Why Can't The So-Called Pro-Life Crowd Be Honest?

[Anguille]

I did answer your question. That is an extremely small percentage of women.

However, to spell it out for you, when you choose to have sex, protected or not, you choose to take the risk of ending up with a pregnancy. Plain and simple, there are no guarantees on the box of condoms or in the instructions on how to use the pill that you will not end up with a pregnancy. If you choose to have sex, you run the risk of ending up with a pregnancy.

Either accept that risk or choose not to have sex.

Immie

Or have an abortion.
I can't imagine why anyone would insist that a child should be born because a woman took a risk and things went badly.
Where is the respect for the child? They are human too, you know.

Oh please, ye who actually stated that an unborn child is not human should not be asking this question.

And ye know not that things went badly. The human being within her, may turn out to be the biggest joy of her life in just a few short months. Okay... maybe that will take a year or so once the child is out of diapers?... um a few years like after the terrible twos? Wait, the teen years follow that! Okay in 25 years, maybe the child will become the joy of her life!!! Sheeesth!!!

Immie

I never stated anything of the like concerning an unborn child because that term is just another sleazy anti choice buzz word and I never use it.

Maybe or maybe not. Still no reason to try and force or coerce a woman into spending 9 months pregnant and going through labor and then having to chose to raise the child or abandon it, most likely to complete strangers.

As someone who has never run the risk of having to bear a child himself, I think you tend to underestimate the enormous consequences that pregnancy entails.

And don't try to claim that being a father, you do. You've never felt labor pains for one thing. And that's just a tiny part of motherhood. Dude, but for the grace of your God, go you ...

 

[Cecilie1200]

That's nice, Immie. But wrong. Abortion numbers would go down if abortion was illegal. Most people are law abiding citizens. However, they will take advantage of laws that make life more convenient for them, even if they don't approve of the general premise.

Many, many women who will get abortions when they're legal will NOT get them when they're illegal. It's that simple.

I'm law abiding... but I have a lead foot. I even have a couple of speeding tickets to my name to prove that.

I know a lot of people that would never park in a handicapped parking space but will smoke pot in the privacy of their own homes.

I know you and I disagree on this and unfortunately, I don't think either one of us will ever be able to prove our beliefs with actual real life events. I think your belief that abortion numbers sky-rocketed with the legalization of abortion is incorrect as is your belief that making it illegal would reverse that trend. There were most likely just as many abortions the year before legalization as there were the year after, it is simply that it was legal to admit to an abortion after whereas before it would have gotten both the woman and, if she had someone else help her, that other person in trouble.

Because abortion is seen to be socially acceptable in these days and times, even making it illegal will not make it rare.

Immie

Yes, there will always be people who ignore and flout the law. That's why we have full prisons.

Nevertheless, consider that while you may have speeding tickets, I'll betcha you haven't been dinged for felony speeding, because while you fudge the speed limits, you respect the law enough to not go 100 miles an hour through town. Right?

Kind of the point. Bending smaller laws a little is a whole 'nother thing from breaking major ones for the vast majority of us. We calculate the risks versus the rewards, factor in the odds of actually getting caught, and then we decide on the course of action with the most desirable likely outcome. If abortions were largely illegal, they would also largely NOT be the chosen course of action.

 

[Anguille]

I did answer your question. That is an extremely small percentage of women.

However, to spell it out for you, when you choose to have sex, protected or not, you choose to take the risk of ending up with a pregnancy. Plain and simple, there are no guarantees on the box of condoms or in the instructions on how to use the pill that you will not end up with a pregnancy. If you choose to have sex, you run the risk of ending up with a pregnancy.

Either accept that risk or choose not to have sex.

Immie

Or have an abortion.
I can't imagine why anyone would insist that a child should be born because a woman took a risk and things went badly.
Where is the respect for the child? They are human too, you know.

So it's out of respect for the unborn and helpless that you kill it?

What are the unborn? Are you the undead?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well the FACTS remain that there is no definitive scientific proof when life begins and "abortion" isn't even mentioned in the Bible. So all we have left are the self absorbed who believe in government control and forcing others to conform to THEIR morals.

