Pro-abortion? Why?

[Hale]

Ok, since folks insist I'll go there:

It's not a child, and it's not alive. To refer to a zygote or a fetus as a "child". It is potentially a child, but it is a fallacy to define it as a "child" who is able to live and breathe on their own.

This viewpoint is common but illogical. Is a newborn child able to live on their own, unassisted? How about a 2 year old? 8? How about an adult that needs additional oxygen, dialysis, a respirator, a feeding tube, or any other form of life support?

The idea that "it's not a child until it's born" is absurd. It IS a child - it's a child on life support, provided by the mother. Uninterrupted, it will remain a child. Aborted, it will die. If it wasn't alive you wouldn't feel compelled to "remove" it, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[Dragonlady]

Ok, since folks insist I'll go there:

It's not a child, and it's not alive. To refer to a zygote or a fetus as a "child". It is potentially a child, but it is a fallacy to define it as a "child" who is able to live and breathe on their own.

This viewpoint is common but illogical. Is a newborn child able to live on their own, unassisted? How about a 2 year old? 8? How about an adult that needs additional oxygen, dialysis, a respirator, a feeding tube, or any other form of life support?

The idea that "it's not a child until it's born" is absurd. It IS a child - it's a child on life support, provided by the mother. Uninterrupted, it will remain a child. Aborted, it will die. If it wasn't alive you wouldn't feel compelled to "remove" it, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

It is not a child any more than an egg is a chicken. It is the potential for life but it is not a life and it’s not a “child in life support”, it is a parasite hosted by its mother to be technically correct.

 

[Hale]

It is not a child any more than an egg is a chicken. It is the potential for life but it is not a life and it’s not a “child in life support”, it is a parasite hosted by its mother to be technically correct.

"Technically" correct? Certainly not in any scientific or linguistic context:

parasite: an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.

Why do you offer this obviously incorrect terminology?

 

[Lesh]

Pro- CHOICE...there's a difference

 

[Hale]

Pro- CHOICE...there's a difference

Please explain.

 

[Jackson]

By the way . Most anti abortion people are also pro death penalty . So spare me the sanctimonious lectures on the sanctity of life .

So what did that child do to deserve death? Hardly the same thing as putting a murderer down.

It's not a child, and it's not alive. To refer to a zygote or a fetus as a "child". It is potentially a child, but it is a fallacy to define it as a "child" who is able to live and breathe on their own.

It is the parent's decision whether or not they can afford to have a child or increase the size of their family. Unless this is your child and your life, you have no stake in this decision. The decision to have a child is the most serious and unchangeable decision a woman can make.

Those who oppose a woman's right to make such a private and personal decision without interference from the state and from others who have no stake in the outcome, would literally make women slaves to their biology.

Forget that garbage about this is not a baby. For Christ's sake, it;s not a lamp! Got it? And that the father has as much right to see that child is born and he can father it for a lifetime. It's not only the damn woman who didn't want to see her waist line grow. How anyone can kill a healthy child is beyond me!

 

[Jackson]

By the way . Most anti abortion people are also pro death penalty . So spare me the sanctimonious lectures on the sanctity of life .

So what did that child do to deserve death? Hardly the same thing as putting a murderer down.

It's not a child, and it's not alive. To refer to a zygote or a fetus as a "child". It is potentially a child, but it is a fallacy to define it as a "child" who is able to live and breathe on their own.

It is the parent's decision whether or not they can afford to have a child or increase the size of their family. Unless this is your child and your life, you have no stake in this decision. The decision to have a child is the most serious and unchangeable decision a woman can make.

Those who oppose a woman's right to make such a private and personal decision without interference from the state and from others who have no stake in the outcome, would literally make women slaves to their biology.

Which is why the Constitution prohibits the states from compelling women to give birth against their will.

The right to privacy ensures that each individual may determine such matters in accordance with his own good conscience and good faith – such as when life begins, what his religion teaches, and one's self-developed concept of morality absent unwarranted interference from government.

You know what compells the woman to have that child> Her natural body. I just wonder if abortion was a dangerous surgery open to frequent deaths of the mother, how many would choose abortion. All of the sudden, her life is in jeopardy and not her child's alone. Women can be pretty selfish. And that would prove it.

 

[Jackson]

Ok, since folks insist I'll go there:

It's not a child, and it's not alive. To refer to a zygote or a fetus as a "child". It is potentially a child, but it is a fallacy to define it as a "child" who is able to live and breathe on their own.

This viewpoint is common but illogical. Is a newborn child able to live on their own, unassisted? How about a 2 year old? 8? How about an adult that needs additional oxygen, dialysis, a respirator, a feeding tube, or any other form of life support?

The idea that "it's not a child until it's born" is absurd. It IS a child - it's a child on life support, provided by the mother. Uninterrupted, it will remain a child. Aborted, it will die. If it wasn't alive you wouldn't feel compelled to "remove" it, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

It is not a child any more than an egg is a chicken. It is the potential for life but it is not a life and it’s not a “child in life support”, it is a parasite hosted by its mother to be technically correct.

You can mumble jumble all you want. Everyone knows it is a baby...that fact is not going away. Unless the health of the mother or baby is an issue, NO ABORTIONS....PUT THE MURDEROUS MOTHER IN PRISON!

 

[Lesh]

Pro- CHOICE...there's a difference

Please explain.

"Pro-abortion" means I want women to have abortions

Pro CHOICE means what it says. Women have the right to decide issues relating to their bodies and their lives

As stated in Roe v Wade

 

[jwoodie]

So, someone can be "anti-abortion", yet still, "pro-choice".

Only those who are intellectually dishonest. The only basis for being "anti-abortion" is believing that it terminates an innocent human life. Thus also being "pro-choice" is to countenance murder. There is no escaping this moral discrepancy.

That being said, it should be left to the States to determine their own criminal statutes on this issue. For example, some States consider the killing of a pregnant woman to be double homicide while other States do not. Without specific Constitutional authority, there is no reason why the Federal Government should interfere with these determinations.

 

[Hale]

"Pro-abortion" means I want women to have abortions
Pro CHOICE means what it says. Women have the right to decide issues relating to their bodies and their lives

Being "pro-something" doesn't mean you demand it over all other options, it merely denotes approval of that option.

But it's interesting that so many disapprove of this terminology. Could this be an attempt to appear "neutral" on the topic? If so, that's not really possible, at least not for someone who has actually formed their own position.

 

[Hale]

Here's the point: According the CDC, there have been between 600k and 1 million abortions per year since 1995. Other sources say more, some say less. Regardless, that's a lot of demand.

So what drives this demand??? Millions want and get an abortion, but none of them seem to know why...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ok, since folks insist I'll go there:

It's not a child, and it's not alive. To refer to a zygote or a fetus as a "child". It is potentially a child, but it is a fallacy to define it as a "child" who is able to live and breathe on their own.

This viewpoint is common but illogical. Is a newborn child able to live on their own, unassisted? How about a 2 year old? 8? How about an adult that needs additional oxygen, dialysis, a respirator, a feeding tube, or any other form of life support?

The idea that "it's not a child until it's born" is absurd. It IS a child - it's a child on life support, provided by the mother. Uninterrupted, it will remain a child. Aborted, it will die. If it wasn't alive you wouldn't feel compelled to "remove" it, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Wrong.

As a fact of law one is not a person entitled to Constitutional protections until he is born, where the protected liberties of the mother are paramount.

One is at liberty to believe an embryo/fetus is a ‘child’ consistent with his religious beliefs, and oppose abortion accordingly – but subjective religious and personal beliefs have no merit in the context of the law, and appropriately so.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So, someone can be "anti-abortion", yet still, "pro-choice".

Only those who are intellectually dishonest. The only basis for being "anti-abortion" is believing that it terminates an innocent human life. Thus also being "pro-choice" is to countenance murder. There is no escaping this moral discrepancy.

That being said, it should be left to the States to determine their own criminal statutes on this issue. For example, some States consider the killing of a pregnant woman to be double homicide while other States do not. Without specific Constitutional authority, there is no reason why the Federal Government should interfere with these determinations.

Also wrong.

Again, someone opposed to abortion may pursue a solution to end the practice, provided that solution comports with Constitutional case law and privacy rights jurisprudence.

What’s intellectually dishonest is the notion that the only way to end abortion is to ‘ban’ it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Pro-abortion" means I want women to have abortions
Pro CHOICE means what it says. Women have the right to decide issues relating to their bodies and their lives

Being "pro-something" doesn't mean you demand it over all other options, it merely denotes approval of that option.

But it's interesting that so many disapprove of this terminology. Could this be an attempt to appear "neutral" on the topic? If so, that's not really possible, at least not for someone who has actually formed their own position.

It’s perfectly appropriate to correct those who use terms which are factually inaccurate.

That one defends the Constitutional right to privacy doesn’t mean he’s ‘pro-abortion.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Here's the point: According the CDC, there have been between 600k and 1 million abortions per year since 1995. Other sources say more, some say less. Regardless, that's a lot of demand.

So what drives this demand??? Millions want and get an abortion, but none of them seem to know why...

Citizens are not required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so.

There’s ample information online as to why women seek out abortions, all one needs to do is search for it.

 

[52ndStreet]

Abortion is genocide, murder. Stop experimentation on fetal tissue. Stop all those Dr. Strangelove out there.

 

[Lesh]

"Pro-abortion" means I want women to have abortions
Pro CHOICE means what it says. Women have the right to decide issues relating to their bodies and their lives

Being "pro-something" doesn't mean you demand it over all other options, it merely denotes approval of that option.

But it's interesting that so many disapprove of this terminology. Could this be an attempt to appear "neutral" on the topic? If so, that's not really possible, at least not for someone who has actually formed their own position.

That's what it means to you. Because you dishonestly want to frame it that way.

Being pro abortion would mean you FAVOR abortion over bringing a pregnancy to term.

I do NOT favor that and claiming I do is dishonest. Are you intentionally being dishonest? It appears so.

I am pro CHOICE. and that is vastly different

 

[Lesh]

Abortion is genocide, murder. Stop experimentation on fetal tissue. Stop all those Dr. Strangelove out there.

Have you ever been pregnant?

 

[Blues Man]

I really don't have a dog in this fight at all and I don't think abortion should be illegal but the argument is incomplete on both sides

So at what point in gestation does the fetus become a baby? Why can people be charged with two counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman?

At what point does the fetus evolve from a mass of cells to a viable life?

How much time does one need to make the decision to abort a pregnancy?