Why do you persist in this unimaginative line of criticism. The sides are drawn pro-Life vs pro-Choice. They have been assigned to the abortion debate. They are not of my choosing. Blame the media I guess! The sides for the death penalty argument are pro-Death Penalty and anti-Death Penalty. They likewise are not of my choosing.... If that is really so confusing to you, you might wish to read Wikipedia from cover to cover. Consider them proper names. For example, if you ask your waiter to bring you the bill, do you expect him to bring you a summary of your restaurant charges or the mouth of a duck? It's not really that hard not to confuse the two... if you try at all. I know they sound alike; heck they are even spelled alike but they mean something different. It's called context.
Moreover, the baby is certainly taken into consideration - otherwise there would be no debate, no internal struggle, no painful decision.
Great read! Just wish more of the anti-choice advocates could understand this. They just like to lump everything into one basket, make things black or white and expect that everyone's lives are like their own. If they were on the other end of the spectrum and trying wearing a different hat maybe they would understand more. In a perfect would this would be the case, but it's not. If no abortions were ever done, these women trying to get a foot hold on life would end up with children that were troubled. These children more often the not would end up in trouble themselves with more children having children. These children would(statistically speaking), end up in jail and on the wrong side of the law. Possibly facing the death penalty in some cases(which they advocate), causing the government even more money. We all know how this group also hates paying taxes and would be in a uproar about that. This tread was about Christian terrorist killing doctors and they of coarse change the discussion in to a Pro-choice vs. Pro Life(Anti-choice) debate. These are the same guys that are talking about educating women but in the same breath bomb Planned Parenthood centers, picket centers and try to harass women to make them feel even more guilty than they feel and think that only choice of education is absence and protest other forms of education in schools. I truly call these guys not Pro-life, but Anti-Choice. Do it our way and how we feel you should do it, or we'll cut your throat. They should really worry about what's happening in their own backyard and stop looking over the fence to see what the neighbors are doing. If people spent more time worrying about themselves they would have less time to worry about others.
Link? I see Lscoladominates already addressed this. Anyway its considered good BBS form to provide the evidence for a claim rather than making a claim and then expecting others to look it up.
Some excellent posts here. My position is Pro-Choice here, accepting Giddyup's definitions, but I agree completely that the ultimate goal should be reducing abortions. To me a legal prohibition isn't the the way to go and we should be looking at addressing what are the causes for getting abortions. Simply demonizing women by saying that they are doing this for lifestyle choices isn't the way to go and certainly killing abortion provider isn't either. One thing I think that we should always remember is that when abortions were legally prohibitted they were still being done but since they were done with no regulation they often represented as much of a health risk to the mother as to the fetus. I doubt that most of the Pro-life side would like to think about the spectre of back alley abortions or adulturated RU-486 but that is likely to be an inevitable consequence of a blanket ban on abortions.
Now how did you get all those little green respect dots? Doesn't my negative feedback count in here? (hope all is well)
yes, because every single woman that has an abortion was going to birth a career criminal/slacker/zero. you can't even begin to pretend that this is even true for the majority of the woman who elect to have an abortion. how in the world can you predict what these kids will do when they grow up? kids raised in poverty or substandard environments succeed in life quite often. the rest of your spewage is not even worth responding, although easily destroyable.
You should try sitting in another chair with a different view. People from bothsides of the aisle and in the aisle feel the other people are profiling or "dishing it out".
A lot can get mis-represented in these brief exchanges. I don't know that a pro-Life position means a complete banning of abortions like you and others have suggested. I've never suggested that in all the time that we've been having these discussions here. I can support a pro-Choice position when it comes to health issues surrounding the life of the mother. I would even reluctantly go to a pro-Choice position when it comes to victims of incest or rape. I'm not entirely comfortable with that because, again, the child is entirely innocent... but if it would mean the elimination of lifestyle abortions I would concede that circumstance with a goal toward reducing abortions overall. I'm a bit flustered about late term abortions. They seem like mercy killings-- which I'm not opposed to and who better to say so than the parents. The pro-Choice tent is just TOO BIG for my conscience. So the irony is that I am accepting of some "Choice" when it comes to the abortion issue but I will never call myself a pro-Choice supporter because of the broad statement that makes in the context have this specific discussion. That's why I am befuddled by people who will say they are against abortion but claim to be pro-Choice. They are empowering a choice that means the destruction of a baby's life. Ironically that same person will, statistically, rant on against the death penalty for some scumbag who rapes and murders two 14YO girls walking home from the skating rink but somehow it's okay for a woman to have the right to terminate the life of the baby growing inside her because her right to choose precludes the child's right to life. Wow? I think you unfairly paint "my" side as demonizing women who get abortions as doing so for lifestyle reasons, but it is, in fact, borne out by the statistics. Most abortions are simply after-the-fact birth control methods. All these general statements we make here are going to have exceptions of course.
