Home - List All Discussions

Why is it right to kill human babies, but not animals

please stay on the subject pro-aborts...

by: Bgraphics

I posted this question in the form "Democrats,Prochoice,Environmentalist"
and never got a clear answer from the pro-aborts. Do you 'that adverted the question' have an answer....If so I would like to hear it...

reply from: Cecilia

If you wanted to kill canines in utero, I would not be put off.

reply from: kayluvzchoice

I don't care if you want to kill a fetus, embryo, or fertilized egg of ANY specie.
Why do you think a sentient, feeling being's welfare should come after a *****ing embryo just because the embryo is human?

reply from: Bgraphics

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Wouldn't that be concidered animal abuse? How do you know if the canines want to abort thier young. They don't have a choice. And they don't have laws that say they can kill if they choose to. So it would'nt be legal.
Hide behind the laws as long as you can. Kill a few more million babies. Does that make it right? NO Laws can be wrong too...

reply from: RiverMoonLady

I have no problem with the removal of litters or unborn animals, especially when spaying a female, and allowing them to die unless they are old enough to live outside the mother's body. If they are viable, they should be cared for, but most spaying is done well before viability and I can think of few reasons (other than medical) for unborn animals to be removed.

reply from: Bgraphics

Originally posted by: kayluvzchoice
I don't care if you want to kill a fetus, embryo, or fertilized egg of ANY specie.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I don't except this scientific slang, to divert people to think that an embryo, fetus, or egg is not living babies.
I guess as much as you don't except that it is wrong, and immoral, to kill.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

From the title, you need to realise that not all democrats are vegetarian, so many of them support killing "some" animals.

reply from: Cecilia

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Wouldn't that be concidered animal abuse? How do you know if the canines want to abort thier young. They don't have a choice. And they don't have laws that say they can kill if they choose to. So it would'nt be legal.
Hide behind the laws as long as you can. Kill a few more million babies. Does that make it right? NO Laws can be wrong too...
I have no moral issue with animals in utero being aborted, any more than millions of people have no moral issue with slaughtering animals for food. How did you know that cow wanted to be flank steak?
I recognize that laws can be wrong, and as such the law is not the basis of my decision to support a woman's choice about the direction of her pregnancy.

reply from: Bgraphics

Liberalchiro...
From the title, you need to realise that not all democrats are vegetarian, so many of them support killing "some" animals.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Like babies...?

reply from: BossMomma

Unless someone here is a vegan no one is saying it's wrong to kill animals, I personally feel it's nessesary for a percentage of animals to die every year to keep the numbers in balance.

reply from: yoda

Are you any kin to "Killer John Smith"?

reply from: BossMomma

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Wouldn't that be concidered animal abuse? How do you know if the canines want to abort thier young. They don't have a choice. And they don't have laws that say they can kill if they choose to. So it would'nt be legal.
Hide behind the laws as long as you can. Kill a few more million babies. Does that make it right? NO Laws can be wrong too...
Isn't one of the laws of nature kill or be killed? The Strongest survive? I see nothing wrong with a wolf killing a fawn to feed it's own young, or an eagle killing a rabbit, no matter that the rabbit's brood is now left without a mother, that's nature's way.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You could interpret it that way, yes. Democrats approve of killing some babies and some animals.
It's the pro-choice vegetarians who are anti-death penalty that REALLY confuse me!!

reply from: BossMomma

We disected a fetal pig in biology class during our anatomy segment. We also disected a worm, a snake and, a small shark.

reply from: Bgraphics

Originally posted by: Cecilia
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bossmamma
Please don't tell me you think a fetus is a threat. Kill or be killed. enlighten me...

reply from: jujujellybean

Yes no purpose eh? Would that happen to be because humans can think and realize, well, I don't want this baby and an animal can't so there is no purpose in killing the baby animals except because HUMANS want it?

reply from: BossMomma

Are you saying a human fetus is no different from an animal fetus? We humans do not live by the animal law.

reply from: lukesmom

Are you saying a human fetus is no different from an animal fetus? We humans do not live by the animal law.
Proaborts do, they kill their young.

reply from: kayluvzchoice

Are you any kin to "Killer John Smith"?
No. But he and Jack the Ripper are my heroes and role models.

reply from: Draiocht

When you choose to address me with proper respect, I'll reciprocate. Until then, I'll call you "pro-rape", since you advocate the forced usage of woman's most private organs against their will.
Continue to call us "pro-abort" and I will call you "pro-rape".

reply from: Draiocht

Question: Why respect animals?
Short answer: Maybe because they won't pollute the planet they live on and cause the mass distinction of other animals just for the sake of being "dominant", while at the same time nuking the whole place so that NOBODY can live at all.
Humans=superior? Only when it comes to destruction.

reply from: Draiocht

Thanks luv. I really hate misogynists, so I imagine I'll have so much fun here.

reply from: Draiocht

Hey Lukesmom: I don't follow your woman-hating god. Tough luck for you, eh? I will abort any "babies" forced into my womb by males that rape me. Maybe you should have a good talk with the MALES of your species for a change. Oh, but that might require a little of MALE approval. We're just here to breed and provide sex. You fail. I am not a slave.

reply from: lukesmom

Follow whomever or whatever you like, I could care less and have no idea why you would think I would. I do care about anyone killing another, especially if the person being killed has no say in the matter. FYI: I don't know what talking to males has to do with anything but most of the time you proaborts talk in circles and chase your tails so please continue. I am real happy for you that you are not a slave although evidently you think I am but a slave to what is the question. Thanks for the advise though and God bless and have a positive day!

reply from: yoda

What's disrespectful about using a word that is simply a shortening of a perfectly valid term the means prochoice?
Oh, btw, it doesn't help your case any to lie about other posters and what they "advocate", it simply makes you look small and vindictive.

reply from: yoda

Oh goodie..... here's one of those feminazis who love to call all prolifers misogynists!!
How do you feel about a male prolifer (me) who is absolutely ecstatic about the nomination of Sarah Palin, and would love to give my time and money to get her elected President? Am I still a woman hater?

reply from: Cecilia

No.
pro-a·bor·tion (pr-bôrshn)
adj.
Favoring or supporting legalized abortion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"proaborts" is slang thrown around here to dehumanize *cough* people who support a woman's decision about her pregnancy, whether it be abortion, birth, or adoption.
If you have to be dishonest to push your cause, you should reexamine your motives or your cause.

reply from: lukesmom

No.
pro-a·bor·tion (pr-bôrshn)
adj.
Favoring or supporting legalized abortion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"proaborts" is slang thrown around here to dehumanize *cough* people who support a woman's decision about her pregnancy, whether it be abortion, birth, or adoption.
If you have to be dishonest to push your cause, you should reexamine your motives or your cause.
People (used lightly) who have an abortion to kill their child favor abortion or they wouldn't have consented to one. People (again used lightly) who are for so called choice condone abortion therefore both catagories are proaborts. BTW, you really should take something for your cough. There's a lot of stuff over the counter that can help.

reply from: Draiocht

Yeah, keep comparing women that want rights to make decisions about their own bodies to Nazi's, Yoda. You only prove yourself to be a pro-rape advocate. You are a vile life form.
By the way: Voting for a woman that is against woman's rights doesn't in any way make you more "pro-woman". It just means you're happy that there's a nice little slave that "knows her place" and advocates that women shut up and breed like good little fillies, pro-rapist.

reply from: lukesmom

Hark! There is a troll in our midst! Oh golly gosh, look out! Hide the men and children! It's every woman for herself!!!

reply from: Cecilia

...yes, but that does not mean that "proaborts kill their young". The statement is still false.
People who support reproductive choices are "proabortion" but that does not mean they all "kill their young". BossMomma is labeled a "proabort" and I understand she has three children.
You paint with a wide brush a landscape of misunderstanding.

reply from: lukesmom

...yes, but that does not mean that "proaborts kill their young". The statement is still false.
People who support reproductive choices are "proabortion" but that does not mean they all "kill their young". BossMomma is labeled a "proabort" and I understand she has three children.
You paint with a wide brush a landscape of misunderstanding.
Proabort is short for proabortion. You can be a proabort and never have an abortion yourself but are actually for abortion as an option to end pregnancies.

reply from: Cecilia

...yes, but that does not mean that "proaborts kill their young". The statement is still false.
People who support reproductive choices are "proabortion" but that does not mean they all "kill their young". BossMomma is labeled a "proabort" and I understand she has three children.
You paint with a wide brush a landscape of misunderstanding.
Proabort is short for proabortion. You can be a proabort and never have an abortion yourself but are actually for abortion as an option to end pregnancies.
Right, which is why your statement that "proaborts kill their young" is wrong.

reply from: Draiocht

So if you're also for adoption and birth, what does that make you? Isn't it just easier and more truthful to call it what it is? "pro-CHOICE".

