Question For Pro Lifers

[enderpotato00]

Wrong thread

No its a comparison.

 

[Crusader13]

You have not presented a compromise. Instead you displayed arrogance and condescension by not even bothering to understand the pro choice side.

No, you need to face up to the fact that your position is not an attempt at compromise. It is instead a self made contradiction on your part. It is your claim that it is unreasonable to end a human life yet you have no problem with that in the case of rape. Is it that the child of a rape is not human? Is their life of no value and therefore easily discarded? How do you go from ending a human life is bad to ending a child conceived of rape is good? Why is it that when a woman decides she wants an abortion that is bad but when you decide an abortion is appropriate then that is good?

Yours is not a compromise yours is making a special plea for an instance that does not need one.

I find it laughable that i would even consider what a conservative wants in this case. It is not about what conservatives want. It is about the fact that it is a woman's right to make a choice not the conservative.

It needs to be pointed out that it is you who are using rape as an emotional plea to obtain what you laughably refer to as a compromise which in fact is nothing more than an arrogant demand that only conservatives have the right to decide what is best for a woman. The pro choice side does not distinguish the reasons for an abortion but instead maintains that that is a discussion between the woman and her doctor.

You are the one who foolishly said that it is about conservatives " allowing" , which tells us that the need for power and the desire to control women is your agenda.

You're twisting everything I said around. Nice try though.

I never said abortions from rape were good...just that I and many other pro-lifers would be more than happy to support it if it meant we would get something in return from the pro-choicers. That is, by definition, a compromise. One which you openly admit you would never make, which proves you really don't give a crap about rape victims. Stop pretending to have some moral high ground.

Yes, aborted babies from rape are still human lives, and it's a terrible thing to end them. But if it means saving millions of other human lives in the process it would be justified.

 

[soylentgreen]

You're twisting everything I said around. Nice try though.

I never said abortions from rape were good...just that I and many other pro-lifers would be more than happy to support it if it meant we would get something in return from the pro-choicers. That is, by definition, a compromise. One which you openly admit you would never make, which proves you really don't give a crap about rape victims. Stop pretending to have some moral high ground.

Yes, aborted babies from rape are still human lives, and it's a terrible thing to end them. But if it means saving millions of other human lives in the process it would be justified.

No, you have no idea what a compromise is. What you asked for is that the pro choice give up 99% of other reasons for abortion in return for rape. Which is asking for total capitulation, not a compromise.

And i do not need to take your offer as it is not yours to offer. All you have is a self admitted contradiction that ending human life is wrong except when it comes to life born of rape. Then for some reason you refuse to explain a child of rape has no value and their life can be ended simply because you want to use it as a bargaining chip.

And if you do not get your demand then what? Will you instead say that women must be forced to give birth to a child conceived of rape? In other words the woman and the child are nothing to you but something to used or discarded. It would seem the one who does not give a crap about rape victims is you.

You have nothing to offer in the way of a negotiation because you have no idea who you are negotiating with. On the pro choice side there is no need to distinguish why a pregnancy occurred as the idea is that that is only a concern between the woman and her doctor. Women are quite capable of making these kind of decisions for themselves they do not need the likes of you forcing them to make compromises. Rape is not a bargaining chip for those like you who only care about their own ideology even if it means killing a child conceived of rape while demanding all life is precious.

 

[Crusader13]

Rape is not a bargaining chip for those like you who only care about their own ideology

Coming from the side that has consistently argued (and indeed the very foundation of this thread) that abortion should be allowed "because rape victims!".

You're a joke.

 

[soylentgreen]

Coming from the side that has consistently argued (and indeed the very foundation of this thread) that abortion should be allowed "because rape victims!".

You're a joke.

Which is of course not true. Just another example of the pro life failure to put up any good evidence based reasons for their opinions, or in your case, demands. And so instead try the trick of making up false claims about what pro choice say.

As i have repeatedly said, the reason as to why a woman has an abortion is something between herself and her doctor. Not a bargaining chip for the pro life to use because in their arrogance they think they have something to bargain with. I do not need to bargain with someone who has no clue about the side he is dealing with if he thinks that pro choice needs rape to justify its position. Nor do i need to bargain with someone who only brings the arrogance of saying the conservatives will " allow".
Abortion is not there For you to allow. You need to show good reason to support your demands not arrogance.


