NationStates Jolt Archive

Now, let me warn you, this is not for the faint of heart. If you are not of great gastro-intestinal fortitude, this is not the place for you. This will contain very graphic descriptions.
If you think you're up to it, click
Okay, I know this is a somewhat biased source, but everything in it has been scientifically proven.

Now, I ask the pro-choicers out there: How can you live with yourselves when this goes on on a daily basis? I really wanna know.

Wow, by showing that abortion is gross, you've definitely made a rock-solid argument that abortion is murder.

Oh wait, you haven't.

mur·der Audio pronunciation of "murder" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)
n.

1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Abortion is currently 1. Lawful, therefore its not murder.

It also doesn't involve 2. the killing of a human. A fetus is not a human any more than my sperm is a human. Therefore it's not murder.

It doesn't involve 3. premeditated malice either, but rather a pesky desire to both survive and raise children, instead of churning out kids that won't survive because their parents can't raise them and adoption is inefficient. So, it's not murder.

See you.

A lot of the more brutal techniques listed are done only when time isn't an option and the mother's life is at risk. These are all used, but infrequently. The most humane option is always the one chosen, whenever possible.

Now, see, if abortion got SUPPORT, we could make sure that the humane choices were ALWAYS an option. 'Pro-lifers' cause these travesties.

Wow, that's the most horrible and disgusting thing I have ever seen.

And Santa Barbara's reasons are skewed, I don't think most women who have abortions have them because of medical problems, or because they want to abort damaged children.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

Where's the "(N)ot this shit again" pic when you need it?

can we please stop with the overly emotional wording?

there's no need to use a word like "murder" when you and I both know perfectly well that "murder" is not the appropriate term.
It's a very emotionally charged term.

If you argued that abortions are killing, that's a different argument, and you will probably find agreement among many pro-lifers.

If you argued that abortions are morally wrong, that's probably what you want to argue. At least we can then discuss it sensibly.

Wow, that's the most horrible and disgusting thing I have ever seen.

And Santa Barbara's reasons are skewed, I don't think most women who have abortions have them because of medical problems, or because they want to abort damaged children.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/pol.../abreasons.html
And Unknown is high in all cases. Until the air of secrecy and shame around abortion is cleared, we can't get real answers.

Is shooting sperm into a condom murder? How about jacking off into a tube sock? When DOES life begin?

A sperm isn't a human being. It's a cell containing a bunch of chromosomes.
I don't think life begins at conception either, because the zygote doesn’t always develop into an embryo, and is only two cells. I'd say life starts when the embryo begins to take human form, and develops the capacity for cognitive thought and can feel pain.
Just my humble opinion.

Wow, that's the most horrible and disgusting thing I have ever seen.

And Santa Barbara's reasons are skewed, I don't think most women who have abortions have them because of medical problems, or because they want to abort damaged children.
Yep. Most people probably say that "My boyfriend didn't want it" or "I'm going to get a big raise next week and my boss wouldn't like it" or "All of my girlfriends have had abortions" or something to that effect.
I am truly sorry that you had to see that, but sometimes, people have to resort to that kind of thing when nothing else works.

And New Fubaria, I believe that life begins when a sperm cell slams itself into an egg, thus creating the conditions needed for a fetus to form.
A fetus is defined as
1.The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
2.In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth.

Or what Spaghetti & Meatballs said works too.

A sperm isn't a human being. It's a cell containing a bunch of chromosomes.
I don't think life begins at conception either, because the zygote doesn’t always develop into an embryo, and is only two cells. I'd say life starts when the embryo begins to take human form, and develops the capacity for cognitive thought and can feel pain.
Just my humble opinion.
Yeah, I agree. But in some cases, aborting fetuses past that stage is neccessary, and it's a shame when a lady is ostracized for that.

And Santa Barbara's reasons are skewed, I don't think most women who have abortions have them because of medical problems, or because they want to abort damaged children.
Santa Barbara didn't say, or in my opinion even IMPLY that those were the majority of reasons most people get abortions. Yes, even we pro-choicers agree that there are simply some irresponsible whores out there with enough money that they can simply wake up one morning, hop down to Planned Parenthood, say "F*ck this baby" and within 48 hours have it completely erased. Are those the ones we're really trying to endorse in our campaign to give women the choice? Personally, those are the ones I'd prefer to see keep the baby. But the fact is, the choice SHOULD remain for the other reasons.

Right, well I guess an alternative to matching my argument would be to ignore it completely.

You know it's funny, fetuses don't have fully functioning nervous systems, and neither, apparently, do certain fetus-lovers.

Yep. Most people probably say that "My boyfriend didn't want it" or "I'm going to get a big raise next week and my boss wouldn't like it" or "All of my girlfriends have had abortions" or something to that effect. Most people say that? Wow, I wish I knew most people who had abortions.


I am truly sorry that you had to see that, but sometimes, people have to resort to that kind of thing when nothing else works. How does this work exactly, using graphic pictures and inflammatory language to annoy and alienate your target audience? Hint, this will go a long way to drive people away from your cause.

And New Fubaria, I believe that life begins when a sperm cell slams itself into an egg, Scientifically wrong. Sperm are in fact alive by themselves. As for the egg, I couldn't say. thus creating the conditions needed for a fetus to form.
A fetus is defined as
1.The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
2.In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth.
And...?

A sperm isn't a human being. It's a cell containing a bunch of chromosomes.
I don't think life begins at conception either, because the zygote doesn’t always develop into an embryo, and is only two cells. I'd say life starts when the embryo begins to take human form, and develops the capacity for cognitive thought and can feel pain.

Recently determined to be no sooner than the sixth month after conception.

Here comes the science. (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/08/23/news/fetus.php)

Right, well I guess an alternative to matching my argument would be to ignore it completely.

You know it's funny, fetuses don't have fully functioning nervous systems, and neither, apparently, do certain fetus-lovers.
Oi, no need to be crass.

Anyway, I'm gonna leave this thread, as I'm rather biased... My mother had a medical condition that was made worse by the labor process. Essentially, she was only able to carry one child to term in her life.

She had an abortion when she was 19. If she hadn't, I wouldn't be alive today.

I stopped reading that article after the first paragraph for one reason:
A fetus is not a baby. They kept referring to the fetus as a baby, even in the earliest stages when it doesn't show any real signs of life (i.e., no heartbeat, neural activity, etc.).
Generally I hate semantics, and when people argue on a semantic basis I tend to roll my eyes. But in this case, it's an important distinction.

Now, where you draw the line between baby and fetus is a judgement call. I think it's at least wrong to abort in late term, when the fetus strongly resembles a baby. When it has a heartbeat, brainwave activity, mobility... those are signs of life, and at that point I have trouble with abortion. But if it's done early enough, I don't see why it should bother anyone. That lump of cells isn't a real life yet. If the mother isn't responsible enough to carry the baby to term, then why not let them abort? Do we really want to force unfit mothers to have children they don't want? Not I.

Where's the "(N)ot this shit again" pic when you need it?

I have something very very close...

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/specialolympics.jpg

can we please stop with the overly emotional wording?

there's no need to use a word like "murder" when you and I both know perfectly well that "murder" is not the appropriate term.
It's a very emotionally charged term.


If you kill a newborn baby it is considered murder. So how does killing a baby in the womb make it different? In the later stages of development, a baby can be born premature and survive outside of the womb. Properly cared for they can often grow up to be healthy and normal.
I don’t understand how a few inches change an unliving fetus to a human being. Some pro choicers (some NOT all) seem to treat a pregnancy more like a parasitic growth than a developing child.
And does anyone know approx. when a fetus/baby being to develop a nervous system and show neural activity?

I have something very very close...

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/specialolympics.jpg
I dig the Spiderman hanging in the background of the retarded kid. Nice touch.

Willie hears ya. Willie don't care.

