Question for Pro Lifers

[kingjust]

Why is it that interfering with a womens choice to do what she wants to her own body (what ever it may be), takes precedent over helping homeless children, starving children. How about homeless adults and starving adults, or those that are already born? May be corruption in companies, government, our own backstabbers in the community. Those things affect our society, abortions don't IMO. You make it your business when it is none of yours to begin with. Now, I don't agree with late term abortion, but if a couple or just the female decides to have one, who am I or any of you to say other wise. Realistically, after winning your proverbial battle of forcing women to give up their right to choose, you will completely forget about what you fought for (the baby). So you may disagree with abortion, but that should be the extent of it, right?

I'm sorry if this is tasteless to some of you, but this is how I put down my thoughts. Here is a way solve the abortion issue. For every female that wants to get an abortion, if the embryo is before 12 weeks have it transfered to a female that is pro life, i'm sure she wouldn't mind carrying it. And if the expectant mother goes through the pregnancy (from all the pressure of prolifers), have it immediatly adopted by a prolifer. You want the fetus to live so bad, you take care of it.

That example maybe harsh, but that, to me is a reason for women to have "their" choice, and not dictated by someone else. I know that their are gray areas, but I don't want to right any essay, just my opinion. The choice are for those (a couple or single parent) who are carrying, not the mass that disagree.

What does the mass say about my opinion, I would like to hear what you all think.

[Lou Minotti]

Why is it that interfering with a womens choice to do what she wants to her own body (what ever it may be), takes precedent over helping homeless children, starving children.

Simple!!! It doesn't.

[MerlinsByte]

excerpted from Kingjusts post....Why is it that interfering with a women’s choice to do what she wants to her own body (what ever it may be), takes precedent over helping homeless children, starving children.....

Merlin replies….Its not a question of helping those who are already alive vs. a woman’s choice, the question is, what is the “choice” in pro choice! Is it as some would have us believe its just an issue of removing some benign tissue. Pro life would say to abort is murdering a human. This is what all the fuss is about. When its convenient its just tissue. When the “tissue is wanted it’s a “baby”. Damn, that sure would be convenient for criminals! “ No judge it wasn’t murder cause no one wanted her so that made er’ just a lump of tissue, so I killed it.”

The main and only question that must be answered should be when is the baby ,cell, zygote etc “human”? After that difficult, but profoundly simple query is answered, all the other questions that follow will be answered in logical progression.

As it stands now the issue is clouded in emotional smoke screens , self serving interests, and moral implications. First, answer the most important question. Human or not human? I prefer to err on the life side, and be sure that I don’t murder a living sentient being. You may like to play Russian roulette with developing human life. This sets a dangerous precedent, as to what is next? Euthanasia of the old and unwanted? Then the disabled who burden society so, after that , well anyone who doesn’t agree with state policy. No thanks Bozo.

There may be one and only one exception. In cases of dire harm coming to the mother if the child is brought to term, then it should be the fathers and the mothers call, with more credence given to the mother i.e. the mother would have the last say.

This would not erase the moral implications but there should not be legal issues involved at this stage. Hopefully science will do something right, and in the near future we may be able to raise the unwanted child in Vitro and adopt it out.

mb

[PatrickHenry]

Merlin, it gets back to using abortion as a means of birth control. The responsible way is to avoid conception, not to eliminate its result. People who don't want babies need not conceive one. Contraception is lower tech than abortion and lower in cost, too.
http://www.contracept.info/abortifacient.php

Using abortion as birth control means that abortion is being used as a back-up method to ineffective or improperly used contraception, or no contraception is beng used at all. Of women having abortions, * 42% did not use contraception during the month they became pregnant * 11% never used a method of birth control * 47% have had at least one previous abortion

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...

Fertile women of childbearing age, USE PRECAUTIONS, why don't you!

[Mr.Vicchio]

Unwanted pregnancies can be 100% avoided.

Murdering an unborn child because the woman decides she doesn't want responibility for her actions is not the right answer.

Simple question: The woman wants the baby, the father doesn't the father is stuck with 18 year of hild support. How is that fair when in the reverse, Father wants the child, mother doesn't.. end of story.

The whole issue is replete with contridictions and BS, but the fact remains, it could have been avoided to begin with.

[kingjust]

Simple!!! It doesn't.

Then why don't you see ProLifers with picket signs saying save the starving children, put a roof over the heads of homeless children. Why, because it's not apart of their belief system, imo. It's hypocritical to say you want to save an unborn child but turn your back to all those that are already here. BS!!!

Merlin replies….Its not a question of helping those who are already alive vs. a woman’s choice, the question is, what is the “choice” in pro choice!

Actually Merlin, it is. The government nor you or I have to right to say to a women what she has to do with her body. Wouldn't you agree. Don't you think it would be unfair for the government to legislate a ban on tattoos? It's your body, you can do what ever you want with it right?

