Proof for the pro abortion crowd

[Puddles]

Then why not put the baby up for adoption? Wouldn't that be more responsible?

Why would that be more responsible? How can you guarantee that the baby will be adopted and not in some state foster care program? What makes you think that couples who are spending hundreds of thousands on fertility drugs and treatments to have their own baby (own flesh and blood), will pay to adopt a baby who came from god knows where? Many people think like this unfortunately.

I thought you were against killing, like with the death penalty.

And what about the baby's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

I am but I don't consider aborting an embryo (not a baby) killing.

As I said before, most abortions (90%) occur in the first trimester at which time the fertilized egg & sperm are not a fetus but a blastocyst; a small hollow ball of cells and then a embryo.

You cannot possibly compare this (embryo):

with this

They are NOT the some.

 

[glockmail]

.... Many people think like this unfortunately.



......

No, apparently only cetrain people do, as there is always a shortage of children to adopt, and a long waiting list for hopeful parents.

The only good thing about abortion is that the majority of women who do this are Democras, hence the democrat Party is aborting itself to oblivion.

BTW I'm still waiting for an answer to my question: is a fetus a human or not?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Apparently not, as evidenced by your ignorant post.

I disagree, and challenge you to prove otherwise. What did Bill Bennett mean by saying that aborting every black baby in america would lower the crime rate" other than that aborting every black baby in america would lower the crime rate?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Why would that be more responsible? How can you guarantee that the baby will be adopted and not in some state foster care program? What makes you think that couples who are spending hundreds of thousands on fertility drugs and treatments to have their own baby (own flesh and blood), will pay to adopt a baby who came from god knows where? Many people think like this unfortunately.

I am but I don't consider aborting an embryo (not a baby) killing.

As I said before, most abortions (90%) occur in the first trimester at which time the fertilized egg & sperm are not a fetus but a blastocyst; a small hollow ball of cells and then a embryo.

You cannot possibly compare this (embryo):

with this

They are NOT the some.

I believe adoption is more responsible than killing the child. Why would it not be? Because you can't guarantee a good life for a child? Hey, is anything in this world really guaranteed?

Obviously you do not think an embryo is a human being. However, at 22 days it has a beating heart. At what point do you think it is human?

 

[glockmail]

I disagree, and challenge you to prove otherwise. What did Bill Bennett mean by saying that aborting every black baby in america would lower the crime rate" other than that aborting every black baby in america would lower the crime rate?

You were the one who brought up the issue and don't know 1/2 of it. I'm not surprised. You'll have to listen to that portion of the broadcast in its entirety. I'm not about to waste my time explaining it to you.

 

[glockmail]

...At what point do you think it is human?

When it votes Democrat.

 

[Gunny]

You consider it dishonest because you would have to re-evaluate your thinking...your life..everything and then realize you have been lying to yourself, because "pro-life" isn't really about life at all.

It's about you forcing your way/opinion on to others...it's about power. If it was really about life, you wouldn't want to kill any human life, regardless for what they have done.

The worst part is that you're equating a fertilized egg & sperm (majority of abortions are done within the first 3 months) with that of a fully developed human being...you can't even tell the difference.

Lastly, none of you have been able to address what you propose to do with the baby AFTER IT'S BORN...why is that? Because you care more about getting your way then actually caring for a actual born being. Ironically, the same baby you 'saved' from abortion, could be sentenced to death row after leading a life of crime because there was no one to love or care for him.

It's never been about the baby or the fetus for you guys, it's always about exercising power and control over others.

Nice little rant. I said your comparisons are dishonest. Not only dishonest, but irrelevant to the topic of abortion.

Beyond that, you have no clue what I think except what you have assumed.

An unborn child has NO CHOICE in the decision. It is made based on the convenience of the host.

A criminal sentenced to death CHOOSES to commit a crime that carries with it the penalty of forfeiture of life. The criminals actions are conscious choice. He could choose to not commit the crime and he would not be sentenced to death.

A gun doesn't choose to do anything. The person who uses it does. Trying to blame death on the weapon itself is absolutely ridiculous.

If you can't see the difference, it's because you don't want to.

Better a child be raised in an orphanage and have a chance at life than murdered with no chance at all.

Your role-reversal argument ain't selling here. Just another dishonest argument. It's all about you pro-choice types wanting to have the power of life or death as it suits your whims or convenience.

So save your little rants for someone who can't see right through them.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

You were the one who brought up the issue and don't know 1/2 of it. I'm not surprised. You'll have to listen to that portion of the broadcast in its entirety. I'm not about to waste my time explaining it to you.

I have. Your refusal to offer anything concrete is telling.

 

[Bern80]

What's also interesting, is that the same people who are 'pro life' also support the death penalty and lack of gun control...oh the irony

and I find it interesting that you view the two groups as if there isn't a difference. Here's a hint, one is innocent and one isn't. See if you can figure out which is which

 

[Bern80]

That's a very simplistic an naive view on abortion. Tell me, would YOU be willing to pay for and support the baby once it's born?? I highly doubt it, so why do you feel the right to place judgement on what someone else decides to do with their fetus?

Clear something up for me. Why is it a fetus in the womb and a baby outside the womb? Or just hard for you to say baby when it's in the womb?

So now you're assuming that all people on death row are mass murders? They couldn't possibly be innocent?

I have enough faith that we get it right.

The point is, you're trying to play 'god' by picking and choosing who gets to live and die.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Killing someone out of revenge is never the answer.

It's not revenge, it's ridding society of a burden (there's one parralel to abortion i guess)

On one hand you're trying pretend like you really care about a fetus because it's so valuable and blah, blah but on the other hand you're ready to kill a human because you believe him to be an enemy. Very logical indeed.

Your phrasing speaks volumes. But it is quite logical one has unlimited potential and is completly innocent, the other has squander their potential and is not innocent.

 

[Puddles]

Nice little rant. I said your comparisons are dishonest. Not only dishonest, but irrelevant to the topic of abortion.

Beyond that, you have no clue what I think except what you have assumed.

My "little rant" was not geared to you specifically. I used 'you' in general terms and I should've specified that in my post.

You might find my comparison dishonest, that is your choice but from my POV it isn't.

A criminal sentenced to death CHOOSES to commit a crime that carries with it the penalty of forfeiture of life. The criminals actions are conscious choice. He could choose to not commit the crime and he would not be sentenced to death.

That's not the point. It doesn't matter if YOU think he deserves to die because he committed a crime. The point is that on one hand you pretend you value life (hence you're against abortion) but with the other you are ready to kill a human being (that is actually OUTSIDE THE WOMB)...that's hypocrisy at its worst.

A gun doesn't choose to do anything. The person who uses it does. Trying to blame death on the weapon itself is absolutely ridiculous.

Of course that's ridiculous. Especially when I never suggested that. However, guns are intended and used for kill living beings, whether they be human or animals. Again, you don't value you life if you choose to kill or harm a living being for whatever reason and that's usually what bearing arms implies...that's just my opinion and you can disagree with it until the cows come home....I also don't want to go into this any further as it will derail the topic at hand.

Better a child be raised in an orphanage and have a chance at life than murdered with no chance at all.

I believe adoption is more responsible than killing the child. Why would it not be? Because you can't guarantee a good life for a child? Hey, is anything in this world really guaranteed?

Obviously you do not think an embryo is a human being. However, at 22 days it has a beating heart. At what point do you think it is human?

I'm going to answer these together since I'm going to say the same thing. I know this line of thinking is not popular or common but just try for one moment if you can open your minds and think about life from a different perspective other than what's been taught to you.

Why is having any kind of life (one of misery, abuse, torture, etc) more important or valuable than having a life of quality? Why is being born or being alive so important that it should triumph over happiness or quality?

Who has told us life is so precious and valuable and that is a miracle? Religion? Our parents? Media? Who?

Do you think the millions living in poverty, where every day is a struggle to find food, water and shelter is a miracle and they should be lucky to be alive? If so,why? Why should they be lucky? In the grander scheme of things, what will they have accomplished?

If each fertilized egg and sperm were meant to live, there would be no miscarriages, no deaths during birth...heck people would live for ever if life was sooooo valuable as we have been fooled into believing.

I know many of you arguing this point also have a strong belief in god. So tell me, if god and heaven are so wonderful, why fear death so much? Or is it a fear of meeting your creator?

Sorry I know this is a huge tangent but I believe it all ties into why people are so strong-headed about their stance abortion.

Also, how an embryo be hurt by being aborted when they never felt or knew about it in the first place? How can you claim to know what a bunch of cells and DNA feels? It makes absolute no sense.

 

[Bern80]

Some food for thought. All those who are so against abortion (an abortion that doesn't concern you), why you would rather have 2 selfish and unloving parents bring a child into this world? The chances of that kid being abused or neglected are higher. Often abused/neglected kids turn to a life of crime or they create dependency on social programs, social programs which you probably don't support or want..or probably have been cut from federal/state funding. Who will care for these unwanted children? Isn't our society already over-burden.

"Society does not need more children; but it does need more loved children". - Garret Hardin

The above makes a fatal assumption. That the path to the future is a straight line and pre-set. In fact their are an infinite number of paths that lead to it based on peoples choices/environmental circumstance, etc. You are dooming an innocent essentially because you believe you can predict the future. Hell, you may even be right in a lot of cases, but where do you draw the line? You allow an abortion because their life MIGHT not turn out all roses?

 

[Bern80]

You consider it dishonest because you would have to re-evaluate your thinking...your life..everything and then realize you have been lying to yourself, because "pro-life" isn't really about life at all.

It's about you forcing your way/opinion on to others...it's about power. If it was really about life, you wouldn't want to kill any human life, regardless for what they have done.

not true. Definitions of terms are based often on association. I would argue the vast majority of people when hearing the word pro-life immediatly think about the abortion debate. You are the one trying to make it encompass an entirely different debate to substiate your argument.

The worst part is that you're equating a fertilized egg & sperm (majority of abortions are done within the first 3 months) with that of a fully developed human being...you can't even tell the difference.

what about the minority (not performed in first tri-mester) are they human or not? At what point within those 9 months do you set a point such that it is convenient for your argument. The fact that you can't tell the difference doesn't mean their isn't one.

Lastly, none of you have been able to address what you propose to do with the baby AFTER IT'S BORN...why is that? Because you care more about getting your way then actually caring for a actual born being. Ironically, the same baby you 'saved' from abortion, could be sentenced to death row after leading a life of crime because there was no one to love or care for him.

It could also be a nobel prize winner. There are any number of options other than abortion.

It's never been about the baby or the fetus for you guys, it's always about exercising power and control over others.

[/QUOTE]

an extremely bold (and incorrect) assumption

 

[sitarro]

For some people, that might be the most responsible for. For example, 2 selfish people who are incapable of looking after themselves (holding down a job, relationship, home, paying bills, etc), let alone a child, that may be the most responsible option for them...the thing is, it is their choice not yours, not mine and I don't think anyone is any position to judge anyone else, especially on something so personal as this.

Why don't those selfish people use birth control, wouldn't it be cheaper than paying for an abortion and the guilt that follows the mother for the rest of her life? Every woman that I have known that had an abortion regreted it and many became severly depressed.

People that want to adopt a child are going to Russia, China and if they are a Hollywood idiot, to Africa......obviously there are plenty of good people wanting to adopt.

It is 2007, there just isn't any reason to get pregnant if you don't want to.

 

[Bern80]

That's not the point. It doesn't matter if YOU think he deserves to die because he committed a crime. The point is that on one hand you pretend you value life (hence you're against abortion) but with the other you are ready to kill a human being (that is actually OUTSIDE THE WOMB)...that's hypocrisy at its worst.

Why am I required to value all life equally regardless of the choices one has made with their life? Obviously i value an innocent life full of potential over a murderer or a drug addict.

I'm going to answer these together since I'm going to say the same thing. I know this line of thinking is not popular or common but just try for one moment if you can open your minds and think about life from a different perspective other than what's been taught to you.

Why is having any kind of life (one of misery, abuse, torture, etc) more important or valuable than having a life of quality? Why is being born or being alive so important that it should triumph over happiness or quality?

Who has told us life is so precious and valuable and that is a miracle? Religion? Our parents? Media? Who?

Do you think the millions living in poverty, where every day is a struggle to find food, water and shelter is a miracle and they should be lucky to be alive? If so,why? Why should they be lucky? In the grander scheme of things, what will they have accomplished?

If each fertilized egg and sperm were meant to live, there would be no miscarriages, no deaths during birth...heck people would live for ever if life was sooooo valuable as we have been fooled into believing.

I know many of you arguing this point also have a strong belief in god. So tell me, if god and heaven are so wonderful, why fear death so much? Or is it a fear of meeting your creator?

Sorry I know this is a huge tangent but I believe it all ties into why people are so strong-headed about their stance abortion.

Also, how an embryo be hurt by being aborted when they never felt or knew about it in the first place? How can you claim to know what a bunch of cells and DNA feels? It makes absolute no sense.

The answer is simple. No one can predict the future. Might some people have less 'fun' or even be miserable, starving etc. you bet, but that is not pre-ordained from birth. It sounds to people such as myself that you're saying well their life is gonna suck anyway so why have a life at all.

It seems to me that more and more some people have this notion that you are entitled to a worry free life. You are not entitled to happiness, only the pursuit of it. to answer the early question in this paragraph it not a question of life and how much happiness may be derived from it, but a the snuffing out of an enormous amount of potential based on what you 'think' the outcome may be. You are certainly right that people born into a poor environment have the deck stacked against them in the happiness dept., but it is also a segement of society where some of the greatest members of it have come...because of their struggle with adversity.

 

[Puddles]

The above makes a fatal assumption. That the path to the future is a straight line and pre-set. In fact their are an infinite number of paths that lead to it based on peoples choices/environmental circumstance, etc. You are dooming an innocent essentially because you believe you can predict the future. Hell, you may even be right in a lot of cases, but where do you draw the line? You allow an abortion because their life MIGHT not turn out all roses?

That's a really good and valid point and perhaps I'm being too negative. But ultimately what I'm getting at, is that only the people involved (mother and father) should be making that decision. It shouldn't be made for them by laws.

 

[Puddles]

Why don't those selfish people use birth control, wouldn't it be cheaper than paying for an abortion and the guilt that follows the mother for the rest of her life? Every woman that I have known that had an abortion regreted it and many became severly depressed.

In an ideal world one would hope that would be the case. But we live in place filled stupid people and where mistakes happen...birth control fails, condoms break, men rape women, fathers rape daughters...how can anyone force a woman to give birth to baby when she's totally against it?

As for the guilt, yes she will have to live with that for the rest of her life probably but that would be her issue, not mine or yours...that's part of the consequences of having an abortion (for most).

People that want to adopt a child are going to Russia, China and if they are a Hollywood idiot, to Africa......obviously there are plenty of good people wanting to adopt.

I think adoptions is easier, faster and cheaper overseas ...probably because corrupt governments profit from it, that's why folks opt to go abroad not because there's a shortage here. Also, a lot of couples want new boards or babies...not a kids who is like 7. But you're right, there are good people wanting to adopt, but not enough.

It is 2007, there just isn't any reason to get pregnant if you don't want to.

I'm pretty sure there's disclaimers on birth control pills and condom packaging that states that it's not 100% effective.

 

[Puddles]

not true. Definitions of terms are based often on association. I would argue the vast majority of people when hearing the word pro-life immediatly think about the abortion debate. You are the one trying to make it encompass an entirely different debate to substiate your argument.

So just because one hears the phrase 'pro-life' and thinks of the abortion debate, my argument becomes dishonest? I don't think that's fair at all. All scenarios revolve around life.

what about the minority (not performed in first tri-mester) are they human or not? At what point within those 9 months do you set a point such that it is convenient for your argument. The fact that you can't tell the difference doesn't mean their isn't one.

The minority of abortions performed after the first trimester are usually done for medical reasons, particularly if the woman's life is endanger...even then a lot of women will take the risk.

A lot of you automatically assume that a woman decides on whim to get an abortion. I'm sure most have a very difficult time with it and it's something they have put a lot of thought into, including weighing all other options. This is why I'm a huge advocate of respecting others' decisions and mind our own business.

an extremely bold (and incorrect) assumption

I beg to differ

 

[Bern80]

That's a really good and valid point and perhaps I'm being too negative. But ultimately what I'm getting at, is that only the people involved (mother and father) should be making that decision. It shouldn't be made for them by laws.

I know I have responded to a lot of different posts by you, but this is my central way of thinking on the issue. In a certain sense I am even pro-choice. i do believe you should be able to do whatever you want with your body. But when you have an abortion you are deciding what happens to your body as well as someone elses and we have all kinds of laws against that, rightfully so. Someone else who can not speak or defend for themselves. In every other facett the expectation of parents is they make decisions for their children until they can make their own and that they make the 'best' decisions for the child (key phrase: "for the child" not for themselves).

I think the rationalization that their life is probably not going to turn out well is a very slippery slope, and besides you are not entitled to a risk free/happy existence in the first place. In fact if you perserver through it, you will probably be that much better a human being.

My own personal debate is when does life begin within that 9 mos in the womb? When you're endowed with sentience/conscience/soul, whatever? As soon as the sperm fertalizes the egg? I can't get myself to go for the last one mainly because it makes the anti-abortion argument tough because logically then there shouldn't even be birth control because one has to admit you're disrupting potential there as well.

 

[Bern80]

I beg to differ

Fine, but you know nothing about me and my pursuit(lack of) for power.