Why Can't The So-Called Pro-Life Crowd Be Honest?

[Anguille]

Because if they were they would admit that they are in favor of government control over American citizens private decisions. THEY are the real enemies of liberty and freedom.

Because unless you are the woman, her doctor or her God you need to stay the **** out of her business.

.

A woman does not have the right to murder a child, period. Also, what about the father of the baby? If my girlfriend or wife had an abortion with or without my knowing about it I would be very angry. A woman does not have sole right to murder that child, period.

But as long as you say it's okay, she can murder all the kids she wants?

 

[AllieBaba]

Because if they were they would admit that they are in favor of government control over American citizens private decisions. THEY are the real enemies of liberty and freedom.

Because unless you are the woman, her doctor or her God you need to stay the **** out of her business.

.

A woman does not have the right to murder a child, period. Also, what about the father of the baby? If my girlfriend or wife had an abortion with or without my knowing about it I would be very angry. A woman does not have sole right to murder that child, period.

But as long as you say it's okay, she can murder all the kids she wants?

Er..no?

Where'd that come from?

 

[Anguille]

A woman does not have the right to murder a child, period. Also, what about the father of the baby? If my girlfriend or wife had an abortion with or without my knowing about it I would be very angry. A woman does not have sole right to murder that child, period.

But as long as you say it's okay, she can murder all the kids she wants?

Er..no?

Where'd that come from?

He's talking about the "right " to kill children. Pretty scary if you ask me.

 

[Imma B Me]

They do, and I provided a whole shitload of links of organizations that help women dealing with an unexpected pregnancy, including medical care, adoption assistance, housing, you name it.

Great, direct me to those links.

Before you traipse along proclaiming there are no alternatives to abortion, and particularly no alternatives that are funded by pro-lifers, you might want to research the topic a little.

LOL. Now here you go taking my post and twisted it to say something it doesn't. I repeat again "Like it or not a woman has been ABLE to choose what she wants to do with her body and ANY part of it, long before Roe v Wade made it legal. The law can't stop abortion no more than it can stop drug use, suicide or self mutilation. To ignore that FACT and continue to argue about criminalizing abortions instead of coming together for better alternatives to abortion, is very morale irresponsible."

Spending time discussing the morale superiority of being pro life or pro choice does nothing to help prevent abortion and trying to criminalize abortion does little. People have been doing what they want to do with and/to their bodies and any part of it, FOREVER. So ALL the focus should be on abortion alternatives to find a way to hopefully eliminate the perceived and/or actual need for a woman to have an abortion.

If they've been doing what they want, they don't need a law making it legal.

It is not an "if", women were in fact aborting babies before it was legal. The time for arguing abortion being legal or not was before Roe v Wade. Now, it is legal so the best morale course of action is to do our best to provide every possible alternative.

I already posted the links. Read the thread.

That's why I said direct me to them. You have and thank you.

BTW, the pro-abortion movement continues to try to pass bills that will keep complete knowledge from being provided to women who are seeking abortions. They don't want women to know that there are options, and fight desperately to keep information about those options out of family planning clinics. They also want health centers, privately funded by pro-life advocates, to be shut down so that option is gone.

Additionally, they fight to keep information away from women seeking abortions. They don't want those women to know that women who have abortions are at a higher (much higher) risk for suicide; they don't want those women to know what the fetus looks like; they don't want those women to be educated about the nervous system of the unborn.

Knowledge isn't power to these people. Ignorance is power, and power is money. Huge amounts of money made off the corpses of babies and the men they protect when they refuse to act as mandatory reporters.

As I said, read the thread. Or research it on your own.

I never put anything past people in general or the things they might attempt to do. However, when you say "pro abortion crowd", that's not a unified group I am familiar with. Some unified group of people out to enforce their agenda, silence alternative information and deny funding to charitable organizations. Now I would make a comparison to what other groups fit this mold but the point is, everyone should be morale against this type of behavior, no matter what group is perpetrating it.

