"Pro-lifers" want to ban abortion....fine...

You know very well that I will not waste my time with your excuses. We both know that it is a baby, and that you advocate killing them at one's convenience. And we both know that it is wrong, but that you believe that it is permissible to prevent "women being held down", notwithstanding that most women do not feel held down by pregnancy. And it matters not to you that the "holding down" of some women lasts only nine months and that there are jillions of people trying to adopt babies (see Russia's decision to punish Americans by not allowing adoptions). But oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that there are women who would feel bad about giving their babies up for adoption or be afraid that they might come looking for them later. They should be allowed to kill them instead, so they would not have to worry about that.

<<<Mod edit: Personal Attack Removed>>>

 

And once again a fertilised egg is NOT a "baby" - it might become a baby but actually the odds are against it becoming anything but waste material

 

Almost every single thing you have written here is incorrect;

It is only a baby to you because you know that will invoke emotional responses in some people, I do not advocate killing them, I advocate giving the woman the choice allowing her to have her right to privacy as laid down by the due-process clause of the 14th Amendment . .<<<Mod edit: Personal Attack Removed>>>
The time span of the "holding down" as you put it is irrelevant, I couldn't care less if it was 1 day, 1 week or 9 months, the fact remains that you want to remove that right, even though your own bill of rights protects it.
Don't know where you get you hyperbole from but in fact there is a shortage of people willing to adopt in the US, (most want 'perfect' little babies and preferable boys) hence why you have on average 400,000 children in the care system every year and you want to add approx 114,000 children a year to that figure.
Whether some women would feel bad about adoption is again irrelevant .. it is her choice, not yours, not the states, not the church and certainly not the governments.
<<<Mod edit: Personal Attack Removed>>> you dismiss the trauma of not only bearing an unwanted baby, but also that attached to having an abortion and cast it aside like some thing you stepped in.

Once again your reasoning is flawed, whether that is from genuine mistakes of calculated fallacies I leave for others to decide.

 

I understand that it eases your conscience and makes you feel less barbaric to nurse these diaphanous illusions, but it changes nothing. By the way, what are all of these "personal attack removed" insertions in your posts? You are not flinging epithets, are you?

 

""""It is only a baby to you because you know that will invoke emotional responses in some people,"""""


EXACTLY! They think that USING the "baby" will sway more people than just saying, "we hate women and want them to suffer and be punished because we get off on that"

 

Clearly you were doing it too, just scroll up a smidge because your own posts are riddled with mod edits too.

 

What ever floats your boat .. your fallacies do not change anything either, but you are free to carry your fantasies.

I see I'm not the only one with items removed, check you own comments as well .. though why they were removed I don't know.

 

So we remain mired in moral relativism, which rules the day. I do not see this ending well.

 

Sorry to steal your thunder, but I had already noticed.

 

An excellent point you make.

The pro-choice crowd on average seems to dislike the term "baby" and usually opted for the more cold, emotionless terms of "zygote" and "fetus". I suspect it has more to do with the agenda than with scientific accuracy.

On the same topic, they usually only talk about the poor and how it will be devastating for them if they don't get an abortion.

Both sides tug on hearts strings when it suits their purposes, and remarkably are no closer to convincing the other side to their cause. Which is why I have always debated this from the wallet, and the constitutional powers of the country. Any other platform simply does not work.

 

The pro-choice crowd doesn't use the word "baby" because a "baby" isn't what is aborted....Anti-Choicers are usually the ones who dislike science (it's scary) so they don't know the correct terms.



"""Any other platform simply does not work. """


???? Abortion is legal......still......

 

I guess all those anatomy lessons were in vain then. And my future microbiology and medical school classes as well. I only pointed out that both sides use emotions to further their aims. And as usual, you have not tried to refute or address it but instead try to bait me. These meager attempts will not yield the desired result.

Do not disturb yourself with things beyond your ken. It will only yield frustration on your part.

Another .60 cents in your pocket eh?

 

The rest of your post is all Feathered red flying fish... Oh, Wise One!

 

You should switch up the colors, blue is getting kinda old now. Need more variety.

Well, I guess you're up to $1.20 now. I wonder, do they give you a bonus if you get a user banned or his posts deleted? I'm just curious, but do they pay you more to quote improperly too? Got a link to your employer?

 

No, no link to mine but yours must be , "Haven't Got An Answer.com"

 

You've not asked me a relevant, rational, or intelligent questions. These types of questions generally get answers. Others get snarky remarks for replies if they are deemed worthy of response.

