Home - List All Discussions

Why I will never be pro-life.

Go ahead, try to prove me wrong...

by: nsanford

It seems pro-choicers have been on the defensive for too long. So here are my reasons:

1. Women's right to their body
As I've said a million times, a fetus deserves a chance to live, but forcing a woman to carry a baby to term is unacceptable, as are forced abortions. The term is pro-choice, not pro-abortion. So this is what I will stand by, no matter what.

2. It's a slippery slope
Give the government the right to our bodies, and suddenly who knows what they can do? Stop us from speaking out, genocide, you name it. As harsh as it sounds, I'm not letting any government official control my body, even to save a fetus.

3. Pro-Abortion?!
Have you noticed that most pro-choice supporters will never call you any derogatory terms until you call them one first? Murder advocate, pro-babykilling, you name it, you seem to have endless names for us. Way to put people on the defensive. When I first started to research abortion was still sort of in the middle but once I saw what you calling pro-choicers I immediatly lost sympathy for your side. We're not for murder, we're for choice.

4. Other views
Not trying to generalize, but religion and the pro-life stance pretty much go together. Since I am a atheist, I find this to be a very bad thing. You should not be in support of a law because your religion says you should. In America we have a thing called seperation of church and state. It irks me to no end when I ask people why they oppose abortion and they say "because the Bible says so". I don't mean to be offensive, but that is not a real reason to me. Got to have logic to back it up.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

A woman's body was DESIGNED for gestation. Women coped before 1973 with carrying their children, they still can now.

HER body? The baby has it's own body. Remember that snapshot in 1999 from Tennessee where the baby reached out of the mother's womb and grabbed the docter's finger while he was performing surgery? Who was it grabbing the doctor's finger, the mother?

Prochoice? Who is choosing, and who is being chosen? Do you honestly believe in the 'choice' to kill?

My religion and my logic go hand in hand. But without religion, I would probably still be against abortion because it is killing the most innocent human being. The baby has commited no crime whatsoever.

reply from: dignitarian

Among those to whom nothing is self-evident, NOTHING can be proven.

Dig

reply from: Allizdog2000

nsanford; You're Pro-Choice, that's fine. I believe that abortion is MURDER. I don't wish to stop you expressing your beliefs anywhere. But I do want to see the act of abortion ended everywhere.

reply from: Skippy

Will this urban legend NEVER go away? The doctor who performed the surgery said there was no "reaching out and grabbing." It's simply not possible. The fetus was anaesthetized. The doctor picked up the hand, then tucked the arm back in before closing. Cool photo, but NOT a photo of what you claim it to be.

reply from: nsanford

Doesn't mean they are obligated to carry children though. That's what you are making it sound like.

Still not going to give a government official power over any living, breathing, intelligent human being, even to save a fetus.

Everyone has the right to their bodies. Do you believe in the right to kill cancer cells? Their living too.

Fine with that. You cannot oppose abortion on purely religious means and then think that you can force your morals on someone else with a law.

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

I see you are in favor of choice. But you say the particular choice, "abortion", should not be mentioned. It's just pro-choice, not pro-abortion or pro-death to the unborn. You say you are for choice but not for murder. Isn't the choice you are talking about the pre-planned termination of another human life, in other words, premediated murder? Are you in denial?

You are a rebellious and lawless soul who has confessed that you will not be bound by the rules of any authority, you make your own rules. Therefore, you are not subject to God, and neither can be.

I believe in God's authority because he says men left to make their own decisions are selfish killers, and you prove Him right.

Your attitude is "it's all about me". Damn the baby, damn man's government, and **** God. I'm doing what I want whether I kill another living human being or not. It's only what I want, I'll step on the others (a young male or female still in a defenseless state).

reply from: nsanford

Why do people automatically assume if you are an atheist, you must have no morals? That is such a terrible genralization. And no, it's what the women wants. If you don't like abortions don't get one, and leave women alone and let them have there reproductive rights.

reply from: bradensmommy

Why thank you Jack Handy for your Deep Thoughts. Your arguements are null and most of them seem very selfish to me. I strongly suggest to get pregnant and feel that baby inside of you and give birth to him/her and see how it really feels to be a mother. Any decent woman would feel emotion to see that little face for the first time, to feel its little fingers wrap around your finger, to hear him/her cry for the very first time. I don't really think you give a crap other than whine about how a baby is an inconvenience for a woman.

reply from: Allizdog2000

Second time this week I agree with a pro-Abortionist. Yes, the preborn baby was anaesthetized, the child had to be or she would have likely died.

reply from: scopia1982

"It seems pro-choicers have been on the defensive for too long. "

Of course, you are defending legalized murder of innoccent human beings. Most logical thinking people are not buying it..so the more defensive you get. If abortion is such a good thing than there would be no need to get so defensive now ? Right?


"As I've said a million times, a fetus deserves a chance to live, but forcing a woman to carry a baby to term is unacceptable, as are forced abortions. The term is pro-choice, not pro-abortion. So this is what I will stand by, no matter what."

You are a walking contradiction Madam, you say a fetus deserves the chance to live, yet you think it should be killed on the whim of its mother or those who may coerce or cajol her to the abortionist? The correct term is pro abortion. But you all have to sugarcoat the truth with PC euphemisms. You are either for abortion or against it. If you support it at all than you are PROABORTION. Plain and simple english.

"Have you noticed that most pro-choice supporters will never call you any derogatory terms until you call them one first? Murder advocate, pro-babykilling, you name it, you seem to have endless names for us. Way to put people on the defensive. When I first started to research abortion was still sort of in the middle but once I saw what you calling pro-choicers I immediatly lost sympathy for your side. We're not for murder, we're for choice."