If you kill a newborn baby it is considered murder. So how does killing a baby in the womb make it different? In the later stages of development, a baby can be born premature and survive outside of the womb. Properly cared for they can often grow up to be healthy and normal.
I don’t understand how a few inches change an unliving fetus to a human being. Some pro choicers (some NOT all) seem to treat a pregnancy more like a parasitic growth than a developing child.
Thanks for the distinction there.

Simonist']I dig the Spiderman hanging in the background of the retarded kid. Nice touch.

Thanks. I ripped that pic off a guy in a forum years ago. Up til this second, I didn't even notice the Spiderman.

Where's the "(N)ot this shit again" pic when you need it?

Here you go.


http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/8701/fedup9wr.jpg

Here you go.


http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/8701/fedup9wr.jpg

Added to my photobucket account. :D

Here you go.


http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/8701/fedup9wr.jpg

Thank you much.

And Unknown is high in all cases. Until the air of secrecy and shame around abortion is cleared, we can't get real answers.

Are you looking at the page I posted? Except for Louisiana and Minnesota, unknown accounts for less than 3 percent of all responses!

I would like to add that many of the abortions shown on that site would not be performed in the United States. Abortions here cannot take place after a certain number of weeks, and it is definitely not 30-40 weeks. Therefore, most of those photos are mute, they don't happen legally here.
This site is therefore in most of its photos trying to take advantage of peoples emotions by LYING to them about what is really happening.

Aslo, these photos are being very careful not to show you the scale. most of these pictures are of infants less than 3 inches, in fact most of them are smaller than a thumb. Again, these photos are being played up to get peoples emotions up by stretching the truth.

Right of Reply (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=440119)

Oi, I think the right-to-lifers got served.

Besides, abortion isn't something men should be fighting over. It's a woman's issue. A guy can't have an abortion, so why should they be making a decision for women? I don't think banning abortion outright is going to solve any problems.

Besides, who says killing babies is bad?

Angry baby Me
:mad: :sniper:

"I'm neither pro-life, nor pro choice; I'm pro you-shutting-the-hell-up."
-Maddox, www.maddox.xmission.com

oh god not another abortion thread.

"think of the children!"
"its murder"
"god doesnt like it"

Im getting rather tired of arguing this...

Now, I ask the pro-choicers out there: How can you live with yourselves when this goes on on a daily basis? I really wanna know.

Alright I will give you a story.

My sister-in-law was born with a unusual form of Cystic Fibrosis. She lived all of 2 weeks. All of it medicated and under machinery. My mother-in-law was remarked that she felt the girl never knew who she was.

The Autopsy results basically showed her organs looked like she had been living with the disease for years. As the Doctors said "We have never seen anything like this before

They lived at the poverty level for several years to pay off the hospitol bills. My father-in-law had to beg for a payment system.

They never tried to have another child after that.

My parent-in-laws still have issues with that event.

My father-in-law, the sterotypical image of the Italian catholic, left the church forever over this. A spiritual crisises so he goes to his Priest. Responce: God is punishing you for your sins.

Roll the clock forward. I was to have a second child. She was diagnosed with the disease. The geneticist said those dreaded words "We have never seen this before."

We waited to the last possible moment hoping the tests were wrong. That they would comeback with a report that it means nothing. But it wasn't the case.

I can tell you that don't delude yourself that this is an easy choice. It isn't. Don't think you never think about it either.

Did we make the right choice? For the family unit probably. I still have a very happy daughter that was lucky to not be able to understand what was going on. The fact we had her around made the grieving process easier.

I have had several people tell me I made the right choice. Common theme was the destruction of familes.

I remember the nurse we had. After it was over she said she wanted us to know that we will always have "what if" questions and though it may not seem it, we made the right choice. She had done it twice and gave up trying for children because her two were diagnosed with downs. Her family has extreame cases of it. She spoke of a brother and an uncle that basically existed. They couldn't do anything and they required 24/7 care.

You can say whatever nasty things you want.

If I am to be punished. So be it. I did what I thought was right for my family and accept the outcome.....

Where's the "(N)ot this shit again" pic when you need it?

http://www.boomspeed.com/major_fubar/goodbye.jpg

If you kill a newborn baby it is considered murder.
Sometimes and places, but not in other times and places. In fact even in somes times and places where it is illegal to kill a new born baby (illegal being a necessary condition for considering an act murder), it is not always murder, (it may for instance be categorised as infanticide which is a lesser charge than murder).

So how does killing a baby in the womb make it different?
Depends on the time and place. Murder is a social concept, as such it is subjective.

In the later stages of development, a baby can be born premature and survive outside of the womb. Properly cared for they can often grow up to be healthy and normal.
How often they grow up to be normal and healthy depends on the earliness of birth and the availability and use of resources.

I don’t understand how a few inches change an unliving fetus to a human being.
Based on your comments I expect there are a few things you either do not know, or do not understand. Most particularly you seem not to know (or understand) that murder is a matter of law. For some reason the word is quite emotive, and so people often want to use it to imply some moral concept, but another thing you seem to not understand, is it only impresses the converted. For many people statements about a legal act being murder, only convince them that the person making the statement is uninformed, unreasoned, and lacks critical thinking skills. It's a very good way to discredit yourself before the conversation even begins. If you want to convince people, you would be better to not employ terminology that makes you incorrect before you even start. Think of it like this; if you could prove through reasoning that abortion should be illegal, you would not resort to much weaker arguments based on a misunderstanding of English. The fact that someone does try to argue based on a misunderstanding of English, suggests they lack any credible case. Rather than convincing people of your point of view, your method of arguing suggests there is no good argument that would substantiate your point of view.

Some pro choicers (some NOT all) seem to treat a pregnancy more like a parasitic growth than a developing child.
And does anyone know approx. when a fetus/baby being to develop a nervous system and show neural activity?
No, I dont, but I do know that any legal act is not murder, and I find it hard to believe that pro-lifers either dont know this fact, or expect others to not know this fact. Try reasoning instead of making illconcieved appeals to emotion, especially when the attempt to tap into emotion is based entirely on a failure to understand (or refusal to understand) plain and simple English. Abortion might be killing, it might be killing human beings, but where it is legal, it is not murder.

I had an abortion. Because I wanted to. There were other reasons, but the primary one was that I didn't want a baby. I'm not going to justify it because I don't have to. I have my own issues of regret and what ifs, etc. But mostly, I'm just relieved.

I am fully aware of the process, what I did and the moral implications (I had it done, semi-legally, in a rural S.E. Asian country, was conscious and lucid throughout.), but look back on having had an abortion as a lucky escape.

I thank my lucky stars that I had the socio-economic power to be able to have it. Most women in the world don't have the opportunity to take control of their lives this way.

I had an abortion. Because I wanted to. There were other reasons, but the primary one was that I didn't want a baby. I'm not going to justify it because I don't have to. I have my own issues of regret and what ifs, etc. But mostly, I'm just relieved.

I am fully aware of the process, what I did and the moral implications (I had it done, semi-legally, in a rural S.E. Asian country, was conscious and lucid throughout.), but look back on having had an abortion as a lucky escape.

I thank my lucky stars that I had the socio-economic power to be able to have it. Most women in the world don't have the opportunity to take control of their lives this way.

I had an abortion. Because I wanted to. There were other reasons, but the primary one was that I didn't want a baby. I'm not going to justify it because I don't have to. I have my own issues of regret and what ifs, etc. But mostly, I'm just relieved.

I am fully aware of the process, what I did and the moral implications (I had it done, semi-legally, in a rural S.E. Asian country, was conscious and lucid throughout.), but look back on having had an abortion as a lucky escape.

I thank my lucky stars that I had the socio-economic power to be able to have it. Most women in the world don't have the opportunity to take control of their lives this way.

Sorry for posting 3 times. That means my mouse is fucked, not that I had 3 abortions...

You know there are two sides to every story. And I'm not here to argue about pro-choice/pro-life because it is an endless battle that neither side can win. I have my own thoughts and opinions on the matter, but that is not what I want to talk about.

