Home - List All Discussions

We know why we're pro-life.

by: AshMarie88

On my youtube video for celebrity abortions, someone else commented:
"im pro choice because we live in a country that praises freedom of choice. if a woman wants to do it, then she should, if not, dont do it"
... It's sad she (or he) is so brainwashed and uneducated.
My reply, anyway: "The same was also applied to slavery years ago.
I praise freedom of choice as well, just not the choice to kill anyone who can't speak for themselves and has done nothing wrong.
And hey, if a rapist wants to rape a woman, let him! He wants to do it so he should."

reply from: Teresa18

I hate that "freedom of choice" argument. The reason being, a lot of things were legal and people had the "choice" to do them, but it didn't make those things right. Those things would be slavery and even the Nazis during the Holocaust. Choice is ok, but it isn't when it affects another person's life. Heck, like you said Ashley, why not allow rapists to rape or murderers to murder if it's their choice?

reply from: Sigma

This is a specious argument. Slavery, as abortion, was about State power (or State choice, if you prefer). In both cases, power was taken away from the State by the Fourteenth. In this way, the State having the power to make Black people slaves is similar to the State having the power to take away (or violate) women's rights.
Allowing slavery wouldn't be a matter of personal choice that abortion is because allowing slavery would be taking away personal choice. Even the concept of personal choice cannot apply to the fetus, so it cannot be taken away by abortion.
Your comparison is flawed.

reply from: Sigma

Whether something is legal is not dependant on whether it is right.

reply from: AshMarie88

No, it would not, because slaves had NO choice, just like babies don't now! Don't you get it? That was the problem.
It would be taking away THEIR OWN LIVES, just like abortion does.

reply from: Sigma

No law or judgement can give the fetus the ability to choose anything. The concept of choice cannot apply to the fetus. A slave and a fetus do not have in common what you wish they had in common.
The fetus is not in the position it is in because of any law or judgment, and equal protection cannot necessarily grant it the right to live off of another's body.

reply from: AshMarie88

All human beings have almost everything in common, when coming from the biological standpoint!
You can't be this nutty... or can you?

reply from: Sigma

We're coming from a legal standpoint, or did you forget the point of this thread?
Women would have more in common with slaves were abortion disallowed than the fetus ever could now.

reply from: AshMarie88

I don't care about what the LAW says, I care about what biology says, and about LIFE!

reply from: Sigma

Biology doesn't tell us when it is a person. "Personhood" is an abstract concept.

reply from: yoda

And that's what makes you delightfully different from Siggy-poo, Ashley! BTW, your "freedom of choice" analogy is perfectly valid, and that's why siggy-poo doesn't like it. Giving someone the "choice" to kill a baby is actually much worse than giving them the choice to enslave someone, so you're being kind to babykillers.
Siggy is like a cold-hearted snake, looking for another baby bird to eat....

reply from: Sigma

It is, of course, an abstract concept. The qualifications for membership depend on the criteria used. They do not qualify by some criteria.

reply from: AshMarie88

Every human being is a person. There are no human beings that are not people.
Unless, of course, you're a slave owner or are pro-choice... Then your mind is elsewhere.

reply from: Sigma

It depends on your criteria. Most would qualify that one would have to be alive to be a "person".

reply from: AshMarie88

It depends on your criteria. Most would qualify that one would have to be alive to be a "person".
Oh? And what makes you so sure that the unborn are not alive?

reply from: Sigma

It was an example of a certain criteria someone may have, it was not meant as a statement specifically about the fetus.
The dead would not qualify to many people. To others they would. It depends on your criteria.

reply from: Teresa18

Whether something is legal is not dependant on whether it is right.
It sounds to me, Sigma, that you just discounted yourself. Just because the law says something, does not make it right. Thus, just because the law allows for the murdering of womb children, it is certainly not right, just like slavery was not right even though the law allowed for it.

reply from: Sigma

You're right. Just because something is legal does not make it right. Just because something is illegal does not make it wrong, either. The legality and morality are separate.
The same mechanism that took away the States power to allow slavery takes away the States power to restrict abortion.

reply from: Teresa18

Why is the "same mechanism that took away the States power to allow slavery take away the States power to restrict abortion?" After all, in slavery, it was rightfully determined Aftrican Americans are humans. They were being abused, mistreated, and sometimes even murdered. In abortion, womb children are being abused, mistreated, and murdered through the hands of the abortionist. So, the state's power to permit abortion should be taken away.

reply from: Sigma

In both slavery and disallowing abortion the State would be violating the liberty of its citizens. The State cannot constitutionally do this with a compelling interest to protect. This is what the Fourteenth was designed to do.

reply from: yoda

Siggy-poo knows better than that, Ashley. He knows that unborn babies are either alive or dead, he's just playing super-silly proabort games.
He also knows that dying doesn't cause you to stop being a person, it makes you a "dead person".

reply from: yoda

.....................

reply from: Teresa18

In both slavery and disallowing abortion the State would be violating the liberty of its citizens. The State cannot constitutionally do this with a compelling interest to protect. This is what the Fourteenth was designed to do.
The State would not be violating the liberty of its citizens by disallowing abortion. The State would be protecting the rights of the children in the womb of the mother. The child is not hurting the mother in over 98% of circumstances. In those particular circumstances, all efforts should be made to save both lives, and if the child loses it's life, unfortunately so be it. The children will be citizens as soon as they are born. Until then, they deserve protection within the womb of the mother.

reply from: Sigma

They would be protecting the fetus at the expense of the woman's liberty. Currently, the State is not justified in violating the woman's "deep seeded expectation of privacy around the use of her body", even to protect the life of the fetus. The fetus would have no rights to protect.
I would agree, but not at the expense of the woman. Her rights and interests are of paramount importance and deserve consideration before any consideration of something growing inside of her.

reply from: Teresa18

Sigma,
Since the baby is inside the mother for 9 months and relying upon her for survival, do you support killing the baby for those full 9 months, even up until the moment of birth? (since, according to you, the woman's choices and decisions should always come first)

reply from: bradensmommy

Okay Sigma, you win. We will shut down all the prisons and let everyone go free because after all, we are taking away their choice of murdering, raping, and stealing from others. You like to think that pregnancy and those types of crimes go hand and hand which is very sad. I think you are a very sad individual.
I will go write to my senator and see how he feels about the closing of the prisons. I hope that makes you happy!

reply from: yoda

He has stated on many occasions that he does indeed support that.

reply from: Sigma

No, I would not support that.
At the point where induced labor is a viable alternative, I support whichever option would present the least risk to the woman. As I understand it, late-term abortions would present a greater risk to the woman as opposed to induced laber, and both would achieve the result of removing the fetus from her per her desire.

reply from: Sigma

Why would we do that? They infringe upon other people's freedoms in an unjustified manner by murdering, raping and stealing from others. The State would be infringing upon the woman's freedom in an unjustified manner by disallowing abortion.

reply from: xnavy

i believe in the old saying that a person's rights end where another person's right start. abortion interferes with a baby's right to life.
a womens right should end where her unborn babys rights start. another way is your right to do anything you want with your fist
ends with you not having the right to hit someone. abortion used to be ilegal except with the life of the mother. people most of the
time simply went through the pregnancy and gave up the baby for adoption.

reply from: Sigma

The fetus' right to life ends where the woman's right to her own body and her right to privacy begin.
I do not have the right to live attached to you in that way, you do not have the right to live attached to me in this way, and the fetus does not have the right to live attached to the woman in that way.

reply from: yoda

What you're expressing is the concept of moral equality. Every decent person on earth will agree with you, but of course siggy will not. Siggy looks down his nose at babies, as if they were some sort of insect, and wishes he had a human pesticide to spray on them.

reply from: Teresa18

Actually, if we look at what you advocate, you would almost have to. You basically support the woman removing the child from the womb up through 9 months if she decides she no longer wishes to have the child in her body. You usually remark this shouldn't be determined by biology but by the moral and legal consequences. The woman may decide that she doesn't want to care for the child and perhaps she prefers the option of abortion. You technically could not force her to have an induced delivery if she did not want it. So, she could then have the abortion if she preferred that for her body. Also, the law permits abortion through 9 months and such clinics are more than willing, such as Dr. Tiller's clinic to do it. If the law determines it is legal and the child is not a person, that should be enough for you to support the killing of it. Also, the child is in an early stage, perhaps it won't feel much pain anyways, right?

reply from: Sigma

You asked what I advocate. I advocate induced delivery if that is easier on the woman and has fewer risks, which I believe would be the case since I understand late-term abortions are more risky than early term. Whether I could legally enforce that is another matter entirely.
Before consciousness the fetus should experience no pain whatsoever.

reply from: yoda

Indeed. And of course, a partial birth abortion does exactly that.....

reply from: AshMarie88

The fetus' right to life ends where the woman's right to her own body and her right to privacy begin.
I do not have the right to live attached to you in that way, you do not have the right to live attached to me in this way, and the fetus does not have the right to live attached to the woman in that way.
That is like saying that when there is a fire and a family is inside, that it's "alright" for firemen to NOT go in and save them, just for their own sakes, even tho that is what they are there to do - To put out fires and help people.
It's not that complicated.
When a woman gets pregnant, it is no longer just about her. She has a child now, it is HER RESPONSIBILITY to take care of it!

reply from: yoda

Ashley, how does it feel to be talking to someone who advocates for the killing of babies as an acceptable form of behavior, based on nothing more than his opinion that "babies don't have any rights at all"?
Doesn't that give you a cold, clammy feeling?

reply from: AshMarie88

Yep, and it makes me glad he/she is not my mom/dad.

reply from: bradensmommy

Why would we do that? They infringe upon other people's freedoms in an unjustified manner by murdering, raping and stealing from others. The State would be infringing upon the woman's freedom in an unjustified manner by disallowing abortion.
Ohh yeah, just like an unborn child I forgot oh:
You are just so smart.....
But we are, after all, taking away THEIR freedom of choice right?

reply from: bradensmommy

Exactly Yoda, just like my prison freeing suggestion, he describes fetuses like the prisoners.

reply from: bradensmommy

The fetus' right to life ends where the woman's right to her own body and her right to privacy begin.
I do not have the right to live attached to you in that way, you do not have the right to live attached to me in this way, and the fetus does not have the right to live attached to the woman in that way.
That is like saying that when there is a fire and a family is inside, that it's "alright" for firemen to NOT go in and save them, just for their own sakes, even tho that is what they are there to do - To put out fires and help people.
It's not that complicated.
When a woman gets pregnant, it is no longer just about her. She has a child now, it is HER RESPONSIBILITY to take care of it!
It would be okay for the firemen to not save the woman who has been violated by a *gasp* fetus, because, after all, why should we keep producing anyway? Damn those fetuses, I have been violated twice! Dammit.

reply from: Sigma

If they were not violating other's rights, that would be so.

reply from: Sigma

How were you violated? Were you pregnant when you did not wish to be and did the State deny you abortions services against your will?

reply from: bradensmommy

How were you violated? Were you pregnant when you did not wish to be and did the State deny you abortions services against your will?
Are you that ignorant to not understand my point of how stupid you are? I think the people on here know exactly what I'm getting at.

reply from: Sigma

I assumed that you were referring to what I personally believe, but I do not think pregnancy by itself violates your rights. I think the gov't requiring it against your will violates your rights.

reply from: bradensmommy

I agree that the government should stay out of our business. I am pro-life because of the research I have done, not because the government says I should. I don't think anyone should be pro-life just because the hoo-ha's in DC told you to. I think you should because an unborn child is a living human being just like you and me, he/she just has not gotten fully developed. I don't know if you even bothered looking at the development of a fetus but he/she is just as "life-like" as anyone on this planet.
That is why I AM pro-life.

reply from: Sigma

Including pregnancy related business?
Well, good. No one should base their morals based solely on what is legal or illegal.
That's perfectly valid.

reply from: bradensmommy

Including pregnancy related business?
Well, good. No one should base their morals based solely on what is legal or illegal.
That's perfectly valid.
The government was set up to protect Americans so they should have rules for us to follow. I understand that not everyone wants to follow them and thats why we have prisons. I believe that the government should not tell us how and when to have sex, BUT, I think that the goverment is responsible for making sure all humans are protected. I don't know if that made sense because its almost 11 p.m. I would like to know I'm protected as well as my child and unborn child, although I know I am since I married an army boy.
I'd like to continue this further but I don't even know if I'm making sense so I think I will go watch SNL and go to bed.

reply from: Sigma

We could argue that forever, so have a good night.

reply from: LetFreedomRing

Women abort babies now because they feel they are superior, and so do pro-choicers. Slave owners thought they were superior to blacks, so they made them their slaves. The situations are alike. Unborn babies should have the right to life, but they don't. Just like the slaves.

reply from: LetFreedomRing

Any sane person would agree that all humans are people. Since the baby in a woman's womb was created by two humans, it's only logical to assume that it also is a human.
Unborn babies are alive. What's your point?
And 3500 women a day infringe upon her baby's right to life by killing it.
When a woman has sex, she does everything that needs to be done to conceive a child. The baby didn't put him/herself there, it's mother did. I'm just trying to figure out where else the baby's supposed to go besides the womb.
So? I could inject anesthesia into a sleeping person and then kill them, and it would still be wrong.
Of course it would be wrong if the government required women to get pregnant. But that's not what would happen if abortion were made illegal. Women get themselves pregnant, not the government.

reply from: Sigma

Women have abortions for many reasons, but I have never seen this reason cited.
I do not dispute that the fetus is human, and absolutely it is reasonable to say that not all humans are people. Dead humans are not considered people in the sense of having "someone in there".
The point being that there are certain criteria that some people can reasonably have. Life is one of them and consciousness may be another. Simply saying "human = person" is irrational.
The fetus has no right to life. Even were the fetus to have a right to life it may be justifiable to infringe upon it.
"Where else" is immaterial :-\
The argument that assigns guilt to the woman, while certainly popular among pro-life people, of course is not an argument that the fetus is innocent life and so abortion is disallowed. Rather it suggests an argument that it is reasonable to punish the woman for voluntary sex. Not many would accept treating pregnancy as a punishment or "just desserts".
The government would be requiring her pregnancy to continue were they to disallow abortion. Would it then "of course" be wrong for the gov't to do that?

reply from: Sigma

Well duh. The State would then be requiring her to continue her pregnancy against her will.

reply from: Teresa18

Siggy, CP had a good argument, and I'm supposing that's why you chose to be sarcastic in order to avoid refuting it.

reply from: Sigma

There was no argument. It was, essentially, a semantic dispute. If he wishes to look at the situation from a different point a view that is fine with me, but it does not change what occurs.
The State would be requiring her to continue her pregnancy against her will if abortion is disallowed.

reply from: yoda

Which brings to mind a good analogy..... suppose there were two prisoners wrongfully confined in a penitentiary, both of them innocent of any crime. One is sentenced to 9 months hard labor, and the other to death.
To which prisoner is the greatest injustice being done?

reply from: Sigma

Yay for you? Yours is still a semantic dispute. If you wish to look at disallowing abortion from that point of view be my guest. It changes nothing.
The fact remains that the State will be requiring her to continue her pregnancy against her will. I know you don't care about this, but your caring is immaterial. The discussion is, generally, about whether it is justified for the State to do. Your behavior suggests you do not agree with the State doing this.

reply from: melissa1020

what about the father where are his rights in this so called chose? its his baby if he wanted the just took away his right to chose to be a father. so how is it fair that a women can chose not to be a mother but a man cant chose if his child gets a chance at life. He is then violated and has is rights taken away from him.

reply from: bradensmommy

Which brings to mind a good analogy..... suppose there were two prisoners wrongfully confined in a penitentiary, both of them innocent of any crime. One is sentenced to 9 months hard labor, and the other to death.
To which prisoner is the greatest injustice being done?
I already know Siggy's answer but mine I'm not so sure, I think I'd rather do the labor than face death.

reply from: bradensmommy

Exactly. I think the father should have just as much responsibility as the mother. I also think that if it was caused by rape, the rapist has to pay child support if the mother decides to keep her child.

reply from: Sigma

Where is he in the pregnancy relationship?

reply from: Sigma

What would my answer be, then?

reply from: yoda

I already know Siggy's answer but mine I'm not so sure, I think I'd rather do the labor than face death.
Really? Siggy will claim that 9 months hard labor is worse than a death sentence? You don't think siggy-poo would lie about a thing like that, do you?

reply from: Teresa18

Sigma, how do you think she got pregnant. Just because she is carrying the child, the child is still just as much his as it is hers.

reply from: Sigma

Right, but where is he in the pregnancy relationship? As far as I know the only two involved are the woman and the fetus. His physical body is not involved, thus the arguments pro-choice people use do not directly apply.

reply from: AshMarie88

Sigma, when women can get pregnant without men, that will be the day when she gets to kill her own kid.
Until then, if the dad wants his child, he should have half the right to him/her!

reply from: Teresa18

That's right Ashley. There are 23 choromosomes contributed by him in that child. The mother didn't contribute all 46 herself!

reply from: Sigma

Sure, but he does not have the right to the use of the woman's body for that half. Within the pregnancy relationship the only two considerations are the woman and the fetus. Until the man can carry the fetus within his body he has no claim over the use of hers.

reply from: Sigma

I never suggested this.
What I am suggesting that the contribution of the life-support system the fetus uses belongs entirely to the woman, and she may end her contribution to the relationship.

reply from: yoda

Any decent Dad would feel a strong desire to protect his child, born or unborn. Maybe that explains siggy's inability to understand?

reply from: AshMarie88

Siggy's obsession with women and death makes me really disgusted...

reply from: bradensmommy

Siggy, we all know you'd choose death over 9 months of hard labor. And for your information pregnancy is not hard labor til you actually give birth. People like you scare me.

reply from: Sigma

Then perhaps you shouldn't post in a forum about ABORTION, since it is about women and death and even sometimes the death of women.

reply from: Sigma

For my information? I didn't give you the choice of death or 9 months hard labor, so your ire is misdirected.

reply from: bradensmommy

The point of the matter is is that pregnancy is not that bad at all and any woman who thinks so is full of crap. Morning sickness. Big whoop. The WORST part of the whole dang pregnancy is labor because you are pushing something the size of a watermelon out of a hole the size of an orange. BUT you can get drugs for that which is very nice indeed.

reply from: Sigma

bradensmommy, give other women the respect you ask for. While none can tell you how good or bad your pregnancy is, you cannot tell other women how good or bad their pregnancies are. Please respect that other women can dislike pregnancy and not feel that it is worth going through, even if you disagree, without being "full of crap".

reply from: bradensmommy

Trust me, it is not that bad. Women's bodies are made to be able to handle tough situations. Lemme tell you about being pregnant.
Morning sickness. (I never had it with either pregnancy)
stretching belly which is uncomfy but thats what happens when one gains weight as well.
cravings.(I crave peanut butter and bacon sandwiches)
sore boobs (but if you are a female you'd know you get that during your period)
The 1st trimester is the toughest because the fertilized egg is digging into the uterus to implant itself as in turn makes you spot. Its also the highest chance of getting a miscarriage. After the 1st trimester it is better because your morning sickness more than likely goes away.
So YOU tell me how bad pregnancy REALLY is....?

reply from: Sigma

bradensmommy, you can only say that about pregnancies you've experienced. I believe you, but that does not mean that other women are "full of crap" because they experience something different and didn't like it at all.
I'm not trying to tell you that pregnancy is bad. I'm telling you that your own experience does not determine every woman's experience. You liked it, or at least it was worth it. With other women it may not be the same. And they are not full of crap because they think so.

reply from: bradensmommy

bradensmommy, you can only say that about pregnancies you've experienced. I believe you, but that does not mean that other women are "full of crap" because they experience something different and didn't like it at all.
I'm not trying to tell you that pregnancy is bad. I'm telling you that your own experience does not determine every woman's experience. You liked it, or at least it was worth it. With other women it may not be the same. And they are not full of crap because they think so.
Hmm well being an army wife, being around other army wives who get pregnant at the drop of a hat I know for experience from myself and others that IT IS NOT THAT BAD. YOU tell me about a situation where you or someone you know who had a "bad experience" and maybe I'll believe you. Other than that you HAVE NO IDEA what you are talking about.
We have had this discussion before and I know for a fact it is not that bad.

reply from: AshMarie88

Then perhaps you shouldn't post in a forum about ABORTION, since it is about women and death and even sometimes the death of women.
Tell me, what is killing women sometimes.
But I will tell you right now that abortion is ALWAYS about the death of the unborn. More unborn die than women ever have.

reply from: AshMarie88

I also have to agree with Crista. From what I have indirectly experienced with tons of my own family members, women, being pregnant (most of them, more than once), it is NOT a terrible thing.
In fact I think I know/knew more pregnant women in my life time than I have known non pregnant women.
I wonder how many Sig knows...

reply from: bradensmommy

exactly. I wonder if he/she knows about women who have died from abortions? Alot more than women today giving birth because of the medical technology we have today than the 1800's.
I keep trying to explain that pregnancy is not bad at all, sure it has some ups and downs but the only thing that is really "bad" is the delivery, I should know! hehe

reply from: Sigma

I've been part of discussions with many women, some of which never wanted to go through pregnancy again, even though they love thier children. It really can be unpleasant, depending on the woman.
I would have thought it obvious that the experience would be different from person to person.

reply from: Sigma

What, are you obsessed with women and death now?

reply from: yoda

And the ironic thing is that abortions are ALWAYS done by proaborts, NEVER by prolifers. So the proaborts are the ones killing women in abortions, and yet they want to blame us?
The blood is on their hands, not ours.


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