If everybody agrees abortion is bad, why is Pro-life so unpopular?

[chrismac]

I'll admit it: I'm pro-life. I hate the idea and practice of abortion. I guess I mostly hate it being used as a tool of convenience, but I think it's all around an unethical practice.

I'm not so much against it being used by rape victims, women whose lives are at risk, fetal health, incest, or minor children. I understand those are tough circumstances.

I could be wrong, but I think most people who claim to be pro-life aren't against it based on those instances. We understand they're extenuating circumstances. My problem with the pro-choice attitude is that I don't understand how the decision to have sex is any less of a choice than having an abortion. I feel like, unless you're a victim of rape, you chose to risk pregnancy. So, social reasons for abortion ring hollow when you knowingly put yourself in an unstable situation.

As for the thread title, it's like, people on both sides will agree abortion is a problem, and we need to diminish the number of abortions. Well, if that's the case, why is it pro-lifers are so antagonized because we want to, gasp, diminish the number of abortions?

I think to change anything, you have to change your outlook first. If you take the attitude that it's the woman's right to choose, and you can't bring yourself to stand in her way, that's fine. But then don't try to make yourself feel better by saying you want the number of abortions to go down. It's disingenuous.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'll admit it: I'm pro-life. I hate the idea and practice of abortion. I guess I mostly hate it being used as a tool of convenience, but I think it's all around an unethical practice.

I'm not so much against it being used by rape victims, women whose lives are at risk, fetal health, incest, or minor children. I understand those are tough circumstances.

I could be wrong, but I think most people who claim to be pro-life aren't against it based on those instances. We understand they're extenuating circumstances. My problem with the pro-choice attitude is that I don't understand how the decision to have sex is any less of a choice than having an abortion. I feel like, unless you're a victim of rape, you chose to risk pregnancy. So, social reasons for abortion ring hollow when you knowingly put yourself in an unstable situation.

As for the thread title, it's like, people on both sides will agree abortion is a problem, and we need to diminish the number of abortions. Well, if that's the case, why is it pro-lifers are so antagonized because we want to, gasp, diminish the number of abortions?

I think to change anything, you have to change your outlook first. If you take the attitude that it's the woman's right to choose, and you can't bring yourself to stand in her way, that's fine. But then don't try to make yourself feel better by saying you want the number of abortions to go down. It's disingenuous.

I'm a little curious where you got the idea that the pro-life position and the people who hold it are "so unpopular". Admittedly, they're unpopular with their political and ideological opponents, but that's sort of expected.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'll admit it: I'm pro-life. I hate the idea and practice of abortion. I guess I mostly hate it being used as a tool of convenience, but I think it's all around an unethical practice.

I'm not so much against it being used by rape victims, women whose lives are at risk, fetal health, incest, or minor children. I understand those are tough circumstances.

I could be wrong, but I think most people who claim to be pro-life aren't against it based on those instances. We understand they're extenuating circumstances. My problem with the pro-choice attitude is that I don't understand how the decision to have sex is any less of a choice than having an abortion. I feel like, unless you're a victim of rape, you chose to risk pregnancy. So, social reasons for abortion ring hollow when you knowingly put yourself in an unstable situation.

Women have been having abortions forever. sex involves emotions which can and do often rule out the kind of decision making about choices that you are speaking of. I'd bet most women do not purposefully put themselves into a position where they will have to deal with pregnancy.

As for the thread title, it's like, people on both sides will agree abortion is a problem, and we need to diminish the number of abortions. Well, if that's the case, why is it pro-lifers are so antagonized because we want to, gasp, diminish the number of abortions?

you are mischaracterizing what it is pro-lifers are about.

and I hardly ever trust anyone who's reasons hide behind 'the children'

I think to change anything, you have to change your outlook first. If you take the attitude that it's the woman's right to choose, and you can't bring yourself to stand in her way, that's fine. But then don't try to make yourself feel better by saying you want the number of abortions to go down. It's disingenuous.

It is NOT disingenuous to want fewer abortions yet believe in a woman's right to choose. your whole post is either disingenuous or ignorant. what is it?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'm a little curious where you got the idea that the pro-life position and the people who hold it are "so unpopular". Admittedly, they're unpopular with their political and ideological opponents, but that's sort of expected.

prolifers are annoying as they are the mrs. kravitch's of the neighborhood. they want to force other people into making a life choice that is NONE of their business, they are butting into other people's*personal lives with the excuse that it is for 'the unborn'


yeah, so concerned with the unborn while there is enough suffering going on with the born.

and spare me the innocent bs. no brain stem, no cigar. abortion sucks, but so does amputation

 

[KittenKoder]

I'll admit it: I'm pro-life. I hate the idea and practice of abortion. I guess I mostly hate it being used as a tool of convenience, but I think it's all around an unethical practice.

I'm not so much against it being used by rape victims, women whose lives are at risk, fetal health, incest, or minor children. I understand those are tough circumstances.

I could be wrong, but I think most people who claim to be pro-life aren't against it based on those instances. We understand they're extenuating circumstances. My problem with the pro-choice attitude is that I don't understand how the decision to have sex is any less of a choice than having an abortion. I feel like, unless you're a victim of rape, you chose to risk pregnancy. So, social reasons for abortion ring hollow when you knowingly put yourself in an unstable situation.

As for the thread title, it's like, people on both sides will agree abortion is a problem, and we need to diminish the number of abortions. Well, if that's the case, why is it pro-lifers are so antagonized because we want to, gasp, diminish the number of abortions?

I think to change anything, you have to change your outlook first. If you take the attitude that it's the woman's right to choose, and you can't bring yourself to stand in her way, that's fine. But then don't try to make yourself feel better by saying you want the number of abortions to go down. It's disingenuous.

Again, people ignore the rainbow to complain about the rain. No one likes to be reminded of all the colors in any stance, they only see extremes (black and white). That's where almost the entire debate falls into those violent protests on both sides (mostly from the extreme pro-lifers who wind up not only killing the unborn but also the doctors and mothers with their violence ... kinda stupid).

 

[Silence]

I'll admit it: I'm pro-life. I hate the idea and practice of abortion. I guess I mostly hate it being used as a tool of convenience, but I think it's all around an unethical practice.

I'm not so much against it being used by rape victims, women whose lives are at risk, fetal health, incest, or minor children. I understand those are tough circumstances.

I could be wrong, but I think most people who claim to be pro-life aren't against it based on those instances. We understand they're extenuating circumstances. My problem with the pro-choice attitude is that I don't understand how the decision to have sex is any less of a choice than having an abortion. I feel like, unless you're a victim of rape, you chose to risk pregnancy. So, social reasons for abortion ring hollow when you knowingly put yourself in an unstable situation.

As for the thread title, it's like, people on both sides will agree abortion is a problem, and we need to diminish the number of abortions. Well, if that's the case, why is it pro-lifers are so antagonized because we want to, gasp, diminish the number of abortions?

I think to change anything, you have to change your outlook first. If you take the attitude that it's the woman's right to choose, and you can't bring yourself to stand in her way, that's fine. But then don't try to make yourself feel better by saying you want the number of abortions to go down. It's disingenuous.

I think what I see you saying is that it's only the Pro-lifer's who want to reduce the number of abortions but not the pro-choicers, is that right?

Nope, I've never heard one pro-life politician say that the goal should be to reduce the number of abortions by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies.... that's a pro-choice stance.....education and contraception to reduce pregnancy....whereas most pro-life politicans believe in abstaince only education and do not believe in providing contraception on the government dime.

Most Pro-Lifers don't want to "diminish" the number of abortions....they want to eliminate them altogether, with no exceptions. They want abortion outlawed and they want to force women back to the time when they either had to have the baby or procure a back alley abortion, which was unsafe and dangerous.

 

[eots]

why would pro choice want to diminish some thing that is not wrong in their eyes ?
why would people or companies with share holders want to diminish their source of revenue...this would make no sense

 

[Cecilie1200]

prolifers are annoying as they are the mrs. kravitch's of the neighborhood. they want to force other people into making a life choice that is NONE of their business, they are butting into other people's*personal lives with the excuse that it is for 'the unborn'


yeah, so concerned with the unborn while there is enough suffering going on with the born.

and spare me the innocent bs. no brain stem, no cigar. abortion sucks, but so does amputation

What part of "I expect their political opponents not to like them" made you think I was hungering after an explanation of WHY their political opponents don't like them? Where did I say, "Gosh, I really can't understand why a bunch of people with a morally indefensible position predicated mostly on their desire to be selfish don't like me, I so desperately want them to like me, I hope one of them explains so that I can fix myself and earn their good opinion"?

Spare ME. The day a twit like you DOES like me and approve of me, I'll know that I've really screwed up. I already knew where you were coming from before you started spewing, and please believe that none of this self-righteous tripe makes me spit on it any less.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What part of "I expect their political opponents not to like them" made you think I was hungering after an explanation of WHY their political opponents don't like them? Where did I say, "Gosh, I really can't understand why a bunch of people with a morally indefensible position predicated mostly on their desire to be selfish don't like me, I so desperately want them to like me, I hope one of them explains so that I can fix myself and earn their good opinion"?

oh the drama! you really ought to get your ass over to Hollywood.

