Abortion

Originally posted by Makedde
Fair enough, I get what you are saying, but I don't think that all women should have the choice. Many should, but those who have unprotected sex should, IMO, suffer the consequences. I may have pro choice views but I do have pro life views too. 😕

The one stance you ALWAYS take, in every debate, is that you agree with it if it suits you.

It's right if it suits you, wrong if it doesn't. You refuse to acknowledge facts and logic unless they work for you.

You've expressed pro-choice, not pro life.

Being against SOME abortions isn't pro-life. It's just being against, as VVD said, frivolous abortions.

You are pro-choice.

-AC

Originally posted by Makedde
Okay, perhaps the reason I can't see myself as pro choice is because I don't want anyone thinking I condone abortion, because I do not. I do not want anyone thinking I am your typical pro choicer, that I don't care about unborn babies, which is not true. I don't want people to judge me, and my saying I am pro life can allow me to say that I do care for unborn babies, but women also.

People who are Pro-Life are opposed to the right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy for any reason.

If you are not opposed to the right of some woman to terminate some pregnancies for some reasons, you are not Pro-Life.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
People who are Pro-Life are opposed to the right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy for any reason.

I have known many many pro lifers, all are good friends, and even they (not the obsessed ones) believe a woman should have the choice to abort if, say, she was raped, or she needed to abort to save her life. Now, they'd be against most abortions, but in support of others. No pro lifer, at least none that I could imagine, would expect a woman to sacrifice her life to save her unborn baby. The fact that they would chose the woman over the baby would mean that people who claim to be pro life are not pro life at all?

Originally posted by Makedde
I have known many many pro lifers, all are good friends, and even they (not the obsessed ones) believe a woman should have the choice to abort if, say, she was raped, or she needed to abort to save her life. Now, they'd be against most abortions, but in support of others. No pro lifer, at least none that I could imagine, would expect a woman to sacrifice her life to save her unborn baby. The fact that they would chose the woman over the baby would mean that people who claim to be pro life are not pro life at all?

That's not very true. There are pro-lifers in this very thread that have that view of sacrificing the mother for the child.

Originally posted by Makedde
I have known many many pro lifers, all are good friends, and even they (not the obsessed ones) believe a woman should have the choice to abort if, say, she was raped, or she needed to abort to save her life. Now, they'd be against most abortions, but in support of others. No pro lifer, at least none that I could imagine, would expect a woman to sacrifice her life to save her unborn baby. The fact that they would chose the woman over the baby would mean that people who claim to be pro life are not pro life at all?

WHY on Earth do you need simple concepts explained to you about a thousand times?

YOU, Makedde, have expressed NOTHING but pro-choice beliefs and views. You speak for a woman's choice and say you are against irresponsible abortions. You are PRO-choice.

The only thing you are against is superficial abortions. You're not against them as a whole, you've said this.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
WHY on Earth do you need simple concepts explained to you about a thousand times?

YOU, Makedde, have expressed NOTHING but pro-choice beliefs and views. You speak for a woman's choice and say you are against irresponsible abortions. You are PRO-choice.

The only thing you are against is superficial abortions. You're not against them as a whole, you've said this.

-AC

I think putting the emphasis on 'choice' and not 'pro' would get through to her better. Although I'm not sure about even that.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
That's not very true. There are pro-lifers in this very thread that have that view of sacrificing the mother for the child.

There are people like that, good thing there are not too many.

Originally posted by Makedde
I have known many many pro lifers, all are good friends, and even they (not the obsessed ones) believe a woman should have the choice to abort if, say, she was raped, or she needed to abort to save her life. Now, they'd be against most abortions, but in support of others. No pro lifer, at least none that I could imagine, would expect a woman to sacrifice her life to save her unborn baby. The fact that they would chose the woman over the baby would mean that people who claim to be pro life are not pro life at all?

If one approves of the right of some women to terminate some pregnancies for some reasons, she is Pro-Choice.

Originally posted by Makedde
Okay, perhaps the reason I can't see myself as pro choice is because I don't want anyone thinking I condone abortion, because I do not. I do not want anyone thinking I am your typical pro choicer, that I don't care about unborn babies, which is not true. I don't want people to judge me, and my saying I am pro life can allow me to say that I do care for unborn babies, but women also.

Also, you should not concern yourself with what people think about you in a situation like this. I, along with most pro choice people, have been called things like "baby killers" or "murderers", but it only serves to prove that the pro life side has no valid point and can only throw insults.

Okay...pro choice then. Now, will there be no more arguing? 🙂

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Pro-Life is the opposition to the deliberate ending of human life from the moment of conception, including but not limited to abortion, euthanasia, human cloning, and scientific research on human embryos.

No it isn't.

Pro-Life is a position where it is considered that a foetus can have the same rights to life as a human being.

That says nothing about WHEN they are seen as having those rights. Religious groups say it is from conception and have the associated issues with embryos, but there are plenty who do not think like that.

The law is most countries is, in effect, pro-life, because it removes the woman's choice form the equation, but after a certain point of development. An entirely secular pro-life view that has nothing to do with conception.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No it isn't.

Pro-Life is a position where it is considered that a foetus can have the same rights to life as a human being.

That says nothing about WHEN they are seen as having those rights. Religious groups say it is from conception and have the associated issues with embryos, but there are plenty who do not think like that.

The law is most countries is, in effect, pro-life, because it removes the woman's choice form the equation, but after a certain point of development. An entirely secular pro-life view that has nothing to do with conception.

According to the National Right to Life, the organization that started the Pro-Life movement, "A new individual human being begins at fertilization, when the sperm and ovum meet to form a single cell."

No one organisation started the Pro-Life movement. And certainly no one organisation speaks for its entirity; it is a very split and self-arguing movement.

So afraid not. A person who is Pro-Life does not automatically think life begins at conception; that depends on that person's individual beliefs.

Like I said, the law is pro-life, but not believing in life starting at conception. This is simply a fact.

By the extension of that logic btw, nearly every pro-choice person is ACTUALLY pro-life. Nearly everyone supports abortion being illegal after a certain point, which is denying a woman's choice. You will find the measure of support which agrees that it is right for an aboriton to be carried out right up up to term is tiny, and that the largest group favours the rules being made more strict i.e. it being illegal to terminate after an earlier point than it is now- choice be damned.

The debate boils down once more to what point the foetus is considered to have the right to life.

Truth of the matter is - 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' is all bullshit. Total distraction.

The only argument out there that actually gets any consideration is at what point in the first or second trimester should it be made illegal. One school of thought pretty much says at the end (but gradually going further back); that's the Pro-Choice lot. One school of thought says it is at the very beginning; that is the Pro-Life lot. There are a few shades of grey but people actually deviating from that general pattern are very rare. It's not about choice, it's never been about choice, nearly EVERYONE wants a law that restricts choice. It's always been about when people think a foetus becomes a genuine human life, a process which has been given the tagline 'Personification'.

Well hit sir, very well hit.

🙂 (to quote ol' Marry Poppins)

Indeed the hipocrisy of some posters to say that approving of an abortion in any circumstances (life of the mother) means that you aren't really pro-life is rather funny.

Especially that if you consider every country restricts the woman's choice after a certain point (except China), ......

then by that logic, all the pro-choice people are actually against free choice.

It is no matter, as has been said by Ush, Soleran, myself and others,......

the timeline for abortion to be acceptable has kept moving steadily back and will eventually cease when medical science is able to determine that "personification" is started in the first trimester.

(which would give a woman like a month or two to abort, and it is hard to tell a pregnancy until a month to 2 months for certain.)

Anyway, the whole bussiness of abortion (and it is a business) will soon be over.

Children will live, people will be more responsible, and not have to worry about depression, suicide, infection, breast cancer, or death due to abortion. 🙂

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Children will live, people will be more responsible, and not have to worry about depression, suicide, infection, breast cancer, or death due to abortion. 🙂

WTF? That is a ridiculous leap in logic.

The womens choice but if I ever knock somebody up I dont want a abortion but it is the womens choice

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
WTF? That is a ridiculous leap in logic.

Not really, since abortion is proved to cause all of those things.
(notice I said depression, suicide, infection, breast cancer due to abortion, not just ordinary suicide, infection, etc....)

And it kills a 1/3rd of my generation before they have a chance at life. 🙁

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Not really, since abortion is proved to cause all of those thingss.

And kill a 1/3rd of my generation. 🙁

Not really. If abortion was the exclusive cause of thes ethings, then I might think you would be right....but, considering teh huge majority of people in this country support choice, you are incorrect.

Again, you have yet to tell us where you're getting this "1/3 of my generation" figure.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Not really. If abortion was the exclusive cause of thes ethings, then I might think you would be right....but, considering teh huge majority of people in this country support choice, you are incorrect.

Again, you have yet to tell us where you're getting this "1/3 of my generation" figure.

Never said abortion was the "exclusive cause" ... I said (third time now, so stop dodging) that if abortion is illegal than "depression, suicide, infections, breast cancer, and deaths due to abortions will stop."

And the correlation between such things and abortions can be found at friggin Planned Parenthood's own web-page.

For your second question:

(I posted this on page 233, along with other good factual information about abortion and its effects, but I suppose you missed it)

For Capt. Fantastic, who always asks me where I get my number of "1/3rd of my generation" being gone:

HOW MANY?

How many abortions are there?

In the U.S. there are 2 reporting agencies. The U.S. Center for Disease Control is a passive recipient of reports voluntarily sent to it by the states. Since all states don’t report, and many report inaccurately, these totals are under-reported. The CDC does do a meticulous job of breaking down the categories, and so these are the percentages everyone uses. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, a branch of Planned Parenthood, aggressively contacts hospitals and known abortionists, and the result is a more accurate and larger figure, which we use.

How many? During the 1980s and 1990s total abortions stayed about 1,550,000 annually, slowly decreasing in the 1990s. Note that the Guttmacher Institute reported that 10% of known abortion providers did not report. Adding 10% to its 1,550,000 equals 1,700,000. The total reported slowly decreased in the 1990s. When the unreported abortions are added (income tax evasion, cover-up for privacy, etc.), a figure of 1,800,000 may be more realistic. Live births have hovered just under 4,000,000. Therefore: Almost every third baby conceived in America is killed by abortion. 112 Abortion Surveillance U.S. 1988 Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, July 1991. S.K. Henshaw et al., "Abortion Services in the U.S., 1987-1988," Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 22, No. 3 (May-June 1990), p. 103.

We can quibble over the "almost" if you wish, but the fact remains that people who are ages 25-18 right now (born in 1981-1988) are missing a third of their generation. 🙁

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No one organisation started the Pro-Life movement. And certainly no one organisation speaks for its entirity; it is a very split and self-arguing movement.

So afraid not. A person who is Pro-Life does not automatically think life begins at conception; that depends on that person's individual beliefs.

Like I said, the law is pro-life, but not believing in life starting at conception. This is simply a fact.

By the extension of that logic btw, nearly every pro-choice person is ACTUALLY pro-life. Nearly everyone supports abortion being illegal after a certain point, which is denying a woman's choice. You will find the measure of support which agrees that it is right for an aboriton to be carried out right up up to term is tiny, and that the largest group favours the rules being made more strict i.e. it being illegal to terminate after an earlier point than it is now- choice be damned.

The debate boils down once more to what point the foetus is considered to have the right to life.

Truth of the matter is - 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' is all bullshit. Total distraction.

The only argument out there that actually gets any consideration is at what point in the first or second trimester should it be made illegal. One school of thought pretty much says at the end (but gradually going further back); that's the Pro-Choice lot. One school of thought says it is at the very beginning; that is the Pro-Life lot. There are a few shades of grey but people actually deviating from that general pattern are very rare. It's not about choice, it's never been about choice, nearly EVERYONE wants a law that restricts choice. It's always been about when people think a foetus becomes a genuine human life, a process which has been given the tagline 'Personification'.

The Pro-Life movement did not exist on any level before the formation of the first Pro-Life organization in 1967. This organization would later be incorporated into the National Right to Life Committee in 1973. Three years later, the only Pro-Life resources were the National Right to Life Committee and the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment.

So yes, one organization did start the Pro-Life movement. And while I do not pretend that this organization speaks for the Pro-Life movement in its entirety, by all means, name the numerous other Pro-Life organizations that do not believe that life begins at conception.

The law is not Pro-Life. The law weighs the right of the mother to control what happens in and to her body with the right to life of the child. The point at which the law has determined it is illegal to have an abortion is the point at which the law believes the right to life of the child is stronger and more stringent than the right of the mother to control what happens in and to her body. This is what the debate is about.