Back to pro-life arguments: Does the right to life stop only

Postby vantran » Mon Apr 22, 2013 12:31 pm

when birth occurs?

Had some ugly online (fb) arguments with die heart pro-lifers. They say there's no comparison with sending troops to die and the right to life ie. anti-abortion. They say the right to life ends when the person joins the military.

So what then exact is pro-life? Only allowing babies into this world? But then it is acceptable to kill others (enemies) or send soldiers to die in useless wars?

Re: Back to pro-life arguments: Does the right to life stop

Postby Zandor » Mon Apr 22, 2013 5:04 pm

When you put it that way, it seems that prolife. Is stupid
You are q immortal

Re: Back to pro-life arguments: Does the right to life stop

Postby Kyle » Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:02 pm

When you join the military you do so knowing you might--and if you're a male going into certain branches and positions in the US military, you can almost be assured-- you will go off to fight as part of your military service. It's not exactly a secret. It's a little different if the service is mandatory (draft) but in an all-volunteer military like the majority of countries currently have you pretty much know what you're getting into. I have no idea why you have that issue with it.

Then again, I have no idea how abortion and military service are directly being compared in the first place.

Re: Back to pro-life arguments: Does the right to life stop

Postby Jason Toddman » Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:10 am

Kyle wrote:When you join the military you do so knowing you might--and if you're a male going into certain branches and positions in the US military, you can almost be assured-- you will go off to fight as part of your military service. It's not exactly a secret. It's a little different if the service is mandatory (draft) but in an all-volunteer military like the majority of countries currently have you pretty much know what you're getting into. I have no idea why you have that issue with it.
Then again, I have no idea how abortion and military service are directly being compared in the first place.

As you pointed out; people joining the military have a choice. People getting an abortion have a choice. But the aborted fetuses... do not get a choice.
At least, I am assuming that is the point the pro-life crowd is trying to make.
As for me, I say; if people used contraceptives without all the negative pressure well-meaning but deluded busybodies put on them not to do so, the demand for abortions would be a lot less in the first place. Far better to never have an unwanted child than to get pregnant and then terminate it, but some people unreasonably equate the two.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Back to pro-life arguments: Does the right to life stop

Postby vantran » Fri Apr 26, 2013 11:12 am

Kyle wrote:When you join the military you do so knowing you might--and if you're a male going into certain branches and positions in the US military, you can almost be assured-- you will go off to fight as part of your military service. It's not exactly a secret. It's a little different if the service is mandatory (draft) but in an all-volunteer military like the majority of countries currently have you pretty much know what you're getting into. I have no idea why you have that issue with it.

Then again, I have no idea how abortion and military service are directly being compared in the first place.


Let's say a person is pro-life but joins the military. And has to fight, Doesnt that spoil the meaning of pro-life?

Re: Back to pro-life arguments: Does the right to life stop

Postby vantran » Fri Apr 26, 2013 11:14 am

Jason Toddman wrote:
Kyle wrote:When you join the military you do so knowing you might--and if you're a male going into certain branches and positions in the US military, you can almost be assured-- you will go off to fight as part of your military service. It's not exactly a secret. It's a little different if the service is mandatory (draft) but in an all-volunteer military like the majority of countries currently have you pretty much know what you're getting into. I have no idea why you have that issue with it.
Then again, I have no idea how abortion and military service are directly being compared in the first place.

As you pointed out; people joining the military have a choice. People getting an abortion have a choice. But the aborted fetuses... do not get a choice.
At least, I am assuming that is the point the pro-life crowd is trying to make.
As for me, I say; if people used contraceptives without all the negative pressure well-meaning but deluded busybodies put on them not to do so, the demand for abortions would be a lot less in the first place. Far better to never have an unwanted child than to get pregnant and then terminate it, but some people unreasonably equate the two.


People being killed by collateral damage also have no choice. Soldiers on the other end--your enemy--also have no choice, especially if you use more advanced weapons. The trouble is--doe choice equate pro-life? So you are a pro-life person, you allow babies to be born and no abortion, even if the girl was raped. But you fight a war and kill other people. Are you pro-life only for having sex?

