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

[AllieBaba]

Why not just throw it in a dumpster?

What's the difference?

I sure wish that Neo-Cons had just a tiny bit of the concern for children after they were born as they do fetuses. Just a little bit of redirected energy would make a HUGE difference in the lives of children, wouldn't it?

.

Hi, you have received -255 reputation points from AllieBaba.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
False premise, ad hominem, red herring.

Regards,
AllieBaba

Well, it's easy to see who proves my point and who has no regard for children.

Why don't you care about children after they are born, AllieBaba?

WAY TO GO!!!!!!!!!!

.

Who says I don't?

What does that have to do with killing children?

 

[Anguille]

Heads up Grumpy, but it is obvious that the left wing crazies take the 1% of abortions (an extreme example by and of itself) and attempt to make it the norm for all abortions. 93% of all abortions are, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, undergone for the sake of convenience. That doesn't make it or the choice easy ones to make, but it does mean that the reasons for the vast majority of abortions are for the convenience of the mother.

Immie

What you call convenience, and what actually IS convenience are two different things. I have seen the whackjobs (not that you are one Immie) on here talk about lots of women 'they know' fucking like troopers and getting abortions every other month because they can't be bothered with contraception. Yeah, because you know, that is the norm, right? Although it is convenient.

Your 'idea' of convenience and no doubt covered in '93 percent' analogy includes those women who have got knocked up when they are not prepared for, or do not want, or have the means, to have a child. It might fit your little scenario of what morality is, but I would hardly call it convenient.

People like to have sex for fun when they reach puberty. Deal with it. Now if only we could convince the right-wing whackjobs, and their peanut gallery religious retards that this is the case. How about we deal with the reality of the situation vis-a-vis sex education instead of this unattainable Utopia where Mary and Bob meet at 21, court for a couple of years, get married at 24, THEN have sex. Once we get rid of that fairytale, maybe we'll see a drop in the abortion rate...

Convenience is convenience. Remember it takes two to Tango.

That doesn't mean the decision is an easy one to make.

You can find the link to the AGI report if you search my posts and keyword "Alan"

As for Sex Ed... well for you to try to hit me with that, you obviously did not read the beginning posts in this thread or the one that took the reverse angle. I'm not opposed to sex ed.

Immie

Convenience is in the eye of the beholder.

Some people like to belittle the importance of a woman's life by denigrating her for wanting to be something other than a mother.

In any case, the reason for choosing or not choosing abortion is no body's business but that of the woman whose womb is involved. To pass judgement on others is supposed to be unChristian, is it not?

 

[DaGoose]

Well, I can speak for Australia. I'm very confident it's the same in the US

Abortion | Better Health Channel

I think AllieBaba tucked tail and ran after we exposed her LIE that no statistics are available.

.

I am unsure as to how much dealings you have had with Allie, but I'll give you a head's up. Allie has a certain set of principles in which she refuses to entertainment any opposing view, or that that opposing view has any credibility. She is the proverbial ostrich with its head stuck in the sand. If you could prove to her - unequivically - that the sky is blue, if she doesn't believe it, she doesnt' believe it. Nothing you can do about it.....

I sure wish that Neo-Cons had just a tiny bit of the concern for children after they were born as they do fetuses. Just a little bit of redirected energy would make a HUGE difference in the lives of children, wouldn't it?

.

Hi, you have received -255 reputation points from AllieBaba.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
False premise, ad hominem, red herring.

Regards,
AllieBaba

Well, it's easy to see who proves my point and who has no regard for children.

Why don't you care about children after they are born, AllieBaba?

WAY TO GO!!!!!!!!!!

.

Who says I don't?

What does that have to do with killing children?

I see what you mean Dr. Grump.

.

 

[Dr Grump]

And your point is? Don't you think the pro-choice crowd use emotional pleas as well? "It is a woman's right..." That is an emotional plea. Claiming that a human offspring is not human is an emotional plea as well.

Abortion is an emotional issue. Both sides use emotion to win points and takes points away from the other. As long as we continue to fight over this issue, there will be emotion involved in our arguments. There is no way around that from either side.

Immie

The only place in the western world where it is truly an 'emotional/political issue is the US. Most European countries, and here in Australia and NZ, it is a peripheral issue. Those who are fervently anti or pro abortion in these countries are on the periphery. The MAIN reason (note I say main, not only) reason for this is the US religious right.

Most other nations have a grown up, practical take on the subject...

 

[Cecilie1200]

My take on this is I can respect most any POV as long as it is consistent. However, when looking at the pro-life position I just don't see that consistency.

If someone is against abortion because they consider it murder and they believe they have a morale responsibility to protect life, than that should continue on after the birth. I haven't noticed the unified proposals from pro-lifers demonstrating the morale responsibility for that life after it has been "saved".

I don't know the abortion statistics but I doubt the majority of abortions are a result of women just not wanting to endure child birth. More than likely, abortions are largely attributed to some form of apprehension about what to do after the birth. So for someone to label themselves pro-life and have little to no concept for how to continue the moral responsibility of this life after birth, seems very inconsistent.

Exactly what "proposals" have you been looking for to "prove" to you that pro-lifers care about children beyond trying to keep them from being slaughtered in utero (since you clearly don't feel THAT is any sort of worthwhile goal, and obviously needs something more to legitimize it to you)?

As to your second paragraph, who ever said the majority of abortions were because the women "didn't want to endure child birth"? Where was THAT statement made? I'm pretty sure the fact that's been cited is that the majority are done simply because the "mother" doesn't want to have a child, whether that be because she doesn't want to endure the birth OR because she doesn't want the aftermath of the existence of a child.

And just perhaps, next time around, you could make the effort to present a position based on some sort of fact, rather than your "feelings"?

I'll be waiting on your proof that pro-lifers take no "moral responsibility" for children after birth, which is frankly a laughably hypocritical position of faux outrage, considering that the opposite side of the argument doesn't even want to take moral responsibility for the existence of the children AT ALL.

 

[Immanuel]

And your point is? Don't you think the pro-choice crowd use emotional pleas as well? "It is a woman's right..." That is an emotional plea. Claiming that a human offspring is not human is an emotional plea as well.

Abortion is an emotional issue. Both sides use emotion to win points and takes points away from the other. As long as we continue to fight over this issue, there will be emotion involved in our arguments. There is no way around that from either side.

Immie

The only place in the western world where it is truly an 'emotional/political issue is the US. Most European countries, and here in Australia and NZ, it is a peripheral issue. Those who are fervently anti or pro abortion in these countries are on the periphery. The MAIN reason (note I say main, not only) reason for this is the US religious right.

Most other nations have a grown up, practical take on the subject...

Oh, that is right, I forgot you live in the sophisticated part of the world. Forgive me.

By the way, you call it peripheral in Australia. I gotta tell ya, it is pretty much the same here. It just doesn't seem like it because you post on sites like this one and we... well, we are just not normal around here.

Immie

 

[Dr Grump]

And your point is? Don't you think the pro-choice crowd use emotional pleas as well? "It is a woman's right..." That is an emotional plea. Claiming that a human offspring is not human is an emotional plea as well.

Abortion is an emotional issue. Both sides use emotion to win points and takes points away from the other. As long as we continue to fight over this issue, there will be emotion involved in our arguments. There is no way around that from either side.

Immie

The only place in the western world where it is truly an 'emotional/political issue is the US. Most European countries, and here in Australia and NZ, it is a peripheral issue. Those who are fervently anti or pro abortion in these countries are on the periphery. The MAIN reason (note I say main, not only) reason for this is the US religious right.

Most other nations have a grown up, practical take on the subject...

Oh, that is right, I forgot you live in the sophisticated part of the world. Forgive me.

By the way, you call it peripheral in Australia. I gotta tell ya, it is pretty much the same here. It just doesn't seem like it because you post on sites like this one and we... well, we are just not normal around here.

Immie

Immie

Well, politically sophistocated, absolutely (esp. NZ Oz not so much)..

I don't believe it is on the peripheral there. It is always an election issue. Never is down here...

 

[AllieBaba]

Yes, that's why they have more abortions than births.

So I guess it's the mature, civilized thing to scrape your uterus routinely. Those Europeans are so cool!

 

[Anguille]

Yes, that's why they have more abortions than births.

So I guess it's the mature, civilized thing to scrape your uterus routinely. Those Europeans are so cool!

If you learned that NZ and Oz are in Europe in a University of Phoenix geography class, you deserve a refund.

 

[Dr Grump]

Yes, that's why they have more abortions than births.

So I guess it's the mature, civilized thing to scrape your uterus routinely. Those Europeans are so cool!

Yeah, because that's what they do....

 

[jillian]

And your point is? Don't you think the pro-choice crowd use emotional pleas as well? "It is a woman's right..." That is an emotional plea. Claiming that a human offspring is not human is an emotional plea as well.

Abortion is an emotional issue. Both sides use emotion to win points and takes points away from the other. As long as we continue to fight over this issue, there will be emotion involved in our arguments. There is no way around that from either side.

Immie

The only place in the western world where it is truly an 'emotional/political issue is the US. Most European countries, and here in Australia and NZ, it is a peripheral issue. Those who are fervently anti or pro abortion in these countries are on the periphery. The MAIN reason (note I say main, not only) reason for this is the US religious right.

Most other nations have a grown up, practical take on the subject...

Oh, that is right, I forgot you live in the sophisticated part of the world. Forgive me.

By the way, you call it peripheral in Australia. I gotta tell ya, it is pretty much the same here. It just doesn't seem like it because you post on sites like this one and we... well, we are just not normal around here.

Immie

it isn't peripheral here at all. the first thing the repubs did when they took over the house was ttry to pass a bill allowing hospitals to let women die rather then give them a life-saving abortion.'

and, frankly, i can't speak for you, obviously, but i can tell you that i'd never vote for anyone who was anti-choice under any set of circumstances.

that isn't very peripheral.

 

[Immanuel]

The only place in the western world where it is truly an 'emotional/political issue is the US. Most European countries, and here in Australia and NZ, it is a peripheral issue. Those who are fervently anti or pro abortion in these countries are on the periphery. The MAIN reason (note I say main, not only) reason for this is the US religious right.

Most other nations have a grown up, practical take on the subject...

Oh, that is right, I forgot you live in the sophisticated part of the world. Forgive me.

By the way, you call it peripheral in Australia. I gotta tell ya, it is pretty much the same here. It just doesn't seem like it because you post on sites like this one and we... well, we are just not normal around here.

Immie

it isn't peripheral here at all. the first thing the repubs did when they took over the house was ttry to pass a bill allowing hospitals to let women die rather then give them a life-saving abortion.'

and, frankly, i can't speak for you, obviously, but i can tell you that i'd never vote for anyone who was anti-choice under any set of circumstances.

that isn't very peripheral.

Most people in this country really don't give two shakes about it. Most would rather the issue went away in its entirety. They are sick of discussing it.

I'm sure it is no different in Europe or Australia. Everyone has an opinion on it, but most are not willing to fight over it.

Immie

 

[AllieBaba]

Yes, that's why they have more abortions than births.

So I guess it's the mature, civilized thing to scrape your uterus routinely. Those Europeans are so cool!

If you learned that NZ and Oz are in Europe in a University of Phoenix geography class, you deserve a refund.

I thought somebody referenced Europe. I'm distracted, it's storytime in my world. The Snow Queen and Treasure Island.

 

[AllieBaba]

The only place in the western world where it is truly an 'emotional/political issue is the US. Most European countries, and here in Australia and NZ, it is a peripheral issue. Those who are fervently anti or pro abortion in these countries are on the periphery. The MAIN reason (note I say main, not only) reason for this is the US religious right.

Most other nations have a grown up, practical take on the subject...

Oh, that is right, I forgot you live in the sophisticated part of the world. Forgive me.

By the way, you call it peripheral in Australia. I gotta tell ya, it is pretty much the same here. It just doesn't seem like it because you post on sites like this one and we... well, we are just not normal around here.

Immie

it isn't peripheral here at all. the first thing the repubs did when they took over the house was ttry to pass a bill allowing hospitals to let women die rather then give them a life-saving abortion.'

and, frankly, i can't speak for you, obviously, but i can tell you that i'd never vote for anyone who was anti-choice under any set of circumstances.

that isn't very peripheral.

Lol..please reference the bill and especially the part about allowing women to die. I'm interested in that, since I've never heard of it before.

 

[Immanuel]

Oh, that is right, I forgot you live in the sophisticated part of the world. Forgive me.

By the way, you call it peripheral in Australia. I gotta tell ya, it is pretty much the same here. It just doesn't seem like it because you post on sites like this one and we... well, we are just not normal around here.

Immie

it isn't peripheral here at all. the first thing the repubs did when they took over the house was ttry to pass a bill allowing hospitals to let women die rather then give them a life-saving abortion.'

and, frankly, i can't speak for you, obviously, but i can tell you that i'd never vote for anyone who was anti-choice under any set of circumstances.

that isn't very peripheral.

Lol..please reference the bill and especially the part about allowing women to die. I'm interested in that, since I've never heard of it before.

I'd be interested in seeing it as well.

Immie

 

[Imma B Me]

My take on this is I can respect most any POV as long as it is consistent. However, when looking at the pro-life position I just don't see that consistency.

