Pro-life

[Hoplon]

Yeah, While being pro choice, as in as much as I am more than aware of necessity and occasional that it is the correct choice for that person.

But pro abortion? not really, from what I have read it can be pretty stressful and emotional thing to go though. Plus as with any invasive medical procedure there are chances of complications. All in all a fucking horrible experience.

So do I want anyone to have to do that? nope. not ever.

 

[Twilight_guy]

My thoughts? Why isn't this under religion and politics. It's a major political issue. Also, your joke over how political groups use positive sounding names to make their platforms seem better is old. Global Warming becomes Climate Change, anti-abortion becomes pro-life, etc. etc.

 

[Monkeyman O'Brien]

Snipped for long winded boringness.

Okay so against my better judgement I am going to respond to this for one reason and one reason only.
Because it involves a form of "counter argument" that I absolutely fucking hate.
Taking single snippets out of a persons entire post and dedicating a entire paragraph to whining about it.
Its the easiest thing in the world to take words on their own and form arguments against them when you can so blithely ignore everything else.
Also people who do this tend to cherry pick the few things they can whine about while ignoring things they can not argue against.

I was not making that post to convice you of anything, because to be honest I doubt it is possible for me to care less what you think. As such of course I am not going to give you every single word out of the nutjobs mouth. I do not care enough to remember and your opinion of the subject is not enough to motivate me.
So to be honest, your dirty and underhanded way of responding to my post came off as you put it "So my initial impression is the poster does not want to discuss the topic, he/she wants to feel smart and to feel as if they've won."

Have a nice day.

So I assume that Hitler killing 8 million Jews was our business, and as such we went to war, but not Americans killing 40 million unborn babies?

Ahh Godwin. I was waiting for you.
First off, 8 million? Try 6. Max. And okay, if we are gonna bring Hitler into it then I will go with you and say that Americans are killing 40 million unborn babies (even though they are not babies as they have not been born so are still fetuses) if you admit that you are worse than Hitler for using chemical warfare to commit genocide daily. How many millions of innocent bacteria do you ruthlessly slaughter every time you brush your teeth or wash your hands?
If a random bunch of cells are considered to be alive then you can not just shrug off other random bunches of cells that are also alive.

 

[OwainGlyndwr1000]

"They're anti-woman. Simple as it gets, anti-woman. They don't like them. They don't like women. They believe a woman's primary role is to function as a brood mare for the state."

I'm not a comedian myself, but I think this is a use of sarcasm. I mean, no intelligent person would accuse a movement made up of 50% women as "anti-women."
Or indeed, speak of pro-choice as pro-women after we have successfully exported this right to Asia, where the result is we have about 200 million "missing" baby girls, which quite a lot of pro choice people find difficult to discuss because it would seem the right to choice has had quite a devastating effect on those it ostensibly wants to protect.
And I notice a few charges have popped up declaring that pro-lifers are fascist for being pro-life. Let me reassure them- we pro-lifers believe in a woman's right to self determination, indeed both genders, which is why we find it necessary to protect them from others who would wish to destroy them while still in the womb.
And if I have to deal with fascism, I think the pro-choice people will have to deal with people like Peter Singer, a world renowned ethicist and legendary defender of pro-choice philosophy, who cheerfully admits that there is very little difference in killing the baby shortly after it has been born or at any point while still in the womb.
Here's a couple of quotes from the great man himself-
"Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all."
["The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life."
Mr Singer, I believe, is of the mindset that rights are basically made up by human beings, and have no real existence in of themselves.
Who knew that a mindset that sees a fetus as a "parasite" may have great trouble seeing a baby as anything different?
I would like to point out that while my family was waiting for my sisters baby to be born (the lovely and slightly hyperactive Megan) at no point did anyone refer to the child as "the fetus" or "that darling clump of cells".

 

[the clockmaker]

Okay so against my better judgement I am going to respond to this for one reason and one reason only.
Because it involves a form of "counter argument" that I absolutely fucking hate.
Taking single snippets out of a persons entire post and dedicating a entire paragraph to whining about it.
Its the easiest thing in the world to take words on their own and form arguments against them when you can so blithely ignore everything else.
Also people who do this tend to cherry pick the few things they can whine about while ignoring things they can not argue against.

I was not making that post to convice you of anything, because to be honest I doubt it is possible for me to care less what you think. As such of course I am not going to give you every single word out of the nutjobs mouth. I do not care enough to remember and your opinion of the subject is not enough to motivate me.
So to be honest, your dirty and underhanded way of responding to my post came off as you put it "So my initial impression is the poster does not want to discuss the topic, he/she wants to feel smart and to feel as if they've won."

