Home - List All Discussions

Question for Pro-Lifers

Can you be pro-life without God?

by: micah

Suppose you were a Buddhist or atheist. So imagine a world where to you, Yahweh does not exist, and he is just another person like Zeus and Allah. If this were the case, would you still be pro-life?
In other words, can you be pro-life without God?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I was Buddhist and agnostic for a while. My pro-life stance is not based on my religion at all.

reply from: carolemarie

I don't think you have a basis to be prolife without God.
I can believe abortion is wrong and it kills a baby. And you can belive abortion is okay because it isn't a developed baby yet. But those are simply our opinions.
We are equals, so one opinion doesn't trump the others.
But God is not our equal He is our superior who sets the standards for morality. Abortion is wrong because God says it is.
I am prolife because God is.

reply from: Banned Member

Micah, what do you care? You are a godless pro-abort. Nobody cares what you think.

reply from: Banned Member

LiberalChiRo, you don't have a pro-life stand.

reply from: Faramir

Shaming him, A?
Cool. That's the Christian way to deal with him.
And a great way to get him to think about NOT being godless.

reply from: Banned Member

Faramir/Vernon/ Whoever, this forum has functioned quite adaquately without your poison these past months. Whatever consumed you while you were away was a blesssing as I did not have to tolerate your quaint pseudo-evangelicalism. Pro-choice exceptionism by any other name is still pro-abortion. If you are an apologist for anything is abortion and the merits of those who advocate the deaths by exception that CarolMarie and LiberalChiRo bandy about. I come here to post defenses for the unborn from the evils of the world and those who espouse those evils, even if those clothe themselves as Christians. Is it any wonder that every lefitimate pro-life efort here is undermined by you and your ilk? Every point made by those you deem un-friendly to your abortion exception advocates, you balk at the very effort of being pro-life. In short, you are a fraud! Better for the unborn should you choose to remain silent because your words and every effort are a danger to the unborn persons of the world. You are neither pro or anti anything. You are an antagonist and a nuisance. Go away if you would please.

reply from: Banned Member

Your presense Spinwiddy speaks more of my effectiveness that anything that I could ever say. You wouldn't care enough to be here, like all pro-aborts wouldn't, if we actually made no difference.
The presense of Spinwiddy leads me to draw one of two conclusions.
We who are pro-life are effective and making a difference.
Spinwiddy is more pathetic than we can possible imagine!
1886 posts by Spinwiddy about an issue that no one cares about to people who make no difference. Right.

reply from: scopia19822

"In other words, can you be pro-life without God? "
Yes one can be prolife with a belief in God. Scientific evidence and education on fetal development alone are enough for some athiests/agnostics to be prolife. I have more respect for a person whos an athiest/agnostic who is pro life than a person who is prochoice and dares to call themselves a Christian.

reply from: Faramir

There are atheist prolifers, so it's definately possible.
The harder thing for me to understand is those who believe in God and in abortion.

reply from: micah

What would say has been the biggest tangible accomplishment of the pro-life movement in the last 40 years?

reply from: micah

Wait, you actually think you're making a difference in the real world by posting on this site? This is an amusement site. It's basically a video game for debate.

reply from: Faramir

You're quite mistaken. I have never been an apologist for abortion of any kind.
I disagree with making exceptions. I also disagree with degrading those who make exceptions, especially when they do good works and save babies.
If you don't like me or my style, fine, but no more false accusations, please.

reply from: yoda

He didn't make any. Every word he posted was true.
The only way you could not be a proabort would be if you were the world's stupidest prolifer. You and "You can't be a prolifer unless you're a Christian carolemarie" do much more harm to our cause than the proaborts could ever do.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Knowing that the unborn is human from the moment of conception isn't a matter of believing in God, it is a matter of understanding basic biology.
It's a universal human opinion that killing each other is wrong, no matter what your religion is or isn't.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Yes I do. You've never bothered to ask however. You just chant along with the others that I'm pro-abort even though you haven't got a clue.
Why don't you ask, first? Before assuming.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

There is the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

reply from: scopia19822

Yeah and of course their is also Catholics for Choice. I hope these people have the decency not to present themselves for communion and profane the body and blood of Christ. See 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 if anyone needs that backed up by Scripture.

reply from: Faramir

Yeah and of course their is also Catholics for Choice. I hope these people have the decency not to present themselves for communion and profane the body and blood of Christ. See 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 if anyone needs that backed up by Scripture.
They've stolen the name "Catholic" and are using it without authority. Many are not Catholic and those who are are in rebellion. It's not a "Catholic" organization, and that name is very dishonest.

reply from: scopia19822

Those who belong to it have excommunicated themselves and by partaking of communion are bringing on their own damnation.

reply from: carolemarie

Knowing that the unborn is human from the moment of conception isn't a matter of believing in God, it is a matter of understanding basic biology.
It's a universal human opinion that killing each other is wrong, no matter what your religion is or isn't.
Obviously it isn't a universal opinion. Look at the Rwanda genocide. Look at the Nazis... One group of people decided to kill their neighbor. The Koran says its okay to kill infidels. Humans happily kill those they deem as different.
But I am talking about the basis for deciding if somthing is wrong or right.
If our standard is based on our own personal opinion, then it is our own personal feelings. Someone can hold the opposite POV, but that doesn't make it right or wrong because without God there is no basis for claiming your pov is more moral.
If there is no God, then anything goes, and you should live for yourself.
But if there is a God, then your decisions here have consequences forever.

reply from: micah

Suppose someone were to convince you that there was no god. Thus, you could treat your children badly, and there would be no god to punish you with hellfire. If this were the case, would you still treat your children lovingly, or would you be mean to them?

reply from: carolemarie

I would love my kids because they are my kids.But would I spend time and money to help other people do what I deem right? Or spend all those resources solely on my children?

reply from: micah

Let's suppose it were someone besides your kids. Would you be mean to other people if you thought there would be no god to punish you after you die?

reply from: lukesmom

Actually there are many atheists against abortion and abortion violates the teachings of Buddha. http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/buddhistethics/abortion.shtml

Why is it so hard to understand abortion is NOT a religious issue but instead a HUMAN RIGHTS issue? If there was not a God, this would STILL be a human rights issue. It is you proaborts who make abortion a religion issue. If you even begin to care to read about the prolifer's here, you will see how diverse we all are and of all kinds of different beliefs.
In other words, can you be pro-choice without Satan? Something to think about, right?

reply from: yoda

I think this was a proabort effort to get us prolifers at each other's throats again, and carole jumped right in and said I can't be a prolifer because I am not a Christian, right on cue. Works every time, doesn't it?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Knowing that the unborn is human from the moment of conception isn't a matter of believing in God, it is a matter of understanding basic biology.
It's a universal human opinion that killing each other is wrong, no matter what your religion is or isn't.
Obviously it isn't a universal opinion. Look at the Rwanda genocide. Look at the Nazis... One group of people decided to kill their neighbor. The Koran says its okay to kill infidels. Humans happily kill those they deem as different.
But I am talking about the basis for deciding if somthing is wrong or right.
If our standard is based on our own personal opinion, then it is our own personal feelings. Someone can hold the opposite POV, but that doesn't make it right or wrong because without God there is no basis for claiming your pov is more moral.
If there is no God, then anything goes, and you should live for yourself.
But if there is a God, then your decisions here have consequences forever.
Ask any sane individual human being and they will tell you that in most cases it is wrong to kill each other. Get humans together in a group and give them a "cause" and they will slaughter mercilessly because they are told to. But that doesn't mean they don't remember it is wrong in their hearts.
Killing each other goes against all logic of self-preservation and preservation of the species as a whole. We're supposed to eat and make babies. Killing each other doesn't help with that. People will justify murder, but they still know it was murder.
You are not understanding the entire viewpoint of how a social animal survives. Humans are social animals, just like elephants. If you have one human alone, of course they are going to fend for themselves alone, and their thought process is "don't steal from me or kill me". But if they make a friend or procreate, it suddenly becomes "don't steal from/kill me or my friends/family". This thought process enlarges to the tribe, village, town, city and large societal level, where we all communally agree on laws to protect us so we can all have those basic rights. We understand that if we wish to protect ourselves and our families, it is beneficial to protect others as well. We also understand that because WE have inherent rights, every other living being also has those same rights.
God is not needed for any of that.
Understanding the above, we can clearly see that to kill any one of us is violating the very principal - and instinctive - rights that we have. Don't kill me or steal from me. Abortion violates these rights. These are rights inherent in each and every one of us simply because we LIVE.

reply from: carolemarie

I don't see how you can have a basis for morality without God.
If there is no higher source of determining what is right or wrong it is just our opinions.
My opinion is abortion is wrong. Other people believe abortion is right.
How do you prove what is right? You need a source that is higher than the people involved to provide that determination.

reply from: micah

Are you saying that you are pro-life because the Bible says so? If the bible had a verse saying abortion was okay, would you be pro-choice?

reply from: carolemarie

Are you saying that you are pro-life because the Bible says so? If the bible had a verse saying abortion was okay, would you be pro-choice?
Sure. If abortion was okay with God, it would be okay with me.

reply from: micah

Seriously? If the Bible said it was okay to abort a healthy fetus at 8 months, you wouldn't have a problem with that?

reply from: carolemarie

If God said it was moral for people to do that, then I would amend my opinion to match His.

reply from: Teresa18

One can't have morality without God. In fact, one can't "be" at all without God. God is the source of life, truth, and goodness. A person may not know that God exists, but it is possible for this person to have learned a piece of his truth (like respect for life), albeit not knowing the full truth. This person can be pro-life; this person just doesn't realize that respect for life ultimately comes from God.

reply from: scopia19822

"Sure. If abortion was okay with God, it would be okay with me."
I cant believe I just read this. If this was ok with"God" than I would daresay that wasnt the true God. God would not be ok with that, Satan would but not God.

reply from: yoda

So everyone who isn't Christian in the whole world is immoral? That's called "bigotry".
No one can "prove" anything about right and wrong. If you need "proof", then you have no conscience. Your conscience will tell you what is right and what is wrong, if you have one. Some people don't seem to have one.

reply from: yoda

Worth repeating:

reply from: yoda

Exactly, and that has nothing to do with an individual's belief in a particular religion.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I just explained it.
Proof comes from what most people agree on. Many of us have this "gut" feeling about right and wrong. To lack that means you are a sociopath. Being unable to tell right from wrong is UNNATURAL for a human being; we are all born with a moral compass. Now, whether you believe this sense of morality is an EVOLVED, instinctive trait or whether you believe it is given to us by God is your own choice. But the fact is that it is there whether you believe in God or not.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

One can't have morality without God.
I actually just explained how you can.
You may feel that way but others do not.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

And that's why my morality is not dependent solely on God.

reply from: Antibigot

I am a pro-life atheist. You don't assume that all pro-lifers believe in God(s) do you?

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Sure, you can absolutely be prolife without God. There is even a group called, "Atheists for Life." You don't need God to be prolife, not at all.

reply from: faithman

And that's why my morality is not dependent solely on God.
Adherance is not, but existance is.

reply from: carolemarie

I don't deny you can be prolife without God,but on what basis? Your opinion?
Your morality is a matter of personal taste or belief.
God tells us what is moral and we conform our beliefs to His standards.
God is a basis for morality.People are not.

reply from: Banned Member

Do you have to "believe in God" to be a pro-lifer? No. Can you be an avowed religion hater and be a pro-lifer? I truly don't think so.

reply from: BossMomma

Of course, while I am religious my religion has nothing to do with the debate. It is my belief that a child be it unborn or born is a human being and has as much right to live as I do.

reply from: BossMomma

I'd have to say CPC's, international charities (save the children funds), battered women's shelters are often pro-life as well.

reply from: carolemarie

well duh scopia!
The question was if God said it was moral would you change sides. And yes. If God said it was moral I would. However, that isn't going to happen because God has already spoken for life.

reply from: carolemarie

So everyone who isn't Christian in the whole world is immoral? That's called "bigotry".
No one can "prove" anything about right and wrong. If you need "proof", then you have no conscience. Your conscience will tell you what is right and what is wrong, if you have one. Some people don't seem to have one.
I don't care if you like it, this is my opinion. I don't see how people can have a basis for deciding if something is moral without God. Where does the conscience come from? (I say God)

reply from: faithman

All you give is your opinion. You pick and choose what part of the bible you like, then explain away what you don't. You say you are "pro-life" but actually when it comes down to it, youy throw womb child under the abortion bus for self interest. You are double minded and unstable in all your ways, and are not a voice to be listened to. We don't need your"post abortive voice" as we have several here who are true pro-lifers, have truely repented, and truely fight for the babies. The onl purpose youi serve here is to show others what a false pro-lifer looks like in word and deed. You are the best bad example we have.

reply from: micah

Who is a popular public figure that you would say is a true pro-lifer?

reply from: sk1bianca

is killing unborn humans for no reason a desirable, constructive behaviour that should be promoted or encouraged?
do we really benefit from such brutality?
can we still call ourselves "civilized" and "evolved" when we allow such pointless violence towards our own kind?
we idealize the animal world, we try to save endangered species, abandoned or abused animals, we volunteer for all sorts of animal rights organisations, some of us even refuse to eat them. animals are becoming more and more precious to us. as if we see in them something we lost. nature. simplicity. normality. the way things should be.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Obviously Sarah Palin is the most famous prolifer at present.

reply from: yoda

I know, you don't mind being a religious bigot. And why should you? Aren't all fauxlifers actually bigots?

reply from: yoda

I agree. Those who hate religion also hate morality.

reply from: yoda

If it is, then no one should be ashamed to be shown going into an abortion mill, should they?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

And I showed you how it can come from the simple instinct to survive.

