When is Pro-Life pro-life?

[Coyote]

When is Pro-Life pro-life?

When you care about the baby and the mother at least as much as you care about the fetus.

and you care about the innocent condemned man as much as you care about the fetus.

 

[Chuz Life]

Good points. Except. . .

Except the Constitution doesn't say that only self aware persons are entitled to the equal perceptions of our laws. . . It says ALL persons. That would include those in comas, severely retarded or otherwise incapacitaed.

I agree. But, the only chance of making an argument that morally justifies abortion of to push the argument that a human foetus isn't human. I personally don't accept that argument. But, the argument that an innocent human child and a convicted killer are morally equivalent is actually pretty stupid.

Yeah.... you got to love the argument that a human being in the zygote embryo or fetal stage of their life is not a human being.


I guess I haven't killed near enough brain cells to fully comprehend that one yet.

I've never argued they aren't of the species we call human being.

Whether they are "persons" is the argument.

By making it a crime of MURDER to kill one in a criminal act,our fetal HOMICE laws recognize them as such. True or false?

 

[Chuz Life]

I support the way it is established in our constitution.

And if you don't like the word pro abort or the definition thereof? I suggest you contact the writers of the various dictionaries to voice your complain to them.

Pro-some-life then.

Pro innocent life and pro innocent until proven guilty.... with the acceptance of a fucking reality that sometimes despite all the efforts to avoid it.... an innocent life might be lost.

Countless innocent lives are lost every day as a consequence of booze being legal.... But libtardz would never consider banning booze again... but one innocent CONVICTED felon (usually prior convictions) gets executed and suddenly we just have to ban the practice entirely.

How can you ethically condone the killing of any innocent person? Right there is the inconsistency in your ethic, so much so you have to resort to insults.

Innocent is innocent and if you oppose the killing of it you can't possibly support a system that is so faulty innocent people have gotten executed. And not just one. Or two. Or three.

It's acceptable to you to kill innocent people becuase what - most of them are guilty anyway and if they're not well they're already "convicted felons". Listen to yourself.

The Constitution says that no person can be deprived of their life - except by due process. I support what the Constitution says. Your attempts to twist, distort and mischaracterize my beliefs not with standing.

I'm n ot talking about the constitution - I'm not twisting or distorting anything (or at least, no more than you do others). I'm lookiing at it from a strictly ethical point of view because to me it's ultiimately the ethics that drive it.

I am serious when I say I admire those with a truly consistent ethic here, even more those who apply it across the spectrum of life. I'm 75% there, maybe more.

I support free and readily available birth control and education.
I support programs that support those with an unwanted pregnancy in making the choice of life and which will help her through until she is truly on her feet or adopts out the child - so she doesn't become a school drop out statistic or lose her job.
I support restricting late term elective abortions (which are anyway).
I would rather not see abortion ever be needed but I can never advocate removing that choice from a woman.
I oppose the death penalty. Too many innocent people have died. It's unjustly applied.

I should sue you to make you replace or pay for the 37 brain cells I lost trying to understand this garbage.

How many innocent human beings have been killed by the death penalty?

How many innocent children have been killed by abortions?

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

When is Pro-Life pro-life?

When you care about the baby and the mother at least as much as you care about the fetus.

and you care about the innocent condemned man as much as you care about the fetus.

What are the statistics involved, I mean what's the ratio of those who have been executed who were 100% guilty in relation to those who were executed who a while later were found to have been innocent?

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Pro-some-life then.

Pro innocent life and pro innocent until proven guilty.... with the acceptance of a fucking reality that sometimes despite all the efforts to avoid it.... an innocent life might be lost.

Countless innocent lives are lost every day as a consequence of booze being legal.... But libtardz would never consider banning booze again... but one innocent CONVICTED felon (usually prior convictions) gets executed and suddenly we just have to ban the practice entirely.

How can you ethically condone the killing of any innocent person? Right there is the inconsistency in your ethic, so much so you have to resort to insults.

Innocent is innocent and if you oppose the killing of it you can't possibly support a system that is so faulty innocent people have gotten executed. And not just one. Or two. Or three.

It's acceptable to you to kill innocent people becuase what - most of them are guilty anyway and if they're not well they're already "convicted felons". Listen to yourself.

