Home - List All Discussions

Why do pro-abortion employees become pro-life

but, not the other way

by: Hosea

I have heard of many pro-abortion clinic workers who have left the dark side and become actively pro-life. I have never heard of a Pro-life pregnancy Center worker or volunteer change and become actively pro-choice. I believe this is because once a pro-choice person ( who has a heart) stops being defensive and examines the true facts they have no choice but to be pro-life is the best way to defending abd protect women and babies.

reply from: carolemarie

Sure, abortion is never a choice anyone wants to make. Offering a win-win solution is better than simply offering death or being stuck raising a child when you are not ready....
if you care about women, the prolife position is more logical.

reply from: JosieCashew

and of course these proaborts often barely (or never) mentioning adoption.

reply from: carolemarie

the assumption is that if you come to an abortion facility you have already decided what you want to do. But lots of women report not being sure of what they were doing or wanting. Lots report being unaware of fetal development and feeling tricked after the abortion when they found out.

reply from: Shenanigans

don't let Spinny hear you. She has a bunch of states about the other services PP offer.

reply from: Spinwubby

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
Yes, I've become THAT predictable:
Affiliate Medical Services Summary
Contraception - 36 percent of services in 2007
Reversible Contraception Clients, Women** 2,360,796
Emergency Contraception Kits 1,423,365
Tubal Sterilization Clients 532
Reversible Contraception Clients, Men 102,405
Vasectomy Clients 2,882
3,889,980
STI/STD Testing and Treatment - 31 percent of services in 2007
STI Procedures, Women and Men 2,994,749
HIV Testing Procedures, Women 257,877
HIV Testing Procedures, Men 80,077
HIV Testing Procedures, Gender Not Reported 30,519
3,363,222
Cancer Screening and Prevention - 17 percent of services in 2007
Pap Tests 968,682
Breast Exams/ Breast Care 851,232
Colposcopy Procedures*** 46,522
LOOP/LEEP Procedures*** 2,652
Cryotherapy Procedures*** 2,411
1,871,499
Other Women's Health Services - 11 percent of services in 2007
Pregnancy Tests 1,183,325
Prenatal Clients 10,914
Midlife Clients 12,783
Infertility Clients 318
1,207,340
Abortion Services - 3 percent of services in 2007
Abortion Procedures 305,310
Other Services - 2 percent of services in 2007
Primary Care Clients, Women and Men 21,247
Adoption Referrals to Other Agencies 4,912
Other Services, Women and Men**** 228,964
255,123

reply from: Hosea

Adoption Referrals to Other Agencies 4,912 Only because they coulsn't be talked into abortion. You don't here how they helped these women with maternity clothes like a CPC woud do. They don't help with that choice instead they refer to you another place.
Isn't this off the topic.

reply from: Shenanigans

I honestly think people who assist, doctors, nurses et cetera, with abortions have some kind of mental illness or diffiencey. If a nurse was working in a pro-life clinic or in a job where she doesn't do abortions but might have to deal with all sorts of things that apparently "justify an abortion" she may be more inclined to sympathise with a woman who aborts, but her pro-life leanings will probably not guide her to assist in an abortion.

reply from: Shenanigans

That would be me.
Do you actually assist in abortions?
Its one thing to go from being Pro-Life to being Pro-Choice, I've met my few, but I haven't met any Lifers who went to being active in abortion procedures.

reply from: nancyu

... in 2007 alone. Planned Parenthood alone slaughtered 305,310 children. But hey, it's only 3% of their services. Focus on the GOOD things they do!

reply from: saucie

Stuck?
Wow, you have some dim view of life. No wonder you're so confused and a proabort.

reply from: QueenJ

That would be me.
Do you actually assist in abortions?
Its one thing to go from being Pro-Life to being Pro-Choice, I've met my few, but I haven't met any Lifers who went to being active in abortion procedures.
No. Unfortunately, I'm one of those who doesn't fair well at the sight of blood.

reply from: saucie

That would be me.
Do you actually assist in abortions?
Its one thing to go from being Pro-Life to being Pro-Choice, I've met my few, but I haven't met any Lifers who went to being active in abortion procedures.
No. Unfortunately, I'm one of those who doesn't fair well at the sight of blood.
Yeah, blood from dead babies can be a tough one.

reply from: ProInformed

There is a website that gives numerous examples of former abortion industry employees who have become pro-life.
Often they realize (or acknowledge) that the abortion industry is not 'pro-woman' as it claims, that many, many women are injured and even killed by so-called 'safe' legal abortions.
Also, it's relatively easy for choice cultist (choicist) individuals to persist in believing the myths and lies spread by the abortion industry when they don't work in an abortuary, and therefore don't know what really goes on there.
But the abortion industry employees see the ugly truth.

reply from: Banned Member

Planned Parenthood reminds me of some lunatic in a movie who points the gun at someones head and says, "I don't really want to hurt anybody, I'm really a nice guy!"

reply from: sweet

That would be me.
Do you actually assist in abortions?
Its one thing to go from being Pro-Life to being Pro-Choice, I've met my few, but I haven't met any Lifers who went to being active in abortion procedures.
No. Unfortunately, I'm one of those who doesn't fair well at the sight of blood.what about the blood of a fetus?

reply from: carolemarie

don't let Spinny hear you. She has a bunch of states about the other services PP offer.
PPH is hardly the only abortion provider. There are lots of clinics that provide abortion services only.

reply from: Banned Member

stuck with child=punished with child

reply from: Hosea

That would be me.
So you have worked or volunteered at a pregnancy crisis center?

reply from: Imaginary

I used to be pro-life, now I'm pro-choice because of reasons I have already mentioned. However, I haven't worked in an abortion clinic. Since I got 0 medical knowledge, I doubt I ever will.
It's possible to turn, to both ways, for everyone.

reply from: saucie

Exactly!
That's her dim view of children.
How sickening.

reply from: Spinwubby

Exactly!
That's her dim view of children.
How sickening.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
Who pays when a child is born to people who never wanted them?
Open a newspaper or watch cable news for half an hour. You'll get a clue.

reply from: saucie

Exactly!
That's her dim view of children.
How sickening.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
Who pays when a child is born to people who never wanted them?
Open a newspaper or watch cable news for half an hour. You'll get a clue.
Yeah...let's kill them...all of them, the dirty little unwanted buggers.
It really sucks to be you.......

reply from: Banned Member

Why does it matter who pays for the child?
Life is opportunity. But the elitists of the world think that a world without goverment health care, government education, large TVs, summer vacations and college education, is simply not worth living.
"Oh the poor child will do without things, let's kill it!"

reply from: Spinwubby

Originally posted by: Augustine
Why does it matter who pays for the child?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I didn't mean "pays" in the financial sense.
How do you figure that pro-choice individuals are "constitutionally weak?"

reply from: Banned Member

Spinwubby, still grubby, still on ignore!

reply from: Banned Member

I think that for most the road from falsehood to truth is irrevocable. Only those rare instances where bitterness or hopelessness take over and reason completely jumps the tracks does anyone ever move from pro-life to pro-abortion. The intrenched pro-abort simply lives in a world of falsehood without hope or truth.

reply from: QueenJ

Actually, I don't have an aversion to any one particular type of blood. All blood from all sources generally makes me feel faint.

reply from: QueenJ

That would be me.
So you have worked or volunteered at a pregnancy crisis center?
Yes, I have.

reply from: QueenJ

What about it? I don't have an aversion to any one particular type of blood. All blood from all sources generally makes me feel faint.

reply from: Hosea

That would be me.
So you have worked or volunteered at a pregnancy crisis center?
Yes, I have.
What did you do at the pregnancy help center?

reply from: carolemarie

Stuck?
Wow, you have some dim view of life. No wonder you're so confused and a proabort.
I never said it was my point of view Saucie. I said that women feel that way.
If you don't want to have a child, you view being forced to have on as being stuck with a child,,,ie Casey Anthony

reply from: Spinwubby

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You didn't even wait one minute before you posted that I was on ignore?
You are SO bad at this...

reply from: Imaginary

Augustine really is the worst of the bunch. Others are willing to debate their views, and are willing to protect them with all they have, which is something I respect with every fiber of my being. Augustine merely ignores every pro-choicer on the whole board.
Makes me wonder why he's here in the first place.

reply from: Shenanigans

I wonder that about some of the pro-aborts...

reply from: Shenanigans

Because of your friend who was raped and committed suicide?
So you went from being PL to being PC?
There are plenty of "pro-lifers" who accept abortion for rape, and not the other more frivilous situations. COuldn't you be one of them?
Hasn't stopped some people...

reply from: nancyu

Exactly!
That's her dim view of children.
How sickening.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
Who pays when a child is born to people who never wanted them?
Open a newspaper or watch cable news for half an hour. You'll get a clue.
When a child is born to people who never wanted them, should they then be killed? No. Then why would we kill them before?
YOU are the one who should get a clue.

reply from: Banned Member

A person who was unwanted as a child cannot grow up to be someone who has much to offer the world? Is that to mean that only affluent spoiled children who are showered with love have anything to give the world?

reply from: Spinwubby

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Who said anything about affluent children? (...And I know plenty of affluent people who weren't spoiled.)
Children should be showered with love, however.

reply from: QueenJ

I did clerical/office type work - made copies, organized and restocked brochures, put mailers in envelopes, etc.

reply from: Shenanigans

If you don't mind me asking, how did you go from that to supporting abortion on demand whenever and for whatever?
If you've already posted an answer, my apology, could you direct me to the post?
Such fence jumping intrigues me.

reply from: Hosea

I did clerical/office type work - made copies, organized and restocked brochures, put mailers in envelopes, etc.
Did you work their or were you a paid employee? Did you start their because of your dedication to the pro-life cause or did you start their for some other reason? Did the people treat you poorly? Why did you change your mind?

reply from: QueenJ

Honestly, I came to a point in my life where the pro-choice side just made more sense to me than anything I had been taught or told growing up. There wasn't an OMG! life-altering experience that I went through - no horrific pregnancies that almost killed me, no finding myself pregnant while homeless or drug addicted or what-have-you and abortion turning out to be the best option for me, no brainwashing by some weird cult that worships abortion - just a quiet change of heart. And it wasn't like a rebellion against my mother either. My mother is very pro-life, as well as Christian, and I love her dearly and respect her greatly, even though I disagree with many of her views.
Hopefully, that answered your question. If not, feel free to ask more.

reply from: QueenJ

I volunteered, so it was an unpaid position.
I would say that I did start volunteering there because of my dedication to the pro-life cause. I wanted to do something more than just speaking out about abortion through things like school debates/presentations and persuasive essays.
The people I interacted with at the CPC were very nice and warm, so no maltreatment of any kind happened.
Why did I change my mind? The short answer is that I had an honest-to-goodness change of heart that was not prompted by any tragic or harrowing circumstances.

reply from: Shenanigans

Queen, so were you Pro-Life because you had some kind of familial obligation or did you truly believe in, as the latest phrase is "foetal rights"?
Now, as a pro-choicer, do you have any conflicts, such as your knowledge of foetal development vs. the pro-choice argument that the ZEF is a blob?
Thanks for answering!

reply from: Banned Member

You know, I'm pro-choice because 99% of the intelligent, rational, calm, logical, nice, reasonable, highly educated and stable people I know are pro-choice.
Whereas a good proportion of pro-lifers are insane fundamentalists that believe in talking snakes, magic trees, an angel who lives in a lake of fire, 6000 year old earth, eternal souls, zombie messiahs and all that bollocks. They're uneducated, irrational, frenzied, hate-filled and unstable.
It's an easy choice as to which camp to pitch my tent in.

reply from: joueravecfous

There have been very few prochoicers here who base their view on the 'blob' theory. Most of us are well educated on fetal development and some even have or are planning to have children. For us, fetal development has nothing to do with women deciding when or whether to gestate and that takes precedence over your value of the fetus.

