glassjester
Well-known member
Do you want your position on abortion to be softened?
Pro-life or Pro-choice
- Thread starter WizardofOz
- Start date
Do you want your position on abortion to be softened?
glassjester
Well-known member
Do you think the "right" to abortion should be protected no matter what?
Do you think abortion is a fundamental human right?
If there was a war to end abortion (as there was for slavery), would you be willing to fight on the side that wants to keep it legal?
gcthomas
New member
No, I think they are important freedoms guaranteed by law and societal acceptance. They are free to be modified as society sees fit.
When *some abortions* are deemed as acceptable, the conclusion is that *some unborn babies* are not worthy of protection. For anyone who is anti-abortion to remain consistent, the focus needs to be protecting the life of the unborn ... NOT who got pregnant, how they got pregnant, etc.
IMO what is missing from the anti-abortion advocacy is the desire to follow through insofar as the health and welfare of the mother and child during pregnancy and AFTER. For example, the pretend Trump-care health plan which in actuality is a tax credit for the rich. For me, the very idea of wanting to take health care away form the most vulnerable (which would include women in crisis pregnancies) and children IS an action that promotes abortion.
glassjester
Well-known member
This sounds like you don't have an opinion on it - or that, if the majority wants it, it's the right thing.
Is this correct?
gcthomas
New member
No, it means I don't think that there are many 'fundamental' rights. I think the freedom to abort pregnancies is important, but not fundamental.
glassjester
Well-known member
No fundamental rights? Ok...
gcthomas
New member
You're second point is an important one to make and an essential one of the position is not to seem unfeeling or cruel.
The first point is absolutely right given you're position on the nature of an unborn, but many reasonable people hold a different view of course, as you know. But my point isn't that really. It is that by rejecting a concession in their favour while holding out for complete capitulation may cause them to have to tolerate the status quo. Trying to forge a middle ground would not stop abortions, but could reduce them. Isn't a reduction something worth working towards for you?
gcthomas
New member
How did my 'not many' turn into your 'no'?
glassjester
Well-known member
People who are pro-choice are not pro-choice because they like abortion and want abortions to happen . Or that they want to increase the number or abortions which take place .
They are pro-choice because they realize government-ordered compulsory childbirth for all women no matter what the circumstances is always disastrously counterproductive .
Like trying to stop a forest fire by pouring gasoline on it . In fact, pro-choicers want to PREVENT as many unwanted pregnancies as possible so that women will not find themselves in adverse circumstances which drive them to terminate pregnancies . You cannot do this by making abortion illegal . This only makes a bad situation far worse .
They are pro-choice because they realize government-ordered compulsory childbirth for all women no matter what the circumstances is always disastrously counterproductive .
Like trying to stop a forest fire by pouring gasoline on it . In fact, pro-choicers want to PREVENT as many unwanted pregnancies as possible so that women will not find themselves in adverse circumstances which drive them to terminate pregnancies . You cannot do this by making abortion illegal . This only makes a bad situation far worse .
WizardofOz
New member
This is. Feel free to tell us your view on the matter :thumb:
"Baby-killing is always wrong " . OK Doser, I'm sick and tired of the way anti-choicers indiscriminately use the term "baby " when it comes to the discussion of abortion .
A baby is a fetus which is close to birth or one which has already been born. A four week old fetus is not a "baby ". Since the overwhelming majority of abortions happen very early in a pregnancy, I can't stand the use of the manipulative term "baby " .
Children born out of incest are at risk of severe birth defects and all kinds of terrible problems which can cause lifelong suffering . Is it OK to force them to be born no matter what ? I think not .
A baby is a fetus which is close to birth or one which has already been born. A four week old fetus is not a "baby ". Since the overwhelming majority of abortions happen very early in a pregnancy, I can't stand the use of the manipulative term "baby " .
Children born out of incest are at risk of severe birth defects and all kinds of terrible problems which can cause lifelong suffering . Is it OK to force them to be born no matter what ? I think not .
WizardofOz
New member
:yawn:
'Fetus' or 'baby' is nothing more than a semantic variance.
It is a living human. This is an objective, scientific fact.
