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

[rightwinger]

Just so I understand what you are saying: we will continue to teach children to have immoral sex and even encourage that behavior thru planned parenthood giving birth control and abortions to minors without parental consent. It is easier to murder those children that it is to teach individual responsibility and morals?

Sex is not immoral

If children are having sex, it is immoral. If an adult and a child are having sex, it is immoral. If people that are not married are having sex, it is immoral (this has moved well into the tolerated category, but if you look at it logically, it is immoral, as well). BTW, there are many more forms of immoral sex, not that you would care. Are you one of those that think school children should have sexual positions taught on the tax dollar?

Sex between consenting adults is not immoral and is none of your business

 

[rightwinger]

Because you choose to call a very young person by another name does not change the fact that they are a person. By your definition, a bomber doesn't murder anyone if the pieces are small enough (not to be identified).

If there are not enough "care-givers" to go around, only the ones that can "afford" it will have them. The people that do not rate will be "killed" so the elites will have care-givers.

If you don't want women to abort unwanted children give them an alternative. Cough up some tax dollars for prenatal care, adoption counseling, time off from work, childcare

Instead.....all Conservatives have is laws trying to force women to look at aborted fetuses

Why do I have to pay the gov't at 60+ cents on the dollar for charity? I can give to religious organizations that give 80+ cents to the charity (for you, that is double the amount that goes to the person in need).
All of us would have reduced stress on society if MORALs were taught. Little children could be taught that sex is for mature people and if you want to engage in sex before you are an adult, you could be a parent and be like your parent, soon. Wait to have sex until you are married. If you have children then, you will have a partner to help raise the children and support them. If you are single and have a child, your child has a huge chance of remaining in poverty for the rest of their life. If you wait until you are mature, there is a better likelyhood your child will rise out of poverty (with you), and maybe even have a better life than their parents did. If you have energy, use it to IMPROVE yourself or your skills: volunteer, get a job, do some project for your parents, get involved with a church, etc. Why can't the gov't schools teach our children that?

overhead is much higher than government. Some charities keep as much as percent as overhead

People have sex they always have, they always will. You don't want babies? Then stop trying to eliminate Planned Parenthood. You dont want abortion? Then give those poor scared women an alternative to getting an abortion

 

[logical4u]

Sex is not immoral

If children are having sex, it is immoral. If an adult and a child are having sex, it is immoral. If people that are not married are having sex, it is immoral (this has moved well into the tolerated category, but if you look at it logically, it is immoral, as well). BTW, there are many more forms of immoral sex, not that you would care. Are you one of those that think school children should have sexual positions taught on the tax dollar?

Sex between consenting adults is not immoral and is none of your business

Ahhhh! Qualifier.

The Highest Power says differently. I will take His word over yours. You do not have to listen to Him, but I choose to.

 

[rightwinger]

If children are having sex, it is immoral. If an adult and a child are having sex, it is immoral. If people that are not married are having sex, it is immoral (this has moved well into the tolerated category, but if you look at it logically, it is immoral, as well). BTW, there are many more forms of immoral sex, not that you would care. Are you one of those that think school children should have sexual positions taught on the tax dollar?

Sex between consenting adults is not immoral and is none of your business

Ahhhh! Qualifier.

The Highest Power says differently. I will take His word over yours. You do not have to listen to Him, but I choose to.

Yes...listen

He is telling you to condemn others

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Highest Power says differently. I will take His word over yours. You do not have to listen to Him, but I choose to.

You may listen to whatever idiocy you wish – just keep it to yourself and out of the law.

 

[Newby]

overhead is much higher than government. Some charities keep as much as percent as overhead

People have sex they always have, they always will. You don't want babies? Then stop trying to eliminate Planned Parenthood. You dont want abortion? Then give those poor scared women an alternative to getting an abortion

Sex between consenting adults is not immoral and is none of your business

So, which are they??? "Poor, scared women" or "Consenting adults"?

