Home - List All Discussions

Why do Pro-choicers disrespect life?

by: DeanClark

Why do Pro-choicers think so low of the most precious resource we have our unborn children? Why do Pro-choicers disrespect our most vulnerable in our society our unborn children? What is the reason for Pro-choicers have such a lack of respect for the unborn? Why do Pro-choicers think that the unborn do not have rights? Doesn't every unborn baby have rights? Why do Pro-choicers deny rights and protection for unborn babies? Shouldn't every baby be protected? Once you find out the real answers why Pro-choicers disrespect life and are selfish you become more Pro-life.

reply from: kayluvzchoice

Because the real agenda of us pro-choicers is to eliminate the human race completely one embryo-or fetus at a time. Protecting life would pretty much conflict with that.

reply from: CharlesD

It might look like disrespect, but in reality it is simply selfishness. But why do they disrespect life? It might appear that they do, and in reality that is true, but if you ask any they will tell you that they do indeed respect life. The difference is in how life is defined. They just don't have a proper definition of life if they think that the unborn is not yet life or is somehow not deserving of the same rights that "life" gets after birth. Kind of a logical disconnect there, isn't it?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Yeah! Then we beat up the pregnant women and scratch an "F" into her face for "FETUS!"
lmao XD I just read about that hahah XD

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Very well said, Charles. As a former pro-choicer I can attest that it's true; I really did feel like I respected life, but that the ONLY life that mattered was the mother's.

reply from: sarah4president

Very well said, Charles. As a former pro-choicer I can attest that it's true; I really did feel like I respected life, but that the ONLY life that mattered was the mother's.
As a "former" prochoicer, you just did a huge favor to all your "former" prochoice buddies by voting for one of the most radical proabortion candidates ever.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You're a moron if you vote based on only one issue.

reply from: sarah4president

Not if the "one issue" kills a million a year.
You might say I'm voting for millions of "issues," i.e., people being murdered by abortion, and your candidate approves of it. You have voted your approval of murder in the womb, and you are more culpable than the ignorant, since you know that abortion is an injustice, yet you look the other way.
Very sad and very disgraceful for someone who calls herself a Christian.

reply from: CharlesD

Maybe so, but that really depends on the issue. Now I realize that not every pro lifer on here is a Christian, but this is simply the way I see it.
I am concerned about other issues as well. I want to economy to do well and I want people to have jobs, etc. But as a Christian I sometimes have to wonder what we as a nation are doing to honor or dishonor God and how much we will be allowed to prosper if we continue to go down the path we are going down.
Now I realize that some of the non Christians on here will call me crazy, and that is your right, but that's just the way I believe. If we honor God, will God not bless us as a nation? Now I'm not saying I want to see a theocracy or anything like that, just that I want to see our laws not fly in the face of every major religious system out there. That is what abortion does. If we want to be blessed as a nation, not murdering a million babies a year would be a good place to start.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Obama is going to bring about many of the changes I feel this nation needs to make. We are very behind the rest of the world.

reply from: sarah4president

Yep, he wants us to be socialists too.
Then he and his cronies will have all the power while they run us into the ground.
Medicority will be the rule and those who are punished for achieving will stop producticing or find greener pastures.
And with a McCain presidency, there would be a good chance one more good judge would be appointed and abortion could be further restricted, but that's a change you don't want, huh?
Please stop calling yourself a prolifer.
It is insulting to real prolifers.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Sarah, did you bother reading the other topic where I explained how government health care could be one of the best things to happen to the pro-life movement?

reply from: sheri

Obama would try to remake our nation in the image of Russia and China, both countries have a huge abortion rate.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

What on earth makes you think that? You're all nuts. Whatever. I personally think Obama is only saying he's pro-choice to appease the extremist liberals so he can get elected.

reply from: scopia19822

Liberal I believe it would be a double edged sword. If Obama has his way it will be mandated that abortions will also be covered and as long as it is readily available and the government will pay for it one can only assume that the abortion rate will go up not down. Only time will tell.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

No, you cannot mandate that actually, because of the controversy surrounding it. Furthermore, NO ELECTIVE PROCEDURES can be covered by Government money. No plastic surgery, no elective abortion, no tattoo removal. Government health care only covers procedures that a person NEEDS, such as check ups, eye exams, etc. Elective procedures are almost never covered by insurance in the first place, and this would not change one bit under Government health care.
How do I know? I was raised on government health care. I'm an army brat. Braces are cosmetic, not necessary, so I was never able to get them.

reply from: scopia19822

Abortion can be "justified" as "needed "to preserve the woman's" health " and we know very well how that term has been stretched. If Obama succeeds in getting FOCA passed it will most certainly be mandated that we taxpayers have to pay for it. I would rather pay for some womans boob job than her abortion. Obama wants us to have national health like Canada and Britian. Abortion is coered under NHS in Britian, not sure about Canada.

reply from: BossMomma

Not all pro-choicers disrespect life, several of the pro-choicers here have never aborted and are loving parents. There are however fanatics on either side of the fence who'd do or say anything to justify their agenda.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Abortion can be "justified" as "needed "to preserve the woman's" health " and we know very well how that term has been stretched. If Obama succeeds in getting FOCA passed it will most certainly be mandated that we taxpayers have to pay for it. I would rather pay for some womans boob job than her abortion. Obama wants us to have national health like Canada and Britian. Abortion is coered under NHS in Britian, not sure about Canada.
Proper measures can be taken to ensure that doesn't happen, and besides, elective abortion would never be covered, so that's 90% of all abortions that you will never pay taxes for.

