A question for the pro-abortion aka pro-choice crowd

[koshergrl]

You know, why don't you try that again in English, and I'll try to give you an answer.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is a whole population of people who think that if abortion is illegal, women will be forced to bear to term the fruits of rape and incest. Not true...provided they get in before they're due to deliver, and report the event. Women have ALWAYS been able to access abortion in such situations, and to do it legally and under a doctor's care.

Your first point conflicts with your fourth – if ‘murder’ can’t be mitigated, then abortion can’t be allowed in cases of rape, incest, or even when the mother’s life is threatened.

Finally, the left has this all twisted around in their head with religion. They seem to think that because pro-lifers claim the sanctity of life, that necessarily means they are attempting to legislate religion. Murder is illegal because we, as a society, value life and will not suffer monsters. For some reason, the pro-abortionists have decided that life is only valuable under certain circumstances...circumstances that are dictated by personal opinion and can be protected by privacy. There is no right to privacy when it comes to murder. We don't protect privacy to enable people to kill off the people who get in their way, that's a perversion of the right, and is simply a ploy to remove rights from those who don't have the ability to speak for themselves. It's a ploy meant to provide a few with the power to dictate to others who has the right to life, and who doesn't. And nobody has the right to decide that for others. I don't have the right to end the life of my piece of shit ex, though he richly deserves death (he really serves no purpose on this earth) and mothers don't have teh right to end the lives of their innocent offspring, just because they want to.

Also with regard to your fourth point, you failed to address the fact that privacy is a Constitutional right, and that the state many not violate that right by preempting a woman’s right to choose. That you believe it is a ‘perversion’ of that right is irrelevant, as one is not compelled to justify his use of a right, and you’ve provided no compelling governmental interest to curtail that right.

Abortion is illegal in some states. I believe it will eventually be illegal in all, but that's just an opinion, unprovable.

Highly unlikely – Griswold/Roe/Casey is considered settled law, even by conservative jurists, and an entire generation of women won’t willingly surrender their right to privacy where choice is concerned.

Abortion is murder, just as it was murder to kill slaves before they were recognized as humans, and it is murder to kill a child even though you are only convicted of manslaughter. And yes, we all have the right to stand up for what is good and right, and prevent murder. Regardless of how fashionable or accepted it is at the time. It's often fashionable and accepted...and in the end, the people who supported it are reviled and maligned down through the ages as callous and selfish monsters.

And again you go on as to how abortion is ‘murder’ yet seemingly lack the courage or conviction to go the extra step to advocate doctors and women with unwanted pregnancies be indicted, tried, and if convicted incarcerated for this ‘murder.’ There’s no point in declaring something ‘illegal’ if there’s no consequence for violating the law. Otherwise calling abortion ‘murder’ is a pointless rhetorical fantasy.

 

[JohnA]

And please educate yourself about the difference between miscarriage and abortion. There is spontaneous abortion, which is a miscarriage, but a miscarriage is not an abortion.

Correct, a priest trying to force a miscarriage would be an abortion.


Don't worry, I'm glad you don't take the Old Testament seriously, that's a good thing. The New Testament is much better.

It's fine if you're pro-life, just be sure to not use the Bible as justification for it, as it quite clearly has no moral issue with it and also defines someone as being a living person with a soul after birth.

I take the OT plenty seriously. "(Jer 1.5): "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."

I do not take internet hacks who jeer at Christians, who promote infanticide, and who pick apart the bible seriously.

perhaps they dont bible quoters like you seriously either

 

[JohnA]

Who said anything about telling women what to do with their own bodies? They can do anything they want with them...except kill others.

That's where the line is drawn.

no your assumption is a featus is a human

no women cannot kill other *humans * .
where we disagree is what is and what is not a human life and it seems we will continue to disagree on that

 

[JohnA]

You know, why don't you try that again in English, and I'll try to give you an answer.

your would not understand what im saying in any fucking language you moron

 

[koshergrl]

Too stupid to respond to.

and yet it's the truth.

Hmmm...so the truth is stupid?

That doesn't say much for it. Perhaps it's stupid because it's not true? How many women do you know of who are forced to have babies? Got some stats for that?

How many women have you ever heard say "I wish to God I'd had an abortion! But dammit, I was forced to carry that baby to term adn give birth, and I so wish I could go back and kill him before I ever saw his hateful face?"

It's too stupid because it's a stupid premise. THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN, not in this country, and I imagine damn seldom anywhere else.

But please. If it's true, provide the stats of women being forced to carry children to term.

I, on the other hand, can come up with first hand accounts of regrets over abortion, and of cases where chidlren and women are forced to abort....

 

[koshergrl]

You know, why don't you try that again in English, and I'll try to give you an answer.

your would not understand what im saying in any fucking language you moron

Well let's at least play lip service to English, since that is the language of this forum and this discussion.