Is it as some would have us believe its just an issue of removing some benign tissue.

I wouldn't think comparing it to some cancerous tissue is appropriate, but my question to you is, why is it any of your business?

Pro life would say to abort is murdering a human. This is what all the fuss is about.

With that frame of thought of prolifers, masturbation would be murder, so would PMS,... right? I mean, according to prolifers, when the sperm enters the egg and mitosis begins, it's a human. Do you agree with that? If that were true in their frame of thought, the good book has made them more ignorant then ever, ok I won't say ignorant i'll say miguided. (I say that because prolife is religiously based.)

When its convenient its just tissue. When the “tissue is wanted it’s a “baby”. Damn, that sure would be convenient for criminals! “ No judge it wasn’t murder cause no one wanted her so that made er’ just a lump of tissue, so I killed it.”

It's not tissue, just cells (no pun intended). Your last analogy pertaining to tissue is half baked. Your comparing an already living being, seperated from it's mother to cells that are dependent on the mother. The difference is....living being...cells, get it. The cells have not yet made a self sustaining being. Also with you saying that, it's like saying you accidentally scratched a girl and you get tried and convicted because the tissue you destroyed could have been a baby if she were to get pregnant or use some outrageous scientific method. Hmmmmm, I think that would fly in court today how things are fucked up. LOL

The main and only question that must be answered should be when is the baby ,cell, zygote etc “human”? After that difficult, but profoundly simple query is answered, all the other questions that follow will be answered in logical progression.

Agreed, but don't you think that after they label a certain action or thing in the reproductive process, new ways of taking away simple rights you have to yourself will be undermined? Because if they decide that when the egg and sperm split for the first time, it's a human, then the 48 hour pill will be premeditated murder, right? I think that would happen, ignorant as hell, but it would.

As it stands now the issue is clouded in emotional smoke screens , self serving interests, and moral implications. First, answer the most important question. Human or not human? I prefer to err on the life side, and be sure that I don’t murder a living sentient being. You may like to play Russian roulette with developing human life. This sets a dangerous precedent, as to what is next? Euthanasia of the old and unwanted? Then the disabled who burden society so, after that , well anyone who doesn’t agree with state policy. No thanks Bozo.

I respect your choice, and how your percieve the reproduction process. But like in my first sentence, you make my point obvious. The poor and destitue are forgotten when the splitting of cells take precedent over the "ALREADY EXISTENT SOCIETAL ISSUE" that we have today. Let that choice be the woman (or couples) choice (abortion) an not yours.

There may be one and only one exception. In cases of dire harm coming to the mother if the child is brought to term, then it should be the fathers and the mothers call, with more credence given to the mother i.e. the mother would have the last say.

Acceptable late term abortion, I thought that was illegal. Wouldn't a C-section suffice? I would try to at least save the baby, in terms of c-section then incubation chamber to see if the baby survives.

This would not erase the moral implications but there should not be legal issues involved at this stage. Hopefully science will do something right, and in the near future we may be able to raise the unwanted child in Vitro and adopt it out.

Who's morals yours, and if it is, is it right to push them down onto others who don't agree with you. That to me is the infinite argument prochoice makes that prolifers cannot accept. They are pushing their own beliefs into the homes of those who don't agree and onto the government. And that is completely wrong. Just like I stated before, after the child is born, they could care less. It's evident with all the homeless and starving children we have today. I have not seen or heard one good thing that prolifers have done to help those that are already starving or homeless. Fucking hypocrites I say.

MB, I would like to thank you for your opinion, thanks!!

Merlin, it gets back to using abortion as a means of birth control. The responsible way is to avoid conception, not to eliminate its result. People who don't want babies need not conceive one. Contraception is lower tech than abortion and lower in cost, too.

Patrick, that would good in a utopian world, but you and I bot know that shit will never happen. People are going to do what they want regardless of consequences. And it sucks because dumb asses like that should be punished, but that would be pushing my belief onto to those that make mistakes, and that's not right.

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...

Why? Because you don't agree with the process, fine then you adopted all the unwanted children that you (or society) forced women to have because you (society) to away their "choice" to decide what to do. It's none of your (societies) damn business. How about trying to prevent unwanted preganancies instead, that wouldn't take away a womans choice because the issue would never come up, don't you think?

Fertile women of childbearing age, USE PRECAUTIONS, why don't you!

100000000000000000 (bagillion) % agree with you,... yeah, hey, why don't you take precautions damn it. Stop relying on us males to always carry a ..... oops sorry off topic.

Murdering an unborn child because the woman decides she doesn't want responibility for her actions is not the right answer.

And letting the child be born to a world where the mother regrets it and doesn't want it is the answer?

Simple question: The woman wants the baby, the father doesn't the father is stuck with 18 year of hild support. How is that fair when in the reverse, Father wants the child, mother doesn't.. end of story.

