Home - List All Discussions

Why do pro-choicers support abortions over 4+ months into pregnancy?

by: laurissamarcotte

You say you support abortion because there is no other way to remove the baby besides killing it.
But with older unborn babies, you can put them in an incubator.
There IS another way to remove the child without killing it. So why do you support abortions 4+ months? Do you just like the thought of babies getting killed by the thousands?

reply from: AshMarie88

They do because they say it's still in the mom and she has the right to do it...
I don't get it either.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

I don't get it either.
But a lot of people don't know that Roe legalized abortion throughout all 9 months of pregnancy. A lot of them think it's only ok in the first trimester, when a baby isn't able to survive outside the womb.

reply from: holopaw

Because they don't care about the child. If they did, they'd be for adoption, not abortion. I used to believe these people were misguided. Not anymore. I believe many of them, exp. Sigma and Nsanford are evil.
Evil is a strong term, but what term is more appropriate than a group of people that are willing to sacrifice an innocent unborn child on the altar of selfishness. Insert a three year child for what they think is allowable in the abortion of an unborn child and tell me that's not evil. Babykillers.

reply from: Paladin165

Why should they care about an ugly wrinkly fetus? They've never seen it, touched it, heard it, kissed it, hugged it, etc. Hell if it weren't for modern pregnancy tests you might not even know you were pregnant. I remember hearing about some huge black woman who actually didn't realize she was pregnant till she went into labor and gave birth to twins!
I care about 3 year olds, I don't care about fetuses. Until you develop a bond with a type of thing, you generally don't care much about it. I've developed bonds with newborns, toddlers, adults, old people, cats, dogs, old jeans, books etc, but never a fetus. And the "potential person" it could be just isn't enough.
I know you pro-life types are real baby lovers, even if you've never seen the baby, or it looks like a worm, but not everyone is like that. Most people are concerned with their own lives and the lives of people like them. If that makes them "evil" well, thats just a label. There are communities in California and all over the world full of nothing but liberal, pro-choice people. They get along fine. The fact that you think they are "evil" doesn't amount to much. I'm sure there are Amish people somewhere who think you are evil for using a computer, big deal.

reply from: AshMarie88

Wow, you're the real humanitarian type, aren't you?

reply from: Paladin165

No I'm just a psychologist

reply from: AshMarie88

You're not doing a great job of it.

reply from: NewPoster1

While I can't speak for others, I have stated on several occasions that abortion should be prohibited after 18 weeks of gestation (this is the earliest point that the fetus can possibly survive outside of the uterus).
I have a question of my own...
Why do "pro-lifers" support laws and actions that needlessly delay abortions and increase the gestational age at which they take place?
Have you ever considered the fact that many of the women having abortions performed after 4 months are only doing so because so-called "pro-life" laws prevented them from having them performed earlier?
http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=861&highlight_key=y&keyword1=missouri

http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=866&highlight_key=y&keyword1=missouri

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Tell me, how did these "nutjobs" delay her abortion?
Yeah, actually, we do care about the woman. If we didn't, why would we give free baby items to mothers who don't have the money for them?
Get your facts straight.

reply from: holopaw

You nailed it. They are "evil." When they are spending eternity in hades, they'll see what a big deal it was.

reply from: yoda

Wow, you're all heart, aren't you?
I've got to hand it to you, though, you've put your finger on the real distinction between the two sides in this debate. We care, and you don't.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

So beauty now gets someone Constitutional rights?

reply from: Tam

Spoken like someone who has been responsible for the deaths of six children due to his own inability to "form a bond" with them.

reply from: nsanford

What are you talking about? I haven't seen this guy before.

reply from: JosieCashew

Communities of prochoice people getting along fine? Is that supposed to be a good thing?

reply from: Tam

What are you talking about? I haven't seen this guy before.

reply from: AshMarie88

What are you talking about? I haven't seen this guy before.
Ugh I didn't see his post until now... That is completely disgusting! And pro-choicers say people don't use abortion as birth control. Like EVERY PERSON who aborts only has one...
Man... I don't even know what there is to say to pala... That is so depressing.

reply from: yoda

Main Entry: 2murderFunction: verb2 : to slaughter wantonly : SLAY 3 a : to put an end to b : TEASE ,TORMENT c : MUTILATE>, MANGLE
Yep, that fits what you did precisely. You are a baby murdering monster!

