Teenagers and Abortion

[syracusa]

I liked the way my DH put it: "the so-called "pro-lifers" have zero chances of winning an argument based on logic or reason; their logic is dogma".

So you can cite 1.000.000 scientific studies - you still made zero progress in presenting them your side of the story.I honestly think that when we write such things we write them for other pro-choice people, not for their eyes or ears.

By the way, I feel extremely uncomfortable calling these people "pro-lifers" and playing their game. Their position has SQUAT to do with life per se, and everything to do with an abstract dogma.

If these people were indeed so "in love" with the idea of LIFE they would:

1. also oppose capital punishment under ALL circumstances.
2. also oppose any form of war whatsoever.
3. also make sure everyone GETS TO have A LIFE, not just be given birth and thrown into a place full of misery and struggle.

I find them upsettingly hypocrytical, irrational and ill-willed against humanity and I refuse to refer to them as pro-LIFE people.This is not about LIFE. It's about a DOGMA.

Any "together" person who calls them by this self-proclaimed title only makes their game and fuels their irrationality and rigid cruelty further.

[syracusa]

Quote by: moustache i say we leave the killing and living up to god.

Is this what you wrote Pres Bush when he sent "the boys" to do the pre-emptive strikes?

Just checkin'.

[moustache]

well at least "the boys" had a chance at life, and werent killed off in their mothers womb.

[syracusa]

Quote by: moustache well at least "the boys" had a chance at life, and werent killed off in their mothers womb.

And you're OK with people being killed once they got a chance to get outside the womb.

You...so-called "pro-lifers" are so full of BS!

[gr8ridejester]

Quote by: syracusa You...so-called "pro-lifers" are so full of BS!

Is this all people who claim to be "pro-choice" can do...name call and defame? I'm "pro-life" and I believe in choice too. However, I don't believe in MURDER. If you feel you can kill that unborn child in your womb because you have the "choice" and not feel remorse, you are a murderer. That is what murder is! Merriam-Webster Online defines murder as "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought".

It is unlawful to kill an unborn child, therefor when you "choose" to kill your child you have chosen to commit murder.

It makes you feel better about yourself to discredit, defame and name call anyone who would tell you, "You are wrong!"...doesn't it? It doesn't change the fact you have performed a crime against man, a crime against nature and a crime against yourself.

Life IS about "choice", but being "pro-choice" does not necessarily constitute "life".

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: gr8ridejester Is this all people who claim to be "pro-choice" can do...name call and defame? I'm "pro-life" and I believe in choice too. However, I don't believe in MURDER. If you feel you can kill that unborn child in your womb because you have the "choice" and not feel remorse, you are a murderer. That is what murder is! Merriam-Webster Online defines murder as "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought". It is unlawful to kill an unborn child, therefor when you "choose" to kill your child you have chosen to commit murder. It makes you feel better about yourself to discredit, defame and name call anyone who would tell you, "You are wrong!"...doesn't it? It doesn't change the fact you have performed a crime against man, a crime against nature and a crime against yourself. Life IS about "choice", but being "pro-choice" does not necessarily constitute "life".

So it's ok so long as you're remorseful?

I doubt there's a mother on the earth that doesn't feel some degree of regret after going through an abortion.

[SVMc]

Quote by: gr8ridejester Is this all people who claim to be "pro-choice" can do...name call and defame?

Not to speak for her, but I think that syracusa was simply responding to an equally inflamatory remark made by a so-called pro-lifer.

Quote by: moustache i say we leave the killing and living up to god. Quote by: syracusa Is this what you wrote Pres Bush when he sent "the boys" to do the pre-emptive strikes? Quote by: moustache well at least "the boys" had a chance at life, and werent killed off in their mothers womb.

Syracusa also posed a very interesting question that no one has responded to. To paraphrase why is it murder to kill a fetus while it is partiotic to send people into war? They are both killing, why are so-called pro-lifers not also anti-war activists?

Finally, why is it that people will argue continually over the right to have abortion as an option, while they will ignore the social and educational factors that produce the need for abortion as a choice?

[tman_ndsu08]

I would only call a soldier killing someone a murder if that person didn't fire on them first.

[moustache]

Quote by: syracusa And you're OK with people being killed once they got a chance to get outside the womb.

no i am not ok with killing period. killing is wrong every way you look at it. but when you kill a defensless baby, that is just horrible.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: moustache no i am not ok with killing period. killing is wrong every way you look at it. but when you kill a defensless baby, that is just horrible.