I found that it your side Madame that does this to prolifer, "Antichoice", "Antiwoman', rightwing nut job, terrorists, etc....

reply from: theamericancatholic

The price of one human being retaining their rights cannot be the death of another human being. The term pro-choice is a white wash job. The only choice you are referring to is abortion. You are pro-abortion.

The government already has the right to tell you many things that you can and cannot do with your bodies and this is a pity-poor excuse. The unborn child is not your body and not your life. Abortion IS genocide.

You are for abortion as a viable means of killing an unborn child are you not? Our side? This is not about sides and it is not about winning an argument. It is about ending the wholesale slaughter of millions of unborn children. If you are defense perhaps because it is because it is your position that needs defending. Even though you have the legal high ground you do not have the moral high ground. The only choice that you are for that distinguishes you is the choice to abort.

The desire to not kill unborn children and the pro-life movement are the only things that truly go together. That you recognize no higher moral authority does not concern me. That you seek no higher moral authority than yourself to justify murder does concern me. The law is wrong and while we do recognize the law as it exists we as Americans are bound and responsible to change any law that is morally wrong. Logic? The rationalization of abortion as right thinking and moral has little to do with logic.

http://acatholicforamerica.blogspot.com/

reply from: Gina

Errr...excuse me. I find your comment to be highly insulting.

I am pro-life. I do not believe in killing humans, be they tiny specks in the uterus, or mass murderers in San Quentin. Killing...in any circumstance...is wrong.

But I am childless. On purpose. And will remain that way. Until I die.

Why? Because I do not want children in my life, I don't want to be responsible for another human being for 18 years, (insert any one of 1000000 other reasons here). I like when they're someone else's, and I can hand the bundle back to the parent. Yes, I DO think they are an inconvenience. Majorly. So what? Doesn't mean I want to kill them in the womb or otherwise.

Now...you indicated in your post that any "decent" woman would feel "emotion..." etc. etc. I have peered into the faces of many a-babe. And have simply felt relief that said babe was not mine. I might have thought he or she was cute, etc., but at no time did I simper with emotion. The thought of giving birth never set me tingling with joy. On the contrary, it makes me cringe with disgust. Yes, true.

Even though I am pro-life, I am not a "decent" woman, according to your logic. Because I have not procreated (and on purpose, yet! oh horrors!). Psst, c'mere...I have a secret to tell you: not all women believe their sole purpose on this planet is to give birth every 9 months. Having babies is not the sole action that qualifies a woman for "decency" or for womanhood. You like having babies. Lovely. But not everyone is like you. Doesn't mean we aren't "decent" and it doesn't mean we're not "real women."

So I'm sure you know where you can insert your comment. If you need a shoehorn, I'll happily lend you one.

reply from: AshMarie88

Errr...excuse me. I find your comment to be highly insulting.

I am pro-life. I do not believe in killing humans, be they tiny specks in the uterus, or mass murderers in San Quentin. Killing...in any circumstance...is wrong.

But I am childless. On purpose. And will remain that way. Until I die.

Why? Because I do not want children in my life, I don't want to be responsible for another human being for 18 years, (insert any one of 1000000 other reasons here). I like when they're someone else's, and I can hand the bundle back to the parent. Yes, I DO think they are an inconvenience. Majorly. So what? Doesn't mean I want to kill them in the womb or otherwise.

Now...you indicated in your post that any "decent" woman would feel "emotion..." etc. etc. I have peered into the faces of many a-babe. And have simply felt relief that said babe was not mine. I might have thought he or she was cute, etc., but at no time did I simper with emotion. The thought of giving birth never set me tingling with joy. On the contrary, it makes me cringe with disgust. Yes, true.

Even though I am pro-life, I am not a "decent" woman, according to your logic. Because I have not procreated (and on purpose, yet! oh horrors!). Psst, c'mere...I have a secret to tell you: not all women believe their sole purpose on this planet is to give birth every 9 months. Having babies is not the sole action that qualifies a woman for "decency" or for womanhood. You like having babies. Lovely. But not everyone is like you. Doesn't mean we aren't "decent" and it doesn't mean we're not "real women."

So I'm sure you know where you can insert your comment. If you need a shoehorn, I'll happily lend you one.

If you got pregnant, would you have an abortion?

It's childfree, by the way. Childless is merely a term for someone who doesn't have kids yet, but childfree is a term for those who don't want kids and are free of them.

reply from: Gina

I already said I was pro-life, didn't I?

I have no plans to become pregnant. I have no plans to marry. I am a virgin. Will always be so. Answer your question thoroughly enough?

I will use the term "childless" if it's okay with you. "Childfree" makes me think of "sugar free" or "fat free" and sounds rather ridiculous.

reply from: ThunderKitten

1. Women's right to their body
As I've said a million times, a woman deserves a chance to not get pregnant, but forcing a baby to suffer death because a woman is unwilling to carry to term is unnacceptable, as is forced sex. The term is pro-choice, not pro-gestation. So this is what I will stand by, no matter what.

2. LEGALIZING abortion is a slippery slope.
The government giving us the "right" to kill our babies, and suddenly who knows what they can do? Such disrespect for human life can lead to forced abortion, forced sterilization, genocide, censorship, you name it. As harsh as it sounds, I'm not letting any goverment official control my body, especially to kill my baby!

3. Pro-forced gestation?!
Everyone is at fault for name-calling, but insults or not, the issue is the same. Your inability to sort through that and listen to what this is really about causes me to lose symapthy for you personally, albeit not your point of view. Besides, we're not for forced gestation, we're for choice.

4. Other views
Not trying to generalize, but believing in a religion seems to have little to do with whether someone gets an abortion. As an atheist, I find a person's inability to follow one's own moral code to be a very bad thing. You should not support a law if your own beliefs tell you it is horrifyingly wrong. In America we have a thing called separation of church and state. But while someone saying "because the Bible says so" may be enough proof for you that their morals have no merit, you've got to have logic to back it up.

reply from: ThunderKitten

I already said I was pro-life, didn't I?

I have no plans to become pregnant. I have no plans to marry. I am a virgin. Will always be so. Answer your question thoroughly enough?

I will use the term "childless" if it's okay with you. "Childfree" makes me think of "sugar free" or "fat free" and sounds rather ridiculous.

I'm impressed! Not many people have that kind of motivation.

Me personally, I wouldn't have been happy without a kid. I have no idea what it feels like to not want one.

reply from: Mymotherchoseme

Ever feel like you are wasting your breath? Those of the pro life fraternity will never understand the concept of pro choice. They do not understand the fundamental argument that no-one else but the individual concerned has rights over their body. No-one else has the right to tell them what to do with their body.

We dont recognise the fetus as human? Of course we do. But we also recognise that the fetus does not have equal rights to the mother.

People have unplanned, unwanted pregnancies. If you take away legalized abortion then you are effectively signing these peoples death warrant. Why should I let the government take control of my body? If your government came to you and said I want your body, now, would you give it to them?

Abortion is not murder. Murder is illegal, abortion is not.

If I dont force you to live by moral code, what gives you the right to force your moral code upon me?

You say you are pro LIFE - but you are not. You are pro FETUS. The women carrying the fetii carry no weight and even less importance from your viewpoint - how can you call that pro life?

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

God has said man cannot direct his own footsteps. He has said the path that seems right to man leads to death. The hypothesis that man can direct his own footsteps is now being put to the test. An experiment is underway (experiment: a test or trail undertaken to discover or demonstrate something).

God has commanded that mankind work for six days. "But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." 2 Peter 3:8 According to the Jerusalem post at www.jpost.com, we are in the 5,766th year of man's work (date at the top of each day's paper). Folllowing man's work is the Sabbath, when mankind shall rest from his work, and the Millennial Sabbath begins. God's Government shall replace all the kingdoms of men. "For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given, and the government will be upon His shoulder....Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end." Isaiah 9:6-7 In contrast, by the end of man's 6,000 years of rule, God says mankind would kill all living flesh upon the earth unless He intervenes.

reply from: Alexandra

I already said I was pro-life, didn't I?

I have no plans to become pregnant. I have no plans to marry. I am a virgin. Will always be so. Answer your question thoroughly enough?

Gina, that's completely up to you. Women don't *have* to marry. If I may mention this, the apostle Paul said that it's okay if a man doesn't touch a woman, but if they can't hold their desires in check, they should marry.

I chose to marry (and at age 20) because I need a man in my life, and I've always wanted at least one child. I have a husband and a four-year-old son, and my husband and I have been married 12 1/2 years.

If you can remain single and go without sex, go for it!

reply from: MaleNurse

This is contradictory. Your position is not solid and wavers on indecisiveness. Perhaps what your conscious says disputes the soul.

Riiiiight ! Currently the "sex-police" have secretly posted surveillance cameras in each bedroom.
Abortion IS genocide by definition.
The leap from protecting the unborn baby to Government control over your body is weak. The government doesn't force you to have unprotected sex to get pregnant in the first place !

Your "choice" includes murder/killing/fetuskilling/whatever...
When you acknowledge that the fetus is "alive" and abortion makes it "not-alive" you can only conclude the immorality of abortion.
Here are some "choices" you CAN have:
Abstinence
Tubal Ligation
Condom
Vasectomy
OC's
Norplant
Pregnancy
Breast feeding after pregnancy

Laws are based on the moral premise of protecting the members of a society. The "moral" component comes from religeon. (whichever you choose) "Fairness" extends an equal distribution of the moral component.

"Separation of church and state" is commonly mis-used
The founding fathers (All Christians) intended to protect the church from influence by the state NOT to protect the state from influence by the church. They went so far as to include "freedom of religeon" So the state couldn't force a citizen into one or another.

Please use logic!
fetus/unborn baby =innocent
killing innocent = bad
killing fetus/unborn baby =bad

reply from: Alexandra

What do you think our laws do!? Any laws! Laws against theft, against rape--they DO force a moral code!

reply from: Gina

Some people live their lives according to stories written down in a book from 2,000+ years ago. That no one can have "morality" unless it comes from this book. Codswallop.

Because these occurrences are written down in a book many centuries ago does not make them 100% true, or even 1% true. There were many factors influencing the writers of the Bible over the millennia. Wars, famine, jealousy, greed, poverty, and the daily struggle to survive and have some hope for the future...all these were important variables in those that wrote these accounts. In addition, there are other religious texts from other religions around the world at the time (like, the Zoroastrians) whose accounts of creation, etc., are mysteriously similar to the Judeo-Christian model. The ancient Egyptians, who predated Jesus by 3,000 years, had a virgin birth story in their goddess Isis and a savior of sorts in her son Horus. The peoples who believed in these stories did not just stay in one spot, isolated for thousands of years. They fanned out and occupied many lands, bringing and spreading their stories where they went.

The Bible has long been considered a historical writing of sorts. History may or may not be true, depending on the writers' influences, prejudices, beliefs, etc. Any history is like that. Just because I pick up a history book and read an account of the bombing at Pearl Harbor, for example, doesn't mean I immediately believe everything I read about it. Six different history books will detail six different ways the events of that day unfolded. For example, some people believe evidence exists that FDR knew the attack was imminent and even encouraged it. Others believe that is hogwash. It's how you interpret the event...how you record it. This is called "history". And the Bible is history. And history is always influenced by the personalities and characteristics of whoever wrote it down at the time.

Some people believe the Bible is the "inerrant word of God". That either God wrote the book himself or narrated it to men who wrote it down for him. How they come to this conclusion escapes me. It's a history book, sprinkled with fables and mottoes, written by human hands and influenced by their own lives and surroundings.

