A question for the pro-abortion aka pro-choice crowd

[Amadoos]

Of course euthanasia and abortion are related, as you showed in your post, amadoos or whatever your name is. It's not about choice for the victim, it's about choice for the person who opts to off them.

Euthanasia isn't about "the person who opts to off them", it's a personal choice, nobody ever said that euthanasia is about killing who you want. See? You've just learned something today.

Same goes for abortion.

 

[Amadoos]

Abortions then nazis? lol, funny guy.

So how are you going to stop abortions? Like the war on drugs? With laws and repression? With, btw, never worked. So what's your plan?

My plan? My plan is to expose the deceivers. Know that if you have an abortion, you are murdering a child. That is my plan. NO laws, no pretending that I can stop the murders, just truth. What the mother does with that information is up to her.

Those that deceive: I will call you out into the light, where people can see for themselves how darkness is drawn to you. That is my plan.

Ok, you have no plan, you just like to complain. Check.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Maybe it was explained and I missed it, but how can someone be ok with abortion of a raped mother and still be pro life?


How is the fetus/baby any different in this instance?

I don't think that they are "okay" with abortion is this case. I think they might understand that the mother is not in the right frame of mind, fragile. Post traumatic Stress syndrome causes people to make some really bad choices. Occasionally, there is no talking to someone in that condition.
It isn't that they are okay with it. It is that they understand someone is unstable at that moment in their life needs help and forgiveness, not a fight over a really, really bad decision.

It is nice to see that you pretend to care when it meets your agenda.

"pretend to care when it meets your agenda"

Now I got a good laugh out of this line. You guys are always using these hysterics like "baby killing" and "infanticide" and "if you're pro-life you're pro-murder" bla bla bla.

BUT "baby killing"+"infanticide"+"pro-murder" is something only a tiny minority of you guys have a real problem with if a pregnancy is brought about by rape and/or incest.

But I'm the one who's pretending to care when it meets my agenda lol, now that's rich.

 

[Dr.Drock]

As this thread has shown, just about everyone is pro-choice to a degree, and just about everyone is pro-life to a degree.


The differences, despite the hysterics and crazy hyperbole, are very minor.

 

[Dragon]

As this thread has shown, just about everyone is pro-choice to a degree, and just about everyone is pro-life to a degree.


The differences, despite the hysterics and crazy hyperbole, are very minor.

Well, not when you consider hidden agendas, and that's really my point.

Abortion was legalized by the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. During the same decade, a cultural revolution occurred in this society ending thousands of years of patriarchy. Legalized abortion is a flash-point and an easy issue to rally around, but what most anti-abortion advocates are really upset about is that whole feminist revolution.

In the 1960s, my mother started her own small business in Texas. Because she was a married woman, my father had to co-sign all of the documents establishing ownership. A married woman could not legally own property in her own name in the state of Texas at that time.

An ex-girlfriend of mine, born in 1952, was a National Merit Scholar. However, she received no scholarship money, because all of it was reserved for boys.

No-fault divorce was first adopted in California in 1969 and did not become the law in every state until 1985.

In 1976, Nebraska became the first state to make marital rape a crime. Prior to that, a husband could rape his wife without legal consequences. It was not even grounds for a divorce.

The traditional, agrarian-age status of women was, as I said above, property. A girl was the property of her male relatives until marriage, at which point she became the property of her husbands. Almost never could a woman live without a master, and even then her status before the law was decidedly second-rate. This view of women is incorporated into all religions arising during the agrarian age (before the industrial revolution), and of course that includes Christianity. Overt statements endorsing female subordination are found throughout the Bible and in church teachings.

Of particularly chilling relevance is the passage in Genesis when Lot is visited by two angels. A lusty crowd gathers, crying out (in modern parlance) "Hey, Lot! Your guests are hot! What hot asses! Bring 'em out here and let us have a gang-bang."

Lot's response? "No, no, don't butt-**** my guests! Here, I have two terrified virgin daughters, go ahead and rape the hell out of them instead. They're only females."

And this is the guy that God found to be the one righteous man in Sodom! Apparently there was nothing wrong or unrighteous about handing virgin girls over to be gang-raped by drunken thugs.

Thus the traditional attitude towards women. It has changed. That change does not sit well with a certain segment of the population (not all male, interestingly). It conflicts with their religious views, which remain traditional Christian on this subject (or Jewish or Muslim or whatever). For the majority of the anti-abortion movement, reversing feminism is the real agenda, and anti-abortion is only a symbol of that, or a means to an end. That does not describe ALL of the anti-abortion movement; a minority of it is sincerely pro-life. But the question about whether to make an exception for pregnancies resulting from rape serves to distinguish between the two.

 

[logical4u]

Abortions then nazis? lol, funny guy.

