Abortion: Pro-Choice or Pro-Life? (v3)

I'd be very surprised if you had an abortion FIDo.



Squ33k!

 

So you are opposed to the death penalty then?

Also, please read people's posts. We recognize that a fetus is alive. We recognize that it is human. We do not, however, recognize its personhood nor do we believe that its rights outweigh those of the mother.

Capice?



Squ33k!

 

As would I, but you know those heathen 'scientists' are going to do it one day, Jifty.



Yes, all life is a sacred thing taht should be held as such. Not something that is unworthy of even living.


Are you religious? If so, how can you make that decision?

 

Yes I am, and who are you to make the decision yourself?

 

I don't. I've decided not to assist a life in living or take one. I prefer to let the universe of variables sort that out.

 

It's not the mother's decision whether she has the child or not, it's the baby's decision. So until we can get an answer as to whether he/she wants to be born or not (ie: lives or dies), we keep the kid alive.

PM a mod with any questions you may have about board functions

Here's something else I'd like to point out. Abortion supporters will often attack anti-abortion people by accusing them of thinking that pregnant girls and young women aren't smart enough to decide for themselves what to do. But based on just about everything I've heard about abortion clinics, they do anything but try and leave the decision up to the girls. Infact, they're dissapointed whenever a potential abortion does not take place. Sonogram screens tend to get girls to change their minds and have the baby instead of aborting it, so for that reason, most abortion clinics will try and keep the girls from seeing them.

One last thing. You guys need to quit recycling the death penalty argument. It's already been answered. Don't keep bringing it up just because you seem to have nothing else to support your case.

 

It's not the mother's decision whether she has the child or not, it's the baby's decision. So until we can get an answer as to whether he/she wants to be born or not (ie: lives or dies), we keep the kid alive.

I swear I was deprived of oxygen at birth. What is with everyone? It must be anti-civility day today.


One last thing. You guys need to quit recycling the death penalty argument. It's already been answered. Don't keep bringing it up just because you seem to have nothing else to support your case.

Well, it makes pro-lifers look like hypocrites.

 

Well, it makes pro-lifers look like hypocrites

Opps, sorry. That was actually directed toward pro-choicers in response to Janson's last post.

 

I am a pro-choice..er. The death penalty argument is used because the logical conclusion of a pro-life position would be that they'd protect all life, no matter what they've done. It shows their hypocritical nature.

 

I would liek to rephrase a earlier post, I thought the post I quoted said Mothers life, not murderers life. I'm not pro life, I'm basically pro justice, those who deserve to die can go ahead and die. Little babies who have nothing do not deserve to die, and I support the death penalty.

 

Darth_Vaderous

Look at it this way. You are saying that the fact that the fetus is alive and it is human makes it worthy of protection as would any human life (pending other extraordinary circumstances). However that set of criteria is contradictory with other examples. There is a white blood cell (several actually) that just fell out of my body (playing with my cat, she got too excited, I got scratched). It is a human cell, and it is alive. It is a human life by your criteria, yet clearly it is not.

No one is arguing if a fertilized egg is alive, or even if it is human; the question is what is a human life? Every individual cell of our body is a human cell, and most of them are living too, yet each and every individual cell of our body is not a human life. However you define human life, it must be a lot more specific than what you said to avoid problems like that.

 

Right, but that little cell, unlike others, will become an adult human. It is already a human, just a smaller version of it.

 

You are defining something by what it will be, but that makes no sense. Things should be defined by what they are, or else a lot makes no sense.

If a fertilized egg is a human life because it will grow to become one, then it is already dead because like all living things, it will eventually die (whether an abortion, or at the end of a long happy life, or something in between, it will die eventually). Life is death because we will be dead? Thinking like that, defining things like that just does not make sense.

 

I have asked this on so many occasions but no Pro-Lifer would give me a straight answer.

What if the mother has a heart condition that makes carrying a pregnancy to term life threatening?

Can she choose to have an abortion and protect her life?

 

Not only can she make that choice, but current medical ethics hold that the mother's life always takes precedent over the fetus's.

There are some lawmakers in the US who wish to change that.

I do not agree.

Peace,

V-03

 

I could let that slide, if it was my wife I would be alright with it because...you know, it's my wife!

 

And in what way is that not compromising your position?

 

I said I am not a Pro Lifer, do what must be done. I'll only let it slide say if it was to save the wife. Not if it was because the parents don't want a baby, which is shameful in every sense of the word.

 

But you see there's your problem. If you make one exception, where do you draw the line?

You said you think it's ok to have an abortion to save the mother's life. What if it wasn't quite that bad?

What if it was a spinal condition where the pressures of late stage pregnancy can leave the mother paralyzed?

Can she have an abortion then?

 

I am pro-choice but with some restrictions - i.e. abortions should not be funded by the government unless it's a government health plan and the abortion is a medical necessity; no late-term abortions except for medical reasons; etc. Essentially, not whatever, whenever, but if it's elective, it should be done long before the fetus has even a remote chance of being viable, and not paid for by taxpayers.

Personally, I'm opposed to abortion, but think of it as a necessary bad thing because there is no reliable way to prevent pregnancy short of sterilization. Even abstinence can fail in the case of rape. So I strongly support birth control being made easily available and continuing research to make it more reliable, and hopefully in the future all unwanted pregnancies can be prevented (and if they're not it can safely be called the parents' fault). Until then, unfortunately, abortion should remain legal.

 

Still, it's would be my wife.

I would like to see my wife walking around not bed ridden forever.

 

I love how pro-lifers are so militant about saving babies but when the child is actually born they couldn't give a damn about the conditions of the child's household and treatment of the parents. Great crusaders they are!

Needless to say, I am a compassionate pro-lifer. I live near a town where protesters (with their children) made a huge commotion because they marched around with pictures of dismembered babies and other sick images.

The controversy was over the fact that it was done right out in front of a public street in full view of impressionable onlookers. What if someone was experiencing trauma from having a terminted pregnancy?

Would flashing these lurid pictures help these people? Would it cure their depression? What would school children walking home think of these pictures? A mother in the hospital nursing her newborn? The mentally-unstable?

I digress, "compassionate" conservatism is not always standard when it comes to the right-wing. But militant pro-choice advocates can be just as outrageous. Late-term and partial-birth abortions are barbaric. Simply savage.

<[-]> Saber

 

Ok then, that's another exception.

What if the mother was paranoid about weight gain and even in early pregnancy, she's gone into severe depression because of the possibility of the weight gain? That's too superficial? But where between paralysis and vainity to do draw the line? If you can't draw a clear line, then it's only fair to allow everyone to do what they damn well feel like.

 

I would never let my wife do that. That's rediculous.

If it's for the WELL BEING of you, say for saving your life or making sure you can still walk then, I'll let you do it. But crap like this, or because the parents are to lazy to take it upon themselves to raise a child if there will be no consequences then that's just wrong.

 

The girls should have thought of the consequences and been ready to deal with them.
Killing a Baby is just awful.
I think a babys life is one of the most ...Beautiful,awesome thing that can happen and to kill it ..
thats just murder.
I am agianst abortion.