Abortion Doctor shot in Wichita

[MrSpitz]

It's cool, I'm pro-life and to express this I attend anti-abortion rallies and vote in anti-abortion candidates. I'm unconcerned about the fate of disabled or even abandoned children as long as they are not aborted. I don't do much charity work to help those struggling with problems in life around me. But I'm pro-life.

Have a great afternoon kids, carry on the good work.

[UnchainedAcolyte]

Originally Posted by Dumar

it makes them feel morally superior. that's the whole point and why most people protest or choose to even enter a debate, not to really be an impetus of change or win, but to feel superior.

you can't make people see their own bigotry and bias; it's impossible.

"Hey, remember the other day when you asked me what the definition of irony was and I said-"

[Alcestis]

Originally Posted by MrSpitz

If you want to debate a single issue, don't call your position one that implies you protect all life to try and sell your view point and discredit your opposition.

Actually, I already said that in my previous post, before you made yourself look like a fool.

Originally Posted by Alcestis

you are concerned that "pro-life" sounds a hell of a lot better than "anti-abortion" and they're somehow misrepresenting their position.

When you're trying to convince another side of your viewpoint in opinion wars, people will pull out anything to win. Even stupidly tiny implications that serve to brainwash the masses. It may be arrogant, and you may be balls out insulted enough to posture on a messageboard, but I don't believe this makes it wrong. If someone is truly ridiculous enough to get suckered into the "pro-life" camp because they believed (and continue to believe without examining said party one bit) they protect ALL life, then your righteous indignation and insistence at protecting the sheeple is amusing at best, misguided at worst.

[Dumar]

Originally Posted by UnchainedAcolyte

"Hey, remember the other day when you asked me what the definition of irony was and I said-"

lol i'm about as least biased as you'll get outta a human; i spread my hate around fairly equally.

[Heylel Teomim]

Originally Posted by Suineg

We all know that 'choice' was used to make it sound like anyone against abortion hated women and was putting them into slavery so don't feed me that crap.

You're either ignorant, a liar, or both.

"Pro-choice" is a label for people who agree with a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body. It's right in the label.

What does "pro-life" mean? You're in favor of... life? We're all in favor of that. Wouldn't pro-birth be more appropriate? Even anti-choice, which I think would be far too loaded a term, is more accurate, since that's what you are: you're against women having the choice.

[Suineg]

Originally Posted by Heylel Teomim

You're either ignorant, a liar, or both.

"Pro-choice" is a label for people who agree with a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body. It's right in the label.

What does "pro-life" mean? You're in favor of... life? We're all in favor of that. Wouldn't pro-birth be more appropriate? Even anti-choice, which I think would be far too loaded a term, is more accurate, since that's what you are: you're against women having the choice.

They are both for a SPECIFIC argument.

Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death.

Abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pro-choice individuals often do not consider themselves "pro-abortion" because they consider abortion an issue of bodily autonomy, and find forced abortion as legally indefensible as the outlawing of abortion. Indeed, some who are pro-choice consider themselves opposed to some or all abortions on a moral basis, but believe that abortion bans imperil women's health.

Pro-life is a term representing a variety of perspectives and activist movements in medical ethics. It is most commonly used, especially in the media and popular discourse, to refer to opposition to abortion. More generally, the term describes a political and ethical view which maintains that human fetuses and embryos are persons and therefore have a right to live. Less commonly, it can be used to indicate opposition to practices such as euthanasia, the death penalty, human cloning, and research involving human embryonic stem cells.

Both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are examples of political framing: they are terms which purposely try to define their philosophies in the best possible light, while by definition attempting to describe their opposition in the worst possible light. "Pro-choice" implies the alternative viewpoint is "anti-choice," while "pro-life" implies the alternative viewpoint is "pro-death" or "anti-life." Similarly each side's use of the term "rights" ("reproductive rights", "right to life of the unborn") implies a validity in their stance, given that the presumption in language is that rights are inherently a good thing and so implies an invalidity in the viewpoint of their opponents.

[chaos]

Originally Posted by Heylel Teomim

You're either ignorant, a liar, or both.

"Pro-choice" is a label for people who agree with a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body. It's right in the label.

What does "pro-life" mean? You're in favor of... life? We're all in favor of that. Wouldn't pro-birth be more appropriate? Even anti-choice, which I think would be far too loaded a term, is more accurate, since that's what you are: you're against women having the choice.

