Pro-Abortion?

[brightmorningstar]

mdancin4theLord,

If you went to the polls to vote on abortion and there were two levers to pull. The first one pro-choice that allows a woman to kill...the second is pro-life and against abortion except to save the mothers life.....which one would you pull?

If you pull lever 1 you condone abortion enough to want it legal so that the woman who wanted to kill could. How is lever 1 pro-life?

Excellent respose!!

In that respose is choice, if Archivist can chose to pull lever 1 or 2.

Pulling lever 1 means pro-killing by choice. The objection means the choice is to allow the mother to kill the unborn, so pro-abortion IS a much better description than pro-choice.

There is this week a vote in the UK to allow independant advice to be given to mothers about abortion instead of it being given just by the abortion providers. Ranged against allowing this provision are the liberals the likes of which also campaigned sucessfully for two women to be allowed to appear on a birth certificate even when the father is known.
This people are super intelligent accademics and despise Christianity. How are we to put forward debate based on reality to people who are in fantasy land and seen as the cream of intellect?
Its a spiritual battle.

 

[katautumn]

Quite frankly, I think the labels pro-choice and pro-life are inaccurate and misleading. A person may not support abortion, but may support war and capital punishment. The term pro-life would imply they support the sanctity of all human life. Pro-choice is misleading, because there are many reproductive choices out there that run the gamut from sexual abstinence to abortion, but if you disapprove of only one of those choices, you're suddenly disqualified from labeling yourself as "pro-choice".

I'd rather see people be more honest and concise when it comes to abortion, specifically, as a stand-alone issue. I don't care if someone supports capital punishment, war, birth control pills, giving a baby up for adoption - I only care about your abortion stance in an abortion discussion. You're either pro (for) abortion rights or you're anti (against) abortion rights. You can be pro-life for prisoners in some other debate and anti-the choice to give a baby up for adoption in another. When it comes down to it you're either for or against abortion. Not as a procedure itself, mind you, but rather access to the procedure. Being pro-abortion doesn't have to mean you think all women should terminate their pregnancies any more than be anti-abortion means you think women who take birth control pills are whoremongering murderers.

The semantics here shouldn't be so darn complicated.

 

[brightmorningstar]

KatAutumn,

Quite frankly, I think the labels pro-choice and pro-life are inaccurate and misleading.

Well though we may have agreed they arent the best we know what they stand for.

A person may not support abortion, but may support war and capital punishment.

And the two are completely different, pro-choice abortion is the mother’s right to choose whether to kill her unborn baby, war may not be choice and the capital punishment is for a crime and thus not choice either. Do you see that?

Being pro-abortion doesn't have to mean you think all women should terminate their pregnancies

Allowing women to choose to kill their unborn is being pro abortion.

 

[katautumn]

KatAutumn,
Well though we may have agreed they arent the best we know what they stand for.

True, but I prefer the terms pro or anti abortion.

And the two are completely different, pro-choice abortion is the mother’s right to choose whether to kill her unborn baby, war may not be choice and the capital punishment is for a crime and thus not choice either. Do you see that?

We're in agreement here.

Allowing women to choose to kill their unborn is being pro abortion.

Agreed, just as feeling abortion should be banned would make some anti-abortion. I'm comfortable with those labels, personally. For example, if I feel abortion should only be used in the most severe medical emergencies, but I have no problem with other reproductive choices like adoption, programs that give women incentive to raise their children, and birth control that means I'm in favor of many reproductive choices. In that respect, I am pro-choice. I don't believe the only choice a woman should have is to "keep her legs closed". But I also think that abortion is a great tragedy and does more to hurt women than empower them in the long-run.

 

[mandyangel]

There are so many choices women have now that don't involve killing. There is no need for the brutal practice in society to continue. It should be outlawed. JMHO

 

[lux et lex]

There are so many choices women have now that don't involve killing. There is no need for the brutal practice in society to continue. It should be outlawed. JMHO

Because if it were outlawed it wouldn't happen. I see.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Lux et Lex,

Because if it were outlawed it wouldn't happen. I see.

or rather you dont see.

 

[mdancin4theLord]

KatAutumn,
Well though we may have agreed they arent the best we know what they stand for.
And the two are completely different, pro-choice abortion is the mother’s right to choose whether to kill her unborn baby, war may not be choice and the capital punishment is for a crime and thus not choice either. Do you see that?
Allowing women to choose to kill their unborn is being pro abortion.

What you said here.....is so so simple.

Allowing women to choose to kill their unborn is being pro-abortion. They want abortion legal.

Yet they maintain they are not for abortion. LOL

Can you believe that?

 

[lux et lex]

Lux et Lex,
or rather you dont see.

Of course I "don't see" because it is a ridiculous assertion. If abortion is illegal, they will still happen. Please refer to: Gerri Santoro - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[mdancin4theLord]

Of course I "don't see" because it is a ridiculous assertion. If abortion is illegal, they will still happen. Please refer to: Gerri Santoro - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well sure they will....rape is illegal but they still happen. Should we legalize that?

Banning abortion would save most those babies who would have been murdered because the majority of women would stand up and do the right thing.

Even PP says that before Roe.......most illegal abortions were done in doctors offices. The coat hanger is a myth .....put out there by the pro-abort crowed.

“Since 90% of pre-1973 illegal abortions were done by doctors, it’s safe to assume many physicians would continue to give abortions.”
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'] [/font]
From the book, “Pro-life Answers to Pro-choice Questions,” by Randy Alcorn
173.

