Home - List All Discussions

The "morals" argument

as common as it is dumb

by: jujujellybean

I hate hate hate it when people say 'well, abortion may be wrong, but you can't force YOUR morals on someone!'
First off, it is hypocritical. If someone is telling me NOT to enforce my morals on someone, they in turn are forcing their idea of morality on ME. Doesn't work.
Second, aren't all laws at one time based on morals? Most people accept that killing is morally wrong, and so they made a law because it was wrong.
I meant to post this a while back, but I didn't get around to it. Someone always comes on and says well they are personally against it, but...and so on. Urg it gets annoying!

reply from: rsg007

Nobody is forcing you to have an abortion. Therefore, nobody is forcing their idea of morality on you. But if elective abortion were illegal, your idea of morality WOULD be forced on everyone. With legal elective abortion, you can choose to carry to term and someone else can choose not to. Without legal elective abortion, everyone must carry to term. So it's not the same thing.
I think it is an admirable thing to want to advocate for all unborn children's rights, but unfortunately you just cannot do it without infringing on others' rights over their own bodies.
And yes, laws are often based on morals, but sometimes out-dated ones. A law against elective abortion infringes on a woman's rights in a very archaic way. And laws should never be based on religious beliefs, and these are often given as reasons why elective abortion should be illegal.

reply from: jujujellybean

Well, what about laws today, like no raping, no killing, no stealing. Those aren't archaic, yet we know those are wrong because of basic morals and ethics. All laws in some ways are based on morals, and that's just the cold hard truth!
As for religion: I am a catholic, but it isn't why I am pro life. This is what I tell people: My religion influences me, but is not the determining factor in abortion. I think people who try and use religion on people haven't ever debated with an atheist.

reply from: yoda

That's beside the point, IMO.
The point is that abortion FORCES the "morals" of the aborting mother on the baby in a very violent and fatal manner...... by killing that baby.

reply from: jujujellybean

yes. Have you seen the bumper sticker "keep your laws off my body" with a picture of a baby on it? It's really amazing.

reply from: pl4l

to me (i'm not sure if this is off topic) ,but abortion is like genocide. The child you abort might have grown up to be the doctor who found a cure for cancer or a teacher, lawyer, pro-athlete. To me I just think it's evil and something must be done about it.

reply from: Banned Member

This pro-life movement is not about imposing an external viewpoint, moral or otherwise on a women against her will. What it is about is immorally imposing death upon an unborn human being that has a right to be born.
A woman still has the right to not have a child in her body if she wishes, by not becoming pregnant. A woman has the right to not have sex, a known reproductive act amongst sexually active women.
A woman does not have the right, and should not expect, to engage in sexual activity without the risk of becoming pregnant. What she wishes is no more important or relevant than what a man wishes when he has sex with a woman and does not expect her to become pregnant. Once a woman is pregnant, both the man and the woman become parents.

reply from: lukesmom

WRONG! My tax money is going to Planned Parenthood, you know that antiparenting group? I am a medical professional and you proaborts are trying to force me to promote killing the unborn in my practice or lose my job. Both of these are against my morals and beliefs but yet you are forcing YOUR morals and beliefs on me. So, you get a choice but I don't and your unborn child surely doesn't.

reply from: jujujellybean

Yes, true, though that isn't always a good argument. We are not here to defend the babies because they could do something for the world, but because of the basic morals and ethics that every person have the right to life, regardless of what they grow up to be.

reply from: rsg007

But do you not see that by outlawing elective abortion you WOULD be "imposing an external viewpoint...on a woman against her will"?
What about accidental pregnancies? Women can become pregnant without wanting to. Procreation is not the only reason people have sex. What if a woman wants to have sex but doesn't want to become pregnant? Or is it only OK for men to have sex for recreation?
But only the woman MUST put her health, finances, emotions, etc. on the line for an unborn child. A man can simply leave, and they frequently do.
Your arguments are very sexist and border on woman-hating. Forgive me if I am wrong with this impression.

reply from: lukesmom

Hey double 07-nothing to say about you infringing on MY rights?

reply from: yoda

Welcome to the forum, pl4l.
Yes, abortion is a form of genocide:
genocide: "The deliberate and systematic 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 Reference, 1992).

reply from: yoda

The same is true about laws which prohibit murder, rape, and robbery.
Would you have them repealed because they "impose an external viewpoint" on the would-be criminal?
Or will you simply change the subject now, and refuse to answer that one?

reply from: nancyu

Since we are speaking in two different languages, I offer my translation, (in italics)

reply from: Banned Member

Where do live, that is, what country are you from?
If a man here, in the United States abandons his parental duties, he essentially becomes a pariah. His wages are garnished if he chooses not to pay, and if he does not report income, or get a job, he can go to jail, lose his drivers lisense as well as other government benefits or he can go underground and become a social fugitive. Being a dead beat dad is not a pleasant prospect.

reply from: xnavy

i work for child support and a man that does not pay his child support can also lose his passport so no traveling abroad.

reply from: rsg007

The same is true about laws which prohibit murder, rape, and robbery.
Would you have them repealed because they "impose an external viewpoint" on the would-be criminal?
Or will you simply change the subject now, and refuse to answer that one?
None of these laws infringe on anyone's bodily autonomy. Some (e.g., laws against rape) are actually designed to protect it.

reply from: rsg007

Since we are speaking in two different languages, I offer my translation, (in italics)
If you are going to alter one of my posts, please remove the "posted by rsg007" part. Thanks. None of your alterations are actually anything I would say.

reply from: rsg007

Plenty--I am gathering data about Planned Parenthood's finances and will respond as soon as I have done thorough and reliable research.

reply from: rsg007

Where do live, that is, what country are you from?
If a man here, in the United States abandons his parental duties, he essentially becomes a pariah. His wages are garnished if he chooses not to pay, and if he does not report income, or get a job, he can go to jail, lose his drivers lisense as well as other government benefits or he can go underground and become a social fugitive. Being a dead beat dad is not a pleasant prospect.
I live in the US, where there are plenty of deadbeat dads. There may be laws about paternal financial responsibility (though they still don't stop many fathers from not being financially responsible), but no laws force a man's body to be involved in a pregnancy against his will.

reply from: Smurfy

It also might grow up to be the next Joseph Stalin, Ed Gein, Charles Manson, a serial rapist, a person who pushes meth on school kids, etc, etc.
Do you think it would be evil to kill such people?

reply from: Smurfy

Oh, so now we CHOSE to be raped? i.e. sex against our will.
That's a new one on me.
Rather smacks of the whole "She was asking for it by wearing a short skirt" attitude.

reply from: lukesmom

Plenty--I am gathering data about Planned Parenthood's finances and will respond as soon as I have done thorough and reliable research.
Oh Please, let me help.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200706/CUL20070615a.html
For the year July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006, Planned Parenthood received $345.1 million in clinic income, $305.3 million in taxpayer funding and $212.2 million in donations. Total income reached $902.8 million while total expenses came to $847.0 million, leaving a profit of $55.8 million.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/10965/CWA/life/index.htm
On top of its $63 million profit, Planned Parenthood last year received its largest sum of state and federal taxpayer funding ever: $272.7 million, making Planned Parenthood the recipient of $3.9 billion of taxpayer money since 1987
http://www.plannedparenthoodrx.com/annualreport/report-04.pdf

reply from: 4given

That is not your argument/ justification though- The short skirt bit was just an attack-
Is it not true that you believe a woman should be able to abort for whatever reason they deem fit?

reply from: Smurfy

Deliberately misquoting me now.
Wonderful.

reply from: 4given

That is not your argument/ justification though- The short skirt bit was just an attack-
Is it not true that you believe a woman should be able to abort for whatever reason they deem fit?
No...

reply from: Faramir

Oh, so now we CHOSE to be raped? i.e. sex against our will.
That's a new one on me.
Rather smacks of the whole "She was asking for it by wearing a short skirt" attitude.
You know he was referring to consentual sex and not rape.

reply from: yoda

None of these laws infringe on anyone's bodily autonomy. Some (e.g., laws against rape) are actually designed to protect it.
WAIT......... let me see if I understand you correctly on this point......
You're saying that:
Laws against MURDER do NOT "infringe on the bodily autonomy" of the perpetrator to kill his victim, right?
Laws against RAPE do NOT "infringe" on the bodily autonomy" of the perpetrator to do as he wishes with his body, right?
Do I understand you correctly on that point?

reply from: rsg007

None of these laws infringe on anyone's bodily autonomy. Some (e.g., laws against rape) are actually designed to protect it.
WAIT......... let me see if I understand you correctly on this point......
You're saying that:
Laws against MURDER do NOT "infringe on the bodily autonomy" of the perpetrator to kill his victim, right?
Laws against RAPE do NOT "infringe" on the bodily autonomy" of the perpetrator to do as he wishes with his body, right?
Do I understand you correctly on that point?
No, you do not, but perhaps I didn't explain it in quite the right way. Laws supporting elective abortion ensure that a woman has a direct say in what happens to her own body when it is being used by an unborn child.
Laws against rape and murder similarly ensure that rapists and murderers do not use anyone else's body against their will.
Having full bodily autonomy does not mean you can use your body to harm someone else, only that you can protect your own body however you see fit. Thus, laws against rape and murder do not infringe on rapists' and murderers' bodily autonomy, just their desire or need to rape and murder.

reply from: JasonFontaine

We keep referring to the baby.
It's the egg...
The egg is not dead!
Science proves this - the egg is very much alive and well...until our choice is made to destroy this living thing...this life.
Life begins at conception.
Our debate is won with the EGG....
To the King's surprise, this egg, with no head, no mouth to be fed and no legs, cracked just past sunrise. Thus, the King was fed, in the head with the thought of knowing - from this egg - thought of as dead - a chick was growing!
Undeiniable symbolism...the egg is NOT dead....

reply from: lukesmom

When a human has intercourse both parties accept that the result may be a pregnancy either through the nonuse or failure of birth control. So two people, in non rape situations, are consenting to the consequences through their actions. Kinda like using a hospital in that you expect your insurance to cover the bill but you know if they don't you are responsible for the uncovered charges. Same goes with intercourse. You expect your birth control will cover but you know that there is a failure rate and a chance you may get pregnant. Therefore the body made by your actions is not "using" your body against your will as you invited this body in by your own actions. If the parent choses abortion she is then using the unborn's body against it's will by killing it. Can I make it any simpler? Understand?
Now this is the truth. A mother can not harm her unborn child as she is harming someone else.
Thus, laws against abortion, do not infringe on a mother's bodily autonomy, just their desire or need to kill their child.