Some people think I'll go to hell for such sacreligious thinking. I say everyone should mind their own religious business and let me worry about that, ok?

reply from: Skippy

Well, here's the definition of genocide:

Which one of those applies to fetuses? Are they a political group?

reply from: AshMarie88

Interesting... this is the same logic a criminal uses when holding hostages in a bank robbery or something similar.

reply from: dignitarian

Nsanford:

The Pro-life position is based on sound political philosophy and consistent reasoning.

But you ask me for proof.

The fact is, NO political philosophy can be proven in the sense that you demand. After all, any such philosophy must be ultimately founded upon a basis of self-evidence (or else it is science or mathematics and not political philosophy at all).

Nevertheless you are insistent. Okay then.

You claim a woman has a basic right to her body. I’m not saying I disagree with you, but what is the basis upon which you make such a claim? In fact, what is the basis for the existence of any rights at all?

You also mention genocide. Hey, what’s so bad about genocide? If a little genocide can somehow contribute to the greater common good, couldn’t it be a good thing? Yes, who is to say anything at all about genocide when the principle of self-evidence simply isn’t valid anymore?

(By the way....Genocide. What a great example of the ultimate result of the denial of the intrinsic worth of EVERY being of human origin. But that’s another story.)

I’m not really looking for an answer from you here; I already know the ultimate answers to questions of this sort can only be founded upon reason AND SELF-EVIDENCE, not proof.

The kind of proof you talk about will only reveal man as a walking blob of chemicals, and rights a mere figment of imagination, not a reality. Nonetheless you claim as fact that a woman has such rights.



You also ask for logic, but your statements indicate no such interest as you don’t even care to demand it of yourself.

You mentioned you are currently enrolled in a school of law. Congratulations. I am encouraged that if you got through the LSAT, my points attempted above should be … well … self-evident.

Regards,

Dignitarian

Among those to whom nothing is self-evident, nothing can be proven.

PS: I like your own signature line: "A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything." These words are largely credited to Malcolm X and they strongly imply that we must be a people based on principles; such sorts of principles (I might add) that can only be substantiated on the ultimate basis of self-evidence; not proof.

reply from: MaleNurse

I would remind you Gina there exists document such as the dead sea scrolls.
Although their exact translation may be disputed, the translation is close enough to get the picture.
If you dispute the translation, you can formulate your own using the interlinear bible.
This is available in Hebrew text for Old test. and Greek text for new test.

here is an exampleyou'll probably have to cut/paste this in your address bar)
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/qoh12.pdf
It shows:
The actual Hebrew text
An exact literal translation of the Hebrew text
The King James translation

Also, just a historical fact, ~2006 years ago something BIG happened. So big, we started counting years from that event so we wouldn't forget.

reply from: MaleNurse

Sorry,
It worked - you can just click on the link

reply from: AshMarie88

What about in self defense or defense of others, Gina?

reply from: nsanford

Wow, you guys sure ran with this. I stand by what I said. The government cannot force women to continue a pregnancy. Ever.

reply from: dignitarian

nsanford:

You seem to simply claim that if you say it, then it must be true.

Then why bother even pretending with the dialogue?

Dig

reply from: nsanford

No, I claim that one of the fundemental rights we have as humans is the right to control our bodies. Making abortion illegal interferes with that right.

reply from: dignitarian

nsanford:

What is your basis for existence of "fundamental rights"? This question is important because the answer is compelling when we must examine the inevitable conflict of rights.

Dig

PS: And if you have no such basis, how can you even make the claim?

reply from: nsanford

All humans have basic rights such as:
The right to free speech
The right to assemble
Freedom or religion(or in my case, to not have one)
Freedom of the press

And finally, right to control our own bodies. All of these are givens. They should never be taken away by any government. I feel the framers missed this when they wrote the Constitiution. What a man(or woman) does with his body concerns no one else unless it harms someone. Now this is the sticking point of the abortion debate. Where do the woman's rights end and the fetuses begin? I say the woman should have control. The fetus in effect depends on her, and their is no way to remove him/her from this care. So if she wishes to remove that care, that falls under her right to control her body. The fetus should have rights, but they should not trump the rights of the mother.

reply from: dignitarian

All humans have basic rights such as:

The right to free speech

The right to assemble

Freedom or religion(or in my case, to not have one)

Freedom of the press

Nsanford:

When you say we have these rights, are you saying that they exist simply because they are written into law?

Or are you saying that these rights are intrinsic to the nature of man, thus inalienable and existent whether they are written into law or not?

Or is this distinction completely new to you and thus you might require some time to ponder it?

Dig

reply from: nsanford

Second one. These rights exist, whether written into law or not.

reply from: yoda

In the summary you chose for this thread, you challenged us to "prove you wrong", and then you proceeded to make statements of opinion about things which are not subjec to proof. That's a pretty safe way to keep from being "proven wrong". But I'll comment anyway.

There's nothing in this statement but your personal values, and a statement that you will not consider any proof anyway ("no matter what"). Do you not realize how idiotic that is? Well my personal values are that a baby's "chance to live" is way more important than any feminazi slogans you can come up with.

That isn't an argument, that's a hoax. Slopes are slippery in both directions, you can't blame them for which way the foot slides.

Yep. On almost any topic, there are those for it (the "pro" faction) and those against it (the "anti" faction) But of course what abortion does is kill babies, so that's more accurate. Of course there's also "Anti-Life" and "Pro-Death" if you prefer one of those.

You do a great job of generalizing when you're not even trying to. How do you explain all the self-labeled "Christians" who support abortion rights, or the many atheists, agnostics (me), and pagans who oppose abortion? Oh, I forgot, you're "not trying to generalize".

reply from: dignitarian

Nsanford:

So I can take it then you are a firm believer (have fullness of faith) in the concept of the inalienability of the fundamental rights of human existence? Regardless of law?

