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

[Cecilie1200]

I am sorry that you believe murdering the youngest, most helpless humans in one of the wealthiest nations is a good thing.

"Murder" refers to terminating the life of an identifiable person -- not an unidentifiable (unborn) fetus or zygote which is part of a host organism.

Who will be taking care of you in your old age???

I have three married daughters and (at present) five grandchildren. No need for any more and hopefully I won't need to impose on them.

My dear GOD, why is it that liberals never seem to own dictionaries?

Murder has nothing to do with "identifiable person", you horse's ass. A fetus is every bit as singular and identifiable as a homeless man with no ID found dead in a park, and I guarantee you, the inability to identify that homeless man does NOT make it any less murder if you kill him.

Murder, for the English-impaired among us, is a legal term, referring specifically to the unlawful taking of a human life. Technically, therefore, killing a fetus is no more murder than killing your own slave in the antebellum South would have been, but it IS every bit as much a killing, and as reprehensible and immoral (not that I've ever thought liberals gave a tin shit about THAT).

 

[Cecilie1200]

Take a look at the Mississippi law voted on today.

If the people of Mississippi are not careful, they are going to vote the concept of "personhood" into something completely meaningless. Then, we'll all be in trouble.

"Personhood" should be established at the moment the umbilical cord is cut. Until then, the ZEF is a secondary organism devoid of existential individuality.

Puhleeze. "Personhood" has been a meaningless concept from the get-go, because the left intended it to be. They never meant it to be any more than a dodge they could hide behind and define any way they chose in order to advance their agenda, and that's exactly how they've used it. It has every bit as much serious definition and meaning as "fair", their other favorite word.

WHY should "personhood" - whatever the fuck that is - be established the moment the umbilical cord is cut? What is so magical and special and meaningful about that particular moment? For that matter - and I realize that this is going to tread in a realm that leftists have trouble with - what's SCIENTIFICALLY different and meaningful about that moment? Are you seriously suggesting that you think it's completely moral, ethical, and acceptable to take a baby fully out of the womb, completely 100% developed, and then snap his neck or bash his brains in because he still has an umbilical cord? Is THAT the person you want to establish yourself as?

And what in the FUCK is "existential individuality"? What the hell is it with you leftist idiots that you insist on coming up with all these half-assed new terms and concepts and blithely expect the rest of us to just go "Oh, okay, that's the new parameter for the discussion, sure"? How many frigging drugs are you fools doing in the backrooms of the DNC, anyway?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Once the human sperm enters the human egg, all the dna is present necessary to become an Einstein or Rembrandt or some person so special you couldn't imagine him or her not being in the world.

...then again, if you throw multiple generations of careless breeding habits, abject poverty, no father, and a dysfunctional mother who never really wanted the child to begin with, into the mix, then you are far more likely to end up with another run-of-the-mill, violent, antisocial, career criminal who will spend the whole of his malignant life on public assistance, in one form or another.

Yes, because the only worthwhile, productive, memorable people in human history were those with perfect parents, perfect health, and perfect childhoods. Everyone with less-than-perfect backgrounds has gone on to be a criminal, which is why nearly everyone in society is, in fact, a career criminal. Right?

Speaking as someone who had one of those less-than-perfect childhoods and grew up to be a productive, law-abiding citizen despite your belief that it would have been better to abort me, allow me to just say, "Fuck you, ass clown. Go die."

In fact, such a ZEF is much more likely to become the murderer of the next Einstein or Rembrant, before being sentenced to capital punishment (or life without parole).

Actually, shitstain, he's most likely to become a normal, everyday, productive citizen, because that's what most people are, even after decades of leftist victimhood brainwashing.

And there are, in fact, a lot more artists and scientists in this country than there are murderers.

I can accept that there are times that abortion is the moral choice, but in my opinion that choice cannot be morally based on the assumption that whether in or out of the mother's womb, that is not a human being that is growing and maturing.

Of course the ZEF is a developing human being! What else would it be, a developing rutabaga?

What you need to accept is that the host mother has an inalienable right to self-determination over the reproductive functions of her own body.

What YOU need to accept is that we're not talking about her controlling her reproductive functions. We're talking about her killing a living child AFTER she's already exercised her functions and reproduced.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So what it comes down to is the pro-abortionists believe that under some circumstances, it's okay to kill innocent humans. For the "greater good" I'm sure.

