Home - List All Discussions

anti-abortion views and political philosophy

do people really think this?

by: cali1981

I just had a conversation with a pro-choice friend in which she informed me that "you should probably stop calling yourself politically moderate...those who place anti-abortion stuff above all else are conservative."
Obviously this is hogwash, but it frightens me that one of my intelligent friends would say it. Do some people out there really think this? The idea that a government shouldn't have the right to allow the killing of its people has nothing to do with political identity; rather, I think it's the founding idea of democracy itself.
Of course, if my friend and others like her believed that, I suppose they'd be pro-life.

reply from: yoda

There is a strong tendency by probabykilling advocates to try to stereotype us, cali. I can't count the number of times I've been called a "fundy" by them, and I've been called a conservative almost as many times. Neither of those stereotypes fit me at all, but that doesn't seem to matter to them, they just want to put us in a box and forget about us as if we were some sort of sub-human species. It seems to somehow comfort them in their lies, to live with the fantasy that we're all the victims of some sort of brainwashing.

reply from: cali1981

I guess that does make sense, Yoda...it seems as though it would be easier for a proabort to keep believing that he/she was right if those opposing him/her were all the same. If that were true, it would be easier to believe that we were some cult who all caught some kind of "anti-choice" disease and that there was no thought behind our position. The position is definitely harder to discredit if people of all different backgrounds and political/religious affiliations believe in it for a variety of reasons.

reply from: thecatholicamerican

Its ironic that people that can find no moral argument for why abortion should be legal always seem to look at pro-lifers as if we are somehow morally defective

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

I stood holding pictures of aborted babies in front of two of my office locations. (The group I was traveling with just happened to schedule those locations.) I was proud and happy that I would dedicate some time to help those who were being murdered. Was I shocked. Many of my fellow office workers thought I should have hung my head in shame for what I did. Say what?!? Huh?!? How could that be?!? They actually thought the one protesting the killing of unborn babies was the one whose actions were despicable. Isn't the hired assassin and those paying the blood money the ones to be despised?

reply from: thecatholicamerican

Would it be safe to say that being pro-choice IS the hallmark of social liberalism in America today embraced in the form of the Democratic Party?
Could for example any Democrat be nominated for the Presidency of the United States on the Democratic ticket if that person were openly pro-life? I think not.

reply from: yoda

It's a lot like the reaction that Nazi officials and party members would've had if someone had displayed photos of concentration camp victims in the middle of Berlin, don't you think? How dare you bring such an unpleasant subject to their attention?
In both cases, in their minds what is being destroyed is sub-human and dispicable, so it's "impolite" to display images of such matters to people of "gentility". You're seen as being uncivilized to force them to face what they consider "trash".
That's the real challenge, to get them to recognize than unborn humans are not "trash".

reply from: faithman

It's a lot like the reaction that Nazi officials and party members would've had if someone had displayed photos of concentration camp victims in the middle of Berlin, don't you think? How dare you bring such an unpleasant subject to their attention?
In both cases, in their minds what is being destroyed is sub-human and dispicable, so it's "impolite" to display images of such matters to people of "gentility". You're seen as being uncivilized to force them to face what they consider "trash".
That's the real challenge, to get them to recognize than unborn humans are not "trash".
...and we do that by the display of live pre-born images that totally take that argument away from them.

reply from: yoda

I think that helps, yes. And I really love the new poster they're using in South Dakota, which I linked to in the "Should rape babies be an exception" thread. It fits the agenda there perfectly.
I wonder sometimes how many of the probabykilling crowd actually feels like unborn humans are "sub-human", and how many of them are just going along with the party line. So many of them resort to absolutely ridiculous attacks on the humanity of unborn humans, it makes me think that they are very insecure in their attacks, and need some sort of prop (even a low-down, lying prop) to hold their arguments up. And what does it say about an adult human that they would stoop to such lies and slander to try to make baby-killing a respectable activity? Doesn't that just pile depravity upon depravity?
Anyway, I like the idea of using both types of photos together, whenever possible.

reply from: NewPoster1

I don't know what you're so upset about, it's not as though she said you were "evil", "ignorant", or "wrong", she simply pointed out the absurdity of you attempting to portray your political views as being "moderate", which they're not. You may not be aware of this, but the belief, that even a rape victim should be forced to remain pregnant against her will, is not a "moderate" position, it is a far-right, radical, ultra-conservative position. If the word "moderate" can now mean whatever a person wants it to, than I guess I'm a "moderate" as well!

reply from: AshMarie88

I don't know what you're so upset about, it's not as though she said you were "evil", "ignorant", or "wrong", she simply pointed out the absurdity of you attempting to portray your political views as being "moderate", which they're not. You may not be aware of this, but the belief, that even a rape victim should be forced to remain pregnant against her will, is not a "moderate" position, it is a far-right, radical, ultra-conservative position. If the word "moderate" can now mean whatever a person wants it to, than I guess I'm a "moderate" as well!
How many times do we have to tell you we are not for forcing anyone to remain prgnant?

