Who is right? The pro-abort who says abortion should only be legal until 21 weeks? or 22 weeks? 23-24 weeks? The pro-abort who says there should be no laws restricting abortion? Which one takes women's rights away? Which one affords women total rights to their body? I wonder why each side does not call one another out on their views like they do pro-lifers out on theirs? I would love to hear a discussion between the two sides. Who is right? Why the silence?
Which proves my point that pro-aborts stick together...even when their positions don't jive. That is how much they love abortion.
You ask the same questions over and over, which is why no one responds. Our position is the right one - allowing the woman total control over her body and life, especially when she is pregnant. The pro life position wishes to take away the right of the woman to choose.
No not true...because the hardliners always go in every thread. I am wanting debate between people that hold your position. I would like to see a discussion with each side presenting facts to support their positions. There is division here in the abortion threads. Not just between pro-life and the pro-death camp...but between the views of people holding the same position. The fact that no pro-abort will do this says something....that its not really about the position, but the people who hold them. And you know exactly what I mean. I really would like to see the two sides discuss this...but I guess its taboo. I knew it would not happen....because not ONE pro-abort has criticized another on position. The absence of discussion....says a lot. And it has nothing to do with asking the same question over and over...because that happens in EVERY THREAD AND EVERY DISCUSSION. Nothing new ever changes on this forum and it never will. It is about hatred....and that is it.
Just how many times do you want people to keep answering the same question over and over and over again, if you don't get that the pro-choice people have various opinions then that is your problem, we don't argue about those positions simply because we all know that we all support the womans right to choose, our differences only become apparent as to when the rights of the fetus are the same as the rights of the woman and that only happens in the latter time of the pregnancy - which I know its your favorite obsession - we don't argue about it because we all know that there are few, if any, woman who would choose an abortion that late into her pregnancy, and the fact that the law already covers it. You seem to think that you are scoring some sort of major victory where as in reality you just make yourself look obsessed.
You don't find many people squabbling over this because in the situations you just described, women still have quite a bit of time in which to make their choice AND they still have the right to make the choice in the first place. Most choicers want the ability to make that choice protected, arguing over the timeline is just small details. That's how I feel. I honestly am not that concerned whether it's 20 weeks, 24 weeks, 28 weeks, 36 weeks, 5 years, whatever. As long as the moral totalitarian people have not robbed a person of a choice that is 100% inherent to them, I am happy. It's not about "killing babies", it's about choice. If there ever came a time when we didn't have to stick together because other people threaten a woman's innate rights, then perhaps conversations over exact timelines would happen. You don't argue about what silverware to use at dinner until you've secured a place to eat it and food to make it with.
Junkieturtle said, "You don't find many people squabbling over this because in the situations you just described, women still have quite a bit of time in which to make their choice AND they still have the right to make the choice in the first place." Why should they have a time frame? What if they don't know they are pregnant? What if circumstances in their lives change and they don't want the baby? Is it their body or not? yes or no Is it their choice or not? yes or no What right do you have to tell them they can't abort? The timeline does make a difference so says our laws. If it did not matter we would have no restrictions at all as to when the life could be killed. So you are against any restrictions at all....abortion on demand for any reason. Am I correct in assessing your position? It is all about killing babies, that is what you don't get. You are pro-late term abortion...but the majority of your pro-abort friends on this forum are NOT. Do they not take freedom away from the woman? yes or no Go to my poll thread on position....and press the view positions button...you will see that most are not in favor of allowing the freedom you says exists. So who is right? You or the people who want viability considered? You have already basically said it...but why don't you call them out on their position? There is no place at the table for the woman who just wants to abort after viability.
You don't think the two sides seem to hate one another? LOL All I want is a discussion....is that too much to ask for? But the fact is it will never happen with this group....for all the most obvious reasons.
Fugazi said, Why is it that the pro-life side however is not afraid of calling ourselves out over things we disagree with? And why I have NEVER ONCE...seen one pro-abort, NOT ONE, address a conflicting position on their side? Viability makes a difference, freedom to choose makes a difference, owner ship of ones body makes a difference. Most the pro-aborts on this site do not allow freedom and that is my point. There are only a handful that do. WHY? If your all about freedom and people don't allow for it, then why not call them out on it? Either a woman owns her body or she doesn't. She either gets to make the decisions or she doesn't. And anyone that would tell me that I am a hypocrite for my position...and then turn around and says.....gee I think abortion should be legal BUT only through 24 weeks....is nothing but a hypocrite. They deny the woman CHOICE AND OWNERSHIP...they take HER RIGHTS away. I mean can't you see this for what it really is? Come on.... Obsessed? Not really. I just know when peoples backs are against the wall and they won't address something they know that they are wrong about. I want to hear just ONE pro-abort tell another...hey, your position is wrong....you do take a woman's right away. Obsessed.....no I think just persistently trying to uncover the hypocrisy of the pro-abort position.
No you did not. This should be a discussion between only pro-abort people...not pro-life. You say we want to take rights away.....but those on your side that deny late term abortion (and you are pro-late term abortion) are doing the same thing you say we are doing. They are taking the woman's rights away. Is this true....do you see my point? I would like to see a discussion between the pro-aborts on this.