reply from: rsg007

When a human has intercourse both parties accept that the result may be a pregnancy either through the nonuse or failure of birth control. So two people, in non rape situations, are consenting to the consequences through their actions. Kinda like using a hospital in that you expect your insurance to cover the bill but you know if they don't you are responsible for the uncovered charges. Same goes with intercourse. You expect your birth control will cover but you know that there is a failure rate and a chance you may get pregnant. Therefore the body made by your actions is not "using" your body against your will as you invited this body in by your own actions. If the parent choses abortion she is then using the unborn's body against it's will by killing it. Can I make it any simpler? Understand?
I understand that we will never agree on this point. Yours is a very antiquated and anti-woman way of looking at sex. There's not much more I can say except that you believe an accidental pregnancy indicates the unborn child was "invited," and I do not.
Now this is the truth. A mother can not harm her unborn child as she is harming someone else.
Thus, laws against abortion, do not infringe on a mother's bodily autonomy, just their desire or need to kill their child.
How exactly do laws against abortion NOT infringe on a mother's bodily autonomy if she doesn't want to carry a child to term? I understand you think abortion kills a child but you must concede that the alternative does infringe on a woman's bodily autonomy. I would respect your position more if you just said "Yes, it does infringe but the child's life is more important." I wouldn't agree, but at least you'd be being honest.

reply from: lukesmom

Exactly what is "antiquated and anti-woman" about being intellegent and well informed enough to know that if you have sex you could get pregnant? If you have sex anyway and get pregnant you have a responsibility. That is part of being an adult and has nothing to do with being male or female. Why is this anti-woman? I am a woman and so are my daughter, mom, sisters and friends, I love them and why would I be anti-them as they are also women or, in the case of my daughter and nieces, girls, ie: potential women? Doesn't make sense. I never have understood that "anti-women" stuff thrown around by the proaborts.
This has been debated over and over again on this board and I am not about to waste my time on this because you won't read.
No I don't have to concede that because it isn't true. I have been pregnant 6 times and have 4 children here and 2 angels. Have you been pregnant? Do you have a child? I can speak from actual experience and that makes me an expert on the subject. I have NEVER once said a child's life is more important but is as important as the mother's. In my case I personnally feel my children's life are more important but that is just my view.
As for you respect, I am not here for your respect and could care less if you respect me or not. I can say I have not one ounce of respect for you because of your views as a proabort. So you can save your respect as it means nothing.
Oh forgot the honesty thing. I speak and live my beliefs and don't talk out of "both sides of my mouth", if that is not honest I don't know what is. Can you say the same? Don't think so as evidenced here and by proaborts very beliefs.

reply from: faithman

When a human has intercourse both parties accept that the result may be a pregnancy either through the nonuse or failure of birth control. So two people, in non rape situations, are consenting to the consequences through their actions. Kinda like using a hospital in that you expect your insurance to cover the bill but you know if they don't you are responsible for the uncovered charges. Same goes with intercourse. You expect your birth control will cover but you know that there is a failure rate and a chance you may get pregnant. Therefore the body made by your actions is not "using" your body against your will as you invited this body in by your own actions. If the parent choses abortion she is then using the unborn's body against it's will by killing it. Can I make it any simpler? Understand?
I understand that we will never agree on this point. Yours is a very antiquated and anti-woman way of looking at sex. There's not much more I can say except that you believe an accidental pregnancy indicates the unborn child was "invited," and I do not.
Now this is the truth. A mother can not harm her unborn child as she is harming someone else.
Thus, laws against abortion, do not infringe on a mother's bodily autonomy, just their desire or need to kill their child.
How exactly do laws against abortion NOT infringe on a mother's bodily autonomy if she doesn't want to carry a child to term? I understand you think abortion kills a child but you must concede that the alternative does infringe on a woman's bodily autonomy. I would respect your position more if you just said "Yes, it does infringe but the child's life is more important." I wouldn't agree, but at least you'd be being honest.
The problem you prodeath scancs are having, is the fact the constitution already recognizes the preborn, and secures the blessing of life for them. 40 words into the constitution is the word posterity. Poserity means fututre generations. We can not find anything in the constitution that says momma has the right to kill in private. But we do see in the pre-amble, which sets the very spirit of the document, that womb children are to be blessed and secured, no tortured and thrown away on a whim. This never was an issue of "autonomy", but is an issue of personhood.

reply from: yoda

And they insure that a woman has TOTAL SAY about what happens to her baby's body..... without any thought for the baby's welfare, or value for the baby's life.
Killing someone is not "using their body", it's destroying their body. Don't you know the difference?
And yet you support the killing of healthy babies by healthy mothers, where no issue of "protection" is involved.
How hypocritical can you possibly be? Is there more?

reply from: Faramir

So that right is suspended during pregnancy for the sake of a greater good.

reply from: Smurfy

So that right is suspended during pregnancy for the sake of a greater good.
And if the government decides to deny one of your rights for the 'greater good'?

reply from: Faramir

And if the government decides to deny one of your rights for the 'greater good'?
It could have happened.
I had to sign up for the draft when I was 18.
I happened to be just the right age at the right time for avoiding wars, since it was after Viet Nam, and by the time any new conflicts came along I was too old, and then the draft was eliminated.
But I COULD have been forced to serve. And so could one of my sons if the draft is reinstated.
I think in a situation in which abortion is illegal, the fathers must be held accountable. There's no way they can be made to carry the baby, but they can at least be forced to pay the costs, and there should be a disincentive for men to be promiscuous--that they don't get to just walk away and leave the women holding the bag.

reply from: nancyu

You know the other one I hate? This one:
"if you are against abortion, then don't have one" The best response I've seen to this is:
"is that like, don't believe in shooting babykilling abortionists don't shoot one?"
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aijnw.q9FGycXQxSEisM2.3sy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080410114101AAqaONJ

That would make a great bumper sticker wouldn't it?

reply from: nancyu

Since we are speaking in two different languages, I offer my translation, (in italics)
If you are going to alter one of my posts, please remove the "posted by rsg007" part. Thanks. None of your alterations are actually anything I would say.
Edited

reply from: nancyu

Where do live, that is, what country are you from?
If a man here, in the United States abandons his parental duties, he essentially becomes a pariah. His wages are garnished if he chooses not to pay, and if he does not report income, or get a job, he can go to jail, lose his drivers lisense as well as other government benefits or he can go underground and become a social fugitive. Being a dead beat dad is not a pleasant prospect.
I live in the US, where there are plenty of deadbeat dads. There may be laws about paternal financial responsibility (though they still don't stop many fathers from not being financially responsible), but no laws force a man's body to be involved in a pregnancy against his will.
You ARE an idiot. How did you get past the eugenicists?

reply from: yoda

If what you call "bodily integrity" is the unrestricted right to kill any gestating baby, then you are right that there is a conflict of rights there.
As for me, I will always uphold the right to life of an innocent human being over the right to electively kill an unborn baby. There is just no contest, IMO.
But we live in a bloodthirsty world, one in which many people seem to value human life less than almost anything else of value. That's a profoundly sad state of affairs.

reply from: yoda

The principle is exactly the same, yes.
Another good response is "If you don't like back alley, butcher shop illegal abortions, don't have one".

reply from: yoda

If you want to look at it that way, yes.
No, then they turn part of it over to the new human being within them.
And it's not the greater good that is served, it is the moral right to life of the innocent unborn that is served.

reply from: nancyu

It also might grow up to be the next Joseph Stalin, Ed Gein, Charles Manson, a serial rapist, a person who pushes meth on school kids, etc, etc.
Do you think it would be evil to kill such people?
I do. It would have been evil to kill them before their crimes had been committed.

reply from: yoda

Exactly. But to a dedicated proabort, even the excuse of "future crimes" is enough to justify killing a baby.

reply from: nancyu

The principle is exactly the same, yes.
Another good response is "If you don't like back alley, butcher shop illegal abortions, don't have one".
I like that one even better! I want the t shirt.

reply from: nancyu

Exactly. But to a dedicated proabort, even the excuse of "future crimes" is enough to justify killing a baby.
I would like to add that I would have been all for an alternative way of preventing those crimes before they happened if that were possible.

reply from: Faramir

So that right is suspended during pregnancy for the sake of a greater good.
So women can have control over their bodies EXCEPT when they are pregnant? Then they just turn it over to the government? Right.
I think the greater good is that of the woman.
Your draft analogy is not a good one as there were many ways to avoid serving. If the draft were reinstated, there would be even more ways since conscientious objection is much more widespread and acknowledged.
You make it seem as if they would have no rights at all.
They would still have every right they always had, except the right to abort.
They would have a lot more rights than the fellow drafted to fight a war for two years.

reply from: speck

Would they have the right to work and not have to take any time off work?
Would they have the right to put what they want in their body? (Drinks/smokes etc)
Would they have the right to not worry about being sick for consecutive days/weeks/months?
Would they have the right and 100% guarantee that if they were to see an untimely death it would not be attributed to pregnancy?
Would they have the right to continue to work out the same way they always have?
Would they have the right to not have their hormones all over the map?
Heck.....would they have the right to take a nice HOT bath?
Would they have the right to take ANY pain medication they need for any reason?
Would they have the right to not have to endure one of the most painful experiences a human can experience, up to and including death?
Would they have the right to fly overseas to visit a dying relative at any time?
This list could really go on here.
I do not like abortions and truly hope to see the need for abortion to be drastically reduced.
But to say they women will have all their previous rights except one is honestly ridiculous IMO.

reply from: Faramir

They would have all rights except the right to abort.
The things you've listed don't pertain to rights. Do pregnant women with wanted pregnancies consider what you've listed to be "rights" that they give up?

reply from: yoda

No, it's realistic.
The right to elective kill innocent human beings is one that no one should ever have.

reply from: nancyu

What do you want?? Every abortion is legal in the US and it still isn't enough for you. You want us to approve, or we are anti woman, or we are imposing our morals on you. These are babies. You are legally allowed to kill them right up until the bellybutton passes through the birth canal. 7 weeks, or 40 weeks. The one and only right that matters is the woman's precious "right to choose" Not the baby's right to live, and maybe have children of its own, not the father's right to love and hold his own child, not the sister or brother of that child or the future brother or sister of that child. Only the mother's right to take a hot bath, or to drink or smoke as much as she wishes, and God forbid she should experience pain!