They're both buzzwords. The "pro-choice" label attempts to vilify opponents of abortion as seeking to stifle freedom, "pro-life" attempts to paint all proponents of abortion rights as bloodthirsty murderers of the innocent. Neither is accurate. To a person that recognizes the baby as a human, the term "pro-choice" is kind of strange, considering you are talking about the right to choose to end a life, with no regard for the choice of that person. And on the other hand, like you said, everyone is "pro-life" unless you're part of some crazy Hindu Kali worshiping cult who pulls out people's still beating hearts just to show them how black it is before they die.

It isn't as if a woman who gets an abortion hates life. But they create these easy terms because they are easier to sell is slogans and 30 second news clips. If your stance on almost any issue can be summed up in a buzzword, you probably don't know very much at all about the issue at hand.

[Heylel Teomim]

Of course it's a buzzword, but at least it's an honest one. Pro-choice: you're in favor of women's right to choose. It's accurate, even if it's too concise. Pro-life is by far a more politicized phrase.

[Picasso]

Originally Posted by Dumar

lol i'm about as least biased

lol indeed.

[chaos]

Originally Posted by Heylel Teomim

Of course it's a buzzword, but at least it's an honest one. Pro-choice: you're in favor of women's right to choose. It's accurate, even if it's too concise. Pro-life is by far a more politicized phrase.

That's an empty sentiment. It's like saying you support the troops. Well no shit you're for a woman's right to choose, so am I, so is everyone. Within reason. The choice argument is false to anti-abortion proponents because of many reasons, not the least of which being that they view the unborn child as a human with rights. The connotation of "pro-choice" implies that the choice is a god given right and that the godless heathens who would go against that choice are trying nothing more than to subjugate women back into the stone age. It isn't accurate, what it attempts to convey is no more accurate than the "pro-life" phrase is.

[Erronius]

Good job people.

This ongoing argument with no end in sight and with no possibility that anyone will come around to someone elses way of thinking, is in and of itself representative of the larger Abortion debate. Neither side will be able to sway the other, no matter what proof is trundled out, and things will simply spiral downward into egotistical dick-waving as to who knows more/is more qualified, with personal attacks flying to and fro like it's a food fight in a school cafeteria. Bring out your most compelling arguments and tear your opponents arguments to shreds, but it won't matter one bit.

Now, multiply that by about a million or 10, then toss in a bunch of fringe nutbags that are so bad they make the worst poster here look sane, into the mix. Sadly, that's about what we have at a national level, and in Kansas...it's pretty much a powderkeg at times. Two sides that will never (at least in my lifetime is my guess) come to terms and are so unwilling to bend that no compromise seems possible. Where the two sides might come together to enact legislation on a number of issues to find some middle ground, instead the issue get's bogged down in absolutes. We could be working to clear up the 3rd trimester "injury-to-mother" issue (specifically in regards to doctors who were/are using it via psychological damage to justify abortions, as were the allegations against the late Dr. Tiller), but in real life as in this thread, that gets dropped by the wayside somewhere. We could come together as a nation to do more to further abstinence/birth control, or hell any number of other options. Instead we end up with people protesting in front of clinics spraying pregnant mothers with fake blood, death threats, and sadly, incidents like the murder of Dr. Tiller.

This is another facet of why, were I a legislator, I'd run Pro-Choice, even though I'm personally Pro-Life and I'd never want a mother of my child to seek an abortion if I could help it (it helps that I try not to stick my dick into the crazy/ugly/bitchy/spiteful women, so staying for the child/mother/marriage wouldn't be a lose-lose). In the big picture, there is simply no reasonable chance of reconciliation between the factions, and there really isn't a clear enough "winner" in the debate to side with those that carry a majority. In Kansas, you might do well politically to play the "Pro-Life" card, but there would still be a sizeable number of people left out, it's split quite close down the middle.

All I'll say on the 3rd trimester "harm to mothers" issue, is that regardless of how common it is that a mothers life is put into jeopardy (it could be 0.5% or 0.0000001%, I don't care), it needs to be legislated into place, as a relief valve just in case something DOES come forward. No one want's some super-uber-mega rare condition to come up, where the fetus/child is going to burst through the mothers abdomen like a creature from ALIENS, where the mothers life will be in jeopardy, just to have the doctors standing there doing nothing while the mother dies to some horribly unpredictable condition/situation because IT'S FUCKING ILLEGAL AND THERE IS NO FUCKING WAY TO ABORT WITHOUT GOING TO JAIL. It doesn't need to be as vague and open to interpretation as it currently is, but it still needs to be there in some form. Regardless, the harm-to-mother crap is far, FAR less prevalent as compared with 3rd trimester abortions based on problems with the fetus/child itself, that's it's fucking ridiculous in the extreme that people have spent so much fucking time and emotion arguing and debating the "Harm-to-mother" side of things, FFS.

