Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8

 

2006-11-02 17:11:13
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6855|SE London

IRONCHEF wrote:

You know, I'd like someone to tell me the difference between "PRO-LIFE" and "PRO-CHOICE."  I don't believe they are properly named.

I"m under the impression that PRO LIFE means NO ABORTIONS, EVER, FOR ANY REASON.  THese are the types to vote for Bush and other Republicans and to hell with other issues that actually matter (oh, and Bush has the same opinion as I do on abortion...risk of life to mother, rape, incest..etc so he's actually choice..if i'm right on what that means).  I'm under the impression that the "CHOICE" party spans the options for abortion for ANY REASON including a narrowing option for abortion in certain circumstances.

Any thoughts on this?  Please feel free to clear it up for me.
Pro-life means no abortions.

Pro-choice means the woman gets to decide if she wants an abortion, for whatever reason.

I'm pro-choice, because I believe a woman has a right to decide to do what she wants with her body.

The entire abortion issue depends on what counts as a life. Is it wrong to use any form of contraception, an idea long promoted by the Catholic church (because "every sperm is sacred, every sperm is good, every sperm is needed in your neighbourhood"), is the morning after pill wrong? That is essentially the same as an abortion. It's all just about the timeframe and what counts as life.
2006-11-02 17:16:53
SGT.Mays
Member
+2|7016|Ohio
Well all I have to say is it takes two baby. I mean someone had to consent there and women should know the guy aint the one with 9 months of pain ahead (well if he sticks aroud he does). And I personally think that before the heart starts to beat you should be allowed to "abort" the infant, but i'll be damned if I will sit here and let you say that it is better to kill a child than put it in the care of an unloving, poor, single mother. I was raised by my mother alone, she was 17 when she had me and I tell ya what it's been a hell of a ride ever since. Someone said there aren't enough caring familys for all the unwanted children. Well, i know plenty of people trying to adapt a kid, and some of them have been waiting for years just to have the paper work approved. There is no shortage of caring people in America, but then agian we sure as hell don't have a shortage of uncaring ignorant assholes. And in closing i say partial birth abortions are even more despicable then "normal" murder, you and that doctor just killed the most defensless being God took the time to make, you sick fuckers.
2006-11-02 17:20:53
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6855|SE London

Is there anyone who isn't religious who is pro-life? It seems the two are very closely intertwined.

I would be very interested to see if there are any atheists/agnostics who are strongly opposed to abortion.
2006-11-02 17:28:21
jonsimon
Member
+224|6769

Bertster7 wrote:

Is there anyone who isn't religious who is pro-life? It seems the two are very closely intertwined.

I would be very interested to see if there are any atheists/agnostics who are strongly opposed to abortion.
Some of my friends aren't religious (dunno if they're agnostic of atheist, but I don't think they practice anything) and they at least used to be pro-life, though I don't know now.
2006-11-02 17:28:45
Sylvanis
........
+13|6909|Toronto, Ontario

MastersMom wrote:

Much ignorance in this one, I sense.
It's not ignorance, it is a point of view.  And as a side note, to prove me wrong you limited children to infants, which you acknowledged.  If they count when they are 30 seconds old, or before they are even born as some argue, why not when they are 3, 4, or even 2 for that matter? 

My opinion is that prevention is better than adoption, adoption is better than abortion.  BUT it is the mothers choice as to whether she feels like bringing another human into the world.

Overtly vocal pro-life advocates have a tendency to put these things in a black and white debate.  The reality is that just because it is easy for you to make these decisions, doesn't mean that others are as fortunate.


p.s. If you are old enough to have an opinion on this topic, stop doing Yoda imitations.

Last edited by Sylvanis (2006-11-02 17:41:32)

2006-11-02 17:31:31
Naughty_Om
Im Ron Burgundy?
+355|6906|USA
Pro-Choice is all im gonna say.
2006-11-02 17:31:47
MastersMom
YOUR mom goes to college
+61|6929

IRONCHEF wrote:

You know, I'd like someone to tell me the difference between "PRO-LIFE" and "PRO-CHOICE."  I don't believe they are properly named.

I"m under the impression that PRO LIFE means NO ABORTIONS, EVER, FOR ANY REASON.  THese are the types to vote for Bush and other Republicans and to hell with other issues that actually matter (oh, and Bush has the same opinion as I do on abortion...risk of life to mother, rape, incest..etc so he's actually choice..if i'm right on what that means).  I'm under the impression that the "CHOICE" party spans the options for abortion for ANY REASON including a narrowing option for abortion in certain circumstances.

Any thoughts on this?  Please feel free to clear it up for me.
Pro-Choice= Mother gets to decide to keep or abort and can do so for any reason personal or otherwise.

Pro-Life= This spans a large group.  For the most part, no abortion.  Also includes those who say no abortion except danger to mother, etc.  Responsible for many PEACEFUL protests.

The group you forgot about is Anti-Abortion.

Anti-Abortion= No abortion under any condition no matter what.  These are also the people who are more commonly involved in violent protests, bombings of abortion clinics, etc.  Very extremist group.
2006-11-02 17:36:16
jonsimon
Member
+224|6769

IRONCHEF wrote:

You know, I'd like someone to tell me the difference between "PRO-LIFE" and "PRO-CHOICE."  I don't believe they are properly named.

I"m under the impression that PRO LIFE means NO ABORTIONS, EVER, FOR ANY REASON.  THese are the types to vote for Bush and other Republicans and to hell with other issues that actually matter (oh, and Bush has the same opinion as I do on abortion...risk of life to mother, rape, incest..etc so he's actually choice..if i'm right on what that means).  I'm under the impression that the "CHOICE" party spans the options for abortion for ANY REASON including a narrowing option for abortion in certain circumstances.

Any thoughts on this?  Please feel free to clear it up for me.
Pro-Life: No Abortion, ever.

Pro-Choice:No restrictions on abortion at all. Only exception: trimesters.
2006-11-02 17:43:34
Sylvanis
........
+13|6909|Toronto, Ontario

jonsimon wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

You know, I'd like someone to tell me the difference between "PRO-LIFE" and "PRO-CHOICE."  I don't believe they are properly named.

I"m under the impression that PRO LIFE means NO ABORTIONS, EVER, FOR ANY REASON.  THese are the types to vote for Bush and other Republicans and to hell with other issues that actually matter (oh, and Bush has the same opinion as I do on abortion...risk of life to mother, rape, incest..etc so he's actually choice..if i'm right on what that means).  I'm under the impression that the "CHOICE" party spans the options for abortion for ANY REASON including a narrowing option for abortion in certain circumstances.

Any thoughts on this?  Please feel free to clear it up for me.
Pro-Life: No Abortion, ever.

Pro-Choice:No restrictions on abortion at all. Only exception: trimesters.
Pro-life can make exceptions for cases such as risk to mother, rape, incest.  To say pro-life is no abortions ever is to say Bush is pro-choice.
2006-11-02 17:45:21
MastersMom
YOUR mom goes to college
+61|6929

Sylvanis wrote:

MastersMom wrote:

Much ignorance in this one, I sense.
It's not ignorance, it is a point of view.  And as a side note, to prove me wrong you limited children to infants, which you acknowledged.  If they count when they are 30 seconds old, or before they are even born, why not when they are 3, 4, or even 2 for that matter? 

My opinion is that prevention is better than adoption, adoption is better than abortion.  BUT it is the mothers choice as to whether she feels like bringing another human into the world.

Overtly vocal pro-life advocates have a tendency to put these things in a black and white debate.  The reality is that just because it is easy for you to make these decisions, doesn't mean that others are as fortunate.


p.s. If you are old enough to have an opinion on this topic, stop doing Yoda imitations.
First off I'll quote who ever the hell I want to.  And at age 27, married, and the father of two (one of which was born when I was 18) I assure you I am old enough to have an opinion.

I used the word "ignorance" because what you were talking about is NOT an opinion, it is FACT.  It is fact that children over the age of 2 are not as likely to be adopted.  It is fact that if you want to adopt an infant you will have to go on a waiting list.  It is fact that if you are pregnant, and put your child up for adoption, there will be open arms waiting to accept a new member to their family.  I also made the point that yes, there are many older children in foster homes that don't get adopted.  But this thread is not about older unadopted children.  As an alternative to abortion, adoption is a great option that many people (such as yourself) seem to be uneducated on.  That is why I used the word "ignorance".  It basically means that you just don't know.  It's not that I'm calling you stupid, you are just ignorant to the facts.  You just don't know the facts.

I also understand that it is still up to the mother and if she just doesn't want to go through the pregnancy that's her choice, unfortunately.  But to use the baby's wellbeing as an excuse is not ignorance...that is stupidity.  Saying it's better for the baby to just kill it, rather than to not be able to give it the perfect life...or what you view as the perfect life.  Cheap cop out.  It makes no sense.
2006-11-02 17:46:55
ScarletPimpFromHell
... this one goes to 11.
+12|6662|Sydney, Australia

Sylvanis wrote:

MastersMom wrote:

Much ignorance in this one, I sense.
It's not ignorance, it is a point of view.  And as a side note, to prove me wrong you limited children to infants, which you acknowledged.  If they count when they are 30 seconds old, or before they are even born as some argue, why not when they are 3, 4, or even 2 for that matter? 

My opinion is that prevention is better than adoption, adoption is better than abortion.  BUT it is the mothers choice as to whether she feels like bringing another human into the world.

Overtly vocal pro-life advocates have a tendency to put these things in a black and white debate.  The reality is that just because it is easy for you to make these decisions, doesn't mean that others are as fortunate.


p.s. If you are old enough to have an opinion on this topic, stop doing Yoda imitations.
Well said.
From one realist to another - If I had enough posts up on this forum I'd give you a +1.
2006-11-02 18:07:48
jonsimon
Member
+224|6769

ScarletPimpFromHell wrote:

Sylvanis wrote:

MastersMom wrote:

Much ignorance in this one, I sense.
It's not ignorance, it is a point of view.  And as a side note, to prove me wrong you limited children to infants, which you acknowledged.  If they count when they are 30 seconds old, or before they are even born as some argue, why not when they are 3, 4, or even 2 for that matter? 

My opinion is that prevention is better than adoption, adoption is better than abortion.  BUT it is the mothers choice as to whether she feels like bringing another human into the world.

Overtly vocal pro-life advocates have a tendency to put these things in a black and white debate.  The reality is that just because it is easy for you to make these decisions, doesn't mean that others are as fortunate.


p.s. If you are old enough to have an opinion on this topic, stop doing Yoda imitations.
Well said.
From one realist to another - If I had enough posts up on this forum I'd give you a +1.
I just did it for you.
2006-11-02 18:09:44
jonsimon
Member
+224|6769

Sylvanis wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

You know, I'd like someone to tell me the difference between "PRO-LIFE" and "PRO-CHOICE."  I don't believe they are properly named.

I"m under the impression that PRO LIFE means NO ABORTIONS, EVER, FOR ANY REASON.  THese are the types to vote for Bush and other Republicans and to hell with other issues that actually matter (oh, and Bush has the same opinion as I do on abortion...risk of life to mother, rape, incest..etc so he's actually choice..if i'm right on what that means).  I'm under the impression that the "CHOICE" party spans the options for abortion for ANY REASON including a narrowing option for abortion in certain circumstances.

Any thoughts on this?  Please feel free to clear it up for me.
Pro-Life: No Abortion, ever.

Pro-Choice:No restrictions on abortion at all. Only exception: trimesters.
Pro-life can make exceptions for cases such as risk to mother, rape, incest.  To say pro-life is no abortions ever is to say Bush is pro-choice.
No, pro-life is strictly pro-life. Bush would be uncategorized. These categories represent the extremes.
2006-11-02 19:22:16
weamo8
Member
+50|6716|USA

Bertster7 wrote:

weamo8 wrote:

When the sperm reaches the egg the DNA starts to combine and change.  At that moment it is genetically distinct from the mother.  At that point it is a genetically distinct being.  My messed up brother thinks black people are monkeys and it should be okay to kill them.  It is easy to say "your brother is a dumbass," and leave it at that, but I think the real question is - What makes a human a human?  I think the only real way to classify them is genetically.  Embryos are distinct from their mothers, and they are human.
What does make a human a human. I would say conciousness. People are defined by their brain activity and by our experiences, something that is very different inside a foetus. Which is the main reason I don't count foetuses as babies.
So we can kill the mentally handicapped right Bertster?
My sister in laws little brother is basically a vegitable.  Is it okay to kill him?

Last edited by weamo8 (2006-11-02 19:24:35)

2006-11-02 19:44:47
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6719|The Land of Scott Walker

weamo8 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

weamo8 wrote:

When the sperm reaches the egg the DNA starts to combine and change.  At that moment it is genetically distinct from the mother.  At that point it is a genetically distinct being.  My messed up brother thinks black people are monkeys and it should be okay to kill them.  It is easy to say "your brother is a dumbass," and leave it at that, but I think the real question is - What makes a human a human?  I think the only real way to classify them is genetically.  Embryos are distinct from their mothers, and they are human.
What does make a human a human. I would say conciousness. People are defined by their brain activity and by our experiences, something that is very different inside a foetus. Which is the main reason I don't count foetuses as babies.
So we can kill the mentally handicapped right Bertster?
My sister in laws little brother is basically a vegitable.  Is it okay to kill him?
Embryology textbooks universally agree : “The development of a human begins with conception” ( Langman's Medical Embryology ); “the time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual” ( Patten's Foundations of Embryology ); “the [zygote] results from the union of an oocyte [egg cell] and a sperm during fertilization. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being” ( The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology ).  Princeton University Professor of Jurisprudence Robert P. George writes, “The embryonic, fetal, infant, child and adolescent states are stages of development of a determinate and enduring entity—a human being—who comes into existence as a zygote and develops by a gradual and gapless process into adulthood many years later.”  If a “fetus” is not human, what else could it be?
2006-11-02 19:48:57
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6679|North Carolina
I'll tell you what.  I'll agree to ban abortion, if you can agree to set up a system necessary for taking care of all the unwanted children that result from this policy.

Until you're ready to pay a lot more in taxes to take care of a considerably larger poor population, abortion is best kept as a legal option.
2006-11-02 19:52:29
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6925|USA

Turquoise wrote:

I'll tell you what.  I'll agree to ban abortion, if you can agree to set up a system necessary for taking care of all the unwanted children that result from this policy.

Until you're ready to pay a lot more in taxes to take care of a considerably larger poor population, abortion is best kept as a legal option.
Yes because asking "parents" to take care of their responsibilities is more than could be expected.
2006-11-02 19:54:05
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6679|North Carolina

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I'll tell you what.  I'll agree to ban abortion, if you can agree to set up a system necessary for taking care of all the unwanted children that result from this policy.

Until you're ready to pay a lot more in taxes to take care of a considerably larger poor population, abortion is best kept as a legal option.
Yes because asking "parents" to take care of their responsibilities is more than could be expected.
If you want to get rid of abortion, you'll see a lot more kids being put up for adoption.  This means more money will be needed to run orphanages.  Are you prepared to fund state institutions like these more?

Last edited by Turquoise (2006-11-02 19:54:14)

2006-11-02 20:05:52
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6925|USA

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I'll tell you what.  I'll agree to ban abortion, if you can agree to set up a system necessary for taking care of all the unwanted children that result from this policy.

Until you're ready to pay a lot more in taxes to take care of a considerably larger poor population, abortion is best kept as a legal option.
Yes because asking "parents" to take care of their responsibilities is more than could be expected.
If you want to get rid of abortion, you'll see a lot more kids being put up for adoption.  This means more money will be needed to run orphanages.  Are you prepared to fund state institutions like these more?
If you remember, from other threads, I fully support helping those that can not help themselves. If I am not mistaken I included children as an example. There are a lot of responsible people out there who can not have kids that would adopt them. The major set back for this is, of course, the bureaucracy, red tape and cost. I feel adopting a child to wanting, responsible parents, should be free.
2006-11-02 20:34:20
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6679|North Carolina

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:


Yes because asking "parents" to take care of their responsibilities is more than could be expected.
If you want to get rid of abortion, you'll see a lot more kids being put up for adoption.  This means more money will be needed to run orphanages.  Are you prepared to fund state institutions like these more?
If you remember, from other threads, I fully support helping those that can not help themselves. If I am not mistaken I included children as an example. There are a lot of responsible people out there who can not have kids that would adopt them. The major set back for this is, of course, the bureaucracy, red tape and cost. I feel adopting a child to wanting, responsible parents, should be free.
Well, I'm glad you personally support that possibility, but I bet if you were to ask the average pro-lifer, they wouldn't be so thoughtful.
2006-11-02 20:55:27
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6925|USA

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

If you want to get rid of abortion, you'll see a lot more kids being put up for adoption.  This means more money will be needed to run orphanages.  Are you prepared to fund state institutions like these more?
If you remember, from other threads, I fully support helping those that can not help themselves. If I am not mistaken I included children as an example. There are a lot of responsible people out there who can not have kids that would adopt them. The major set back for this is, of course, the bureaucracy, red tape and cost. I feel adopting a child to wanting, responsible parents, should be free.
Well, I'm glad you personally support that possibility, but I bet if you were to ask the average pro-lifer, they wouldn't be so thoughtful.
I think it is abominable that caring, loving, responsible, would be parents, actually have to PAY for the opportunity to give a quality life to a child. I would go as far as to endorse paying would be qualified couples to adopt a child. Money to help with the costs. I say this because whatever a loving couple could offer a child with a little help financial assistance is infinitely better than the life the child has in an orphanage. They may not grow up rich but it would increase their chances to grow up warm, stable and loved.

The present system to me, amounts to nothing short of SELLING kids for profit. The idea being, if you want one bad enough, you will pay.

Last edited by lowing (2006-11-02 20:56:57)

2006-11-02 21:02:24
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6679|North Carolina

lowing wrote:

I think it is abominable that caring, loving, responsible, would be parents, actually have to PAY for the opportunity to give a quality life to a child. I would go as far as to endorse paying would be qualified couples to adopt a child. Money to help with the costs. I say this because whatever a loving couple could offer a child with a little help financial assistance is infinitely better than the life the child has in an orphanage. They may not grow up rich but it would increase their chances to grow up warm, stable and loved.

The present system to me, amounts to nothing short of SELLING kids for profit. The idea being, if you want one bad enough, you will pay.
Pretty much...  I think the main issue is that white babies are the ones specifically in demand, whereas black babies are very numerous.  Race is definitely an issue with regards to adoption.

Ironically, though, many Canadians have adopted our black babies.  It can be awkward to adopt babies or children that are of a different race than yourself, but I'm glad some people are willing to make that leap.  I don't plan on having kids, but I'll probably adopt a kid if I (and whoever I marry) ever change my mind.
2006-11-02 21:35:20
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,054|7045|PNW

Marconius wrote:

No, it was just a way to see where you stand on when the fetus becomes a baby.  Applying murder and already-born analogies to fetuses won't work on those who don't think like you, as it's just ridiculous.

People will think I'm repulsive, and I'll keep on thinking that it's not your decision to make on what a woman does with her child.
There you go. I might be picking at semantics here, but that has to be a typo, if you are to retain any credibility in your argument.
2006-11-02 22:35:42
Masques
Black Panzer Party
+184|6996|Eastern PA
Don't know if this has been posted already, but for those of you that are anti-choice and say that abortion is murder (or a similar analogue), should there be prison sentences for those involved?

If it is indeed murder (or at least manslaughter) then it logically follows that there should be some criminal punishment for those (doctors and mothers) that get abortion. If you're unwilling to go that distance (ie. if criminal penalties are anything less than that which murder normally incurs) then it follows that either those participating in abortion are somehow bereft of moral agency and thus cannot be held responsible or that which is aborted is not a person under legal convention.
2006-11-02 23:31:21
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|6967|San Francisco

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Marconius wrote:

No, it was just a way to see where you stand on when the fetus becomes a baby.  Applying murder and already-born analogies to fetuses won't work on those who don't think like you, as it's just ridiculous.

People will think I'm repulsive, and I'll keep on thinking that it's not your decision to make on what a woman does with her child.
There you go. I might be picking at semantics here, but that has to be a typo, if you are to retain any credibility in your argument.
Well, I'm done here if all you are going to do is point out semantics.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard