How would you like to be pregnant against your will?

[steen]

Religion has little to do with being against abortion.

A boldfaced lie (You must be a conservative). The rightwinger churches are the sturmtroopers of the anti-choice movement.

As far as I am concerned murdering scumbag abortionist

As contrasted to the murdering, scumbag theocratic, misogynistc, hatemongering prolife slaver freaks

need to be draged out in the street and beat to death for the murder

What silly ignorance (What we have come to expect from ignorant and quite stupid emotional PLers.) Abortion is not murder, your revisionist linguistic, deceptive claptrap falsehoods none withstanding.

of all the innocence

The embryo is not innocent. It invaded the woman's body against her will and helped itself to her bodily resources as if she was a slave. In that, embryos or fetuses are no different than parasites. There is no "innocence."

they killed and helped killed,all those who support this monstrocity

The "monstrocity" is the attempted enslavement of women by theocratic, hate mongering misogynistic PL like you.

should be beat to death as well.

So now you are making death threats as well! Yes, we sure recognize the PL in you.

So go hang out with your nazi friends

The NAZI believed in Government control over people's bodies. That is exactly what the PL believe in. So you are now accusing the Pro-choice of what you yourself support. Such hypocricy is known as "projection."

and speculate how you can carry on this government sanctioned murder

Yadda, yadda, yadda. More prolife emotional claptrap revisionist linguistic lies. I guess PL never tire of such lies!

and how you can get more people to go along with this euginics

Ah, more stupid hyperbole. Are PL naturally dumb, or just deceptive liars?

 

[missy blonde]

iF IT WASN'T A STRONG MINDED PERSON I WOULD HAVE PROBABLY COMMITTED SUICIDE AFTER WHAT I JUST READ ABOUT JAMESRAGE! I THINK WHAT EVERY1 NEEDS TO REMEMBER IS THE FACT THAT WE ARE ALL GODS CHILDREN. BY SAYING I SHOULD BE DRAGED OUT AND MURDERED IS AN EVIL THING TO SAY. I FEEL GUILTY ENOUGH AS IT IS WITHOUT YOUR NASTY ONE MINDED OPINION.

 

[IValueFreedom]

SHOUTING MAKES PEOPLE LISTEN TO ME!!!!
NOBODY READS IF IT"S NOT IN ALL CAPS!!!!
YOU GUYS ARENT LISTENING!!! I NO WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT!!!


Please, do us all a favor and stop shouting at everyone. It just makes you look angry and not willing to view the other side's position.

Now, I am willing to concede that a good portion of Pro-Life people would consider themselves "very religious," but that does not mean that everyone is that way. I do not consider myself to be religious yet cannot see abortion as morally acceptable with the exception of rape or ignorance. What I mean by ignorance is someone who honestly does not know that it is possible to become pregnant.

These are my views. A key pillar of my views rests on the belief that a fetus is a human upon conception. As this debate over when life starts has not concluded in any field of study, I still accept others' view of a fetus not being a human.

Please do not stereotype those individuals who are pro-life, as we might surprise you

 

[Pretender]

Huh? How would you like it?

This question is especially aimed at Pro life MEN. How would you like to be pregnant against your will?

I would hate to be pregnant against me own will. However, I have a strong belief that abortion is murder. By having sex, you know the consequences and that there is a chance of having a child. If you were raped, I would sympatize with you, if is I was in that position, I would go through with it. Every person has a right to live, and at conception, I strongly believe, there is a living human in you womb. The only time I would even consider aborion, is if there were health complications.

BTW, I am a Pro Life Man

 

[steen]

By having sex, you know the consequences and that there is a chance of having a child.

By smoking, you know the consequences and that there is a chance of having lung cancer.

Now, does that mean that you think "self-inflicted" conditions should not be treated?

If you were raped, I would sympatize with you, if is I was in that position, I would go through with it. Every person has a right to live,

The fetus is not a person. Nor is the embryo (Most abortions happen in the embryo stage).

and at conception, I strongly believe, there is a living human in you womb.

"living human"? Are you talking about a "person" here? You seem to be mixing the terminology here.