So how are you going to stop abortions? Like the war on drugs? With laws and repression? With, btw, never worked. So what's your plan?

My plan? My plan is to expose the deceivers. Know that if you have an abortion, you are murdering a child. That is my plan. NO laws, no pretending that I can stop the murders, just truth. What the mother does with that information is up to her.

Those that deceive: I will call you out into the light, where people can see for themselves how darkness is drawn to you. That is my plan.

"NO laws". I ageee.
The rest of your post I agree with except the muder part. Abortion is not murder under the law. Killing the unborn is like murder to me but we get more done doing what you are doing, informing. I oppse abortion but support the current law.

Would you prefer I use the term "legal murder"? It is still murder. Don't try to wrap it up in pretty paper and add a bow; it is ugly, and it is murder.

 

[logical4u]

Maybe it was explained and I missed it, but how can someone be ok with abortion of a raped mother and still be pro life?


How is the fetus/baby any different in this instance?

I don't think that they are "okay" with abortion is this case. I think they might understand that the mother is not in the right frame of mind, fragile. Post traumatic Stress syndrome causes people to make some really bad choices. Occasionally, there is no talking to someone in that condition.
It isn't that they are okay with it. It is that they understand someone is unstable at that moment in their life needs help and forgiveness, not a fight over a really, really bad decision.

It is nice to see that you pretend to care when it meets your agenda.

Do you support a woman's right to choose to have an abortion if she becomes pregnant because of rape or incest? We're not asking if you are ok with it, just if you think it should be legal. If you do think it should be legal for a woman to have an abortion in this instance and not in other instances, then you think certain fetuses have less of a right to life than other fetuses, based on the circumstances of their conception. If you believe the fetus is a human being just like anyone out of the womb, then you support the right to murder a select number of innocent human beings based on circumstances completely out of their control.

If you really believe that the fetus is a human being with the same rights as you or me, then I don't see how you could accept abortion (aka allow it to be legal) in any circumstance whatsoever. The fact that you pro life people fidget around in certain circumstances shows that you have some doubt about your own beliefs regarding the rights of a fetus compared to the rights of someone who has been born.

Don't you pay attention? I want NO LAWS that could interfer with emergency medical treatment. If that law could interfer with a doctor concerned about legal rammifications for saving a woman's life that is pregnant (even if it means "killing" the child), I want nothing to do with it.
Doing an abortion as "judgement" on the father is wrong. I don't think an "innocent" child should be murdered, because of his father. Once you go there, the left would "justify" murdering wealthy people's children if their parents committed a crime to "prevent the children from developing into the same type of crimminal" (when the real motivation would be taking the wealth).

The woman always has the "right to choose". For eons, women have aborted, poisoned, deliberately miscarried unwanted children. Why not be honest about it? Having and abortion is taking out "a hit" on a helpless person in full cooperation of the mother. Don't deceive the mother. Don't feed her a bunch of lies to make her feel better. There will be a point in her life where she will face the truth, and people like you, will be cold and unfeeling about the grief that she will feel. You will probably laugh at the guilt associated with such a barbaric act (no matter the "sterile" environment). In short, you do not appreciate how rare life is, and how unique each person is.

 

[logical4u]

As this thread has shown, just about everyone is pro-choice to a degree, and just about everyone is pro-life to a degree.


The differences, despite the hysterics and crazy hyperbole, are very minor.

Well, not when you consider hidden agendas, and that's really my point.

Abortion was legalized by the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. During the same decade, a cultural revolution occurred in this society ending thousands of years of patriarchy. Legalized abortion is a flash-point and an easy issue to rally around, but what most anti-abortion advocates are really upset about is that whole feminist revolution.

In the 1960s, my mother started her own small business in Texas. Because she was a married woman, my father had to co-sign all of the documents establishing ownership. A married woman could not legally own property in her own name in the state of Texas at that time.

An ex-girlfriend of mine, born in 1952, was a National Merit Scholar. However, she received no scholarship money, because all of it was reserved for boys.

No-fault divorce was first adopted in California in 1969 and did not become the law in every state until 1985.

In 1976, Nebraska became the first state to make marital rape a crime. Prior to that, a husband could rape his wife without legal consequences. It was not even grounds for a divorce.

The traditional, agrarian-age status of women was, as I said above, property. A girl was the property of her male relatives until marriage, at which point she became the property of her husbands. Almost never could a woman live without a master, and even then her status before the law was decidedly second-rate. This view of women is incorporated into all religions arising during the agrarian age (before the industrial revolution), and of course that includes Christianity. Overt statements endorsing female subordination are found throughout the Bible and in church teachings.

Of particularly chilling relevance is the passage in Genesis when Lot is visited by two angels. A lusty crowd gathers, crying out (in modern parlance) "Hey, Lot! Your guests are hot! What hot asses! Bring 'em out here and let us have a gang-bang."