And we're not talking about 'sex between consenting adults', we're talking about the murder of babies.

 

[Cecilie1200]

WHY should "personhood" - whatever the **** that is - be established the moment the umbilical cord is cut? What is so magical and special and meaningful about that particular moment? For that matter - and I realize that this is going to tread in a realm that leftists have trouble with - what's SCIENTIFICALLY different and meaningful about that moment?

In case no one ever told you, the cutting of the umbilical represents, symbolically and actually, the moment when the fetus becomes a physically individual being, as it is no longer physically attached to its host mother.

No, no one ever told me that cutting that umbilical cord ACTUALLY makes a child a "physically individual being", probably because it's only "actual" in your own deluded mind. But by all means, if you can show me that written anywhere scientific or factual, feel free to produce it.

What you believe is happening symbolically is of no interest to me whatsoever. The superstitious mumbo-jumbo of scientific primitives has no place in a discussion of killing children in a supposedly civilized world.

What is it about leftists that they don't understand the word "scientific"?

Believe it not, this even empirically verifiable! The procedure goes like this: the doctor cuts the cord, and the fetus is no longer attached to its host mother. Let me repeat that for you: the doctor cuts cord, and the fetus is no longer attached to the host mother. Mind boggling, isn't it! What is more, this effect has been replicated about a gozillion times throughout the course of human history, so it's safe to say that it is fairly well established as a matter of pure science.

What boggles my mind is that you think this crap constitutes science. Ooh, the baby isn't attached any more! It's suddenly alive at that moment! Apparently, Siamese twins are neither of them alive or individual human beings because they're attached to someone else. I'm still waiting for you to figure out that because you can spew garbage like this doesn't make it scientific or proof of anything except that you're so biologically ignorant, you should be legally barred from ever having sex, for the good of the gene pool.

"This effect has been replicated a gazillion times"? WHAT effect? Cutting umbilical cords? That somehow "proves" your 12th-century bullshit about how the fetus wasn't a living individual before that? Cutting umbilical cords might be medical science of the most basic kind, but your metaphysical horseshit definitely isn't.

I shall await your quote from the medical textbooks about the "hard science" of "fetuses are not living individuals while the cord is intact" with great interest. But not with any expectation of anything but more of your prehistoric blather.

Are you seriously suggesting that you think it's completely moral, ethical, and acceptable to take a baby fully out of the womb, completely 100% developed, and then snap his neck or bash his brains in because he still has an umbilical cord? Is THAT the person you want to establish yourself as?

Obviously, such an act would be horribly immoral, unethical, and illegal. Nevertheless, it remains a point of fact that so long as the fetus is attached to its host via the umbilical cord, its continued existence is wholly dependent upon the continued existence of it host. Should the host die, through accident, willful violence, or disease, the fetus dies with her (emergency caesarian notwithstanding).

Ahh, the eternal liberal refrain of "legality conveys morality", the last bastion of a person with no moral compass at all. Look to the government to tell you right from wrong.

See if you can manage to discuss right and wrong WITHOUT telling me what is and isn't legal. It's called "thinking for yourself", and only hurts a little at first.

Horribly immoral and unethical? Why? What's immoral about bashing his little skull in before the cord is cut? YOU keep telling me how he's not a living person yet because of whatever ******* mystical bond your tribal shaman or witch doctor told you exists in the umbilical cord. And you certainly think it's moral and ethical to cut him up and dispose of him like so much garbage a couple of minutes earlier, when he was inside his mother. So what's immoral about slitting his throat before the cord is cut? And if you say, "Because it's illegal", you've lost the argument at that point.

It's called "logic". Maybe you can get someone to help you with it.

And what in the **** is "existential individuality"? What the hell is it with you leftist idiots that you insist on coming up with all these half-assed new terms and concepts and blithely expect the rest of us to just go "Oh, okay, that's the new parameter for the discussion, sure"? How many frigging drugs are you fools doing in the backrooms of the DNC, anyway?