reply from: Shiprahagain

I don't know what you're so upset about, it's not as though she said you were "evil", "ignorant", or "wrong", she simply pointed out the absurdity of you attempting to portray your political views as being "moderate", which they're not. You may not be aware of this, but the belief, that even a rape victim should be forced to remain pregnant against her will, is not a "moderate" position, it is a far-right, radical, ultra-conservative position. If the word "moderate" can now mean whatever a person wants it to, than I guess I'm a "moderate" as well!
www.democratsforlife.org/
prolife.liberals.com/

reply from: NewPoster1

www.democratsforlife.org/
prolife.liberals.com/
What's your point? Yes, Republicans can be liberal and Democrats can be conservative. If he is willing to vote for conservative anti-abortion Republicans as well as conservative anti-abortion Democrats, than that makes him an independent, not a moderate.

reply from: Shiprahagain

So then if Democrats and Liberals are conservative, are all the political parties far-right, radical, and ultra-conservative? I guess so if they disagree with you, huh?

reply from: yoda

Why not? Probabykilling advocates make up definitions for the terms used in the abortion debate all the time! They even attack me for having the temerity to use a dictionary!
For your edification, holding a minority opinion does not make one "extreme". It makes one a member of a minority. You have some animosity towards minorities?

reply from: NewPoster1

This makes no sense, a liberal can no more be a conservative, than a dead person can be alive.
The majority of Democrats are liberal, a minority are conservative.
The majority of Republicans are conservative, a minority are liberal.
Someone who votes for Republicans or Democrats is an independent.
Someone who votes for conservatives or liberals is a moderate.

reply from: Shiprahagain

What makes someone conservative and what makes someone liberal? And does being conservative or liberal make one ethical or unethical?
So far you are deciding who is an ultra-right, radical, ultra-conservative based on flippant opinion, so I want you to give me a definition of the left, right, and ultra-left and ultra- right based on several issues. I find it hard to believe a liberal can be ultra-right, radical, and ultra-conservative, by the way.

reply from: faithman

Their are quite a few blue blood country club pro abort conservative republicans. Arlene spector comes to mind. That is why I do not trust the republican party. It was on the republican watch [richard nixon] when RvW was handed down by the supreme court, most of whom were apointed by republicans. The life issue is not a political issue, but a human rights issue. Either the pre-born are persons who deserve to have their God given right to life protected by the constitution, or they are blobs of tissue, and the right to privacy [not in the constitution, but merely bean wind blown out of the behinds of renigade judges] and unwanted material thrown away in PP trash dumpsters. SSSSOOO the little pro-life lemings run off the republican cliff, as pre-born children die by the droves every day. Hows that bush koolaide?

reply from: NewPoster1

With everyone of these issues I support the liberal position.
Who said this? It makes no sense. Conservative and liberal are opposites of each other.

reply from: Shiprahagain

I gave you a site of prolife liberals -- by your definition they'd have to ultra-conservaties. Secondly, your biased list shows that you don't have a level of a poltical acumen worth taking seriously i.e. Conservatives are not just anti-liberal, they have causes of their own. Thirdly, much of what you posted is inaccurate -- to name some Conservatives support contraception. Republicans tried to provide prenatal health insurance to help women out -- liberals like Planned Parenthood opposed it!* (Then they whine about how women need abortion b/c conservatives don't give them help when they're the ones taking away women's choice by denying them help.) Republicans tried to give all married poor couples $10,000's to buy a house or start a college fund for future kids -- guess who opposed that -- Democrats -- b/c they really care about the poor. Democrats also opposed a tax cut designed to help all levels of society from the richest to the poorest just b/c it would benefit the rich as well. Good looking out for poor people -- you think some single mom in the project appreciates being denied a tax cut just b/c some rich woman would get it as well? She could care less, but the petty Democrats (I'm not talking about all Democrats, but the petty ones) denied the poor something they needed out of spite.
When I said, "I find it hard to believe a liberal can be ultra-right, radical, and ultra-conservative, by the way." You said "Who said this? It makes no sense. Conservative and liberal are opposites of each other." So where would you label someone who is In favor of...
National health insurance
Raising the mininum wage
Hate crimes legislation
Gay marriage or civil unions
Legal abortion
Contraception
Stem Cell Research
Opposed to...
War
Guns
Tax Cuts for Multi-millionaires but is against abortion like the ones in the links I showed you? According to you this person would be liberal (by YOUR criteria of what makes a liberal and ultra-conservative, again, by YOUR criteria of what makes a conservatice.) Yet you said there is no such ting as an ultra-conservative liberal, so the people you decided apparently don't exist. I guess it goes to show that being pro-life doesn't make you conservative -- according to YOUR OWN defintion.
*Thanks for sharing that, Faithman

