[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Why are you sorry? You knew I was pro-choice and my belief is telling a woman she must have a baby IS controlling her body. you haven't demonstrated anything.

Alright, let's go back to what I actually said:

Originally Posted by Ark2

Imagine you are at a bar and you notice a visibly pregnant woman. Imagine that you know who this woman is, and that she has told you that she plans on giving birth to the baby that she is currently pregnant with. Now, imagine that you see her drinking excessive amounts of alcohol and smoking cigarettes. How does this make you feel? Do you think that since it is her body, it should be her choice to do so regardless of the effects that alcohol and tobacco will have on her unborn child? Personally, I do not. I don't believe that she should be allowed to consume such substances that would hurt her child. However, after she gives birth and is no longer pregnant, I couldn't care less how much she drinks or smokes. Frankly, if she wants to engage in more illicit drug use, I don't particularly care then either.

To which you replied:

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

My views have never wavered. It's not my body so it's none of my business if she's doesn't want the baby.

So you aren't even addressing what I am saying here. She DOES want the baby, but following your rules of her body, her choice, she can choose to put her unborn baby at serious risk of fetal alcohol syndrome, which I think is wrong. I posted that scenario for two reasons:

1) To rebut your claim that anti-abortion laws are just about men wanting to control women's bodies. In the scenario, my interest in "controlling a woman's body" only extends in so far as there is another human being growing inside of it. Once that is no longer the case, I don't care what she does with her body, and am actually pretty libertarian concerning her freedoms. Were it my interest to oppress a woman for womanhood's sake, this would not be the case.

2) I think this scenario touches on something pretty uncomfortable for those that view themselves as pro-choice. Maybe you don't feel that a pregnant woman intending to keep her baby should be prohibited by law from doing drugs and drinking alcohol, but I bet at the very least you view that as irresponsible behaviour. Yet, if a woman does not want to keep her baby, you are in favour of her ability to decide to end its life and believe that she shouldn't be judged poorly because of it. This essentially grants the mother the ability to determine what is, and is not a human being. If she doesn't want the baby, then it is just a lump of cells. If she does want the baby, then deliberately acting in a way that would cause considerable harm to the baby after it is born and for the rest of its life is irresponsible, if not downright immoral. This is wholly morally inconsistent in my view. How do you square this?

Sorry man but this is terrible and downright back to the stone ages thinking, just imagine your 11-12 year old daughter raped by some freak and instead of taking her to a hospital to abort the unwanted fetus and rape counseling that could with hope over time take the pain away and with hope she might have a normal teenage life, but you would have her life destroyed because of YOUR misguided thinking.

I would ask that you at least make an effort to address what I am saying if you are going to take the time to respond to my posts. My position is that I believe that an unborn baby, after it reaches a certain point in its development, is a human being that is deserving of rights and protections. Whether that baby was conceived by two, consenting parents in an attempt to get pregnant, or because some disgusting human being decided to force himself on an unwilling woman does not change my view of personhood. A baby conceived by rape should not be killed after it has been born. Its entitlement to human rights and protections should be no different than someone who was not conceived by rape. Can we agree on that much? If so, then why does rape factor into the state of someone's personhood before they are born? You are being completely inconsistent here.

Here's my last thought for you and people who think like you with hopes of salvation, I wish you people would help and protect the people actually living that are in poverty, homeless and in dire straights over a 7 week old mistake. If you need some guidance PM me and I would be more than happy to help, essentially it means giving up one week of your yearly holidays and the 2% money you receive for that week(yes, it's tax deductible)

I promise you'll feel great after the first year

Hopes of salvation? What are you talking about? I have not mentioned religion or salvation. I do not believe what I believe because of any religion. In fact, I used to be pro-choice. What changed is that I actually started to question why I believed what I believed and found that morally and logically, I could not defend my position. I am not sure what exactly you believe, but you have demonstrated in this thread that you are either unwilling or incapable of doing the same, which is disappointing. If you need some guidance, PM me and I would be more than happy to help. Living a life where you are afraid to challenge what you believe is not a very good way to live.