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

[jallman]

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.

Well please forgive me if I dont find a double helix strand morally comparable to a child or a woman who doesnt want to spend nine months of her life developing that double helix into a child. I am not arguing that upon conception a unique human dna is formed. However, that mass of tissue with that unique double helix is not a child. It is a developing fetus. When the fetus animates and the neurostructure is in place for it to have sentience and awareness, then it is a child. Until then, it is afforded no more moral elevation than my right index finger would be if severed from my hand.

What makes it ok to tell a woman she HAS to develop a baby if she doesnt want to? Its not ok, it is wrong. And the SCOTUS agrees, which is alright by me.

 

[hiker]

Well please forgive me if I dont find a double helix strand morally comparable to a child or a woman who doesnt want to spend nine months of her life developing that double helix into a child. I am not arguing that upon conception a unique human dna is formed. However, that mass of tissue with that unique double helix is not a child. It is a developing fetus. When the fetus animates and the neurostructure is in place for it to have sentience and awareness, then it is a child. Until then, it is afforded no more moral elevation than my right index finger would be if severed from my hand.

What makes it ok to tell a woman she HAS to develop a baby if she doesnt want to? Its not ok, it is wrong. And the SCOTUS agrees, which is alright by me.

If you don't file income taxes, you pay a fine. If you buy a car, then refuse to make payment, your car gets repossessed. If you run up a credit card debt, then don't make payments, you can be prosecuted. If you don't pay your rent, you will be evicted. If you have unprotected sex with many partners, you can contract a VD. The point is, there are consequences for your actions. If you willfully participate in any action that has consequences, you are liable for those actions. It sucks, but there it is. At least with most other situations, nobody has to die. But in the case of having sex without contraception, then having an abortion, somebody has to die so you can be let off the hook. There is no justice in that. And that goes for the man involved in the conception as well, BTW.

 

[ngdawg]

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.

Terry Schiavo

 

[hiker]

Terry Schiavo

That poor woman, why drag her in to this, especially when it does not even begin to prove your point?

Don't get me started on her government sanctioned murder. I don't have all day to express how I feel about that.

 

[aps]

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.

When you provided me the definition of abortionist, I acknowledged that I never knew that that's what it meant. Thus, when I used it to start this thread, I was not talking about those who perform abortions. I have no problem admitting if I made a boo-boo.

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?"

I'm not going to get into this, Felicity. If you don't see it, you don't see it. It's in your tone. It's one thing to say to someone, "I understand your position," which does not mean that you agree with it. Instead, you belittle anyone whose opinion differs from yours, which is usually a sign of insecurity.

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.

LOL So you're going to project the above opinion on me, when you don't even know me? Sorry, Felicity, but I don't have a problem with your having your own opinion. As I stated above, I have a problem with how you provide that opinion. Again, you're condescending. But, if it somehow helps your low self-esteem to be that way, then keep it up. And if you think that I feel belittled by your posts, think again. I don't know you, so you do not have the ability to hurt my feelings or degrade me.

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

It might.

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.

I did not understand why you said what you said, so I asked. I'm rarely sensitive on a message board since you all are a bunch of strangers to me. I was merely asking you to explain what you meant, since it was not clear to me. Why you read into that as me being sensitive is a little ridiculous.

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

When did I say I didn't have anger problems? LOL I am a passionate person, and I don't like people to label us pro-choicers as being pro-abortion.

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

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

Hardy har har

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.

You are free to totally ignore my posts, Felicity.

 

[Ethereal]

Terry Schiavo

No, no, you're mistaken. I asked you to prove it. You see just because the courts interpret the law doesn't mean they're right or that anything has been proven. If you're basing what you can prove soley off of the law then basically what you're saying is the law is infallable. Which, as history has proven, is anything but true.

Now, a question for you.

What, exactly, do you think made Terry Schiavo a non-person? Is it anything I can't attribute to somebody you would consider a person? Or is it simply a matter of degree, in which case there are no means by which personhood can be authenticated, and thusly leaves our personhood, our humanity, open to millions of interpretations, even within the pro-choice party itself?