reply from: faithman

...yes, but that does not mean that "proaborts kill their young". The statement is still false.
People who support reproductive choices are "proabortion" but that does not mean they all "kill their young". BossMomma is labeled a "proabort" and I understand she has three children.
You paint with a wide brush a landscape of misunderstanding.
Proabort is short for proabortion. You can be a proabort and never have an abortion yourself but are actually for abortion as an option to end pregnancies.
Right, which is why your statement that "proaborts kill their young" is wrong.
That is the dirty little secret of you pro-death elitist. You think your children are more desirable than the less evolved. We just can't have to many of "those people" running around. Right?

reply from: Cecilia

...yes, but that does not mean that "proaborts kill their young". The statement is still false.
People who support reproductive choices are "proabortion" but that does not mean they all "kill their young". BossMomma is labeled a "proabort" and I understand she has three children.
You paint with a wide brush a landscape of misunderstanding.
Proabort is short for proabortion. You can be a proabort and never have an abortion yourself but are actually for abortion as an option to end pregnancies.
Right, which is why your statement that "proaborts kill their young" is wrong.
That is the dirty little secret of you pro-death elitist. You think your children are more desirable than the less evolved. We just can't have to many of "those people" running around. Right?
What on earth are you referring to?

reply from: lukesmom

...yes, but that does not mean that "proaborts kill their young". The statement is still false.
People who support reproductive choices are "proabortion" but that does not mean they all "kill their young". BossMomma is labeled a "proabort" and I understand she has three children.
You paint with a wide brush a landscape of misunderstanding.
Proabort is short for proabortion. You can be a proabort and never have an abortion yourself but are actually for abortion as an option to end pregnancies.
Right, which is why your statement that "proaborts kill their young" is wrong.
OK, you're right. How about "Proaborts support mothers killing their young."?

reply from: Bgraphics

Are you saying a human fetus is no different from an animal fetus? We humans do not live by the animal law.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes there is no difference. Except animals aren't killing their young by the hundreds of millions. They leave that for the humans to do...

reply from: Cecilia

A fair statement, but it would be most descriptive and accurate if you also stated that "proaborts support mothers giving birth" as well. And adoption.

reply from: lukesmom

A fair statement, but it would be most descriptive and accurate if you also stated that "proaborts support mothers giving birth" as well. And adoption.
Actually I have experienced the opposite at times and yes, even here.

reply from: yoda

A fair statement, but it would be most descriptive and accurate if you also stated that "proaborts support mothers giving birth" as well. And adoption.
Except that is simply a distraction, since prolifers also support that, obviously. Labels are of no use if they don't delineate the distinctive things about a particular position. We oppose abortion, you support it. That's why the labels don't involve adoption, or raising your own kid... we all agree on those.

reply from: yoda

Adoption and birth are not in dispute here. The only "choice" in dispute is abortion. That's why prochoice and proabortion are defined exactly the same way in just about every dictionary.

reply from: Bgraphics

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Pro-ABORT...
Pro-MURDERER...
Self centered raticals...
I will call it as I see it... Pro-Choice just gives you the choice to kill when it is covinate for you.
Pro-rape...
Rape- to violate a persons body by force.
That could apply to the child that you support killing. You rape that child when you deprive it of life with force.
Besides pro-abort its not rape when you lay on your back and take it willingly. Maybe you should sing to your constictuates to start wearing a condom. Or control thier hormones.

reply from: Draiocht

Using a person's body against their will is rape and not supporting women's right to prevent pregnancy in the first place while supporting men's right to demand sex in exchange for affection is hypocrisy. When "prolifers" fight as hard for easy access to birth control and elective sterilization as prochoicers do, I'll stop thinking of them as woman haters and rape advocates. I'm thirty four and have been trying since the age of eighteen to get sterilized. I am NOT respected as a human being and my choice not to reproduce is being undermined by people that want women to pay for having sex.

reply from: faithman

A fair statement, but it would be most descriptive and accurate if you also stated that "proaborts support mothers giving birth" as well. And adoption.
Only to try and copver the fact that you are murderers. You are the worst kind of bullies. You kill helpless womb children so pro-death sluts can feel powerful.

reply from: Bgraphics

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'm 26 yrs old w/5 children. I haven't had sex with my wife in nearly a month. And I don't complain about it at all. Neither does my wife. I never force her to have sex with me nor will I ever make her do something she doesn't want to. I give her the right to do anything she wants to. When I met my wife I knew she was a pro-lifer And that what makes us hole.
OH, We also desided we want to have as many kids possible to keep up with the numbers of those who are being killed...

reply from: lukesmom

So you take your anger out by supporting the killing of the innocent unborn. Actually some of the proaborts have been tooting PP horn on anther thread. They are getting our tax dollars and are supposed to supply affordable bc altho I recently read an article stating this is not necessarily true. So stop crying about bc and you becoming sterilized is between you and your doctor, unless of course, you would like one of us to do the procedure? After listening to your hate, I wouldn't mind trying myself. YOU are not being respected because you have a foul mouth and a hateful attitude and when that changes maybe you'll be respected.

reply from: Bgraphics

You are such a run around...
She is tring to say that men force women to have sex. She is also insinuating that they make them have their babies. And calling men slave owners. And calling them rapist. When it was both the man and woman that choose to have sex. Sex is there for a reason. It might be fun to do. But it is, in all reality for breeding. When it is willing by both parties it will never be rape. And when it is unhealthy sex... well I'll leave that for you to answer. Pro - rape because me and my wife both choose not to kill. thats stupid.

reply from: Bgraphics

So you take your anger out by supporting the killing of the innocent unborn. Actually some of the proaborts have been tooting PP horn on anther thread. They are getting our tax dollars and are supposed to supply affordable bc altho I recently read an article stating this is not necessarily true. So stop crying about bc and you becoming sterilized is between you and your doctor, unless of course, you would like one of us to do the procedure? After listening to your hate, I wouldn't mind trying myself. YOU are not being respected because you have a foul mouth and a hateful attitude and when that changes maybe you'll be respected.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thats right...
To all of you pro- aborts I'll NEVER show you respect until you start showing the respect all 200+ million babies deserve. You are all murderers. No matter how much you try to justify it. If you support, or even participate in it you are killers. No ifs, ands, or buts about it....

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Christianity does not have to be woman-hating. Please refrain from blaming an entire religion for the bad behavior of a few people.

reply from: stopabortionnow

yes the pro-abortion EVIL *****S say MURDER ARE BABIES but not the Animals.

reply from: KaylieBee

Lol, I've asked that question in reverse to pro-lifers.
I don't really care about eating meat/wearing fur. I do both quite happily. My favorite meal in medium-rare steak with vegetables, and my favorite pair of boots are covered in soft rabbit fur. I've wanted a nice fur coat fro the longest time. I do however care about animals being abused. But there's a world of difference between the two.

reply from: Bgraphics

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I Like eating meat as well. But what I don't understand is how can theDemocratic party say they support abortion, but want to save the polar bears in alaska.

reply from: KaylieBee

Polar bears die out, their prey multiplies greatly, since there is nothing to kill them, and they eat a lot more of whatever it is they eat, since there's more predator and less prey, the prey dies out, then the predator dies too, etc.
Surely they went over this sort of thing with you in Ninth grade biology? One species going extinct can and will affect all the other species around it, potentially destroying the ecosystem.

reply from: Cecilia

I think that the actual reality (which is something that gets ignored here fairly often I've noticed) is that proaborts say there is nothing wrong with in utero abortions of animals.
You just desperately want to adhere to a stereotype to make a false case against people.

reply from: KaylieBee

My cat actually ended up having an abortion once. It had just had one set of kittens, so my mum took it to the vet before it when into heat again so she could get it fixed(We already had like 23 cats running around (nine kittens and fourteen big ones running around. Stray cats kept coming to the house because we were too nice to them.). When he opened up her uterus, there were tiny kittens inside. He couldn't close her up without them dying anyway, so he took them out.
But I doubt the cat really knew the difference.

reply from: BossMomma

Are you saying a human fetus is no different from an animal fetus? We humans do not live by the animal law.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes there is no difference. Except animals aren't killing their young by the hundreds of millions. They leave that for the humans to do...
Actually animals have been known to kill each others babies for millions of years. Did you know that in a lion pride when a new male runs off the old male the first thing he does is destroy all the cubs sired by the previous male? Cheetah cubs are killed by everything from lions to hyena's to leopards and at such a rate that the cheetah population is down by 50%. Snakes will frequently track a mother mouse back to her den and devour her babies, wolves make a practice of seeking fawns hidden in the grass for easy prey. Do you need further examples?