If someone is against abortion because they consider it murder and they believe they have a morale responsibility to protect life, than that should continue on after the birth. I haven't noticed the unified proposals from pro-lifers demonstrating the morale responsibility for that life after it has been "saved".

I don't know the abortion statistics but I doubt the majority of abortions are a result of women just not wanting to endure child birth. More than likely, abortions are largely attributed to some form of apprehension about what to do after the birth. So for someone to label themselves pro-life and have little to no concept for how to continue the moral responsibility of this life after birth, seems very inconsistent.

Exactly what "proposals" have you been looking for to "prove" to you that pro-lifers care about children beyond trying to keep them from being slaughtered in utero (since you clearly don't feel THAT is any sort of worthwhile goal, and obviously needs something more to legitimize it to you)?

Well, I haven't been looking to prove anything, that's why I stated "I haven't NOTICED". Whenever I hear or read pro life positions being espoused, I can't recall them addressing what to do after birth aside from sometimes a casual mention of adoption. That is not a well thought out plan for the moral responsibility of a new born child. It is not as if adoption is some easy fix it for providing for "saved" babies.

As to your second paragraph, who ever said the majority of abortions were because the women "didn't want to endure child birth"? Where was THAT statement made? I'm pretty sure the fact that's been cited is that the majority are done simply because the "mother" doesn't want to have a child, whether that be because she doesn't want to endure the birth OR because she doesn't want the aftermath of the existence of a child.

By this same argument, where did I say anybody said that? I was stating that to make the point that the major reason for abortions is the apprehension of those women of the consequences of giving birth and that this major reason is not properly addressed, with the same morale responsibility espoused about saving unborn babies, in the pro life proposals I have heard and read.

And just perhaps, next time around, you could make the effort to present a position based on some sort of fact, rather than your "feelings"?

I didn't really see where I presented a position based on my "feelings", only from what I have heard and read. The fact is, I haven't noticed any unified pro life proposals that have consistency in the morale responsibility for the child after birth.

I'll be waiting on your proof that pro-lifers take no "moral responsibility" for children after birth, which is frankly a laughably hypocritical position of faux outrage, considering that the opposite side of the argument doesn't even want to take moral responsibility for the existence of the children AT ALL.

Now here, you really lost me and I will not provide proof for something I didn't state. You have no idea if I am pro life, pro choice or whatever, so you can't honestly declare my position "hypocritical". If I am pro life or pro choice but have a proposal for the continued moral responsibility of non-aborted babies, which I haven't noticed from the pro life proposals I have heard and read, that's not "hypocritical". Also I don't see how if someone is not pro life they don't, "even want to take moral responsibility for the existence of the children AT ALL." They just don't believe pregnant women should be legally mandated to give birth.

My main point was the consistency of the pro life position or the lack thereof, as I have noticed it presented. Not if it is right or wrong.

 

[Cecilie1200]

My take on this is I can respect most any POV as long as it is consistent. However, when looking at the pro-life position I just don't see that consistency.

If someone is against abortion because they consider it murder and they believe they have a morale responsibility to protect life, than that should continue on after the birth. I haven't noticed the unified proposals from pro-lifers demonstrating the morale responsibility for that life after it has been "saved".

I don't know the abortion statistics but I doubt the majority of abortions are a result of women just not wanting to endure child birth. More than likely, abortions are largely attributed to some form of apprehension about what to do after the birth. So for someone to label themselves pro-life and have little to no concept for how to continue the moral responsibility of this life after birth, seems very inconsistent.

Exactly what "proposals" have you been looking for to "prove" to you that pro-lifers care about children beyond trying to keep them from being slaughtered in utero (since you clearly don't feel THAT is any sort of worthwhile goal, and obviously needs something more to legitimize it to you)?

Well, I haven't been looking to prove anything, that's why I stated "I haven't NOTICED". Whenever I hear or read pro life positions being espoused, I can't recall them addressing what to do after birth aside from sometimes a casual mention of adoption. That is not a well thought out plan for the moral responsibility of a new born child. It is not as if adoption is some easy fix it for providing for "saved" babies.

Ahhh, I see. So in fact, you're not even in here telling us what evil, hypocritical bastards pro-lifers are based on what you've observed or think you've observed. You're in here making that claim while admitting that you haven't even bothered to find out one way or another. You're just basing your accusations on the fact that ::gasp!:: when they make a statement about abortion, they stick to the subject. Does that about cover it?

Here's a thought, Sparky. When you want to comment on how "well thought-out" someone's plan is, why don't you put a little effort into finding out what that plan actually IS before shooting off your mouth? If you can't be bothered, then I can't be bothered to listen to you.

By this same argument, where did I say anybody said that? I was stating that to make the point that the major reason for abortions is the apprehension of those women of the consequences of giving birth and that this major reason is not properly addressed, with the same morale responsibility espoused about saving unborn babies, in the pro life proposals I have heard and read.

Well, silly me, if I felt the need to expound on how "most abortions aren't due to this reason", it would actually bear some relation to whether or not people had actually SAID it was, or at the very least, to my belief that they'd said it. I had not realized that you were in the habit of lecturing on points no one had made or had any intention of making. Clearly, in crediting you with the basic conversational skills necessary to attempt to relate your remarks to what's going on around you, I overestimated you. My apologies for placing higher expectations upon you than you are capable of fulfilling. I'll try not to make the same mistake twice.

And just perhaps, next time around, you could make the effort to present a position based on some sort of fact, rather than your "feelings"?

I didn't really see where I presented a position based on my "feelings", only from what I have heard and read. The fact is, I haven't noticed any unified pro life proposals that have consistency in the morale responsibility for the child after birth.

Well, you sure as shit didn't present a position based on the facts, because you just got done telling me how you didn't have any facts to back up what you said, and that at least some of what you said wasn't even based on any actual conversation taking place. Since you're not basing your remarks on facts, or statistics, or anything anyone else has said, that doesn't leave a whole hell of a lot else for you to be gassing away about EXCEPT your own personal "feelings" about what pro-lifers "probably" do.

You keep saying you "haven't noticed any proposals", and yet when you're asked, you refuse to tell me what sort of proposals you have in mind. If you have no freaking clue what sort of proof you're looking for, how in the hell do you expect to find it?

I'll be waiting on your proof that pro-lifers take no "moral responsibility" for children after birth, which is frankly a laughably hypocritical position of faux outrage, considering that the opposite side of the argument doesn't even want to take moral responsibility for the existence of the children AT ALL.

Now here, you really lost me and I will not provide proof for something I didn't state. You have no idea if I am pro life, pro choice or whatever, so you can't honestly declare my position "hypocritical". If I am pro life or pro choice but have a proposal for the continued moral responsibility of non-aborted babies, which I haven't noticed from the pro life proposals I have heard and read, that's not "hypocritical". Also I don't see how if someone is not pro life they don't, "even want to take moral responsibility for the existence of the children AT ALL." They just don't believe pregnant women should be legally mandated to give birth.

My main point was the consistency of the pro life position or the lack thereof, as I have noticed it presented. Not if it is right or wrong.

"If someone is against abortion because they consider it murder and they believe they have a morale responsibility to protect life, than that should continue on after the birth. I haven't noticed the unified proposals from pro-lifers demonstrating the morale responsibility for that life after it has been "saved"."

Your words, Mensa Boy. While I realize that there's absolutely no foundation whatsoever for your criticisms about pro-lifers, given that by your own admission you've made no effort to gather any facts and, in fact, have no idea what kind of proof you're looking for that you claim you haven't seen, that doesn't change the fact that you DID, in that paragraph, say that pro-lifers do not take moral responsibility for children after birth.

As to my point that abortionistas take no moral responsibility for children AT ALL, do you really need a picture drawn for you to explain that vigorously supporting the killing of unwanted children before they're even born constitutes denying any moral responsibility for them and their creation? Hello? Is anyone in there?

 

[Grace]

Imma B Me, dont pay 'tention to the shrieking harpy.

 

[Shadow]

Imma B Me, dont pay 'tention to the shrieking harpy.

Why should anyone even pay attention to YOU? Miss emotional meltdowns??

You are definately no one to talk.

 

[AllieBaba]

The argument that unless you adopt children you have no right to argue against abortion is not valid. It's dishonest, and implies there's a connection between abortion and unwanted children.

There's no connection whatever. There is absolutely no evidence that legalized abortion does anything to reduce the numbers of unwanted, neglected, murdered, or abused children. In fact, child murder and abuse have INCREASED since the legalization of abortion, one could actually say with more accuracy that abortion is at the root of those things.

So I guess the question is, if pro-abortionists are so concerned about the welfare of children that they're willing to kill them....how many kids have all the pro-death people ADOPTED that gives them a right to discuss this topic?

Oh wait, they don't want to adopt the kids..they want to kill them. Win/win.

The point is, it's a stupid red herring, and a complete logical fallacy. Quit bringing it into the discussion, it makes you look like a yahoo.