Pro-life

[OwainGlyndwr1000]

The pro-life is filled with men and women, mostly young- the "argument" that it's comprised of grasping patriarchal men and bitter ageing women is utter nonsense.
Here's a video of the March for Life- see how many young people you can spot-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9Hjc5MCu3s&feature=player_embedded

Answer- A heck of a lot.

The pro-life movement is comprised of about 50% men and 50% women- and in America, the original Roe of Roe v Wade has become pro-life. You can complain that I'm just enforcing my patriarchal control over women, but the fact is I do not have to go very far to find a young/middle aged/older woman who will say the exact same thing that I and others say about abortion.

The "it's my body so I'll do what I want with it" does not hold water. The fetus has a developing body from conception, and it's a mark of our age that pro choicers can hold up freedom from outside control as the ultimate good while they quite happily exert their own murderous control on the most vulnerable to maintain it.

Indeed, I hear quite a lot about the right to control your own body- but the people making these arguments about rights will often quite happily admit that rights do not have a real existence, but are dependent upon those creating them. In such a moral universe, the statement "Abortion is a right" carries the same weight as "I like the colour green".

And it's also just slightly disturbing that children are being referred to as "parasites" on this thread.

 

[agiganticpanda]

The point of being pro-choice is the "choice" word. You don't have to be "Yay abortion!" to be pro-choice. It honestly isn't a moral question to me. It's a class, personal freedom and public health question.

If abortion was made illegal it would still happen, just illegally or elsewhere. The rich can always travel to where abortion is legal and have it done. While the poor have to choose between having a baby they don't want or having it in a unsafe environment. 10,000 women died every year from abortion complications when it was illegal. I'd rather have a sack of cells die than a woman being productive for society cease to be.

Now I'm pro-choice, but I do think there should be regulations. There should be a discussion of other options (adoption). There should be an education on what a doctor is actually doing to a woman. There should be a limit on when you can have an abortion, like when a fetus has major brain activity, without extreme circumstances.

Honestly, the solution here pleases neither the extreme left or right on this issue and that usually means it's a good policy. :-D

Also for people who have the argument that it should be left up to state rights should think about interracial marriage and the civil war for a civil rights lesson about state rights. :-/

 

[Tanis]

The only people who are TRULY 'pro-life' are those mega-passivises who eat rocks.

 

[iLazy]

Of course everyone's pro life. No one wants to die. No one wants their life to end because none of us knows what happens, and not knowing is terrifying.

On topic though. I'm pro-choice. I feel that it's up to the parents, or mother to choose what is best for them. Accidents happen. Rape (sadly) happens. Deformities happen. Things happen in life and not everyone is ready.

But at the end of the day, abortion only effects the parent(s). They are the ones that have to deal with it. Not you. Not your government, and certainly no God or Goddess.

Nonetheless, I hate woman who go out partying, get pregnant and think "Oh well! I can just get an abortion!" and then continue doing the same fucking thing, and repeating the cycle.

Use a god damn fucking condom you shit head.

I may be pro-choice, but it doesn't mean that I think abortion is the alternative to a condom.

 

[Deathmageddon]

1. It's a child, not a choice
2. The "It's my body" argument is complete BS, it's not JUST her body that's affected. Women's rights isn't even an issue anymore, b/c when roe v. wade was passed, women with children were not allowed to have jobs, but they are now
3. being expelled from a birth canal doesn't suddenly make you living or human
4. a fetus can feel and respond to skin stimulation in the first trimester, and can therefore feel pain. Brainwaves are detectable as early as 7 weeks.

HUMANS, Y U NO OUTLAW INFANTICIDE?

 

[Deathmageddon]

i would just like to leave a note here for any pro choice people: never let the lifers use there religion, as the biblical defanition of life is breath i,e when god breathed life into adam. there are more reasons but this one normally does the trick to shut them and force them to use there own brains and opinions rather then hiding there ignorance and bigotry behind a book

Ignorant people don't know a metaphor when they read it. GTFO.