reply from: galen

For such a personal revelation paladin... 6 " children??"
I hope to God that i have not sent anyone your way. Even Frued ( who I do not care for) had a problem with infatacide.
Eric Erricson had several names for a doctor such as yourself who could treat life so callously.
How much feeling do you give to your patients?
Perfectly planned is your life?
OCD maybe
Mary
"We allow our ignorance to prevail upon us and make us think we can survive alone, alone in patches, alone in groups, alone in races, even alone in genders. "
maya angelou

reply from: Tam

No--well, I don't know for sure, but I think your post seems to imply that you are assuming that by "children" pala means born children, and that he is a doctor. I'm not sure where you get this. My understanding is that his wife has had six abortions, and that he was saying that six abortions are not "murdering six children" whereas I would argue that yes, that is precisely what six abortions means.

reply from: nsanford

What are you talking about? I haven't seen this guy before.
I don't know what to say to that. That is beyond belief. How could anyone do that?

reply from: AshMarie88

What are you talking about? I haven't seen this guy before.
I don't know what to say to that. That is beyond belief. How could anyone do that?
Why is it beyond belief? A woman controlling her body, as you like to call it, is beyond belief?

reply from: nsanford

Get it straight. I believe abortion should be legal, but I don't think it's right.
I'm just as horrified as you. And he is pathetic, for even making an attempt at justifying it.

reply from: AshMarie88

Get it straight. I believe abortion should be legal, but I don't think it's right.
I'm just as horrified as you. And he is pathetic, for even making an attempt at justifying it.
But you don't think it's wrong.
Why are you horrified? If a woman chooses to have one abortion 5 abortions, or more, why? Are you horrified if a woman has one? Why or why not? Then why should it matter to you if she has as many as she wants?

reply from: nsanford

I don't think it should be illegal.
I'm with you guys on most issues. Abortion is killing, and it's wrong, but I can't bring myself to agree that abortion should be illegal. The government should never, ever have the right to control anyone's body. I could never agree to that.

reply from: AshMarie88

I don't think it should be illegal.
I'm with you guys on most issues. Abortion is killing, and it's wrong, but I can't bring myself to agree that abortion should be illegal. The government should never, ever have the right to control anyone's body. I could never agree to that.
Why only limit it to abortion? Why not every other death that kills a born child? Are you against killing born children? If so, why? And would you stop someone from killing a child or just say it's their choice and none of your business?
You're right, the government should have no right to control anyone's body. That also should apply to women wanting to killing their children!!

reply from: Shiprahagain

Nsanford, Rape is sexual torture, and it's wrong, but I can't bring myself to agree that abortion should be illegal. The government should never, ever have the right to control anyone's body. I could never agree to that. Doesn't make since, does it?
Ash, they kill those babies after 4 months of pregnancy b/c they have no concious, just like sociopaths. I mean, first they say its okay to kill something that can't live on its own, then it turns out they don't mean it. Then they say you can kill the baby since it has no cognitive processes, but it turns out they were just kidding about that too. They decide to kill the baby first, and then they go looking for reasons to justify it, and if those reasons don't hold up, it doesn't matter b/c their only concern is killing the baby.

reply from: nsanford

Why only limit it to abortion? Why not every other death that kills a born child? Are you against killing born children? If so, why? And would you stop someone from killing a child or just say it's their choice and none of your business?
I oppose killing born children for the same reason I oppose killing adults. But it's not a valid comparision. Born children are not attached to their mothers.

reply from: mom5

But wouldn't you say that they are just as innocent as those in the womb? Both defenseless? All in need of protection? In just a few months, from 24 weeks as you say, to being born, they are worthy of protection then? I just can't wrap my brain around that way of thinking...sorry!

reply from: yoda

Hmmm........ where's the logic?
You say it's a wrongful killing, but the government should not have the right to control it? Hmmm......
What about other "wrongful killings"? Should the government stay out of them too? Don't people "use their body" to commit them? Isn't the government "controlling their bodies" by having laws against killing born people?

reply from: yoda

No kidding? And WHOSE fault is that? Are the babies to blame for being attached to and dependant upon their mothers? Is there some other way for babies to grow?
Siamese twins are attached to each other, does that give them the right to kill each other?
Nature has demanded that we all be attached to our moms for 9 months or so, and now you want to use that as an excuse for the wanton killing of innocent babies?
You don't require much justification to slaughter babies, do you?

reply from: faithman

Why only limit it to abortion? Why not every other death that kills a born child? Are you against killing born children? If so, why? And would you stop someone from killing a child or just say it's their choice and none of your business?
I oppose killing born children for the same reason I oppose killing adults. But it's not a valid comparision. Born children are not attached to their mothers.
Born children are just as dependant on adults for food and nurture as the womb child. So I guess we should take up the practice of ancient rome, and leave unwanted babies out for the dogs. What a concept! We get rid of human under growth, and feed the poor little critters as well. Somebody got a tree I can hug? I get all teared up just thinking about it.