 

[Felicity]

When you provided me the definition of abortionist, I acknowledged that I never knew that that's what it meant. Thus, when I used it to start this thread, I was not talking about those who perform abortions. I have no problem admitting if I made a boo-boo.

'preciate that.

Instead, you belittle anyone whose opinion differs from yours, which is usually a sign of insecurity.

I've asked for an example....I'd like to know so I can rectify the tone issue if one actually exists. Would you provide specifically what leads you to interpret "anger" because I truly don't see it. you would be doing me a favor.

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.

LOL So you're going to project the above opinion on me, when you don't even know me? Sorry, Felicity, but I don't have a problem with your having your own opinion.

Sort-of like assuming a tone that is unintended?

As I stated above, I have a problem with how you provide that opinion. Again, you're condescending.

and you have yet to provide me with an example--so how am I, who really doesn't see it, supposed to improve my writing expression?

But, if it somehow helps your low self-esteem to be that way, then keep it up. And if you think that I feel belittled by your posts, think again. I don't know you, so you do not have the ability to hurt my feelings or degrade me.

Isn't this exactly to tone you are accusing me of adopting? You mentioned "projecting"?--this is it if ever I've seen it.

It might,

:lol:

 

[jallman]

If you don't file income taxes, you pay a fine. If you buy a car, then refuse to make payment, your car gets repossessed. If you run up a credit card debt, then don't make payments, you can be prosecuted. If you don't pay your rent, you will be evicted. If you have unprotected sex with many partners, you can contract a VD. The point is, there are consequences for your actions. If you willfully participate in any action that has consequences, you are liable for those actions. It sucks, but there it is. At least with most other situations, nobody has to die. But in the case of having sex without contraception, then having an abortion, somebody has to die so you can be let off the hook. There is no justice in that. And that goes for the man involved in the conception as well, BTW.

I was with you up until the point where "somebody had to die". At that point you lost me because there isnt a somebody to die in an early term abortion. And not all pregnancies come about because of a lack of birth control. Accidents happen. Abortion is the fix. Simple enough.

 

[aps]

'preciate that.




I've asked for an example....I'd like to know so I can rectify the tone issue if one actually exists. Would you provide specifically what leads you to interpret "anger" because I truly don't see it. you would be doing me a favor.



Sort-of like assuming a tone that is unintended?

and you have yet to provide me with an example--so how am I, who really doesn't see it, supposed to improve my writing expression?


Isn't this exactly to tone you are accusing me of adopting? You mentioned "projecting"?--this is it if ever I've seen it.


:lol:

Hi Felicity. I'm heading out of town tomorrow--didn't want you to think I was ignoring you. Let's call a truce. I don't like having arguments like this. Peace, toots. (I'm a chick, so I'm not being sexist when I call you toots.) I may answer your questions when I come back.......

 

[ngdawg]

Personhood is more than how one functions

Quite frankly, the onus is on YOU since that is your declaration. You can't make a statement you deem fact then ask another to disprove it. If you are so sure of that, back it up.
I never said an embryo was not human, I said it is not YET a child, ie: separate entity. It has no rights on its own, does not contribute to society. And all this 'what gives the mother any rights to make this decision' is total BS-we make decisions on our kids from conception to college.
As for my previous answer, that woman, for all intents and purposes died years before the machines were disconnected. The only thing keeping her breathing was her brainstem-as far as brain activity goes and being an independent 'personhood', she was not. So, by your reasoning, should someone decide they can not or will not carry to term, the embryo should be supported by machines?
There's way too much emotional hitting of the enter button and not enough logic and foresight and it gets tiresome. I get it, all embryos should reach their natural conclusion, the mother's rights be damned (apparently even after birth), and something that is not even HERE yet has more rights than she:roll:

 

[hiker]

I was with you up until the point where "somebody had to die". At that point you lost me because there isnt a somebody to die in an early term abortion. And not all pregnancies come about because of a lack of birth control. Accidents happen. Abortion is the fix. Simple enough.

We are not going to agree on when abortion becomes murder. I cannot trick myself into believing a fetus is not a baby, nor would my conscience ever allow me to condone the act because others find nothing wrong with it.

From a personal standpoint, I was once very pro-choice. I hated the world, I wanted to die, I could not understand why anybody would ever drag another child into this world just so it could have to suffer with the rest of us poor SOBs. As the years went by, I came to terms with my pain and the reasons for it. I came to love the world and everything in it. Life is truly too short and too wonderful to waste. Even if your life has its very dark moments, in the end, it will be worth it because you had the chance to live it. You have that chance, I have that chance. Nobody is giving the unborn child that chance, and I find that to be supremely unfair. Especially since the reasons behind most abortions are ones of fear and selfishness and irresponsibility. I hope you can at least understand why I feel this way.

 

[Felicity]

Hi Felicity. I'm heading out of town tomorrow--didn't want you to think I was ignoring you. Let's call a truce. I don't like having arguments like this. Peace, toots. (I'm a chick, so I'm not being sexist when I call you toots.) I may answer your questions when I come back.......

Have a good, safe trip, toots! (this chick doesn't mind those little colloquialisms!)

 

[jallman]

We are not going to agree on when abortion becomes murder. I cannot trick myself into believing a fetus is not a baby, nor would my conscience ever allow me to condone the act because others find nothing wrong with it.

From a personal standpoint, I was once very pro-choice. I hated the world, I wanted to die, I could not understand why anybody would ever drag another child into this world just so it could have to suffer with the rest of us poor SOBs. As the years went by, I came to terms with my pain and the reasons for it. I came to love the world and everything in it. Life is truly too short and too wonderful to waste. Even if your life has its very dark moments, in the end, it will be worth it because you had the chance to live it. You have that chance, I have that chance. Nobody is giving the unborn child that chance, and I find that to be supremely unfair. Especially since the reasons behind most abortions are ones of fear and selfishness and irresponsibility. I hope you can at least understand why I feel this way.

Oh no no no...dont think for one minute I begrudge you your stance on the issue. In fact, I admire that kind of sincerity and devotion to life. Dont think for one minute I was belittling you (I save that for the two anti-choice power rangers felicity and fantasea...kidding ladies, kidding :lol: ). I am glad you have come to such a peace and commitment to life.

I am just attacking this from a logic standpoint. Dont tell anyone, but I am kind of an internalized pro-lifer in that I would never advocate abortion to one of my friends...however, I cannot advocate taking away that woman's choice either.

 

[hiker]

Oh no no no...dont think for one minute I begrudge you your stance on the issue. In fact, I admire that kind of sincerity and devotion to life. Dont think for one minute I was belittling you (I save that for the two anti-choice power rangers felicity and fantasea...kidding ladies, kidding :lol: ). I am glad you have come to such a peace and commitment to life.

I am just attacking this from a logic standpoint. Dont tell anyone, but I am kind of an internalized pro-lifer in that I would never advocate abortion to one of my friends...however, I cannot advocate taking away that woman's choice either.

Careful admitting that. You know someone is going to accuse you of hypocrisy. I know you to be a reasonable sort, from your posts. (I lurked around here well before my first posts) I am glad to see you have come to a sort of truce with sissy-boy in the past few days, BTW. I wish everyone could just get along.

I was surprised to see sissy making a post saying that abortion is euthenasia. That sounds suspiciously like an admission that a fetus is a child. I am not against euthenasia, if that is what you choose to do. The important word being "choose". I know that has nothing to do with this response, but I wanted to mention it somewhere.

 

[Felicity]

Dont think for one minute I was belittling you (I save that for the two anti-choice power rangers felicity and fantasea...kidding ladies, kidding :lol: ).

Go...go...Power Rangers:rock


You've been belittling me? Where??? I gotta get over to that thread and terminate you with my mighty morphin' power blaser!:blastem:

 

[jallman]

Go...go...Power Rangers:rock


You've been belittling me? Where??? I gotta get over to that thread and terminate you with my mighty morphin' power blaser!:blastem:

Not yet, but it seems to be a fun time between me and fantasea. I did pay you a great compliment the other day though...I said you were an asset to your side and I find your posts both entertaining and relevant. I am definitely looking forward to a debate about the religious connotations of abortion with you...you seem to have a passion for that. And point that beam somewhere else...you could put an eye out, kid. :lol:

 

[jallman]

Careful admitting that. You know someone is going to accuse you of hypocrisy. I know you to be a reasonable sort, from your posts. (I lurked around here well before my first posts) I am glad to see you have come to a sort of truce with sissy-boy in the past few days, BTW. I wish everyone could just get along.

I was surprised to see sissy making a post saying that abortion is euthenasia. That sounds suspiciously like an admission that a fetus is a child. I am not against euthenasia, if that is what you choose to do. The important word being "choose". I know that has nothing to do with this response, but I wanted to mention it somewhere.

I have no problem with sissy personally. I am just appalled at his tactics sometimes and I have spent a great deal of effort on this forum showing that there is a rational and respectful body within the homosexual community.

There is really no hypocrisy in my stance, I believe. I personally dont think and abortion should be a first choice nor do I think it should be applied willy nilly as a form of birth control. I do think, however, that there are too many facts that indicate a lack of personhood for the fetus before a certain point while the woman is an active, established, and protected part of our society. I cannot agree with oppressing her right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness by forcing her into using her body to develop a human being where one is not present before. I fully agree that life begins at conception, but it is not developed life...if the maturation process is arrested before any awareness occurs, then its just a medical procedure and no moral infraction has been committed. But...I always make allowances for a change of heart on my part, which is why I enjoy these debates. I mean, if it was set in stone to me, why would I bother talking about it, right?

 

[aps]

Have a good, safe trip, toots! (this chick doesn't mind those little colloquialisms!)

Now that's the kinda chick I like! :cheers:

When I tried to do a smiley face in my prior post, it would not let me because there were 4 "smilies" in my post (which were the ones that you had done in the post to which I responded). I was too lazy to remove one of yours so that I could fit mine in. What a strange rule, huh?

 

[Felicity]

What a strange rule, huh?

We wouldn't wanna get too overly emotional---you know how we girls can be....:lol:

 

[Cloud9]

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

Use of demagoguery. It detracts from the issue and used to inflamme and bring emotional appeal to an issue.

For many in the pro-life camp, the main source of their moral code is Christianity (the Bible) hence their stance on life, though, if they read their Bible they'd find the following:

Hosea 9:11-16 Hosea prays for God’s intervention. “Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.” Clearly Hosea desires that the people of Ephraim can no longer have children. God of course obeys by making all their unborn children miscarry. Is not terminating a pregnancy unnaturally “abortion”?

Hosea 13:16 God promises to dash to pieces the infants of Samaria and the “their women with child shall be ripped up”. Once again this god kills the unborn, including their pregnant mothers.

Numbers 31:17 (Moses) “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.” In other words: women that might be pregnant, which clearly is abortion for the fetus.

2 Kings 15:16 God allows the pregnant women of Tappuah (aka Tiphsah) to be “ripped open”.

It's sad that the Church does not support birth control, knowing that it would diminish the number of abortions. Looks like some folks are truly more interested in advancing their political agenda than minimizing abortions.

 

[steen]

You say pro-life folks have an anti-rights stance.

Yes, they want to enslave women; take away her civil rights that everybody else enjoy.

The only rights you are taking in to account are the rights of the mother.

Nope.

The child has no rights.

There is no child.

The child never gets a chance to state a case in court.

There is no child, and it lacks self-awareness of any kind to be able to make such a case. It has no more such an ability than does a tumor. Are you advocating tumors have their day in court before surgery, or are you pushing nonsense (Well, that also would be nonsense, so you are pushing nonsense min any case).

The child never has the opportunity to grow and succeed

because there is no child.

But on the other hand, if the woman does NOT have sex and the egg is expelled and she menstruate, then that egg was deprived of the same stuff. So your claim really is nonsense.

and prove the whole abortion option to be the death sentence that it actually is.

No more than cancer surgery is the death sentense of tumors, or any more than antibiotics is the death sentense for bacteria, not to mention that your burger is the death sentense for the cow. So exactly WHAT is your argument here?

I love my life.

Do you love lutefish? If you have never tried it, you would never know if you do or not. And the zygote no more has the capasity to be able to love a life it hasn't realized. Your post-hoc argument is silly and bogus.

I could have been an abortion, and never had that chance.

Then you would never have known the difference.

You could have too. Think about it that way,

We have and the answer is that your argument is irrelevant.

and realize there is more than one person involved in the decision.

Nope. Roe vs Wade specifically shows that the unborn is not a person. Your claim is outright false.

Who will speak for the rights of those that have none,

yes, who will speak for bacteria and tumors?

according to pro-abortionists?

Who are they? Those who oppose the pro-enslavement-of-women, the pro-slavery fundies?

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

And when there is an "anybody," namely at birth, then that is true. But then, why do prolife fundies then support cutting the help and assistance that could realize these chances for the inner-city, impoverished kid? How come you have NOT given of your resources to bring that kid up to the level of your chances? Does that mean you are hypocritical? Or that you only care about embryos and fetuses, not giving a damn about kids?

 

[steen]

Or are you just chicken?

No, we merely can't be to bothered with outright liars like you.

 

[steen]

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.

Yeah, if you remove the nonsentient, nonsensate appendix, then it becomes external. So what!

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!

Ah, there we see it again, the prolifers spewing outright lies, pretending that fetal reflexive movements are willfull. Such inherent deception and lies are the only thing we expect from felicity and her pack of prolife liars.

 

[steen]

The only difference between a child and an embryo is a matter of time.

What an utterly ignorant and false claim.

A child is solely dependant on it's mother after it is born, the same as in the womb.

More outright falsehood, or adoptions would be physically impossible. It harms your credibility when you spew such ignorant falsehoods.

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.

What do you mean with "only"? That aside, I don't care WHAT you call it, I still sleep fine. That stupid prolife claptrap about guiolt feelings and all that ignorant blabbering merely estabilshes you as very stupid. If you want to be taken serious, I suggest you drop the hyperbole and silly claptrap.

If left alone, that embryo will become a child.

More nonsense. If left alone, it would shrivel up and die very fast.

Therefore, an abortion is killing a child.

Nope, as "child" is the developmental stage beginnign at birth. At least be a little bit logical in your claims, eh?

You can rationalize it a million different ways and throw every scientific statistic up in my face, but you can not change that fact.

To claim your opinion as a "fact" is utterly dishonest. It brands you as a liar; not that we have come to expect anything else from a prolifer fundie.

I get angry over this, mainly because I know just how wonderful and precious a life can be.

But with "this" you mean us not accepting the nonsense claptrap and falsehoods you spewed above? If you want to be taken serious, start being factual and honest instead.

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.

And my wife calls our small fluffy dog "baby." So what? Your emotional descriptor is not evidence of reality nor of factuality.

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.

Hmm, then you aren't listening. That is not our fault. Could it be that you are so overfilled with emotional fervor that rational thought and ability to actually listen has completely abandoned you? Your misrepresentations seem to indicate this.

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.

Why? Oh, you see the pregnant woman as having an obligation to provide kids for infertile couples? You see these women as breeders and that justifies you wanting to take away their basic civil rights, the right to control their own sentient bodies? Hmm, how misogynistic of you, how belitteling of women as persons in their own right, seeing them only as self-propelled uteruses that YOU somehow can take control over. How despicable.

What a world we live in. So depressing...

So depressing that you feel you have the right to enslave women solely based on your moralistic, misogynistic fervor, yes.

 

[steen]

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.

As long as you claim an outright falsehood to be "the obvious," there isn't much point in taking you serious; you merely are establishing yourself as yet another lying, dishonest prolifer like most of the rest of them.