WANTED: Abortion Logic.

Regardless of how anyone feels about it, if they think its murder or not...The bottom line is, is that its no ones business at all, and therefore have no right to tell them what to do or how wrong they are.

 

But a solider is seldom "pro murder", is he? It's not really a fitting description of the way he thinks or feels. It's a politicised label that's been attached in order to make a point. And it's much the same thing to refer to someone as "pro abortion".

 

personally, i think thats a bad analogy. I dont agree with the statement, so no, i dont think its a fitting description.


A better analogy would be saying the swiss were pro nazi during WW2, even though they were technically neutral. They turned a blind eye to the murder and even helped them(stashing nazi gold). Much the same way that pro choice people(who are against abortion) turn a blind eye and help facilitate abortions instead of fighting against them.


Anyways, i think there is a difference between a pro choicer calling a pro lifer a religious nut and a pro lifer calling a pro choicer a pro abortionist. Thats just me, but i use the labels pro life and pro choice.

 

Well all I can say is that as someone who's pro choice, pro abortion would not be an accurate description of my attitude towards the issue.

 

Sherri Bird!!!

You And Me Have Some Issues!

 

Absolutely right, the woman should have the right to choose whether or not to have the abortion. This has absolutely nothing to do (or say) about whether aborting a fetus is an ethically good or bad action.

Are you saying that it is right for a man to take no responsibility for the child? According to your argument, that is exactly what you are saying. I wonder how many women would agree that when a man splits after impregnating her, that he is doing the right thing? I would guess none ... at all. To suggest that a man has no responsibility because his sperm is nothing without the woman is absurd. Do you not realize that the woman’s egg is nothing without the sperm? Do you have any knowledge whatsoever of how life comes to be? Life is as dependent on sperm as it is on the egg. To say that one is not subordinate to one but not the other is, sorry to say, stupid. It means that men can justly leave and never look back. Sorry kid, but I don’t think you have any idea what you are implying here.

That is to suggest that she keeps it for the rest of her life. Last time I checked there was no longer a line than the adoption line. The woman ‘must’ only dedicate nine months. It isn’t a case of one lifetime or another lifetime. It is a case of nine months versus sixty years of life.

There is no constitutional right to happiness. You have the right to the pursuit of happiness. Supposing the mother is alive for forty years of the baby’s life. Do you not suppose that in those forty years that a mother might learn to love the child she was thinking about aborting? I constantly hear parents say that the greatest gift they received was their children. Based on that, there could be nothing more contrary to the pursuit of happiness than killing the thing that brings most the most happiness into your life.

As for adoption, you think it is not an option because you would worry if the child is alright, and you would fear that the child you birthed might be a serial killer.
This shows that you i) know absolutely nothing about the adoption process. The process guarantees that only good people adopt children. Or ii) you choose to ignore the fact that adoption processes can ensure the child is brought up in a good home.

Which is it?

As for the idea that your child might be a serial killer ... well you know she might turn out to be the doctor that cures cancer. You can make the right decision when your knowledge of the outcome is imperfect. Unless, of course, you think it alright to make hasty decisions!

Do you?

You know what is weird? After birth, the father regains his rights to that ‘property’ (what a poor, poor, choice of words darling). For nine months he loses the right to that property, but after those nine months, they come back and are his for as long as he and the child are alive!

It is no doubt that it would be to some women’s benefit to abort the child. It is also no doubt that this is the most unreasonable self-interested action a person can take. To thwart the potential child’s life before it really begins so that she can be more socially accepted.

Bravo ladies!

Name one! I have never met one or heard of one. Quit making things up to suit your argument!

I would really like to hear where you heard that load of b u l l shit.

You are remembering that without that sperm the egg is nothing more than a blood stain on a pair of underwear, right?

Well you need to keep the decision a choice because you need to ensure your moral superiority to those that will run you in ethical circles. You need to have abortion a right because you can not appeal to ethics. You can’t win that battle, so it becomes a matter of rights.

I don’t blame you, that is what I would probably do too. At least I admit it. (Maybe it is better to say that at least I understand it)

Because murder is permissible in certain circumstances. Such as self-defense, or when the pregnancy provides an immanent and certain danger to the mother, and, of course, war time killing.

Nowhere is it written that God’s plan is to have everyone have a perfect mate.

Where are you coming up with this shit anyway?

Are you kidding? You have no understanding of the religious notion of free will. You have no right to talk about it because you are ignorant on theological matters.

You know what, I will consider that last paragraph a joke. In that case, you have a great sense of humour.

Learn the shit before you comment on it else you might look like a fool.

This would be the case if abortion or keeping the kid were the only two options.