Try again and see if you can convey a real thought...one that is recognizable as a coherent thought.

 

[koshergrl]

Who said anything about telling women what to do with their own bodies? They can do anything they want with them...except kill others.

That's where the line is drawn.

no your assumption is a featus is a human

no women cannot kill other *humans * .
where we disagree is what is and what is not a human life and it seems we will continue to disagree on that

Of course it's a human, and it's recognized as a human by pretty much all science academia, as far as I can tell. The only retarts who debate its human-ness are the extremist pro-abortionists, who proclaim, against all medical evidence to the contrary, that a fetus is not human and therefore not worthy of consideration.

When I debate with learned and worldly men and women who hold the belief that abortion should be legal, they do not debate the humaness of the unborn. They debate the ethics of destroying it. Not based upon whether or not it's human, but based upon whether or not it's justifiable to take life under certain circumstances. They recognize that an unborn baby is fully human, they understand to a workable degree the way genetics work and they don't dispute them. This is why many genetecists and biologists and even archaologists and geologists are Christian. They know the science, and it does nothing to their faith because their faith maintains that life is life, and is sacred.

Those who don't believe believe that the unborn are human, but don't believe human life is sacred, and therefore think there are reasonable, rational reasons for terminating it, at this point or at that point. They recognize the humaness of the unborn, they just discount it as nothing special in the big picture, just another life.

It's the lay people who don't believe in God who get lost here. They think that abortion is okay becase the unborn isn't human, and they THINK they are basing that on some sort of scientific evidence..that doesn't exist and isn't even promoted (there's that pesky word) by the scientific community. I have yet to see anyone quote a peer reviewed work from the scientific community that argues that the unborn aren't HUMAN. If they argue for abortion (and few do) they do it on the basis that life is expendable and suffering is great and if there is no God, then we must take the place of God and adjust the population as we see fit.

It's eugenics to its core, and it's evil, and wrong.

But ignorant lay people who claim that we must have abortion glom onto all these wrongheaded hick beliefs that have zero basis in fact....that abortion is going to save lifes, that abortion reduces crime, that abortion prevents child abuse and bad parenting....all complete pie in the sky nonsense, that has been PROVEN to be nonsense. And ultimately, to them it just comes down to protecting the right of women to conveniently discard what they don't want.

And THAT is a time-honored holding of communists, who since 1921 when abortion first became legal in Russia, the whole point has been to reduce the population, put poor women to work, and have their children raised away from parental influence, by the state. The stated purpose is to eliminate the family unit.

And they apply it particularly thick when they apply it to minority populations. Becuase poor, diseased, mentally challenged people do not a good workforce make. Take their children, shut down their breeding, and eventually eliminate them.

That's the way it works. It's probably a little too intense for the hysterics who have bought the whole "we need abortion to save women adn children and end crime" schtick. But that's the way it works, and nobody in the world (except ignorant hicks, propagandists and wannabe intellectuals) disputes it.

 

[JohnA]

Who said anything about telling women what to do with their own bodies? They can do anything they want with them...except kill others.

That's where the line is drawn.

no your assumption is a featus is a human

no women cannot kill other *humans * .
where we disagree is what is and what is not a human life and it seems we will continue to disagree on that

Of course it's a human, and it's recognized as a human by pretty much all science academia, as far as I can tell. The only retarts who debate its human-ness are the extremist pro-abortionists, who proclaim, against all medical evidence to the contrary, that a fetus is not human and therefore not worthy of consideration.

When I debate with learned and worldly men and women who hold the belief that abortion should be legal, they do not debate the humaness of the unborn. They debate the ethics of destroying it. Not based upon whether or not it's human, but based upon whether or not it's justifiable to take life under certain circumstances. They recognize that an unborn baby is fully human, they understand to a workable degree the way genetics work and they don't dispute them. This is why many genetecists and biologists and even archaologists and geologists are Christian. They know the science, and it does nothing to their faith because their faith maintains that life is life, and is sacred.

Those who don't believe believe that the unborn are human, but don't believe human life is sacred, and therefore think there are reasonable, rational reasons for terminating it, at this point or at that point. They recognize the humaness of the unborn, they just discount it as nothing special in the big picture, just another life.

It's the lay people who don't believe in God who get lost here. They think that abortion is okay becase the unborn isn't human, and they THINK they are basing that on some sort of scientific evidence..that doesn't exist and isn't even promoted (there's that pesky word) by the scientific community. I have yet to see anyone quote a peer reviewed work from the scientific community that argues that the unborn aren't HUMAN. If they argue for abortion (and few do) they do it on the basis that life is expendable and suffering is great and if there is no God, then we must take the place of God and adjust the population as we see fit.

It's eugenics to its core, and it's evil, and wrong.

