It's about to hit the fan. (Page 5)

Chucky - Hit the nail right on the head, in my opinion.  I agree with you.

What?! What the hell are you talking about, Chuck? Where's all the and vinegar we know and love so well?

How 'bout letting groups self describe?

For example, many of my friends in the pro-life movement use the term pro-abortion, or pro-aborts, to describe pro-choice folks. I reject using that term. From my years being pro-choice I know for a fact that people who are pro-choice are not pro-abortion.

If you want to call yourself pro-choice because you feel that it best describes your position, then for a civil debate to go on so should everyone else.

At the same time those of us in the pro-life movement choose to self describe as pro-life. I would ask for the same consideration. I am not anti-choice. My concern is not to limit your freedom, it is to expand the freedom of a population, without voice, who are being dismissed.

Then let's get back to the factual issues, rather than discussing everyone's motives, intentions, and personal shortcomings.

I propose that the problem we face is not having consensus on when human personhood begins. (personhood being a state in which we possess certain rights)

It seems clear biologically that human beinghood begins at conception. It seems as clear as the fact that evolution is true. (beinghood being a state in which we are a distinct human organism)

So when does personhood begin?

Is it at conception?

At implantation?

At a certain level of neural development?

At birth?

Sometime after birth?

When is the point when we come into possession of what I'm calling personhood. When is the point when we come into posession of the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Hmm, well my Mom always told me, "I gave you life and I can take it away!" when I was being a butt.

You're making perfect sense.

Now, what are some of the possible outcomes if it is true that it is our parents who confer these rights, and that they later pass on to the government the power to confer these rights? 

The one I always get is "I brought you into this world, and I can take you out!"

Courtesy my father, who will tri in August, against his son.

Don - excellent post and you left out the part of the argument that I objected to.  If I keep gushing over how you present your side of this issue people are going to start to talk!

I thought this line was interesting and it marks yet another issue brought up in this, the most wide ranging thread I think I've ever seen. 

Just hope we don't have to now have an evolution debate. 

However, I want to go back to the states' rights issue.  This is going to sound idiot-simple but let me break it down this way. 

Let's say I'm pro-choice, but I'm also in favor of states' rights because I don't want one party influenced by a powerful minority to be able to determine policy for the whole country (ahem).  My position pretty much has to be that I want states to decide for themselves and in doing so, some will choose yes and some no.  I can't have it both ways.  I can't ask for states' rights to win out and then insist that all states have the same policy, that is, the one I would choose (pro-choice).  

On the other hand, if I am pro-life (it's my post and I'll use that term) and pro states' rights I hope to win the right for states not to be bound by federal policy.  Then the states can choose for themselves.  But aren't I again ensuring that some will choose the opposite of what I'm in favor of? 

How does advocating states' rights help either party in the long run?  Or is it a two step strategy?  First get states back the power to make their own decision.  Then state by state try to bring about the policy that I am in favor of?  Wouldn't it be easier to try to influence federal policy? 

Is ANYONE ok with the concept that states get the right to decide their own policy and some states decide one way and some decide the other and that's just how it is?

Don, I mean this with all seriouseness...you are the first rational pro-life person I have ran across.  Your posts seem well thought out, you are not attacking anyone or calling anyone names and you not throwing religion into the mix.  Although I am pro-choice, I am still very impressed - excellent posts! 

I am struggling with one thing.  Can't someone be pro-life but still believe others should have the right to freedom of choice?  Do you know what I am trying to say?  I guess what I am still trying to wrap my brain around is why some people feel they have the right to tell other people what decisions they can and cannot make based on their own opinions.  It seems very self-righteous to me for someone to think that they have all the answers.

Again, thanks for your posts!

Yup

Actually I don't think so.  If I'm misspeaking for pro-lifers I hope they will correct me but I think if you are pro life you believe that life begins at conception.  It follows logically that any abortion after that is actually murder so if that is what you truly believe how could you just stand around and say nothing while murder is being committed? 

I know women who are pro-choice advocates, but they would never in a million years get an abortion themselves.  There is a big difference between being a pro-choice advocate who would not get an abortion and being a pro-lifer.

Well, I think people can personally think abortion is a bad idea, but support other's freedom to choose to do what they think is appropriate. 

Again, I'm really hoping a pro-lifer speaks up here because I feel I may be speaking "out of school", and I agree with what you said but I'm saying that is not a "pro-lifer".  That is a pro-choice person.  The gist of the original question was why does a pro-lifer feel the need/right to tell others what to do and I'm trying to answer that.

Actually, Pro-Choice has nothing to do with foisting beliefs on others at all.  It is actually quite the opposite, in my opinion.  CHOICE is the key word here.  Pro-Choice means believing that people have the right to make thier own choices and that no one should presume to know what is best for anyone else.  I think part of the problem with this issue is that there are no facts - this issue is debated based on feelings and beliefs.  I don't know how anyone can think they have the right to tell others how to feel or what to believe but it happens every day on a variety of levels.

Yes, I am.

I think it is the best way for us as a nation to deal with the issues of abortion, capital punishment , and euthanasia/physician assited suicide.

The alternative, really, is to have amendments to the constitution that would address these issues, like the proposed Right to Life Amendment. If it were put up for a vote here in Pennsylvania, I would vote for it. But honestly, I would at the same time be very concerned about the civil unrest that would follow the passage of such an amendment.

One thing to keep in mind is that abortion was legal before Roe vs. Wade. What Roe did was simply deny a state the right to make it illegal.

I think that the cultural differences in various states will help to mitigate any civil unrest. For example, abortion will clearly still be legal in my home state of New York. It will obviously be illegal in South Dakota. I imagine my adopted state of Pennsylvania will choose to restrict it, but probably not to the exent of the new law in South Dakota.

Same goes with capital punishment. Even as a teenager, I opposed the SCOTUS decision that ruled that capital punishment was not cruel and unusual punishment. However, the more I thought about it, the more I came to realize that, consitutionally, they were right.

Now the brilliance of our system is that if the SCOTUS is used to interpret laws and not to make them, then the power to make laws will rest again with the people.