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

[steen]

You are supporting the legality of the procedure...just as if you believed prostitution should be legal, you would be pro-prostitutes.

Not necessarily. You are again lying, as expected.

It ain't hard...if you are not against it--you are supporting it--even if it is a tacit support.

And no, you are still lying.

 

[kal-el]

Bravo steen:lol: . I relish at the fact when these pro-lifers get their asinine opinions hysterically refuted.

 

[steen]

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.

yes, it is.

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.

That is very funny. If somebody are assaulting you and you fight back, you can have a mental health committment? Gosh, you sure make STUPID claims.

 

[steen]

The difference in time is not a valid excuse to rationalize the abortion.

Yes, sure it is. Your "because I say so" doesn't counter that at all.

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 will BECOME a child, becaus eit will BECOME a human being. Why are you misdrepresenting developmental stages? Is it ignorance or dishonesty?

It is just at an early stage of developement.

So why are you misrepresenting it as a later stage? Why the deception?

If left alone in the womb, a fetus will be born.

Another falsehood. Without the umbilical cord, it would die in short time.

And grow. I am a 35 year old fetus.

No, you aren't. What an ignorant claim. More prolife revisionist linguistic hyperbole.

You know why I can say that? Because it is the same thing, just a different word to describe it.

That shows an incredible ignorance of basic biology.

We use scientific terms like embryo and fetus to rationalize killing babies

Nope. Your claim is outright false.

and make it sound like a much lesser crime. Well, it's not.

Well, it is not a crime at all, so I am not sure what it is you are trying to do here? denying reality perhaps?

 

[steen]

I don,t really think that they should be classed as doctors as doctors are meant to preserve life not take it.

What utter and ignorant nonsense. They are doctors because they went through medical school. Your claim is downright stupdid; more example of prolife desperate need for revisionist linguistics in almost every argument they spew.

 

[steen]

The embryo has all the genetic makeup of a full grown human being.

So does a skin cell or a hydatidiform mole.

It is a person.

Your limited definition of what constitutes a "human being" is duly noted. Any human cell thus is a human being in its own right. yes, prolife arguments are silly, but you do have the right to hold the inane ideas that you do.

If you step on a caterpillar, you are killing a butterfly.

Nope, you are killing a caterpillar. The woeful biological ignorance that prolifers must demonstrate in order to spew their silly claims is astonishing.

It is the same thing, only at a less advanced stage.

Nope.

And I am not anti-rights,

You oppose the woman's right to control her own bodily resources, a right the rest of us have. So your claim is false, your denial runs hollow. You falt-out seek to remove rights from the woman, rights that any other person holds. Shame on you.

the pro-choice people are for the child not having any rights whatsoever, even the right to exist.

And you are again lying. pro-choice doesn't support ANY child losing rights.

What gives the mother any more rights than the child should have?

A mother doesn't have any rights that a child doesn't have, other than guardian rights. But then, children's rights are utterly irrelevant in a discussion about abortions where there isn't yet a child.

Why is it okay to kill a child because you don't want the responsibility? It is not okay, it is wrong.

Nobody have advocated killing children. Please cease your false accusations.

 

[steen]

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.

Your claim is fale. There is no individual "someone" there yet. You canm drop the silly revisionist linguistics.

Oh, I forgot, that is the ONLY thing prolifers have to make their arguments for their misogynistic oppression of women, the stupid hyperbole of dishonest revisionist lingusitics.

 

[steen]

We are not going to agree on when abortion becomes murder.

We don't have to, the law is clear enough and does not agree with you. So we don't care if you agree or not.

I cannot trick myself into believing a fetus is not a baby,

So it is willful and deliberate ignorance?

nor would my conscience ever allow me to condone the act because others find nothing wrong with it.

Nobody have asked you to do so.

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.

How does that make you prochoice? Is this another attempt at misrepresentation?

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.

Your SUBJECTIVE OPINION is duly noted

You have that chance, I have that chance. Nobody is giving the unborn child that chance,

"unborn child"? Like "undead corpse"?

 

[steen]

Bravo steen:lol: . I relish at the fact when these pro-lifers get their asinine opinions hysterically refuted.

Appreciated :beer:

 

[Felicity]

And NINE on this thread---Damn, steen---feeling a little manic?

 

[jallman]

And NINE on this thread---Damn, steen---feeling a little manic?

Is the relentless assault of truth getting to you, felicity dear? :2wave:

 

[kal-el]

And NINE on this thread---Damn, steen---feeling a little manic?

Hahaha, steen has squashed false claim, after claim, after claim, after claim, actually, it's quite funny.:lol:

 

[Felicity]

Is the relentless assault of truth getting to you, felicity dear? :2wave:

Do you mean "assault ON truth"

 

[jallman]

Do you mean "assault ON truth"

No, I said assault OF truth. nice deflection tactic, but shouldnt you be reserving that for steen...I mean, he is totally dominating the forum again. But alas, when you build your argument on shifting sand, what more can you expect. :mrgreen:

 

[Felicity]

No, I said assault OF truth. nice deflection tactic,

Oh...:3oops: you know me...the Pink Power Ranger (you can call me PPR ) I just love pointing out the silliness of the abortion-supporting perspective!

but shouldnt you be reserving that for steen...I mean, he is totally dominating the forum again. But alas, when you build your argument on shifting sand, what more can you expect. :mrgreen:

Re-read that and see the irony....:rofl

 

[jallman]

Oh...:3oops: you know me...the Pink Power Ranger (you can call me PPR ) I just love pointing out the silliness of the abortion-supporting perspective!


Re-read that and see the irony....:rofl

The irony escapes me...maybe its being eclipsed by the pang of sympathy I feel for pro-lifers right now in the face of seeing their arguments dashed against the wall.

 

[Cloud9]

A few interesting perspectives were raised....

1. If 'left alone' it is only a matter of time before an embryo becomes a child - Women that have had stillbirths know this is simply not true, as do women who have natural spontaneous abortions due to miscarriage (~30-50% of all pregnancies)

2. The genetic perspective - Steen does have a point, and it hasn't been addressed. A human being can be cloned from any cell (just a matter of time as we like to say around here), so why wouldn't someone who holds a pro-life position extend their position of 'rights' to protect all cellular matter?

3. The moral perspective - Knowing what we know today, would it have been 'wrong' (hypothetically) to abort Hitler who went on to exterminate 6 million people?

 

[goligoth]

A few interesting perspectives were raised....

1. If 'left alone' it is only a matter of time before an embryo becomes a child - Women that have had stillbirths know this is simply not true, as do women who have natural spontaneous abortions due to miscarriage (~30-50% of all pregnancies)

2. The genetic perspective - Steen does have a point, and it hasn't been addressed. A human being can be cloned from any cell (just a matter of time as we like to say around here), so why wouldn't someone who holds a pro-life position extend their position of 'rights' to protect all cellular matter?

3. The moral perspective - Knowing what we know today, would it have been 'wrong' (hypothetically) to abort Hitler who went on to exterminate 6 million people?

There is no such thing as a spontaneous abortion. Abortion implies that a human is stepping in and ending the fetuses presence in the womans body. A spontaneous death...sure.

A common cell, such as skin, can't possibly produce a human unless you clone. Cellular matter isn't important enough to protect but when the cells form into something that has, as you said, about a 50% chance of becoming human on its own it is worth protecting.

Before hitler went insane and started leading the German people he was an artist. His work wasn't that bad but when he tryed to go to an art college he was denied and he lost faith in his work. He wasn't encouraged enough, therefore no he shouldn't have been aborted he should have been loved...:shrug: though I'm not sure that anyone could love a face like that:shrug: ...

 

[steen]

There is no such thing as a spontaneous abortion. Abortion implies that a human is stepping in and ending the fetuses presence in the womans body. A spontaneous death...sure.

Your claim is incorrect. "Spontaneous abortion" is an appropriate medical term. In medicine, 'abortion" is any loss of pregnany at or before 20 weeks. Thus the abortion can be spontaneous, induced, traumatic or whatnot.

Thus your absolutist clim was wrong. I would like it if you would aoid absolutist claims until knwoing the reality.

A common cell, such as skin, can't possibly produce a human unless you clone.

And then it can.

Cellular matter isn't important enough to protect but when the cells form into something that has, as you said, about a 50% chance of becoming human on its own it is worth protecting.

Why?
Are you saying there is a right to life? I refer you to this discussion:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=6031
So far the prolifers there have denied a right to life, instead basing their opposition of abortion on the woman's "fault." seeking punishment rather than being concerned with saving lives. Why don't you add your unique perspective there?

 

[Cloud9]

There is no such thing as a spontaneous abortion.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=miscarriage

mis·car·riage Audio pronunciation of "miscarriage" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mskrj, ms-kr-)
n.

1. The premature expulsion of a nonviable fetus from the uterus. Also called spontaneous abortion.

 

[gibby]

I would be surprised if anyone who considers themselves to be pro-choice as someone who supports abortion. We support a woman's right to choose to do what she wants with her own body should she get pregnant, as that is none of our business. That doesn't make us abortion supporters.

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

yes, it makes you pro-abortionists. pro choice ideology cradles the right to resort to abortion. that makes you pro-abortionists, nothing else.
pro-choice people support just abortion. that makes them pro-abortion, even if you perfume it with the label pro-choice. it's just a name. the message behind that name is the one that matters. advice: know the policy first before you stick to it. this is the reason why many pro-choice get surprised when you brand them as pro-abortionists. there should be no morals attached to these names.

 

[steen]

yes, it makes you pro-abortionists. pro choice ideology cradles the right to resort to abortion. that makes you pro-abortionists, nothing else.

Your deliberate desire for dishonest misrepresentation is duly noted, you pro-slavery fundie.

pro-choice people support just abortion.

See, we often see pro-slavery fundies like you repeat that outright lie. Such bearing False Witness must be your desire to spit God in the eye. Why else would you so outright and deliberately bear false witness?

that makes them pro-abortion,

Nope, your dishonest and deliberate misrepresentation none withstanding.

even if you perfume it with the label pro-choice. it's just a name.

But obviously it is more, as it bothers you so much that you have to lie about it to put the desired, prolife deception on it. So to you it obviously is much more than "just a name." Thanks for showing yourself the hypocrite as well as the bearer of false witness.

the message behind that name is the one that matters.

Ah, the message that it is the woman's body and thus she is the one who should chose what happens to her life and her body. Yes, that is a message of supporting her personal choice; hence PRO-CHOICE.

advice: know the policy first before you stick to it.

Oh, now you are talking to the mirror. How cute, after a fashion.

this is the reason why many pro-choice get surprised when you brand them as pro-abortionists.

Surprised? Who gets surprised. prolife dishonesty, misrepresentation and outright lies don't surprise us. We know that this is how prolifers make their arguments, that just about everything you guys say are outright lies and misrepresentations, just like you here bearing false witness. That is not a surprise, that is reality: prolifers lie, rivers run downhill, and the sun sends out light These are ordinary daily facts. This is just how things are, as you proved here.

there should be no morals attached to these names.

Is that why you have not used your real description of "pro-slavery," instead deceptively calling yourself "pro-life" as if you are to much of a coward to admit your real goals of controlling and enslaving women?

How lame of you.

 

[vergiss]

There is no such thing as a spontaneous abortion. Abortion implies that a human is stepping in and ending the fetuses presence in the womans body. A spontaneous death...sure.

:lol:

Ah, the calibre of people who think they're "debating" with us.

 

[Saboteur]

I would be surprised if anyone who considers themselves to be pro-choice as someone who supports abortion. We support a woman's right to choose to do what she wants with her own body should she get pregnant, as that is none of our business. That doesn't make us abortion supporters.

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

If they thought they wouldn't get sued for slander and liable they'd call us murderers. They also like to blame the supporters and defenders of abortion rights for the decisions made by the people who have made their own choice.


They think that if abortion wasn't legal that no one would have one. Which is B.S. because illicit drugs aren't legal but people use them. Murder isn't legal but handgun ownership and their usage in homocides haven't decreased.

I think pro-lifers should just concentrate on teaching thier own children their morals and hope they'll choose not to have an abortion if they find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy.

 

[Felicity]

If they thought they wouldn't get sued for slander and liable they'd call us murderers. They also like to blame the supporters and defenders of abortion rights for the decisions made by the people who have made their own choice.


They think that if abortion wasn't legal that no one would have one. Which is B.S. because illicit drugs aren't legal but people use them. Murder isn't legal but handgun ownership and their usage in homocides haven't decreased.

I think pro-lifers should just concentrate on teaching thier own children their morals and hope they'll choose not to have an abortion if they find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy.

"They" sure is a broad pronoun...

I don't think at all the way you characterize pro-lifers--and I think it's safe to say I am pro-life. Would you care to hear the difference between what you have said about "they" and what this "they" actually thinks?