.

Those who don't follow any faith argue that morals have nothing to do with religion. So trying to pigeon hole abortion as such is feeble.

One certainly does not have to be religious to view abortion as horrible. As much as pro-choicers want to classify the pro-life position as "all about religion", not one of them can EVER cite a time that I, for example, have ever based my arguments against abortion on religion.

 

[Anguille]

Good point, but then the mistreatment itself needs to be dealt with and their are laws protecting children from such mistreatment. That being said, adoption should still be promoted as a viable and even preferred option. Then again, it seems to me that the abortion industry talks down adoption as an alternative.

Immie

It seems to me that the adoption industry maligns abortion for the obvious reason that it limits supply. My cousin and her husband adopted their children and is a fantastic mother. They did so for genetic reasons. I'm glad they got to be parents but I would still never give a child of mine up for adoption. I think to do so is irresponsible and even selfish for those who do it so they won't go to hell. I grant that there are some mothers who have honestly miscalculated their ability to care for and raise a child and that is a terrible situation all around. But it seems to me that most infants up for adoption are there because some poor kid was brainwashed or is getting paid to do it. The two birth mothers of my cousins kids certainly were. They were all offered the opportunity to remain in their children's lives to some degree but none took up the offer. Well, one did but she dropped out of sight soon after the birth. To give them the benefit of the doubt, perhaps it was just too painful to be reminded of how they gave up their child. People do make mistakes. Especially teenagers.

I think it's horrible the way some organisations entrap vulnerable young girls and convince them they should go through with a pregnancy they don't want. Your life is never the sasme after giving birth. No matter if you keep the baby or not.

Carrying a fetus to term, delivering the baby and putting it up for adoption (thus giving them a chance at life) is selfish??? But killing that unborn human (thus never even giving them a chance at life) is ok in your book.

Your world, it haz a bizzaro.

Zoom, don't stress yourself out like you did the last time we had this discussion and you had a hissy fit because your arguments and rewordings of my posts were faulty.

 

[Anguille]

Well the FACTS remain that there is no definitive scientific proof when life begins and "abortion" isn't even mentioned in the Bible. So all we have left are the self absorbed who believe in government control and forcing others to conform to THEIR morals.

.

Those who don't follow any faith argue that morals have nothing to do with religion. So trying to pigeon hole abortion as such is feeble.

One certainly does not have to be religious to view abortion as horrible. As much as pro-choicers want to classify the pro-life position as "all about religion", not one of them can EVER cite a time that I, for example, have ever based my arguments against abortion on religion.

Chill. Everyone already knows your arguments are spurred by your misogyny and misanthropy.

 

[iggy pop]

Because if they were they would admit that they are in favor of government control over American citizens private decisions. THEY are the real enemies of liberty and freedom.

Because unless you are the woman, her doctor or her God you need to stay the fuck out of her business.

.

She loses the right to make determinations over her body once she has another life in it. Especially when that determination impacts the other life. Women want to control their bodies? don't get pregnant.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Because if they were they would admit that they are in favor of government control over American citizens private decisions. THEY are the real enemies of liberty and freedom.

Because unless you are the woman, her doctor or her God you need to stay the fuck out of her business.

.

No wonder you're in a union.

 

[Zoom-boing]

It seems to me that the adoption industry maligns abortion for the obvious reason that it limits supply. My cousin and her husband adopted their children and is a fantastic mother. They did so for genetic reasons. I'm glad they got to be parents but I would still never give a child of mine up for adoption. I think to do so is irresponsible and even selfish for those who do it so they won't go to hell. I grant that there are some mothers who have honestly miscalculated their ability to care for and raise a child and that is a terrible situation all around. But it seems to me that most infants up for adoption are there because some poor kid was brainwashed or is getting paid to do it. The two birth mothers of my cousins kids certainly were. They were all offered the opportunity to remain in their children's lives to some degree but none took up the offer. Well, one did but she dropped out of sight soon after the birth. To give them the benefit of the doubt, perhaps it was just too painful to be reminded of how they gave up their child. People do make mistakes. Especially teenagers.

