• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Illinois Governor Signs Bill Scrapping Third-Trimester Abortion Restrictions

That is only part of the meaning of the word, and English may have only adopted that part. As far as I know, Latin seems to use both:

Except we speak English, not Latin. The definitions I gave where US/UK definitions of fetus and baby, where all agree that a fetus is before birth and a baby/infant is after birth.
 
Except we speak English, not Latin. The definitions I gave where US/UK definitions of fetus and baby, where all agree that a fetus is before birth and a baby/infant is after birth.

IMO, many pro-lifers prefer to ignore the more accurate terms which enable clear discussion, in favor of ones that are more emotionally-loaded, attempting to use emotional manipulation instead of argument.
 
Except we speak English, not Latin.

That's a bit funny, because fetus is a Latin word and we speak it. I would assume we would keep the full Latin definition as well. I always speak/type the word with it's full meaning in mind, not just half of it which is apparently what a lot of English dictionaries have. But to be clear, I was never talking about the English version when I said fetus is similar to baby. I was talking about the original meaning, and I will continue to do so.

The definitions I gave where US/UK definitions of fetus and baby, where all agree that a fetus is before birth and a baby/infant is after birth.

The US/UK definitions only define part of the word, which is a shame in my opinion. The modern definitions are only partially correct when they define the meaning of fetus.
 
IMO, many pro-lifers prefer to ignore the more accurate terms which enable clear discussion, in favor of ones that are more emotionally-loaded, attempting to use emotional manipulation instead of argument.

I've seen some emotionally charged comments on this forum in defense of abortion, such as the classic reasons why women get abortions and the descriptions that are used. Commonly, it is focused on women who are struggling and can't take care of a baby. That is used to provoke an emotional response in the listener to sympathize with the woman and think that maybe it would be right for her to get an abortion.

Pro-life people often use pictures of aborted babies and tell the women how much their unborn child is worth, how much they'll love their child when it's finally born.

Both sides use emotion. If you are a fair person, you would agree with me, but you seem to be a VERY one-sided person on this issue.

I would like to ask you why it is so hard for you to sympathize with the pro-life side. You know the unborn are human, you know they're alive. Pro-life people believe this also, and when they see that being killed, they have a problem with it. Why is it so hard for you to understand why certain people would have strong issues with abortion?
 
I've seen some emotionally charged comments on this forum in defense of abortion, such as the classic reasons why women get abortions and the descriptions that are used. Commonly, it is focused on women who are struggling and can't take care of a baby.

You mean facts? Yeah, they are relevant and integral to the discussion.

That is used to provoke an emotional response in the listener to sympathize with the woman and think that maybe it would be right for her to get an abortion.

And yet, most...and I do mean most...pro-life supporters dismiss it all, valuing the unborn more than the real life struggles and suffering and choice to do the responsible thing by the woman. And being able to fulfill your responsibilities to your current kids and other dependents, your obligations and commitments to employer, community, society...all reasonable and factual, but dismissed as less important than the unborn.

Pro-life people often use pictures of aborted babies and tell the women how much their unborn child is worth, how much they'll love their child when it's finally born.

Presuming women are stupid and didnt understand health/sex ed in grammar and high school isnt very respectful of women. And the unborn is worth ONLY what it is to that individual woman...nobody else can decide that for her.

Both sides use emotion. If you are a fair person, you would agree with me, but you seem to be a VERY one-sided person on this issue.

I think I only come across that way because few, if any, pro-lifers ever honestly explore the legal aspects of the discussion. And there can be no changes to abortion outside of the law. If the tough questions would be addressed directly and honestly by pro-life people, maybe we'd see a rational, logical discussion.

I would like to ask you why it is so hard for you to sympathize with the pro-life side. You know the unborn are human, you know they're alive. Pro-life people believe this also, and when they see that being killed, they have a problem with it. Why is it so hard for you to understand why certain people would have strong issues with abortion?

Let's be clear: there is ZERO reason to be sympathetic to pro-life people. THEY are not suffering a thing. They are not affected IN ANY WAY by strangers having abortions. Pro-choice means that every woman may decide for herself what is best for her...that means she is perfectly welcome to choose giving birth.