Lot's response? "No, no, don't butt-**** my guests! Here, I have two terrified virgin daughters, go ahead and rape the hell out of them instead. They're only females."

And this is the guy that God found to be the one righteous man in Sodom! Apparently there was nothing wrong or unrighteous about handing virgin girls over to be gang-raped by drunken thugs.

Thus the traditional attitude towards women. It has changed. That change does not sit well with a certain segment of the population (not all male, interestingly). It conflicts with their religious views, which remain traditional Christian on this subject (or Jewish or Muslim or whatever). For the majority of the anti-abortion movement, reversing feminism is the real agenda, and anti-abortion is only a symbol of that, or a means to an end. That does not describe ALL of the anti-abortion movement; a minority of it is sincerely pro-life. But the question about whether to make an exception for pregnancies resulting from rape serves to distinguish between the two.

And what is the "agenda" of abortion supporters? Could it be to murder even more millions and millions of babies? This country looks down its nose at "third world countries" because those people grow up and kill each other over resources. But in this country, we murder people before they even have a chance to take their first steps. We are decimating our replacement population, and going to be overrun by people with "third world" views. It will be a foreign land very soon.

 

[Gadawg73]

My plan? My plan is to expose the deceivers. Know that if you have an abortion, you are murdering a child. That is my plan. NO laws, no pretending that I can stop the murders, just truth. What the mother does with that information is up to her.

Those that deceive: I will call you out into the light, where people can see for themselves how darkness is drawn to you. That is my plan.

"NO laws". I ageee.
The rest of your post I agree with except the muder part. Abortion is not murder under the law. Killing the unborn is like murder to me but we get more done doing what you are doing, informing. I oppse abortion but support the current law.

Would you prefer I use the term "legal murder"? It is still murder. Don't try to wrap it up in pretty paper and add a bow; it is ugly, and it is murder.

You can speak in circles, tongues or whatever all you want.
You are very good at it.

 

[Gadawg73]

I don't think that they are "okay" with abortion is this case. I think they might understand that the mother is not in the right frame of mind, fragile. Post traumatic Stress syndrome causes people to make some really bad choices. Occasionally, there is no talking to someone in that condition.
It isn't that they are okay with it. It is that they understand someone is unstable at that moment in their life needs help and forgiveness, not a fight over a really, really bad decision.

It is nice to see that you pretend to care when it meets your agenda.

Do you support a woman's right to choose to have an abortion if she becomes pregnant because of rape or incest? We're not asking if you are ok with it, just if you think it should be legal. If you do think it should be legal for a woman to have an abortion in this instance and not in other instances, then you think certain fetuses have less of a right to life than other fetuses, based on the circumstances of their conception. If you believe the fetus is a human being just like anyone out of the womb, then you support the right to murder a select number of innocent human beings based on circumstances completely out of their control.

If you really believe that the fetus is a human being with the same rights as you or me, then I don't see how you could accept abortion (aka allow it to be legal) in any circumstance whatsoever. The fact that you pro life people fidget around in certain circumstances shows that you have some doubt about your own beliefs regarding the rights of a fetus compared to the rights of someone who has been born.

Don't you pay attention? I want NO LAWS that could interfer with emergency medical treatment. If that law could interfer with a doctor concerned about legal rammifications for saving a woman's life that is pregnant (even if it means "killing" the child), I want nothing to do with it.
Doing an abortion as "judgement" on the father is wrong. I don't think an "innocent" child should be murdered, because of his father. Once you go there, the left would "justify" murdering wealthy people's children if their parents committed a crime to "prevent the children from developing into the same type of crimminal" (when the real motivation would be taking the wealth).

The woman always has the "right to choose". For eons, women have aborted, poisoned, deliberately miscarried unwanted children. Why not be honest about it? Having and abortion is taking out "a hit" on a helpless person in full cooperation of the mother. Don't deceive the mother. Don't feed her a bunch of lies to make her feel better. There will be a point in her life where she will face the truth, and people like you, will be cold and unfeeling about the grief that she will feel. You will probably laugh at the guilt associated with such a barbaric act (no matter the "sterile" environment). In short, you do not appreciate how rare life is, and how unique each person is.

Of course no Republican right wing religous kook has ever had an abortion.
There is no way that could ever happen because as you correctly state, abortion is the fault of the liberals as they have forced every right wing Republican woman that has ever had an abortion to have one.
Those damn liberals. They are practicing mind control over Republican women.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

My plan? My plan is to expose the deceivers. Know that if you have an abortion, you are murdering a child. That is my plan. NO laws, no pretending that I can stop the murders, just truth. What the mother does with that information is up to her.

Those that deceive: I will call you out into the light, where people can see for themselves how darkness is drawn to you. That is my plan.

