FSTDT Forums
Community => Religion and Philosophy => Topic started by: Material Defender on October 25, 2012, 04:01:07 pm
-
I grew up with a particular view of Pro-life which I still expound to a degree, though some modifications have occurred due to not having a religious reasoning and instead relying on my philosophical guidance. I'm technically pro-choice, but that's because I view banning abortion as worse than just letting it run it's course. It's better to attack the reasons than the end result. You're just putting blinders on if you do... like being 'hard on crime.'
Pro-Life-What I Grew up with.
Conception to Grave is the key tenet. Take care of the sick, feed the starving, assure no one is taken from this Earth before their time. Whether they be an embryo, a criminal, the poor, or the sick. Care for all human beings, regardless of belief or ability to return charity. Abortion for medical reasons are acceptable, since killing two people by inaction is far worse than killing one person by action. Why there's a such thing as a Pro-Life Democrat. They believe in these tenets, with all but one lines up more with democrat platforms.
What "Pro-Life" apparently really means...
Yeah, embryos are sacred. Beyond the life of the mother or anyone actually existing now.
Why do some people embrace the cognitively sensible former position and the cognitively dissonant latter version? I've always been curious about that. What makes an embryo, being equal to any other life, more important than the mother, the criminal, the sick, and the poor that it breeds one issue voters? I always thought anyone who supported the death penalty but opposed abortion was deluding themselves and I've made that clear many times. Not to speak anything on helping the poor, sick, and starving.
-
If language is to have any practical value at all, a word must have an explicit meaning and be used accordingly. Thus an embryo is not a person. (Nor, by definition, is there any such thing as an "unborn baby.")
-
There is such a thing as a premature baby, though. Why there is a bit of a blurry line for when a fetus becomes a viable person. That's... not at all I was going over here. I wasn't arguing with or for pro-choice. I'm pointing out cognitive dissonance and asking for explanations for it.
-
It mostly comes down to the fact that the "pro-life" crowd aren't really pro-life. They're not out there adopting unwanted children to give them better lives. They're not even encouraging more funding for orphanages and the foster care system. They don't care if the sick get treatment, or if the starving poor are fed.
Simply put, they are anti-women. This group is nearly 100% religious, and the religion in question has a well-established track record of misogyny. So the anti-abortion stance is not actually about the innocence of the embryo, or any idea that the embryo is a full "person", but about punishing a woman for daring to have sex and not having to "face to consequences". This is why so few of them even feel exceptions for rape are in order--because most of them feel if a women was raped, she brought it upon herself.
Considering how common it is for pro-life advocates to seek abortions themselves, or for their daughters, often at the same clinics they were picketing the day before, it just highlights how little they actually believe their own stance. They're always he special case. Every other women who needs an abortion is just a slut.
-
It mostly comes down to the fact that the "pro-life" crowd aren't really pro-life. They're not out there adopting unwanted children to give them better lives. They're not even encouraging more funding for orphanages and the foster care system. They don't care if the sick get treatment, or if the starving poor are fed.
Simply put, they are anti-women. This group is nearly 100% religious, and the religion in question has a well-established track record of misogyny. So the anti-abortion stance is not actually about the innocence of the embryo, or any idea that the embryo is a full "person", but about punishing a woman for daring to have sex and not having to "face to consequences". This is why so few of them even feel exceptions for rape are in order--because most of them feel if a women was raped, she brought it upon herself.
Considering how common it is for pro-life advocates to seek abortions themselves, or for their daughters, often at the same clinics they were picketing the day before, it just highlights how little they actually believe their own stance. They're always he special case. Every other women who needs an abortion is just a slut.
+1 for reminding us all that the only moral abortion is their abortion. (http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html)
-
Well, that adds more ammo to my idea that "Social Conservative" is just bigotry by another name.
-
It mostly comes down to the fact that the "pro-life" crowd aren't really pro-life. They're not out there adopting unwanted children to give them better lives. They're not even encouraging more funding for orphanages and the foster care system. They don't care if the sick get treatment, or if the starving poor are fed.
Simply put, they are anti-women. This group is nearly 100% religious, and the religion in question has a well-established track record of misogyny. So the anti-abortion stance is not actually about the innocence of the embryo, or any idea that the embryo is a full "person", but about punishing a woman for daring to have sex and not having to "face to consequences". This is why so few of them even feel exceptions for rape are in order--because most of them feel if a women was raped, she brought it upon herself.
Considering how common it is for pro-life advocates to seek abortions themselves, or for their daughters, often at the same clinics they were picketing the day before, it just highlights how little they actually believe their own stance. They're always he special case. Every other women who needs an abortion is just a slut.
That hasn't been the case with most of the pro-life advocates I've come across. Most of them genuinely do believe embryos are people and view it as murder, and I've known these people long enough to understand that they're sincere about it.