reply from: nancyu

grrrr had to get that off my chest.

reply from: nancyu

Lord, hear my prayer.
Speck, 3000+ abortions per day in the US, and how many of these do you think are truly *necessary*, and how many of those would be eliminated if the"need for abortion" were reduced? How do we reduce this "NEED" for abortion? Do tell. Can Dr Phil help? Is it some kind of addiction? We NEED abortion!??

reply from: lukesmom

Would they have the right to work and not have to take any time off work?
Lots of pregnant women work without taking time off. I had 5 kids and didn't take any time off while pregnant. Very few women "have" to take time off during pregnacy due to "pregnancy" problems.
Would they have the right to put what they want in their body? (Drinks/smokes etc)
Well it is not a perferable thing to do but many mothers do drink and or smoke and etc. How is that worse than killing their child by dismemberment?
Would they have the right to not worry about being sick for consecutive days/weeks/months?
Pregnancy is not a sickness.
Would they have the right and 100% guarantee that if they were to see an untimely death it would not be attributed to pregnancy?
While there are no 100% in ANYTHING but taxes. Per the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_10.pdf
Maternal mortality
In 2005, a total of 623 women were reported to have died of maternal causes (Tables 33 and 34). As in previous years, the number of maternal deaths does not include all deaths occurring to pregnant women, but only those deaths reported on the death certificate that were assigned to causes related to or aggravated by pregnancy or pregnancy management (ICD - 10 codes A34, O00-O95, and O98-O99). Further, the number excludes deaths occurring more than 42 days after the termination of pregnancy and deaths of pregnant women due to external causes (unintentional injuries, homicides, and suicides) (9). An increasing number of states are adopting a separate item on the death certificate indicating pregnancy status of the decedent to improve measurement; see ''Technical Notes.'' The number of areas with such an item has increased from 16 states in 1996 to 31 states and the District of Columbia in 2005.
The maternal mortality rate for 2005 was 15.1 deaths per 100,000 live births. Black women have a substantially higher risk of maternal death than white women. The maternal mortality rate for black women was 36.5, roughly 3.3 times the rate for white women (11.1 deaths per 100,000 live births).
Hispanic maternal mortality - The maternal mortality rate for Hispanic women was 9.6 deaths per 100,000 live births. The non-Hispanic-white maternal mortality rate was 11.7 in 2005. The difference between the Hispanic and non-Hispanic white rates was not statistically significant. As with other statistics involving Hispanic origin, these should be interpreted with caution because of inconsistencies between reporting Hispanic origin on death certificates and on censuses and surveys; see ''Technical Notes.''

Would they have the right to continue to work out the same way they always have?
Don't see why not. A couple years ago had a pregnant women running in a tough marithon here. Don't remember where she placed.
Would they have the right to not have their hormones all over the map?
Sure but that happens monthly with our menses too. Don't know what we should do about that.
Heck.....would they have the right to take a nice HOT bath?
Yup, If they want. That doesn't guarentee death like abortion does.
Would they have the right to take ANY pain medication they need for any reason?
Really don't know why they would as there are many different pain meds that can be used. Again this does not guarentee death like abortion does.
Would they have the right to not have to endure one of the most painful experiences a human can experience, up to and including death?
[BPain is objective and different for all women so many would not think l&d was the worst pain a human can experience. See the death stats above. I wonder how painful women would perseve the abortion procedure. Some have said it is very painful, physically and emotionally.
Would they have the right to fly overseas to visit a dying relative at any time?
Well the probability of that happening is pretty slim but I see no reason they couldn't if they wanted.
This list could really go on here.
As long as there are proaborts there will be 101 nonsensical reasons.
I do not like abortions and truly hope to see the need for abortion to be drastically reduced.
Of course you do but that doesn't change the fact that you condone abortion for all woman for any reason or nonreason at any time.
But to say they women will have all their previous rights except one is honestly ridiculous IMO.
Our opinion doesn't matter here, what does matter is the right for the unborn to actually BE born.

reply from: sander

Could you clarify that part of your statment? How could a man's "body" be involved except in the act of procreation in the first place?

reply from: Teresa18

Innocent until proven guilty. Someone should not be killed because they might commit a crime.

reply from: Teresa18

When two people consent to sex in 98% of cases (the other 2% being rape), they consent to the possibility of pregnancy. There is always a possibility of pregnancy when a couple has sex. The child never asks to be concieved. The child is merely an unconsenting third party that resulted due to a consentual act between his/her parents. He/she never asked to be concieved, and it is not his/her fault that he/she is there. Surely it is wrong to put someone in a dangerous situation and proceed to kill them. Secondly, parents have an obligation to care for and responsibility to their born child that they would not have to an ordinary person, at least until they can find someone else to care for him/her.

reply from: Teresa18

This is from my essay which no one has yet written a response to:
No one has an explicit right to unconditional liberty. That is why there are laws regarding murder, physical and mental abuse, rape, stealing, drugs, smoking,a draft in times of war, taxes, etc. One's right to liberty generally ends where another person's life begins. There is not a clash of rights between the two parties. The mother has the right to life and liberty which she had since she was within her mother's womb. Her child deserves the same. The child is in no way controlling the mother's body or development, and actions taken by her could put the child directly in danger, not vice versa. Everyone has the rights to life and liberty or freedom from aggression. By saying that the mother has the choice to kill her child, she would have more rights than the child, and the child would be set as an unequal in comparison to the mother. That would create a two-tiered level of human offspring, which this country surely doesn't support. The mother, through consensual sex, in over 99% of cases, brought that child into existence, putting the child in a position of danger, one of which the child did not consent to. The mother has to take responsibility for her actions, whether the child was an intended consequence or not. She has a basic duty to care for her child, providing nourishment, warmth, and shelter, at least until someone else can do so. Pregnancy is not slavery, as children have the right to those basic things from their parents. The child within the womb has the same right as every person not to be attacked and killed. Thus, there is no clash of rights, but a clash of needs.

reply from: Teresa18

Yes. Unless they had complications due to the pregnancy where medical care would be needed.
Hopefully they would not deliberately risk destruction of another person for life for the sake of beer and alcohol. Even if they were planning on giving the child up, the child would possibly have to live an entire life in a decreased state of health.
No one has that right. We can't control when we get sick. It's something I've had to learn.
They would have the right to treatment during pregnancy. If something were to go wrong and both lives were unable to be saved, the mother's life would then most certainly take priority. Abortion was always legal pre-Roe if the mother's life was at risk.
I would hope they would follow the work out routine their doctor saw best for their health and the childs. Certainly we're not going follow pregnant women around all day and make sure they don't do something that may endanger their child.
Many women don't have that right, and they aren't pregnant. I know there are medications for nonpregnant women. Perhaps there are for pregnant women.
Why not? I wouldn't take a bath any other way.
Hopefully they follow their doctor's recommendation as to what is safe to take during pregnancy.
That's subjective as to whether it is the most painful, but I'm all for methods designed to keep the woman comfortable during birth. My mom said she didn't feel anything once she got the epideral.
That seems rare, but I don't know who would stop them.
Sure it could. You guys will think of something to try to keep abortion legal.
If they are just like having a cyst or wart removed, why don't you like them and why the need to reduce them?

reply from: nancyu

What do you want?? Every abortion is legal in the US and it still isn't enough for you. You want us to approve, or we are anti woman, or we are imposing our morals on you. These are babies. You are legally allowed to kill them right up until the bellybutton passes through the birth canal. 7 weeks, or 40 weeks. The one and only right that matters is the woman's precious "right to choose" Not the baby's right to live, and maybe have children of its own, not the father's right to love and hold his own child, not the sister or brother of that child or the future brother or sister of that child. Only the mother's right to take a hot bath, or to drink or smoke as much as she wishes, and God forbid she should experience pain!

reply from: speck

What do you want?? Every abortion is legal in the US and it still isn't enough for you. You want us to approve, or we are anti woman, or we are imposing our morals on you. These are babies. You are legally allowed to kill them right up until the bellybutton passes through the birth canal. 7 weeks, or 40 weeks. The one and only right that matters is the woman's precious "right to choose" Not the baby's right to live, and maybe have children of its own, not the father's right to love and hold his own child, not the sister or brother of that child or the future brother or sister of that child. Only the mother's right to take a hot bath, or to drink or smoke as much as she wishes, and God forbid she should experience pain!
Where did I state what is and isn't good enough for me? Please show me where you got these views about me from, as I would like to think that reasonable thinking people wouldn't fly off the handle and put words into another persons mouth.
Like it or not, for some women with unwanted pregnancies, being forced to carry to term is the equivalent to rape. Just because it was not this way for you, does not mean others feel and think the same way you do.

reply from: speck

Lord, hear my prayer.
Speck, 3000+ abortions per day in the US, and how many of these do you think are truly *necessary*, and how many of those would be eliminated if the"need for abortion" were reduced? How do we reduce this "NEED" for abortion? Do tell. Can Dr Phil help? Is it some kind of addiction? We NEED abortion!??
I find this post disturbing. You claim to be 100% Pro Life, yet you have no input on how to reduce abortion other than making it illegal?
Why do Pro Choicers seem to have some valid ideas that could really work if implemented, and many Pro Lifers are clueless, and can only think of one way?
I can walk 5 blocks, downtown in my city and have anywhere from 1-5 people ask me if I want to buy drugs.
Do you honestly think with the internet and abortion pills that making abortion illegal is going to stop abortion?
If Abortion is illegal, it's just a matter of taking a "walk" downtown, or good ol google.
I would rather see efforts put into making it so women do not feel so desperate and make it so many women do not feel they have to abort by means of better support, ways of being able to be a successful single/parent/s without having to rely on anyone else and not having to struggle to get from one pay to the next.

reply from: yoda

For the sake of argument, let's stipulate that point to you for the moment.
Even with that, how can you say that rape is the equivalent of murder?

reply from: yoda

Now you are changing the subject. Why don't you ask her about "other ways", instead of grandstanding?
We all know that abortion is done for a variety of reasons, and therefore no one solution will fit all situations. But making it illegal would be the single most effective thing that we can do to reduce the incidence of abortion by the maximum ratios. No other single solution even comes close, and I think that you know that.

