Home - List All Discussions

Are you Pro-Life or Pro-Death?

by: theBigX

There's no sense in using the commonly used euphemism to describe people who support the murder of innocent children. Everyone call them "Pro-Death" from now on.

reply from: yoda

"Pro-Death for unwanted unborn babies" would be more accurate, but probably too long for a label. "Anti-Life" is good too.

reply from: kayluvzchoice

You are not really helping your "cause".

reply from: joe

It absolutely helps. It make you uneasy, that in itself is positive.

reply from: kayluvzchoice

How is that making me uneasy? How can you tell?

reply from: joe

You objecting to a label that is scientifically accurate.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Well then, from hat POV, only vegetarian, anti-death penalty 'lifers should use the term "pro-life". The rest can be pro-forced pregnancy, or anti-abortion.

reply from: joe

Pro life is in regards to abortion only. Why do you involve other political agendas? To distract?

reply from: LolitaOlivia

No, because it's a valid argument. How can you claim to be pro-life when that only applies to one issue? I've heard of some anti-death penalty and anti-euthanasia groups that use the term too. Perhaps pro-fetus would work better?

reply from: Skippy

You anti-abortion rights folks need a nice acronym. Maybe AWALLs, for Anti-Woman Anti-Liberty Lunatics.

reply from: joe

It is 100% accurate in regards to abortion. I have no problem it being used for other causes except for death penalties. Innocent life vs guilty murderer are 2 completely different issues.
Skippy, to kill is liberty? Do you ever analyze your thought process? You freaks never respond to direct questions. You freaks scatter like cockroaches when approached with facts. Abortion is simply an act of murder with a simple answer. But freaks like you make it complicated to misled idiots. You make issues out of thin air. You (God of stupidity) are the real lunatic. Stop talking trash and prove you point, coward.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

It is 100% accurate in regards to abortion. I have no problem it being used for other causes except for death penalties. Innocent life vs guilty murderer are 2 completely different issues.
Skippy, to kill is liberty? Do you ever analyze your thought process? You freaks never respond to direct questions. You freaks scatter like cockroaches when approached with facts. Abortion is simply an act of murder with a simple answer. But freaks like you make it complicated to misled idiots. You make issues out of thin air. You (God of stupidity) are the real lunatic. Stop talking trash and prove you point, coward.
The liberty to do as one wishes with one's own body, perhaps?
And innocent people get executed; our legal system isn't perfect.
Link:
http://www.geocities.com/gfadp/innocent.html

reply from: joe

I am against the death penalty but that has no bearing on this issue. You can do what you want with your body as long as the sacred human life is preserved.

reply from: Skippy

I don't make the abortion issue complicated. You are correct in saying that it is quite simple. No one can be forced to choose the more dangerous path. That is antithetical to the principle of liberty.
If choosing the less dangerous path involves the death of an embryo or fetus, well, sometimes that's the way the cookie crumbles.

reply from: AshMarie88

If pro-life means pro-ALL-life, then pro-choice should mean pro-ALL-choice.

reply from: Banned Member

If pro-life means pro-ALL-life, then pro-choice should mean pro-ALL-choice.
I, personally, am Pro-ALL-Choice.

reply from: AshMarie88

If pro-life means pro-ALL-life, then pro-choice should mean pro-ALL-choice.
I, personally, am Pro-ALL-Choice.
Ah good!! So you support murder, rape, torture, that kind of thing?

reply from: Banned Member

If pro-life means pro-ALL-life, then pro-choice should mean pro-ALL-choice.
I, personally, am Pro-ALL-Choice.
Ah good!! So you support murder, rape, torture, that kind of thing?
No, I don't support the actions, but I support peoples right to choose to commit those actions. I would never advocate the government putting computer chips in people brains to control their actions, making it impossible for them to ever do wrong. It's a persons ability to choose to do the right thing that makes them an honorable person.

reply from: yoda

What amazes me is how boldly you continue to repeat the same tired old lies over and over, long after they've been exposed as lies. But then, baby killers are nothing if not brassy....
pro-life adjective against open access to abortion: in favor of bringing the human fetus to full term, especially by campaigning against open access to abortion and against experimentation on embryos http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861736610

pro-life adjective
opposed to the belief that a pregnant woman should have the freedom to choose an abortion if she does not want to have a baby
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=63328&dict=CALD

pro-life -adj.
opposed to legalized abortion; right-to-life http://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/pro-life

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) -
pro-life /pro??la?f/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[proh-lahyf] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-adjective opposed to legalized abortion; right-to-life. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pro-life&r=66

pro-life adjective supporting the belief that it is immoral for a pregnant woman to have the freedom to choose to have an abortion (= an operation to end a pregnancy) if she does not want to have a baby http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=prolife*1+0&dict=A

reply from: yoda

Yes, abortionists have executed about 45 million of them in this country alone, since 1973.

reply from: yoda

Driving on the highway is a lot more dangerous when it's crowded with other vehicles.
Going by your principle, we have the moral right to shoot other people to keep their vehicles off the highway, to keep ourselves "safer".

reply from: yoda

No, I don't support the actions, but I support peoples right to choose to commit those actions..
Ah, then you advocate the repeal of all laws against murder, rape, and torture?
Hey, that's the only way you can support the "right to choose" to commit those actions, right?
Thanks for revealing the true nature of baby killers.

reply from: jujujellybean

No, I don't support the actions, but I support peoples right to choose to commit those actions..
Ah, then you advocate the repeal of all laws against murder, rape, and torture?
Hey, that's the only way you can support the "right to choose" to commit those actions, right?
Thanks for revealing the true nature of baby killers.
it finally comes out. They believe all rapists, torturers, and killers should have the right to do that. Why am I not surprised?

reply from: Banned Member

No, I don't support the actions, but I support peoples right to choose to commit those actions..
Ah, then you advocate the repeal of all laws against murder, rape, and torture?
Hey, that's the only way you can support the "right to choose" to commit those actions, right?
Thanks for revealing the true nature of baby killers.
As usual, you dissect my post, take a small part of it out of context, then twist it to mean whatever you want. It's sad that someone of your impressive age can act so immaturely, but it's expected, it's pretty much the only way you ever get anywhere in a debate.
Anyone who read my post knows that's not what I meant, but let me clarify, just in case some of you truly are that dense. I don't support the actions, I wouldn't not want to see the laws repealed, however, I would never take away a persons choice to commit those crimes. It's called free will, we all have it. I can see in the future the ability to make tiny computer chips that when placed in the brain, can control a persons behavior, but I'll be damned if I would ever support an action such as that. Even if they were only talking about implanting it into the brains of criminals.
To put it simply for you to understand better, I don't support every choice a person makes, but I support their right to choose.
On the other hand I feel there are some laws that should be repealed. Such as a persons right to smoke a joint, or not wear a seatbelt if they don't want to. I think the idea of 'sin' tax is incredibly ridiculous. Basically I think that whatever a person decides to do with their own body, as long as it doesn't harm another (born) person, or interfere with any of their personal rights, so be it.
Now, go ahead & take whatever small piece of what I said & twist as you see fit, I know it makes you feel special.

reply from: yoda

Doesn't some kind of little buzzer go off in your head when you contradict yourself like that? Doesn't your subconscious make you uneasy or something?
"Taking away a person's choice" has always been the phrase you proaborts use to describe passing laws against abortion. So by that standard, taking away the choice of a murderer would be to have a law against murder.
And the ONLY way they can "have a right to choose" is to repeal all laws against "every choice a person makes" (like murder, rape, robbery, etc.).
What kind of mental block do you have in your head? Is it iron, wood, rock, or what?
This is no fun, really.... you ought to try harder.

reply from: Banned Member

Doesn't some kind of little buzzer go off in your head when you contradict yourself like that? Doesn't your subconscious make you uneasy or something?
"Taking away a person's choice" has always been the phrase you proaborts use to describe passing laws against abortion. So by that standard, taking away the choice of a murderer would be to have a law against murder.
And the ONLY way they can "have a right to choose" is to repeal all laws against "every choice a person makes" (like murder, rape, robbery, etc.).
What kind of mental block do you have in your head? Is it iron, wood, rock, or what?
This is no fun, really.... you ought to try harder.
Taking away a persons LEGAL right to choose is what we are against. Are you really this thick skulled?
It's illegal to rob a store. A person can still CHOOSE to so this, however s/he must face the consequence of their actions should they make that CHOICE. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's not an option anymore. If it was no longer a CHOICE, then it wouldn't still be in existence.
Same goes with abortion. Even if it were made illegal, it would still be a CHOICE a woman could make, though she would have to realize that if she made that CHOICE she would be looking at consequences, she may have to go to jail. If some of you had their way, she would be looking at the death penalty. We Pro-CHOICE people don't feel that a woman should face any consequence, we don't feel that abortion should be a crime. We feel it should remain a LEGAL CHOICE.

reply from: Banned Member

Umm..As I've said several times, yes I believe they should remain illegal. I'm not an anarchist, but I would never advocate mind control. Therefore I am Pro-ALL-Choice.

reply from: yoda

So laws against abortion would NOT take away her "choice", right?

reply from: yoda

Don't you just love it when a proabort sticks their foot squarely in their mouth?