reply from: BossMomma

So you take your anger out by supporting the killing of the innocent unborn. Actually some of the proaborts have been tooting PP horn on anther thread. They are getting our tax dollars and are supposed to supply affordable bc altho I recently read an article stating this is not necessarily true. So stop crying about bc and you becoming sterilized is between you and your doctor, unless of course, you would like one of us to do the procedure? After listening to your hate, I wouldn't mind trying myself. YOU are not being respected because you have a foul mouth and a hateful attitude and when that changes maybe you'll be respected.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thats right...
To all of you pro- aborts I'll NEVER show you respect until you start showing the respect all 200+ million babies deserve. You are all murderers. No matter how much you try to justify it. If you support, or even participate in it you are killers. No ifs, ands, or buts about it....
News flash kid, I really don't give a furry rat's patoot about your respect, you put far too much value on your opinion.

reply from: BossMomma

Actually animals are abused on fur farms regularly, I've seen video's in which they were skinned alive. There are no regulations for fur farms and so animals (foxes, mink, rabbits, etc.) are quite literally at the farmers mercy.

reply from: Bgraphics

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I wasn't aware they put the polar bears on the indangered species list...

reply from: Bgraphics

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yeh, Its a shame that this "kid" has more moral values than you. You would think after so many years you would realize how crule of a person you are to even conceder condoning abortions. So I could care less, that you care less. Because I expect it from people like yourself. I know you don't care what I think expecially
if you don't care for the innocent life of a defenceless baby.
I look down on you just as I look down on Hitler, and the KKK, Mansion, and anyone else that kills but with much more anger. You kill something that can't fight back. There for I'll spit in the path you walk in.

reply from: Bgraphics

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Excuse me Endangered Species List

reply from: Bgraphics

Ecological Damage...
more than half the scientist in the world say there is no global warming.
Well let me put it differently They say that the air has never been cleaner.
A hundred yrs ago we used coal and wood to heat our houses. The ozone would been much more worse then than it is now. They also say that the oceans set off more carbondioxcide a day than humans do in a 1 yr period.
Records wasn't keep 100+ yrs ago to monitor the amount of polution that is in the air either. Records do show that the earth will correct its self. How do we know if we are really in a crisis or not.

reply from: cracrat

Pretty much all the worlds scientists (95%+) agree that global warming is happening. The debate is over whether or not we're wholly or partly responsible, but a significant majority (80%+) agree that without the influence of humans, the world would be warming at a far slower rate. The air has been a lot cleaner for most of history, the post-war chemical industry boom has added a greater amount of a greater number of synthetic toxins to the environment than the Earth has ever experienced in 4.6bn years.
The majority of the world's energy still comes from wood and coal, the difference is that in western countries it is burned at power stations to provide electricity rather than in our fireplaces to provide heat. But that is fairly irrelevant since it is the widespread use of various halogenated compounds (CFCs, HFCs, etc) combined with unique conditions over Antarctica that caused the destruction of the ozone layer. The oceans do indeed release a huge amount of CO2 each day, but they also absorb a huge amount. The point is that until humans came along and started burning fossil fuels on a giga-tonne scale, the whole lot was in balance. We have upset that balance and are witnessing the results.
No written records were not kept 100+ years ago, but ice-core samples do provide us with an astoundingly accurate record of the atmosphere's composition for several thousand years. The earth can, and does, periodically go through episodes of extreme change and come out rebalanced at the other side. But it tends to be extremely bad news for those species living at the time.
K/T extinction event (ee), 75% of species extinct.
Triassic-Jurassic ee, 55% of all genuses extinct.
Permian-Triassic ee, 96% of marine species, 70% of land species extinct.
Devonian-Carboniferous ee, 70% of all species extinct.
Ordovician-Silurian ee, about 50% of animal genuses extinct.
What on earth makes you think that humans are going to make it out of this one alive?

reply from: RiverMoonLady

No.
pro-a·bor·tion (pr-bôrshn)
adj.
Favoring or supporting legalized abortion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"proaborts" is slang thrown around here to dehumanize *cough* people who support a woman's decision about her pregnancy, whether it be abortion, birth, or adoption.
If you have to be dishonest to push your cause, you should reexamine your motives or your cause.
People (used lightly) who have an abortion to kill their child favor abortion or they wouldn't have consented to one. People (again used lightly) who are for so called choice condone abortion therefore both catagories are proaborts. BTW, you really should take something for your cough. There's a lot of stuff over the counter that can help.
People who have plastic surgery to change their appearance favor plastic surgery or they wouldn't have consented to it. That makes them pro-plastic-surgery, which in your thinking, means that they not only condone it, but push it on other people, attempt to force people to change their looks whether they want to or not, etc. Your attempt at logic is farcical.

reply from: CharlesD

Not quite. It's only illegal to kill them after they're born.

reply from: yoda

Obviously, but you're leaving out an important category. People who feel no need for plastic surgery, but want it kept legal so that all the "ugly people" who want it can have it are also "pro-plastic surgery".
They are enablers, just like proaborts who don't have abortion are enablers for abortion.

reply from: yoda

Not quite. It's only illegal to kill them after they're born.
Exactly, Charles. Welcome to the forum.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Obviously, but you're leaving out an important category. People who feel no need for plastic surgery, but want it kept legal so that all the "ugly people" who want it can have it are also "pro-plastic surgery".
They are enablers, just like proaborts who don't have abortion are enablers for abortion.
Plastic surgery also comes in handy for burn victims, those seriously injured in accidents, women who have been physically abused and a number of others who are not "ugly people" at all. They have medical reasons to have surgery. I condone it for those reasons, but personally believe that cosmetic surgery to improve on what God gave you is ridiculous and would never have it done to myself.
So, am I still an enabler in wanting to keep certain surgery safe and legal for everyone, but would never have it done for myself except for serious medical reasons?
I suppose you think that most surgery is wasteful, dangerous and unnecessary - after all, anesthesia can kill you, the surgeon can make mistakes, the surgery may not be successful, etc. - it is rife with dangers.

reply from: lukesmom

Obviously, but you're leaving out an important category. People who feel no need for plastic surgery, but want it kept legal so that all the "ugly people" who want it can have it are also "pro-plastic surgery".
They are enablers, just like proaborts who don't have abortion are enablers for abortion.
Plastic surgery also comes in handy for burn victims, those seriously injured in accidents, women who have been physically abused and a number of others who are not "ugly people" at all. They have medical reasons to have surgery. I condone it for those reasons, but personally believe that cosmetic surgery to improve on what God gave you is ridiculous and would never have it done to myself.
So, am I still an enabler in wanting to keep certain surgery safe and legal for everyone, but would never have it done for myself except for serious medical reasons?
I suppose you think that most surgery is wasteful, dangerous and unnecessary - after all, anesthesia can kill you, the surgeon can make mistakes, the surgery may not be successful, etc. - it is rife with dangers.
This comparison is silly. First off plastic surgery is never done on a person without their written aknowlegement of knowing all the risks and benefits, this is called "informed consent". Plastic surgery rarely has the complication of causing someone's death. Plastic surgery doesn't hurt anyone but the person consenting to the procedure whereas abortion is forced on the unconsenting and unwilling unborn person and always ends in that person being killed. The abortionist also has no legal obligation to give the mother any education about the risks or benefits of the procedure as this industry is not regulated. All other institutions that perform invasive procedures are regulated by outside regulators. When a woman has an abortive procedure she has no guarentee what sterile precautions are taken, if any, what confidentiality breaches may occur and what risks to herself she is taking. The real joke here is the one where abortion advocates say they are prowomen. HA!
So go picket for the right to plastic surgery where no one is intentionally murdered and any unitentional complication of surgery was explained to the pt prior to the procedure and I'll continue to fight for the inalienalble rights of the person who never consented to be killed, the unborn.

reply from: Cecilia

Not quite. It's only illegal to kill them after they're born.
Actually there have been a number of cases lately where parents have killed their children and quite gotten away with it.