It is impossible for my position to be selfish as I am a man and as a man will NEVER have to make and live with the decision to have an abortion. Even the idea of contemplating that one spins my head.

So I guess your rant is just about you saying "Gosh, I really can't understand why a bunch of people would think I'm immature and childish in my outlook on life, I so desperately want them to dislike me, so I can validate my world view."

Spare ME. The day a twit like you DOES like me and approve of me, I'll know that I've really screwed up. I already knew where you were coming from before you started spewing, and please believe that none of this self-righteous tripe makes me spit on it any less.

Spit? How truly ignorant of you---and childish. Why don't you take a chill pill and take a walk....



.



.

.

.

.


. a long walk...


.

.

.

.

. off of a short pier.

Merry Christmas you angry little fucker.

;/O


lighten up francis. If you think life is hard now, with your attitude you are in for one rude awakening

 

[Shogun]

My answer to the original question is because when forded to choose between a life or personal choice this society has picked post-fertilized choice. The fetal life campaign is not working. pro-lifers should hit on the fact that they too are FOR choice: the pre-fertalization choice to control the possibility of pregnancy. It moves the concept of choice to apply in a preventive role than an irresponsible role. That, and I'd focus on the genetic realities of distinct human beings while, again, deflating the idea that being pro-life is the antithesis of being pro-choice.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

My answer to the original question is because when forded to choose between a life or personal choice this society has picked post-fertilized choice. The fetal life campaign is not working. pro-lifers should hit on the fact that they too are FOR choice: the pre-fertalization choice to control the possibility of pregnancy. It moves the concept of choice to apply in a preventive role than an irresponsible role. That, and I'd focus on the genetic realities of distinct human beings while, again, deflating the idea that being pro-life is the antithesis of being pro-choice.

nice post excepting it neglects one thing. the choice is an individual oen and the pro-lifers/pro-post ferters <* lol > would still be asking government to interfere in the personal lives of others. namely those who would be pregnant.

Our understanding of the genetic realities of when life begins will change as the science changes, but I would not bet on the genetics making the case for life beginning earlier or later than we currently believe. Scientific knowledge has a way of tipping traditionally held assumptions on their heads.

 

[Shogun]

nice post excepting it neglects one thing. the choice is an individual oen and the pro-lifers/pro-post ferters <* lol > would still be asking government to interfere in the personal lives of others. namely those who would be pregnant.

Our understanding of the genetic realities of when life begins will change as the science changes, but I would not bet on the genetics making the case for life beginning earlier or later than we currently believe. Scientific knowledge has a way of tipping traditionally held assumptions on their heads.

Oh I would. Genetics have been a helluva boon in the way we humans identify with life in general. Why else work to decrypt the human genome in comparison with other animals? My response to your statement about asking the gov to interfere is, yes, we do that every time we try and prevent other similar cases of the purposeful taking of human life. Arbitrary arguments about when someone becomes a person aside, who is going to argue that a zygote is NOT human life? It avoids the entire premise of what constitutes "a person" in direct comparison to the "choice of the individual". By focusing on the preventative CHOICES provided by this society the pro life movement would be able to snatch the proverbial pebble from the pro-choice hand.


80s test tube babies that are the product of genetically manipulating but the most basic of sexual cells would be a phenomenal ad campaign.

 

[Silence]

why would pro choice want to diminish some thing that is not wrong in their eyes ?
why would people or companies with share holders want to diminish their source of revenue...this would make no sense

that is the dumbest thing I've ever seen written on the subject of abortion. You don't have to believe having an abortion is wrong to think it's a good idea to reduce the number performed.... NOT getting pregnant in the first place is better for the woman's overall health and well-being than getting pregnant and having to terminate the pregnancy.... duh

oh and yes....those abortions...they are really generating some serious bank...that's a much more lucrative field than say obstetrics and child birth... what does an abortion cost? about $500? what does giving birth cost? around $10k not including the pre-natal care....