But ignorant lay people who claim that we must have abortion glom onto all these wrongheaded hick beliefs that have zero basis in fact....that abortion is going to save lifes, that abortion reduces crime, that abortion prevents child abuse and bad parenting....all complete pie in the sky nonsense, that has been PROVEN to be nonsense. And ultimately, to them it just comes down to protecting the right of women to conveniently discard what they don't want.

And THAT is a time-honored holding of communists, who since 1921 when abortion first became legal in Russia, the whole point has been to reduce the population, put poor women to work, and have their children raised away from parental influence, by the state. The stated purpose is to eliminate the family unit.

And they apply it particularly thick when they apply it to minority populations. Becuase poor, diseased, mentally challenged people do not a good workforce make. Take their children, shut down their breeding, and eventually eliminate them.

That's the way it works. It's probably a little too intense for the hysterics who have bought the whole "we need abortion to save women adn children and end crime" schtick. But that's the way it works, and nobody in the world (except ignorant hicks, propagandists and wannabe intellectuals) disputes it.

first of all you need to come down from your holier than thou state .
secondly if you insist academics scientists and such like agree a fetus is a human being please post some data to back this claim up .

I at least always do that if i use FACTS to back up my opinion
a list of others who differ from you on that question are to be found at the end of the articule
please read it and feel free to respond with your take

i write in plain english so you can understand and grasp the truth that has long been evading you

Personhood: Is a Fetus a Human Being?

 

[koshergrl]

That post was in plain English.

Your previous one was gibberish.

Regarding your link...Joyce Arthur is not a scientist. I get tired of the pro-abortionists pulling up activists and extremists views as somehow evidence that they are correct about anything.

Joyce Arthur, activist, skeptic, feminist

"
I'm a political activist for abortion rights and women's rights. .

I've written numerous articles and essays on abortion, feminism, sex work, evolution and atheism. Most are on this site. (I also have a blog, which I don't update very often - sorry)
As a professional technical writer, I've written over 150 manuals and other publications for business/industry. "

She's a writer. My point stands. I don't care if you think it's holier than thou. The attitude of the ignorant and misinformed is that anyone who provides them with facts and reason they cannot absorb is taking a stance of being "holier than thou". It comes down to your deep resentment of the those with morals and values, and the belief that human life IS holy, all human life. I don't think I'm holier than thou. I think all human life is sacred and worthy of protection and nurturing. It's not just me...it's you, and an unborn baby, and a woman who is in a coma but is able to breathe and take nourisment, the old and the mentally deficient, and the oppressed.

I think it's sad that you think that people who value life, including your life, think they are "holier than thou". I don't think I'm holier than you. I think you have the divine spark in you as well. I'd defend your life as vehemently as any other poor, misguided, and in the right circumstance, vulnerable, position. I'm not more holy, I'm not special...we all are.

 

[HotDogg]

I think all human life is sacred and worthy of protection and nurturing. It's not just me...it's you, and an unborn baby, and a woman who is in a coma but is able to breathe and take nourisment, the old and the mentally deficient, and the oppressed.

I think it's sad that you think that people who value life, including your life, think they are "holier than thou". I don't think I'm holier than you. I think you have the divine spark in you as well. I'd defend your life as vehemently as any other poor, misguided, and in the right circumstance, vulnerable, position. I'm not more holy, I'm not special...we all are.

Since religion is based on myths and lies, your condescension and arguments have no value.

One question though: you say you value life, and I bet you're not even a vegetarian (like me), so don't you think you should straighten out your own values before you start to try to impose them on others?

 

[catzmeow]

My worldview is that sex is a gift of God, and it definitely has its place within the confines of marriage as a pleasuarable and special act. I also don't think sex outside of marriage (fornication) is the same as adultery...the bible deals quite frankly with sexual relations outside of marriage and adultery. David was beloved of God and he killed the husband of Bathsheba. Yes, they paid for it in the end, but he was still beloved of God...people do sin, it's our nature. I don't judge people for it. I think it's wrong to encourage it though.

And I should care why? I don't give a crap what your mythology says about sex and reproduction.

Abortion is illegal in some states.

Really. In what states has abortion been outlawed?

I believe it will eventually be illegal in all

Public opinion polls in the U.S. don't support your views. The majority of Americans don't want abortion to be illegal. Only about 15-18% of Americans want abortion to be illegal in all cases.

Abortion

Your views are in the minority.

And there is aboslutely no evidence that the increase in child abuse reporting has increased leading to false numbers.

Child abuse reporting increased drastically in the 1970s as a result of large public service campaigns led primarily by Prevent Child Abuse America and the Ad Council. In 1970, only 10% of Americans were familiar with the concept of child abuse. By 1983, 90% of Americans were aware of the concept and disapproved of child abuse. That's a major societal change in around 10 years. That awareness is what lead to increased reporting, which spiked sharply in the mid 1970s.

