Why do 'pro lifers' only care about life inside the womb?

Yes, so what?

I said before that this is what makes it traumatic.

Which is why it is better to drive the numbers down, even by a third, by better education, and better access to different contraception.

But the option to terminate should still be there, if need be.

No pressure should be placed on the female to decide one way or the other.

 

Rich, racists, ethnocentric, elitists, supremacists, Nazis, eco-fascists, you name it.

 

They probally had a way to abort back then.

 

Sub, I like you and I agree with probably 95% of the stuff I see you post on here, but I have to disagree with you here. Anything after the point of conception is purely an arbitrary definition of life that can be moved at whim by anyone based on a myriad of subjective philosophical opinions. This is why the pro-abortion side cannot even agree amongst themselves on when life begins. Conversely, conception gives a definitive starting point.

 

I wouldnt say they couldnt agree on a starting point. Ive heard of plenty of liberals who believe in abortion up until the umbilical cord is cut.

 

Okay, so you believe, it seems to be on partially religous grounds, and partially financial, that you should not support abortion, and that that women should go ahead and give birth, yes?

Let's say, as can often sadly happen, that the father shoots through, since you cite taxpayer's money, are you happy to then see taxpayer's money to assist this lone parent, without running her down, because of it?

After all..she has played her part and had the baby, and is prepared to now do her best to raise it well. She needs financial support, and has none, so what do you do?

 

Let's supplement this thread with quotes from the founder of planned parenthood.

 

I am irreligious. I do not believe in religions. Anyone that wants to belong to any religion is their business, not mine. And my lack of religion is my business, not theirs. But I'm pro-life. Abortion is murder. Plain simple, murder. And a great many 'pro-lifers' are only against abortions by choice. If there is a problem and the mothers life is threatened, that is a medical decision, not a contraceptive choice. Or cases of rape and incest, an IMMEDIATE abortion is OK since the mother had no choice to make. In a normal pregnancy, the mother had a CHOICE. If she made the wrong choice, murdering a baby does not make it a right choice.

 

They did; learned it from my ancestors. It was dietary and used when the tribe could not support growth.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081125184219AAaYXAf

 

ah thank you i thought there was.

 

Big Pharm had all of those wonderful morning after solutions outlawed.

 

The study of,,,,,,,, or the smoking of?

 

Your position is not rationally defensible, as society places such pressure on a female once a child is born.

Your position is a living example of a double standard, which is quintessentially intellectually bankrupt. You're left with it because you cannot take a moral or intellectual stand yourself on when a cluster of cells becomes a human being.

Which disqualifies your credibility on the topic.

 

If by "abort", you mean some method that they could circumvent a conception immediately after the act - could be. And I would have supported it, as you can see by my nuanced (but intellectually sound) position on the matter.

If by "abort" you mean "do so anytime, in secret", perhaps so as well. People have always sinned; people have always committed crimes.

 

I'm afraid it isn't murder, certainly not by any legal definition, which for the purposes of a change in law, is rather crucial.

As I keep saying, a ban on terminations would not see an end to people having them, it would merely push it back underground. If that is what you want, then campaign for a ban.

Prevention is better, it is not hard to avoid falling pregnant these days, like I said before, a morning after pill will even take care of matters, three days on, so I think that is the way ahead, more education, more free access to contraception.

The Phillipines gives has an abortion ban.

Do you really want to reduce a modern Western nation to this?


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-h77gSHWLs"]Abortion agony in the Philippines - YouTube[/ame]

 

But what you just said doesn't disagree with what I posted. I freely admit that there is no definitive answer to this topic. What I said was that my "arbitrary point" is both intellectually and religiously defensible, and (IMO) far more practical and rational than those who believe that "life begins at conception" (which I believe intentionally skews the issue. It should be "humanity begins at conception", or - more accurately: "life already existed in the sperm and the egg. Life continues with their fertilization. What is unknown is when humanity begins - as it is humanity which requires defense, not life."

My position is also far more defensible than those who support horrid things like partial-birth abortion, and to diminishing degrees with those who support earlier and earlier cut-offs.

There is a strong case to be made that "life (soul/sentience/humanity) is in the blood".

 

In order to answer the question of if abortion is murder, one must clear the point at which the egg becomes human.

 

Not quite. One simply has to admit and then understand that there obviously is such a point. Then they simply have to admit that abortions have been taking place anywhere from the next day ("morning after") to at the point of induced full-term birth ("Partial-birth abortion").