reply from: franny

I've been reading and reading these boards and the pro-choice "logic" really fascinates me.
A little bit of my own history: I was an abused child, survived a rape, and later (not from the rape) a crisis pregnancy. I am unwaveringly pro-life. I am not pro-life for religious reasons. I am also not politically conservative.
With my history, you would think I'd be all about "choice"--and to be honest, I was on the fence for some time, until I did a little research of my own. It started in my biology class in college and went on from there. After talking to everyone on both sides, and researching everything I could about this issue (trying to keep an open mind), I found that the pro-choice view is a flimsy one. It's obviously the "sexier" view in this issue, and it's popular. But it is so anti-feminist, I'm surprised that the pro-choice feminists haven't caught on. My liberty isn't tied to my ability to rip life from my body. (The "choice" camp confuses the ability to do something with "the right" to do something.)
My liberty is tied to making responsible choices and living not for myself but for others. It isn't enough to say "I'm against abortion for myself, but I can't make that decision for anyone else." We have to see the TRUTH about what abortion is, and find out why women have abortions, and then isolate those causes and fix them. I've never seen any pro-choice woman worry about actually helping women not have to abort. It's not about "choice," it's about abortion, and that's why I call them "pro-abortion." They don't like that. If they say "Well, I'm not for ABORTION, nobody is, I'm for CHOICE" then I have to wonder, choice to do what? Why are you using the word "choice" as a euphemism for abortion? If you think abortion should be an option, then, yes, you are "pro-abortion."
("Anti-choice" always kind of makes me laugh. Like pro-lifers are against ALL CHOICES. "Anti-abortion" isn't totally accurate, but is a little better than "anti-choice.")
So, yes, as someone who was on the fence and eventually became pro-life.....I haven't seen many pro-lifers become pro-choice. In the rare occasion they do, it is usually because 1) pro-lifers are painted as a nerdy, unsexy bunch.....2) they have not actually witnessed an abortion....and 3) they have had an abortion themselves and need to justify it.
I do not condemn women who have had abortions. I know what it's like to consider one. I am critical of those in the pro-abortion camp who refuse to tell the truth, and even belittle the millions of women who have been hurt by abortion.

reply from: Banned Member

Why?
You mean the overwhelming bulk of feminist in the world?
You don't seem to know what feminism is then.
I'm unclear here; why do you think abortion is wrong?

reply from: QueenJ

I'm sure it initially started out as, "Well, my mom says this is right so it must be," but as I grew older I really came to believe wholeheartedly that abortion was murder and that 4,000 babies were being murdered everyday. I don't believe that I ever felt anger or hatred towards women who had abortions, but more of a sadness over all the babies being lost.
Of my own volition, I wrote letters requesting information from pro-life organizations (around 50 or so and I'm not even exaggerating) and I carefully filed away each piece of mail I received in the filing cabinet drawer of my desk (I can't for the life of me remember how the filing system was organized; I wish I could). I wrote a pro-life poem, which I also wish I could remember.
When I found out that a family member had had two abortions, I did a little ritual of lighting two candles at night for the family members I had lost and would never know or meet. When another family member had impregnated his teenage girlfriend (he was a teenager, at the time too, in case you were wondering), I wrote her a letter, which I presented to her after she gave birth, expressing how proud I was of her and how brave I thought she was for choosing to have the baby and how happy and relieved I was that she hadn't chosen abortion.
In school, I would jump at the chance to present the pro-life viewpoint whenever we were told to come up with a topic to debate - either through presentation to the class or in essay form. I specifically remember making this visual aid where there were two happy, chubby babies and next to them was an outline of where a baby should be. I think the accompanying quote to that graphic was something along the lines of "1 in 3 babies are aborted."
I also remember participating in a "Life Chain" (I believe that's what it was called; not sure if those occur any longer) where a large number of people came together on the sidewalk facing a busy highway and interlocked their arms.
No, I don't have any conflicts, even with my knowledge of fetal development. Even after seeing a sonogram in person, living with a pregnant woman through her entire pregnancy, going to appointments with her, routinely touching her belly to feel the baby moving inside, and being present at the birth of the baby at which point I burst out crying with tears of joy and absolute amazement.
As mushy as it sounds, that experience - of seeing a baby being born - was (and still is) one of the most wonderful and amazing and significant moments of my life to date. To watch a pregnancy progress, to see a woman's belly grow as the fetus inside her grows (to see limbs and rear-ends literally protrude - a little weird, but SO very cool), and then all of a sudden (well, not all of a sudden technically, what with the hours and hours of labor) to see him come into the world, to be there the very moment that a person's life begins - there's nothing else like it. Nothing.
Also, contrary to what I've been told by a select few on this very forum, I absolutely adore babies. I think they're amazing, wonderful, beautiful creatures. Another fond memory I have is one of babysitting one of my nephews when he was around 3 or so months old. I sat down in a rocking chair with his head propped up against my shoulder and was so content to sit there and rock him while rubbing his back feeling his tiny chest breathing in and out, in and out. Listening to his little coos as he dreamed. Snuggling my cheek up right next to his and feeling his warmth and softness. There's nothing like that either. It was pure bliss and love.
Okay. I think I've hit and exceeded my mushy quota of the day. This is probably more than you ever wanted to know and more than I have ever written in a post here. Sorry for the literary overload. I won't feel slighted if you end up just skimming this wall o' text.
In conclusion, after having said all that, after having experienced all of the above, I am still steadfastly secure in my pro-choice beliefs.
Oh, and any pro-choicer who refers to an embryo or fetus as "a blob" is being obtuse and disingenuous. An embryo or fetus is obviously much more complex than a blob of goo or tissue. Although, it does kind of have blob-ish qualities up until about the eighth week or so of gestation.
I bet you're sorry you ever asked now, huh?

reply from: Shenanigans

You get no debate from me.
However, I don't choose my opinions based on the other people that support them, that sort of logic for choosing your "camp" is just moronic, and based on a need to feel popular or "intelligent" not on supporting what is right.

reply from: Banned Member

You get no debate from me.
However, I don't choose my opinions based on the other people that support them, that sort of logic for choosing your "camp" is just moronic, and based on a need to feel popular or "intelligent" not on supporting what is right.
It's fortunate then that I have the same views at those intelligent, rational, calm, logical, nice, reasonable, highly educated and stable people

reply from: Shenanigans

So, even though you are impressed with the wonder of foetal development et al, and you acknowledge that you know there is a life in there, you still support a woman's right to put an end to that amazing life process that amazes you such?
To phrase it in another way, you have a sig that asks for full access to abortion at any stage for any reason, so you basically saying you support an abortion of that foetus when its limbs are pressing against the side of it's mother's belly, and for any reason the mother decides?
I find that perplexing.
Nope.
I figured I'd get a long answer, I would have been a bit miffed if I got a "I'm pro-choice just cos, meh!! "
As I've said before, I find the whole progression of anyone from any view to another to be a highly fascinating event, both as a way of cognitive function and development or progression of one's opinion.

reply from: Shenanigans

I'll be honest with you though, I"ve met quite a few people who have said to me they would never be Pro-Life because they dont' want to be lumped in with the same group of people that sits on its hands and kinda denounces people who snipe on doctors and then start thumping a bible.
That mindset really rips the crotch right out of my undies, that people will refuse to acknowledge their internal pro-life leanings, because really, if all the rational people I know who aren't in public pro-life became pro-life then we'd eventually push the lunatic fringe with the megaphones out.
Then we could get down to the real business at hand, helping women and saving children, not screaming bloody murder or *****y whore at the women we're trying to assist.
edit: WHy the hell is skanky censored and whore isn't?

reply from: Banned Member

Woah there!
Do you know how much utterly amazing wonder and splendor there is in ALL living things? Yet you're quite willing to slaughter them to please your tastebuds?
The birth of a lamb or the budding of a strawberry flower that will become a fruit are no less wondrous than the birth of a human.

reply from: Shenanigans

Why?
I don't know why Franny as a pro-life feminism thinks abortion is wrong.
But as a Pro-Life feminist myself I'll be happy to throw out my ranty two cents.
1. Abortion is a tool of the patriarch. It subjugates women. It tells women when, where and under what circumstances they can or cannot be pregnant.
How so?
A woman in a high powered job gets pregnant, she is told, or discreetly discouraged from progression in her career path because of this pregnancy.
A 16 year old girl in secondary school. She is told she can't continue her education. That her life is over. That there's no way she can afford a child. That she can have more children, later in life when she is more stable. She is put on a guilt trip by her parents who lament the embarrassment it will bring them.
A 22 year old university student. She has poor access to child support facilities. She is in an environment where the liberal, pro-choice mindset is in full swing. She is told she can't continue her studies, a pregnancy and child will interfer with her classes and exams and et cetera.
A 30 year old single mum. She is told she already has children, that she will have a hard time getting extra time off work, or support for her born child/ren. She will be stretched financially.
A 28 year old woman on the dole. She is told she will be a burden to the welfare system, that she will raise her child in terrible poverty and that child will have a high chance of being a criminal or falling into the trap of early parenthood.
A 42 year old woman with teenaged children falls pregnant. She is told that she will be embarrasing her teenagers, that she is too old for a pregnancy, that she has a higher risk of Downs Syndrome or some other defect. That she should be saving for retirement not getting ready to do the whole parenting thing all over again.
And so on and so fourth.
Abortion is the male dominated society's way of controlling women. It tells women when and where and how they can be pregnant.
Women shouldn't have to accept this BS! We should flip them off and DEMAND better assistance for our pregnant sisters. THe woman in the high powered job, her career shouldn't be jepordised by a pregnancy, she shouldn't be relegated to the mail room or as a glorified secretary while her male counterparts get promoted above her and her swollen uterus. The teenager should be given all the assisttance necessary, there's no reason why she can't continue her education and be a mum at the same time. The single mother, the older mother, the unemployed mother, why should these women be expected by a passive agressive pro-abortion society to abort their pregnancies? They need assistance, not abortions.
2. Women have been conned into thinking that the ideal in this world is to be unburdened by pregnancy and children.
Taking into account my above rail in 1. we must consider and again demand a change in the mindset.
Someone once said that women will never acheive equality climbing over the bodies of their dead children!
Men can go out and spill their seed as they desire and they are labelled a stud. They have no shame in being known as a "man whore", whereas a woman who does the same is considered a slut or a skank. When a woman is pregnant and not married, it is proof to society of her less then flavourable moral character. This is both hypocritical and anti-woman. Women should not be judged as whores because they are pregnant when men can shagg all the strumpets they please and not be socially penalised.
Therefore, society, the male dominated society, has the covert message that women are better off getting an abortion as this hides her "shame", and the world seeing a non-pregnant young women will think she is a "good girl".
3. Women and Men are different. This is not bad.
You'd have to be a lobotomised ape to think that men and women are physically the same. We are emotionally and physically different. That does not make us less equal. It makes us different.
A woman gets pregnant. Its what she is designed to do. Taking into account number 1. & 2. the MALE dominated society has told women that pregnancy is bad, that being a woman is bad, and to participate in society you must be a man, or like a man, and that is sexually active yet with no consquences, and a consquence of sex is pregnancy, therefore, the MALE dominated society teaches women that if you want any respect you must be not pregnant.
Now, this is not to say that the only value a woman has is found in pregnancy, that is simply not true which leads to -
4. If you are Pro-Life you are anti-woman because you claim a woman's only role is pregnancy.
This is BS. To be Pro-Life is not to be anti-woman. It is to be pro-woman! To be truly Pro-Life you must support the woman because honest to goodness it is so damn logical, if you are anti-woman who is with foetus, what do you think is going to happen to the foetus? To save the foetus you must save the woman!
Women can offer so much more then a uterus. However, when pregnancy results, the male dominated society will jump all over her damanding an abortion in exchange for her participation in said society.
Women get pregnant, its why the have a uterus. If a women gets pregnant, then she must be a woman and take responsibilty for her action and the MAN must take responsibilty as well!
5. Men can just walk away.
This adds to the lack of support a pregnant woman has. A man has really no reason to stick around if he doesn't want to. All he has to do is say "You're full of crap, I'm not the dad" and off he goes. And unless the woman kicks up a stink and demands a DNA test, then the guy gets off scott free.
This is anti-woman! It also pushes the woman into a state of despair and the vultures at the abortion mills will pick up on this and convince her that an abortion is the best thing for it, since she can't possibly afford to have a child!
Which is a point I've mentioned above - society has tricked women into beleiving they are completely worthless without a man!
6. Our foremothers of the feminist movement were Pro-Life. Go check out Feminists For Life if you don't beleive me. It wasn't until the late 60s and 70s that some idiot in the feminist movement thought abortion was a good idea.
Abortion is anti-woman! Any feminist worth her salt should be disgusted.