reply from: lukesmom

Not quite. It's only illegal to kill them after they're born.
Actually there have been a number of cases lately where parents have killed their children and quite gotten away with it.
There is a difference between intentional and unintentional or accidental killing or harm. You are being too general.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Obviously, but you're leaving out an important category. People who feel no need for plastic surgery, but want it kept legal so that all the "ugly people" who want it can have it are also "pro-plastic surgery".
They are enablers, just like proaborts who don't have abortion are enablers for abortion.
Plastic surgery also comes in handy for burn victims, those seriously injured in accidents, women who have been physically abused and a number of others who are not "ugly people" at all. They have medical reasons to have surgery. I condone it for those reasons, but personally believe that cosmetic surgery to improve on what God gave you is ridiculous and would never have it done to myself.
So, am I still an enabler in wanting to keep certain surgery safe and legal for everyone, but would never have it done for myself except for serious medical reasons?
I suppose you think that most surgery is wasteful, dangerous and unnecessary - after all, anesthesia can kill you, the surgeon can make mistakes, the surgery may not be successful, etc. - it is rife with dangers.
This comparison is silly. First off plastic surgery is never done on a person without their written aknowlegement of knowing all the risks and benefits, this is called "informed consent". Plastic surgery rarely has the complication of causing someone's death. Plastic surgery doesn't hurt anyone but the person consenting to the procedure whereas abortion is forced on the unconsenting and unwilling unborn person and always ends in that person being killed. The abortionist also has no legal obligation to give the mother any education about the risks or benefits of the procedure as this industry is not regulated. All other institutions that perform invasive procedures are regulated by outside regulators. When a woman has an abortive procedure she has no guarentee what sterile precautions are taken, if any, what confidentiality breaches may occur and what risks to herself she is taking. The real joke here is the one where abortion advocates say they are prowomen. HA!
So go picket for the right to plastic surgery where no one is intentionally murdered and any unitentional complication of surgery was explained to the pt prior to the procedure and I'll continue to fight for the inalienalble rights of the person who never consented to be killed, the unborn.
My, what a RANT!!!
Go google "plastic surgery death" and you will discover that the same things that kill women who have abortions have also killed women who have plastic surgery. But when a woman dies after abortion, all hell breaks out on this board!!!!
If you idiots knew anything about the legalities and intricacies of running any kind of medical clinic (including PP and abortion facilities), you wouldn't say such stupid crap. Or maybe you live in states with no public heath laws, like Mississippi or Alabama or other backwards areas.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

In addition to federal standards, medical clinics and doctors must follow regulations and professional conduct requirements of the state's Board of Medicine and the Department of Health Professionals. Physicians who perform abortions are required to maintain professional standards and licenses.
This is standard in nearly all states.

reply from: lukesmom

Who's ranting? I wasn't, just stating facts. A physician's professional standards are different from patients rights statements. They are also different from an orginizations standards. They also do not guarentee inspections by regulators who, by these inspections, guarentee or put a professional stamp of approval on a clinic or hospital. Every hospital in the nation, yes, even in Mississippi or Alabama is inspected by the credited inspectors and believe you me, EVERYTHING and everyone and every detail is gone over with a fine toothed comb. If you don't meet requirements at the federal and state level you could lose your accredidation which will result in loss of medicare and other revenue. Abortionist aren't inspected by the state or feds and don't care if they are accredited or not by the state or feds.
Now stop your ranting...

reply from: RiverMoonLady

State and local governments have health departments which determine regulations for medical facilities. In the state where I live, they are part of the requirements for obtaining a certificate of occupancy when a building or tenant space is built, remodeled, changes tenancy type or changes ownership.
I know this because I work in the architectural business for a company specializing in health care facilities. Do you think doctors (or others) are allowed to just do what they want anywhere they want to do it? You should see the books full of requirements! The Dept. of Health has a zillion rules, many of which do not make sense to laymen, but which all have specific backgrounds.
Probably your state has requirements for all establishments which produce and/or serve food. Before the place is allowed to open, all licenses must be procured and all building/remodeling plans must be reviewed and approved. A certtificate of occupancy must be obtained via personal inspection by trained personnel. Regular inspections are done to ensure adherence to all food handling laws.
It works the same with health care clinics, including those where abortions are performed. I don't know how to explain it to you any more simply other than to say that one cannot simply open up an abortion clinic without going through inspections and reams of paperwork, nor can one legally perform abortions without a valid medical license.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

If one of your children needs an organ transplant to keep on living, who do you believe should sacrifice their wants/needs for the life of the child? Would you feel morally obligated to kill yourself? Should your wife die? Should you kill another child to save the dying one?
Would you sacrifice your skin for your child even if it meant you would be sick for a long time?

reply from: lukesmom

YOU are not understanding what I am saying. Yes there are regulations in opening a health care facility but once the facility opens abortion clinics are NOT OBLIGATED to follow the stringent state and federal regulations other facilites that perform medical procedures do to ensure safe pt care and ensure safe medical practices. Facilities that are obligated to follow these standards are inspected regularly and are subject to loose funding if they puposefully or even accidently don't meet those standards. These facilities are FULL of doctors and other medical professionals with valid medical licenses. Medical licenses mean you have been educated, they don't mean you are following standards of acceptable care or ethics.

reply from: Cecilia

Not quite. It's only illegal to kill them after they're born.
Actually there have been a number of cases lately where parents have killed their children and quite gotten away with it.
There is a difference between intentional and unintentional or accidental killing or harm. You are being too general.
The children didn't kill themselves, and they didn't die of natural causes. The individuals responsible should face criminal charges.
I cannot for the life of me understand why "prolifers" aren't wearing out their britches protesting over this. No compassion for rape victims who don't want to be pregnant, but these poor parents who negligently left their kid in the car get off the hook?
Is it because the child was theirs? If a babysitter left the child in a car and it died, would she be so forgiven?
Any cases like this ever happen, anyone know?

reply from: Cecilia

If one of your children needs an organ transplant to keep on living, who do you believe should sacrifice their wants/needs for the life of the child? Would you feel morally obligated to kill yourself? Should your wife die? Should you kill another child to save the dying one?
Would you sacrifice your skin for your child even if it meant you would be sick for a long time?
No one should have to die in order to provide the needs or fulfill the desires of another. That's the point.
So the answers are...No?

reply from: lukesmom

No compassion for rape victims?! Be very careful here, some of the prolife women here ARE rape victims or family members of rape victims. Do you think rapists ask if women are prolife before they rape them?
A parent who negligently causes the death of their child enter a living hell no one would want to enter. No punishment the law deems to place on them is going to be as severe as the punishment they live with every minute of every day.
Yes babysitters and daycare providers in this area have caused the death of children in their care in various unintentional negligent ways.
Anyway here are some stats regarding hyperthermia deaths; it happens more often than you think or should happen.
http://ggweather.com/heat/
I tried looking for prosecution rates but didn't find anything and the stories I read didn't talk about punishment for the individual but instead the closing of daycare centers after the child died in their care.
What I don't understand is how this pertains in anyway with parents INTENTIONALLY killing their child through abortion.

reply from: sheri

That whole " I will not serve" thing is really getting old. You anti lifers dont seem to do much original thinking.

reply from: BossMomma

Nor do you pro-fetals who see fit to thrust your beliefs on the rest of the world as if you are somehow "holier than thou."

reply from: Cecilia

No compassion for rape victims?! Be very careful here, some of the prolife women here ARE rape victims or family members of rape victims. Do you think rapists ask if women are prolife before they rape them?
A parent who negligently causes the death of their child enter a living hell no one would want to enter. No punishment the law deems to place on them is going to be as severe as the punishment they live with every minute of every day.
Yes babysitters and daycare providers in this area have caused the death of children in their care in various unintentional negligent ways.
Anyway here are some stats regarding hyperthermia deaths; it happens more often than you think or should happen.
http://ggweather.com/heat/
">http://ggweather.com/heat/
I tried looking for prosecution rates but didn't find anything and the stories I read didn't talk about punishment for the individual but instead the closing of daycare centers after the child died in their care.
What I don't understand is how this pertains in anyway with parents INTENTIONALLY killing their child through abortion.
People just cannot read anymore.
I said, "no compassion for rape victims who do not want to be pregnant".
You asked, 'do you think rapists ask if their victims are prolife before they rape them?' I return the question with 'do you ask a victim anything?'
I feel terrible for the parents who caused the death of their children, but they should be accountable by law nontheless. You don't get a "get ouf of jail free" card when you're a parent.

reply from: Cecilia

Not necessarily. I would give my life to save the life of my child, but I do not believe it would be ethical to require me to do so. In the event that I actually caused a circumstance for another that would require them to need blood or a kidney, for example, I believe a strong case could made made for requiring me to provide it for them, even without my consent, however.
For the sake of clarity, I have not, nor will I ever contend that a mother must sacrifice her life to preserve the life of her child. She should be free to do so, but should not be required to. In the case of normal pregnancy, a mother is not required to sacrifice her life or any body part, and she can reasonably expect to give birth numerous times and emerge from the experience whole. A woman should never be "forced" or required to conceive, but once she has, she should never be allowed to kill her offspring just because she wants them dead.
In the event that she requires any medical attention to preserve her life, that can not ethically be denied her in my view, but her child should still not be intentionally killed. I believe every effort should be made to preserve the child's life as well. If the child can not survive a procedure that is necessary to save the mother, that is unfortunate but unavoidable provided the procedure is actually necessary in order to preserve the life of the mother.
I respect your views.

