Abortion Questions

[aimejl]

(1) "Pro-abortionists say that outlawing abortion would restrict a woman’s right to privacy. Is that right absolute? Does somebody’s right to privacy exceed another’s right to live?"

(2) "If what you say is true and the issue isn’t really abortion but a woman’s right to control her own body, why doesn’t your agenda include drugs and prostitution? Aren’t laws against those just as restrictive to a woman’s right to choose what she will and will not do with her own body, as laws against abortion are?"

(3) "Why is it that the very people who say the government should stay out of abortion are the same ones who want the government to pay for them?"

(4) "Abortion advocates say they are in business to help women. Other than offering to kill their children for them, what are you doing?"

(5) "Pro-abortionists say that the unborn child is part of the mother’s body. If that is so, why does it have a completely different genetic code and often a different blood type? How do you explain the fact that it has it’s own immune system? Why is it male about half the time?"

(6) "If we use the absence of brain waves to determine that a person’s life has ended, why shouldn’t we use the presence of brain waves to determine that someone’s life has begun?"

(7) "Since you say that your interest is in protecting women, what is your position on these at home, do-it-yourself, abortion kits now being offered by many abortion advocates? Also, do you feel it’s ethical for them to advise women to avoid the gynecologist’s office for not only these procedures, but regular check-ups as well?"

(

"We are now seeing the unborn being treated for disease, given blood transfusions and even operated on. When a doctor does one of these procedures, who is the patient?"

(9) "Pro-abortionists try to justify their actions by saying that, while the unborn may be human, it’s not a ‘person’. Can you give a detailed description of the differences?"

(10) "Pro-abortionists base a significant part of their argument on the concept of viability. Can you give me a description of what it means for someone to be viable?"

(11) "Does it bother you that abortion is legal after the point where medical science has evidence that the unborn child feels pain?"

(12) "Why is it that abortion advocates say they want women to have all their options, but they then fight so hard against laws requiring totally informed consent?"

(13) "What rights do you feel a father should have in an abortion decision?"

(14) "Why is it that pro-abortionists fight so viciously to keep parents from having a say in whether their minor daughter has an abortion or not?"

(15) "If pro-abortionists are mainly concerned with the health and safety of women, why do they fight so hard against medical standards as legitimate out-patient surgery clinics?"

(16) "Let’s look at a hypothetical situation: two women become pregnant on the same day; six and a half months later woman A has a premature, yet healthy, baby; woman B is still pregnant; a week later each decides she doesn’t want her baby. Why should woman B be allowed to kill hers and not woman A?"

(17) "If it became absolutely clear to you that the unborn child is a living human being, would you then favor outlawing abortion?"

(18) "Why don’t we each look at the downside of our respective positions? Have you ever thought about what the ramifications are if you are wrong?"

(19) "When it was first discovered that the brain cells of aborted babies were a potential treatment for Parkinson’s Disease, the ABC NEWS program, NIGHTLINE, carried a story about a woman who’s father suffered with this malady. She wanted to be impregnated with the sperm of her father, for the purpose of creating a child, which would then be aborted, and it’s parts used to treat him. Do you see anything wrong with this?"

(20) "Should a woman be allowed to have an abortion for absolutely any reason, such as sex selection, selective reduction, or job promotion? If not, when not?"

(21) "I am going to take the liberty of characterizing your position, and then I want you to tell me where I’m wrong. You want abortion to be legal right up to the moment of birth, in other words for all nine months of pregnancy; for any reason whatsoever, for no reason whatsoever; for a minor girl of any age, without parental consent, without even parental knowledge; and if she can’t pay for it, you think the taxpayer ought to. Is there anything inaccurate about that statement?"

(22)How can abortion be a “fundamental right” if it is not found in the text of the Constitution and was never recognized as a right in American history prior to Roe v. Wade?

 

[MoonLancer]

(1) "Pro-abortionists say that outlawing abortion would restrict a woman’s right to privacy. Is that right absolute? Does somebody’s right to privacy exceed another’s right to live?

PLEASE, if you want respect at least respect those you are arguing against. throwing around words like Pro Abortion is like trying to have a nice conversation with a black person and casually sitting next to them and using the slang for negro. Use the right words or don't use them at all. No one is PRO abortion. Its a loaded word. If you cant understand that you wont understand the agreement and thus making it futile to ague against.

 

[aimejl]

I would like to say if you don't want to answer the questions don't post. I use pro-abortion because anyone who is "pro-choice" is also in my opinion pro-abortion.

 

[MoonLancer]

I would like to say if you don't want to answer the questions don't post. I use pro-abortion because anyone who is "pro-choice" is also in my opinion pro-abortion.

I was going to answer all your questions, but you clearly do not wish to have a conversation with the people you are asking the questions of. I will say it again. No one is pro abortion. What you are suggesting is fallacious or at the very least, slanders. The equivalent would be to call you anti-personal rights. Its ridiculous, but then again so is the word you are using.

 

[Fin12]

I would like to say if you don't want to answer the questions don't post. I use pro-abortion because anyone who is "pro-choice" is also in my opinion pro-abortion.

Wrong, I am against abortion, but pro choice.

 

[aimejl]

Then answer them! I am anti-abortion that is that. You have seen my opinion on the subject. If you insist on being off topic then private message me. I answered your concerns about my wording that is the wording I use and you use your own. Please answer the questions that is how everyone is to stay on topic. We shall debate after you have answered the questions in my first post. Have a terrific and God blessed day.

 

[aimejl]

Fin I would like to respectfully disagree with that. Abortion is not a choice. A woman who choose to commit an abortion is running from her situation instead of facing.

 

[b&wpac4]

Too many questions, so I'll just copy/paste what I said on another thread:

I am, generally speaking, against abortion being used as a form of birth control. That said, in cases where the life of the mother is at stake, it should be between her and her doctors as to what occurs. I also don't feel it is my place to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body or make any medical decisions for her. I'm not big on imposing my beliefs on others.

In some religions, a woman would be required to get an abortion done if her life was in danger.

 

[aimejl]

The Holy Bible clearly states that your body belongs to God. Your body is the temple in which God's Spirit resides, i.e., your body is God's temple, which houses your soul. Any unborn baby developing inside of you is part of God's temple. When you disrespect your body in any way, e.g., by abusing drugs or alcohol, or by engaging in sexual intercourse with anyone except your spouse in marriage, or by submitting to an abortion (except in the rare situation of a necessity to save your life), you dishonor God and defile His temple entrusted to you. Furthermore, Jesus Christ was crucified to heal your body and to save you from your sins. When you disrespect your body in any manner, you belittle (demean) Jesus' sacrifice for you.
Romans 12:1: Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God-- this is your spiritual act of worship. 1 Corinthians 3:16-17: Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple, and that God's Spirit lives in you? 17If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple. 1 Corinthians 6:19-20:
Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own: 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

 

[b&wpac4]

The Holy Bible clearly states that your body belongs to God. Your body is the temple in which God's Spirit resides, i.e., your body is God's temple, which houses your soul. Any unborn baby developing inside of you is part of God's temple. When you disrespect your body in any way, e.g., by abusing drugs or alcohol, or by engaging in sexual intercourse with anyone except your spouse in marriage, or by submitting to an abortion (except in the rare situation of a necessity to save your life), you dishonor God and defile His temple entrusted to you. Furthermore, Jesus Christ was crucified to heal your body and to save you from your sins. When you disrespect your body in any manner, you belittle (demean) Jesus' sacrifice for you.
Romans 12:1: Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God-- this is your spiritual act of worship. 1 Corinthians 3:16-17: Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple, and that God's Spirit lives in you? 17If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple. 1 Corinthians 6:19-20:
Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own: 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

This in answer to me or you just saying?

 

[aimejl]

This in answer to me or you just saying?

Sorry for not clarifying that it was in response to you.

• 
  [*]"Pro-life" versus "pro-choice." A person who opposes abortion is "pro-life." Should not a person with the opposite viewpoint be labeled "pro-death?" An abortion always results in the death of the baby.
  [*]"Choice." Why use "choice?" Whose choice is it? The pregnant mother may choose abortion because she wants to rid herself of the pregnancy. The abortionist and the abortion clinic choose abortion because they are engaged in this profitable business. But, the unborn baby is never given a choice. Most of us are grateful our mothers did not abort us. Our choice now is life. Why take the choice for life away from an unborn baby merely because he or she is weak, defenseless, and cannot speak?
  [*]"Commit" versus "perform." Many Americans believe abortion is murder. We say a person "commits" murder, but "performs" abortion. "Perform" sanitizes the procedure as being little more than an appendectomy. Would it be more consistent to say "commit abortion"?
  [*]"Pregnancy termination." Abortion sounds more like a routine medical procedure, when it is referred to as "pregnancy termination," rather than the equally accurate "killing an unborn baby."
  [*]"Fetus" versus "baby." While "fetus" is an acceptable term for an unborn baby from about the third month of pregnancy, the use of this word makes the unborn baby more a cold, clinical object than a beloved, human person. For example, a woman who plans to deliver her baby excitedly tells everyone she is going to have a "baby," whereas a woman who plans to have an abortion talks about her "fetus."

 

[b&wpac4]

Sorry for not clarifying that it was in response to you.

You shouldn't use that to me though. Not a Christian here. Good advice for Christians, however.

 

[aimejl]

You shouldn't use that to me though. Not a Christian here. Good advice for Christians, however.

you are a seeker though so I could use any religious reference I wanted.

 

[b&wpac4]

you are a seeker though so I could use any religious reference I wanted.

Yes, you could. It just doesn't have any "kick" for me.

As I said, I am against abortions being used for birth control. I also don't think Roe v Wade is going to be overturned, so abortions are going to be legal in this country for the foreseeable future. The best best is to stop using terms like "pro-death" or "baby butcher" or any other phrase that incites people to anger.

Education and programs to help women who are in a situation where they don't know what to do or who to turn to are the best bet. You can reduce the number of abortions. That seems like a good goal.

 

[aimejl]

Yes, you could. It just doesn't have any "kick" for me.

As I said, I am against abortions being used for birth control. I also don't think Roe v Wade is going to be overturned, so abortions are going to be legal in this country for the foreseeable future. The best best is to stop using terms like "pro-death" or "baby butcher" or any other phrase that incites people to anger.

Education and programs to help women who are in a situation where they don't know what to do or who to turn to are the best bet. You can reduce the number of abortions. That seems like a good goal.

baby butcher is actually quite accurate because pregnancy termination is butcher a baby and it results in the death of a living being so in essence pro-death is also quite accurate to use when debating this issue. My goal is to not only reduce the number of pregnancy terminations that are committed but ultimately the banning of pregnancy termination.

 

[b&wpac4]

baby butcher is actually quite accurate because pregnancy termination is butcher a baby and it results in the death of a living being so in essence pro-death is also quite accurate to use when debating this issue. My goal is to not only reduce the number of pregnancy terminations that are committed but ultimately the banning of pregnancy termination.

and inciting anger in opponents, those who are on the fence about the issue, and even those on your side that would find offense at such terms helps your cause how?

I mean, do I really have to explain basic public relations to you so that you'll understand how to attract more flies with honey than "baby butcher"? Once you start name-calling, people get put on guard and no matter how elegant your argument is after that point, you have failed.

 

[Jade Margery]

Excellent questions! I am sure most of them have been answered from time to time in other threads, but it's understandable not to want to sift through all of those threads.

(1) "Pro-abortionists say that outlawing abortion would restrict a woman’s right to privacy. Is that right absolute? Does somebody’s right to privacy exceed another’s right to live?"

First off, there is a reason we refer to ourselves as pro-choice and not pro-abortion. Personally, there are very few cases in which I would have an abortion, most involving health or rape. I don't think abortions are good things that should be common, I think they are an alternative that needs to be available to desperate women who, for one reason or another, find carrying out a pregnancy unfeasible.

And yes, a person's right to privacy does exceed another's right to life when it comes to the privacy of our own bodies. This is best illustrated in organ donor cases, and, since I get tired of rephrasing myself, I hope you don't mind the quoted arguments:

Fault or self-determination do not mean a person loses their rights to their own body. For example, if you decided you wanted to give a kidney to a dying child, you could go through all the preparations and all they procedures and even be on your way to the operating room, but one 'NO, I changed my mind' from you would be enough to cancel the transfer. Never mind the kid might, or even will, die without the transfer. It's your body, it's your right to decide what happens to the parts of it.

Even if another person's predicament is your fault, this does not change. Suppose you are driving and talking on your cellphone at the same time and you hit someone by accident. You're fine, but they are in the hospital in critical condition. There is no law that says you must give them any organs you can live without, or that you must donate blood if you are the same blood type. You're welcome to do so if you like, but accidents do not mean you lose the right to your body. See?

