Pro-life

[jdun]

It pretty amazing how young women are brainwashed into thinking that is alright to murder her own child in the context that it is not alive. The Pro-Choice movement keep trying convince young women to come into their money making abortion clinics and have abortion. The Pro-Choice movement care nothing about women or their babies. All they care about is their money.

Killing your unborn child is murder. Plain and simple.

Good thing we're not talking about killing unborn children then isn't it? We're talking about killing an undeveloped mass of cells that are just taking up space.

That's a excuse that the Pro-Choice movement keep making to convince young women into letting them kill their babies for money.

Awh bless...he knows how to generalise. Even if that generalisation is horribly wrong.

What makes you think that pro-choice people are simply all about convincing mothers to kill their unborn children? I mean what they're about is right there in the name "PRO-CHOICE".

choice/CHois/
Noun:
An act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.

If pro-choice people really were the way you think of them, then they wouldn't be called pro-choice. They'd be called pro-let's kill all the babies.

And what about the right of the unborn child? What hideous crime did the baby made that warrant the death penalty?

Here the thing about liberals, they fight tooth and nail to try to get rapist, murders, two bit dictators from getting punishment they deserved. Trying to convince others that they are not "bad people". Yet they don't give a damn about killing babies. They treat these unborn babies like some kind of monsters.

You been in an abortion center? These so called pro-choice play hardball on young girls. Trying to convince them it's alright to let them kill their babies and no one there to help her.

Go do a Google search on profits of killing babies.

 

[jdun]

-Wait, you mean pregnancy is stressful? Crap, now I have to re-think my entire argument.
-You're just a ball of cells. How about I abort you right freakin' now?
-There can be a severe impact on a fetus when unnatural death is forced on them, too.
-Irrelevant. My argument is that taking away a soon-to-be human being's right to life is taken away through an abortion.
-So I guess we should just sterilize all poor people? I mean, they probably all wish they were dead because they have such a low quality of life. My mom grew up in a house with a dirt floor and bamboo walls that would break during a heavy storm, dude. There's this thing called "moving up in the world" and "improving your life" that actually can happen.
-???? So if there's a chance that the baby would die, we're just going to completely ignore the chance that it could live? Because, screw it, a life just isn't worth the trouble?
-Why not? It's called the right to life.

Nice try, but you didn't actually answer any of the original questions I posed. Seriously. Explain to me why someone wouldn't deserve to live.

Because their potential life isn't worth as much as someone who is already alive.

I take it you flagellate every time you have a wank, to compensate for those thousands of potential lives you waste each time.

"-So I guess we should just sterilize all poor people? I mean, they probably all wish they were dead because they have such a low quality of life. My mom grew up in a house with a dirt floor and bamboo walls that would break during a heavy storm, dude. There's this thing called "moving up in the world" and "improving your life" that actually can happen."

I meant if they're riddled with disabilities, genius.

Abortion ends a potential life. That?s the point. Problem is, I thought we were all supposed to be given the rights to things like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Normally, when someone?s right to life is taken away, we call that murder.

Give me a reason a child doesn?t deserve to live. Is it because they would grow up poor? Because they would have mental/physical disabilities? Because they?re the ?product? of rape or incest?

Tell me how that makes them less of a person, and why they don?t deserve a chance to live.

Problems with pro-life argument:

- Women will seek to get abortions anyway, and probably kill themselves in the process
- Women have to go through 9 months of pregnancy (and everything from the health problems that entails to things like work issues), and then a lot of fucking pain at the end of it
- Claiming all 'life' is equal when its not, a ball of cells does not have the same rights as an actual human being
- There can be a severe impact on someone whose been subjected to rape, let alone if they're forced to give birth to the result child
- The majority of pro-lifers are men, who never have and never will have to put up with any of the shit above
- Life means fuck all if you have zero quality of life
- Likewise, what if the baby's likely to be still-born? Should the parents have to go through the pregnancy and then suffer that, when they could have avoided it?
- If a woman doesn't want the baby and doesn't want to give birth, she shouldn't have to

Even if you disagree with people getting abortions, anyone arguing against Roe v Wade (if you're in the States) is living in a fucking fantasy world: women will still get abortions. They'll just be far less safe.

