Richards 0
QuoteThat's exactly what pro-choice means. Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. Pro-choice means that, while I may or may not agree with the decision someone else makes, I recognize their right to decide. I've said here before that I'd never choose abortion unless my life was in danger (and in that case, I'd consider it self-defense), but that doesn't mean that I'm going to push my choice on someone else. So, I may be pro-choice, but I'm definitely not pro-abortion.
OK. Sounds like we are in agreement there.
QuoteAs for your second question, where does the mother's right to choose end and society's right to protect life begin... Personally, I believe that should be when a fetus is able to survive on it's own outside the mother without drastic medical intervention (might as well just deliver it at that point), or when the baby has been born, whichever comes first.
I must have not phrased the question well because I was not asking in terms of drawing a line in a temporal sense. My question for was more based on what activities are considered the mothers choice. For example Champu said that while he accepts a womans right to choose to abort, he does not accept her right to affect the fetus with hormones to dictate the childs orientation. His argument was that opposing that activity did not qualify as being anti-choice. So my question was "Are there actions (designer baby, heavy drug abuse...etc) that a woman should not be allowed to take when pregnant even though she has the right to abort?". A good case example might be the woman I mentioned earlier who was placed into a drug treatment center. What would be your take on that?
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Guest
QuoteQuote>
Historically, homosexuality has been selected against very strongly by evolution. The fact that it remains at all indicates that it is either serves a societal purpose, or our basic makeup makes some homosexuality inevitable. .
Either that, or the Intelligent Designer likes to have a few gays around to work on the decor.
hehehe
mh
.
"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."
Quote
QuoteAs for your second question, where does the mother's right to choose end and society's right to protect life begin... Personally, I believe that should be when a fetus is able to survive on it's own outside the mother without drastic medical intervention (might as well just deliver it at that point), or when the baby has been born, whichever comes first.
I must have not phrased the question well because I was not asking in terms of drawing a line in a temporal sense. My question for was more based on what activities are considered the mothers choice. For example Champu said that while he accepts a womans right to choose to abort, he does not accept her right to affect the fetus with hormones to dictate the childs orientation. His argument was that opposing that activity did not qualify as being anti-choice. So my question was "Are there actions (designer baby, heavy drug abuse...etc) that a woman should not be allowed to take when pregnant even though she has the right to abort?". A good case example might be the woman I mentioned earlier who was placed into a drug treatment center. What would be your take on that?
I'd draw the same line. When a child is viable, then society has the right to interfere. Prior to that, if we're going to allow the mother to kill it, doing anything else to it seems less extreme. Parents make choices about medical care for their kids all the time, and they don't always make the decisions we would. Ashley comes to mind.
Richards 0
QuoteI'd draw the same line. When a child is viable, then society has the right to interfere. Prior to that, if we're going to allow the mother to kill it, doing anything else to it seems less extreme. Parents make choices about medical care for their kids all the time, and they don't always make the decisions we would. Ashley comes to mind.
Thanks for the clarification. Ashley?
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
I'd *LOVE* to see the look on the ultra right wing christian parents face, 15/16 odd years later when their son turns out to be not only gay. but is camper than a row of pink tents.
"But Bob, we used the patches! *sobs* "
hahahahahahaaaaa
"But Bob, we used the patches! *sobs* "
hahahahahahaaaaa
But as I understand it, the term "pro-choice" does not neccessarily mean you support it or even like it. It just means that you recognize that it is ultimately her body and her decision. Where is the line drawn between something that is her decision with her own body and societies decision to make for her?
That's exactly what pro-choice means. Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. Pro-choice means that, while I may or may not agree with the decision someone else makes, I recognize their right to decide. I've said here before that I'd never choose abortion unless my life was in danger (and in that case, I'd consider it self-defense), but that doesn't mean that I'm going to push my choice on someone else. So, I may be pro-choice, but I'm definitely not pro-abortion.
As for your second question, where does the mother's right to choose end and society's right to protect life begin... Personally, I believe that should be when a fetus is able to survive on it's own outside the mother without drastic medical intervention (might as well just deliver it at that point), or when the baby has been born, whichever comes first.