If you have problem with what other women choose to do with their lives, their futures, their health, their family and societal obligations, that's YOUR problem. That you would believe you have the right to decide what THEY should do, when you do not walk in their shoes, have their heath issues or obligations or responsibilities...is ludicrous.
 
Last edited:
Anyone care to get back to topic?

The topic is about abortion restrictions being lifted after 24 weeks.

Most pregnancies carried to that stage that are aborted have to do with severe fetal defects and/or maternal health issues.
 
Anyone care to get back to topic?

The topic is about abortion restrictions being lifted after 24 weeks.

Most pregnancies carried to that stage that are aborted have to do with severe fetal defects and/or maternal health issues.

I agree but only to save lives and in severe defects of the fetus. No elective abortions at that time I would assume because that time is long past at 24 weeks.
 
You mean facts? Yeah, they are relevant and integral to the discussion.

My point was that there was emotion used in the argument with the facts. The woman is struggling to pay the bills, she gets pregnant and can't take care of a child and work at the same time. I say again, that argument right there is a prime example of emotion being used along with some facts. The emotion is to get the listener to sympathize with the woman in the bad situation. That is where the pro-choice side uses emotion.

And yet, most...and I do mean most...pro-life supporters dismiss it all, valuing the unborn more than the real life struggles and suffering and choice to do the responsible thing by the woman. And being able to fulfill your responsibilities to your current kids and other dependents, your obligations and commitments to employer, community, society...all reasonable and factual, but dismissed as less important than the unborn.

You're using the emotion along with the fact that she can't take care of a child. You see how it works? It goes both ways and you're doing it right now. I'm not trying to refute any of your arguments here, I already have in previous threads, I'm trying to make the point to you that "emotional manipulation" is used on BOTH sides of the abortion debate, and you're doing it right now.


I think I only come across that way because few, if any, pro-lifers ever honestly explore the legal aspects of the discussion. And there can be no changes to abortion outside of the law. If the tough questions would be addressed directly and honestly by pro-life people, maybe we'd see a rational, logical discussion.

I believe I've answered your questions before and you didn't like the answers I gave. I can't help you with that. But aside from that, I am trying to have a rational discussion right now. You don't like emotion in arguments yet you use it yourself. I am trying to make the fact clear to you that pro-choice and pro-life people both do it. That is a rational claim, but you are the one being irrational by changing the subject to the actual abortion debate instead of admitting that pro-choice people use emotion as well. :/


Let's be clear: there is ZERO reason to be sympathetic to pro-life people. THEY are not suffering a thing. They are not affected IN ANY WAY by strangers having abortions. Pro-choice means that every woman may decide for herself what is best for her...that means she is perfectly welcome to choose giving birth.

First of all, I didn't say pro-lifers were suffering. I said they have problems with it.

Also - You are doing it again. Using Emotion. "they are not suffering a thing." You imply that woman who require abortions are going through great suffering. While I'm not saying that isn't true, you are using emotion to strengthen the point you are making.

Pro-lifers are deeply distressed when they see the unborn being killed. I see that you are never going to sympathize with pro-life people, and at the same time you want me to sympathize with struggling women.

Well guess what. I already do. I think it's terribly stressful to get pregnant and not know what you are going to do, and I'd gladly help the women in anyway I can OUTSIDE of abortion. But you refuse to understand why pro-life people are pro-life. You claim they are not effected in any way. If they are not effected, then why is there such a thing as pro-life people? Do you think they have a hidden agenda and are covering it up by faking their distress over millions of lives being ended before they've barely started? If you think that, you haven't bothered to understand the pro-life side at all. Listen to what actual pro-life people say instead of what your side says about them.

So I ask again. We all know the unborn are human, alive and innocent. So why would it be so hard to imagine why someone would see a problem with the termination of that life?

My points are about emotion being used in arguments, which you used a lot here. Not saying it's wrong to use emotion, but to say only pro-life people do it is misleading as you have just done a whole lot here.
 