reply from: scopia19822

"The question was if God said it was moral would you change sides. And yes. If God said it was moral I would. However, that isn't going to happen because God has already spoken for life."
And my point is the God that I worship would not say it was moral in the 1st place .I would not follow a God that said killing unborn children was moral. Anyone who does would not be worshipping the true God, but would be decieved by Satan, hence worshipping him.

reply from: carolemarie

Nobody is debating if God would endorse abortion. He doesn't!

reply from: Rosalie

I don't care if you like it, this is my opinion. I don't see how people can have a basis for deciding if something is moral without God. Where does the conscience come from? (I say God)
You don't know much about psychology, do you?
Do you have the right to live at the expense of another human being who did not give their consent to be used by you?

reply from: BossMomma

I don't care if you like it, this is my opinion. I don't see how people can have a basis for deciding if something is moral without God. Where does the conscience come from? (I say God)
You don't know much about psychology, do you?
Do you have the right to live at the expense of another human being who did not give their consent to be used by you?
If that person consented to the act that created the child then yes, nine months of inconvenience should not warrent a death sentence to an innocent child. A baby can be handed off to another care taker if allowed to be born, a child aborted is gone forever and for what? So a woman doesn't have to own up for 3 trimesters?

reply from: BossMomma

Sarah Palin is a good example.

reply from: Rosalie

Inconvenience, my ass. No, women should never be required to "own up" for 40 weeks of their lives, to put their health and economical and social situation at stake against her will.
I have nothing else to say to you other than that I find this just as disturbing, disgusting and apalling as you find abortions.

reply from: BossMomma

Inconvenience, my ass. No, women should never be required to "own up" for 40 weeks of their lives, to put their health and economical and social situation at stake against her will.
I have nothing else to say to you other than that I find this just as disturbing, disgusting and apalling as you find abortions.
Then put me on ignore, it really wont devistate me. After what I went through to give at least one of my twins life I'll hear no simpering sob story about inconvenience and as a mother yourself I'm appalled at your view of child bearing.
If the woman is that concerned about health, economic and, social situation she should avoid that which would damage it and trust me, it'd be her actions, not the life of the child that would put her jeapardy.

reply from: scopia19822

"Then put me on ignore, it really wont devistate me. After what I went through to give at least one of my twins life I'll hear no simpering sob story about inconvenience and as a mother yourself I'm appalled at your view of child bearing."
Sadly Boss in my expereince with prochoicers the preborn is considered" property " of the woman to dispose of if she doesnt want it or a valauble commodity to be cherished and protected if it is wanted. Yet in both cases it is still considered property not a person. You went through hell and back this last pregnancy when many prochoicers would have advised you to abort, but you didnt take the cowards way out.

reply from: faithman

I actually heard a borthead at a planned parenthood in Denver say that a pre-born is women's property that she can do with as she pleases. Think back about 150 years. Sound familiar? Can anyone say dred scott?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Inconvenience, my ass. No, women should never be required to "own up" for 40 weeks of their lives, to put their health and economical and social situation at stake against her will.
I have nothing else to say to you other than that I find this just as disturbing, disgusting and apalling as you find abortions.
Our SOCIETY puts their financial and social statuses at risk. Pregnancy does not and the child certainly does not. This is a sign of a sick society, not a sick woman who needs "cured". You want to prevent economic and social downfalls for pregnant women? Fix society. Stop calling pregnant women weak or debilitated or acting like they're fragile eggs. Stop THINKING that they just have a horrible "condition" that can be "cured" by killing their child. It's that kind of thinking that puts their financial and social "status" at risk.
If you remove both of those issues, your only vaguely strong argument is the mother's health... and as we've all seen, less than 1% of women die in childbirth. What was it, 0.013%? And you KNOW that pro-lifers are okay with abortion to save the mother's life!! So you don't need to debate "mother's health" here.
So you're out of arguments...

reply from: BossMomma

Considering an unborn child property is as abhorrent as a man considering his wife to be property. I've never been a coward and I've never taken the easy way out. Children are brought into this world through the actions of a man and a woman, the child is innocent, not an invading parasite to be destroyed.

reply from: scopia19822

"Considering an unborn child property is as abhorrent as a man considering his wife to be property. I've never been a coward and I've never taken the easy way out. Children are brought into this world through the actions of a man and a woman, the child is innocent, not an invading parasite to be destroyed."
I agree with you. I have told my son when he acts out that his butt "belongs" to me until he is 18 not in the sense that I regard him as property, but that until hes 18 Im responsible for his welfare and in charge of major decisions as hes a child and has alot of learning to do before he can make major decisions for himself. Hes only 5 and of course thinks the world revolves around him.

reply from: faithman

I guess bortheads never grow out of that stage....

reply from: BossMomma

When my son acts out I ask him what would Jesus think about his behavior? That usually sets him in line. We don't own our children in any sense. If you abuse your child the state can remove them from your custody and jail you.
The unborn child seems to be the only child exempt from child abuse laws. Women are allowed to forcibly poison them with cigarettes and alcohol, subject them to controlled substances and, kill them in utero via abortion. Rosalie wants to talk about women's rights, where are the rights of the unborn child to be treated ethically?
If we treated a born child the way some treat their unborn we'd be thrown in jail so fast we couldn't even start to whine about our rights before they slammed the cell door in our faces.

reply from: micah

You think the woman is the property of the state.
I actually heard a borthead at a planned parenthood in Denver say that a pre-born is women's property that she can do with as she pleases. Think back about 150 years. Sound familiar? Can anyone say dred scott?

reply from: carolemarie

I know, you don't mind being a religious bigot. And why should you? Aren't all fauxlifers actually bigots?
Frankly, I would be prochoice if supporting abortion was a personal opinion. I am prolife because God is. That is the trump card that overrides my personal druthers. I would be okay with same sex marriage if I wasn't a Christian. In my own personal morality, whatever floats your boat works for me. But since I am a Christian, I have to conform my morality to Gods.
Without God, nothing ultimatly matters, nobody is right or wrong, it is just personal belief....so yeah, without God you have no basis calling something moral.

reply from: carolemarie

All you give is your opinion. You pick and choose what part of the bible you like, then explain away what you don't. You say you are "pro-life" but actually when it comes down to it, youy throw womb child under the abortion bus for self interest. You are double minded and unstable in all your ways, and are not a voice to be listened to. We don't need your"post abortive voice" as we have several here who are true pro-lifers, have truely repented, and truely fight for the babies. The onl purpose youi serve here is to show others what a false pro-lifer looks like in word and deed. You are the best bad example we have.
Translation: You don't like my pet legislation! That means you are bad
Grow up!

reply from: Rosalie

Um, read more carefully? I don't think YOU are disgusting or appalling. I think what you advocate is but that's pretty much what I expect from pro-lifers. I was just pointing out that I feel about what you advocate exactly the same way as you do about elective abortions.
As a mother, I can say the same about your view on childbearing and on your wretched attitude to women in general. You made your choice, you made it - good for you. You have no right to pass judgment or look down on others who make a different choice.
I have been trying to tell you and others over and over again - it makes no difference that a fetus is human. No human, no person has right to use my body against my will. That just won't change, ever.
Wow. So having a child is not expensive? It does not bear the possibility that you might not be able to keep job because of the pregnancy? Really? Yes, society has a lot to do with it but the fact is that it's what it is right now so we all have to do what's best for us and our families. That's what every loving, responsible person does.
I wish I could single-handedly fix society. But I can't. I'm trying to help in many ways you have no idea about so please don't talk to me that way. The thing is that if the woman feels she won't be able to manage and that having an abortion is her best choice, then so be it. Why should she struggle if she doesn't want to?
It would be of course ideal if no one would ever have to give up their job or fall short of money or get sick and die, but that's not how life works. And that wouldn't prevent all abortions, either. Some women just don't want to have kids.
I have never, EVER called a pregnant woman weak. Stop lying. Women are not weak; they have the right to decide about their bodies. They have the right to not have children in their lives, they have the right not to be pregnant if they don't want to because our bodies are not for free use against our will.
I don't care what YOU are okay with. You have no say over my body - and I could care less if you are OKAY with what happens to me, my body, my health and by extension to my family. You do not and never will have the right to decide about that. And health is not just life. Health is so much more. Again, maybe THAT doesn't matter to you but it does to me and everyone who cares about being healthy and to their families.
To think that you should have any say in this is arrogant, wrong and quite frankly evil.
My arguments still stand, but thanks for trying.

reply from: faithman

Um, read more carefully? I don't think YOU are disgusting or appalling. I think what you advocate is but that's pretty much what I expect from pro-lifers. I was just pointing out that I feel about what you advocate exactly the same way as you do about elective abortions.
As a mother, I can say the same about your view on childbearing and on your wretched attitude to women in general. You made your choice, you made it - good for you. You have no right to pass judgment or look down on others who make a different choice.
I have been trying to tell you and others over and over again - it makes no difference that a fetus is human. No human, no person has right to use my body against my will. That just won't change, ever.
Wow. So having a child is not expensive? It does not bear the possibility that you might not be able to keep job because of the pregnancy? Really? Yes, society has a lot to do with it but the fact is that it's what it is right now so we all have to do what's best for us and our families. That's what every loving, responsible person does.
I wish I could single-handedly fix society. But I can't. I'm trying to help in many ways you have no idea about so please don't talk to me that way. The thing is that if the woman feels she won't be able to manage and that having an abortion is her best choice, then so be it. Why should she struggle if she doesn't want to?
It would be of course ideal if no one would ever have to give up their job or fall short of money or get sick and die, but that's not how life works. And that wouldn't prevent all abortions, either. Some women just don't want to have kids.
I have never, EVER called a pregnant woman weak. Stop lying. Women are not weak; they have the right to decide about their bodies. They have the right to not have children in their lives, they have the right not to be pregnant if they don't want to because our bodies are not for free use against our will.
I don't care what YOU are okay with. You have no say over my body - and I could care less if you are OKAY with what happens to me, my body, my health and by extension to my family. You do not and never will have the right to decide about that. And health is not just life. Health is so much more. Again, maybe THAT doesn't matter to you but it does to me and everyone who cares about being healthy and to their families.
To think that you should have any say in this is arrogant, wrong and quite frankly evil.
My arguments still stand, but thanks for trying.
What the bortheads, and the false pro-lifers do not understand, is that there is more to life than this physical world, and our physical bodies. Our bodies are merely the containers of the precious substance Called life. Life has to have that container to express itself in the natural world. Even if the container is flawed, it still makes it possible for the miracle of life to be expressed. Our common value is not found in the container, but what is contained. The life of a womb child is equal to the life contained in all of us. The only legitimate breaking of this container, is if it has the compunction to smash other containers without cause. When you take way the ability to express life, you loose the great privilege to express your own. Evil aggression must be subdued, or no container can have any security from unjust breakage. To take away the possibility of this wonderful spark of life to be expressed, makes this world a darker place, and the rest of us containers a little more impoverished, and alone. Though the womb child is a small container, it does not lessen the value of the life it contains. If fellow containers do not value the life of the womb child container, then they have placed their personhood container in great jeopardy. Anyone who does not see that womb children are fellow human containers, containing life of equal value to their own, is a self destructive fool, drunk on the power to kill, and must be stopped for the sake of the rest of us life containers. It is the life in us that makes us equal, not our degree of ability to express it.

reply from: Teresa18

It's not possible because first of all, without God, humans would not exist. God made the world, us, and all truth, morals and goodness come from him and him alone. People may not know that God exists, but it's possible that people can learn/know a piece of that truth, morality and goodness without knowing the source from which it came.
If God exists, then it matters not if people agree or not because reality doesn't conform to popular opinion.

reply from: scopia19822

"When my son acts out I ask him what would Jesus think about his behavior? That usually sets him in line. We don't own our children in any sense. If you abuse your child the state can remove them from your custody and jail you."
I dont think I own my son, for me its a matter of being entrusted both legally and morally with his care and upbringing.
. "Rosalie wants to talk about women's rights, where are the rights of the unborn child to be treated ethically?"
Until birth its a thing, not a person even though Rosalie says the preborn is human. I thought a human being was a person, could have fooled me.
"If we treated a born child the way some treat their unborn we'd be thrown in jail so fast we couldn't even start to whine about our rights before they slammed the cell door in our faces."
I agree and even animals get treated better and have more legal rights than a preborn human being. That to me is just messed up.

reply from: AMozart

Actually there are secularist arguments against abortion, they blow the "pro-choice" arguments out the window!

reply from: Rosalie

I'm afraid I'm gonna have to repeat myself again: even if it was an unborn PERSON, it stil lhas no right whatsoever to live in my body and live off my bodily resources and put me and my health at risk against my will.
You are born, you are human, you are a person - and you don't have that right. No one has such right.

reply from: lukesmom

I'm afraid I'm gonna have to repeat myself again: even if it was an unborn PERSON, it stil lhas no right whatsoever to live in my body and live off my bodily resources and put me and my health at risk against my will.
You are born, you are human, you are a person - and you don't have that right. No one has such right.
You are either pretty thick headed or learning disabled, I don't know which but, whatever, I will try again. READ SLOWLY: That unborn life, was put in your uterus by you and (in most cases) another who you consented to have intercourse with. That life didn't make itself and couldn't make itself. Actually it couldn't be made at all without your consenting actions. You know this and 99.9% of the human population of consentual age knows this. So, therefore, (BE SURE TO READ THIS MORE THAN ONCE IF YOU FAIL TO UNDERSTAND) If you don't want another human life "living off" your body; don't create that life by having intercourse. Very basic, very simple.
You are unborn, you are human, you are a person - and you have the right to remain living. No one has the right to take your life away prematurely.

reply from: Rosalie

I'm afraid I'm gonna have to repeat myself again: even if it was an unborn PERSON, it stil lhas no right whatsoever to live in my body and live off my bodily resources and put me and my health at risk against my will.
You are born, you are human, you are a person - and you don't have that right. No one has such right.
You are either pretty thick headed or learning disabled, I don't know which but, whatever, I will try again. READ SLOWLY: That unborn life, was put in your uterus by you and (in most cases) another who you consented to have intercourse with. That life didn't make itself and couldn't make itself. Actually it couldn't be made at all without your consenting actions. You know this and 99.9% of the human population of consentual age knows this. So, therefore, (BE SURE TO READ THIS MORE THAN ONCE IF YOU FAIL TO UNDERSTAND) If you don't want another human life "living off" your body; don't create that life by having intercourse. Very basic, very simple.
You are unborn, you are human, you are a person - and you have the right to remain living. No one has the right to take your life away prematurely.
Read slowly: CONSENT TO SEX DOES NOT MEAN CONSENT TO PREGNANCY. PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE SEX FOR PROCREATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. And once again, since you still don't get it: consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.
No born or unborn people have the right to use someone else's body for survival against their consent.
You must be really out of your arguments to throw your stupid insults around like that.

reply from: lukesmom


Consent to sex DOES mean consent to pregnancy because that is what intercourse DOES. That is basic nature, science, what ever but that is the original purpose of intercourse. I agree, people don't have intercourse for procreative purposes only but that doesn't mean there is no chance to become pregnant. No one has sex and thinks, I am going to have intercourse for pleasure therefore I won't become pregnant. That would be dumb so most people use contraceptives and they use these knowing there is the risk of pregnancy but they have intercourse anyway with this knowlege so, they have accepted the risk. If you accept the risk, you also accept the consequences=pregnancy. So if you have sex/intercourse you have accepted the fact you could be creating a human life. If you use a contraceptive even more highlights you know the risks of this pleasure. So again, consenting to the sexual act of intercourse is accepting the risk of becoming pregnant which is a natural consequence of sex/intercourse.
No, I am just tired of trying to educate the willfully ignorant.

reply from: BossMomma

I'm afraid I'm gonna have to repeat myself again: even if it was an unborn PERSON, it stil lhas no right whatsoever to live in my body and live off my bodily resources and put me and my health at risk against my will.
You are born, you are human, you are a person - and you don't have that right. No one has such right.
Personhood is a rather meaningless title considering half the time pro-choicers can't even agree on when it takes place. Humanity is consistant, a fetus is a human being which is what we all are with or without that all important personhood status. Pregnancy does not put anything against your will, you chose the sex that concieved the child thus you invited it.

reply from: faithman

I'm afraid I'm gonna have to repeat myself again: even if it was an unborn PERSON, it stil lhas no right whatsoever to live in my body and live off my bodily resources and put me and my health at risk against my will.
You are born, you are human, you are a person - and you don't have that right. No one has such right.
Personhood is a rather meaningless title considering half the time pro-choicers can't even agree on when it takes place. Humanity is consistant, a fetus is a human being which is what we all are with or without that all important personhood status. Pregnancy does not put anything against your will, you chose the sex that concieved the child thus you invited it.
Personhood is only meanigless to those who are too stupid to realize the whole issue hinges on that one word. The fuss was never over humanity, but at what stage in development does one become a person. It is obvious you are either totally ignorant of the history, or just want to oppose something out of spite, which futher proves you don't make very good dicissions. Personhood is the line in the sand. It is what this whole thing is about. Once established, this horrible mess goes away, and you can go back to slutting around with pro-death men out of wedlock, and begatting fatherless children. Seems to be the only thing you do well. You are certainly no pro-life voice.

reply from: BossMomma

Um, read more carefully? I don't think YOU are disgusting or appalling. I think what you advocate is but that's pretty much what I expect from pro-lifers. I was just pointing out that I feel about what you advocate exactly the same way as you do about elective abortions.
As a mother, I can say the same about your view on childbearing and on your wretched attitude to women in general. You made your choice, you made it - good for you. You have no right to pass judgment or look down on others who make a different choice..
Uhm excuse me but I have every right in the world to voice my opinion on a forum that was designed for opinions. I don't have a wretched attitude towards women, but if women want to be equal to men they should stop killing their babies. A man can't kill a baby and expect no consequences. You want to be better than men, not equal to which makes you a supremisist not a feminist. The ability to kill our children is not empowering, it's weak and cowardly and it turns women from gateways of life to executioners under the guise of "freedom of choice". A child is not a choice, a child is a human being same as you and deserves as much respect.

reply from: faithman

Um, read more carefully? I don't think YOU are disgusting or appalling. I think what you advocate is but that's pretty much what I expect from pro-lifers. I was just pointing out that I feel about what you advocate exactly the same way as you do about elective abortions.
As a mother, I can say the same about your view on childbearing and on your wretched attitude to women in general. You made your choice, you made it - good for you. You have no right to pass judgment or look down on others who make a different choice..
Uhm excuse me but I have every right in the world to voice my opinion on a forum that was designed for opinions. I don't have a wretched attitude towards women, but if women want to be equal to men they should stop killing their babies. A man can't kill a baby and expect no consequences. You want to be better than men, not equal to which makes you a supremisist not a feminist. The ability to kill our children is not empowering, it's weak and cowardly and it turns women from gateways of life to executioners under the guise of "freedom of choice". A child is not a choice, a child is a human being same as you and deserves as much respect.
But hope springs eternal!!! You finally posted a pro-life message!!

reply from: lukesmom

No, pregnancy is the natural consequence of intercourse, birth is the natural consequence of pregnancy. There is NOTHING natural about elective abortion. An unwanted pregnancy will naturally end with birth, same a a wanted pregnancy.

reply from: lukesmom

Wonderful post and I agree wholeheartedly!

reply from: Banned Member

Children too are a gift from the LORD, the fruit of the womb, a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children born in one's youth. Blessed are they whose quivers are full. They will never be shamed contending with foes at the gate. -from Psalm 127

reply from: nancyu

Um, read more carefully? I don't think YOU are disgusting or appalling. I think what you advocate is but that's pretty much what I expect from pro-lifers. I was just pointing out that I feel about what you advocate exactly the same way as you do about elective abortions.
As a mother, I can say the same about your view on childbearing and on your wretched attitude to women in general. You made your choice, you made it - good for you. You have no right to pass judgment or look down on others who make a different choice..
Uhm excuse me but I have every right in the world to voice my opinion on a forum that was designed for opinions. I don't have a wretched attitude towards women, but if women want to be equal to men they should stop killing their babies. A man can't kill a baby and expect no consequences. You want to be better than men, not equal to which makes you a supremisist not a feminist. The ability to kill our children is not empowering, it's weak and cowardly and it turns women from gateways of life to executioners under the guise of "freedom of choice". A child is not a choice, a child is a human being same as you and deserves as much respect.
But hope springs eternal!!! You finally posted a pro-life message!!
Where have you been faithman, she posts pro life all the time. The only prob is I can't figure out if she is a pp prolifer, or if she's just a little schizo.

reply from: BossMomma

Um, read more carefully? I don't think YOU are disgusting or appalling. I think what you advocate is but that's pretty much what I expect from pro-lifers. I was just pointing out that I feel about what you advocate exactly the same way as you do about elective abortions.
As a mother, I can say the same about your view on childbearing and on your wretched attitude to women in general. You made your choice, you made it - good for you. You have no right to pass judgment or look down on others who make a different choice..
Uhm excuse me but I have every right in the world to voice my opinion on a forum that was designed for opinions. I don't have a wretched attitude towards women, but if women want to be equal to men they should stop killing their babies. A man can't kill a baby and expect no consequences. You want to be better than men, not equal to which makes you a supremisist not a feminist. The ability to kill our children is not empowering, it's weak and cowardly and it turns women from gateways of life to executioners under the guise of "freedom of choice". A child is not a choice, a child is a human being same as you and deserves as much respect.
But hope springs eternal!!! You finally posted a pro-life message!!
Where have you been faithman, she posts pro life all the time. The only prob is I can't figure out if she is a pp prolifer, or if she's just a little schizo.
Yeah, maybe if I were as hateful and ignorant as you and Fboy here you wouldn't have any doubts. Unfortunantly I just don't have it in me.

reply from: lukesmom

No, pregnancy is the natural consequence of intercourse, birth is the natural consequence of pregnancy. There is NOTHING natural about elective abortion. An unwanted pregnancy will naturally end with birth, same a a wanted pregnancy.
If a woman was using contraception, then she was obviously trying to avoid the "natural" pregnancy. That abortion is "unnatural" really has nothing to do with a woman's desire not to remain pregnant.
Using contraception shows she knows what the risks of intercourse are and, if she can read, she also knows contraception is not 100% effective, therefore she is STILL accepting the risk of pregnancy. AGAIN, if a woman doesn't want to become pregnant and doesn't want to accept the natural concequences of intercourse, she has no business having intercourse for ANY reason. Really, it is time for women to stop whinning and blaming and, in the case of abortion, making another life pay for her actions and actually take full responsibility for her actions. AGAIN: IF A WOMAN DOESN'T WANT TO BECOME PREGNANT, SHE SHOULDN'T HAVE INTERCOURSE. Taking responsibility is what being a responsible adult is all about.

reply from: AMozart

opps, accidental post!

reply from: Rosalie

No it doesn't, no matter how hard you try to push this on people. Consent to sex is consent to sex. That's it. It'd be like saying that if I consent to buy groceries, I'm automatically consenting to make dinner every night for the next 40 weeks. That'd be just stupid. I don't care what kind of attitude to sex you have but it's clearly not the healthiest one. When I consent to sex, I consent to sexual intercourse only. There are risks to everything we engage in, and there are also choices.
Also when a couple uses contraception, it's pretty clear that they are not consenting to pregnancy. And if they're not, they're irresponsible but the woman still shouldn't be punished by being forced to remain pregnant against her will because pregnancy and childbirth is too much of a big deal for it to be used as a punishment.
Pregnancy would be a natural consequence of sex if you got pregnant every single time you had sex. That doesn't happen. It's therefore a possible outcome that can be prevented. And if something fails, then the woman has two choices.
And just so you know, I'm extremely educated about this matter and many others - you're just pissed off because I don't agree with your opinion and reject your way of life, and that's why you're trying to insult me. How adult of you.
I never denied that fetus is a human being. Thing is, even though you are your mother's daughter, you do not have the right to hook up your body to hers against her will, even if it means that you will die without her bodily resources. Nobody has the right to trespass on someone else's bodily domain.
And learn to read. I never said you are not allowed to voice an opinion but the moment you become a judgmental twat, I think it's quite clear what kind of a person you are.
Your attitude to women IS, in my opinion, wretched. It makes me shudder how hateful you can be.
Men cannot kill their babies because no fetuses are ever infringing upon their bodily integrity and putting their health or lives at risk. That's the huge difference that will always be here, even if you ignore it.
I never denied that fetus is a human being. Thing is, even though you are your mother's daughter, you do not have the right to hook up your body to hers against her will, even if it means that you will die without her bodily resources. Nobody has the right to trespass on someone else's bodily domain.
And learn to read. I never said you are not allowed to voice an opinion but the moment you become a judgmental twat, I think it's quite clear what kind of a person you are.
Your attitude to women IS, in my opinion, wretched. It makes me shudder how hateful you can be.
Men cannot kill their babies because no fetuses are ever infringing upon their bodily integrity and putting their health or lives at risk. That's the huge difference that will always be here, even if you ignore it.

reply from: BossMomma

No it doesn't, no matter how hard you try to push this on people. Consent to sex is consent to sex. That's it. It'd be like saying that if I consent to buy groceries, I'm automatically consenting to make dinner every night for the next 40 weeks. That'd be just stupid. I don't care what kind of attitude to sex you have but it's clearly not the healthiest one. When I consent to sex, I consent to sexual intercourse only. There are risks to everything we engage in, and there are also choices.
Also when a couple uses contraception, it's pretty clear that they are not consenting to pregnancy. And if they're not, they're irresponsible but the woman still shouldn't be punished by being forced to remain pregnant against her will because pregnancy and childbirth is too much of a big deal for it to be used as a punishment.
Pregnancy would be a natural consequence of sex if you got pregnant every single time you had sex. That doesn't happen. It's therefore a possible outcome that can be prevented. And if something fails, then the woman has two choices.
And just so you know, I'm extremely educated about this matter and many others - you're just pissed off because I don't agree with your opinion and reject your way of life, and that's why you're trying to insult me. How adult of you.
I never denied that fetus is a human being. Thing is, even though you are your mother's daughter, you do not have the right to hook up your body to hers against her will, even if it means that you will die without her bodily resources. Nobody has the right to trespass on someone else's bodily domain.
And learn to read. I never said you are not allowed to voice an opinion but the moment you become a judgmental twat, I think it's quite clear what kind of a person you are.
Your attitude to women IS, in my opinion, wretched. It makes me shudder how hateful you can be.
Men cannot kill their babies because no fetuses are ever infringing upon their bodily integrity and putting their health or lives at risk. That's the huge difference that will always be here, even if you ignore it.
I never denied that fetus is a human being. Thing is, even though you are your mother's daughter, you do not have the right to hook up your body to hers against her will, even if it means that you will die without her bodily resources. Nobody has the right to trespass on someone else's bodily domain.
And learn to read. I never said you are not allowed to voice an opinion but the moment you become a judgmental twat, I think it's quite clear what kind of a person you are.
Your attitude to women IS, in my opinion, wretched. It makes me shudder how hateful you can be.
Men cannot kill their babies because no fetuses are ever infringing upon their bodily integrity and putting their health or lives at risk. That's the huge difference that will always be here, even if you ignore it.
You can support selfishness to your heart's content and I really could care less about your opinion of me. However, refering to me as a judgemental twat makes YOU the misogynist. I had not once insulted you in this argument but you would refer to me by such a sexist term and then have the brass to tell me I have a wretched view of women? I'd suggest you pull that beam out of your eye before trying to pull the speck out of mine.

reply from: yoda

Yeah, they throw us a crumb every once in a while, just to keep us confused.

reply from: faithman

No it doesn't, no matter how hard you try to push this on people. Consent to sex is consent to sex. That's it. It'd be like saying that if I consent to buy groceries, I'm automatically consenting to make dinner every night for the next 40 weeks. That'd be just stupid. I don't care what kind of attitude to sex you have but it's clearly not the healthiest one. When I consent to sex, I consent to sexual intercourse only. There are risks to everything we engage in, and there are also choices.
Also when a couple uses contraception, it's pretty clear that they are not consenting to pregnancy. And if they're not, they're irresponsible but the woman still shouldn't be punished by being forced to remain pregnant against her will because pregnancy and childbirth is too much of a big deal for it to be used as a punishment.
Pregnancy would be a natural consequence of sex if you got pregnant every single time you had sex. That doesn't happen. It's therefore a possible outcome that can be prevented. And if something fails, then the woman has two choices.
And just so you know, I'm extremely educated about this matter and many others - you're just pissed off because I don't agree with your opinion and reject your way of life, and that's why you're trying to insult me. How adult of you.
I never denied that fetus is a human being. Thing is, even though you are your mother's daughter, you do not have the right to hook up your body to hers against her will, even if it means that you will die without her bodily resources. Nobody has the right to trespass on someone else's bodily domain.
And learn to read. I never said you are not allowed to voice an opinion but the moment you become a judgmental twat, I think it's quite clear what kind of a person you are.
Your attitude to women IS, in my opinion, wretched. It makes me shudder how hateful you can be.
Men cannot kill their babies because no fetuses are ever infringing upon their bodily integrity and putting their health or lives at risk. That's the huge difference that will always be here, even if you ignore it.
I never denied that fetus is a human being. Thing is, even though you are your mother's daughter, you do not have the right to hook up your body to hers against her will, even if it means that you will die without her bodily resources. Nobody has the right to trespass on someone else's bodily domain.
And learn to read. I never said you are not allowed to voice an opinion but the moment you become a judgmental twat, I think it's quite clear what kind of a person you are.
Your attitude to women IS, in my opinion, wretched. It makes me shudder how hateful you can be.
Men cannot kill their babies because no fetuses are ever infringing upon their bodily integrity and putting their health or lives at risk. That's the huge difference that will always be here, even if you ignore it.
You can support selfishness to your heart's content and I really could care less about your opinion of me. However, refering to me as a judgemental twat makes YOU the misogynist. I had not once insulted you in this argument but you would refer to me by such a sexist term and then have the brass to tell me I have a wretched view of women? I'd suggest you pull that beam out of your eye before trying to pull the speck out of mine.
LOOK FOLKS!!!! A CAT FIGHT!!!!

reply from: micah

Just like the Republicans throw you a crumb every once in a while.

reply from: BossMomma

Yeah, they throw us a crumb every once in a while, just to keep us confused.
We'd like to throw you a clue once in a while but you just wont accept it.

reply from: yoda

Pretty much the same thing, yeah. Lots of them are PLINOs.

reply from: lukesmom

And choosing abortion IS taking responsibility. You don't like it, but millions of women have taken responsibilty for the mistake of becoming pregnant. Being responsible means solving one's problems and you don't get to dictate the way that individual women can do that.
No, abortion is not a responsible action. Instead it is killing the innocent victim of your irresponsible action. Killing another life intentionally is NOT a responsible, or to me a rational, act.

reply from: CharlesD

When you strip away all these arguments, you are left with two irrefutable facts.
1. It is wrong to take the lives of innocent human beings.
2. Abortion takes the lives of innocent human beings.

reply from: lukesmom

Nothing like getting down to the basic facts of the matter. You do that so well Charles!

reply from: BossMomma

And choosing abortion IS taking responsibility. You don't like it, but millions of women have taken responsibilty for the mistake of becoming pregnant. Being responsible means solving one's problems and you don't get to dictate the way that individual women can do that.
No, abortion 9 times out of 10 is the best way to AVOID responsibility.

reply from: JRH

Subjective moral opinions are not "facts". Maybe you should learn to make that distinction.

reply from: lukesmom

So, in your "opinion" killing a human being is a responsible action? If so, you had better start advocating for the release of all murderers currently in prison.

reply from: lukesmom

Except for when they're subjective opinions.
You are saying that it isn't wrong to take the life of another human being? If abortion doesn't take the life of a human being, what is the woman pregnant with, if not a human being?

reply from: lukesmom

OK, let's back up.
Do you believe a pregnant woman is pregnant with a human life? IF the answer is yes; then:
Do you feel intentionally killing another human life is a responsible act?
If the answer is NO; then:
What, exactly, do you think a pregnant woman is pregnant with?

reply from: 4given

Of course. One can value the sanctity of human life, with or without choosing to believe that life is a gift from God. One however can not profess to be a follower of Christ and be pro-abortion.

reply from: lukesmom

You only answered half the question. Again: Do you feel intentionally killing another human life is a responsible act?

reply from: BossMomma

Is it responsible to kill a born child?

reply from: lukesmom

Is it responsible to kill a born child?
Evidently to joueravecfou it is since she keeps side stepping the question.

reply from: BossMomma

Is it responsible to kill a born child?
Evidently to joueravecfou it is since she keeps side stepping the question.
It's the age old pro-choice two step.

reply from: faithman

Is it responsible to kill a born child?
Watch it! You are atributing equality between the born and the preborn. The killer of three won't like that.

reply from: BossMomma

Is it responsible to kill a born child?
Watch it! You are atributing equality between the born and the preborn. The killer of three won't like that.
Oh go shove it, fartman. The day your sorry carcass is without sin is the day you can smear someone's past in their face.

reply from: faithman

Is it responsible to kill a born child?
Watch it! You are atributing equality between the born and the preborn. The killer of three won't like that.
Oh go shove it, fartman. The day your sorry carcass is without sin is the day you can smear someone's past in their face.
Maybe so. The thing is I don't flaunt it like some kind of badge of honor then get my bloomers in a bunch when called on it. We couldn't have done the smearing if the killer hadn't have first done the flaunting, now could we? It not like we dug any dirt up, we had it thrown in our eyes, then called haters when we simply said that a killer of three, and an oponant personhood is not a very good pro-life voice.

reply from: BossMomma

So because some of us made the mistake of being open and honest we deserve to have it used against us? What would Christ say about that?

reply from: Rosalie

They need to vilify the other side because they need to make up excuses for their often very hateful and always anti-women behavior.

reply from: Rosalie

Really? You keep throwing the words selfish and coward around all the time - you show absolutely no regard for values and decisions other than yours. You are extremely callous and you are the last person to speak about feminism, you obviously do not have any idea what that means. And that's too bad, maybe then you would actually warm up to women and start treating them with the respect they deserve, regardless of the choices they make, instead of calling them selfish and cowards and act like you are some superior judge of things.
You've made your choices and those who disagree with your opinions make different choices - yet you think that alone gives you the right to insult them - and then you don't like the taste of your own medicine. Either you treat women who make different choices with respect or I don't see why I should show much respect to you.
And one more thing - you are aware of the fact that within context, the word twat actually means "a fool", right? Just giving you heads up... some words have more than one meaning, you know.

reply from: faithman

So because some of us made the mistake of being open and honest we deserve to have it used against us? What would Christ say about that?
Great job!!!!

reply from: faithman

They need to vilify the other side because they need to make up excuses for their often very hateful and always anti-women behavior.
What the bortheads, and the false pro-lifers do not understand, is that there is more to life than this physical world, and our physical bodies. Our bodies are merely the containers of the precious substance Called life. Life has to have that container to express itself in the natural world. Even if the container is flawed, it still makes it possible for the miracle of life to be expressed. Our common value is not found in the container, but what is contained. The life of a womb child is equal to the life contained in all of us. The only legitimate breaking of this container, is if it has the compunction to smash other containers without cause. When you take way the ability to express life, you loose the great privilege to express your own. Evil aggression must be subdued, or no container can have any security from unjust breakage. To take away the possibility of this wonderful spark of life to be expressed, makes this world a darker place, and the rest of us containers a little more impoverished, and alone. Though the womb child is a small container, it does not lessen the value of the life it contains. If fellow containers do not value the life of the womb child container, then they have placed their personhood container in great jeopardy. Anyone who does not see that womb children are fellow human containers, containing life of equal value to their own, is a self destructive fool, drunk on the power to kill, and must be stopped for the sake of the rest of us life containers. It is the life in us that makes us equal, not our degree of ability to express it.

reply from: BossMomma

They need to vilify the other side because they need to make up excuses for their often very hateful and always anti-women behavior.
You are as anti-woman as faithman who refers to post abortive women as Scanks, you really need to get off your noise as you proved exactly what kind of misogynistic individual you really are.

reply from: BossMomma

No, you side stepped the question which would have required only a simple yes or no answer. A child is a child, age and location should not make the difference.

reply from: BossMomma

Really? You keep throwing the words selfish and coward around all the time - you show absolutely no regard for values and decisions other than yours. You are extremely callous and you are the last person to speak about feminism, you obviously do not have any idea what that means. And that's too bad, maybe then you would actually warm up to women and start treating them with the respect they deserve, regardless of the choices they make, instead of calling them selfish and cowards and act like you are some superior judge of things.
You've made your choices and those who disagree with your opinions make different choices - yet you think that alone gives you the right to insult them - and then you don't like the taste of your own medicine. Either you treat women who make different choices with respect or I don't see why I should show much respect to you.
And one more thing - you are aware of the fact that within context, the word twat actually means "a fool", right? Just giving you heads up... some words have more than one meaning, you know.
In Texas, the word twat is a derogatory term for a vagina, as are the words p u s s y and c u n t. I've never heard the word twat being used in place of the term fool.

reply from: BossMomma

So because some of us made the mistake of being open and honest we deserve to have it used against us? What would Christ say about that?
Great job!!!!
You obviously don't know Christ. You're more akin to the guy down stairs.

reply from: BossMomma

Really? You keep throwing the words selfish and coward around all the time - you show absolutely no regard for values and decisions other than yours. You are extremely callous and you are the last person to speak about feminism, you obviously do not have any idea what that means. And that's too bad, maybe then you would actually warm up to women and start treating them with the respect they deserve, regardless of the choices they make, instead of calling them selfish and cowards and act like you are some superior judge of things.
I'm also the same one helping teen mothers with their babies, driving poor and homeless women to CPC's, WIC and Medicaid offices, child support offices and, churches for counciling. I support women in every way can and I support strength in women, not cop outs and child killing.
I do my dead level damnedest to make sure that every woman with children or with child (pregnant) in my community gets what she needs and most have said I saved her child. You don't know what the hell feminism is. Feminism is strong women helping each other and promoting that strength and selflessness.
The founding mothers of feminism were 100% pro-life and I would happily and proudly stand next to Susan B Anthony and tell you how weak and selfish your views are. You call me what you will, but while you're calling me a judgemental twat several others are calling me a life saver and THEIR opinion is far more important than yours.

reply from: scopia19822

"I'm also the same one helping teen mothers with their babies, driving poor and homeless women to CPC's, WIC and Medicaid offices, child support offices and, churches for counciling. I support women in every way can and I support strength in women, not cop outs and child killing.
I do my dead level damnedest to make sure that every woman with children or with child (pregnant) in my community gets what she needs and most have said I saved her child. You don't know what the hell feminism is. Feminism is strong women helping each other and promoting that strength and selflessness.
The founding mothers of feminism were 100% pro-life and I would happily and proudly stand next to Susan B Anthony and tell you how weak and selfish your views are. You call me what you will, but while you're calling me a judgemental twat several others are calling me a life saver and THEIR opinion is far more important than yours."
Boss, Rosalie really needs to take a history class. Sadly like many women our generation she has been poisoned with the dogma of modern feminism. They teach that if you dont support the so called right to choose than you are not pro woman. I dont call myself a feminist, because in todays terms it has become about female supremecy, not equality. Like you I would be proud to stand beside Susan B. Anthony and denounce the modern feminist movement. If one examines history it was the early feminist who did far more to advance the plight of women than the modern feminist. They helped us get the vote , the right to property, to work etc. All the modern feminist movement has given us is abortions.

reply from: BossMomma

Well she can have her opinion and I can have mine and we can just agree to disagree, obviously neither of us will budge in where we stand on this issue. She has insulted and attacked me personally when I did no such thing to her thus she is no longer worth debating with. I really thought she was a bit more respectable but I've been wrong before.
Feminism was once an honorable thing but sadly these days feminism stands for life or death say over our children. One does not have to be strong to kill an unborn child, she has only to pay the fee. True strength is in bringing life and love to the children we create and beating the odds when they are stacked against us.

reply from: faithman

As a matter of fact, if you really knew your history, early fems fought hard to get abortion band in NY state. This is not a new issue at all.

