Question for Pro Lifers

[Gorgo]

I am in agreement with your opening post, Kingjust.

[Lou Minotti]

And I will say for the record that I certainly agree with many of the aspects of the post.

[mes5289]

Sex is a hugely intimate thing between too people (i mean for petes sake, that's about as close to a person as you can get), and if a couple feels as if they are ready for it, then they should also be ready to accept the possibilty that they might become pregnant, and have a baby. Please take note of the line "have a baby[/b]". Abortion is irresponisble and crude.

[kingjust]

Quote by: Lou Minotti But that was based on what you posted, not what I assumed about you. That's the difference. I used to be "pro choice". I thought Bill HIcks' railing against "prolifers" was funny. Now, I do not. Abortions are going to happen no matter what. I am not going to waste my time trying to stop them with force. I have bigger fish to fry, IE, a criminally corrupted economy that in effect, creates the conditions that create poverty, war and suffering (and yes, abortions). But I still think the amount of abortions that happen on a daily basis are disgusting. I think our society has become so dehumanized and decadent, sometimes I wonder why I care or even try. And you know what? Sometimes people's justification for abortion sounds awfully like other people's justification for war. VERY similiar. I actually despise this issue. I think it drives a wedge between thinking people.

Well God damn, that is what I'm talking about. For once, we are eye to eye.

[kingjust]

Quote by: mes5289 Sex is a hugely intimate thing between too people (i mean for petes sake, that's about as close to a person as you can get), and if a couple feels as if they are ready for it, then they should also be ready to accept the possibilty that they might become pregnant, and have a baby. Please take note of the line "have a baby[/b]". Abortion is irresponisble and crude.

Call it as it may be, but it is still the couples choice or the mothers choice.

[Lou Minotti]

Only because you think small humans are not human and hence have no rights. This is your opinion.

[kingjust]

Quote by: Lou Minotti Only because you think small humans are not human and hence have no rights. This is your opinion.

What ever you want to make it. Damn, I give you a complement and you get snobby on me damn LOU.

[bishop]

Quote by: PH We should do everything possible as a society to eliminate the need for abortion as birthcontrol. Women who don't want to become pregnant can use various means, but still the abortion juggernaut rolls on. Why? Because people are behaving irresponsibly...

agreed... interestingly enough, the fundamentalists trying to abolish abortion are also against sex-ed in schools - i.e. informing children about safe sex and birth control.. what a bunch of american taliban retards they are..

[PatrickHenry]

Name calling is not debate, bishop. Why don't you note a few facts and forego the rhetoric?

I think the Feds are promoting abstinence-only. There is wide support for comprehensive sex-education, I believe, but the gov isn't listening.

Don't assume facts not in evidence...

[Lilith]

Honestly,

Kingjust, Gorgo, and Syracusa rocked in this thread! :)

[kingjust]

Quote by: Lilith Honestly, Kingjust, Gorgo, and Syracusa rocked in this thread! :)

Thanks Lilith, i'll be on the otherside of the moon with a candle looking for you.

[tripimollee]

I don't understand, simply cannot comprehend, the effort that so'called "pro-lifers" put into taking away a womans right to choose. The effort that they put into doing that can be put into helping the homeless and taking care of the unwanted babies because they weren't aborted. Furthermore, I don't think they comprehend the fact that abortions are still going to happen, whether they are legal or not. Coathanger abortions have been around probably as long as coathangers, and they leave the would be mother scarred, maimed, and sometimes dead. I ask of all pro lifers: would you like to see women have safe, legal abortions and recieve counseling on future decisions, coupled with schools that teach safe, effective means of birth control so youngsters know how to protect themselves? Or would you like to get rid of legal abortion completely, leaving women with coathanger and other means of illegal abortions, and an abstinence only system that leaves kids with no clue about contraceptives? And as for late term abortions, sometimes these are necessary for health. There is a gene called trisomy-13, that affects the childs vital organs and skin. It is not known until later in the term if the child is physically affected by it, or just carries it. If the child is physically affected, vital parts of their skin and bone structure will be missing, and if the child does in fact survive, it will not live for more than 2 weeks, and an agonzing 2 weeks at that. Thus, I believe that abortion, while it shouldn't be necessary, is definitely an important part of a woman's rights and should not be taken away.

[MerlinsByte]

I don't understand, simply cannot comprehend, the effort that so-called "pro-lifers" put into taking away a woman's right to choose. The effort that they put into doing that can be put into helping the homeless and taking care of the unwanted babies because they weren't aborted.

Merlin's redneck is glowing! So forgive me in advance if this sounds cruel.....

The effort is not to take away "choice" its to stop the murder.