reply from: speck

Now you are changing the subject. Why don't you ask her about "other ways", instead of grandstanding?
We all know that abortion is done for a variety of reasons, and therefore no one solution will fit all situations. But making it illegal would be the single most effective thing that we can do to reduce the incidence of abortion by the maximum ratios. No other single solution even comes close, and I think that you know that.
I'm changing the subject? LOL
My original post to Faramir was that its ridiculous to claim a pregnant woman has ALL rights except ONE. Of all the replies I have seen towards me, not one addresses my point. I will have to re-read through to see if I missed that.
You're right though. I wont bother to reply to anymore, as the replies are "changing the subject" to my post to Faramir.
I'll wait for my original point to be addressed first.

reply from: lukesmom

You did post this didn't you or did you forget when you changed the subject?

reply from: lukesmom

double post! sorry...

reply from: rsg007

When two people consent to sex in 98% of cases (the other 2% being rape), they consent to the possibility of pregnancy. There is always a possibility of pregnancy when a couple has sex. The child never asks to be concieved. The child is merely an unconsenting third party that resulted due to a consentual act between his/her parents. He/she never asked to be concieved, and it is not his/her fault that he/she is there. Surely it is wrong to put someone in a dangerous situation and proceed to kill them. Secondly, parents have an obligation to care for and responsibility to their born child that they would not have to an ordinary person, at least until they can find someone else to care for him/her.
People use contraception in many of those 98% of consentual sexual encounters--mistakes do happen. I am not sure what you mean about putting someone "in a dangerous situation"--do you mean an unborn child is in a dangerous situation? It could be even more dangerous for a child to be born to a parent(s) that do not want it: Its mental and physical health could be compromised, it could be neglected, abandoned, even abused. Sometimes being a responsible parent means realizing you don't have the time, money, desire, temperament, etc. to be a parent. Yes, there is always adoption, but many people do not take that route, even if their child is an "accident." Realizing it may not be right for you to be a parent IS exercising your responsibility as a parent, just in another way.

reply from: rsg007

This is from my essay which no one has yet written a response to:
No one has an explicit right to unconditional liberty. That is why there are laws regarding murder, physical and mental abuse, rape, stealing, drugs, smoking,a draft in times of war, taxes, etc. One's right to liberty generally ends where another person's life begins. There is not a clash of rights between the two parties. The mother has the right to life and liberty which she had since she was within her mother's womb. Her child deserves the same. The child is in no way controlling the mother's body or development, and actions taken by her could put the child directly in danger, not vice versa. Everyone has the rights to life and liberty or freedom from aggression. By saying that the mother has the choice to kill her child, she would have more rights than the child, and the child would be set as an unequal in comparison to the mother. That would create a two-tiered level of human offspring, which this country surely doesn't support. The mother, through consensual sex, in over 99% of cases, brought that child into existence, putting the child in a position of danger, one of which the child did not consent to. The mother has to take responsibility for her actions, whether the child was an intended consequence or not. She has a basic duty to care for her child, providing nourishment, warmth, and shelter, at least until someone else can do so. Pregnancy is not slavery, as children have the right to those basic things from their parents. The child within the womb has the same right as every person not to be attacked and killed. Thus, there is no clash of rights, but a clash of needs.
Nobody (born) has the right to use anybody else's body without their consent. Nobody unborn should have that right either, unless you want special rights for the unborn over the born.
The unborn child controls the mother's body in MANY ways and frequently puts her in danger, e.g., from preeclampsia, ectopic pregnancy, gestational diabetes, etc. Saying that the mother has no right to abort the child is giving the child more rights than the mother, not the other way around.
Sometimes exercising parental responsibility means realizing you don't have the means or motive to care for a child at that point in time. What if you can't provide it with nourishment, warmth and shelter? What if you are a drug, or even cigarette, addict who can't give up the habit during the pregnancy? As much as it would be great to think all unwanted kids could be adopted out, this is not and will not be the case.

reply from: rsg007

Yes. Unless they had complications due to the pregnancy where medical care would be needed.
Hopefully they would not deliberately risk destruction of another person for life for the sake of beer and alcohol. Even if they were planning on giving the child up, the child would possibly have to live an entire life in a decreased state of health.
No one has that right. We can't control when we get sick. It's something I've had to learn.
They would have the right to treatment during pregnancy. If something were to go wrong and both lives were unable to be saved, the mother's life would then most certainly take priority. Abortion was always legal pre-Roe if the mother's life was at risk.
I would hope they would follow the work out routine their doctor saw best for their health and the childs. Certainly we're not going follow pregnant women around all day and make sure they don't do something that may endanger their child.
Many women don't have that right, and they aren't pregnant. I know there are medications for nonpregnant women. Perhaps there are for pregnant women.
Why not? I wouldn't take a bath any other way.
Hopefully they follow their doctor's recommendation as to what is safe to take during pregnancy.
That's subjective as to whether it is the most painful, but I'm all for methods designed to keep the woman comfortable during birth. My mom said she didn't feel anything once she got the epideral.
That seems rare, but I don't know who would stop them.
Sure it could. You guys will think of something to try to keep abortion legal.
If they are just like having a cyst or wart removed, why don't you like them and why the need to reduce them?
Your answers to the above confirm that pregnant women do not have these simple rights. By the way, most doctors and airlines tell pregnant women they cannot fly at many points during a pregnancy.

reply from: rsg007

For the sake of argument, let's stipulate that point to you for the moment.
Even with that, how can you say that rape is the equivalent of murder?
Rape is much more psychologically and physically damaging to the victim (in the long term) than murder! Even though you may see the termination of life as the ultimate in wrongdoing, for some it is far worse to live with the mental and physical scars of something like rape, or even assault.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

For the sake of argument, let's stipulate that point to you for the moment.
Even with that, how can you say that rape is the equivalent of murder?
Rape is much more psychologically and physically damaging to the victim (in the long term) than murder! Even though you may see the termination of life as the ultimate in wrongdoing, for some it is far worse to live with the mental and physical scars of something like rape, or even assault.
You say. "Rape is much more physically damaging to the victim than murder." Are you daft? Do you have a mind? Murder is much more physically damaging to a victim than rape. Your body rots away when you are murdered, it doesn't when you are raped. Your body is broken and completely useless after you are murdered; such is not the case with rape.
As for the mental pain, the pain of rape fades away in months or years. Death is something that never fades away and is irreversible.
I may have never heard comments as stupid as yours.
It seems someone said carrying a baby is the equivalent of rape; and being raped is far worse than being murdered. There you have it, carrying a baby can be worse than being murdered. You Pro-Choicers are insane to say "I'd rather be killed than carry a child." Really? You are nuts.
My youngsters just had ice cream and soda. You would have preferred to be killed than bring such kids into the world. Your thinking is wacky and not worthy of respect. You are just evil.

reply from: rsg007

For the sake of argument, let's stipulate that point to you for the moment.
Even with that, how can you say that rape is the equivalent of murder?
Rape is much more psychologically and physically damaging to the victim (in the long term) than murder! Even though you may see the termination of life as the ultimate in wrongdoing, for some it is far worse to live with the mental and physical scars of something like rape, or even assault.
You say. "Rape is much more physically damaging to the victim than murder." Are you daft? Do you have a mind? Murder is much more physically damaging to a victim than rape. Your body rots away when you are murdered, it doesn't when you are raped. Your body is broken and completely useless after you are murdered; such is not the case with rape.
As for the mental pain, the pain of rape fades away in months or years. Death is something that never fades away and is irreversible.
Rape can do chronic physical damage to a victim that the victim may endure for a long time, even a lifetime. IMO, this chronic damage coupled with the long-lasting psychological effects makes rape a more painful experience for the victim than murder. A violent murder may be painful for minutes, even hours, but a violent rape can leave scars that last much, much longer. You may believe murder is more painful--everyone's entitled to their opinions, and since neither you nor I have ever been murdered, they are very subjective opinions.
How do you know the mental pain of rape ever fades? If you yourself have been raped and the pain has faded then I am glad (not that you were raped but that the pain faded of course). But that does not mean the pain fades at the same rate or even ever for everyone who is raped. If you have never been raped then saying the pain fades is a ridiculous and insensitive comment. Yes, death is irreversible, but the victim knows nothing about it after the fact and is spared chronic pain (unless you believe people can feel things after death, which you may, but I do not, and there is plenty of evidence to support this).
Yes, death can be painful while it is happening, but rape always is too. And sometimes death is less painful than rape. Death is only painful afterwards for those who knew the victim, and while this is sad, at least the victim has now been spared any more pain.
But you have written some.
Firstly, I think someone said carrying a baby CAN SOMETIMES be compared to rape in a legal way. Secondly, yes, some people think being raped is worse than being murdered, but this is not pertinent to the argument: Pro-choicers do not say "I'd rather be killed than carry a child." They simply say women should be able to consent to their body being used for sex and also consent to their body being used by a fetus.
That is not an accurate representation of my argument. And wow, you are one compassionate follower of god (re: the "evil" comment).

reply from: sander

And who exactly made you the expert on death?
My God, I shudder to think anyone, never mind a young person would take such a dim view of life as to equate death better than a traumatic experience.
What are you a product of, home, school, what?
Who told you life was so cheap?
Oh and btw, compassion isn't the only virtue of a follower of God. We're instructed to judge matters, idelogies and yes people.
Do you think it lacks compassion to judge Hitler as a savage murderer?

reply from: speck

You did post this didn't you or did you forget when you changed the subject?
Yes, I did post this, regarding rights or lack of for pregnant women.
Go back and read my post in reply to Faramir, and you may then understand the context of my post a bit better?
Or I can just ask you straight up and see if I can get a straight answer.
Do you feel many/some/few/only one right/s are taken away from a pregnant woman who does not want to be pregnant?

reply from: speck

For the sake of argument, let's stipulate that point to you for the moment.
Even with that, how can you say that rape is the equivalent of murder?
Rape is much more psychologically and physically damaging to the victim (in the long term) than murder! Even though you may see the termination of life as the ultimate in wrongdoing, for some it is far worse to live with the mental and physical scars of something like rape, or even assault.
You say. "Rape is much more physically damaging to the victim than murder." Are you daft? Do you have a mind? Murder is much more physically damaging to a victim than rape. Your body rots away when you are murdered, it doesn't when you are raped. Your body is broken and completely useless after you are murdered; such is not the case with rape.
As for the mental pain, the pain of rape fades away in months or years. Death is something that never fades away and is irreversible.
I may have never heard comments as stupid as yours.
It seems someone said carrying a baby is the equivalent of rape; and being raped is far worse than being murdered. There you have it, carrying a baby can be worse than being murdered. You Pro-Choicers are insane to say "I'd rather be killed than carry a child." Really? You are nuts.
My youngsters just had ice cream and soda. You would have preferred to be killed than bring such kids into the world. Your thinking is wacky and not worthy of respect. You are just evil.
Wow.... The more time I spend here the more I sway to Pro Choice, and I want abortion to end!
Do people here actually read and comprehend what others say?
What is this need to twist and pervert and put words into other peoples mouths?
If your argument is that great and true and undeniably just, shouldn't your argument/point be able to stand alone without doing this?
My God, when I see people do this, it makes them look like fools and does nothing but damage their cause.
How is one supposed to take your "information" and "advice" seriously, when they see nothing but lies in the past?
Yikes!
Anyway, as far as what is better/worse, rape/murder etc
Simply put, as it stands now, with most Countries, if someone attempt to rape a woman and she kills in self defense, well it's deemed legally just that. Self defense.

