Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

Abu Ishaq Al Juwayri wrote:

i for one, BELIEVE kelly to be right on.....frank, your lack of heart is disturbing....if i had a child that turned out to be like you i would feel as if i had committed a most grievous error to earth...

Yeah, sure!

0 Replies

KellyS wrote:

Someone else noted, and I thank you for saying that because I remembered it and then it slipped my mind while I typed other things, that abortions have always happened and the question is whether they will be allowed to continue in clean environments or in back alleys with coat hangers. This is an excellent point with way too much truth in it. Is 100% truth too much?

So why do you oppose allowing abortions to be continued in clean environments...rather than in back alleys?

Since you see this to be the truth...why not back legal, safe abortions until we clean up all those things that lead to unwanted pregnancies?

Quote:

Changes in culture and religious positions must be made to stop the necessity of using abortions for birth control.

Forgetting for a second the absurdity of thinking women use abortions as a method of birth control...

..don't you feel uncomfortable writing words like "...changes in culture and religious positions must be made to stop...?"

Do you realize what you are asking for there?

BOTTOM LINE: You are correct. The problem here really is RELIGION. But if we really want to tackle religion...why set out to change religion's dealings with contraception? Why not just tell religion to just stay the hell out of the problem...because without the religious element...THERE IS NO PROBLEM.

0 Replies

Quote:

because without the religious element...THERE IS NO PROBLEM.

Exactly. Abortion is a decision that needs to be made between a woman and her doctor. Period. When religion attempts to foist their own particular moral code on people, individual freeedom is being eroded.

I don't even want to hear the argument about when human life begins. There are so many "spins" on the issue, that it is really meaningless. Each person needs to decide, based on her own conscience.

Abortion is a personal choice. There are some who don't want to consider abortions, and that is their right, for themselves!

0 Replies

Kelly -
All that was beautifully put, but no matter how you put it, my belief is iron-clad. A female has every right to do what ever she wants to her body. Whether it's having an abortion, or getting triple X breast implants. It has nothing to do with YOU, or them, or anybody else because it doesn't affect you. It affects the woman, and in some cases the father if they are involved. My decision was supported by my partner, and I'm so glad he was understanding and supportive.

If abortions are such a big deal for you, perhaps YOU should take the responsibilty and wear a condom and quit complaining how it affects your sex. A child is the result of TWO people, not just the woman. I don't understand why it's accepted that it's only the woman's responsibility?? Why does SHE have to take the pill everday? Why does SHE have to get the Depo shot and endure possible weight gain, then get complaints from her partner about her added pounds?? Why does SHE have to wear the patch, which is itchy and causes skin irritation?? And all of the above is not CHEAP either. Since you're soooooo concerned with "preventative contractives," send me a check for $50 every month.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

[So why do you oppose allowing abortions to be continued in clean environments...rather than in back alleys?

Since you see this to be the truth...why not back legal, safe abortions until we clean up all those things that lead to unwanted pregnancies?

..don't you feel uncomfortable writing words like "...changes in culture and religious positions must be made to stop...?"

Do you realize what you are asking for there?

I do not back any abortion except for the physical life of the mother. Front office or back alley an abortion kills a child. That is why I do not back abortions.

As for what I am asking, I'm asking for the whole pie, the whole shebang, I'm asking for a cultural shift around the globe of deeper and more lasting substance than the advent of Christianity and Islam put together. Hmm, put that way maybe I'm not asking enough. Yes! I do know what I'm asking. The seemingly impossible. But I am also providing the alternative to something I oppose almost completely. I acknowledge it may be pie in the sky at this point in history. That does not mean that I can't plant the seeds of such change by pointing out that the change is needed and which way the change should go. There's a story about the smallest seed, a mustard seed, growing to be the largest tree. I can accept that my idea is smaller than that mustard seed at the moment. But if enough people see my idea perhaps they will repeat it, plant the seed, and the idea will grow.

Quote:

Forgetting for a second the absurdity of thinking women use abortions as a method of birth control...

It is absurd, but it is also very real, and is done regularly, especially early in the pregnancies before anyone but the woman and her doctor are aware that she "caught".

Quote:

BOTTOM LINE: You are correct. The problem here really is RELIGION. But if we really want to tackle religion...why set out to change religion's dealings with contraception? Why not just tell religion to just stay the hell out of the problem...because without the religious element...THERE IS NO PROBLEM.