The above quote neatly sums up the glossing over of the real question of pro life vs. pro choice.

We are not debating choice and life. we are debating the taking of human life (MURDER) for the sake of convenience. Common household trash has more moralistic value than a fetus human to be, for the pro murderers (choice)?

I would love to murder some tissue blobs that resemble humans, but because they may still have a spark of human somewhere in their dark minds, I would refrain from sending them along to meet their gods. This kindness should be extended to the babies that we benevolently inflict our homicidal rage upon.

This is a debate of killing human life for the sake of expediency or some other such non issue.

YOU are responsible for the life that you created. How dare anyone dispose of human life like so much trash? It s this murderous mind set that allowed the SS masterminds of nazi Germany to kill millions of Jews with the blessings of ordinary folk! The acceptance killing for convenience is just as dangerous as the actual deed! Don't Ya' All' get it? How simple can it be????

Jews (a baby in the womb) aren't real people they were just leeches that could be destroyed with a wave or the hand! … Bullshit!

That is the only question here. Are you murdering a human, and a soul, or are you just killing human "tissue"? How do you know what you are killing isn't human? You don't! No one does!

If you don't know, then you are simply moronic, and reside at the height of stupidly to take the chance of destroing this tiny humanistic life. However you do know that you are taking the chance of killing human life, then you are no better and perhaps worse than the SS goons that ran of WW2 nazi death camps!

The only exceptions would be the two most well known. Rape and the health of Mom. And only one of these two should considered for terminating a life.

mb

[Lou Minotti]

NAMBLA claims they have a "right" to have sex with little boys. :rolleyes:

[tripimollee]

But the fact remains, that what YOU personally consider murder is not what everyone else considers murder. Everyone's view is different. Thus, it is not up to YOU to take away someone else's choice, as you have no jurisdiction over their unborn child.

And as for the Jew analogy, you are comparing apples and oranges. A fetus in the womb is NOT the same as a newborn child. Or someone that has walked the earth for 40 years.

And because "no one knows" if it's just killing human tissue, who are you to say it is wrong?

[Lou Minotti]

Like I said, NAMBLA claims they have a "right" to have sex with little boys. Who are you to say that they don't?

[tripimollee]

I'm going to ignore that. I don't know what the hell you are talking about, lou.

[ericsp23]

Common household trash has more moralistic value than a fetus human to be, for the pro murderers (choice)?

This is an absurd statement that has no basis in fact. Have you even bothered to ask anyone who is pro-choice how they feel about it? I don't think any reasonable person would argue that abortion is a decision that should be made lightly, and it does not come anywhere near being equated to throwing away trash.
And equating abortion to murder is equally absurd. A fetus is not a human. It is not an autonomous being, and is still reliant on the mother to sustain it's life. It is still part of its mother's body until it is born, and that is the crux of the pro-choice argument. No government, or anyone else for that matter, should have the power to tell another human being what they can and can't do with their own body. I would tend to agree that it is irresponsible to abort a fetus just because it is unwanted, but it is not my place to tell anyone else what they can do with their own body.
Another point that seems to have gotten lost in this debate is that making abortion illegal will not stop abortions from occuring. It might make them less frequent, but that is all. It will just go underground and you will have back alley, clothes hanger abortions again, which was one of the main reasons why abortion was legalized in the first place. Is that really what you want?

[tripimollee]

I totally agree, I made that coathanger point in my first post. It's a good point.

[LogicaLunatic]

Quote by: MerlinsByte Everyone why not just strip the emotional baggage of this and expose the naked question for what it is. The only question should be. WHEN IS THE CELL / FETUS HUMAN? After this is determined all other augment is moot, and void. This is not a religious quagmire, or a moralistic nightmare, this is basic human rights. Either you are a cold sob or you respect all human life, which is it? mb

Good point. Needs to be altered a bit though. When is it human will not work. It must be, when is it A human.

My hand IS human. My little toe on my left foot IS human. But it isn't A human.

So when is the cell/fetus A human?

We could say that a cell is A human when it has different DNA than it's host. But then cancer would be considered A human too.

When discussing this I think it's important to realize what the human body does when foreign tissue is present. It is destroyed. The extra tissue is rejected. So given that, we can say that any tissue the human body DOESN'T try to destroy/kill/reject is part of that same human.

So, until the cell/fetus is REJECTED by the host (labor is essentially a rejection of the baby as far as the human body is concerned), it is PART of the host and BELONGS to the host. The host can do anything it wants with that part of it's body. If I don't want my hand it is my right to cut it off. If I don't want my foot it is my right to cut it off. If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant she has the right to remove that part of her body.