reply from: NewPoster1

Rich people don't need tax cuts, if the Democrats voted against that, than good for them. There's no point passing a tax cut where 95% of the savings go to multi-millionaires.
If said person is a single issue voter, and allows opposition to legal abortion to dictate whom they vote for, than I would call them a conservative nonetheless.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Newposter, I can tell that not only have you never been poor but don't intimately know any of the poor ppl who purport to care about. For you, the mere image of compassion is enough -- forget the acts. You betray the poor when you stop them from getting much deserved money, money my friends who are homeless and impoverished would be glad to have. These ppl would be outraged by your attitude, but I guess you are condescending enough to feel you know what's best for them. Beside, you don't care about being informed b/c you made up the statistic 95% going to the rich. Try doing research -- I promise, you won't break out in hives. Knowledge won't give you allergies. Secondly, if you bothered to research prolife liberals, you'd see they vote for other prolife liberals and democrats. Furthermore, you are assuming that abortion is a conservative issue -- a slap in the face to the many liberals who consider the pro-life cause to the fruit of their ideology http://prolife.liberals.com/basics.html Ppl like you remind me of the people who fought against the new constitution of Victor Chavez in Venezuela. He made college free for all, put an indigenous woman as head of the department of environmentalists, and in every act helped the disenfranchised yet some ppl wouldn't support his constitution b/c he's prolife. I guess those single issue ppl wouldn't be called radical to you -- it doesn't matter if they fight against gains for women, the indigenous, and the poor if single-issue pro-choicers want to fight all those good things just so they can kill the unborn. Keep in mind, in the Venezuelan context those who were pro-choice would be conservative b/c they were the one's fighting for continued oligarchy so pro-choice can often be on the side of privilege and the corrupt rich.

reply from: coco

I consider MYSELF a conservitive democrat!!
I believe in 98% of everything they stand for BUT abortion!!

reply from: coco

Secondly, if you bothered to research prolife liberals, you'd see they vote for other prolife liberals and democrats
It all depends on your stance and if the topic of abortions are all you care about!!! if you care about economy, war,etc and then abortion then you vote for one way but if all you care about is abortion then you vote the other! simple as that you heve to prioritize what is important to YOU!!!

reply from: coco

Secondly, if you bothered to research prolife liberals, you'd see they vote for other prolife liberals and democrats
It all depends on your stance and if the topic of abortions are all you care about!!! if you care about economy, war,etc and then abortion then you vote for one way but if all you care about is abortion then you vote the other! simple as that you heve to prioritize what is important to YOU!!!

reply from: faithman

I am a one issue voter. Care to guess what issue?

reply from: yoda

Well, my percentages isn't that high, but I agree with the majority of their platform, except for abortion and a few other "moral issues"...... and I'm not a conservative by any means.

reply from: NewPoster1

It's funny that you'd say this, considering that I have no health insurance. In June I became extremely ill and for several weeks I could barely breathe, would cough 24 hours a day, and would constantly start choking. It was hell. According to conservatives, this was 100% acceptable. It's ironic, they won't spend a dime to establish a national health insurance program, but they're more than willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to wage unjust and unnecessary war.
http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm

Let's see, the wealthiest 1% are receiving 51.8% of the benefit, while the poorest 20% are receiving 1.2% of the benefit. That's really helping poor people isn't it?
I'm curious, did a single person on this forum vote for Mr. Kerry in the last election?
If no one did, yet they claim to be a liberal, than they are indeed a single issue voter.
If someone supports the liberal positions, yet opposes legal abortion, yet chooses whom they vote for based on all issues, than I would still consider them a liberal.
If someone supports the liberal positions, yet opposes legal abortion and allows this to be sole determinator of whom they vote for, than I would call them a conservative.
If someone is a single issue voter and takes a conservative position on that single issue, than they're a conservative by default.

reply from: lovingmommyof2

I actually did vote for Kerry. We had two losers to choose from and I voted for the one that I felt would screw the nation up less than the other in a whole.
I want abortion to be illegal but I also do not want our troops being killed in a war that could be prevented. So it was a toss up.

reply from: Shiprahagain

I'm not even going to go through the mammoth factual inaccuracies in your post, Newposter, but I am going to say that you have finally admitted that being conservative and prolife are not synonymous good job.

reply from: faithman

The only flaw in your thought process is judge apointments. Wounder what kind of judges gore or kery would appoint?