Under what circumstance are you OK with human killing?
jsanford108
New member
I realize that by entering your thread I'm subjecting myself to one of your many smear campaigns against me, but here it goes:
It's been a while since I took 9th grade biology Aaron, so perhaps a brilliant graduate of the University of Wisconsin/Madison could help me with this answer.
If numerous medical professionals tell a pregnant woman that she'll die if she continues the pregnancy, is it a scientific fact that two human beings will be dead in the long run?
Cecily Kellogg, 44, a writer who lives near Philadelphia, says that was the situation she faced when she was nearly six months pregnant with twin boys in 2004 and developed severe preeclampsia. One fetus had already died and "my liver had shut down, my kidneys had shut down and they were expecting me to start seizing at any minute," she says. The doctors said they had to quickly dilate her cervix and perform an abortion to save her. "I fought it," she says. "But they told me I would die — that it was either me and my son or just my son."
She says it was a "horrible experience," but the right thing to do. She and her husband had a daughter in 2006.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/19/abortion-mother-life-walsh/1644839/
If the woman had been dead Aaron, is it a scientific fact that she wouldn't have brought another life into this world two years later?
If pretend pro lifers such as yourself are responsible for [edit] the mother's death, how is it possible that you consider yourself "pro life"? (note that I haven't even mentioned that you embrace the LGBTQ culture of death, nor will I mention it).
WizardofOz
New member
:allsmile: You are such a whiner. I have never 'smeared' you.
I would be more than happy to answer but I'd like you to go first. What should have been done to the surviving twin?
Her unborn child is dead because her doctors told her abortion was the only option rather than giving her the option of removing the baby via c-section with the intent of saving both lives.
Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
If the woman had been dead Aaron, is it a scientific fact that she wouldn't have brought another life into this world two years later?
Perhaps the medical specialists at the hospital should have consulted with "Dr. Aaron" first to find out if the baby could survive? Me thinkz that they took that into consideration before they had to abort him or her to save the mother's life.
BTW Aaron, according to this post, you're ok if an abortion is performed to save the mother's life:
At least you and I both agree with the following two pro life organizations:
The National Right to Life Committee would not elaborate on its brief statement saying abortions should be allowed if they are needed to save women's lives, said communications official Jessica Rogers. A more absolute view is expressed by the American Life League, a group opposing abortion which has a statement at its web site signed by 481 doctors who agree that: "There is never a situation in the law or in the ethical practice of medicine where a preborn child's life need be intentionally destroyed. ... A physician must do everything possible to save the lives of both of his patients, mother and child. He must never intend the death of either."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/19/abortion-mother-life-walsh/1644839/
We both do agree on that don't we Aaron? If we do, you can make an apology to me anytime now where you lied and said that I'm pro choice.
If the woman had been dead Aaron, is it a scientific fact that she wouldn't have brought another life into this world two years later?
Perhaps the medical specialists at the hospital should have consulted with "Dr. Aaron" first to find out if the baby could survive? Me thinkz that they took that into consideration before they had to abort him or her to save the mother's life.
BTW Aaron, according to this post, you're ok if an abortion is performed to save the mother's life:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...egally-Abort&p=3557991&viewfull=1#post3557991
At least you and I both agree with the following two pro life organizations:
The National Right to Life Committee would not elaborate on its brief statement saying abortions should be allowed if they are needed to save women's lives, said communications official Jessica Rogers. A more absolute view is expressed by the American Life League, a group opposing abortion which has a statement at its web site signed by 481 doctors who agree that: "There is never a situation in the law or in the ethical practice of medicine where a preborn child's life need be intentionally destroyed. ... A physician must do everything possible to save the lives of both of his patients, mother and child. He must never intend the death of either."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/19/abortion-mother-life-walsh/1644839/
We both do agree on that don't we Aaron? If we do, you can make an apology to me anytime now where you lied and said that I'm pro choice.
Gosh Dr. Sandy, I wasn't aware that you consulted with the doctor's that made a informed medical decision to save the mother's life.
If a C-section were a viable option, is there some reason to believe that these doctors chose the death of the baby over his or her life, which according to this website takes around two minutes if done in emergency room settings?
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/cesarean-birth-c-section