The data suggest that the child victimization declines of the 1990s were something
new, and not simply the extension of trend lines from the past. For example,
available data on child abuse show strong increases in all forms of maltreatment
from the mid-1970s into the 1990s (Peddle&Wang, 2001; Sedlak, 1991; Sedlak&
Broadhurst, 1996). After a short plateau, the sexual abuse decline seemed to start in
1992, and the physical abuse decline gained momentum after 1996. Many analysts
did not interpret the earlier rise as necessarily indicative of a real increase in child
maltreatment, but rather the result of a new public and professional mobilization
to identify and report cases. But some data suggested real increases in the 1980s
(Sedlak & Broadhurst, 1996). Nonetheless the decreases of the 1990s meant that
something had changed that needs to be explained.

In real numbers, child victimization declined substantially from 1996 - 2004, along with most types of juvenile crime.

http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/CV137J.pdf

If you compare the child abuse deaths of today compared to the child abuse deaths of 50 years ago, you see the sharp incline.

Without adjusting for the differences in reporting standards and societal views on child abuse, this sharp incline is fraudulent.

If you believe otherwise, please feel free to provide more than empty opinions void of supporting data.

Abortion is murder, just as it was murder to kill slaves before they were recognized as humans, and it is murder to kill a child even though you are only convicted of manslaughter. And yes, we all have the right to stand up for what is good and right, and prevent murder. Regardless of how fashionable or accepted it is at the time. It's often fashionable and accepted...and in the end, the people who supported it are reviled and maligned down through the ages as callous and selfish monsters.

Only a small percentage of Americans agree with you on this one. Frankly, most Americans' views are in line with those of Aristotle:

"(T)he line between lawful and unlawful abortion will be marked by the fact of having sensation and being alive."

Like Aristotle (and me), most Americans believe that Abortions in the first trimester should be completely legal, with legality decreasing over the term of the pregnancy as the fetus gains viability. Your views are extreme, and are not shared by the majority of people. Thus, they are essentially irrelevant.

In other words, you can call it murder all you want. Most of us will see you as the crazy guy ranting by the side of the road, and avert our eyes.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I can't imagine the things I'd be doing if I thought abortion were baby killing, infanticide, murder, etc.

I certainly wouldn't only be throwing fits on a message board, which is what leads me to think those who use such terms are solely doing so for the attention it brings and they're the over the edge emotional type.

 

[Hoot]

No woman wants to have to go through an abortion.

If we want to decrease abortions, then we have to address the issue at the beginning...and that's preventing unwanted pregnancy.

The religious right fights against sex education, increased avbailability of contraceptives, and even Planned Parenthood... all designed to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

If you want to end the need for abortion then help prevent unwanted pregnancy.

Why is this so damned difficult for the religious right to comprehend?

 

[koshergrl]

Yes, sticking up for the vulnerable and innocent is so passe.

So again: what exactly are the legal/law enforcement mechanics of ‘sticking up for the vulnerable and innocent.’

No idea. When it comes to defending those who are being killed, oppressed, persecuted, generally the laws support those things. That's why there are so many Christian martyrs in cess pools like India, Africa, and the Middle East.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Abortion Rate Falls to 30-Year Low : NPR

Here's something we can all be happy about, abortion rates are rapidly declining.

There's a chart on the left, click it to enlarge it. Abortion rates have gone down about 1/3 in the last 30 years.

 

[koshergrl]

No woman wants to have to go through an abortion.

If we want to decrease abortions, then we have to address the issue at the beginning...and that's preventing unwanted pregnancy.

The religious right fights against sex education, increased avbailability of contraceptives, and even Planned Parenthood... all designed to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

If you want to end the need for abortion then help prevent unwanted pregnancy.

Why is this so damned difficult for the religious right to comprehend?

Wrong.

The right combats the PROMOTION of sex to young children, the sexualization of children, and the insistence that teaching abstinence has no place in a health curriculum that teaches children that sex is okay, it's natural, and you don't need to tell your parents if you get knocked up cuz you can get it taken care of.

Why is this so damned difficult for the extremist baby killers to understand? Remove your baby killing from the education, and watch unplanned pregnancies and abortion numbers decrease as exponentially as they increased with the advent of legalized (and promoted) abortion.

 

[deregulateTHIS]

I think they do it because it is available as an option. Imagine if the very notion of abortion never existed in all of humanity's brains.

 

[HotDogg]

Abstinence doesn't work, just ask Africa.

 

[jillian]

I think they do it because it is available as an option. Imagine if the very notion of abortion never existed in all of humanity's brains.

women have always found a way to terminate unwanted pregnancies.

you can wish that weren't the case. you can choose to not have one. but at this point it's a little late to put the genii back in the bottle.

because what you CAN'T do is force a woman to be an incubator.