Home - List All Discussions

Most common pro-choice argument

by: AshMarie88

What is the most common or frequent pro-choice argument you hear? For me it's either "it's her body" or "it's not a baby".

And how do you prove to someone those are not true? How do you counter (if that's the right word) them? (I'll give my reasons later)

reply from: theamericancatholic

Most often I hear that an abortion is not killing, therefore it is not murder, and thus it is not morally wrong. The reason they give is the unborn child is not a person/life/human being.

The other common excuse is, its a womans body and she should have right to bodily control or reproductive rights. An unborn child is a unique life, most especially since it has its own unique DNA.

Then you get the what about rape/incest argument. These are a very small minority of abortions.

The majority of abortion are elective; reasons; problems with boyfriend/husband, not ready for children/ bad timing, not financially capable, or simply doesn't want any or more children. Blah, blah, blah.

http://acatholicforamerica.blogspot.com/

reply from: danib

How about making abortion illegal will lead to more "back alley abortions" and death for women. Where there really a lot of back alley abortions before it was legal?

reply from: yoda

Please check this thread on this forum:
http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=1209&enterthread=y

reply from: yoda

Yes, her body IS her body. But the baby's body is NOT her body. Why should one individual have the right to bodily integrity at the expense of the life of another individual?

Pure horse manure of the lowest order:

MSN-Encarta Online: ( http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=baby ) ba·by noun (plural ba·bies) 2. unborn child: a child that is still in the womb

Dictionary.com ( http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=baby ) ba·by (bb) n. pl. ba·bies 2. An unborn child; a fetus.

iNFOPLEASE.com ( http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0330371.html ) ba•by pronunciation: (bA'bE), -n. 5. a human fetus.

INTELLIHEALTH: "Month 2: Measures 14-20mm from crown to rump. The baby's heart, although not fully formed, begins to beat and is visible. Medical content reviewed by the Faculty of the Harvard Medical School. Last updated August 14, 2004.
http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH?t=25666&p=~br,RNM|~st,331|~r,WSRNM000|~b,*|

reply from: yoda

More bull hockey from the probabykilling crowd:

per·son (plural peo·ple per·sons (formal)) noun 1. human being: an individual human being 2. human’s body: a human being’s body, often including the clothing
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861725217/person.html

life Biology. the fact of being alive; the condition that distingushes organisms such as humans, animals, and plants from inorganic matter and from dead organisms. Organisms that have life generally share powers and functions such as the following: a specific and identifiable structure or organization; the ability to move from one location to another or to carry on internal movement; the capacity for metabolism, reproduction, and growth; the ability to detect the conditions of the surrounding environment and respond to them; and the ability to adapt to long-term changes in this environment. (Harcourt)

Information Please: http://www.infoplease.com/ hu'man be'ing 1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species

MSN Encarta Dictionary http://dictionary.msn.com/ hu·man be·ing (plural hu·man be·ings) noun 1. member of the human species: a member of the species to which men and women belong. Latin name Homo sapiens

reply from: nsanford

You won't hear me say anything about the "it's her body defense", because I happen to believe that. But saying "it's not a baby" is only trying to hide what abortion is. Even if it's not a baby, your depriving it of the chance to become one. Whether that can compared to murder, is based on personal beliefs.

reply from: theamericancatholic

Please define the word "murder" if you would.

reply from: AshMarie88

There you go, hypocritical sentences again.

"It's a baby, but it's okay to kill it"

reply from: nsanford

What I meant was that since the fetus is inside the mother, murder is not an accurate description.

reply from: teddi

It's not a baby:

Simple definitions will prove them wrong. Go to www.dictionary.com
Give them the definitions for fetus. Give them the definition of baby. Give them the definition for human. Give them the definiton for human. Give them the definition for person. Cross reference the "MEDICAL defintion" given in Cancer (an online medical dictionary). They want the "LEGAL" definition? Reference the definition given in Merriam Websters Dictionary of Law.

fe·tus ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fts)
n. pl. fe·tus·es
The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo

ba·by ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bb)
n. pl. ba·bies

A very young child; an infant.
An unborn child; a fetus.
The youngest member of a family or group.
A very young animal.

hu·man ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hymn)
n.
A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.

per·son ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pûrsn)
n.
A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson.
An individual of specified character: a person of importance.
The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
The living body of a human: searched the prisoner's person.
Physique and general appearance.
Law. A human or organization with legal rights and duties.