reply from: galen

no Tam,
I am upset about his callous disregard for human life... he said he was a psychologist... at least that was how I read it. this implys that he has a Phd, and therefor can call himself doctor. it also implies by what he has said that he has a practice of sorts. Any doctor or physician who has no regard for life, however incovienent it may be ( homeless, mentally unstable, feeble, uneducated etc) is in my book one that bears watching.
and i quote: 'No I'm just a psychologist "
mary

reply from: holopaw

I don't think it should be illegal.
I'm with you guys on most issues. Abortion is killing, and it's wrong, but I can't bring myself to agree that abortion should be illegal. The government should never, ever have the right to control anyone's body. I could never agree to that.
The same govt. that makes you wear a seatbelt and tells you that you can't snort a line of cocaine or puts people in jail?

reply from: Tam

Oh! I see. I probably didn't notice it, or didn't believe it even if I did notice it.
A psychologist, eh? Great--glad someone with such a clear grasp of reality is helping others to get a better grip on it. [/sarcasm]

reply from: Shiprahagain

Paladin, my mom was a REAL psychologist and she treated a woman who suffered after aborting 3 kids. People like you screw desperate patients up and then leave it up to my mom to pick up the pieces. No competent psychologist would be as callous as you. Even prochoice psychologist don't reccomend serial abortion.

reply from: scopia1982

What are you talking about? I haven't seen this guy before.
I don't know what to say to that. That is beyond belief. How could anyone do that?
Maybe their is hope for you nsanford after all.....

reply from: holopaw

What are you talking about? I haven't seen this guy before.
I don't know what to say to that. That is beyond belief. How could anyone do that?
Maybe their is hope for you nsanford after all.....
I doubt it. After 530 posts he still is defending the "choice" to kill babies. He may have a bit of a conscience, but to me his is still a defender of baby killers. He's no different than someone who defended slavery, but felt bad when a slave owner hung a slave to teach him a lesson.

reply from: faithman

Main Entry: 2murderFunction: verb2 : to slaughter wantonly : SLAY 3 a : to put an end to b : TEASE ,TORMENT c : MUTILATE>, MANGLE
Yep, that fits what you did precisely. You are a baby murdering monster!
Castration would assure that you not begat a child you can not afford. But of course why should you act responcible when you can make your wife a murderer?

reply from: NewPoster1

Tell me, how did these "nutjobs" delay her abortion?
My apologies, so am I to presume that the persons who delayed this woman's abortion were pro-choice and/or abortion-neutral?
I never accused you of not caring about women who choose not to have an abortion (although I could very well level this charge against the large portion of "life begins at conception and ends at birth" anti-choicers, I choose not to at this time), I accused you of not caring about women who choose to have an abortion.
If you dispute this, than I challenge you to disprove the fact that a first-trimester abortion is far safer than a second trimester one.
If you can't, than I challenge you to prove how delaying a woman's abortion for several months is better for her health than allowing it to occur when she initially wants it too.

reply from: faithman

Are you being honest here? Who made this statement? You used quotation marks as if to imply that someone actually made such a ridiculous statement, a far cry from your interpreting a statement as having this meaning, which is, in itself, absurd enough.
It is a misquote of a bumper sticker "Life begins at conception and ends at Planned Parenthood".

reply from: NewPoster1

Are you being honest here? Who made this statement? You used quotation marks as if to imply that someone actually made such a ridiculous statement, a far cry from your interpreting a statement as having this meaning, which is, in itself, absurd enough.
You are correct, I used quotations marks to emphasize that the statement originated from another person. I'm not sure of the origin, but the basic premise is to point out that the people (conservatives) who oppose legal abortion are the same ones who constantly support cuts to the funding of social programs such as welfare and medicaid, both of which would help a woman and her child, after it's born.

reply from: faithman

Are you being honest here? Who made this statement? You used quotation marks as if to imply that someone actually made such a ridiculous statement, a far cry from your interpreting a statement as having this meaning, which is, in itself, absurd enough.
You are correct, I used quotations marks to emphasize that the statement originated from another person. I'm not sure of the origin, but the basic premise is to point out that the people (conservatives) who oppose legal abortion are the same ones who constantly support cuts to the funding of social programs such as welfare and medicaid, both of which would help a woman and her child, after it's born.
Hold on there pro-abort punk. It was your side who fought prenatal care for low income women because you can not extend medical aide to a blob of tissue without atributing personhood. It was your side who denied the right of a woman to choose life for her child.

reply from: AshMarie88

Are you being honest here? Who made this statement? You used quotation marks as if to imply that someone actually made such a ridiculous statement, a far cry from your interpreting a statement as having this meaning, which is, in itself, absurd enough.
You are correct, I used quotations marks to emphasize that the statement originated from another person. I'm not sure of the origin, but the basic premise is to point out that the people (conservatives) who oppose legal abortion are the same ones who constantly support cuts to the funding of social programs such as welfare and medicaid, both of which would help a woman and her child, after it's born.
Lazy people don't need welfare! And I do know a couple people who are on welfare just so they don't have to work or do anything. Not to mention the one person I know (in my family, but on my dad's side) abuses her son and lives off welfare, and takes all the money she gets from the government and spends it on useless junk and drugs.
But oh that's alright with you, just like it's alright to tear a baby to peices, right? Free will?

reply from: galen

medicaid is a real joke..
i can not get an adult with a fracture seen on medicaid, nor prenatle vitamins covered or most heart meds or HBP meds or well visits ( except for kids). Did you know that most of the time these programms will not cover ANYONE in a family that has even 1 working member. Don't get me started. The funny thing is is that the Republ. did not even start its decline, it started its decline under Carter. ( and I liked him).
Welfare is never going to correct the problem of poverty. people in the community and Church and other orginizations who go out and feed and cloth those in thier town who are on hard times, infrm, sick, mentally disabled, etc.are the ones who will make a change. Give mone food and time to an organization that you are directly involved with, and stick your nose into its buisness. its too easy to write a cheque these days and then forget about it. but then its also easy for us to be in denial too.
Quit the blame game and get out and get your hands dirty ( you know who you are).
Mary
quarrentined at home with a cold

reply from: NewPoster1

Are you being honest here? Who made this statement? You used quotation marks as if to imply that someone actually made such a ridiculous statement, a far cry from your interpreting a statement as having this meaning, which is, in itself, absurd enough.
You are correct, I used quotations marks to emphasize that the statement originated from another person. I'm not sure of the origin, but the basic premise is to point out that the people (conservatives) who oppose legal abortion are the same ones who constantly support cuts to the funding of social programs such as welfare and medicaid, both of which would help a woman and her child, after it's born.
Hold on there pro-abort punk. It was your side who fought prenatal care for low income women because you can not extend medical aide to a blob of tissue without atributing personhood.
If any prenatal care proposal was opposed, it was likely because anti-choicers attempted to unnecessarily have the fetus's medical aide covered separately, when it could just as easily be covered under the woman's medical aide.
???

reply from: NewPoster1

Are you being honest here? Who made this statement? You used quotation marks as if to imply that someone actually made such a ridiculous statement, a far cry from your interpreting a statement as having this meaning, which is, in itself, absurd enough.
You are correct, I used quotations marks to emphasize that the statement originated from another person. I'm not sure of the origin, but the basic premise is to point out that the people (conservatives) who oppose legal abortion are the same ones who constantly support cuts to the funding of social programs such as welfare and medicaid, both of which would help a woman and her child, after it's born.
Do you mean to imply that a quote which you admit you can't substantiate, and which is obviously not true represents any more than the ignorance of a single individual? We can't be sure the statement wasn't a sarcastic response from an abortion advocate! I have never encountered a single individual who held such a ridiculous opinion, and I'm certain you will not find anyone on this forum who would agree to that statement, in fact, I defy you to find anyone anywhere that will admit they hold this position!
While I don't necessarily agree with the "wording" of the quote, I support the implication of it's meaning 100%. 1 out of 6 people in this country doesn't have health insurance and conservative Republicans could care less as long as their taxes don't go up. I always wonder how many fewer women would choose to have an abortion if they didn't have to worry about how they'll pay their medical bills or how they'll pay the child's medical bills after it's born. I don't think it's a coincidence that the number of abortions sky rockets whenever a Republican president is in office.

reply from: xnavy

get your facts straight, abortions have gone down under bush, it is prolifers who run the crisis pregnancy center that help both before,
during and after the baby is born. planned parent hood take the money for abortions and afterward couldn't care less about the
emotional or physical harm done the young women, there are prolife web sites that help with healing after an abortion as well. pro
lifers care for the women as well as the babies harmed by abortion.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