First of all, I am not a leftist. Secondly, it is not my fault that you are a philosophical ignoramus. Perhaps, you should try reading more and commenting less. This way, you'll be so much less prone to make a fool of yourself.

First of all, you might not CLAIM to be a leftist, but you sure as hell are. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. And if it butchers babies and blathers half-witted nonsense to justify it, it's gotta be a leftist.

Secondly, it's your fault that YOU are a scientific ignoramus who mistakes half-baked notions that belong in a society that bleeds people with leeches and sacrifices virgins to appease the gods for science OR philosophy. Perhaps you should read ANYTHING, and avoid commenting at all. I doubt it will stop you from making a fool of yourself, because I don't think anything will do that, but it might at least stop the rest of us from laughing ourselves into hernias.

"The cutting of the umbilical represents, symbolically and actually, the moment when the fetus becomes a physically individual being." What book of Druidic rituals did you dredge THAT up from?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Abortion beats having a child that won’t be loved or needed. 7 billion people already, isn’t that enough?

People who worry about overpopulation always think it's someone ELSE who needs to die and make room. Hypocritical much?

And I've said it before and will likely say it again as long as there's filth like you. As a person who had a bad childhood who you apparently think would be better off dead than having had it, may I just say, "**** off and die, you sick, heartless piece of shit"? Where do you get off assuming that only your life is worth living?

 

[Dragon]

And we're not talking about 'sex between consenting adults', we're talking about the murder of babies.

No, we're talking about the killing of a group of human cells without a brain. "Murder of babies" is not a statement of fact, it is right-wing hyperbole designed to deceive.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Highest Power says differently. I will take His word over yours. You do not have to listen to Him, but I choose to.

You may listen to whatever idiocy you wish – just keep it to yourself and out of the law.

Funny, I feel the same about all that junk pseudo-science you leftists believe. Keep your "fetuses aren't alive" idiocy out of the law. We don't allow 12-year-olds to vote for a good reason, and the same should apply to those with the education and thinking capacity of twelve-year-olds.

 

[Dragon]

If people that are not married are having sex, it is immoral (this has moved well into the tolerated category, but if you look at it logically, it is immoral, as well). BTW, there are many more forms of immoral sex, not that you would care. Are you one of those that think school children should have sexual positions taught on the tax dollar?

So does this mean you admit that your anti-choice position is all about enforcing traditional sexual morality, and not about saving lives?

By the way, the "highest power" tells me that there is nothing wrong with people loving each other and giving each other pleasure, and a marriage license is only a scrap of paper and totally irrelevant.

 

[rightwinger]

overhead is much higher than government. Some charities keep as much as percent as overhead

People have sex they always have, they always will. You don't want babies? Then stop trying to eliminate Planned Parenthood. You dont want abortion? Then give those poor scared women an alternative to getting an abortion

Sex between consenting adults is not immoral and is none of your business

So, which are they??? "Poor, scared women" or "Consenting adults"?

And we're not talking about 'sex between consenting adults', we're talking about the murder of babies.

Let's see if we can clarify this for you

They are consenting adults when they have sex. Many are not and that only makes it harder

They are poor scared women when they are faced with the prospect of being pregnant. Never having been in that situation, I doubt if abortion is an easy decision to make. What would make the decision to keep the baby easier is a support structure for that poor scared woman.

 

[Foxfyre]

NEWS FLASH for the severance of the umblical cord being the beginning of a human life crowd. . . . .

The cord is cut and the baby is squirming, kicking, and breathing on its own. And you know what? It is every bit as helpless and dependent as it was at conception, at mid term, and in the hours before birth. He or she will require many months of continual assistance from a more mature human being before he or or she can do much of anything for himself/herself and years before s/he has much of any real chance to survive without protection and provision from more mature humans. "Viable" is a very subjective term.