Would you prefer I use the term "legal murder"? It is still murder. Don't try to wrap it up in pretty paper and add a bow; it is ugly, and it is murder.

Then have the courage of conviction to advocate the ‘murders’ be punished. Otherwise this is pointless rhetoric.

Don't you pay attention? I want NO LAWS that could interfer with emergency medical treatment. If that law could interfer with a doctor concerned about legal rammifications for saving a woman's life that is pregnant (even if it means "killing" the child), I want nothing to do with it.

Your argument of ‘murder’ is invalid, then – there can never be justification for the taking of an innocent human life, even to save another.

 

[InDoctriNation]

I don't think that they are "okay" with abortion is this case. I think they might understand that the mother is not in the right frame of mind, fragile. Post traumatic Stress syndrome causes people to make some really bad choices. Occasionally, there is no talking to someone in that condition.
It isn't that they are okay with it. It is that they understand someone is unstable at that moment in their life needs help and forgiveness, not a fight over a really, really bad decision.

It is nice to see that you pretend to care when it meets your agenda.

Do you support a woman's right to choose to have an abortion if she becomes pregnant because of rape or incest? We're not asking if you are ok with it, just if you think it should be legal. If you do think it should be legal for a woman to have an abortion in this instance and not in other instances, then you think certain fetuses have less of a right to life than other fetuses, based on the circumstances of their conception. If you believe the fetus is a human being just like anyone out of the womb, then you support the right to murder a select number of innocent human beings based on circumstances completely out of their control.

If you really believe that the fetus is a human being with the same rights as you or me, then I don't see how you could accept abortion (aka allow it to be legal) in any circumstance whatsoever. The fact that you pro life people fidget around in certain circumstances shows that you have some doubt about your own beliefs regarding the rights of a fetus compared to the rights of someone who has been born.

Don't you pay attention? I want NO LAWS that could interfer with emergency medical treatment. If that law could interfer with a doctor concerned about legal rammifications for saving a woman's life that is pregnant (even if it means "killing" the child), I want nothing to do with it.
Doing an abortion as "judgement" on the father is wrong. I don't think an "innocent" child should be murdered, because of his father. Once you go there, the left would "justify" murdering wealthy people's children if their parents committed a crime to "prevent the children from developing into the same type of crimminal" (when the real motivation would be taking the wealth).

The woman always has the "right to choose". For eons, women have aborted, poisoned, deliberately miscarried unwanted children. Why not be honest about it? Having and abortion is taking out "a hit" on a helpless person in full cooperation of the mother. Don't deceive the mother. Don't feed her a bunch of lies to make her feel better. There will be a point in her life where she will face the truth, and people like you, will be cold and unfeeling about the grief that she will feel. You will probably laugh at the guilt associated with such a barbaric act (no matter the "sterile" environment). In short, you do not appreciate how rare life is, and how unique each person is.

Excuse me, but I don't appreciate you dictating to me my beliefs about the rarity of life, and I don't appreciate you telling me how I would react to the grief of someone who has had an abortion. You pretend to know a lot about me, but you have never met me and you don't know the first damn thing about my system of morality, so keep your mouth shut about "people like me."

Now I've gathered that you apparently wouldn't want abortion to be illegal because of the impracticality of enforcing such a law, which is certainly a step in the right direction. Welcome to the pro-choice crowd.

 

[logical4u]

My plan? My plan is to expose the deceivers. Know that if you have an abortion, you are murdering a child. That is my plan. NO laws, no pretending that I can stop the murders, just truth. What the mother does with that information is up to her.

Those that deceive: I will call you out into the light, where people can see for themselves how darkness is drawn to you. That is my plan.

Would you prefer I use the term "legal murder"? It is still murder. Don't try to wrap it up in pretty paper and add a bow; it is ugly, and it is murder.

Then have the courage of conviction to advocate the ‘murders’ be punished. Otherwise this is pointless rhetoric.

Don't you pay attention? I want NO LAWS that could interfer with emergency medical treatment. If that law could interfer with a doctor concerned about legal rammifications for saving a woman's life that is pregnant (even if it means "killing" the child), I want nothing to do with it.

Your argument of ‘murder’ is invalid, then – there can never be justification for the taking of an innocent human life, even to save another.

Soldiers and "heros" give their life (take a life), frequently. They want to protect their team/family/neighbor/stranger. There is justification for taking "innocent human life", though I suspect that is probably beyond your comprehension. As for murdering children because you are not happy with the results of your CHOICE, that would be absolutely, murder.

