One question pro-abortionists refuse to answer

Post Reply New Topic

im pro death, why do we need 7 billion people in the world? the answer: we dont

i agree but you could turn it around, i doubt 'pro-lifers' would describe themselves as anti-choice

the names sorta point out the problem, is it the baby's life or the mothers choice?

What's more important? A human life or someones choice to undo a choice they previously made? No one who is pro-life wants to interfere or take away womens' rights or freedoms so pro-life could never be described as anti-choice. I'm pro-life and support womens' rights including womens' right to choose whether or not they want kids. If they don't want kids, they shouldn't get pregnant. Once they've made their decision, I think they should accept it and not murder their children.

Abortion is about the baby and not some trivial choice. Some women give birth and then murder their child and throw him in a dumpster. I think most people would be offended if the acceptance of that was called pro-choice. For pro-lifers, there is no distinction between the unborn and the born. Human life begins at conception and keeps developing from there. A fetus doesn't suddenly become human after an arbitrary number of weeks from conception. I don't see any difference between murdering a born baby versus aborting a fetus.

Zendell, you've made some good points, but some would still dispute you on whether life begins at conception- to me, that is the only controversy that needs to be settled to decide the argument conclusively.

To pre-empt anyone who will criticize you for advocating that women choose not to get pregnant if they don't want kids- rape victims are essentially negligible in terms of the number of abortions performed each year, so just about every pregnant women is in that situation because of their own choices.

okay, so here's a follow-up question for you:

do you think that women who have miscarriages should be on trial for manslaughter? maybe every case should be investigated to make sure they're not just trying to force the miscarriage to avoid having an abortion?


really, nothing is alive till it's alive. meaning outside and breathing. if it's the mother's will to try and keep the fetus, that's her choice because at that point, it's still her body (and that works both ways, for saving the fetus and eliminating it).


but really: what's it matter? are we in some kind of population depression where we're losing our populous to where we need to stop these abortions and get our population back to booming numbers again?

if not, you're just looking to legislate you own religion and to that i say: keep it to yourself you self-righteous jerk.

So a mother could punch herself in the stomach 8.5 months after conception to kill her child and it would be okay with you because she didn't slaughter her child outside the womb?



Those are scary arguments. We have so many people, why not let mothers murder their 2 year old children also? How about disabled people, do we really need them? Sounds more like Hitler's logic. This isn't a religious issue for me. It's about protecting vulnerable children.

Godwin's law...

If you're going to take the prolife thing very seriously you have to concede that life doesn't start at conception, it doesn't start at all. It just always is. There is a continuous line of living things back to the first time life appeared on Earth. Both sperm and eggs are undeniably alive and anyone who has a wet dream or passes an unfertilized egg is technically guilty of murder since each one is potentially capable of, with help, producing a human being. The reality is that nature ensures the continuation of life by being very generous in producing potential living things and probably the overwhelming bulk never make into a free living creature. Every successful free living being got that way by much help from its progenitors and a hell of a lot of luck. Sure the world has too many people to live a decent life but not many people are willing to kill themselves to alleviate the situation. Certainly not me.

Yeah you're right. Women should just keep their legs closed.

Ignorance is truly bliss!

well, this is the question i proposed to you and you didn't answer. are you going to commit to investigating every single miscarriage and infant death as a murder? that's the only logical step from what you want legislated. especially since they won't be able to do it legally anymore.





scary arguments? i've already stated that life doesn't begin until birth. it's pretty simple logic that gets convoluted by religious persons who look to enforce their own views on everyone and so they take things out of context, misrepresent, and generally spin issues until it fits their worldview. and going back on simple logic: if there's a choice between setting up a restriction or allowing freedom in a situation where there is no victim, i'll go for freedom every time.

and no, the fetus is not a living thing. it's a vestigial organ until the point of birth. actually, the specific term for it is parasite. and many times, that's how the body treats the newly fertilized egg (that you say is now alive that wasn't only a few hours ago).

dunno, anytime i hear the christian pro-life argument, it always reminds me of the monty python tune "every sperm is sacred". it's just religion looking to exert control over the individual's body and reproductive process.

Your terminology is mistaken. A fetus/embryo is undeniably alive. What they are not, however, is a person. Personhood begins at birth.

It has recently been established that the physiological development of the nervous system is incomplete until the early 20's. Personhood is not a physiological classification, it is legal. Each stage of a creature's development makes it viable at that stage. Being free living is merely one qualification but a baby after birth is certainly not independent.

And we're debating whether or not abortion should be legal, so it seems topical. Ultimately the debate is over whether a fetus has legal protections as a person. You have to draw an arbitrary line somewhere or another, it makes the most sense to me to draw it at birth.

The best arguments for the legality of abortion, IMO, disregard the possible humanity of the fetus and attempt to prove that it could not be just to force a woman to carry a fetus endowed with human rights or otherwise.

The "it's a woman's choice" argument is of this type; albeit a castrated- dumbed- down- so- that- the- masses- can- understand- it- and- regurgitate- the- proposition- as- a- self- evident- fact one.

Under this approach, "OMG DED BEBEH" is a red herring.

I support abortion when it is necessary and the kid has not developed a brain/ neuronal system / whatever you mean.

Else it is murder, seriously.

Nice spin but I'm not buying it. I bet you think I'm anti-women for opposing abortion which would be funny because many women also oppose abortion for the same reasons I do to protect the lives of innocent victims. You can't seriously say that abortion has anything to do with womens' rights when so many women are opposed to it.

You stated, "Life doesn't begin until birth. it's pretty simple logic." No, it's not. It's illogical and unscientific. Babies are born at different times. According to your logic, a baby born prematurely at 6 months would be a human life that should be protected but a baby still in the womb at 8 months isn't human and the baby's mom should be allowed to kill him. If you disagree, show me scientific evidence that a child inside the womb at 8 months is less human than a child outside the womb at 6 months.

innocent victims? i don't see any.

seriously: where is the negative effect of abortion?

i've asked this before and you insulted me by saying that the next step would be to abort 2 year olds which i already clearly stated is a crime and is murder by defining life beginning as at birth.


edit: i'm redirecting my point, by the way, because i realize that abstract concepts won't go over well so i'm just asking you for a botton line. what's it affect? and you can't use the feti in question because you can't use a topic as the justification as well. give me social reasons and consequences and hard numbers. and also, you can't use the "women who have abortions are more likely to suffer depression" reasoning because it's impossible to tell whether it's that or whether it's the giant social stigma attached to it and everyone calling you a "baby killer" and other such derogatory terms.