No, the cognitive dissonance here is that they also believe that universal health care, welfare, funding for orphanages, etc. are "big government" and evil, but fail to realize that the different conservative talking points they embrace are at odds with each other. Essentially, compartmentalization.
-
..."pro-life" crowd aren't really pro-life. ...Simply put, they are anti-women.
Immediately reminded me of George Carlin. Speaking of which:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qtlvr6LLV8
He said it better than I ever could.
-
I grew up with a particular view of Pro-life which I still expound to a degree, though some modifications have occurred due to not having a religious reasoning and instead relying on my philosophical guidance. I'm technically pro-choice, but that's because I view banning abortion as worse than just letting it run it's course. It's better to attack the reasons than the end result. You're just putting blinders on if you do... like being 'hard on crime.'
Pro-Life-What I Grew up with.
Conception to Grave is the key tenet. Take care of the sick, feed the starving, assure no one is taken from this Earth before their time. Whether they be an embryo, a criminal, the poor, or the sick. Care for all human beings, regardless of belief or ability to return charity. Abortion for medical reasons are acceptable, since killing two people by inaction is far worse than killing one person by action. Why there's a such thing as a Pro-Life Democrat. They believe in these tenets, with all but one lines up more with democrat platforms.
What "Pro-Life" apparently really means...
Yeah, embryos are sacred. Beyond the life of the mother or anyone actually existing now.
Why do some people embrace the cognitively sensible former position and the cognitively dissonant latter version? I've always been curious about that. What makes an embryo, being equal to any other life, more important than the mother, the criminal, the sick, and the poor that it breeds one issue voters? I always thought anyone who supported the death penalty but opposed abortion was deluding themselves and I've made that clear many times. Not to speak anything on helping the poor, sick, and starving.
Emphasis mine.
This is actually very very very close to my personal standpoint on Pro-Life/Pro-Choice. A blending of the two that benefits as many as possible. Unfortunately there are going to be some tragic losses, but as you say, better one life be saved than both lost.
-
It's pretty similar to my stand points on it, still. I actually say I accept a lot of the morality I grew up with (Not all), I just reject the religious baggage that comes along with it. I was educated in private catholic school. I was introduced pro-life in this manner and thought, for a good long time I thought anyone who could be pro-death penalty and pro-life was ripping apart what pro-life was. I mean they had charities that funded adoption agencies and helped take care of women who got pregnant but didn't want to abort, so needed help getting to term for adoptions. There was no shaming. There was an understanding that if they are going to carry this child to term only to be adopted, they are probably in a disadvantaged situation and will need support of those around them.
Why my stand is generally to just circumvent the debate. Solve the causes and you solve the need for things like abortion. Though pro-choice is a better idea for the time being, even if I don't particularly enjoy being for it. Lesser Evil yadda.
That hasn't been the case with most of the pro-life advocates I've come across. Most of them genuinely do believe embryos are people and view it as murder, and I've known these people long enough to understand that they're sincere about it.
No, the cognitive dissonance here is that they also believe that universal health care, welfare, funding for orphanages, etc. are "big government" and evil, but fail to realize that the different conservative talking points they embrace are at odds with each other. Essentially, compartmentalization.
Kind of what I was speaking on. You either believe all life is sacred or you don't. Compartmentalizing it seems like a flimsy psychological defense at best and at worse causes you to have a large moral dissonance.
-
Personally I am somewhat nihilistic on the issue and personally don't see any life as intrinsically important or special. Which is why I am all for invitro-fertilization being used to create stem cells for research. However, I do also recognize the emotional component to the abortion issue, and though I am completely pro-choice, I realize it is often the best solution to a difficult and painful situation for all parties concerned.
I would say there are two main components jealousy/ misogyny and compartmentalization, generally at the same time. For most pro-lifers, in their mind, abortion is murder, and that is where the thought process ends. In another compartment is things like how the mother may die, and rape and incest and living standards and kids in orphanages. Unfortunately those thoughts never connect to the abortion is murder compartment. Even when you point it out, to their face, the compartmentalization of their mind only processes one fact at a time.
Think about how that one republican running for governor said that abortion in cases of rape should be banned because if the woman becomes pregnant it is gods intention. To him the act of the rape and the conception of the child are two completely separate compartments, and hence why even when pressed about it he fails to connect the two and realize that for god to have intended the pregnancy means god intended the rape.
Then comes in the misogyny and jealousy. To much of the pro-life crowd with their compartmentalization, assume that any woman who is getting an abortion is a slut. They see it in this strange, "the only time one can have sex is to produce a baby" thing. As a result they see a woman who must have been having a huge amount of sex for fun, and wants to murder her child so she can continue having fun. The number of times a pro-lifer has directly said "if she was not ready to look after a baby she shouldn't have had sex" regardless of all other circumstances that get brought up.
It is a naive thinking that fails to realize that both men and women from their teenage years are highly sexual beings. I would even say that sex it pretty much our prime directive in life and is certainly the basis for a significant amount of what we do. In an animalistic world we would be trying to have as many children as possible from sex as often as possible to help our tribe and species survive, that's why it is an innate desire and drive. However in our modern world that drive still exists but the circumstances are vastly different. Their minds have not realized that sex is still a major driving force, but rampant procreation is now no longer needed.
There is also the strongly hypocritical aspect that plays in with the jealously. As has been mentioned already is how the only moral abortion is their abortion and all other woman should just go jump. However there are also two kinds of hypocracy here. On one hand is the whole "if they didn't want a baby they shouldn't have sex" part despite the fact that they themselves often have sex and use contraceptive and in those unpleasant cases go for abortions themselves. The call the woman a slut despite her actions being nearly identical to their own. Then you get the group that are secretly jealous of the women. They see someone having an abortion as having lots of sex, and they are jealous. They have this feeling that if they should suffer and not have sex, then so should all other women, and they try to use abortion bans as a deterrent. Of course that completely ignores that it wouldn't be a real deterrent, but they think it would.
This is my perspective into the mind of a pro-lifer. I think the compartmentalization aspect plays a far bigger role than the misogyny and jealousy, but I believe that both are important factors to the psychology.
-
I'm pro-life the same way my paternal grandma is pro-life.
She and I both believe aborting an embryo is killing, but at the same time, that life exists in another person's body and it isn't right to force people to be walking incubators.
And of course, we believe in having available contraception for everyone, and in helping the homeless, poor, and sick. I'll never understand pro-life people who want abortion to be illegal, but don't bat an eye when poor and sick people are dying all around them. Maybe we could build giant uteruses, and those people can sit inside them, finally making the pro-lifers care about them!
-
When I was a kid, I honestly assumed, automatically, that my parents were anti-death penalty because they were against abortion and euthanasia. After all, I was taught in CCD that the reason those things were bad was because it's wrong to kill other human beings.
When I got older and realized that my father was anti-welfare, pro-death-penalty, and pro-war, I started to actually look at the realities of pregnancy and abortion. It only took me about 3 years to completely change my mind about abortion rights in this country. Sadly, Dad has spent the last decade deciding that he no longer believes in exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother. He also seems to think women on birth control are sluts (not sure if this includes his wife and daughter, even though both of us are on the Pill).
-
Probably not. Most people like that have a very curious blind spot to their own families.
Ironbite-hence why they can be anti-abortion but will take their daughter to the clinic to get one.
-
I'm pro-life the same way my paternal grandma is pro-life.
She and I both believe aborting an embryo is killing, but at the same time, that life exists in another person's body and it isn't right to force people to be walking incubators.
And of course, we believe in having available contraception for everyone, and in helping the homeless, poor, and sick. I'll never understand pro-life people who want abortion to be illegal, but don't bat an eye when poor and sick people are dying all around them. Maybe we could build giant uteruses, and those people can sit inside them, finally making the pro-lifers care about them!
This is one thing I dislike about a lot of pro-life people; a complete unwillingness to actually to do anything that would even begin to make abortion something that is only used by 'dumb sluts who know better but are looking for an easy way of avoiding the consequences of their actions.' You could make a world where virtually every abortion is a medical necessity or because of rape, but these people actively oppose it.
-
He also seems to think women on birth control are sluts (not sure if this includes his wife and daughter, even though both of us are on the Pill).
Is your dad Rush Limbaugh?
-
If we just focus on Abortion, I was taught this pertaining to certain circumstances.
Mother's Life: It is forgivable to kill the child if the mother is at risk. Completely acceptable. Since if the mother dies due to the pregnancy, the child is lost anyways.
Rape: Is a difficult time for the mother. Emotionally its understandable to abort and while its preferred to keep the child, since the sins of the father should not reflect upon the child, it is emotionally rough. Can be accepted. Also applies to children and you know.
Societal/Financial: It is impossible for the mother to carry the child to term due to the loss of income or the social shunning. This can be accepted because the pain caused is too great. As long as forgiveness is sought. Also why it is important not to shun or hurt anyone who is pregnant, but instead accept them.
If pro-life isn't going to be anti-women, it has to look out for pregnant mothers, adopted children, make exceptions for reasonable reasons, provide maternity leave, and not be cognitively dissonant.
Reminds me of a discussion in my 8th grade class (Pro-Life Democrat teacher who applied the philosophy I listed at the OP.) when the man killed the abortion doctor. Back in the day. Some people thought it was 'just' because he had killed people but could not give a good reason WHY when pressed by my teacher. Who was trying to impress upon us "What makes it right for us to judge death upon anyone? Him killing that doctor doesn't save any lives and removes the chance the doctor can repent." I know I basically thought "What makes that man less sacred than the babies he killed? Killing one person doesn't bring back another."
