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

[Dragon]

all who are pro choice are not also pro abortion

This is really all you needed to say, and I thank you. In this, you disagree with Koshergirl, and agree with me. Good enough.

 

[rightwinger]

Like or not, legalized abortion has been around for 40 years and is not going away. The best you can do is give women who are pregnant and in distress an alternative to getting an abortion

 

[Foxfyre]

all who are pro choice are not also pro abortion

This is really all you needed to say, and I thank you. In this, you disagree with Koshergirl, and agree with me. Good enough.

Only in the most technical aspect do I have any disagreement with KG on this subject if even that because we don't always flesh out our thoughts in an extemporaneous message board post and if she expanded her remarks, we might both be on the same chapter and verse. I honestly don't know.

I probably do have a good deal of disagreement with you on the subject of abortion.

 

[Sky Dancer]

It's heartening to see some people appreciate the difference between being "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion".

There's another distinction to be made for those who call themselves, "pro-life" and those who are anti-abortion. It's not uncommon for a "pro-lifer" to also be "pro-death penalty".

 

[SigTurner]

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?

In case no one ever told you, the cutting of the umbilical represents, symbolically and actually, the moment when the fetus becomes a physically individual being, as it is no longer physically attached to its host mother.

Believe it not, this even empirically verifiable! The procedure goes like this: the doctor cuts the cord, and the fetus is no longer attached to its host mother. Let me repeat that for you: the doctor cuts cord, and the fetus is no longer attached to the host mother. Mind boggling, isn't it! What is more, this effect has been replicated about a gozillion times throughout the course of human history, so it's safe to say that it is fairly well established as a matter of pure science.

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?

Obviously, such an act would be horribly immoral, unethical, and illegal. Nevertheless, it remains a point of fact that so long as the fetus is attached to its host via the umbilical cord, its continued existence is wholly dependent upon the continued existence of it host. Should the host die, through accident, willful violence, or disease, the fetus dies with her (emergency caesarian notwithstanding).

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?

First of all, I am not a leftist. Secondly, it is not my fault that you are a philosophical ignoramus. Perhaps, you should try reading more and commenting less. This way, you'll be so much less prone to make a fool of yourself.

 

[SigTurner]

There's another distinction to be made for those who call themselves, "pro-life" and those who are anti-abortion. It's not uncommon for a "pro-lifer" to also be "pro-death penalty".

I am pro-choice, pro-death penalty, pro-euthanasia, pro-gun, and pro-castle doctrine.

I am also pro-life, in the very truest sense of the term.

 

[logical4u]

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.

Because you choose to call a very young person by another name does not change the fact that they are a person. By your definition, a bomber doesn't murder anyone if the pieces are small enough (not to be identified).

If there are not enough "care-givers" to go around, only the ones that can "afford" it will have them. The people that do not rate will be "killed" so the elites will have care-givers.

 

[logical4u]

Ask a pregnant woman what she is carrying. I can guarentee you that she will not say a "ZEF".

I bet you would not make such a guarantee if said pregnant woman was on her way to the abortion clinic.

Because the baby has not reached a particular age, it is okay to MURDER the baby? The corruption of your statement is distasteful.

Of course not!

It is because the ZEF is still attached to its host via the umbilical cord, and is thus a non-person and a secondary organism whose right to life is existentially under the aegis of its host, that allows for its continued development to be aborted.

BTW: "murder" is a legal term. Try not to corrupt its meaning.

So now you are comparing babies to parasites?
Murder is in the 10 Commandments. It was the term used by the Lord, not "kill", but "murder" (basically terminating life for "pleasure"). I know that does not fit your agenda, but many words that have been used for "eons" are being re-defined by liberals/leftists/dems/homosexual activists/islamic extremists/communists/socialists to limit the speech of those that disagree with them (kind of like your Z,E,F terms, it is so "distasteful" to call a growing individual a person or a baby, that makes abortions sound so much like MURDER).

 

[logical4u]

I am sorry that you believe murdering the youngest, most helpless humans in one of the wealthiest nations is a good thing. Who will be taking care of you in your old age???

No one advocates any such thing; if you believe it to be wrong then refrain from the practice, or counsel female family members accordingly, whichever is applicable. But you may not attempt to codify this belief.

I recognize an unborn baby as a human.

You many recognize whatever you want, to the extent as it pertains to your personal business; and you may also not attempt to codify that belief.

Why do you get to "codify" abortion? Why am I not given the same rights as you?

 

[logical4u]

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.