The Constitution says that no person can be deprived of their life - except by due process. I support what the Constitution says. Your attempts to twist, distort and mischaracterize my beliefs not with standing.

I'm n ot talking about the constitution - I'm not twisting or distorting anything (or at least, no more than you do others). I'm lookiing at it from a strictly ethical point of view because to me it's ultiimately the ethics that drive it.

I am serious when I say I admire those with a truly consistent ethic here, even more those who apply it across the spectrum of life. I'm 75% there, maybe more.

I support free and readily available birth control and education.
I support programs that support those with an unwanted pregnancy in making the choice of life and which will help her through until she is truly on her feet or adopts out the child - so she doesn't become a school drop out statistic or lose her job.
I support restricting late term elective abortions (which are anyway).
I would rather not see abortion ever be needed but I can never advocate removing that choice from a woman.
I oppose the death penalty. Too many innocent people have died. It's unjustly applied.

I should sue you to make you replace or pay for the 37 brain cells I lost trying to understand this garbage.

How many innocent human beings have been killed by the death penalty?

How many innocent children have been killed by abortions?

"How many innocent children have been killed by abortions?"

Worldwide several hundred million and 100% of those babies have been 100% innocent and have been killed as they slumber in the womb.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Then maybe it's pro-choice! You choose which lives can remain and which lives to end.

Pro-choice vs pro-choice!

Not really.

We believe that death is a proper punishment for violent law breakers. Simply being a baby is not. Pro-life means innocent life--not those who killed other people.

The problem you have is distinguishing between justified death and unjustified death. Pro-life doesn't mean you are against all death. It means you are against unjustified death. Killing a person who killed another human being is justified death. Killing a baby who didn't do anything to anybody is unjustified death, and that's what pro-life means.

Bro, you can argue that abortions does indeed kill life. After all, a little worm a fisherman uses is also life. However, those politicians you vote for are all for no abortions only until it doesn't cost them a dollar. So, lets suppose no abortions actually became law. How will we handle all these additional welfare babies? The GOP has said no welfare, no food stamps and for sure, no health insurance for these additional welfare babies. So, what are you trying to create here, England 1200? I am sorry but your politicians are all for it until they find out it's going to cost them a $1. Then it's a different story. The committment is not there. You lose. Make the GOP recognize the problem and address it.

On what basis do you claim that when abortion is made illegal, welfare numbers will rise? Abortion has been legal for near 50 years and the welfare numbers are about as high as they have ever been.

I submit that when abortion is made illegal again, accompanied with education efforts to educate people (especially young people) on why it is illegal, when a child's life and rights begin, etc...

The birth rates of unplanned children will drop significantly. . . because, most people are responsible enough to do much MORE to prevent pregnancies in the first place.

It's obvious, if young girls could get abortions then there are less babies. If they can't get abortions, then there are more babies. Doesn't that seem logical?

"It's obvious, if young girls could get abortions then there are less babies. If they can't get abortions, then there are more babies. Doesn't that seem logical?"

Fact: If they used contraception they wouldn't get pregnant in the first place.

Your attempt at argument is ridiculous and is only logical to Leftists who are devoid of logical thinking to begin with.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

When is Pro-Life pro-life?

When you care about the baby and the mother at least as much as you care about the fetus.

I'm anti-abortion with the exceptions of rape, incest and where the life of the mother is in danger.

I do not support abortion on demand, which is using abortion as a means of contraception, that's murdering a baby as it slumbers in the womb....Killing For Convenience.

You don't get to kill a baby because it's going to be inconvenient and get in the way of your lifestyle.

If a woman doesn't want a baby it's simple use contraception.

 

[Mudda]

Everyone is "pro-life", the anti-choice people have simply mis-appropriated the term because they are too ashamed to call their movement what it is, the anti-choice movement, part of Christian Sharia Law.

From the perspective of the unborn, it's pro-life. You can play word games all you want, the fact is that an abortion is an unsanctioned death penalty on a human life, and whether that individual is still in the mother's womb is irrelevant. I believe it says something about our society when we are so careless with our disregard for the murder of the defenseless. Far better IMHO to dispense free birth control methods to prevent conception in the 1st place.