Self described pro life and pro choice groups should be coming together to enact changes in the law most people can agree on. Like having a mandatory waiting period before an abortion where a woman must be counselled and given as much information as possible. Funding for scientific abortion alternatives like artificial means to bring the baby to term outside of the mother's womb. Requiring abortion education, including alternatives, be taught in high school along with a complete education on reproduction.

It does little good to try an combat ignorance with anger and malice. Knowledge is power and we ALL need to empower women as best we can so they can make and have good choices.

 

[Imma B Me]

That took me five minutes even with my husband carrying on a conversation with me. This is just the first page. The Internet is NOT just for porn . . . or shooting your mouth off in total ignorance.

Even though I have found your snide remarks quite funny, I have interest in a discussion and not with amusing myself with your off subject remarks. If we are having a discussion, cool, if you just want to indulge in making unfounded comments in the midst of a discussion, that's cool too but I want be a part of that.

Thanks for posting the links but if you honestly think taking 5 minutes to post 5 links constitutes "considerable research to find how far their proposals for taking care of babies after birth, actually go", then we greatly disagree.

If one is going to proclaim being pro life they should be prepared to present a working proposal for abortion alternatives. I repeat, "Like it or not a woman has been ABLE to choose what she wants to do with her body and ANY part of it, long before Roe v Wade made it legal. The law can't stop abortion no more than it can stop drug use, suicide or self mutilation. To ignore that FACT and continue to argue about criminalizing abortions instead of coming together for better alternatives to abortion, is very morale irresponsible."

If one is going to accuse pro-lifers of not providing abortion alternatives and assistance, they should be able to back their words up with information. I repeat, "No one is talking about the WOMAN'S body. The fact that some people will continue to do bad things despite the law does NOT argue in favor of having no laws."

If your not going to read my post and comment on what I actually posted, you shouldn't bother replying to my posts. I clearly also stated, any part of her body and if you don't think a life growing inside a woman's body that needs that woman's body to survive is a part of her body, I don't know what else to tell you.

Alright, let me try it like this. There are around 1.3 million abortions a year and I am not aware of a UNIFIED pro life proposal that can account for how to properly care for these babies after birth. A UNIFIED proposal so that every time a self proclaimed pro lifer goes on tv, the internet, newspaper, etc, they can espouse this UNIFIED proposal as a viable alternative to ALL woman choosing an abortion. Instead, there are many splintered positions with some offering charity, some education and others nothing but unproductive malice. The catholic church's charity, though a great start, does not seem adequate to account for 1.3 million babies yearly.

My point from the beginning has been if one wants to describe themselves as pro life, then they should have a consistent proposal for being morale responsible for these 1.3 million babies yearly after birth until they can take care of themselves. That's doesn't just mean more charity, education and alternatives during pregnancy but also prevention of 1.3 million unwanted pregnancies yearly.

The morale responsibility for unborn babies does not start and end with protecting them from abortion, so neither should the abortion discussion. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this.

 

[Zoom-boing]

That took me five minutes even with my husband carrying on a conversation with me. This is just the first page. The Internet is NOT just for porn . . . or shooting your mouth off in total ignorance.

Even though I have found your snide remarks quite funny, I have interest in a discussion and not with amusing myself with your off subject remarks. If we are having a discussion, cool, if you just want to indulge in making unfounded comments in the midst of a discussion, that's cool too but I want be a part of that.

Thanks for posting the links but if you honestly think taking 5 minutes to post 5 links constitutes "considerable research to find how far their proposals for taking care of babies after birth, actually go", then we greatly disagree.

If one is going to proclaim being pro life they should be prepared to present a working proposal for abortion alternatives. I repeat, "Like it or not a woman has been ABLE to choose what she wants to do with her body and ANY part of it, long before Roe v Wade made it legal. The law can't stop abortion no more than it can stop drug use, suicide or self mutilation. To ignore that FACT and continue to argue about criminalizing abortions instead of coming together for better alternatives to abortion, is very morale irresponsible."