Which means - depending upon when we pick that point absent scientific proof - people have been committing murder by aborting true human children by the millions.

 

What you said and what i said are the same.

 

The arrogance of the religionist.

First of all, not only is my 'position' rationally defensible, it is defensible in law.

Both in my country, and sadly for your bubble, also in your country.

I have no right to tell any women that she should or should not go ahead with a pregnancy, those would be the actions of a control freak, a desire to control total stangers.

I am not deluded enough to think we can create some utopian society, where everyone lives like the fecking Waltons, I deal with what is real in our society, and people having sex, and often getting pregnant, is a reality, as is the fact that they have the legal right to terminate, in my country, and in your country.

I have suggested greater education, access to contraception, and personal responsibilty, so not really too sure what it is you think is not 'rationally defensible' about my 'position', so far.

And hey, let's not forget, it is quite possible that a women is raped, and for some good reason she chooses not to report it to the police.

Goes on.

Not because she has something to hide, before anyone suggests it, but often because they already feel so terrible, that they cannot face having to go through what I for one would believe would be a HORRIBLE experience in court, esp if he took it to trial.

Now, I am not going to be in the business of disrespecting their reasons not to formally report what happened to them, which is what you would be doing, if you want to make this 'exception' for rape victims, you would take away the right of the rape victim not to want the trauma of court, by forcing her to tell the state that she was raped.

Otherwise you would let the state force her to have a rapists baby.

Feck that, to be honest.

I think they have enough power as it is, thanks.

 

Only if you agree with what I said. Your statement could be ambiguously read to mean that until we determine the point where cells become truly a child/sentience, we cannot consider abortion murder. I explained why that was untrue.

 

Why do you like to disagree with everything?

 

Stick your bigotry of people who believe in God in your ass, Jack. I am merely Christian, just like the majority in this country claim to be. I rarely go to church, as I feel no need. There is nothing arrogant about my statement. Your position is neither morally or intellectually defensible, and I explained why.

If you think you can find quarter in your defense in the law, go for it: many criminals and other sordid lots do.

But that doesn't mean that you're on either intellectually or morally solid ground. Roe v Wade itself is bad law - yet it is Law - and that admission has already been made by no less a liberal Supreme Court Justice than Ginsburg.

You don't seem capable of seeing the hole in your position, and I seriously doubt you ever will. Since we know that - at some point - an unborn child truly does become a child in the same psychological sense as we'd protect (legally or otherwise) any child, your rant is pointless and stupid.

Because you'd most certainly try to do exactly as you claim you wouldn't, if a woman was trying to throw her child out of a window.

Still not getting it. This discussion isn't about what is already legal. It's about what makes the most sense, and what is truly right. If you're going to take the mantle of the status quo, do so: defend it.

But don't simply stand behind the law as your reason for your position: it is the law itself which is being called into question.

The parts I have attacked above. I have not attacked this part.

And hey, let's not forget, that you just lauded the notion of personal responsibility not one paragraph before. Now - here you are - excusing that aspect of it to...what? Allow an abortion merely because someone withholds reporting a rape?

There are consequences to actions. This is not "The Waltons". If someone got raped and really doesn't want the child, I'm not going to trump that child's right to life above her own failure to do what was needed to fit within the conscripts I outlined: she has up to 2 weeks to take action.

Because let's not forget: if she doesn't report rape to the police, the chances of conviction also diminish tremendously.

Personal responsibility doesn't seem to be something you feel strongly about. It seems, in fact, to be something you're about as convicted about as a casual pink ribbon you may wear to attempt to make others you believe something.

Goes on.

This is a departure from the topic; this has nothing to do with the ability to abort a rape conception in an ample amount of time without violating my definition of when a real human sentience actually begins. This only has to do with whether a rape victim chooses to take actions to put her attacker behind bars.

I think you're confused. I would do nothing of the sort.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You have actually attempted to defeat a position based on a pure hypothetical exception, and you violated your own claim to "personal responsibility" in the process.

You're still not getting it. This is about proper defense of moral law, which already exists in abundance - just not in sufficience.

Innocent human life must be protected. Personal responsibility bears a critical role in this.

 

Wat?

Your statement was ambiguous. I'm asking you to clarify. If you disagree with what I just said, then you're the one who disagreed with my statement.

 

You keep rejecting the truth. I merely said that if people agreed that at a certain point it became human then people could consider abortion after that point to be murder.