Dig

reply from: yoda

ONLY a probabykilling advocate would compare a human baby to a cancerous growth.

reply from: yoda

I believe it safe to assume that she was speaking about a mother holding her OWN child, and since you say you are childless, this would not apply to you.

Your rather crude and intemperate attack leaves much to be desired in the way of diplomacy.

reply from: yoda

How "unequal" must the rights of one person be to the rights of another person before that other person has the right to kill the first person? How big a difference must there be to justify killing an innocent person? Or do you just enjoy meaningless euphemisms?

You and I are forced every day to live by the moral code of "others", due to something called "criminal law". Ever hear of it? Seems to me that saving an innocent life is a reasonable use for such things.

No, I say I am ANTIBABYKILLING...... but I will agree I am pro FETUS...... so that makes you ANTI fetus, right? Or do you prefer PROBABYKILLING????

reply from: yoda

I'm agnostic, and I resent your turning this thread into a debate on religion. Please stay on topic.

reply from: dignitarian

Nsanford:

Looks like we might be taking some time to ponder this after all.

Dig

reply from: yoda

Skippy the liar says "THE" definition of genocide, as if it had ONLY ONE........

genocide: The systematic attempt to kill all occupants of a particular status, especially ethnic, religious, racial, or national. http://www.webref.org/sociology/g/genocide.htm

genocide: "The deliberate and systmatic destruction of a national, racial, religious, political, cultural, ethnic, or other group defined by the exterminators as undesirable" (Webster's New World Encyclopedia, Prentice Hall General Refernece, 1992).

Need I point out how unborn humans fit into these definitions?

reply from: yoda

How DID they do it before 1973, Einstein?

reply from: yoda

Your final "right" required you to resort to a euphemism, didn't it? Didn't you really mean "THE FREEDOM TO KILL YOUR OWN BABY"????

Which ammendment spoke of that right, ns?

reply from: MaleNurse

Well Said Yoda !
An OUTSTANDING Post !

reply from: nsanford

Sorry, had to run out real fast. But yes. Our rights are there, whether the law says so or not.

reply from: nsanford

Did you even read the post? I said the framers should have put that in the constitiution. But you're too busy yelling "babykiller babykiller" to read, I'm sure.

reply from: nsanford

Your final "right" required you to resort to a euphemism, didn't it? Didn't you really mean "THE FREEDOM TO KILL YOUR OWN BABY"????

Which ammendment spoke of that right, ns?
I said the right to our bodies. That does not just include abortion.

reply from: yoda

Thanks. You're doing rather well also!

reply from: yoda

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that we have a right to use the UNAVOIDABLE circumstances of natural reproduction as an excuse to slaughter our innocent babies.

Only probabykillers say that.

reply from: xnavy

wow there i know you did not mean to compare a unborn baby to a disease.

reply from: nsanford

Obviously you do not understand me. Let me spell it out for you.

It is not in the Constitution, but should be. The right to our bodies cannot be denied by the government.

Are we clear, Yoda?

reply from: yoda

All I can say to that is that even I, a humble agnostic, give thanks to God that you were not an influence on the men who actually wrote our constitution.

What planet do you live on? On this one, the government can do pretty much what the people will let it get away with, and that includes control of your body. Ever hear of manditory shots? Body search warrants?

But even so, you continue to totally ignore the "bodily rights" of the tiny little baby you are so quick to dismiss as worthless.......

reply from: nsanford

All I can say to that is that even I, a humble agnostic, give thanks to God that you were not an influence on the men who actually wrote our constitution.

What planet do you live on? On this one, the government can do pretty much what the people will let it get away with, and that includes control of your body. Ever hear of manditory shots? Body search warrants?

But even so, you continue to totally ignore the "bodily rights" of the tiny little baby you are so quick to dismiss as worthless.......

Every time you say I think the fetus is worthless, I will kindly ask you to point me to where I said that. Because I don't see it. The government cannot force a woman to provide support to a fetus with her own body. Period. If you disagree, then I guess it's over. I will never agree with you.

reply from: AshMarie88

In other words, the right to kill innocent humans who have done nothing whatsoever to deserve mutilation and taken to labs.

reply from: yoda

I made that assumption because you have clearly demonstrated that you think that an unborn baby is worth less that the lifestyle of it's mother. To me, that's "worthless".

How DID they do it before 1973, Einstein?

reply from: nsanford

Well, that's you.

I meant morally, not legally.

reply from: yoda

Ah, so in YOUR moral opinion, stopping mothers from killing their unborn babies would be a bad thing....? Well, I really am glad you weren't there when they wrote the constitution........

reply from: nsanford

Ah, so in YOUR moral opinion, stopping mothers from killing their unborn babies would be a bad thing....? Well, I really am glad you weren't there when they wrote the constitution........

The feeling is mutual, Yoda. The feeling is mutual.

reply from: ThunderKitten

nsanford, some questions:

1. Are there any circumstances under which you would see it as wrong for a woman to have an abortion? Why?

2. Which, in your mind, is worse for a woman- forcing her to gestate, or forcing her to have an abortion? Why?

3. You said, "Go ahead, try to prove me wrong..." What exactly would be sufficient evidence that you are wrong?

4. Hypothetically, if a woman tells you that she is pregnant, in school, and cannot afford a baby, what advice would you give her? What questions would you ask to better understand the situation?

5. If, today, you faced an unexpected pregnancy, how would you respond?

reply from: dignitarian

Nsanford:

You look busy.

But anyway, back to our discussion.

You claim: "Our rights are there, whether the law says so or not."

Well then we certainly don’t disagree here. Or do we? If we truly claim this as common ground it would first be interesting to observe our common claim is not based at all upon a mathematical-like proof, but would more accurately be described as a matter of self-evidence.

But let me ask another question.

The fundamental rights of human existence (those rights absolutely necessary to actualize what it means to be human) are necessarily and traditionally identified as Life, Liberty, and Happiness (or Property).

Do you agree that Life (as well as Liberty) is indeed among these rights you claim to be inalienable?

Not to drag this out any more than necessary; if you answer yes to this, on a basis of reason, you essentially insist as illegitimate, any governmental claim of authority to define the conditions for the right to life to exist.

In other words, if any government claims the authority to establish when life begins (or when life should end), you must acknowledge that that government has just violated the most fundamental concept of human rights of all. For if we are self-justified in our claim that indeed we do have the authority to prescribe the conditions necessary for the right to life to exist, we have essentially abandoned any pretext associated with the right to life as inalienable.

And once we claim to have the authority to award the right to life at 2nd trimester, or 3rd trimester, or at birth, we have just as well claimed authority to award the right to life at one year of age or at 80 years of age, or for that matter we have just claimed authority to award the right to life for a minimum given level of IQ, or even for a specific race.

We can go ahead and accept this violation of essential principle like we have done with our current abortion law, but not only have we unjustifiably taken human life, we have entirely obliterated our basis for the inalienability of the most basic right of human existence.



Dig

PS: Nsanford, your only “rational” response at this point (I believe) would be to for you to insist on claiming the right to a woman’s liberty is of more paramount concern with respect to the right to life. (Like we haven’t had to address this one yet.) But I will let you burn that bridge when you get to it.

reply from: nsanford

1. I believe that after the first or second trimester, it becomes immoral to terminate a fetus. However, those are my morals, and do not think I have the right to force them on anyone else.

2. Both are just as bad. Pro-choice. Say that with me. Pro-choice. I am for choice, not for force of any kind.

3. That we do not have have the right's that I stated earlier in this post. Since these cannot be either proven or disproven, I apologize. That was not a statement I should have made.

4. I would tell her to find out all she could about abortion, and use unbiased sites. I would say you could always put the baby up for adoption, and then let her make her decision. However, I would say numerous times that the decision is hers and hers only.

5. I would drop dead from shock, being male and all. But seriously, I would carry to term. I am for choice, not abortion.

reply from: yoda

Good luck finding those. Abortion is such a divisive issue that almost everyone who bothers to post on it has a bias, otherwise there wouldn't be much motivation to do the work anyway.

A good example is aborted baby photos. ONLY antiabortion sites have those, you can't find a single one on a proabortion site.

And if someone is truly considering an abortion, they ought to know what will happen to their baby.

reply from: nsanford

Sure. Baby photos are fine. But this isn't:

That's from Abortion TV. If you suggest a site like that, you are obviously pro-life.

reply from: nsanford

To answer your question Dig, yes I do. But I also believe that the mother rights supercede the rights of the fetus, considering she is living, breathing, and denying her right's will cause a much bigger threat to the right's of society.

reply from: AshMarie88

You never know, until you're put in a position where you could help save your baby, or go ahead and help kill your baby.

reply from: ThunderKitten

nansford, if you'll notice, I said 4. Hypothetically, if a woman tells you that she is pregnant, in school, and cannot afford a baby, what advice would you give her? What questions would you ask to better understand the situation?

Nothing in that impies how she feels about the baby or about abortion. Like I said, what questions would you ask to better understand the situation?

I suppose my point is, that if you are pro-choice, how would you help her make an informed choice, based both upon her situation and beliefs? The assumption is that you have no vested interest in the outcome, only that you want it to be what is best for her. Or does your answer as you've stated still stand?

reply from: yoda

You're quoting their position statement and complaining that it's antiabortion? what did you expect?

Forget the position statements, just look at the photos. Despite all the rhetoric, not a single one of them has ever been proven to be "bogus".

I generally respond to that stock comment with "okay, then where are the real ones?" You'd be amazed at how quiet it gets when I ask that.

reply from: yoda

When are you going to drop the euphemisms?

Saying that one person's rights "supercede" another person's rights means NOTHING. You've already said that you think the mother has the "right" to kill her baby, why are you hiding behind euphemisms?

reply from: nsanford

I would ask how she would feel about bringing a child into the world. I would ask whether she was willing to postpone school to give birth? Do you really want to be a mother? If she answered no on any of those questions I would tell her to think hard about it and then make a decision and stand by it.

reply from: Tam

Is her womb "out of this world"? Is it another dimension, perhaps?

Look, there was a time when it was common for young women to have a "coming out" party to introduce them to society. That doesn't mean that when we use the word "society" we mean "everyone who has had a coming out party". Children are part of society, and the uterus is part of this world. If there's a child in that womb, the child is already "in" the world. What you want to know is how she feels about allowing her child to live long enough to have a birthday. At least own up to your opinions, quit with the euphemisms.

Hello? What are you talking about now? You make it seem as though there is no way to stay in school and be a parent at the same time. Or even be pregnant in school. There are plenty of student mothers, and any pregnant student who doesn't want that responsibility can give her child to a family for adoption. Asking whether she is willign to postpone school is a dishonest scare tactic.

She already is a mother, if she's pregnant. If she doesn't want to raise a child, that's what adoption is for.

Great, you'd tell her if she decided to have an abortion but then had second thoughts she should ignore her conscience and go through with it anyway, knowing what devastating effect it could have on her, and will definitely have on her child? Good advice--not.

reply from: dignitarian

nsanford:

Okay, so let's see if I have this straight.

1. You claim that the right to life and the right to liberty are both inalienable. On this point we agree.

2. You claim that the mother's liberty rights should be upheld at the expence of the unborn child's right to life in order to better protect "the rights of society". On this point however, I must disagree.

My justification is as follows.

While you can certainly claim that "the rights of society" are better served by allowing the killing of the unborn, you do so only as a matter of subjectivity and opinion; i.e. the subjective notion of a "breathing" person's liberty being more important than an unborn person's life. But you certainly can't do it as a matter based upon objective reasoning.

The fact is; Life is a necessary condition for the possibility of Liberty to even exist. Not the other way around. Thus, in the event Liberty is upheld at the expense of Life, the rational conclusion must be that in the more ultimate sense neither Liberty nor Life is actually protected.

Please note that at this point in our discussion, the pro-life position is founded upon a rational conclusion, while your's is based upon mere opinion.

Regards,

Dignitarian

PS: Nsanford: Your next move is to change direction entirely and to assert that the unborn child is actually not meant to be covered by the Right to Life. (But remember that this is going to make a mess of your earlier assertion that Life is an inalienable right.)

reply from: Skippy

Not to be nit-picky, but that isn't what the Constitution says. It says no one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process.

That makes the question of abortion quite simple. A pregnant woman is merely declining the loss of liberty and elevated risk of loss of life when she has an abortion. One could demand that every woman seeking an abortion appear before a judge and claim her right. But that would be a ridiculous waste of time and money, since there's only one way THAT exercise in due process could turn out.

reply from: Alexandra

Not to be nit-picky, but that isn't what the Constitution says. It says no one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process.

That makes the question of abortion quite simple. A pregnant woman is merely declining the loss of liberty and elevated risk of loss of life when she has an abortion. One could demand that every woman seeking an abortion appear before a judge and claim her right. But that would be a ridiculous waste of time and money, since there's only one way THAT exercise in due process could turn out.

Loss of liberty? Okay, maybe my husband can't go out as much as we like since we have our son. But the right to go out and party isn't guaranteed in the Constitution. (Not that we party, just saying.)

And you're spouting the old, tired fallacy that abortion saves women's lives. Has it ever occurred to you, that if the pregnancy is threatening the woman's life (like tubal pregnancy), that it's not about exercising the "right to choose"? Plus you make it sound like pregnancy--which is perfectly natural--is always life-threatening!

I'm sorry if you equate parenting with slavery. That's just pathetic.

reply from: dignitarian

Not to be nit-picky, but that isn't what the Constitution says. It says no one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process.

That makes the question of abortion quite simple. A pregnant woman is merely declining the loss of liberty and elevated risk of loss of life when she has an abortion. One could demand that every woman seeking an abortion appear before a judge and claim her right. But that would be a ridiculous waste of time and money, since there's only one way THAT exercise in due process could turn out.

Welcome back Skippy.

Look Skippy, as usual you appear confused.

If the question is one of inalienability, written law is simply not the issue. If still in doubt go look it up, as the added confusion does not enhance the dialogue here.

Furthermore, your statement about a pregnant woman "declining the loss of liberty and the elevated risk of loss of life" does not appear to reflect the particular rights conflict at issue here; namely the woman's liberty verses the baby's life.

Or are we still confused?

Hope this helps.

Regards,

Dignitarian

reply from: nsanford

You're seriously telling me what my next move is? You are quite full of yourself, Dig. Anyway, you say my position is based on nothing but opinion:

Sure I can. The fetus has yet to prove itself in any way. For all we know, we could be killing the next Beethoven or Mozart. We could just as well be killing the next Hitler. It makes more sense to preserve the rights of the breathing and contributing member of society. While the fetus is important, the mother rights have existed and have had a much larger impact on the world. The mother has more impact on modern society, and denying of her rights will cause much more damage to society than the fetus's

reply from: NorthStar

But keeping abortion legal means that the baby does not have a choice.

reply from: NorthStar

Even though I am pro-life, I am not a "decent" woman, according to your logic. Because I have not procreated (and on purpose, yet! oh horrors!). ... not all women believe their sole purpose on this planet is to give birth every 9 months. Having babies is not the sole action that qualifies a woman for "decency" or for womanhood. You like having babies. Lovely. But not everyone is like you. Doesn't mean we aren't "decent" and it doesn't mean we're not "real women."

I do not think that she was implying that childless women are not decent, that the sole purpose of women is to give birth every nine months, or that childless women are not "real."

reply from: dignitarian

Sure I can. The fetus has yet to prove itself in any way. For all we know, we could be killing the next Beethoven or Mozart. We could just as well be killing the next Hitler. It makes more sense to preserve the rights of the breathing and contributing member of society. While the fetus is important, the mother rights have existed and have had a much larger impact on the world. The mother has more impact on modern society, and denying of her rights will cause much more damage to society than the fetus's

nsanford:

You are a student of the law and you call the above objective reasoning?

Look nsanford, we have discussed this at length over the last day or two. You claim to support the foundational principle of the inalienability of the fundamental rights of human existence, but then you refuse to apply it wherever it fails to suit your personal sensibilities. At which point you abandon any semblance of principle based logic at all and simply demand that what you think to be true must then be true.

And then you expect to be believed?

Our system of law is based upon principle; not passion or prejudice. The entire reason Lady Justice is blinded is so she can ignore the kinds of subjective passions that appear so clearly to you.

Good luck with the law.

Regards,

Dignitarian

reply from: yoda

Well there you have it. Pregnant women aren't mothers because that part of them is out in space. Or is it the probabykilling arguments that are out in space?

reply from: Tam

Well there you have it. Pregnant women aren't mothers because that part of them is out in space. Or is it the probabykilling arguments that are out in space?

I don't know, but he hasn't responded to any of the things I wrote in that post yet.

reply from: DelPelham

1. Is it a "woman's right to her body"? That's not her body; that's the body of her child that she is killing when she has the abortion.

2. Doesn't the government have the "right" to your tax dollars? By your argument it means that the government might take the right to your bank account next. Your argument is fallacious.