Let me give you this scenario. Suppose your three year old cousin was undergoing a dangerous treatment for a serious illness. For the purposes of this fictitious disease, let us suppose that in order for her to survive, she and one other person must be hooked up to a machine together and, for reasons of genetics and personal health, you are the only person in your family who could be hooked up with her.

You must stay attached to the machine for nine months for her to survive.

For many people, this would be a no-brain situation, and they would gladly choose to sacrifice their freedom for nine months.

But what if someone did not want to do this, even if they were the only person that could? Should the law step in and tell them they have to? Should they be charged with murder if they refuse and the girl dies? Are they wrong to want to control their own bodies? What if at first they agree, but four months in change their mind, is it murder then? Should they be forced to continue against their will?

How is pregnancy different from this? The mother is, essentially, a life support system for the zygote--a living one with her own sets of rights and privileges. We own so little in this world. Only our bodies are truly ours. Would you take them away from someone for any reason?

My right to control my own body means I can say no to anyone who wants to use it for a different purpose. No matter what that purpose is, no matter how good, to force me to provide for it against my will is abhorrent.

(2) "If what you say is true and the issue isn’t really abortion but a woman’s right to control her own body, why doesn’t your agenda include drugs and prostitution? Aren’t laws against those just as restrictive to a woman’s right to choose what she will and will not do with her own body, as laws against abortion are?"

Actually, a lot of pro-choicers are also for legalizing drugs and regulating prostitution. Those laws are not quite as restrictive as anti-abortion laws would be though, because the anti-abortion stance would force a women to do something with her body that she doesn't want to do, as opposed to preventing her from doing something that she does. Which is more violating--telling a person they can't have a sandwich, or shoving a sandwich in their mouth? But I at least feel that the laws on drugs and prostitution are little better than prohibition in the 1920's. Outlawing something that has always existed and will always exist does not make it go away--it just forces it into the dark where it is easier for people to get hurt and where no one cares or notices when they do.

(3) "Why is it that the very people who say the government should stay out of abortion are the same ones who want the government to pay for them?"

I'm... not sure where you're coming from with this. I would support government health care covering abortions made for health reasons, the same way any insurance company would. Otherwise, I don't see why the government should pay for them. Do you have any examples of this that concern you?

(4) "Abortion advocates say they are in business to help women. Other than offering to kill their children for them, what are you doing?"

Aw, I'm sensing hostility here.

Well, it is generally pro-choice advocates who set up planned parenthoods and women's clinics where free information and contraceptives can be obtained and check-ups, sonograms, pap-smears, and other lady-related medical procedures may be obtained cheaply or even for free. Some of these clinics also offer abortion services, and these tend to overshadow their other beneficial uses to the point where protestors outside think that every woman going in is planning to have an abortion and treated as such. This makes me a sad panda because it means women with medical concerns may think twice about visiting a place where they can get those concerns easily addressed.

As for the abortions themselves, they offer women a chance to do whatever it was they needed to do instead of having a baby, such as finishing their education, working for their living, getting out of a bad relationship, etc.

(5) "Pro-abortionists say that the unborn child is part of the mother’s body. If that is so, why does it have a completely different genetic code and often a different blood type? How do you explain the fact that it has it’s own immune system? Why is it male about half the time?"

Genetically, the zygote is distinct from its mother, this is true.

(6) "If we use the absence of brain waves to determine that a person’s life has ended, why shouldn’t we use the presence of brain waves to determine that someone’s life has begun?"

That is one method of determining the beginning of life, sure.

(7) "Since you say that your interest is in protecting women, what is your position on these at home, do-it-yourself, abortion kits now being offered by many abortion advocates? Also, do you feel it’s ethical for them to advise women to avoid the gynecologist’s office for not only these procedures, but regular check-ups as well?"

I've never heard of such things before, actually. Do you have any links to pro-choice sites that provide these? It is of course always unethical to advise someone not to see a doctor in relation to medical procedures. This sounds incredibly shady and I can't imagine someone seriously championing these. I suppose I could understand using an at-home abortion method if you were within the first two or three weeks of pregnancy, perhaps with some sort of injested drug, but anything invasive should be done in a sterile, surgical enviroment or it puts the woman at a terrible risk.