My point was that there was emotion used in the argument with the facts. The woman is struggling to pay the bills, she gets pregnant and can't take care of a child and work at the same time. I say again, that argument right there is a prime example of emotion being used along with some facts. The emotion is to get the listener to sympathize with the woman in the bad situation. That is where the pro-choice side uses emotion.

Nice try. It seems your entire post is to deny that facts speak for themselves and any use of them means someone is "using" emotional manipulation.

And that's not true. The facts speak for themselves. A woman's decisions and struggles are real. Whatever value or emotion you CHOOSE to apply to those is up to you. I did no such thing...I just posted the facts or pointed out they were facts.

You're using the emotion along with the fact that she can't take care of a child. You see how it works? It goes both ways and you're doing it right now. I'm not trying to refute any of your arguments here, I already have in previous threads, I'm trying to make the point to you that "emotional manipulation" is used on BOTH sides of the abortion debate, and you're doing it right now.

Nope, see above.

First of all, I didn't say pro-lifers were suffering. I said they have problems with it.

This is what you said:

I would like to ask you why it is so hard for you to sympathize with the pro-life side. ?

Also - You are doing it again. Using Emotion. "they are not suffering a thing." You imply that woman who require abortions are going through great suffering. While I'm not saying that isn't true, you are using emotion to strengthen the point you are making.

I stated a fact: pro-lifers are not suffering a thing because women they dont know get abortions. Not a thing is forced on them to cause suffering.

If they "suffer," it's because of selfish self-indulgence, with them wishing they had the power to exert THEIR choices on women they dont even know.

Pro-lifers are deeply distressed when they see the unborn being killed. I see that you are never going to sympathize with pro-life people, and at the same time you want me to sympathize with struggling women.

Again: you are using emotional manipulation...not fact. The pro-lifers SEE exactly NO abortions. And are not even aware of them unless they choose to get involved in someone else's private medical decisions. You CHOOSE to indulge in imagining these things graphically, and then IMO, self-righteously act outraged.

Well guess what. I already do. I think it's terribly stressful to get pregnant and not know what you are going to do, and I'd gladly help the women in anyway I can OUTSIDE of abortion. But you refuse to understand why pro-life people are pro-life. You claim they are not effected in any way. If they are not effected, then why is there such a thing as pro-life people? Do you think they have a hidden agenda and are covering it up by faking their distress over millions of lives being ended before they've barely started? If you think that, you haven't bothered to understand the pro-life side at all. Listen to what actual pro-life people say instead of what your side says about them.

Pro-life people are totally welcome to their beliefs on the issue. I have no problem with them thinking whatever they want. What I have a problem is when they decide to vote for people they believe will try to take away a woman's right to choose what is best for her, her family, and her commitments and obligations to community, society. Or to stand in women's way and make them feel like they are doing something wrong at clinics.

So I ask again. We all know the unborn are human, alive and innocent. So why would it be so hard to imagine why someone would see a problem with the termination of that life?

See above. It's one thing to value the unborn more than women...it's another to act on it. I find the idea repressive, inhumane, selfish, disrespectful of women, and harmful to society.

My points are about emotion being used in arguments, which you used a lot here. Not saying it's wrong to use emotion, but to say only pro-life people do it is misleading as you have just done a whole lot here.

Aside from my last paragraph, I've been only speaking to observations and facts. You just 'want' to make it about me using emotion as well.
 
Nice try. It seems your entire post is to deny that facts speak for themselves and any use of them means someone is "using" emotional manipulation.

You really need to read the posts you reply to. First of all, I never said that the facts didn't speak for themselves, and where did I deny that the woman was struggling? I merely claimed that often, when this argument is presented to the pro-life side, the pro-choicer will overplay the struggling part as justification for the abortion.

A woman's decisions and struggles are real.

I never said they aren't. Saying that pro-choice people use emotion in their arguments isn't saying that women's struggles are fake. It's just overused to provoke emotional responses in the opposition. It's the same thing with pro-lifers with signs that have dead babies on them. The pictures are real, but the pro-lifers are using the pictures to provoke emotional responses in women who are getting abortions.