reply from: rsg007

And who exactly made you the expert on death?
My God, I shudder to think anyone, never mind a young person would take such a dim view of life as to equate death better than a traumatic experience.
What are you a product of, home, school, what?
Who told you life was so cheap?
Oh and btw, compassion isn't the only virtue of a follower of God. We're instructed to judge matters, idelogies and yes people.
Do you think it lacks compassion to judge Hitler as a savage murderer?
Who made YOU the expert on death? Been killed several times, have you? If you read my post again you'll see I say opinions on whether death is more painful than rape are highly subjective since nobody alive has ever experienced death. People are entitled to different opinions, you know--I never said you had to agree.
Saying death may be better than enduring the lifetime pain of rape is not saying life is cheap--don't know where you got that from.
And no, I don't think it lacks compassion to say Hitler was evil. But I do think it lacks compassion to say I am evil, since I am nothing like Hitler, and the person who called me evil doesn't even know me. To support his view (which I assume you do since you certainly don't say otherwise) you are crossing the line of acceptable debate and showing the true colors of pro-lifers.

reply from: sander

And who exactly made you the expert on death?
My God, I shudder to think anyone, never mind a young person would take such a dim view of life as to equate death better than a traumatic experience.
What are you a product of, home, school, what?
Who told you life was so cheap?
Oh and btw, compassion isn't the only virtue of a follower of God. We're instructed to judge matters, idelogies and yes people.
Do you think it lacks compassion to judge Hitler as a savage murderer?
Who made YOU the expert on death? Been killed several times, have you? If you read my post again you'll see I say opinions on whether death is more painful than rape are highly subjective since nobody alive has ever experienced death. People are entitled to different opinions, you know--I never said you had to agree.
Saying death may be better than enduring the lifetime pain of rape is not saying life is cheap--don't know where you got that from.
And no, I don't think it lacks compassion to say Hitler was evil. But I do think it lacks compassion to say I am evil, since I am nothing like Hitler, and the person who called me evil doesn't even know me. To support his view (which I assume you do since you certainly don't say otherwise) you are crossing the line of acceptable debate and showing the true colors of pro-lifers.
Did you read what you wrote? Read it again, you aren't stating an opinion you said it as fact.
Life is valuable, in fact it's priceless. So yes, I do think you view life as cheap, even if you don't see it as such now.
Struggles are what make us strong, overcoming obstacles and pain builds character and gives us a perspective that can be used to help others.
But, when you think death is at least an equal valor, you've cheapened life.
But, in some ways you are a product of RvW generation. Life has been cheapened by that vile ruling. Children in the womb have been dehumanized to the point that death seems a mercy over rape.
I'm crossing a line? Dear, you crossed that line the day you thought it was acceptable to kill a baby in the womb, so you can think you want about true colors.
Pro life people view the killing of innocent, defensless babies as a horror and an evil. Surely, you aren't surprised at that? And surley you aren't surprised that those who support such evil are partakers in that evil?
I have no idea the depths of your heart and don't judge that, but I can judge what you've written and it saddens me to think of young people being so misguided to think that only a perfect life wihtout pain is worth living.

reply from: nancyu

No I don't. Where have I claimed this? I have made no such claim.
I find you disturbing! I find you disturbed! I find you heartless. I find you stupid. I could go on and on.
The BEST way to reduce abortion is to convince people that it is NOT necessary. How can we do that when all they have to do is look at the law and say "it's legal, it must be okay!" It isn't. It is taking the life of a child for the *convenience* of the mother. In most cases it is murder. I won't do anything to condone or try to reduce the *need* for murder. There is none!

reply from: nancyu

I'm glad. You may be good for something. Go do that now, and stop wasting your time arguing with people who feel the silly need to speak up for the rights of defenseless unborn people.

reply from: nancyu

And who exactly made you the expert on death?
My God, I shudder to think anyone, never mind a young person would take such a dim view of life as to equate death better than a traumatic experience.
What are you a product of, home, school, what?
Who told you life was so cheap?
Oh and btw, compassion isn't the only virtue of a follower of God. We're instructed to judge matters, idelogies and yes people.
Do you think it lacks compassion to judge Hitler as a savage murderer?
Who made YOU the expert on death? Been killed several times, have you? If you read my post again you'll see I say opinions on whether death is more painful than rape are highly subjective since nobody alive has ever experienced death. People are entitled to different opinions, you know--I never said you had to agree.
Saying death may be better than enduring the lifetime pain of rape is not saying life is cheap--don't know where you got that from.
And no, I don't think it lacks compassion to say Hitler was evil. But I do think it lacks compassion to say I am evil, since I am nothing like Hitler, and the person who called me evil doesn't even know me. To support his view (which I assume you do since you certainly don't say otherwise) you are crossing the line of acceptable debate and showing the true colors of pro-lifers.
I don't think Sander has crossed any lines of acceptable debate. I think you're evil too. I have no compassion for you. You are much like Hitler, he offered people the "choice" to kill Jews and other undesirables, in the same way you advocate for a woman's right to choose to kill her child. I have no compassion whatsoever for a person such as you.

reply from: sander

For all to see how the proaborts demean children and their utter contempt for the most defensless among us.

reply from: nancyu

Someone needs a history lesson. Hitler didn't offer any choices - what planet have you been on? He gave orders and that was it. No one could question or disobey and in fact. that was a defense some SS used when later tried.
So offering people the choice to kill their children is better than issuing an order? Not by much IMHO.
Your compassion shines through as well.
I love babies! oh yes I admit it I do. What I am fighting for is more than this though; I am fighting for the right of a person, who has been conceived, to live its entire life, through to his/her natural death. Not just babies, people.

reply from: sander

Didn't it though.
Wait a minute, that may be too much for any proabort to digest...now you're calling them "people"...whatever will you think of next?

reply from: sander

For all to see how the proaborts demean children and their utter contempt for the most defensless among us.
For all to see how the antichoice disregard women and their utter contempt for anything they don't understand.
Try to just stick with what's written instead of your ridiculous translations.
I understand very well the twisted view of children and the mothers by the proaborts.
No lessons needed.

reply from: rsg007

And who exactly made you the expert on death?
My God, I shudder to think anyone, never mind a young person would take such a dim view of life as to equate death better than a traumatic experience.
What are you a product of, home, school, what?
Who told you life was so cheap?
Oh and btw, compassion isn't the only virtue of a follower of God. We're instructed to judge matters, idelogies and yes people.
Do you think it lacks compassion to judge Hitler as a savage murderer?
Who made YOU the expert on death? Been killed several times, have you? If you read my post again you'll see I say opinions on whether death is more painful than rape are highly subjective since nobody alive has ever experienced death. People are entitled to different opinions, you know--I never said you had to agree.
Saying death may be better than enduring the lifetime pain of rape is not saying life is cheap--don't know where you got that from.
And no, I don't think it lacks compassion to say Hitler was evil. But I do think it lacks compassion to say I am evil, since I am nothing like Hitler, and the person who called me evil doesn't even know me. To support his view (which I assume you do since you certainly don't say otherwise) you are crossing the line of acceptable debate and showing the true colors of pro-lifers.
Did you read what you wrote? Read it again, you aren't stating an opinion you said it as fact.
Life is valuable, in fact it's priceless. So yes, I do think you view life as cheap, even if you don't see it as such now.
Struggles are what make us strong, overcoming obstacles and pain builds character and gives us a perspective that can be used to help others.
But, when you think death is at least an equal valor, you've cheapened life.
But, in some ways you are a product of RvW generation. Life has been cheapened by that vile ruling. Children in the womb have been dehumanized to the point that death seems a mercy over rape.
I'm crossing a line? Dear, you crossed that line the day you thought it was acceptable to kill a baby in the womb, so you can think you want about true colors.
Pro life people view the killing of innocent, defensless babies as a horror and an evil. Surely, you aren't surprised at that? And surley you aren't surprised that those who support such evil are partakers in that evil?
I have no idea the depths of your heart and don't judge that, but I can judge what you've written and it saddens me to think of young people being so misguided to think that only a perfect life wihtout pain is worth living.
Did YOU read what I wrote? Where I state an opinion I say so (by saying "in my opinion" or "IMO"). The rest IS fact:
Death can be painful while it is happening. FACT.
Rape always is too. FACT.
Sometimes death is less painful than rape. FACT.
Death is only painful afterwards for those who knew the victim, and while this is sad, at least the victim has now been spared any more pain. FACT.
Just because you think life is priceless doesn't mean everyone does or everyone has to--why do you care so much that everyone agrees with you?
And if you really think it's evil to protect women's rights, then I'm proud to be evil!