It's logical to kill someone in the defense of your life.

[MerlinsByte]

I liked the way my DH put it: "the so-called "pro-lifers" have zero chances of winning an argument based on logic or reason; their logic is dogma".

Merlin ....the above post isn't true. It is so far from the truth that it is nearly begs for forgivness. (I smell smoke...i hope). My answer to your answers will reveal a logical conclusion, (pun intended) I will attempt to clarify my stance with a question. Im asking for a Pro choice answer, althouth anyone fel free to jump in. (i hate it when my S. O. does that)

First a disclaimer. I do feel deeply for anyone that has had an abortion, or has brought an unwanted baby to term.

OK the question to anti life or the pro choiceer's ....Tell me exactly when does a cell, fetus, or child become human?

If you can answer this with 100% Certainty I will reverse my views on abortion. Do I need to say I'm "pro life"?


mb

[moustache]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 It's logical to kill someone in the defense of your life.

well i guess in that situation it is ok, like if someone is shooting at you and you have no choice but to defend yourself, but killing a baby inside the womb isnt self-defense. thats for sure.

[SVMc]

Quote by: MerlinsByte OK the question to anti life or the pro choiceer's ....Tell me exactly when does a cell, fetus, or child become human? If you can answer this with 100% Certainty I will reverse my views on abortion. Do I need to say I'm "pro life"?

That, is why this relatively functionless debate exists. Someone who is pro-choice will always argue that they are uncertain when life begins, but will generally classify it post-delivery or perhaps in the third trimester when a fetus has a chance of being able to sustain life outside of the womb. So-called pro-lifers or anti-abortionists argue that the mass of fertilized cells that could potentially become a human baby, are ipso facto a human baby since they are the only combination of cells that has the potential to become a human baby.

Three questions in return:

1) If so-called pro-lifers or anti-abortionists see the fertilized grouping of cells as worthy of being classed a human life form where do they stand on the cells that have the potential to make the fertilized bunch of cells? Does it logically follow that to be pro-life or anti-aboriton one must also be anti-birth control?

2) If not, then where does the pro-life / anti-abortion camp fall on the ECP (emergency contraceptive pill) also know as Plan B or the Morning after pill.

3) Why do we not hear nearly as much from the pro-life / anti-abortion camp where it pertians to children in poverty and children in need? The same pro-life / anti-abortion organizations are rarely seen advocating for higher child welfare subsidies, better public education, increased sexual education, support for single mothers, or free birth control programs.

[MerlinsByte]

Three questions in return: 1) If so-called pro-lifers or anti-abortionists see the fertilized grouping of cells as worthy of being classed a human life form where do they stand on the cells that have the potential to make the fertilized bunch of cells? Does it logically follow that to be pro-life or anti-aboriton one must also be anti-birth control? (2) If not, then where does the pro-life / anti-abortion camp fall on the ECP (emergency contraceptive pill) also know as Plan B or the Morning after pill. (3) Why do we not hear nearly as much from the pro-life / anti-abortion camp where it pertians to children in poverty and children in need? The same pro-life / anti-abortion organizations are rarely seen advocating for higher child welfare subsidies, better public education, increased sexual education, support for single mothers, or free birth control programs.

Merlin replies

(1) If so-called pro-lifers or antiabortionists see the fertilized grouping of cells as worthy of being classed a human life form where do they stand on the cells that have the potential to make the fertilized bunch of cells? Does it logically follow that to be pro-life or antiabortion one must also be anti-birth control?

Answer....any group has its devotees, and being individuals, can be placed of a graph. One being a "hell yes" to 100 being a "hell no" no not under any circumstances. A religious pro life Christian is usually on the graph at the 85% range of hell no graph on abortion.
I would say the radical Christian view is no birth control and even no masturbation. I being Christian, am hitting on the 84.5 percentile range of hell no abortion. Most Christians I know would support abortion in for the moms safety and or rape.

(2)

If not, then where does the pro-life / antiabortion camp fall on the ECP (emergency contraceptive pill) also know as Plan B or the Morning after pill.

Answer...see one


(3)

Why do we not hear nearly as much from the pro-life / antiabortion camp where it pertains to children in poverty and children in need? The same pro-life / antiabortion organizations are rarely seen advocating for higher child welfare subsidies, better public education, increased sexual education, support for single mothers, or free birth control programs.

