Are you Pro-Life or Pro-Abortion

[wildflower]

I'm convinced that any person with intellectual honesty, will eventually become pro-life, once they know all the facts and have fully debated this issue.

Every single so-called pro-choice "argument" is refutable. But even though that is true, I do think a lot of it has to do with a person's heart. If someone is hard-hearted and willfully blind, then no amount of arguments or debating will change them, they have to have a change of not only mind but heart.

 

[bobmurph]

"Right to Life" is a more accurate description. "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice" are cop-outs and blur the depth of the issue. A fetus has a "right to life"...the same rights that we have.

 

[WilliamC]

Thats laughable. Go right ahead with this line of argument. I'm seriously daring you.

I just did.

Google it for images if you have a strong stomach.

 

[Lumara]

I voted, although I think the poll would have been more accurate if the terms pro-choice and anti-choice were used. Calling it pro-abortion is inaccurate to describe those who may personally be against it but believe in choice and calling it pro-life is inaccurate to describe those who are opposed to abortion yet are pro-war.

 

[DeadtoSin]

Yeah, because everyone who is pro-life is also pro-war. I mean, your logic is astounding Lumara.

 

[Lumara]

I didn't say that. Not everyone who calls themselves pro-life are pro-war but many are.

 

[IowaGarrett]

I dont need to google. Yet, Im confused where you are going with this. Care to elaborate?

I just did.

Google it for images if you have a strong stomach.

 

[jmdrake]

I voted, although I think the poll would have been more accurate if the terms pro-choice and anti-choice were used. Calling it pro-abortion is inaccurate to describe those who may personally be against it but believe in choice and calling it pro-life is inaccurate to describe those who are opposed to abortion yet are pro-war.

Since this poll is aimed at people who support Ron Paul we can drop the "some who are pro life support the war" argument.

As far as being pro choice, how would you characterize someone prior to the civil war who lived in the North but felt slavery should remain legal in the south? Would they be pro slavery or "pro choice"?

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[BuddyRey]

Need more choices (not sure/conflicted). Also, NOBODY is pro-abortion. Even people who are pro-choice do not necessarily find abortion a savory or desirable concept. Just like when folks on the other side of the argument refer to pro-lifers as "anti-choicers." It's very obvious and very manipulative political framing.

 

[WilliamC]

I dont need to google. Yet, Im confused where you are going with this. Care to elaborate?

Well if you look back up in the thread at some of my previous postings I already have.

Human development is not perfect, therefore not every pregnancy can be treated identically.

 

[QCB79]

whats ironic are the nutcases who stand outside abortion clinics protesting and chanting about how pro life they are but wanting the staff of the clinic dead...or worse yet, the ones who actually have killed staff members, so much for being "pro life" or is that a pick and choose kinda thing?

kinda like saying you are pro life but support the death penalty

 

[hairball]

whats ironic are the nutcases who stand outside abortion clinics protesting and chanting about how pro life they are but wanting the staff of the clinic dead...or worse yet, the ones who actually have killed staff members, so much for being "pro life" or is that a pick and choose kinda thing?

kinda like saying you are pro life but support the death penalty

That was always the curious hypocrisy of the 'right-to-life' groups, but it is unique to the religious zealots, who like some of the radical elements of Islam, believe death is a good punishment for violators of custom.

You want to talk of sanctity of life, fine, then you eschew war, the death penalty and killing someone to defend yourself or your family. That is a consistincy I can respect, though I do not agree with it.

Using force to make a woman produce a child she may not be able to care for, or for any of the multitude of reasons is just wrong. It is unconscienable. Whatever potential of the child inside is at the protection or rejection of the woman bearing that child. Once it is free of the womb, it is beyond potential. The argumnents are too absolute in their polarity to be realistic. To say 'no' is to put an absolute into an equation where choice would leave room for all the salient facts to be thought through.

Life is not so precious that it has to be preserved at all costs. A thug on a rampage has abrogated all rights to life. A man in pain on life support deserves the mercy of choice on when to check out, and a woman has absolute authority over what is growing in her body. We cannot force her to have it or abort it. It is her choice.

 

[Mik3_D]

I am not "Pro-Life" I am "Anti-Abortion." I am for the death penalty.