I am being rational here. Both sides use it. You continue to deny the fact that you are using emotion.


I stated a fact: pro-lifers are not suffering a thing because women they dont know get abortions. Not a thing is forced on them to cause suffering.

Again, I did NOT say pro-lifers are SUFFERING. I said they have a problem with abortion because it kills a human baby.

If they "suffer," it's because of selfish self-indulgence, with them wishing they had the power to exert THEIR choices on women they dont even know.

Again. I never said pro-lifers suffered. I said they have a PROBLEM with abortion, and it's not because they are self-indulged. It's because they care about the unborn.

Again: you are using emotional manipulation...not fact. The pro-lifers SEE exactly NO abortions. And are not even aware of them unless they choose to get involved in someone else's private medical decisions. You CHOOSE to indulge in imagining these things graphically, and then IMO, self-righteously act outraged.

I meant see abortions figuratively speaking. They "see" abortions as commonplace in the society they live in. Now you are back to accusing pro-lifers as being self-righteous people for the things they do. You realize that pro-lifers are trying to save what they see as the real lives of babies? Even if pro-lifers are wrong to be doing this, WHY can't you even BEGIN to understand their position and why they try to convince women to adopt instead of abort?

See above. It's one thing to value the unborn more than women...it's another to act on it. I find the idea repressive, inhumane, selfish, disrespectful of women, and harmful to society.

I never said I valued the unborn more then women. You REALLY need to read the posts you reply to. Please. Stop misrepresenting literally everything I say.

Reverse your words around and that's exactly what pro-life people feel about the unborn being slaughtered by the thousands every day. I could use your exact words. Inhumane, selfish. Can you see why pro-lifers have a problem with abortions yet? I do value the woman more, an example would be a life threatening pregnancy. She can get the abortion if she is going to die IMHO. However, I don't see the unborn as so WORTHLESS that it should be okay to kill them when there are better options to choose.

You seem to be unable to even fathom why someone would be opposed to unborn humans being killed. You continue to say that pro-lifers are self-indulged, self-righteous, etc. Do you even believe there is ONE pro-life person out there that truly cares about unborn babies enough to rather see them given a chance to live instead of die? PLEASE, just please try to understand the pro-life side for just one second.

I hate to sound like a mean person, but it really sounds like you are the one who is self-righteous when you can't even begin to fathom why someone would be opposed to the deaths of millions of humans. :(

Goodnight.
 
Last edited:
You really need to read the posts you reply to. First of all, I never said that the facts didn't speak for themselves, and where did I deny that the woman was struggling? I merely claimed that often, when this argument is presented to the pro-life side, the pro-choicer will overplay the struggling part as justification for the abortion.

What justification of abortion? Who needs a justification? Not us, we don't care about people not having abortions or having abortions. We are pro-choice. As long as the woman who is pregnant can make a free choice about what she wants to do with the ZEF growing in her, we could care less if she has one or not has one. The only person who has to decide for herself is she wants an abortion or not is the pregnant woman. It is none of our business as pro-choicers because it is none of our business what she decides.

I never said they aren't. Saying that pro-choice people use emotion in their arguments isn't saying that women's struggles are fake. It's just overused to provoke emotional responses in the opposition. It's the same thing with pro-lifers with signs that have dead babies on them. The pictures are real, but the pro-lifers are using the pictures to provoke emotional responses in women who are getting abortions.

I am being rational here. Both sides use it. You continue to deny the fact that you are using emotion.

Well, when I rationally decided to use common definitions you still want to use that charged emotional image of a rosy new born baby even though what you posted was not a picture of a baby of nine weeks but a fetus of 9 weeks of gestation. That to me is not very rational but I will agree that both sides use emotion to some degree. We use it to promote women's rights, the pro-life side does it to deny a woman that right.

Again, I did NOT say pro-lifers are SUFFERING. I said they have a problem with abortion because it kills a human baby.