“For decades prior to abortion being legalized in the United States around 85% of illegal abortions were done by reputable doctors in their local clinics.”

Alfred Kinsey, Abortion Questions and Answers (Cincinnati, Ohio: Hayes Publishing
Co., 1988), 169.

In 1960, Planned Parenthood stated that 90% of all illegal abortions are presently done by physicians.”
Mary Calderone, Illegal Abortion as a Public Health Problem,” American Journal of Health 50 (July 1960): 949


“Research confirms that the actual number of abortion deaths in the 25 year prior to 1973 averaged 250 a year, with a high of 388 in 1948.”
In 1966 before the state legalized abortion, 120 mothers died from abortion.
By 1972, abortion was still illegal in 80% of the country but the use of antibiotics had greatly reduced the risk. The number dropped to 39 maternal deaths from abortion that year.”


U.S Bureau of Vital Statistics
So you take the number of women who actually get pregnant and compare that with the death toll...........and its peanuts.
Most woman would give birth to their babies. And today when we celebrate anything sexual......people do not look upon the unwed pregnant mother like they once did.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Lux et Lex,

Of course I "don't see" because it is a ridiculous assertion.

What you call ridiculous some of us call logical reality.

If abortion is illegal, they will still happen.

Ridiculous. Firstly abortion is illegal in some countries so your statement is ridiculous. Secondly, as I said before, paedophilia happens and its illegal, so what is your point?

Please refer to: Gerri Santoro - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well as far as you are concerned, what about the poor unborn baby? As far as we are concerned poor woman and her poor unborn baby.

 

[brightmorningstar]

btw lux et lex, As I have said before, It is education that is needed starting with kicking your ideas into touch and educating people the reality of abortion being the termination of an unborn child.

 

[lux et lex]

I'm all for complete comprehensive sexual education in the schools starting in kindergarten at an age appropriate levels. It just seems that conservatives and other associated religious zealots block these sorts of things.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Lux et Lex,

I'm all for complete comprehensive sexual education in the schools starting in kindergarten at an age appropriate levels. It just seems that conservatives and other associated religious zealots block these sorts of things.

Difficult to comment on something so vague.
Kindergarten usually involves children between the age of 2 and 7. In that respect it would be a nonsense and frankly child abuse to tell them about sexual desires and activities that they have no experience or capability of pre-puberty.
Traditionally it would be called grooming.
religious zealots may be preferable to child abusers.

 

[lux et lex]

Ok, as my point of reference kindergarten is around ages 4-6. Starting out with simples things like red touch and green touch is age appropriate sexual education and helps to avoid child abuses. (red touch being in the swimsuit zone, whereas green touch being elsewhere).

 

[brightmorningstar]

Lux et Lex,
As I said, sexual matters to children as young as 4-6 is child abuse.
What I think you are now talking about is the categorisation of chidren's actions.

 

[Catherineanne]

Lux et Lex,
As I said, sexual matters to children as young as 4-6 is child abuse.
What I think you are now talking about is the categorisation of chidren's actions.

Children learn about sexuality far younger than 4. Every time we dress a girl in pink and a boy in blue we are expressing their sexuality, and teaching them to relate to the world by means of it. I think you mean issues relating to intercourse, rather than sexuality itself.

Children can be taught about relationship, about appropriate and inappropriate touch, and about the importance of love in families, without any impropriety at all. In UK the most basic sex education for young children is about relationships. Children are not taught about sexual intercourse until they are old enough to understand it.

Sometimes it is just as abusive to withhold information from a young person as it is to give them too much information too early. Every parent has this question to consider and to answer for their own family; what do I tell them, and when? And schools do the same, within the framework of the national curriculum.

Meanwhile, to relate to the OP, pro choice is just that. In favour of having a choice, and the means to make that choice in a calm, reasoned manner. In an ideal world every woman would have the ability to bring up a child in safety and comfort, but this is not an ideal world. Those who shout so loudly for the rights of the unborn child are very often oblivious to the needs of the 3 year old living in poverty with his mother and siblings, and will regard her as feckless for not being able to provide for her family.

I am not pro abortion and never will be. I could never consider such an option myself, and I know my d thinks the same way. But I am also not in favour of abortion being forced underground into illegal and dangerous backstreet clinics. If there has to be abortion, then by all means let it be legal and carried out properly, by doctors. But proper social provision for mothers would help mitigate the need for abortion, and I would certainly be in support of that. I would also be in favour of free condoms in high schools, but that is probably another matter.

In a civilised country the choice is between legal or illegal abortion. No abortion at all is, I am sorry to say, never going to be an option in this fallen world. Either the girls will end up travelling to another state or country, or else dealt with on a dirty kitchen table somewhere, with a very high risk of infection or death. That is not an option I would ever be in favour of.

Therefore, I would be most certainly anti abortion, if at all possible, but pro choice every time.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Therefore, I would be most certainly anti abortion, if at all possible, but pro choice every time.

If you want to give women the choice to kill their own baby you are pro-abortion.

 

[lux et lex]

Lux et Lex,
As I said, sexual matters to children as young as 4-6 is child abuse.
What I think you are now talking about is the categorisation of chidren's actions.

So giving children the tools to prevent and report child abuse is child abuse? Wow.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

If you want to give women the choice to kill their own baby you are pro-abortion.

Conversely I would suppose that given the almost incalculable amount of human suffering and death that has resulted from the anti contraception/abortion and misinformation campaigns of elements of the RCC and American evangelicals in Sub Saharan African countries this would make such people pro suffering and death?