On the subject of abortion

[HannahBanana]

Nor is yours.

When did I ever say (or imply) that it was?

 

[Kroger99]

When did I ever say (or imply) that it was?

When you only pointed out that mine wasn't

 

[Kroger99]

I remember when some racial epitaphs were considered okay in certain company. Things change.

I don't, but i do remember when there was some who wanted us to think that it was okay.

 

[HannahBanana]

When you only pointed out that mine wasn't

Just because I didn't say that my opinion wasn't fact as well doesn't mean that I didn't (and don't) believe that it is factual. Omission =/= falsity.

 

[HannahBanana]

I don't, but i do remember when there was some who wanted us to think that it was okay.

And there were those who did think that it was okay. Just because you don't remember that doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

 

[Kroger99]

And there were those who did think that it was okay. Just because you don't remember that doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

This is getting silly

 

[WatersMoon110]

Your wrong.

My wrong what?

The inalienable right to life is not conditional on location. Its to keep one alive from unwarrented death by people. Surely this is so.

Surely it isn't, since that isn't how courts interpret the right to life. The right to life doesn't give one the ability to take rights away from other people.

The organs and avortion is not the same as I explained.

What is avortion? Sounds like fun.

Just because you believe it is okay to allow people to die when you could save them by donating organs doesn't mean that other people don't think it's okay to allow unborn humans to die when they could save them by allowing them to live in and off of their own body.

Personally, I feel that these two things are somewhat linked, because both result in a human not saving another human using their own body parts.

The right to bodily integrity can not overrule the right to life.

Except in cases of self defense, when it does. Oh, and in cases of people refusing to donate organs to save another's life (like in Shimp v. McFall), where it does. And, of course, in abortion, where it certainly does.

When someone needs another's body parts to continue living, I certainly feel that that person has the right to say, "No, you can't use my body."

The bodily one is cancelled by the baby having the same right. There is no such right as such anyways.

How can the right be canceled by the unborn human's right if such a right doesn't exist? You just contradicted yourself!

Abortion is based in law on the denial kills a person at all.

No. Abortion was made federally legal in the US based on the idea that women/couples and their doctors should be the only people involved in the decision to abort or keep a pregnancy (the right to privacy).

However, that doesn't mean that this is the only right that comes into play when it comes to abortion. Myself, and many other people, believe that the right to control one's own body includes the right to deny use of one's body to anyone else. And, I also believe, this right includes the right of a pregnant woman to deny use of her body to an unborn human at any point in the pregnancy. Thus, since her only option to deny use of her body to the unborn human before it is medically viable is abortion, abortion must be kept legal and elective (until there is an equally safe alternative).

You got to do better if you want o persuade those who believe abortion kills a person.

Oh, but you just stating your opinions as facts is going to convince those of us who believe that a pregnant woman retains the right to control her own body?

Though I'm not trying to convince you. Obviously, my logical arguments aren't going to change your mind. I believe that the only people who might be convinced by anyone's posts are undecided lurkers.

 

[WatersMoon110]

I was just making an observation that both have the same views, which is true. You see, I'm old enough to remember when they changed their name.

No, you aren't. Since the Pro-Choice side was never called "Pro-Abortion" by anyone who wasn't Pro-Life. It's an insult, and any curious person would use the preferred names to refer to people on both sides of this issue. Before choosing the term "Pro-Choice" such people probably would have preferred to be called "Women's Right Activists" or some similar term.

Currently, "Pro-Abortion" refers to people who believe that all pregnancies should end in abortion. Obviously, these people differ from most people on the Pro-Choice side of the issue, who believe that pregnant women deserve the right to choose for themselves if they want to keep or terminate a pregnancy.

 

[Kroger99]

No, you aren't. Since the Pro-Choice side was never called "Pro-Abortion" by anyone who wasn't Pro-Life. It's an insult, and any curious person would use the preferred names to refer to people on both sides of this issue. Before choosing the term "Pro-Choice" such people probably would have preferred to be called "Women's Right Activists" or some similar term.

Currently, "Pro-Abortion" refers to people who believe that all pregnancies should end in abortion. Obviously, these people differ from most people on the Pro-Choice side of the issue, who believe that pregnant women deserve the right to choose for themselves if they want to keep or terminate a pregnancy.

Sorry, but that is not correct. The term "Pro-Choice" became popular by Bill Clinton in his 1992 Presidential bid when he switch from "Pro-Life" to "Pro-Choice" so he could get the Democrat Nomination. (Same with Al Gore). Up until that point, the popular term was "Pro-Abortion", which had the same meaning as todays "Pro-Choice". It didn't sound as evil, so they switched.

It's really just a political term invented by politicians like the republicans "Compasionate Conservitive", which means Liberal Republican. Don't sweat it... it will come back around....lol

 

[HannahBanana]

Sorry, but that is not correct. The term "Pro-Choice" became popular by Bill Clinton in his 1992 Presidential bid when he switch from "Pro-Life" to "Pro-Choice" so he could get the Democrat Nomination. (Same with Al Gore). Up until that point, the popular term was "Pro-Abortion", which had the same meaning as todays "Pro-Choice". It didn't sound as evil, so they switched.