Children are not criminals who deserve death for things they've done nor are they enemy soldiers threatening our rights that need to be shot down. They are INNOCENT. A woman who is carrying a child does not have the right to end an innocent life. She had the choice not to have sex or to choose one of the many effective birth control options available to you in order to prevent the pregnancy. Once you're pregnant its too late. Now there is another persons life at stake and like any parent you are responsible for it. The father of the child is also responsible for what he helped bring to the world as well. This is why sex is not "just for fun." It has serious consequences for at least 3 people involved.

If you do not want to care for the child then there is adoption. You can drop the child off at any fire station you wish.

Hitler only killed 6 million. Pro-Abortion women have killed over 40 million. This is truly a crime against humanity.

 

[allyinoh]

whats ironic are the nutcases who stand outside abortion clinics protesting and chanting about how pro life they are but wanting the staff of the clinic dead...or worse yet, the ones who actually have killed staff members, so much for being "pro life" or is that a pick and choose kinda thing?

kinda like saying you are pro life but support the death penalty

So now you are assuming that the people who stand outside of abortion clinics want the people inside dead?

Wow that's a big leap to take.

I mean, what's ironic is the people who support individualism but when it comes to something they disagree with, they are very collectivist in their thinking.

 

[allyinoh]

That was always the curious hypocrisy of the 'right-to-life' groups, but it is unique to the religious zealots, who like some of the radical elements of Islam, believe death is a good punishment for violators of custom.

You want to talk of sanctity of life, fine, then you eschew war, the death penalty and killing someone to defend yourself or your family. That is a consistincy I can respect, though I do not agree with it.

Using force to make a woman produce a child she may not be able to care for, or for any of the multitude of reasons is just wrong. It is unconscienable. Whatever potential of the child inside is at the protection or rejection of the woman bearing that child. Once it is free of the womb, it is beyond potential. The argumnents are too absolute in their polarity to be realistic. To say 'no' is to put an absolute into an equation where choice would leave room for all the salient facts to be thought through.

Life is not so precious that it has to be preserved at all costs. A thug on a rampage has abrogated all rights to life. A man in pain on life support deserves the mercy of choice on when to check out, and a woman has absolute authority over what is growing in her body. We cannot force her to have it or abort it. It is her choice.

Hey hairball and whoever else is pro-choice... Do you know how babies come about? If I remember correctly it's sex.

We all know that sex is how you get pregnant, yet there are people who do it and don't want to take responsibility of the consequences that arise out of it.

To me it boils down to TAKING RESPONSIBILITY! I think abortions are irresponsible. This is more than a "religious" issue to me.

I asked a few posts back a question about whether pro-choice people agreed with a person who kills a pregnant woman being charged with two murders and not so surprisingly I didn't get a response.

To me, to say that it's your body, your choice and if you want to kill, I mean abort your baby, that's fine because it doesn't have rights, contradicts the whole thing of a baby being counted as a person and a person being charged with it's murder! So, if someone else takes your babies life (which technically an abortionist takes your baby so that is a third party) the baby has rights but if you have someone else (an abortionist) abort your baby, it doesn't have rights?

It's either one or the other. If abortion is legal then if a pregnant woman is killed the person should be charged with one murder.

 

[jmdrake]

Need more choices (not sure/conflicted). Also, NOBODY is pro-abortion. Even people who are pro-choice do not necessarily find abortion a savory or desirable concept. Just like when folks on the other side of the argument refer to pro-lifers as "anti-choicers." It's very obvious and very manipulative political framing.

Sorry but you are wrong on this. As hard as it may seem to believe there are people who RELISH abortion. Take the abortion doctor in Kansas City who got caught eating fetuses.

http://www.kslegislature.org/commit...ony//03152005hb2503neutralDetecHowardKCPD.pdf

And don't forget that the racist Margaret Sanger who started "Planned Parenthood" did so for the sole purpose of culling the "mud races".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger
http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html

Or what about "Christian" Pat Robertson who came out and defended forced abortion in China because "they have so many people"?

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/04/16/robertson.abortion/index.html

It's not simply about protecting "choice" or "rights". Its a systematic program to help depopulate the planet. I know this is tough to swallow. I used to be pro choice myself.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[jmdrake]

That was always the curious hypocrisy of the 'right-to-life' groups, but it is unique to the religious zealots, who like some of the radical elements of Islam, believe death is a good punishment for violators of custom.