Have a nice day.

Well, I would like to respond firstly with a question, what was the central point to your post that I missed, what did I 'blithly ignore' tell me and I shall respond. In hindsight it was a little unkind to use your post as an example as what not to do, but in all honestly, your post was seven sentences long, I responded with seven points. I disregarded the one about the location that the arguement took place as it really had no bearing on your post.

My issue, I must point out, is not what you believe, the abortion issue is massively complicated and the pro choice side has many valid points. My issue is the agressively hostile manner in which you present it.

I was never asking for every word out of the nutjobs mouth, merely a summary of their arguments, something to show that they were actually a nutjob as opposed to someone who simply disagreed with you. He could have been Fred Phelps, but you did nothing to show this, whereas your arrogance towards him was visible.

If you did not come here to convince people, or at least to reach an understanding, then why are you here and please do not claim that your lack of intent was exclusive to me, as I posted after you. So please, why did you post?

Finally, and refering back to my issue with hypocrisy, you call my method of discussion dirty and underhanded, and yet your only method shown thus far to conclude a debate was to steal the other parties stuff and depart. In addition, you complain about my quoting parts of your post and then responding to them and then do the same thing to my post. I must note that I have not issue with you taking apart my post as I did yours, but perhaps take away more than one sentence when you are doing so.

So, in summary, so that you cannot attempt to turn your lack of a center in your post against me, if you would care to respond, and I understand if this is not the case, please answer the following questions
1) What parts of your post did you ignore and what response would you like to them?
2) If you did not intend to convince people with your post or to come to an undestanding with them, why did you post, if not to brag about how you were able to verbally abuse and steal from someone and thought them a pansy arse for not retaliating.
3)If you do not think it appropriate to ignore the bulk of someone's post, why do it to mine and
4)If you are against dirty and underhanded tactics, why did you steal his petion and leave?

In addition to those, if you feel my critisism was unwarrented, perhaps you could explain why your post was not, in order
1-Needlessly dismissive to two large demographics
2-Incomplete, in that we have no idea of the type of arguements that you were responding to
3-Pointlessly abusive
4-close minded
5-hypocritical
6-bullying to someone who apparently was not responding in a hostile manner at all
7-overly simplistic.

Now, I am not here to be hostile to you, if that is the feeling that I am giving off then I appologise unreservedly as it is a fault with my manner of speaking. My intent is to 1-attempt to lessen the amount of unnesscery hostility in posts that I encounter as it does not lead to useful discussions. I mean anyone can call the opposition cunts, but where does that get us? and 2-I would like to have useful discussions that lead to greater understanding on both sides.

The reason that I posted was that your post was not useful and pointlessly hostile and I responded accordingly, but moving on from there, if you would like to have a peaceable, useful discussion, I would be happy to. If however, you think you do not have the time or that you really did come here to brag about beating down a christian, then I understand and we shall cut this here. And so, unless you think it makes me too much of a 'pansy ass' ....
*Offers hand*

EDIT: Oh, and the ammo kid post that you quoted is just as bad as yours in terms of putting his cause forward.

 

[Vern]

I'm not pro-choice as much as I am pro-killing babies.

But really, I think it's the woman's choice. If the fetus is still inside her body, it's basically a tumor or a parasite. If she wants to terminate the pregnancy then she should be able to. But then again, I am a man, and this is an issue that solely affects the woman. If any vote on the legality of abortion takes place, only women should be able to vote in it. I'm pretty damn sure the vote would be in favor of abortion. Hell, I don't think children are even human until they're three years old and have the capacity for individual thought. I realize there are father's who disagree with their spouse/girlfriend/fuckbuddy having an abortion because they want a child, but I would have to say fuck them. Ultimately it's the woman's choice if she wants to have a child, she's the one that's going to have to carry it to term, and 9 times out of 10 if there's a divorce she'll be the one who ends up raising the child. Then the fact that women generally live longer than men, she'll be in the child's life longer than the male. So yeah, it's the woman's choice.

 

[Lyri]

Way I look at it, it's murder. Being against abortion does not make me anti-woman.

Technically, it does really.

Let's say legislation makes abortion illegal and all that good stuff, well anyone who ends up having an "accident" and they do happen for good or ill.
Now that little child has dodged the bullet but there's already another one coming straight for it.