What right do YOU have to tell them they can't abort, ever, for any reason? If I don't have the right to talk about timelines and modest limitations, you most certainly don't have the right to talk about outright bans. I wasn't talking about our laws, I was talking about my personal position on the issue. It's been a few months since I've retyped my position for you, so I'll go ahead and do this. I would support abortion at all stages before ever supporting a ban. I am not against reasonable restrictions, and this is because things don't work when you try to make rules that adhere to one limited viewpoint. My viewpoint on abortion is not the only one, nor any more relevant or important than the next persons. Supporting restrictions is a compromise, one that I am willing to make in the spirit of democracy and even respect to those who disagree with me. That's how democracy works, and really any system that governs people from a homeowner's association on up to national governments. That is why I am agreeable to timelines. It's also because I don't live in a black and white world where everything is either/or, all/nothing, on/off, yada yada yada. That's much to simple for me, and 100% unrealistic. If you prefer to look at life that way, you certainly have that right. Again, most people understand that restrictions on abortion are not the same as an outright ban. Restrictions do not equal bans. It's a really simple concept, actually, one that is at work in just about every area of the law. To reuse an analogy which seems clear to me but which has not sunk in with you in the past, if you don't think the law can restrict freedom, try buying a grenade launcher while citing your 2nd amendment rights. Try writing lies and accusations about people in print while citing your 1st amendment right to freedom of speech without getting sued and/or arrested. In both examples, you will fail, and you will do so because the law does not exist in an either/or world. It has varying degrees of limitations, everywhere. Even "murder" is broken up into many different categories depending on the circumstances. Let me ask you this. You've said you have children. Did you let your children do whatever they wanted? Did you let them have candy all the time or never any at all? If you allowed them to have candy at some times, but not others, you have compromised. You have done EXACTLY what I just described in the previous paragraph. You have decided that reasonable restrictions are okay. This example is not limited to just candy, even if that's the subject I chose to use for it. If you have ever compromised about anything instead of sticking to your faux all/nothing argument tactic, you have compromised, proving you know exactly what it is, what it's for, and how compromise applies to the various degrees of pro-choice arguments. If you do not know this stuff by now, and understand the concept, it is willful, a tactic you use to preserve your ability to repost the garbage you call an argument while not having to feel dishonest.
Posters have been discussing abortions in hundreds of threads and posts....just because you don't agree doesn't mean they're not discussing anything. ' Ranting in all caps against those "evil" people is NOT discussing anything. Bringing late term abortion to EVERY thread is not discussing anything. What obvious reasons? See, I just ask you a question and I know you won't answer.
Junkieturtle said, I beleive that no child in the womb deserves death. I fight for a society that protects the innocent, the sick, weak, vulnerable. We have laws protecting the people don't we? And many of these laws prohibit someone for doing something with their body and laws that prohibit hurting someone else with our bodies. You have a right to talk about anything you want to talk about? But there is hypocrisy in saying that there should be a timeline when a woman can abort. Doing so denies her freedom to decide. And you did not answer.......So you are against any restrictions at all....abortion on demand for any reason. Am I correct in assessing your position? yes or no If you deny any woman choice....then are you truly pro-choice? Did you bother to take the poll...in the thread I started about positions? Why? Canada does not have any restrictions...and many pro-aborts have stated that they do quite well. Any restriction...take some woman's right away. You do not allow them the freedom to decide. Isn't that what being pro-choice is all about? Affording women the right to their bodies, the ability to decide for themselves the path they want to go on? If you put any restrictions on what they can choose...you enslave them. I thought you were against restrictions as you said this just yesterday I believe in another day. You said...." I honestly am not that concerned whether it's 20 weeks, 24 weeks, 28 weeks, 36 weeks, 5 years, whatever. As long as the moral totalitarian people have not robbed a person of a choice that is 100% inherent to them, I am happy.” and this "realizing that the woman', the person's, rights trump those of the fetus, which has none. That's not eliminating it, it's acknowledging that while it does exist, it is not more important than the woman.” Any restrictions would do like you said.....rob a woman of a choice they want to make. So why on earth would you say you not against reasonable restrictions? LOL Those restrictions take away rights. You are saying two different things here. Peoples viewpoints do matter, they are relevant and as a society we have to strive to at least try to stay on the moral road don't we? Shouldn't we fight for what we believe is right? Isn't that what the gays have done the past twenty years? Isn't that why slavery ended...the good men did something about it? Is your viewpoint the same as someone who says...women deserve rape if they are dressed provocatively? It's a cop out. Its someone who does not have the backbone to stand up for goodness and the right thing. Would you compromise a law that said....its ok to rape your wife? It's ok to abuse your own children...as long as you don't touch someone else's? It's ok to own slaves...but you can only have two? It's ok if you ride the bus...you just have to sit in the back? It's ok if you talk about God...but you can only do it in a church? Not really. I started the poll that asked the question....SHOULD our laws be changed on this issue...to allow women the right to choose a late term if she so wishes. Did you take it? I will look after I finish this post...I don't think you did. Would you mind answering that question here? Should the laws be changed? This would give women the right to their bodies. Did democracy work for Rosa Parks? Do you think she should have just taken a seat in the back of the bus and be happy she got to ride it at all? The reason SCOTUS stipulated a time limit because they recognized that at some point that which is in the womb became a person. Now I believe it always was a person, so I disagree...but this is what SCOTUS at the time believed. It should be reexamined today as much more scientific information has surfaced about fetal development and viability. Most people want restrictions because they like SCOTUS know that at some point that which is being killed might be viable. So all of a sudden the thought at killing a baby is wrong. Killing some is better than not killing any....that is what your saying right? Compromise in the name of the living human in the womb. There is a ban and it is against the law for a women with a healthy pregnancy and baby to abort past 24 weeks. This is a ban. She has no choice, right? The law is specific. NO ABORTIONS. This is pretty much cut and dry. You either believe the life in the womb deserved to live or to die. Do we place value on born children do we? Well at birth they are not worth as much as 2 years....and then more at 5 years....and even more as teenagers.....young adult.....adult......senior citizen. Killing someone is killing someone....the result is death. And if you can't see the hypocrisy in the pro-abort position...then I don't know what else to say. I showed you the inconsistencies in your own position and in the group at later. I can see why you don't want to discuss it amongst yourselves. It is not logical or cohesive.