 

I personally don't use baby simply because it isn't the correct word, I know it is used informally by pregnant women but when it comes down to this type of debate I firmly believe that it should be based on evidence not on emotional blackmail.
I don't have an agenda, I am under no illusion that I will change any persons opinion who is pro-life, my main reason for being here is to try and put a stop to all the incorrect propaganda dished out at regular intervals by the majority of the pro-life side.

however that statement is not an emotional argument it is fact, do you disagree that a ban on abortion will have no effect on those who can afford to travel to another place where it is legal?

Personally I don't think I have ever used an emotional argument on this forum, I have always tried to base my arguments on research.
I don't feel your wallet debate will work either, there are too many aspects to the situation for it to be resolved by a single item, I just wish both extreme edges of the opposing sides would take some time to actually try to come up with a plan that can mostly work for both factions.

 

See, the FANTASY that folks like churchmouse are fed takes several levels.

1. Is that the GOP really wants Roe overturned and to be known as the Party that helped overturn it. Despite all their rhetoric? The "pro-life" party once in power (like 2003-2006)...doesn't make a big push against it, because they know how the public feels....and it is NOT with folks like churchmouse. They just need her vote every 2-4 years.

2. IF overturned (again, what are the 5 "pro-life" Justices waiting for)....it would go to the States. There, again the fantasy is that "once it's banned in Virginia and Utah...we can go after the women escaping to Nevada and Maryland, by forcing those states to ban it with...uh....pressure and getting pro-life state legislators elected."

3. After that fantasy comes the "Nation-wide ban".....and as churchmouse believes "Just making it illegal will mean they will stop happening...or mostly stop." And we're back to my question on rich and middle class women taking a "weekend trip to Ottawa or Nassau".

The whole thing is a house of cards of lies and deception....mostly SELF-deception.

 

The Nazis supported abortion as a means of eugenics to reduce the populations of certain ethnic groups, but on the other hand, they were pro-life when it came to their "aryans". So, the Nazis were neither truly pro life nor truly pro choice, they just borrowed both viewpoints to whenever it suited their racist idealogies.

Abortion is very similar to Nazism, in the sense that they both use arguements and logic to argue that certain human beings are not really human beings, to justify dehumanizing them.

I can understand why the pro choice people on these boards don't believe that a zygote it a person, or deserves the same rights as a person. Let's not a

Late term abortions are not just legal if the mother's life is in danger. They're legal for the "health of the mother", including "emotional health", which is just the loophole to elective abortions. Late term abortion is just a "woman's body"? Really? Prove it.

State control of a woman's reproduction? Forbidding contraception on religious ground IS the state control over a woman's reproduction or body. That we can agree on. But so are late term abortions? Let's just forget about late term abortions in regard to this arguement, it's been proven that fetuses feel pain in even the more common forms of abortion. That's just a woman's body?

The "health of the mother". John mccain was absolutley right. It's just a loophole.

 

Suicidal depression is "just a loophole"? You do understand that the medications used to control suicidal depression cause birth defects and cannot be used by pregnant women?

The fetus cannot feel pain before 26-27 weeks gestation. Only .08 percent of abortions are done after 24 weeks. Do you really think the tiny number of late-term abortions are being done at the whim of women who were just to busy to get an abortion earlier? Late term abortions are more expensive and more dangerous for the woman, so no woman would voluntarily endure six or seven months of pregnancy and then casually decide to abort.

 

Seriously! I am so tired of pro-lifers behaving as if most women are just sitting around being pregnant for 8 months and then when month 9 rolls around they go, "Oh, oops! It's about that time now, better get an abortion before this bubble bursts! Tee hee!" *happily sashays into clinic* It's just totally absurd.

 

They're as stupid as the Anti-Choicers who think there's nothing to being pregnant for nine months so you can give the kid up for adoption...
There's no pain, no inconvenience, no wage loss, no job loss, no medical bills, ...it's always a cakewalk for those who WILL NEVER GO THROUGH IT!

 

Hence why abortion and Nazi's should not be used in the same argument.

Exactly how else is a debate supposed to work unless you want to base it on emotional and religious grounds, and so far I've not seen one pro-choice person ever say a fetus is not a human being.

One must assume you have some sort of qualification in order to to say "including "emotional health", which is just the loophole to elective abortions.", or at the very least a little bit of evidence to support such and accusation.

Would you care to provide evidence to support this, the most "common" abortions are performed before 12 weeks (~88%), the fetus does not have the necessary development of the brain to feel pain.

 

Amazing Sam?

How would you enforce a law banning abortion in this country? And please be specific.

 

Mr. Ego, I find little or nothing in your post that any reasonable, self-respecting and introspective person could disagree with. Lots of good explanations here, but they deprive the self-centered of the delusions that drive their causes.

I would finish your sentence in the third paragraph, "Let's not acknowledge the humanity and sensitivity of the "fetus" as it exposes our insensitivity and the illusions that we foist upon those who follow us."