You want to talk of sanctity of life, fine, then you eschew war, the death penalty and killing someone to defend yourself or your family. That is a consistincy I can respect, though I do not agree with it.

Hmmmm....let's see. Ron Paul is pro life, against the death penalty and against unjustified wars. I would suspect that MOST people who support Ron Paul are at least anti war. So your argument is really goofy in this context.

Using force to make a woman produce a child she may not be able to care for, or for any of the multitude of reasons is just wrong.

And this woman doesn't have a choice to take the birth control pill? She doesn't have the choice to use a diaphragm and spermicide? There are even female condoms now. And why do some women not make this "choice" until MONTHS into the pregnancy? There are "morning after pills" and other very early term ways to end pregnancy. Why are there people who wait 4, 5 even 6 months into the pregnancy before making up their mind? Do you think that if a woman has a baby 6 months into the pregnancy and then throws it into the trash to die should be able to make that "choice"? Oh you say, she could give it up for adoption. But so could the woman who chooses abortion.

It is unconscienable. Whatever potential of the child inside is at the protection or rejection of the woman bearing that child. Once it is free of the womb, it is beyond potential.

So a 7 month old fetus is just a "potential" that its ok to kill, but a fetus born at 6 months is a "child" with rights? That argument is just plain stupid.

The argumnents are too absolute in their polarity to be realistic. To say 'no' is to put an absolute into an equation where choice would leave room for all the salient facts to be thought through.

Life is not so precious that it has to be preserved at all costs. A thug on a rampage has abrogated all rights to life. A man in pain on life support deserves the mercy of choice on when to check out, and a woman has absolute authority over what is growing in her body. We cannot force her to have it or abort it. It is her choice.

You're equating an unborn baby to a thug on a rampage? And besides, aren't YOU the one that started this post talking about how wrong the death penalty is? The hypocrisy of some on the pro choice side is quite salient.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[BuddyRey]

Sorry but you are wrong on this. As hard as it may seem to believe there are people who RELISH abortion. Take the abortion doctor in Kansas City who got caught eating fetuses.

http://www.kslegislature.org/commit...ony//03152005hb2503neutralDetecHowardKCPD.pdf

And don't forget that the racist Margaret Sanger who started "Planned Parenthood" did so for the sole purpose of culling the "mud races".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger
http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html

Or what about "Christian" Pat Robertson who came out and defended forced abortion in China because "they have so many people"?

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/04/16/robertson.abortion/index.html

It's not simply about protecting "choice" or "rights". Its a systematic program to help depopulate the planet. I know this is tough to swallow. I used to be pro choice myself.

Regards,

John M. Drake

In hindsight, I could have phrased my argument more effectively. Nobody, except for a very few demented individuals on the extreme and absolutist end of the pro-choice side, actually likes or endorses abortion. I say this as a fairly pro-life individual myself, who also used to be pro-choice but now has serious qualms and moral issues with it. I think either absolutist extreme is dangerous territory, just like some pro-life folks who don't believe that being pro-life precludes bombing abortion clinics (mind you, I'm not saying that this group makes up most, or even many, of the pro-life movement's ranks). My only trouble is that it's such a difficult issue, the longer I contemplate it, the more confused and conflicted I get, which is pretty rare, as normally, one's assurance in his or her belief system only grows more resolute with time and thought.

I don't reject the arguments used to support curtailing or even abolishing abortion. I only reject the terminology most people use to make the case for either position, which, whether used knowingly or unknowingly, have an implied effect of usurping moral authority or the appearance of a conscience from the opposition. Besides that, the terms are inadequate for descriptive purposes. I don't think "pro-choicers" are anti-life or pro-abortion. Many of them just have a different perception of where life begins definitively, which, when you think about it, only God knows for sure.

 

[Starks]

I reject the use of the term "Pro-Abortion" in this poll.

 

[josephadel_3]

whats ironic are the nutcases who stand outside abortion clinics protesting and chanting about how pro life they are but wanting the staff of the clinic dead...or worse yet, the ones who actually have killed staff members, so much for being "pro life" or is that a pick and choose kinda thing?

kinda like saying you are pro life but support the death penalty

Most right-to-life movements pray the rosary outside planned parenthood. You are making a blanket statement. Not all protesters want to kill the staff members, and it is absurd to say that all protesters are nutcases.