If one is going to accuse pro-lifers of not providing abortion alternatives and assistance, they should be able to back their words up with information. I repeat, "No one is talking about the WOMAN'S body. The fact that some people will continue to do bad things despite the law does NOT argue in favor of having no laws."

If your not going to read my post and comment on what I actually posted, you shouldn't bother replying to my posts. I clearly also stated, any part of her body and if you don't think a life growing inside a woman's body that needs that woman's body to survive is a part of her body, I don't know what else to tell you.

Alright, let me try it like this. There are around 1.3 million abortions a year and I am not aware of a UNIFIED pro life proposal that can account for how to properly care for these babies after birth. A UNIFIED proposal so that every time a self proclaimed pro lifer goes on tv, the internet, newspaper, etc, they can espouse this UNIFIED proposal as a viable alternative to ALL woman choosing an abortion. Instead, there are many splintered positions with some offering charity, some education and others nothing but unproductive malice. The catholic church's charity, though a great start, does not seem adequate to account for 1.3 million babies yearly.

My point from the beginning has been if one wants to describe themselves as pro life, then they should have a consistent proposal for being morale responsible for these 1.3 million babies yearly after birth until they can take care of themselves. That's doesn't just mean more charity, education and alternatives during pregnancy but also prevention of 1.3 million unwanted pregnancies yearly.

The morale responsibility for unborn babies does not start and end with protecting them from abortion, so neither should the abortion discussion. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this.

So the choices are 1) abortion or 2) come up with a plan for someone else to take care of them. Interesting. How about the men and women who create those human beings take care of them?

 

[Anguille]

That took me five minutes even with my husband carrying on a conversation with me. This is just the first page. The Internet is NOT just for porn . . . or shooting your mouth off in total ignorance.

Even though I have found your snide remarks quite funny, I have interest in a discussion and not with amusing myself with your off subject remarks. If we are having a discussion, cool, if you just want to indulge in making unfounded comments in the midst of a discussion, that's cool too but I want be a part of that.

Thanks for posting the links but if you honestly think taking 5 minutes to post 5 links constitutes "considerable research to find how far their proposals for taking care of babies after birth, actually go", then we greatly disagree.

If one is going to proclaim being pro life they should be prepared to present a working proposal for abortion alternatives. I repeat, "Like it or not a woman has been ABLE to choose what she wants to do with her body and ANY part of it, long before Roe v Wade made it legal. The law can't stop abortion no more than it can stop drug use, suicide or self mutilation. To ignore that FACT and continue to argue about criminalizing abortions instead of coming together for better alternatives to abortion, is very morale irresponsible."

If one is going to accuse pro-lifers of not providing abortion alternatives and assistance, they should be able to back their words up with information. I repeat, "No one is talking about the WOMAN'S body. The fact that some people will continue to do bad things despite the law does NOT argue in favor of having no laws."

If your not going to read my post and comment on what I actually posted, you shouldn't bother replying to my posts. I clearly also stated, any part of her body and if you don't think a life growing inside a woman's body that needs that woman's body to survive is a part of her body, I don't know what else to tell you.

Alright, let me try it like this. There are around 1.3 million abortions a year and I am not aware of a UNIFIED pro life proposal that can account for how to properly care for these babies after birth. A UNIFIED proposal so that every time a self proclaimed pro lifer goes on tv, the internet, newspaper, etc, they can espouse this UNIFIED proposal as a viable alternative to ALL woman choosing an abortion. Instead, there are many splintered positions with some offering charity, some education and others nothing but unproductive malice. The catholic church's charity, though a great start, does not seem adequate to account for 1.3 million babies yearly.

My point from the beginning has been if one wants to describe themselves as pro life, then they should have a consistent proposal for being morale responsible for these 1.3 million babies yearly after birth until they can take care of themselves. That's doesn't just mean more charity, education and alternatives during pregnancy but also prevention of 1.3 million unwanted pregnancies yearly.

The morale responsibility for unborn babies does not start and end with protecting them from abortion, so neither should the abortion discussion. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this.