Re: Back to pro-life arguments: Does the right to life stop

Postby Jason Toddman » Fri Apr 26, 2013 12:11 pm

These distinctions don't make much sense to me either, Vantran. But then, real life often doesn't make much sense.
Pro-lifers are usually also pro-military; a dichotomy most of them either ignore or never notice.
At the same time, I can't agree with painting the military with an all-black brush as you are doing. Granted, we spend too much on the military and this has encouraged us (especially under war-like presidents like Bush and Johnson) to engage in military adventures we had no business being in and which we find it difficult to get ourselves out of, but a strong military IS necessary until such time as enough enough get so sick and tired of war that something is finally done about it... though what that solution might be escapes me unless you believe in a one-world government (a thought which sends religious nuts in a tizzy because of fears of the End Times).
I myself spent four years in the military... the US Air Force. I would've spent 20 to 30 years there if I could have. But I never supported wars for war's sake. I am not a violent guy; I've never been in a fight where I wasn't struck first! I've never handled a gun in my life except in basic military training and to qualify for a marksmanship ribbon and an overseas assignment to Germany halfway thru my enlistment. I detest violence in real life as much as any rational person would. But at the same time I don't see the military in and of itself as evil any more than I see policemen or National Guardsmen in such a light. To do otherwise strikes me as much too simplistic.
I definitely don't like abortion myself... but I like the idea of unwanted children 'raised' in orphanages or in families where they are not properly cared for even less. But until conservatives and religionists get it through their heads that contraceptives or gay relationships are the only reasonably sane and viable alternatives in this world (seeing as most people are too selfish to be celibate), abortions are never going to go away.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Back to pro-life arguments: Does the right to life stop

Postby vantran » Sat Apr 27, 2013 5:01 am

Jason Toddman wrote:These distinctions don't make much sense to me either, Vantran. But then, real life often doesn't make much sense.
Pro-lifers are usually also pro-military; a dichotomy most of them either ignore or never notice.
At the same time, I can't agree with painting the military with an all-black brush as you are doing. Granted, we spend too much on the military and this has encouraged us (especially under war-like presidents like Bush and Johnson) to engage in military adventures we had no business being in and which we find it difficult to get ourselves out of, but a strong military IS necessary until such time as enough enough get so sick and tired of war that something is finally done about it... though what that solution might be escapes me unless you believe in a one-world government (a thought which sends religious nuts in a tizzy because of fears of the End Times).
I myself spent four years in the military... the US Air Force. I would've spent 20 to 30 years there if I could have. But I never supported wars for war's sake. I am not a violent guy; I've never been in a fight where I wasn't struck first! I've never handled a gun in my life except in basic military training and to qualify for a marksmanship ribbon and an overseas assignment to Germany halfway thru my enlistment. I detest violence in real life as much as any rational person would. But at the same time I don't see the military in and of itself as evil any more than I see policemen or National Guardsmen in such a light. To do otherwise strikes me as much too simplistic.
I definitely don't like abortion myself... but I like the idea of unwanted children 'raised' in orphanages or in families where they are not properly cared for even less. But until conservatives and religionists get it through their heads that contraceptives or gay relationships are the only reasonably sane and viable alternatives in this world (seeing as most people are too selfish to be celibate), abortions are never going to go away.


Then don't call it pro-life. Call it pro-foetus/pro-baby. The fact that people champion life after sex/conception has occur demeans the term life. It is so hypocritical to stop a the action of abortion--which is usually decided by the woman or couple and not by some demonic doctor standing outside your bedroom once you made love---and then also advocate the death penalty, reducing affordable health care, sending troops off to war and letting people die. "Life" is demeaned in this sense. Call if something else, don't call it pro-life.

Re: Back to pro-life arguments: Does the right to life stop

Postby Jason Toddman » Sat Apr 27, 2013 7:20 am

vantran wrote:Then don't call it pro-life. Call it pro-foetus/pro-baby. The fact that people champion life after sex/conception has occur demeans the term life. It is so hypocritical to stop a the action of abortion--which is usually decided by the woman or couple and not by some demonic doctor standing outside your bedroom once you made love---and then also advocate the death penalty, reducing affordable health care, sending troops off to war and letting people die. "Life" is demeaned in this sense. Call if something else, don't call it pro-life.

You're barking up the wrong tree as far as *I* am concerned at least. I personally never called it pro-life (except in response to someone else using the same term first), because I recognized the hypocrisy of such a term the first time I ever heard it. I simply call the choice pro-abortion or anti-abortion myself; these are, after all, the actual points of the argument regardless of the merits or consequences of either.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Back to pro-life arguments: Does the right to life stop

Postby drawscore » Sat Apr 27, 2013 8:08 pm

Technically, life begins at conception. Self sustainable life is usually not until the beginning of the third trimester, plus or minus a week or two..

Drawscore