Answer........I am an ordained minister, and I have a small, very small, humanitarian mission and paper tiger church. I feel that the devil has been successful in deceiving all the world when it comes to Christians. The problem is one of transference.This question does not apply! (the only question is about killing)

When I try to discuss abortion with a so called pro choice person, they inevitably try to switch topics with me. This discussion does not include what Christians wear what their moral views are on poverty or on life in general.

Pro choice people, read this carefully and slow...............When asking a CHRISTIAN pro life person about abortion, you must remember that our/his world view demands that abortion is killing human life. the question is for me when is this human life? Simple concept, difficult to apply.

The question of kill or don't kill, no deceptive pro choice peripherals of this and that. We feel that killing a (from cells to full term baby's...see my other post for clarification) that it is killing of different degrees. Yes, its tragic for the Mom ,and the baby, and any of us that support it by taxes or spiritual means.Who has the ultimate responsibility here ? Mom ?the baby? You Me you tell me PLUeasssseee?

Is the true nature of the question hard to understand, or is the problem one of (understandable) denial?



mb

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: moustache well i guess in that situation it is ok, like if someone is shooting at you and you have no choice but to defend yourself, but killing a baby inside the womb isnt self-defense. thats for sure.

What if the Mother will die unless the baby is aborted?

IE, the baby is killing the Mother.

[gr8ridejester]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 What if the Mother will die unless the baby is aborted? IE, the baby is killing the Mother.

Well, of course, the mother's LIFE always comes first. Otherwise, the child could never be born anyway.

[tman_ndsu08]

They could do a c section.

[gr8ridejester]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 They could do a c section.

Correct, if far enough along.

[tman_ndsu08]

I don't think a baby could kill a mother unless it was from blood loss which only happens during birth.

[SVMc]

Okay since you bring up the refernece to scaled opinions can we agree that the on average there are a signficant number of so-called pro-lifers who support abortion under specific circumstances, but on the whole if asked to give an opinion on if abortion should be allowed they would answer no. Likewise there are a significant number of pro-choicers who would support that in some circumstances abortion is irresponsible and represhensible but on the whole if asked to give an opinion on if abortion should be allowed they would answer yes.

Hopefully we have agreement on that. In essence an agreement to disagree on the Yes/No verdict in an attempt to seek a better understanding of each sides viewpoint.

Here is where the pro-life argument looses me:

Quote by: MerlinsByte Answer........I am an ordained minister, and I have a small, very small, humanitarian mission and paper tiger church. I feel that the devil has been successful in deceiving all the world when it comes to Christians. The problem is one of transference.This question does not apply! (the only question is about killing)

Just to be clear you see question 3 as the transference issue which in your view does not apply?

Quote by: Question 3 Why do we not hear nearly as much from the pro-life / anti-abortion camp where it pertians to children in poverty and children in need? The same pro-life / anti-abortion organizations are rarely seen advocating for higher child welfare subsidies, better public education, increased sexual education, support for single mothers, or free birth control programs.

From a so-called pro-choice standpoint I accept that abortion is not something anyone "wants" to do. Abortion is chosen as a result of circumsances. So the question for me becomes, if no one really wants to have an abortion why do they happen? More importantly how can we stop them from happening?

The simple answer to the first question is that a man and woman had sex without using protection.

The suggested answer to the second question from the so-called pro-life camp is to make abortion illegal.

My issue with making abortion illegal is that it neither stops abortions from happening, nor does it address the issue of why they happen.

It is well documented that women who "want" an abortion will seek one even if it is dangerous and illegal.

So for me the question becomes how to prevent the need for abortion. From a so-called pro-choice standpoint that means to me that to effectively address the issue of abortion we need to look at the root causes.

One of the largest sectors that seek abortion are teenage girls. The majority of teenage girls in the United States who seek abortion, have little to no sex education, limited knowledge of effective birth control methods and come largely from poor ethono-racial communities where their parents were often children themselves when they had the now pregnant teenage daughter.

Now, please note that I am not arguing that this is every case, just that it is a significant number of cases. So, for me the answer to effectiely stopping abortion does not lie in legislation, it lies in addressing teen pregnancy.

Likewise reducing rape would reduce the number of abortions (although this is a smaller number than the above scenario).

The root causes are why I do not see it as transference to ask a so-called pro-life advocate why we do not see support from thier organizations on birth control, sexual education, child poverty in the context of the abortion debate.