Well said. I would add to that that those who pressure women to decide not to abort and to put the newborn up for adoption also have a responsability to the mother as well who has to deal with the repercussions of having to abbandon her baby.

 

[Anguille]

That took me five minutes even with my husband carrying on a conversation with me. This is just the first page. The Internet is NOT just for porn . . . or shooting your mouth off in total ignorance.

Even though I have found your snide remarks quite funny, I have interest in a discussion and not with amusing myself with your off subject remarks. If we are having a discussion, cool, if you just want to indulge in making unfounded comments in the midst of a discussion, that's cool too but I want be a part of that.

Thanks for posting the links but if you honestly think taking 5 minutes to post 5 links constitutes "considerable research to find how far their proposals for taking care of babies after birth, actually go", then we greatly disagree.

If one is going to accuse pro-lifers of not providing abortion alternatives and assistance, they should be able to back their words up with information. I repeat, "No one is talking about the WOMAN'S body. The fact that some people will continue to do bad things despite the law does NOT argue in favor of having no laws."

If your not going to read my post and comment on what I actually posted, you shouldn't bother replying to my posts. I clearly also stated, any part of her body and if you don't think a life growing inside a woman's body that needs that woman's body to survive is a part of her body, I don't know what else to tell you.

Alright, let me try it like this. There are around 1.3 million abortions a year and I am not aware of a UNIFIED pro life proposal that can account for how to properly care for these babies after birth. A UNIFIED proposal so that every time a self proclaimed pro lifer goes on tv, the internet, newspaper, etc, they can espouse this UNIFIED proposal as a viable alternative to ALL woman choosing an abortion. Instead, there are many splintered positions with some offering charity, some education and others nothing but unproductive malice. The catholic church's charity, though a great start, does not seem adequate to account for 1.3 million babies yearly.

My point from the beginning has been if one wants to describe themselves as pro life, then they should have a consistent proposal for being morale responsible for these 1.3 million babies yearly after birth until they can take care of themselves. That's doesn't just mean more charity, education and alternatives during pregnancy but also prevention of 1.3 million unwanted pregnancies yearly.

The morale responsibility for unborn babies does not start and end with protecting them from abortion, so neither should the abortion discussion. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this.

So the choices are 1) abortion or 2) come up with a plan for someone else to take care of them. Interesting. How about the men and women who create those human beings take care of them?

Most do. But those who know they will be unable to or don't want to and have an abortion instead are doing the responsable thing.

 

[Imma B Me]

So the choices are 1) abortion or 2) come up with a plan for someone else to take care of them. Interesting. How about the men and women who create those human beings take care of them?

I am all for simplifying things but I think that statement over simplifies this.

When I was 18, my 17 yo gf got pregnant(by me) and told me she wanted an abortion. I told her I didn't believe in abortion and that she could have the baby but me and my family would be responsible for the child. Now, I had no way to make her have our baby and could only offer her alternatives to abortion. No one can say I didn't feel a moral responsibility because that was my unborn child too. Thankfully, later she decided that having the baby was the best choice and today we both have a beautiful daughter. The point being, the man can be very willing to be responsible for the child but if the woman chooses not to carry that baby in her body, there is nothing he can do.

The abortion issue centers on what a woman chooses to do and there is just no way around that. Actually, except in the case of rape, empowered women making good life choices are the best prevention of unwanted pregnancy. No matter what a man may want, if a woman doesn't make choices that lead to unwanted pregnancy, abortion is moot. People can gripe about the inequality of a woman's responsibility not to get pregnant but that's reality. In most cases, a woman has the power over if she gets pregnant or not and like Spiderman, "with great power comes great responsibility." Woman are responsible for making good life decisions and society is equally morale responsible for making sure woman have the resources, including knowledge, to make good decisions.

An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of a cure.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That took me five minutes even with my husband carrying on a conversation with me. This is just the first page. The Internet is NOT just for porn . . . or shooting your mouth off in total ignorance.

