Why Is Pro-Choice Substituted For Pro-Abortion?

I am not alright with abortion. But it is not my decision to make for someone else.

My thought about that is that there are some choices that we as a society should not allow a person to legally make. At every level of gov't we vote people to codify those choices to be legal or otherwise, and as a voter we have a voice in that. If a person is not okay with abortion then shouldn't they vote for someone who opposes abortion? Cuz that IS your decision to make.
 
Because they are not Pro Abortion. They want women to have the choice. If they choose not to have an abortion, or choose to have an abortion, it is their choice.

So I guess all parents, by the pro-abort "logic," should have the choice, regardless of their children's ages, even if they are outside the womb?

THAT is the logical conclusion your lack of logic comes to

Why stop at murdering children inside the womb? Why does the womb make any difference? It's just the scene of the murder. Soon society will say, Hey, if you don't want your born kids either..............
 
Smart man.

Woman.


For the same reason anti-abortion is substituted for 'pro-life'. In fact, anti-abortion should be labeled pro-death, given that the statistics in no-abortion states shows the death of women increases where abortions are not allowed.

According to a report by The Commonwealth Fund, maternal death rates in 2020 were 62% higher in the 26 states that presently have bans or serious restrictions on abortion access than in the 24 states with better abortion access

That is such a load of bologna.

Why Is Pro-Choice Substituted For Pro-Abortion?​


It's more politically correct to focus on a woman's right to choose rather than the choice being the ending of an unborn life. It shifts the attention away from a dead baby to the mother's rights. Is it morally defensible to grant civil rights to a child 5 minutes after it is born but not 5 minutes before? Are we sanctioning murder if a child is aborted? It is after all an individual with it's own DNA; I have not heard a logical argument for why someone's right to exist is superceded by another person's right to choose to end that life. Yes, yes, we can argue about rape and incest and the mother's health as reasonable exceptions, but I have yet to read about the 5 minute question.


My thoughts exactly and 1miseryindex seems to be on the same page with us as well.
 
This woman completely nailed it. The thing is the people on the left know exactly what they stand for and that's why this "pro-choicer" is getting so nervous. It's because they know that they got caught.



Because we're not pro-abortion. That's why. It's not hard to understand, if you think about it.
 
Yeah, but if you truly understand what abortion is, you would want to make it illegal.
I understand what it is. I don't think it should be illegal.

You're exhibiting the common pov of liberals and statists: if something is bad, it should be illegal, if it's good, it should be mandatory.
 
I understand what it is. I don't think it should be illegal.

You're exhibiting the common pov of liberals and statists: if something is bad, it should be illegal, if it's good, it should be mandatory.
Murder should always be illegal

END of SENTENCE

END of DEBATE
 

Forum List

Back
Top