You're still a liar. Pro-lifers give counseling to women who have had abortions.
There's no such thing as safe killing- someone dies in every abortion.
We're trying to save the baby, whom you don't care about. You're very anti-baby.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Firts of all, you would have to agree to prostitution and drugs with this argument. Second of all, the baby has its own body, and in an abortion, the abortionist is controlling the baby's body.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Exactly. He reminds me of Jefferson who said slavery was wrong and owned slaves.

reply from: yoda

Exactly. He reminds me of Jefferson who said slavery was wrong and owned slaves.
Good comparison. He's also like Stephen Douglas, who debated Lincoln over slavery. Douglas claimed he opposed slavery, but said it ought to be left to the states, because he "trusted in their fairness and compassion". Yeah, right.

reply from: NewPoster1

In 2001, the number of abortions dropped very slightly, but in 2002 it started going up again.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Could you give a source please?

reply from: xnavy

i read it on the national right to life website. it was disputing the claim that abortions went down during clinton and went up during
the bush years.

reply from: xnavy

The Annenberg Center's Factcheck.org says Senator Clinton, Senator Kerry, and Howard Dean were dead wrong to claim that abortions have increased under the Bush Administration -- the truth is, abortions are going down.
To read Factcheck's hard-hitting critique, "Biography of a Bad Statistic," click here.i copy and pasted where i read it

reply from: Shiprahagain

Thanks, xnavy, but I don't doubt you. I was looking for a source from Newposter.

reply from: NewPoster1

You're still a liar. Pro-lifers give counseling to women who have had abortions.
I'm not accusing you of not caring about women who have had abortions, I'm accusing you of not caring about women who've decided to have an abortion.
There's no such thing as safe killing- someone dies in every abortion.
Let's presume, just for the sake of arguement, that a fetus is a person and it dies during an abortion. This doesn't change the fact that a first trimester abortion is far safer for a woman than a second trimester one.
We're trying to save the baby, whom you don't care about. You're very anti-baby.
You're overlooking the fact that this was an impossibility. I don't want to have to repeat all of it, but in 1 of those 2 threads I explained how, based on the composition of the Supreme Court, the State of Missouri had absolutely no chance of preventing this woman from having an abortion. The question was never if she would have an abortion, it was when. Now I reiterate...
I've accused you and other anti-choicers of not caring about the health of a woman, based on the anti-choice willingness to delay an abortion for several months.
If you dispute this, than I challenge you to disprove the fact that a first-trimester abortion is far safer for the woman than a second trimester one.
If you can't, than I challenge you to prove how delaying a woman's abortion for several months is better for her health than allowing it to occur when she initially wants it too.

reply from: NewPoster1

As I remember, the controversy over false accusations was with regard to the 2001 numbers, not the 2002 numbers.

reply from: Shiprahagain

And we see that Newposter has no source. Thanks, that's all we needed to know.

reply from: Tam

NP:
If you were living during the slavery era, and you were acquainted with a slaveowner, but you wholeheartedly opposed slavery, how would you handle it if the slaveowner confided in you his intention to kill one of his slaves by sneaking up on him in the night and bludgeoning him to death with a hammer? Would you do everything you could to talk the slaveowner out of killing the slave? And if you could NOT talk him out of killing the slave, would you:
A) mind your own business--the slave is his to kill when and how he likes
B) try to save the slave using some other method?
C) try to persuade him to kill the slave with a shotgun in broad daylight, thus minimizing the risk to himself, rather than sneaking up on him in the dark with a hammer, which might result in his becoming injured in the process of killing the slave?
If it is anything other than option C, how do you explain your lack of concern for the health of your slaveowner acquaintance? Or is it not that you don't care, but simply that there are more important considerations than the different health risks he might incur from changing the time and method of the killing?
P.S. Only an immoral coward would choose anything other than option B.

reply from: NewPoster1

According to the "National Right To Life Committee", in the 47 states that report abortion statistics, there were...
853,485 abortions in 2001
854,122 abortions in 2002

reply from: 1003

what if his slave has been raping his wife and systematically poisoning his children? i mean... what reason does the slaveowner have to kill the slave?
I say C.

reply from: Shiprahagain

What a disgusting reply. Are you a white supremacist? You're defending masters killing slaves?! The rape going on during slavery was by male AND female owners sexually assualting women, children, AND, men. Yes, there was female owner raping of male slaves, and interestingly enough, the babies conceived were smothered at birth. How prochoice. Abortion used to hide rape even when the rapist is a woman, yet I digress. (You can read more about it in Harriet Jacobs' Indicents in the Life of a Slave Girl). The myth of the oversexed African was used as a justification for lynching even a century after slavery ended. The killing that went on during slavery was over anything from a slave being literate, attempting to escape, talking back, defending himself of his family, etc.