3. Of course the pro aborts won't call us names first. People who are in the wrong will try public relations in order to fool the masses, we Pro Lifers are the ones that became outraged after Roe v Wade.

4. Right to one's personal Religion is guaranteed, NOT a right to being an atheist.

reply from: yoda

Welcome to the forum, Daddy-O!

reply from: DelPelham

Outstanding Forum! Lots to read and learn here. Thanks for linking me.

reply from: ThunderKitten

So, your saying I don't have the right to not belong to a religion? That faith in God a requirement of living in the United States? I don't buy it. How about this, my religion IS atheism! HA!

reply from: DelPelham

I'm going by the fact that the US was designed to have no official state Religion NOT designed (as erroneously thought) to separate Religion in general from state. I'm not going by today's (mis)reading of that fact.

reply from: nsanford

Well there you have it. Pregnant women aren't mothers because that part of them is out in space. Or is it the probabykilling arguments that are out in space?

I don't know, but he hasn't responded to any of the things I wrote in that post yet.

If you insist...
Bringing a child into the world. The child was created. She brought it nowhere. It is not in the real world, it's just a clump of cells. Once it is born, then it's in the real world.

Complications from birth, actually giving birth, recovering, etc. All of these take time and if something seriously goes wrong, then she could be off for a long time.

What I meant by stand by her decison is once she is completely 100% sure she wants an abortion, she gets one. But remember you made the decision. So I should have said make a decision and be ready to accept the concequences.

reply from: Alexandra

Define "real world." And aren't we all just huge clumps of cells, when you get down to it? We just happen to have more than an unborn baby has--but like us, that baby has that spark that's called LIFE.

reply from: AshMarie88

Define "real world." And aren't we all just huge clumps of cells, when you get down to it? We just happen to have more than an unborn baby has--but like us, that baby has that spark that's called LIFE.

Also, we're all dying clumps of trillions of cells.

And I wonder what pro-choicers are thinking...

reply from: yoda

What kind of stuff are you smoking? "Not in the real world"? NOW every woman's uterus is "not real"?

And WHAT IS A "clump of cells"???? You just love odious, ambiguous, slanderous proabort slogans, don't you? Got any DEFINITIONS of a "clump of cells"????

Hey, come to think of it YOU ARE a CLUMP OF CELLS YOURSELF, aren't you? Does that make it open season on you?

reply from: nsanford

Fine, does this sound better?
It's just a developing embryo, it's not really part of the world. True, we are all clumps of cells but we can think, are productive, etc. An embryo is none of those things. And once the child is born, there is no going back, you are a mother.

reply from: yoda

A toddler is "just" a developing human being, does that make it less worthy? And how can a mother's uterus not be a "part of this world"? Do they all go to the moon when they are pregnant, or what??????

A newborn isn't very productive either, and no one can prove that they can think, can they? So that makes you in favor of infanticide until they can talk. Nasty position!

Why not? Many mothers kill their born babies, isn't that "going back"?

reply from: nsanford

Notice the word embryo? I did not even mention toddlers. And yes, metephorically, they are not part of this world.

No it doesn't. Maybe not newborns, but within a week or two a fetus can ask for food and such. So whatever.

Nope, because legally, you will always be a mother. If you have an abortion, this is not so.

reply from: yoda

Do you claim the exclusive right to introduce terms into this debate? Is no one else allowed to?

"METAPHORICALLY"???? Does abortion "METAPHORICALLY" KILL BABIES?????

So you favor abortion rights up to two weeks after birth?

Come out from behind your legal dictionary and debate morality with the rest of us. A woman IS a mother from the moment she becomes pregnant with a DAUGHTER or a SON.

reply from: nsanford

Yoda, please, make a real point. At least the others are willing to debate.

reply from: yoda

Well, here's a "real point"....... since you think that a woman's uterus is "out of this world metaphorically", what do metaphysics have to do with abortion?

And here's another: since your criteria for aborting babies is valid up to two weeks after birth, where do you draw the line?

And here's another: HOW can a man become a FATHER by impregnating a woman, if a woman isn't a mother until the baby is born?

father verb
to become the father of a child by making a woman pregnant:
He's fathered three children.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=28157&dict=CALD

Now, can you deal with those points?

reply from: nsanford

After the first or second trimester, an abortion becomes something troubling to my consience. Anything after that could be classified as completely human. So I draw the line there, but still can't force my views onto anyone else.

Yoda, I mean legally, not morally.

reply from: yoda

Well here's the problem with that:

The term "completely" infers that a baby prior to the second trimester is "partially" human and "partially" something else. And we both know that's ludicrous.

Is that really the adjective you were looking for?

reply from: nsanford

No, it isn't. Maybe saying that during the first two trimesters the fetus is in some grey area between humanity and something else is more accurate.

reply from: yoda

"Something else"? Are you serious??? What would the "something else" be? Another species....... or what?

reply from: Alexandra

Maybe partly some Species From Limbo, who knows? Just like a womb being extra-dimensional or something (one of Tam's posts).

reply from: yoda

It fairly boggles the mind, doesn't it Alexandra? Have we discovered a new creature? Is the unborn human the only known creature on this earth that has no species classification? It is in a "metaphysical state of suspension", or is it some sort of zombie?

Isn't it incredible to see the lengths to which probabykilling advocates will go, looking for a justification for killing innocent babies?

reply from: xnavy

to reply to MYMOTHERCHOSEME---I AM GLAD ABORTION WAS ILLEGAL IN 1960 AND I HOPE ABORTION IS MADE ILLEGAL AGAIN
I WAS A FETUS AND I DON'T FEEL LIKE MY MOTHER'S RIGHTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE IMPORTANT THAN MINE. i feel like a person
rights end where the baby or fetus rights start. abortion is murder just as it was murder when yates killed her born children.


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