You're also ignorant of how to spell: "I, their, definition, God, Adam, i.e."

Besides, fetuses start to "practice" breathing in week 11.

Also, pro-lifers have the scientific definition of life on our side.

 

[Doneeee]

Actually I for one am anti-life. I try to run into traffic or jump over a woodchipper as much as possible. Just kidding.

 

[Locke_Cole]

1. It's a child, not a choice
2. The "It's my body" argument is complete BS, it's not JUST her body that's affected. Women's rights isn't even an issue anymore, b/c when roe v. wade was passed, women with children were not allowed to have jobs, but they are now
3. being expelled from a birth canal doesn't suddenly make you living or human
4. a fetus can feel and respond to skin stimulation in the first trimester, and can therefore feel pain. Brainwaves are detectable as early as 7 weeks.

HUMANS, Y U NO OUTLAW INFANTICIDE?

It's literally part of the female body. Just because it one day may be a child if there isn't a miscarriage, doesn't immediately make it one. The fetus is not conscious and is not at all sentient. It is quite literally, the female host's flesh and blood. If she wanted to cut off her own foot, which can also feel pain and respond to stimuli, who are we to tell her no?

 

[geK0]

Can't have one without the other mate. Wanting to ban abortion means dictating what goes on inside a woman's body, a direct violation of the primary human rights.

Whether or not the unborn can be considered human is subject to debate and is definitely a grey area.

lets just say for the sake of argument that the unborn can be considered human.

Those who are anti-life favour the mother's rights, those who are anti-choice favour the unborn's rights.
whichever decision is made, rights are being violated.

anti-choicers are aware of this, but favour the unborn's rights because it's a matter of life/death for the unborn person. In the case of the woman in most cases it's just uneconomical and inconvenient to have a child. (In the case where the mother is at considerable risk of death by carrying out the pregnancy, the death of the fetus can be considered an acceptable loss).

Because of the inevitable and so horrible consequences, there is no middle ground. Either someone is not opposed to the right of abortion, or they are fascists who believe that women's bodies are state property (because they want legalislation to dictate what they can do with their bodies).

Are your assets considered state property if you're required by law to care for a feeble elderly parent : \
Is the mother still considered state property if she's required to take care of her 2 year old toddler? Or would it be her right to just pull a Casey Anthony on her kid?


(state property? really? oh you clever wordsmith you)

Now obviously anti-abortion freaks don't like the inconvenient truth that their views belong in classical fascism, christofascism to be more precise. They also don't like accurate terms like anti-freedom or anti-choice, so they call themselves 'pro-life' instead.

I'm sure pro-choice doesn't like being called anti-life, anti-baby, pro-murder, child killers either. We can toss around mean names all we like, it wont get us anywhere. Maybe it would be better to consider the arguments of the other side instead of burying your head in the ground and dismissing them as Christo-fascists.

I've pointed out that anti-abortion is not exclusively a Christian ideal before, you're being wilfully ignorant.

The fact that anti-choicers don't like hearing what they are, doesn't change what they are though. If anything, it's a clue that even the anti-choicers themselves know in the back of their mind that trying to ban abortion is just evil.

The fact that anti-lifers don't like hearing what they are, doesn't change what they are though. If anything, it's a clue that even the anti-lifers themselves know in the back of their mind that trying to kill babies is just evil.

Then again, all anti-abortion freaks are from sheltered environments. None have ever been pregnant from rape, or been through something difficult in their life.Without exceptions they live isolated from reality, to use the words of a friend of mine 'live inside a Christian bubble', passing judgement about others from their ivory tower

YEP every single one of them; we're certainly a lucky care-free bunch. I mean, I could give some real-life examples of very much less than privileged, non-catholic, pro-life individuals who have been though more than I'd care to tell on an internet forum; but I must have just been imagining them.
(or maybe you're just being wilfully ignorant again)

Even the one or two flagship girls who had an unwanted child are just dumb twats who got themselves pregnant out of ignorance and then didn't have the guts to make a decision for themselves, and let their conservative Christian background decide for them.