I think it's horrible the way some organisations entrap vulnerable young girls and convince them they should go through with a pregnancy they don't want. Your life is never the sasme after giving birth. No matter if you keep the baby or not.

Carrying a fetus to term, delivering the baby and putting it up for adoption (thus giving them a chance at life) is selfish??? But killing that unborn human (thus never even giving them a chance at life) is ok in your book.

Your world, it haz a bizzaro.

Zoom, don't stress yourself out like you did the last time we had this discussion and you had a hissy fit because your arguments and rewordings of my posts were faulty.

Was that the conversation where you said you'd get back to me for further discussion, then never did? Or the one where I posted a pic of an aborted human and you freaked out because you thought I was going for a shock factor (I wasn't)? What did I reword of yours in previous posts? What did I reword of yours in the above post? TIA.

Is this the only reply you have to my comment on your above post?

 

[Immanuel]

Or have an abortion.
I can't imagine why anyone would insist that a child should be born because a woman took a risk and things went badly.
Where is the respect for the child? They are human too, you know.

Oh please, ye who actually stated that an unborn child is not human should not be asking this question.

And ye know not that things went badly. The human being within her, may turn out to be the biggest joy of her life in just a few short months. Okay... maybe that will take a year or so once the child is out of diapers?... um a few years like after the terrible twos? Wait, the teen years follow that! Okay in 25 years, maybe the child will become the joy of her life!!! Sheeesth!!!

Immie

I never stated anything of the like concerning an unborn child because that term is just another sleazy anti choice buzz word and I never use it.

Maybe or maybe not. Still no reason to try and force or coerce a woman into spending 9 months pregnant and going through labor and then having to chose to raise the child or abandon it, most likely to complete strangers.

As someone who has never run the risk of having to bear a child himself, I think you tend to underestimate the enormous consequences that pregnancy entails.

And don't try to claim that being a father, you do. You've never felt labor pains for one thing. And that's just a tiny part of motherhood. Dude, but for the grace of your God, go you ...

I never stated anything of the like concerning an unborn child because that term is just another sleazy anti choice buzz word and I never use it.

Here is the post. Others can make up their mind as to what you meant.

Those are all things his body is individually able to do or have his mind tell him he needs to do it.

Why aren't early miscarriages in obituaries?

Why don't we have funerals for early miscarriages?

How long are we going to have an enormous pocket of society who pretends early stage pregnancies are the same as a baby when in no other situation in life besides the abortion issue do they hold to that principle?

Is arguing over when life begins really that necessary? I disagree with both you and RDD, but quite truthfully, when life begins means squat. I don't care if the fetus is a human being or a potential human being. Snuffing out its life for convenience purposes is simply wrong... wrong... wrong!

The efforts on the left to dehumanize a fetus are nothing more than excuses for snuffing out a life. They want to justify their stance. Under no circumstances do I believe this attempt is valid on their behalf. There is absolutely no justification for snuffing out a life for convenience sake!

Earlier today I posted in a thread about the CEO of Go Daddy killing an elephant. I stated he should have the balls to admit that he did it for no other reason than sport. The left should have the balls to admit that their efforts to dehumanize the fetus is nothing more than an attempt to justify the snuffing out of a life for the sake of convenience.

Immie

While I agree with you that deciding when so called life actually begins is beside the point, I don't think pro choicers dehumanize something that is not human to begin with.

And I think that anti-choicers dehumanize women for the sake of convenience to bolster their arguments.

Maybe or maybe not. Still no reason to try and force or coerce a woman into spending 9 months pregnant and going through labor and then having to chose to raise the child or abandon it, most likely to complete strangers.

As stated earlier, she made her choice. She had every chance (barring rape) to avoid the pregnancy.

As someone who has never run the risk of having to bear a child himself, I think you tend to underestimate the enormous consequences that pregnancy entails.

I don't think I underestimate anything of the sort. But neither do I accept that a woman is entitled to a "Do Over" after the fact.

