the eternal consequences of this earthly decision, individual by individual.

Society (most society) has in place punishments and deterrants for murder, rape, robbery, crime in general. Abortion is not classified as a crime by (our) society, and therefore is not punishable by (our) society.

I'm becoming content to leave it up to God at this point: if he exists I'm sure he will deal with the issue justly; if not, well then, each individual will deal with their own set of emotional, physical, and spiritual repercussions.

As far as politics go, yes it is a vote-getting issue, either way. When we vote for a ticket, we are not only voting in new leadership, we are also voting in the power by the winning candidate to re-shape the Supreme Court, and in subsequently, reshape law.

[Akashic_Librarian]

I personally believe in Pro-Choice. I think that if there ever was a government elected in the UK that started making decisions that interfered with personal freedom, I would leave or start a revolution.

[marklang500]

Ah, the UK. Perhaps I'll move there. Is it nice?

[mercuryrising]

I appreciate your point. Every election someone writes a letter to the editor of the local (conservative) newspaper and tells us how the Republican candidate is spreading the gospel of Christ. Lately, I've been tempted to write my own letter and ask if there is another gospel of Christ that I am unfamiliar with: one where it says we should judge each other, commit murder in the thousands and make a profit on top of all that.

My father once told me that we can't legislate morality and it took the last eight years for me to really understand what he meant. People who hold public office and say they are doing the Will of God scare the hell out of me.

[Eric Revelin]

I don't like abortion. I'm against it, but consider it a necessary evil. If it were illegal it would only make it more dangerous and expensive. Eventually it would take a toll on society as a whole. Ironic, since the people who are against the welfare state are the same ones who are so vehemently against abortion.

Unrestricted abortion isn't the answer. Making it illegal isn't a solution. Abortion with term limits is a stop-gap. The aim should be to create a society wherein abortion becomes the option at the bottom of the list. Improve birth control technology, make it more widely available, improve orphanages, etc. None of that is going to happen if we waste all our energy bickering over whether or not it should be legal.

As the original poster said, our freedom is essential. That should be the foremost issue, along with the wars we're fighting, and other means by which our government wastes resources. That would go a long way toward making abortion obsolete if we invested it in alleviating poverty and increasing the overall standard of living.

[Dannyboy1]

Originally Posted by Eric Revelin

I don't like abortion. I'm against it, but consider it a necessary evil.

Because many people don't believe it's murder. If people really believed it was murder, very few people would do it. A lot less people would be using unprotected sex as well. If there was a push on education for prevention and an acceptance that it really IS ending a life, you wouldn't have all the other problems you've talked about. The problem is that people are told by the media that it is not murder and therefore acceptable, instead of focusing on people taking responsibility for their actions.

[Eric Revelin]

Originally Posted by Dannyboy1

Because many people don't believe it's murder. If people really believed it was murder, very few people would do it.

Consider a desperate situation: you're a teenage girl that was raped, or you're an adult without the means to support yourself much less a child.

It's okay to kill in a war, but what about killing for mercy? "I won't curse a child by allowing it to be born by rape" or "Every time I look at it I'm going to remember what happened to me and I just can't put him/her through that." "I can't provide any kind of life for it; I'd rather be dead than have to live like he'll have to."

I'm not arguing the morality of it one way or another. What I am saying is that morality takes a backseat to pragmatism when people get caught in desperate situations. What makes it worse is that a lot of these people have psychological issues, many of them stress related, and they don't have access to a therapist and they don't have the knowledge to treat themselves. When you put all of that together what's normally unthinkable suddenly looks like a good option.

[Dannyboy1]

Originally Posted by Eric Revelin

Consider a desperate situation: you're a teenage girl that was raped, or you're an adult without the means to support yourself much less a child.

It's okay to kill in a war, but what about killing for mercy? "I won't curse a child by allowing it to be born by rape" or "Every time I look at it I'm going to remember what happened to me and I just can't put him/her through that." "I can't provide any kind of life for it; I'd rather be dead than have to live like he'll have to."

Just as there are exceptions in murder. That doesn't mean it's not stopping a life and that's the thing that people need to stop lying to themselves about. As far as not being able to support a child and they'd have a terrible life, that's not true when there are thousands of people ready to adopt. It's funny how people can't argue this point, yet they still use the excuse.

[Eric Revelin]

Originally Posted by Dannyboy1

Just as there are exceptions in murder. That doesn't mean it's not stopping a life and that's the thing that people need to stop lying to themselves about. As far as not being able to support a child and they'd have a terrible life, that's not true when there are thousands of people ready to adopt. It's funny how people can't argue this point, yet they still use the excuse.