reply from: lukesmom

No compassion for rape victims?! Be very careful here, some of the prolife women here ARE rape victims or family members of rape victims. Do you think rapists ask if women are prolife before they rape them?
A parent who negligently causes the death of their child enter a living hell no one would want to enter. No punishment the law deems to place on them is going to be as severe as the punishment they live with every minute of every day.
Yes babysitters and daycare providers in this area have caused the death of children in their care in various unintentional negligent ways.
Anyway here are some stats regarding hyperthermia deaths; it happens more often than you think or should happen.
http://ggweather.com/heat/
<br ">http://ggweather.com/heat/
I tried looking for prosecution rates but didn't find anything and the stories I read didn't talk about punishment for the individual but instead the closing of daycare centers after the child died in their care.
What I don't understand is how this pertains in anyway with parents INTENTIONALLY killing their child through abortion.
People just cannot read anymore.
I said, "no compassion for rape victims who do not want to be pregnant".
You asked, 'do you think rapists ask if their victims are prolife before they rape them?' I return the question with 'do you ask a victim anything?'
I feel terrible for the parents who caused the death of their children, but they should be accountable by law nontheless. You don't get a "get ouf of jail free" card when you're a parent.
Is there such a person as a rape victim who WANTS to be pregnant????
Of course they don't get a "get out of jail free" card, they can go to jail they can be prosecuted and persecuted and none of that will ever bring their child back or change the fact their child died through their negligence. They are in parent HELL.
Actually, how are they WORSE that the parent who lays herself down for an abortionist to kill her child? Same thing only one is legal murder and the other in negligent abuse. I say the abortive mother and the killer abortionist are the ones with more to answer for as her action is intentional.

reply from: BossMomma

Nor do you pro-fetals who see fit to thrust your beliefs on the rest of the world as if you are somehow "holier than thou."
I don't think people should be allowed to rape women, steal, or sexually molest children either. Do you object to me "thrusting my beliefs" on those who wish to do those things? Do you support their "right to choose" to do as they please? Of course you don't, hypocrite. You feel it's perfectly acceptable to "thrust beliefs on others" as long as you share the beliefs being "thrust."
Lets try to learn the difference between legal and illegal the next time we post, m'kay? The law is also against raping, stealing and, molesting children, my beliefs have nothing to do with it though I do agree with the law.

reply from: lukesmom

Nor do you pro-fetals who see fit to thrust your beliefs on the rest of the world as if you are somehow "holier than thou."
I don't think people should be allowed to rape women, steal, or sexually molest children either. Do you object to me "thrusting my beliefs" on those who wish to do those things? Do you support their "right to choose" to do as they please? Of course you don't, hypocrite. You feel it's perfectly acceptable to "thrust beliefs on others" as long as you share the beliefs being "thrust."
Lets try to learn the difference between legal and illegal the next time we post, m'kay? The law is also against raping, stealing and, molesting children, my beliefs have nothing to do with it though I do agree with the law.
Let me get this straight. If rape was legal, you would have no problem with it because legality makes rape ok? After all, that is what you are saying about abortion, isn't it?

reply from: sk1bianca

cp has a point. legality can change anytime. slavery used to be legal, remember? racsim used to be considered normal.
it's a pity we need written laws to stop us from killing our unborn children. people should realize how horrible it is.
some things ARE WRONG no matter how some people consider them. all we have to do is look at the results.

reply from: Witness

Excellent points, cp and sk1bianca

reply from: BossMomma

Nor do you pro-fetals who see fit to thrust your beliefs on the rest of the world as if you are somehow "holier than thou."
I don't think people should be allowed to rape women, steal, or sexually molest children either. Do you object to me "thrusting my beliefs" on those who wish to do those things? Do you support their "right to choose" to do as they please? Of course you don't, hypocrite. You feel it's perfectly acceptable to "thrust beliefs on others" as long as you share the beliefs being "thrust."
Lets try to learn the difference between legal and illegal the next time we post, m'kay? The law is also against raping, stealing and, molesting children, my beliefs have nothing to do with it though I do agree with the law.
We were talking about "thrusting our beliefs on others." If you claim you think it's wrong, you're obviously a liar. That has nothing to do with what is and is not legal...
That's just it you insufferable twit, I don't have to agree or disagree, the law takes care of that. If it ever becomes legal to rape me or molest my children however the fool that tries it had better be ten foot tall and bullet proof because it's also legal in Texas to use deadly force against assailents, and the State made me a dead on shot and I took kick boxing for 6 years, good luck to your fellow convict.

reply from: BossMomma

Hell we need written law to make killing each other wrong, however it still happens. Husbands kill their wives, mothers kill their born children, beat them, starve them etc. etc. It's part of human nature, or so some think, I tend to agree at times every time I walk down a cell block run and look into the face of killer after killer, rapist after rapist. Prisons over crowd with those who ignore written law, think of how much further they would crowd if abortion became illegal, and believe me if women would murder their born children I doubt the fetus would be exempt from such.

reply from: Cecilia

You approve of "imposing your beliefs on others" but insist it is "wrong" for others to do so. You're a hypocrite.
Isn't there an absense of imposition if society takes the stand of legal abortion? There is no view being forcefully imposed on another.
There is the direct enforcement of a policy of non imposition in a society where rape is illegal. This ensures that there is no view being forcefully imposed on another.
Whereas you may return with "what about the rapist's views?" The rapist's views impose upon others, removing their choice. The rapist still has the choice to impose his views. The removal of his choice, parallel to removing the choice of abortion, would be to forcefully physically alter his male anatomy. Now he has no choice, it's been made for him, and society has forcefully imposed it's views upon him.
I think that, generally, the problem with this 'enforcement' issue is that antiabortionists simply do not care and find it permissible to enforce themselves upon others, and people who support all choices for pregnancy find it an appalling idea.
I think both sides have legitimacy to their views, I just sit more soundly in the appalled camp, worried about judges and lawyers and unknown people making decisions for millions of women about their reproductive choices.

reply from: sweet

LOL...true...good point.

reply from: Cecilia

You approve of "imposing your beliefs on others" but insist it is "wrong" for others to do so. You're a hypocrite.
Isn't there an absense of imposition if society takes the stand of legal abortion? There is no view being forcefully imposed on another.
There is the direct enforcement of a policy of non imposition in a society where rape is illegal. This ensures that there is no view being forcefully imposed on another.
Whereas you may return with "what about the rapist's views?" The rapist's views impose upon others, removing their choice. The rapist still has the choice to impose his views. The removal of his choice, parallel to removing the choice of abortion, would be to forcefully physically alter his male anatomy. Now he has no choice, it's been made for him, and society has forcefully imposed it's views upon him.
I think that, generally, the problem with this 'enforcement' issue is that antiabortionists simply do not care and find it permissible to enforce themselves upon others, and people who support all choices for pregnancy find it an appalling idea.
I think both sides have legitimacy to their views, I just sit more soundly in the appalled camp, worried about judges and lawyers and unknown people making decisions for millions of women about their reproductive choices.
Oh, because if most people approve of the imposition, it's no imposition? Are you turning into Big Mama on me?
That's your response? That's not at all what I said.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

If I didn't consider females to be "persons," would you support my right to rape them if I choose?
If something is in YOUR body, you can do whatever you want with it.
If a man's penis is inside your vagina, do you have the right to cut it off - even if you LET him put it there? According to your logic, you do have that right. According to most everyone else... you don't.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Well that's nice you don't consider it a person, but a lot of people DO consider it a person, so the argument "no one is hurt in an abortion" is insubstantial. You say A and we say B. So stop arguing about the "person" issue. It IS a baby. If it's not a baby, you're not pregnant, so what are you aborting? I love that quote. The word "baby" is applicable and I have never heard a sufficient argument against that. The baby is also a parasite; I'm equal opportunity. Anyway, we should argue a point that's NOT moot.
The unborn is alive. Abortion kills it. The unborn is human (it ain't a frog!), and abortion KILLS a human. WHY is this "ok"?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

My friend's guine pig had an abortion. After they are a year old, their hips fuse and they cannot give birth without dying; but unfortunately they can still get pregnant. So when my friend placed her two guines in one cage to clean the other, the whoops happened!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

But it IS an "other". It has its own heartbeat, it has its own DNA for God's sake. How is that not an "other"? It is in no way shape or form part of your body. It is IN your body, it is ATTACHED to your body; no person can deny that. But it is not YOUR body. It has its own body. It is not PART of your body either.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I agree that the GENERAL belief of pro-choice is very anti-force. Unfortunately I have met people calling themselves pro-choice who feel all young girls should be forced to have abortions, and/or forced to have birth control inserted against their will. They also believe all deformed/"imperfect" children should be aborted! Now THAT is pro-abortion.
Pro-choice is pro-CHOICE. It's not just pro-abortion. It's not just pro-birth. It's not just pro-adoption. It is pro-having-the-choices, aka, pro-choice.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

lmao I JUST thought up and used that example elsewhere on here!!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