reply from: Rosalie

In Texas, maybe. I'm not in Texas. And my fiancé is an Aussie and I lived in the UK for some time so it's different from me, I use a lot of English words more freely and/or differently because I'm not bound by geographical boundaries, I've travelled a lot and learned a lot from it.
I'm sorry if that's how you understood it, that wasn't intentional. Even though you may want to think it was.
I know, you mentioned that before. But you still go off being judgmental and downright nasty to women who make choices different from yours. And that's not okay in my book.
I actually have a rather vast knowledge of feminism, also thanks to my studies. You just disagree with me and for some reason are full of rage and anger.
Feminism, like I said somewhere here before, has evolved. You can rage all you want but I and many, MANY others find "pro-life feminists" to by a complete nonsense, an oxymoron. Feminism is something that's very dear to me, something that's integrated in my entire being and I reject any attempts to remove women's right to make their own reproductive decisions, to take care of themselves and their own families the way they see fit and make their own choices freely and without judgment. Which is what pro-life does.
You ARE judgmental and you certainly come off as callous often. I already explained the twat thing to you but I understand that you might prefere to not believe my explanation.
Your haughtiness is not needed, either. I'm talking about how you come across here, I'm more than willing to believe that you and most of the others are different in real life than what you come across here.
I have helped and I like to believe also saved many women and their families, too. And I'm thankful for every single woman I was able to help, because they taught me so much, they made me to look past my own convictions and I'm so proud of them for making an informed, free choice. That helps all feminists and all our future children because I believe that choice should always be (and will be) available to all of them.

reply from: Rosalie

Scopia, Rosalie does not need to take a history class, Rosalie had studied Women Issues and Gender Studies very thoroughly. So you trying to talk down to me is actually rather amusing.

reply from: faithman

In Texas, maybe. I'm not in Texas. And my fiancé is an Aussie and I lived in the UK for some time so it's different from me, I use a lot of English words more freely and/or differently because I'm not bound by geographical boundaries, I've travelled a lot and learned a lot from it.
I'm sorry if that's how you understood it, that wasn't intentional. Even though you may want to think it was.
I know, you mentioned that before. But you still go off being judgmental and downright nasty to women who make choices different from yours. And that's not okay in my book.
I actually have a rather vast knowledge of feminism, also thanks to my studies. You just disagree with me and for some reason are full of rage and anger.
Feminism, like I said somewhere here before, has evolved. You can rage all you want but I and many, MANY others find "pro-life feminists" to by a complete nonsense, an oxymoron. Feminism is something that's very dear to me, something that's integrated in my entire being and I reject any attempts to remove women's right to make their own reproductive decisions, to take care of themselves and their own families the way they see fit and make their own choices freely and without judgment. Which is what pro-life does.
You ARE judgmental and you certainly come off as callous often. I already explained the twat thing to you but I understand that you might prefere to not believe my explanation.
Your haughtiness is not needed, either. I'm talking about how you come across here, I'm more than willing to believe that you and most of the others are different in real life than what you come across here.
I have helped and I like to believe also saved many women and their families, too. And I'm thankful for every single woman I was able to help, because they taught me so much, they made me to look past my own convictions and I'm so proud of them for making an informed, free choice. That helps all feminists and all our future children because I believe that choice should always be (and will be) available to all of them.
What the bortheads, and the false pro-lifers do not understand, is that there is more to life than this physical world, and our physical bodies. Our bodies are merely the containers of the precious substance Called life. Life has to have that container to express itself in the natural world. Even if the container is flawed, it still makes it possible for the miracle of life to be expressed. Our common value is not found in the container, but what is contained. The life of a womb child is equal to the life contained in all of us. The only legitimate breaking of this container, is if it has the compunction to smash other containers without cause. When you take way the ability to express life, you loose the great privilege to express your own. Evil aggression must be subdued, or no container can have any security from unjust breakage. To take away the possibility of this wonderful spark of life to be expressed, makes this world a darker place, and the rest of us containers a little more impoverished, and alone. Though the womb child is a small container, it does not lessen the value of the life it contains. If fellow containers do not value the life of the womb child container, then they have placed their personhood container in great jeopardy. Anyone who does not see that womb children are fellow human containers, containing life of equal value to their own, is a self destructive fool, drunk on the power to kill, and must be stopped for the sake of the rest of us life containers. It is the life in us that makes us equal, not our degree of ability to express it.

reply from: scopia19822

"Scopia, Rosalie does not need to take a history class, Rosalie had studied Women Issues and Gender Studies very thoroughly. So you trying to talk down to me is actually rather amusing."
And were these courses taught from a neutral prepective? Or from a liberal one? I took pysc, sociology courses in college and of course I took more history classes just for the hell of it. Look at the the period of time in Britian and the USA where women were fighting to get the vote, the right to property especially for married women. These women suffered imprisonment, forced feedings that often damaged their vocal cords. These were some real feminists, they were trying to get women to be reconized as persons, not as property of their fathers/husbands. Susan B.Anthony did more to improve the lives of women than Gloria Steinem and others like her ever did.

reply from: lukesmom

Are you "Rosalie"? If so, very weird and disturbing....

reply from: lukesmom

Feminism does not espouse killing developing females.

reply from: Rosalie

Are you "Rosalie"? If so, very weird and disturbing....
Uh, it is possible to express your own opinion in the 3rd person when others appear to think they know what's in their head, what they've been through and what they don't or don't know. It's mockingly sarcastic - and it surprises me that you didn't actually get that.
You really have problems comprehending posts, don't you?

reply from: Rosalie

Neutral - and IN the USA and OUTSIDE the USA, too. Though I DID notice that European universities tend to be much more neutral than ours. Take for example history classes - not just feminist history but actual history of our country and other countries - if other countries were even mentioned in our (US) classes, that is. European schools are much more neutral and they tend to cover more than just the particular country and its history. A great deal of our schools just fails to do that, unless you are in a program that directly focuses on that.
So I see what you're saying but I really have studied this thoroughly and as neutrally as possible, with this kind of topic.

reply from: lukesmom

I am a woman, I have 4 woman sisters and one woman mother. I have a daughter who will soon be a woman. Why would I be anti-women? Actually the prolife movement is VERY prowomen. I find the proabort side to be very antiwoman and enables and justifies abuse of women, emotionally and physically and condone the killing of developing women. Not very prowomen is it?

reply from: lukesmom

Really? You keep throwing the words selfish and coward around all the time - you show absolutely no regard for values and decisions other than yours. You are extremely callous and you are the last person to speak about feminism, you obviously do not have any idea what that means. And that's too bad, maybe then you would actually warm up to women and start treating them with the respect they deserve, regardless of the choices they make, instead of calling them selfish and cowards and act like you are some superior judge of things.
You've made your choices and those who disagree with your opinions make different choices - yet you think that alone gives you the right to insult them - and then you don't like the taste of your own medicine. Either you treat women who make different choices with respect or I don't see why I should show much respect to you.
And one more thing - you are aware of the fact that within context, the word twat actually means "a fool", right? Just giving you heads up... some words have more than one meaning, you know.
In Texas, the word twat is a derogatory term for a vagina, as are the words p u s s y and c u n t. I've never heard the word twat being used in place of the term fool.
In Wisconsin, it means the same nastiness as in Texas. Rosalie is insulting then backpeddling as usual. Nothing new there.

reply from: Rosalie

You know that English is used differently in other English speaking countries, don't you? Oh, wait, it looks like you don't.

reply from: lukesmom

Are you "Rosalie"? If so, very weird and disturbing....
Uh, it is possible to express your own opinion in the 3rd person when others appear to think they know what's in their head, what they've been through and what they don't or don't know. It's mockingly sarcastic - and it surprises me that you didn't actually get that.
You really have problems comprehending posts, don't you?
Sue thinks Rosalie's refering to herself in the third person is still very weird and indicative of some sort of psych or social malfunction. But Sue could be wrong and Rosalie is just a "twat", as in the definition of "fool" of course. Now that was intended as an insult!

reply from: Rosalie

http://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/World/20080822/1033664.html
http://www.billcasselman.com/unpublished_works/twat.htm
Oh but I forgot that unless YOU have heard about it it doesn't exist. My bad. D

reply from: Rosalie

Too bad I'm not insulted. I'm merely amused because you cannot comprehend some basics. It's sad, actually.

reply from: lukesmom

You know that English is used differently in other English speaking countries, don't you? Oh, wait, it looks like you don't.
Sue still thinks Rosalie is backpeddling on her intended insult and Sue still thinks Rosalie is a "twat"

reply from: Rosalie

I don't know why people are anti-women. I don't know why people are anti-gay. I don't know why people are racist. I guess something went wrong there somewhere.
Freudian slip? Oh yes, THE PRO-CHOICE movement is very pro-women.
"Pro-lifers" are the ones who promote women abuse. And that is NOT pro-women.

reply from: scopia19822

Rosalie, in my post to Boss, I referred to you in the 3rd person because the post wasnt directed at you. That would be "grammatically" correct. What person should have I referred to you ? 1st person? second person?

reply from: Rosalie

You know that English is used differently in other English speaking countries, don't you? Oh, wait, it looks like you don't.
Sue still thinks Rosalie is backpeddling on her intended insult and Sue still thinks Rosalie is a "twat"
And still no real brain activity involved. Remarkable.
http://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/World/20080822/1033664.html
http://www.billcasselman.com/unpublished_works/twat.htm

reply from: Rosalie

Uh, you have referred to me corrently and that's not what I'm talking about. I felt your comment was condescending because you have assumed something about me that wasn't true.
The 3rd person I used in my reply to refer to MYSELF was a means to convey sarcasm and it IS used occasionally - clearly Luke'sMom has never heard about it, but it is used to imply sarcasm and/or mockery.

reply from: lukesmom

I don't know why people are anti-women. I don't know why people are anti-gay. I don't know why people are racist. I guess something went wrong there somewhere.
Freudian slip? Oh yes, THE PRO-CHOICE movement is very pro-women.
"Pro-lifers" are the ones who promote women abuse. And that is NOT pro-women.
All fixed. As I have explained in another post, I don't consider the proaborts to be prochoice but evidently you couldn't understand that being that there are multiple definitions for many words. Difficult for you to translate dispite the context of the sentance. How very time consuming for you in regards to reading. I will repost it here to help you, I am hoping even a twat can understand:
I carried my son to term with a fatal diagnosis. Many of your "prochoicers" here and other places have called me a bad parent, accused me of causing my son and other children unnecessary suffering and pain. I have been accused of wasting medical professionals time, hospital resources and insurance funds that could have gone to other, evidently, more "worthy" people than my son. I have talked to hundreds of women who have encountered the same and worse as in medical professionals who refuse to care for them during pregnancy. One woman who delivered her child had hospital staff refuse to give her child ANY medical treatment and the list goes on and on and on. Prochoice extremists advocate for abortion ONLY, forget choice. I find your so called "choice" laughable when dealing with many of you extremists. Your "choice" leaves a very bitter taste in my mouth due to personal experience.

reply from: scopia19822

"Uh, you have referred to me corrently and that's not what I'm talking about. I felt your comment was condescending because you have assumed something about me that wasn't true."
Because I said I thought you should take a history class? Damn you suggested that I take some psyc courses and I didnt bite your head, off. Mea Culpa for suggesting you take a look at the history of the early feminists, oh I forgot they werent feminists.

reply from: scopia19822

"Freudian slip?"
This maked me think of something my husband told me about a friends of his brothers. This guy had a twisted sense of humor and called a local department store and asked for the ladies department and asked if they carried Freudian slips. They put him on hold for 10 minutes, stated they couldnt find any and said they would have a supervisor look and was he sure they were made by Freud? They never got the joke.

reply from: lukesmom

LOL, that is too funny! Have one for me for sharing this!

reply from: faithman


Priceless.
What the bortheads, and the false pro-lifers do not understand, is that there is more to life than this physical world, and our physical bodies. Our bodies are merely the containers of the precious substance Called life. Life has to have that container to express itself in the natural world. Even if the container is flawed, it still makes it possible for the miracle of life to be expressed. Our common value is not found in the container, but what is contained. The life of a womb child is equal to the life contained in all of us. The only legitimate breaking of this container, is if it has the compunction to smash other containers without cause. When you take way the ability to express life, you loose the great privilege to express your own. Evil aggression must be subdued, or no container can have any security from unjust breakage. To take away the possibility of this wonderful spark of life to be expressed, makes this world a darker place, and the rest of us containers a little more impoverished, and alone. Though the womb child is a small container, it does not lessen the value of the life it contains. If fellow containers do not value the life of the womb child container, then they have placed their personhood container in great jeopardy. Anyone who does not see that womb children are fellow human containers, containing life of equal value to their own, is a self destructive fool, drunk on the power to kill, and must be stopped for the sake of the rest of us life containers. It is the life in us that makes us equal, not our degree of ability to express it.

reply from: Rosalie

Everyone here is SO QUICK to assume something. I don't agree with something = someone has to quickly assume that I am ignorant of that matter. It just happens way too much around here.
And they were feminists, but feminism has evolved. That happens with nearly every movement because we have more information and more options.

reply from: faithman

Everyone here is SO QUICK to assume something. I don't agree with something = someone has to quickly assume that I am ignorant of that matter. It just happens way too much around here.
And they were feminists, but feminism has evolved. That happens with nearly every movement because we have more information and more options.
What the bortheads, and the false pro-lifers do not understand, is that there is more to life than this physical world, and our physical bodies. Our bodies are merely the containers of the precious substance Called life. Life has to have that container to express itself in the natural world. Even if the container is flawed, it still makes it possible for the miracle of life to be expressed. Our common value is not found in the container, but what is contained. The life of a womb child is equal to the life contained in all of us. The only legitimate breaking of this container, is if it has the compunction to smash other containers without cause. When you take way the ability to express life, you loose the great privilege to express your own. Evil aggression must be subdued, or no container can have any security from unjust breakage. To take away the possibility of this wonderful spark of life to be expressed, makes this world a darker place, and the rest of us containers a little more impoverished, and alone. Though the womb child is a small container, it does not lessen the value of the life it contains. If fellow containers do not value the life of the womb child container, then they have placed their personhood container in great jeopardy. Anyone who does not see that womb children are fellow human containers, containing life of equal value to their own, is a self destructive fool, drunk on the power to kill, and must be stopped for the sake of the rest of us life containers. It is the life in us that makes us equal, not our degree of ability to express it.