i think you unfairly paint "my" side as murdering babies. again, i don't understand how you can believe an abortion is murder, but then include exceptions. if the woman didn't want to die from a complicated pregnancy, she shouldn't have had sex, right?
Why does it matter? You are going to mock my position either way. If I toe the line for strict pro-Life, I'm unreasonable, but if I try to compromise I'm called hypocritical or inconsistent. What do you call it when you terminate a life? I try to stay away from the word "murder" but I will admit to having it creep into my language when I get riled up. Not having sex is a sure-fired way not to die from a complication of pregnancy. You cannot argue with that fact. So what? The real issue is if you are going to engage in sex you need to be responsible enough to live with the consequences you create... whatever they might be.
The point isn't that every aborted fetus will grow up to be a mass murderer, but that for many women facing these decisions their child's prospects in life are likely very poor from the start. Some want to be able to choose not to bring a child into the world under such circumstances. You say they could just carry the child to term and give it up for adoption. But even assuming that the baby will be perfectly healthy and adoptable, there are many difficulties with that process that the woman may decide she's not able to face. Most people acknowledge that there are at least some circumstances in which abortion is justified. At that point it becomes a medical decision, not a political one. Women and their doctors are the only ones capable of making that decision.
Their is no poorer prospect if life than premature death. Tough ****. If you create a "problem," you have to face it. Flushing a baby to "solve" your problem is just cowardly and irresponsible which should not be encouraged. Private adoption is pretty quick, isn't it? If you have a child with profound health issues, you can abandon the child to the state.... and that is better than aborting it. There are those "angels" among us who adopt special needs kids. With that I agree. Did you realize that this position also is also found under the pro-Life tent?
i am in no way mocking your position. in fact, i would try to convince any woman i know not to have an abortion if confronted with an unwanted pregnancy. i just truly don't understand how someone could be so adamently pro-life, but then allow for any exceptions. i was just using a common rationale against abortions (if you don't want to get pregnant and face the consequences, then don't have sex) against an exception that you favor. my main issue with this debate is with the rhetoric thrown around by many that leads to incidents like the one last weekend. instead of working together to truly reduce abortions, many on "your" side would rather call people murderers. theylike to shame people by saying it's just an act of convenience instead of looking at the various reasons why a person would choose that route and work to battle those.
giddyup: I understand your views. Like many others here (including yourself, apparently) I am pro-choice but anti-abortion. The problem, IMHO, is that many abortion opponents simply think the legality of the process is to blame. That's simply not true. I mean, the whole point of legalizing was to avoid dangerous methods performed during the prior era. If abortion opponents really want to end abortions (outside of medical decisions, either with the fetus or the mother - that should remain the parents' call) the focus should be on contraception and education, not the courtroom or the doctors. You say "The real issue is if you are going to engage in sex you need to be responsible enough to live with the consequences you create... whatever they might be." and that is rational - but misguided in that it necessitates education that is lacking, and, more than likely, impossible given the unavoidable biological impulse.
There you are throwing screwballs again. Please pull some stats showing minorities, underprivalged(low income), single mothers and uneducated families(and what I mean by uneducated is high school degree or less)/with children and crime rates. If you want quote my post, quote the whole post please.
so why doesn't this apply when it comes to the health of the mother? any pregnancy can have risks for the baby and the mother. to "solve" that problem, you still have to kill the baby.
Your negative feedback has no power here! As usual you've come through with some great post too. Make some inspiring Rockets playoffs thread quoting Shakespeare and you will get some more green respect dots too.