But it IS an "other". It has its own heartbeat, it has its own DNA for God's sake. How is that not an "other"? It is in no way shape or form part of your body. It is IN your body, it is ATTACHED to your body; no person can deny that. But it is not YOUR body. It has its own body. It is not PART of your body either.
Bravo! It's really not so hard to understand, is it? I don't understand why so many otherwise reasonable people insist on mindlessly regurgitating the same old tired propaganda... We obviously can not simply allow everyone to decide for themselves which human beings are significant. Some feel only they and those they have a use for are.
Heh, thanks Even when I was a pro-choicer I never felt the unborn was "part" of the woman. I was never that blind.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I agree that the GENERAL belief of pro-choice is very anti-force. Unfortunately I have met people calling themselves pro-choice who feel all young girls should be forced to have abortions, and/or forced to have birth control inserted against their will. They also believe all deformed/"imperfect" children should be aborted! Now THAT is pro-abortion.
Pro-choice is pro-CHOICE. It's not just pro-abortion. It's not just pro-birth. It's not just pro-adoption. It is pro-having-the-choices, aka, pro-choice.
But we obviously do not, indeed can not ethically allow all "choices."
Well of course not. The discussion then becomes what choices are "ok" and what choices are not "ok". No one wants to see a woman die. But we also don't want to see babies killed that could go on to live healthy lives with healthy birth mothers.
Oh but didn't you know? The baby isn't an "other". Pfft.
It's weird because that's often the pro-choice argument for killing the baby; they say it is violating the woman's body and using her uterus against her will. What say you to that? Personally I think that's absolutely ridiculous; the baby is MEANT to grow in the uterus and the woman's body is basically a fertile valley saying "fertilize me!".
I don't want to regulate women being able to have sex. Have as much sex as you want, when you want it, with whomever you want, and as protected or as unprotected as you want. But if you create someone else, you owe it to them to give birth to them. That's your responsibility.

reply from: BossMomma

You approve of "imposing your beliefs on others" but insist it is "wrong" for others to do so. You're a hypocrite.
I disagree with imposing beliefs on others, I don't disagree with imposing my foot on a criminal's ass, especially if he's trying to impose his body upon mine.

reply from: sweet

LOL LOL LOL
...bring on the beliefs!

reply from: BossMomma

LOL LOL LOL
...bring on the beliefs!

reply from: Bgraphics

I agree. It's just another bit of propaganda that "prochoicers" cling to. I don't think they all really believe everything they repeat, but merely feel "the end justifies the means," and so feel justified in bending the truth and/or attempting to perpetuate irrational arguments for the sake of their "cause."
Hmmm.
I've been thinking about the rape issue.
Now, what if having a rape baby traumatised the poor woman so much that she never has any more children?
Whereas if she DID have an abortion, she got over her rape and fear of childbirth and went on to raise a family of five.
Which is the better option?
5 lives vs 1 life seems a bit of a no-brainer.
What's you take on that, CP?
I take pity on those women who are raped and fill it could maybe be an exception to having an abortion. "But" I talked this over with my wife who is a rape victim. I asked her if you had got pregnant would you have aborted the child. She told me to kill would be alot worst than rape. It took me 2 yrs to understand what she told me. If you murder a baby it would be worst than what that person did to her.
It would be a vaid resson to concider abortion after being raped. But that isn't the resson why 200+ million women have had abortions. The ressons for abortions. All boil down to Greed, Popularity, Money, Fear, and not wanting to take on the responsibilites that come with having a baby. And if it takes doing away with abortions even for rape victims then so be it. Rape victims should be allowed to have an abortion. But thats not the ressons why women have them.
I'm sure if abortions are out-lawed then there will be a great incress on rapist in this country. That is if it only rape victims are allowed to have abortions. So with that said it should not be legal period. They have an option to put it up for adoption. And to kill that baby would be alot worst than getting raped.
Let me say that more extinsive measures need to be taken out on rapist, like casteration, manditory 25+ yrs. and when they get out pay the mother 18 yrs. of back child support.

reply from: yoda

How about imposing your hand on a baby's throat? Do you approve of the actions of the abortionist who strangled the baby to death because it didn't die during the abortion?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I agree. It's just another bit of propaganda that "prochoicers" cling to. I don't think they all really believe everything they repeat, but merely feel "the end justifies the means," and so feel justified in bending the truth and/or attempting to perpetuate irrational arguments for the sake of their "cause."
They don't all really believe it. I didn't. I thought I did, and I repeated it because that was the argument everyone else was using.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

That's obviously a lie. You have made it clear that you have no problem with imposing your beliefs on others, you just don't think anyone else should be allowed to do so. You're a hypocrite and a liar.
I disagree; true pro-choicerism is about a completely hands-off philosophy. It's about NOT imposing. Obviously, the woman herself who aborts is imposing her will and her beliefs upon the unborn, but a pro-choice woman in GENERAL is NOT imposing. Only the actual woman who aborts is imposing.

reply from: BossMomma

That's obviously a lie. You have made it clear that you have no problem with imposing your beliefs on others, you just don't think anyone else should be allowed to do so. You're a hypocrite and a liar.
When have I imposed my beliefs on anyone? Stating an opinion does not impose anything.

reply from: BossMomma

How about imposing your hand on a baby's throat? Do you approve of the actions of the abortionist who strangled the baby to death because it didn't die during the abortion?
No, an infant who survives an abortion should IMO be treated as any born infant and provided medical care. I am a BAIPA supporter, that's also another reason I'm not voting for Obama.

reply from: Cecilia

I agree. It's just another bit of propaganda that "prochoicers" cling to. I don't think they all really believe everything they repeat, but merely feel "the end justifies the means," and so feel justified in bending the truth and/or attempting to perpetuate irrational arguments for the sake of their "cause."
They don't all really believe it. I didn't. I thought I did, and I repeated it because that was the argument everyone else was using.
So now you just do that with antiabortion rhetoric?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I agree. It's just another bit of propaganda that "prochoicers" cling to. I don't think they all really believe everything they repeat, but merely feel "the end justifies the means," and so feel justified in bending the truth and/or attempting to perpetuate irrational arguments for the sake of their "cause."
They don't all really believe it. I didn't. I thought I did, and I repeated it because that was the argument everyone else was using.
So now you just do that with antiabortion rhetoric?
No; I have come to my own feelings on abortion, and don't actually KNOW what to call myself. I'm not pro-choice, I'm not pro-life. I spew NO one's "rhetoric". My words are MY OWN.

reply from: Cecilia

I agree. It's just another bit of propaganda that "prochoicers" cling to. I don't think they all really believe everything they repeat, but merely feel "the end justifies the means," and so feel justified in bending the truth and/or attempting to perpetuate irrational arguments for the sake of their "cause."
They don't all really believe it. I didn't. I thought I did, and I repeated it because that was the argument everyone else was using.
So now you just do that with antiabortion rhetoric?
No; I have come to my own feelings on abortion, and don't actually KNOW what to call myself. I'm not pro-choice, I'm not pro-life. I spew NO one's "rhetoric". My words are MY OWN.
So you are undecided it sounds like?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Absolutely not. I know exactly how I feel, however, those feelings do not fit with either pro-choice or pro-life.

reply from: BossMomma

That's obviously a lie. You have made it clear that you have no problem with imposing your beliefs on others, you just don't think anyone else should be allowed to do so. You're a hypocrite and a liar.
When have I imposed my beliefs on anyone? Stating an opinion does not impose anything.
You support laws that prohibit "choices." That makes it possible for those laws to exist. You assert that prohibiting abortion is "imposing beliefs," but obviously it is no more or less such an imposition than laws against harming any other human being, and you do not object to those laws. You can't have it both ways, BM. It can't logically only be "imposing beliefs" when you disagree with the law...
Like I said, liar and hypocrite, but in your defense, you may just not be smart enough to realize it...
Ok, if I'm a liar and a hypocrit for obeying the law then so be it.

reply from: lukesmom

That's obviously a lie. You have made it clear that you have no problem with imposing your beliefs on others, you just don't think anyone else should be allowed to do so. You're a hypocrite and a liar.
When have I imposed my beliefs on anyone? Stating an opinion does not impose anything.
You support laws that prohibit "choices." That makes it possible for those laws to exist. You assert that prohibiting abortion is "imposing beliefs," but obviously it is no more or less such an imposition than laws against harming any other human being, and you do not object to those laws. You can't have it both ways, BM. It can't logically only be "imposing beliefs" when you disagree with the law...
Like I said, liar and hypocrite, but in your defense, you may just not be smart enough to realize it...
Ok, if I'm a liar and a hypocrit for obeying the law then so be it.
Yup and when the equivalent to the Nuremberg Trials begins, you can try hiding behind your unjust laws.

