Why do pro-life people call non-pro-lifers "pro-abortionists"?

[ngdawg]

You say pro-life folks have an anti-rights stance. The only rights you are taking in to account are the rights of the mother. The child has no rights. The child never gets a chance to state a case in court. The child never has the opportunity to grow and succeed and prove the whole abortion option to be the death sentence that it actually is. I love my life. I could have been an abortion, and never had that chance. You could have too. Think about it that way, and realize there is more than one person involved in the decision. Who will speak for the rights of those that have none, according to pro-abortionists?

Everybody deserves the same chance that you and I got only by chance. Anything else is an injustice.

Every CHILD has inalienable rights. Every EMBRYO is the beginning life form of a child attached and soley dependent on the internal systems of its mother and does NOT have rights. It can't even breathe. Saying " I could have been an abortion" is a ridiculous moot point as you aren't and your appearance into the world gave you your rights as a citizen and a human being.
If you think your life is worth less as a contributing member of society than that of one that for all intents and purposes, does not yet exist as a separate life entity, than good for you.
But as long as the rights are in favor of the women's reproductive choices, it is her responsibility to make a choice based on what's best for HER, not you.

Felicity: That's like saying I'm against stealing, but if it's right for someone else....relative morality is indefensible!

One has nothing to do with the other. You are grasping at straws.

Felicity- Oh...so you admit there's another LIFE involved here....and WHOSE "rights" are you judging more relevant?! Your stance is anti-rights because you DENY the rights of the life of the human in the womb. That is a POWER scenario--the mother has the POWER and she wields it in denying rights to the one without a voice

That's kind of a DUH...As a mother and/or potential one, I have EVERY right to speak for what happens both inside me and the child I come to bear, including keeping it, giving it up or aborting. And to repeat, an embryo has no rights as it's a dependent internal entity. I never denied it was a life. It is NOT, however, a child born of rights. The rights of the living always outweigh those not here, otherwise the dead would be allowed to vote. And you damned well know the mother wields the power..unless of course, you're raising hooligans....but thanks for the noble effort.

 

[Felicity]

And to repeat, an embryo has no rights as it's a dependent internal entity. I never denied it was a life.

Awww...talk to me after you're holding that beautiful "dependant entity" in your arms an hour after giving birth. Internal/external...it's only a matter of a few inches.

It is NOT, however, a child born of rights.

Not sure what "born of rights" means....

The rights of the living always outweigh those not here, otherwise the dead would be allowed to vote.

How far along are you? Is your "baby" (or rather.."fetus") keeping you awake at night because he or she is kicking and squirming in that cramped apartment? She'll let you know she's here and not to be ignored!

And you damned well know the mother wields the power..unless of course, you're raising hooligans....but thanks for the noble effort.

But I couldn't take the life of one of my children if I found their existence undesirable.

 

[hiker]

Every CHILD has inalienable rights. Every EMBRYO is the beginning life form of a child attached and soley dependent on the internal systems of its mother and does NOT have rights. It can't even breathe. Saying " I could have been an abortion" is a ridiculous moot point as you aren't and your appearance into the world gave you your rights as a citizen and a human being.
If you think your life is worth less as a contributing member of society than that of one that for all intents and purposes, does not yet exist as a separate life entity, than good for you.
But as long as the rights are in favor of the women's reproductive choices, it is her responsibility to make a choice based on what's best for HER, not you.

The only difference between a child and an embryo is a matter of time. A child is solely dependant on it's mother after it is born, the same as in the womb. If it helps pro-choice people to be able to sleep at night by telling themselves it's only a fetus that was destroyed, then that is their problem. If left alone, that embryo will become a child. Therefore, an abortion is killing a child. You can rationalize it a million different ways and throw every scientific statistic up in my face, but you can not change that fact.

I get angry over this, mainly because I know just how wonderful and precious a life can be. My fiance gave birth to a stillborn child she carried for over 9 months. It has been 8 years since, and she still sees that child as being what he is: her dead child. Not a fetus, a child. I will say it again, a child. That was my stepson, the one I will never have. But because he was not born alive, he just doesn't count, at least that is what I hear from pro-choice people.

I have friends that spent over $30,000 in fertility treatments just for the chance to have one child. So many years of tears and effort and planning and hope going in to their one miracle child that she was not supposed to have. That two people would give so much just to be parents to a child, while others can just have a child killed while still inside the womb, cut off before it has a chance...just terrible. What a world we live in. So depressing...

 

[aps]

Even if a pro-choicer doesn't like the "idea of" abortion--he or she, ultimately is supporting the abortionist by giving him/her a livelihood.

I am pro-choice. I have never had an abortion. I have never recommended anyone get an abortion. I have never driven someone to an abortion clinic. How am I giving someone who performs abortions "a livelihood"?

Ridiculous statement, Felicity.

Based on your posts in these abortion threads, you sound like a very angry person, by the way. It must be tough carrying all this anger inside.

 

[ngdawg]

The only difference between a child and an embryo is a matter of time. A child is solely dependant on it's mother after it is born, the same as in the womb. If it helps pro-choice people to be able to sleep at night by telling themselves it's only a fetus that was destroyed, then that is their problem. If left alone, that embryo will become a child. Therefore, an abortion is killing a child. You can rationalize it a million different ways and throw every scientific statistic up in my face, but you can not change that fact.

I get angry over this, mainly because I know just how wonderful and precious a life can be. My fiance gave birth to a stillborn child she carried for over 9 months. It has been 8 years since, and she still sees that child as being what he is: her dead child. Not a fetus, a child. I will say it again, a child. That was my stepson, the one I will never have. But because he was not born alive, he just doesn't count, at least that is what I hear from pro-choice people.

I have friends that spent over $30,000 in fertility treatments just for the chance to have one child. So many years of tears and effort and planning and hope going in to their one miracle child that she was not supposed to have. That two people would give so much just to be parents to a child, while others can just have a child killed while still inside the womb, cut off before it has a chance...just terrible. What a world we live in. So depressing...

So did I...that's not the point of rights, viability and law. I've also lost to miscarriage. Still not a point of rights, viability and law. And, not that is has anything to do with this discussion totally, but because of my reproductive rights, I was able to decide what happens to the three remaining stored embryos.
Edit: A stillborn baby is not the same as an early term embryo and has nothing to do with rights, viability and law.

 

[hiker]

So did I...that's not the point of rights, viability and law. I've also lost to miscarriage. Still not a point of rights, viability and law. And, not that is has anything to do with this discussion totally, but because of my reproductive rights, I was able to decide what happens to the three remaining stored embryos.
Edit: A stillborn baby is not the same as an early term embryo and has nothing to do with rights, viability and law.

As long as you continue to deny the obvious, I can not win the argument. One more time, just to keep it out there: an embryo, fetus, whatever term you want to use, it is still a child. I am sorry for your loss. I am also sorry for every kid that never made it, that never had a chance.

 

[ngdawg]

I've held an embryo in my hand, two children in my arms. Nope, not the same thing. One had the potential to be the other, but it wasn't a child yet when it died. Deny the obvious? Sir, I lived it....has nothing to do with rights viability and law.

 

[hiker]

I've held an embryo in my hand, two children in my arms. Nope, not the same thing. One had the potential to be the other, but it wasn't a child yet when it died. Deny the obvious? Sir, I lived it....has nothing to do with rights viability and law.

I wish to continue to debate this, as I have many points I could raise right now. But your personal grief is none of my business. To raise any questions about your situation to further an agenda on my part would show a lack of class and consideration that I don't want to be known for. I can see you feel the way you do, and I have the strength of my own convictions. If neither of us will back down, then someone is going to end up getting their feelings hurt. In the end, I want nothing more than for everyone to live peacefully and respect each other. I see no way that could happen if I carry on this argument in the way it would end up going. I wish you nothing but the best, and I hope you change your mind one day.