 

[logical4u]

Do you support a woman's right to choose to have an abortion if she becomes pregnant because of rape or incest? We're not asking if you are ok with it, just if you think it should be legal. If you do think it should be legal for a woman to have an abortion in this instance and not in other instances, then you think certain fetuses have less of a right to life than other fetuses, based on the circumstances of their conception. If you believe the fetus is a human being just like anyone out of the womb, then you support the right to murder a select number of innocent human beings based on circumstances completely out of their control.

If you really believe that the fetus is a human being with the same rights as you or me, then I don't see how you could accept abortion (aka allow it to be legal) in any circumstance whatsoever. The fact that you pro life people fidget around in certain circumstances shows that you have some doubt about your own beliefs regarding the rights of a fetus compared to the rights of someone who has been born.

Don't you pay attention? I want NO LAWS that could interfer with emergency medical treatment. If that law could interfer with a doctor concerned about legal rammifications for saving a woman's life that is pregnant (even if it means "killing" the child), I want nothing to do with it.
Doing an abortion as "judgement" on the father is wrong. I don't think an "innocent" child should be murdered, because of his father. Once you go there, the left would "justify" murdering wealthy people's children if their parents committed a crime to "prevent the children from developing into the same type of crimminal" (when the real motivation would be taking the wealth).

The woman always has the "right to choose". For eons, women have aborted, poisoned, deliberately miscarried unwanted children. Why not be honest about it? Having and abortion is taking out "a hit" on a helpless person in full cooperation of the mother. Don't deceive the mother. Don't feed her a bunch of lies to make her feel better. There will be a point in her life where she will face the truth, and people like you, will be cold and unfeeling about the grief that she will feel. You will probably laugh at the guilt associated with such a barbaric act (no matter the "sterile" environment). In short, you do not appreciate how rare life is, and how unique each person is.

Excuse me, but I don't appreciate you dictating to me my beliefs about the rarity of life, and I don't appreciate you telling me how I would react to the grief of someone who has had an abortion. You pretend to know a lot about me, but you have never met me and you don't know the first damn thing about my system of morality, so keep your mouth shut about "people like me."

Now I've gathered that you apparently wouldn't want abortion to be illegal because of the impracticality of enforcing such a law, which is certainly a step in the right direction. Welcome to the pro-choice crowd.

That is not "pro-choice". The woman has a choice when she opens her legs. You want to lecture me about how great you are and then tell me that I am for abortion? This board is not a dictatorship. It does not revolve around your "wishes". If you don't like my statements refute them. I think thoust protest too much.

 

[Dr Grump]

Don't you pay attention? I want NO LAWS that could interfer with emergency medical treatment. If that law could interfer with a doctor concerned about legal rammifications for saving a woman's life that is pregnant (even if it means "killing" the child), I want nothing to do with it.
Doing an abortion as "judgement" on the father is wrong. I don't think an "innocent" child should be murdered, because of his father. Once you go there, the left would "justify" murdering wealthy people's children if their parents committed a crime to "prevent the children from developing into the same type of crimminal" (when the real motivation would be taking the wealth).

The woman always has the "right to choose". For eons, women have aborted, poisoned, deliberately miscarried unwanted children. Why not be honest about it? Having and abortion is taking out "a hit" on a helpless person in full cooperation of the mother. Don't deceive the mother. Don't feed her a bunch of lies to make her feel better. There will be a point in her life where she will face the truth, and people like you, will be cold and unfeeling about the grief that she will feel. You will probably laugh at the guilt associated with such a barbaric act (no matter the "sterile" environment). In short, you do not appreciate how rare life is, and how unique each person is.

Excuse me, but I don't appreciate you dictating to me my beliefs about the rarity of life, and I don't appreciate you telling me how I would react to the grief of someone who has had an abortion. You pretend to know a lot about me, but you have never met me and you don't know the first damn thing about my system of morality, so keep your mouth shut about "people like me."

Now I've gathered that you apparently wouldn't want abortion to be illegal because of the impracticality of enforcing such a law, which is certainly a step in the right direction. Welcome to the pro-choice crowd.

That is not "pro-choice". The woman has a choice when she opens her legs. You want to lecture me about how great you are and then tell me that I am for abortion? This board is not a dictatorship. It does not revolve around your "wishes". If you don't like my statements refute them. I think thoust protest too much.

Simple: Abortion is not murder. See Roe vs Wade..

You can start 1 million threads and make a trillion posts...and it would still not be murder...

Countries have laws for a reason. Until you change the law, it is the law...shrug...

 

[InDoctriNation]

Don't you pay attention? I want NO LAWS that could interfer with emergency medical treatment. If that law could interfer with a doctor concerned about legal rammifications for saving a woman's life that is pregnant (even if it means "killing" the child), I want nothing to do with it.
Doing an abortion as "judgement" on the father is wrong. I don't think an "innocent" child should be murdered, because of his father. Once you go there, the left would "justify" murdering wealthy people's children if their parents committed a crime to "prevent the children from developing into the same type of crimminal" (when the real motivation would be taking the wealth).