reply from: BossMomma

That's obviously a lie. You have made it clear that you have no problem with imposing your beliefs on others, you just don't think anyone else should be allowed to do so. You're a hypocrite and a liar.
When have I imposed my beliefs on anyone? Stating an opinion does not impose anything.
You support laws that prohibit "choices." That makes it possible for those laws to exist. You assert that prohibiting abortion is "imposing beliefs," but obviously it is no more or less such an imposition than laws against harming any other human being, and you do not object to those laws. You can't have it both ways, BM. It can't logically only be "imposing beliefs" when you disagree with the law...
Like I said, liar and hypocrite, but in your defense, you may just not be smart enough to realize it...
Ok, if I'm a liar and a hypocrit for obeying the law then so be it.
Yup and when the equivalent to the Nuremberg Trials begins, you can try hiding behind your unjust laws.
You have to obey the same laws I do doofus.

reply from: BossMomma

It has everything to do with the law, getting an abortion is as legal and ethical as getting a tattoo. Both are debated by various people as to whether or not they are "right" but in the end the law decides what is right and what is wrong.

reply from: Cecilia

On the other foot, you in turn support laws that impose upon women's personal medical/surgical decisions and support the idea that those decisicions should be defined by politicians and individuals not involved in the situation, such as yourself.
I think I will agree with you here on this matter. I have thought it over and consider that since I view a fetus as a human being, an 'other', and I support abortion laws thus I will concede that I support a law that may impose on a human being.
Yet, has anyone said that they oppose all laws with the potential to impose? I think you can have it both ways. You can support law A because you find it personally acceptable, such as traffic laws, and oppose law B because you find it unacceptable, such as laws against marijuana.
I don't understand how a position is inconsistent when it is based on your personal ethics wihch vary from individual to individual.
So perhaps I am coming to the conclusion that abortion laws need a public vote? Then to be consistant all laws should require a public vote?
I am a little confused, can some one help me out. Maybe it is my english...sorry.

reply from: Cecilia

It has everything to do with the law, getting an abortion is as legal and ethical as getting a tattoo. Both are debated by various people as to whether or not they are "right" but in the end the law decides what is right and what is wrong.
But laws can, and have been, absolutely wrong.

reply from: BossMomma

It has everything to do with the law, getting an abortion is as legal and ethical as getting a tattoo. Both are debated by various people as to whether or not they are "right" but in the end the law decides what is right and what is wrong.
But laws can, and have been, absolutely wrong.
And when they are changed, new laws take their place and one group will agree, another will disagree and thus a new debate is born. I simplify things and just obey the law.

reply from: lukesmom

Another really stupid remark compliments of the "all knowing bossy".

reply from: Bgraphics

I agree I fill the people should take a vote. And not leave it up to liberal judges to deside the fate of so many children. By a public vote it would insure the law not to be faulty. And two sided. We would all agree that the people have spoken.

reply from: CharlesD

So the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong is the state? Right and wrong goes beyond what the government dictates. Was slavery ok when it was legal but all of a sudden became wrong when it became illegal? The law may state this or that, but what is the foundation of the law? Are there objective truths that are just plain true, no matter what people say? For the most part, man made laws only reflect that objective standard of right and wrong, but there are a few exceptions. Is murder wrong because there is a law against it, or is there a law against it because it is wrong? I believe the latter. It was wrong long before there was a codified law saying so. This country's laws have changed over the years; things like slavery and voting rights for women have been a couple notable changes in the laws, not to mention a lot of the segregation laws that were done away with by the civil rights movement in the 60s. Those were all laws that were at one time on the books, the law of the land, but they didn't truly reflect right and wrong.

reply from: BossMomma

No but abiding the law of the land is manditory for all unless the idea of being a convict suits your fancy. You can debate right and wrong till the cows come home but until the law recognizes it, it is still just your opinion.

reply from: BossMomma

It has everything to do with the law, getting an abortion is as legal and ethical as getting a tattoo. Both are debated by various people as to whether or not they are "right" but in the end the law decides what is right and what is wrong.
Nope. The law only outlines what is permitted. Was slavery "right" when it was legal?
Aparently it was to those who chose to own them. A war had to be fought to change that, it is now wrong and has been for some time. Right and wrong are subjective just like morals and ethics are subjective, they vary too widely. The laws are made by those who are elected to do so by the people. The majority wins.

reply from: BossMomma

So your morality is based solely on legality? You don't think abortion is "wrong," but if it were legally prohibited tomorrow, what was not wrong in your view today would become wrong in your view tomorrow?
Yes, if abortion were illegalized and the fetus granted the right of personhood and all that you hope for comes to pass, I would abide the law. I would not protest, I would go on about my life as it would not change anything about me, I would not abort anyway. Does that mean that I will actively lobby for pro-life? No, but nor would I lobby for pro-choice as it would be a moot point. As I said before, right and wrong aside, it boils down to what you can do and what you can't do.

reply from: BossMomma

Yes, "right and wrong" are subjective, but you asserted that "the law" determines "right and wrong," didn't you? My question was rhetorical, but I was obviously asking whether slavery was "right" when it was legal in your view. The point is that if the law determines right and wrong in your view, and therefore the legality of abortion makes it "right" in your view, then slavery must not have been "wrong" in your view until it was prohibited... Understand?
Had I been alive nearly 200 years ago I would not have owned slaves, if it was legal back then to own slaves I really wouldn't have had a say in it would I?

reply from: cracrat

So your morality is based solely on legality? You don't think abortion is "wrong," but if it were legally prohibited tomorrow, what was not wrong in your view today would become wrong in your view tomorrow?
Yes, if abortion were illegalized and the fetus granted the right of personhood and all that you hope for comes to pass, I would abide the law. I would not protest, I would go on about my life as it would not change anything about me, I would not abort anyway. Does that mean that I will actively lobby for pro-life? No, but nor would I lobby for pro-choice as it would be a moot point. As I said before, right and wrong aside, it boils down to what you can do and what you can't do.
"I would abide by the law" does not answer the question. I did not ask if you would abide by the law, did I? The question was whether what you considered not to be "wrong" would become "wrong" in your view simply because the law changed.
Do you now consider abortion to be "wrong?" So why would that change if it were no longer allowed by law?
It's an unanswerable question, nobody knows how they would have responded to what we would consider ethical/moral dilemmas in the past when they weren't considered as such. Had you, BM or I been raised at a time when not only was it acceptable own another person, but also all the propaganda told us that the slaves were actually grateful to be owned, our opinion of the practice may well have been very different to the one that has been conditioned by modern moral standards. Would I own a slave today? Absolutely not. Would I have owned slaves 300 years ago? I have no idea.
A pro-choice person who uses the law and the majority public opinion to help guide them may well determine that abortion is acceptable because the law allows it and majority opinion says it is a good thing. If, in fifty or a hundred years time, we have succeeded in changing public opinion enough such that abortion is viewed with a similar contempt to how slavery is viewed today, you may well find people asking each other "Well would you have had an abortion 100 years ago when it was legal?" And that question would be just as unanswerable as the one you have posed BM.

reply from: yoda

Ah, so "MIGHT MAKES RIGHT" in your world?
You abide by the law of the jungle, and morality be damned, true?

reply from: yoda

That's immaterial. ANYONE can answer in the present as to whether they think a law is moral or not.
Only a proabort apologist would dodge the moral issues by ducking behind the law.

reply from: BossMomma

Ah, so "MIGHT MAKES RIGHT" in your world?
You abide by the law of the jungle, and morality be damned, true?
False, I abide by the law of of my state, as do you.

reply from: CharlesD

I guess my question still stands. Is there anyone who still believes that there is such a thing as objective truth, that there are some things that are intrinsically right or wrong? Are there laws that are founded in an objective standard, or is everything just someone's opinion?
As I stated earlier, acts like murder and rape are illegal because they are wrong, not wrong because they are illegal. The wrongness of those acts does not depend on a written law. They are just wrong. The law of non contradiction applies here. Two contradicting statements cannot both be true. Something can't be true for me and not for you. You can't say that owning slaves was right for those who chose to own them but not right for those who chose not to. Owning another human being is either wrong or right, regardless of what laws are or are not passed. Even when it was the law of the land, it was still wrong.
We saw a lot of the same debates then as well. Blacks were not considered fully human by some; they were not considered persons. Sound familiar? You had the arguments that abolishing slavery would destroy the economy of the south. On the other side, you had people who opposed slavery on religious grounds, and also atheists and agnostics who opposed it because even they still recognized an objective right and wrong. Today there are many like myself who oppose abortion out of religious conviction, but there are many others who are not Christians or who have no religious faith at all but who still consider abortion to be wrong. Could it be that there are still some who believe that there are truths that are just plain true, that objective right and wrong still exists and that right and wrong doesn't change as public opinion or laws change? Or am I the only one who hasn't bought into post-modernism hook line and sinker?

reply from: cracrat

No, I am saying she would be a different person if she were raised in a different time when a different set of general moral values were held to be valid.
No, that question is answerable. The question I was objecting to was either you were asking her to put herself in the position of a potential slave-owner centuries ago or you were asking her to apply her modern sense of morals to a historical event. Neither of which is a fair question, nor are the answers of any use.
It is an absurd validation for the position she holds. But look on the bright side, just as soon as the law is changed the ranks of pro-lifers will swell by one.

reply from: yoda

And "Morality be Damned", like I said. Yeah, I understand.

reply from: BossMomma

And "Morality be Damned", like I said. Yeah, I understand.
Your morality be damned, I like mine better.

reply from: yoda

Then why won't you even talk about YOUR morality?
What's "moral" about electively killing unborn babies?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

So your morality is based solely on legality? You don't think abortion is "wrong," but if it were legally prohibited tomorrow, what was not wrong in your view today would become wrong in your view tomorrow?
That would seriously be a sucky way to live - to borrow a term from kids these days.

reply from: Bgraphics

Most Liberals don't. They are the Flower Children of the yesteryears.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Most Liberals don't. They are the Flower Children of the yesteryears.
That wasn't her point.

reply from: Bgraphics

Most Liberals don't. They are the Flower Children of the yesteryears.
That wasn't her point.
I'm aware...