The story that I would like to share is that of a boy named Marshall Stewart Ball. He is a boy who was born not being able to talk or walk. And he depends on others constantly for physical help. By the tender age of five, he had learned how to communicate using an alphabet board and started writing the most amazing poetry!! This poem was written by Marshall in February 1992, at the age of five!!

Altogether Lovely

God is good and merciful
because he is also bright and intelligent.
Seeing, feeling all that is true.
Clearly he feels and listens
to all our desires.
Clearly he has everybody's
dreams in mind.
I see a God altogether lovely.

This poem is one of my favorites. Marshall wrote it on November 24, 1998:

Feelings Happy

Happiness comes when we
agree to love.
Each day the answers come
to a good dear listener.
Make each day a happy one
and go to a good God.
Angel messengers begin to answer
your questions
and name you happy.

By the age of 9, Marshall was evaluated at a grade 12 reading comprehension level. While his parents helped him transcribe his poetry and thoughts, many times they actually had to look up the words that he used in a dictionary because they had never heard them before. Amazingly, he always spelled those words correctly and used them in the proper context!!

Marshall Stewart Ball has a book of his works published, which is called, "Kiss of God: The Wisdom of a Silent Child". And it is simply amazing!! Marshall also has a website: http://www.marshallball.com/
The website does give you a taste of how remarkable this child is!

I guess I wanted to share this story with you because here is a child that turned out to be far from what most parents would dream of when they think of having a baby....and yet, he is SO amazing and remarkable!! Marshall's parents didn't know that there was something wrong with his development until after he was born. But IF they had known that something was wrong while there was still an opportunity to have an abortion and they had decided to abort him....what a loss that would've been to not only his parents, but also the world!! Just something to think about. :)

<snip>

Not that I don't appreciate this example, but did you know that Hitler's mother actually wanted to abort him? The doctor talked her out of that.

Now, can you imagine how much pain, misery and suffering that would have saved the world?

YAY an abortion thread! :fluffle:

Where's the "(N)ot this shit again" pic when you need it?
http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/5126/awgeezjpg8pl.png

Now, let me warn you, this is not for the faint of heart. If you are not of great gastro-intestinal fortitude, this is not the place for you. This will contain very graphic descriptions.
If you think you're up to it, click here.
Okay, I know this is a somewhat biased source, but everything in it has been scientifically proven.

Now, I ask the pro-choicers out there: How can you live with yourselves when this goes on on a daily basis? I really wanna know.

Heart surgery isn't pretty either, but I have no problems with that. I fail to see what you hope to accomplish by saying 'OMG! Look how icky it is!'.

And New Fubaria, I believe that life begins when a sperm cell slams itself into an egg, thus creating the conditions needed for a fetus to form.
A fetus is defined as
1.The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
2.In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth.



Firstly A lot of people do not share your belief on when life begins, and yours is just as arbitary as saying "birth" or "release of sperm" or "release of egg" or any other milestone in the repoductive cycle. I could say I believe life begins with the production of sperm (i dont), but it does not make it any more or less true than your arbitary choice.

Also the two points you list would seem to point that early abortions are OK as the cells are not yet a foetus...

Cabra West:

With that logic, we should just shoot every child that shows the potential of becoming a source of evil. I don't believe that Hitler was BORN evil....he chose that path. I believe that EVERY child has great potential. If you know anything about Hitler's childhood, you would know that it wasn't the happiest. So maybe it wasn't so much that his mom should've had an abortion, but that his family should've encouraged his dreams, like being an artist, which his dad was firmly against. Hitler was beaten and tortured as a child and he experienced not a single instance of human love or compassion while growing up. Hitler's father had worked as an Austrian Imperial customs agent and continually expressed loyalty to the Hapsburg Monarchy, perhaps unknowingly encouraging his rebellious young son to give his loyalty to the German Kaiser....so his obsession for nationalism all started with the hatred he had for his dad. Hitler was BORN with potential for doing good and great things, but when that wasn't fostered at home, he chose the opposite. So should we then force ALL questionable parents to get abortions because another Hitler may surface? Wow, would that ever rid the world of some AMAZING kids, whom I have personally met!!

Oi, I think the right-to-lifers got served.

Besides, abortion isn't something men should be fighting over. It's a woman's issue. A guy can't have an abortion, so why should they be making a decision for women? I don't think banning abortion outright is going to solve any problems.

Besides, who says killing babies is bad?

Angry baby Me
:mad: :sniper:

"I'm neither pro-life, nor pro choice; I'm pro you-shutting-the-hell-up."
-Maddox, www.maddox.xmission.com

that site rocks!!

If you kill a newborn baby it is considered murder.

Well, leaving aside the difference between a baby and what is actually involved in an abortion (hint, not a baby), there's also the fact that a newborn child has a brain. The infants involved in elective abortions do not. They are literally just clumps of cells reacting on a chemical level to their environment. No more human than a cancerous growth, in the strictest of biological senses.

So how does killing a baby in the womb make it different?

It lacks a central nervous system; the issue is not of 'killing' the infant, but of removing it's access from the mother due to her removal of consent. Any other human being has the right to remove consent for other humans to use their organs or body for any reason whatsoever. Tell me, why do you think you have the right to remove this right from only women, and only when they are pregnant? Are you aware of how the legal system works, and why what you suggest is patently ridiculous?

In the later stages of development, a baby can be born premature and survive outside of the womb. Properly cared for they can often grow up to be healthy and normal.

Hmm, do you think that's maybe why elective (non-medical) abortions are only performed before that stage? And why the only procedures that occur after that period are for medical reasons (either the mother or child would have a greater than 50% chance of death if the birth went ahead).

You would have had a point had you been on the opposite side of the debate.

I don’t understand how a few inches change an unliving fetus to a human being.

I suggest you take a high school biology course. Then you'll learn a) it's not 'a few inches' but a matter of many months, involving vast amounts of developement, including that of a functioning brain. Before the infant has a brain, it can't react on the level needed to qualify as a human. In the early stages (where most elective abortions occur), the infant doesn't even count as a separate organism from it's mother.

Some pro choicers (some NOT all) seem to treat a pregnancy more like a parasitic growth than a developing child.

That's because they have taken basic biology and realise that early in pregnancy (when elective abortions, might I remind you, occur) the infant is a parasite, according to the very definition of the word. Of course, only very poor debaters tend to use the word in debates, for the same reason only very poor debaters resort to using 'murder' to describe abortion.

And does anyone know approx. when a fetus/baby being to develop a nervous system and show neural activity?

I don't have it offhand (early second trimester, I believe, but I could be off by a few months) but it is before that point that elective abortions become illegal. So, a woman can't have a fetus with a formed brain aborted unless it poses a serious threat to her, or its, life. Infants can only be electively aborted *before* that point where their nervous system is functioning. I must say, if you change your stance now you know this, you'll be able to remain a rational person in most people's eyes, I'd imagine...

I am what you would call "pro-choice"
If you don't want an abortion; dont get one!!
Don't say it is right or wrong, it's their life, even if I wouldn't want to kill my baby doesn't mean everyone else has to do the same thing

boy, people are tiresome

Cabra West:

With that logic, we should just shoot every child that shows the potential of becoming a source of evil. I don't believe that Hitler was BORN evil....he chose that path. I believe that EVERY child has great potential. If you know anything about Hitler's childhood, you would know that it wasn't the happiest. So maybe it wasn't so much that his mom should've had an abortion, but that his family should've encouraged his dreams, like being an artist, which his dad was firmly against. Hitler was beaten and tortured as a child and he experienced not a single instance of human love or compassion while growing up. Hitler's father had worked as an Austrian Imperial customs agent and continually expressed loyalty to the Hapsburg Monarchy, perhaps unknowingly encouraging his rebellious young son to give his loyalty to the German Kaiser....so his obsession for nationalism all started with the hatred he had for his dad. Hitler was BORN with potential for doing good and great things, but when that wasn't fostered at home, he chose the opposite. So should we then force ALL questionable parents to get abortions because another Hitler may surface? Wow, would that ever rid the world of some AMAZING kids, whom I have personally met!!

