Pro-life
lolfighter
Snark, Dire Join Date: 2003-04-20 Member: 15693Members
Snark, Dire Join Date: 2003-04-20 Member: 15693Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Immature?</div> Let's start off with a <a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pro-life' target='_blank'>dictionary.com</a> quote:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->pro-life
adj.
Advocating full legal protection of human embryos or fetuses, especially by opposing legalized abortion.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Next, my beef:
It's not with the attitude of pro-lifers. I do not agree with them, but I agree with some of their points (I fully support free abortion, I'm just a little fuzzy on the age cutoff, i.e. at what age it should no longer be allowed to abort a healthy foetus). I took part in an ethics discussion group in '02-03, and abortion was a common and popular subject. And thank God nobody called themselves "pro-life". It may have helped that we were speaking danish, not english.
No, my beef is with the name, "pro-life". If you say: "I'm against abortion. I'm pro-life", I cannot help but turn this around and think that if I'm for abortion, I'm anti-life.
ANTI-LIFE? EXCUSE ME? Nobody is anti-life. If they were, they'd realize that THEY THEMSELVES are in fact alive, and would promptly shoot themselves.
Ok, so you, pro-lifer, are calling me "anti-life". I guess the case is closed for you, then? I'm not for abortion for the good of the parents, or the good of the children. No, I'm for abortion because I abhor all living things and wish only for death to surround me. Done.
This is the equivalent of ranting to me about your views, then as soon as I open my mouth to talk to you about my views, you stick your fingers in your ears and go "LALALALALALALA!" at the top of your lungs until I give you an exasperated look and walk away.
So please, the next time you discuss abortion with someone (in case you ever do that), be against abortion if that's your opinion. You're certainly entitled to it. But don't call yourself "pro-life". Pretty please. It makes you sound like a reactionary who won't even listen to the arguments of the opposition.
Opinions? Do I have my head up my backside, or am I making at least some sense?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->pro-life
adj.
Advocating full legal protection of human embryos or fetuses, especially by opposing legalized abortion.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Next, my beef:
It's not with the attitude of pro-lifers. I do not agree with them, but I agree with some of their points (I fully support free abortion, I'm just a little fuzzy on the age cutoff, i.e. at what age it should no longer be allowed to abort a healthy foetus). I took part in an ethics discussion group in '02-03, and abortion was a common and popular subject. And thank God nobody called themselves "pro-life". It may have helped that we were speaking danish, not english.
No, my beef is with the name, "pro-life". If you say: "I'm against abortion. I'm pro-life", I cannot help but turn this around and think that if I'm for abortion, I'm anti-life.
ANTI-LIFE? EXCUSE ME? Nobody is anti-life. If they were, they'd realize that THEY THEMSELVES are in fact alive, and would promptly shoot themselves.
Ok, so you, pro-lifer, are calling me "anti-life". I guess the case is closed for you, then? I'm not for abortion for the good of the parents, or the good of the children. No, I'm for abortion because I abhor all living things and wish only for death to surround me. Done.
This is the equivalent of ranting to me about your views, then as soon as I open my mouth to talk to you about my views, you stick your fingers in your ears and go "LALALALALALALA!" at the top of your lungs until I give you an exasperated look and walk away.
So please, the next time you discuss abortion with someone (in case you ever do that), be against abortion if that's your opinion. You're certainly entitled to it. But don't call yourself "pro-life". Pretty please. It makes you sound like a reactionary who won't even listen to the arguments of the opposition.
Opinions? Do I have my head up my backside, or am I making at least some sense?
Comments
I don't believe in this crap about women's choices. They don't even give another organism inside them a chance. Now, I believe it's ok under certain condition (Eg. Both the baby and the mother will not survive if they continue, hence, abortion is needed), but abusing medical advancement because of their reckless behavior, I don't believe in.
Victim of rape? Yes, the rapist should be shot in the head. But I believe everyone should be given a chance to live, no matter how slim, even the child of a rapist.
/Now officially hated by 2/3 of the forums, I'm guessing
I feel that I know both sides well enough, and I still go pro-life just because there are teenagers that have been known to get pregnant so their breasts get bigger! Then they get an abortion. It's dispicable behavior, and if pro-choice was the attitude, this would be <b>acceptable</b> behavior however unethical.
Also, assuming I were pro-choice, I wouldn't know where to cut the line. I feel you cannot say that at 3 months a baby isn't alive and then at 3 months and 1 day he is alive. Things are black and white.. right and wrong. You can't possibly be correct to kill a fetus at one point in time and then not correct in another. A fetus is a fetus. I won't take that a fetus being born gives it life, considering the mere kicking inside the womb proves otherwise for me.
So we're left with two choices for me. Either a human being is alive or a human being is not alive. When you look at it that way, you cannot kill a human being in any form of its development.. not even early development, because this is killing the future development of a full grown human being.
I believe a choice should be left up for the woman to decide in cases in which she was raped, granted by the courts. Even then I would recommend against it, but I would want her to have a choice in such instances all the same (at least it wouldn't be abusing abortion).
My two cents.
And then there's rape. For me, that case is crystal-clear. I could never force a woman to bear the child of the man who raped her. Imagine if the child looked like its father. Every time she looked at the poor kid, she'd see the man who violated her, maybe spoiled her life. Maybe she'll be able to love the child anyway. Probably, she won't. I don't want to subject neither child nor mother to that kind of life.
Pro-Choice is a fancy way of saying "I want to kill my baby"
Pro-Life is a fancy way of saying "that baby has rights".
As for turning it around - Yeah, by being an abortionist, one is by definition against life. You are Anti-Life - maybe not your life, or your friends lives - just the ones that get in the way.
As for the "good of the parents" or "good of the child" - that is a very subjective argument. We are talking about life and death here, and the person who decides what is "good" is a 15 year old girl? I wouldn't bet she can decide what color of nail polish to wear, much less be able to make a decision about someone else's life. Heck - if she is so qualified to make that decision anyway, why did she have relations in the first place? If she didn't want the risks ascociated with sex, why did she have sex? No, this person should not have any say whatsoever in the life of that child. Killing it just shows what kind of a selfish person she is. Condoning that killing shows how selfish our society is.
Back in ancient times, people would leave their unwanted kids out on hill sides - "exposing" was the proper term. Other cultures would sacrifice them to "gods" - burning them on the arms of an idol. Ours just does the damage a little earlier - kills it while it is still developing - cuts it up, sucks it out "because it is good".
You are certainly not the only one.
My two cents are that everyone has a right to believe what they want to. You cannot force everyone to ban abortion any more than you can force a Quaker to take antibiotics. I disagree strongly with the ban on stem cell research partly because of the same reason but in that case I have another philosophy with deep signifigance which also makes me oppose it: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. Now understand that doesn't mean ignoring the fact that the ends don't always justify the means but when you are talking about cells I find it hard for there to be any arguement. No one cares when you kill bacteria, a banana shares 50% of it's DNA with us, sperm and egg cells and well as fertilized eggs die on a daily basis by the million, viviparous organisms like humans show identical development to common ancestors with other animals durring development. (blastua starts outlike all animals, then all deuterosterms, then all chodates, then all craniata, then all mammals, then down though various groups until all primates, and then finally diverges into something clearly human tissue) It's so silly to try an argue when a clear cut of is on any gradual development. (why laws on development are impossible to agree on)
The best solution is to make it conform to you for what <i>your</i> beliefs are. If you claim to be strongly anti-abortion then you should stick to it. If you don't like the puritans telling you what you can and can't do with your body then you shouldn't be force to. It's something that should be contolled by a per-community basis. State and federal governments shoudl never have a say on such issues and banning never works anyways.
Pro-Life is a fancy way of saying "that baby has rights". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your opinion on a highly subjective matter sir. I'm not what you would call pro-choice but yet I find that untrue.
Here let me try to open a new line of thought from a parallel: Do you think and AI has rights and if so when do you say it does?
You see a black or white line in the sand is not so easy. It is as impossible to fix a boolean to a gradual change as to find the precise value of pi. It's simply a logical impossibility.
pro-choice != "I want to kill my baby"
it simply says that you are for the choice to be there.
Now, to go off topic as every one else has.
personaly? I don't like abortion. However, there are many cercomstances that it is a necesary evil.
To make an analogy:
I am also a conscientious objector, however there are times when violence is the proper soloution, I just wouldn't pick it my self.
Personaly I don't realy like the idea of punishing rape victims, do you?
Just think about it, you are made in invalid for multiple months, you know that there is a second posibility to this, however the govn't has decided to disalow it.
I view that as punishment.
How about the posibility that the mother will die?
Are we to condem them to death?
Most poeple will agree with those last 2 ones.
how about some grey area?
When does it become a person, and thus gain rights?
ok, late term abortions are wrong in almost every case (void those that cause danger)
so how about the second trimester? Is there a certain act/piece of the featus that dertermains it to be 'alive' and no longer part of the owmans body?
Does this hapen in the first trimester?
with in a few weeks?
one week?
as soon as ejaculation occurs? so no morning after pill?
posibly it is the act of sex that is the point? so no more contraceptives?
when?
Or how about that 15 year old girl.
She screwed up. But do we as a society think that we should destroy her life because of one mistake? She is going to have to leave school, be suported by her parents (if they can/will). And then go through the riggors of pregnancy and child birth.
Then what?
Does she keep the kid? How? She can't suport it, is she even mature enugh to? At 21 I don't think I could raise a child properly.
So now she has to give it up for adoption?
so 6 months of hell, the destruciton of her hopes and dreams, and all for naught?
nope, I think she has the right to chose what to do.
So, lets go on to the idea that you people (anti-abortionists) do manage to get laws/amendments passed to disalow abortion. To quote an advertising campaign that was running in NYC subways.
Some things we can stand if the make a come back (pic of bell botoms).
Some things we can't (pic of a coat hanger).
So there you have it - black and white. For those 15 year olds who make a mistake - adoption. For those who are raped - adoption. For those who's life is in peril because of the pregnancy (honesly, how many of these happen now days?) I recommend trying to wait it out - otherwise it is a game of percentages "there is a 40% chance both will die" or "there is a 50% chance only the baby will die". Until that baby dies of natural causes, we have no right to kill it. Doctors should not have the power to choose life or death - they should try to assist life where ever possible.
Along those lines - especially with late term abortions - what happens if the doctor doesn't kill the baby before removing it? As soon as it is out of the womb, the Doctor is bound by law to do everything in his power to keep life in the baby. I wonder how many doctors ignorred this doing partial birth abortions?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When does it become a person, and thus gain rights?
ok, late term abortions are wrong in almost every case (void those that cause danger)
so how about the second trimester? Is there a certain act/piece of the featus that dertermains it to be 'alive' and no longer part of the owmans body?
Does this hapen in the first trimester?
with in a few weeks?
one week?
as soon as ejaculation occurs? so no morning after pill?
posibly it is the act of sex that is the point? so no more contraceptives?
when?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At conception.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Or how about that 15 year old girl.
She screwed up. But do we as a society think that we should destroy her life because of one mistake? She is going to have to leave school, be suported by her parents (if they can/will). And then go through the riggors of pregnancy and child birth.
Then what?
Does she keep the kid? How? She can't suport it, is she even mature enugh to? At 21 I don't think I could raise a child properly.
So now she has to give it up for adoption?
so 6 months of hell, the destruciton of her hopes and dreams, and all for naught?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is a social problem, not an abortion problem. She messed up - there are concequences. Taking a life to make yours easier should not be an option.
Got that one out of the way at least, then. Heck, I prefer to be called "anti-life" to my face rather than this indirect way of doing it. Not that I in any way agree to being anti-life. Anti-life, as I said, makes no sense at all. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
As for going off-topic: Not at all. I fully expected this to turn into an abortion discussion, I just took the chance to do my little thing beforehand. I haven't seen any talk about abortion yet in this discussion forum, and I think it's an interesting subject.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Back in ancient times, people would leave their unwanted kids out on hill sides - "exposing" was the proper term. Other cultures would sacrifice them to "gods" - burning them on the arms of an idol. Ours just does the damage a little earlier - kills it while it is still developing - cuts it up, sucks it out "because it is good".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The wolves certainly would agree with you (hi Beast). They prefer the old method - after all, every unwanted baby is a free meal that way. And a ban on abortion would only bring back the old women with the pointy sticks. I prefer it to be done clinically and safe. Getting pregnant unwanted is no crime - condoms burst occasionally, other contraceptives have failure rates too. "If you want to have sex, be prepared for the consequences" could be the counter-argument to that one, but in a complex society like ours, children at a young age can be a burden and a hindrance. And your hormones won't allow you to resist until you're twenty-five.
I'll wrap this post up with a little thought I just had: To my surprise, I've never seen a woman stand up and say "What are you MEN doing in this discussion anyway? This isn't about YOU, it's about US! Get out!"
Anybody else surprised by that, now that you think about it?
that is also part of the reason why I am pro-choice.
This is sometihng that will NEVER effect me.
thus why do I have the right to decide?
thus choice.
So there you have it - black and white. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Though you enjoy the comforting , simplistic black and white perspectives , you would do well to understand that they do not satisfy everyone , and that there are people who have the courage to deal with grey areas and difficult dilemmas.
If you would extend the law all the way to conception , it would become a crime to eliminate a fertilized ovum. Quite absurd if you ask me.
If you don't want babies, you don't have sex! Okay, the exception is rape, and I would allow for abortions then.
However, if it isn't forced, then there is no excuse. You were having sex with a condom.. if the condom breaks, what do you think was going to happen?
Idiocy in the first degree.
Yeah , it was a great time for women , either they had to manage to remain a virgin till they reached 3rd age , or they would have to raise countless children.
Things changed , because of <i>progress</i>.
Anyone who has has a sex-ed class (I had mine in 5th or 6th grade) knows how to take procautions not to have children. They are also taught that these are not 100% effective. Now if you want to take the risk of getting pregnant or getting some one pregnant, than mastuerbate. If you do take the risk and the result is a baby, than live up to your reponsibility. We as a society have been making excuses for everyone and shifting reponsiblities elsewhere. What are we teaching our children when we say its okay if you f**k up, just go get an abortion. Sex is a tool for reproduction, if you use it for other reasons be prepared to get pregnant.
Im not totaly against abortions there are some cases where it is merited.
As for the you are not a woman, you have no say arguement.
Yes I am not a women, but I was once one of those fetuses that you so blindly toss aside. We all were.
Off topic: (Or on a tangent)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why can't things be the way they used to be without contraception?
If you don't want babies, you don't have sex! Okay, the exception is rape, and I would allow for abortions then.
However, if it isn't forced, then there is no excuse. You were having sex with a condom.. if the condom breaks, what do you think was going to happen?
Idiocy in the first degree. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What alternate reality did you live in? People still had sex, its just that they got rid of the kid in the old fashioned ways (and by old fashioned I mean either extremely dangerous or post-natal).
BIG EDIT to reply to Handman
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Anyone who has has a sex-ed class (I had mine in 5th or 6th grade) knows how to take procautions not to have children. They are also taught that these are not 100% effective. Now if you want to take the risk of getting pregnant or getting some one pregnant, than mastuerbate. If you do take the risk and the result is a baby, than live up to your reponsibility. We as a society have been making excuses for everyone and shifting reponsiblities elsewhere. What are we teaching our children when we say its okay if you f**k up, just go get an abortion. Sex is a tool for reproduction, if you use it for other reasons be prepared to get pregnant.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sex is also fun and done for recreation, you can't make people responsible about something that is coded into their genes for them to do as much as possible. We are designed for sex, not everyone makes a suitable parent.
Face it, abortion is a fact of human life, it will always be a part of culture whether you want it to be or not. Lets at least make it done as safe as possible and then, instead trying to stop that teenager who wants bigger breasts/free housing etc by stopping the abortion (which will leave us with small breasted homeless teens with kids <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->) we teach them not to be so dumb.
I don't really care what time the foetus counts as a human life, whether its conception (which I doubt highly) or at birth, I personally believe that the mothers life is more important than the childs. I agree that some stupid women abuse the whole abortion thing but the way to stop them isnt to ban abortion, its through educating the women (or sterilising them).
Yeah , it was a great time for women , either they had to manage to remain a virgin till they reached 3rd age , or they would have to raise countless children.
Things changed , because of <i>progress</i>. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
A lot of unborn fetuses have been destroyed because of "progress." I'd say it is a lot of unnecessary griping over something as stupid as "to be able to have sex without having babies."
You don't want babies? Don't have sex. Is it so bad to remain a virgin until marriage? Surely not as bad as killing fetuses for your pleasure.
If someone shoots me, its murder.
If someone shoots my 2 year old, its murder.
If a nurse strangles my new-born, its murder.
If an angry husband kicks his pregnant wife causing miscarrage, its murder.
If a doctor uses serated blades and a modified vacume cleaner, its "abortion".
Common folks, where does life start? At the beginning. How early can you start procecuting someone for murder? Pretty much as soon as you establish pregnancy. Why then, does "want" have anything to do with it? Why does a child need to be "wanted" in order to have rights?
So far I have heard:
"this is the way it is, get used to it";
"she shouldn't have to wreck her life for 1 mistake";
"what about rape";
"sex is genetic, we can't be responsible for our actions"
"be courageous, and deal with the grey areas".
- basically, these all have to deal with selfishness. They all put the wants of the woman/family unit ahead of that of the child. Even rape - just because you had something horible happen to you - now someone else has to die?
Until we can put the value of another ahead of our own happiness, we will continue to kill the undervalued un-born.
Ok don't eat or it's murder. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
No seriously though I respect you beliefs and see you feel very strongly about it but you never have the right to force everyone to follow them when the strongly disagree. It is not black & white, line in the sand, or clear cut. It just isn't. Sorry but you narrowmindedness is beginning to become irriating. (stupid and/or narrowinded people is a pet peeve of mine)
uh, forget i just said that.
anyway, i'm against abortion. i don't think it should be condoned unless it's defensive (and then it should be primarily based on medical opinion, not the wishes of the mother). i pretty much agree with pepe on this one; i'm not so sure about rape though. I could foreseeably support abortion in that case.
there're a bunch of topics in the nether regions of discussion forum history on abortion, someone can dredge those up and read them if they please <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Ok don't eat or it's murder. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
No seriously though I respect you beliefs and see you feel very strongly about it but you never have the right to force everyone to follow them when the strongly disagree. It is not black & white, line in the sand, or clear cut. It just isn't. Sorry but you narrowmindedness is beginning to become irriating. (stupid and/or narrowinded people is a pet peeve of mine) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Narrow-mindedness?! Wait just a darn moment. He is expressing his opinion with which you do not agree, and YOU don't want to hear because he is being narrow-minded. *coughhypocritecough*
I think issues like that are rather black and white, actually. I think the problem with today's laws are that there are too many loopholes and exceptions. You say "you cannot kill someone unless... x or y or z" and you end up with people trying to catagorize themselves into x, y, or z for the simple case of not being prosecuted. Kant would agree with me on this point. He believe everything was black and white. You cannot be "black and white" on the issue of abortion and then be pro-choice.
Murder is murder. Blur it all you want, but killing a future life is not anymore excusable than killing a living life.
The arguments for abortion are weak, because it all can be summed up into "don't have sex." And if you can't follow that, you're arguing to allow abortion so you can use it as a from of birth control.
Actually I just asked Flayra yesterday if I could empty the general, discussion, and off topic forum of dead topics to fix the memory issues and he apparently did it himself and thus the memory/crashing issues have thus far been apparently fixed.
Blame me, or thank me, but the forums finally got a much needed pruning. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
~edit~
Reply to Hawkeye:
On the contrary, I did read his stuff and tried to imagine it from his perspective. I said narrowminded because he is refusing to give others the same respect. Regardless I have not given my actual opinion on the matter outside of discussing why there are issues and where I have my background. You want my official opinion? Ok:
Males have no say on the issue
I'm neither pro-choice nor anti-abortion (if anything I'm probably anti-abortion but I'm not saying my way is 100% right)
It's not a black & white issue
and off-topic:
One should avoid forcing others to believe in their beliefs when they disagree
In all honesty, though, I do try to see the other side - and it just seems wrong. Now, I'm not going to try to make a believer out of anyone - that isn't my job. What I want is for people to see the logical inconsistancies.
There seems to be a mental block here - and it is located in the womb. I don't see why. Perhaps it has something to do with Americans celebrating Birthdays as opposed to Conceived days (there are some cultures that do). I don't know. Whatever the reason, there is a distinct disconnect between the person in the woman and out of the woman. As soon as that connection is made, you can make rules about the quality of life that the baby can expect to have (namely, not being killed, not having an alcoholic mother, or being addicted to other substances). For whatever reason, people just don't want to extend those rights through an inch of flesh to where the baby lives.
Why?
Now that I've established my opinion, no one has talked about birth defects yet.
What if your child was going to be born with a birth defect that made the child unable to interact with society normally, forever? What if you know your child is going to be born with mental retardation, and will be branded an invalid his whole life. Would YOU want to be born, your future determined already, to where you will never be able to hold any sort of job, make any sort of normal social contact?
This is only an example, and there are several worse, and less worse, examples to make.
I know I wouldn't want my child to have to go through that. I wouldn't want to either.
pro-choice != "I want to kill my baby"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
^^
[I am going to argue with my emotions here partway, it's something that I'm borrowing from Mr. Carolla on loveline who shares my same emotional attachment to this argument, you have been warned]
Pro choice means you favor letting the women decide what to do with her body, and for all the people who go "omg the <b>fetus</b> [notice how the never say fetus, they always say child, IT'S NOT AN EFFING CHILD IT'S A FETUS THEY ARE DIFFERENT THINGS] has rights, even though if left to it's own things it will die until about 3-4 years later in life. But no, people who are hardcore pro lifers who like to go out and shoot doctors for "killing babies" insist that the "child" must come out into the world even if the person carrying it does not want it. Granted abortion has it's drawbacks, almost all women who have abortions feel a massive emotional hit as the physiology of the body goes from nurturing life to nothing and there is massive hormonal changes, but if they want to go thru that and decide to do the child a favor and not bring it unwanted into the world.
since roe vs wade violent crime has actually been on the decline in the US, maybe it has something to do with the fact that people who don't want kids can not have them and therefore save society from another a) stripper b) violent criminal.
Children should not be raising children, if you don't want to get your child aborted give it up for adoption and pat yourself on the back for doing the right thing.
Another thing that pisses me off is that the nutjob pro lifers [as apposed to the smart pro lifers I see in this thread] are all against the morning after pill [aka plan B] which <b>is not</b> abortion but merely contraception. They are always saying don't do abortions, and along comes something that is effective and preventing anwanted pregnancy and they are on the bandwagon agains it
I wrote this post listining to Talesins chibi dance, if this post sucks blame that song... <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Well , fanatical vegans could then convince you that eating meat should be forbidden then. Let's see... meat , which requires killing animals , is not necessary to your survival , so it is selfish to eat meat - poor cows did nothing to you , and you're encouraging their massacre by eating meet for your sole gustative pleasure ! That's criminal exploitation , legal genocides !
Much like sect members lose any will during a prolonged vegan diet , people grow frustrated , sour and stuck up during a prolonged abstinence. Sex is a vital part of human life besides reproduction - look at the bonobos , the nearest hominids , that have a similar sexual drive as humans , to be convinced of it : casual sex eats a large part of their spare time.
Promoting abstinence , and attempting to indirectly prevent casual sex , threatens everyone's quality of life.
That's where I was goign when I said don't eat.
Cause if you eat meat you are killing animal cells, but if you are a vegetarian you are still killing plant cells.
PS: For that matter don't breathe, oxygen gas is the reason why we age fyi. (see free radical damge to DNA, radiation can distort DNA too but oxygen does far far more damage) You can however remember to eat plenty of anti-oxidants. Parakeet cells and most birds eat a lot of anti-oxidants and is thus why they live longer than they should. Most plants make anti-oxidants and thus is why they can live for a very long time. So remember to eat an apple (or something else with anti-oxidants) everyday and you will actually live longer than you would have had you not.
No significant ammount of lives are going to be saved by allowing abortion. In almost all cases, you don't know if your life is at risk until after the birth. In rare cases where the mother's health is known to be at risk, a C-section is still available.
There is no reason to have an abortion, except to correct your own careless mistake.
Stakhanov. Back it up with a study, I dare you.