When it comes to AS pro-lifers,

Post Reply New Topic

From what I have read, Planned Parenthood has racist roots. I am pro-life, but I am not militant about it..However, I wish we, as a society, were more supportive of women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy, and encouraged them to have the baby and give it up for adoption. It bothers me that by allowing abortion to be legal, and socially acceptable, it confuses young girls. It's not exactly a "medical procedure". In late term abortions there are horrifying stories of how they stab the baby's skull and suck it's brain out, then pull it's body out piece by piece, and throw it in a garbage can. Surely, we are better than that!

I am quite confused by the "pro-life" movement.
1) It only seems to apply to humans.
2) It often seems only to apply to fetuses and sometimes to prison inmates.
3) It never seems to apply to a pedestrian trying to cross the street at a busy intersection.
4) It only seems to apply to the current generation and ignores the problem of human over-population.

I'd be more likely to be "pro-life" if it applied to the planet as a whole.

Obviously, the hard cases like Tay Sachs, rape, incest, threat to mother's life and so on should probably at least be considered for abortion. These together are less then 3% of ALL abortions performed. When dealing with anything like this, these hard cases could be covered under self defence laws or laws that say it is OK to turn off respirators to brain dead people eg "futile medical care" or something like that.

The law should take into account special situations. This is routine for things like the tax code for example.

Most abortions are done simple so that the mother can maintain her physical appearance, to remove proof that she was sexually active or simply because she fears pain or high medical bills. These excuses are flimsy and boil down to convenience. There is really no excuse for this. While Tay Sachs is terrible, so is abortion. Have you seen how it is done or what the results look like? Don't have lunch first ! !

The other cases such as reckless humans, criminals or animals are totally separate circumstances. Mixing these unrelated cases into the abortion debate is a time honored method designed to confuse people, and lead to absurd conclusions when none need occur.

Pedestrians who get injured in car accidents are treated at the nearest medical facility. Parades do not aid in the recovery process.

Animal cruelty is already against the law, usually covering companion animals. In the lab, it is regulated. This gets interesting. If a person tosses a kitten into a blender, they have committed a felony. Likewise if they participate in dog fighting. If a person gets an abortion, even a late term one, nothing happens. In these cases, animals are MORE protected then unborn humans... rabid dogs nonwithstanding.

I also resent the implication of being "anti-life."
I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I don't think it's anyone's idea of a spa weekend.

Abortion is not pretty at all, but it happens to careless people, and frankly, careless people are not what we need in this world so the less they reproduce the better it is for human evolution, in fact, these stages are part of human evolution.
I can't suffer about an abortion happening.

I agree that abortion should be considered for certain deceases that can be an extreme suffering to the being and the family(but that is a personal choice, the State should stay out of it).

Generally pro-life means that one is against abortions for all but the worst most unusual situations. It doesn't apply to other unrelated social issues.

Of course, no one can "know" anyone's situation exactly. For instance, no one can know how well you drive and how much your car can handle. We still have speed limits. Suppose one can use PCP successfully. That doesn't mean that we don't ban this dangerous mind altering drug. With any law, there is always a trade off between safety and human decency on one hand versus personal freedom on the other. Abortion shouldn't be any different. To say otherwise is to favor some sort of anarchist position whereby no rules should apply to anyone.

I do think that not enough attention is paid to pain during childbirth. Many women are experiencing far to much unnecessary pain and being discharged from hospitals too soon. Many men are fearful of their sperm being used without their position in order to trap them into child support, which makes them pressure women into abortions. (Men are more pro-choice then women in almost EVERY poll ever taken.) It would not be a bad idea to offer both free effective birth control to any female who wants it at any age as well as 100% pain control during childbirth if you want to minimize abortion. Another words, removing the barriers to doing the right thing should be paramount.

I am pro choice, men like to meddle in the rights of women too much, now I don't agree that abortion should be used as a method of birth control, there are easier ways to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. I had second tubal pregnancy in October and needed to have it removed because the first one I had was a tubal eruption and I bleed out bad. I do have one thing to say for all you pro lifers, keep your nose out of my business or any other womens who need to have an abortion

I'm not really pro-anything, just wondering if someone could clear something up for me about the "what if (insert person here) had been aborted?" argument.
Assuming that there is an equal likely hood of any given person being a terrorist, genius, etc
then why don't we just have babies 24/7 in the hopes of having a genius?
That came out strangely.
I guess what I'm asking (since I don't believe in God, and think that the sole reason one gets pregnant is that it happened to end up that this certain time a fetus happened to end up being concieved due to an act of sex, etc... and not due to some sort of divine will deciding that a baby should be born) well, I'd say that the population is composed of whatever percentage of bad eggs, whatever percentage of really exceptional people, and most of the mass of this pie graph is just average people, why do we only value those who happened to be born? Is it because this was closer to becoming reality? There's a possibility a child will be born any time somebody has sex, why do we only agonize over the possible children that were almost born, and not the ones that "could have" happened?
I'm sorry, reading back I see that this makes no sense whatsoever, probably sounds insensitive and cruel to some people, and will probably get someone mad, but I'm curious about this, as it's bothered me for a long time. Why do we only worry about the ones who were/may be aborted, and not the ones that simply never were?