 

[eots]

that is the dumbest thing I've ever seen written on the subject of abortion. You don't have to believe having an abortion is wrong to think it's a good idea to reduce the number performed....
NOT getting pregnant in the first place is better for the woman's overall

health and well-being than getting pregnant and having to terminate the pregnancy.... duh

...why would this be any of your concern..should it not be a woman's right to use abortion as birth control if she chooses

oh and yes....those abortions...they are really generating some serious bank...that's a much more lucrative field than say obstetrics and child birth... what does an abortion cost? about $500? what does giving birth cost? around $10k not including the pre-natal care....

there are millions being made in private abortion clinics and fetal products are you really that much in denial

Abortion Clinic Chain Operator Now Pro-Life and Speaking Out

Connector July 98 - Dr. Willke - Life Issues Institute.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Oh I would. Genetics have been a helluva boon in the way we humans identify with life in general. Why else work to decrypt the human genome in comparison with other animals? My response to your statement about asking the gov to interfere is, yes, we do that every time we try and prevent other similar cases of the purposeful taking of human life. Arbitrary arguments about when someone becomes a person aside, who is going to argue that a zygote is NOT human life? It avoids the entire premise of what constitutes "a person" in direct comparison to the "choice of the individual". By focusing on the preventative CHOICES provided by this society the pro life movement would be able to snatch the proverbial pebble from the pro-choice hand.


80s test tube babies that are the product of genetically manipulating but the most basic of sexual cells would be a phenomenal ad campaign.

It is difficult to argue with your reasoning except that I think we are speaking about different things here. 80s test tube babies would make an entirely emotional campaign and an emotional campaign is not what is needed (imnsho).

The purposeful taking of a human life is one thing. The carrying of another potential life and the fact that it is a part of oneself is another altogether.

The argument that a fetus is a human being is disingenuous. What is a human being? Is a dead body human? What is life? What is death? I do not wish to argue 'when life begins' because that is an argument that I say science will keep changing in ways we cannot even imagine. But we are dealing with the here and now.

To idea that the people of a nation have a legitimate state interest in the demanding individual women have to carry a pregnancy to term is abhorrent to me. It is the text book definition of a nanny state out of control and it smacks of authoritarianism and/or fascism in the name of 'the children'.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

that is the dumbest thing I've ever seen written on the subject of abortion. You don't have to believe having an abortion is wrong to think it's a good idea to reduce the number performed.... NOT getting pregnant in the first place is better for the woman's overall health and well-being than getting pregnant and having to terminate the pregnancy.... duh

oh and yes....those abortions...they are really generating some serious bank...that's a much more lucrative field than say obstetrics and child birth... what does an abortion cost? about $500? what does giving birth cost? around $10k not including the pre-natal care....

I hope you are not arguing against abortion as a way of looking out for the overall health of women. That would be like arguing against heterosexual relationships for similar reasons.

how many women get hurt or die in heterosexual relationships and where are the mrs. kravitzs of the world on this one?

(not meant personally unless taken so)

 

[eots]

and that is simply because you belive the unborn to have no rights...

 

[AllieBaba]

Women have been having abortions forever. sex involves emotions which can and do often rule out the kind of decision making about choices that you are speaking of. I'd bet most women do not purposefully put themselves into a position where they will have to deal with pregnancy.





you are mischaracterizing what it is pro-lifers are about.

and I hardly ever trust anyone who's reasons hide behind 'the children'



It is NOT disingenuous to want fewer abortions yet believe in a woman's right to choose. your whole post is either disingenuous or ignorant. what is it?

People have been committing murder, incest and rape forever.

That doesn't make it right.
Her post isn't disingenuous or ignorant. It's a well thought out question. And your post proves that those who support abortion are liars when they say there's not an "anti-life" and "anti-pro-lifer" agenda.

She's also not mis-characterizing what pro-lifers about. It's the pro-abortionists who mischaracterize us as ignorant, backwards thinking retards who refuse to agree that a grown woman's right to convenience is more important than a person's right to live.

 

[AllieBaba]

that is the dumbest thing I've ever seen written on the subject of abortion. You don't have to believe having an abortion is wrong to think it's a good idea to reduce the number performed.... NOT getting pregnant in the first place is better for the woman's overall health and well-being than getting pregnant and having to terminate the pregnancy.... duh

oh and yes....those abortions...they are really generating some serious bank...that's a much more lucrative field than say obstetrics and child birth... what does an abortion cost? about $500? what does giving birth cost? around $10k not including the pre-natal care....

However there's really no way to keep track as they don't answer to anyone.

And their malpractice insurance is nowhere near as expensive, or their clinicians as skilled.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

and that is simply because you belive the unborn to have no rights...

correct.

It is my opinion that one must be born to have rights. I disagree with any law that gives rights to a life inside a womb. Why? Because of the law of unintended consequences. Plus any rights of a fetus will inevitably go up against the rights of the carrier of that fetus. I will side with the living outside the womb for now.