OT: You know, George Carlin should appeal to me, but I find him as annoying/dull/irritating as every other American stand-up I've ever seen.

-If we're going to use the "they'll do it anyway" logic, why do we even bother with laws in the first place?
-Wait, you mean pregnancy is stressful? Crap, now I have to re-think my entire argument.
-You're just a ball of cells. How about I abort you right freakin' now?
-There can be a severe impact on a fetus when unnatural death is forced on them, too.
-Irrelevant. My argument is that taking away a soon-to-be human being's right to life is taken away through an abortion.
-So I guess we should just sterilize all poor people? I mean, they probably all wish they were dead because they have such a low quality of life. My mom grew up in a house with a dirt floor and bamboo walls that would break during a heavy storm, dude. There's this thing called "moving up in the world" and "improving your life" that actually can happen.
-???? So if there's a chance that the baby would die, we're just going to completely ignore the chance that it could live? Because, screw it, a life just isn't worth the trouble?
-Why not? It's called the right to life.

Nice try, but you didn't actually answer any of the original questions I posed. Seriously. Explain to me why someone wouldn't deserve to live.

This is what wrong with liberals. They have no moral compass. They use the excuse that it's not a life to justified murdering babies. It's disgusting.

 

[Woodsey]

This is what wrong with liberals. They have no moral compass. They use the excuse that it's not a life to justified murdering babies. It's disgusting.

And this is what's wrong with conservatives. They refuse to acknowledge the difference between born children, the latter stages of pregnancy, and the early stages of pregnancy, all at the expense of the woman who is the one giving birth.

An acorn is not a tree, and pregnancy is not static.

I'm sure you'd like to imagine pro-choice people dancing giddily on a pile of foetus' (sorry, 'children'), but the truth is we're just not naive enough to view things through a stupidly narrow, so-called 'moral compass'.

 

[jdun]

Pro choice. I don't want to see everyone getting abortions but prevention of pregnancy is better but accidents can happen.

It's called responsibility. You fuck up you man up. Murdering your own child because you can't handle responsibilities is disgusting.

There are more reasons than just I can't handle the responsibilites. By that sense if you fuck up in your logic we should remove adoption as it's for people who don't want the responsibiltiy of the child either.

Why isn't making the choice to say look I can't afford to be pregnant for 9 months let alone take time off work once it's born so I'm making the best choice for me considered responsible. People can be responsible for the decision not to continue a pregnancy as well.

I have no problem with adoption. It is the lesser of two evils. There are plenty of loving future parents that cannot have children and are willing to spend a lot of money and love on the aborted child.

Again you fuck up you man up. You take responsibility for your own actions. Killing your own child because you don't want the responsibility is pathetic.

If I fuck up I man. I do what's it right. I don't take the easy way out. It's called being an adult.

 

[jdun]

This is what wrong with liberals. They have no moral compass. They use the excuse that it's not a life to justified murdering babies. It's disgusting.

And this is what's wrong with conservatives. They refuse to acknowledge the difference between born children, the latter stages of pregnancy, and the early stages of pregnancy, all at the expense of the woman who is the one giving birth.

An acorn is not a tree, and pregnancy is not static.

I'm sure you'd like to imagine pro-choice people dancing giddily on a pile of foetus' (sorry, 'children'), but the truth is we're just not naive enough to view things through a stupidly narrow, so-called 'moral compass'.

Protecting unborn babies is not wrong. Protecting babies that can't defend or speak for themselves is not wrong.

 

[Woodsey]

This is what wrong with liberals. They have no moral compass. They use the excuse that it's not a life to justified murdering babies. It's disgusting.

And this is what's wrong with conservatives. They refuse to acknowledge the difference between born children, the latter stages of pregnancy, and the early stages of pregnancy, all at the expense of the woman who is the one giving birth.

An acorn is not a tree, and pregnancy is not static.