Even though I have found your snide remarks quite funny, I have interest in a discussion and not with amusing myself with your off subject remarks. If we are having a discussion, cool, if you just want to indulge in making unfounded comments in the midst of a discussion, that's cool too but I want be a part of that.

Thanks for posting the links but if you honestly think taking 5 minutes to post 5 links constitutes "considerable research to find how far their proposals for taking care of babies after birth, actually go", then we greatly disagree.

If one is going to proclaim being pro life they should be prepared to present a working proposal for abortion alternatives. I repeat, "Like it or not a woman has been ABLE to choose what she wants to do with her body and ANY part of it, long before Roe v Wade made it legal. The law can't stop abortion no more than it can stop drug use, suicide or self mutilation. To ignore that FACT and continue to argue about criminalizing abortions instead of coming together for better alternatives to abortion, is very morale irresponsible."

If one is going to accuse pro-lifers of not providing abortion alternatives and assistance, they should be able to back their words up with information. I repeat, "No one is talking about the WOMAN'S body. The fact that some people will continue to do bad things despite the law does NOT argue in favor of having no laws."

If your not going to read my post and comment on what I actually posted, you shouldn't bother replying to my posts. I clearly also stated, any part of her body and if you don't think a life growing inside a woman's body that needs that woman's body to survive is a part of her body, I don't know what else to tell you.

Alright, let me try it like this. There are around 1.3 million abortions a year and I am not aware of a UNIFIED pro life proposal that can account for how to properly care for these babies after birth. A UNIFIED proposal so that every time a self proclaimed pro lifer goes on tv, the internet, newspaper, etc, they can espouse this UNIFIED proposal as a viable alternative to ALL woman choosing an abortion. Instead, there are many splintered positions with some offering charity, some education and others nothing but unproductive malice. The catholic church's charity, though a great start, does not seem adequate to account for 1.3 million babies yearly.

My point from the beginning has been if one wants to describe themselves as pro life, then they should have a consistent proposal for being morale responsible for these 1.3 million babies yearly after birth until they can take care of themselves. That's doesn't just mean more charity, education and alternatives during pregnancy but also prevention of 1.3 million unwanted pregnancies yearly.

The morale responsibility for unborn babies does not start and end with protecting them from abortion, so neither should the abortion discussion. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this.

Oh, good, another who thinks he's going to get away with the "plausible deniability" ploy: "I can imply it all day, and when anyone calls me on it, I just claim I never actually SAID that". I don't buy the attempt to eat your cake and have it too. Sorry. If you want to claim that pro-lifers don't make any effort to care for babies after they're born, and then back away and obfuscate as soon as anyone tries to respond to get specifics out of you, we have nothing to talk about.

Come back when you have the guts to say something and stand by it.

 

[Imma B Me]

Oh, good, another who thinks he's going to get away with the "plausible deniability" ploy: "I can imply it all day, and when anyone calls me on it, I just claim I never actually SAID that". I don't buy the attempt to eat your cake and have it too. Sorry. If you want to claim that pro-lifers don't make any effort to care for babies after they're born, and then back away and obfuscate as soon as anyone tries to respond to get specifics out of you, we have nothing to talk about.

Come back when you have the guts to say something and stand by it.

I really don't understand what you are talking about. The great thing about posting on an internet forum, unlike a verbal conversation, is everything I have stated is available for anyone to review. It would make no sense so for me to claim I didn't state something I clearly stated and it can be easily checked. As far as me implying anything, I haven't. I have been straightforward from the time I first posted in this thread til my last post.

My first post in this thread:

My take on this is I can respect most any POV as long as it is consistent. However, when looking at the pro-life position I just don't see that consistency.

If someone is against abortion because they consider it murder and they believe they have a morale responsibility to protect life, than that should continue on after the birth. I haven't noticed the unified proposals from pro-lifers demonstrating the morale responsibility for that life after it has been "saved".