I never ever used that concept as an argument pro abortion. I'm not pro-abortion, but pro-choice, there's a difference there.
And to think that a mother who - for whatever reason - doesn't want the child and is still forced to have it would provide a good background for the child to grow up in is a bit naive, don't you think? I think there is a correlation between Hitler's mother wanting to abort him and his consequent horrible childhood. Sure, his family should have supported him. But hey, his family didn't even want him, right?

I'm all in favour of people having children if they feel they want them and can provide a good home for them. But if people feel they can't do that, they shouldn't be forced to. The results of that can be devastating.

To the conservatives:

Abortion is murder?

Then what is war? Why do you support Iraq, Afghanisthan, etc.?

Double Morale.

To the conservatives:

Abortion is murder?

Then what is war? Why do you support Iraq, Afghanisthan, etc.?

Double Morale.

The Green Party in German had an election slogan a few years back : "I would protect asylum seekers from racial violence... if they were unborn babies." :rolleyes:

To the conservatives:

Abortion is murder?

Then what is war? Why do you support Iraq, Afghanisthan, etc.?

Double Morale.

In the wars, in the long run, we save more lives in the long ru (eg british american lives) then if we dont invade those countrys and protect our country from angry foreign people, its a complely different thing to abortian.

And, if you want to dispute wether those wars are right, please do..... in another thread.

Cabra West:

You know there is a thing called "adoption". I have so many friends who have adopted or want to adopt because they can't have kids, and guess what?....None of the children that any of my friends have adopted had to cease to exist because the birth mom didn't want to have them. I figure, if a girl is willing to spread her legs apart, then she better be prepared to have a baby...because protection doesn't always work....and we all know what sex can lead to. You see, I have seen some of my friends use abortion as birth control. One of my friends has had 4 abortions starting at about the age of 18 and she is only 27 now. So, please forgive me if I'm not very sympathetic to the pro-choice cause.

In the wars, in the long run, we save more lives in the long ru (eg british american lives) then if we dont invade those countrys and protect our country from angry foreign people, its a complely different thing to abortian.


So it is OK to kill tens of thousands of living breathing people who happened to be born in a country that has never attacked the US or UK, and get a thousand or so young Americans killed in the process. And create a generation of people who hate America for murdering their families (because thet will never be a threat to the US :rolleyes: ) but it is not OK for a pregnant woman to abort a 10week old foetus because of an arbitary belief in the starting point of life.

Cabra West:

You know there is a thing called "adoption". I have so many friends who have adopted or want to adopt because they can't have kids, and guess what?....None of the children that any of my friends have adopted had to cease to exist because the birth mom didn't want to have them. I figure, if a girl is willing to spread her legs apart, then she better be prepared to have a baby...because protection doesn't always work....and we all know what sex can lead to. You see, I have seen some of my friends use abortion as birth control. One of my friends has had 4 abortions starting at about the age of 18 and she is only 27 now. So, please forgive me if I'm not very sympathetic to the pro-choice cause.

While I don't agree with using abortion as birth control, I don't see the behaviour of individuals as a basis to take away the right to one's own body.
True, adoptions are an option. But they won't help you much if you can't continue school, or if you first loose your job because you become less productive now that your pregnant. It won't really help with the medical bills, either.

Refusing an abortion to a woman who has become pregnant without wanting to is like refusing medical aid to a bungee-jumper who got injured. He knew about the risks, didn't he? But he still had to go and do it....
True, it may be their own fault. But I think they should have all options to correct their mistakes rather than being forced to ruin their lives...

Cabra West:

You know there is a thing called "adoption". I have so many friends who have adopted or want to adopt because they can't have kids, and guess what?....None of the children that any of my friends have adopted had to cease to exist because the birth mom didn't want to have them. I figure, if a girl is willing to spread her legs apart, then she better be prepared to have a baby...because protection doesn't always work....and we all know what sex can lead to. You see, I have seen some of my friends use abortion as birth control. One of my friends has had 4 abortions starting at about the age of 18 and she is only 27 now. So, please forgive me if I'm not very sympathetic to the pro-choice cause.

Ahh, good old "If women have sex, they deserve to be punished" arguments. They make it so easy to see who shouldn't be in these debates.

You've just backed yourself into a corner where you either think that people should be refused legal medical attention if they are judged to be at fault (ie, a doctor should legally be able to refuse to set your broken arm if it happened when you were in a car accident, because you knew when you got in the car that you might have an accident), or you are saying (if you believe in abortion in the case of rape), that women should be punished for enjoying sex (since in cases where they have already sufferered, you would allow them not to have a child, but in a case were you have judged them *not* to have suffered, you would presume to 'punish' them).

I suggest you reconsider your position, or at least the wording, because as it stands you appear to be both uninformed and sexist in the worst possible way. There are ways to be pro-life without doing this, but the "the woman deserves to SUFFER, after all she's a WHORE" argument is not the way to achieve that.

Cabra West:
I figure, if a girl is willing to spread her legs apart, then she better be prepared to have a baby...because protection doesn't always work....and we all know what sex can lead to.

Thats right... blame the woman for getting pregnant.

The adoption thing... How many abortions are there each year? and how many new adoptive parents are there each year?

Now, let me warn you, this is not for the faint of heart. If you are not of great gastro-intestinal fortitude, this is not the place for you. This will contain very graphic descriptions.
If you think you're up to it, click here.
Okay, I know this is a somewhat biased source, but everything in it has been scientifically proven.

Now, I ask the pro-choicers out there: How can you live with yourselves when this goes on on a daily basis? I really wanna know.
Yes, because we define murder as:

"A really icky medical procedure. I mean really, really icky. Look at these nasty nasty pictures and descriptions, and tell me it's not murder! It's really really icky!!!"

Guess what? An apendectomy is much, much more disgusting than any of the three abortion procedures I have witnessed. I guess it must be murder to remove an appendix, then, huh?

Thats right... blame the woman for getting pregnant.

The adoption thing... How many abortions are there each year? and how many new adoptive parents are there each year?
There are less and less adoptive parents each year with IVF, unfortunately...

Ahh, good old "If women have sex, they deserve to be punished" arguments. They make it so easy to see who shouldn't be in these debates.

You've just backed yourself into a corner where you either think that people should be refused legal medical attention if they are judged to be at fault (ie, a doctor should legally be able to refuse to set your broken arm if it happened when you were in a car accident, because you knew when you got in the car that you might have an accident), or you are saying (if you believe in abortion in the case of rape), that women should be punished for enjoying sex (since in cases where they have already sufferered, you would allow them not to have a child, but in a case were you have judged them *not* to have suffered, you would presume to 'punish' them).

I suggest you reconsider your position, or at least the wording, because as it stands you appear to be both uninformed and sexist in the worst possible way. There are ways to be pro-life without doing this, but the "the woman deserves to SUFFER, after all she's a WHORE" argument is not the way to achieve that.
*DING*

We have a winner!

So it is OK to kill tens of thousands of living breathing people who happened to be born in a country that has never attacked the US or UK, and get a thousand or so young Americans killed in the process. And create a generation of people who hate America for murdering their families (because thet will never be a threat to the US :rolleyes: ) but it is not OK for a pregnant woman to abort a 10week old foetus because of an arbitary belief in the starting point of life.

Oh, don't forget the millions that die every year from easily preventable diseases and malnutrition. Because, of course, their lives are somehow less important than an unthinking zygote....

"Pro-life" indeed.

Refusing an abortion to a woman who has become pregnant without wanting to is like refusing medical aid to a bungee-jumper who got injured. He knew about the risks, didn't he? But he still had to go and do it....
True, it may be their own fault. But I think they should have all options to correct their mistakes rather than being forced to ruin their lives...

Whoa, awesome example. Must remember to use bungee-jumpers instead of people in car accidents for future debates.

You get debate point +1

If you kill a newborn baby it is considered murder. So how does killing a baby in the womb make it different? In the later stages of development, a baby can be born premature and survive outside of the womb.

Pregnancy lasts 9 months, premature children can only survive if they're born in the last 3 months, this leaves 6 months when you don't need to actively kill the foetus, only to prevent it from developing (and I suspect that more than 2/3 of abortions are in the first 2/3 of pregnancy).

Wow, is it just me, or did the anti-choicers get thrashed like 3 pages faster than the last time somebody spat out these same lame talking points?

Maybe they should take that as a warning; by recycling the same falsehoods over and over and over, they're just helping make pro-choicers quicker on the draw and better able to humiliate the anti-choicers in public :).

Wow, is it just me, or did the anti-choicers get thrashed like 3 pages faster than the last time somebody spat out these same lame talking points?

Maybe they should take that as a warning; by recycling the same falsehoods over and over and over, they're just helping make pro-choicers quicker on the draw and better able to humiliate the anti-choicers in public :).

It's not just you.
Current score is about Pro-choice 10 vs Anti-Choice 0
Unless you count 'women who get pregnant are whores and deserve to be punished' (to paraphrase).

It's not just you.
Current score is about Pro-choice 10 vs Anti-Choice 0
Unless you count 'women who get pregnant are whores and deserve to be punished' (to paraphrase).

Hey now, be fair.

"It's icky, let's make it illegal!" is at least as valid as the whore/punishment argument.

Sure, that's technically 'not at all valid'. But still... equally valid.

In Canada, which is where I live, there aren't enough newborn babies to go around. Adoptive parents sometimes wait an extremely long time here to adopt a baby. And I am not saying that a woman should be punished for having sex and getting pregnant, but I do think that if she thinks she is responsible enough to have sex, then she should be responsible enough to carry a baby to term. If she wants all of the pleasure without any of the consequences, then maybe she should invest in an electronic buddy. So please don't put words in my mouth. I have seen WAY too many situations that have occured by my friends having sex when they didn't think about the possible consequences. And adoption is a very good option, at least here in Canada. By the way, I'm a woman myself, and I did have sex before marriage, so if I was calling anyone a "whore" then I was also referring to myself!! :)

In Canada, which is where I live, there aren't enough newborn babies to go around. Adoptive parents sometimes wait an extremely long time here to adopt a baby. And I am not saying that a woman should be punished for having sex and getting pregnant, but I do think that if she thinks she is responsible enough to have sex, then she should be responsible enough to carry a baby to term. If she wants all of the pleasure without any of the consequences, then maybe she should invest in an electronic buddy. So please don't put words in my mouth. I have seen WAY too many situations that have occured by my friends having sex when they didn't think about the possible consequences. And adoption is a very good option, at least here in Canada. By the way, I'm a woman myself, and I did have sex before marriage, so if I was calling anyone a "whore" then I was also referring to myself!! :)

While I'm sure we all appreciate the response (being not confrontational as it is, especially in response to the original posts*), you haven't addressed one of the main points.

You say that 'if they are responsible enough to have sex, they should carry the child to term'. Does that mean if someone goes bunjee-jumping, they should be forced to live with any medical complications caused by that? Or that, by getting in a car, you are consenting to the very real possibility of an accident, and because of this, should be refused legal operations (say, if you needed a blood transfusion, or an organ transplant)?

You still seem to be advocating that pregnant women should be given less rights than every other human being, and it doesn't make much sense.

*just to point something out, most people here have been in way too many abortion debates (Hi Bottle! :p). We (or, at the very least, I) tend to jump the gun and go "heard that argument, here's a rebuttal. I'm glad you don't seem to have taken that personally, because it certainly wasn't intended that way ^.^

Now, let me warn you, this is not for the faint of heart. If you are not of great gastro-intestinal fortitude, this is not the place for you. This will contain very graphic descriptions.
If you think you're up to it, click
Okay, I know this is a somewhat biased source, but everything in it has been scientifically proven.

Now, I ask the pro-choicers out there: How can you live with yourselves when this goes on on a daily basis? I really wanna know.


Ah yet again another abortion thread. Well now I'm conveninced. Yep your arguement has definitely changed my mind now that you have pictures. I've watched dozens of operations on TV and on work experience, yes there were a little gross but they did not change my opinion of operations. When will ppl on both sides of this agruement learn that you are not going to change ppls minds by continuously discussing the same points on the same loop day after day after day after day.
Pro chocie all the way!

Problems with adoption arguement:
1. A womans life could still be buggered by having to drop out of school/college/uni or by getting sacked due to pregnancy.
2. Although there are adoption shortages and long wait times adoption is a one-time-only solution in that each year many more babies are aborted than there are suitable new adoptive couples. Supply will soon outstrip demand and then what do you do with the babies? Orphanages? Donate to the Army?
3. It still forces a woman to carry and give birth to a child she does not want. Which to me seems a pretty horrible thing to do.

There are others but in the majority of cases those are the main objections as i am aware.

Three Women in Ireland are tryna legalise it here Abortion News Story (http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=65023922&p=65xz4zz4)

They are arguing it's a violation of human rights??? That shit will never fly and we will remain without abortion, much to my utter hapiness. It's not I don't want women to have a choice, I believe it should only be legal in rape, incest or where it poses great risk to the womans life. Anyway what if the guy wanted to keep it? In many cases women never even tell them, which in itself is a crime.

In Canada, which is where I live, there aren't enough newborn babies to go around. Adoptive parents sometimes wait an extremely long time here to adopt a baby.

If you think there is ANY shortage of babies who need homes, you need to open your eyes. There may not be enough CANADIAN orphans, but I promise there are plenty of babies to go around in this world.

And I am not saying that a woman should be punished for having sex and getting pregnant, but I do think that if she thinks she is responsible enough to have sex, then she should be responsible enough to carry a baby to term. If she wants all of the pleasure without any of the consequences, then maybe she should invest in an electronic buddy. So please don't put words in my mouth. I have seen WAY too many situations that have occured by my friends having sex when they didn't think about the possible consequences. And adoption is a very good option, at least here in Canada. By the way, I'm a woman myself, and I did have sex before marriage, so if I was calling anyone a "whore" then I was also referring to myself!! :)
Consenting to have sex does NOT equate to consenting to have a baby. If you consent to sex you are consenting to endure the risk of PREGNANCY, but that does not equate to HAVING A BABY. Childbirth is only one of the possible outcomes of pregnancy, and it doesn't have to be the one that a person chooses to endure. The "consequence" of sex may be that a woman becomes pregnant, but it is not necessarily that she will carry the pregnancy to term and produce a baby.

Three Women in Ireland are tryna legalise it here Abortion News Story (http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=65023922&p=65xz4zz4)

They are arguing it's a violation of human rights??? That shit will never fly and we will remain without abortion, much to my utter hapiness. It's not I don't want women to have a choice, I believe it should only be legal in rape, incest or where it poses great risk to the womans life. Anyway what if the guy wanted to keep it? In many cases women never even tell them, which in itself is a crime.

From all I know, legalisation would only affect the pockets of Britsh abortion doctors... :rolleyes:
Just because it is illegal here doesn't mean it's unavailable.

Three Women in Ireland are tryna legalise it here Abortion News Story (http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=65023922&p=65xz4zz4)

They are arguing it's a violation of human rights??? That shit will never fly and we will remain without abortion, much to my utter hapiness. It's not I don't want women to have a choice, I believe it should only be legal in rape, incest or where it poses great risk to the womans life. Anyway what if the guy wanted to keep it? In many cases women never even tell them, which in itself is a crime.

So you are one of those people who believe pregnant women don't deserve a right every other human being has? Care to explain that a little further?

Also, see my previous opinions on the 'in cases of rape argument'. Honestly, I can't imagine how anyone could use that and *not* see the logical implications of it...