For a hundred dollars ... can anyone name a third option?

You can not ignore the demand for children by people wanting to adopt.

I am still confused as to how the man would do that because his property is no longer his! Does his being a better man give him rights? No. If that was the case than only women with an IQ over 120 can have the right to abort.

(So you are not confused ... I meant to show that both cases are absolutely absurd and can not be used in reasonable conversation)

More importantly, why did she accept his property in the first place? Did she not know that sex can mean pregnancy? Why would she put herself into that position with a man she doesn’t love?

I think that rape is a far worse crime than theft. But that doesn’t mean that theft is not a crime. To compare abortion to anything does not take away from the injustice of abortion.

Why should men take responsibility for property that is no longer his? You are trying to argue that a man has no right to the child, but should take responsibility to do so.

You can’t have it both ways! It is going to be the reasonable decision for men to not care if you take away their right to the child. You only have a duty if you have a right. Give men the right to the child and you will more responsible men.

Taking away their ‘property’ takes away their responsibility.

Learn it, live it, love it.

Abortion sounds horrible but women should have the right to choose it if they want.

Based only on reason and altruism no woman should choose to abort as it can not be ethically justified.

The world will be a better place when reason (and not a shallow appeal to the right to pursuit of happiness) guides ethical action.

What the term implies is that the right to life is the fundamental human right. It comes before the right to do with yourself what you will, and before the right to pursuit of happiness. You can talk about the important things that go on in life all you want. Fact of the matter remains that every other consideration is secondary to life itself.

Abortion denies the fundamental importance of the right to life.

Based only on the arguments you have used to justify your position, not much has changed.

I agree. But what about people like me?

 

Hmm...no logic yet as to why pro-life people (whom one could call pro-torture or pro-poverty) have the right to ban something that every women should have the right to.

 

this is just simply not true.

Check the maternal mortality rates of women in ireland/poland and compare them to other european nations. They are NOT higher, they are lower in many instances.

Also, you cant say that "well people are going to do it anyways, so lets legalize it." You can say that about any crime. Why have laws against murder, you know people will continue to do that. May as well let people murder at their own free will. Oh wait, pro lifers say abortion laws already allow that...

 

oh, please, do tell me the logic of the pro-torture/pro-poverty label.

 

I have a question, why do pro-life people choose to blow up and kill people at an abortion clinic, its ridiculous, they are pro-life and yet they kill...

 

because they are pyscho lunatics?

 

Can't speak for Poland, but the reason for this in Ireland is that women travel to the mainland UK for abortions. Abortions haven't been prevented - just displaced.

 

interesting, i wonder what % they make up of irish women getting abortions.

 

No idea. It was fairly common though. I used to live in Liverpool which has a really high Irish population anyway, but is also really close to Ireland and so easy to get to. There was a whole industry supporting Irish abortions there. People literally came over for a day to get an abortion.

 

Calling someone "pro-abortion" implys that they think abortions are wonderful and everyone should have at least three to be truly happy.

Black people don't like to be called "niggers" either, but by your logic, they are just being sensitive.

 

How did abortion come about? Like when did a doctor figure out how to do it?

 

Well by your logic pro-choice people love abortions. Which would then mean (by your logic) that pro-life people support poverty by throwing many kids into it whom the mother may have aborted. Also (by your logic), that would mean that you support the torture that women who may have wanted an abortion have to go through all the pain and suffering that is pregnancy, although they do not want to go through it.

 

History of abortion

2600 BC – First recorded recipe for an abortion producing drug.

1850 BC – Egyptians record recipe for contraceptive pessaries, one made from crocodile dung.

4th Century AD – St. Augustine lays down Catholic dogma sanctioning abortion up to 80 days for female fetus and up to 40 days for male fetus.

13th Century AD - St. Thomas Aquinas states Catholic dogma justifying sexual intercourse only for procreation.

1564 AD - Italian anatomist, Fallopius, discoverer of Fallopian tubes, publicizes condoms as anti-venereal disease devices.

1588 – Pope Sixtus forbids all abortions

1591 - Pope Gregory XIV rescinds Pope Sixtus’ edict against abortion

1803 - Great Britain makes abortion a misdemeanor

1821 – Connecticut outlaws abortion after quickening, early abortions are legal

1860’s – All states pass comprehensive, criminal abortion laws. Most remain until 1973.

1869 – Pope Pius IX forbids all abortions in exchange for France’s Napoleon III acknowledging papal infallibility. France’s population experienced a sharp decrease over the previous 60 years.

1873 – Federal Comstock laws enacted prohibiting mailing or distribution of information on birth control and abortion

1879 – Margaret Higgins Sanger is born. She led the movement for birth control in the U.S.

