"Pro life"

[jtbsoon2b]

I wanna know why people get abortions. Don't tell me it could be because of rape, I already know of those examples.

In the case of rape the female in question does not need to report the rape to the police. If she plans on getting an abortion, the doctor at the clinic can check for vaginal scarring and other obvious signs of rape. Then after the abortion is executed the rape can be reported if it has not already been. With the choice of course up to the female.

I am pro-life and the rape question is always the toughest one to talk about. But I honestly think this method may be very helpful in this on-going dilemma.

 

[HBK-aholic]

I wanna know why people get abortions. Don't tell me it could be because of rape, I already know of those examples.

In the case of rape the female in question does not need to report the rape to the police. If she plans on getting an abortion, the doctor at the clinic can check for vaginal scarring and other obvious signs of rape. Then after the abortion is executed the rape can be reported if it has not already been. With the choice of course up to the female.

I am pro-life and the rape question is always the toughest one to talk about. But I honestly think this method may be very helpful in this on-going dilemma.

LOL, obvious signs of rape? There aren't always 'obvious signs', why do you think this crime so rarely ends up in a conviction? If there were obvious signs it'd be easy to tell who'd been raped, and the rapist would be convicted if they found him. That is clearly not the case. Plus, you can also have what you call 'obvious signs' from normal sex. Ask NorCal. Then there's the pain of going through a rape exam, why make the situation any more difficult than it has to be?

 

[X]

LOL, obvious signs of rape? There aren't always 'obvious signs', why do you think this crime so rarely ends up in a conviction? If there were obvious signs it'd be easy to tell who'd been raped, and the rapist would be convicted if they found him. That is clearly not the case. Plus, you can also have what you call 'obvious signs' from normal sex. Ask NorCal. Then there's the pain of going through a rape exam, why make the situation any more difficult than it has to be?

Actually Becca there are quite a few obvious signs of rape. They have testing kits at every single hospital on the planet for them. Not sure where you're getting the idea that rape can't be determined; it certainly can and is. How do you think people are convicted of rape? Testimony alone?

 

[HBK-aholic]

Hence why I said there aren't always obvious signs. I'm not saying there aren't cases where it is obvious, I'm just saying it isn't always the case, which is pretty important considering a life would change depending on whether you were 'lucky' enough to have a rapist who made it obvious.

It also brings into question how long a rape kit can really be used after the rape. In the scenario the poster was using, he was talking about her finding out she was pregnant - it could be a couple of months, maybe more, before she's found out she's pregnant and made a decision. Would the signs still be so 'obvious'? All in all just not an idea that would work.

 

[jtbsoon2b]

Usually there are pretty obvious signs. It is up to the person that was raped to go in and have the kit done. Very rarely are there no signs of it. If it is not consensual there is often scarring and evidence that one was "sub-dued" in one way or another.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Again, 'often and 'usually'. I'm not denying that there can be evidence for it, but is there always? No. You're gambling someone's entire life on something that doesn't even happen all the time, which is hardly fair at all, and would never work out if this was in practice due to that.

 

[ipswichicon80]

If I rememeber my CSI correctly:You can detect scarring after a rape they use "clock posistions" scarinng at 1-5 "o clock" indicates normal sex,6-8 "o'clock rough sex and 9-12 "O clock" no consensual sex(I'm not sure the "times" are correct,btw, but this is,I believe,the technique used). However this examination needs to occur,reasonably soon after the rape(I think within 72,hours). So if someone has not reported the rape(and a large percentage of rapes do go unreported) and 2 months down the road discovers they are pregnent,this examanantion will not be able to determine rape.Therefore this methed could not be used to dertermine if someone should be "allowed" an abortion. Thankfully both here and in the states we have something called "freedom of choice" and as long as we do anti abortionists will not get they're way.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Personally, I would never get an abortion; I find the procedure to be appalling.

That said, it's not my place to dictate what other women do with their bodies. In other words, I'm not pro-abortion......I'm pro-choice.

If a woman doesn't want to get an abortion?......then fine & dandy.....she doesn't have to.

To me, that's the essence of the difference between Pro-choice and Pro-life. Pro-choice grants the individual the freedom to do what she feels is right......while Pro-Life people are interested in telling others what they must do (or not do).

If you're going to say a Pro-choice person is Pro-abortion, you might as well say an Pro-Life person is Anti-choice.

*******

You know a statistic I would love to know about? How many Pro-life women.... who believe that abortion should be outlawed.... turned up with an unwanted pregnancy and had an abortion themselves! Of course, the statistic could never be compiled because who's going to tell the truth about it?

