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

[Saboteur]

"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?

Okay how about some then?

I don't like to be pigeon-holed either, so no I wouldn't like to hear how you think differently from 'they'. I doubt I think very much like the model Pro-Choice person either but I'm sure you have swept me in generalization already.

Anyway I've read some of your past posts on this topic and I have seen that you pretty much love to split hairs on technicalities and unproven theories.

Oh and I'll bet 'you' as well as 'they' think that abortion is murder.

 

[Felicity]

Okay how about some then?

I'll grant you "some"--of course "extreme" and "unreasonable" people come in every stripe.

I don't like to be pigeon-holed either, so no I wouldn't like to hear how you think differently from 'they'.

I don't know where you would get the idea I would be "pigeon-holing" you in any way by expressing what I think in contrast to the pro life stances you presented..."you" are nowhere in there. But whatever...

I doubt I think very much like the model Pro-Choice person either but I'm sure you have swept me in generalization already.

Assumptions assumptions...geez...why the paranoia? :shock: I wasn't challenging you or anything.

Anyway I've read some of your past posts on this topic and I have seen that you pretty much love to split hairs on technicalities and unproven theories.

Well...from your use of them and this critical analysis of my posts, I can see you're a "sweeping generalizations" kinda guy...(or gal ).

Oh and I'll bet 'you' as well as 'they' think that abortion is murder.

More assumptions:roll: ...I think it depends on who you're talking about and the circumstances...so do you win or lose that bet?

 

[Saboteur]

I'll grant you "some"--of course "extreme" and "unreasonable" people come in every stripe.

I don't know where you would get the idea I would be "pigeon-holing" you in any way by expressing what I think in contrast to the pro life stances you presented..."you" are nowhere in there. But whatever...

Assumptions assumptions...geez...why the paranoia? :shock: I wasn't challenging you or anything.

Well...from your use of them and this critical analysis of my posts, I can see you're a "sweeping generalizations" kinda guy...(or gal ).

More assumptions:roll: ...I think it depends on who you're talking about and the circumstances...so do you win or lose that bet?

Oi!

Not.... here..... to..... argue.... semantics.

Sorry for my generalizations. I may seem paranoid but I am involved in another abortion debate and it seems that most of the Pro-Life folks there are on the same page and say the same thing. Which really isn't anything different on the Pro-Choice side either. Anyway it got ugly and even more ugly then better but then back to ugly.

The abortion debate is a beast there just isn't any middle ground.

Again I apologize we'll just say some then and be over it 'k?

 

[gibby]

Your deliberate desire for dishonest misrepresentation is duly noted, you pro-slavery fundie.
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?
Nope, your dishonest and deliberate misrepresentation none withstanding.
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.
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.
Oh, now you are talking to the mirror. How cute, after a fashion.
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.
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.

i do not wonder much why you called me a pro-slavery fundie. misrepresentation? i think not. i said 'just abortion'. just as in justified, with justice, deliberative, etc.

although i admire your language, i suppose you also bear a diploma for gobbledy-gooking?

pro-choice like you seems to package itself neatly with the label of pro-choice but as a pair of wise eyes would inevitably see, it hides a stink bomb inside: it attracts itself to the easiest option possible, ruling out all the other options and blindingly neglecting the rights of another. although the pro-choice set of arguments can be considered ingenious, it tramples those who are meek and those who should be protected. its foundations lie on the whims of its blinded citizens, those women who are not in their proper state of mind given their condition of having to bear unplanned pregnancy.

it leaves the state to neglect the right they vowed to protect, the right to life and to care for their citizens in times of such distress.

i do not doubt your intelligence and i commend you for that. but can you not realize the adverse effects of unguided choice? let's face it: not every woman of the united states has a moral and educational background to come up with a feasible choice, considering that most unplanned pregnancies happen in teen years.

you dismissed pro life as liars, ruling out other arguments and did not even lift a finger to reason so. i never knew someone could be so close-minded.

you remind me of something. a box.

 

[gibby]

Your deliberate desire for dishonest misrepresentation is duly noted, you pro-slavery fundie.
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?
Nope, your dishonest and deliberate misrepresentation none withstanding.
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.
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.
Oh, now you are talking to the mirror. How cute, after a fashion.
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.
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.

i do not wonder much why you called me a pro-slavery fundie. misrepresentation? i think not. i said 'just abortion'. just as in justified, with justice, deliberative, etc.

although i admire your language, i suppose you also bear a diploma for gobbledy-gooking?

pro-choice like you seems to package itself neatly with the label of pro-choice but as a pair of wise eyes would inevitably see, it hides a stink bomb inside: it attracts itself to the easiest option possible, ruling out all the other options and blindingly neglecting the rights of another. although the pro-choice set of arguments can be considered ingenious, it tramples those who are meek and those who should be protected. its foundations lie on the whims of its blinded citizens, those women who are not in their proper state of mind given their condition of having to bear unplanned pregnancy.

it leaves the state to neglect the right they vowed to protect, the right to life and to care for their citizens in times of such distress.

i do not doubt your intelligence and i commend you for that. but can you not realize the adverse effects of unguided choice? let's face it: not every woman of the united states has a moral and educational background to come up with a feasible choice, considering that most unplanned pregnancies happen in teen years.

you dismissed pro life as liars, ruling out other arguments and did not even lift a finger to reason so. i never knew someone could be so close-minded.

you remind me of something. a box.

 

[Cloud9]

There is certainly a distinction between pro-choice and pro-abortion (demaguoguery).

In the first, a woman ultimately chooses the decision. She either gets an abortion or opts not to.

However, it's not the first time I've heard the logic - "What choice?" It's a choice of abortion, therefore, you support abortion.

So now, lets talk about pro-life and using the same thinking. If a woman is raped, and abortion is illegal, then some might say that you support the birth of the children of rapists. Some might even say "pro-rape".

I know, that perspective angers some, but lets continue with the "pro-life" semantics. If there is a medical condition that would endanger the life of the mother and essentially result in her death, how exactly does that make one 'pro-life'?

Some might say that's "pro-mother's death" (though that doesn't roll off the tongue so easily)

For many, decisions between a 'right and wrong', 'good or evil', seem simple and straightforward, but when asked to pick between two evils many have a difficult time of it even when using a highly theoretical and improbable example, they can't bring themselves to answer. For example:

You're in a hospital that's on fire, and know (in theory) that it'll explode in 8 seconds. You're the last adult evacuating and in the middle of a lengthy hallway at one end of the hallway (by the exit) sits a lost 2yr old child, crying, and will surely die, at the other end of the hallway is a lab with a container full of fertilized (frozen) eggs (by the other exit)

You only have time to save one. Which do you save and why? The child or the 100 eggs in vials?

The most common answer I hear, "that's so improbably that I won't even dignify the question with a response".

It's not meant to be a realistic scenario, it's theoretical and meant to identify the way we think about things.

Besides, it would probably be good for us to recognize that there really isn't such a thing as someone who is purely 'pro-life' or 'pro-choice'.

I doubt that most reasonable pro-choice people would support a woman to get an abortion a day before the actual birthdate, or support a woman getting 30, 40, 50 abortions, and other such circumstances.

I also doubt that most reasonable 'pro-life' people would support circumstances where the death of the mother would be a certain occurence, or a pregnancy due to a violent incenstual rape by the father of a mentally retarded 13yr old girl, etc.