What it comes down to is you have no idea what you’re talking about.

I know of no one who is ‘pro abortion.’

What you have are individuals who understand that it’s a difficult and complicated issue that the state needs to stay out of.

My dear GOD, why is it that liberals never seem to own dictionaries?

And when will conservatives ever understand (or respect, for that matter) the law?

Murder has nothing to do with "identifiable person", you horse's ass. A fetus is every bit as singular and identifiable as a homeless man with no ID found dead in a park, and I guarantee you, the inability to identify that homeless man does NOT make it any less murder if you kill him.

Murder, for the English-impaired among us, is a legal term, referring specifically to the unlawful taking of a human life. Technically, therefore, killing a fetus is no more murder than killing your own slave in the antebellum South would have been, but it IS every bit as much a killing, and as reprehensible and immoral (not that I've ever thought liberals gave a tin shit about THAT).

In Casey the Court ruled that abortion was legal prior to the fetus being viable.

It is consequently not murder – anyone who says otherwise only exhibits his ignorance on the matter.

It’s noted that conservatives reject Casey and consider it a ‘bad’ ruling, just as the hypocrisy of conservatives is noted with regard to limiting government.

 

[koshergrl]

I don't care who you know or don't know. The fact is, those who support legalized abortion are pro-abortion.

I have already provided the definitions that prove it. If you want to change the meanings of the words, feel free to draw up a bill....

 

[koshergrl]

The law supported slavery. We contested that law as well....

 

[Gadawg73]

I don't care who you know or don't know. The fact is, those who support legalized abortion are pro-abortion.

I have already provided the definitions that prove it. If you want to change the meanings of the words, feel free to draw up a bill....

Once again, for the 1735th time, tell us how your law to ban abortion would work.
I bet good $$$ that you do not have the mental capacity to even get started on that.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I don't care who you know or don't know. The fact is, those who support legalized abortion are pro-abortion.

I have already provided the definitions that prove it. If you want to change the meanings of the words, feel free to draw up a bill....

So you're pro-cigarette smoking? You like the idea of people getting cancer and emphysema and pregnant women smoking which could kill their babies and parents blowing smoke where their kids breathe which could kill them?

*borrows the emotional diatribe glasses from certain pro-lifers on this thread*



YOU'RE PRO-BABY KILLING!!! YOU'RE PRO-SUICIDE!!!!!!! YOU'RE PRO-CHILD KILLING!!!! YOU'RE PRO-GENOCIDE!!!!! I'M HOLIER THAN THOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!

 

[LilOlLady]

Why do women abort their babies?

I understand there may be an ample number of reasons, but what, in your opinion would be the concensus?

I think it's purely for selfish reasons for the most part.

Your thoughts.

Simple. They do not want them? ANd there are many reasons. Economically is one. Why don't men use more protection and not cause unwanted children? Kind of irresponsible on the man's part. IF I was a man I would never not use protection. And men are the ones opposing abortions the loudest? Take responsibility even if the women don't.
Believe there nothing more devistating then being an unwanted child and it remains with you for a life time. Like being adopted or placed in foster homes or knowing you were not wanted.

 

[Gadawg73]

Why do women abort their babies?

I understand there may be an ample number of reasons, but what, in your opinion would be the concensus?

I think it's purely for selfish reasons for the most part.

Your thoughts.

Simple. They do not want them? ANd there are many reasons. Economically is one. Why don't men use more protection and not cause unwanted children? Kind of irresponsible on the man's part. IF I was a man I would never not use protection. And men are the ones opposing abortions the loudest? Take responsibility even if the women don't.
Believe there nothing more devistating then being an unwanted child and it remains with you for a life time. Like being adopted or placed in foster homes or knowing you were not wanted.

Very well said. You are stating the real truth. God Bless you.

 

[Dragon]

The fact is, those who support legalized abortion are pro-abortion.

By that logic, those who don't want to reinstate Prohibition are pro-alcoholism. By that logic, those who would defend the right of American Nazis to hold non-violent protest rallies are pro-Nazi. By that logic, those who would defend the freedom of Satanists to practice their religion are pro-Satanism.

 

[Foxfyre]

The fact is, those who support legalized abortion are pro-abortion.

By that logic, those who don't want to reinstate Prohibition are pro-alcoholism. By that logic, those who would defend the right of American Nazis to hold non-violent protest rallies are pro-Nazi. By that logic, those who would defend the freedom of Satanists to practice their religion are pro-Satanism.

I agree with this. To want others to have the freedom to do what they want that does not infringe on the rights of others is not necessarily condoning whatever freedoms other choose to act out. That I would not want any part of a freedom that you exercise does not mean that I think you do not have the right to exercise it.

Those who are pro abortion are those who do not want ANY pressure applied to give women full information on the life growing within her, any concept that it is a life that will be destroyed, or any restrictions of any kind placed on the process.

The difference between abortion and such social debates as alcoholism or the the rights of Nazis to peacefully demonstrate, etc. is that in the case of abortion, two lives are involved, not one. At least that is the situation as the prolifer sees it. And the prolifer sees the moral choice as considering the unborn life along with the needs of the mother and tempering the legalities or policy to accomodate consideration for both.

 

[Dr.Drock]

The fact is, those who support legalized abortion are pro-abortion.

By that logic, those who don't want to reinstate Prohibition are pro-alcoholism. By that logic, those who would defend the right of American Nazis to hold non-violent protest rallies are pro-Nazi. By that logic, those who would defend the freedom of Satanists to practice their religion are pro-Satanism.

I agree with this. To want others to have the freedom to do what they want that does not infringe on the rights of others is not necessarily condoning whatever freedoms other choose to act out. That I would not want any part of a freedom that you exercise does not mean that I think you do not have the right to exercise it.

Those who are pro abortion are those who do not want ANY pressure applied to give women full information on the life growing within her, any concept that it is a life that will be destroyed, or any restrictions of any kind placed on the process.

The difference between abortion and such social debates as alcoholism or the the rights of Nazis to peacefully demonstrate, etc. is that in the case of abortion, two lives are involved, not one. At least that is the situation as the prolifer sees it. And the prolifer sees the moral choice as considering the unborn life along with the needs of the mother and tempering the legalities or policy to accomodate consideration for both.

More than one life is almost always involved in one person being an alcoholic, much more than one life is involved in peaceful Nazi demonstrations when you account for all those who are offended by it.

Not trying to nit-pick, just pointingout.

 

[Foxfyre]

By that logic, those who don't want to reinstate Prohibition are pro-alcoholism. By that logic, those who would defend the right of American Nazis to hold non-violent protest rallies are pro-Nazi. By that logic, those who would defend the freedom of Satanists to practice their religion are pro-Satanism.

I agree with this. To want others to have the freedom to do what they want that does not infringe on the rights of others is not necessarily condoning whatever freedoms other choose to act out. That I would not want any part of a freedom that you exercise does not mean that I think you do not have the right to exercise it.

Those who are pro abortion are those who do not want ANY pressure applied to give women full information on the life growing within her, any concept that it is a life that will be destroyed, or any restrictions of any kind placed on the process.

The difference between abortion and such social debates as alcoholism or the the rights of Nazis to peacefully demonstrate, etc. is that in the case of abortion, two lives are involved, not one. At least that is the situation as the prolifer sees it. And the prolifer sees the moral choice as considering the unborn life along with the needs of the mother and tempering the legalities or policy to accomodate consideration for both.

More than one life is almost always involved in one person being an alcoholic, much more than one life is involved in peaceful Nazi demonstrations when you account for all those who are offended by it.

Not trying to nit-pick, just pointingout.

That is true but, unless they are children, those who deal with the alcoholic are not helpless nor are they powerless to remove themselves from the situation or get help with it. They are not at the mercy of somebody else. And the child of the alcoholic can be removed from the situation by social services and 'saved'.

Nor do those offended by a Nazi demonstration have to stick around and be offended. They have full power to remove themselves from the scene. They are not at the mercy of somebody else.

The unborn person cannot be practically removed from a bad or offensive situation and the choices for those with all the power are to allow that person life or kill it.

Pro abortionists like to think that it isn't a person and there is no moral consequence to killing it.

Pro lifers see it as two individual unique lives involved and there is a moral component to killing a person purely because that person is inconvenient.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I agree with this. To want others to have the freedom to do what they want that does not infringe on the rights of others is not necessarily condoning whatever freedoms other choose to act out. That I would not want any part of a freedom that you exercise does not mean that I think you do not have the right to exercise it.

Those who are pro abortion are those who do not want ANY pressure applied to give women full information on the life growing within her, any concept that it is a life that will be destroyed, or any restrictions of any kind placed on the process.

The difference between abortion and such social debates as alcoholism or the the rights of Nazis to peacefully demonstrate, etc. is that in the case of abortion, two lives are involved, not one. At least that is the situation as the prolifer sees it. And the prolifer sees the moral choice as considering the unborn life along with the needs of the mother and tempering the legalities or policy to accomodate consideration for both.

More than one life is almost always involved in one person being an alcoholic, much more than one life is involved in peaceful Nazi demonstrations when you account for all those who are offended by it.

Not trying to nit-pick, just pointingout.

That is true but, unless they are children, those who deal with the alcoholic are not helpless nor are they powerless to remove themselves from the situation or get help with it. They are not at the mercy of somebody else. And the child of the alcoholic can be removed from the situation by social services and 'saved'.

Nor do those offended by a Nazi demonstration have to stick around and be offended. They have full power to remove themselves from the scene. They are not at the mercy of somebody else.

The unborn person cannot be practically removed from a bad or offensive situation and the choices for those with all the power are to allow that person life or kill it.

Pro abortionists like to think that it isn't a person and there is no moral consequence to killing it.

Pro lifers see it as two individual unique lives involved and there is a moral component to killing a person purely because that person is inconvenient.

Well children are affected by alcoholics, whether it be an abusive parent or a drunk driver crashing into a car with kids in it.

I agree on the nazi parades.

And can we stop the pro-abortionist talk? I've seen one person on this thread who is pro-abortion. We've already squashed that the rest of us who are pro-choice are not pro-abortion.

 

[Montrovant]

I agree with this. To want others to have the freedom to do what they want that does not infringe on the rights of others is not necessarily condoning whatever freedoms other choose to act out. That I would not want any part of a freedom that you exercise does not mean that I think you do not have the right to exercise it.

Those who are pro abortion are those who do not want ANY pressure applied to give women full information on the life growing within her, any concept that it is a life that will be destroyed, or any restrictions of any kind placed on the process.

The difference between abortion and such social debates as alcoholism or the the rights of Nazis to peacefully demonstrate, etc. is that in the case of abortion, two lives are involved, not one. At least that is the situation as the prolifer sees it. And the prolifer sees the moral choice as considering the unborn life along with the needs of the mother and tempering the legalities or policy to accomodate consideration for both.

More than one life is almost always involved in one person being an alcoholic, much more than one life is involved in peaceful Nazi demonstrations when you account for all those who are offended by it.

Not trying to nit-pick, just pointingout.

That is true but, unless they are children, those who deal with the alcoholic are not helpless nor are they powerless to remove themselves from the situation or get help with it. They are not at the mercy of somebody else. And the child of the alcoholic can be removed from the situation by social services and 'saved'.

Nor do those offended by a Nazi demonstration have to stick around and be offended. They have full power to remove themselves from the scene. They are not at the mercy of somebody else.

The unborn person cannot be practically removed from a bad or offensive situation and the choices for those with all the power are to allow that person life or kill it.

Pro abortionists like to think that it isn't a person and there is no moral consequence to killing it.

Pro lifers see it as two individual unique lives involved and there is a moral component to killing a person purely because that person is inconvenient.

Of course, that's why this issue is one that is so controversial and can spark such strong emotion. Someone who sees abortion as murder is unlikely to accept compromise; by that thinking, it would be like allowing parents to kill their toddlers in certain situations. Someone who sees abortion as killing a clump of cells not yet equivalent to a person is unlikely to accept that abortion is murder. (of course there are degrees and variations, I know these were very generalized statements) I think the best we can usually hope for is to get others to accept that our views are held honestly.

I disagree with the view that a newly fertilized egg is a person, or that before a brain develops a fetus is a person. However, I realize others believe this completely, and that in their view, abortion is just as immoral as killing an infant. Wanting to prevent the murder of babies isn't something I can disagree with. So, while I don't see it the same way, I consider the desire to change things when you hold that viewpoint a valid and moral one.