And again, for those who think abortion is better than bringing an unwanted child into the world, I say there are thousands upon thousands if not milllions of childless couples acheing to take an infant and raise it as their own. So again, instead of killing what could very well be the world's next genius to benefit humankind in great ways, if you are worried about excess population, why not support the death penalty for people who commit heinous crimes? At least they aren't innocent and helpless. Why not elimnate truly hateful and useless people? There's certainly enough of them to offset all those babies coming into the world.

That would be unthinkable? Immoral? And yet it's okay to kill those who have never had a chance to add to the beauty and magic and compassion and miracles in the world?

I just don't see the reasoning.

 

[Dragon]

NEWS FLASH for the severance of the umblical cord being the beginning of a human life crowd. . . . .

The cord is cut and the baby is squirming, kicking, and breathing on its own. And you know what? It is every bit as helpless and dependent as it was at conception, at mid term, and in the hours before birth.

True. The difference between the baby at birth and the embryo at conception is not dependence, but the fact that the baby has a brain, which means it can think, feel, and have a personality. This makes it a person. The embryo is not one.

And again, for those who think abortion is better than bringing an unwanted child into the world, I say there are thousands upon thousands if not milllions of childless couples acheing to take an infant and raise it as their own.

If your baby is white and healthy, that might be so. In any case, there's a difference between presenting adoption as an alternative to abortion, which you are doing here, and wanting to make abortion illegal.

I do agree that the overpopulation argument in support of abortion rights is pretty weak. Abortion rights have not been shown to be a significant factor in the reduction of population growth.

 

[Foxfyre]

NEWS FLASH for the severance of the umblical cord being the beginning of a human life crowd. . . . .

The cord is cut and the baby is squirming, kicking, and breathing on its own. And you know what? It is every bit as helpless and dependent as it was at conception, at mid term, and in the hours before birth.

True. The difference between the baby at birth and the embryo at conception is not dependence, but the fact that the baby has a brain, which means it can think, feel, and have a personality. This makes it a person. The embryo is not one.

And again, for those who think abortion is better than bringing an unwanted child into the world, I say there are thousands upon thousands if not milllions of childless couples acheing to take an infant and raise it as their own.

If your baby is white and healthy, that might be so. In any case, there's a difference between presenting adoption as an alternative to abortion, which you are doing here, and wanting to make abortion illegal.

I do agree that the overpopulation argument in support of abortion rights is pretty weak. Abortion rights have not been shown to be a significant factor in the reduction of population growth.

The brain, the thought processes, the personality all exist in the original DNA once the egg and sperm have joined. They just haven't matured yet. Who knows at what precise point the developing human can feel pain? Can experience comfort? If it is five minutes before the brain kicks in and starts functioning, it is still not a person? How do we know when that exact moment arrives? Again, there is no part of the growth process that can be effectively skipped in order to have a whole, healthy, fully functioning human being. The human animal changes constantly as it matures, hour by hour, day by day, until finally it cannot function at all if it is allowed to literally die of old age. That baby in the womb is simply a very young human being at a particular stage of development that all humans must go through. Some cultures even start counting the age at the moment of conception rather than from the moment of birth.

Also our species has evolved and matured emotionally and cognizantly and there is far less reluctance to adopt a person of a different race or ethnicity. In fact many couples seek out such children on the theory they may need a home and love more. And surely, you are not presuming that people who aren't white have no interest in adopting a child in order to give it a home and love and everything any child needs?

All children need loving parents, preferably a mom and a dad if there is any way that can be accomplished. It is a national tragedy that children are so neglected or abused that they are damaged when they are finally rescued from an incompetent or unfit parent and they are far less adoptable by that time.

We need to develop a culture that if a woman is unable to provide what the child needs or she does not want the child, she is still willing to give him/her a life and a chance for a loving couple to adopt the child at birth. A sacrifice on her part? Absolutely but she would commended for doing the right thing and she could hold her head up and be proud forever more.

 

[Dragon]

The brain, the thought processes, the personality all exist in the original DNA once the egg and sperm have joined.

No, the information necessary to create them exists. They themselves do not, anymore than a blueprint is a house.

Who knows at what precise point the developing human can feel pain? Can experience comfort?

While it is difficult to pin this down precisely, there is no reasonable doubt that none of these things are possible without an active cerebral cortex. Therefore, at no point prior to the development of the cortex does the embryo/fetus feel pain or experience comfort.

Again, there is no part of the growth process that can be effectively skipped in order to have a whole, healthy, fully functioning human being.

While this is true, it is not relevant.

Here's what I'm really saying here. The identification of the self with the biological organism is an illusion. "You" are an emergent property, a product of the behavior of your body's brain. "You" did not exist until your brain began behaving, and who "you" are changes as your brain's behavior changes due to various things.

(Someone who believes in the "soul" might modify these statements somewhat, but would still agree that the self and the biological organism are not the same thing.)

The only thing that exists from conception is the biological organism that, ultimately, will generate a person through the activity of its brain. The person cannot exist without the brain being functional. Thus, until the brain is functional, the person DOES not exist.

We need to develop a culture that if a woman is unable to provide what the child needs or she does not want the child, she is still willing to give him/her a life and a chance for a loving couple to adopt the child at birth. A sacrifice on her part? Absolutely but she would commended for doing the right thing and she could hold her head up and be proud forever more.

As I said, wanting alternatives to abortion is not the same as wanting to outlaw it. If you want to argue for a cultural milieu that encourages a pregnant woman to bring the child to term and offer it up for adoption, I have no problem with that. Anything that increases options is a good thing.

 

[Dr.Drock]

That is true but, unless they are children, those who deal with the alcoholic are not helpless nor are they powerless to remove themselves from the situation or get help with it. They are not at the mercy of somebody else. And the child of the alcoholic can be removed from the situation by social services and 'saved'.

Nor do those offended by a Nazi demonstration have to stick around and be offended. They have full power to remove themselves from the scene. They are not at the mercy of somebody else.

The unborn person cannot be practically removed from a bad or offensive situation and the choices for those with all the power are to allow that person life or kill it.

Pro abortionists like to think that it isn't a person and there is no moral consequence to killing it.

Pro lifers see it as two individual unique lives involved and there is a moral component to killing a person purely because that person is inconvenient.

Well children are affected by alcoholics, whether it be an abusive parent or a drunk driver crashing into a car with kids in it.

I agree on the nazi parades.

And can we stop the pro-abortionist talk? I've seen one person on this thread who is pro-abortion. We've already squashed that the rest of us who are pro-choice are not pro-abortion.

Yes, I can see why you wouldn't want to be on record supporting the murder of children. It is so much easier to be like Joe Paterno: I knew what was going on, and in hind sight, I should have done more to see that behavior stopped. But hey, those babies don't have names, so it is so much easier to say, the mother did it, it was her choice.

Hey if you really need that bad some kind of excuse to feel holier than thou, by all means continue.

 

[Cecilie1200]

NEWS FLASH for the severance of the umblical cord being the beginning of a human life crowd. . . . .

The cord is cut and the baby is squirming, kicking, and breathing on its own. And you know what? It is every bit as helpless and dependent as it was at conception, at mid term, and in the hours before birth. He or she will require many months of continual assistance from a more mature human being before he or or she can do much of anything for himself/herself and years before s/he has much of any real chance to survive without protection and provision from more mature humans. "Viable" is a very subjective term.

And again, for those who think abortion is better than bringing an unwanted child into the world, I say there are thousands upon thousands if not milllions of childless couples acheing to take an infant and raise it as their own. So again, instead of killing what could very well be the world's next genius to benefit humankind in great ways, if you are worried about excess population, why not support the death penalty for people who commit heinous crimes? At least they aren't innocent and helpless. Why not elimnate truly hateful and useless people? There's certainly enough of them to offset all those babies coming into the world.

That would be unthinkable? Immoral? And yet it's okay to kill those who have never had a chance to add to the beauty and magic and compassion and miracles in the world?

I just don't see the reasoning.

Rape Victim's Child Speaks Up for Right to Life

Ryan Scott Bomberger is not just passionate about the preciousness and potential of every human being from the moment of conception; he is alive today because of what his birth-mother decided after she was raped –- to give birth to him and put him up for adoption.

In a video detailing what he calls her “courageous decision,” Bomberger details his love-filled life with his adoptive mother and father and his 12 siblings, 10 of whom, like him, were adopted.

*****

Even in cases of rape and incest, Bomberger said, choosing life not only blesses the child but many others through the lives they can go on to live.

“Although you may be in this immediate moment of pain and chaos, there is another side of the story,” he said. “There’s something beautiful that can rise from the ashes of such a violent act.”

Rape Victim's Child Speaks Up for Right to Life | CNSnews.com

I guess he's another one who, like me, the left just decides - sight unseen - would be better off dead.

 

[Foxfyre]

The brain, the thought processes, the personality all exist in the original DNA once the egg and sperm have joined.

No, the information necessary to create them exists. They themselves do not, anymore than a blueprint is a house.

Who knows at what precise point the developing human can feel pain? Can experience comfort?

While it is difficult to pin this down precisely, there is no reasonable doubt that none of these things are possible without an active cerebral cortex. Therefore, at no point prior to the development of the cortex does the embryo/fetus feel pain or experience comfort.

Again, there is no part of the growth process that can be effectively skipped in order to have a whole, healthy, fully functioning human being.

While this is true, it is not relevant.

Here's what I'm really saying here. The identification of the self with the biological organism is an illusion. "You" are an emergent property, a product of the behavior of your body's brain. "You" did not exist until your brain began behaving, and who "you" are changes as your brain's behavior changes due to various things.

(Someone who believes in the "soul" might modify these statements somewhat, but would still agree that the self and the biological organism are not the same thing.)

The only thing that exists from conception is the biological organism that, ultimately, will generate a person through the activity of its brain. The person cannot exist without the brain being functional. Thus, until the brain is functional, the person DOES not exist.

We need to develop a culture that if a woman is unable to provide what the child needs or she does not want the child, she is still willing to give him/her a life and a chance for a loving couple to adopt the child at birth. A sacrifice on her part? Absolutely but she would commended for doing the right thing and she could hold her head up and be proud forever more.

As I said, wanting alternatives to abortion is not the same as wanting to outlaw it. If you want to argue for a cultural milieu that encourages a pregnant woman to bring the child to term and offer it up for adoption, I have no problem with that. Anything that increases options is a good thing.

I have at no time supported or advocated outlawing abortion at the federal level. I 100% support those who as a matter of conscience would ban abortion clinics in their own communities or ban abortion outright, though I think more reasonable people would leave the decision to a woman and her doctor.

It is your prerogative to say that the developing baby is not a person until it has a functioning cortex and thereby salve your conscience or justify whatever. But for me and I think most pro lifers, we see that time before that developed cortex as just as important and critical for a human being to be able to live and realize his/her full potential, and that ALL aspects of human development are necessary and cannot be dismissed or relegated as irrelevent in the process.

You seem to be strongly advocating for abortion on demand for any reason at least in early pregnancy.

I am advocating for a culture that recognizes, respects, and reveres life at all stages and does not casually kill off the most innocent and helpless of humanity simply because it is inconvenient.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Some people feel ANY form of contraceptive is abortive. That's wrong. Here is such a statement from "pro-life" physicians.

http://www.prolifephysicians.org/abortifacient.htm

This is my concern over the "pro-life" movement. It is NOT just abortion they are targeting. It is contraception too. Margaret Sanger was opposed to abortion, and the birth control movement was always, in her time, about making contraception more readily available to women to reduce the abortion rate.