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Most Liberals don't. They are the Flower Children of the yesteryears.
That wasn't her point.
I'm aware...
Then why did you post your snide remark? It was completely pointless and its only purpose was to bait her.

reply from: Bgraphics

Most Liberals don't. They are the Flower Children of the yesteryears.
That wasn't her point.
I'm aware...
Then why did you post your snide remark? It was completely pointless and its only purpose was to bait her.
I stand corrected. For some reason I thought she was a liberal from our past encounters. I surpose I need to stand back and evaluate my anger torwards the people on this site who beleave its okey to kill babies. I'm trying to pick fights and I'm hurting the ones that are on my side. I was wrong and an apoligy will be made to Vexing. Thank you.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

She could be liberal and probably is, but I still wouldn't see your point. I'm glad you're rethinking your comments, so just remember that the point of this forum is not to bash pro-choicers, but to openly discuss being pro-life.

reply from: yoda

Better not do that... they jump all over anyone who apologizes here....

reply from: BossMomma

Then why won't you even talk about YOUR morality?
What's "moral" about electively killing unborn babies?
Ask the law that allows it. What's moral about forcing women to gestate children they don't want only to turn around and dump them on the state like so many unwanted puppies and kittens? What's moral about shoving your nose into the uterii of millions of women that you don't know from Adam or Eve just so you can ensure that everyone gives birth? You wont so much as inquire about half the children you "saved" if any and so, what's moral about demanding a child be born then abandoning the child once it's breathing the free air?

reply from: BossMomma

Yes, "right and wrong" are subjective, but you asserted that "the law" determines "right and wrong," didn't you? My question was rhetorical, but I was obviously asking whether slavery was "right" when it was legal in your view. The point is that if the law determines right and wrong in your view, and therefore the legality of abortion makes it "right" in your view, then slavery must not have been "wrong" in your view until it was prohibited... Understand?
Had I been alive nearly 200 years ago I would not have owned slaves, if it was legal back then to own slaves I really wouldn't have had a say in it would I?
Was it "wrong" in your view to own slaves when it was legal for you to do so? I don't care if you think you would have owned them, that is irrelevant.
Whether you "had a say" is also irrelevant to your personal opinion on the morality/ethics of slavery.
Slavery was wrong IMO, hence why I wouldn't own a slave.

reply from: yoda

That's it? That's your whole "abortion is moral" argument? Well, you take the prize for brevity on that one.
Same thing that's moral about firefighters rescuing people from burning buildings, without any intention of supporting them for the rest of their lives, I guess? Are they "sticking their noses where they don't belong" too?

reply from: lukesmom

That's it? That's your whole "abortion is moral" argument? Well, you take the prize for brevity on that one.
Same thing that's moral about firefighters rescuing people from burning buildings, without any intention of supporting them for the rest of their lives, I guess? Are they "sticking their noses where they don't belong" too?
Please give examples of anyone "forcing" someone to "gestate" against their will, besides rapists? All we are saying is, once you are carrying another life, you are responsible to allow that life to continue not kill it for your convenience.
I have saved a few lives in my day and have never been asked to monitarily or emotionally support them for life. Wonder why you would assume living unwanted babies would be "dumped on the state"? Haven't you looked into the lists of eligible families waiting to adopt?
Now, what is "moral" about killing existing human life?

reply from: BossMomma

That's it? That's your whole "abortion is moral" argument? Well, you take the prize for brevity on that one.
Same thing that's moral about firefighters rescuing people from burning buildings, without any intention of supporting them for the rest of their lives, I guess? Are they "sticking their noses where they don't belong" too?
Please give examples of anyone "forcing" someone to "gestate" against their will, besides rapists? All we are saying is, once you are carrying another life, you are responsible to allow that life to continue not kill it for your convenience.
I have saved a few lives in my day and have never been asked to monitarily or emotionally support them for life. Wonder why you would assume living unwanted babies would be "dumped on the state"? Haven't you looked into the lists of eligible families waiting to adopt?
Now, what is "moral" about killing existing human life?
It is moral in my eyes because the woman does not want to carry that life in her body, she is a pre-existing person with rights, responsibilities and, a life of her own. The potential life within her does not trump her right to bodily autonomy.

reply from: yoda

So it's moral in your eyes to kill a baby because the Mom "wants to"? What a liberal moral standard!
Her baby is a "pre-existing person" also.

reply from: lukesmom

It is moral in my eyes because the woman does not want to carry that life in her body, she is a pre-existing person with rights, responsibilities and, a life of her own. The potential life within her does not trump her right to bodily autonomy.
I didn't like the alcholics who lived across the street from me. They were a danger to my children. Would it have been moral, because I wanted it to be, for me to go across the street and kill them? After all, they lived in my neighborhood and presented a threat to me and they didn't meet my standards of what acceptable life is.

reply from: yoda

Why of course! Since you "do not want" those drunks to live there, it must be moral for you to kill them! Didn't you get the memo?

reply from: lukesmom

Why of course! Since you "do not want" those drunks to live there, it must be moral for you to kill them! Didn't you get the memo?
Must of missed it! Lucky them, they moved before I knew about the memo...

reply from: BossMomma

So it's moral in your eyes to kill a baby because the Mom "wants to"? What a liberal moral standard!
Her baby is a "pre-existing person" also.
It is an undeveloped human being that could very well miscarry on it's own, it is a potential person.

reply from: lukesmom

So it's moral in your eyes to kill a baby because the Mom "wants to"? What a liberal moral standard!
Her baby is a "pre-existing person" also.
It is an undeveloped human being that could very well miscarry on it's own, it is a potential person.
Born babies are undeveloped adults that could very well die before adulthood. Do you advicate killing them too just because they COULD die?
My kids ages 15, 14, 12, and 10 all have a genetic heart disease. Should I have them killed because they COULD possibly die?
To kill an unborn human because of what COULD possibly happen or not happen is pretty stupid IMHO.

reply from: BossMomma

So it's moral in your eyes to kill a baby because the Mom "wants to"? What a liberal moral standard!
Her baby is a "pre-existing person" also.
It is an undeveloped human being that could very well miscarry on it's own, it is a potential person.
Born babies are undeveloped adults that could very well die before adulthood. Do you advicate killing them too just because they COULD die?
My kids ages 15, 14, 12, and 10 all have a genetic heart disease. Should I have them killed because they COULD possibly die?
To kill an unborn human because of what COULD possibly happen or not happen is pretty stupid IMHO.
Your kids are already born persons with rights to life, a fetus/embryo/zygote is not.

reply from: yoda

Once again, you run and hide from a discussion on morality by ducking behind the law...... a rather cowardly act.

reply from: lukesmom

Once again, you run and hide from a discussion on morality by ducking behind the law...... a rather cowardly act.
True to habit though.

reply from: Bgraphics

Better not do that... they jump all over anyone who apologizes here....
They will find out its not a show of weakness... Only a way of showing them I can admit being wrong.

reply from: lukesmom

Why of course! Since you "do not want" those drunks to live there, it must be moral for you to kill them! Didn't you get the memo?
THE DRUNKS ARE NOT INSIDE YOU!!!!
No, they are inside my nieghborhood and I don't want them there and they COULD present a danger to my life so according to "choicers" they should be aliminated because that is what I want.

reply from: sweet

Why of course! Since you "do not want" those drunks to live there, it must be moral for you to kill them! Didn't you get the memo?
THE DRUNKS ARE NOT INSIDE YOU!!!!
No, they are inside my nieghborhood and I don't want them there and they COULD present a danger to my life so according to "choicers" they should be aliminated because that is what I want.that is the exact logic that pro choicers use. *shakes head*

reply from: CharlesD

The rights of a human should not be withheld on basis of location.


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