I agree that religion is PART of the problem. However, the real problem is people feeling that they must control other people's lives. Yes the religious folks get in the pulpit and decree abortion is bad, homosexuality is bad, cross dressing is bad, wearing the latest styles is bad, listening to certain music is bad, doing certain dances is bad. But the religious folks are in many respects only mouthpieces for others who want to have an excuse to push themselves on others and force others to do their bidding. Then you have the folks who want others to do their bidding and they do not hide behind the skirts of religion. I define almost everyone of the above as bullies. Also under the definition of bullies I include men who insist that their wives put out for them regardless of the husband's state of inebriation, hygine, or the woman's state of health. There are more, but at the moment I can't think of the appropriate, clean, words.

But none of that changes the fact that the fertilized egg of a woman is a human being. Every society on Earth has set up some rule against murder. Abortion is merely murder of the absolutely smallest and most helpless human.

Kelly

0 Replies

KellyS wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
[So why do you oppose allowing abortions to be continued in clean environments...rather than in back alleys?

Since you see this to be the truth...why not back legal, safe abortions until we clean up all those things that lead to unwanted pregnancies?

..don't you feel uncomfortable writing words like "...changes in culture and religious positions must be made to stop...?"

Do you realize what you are asking for there?

I do not back any abortion except for the physical life of the mother. Front office or back alley an abortion kills a child. That is why I do not back abortions.

As for what I am asking, I'm asking for the whole pie, the whole shebang, I'm asking for a cultural shift around the globe of deeper and more lasting substance than the advent of Christianity and Islam put together. Hmm, put that way maybe I'm not asking enough. Yes! I do know what I'm asking. The seemingly impossible. But I am also providing the alternative to something I oppose almost completely. I acknowledge it may be pie in the sky at this point in history. That does not mean that I can't plant the seeds of such change by pointing out that the change is needed and which way the change should go. There's a story about the smallest seed, a mustard seed, growing to be the largest tree. I can accept that my idea is smaller than that mustard seed at the moment. But if enough people see my idea perhaps they will repeat it, plant the seed, and the idea will grow.

Quote:
Forgetting for a second the absurdity of thinking women use abortions as a method of birth control...

It is absurd, but it is also very real, and is done regularly, especially early in the pregnancies before anyone but the woman and her doctor are aware that she "caught".

Quote:
BOTTOM LINE: You are correct. The problem here really is RELIGION. But if we really want to tackle religion...why set out to change religion's dealings with contraception? Why not just tell religion to just stay the hell out of the problem...because without the religious element...THERE IS NO PROBLEM.

I agree that religion is PART of the problem. However, the real problem is people feeling that they must control other people's lives. Yes the religious folks get in the pulpit and decree abortion is bad, homosexuality is bad, cross dressing is bad, wearing the latest styles is bad, listening to certain music is bad, doing certain dances is bad. But the religious folks are in many respects only mouthpieces for others who want to have an excuse to push themselves on others and force others to do their bidding. Then you have the folks who want others to do their bidding and they do not hide behind the skirts of religion. I define almost everyone of the above as bullies. Also under the definition of bullies I include men who insist that their wives put out for them regardless of the husband's state of inebriation, hygine, or the woman's state of health. There are more, but at the moment I can't think of the appropriate, clean, words.

But none of that changes the fact that the fertilized egg of a woman is a human being. Every society on Earth has set up some rule against murder. Abortion is merely murder of the absolutely smallest and most helpless human.

Kelly

In response...allow me to quote what Jesus had to say about abortion.

I'll close with that.

0 Replies

"Tend to the mote in thine own..." UTERUS.

Abortion is a matter to be decided by the pregnant individual and no other.

0 Replies

Despite the strong beliefs of some people here, a fertilized egg is not a baby, nor is it a child. It may have the potential to grow into a human being (most don't), but since it has no brain, no heart, no thoughts, no emotions, and no soul, it is not by any stretch of the imagination a human being. It has no more right to life than any of the hundreds of other eggs a woman carries, all of which are also potential human beings with unique assortments of DNA.

It was once believed that a sperm was a fully formed baby in miniature, but thanks to the invention of the microscope we now know that sperm, eggs and embryos are just cells, not babies. It takes many months of growth before a fetus might even be considered to be a "baby," and virtually all abortions are done well before that point.

There Is nothing magic about the fertilization process. The vast majority of embryos are flushed out of the body even if no contraception is used. Nature produces far more sperm, eggs and embryos than are needed or wanted, and the excess are unceremoniously discarded. So what? They are just cells, not people.

A fertilized egg is the property of the woman gestating it, and she is the only person who has any right to decide its fate. Why do some people make such a big deal about other people's eggs? If you are more concerned about the fate of mindless cells than the millions of children who are already straining the world's resources, gestate a few of your own and stop worrying about what I do with mine.

You have no rights over my body and what I do with it. If I want to enjoy sex but am not willing to bear a child, you have no moral, legal, or ethical right to tell me what kind of contraception to use or forbid abortion as a backup if it fails. And all methods of contraception can fail: condoms have a 15% per year failure rate, pills can be forgotten, and hormones may be proscribed because of side effects.

Teenagers, uneducated women, and those under the influence of drugs or alcohol are less likely to use any birth control, so without abortion we have with the least responsible women bearing the most children. Does that make sense to anyone?

0 Replies

Hi Frank. Good to see you back here. Very Happy

0 Replies

I totally agree, Terry!

However:

Terry wrote:

... condoms have a 15% per year failure rate ...

This only, when used impropperly, which has to do a lot with sexual education!
If used correctly, male condoms have an effectiveness rate of about 93% for preventing pregnancy, but this rate can be increased to about 99% if used with a spermicide. :wink:

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

Hi Frank. Good to see you back here.

Good to be back, Terry. Great to see you...and your always persuasive posts.

Always happy to see you fighting the good fight.

0 Replies

Well put Terry Smile

0 Replies

Incidentally, the "survey" was missing certain options... three "Pro-life" (busybody) options, with the only alternate "choice" being the one that the ANTI-ABORTION crowd already endorses. Said survey, as worded, is as biased as ideologues can craft a survey to be... which proves that the "pollster" isn't so much interested in gauging public opinion... but that they seek to promote their little ego-gratifying agendas.

You see, they don't want you to have YOUR chouice, they want you to have THEIR choice.

I always say... if YOU don't want to have an abortion, then DON'T.
But keep your nose out of your neighbor's uterus/genitalia unless INVITED in!

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

Despite the strong beliefs of some people here, a fertilized egg is not a baby, nor is it a child. It may have the potential to grow into a human being (most don't), but since it has no brain, no heart, no thoughts, no emotions, and no soul, it is not by any stretch of the imagination a human being. It has no more right to life than any of the hundreds of other eggs a woman carries, all of which are also potential human beings with unique assortments of DNA.

This position is no more justifiable than the position espoused by KellyS and the right-to-lifers.

To say that the fertilized ovum is simply a cell is hardly a startling revelation, even to the pro-lifers. If that ended the discussion, however, there never would have been a discussion in the first place. One must recognize that, for the anti-abortionists, the fertilized ovum is a special cell, since it is the only cell that has the chance to become a human (and thus it is different even from eggs and sperm, which, on their own, have no more chance of becoming a person than any other human cell).

Taking the position that the fertilized ovum is "just a cell," therefore, misses the point. Anti-abortionists believe that cell is a "potential person," and so it's in a different category from all the other cells. As long as pro-choicers take the position that "it's just a cell" there can be no meaningful dialogue.

Terry wrote:

A fertilized egg is the property of the woman gestating it, and she is the only person who has any right to decide its fate. Why do some people make such a big deal about other people's eggs? If you are more concerned about the fate of mindless cells than the millions of children who are already straining the world's resources, gestate a few of your own and stop worrying about what I do with mine.

Sorry, this argument doesn't wash either. It's like those bumper stickers -- "Don't like abortion? Then don't have one!" The problem with this line of logic is that it's like saying "don't like murder? Then don't kill someone!" As long as anti-abortionists believe that abortion is murder, they are acting perfectly reasonably in opposing anyone's abortion, just as those opposed to murder are perfectly reasonable in opposing any murder.

Terry wrote:

You have no rights over my body and what I do with it. If I want to enjoy sex but am not willing to bear a child, you have no moral, legal, or ethical right to tell me what kind of contraception to use or forbid abortion as a backup if it fails. And all methods of contraception can fail: condoms have a 15% per year failure rate, pills can be forgotten, and hormones may be proscribed because of side effects.

You talk of rights? What rights? Do you think you are capable of doing anything you want, as long as it's "your body?"

Let me be blunt: the pro-choice camp will never get anywhere arguing that abortion isn't the killing of a human, since that will simply lead to the two sides talking past each other. Rather, the pro-choice side must formulate some kind of argument that starts from the premise that the fertilized ovum is a human, but that abortion is still justified. I ask you, then, Terry: is there a valid pro-choice argument for abortion even if KellyS is right that the fertilized ovum is a human life?

0 Replies

A foetus in the womb is like a visitor in the house.
When the visitor is welcome, all is well and good.
But the visitor doesn't have an instant proprietary right to stay just by the grace of having gained entrance... the visitor, if unwelcome, may be expected to leave when demanded to do so by the HOST.
Should the unwelcome visitor ("intruder") fail to heed the "farewell" of the HOST, the HOST has the right to eject/evict the unwanted visitor!

The Proprietary rights are with the home/property OWNER.

The homeowner is under no obligation to support any/every vagrant or indigent that gains entry, even if that entry was due to the failure of the homeowner to lock the door and secure the premises.

Granted, the Christian, charitable thing to do would be to shelter and nurture the intruder rather to eject them into a harsh exterior environment... but of the MANY "Christians" I know, I think the Christian individuals that chose to shelter rather than to eject the intruder would be a VERY rare minority.

0 Replies

Magus wrote:

Incidentally, the "survey" was missing certain options... three "Pro-life" (busybody) options, with the only alternate "choice" being the one that the ANTI-ABORTION crowd already endorses. Said survey, as worded, is as biased as ideologues can craft a survey to be... which proves that the "pollster" isn't so much interested in gauging public opinion... but that they seek to promote their little ego-gratifying agendas.

You see, they don't want you to have YOUR chouice, they want you to have THEIR choice.

Actually, I made a typo in the poll. One that says "Prolife" should be "Prochoice." And the options I have listed are the four most common answers I have heard people say. I didn't want the poll to be persuaded in any particular way, I just wanted to hear people's opinions, whether or not I agreed with it. Aside from the poll, you have the option to input YOUR own personal opinion that the poll may not have listed. You see, the POLL is meant to be a brief. I guess you can say the table of contents of this thread you see, and if you wanted to read or input more you can therefor read / add to the individual and much deatailed post.

0 Replies

Forcing a woman to bear an unwanted child... is a form of extortion.

0 Replies

For all MISOGYNISTS out there
Damn Straight!

For all misogynists out there (male in particular, but there are insane women out there too, that battle their own kind, so for you too)...

Let's see if you get it through your THICK skulls:

-WOMEN ARE NOT INCUBATORS WITH LEGS-
A woman has all the right to decide what to do with her own body, being stating childless, having children, or terminating a pregnancy once it started, no matter what circumstances. Simple.

Secondly.
Women wouldn't get pregnant ON THE FIRST place if men wouldn't leave their "goo" behind so carelessly.

More contraception choices are needed for men, are needed NOW, yesterday in fact, so for once and for all they'll pick up the responsibility of reproducing, and stop throwing it at women's shoulders.

While more male contraceptions appear, MORE CONDOMS have to be used, all the time. Condoms are not only for those time with you have sex with strangers. USE THEM with your regular partners too. And not only "occasionally", everytime you have sex.
Enough of taking drugs (the pill), that don't came without side effects, or even serious health problems in the long run, and all of this is because males go on moaning..... "sex with condoms don't feel the same", or because they just can't be bothered using condoms.
ENOUGH!! Nonsense.

To all those males I would say, if you're not ready to take ACTIVE and CONSTANT responsability on contraception issues, you better keep your mouth shut when it comes to a woman's decition of what to do, or not to do, with the "aftermath" of the "goo" that it's been left in her.

About time for you all, to get a REALITY CHECK.

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

...... If you are more concerned about the fate of mindless cells than the millions of children who are already straining the world's resources, gestate a few of your own and stop worrying about what I do with mine.........so without abortion we have () the least responsible women bearing the most children. Does that make sense to anyone?

joefromchicago wrote:

.......To say that the fertilized ovum is simply a cell is hardly a startling revelation, even to the pro-lifers. If that ended the discussion, however, there never would have been a discussion in the first place. One must recognize that, for the anti-abortionists, the fertilized ovum is a special cell, since it is the only cell that has the chance to become a human .........
Taking the position that the fertilized ovum is "just a cell," therefore, misses the point..........

It does indeed! These are cells with the potential to bring down the human species!
Unbridled reproduction should be seen as an 'environmental crime' with which even "Exon" cannot compete.
As this planet sinks rapidly into the quicksand of excess population, those with 'vision' will see the 'evil' in the wanton insistence on initiating the misery of yet another human being into a situation, guarantying 'failure', and magnifying the already intolerable 'social' nightmare of the 'underclasses'.

joefromchicago wrote:

...........As long as anti-abortionists believe that abortion is murder, they are acting perfectly reasonably in opposing anyone's abortion, just as those opposed to murder are perfectly reasonable in opposing any murder..........

In the future, if the current inability to recognize where the real 'harm' lies, in the uncontrolled - "natural", cycle of reproduction, society will eventually place reproduction on the list of 'special (thus controlled) rights' (as is happening currently in China); and the crime of excess reproduction will move up the scale toward 'murder' as an offense against society!

0 Replies

Originally posted by BoGoWo

Quote:

It does indeed! These are cells with the potential to bring down the human species! Unbridled reproduction should be seen as an 'environmental crime' with which even "Exon" cannot compete.
As this planet sinks rapidly into the quicksand of excess population, those with 'vision' will see the 'evil' in the wanton insistence on initiating the misery of yet another human being into a situation, guarantying 'failure', and magnifying the already intolerable 'social' nightmare of the 'underclasses'.

Over population just might be a myth.

Excerpt:

"Is the earth becoming overpopulated? It is not a question of the human population outstripping resources, since food production continues to exceed population growth and non-renewable resources become more plentiful each year as new sources are found.

Even in sheer numbers, though, there is growing evidence that the world's population is heading toward stability.

* The growth rate of the world's population appears to have peaked around 1970, when the annual rate of growth was 2.09 percent.

* By 1980, annual population growth was down to 1.73 percent, and by 1990 to 1.7 percent.

* By 1995, the annual increase had slowed even more to 1.5 percent.

What is sometimes meant by overpopulation is overcrowding, or too great a population density. However, population density varies widely. Much of the world's land surface is empty, and many countries with dense populations have a higher standard of living than less crowded countries."

here

and here

excerpt:

" Now, the United States encompasses about 3,717,142 square miles. The world population is currently estimated at well over 6 billion and is projected to reach 7 billion in 2010. Depending on whose estimates you believe, the population will either peak around 2050 and then begin to decline or, according to more aggressive estimates, may go as high as 11 billion some time after the year 2100. This is depending on whether you believe people around the world will continue to grow wealthier and more prosperous, which they have been throughout most of the world (except in totalitarian regimes) for the last 100 years, because a documented fact is that the more prosperous and healthy people become, the fewer children they tend to have.

Okay, so current estimates have the world population hitting 7 billion in about 6 years. Let's go with that figure. And like I just said above, the current land space in the United States is 3,717,142 square miles (a bit over 9,600,000 square kilometers). This means that if you took the entire world population in 2010 and forcibly relocated every man, woman and child to the United States, we would have a population density in this country of (drum roll, please):

1,883 people per square mile.

This would be about twice the population density of Mt. Horeb, Wisconsin (813 people per square mile), or about two thirds of the population density of New Albin, Iowa (2,635 people per square mile).

In other words, it would be about average for a small rural farming community.

Now, remember where we started this little journey? Oh yes: Alberta. The Canadian province of Alberta, that great nation's 4th largest province, encompasses approximately 260,000 square miles.

Which means that if you took the entire world population in 2010 and forcibly relocated every single one of them to Alberta (we plan to make everyone Canadian, eh!), Alberta would have a population density of 26,923 people per square mile.

In other words, roughly the population density of New York City or Moscow, and considerably less crowded than cities like Paris, the famed City of Lights.

Which means that we could fairly comfortably squeeze the entire world population in 2010 into this massive red area:"

and here

0 Replies

Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know