Pro-choice actually pro-abortion?

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

I'm not talking about the dealth penalty, I'm talking about the enormous amount of pain and death of people who are already alive. If you care so much about life why don't you put forth the same effort trying to help those who are clearly alive and equally innocent. Certainly the pro-lifers don't spend the same amount of time protesting and aligning themselves politically along these lines.

Well the post you quoted and said "Spot on" to was talking about the death penalty, so that is why I mentioned it. I addressed this is my reply to another poster. I am not "all gung ho" about the government helping people. I think everyone should be allowed to start out on equal footing and go from there. Terminating a pregnancy prevents that person from even getting a chance to start out. That's my main issue, and just about my only issue.

Funny how it always comes down to sex with you guys isn't it?? This doesn't have anything to do with your desire to control the sex lives of women in society does it?? Groups of men have never been known to do that.

What? I could care less about "controlling the sex lives of women." Like I said before, if men could carry and bear children, then I'd still be opposed to abortions. I don't know where your trying to go with this accusation of misogyny fallacy, but it is totally irrelevant to this debate and rather trollish in nature. People who are pro-life don't "hate women" or "want to control them." :roll:

One would think that if personhood begins at conception or implantation or however you define it, that the method of conception shouldn't matter. A baby is a baby is a baby. You gotta save those poor, defenseless babies, rape or not.

:roll: People should be responsible for their own choices and actions. A woman who is raped had no choice in the matter of whether she would take the risk of becoming pregnant and all the life-altering changes that go along with it, unlike the woman who voluntarily engages in intercourse. I grant them special provision. The morning-after pill is a godsend in these cases, IMO.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: CheesePoofs

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener

It's easy for a man to say. Notice the responsibility only falls upon the female. Interesting how the government doesn't try and regulate what a man does with his body. Doublestandard.

What's the double standard? If men had the ability to carry children, I still would be opposed to abortions. That's not the case however. There's nothing I can do about that.

He means it takes two to have a child. If an unwanted conception happens, the fault does not lie only on the women; it's also the man's fault.

Ok, I agree. What your point?

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Funny how it always comes down to sex with you guys isn't it?? This doesn't have anything to do with your desire to control the sex lives of women in society does it?? Groups of men have never been known to do that.

What? I could care less about "controlling the sex lives of women." Like I said before, if men could carry and bear children, then I'd still be opposed to abortions. I don't know where your trying to go with this accusation of misogyny fallacy, but it is totally irrelevant to this debate and rather trollish in nature. People who are pro-life don't "hate women" or "want to control them." :roll:

While few would admit to holding such beliefs and I don't think that you personally do, a segment of pro-life believers, largely from the patriarchical fundamentalists, do hold such beliefs. You can read those beliefs in their writings, and you can also see them in their current legal fight against female forms of birth control like the pill through their "pharmacists' rights" trojan horse attack.

The morning-after pill is a godsend in these cases, IMO.

It is, and it's also the #1 target of the fight against female forms of birth control.

 

[NeenerNeener]

I believe in personal responsibility. I don't believe in laws that only apply to women.

 

[NeenerNeener]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

To me, it's not about the government having the power to prevent abortions that's over-reaching, it's their inability to do such that is.

Huh?

 

[NeenerNeener]

I see. So what you're saying is that the courts are over-reaching? Those "activist judges"?

 

[meanboom]

To me, it's not about the government having the power to prevent abortions that's over-reaching, it's their inability to do such that is.

he says that the government forcing laws on the people without a vote of any kind is the government over-reaching with its authority.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: meanboom

To me, it's not about the government having the power to prevent abortions that's over-reaching, it's their inability to do such that is.

he says that the government forcing laws on the people without a vote of any kind is the government over-reaching with its authority.

meanboom, hahaha.

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: MadRat

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: MadRat
A zygote won't exactly develop without implantation.

Neither will an aborted fetus...

No one is asking you to like Abortion MadRat, reguardless of how you feel about it. It doesn't remotely effect your life. You can go ahead of waste your life with a bunch of pro-life activists groups, but I having a feeling Roe Vs. Wade won't change anytime soon.

Ah, but you are wrong. The emotional and physical stress an abortion has on the mother is not black and white. It can and does affect (not effect btw) the other people around the person. I've seen a couple of women spiral in their lives until they finally had another. Guilt is a heavy burden to carry for some people. You might be able to carry guilt easily, but the general population does not.

How the hell does this even relate to what I've said?

Because you said, "It doesn't remotely effect your life." That is a statement which has not been remotely true. I've seen how the guilt wrecks women firsthand. And I've watched them saddle the guilt for years, believing they made the wrong choice. An abortion cannot be undone. The most common reaction to the guilt has been for them to have a child at costs that they probably would have never accepted without the guilt.

