Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've got an idea. Why don't we give people up to at least 3 or 4 months after birth to decide whether or not to kill their babies. This would allow for a much more informed choice. Why make people choose before all the facts are in?
I thought I might get your attention.To the individuals who don't know, this does not exist.The reason why it is properly called PRO-CHOICE is because you have a choice on what to do with your pregnancy no matter how it occurred whether by rape,incest,unprotected sex,or a malfunction.Most people who are pro-choice are NOT in favor of late term abortions due to increased development but sometimes due to complications it might be necessary.I hope this gives you better insight. As for people who claim to be PRO-LIFERS,if you believe in the death penalty then you're not.Pro-life would be people who believe in people living or existing no matter what they do.They could be drowning their kids or murdering your family but their life would still hold value to someone who claims to be a pro-lifer.If you don't think that a violent criminal holds the same value as an unborn fetus,then you're a hypocrite to your cause.
Thank you for the clarification of the Ministry of Truth's position on the matter. Love to stick around and chat about who is or is not an unperson but it's going on thirteen o'clock and I still have to rewrite history before my appointment in room 101.
I said this to make a point.Being pro-choice does not mean that we are like the executioner ready to flip the switch at the electrocution. This is the way you portray us,but you need to all just pull your heads out of your a--es! Most believe in this only as a last resort and if chosen want it done ASAP so it will be before any major developments occur.Hopefully you all can take those THICK blinders off and realize that choice is about not being controlled by the government.We are not in a dictatorship so we have choices.
Two troll posts on the same subject. That Gallup poll's got you all worked up, huh? The major development occurs when that which is the mother's unites with that which is the father's to become that which is neither's and unique. Gotta go now, it's time for the Two Minutes Hate.
I'm fascinated by how the language has changed over the years. When abortions were still illegal, the fight was between those in favor of access to legal abortions and those opposed. Abortion rights vs anti-abortion. As time went on, the anti-abortion people began to use the pro-life language. Abortion rights people switched to pro-choice. But those changes began to fade as the pro-life group insisted on calling the pro-choice people "pro-abortion", language that deliberately misleads. Embryos and fetuses became "babies" contrary to medical definition, anyone supporting the right for a woman to make her own choice was a "murderer". There is a whole generation that has grown up hearing these lies. Just like a woman's right to make her medical decisions, medical language has been eroding.
The end result is that the right of a woman to control her own body has been totally ignored. Women have yet again become second class citizens who are expected to put aside any concerns regarding their health or life situation in order to host an egg that was fertilized by a sperm. ETA: It's only a matter of time before the fringe starts referring to sperm and ovum as "baby seeds".
Object to this and the canned response is that no woman should engage in sex unless she is willing to have a baby. Sex is only for procreation and if you don't want to procreate, don't have sex. You don't hear it expressed much any longer, but the idea that forcing her to have a baby is appropriate punishment for a wanton woman (defined as any woman who has sex and doesn't want to have a baby). The way to reconcile that married, monogamous women have abortions with that idea is to just ignore it.
If the anti-abortion side wins that battle, we will see two things happen:
1. Illegal abortions. Women who want them will always get abortions, legal or not. Always have, always will.
2. There will be more attacks on birth control. We are already seeing it in those rare instances where pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control pills. The movement will grow. It won't win but it will be an annoying battle, a skirmish that will go on an on.
That Gallup pole....while more people self identified as pro-life than pro-choice, the majority still believe that abortions should be legal under some circumstances. By definition, that means the majority are pro-choice.
Last edited by Sagran; 05-16-2009 at 07:26 AM..
Reason: Forgot something
She never had the abortion. The child was born and she gave it up for adoption. She also was never raped and has admitted as much. Educate yourself please.
"McCorvey, a former lesbian, drug addict, and militant pro-abortionist, is now a Christian pro-life advocate. On January 21, 1998, she testified before the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism and Property rights: "I'm sorry to admit that I'm the Jane Roe of 'Roe v. Wade.' The affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court didn't happen the way I said it did, pure and simple. I lied!"
She lied about being raped ... a great person to have on the anti-choice side. She claims that she was used by the pro-choice movement, when, in fact, she is being even more used by the anti-choice movement .. it's vile.
C'mon Lancet, part of the reason why abortion is so terrible is that women are taking control of their bodies and lives and that they don't require men to do so.
If men got pregnant, it would probably be a different story altogether.
It's easy for big bad men to make decisions for women on issues that they'll never have to face themselves.
I agree. These same big bad men should keep their pants on thus ending the need for abortions.
Location: I currently exist only in a state of mind. one too complex for geographic location.
4,196 posts, read 5,844,425 times
Reputation: 670
didn't barry repeal some law bush signed that made it so no public funds would be given to foreign countries for abortions? I think we actually pay for abortions in other countries. that's vile, and I am pro choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl
Ooooh, total fabrication.
Let's get some stats and links on this one.
didn't barry repeal some law bush signed that made it so no public funds would be given to foreign countries for abortions? I think we actually pay for abortions in other countries. that's vile, and I am pro choice.
Would you presume to dictate to others your position on stealing, murder, rape, infidelity?
Wow... excellent response!
If a pregnancy is 3 months along the fetus is not breathing on its own.
Is that a criteria for being allowed to legally kill something? If it can't breathe on it's own? There are LOTS of "parasites" living with the assistance of ventilators. For those who cannot breathe on their own, but are supported by MY money (taxes paid), shouldn't I have the RIGHT to go in and kill them when I choose? After all, they are incapable of surviving without the assistance of the taxpayer or medical equipment!
This should apply to ALL who are incapable of breathing on their own and eating on their own as well. And anyone who does not have ALL their organs... well, them too. I have a cousin I've always disliked who had her appendix removed years ago... will someone please email me when it's legal to kill her too?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I thought I might get your attention.To the individuals who don't know, this does not exist.The reason why it is properly called PRO-CHOICE is because you have a choice on what to do with your pregnancy no matter how it occurred whether by rape,incest,unprotected sex,or a malfunction.Most people who are pro-choice are NOT in favor of late term abortions due to increased development but sometimes due to complications it might be necessary.I hope this gives you better insight. As for people who claim to be PRO-LIFERS,if you believe in the death penalty then you're not.Pro-life would be people who believe in people living or existing no matter what they do.They could be drowning their kids or murdering your family but their life would still hold value to someone who claims to be a pro-lifer.If you don't think that a violent criminal holds the same value as an unborn fetus,then you're a hypocrite to your cause.