reply from: faithman

And who exactly made you the expert on death?
My God, I shudder to think anyone, never mind a young person would take such a dim view of life as to equate death better than a traumatic experience.
What are you a product of, home, school, what?
Who told you life was so cheap?
Oh and btw, compassion isn't the only virtue of a follower of God. We're instructed to judge matters, idelogies and yes people.
Do you think it lacks compassion to judge Hitler as a savage murderer?
Who made YOU the expert on death? Been killed several times, have you? If you read my post again you'll see I say opinions on whether death is more painful than rape are highly subjective since nobody alive has ever experienced death. People are entitled to different opinions, you know--I never said you had to agree.
Saying death may be better than enduring the lifetime pain of rape is not saying life is cheap--don't know where you got that from.
And no, I don't think it lacks compassion to say Hitler was evil. But I do think it lacks compassion to say I am evil, since I am nothing like Hitler, and the person who called me evil doesn't even know me. To support his view (which I assume you do since you certainly don't say otherwise) you are crossing the line of acceptable debate and showing the true colors of pro-lifers.
Did you read what you wrote? Read it again, you aren't stating an opinion you said it as fact.
Life is valuable, in fact it's priceless. So yes, I do think you view life as cheap, even if you don't see it as such now.
Struggles are what make us strong, overcoming obstacles and pain builds character and gives us a perspective that can be used to help others.
But, when you think death is at least an equal valor, you've cheapened life.
But, in some ways you are a product of RvW generation. Life has been cheapened by that vile ruling. Children in the womb have been dehumanized to the point that death seems a mercy over rape.
I'm crossing a line? Dear, you crossed that line the day you thought it was acceptable to kill a baby in the womb, so you can think you want about true colors.
Pro life people view the killing of innocent, defensless babies as a horror and an evil. Surely, you aren't surprised at that? And surley you aren't surprised that those who support such evil are partakers in that evil?
I have no idea the depths of your heart and don't judge that, but I can judge what you've written and it saddens me to think of young people being so misguided to think that only a perfect life wihtout pain is worth living.
Did YOU read what I wrote? Where I state an opinion I say so (by saying "in my opinion" or "IMO"). The rest IS fact:
Death can be painful while it is happening. FACT.
Rape always is too. FACT.
Sometimes death is less painful than rape. FACT.
Death is only painful afterwards for those who knew the victim, and while this is sad, at least the victim has now been spared any more pain. FACT.
Just because you think life is priceless doesn't mean everyone does or everyone has to--why do you care so much that everyone agrees with you?
And if you really think it's evil to protect women's rights, then I'm proud to be evil!
We already kneew you were proud to be evil, you didn't have to tell us. Your so called women's right is contrived, and simply does not exist in the constitution.

reply from: sander

So much for it just being an opinion. Thanks for making my point.
I ask again, who made you an expert on death?
Well, there you go...I'm right again. You devalue human life...nice attribute. Your parents must be so proud.
Equal rights at the expense of another human being...hmm, where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, nazis.

reply from: sander

I'm thinking not. Why then are so many prochoice women MOTHERS?
Just because some mothers believe in selected breeding doesn't mean their views aren't twisted. Quite the contrary.

reply from: nancyu

And who exactly made you the expert on death?
My God, I shudder to think anyone, never mind a young person would take such a dim view of life as to equate death better than a traumatic experience.
What are you a product of, home, school, what?
Who told you life was so cheap?
Oh and btw, compassion isn't the only virtue of a follower of God. We're instructed to judge matters, idelogies and yes people.
Do you think it lacks compassion to judge Hitler as a savage murderer?
Who made YOU the expert on death? Been killed several times, have you? If you read my post again you'll see I say opinions on whether death is more painful than rape are highly subjective since nobody alive has ever experienced death. People are entitled to different opinions, you know--I never said you had to agree.
Saying death may be better than enduring the lifetime pain of rape is not saying life is cheap--don't know where you got that from.
And no, I don't think it lacks compassion to say Hitler was evil. But I do think it lacks compassion to say I am evil, since I am nothing like Hitler, and the person who called me evil doesn't even know me. To support his view (which I assume you do since you certainly don't say otherwise) you are crossing the line of acceptable debate and showing the true colors of pro-lifers.
Did you read what you wrote? Read it again, you aren't stating an opinion you said it as fact.
Life is valuable, in fact it's priceless. So yes, I do think you view life as cheap, even if you don't see it as such now.
Struggles are what make us strong, overcoming obstacles and pain builds character and gives us a perspective that can be used to help others.
But, when you think death is at least an equal valor, you've cheapened life.
But, in some ways you are a product of RvW generation. Life has been cheapened by that vile ruling. Children in the womb have been dehumanized to the point that death seems a mercy over rape.
I'm crossing a line? Dear, you crossed that line the day you thought it was acceptable to kill a baby in the womb, so you can think you want about true colors.
Pro life people view the killing of innocent, defensless babies as a horror and an evil. Surely, you aren't surprised at that? And surley you aren't surprised that those who support such evil are partakers in that evil?
I have no idea the depths of your heart and don't judge that, but I can judge what you've written and it saddens me to think of young people being so misguided to think that only a perfect life wihtout pain is worth living.
Did YOU read what I wrote? Where I state an opinion I say so (by saying "in my opinion" or "IMO"). The rest IS fact:
Death can be painful while it is happening. FACT.
Rape always is too. FACT.
Sometimes death is less painful than rape. FACT.
Death is only painful afterwards for those who knew the victim, and while this is sad, at least the victim has now been spared any more pain. FACT.
Just because you think life is priceless doesn't mean everyone does or everyone has to--why do you care so much that everyone agrees with you?
And if you really think it's evil to protect women's rights, then I'm proud to be evil!
We already kneew you were proud to be evil, you didn't have to tell us. Your so called women's right is contrived, and simply does not exist in the constitution.
Women don't have equal rights, that wouldn't be enough. They have rights over and above their child's right to live, over and above the father's right to hold and love his own child, over and above any siblings this child might have had, to know and love this child. Over and above the rights of children of this child to live. Why is a woman's right to choose ( to kill her child) more worthy of protection than this child's right to live? Why faithman, Why???
When the rights of the two are weighed, the right of a child to live should have infinitely more weight than a mother's right to choose (to kill her child).

reply from: cracrat

Selecting when to breed seems like a perfectly reasonable option to many people and will therefore not serve these zealots aim of casting any who oppose their aims as evil spawn on a par with Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. Selected breeding smacks of eugenics and is therefore easier to garner opposition for, and so much better suited to their purposes.
When trying to whip ordinary folk into a rightious fury, choosing just the right words for the job is extremely important.

reply from: yoda

That position is so ridiculous it's laughable.
There is NO "set or rights" that is written in stone, or encoded in our DNA. All political rights are granted by the powers that be at the time.
The "right to kill you baby" is a recent concept that is so disgusting to many of us that we think that it degrades and debases any society that entertains it.

reply from: yoda

Ah, I see you are admitting that unborn babies are "somebody". Well, that's progress.
Next, maybe you'll think that "nobody has the right to kill anybody else who is innocent of malice or harm to others". Any chance of that?

reply from: yoda

Let me see now, how many dead people did you interview to come to that conclusion?
None, you say? Then how exactly is it that you know how "damaging" death is? What gives you that "insight"?

reply from: rsg007

So much for it just being an opinion. Thanks for making my point.
I ask again, who made you an expert on death?
There are mountains of evidence that say a person cannot feel anything after death and no evidence that they can. I am very confident that my above statement is indeed FACT.

reply from: rsg007

Let me see now, how many dead people did you interview to come to that conclusion?
None, you say? Then how exactly is it that you know how "damaging" death is? What gives you that "insight"?
Well, once people are dead they are dead (see above post). So I think it's fair to say rape is more damaging IN THE LONG TERM. If you challenge this, what gives YOU the insight?

reply from: yoda

I certainly hope I have crossed the line far enough to show the "true colors of a prolifer"...... that is a great honor indeed!
Congratulations, sander!!

reply from: yoda

Oh no!! You actually love those little thihgs!! OH NO!
You mustn't say that, or you will annoy and irritate the baby killers on this forum, and you've been told we're not supposed to do that!!
</sarcasm>

reply from: yoda

Yeah, that's right....... we're all horrible trolls who hide under bridges and scare people..... but how does that justify your support of baby killing?

reply from: yoda

Once again, how many dead people did you interview to obtain this "fact"?

reply from: yoda

Do you have any links to this "fact"?
Further, if death is not painful, why are you still alive?

reply from: nancyu

Oh no!! You actually love those little thihgs!! OH NO!
You mustn't say that, or you will annoy and irritate the baby killers on this forum, and you've been told we're not supposed to do that!!
</sarcasm>
Haha. But my heart also bleeds for the poor poor women, who just want to kill their babies! Is that really asking so much!!??

reply from: yoda

Death is for ETERNITY...... and that's a pretty long time. The trauma of rape is not necessarily eternal, in fact it's often temporary.
And given the possibility that we are spiritual as well as physical beings, it seems rather ludicrous to claim any knowledge of our situation after death.
But once again, if you think death is such a picnic, why are you still alive? Or are you posting this posthumously?

reply from: yoda

The right to kill others has been around a long time too, and humanity has become quite adept at it.
Is that all it takes to get your okay? Just because something's been around a long time that makes it okay?

reply from: rsg007

Once again, how many dead people did you interview to obtain this "fact"?
It's not necessary to interview dead people to know this--there are countless scientific experiments that show people can't feel anything after death, and I think you know this!

reply from: rsg007

Do you have any links to this "fact"?
Further, if death is not painful, why are you still alive?
I never said death is not painful (though being dead is not painful). Of course death can be painful, but rape can be equally so. Do you really need links to tell you that people can't feel anything after death? If so, I'll provide them.

reply from: yoda

No, actually I've never heard of any such experiment...... who did it, Dr. Frankenstein or Dr. Kervorkian?
And how do they test for "spiritual pain" in dead people?

reply from: yoda

By all means, please do..... that ought to be entertaining just to see who would actually post crap like that on the web........

reply from: cracrat

To rape someone is to violate them at the most intimate level. To remove totally the control they have over their self. The physical hurt heals as quickly as any other wound, the emotional pain, the guilt, the feelings of vulnerability and helplessness often never heal. The victim of that crime must live with that for the rest of their life, which is frequently cut short when they commit suicide.
Dead people probably don't worry too much about their new situation. They're killed, they stop worrying.
I know I'd rather be killed a thousand times over than suffer the abject indignity of being raped.