1882 – First "modern" birth control clinic in the world opens in Holland, sponsored by trade unions.

1913 – Margaret Sanger arrested for violation of Comstock laws because of feminist birth control columns in, The Woman Rebel.

1916 - Margaret Sanger & her sister, Ethel Byrne jailed for dispensing contraceptive information at first American birth control clinic in Brooklyn, NY.

1924 – First scientific confirmation of women’s ovulatory and fertility cycle.

1930 – Pope Pius XI affirms Catholic dogma that every act of sexual intercourse is a sin unless performed with a reproductive intent. 1942 – Margaret Sanger’s Birth Control Federation of America becomes Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

1956 – Dr. John Rock (a Catholic) and others developed the birth control pill. Their research was funded by two women: 1968 – Pope Paul VI issues encyclical Humanae Vitae condemning artificial birth control.

1965 – In Griswold v. Connecticut, U.S. Supreme Court rules Connecticut’s law prohibiting birth control for married couples violates a newly defined right of marital privacy.

1967 – Then-Governor Ronald Reagan of California (who became a very anti-choice president) signs the most liberal abortion law of the times allowing freedom of choice during the first 20 weeks of pregnancy.

1970 – Hawaii, Alaska, and New York repeal criminal abortion laws allowing abortion in the first trimester.

1972 – Supreme Court finds the right to privacy of unmarried persons violated by Massachusetts law against distribution of contraceptives in Eisenstadt v Baird. Justice Brennan in the majority opinion states that all Americans have a right to bear and beget children free from government interference.

Monday Morning, January 22nd, 1973 – The U.S. Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision, hands down Roe v Wade making a 1st trimester abortion a private decision between a woman & her physician. In the 2nd trimester states can put limitations on abortion with regard to the health of the pregnant woman. In the 3rd trimester states can make abortion illegal except to save the life of the woman.

1973 – Indiana passes first call for a Constitutional Convention to ban abortion.

1970 – Belotti v Baird II decision allows states to require parental consent for abortion so long as there is a confidential judicial bypass.

1980 – 19 of the 34 states required have passed calls for a Constitutional Convention.

1989 – Webster v Reproductive Health Services is handed down by Supreme Court allowing states to place increased restrictions on women’s access to abortion.

1991 – Supreme Court upholds Title X gag rule (restriction on mentioning abortion in federally funded clinics) in Rust v Sullivan. Congress votes overwhelmingly to overturn gag rule, but override of Pres. Bush’s veto fails narrowly.

1993 – Newly inaugurated President Clinton reverses several anti-choice policies of Reagan & Bush administrations including gag rule.

1993 – Dr. David Gunn is murdered by anti-choice fanatic in Florida. He is the first of a series of abortion providers shot in the following years.

1994 – President Clinton signs Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) making it a federal crime to interfere with the provision of reproductive health care.

1995 – U.S. clinical trials of Mifepristone (RU486 - the French abortion pill).

1998 – January 22nd is the 25th anniversary of legal abortion in America. January 29th: A police officer is killed and a nurse is severely injured in a bomb blast outside a Birmingham clinic.

2000 – FDA approves Mifeprex (RU 486 - the French abortion pill) for use in U.S.

 

that is the silliest logic in the world. No one supports poverty. Not wanting abortion to take place doesnt mean you want poverty to continue.

As for torture? Well, i've never heard that term applied to a pregnancy. Then again, shouldnt someone take responsibility for their actions(sex)? You cant blame someone else for putting yourself in the position. I hardly think pro lifers are 'pro torture.'


and i never said pro choice people love abortions, so please, dont put words in my mouth. Saying "by your logic" doesnt actually make it my logic...it is still your own faulty logic..

 

^^ post 37.
Why would one be for something if they do not "love" it? Pro-choice people do not support abortions, they love democracy and the right to be able to choose. If the people were fucked up in the head and supported abortion, they would be called "pro-abortion". But alas, we just want to be able to live in a real democracy and we want to be able to have the right to choose.

Very well then, lets not apply it to pregnancy. Lets apply it to the kids first, the kids that if the mother had the choice to abort (if she didnt want them) would not be raised in a world of poverty and go through the torture and suffering of being poor and hungry and not mattering in this world. You could also apply the word "torture" to the underage mother (if she is underage) who could be disowned from her family and thrown out onto the streets, having to sleep around just for a place to stay and eat.

So, by your logic that pro-choice people are pro-abortion, pro-life people are pro-poverty and pro-justabouteverythingelse that is wrong with the innercities of America and most of the non-American world. If you cared so much about other people's lives, why don't you go donate your time to help the poor and hungry in the run-down parts of America and the world?