And don't try to claim that being a father, you do. You've never felt labor pains for one thing. And that's just a tiny part of motherhood. Dude, but for the grace of your God, go you ...

I would never claim such a thing and yes, but for the grace of God there go I.

Immie

 

[Anguille]

Immie, I still don't see anywhere in that post where I used the term "unborn child".

 

[Anguille]

Carrying a fetus to term, delivering the baby and putting it up for adoption (thus giving them a chance at life) is selfish??? But killing that unborn human (thus never even giving them a chance at life) is ok in your book.

Your world, it haz a bizzaro.

Zoom, don't stress yourself out like you did the last time we had this discussion and you had a hissy fit because your arguments and rewordings of my posts were faulty.

Was that the conversation where you said you'd get back to me for further discussion, then never did? Or the one where I posted a pic of an aborted human and you freaked out because you thought I was going for a shock factor (I wasn't)? What did I reword of yours in previous posts? What did I reword of yours in the above post? TIA.

Is this the only reply you have to my comment on your above post?

You're getting in a frenzy already. For your own sake I must refuse to engage with you on this subject till I see a note from your doctor saying you can handle it.

Try to understand.

 

[R.D.]

Or have an abortion.
I can't imagine why anyone would insist that a child should be born because a woman took a risk and things went badly.
Where is the respect for the child? They are human too, you know.

So it's out of respect for the unborn and helpless that you kill it?

What are the unborn? Are you the undead?

Clever.

That was an unanswer.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Zoom, don't stress yourself out like you did the last time we had this discussion and you had a hissy fit because your arguments and rewordings of my posts were faulty.

Was that the conversation where you said you'd get back to me for further discussion, then never did? Or the one where I posted a pic of an aborted human and you freaked out because you thought I was going for a shock factor (I wasn't)? What did I reword of yours in previous posts? What did I reword of yours in the above post? TIA.

Is this the only reply you have to my comment on your above post?

You're getting in a frenzy already. For your own sake I must refuse to engage with you on this subject till I see a note from your doctor saying you can handle it.

Try to understand.

Oh, so you got bupkis. Got it. Thanks.

(to others, note: Anguille sees my calm and logical response to her post as me "getting into a frenzy". )

 

[Immanuel]

That's nice, Immie. But wrong. Abortion numbers would go down if abortion was illegal. Most people are law abiding citizens. However, they will take advantage of laws that make life more convenient for them, even if they don't approve of the general premise.

Many, many women who will get abortions when they're legal will NOT get them when they're illegal. It's that simple.

I'm law abiding... but I have a lead foot. I even have a couple of speeding tickets to my name to prove that.

I know a lot of people that would never park in a handicapped parking space but will smoke pot in the privacy of their own homes.

I know you and I disagree on this and unfortunately, I don't think either one of us will ever be able to prove our beliefs with actual real life events. I think your belief that abortion numbers sky-rocketed with the legalization of abortion is incorrect as is your belief that making it illegal would reverse that trend. There were most likely just as many abortions the year before legalization as there were the year after, it is simply that it was legal to admit to an abortion after whereas before it would have gotten both the woman and, if she had someone else help her, that other person in trouble.

Because abortion is seen to be socially acceptable in these days and times, even making it illegal will not make it rare.

Immie

Yes, there will always be people who ignore and flout the law. That's why we have full prisons.

Nevertheless, consider that while you may have speeding tickets, I'll betcha you haven't been dinged for felony speeding, because while you fudge the speed limits, you respect the law enough to not go 100 miles an hour through town. Right?

Kind of the point. Bending smaller laws a little is a whole 'nother thing from breaking major ones for the vast majority of us. We calculate the risks versus the rewards, factor in the odds of actually getting caught, and then we decide on the course of action with the most desirable likely outcome. If abortions were largely illegal, they would also largely NOT be the chosen course of action.

Not through town, but there was that stretch of Utah Desert on the way from California to Nebraska... um, is there a statute of limitations on speeding?