Got any actual proof to support that claim?

 

[Kroger99]

Got any actual proof to support that claim?

God Lord... I feel like I'm debating with a 12 year old child. You can't posibly be 20. Do a little research hon, at Bill clintons 92 campaign. Research his pro-life stance on issues as Governer of Arkansas. and his position as pro-choice democrat preidential hopeful. He made repeated remarks stating that he was not pro-abortion. he was "pro-choice". That, my dear child was the birth of the political term.... "pro-choice".

Good Day

 

[LightHorseman]

God Lord... I feel like I'm debating with a 12 year old child. You can't posibly be 20. Do a little research hon, at Bill clintons 92 campaign. Research his pro-life stance on issues as Governer of Arkansas. and his position as pro-choice democrat preidential hopeful. He made repeated remarks stating that he was not pro-abortion. he was "pro-choice". That, my dear child was the birth of the political term.... "pro-choice".

Good Day

The organization known as NARAL, National Abortion Rights Action League, was founded in 1969 by Betty Friedan and others as the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, and described themselves as pro-choice.

PRO-CHOICE -- ".This term surfaced in sloganeering to avoid the harness of 'pro-abortion.' This inspired use of 'choice'.reflected polls that showed more people identifying themselves as being 'in favor of a woman's right to choose' than 'in favor of legal abortion.' Alan L. Otten of the 'Wall Street Journal' first used the term in print." That was in a March 20, 1975 article.

http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/52/messages/423.html

Sure does suck when people don't do adequate research, huh Kroger?

 

[Kroger99]

http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/52/messages/423.html

Sure does suck when people don't do adequate research, huh Kroger?

Nope... Don't suck at all. I said that it was "made popular" by Bill Clinton during his 92 presidential campaign. Either way.... The Pro-Choice crowd has the same views as the Pro-Abortion. The views are the same. Both want Abortion available for anyone who chooses it for whatever reason they choose. There is no difference. Both are ok with killing babies. If you are so proud of you beleifs... stop hiding behind them. Be proud to support the killing of babies. It's okay.... Baby killing is legal in this country.

 

[HannahBanana]

Nope... Don't suck at all. I said that it was "made popular" by Bill Clinton during his 92 presidential campaign. Either way.... The Pro-Choice crowd has the same views as the Pro-Abortion. The views are the same. Both want Abortion available for anyone who chooses it for whatever reason they choose. There is no difference. Both are ok with killing babies. If you are so proud of you beleifs... stop hiding behind them. Be proud to support the killing of babies. It's okay.... Baby killing is legal in this country.

So why exactly are you completely ignoring the fact that pro-choicers are fine with women choosing to put their baby up for adoption or choosing motherhood? You're making it seem like pro-choicers want all pregnant women to get abortions, which is blatantly untrue. Seems like you're the one who needs to do some research.

 

[Kroger99]

So why exactly are you completely ignoring the fact that pro-choicers are fine with women choosing to put their baby up for adoption or choosing motherhood? You're making it seem like pro-choicers want all pregnant women to get abortions, which is blatantly untrue. Seems like you're the one who needs to do some research.

I never said nor asumed that.

Do you think that any woman should have the option to abort a baby/fetus/whatever you want to call it, whenever she chooses and for whatever reason she chooses?

 

[HannahBanana]

I never said nor asumed that.

Do you think that any woman should have the option to abort a baby/fetus/whatever you want to call it, whenever she chooses and for whatever reason she chooses?

Yes, but I also think that a woman should be able to put her child up for adoption whenever she chooses and for whatever reason she chooses, and I think that a woman should be able to choose motherhood whenever she chooses and for whatever reason she chooses.

 

[Kroger99]

Yes, but I also think that a woman should be able to put her child up for adoption whenever she chooses and for whatever reason she chooses, and I think that a woman should be able to choose motherhood whenever she chooses and for whatever reason she chooses.

See.... You agree with those people that I used to debate with that called themselves Pro-Abortion. Those same people now call themselves Pro-Choice. Their views didn't change... just their name.

 

[HannahBanana]

See.... You agree with those people that I used to debate with that called themselves Pro-Abortion. Those same people now call themselves Pro-Choice. Their views didn't change... just their name.

And you haven't been able to provide me with proof that "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion" both used to mean the same thing, why, exactly? When I asked for that proof, all you did was throw ad hominems at me.

 

[Kroger99]

And you haven't been able to provide me with proof that "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion" both used to mean the same thing, why, exactly? When I asked for that proof, all you did was throw ad hominems at me.

Do you know anyone who is Pro-Abortion?

 

[HannahBanana]

Do you know anyone who is Pro-Abortion?

Not personally, no. But I do know that there are such a thing as "pro-abortion" people who do want every pregnant woman to get an abortion.

BTW, I'm still waiting for that proof, Kroger.