 

[Foxfyre]

More than one life is almost always involved in one person being an alcoholic, much more than one life is involved in peaceful Nazi demonstrations when you account for all those who are offended by it.

Not trying to nit-pick, just pointingout.

That is true but, unless they are children, those who deal with the alcoholic are not helpless nor are they powerless to remove themselves from the situation or get help with it. They are not at the mercy of somebody else. And the child of the alcoholic can be removed from the situation by social services and 'saved'.

Nor do those offended by a Nazi demonstration have to stick around and be offended. They have full power to remove themselves from the scene. They are not at the mercy of somebody else.

The unborn person cannot be practically removed from a bad or offensive situation and the choices for those with all the power are to allow that person life or kill it.

Pro abortionists like to think that it isn't a person and there is no moral consequence to killing it.

Pro lifers see it as two individual unique lives involved and there is a moral component to killing a person purely because that person is inconvenient.

Well children are affected by alcoholics, whether it be an abusive parent or a drunk driver crashing into a car with kids in it.

I agree on the nazi parades.

And can we stop the pro-abortionist talk? I've seen one person on this thread who is pro-abortion. We've already squashed that the rest of us who are pro-choice are not pro-abortion.

As long as a person wants abortion to be legal on demand in all places and under any circumstances at any time in the development of the baby and even wants the federal government to make it illegal for any place to make it illegal under any circumstances, that person can deny it until the cows come home and he or she will still be pro abortion.

As long as a person turns up his/her nose at the concerns of pro lifers and dismisses their beliefs as having no consequence, or those who do not see the developing baby as a human being, that person is pro abortion.

I will agree that all pro choice people are not pro abortion as defined. I suppose in the strictest sense of the word, I am pro choice as I do not want abortion under any circumstance or in the most narrow defnition possible made illegal everywhere.

But I consider myself pro life because I see that growing baby as a human being as I can't find any place in the process that a human being does not exist. And I do see the choice of whether that human being lives or dies as a moral choice.

I want any community to be able to refuse to zone for an abortion clinic if they don't want one. I want any state or community to be able to restrict abortion to only necessary abortion if that is what sort of society they want.

I want the Federal government to stay out of it except to protect the rights of the states and community to order whatever sort of society they want short of trampling on the rights of people.

 

[Dragon]

The difference between abortion and such social debates as alcoholism or the the rights of Nazis to peacefully demonstrate, etc. is that in the case of abortion, two lives are involved, not one.

Irrelevant to the immediate point, which is that the argument Koshergirl presented is invalid. A person who advocates for abortion remaining legal is not pro-abortion, anymore than an advocate against reinstating Prohibition is pro-alcoholism.

Agree with this reasoning, and you cannot call someone who is pro-choice "pro-abortion." All other considerations in regard to abortion are separate from this. Do you agree, and agree therefore to abandon that term? I am not saying we cannot consider other matters regarding abortion, only that that term is invalid and should be abandoned.

 

[Foxfyre]

The difference between abortion and such social debates as alcoholism or the the rights of Nazis to peacefully demonstrate, etc. is that in the case of abortion, two lives are involved, not one.

Irrelevant to the immediate point, which is that the argument Koshergirl presented is invalid. A person who advocates for abortion remaining legal is not pro-abortion, anymore than an advocate against reinstating Prohibition is pro-alcoholism.

Agree with this reasoning, and you cannot call someone who is pro-choice "pro-abortion." All other considerations in regard to abortion are separate from this. Do you agree, and agree therefore to abandon that term? I am not saying we cannot consider other matters regarding abortion, only that that term is invalid and should be abandoned.

If you read what I wrote, you would see that I identified those who are pro choice who are also pro abortion.

And, while all who are pro choice are not also pro abortion, I think there are more than one of those posting in this thread.

There are no pro-lifers who are pro abortion.

 

[MikeK]

Well gee, if an over populated Earth is the issue, why not be more selective in who we euthanize? Probably the vast majority of the millions of aborted babies could have become healthy, productive, functioning adults.

Let's let those people live and instead eliminate all the repeat offenders, idiots, and incompetent people. Wouldn't that make more sense?

I believe doctors who deliver badly deformed or otherwise severely compromised babies should quietly terminate them for the benefit of all concerned. Just say they were born dead.

And I have no problem with executing demonstrated menaces to civilized society. It makes sense. Or do you disagree?