I'm sure you'd like to imagine pro-choice people dancing giddily on a pile of foetus' (sorry, 'children'), but the truth is we're just not naive enough to view things through a stupidly narrow, so-called 'moral compass'.

Protecting unborn babies is not wrong. Protecting babies that can't defend or speak for themselves is not wrong.

"Protecting babies that can't defend or speak for themselves is not wrong."

Of course not. But we're not talking about babies. That's rather a key concept you need to get your head around.

Is it right to tell women what to do with their bodies? Is it right to persecute them for something they may have had no control over? Is it right for someone to put into place legislation that actively tells her that she must give birth, no matter the circumstances? Is that what you're suggesting?

Attempting to bring in morals (and I'm going to go out on a limb here and say religion too, since I get the feeling that's where you're coming from) into legislation is a dangerous game.

 

[geK0]

Im pro-choice; I believe that a young mother should be able to choose to carry a pregnancy to term without being hassled, belittled or discriminated against by others.

 

[mental_looney]

snip

snip

I have no problem with adoption. It is the lesser of two evils. There are plenty of loving future parents that cannot have children and are willing to spend a lot of money and love on the aborted child.

Again you fuck up you man up. You take responsibility for your own actions. Killing your own child because you don't want the responsibility is pathetic.

If I fuck up I man. I do what's it right. I don't take the easy way out. It's called being an adult.

So adoption is the lesser of two evils, that means you still think it's wrong. And sadly there are not lots of adoptive parents looking for every baby mixed race, babies with genetic problems or disabilities are all not highly sought after.

What's your obsession with responsibility, having a child has more to it than simply going well I got pregenant by accident better put up with the thing for the next 18 or so years.

Being an adult and being responsible would be not being stupid enough to knock some girl up accidentally in the first place.

 

[FalloutJack]

You know what? In this kind of debate, I'm Pro-Shut-Up. I generally don't say much of anything about it myself because I don't have an extreme opinion on the matter. And in return, I wish to god people would shut up about this stuff. Both sides of the argument pull shit that makes me hate you both, to the point where...


...becomes the general response I want to give to the whole thing. There comes a time when some outsider should walk in, go "What the HELL is going on?", and flip over tables until they start over with better methods of practice. This shit never gets properly resolved and I'm fast on the line of thinking that it never will.

 

[anthony87]

It pretty amazing how young women are brainwashed into thinking that is alright to murder her own child in the context that it is not alive. The Pro-Choice movement keep trying convince young women to come into their money making abortion clinics and have abortion. The Pro-Choice movement care nothing about women or their babies. All they care about is their money.

Killing your unborn child is murder. Plain and simple.

Good thing we're not talking about killing unborn children then isn't it? We're talking about killing an undeveloped mass of cells that are just taking up space.

That's a excuse that the Pro-Choice movement keep making to convince young women into letting them kill their babies for money.

Awh bless...he knows how to generalise. Even if that generalisation is horribly wrong.

What makes you think that pro-choice people are simply all about convincing mothers to kill their unborn children? I mean what they're about is right there in the name "PRO-CHOICE".

choice/CHois/
Noun:
An act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.

If pro-choice people really were the way you think of them, then they wouldn't be called pro-choice. They'd be called pro-let's kill all the babies.

And what about the right of the unborn child? What hideous crime did the baby made that warrant the death penalty?

Here the thing about liberals, they fight tooth and nail to try to get rapist, murders, two bit dictators from getting punishment they deserved. Trying to convince others that they are not "bad people". Yet they don't give a damn about killing babies. They treat these unborn babies like some kind of monsters.

You been in an abortion center? These so called pro-choice play hardball on young girls. Trying to convince them it's alright to let them kill their babies and no one there to help her.

Go do a Google search on profits of killing babies.

You keep using the word "babies" but you're using it wrong. Killing babies? No, that's some awful shit right there. Killing some mass of cells? That's the right of the mother if she so chooses. Hell, the way your logic is going, anyone who masturbates is a child murderer because of all the "unborn children" they're smothering into a wad of tissue.

 

[Popeman]

I just read the title and i'm not touching this with a ten foot pole.

 

[CATB320]

Because their potential life isn't worth as much as someone who is already alive.

I take it you flagellate every time you have a wank, to compensate for those thousands of potential lives you waste each time.

"-So I guess we should just sterilize all poor people? I mean, they probably all wish they were dead because they have such a low quality of life. My mom grew up in a house with a dirt floor and bamboo walls that would break during a heavy storm, dude. There's this thing called "moving up in the world" and "improving your life" that actually can happen."

I meant if they're riddled with disabilities, genius.

We're placing varying values on lives now? That's cool, I guess. I thought liberals were all about treating people equally and making sure everyone has the same rights.

My bad. I guess we should sterilize people with disabilities, then. Or just go ahead and kill them. Life's not worth living for them, right?

About masturbating...I'm not going to say I know "when life starts" or "when you have a soul," but if a woman is pregnant, she's going to have a baby. It's definitely going to happen -- unless she has a miscarriage (which is really unfortunate). A life has already started being created. Individual sperm aren't going to make babies on their own.

 

[Woodsey]

Because their potential life isn't worth as much as someone who is already alive.

I take it you flagellate every time you have a wank, to compensate for those thousands of potential lives you waste each time.

"-So I guess we should just sterilize all poor people? I mean, they probably all wish they were dead because they have such a low quality of life. My mom grew up in a house with a dirt floor and bamboo walls that would break during a heavy storm, dude. There's this thing called "moving up in the world" and "improving your life" that actually can happen."

I meant if they're riddled with disabilities, genius.

We're placing varying values on lives now? That's cool, I guess. I thought liberals were all about treating people equally and making sure everyone has the same rights.

My bad. I guess we should sterilize people with disabilities, then. Or just go ahead and kill them. Life's not worth living for them, right?

A foetus is not a person. That is not a point of debate (no matter how much you want it to be), that is a fact. Their potential life is not worth as much as someone who is born, sentient, and conscious.

"My bad. I guess we should sterilize people with disabilities, then. Or just go ahead and kill them. Life's not worth living for them, right?"

Being continuously obtuse isn't helping your argument; if you seriously think I'm just talking about people who are unable to walk, or have learning disabilities, then you are far too naive to have this debate. If someone told you your child was to be born with a series of disabilities that seriously inhibit their life span, their ability to do practically anything, and would lead to them being at a certain degree of pain and/or discomfort for much of their life, then would you really say it would be kinder to allow them to be born? Would it be fair on the parents to also suffer and struggle through all of that?

 

[katsa5]

OMG, he brought up abortion. Well, I'm a woman and I'm very pro-life. I don't think its right to blame and thereby harm the baby for something he/she/it/potato has no control over. But that doesn't matter. In regards to this topic, I wish to quote another comedian Ron White. "Here's the Ron White heightened state of awareness system. It only has two heightened states of awareness. Go find a helmet. Put on the damn helmet."
-_- Time to put on the damn helmet.

It's called a foetus because it isn't a baby, the difference is a foetus isn't actually 'alive' in the sense that it's human. It doesn't learn, think, even feel pain, in fact the foetus stage is far closer to a plant then an animal.

Criminalising abortion because it prevents potential children from coming into existence is as stupid as legalising rape for the same reason.

To be honest, I had heard that first argument and never liked it, personally. Weren't we all a fetus at one point?

As for the second. . . .I fail to see the connection. Rape culture=child safety? Other than the child being a victim which is not the topic here, I don't see how its quid-pro-quo. Please elaborate.

 

[El Danny]

OMG, he brought up abortion. Well, I'm a woman and I'm very pro-life. I don't think its right to blame and thereby harm the baby for something he/she/it/potato has no control over. But that doesn't matter. In regards to this topic, I wish to quote another comedian Ron White. "Here's the Ron White heightened state of awareness system. It only has two heightened states of awareness. Go find a helmet. Put on the damn helmet."
-_- Time to put on the damn helmet.

It's called a foetus because it isn't a baby, the difference is a foetus isn't actually 'alive' in the sense that it's human. It doesn't learn, think, even feel pain, in fact the foetus stage is far closer to a plant then an animal.

Criminalising abortion because it prevents potential children from coming into existence is as stupid as legalising rape for the same reason.

To be honest, I had heard that first argument and never liked it, personally. Weren't we all a fetus at one point?

As for the second. . . .I fail to see the connection. Rape culture=child safety? Other than the child being a victim which is not the topic here, I don't see how its quid-pro-quo. Please elaborate.

We were also a sperm, doesn't stop millions of frustrated teenage boys giving the ol' bishop a bash. That's billions of potential lives in one sitting, one teenage boy can end far more potential lives in one sitting then abortion ever could.

By defending yourself from an 'unwanted' partner, you're also might be preventing a 'childs' chance of life.

In order to avoid hypocrisy abortion is a nessicary evil, especially seeing criminalising it won't stop it, just make abortion far more dangerous.

 

[Atmos Duality]

The subjective point that nobody can apparently agree with is "When is that mass of cells a person?"
And everything I see revolves fruitlessly around this point.

It's safe to say that an unfertilized ovum and/or sperm represents potential and nothing more.
But what about going beyond that? Wherein lies the proverbial point of no return? Zygote? Fetus? Baby?
It depends solely on how much the beholder values human life.

Some argue that all potential new life must be given a chance.
Some argue that it's up to the point before the brain forms that it's still ok. (similar to abortion)
Some would argue that killing the baby before it can talk is fair game, as the loss will reduce the burden on the parents and society before anyone becomes attached. (population control)
Some would argue that we have so many people in the world, that the death of any human life won't be missed at all. (culling)

As the value decreases, the scope of acceptable loss increases. A simple, if rather dark observation to make.

So it's ultimately subjective. Science can show when the child's brain begins to function (assumed developing sentience), but that alone does not define what ones values for human life are, nor is it fair to assume as such.

And I am hardly qualified, nor willing, to bother with this damn subject again any more than I have. I've seen how fruitless it is, and had the issue forced on me by others for their respective propagandas (community college had two warring factions on the topic, and it was a huge topic for the requisite speech class).

 

[katsa5]

The subjective point that nobody can apparently agree with is "When is that mass of cells a person?"
And everything I see revolves fruitlessly around this point.

It's safe to say that an unfertilized ovum and/or sperm represents potential and nothing more.
But what about going beyond that? Wherein lies the proverbial point of no return? Zygote? Fetus? Baby?
It depends solely on how much the beholder values human life.

Some argue that all potential new life must be given a chance.
Some argue that it's up to the point before the brain forms that it's still ok. (similar to abortion)
Some would argue that killing the baby before it can talk is fair game, as the loss will reduce the burden on the parents and society before anyone becomes attached. (population control)
Some would argue that we have so many people in the world, that the death of any human life won't be missed at all. (culling)

As the value decreases, the scope of acceptable loss increases. A simple, if rather dark observation to make.

So it's ultimately subjective. Science can show when the child's brain begins to function (assumed developing sentience), but that alone does not define what ones values for human life are, nor is it fair to assume as such.

And I am hardly qualified, nor willing, to bother with this damn subject again any more than I have. I've seen how fruitless it is, and had the issue forced on me by others for their respective propagandas (community college had two warring factions on the topic, and it was a huge topic for the requisite speech class).

No kidding. Hence why so many use abortion as the example of a nearly perfect controversy, I'm sure.

 

[katsa5]

OMG, he brought up abortion. Well, I'm a woman and I'm very pro-life. I don't think its right to blame and thereby harm the baby for something he/she/it/potato has no control over. But that doesn't matter. In regards to this topic, I wish to quote another comedian Ron White. "Here's the Ron White heightened state of awareness system. It only has two heightened states of awareness. Go find a helmet. Put on the damn helmet."
-_- Time to put on the damn helmet.

It's called a foetus because it isn't a baby, the difference is a foetus isn't actually 'alive' in the sense that it's human. It doesn't learn, think, even feel pain, in fact the foetus stage is far closer to a plant then an animal.

Criminalising abortion because it prevents potential children from coming into existence is as stupid as legalising rape for the same reason.

To be honest, I had heard that first argument and never liked it, personally. Weren't we all a fetus at one point?

As for the second. . . .I fail to see the connection. Rape culture=child safety? Other than the child being a victim which is not the topic here, I don't see how its quid-pro-quo. Please elaborate.

We were also a sperm, doesn't stop millions of frustrated teenage boys giving the ol' bishop a bash. That's billions of potential lives in one sitting, one teenage boy can end far more potential lives in one sitting then abortion ever could.

By defending yourself from an 'unwanted' partner, you're also might be preventing a 'childs' chance of life.

In order to avoid hypocrisy abortion is a nessicary evil, especially seeing criminalising it won't stop it, just make abortion far more dangerous.

But isn't that a little extreme? For both sides? For example, I've heard the point made that 'masturbation is abortion and thereby murder' because of wasted material; but that's ridiculous. May as well hold it against a couple that tried for years with no success. I'd admire they steps being taken, but trying to make one set of reasoning fit for every situation is not necessarily a matter of avoiding hypocrisy, its just not trying hard enough. Reminds me of the crippling thought process that SFDebris spoke of in this 'Prime Directive Discussion'. (^^ Go find him on blip. He's smart and funny!)
Rape is a terrible, terrible thing. If I had my way, I'd say "kill the rapist!" every time. But I know not to, because that rapist has a family of his/her own that now had to deal with their son/daughter did. Same for if a child is involved. All I can do is hope that adoption is chosen for the innocent victim, but its not my decision. I'm not the one bearing the child.
If I may use myself as an example, I have a little daughter on the way myself. I remember seeing that tiny being and hearing that tiny heartbeat when it was only a month in utero; watching it wiggle made me see just how much that little one depended on me. And yet I can only imagine the strange feeling it must inflict on a woman who sees that same little darling and think of nothing but that horrible event. Makes me wonder what that little one would think too, if it could know.
So I agree with you that abortion shouldn't be 'criminalized' otherwise you'll have to include the all extremes including medical-necessary abortion (but for god's sake, let's not talk about that! Too close to home!), I just wish it was an option that didn't have to exist. I wish adoption was more discussed than it is. I wish alternatives would be more discussed. Surely the resources used to fight this issue would be better off finding alternatives. Surely there has to be a balance to protect both mother AND child alike. One step at a time, I guess.

 

[Wolfram23]

A few replicating cells do not a person make.

Also, did you know that a christian invented "the pill" and the ONLY reason that women still have a period every month while on the pill is because of his religious guidance (aka priests)? In fact, they could very easily make the pill cause a woman to never have a period, or at least restrict them to a couple a year.

In fact, historically when women pretty much were meant to be brood mothers (or rather, that's just how it was because children died so frequently) - and this is actually true right now in remote tribal communities - women only had a couple dozen menstrual periods in their life because they were usually with child. The modern women has several hundred times more menstrul cycles now than ever before in history, on average, and the worst part is that this means that modern women are also significantly more prone to cervical cancer, as there's a chance for mutations whenever cells have to replicate (heal) over and over. I read all this in a book... um... "What the Dog Saw: And Other Adventures" by Malcolm Gladwell. Very neat book.

 

[I Max95]

i have nothing to say about the quote, but as for abortion

i would call myself, reluctantly pro-choice. as in if someone i knew was pregnant and was considering an abortion, i would try as hard as i can to convince them not to do it, no matter what the circumstances are there will always be other options, adoption for example. some may say that a fetus isnt a human being yet, and they may be right, but in essence Abortion is denying the right for a future human being to exist, no, it isnt exactly murder, but it shouldnt be comepletely acceptable either.

but if through it all she still decides to do it, then fine, no matter my personal opinions, free will and choice always comes first in matters as morally grey as this