 

[Felicity]

I am pro-choice. I have never had an abortion. I have never recommended anyone get an abortion. I have never driven someone to an abortion clinic. How am I giving someone who performs abortions "a livelihood"?

You are supporting the legality of the procedure...just as if you believed prostitution should be legal, you would be pro-prostitutes. It ain't hard...if you are not against it--you are supporting it--even if it is a tacit support.

Based on your posts in these abortion threads, you sound like a very angry person, by the way. It must be tough carrying all this anger inside.

Whatever ....you've got to be confusing me with someone else--or you are reading a tone into my posts which is not there. Why would you do that? Does it make it easier to dismiss my arguments if you perceive them to be angry or overly emotional?

 

[aps]

You are supporting the legality of the procedure...just as if you believed prostitution should be legal, you would be pro-prostitutes. It ain't hard...if you are not against it--you are supporting it--even if it is a tacit support.

Whatever ....you've got to be confusing me with someone else--or you are reading a tone into my posts which is not there. Why would you do that? Does it make it easier to dismiss my arguments if you perceive them to be angry or overly emotional?

Frankly, I find your posts to lack logic. That first paragraph above is total nonsense.

I was being honest with you. I inferred from your posts that this a subject that clearly makes you angry. I don't give abortion much thought at all.

I dismiss your arguments because they lack logic and common sense.

 

[Felicity]

Frankly, I find your posts to lack logic. That first paragraph above is total nonsense.

In what way?

I was being honest with you. I inferred from your posts that this a subject that clearly makes you angry.

Would you give an example of something from which you inferred "anger?"

I don't give abortion much thought at all.

Well... that speaks volumes, now doesn't it?

I dismiss your arguments because they lack logic and common sense.

You are being so vague...is it because you don't have a basis for your perception? I sure think so.

 

[ngdawg]

I wish to continue to debate this, as I have many points I could raise right now. But your personal grief is none of my business. To raise any questions about your situation to further an agenda on my part would show a lack of class and consideration that I don't want to be known for. I can see you feel the way you do, and I have the strength of my own convictions. If neither of us will back down, then someone is going to end up getting their feelings hurt. In the end, I want nothing more than for everyone to live peacefully and respect each other. I see no way that could happen if I carry on this argument in the way it would end up going. I wish you nothing but the best, and I hope you change your mind one day.

I have no personal grief. I actually got to do something lay people don't usually get to do-see first hand IN my hand what an embryo looks like, that's my only point.
Still has nothing to do with rights, viability and law. I'm well aware of differences of opinion, but the woman's right to choose what happens to HER OWN BODY is paramount. And until people see us as more than just vessels for their spawn, the arguments will continue to no avail.
I will ask this though, of all parents, especially moms: If the law reached to the point of telling you you could not bear more than one child, would you continue to break the law? Why? OR that law insists you bear no LESS than 7? Reason is simple-because it's YOUR body, YOUR life and no one has the right to tell you what you can and cannot do with it. In this country we are not forced to undergo medical procedures, not forced to bear or abort pregnancies. And, until such time that science finds a way to make something that would guarantee NO unwanted conceptions, at least women have rights and options and that is levels above what women in other countries are forced to endure.

 

[Felicity]

Reason is simple-because it's YOUR body, YOUR life and no one has the right to tell you what you can and cannot do with it.

That's not true. If you are a threat to yourself or to another, you can be committed into a medical treatment facility until such a time that doctors deem you competent. You do NOT have an unlimited "right" to do whatever you want with your body. Try to schedule an elective amputation of your legs--you think you have the "right" to do that?

 

[kal-el]

One more time, just to keep it out there: an embryo, fetus, whatever term you want to use, it is still a child.

Not really. After viability, about the 28th week of gestation. After this stage, a fetus is more likely to be seen as a seperate entity with seperate rights.

 

[ngdawg]

That's not true. If you are a threat to yourself or to another, you can be committed into a medical treatment facility until such a time that doctors deem you competent. You do NOT have an unlimited "right" to do whatever you want with your body. Try to schedule an elective amputation of your legs--you think you have the "right" to do that?