As for it not being the chosen course of action, it seems to me that you are assuming that the overturning of Roe would mean that abortion would become illegal in most places in the U.S. I don't think that would happen. I think we'd have states that made it illegal right next to ones that made it legal. I think it would be a literal nightmare. I think we would have a small amount of "back alley" abortions, but I think the majority of women would simply get on a plane or take a train or car to the nearest legal abortion clinic and solve their problem, thus doing nothing at all to reduce the number of abortions.

Is the goal here to overturn Roe or to reduce the number of abortions?

Immie

 

[Cecilie1200]

The foetus isn't alive?

So women carry a dead baby around for nine months and then it magically comes to life when her water breaks?

That raises serious questions about all those sonograms I see them moving around in...

It's fetus, not foetus.

You really want to argue over preferred spellings?

Merriam-Webster recognizes it

Foetus - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

It is alive in the same sense that your germ cell and embryo are but it is not determined when it becomes a living human being.

The embryo is an organism. The germ cells are not organisms- they are cells of the parents' bodies (the parents are organisms).

Seriously, why didn't any of these people learn the meaning of the word "organism" in school? I have lost count of the number of times some halfwit has confidently babbled out this egregious crap.

Biological Levels of Organization

Cell - The structural, functional and biological unit of all organisms.

Tissue - An aggregate of cells in an organism that have similar structure and function.

Organ - A group of tissues that perform a specific function or group of functions.

Organ system - A group of organs that work together to carry out a particular task.

Organism - An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis.

Learn it, live it, love it, chumps. Sheesh.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A fetus is the early stage of development of a human being. It isn't more or less human than a seven month baby in-utero is or a born infant or a five year old; it is simply in a different stage of development. From when it is conceived it is a human being and abortion ends/destroys/kills that human being.

The dancing around that so many of you folks do with the "it's not quite human yet" bullshit in order to justify abortion is nothing short of mindboggling.

Is it any more mind boggling than the fancy footwork of the anti choicers who cannot acknowledge that a pregnant woman is a human being?

Ever notice how those pics some freaks post of fetuses in vitro never show the woman in whose womb the fetus resides? They just show her womb because that is all she is to them. A means to an end.

Huh? Whoever said she wasn't human? If a fetus is a human being then surely the woman who is carrying that fetus is a human being.

They don't show the pictures of the woman because she has remained intact. All of her. Every little bit of her. Her head, arms, legs, toenails, spleen. Even her womb! Yup, all there. The aborted? Not so much. That's kind of the point of the pic.

Basically, no one's showing her picture because HER humanity isn't being questioned.

 

[Immanuel]

Immie, I still don't see anywhere in that post where I used the term "unborn child".

You didn't. But your wording clearly indicates that you do not consider a fetus to be human. I suppose you will start playing semantic games. Guess, you are admitting defeat.

Immie

 

[Ravi]

Ravi, just because you think that creationism and science are non-compatible doesn't mean there aren't those of us who love science and see it as God's map of life. I'm certainly not scared of science, though I think most of the head-in-the-sand anti-creationists are definitely afraid of faith...and of a lot of science, too, when it doesn't fit their concept of the way things ought to be.

If I recall correctly, Ravi was actually chiming in to support the human-dog hybrid argument. In fact, it's possible it even WAS Ravi. That may be why I originally put her idiotic butt on ignore.

Lying doesn't become you.

 

[Anguille]

So it's out of respect for the unborn and helpless that you kill it?

What are the unborn? Are you the undead?

Clever.

That was an unanswer.

I really don't care that much about semantics though you can't deny that resorting to sleazy buzzwords is a sign of desperation.

If "unborn" equals "fetus" then yes, I do so out of respect and compassion for the future human that the fetus might develop into and for humankind.

So many people think that bringing a child into the world is some kind of heroic act. It's not heroic, it's selfish. We have no lack of children in this world. But we do have an enormous lack of available resources for them. The earth is not getting any bigger. One day we could over populate ourselves into oblivion. Of course most people only think of the immediate future and their own desires to have a family. That's quite understandable. But selfish all the same.