- It's put up for adoption: Mommy and Daddy don't want it, it may have a healthy life or it may not. It may never know who it's biological parents are, does it want to know? Couldn't really say but it's a possibility.

- It doesn't get put up for adoption: Depending on the circumstances and let's take a guess and say that most of them would be caused by sexual encounters after alcohol.
What then? Well we have a child who's stuck in a place it's not wanted, the woman's life is ruined unless they have lots of support*. The father may or may not pay child support, which would leave her to run for three jobs to afford her own place, food for the table and stuff for the child.

- Other possibilities: Child gets run through the system and dumped into foster care, thrown around home to home. It does nothing for that person's life to be constantly moved around because people can either no longer look after the child or don't want to any more.
They may find a good one but it's a possibility.

Yes there is a lot of "it's possible" in there because frankly, just being born doesn't qualify you for having a really good life.
Shit happens in this world and "Pro-life" people really need to wake up to that fact, yes the child is alive now but what is the consequence and what future have you given to this person because of it?
It may have a loving, well adjusted home (I know of someone who was "an accident" and lives happily) but the case for the most part.

Condemning two or more people after a night of hedonism isn't really the way to go in all of this.
I'm not out to change your mind but it's my $2.

* I know a woman who had a child when she was 14,passed her high school exams, went to college uni etc but she had amazing support behind her.
She's a great person and lives happily now, but the situation she was in it could have easily gone the other way.

 

[Casey Cleveland]

I am Anti-Abortion and as long as I am paying for them with my tax money I believe I have every right to tell people that they shouldn't get one but once I am not spending money so some one else can have an abortion I will be more then happy to shut my mouth.

Anyways here is a short list of reasons why I am against abortions (this really is just the tip of my argument).

Of course ones view on abortion is going to depend on if they think the unborn is a child or not. Many people I talk to like to tell me it is just a fetus, well what is a fetus?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fetus

So a fetus is an offspring that is past the first 2 month development stage. So what is a offspring?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/offspring

Ok so a offspring is child of particular parentage, OK. So Fetus = Offspring = Child, then that would mean that Fetus = Child.


Scientifically, we know that from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings. Leading embryology books confirm this. For example, Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud write, ?A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.? Prior to his abortion advocacy, former Planned Parenthood President Dr. Alan Guttmacher was perplexed that anyone, much less a medical doctor, would question this. ?This all seems so simple and evident that it is difficult to picture a time when it wasn't part of the common knowledge,? he wrote in his book Life in the Making.

Philosophically, we can say that embryos are less developed than newborns (or, for that matter, toddlers) but this difference is not morally significant in the way abortion advocates need it to be. Consider the claim that the immediate capacity for self-awareness bestows value on human beings. Notice that this is not an argument, but an arbitrary assertion. Why is some development needed? And why is this particular degree of development (i.e., higher brain function) decisive rather than another? These are questions that abortion advocates do not
adequately address.

As Stephen Schwarz points out, there is no morally significant difference between the embryo that you once were and the adult that you are today. Differences of size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency are not relevant such that we can say that you had no rights as an embryo but you do have rights today. Think of the acronym SLED as a helpful reminder of these non-essential differences:

SIZE: True, embryos are smaller than newborns and adults, but why is that relevant? Do we really want to say that large people are more human than small ones? Men are generally larger than women, but that doesn?t mean that they deserve more rights. Size doesn?t equal value.

LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT: True, embryos and fetuses are less developed than the adults they?ll one day become. But again, why is this relevant? Four year-old girls are less developed than 14 year-old ones. Should older children have more rights than their younger siblings? Some people say that self-awareness makes one human. But if that is true, newborns do not qualify as valuable human beings. Six-week old infants lack the immediate capacity for performing human mental functions, as do the reversibly comatose, the sleeping, and those with Alzheimer?s Disease.

ENVIRONMENT: Where you are has no bearing on who you are. Does your value change when you cross the street or roll over in bed? If not, how can a journey of eight inches down the birth-canal suddenly change the essential nature of the unborn from non-human to human? If the unborn are not already human, merely changing their location can?t make them valuable.

DEGREE OF DEPENDENCY: If viability makes us human, then all those who depend on insulin or kidney medication are not valuable and we may kill them. Conjoined twins who share blood type and bodily systems also have no right to life.

In short, it?s far more reasonable to argue that although humans differ immensely with respect to talents, accomplishments, and degrees of development, they are nonetheless equal because they share a common human nature.

Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws. The states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 20 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy

Here are some links to some cases that our country acknowledges the unborn as living beings.

http://crime.about.com/od/current/a/scott.htm
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localstories/ci_19386237
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=960&sid=18590837

Also I have heard people talk about how abortions save lives, but what bad can come from abortions?

http://www.womenhealthzone.com/womens-reproductive-health/does-abortion-affect-your-health-know-about-abortion-risks/

?I had abortion at the age of seventeen. And it was the worst thing I ever did. I would never recommend it to anyone because it comes back to haunt you. When I tried having children, I lost three. Something happened in my cervix during the abortion.? ? Sharon Osborne.

On the last note how would you treat these people who were failed abortions, how could you look these people in the eyes and say "It's OK that you lost your arm but it's cause it was an abortion attempt".

http://joseromia.tripod.com/survivors.html

Sorry for the long post, I tried not to over do it but did any ways.

 

[El Luck]

Oh yay another George Carlin quote out of context, always love seeing these.

 

[randomsix]

Like with many moral concepts, everybody agrees about the big picture: It's bad to kill people. The problem comes in the application, because people disagree about what a person is.

 

[Anti Nudist Cupcake]

I eat eggs for breakfast, what's so bad about removing a fetus?

 

[randomsix]

Consider the claim that the immediate capacity for self-awareness bestows value on human beings. Notice that this is not an argument, but an arbitrary assertion. Why is some development needed? And why is this particular degree of development (i.e., higher brain function) decisive rather than another? These are questions that abortion advocates do not
adequately address.

This claim actually has its argument taken for granted, as it is a basis for the differentiation between humans and animals. This differentiation is so widely accepted that we don't need to rehash the argument every time we want to make it, so we may as well take the claim to be axiomatic.

Usually everyone agrees with this claim, but the division between the life and choice camps comes from whether or not the eventual capacity for self-awareness is enough to bestow human rights on a lifeform.

 

[Steinar Valsson]

And yes, if they coudn't watch theyr prick, they should be responsible for their actions. But that still is a personal thing between the woman and man.

So consensual sex and family planning is an agreement between TWO people, but unplanned pregnancy is the man's fault? If unplanned pregnancy is the man's fault, then the man should have legal authority to abort unplanned children.

I didn't say it was the man's fault, simply that he has his responsibilities in it.

 

[Steinar Valsson]

Babies are alive, they feel pain after only a few weeks. Sometime to get the babies out of the womb they just cut them into pieces and pull them out (without killing them first). A baby will grow and be birthed unless there are interruptions, and cutting these unborn people into pieces is apparently "pro-choice." Adoption is ten times better than being "pro-choice."

I say people shouldn't interfere in what is not their buisness.

So I assume that Hitler killing 8 million Jews was our business, and as such we went to war, but not Americans killing 40 million unborn babies?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/magazine/10Fetal-t.html?pagewanted=all
Fetuses are likely to feel pain at around week 20-24. That pain might not be pain as we know it but reflexes similar to pain. But as Fisk says, it's better to err on the safe side. So they can give fetuses pain killers before the surgery is performed if they are at the 20 week marker. But saying 40 million babies is of course speculation. Some consider them babies, others tissue. Of course at the 20ish week stage they are starting to be very human, but at what stage is that? I think an abortion should be legal to a certain point, what point that is has been decided so now the question is, should we lower the nr. of weeks? But the first weeks these are just cells, then they become more cells and at some point they become something more. But I find it a little disturbing that you should compare the genocide of people in cruel ways that had been abused for years and terrorised, to the abortion of possible-babies that don't even have the ability yet to form memories or thoughts.

 

[masticina]

Well they want to interfere with the womens right to choose

So yeah they are anti women! Simple as that

I mean sure you can be against abortions happening but in todays modern society.. having safe abortions done in clean clinics. That is something you shouldn't want to remove!
If you remove safe abortion methods.. women will die!
Pro Life people might say that those who are pro choice are "pro death".. but if pro life gets its wishes women will die so they are Pro Death!

And before the shitstorm hits me.. if you are going to be like "but the fetus is a child to"..
Did you know how many fertilized eggs are rejected by the womens body. IF the moment of "gods conception" is the moment the an egg meets an sperm. Then GOD is the biggest abortionist around! How indeed many fertilized eggs simply fail to get a hold .. and are flushed out.

Jews are smart about this.. they put the moment of the spiritual conception so to say at the first breath the new born takes. If things go wrong..and they can.. then it was a failed attempt.