 

[NeenerNeener]

If the courts decide that a law violates the inalienable rights of anybody, majority or minority, they have the power to declare a law unconstitutional. It's part of the separation of powers to prevent the minority from the tyranny of the majority., etc, etc, etc. Same as the lame gay marriage amendment.

 

[NeenerNeener]

Democracy isn't just about majority rule.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Taejin

Originally posted by: zendari
I support abortion rights, but I also think pro-choice is a leftist terminology. If you support allowing people to have an abortion you are pro-abortion. Simple as that.

But I also think pro-life is rightist terminology. If you are forcing women to have babies they don't want you are pro-nazi. Simple as that.

That's quite easy. Don't be a whore.


A newborn baby is just as mentally deficient as a fetus, can I toss one in the garbage can?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: zendari
I support abortion rights, but I also think pro-choice is a leftist terminology. If you support allowing people to have an abortion you are pro-abortion. Simple as that.

I disagree. It's not as "simple as that" (but leave it to Zendari to once again try to reduce a complex issue to black and white). There are THREE categories of people with respect to abortions:

"Anti-abortion" is shorthand for the more clumsy "anti-abortion-choice". These terms describe exactly what such people believe: Women should should not have the option of getting abortions. Also, since such people generally want women to be prevented from getting abortions (they want criminal penalties to exist), they can accurately be described as being "anti-abortion".

"Pro-abortion" describes people who advocate that women in general, or some sub-group of women, abort their fetuses. People who fall into this category include those radically opposed to population growth, radical eugenicists, racists (who don't want "those sorts of people" to reproduce), and those who think of abortion as one way of handling so-called "breeder" welfare mothers.

Contrast these positions with that of people like me: I'm for women having the option (= choice) of having an abortion, at least until viability. However, I do NOT advocate abortions, and am generally opposed to them. To classify me as "pro-abortion" would be a gross distortion of what I believe. I'm for "abortion choice" (= "pro-choice" for short). I'm not "for abortions".

"Pro-choice" and "pro-abortion-choice" aren't euphemisms. They're accurate descriptions.

You are forgetting the radical abortionists from california and the whores who fvck around and abort babies like its in style.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Well the post you quoted and said "Spot on" to was talking about the death penalty, so that is why I mentioned it.

First off, the post I quoted not only talked about the death penalty, but genocide, and the plight of some dead Iraqis. But just for the record, there have been many of people just as innocent as those poor, defenseless, innocent fetuses who got whacked by the state.

I addressed this is my reply to another poster. I am not "all gung ho" about the government helping people. I think everyone should be allowed to start out on equal footing and go from there. Terminating a pregnancy prevents that person from even getting a chance to start out. That's my main issue, and just about my only issue.

So pro-life until birth is an accurate way of describing your ideaology. Everyone gets to start out but then you're on your own from there.

What? I could care less about "controlling the sex lives of women." Like I said before, if men could carry and bear children, then I'd still be opposed to abortions. I don't know where your trying to go with this accusation of misogyny fallacy, but it is totally irrelevant to this debate and rather trollish in nature. People who are pro-life don't "hate women" or "want to control them."

How do you say this when earlier you said

Personal responsibility is a key concept - the mother should have used it when she decided to spread her legs.

Unless I'm very mistaken about what you mean by "spread her legs," you are most definatly talking about the sex lives of women. If a women chooses to have sex for pleasure and takes responsible means to prevent pregnancy and gets pregnant somehow, its too late - there's alreadly a human being inside her. She's having the baby and should have been responsible earlier and not have had sex at all. But I forgot - this isn't about sex at all.

People should be responsible for their own choices and actions. A woman who is raped had no choice in the matter of whether she would take the risk of becoming pregnant and all the life-altering changes that go along with it, unlike the woman who voluntarily engages in intercourse. I grant them special provision. The morning-after pill is a godsend in these cases, IMO.

So you're granting a special provision for all those babies to be killed. The will of the woman is of no relevance when talking about the human being inside. What's the difference whether she got raped or had willful sex?? How are the rights of the human in the womb any different??

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: zendari

That's quite easy. Don't be a whore.


A newborn baby is just as mentally deficient as a fetus, can I toss one in the garbage can?

Wow - Its definitely about sex to this pro-lifer. Everyone who gets pregnant that doesn't want the baby is a whore.
And I love the assertion that the neural development of a fetus is the same as a newborn. Now that's some intelligence.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: zendari

That's quite easy. Don't be a whore.


A newborn baby is just as mentally deficient as a fetus, can I toss one in the garbage can?

Wow - Its definitely about sex to this pro-lifer. Everyone who gets pregnant that doesn't want the baby is a whore.
And I love the assertion that the neural development of a fetus is the same as a newborn. Now that's some intelligence.