reply from: Teresa18

Once again, this is from my essay:
When people have sex, they have various contraceptive options, whether it is male or female condoms, birth control pills, birth control patches, etc. Some people will use one of these options while others will combine two or maybe even more of them. However, based on various reasons, perhaps just the heat of the moment, people will not always use contraception. One of the pro-choice arguments is consent to sex doesn't mean consent to pregnancy. Contraception is frequently cited as evidence of that statement. Ok, for a minute I'll go on that premise. Let's say if one uses contraception and gets pregnant then they were not consenting to pregnancy so they should be permitted to abort the child. What about the women who have sex without contraception? Are you going to say that they consented to pregnancy because they didn't use contraception? Or are you going to say they didn't consent to pregnancy because even though they didn't use contraception for whatever reason, pregnancy was not an intended result? Surely being pro-choice you will not tell them they have to gestate the pregnancy to term? Therefore, the contraception argument begins to slip through the cracks. Yet again, let's look at it from another ground. What if a woman has sex fully desiring pregnancy? Then, when pregnancy occurs, she suddenly changes her mind and decides she no longer wants to gestate the pregnancy. Surely being pro-choice you will not tell her she has to gestate her pregnancy to term? The bottom line, most people that are pro-choice support a woman's right to choose abortion regardless of the situation. So, it wouldn't matter if methods were taken to try to prevent or reduce the chances or pregnancy, if methods weren't taken, or if pregnancy was the desired outcome, pro-choice people would tell her she could get an abortion regardless. They would have to, as if they permitted abortion in some circumstances and declined it in others, it would collapse the notion that no one has the right to live attached to another's body or use another's body against their will. The bottom line is that pregnancy is ALWAYS a possibility when a couple has sex, and a couple consents to that possibility when they have sex.
Absolutely. The womb should be the safest place on earth. Instead, the child is at the mercy of the woman for 9 months. She can legally kill the child whenever she chooses.
If the parents feel they are unable to care for the child once he/she is born, then they need to do what is best for the child. That would be to put the child in an adoptive home with parents prepared to care for him/her.
It is responsible to give a child to adoptive parents if a couple feels they are unable to give the child what he/she needs. It is NOT responsible to kill a child because a couple is unable to care for him/here! Responsible parents do not kill their children! Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? Once again, this could easily apply to born children. Parents could decide they don't want their born child and decide they would prefer the child be dead as opposed to given to another couple.

reply from: sander

Selective breeding is eugenics no matter the when or why. If you need a lesson on why that is twisted then you're in worse dire straights then I expected.

reply from: sander

I certainly hope I have crossed the line far enough to show the "true colors of a prolifer"...... that is a great honor indeed!
Congratulations, sander!!
Why, thank you, Yoda!
I'm anxious to see these links to "experiments" on death.
Why else will they dredge up to prove the insanity of the culture of death?
Good grief.

reply from: sander

So much for it just being an opinion. Thanks for making my point.
I ask again, who made you an expert on death?
There are mountains of evidence that say a person cannot feel anything after death and no evidence that they can. I am very confident that my above statement is indeed FACT.
So, which is it, opinion or fact? You went to great lenghts to try and prove to me that you were only stating opinion...make up your mind.
We're not dolts, we know that the human body does not experience pain after death, but what makes you the expert on what goes on after death? How do you know there isn't something else taking place?
And further what makes you the expert that emotional trauma is worse than death? You still haven't answered that one.

reply from: Teresa18

With the exception of rape (I'm also pro-life in that instance though), the child is there as a result of the woman (and man's) actions. Does one have a right to bring another person about through one's actions and then proceed to kill them? The child is an unconsenting third party who never asked to be concieved. Parents have a responsibility to their born children to provide warmth, nourishment, and shelter that they don't have to an orinary person, and the same should hold true for the unborn.
First of all, no pro-lifer I have ever met is opposed to treatment in any of these instances. The only way to treat ectopic pregnancy results in the child's death, but that must be done to save the life of the woman. If the woman were to have preeclampsia or gestational diabetes, then we support trying to save both lives, but if not possible, preserving the life of the woman.
I addressed this above. Even if the woman is unable to give up her drug or cigarette habit, the child should still be given a chance to survive. Being born not 100% healthy is better than death. I would hope her doctor would get her treatment for her drug habit during pregnancy because drugs are illegal in the first place. Finally, you have no clue whether all children will be adopted out or not. As it stands, there are long waiting lists. Should a child be killed because he/she has a chance of not getting adopted?

reply from: sander

The mirad of excuses the proaborts have come up with to support the killing of unborn children still staggers the imagination.
They grasp at straws in ways that boggle the mind, well, that is a mind that has a functioning conscience.

reply from: Teresa18

I think she answered it above when she said:
The best way to end the killing is to first make it illegal!

reply from: faithman

I asked for a definition, not a description. What is the definition if not the literal one?
All who think this borthead is being willingly ignorant, and knows full well that eugenics was used in it's proper context in sander's post, Raise your http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j214/yodavater/BabyHands14.jpg click blue text for results.

reply from: sander

I want this baby, not this one, this one will fit, this one won't=selective breeding=eugenics.
You're not goading me into participating in your fallcies and excuses to support the at will killing of the unborn child.

reply from: sander

You're completley daft. If you're not familiar with the fact that part of the selective breeding process disposes of an unwanted pregnancy then you're the one that needs further education.
It happens with animal breeders, it happened under Hitler and it's happening now. You do realize that Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood was a huge proponent of eugenics. PP has only furthered her desires and plans.
Problem is that proaborts have become artful in their denials, but there are still those who don't buy their/your dribble.

reply from: nancyu

Baited Breath.
There is a difference???!!!! Reeeaalllyy???!!!!
It waaass???!!! I will?? realllly???!! I did not know that, did you Sander? did you Teresa18??? did you Yodavater? faithman??? Me neither!! In fact I thought Sanger was the ONLY eugenicist ever to have lived!!!
Wow, amazing facts! That is like two other people. Out goes the telephone, for sure. And The Supreme Court!!!???? supported eugenics???!!! It did???!!! I can NOT believe that!!!! reallly????!!!!
I am so emabarrassed!! Planned Parenthood is GREAT!! Margaret Sanger TOLD us abortion was BAD, and I just didn't hear that!!! I guess I was too distracted by all those gory photos, to be paying attention to what she was saying!
You are right!!!! Selective breeding is such a pretty word. Selective Breeding is GREAT!!! The world is going to be so great when all this selective breeding is done. I can NOT wait!!! Oh, I probably won't be here. (Are you going to get rid of the all the bowling pin shaped people too??) No I think I would have to vote against that idea.
Thank you so much for educating me joueravecfou!!!!! Ill prepared, yes definitely so. I am eternally grateful to you !!!! NO!! REALLY, I mean it!!! Seriously, I am totally 100% pro CHOICE (to kill a baby) NOW!!! Really what is all this fuss about???
Seriously. Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of abortion In the world. Selective breeding and birth control are NOT positive words to me, sorry. But these two things were not enough to please Margaret Sanger and they're not enough to please "pro choicers (to kill their baby) today. They demand the right to kill them AFTER they are conceived, and it's only a matter of time when that isn't enough either (see "respectable baby killing" topic) and they will be fighting to kill their children after they are born. "Honestly, how can they know whether or not they want them BEFORE they are even born?"

reply from: sander

The above dribble is one for the books!
Yoda, is so right, all you have to do is let the proabort talk. Give them enough rope and they hang themselves very nicely.
Here's a known fact about PP and the proabort's in general darling girl, Sanger.
This is a letter to Clarence Gamble, from Margaret Sanger, in which she wrote,
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
And there's so much more. But, I don't want to disrupt this otherwise perfect example of abortion insanity.

reply from: sander

Naturally you must not care about what someone said years ago.
But, it doesn't erase your connection to her and the fact that it's her and ones like her that you have received your belief system.
Bury your head in the sand for all I care, but you're connected to her evil no matter how you twist your own panties.
"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)
"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people
The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)
Deny it all day long, but all we're seeing in this country are the end results of her evil, twisted thinking.

reply from: yoda

Hey, that's not fair..... you're quoting something that the proaborts can't deny , twist, or dodge....... you might make them angry that way!!

reply from: yoda

Every bit of business you do with PP is another way to support them, and their main objective of aborting the poor and minorities out of existence.
But that's hardly surprising.

reply from: sander

Careful, your eyes might get stuck.
Everyone has a point of reference, you're no different than anyone else in that regard. You didn't develope your belief system in a vacuum.
And I don't need to throw away my phones, do you always like making a ninny of yourself?
Show me the abortion clinics Bell founded and we'll talk.

reply from: yoda

We do "include the rest" in our condemnation, but that has nothing to do with the modern telephone. Bell merely did pioneering work in the field, we are not supporting eugenics by using modern telephones.
Try to keep up, okay?

reply from: yoda

PP is the largest provider of abortion in our country, so how is it not related to the support of abortion if one does business with them?

reply from: sander

Do some indepth research on the woman. Didn't I just quote what she SAID should happen to children in large families? She said they should be "KILLED".
If you think she wasn't a proponent of abortion then you're in some deep denial.
You've conviently left out her love of eugenics and killing children and boiled it down to birth control...sorry, that just doesn't wash.

reply from: Teresa18

Once again, this is from my essay:
When people have sex, they have various contraceptive options, whether it is male or female condoms, birth control pills, birth control patches, etc. Some people will use one of these options while others will combine two or maybe even more of them. However, based on various reasons, perhaps just the heat of the moment, people will not always use contraception. One of the pro-choice arguments is consent to sex doesn't mean consent to pregnancy. Contraception is frequently cited as evidence of that statement. Ok, for a minute I'll go on that premise. Let's say if one uses contraception and gets pregnant then they were not consenting to pregnancy so they should be permitted to abort the child. What about the women who have sex without contraception? Are you going to say that they consented to pregnancy because they didn't use contraception? Or are you going to say they didn't consent to pregnancy because even though they didn't use contraception for whatever reason, pregnancy was not an intended result? Surely being pro-choice you will not tell them they have to gestate the pregnancy to term? Therefore, the contraception argument begins to slip through the cracks. Yet again, let's look at it from another ground. What if a woman has sex fully desiring pregnancy? Then, when pregnancy occurs, she suddenly changes her mind and decides she no longer wants to gestate the pregnancy. Surely being pro-choice you will not tell her she has to gestate her pregnancy to term? The bottom line, most people that are pro-choice support a woman's right to choose abortion regardless of the situation. So, it wouldn't matter if methods were taken to try to prevent or reduce the chances or pregnancy, if methods weren't taken, or if pregnancy was the desired outcome, pro-choice people would tell her she could get an abortion regardless. They would have to, as if they permitted abortion in some circumstances and declined it in others, it would collapse the notion that no one has the right to live attached to another's body or use another's body against their will. The bottom line is that pregnancy is ALWAYS a possibility when a couple has sex, and a couple consents to that possibility when they have sex.
Absolutely. The womb should be the safest place on earth. Instead, the child is at the mercy of the woman for 9 months. She can legally kill the child whenever she chooses.
If the parents feel they are unable to care for the child once he/she is born, then they need to do what is best for the child. That would be to put the child in an adoptive home with parents prepared to care for him/her.
It is responsible to give a child to adoptive parents if a couple feels they are unable to give the child what he/she needs. It is NOT responsible to kill a child because a couple is unable to care for him/here! Responsible parents do not kill their children! Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? Once again, this could easily apply to born children. Parents could decide they don't want their born child and decide they would prefer the child be dead as opposed to given to another couple.
Bump for rsg007!