Again, not a baby. How is that rational if you keep misrepresenting the issue. And if you have a problem with abortion than fine, don't have one. This is a private medical decision that any woman has to make for her own life and her own moral compass. It is none of our business what she decides to do. Your inaccurate portrayal of a baby being killed is the usual pro-life emotional nonsense that is used to invoke images and thoughts that are totally inaccurate compared to what abortion (elective abortion) really entails.

All we can do is make abortion less of an issue by good sex education, good access to birth control and a fairer wage and career system for women. Make all companies give mandatory 12 weeks of pregnancy leave. Give parental leave. Etc. etc. etc. You do not stop abortions by making them illegal but by making they as obsolete as possible.

Again. I never said pro-lifers suffered. I said they have a PROBLEM with abortion, and it's not because they are self-indulged. It's because they care about the unborn.

No, they have a problem with not being allowed to bully women into living the way they want to. And again, if you have a problem with abortion, work at preventing unwanted pregnancies and real financial gains for those you want to force to birth a baby they do not want to put on this world.

And most republican conservatives do not care about the unborn, they care about controlling and forcing women to live according to their views. Because if you care about the unborn, you care about them before and after birth.
 
I meant see abortions figuratively speaking. They "see" abortions as commonplace in the society they live in. Now you are back to accusing pro-lifers as being self-righteous people for the things they do. You realize that pro-lifers are trying to save what they see as the real lives of babies? Even if pro-lifers are wrong to be doing this, WHY can't you even BEGIN to understand their position and why they try to convince women to adopt instead of abort?

Because it is none of your business what a woman decides, stop interfering in her uterus. It is not your uterus to begin with or your choice. Abortion is a personal private medical decision a woman has to make for herself. And purely for herself. And adoption has it's own set of problems for both the pregnant woman and the unborn.

I never said I valued the unborn more then women. You REALLY need to read the posts you reply to. Please. Stop misrepresenting literally everything I say.

Reverse your words around and that's exactly what pro-life people feel about the unborn being slaughtered by the thousands every day. I could use your exact words. Inhumane, selfish. Can you see why pro-lifers have a problem with abortions yet? I do value the woman more, an example would be a life threatening pregnancy. She can get the abortion if she is going to die IMHO. However, I don't see the unborn as so WORTHLESS that it should be okay to kill them when there are better options to choose.

You want women to no longer have abortions because of your views on the unborn. So yes, you value the unborn more than you value the pregnant woman and her right to choose. That is how it is.

And no-one is being slaughtered, another nice pro-life fake technique to demonize the right of women to choose. In your mind it is cruel, but you could care less to the cruelty you want to impose on women. And slaughtering? The nazi's slaughtered people, each abortion is one procedure. Slaughter is one of those pro-life nonsense descriptions of abortion.

You seem to be unable to even fathom why someone would be opposed to unborn humans being killed. You continue to say that pro-lifers are self-indulged, self-righteous, etc. Do you even believe there is ONE pro-life person out there that truly cares about unborn babies enough to rather see them given a chance to live instead of die? PLEASE, just please try to understand the pro-life side for just one second.

I am unable to fathom what makes you think you have the right to decide for women what they can and cannot do with their wombs. The self-righteous, self-indulges, arrogant, caring only what they think is right pro-lifers are exactly that. They think abortion is wrong so every body has to think abortion is wrong and ban it. That is self-righteous, self-indulgent, arrogant and uncaring about women.

If a pro-life mother decides to have a baby and put it up for adoption than that is her choice. If she cares enough for the unborn to want to do that than great for her. That is her right to decide that. The issue comes when pro-lifers want to make other people live to their views that the issue I have with them starts. I understand a pro-life woman deciding about her body, but I have ZERO understanding for pro-lifers who want to force other people to do their bidding by trying to make abortion illegal.
 
You really need to read the posts you reply to. First of all, I never said that the facts didn't speak for themselves, and where did I deny that the woman was struggling? I merely claimed that often, when this argument is presented to the pro-life side, the pro-choicer will overplay the struggling part as justification for the abortion.