That aside, does a "living human" have the right to use a person's bodily resources against their will? Do I have the right to use your bodily resources against your will, even if it was the only thing that would keep me alive? Where does that duty come from? We are not forced to give blood against our will. We are not forced to safely donate our extra kidney against our will. Yet you insist that the woman be forced to do exactly that! What makes you think such a double-standard is acceptable?

The only time I would even consider aborion, is if there were health complications.

And what do you mean with that? If she is dying, but not if she is maimed? Only if she is bleeding to death? What do you mean with "health complications"? And why should there be such a duty on her when you refuse such a duty on yourself?

BTW, I am a Pro Life Man

BTW, I am a Pro-Choice man.

 

[Pretender]

By smoking, you know the consequences and that there is a chance of having lung cancer.

Let me rephrase that. By having sex you should be aware of having the consequences. If you do not then you should not have it.

Now, does that mean that you think "self-inflicted" conditions should not be treated?

I do think "self-inflicted" conditions should be treated. But, if you are having sex, then you should know what can happen, and live with your mistakes. Not (analogy used) have an abortion and run away from your problems.

The fetus is not a person. Nor is the embryo (Most abortions happen in the embryo stage).
"living human"? Are you talking about a "person" here? You seem to be mixing the terminology here.

Okay, you got me. I am quite scatter brained at the moment. I am aware that most abortions happen in the embryo stage. But at the moment when the sperm enters the egg a new life has started. Sure it is only cells, but it contains a humans DNA, the childs blue prints. At 24 days, four weeks after conception, the unborn child has a beating heart. At 43 days which is not quite eight weeks. Maybe you can kill cells, but how can you kills a being with a beating heart and a functioning brain.

That aside, does a "living human" have the right to use a person's bodily resources against their will? Do I have the right to use your bodily resources against your will, even if it was the only thing that would keep me alive? Where does that duty come from? We are not forced to give blood against our will. We are not forced to safely donate our extra kidney against our will. Yet you insist that the woman be forced to do exactly that! What makes you think such a double-standard is acceptable?
And what do you mean with that? If she is dying, but not if she is maimed? Only if she is bleeding to death? What do you mean with "health complications"? And why should there be such a duty on her when you refuse such a duty on yourself?

The mother is responsible for the child. She should have known what could have happened when she had sex. Because she does not want the child, does not mean she has the right to take a life. People say, "it's her body," but if the forming baby inside her really part of her body? No, it is another life.

BTW, I am a Pro-Choice man.

Thank you. I do tend to over look gramatical mistakes like those.

 

[steen]

Let me rephrase that. By having sex you should be aware of having the consequences. If you do not then you should not have it.

Like with smoking, where you should be aware of having the consequenses. That still doesn't preclude the medical treatment of any unwanted consequenses.

I do think "self-inflicted" conditions should be treated. But, if you are having sex, then you should know what can happen, and live with your mistakes.

Like with the smoker having to live with their mistake. Now, again, that still leaves available the medical treatment to treat the self-inflicted condition.

Not (analogy used) have an abortion and run away from your problems.

That would be the equivalent to claiming that the smokier having tumor surgery is to "run away from your problems." As you can see, that sounds absurd. Hence, so does your claim.

Okay, you got me. I am quite scatter brained at the moment.

:doh You are not the only one. I have just gone many rounds with fantasea and the issue of deceptive revisionist linguistics. It is rather draining.

I am aware that most abortions happen in the embryo stage. But at the moment when the sperm enters the egg a new life has started.

Hmm, that one is questionable. Sperm and egg are alive. So a new CONTINUATION of already existing life has started.

Sure it is only cells, but it contains a humans DNA, the childs blue prints.

Well, there is no child until birth.

That aside, human DNA itself doesn't make any child, as the existence of hydatidiform moles can attest to.

At 24 days, four weeks after conception, the unborn child

Sorry to call you on this, but you are engaging in revisionist linguistics. It is an mebryo. "unborn child" is as silly as "pre-dead coprse." It is contrived, it is deceptive in attempting an imagery not condusive with reality.

has a beating heart. At 43 days which is not quite eight weeks. Maybe you can kill cells, but how can you kills a being with a beating heart

As far as I can see, there is no "being" until there is an individual entity. And the products of conception don't reach individual independence until birth. As for the heart, it simply is a muscle.

and a functioning brain. I would REALLY recommed you stay away from that one. More PL are sunk on that than on anything else (other than, perhaps, the outright lies about abortion somehow causing breast cancer).

The reality is that the brain is not "functioning" (Well in a meaningful way, anyway) until the snesory nerves stimuli can reach the brain's cortex. And that final connection in the brain, the connection that brings the sensory signals to the cortex, that connection (the Thalamocortical Tract) doesn't reach until about the end of the 26th week of pregnancy. We are essentially talking 3rd trimester then. there are almost no abortions at that time, and they are nearly all for medical emergencies.

So if you are talking about a functioning brain, you certainly are NOT talking about elective abortions of any kind.

Hence, I would recommend you staying away from that argument.

The mother is responsible for the child.

When there is a child, which is at birth.

She should have known what could have happened when she had sex.

Like the smoker should have known what could happen if she had cigarettes. Which brings u sback to whether we treat unwanted outcomes of self-inflicted actions.

Because she does not want the child, does not mean she has the right to take a life.

"life"? It is alive. But it is non-sentient, non-sensate. And also note that nobody have the right to use your bodily resources against your will. Nobody can force you to give blood, f.ex. So why do you want to dump such a burden onto the woman? Isn't that hypocritical, insisting that she have a duty that you yourself are refusing?

People say, "it's her body," but if the forming baby inside her really part of her body? No, it is another life.

A "baby" is not.... etc.

That aside, "life" again is vague. The burger you ate for lunch involved the taking of a bunch of lives in various forms.

And it still leaves us with where the duty to give of your bodily resources stem from. YOU sure don't have such a duty.

 

[scottm123]

What do you mean pregnant against your will? I'm pretty sure you had sex on purpose. And I personally don't know you but unless you're on a breakthough for the cure for cancer i don't think 9 months of inconvience in your life is more important that the whole life that the fetis would become. how important do you think your life is, more important than everyone else's? Are you kidding me how selfish can you be.

 

[steen]

What do you mean pregnant against your will? I'm pretty sure you had sex on purpose.

But then, sex is not consent to pregnancy, so your argument doesn't make sense.

And I personally don't know you but unless you're on a breakthough for the cure for cancer i don't think 9 months of inconvience in your life is more important that the whole life that the fetis would become.

Really? So if it is only for a limited amount of time, then it is ok to enslave a person?

15 minutes isn't that long. That's the time it would take to extract a pint of blood from you against your will. Does that mean that you should be forced to give blood against your will because it really isn't that long a time?

I find this concept of yours quite fascinating that it is not slavery if it has a finite time to it.

how important do you think your life is, more important than everyone else's?

To the individual, their own life and their own body and their control over these is always most important.

Are you kidding me how selfish can you be.

For wanting to control my own life and my own body? yes, isn't it shameful?

Now, you want to be forced to give blood, your extra kidney or whatnot, because otherwise you would be selfish, right? You are fine with the laws protecting bodily autonomy being abolished, right?

Yeah, because you wouldn't be so incredibly hypocritical as to insist this be inflicted on the woman but you somehow be excused from such requirements, would you?

 

[vergiss]

Conclusion: women shouldn't have sex? :roll:

 

[lori palmer]

women have been pregnant against their will for thousands of years, they didnt have the convenience of abortion.
that thing your sucking out of yourself(in general)is not your body it is a seperate,living,feeling human.
those who refuse that it is a human capable of comfort or pain are misinformed.fetuses stuck with a needle to monitor heart rates jump in reaction to the stimuli(im assuming its from pain)they hear and recognise voices. they have nerve endings and a brain for gods sake. do you honestly believe passing through a vagina miraculously activates them? as for the women who get abortions, rant at them untill you are blue in the face.they know very well that they are choosing to kill a child, they just dont care.

 

[steen]

women have been pregnant against their will for thousands of years, they didnt have the convenience of abortion.

And then, later, in the last 4-6000 years, women HAVE had access to abortions. What is your point?

that thing your sucking out of yourself(in general)is not your body it is a seperate,living,feeling human.

An outright lie. It doesn't feel ANYTHING at all, prolife lies none withstanding. And it certainly is no more "separate" in its function than any bodily organ. Likewise, it is not "a human," it is not an individual.

So your claim is both false AND outright lying in several ways. Lori, I would advice you to post facts instead, so we can get beyond the need to point out prolife lies and instead get to the issue of discussion. Don't you agree?

those who refuse that it is a human capable of comfort or pain are misinformed.

Nope. Until the thalamocortical tract connects at the end of the 26th week of pregnancy, there is no capacity for feeling anything.

fetuses stuck with a needle to monitor heart rates jump in reaction to the stimuli(im assuming its from pain)

Your assumption is wrong, it is showing how ignorant you are about these matters. The endocrine response is a reflex we also see in people undergoing surgery under full anesthesia. Unless you want to claim that people "feel" their surgery while it is going on, you must now retract your claim as false, thank you.

After all, you don't want anti-choicers to FURTHER be branded as liars, do you?

they hear and recognise voices.

Not until sometime after the 26th week of pregnancy.

they have nerve endings and a brain for gods sake.

And the brain's cortex doesn't connect with those nerve endings until after the 26th week, when the thalamocortical tract connects. So now please retract your silly nonsense.

do you honestly believe passing through a vagina miraculously activates them?

Nobody claim that there is no sensation until after the 40th week of pregnancy, so your silly red herring merely shows the weakness of your argument.

as for the women who get abortions, rant at them untill you are blue in the face.they know very well that they are choosing to kill a child, they just dont care.

There is no "child" until after birth. The fetus is no more a "child" than you are a "corpse." Please cease your dishonest mingling and misrepresentations of developmental stages.

 

[Elektra]

What do you mean pregnant against your will? I'm pretty sure you had sex on purpose. And I personally don't know you but unless you're on a breakthough for the cure for cancer i don't think 9 months of inconvience in your life is more important that the whole life that the fetis would become. how important do you think your life is, more important than everyone else's? Are you kidding me how selfish can you be.

Inconvinient, aha. How do you know, ever been pregnant and gave birth?

Yeah, I think my existing life is more important than the right of a bunch of cells to multiply.

 

[Elektra]

women have been pregnant against their will for thousands of years, they didnt have the convenience of abortion..

Abortion has existed for many thousands years, please inform yourself.

Some indigenous tribes are even more radical, they practise infanticide as "birth control".This, again, for several thousands of years.

So, what was the point you didn't make but wanted to?

 

[Elektra]

Religion has little to do with being against abortion.As far as I am concerned murdering scumbag abortionist need to be draged out in the street and beat to death for the murder of all the innocence they killed and helped killed,all those who support this monstrocity should be beat to death as well..http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/

What a lovely way to show how much you really value life.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Huh? How would you like it?

This question is especially aimed at Pro life MEN. How would you like to be pregnant against your will?

Heres the real question:
In the case of rape or incest, how is the resulting baby any less a person, any less a human being, than a child conceived 'conventionally'?

If indeed this baby is less of a person, less of a human being, than one conceived c'conventionally; why is it not OK to kill it -after- birth -- be it 10 seconds, 10 days or 10 years after?

 

[Fantasea]

The truth is, nobody knows for sure whether the fetus is a human being or not.

These folks know. Are you willing to accept their knowledge as your own? If not, why not?

Life Issues
When Human Life Begins​

ABSTRACT. The American College of Pediatricians concurs with the body of scientific evidence that human life begins at conception—fertilization. This definition has been expounded since prior to Roe v. Wade, but was not made available to the US Supreme Court in 1973. Scientific and medical discoveries over the past three decades have only verified and solidified this age-old truth. At the completion of the process of fertilization, the human creature emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is not one of personhood but of development. The Mission of the American College of Pediatricians is to enable all children to reach their optimal physical and emotional health and well-being from the moment of conception. This statement reviews some of the associated historical, ethical and philosophical issues.

Read it in its entirety here: http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=10007&art=53&BISKIT=2474141226

 

[NewAgeTexDem]

It is my personal belief that life begins when the baby is capable of supporting itself in life. However I am against abortion in that I believe it should be a last case scenario only used in extreme situations. If 13 yr. old girl gets raped, and becomes pregnant, she should not be forced to have the baby if it endangers her health. Many times when one gets pregnant that young the body is not yet physically capable of childbirth and it puts the mother at great risk. Its times like this that an abortion is justified in my opinion.

However I do not have the audacity to think my opinions on the subject should force the entire country to follow what I believe. In my honest opinion, I think abortion should be a states right issue, with the exception of extreme cases as the one presented above.

The problem with this issue, along with many others is that we as politically charged individuals, often resort to the extreme seeing the issue as merely black vs. white when in reality there are many shades of gray in this issue. People get so charged with their own convictions that they can't discuss this civilly. There is no one right answer to abortion, so everone who keeps saying there is needs to quit living under their rock.

 

[Fantasea]

It is my personal belief that life begins when the baby is capable of supporting itself in life.

Babies can't do this for quite a few years after leaving the womb.

However I am against abortion in that I believe it should be a last case scenario only used in extreme situations. If 13 yr. old girl gets raped, and becomes pregnant, she should not be forced to have the baby if it endangers her health. Many times when one gets pregnant that young the body is not yet physically capable of childbirth and it puts the mother at great risk. Its times like this that an abortion is justified in my opinion.

So how come the annual abortion rate for the past thirty two years is about a million and a half?

However I do not have the audacity to think my opinions on the subject should force the entire country to follow what I believe. In my honest opinion, I think abortion should be a states right issue, with the exception of extreme cases as the one presented above.

Perhaps instead of merely having an opinion, it would help if you had a conviction which was based upon biological fact.

The problem with this issue, along with many others is that we as politically charged individuals, often resort to the extreme seeing the issue as merely black vs. white when in reality there are many shades of gray in this issue.

You are partially correct. This biological issue should not be a political issue. However, with respect to black vs. white, in this instance there is no shade of gray. The unborn child lives or dies.

People get so charged with their own convictions that they can't discuss this civilly. There is no one right answer to abortion, so everone who keeps saying there is needs to quit living under their rock.

Those who understand the principles involved keep their emotions in check and argue on the basis of fact. Those who understand biology know that every abortion ends the life of an unborn human child. Those who honor human life with the respect to which it is entitled know the answer.

 

[NewAgeTexDem]

Babies can't do this for quite a few years after leaving the womb.So how come the annual abortion rate for the past thirty two years is about a million and a half?
Perhaps instead of merely having an opinion, it would help if you had a conviction which was based upon biological fact.You are partially correct. This biological issue should not be a political issue. However, with respect to black vs. white, in this instance there is no shade of gray. The unborn child lives or dies.Those who understand the principles involved keep their emotions in check and argue on the basis of fact. Those who understand biology know that every abortion ends the life of an unborn human child. Those who honor human life with the respect to which it is entitled know the answer.

The gray is whether to commit such an act violates morality or the law. Right now we don't view a person as a person untill they are born. Thus the rights guaranteed in the constituion do not apply to the fetus. When a baby no longer has to rely solely on the mother to survive in the womb, i.e. capable of an early birth, then in my opinion they are a baby and no longer a fetus. I am utterly against partial birth abortions.

Also the 1.5 million that did have an abortion obviously didn't agree with me. But thats what I love about this country, they have thier views and I have more.

 

[Fantasea]

Quote: Originally Posted by Fantasea
Babies can't do this for quite a few years after leaving the womb.So how come the annual abortion rate for the past thirty two years is about a million and a half?

Perhaps instead of merely having an opinion, it would help if you had a conviction which was based upon biological fact.You are partially correct. This biological issue should not be a political issue. However, with respect to black vs. white, in this instance there is no shade of gray. The unborn child lives or dies.

Those who understand the principles involved keep their emotions in check and argue on the basis of fact. Those who understand biology know that every abortion ends the life of an unborn human child. Those who honor human life with the respect to which it is entitled know the answer.

The gray is whether to commit such an act violates morality or the law.

There are no laws to be violated. The Supreme Court struck down any laws that prohibited or restricted abortion.

Morality doesn't enter into the discussion. The crux is the ignoring of the most basic biological facts of conception.

Right now we don't view a person as a person untill they are born.

We? Who are included under your umbrella word, "we"?

Is the "view" you mention a statement of scientific, medical, obstetric, embryonic, genetic finding? Or is it simply a political decision by a group of people who have taken it upon themselves to declare that there is a concept of "personhood" by which they deem some humans to be persons and other humans to be non-persons? Please tell me.

Thus the rights guaranteed in the constituion do not apply to the fetus.

Again, who, and by what authority, has made such a decision?

When a baby no longer has to rely solely on the mother to survive in the womb, i.e. capable of an early birth, then in my opinion they are a baby and no longer a fetus.

Once more, you use the word opinion. Are you able to support your opinion with fact? Or is it simply an unfounded opinion resulting from the propaganda of the pro-death crowd?

I am utterly against partial birth abortions.

Since the child is dead either way, what's the difference of a few months?

Also the 1.5 million that did have an abortion obviously didn't agree with me.

That's an average of 1.5 million every year for the past 32 years. The total is nearly fifty million.

But thats what I love about this country, they have thier views and I have more.

Should the essential question of the life or death of an unborn child in the womb be decided on the basis of "views"?

 

[FutureIncoming]

Hello, all!!

I see folks here arguing over some of the same things that have been thrashed out in the "Explain Your Reasoning" Message Thread. I INVITE ALL PRO-CHOICE WRITERS in this forum to copy/paste/use in this Thread and others, any/all of the large amount of data which I have posted in that Thread. You will find MANY things there which NO pro-life writer has been able to refute with facts. Instead they try to ignore the facts, or cover them over with unfounded beliefs. Lies have been exposed; they have not posted one single argument against abortion there which has not been utterly demolished. Should they happen to present something new there, I wll remain alert to demolish it, also. I do not have the time to duplicate my efforts there, in this and other Message Threads, and so that is why I am waiving any claim to copyright of my postings. We need to take this victory and spread it throughout all abortion debate forums nationwide, so that not even a fully Conservative Supreme Court can ignore it.
Thank you!

 

[Fantasea]

Hello, all!!

I see folks here arguing over some of the same things that have been thrashed out in the "Explain Your Reasoning" Message Thread. I INVITE ALL PRO-CHOICE WRITERS in this forum to copy/paste/use in this Thread and others, any/all of the large amount of data which I have posted in that Thread. You will find MANY things there which NO pro-life writer has been able to refute with facts. Instead they try to ignore the facts, or cover them over with unfounded beliefs. Lies have been exposed; they have not posted one single argument against abortion there which has not been utterly demolished. Should they happen to present something new there, I wll remain alert to demolish it, also. I do not have the time to duplicate my efforts there, in this and other Message Threads, and so that is why I am waiving any claim to copyright of my postings. We need to take this victory and spread it throughout all abortion debate forums nationwide, so that not even a fully Conservative Supreme Court can ignore it.
Thank you!

Clutching at straws as you feel yourself sinking, I see.

I wonder how many will heed your cries for help.

If you disagree, then:

1. Post factual information from a recognized scientific, medical, obstetric, fetology, or genetic source which denies that human life begins at conception.

2. Post factual information from a recognized scientific, medical, obstetric, fetology, or genetic source which affirms the concept of personhood which claims that some unborn children are persons and some unborn children are non-persons.

3. Post factual information from a recognized scientific, medical, obstetric, fetology, or genetic source which justifies the aborting of nearly fifty million unborn children since Roe v. Wade.

4. Cite some of the lies to which you refer.

5. Cite some of your statements, which you consider factual, which have not been refuted, or as you say, "demolished".

Copyrighted posts? :rofl

 

[steen]

Heres the real question:
In the case of rape or incest, how is the resulting baby any less a person, any less a human being, than a child conceived 'conventionally'?

When there actually is a baby, after birth, there is no difference. Before birth, there is no baby and no person.

 

[steen]

Those who understand biology know that every abortion ends the life of an unborn human child.

I see you reverted back to your lying about science again. Those who actually understand biology knows that the developmental stage "child" begins after birth, and that spewing revisionist linguistic terms such as "Unborn baby" are as silly and deceptive at those who would insist that persons are "undead corpses."

But this position of overt lying is no different than your typical position, so we understand that you have chosen to continue to deliberately lie.