reply from: cali1981

Conservatism is defined as a political philosophy that necessitates a defense of established values or the status quo. That description does not fit me at all. A political moderate is defined as someone who holds an intermediate position between liberals and conservatives, or who has firm convictions on all issues, yet some convictions fall just to the left of the spectrum and some fall just to the right, or who seeks conciliation between the views of various political parties, and often take positions partially derived from opposite views. That DOES fit me.
Being "moderate" does not mean "whatever I want it to mean." It means what it means.
The thing about abortion is that there are no possible moderate positions on it - at least no honest ones, anyway. If the unborn are living human beings, then it is illogical to say that we may kill them in certain situations (we don't say that we can kill any other innocent humans in "certain situations"). On the other hand, if the unborn are not living human beings, then it makes no sense to impose any restrictions whatsoever on killing them (we don't have any laws against killing such non-humans as bugs and moths). Either they are human beings or they aren't, which means either it's always okay to kill them or it's never okay to kill them. There is no in-between. Anyone who says that there is, does not understand how logic works.
There is another clear implication for the "if they are humans" scenario, and that is the political one. If the unborn are living human beings, then one would HAVE to prioritize this issue above all others, because they are dying at rates of 4,000 per day in this country, a rate that makes our country a participant in the largest holocaust in the history of the world.
If a holocaust that large of born human beings were taking place in America, you can bet your bottom dollar that would be everyone's first priority in the voting booth; they would vote for the person who promised to do something to stop the madness. And their decision to do so would have nothing to do with being politically conservative or politically liberal or anything in-between. In the end, abortion is not an issue of political orientation, but rather of the most basic of human rights, one of the guaranteed freedoms upon which this country was founded.
See what I said above. If the unborn are living human beings, then given the rates at which they are dying (which surpass the largest holocaust to date by a factor of 4), it follows logically that we must prioritize this issue over all others, since that is what we would do if any other category of humans was being butchered by the millions.

reply from: coco

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/liberalism
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/conservatism;_ylt=Au2pLgFD6Ab6H4EBb_.iwmmsgMMF
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/neoconservatism;_ylt=Au29ShN3k5HflwpMy03JprCsgMMF

reply from: Shiprahagain

Not to get technical (just to honor the dead) abortion has not yet killed the numbers that the American slavery/Middle Passage victims and Native American genocide (150 million for that last one) and hopefully it never does.

reply from: NewPoster1

Not to get technical (just to honor the dead) abortion has not yet killed the numbers that the American slavery/Middle Passage victims and Native American genocide (150 million for that last one) and hopefully it never does.
I'm not sure who you just quoted, but it most certainly wasn't me.

reply from: coco

I'm curious, did a single person on this forum vote for Mr. Kerry in the last election?
If no one did, yet they claim to be a liberal, than they are indeed a single issue voter.
If someone supports the liberal positions, yet opposes legal abortion, yet chooses whom they vote for based on all issues, than I would still consider them a liberal.
If someone supports the liberal positions, yet opposes legal abortion and allows this to be sole determinator of whom they vote for, than I would call them a conservative.
If someone is a single issue voter and takes a conservative position on that single issue, than they're a conservative by default.
Actually I always voted democrate last time and this time I will do to!! I will be totally honest with you I am not a one issue voter MY issues that I care ones that effect me and my families future! that is why I state that I am a democrate, and the one issue that seperates my belief from the party is abortion!

reply from: NewPoster1

Conservatism is defined as a political philosophy that necessitates a defense of established values or the status quo. That description does not fit me at all. A political moderate is defined as someone who holds an intermediate position between liberals and conservatives, or who has firm convictions on all issues, yet some convictions fall just to the left of the spectrum and some fall just to the right, or who seeks conciliation between the views of various political parties, and often take positions partially derived from opposite views. That DOES fit me.
Being "moderate" does not mean "whatever I want it to mean." It means what it means.
The thing about abortion is that there are no possible moderate positions on it - at least no honest ones, anyway. If the unborn are living human beings, then it is illogical to say that we may kill them in certain situations (we don't say that we can kill any other innocent humans in "certain situations"). On the other hand, if the unborn are not living human beings, then it makes no sense to impose any restrictions whatsoever on killing them (we don't have any laws against killing such non-humans as bugs and moths). Either they are human beings or they aren't, which means either it's always okay to kill them or it's never okay to kill them. There is no in-between. Anyone who says that there is, does not understand how logic works.
There is another clear implication for the "if they are humans" scenario, and that is the political one. If the unborn are living human beings, then one would HAVE to prioritize this issue above all others, because they are dying at rates of 4,000 per day in this country, a rate that makes our country a participant in the largest holocaust in the history of the world.
If a holocaust that large of born human beings were taking place in America, you can bet your bottom dollar that would be everyone's first priority in the voting booth; they would vote for the person who promised to do something to stop the madness. And their decision to do so would have nothing to do with being politically conservative or politically liberal or anything in-between. In the end, abortion is not an issue of political orientation, but rather of the most basic of human rights, one of the guaranteed freedoms upon which this country was founded.
See what I said above. If the unborn are living human beings, then given the rates at which they are dying (which surpass the largest holocaust to date by a factor of 4), it follows logically that we must prioritize this issue over all others, since that is what we would do if any other category of humans was being butchered by the millions.
The belief that abortion is a "holocaust", is a conservative belief. If you believe this and it is the sole determinator of whom you vote for, than you are by default a conservative.