reply from: NewPoster1

Why don't you just admit to what I already know.
If a woman decides to have an abortion, anti-choicers don't care about her health and are more than willing to delay her abortion for several months, even if this drastically raises the chance that she'll be injured.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Right, so when an incompetent abortionist screws a woman up, why is it that prolifers try to punish him and prochoicers defend him? George Tiller, anyone?

reply from: 1003

are you a black supremacist? are you condemning slave masters killing slaves?

reply from: Shiprahagain

Of course I condemn slave masters killing slaves! Not because I'm a bad person, because I have a concscious and I'm not and idiot! What kind of sick person are you?

reply from: 1003

funny. you avoided the first question, but over-answered the second.

reply from: Shiprahagain

And since you have no brain cells, no, I am not a black supremacist. I am black. I am also white. I'm also Cherokee and Taiwanese Chinese. I'm a human being and I respect people's human rights.

reply from: NewPoster1

Whoever moderates this forum really needs to crack down on all of these trolls.

reply from: 1003

to be honest, i couldn't care less about your racial views. the question didn't address race at all. maybe it's white-white slavery. or black-white. or egyptian-jew. who cares? the issue was not slavery. it's the value of life, i think. but if you change the value system... if you were to begin to favor the law... then... who knows?

reply from: Shiprahagain

Nice way to adopt a black avatar all of a sudden to seem less suspicious. Why did you think that was necessary? Guilty concious?

reply from: Shiprahagain

And now you've ditched that avatar? What is your deal?

reply from: AshMarie88

I think he's confused... Poor guy thinks he's a wheelchair now.
(Sorry, I couldn't help saying that!)

reply from: Tam

Why don't you just admit to what I already know.
Afraid to answer the question, NP? Why? If you "already know" where I'm going with this, you should be confident enough in your rightness to answer openly and defend your view.

reply from: Tam

hm, editing doesn't bump the thread anymore? ok then..... bumping!

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Still wrong!
We warn women about the dangers of abortion so they maybe won't decide to do it and hurt themselves.
Anyway, you probably don't care about women who choose to give birth to a baby out of wedlock, only those who get abortions.
Lol!! Are you implying that the baby DOESN'T die in an abortion?
We try to stop abortions, not delay them.

reply from: NewPoster1

Why don't you just admit to what I already know.
Afraid to answer the question, NP? Why? If you "already know" where I'm going with this, you should be confident enough in your rightness to answer openly and defend your view.
If there were a reasonable chance of success, I would attempt to save the slave, regardless of what happened to the slave owner, because, admittedly, I could care less about his health/well-being.
If you're going to attempt to compare my hypothetical actions to what anti-choicers did with regards to the female inmate's abortion, you're also going to have to admit that they don't care about her health/well-being.

reply from: Tam

What if there were a slim chance of success? What if you had a plan that had a 50/50 chance of working? How about 80/20? At what point would you no longer care about saving the life of the slave?
How about if the slave were a friend of yours? What would the odds need to be then? What if the slave were your spouse? What lengths would you go to in order to save his life then? Would the "reasonable chance" standard still apply if the slave were not a stranger, but a loved one?
Why don't you care about his health and well-being? He's not a stranger or your enemy, he's an acquaintance of yours. Why couldn't you care less about his health and well-being?
Even if he were a stranger to you, what is your excuse for not caring about his health and well-being? Do you not care about the health and well-being of all human beings, simply by virtue of their being human? Or does your compassion and concern start to wane when the human being in question expresses a desire to murder someone else, even though technically killing a slave isn't "murder" because it was legal.
We'll see.

reply from: NewPoster1

What if there were a slim chance of success? What if you had a plan that had a 50/50 chance of working? How about 80/20? At what point would you no longer care about saving the life of the slave?
How about if the slave were a friend of yours? What would the odds need to be then? What if the slave were your spouse? What lengths would you go to in order to save his life then? Would the "reasonable chance" standard still apply if the slave were not a stranger, but a loved one?
I'm not exactly sure how to answer all of these questions, you're starting to stretch the whole "hypothetical" thing to the point where I can't give a definite answer. Attempting to free a slave would likely risk a great deal of personal harm. Obviously if there were a low level of personal risk, a lower chance of success would be tolerable. Whereas if there were a high level of personal risk, a higher chance of success would be necessary. In any case, as I pointed out in 1 of the 2 original threads, the chance of the State of Missouri actually being able to prevent this inmate from having an abortion was 0%, given the composition of the Supreme Court.
Admittedly, if the slave were a friend or relative, I'd likely be more willing to accept a higher level of personal risk and a lower chance of success, as compared to if he/she was a stranger, but this fact isn't really relevant to the discussion.
Why don't you care about his health and well-being? He's not a stranger or your enemy, he's an acquaintance of yours. Why couldn't you care less about his health and well-being?
Even if he were a stranger to you, what is your excuse for not caring about his health and well-being? Do you not care about the health and well-being of all human beings, simply by virtue of their being human? Or does your compassion and concern start to wane when the human being in question expresses a desire to murder someone else, even though technically killing a slave isn't "murder" because it was legal.
Once again, you taken the "hypothetical" beyond the point at which I can give a definite answer. I was under the impression that rescuing the slave required extroardinary measures including, but not limited to, having to kill the slave owner.
We'll see.

reply from: nsanford

This is not true. Pro-lifers care for all women, whether they have had abortions or not.
I do. What's wrong with drugs and prostitution? Prostitution is legal in many places, and nothing goes wrong. And as long as the drugs people take won't be harmful to themselves or others, they should be legal.

reply from: AshMarie88

This is not true. Pro-lifers care for all women, whether they have had abortions or not.
I do. What's wrong with drugs and prostitution? Prostitution is legal in many places, and nothing goes wrong. And as long as the drugs people take won't be harmful to themselves or others, they should be legal.
I have seen what drugs (erm, and alcohol) do to people, including families. It should not be legal. It RUINS families and lives! Believe me, I know from experience. But I'd rather not go into that conversation (about an uncle...).

reply from: nsanford

If we must make comparisons to slavery, you're like William Lloyd Garrison, who ran the Liberator. Garrison was a vicious opponent of slavery. However, his attacks on the South as well as slavery did more harm than good. In the end, most historians agree that he alienated abolitonists on his side, and stopped more from joining them.
The lesson I get from this is name-calling never pays off.
But of course, you are nothing like Garrison, and I am nothing like Douglas. Which is why comparing slavery to abortion is a waste of time.

reply from: nsanford

That is your exiperience.
We are going off topic, but I see no valid reason why some marijuana cannot be legalized. Marijuana is not as dangerous as alcohol, and actually has some benefits.
The only reason it's illegal is because of moral objections.

reply from: 1003

drugs ought to be legal. there are those who can use them recreationally without negatively impacting their families. they ought not to be punished or made criminals by the actions of the irresponsible.

reply from: AshMarie88

Until you have known people who have taken drugs, you really can't say they should be legal.
Unless you do know people who take them, but think their lives aren't being ruined.

reply from: yoda

Slavery and abortion are the only two subjects that involve the concept of ownership of another human being, so there will always be a comparison.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Nsanford, why don't you go to the hospital and hold a few crack babies? Why don't you talk to someone blind, deaf, mentally disabled, or without arms or legs b/c of what their mom did while pregnant with them, look them in the eye, and tell them drugs don't hurt people. After all, there are those who use them recreation, so why protect the victims of those who can't use them in moderation?
And prostitution is just a bunch of men and women taking advantage of former victims of child molestation who now think their only worth lies in sex. Instead of offering help, they just say, "Hey, these people have been so victimized they have no self esteem an are selling themselves! Wow! Let me take advantage of that!"

reply from: NewPoster1

The fact still remains, alcohol and tobacco, both of which are perfectly legal, are each infinitely more dangerous and deadly than all of the illegal drugs combined.
Even if use of drugs is bad, punishing people for posessing them accomplishes absolutely nothing. If anything, it just makes things worse. It's quite absurd when drug-related charges carry a longer prison sentence than child molestation and rape.

reply from: bradensmommy

uh, notice the pro-choice dems agree with prostitution and drugs...typical...

reply from: faithman

The love of money is the root of the drug evil. Organized crime learned it's lesson over the proabition of alcohol. They fought each other to the point that we repealed proabition, and the tax free cash cow of rum was killed. It is big drugs that keep drugs illegal, as well as the law enforcement industry that pretends to fight the war on drugs. Besides, if you dump tons of "illegal drugs" on certain populations, and then bust them for it, you take away their right to vote, or they are just too stoned to care to vote.
If we really wanted to end, say crack use, we would go into columbia and buy up the coca crop, and sell it in it's natural state. This would help people get off of crack, give the columbian farmer a living, and end the enormus profit the drug cartells use to hold columbian government hostage. The plant itself seems to cause no harm, and is a natural symulent the indians have used for centries with no harmful side effects. They chew the leaves.
The "christian" comunity has bought into the great evil tag atributed to plants that God created to serve man kind. Psalm 104:14
Anytime you threaten a pay check, you get into trouble. Just disagree with apoint of principal with an hierling pastor, that would jeaperdize their ability to extort money from the simple minded, and see how quick they give you the left foot of disfellowship.