I don't know the abortion statistics but I doubt the majority of abortions are a result of women just not wanting to endure child birth. More than likely, abortions are largely attributed to some form of apprehension about what to do after the birth. So for someone to label themselves pro-life and have little to no concept for how to continue the moral responsibility of this life after birth, seems very inconsistent.

Part of the last post you replied to:

Alright, let me try it like this. There are around 1.3 million abortions a year and I am not aware of a UNIFIED pro life proposal that can account for how to properly care for these babies after birth. A UNIFIED proposal so that every time a self proclaimed pro lifer goes on tv, the internet, newspaper, etc, they can espouse this UNIFIED proposal as a viable alternative to ALL woman choosing an abortion. Instead, there are many splintered positions with some offering charity, some education and others nothing but unproductive malice. The catholic church's charity, though a great start, does not seem adequate to account for 1.3 million babies yearly.

My point from the beginning has been if one wants to describe themselves as pro life, then they should have a consistent proposal for being morale responsible for these 1.3 million babies yearly after birth until they can take care of themselves. That's doesn't just mean more charity, education and alternatives during pregnancy but also prevention of 1.3 million unwanted pregnancies yearly.

The morale responsibility for unborn babies does not start and end with protecting them from abortion, so neither should the abortion discussion. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this.

Where have I implied things and not been straightforward about and clear in what I have said?


You have been trying in almost every reply to claim I am stating things I have not. It seems since I have no interest in divisive rhetoric, you have tried repeatedly to make my posts out to be "hidden" attacks on pro lifers.

You would probably be best served actually reading what people post and stop trying to "read between the lines" because there is nothing there on an internet forum but empty space.

 

[Grace]

So the choices are 1) abortion or 2) come up with a plan for someone else to take care of them. Interesting. How about the men and women who create those human beings take care of them?

I am all for simplifying things but I think that statement over simplifies this.

When I was 18, my 17 yo gf got pregnant(by me) and told me she wanted an abortion. I told her I didn't believe in abortion and that she could have the baby but me and my family would be responsible for the child. Now, I had no way to make her have our baby and could only offer her alternatives to abortion. No one can say I didn't feel a moral responsibility because that was my unborn child too. Thankfully, later she decided that having the baby was the best choice and today we both have a beautiful daughter. The point being, the man can be very willing to be responsible for the child but if the woman chooses not to carry that baby in her body, there is nothing he can do.

The abortion issue centers on what a woman chooses to do and there is just no way around that. Actually, except in the case of rape, empowered women making good life choices are the best prevention of unwanted pregnancy. No matter what a man may want, if a woman doesn't make choices that lead to unwanted pregnancy, abortion is moot. People can gripe about the inequality of a woman's responsibility not to get pregnant but that's reality. In most cases, a woman has the power over if she gets pregnant or not and like Spiderman, "with great power comes great responsibility." Woman are responsible for making good life decisions and society is equally morale responsible for making sure woman have the resources, including knowledge, to make good decisions.

An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of a cure.

You wrote out a post that touched upon something that has bothered me, myself. Yes, the womans body is hers and when government interferes with her rights to her own body, something is horribly wrong. However, there are TWO people involved in this, not counting the child in her womb. The mother, and the father. I find it very touching on your part, even as young as you were, to want the child and tell your girlfriend you would be there for her as well as your family. Im sure it was a big help in her decision on what to do. The father has rights as well (except in rape cases, then his rights are sitting his sorry ass in a jail cell until he rots as far as Im concerned..and his genes with him).
Im glad she had the assurance of your offer. You are to be commended.

 

[JBeukema]

Sorry to inform you, but people CANNOT make life and death decisions based on convenience in this society . . .

Yeah, because, you know, the three women who I know who've had an abortion did it out of 'convenience' and were realy happy about it.....

The problem with most righties and neocon whackjobs on this subject is they take an extreme example and make it the norm. Head's up Sparkie, most abortions are done in the first trimester, and I'm pretty sure most of the women having them are not over the moon about the procedure....

Evidently, many of them are

Women having multiple abortions reaches record high - Times Online