It happened in my circle of friends, with a woman named Sharon. In a large group of people, Sharon's husband accidentally let slip that she had had an abortion. We all knew that Sharon was Pro-life, having worked for Birthright for many years in an effort to try to outlaw abortion. We were shocked when we learned of this and asked who in the hell she thought she was. Sharon got very defensive, shouting:

"You don't understand. Mine was a special case."

And that's the essence of it, isn't it? Even after working for an anti-abortion organization, it never occurred to Sharon that every woman's own pregnancy is a special case. If Sharon feels that she has the right to decide for herself, then so should everyone else have that right.

Hence, the Pro-choice stance.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Personally, I would never get an abortion; I find the procedure to be appalling.

Me too.

That said, it's not my place to dictate what other women do with their bodies. In other words, I'm not pro-abortion......I'm pro-choice.

OR, as I like to call it, anti-baby.

If a woman doesn't want to get an abortion?......then fine & dandy.....she doesn't have to.

I don't see why anyone would want to have one.

To me, that's the essence of the difference between Pro-choice and Pro-life. Pro-choice grants the individual the freedom to do what she feels is right......while Pro-Life people are interested in telling others what they must do (or not do).

Wow, that's not a one sided argument at all. Pro-life people aren't interested in telling people what to do with their bodies. They're advocates for those without a voice.

If you're going to say a Pro-choice person is Pro-abortion, you might as well say an Pro-Life person is Anti-choice.

Or I can say that pro-choice means anti-life, right? I mean, if you're going to propagandize one side and not the other, I can too right?

*******

You know a statistic I would love to know about? How many Pro-life women.... who believe that abortion should be outlawed.... turned up with an unwanted pregnancy and had an abortion themselves! Of course, the statistic could never be compiled because who's going to tell the truth about it?

How about the statistic of how many pro-choice people persuade people to have abortions when they're one the fence? How about the pro-choicers who convince underage girls to lie about their age on admittance forms so they can hide the procedure from their parents? This, of course, is against the law.

It happened in my circle of friends, with a woman named Sharon. In a large group of people, Sharon's husband accidentally let slip that she had had an abortion. We all knew that Sharon was Pro-life, having worked for Birthright for many years in an effort to try to outlaw abortion. We were shocked when we learned of this and asked who in the hell she thought she was. Sharon got very defensive, shouting:

"You don't understand. Mine was a special case."

Was her life in danger? Would the baby have wound up dying, as in a ectopic pregnancy? These cases are special, and the reason why abortion shouldn't be illegal, but it is too easy to get as it is now.

And that's the essence of it, isn't it? Even after working for an anti-abortion organization, it never occurred to Sharon that every woman's own pregnancy is a special case.

I'm sorry, but some drunken harlot who chooses to have unprotected sex and then flush away the consequences isn't a special case. Decisions in life have consequences, and those consequences shouldn't be dumped upon someone who can't defend themselves. The prcesses of life start at conception. Cells are dividing, so that fertilized egg is alive.

If Sharon feels that she has the right to decide for herself, then so should everyone else have that right.

Hence, the Pro-choice stance.

Because abortion isn't always used as a last chance to save a life. It's used as a get of jail free card, and that devalues the sanctity of life, and that is wrong.

 

[X]

I don't see why anyone would want to have one.

I don't see why anyone would want to

Wow, that's not a one sided argument at all. Pro-life people aren't interested in telling people what to do with their bodies.

They certainly are. Does an abortion not involve a woman's body now or something?

They're advocates for those without a voice.

But they aren't people. They don't exist. They aren't citizens. I find it humorous how many right-wingers love to talk about being "advocates for those without a voice" and then talk about how illegal immigrants are scum sucking off the life of America. So real people who are alive and breathing don't deserve any rights in this country, but embryos in a woman's stomach do? That doesn't make much sense to me.

How about the statistic of how many pro-choice people persuade people to have abortions when they're one the fence? How about the pro-choicers who convince underage girls to lie about their age on admittance forms so they can hide the procedure from their parents? This, of course, is against the law.

And the law is always right is it FTS? You should probably stop smoking pot then my good friend.

Was her life in danger? Would the baby have wound up dying, as in a ectopic pregnancy? These cases are special, and the reason why abortion shouldn't be illegal, but it is too easy to get as it is now.

Too easy? Again, any law that tells a person how they can or can't use their own body absolutely disgusts me. It's her body, she can do whatever the fuck with it that she wants as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, and abortion doesn't hurt anyone else BECAUSE THERE IS NO LIVING PERSON TO HURT.

I'm sorry, but some drunken harlot who chooses to have unprotected sex and then flush away the consequences isn't a special case. Decisions in life have consequences, and those consequences shouldn't be dumped upon someone who can't defend themselves. The prcesses of life start at conception. Cells are dividing, so that fertilized egg is alive.

And all life is sacred, right? What about when a person takes a drug to flush a virus out of their system? Why aren't you against that? That's a life form right there being destroyed.

