For All Pro-Choice Women

[mixedmedia]

I tried to give the top three choices, and I think I got it right. What other choice would you need?

I used the word "kill" because it fits. kill= 1 a : to deprive of life

www.m-w.com

That is definition number one. If the fetus were proven to be a child and you destroyed the fetus, would it not be considered killing? Of course it would, it is depriving the living human child (general term) of life, which is the #1 definition of "kill".

I think the poll would have been more effective with a simple yes or no answer. The question makes it obvious what your point is. The three answers as you have them put words into people's mouths and limit their ability to choose an answer if they don't feel exactly as you do about abortion. I mean, if you really want to learn something from the poll, make it as easy as possible for all to participate. The thread is where the ideas should come out.

 

[Surenderer]

I havent read through the 6+ pages posted here(so forgive me if it has been stated allready) and I'm not a woman so I wont vote either but isnt it true that if someone kills a pregnant Woman and her unborn dies also isnt that person charged with two crimes? Why? and at what point do pro-choice people consider the fetus/baby a life?


peace

 

[Peralin]

I think the poll would have been more effective with a simple yes or no answer. The question makes it obvious what your point is. The three answers as you have them put words into people's mouths and limit their ability to choose an answer if they don't feel exactly as you do about abortion. I mean, if you really want to learn something from the poll, make it as easy as possible for all to participate. The thread is where the ideas should come out.

Ok, I see what you mean. But I figured that there were two different options that split off of saying "yes". My point was no just to see how many people would still have the abortion, but also to see how many people do not care at all whether the fetus (g) is a child (g) or not. Yes, I may be using 2 variables in this experiment, but I think the choices state the top three answers.

Yes, I made my point clear that I want to see how many people would agree completely with danielle. A simple yes would not be enough, I wanted to see the numbers EXACTLY. See what I mean?

 

[Peralin]

I havent read through the 6+ pages posted here(so forgive me if it has been stated allready) and I'm not a woman so I wont vote either but isnt it true that if someone kills a pregnant Woman and her unborn dies also isnt that person charged with two crimes? Why? and at what point do pro-choice people consider the fetus/baby a life?


peace

Right, that's a good point to bring up. However, I think that PCs would be against that law also. But this is what I'd like to know: If they are protected under this murder law, why are they not protected from abortions? It's the same thing, right?


Steen. I will try to be completely honest when I try to explain my views to you. If I fail, I will reword.

There should be no duty to give of your bodily resources, whether it is a kidney transplant or a developing fetus. You do not have to do either.

However, it should be illegal to destroy the fetus, zygote, or embryo (and whatever other stages there are after conception). What I want to happen is for the fetus, zygote, and embryo to be protected under the law against murder. I do not want a new law to ban abortion, I just want the fetus, zygote, and embryo to be covered under the current law.

Now, that does not force a woman to give of her bodily resources. She can decide whether to give or not to give, but she must keep the fetus, zygote, and embryo alive. If science can come up with some way to develop the fetus, zygote, or embryo outside of the woman's body, that is fine with me. In this way I am looking for an alternative to abortion; it just isn't the alternative that you want me to look for.

 

[Busta]

Please explain to me how an abortion is an easier form of birth control than taking the pill or using a condom, I'd be fascinated to know. "I can't be arsed swallowing a pill today - I think I'll have a surgical procedure instead!"
By the way - how does "If a woman does not want to have a baby then she should keep her legs crossed" come into it? Shouldn't men keep it in their pants if they don't want one, either? Or is it all the woman's responsibility, despite two people been necessary for conception to occur? :roll:
In which case, it really is all about punishing women for having sex, isn't it? The old double standard. Never mind what a man gets up to, but the second a female shows signs of enjoying sex - gasp! What a harlot!

HOLD THE PHONE!!!!

According to such mantra as:
* "MY BODY, MY CHOICE"
* "...ABORTION IS A WOMAN'S PRIVET MEDICAL DECISION"
* "MEN SHOULD HAVE NO SAY IN WHAT A WOMAN CAN DO WITH HER BODY"....
...since Women have claimed all of the authority, so have they simultaneously claimed all of the responsibility. We Men WANT to sheer the responsibility, but women are NOT willing to give it up because that would mien giving up an equal amount of authority.

As for "..despite two people been necessary for conception to occur"..that is a Pro. Life argument for Men having a more involved role!

We want more responsibility, but Women like you wont give it to us.

You said that a Man should sher in the responsibility because he helped in the conception. If conception is the defining moment of the beginning of responsibility, then the Father has that responsibility from that point of conception, through the pregnancy and on until said child is an adult.

By holding the Man to being responsible for the child's needs, you simultaneously hold him accountable to that child to see that those needs are met. Given that he has this responsibility and accountability, he also has a say in the choice of abortion.

If the choice of abortion is to be left solely to Mother, then it is birth, not conception, which could be argued as the beginning of the Father's responsibility. But Waite....having the child (as opposed to aborting it) is the Mother's sole choice. As such, the Father does not have any say in the birth. The Father is not required to participate in the birth in order for it to occur, unlike with conception.

So, if he has no part in the birth, then he has no responsibility.

Make up your mind. Is it conception or birth which is the event founding the Father's responsibility?

And you accuse people like me of enforcing a double standered!
Holy crap, lady, YOUR argument is the double standered!!

The Pro. Life Movement was never, is not, and never will be about punishing, controlling or suppressing Women!!
The Pro. Life Movement is ONLY about PROTECTING THE UNBORN CHILD'S LIFE!!!

Don't you get it?

Drop the F**king victim mentality already.
WE-ARE-NOT-OUT-TO-GET-YOU!!

 

[Navy Pride]

Please explain to me how an abortion is an easier form of birth control than taking the pill or using a condom, I'd be fascinated to know. "I can't be arsed swallowing a pill today - I think I'll have a surgical procedure instead!"

By the way - how does "If a woman does not want to have a baby then she should keep her legs crossed" come into it? Shouldn't men keep it in their pants if they don't want one, either? Or is it all the woman's responsibility, despite two people been necessary for conception to occur? :roll:

In which case, it really is all about punishing women for having sex, isn't it? The old double standard. Nevermind what a man gets up to, but the second a female shows signs of enjoying sex - gasp! What a harlot!

Its a hell of a lot easier to have and abortion when you have and unexpected pregnancy........If a woman keeps her legs crossed a man has to keep it in his pants

How about punishing the innoceent baby in the womb? Who speaks for it?.....

Sad...............

 

[Navy Pride]

And then after some discussion post is posted, you have Navy come in and post "She should keep her legs crossed." You should keep your mouth shut if you don't have anything else to add besides that. We get your posistion, you don't have to post it anymore, seriously.

Well congratulations.........you win the booby prize for the dumbest post I have sen since I have been a member of this forummmmmmmm

 

[steen]

If anyone is attacking antone ells, it is steen

Observing and pointing out an outright lie is not an attack, it is a factual observation. Expressing a desire to see another poster dead, that is an attack. Oh, wait, that was a PL poster.

 

[steen]

Observe, Navy Pride, steen has backtracked to step #2 of The 3 Step Propagandist

Please cease your misrepresentation.

 

[Busta]

Observing and pointing out an outright lie is not an attack, it is a factual observation. Expressing a desire to see another poster dead, that is an attack. Oh, wait, that was a PL poster.

Ya, right steen. That is why you keep getting banned from other forums....

 

[steen]

Posted by steen;
"AH, ok. Nope, then it would be a hypothetical example of self-defense against unwanted use of the woman's bodily resources."

*self-defense:
n. the use of reasonable force to protect oneself or members of the family from bodily harm from the attack of an aggressor, if the defender has reason to believe he/she/they is/are in danger...."
http://dictionary.law.com

As you can see, simply not wanting to be pregnant is not enough. Unless the Zygote's, Fetuse's or Embryo's use of the Mother's bodily recourses would inflict on her "bodily harm", the Mother would not have a "legal authority and excuse" to acquire an abortion.

Nope. Use of bodily resources against one's will is very much an aggression, and you stopping such use is self-defense. If I am trying to strap you down against your will and extract a pint of blood from you, am I then not an aggressor, and your struggle to prevent me, is that not self defense?

So your claim simply doesn’t make sense in the real world, only in the demagoguery of prolife.

Posted by steen;
"So you are saying that a "person" have the right to take another person's bodily resources against their will? Or is it ONLY pregnant women who have such a duty in your view."

As of the instent of conception, pregnant Women are accountable to their unborne offspring for the needs of that offspring too maintain life.

Hmm, I find it fascinating that you were to cowardly to actually answer my question. Instead you come up with a false claim about women's duties, a duty that doesn't exist. Care to try again, or are you STILL to cowardly to answer my question? Lest try again:

So you are saying that a "person" have the right to take another person's bodily resources against their will? Or is it ONLY pregnant women who have such a duty in your view?

As of the instent of conception, pregnant Women are responsible for providing the needs of that unborn child so that it can be born.

Obviously, your claim is false, as abortions are legal. We are talking about ACTUAL, REAL WORLD stuff here, not prolife wishful thinking and delusions.

Since only Women can be pregnant, I am speaking about pregnant Women.

Yes, you are saying that they have a duty to provide of their bodily resources against their will.

Now, please show me where such a right exists ever for anybody else. Do YOU have a duty to give of your bodily resources against your will? Yes or no? (Or are you to cowardly to answer with anything else than the hypocritical "if it is a pregnant woman" thus ignoring that you decline such a duty for everybody else?)

If you want to talk about a general concept of "any person" being able to use the bodlie recourses of "any other person" agents the other person's will, start a thread on that issue and I'll meet you there.

Ah, you are trying to pretend that such a topic has nothing to do with you wanting to force the woman to do just that? You are seeking some artificial separation that doesn't exist. Must be because you are to cowardly to admit that you misogynistically want to inflict such duties onto the pregnant woman but hypocritically want to exempt yourself from such a duty in general.

That general concept has no bering on abortion since, if a Zygote, Fetus, or Embryo were given the legal standing of "person",

Ah, but my question was if a person has the right to use another person's bodily resources against that person's will. SO it is very pertinent, and your pathetic evasions merely shows how cowardly PL try to be deceptive about their real, hypocritical goal.

the 14th. amendment would protect it from any attack on it's life (with the sole exception of *Self Defense).

And stopping the forceful extraction of your bodily resources against your will very much is self-defense. So are you done with the pathetic evasions and will actually deal with the question?

Nah, we shouldn't get our hopes up somehow, by expecting the PL to suddenly developing some backbone and be honest about the quality of hypocritical demand they are oh-so-happy to inflict on the woman while seeking to exempt themselves.

 

[steen]

Steen. I will try to be completely honest when I try to explain my views to you. If I fail, I will reword.

There should be no duty to give of your bodily resources, whether it is a kidney transplant or a developing fetus. You do not have to do either.

So far, we agree.

However, it should be illegal to destroy the fetus, zygote, or embryo (and whatever other stages there are after conception). What I want to happen is for the fetus, zygote, and embryo to be protected under the law against murder. I do not want a new law to ban abortion, I just want the fetus, zygote, and embryo to be covered under the current law.

Which renders your previous point meaningless. You are now engaging in pure sophistry. If the woman has the right to protect her bodily resources, then she cannot be forced to sustain a fetus, even if withdrawing her support means its death. You are engaging in the same lame kind of legaleeze that Louis XIV engaged in when he made a "fair and equal" law that neither rich, nor poor people were allowed to beg on the street. You are making a nice claim about nobody being forced, yet turning around and denying her such option. It's "The Merchant of Venice" all over again. It is sophistry, it is dishonest. Does she have a right that matters, or is it just empty words?

SO the "honesty" you were expressing is patently dishonest. Yes, you need to reword this to be REAL rather than platitudes. You have set up two conditions that are mutually exclusive. Which one do you adhere to? The bodily integrity or the fetal "right to life"? They are mutually exclusive, and if you for a second try to claim to adhere to both, you are so patently dishonest that you are deliberately lying. So don't even try that. You have set up two competing and mutually exclusive "rights." As they are mutually exclusive, which one is the dominant one?
(Or did you think you could get away with this?)

Now, that does not force a woman to give of her bodily resources.

If she is not allowed to terminate unwanted use, then yes it does exactly that. Only your sophistry allows you to delude yourself into making such claim. Reality is that either she has the right to restrict her bodily resources to herself or she doesn't. Which one is it?

You claimed to want to be honest about this, so here is your chance. Who has the right to her bodily resources. Either she withholds it or she doesn't. Which one is it?

Be HONEST now.

She can decide whether to give or not to give, but she must keep the fetus, zygote, and embryo alive.

THEN YOU ARE LYING BECAUSE SHE THEN ISN'T ALLOWED TO NOT GIVE OF HER BODILY RESOURCES.

Your argument is flat-out dishonest sophistry. Don't for a moment claim to be "honest" here. Either retract your claim of being "honest," or provide an actual honest answer. You are grossly insulting here.

If science can come up with some way to develop the fetus, zygote, or embryo outside of the woman's body, that is fine with me.

So you work on that science. THEN you can come up with your silly, sophistic claim s of above. Until then, claiming such a non-choice for her is dishonest, flying in the face of you claiming to be honest.

Yes, you speculated that you would have to reword! You were right. If you want to be honest, then you MUST reword your claim. Right now, it is an insult for you to have claimed that you wanted to be honest about what you said.

In this way I am looking for an alternative to abortion; it just isn't the alternative that you want me to look for.

Right now, your "alternative IS forcing her to give of her bodily resources against her will, even though you claim this not to be true.

So right now, the issue has been turned into your dishonesty. Until you clear that up in a way that is NOT dishonest, the issue has become your false claim of honesty.

 

[steen]

The Pro. Life Movement was never, is not, and never will be about punishing, controlling or suppressing Women!!

The evidence of your actions and the word of your political leaders belie your denial. The PL is exactly about controlling women.

hence, you fidn such delight in navypride yammering about women keeping their legs closed. NO sex unless PL moralistic misogynists agree. Yup, back to the patriarchy of women being property. In your dreams.

The Pro. Life Movement is ONLY about PROTECTING THE UNBORN CHILD'S LIFE!!!

Through the oppression of women. oitherwise, you would long ago have changed tactics to instead encourage her to give birth, using the carrot instead of the stick. yet, you always revert to the stick, It proves your claim false.

Don't you get it?

We get that your denial is false.

Drop the F**king victim mentality already.
WE-ARE-NOT-OUT-TO-GET-YOU!!

You are lying

 

[steen]

Ya, right steen. That is why you keep getting banned from other forums....

From PL forums that don't like the truth; that don't like it when I disprove their overworn, oft-repeated lies that they have come to believe, yes.

 

[Busta]

From PL forums that don't like the truth; that don't like it when I disprove their overworn, oft-repeated lies that they have come to believe, yes.

And how is this disproving a lie?....
Posted by steen on http://www.abortionismurder.co.uk on Sun Jul 24, 2005 4:10 pm;

"And once again, we see PL spew lying personal attacks. What made you such a scumbag liar, m2t? Were you abused as a kid? Are you on crack? What is it that makes you such a loser?"

http://www.abortionismurder.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=416&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30

That is the post that got you banned from http://www.abortionismurder.co.uk last time.
As everyone can see, non of your proposed arguments or counter points can be taken seriously since you have no credibility.

Like I said, ShamMol, If anyone is attacking antone ells, it is steen (see posts 9, 15, 31, 32 & 33, and that is just on this thread, you should see what he posts elswhere)

 

[steen]

And how is this disproving a lie?....
Posted by steen on http://www.abortionismurder.co.uk on Sun Jul 24, 2005 4:10 pm;......

Ah, yes. A PL forum that even moderate PL are abandoning as the posters are radical freaks. where moderate PL are banned from or are terminated from moderator positions if they dare to impose in the PL personal attacks on PC. Yup, indeed. Now, what does that have to do with this forum? Other than proving that it is PL forums that ban me for challenging their lies, what was that for?

 

[Busta]

Ah, yes. A PL forum that even moderate PL are abandoning as the posters are radical freaks. where moderate PL are banned from or are terminated from moderator positions if they dare to impose in the PL personal attacks on PC. Yup, indeed. Now, what does that have to do with this forum? Other than proving that it is PL forums that ban me for challenging their lies, what was that for?

This ( http://www.abortionismurder.co.uk/vi...p;amp;start=30 ) is NOT a challenge to a lie.
This ( http://www.abortionismurder.co.uk/vi...p;amp;start=30 ) is a personal attack and 4 personal insults.

It applies to this forum because you are doing it on this forum too.

 

[mixedmedia]

Ok, I see what you mean. But I figured that there were two different options that split off of saying "yes". My point was no just to see how many people would still have the abortion, but also to see how many people do not care at all whether the fetus (g) is a child (g) or not. Yes, I may be using 2 variables in this experiment, but I think the choices state the top three answers.

Yes, I made my point clear that I want to see how many people would agree completely with danielle. A simple yes would not be enough, I wanted to see the numbers EXACTLY. See what I mean?

Yeah, I see your point. I guess I just see the whole thing as inflammatory. I certainly have opinions on abortion, but the fight about words kind of baffles me. I wish we could get off this judgement kick and talk about alternatives to abortion. It doesn't help either side to have this lockjaw tug of war about words and I'm sorry, such irrational judgments made towards women who have chosen abortion. And I have read them here.

Anyway, I don't think there is a way to prove that anything is a "child" or a "baby." They are just words we made up to describe our young children. To me the point isn't do we want to kill babies or not. That's ridiculous. If course people don't want to kill babies. I think the point should be that abortion is too backward a procedure for the preventive world we live in today and I think this emotional tussle about it has prevented us from pursuing alternatives.

 

[Fantasea]

What are you talking about. Nobody knows for sure whether the fetus is a child or not, and it IS kind of important!

The only ones who don't know that a fetus is simply a living, growing, developing child in the womb, are those who simply close their eyes to biological truth.

The use of the term fetus is intended to detract from the humanity of the occupant of the womb.

Abortion is merely a politically created justification for terminating a pregnancy which has occurred at an embarrassing or inopportune time. It is also a wonderful source of income enhancement for the eight thousand or so abortionists who split the half billion dollar annual pie.

 

[Fantasea]

Sure we do. "Child" is a developmental stage beginnig at birth, while "fetus" is a stage beginning at the 9th week of pregnancy and lasts until birth. SO no, we DO know that the fetus is not a child.
Nope, it doesn't matter at all. It has absolutely no significance to the woman's right to control her bodily resources. Your claim and assuptions are outright false.

What's in a name? Call it what you like.

The fact is that at any stage of development, the occupant of a womb is a living, growing, developing human being.

Can you dispute that?

 

[Fantasea]

I did not vote. This is a tough question and it is almost impossible to answer. There are many that would abort knowing that the fetus is alive and not care. There are many that would not abort. Then there are many that would do it and still oppose it.

I have two preteen daughters and I have learned that all the guidance and advice in the world will only keep them safe until they are faced with making their own decision. If they were to come to me and say that they are pregnant.......I do not know. I oppose abortion, but when faced with the reality of my daughters future.......I would not only stand by her, but I would probably encourage her to do what I do not believe in. If I ever am really faced with this question, I will know then what I would do.

Hypocrisy is in all of us in one way or another. I hate this topic.

Would the fact that a daughter was involved change the validity of a truth?

 

[Fantasea]

It might have been a play on words, but that last sentence was a pretty good point.

They don't have "fetus" showers either.

 

[Fantasea]

SO there is no life before conception. Sperm and egg are actually dead. Ah, yes. Further evidence that conservativism is a factor of ignorance.

Your vast biological knowledge should have told you that neither the sperm nor the egg constitute a human life, which is the subject under discussion. Human life requires 46 chromosomes and is the result of the 23 chromosomes from the sperm uniting with the 23 chromosomes from the egg. When combined, the sperm and egg cease to exist as such and a new life is conceived.

 

[Fantasea]

SO instead of trying to oppress women in the ineffective PL way, you could instead have provided help and support to those women to the point where they wouldn't have aborted. Just think about it. Your desire to oppress women instead of helping them have killed 40 million "babies" When will you decide that the price of oppressing women is simply to high?

How does one place a value on a terminated human life?

 

[vergiss]

HOLD THE PHONE!!!!

According to such mantra as:
* "MY BODY, MY CHOICE"
* "...ABORTION IS A WOMAN'S PRIVET MEDICAL DECISION"
* "MEN SHOULD HAVE NO SAY IN WHAT A WOMAN CAN DO WITH HER BODY"....
...since Women have claimed all of the authority, so have they simultaneously claimed all of the responsibility. We Men WANT to sheer the responsibility, but women are NOT willing to give it up because that would mien giving up an equal amount of authority.

As for "..despite two people been necessary for conception to occur"..that is a Pro. Life argument for Men having a more involved role!

We want more responsibility, but Women like you wont give it to us.

You said that a Man should sher in the responsibility because he helped in the conception. If conception is the defining moment of the beginning of responsibility, then the Father has that responsibility from that point of conception, through the pregnancy and on until said child is an adult.

By holding the Man to being responsible for the child's needs, you simultaneously hold him accountable to that child to see that those needs are met. Given that he has this responsibility and accountability, he also has a say in the choice of abortion.

If the choice of abortion is to be left solely to Mother, then it is birth, not conception, which could be argued as the beginning of the Father's responsibility. But Waite....having the child (as opposed to aborting it) is the Mother's sole choice. As such, the Father does not have any say in the birth. The Father is not required to participate in the birth in order for it to occur, unlike with conception.

So, if he has no part in the birth, then he has no responsibility.

Make up your mind. Is it conception or birth which is the event founding the Father's responsibility?

And you accuse people like me of enforcing a double standered!
Holy crap, lady, YOUR argument is the double standered!!

The Pro. Life Movement was never, is not, and never will be about punishing, controlling or suppressing Women!!
The Pro. Life Movement is ONLY about PROTECTING THE UNBORN CHILD'S LIFE!!!

Don't you get it?

Drop the F**king victim mentality already.
WE-ARE-NOT-OUT-TO-GET-YOU!!

Since when am I the personification of every single pro-choice supporter out there? :doh I've always said that men should accept their responsibility regarding accidental pregnancies. Obviously, that includes having a say over what happens.

I suggest you rant about double standards to people who actually have them.

You cannot deny, however, that it's far less accepted for a women to be sexually active than it is for a man. It's not feminist paranoia, it's the plain and simple truth. People always go on about the pro-choice women being lazy, slutty, etc, but I never hear people say the same about men who want their girlfriends/wives to have an abortion.