The woman always has the "right to choose". For eons, women have aborted, poisoned, deliberately miscarried unwanted children. Why not be honest about it? Having and abortion is taking out "a hit" on a helpless person in full cooperation of the mother. Don't deceive the mother. Don't feed her a bunch of lies to make her feel better. There will be a point in her life where she will face the truth, and people like you, will be cold and unfeeling about the grief that she will feel. You will probably laugh at the guilt associated with such a barbaric act (no matter the "sterile" environment). In short, you do not appreciate how rare life is, and how unique each person is.

Excuse me, but I don't appreciate you dictating to me my beliefs about the rarity of life, and I don't appreciate you telling me how I would react to the grief of someone who has had an abortion. You pretend to know a lot about me, but you have never met me and you don't know the first damn thing about my system of morality, so keep your mouth shut about "people like me."

Now I've gathered that you apparently wouldn't want abortion to be illegal because of the impracticality of enforcing such a law, which is certainly a step in the right direction. Welcome to the pro-choice crowd.

That is not "pro-choice". The woman has a choice when she opens her legs. You want to lecture me about how great you are and then tell me that I am for abortion? This board is not a dictatorship. It does not revolve around your "wishes". If you don't like my statements refute them. I think thoust protest too much.

If you don't think abortion should be illegal, then you are pro choice to some degree. Pro choice is not the same thing as pro abortion. As has been pointed out numerous times before on this thread, I would wager that there are very few people on this planet who are pro abortion.

I never told you that you are for abortion, I don't know where you are getting that from in my post. As for the backhanded personal attacks on my character in your post, obviously those are not worthy of a response. Have a nice night.

 

[JohnA]

You parrot the usual pro-choice talking points quite well, I'll give ya' that!

There are only three reasons that would validate abortion:


Other than those three, there is no valid reason to exterminate innocent human life.

Ya' see, what the pro-choicers are all about, like most left wingers are all about, is doing away with any personal responsibility.....Whatever they can do to make their lives easierl, without having to care about their decisions, take the personal responsibility angle out of the equation........Hence, "hey, if I get pregnant, no problem, i'll just abort the lil' bastard."

And i'll ask you a question that ALWAYS boggles the minds of the pro-choicers:

Why shouldn't the father have a choice in the abortion decision?

After all, the pro-choicers always seem to the think the father is just a tool in conception, and should only be pulled out of the box when it's time be the cash cow after birth......The woman knows the risks taken when deciding to spread her legs. She knows her womb may damn sure end up harboring an innocent human life, as does the male......It takes both to create life. Equal responsibility.....There is no life without sperm meeting egg. after all......So, tell us why the father should have no rights in the decision to kill that child.

THREE * VALID * REASONS ARE




1) Risk to a mothers life.

2) Incest related pregnancy.

3) Rape.

see you beat yourself over the head with that answer

IF a fetus is a *human life * why should it be sacrificed cus the father took part in a illegal act ( rape )

of the father pregnated a female in his own family ) (incest )

why should the FETUS (BABY ) BE SACRIFICED FOR THAT WHAT SIN ,HARM .ILLEGAL ACT
did the baby do to have it life taken???




this is where you anti abortions folks are hypocritical

plus you approve and support INVITRO INSEMINATION a procedure in which many FETUSES /EMBRYO,s are distroyed

I REST MY CASE

You never had a case, clown!

Once again, like the troofer idiots, the pro-choicers try to tell ya' what ya' think.

And it happens because they can't defend their choice to wantonely exterminate innocent human life.

Btw, get your self an education, or lay off the ******* pipe.....Your writing is like that of a 6 year old, son.

Now, genius, how about you have the balls to answer the question about a fathers rights.

You life exterminators always avoid it like the plague......And we know why!

hy dickhead I write like that so your prolife morons can understand

what questions about fathers rights thats easy im prochoice means the parents have the *choice of birthing or not * yes the fathers wishes as those of the mother should be taken into consideration when making a decision why not depends on the cercumstances thou each case is differant

why do you suggest ive avoided it

what you avoid is the question all pro lifers avoid like the plague

if all fetuses / embros have the right to life
why is it okay to abort if the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest ?

Seems to me if you advocate that you are the one exterminating innocent human life

think before you write asshole

 

[koshergrl]

As this thread has shown, just about everyone is pro-choice to a degree, and just about everyone is pro-life to a degree.


The differences, despite the hysterics and crazy hyperbole, are very minor.

Well, not when you consider hidden agendas, and that's really my point.

Abortion was legalized by the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. During the same decade, a cultural revolution occurred in this society ending thousands of years of patriarchy. Legalized abortion is a flash-point and an easy issue to rally around, but what most anti-abortion advocates are really upset about is that whole feminist revolution.