If that was remotely true, then EVERY pregnancy would be the same, even similar. That is not the case. Each child moves differently in the mother. Each child is active at different times. Because you lack knowledge on specifics does not make you an authority.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Because you choose to call a very young person by another name does not change the fact that they are a person. By your definition, a bomber doesn't murder anyone if the pieces are small enough (not to be identified).

If there are not enough "care-givers" to go around, only the ones that can "afford" it will have them. The people that do not rate will be "killed" so the elites will have care-givers.

If you don't want women to abort unwanted children give them an alternative. Cough up some tax dollars for prenatal care, adoption counseling, time off from work, childcare

Instead.....all Conservatives have is laws trying to force women to look at aborted fetuses

 

[logical4u]

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.

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).

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.

Just so I understand what you are saying: we will continue to teach children to have immoral sex and even encourage that behavior thru planned parenthood giving birth control and abortions to minors without parental consent. It is easier to murder those children that it is to teach individual responsibility and morals?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

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).

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.

Just so I understand what you are saying: we will continue to teach children to have immoral sex and even encourage that behavior thru planned parenthood giving birth control and abortions to minors without parental consent. It is easier to murder those children that it is to teach individual responsibility and morals?

Sex is not immoral

 

[logical4u]

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.

Yes, I can see why you wouldn't want to be on record supporting the murder of children. It is so much easier to be like Joe Paterno: I knew what was going on, and in hind sight, I should have done more to see that behavior stopped. But hey, those babies don't have names, so it is so much easier to say, the mother did it, it was her choice.

 

[SigTurner]

So now you are comparing babies to parasites?
Murder is in the 10 Commandments. It was the term used by the Lord, not "kill", but "murder" (basically terminating life for "pleasure"). I know that does not fit your agenda, but many words that have been used for "eons" are being re-defined by liberals/leftists/dems/homosexual activists/islamic extremists/communists/socialists to limit the speech of those that disagree with them (kind of like your Z,E,F terms, it is so "distasteful" to call a growing individual a person or a baby, that makes abortions sound so much like MURDER).

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX161ulHrSA&feature=related]Internet Arguments - YouTube[/ame]

 

[logical4u]

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?

Yeah, the Nazi doctors believed this too. If the child wasn't born with the right color eyes, it was murdered. That is a very slippery slope.

 

[logical4u]

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


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.

Because you choose to call a very young person by another name does not change the fact that they are a person. By your definition, a bomber doesn't murder anyone if the pieces are small enough (not to be identified).

If there are not enough "care-givers" to go around, only the ones that can "afford" it will have them. The people that do not rate will be "killed" so the elites will have care-givers.

If you don't want women to abort unwanted children give them an alternative. Cough up some tax dollars for prenatal care, adoption counseling, time off from work, childcare

Instead.....all Conservatives have is laws trying to force women to look at aborted fetuses

Why do I have to pay the gov't at 60+ cents on the dollar for charity? I can give to religious organizations that give 80+ cents to the charity (for you, that is double the amount that goes to the person in need).
All of us would have reduced stress on society if MORALs were taught. Little children could be taught that sex is for mature people and if you want to engage in sex before you are an adult, you could be a parent and be like your parent, soon. Wait to have sex until you are married. If you have children then, you will have a partner to help raise the children and support them. If you are single and have a child, your child has a huge chance of remaining in poverty for the rest of their life. If you wait until you are mature, there is a better likelyhood your child will rise out of poverty (with you), and maybe even have a better life than their parents did. If you have energy, use it to IMPROVE yourself or your skills: volunteer, get a job, do some project for your parents, get involved with a church, etc. Why can't the gov't schools teach our children that?

 

[SW2SILVER]

Abortion beats having a child that won’t be loved or needed. 7 billion people already, isn’t that enough?

 

[logical4u]

...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.

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).



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.

Just so I understand what you are saying: we will continue to teach children to have immoral sex and even encourage that behavior thru planned parenthood giving birth control and abortions to minors without parental consent. It is easier to murder those children that it is to teach individual responsibility and morals?

Sex is not immoral

If children are having sex, it is immoral. If an adult and a child are having sex, it is immoral. If people that are not married are having sex, it is immoral (this has moved well into the tolerated category, but if you look at it logically, it is immoral, as well). BTW, there are many more forms of immoral sex, not that you would care. Are you one of those that think school children should have sexual positions taught on the tax dollar?

 

[SigTurner]

Yeah, the Nazi doctors believed this too. If the child wasn't born with the right color eyes, it was murdered. That is a very slippery slope.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqq2Px58ZdU&feature=related]Hitler finds out his daughter is pregnant - YouTube[/ame]