reply from: Shenanigans

Human life has more value then a lamb.
Human life has more value then a strawberry.
Why?
Because it is human life. That's why.

reply from: Banned Member

Not good enough. That's circular reasoning.
i.e. "pinks unicorns exist because they do".
Why is human life more important?

reply from: Shenanigans

I'd counter with "why isn't human life more important?" but the owness is on me to prove my point since I brought it up first, but feel free to state why you think human life isn't more important.
Human life has value that is recognised by the law. If human life didn't have value then why is murder illegal? Why is rape? Why is assault? One could argue that these things are illegal because they are based on preventing disharmony within a societial grouping. But, if human life has no value, why bother with societial harmony? They are illegal because they harm another human being, and why is harming another human being bad? Because that human being has value.
Which then rolls onto, again, why does human life have value:
This can be addressed in several ways, you can build your opinion on the value of human life as mentioned above from a legal perspective. Or, you can extend that to include the wealth humans bring to society.
I'm not speaking of wealth in a monetary or materialistic view, but rather, in an abstract kind of way. Each human in their own way, regardless of mental or physical ability, will each gift society with their own take on wealth. Stephen Hawking, Enstein, some would claim Obama they have given humanity something we cannot buy. But then what of those like Hitler? What could scum like that possibly give us? Well, he started the greatest war we've ever seen, so perhaps one could argue from that debacle came great scientific and medical advances, along with the United Nations, (which I guess at one time actually had some value in of itself).
Of course, with Hitler, one could say that amongst the 6 million + he had killed were individuals who could have given humanity the same advances et cetera. But we cannot focuss on the "what ifs" as that line of thought will end no where except confusion and a brain fart.
Even our murderers, despite their horrible mindsets give something to humanity - we have a nasty, rather self-defeatist habit of finding strength and coming together when we are faced with something awful. A murderer kills someone, well, society tends to come together both from a) a point of assisting the fmaily of the victim and b) revenge/justice (a rather negative aspect).
However, it is from such negatives that humans can develop positives.
So where does that leave us?
Human life is given value in the law, either from an intention to prevent disorder, or an intention to protect.
Everyone, regardless of ability can give something to society that is unqiue and valuable.
Human life can offer both negative and positive attributes.
Then we enter into the realm of possibility, this is not to be confused with considering the "what ifs" as "what ifs" tend to focus on a possible event that could have happened in place of the one that did. Whereas possibility in this context is rather "what will happen?" for example, what will happen if Obama wins?
Every human life will have an impact on society, either at a small, familial level or at the largest, global level.
Now, some have argued that the child in the womb facing abortion could grow up to be the next Enstein or Obama, but with that said, the child could also grow up to be the next Hitler.
We should not focus on comparisons to other humans either living or dead, but rather, focus on the child as an unqiue individual. And whatever impact they have on society, it will be an impact none the less.
How this mirror the purpose of value?
Well, the child with Downs Syndrome, these people can quite happily funciton in society, and often with a cheerful disposition can teach those around them that life is for living and that their life is just as valuable as any able bodied person.
The gifted child, well, he could grow up to cure cancer.
Every human life can impact society.
A sheep cannot.
A sheep isn't going to cure cancer.
A strawberry isn't going to impress those around it with its happy disposition.
A clam won't grow up, and through human experience touch the lives of those around them.
Even if the foetus in the womb grows up to be a plumber and have a family, they are still making an impact.
Even if the foetus in the womb grows up to be a homicidal maniac, they teach us mercy towards criminals and perhaps will teach us a few things about the progression of person to murderer and their mental illness. This is an impact.
Even right now, everyone on this board is making some form of an impact.
You in your life are making, what I would imagine, is a significant impact given the troubles you post about.
Human life has value because it makes an impact for the negative or positive value of human society.
A sheep cannot.
A strawberry cannot.
A clam cannot.
That is why human life has more value then a sheep.
That is not to say we should all go out and kill us a bunch of sheep, as their lives have value in the same way a hammer or a car have value. But then, another point, that hammer and that car, they only have value if they are utlised by a human.

reply from: Banned Member

Hate to be the one to break it to you honey, but human beings have done nothing of worth to this planet.
We have instead done inestimable damage to the planet and the remaining species which we have not eradicated.
A sheep will not trawl the sea until thousands of species of fish and mammals are on the brink of extinction.
A sheep isn't going to pour billions of tons of toxic chemicals per year into the atmosphere.
A strawberry isn't going to deforest massive swathes of the Earth for coffee tables and bookshelves.
A clam won't cause the oceans levels to rise and massive amounts of undiluted UV radiation to pour through the atmosphere.
Human beings have done nothing good for planet Earth. We have raped it, infected it, despoiled it, polluted it, maimed it and tortured it.
For what?
So that some humans can have a 'happy disposition'?
So that some humans can 'touch the lives of others'?
You disgust me.
At least some human beings realise that we are worth less than all these other creatures, who manage to live in natural equilibrium with the Earth.
Ugh.
Your ignorance in stunning.
Tell me why the human race deserves to continue.
Go on.
Why are we the most 'worthy' species on the planet, when we are the ones fucking it up for every other living thing?

reply from: sk1bianca

you are absolutely right! abortion will save the planet!
you disgust me.

reply from: saucie

So, when are you going to do your part? You're here, you're using rescources, where should be not send flowers?

reply from: franny

Vexator, I didn't see your post! So to answer:
To say abortion is ANTI-FEMINIST seems, on the outset, to be a paradox. The pro-choice camp believes women should have control over their bodies, and their lives, and their destinies. Fair enough. While I understand their argument, their logic is flawed for several reasons. For one thing, it is not the "right to abortion" that is the linchpin to women's liberty. It is, in fact, the one thing that is keeping us from progressing as a society.
The one thing we can do that men cannot do is carry a child. To have a baby is not a RIGHT--it is a privilege. It is quite miraculous and very beautiful. It is one thing men will never, ever be able to do. Instead of viewing pregnancy and bearing children as an assessment of control, we should have honor and respect for this ability. Abortion is an unnatural, destructive act. It teaches women to destroy a life--the life of their own child--in order to get what they want. We call this act "choice," but what it really does is perpetuate violence. For those women who have abortion because they feel they have no way out, it is an act of violence and of desperation. For those women who think it's no big deal, it is an act of violence and selfishness.
Feminists should know better. Women have been degraded and humiliated throughout history. Abortion is further humiliation and degradation. Pro-choice feminists tout abortion as the only thing that keeps women from being enslaved; but they have it backwards. We are still enslaved. Abortion doesn't prevent women from being enslaved--education does. Education is the key to our freedom.
Feminists believe "equality" means "not having to bear children when you don't want to." That's fine, as far as preventative birth control goes (I am pro-life, but also a huge supporter of birth control), but abortion takes the life of another human being who has no choice, whose value is contingent on whether or not his or her mother "chooses" to ALLOW them to live. Instead of the instinct to nurture and protect the child we have conceived, we view that child as the enemy, and not only accept his or her killing, but we CELEBRATE it. Instead of women demanding that we not be penalized for being pregnant--at work, at university, etc.--we are ripping our children from our wombs in order to play a man's game. And within the last fifteen years there has been an upswing in violence towards pregnant women, because men have been demanding their girlfriends/wives have an abortion, because it means he would not have to be responsible for it. Women should be demanding true equality, and once we understand that our rights are LINKED to our unborn children--not OPPOSED to our unborn children, then we will start to see peace in the world.
Abortion is not a semantic right. It is not a victimless right. It is the only so-called "medical" procedure which purposefully ends the life of another. There have been millions of women hurt by abortion, but the pro-choice camp not only ignores their cries, and ignores the truth, they berate and chide these women who have been lied to, who have realized the gruesome truth of this procedure. How is that feminist? They belittle anyone who dares to question this so-called "right" and keep their reasons to mere slogans and excuses. This is also scientifically and intellectually dishonest. How is that feminist?
So yes. Abortion is anti-feminist, any way you look at it.

reply from: joueravecfous

You seem reasonable enough to acknowledge that there are millions of women who don't regret their abortions and if you look solely at anecdotal evidence of such regret over the last 37 years (not that abortion has only been occurring that long), the sheer numbers of abortions without remorse are overwhelming. Possible regret is not a reason to prohibit anything.
On a related note, your assessment of pregnancy and childbirth as beautiful, amazing and empowering is completely subjective. There are many women who absolutely do not feel that way no matter how people try to romanticize it and they should not be penalized for someone's mere opinion.

reply from: Shenanigans

Awww, did Vex get kicked again? I kinda like her.
As for her comments, whether or not she has the ability to read this.
Yes, humans have the capacity and the audacity to screw the planet over, but we also have the ability to save it. That's what is the difference between us and a sheep. (That and we probably taste like crap).

reply from: franny

Well, it's not actually subjective. National Geographic just launched a series about animals in the womb. Clearly unborn ANYTHING is fascinating and astounding as a biological fact. As a pro-lifer who supports birth control, I would hope that unplanned pregnancy can be reduced with education and proper use of birth control.
My pro-choice friends who become pregnant are VERY into the whole "miracle of childbirth" thing, even more than I am. When I was carrying my baby, my pro-choice pal (someone I love dearly), put her hands on my belly and said, "Women are AMAZING." It made me wonder. My other pro-choice friend put pictures of her unborn son on her refrigerator and loved talking about her experience. It's not only pro-lifers who think pregnancy is amazing.
But your logic is flimsy. To say that some women don't feel empowered by their pregnancies is to fling the same strawman rhetoric that's used by the pro-choice camp. We need to find out WHY some women seek abortions, and isolate those causes. Do they seek abortions because they hate children? No. Do they seek abortions because they think having a baby will ruin their lives? Yes. We need to protect women and offer them help and support so they don't feel they HAVE to have an abortion. Abortions aren't preventative--they are destructive. And to say it's okay to have an abortion because you're just "not ready" or "it's your body" (when clearly, it is not only the woman's body which is involved) is to turn a blind eye to the truth. If we removed the stigma of pregnancy, stopped viewing it as a disease, stopped turning the unborn children into villains/parasites/the enemy, then maybe more women would feel brave enough to bring their children into the world instead of having them dismembered and put into the incinerator.
The first thing a woman feels after abortion is relief. But in many cases, regret and remorse doesn't hit the woman until years later. And there are more women who regret their abortions--at the very least, feel remorse and ashamed, than there are who rejoice in their abortions. It's not like 5,000 women regret their abortions out of 2,000,000. The numbers are higher than that. The Alan Guttmacher Institute has shown time and time again that they falsify their figures and ignore the truth. I've known a few brave women who had abortions, said they were pro-choice, justified their abortions for years, until they allowed themselves to LOOK at the truth of what they did. It's really fear that keeps anyone from really looking at this. And pro-choice "logic" is really just smoke and mirrors.
Many women are afraid to speak up because they feel betrayed by the pro-choice community and do not want to be associated with the pro-life community. It's a serious, serious issue, and it would behoove the pro-choice community to stop undermining women who have been enormously hurt by this so-called "right."
When I found out I was pregnant, I had nothing. No money. No family. I was about to embark on my career in the arts, and surely a baby would keep me from realizing my "destiny." But it wasn't the pro-choice women I knew who supported me (they thought I should abort)....it was the pro-life community who gave me what I needed to have my child. And though I had to put my plans on hold, I am back doing what I love--AND I have a child who throws her arms around my neck and says "I love you." It's not worth "controlling" your "destiny" if it is at the expense of another human being. When she was only six weeks along, I not only heard her little heart on the ultrasound, but SAW it, flickering like a light. She did not deserve to die because I wanted an escape. And, no, it was not my "choice" to keep her. It was my duty to protect her. She was not my "choice." She was my child. I was already her mother.

reply from: Shenanigans

Then we need to wonder why they have no regret? Is it because they have accepted society's view that abortion is morally acceptable, or do they have a defect in their emotional structure?
You're right.
The reason for prohibiting abortion should be based not on regrets or any of the studies Pro-Lifers come up with for how cruddy it is, but its prohibition should be based on the fact that abortion is morally void and it kills another human being.

reply from: franny

I still maintain the numbers are higher than reported. I can't tell you how many women *I* know that have said they regret it, feel it's awful, but don't want to be viewed as part of the pro-life community. They believe to speak out against it would be to speak out against women's rights, even though they question it and have even tried to demand answers from pro-choice groups. It's brainwashing.
I think a huge problem is that the pro-life community continues to perpetuate stereotypes. We need less pro-life men speaking, more pro-life women. We need atheist pro-lifers to be allowed to speak, and the pro-life gay and lesbian community to speak. They are ignored by the Christian Right because....because why? They're not like us? I would think that Jesus would want them to speak. If we showed more unity, and if the media decided to play fair, we might gain more ground, and it wouldn't be such a stigma to say you're pro-life.

reply from: Shenanigans

Exactly!
I mean, you look at the pro-abortion community, see how they embrace pro-abortion "Christians" and "Catholics", they're a trophy to them.
But us, we need to get over ourselves, society will say "Only Christian fundies are anti-choice et cetera et cetera, its based on a religious view this anti-choice thing", but if we get our lesbian, homosexual, Wiccan, atheist pro-life collegues to speak out the abortion minded loose in their sterotype of the bible thumping "anti-choicer".
Its in our best interest to welcome these people more fully into our ranks.
I have gay and lesbian pro-life friends and they feel as if they have no where to voice their opinions. They're not welcome in their liberal camp and they're less welcome in the Christian Pro-Life camp.
Pro-Life is supposed to be about saving the lives of children and theri mothers, not seeing who we can exclude based on what they get up to in their bedrooms.

reply from: franny

Hear, hear!
If you believe in Jesus, then what makes you think Jesus would ever, ever turn away anyone who would want to speak out against abortion? I don't think it would be an issue.
I love PLAGAL--they're smart and they do good work. Unfortunately, when they show up at rallies, they are shunned BY THE PRO-LIFE COMMUNITY. Nice message.
The pro-life Christian community has to learn that it's one thing to be against abortion....it's another to demand that everyone live as THEY think they should live. You can't say, "Don't have an abortion, it's wrong, but also, don't have sex and praise the Lord every day." That's not going to work. Nat Hentoff is a wonderful speaker and writer who has presented a lot of secular arguments against abortion. Kathryn Reed, Norah Vincent, Doris Gordon.....they're out there. But they're not celebrated by the community as much as they should be.

reply from: Banned Member

They don't claim that it is.
You entire view of pro-choice feminism is indescribably warped.
Ah, they probably will actually; it won't be long, since stem cells tech can now grow hollow organs and sperm and eggs have been replicated from stem cells.
Two things:
a) nothing humans do can be construed as 'unnatural'.
b) if you do think we are capable of unnatural acts, then why are you no decrying cars, steam engines, nuclear power, plastics, the computer you are using?
Humans are taught that from practically their first solid meal; when innocent animals have been slaughtered to titillate their tastebuds.
We LIVE for death. Our species is built on the death of billions of billions.
The human race IS violent and selfish. To pretend otherwise is just ludicrous. The reality is that there is no difference to killing a human-rat chimera in a lab than there is to killing a fetus.
In fact, killing the rat is worse; it has human DNA and it is moderately sentient - unlike the fetus.
No it isn't. Prove that it is; don't just say that it is.
Empty words.
No they don't!
You are seriously deluded!
Jesus hell!
On that they would pretty much agree.
No they don't.
I'm done with you.
You're not a feminist, you're someone pretending to be a feminist with crazy and warped ideas of what pro-choice feminists think.
There is no point in arguing feminism with someone who does not know what feminism is.

reply from: SpitMcGee

Some of them just don't want to carry a pregnancy, give birth, and raise a child.
Pro-lifers take such a rosy, simple view of pregnancy and parenting, and classify women who seek abortions as selfish and spoiled. They paint a picture of pouting, whiny brats shrieking, "but it'll ruin my LIFE!" like teenagers. How could we possibly refuse something as beautiful and miraculous as a baby? How could we not want to be parents?
Because being a parent is probably the most important task a person can undertake. Because parenthood is an serious and radical change, not only in lifestyle but in personal identity. Because it demands a responsibility beyond anything the woman (whether a teenager or adult) has had before. Because you will never be the same person afterward.
My views on abortion and on parenthood tie into each other. I believe that parenting shouldn't be taken lightly. A broken condom, a one-night stand, a date rape shouldn't have to automatically be followed by obligatory parenthood. Because where would that leave parenthood?

reply from: Hosea

Not having abortion means not killing the child. After the child is born no one is forcing those birth parents to parent the child. No one is forcing them to act as parents.

reply from: Banned Member

Cool, so after you give birth, you can leave it in a cornfield and go off and live your life.
Sweet.

reply from: Hosea

I volunteered, so it was an unpaid position.
I would say that I did start volunteering there because of my dedication to the pro-life cause. I wanted to do something more than just speaking out about abortion through things like school debates/presentations and persuasive essays.
The people I interacted with at the CPC were very nice and warm, so no maltreatment of any kind happened.
Why did I change my mind? The short answer is that I had an honest-to-goodness change of heart that was not prompted by any tragic or harrowing circumstances.
Thanks for answering this. I read this and your other related posts. I find them very interesting. So I have a couple more questions. When do you consider the baby in the womb a baby? When do you believe he/she should have rights? Do you believe abortion should stay legal all nine months of pregnancy? Why ( to these answers)?
Do you believe the woman's right to liberty supercedes the baby's right to life?
When do you believe a father's rights begin to the baby? When do you believe a father's obligations begin?

reply from: franny

Vexy, pro-choicers DO claim that not having a "right" to abortion will enslave them. It has been said over and over again.
All those who claim they're pro "choice" cannot back their views with facts, nor can they refute science. My view of pro-choicers is not warped. My view of abortion is not warped. I believe it's the other way around. All I hear from the pro-choice community is justification and strawman arguments. Instead of trying to help women not have to abort, and instead of trying to make sure these children are not conceived to begin with, the pro-choice community simply wants to make sure any woman can have an abortion for any reason whatsoever, whenever she wants. That is why pro-lifers use the term "pro-abortion." I don't usually use that term, because I do have respect for those who oppose my view.

I never said everything was 'rosy'---but even if some believe that, how is that wrong? How is that hurting anyone? Maybe it would do everyone some good--especially the pro-choice community--to have a rosier view of pregnancy and motherhood instead of teaching women that it's a "choice," and that an unwanted child is an enemy? The view that women would be "punished" with a child is far more dangerous than any "rosy" view of pregnancy a pro-lifer would have. If you're going to err, err on the side of life. Abortion is not the answer. It teaches women to destroy--and to destroy their own--to get what they think they want. THAT is warped.

reply from: Shenanigans

Yes, and we have to learn to NOT do that.
Pregnancy isn't just some run of the mill bodily function. We've evolved to accomodate the process of pregnancy and to reproduce with its inclusion, however, that's not to say every single pregnancy every single time will be a delight. I know a woman who's prego at the moment, about 8 months along and she's had morning sickness throughout that entire time!
People can die from pregnancy, just as they can die from abortion. It'd help if the pro-abortion crowd didn't paint abortion as some easy peezy procedure that has no risks or less risk then pregnancy maintainence, cos goodness knows I"ve seen a good share of abortion complications and they ain't pretty.
As it stands, abortion is the killing of a human being, and that simply cannot be justified by the belly aching of the complications of pregnancy.
And given that most abortions are on perfectly healthy women its sort of a moot point. Of course, with that said, a pregnancy at 8 - 10 weeks (the average TOP time) can be healthy but we will never know what the progression of that pregnancy would have been and whether it would have developed a complication of some description.
Again, its not justification for the killing of a human being.

reply from: franny

One more thing: As far as my "rosy" view of pregnancy and motherhood goes, Vexy, let me explain: My upbringing was absolutely horrific. I endured my fair share of tragedies, enough for three lifetimes. My experience of motherhood is challenging, just like anyone else's. It isn't easy, and as I am not a wealthy woman, have had to struggle for everything. However, having survived abuse in so many forms--including sexual assault--I am grateful that I am alive. If I had been aborted, perhaps I would have been spared abuse, but then again, I also would not have ever experienced joy, , compassion, swimming in the ocean, a perfect risotto, a fresh peach, the smell of soil, listening to my cat purr while I read a book. My life has been anything but rosy, and yet even at the my lowest point, I knew I was experiencing life, for better or for worse. I would rather experience life, even a hard life, than have never been given that chance at all.

reply from: franny

People can die from pregnancy, just as they can die from abortion. It'd help if the pro-abortion crowd didn't paint abortion as some easy peezy procedure that has no risks or less risk then pregnancy maintainence, cos goodness knows I"ve seen a good share of abortion complications and they ain't pretty.
Yes. This.

reply from: Banned Member

That's first wave feminism; we're way beyond that now.
Again, it's clear that you're not a feminist.
Wrong. I can. So can the other pro-choicers on here.
You're awfully fond of making claims and providing no evidence.
Now you can't read.
Pro-choice feminists was what was said.
If you can't even be bothered reading, then i don't know why you bother responding. You just look ignorant.
Such as?
You love making these baseless statements.
You're just parroting nonsense that you don't actually understand, aren't you?
Then why does PP provide so many other services other than abortion; most notably: THE BIRTH CONTROL PILL?
You're an idiot.
You really are just parroting nonsense.

reply from: Shenanigans

I always find it interesting when people claim that someone else is not what they say they are. The amount of times someone says a Catholic isn't a "christian" or that Pro-Life women are not feminists.
Is there an official meaning of "feminism"?
Does it include a "has to be pro-choice" footnote?
If it does, who the hell decided that to be a feminist that one has to support the killing of a child? That kind of defeats your statement about feminism being about more then abortion.
I for one support equality for women, equal pay, equal rights, equal everything, except the killing of the unborn child.
Get Spinny in here, she has the stats.
But so PP provides other services? Aushwitchz (sp) provided more services then just gassing Jews.

reply from: Banned Member

Considering that you use archaic and outdated terms like 'transvestite', you're clearly far from being a modern, third wave feminist (which encompasses women of colour and transgender women).
You're just an ignorant dolt.

reply from: Hosea

Cool, so after you give birth, you can leave it in a cornfield and go off and live your life.
Sweet.
Each year 2 million couples do not get to adopt that want to adopt. Each year there are 1.2 million babies who are aborted.
These children can have a loving family who are ready for parenting and a loving birth mother who was not ready for parentling.

reply from: Banned Member

Because those couples want Caucasian newborns of under one year of age.
They're not willing to adopt the black kids, Latino kids, disabled kids or the older kids, who stay in the system for most of their lives until they are young adults (or are institutionalised, either in psychiatric facilities or prisons).
Yeah, these kids can have a loving family...

reply from: Shenanigans

Well excuse me for not wanting to type in Transgendered/vestite into Google. I knew it was one of them. Seesh.
HAHAH! That's not what the results of my recent neuro-psychological assessment says!!

reply from: Banned Member

If you had read any modern feminist literature, you'd know the correct term.
Get a second opinion.

reply from: QueenJ

At birth.

At birth.
Yes.
Yes.

At birth.
His obligations to the woman he impregnated begin the moment he impregnates her. He should be responsible for half of any costs related to the pregnancy. His obligations to his child begin when s/he is born.

reply from: Shenanigans

I think you need counselling.
Its obvious to me from your posts that you have deep emotional issues stemming from a lack of self-respect for your own person and a lack of confidence. Hence your reason in attacking others of differing beleifs, or just attacking others.
Your posts show a sub-conscious inability to view yourself as an individual with any worth, and you by attacking others you are making yourself feel better about your place and your life, which is not the best way for a person to improve their mental health. Those with sexual identity disorders tend to be over represented in these statistics.
Obviously you have serious doubts, whether that's been built into you from childhood or society, but they are there and they appear to be deeply ingrained hence your need to act out on internet forums.
Attacking complete strangers is a sign of mental stress, self-loathing and doubts about whether you are an "okay" life, you cannot exist this way, seek professional intervention.
YOU have value. YOU have worth. There is HOPE! YOU can find a way through it all! Just let people help YOU.
Either that, or you're jsut a very bitter person who can't stand it when others have an opinion that is different to your own.

reply from: Shenanigans

Yes.
Yes.
I have to be honest, but that's rather chilling.
But at least you carry the pro-abortion mindset to its logical conclusion.

reply from: Banned Member

I think you need counselling.
Its obvious to me from your posts that you have deep emotional issues stemming from a lack of self-respect for your own person and a lack of confidence. Hence your reason in attacking others of differing beleifs, or just attacking others.
Your posts show a sub-conscious inability to view yourself as an individual with any worth, and you by attacking others you are making yourself feel better about your place and your life, which is not the best way for a person to improve their mental health. Those with sexual identity disorders tend to be over represented in these statistics.
Obviously you have serious doubts, whether that's been built into you from childhood or society, but they are there and they appear to be deeply ingrained hence your need to act out on internet forums.
Attacking complete strangers is a sign of mental stress, self-loathing and doubts about whether you are an "okay" life, you cannot exist this way, seek professional intervention.
YOU have value. YOU have worth. There is HOPE! YOU can find a way through it all! Just let people help YOU.
Either that, or you're jsut a very bitter person who can't stand it when others have an opinion that is different to your own.
Pot, kettle.
Darling, I'm a woman who spent 28 years of her life forced to live as a male.
Now I get to deal with the whole gamut of problems faced by transgender people worldwide. I'm part of a minority group that it is still socially acceptable to disciminate against in public. I've been bashed and stabbed for being trans.
Of course I have emotional issues.
I see a counselor regularly; it's part of the process required for trans treatment.
However, none of my problems manifest in the ways which you describe.
I can put you in touch with my counselor and my psychiatrist if you like?
Your pseudo pop-psychology is boring and predictable.
As are you.

reply from: QueenJ

Yes.
why?
It's got to be one or the other. You can't have it both ways.

reply from: SpitMcGee

Pro-choicers shouldn't portray abortion as a perfectly safe and painless procedure; that's misleading. All women should be aware that abortion has its risks.
I don't just mean the physical aspects of pregnancy. I mean the consequences that follow (parenthood). Pro-life rhetoric doesn't treat parenthood as a serious subject; it settles with the baby as a symbolic gift from God and leaves it at that.

reply from: Hosea

At birth.[Q
Thanks for answering my questions. I understand that you believe the mother's rights to liberty supercede the child's right to life and therefore the child should have no rights prior to birth. That seems logical. What does not seem logical to me is that the baby is the same before and after birth. Those few seconds do not change the baby at all. Biologically before and after birth other than where it lives and recieves food and oxygen the child is the same. If a person moves and gets their food and shelter somewhere else it does not change them biologically. So why do you not consider the baby a baby prior to birth but having no rights?

reply from: nancyu

waaahh waahhh waahhhh so you've been bashed and stabbed. We're all people, we've all got problems. You don't have a corner on the market.
Get over it. Get over yourself.

reply from: Shenanigans

I did come to the conclusion that your sexuality issues would have caused such a mental expression.
No, that's quite alright. I just see you posting attack after attack after attack.
That's what's boring, predictable and sad.
Of course, treating others as you have been treated is usually a coping mechanism seen in victims of all manner of abuse and trauma.

reply from: Shenanigans

Then we're agreed. Lets just tell the truth.
Yeah, this sort of thing annoys me.
I know a lot of people dislike adoption, but its probably the best option for the child once they're born. And once they're born, they're a person and they're rights must be taken into consideration.
I found this today, it sums it up nicely:
http://marsmar.deviantart.com/art/abortion-128557018

reply from: Banned Member

I don't have sexuality issues, you ignorant trollop.
You're so goddamn ignorant it makes my head hurt.
The word is gender you intellectual gnat. Sexuality is about who you want to fuck. Gender is about which gender you present as.
Seriously, please read up on the relevant material before you go spouting your idiotic Freudian crap.
You're making a complete fool of yourself.
How's that working out for you then?

reply from: Banned Member

How about you help your daughter with her problems then, insteading of sitting online and shrieking at people?
Do tell us though, when was the last time you were bashed in public, or stabbed?
I'll take any lack of response as a simple "I have never been bashed or stabbed, so I'm going to STFU now".

reply from: lukesmom

You are making the mistake of "lumping" all prolifers together. Prolifers face the same unexpected, unwanted pregnancies choicers face. The difference is, prolifers don't chose to kill their unborn child.
I have had 2 unexpected, unwanted pregnancies due to failed birthcontrol. Both of those pregnancies placed great financial burden and life changing consequences on me and my dh. Unfortunantly one pregnancy ended in miscarraige which triggered my chronic depression. The second unwanted pregnancy also ended with my child dying from Anenecephaly. I can very much understand why a woman would not want to be pregnant. Lord, I HATED being pregnant. Prolifers don't live in a "Camalot" world, their world is the same world choicers live in.

reply from: lukesmom

How about you help your daughter with her problems then, insteading of sitting online and shrieking at people?
Do tell us though, when was the last time you were bashed in public, or stabbed?
I'll take any lack of response as a simple "I have never been bashed or stabbed, so I'm going to STFU now".
While I don't agree with violence or discrimination of any kind, if you communicate in real life like you do online, I sure could understand someone stabbing you.

reply from: Banned Member

The right to life is not predicated upon the notion of a perfect childhood. Having the right to live means that not one person has the right to kill you. Abortion is murder. Life in any circumstance is preferrable to death. Maybe the pro-aborts have made some suicide pact with the devil, but it is not their right to initiate another person into that death pact without their consent. Myabe pro-aborts think that life sucks and then you die, but they shouldn't have the right to assume that any other unborn person will feel the same way. And that is basically what I think that problem with pro-aborts is; they think life sucks. Well, life doesn't suck less just because you can jolly your genitals and go about wildly proclaiming you have the right to kill your offspring. What great affirmation could exist for the person who hates life, than to murder their own offspring? And I can only wonder if they kill their own offspring in some kind of sadistic afterglow or rather simply to spite the rest of the world who thinks that life just might be worth living. Yes, that's the pro-abort, some sick in the head animal running about after humping the nearest like beast that then wants to rip their own progeny out of the womb. Butchers of beastial proportions. The pro-aborts have no idea just how truly sick they are, how evil they are in the head and evil in their soul. And the soul that can't see that evil is denying the very Satan of hell that wants them to wallow with him in his own hatred and separation from God. "I will kill the fruit of my womb" sounds much like Lucifer's own proclamtion to God, "I will not serve". Your body, your right to choose, your abortion, your eternal damnation. Right choice and wrong choice have defined mans sin and salvation from the dawn of time. And He who was from the beginning will see you in hell until the end of time if your murderous abortive ways are not confronted in the hallows of your own conscince and confessed to merciful God Almighty.

reply from: Shenanigans

I'm glad someone came out and said it...

reply from: Banned Member

Ah, there we have it. You think I deserve to be stabbed.
What would be an appropriate rejoinder? That I think you deserve to be raped? Set on fire? Forced to swallow glass?
Or none of the above, because I'm actually a far more decent person that you, the 'prolifer'?
I'll go with the last option.

reply from: Banned Member

I refer you to my reply to Lukesmom.
Why don't you come round to my part of Wellington and we can sit down for a cup of coffee and you can tell me in person that I deserve to be stabbed?
Or are you too cowardly?

reply from: Banned Member

Vexthing is a freak who is only more messed up in it's head that between it's legs. Gender and sex are the same thing. What you are in your organs is what you are in your person. If the head and the organs do not agree, its not the falt of the organs but the head.

reply from: lukesmom

Ah, there we have it. You think I deserve to be stabbed.
What would be an appropriate rejoinder? That I think you deserve to be raped? Set on fire? Forced to swallow glass?
Or none of the above, because I'm actually a far more decent person that you, the 'prolifer'?
I'll go with the last option.
Please show me where I said you deserved to be stabbed. No one deserves to have a violent act inflicted on them although there are times I can understand the motivation behind act of violence.

reply from: Banned Member

Gender and sexuality are not the same thing, my intellectually insignificant friend.
Try actually reading the posts next time.

reply from: Banned Member

*Smirk*
You're not getting out of it that easily.
So what do I do that you would 'understand' people stabbing me for?
Having an opposing point of view which I back up with factual evidence and research?
Yeah, that's pretty stab-worthy.
If you're a neanderthal.

reply from: Shenanigans

FYI:
sexuality 1. the sum of the physical, functional and psychological attributes that are expressed by one's gender identiy and sexual behaviour, whether or not related to the sex organs or to procreation. 2. the genital characteristics that distinguish male from female.
Sexual orientation is based on, as you phrased it so eloquently, "who you want to fu*k".
There is a subtle difference, so I can correctly use the term "sexuality" in this context.
Source:
Harris, Nagy, Vardaxis. (2006). Mosby's Dictionary of medicine, nursing & health professions. Mosby: NSW.

reply from: Banned Member

Since you don't use your organs, does that make you...useless?

reply from: Banned Member

The right to life is not predicated upon the notion of a perfect childhood. Having the right to live means that not one person has the right to kill you. Abortion is murder. Life in any circumstance is preferrable to death. Maybe the pro-aborts have made some suicide pact with the devil, but it is not their right to initiate another person into that death pact without their consent. Myabe pro-aborts think that life sucks and then you die, but they shouldn't have the right to assume that any other unborn person will feel the same way. And that is basically what I think that problem with pro-aborts is; they think life sucks. Well, life doesn't suck less just because you can jolly your genitals and go about wildly proclaiming you have the right to kill your offspring. What great affirmation could exist for the person who hates life, than to murder their own offspring? And I can only wonder if they kill their own offspring in some kind of sadistic afterglow or rather simply to spite the rest of the world who thinks that life just might be worth living. Yes, that's the pro-abort, some sick in the head animal running about after humping the nearest like beast that then wants to rip their own progeny out of the womb. Butchers of beastial proportions. The pro-aborts have no idea just how truly sick they are, how evil they are in the head and evil in their soul. And the soul that can't see that evil is denying the very Satan of hell that wants them to wallow with him in his own hatred and separation from God. "I will kill the fruit of my womb" sounds much like Lucifer's own proclamtion to God, "I will not serve". Your body, your right to choose, your abortion, your eternal damnation. Right choice and wrong choice have defined mans sin and salvation from the dawn of time. And He who was from the beginning will see you in hell until the end of time if your murderous abortive ways are not confronted in the hallows of your own conscince and confessed to merciful God Almighty.

reply from: Banned Member

FYI:
sexuality 1. the sum of the physical, functional and psychological attributes that are expressed by one's gender identiy and sexual behaviour, whether or not related to the sex organs or to procreation. 2. the genital characteristics that distinguish male from female.
Sexual orientation is based on, as you phrased it so eloquently, "who you want to fu*k".
There is a subtle difference, so I can correctly use the term "sexuality" in this context.
Source:
Harris, Nagy, Vardaxis. (2006). Mosby's Dictionary of medicine, nursing & health professions. Mosby: NSW.
sexuality [?s?ksj??æl?t?]
n
1. the state or quality of being sexual
2. preoccupation with or involvement in sexual matters
3. the possession of sexual potency

reply from: lukesmom

*Smirk*
You're not getting out of it that easily.
So what do I do that you would 'understand' people stabbing me for?
Having an opposing point of view which I back up with factual evidence and research?
Yeah, that's pretty stab-worthy.
If you're a neanderthal.
*Smirk*
Can't read? if you communicate in real life like you do online, I sure could understand someone stabbing you.

reply from: Shenanigans

I refer you to my reply to Lukesmom.
Why don't you come round to my part of Wellington and we can sit down for a cup of coffee and you can tell me in person that I deserve to be stabbed?
Or are you too cowardly?
I refer you to not taking things out of context.
Lukesmom implied that your behaviour could be cause for someone to stab you, she DID NOT say you deserved to be stabbed. Just because someone can pinpoint a behaviour that could lead to physical harm does not mean that individual is justifying or advocating harm towards the individual carrying out said dangerous behaviour.
As for meeting you, I would have been happy to meet you had you not so constantly been on the attack. I don't like public displays of tantys, "uncomfortable" moments, or general loud arguments.
I'm no coward, and I'm certainly not stupid.
Clean up your behaviour and how you respond to other's and maybe I'll consider to meet up.

reply from: lukesmom

Since you don't use your organs, does that make you...useless?
Too, too funny coming from someone who cut theirs off! "I don't care who you are, that there's funny!"

reply from: Shenanigans

So we're using different defintions. That's probably a cause of contention. The Mosby's MDict is the one used by Aussie and NZL hospitals and schools of health. I don't what source your's is from, but I'll happily give it crediance if you can supply the source.

reply from: Banned Member

Sorry, you have demonstrated yourself to be both.
As I've said on innumerable occasions; I was perfectly polite when I first arrived here - the prolifers have cultivated the current atmosphere and until they work to change their behaviour, I'm not going to bother changing mine.
That is, if my 'act' needs 'cleaning up'.
Please pinpoint what needs 'cleaning up'?
Be aware that you'll most likely be subject to the same scrutiny.
I any case, I can understand why people would want to set you on fire.

reply from: Banned Member

So we're using different defintions. That's probably a cause of contention. The Mosby's MDict is the one used by Aussie and NZL hospitals and schools of health. I don't what source your's is from, but I'll happily give it crediance if you can supply the source.
Yoda's Favourite:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/

Main Entry: sex·u·al·i·ty
Pronunciation: \?sek-sh?-?wa-l?-t?\
Function: noun
Date: circa 1800
: the quality or state of being sexual: a : the condition of having sex b : sexual activity c : expression of sexual receptivity or interest especially when excessive

reply from: Banned Member

Um, hate to break it to you...
Nothing was cut off.

reply from: Shenanigans

Just a side thought, directed to you, Vex.
You obviously have had a rather uncomfortable life often finding yourself the target of vicious attacks against yourself as both a person and a woman. You have probably been called all manner of nasty things and what not, maybe even some one has called you a "freak" or "not a person", and generally, if someone stabs you, they have "dehumanised" you.
So why then, considering that you yourself have been on the recieving end of such dehumanisation, would you wish to inflict said mindset on another group of human beings? The ones that dwell within the uterus?

reply from: Banned Member

You misrepresent the intent of abortion.
Anyway; as I've said before:
I'll happily become 100% prolife once all forms of discrimination against born people ends. Facilitate that and I'll be on your side.
Off you pop; best get started right away.

reply from: lukesmom

Um, hate to break it to you...
Nothing was cut off.
Really? I thought you had your junk (mother of boys, their term actually)surgically removed.

reply from: Banned Member

Yes, at least I have organs. I am a male heterosexual who is attracted to heterosexual females. My sexuality is more than cheap female clothing covering a big ugly man body with big ugly man hands. I am a man and human being. My sexual gender and identity defines my sex drive, my humanity defines the rest of me, my intellect, my will and morality. Somehow gender confused freaks think that having a penis and thinking like a women makes them more refined, more enlightened. Secretly homosexuals seem to have a superiority complex. They think they are better, like they have some inside track on what it really means to be a human, whether that be females groping one another or males jousting one another in the behind. I am sickened by homosexuals somehow thinking gay love is "real" love, better love, as if gays feel more. What kind of perversity is that?

reply from: Banned Member

Um, hate to break it to you...
Nothing was cut off.
Really? I thought you had your junk (mother of boys, their term actually)surgically removed.
You thought wrong.
As I say so often on here (it's almost my litany): go educate yourself before mouthing off and making a fool of yourself.

reply from: Shenanigans

How, by accidently using the wrong word? Welcome to the exciting and often frustrating world of dyslexia! With that said, I have provided examples, from a reputable medical dictionary no doubt, as to why I used such terms.
As for coward? How can you tell by the interwebs that I am this?
What do I have to do? Squeeze myself through the network cables and riggle along the web space to save you from all the nasty idiots out there?
As for IRL, I have done things in my life that are far from cowardly, why, just recently I got between a mongrel mob member and the woman he wanted to bash.
Yes, I noticed your posts have started to reflect the general behaviour of those on this forum.
I cannot condone nor defend some of the rubbish that has been posted, whether by choicers or lifers whether they were frustrated or just plain nasty.
Frankly, it ticks me off.
But, just because others act like children with a mouth hopin' for a soapin' doesn't mean you should stoop to their level.
I have more respect for the choicers here who refrain from falling into that trap.
No kidding.
Welcome to the world. Home place to a species that some times needs a kick up its communal arse.
You can either join in the degregation or stand above it and maintain your dignity and gain respect from others.
But when you called me a trollop, I was rather impressed, I thought such archaic and classy insults were slipping from the human lexicon.

reply from: lukesmom

You misrepresent the intent of abortion.
Anyway; as I've said before:
I'll happily become 100% prolife once all forms of discrimination against born people ends. Facilitate that and I'll be on your side.
Off you pop; best get started right away.
Funny how those, like Vex, who yell the loudest about being discriminated against, harber their own discrimination against others.

reply from: Banned Member

Okay, so we are perfectly clear, Vexthing is a big ugly man in woman's clothing.

reply from: Shenanigans

I"m trying! I'm trying!!
Hehe, ironically, I've said the same about being a vegan. Once all human life in all its forms are protected I'll give up the lamb chops.

reply from: Banned Member

So do I
LOL!
You're the biggest closet homosexual I've seen in ages.
Your repression comes out every time you post about gays.
It's so obvious it's painful.
You like the penis.
I'm glad I don't have either then!
Methinks thou dost protest too much!
Just admit it, Fagustine, you love boys.

reply from: lukesmom

The only way I could educate myself about your genitals is by lifting your skirts and truthfully, I would rather not.

reply from: Banned Member

Are you kidding me?
The same medical dictionary that was written by the surgeons who claim "There are no intersex babies, because we fix them so they are M or F."
Fuck THAT!

reply from: Banned Member

The only way I could educate myself about your genitals is by lifting your skirts and truthfully, I would rather not.
Well that shows your ignorance about even simple things like research.
i.e. investigating the surgical procedures for transgendered and intersex people.
You don't even want to educate yourself.
You'd rather bask in your ignorance.

reply from: Banned Member

And yet...
You are not discriminated against, yet you still do it to others.
How curious!

reply from: Banned Member

The pathetic drone of conspicuous hate and lies. "The sane heterosexual person is secretly gay and that's why they hate gays." Sounds something like "I know you are but what am I?" Some of us outgrew that in the 2nd grade. I am heterosexual. Even from a young age, I knew that women were it for me. There was never a choice, never a conscious thought or consideration given to it. I no more needed to question my own sexuality than I could question or debate the direction of gravity. But I control my sexual urges. I am a moral man who respects women. I respect myself. I am neither needy for women or aggressive or pushy. I respect decency in women and look for the same in return. My sexual identity is not a scharade. It needs no validation or recognition, unlike the celebratory rantings and gawdy affectations of homosexuals.

reply from: lukesmom

And yet...
You are not discriminated against, yet you still do it to others.
How curious!
You assume a lot and don't know much about me.

reply from: Banned Member

Well honey, time and time again it gets proven to be true.
These upstanding heterosexual mavericks in charge of anti-homo churches...
They turn out to be gay.
The louder people yell about how wrong gays are, the greater the likelihood they are gay themselves. It's an unwritten rule.
And you, my homsexual friend, have engaged on some pretty epic rants about homosexuality on these forums which had nothing to do with abortion!
Now why would you do that?
Seems like the actions of another one of these closet evangelists that like sucking penis.
No you don't. You've proven that numerous times.
You have respect for women who obey the rules you believe in.
You don't have any REAL respect for women.
They're pretty much cattle to you.

reply from: Banned Member

LOL, yeah, just like you do.

reply from: Banned Member

You Vexing are neither a woman or a man. You're an ambiguous anomalous halfling.

reply from: lukesmom

Why would I want to research the subject? It doesn't interest me or really affect me. If I had a pt who I was caring for after this surgical procedure, then I would research otherwise I have no reason to. That isn't ignorance but instead indifference.

reply from: Banned Member

Sounds awesome. Do I get cool powers too?

reply from: Banned Member

Precisely.
You'd rather mouth off about it, then get offended when your expertise on the subject is questioned.
*Sigh*
You're such an idiot.

reply from: lukesmom

LOL, yeah, just like you do.
I have never assumed anything about your life. You assume because I don't have gender issues, I have never been discriminated against. Funny, because you often make discriminating comments about my religion. Actually, you have shown yourself to be very discriminatory and narrow minded here.

reply from: Banned Member

The self rationalizations of the intersex community and sympathizers do not constitute knowledge. Research of the same is simply rewarding narcissistic self congradulatory blather with feigned tolerance. Acceptance of intersex is easily akin to belief in a flat earth. 2+2=5. White is black and black is white. Good is evil and evil is good. Moral relativism. Cathartic explanations of ones own sexual perversions no matter how many times repeated do not comprise fact or knowledge. They should not be treated as such.

reply from: lukesmom

Precisely.
You'd rather mouth off about it, then get offended when your expertise on the subject is questioned.
*Sigh*
You're such an idiot.
I didn't "mouth off" and I haven't been offended. LOL, you jump to conclusions and are thin skinned.
Sigh.
You are a crass, rude person who is a cry baby and can't take what she gives out so abundantly.

reply from: Hosea

Because those couples want Caucasian newborns of under one year of age.
They're not willing to adopt the black kids, Latino kids, disabled kids or the older kids, who stay in the system for most of their lives until they are young adults (or are institutionalised, either in psychiatric facilities or prisons).
Yeah, these kids can have a loving family...
You are so clueless. People go to foriegn adoption to adopt kids from other races. There is even a waiting list for babies with down syndrome. People are desparate to adopt. Educate yourself on adoption. There used to be social owrkers who prevented white couples from adopting black children and children of other races. That is why there are so many black older children waiting on adoption. People are waiting to adopt children of all races. Get a clue.

reply from: Hosea

At birth.[Q
Thanks for answering my questions. I understand that you believe the mother's rights to liberty supercede the child's right to life and therefore the child should have no rights prior to birth. That seems logical. What does not seem logical to me is that the baby is the same before and after birth. Those few seconds do not change the baby at all. Biologically before and after birth other than where it lives and recieves food and oxygen the child is the same. If a person moves and gets their food and shelter somewhere else it does not change them biologically. So why do you not consider the baby a baby prior to birth but having no rights?
bump for queen

reply from: Banned Member

Intersex (or the archaic 'hermaphrodite') is a recognised physical medical condition.
It's as real as rocks and trees and streams.
Accepting it isn't akin to belief in flat earth.
It's accepting that nature screws up - and it screws up often.
Just as there are birth anomalies with every other area of the body, there are birth anomalies with genital.
FACT.
Augustine, you are certifiably INSANE.
100% bonifide crackers.
You are actually mad. As in pathologically insane.
Please, please, please get help.

reply from: Banned Member

Not they are not. Jim and Mary, the white couple from an middle class white family don't want to adopt Ricky the black kid. Or Hose the Latino. They want a cute white baby.
FACT.
The adoption statistics back this up. Black kids, Latino kids, disabled kids and older kids stay in the system for much, much longer than white babies.
There are people who want them, sure, but those people are few and they don't make a dent on the numbers of the unwanted.

reply from: Shenanigans

A lot of those children are in a kind of legal limbo. Either their parents are unwilling to sign off on their parental rights or the parent is in the process of proving to the state that they can care for their child. In the meantime the child is either stuck in foster care or a group home of some description.
The problem is the system not whether the child is "wanted".

reply from: B0zo

A halfling is a hobbit, isn't it?

reply from: SpitMcGee

What more is that than righteous ideology, devoid completely of experiential evidence? Anyone can say it; no one can prove it. That statement means nothing.

reply from: SpitMcGee

A lot of those children are in a kind of legal limbo. Either their parents are unwilling to sign off on their parental rights or the parent is in the process of proving to the state that they can care for their child. In the meantime the child is either stuck in foster care or a group home of some description.
The problem is the system not whether the child is "wanted".
Well, you have a point there. Of the half a million children in the American foster care system, about 50% have a goal of reunification with their parents. 20-30% have a goal of adoption.
But you still have to consider that this leaves over a hundred thousand children awaiting adoption.

reply from: faithman

What more is that than righteous ideology, devoid completely of experiential evidence? Anyone can say it; no one can prove it. That statement means nothing.
Kinda like your existance.

reply from: QueenJ

Prior to birth, a fetus is attached to and fully dependent for survival upon the woman in which it is residing.
At birth, the baby detaches from the woman and no longer requires the body and bodily resources of another for survival.

reply from: sk1bianca

so he's attached to his mom and he's depending on her for survival. is that reason good enough to have him killed?
women don't have abortions because they want the baby detached from their body (birth does the same thing). they have abortions because THEY DON'T WANT A BABY AT ALL.

reply from: Banned Member

Of course not.
Simply being attached isn't a good enough reason to kill it; the woman must have other reasons on top of that.
Not quite.
They don't want a baby now. They may want a baby in 5 or 10 years though, when they are financially stable and able to give it an excellent upbringing.

reply from: Banned Member

A halfling is a hobbit, isn't it?
In most fantasy settings, yes.

reply from: sk1bianca

so why not let THIS baby live too? do they HAVE to kill him?

reply from: saucie

Prior to birth, a fetus is attached to and fully dependent for survival upon the woman in which it is residing.
At birth, the baby detaches from the woman and no longer requires the body and bodily resources of another for survival.
Once a baby "detaches" (can you get any colder?) from the woman, (that's the baby's MOTHER), the baby surely does require someone's body to continue to survive, do you know any newborns that can get up and fix themselves a bottle?
All your justification for baby killing really sucks and just make YOU look like a cold hearted monster.

reply from: joueravecfous

The whole point of being detached is that it no longer requires THE WOMAN's body and bodily resources. Requiring "someone's body" to care for an infant is significantly different than gestation and "anyone's body" can care for an infant.

reply from: QueenJ

Exactly.
A fetus requires the woman and the woman only for survival. No one else can care for the fetus during its gestation.
A baby, however, can be passed on to any number of people who can take care of it.

reply from: saucie

Exactly.
A fetus requires the woman and the woman only for survival. No one else can care for the fetus during its gestation.
A baby, however, can be passed on to any number of people who can take care of it.
Have you ever looked into how the nazi's de-humanized the Jews?
You sound so much like them.
The more you talk the more you betray what a dark and callous heart you possess.
There's no difference in the humanity of a "fetus" and a "baby".

reply from: sk1bianca

so, again, why does the woman have to KILL the fetus? i believe we are all aware that the fetus IS a human being. so why not wait until he's born?

reply from: joueravecfous

Again, because she doesn't want to gestate or give birth.

reply from: sk1bianca

because gestation and birth involve the existence of a living child.
so, again, abortion is done in order to send the child into non-existence.

reply from: Banned Member

A woman can want or not want whatever she wants, but she does not have the right to commit murder. Abortion is murder and when a woman chooses abortion, she has chosen murder.

reply from: SpitMcGee

You sound so much like someone who would trivialize the horrors of the Holocaust and cheapen its historical significance by using it for a political point. Comparing genocide victims to embryos and fetuses doesn't do much for your cause except prove how ignorant and insensitive you are.
The Holocaust was a pre-calculated, systematic genocide that was allowed to happen because of widespread anti-Semitic hatred in Germany and beyond, and because of the adeptness of a certain dictator at crafting scapegoats.
Most pro-choicers, dark and callous hearts though we may have, don't harbor a grudge against fetuses.

reply from: Shenanigans

Well, what if she hangs on a few more months to the point of viability?
But you have to admit, that saying she doesn't want to gestate or give birth is kind of sickening, since the option is to actively seek the destruction of a human being, a child, no doubt.

reply from: PiltdownMan

I give up. Why do proabortion employees become prolife but not the other way around? I guess they can't become proabortion, huh?

reply from: QueenJ

Exactly.
A fetus requires the woman and the woman only for survival. No one else can care for the fetus during its gestation.
A baby, however, can be passed on to any number of people who can take care of it.
Have you ever looked into how the nazi's de-humanized the Jews?
You sound so much like them.
The more you talk the more you betray what a dark and callous heart you possess.
There's no difference in the humanity of a "fetus" and a "baby".
I don't have a heart. It was long ago disintegrated by the acid that runs through my veins. My blood was replaced with the acid soon after I became a card-carrying member of the pro-choice camp. It's one of their rules. You see, acid lends itself more easily to callousness and darkness.

reply from: saucie

You sound so much like someone who would trivialize the horrors of the Holocaust and cheapen its historical significance by using it for a political point. Comparing genocide victims to embryos and fetuses doesn't do much for your cause except prove how ignorant and insensitive you are.
The Holocaust was a pre-calculated, systematic genocide that was allowed to happen because of widespread anti-Semitic hatred in Germany and beyond, and because of the adeptness of a certain dictator at crafting scapegoats.
Most pro-choicers, dark and callous hearts though we may have, don't harbor a grudge against fetuses.
Well, see you have to say those things, mr. spit...otherwise your monster is showing....I understand that.
And I don't need any history lessons on the events that followed in hitler's Germany....I lost family members, I know the fear that can come from being a Jew, so you can keep your history lessons and place them right where the sun doesn't shine.

reply from: QueenJ

Where do you live, saucie (i.e. what country, not specific location)? And how old are you?

reply from: saucie

Where do you live, saucie (i.e. what country, not specific location)? And how old are you?
Not for all the tea in China, would I share personal information with a person with your lack of character, (proaborts can't be trusted)

reply from: Shenanigans

So, what's Sigourney Weaver like?

reply from: QueenJ

Where do you live, saucie (i.e. what country, not specific location)? And how old are you?
Not for all the tea in China, would I share personal information with a person with your lack of character, (proaborts can't be trusted)
Oh please. What exactly can one do with the information that you live in the United States and are under the age of 50 (probably more like 18 to 35)? Really.
I just wanted to ascertain how closely affected you actually were by your personal experiences with the Holocaust that you continue to bring up time and again. My guess is that (if it's even true) they were family members that you never knew (probably died decades before you were even born) that lived in a country you've never been to, which is why you can continue to trivialize their actually horrific and heartbreaking experiences by comparing them to abortion and those who support abortion.

reply from: Shenanigans

You can still feel "empathy" and loss for relatives you've never met. Its a process of the human mind that animals don't have. We can craft an abstract or imagine ourselves in a process that could have happened. I've lost family in the Holocaust, but I never met them, they were born and died long before I existed, and the family members who knew them personally and passed on their memory to my suriving family are now dead also. So, the memories of those family members are but second hand. But, we can still mourn them in much the same way anyone mourns any relative they have never met - you mourn more for the fact you have never met them and the relationship you could have had but didn't, in much the same way a parent mourns for a stillbirth or a SIDs child, you can't cry for them because you miss their personality or their actions because as a baby or a dead foetus it's hard to have established memories of them. YOu mourn for what they and you COULD have had. Concurrently, you also grieve for the process and manner in which they have died. I don't exactly get too upset for relatives who died at the ripe old age of 104 in their sleep, but its perfectly acceptable and normal to feel sorry for those who's lives were ended so brutally.
And I don't think comparing abortion to the holocaust is trivialising their suffering, it all depends on how you compare.
You can compare by saying "The pro-choice crowd dehumanise the unborn in much the same way as the Nazis did the Jews", and by that mean the legal and societal process of that dehumanisation. If you were, however to say "the unborn feels just like one of those poor Jews who were gassed" then you're probably crossing a line.

reply from: QueenJ

I'll respond to the rest of your post later tonight, but I have to take issue here with your description of how parents (not to mention other close relatives) mourn for a child lost to SIDs. You do miss their personalities. Babies have personalities. You do miss their actions. Babies are capable of a plethora of actions. And you most certainly have established memories with and of them, which you will mourn not being able to experience any longer.
Also, a stillbirth, while tragic and heartbreaking, is not comparable to losing a child to SIDs. It's just not.

reply from: Banned Member

No it isn't. It's a feature of language.
Animals do not have language and thus a monkey cannot tell a younger monkey about a dead ancestor.
If they could, they might very well feel empathy for a relative that died in horrible circumstances. Bonobos are extremely compassionate primates - moreso that humans (Bonobos do not murder their own kind, unlike humans).

reply from: Shenanigans

I'll respond to the rest of your post later tonight, but I have to take issue here with your description of how parents (not to mention other close relatives) mourn for a child lost to SIDs. You do miss their personalities. Babies have personalities. You do miss their actions. Babies are capable of a plethora of actions. And you most certainly have established memories with and of them, which you will mourn not being able to experience any longer.
Also, a stillbirth, while tragic and heartbreaking, is not comparable to losing a child to SIDs. It's just not.
I was using the term "personality" in the broader sense, such as "being funny", "being geeky" et cetera. A baby has a personality in the same way a dog has a personality. People might find that offensive, but hey, its just the way the human brain develops. A baby cooing or farting or crying more or less may be deemed a very simplistic personality.
But with Stillbirth, you could still aruge that the foetus has a personality in the way it moves within the mother, the way it responds to touch and voice et al.
To say such things does not dehumanise the child or limit the suffering of their parents. Its simply people doing what people do, allocating, or "personifying" a being that has not yet the significant cognitive development to have a "real" perosnality.

reply from: Shenanigans

No it isn't. It's a feature of language.
Animals do not have language and thus a monkey cannot tell a younger monkey about a dead ancestor.
If they could, they might very well feel empathy for a relative that died in horrible circumstances. Bonobos are extremely compassionate primates - moreso that humans (Bonobos do not murder their own kind, unlike humans).
How so?
An animal can extend what we would personify as a human emotion to a member of their kind. This generally just has a purpose in building stronger bonds that will encourage a more "community" based, or rather, "pecking order" which enables the animal group to survive. An animal might be less likely to extend protection or alert those other animals that are "cruel" to it.
Animals are simply running off a system of survival. Everythign they do, even those cute little behaviours we try to attribute to humanity, its all based on their survival instincts.
Dogs are prime examples of this, they don't need us. If we all dropped dead tomorrow, our Fluffys and Fidos and Jakes would jump the fence and survive just fine. Its a heck of a lot easier for them to wag their tails and lick our hands in "companionship" then it is to extend the energy to hunt prey. They get food from both behaviours.

reply from: SpitMcGee

The abortion-holocaust analogy is flawed. That's all I'm saying. I don't mean to assume anything about your personal experience in relation to the Holocaust and its victims, and I'm sorry if I came off that way.
And that's MISS Spit to you.

reply from: Banned Member

No different to humans. We do exactly the same thing.
So are we.
Same with us.
You seem to think we're wildly different to animals.
We're not. We ARE animals. We're primates.

reply from: QueenJ

In the exact same way that I can feel empathy for all the victims of the Holocaust, even though I'm not genetically linked to any of them (as far as I know).
To use and abuse the fact that you are genetically linked to victims of the Holocaust as a dismissal of anything and everything anyone else says to you about the Holocaust is ridiculous. To think that you are the be all, end all of information regarding the Holocaust just because you are genetically linked to Holocaust victims is ridiculous. You didn't live through the Holocaust. You weren't tortured, tormented, starved, experimented on, gassed, or executed during the Holocaust. You haven't suffered in any way because of the Holocaust. Don't pretend you have some inside or superior knowledge about it. And, most importantly, DON'T compare abortion to the Holocaust. By doing so, you do, in fact, trivialize the actual and quantifiable suffering of the worst kind humanity has seen. An embryo or fetus killed during abortion doesn't suffer. They don't have the capacity mentally, emotionally, or physiologically. Their death occurs in a matter of minutes. They aren't tortured or starved to the point that their bodies are nothing more than skin and bones or cruelly experimented on without their permission. They aren't forced to kneel down in front of a mass grave as a soldier puts a gun to the back of their head and shoots them, then kicks their body on top of hundreds of others. They aren't robbed of their dignity or humanity. They aren't separated from their children or sisters or parents never to know what happened to them. They don't experience ANY of the atrocities perpetuated upon the victims of the Holocaust.

I honestly don't see how we dehumanize the "unborn." Is it because we insist on calling them what they actually are - zygotes, embryos, and fetuses? Is it because we insist that they not attain person-hood and receive all the rights and protections persons under the law receive because they aren't people and if they were considered as such it would effectively take away the woman's humanity, reduce her to nothing more than an incubator and second-class citizen? Is it because we believe that a woman's right to control her body and her life supersede any and all perceived rights of the "unborn?" Is it because I keep putting quotation marks around the term "unborn" because it is as ridiculous a moniker as if we started calling living people the "undead?"
Good. I'm glad we agree on this. You can go ahead and disregard the bulk of my first paragraph.

reply from: Shenanigans

We have similarities to animals, but at the end of the day the huge difference that will always set us apart from them (bar a major jump in evolution on their part).
The fact that we're sitting here conversing by typing on a piece of plastics and then those words are ending rushing along cables into the homes of others to be displayed on other screens should be enough to you that we're different to animals.
The major difference, we should be able to control ourself and our actions, we can fall back on animistic qualities when we need them (ie. fight or flight). But saying "we're just animals" is no excuse for undisciplined behaviour.

reply from: Shenanigans

Heck no. If there's one thing I don't like about the majority of the Pro-Life movement is its aversion to using the correct terms. Zygote, embryo, foetus, these terms do not dehumanise.
"Person" is a legal term. It has no standing in science or medicine. It can be given and taken away on the whims of a society. To use the holocaust example, the Nazis simply took away the word person from the Jews, making them no longer "persons", which of course, led to their subsquent programme of genocide.
Don't dramatise.
I would imagine, (bar some influx of stupidity and legal ignorance) that should abortion be re-criminalised that women will not loose their rights. THey will not be deemed "second class citizens". They will still have the right to vote, to go where they please, to do what job they like, to enter into relationships they desire, to buy and sell property to build homes and live their lives.
The only difference in their legal status is they will no longer have the right... and I"ll bold it up for everyone to see... they will no longer have the right to KILL ANOTHER HUMAN BEING. That is all.
Its 2009, if a woman cannot avoid pregnancy there is obviously something wrong with her mind or society.
I'm no fan of birth control, but for us to get rid of this "need" for abortion we need to ensure women at least have access to effective types of it.
Education is also a nice big thing here as well.
Also, we must eliminate the need for abortion, this "I can't afford a baby", "I will loose out on my promotion", "I won't be able to continue school", this bullsh1t has gotta stop.
If anything, banning abortion will give more care and concern to women.
Let's not mince words. When you say women have the right to control her body, you're saying "the right to kill another body that just happens to be within hers, which, she of course, had full knowledge and consent in putting there" (bar rape).
An "unborn" is a perfectly logical and semantically correct term.
Individuals on your side of the fence use the term "anti-choice", which is so semantically defective it makes dictionaries everywhere cry vowels. The "unborn" can also be classed as a child, as a child is anyone under the age of 12 including those in the gestional age. So it can be classed as a child, "unborn child", or ZEF. But not a baby.

reply from: Banned Member

When you break it down, technology is just the application of tools.
We're not alone as tool users. Other primates use tools as well - hell even some insects use tools.
So no.
In fact, our tools are causing massive environmental damage. You're right in one aspect, we're more destructive and petty than any other animal out there.
Animals are quite capable of reasoning and controlling their behaviour in order to achieve a goal. Even lab rats can do this.
We ARE just animals.
You seem to have this bizarre view that we're somehow better and that we're 'special'. We're not.

reply from: saucie

Where do you live, saucie (i.e. what country, not specific location)? And how old are you?
Not for all the tea in China, would I share personal information with a person with your lack of character, (proaborts can't be trusted)
Oh please. What exactly can one do with the information that you live in the United States and are under the age of 50 (probably more like 18 to 35)? Really.
I just wanted to ascertain how closely affected you actually were by your personal experiences with the Holocaust that you continue to bring up time and again. My guess is that (if it's even true) they were family members that you never knew (probably died decades before you were even born) that lived in a country you've never been to, which is why you can continue to trivialize their actually horrific and heartbreaking experiences by comparing them to abortion and those who support abortion.
Listen you little ********....nothing about me is any of your business, nothing...got it???? And I still wouldn't tell a proabort what time it was...get that in you thick head too.
And I'm NOT the one bringing up any personal experience I have with the Jewish holocaust, I'm simply responding to those who want to lecture me on any history lessons concerning the events.
Killing innocent human beings for personal gain in the numbers that have occured since 1973 defines a holocaust and absolutley NOTHING you say will change that FACT:
hol?o?caust??/?h?l??k?st, ?ho?l?-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [hol-uh-kawst, hoh-luh-]
- noun 1. a great or complete devastation or destruction, esp. by fire.
2. a sacrifice completely consumed by fire; burnt offering.
3. (usually initial capital letter) the systematic mass slaughter of European Jews in Nazi concentration camps during World War II (usually prec. by the).
4. any mass slaughter or reckless destruction of life.
You people can't admit that because then the reflection you see in the mirror will be that of a MONSTER.
I get that...oh, I get that.

reply from: Hosea

You sound so much like someone who would trivialize the horrors of the Holocaust and cheapen its historical significance by using it for a political point. Comparing genocide victims to embryos and fetuses doesn't do much for your cause except prove how ignorant and insensitive you are.
The Holocaust was a pre-calculated, systematic genocide that was allowed to happen because of widespread anti-Semitic hatred in Germany and beyond, and because of the adeptness of a certain dictator at crafting scapegoats.
Most pro-choicers, dark and callous hearts though we may have, don't harbor a grudge against fetuses.
Are you unaware of Margaret Sanger, the founder of planned parenthood. Abortion was promotes to get rid of the feebleminded of society, who she defined as Blacks, southern Europeans, and Jews. You don't see abortion centers in the middle of an uperclass white neighborhood. They are in integrated neighborhoods because it is planned to get rid of the poor feebleminded of society.

reply from: joueravecfous

Wrong. Many doctors in "upperclass white neighborhoods" perform abortions in their offices. Of course they aren't a clinic and don't advertise as such, but they offer their patients ALL services. They don't have to deal with the harassment or the crazies. Seems pretty smart.

reply from: Hosea

TRue many doctors will do anything for money include killing an unborn baby. AS you said they don't advertise because they are not trying to improve society by ridding the world of those non-white burdens of society like planned parenthood does. Planned Parenthood does more abortions than any other organization and the highest award they give is the MAggie award after MArgaret Sanger who by the way wrote for the Nazi movement newspaper.

reply from: Shenanigans

Frankly, that makes it worse!!
It shows that society doesn't care any which way about PP being openly acknowledged as an organisation set up by a woman who was out to run the black population into extinction.
Rich people will always have abortions, they will always have access to safe abortions regardless of the legality of it. But what this says is "yeah, we know they're killing more black foetuses and we don't care if its out in the open, that's how much we know the Civil Rights Movement hasnt' really changed public opinon about the black man".

reply from: Hosea

Prior to birth, a fetus is attached to and fully dependent for survival upon the woman in which it is residing.
At birth, the baby detaches from the woman and no longer requires the body and bodily resources of another for survival.
So would it be OK to have abortion illegal when the baby is viable and able to live outside of the mother's body like at 24 weeks?

reply from: nancyu

I'll respond to the rest of your post later tonight, but I have to take issue here with your description of how parents (not to mention other close relatives) mourn for a child lost to SIDs. You do miss their personalities. Babies have personalities. You do miss their actions. Babies are capable of a plethora of actions. And you most certainly have established memories with and of them, which you will mourn not being able to experience any longer.
Also, a stillbirth, while tragic and heartbreaking, is not comparable to losing a child to SIDs. It's just not.
HOW do you KNOW this? I had close personal friends who lost a child to SIDs and my brother and his wife had a stillborn child. Both situations, though not exactly the same, were absolutely devastating.
Imagine going through nine months of a seemingly normal pregnancy in joyful anticipation of welcoming a new child into the family. To the parents especially, but also for those of us around them who saw what they were going through. How can you even pretend to imagine the pain of having a child who is born dead?
You seem to think you know how every person should feel in every situation. Apparently this is why you call yourself Queen. Well now we know, you're queen of nothing.

reply from: sk1bianca

it's not comparable because... it's not. wow
you don't seem to understand the loss of an unborn child because you don't consider it to be an actual "child". you only see fetuses, embryos, zygotes and other medical terms. please stop fooling yourself. a placenta and an umbilical cord don't turn a baby into an object.

reply from: faithman

One of the best posts I have ever seen on this forum...

reply from: Shenanigans

One of my teachers lost a child to SIDs and a child to stillbirth!
The SIDs child died at about 2 months of age and it upset her a great deal. However, she said she was rather exhausted from the previous 8 weeks of caring for the baby, it was her first, and so she said her grief was less. She said when she had her still birth - the second child, it was almost worse due to the fact of what you said,she had 9 months to think about how great it was going to be.
At the time of her SIDs child parents were just being told to not place bub on their chest, so, during her second pregnancy she planned that her baby would sleep on their back and she had so much hope and anticipation about how she was "going to get it right this time". And well, when baby came out dead she was horribly distressed.
She had two more successful pregnancies after those.

reply from: ProInformed

What more is that than righteous ideology, devoid completely of experiential evidence? Anyone can say it; no one can prove it. That statement means nothing.
Kinda like your existance.
exactly - but spit can't comprehend much can it?

reply from: Banned Member

How ironic, I was thinking the exact same thing about you.

reply from: ProInformed

Stuck?
Wow, you have some dim view of life. No wonder you're so confused and a proabort.
Aren't refraining from CHOOSING to have sex when you aren't mature enough to parent, and adoption, solutions that ARE already available?
The PRETENSE that ALL women who abort were rape victims or have no options besides abortion is NOT a pro-life pov.
The fact is that the vast majority of abortions are chosen for frivolous excuses including wanting to have 'free' sex, even free of using contraception.

reply from: opacho7

I agree with the work of a Pro-life those abortionist can also be a Pro-life as they want this will ensure and save the life of the mother and baby and avoid abortion.
--------------------
http://abortion-clinics.co.uk/clinics/?pc=BH8%208LS


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