There you go again, pretending to care about freedom when your main goal is to destroy it. I don't know if perhaps you think you are clever, but you're not fooling anyone by pretending you care about the freedom of choice that belongs to a mother, or pretending you're concerned about whether it's abridged, seeing as your main goal is to abridge it. Nope, not clever, just dumb. Reread the answer in my previous post, that's why I wrote it. I did not. I haven't even been on this website much for the last few months and today is the first day I've been to the abortion forums since March. If that post was up back then, I may have voted in it, but I cannot remember. You really make no sense. You're trying to tell me that I should feel bad because I believe in limitations....but you want to outright ban abortion? Woman, you better check yourself before you wreck yourself. Nobody ever has an absolute right to anything. Maybe nobody told you, but we all live in a society, one that happens to contain more than 300 million people. I don't get to have my way, nobody does. If I did, abortion would be legal. Read it, memorize it, stop asking. Since I don't, since I must exist and work within a system that contains a metric crapton of OTHER people, I am willing to work with those people to find a compromise that doesn't make any of us 100% happy, but instead, gives everyone involved at least some of what they want. I'm not sure why we are talking about rape again, but your thought process must tie abortion and rape pretty close together because you bring it up constantly. People's viewpoints matter, definitely, and I never said otherwise. What I DID actually say, is that no one's viewpoint is more important than someone's elses. Not mine, not yours, not anybody's. That's why nobody gets to have their way 100% of the time. That's why abortion is still legal. If you and those who think like you got to have your way, it wouldn't be. Since you don't, the law does not conform to your belief system exactly. Deal with it. All of those are laws that are restricting the freedom and personal well being of another born established legal person, meaning....they don't apply to abortion and what occurs on the inside of a woman's body. And I AM standing up for what is right, even if it's not pretty and on the cover of a Hallmark card. You may not like abortion, and I'd never argue that abortion is a wonderful thing, but that is not the same as it not being the "right" thing. It is right for a woman to have control of her body. It is wrong for you to try and deny that to her. That's an entirely different situation. The only difference between Rosa Parks and the white woman next to her was the color of her skin. Nothing about what makes them both a person was different in any way, shape, or form. This was the law protecting the superficial prejudices of stupid white men. Compromise in the name of a woman's right to control not only her body, but her destiny. Compromise also for the reasons I've already listed. Why should you get to have your way all the time? Why not me? Why not the next person with a different opinion than you or I? Why are you so important that your own antiquated delusions of moral rigidity must be the law, but mine cannot? My views do not force anything on anyone. My views allow a person to make a choice. Yours do not. Mine allow for self-control and self-determination in a situation where it only involves one person. Yours do not. You want to punish women for having sex you don't like, or perhaps envy, and even if that's not your main motivation for being pro-life, it is most certainly your main tactic. Correct. Killing anything results in death. Including the fertilized eggs that naturally die because they have not been implanted. Why is it okay for those eggs to die but not others? Why is not every single woman who has ever had sex considered a serial killer? The cut-off for me, is birth. Aside from death, it is the single greatest change in states that a person will go through in their lives. Everything about your world changes in an instant, forever. Birth is a solid, non-confusing, non-prejudiced, non-arbitrary point in time to confer rights. It is the point in time that you become an independent entity. That is why I believe it should also be the point in time that you are protected by the law. Ironically, in your haste to chastise women who had unagreeable sex, you only increase the number of abortions that occur. You believe in God, right? What are you going to say to him when you to get heaven, proudly sporting your pro-life pin and fanny-pack, and he says "Listen, you knowingly took actions that resulted in MORE abortions, not less, while only giving lip service to the idea that you protecting life. I believe you belong in the basement with all your faux sentiments and moral superiority". LSD is a helluva drug.
Thanks! Such an intelligent, reasoned statement.... let's hope it at least leaves a dent if not a breakthrough...