The person doesn't exist yet. I'm sorry, but a few cells and embryos aren't a life. At all. They are meat, and nothing else. They have no consciousness. This is no different from a family pulling the plug on a family member who has become braindead. No consciousness = No life.

Because abortion isn't always used as a last chance to save a life. It's used as a get of jail free card, and that devalues the sanctity of life, and that is wrong.

The sanctity of life...sounds like a religious/moral term to me. Which means it should have absolutely nothing to do with federal law.

I'm confused FTS...are you for abortion or not? You said you are, but you think there should be restrictions? Why is the life of a child that's resulted from a rape any less important than the life of another? You can't support some cases and oppose others, it doesn't work like that. It's either okay, or it isn't.

 

[JenovasWitness]

I know this may be an unpopular view again (I seem to be good at presenting those in this thread), and I get that no one likes to be told what they can and cannot do with their bodies and don't like to have their rights and freedoms taken from them, but bear with me here.

Just consider for a moment that the fetus is in fact alive and not just a group of inanimate cells. That means that it is a human life, a new life that has not been touched by the world and is completely innocent.

If it is true that this is a human life, this means that it has rights and freedoms also. So yes, no one likes to have their rights and freedoms taken from them but isn't aborting this life before it even has a chance to grow and live the exact same thing? Where is the consideration for the life of the baby in all of this discussion?

I'm not trying to change anybodies mind but I do want to draw attention to an alternate point of view. I know that some people would argue that the fetus is not a human being yet (as to when that exactly happens, no one can really pinpoint) but it is my personal belief that when it comes to this point of discussion, I think that life is too precious to make an error in judgment. I mean, what if the people who believe that the fetus is not a life are wrong...?

 

[X]

I know this may be an unpopular view again (I seem to be good at presenting those in this thread), and I get that no one likes to be told what they can and cannot do with their bodies and don't like to have their rights and freedoms taken from them, but bear with me here.

Just consider for a moment that the fetus is in fact alive and not just a group of inanimate cells. That means that it is a human life, a new life that has not been touched by the world and is completely innocent.

If it is true that this is a human life, this means that it has rights and freedoms also.

No, it doesn't. You are not entitled to rights before you are even born. If illegal immigrants can't have rights, why can an unborn fetus? Besides, you guys act like people are aborting babies 2 weeks before they're to be born; not the case. When a baby is aborted it resembles nothing like the fetus you see on an ultrasound.

So yes, no one likes to have their rights and freedoms taken from them but isn't aborting this life before it even has a chance to grow and live the exact same thing? Where is the consideration for the life of the baby in all of this discussion?

I don't understand how the "rights" of a few cells in a woman's stomach supercede the rights of a living, breathing adult woman. Parents decide what's best for their children, and if that means aborting that pregnancy, that should be their decision, not the governments.

 

[JenovasWitness]

No, it doesn't. You are not entitled to rights before you are even born. If illegal immigrants can't have rights, why can an unborn fetus? Besides, you guys act like people are aborting babies 2 weeks before they're to be born; not the case. When a baby is aborted it resembles nothing like the fetus you see on an ultrasound.

Even illegal immigrants have the right to live. The possibility remains that the fetus in question may indeed be alive and that grants it the right to live.

I don't understand how the "rights" of a few cells in a woman's stomach supercede the rights of a living, breathing adult woman. Parents decide what's best for their children, and if that means aborting that pregnancy, that should be their decision, not the governments.

Again, I am not trying to tell you what you are saying is wrong. I am stressing the point that no one can definitively prove whether or not a fetus is a living human or just a growth of cells like a skin blemish. Like I said, making an error in that judgment seems to be a very major mistake to make.

Also, the statement you made about parents deciding what is best for their children..."children" would infer that the fetus is alive. And no parent in their sane mind would ever decide that the termination of their child's life is in their best interest.

 

[FromTheSouth]

I don't see why anyone would want to

Good.

They certainly are. Does an abortion not involve a woman's body now or something?

It's not the main issue.

But they aren't people.

Well, I think we disagree here.

They don't exist. They aren't citizens. I find it humorous how many right-wingers love to talk about being "advocates for those without a voice"

I thought I made that up.

and then talk about how illegal immigrants are scum sucking off the life of America.[/quote]

I'm sorry...did I ever say that? I think we should make them citizens and give them rights and charge them taxes. But that is a different debate.

So real people who are alive and breathing don't deserve any rights in this country, but embryos in a woman's stomach do? That doesn't make much sense to me.

I'm sorry, did I say I was taking away the right to vote? The right to drive? I never said they don't deserve any rights. I just think that less abortions is better than more.

And the law is always right is it FTS? You should probably stop smoking pot then my good friend.