It's like a geometry proof. human fetus = baby = person by common, legal, and medical definitions.

As far as "it's the woman's body"
A) the DNA is different and distinct, not the woman's
B) the baby can be a different sex
C) the definition of "gestation" and "pregnant" do not mean that a pregnant woman has grown extra parts of her body but carries WITHIN her a separate body of her young
D) I sometimes share the story of Sara Brown

http://www.dr-tiller.com/dreaded-complication.htm
http://www.nrlc.org/news/1998/NRL11.98/sarah.html

What part of her mother's body was sarah's brain? WHO"S ultimate body and destination does an abortion impact?

Teddi

reply from: nsanford

There you go, hypocritical sentences again.

"It's a baby, but it's okay to kill it"

My main point is the woman has a choice. You do not get to make that choice for her, whether you think it is wrong or not. She decides, not the government, not anyone else. Please tell me how that is hypocritical.

reply from: theamericancatholic

Why? Have you forgotten the Scott Peterson muder trial? He was charged with the deaths of 2 human beings, not one. There have been many instances of double charges of murder in the cases of slain pregnant women.

reply from: nsanford

That is because someone else killed the mother and fetus. If the mother decides, she aborts something that is connected to her, and could not survive without her. Two very different senarios

reply from: AshMarie88

Why can't it be? If it's a baby, why shouldn't abortion equal murder? Do you not wanna think of women as murderers? Is that it?

That's dehumanizing, to say it shouldn't be murder.

It's murder if a preg. woman is murdered... isn't it?

reply from: AshMarie88

There you go, hypocritical sentences again.

"It's a baby, but it's okay to kill it"

My main point is the woman has a choice. You do not get to make that choice for her, whether you think it is wrong or not. She decides, not the government, not anyone else. Please tell me how that is hypocritical.

Because her baby is the victim. The woman should not have the choice to KILL her CHILD, EVER.

If you vote for a woman to kill her preborn baby, why not vote for a woman to kill her born children? Come on. If you're going to be okay with one, you might as well be okay with the other.

reply from: AshMarie88

IT'S STILL A BABY EITHER WAY!! Why is this such a hard concept to grasp? Whether or not the child was wanted or unwanted, it was still innocent. A child that was wanted is as innocent as a child that is deemed unwanted. There is NO difference. ALL cases should be murder, not just when a parent sees the child as unwanted!

reply from: danib

That is because someone else killed the mother and fetus. If the mother decides, she aborts something that is connected to her, and could not survive without her. Two very different senarios

Why does it matter who murdered the baby? The end result is the same. How is it better if the mother murdered it?

reply from: yoda

What's not to believe about that? It (her body) IS her body. But to whom does the baby's body belong?

reply from: yoda

"Murder" is not an accurate description simply because the noun form of that word is always defined as the illegal killing of a human being. It has nothing at all to do with location.

reply from: yoda

EVERYONE has a choice of whether or not to kill another human being. Even if killing is usually illegal the choice is still theirs.

There is nothing morally unique about a woman killing her unborn baby.

reply from: nsanford

There you go, hypocritical sentences again.

"It's a baby, but it's okay to kill it"

My main point is the woman has a choice. You do not get to make that choice for her, whether you think it is wrong or not. She decides, not the government, not anyone else. Please tell me how that is hypocritical.

Because her baby is the victim. The woman should not have the choice to KILL her CHILD, EVER.

If you vote for a woman to kill her preborn baby, why not vote for a woman to kill her born children? Come on. If you're going to be okay with one, you might as well be okay with the other.

Around and around we go. Because it is her body! As Sigma has said before, if someone does not want a child who is born, there are many other ways to remove the problem. With a fetus, the only way is abortion. If the mother feels this is a adequate solution, who are we to force her to do otherwise?

reply from: yoda

Sure. Mom gets a free pass to kill her baby, but no one else is allowed to. That means the baby itself has no respect under the law, only the mother's "right to kill her own baby" is respected.

What a joyous thing to celebrate! Legal permission to kill your baby!! Halileuja! Isn't that wonderful!

Aren't we soooooooo sophisticated, now that we kill babies?

reply from: yoda

INDEED! Who are we to try and protect a helpless, vulnerable, tiny little baby? Where do we get off telling a mother not to kill that baby if she wants to?

