Difference between revisions of "Anti-abortion"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(some tidying; link to abortion/black genocide) |
MBurrows38 (talk | contribs) m (None) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | <hide> | |
[[page type::article]] | [[page type::article]] | ||
[[thing type::position]] | [[thing type::position]] | ||
[[category:positions]] | [[category:positions]] | ||
| − | + | </hide> | |
==About== | ==About== | ||
The [[anti-abortion]] viewpoint, most commonly found under the larger umbrella of the more appealing term "[[pro-life]]", refers to the view that [[abortion]] is wrong, regardless of the reason, and should be illegal in most if not all cases{{seed}} | The [[anti-abortion]] viewpoint, most commonly found under the larger umbrella of the more appealing term "[[pro-life]]", refers to the view that [[abortion]] is wrong, regardless of the reason, and should be illegal in most if not all cases{{seed}} | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
==Positions== | ==Positions== | ||
Robert, a commenter on [[Contrary Brin]], said, [http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2008/10/cheer-up-theres-still-science-non.html?showComment=1224262740000#c4020739958171488324 on or about 2008-10-18]: | Robert, a commenter on [[Contrary Brin]], said, [http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2008/10/cheer-up-theres-still-science-non.html?showComment=1224262740000#c4020739958171488324 on or about 2008-10-18]: | ||
| − | + | <blockquote> | |
| − | + | <p>I've long been a believer that the only people who have a right to demand abortions be made illegal are those who are willing to spend their own money to take in a young expectant mother, pay for their medical bills and insurance costs, pay for the child's costs, and provide the woman with a stipend to help make ends meet. If someone is willing to do all of that... then they can insist abortions be made illegal.</p> | |
| − | + | <p>Not a single one has risen to my challenge. =^-^=</p> | |
| − | + | </blockquote> | |
I'll second that, to the point of agreeing that criminalization of abortion is not a valid position to take ''unless'' you are also proposing a system for providing care to the mother and child as Robert describes. There would need to be some additional conditions on such systems, however, such as "no religious proselytizing". --[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] 16:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC) | I'll second that, to the point of agreeing that criminalization of abortion is not a valid position to take ''unless'' you are also proposing a system for providing care to the mother and child as Robert describes. There would need to be some additional conditions on such systems, however, such as "no religious proselytizing". --[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] 16:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
: {{anonuser|198.166.22.233}} said: You're both douchebags, and that asian style smilie just confirms it. If you recognized that a person's life begins at conception, your argument would be completely baseless. Because then you might as well support the mother's right to kill her child anytime before adulthood. So I guess people who are against infanticide don't have valid positions either unless they are prepared to cover the child's expenses through adulthood. | : {{anonuser|198.166.22.233}} said: You're both douchebags, and that asian style smilie just confirms it. If you recognized that a person's life begins at conception, your argument would be completely baseless. Because then you might as well support the mother's right to kill her child anytime before adulthood. So I guess people who are against infanticide don't have valid positions either unless they are prepared to cover the child's expenses through adulthood. | ||
| − | :: Actually, even if I recognized that a person's life begins at conception, that would only undermine that argument if I agreed that the baby's life was more important than the mother's (which I don't). As it happens,though, I think the question of when life has or hasn't started is a very artificial distinction to make. Some people say "life begins at forty" -- obviously they're not talking about "life" in the same way we are here, but that's my point: "life" has lots of different aspects to it, and they begin at different times, and none of them is like flipping a switch. When does the brain start working? When does the heart start beating? When does the proto-baby become aware? At what point does it acquire a will to live? | + | :: Actually, even if I recognized that a person's life begins at conception, that would only undermine that argument if I agreed that the baby's life was more important than the mother's <span class="plainlinks">[http://www.thepiggybackrider.com/ <span style="color:black;font-weight:normal; text-decoration:none!important; background:none!important; text-decoration:none;/*CITATION*/">child carrier</span>]</span> (which I don't). As it happens,though, I think the question of when life has or hasn't started is a very artificial distinction to make. Some people say "life begins at forty" -- obviously they're not talking about "life" in the same way we are here, but that's my point: "life" has lots of different aspects to it, and they begin at different times, and none of them is like flipping a switch. When does the brain start working? When does the heart start beating? When does the proto-baby become aware? At what point does it acquire a will to live? |
:: I'm willing to draw the line at birth, or perhaps at the point of viability. Regardless of that, I wouldn't want to be a baby whose mother ''wanted to abort me'' and was told it was illegal. Life's screwed up enough as it is. =^.^= (Hello Kitty loves you too.) --[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] 11:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC) | :: I'm willing to draw the line at birth, or perhaps at the point of viability. Regardless of that, I wouldn't want to be a baby whose mother ''wanted to abort me'' and was told it was illegal. Life's screwed up enough as it is. =^.^= (Hello Kitty loves you too.) --[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] 11:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
===Filed Links=== | ===Filed Links=== | ||
{{links.tagged}} | {{links.tagged}} | ||
| − | ===News & Views=== | + | ===News & Views=== |
* '''2007-11-06''' [http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/11/6/192212/017 A Fresh Challenge to the Religious Right's View of Abortion] by Frederick Clarkson: according to a new book by Gary Willis, "Much of the debate over abortion is based on a misconception, that this is a religious issue, that the pro-life advocates are acting out of religious conviction. It is not a theological matter at all. There is no theological basis for either defending or condemning abortion. Even the popes have said that it is a matter of natural law, to be decided by natural reason." | * '''2007-11-06''' [http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/11/6/192212/017 A Fresh Challenge to the Religious Right's View of Abortion] by Frederick Clarkson: according to a new book by Gary Willis, "Much of the debate over abortion is based on a misconception, that this is a religious issue, that the pro-life advocates are acting out of religious conviction. It is not a theological matter at all. There is no theological basis for either defending or condemning abortion. Even the popes have said that it is a matter of natural law, to be decided by natural reason." | ||
===Videos=== | ===Videos=== | ||
* '''2007-07-30''' [[youtube:Uk6t_tdOkwo|Libertyville Abortion Demonstration]]: the image on the posters hauled out of the van at the beginning of the video may be the same as [[:Image:2008-05-27 100 3769 abortion truck left.web.jpg|this image]] | * '''2007-07-30''' [[youtube:Uk6t_tdOkwo|Libertyville Abortion Demonstration]]: the image on the posters hauled out of the van at the beginning of the video may be the same as [[:Image:2008-05-27 100 3769 abortion truck left.web.jpg|this image]] | ||
Revision as of 15:06, 26 September 2011
<hide> article position </hide>
About
The anti-abortion viewpoint, most commonly found under the larger umbrella of the more appealing term "pro-life", refers to the view that abortion is wrong, regardless of the reason, and should be illegal in most if not all cases
|
This page is a seed article. You can help Issuepedia water it: make a request to expand a given page and/or donate to help give us more writing-hours!
|
Arguments
- /arguments: structured arguments starting with anti-abortion positions
- abortion/black genocide: some argue that abortion clinics target black women, with the goal of reducing or eliminating black people.
Groups
- Army of God: "a pro-life organization that honors those who murder abortion providers as 'heroes'" according to [1]
- Center for Bio-Ethical Reform
- L.E.A.R.N. Inc. and Operation Rescue: see Durham MZCC abortion truck
Positions
Robert, a commenter on Contrary Brin, said, on or about 2008-10-18: <blockquote> <p>I've long been a believer that the only people who have a right to demand abortions be made illegal are those who are willing to spend their own money to take in a young expectant mother, pay for their medical bills and insurance costs, pay for the child's costs, and provide the woman with a stipend to help make ends meet. If someone is willing to do all of that... then they can insist abortions be made illegal.</p> <p>Not a single one has risen to my challenge. =^-^=</p> </blockquote> I'll second that, to the point of agreeing that criminalization of abortion is not a valid position to take unless you are also proposing a system for providing care to the mother and child as Robert describes. There would need to be some additional conditions on such systems, however, such as "no religious proselytizing". --Woozle 16:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- anonymous user 198.166.22.233 said: You're both douchebags, and that asian style smilie just confirms it. If you recognized that a person's life begins at conception, your argument would be completely baseless. Because then you might as well support the mother's right to kill her child anytime before adulthood. So I guess people who are against infanticide don't have valid positions either unless they are prepared to cover the child's expenses through adulthood.
- Actually, even if I recognized that a person's life begins at conception, that would only undermine that argument if I agreed that the baby's life was more important than the mother's child carrier (which I don't). As it happens,though, I think the question of when life has or hasn't started is a very artificial distinction to make. Some people say "life begins at forty" -- obviously they're not talking about "life" in the same way we are here, but that's my point: "life" has lots of different aspects to it, and they begin at different times, and none of them is like flipping a switch. When does the brain start working? When does the heart start beating? When does the proto-baby become aware? At what point does it acquire a will to live?
- I'm willing to draw the line at birth, or perhaps at the point of viability. Regardless of that, I wouldn't want to be a baby whose mother wanted to abort me and was told it was illegal. Life's screwed up enough as it is. =^.^= (Hello Kitty loves you too.) --Woozle 11:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Links
Filed Links
- redirect template:links/smw
News & Views
- 2007-11-06 A Fresh Challenge to the Religious Right's View of Abortion by Frederick Clarkson: according to a new book by Gary Willis, "Much of the debate over abortion is based on a misconception, that this is a religious issue, that the pro-life advocates are acting out of religious conviction. It is not a theological matter at all. There is no theological basis for either defending or condemning abortion. Even the popes have said that it is a matter of natural law, to be decided by natural reason."
Videos
- 2007-07-30 Libertyville Abortion Demonstration: the image on the posters hauled out of the van at the beginning of the video may be the same as this image