I wrote that you continue to entangle emotion WITH the facts. Nor did I write you denied women struggle. You certainly seem to values their lives and struggles less than the unborn tho.

And no woman needs to justify abortion to someone else. She has her needs and reasons.

I never said they aren't. Saying that pro-choice people use emotion in their arguments isn't saying that women's struggles are fake. It's just overused to provoke emotional responses in the opposition. It's the same thing with pro-lifers with signs that have dead babies on them. The pictures are real, but the pro-lifers are using the pictures to provoke emotional responses in women who are getting abortions.

I am being rational here. Both sides use it. You continue to deny the fact that you are using emotion.

Just more of your denial. I admitted the place I used emotion...the rest is fact or observation based on fact. You continue to ignore that as inconvenient to your argument. If the discussion remains circular...you dont have to acknowledge when you're points miss the mark.


Again, I did NOT say pro-lifers are SUFFERING. I said they have a problem with abortion because it kills a human baby.

Again. I never said pro-lifers suffered. I said they have a PROBLEM with abortion, and it's not because they are self-indulged. It's because they care about the unborn.

Yes...I wrote that. That most, if not all, pro-life supporters care more about the unborn than women.

Again, you can see why I'm not concerned with their feelings at all.
 
I meant see abortions figuratively speaking. They "see" abortions as commonplace in the society they live in. Now you are back to accusing pro-lifers as being self-righteous people for the things they do. You realize that pro-lifers are trying to save what they see as the real lives of babies? Even if pro-lifers are wrong to be doing this, WHY can't you even BEGIN to understand their position and why they try to convince women to adopt instead of abort?

I get it. THey dont like it (I dont think anyone does) but they feel that they have the right to encourage the govt to make laws that would protect the unborn ahead of protecting women. I am against that, clearly.

They value the unborn more than women. They cannot be treated equally under the law...it's not possible. If you would see the govt make laws that would force women to remain pregnant against their will, then you value the unborn more than women. That's a fact (if they cant be treated equally, it's simple math.)

I value the unborn, but I value all born people more. So I am pro-choice.

I never said I valued the unborn more then women. You REALLY need to read the posts you reply to. Please. Stop misrepresenting literally everything I say.

Please see above. But if you believe they can be treated equally under the law, by society, please explain.

Reverse your words around and that's exactly what pro-life people feel about the unborn being slaughtered by the thousands every day. I could use your exact words. Inhumane, selfish. Can you see why pro-lifers have a problem with abortions yet? I do value the woman more, an example would be a life threatening pregnancy. She can get the abortion if she is going to die IMHO. However, I don't see the unborn as so WORTHLESS that it should be okay to kill them when there are better options to choose.


You seem to be unable to even fathom why someone would be opposed to unborn humans being killed. You continue to say that pro-lifers are self-indulged, self-righteous, etc. Do you even believe there is ONE pro-life person out there that truly cares about unborn babies enough to rather see them given a chance to live instead of die? PLEASE, just please try to understand the pro-life side for just one second.

LIke I wrote, it's sad if a woman feels she must have an abortion but you just continue to self-indulgently compare this to millions of people being killed. THis is not true, but it is an insult to those that have been subjected to such mass extinction, like the Jews.

Who are you to know what a 'better option' is for a woman and her life and dependents and responsibilities to society? Please answer that.

I think we all would like the unborn to have a chance at life. The difference is, pro-choice people value and respect women more and would not use legal (and physical loss of freedom, rights, etc) force to subject them to pregnancy against their will. You, clearly, would.

I hate to sound like a mean person, but it really sounds like you are the one who is self-righteous when you can't even begin to fathom why someone would be opposed to the deaths of millions of humans. :(

Uh, I'm not the one comparing abortion to the Holocaust, or supporting women being 2nd class citizens again, in a govt that places the unborn's (imagined) rights ahead of women's.

Now it does sound a bit dramatic eh? But the results of ending elective abortion would result in exactly that. Hardly as insulting as comparing abortion to the Holocaust.
 