reply from: coco

It's funny that you'd say this, considering that I have no health insurance. In June I became extremely ill and for several weeks I could barely breathe, would cough 24 hours a day, and would constantly start choking. It was hell. According to conservatives, this was 100% acceptable. It's ironic, they won't spend a dime to establish a national health insurance program, but they're more than willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to wage unjust and unnecessary war.
NEWPOSTER,
ship tends to compare americans to the rest of the world, although you cannot we are considered one of the RICHEST countries so our standard of living is obviously much hire then those of africa BUT for a "industrialized" country we are the only country without any type of universal healthcare is a sham. Like you say we can pay for the rich peoples tax cuts but the rich hardly pay taxes so who gets stuck with the bill MIDDLE CLASS!!

reply from: cali1981

Congratulations, you just managed to ignore almost everything that I just said!
Whether or not abortion is a "holocaust" is not a matter of belief. All we need do is look at the definition of the word and see if this situation applies.
Main Entry: ho·lo·caust
Pronunciation: 'hO-l&-"kost, 'hä- also -"käst or 'ho-l&-kost
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin holocaustum, from Greek holokauston, from neuter of holokaustos burnt whole, from hol- + kaustos burnt, from kaiein to burn -- more at CAUSTIC
1 : a sacrifice consumed by fire
2 : a thorough destruction involving extensive loss of life especially through fire <a nuclear holocaust>
3 a often capitalized : the mass slaughter of European civilians and especially Jews by the Nazis during World War II -- usually used with the b : a mass slaughter of people; especially : GENOCIDE
The definitions that apply here are 3b and maybe 2. A mass slaughter of people. If the unborn are living human beings (and medical science as well as deductive reasoning can prove that they are), then abortions in America absolutely qualify. Even if there was dispute about what qualifies as "mass" slaughter, there can be no doubt that this counts since the number dead is higher than any other count for any other event in the history of the world (my post, most of which you did not address, cited these figures).
I know you would like it if this was a matter of opinion, but it just isn't. It would be just like if you denied that the mass slaughter of Jews was a holocaust. You'd certainly be free to say that, but all one need do is objectively look at the definition of the word to see that you are wrong.
Says who? You? Conservatism already has a definition (in fact, I cited it up above), and that definition does not apply to me. I know you would like it if you got to redefine words to suit your purposes...and you're certainly free to spout this baseless boohockey, but realize that it doesn't advance your argument at all.
I have also already explained that if abortion is a holocaust (and we can objectively determine whether or not it is), then there is no way for anyone to logically say that they wouldn't make that the sole determinant of whom they would vote for.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Actually Coco, I am referencing her statement above where she said it was good of the Democrats to deny the poor a tax cut simply b/c rich ppl would benefit too. Poor people just don't think that way. You once claimed incorrectly before that my definition of poverty was based on that of other countries even when I showed you sources comparing Americans to other Americans.

reply from: yoda

That's the hallmark of a probabykilling advocate's debating style, cali. They throw s**t in all directions, and hope that some of it sticks.
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).

reply from: faithman

Not to get technical (just to honor the dead) abortion has not yet killed the numbers that the American slavery/Middle Passage victims and Native American genocide (150 million for that last one) and hopefully it never does.
"Technically," abortion did not begin when organizations like Guttmacher Institute and the CDC started keeping records, and I seriously doubt anyone can come up with indisputably accurate records of deaths to compare the results of the slaughter of the "indigenous" peoples in America, victims of the slave trade, and abortion.
Considering your penchant for criticizing others for straying off topic, I find it interesting that you miss few opportunities to broach the subject of "racism," however indirectly. Many of your contentions are also obviously ill-contrived.
oook ook ook mokey boy speaketh.

reply from: cali1981

What a fantastic point, Shiprah!
People tend to just assume that abortion is an issue that only conservatives are against, with little basis for that assumption. Actually, if the unborn are human beings, then it almost has to be a LIBERAL issue. Liberals are all about protecting the weak and defenseless. Who is weaker or more defenseless than an unborn baby?
I have several pro-life friends who are liberals and in this vein they consider the pro-life stance to be not the exception to their liberalism, but rather a cornerstone of it.
The importance of challenging the view that this is a conservative issue cannot be overstated, IMO. Thank you for bringing it up.

reply from: cali1981

I appreciate everyone taking the time to respond to my ideas, but when I read responses like this I wonder how people can possibly come to their conclusions (I mean, what about the sentiments expressed in my pro-life essay?).
Pitting the abortion issue and the war issue against one another does not constitute a "toss-up." That could only be the case if the issues were equal in magnitude. In reality, one is a mere FRACTION of the other.
50,000,000 babies versus 2,700 troops. What do you think?
Also, as Yoda has said in the past, we are under no obligation to vote for the lesser of two evils. If both candidates promote immoral policies then the moral thing to do would be to vote for neither.

reply from: lovingmommyof2

I actually was not responding to you I only posted because newposter asked if anyone voted for Kerry. I did. I am not ashamed. I know that abortion is a huge issue that needs to be fixed. I also have a brother who is a seargant in the military and he had been in Korea for almost 2 years when it was time to vote and I did not want Bush in office knowing that he would start a war just like his good old dad did. Not saying that my brother is more important than all the babies that are butchered daily but he is my brother and I voted against the person who was likely to send him to war. That is how I came to my conclusion, so for me it was a toss up, Vote to help my brother or abortion. I chose my brother. Sorry

reply from: lovingmommyof2

Also when I voted for Kerry I did not know where he stood on the abortion issue. I myself have only been involved in this for the last year or so.

reply from: BB

I do not know why you are apologizing Lovingmommy there is nothing wrong with voting for whomever you choose. That is why there is voting for people to choose who they want in office.

Cali why do you think you have the right to try to dictate who anyone votes for? It is not your place. Do you stand outside the ballot box telling people who they should pick?
And YodaVater if someone chooses not to vote they lose their right to complain if the job is not getting done. I like to vote because then I have the right to complain if my guy doesn't get picked and messes up.

reply from: yoda

Like hell they do.
If Satan was running against Hitler, which one would you vote for, smarty pants?

reply from: cali1981

I never said that I have the right to dictate who people vote for. I have no such "right," nor does any such "right" exist.
However, the logical extension of the anti-babykilling position is that a person taking that position will not vote for a pro-babykilling person...because they would NEVER vote for a person who is pro-killing-OTHER-human-beings, and they see all human beings as equally deserving of protection from death.
Since I have the right to free speech, I have a perfect right to say - or point out - that people are inconsistent/hypocritical in their beliefs and actions if that is in fact true. That is all I am doing here.

reply from: BB

I never said that I have the right to dictate who people vote for. I have no such "right," nor does any such "right" exist.
However, the logical extension of the anti-babykilling position is that a person taking that position will not vote for a pro-babykilling person...because they would NEVER vote for a person who is pro-killing-OTHER-human-beings, and they see all human beings as equally deserving of protection from death.
Since I have the right to free speech, I have a perfect right to say - or point out - that people are inconsistent/hypocritical in their beliefs and actions if that is in fact true. That is all I am doing here.
There are also other problems in the world to take into consideration other than just abortion. How about also votiong for someone who has an idea to help the people who are already born also. We live in a messed up society that does not care about the homeless people that need help now but we will defend the unborn to the end and let the homeless die.
I do think that the unborn need rights but we also need to look at the people who are already born also and help them too.

reply from: AshMarie88

You are definitely not "pro-life", but pro-choice. Your last post here just confirmed that.
Only pro-choicers say we don't care about the born.

reply from: cali1981

No kidding. The world is a messed-up place.
It is of the utmost importance to help the poor and everyone else in need. But we have to do it in a way that doesn't sacrifice the lives of millions of babies.
I have said it before and I will say it again: All issues are not equal. The number of babies slaughtered by abortion is approaching 50 million. To even put any other issue in the same universe as this one is pornographic.

reply from: yoda

It's curious to me that probabykilling advocates can go for years without paying any attention at all to the plight of born children who are abused and/or neglected, but just let them get involved in a debate with prolifers and right away they demand to know WHY prolifers aren't doing more for born kids!!
Isn't that strange?

reply from: bradensmommy

Yep, pro-lifers don't have an exception to age, some like myself have an exception to life or death which hardly happens. Like I have said in numerous posts which BB probably skimmed over there are ADULT women shorter than 5'1 and less than 110 lbs and still had perfectly healthy babies.
My aunt is 4'11 and she had 3 huge baby boys and they are all healthy.

reply from: BB

Obvious answer Satan at least he only punishes those that have sinned. Hitler punished out of prejidous and ignorance.

reply from: yoda

Then by all means support your hero.

reply from: BB

Ashmarie88 and bradensmommy you both think you are really smart. I do consider myself to be prolife but your arrogance and immaturity and quickness to jump in with insults make it hard to stay that way. Just because someone does not agree with you 100% does not mean they are not with you. I do not think abortion should be legal in most cases but as I have said there are always hard cases. I do not think forcing my daughter to have a baby at age 11 would have been good for her and it is not good for a lot of young girls. I do not think anyone should be able to abort if their life is not at risk just because they do not want the baby. Your intolerance with others opinions and experiences is actually quite sad.

reply from: BB

My response was in sarcasm being that the question was not a possible one.

reply from: yoda

You can't "force your daughter to have a baby" unless you rape her yourself, dufus! When she knows she's pregnant, she's ALREADY GOT A BABY!
The only decision then is whether to allow it to live, or make a babykiller out of your daughter. Which is the more loving thing?

reply from: BB

Okay then Yodavater. The reason she aborted is because the doctors told us the pregnancy would threaten her life. Do you think I should have insisted that my daughter have the baby and chance dying or sign the papers and let her abort?
I chose to let her save her own life.
Calling my daughter a baby killer for saving her won life is really quite sad.
If it were your daughter would you have not signed the papers and let her die? Making yourself a daughter killer, as you like to throw around.
Like I said she was barely 3 weeks along when the doctor told us she was pregnant. Had she have been further along, considering myself to be prolife, I would have tried to talk her into having the baby early through c section and hope the baby were strong enough to survive.

reply from: bradensmommy

I'm quoting myself yet again:
Before you sit and judge why don't you make the time to read posts by Ashmarie and myself. I'm hardly arrogant or immature. I have a few pro-choice friends who are great people. Sex isn't good for young girls either but does that stop them consentually? No. Do they have children at that age? Yes. Just because the doc "suggested" abortion doesn't mean he was right. Docs are never 100 percent sure. I don't care if the baby was 3 weeks or 3 days, a baby is a baby no matter what.
And I'm tolerant of others as well by the way.

reply from: bradensmommy

I would like to know how they thought that her pregnancy will end her life. As I said in other posts, docs are not 100 percent sure on anything especially when the pregnancy was that early in the stage.

reply from: lovingmommyof2

BB I put my daughter through hell when I was pregnant with her and she turned out perfect. I was also told that I had a chance of bleeding to death while delivering because I had a tear in my uterus that was causing internal bleeding. I am not saying that everyone should chance dying to let their baby live, but because I had already put my daughter through so much I could not put her through anything else and continued my pregnancy and everything was fine. I had to have a blood transfusion and stay in the hospital for a bit but i am fine and my daughter is perfect and sweet.
I can not imagine not having my sweet girls and think that everyone should really get ALL the facts, {abortion risks, pregnancy risks, child development facts, etc.} before deciding to kill their child.
I am not saying that your daughter's choice was wrong, but I think you all should have got the facts and found out what could have happened to your daughter had she delivered. Chances are she would had nothing wrong with her or she would have experienced some small problem {like I did} that would be easily fixed and she would be fine today with a precious child.
People need to really look at all the facts and options before making life changing decisions.

reply from: AshMarie88

I'm quoting myself yet again:
Before you sit and judge why don't you make the time to read posts by Ashmarie and myself. I'm hardly arrogant or immature. I have a few pro-choice friends who are great people. Sex isn't good for young girls either but does that stop them consentually? No. Do they have children at that age? Yes. Just because the doc "suggested" abortion doesn't mean he was right. Docs are never 100 percent sure. I don't care if the baby was 3 weeks or 3 days, a baby is a baby no matter what.
And I'm tolerant of others as well by the way.
I find myself agreeing with you all the time...

reply from: Shiprahagain

Comments like this make no sense to me? Would William Lloyd Garrison's arrogance have made it hard to stay abolitionist? Charles de Gaulle was arrogant -- that wouldn't have made it the slightest bit hard for me to remain against the Nazis. Immaturity is focusing on the activist and not the cause.

reply from: bradensmommy

All I have to say to BB is that the deed has already been done, we can't say anything much about it anymore. As for giving our opinion its about as worthless as a wooden nickel.
He needs to realize when you post things like this in a pro-life forum he will get a negative response so I don't know what kind of shock value he is trying to put out there.

reply from: coco

Brandensmommy, I am not trying to get in the middle but your aunt maybe small but she is fully developed! Thier is a diffrence between a petite adult woman and a young girls anatomy so you really cannot compare the two!! And ship you can tell if you are pergnant in 3 weeks thier are pregnancy test that tell you three days BEFORE you ahould get your peroid!!! and the person would know if they were pregnant in I think it was 10 min!

reply from: bradensmommy

10 minutes? I highly doubt that.

reply from: coco

NO I am sorry I didnt mean that 10 min after sex you know you are pregnant I ment you should get the result in 10 min SORRY ABOUT THE GOOF UP!!

reply from: coco

AND I TOOK THAT TYPE OF TEST 2 WEEKS AGO

reply from: cali1981

Another post that NP did not respond to...
Congratulations, you just managed to ignore almost everything that I just said!
Whether or not abortion is a "holocaust" is not a matter of belief. All we need do is look at the definition of the word and see if this situation applies.
Main Entry: ho·lo·caust
Pronunciation: 'hO-l&-"kost, 'hä- also -"käst or 'ho-l&-kost
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin holocaustum, from Greek holokauston, from neuter of holokaustos burnt whole, from hol- + kaustos burnt, from kaiein to burn -- more at CAUSTIC
1 : a sacrifice consumed by fire
2 : a thorough destruction involving extensive loss of life especially through fire <a nuclear holocaust>
3 a often capitalized : the mass slaughter of European civilians and especially Jews by the Nazis during World War II -- usually used with the b : a mass slaughter of people; especially : GENOCIDE
The definitions that apply here are 3b and maybe 2. A mass slaughter of people. If the unborn are living human beings (and medical science as well as deductive reasoning can prove that they are), then abortions in America absolutely qualify. Even if there was dispute about what qualifies as "mass" slaughter, there can be no doubt that this counts since the number dead is higher than any other count for any other event in the history of the world (my post, most of which you did not address, cited these figures).
I know you would like it if this was a matter of opinion, but it just isn't. It would be just like if you denied that the mass slaughter of Jews was a holocaust. You'd certainly be free to say that, but all one need do is objectively look at the definition of the word to see that you are wrong.
Says who? You? Conservatism already has a definition (in fact, I cited it up above), and that definition does not apply to me. I know you would like it if you got to redefine words to suit your purposes...and you're certainly free to spout this baseless boohockey, but realize that it doesn't advance your argument at all.
I have also already explained that if abortion is a holocaust (and we can objectively determine whether or not it is), then there is no way for anyone to logically say that they wouldn't make that the sole determinant of whom they would vote for.

