ABORTION.......

MommaAngel wrote:

I am sorry Piffka, but the rights of an innocent unborn child supersede (to me) the rights of the woman.

Wow Momma, that's a pretty strong statement. Might I infer by your statement that since you believe that the rights of the fetus supercedes the mother, that in a medical situation where the doctors have to make a choice about either saving the mother or the fetus, you believe that the fetus should be saved, possibly causing the death of the mother?

edgarblythe wrote:

If it were only so simple as "using abortion as a form of birth control." But, even if that's what a few women will do, that is their choice and none of our business.

You prefer apathy? Maybe drunk drivers or drug dealers are none of our business either.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

If they want control over their own bodies, why don't they get sterilized to prevent the possibility of pregnancy rather than use abortion as a form of birth control.

Because they don't want to...and they ought to have the right not to want to.

You really do hate women, don't you!

Why do you say that, Frank?

Are you on another rant?

Nothing of substance to say this morning?

I do not hate women.

Nor do I hate anyone.

It is you that is full of hatered.

It shows in your posts when you don't get your own way.

Sure they have the right. That does not make it right!

I still think a remedial reading comprehension course for the extreme liberals on the board would be a very good idea. At least they might get a clue of what is being said and would be less likely to make up extreme statements in their eagerness to insult anybody who does not agree with them.

flushd you have not been given to making outrageous assertions about what others think, feel, want, hate, etc. So you may excuse yourself from my statement.

I believe the prolifers have been confronting the issues head on. The difference between the pro-abortion people and the prolifers seems to boil down to a conclusion that the pro-abortion people think a woman is not required to accept any responsibility for the new life growing inside her and that she should be able to do anything with it that she chooses. They further think that new life is subhuman and is undeserving of any consideration--whatever the woman wants to do with it is okay.

The prolifers see that unborn entity as a human baby separate from the mother however totally dependent on the mother it is for its well being. The prolifers see no difference between killing a baby a few hours before birth or killing a baby after it is born.

We would like to have agreement on that one issue and then issues of rape, incest, age, etc. of the woman can be debatedon their own merits.

So long as the pro-abortion side rejects the humanity of the unborn child, and refuse to see the point of the view of the prolifers, there is no debate to be had--it's simply a 'is too - is not' argument.

To accuse those who reject killing a baby out of convenience of 'wanting to deny women their rights' or accusing them of 'wanting the women executed' is not my definition of tolerance.

I still think a remedial reading comprehension course for the extreme liberals on the board would be a very good idea. At least they might get a clue of what is being said and would be less likely to make up extreme statements in their eagerness to insult anybody who does not agree with them.



Flushd asked her:

Quote:

Foxyfyre,
Who specifically are you referring to when you say "extreme liberals on the board"?

Fox replied:

Quote:

flushd you have not been given to making outrageous assertions about what others think, feel, want, hate, etc. So you may excuse yourself from my statement.

I know that I can excuse myself from Fox's statement also...because I am not a liberal, extreme or otherwise...and I certainly am able to read and comprehend anything Fox is writing.

So who was Fox referring to with her cryptic comment?

These kinds of situations make me long for the time when people had the guts to actually say what really mean...rather than playing silly "you know who I mean" games.

well yes questioner, and then there is the question of "rights." one side demands rights for the "unborn" that are in conflict with the "born" and choose to prefer the "unborn" rights to the "born" rights. The "born" are legal persons whereas the "unborn" are not legal persons. It is confusing I suppose and certainly not an easy question but us radical liberals side on rights of the "born and legal persons."

dyslexia wrote:

well yes questioner, and then there is the question of "rights." one side demands rights for the "unborn" that are in conflict with the "born" and choose to prefer the "unborn" rights to the "born" rights. The "born" are legal persons whereas the "unborn" are not legal persons. It is confusing I suppose and certainly not an easy question but us radical liberals side on rights of the "born and legal persons."

Doggone...you took the words right out of my mouth, Dys. Except for that "us radical liberals" part.

Phoenix, I will answer your question though. I believe that in the case of the mother's life being in danger due to the pregnancy, then yes, I could understand an abortion being necessary.

In this case, the mother has connections to others.................

Foxfyre wrote:

The prolife groups sees the mother and baby as different beings and that the mother has responsibility for her baby within the womb as much as she has responsibility for it outside the womb.Real Life's comparison therefore is quite appropriate. Years ago, our ancesters had to see black people as sub-humans, non persons, dispensable property in order to justify slavery. The pro-abortion people do the same thing with the developing baby within the womb.

Nobody wants to take away a woman's rights.
[size=7]But the prolife group wants the woman who does not want a child to take responsibility to see that she does not become pregnant. If she does, they want her to take responsibility for the child that she carries[/size].

Of course you want to take away a woman's rights. If you didn't, then why would your group also be fighting so hard on the issue of the morning-after pill? Why make difficulties with people trying to privately manage their own birth control?

If the prolife were to go on with their beliefs, then what do they think about masturbation?

Please explain where are these potential children of yours, those who are spilled everytime a male gets off, everytime a woman doesn't fully allow herself to be barefoot and pregnant... where are these young souls? Aren't they as potential in your eyes. And, if not, why not?

Real Life,

I find it very ironic that our beliefs and our words, and the words of the Bible are brought into play when the other side is trying to make a point. They don't believe what we believe but if we believe it, we'd better believe it to the letter because if we don't, they will surely point that out.

What's up with that?

Why do you keep calling it the pro-abortion side?!
Pro-Choice!
Pro-Choice!
Pro-Choice!



BTW: it's vulgar to insinuate that those on the pro-choice side are selfish, self-serving b*astards who are only in it for themselves.
Guilt and shame, guilt and shame.
It reminds me of my early days in church. "Now, I won't say it outright, but I will do my d*amnest to make you feel like a horrible person for disagreeing".

All are entitled to their beliefs, but once again I wish to point out that BELIEF DOES NOT EQUAL FACT.
The facts will stand by themselves, while beliefs will fall without support.

Real Life,

I find it very ironic that our beliefs and our words, and the words of the Bible are brought into play when the other side is trying to make a point. They don't believe what we believe but if we believe it, we'd better believe it to the letter because if we don't, they will surely point that out.

What's up with that?