Is this really a question or a statement? But it's never going to be fair for the mother, because when everything is said and done, the choice will always remain with the woman. And that shouldn't be touched. It sucks, but that's the way life is.

The whole issue is replete with contridictions and BS, but the fact remains, it could have been avoided to begin with.

Damn skippy!!

[Lou Minotti]

Then why don't you see ProLifers with picket signs saying save the starving children, put a roof over the heads of homeless children.

Uuuum, maybe because you aren't paying attention? I know people that disapprove of abortion (aka "ProLifers") that are really the only people I know of that are actually doing something. They protest police brutality against minorities, IRS tyranny, IMF and WTO (for starving African and S. American countries), The War in Iraq...This thread is silly.

[kingjust]

Ahhhh, worrying about others then those in your own land, except for the police brutality and the IRS, those are understandable. If the thread is silly to you then stop fucking posting on it. If you don't like it, turn the other cheek. Thanks.

Just a question, why are you just replying to a single subject of my original thread? I know I typed some things worth a debate, I'm sure you have more then just this. I would really like to know,....oh i'm sorry it's to silly for you, ok turn the other cheek.

[Lou Minotti]

I'll debate this issue the day it isn't a distraction from real ones.

[rez]

To put this issue into a clear and simple perspective. It is the Republicans who believe in small government, it is Republicans who believe people are good and politicans bad, and yet for some STRANGE illogical reason they are anti-choice. Citizens can hold guns, but cant hold a choice - a choice that affects their bodies. It is quite simple "neo-cons", you offer the American citizen alternatives such as money aid to young adult mothers, adoption, and a CHOICE. Neatherlands does this with their citizens and their abortion rate is far lower.

[Lou Minotti]

Please define "necon".

[FIFI]

Thank you poster, for saying some of the secret gross thoughts some of use pro-choice may think sometimes. I am pro-choice, for a womens body is a womens choice. But you bring up an excellent idea: why debate and spend MILLIONs for or against abortion with lawsuits, orginizations (etc) but what about the born children? Wouldn't the money be better spent feeding children, saving teens from harmful substances / practices, or shelters for those with abusive homes?

[Lou Minotti]

a womens body is a womens choice

What does that even mean? How is a body a choice? Do unborn babies have no rights to a "choice"? I mean, it's their body...sooo isn't it also "a choice"?

Wouldn't the money be better spent feeding children, saving teens from harmful substances / practices, or shelters for those with abusive homes?

Maybe, maybe not. Is it the role of the government to save us from ourselves? I sure hope not.

[rez]

Quote by: Lou Minotti Maybe, maybe not. Is it the role of the government to save us from ourselves? I sure hope not.

good, then let human females have the choice.

[Lou Minotti]

The choice to what? Make babies and promply destroy them so we can "put the money towards better things" like public school/government training centers that teach this degenerate crap in the first place? No thanks.

[Gorgo]

If you wish to transfer the fetus to your womb, then you have a good case. However, if it's inside my daughter's womb, stay out of her body. There is no reason not to allow women to end their pregnancies in the first six months. Call fetuses humans, call them basketball players, I don't care. Unless you solve some other problems like health care, poverty, poor education, etc., I don't want to hear anything about murder. Stop killing children in Iraq, stop poverty, etc., and then come to me about how you're going to call abortion murder.

You want to make contraception and contraception education free in order to minimize abortions? Great. You want to offer subsidies for woman to have babies, and raise and educate them and take care of them? Wonderful. Otherwise, I don't care how many abortions anyone has. As I said before, the worst thing about abortions is that it is a major medical procedure which should not be taken lightly. If it weren't for that, they should be available on every street corner to anyone that wants one.

[syracusa]

I am currently pregnant (13 weeks). I will soon undergo Down Syndrome/Trysomy/neural tube tests.

Some women on the pregnancy forum I visit have a hissy fit when others suggest that they may terminate if the amnio says things are wrong. They are so zealout about what others should do with their lives they make me puke.

So how do you see this one, smart debaters?...

[Gorgo]

Again, Syracusa, abortion is not something to be entered into lightly, but neither is giving birth to someone who will require more than you can give.

[kingjust]

Quote by: Lou Minotti Please define "necon".

You know what he meant, please stop being petty.

[kingjust]

Quote by: FIFI Thank you poster, for saying some of the secret gross thoughts some of use pro-choice may think sometimes. I am pro-choice, for a womens body is a womens choice. But you bring up an excellent idea: why debate and spend MILLIONs for or against abortion with lawsuits, orginizations (etc) but what about the born children? Wouldn't the money be better spent feeding children, saving teens from harmful substances / practices, or shelters for those with abusive homes?

Your quite welcome. "Some" do not seem to understand that no one can control what we do to our own body. The government needs to be helping those that cannot do for themselves, ie: homeless, starving, corruption, etc. etc. And Prolifers need to worry about "their own life" and not anyone elses. But all in all, we see eye to eye on the subject.