reply from: Banned Member

I haven't stuck anything in my mouth. You all are purposefully misunderstanding what I am saying & I won't dumb it down any more for you. You know exactly what I mean, you are choosing to take my words out of context & twist how you see fit. It's a good thing these kind of tactics wouldn't hold up in an actual debate or court of law, or else I might be worried that one day you people would win. Fortunately, that's not the case.
Oh & bravo Yoda, for being able to look up word in a dictionary! Guess what, I looked up 'Pro-Death and *gasp* it's not even in there! Oh the shock, oh the horror. I guess you guys can't use it since it's not a word!

reply from: joe

I don't make the abortion issue complicated. You are correct in saying that it is quite simple. No one can be forced to choose the more dangerous path. That is antithetical to the principle of liberty.
If choosing the less dangerous path involves the death of an embryo or fetus, well, sometimes that's the way the cookie crumbles.
There may be an element of risk involved with pregnancy, but abortion does not eliminate that risk. Once pregnant, the risks associated with pregnancy have already been assumed, usually with full consent. Abortion is simply trading the risks of childbirth for the risks of abortion, and which is the greater risk to the mother is debatable. It most often varies due to individual circumstances. The risk to the child is another matter altogether.
The truth is that the risks associated with live birth and abortion are both comparatively minimal. The overwhelming majority of women can reasonably expect to survive pregnancy with no real long term physical detriment to themselves, whether they abort or not. If the child is carried to term, both mother and child can reasonably expect to survive relatively unscathed in the overwhelming majority of cases, however, if the pregnancy is prematurely terminated, the infant mortality rate rises by around 95-99%. The maternal mortality rate differs only by fractions of a percent.
Pro-aborts like to use stats from third world countries where medical care is substandard or even non-existent for all practical purposes to attempt to make it appear that abortion is safer than childbirth, but in reality, this is dishonest and misleading. The risks of maternal mortality are increased by lack of proper medical care whether she chooses to abort or not. At any rate, it is not pregnancy itself that poses the risk, but complications to pregnancy. A normal pregnancy poses no real risk, and in developed countries where proper medical care is readily available, most complications are dealt with as "routine," only ectopic pregnancy sometimes requiring abortion.
Waiting for Skippy

reply from: LolitaOlivia

"The following was compiled by Moniquill and Nethilia (at least, I have them credited in my text file).
Take solace in the fact that every pregnancy holds the risk of death.
These are the normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:
-- exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)
-- altered appetite and senses of taste and smell
-- nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester)
-- heartburn and indigestion
-- constipation
-- weight gain
-- dizziness and light-headedness
-- bloating, swelling, fluid retention
-- hemorrhoids
-- abdominal cramps
-- yeast infections
-- congested, bloody nose
-- acne and mild skin disorders
-- skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)
-- mild to severe backache and strain
-- increased headaches
-- difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping
-- increased urination and incontinence
-- bleeding gums
-- pica
-- breast pain and discharge
-- swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain
-- difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy
-- inability to take regular medications
-- shortness of breath
-- higher blood pressure
-- hair loss
-- tendency to anemia
-- curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities
-- infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease (pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)
-- extreme pain on delivery
-- hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression
-- continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section -- major surgery -- is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover)
These are the normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:
-- stretch marks (worse in younger women)
-- loose skin
-- permanent weight gain or redistribution
-- abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
-- pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life)
-- changes to breasts
-- varicose veins
-- scarring from episiotomy or c-section
-- other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)
-- increased proclivity for hemorrhoids
-- loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)
These are the occasional complications and side effects:
-- hyperemesis gravidarum
-- temporary and permanent injury to back
-- severe scarring requiring later surgery (especially after additional pregnancies)
-- dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele)
-- pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies)
-- eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)
-- gestational diabetes
-- placenta previa
-- anemia (which can be life-threatening)
-- thrombocytopenic purpura
-- severe cramping
-- embolism (blood clots)
-- medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby)
-- diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles
-- mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)
-- serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)
-- hormonal imbalance
-- ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)
-- broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone")
-- hemorrhage and
-- numerous other complications of delivery
-- refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease
-- aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)
-- severe post-partum depression and psychosis
-- research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women and donors
-- research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy
-- research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease
These are some less common (but serious) complications:
-- peripartum cardiomyopathy
-- cardiopulmonary arrest
-- magnesium toxicity
-- severe hypoxemia/acidosis
-- massive embolism
-- increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction
-- molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease (like a pregnancy-induced cancer)
-- malignant arrhythmia
-- circulatory collapse
-- placental abruption
-- obstetric fistula
And a few more permanent side effects:
-- future infertility
-- permanent disability
-- death."
Abortion eliminates at least some of those risks.

reply from: joe

You accepted those risks when you chose to get pregnant. Now an innocent human has to die for you?? That is criminal.

reply from: xLoki

Food for thought: a woman seeking an abortion probably didn't "choose to get pregnant".