(

"We are now seeing the unborn being treated for disease, given blood transfusions and even operated on. When a doctor does one of these procedures, who is the patient?"

In these cases both mother and child would be patients, since both of them would be affected by the procedures. I am betting, however, that most hospitals just put the mother's name down on the forms and leave it at that.

(9) "Pro-abortionists try to justify their actions by saying that, while the unborn may be human, it’s not a ‘person’. Can you give a detailed description of the differences?"

I don't generally argue on the person-or-not debate; it is pretty irrelevant to me, especially since "person" is such a subjective term.

(10) "Pro-abortionists base a significant part of their argument on the concept of viability. Can you give me a description of what it means for someone to be viable?"

Hmm, I haven't heard that word specifically, so it could mean several things. It might be referring to whether or not the fetus has any abnormalities that would prevent them from enjoying a full life. More likely, it refers to how a fetus or zygote cannot survive outside the womb. Not sure though.

(11) "Does it bother you that abortion is legal after the point where medical science has evidence that the unborn child feels pain?"

Yes, if anysthetics are not used. Otherwise, not really. I do feel that partial-birth abortions should be disallowed in cases where the baby could survive outside of the mother though. Unless there is a medical issue with labor, it seems that a premie baby or an abortion would both satisfy the woman's desire not to be pregnant. The first option is better.

(12) "Why is it that abortion advocates say they want women to have all their options, but they then fight so hard against laws requiring totally informed consent?"

Again, could you provide a link to an example so we know what you are talking about? Without a good example, the best I can offer is that such laws would probably put procedures in place that would delay a woman from obtaining an abortion, and with late term abortions outlawed in most states with few places offering to perform them, time is of the essence for a woman who wants to abort.

(13) "What rights do you feel a father should have in an abortion decision?"

He has every right to try to persuade the woman otherwise if he does not want it to happen, and to withdraw his support from her if she continues, but ultimately it is her body that is being used to support the baby and her choice whether that use should be continued.

 

[Jade Margery]

(14) "Why is it that pro-abortionists fight so viciously to keep parents from having a say in whether their minor daughter has an abortion or not?"

Perhaps because you don't magically become more intelligent when you turn eighteen. A parent's views may not be mirrored by their child, who just wants to go back to school and have a normal life. Parent-child relationships aren't always good either--perhaps the girl does not want her parents to know about the abortion or the pregnancy. It is better to offer quiet services than to have the girl try to abort on her own or carry the baby secretly and then dump it once born. This happens tragically often and there is no reason for it.

Also, from this site:

"When teens feel they cannot tell their parents, they have compelling reasons, such as mentally ill or chemically dependent parents, family violence or incest. Laws cannot mandate good family communications. Desperate teens seek illegal abortion or even commit suicide rather than tell their parents. Parental consent laws are bad medicine and bad legislation. Responsible parents open the doors of communication themselves; they do not expect government to do it for them. Parental consent/notice laws are a form of parents abdicating responsibility to the government to curb the decisions teens may make."

(15) "If pro-abortionists are mainly concerned with the health and safety of women, why do they fight so hard against medical standards as legitimate out-patient surgery clinics?"

Link please? This sounds like some buearocratic hob-nobbing to me, I'm not sure what you're referring to.

(16) "Let’s look at a hypothetical situation: two women become pregnant on the same day; six and a half months later woman A has a premature, yet healthy, baby; woman B is still pregnant; a week later each decides she doesn’t want her baby. Why should woman B be allowed to kill hers and not woman A?"

As previously referenced, if the baby is capable of being born premie, I don't think she should be able to kill it. She should be able to terminate the pregnancy, and both women should be able to put the babies up for adoption.

(17) "If it became absolutely clear to you that the unborn child is a living human being, would you then favor outlawing abortion?"

It is quite clear to me that it is, and my decision remains the same. Please see above with the organ donor/machine quotes.

(18) "Why don’t we each look at the downside of our respective positions? Have you ever thought about what the ramifications are if you are wrong?"

I have, actually. Many pro-lifers make eloquent, passionate debates against abortion that I have carefully considered. I enjoy seeing things from the other side, and I feel that some of them have some very good points.

As for the ramifications, well... the world would just be a little different, wouldn't it? My mother had a miscarriage after her fourth child--it was sad at the time, but we never miss it or think about it, and since then she has had two more children who are the best kids I've ever known. If she'd had the baby instead of the miscarriage, my little brother and sister never would have existed. Would that be sad? Not really, I never would have known them, I would care about the other kid instead.