The NERVE of some people!!

reply from: AshMarie88

INDEED! Who are we to try and protect a helpless, vulnerable, tiny little baby? Where do we get off telling a mother not to kill that baby if she wants to?

The NERVE of some people!!

Shame on us, yoda! Shame on us!

Who would think we'd try to save someone who needs help... Disgusting, isn't it? (sarcasm)

reply from: nsanford

INDEED! Who are we to try and protect a helpless, vulnerable, tiny little baby? Where do we get off telling a mother not to kill that baby if she wants to?

The NERVE of some people!!

I'm sorry; did you even read the post? FORCE is the KEY word. FORCE and CONVINCE are two different things. You can go outside abortion clinics and try to convince women all you want, and I will support you 100%. But force her NOT to have an abortion? No way, because that infringes on someone's rights. That was the point I was TRYING TO MAKE. But apparently, anybody who tries to protect someone's rights MUST approve of murder!

reply from: AshMarie88

INDEED! Who are we to try and protect a helpless, vulnerable, tiny little baby? Where do we get off telling a mother not to kill that baby if she wants to?

The NERVE of some people!!

I'm sorry; did you even read the post? FORCE is the KEY word. FORCE and CONVINCE are two different things. You can go outside abortion clinics and try to convince women all you want, and I will support you 100%. But force her NOT to have an abortion? No way, because that infringes on someone's rights. That was the point I was TRYING TO MAKE. But apparently, anybody who tries to protect someone's rights MUST approve of murder!

It's wrong for someone to be forced to have a child, but right for a woman to force death upon her child.

Wow, how great our choices are these days.

reply from: theamericancatholic

The mother having the abortion does not kill the baby, an abortion doctor does the killing and is paid for killing the unborn child.

reply from: nsanford

Nice, I don't think anyone could have made that sound any worse. Did you get the part about convincing women?

reply from: AshMarie88

Nice, I don't think anyone could have made that sound any worse. Did you get the part about convincing women?

But it is the truth. You think it's wrong to "force" women to have their baby, but it's right to let women actually kill their baby.

Oh I sure did. Convincing is good.

reply from: nsanford

Nice, I don't think anyone could have made that sound any worse. Did you get the part about convincing women?

But it is the truth. You think it's wrong to "force" women to have their baby, but it's right to let women actually kill their baby.

Oh I sure did. Convincing is good.

How about we put it this way:
Abortion is a terrible evil, but I cannot force someone not to have one.

Isn't it nice not to insult someone who doesn't agree with you?

reply from: Skippy

If you are talking about the death of a fetus when a pregnant woman is murdered, then no, it is not always considered murder. The laws vary widely from state to state, with more than twenty states having no feticide laws at all.

reply from: AshMarie88

Nice, I don't think anyone could have made that sound any worse. Did you get the part about convincing women?

But it is the truth. You think it's wrong to "force" women to have their baby, but it's right to let women actually kill their baby.

Oh I sure did. Convincing is good.

How about we put it this way:
Abortion is a terrible evil, but I cannot force someone not to have one.

Isn't it nice not to insult someone who doesn't agree with you?

Abortion is terrible. We should not let it happen. Do everything we can to stop it.

I don't see how letting a baby live is stripping a woman of her own rights. Just because she is pregnant, doesn't mean her rights are taken away from her, and it certainly doesn't mean it's a punishment.

reply from: nsanford

Agreed. But my point is, everything short of force.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

There you have it. It's a person when it's killed against the mother's will, but it's not a person when it's killed with the mother's will. A baby is a baby no matter what the situation, nsanford.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Murder is terrible and evil, but I cannot force someone not to commit it.

reply from: Alexandra

What's so bad about pregnancy that pro-choicers (probabykillers) are up in arms about "forcing" a woman to continue it? That's what I'd like to know.

reply from: Tam

That's true. Because whether or not an unborn human being is a "baby" is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact. It IS a baby, and anyone who says otherwise is only trying to deny what abortion is.

It is an unborn baby, and abortion deprives him/her of the chance to be born.