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Women who get abortions don't choose to get pregnant. They may choose to have sex, but not to get pregnant.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Women who get abortions don't choose to get pregnant. They may choose to have sex, but not to get pregnant.
"Cutters" probably don't "choose" to bleed to death, but when they cut themselves, they are almost certainly aware of that risk, which they willingly accept. If they bleed to death as a result of the self inflicted wounds, are they then not responsible for their own death?
When you consent to sex, you have willingly accepted the possibility that you might become pregnant, by implication, consenting to pregnancy as well. To assert that you are not responsible for the fact that you are pregnant would be dishonest, but to contend that the innocent child existing within your womb as a result of your actions, in all honesty without the consent of the child, is an "invader" who is violating your rights by being where you caused him/her to be, is ludicrous. Furthermore, to justify actually killing that child based on such ridiculous rationalizations should be criminal...
Consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy. Many women who get abortions didn't believe there was a risk for pregnancy when they conceived, whether from failed birth control, a weird time in their cycle, or believed infertility (of themselves or their partners). Also, there is the rape issue, though I'll admit that most abortions aren't done for rape victims. Besides, intent is important. They intended to have sex, pregnancy was a side effect. If you take a pill for other purposes that has death as a side effect, do you consent to die?

reply from: Skippy

In this country, a couple of women die every day from complications related to pregnancy and childbirth.
Less than one woman a month dies from complications related to abortion.
That's why the decision of whether to continue the pregnancy or not has to be up to the woman. She gets to decide if she wants to possibly be part of the unlucky several hundred, or the unlucky less than a dozen.

reply from: lukesmom

Every singe aborted child dies and they don't get the option of voicing their choice...

reply from: yoda

It IS consent to the POSSIBILITY of pregnancy.
I doubt that there are "many". Pregnancy is such an important topic for fertile women that they generally inform themselves of the possibility of failure with bc methods. They know.
But for the very few who actually don't know, how does that serve as a moral justification for killing the baby, who knows even less?
How does ignorance give you the right to kill an innocent human being?

reply from: LolitaOlivia

This isn't about killing anyone. It's about the fundamental right to control your own body and what goes on in that body. And the fact that they didn't think they would get pregnant indicates that they didn't choose to get pregnant by having sex.

reply from: yoda

You know, telling obvious lies about the identity of the victim is as old as murder and genocide.
The nazis claimed the Jews were "vermin", and not human. Slave owners claimed slaves were "not people".
So it isn't surprising that those who advocate legalized baby killing would lie through their teeth about the identify of the babies. We expect it, in fact.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

You know, telling obvious lies about the identity of the victim is as old as murder and genocide.
The nazis claimed the Jews were "vermin", and not human. Slave owners claimed slaves were "not people".
So it isn't surprising that those who advocate legalized baby killing would lie through their teeth about the identify of the babies. We expect it, in fact.
Slaves and Jews didn't live inside people's bodies against their will. They were people who could think and feel and have opinions.

reply from: yoda

Totally immaterial and irrelevant.
The comparison stands....... the attacker always tries to dehumanize the victim of his/her attack. It is in the nature of an aggressor to try to minimize the horrible nature of their actions.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Totally immaterial and irrelevant.
The comparison stands....... the attacker always tries to dehumanize the victim of his/her attack. It is in the nature of an aggressor to try to minimize the horrible nature of their actions.
Yes, as pro-lifers try to dehumanize the women who they want to force to give birth. "They don't know what they want." "They made their choice." "They should just grit their teeth and have the baby."

reply from: xnavy

i am prolife and i am glad i was born pre roe, the law prevented my mother from aborting me. after i was born my mother raised me
with lots of love.
abortion has not cured child abuse in fact child abuse has increased since roe

reply from: LolitaOlivia

So your mother had you, not because she wanted you but because she was required by law to have you? Did she actually seek out an abortion?
Reported instances of child abuse have increased. In the "good old days" it was called discipline and children didn't realize they could report it. In the fifties and sixties parents did a lot of things that would be considered child abuse today. People haven't started hurting their children more, children have just started reporting it more.

reply from: lukesmom

Too bad Lowlita wasn't born in the 50's or 60's. She could have used a little "old fashioned disciple". Maybe she would have developed morals and compassion.

reply from: lukesmom

Lolita, How are YOU different from these girls/women?
http://joseromia.tripod.com/survivors.html

According to Heidi Huffman, you too are a survivor.
Heidi herself says, "I believe that all young people are survivors of abortion, just like I am, because they too could have been killed under the current policy of our government, which declared us "non-persons" when we were in the womb."

reply from: yoda

You get funnier and funnier every day. No woman is EVER "forced to give birth".
ALL pregnant women give "birth" (which just means the baby leaves the mother's body). Some give live birth, and some give still birth. WHAT is "dehumanizing" about giving birth, anyway?
But no one, not ever a bloodthirsty baby killer such as yourself, advocates that we KILL pregnant mothers, do they?

reply from: yoda

Wow....... it really ticks you off that she's alive, doesn't it?
Does it make you just want to kill her now?

reply from: Skippy

Every singe aborted child dies and they don't get the option of voicing their choice...
Of course they die. There is no way to remove a non-viable embryo or fetus and gestate it elsewhere.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

So you advocate beating children now? Charming.
If a woman is pregnant and doesn't want to give birth, but is required by law to do so, she is being forced to give birth.
No. And abortion and labor are not the same. Giving birth takes much longer, is more painful, and requires nine months of pregnancy to happen.
The very circumstances of my conception. I was planned and wanted. It's impossible for everyone to be at risk for abortion if not everyone is unwanted.

reply from: Skippy

Of course they die. There is no way to remove a non-viable embryo or fetus and gestate it elsewhere.
They actually don't just "die," but are killed. Are you another dishonest pro-abort who contends that abortion is merely the removal of the child, and that it's death is just an unfortunate consequence of that removal?
Let me rephrase.
There is no way to remove a non-viable embryo or fetus without killing it.

reply from: faithman

You get funnier and funnier every day. No woman is EVER "forced to give birth".
ALL pregnant women give "birth" (which just means the baby leaves the mother's body). Some give live birth, and some give still birth. WHAT is "dehumanizing" about giving birth, anyway?
But no one, not ever a bloodthirsty baby killer such as yourself, advocates that we KILL pregnant mothers, do they?
Pro-abort men kill pregnant pro-life mothers all the time.

reply from: lukesmom

Are you so very sure? I have been pregnant 6 times and three were initially "not wanted", took me a while to get used to the fact I was having another child. I could have killed them. Unfortunantly 2 died, one a miscarriage and one soon after birth. You have no idea little girl. Life is not grand and you are not the one who decides who is deserving and who is not. You are NOT more deserving of life than anyone else born or unborn, wanted or unwanted. Look at these people and tell me, HOW ARE THEY DIFFERENT FROM YOU AND DON'T GIVE ME YOUR USUAL "I WAS WANTED" CRAP. These people are human as you are, they are meaningful and they and all the killed unborn are as deserving as you.
"I would deny that choice simply because, from a legal point of view she has the right to her own body, and the right to prevent something from infringing upon that right. If the child is removed and isn't infringing upon that right, it has the right to live."
These people also have a right to their body, a right to not have it ripped apart or burned. They have the fundamental right to continue a life that was created by a woman and a man. A woman and a man who made the choice to have sex knowing full well the consequence (whether good or bad) of pregnancy.
You truely have my pity because you truely don't want to see the truth and are walking into a world of pain because of your own "choice". Girl, you are the downfall of humanity. You have my pity and you quite frankly sicken me. You have sucked the "goodness" out of motherhood in the same way a killer sucks a child from the warmth of it's mothers womb. I am sorry for you, it must be a heck of a life...

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Considering my parents were in their thirties and married, and have told me so many times, yeah.
To you, it may not matter who is wanted and who isn't, but to the woman who is pregnant, it matters more than anything else. Whether she laughs or cries, whether she is congratulated or consoled, whether she looks forward to the birth, or would give anything so that it doesn't happen. To me it matters. I'm proud that I was wanted, that I mean something to my parents.
So? The mother has a right to her body, and she can think and feel and make choices. She has a name. Legally, and according to most people you could ask, she's a person. And no one has the right to use her body against her will.
I feel no pain. I am happy. I love my life, and I love the people in it. I have a good life now and a better life ahead of me. There's no truth I don't see. I am confident in my beliefs. I am an independent person. What could be better?

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Make up your mind....You've been waffling on this issue lately.
No I haven't. When did I say anyone had the right to use someone's body against their will? It's one of my fundamental beliefs.

reply from: Skippy

Let me rephrase.
There is no way to remove a non-viable embryo or fetus without killing it.
Chose not to answer that?
Perhaps I'm not understanding what you are asking.
I've not had an abortion myself, but the women I know who have had one didn't do it to kill the embryo/fetus, but rather to end the pregnancy. At this time there is no way to end a pregnancy prior to viability that doesn't involve killing the embryo/fetus.
I don't see acknowledging that abortion is intended to end a pregnancy, and that there's no way to do that without killing the embryo/fetus, as dishonest. Your mileage may vary.

reply from: lukesmom

You live in the today and never think of the tomorrow. You think of yourself only. Give time a chance, eventually evil has to be answered. That is the bad part of consequences. Now I have to go and enjoy my little and big blessings.,

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Make up your mind....You've been waffling on this issue lately.
No I haven't. When did I say anyone had the right to use someone's body against their will? It's one of my fundamental beliefs.
Well, at first you said a mother could refuse to breastfeed even if her child is starving, then you said that right "goes away" after the child is born...
I never said that! All I said was that if it's not dependent on her body, she can't let it die.

reply from: faithman

Make up your mind....You've been waffling on this issue lately.
No I haven't. When did I say anyone had the right to use someone's body against their will? It's one of my fundamental beliefs.
Well, at first you said a mother could refuse to breastfeed even if her child is starving, then you said that right "goes away" after the child is born...
I never said that! All I said was that if it's not dependent on her body, she can't let it die.
Children are dependant on the body of both parents for survival for a pretty good while. Its called work to provide for your kids, and if you neglect their dependancy, you could go to jail. That is the major reason the irresponcible kill in the womb. Pro-death scancs are irresponsible monsters who kill dependant children. Cant help it if you do not have the courage to face that fact, of course only a coward would kill a womb child to avoid responsiblity.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Make up your mind....You've been waffling on this issue lately.
No I haven't. When did I say anyone had the right to use someone's body against their will? It's one of my fundamental beliefs.
Well, at first you said a mother could refuse to breastfeed even if her child is starving, then you said that right "goes away" after the child is born...
I never said that! All I said was that if it's not dependent on her body, she can't let it die.
Children are dependant on the body of both parents for survival for a pretty good while. Its called work to provide for your kids, and if you neglect their dependancy, you could go to jail. That is the major reason the irresponcible kill in the womb. Pro-death scancs are irresponsible monsters who kill dependant children. Cant help it if you do not have the courage to face that fact, of course only a coward would kill a womb child to avoid responsiblity.
No, they aren't. They're dependent on the parents' money, but not their body. And there are people who don't work and have kids. There's a difference between living inside a body and stealing nutrients and that body making money for their family, anyway.

reply from: AshMarie88

Mrs. Abortion, what is your fascination with abortion anyway? You sound like a member in a mob...

reply from: GratiaPlena

So parents could just sit in a chair all day long and somehow feed and care for their children? Obviously born children depend on their parents/guardians to do physical work (going to the store, making dinner, cleanin cuts/scrapes, etc.) in order to survive.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

So parents could just sit in a chair all day long and somehow feed and care for their children? Obviously born children depend on their parents/guardians to do physical work (going to the store, making dinner, cleanin cuts/scrapes, etc.) in order to survive.
Yes, but that's indirect. There's a difference between cooking a meal for your child and having them live off your bodily nutrients.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Different terms for the same basic concept.
There's a fundamental difference between direct use of your body and indirect. Both parents can cook for a child. Grandparents, friends, and relatives can cook for a child. Cooking isn't painful (if you do it right) and it can't put your body at risk. And you don't have to cook anyway. You can go out to eat. Or you can order a pizza.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

No. If you don't cook for your children for one night, they won't starve and they won't even get sick. Even if you don't feed them for a day. When I was a teenager, I wouldn't eat for over a week, and I'd be fine. My parents would try and make me, but if they hadn't I would've gone without food until I fell faint, which takes longer than a week. And not all parents work. Some have inheiritance, some live off a pension or welfare. Some have the other parent or someone else support them. Some people just have enough money to eat, at least, without even working. If you were in so much pain you couldn't feed your children for a long time, you could call someone to come cook for you. You could go to the government and get on disability and hire someone to help you. When children directly use your body, you don't have these options.

reply from: yoda

But you don't have to "cook" for your unborn child, do you? All you have to do is eat enough for the two of you, right?
Why do you quibble on and on about these ridiculous, meaningless technicalities when you've already told us a woman has the moral right to kill her baby "because she wants to"?
We know you place zero moral value on unborn human life, why quibble about justifications?

reply from: LolitaOlivia

No, it uses your food, possibly against your will.
Because that's what makes the difference between a legal argument and an emotional argument.

reply from: yoda

Because that's what makes the difference between a legal argument and an emotional argument.
???????????????????????????????????????????????????
WHAT "legal argument"????
You have made NO "legal argument", nor an emotional one. Are you so starved for an "argument" that you will just say anything, regardless of how meaningless it is?

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Because that's what makes the difference between a legal argument and an emotional argument.
???????????????????????????????????????????????????
WHAT "legal argument"????
You have made NO "legal argument", nor an emotional one. Are you so starved for an "argument" that you will just say anything, regardless of how meaningless it is?
Bodily domain is a legal argument. The right to privacy and to your own body under the law. The emotional argument is the sheer cruelty of forcing women to give birth.

reply from: yoda

No, there is no legal argument for "bodily domain" in any court decision that I am aware of, you just made that up. "Privacy" is the legal argument made up by the supreme court.
No woman has EVER been "forced to give birth", as you well know. SOME women have been influenced NOT to kill their babies BEFORE birth.
Women who do kill their babies (abort) before birth, simply have "still" births.
But don't let my "technicalities" interfere with your enjoyment of talking about killing babies.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

If you choose to ignore cases upholding abortion rights, there's McFall vs. Shimp.
Link:
http://www.trinity.edu/departments/philosophy/sluper/Chapter8guidetoethics.htm

From wikipedia.
So abortion can not be a way of "giving birth". If abortion is illegal, women will be forced to stay pregnant for nine months and give birth by the law. And using he word "influenced" when referring to forcing someone to stay pregnant makes you sound like a mafia member. "We "influenced" Vinny not to testify, Boss."
No, still birth still requires culmination of the pregnancy.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

No, I was simply going into the difference between directly and indirectly using your body.
Yes, but if you don't you have to feed it and house it and deal with whatever pains come with it. You can't give it to the father for a few days. You can't let your parents feed it. You have to do everything. With born children you don't.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Because abortion was already legal when it happened.
Neither does donating bone marrow. Bone marrow cells regrow and reproduce. No body parts are permanently lost.
You keep saying this, even though I've said time and time again that pregnancy is not always intentional and that some women didn't even think it was physically possible for them to get pregnant when they did.
But it is. It proves that people have the right to their own bodies, and that that right trumps someone else's right to life.
The right to life, but the right to use someone else's body against their will to maintain that life?
I have no confusion. And it shouldn't cease to apply at the third trimester or viability. The only reason it does is because of the anti-choice motivations of some politicians.
But, legally, people who don't want to parent can give their child up for adoption or to foster care. The government realizes the problem with putting children where they aren't wanted. You can't do that with a pregnancy.
Not really. Organized criminals have little interest in the unborn.
You mean what I posted, or the quote on birth above it? Despite what conservatives thing, wikipedia is about as unbiased it gets. They won't even let you be biased in an article about President Bush.

reply from: lukesmom

You seem to think women pretty stupid. Think of it like this: everytime you get into a car, you assume the risk of a car accident. You don't intend or plan to have a car accident but you very well may. But you are so accustomed to this risk you never even give it a thought. If you do have an accident you are liable even if it is not your fault because you and your vehicle were there, insurance considers you partly liable. Same goes for pregnancy. Every intellegent person knows if you engage in intercourse there is a possibility of pregnancy, even with birthcontrol. However as with driving, you can become accustomed to the risk and therefore ignore it but you are still "liable" if it happens. I don't care how unintentional "getting pregnant" was, it happened, you knew there was a possibility, you are still responsible. Therefore if you don't want to assume the risk of a car crash, don't get in a car and if you don't want to assume the risk of pregnancy, don't have intercourse. Plain and simple. Yes, I know it is "fun" but so are other risky behaviors that intelligent and mature individuals obstain from.
Now why should the unborn pay the price of your obvious stupidity engaging in risky behavior?

reply from: LolitaOlivia

There's no price to be paid. It's a simple issue of bodily domain. No woman wants to punish the fetus, they don't have ill will towards it. They just want it out of their body. Is sex so much of a crime that you should loose the right to control your body for nine months just for consenting to it? People who drive drunk and join gangs can get off with less time than nine months.

reply from: lukesmom

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."
She is running
A hundred miles an hour in the wrong direction
She is trying
But the canyon's ever widening
In the depths of her cold heart
So she sets out on another misadventure just to find
She's another two years older
And she's three more steps behind
http://www.sing365.com/music/Lyric.nsf/Does-Anybody-Hear-Her-lyrics-Casting-Crowns/9B1D3B00309E8B5A4825707700105E6A

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Hormones and nutrients used by the fetus are parts of your body. Your uterus is a part of your body, which you loose control of in a forced pregnancy.
Even so, is sex so much of a crime that loosing your right to your body for nine months is adequate punishment?
But you may but them off from using you to stay alive.

You can give up your child at any time. By not doing so, you are consenting to remain a parent. If pregnancy were the same, abortion wouldn't be an issue.
No, my response it that it shouldn't be legal, under our current laws.
Under safe haven you can leave a newborn at a police station, hospital, or fire house.
For older children, parents can relinquish their child. It can take a while to finish the legal proceedings, but the child can go into foster care or to live with a relative pretty soon. Counseling may be required, but in many states that's required before you can get an abortion too.
More info on relinquishment:
http://www.courts.state.co.us/exec/pubed/brochures/relinquishment.pdf
http://pflagfostermom.blogspot.com/2007/12/voluntary-relinquishment-in-foster-care.html
http://library.adoption.com/Laws-Legal-Issues/Rediscovering-Voluntary-Relinquishment-Practice/article/3738/1.html

reply from: thecoldensues

I'm neither pro-life or pro-death.
I'm pro-CHOICE. For those of you who don't understand what that means, it means that I support ANY choice that the woman has, including adoption and raising the child (which of course, is the ideal situation). Pro-choicers don't FORCE anyone to get an abortion.

reply from: ChromeEyes

First, no children are involved in abortions.
Second, by law and definition abortion is not murder. It's only your opinion that it's murder.
I suggest you just stick with the term pro-choice. It's more accurate.

reply from: bluebrunette

First, yes, children are involved in abortions, but then, you are only offering the same ridiculous semantic objection that has been put down literally hundreds of times on this forum.
Second, yes, we understand abortion is legal, which is the point in us being here. Legally, it is not "murder," and that is fact, not opinion.
You may choose to call yourselves "pro-choice," but you are actually "pro-abortion," regardless of what else you might be...
If a woman comes up to a pro-choicer and says "I'm pregnant" the pro-choicer says "Do what you feel is best."
If a woman comes up to a pro-abortionist and says "I'm pregnant" the pro-abortionist says "You should abort it!"
There IS a difference, you know. Denying it is just ignorant.

reply from: bluebrunette

Keeping it legal means keeping it a choice.
Pro-abortion means what it literally says. For abortions. That isn't the same as being for choice. Some people are pro-choice and feel abortion is wrong.. they're just smart enough to know illegalizing it is a bad idea. Others feel abortion is morally wrong but know better than to force their morals onto everyone by law.

reply from: ChromeEyes

The term children is emotionally charged. Children is also a term used to describe humans who aren't of age to be considered adults and not young enough to be considered babies.
Fetuses are what are aborted during an abortion. Not children.
I support abortion as a choice, but not the only choice.

reply from: ChromeEyes

You never posted that to me but I do understand that many people refer to the fetus as a child/baby, but its more of an endearing term. Just because words are synonyms it doesn't mean their definitions are the same, they are just similar.
The term fetus is the most correct term to use when talking about abortion.

reply from: jujujellybean

no children? what about the ones who's skulls are being crushed? Or the ones that are being vacuumed out? The ones that are being killed?
Law and definition? That is really just someone's opinion. That doesn't make it right. Just because it is the "law" doesn't make it right. If murder was legal, would you agree?

reply from: lukesmom

Do you have a pc name for this to help make yourself feel better? What does it feel like to live in a safe little pc world?

reply from: lukesmom

Do you have a pc name for this to help make yourself feel better? What does it feel like to live in a safe little pc world?

reply from: 4given

Julie, I appreciate your willingness to engage her. The "new" posters will give you the run-a-round. If you are up to it, by all means. I do have to say that my babies at 4 knew and explained to me why abortion was wrong- w/out hesitation. Maybe these misguided children need to focus on a time when they had morals and a conscience? How does one lose that? Or without God, how does one return to that? Education? Realization? Morals? Integrity? Sensibility?..

reply from: yoda

Your semantic games make me sick:
Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Main Entry: child 1 : an unborn or recently born person http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/child

MSN Encarta Dictionary: child [ (plural chil·dren noun 5. unborn baby
http://dictionary.msn.com/

Information Please: child -n., 8. a human fetus. http://www.infoplease.com/
American Heritage Dictionary: Child: 2. a. An unborn infant; a fetus. IDIOMS: with child Pregnant. http://www.bartleby.com/61/
I suggest you just stick it where the sun don't shine:
pro-a·bor·tion adjective - favoring legal access to abortion: in favor of open legal access to voluntary abortion http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861736813
pro-abortion SYLLABICATION: pro-a·bor·tion PRONUNCIATION: pr-bôrshn ADJECTIVE: Favoring or supporting legalized abortion. http://www.bartleby.com/61/27/P0572700.html

Main Entry: pro·abor·tion Pronunciation: (')prO-&-'bor-sh&n Function: adjective : favoring the legalization of abortion -pro·abor·tion·ist /-sh(&-)n&st/ noun http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pro-abortion

reply from: yoda

????????
Here's a news flash for you, chromeheart. Words do not contain emotion, only humans have emotion. Therefore it is the ultimate stupidity to try to discriminate against a word because of the "emotion" someone may attach to it.
You cannot redefine our traditional terms of the vernacular,and you cannot force us to comply with your twisted ideology. We will continue to use our "emotionally charged" terms and you will just have to deal with it.

reply from: yoda

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
MSN Encarta Dictionary: child [ (plural chil·dren noun 5. unborn baby
http://dictionary.msn.com/

Information Please: child -n., 8. a human fetus. http://www.infoplease.com/

reply from: yoda

Do you have a pc name for this to help make yourself feel better? What does it feel like to live in a safe little pc world?
I think you directed those two posts to the wrong poster.

reply from: lukesmom

Do you have a pc name for this to help make yourself feel better? What does it feel like to live in a safe little pc world?
I think you directed those two posts to the wrong poster.
Sorry, does look confusing! This wasn't directed at you Julie but instead at Old Blue and ChromeHeart.


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