In the 1960s, my mother started her own small business in Texas. Because she was a married woman, my father had to co-sign all of the documents establishing ownership. A married woman could not legally own property in her own name in the state of Texas at that time.

An ex-girlfriend of mine, born in 1952, was a National Merit Scholar. However, she received no scholarship money, because all of it was reserved for boys.

No-fault divorce was first adopted in California in 1969 and did not become the law in every state until 1985.

In 1976, Nebraska became the first state to make marital rape a crime. Prior to that, a husband could rape his wife without legal consequences. It was not even grounds for a divorce.

The traditional, agrarian-age status of women was, as I said above, property. A girl was the property of her male relatives until marriage, at which point she became the property of her husbands. Almost never could a woman live without a master, and even then her status before the law was decidedly second-rate. This view of women is incorporated into all religions arising during the agrarian age (before the industrial revolution), and of course that includes Christianity. Overt statements endorsing female subordination are found throughout the Bible and in church teachings.

Of particularly chilling relevance is the passage in Genesis when Lot is visited by two angels. A lusty crowd gathers, crying out (in modern parlance) "Hey, Lot! Your guests are hot! What hot asses! Bring 'em out here and let us have a gang-bang."

Lot's response? "No, no, don't butt-**** my guests! Here, I have two terrified virgin daughters, go ahead and rape the hell out of them instead. They're only females."


And this is the guy that God found to be the one righteous man in Sodom! Apparently there was nothing wrong or unrighteous about handing virgin girls over to be gang-raped by drunken thugs.

Thus the traditional attitude towards women. It has changed. That change does not sit well with a certain segment of the population (not all male, interestingly). It conflicts with their religious views, which remain traditional Christian on this subject (or Jewish or Muslim or whatever). For the majority of the anti-abortion movement, reversing feminism is the real agenda, and anti-abortion is only a symbol of that, or a means to an end. That does not describe ALL of the anti-abortion movement; a minority of it is sincerely pro-life. But the question about whether to make an exception for pregnancies resulting from rape serves to distinguish between the two.

You obviously don't understand the dynamics at work.

Then, as now, guests received a protected status in a home and that status was protected by the household members even to the extent that they would lay down their own lives and hte lives of their children.

This is why we have such a difficult time in Afghanistan. Once certain cultural members have invited people into their homes and broken bread with them, even if those guests LIED in order to gain entrance, they are obligated, upon pain of death, to protect them.

That is why the military tells their special ops to always claim to be doctors or medical personnel when they are seeking refuge. Beduoins and tribal people will extend protection to these people...and when they find out they were lied to, they will still protect them. And then they must themselves go into hiding, as the Taliban will seek them out and kill them.

Lot offered hospitality to two strangers, who happened to be angels. He extended that hospitality because the depraved, homosexual and immoral crowds of men who roamed the streets at night sought out attractive men to rape and kill. They weren't interested in Lot's daughters. They chased these men to Lot's home and demanded, upon pain of death, that he surrender them. Lot refused, and based upon that, he and his daughters (the one who fled the city with him) were spared the wrath of God AND ravishment. Lot asolutely did the right thing, and he was rewarded for it.

God would have spared Sodom if Lot could have found ten good men there. There were not 10 good men. He did his best to adhere to the edict of God and of the tribal culture, in a city gone completely mad. And in the end, he saved the majority of his family because of it. Let's hope you are never faced with such a choice.
PS...the girls were not raped. Lot made the right choice. He saved his guests (whose attackers were struck blind, if I recall correctly) and his daughters, who would have been killed anyway, were saved for the time being.

 

[JohnA]

As this thread has shown, just about everyone is pro-choice to a degree, and just about everyone is pro-life to a degree.


The differences, despite the hysterics and crazy hyperbole, are very minor.

Well, not when you consider hidden agendas, and that's really my point.

Abortion was legalized by the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. During the same decade, a cultural revolution occurred in this society ending thousands of years of patriarchy. Legalized abortion is a flash-point and an easy issue to rally around, but what most anti-abortion advocates are really upset about is that whole feminist revolution.

In the 1960s, my mother started her own small business in Texas. Because she was a married woman, my father had to co-sign all of the documents establishing ownership. A married woman could not legally own property in her own name in the state of Texas at that time.

An ex-girlfriend of mine, born in 1952, was a National Merit Scholar. However, she received no scholarship money, because all of it was reserved for boys.

No-fault divorce was first adopted in California in 1969 and did not become the law in every state until 1985.

In 1976, Nebraska became the first state to make marital rape a crime. Prior to that, a husband could rape his wife without legal consequences. It was not even grounds for a divorce.