Shaed:

If a mother's life is in danger, and she won't live to carry the baby to term, then I would agree that abortion is an option. Sex has been reduced to only a recreational activity, when it isn't. There is ALWAYS a possibility that a child will come out of sex. It's about responsibility....not rights...a woman has a responisibility to the child that she had a hand in creating. If your mother had decided to throw you away, then you wouldn't be conversing with me right now, and I'm sure that the world would really be missing out. For me, it is more about who has the right to say that a child doesn't have the right to live and contribute to the world, when it seriously could be the world's loss. What if an aborted fetus was to eventually cure cancer, or AIDS, or create world peace? We will never know because they didn't have a chance to even take their first breath. Sex leads to babies. It's not rocket science.

Also, see my previous opinions on the 'in cases of rape argument'. Honestly, I can't imagine how anyone could use that and *not* see the logical implications of it...
Seriously...I can't believe people still use that line. "If she consented to have sex, punish the dirty slut!!!! But if she was raped, well, she's been punished for her womanhood enough, so it's not murder for her to get an abortion."

If a fetus is a human (which it would have to be for the term "murder" to apply to killing it), then how can they support this argument? Since when do we define if a crime was murder based on the sexual activity of the parents of the victim? If a child is murdered, do we say, "ah, but that child was born because his mother got impregnated by a rapist, so it's not really murder"?

I didn't come on here to argue....so I will bid you all a fairwell so I can get some sleep. You know that I won't convince you and you won't convince me. It is just one of those things. And I hope that you do realize that my reasons for being pro-life have nothing to do with religion. Stay Happy!! :)

Shaed:

If a mother's life is in danger, and she won't live to carry the baby to term, then I would agree that abortion is an option. Sex has been reduced to only a recreational activity, when it isn't. There is ALWAYS a possibility that a child will come out of sex. It's about responsibility....not rights...a woman has a responisibility to the child that she had a hand in creating. If your mother had decided to throw you away, then you wouldn't be conversing with me right now, and I'm sure that the world would really be missing out. For me, it is more about who has the right to say that a child doesn't have the right to live and contribute to the world, when it seriously could be the world's loss. What if an aborted fetus was to eventually cure cancer, or AIDS, or create world peace? We will never know because they didn't have a chance to even take their first breath. Sex leads to babies. It's not rocket science.

And sex leads to STDs, should we stop curing those, too?

Seriously, that arguement never fails to drive me up the wall. If my mother had aborted me, she would have saved me a world of suffering and I would be grateful. And the world wouldn't miss a fecking thing because I never would have been here in the first place.
That said, it's the woman's body. The foetus is living parasitically inside it. It doesn't really have the right to live off another person's body without consent. If it had, then by the same ethics you could force people to donate kidneys to save the lives of strangers.

Shaed:

If a mother's life is in danger, and she won't live to carry the baby to term, then I would agree that abortion is an option. Sex has been reduced to only a recreational activity, when it isn't. There is ALWAYS a possibility that a child will come out of sex.

No, you are cutting out the middle steps again.

There is the possibility that PREGNANCY will result from sex. Just like there is a chance that a car accident will result from driving a car. However, to imply that getting pregnant must equal having a baby is like saying that getting in an accident must equal dying because the doctor refused to give you a blood transfusion.

It's about responsibility....not rights...a woman has a responisibility to the child that she had a hand in creating.
She hasn't helped create a child until the pregnancy comes to term and the baby is delivered. Until that point, there is no child. Thus, she cannot have responsibility to a child until POST-birth.


If your mother had decided to throw you away, then you wouldn't be conversing with me right now, and I'm sure that the world would really be missing out.

My friend Dan only exists because his mother had an abortion when she was 16. So now can we please stop using this tired old personal device of, "If your mother got an abortion..."?


For me, it is more about who has the right to say that a child doesn't have the right to live and contribute to the world, when it seriously could be the world's loss. What if an aborted fetus was to eventually cure cancer, or AIDS, or create world peace?

What if the woman carries to term and has the baby, and as a result doesn't go out on the town one Friday night, doesn't meet the man who would have been her future husband, and doesn't conceive the child who would have grown up to cure AIDS?

What-ifs are worthless. Don't waste your time.


Sex leads to babies. It's not rocket science.
No, sex MAY lead to pregnancy. Pregnancy MAY lead to babies. You're right, it's not rocket science, it's introductory biology. Maybe that's where you're running into trouble. See, "Sex leads to babies" only holds true if you force people to not use contraception or abortion...it's like saying, "Cars lead to people bleeding to death" because you oppose letting people who are in car wrecks get blood transfusions.

Bye guys!! Have fun trying to convince a different pro-lifer that they are so wrong. Because it doesn't matter how you dice it, I will always have my stance on the matter. Have a good night!! It is almost 5 am here, so I'm going to get some sleep. It's been fun!! :)

Shaed:

If a mother's life is in danger, and she won't live to carry the baby to term, then I would agree that abortion is an option. Sex has been reduced to only a recreational activity, when it isn't.

You forgot that helpful line "In my opinion".

There is ALWAYS a possibility that a child will come out of sex.

There's a possibility everytime you enter a car that that action will lead to an accident. You aren't expected to take on the 'responsibility' of sever bloodloss or damaged organs. Why do you wish that on pregnant women?

It's about responsibility....not rights...a woman has a responisibility to the child that she had a hand in creating.

Well, I hate to point it out, but it's not a 'child' until after birth. If a woman has an abortion, there's no 'child' involved anywhere in the process.

And, it is about rights, because you want to deny a right. It doesn't really get more 'about' rights than that, you know.


If your mother had decided to throw you away, then you wouldn't be conversing with me right now, and I'm sure that the world would really be missing out.

All you're saying here is really "I've been born, so I've been born. If I hadn't been born, I wouldn't have been born". The realm of possibility is too broad to be used to make valid points. Not only that, but it has no place in legal issues at all, so it's dangerous to introduce it to this debate.

For me, it is more about who has the right to say that a child doesn't have the right to live and contribute to the world, when it seriously could be the world's loss. What if an aborted fetus was to eventually cure cancer, or AIDS, or create world peace? We will never know because they didn't have a chance to even take their first breath. Sex leads to babies. It's not rocket science.

Law is NOT about 'what ifs'. At the point where abortion is legal, the 'child' has no brain, no feelings, is not contributing anything to anyone. Furthermore, it is using another person's body against their will, which is in every other case illegal. You still haven't provided any reason why pregnant women, and pregnant women only, don't deserve this one right; beyond subjective notions of 'responsibility' which don't take into account other analogous comparisons.

Also, sex only very, very rarely leads to babies. And it never does in cases where abortion occurs. That's sort of what abortion is all about - making the choice NOT to have a baby. See Bottle's earlier comment about how sex leads to *pregnancy*, not to *giving birth*. There's a difference you don't seem to be grasping.

Bye guys!! Have fun trying to convince a different pro-lifer that they are so wrong. Because it doesn't matter how you dice it, I will always have my stance on the matter. Have a good night!! It is almost 5 am here, so I'm going to get some sleep. It's been fun!! :)
Yeah, that's what I love to hear:

"It doesn't matter how repeatedly you show me the logical flaws in my thinking, or how many times you point out the errors in my assumptions, I will always believe the exact same thing! Have a nice day!"

They are so upsett by the killing of babies that people don't want. Why are they not upsett with the killing of people allready living here?

Why don't they ask for gun controll???
Why don't they demonstrate agains war???
Why do they use terror as a means to get heard??

Adopt i child who needs care or stop acting like idiots.

Bottle:

BTW, you do know that birth control/condoms aren't 100% effective right? I know a few people who were condom/pill babies. And one of my friends just got pregnant with an IUD. In fact, all of the oops's that I have encountered, besides one, has been while using some form of protection. So don't tell me that sex doesn't lead to babies!

And sex leads to STDs, should we stop curing those, too?

Man, did I miss the "Awesome pro-choice abortion-debate points" memo or something?

I want to tattoo this quote onto someone now. Le sigh.

Bottle:

BTW, you do know that birth control/condoms aren't 100% effective right? I know a few people who were condom/pill babies. And one of my friends just got pregnant with an IUD. In fact, all of the oops's that I have encountered, besides one, has been while using some form of protection. So don't tell me that sex doesn't lead to babies!

Ok, is there a language barrier here? Bottle never claimed 100% protection. She's saying that your flaw is in thinking that sex -> baby. Actually it's sex -> pregnancy -> baby. If a woman has an abortion, there will never be a baby. Woman know about abortions, so they know that sex doesn't *have* to lead directly to a baby. There is another option, thank god.

Bottle:

BTW, you do know that birth control/condoms aren't 100% effective right? I know a few people who were condom/pill babies. And one of my friends just got pregnant with an IUD. In fact, all of the oops's that I have encountered, besides one, has been while using some form of protection. So don't tell me that sex doesn't lead to babies!

With the same logic, you could argue that sex leads to abortions....

Bottle:

You know as well as I do that, just like the religion threads, no one will convince the other of anything. I am tired, so I'm going to bed. And you can think anything you want about me, because it's not like I know you, or even care to at this point. :)

Man, did I miss the "Awesome pro-choice abortion-debate points" memo or something?

I want to tattoo this quote onto someone now. Le sigh.

*lol Thanks. No, there was no memo... just a lot of practice lately ;)

Again, bye guys. Have fun!! And have a great night!! :)

Bottle:

You know as well as I do that, just like the religion threads, no one will convince the other of anything. I am tired, so I'm going to bed. And you can think anything you want about me, because it's not like I know you, or even care to at this point. :)

Actually, I've seen a couple of people change sides, when they realised how uninformed they were. In fact (in another topic), I was one of those people.

The problem is that too many people are unwilling to step up and say "Wow, I didn't know that. I can totally see how wrong I was, now that I'm fully informed".

But anyway, enjoy your unchangable stance, I guess.

It is only Murder if the babay is out of the womb in my thoughts, and you can only call it living until it has nearly finished developing in to a human because a miscarriage could happen too, so an abortion is NOT murder, it may be killing but the baby had no life to know how sad it would be to be dead

Again, bye guys. Have fun!! And have a great night!! :)
'Night

Shaed:

I'm very informed thank you. I love how people ASSUME that because someone has a different opinion than them, that they are uninformed. That would like me saying that because I'm Christian, and someone else may not be that they are just uninformed. They made a choice in what they believe. Since when is that being uninformed? By the way, I'm going to school to become a Youth Pastor, so I don't think that my opinion is going to change anytime soon!! :)

Excellent - Someone to convince a pregnant 15 year old girl that the best thing she can do is have a baby.

EDIT
The thing is that the pro-choice position does not force women who disagree with them to do something they dont want to do, however the anti-choice arguement DOES force a woman to do something she may not want to and that will affect her for the rest of her life.

Shaed:

I'm very informed thank you. I love how people ASSUME that because someone has a different opinion than them, that they are uninformed. That would like me saying that because I'm Christian, and someone else may not be that they are just uninformed. They made a choice in what they believe. Since when is that being uninformed? By the way, I'm going to school to become a Youth Pastor, so I don't think that my opinion is going to change anytime soon!! :)

Actually, I just meant that in the cases where I've seen people switch sides, it was because they were uninformed in the non-judgemental sense. As in they simply hadn't been aware of some statistics or other, or had never considered fully the implications of their stance. I wasn't suggesting you are uninformed, although you don't seem aware of a few of the legal arguments I've brought up... which is fine, as you seem to be arguing mainly from a moral stance. From a legal stance, that would be a bit worrying though.

And, uh, again - saying "I don't plan on changing my beliefs" isn't such a hot idea... I mean, I'd certainly change my stance if someone presented a coherent, logical and supported argument. I'd like to assume you would, too, since doing otherwise wouldn't be very logical. Presumably you mean you won't change your position based on the debates you've been in, because they haven't satisfied one of the criteria (or some other ones I haven't considered). Which is fine, but not the same as point-blank refusing to consider changing your opinion...

Anyway, I'm keeping you up, so sorry. I'll stop talking now :p

FourX:

More like convince her to think about adoption...but if her parents are willing to be there for her.....I have known quite a few excellent mom's who were 15/16 when they got pregnant and kept the baby! :) Again, you have your opinion and I have mine. I never said that you weren't entitled to your opinion, I just don't have to agree with it.

Cabra West:
I figure, if a girl is willing to spread her legs apart, then she better be prepared to have a baby...because protection doesn't always work....and we all know what sex can lead to.

Mmm, then let us do away with car insurance, because you all know what driving your car can lead to, which is accidents. Let us do away with hazardous working environment insurance, because you know that you might die. Let us do away with safety features on all products, because we know that you might suffer injury anyway.

In fact, let us do away with hospitals. Because by living, you know and acknowledge you might get sick, and thus you have no right to prevent that sickness from carrying on to its full term.

Ah yes. War. Let us do away with body armor. Everyone knows that by joining the army, there is a risk you might die. Why waste money and resources on equipment to preserve lives when you signed on knowing you might die.

Shaed:

Yeah, I can see how I might want to change my feelings on the matter if a) I hadn't been attacked for having different beliefs, b) I think that at one point I was called sexist, even though I'm a woman, go figure, c) I apparently called women who have sex "whores" and should be punished, when I didn't, d) repeatedly, besides the whore thing, people put words in my mouth that I didn't write or intend, e) because I want to be a youth pastor, I'm apparently going to cause hell for some 15 pregnant girl, whom I haven't met yet.

Maybe, if you all want to win people over to your "logic", then you should be a little bit less abrasive and condescending...but that is just how I felt. :)

...snipmmsarcasmmmm...
+1

I approve highly of your use of sarcasm*. Very lucid. Lots of good examples, too. 'specially that war/armor one. That's a spiffy example.

*Oh wait, is it sarcasm? Or irony? Should I even be trying to think about this now? Where did I leave my keys? Someone help me!

FourX:

More like convince her to think about adoption...but if her parents are willing to be there for her.....I have known quite a few excellent mom's who were 15/16 when they got pregnant and kept the baby! :) Again, you have your opinion and I have mine. I never said that you weren't entitled to your opinion, I just don't have to agree with it.

A couple of years ago in the UK there was this 12 year old girl who got pregnant and the church convinced her to keep the child. Which I thought was a bit off really.

Anyway... I propose letting this thread die a quick death before it gets uncivil and so woodsprites can get some sleep.

EDIT - woodsprites - the 'whore' comment was in reponse to your very crude language regarding a womans choice to have sex and how she should be forced to live with consequences she could otherwise avoid by an abortion. And women are just as capeable of calling other women whores as men are. Often moreso.

Non Aligned States:

If you had read any of my other posts, you would see that I am going to school to become a youth pastor, so, sorry, I don't believe that sex before marriage is right...so your argument is lost on me. :)

FourX:

More like convince her to think about adoption...but if her parents are willing to be there for her.....I have known quite a few excellent mom's who were 15/16 when they got pregnant and kept the baby! :) Again, you have your opinion and I have mine. I never said that you weren't entitled to your opinion, I just don't have to agree with it.Yeah, but if you're working to make abortion illegal, then you're trying to make your opinion impinge on other womens' bodies.

If you really want to know why pro-choice people get pissed off at people like you, that's the basis for it. Pro-choicers can--and often are--personally opposed to abortion. They don't want to get them, and wouldn't consider it if they were pregnant. But they don't attempt to impose their opinions on the rest of society.

If you're trying to outlaw abortion, you are--you're saying, essentially, that your opinion is more important than another woman's right to determine for herself what she can and can't do with her own body. You can have your opinions about the morality of abortion and express them all day long. Please do so--it's your right. But the second you try to turn those opinions into a law that could hurt my daughter, you become the enemy, plain and simple. Your opinions end where my daughter's body begins.