reply from: Teresa18

With the exception of rape (I'm also pro-life in that instance though), the child is there as a result of the woman (and man's) actions. Does one have a right to bring another person about through one's actions and then proceed to kill them? The child is an unconsenting third party who never asked to be concieved. Parents have a responsibility to their born children to provide warmth, nourishment, and shelter that they don't have to an orinary person, and the same should hold true for the unborn.
First of all, no pro-lifer I have ever met is opposed to treatment in any of these instances. The only way to treat ectopic pregnancy results in the child's death, but that must be done to save the life of the woman. If the woman were to have preeclampsia or gestational diabetes, then we support trying to save both lives, but if not possible, preserving the life of the woman.
I addressed this above. Even if the woman is unable to give up her drug or cigarette habit, the child should still be given a chance to survive. Being born not 100% healthy is better than death. I would hope her doctor would get her treatment for her drug habit during pregnancy because drugs are illegal in the first place. Finally, you have no clue whether all children will be adopted out or not. As it stands, there are long waiting lists. Should a child be killed because he/she has a chance of not getting adopted?
Bump!

reply from: Teresa18

I guess. I was just starting to have some fun too.

reply from: sander

I've seen her logged in the last two nights, but guess she doesn't have anything to say, Teresa.

reply from: faithman

Pro-death chatter has been way down as of late.

reply from: Teresa18

Once again, this is from my essay:
When people have sex, they have various contraceptive options, whether it is male or female condoms, birth control pills, birth control patches, etc. Some people will use one of these options while others will combine two or maybe even more of them. However, based on various reasons, perhaps just the heat of the moment, people will not always use contraception. One of the pro-choice arguments is consent to sex doesn't mean consent to pregnancy. Contraception is frequently cited as evidence of that statement. Ok, for a minute I'll go on that premise. Let's say if one uses contraception and gets pregnant then they were not consenting to pregnancy so they should be permitted to abort the child. What about the women who have sex without contraception? Are you going to say that they consented to pregnancy because they didn't use contraception? Or are you going to say they didn't consent to pregnancy because even though they didn't use contraception for whatever reason, pregnancy was not an intended result? Surely being pro-choice you will not tell them they have to gestate the pregnancy to term? Therefore, the contraception argument begins to slip through the cracks. Yet again, let's look at it from another ground. What if a woman has sex fully desiring pregnancy? Then, when pregnancy occurs, she suddenly changes her mind and decides she no longer wants to gestate the pregnancy. Surely being pro-choice you will not tell her she has to gestate her pregnancy to term? The bottom line, most people that are pro-choice support a woman's right to choose abortion regardless of the situation. So, it wouldn't matter if methods were taken to try to prevent or reduce the chances or pregnancy, if methods weren't taken, or if pregnancy was the desired outcome, pro-choice people would tell her she could get an abortion regardless. They would have to, as if they permitted abortion in some circumstances and declined it in others, it would collapse the notion that no one has the right to live attached to another's body or use another's body against their will. The bottom line is that pregnancy is ALWAYS a possibility when a couple has sex, and a couple consents to that possibility when they have sex.
Absolutely. The womb should be the safest place on earth. Instead, the child is at the mercy of the woman for 9 months. She can legally kill the child whenever she chooses.
If the parents feel they are unable to care for the child once he/she is born, then they need to do what is best for the child. That would be to put the child in an adoptive home with parents prepared to care for him/her.
It is responsible to give a child to adoptive parents if a couple feels they are unable to give the child what he/she needs. It is NOT responsible to kill a child because a couple is unable to care for him/here! Responsible parents do not kill their children! Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? Once again, this could easily apply to born children. Parents could decide they don't want their born child and decide they would prefer the child be dead as opposed to given to another couple.
I see rsg007 is back.

reply from: Teresa18

With the exception of rape (I'm also pro-life in that instance though), the child is there as a result of the woman (and man's) actions. Does one have a right to bring another person about through one's actions and then proceed to kill them? The child is an unconsenting third party who never asked to be concieved. Parents have a responsibility to their born children to provide warmth, nourishment, and shelter that they don't have to an orinary person, and the same should hold true for the unborn.
First of all, no pro-lifer I have ever met is opposed to treatment in any of these instances. The only way to treat ectopic pregnancy results in the child's death, but that must be done to save the life of the woman. If the woman were to have preeclampsia or gestational diabetes, then we support trying to save both lives, but if not possible, preserving the life of the woman.
I addressed this above. Even if the woman is unable to give up her drug or cigarette habit, the child should still be given a chance to survive. Being born not 100% healthy is better than death. I would hope her doctor would get her treatment for her drug habit during pregnancy because drugs are illegal in the first place. Finally, you have no clue whether all children will be adopted out or not. As it stands, there are long waiting lists. Should a child be killed because he/she has a chance of not getting adopted?
Bump!

reply from: yoda

Then to YOU, for women with unwanted born babies, being forced NOT TO KILL THEM is the "equivalent to rape", right?
How dare you FORCE a woman not to kill her born kids??????

reply from: yoda

How about a woman with born kids...... does she have ALL rights except one?
Can she abandon her born kids in the middle of a desert? Can she spend all her money and let the kids go hungry?
BOTTOM LINE: Neither the pregnant woman or the woman with born kids ought to have the right to electively kill her children.

reply from: yoda

Originally posted by: rsg007
Nobody (born) has the right to use anybody else's body without their consent. Nobody unborn should have that right either, unless you want special rights for the unborn over the born.
To compare the physical needs of the unborn to the born is idiotic at best. Only a person dedicated to the destruction of innocent unborn human life would even make such a suggestion.

reply from: yoda

How many times have you died and come back? How many times have you asked someone to kill you instead of raping you?
You talk like and idiot. I hope you are just pretending.

reply from: yoda

You cannot sway toward what you already are. You have been 100% proabort from the moment you first posted here.
And the FACT is... you've just proven that you've never been anything close to being prolife. A prolifer is against abortion because they despise the idea of a big person killing a baby....... NOT because they like other prolifers, NOT because they like how prolifers treat proaborts, NOT because of any other reason than they JUST DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF KILLING BABIES.
So if you're "swaying" towards the proabort side, it's because you DO LIKE the idea of KILLING BABIES............. pure and simple.

reply from: yoda

For all to see how the proaborts demean children and their utter contempt for the most defensless among us.
Very, very typical.......

reply from: speck

Then to YOU, for women with unwanted born babies, being forced NOT TO KILL THEM is the "equivalent to rape", right?
How dare you FORCE a woman not to kill her born kids??????
You continuously try to manipulate and control words.
This is very sad IMO.
I wish people like you could understand, that to many women, being with a man who controls and manipulates is often what can be the drive to abort.
My heart goes out to women who are with men like you. I wish for those who feel that the only way out is to abort, see that what they really need, is to be away from the controller, and can make it on their own, and make the right choice with their child/ren and that there is help out there from decent people.

reply from: Faramir

Then to YOU, for women with unwanted born babies, being forced NOT TO KILL THEM is the "equivalent to rape", right?
How dare you FORCE a woman not to kill her born kids??????
You continuously try to manipulate and control words.
This is very sad IMO.
I wish people like you could understand, that to many women, being with a man who controls and manipulates is often what can be the drive to abort.
My heart goes out to women who are with men like you. I wish for those who feel that the only way out is to abort, see that what they really need, is to be away from the controller, and can make it on their own, and make the right choice with their child/ren and that there is help out there from decent people.
So are you saying that a manipulative and controlling man could push a woman to abort, and that he then is at least in-part responsible for the child's death, even though he wanted her to keep it?

reply from: yoda

Yeah, I confess..... I try to "control" the words I use all the time. You know, there's NOTHING WORSE than words that are OUT OF CONTROL!! Have you ever seen them running around all over the page, out of control??? It's awful I tell you, just awful!!
Say what? People who are against the elective killing of innocent babies are "driving" women to kill their babies?
How exactly does that work..... I mean, when such women get "angry" at prolifers like me, do they think "I hate that guy, so I think I'll go kill my baby"?
Is that how it works?

reply from: speck

Then to YOU, for women with unwanted born babies, being forced NOT TO KILL THEM is the "equivalent to rape", right?
How dare you FORCE a woman not to kill her born kids??????
You continuously try to manipulate and control words.
This is very sad IMO.
I wish people like you could understand, that to many women, being with a man who controls and manipulates is often what can be the drive to abort.
My heart goes out to women who are with men like you. I wish for those who feel that the only way out is to abort, see that what they really need, is to be away from the controller, and can make it on their own, and make the right choice with their child/ren and that there is help out there from decent people.
So are you saying that a manipulative and controlling man could push a woman to abort, and that he then is at least in-part responsible for the child's death, even though he wanted her to keep it?
A manipulative/controlling/abusive partner (be it physical verbal etc) can definitely drive a woman to abort. (A woman who is close to me, fits this situation perfectly)
The responsibility however, is more up for interpretation, as the woman is still the one who makes the final choice, yet the spouse in some cases, could be the one who influenced the choice, with or without realizing it.
So I guess, if abortion were illegal, in this situation, the abusive partner could be charged with involuntary manslaughter........

reply from: speck

From 2 online dictionary's, as this site seems to hold to a dictionary like it were a Bible.
Manipulate
Verb
1. Influence or control shrewdly or deviously: "He manipulated public opinion in his favor.".
2. Hold something in one's hands and move it.
3. Fake or falsify; "Fudge the figures"; "cook the books"; "falsify the data".
4. Manipulate in a fraudulent manner; of prices.
5. Control (others or oneself) or influence skillfully, usually to one's advantage; "She manipulates her boss"; "She is a very controlling mother and doesn't let her children grow up"; "The teacher knew how to keep the class in line"; "she keeps in line".
6. Treat manually, as with massage, in physiotherapy.
1.to manage or influence skillfully, esp. in an unfair manner: to manipulate people's feelings.
2.to handle, manage, or use, esp. with skill, in some process of treatment or performance: to manipulate a large tractor.
3.to adapt or change (accounts, figures, etc.) to suit one's purpose or advantage.
4.Medicine/Medical. to examine or treat by skillful use of the hands, as in palpation, reduction of dislocations, or changing the position of a fetus.
Sounds like a couple of people on this site.


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