From a position of mental clarity, alternatives are abundant. At desperate times when your judgement is clouded and the pressure is on and no one will help/no one can help, it's an entirely different game.

Also, lots of children get lost in the system. Many people who would get an abortion got lost in the system themselves. They would consider the people who who found good homes, "the lucky ones". It doesn't matter how accurate that is because perception is reality. A shadow on my wall may be my coat waving in the breeze but if I get up and run then to me it's an aggressor that has come to steal my possessions and take my life.

Attacking the issue isn't helping the people.

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by Eric Revelin

Consider a desperate situation: you're a teenage girl that was raped, or you're an adult without the means to support yourself much less a child.

It's okay to kill in a war, but what about killing for mercy? "I won't curse a child by allowing it to be born by rape" or "Every time I look at it I'm going to remember what happened to me and I just can't put him/her through that." "I can't provide any kind of life for it; I'd rather be dead than have to live like he'll have to."

I'm not arguing the morality of it one way or another. What I am saying is that morality takes a backseat to pragmatism when people get caught in desperate situations. What makes it worse is that a lot of these people have psychological issues, many of them stress related, and they don't have access to a therapist and they don't have the knowledge to treat themselves. When you put all of that together what's normally unthinkable suddenly looks like a good option.

I think that when you start making decisions that are based upon conditions rather than principle, you will constantly be controlled by those conditions.

My sister made the exact argument you make in regards to my son. She said that I had made a bad choice, that I should have used contraception. It was obvious that I could not sustain my child from an economic perspective. She may be right (hard telling since my son is now 11 years old).

But what if my son finds the cure for cancer? What if my son is the next Gandhi? What if he creates some new technology that eliminates our dependence on oil? What is it worth the hardship that me and my family have gone through to raise him? I think so. The principle there is that all human beings have the potential to exponentially improve the lives of the race as a whole.

[Eric Revelin]

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

I think that when you start making decisions that are based upon conditions rather than principle, you will constantly be controlled by those conditions.

You'll receive no argument from me.

pquote]My sister made the exact argument you make in regards to my son. She said that I had made a bad choice, that I should have used contraception. It was obvious that I could not sustain my child from an economic perspective. She may be right (hard telling since my son is now 11 years old).[/quote]

Realize that this isn't my argument. I would always search for another alternative. What I'm doing is presenting the perspective of people in those situations. What's obvious to us isn't obvious to all people. Many people don't even have firm principles upon which to base their decisions.

But what if my son finds the cure for cancer? What if my son is the next Gandhi? What if he creates some new technology that eliminates our dependence on oil?

There's always the potential that someone will do that. If one person doesn't, another will. In the grander scheme of things our specialness is determined by what an individual has the opportunity to do rather than anything that only that person can do.

That's coming from an earthly/rationalistic perspective, but it's a game of russian roulette regardless. Anybody could theoretically become anything prior to birth. From a statistical standpoint a child could just as well become the next Hitler, or (more likely) accomplish nothing that puts him or her into the pages of history. That doesn't determine the value of a life.

From my own perspective I'd say that anything that needs to happen will somehow happen, if not because of a key individual or divine intervention, then because of our will to survive.

What is it worth the hardship that me and my family have gone through to raise him? I think so.

In this case that's what matters. People determine the value of their own actions.

The principle there is that all human beings have the potential to exponentially improve the lives of the race as a whole.

No argument there.

[Dannyboy1]

Originally Posted by Eric Revelin

Attacking the issue isn't helping the people.

Attacking is never the answer, but education IS. If the focus were on prevention, we wouldn't have half the abortions we do now. They should be prepped for all scenarios and know how they will handle it BEFORE they have sex.

[JMan]

Originally Posted by Dannyboy1

Attacking is never the answer, but education IS. If the focus were on prevention, we wouldn't have half the abortions we do now. They should be prepped for all scenarios and know how they will handle it BEFORE they have sex.

Agreed - if they all were shown stuff like this, many would reconsider: Silent Scream

[marklang500]

The real point, though, is to not base your presidential vote on issues that must pass the house anyway. Remember, checks and balances? How many of you know your legislator? The people in the house that had to stand up against the bailout bill LIVE in the peoples cities! NOW is the time to be helping them out in thier campaigns. Become a friend right now and donate a weekend of your time campaigning! In a year, when you want to voice your opinion, the little pink slip with your name on it in thier big stack of messages will go to the top of the pile! Democracy CAN work, but the people of our nation don't know what thier role is. We HAVE a role. It is letting our legislator know how we stand. They vote based on thier constituents---you better beleive it!