Remind me why it's called pro-choice when there's hardly a pro-choice person out there who's willing to show a little respect for somebody who chooses to keep a child they didn't necessarily plan to have?

Maybe you should alter your title to be a bit more accurate, seeing as you don't actually believe in choice
- Anti-child?
- Anti-low income family? (ie elitist)
- Anti single-mom?
- Anti-Birth?

or maybe just settle with pro abortion and we'll just settle with anti abortion; deal?

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

Eating eggs is to abortion as eating chicken is to cannibalism?

also the eggs we eat aren't fertilized : \

 

[sketch_zeppelin]

We live in a world where they're are too many people. we got this way because of old outdated scripture telling us that we must breed. An ideal that was established in the dark ages where most people died young and disease and the collapse of civilization (the roman empire) had destroyed a good chunk of the christian worlds population.

We no longer live in that world. These days people are having childeren they don't want because they're being pressured by ideals that are several hundred years old.

In a world where we're told we shouldn't use protection but we still need to breed, abortion is unavoidable.

Those are my thoughts on it in general but i also belive that if your a man and it isn't your baby then its none of your fucking buisness.

 

[geK0]

We live in a world where they're are too many people. we got this way because of old outdated scripture telling us that we must breed. An ideal that was established in the dark ages where most people died young and disease and the collapse of civilization (the roman empire) had destroyed a good chunk of the christian worlds population.

We no longer live in that world. These days people are having childeren they don't want because they're being pressured by ideals that are several hundred years old.

In a world where we're told we shouldn't use protection but we still need to breed, abortion is unavoidable.

Those are my thoughts on it in general but i also belive that if your a man and it isn't your baby then its none of your fucking buisness.

Forced sterilization
Nuclear war
Genocide
Bio-weapons


Those would be much more effective methods of reducing the population. These ideals against controlling the population and/or exterminating large portions of the population are so ancient and outdated! Think of how much better off the world would be if people could only have children when the government allowed it, where the undesirable sectors of the population no longer exist and the population of the world was 70 million instead of 7 billion.

My point: Abortion as a means of population control (no that is not it's current intended purpose) brings us down a slippery slope.

I agree the whole "go forth and multiply" thing is NOT a good idea right now, but the solution isn't to just make all the poor people have abortions : \

 

[sketch_zeppelin]

We live in a world where they're are too many people. we got this way because of old outdated scripture telling us that we must breed. An ideal that was established in the dark ages where most people died young and disease and the collapse of civilization (the roman empire) had destroyed a good chunk of the christian worlds population.

We no longer live in that world. These days people are having childeren they don't want because they're being pressured by ideals that are several hundred years old.

In a world where we're told we shouldn't use protection but we still need to breed, abortion is unavoidable.

Those are my thoughts on it in general but i also belive that if your a man and it isn't your baby then its none of your fucking buisness.

Forced sterilization
Nuclear war
Genocide
Bio-weapons

...or you could simpley let people make the choice to have children without having religions trying to pressure them using fear, guilt, or straight up lies.

I'm going to assume your being sarcastic because having a goverment force population restrictions with the threat of violance is far worse than what is going on today.

 

[geK0]

-

Quite sarcastic, and, come to think of it, border-line troll : \

The whole 'abortion as population control' thing just raises a lot of red flags for me.

I mean, I'm willing to accept abortion for some considerably adverse situations, but it seems a little too mainstream right now; it feels people are a bit too willing to overlook it's negative aspects and accept it as an expensive means of contraception (and trust me, I know people who think this way) rather than an absolute last resort.


I'm willing to agree though that condoms and the pill are fine (I'm not a Christian : \) and the whole "go forth and multiply" idea isn't the right thing for society right now.

 

[Emperor Nat]

I don't remember what comedian I am quoting, but I rembmber the message. Everybody is pro-life. If people wouldn't be, they would have killed them selfs years ago.
The notion "pro-life" was made so those people could feel better about who they are, calling it something that sounds better. And to quote Geroge Carlin:

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

Thoughts?

EDIT: So people don't misunderstand: The Carlin quote is ofcourse part of a stand-up and is not to be taking literal, but he's pointing out that the women aren't being thought nearly as much of in this matter as they should.

I'm "Pro-Life", though as you've pointed out the label itself is silly.

The reason for this is simple: I think everyone deserves a shot at life. Unless, and even then I think it's pretty murky waters, the child's birth will -kill- the mother then I don't think the child should be denied its chance to live.

Even if the mother doesn't want it, it still deserves a chance to live. And if she wasn't willing to birth a child, she should not have had sex. Simple as. Protection is never 100% and people should learn to live with the consequences of their actions.

That said, I understand that I have no right to command others to do as I wish. I do however have the right to tell them what I feel about it.

 

[Emperor Nat]

Can't have one without the other mate. Wanting to ban abortion means dictating what goes on inside a woman's body, a direct violation of the primary human rights.

Whether or not the unborn can be considered human is subject to debate and is definitely a grey area.

lets just say for the sake of argument that the unborn can be considered human.

Those who are anti-life favour the mother's rights, those who are anti-choice favour the unborn's rights.
whichever decision is made, rights are being violated.

anti-choicers are aware of this, but favour the unborn's rights because it's a matter of life/death for the unborn person. In the case of the woman in most cases it's just uneconomical and inconvenient to have a child. (In the case where the mother is at considerable risk of death by carrying out the pregnancy, the death of the fetus can be considered an acceptable loss).

Because of the inevitable and so horrible consequences, there is no middle ground. Either someone is not opposed to the right of abortion, or they are fascists who believe that women's bodies are state property (because they want legalislation to dictate what they can do with their bodies).

Are your assets considered state property if you're required by law to care for a feeble elderly parent : \
Is the mother still considered state property if she's required to take care of her 2 year old toddler? Or would it be her right to just pull a Casey Anthony on her kid?


(state property? really? oh you clever wordsmith you)

Now obviously anti-abortion freaks don't like the inconvenient truth that their views belong in classical fascism, christofascism to be more precise. They also don't like accurate terms like anti-freedom or anti-choice, so they call themselves 'pro-life' instead.

I'm sure pro-choice doesn't like being called anti-life, anti-baby, pro-murder, child killers either. We can toss around mean names all we like, it wont get us anywhere. Maybe it would be better to consider the arguments of the other side instead of burying your head in the ground and dismissing them as Christo-fascists.

I've pointed out that anti-abortion is not exclusively a Christian ideal before, you're being wilfully ignorant.

The fact that anti-choicers don't like hearing what they are, doesn't change what they are though. If anything, it's a clue that even the anti-choicers themselves know in the back of their mind that trying to ban abortion is just evil.

The fact that anti-lifers don't like hearing what they are, doesn't change what they are though. If anything, it's a clue that even the anti-lifers themselves know in the back of their mind that trying to kill babies is just evil.

Then again, all anti-abortion freaks are from sheltered environments. None have ever been pregnant from rape, or been through something difficult in their life.Without exceptions they live isolated from reality, to use the words of a friend of mine 'live inside a Christian bubble', passing judgement about others from their ivory tower

YEP every single one of them; we're certainly a lucky care-free bunch. I mean, I could give some real-life examples of very much less than privileged, non-catholic, pro-life individuals who have been though more than I'd care to tell on an internet forum; but I must have just been imagining them.
(or maybe you're just being wilfully ignorant again)

Even the one or two flagship girls who had an unwanted child are just dumb twats who got themselves pregnant out of ignorance and then didn't have the guts to make a decision for themselves, and let their conservative Christian background decide for them.

Remind me why it's called pro-choice when there's hardly a pro-choice person out there who's willing to show a little respect for somebody who chooses to keep a child they didn't necessarily plan to have?

Maybe you should alter your title to be a bit more accurate, seeing as you don't actually believe in choice
- Anti-child?
- Anti-low income family? (ie elitist)
- Anti single-mom?
- Anti-Birth?

or maybe just settle with pro abortion and we'll just settle with anti abortion; deal?

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

Eating eggs is to abortion as eating chicken is to cannibalism?

also the eggs we eat aren't fertilized : \

Also: All this.

Gek0 is a smart... uh... Gecko.

 

[omicron1]

It is a simple disconnect of values. One side sees a question of whether a woman should be allowed to do what she wants with her body; the other sees a question of whether a child should be killed for it.

And then both sides lambast the other in the worst possible terms they can think of - misogynistic woman haters, or murderers, depending on which side is being described.

Thing is, both sides are entirely reasonable - from their perspective. Both sides are perfectly valid positions, worthy of discourse. And when one side or the other is ignored [http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/24/the-medias-silence-on-the-march-for-life/], we have a problem.

 

[JasonBurnout16]

I think the whole Pro-life/Pro choice slogans are wrong for a series of reasons for a start.

They might advertise themselves as pro choice; invoking the rhetoric of freedom in their support. You can't fault them for upholding the value of freedom, but you would obviously be right to object that what they are adovcating is the freedom to do wrong. The pro choice rhetoric has got the moral issue the wrong way round: things are not morally right simply because doing them involves choice; rather choices are right or wrong because of the rightness or wrongness of the thing chosen.

Meanwhile the prolife slogan is equally question begging. Everyone is pro life in the sense that they think wilful murder is wrong; nobody is anti life. The whole question is whether the life of a foetus has a certain kind of moral weight, sufficient to overturn such sonsiderations as that its birth may kill the mother, or that it is mentally or physically impaired. The word life gives us no guidane here. Why isnt contraception prohibited by the pro life position?

 

[godofallu]

That's the way politics works, both sides come up with names that it would be almost impossible to argue against.

Are you Pro Life or Free Choice? Um I don't want to murder people, and I also don't want people to be controlled and told what to do with no choice.

 

[geK0]

Also: All this.

Gek0 is a smart... uh... Gecko.

Sorry I didn't know how to spell gecko properly! I really thought there was a zero in there.

You learn something new every day eh?

I neeed too re-do mi steem nam than... geh_K0 is defanately nott speled rite

It is a simple disconnect of values. One side sees a question of whether a woman should be allowed to do what she wants with her body; the other sees a question of whether a child should be killed for it.

And then both sides lambast the other in the worst possible terms they can think of - misogynistic woman haters, or murderers, depending on which side is being described.

Thing is, both sides are entirely reasonable - from their perspective. Both sides are perfectly valid positions, worthy of discourse. And when one side or the other is ignored [http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/24/the-medias-silence-on-the-march-for-life/], we have a problem.

THANK YOU!

It's nice to see that somebody who is (pro-choice I'm guessing?) is willing to recognize that I'm not an anti-feminist fascist nazi : \

 

[Caverat]

I'm pro-choice. I disagree that people who identify themselves as pro-life hate women. I think folks who consider themselves pro-life do so because they don't see that much difference between a new born baby and a 6 month old fetus, they see both as human babies, and in their eyes it is wrong to kill babies.

I agree with their view, I don't see a difference between a baby and a fetus in regards to whether or not it is human. While a child born is more self sufficient in the sense of its body functions, it is still just as helpless without the parent. Yeah, I see a fetus as being a baby, it's the same organism to me, as that fetus will one day be a baby and be a human in such a way no one can deny.

Again, I am pro-choice. There is nothing wrong with abortions. I'd kill an animal to eat it, wear its skin, I'd even theoretically kill another human if I had to do so to protect the people I love. Killing things isn't that big of a deal, especially if you don't want it to live. So, a woman wants to kill her baby while she legally can? Eh, not my business, not my kid, and she isn't violating the law. No problem

The word life gives us no guidane here. Why isnt contraception prohibited by the pro life position?

It isn't by most pro-life positions because there is a difference. Taking preventative measurse to ensure a situation never comes up is different than having said event occur, and having to take actions to undo it. Your question is like criticizing a person who advocates swimming as a fun exercise for wearing a rain coat when it rains.