reply from: Witness

Posted by sarah4pres about the Obama-llama: Yep, he wants us to be socialists too. Then he and his cronies will have all the power while they run us into the ground.
Medicority will be the rule and those who are punished for achieving will stop producticing or find greener pastures.
And with a McCain presidency, there would be a good chance one more good judge would be appointed and abortion could be further restricted . . .
I agree.

reply from: yoda

Right. And that's why he voted FOUR TIMES to kill the BAIPA in the Illinois senate, right? Just trying to fool everyone, right?
If you can vote for the most radical proabort politician that has ever run for president, then you really don't care about this issue, IMO.

reply from: nancyu

MC3, are you out there?
Government health care is the worst thing that could happen to the pro life movement. You are a phony pro lifer with a pro abort agenda if I've ever seen one.

reply from: nancyu

Good Post by MC3 4/16/08

reply from: RiverMoonLady

So, if universal health insurance would cover the cost of pregnancy, delivery and infant through death care, but NOT abortion, that would be a bad thing?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Nancy, do you think I actually read what you write, especially after you insult me? I don't.

reply from: carolemarie

LRC, that is the problem with these combative attitudes. When you insult people, they tend to refuse to read what you have to say, and if you can't talk to people instead of fighting with them, you will never change their minds.
You use to be on the other side, and did people being hateful or disrespectful change your mind about the issue?
What actually made you look at what you believed?
I think you could help some of the more combative posters realize that they are hurting their own cause, if you don't mind sharing how you came around to the prolife position.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Exactly Carole. Galen is actually who helped me the most right in the beginning. I haven't seen her around in a long time; I hope she's ok! I'd had encounters with Yoda in the past and all his hate did was make me become even more pro-choice. Galen showed me a video of the full procedure, an early term curettage abortion... And seeing the abuse the woman's body went through is what first allowed me to open up to the realization that maybe, this procedure isn't all it's cracked up to be. I also saw the blood and realised it was a baby for the first time. I had to be shown it from the woman's point of view, since pro-choice is all about the woman. I had seen abortion videos before and they were totally ineffectual; this particular video started pretty much right after the girl laid down. I'd never seen that part of the procedure before.
I think that's why my approach is what it is nowadays. I'm pro-life for the woman and the baby, not just the woman. As a young woman myself, I know how it feels to be afraid of pregnancy. I know the problems young ladies face and I know how it feels to be in that place. I know what I needed was caring and counseling, not someone pushing baby blankets in my face and calling me a baby-killer.

reply from: fetalisa

Our society does not respect non-sentient, non-conscious, non-persons. Therefore, we feel absolutely no shame, guilt nor remorse, whenever we kill non-sentient, non-conscious, non-persons, such as weeds, bugs, zygotes, embryos or fetuses.
Because they don't. A 'right to life' for the unborn is mere fantasy.
An argument could be made that a severely limited set of rights exist at viability and beyond, but that could also be argued as more of an interest of the state than rights of a fetus.
For the same reasons we deny rights to weeds or rocks.
Babies ARE protected. Zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not. There's no reason to.
There is nothing selfish at all about killing non-sentient, non-conscious, non-persons, such as weeds, bugs, zygotes, embryos or fetuses.

reply from: carolemarie

So it was someone listening to you and sharing information with you that helped open the door?
I think that is great and something we have to look at. If all we want to do is make our point, how will that change a heart?
Thank you for sharing that!

reply from: fetalisa

We already have a socialist president, remember? Who was it that recently begged and INSISTED we nationalize the banks?
Unless we have a Congress and Senate packed with Dems, who will write more law to keep abortion legal as it should be.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

So it was someone listening to you and sharing information with you that helped open the door?
I think that is great and something we have to look at. If all we want to do is make our point, how will that change a heart?
Thank you for sharing that!
Yes! She really listened to me and let me basically work through my own ideas on my own with just some gentle guidance. Self-discovery is what makes for solid decisions, not blind obedience.

reply from: CharlesD

What's the difference between an insect and an unborn baby? Apparently some people don't know that difference. Science does. They both are living beings. One is a bug and one is a human being. One is a person in the early stages of development. The other is not human and never will be. Human beings are personal beings, thus human beings are persons by virtue of being human. I know that is a difficult concept for some people to grasp, but it's really not that difficult.
If there really was nothing wrong with elective abortion for any reason, the people in support of it wouldn't have to try to come up with clever arguments to try to justify it. We wouldn't be hearing all of these personhood arguments or all of this talk about the unborn child using the woman's body, etc. If it was that inherently obvious that there was nothing wrong going on, there would be no need for the justifications. You don't hear people crafting cleverly worded arguments in favor of harvesting and eating vegetables. Some people would say that killing a fetus is the moral equivalent of uprooting a carrot, but nobody is arguing for our rights to eat carrots. There is no need for such an argument. There is nobody who needs to be convinced that uprooting carrots is acceptable behavior. It's just something that is universally acceptable. Getting people to accept the killing of unborn children requires a bit more persuasion because the acceptability of that act is not intrinsic. In fact, the opposite could be said to be true. Even most pro choice people will tell you that it would be a good thing if there were fewer abortions. Why would fewer of them be a good thing, if there is nothing wrong with them in the first place? Saying that we would be better off without something if there is nothing wrong with that thing strikes me as a bit of a contradiction.
In short, most people, even many who support it, agree that there is something inherently wrong with abortion. It's just that some hold the view that a woman's choice outweighs whatever inherent wrongness there is in abortion. All these other arguments are secondary to the real issue, that abortion ends the life of an unborn human person.

reply from: Rhiannontex

Well said, CharlesD! Every time I see someone compare an unborn human to a rock or a weed or bacteria or anything else you care to mention, I know that they've already lost the argument.

reply from: Antibigot

Our society does not respect non-sentient, non-conscious, non-persons. Therefore, we feel absolutely no shame, guilt nor remorse, whenever we kill non-sentient, non-conscious, non-persons, such as weeds, bugs, zygotes, embryos or fetuses.
Because they don't. A 'right to life' for the unborn is mere fantasy.
An argument could be made that a severely limited set of rights exist at viability and beyond, but that could also be argued as more of an interest of the state than rights of a fetus.
For the same reasons we deny rights to weeds or rocks.
Babies ARE protected. Zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not. There's no reason to.
There is nothing selfish at all about killing non-sentient, non-conscious, non-persons, such as weeds, bugs, zygotes, embryos or fetuses.
Wait. You don't like to call the unborn babies, children, or human beings. But, you compare them to plants, bugs and even rocks (which is NOT an organism!) You group them all together which shows you probably don't know what goes in the womb between conception and birth.
You do realize that you used to be an embryo and fetus, right?

reply from: fetalisa

Both are non-conscious, non-sentient, non-persons.
You mean like pretending a fetus is a person and that abortion is murder? Check the polls for amendment 48 in Colorado, then get back to me, ok?
It's the forced birth crackpot Colorado whackjobs that are trying to force the issue of the personhood of zefs, not the pro-common-sense-choicers.
Oh how all of the forced birth loons WISH we would not respond to your absurd, inane and logically invalid arguments.
HAHAHA! You must not have a clue how many MILLIONS have been aborted since 73, or you certainly wouldn't offer the nonsense that abortion is not socially acceptable. It may not be socially acceptable in the backwater, inbred towns full of luddites, like Wasilla or where you live, but in the areas where masses of the enlightened and educated live, abortion is seen as a perfectly socially acceptable necessity, which causes harm to none.
It's neither good nor bad, but simply logical. Assuming birth control runs $500 a year and an abortion costs $500, the pill makes so much more sense. Except with the pill, you don't have to call a clinic, make an appointment, take time off from work to get there, deal with the surgical risk, minimal though it may be, etc. The pill is far less hassle
and would be worth it, even if it cost MORE than abortion. It just takes less effort.
See above, not that the above is the entire story. Abortions are medically necessary in many instances, whether it be a fetus with severe hydrocephalus or severe Down's, etc.
Saying fewer abortions is better than more, does not mean there is anything wrong with abortion. Less debt in our lives is better than more, but that doesn't mean debt is a bad thing in and of itself.
Proof?
The right of a sentient, conscious, fully actualized female person to exercise bodily autonomy and control of her own reproduction, trumps the right of a non-sentient, non-conscious, non-person in the form of a zygote, embryo or fetus in every case, just as the Constitution trumps one's personally chosen, personally held pet religious fantasies in every case.
Abortion doesn't end the life of a person, which is why it is legal.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Feta, "We" do not disrespect the unborn. YOU do. America is actually 50-50 as far as it comes to being pro-choice/life. So "we" in this country are undecided.

reply from: fetalisa

Unfortunately for you, the http://webwarper.net/ww/~av/www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/oct/08102814.html are against an amendment that would redefine zygotes, embryos and fetuses as persons, by a 2 to 1 margin. Even the crackpot forced birth websites, like the one linked above, are reporting the results of a poll with shows 68% of common sense voters against the measure, with only 27% of the crackpot minority fringe in favor it.
So much for the falsehood that those with a common sense view of things have 'already lost the argument.' It is demonstrably proven that the voters are coming down on the side of good sense, rather than than the absurd notion that an embryo no larger than the period at the end of this sentence, is a person.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

If you want to call pro-life "forced birth" then I will be referring to you as pro-death.

reply from: fetalisa

You disrespect women in that you would turn them into nothing more than brood mares with no bodily autonomy or right to control their reproduction, solely to keep them barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen, where your invisible sky daddy allegedly claims they should be. Saying one disrespects non-conscious, non-sentient, non-persons in the form of zygotes, embryos or fetus is as ignorant as saying one disrespects non-sentient, non-conscious, non-persons in the form of bugs and weeds, because one uses Raid or pulls up weeds from their front yard.
Why don't you tell that to the voters of Colorado, where http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/oct/08102814.html?
The voters of Colorado have made up their minds to the point where their position on the issue is quite clear. So go ahead and start preparing your excuses now as to how media bias and ABC refusing to air your forced birth infomercials led to a landslide defeat and left the voters instead showing good, old fashioned, common sense in this election, while refusing to implement the agenda of the crackpot forced birth agenda from the outermost fringes of society, OK?
You loons have claimed for years the public would get behind you if only you had the chance to place the issue before the voters. Well now you have and there you have it. If the results of the votes don't let you know how whacked out your ideology is, I don't know what will.

reply from: fetalisa

It clearly demonstrates the entire point of your movement, so what's the problem?
Why not go all out and just use 'baby killer?" I am sure the voters of Colorado will fall for it, don't you think?

reply from: CharlesD

So the voters in Colorado are the final arbiters of truth? Sure, makes sense to me.

reply from: fetalisa

I would expect similar numbers if the issue was on the ballot in other states.

reply from: CharlesD

So the definitions of words is a matter of public vote? You don't need a public referendum to call something what it is.

reply from: fetalisa

This isn't a vote on words. It is a vote on personhood, which involves far more than just labeling the unborn as persons. Regardless. the public is not buying your definitions and who can blame them?
Even if the measure did pass, and assuming it passed the inevitable challenges in the federal courts, which is doubtful, it would create a massively expensive legal holocaust, given the 2000 instances where the word 'person' is found in other law and statutes in the state of Colorado. I suspect were that to occur, the voters would swiftly rescind it, as the costs of the mounting lawsuits in working out applications of unborn personhood, as applied to existing laws which mentions persons, would quickly bankrupt the state if allowed to continue. It won't happen though, not with such a landslide of the public against it. They've got more voters against it on a percentage basis, than Obama has percentage in support of him, which is saying quite a bit.

reply from: Rosalie

In what way are you NOT pro-forced birth? Would you force the woman to give birth to the unwanted child regarldess of whether she wants to or not or what the consequences of that action might be? Yes or no.

reply from: CharlesD

Women aren't forced to get pregnant. Aside from rape, but that's a different issue. Don't want to give birth? Don't get pregnant.

reply from: Rosalie

If I am pregnant and don't want to continue the pregnancy, I have the right to terminate. People like you would like to FORCE me to remain pregnant - and you have no regards for what I may feel, experience or believe.
If there was a contraception that was 100% reliable and everyone had an access to it, then maybe you'd have a point.

reply from: fetalisa

NEWFLASH! Sex and birth haven't gone hand in hand since the invention of birth control in the last century. If you disagree, please cite the law which states all things conceived must be birthed.

reply from: scopia19822

"If I am pregnant and don't want to continue the pregnancy, I have the right to terminate. People like you would like to FORCE me to remain pregnant - and you have no regards for what I may feel, experience or believe.
If there was a contraception that was 100% reliable and everyone had an access to it, then maybe you'd have a point. "
People want all of the pleasure of sex, but none of the responsibilty that goes along with it. Taking rape out of the equation. Sex is an adult act and like all freedoms we have comes responsibilty. While contraception and condoms can diminish the risks of STDs and pregnancy, nothing short of abstinance will protect you 100%. If you are not prepared for the risks and consequences of sex, whether it be pregnancy or STD's no matter how remote than one is not mature or responsible enough to have sex.

reply from: fetalisa

Proof?
Citizens in a free society have the right to be as responsible or as irresponsible as they choose, within the law.
If you think abstinence is going to be practiced on any sort of mass scale, you are seriously fooling yourself.
In a free society, people can have sex, whenever and however they choose, with whomever and however they choose, within the law. Your opinions on the issue are completely your own and none in our society are obligated in any way, shape or form, to live OUR lives according to YOUR opinions.
I personally recommend anal and oral sex for those who aren't looking for pregnancy, but certainly do not expect everyone in this society to follow MY opinions on the issue.

reply from: fetalisa

Don't like abortion? Don't have one.

reply from: carolemarie

You disrespect women in that you would turn them into nothing more than brood mares with no bodily autonomy or right to control their reproduction, solely to keep them barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen, where your invisible sky daddy allegedly claims they should be. Saying one disrespects non-conscious, non-sentient, non-persons in the form of zygotes, embryos or fetus is as ignorant as saying one disrespects non-sentient, non-conscious, non-persons in the form of bugs and weeds, because one uses Raid or pulls up weeds from their front yard.
Why don't you tell that to the voters of Colorado, where http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/oct/08102814.html?
The voters of Colorado have made up their minds to the point where their position on the issue is quite clear. So go ahead and start preparing your excuses now as to how media bias and ABC refusing to air your forced birth infomercials led to a landslide defeat and left the voters instead showing good, old fashioned, common sense in this election, while refusing to implement the agenda of the crackpot forced birth agenda from the outermost fringes of society, OK?
You loons have claimed for years the public would get behind you if only you had the chance to place the issue before the voters. Well now you have and there you have it. If the results of the votes don't let you know how whacked out your ideology is, I don't know what will.
I oppose this bill and I am prolife. And I oppose it for the same reasons the public is doing so. It is badly crafted and badly written and could outlaw BC and treat miscarriages as possible homicides and in general intrude on womens personal privacy. This is why we have legislatures and we elect people to pass laws. Mob rule is always bad.

reply from: fetalisa

How is it badly crafted and badly written? All it does it make zygotes, embryos and fetuses persons under the law, which I thought was the holy grail of the movement. My biggest question is, if the zef ended up endangering the mother's life, could we prosecute it for attempted homicide? If it was found to have committed attempted murder, could we then jail the zef?

reply from: carolemarie

I think women could actually die if this gets passed. But happily the courts will strike it down. Colorado is liberal. For once I am glad about that.
I don't think our country is ready to outlaw birth control pills and other things that this amendment is written so broadly might cover. Like etopic pregnancies that are terminated being treated as homicide. That is chilling and wrong!

reply from: fetalisa

How is it badly crafted and badly written? All it does it make zygotes, embryos and fetuses persons under the law, which I thought was the holy grail of the movement. My biggest question is, if the zef ended up endangering the mother's life, could we prosecute it for attempted homicide? If it was found to have committed attempted murder, could we then jail the zef?

reply from: carolemarie

The goal of the prolife movement has been to ban the performing of abortions.
It has nothing to do with banning birth control or making women who have etopic pregnancies unable to get life saving treatment or to intrude on the lives of women and investigate miscarriges as possible homicides.
I think this amendment is bad because good law addresses all the stuff they ignored and left for the courts to sort out which is a terrible waste of time and money. So it is badly crafted, badlly thought out and will be rejected in november.
I am really looking forward to South Dakota's ban which will stop all abortions but rape incest and the life of the mother, and will jail the Dr. not the woman. That is well crafted legislation that I support.

reply from: Rosalie

People have sex for many reasons, pleasure being one of them, and it is absolutely none of your business. You may now list your 50 reasons why you think you are entitled to make any decisions about other people's sexual or reproductive lives, but none of these reasons give you the right to actually do so. They are YOUR beliefs and you do not have the right to make others act according to them. I find nothing good whatsoever about most of your beliefs and most of the people I know feel the same. Yet for some reason you still think you have some higher moral ground and that you should have the right to dictate what others should do. That's just twisted.

reply from: Rosalie

That's the sad thing, Carole.... do you really not see what is wrong with this?
I think that the goal should be to prevent the need for an abortion, which can only be achieved by comprehensive sex education, better access to birth control for everyone etc. The restulf of that would be fewer unwanted babies, fewer upset women and therefore fewer abortions.
Banning abortion will only prevent women from obtaining it legally. They will still be able to obtain is illegally, but there will be risks and there will be unnecessary damage and even unnecessary deaths of women.

reply from: BossMomma

People have sex for many reasons, pleasure being one of them, and it is absolutely none of your business. You may now list your 50 reasons why you think you are entitled to make any decisions about other people's sexual or reproductive lives, but none of these reasons give you the right to actually do so. They are YOUR beliefs and you do not have the right to make others act according to them. I find nothing good whatsoever about most of your beliefs and most of the people I know feel the same. Yet for some reason you still think you have some higher moral ground and that you should have the right to dictate what others should do. That's just twisted.
So if a 14 year old is having concentual sex with a 30 year old we should just mind our own business? Have all the sex you want but don't expect us to accept a child's death because of your sex life.

reply from: ladybug

I completely agree with scopia... open your legs.. you take the responsibility that comes with it. If you're doing it for money, well I'm sorry but there are MANY other jobs out there. They may not earn you enough money but you wouldn't have the dangers that come with the job. I have been in my life so deep that many of those other "jobs" came to mind when I have needed money right away, but I know in my heart there are other choices. I also know that if I decided to have sex with 5 million different strangers, the least I could do is make him wear a condom, even then, it's not 100% guaranteed you cannot get pregnant. I'll repeat it... if you're old enough to have sex, you're old enough to at least carry baby to term and give it up for adoption.

reply from: fetalisa

That's exactly why all of you forced birthers are viewed as extremist loons. You would rather a woman who has a severe hydrocephalus fetus kill the woman than abort it.
That is because none of you have thought far enough into the future about the unintended consequences of enacting your mindless and absurd utopia.
It is rejected because everyone with even a quarter of a brain knows an unborn is not a person. That is EXACTLY the issue the Colorado voters are voting on. No amount of cart wheels can change that fact.
It won't last this time, no more than it lasted last time. We simply will not let the utterly senseless views of the ignorant minority be foisted on all in our society, nor should we.

reply from: CharlesD

You pro death (term appropriate for people who call me a forced birth extremist loon) people will keep bringing up exceptions to a normal healthy birth as reasons why abortion should be kept legal, but the minute someone suggests (and I'm not) that we can allow that exception, then you come with another exception. I have the feeling that we could keep going down this road until every exception had been covered and you would still not accept a ban on the ones that don't fall under one of those exceptions. People who believe that abortion should be kept legal for any and all reasons are the extremists. Most people in this country support some level or restriction and most people allow some exceptions. People who won't accept any restrictions at all are not the majority you would like to think.
That's the problem. Anyone with all of a brain instead of just a quarter knows that human beings are persons by virtue of being human, no other qualification needed. That is not something that we are free to redefine as the whim hits us.
Now suppose we get past this whole ridiculous personhood debate and get to the real issue of why some people think it is acceptable to kill certain other people simply based on location and stage of development.

reply from: carolemarie

I can't believe you wish to argue with me over my reasons for not supporting the Colorado amendment, I tend to be glad when a pro-choicer opposes any abortions procedure for whatever reason. I never try and talk them out of it. You are not very good at drumming up support for your ideas are you?
Even Prolifers don't like the amendment as well as prochoicers and it will either be defeated at the ballot box or in the courts.
The S. Dakota ban will pass this time, since it allows exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother, which are the reasons it was defeated last time. Most American's, (not the strongly prochoice or pro-life people) but the vast middle will accept a ban if those three options are left in. In spite of your assertions, most of America rather uncomfortable with abortion and would like to see it rarely used. As long as women in "bad situtations" can get an abortions, they will vote for the ban. Birth control abortions offend even pro-choice people.
Good thought out legislation will pass...and the only people who will be prosecuted will be anyone who PREFORMS an abortion. Women will not be prosecuted, a fact which will make some prolifers sad, but too bad.

reply from: nancyu

[yippee, here we go again]
You are lying outright to say women won't be prosecuted. Some of them might be. For one thing some abortionists ARE women. (Hadn't you thought of that?) And what about the self induced abortion with RU486 or Plan B? Then the mother is the abortionist, isn't she?
You are wrong to say it will make us sad, but there is no way to guarantee that it wouldn't happen. In some cases it should happen, and in some cases it will happen.

reply from: nancyu

It is a fact that abortion is illegal ALREADY.
First there is "thou shalt not murder" for anyone who believes that "silly" law.
Then there is the 14th amendment to the US Constitution:
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
An unborn child is a person.

reply from: CharlesD

That second part giving rights to any person is pretty powerful because it doesn't just address citizens, but any person. The first part deals with who is a citizen, not who is a person, and then the second part says states cannot deny any person of those basic rights. How many countries in the late 18th century guaranteed the rights of even non citizens? According to the 14th amendment, abortion is unconstitutional, which is why people try to muddy the waters with all of this silly personhood talk.
As to women being prosecuted, I think that is a scare tactic used by the pro choice crowd. You hear people saying that all women who get abortions will be prosecuted, and that simply isn't the case. Some might be in certain circumstances, but the vast majority of prosecutions will be aimed at the abortion provider.
The Colorado amendment, while well intentioned, was in essence unnecessary. It aims to grant personhood to the unborn, but in reality you can't grant something that already exists. All the law can do is recognize what already is. Good laws don't define what is right and wrong. They recognize what is right and wrong. Something is either inherently right or wrong aside from whatever the law says.

reply from: BossMomma

Furthermore even when abortion was illegal women were not prosecuted for getting an abortion, the abortionist was prosecuted for malpractice. I don't believe even one woman has done time for aborting.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I don't understand why this keeps getting reposted. It has nothing to do with whether the unborn are persons or not (for the sake of this argument, lets say I believe they are), it only refers to those who are born (see bold)
I'll agree that it is stating that born people are citizens, but it does NOT say you HAVE to be born to BE a person; simply that you aren't a citizen until then.
You could then make the convoluteed argument that the unborn are people but since they aren't technically american citizens yet, they don't warrant any protection under our laws. But that's bull because even an illegal alien has the right to not be murdered in the USA.

reply from: SRUW4I5

I think the woman should have a choice as long as the abortion is necassary (in cases that the woman will absolutely die if the pregnancy is brought to term, when the pregnancy is causing undeniably severe damage to the womans physical or mental health, or when there is over a 90% chance that either the mother to be or the potential child will not live if the pregnancy is continued). I don't think the potential child has the right to occupy the womans body (or use the womans body as it's "host" if you think of unborn children as parasitic just because they fit the definition), but it's right to have a chance at life should be more important unless it conflicts with the womans right to life.
Does that mean I disrespect the potential children? If it does how should I go about apologizing to them? I don't mean to disrespect anyone.
I don't like that in some cases we have to choose to sacrifice the life of the mother for the potential child, or the potential childs shot at life for the mother. If we could save both in every single case without any chance of the mother losing her life, or the potential child losing it's shot at life I would be completely for it. Even if 99% kept their life or shot at life I would be for it.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I think the woman should have a choice as long as the abortion is necassary (in cases that the woman will absolutely die if the pregnancy is brought to term, when the pregnancy is causing undeniably severe damage to the womans physical or mental health, or when there is over a 90% chance that either the mother to be or the potential child will not live if the pregnancy is continued). I don't think the potential child has the right to occupy the womans body (or use the womans body as it's "host" if you think of unborn children as parasitic just because they fit the definition), but it's right to have a chance at life should be more important unless it conflicts with the womans right to life.
Does that mean I disrespect the potential children? If it does how should I go about apologizing to them? I don't mean to disrespect anyone.
I don't like that in some cases we have to choose to sacrifice the life of the mother for the potential child, or the potential childs shot at life for the mother. If we could save both in every single case without any chance of the mother losing her life, or the potential child losing it's shot at life I would be completely for it. Even if 99% kept their life or shot at life I would be for it.
You hold the same views as most pro-lifers.

reply from: SRUW4I5

I think the woman should have a choice as long as the abortion is necassary (in cases that the woman will absolutely die if the pregnancy is brought to term, when the pregnancy is causing undeniably severe damage to the womans physical or mental health, or when there is over a 90% chance that either the mother to be or the potential child will not live if the pregnancy is continued). I don't think the potential child has the right to occupy the womans body (or use the womans body as it's "host" if you think of unborn children as parasitic just because they fit the definition), but it's right to have a chance at life should be more important unless it conflicts with the womans right to life.
Does that mean I disrespect the potential children? If it does how should I go about apologizing to them? I don't mean to disrespect anyone.
I don't like that in some cases we have to choose to sacrifice the life of the mother for the potential child, or the potential childs shot at life for the mother. If we could save both in every single case without any chance of the mother losing her life, or the potential child losing it's shot at life I would be completely for it. Even if 99% kept their life or shot at life I would be for it.
You hold the same views as most pro-lifers.
Yeah, but I was told by a few Pro-Lifers that I could never be Pro-Life because I have had a few abortions.

reply from: carolemarie

It makes no difference if you have had an abortion or several abortions. If you are no longer for them, then that would make you prolife.

reply from: nancyu

I think the woman should have a choice as long as the abortion is necassary (in cases that the woman will absolutely die if the pregnancy is brought to term, when the pregnancy is causing undeniably severe damage to the womans physical or mental health, or when there is over a 90% chance that either the mother to be or the potential child will not live if the pregnancy is continued). I don't think the potential child has the right to occupy the womans body (or use the womans body as it's "host" if you think of unborn children as parasitic just because they fit the definition), but it's right to have a chance at life should be more important unless it conflicts with the womans right to life.
Does that mean I disrespect the potential children? If it does how should I go about apologizing to them? I don't mean to disrespect anyone.
I don't like that in some cases we have to choose to sacrifice the life of the mother for the potential child, or the potential childs shot at life for the mother. If we could save both in every single case without any chance of the mother losing her life, or the potential child losing it's shot at life I would be completely for it. Even if 99% kept their life or shot at life I would be for it.
If you don't want to disrespect anyone, why do you refer to an unborn child as a "potential" child. Once conceived a child exists. An unborn child is a person. Do you also advocate killing born children who endanger the health of their mother?

reply from: fetalisa

One who supports abortion is not pro-death, no more than one who supports removing weeds from one's garden is pro-death. You, however, believe birth should be FORCED on all pregnant women.
Birth is not always a bed of roses and many complications can and do occur, which is precisely why it is the woman's choice rather to accept those health risks or not.
The minute you allow exceptions you reveal yourself to not be as pro-life as you claim. If you believe a zef is a person from conception, you become a hypocrite when you allow exceptions for cases of rape and incest. Yet, you must allow such exceptions or you lose credibility with the public for being heartless monsters, which means your prolife stance hinges entirely on what is and is not politically acceptable, rather than the moral altruism you WISH the public to buy in your scam.
Because the contents of another woman's uterus and what she does with that is not now your business, nor has it ever been. You are no different than PETA, who also believe the killing of animals are wrong in any and every instance. This is exactly why 35 years after Roe, the forced birth movement has gotten nowhere and abortion is still legal all across the land.
Who here is arguing that? NO ONE! Why do you address a point that none here have ever raised? I totally accept the viability limits established by Roe.
Who here is arguing for no exceptions and no restrictions? NO ONE!
Why do you address a point that none here have ever raised? I totally accept the viability limits established by Roe.
The voters of Colorado do recognize the most important of all qualifications, which is are they born or not? If they are not born, the voters of Colorado overwhelmingly agree, by a landslide margin, the unborn are not persons.
How can you argue against the acceptability of killing the unborn, while ignoring the role personhood plays in it? It IS acceptable to kill the unborn because they aren't persons, just as it is acceptable to kill mosquitos or weeds, because they aren't persons either. If an unborn could demonstrate an ability to participate in constitutional rights such as free speech or religion, then it would not be acceptable to kill them. As it is, it is physically impossible for the unborn to participate in a single right outlined within the constitution, just as it is physically impossible for weeds or mosquitos to participate in a single right outlined within the Constitution, which is why the unborn aren't persons and it is perfectly acceptable to kill them, just as with weeds or mosquitos.

reply from: SRUW4I5

I think the woman should have a choice as long as the abortion is necassary (in cases that the woman will absolutely die if the pregnancy is brought to term, when the pregnancy is causing undeniably severe damage to the womans physical or mental health, or when there is over a 90% chance that either the mother to be or the potential child will not live if the pregnancy is continued). I don't think the potential child has the right to occupy the womans body (or use the womans body as it's "host" if you think of unborn children as parasitic just because they fit the definition), but it's right to have a chance at life should be more important unless it conflicts with the womans right to life.
Does that mean I disrespect the potential children? If it does how should I go about apologizing to them? I don't mean to disrespect anyone.
I don't like that in some cases we have to choose to sacrifice the life of the mother for the potential child, or the potential childs shot at life for the mother. If we could save both in every single case without any chance of the mother losing her life, or the potential child losing it's shot at life I would be completely for it. Even if 99% kept their life or shot at life I would be for it.
If you don't want to disrespect anyone, why do you refer to an unborn child as a "potential" child. Once conceived a child exists. An unborn child is a person. Do you also advocate killing born children who endanger the health of their mother?
Nope. I don't support killing anyone that has been born, just like I don't support needlessly killing the unborn.
By calling it a potential child, I was only saying it's an undevoloped child.
Definition of Potential:
potential Definition
po·ten·tial (p? ten?s?h?l, p?-)
adjective
1. that has power; potent
2. that can, but has not yet, come into being; possible; latent; unrealized; undeveloped
3. expressing possibility, capability, power, etc. the potential mood

reply from: fetalisa

Is stating objective facts now considered to be 'disrespect?' If I state there is always a risk of accident or injury any time you drive a car, is that showing 'disrespect?' Given that with any pregnancy, there is always a potential it will not result in a live birth, due to miscarriages, other medical risks, etc, how is that 'disrespectful?' An unborn is a potential person only, since any number of things could happen that will cause the pregnancy to NOT end in a live birth. How in the world you claim this is disrespectful, I can not know.
Nope, children, like all persons, are counted in a census. The unborn are not counted in a census, because they are not persons.
If that were so, they would be counted in a census. They are not.
A born child could, would and certainly have been taken to court for either of murdering or attempting to murder a parent.

reply from: fetalisa

It still remains totally nonsensical and wholly illogical to claim the unborn have or should have constitutional rights. Until you can demonstrate what use an unborn could make of a right to free speech or religion, it shall always remain so. Even infants can cry, which is a form of speech to alert the parents they need something, or participate in religious ceremonies, such as christenings. For the unborn, such is physically impossible and shall always be physically impossible. That is why and how we know, the Constitution does not address the unborn nor did the authors of it have the intent to address them.
The question is, does the entity you wish to have Constitutional rights have any meaningful ability whatsoever to express said rights? In the case of the unborn, they clearly do not, since rights of free speech or religion when discussed in the case of the unborn are wholly nonsensical and illogical. Therefore, they are not constitutional persons and the intent of the authors of the Constitution was not to address the unborn, but to address persons, for whom the outlined constitutional rights ARE meaningful.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

It still remains totally nonsensical and wholly illogical to claim the unborn have or should have constitutional rights.
Why?
Why is that your justification? It makes no sense at all. A newborn can't contribute to those things either, even as it is pushed from the uterus. But because it's still inside it's worthless? When exactly during birth does it get these constitutional rights? When labor starts? When it crowns? When its feet are out? When the cord is cut? Could you kill it if it was only half out? Oh wait, that's already legal.
You're really stretching it if you consider that "free speech". Free speech means you have the right to say what you want; and screaming, though a form of communication, is not SPEECH.
Screaming in pain as it is torn apart?
I don't think anything you brought up makes any sense at all.
The question is, does the entity you wish to have Constitutional rights have any meaningful ability whatsoever to express said rights?
Why does that matter?
Again, so what? I don't see how that's relavent. They do have the right to LIFE, because they are ALIVE. So there is at least one right they can "speak" for.
The right to life applies to them completely, so either you're lying or clueless. I'm pretty sure there are many other constitutional rights that apply to the unborn.

reply from: fetalisa

The cry of a newborn IS speech, which communicates to the parent the baby needs something. A newborn CAN participate in a christening in a church, just as 8 day old Jewish males are circumcised in a religious ceremony known as a bris. It is physically impossible for a zygote, embryo or fetus to participate in rights of free speech or religion, like persons do. The same is not true of newborns, since newborns can and do participate.
Since the Constitution does not discuss any rights in which the unborn can participate, it becomes clear the authors of the Constitution had no intention whatsoever of addressing the unborn.
The worth of an unborn is determined by the woman who carries it. Much like a woman might decide for herself now is not a good time to buy a house, she can likewise determine now is not a good time for her to have a child.
Obviously not. A woman in labor could still deliver a stillborn child, which obviously would not get the rights. That's why we say an unborn is a potential person. Until an unborn makes it out of the womb, it is not a person and may not ever be.
Speech is communication and the baby's cry communicates to the parent that the baby needs something. Even if I were to concede this point to you, you are still left in the position of explaining how an unborn could possibly participate in free exercise of religion. Infants do so, whether it be in the form of a christening or a bris. It is physically impossible for an unborn to do so, which leaves your argument in the same boat as before.
It's not my fault if you lack the mental capacity to understand sound arguments presented in plain English.
If it is physically impossible for the unborn to participate in the exercise of any outlined right within the Constitution, then they are not constitutional persons and have no rights, including the right to life. Until and unless you can explain how it is logical to grant an unborn a right to participate in the religion, we have no reason whatsoever to assume them to be constitutional persons.
The Constitution mentions the word 'person' or 'persons' 48 times. By reading what things a 'person' or 'persons' is capable of, as stated in the Constitution, we can determine who the Constitution addresses. Since the unborn can't participate in constitutional rights such as free speech or religion, it becomes clear the Constitution does not address the unborn and the authors didn't intend them to.
The 'right to life' mentioned in the 14th Amendment is not addressed nor directed at the unborn, unless you can explain how an unborn could be deprived of liberty or property, in addition to life. Since the unborn can't own property, the passage was not intended to address them.
Even if one could show the 14th addresses the unborn, you have the numerous other mentions of the words 'person' or 'persons' which very obviously are not intended to address the unborn. If 47 instances of the words 'person' or 'persons' addressed born people, while 1 instance addressed the unborn (which it doesn't as has been shown), you would still be left with a document overwhelmingly intended to address the born by a 47-1 margin, by nature of the rights discussed.
You are the one clueless here. Read what the 14th Amendment states:
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
Rights of property do not apply to the unborn, since they can't buy, own, nor possess property. Additionally, the intent of the 14th Amendment was to address treatment of black people after they were freed from slavery. There is no legal precedent in the history of our law where the 14th was interpreted to apply to the unborn, which is exactly why the Roe judges ruled as they ruled. As a matter of fact, this is how we know the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the unborn (aside from the mention of property in the 14th). The Roe judges found no precedent that would include the unborn under the 14th.
So yeah, a 'right to life' for the unborn is entirely a fantasy that has no existence at all in our society and certainly no legal existence. A reading of the Constitution clearly demonstrates why. It is illogical to grant rights such as participation in free speech or religion to the unborn, when it is physically impossible for the unborn to participate in a single right outlined within the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't apply to the unborn for that reason and wasn't intended to apply to them by the authors, as the usage of the word 'person' and 'persons' clearly demonstrates and the impossibility of the unborn to participate in said rights, clearly shows.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Fetalist, it's hilarious that you look like you're quoting yourself. Ha!

reply from: BossMomma

That's all you have to say?
Gosh, if only Palin had that kind of rapier wit!
Well at least Palin isn't whining to god about her son's downs syndrom.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Vexer, you idiot, I voted Obama. BossMomma will have to quote your "witty" reply to that for me to see it since I have no reason to take you off ignore.

reply from: joe

Another pro-life traitor. (I suggest you put me on ignore...if you can't handle it.)

reply from: fetalisa

I freely admit I make mistakes.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Hey, at least you called me pro-life. A few comments is nothing major to me. Constant hate will force me to take breaks from people.

reply from: nancyu

OH NO! Joe, you've been threatened with iggy! I'll pray that the great god Liberal will have mercy on your soul!
Don't worry, it's not so bad here in iggyland, kind of peaceful really. I can just pretend that Liberal doesn't exist (for now anyway)

reply from: LiberalChiRo

OH NO! Joe, you've been threatened with iggy! I'll pray that the great god Liberal will have mercy on your soul!
Don't worry, it's not so bad here in iggyland, kind of peaceful really. I can just pretend that Liberal doesn't exist (for now anyway)
How did you see that post of mine if you have me on ignore? You're not on ignore either, btw.


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