The only reason the pro choice side need consider rape is to point out that people like you who claim to want to save lives is also willing to spend those lives as mere collateral if they can get their way. That as always you present us with nothing but a contradiction
Rape is not something that supports the pro choice side. It is something that makes the pro life side look as ridiculous as they are.

 

[Crusader13]

Which is of course not true. Just another example of the pro life failure to put up any good evidence based reasons for their opinions, or in your case, demands. And so instead try the trick of making up false claims about what pro choice say.

As i have repeatedly said, the reason as to why a woman has an abortion is something between herself and her doctor. Not a bargaining chip for the pro life to use because in their arrogance they think they have something to bargain with. I do not need to bargain with someone who has no clue about the side he is dealing with if he thinks that pro choice needs rape to justify its position. Nor do i need to bargain with someone who only brings the arrogance of saying the conservatives will " allow".
Abortion is not there For you to allow. You need to show good reason to support your demands not arrogance.


The only reason the pro choice side need consider rape is to point out that people like you who claim to want to save lives is also willing to spend those lives as mere collateral if they can get their way. That as always you present us with nothing but a contradiction
Rape is not something that supports the pro choice side. It is something that makes the pro life side look as ridiculous as they are.

Your true colours shine brighter with every post.

You're clearly not interested in any sort of discussion or compromise on the matter of abortion. It's simply your way or nothing, and anything else simply doesn't count because "muh abortion!". Why are you even on a discussion forum?

You don't even know your own side. Rape is consistently the first bargaining chip pro-choice people use when trying to win support. And I repeat - it is the very foundation of this thread.

If abortion is not ours to allow, what makes you think it's yours to do so? That's the funniest part of your entire premise. You're accusing one side of doing the exact same thing as you. Lets just get this straight - Republicans allowing abortion= omg bigots it's not yours to allow. Dems allowing abortion = beautiful progressives. Mkay.

 

[soylentgreen]

Your true colours shine brighter with every post.

You're clearly not interested in any sort of discussion or compromise on the matter of abortion. It's simply your way or nothing, and anything else simply doesn't count because "muh abortion!". Why are you even on a discussion forum?

You don't even know your own side. Rape is consistently the first bargaining chip pro-choice people use when trying to win support. And I repeat - it is the very foundation of this thread.

If abortion is not ours to allow, what makes you think it's yours to do so? That's the funniest part of your entire premise. You're accusing one side of doing the exact same thing as you. Lets just get this straight - Republicans allowing abortion= omg bigots it's not yours to allow. Dems allowing abortion = beautiful progressives. Mkay.

No, i am interested in a discussion but not with a person of your ilk who clearly demonstrates that they have no clue about the group they are having a discussion with. If you think that rape is a basis for the pro choice side then you need to demonstrate that is true with more than just because the OP says so. I have given good reason as to why rape is not an issue for the pro choice side. It is you who need it as a life worth throwing away while claiming life is precious.

The only reason to bring up rape is when the pro life do so by creating their own contradiction of life is worth saving unless the pro life ,as in your case, deem it only worthy as a bargaining chip.

Again you really need to show that you can listen. The pro choice argument is that it is a woman's right to make that decision not a bunch of clownish conservatives or governments or religions. You have nothing to offer at the bargaining table because abortion is not there for either you or me to allow. It is there for a woman to make a decision about.

You do not even understand the most basic argument of the pro choice side which is that it is not for people like you to allow. It is for women to have their right to decide recognised.

 

[Crusader13]

If you think that rape is a basis for the pro choice side then you need to demonstrate that is true with more than just because the OP says so.

And if you think that rape is a basis for the pro-life side to bargain with, you need to demonstrate that with more than just because I said so.

Also - safe, legal, and rare was the pro-choice movement's initial mantra. That was quite clearly a hint at having the procedure done in only extreme cases where it could be seen as justifiable, ie rape.

I have given good reason as to why rape is not an issue for the pro choice side. It is you who need it as a life worth throwing away while claiming life is precious.

Wrong. The pro-life stance can stand on its own without this hypothetical compromise on rape victims. Murder is still wrong and rape or incest don't change that.

The only reason to bring up rape is when the pro life do so by creating their own contradiction of life is worth saving unless the pro life

Uh no sorry...it's the pro-choice side that brings up rape more often. I've never the word 'rape' come from anyone trying to argue for the protection of human lives. It is only those that want to end them that use the word to try and win sympathy or credibility.

The pro choice argument is that it is a woman's right to make that decision not a bunch of clownish conservatives or governments or religions. You have nothing to offer at the bargaining table because abortion is not there for either you or me to allow. It is there for a woman to make a decision about.

This is probably where you hit an all time low tbh. If women want to be a part of society, that means they're bound by social standards, one of those being that their choices will be questioned and even prohibited in justifiable cases. That's how society functions. I don't get to say that driving without a license is my personal choice and not something you clownish liberals can prohibit on with your laws and regulations.

Abortion, like everything else, is fair game for criticism or debate. Deal with it.

 

[soylentgreen]

And if you think that rape is a basis for the pro-life side to bargain with, you need to demonstrate that with more than just because I said so.

No, i actually do not because that is what you have said is so.

Also - safe, legal, and rare was the pro-choice movement's initial mantra. That was quite clearly a hint at having the procedure done in only extreme cases where it could be seen as justifiable, ie rape.

Not at all. That is a description of abortion not a reason to confine it.

Wrong. The pro-life stance can stand on its own without this hypothetical compromise on rape victims. Murder is still wrong and rape or incest don't change that.

Calling it murder is not reason it is trying for an emotional plea. Quite disgraceful for someone like you to call it murder while being willing to barter the life of a conception of rape to get your way. It would be murder by convenience for you then. I did not say that the pro life needed to make a contradictory statement of life needs to be saved while at the same time willing to throw it away. I said it did make that contradiction.

Uh no sorry...it's the pro-choice side that brings up rape more often. I've never the word 'rape' come from anyone trying to argue for the protection of human lives. It is only those that want to end them that use the word to try and win sympathy or credibility.

Yet you are the one using it as a bargaining chip.

This is probably where you hit an all time low tbh. If women want to be a part of society, that means they're bound by social standards, one of those being that their choices will be questioned and even prohibited in justifiable cases. That's how society functions. I don't get to say that driving without a license is my personal choice and not something you clownish liberals can prohibit on with your laws and regulations.

True but that standard is met by evidence based good reasons and not because a bunch of arrogant conservatives are of the view that it is up to them to allow women to do something.

Abortion, like everything else, is fair game for criticism or debate. Deal with it.

You did not put up a debate you made the mistake of thinking the pro choice side should give up 99% of reasons for abortion and then conservatives would allow rape conception to be aborted.
Do not dare to try and move the goal post from your original claim. This is not about debating abortion this is about the arrogance of the conservatives who cannot debate abortion with good reason so instead try an arrogant attempt at pretending it is theirs to allow.

 

[DebateChallenge]

Even if pro-lifers did make a compromise to support abortion in these extremely rare cases, it wouldn't change anything. Pro-choicers wouldn't be any happier and they'd certainly continue pushing a wider agenda to have abortion legalized completely and unreservedly. If you really were concerned about medical emergencies or rape pregnancies, we could all easily come together and set a reasonable compromise. But most supporters of abortion won't do that because they want much, much more.

Yes you see that same thing with people who want more gun control. They want the gun lobby to compromise but even if they do they will just want more. So just like people who want more gun control, when it comes to people who want pro-choice give them an inch they'll take a mile. So just like the gun lobby the pro lifers shouldn't compromise.

 

[DebateChallenge]

But the problem is that the pro lifer is not asking for a reasonable compromise. Instead they are demanding that their compromises be seen as being reasonable when they are not.

Yup just like the gun control crowd, which is often one and the same with the pro choice crowd.

 

[SheWolf]

There are also pro-lifers like me who hold to their own beliefs but stay out of the secular law fight altogether...

What do you mean? You don't want laws changed?

 

[Daisy]

What do you mean? You don't want laws changed?

I don't care whether they change of not...I adhere to God's laws...

 

[soylentgreen]

Yup just like the gun control crowd, which is often one and the same with the pro choice crowd.

All you are doing is giving us another example of how the pro life lacking any good argument themselves can only make silly claims about the pro choice.

 

[smallvoice]

But the problem is that the pro lifer is not asking for a reasonable compromise. Instead they are demanding that their compromises be seen as being reasonable when they are not.

Nor do i need to use sick mothers or rape as a justification. At best they would be used to point out just how ludicrous is the contradictory nature of the pro lifers argument.

Abortion should be legal as it is a medical issue and not a legal issue.

Who says "that the pro lifer is not asking for a reasonable compromise"? That is unadulterated nonsense. It is the pro-choicer that demand all abortions, even those for birth control on demand, be supported. THAT is the uncompromising position.

 

[soylentgreen]

Who says "that the pro lifer is not asking for a reasonable compromise"? That is unadulterated nonsense. It is the pro-choicer that demand all abortions, even those for birth control on demand, be supported. THAT is the uncompromising position.

I did not say that pro life is not asking for a compromise, i pointed out that the so called compromise being asked for is nothing more than an idiotic remark.

The position of the pro choice is that it is a woman's choice not some lobby group like conservatives , the religious or government. There really is nothing you can offer to create a compromise on that position. Except, of course that you demand the right to make choices for women. Which is not a compromise. It is just another idiotic remark.

 

[smallvoice]

I did not say that pro life is not asking for a compromise, i pointed out that the so called compromise being asked for is nothing more than an idiotic remark.

The position of the pro choice is that it is a woman's choice not some lobby group like conservatives , the religious or government. There really is nothing you can offer to create a compromise on that position. Except, of course that you demand the right to make choices for women. Which is not a compromise. It is just another idiotic remark.

So tell me about the hotty slut that gets herself knocked-up (ALL BY HERSELF?) and then demands an abortion because it's "not convenient". Why should she have the right to make the decision to terminate the fetus/baby/embyro? It may be her body, but it is someone else'e life she's ending. She made the decision, she should live with it.

 

[Scrabaholic]

So tell me about the hotty slut that gets herself knocked-up (ALL BY HERSELF?) and then demands an abortion because it's "not convenient". Why should she have the right to make the decision to terminate the fetus/baby/embyro? It may be her body, but it is someone else'e life she's ending. She made the decision, she should live with it.

Says someone who CONVENIENTLY will never, ever be pregnant....

It's HER body that is being put through HELL to gestate and give birth. THAT gives her the right to choose to abort or gestate. HOW she got pregnant - consensual sex or rape - is irrelevant. We do not tell the lung cancer patient that s/he cannot have the tumour removed because s/he made the decision to smoke. Same principle.

 

[smallvoice]

Says someone who CONVENIENTLY will never, ever be pregnant....

It's HER body that is being put through HELL to gestate and give birth. THAT gives her the right to choose to abort or gestate. HOW she got pregnant - consensual sex or rape - is irrelevant. We do not tell the lung cancer patient that s/he cannot have the tumour removed because s/he made the decision to smoke. Same principle.

It's clearly NOT irrelevant. There are (at least) THREE people involved: one round heel, one careless dumbass and one baby, ALL of which should have rights in the matter. And your 'principle' is nothing like the lung cancer patient. The embryo will not kill the carrier (except in unusual cases that would actually call for an abortion), the tumor most likely (unless significant medical procedures are used) will. Furthermore, I suspect that if the cancer would not kill the patient, she would keep it, and keep smoking. She cares more about the cancer than she does the baby. That should give you pause, but I'm confident that it won't bother someone as narcissistic as the woman in question seems to be.

 

[Crusader13]

I did not say that pro life is not asking for a compromise, i pointed out that the so called compromise being asked for is nothing more than an idiotic remark.

The position of the pro choice is that it is a woman's choice not some lobby group like conservatives , the religious or government. There really is nothing you can offer to create a compromise on that position. Except, of course that you demand the right to make choices for women. .

Here's the thing; in a free society, nobody has unrestricted freedom. If you want to live in this country you're required to live up to the moral code of this country, and right now that moral code is asking you why you think a life can be ended out of pure convenience to you. "Because I want to and that's that" isn't an argument, it's a cop-out. You better get used to people continually asking the question and attempting to abolish abortion unless you can provide a better answer than "you can't tell me what to do". Sorry - but we can. We tell everyone what to do. We tell criminals they have to go to jail. We tell minors they have to be 18 before they can make certain choices. We tell parents they can't abuse their kids. Yes, we're gonna tell mothers they can't just kill their offspring too. That's how a free society works.

 

[Crusader13]

Says someone who CONVENIENTLY will never, ever be pregnant....

OK hang on while I go get my wife. She can get pregnant and has been - twice actually. Does her opinion count more than mine? (warning: she agrees abortion is abhorrent).

While we're at it, I guess we should stop women from commenting on how to punish male rapists or create laws around stopping rape. You don't possess the genital organ that is causing this problem, therefore you don't get a say!

We do not tell the lung cancer patient that s/he cannot have the tumour removed because s/he made the decision to smoke. Same principle.

Actually, there a many cases where someone can be denied treatment due to fault. My uncle needed a liver transplant and they just said no - he poisoned his first one with alcohol, he doesn't deserve a second one. In fact every time he was in hospital for an alcohol related issue they did the bare minimum because they knew he would be back tomorrow with another problem since he spent every waking minute drinking.

 

[soylentgreen]

So tell me about the hotty slut that gets herself knocked-up (ALL BY HERSELF?) and then demands an abortion because it's "not convenient". Why should she have the right to make the decision to terminate the fetus/baby/embyro? It may be her body, but it is someone else'e life she's ending. She made the decision, she should live with it.

(ALL BY HERSELF?)!!! Are you speaking of immaculate conception or do you need a discussion on how babies are made?


Again, thank you for another post by the pro life proving that a compromise is not needed because the pro life can not even come up with a sensible evidence based reason for their side. At best all they can do is demonise women while as in this case, desperately or perhaps as your post suggests through ignorance of basic biology, ignore the mans responsibility in this.

 

[soylentgreen]

Here's the thing; in a free society, nobody has unrestricted freedom. If you want to live in this country you're required to live up to the moral code of this country, and right now that moral code is asking you why you think a life can be ended out of pure convenience to you. "Because I want to and that's that" isn't an argument, it's a cop-out. You better get used to people continually asking the question and attempting to abolish abortion unless you can provide a better answer than "you can't tell me what to do". Sorry - but we can. We tell everyone what to do. We tell criminals they have to go to jail. We tell minors they have to be 18 before they can make certain choices. We tell parents they can't abuse their kids. Yes, we're gonna tell mothers they can't just kill their offspring too. That's how a free society works.

But better answers have been provided. You just simply ignore them and continue to think up stupid answers and then insist they are the only answers you will deal with.

You yourself would insist it is your right whether to donate part of your body to save a life, a kidney or part of your liver. But with women you insist they have no right to determine what happens to their body it is instead your right to determine what is moral.

The actual morality is in consistency. People have a right to say what happens to their body and neither conservatives, religions or government should take that from them.

You do not get the right to sit in judgement over women. there is nothing moral about that.

 

[DarkWizard12]

This is a question for people who are pro life, people who want abortion all together banned. What about cases of maternal life, where the mom is suffering from complications from the pregnancy and could die if she doesn't get an abortion? Some countries such as Venezuela, Paraguay, Madagascar, and certain African countries ban abortion but make exceptions of the mom's life is in danger, and then there's countries such as Nicaragua which ban abortion all together even if the mom's life is in danger. So in Nicaragua even if the mom could die if she keeps the baby, she cannot legally get an abortion. Usually if the mom dies the baby dies too. So do you agree with countries such as Nicaragua?

There are many people who are only called pro-life, by radical feminists, only because they want some kind of regulation keeping people from getting an abortion whenever they damn well please. If the mother is going through complications, it depends solely on the complications. If we know, or have reason to believe, that a mother will die from it, then it really makes no sense to put the unborn life, who will need its mother anyway, to take priority over an already born life. The nicaragua case is, now that i look it up, weird. I don't want "zero tolerance" of abortion, but rather, moderation of abortion.

 

[Scrabaholic]

It's clearly NOT irrelevant. There are (at least) THREE people involved: one round heel, one careless dumbass and one baby, ALL of which should have rights in the matter. And your 'principle' is nothing like the lung cancer patient. The embryo will not kill the carrier (except in unusual cases that would actually call for an abortion), the tumor most likely (unless significant medical procedures are used) will. Furthermore, I suspect that if the cancer would not kill the patient, she would keep it, and keep smoking. She cares more about the cancer than she does the baby. That should give you pause, but I'm confident that it won't bother someone as narcissistic as the woman in question seems to be.

Could you please repeat that in understandable English?