I feel like we need a new term for these "Pro-Life" people because holy shit, they are not pro-life.
-
Anti-women works.
-
They seem pro-death to me. :/
-
Usually when questioned on the inherent contradiction of being anti-choice but pro-death-penalty, the anti-choicers will rattle off some token crap about how a fetus is an innocent part who did nothing to 'earn' the 'punishment' of being aborted whereas the person being executed is (presumably) guilty of some enormous crime like murder. Even I won't argue that that makes sense, but you can't compare a fetus--which has no feelings, no consciousness, no friends and loved ones, and no personhood of any kind--to a fully formed human being who not only has all of those features but also has the potential to have been wrongfully convicted.
-
Usually when questioned on the inherent contradiction of being anti-choice but pro-death-penalty, the anti-choicers will rattle off some token crap about how a fetus is an innocent part who did nothing to 'earn' the 'punishment' of being aborted whereas the person being executed is (presumably) guilty of some enormous crime like murder. Even I won't argue that that makes sense, but you can't compare a fetus--which has no feelings, no consciousness, no friends and loved ones, and no personhood of any kind--to a fully formed human being who not only has all of those features but also has the potential to have been wrongfully convicted.
This is slightly amusing to me, because under Jewish law, in the case of the mother's health being at risk, the fetus is not considered to be an innocent. Did it mean to threaten its mother's life? No. Is it doing so? Yes.
-
Usually when questioned on the inherent contradiction of being anti-choice but pro-death-penalty, the anti-choicers will rattle off some token crap about how a fetus is an innocent part who did nothing to 'earn' the 'punishment' of being aborted whereas the person being executed is (presumably) guilty of some enormous crime like murder. Even I won't argue that that makes sense, but you can't compare a fetus--which has no feelings, no consciousness, no friends and loved ones, and no personhood of any kind--to a fully formed human being who not only has all of those features but also has the potential to have been wrongfully convicted.
This is slightly amusing to me, because under Jewish law, in the case of the mother's health being at risk, the fetus is not considered to be an innocent. Did it mean to threaten its mother's life? No. Is it doing so? Yes.
Yeah, the nutters who won't allow abortions for health reasons use the whole "ignorant of what it's doing" as an excuse as to why you shouldn't be allowed to save the mother. Another one is saying that it's a woman's obligation to sacrifice everything for her child, and a women who chooses to save herself over her baby is a horrible mother and person.
I once saw a post on Christian Forums where someone said that they heard of someone who survived an ectopic pregnancy by transferring the fetus to the uterus, so that's why there's absolutely no excuse for a woman to abort because of something like that.
-
They seem pro-death to me. :/
Pro-birth.
-
I once saw a post on Christian Forums where someone said that they heard of someone who survived an ectopic pregnancy by transferring the fetus to the uterus, so that's why there's absolutely no excuse for a woman to abort because of something like that.
My medical knowledge concerning pregnancy and such is sketchy at best, but I am pretty sure that any kind of operation to move the fetus would break the placental barrier and expose the fetus to the immune system of the parent and subsequently kill it? I know Pro-lifers and such continue to harp on about how the fetus is a beautiful life and human in every way and that it is a mothers instinct and role to give birth to it and raise it. However, without that barrier the woman's body will kill that fetus without a second to waste. As far as the woman's body is concerned that fetus is a parasitic intruder and must be killed.
I may be mistaken though.
They seem pro-death to me. :/
Pro-birth.
I think the most accurate would be anti-choice. They want to remove the ability for the woman to choose, they do not wish for death (despite their cognitive dissonance regarding entropic pregnancies and such) nor is it purely about forcing women to give birth as they would allow the mother to die if she cannot give birth because of complications. It is all about removing the options available and the ability to choose amongst them.
-
I once saw a post on Christian Forums where someone said that they heard of someone who survived an ectopic pregnancy by transferring the fetus to the uterus, so that's why there's absolutely no excuse for a woman to abort because of something like that.
My medical knowledge concerning pregnancy and such is sketchy at best, but I am pretty sure that any kind of operation to move the fetus would break the placental barrier and expose the fetus to the immune system of the parent and subsequently kill it? I know Pro-lifers and such continue to harp on about how the fetus is a beautiful life and human in every way and that it is a mothers instinct and role to give birth to it and raise it. However, without that barrier the woman's body will kill that fetus without a second to waste. As far as the woman's body is concerned that fetus is a parasitic intruder and must be killed.
I may be mistaken though.
No, that's absolutely right. It's also why an Rh-positive mother and an Rh-negative fetus are such a bad combination.
-
No, that's absolutely right. It's also why an Rh-positive mother and an Rh-negative fetus are such a bad combination.
Or the opposite, which is why I'm an only child.