The Nazz:

When did I ever say that I wanted to illegalize abortions? I said I didn't agree with abortion...I never mentioned anything about the law behind it. Please READ the posts BEFORE you post something yourself!! :)

The Nazz:

When did I ever say that I wanted to illegalize abortions? I said I didn't agree with abortion...I never mentioned anything about the law behind it. Please READ the posts BEFORE you post something yourself!! :)
That's why I qualified my statement with the word "if." If it doesn't apply to you, then fine--it applies to an awful large percentage of anti-abortion people, and as this is a public forum, then they can consider it addressed to them.

The Nazz:

When did I ever say that I wanted to illegalize abortions? I said I didn't agree with abortion...I never mentioned anything about the law behind it. Please READ the posts BEFORE you post something yourself!! :)

So to remove any ambuiguity...

Does this mean you are pro-choice?

Pro-Choice = Abortions should be legal for those who choose to have them.
Pro-Life = Abortions should be illegal (except in very specific life threatening cases and sometimes rape)

FourX:

But putting words in my mouth and twisting them around didn't even make me want to read your posts. To be honest, I didn't even read most of what you wrote because you were so abrasive and condescending....same goes for a few other posters on here. Being abrasive does nothing for your cause....that is why I really don't wish to talk about the issue with you guys...it's not like you really want to have a conversation...you want to bash everything that I believe about this subject and me for believing it.

Shaed:

Yeah, I can see how I might want to change my feelings on the matter if a) I hadn't been attacked for having different beliefs, b) I think that at one point I was called sexist, even though I'm a woman, go figure, c) I apparently called women who have sex "whores" and should be punished, when I didn't, d) repeatedly, besides the whore thing, people put words in my mouth that I didn't write or intend, e) because I want to be a youth pastor, I'm apparently going to cause hell for some 15 pregnant girl, whom I haven't met yet.

Maybe, if you all want to win people over to your "logic", then you should be a little bit less abrasive and condescending...but that is just how I felt. :)

Sigh.

a) You aren't being attacked, your beliefs are. Most of us here (certainly I) are used to the way this works, because that's what happens in these debates. You have your beliefs, and that's fine, but in these debates you'll be expected to defend them. The trick is to keep in mind that people *can't* attack you - afterall, we don't know you. All we can attack is what words you write. If you think we've misunderstood something you've said, it's easy enough to step back and clarify. Usually that's met with "Oh sorry, I thought you meant <x>". Arguments in abortion debates are only very rarely personal.

b) the point was that people who use the 'woman should be punished with children for having sex' argument *appear* sexist. I believe when I made that point, I specifically phrased it in terms of "I wouldn't use that argument, it makes you look sexist". That's not the same as "OMG YOU SEXIST!", because it allows for the fact you may not be, but your words are merely making you appear that way. Also, being a woman does not mean you cannot be sexist. Women can discriminate against other woman just as well as men can.

c) again, in the case where I was talking about calling women who have sex 'whores' (I can't speak for other people), I specifically phrased it in terms of that argument. You didn't use the words, but the argument was the same - somehow, women who have sex are bad, and deserve 'punishment'. Now, you may not have meant it that way, but you have to remember we can only judge what you type, not what you mean. And we've all seen that argument before, often including words like slut and whore (in fact, I *know* that the post I was referencing in this case had the word 'slut' in it. It's possible I wasn't directing the comment at you at all, and you simply misread the context. If that's my fault, I'll apologise.

d) then say "I didn't say that, I said this" And provide a link to what you said. Or, should you realise you weren't clear as you planned, say "I didn't mean that, I meant this". People have some responsibility to not misquote you on purpose, but you have the ability to correct us when we are wrong, too.

e) I didn't say that (or even see that connection), so I can't really address this. It might well fall under the "Don't let people judge you, because people don't know you - so just don't take it seriously" category.

And personally, if people aren't won over by logic, they most likely won't be won over by nice personalities either.

It is just that your arguement seemed to point to being Pro-Life and hence believing that abortion should be illegal.

Then when someone said something that you took to imply to say you think it should be ilegal you said "i never said it should be illegal". Which is factually correct, but your position on legality is not clear still has you have not said you don't think it should be illegal, merely that you have not confirmed it should be illegal.

In order to know your position so words are not put in your mouth I was just asking if you do or do not think abortion should be illegal.

The Nazz:

I'm pro-life...I don't believe that abortions should happen, period....but I am not out there doing anything about it, lobbying, or picketing, and it's not like pro-life will ever be a political platform here.....here in Canada, I know that it will always be legal, so I guess I really don't care because it is not like I can do anything about it....I don't think that it will ever be a focus for me because it is not something that I feel passionate enough about to fight for it. I guess what I'm saying is because I know that it will always be legal here, I really have resigned myself in accepting it but not liking or agreeing with it. Make sense?

The Nazz:

I'm pro-life...I don't believe that abortions should happen, period....but I am not out there doing anything about it, lobbying, or picketing, and it's not like pro-life will ever be a political platform here.....here in Canada, I know that it will always be legal, so I guess I really don't care because it is not like I can do anything about it....I don't think that it will ever be a focus for me because it is not something that I feel passionate enough about to fight for it. I guess what I'm saying is because I know that it will always be legal here, I really have resigned myself in accepting it but not liking or agreeing with it. Make sense?

In a way. But accepting it makes you technically pro-choice. That's more or less the way we all feel about the issue...

I have something very very close...

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/specialolympics.jpg

Warned for spamming and flaming.

Cabra West:

No it doesn't because I believe that it is morally wrong for all women to make that "choice"...so I am technically "pro-life".

+1

I approve highly of your use of sarcasm*. Very lucid. Lots of good examples, too. 'specially that war/armor one. That's a spiffy example.

Irony, sarcasm, whatever you want really. Take anything to its logical extreme and you get all sorts of ludicrous situations. I know its kept me entertained on slow days.


*Oh wait, is it sarcasm? Or irony? Should I even be trying to think about this now? Where did I leave my keys? Someone help me!

Here you go *hands back keys*

Try not to lose it next time ne?

I didn't come on here to argue....so I will bid you all a fairwell so I can get some sleep. You know that I won't convince you and you won't convince me. It is just one of those things. And I hope that you do realize that my reasons for being pro-life have nothing to do with religion. Stay Happy!! :)

First off Woodsprites, I want to commend you on your patience and politeness in this thread, Realize that everyone here has seen a thread like this literally dozens of times, and usually those that argue on the pro-life side are a whole lot less rational and forgiving than you have displayed yourself to be. Realize also that when you said "if a woman decides to spread her legs..." you echoed a lot of people who used a lot rougher language than you yourself used, hence the dogpiling you got the brunt of.

Second, you suggest that your stance has nothing to do with religion and yet you are studying to be a youth pastor. That suggests that you are approaching the subject from a religious angle, much like someone studying to be a doctor would approach the subject from a medical angle. It is an assumption, yes, and yet it seems like a reasonable assumption.

Third, you make the point that abortions have the chance of causing a wonderful person to not exist. That suggests that abstaining from sex could also cause a wonderful person to not exist. Following that reasoning, every person capable of having children should have as many children as possible in the off-chance that one of their children may be a great leader/artist/thinker. This, of course, would lead to tragedy.

The key, I think, is education. Abortions should be as rare as possible, but also as safe and freely available as possible. We need a society where there is no need for abortion rather than a society where there is no option for abortion. It is a sad fact that we live in an imperfect world where hard, arbitrary, and emotionally painful choices are sometimes necessary. Your care, opinion and dedication are greatly welcomed by all rational people, pro-choice and pro-life alike. Your imposition of your will on others by legal force is not.

People, we've said this repeatedly: DO NOT LINK TO GRAPHIC PICTURES. That is grounds for deletion.