reply from: yoda

All good points, cali....... proaborts cannot seem to go five minutes without trying to redefine common words that have a history in our society, to twist them into something that is "useful" to them. Honesty is foreign to them.
The word holocaust does apply to abortion, just as the word genocide does. Only when holocaust is spelled with a capital "H" does it refer exclusively to the Jewish Holocaust.
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).

reply from: yoda

More than that, it was a simple dodge of the jist of the question. You know quite well that political races occur in which both (all) candidates are morally unacceptable, and yet you try to make a joke of it. That's cowardly and stupid.
I heard someone suggest that in such cases, we are obligated to vote for a write-in candidate, which makes sense to me. If you can't think of anyone else, vote for yourself!

reply from: yoda

Oh my, you are just coming up with all kinds of "new facts", aren't you? You really do make this up as you go, don't you?
There is a third choice, ask the doctor to perform an early delivery in such a way as to give both the baby and the mother the maximum chance at survival. But of course, you really don't care about the baby, do you?

reply from: xnavy

i have a 12 year old daughter and i would have taken her to a different doctor and gotten a second opinon, preferably a prolife doctor
that believes the value of all life not just born life. i would have asked if there was a chance to save both lives.

reply from: BB

Oh my, you are just coming up with all kinds of "new facts", aren't you? You really do make this up as you go, don't you?
I actually just choose to share more of the facts as I go, if you let all the truth slip out at the same time then you really have nothing more to say. And I do mean truth. I am in no need of attention from any of you so why would I sit around and make things up about my children? I am actually quite sad that the voting went the way it did because there are way too many abortions being performed for no medical reason whatsoever.
I know that none of you feel I care about the preborn but I do. I went through the list of candidates and called the campain offices to ask where they stood on the abortion issue and I did vote for the ones that stood for life. I want the preborn to be protected but I still want mothers to have the option to terminate if the pregnancy is life threatening.

reply from: AshMarie88

Oh my, you are just coming up with all kinds of "new facts", aren't you? You really do make this up as you go, don't you?
I actually just choose to share more of the facts as I go, if you let all the truth slip out at the same time then you really have nothing more to say. And I do mean truth. I am in no need of attention from any of you so why would I sit around and make things up about my children? I am actually quite sad that the voting went the way it did because there are way too many abortions being performed for no medical reason whatsoever.
I know that none of you feel I care about the preborn but I do. I went through the list of candidates and called the campain offices to ask where they stood on the abortion issue and I did vote for the ones that stood for life. I want the preborn to be protected but I still want mothers to have the option to terminate if the pregnancy is life threatening.
If the pregnancy is life threatening they should just try to birth the baby. Obviously, if killing the baby to remove it would save the mom's life, wouldn't, logically thinking, it be the same way only to let the child live? Why does the child have to die even tho he/she will be born anyway? It makes no sense...

reply from: coco

O.k I KNOW that some pregnancies are bad and when the baby is growing in your tubes (early pregnancy where the baby cannot be saved because it cannot live outside the mothers womb), they (the tubes) could rupture and cause intensive bleeding and possible DEATH!! Would you all think in this case she should abort or not?? This does happen it is not unheard of!

reply from: yoda

1. It's extremely rare, 2. No prolifer advocates letting a mother die with an ectopic pregnancy 3. The whole subject is a red herring.

reply from: coco

Eptopic pregnancies are NOT rare I know personally 3 people that have had them. SO the answer according to yoda is they should be allowed to obtain an abortion under those circumstances. Anyone else??

reply from: yoda

They're not as rare as I thought they were, "Ectopic pregnancies occur from 1 in every 40 to 1 in every 100 pregnancies." http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000895.htm. But I have read that having had a previous abortion makes a woman more likely to have an ectopic pregnancy.
And no, Yoda does not say anything about obtaining an abortion; that is not the same as delivering early.

reply from: galen

Ectopic/abdominal pregnancies... can... run thier course and result in a live birth ( though by cesarian)... it should be the mom's choice to have the surgery to remove the pregnancy. in all but 3 cases documented in the history of medicine he fetus involved in an ectopic pregnancy was delivered deceased.
mary


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