Actually, it is homicide, and so is murder, and so is manslaughter. Only ILLEGAL homicide is "murder" and since abortion is legal, it's not, technically, murder. But it's definitely HOMICIDE. Whether it is justifiable homicide is a matter of opinion/personal beliefs.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Agreed. But my point is, everything short of force. What about forced abortions in countires in poverty? Like Africa, Mexico, and China? Short of force? I think not.

reply from: SurvivorsINDIANA

Location does not matter. Who is killing the baby does not matter. Any time you kill the innocent you have murdered that person regardless of who you are and where that person is located.

reply from: yoda

Agreed. But my point is, everything short of force.
And I'm sure you feel the same way about stopping people from doing other terrible things too, right? I mean you wouldn't want to use any "force" against people who commit robbery, kidnapping, rape, mass murder, and things like that, right? Just try to reason with them, right?

reply from: SurvivorsINDIANA

The government has a moral obligation to enforce what is right - and that includes forcefully stopping pregnant women from murdering their babies.

reply from: Sigma

The gov't has no moral obligation. The gov't is not a moral entity, nor should it be.

reply from: dignitarian

The gov't has no moral obligation. The gov't is not a moral entity, nor should it be.

It would be very interesting indeed if the laws of a society did not possess a moral force on the conscience of its individual members.

Dignitarian

reply from: Sigma

Do you mean that laws provide morals for members of society? I'm afraid I'm a bit unclear on what "a moral force on the conscience" means.

reply from: ThunderKitten

How about this, if a woman willingly has an abortion, she gets sterilized. And if the guy pushes her into it, he gets fixed, too. And Fix the abortionist while your at it.

Anyone who would kill their own children doesn't deserve to have any.

reply from: yoda

Sounds like poetic justice to me, TK. Welcome to the forum.

reply from: yoda

Agreed. But my point is, everything short of force.
And I'm sure you feel the same way about stopping people from doing other terrible things too, right? I mean you wouldn't want to use any "force" against people who commit robbery, kidnapping, rape, mass murder, and things like that, right? Just try to reason with them, right?

reply from: tjlsmom

Agreed. But my point is, everything short of force. What about forced abortions in countires in poverty? Like Africa, Mexico, and China? Short of force? I think not.

That's a good point to bring into this argument. I have yet to hear a pro-babykilling person say one word against forcing women TO have abortions. Even if they think that what happens in other counries is "none of our concern"- which I doubt, since a lot of them seem to think we need to spend taxpayer money to PROMOTE free access to abortion overseas - you'd think they'd at least say SOMETHING about how evil it is to force a woman to have an abortion. But like I said, I've never heard of a pro-choice person expressing concern that in some places women are forced to terminate their pregnancies.

Also, you never hear them complaining when a boyfriend, husband, or parent tries to coerce a woman or girl into having an abortion. Maybe they'd rather pretend that never happens. However, they DO complain when we pro-lifers try to require abortionists to give them all the information about the development of their unborn baby, the risks involved in an abortion, options other than abortion, etc. So it seems that they don't even care whether or not women make an INFORMED choice to have their child killed. They want her to make that extremely serious choice unencumbered by all that "confusing" pertinent information, apparently.

Their only problem with "force" or "coercion" seems to be that a woman might be forced to carry her baby to term rather than having it killed. They don't seem to think it is bad when it is ABORTION that is forced on a woman- if they do, then why do they never address the issue? Why isn't there any pro-choice advocacy for woman's right to be given all the pertinent information about abortion before making that decision? Where is their outcry when an angry boyfriend physically attacks a woman who does not want to have an abortion? Their silence speaks volumes.

reply from: tjlsmom

Continuing from my last post on the silence of pro-choicers when a woman is forced to have an abortion, and their protesting when pro-lifers try to insist that they at least be given an informed choice.....

Why do they resist all efforts to regulate the abortion industry? You'd think that, since they are so concerned about women's health, they would want abortion to be as safe as possible, right? That abortionists would be held to strict standards, and held accountable for botched abortions? That abortion clinics would at least have to be clean and sanitary?

Nope. Every time there is publicity about a woman dying from a botched abortion, they defend the abortionist, no matter how negligent he was. And the filthy conditions that have been found and documented in some abortion clinics don't move them to want to license and regulate abortion clinics. Every other kind of clinic has to be licensed and regulated by the state- even veterinary clinics- but for some reason, unknowable to us pro-life "dummies", I guess, abortion clinics are just "far, far above" needing any kind of regulation. Or maybe it's just that no one enforces existing medical regulations when it comes to abortion clinics. Whatever the case, when a woman dies from abortion, pro-choicers think the abortionist should get off scot-free every time, judging from their actions. Well, I guess there was the case where Sen. Barbara Boxer demanded that an abortionist lost his license because he had a history of sexually assaulting his patients. So there has been one pro-abort that I know of speak out about these things in 30-some years.

reply from: AshMarie88

The gov't has no moral obligation. The gov't is not a moral entity, nor should it be.

So I guess you think murder and rape should be made legal? And even slavery again? Because morality played a part in making those illegal.

reply from: yoda

What an idiotic statement. EVERY criminal law constitutes a moral obligation to every citizen.

reply from: Skippy

*shrug* I haven't a clue what a pro-babykilling person thinks about forced abortion, since I've never met any. Matter of fact, I doubt such a creature exists.

I can tell you what every pro-choice person I know thinks of it, though. Force isn't choice. Pro-choice means exactly what it says: Giving pregnant women the CHOICE to continue a pregnancy, or not. Let me reiterate. Forcing a woman to end a pregnancy isn't pro-choice.

Does your nose grow when you tell whoppers like this?

Thank you for conceding that it is a choice. And I encourage every woman to gather all the available facts before consenting to any medical procedure.

Watch it, or your nose will need its own zip code. And thank you for conceding that there is an element of force in requiring a woman to continue a pregnancy against her wishes.

reply from: yoda

Well, NOW we've heard from one probabykilling advocate on this subject, tjlsmom! Even if she won't admit her support for killing babies......

reply from: tjlsmom

*shrug* I haven't a clue what a pro-babykilling person thinks about forced abortion, since I've never met any. Matter of fact, I doubt such a creature exists.

I can tell you what every pro-choice person I know thinks of it, though. Force isn't choice. Pro-choice means exactly what it says: Giving pregnant women the CHOICE to continue a pregnancy, or not. Let me reiterate. Forcing a woman to end a pregnancy isn't pro-choice.

Then why do we never hear as loudly from pro-babykilling people/ pro-choicers (same thing in my book) against forced abortion as we do when abortion "rights" are threatened? In fact, I've never heard any pro-babykilling person/ pro-choicer criticize forced abortion at all. Some leading pro-babykilling people/ pro-choicers have even publicly defended and admired China's forced abortion policy. It's that kind of thing that causes me to believe that no one in the pro-choice movement is truly pro-choice; rather they lean so heavily in favor of abortion itself, that "pro-babykilling" does indeed apply, imo.

Does your nose grow when you tell whoppers like this?

So may I assume that you're different from any other pro-choicer I've ever known, and would actually be right there vocally defending a woman's right NOT to have an abortion if someone were trying to force her to?

Thank you for conceding that it is a choice. And I encourage every woman to gather all the available facts before consenting to any medical procedure.

It is always a choice, whether abortion is legal or illegal. People can choose to do right or wrong. That's really nice that you encourage every woman to gather all the available evidence before having an abortion. Now, if only we could get those darn abortionists to do the same!

Watch it, or your nose will need its own zip code. And thank you for conceding that there is an element of force in requiring a woman to continue a pregnancy against her wishes.

Well, hmmmmm, I guess I've just been living with my head buried in the sand, or else have had selective hearing and just not HEARD it when all those pro-choicers were out there condemning forced abortion!

Of course there is an element of force in requiring a woman to continue a pregnancy rather than killing her unborn baby- and rightfully so.

reply from: tjlsmom

Actually, I need to slightly change my statement that I've never heard any pro-babykilling/ pro-choice person criticize forced abortion. Hillary did recently say something against China's policy- took her long enough (waaaay too long!).

reply from: NewPoster1

The gov't has no moral obligation. The gov't is not a moral entity, nor should it be.

So I guess you think murder and rape should be made legal? And even slavery again? Because morality played a part in making those illegal.

What you forget to mention is that well over 99% of the population wants murder, rape, and slavery to be illegal, while only about 33% of the population wants abortion to be illegal.

reply from: Alexandra

Which proves that they're liars. They can't have it both ways. Besides, abortion is not a safe procedure...there's just nothing safe about sticking something sharp "up there."

reply from: tjlsmom

quote:

Besides, abortion is not a safe procedure...there's just nothing safe about sticking something sharp "up there."

Very true!

reply from: AshMarie88

The gov't has no moral obligation. The gov't is not a moral entity, nor should it be.

So I guess you think murder and rape should be made legal? And even slavery again? Because morality played a part in making those illegal.

What you forget to mention is that well over 99% of the population wants murder, rape, and slavery to be illegal, while only about 33% of the population wants abortion to be illegal.

It doesn't matter how many people want this american holocaust (yes, I said holocaust) to stay legal. What matters is what we can do to stop the killings of the babies.

reply from: AshMarie88

How very true that is! I'm going to use that next time someone brings it up about it being safe.

reply from: AshMarie88

Ohh I just heard a good one the other day.
"The fetus is always female until proven otherwise"
Hahaha. This is probably the DUMBEST argument I have heard from a choicer! A fetus can be female or male, no matter if the sex was proven thru ultrasound or not. At conception, there's either a y chromosome or an x chromosome that's in the sperm before conception.
So I guess the baby has a sex change in the womb (if it's male)? How is that possible?

reply from: tabithamarcotte

I think that's actually true in a sense.
I read about it a long time ago, so I might get something wrong.
A baby boy doesn't have the vital parts of anatomy that make him male immediately. There's a "hole" (if that's an accurate enought term...) that will eventually be replaced with male anatomy. The boy has X and Y chromosomes, but evidence visible to the naked isn't quite there yet, until later.
I might have gotten it wrong at some point, so you can look it up or something if you want to confirm it.
But calling the baby a female until proven otherwise isn't exactly right either, haha.

reply from: AshMarie88

I think that's actually true in a sense.
I read about it a long time ago, so I might get something wrong.
A baby boy doesn't have the vital parts of anatomy that make him male immediately. There's a "hole" (if that's an accurate enought term...) that will eventually be replaced with male anatomy. The boy has X and Y chromosomes, but evidence visible to the naked isn't quite there yet, until later.
I might have gotten it wrong at some point, so you can look it up or something if you want to confirm it.
But calling the baby a female until proven otherwise isn't exactly right either, haha.
Well at conception the DNA is complete and the sex is determined by that same DNA (depends on, like I said, if the egg was fertilized with an x or y chromosome, along with the others).

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Yeah, the DNA is complete, so it really doesn't make sense to say all babies are female until proven otherwise...lol that's kind of funny.

reply from: AshMarie88

Yeah, the DNA is complete, so it really doesn't make sense to say all babies are female until proven otherwise...lol that's kind of funny.
yea lol

reply from: xnavy

teddi i tried to get that link that you have on your post i could not get into it, please tell me about sara brown, i am curious. if you don't
mind.

reply from: yoda

No surprise where it came from....... they live in a universe where the truth is a lie, and a lie is the truth.

reply from: pray4em

We all know what they say but; where is the credibility of a liar and a killer?
What is the motivation to be a baby killing advocate?
What is more valuable than the life of another human being?

reply from: pray4em

Good point, she can do pretty much the same thing she did any other time in life.

reply from: pray4em

The gov't has no moral obligation. The gov't is not a moral entity, nor should it be.
How about we give the unborn the right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. Life, we wouldn't have to kill them. Liberty, they could be free to grow up. Happiness, happy to know the mother and father that concieved them. We as a cival sociaty could actual do it.

reply from: yoda

Now there is an interesting quote. If that's so, why does "the government" have and enforce criminal laws? Do they not try to enforce the moral opinion of the society which they represent?
Aren't things like voter's right, civil rights, etc., moral concepts? When did the government drop all efforts to be a "moral entity"?

reply from: Sigma

How about we don't? How about we do, but they are subject to the same limitations as the rest of us have? None other may live attached to another against that other's will.

reply from: bradensmommy

OMG I had to LMAO after reading that!!! That is about as smart as the choicers saying that a pregnant woman isn't a mother til she delivers!!

reply from: laurissamarcotte

So it's based on whether she thinks abortion is right or wrong?
So let's let the KKK run free and kill African-Americans. They don't think it's wrong, so we don't have a right to stop them.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Of course! It's murder when the baby is killed by someone they're not connected to, but when they are killed by someone they're connected to, it's TOTALLY diferent!
Is this really where America has stooped to?

reply from: pray4em

How about we don't? How about we do, but they are subject to the same limitations as the rest of us have? None other may live attached to another against that other's will.
I was being cynical, the law does not give anyone the right to life, they already have it. It's abortion that takes it away...

reply from: yoda

How about we don't? How about we do, but they are subject to the same limitations as the rest of us have? None other may live attached to another against that other's will.
Only if we have consciously and willingly made the attachment.
Deal?


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics