Are you Pro-Life or Pro-Abortion

[peacemonger]

I'm pro-life and I am glad that nobody here was aborted.

I am happy that all of our mothers accepted our rights to exist.

Every Ron Paul supporter is truly miraculous.

 

[mmink15]

pro-abortion? Did Frank Luntz make this poll? There IS a common sense strain of thought that life does NOT begin at conception, how about pro-choice or anti-choice.

 

[josephadel_3]

It is a biological fact that life begins at conception. Like Ron Paul says, "If you can't protect life, then how can you protect liberty?"

I am strongly pro-life for that reason. A species that has started to terminate its offspring has accelerated its demise. A society unable to protect life is unable to protect liberty. Ron Paul would nullify the effects of Roe v Wade, and would respect the 10th amendment, allowing grassroots pro-life movements to change state laws. This is why I support Ron Paul. Roe v Wade disrespects the constitution; Ron Paul respects it.

 

[rp08orbust]

I think they call themselves Pro-Choice actually. I think it's the same thing though.

I'm pro-choice about drugs, but not pro-DRUGS.

 

[RPTXState]

It is a biological fact that life begins at conception.

Says who?

And is evolution a biological fact?

 

[FormerDemocrat]

I'm Pro-choice.

Well... I did come from the Democrats.


I look at it this way.
I don't completely rule it out.

It's like a gun.
I prefer to have it and not use it, vs not have it and need it.


There was a special I believe on ABC that showed a family who's son was a product of his mother's rape. The kid's very bright, good grades, etc etc.

I mean put your self in his shoes. It would really take a toll on one's own life. (It has for him.)
That's why I don't completely rule it out, cause it may in fact ruin two lives instead of one.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Give it a rest, please...

 

[IowaGarrett]

I can tell people what their choice should be: not to kill a living human being.

I am a nurse. The advances in the science should have put an end to this long ago. When I saw my first sonogram of a new life, even at just a few weeks old, it was all I will EVER need to KNOW. She was life, and she was human.

I think even with Roe v Wade hanging over us, all women who want an abortion should have to watch a 3-D sonogram of what they will be "terminating".

What is the question anymore? A choice? OUR rights end where another life begins. Sure I have the choice to kill somone... but I will go to prison. It is based in the other's "inalienable right to LIFE" per the Constitution.

Abortion is no different.

 

[IowaGarrett]

Euthenize?

Why not let him decide on his 13th birthday then? We could propose law to allow euthenasia couldnt we? Do you think he would say: OK, just kill me? Maybe so...and if so then its his right to choice?

I'm Pro-choice.

Well... I did come from the Democrats.


I look at it this way.
I don't completely rule it out.

It's like a gun.
I prefer to have it and not use it, vs not have it and need it.


There was a special I believe on ABC that showed a family who's son was a product of his mother's rape. The kid's very bright, good grades, etc etc.

I mean put your self in his shoes. It would really take a toll on one's own life. (It has for him.)
That's why I don't completely rule it out, cause it may in fact ruin two lives instead of one.

 

[noztnac]

It should read "Pro Tyrannical Prohibition" vs "Pro Self-Ownership" ...

We have a nice compromise going of leaving it up to the states, but if I see you fetus nuts gang up on this issue one more time, I'll vote Libertarian over Ron Paul!

No it should be "irresponsible morons mandating that I finance their boneheaded idiocy and something I see as immoral and reprehensible with my own tax money vs. personal responsibility".


I am a Libertarian and am 100% against the government stealing my money to pay for someone else's abortion. So if you think Libertarians are pro-tax subsidizes abortion you are sorely mistaken.

 

[brandon]

"pro-abortion"?? Totally a Frank Luntz poll.

 

[misterbig]

I think that destroying a handful of cells after they have been fertilized is really not a big deal. Although I would agree less and less as it develops more features. For example, a brain stem.

Is anyone here really saying they would get bent out of shape over destroying 1, 2, or even 4 cells after they have been fertilized? Hmm...

 

[misterbig]

It is a biological fact that life begins at conception. Like Ron Paul says, "If you can't protect life, then how can you protect liberty?"

Demagoguery. You are defining life to begin at conception and using that definition to "prove" your points. I could just as easily say it is a biological fact that life begins when the brain stem appears. Or when a heart appears.

The real fact, is that we don't know exactly when life begins. It certainly happens at some point after conception, but before birth.

A species that has started to terminate its offspring has accelerated its demise.

Imagine arguing the opposite point 200 years from now when the world is vastly overpopulated and its resources are insufficient to support life:

"If you can't reduce overpopulation, then how can you protect liberty?"

"A species that cannot control its population has accelerated its demise."

These are all valid statements in that context.

A society unable to protect life is unable to protect liberty.

Demagoguery again. Where is the proof of this statement? And how do you equate being "unable to protect life" with "supporting first trimester abortions?" You make it sound like if we allow first trimester abortions then we are condoning ALL forms of killing. This is simply untrue.

A more accurate statement would be "protecting life in most all cases but provding flexibility in terminating unwanted pregnancies within some suitably small window of time after conception." Is this really incompatible with liberty? Methinks not.

For the record, I completely support Ron Paul's position on this issue and wouldn't mind in the slightest if all states made abortion illegal, if it was a prerequisite to moving towards a just society with maximum liberties for all (and sound currency).

 

[drpiotrowski]

If my girlfriend decides to abort our baby, it has no bearing on your life, and quite frankly is none of your business.

If I decide to kill my ten year old daughter, it has no bearing on your life, and quite frankly is none of your business.

 

[Eponym_mi]

If I decide to kill my ten year old daughter, it has no bearing on your life, and quite frankly is none of your business.

IMO, life is consciousness and should be protected. Unless your daughter is brain dead, I don't think anyone would debate that your daughter is alive. However, there is plently of debate in respect to whether a fetus at a given stage in development is consciousness and therefore alive. Like most extremists, you're making an assinine argument.

 

[adara7537]

This debate is such a waste of time, pro lifers will hardly ever switch sides and likewise with pro choicers.

I am personally pro life though I don't believe I have the right to make that decision for others.

I also am of the opinion that if you are pro life and would like abortion outlawed you need to do your part and adopt children.

 

[Sey.Naci]

I think they call themselves Pro-Choice actually. I think it's the same thing though.

No, it isn't. One can be personally anti-abortion yet pro-choice.

 

[josephadel_3]

Says who?

And is evolution a biological fact?

Says who?



"It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception." -

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School


"The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter – the beginning is conception." -

Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School

"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic





And is evolution a biological fact?

Carl Sagan wrote "Evolution is a fact, not a theory." American zoologist and paleontologist George Simpson, stated that "Darwin...finally and definitely established evolution as a fact."

from - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

technically it is both theory and fact, like gravity.

I don't want to force my opinion. I'm just answering your questions. You have the right to disagree with my response.

 

[josephadel_3]

Demagoguery. You are defining life to begin at conception and using that definition to "prove" your points. I could just as easily say it is a biological fact that life begins when the brain stem appears. Or when a heart appears.

The real fact, is that we don't know exactly when life begins. It certainly happens at some point after conception, but before birth.



Imagine arguing the opposite point 200 years from now when the world is vastly overpopulated and its resources are insufficient to support life:

"If you can't reduce overpopulation, then how can you protect liberty?"

"A species that cannot control its population has accelerated its demise."

These are all valid statements in that context.



Demagoguery again. Where is the proof of this statement? And how do you equate being "unable to protect life" with "supporting first trimester abortions?" You make it sound like if we allow first trimester abortions then we are condoning ALL forms of killing. This is simply untrue.

A more accurate statement would be "protecting life in most all cases but provding flexibility in terminating unwanted pregnancies within some suitably small window of time after conception." Is this really incompatible with liberty? Methinks not.

For the record, I completely support Ron Paul's position on this issue and wouldn't mind in the slightest if all states made abortion illegal, if it was a prerequisite to moving towards a just society with maximum liberties for all (and sound currency).

The real fact, is that we don't know exactly when life begins. It certainly happens at some point after conception, but before birth.

I have already addressed this. You don't have to agree with the quotations if you don't want to.


Imagine arguing the opposite point 200 years from now when the world is vastly overpopulated and its resources are insufficient to support life:

"If you can't reduce overpopulation, then how can you protect liberty?"

You might as well debate with Dr. Paul on this one. This is irrelevant to the abortion debate until true overpopulation occurs.

Regardless of hypothetical disasters, Abortion is an act of violence on an innocent life. Laws exist that protect a pregnant mother and her child in womb. If while speeding, you kill a pregnant mother while in a car crash, you are liable for the life of her and the child in womb. If you murder a pregnant mother, then you are liable for two lives. If the law recognizes these entities as individuals, then surely it has the ability to protect the same entity that may or may not be aborted. A paradox, indeed.

 

[thexjib]

I'm pro-life, but uncomfortably so because I do consider the privacy issue. What made up my mind is that I decided it's less about privacy than it is competing rights. I think that both the mother and the baby have a right to life, and I can't say one supersedes the other. And because I have no special knowledge about when life actually begins, I come down on the side of pro-life.

Christianity believes life begins at conception. Judaism believes that life begins at 40 days. I'm sure other religions believe some variation of the same. But it's not even a religious matter with me. I'm a physician, like Ron, and as much as I've studied and pondered, I cannot come up with an answer to when life begins that doesn't seem artificial or arbitrary. So, like I said, I come down on the side of pro-life.

+1