reply from: Rosalie

Pro-choicers support women making informed, reproductive choices freely. That's what pro-choice is about.
You can continue being ignorant of that meaning, it wouldn't surprise me. It's easier to spread your hateful propaganda and lies, isn't it?
What does this have to do with ANYTHING? You clearly do not understand pro-choicers and you are only too keen to blame them for whatever happened to you and hate them for it.
Newsflash: bad and unfair things happen to EVERYONE. And contrary to what you think, it's not the pro-chociers' fault.

reply from: lukesmom

Pot meet Kettle. Take a look in the mirror Rosalie.

reply from: faithman

What the bortheads, and the false pro-lifers do not understand, is that there is more to life than this physical world, and our physical bodies. Our bodies are merely the containers of the precious substance Called life. Life has to have that container to express itself in the natural world. Even if the container is flawed, it still makes it possible for the miracle of life to be expressed. Our common value is not found in the container, but what is contained. The life of a womb child is equal to the life contained in all of us. The only legitimate breaking of this container, is if it has the compunction to smash other containers without cause. When you take way the ability to express life, you loose the great privilege to express your own. Evil aggression must be subdued, or no container can have any security from unjust breakage. To take away the possibility of this wonderful spark of life to be expressed, makes this world a darker place, and the rest of us containers a little more impoverished, and alone. Though the womb child is a small container, it does not lessen the value of the life it contains. If fellow containers do not value the life of the womb child container, then they have placed their personhood container in great jeopardy. Anyone who does not see that womb children are fellow human containers, containing life of equal value to their own, is a self destructive fool, drunk on the power to kill, and must be stopped for the sake of the rest of us life containers. It is the life in us that makes us equal, not our degree of ability to express it.
Pro-choicers support women making informed, reproductive choices freely. That's what pro-choice is about.
You can continue being ignorant of that meaning, it wouldn't surprise me. It's easier to spread your hateful propaganda and lies, isn't it?
What does this have to do with ANYTHING? You clearly do not understand pro-choicers and you are only too keen to blame them for whatever happened to you and hate them for it.
Newsflash: bad and unfair things happen to EVERYONE. And contrary to what you think, it's not the pro-chociers' fault.
What the bortheads, and the false pro-lifers do not understand, is that there is more to life than this physical world, and our physical bodies. Our bodies are merely the containers of the precious substance Called life. Life has to have that container to express itself in the natural world. Even if the container is flawed, it still makes it possible for the miracle of life to be expressed. Our common value is not found in the container, but what is contained. The life of a womb child is equal to the life contained in all of us. The only legitimate breaking of this container, is if it has the compunction to smash other containers without cause. When you take way the ability to express life, you loose the great privilege to express your own. Evil aggression must be subdued, or no container can have any security from unjust breakage. To take away the possibility of this wonderful spark of life to be expressed, makes this world a darker place, and the rest of us containers a little more impoverished, and alone. Though the womb child is a small container, it does not lessen the value of the life it contains. If fellow containers do not value the life of the womb child container, then they have placed their personhood container in great jeopardy. Anyone who does not see that womb children are fellow human containers, containing life of equal value to their own, is a self destructive fool, drunk on the power to kill, and must be stopped for the sake of the rest of us life containers. It is the life in us that makes us equal, not our degree of ability to express it.

reply from: scopia19822

"And they were feminists, but feminism has evolved. That happens with nearly every movement because we have more information and more options."
I would say its de -evolved. It was the practice of some ancient and lets face it barbaric societies to give a parent, usually the father the power of life over death over their children if they were some how imperfect or deemed unworthy. In ancient sparta and Rome these babies were often left on hillsides to die of exposure. With legalized abortion we are now doing the same thing in the modern age.

reply from: Rosalie

That's just not true at all. But I'm not even going to bother explaining. Waste of time, right?

reply from: carolemarie

I think that feminisim has lots of stufff I agree with, like equal pay for equal work and that women should vote, not be raped, denied an education, and a host of other things.
Abortion is one thing that is not good for women, so should be abandoned by feminist.

reply from: lukesmom

I have been trying to "understand" the killing attitude of proaborts for years without success, thank heavens. Yes, bad and unfair things happen to EVERYONE. That certainly isn't the "newsflash" you would like to think it is.
What is the fault of "pro-choicers"/proaborts is the needless killing of 4000 unborn humans daily. YOU and every other person who condones and advocates abortion IS responsible for each and every single one of these human deaths. IF you are religious that makes you damned. And if you aren't religious, it STILL makes you damned.

reply from: Rosalie

I have yet to see you attempt to understand anything. All you do is shooting our your lies, one after another, and when someone confronts you with the truth, you start screeching that it isn't so and start insulting people.
I DO condone abortion as an equal reproductive choice. I care about women being able to make their reproductive choices FREELY and I couldn't care less what you think about it.
And damn me all you want. I don't care. I don't believe in the damnation you fear so much. You are making up your own hell and it scares you so badly you feel the need to go on a hateful rant about people you don't even know being damned. I pity you.
It IS good for women if it is their free, informed choice.

reply from: lukesmom

I have yet to see you attempt to understand anything. All you do is shooting our your lies, one after another, and when someone confronts you with the truth, you start screeching that it isn't so and start insulting people.
I DO condone abortion as an equal reproductive choice. I care about women being able to make their reproductive choices FREELY and I couldn't care less what you think about it. .
Lies? from Rosalie, the queen of liers and unfounded accusations. Blah, blah, blah. Hot air, worth nothing, saying nothing but old worn out prewritten proabort untruths. Very old, very boring and very yesterday. We hear the same stuff from most of you. You aren't very original you know. FYI, that isn't said with anymore emotion that boredom as I am very calm, not "pissed off" or any other angry emotion you want to assume.
I didn't "damn" you. I don't have that power or desire. You and only you can damn yourself by your own actions.
It IS good for women if it is their free, informed choice.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prove it.

reply from: carolemarie

But the problem is that a woman and her child are both human beings. To violate the right of either is to oppress
With most abortions, a change in the behavior of the mother would have avoided the pregancy. So living responsibly is a choice women should make.
Abortion makes us live sloppily

reply from: BossMomma

Everyone here is SO QUICK to assume something. I don't agree with something = someone has to quickly assume that I am ignorant of that matter. It just happens way too much around here.
And they were feminists, but feminism has evolved. That happens with nearly every movement because we have more information and more options.
Feminism has evolved for some but for others a classic never dies. YOU are just as quick to assume. You call people callous and bitter just because they disagree with your view of abortion, regardless of the compassionate work they bust their ass doing. What do you do for your fellow woman I must ask besides advocate death for the unborn?

reply from: Rosalie

Really? Post examples of things I lied about.
I will be proudly and happily damned for what you consider evil actions.
Prove what? That women making their own decisions for themselves is a good thing?
Good heavens you are funny.
They are not equal. Two human beings in one body = their rights will clash. Inevitably. No one has the right to remove women's rights, rights she already has and grant them to the fetus.
Oh yeah, having a 19th century mindset about women's rights is so good. It totally helps everything that feminism supports. Please.
Yes, I called you callous a bitter. That's how you come across with all your more or less direct insults to women who have abortions.
And stop being so melodramatic and stop lying. I do NOT advocate death for the unborn and I have said here MANY times that I DO help women and what I do and how I do it.

reply from: BossMomma

Really? Post examples of things I lied about.
I will be proudly and happily damned for what you consider evil actions.
Prove what? That women making their own decisions for themselves is a good thing?
Good heavens you are funny.
They are not equal. Two human beings in one body = their rights will clash. Inevitably. No one has the right to remove women's rights, rights she already has and grant them to the fetus.
Oh yeah, having a 19th century mindset about women's rights is so good. It totally helps everything that feminism supports. Please..
It seems to be better than your mindset that women are so weak that they need life or death rights over their children just to be empowered. That 19th century mindset is what got us out from under men in the first place so yes it is so good.

reply from: Rosalie

You don't understand my mindset if you think that being pro-choice and feminist means that we think women are weak.

reply from: micah

If you wanted to rollback rights for women, removing reproductive rights would be a massive step in the right direction. Imagine not really being able to control when you could have babies. If a woman is in med school, it's going to be really difficult to complete if she gets pregnant. Imagine if the only thing standing between a woman and dropping out of school was a rape or one night of indiscretion.

reply from: carolemarie

she could use two kinds of bc and avoid being pregnant. If your smart enough to go to med school you can figure that out.
Most abortions happen because we are careless, because abortion exist. If it didn't exist, we would be alot more careful about our sexual behavior.

reply from: scopia19822

"If you wanted to rollback rights for women, removing reproductive rights would be a massive step in the right direction. Imagine not really being able to control when you could have babies. If a woman is in med school, it's going to be really difficult to complete if she gets pregnant. Imagine if the only thing standing between a woman and dropping out of school was a rape or one night of indiscretion."
So called "reproductive rights" have already accomplished that. An employer can deny a woman a promotion or fire her if she becomes pregnant, often if she has a contract invoking the conflict of interest clause. So she is left with the "choice" of her job , hence income or her child. She knows that without what that job she cannot support herself or any other children if she has them, much less a child. So she makes her "reproductive choice" as the local PP. How is that a "reproductive choice" Micah? Should a women be forced to make such a "choice". That is one way that abortion allows men to discriminate agaisnt and exploit women.
The other is in education. A woman should be able to have both, however there simply are not enough resources to make that possible for many and those that do exist many women are unaware of them. A woman can go to college, med school, law school or graduate school and still raise a child. My aunt put herself through law school and managed at the same time to raise 4 kids. My mom, whom I have no love for went to college and earned her bachelors in criminal justice while raising my sister. Once again a woman should not have to be forced to choose between her child or education.

reply from: lukesmom

Oh PLEASE, save me the dramatics. If a woman doesn't want to become pregnant she has options. So what if she is in med school? Lots of women go through college, med school, whatever pregnant. Yes, it is difficult but not impossible. Just another example of how you proaborts think women are weak. NO pregnant woman HAS to drop out of school because she is pregnant. Geeze stiffen that spine and act responsibly.

reply from: micah

We're not all as tough as you are, lukesmom. The average woman would probably have a hard time balancing med school and an 80 hour residency with pregnancy and a new baby.
Oh PLEASE, save me the dramatics. If a woman doesn't want to become pregnant she has options. So what if she is in med school? Lots of women go through college, med school, whatever pregnant. Yes, it is difficult but not impossible. Just another example of how you proaborts think women are weak. NO pregnant woman HAS to drop out of school because she is pregnant. Geeze stiffen that spine and act responsibly.

reply from: micah

I'm not understanding your argument. Are you saying that if women didn't have a legal option to end a pregnancy, employers will treat women better?

reply from: scopia19822

"We're not all as tough as you are, lukesmom. The average woman would probably have a hard time balancing med school and an 80 hour residency with pregnancy and a new baby."
Then she needs to develope some self discipline and self control. If she is going to be having sex than she needs to use birth control, if shes raped she needs to go to the hospital and get the MAP. If she finds herself pregnant, she doesnt have to be a parent she can surrender the child for adoption, but a woman who aborts to "further " her career when she has resources to care for the child and isnt being told she has to choose between the child and her education is a selfish coward.

reply from: scopia19822

"I'm not understanding your argument. Are you saying that if women didn't have a legal option to end a pregnancy, employers will treat women better?"
Im saying that if we had laws in place and enforce the ones we already have making it illegal for an employer to tell a pregnant employee they cant continue to work there if shes going to be a mother than maybe more women would not abort their pregnancies. That is the cold heart reality of what reproductive choice is in America.

reply from: micah

That's fine. Most pro-choicers would agree to laws that forbid discrimination against mothers.

reply from: micah

Okay first, there are plenty of pro-lifers that would forbid the use of MAP, but let's just continue with your argument. The problem is that you can't expect a 25 year old to be celibate, and all birth control is fallible to an extent.

reply from: scopia19822

"That's fine. Most pro-choicers would agree to laws that forbid discrimination against mothers. "
But not the abortion industry. Its all about profits for them.

reply from: scopia19822

"source? "
Where is your source saying that prochociers would support anti discrimination laws against pregnant women? Have you ever dealt with the abortion industry? PP has been investigated in many states for not complying with mandatory reporting laws in order to make money off birth control and abortions. PP is under investigation in California for overcharging the goverment. If that isnt proof enough on how greedy the abortion industry is than I dont know what is. It would only be logical they would be opposed to anything that may make women choose life over abortion as abortions are what they profit most off of. Look at what happened to me? That was pure greed on the part of that abortionist, he could have said no Im not doing this, but I guess $1000 was too much for him to pass up. Look at how PP and other abortion clinics view CPC, they are the competition taking away their customers that they want to buy abortions.

reply from: micah

You're the one making the affirmative statement about Planned Parenthood, so the burden of proof for a source is on you. If I were to say that pro-lifers are against anti-child-rape laws, then I would be the one who would have to provide a source.

reply from: Rosalie

Are you serious? Do you really think that women are facing this dilemma only ever since abortion became legal? Do you really think there were no abortions before? Abortion IS NOT a recent issue and neither is discrimination of women.
Oooh, name-calling! I will remind you of this next time you try to act all offended about something I say.
Has it ever occurred to you and some of us want to LIVE our lives and not just barely survive? Quality of life is important to many of us. I would rather have a content family and only as many children as I can afford then have 10 kids and barely survive. It's how I choose to live my life. I know that it must be mind-boggling to you that some of us care for other things that our uteruses in our lives. How utterly unheard of.
Pro-choicers, in case you haven't noticed, care about women, their health issues, them not being discriminated against, making their own reproductive choices, achieving a good quality of life and so on.
Which basically means that you suggesting that pro-choicers would oppose anti-discrimination laws is more than ridiculous.

reply from: BossMomma

First off, one can control their reproductive system without killing, they have only to control their urges. The example of the woman in med school is rather invalid, two of the nurses attending my delivery were heavily pregnant. As to rape victims I have stated that I make an exception for them and, for teen mothers, their lack of success comes from a lack of give-a-damn from parents and society in general. If more people, particularly pro-lifers I might add put their money and efforts forward to back up their mouths it wouldn't be such a problem...though it also wouldn't hurt for teens to keep the legs closed and the pants zipped.

reply from: micah

While you're significantly more compassionate than your average pro-lifer, it looks like you are trying to have things both ways.

reply from: yoda

Thus the term "faux-lifer".

reply from: BossMomma

Thus the term "faux-lifer".
Yes you do define that term well, you're pro-life until you actually have to put forth an effort.

reply from: BossMomma

I'm a realist and a moderate, nothing extreme about me. The pro-life extremist will never have his/her way with society, but us moderates do stand a chance.

reply from: scopia19822

"I'm a realist and a moderate, nothing extreme about me. The pro-life extremist will never have his/her way with society, but us moderates do stand a chance."
Many would consider me an extremnist, others Im not extreme enough? I dont whether to scratch my watch or wind my ass.

reply from: BossMomma

ROTFLMAO! I've never heard that one, I like it! Don't worry about what other's consider you. This ain't a popularity contest, it's about point of views, their all different. You do your part, I do mine and we both do some good, this forum is just for entertainment.

reply from: nancyu

I'm a realist and a moderate, nothing extreme about me. The pro-life extremist will never have his/her way with society, but us moderates do stand a chance.
If it's extreme to want to protect all person equally, then "extreme" is exactly what I am. If you are merely interested in "having your way with society" then you will definitely win. Congratulations.

reply from: micah

Oh yes they can, and they do. Check out the abortion laws in places like Chile. They are very pro-life.

reply from: BossMomma

Oh yes they can, and they do. Check out the abortion laws in places like Chile. They are very pro-life.
It's why I'm proud to be an American. Maybe our extremists should go to Chile, they might actually get somewhere.

reply from: scopia19822

"Yes you do define that term well, you're pro-life until you actually have to put forth an effort."
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

reply from: BossMomma

I'm a realist and a moderate, nothing extreme about me. The pro-life extremist will never have his/her way with society, but us moderates do stand a chance.
If it's extreme to want to protect all person equally, then "extreme" is exactly what I am. If you are merely interested in "having your way with society" then you will definitely win. Congratulations.
Oh what ever, you would take away contraception due to the very slight chance a zygote might go out with the monthly red tide thus causing millions more abortions that are actually intentional. I promote contraception which saves more lives than the lot of you sign wielding hate spewing bigots combined and somehow I'm the undesirable example of a pro-lifer? If actually making a difference for the unborn and for women and children makes me pro-choice then so be it.

reply from: nancyu

I'm a realist and a moderate, nothing extreme about me. The pro-life extremist will never have his/her way with society, but us moderates do stand a chance.
If it's extreme to want to protect all person equally, then "extreme" is exactly what I am. If you are merely interested in "having your way with society" then you will definitely win. Congratulations.
Oh what ever, you would take away contraception due to the very slight chance a zygote might go out with the monthly red tide thus causing millions more abortions that are actually intentional. I promote contraception which saves more lives than the lot of you sign wielding hate spewing bigots combined and somehow I'm the undesirable example of a pro-lifer? If actually making a difference for the unborn and for women and children makes me pro-choice then so be it.
I never said I would take away contraception. An abortifacient birth control pill is beyond contraceptive.

reply from: scopia19822

"An abortifacient birth control pill is beyond contraceptive."
What about women who take the Pill for medical reasons to control bleeding or regulate their cycle, should they have to suffer?

reply from: nancyu

>> NEW PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION
>>
>>
>>
>> This is probably one of the better e-mails I've seen in a long, long
>> time.
>> The following has been attributed to State Representative Mitchell Kaye
>> from GA. This guy should run for President one day...:
>>
>>
>> 'We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help
>> everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots,
>> keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure th e
>> blessings
>> of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our
>> great-great-great-grandchildren,
>> hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense
>> guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other
>> constant bed-wetters. We hold these truths to be self evident: that a
>> whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim
>> they
>> require
>> a Bill of NON-Rights.'
>>
>>
>>
>> ARTICLE I: You do NOT have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any
>> other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them,
>> but no one is guaranteeing anything.
>>
>>
>>
>> ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This
>> country
>> is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just yo
>> u!
>> You may leave
>> the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the
>> world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.
>>
>>
>> </
>> ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you
>> stick
>> a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the
>> tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently
>> wealthy.
>>
>>
>>
>> ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing.
>> Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly
>> help
>> anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing
>> generation
>> after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more
>> than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes .
>> (This one is my pet peeve...get an education and go to work....don't
>> expect
>> everyone else to take care of you!)
>>
>>
>>
>> ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would
>> be
>> nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in
>> public health care.
>>
>>
>>
>> ARTICLE VI: You do
>> not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap,
>> rape,
>> intentionally maim, or kill someone, http://www.lifeissues.org/ultrasound/11weeks.htm don't be surprised if the rest of us
>> want to see you fry in the electric chair.
>>
>>
>>
>> ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others!
>> If
>> you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens,
>> don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a
>> place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a
>> life of leisure.
>>
>>
>>
>> ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want
>> you
>> to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard
>> times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of
>> education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself
>> useful.
>> (AMEN!)
>>
>>
>>
>> ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American
>> means that you have the right to PURSUE
>> happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by
>> an
>> over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused
>> by
>> the Bill of Rights.
>>
>>
>>
>> ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you
>> are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you
>> came from! (Lastly....)
>>
>>
>>
>> ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or
>> heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God..
>> And
>> yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any
>> faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN
>> GOD
>> WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are
>> uncomfortable
>> with it, TOUGH!
>>
>>
>> If you agree, share this with a friend. No, you don't have to, and
>> nothing
>> tragic will befall you if you don't. I just think it's about time common
>> sense is allowed to flourish. Sensible people of the United States
>> speak
>> out.....because if you don't, who will?
>>

reply from: BossMomma

>> NEW PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION
>>
>>
>>
>> This is probably one of the better e-mails I've seen in a long, long
>> time.
>> The following has been attributed to State Representative Mitchell Kaye
>> from GA. This guy should run for President one day...:
>>
>>
>> 'We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help
>> everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots,
>> keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure th e
>> blessings
>> of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our
>> great-great-great-grandchildren,
>> hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense
>> guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other
>> constant bed-wetters. We hold these truths to be self evident: that a
>> whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim
>> they
>> require
>> a Bill of NON-Rights.'
>>
>>
>>
>> ARTICLE I: You do NOT have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any
>> other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them,
>> but no one is guaranteeing anything.
>>
>>
>>
>> ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This
>> country
>> is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just yo
>> u!
>> You may leave
>> the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the
>> world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.
>>
>>
>> </
>> ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you
>> stick
>> a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the
>> tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently
>> wealthy.
>>
>>
>>
>> ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing.
>> Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly
>> help
>> anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing
>> generation
>> after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more
>> than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes .
>> (This one is my pet peeve...get an education and go to work....don't
>> expect
>> everyone else to take care of you!)
>>
>>
>>
>> ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would
>> be
>> nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in
>> public health care.
>>
>>
>>
>> ARTICLE VI: You do
>> not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap,
>> rape,
>> intentionally maim, or kill someone, http://www.lifeissues.org/ultrasound/11weeks.htm don't be surprised if the rest of us
>> want to see you fry in the electric chair.
>>
>>
>>
>> ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others!
>> If
>> you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens,
>> don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a
>> place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a
>> life of leisure.
>>
>>
>>
>> ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want
>> you
>> to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard
>> times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of
>> education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself
>> useful.
>> (AMEN!)
>>
>>
>>
>> ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American
>> means that you have the right to PURSUE
>> happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by
>> an
>> over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused
>> by
>> the Bill of Rights.
>>
>>
>>
>> ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you
>> are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you
>> came from! (Lastly....)
>>
>>
>>
>> ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or
>> heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God..
>> And
>> yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any
>> faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN
>> GOD
>> WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are
>> uncomfortable
>> with it, TOUGH!
>>
>>
>> If you agree, share this with a friend. No, you don't have to, and
>> nothing
>> tragic will befall you if you don't. I just think it's about time common
>> sense is allowed to flourish. Sensible people of the United States
>> speak
>> out.....because if you don't, who will?
>>
Well, at least it's a different flavor of spam..

reply from: lukesmom

A hard time does not mean impossible. Again, if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she doesn't have to be. The choice comes before a life is created. Once a life has been created, that human has the inalienable right to life.
Micah, I am not "tough". I am just a plain, ordinary woman with a job and kids and husband, living an everyday life. Don't make me out to be more than I am, just a plain, ordinary woman.

reply from: lukesmom

So it comes right down to your basics, Rosalie. YOUR quality of life means more to you than your child's life. By what you have written about being a "fashionable" woman, I can only surmise money and material possessions mean more to you than human life. Remember when I said sometimes the beautiful are rotten on the inside. Yup, I am beginning to see, that would be you.

reply from: Banned Member

The real question is, how can any person say that they believe in God and be pro-abortion?

reply from: lukesmom

Well Augustine, In that case the person believes in God in words only, not in thought or action. They are deluding themselves.

reply from: lukesmom

A hard time does not mean impossible. Again, if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she doesn't have to be. The choice comes before a life is created. Once a life has been created, that human has the inalienable right to life.
Micah, I am not "tough". I am just a plain, ordinary woman with a job and kids and husband, living an everyday life. Don't make me out to be more than I am, just a plain, ordinary woman.
Micah, If you want to talk to a "tough" woman, talk to bossmomma. She and women like her are the "tough" women. Women who carry their children to birth and sometimes death, who do this alone and raise their children as single parents, who defy their SO's who try to make them abort. THESE are the real women who stand up for their children against all odds. Talk about hard times. Forget the women in med school and talk to women like boss.

reply from: BossMomma

A hard time does not mean impossible. Again, if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she doesn't have to be. The choice comes before a life is created. Once a life has been created, that human has the inalienable right to life.
Micah, I am not "tough". I am just a plain, ordinary woman with a job and kids and husband, living an everyday life. Don't make me out to be more than I am, just a plain, ordinary woman.
Micah, If you want to talk to a "tough" woman, talk to bossmomma. She and women like her are the "tough" women. Women who carry their children to birth and sometimes death, who do this alone and raise their children as single parents, who defy their SO's who try to make them abort. THESE are the real women who stand up for their children against all odds. Talk about hard times. Forget the women in med school and talk to women like boss.
Thanks Sue.

reply from: lukesmom

A hard time does not mean impossible. Again, if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she doesn't have to be. The choice comes before a life is created. Once a life has been created, that human has the inalienable right to life.
Micah, I am not "tough". I am just a plain, ordinary woman with a job and kids and husband, living an everyday life. Don't make me out to be more than I am, just a plain, ordinary woman.
Micah, If you want to talk to a "tough" woman, talk to bossmomma. She and women like her are the "tough" women. Women who carry their children to birth and sometimes death, who do this alone and raise their children as single parents, who defy their SO's who try to make them abort. THESE are the real women who stand up for their children against all odds. Talk about hard times. Forget the women in med school and talk to women like boss.
Thanks Sue.
No problem, it is truth.

reply from: BossMomma

A hard time does not mean impossible. Again, if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she doesn't have to be. The choice comes before a life is created. Once a life has been created, that human has the inalienable right to life.
Micah, I am not "tough". I am just a plain, ordinary woman with a job and kids and husband, living an everyday life. Don't make me out to be more than I am, just a plain, ordinary woman.
Micah, If you want to talk to a "tough" woman, talk to bossmomma. She and women like her are the "tough" women. Women who carry their children to birth and sometimes death, who do this alone and raise their children as single parents, who defy their SO's who try to make them abort. THESE are the real women who stand up for their children against all odds. Talk about hard times. Forget the women in med school and talk to women like boss.
Thanks Sue.
No problem, it is truth.
lol if ever we meet in a bar, the drinks are on me.

reply from: Teresa18

Abortion IS NOT a responsible choice. Killing another person, unless one's own life is at stake, is irresponsible.

reply from: Teresa18

That's true, but the value of human life, born and unborn, is objective morality.

reply from: JRH

That's true, but the value of human life, born and unborn, is objective morality.
There is no such thing. Even if god exists morality is subjective and if you make another thread I will debate you on that subject.

reply from: Teresa18

You just made an objective statement about morality.

reply from: JRH

You just made an objective statement about morality.
Yes, it is an objective fact that there is really no such thing as concrete morality. Morality is subjective and only exists in the minds of individuals.

reply from: Teresa18

Is it an objective fact? In what sense is it objective? Is your statement scientifically verifiable? What do you mean by "concrete" morality?

reply from: JRH

Is it an objective fact? In what sense is it objective? Is your statement scientifically verifiable? What do you mean by "concrete" morality?
An objective fact is one that can be observed objectively. We might say it is an objective fact that the sky is blue. We can not observe any sort of morality in the universe around us. Morality, that is to say judgments about right and wrong based on likes and dislikes, is something which we invented.
Define scientifically veritable. I will attempt to answer based on what I think you mean: We can verify that no morality can be observed objectively with science and also that humans make moral judgments.
Concrete morality in this sense means an absolute morality, which is different than an objective morality. An absolute morality is one that is absolute simply because it is the correct morality-such a moral system can not exist.

reply from: sk1bianca

it is an objective fact that unborn children are human beings.
it is an objective fact that there's no biological difference between an aunborn human an a born human. the only differences are the stage of development, location and degree of dependency on another person.
it is an objective fact that in the history of humanity, in certain times, humans ignored basic biology and considered certain groups to be non-human or less-than-human, thus leading to the opression or even mass slaughter of these individuals.
it is an objective fact that this stigma ("not human enough") was applied and lifted from very different categories and it's impossible to predict who it will hit next.
it is verifiable that if we allow humans to kill other humans we would eventualy whipe out our own species (think of a nuclear war, for example) or at least endanger everybody's life.
it is an objective fact that no normal person would want to live with a permanent death threat.
there... you see? i didn't even mention God or morals.

reply from: JRH

You mentioned things which are only bad if you define them as such morally. As an example, it can be said that causing the death of humanity in a nuclear war is good. You make moral assumptions and don't seem to realize you are doing it.

reply from: Faramir

It can't exist in a Godless universe.
If there is a God, and if that God has revealed what "absolute morality" is, then it exists.
Even if this can't be proved, you can't prove that it's not possible, so you can't state with certainty that such a moral system can't exist.

reply from: JRH

It can't exist in a Godless universe.
If there is a God, and if that God has revealed what "absolute morality" is, then it exists.
Even if this can't be proved, you can't prove that it's not possible, so you can't state with certainty that such a moral system can't exist.
I can state it with as much certainty as anything can be stated. If god exists he is just another being that exists in reality. It is true he is more powerful. It is true he can force us to obey him and enforce his moral system. None of these things make him more than just another being in reality. His moral system is as baseless as that of Hitler.
Does god command good because it is good, or it is it good because god commands it? If the first is true then good comes from outside god (which is impossible in a Christian universe), and if the second is true god's morality arbitrary.

reply from: sk1bianca

there's nothing "moral" is saying that the threat of death causes severe discomfort to people. THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE SIMPLY WANT TO LIVE. even animals struggle to protect their lives. it's an instinct, not "moral".

reply from: yoda

And yet...... we have a "prolifer" here who insists that they are "not the same".

reply from: Rosalie

Saying that something exists or is possible just because no one can prove that it doesn't exist/is possible is a logical fallacy.

reply from: JRH

Who cares unless you bring in morality? I can admit instincts exist. Why should I care?

reply from: Rosalie

So it comes right down to your basics, Rosalie. YOUR quality of life means more to you than your child's life.
My health and my and my family's quality of life definitely matter more than a fetus.
And yay, more attacks on someone else's leisure time activities! I guess that's what happens when you think that woman's only hobby should be birthing children. No surprise here.
I could care less what someone like you thinks about me. In fact, the worse you think about me the better because your priorities and opinoins are so twisted and disgusting that there's really no other way but consider this a compliment.
You have been taught or maybe even brainwashed into thinking that all your worth is in your uterus. Are so many of you so envious of others that you have to always attack education, lifestyle or leisure activities of other people? Because that's what it looks like. Like you've made a bad choice and you're envious that others have made choices that suit them.
I love and care about my family more than you can ever understand; there's nothing more important to me than their health and their well-being. And as for my lifestyle, I will gladly keep my dates with my fiancé, girls nights out, facials and purses, book clubs and TV shows, charity work, healthy life style and yoga classes and everything else that I chose to do and live by.
Because I understand that my uterus is not the most important thing about me or my life and that it does not define who I am in any way.
If you are not content with the life you live, get off your butt and do something about it. Attacking and mocking others and saying that anything except pushing out kids one after another without a thought is selfish and cowardly and doing that because they do not subscribe to what YOU seem as good or ideal life style or set of beliefs is just pathetic.

reply from: sk1bianca

i just wanted to prove that people generally don't agree having their lives taken and that this situation is nto related to morals, but to a consrevation instinct.
so killing people is not normally tolerated because it goes against our conservation instinct, not just as individuals, but as a society.

reply from: lukesmom

I'm holding you to it!

reply from: Faramir

Can anyone fill me in about the controversy about the "same thing" issue?
I would not greive as much over a miscarriage as I would an adult child that I knew.
Is that wrong that I would not see those losses as "the same thing"?
If an embryo is the "same thing" as a fetus and if a fetus is the "same thing" as a neonate, and if a toddler is the "same thing" as an adult, then why all the different names?
The same "person" exists from point A (conception) to point B (death), so that's the real question.
Is a fetus the same person as born baby? That's the question which should be asked. The other one is too confusing and allows for too many different answers.
Carole, do you believe a fetus is a person and is the same person after birth?

reply from: carolemarie

yes.
I keep saying its based on relationships. You have a relationship with a born person, not so much with a 5 week embryo....

reply from: Faramir

So someone is looking for an excuse to call you a "pro abort," it seems.
What your are saying when you say it's "not the same thing" is that your RELATIONSHIP with an embryo is not the same thing as your relationship would be with a ten year old child?
DUH....
I wonder why that is such a hard concept to grasp, and I wonder why that would make anyone a "pro-abort."

reply from: carolemarie

I think that is the reason women can abort easily. They do not relate to an embryo as they do to a child.
That is why it isn't that they are so evil they can kill a child, but rather they do not relate to that as a child.

reply from: lukesmom

Saying that something exists or is possible just because no one can prove that it doesn't exist/is possible is a logical fallacy.
I can't see you, I can't touch you, I can't hear you, I can't smell you, I can't taste you, yet it is very possible you do exist...unfortunantly , but it is a distinct possibility. YOU are a logical fallacy to me. HEHEHEHEHE!

reply from: Faramir

It appears to me then, that your words were taken out of context, and then distorted to make is seem that you said something that you really didn't say.
It's really hard to believe someone involved in such a noble cause as saving babies would do something like that. (where is the eyeroll emoticon??)

reply from: Faramir

Saying that something exists or is possible just because no one can prove that it doesn't exist/is possible is a logical fallacy.
But that's not what I did.
He said it CAN'T EXIST.
He can't prove a moral absolute can't exist, and he's the one who made the assertion.

reply from: Rosalie

I don't understand why the extremists are so outraged about this. It's pretty much a natural, normal reaction of a loving person. I don't think it changes anything about the basis your argument.

reply from: Rosalie

Saying that something exists or is possible just because no one can prove that it doesn't exist/is possible is a logical fallacy.
I can't see you, I can't touch you, I can't hear you, I can't smell you, I can't taste you, yet it is very possible you do exist...unfortunantly , but it is a distinct possibility. YOU are a logical fallacy to me. HEHEHEHEHE!
I'm SO not surprised about anti-choicers saying things like that. Ignorant, uneducated, fanatical hate-mongers who can do nothing but insult others. How typical for an anti-choicer.

reply from: yoda

Nope, the "context" has changed. She repeatedly said "they are not exactly the same thing", and would offer no support for the statement.
Now that you have suggested what she "really meant", she has agreed with you and created a new "context".
I'm happy as a lark at the prospect that she may withdraw her previous statements, but I'd still like to see her say that an unborn child and a born child are "exactly the same thing".
But I won't hold my breath.

reply from: BossMomma

I'm holding you to it!
Cool, I'm a cheap drunk lol, can't hold my booze to save my life. I haven't had a drink in over two years as I've either been pregnant or nursing.

reply from: scopia19822

"I'm SO not surprised about anti-choicers saying things like that. Ignorant, uneducated, fanatical hate-mongers who can do nothing but insult others. How typical for an anti-choicer.
"
Really? I found that to apply to most prochoicers I have met. They seem to have not paid attention in biology class in high school.

reply from: nancyu

Wait, What? You are accusing us of using these insults? Oh, I misread, you are calling us these things.
All lies except the "anti choicer" one. That one is true, but only with regard to murder, and other violent crimes.

reply from: carolemarie

I have said it over and over that having an abortion is different than killing a born child because of the relationship. You all choose to "not understand". There is a great big difference in the two things
They are not the same thing!
If you were so wicked as to kill a 9 month old child, it is not the same thing as having an abortion at 5 week! It is more horrible to kill a born child.

reply from: BossMomma

Is it more horrible to kill a newborn as opposed to a toddler? What does age have to do with it?

reply from: carolemarie

Not age, relationship.
The reason women have abortions is the lack of relationship. They don't "see" the baby as the same thing as a born baby.

reply from: JRH

Is it more horrible to kill a newborn as opposed to a toddler? What does age have to do with it?You seem to think it matters. After all, you don't consider a human a person until implantation. Accept that her argument is not really different than yours.

reply from: BossMomma

Is it more horrible to kill a newborn as opposed to a toddler? What does age have to do with it?You seem to think it matters. After all, you don't consider a human a person until implantation. Accept that her argument is not really different than yours.
I don't believe in personhood, no one can agree on when it takes place. You don't think it occurs until self awareness so murdering a newborn is no biggy. At implantation there is some sense of viability or at least establishment.

reply from: JRH

People also disagree on moral issues. Does that mean morality does not exist? Why do earthworms have some rights and humans have other rights? Why do we make any sort of distinction between them?
If you're stupid and don't know what the word means maybe
Establishment? What do you mean? Some people would say a unique human being with their own DNA is pretty "established".....You are pro choice. You draw a line in the sand based on nothing more than your own feelings. You are, in other words, a hypocrite.

reply from: BossMomma

People also disagree on moral issues. Does that mean morality does not exist? Why do earthworms have some rights and humans have other rights? Why do we make any sort of distinction between them?
If you're stupid and don't know what the word means maybe
Establishment? What do you mean? Some people would say a unique human being with their own DNA is pretty "established".....You are pro choice. You draw an line in the sand based on nothing more than your own feelings. You are, in other words, a hypocrite.
And your a bigot but whose complaining?

reply from: JRH

People also disagree on moral issues. Does that mean morality does not exist? Why do earthworms have some rights and humans have other rights? Why do we make any sort of distinction between them?
If you're stupid and don't know what the word means maybe
Establishment? What do you mean? Some people would say a unique human being with their own DNA is pretty "established".....You are pro choice. You draw an line in the sand based on nothing more than your own feelings. You are, in other words, a hypocrite.
And your a bigot but whose complaining?
I see you can't respond to my arguments and have to attack me. I did not expect anything else from you.

reply from: BossMomma

People also disagree on moral issues. Does that mean morality does not exist? Why do earthworms have some rights and humans have other rights? Why do we make any sort of distinction between them?
If you're stupid and don't know what the word means maybe
Establishment? What do you mean? Some people would say a unique human being with their own DNA is pretty "established".....You are pro choice. You draw an line in the sand based on nothing more than your own feelings. You are, in other words, a hypocrite.
And your a bigot but whose complaining?
I see you can't respond to my arguments and have to attack me. I did not expect anything else from you.
No, the opinion around here is that if you support it your guilty of it. You support sexism and discrimination in the work place if that is the business owner's preference, therefore you are a bigot. When I first came here I was pro-life for me but supported women's individual choices, thus I was guilty of murder though I'd never committed it.

reply from: JRH

No, that is stupid. By that standard supporting the right of free speech means I am a racist because it means we have to let the KKK have their rallies and meetings. I am not a bigot because I value the ability each person to make their own choices.
A flawed analogy. A person owning a business has no obligation to anyone who wants to work there or to purchase his products. It can be argued a woman does not have the right to kill her fetus because that is murder. Your argument essentially says that all business owners are murders if they wish to do what they want with their own property.

reply from: yoda

Even that is not necessarily true. Many mothers do not develop a bond with their born children at all.
But what you said was that the unborn child and the born child were not the same, you said that over and over. I, however, am glad to see you retreat from that statement, with your lawyer's help.
Will you now say that an unborn child and a born child ARE the same thing?

reply from: Faramir

I won't say an unborn child and a born child are "the same thing."
I am not "the same thing" I was a year ago or even ten minutes ago.
"Are they the same PERSON?" would be a better question, because there are a lot of ways "thing" could be interpreted.
"Thing" needs some sort of definition for the purpose of the question.

reply from: yoda

How about "human being"?
Do you know what that means? Are you aware that a human being is a "thing"?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Hell, even "person" could be intepreted in a lot of ways. Am I the same exact person I was a year ago? I don't think so.

reply from: yoda

How about "human being"?
Do you know what that means? Are you aware that a human being is a "thing"?

reply from: Rosalie

Is it more horrible to kill a newborn as opposed to a toddler? What does age have to do with it?
Believe it or not, but many, if not the majority of women, have a different relationship with their born kids than with their unborn children. It's completely normal.

reply from: yoda

How about "human being"?
Do you know what that means? Are you aware that a human being is a "thing"?

reply from: nancyu

Is it more horrible to kill a newborn as opposed to a toddler? What does age have to do with it?
Believe it or not, but many, if not the majority of women, have a different relationship with their born kids than with their unborn children. It's completely normal.
No one has the right to kill an innocent human being. Ever.
(even if not a single soul on earth has "bonded" with him.)

reply from: yoda

(Repeated for farismear)
How about "human being"?
Do you know what that means? Are you aware that a human being is a "thing"?

reply from: yoda

What I get from this discussion is that some prolifers seem to be saying that they do not have feeling for the unborn, simply because they cannot see them.
Going on that principle, it ought to be all right for us to drop A bombs on any nation we wish, as long as we don't see the victims (and didn't know them personally, of course).


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