reply from: holopaw

If we must make comparisons to slavery, you're like William Lloyd Garrison, who ran the Liberator. Garrison was a vicious opponent of slavery. However, his attacks on the South as well as slavery did more harm than good. In the end, most historians agree that he alienated abolitonists on his side, and stopped more from joining them.
The message is the thing more than the messenger in most instances. Christianity is an exception.
Was Garrison right? Regardless of rather I call you Pro-Choice or a Baby-Killing Advocate, abortion is wrong. When people are being killed, enslaved, or oppressed and lives are at a stake you have to forego the niceties.

reply from: nsanford

Once again, we are going off topic. I only advocate the legalization of marijuana, because most people use it for recreation. And why bother making it a crime? Those who know how to control themselves should not have to be punished because of the actions of others, as 1003 said.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

You're right. Why should the babies have to be punished because their careless mother wanted to get high?

reply from: nsanford

My statement does not apply to the unborn. A fetus is not able to control it self, and isn't even capable of higher thought.

reply from: yoda

And what WAS your startement? Oh yes, it was "Those who know how to control themselves should not have to be punished because of the actions of others"
But it's OKAY with you if unborn babies are punished because of the actions of their mothers, right?
YOU don't mind if BABIES are WRONGLY PUNISHED, do you?

reply from: AshMarie88

My statement does not apply to the unborn. A fetus is not able to control it self, and isn't even capable of higher thought.
It would be capable of MORE if 95% of selfish women would give it a chance!
And of course it doesn't apply to the unborn, you think they're just little cells that are worth nothing.

reply from: AshMarie88

My statement does not apply to the unborn. A fetus is not able to control it self, and isn't even capable of higher thought.
It would be capable of MORE if 95% of selfish women would give it a chance!
And of course it doesn't apply to the unborn, you think they're just little cells that are worth nothing.

reply from: AshMarie88

oops... Didn't mean to quote my own post.

reply from: holopaw

My statement does not apply to the unborn. A fetus is not able to control it self, and isn't even capable of higher thought.
The above quote applies to 2 month old babies as well as many retarded people. What is your point?

reply from: faithman

kill, Kill, KIll,KILL,KILL

reply from: 1003

funny, you don't see pro-choicers saying things like that...

reply from: yoda

That's only because they are not honest, 1003. That's all abortion is, you know, "killing, killing, killing".

reply from: faithman

Slaughter, slaughter, slaughter

reply from: holopaw

funny, you don't see pro-choicers saying things like that...
They've gone beyond saying, they are doing. Must....kill....babies.

reply from: faithman

chop em, suck um, put um in the freezer for lunch.

reply from: yoda

"My statement does not apply to the unborn"......... isn't that CLASSIC???
Doesn't that just give you the perfect picture of the attitude of the probabykilling crowd? NOTHING ns says that indicates sympathy for the underdog, the weak, the helpless, NOTHING like that "applies to the unborn". And why not? Because ns favors the "right to kill", and such sympathy would interfere with that "right"!
You can't have sympathy for those you intend to be killed!

reply from: AshMarie88

funny, you don't see pro-choicers saying things like that...
Funny, I sometimes see pro-aborts say pro-lifers should get raped and killed...

reply from: nsanford

Funny, sometimes I see anti-choicers say pro-choicers have no souls and should be killed.
Do you realize how stupid you sound? Not all pro-choicers feel that way, so it doesn't matter.

reply from: nsanford

I don't believe that most pro-choicers are abortionists. So how are we killing, I must ask?

reply from: faithman

I don't believe that most pro-choicers are abortionists. So how are we killing, I must ask?
acomplases in the conspiracy dude. If you advocate, vote for, or other wise agree with, the slaughter of womb children, you be guilty right along with the paid assasin abortionist and killer mom.

reply from: bradensmommy

I don't believe that most pro-choicers are abortionists. So how are we killing, I must ask?
I don't believe that pro-lifers are abortionists either, so if you know of any pro-lifer who is an abortionist please fill us in with that info.
Anyone who is pro-abortion is in favor of killing a fetus, read it in the dictionary. I believe that Yoda has posted it several freakin times.

reply from: holopaw

I don't believe that most pro-choicers are abortionists. So how are we killing, I must ask?
You may not get your hands dirty, but you condone it.


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