Last edited:
From Maireed McCardle at National Review:

The bill scraps a requirement that a second physician sign off on an abortion performed after viability (around 24 weeks) and permits the procedure for the “health of the patient,” which includes “all factors that are relevant to the patient’s health and well-being, including, but not limited to, physical, emotional, psychological, and familial health and age.”

The law also repeals Illinois’s Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, although that procedure, usually performed extremely late in a pregnancy, is still prohibited by federal law. Certain non-doctor medical professionals would be permitted to perform abortions under the law, and all health insurers would be required to cover the procedure.

Illinois Governor & Abortion -- J.B. Pritzker Signs Bill Scrapping Third-Trimester Abortion Restrictions | National Review

Governor Pritzker thinks his signing this law will make Illinois a "beacon of hope." How tragic.

this is worse then the death of cows and pigs how? its better not to get pregnant if you don't want to be or to abort early but whats the problem here?
 
I meant see abortions figuratively speaking. They "see" abortions as commonplace in the society they live in. Now you are back to accusing pro-lifers as being self-righteous people for the things they do. You realize that pro-lifers are trying to save what they see as the real lives of babies? Even if pro-lifers are wrong to be doing this, WHY can't you even BEGIN to understand their position and why they try to convince women to adopt instead of abort?



I never said I valued the unborn more then women. You REALLY need to read the posts you reply to. Please. Stop misrepresenting literally everything I say.

Reverse your words around and that's exactly what pro-life people feel about the unborn being slaughtered by the thousands every day. I could use your exact words. Inhumane, selfish. Can you see why pro-lifers have a problem with abortions yet? I do value the woman more, an example would be a life threatening pregnancy. She can get the abortion if she is going to die IMHO. However, I don't see the unborn as so WORTHLESS that it should be okay to kill them when there are better options to choose.

You seem to be unable to even fathom why someone would be opposed to unborn humans being killed. You continue to say that pro-lifers are self-indulged, self-righteous, etc. Do you even believe there is ONE pro-life person out there that truly cares about unborn babies enough to rather see them given a chance to live instead of die? PLEASE, just please try to understand the pro-life side for just one second.

I hate to sound like a mean person, but it really sounds like you are the one who is self-righteous when you can't even begin to fathom why someone would be opposed to the deaths of millions of humans. :(

Goodnight.

Here is the problem as I see it.

Pro lifers claim they are pro life. But DO.. with the laws they propose.. put woman at more risk for death. You say "well.. she can have an abortion if its life threatening".

Okay.. define that. so that a medical provider can make a decision to terminate pregnancy and save a womans life.. that won't put me in jail. Is it a 10% chance of death. 80 percent chance of death. 50% chance of death? What criteria do you use to determine what is life threatening? Because according to these laws.. a medical provider making the "wrong"decision to save a womans life ends up in prison.

So there is no question that pro lifers are putting the babies life ahead of the mothers.

So we get to the next part.

So..if they are so concerned with the baby and its life. Why do they want to see more babies suffer? More often than not.. another reason to terminate a pregnancy is because a baby might make it to term..but never be able to exist without medical technology. So.. pro lifers are relegating thousands of babies to days, perhaps weeks of suffering with no real chance of any life. Why?

The vast majority of pro lifers would not want that to happen to say their father, and they would end his life by pulling the medical technology off to end his suffering.

So why won't they prevent suffering in a "unborn".?

Sorry sir.. but there is a lot here that does not add up to a concern about the baby, or the mother or life or suffering.

And that's not even getting into what the pro life movement generally feels about having social services to take care of babies after they are born..

Or what the pro life movement feels about the right to withhold treatment of children for religious reasons. Many pro lifers will scream bloody murder about the life of the "unborn".... but staunchly defend a "chrisitians".. right to withhold life saving treatment from a 6 year old. I have seen it.

The facts are.. that objectively the only conclusion one can make about the pro life movement is that they want to control women and what women do. regardless of the suffering or lives of the baby or the mother.
 
this is worse then the death of cows and pigs how? its better not to get pregnant if you don't want to be or to abort early but whats the problem here?

Well, one problem is the first question you asked.
 
Back
Top Bottom