I'm not pro-life. But if you have an unwanted pregnancy you were at the very least irresponsible. If you want to use each other for pleasure and fvck like rabbits at least do it properly.

A newborn demands huge amounts of attention and is almost as dependent on the mother as the fetus. Look at the threads on people who left their babies alone for a couple hours.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

So pro-life until birth is an accurate way of describing your ideaology. Everyone gets to start out but then you're on your own from there.

That's a bit of an over-simplification, but yeah, if that's the only way you can wrap your mind around it, sure. We have laws protecting a mother from killing her 1-minute-old baby, her 3-month old baby, her 4-year-old toddler, her 45-year-old kid, so why should her -5-month-old be any differnt? Why does breaching the vaginal opening suddenly grant you immunity from harm?

Unless I'm very mistaken about what you mean by "spread her legs," you are most definatly talking about the sex lives of women. If a women chooses to have sex for pleasure and takes responsible means to prevent pregnancy and gets pregnant somehow, its too late - there's alreadly a human being inside her. She's having the baby and should have been responsible earlier and not have had sex at all. But I forgot - this isn't about sex at all.

Lost me again. Yes, babies come from sex. Whether it's sex for pleasure, sex for money, sex for love, or sex for day-old Rice Krispie Treats and a fvcking Mountain Dew is irrelevant - babies can happen. If someone is not mentally, emotionally, or financially prepared to deal with the worst-case scenario caused by his or her actions, then perhaps he or she should think twice before engaging in said actions.

We allow 16-year-olds to drive vehicles. If said teenager acts irresponsibly and kills a busload of people, should we simple look the other way, for fear that we are trying to 'control his/her driving habits?'

I know sex is probably a neat-o thing to you right now, but not everyone is as obsessed with it as you want them to be. Babies come from sex. The mother is a concious participant in said sex. That's the extent of the relationship. I'm sorry you want to read more into it.

People should be responsible for their own choices and actions. A woman who is raped had no choice in the matter of whether she would take the risk of becoming pregnant and all the life-altering changes that go along with it, unlike the woman who voluntarily engages in intercourse. I grant them special provision. The morning-after pill is a godsend in these cases, IMO.

So you're granting a special provision for all those babies to be killed. The will of the woman is of no relevance when talking about the human being inside. What's the difference whether she got raped or had willful sex?? How are the rights of the human in the womb any different??

Who said the day after a rape, a baby is created? You'll not hear me argue that. There's a differnce between a woman taking a morning-after pill after a sexual assault and a mother-to-be who decides that that 3-month-old person in her is going to just *ruin* her social life, after all. You're being thick-headed or absurdly naive if you can't see that.

People have to be responsible for their actions, that's the only way society will work. Just about any "downfall" people complain about in "today's world" can be directly traced back to the shunning of personal responsibilites. If you are a women who engages in potential baby-making activities, then you have to own up to your responsibilities. Carry the baby to term, then either raise it or put it up for adoption. If you are a man who engages in potential baby-making activities, then you have to own up to your responsibilities. Either take care of the mother and child, or pony up child-support for the next 18 years. There is no gender bias in this logic, no matter how much you want to whine that there is.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: zendari
I support abortion rights, but I also think pro-choice is a leftist terminology. If you support allowing people to have an abortion you are pro-abortion. Simple as that.

I disagree. It's not as "simple as that" (but leave it to Zendari to once again try to reduce a complex issue to black and white). There are THREE categories of people with respect to abortions:

"Anti-abortion" is shorthand for the more clumsy "anti-abortion-choice". These terms describe exactly what such people believe: Women should should not have the option of getting abortions. Also, since such people generally want women to be prevented from getting abortions (they want criminal penalties to exist), they can accurately be described as being "anti-abortion".

"Pro-abortion" describes people who advocate that women in general, or some sub-group of women, abort their fetuses. People who fall into this category include those radically opposed to population growth, radical eugenicists, racists (who don't want "those sorts of people" to reproduce), and those who think of abortion as one way of handling so-called "breeder" welfare mothers.

Contrast these positions with that of people like me: I'm for women having the option (= choice) of having an abortion, at least until viability. However, I do NOT advocate abortions, and am generally opposed to them. To classify me as "pro-abortion" would be a gross distortion of what I believe. I'm for "abortion choice" (= "pro-choice" for short). I'm not "for abortions".

"Pro-choice" and "pro-abortion-choice" aren't euphemisms. They're accurate descriptions.

You are forgetting the radical abortionists from california and the whores who fvck around and abort babies like its in style.

I'm not forgetting anything. This so-called "point" of yours is irrelevant to my post. I disputed your typical oversimplified, black-and-white assertion that "pro-choice" means the same thing as "pro-abortion". I did so by showing how three distinct meanings are needed to classify people's attitudes toward abortion.

Your reply? "There are people who irresponsibly use abortions."

Yeah, so? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? How does your reply in any sense address what "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion" really mean?

I realize that when you're confronted by complexity, your instinct is to flee to black and white symbols ("whores who fvck around and abort babies like its [sic] in style.") It's scary, isn't it, to imagine that really decent people might be gay, that really loving women might choose to have abortions, that liberals are correct a good percentage of the time, and that many men who look at nude women on the internet might still be excellent fathers and husbands? The bible and your religion don't allow for shades of gray, do they?

You might find the universe a little less scary, and you might come across less like an angry bltch and more like someone soft and sympathetic (and who knows, you might even get laid), if you allowed yourself to really SEE the universe as it really is.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
I grant them special provision. The morning-after pill is a godsend in these cases, IMO.

And your entire argument falls apart.

If abortion is murder, you can't possibly condone murder just because a rape was involved. Therefore what you've just said is that unwanted pregnancy is a just punishement for what you consider promiscuous behaviour. Either alter your position one way or another, or let's loop back to the misogyny accusations here.

 

[CreativeTom]

Originally posted by: Tab

Pro-Choice says exactly what it means, the support of choices. If you fail to understand this, you've got serious issuses.

Thank god someone understands

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Taejin

Originally posted by: zendari
I support abortion rights, but I also think pro-choice is a leftist terminology. If you support allowing people to have an abortion you are pro-abortion. Simple as that.

But I also think pro-life is rightist terminology. If you are forcing women to have babies they don't want you are pro-nazi. Simple as that.

That's quite easy. Don't be a whore.


A newborn baby is just as mentally deficient as a fetus, can I toss one in the garbage can?

whores get paid for sex. are you saying that women who have abortions/consider abortions are whores?

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
I grant them special provision. The morning-after pill is a godsend in these cases, IMO.

And your entire argument falls apart.

If abortion is murder, you can't possibly condone murder just because a rape was involved. Therefore what you've just said is that unwanted pregnancy is a just punishement for what you consider promiscuous behaviour. Either alter your position one way or another, or let's loop back to the misogyny accusations here.

No, it doesn't. Read some more.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
I grant them special provision. The morning-after pill is a godsend in these cases, IMO.

And your entire argument falls apart.

If abortion is murder, you can't possibly condone murder just because a rape was involved. Therefore what you've just said is that unwanted pregnancy is a just punishement for what you consider promiscuous behaviour. Either alter your position one way or another, or let's loop back to the misogyny accusations here.

No, it doesn't. Read some more.

Yes, it does. A zygote-embryo-fetus-human is still a zygote-embryo-fetus-human reguardless what man inserted his wang into a pink wet taco.

All you're doing is saying "Killing unborn babies is murder" then leaving a double standard for women that have been raped. Letting the women apparently murder their rapists baby.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: CreativeTom

Originally posted by: Tab

Pro-Choice says exactly what it means, the support of choices. If you fail to understand this, you've got serious issuses.

Thank god someone understands

On a side note, I don't think I'd ever advocate an abortion. I'd also have a hard time having any relationship with a women who has had one.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
I grant them special provision. The morning-after pill is a godsend in these cases, IMO.

And your entire argument falls apart.

If abortion is murder, you can't possibly condone murder just because a rape was involved. Therefore what you've just said is that unwanted pregnancy is a just punishement for what you consider promiscuous behaviour. Either alter your position one way or another, or let's loop back to the misogyny accusations here.

No, it doesn't. Read some more.

Yes, it does. A zygote-embryo-fetus-human is still a zygote-embryo-fetus-human reguardless what man inserted his wang into a pink wet taco.

All you're doing is saying "Killing unborn babies is murder" then leaving a double standard for women that have been raped. Letting the women apparently murder their rapists baby.

Slow down for a moment. I know you're all rabid to point out imagined hypocricy from someone who simply disagrees with you, but follow my posts to this thread if you want to debate me.

I realize that a day-old fertilized egg is not a human being.. That a 2-day-old fertilized egg is not. Even a week-old egg. But a 5-minute 'til birth baby *is* a human being. So is a 2-day 'til-birth one. Working your way from both ends, there has got to be some point at which the definition of "human being with rights" changes over from "expendable clump of cell mass." I certainly don't believe it to be some magic, singular point in time, but rather a large grey area. I just happen to believe that "grey area" is a lot earlier in the development cycle than the current max limit on abortion laws allows.

I've very moderate on this issue, so if you'd really like to engage in a screaming and yelling fight with someone, I suggest you find some rabid pro-lifer who wants to save every multi-cell organism (if you can find such a person.) I know it's easier to just lump us all together into that potentially fictitious mindset, but it's intellectually dishonest of you to do so, IMO.



edit: toned down the useless insults a bit..