The traditional, agrarian-age status of women was, as I said above, property. A girl was the property of her male relatives until marriage, at which point she became the property of her husbands. Almost never could a woman live without a master, and even then her status before the law was decidedly second-rate. This view of women is incorporated into all religions arising during the agrarian age (before the industrial revolution), and of course that includes Christianity. Overt statements endorsing female subordination are found throughout the Bible and in church teachings.

Of particularly chilling relevance is the passage in Genesis when Lot is visited by two angels. A lusty crowd gathers, crying out (in modern parlance) "Hey, Lot! Your guests are hot! What hot asses! Bring 'em out here and let us have a gang-bang."

Lot's response? "No, no, don't butt-**** my guests! Here, I have two terrified virgin daughters, go ahead and rape the hell out of them instead. They're only females."


And this is the guy that God found to be the one righteous man in Sodom! Apparently there was nothing wrong or unrighteous about handing virgin girls over to be gang-raped by drunken thugs.

Thus the traditional attitude towards women. It has changed. That change does not sit well with a certain segment of the population (not all male, interestingly). It conflicts with their religious views, which remain traditional Christian on this subject (or Jewish or Muslim or whatever). For the majority of the anti-abortion movement, reversing feminism is the real agenda, and anti-abortion is only a symbol of that, or a means to an end. That does not describe ALL of the anti-abortion movement; a minority of it is sincerely pro-life. But the question about whether to make an exception for pregnancies resulting from rape serves to distinguish between the two.

You obviously don't understand the dynamics at work.

Then, as now, guests received a protected status in a home and that status was protected by the household members even to the extent that they would lay down their own lives and hte lives of their children.

This is why we have such a difficult time in Afghanistan. Once certain cultural members have invited people into their homes and broken bread with them, even if those guests LIED in order to gain entrance, they are obligated, upon pain of death, to protect them.

That is why the military tells their special ops to always claim to be doctors or medical personnel when they are seeking refuge. Beduoins and tribal people will extend protection to these people...and when they find out they were lied to, they will still protect them. And then they must themselves go into hiding, as the Taliban will seek them out and kill them.

Lot offered hospitality to two strangers, who happened to be angels. He extended that hospitality because the depraved, homosexual and immoral crowds of men who roamed the streets at night sought out attractive men to rape and kill. They weren't interested in Lot's daughters. They chased these men to Lot's home and demanded, upon pain of death, that he surrender them. Lot refused, and based upon that, he and his daughters (the one who fled the city with him) were spared the wrath of God AND ravishment. Lot asolutely did the right thing, and he was rewarded for it.

God would have spared Sodom if Lot could have found ten good men there. There were not 10 good men. He did his best to adhere to the edict of God and of the tribal culture, in a city gone completely mad. And in the end, he saved the majority of his family because of it. Let's hope you are never faced with such a choice.
PS...the girls were not raped. Lot made the right choice. He saved his guests (whose attackers were struck blind, if I recall correctly) and his daughters, who would have been killed anyway, were saved for the time being.

here endeth the first lesson ( holding hands together as if in prayer)

 

[Wicked Jester]

THREE * VALID * REASONS ARE




1) Risk to a mothers life.

2) Incest related pregnancy.

3) Rape.

see you beat yourself over the head with that answer

IF a fetus is a *human life * why should it be sacrificed cus the father took part in a illegal act ( rape )

of the father pregnated a female in his own family ) (incest )

why should the FETUS (BABY ) BE SACRIFICED FOR THAT WHAT SIN ,HARM .ILLEGAL ACT
did the baby do to have it life taken???




this is where you anti abortions folks are hypocritical

plus you approve and support INVITRO INSEMINATION a procedure in which many FETUSES /EMBRYO,s are distroyed

I REST MY CASE

You never had a case, clown!

Once again, like the troofer idiots, the pro-choicers try to tell ya' what ya' think.

And it happens because they can't defend their choice to wantonely exterminate innocent human life.

Btw, get your self an education, or lay off the ******* pipe.....Your writing is like that of a 6 year old, son.

Now, genius, how about you have the balls to answer the question about a fathers rights.

You life exterminators always avoid it like the plague......And we know why!

hy dickhead I write like that so your prolife morons can understand

what questions about fathers rights thats easy im prochoice means the parents have the *choice of birthing or not * yes the fathers wishes as those of the mother should be taken into consideration when making a decision why not depends on the cercumstances thou each case is differant

why do you suggest ive avoided it

what you avoid is the question all pro lifers avoid like the plague

if all fetuses / embros have the right to life
why is it okay to abort if the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest ?

Seems to me if you advocate that you are the one exterminating innocent human life

think before you write asshole

Dude, learn about grammar, before trying to spew your non-sensical bullshit.

Christ, man, you are the poster child of our abjectly failing public school system.

Bunch o' fuckin' dumbasses!