Not everyone sees fetuses the way you do. Personally, I see no proof that it's a conscious sentient being. Sure, it might twitch if you poke it, but not in the sense of a living thinking person.

 

[Mudda]

Pro-choice vs pro-choice!

Not really.

We believe that death is a proper punishment for violent law breakers. Simply being a baby is not. Pro-life means innocent life--not those who killed other people.

The problem you have is distinguishing between justified death and unjustified death. Pro-life doesn't mean you are against all death. It means you are against unjustified death. Killing a person who killed another human being is justified death. Killing a baby who didn't do anything to anybody is unjustified death, and that's what pro-life means.

Bro, you can argue that abortions does indeed kill life. After all, a little worm a fisherman uses is also life. However, those politicians you vote for are all for no abortions only until it doesn't cost them a dollar. So, lets suppose no abortions actually became law. How will we handle all these additional welfare babies? The GOP has said no welfare, no food stamps and for sure, no health insurance for these additional welfare babies. So, what are you trying to create here, England 1200? I am sorry but your politicians are all for it until they find out it's going to cost them a $1. Then it's a different story. The committment is not there. You lose. Make the GOP recognize the problem and address it.

On what basis do you claim that when abortion is made illegal, welfare numbers will rise? Abortion has been legal for near 50 years and the welfare numbers are about as high as they have ever been.

I submit that when abortion is made illegal again, accompanied with education efforts to educate people (especially young people) on why it is illegal, when a child's life and rights begin, etc...

The birth rates of unplanned children will drop significantly. . . because, most people are responsible enough to do much MORE to prevent pregnancies in the first place.

It's obvious, if young girls could get abortions then there are less babies. If they can't get abortions, then there are more babies. Doesn't that seem logical?

"It's obvious, if young girls could get abortions then there are less babies. If they can't get abortions, then there are more babies. Doesn't that seem logical?"

Fact: If they used contraception they wouldn't get pregnant in the first place.

Your attempt at argument is ridiculous and is only logical to Leftists who are devoid of logical thinking to begin with.

Contraception for teens isn't a wide spread thing in the US, mainly due to the religious nuts.

 

[yiostheoy]

Everyone is "pro-life", the anti-choice people have simply mis-appropriated the term because they are too ashamed to call their movement what it is, the anti-choice movement, part of Christian Sharia Law.

From the perspective of the unborn, it's pro-life. You can play word games all you want, the fact is that an abortion is an unsanctioned death penalty on a human life, and whether that individual is still in the mother's womb is irrelevant. I believe it says something about our society when we are so careless with our disregard for the murder of the defenseless. Far better IMHO to dispense free birth control methods to prevent conception in the 1st place.

Not everyone sees fetuses the way you do. Personally, I see no proof that it's a conscious sentient being. Sure, it might twitch if you poke it, but not in the sense of a living thinking person.

Well if you can divorce yourself from any sympathy for it then you can probably kill anything without feeling too bad about it.

Uncle Sam needs you.

 

[yiostheoy]

Not really.

We believe that death is a proper punishment for violent law breakers. Simply being a baby is not. Pro-life means innocent life--not those who killed other people.

The problem you have is distinguishing between justified death and unjustified death. Pro-life doesn't mean you are against all death. It means you are against unjustified death. Killing a person who killed another human being is justified death. Killing a baby who didn't do anything to anybody is unjustified death, and that's what pro-life means.

Bro, you can argue that abortions does indeed kill life. After all, a little worm a fisherman uses is also life. However, those politicians you vote for are all for no abortions only until it doesn't cost them a dollar. So, lets suppose no abortions actually became law. How will we handle all these additional welfare babies? The GOP has said no welfare, no food stamps and for sure, no health insurance for these additional welfare babies. So, what are you trying to create here, England 1200? I am sorry but your politicians are all for it until they find out it's going to cost them a $1. Then it's a different story. The committment is not there. You lose. Make the GOP recognize the problem and address it.

On what basis do you claim that when abortion is made illegal, welfare numbers will rise? Abortion has been legal for near 50 years and the welfare numbers are about as high as they have ever been.

I submit that when abortion is made illegal again, accompanied with education efforts to educate people (especially young people) on why it is illegal, when a child's life and rights begin, etc...

The birth rates of unplanned children will drop significantly. . . because, most people are responsible enough to do much MORE to prevent pregnancies in the first place.

It's obvious, if young girls could get abortions then there are less babies. If they can't get abortions, then there are more babies. Doesn't that seem logical?

"It's obvious, if young girls could get abortions then there are less babies. If they can't get abortions, then there are more babies. Doesn't that seem logical?"

Fact: If they used contraception they wouldn't get pregnant in the first place.

Your attempt at argument is ridiculous and is only logical to Leftists who are devoid of logical thinking to begin with.

Contraception for teens isn't a wide spread thing in the US, mainly due to the religious nuts.

Teenie Weenies should not be boinking.

That's why it is not common for them to be encouraged to carry condoms.

That's why there is teen pregnancy.

 

[Mudda]

Everyone is "pro-life", the anti-choice people have simply mis-appropriated the term because they are too ashamed to call their movement what it is, the anti-choice movement, part of Christian Sharia Law.

From the perspective of the unborn, it's pro-life. You can play word games all you want, the fact is that an abortion is an unsanctioned death penalty on a human life, and whether that individual is still in the mother's womb is irrelevant. I believe it says something about our society when we are so careless with our disregard for the murder of the defenseless. Far better IMHO to dispense free birth control methods to prevent conception in the 1st place.

Not everyone sees fetuses the way you do. Personally, I see no proof that it's a conscious sentient being. Sure, it might twitch if you poke it, but not in the sense of a living thinking person.

Well if you can divorce yourself from any sympathy for it then you can probably kill anything without feeling too bad about it.

Uncle Sam needs you.

You mean like you do when you eat meat?

 

[Mudda]

Bro, you can argue that abortions does indeed kill life. After all, a little worm a fisherman uses is also life. However, those politicians you vote for are all for no abortions only until it doesn't cost them a dollar. So, lets suppose no abortions actually became law. How will we handle all these additional welfare babies? The GOP has said no welfare, no food stamps and for sure, no health insurance for these additional welfare babies. So, what are you trying to create here, England 1200? I am sorry but your politicians are all for it until they find out it's going to cost them a $1. Then it's a different story. The committment is not there. You lose. Make the GOP recognize the problem and address it.

On what basis do you claim that when abortion is made illegal, welfare numbers will rise? Abortion has been legal for near 50 years and the welfare numbers are about as high as they have ever been.

I submit that when abortion is made illegal again, accompanied with education efforts to educate people (especially young people) on why it is illegal, when a child's life and rights begin, etc...

The birth rates of unplanned children will drop significantly. . . because, most people are responsible enough to do much MORE to prevent pregnancies in the first place.

It's obvious, if young girls could get abortions then there are less babies. If they can't get abortions, then there are more babies. Doesn't that seem logical?

"It's obvious, if young girls could get abortions then there are less babies. If they can't get abortions, then there are more babies. Doesn't that seem logical?"

Fact: If they used contraception they wouldn't get pregnant in the first place.

Your attempt at argument is ridiculous and is only logical to Leftists who are devoid of logical thinking to begin with.

Contraception for teens isn't a wide spread thing in the US, mainly due to the religious nuts.

Teenie Weenies should not be boinking.

That's why it is not common for them to be encouraged to carry condoms.

That's why there is teen pregnancy.

Teenie Weenies are boinking. Pretending that they shouldn't won't get the job done.

 

[yiostheoy]

When is Pro-Life pro-life?

When you care about the baby and the mother at least as much as you care about the fetus.

and you care about the innocent condemned man as much as you care about the fetus.

Different issue however.

 

[yiostheoy]

Everyone is "pro-life", the anti-choice people have simply mis-appropriated the term because they are too ashamed to call their movement what it is, the anti-choice movement, part of Christian Sharia Law.

From the perspective of the unborn, it's pro-life. You can play word games all you want, the fact is that an abortion is an unsanctioned death penalty on a human life, and whether that individual is still in the mother's womb is irrelevant. I believe it says something about our society when we are so careless with our disregard for the murder of the defenseless. Far better IMHO to dispense free birth control methods to prevent conception in the 1st place.

Not everyone sees fetuses the way you do. Personally, I see no proof that it's a conscious sentient being. Sure, it might twitch if you poke it, but not in the sense of a living thinking person.

Well if you can divorce yourself from any sympathy for it then you can probably kill anything without feeling too bad about it.

Uncle Sam needs you.

You mean like you do when you eat meat?

I don't eat humans.

Not yet anyway.

 

[Mudda]

Everyone is "pro-life", the anti-choice people have simply mis-appropriated the term because they are too ashamed to call their movement what it is, the anti-choice movement, part of Christian Sharia Law.

From the perspective of the unborn, it's pro-life. You can play word games all you want, the fact is that an abortion is an unsanctioned death penalty on a human life, and whether that individual is still in the mother's womb is irrelevant. I believe it says something about our society when we are so careless with our disregard for the murder of the defenseless. Far better IMHO to dispense free birth control methods to prevent conception in the 1st place.

Not everyone sees fetuses the way you do. Personally, I see no proof that it's a conscious sentient being. Sure, it might twitch if you poke it, but not in the sense of a living thinking person.

Well if you can divorce yourself from any sympathy for it then you can probably kill anything without feeling too bad about it.

Uncle Sam needs you.

You mean like you do when you eat meat?

I don't eat humans.

Not yet anyway.

So it's ok to kill and eat sentient beings, just not humans... yet. Got it.

 

[Coyote]

When is Pro-Life pro-life?

When you care about the baby and the mother at least as much as you care about the fetus.

and you care about the innocent condemned man as much as you care about the fetus.

What are the statistics involved, I mean what's the ratio of those who have been executed who were 100% guilty in relation to those who were executed who a while later were found to have been innocent?

It's hard to get accurate statistics for several reasons. One is, until relatively recently - there was little effort. New means of assessing evidence opened the door to relooking at these cases. Another factor is - these are typically people with no money, no wealthy advocates, sitting on death row. Once an inmate is actually killed - it's rare that anyone goes in and reviews the case.

What is known for a fact is groups like Project Innocence have exonerated many wrongful convictions and death penalties. It's not just new means of assessing evidence - it's bad handling of cases, poor representation, racial inequities and downright corruption that has been found to have effected the case. So...how many innocent people have died?

I put myself in the shoes of an innocent person knowing he's going to be executed, and knowing he did nothing wrong and there is nothing - nothing he can do about it - how can that be justified? Allowed? How is that somehow righteous (to some) where abortion isn't?

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Not really.

We believe that death is a proper punishment for violent law breakers. Simply being a baby is not. Pro-life means innocent life--not those who killed other people.

The problem you have is distinguishing between justified death and unjustified death. Pro-life doesn't mean you are against all death. It means you are against unjustified death. Killing a person who killed another human being is justified death. Killing a baby who didn't do anything to anybody is unjustified death, and that's what pro-life means.

Bro, you can argue that abortions does indeed kill life. After all, a little worm a fisherman uses is also life. However, those politicians you vote for are all for no abortions only until it doesn't cost them a dollar. So, lets suppose no abortions actually became law. How will we handle all these additional welfare babies? The GOP has said no welfare, no food stamps and for sure, no health insurance for these additional welfare babies. So, what are you trying to create here, England 1200? I am sorry but your politicians are all for it until they find out it's going to cost them a $1. Then it's a different story. The committment is not there. You lose. Make the GOP recognize the problem and address it.

On what basis do you claim that when abortion is made illegal, welfare numbers will rise? Abortion has been legal for near 50 years and the welfare numbers are about as high as they have ever been.

I submit that when abortion is made illegal again, accompanied with education efforts to educate people (especially young people) on why it is illegal, when a child's life and rights begin, etc...

The birth rates of unplanned children will drop significantly. . . because, most people are responsible enough to do much MORE to prevent pregnancies in the first place.

It's obvious, if young girls could get abortions then there are less babies. If they can't get abortions, then there are more babies. Doesn't that seem logical?

"It's obvious, if young girls could get abortions then there are less babies. If they can't get abortions, then there are more babies. Doesn't that seem logical?"

Fact: If they used contraception they wouldn't get pregnant in the first place.

Your attempt at argument is ridiculous and is only logical to Leftists who are devoid of logical thinking to begin with.

Contraception for teens isn't a wide spread thing in the US, mainly due to the religious nuts.

I think that contraception should be free for those under 17 years of age, I also think that condom machines should be installed in all schools in both the girls bathrooms and the boys bathrooms.

It's absurd to think that the under 17s aren't having sex with each other and that's in most Western nations, not just there in America, the teenage pregnancy rate in most Western nations suggests completely they are having sex.

So give them free contraception in the schools.

Also the whole Abstinence argument is ridiculous, you are never going to get teenagers to agree to Abstain from sex, sex is a natural thing to do, especially when the hormones are raging.

 

[Uncensored2008]

....

Gotta love it when proaborts think they have the higher ground when they accuse others of supporting a mass murderer.

Pro-some-lifers shouldn't throw stones from glass houses...

There ain't nothing glass about my house.

You can't be pro-life and still support capital punishment.

1. BULL SHIT.
2. Not everyone who opposes abortion are pro life and believe in that "every life is sacred" bullshit.

For example, being "prolife" doesn't mean one has to give up their right to self defense or the right to defend others. The better term would be "pro innocent life" but most people above the education of a middle scool student should be able to discern that without having to be enlightened further on it.

A consistent pro-life ethic allows for self defense or the defense of others but not for capital punishment - willfully taking another's life. It's not bull shit. It's about a consistent ethic. You call pro-choice "pro-abort" - yet you can be pro-choice and not personally support abortion. It's supporting a woman's choice.

I admire truly pro-life people - they are consistent from conception to tomb because human life matters, not the subjective determination of "innocence". I wish I was at that ethical point, but I'm not.

A Consistent pro-abortion mourns every live birth and seeks to end humanity.

See, I can dishonestly define the opposition using a straw man just as you did...

 

[Coyote]

Pro-some-life then.

Pro innocent life and pro innocent until proven guilty.... with the acceptance of a fucking reality that sometimes despite all the efforts to avoid it.... an innocent life might be lost.

Countless innocent lives are lost every day as a consequence of booze being legal.... But libtardz would never consider banning booze again... but one innocent CONVICTED felon (usually prior convictions) gets executed and suddenly we just have to ban the practice entirely.

How can you ethically condone the killing of any innocent person? Right there is the inconsistency in your ethic, so much so you have to resort to insults.

Innocent is innocent and if you oppose the killing of it you can't possibly support a system that is so faulty innocent people have gotten executed. And not just one. Or two. Or three.

It's acceptable to you to kill innocent people becuase what - most of them are guilty anyway and if they're not well they're already "convicted felons". Listen to yourself.

The Constitution says that no person can be deprived of their life - except by due process. I support what the Constitution says. Your attempts to twist, distort and mischaracterize my beliefs not with standing.

I'm n ot talking about the constitution - I'm not twisting or distorting anything (or at least, no more than you do others). I'm lookiing at it from a strictly ethical point of view because to me it's ultiimately the ethics that drive it.

I am serious when I say I admire those with a truly consistent ethic here, even more those who apply it across the spectrum of life. I'm 75% there, maybe more.

I support free and readily available birth control and education.
I support programs that support those with an unwanted pregnancy in making the choice of life and which will help her through until she is truly on her feet or adopts out the child - so she doesn't become a school drop out statistic or lose her job.
I support restricting late term elective abortions (which are anyway).
I would rather not see abortion ever be needed but I can never advocate removing that choice from a woman.
I oppose the death penalty. Too many innocent people have died. It's unjustly applied.

I should sue you to make you replace or pay for the 37 brain cells I lost trying to understand this garbage.

I'm sorry that a loss of 37 brain cells has left you so impaired, you should have bought a warrenty. In the meantime, contact customer service - they might be willing to offer a refund considering they were barely used.

How many innocent human beings have been killed by the death penalty?

Let's look at this logically. Do you really think no innocent people were killed? Consider how many people have been exhonerated in recent years and extrapolate from that backwards.

How many innocent children have been killed by abortions?

Oh, I see - it's not about innocent lives, it's about numbers? You're willing to allow innocent prisoners to be killed (presumably they're collateral damage in the desire for punative justice) because the overall numbers are less than that of abortions?