I don't smoke fetuses. But I am smoking some KC-33, and it is excellent.

Too easy? Again, any law that tells a person how they can or can't use their own body absolutely disgusts me.

See, once again, I feel that she is doing something to someone else's body. We can argue back and forth about whether or not it is alive, and cite doctors who agree with us. Just assume for a second it is alive, not viable, but living, then how would you feel? I know your answer here will be, "But it's not.", but humor me.

It's her body, she can do whatever the fuck with it that she wants as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, and abortion doesn't hurt anyone else BECAUSE THERE IS NO LIVING PERSON TO HURT.

To tell me it's not a person, you always have to attach a qualifier. It isn't a living person. It's not a citizen. Anything you want to say. It doesn't matter, because the fact is that there is something living, cells dividing, forming the builiding blocks of a person. I know an egg isn't a chicken, but you don't eat eggs once they've incubated. Once a fertilized egg has started dividing, incubating, I feel, and always will, that it is a person. No qualifiers there, that is a life.

I don't however, disagree with RU-486, because that kills an egg before it starts dividing. So, maybe the little harlots should stock up.

And all life is sacred, right? What about when a person takes a drug to flush a virus out of their system? Why aren't you against that? That's a life form right there being destroyed.

I just want to read this again and make sure you just called babies harmful parasites. OK, checking now...Yeah. I don't think that a virus and a baby are analagous, so I will move on.

The person doesn't exist yet. I'm sorry, but a few cells and embryos aren't a life. At all. They are meat, and nothing else. They have no consciousness. This is no different from a family pulling the plug on a family member who has become braindead. No consciousness = No life.

UMM, well, you see, it's not the same. One has the potential, and the likelihood of progress, while the other has a higher likelihood of regression. There is a huge difference there. I'm not a Kantian scholar who universalizes everything. I understand exception. If someone was raped, or impregnated by a family member, or had an ectopic pregnancy, or who's life was in danger, I see abortion as a perfectly viable medical procedure. I just don't think, "I didn't mean too" or "I was drunk" is a good enough reason to destroy a living being.

The sanctity of life...sounds like a religious/moral term to me. Which means it should have absolutely nothing to do with federal law.

Most laws come from religious teaching, get used to it. But the sanctity of life is something that John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and other revolutionary social theorists sought to have government protect as an object of the social contract. Go look it up. We were put here for a reason, and protecting the sanctity of life allows to fulfill that purpose, no matter what it is.

I'm confused FTS...are you for abortion or not? You said you are, but you think there should be restrictions?

Once again, life has gray area. Embrace it. You don't have to be hardline, yes or no, on everything. Slow it down, that's all.

Why is the life of a child that's resulted from a rape any less important than the life of another?

You're right, let's outlaw those too. Seriously, it's a matter of degrees. If someone goes out and gets drunk and gets knocked up, they should face consequences. A rape victim has faced far worse consequences and having the product of that horrifying event as a daily reminder. That's not healthy for the mother, and will, in all probability, be detrimental to the child as well.

You can't support some cases and oppose others, it doesn't work like that. It's either okay, or it isn't.

You are so wrong. Is killing to protect my self not different than killing in cold blood? There are gray areas in the world. If you want my answer, the procedure is repulsive. If you want my common logical sense, some cases warrant it, most don't.

 

[ipswichicon80]

Good.







(QUOTE)
UMM, well, you see, it's not the same. One has the potential, and the likelihood of progress, while the other has a higher likelihood of regression. There is a huge difference there. I'm not a Kantian scholar who universalizes everything. I understand exception. If someone was raped, or impregnated by a family member, or had an ectopic pregnancy, or who's life was in danger, I see abortion as a perfectly viable medical procedure. I just don't think, "I didn't mean too" or "I was drunk" is a good enough reason to destroy a living being.

This is actully a really interesting point I hadn't considered.Whilst the fetus may not be consious(sorry spelling)it does have the poteniel for life.I have never actully thought of it like that.In fact your entire arguement is very intelligent. However.......For me it all falls back to the state controlling our choices in life.If someone does not want to carry a child to term then it's very dangerous for people to say it's ok for the state to force them.Look if someone has a miscarrige,it's very sad and tragic. However,it is not the same as someone losing a child. Someone who they saw, made a connection to and they will actully miss the person,not the idea of a person who was never here. I'm still pro choice but thanks fo making me see it is not as cut and dried as I thought.

 

[X]

UMM, well, you see, it's not the same. One has the potential, and the likelihood of progress, while the other has a higher likelihood of regression. There is a huge difference there. I'm not a Kantian scholar who universalizes everything. I understand exception. If someone was raped, or impregnated by a family member, or had an ectopic pregnancy, or who's life was in danger, I see abortion as a perfectly viable medical procedure. I just don't think, "I didn't mean too" or "I was drunk" is a good enough reason to destroy a living being.

But why? Isn't that child inside of the pregnant woman that resulted from a rape just as innocent as any other? You claim to be speaking up for those that can't; okay, well what about that child? That child deserves to never come into existence because of something it had nothing to do with, but other unborn children don't? That's such bullshit. That fetus inside of the raped woman is just as innocent as the fetus inside of the woman who just got drunk and made a mistake.

But you want to say its okay to terminate a pregnancy from a rape, and why is that? That's right, to ease the suffering of the mother who wouldn't want to be reminded of that rape or carry to term a baby she didn't want. How is this different from someone else's abortion? You want to give abortions to some people to make the women feel better, but not to others? That's bullshit in my opinion man.

Seriously, explain to me why that innocent fetus deserves to die, but others don't. That fetus didn't tell the father to go rape that woman and had nothing to do with it. This isn't a grey issue, it's either an Abortion is Okay or it isn't. You can't just legalize some abortion, it doesn't work like that, not logically and not practically.

My previous post was rather awful I think by the way FTS, not up to my usual standard at all man, could you tell? One of the sentences I didnt even finish because I forgot to add to it. I'm smoking some fine bud as well buddy!

On the killing thing...yes killing in self defense is more acceptable than killing in cold blood. But it doesn't change the fact that someone is dead, does it? Just like you supporting some abortions but not others doesn't change the fact that the fetus is still being aborted. You can't clamor for the sanctity of life in some cases, but not in others. That fetus inside of the raped woman is just as innocent as any other.

 

[Milkyway!]

I'm sure Becca allready mopped you up one side and down another. But I just felt compelled to throw my pents worth in.

I find the Pro-Choice argument amusing.

I find it amusing that you're going to bash someones way of life. Look, I'm not blood free on such a thing myself. But you can't be casting stones, its just not right. If people want to be Pro-Choice, who are are you to say thats amusing?

It's simply, "It's my choice! I can make my own decision!".

Everything inside the entire world, is my choice, and my decision. You think its not your choice to be pro-life? Seriously?

Which nobody is arguing but the point Pro-Lifers are making is that your choice is wrong.

Unless theres factual information, and statistics to prove otherwise. Opinions are never wrong, and don't you forget it.

Everything is a choice, but somethings people choose to do fall under the category of illegal.

An unjust law, is no law at all. I find it unjust, for a government to be able to tell their citizens they will NOT be having abortions under any circumstances whatsoever.

Having a baby is an inconvenience, nobody's arguing that.

I'mm 5000% sure that William will argue you otherwise. His children mean more to him, then you could ever imagine, and I find it to be the utmost of stupidity for you to say such a thing.

But if my neighbor's blasting music at 3am and I have to work the next day, I can't just go shoot him in the head.

Yes, because thats murder

Would it be my choice to go kill him so I could sleep? Of course, nobody forced me to do that. It was my choice.

I just thought I'd go ahead and tell you, this is the worst analogy ever. It really doesn't have a point, whatsoever. Abortion isn't illigal, murder is.

Let's say we even want to get more extreme with the analogy. Say, my dad rapes me and beats my mom everyday and one day I've had enough and choose to kill him. My choice of murder, whether deserved or not, would get me arrested.

Still no point to your little analogy. You're just typing worthless words right now. Honestly, you just wasted about 15-30 seconds of my life. Good job.

So, if those two situations are wrong in the eyes of the law, why isn't abortion?

Because in the eyes of the law, its someones choice whether or not they want to have a child at the stage in their life. In the eyes of the law and science, that child inside you, isn't living. Its as simple as that.

It's taking away a life because it would be an inconvenience. That's the point.

Actually, if you really want to get into further detail as to why Abortion isn't illigal in the manner of the Law. Its because if you abolish legal abortions, I guarentee you the rate of dead pregnant women, along with their babies will go up. They can't stop abortions, they can only stop safe abortions.

Nobody is arguing whether or not it's a woman's choice. It certainly is.

Yet you riticule them, and say "Pro-choice's only arguement is its MY CHOICE"

And what about the father's? They don't get a choice? It's as much their child's as the mother's.

Actually, I would fully support the woman I got pregnant if she decided not to have the child. ITS HER BODY, ITS HER LIFE, not mine. Would I wonder for the rest of my life what that child might have been like? Of course. But, I certainly wouldn't hold it agaisnt her, all in all, it would be my own fault.

And as far as rape is concerned, not to be crass but as the expression goes: shit happens. If you don't want the kid, give it up for adoption. Are you really that selfish that you can't carry a child for less than a year? That's the Pro-Life stance.

To this I say FUCK YOU. A man rapes a woman, she gets pregnant, and all you're going to say is "Shit Happens"? Fuck you dude. Thats the dumbest thing I've ever seen in my entire life. You've obviously never given birth, don't have any children, or just don't give a shit about them one. Because you would know that, that child would be a constant reminder of that living nightmare of you getting raped. For 9 fucking months, everytime you felt a contraction, you'd know "HEY! THAT GUY THAT RAPED ME DID THIS! YES!" Take some damn Psychology, and learn the effects of rape on a persons mind/body. Please.

"What an irony that a society confronted with plastic bags filled with the remains of aborted babies should be more concerned about the problem of recycling the plastic." - Winifred Egan

Egans a fucktard, I highly doubt they dispence the babies in plastic bags. They take them, and do something called stem cell research these days. You know, the same thing that might cure mass diseases like AIDS, Cancer, prevent things like Smallpox, etc?

 

[TwistofRKO]

I'll let FTS continue the debating, I'll address a few things I've seen that I definitely disagree with:

Who isn't for life? Pretty simple answer here: Those who support killing. Moving further and more direct to this issue, killing people.

-It's AMAZING how one can justify killing a human being, with capabilities of impacting the world far beyond what we will ever know, but when an animal is harmed it's the end of the world.

I digress- Pro-lifers have no right to tell others what to do with their body. Wrong. False. Completely untrue. Is it harming someone else? It's an easy answer, but a lot of people miss it. The answer is obviously yes, as common knowledge directs you to seeing person A abort person B resulting in B's death. Looks like it already involved more than just person A. And people tell people what to do all the time, they are called laws and keep people civilized. Why should you get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt? This TRULY has no impact on anyone else. Good relation here, read up on it.

That's all I seen for now, but I'm sure I'll see more statements that couldn't be any more off.

 

[Milkyway!]

Who isn't for life?

Pro-choice people aren't agaisnt life. Pro-choice people are agaisnt the fact that the government, should be able to outlaw abortions. Pro-life says it should be outlawed, which is just silly. The only thing outlawing abortions would do, is outlawing safe abortions. If a woman doesn't want her child, she can do damn near anything to kill it, and maybe even worse herself.

Pretty simple answer here: Those who support killing. Moving further and more direct to this issue, killing people.

Really? Wheres the logic in that? Killing an unborn child, will lead to murder rates going up, and lead to the legalization of murdering people?

-It's AMAZING how one can justify killing a human being, with capabilities of impacting the world far beyond what we will ever know,

Actually, an unborn child can help the world, just as much as the child thats born. Infact, a scientist can do MORE with an unborn child than they can with one thats born. Stem cell research, it has the possibilities to cure MANY of the deadliest diseases on the face of this earth. Things like Cancer, AIDS, and other diseases like Small Pox and the Bubonic Plauge are avoidable due to Stem Cell research.

but when an animal is harmed it's the end of the world.

Theres select groups that believe killing an animal is the same as killing a human being. Then theres groups that believe in killing an unborn child is murder. You act as if there are no pro-life people out there. I would say its 50/50.

I digress- Pro-lifers have no right to tell others what to do with their body. Wrong. False. Completely untrue

.

Actually, they don't have any right to tell someone what they want to do with their body. An abortion doesn't mean the person can never have children, it means the person isn't ready to have children. Do you know what the sucess rate for a woman who has a child in her teenage years? Slim-to-none. She can simply abort, and have a child at 22-25 years old, and be sucessful and raise a child not in poverty. It could benifit the child, and mother more to just go ahead and abort.

Is it harming someone else? It's an easy answer, but a lot of people miss it.

'

Scientific research says the baby isn't alive during the fetus stage of the baby. Thats when most abortions occur.

The answer is obviously yes, as common knowledge directs you to seeing person A abort person B resulting in B's death.

Fetus' aren't alive though. Are they?

Looks like it already involved more than just person A.

No, it involves person A, and only person A during the first months of pregnancy. The baby isn't alive nor conscious.

And people tell people what to do all the time, they are called laws and keep people civilized.

I'd hardly call a quick and easy treatment of abortion. Barbaric. Its quite civilized, and pain free for the unconscious baby.

Why should you get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt? This TRULY has no impact on anyone else. Good relation here, read up on it.

What the fuck does not wearing your seatbelt, and having an abortion have in common?

 

[TwistofRKO]

Pro-choice people aren't agaisnt life. Pro-choice people are agaisnt the fact that the government, should be able to outlaw abortions. Pro-life says it should be outlawed, which is just silly. The only thing outlawing abortions would do, is outlawing safe abortions. If a woman doesn't want her child, she can do damn near anything to kill it, and maybe even worse herself.

There needs to be accountability.

Really? Wheres the logic in that? Killing an unborn child, will lead to murder rates going up, and lead to the legalization of murdering people?

Are you admitting to a bad group of people we are dealing with here? What's abortion? In essence the legalization of murdering people.

Actually, an unborn child can help the world, just as much as the child thats born. Infact, a scientist can do MORE with an unborn child than they can with one thats born. Stem cell research, it has the possibilities to cure MANY of the deadliest diseases on the face of this earth. Things like Cancer, AIDS, and other diseases like Small Pox and the Bubonic Plauge are avoidable due to Stem Cell research.

So the government cannot intervene in someone's decision, but someone else should have the power to decide whether you live or die because you may be worth more to the world as never entering it? Scary thoughts here.

Theres select groups that believe killing an animal is the same as killing a human being. Then theres groups that believe in killing an unborn child is murder. You act as if there are no pro-life people out there. I would say its 50/50.

nothing to reply to, no?
.

Actually, they don't have any right to tell someone what they want to do with their body. An abortion doesn't mean the person can never have children, it means the person isn't ready to have children. Do you know what the sucess rate for a woman who has a child in her teenage years? Slim-to-none. She can simply abort, and have a child at 22-25 years old, and be sucessful and raise a child not in poverty. It could benifit the child, and mother more to just go ahead and abort.

You automatically have the right to control your body, and if you choose an indiscretion- (thank you Rick Pitino) -ary act you should legall be forfeiting those rights.

Scientific research says the baby isn't alive during the fetus stage of the baby. Thats when most abortions occur.



Fetus' aren't alive though. Are they?

http://www.abortionfacts.com/online..._we_love_them_both_14.asp#By 8 weeks? Show me!

Scientific research shows you can feel pain at 8 weeks.

They aren't living independently, correct. They are still human beings.

No, it involves person A, and only person A during the first months of pregnancy. The baby isn't alive nor conscious.

Not necessarily correct.

I'd hardly call a quick and easy treatment of abortion. Barbaric. Its quite civilized, and pain free for the unconscious baby.

Debatable.

What the fuck does not wearing your seatbelt, and having an abortion have in common?[/QUOTE]

Umm, the government telling you what to do with your body?

 

[X]

I'm sorry, but I can't help but find the rich irony in someone calling abortion "legal murder". What, you mean like capital punishment? Or like sending troops overseas to murder people? Technically that's all murder just the same as abortion is, is it not?

There's absolutely no logical reason for abortion to be illegal. Not one. Other than of course fundamentalists bitching and moaning because their religion is against it. Well, too fucking bad, there IS a separation of church and state. Making abortions illegal will only INCREASE the amount of dead bodies; because now instead of having a professional doctor perform your abortion, people will go to the back-alley places, and die bleeding to death in an alleyway.

An abortion should be a woman's choice, end of story.

 

[JenovasWitness]

I'm sorry, but I can't help but find the rich irony in someone calling abortion "legal murder". What, you mean like capital punishment? Or like sending troops overseas to murder people? Technically that's all murder just the same as abortion is, is it not?

There's absolutely no logical reason for abortion to be illegal. Not one. Other than of course fundamentalists bitching and moaning because their religion is against it. Well, too fucking bad, there IS a separation of church and state. Making abortions illegal will only INCREASE the amount of dead bodies; because now instead of having a professional doctor perform your abortion, people will go to the back-alley places, and die bleeding to death in an alleyway.

An abortion should be a woman's choice, end of story.

I appreciate your opinion, X, but there really is no conclusive evidence that suggests this is the "end of the story". The scientific community is still split on whether or not the fetus is alive or not and, ethically speaking, if the POSSIBILITY exists that the fetus is alive, why are we, the human race, considering abortion as a feasible and sensible procedure? If the fetus may be alive, why are we siding with the argument that leads to that possible life's termination?

Until every scientist in the world stands up and conclusively states that the fetus is a non-living entity, nothing more then a collection of cells that is simply a meaningless blob, I cannot agree with abortion on the grounds of the possibility of human life and the subsequent ending of said life.

Criminals killed on death row lived their lives and made choices that lead them to that fate (I am not in support of the death penalty, but it is a fact that it is practiced in certain parts of the world) and soldiers make the decision to join the military because they BELIEVE in the defense of their families and country. Children whose lives that were terminated through abortion did not have that opportunity to make choices and, honestly, I cannot accept that as fair and just. This has nothing to do with what my religion tells me, this has everything to do with my own personal convictions and beliefs.

As for the argument that the outlawing of abortion would just lead to more back alley abortions, perhaps the government should make an effort to crack down on these butchers who carelessly injure women for a quick buck.

 

[X]

I appreciate your opinion, X, but there really is no conclusive evidence that suggests this is the "end of the story". The scientific community is still split on whether or not the fetus is alive or not and, ethically speaking, if the POSSIBILITY exists that the fetus is alive, why are we, the human race, considering abortion as a feasible and sensible procedure? If the fetus may be alive, why are we siding with the argument that leads to that possible life's termination?

Forgive me, when I said "end of story", I didn't mean that this debate has already been decided. I was simply trying to assert how much I believed in my statement. I wasn't trying to preach to you and tell you there was a conclusive answer on the issue of abortion, that would be silly.

Until every scientist in the world stands up and conclusively states that the fetus is a non-living entity, nothing more then a collection of cells that is simply a meaningless blob, I cannot agree with abortion on the grounds of the possibility of human life and the subsequent ending of said life.

I don't understand this. Life is wasted all the time. What about *********ion? If we're going to argue the "collection of cells" in the woman's stomach as being a person, than why not cut right to the source to where life begins---in the sperm/eggs? The waste of those things should be considered abortion as well technically, should they not?

I know it sounds cruel, but there's a reason that we do things like utilize population control of certain animals. People shouldn't have to be asked to risk their life (why do people forget how common death during pregnancy/birth can be?) to bring a life into this world that they don't want. It's not good for the parent, and it certainly isn't good for the child. And throwing them in an orphanage is a terrible idea as well, because 90% of those orphans simply shuttle from home to home.

 

[JenovasWitness]

Forgive me, when I said "end of story", I didn't mean that this debate has already been decided. I was simply trying to assert how much I believed in my statement. I wasn't trying to preach to you and tell you there was a conclusive answer on the issue of abortion, that would be silly.

My apologies, the misunderstanding was on my part.

I don't understand this. Life is wasted all the time. What about *********ion? If we're going to argue the "collection of cells" in the woman's stomach as being a person, than why not cut right to the source to where life begins---in the sperm/eggs? The waste of those things should be considered abortion as well technically, should they not?

I know it sounds cruel, but there's a reason that we do things like utilize population control of certain animals. People shouldn't have to be asked to risk their life (why do people forget how common death during pregnancy/birth can be?) to bring a life into this world that they don't want. It's not good for the parent, and it certainly isn't good for the child. And throwing them in an orphanage is a terrible idea as well, because 90% of those orphans simply shuttle from home to home.

On the subject of *********ion, there is neither one sperm on it's own that develops into a human being nor is there an egg that can do the same. It is in the fertilization of the egg through it's joining with the sperm that begins the process of life.

When we start getting into pregnancies that threaten the life of both baby and mother, I admit, I have no answer for you and it is the one situation in life that I pray to God I am never faced with. How is it possible to choose who lives and who dies when the people in the equation are your beloved partner and unborn child?

As for orphanages, I know people who grew up in that system that are very well adjusted and successful in life, but you are correct it is a hard life. Existing systems for the care of children need to be improved, new programs to provide them with the education and opportunities they need should be developed and implemented.

 

[Milkyway!]

There needs to be accountability.

Theres nothing we can do to enforce a woman who does not want her baby. To stop from killing the baby, and in the process herself.

Are you admitting to a bad group of people we are dealing with here? What's abortion? In essence the legalization of murdering people.

I was being sarcastic. You were sugesting that murder rates would go up, if we keep abortion legal. Which is dumb as fuck.

So the government cannot intervene in someone's decision, but someone else should have the power to decide whether you live or die because you may be worth more to the world as never entering it?

Yes, that is true. I might have been worth more not entering the world, than enterting it. More than likely, I'll become a teacher, make low paying salary and just be another person waiting to die. Whereas an unborn child can cure billions of people of diseases. Its a fact.

nothing to reply to, no?
.

Well, if you didn't understand what I was saying. I assume there would be nothing to reply to. Which I'm sure you didn't.

You automatically have the right to control your body, and if you choose an indiscretion-

This goes back to the entire debate of "What is morality" Thats completly diffrent.

http://www.abortionfacts.com/online..._we_love_them_both_14.asp#By 8 weeks? Show me!

Scientific research shows you can feel pain at 8 weeks.

They aren't living independently, correct. They are still human beings.

Which is why most abortions occur at the 2-6 week mark.

Not necessarily correct.

Its scientifically proven from week 1-6 there is no brain wave activity whatsoever...

Debatable.

No, its scientifically proven to be painless to a child with no feeling of pain. Pain comes in at the 8 week mark, most of the time children are aborted from 1-6 weeks.

Umm, the government telling you what to do with your body?

Thats the dumbest analogy I've ever heard. The government telling you to wear your seatbelt is to protect you, and your body during a wreck. Abortion? Thats just a question at where your morals lie. Nothing the government can do, and like I said, legalizing abortion would only cause the death rates of pregnant teens, along with their unborn children to skyrocket yearly.