We should base our vote on foreign policy, economic policy, leadership style, and use of the military.

[Akashic_Librarian]

I agree with the poster who suggested education is the problem.

I myself have not had sex, I am however (rightfully) scared of having unprotected sex because of STD's, pregnancy (not for me, the girl lol) and other things, I don't think I would say NO to sex, but I would certainly make sure I was wearing an (extra safe) Durex condom and hopefully the girl I was with (Girlfriend hopefully! hah) would be on the pill.

There is a girl in the year below me (aged 16-17) who is pregnant, there was a girl in my year when I was 15 who was pregnant, and it scared the hell out of me. How ignorant really?

As for the poster who asked about whether the UK was nice. In general I suppose we are the best country on the planet (I mean come on, we owned half the planet until fairly recently) and if you live in the right areas it is so beautiful, all of the attraction America seems to hold, but without the legalised Guns.

[Eric Revelin]

Originally Posted by Dannyboy1

Attacking is never the answer, but education IS. If the focus were on prevention, we wouldn't have half the abortions we do now. They should be prepped for all scenarios and know how they will handle it BEFORE they have sex.

Education is certainly part of it, but it's not going to fix things. This needs to be hit on multiple fronts. I would group this in with improving our social programs.

If I were to present a solution, it would go something like this:

1. Alleviate poverty.

2. Make psychological help more readily available for those who need it.

3. Improve our social programs.

This would help numerous other issues, and it would male abortion less "necessary" in desperate situations.

The reason I don't get behind the moral argument is that I know it'd never fly. There's too many people that would take issue with abortion being called murder, not to mention it could be taken as indoctrination. This really is a grey area, and we're certainly not infallible in our judgement.

Furthermore, it would increase the level of guilt these women feel, and overall it would be ineffective if everything else remained as it is. We already have sex education. Condoms/birth control aren't that hard to get. The educational system needs to be improved, but that's not going to happen until our tax dollars are actually spent on things we need here at home, like our social programs and the alleviation of poverty.

So ultimately this is the argument I'm making: this is a morally grey area, we're not going to reach a consensus. However, I think most of us can agree that things like poverty and poor education need to be remedied. We may not agree on how we should alleviate poverty, and we all have a different definition of what "good education" means, but this is a step in the right direction. The truth is that there are many things that factor into the ills of our society, including why people get abortions, and if we attack it on that front we stand a much higher chance of eliminating it.

Or, stated differently, without understanding and cooperation, the laws don't make a bit of difference.

[Akashic_Librarian]

I am curious to know...

How would you alleviate poverty?

Because...well...

How?

[Eric Revelin]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

I am curious to know...

How would you alleviate poverty?

Because...well...

How?

1. Cut the bloated military budget and reallocate the funds to social programs that help people get on their feet. It's our tax money, it may as well go toward something that improves society as a whole.

2. Get the crooks off the top of the heap. They manipulate our social and economic structure to their benefit without regard for the bottom 99%. When Wal-Mart has more purchasing power than a small country, something is terribly wrong. The Wal-Marts of the world help sustain poverty on a global scale.

That probably wouldn't fix the problem. I'm not sure poverty is something you can get rid of, especially since the people have a hand in creating it. There's no helping someone who doesn't want to be helped. For the rest who would love to make their way in the world but can't see a light at the end of the tunnel, this would be a huge step forward.

[Eric Revelin]

Oh, and the reason I keep bringing up psychology is because I don't think any amount of education is going to help someone that has been abused or who comes from a broken home. I've been mentally broken down before; I'd do things that I was strongly against, regardless of the consequences, because someone pressured or bullied me.

Take a teenage girl whose been abused all her life. Say a 22 year old deadbeat comes along and makes her feel like she's worth a damn. He's actually very disrespectful toward her, but it's better than what she's used to and she's blinded by her infatuation. He's got a thing against condoms, she's not on birth control. He pressures her into having sex, she gets pregnant, her parents will make her life hell if they find out, and the pressure she's under gets that much worse.

If she'd been given the resources to strengthen her mind, none of that would have happened. She would have had enough self-respect to stand up for herself, or she would have avoided this situation altogether. In the real world, psychological help might not fix her, but again it's a step forward. No amount of education can compensate for a lack of self-respect.