Most women are going to have babies at some point in their lives, even women who aborted in the past. If I had reason to abort a baby, and then later had one under better circumstances, would I regret the aborted one? I do not think I would, because without that decision, I never would have the son/daughter I did give birth to. The whole deal of ramifications, what-if's and possibilities is a neutral issue to me.

(19) "When it was first discovered that the brain cells of aborted babies were a potential treatment for Parkinson’s Disease, the ABC NEWS program, NIGHTLINE, carried a story about a woman who’s father suffered with this malady. She wanted to be impregnated with the sperm of her father, for the purpose of creating a child, which would then be aborted, and it’s parts used to treat him. Do you see anything wrong with this?"

Yeah, that's totally gross. I mean, ew. Ew. Ew. Ew.

(20) "Should a woman be allowed to have an abortion for absolutely any reason, such as sex selection, selective reduction, or job promotion? If not, when not?"

A woman's reason for having an abortion is a private thing that is only the business of her and possibly her doctors. But yes, 'any reason' as you put it, should be allowed. The right doesn't change just because it's for selfish reasons.

(21) "I am going to take the liberty of characterizing your position, and then I want you to tell me where I’m wrong. You want abortion to be legal right up to the moment of birth, in other words for all nine months of pregnancy; for any reason whatsoever, for no reason whatsoever; for a minor girl of any age, without parental consent, without even parental knowledge; and if she can’t pay for it, you think the taxpayer ought to. Is there anything inaccurate about that statement?"

As previously mentioned, I do not think that up to the moment of birth should be allowed if the child can survive as a premie.

(22)How can abortion be a “fundamental right” if it is not found in the text of the Constitution and was never recognized as a right in American history prior to Roe v. Wade?

There are many rights which we now recognize that were not historically supported. Many of these are civil rights, and abortion is no different.

The fourteenth amendment is the basis for this argument, which pretty much added to the laws the statement about life, liberty and pursuit of happiness already so popular in the Declaration of Independance. Quote: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

The Supreme Court is made up of a bunch of old dudes and dudettes wearing long robes who spend most of their time studying the Constitution (or playing basketball on the roof, I kid you not) and it is their job to determine what is law and what is not. The original framers of the Constitution could not foresee what the future would be, could not account for any possibility in their lawmaking. Jefferson himself said it was foolish to expect a country to be ruled by the same law for so many years, what with the rate of progress being what it was. The Supreme Court keeps things current while simultaneously protecting the rights that the founding fathers guaranteed. Their decision in Roe V. Wade was an update, based on the rights of privacy, liberty, and due process.


As a final note, it is hardly in good sport to re-name the other team. Pro-choicers call themselves pro-choice, pro-lifers call themselves pro-life. Would you like us to call you pro-tyranny? How about Anti-privacy? Pro-government-controlled-body-laws? Kindly refrain from calling us pro-abortionists. Abortions aren't pleasant. I would be as happy as anyone if there were no more need for them, I'm not out there trying to kill as many babies as I can. I just respect women enough to trust them to decide whether they want to reproduce or not.


((WOW! I did not even know there was a words-per-post limit, let alone that I could hit it. Anyone who reads all this gets a cookie. ))

 

[Jade Margery]

Amusingly, if I could type as fast as I think, I would have been the first responder to this thread. As it is, things have wandered away from the questions a bit.

Aimejl, I cannot help but feel that your questions were posed not to understand the pro-choice reasoning but to challenge and undermine it--not an unusual choice of rhetoric but not one from which you will learn much either. I encourage you to read my answers with an open mind.

 

[aimejl]

and inciting anger in opponents, those who are on the fence about the issue, and even those on your side that would find offense at such terms helps your cause how?

I mean, do I really have to explain basic public relations to you so that you'll understand how to attract more flies with honey than "baby butcher"? Once you start name-calling, people get put on guard and no matter how elegant your argument is after that point, you have failed.

I shall not ever sugar coat what they really are a baby-butcher. If pro-death/pro-abortion people get offended it is because they know they are wrong and they know they have been outed. Anti-abortion/Pro-lifers get called names all the time why don't you give that little speech to your pro-abortion/pro-death allies.