You're picking at worthless straws and you know it. Competency and self-mutilation have nothing to do with rational thought and rights to privacy. No one even used the word unlimited. But that seems to be the anti-rights last try-twisting of logical debate and sounding ridiculous in the attempt without actually responding to a hypothesis posed.

 

[hiker]

Not really. After viability, about the 28th week of gestation. After this stage, a fetus is more likely to be seen as a seperate entity with seperate rights.

The difference in time is not a valid excuse to rationalize the abortion. It is what it is. A human fetus will not grow into a tree, a dog, a mouse. It will be a child because it is a human being. It is just at an early stage of developement.

If left alone in the womb, a fetus will be born. And grow. I am a 35 year old fetus. You know why I can say that? Because it is the same thing, just a different word to describe it. We use scientific terms like embryo and fetus to rationalize killing babies and make it sound like a much lesser crime. Well, it's not.

I like you, you've been nothing but nice to me since I got here. This is nothing personal. I just try to stand up for what I strongly believe, even if I face ridicule. I know you do as well, and I mean no personal offense. But I do just hope you can understand the way it makes me feel to know that all those poor kids are never given a chance to live, to experiance life, to make something of themselves no matter what the odds. I was suicidal once, I had lots of reasons to be. Now that I know how wonderful life is, it causes no end of pain to me to know I could have been denied my life by a butcher with a vacuum hose. It's not fair, and I can't see it otherwise.

 

[Ethereal]

Every CHILD has inalienable rights. Every EMBRYO is the beginning life form of a child attached and soley dependent on the internal systems of its mother and does NOT have rights. It can't even breathe. Saying " I could have been an abortion" is a ridiculous moot point as you aren't and your appearance into the world gave you your rights as a citizen and a human being.

Yet it makes more sense to arbitrarily designate personhood by attributing intangibles such and thought and self-awareness to said designation?

Furthermore, just because you can breath or were born doesn't make you a person. If that were enough to classify one as a person then your dog would be just as much of a person than you are. Pro-choicers hold one of the most illogical positions on any issue I've ever encountered and yet they're still capable of deluding themselves into believing they're right.

Personhood is more than how one functions. I'd like to see you prove otherwise.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

They use the term abortionist because it's a clever demonization propaganda tactic.

 

[FISHX]

Sorry but if a person whom preforms terminations isn,t a abortionist then what is it?
I don,t really think that they should be classed as doctors as doctors are meant to preserve life not take it.

 

[aps]

Originally Posted by aps
Frankly, I find your posts to lack logic. That first paragraph above is total nonsense.

In what way?

Your allegations that someone who is pro-choice is unquestionably pro-abortion is ludicrous. It is a generalization, and I have not seen you provide any evidence to support that assertion except your own opinion, which opinion I accord no probative value, as you clearly do not speak for me or any of my friends who are pro-choice.

I was being honest with you. I inferred from your posts that this a subject that clearly makes you angry.

Would you give an example of something from which you inferred "anger?"

You were unable to have a civil discussion with tecoyah, which led to him/her saying: Originally Posted by tecoyah
And I am sure you wonder....why so few decide to get into these little debates with you. The little Jab is not needed Felicity....Have a good night

I read the nasty tone in your posts, and not just with tecoyah--it's anyone who doesn't share the same opinion as you. Look at you. You take apart each statement that someone makes and you attack it like your interpretation is the only right one. It's rude and, in my eyes, exudes anger on your part. It's either your way or the highway. That's not the sign of a reasonable person. JMO[/quote]

I don't give abortion much thought at all.

Well... that speaks volumes, now doesn't it?

Speaks volumes about what? See? There's that anger coming out again. LOL

I dismiss your arguments because they lack logic and common sense.

You are being so vague...is it because you don't have a basis for your perception? I sure think so.

Yeah, Felicity, you are just so much more insightful than I am....so much brighter too. I just can't compete with you. :yawn:

I have no basis for my perception? Ummmm, it's called my own perception. Are you going to try to tell me that I can't have my own perception? LOL

 

[Felicity]

You're picking at worthless straws and you know it. Competency and self-mutilation have nothing to do with rational thought and rights to privacy.

I think rationalizing abortion as a "privacy" issue shows a lack of rational thought. Abortion IS self-mutilation. In most cases it is radical medical treatment for a body that is responding in a healthy manner. What IS mutilation if it is not altering a healthy condition. One gets pregnant because one's body is responding as it was designed to respond when healthy people have sex.

No one even used the word unlimited.

You said "YOUR body, YOUR life and no one has the right to tell you what you can and cannot do with it"----Ummmmm "no one?" That seems unlimited.

{quote]-- But that seems to be the anti-rights last try-twisting of logical debate and sounding ridiculous in the attempt without actually responding to a hypothesis posed.[/QUOTE]All I can do is "pick at worthless straws" when you offer only the strawman of a false dichotomy. You asked, "If the law reached to the point of telling you you could not bear more than one child, would you continue to break the law? Why? OR that law insists you bear no LESS than 7? " First of all--that is completely imaginary. And second, insisting you have a baby or don't have a baby isn't the issue--the issue is when you become pregnant by your own behavior choices--do you accept your personal responsibility or not? Or third, does a position of physical power give one human the right of life and death over another human? You do not pose any sort of reasoned hypothesis in the post in question.

 

[Felicity]

Your allegations that someone who is pro-choice is unquestionably pro-abortion is ludicrous. It is a generalization, and I have not seen you provide any evidence to support that assertion except your own opinion, which opinion I accord no probative value, as you clearly do not speak for me or any of my friends who are pro-choice.

To be clear--I answered your question, "Why do pro-life people call non-pro-lifers "pro-abortionists"?" I even clarified that “pro-choicers” may not like or want abortion to happen, and thus I understand not liking the term “pro-abortion”—but your question asked about “pro-abortionIST.” An abortionist is someone who performs abortions. "Pro" means "in support of." "-ist" means "one who performs a specific action." When you express a preference for the availability of abortion--you are expressing an opinion in support of what an abortionist does--hence you are expressing a "pro-abortionist" opinion. Why do you find this explanation so offensive? Is it because you MEANT to say “pro-abortion” in your question and you don’t want to admit a mistake? Fine.

You were unable to have a civil discussion with tecoyah, which led to him/her saying: Originally Posted by tecoyah
And I am sure you wonder....why so few decide to get into these little debates with you. The little Jab is not needed Felicity....Have a good night

How is it uncivilized to pray for another? That is what he was referring to was it not?

This is what I said in that entire post...What is the "jab" the two of you are seeing? Where am I "uncivil?"

That's a shame.

I once was very much as you seem to term it "open-minded." But it appears that your position is only worthy to defend if you think your opponent is weak in his or her resolve. That speaks more of YOUR conviction than anything else. Thanks for your honesty.

...And I did pray for you tonight.

I read the nasty tone in your posts, and not just with tecoyah--it's anyone who doesn't share the same opinion as you. Look at you. You take apart each statement that someone makes and you attack it like your interpretation is the only right one. It's rude

Okay...I can accept that you have that opinion...however, what is one SUPPOSED to do on a debate forum but present and defend his or her position? What I think you don't like is that I HAVE a different opinion and I have the audacity to support it in no uncertain terms. Well...sorry. I think it is an important issue that effects millions--not just mothers, father's and relatives of the victims of abortionists, but specifically the over 40 million legally terminated since Roe -v- Wade.

and in my eyes, exudes anger on your part. It's either your way or the highway. That's not the sign of a reasonable person. JMO

If that's how you read it...whatever...does an emoticon help take the perceived edge off? :smile:

Speaks volumes about what? See? There's that anger coming out again. LOL

Wow, you are sensitive! You said you don't think much about the issue of abortion...that does say a lot about how well thought out your opinion is. The facts ain't anger--it's just the facts--from your own mouth.

BTW—read your opening post....who’s got anger issues....????

“I know, it makes you pro-lifers feel morally superior to those who are not pro-life”

Yeah, Felicity, you are just so much more insightful than I am....so much brighter too. I just can't compete with you. :yawn:

Now that just seems like jealousy to me... :2razz: (note emoticons...read: cutely snide and teasing rather than angry and venomous)

I have no basis for my perception? Ummmm, it's called my own perception. Are you going to try to tell me that I can't have my own perception? LOL

Hallucinations are perceptions too--but they aren't as valid as a reasoned position on a topic. Sure--you can have your perceptions, but if you can't express why they are valid, don't expect anyone to pay any attention to them.

 

[jallman]

Sorry but if a person whom preforms terminations isn,t a abortionist then what is it?
I don,t really think that they should be classed as doctors as doctors are meant to preserve life not take it.

then explain pathologists. Abortionists are doctors. And they may be terminating life, but it is life in the same sense that the appendix is life or the tonsils are life. The fetus, until such a time as there is sentience, should be no more morally encumbering to the mother than an acorn is to an oak tree. It is nothing more than a specialized tissue mass specific to our reproductive cycle. You anti-rights people can opine all you want and invoke the life begins at conception rule all till you are blue in the face, but it does not change the reality that an embryo, a zygote, or an early stage fetus does not have the characteristics nor the framework to have the characteristics that make it a person.

 

[hiker]

then explain pathologists. Abortionists are doctors. And they may be terminating life, but it is life in the same sense that the appendix is life or the tonsils are life. The fetus, until such a time as there is sentience, should be no more morally encumbering to the mother than an acorn is to an oak tree. It is nothing more than a specialized tissue mass specific to our reproductive cycle. You anti-rights people can opine all you want and invoke the life begins at conception rule all till you are blue in the face, but it does not change the reality that an embryo, a zygote, or an early stage fetus does not have the characteristics nor the framework to have the characteristics that make it a person.

The embryo has all the genetic makeup of a full grown human being. It is a person. If you step on a caterpillar, you are killing a butterfly. It is the same thing, only at a less advanced stage. And I am not anti-rights, the pro-choice people are for the child not having any rights whatsoever, even the right to exist. What gives the mother any more rights than the child should have? Why is it okay to kill a child because you don't want the responsibility? It is not okay, it is wrong.

 

[kal-el]

The difference in time is not a valid excuse to rationalize the abortion. It is what it is. A human fetus will not grow into a tree, a dog, a mouse. It will be a child because it is a human being. It is just at an early stage of developement.

Sure it is. The correct question is not whether a fetus is human, the question is it's quite obtuse because life is cyclical and has no starting point.

If left alone in the womb, a fetus will be born. And grow. I am a 35 year old fetus. You know why I can say that? Because it is the same thing, just a different word to describe it. We use scientific terms like embryo and fetus to rationalize killing babies and make it sound like a much lesser crime. Well, it's not.

Fetus:

1) The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
2) In humans, the unborn young from the end of the 8th week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.
http://www.answers.com/fetus

As you can see, before the 8th week, it is not a fetus, it's just a clump of matter and cells.

I like you, you've been nothing but nice to me since I got here. This is nothing personal. I just try to stand up for what I strongly believe, even if I face ridicule. I know you do as well, and I mean no personal offense. But I do just hope you can understand the way it makes me feel to know that all those poor kids are never given a chance to live, to experiance life, to make something of themselves no matter what the odds. I was suicidal once, I had lots of reasons to be. Now that I know how wonderful life is, it causes no end of pain to me to know I could have been denied my life by a butcher with a vacuum hose. It's not fair, and I can't see it otherwise.

Yea.:2razz: I try to be nice to everyone. Some people really tick me off though. cough:navy pride: cough. Butcher with a vacuum hose? I think you are reffering to late-term abortions. I have no problem at all with a ban on late term abrtions. Aborting already formed and live babies and then killing them would be murder. The only time I agree with it is if the child poses a risk to the mother. One cannot compare partial-birth abortions with one performed in the 1st trimester.