[Fyro]

Originally Posted by chaos

The choice argument is false to anti-abortion proponents because of many reasons, not the least of which being that they view the unborn child as a human with rights.

A fetus in the womb up until a certain point is not a human, it is what would or could become a human, and no it doesn`t have the same rights of the mother. Obviously at some point in time the fetus becomes a baby, but saying that it has the same rights as any of us breathing speaking living people is fairly asinine.

Obviously you are against abortion of any kind, that is fine. You can have your opinions, as long as you don`t fuck with the right to have an abortion then I could care less. Argueing won`t get us anywhere, women deserve the right to choose what to do with their bodies.

As you mentioned earlier your opinion is an emotionally charged mess due to your daughter, I understand that. But, you should understand that your emotional conflictions really have absolutely no weight in this argument to try to take the choice away from women. And, yes it is a choice for the woman, it has nothing to do with the fetus growing inside them. I care more about people in the here and now, not the could-be would-be should-be of the future. Think about that, not what it could be, but what it is.

[Fyro]

Originally Posted by Erronius

Good job people.
I'd never want a mother of my child to seek an abortion if I could help it (it helps that I try not to stick my dick into the crazy/ugly/bitchy/spiteful women, so staying for the child/mother/marriage wouldn't be a lose-lose)

Are you insinuating that only crazy ugly bitchy spiteful women are the ones getting abortions, or did I just miss entirely what you were trying to say?

Also, you mentioned teaching abstinence, wtf is that? Are you kidding? We need kids of this nation to understand sex and birth control. Teaching abstinence doesn`t work, at all. You seen high schools these days? My graduating class had 5 mothers out of...80 kids. Abstinence is a antiquated idea that doesn`t work.

[Chanur]

Originally Posted by Dumar

can we turn this into a religion thread now?

I think that train is rounding the bend.

[Erronius]

Originally Posted by Fyro

Are you insinuating that only crazy ugly bitchy spiteful women are the ones getting abortions, or did I just miss entirely what you were trying to say?

I think you entirely missed what I was saying. I personally don't want any child that was conceived with a contribution of my baby batter to be aborted. Not sleeping around with women that I couldn't see myself committing to (read: like a lot of people, who knock up someone they aren't willing to marry, this doesn't exactly help in regards to abortion) tends to reduce the chances that I would end up ever wanting or desiring an abortion, in the first place. If I'm seeing some chick who I think highly of, I find attractive, and think we could make a go of it, and she gets pregnant, then abortion wouldn't even come into the equation (at least from my side of the relationship).

Any clearer?

Originally Posted by Fyro

Also, you mentioned teaching abstinence, wtf is that? Are you kidding? We need kids of this nation to understand sex and birth control. Teaching abstinence doesn`t work, at all. You seen high schools these days? My graduating class had 5 mothers out of...80 kids. Abstinence is a antiquated idea that doesn`t work.

Jesus, stop drinking the rage-ahol, dude. Did you just skim what the fuck I wrote and go on a tangent?

Originally Posted by What I wrote

We could come together as a nation to do more to further abstinence/birth control, or hell any number of other options.

Note it was abstinence/birth control (could have been abstinence OR birth control), with a heaping serving of "any number of other options."

Note I didn't throw abstinence out there by itself as a cure-all solution or anything. I couldn't possibly care less what program or solution one wants to use to combat the use of abortion as a contraceptive, just pick whatever you think is best and go with it. IMO our time would be far better spent if we went more of the prevention route, maybe then abortion wouldn't be such a bitch of an issue.

Besides, with regards to the Abortion debate and Abstinence, given the number of devout religious adherents involved, I wouldn't think you'd have to cast the net very far to find someone who might disagree with you on abstinence. I'm more of a realist, fucking will happen, but just because you or I or whoever thinks that abstinence is a dead-end solution, there is a large number of people who cram it down their children's mouths. Whatever, I really don't care - let parents parent however they want, it's none of my business, but I simply can't abide parents who trot their daughters into clinics every 9-12 months on the DL because of some strange "Well, all kids do it" justification.

Abstinence, birth control, planned parenthood, adoption, parental responsibility, paternal responsibility, and probably a ton besides, are any number of favorable options in my personal opinion. I'm still pro-choice though, it's not my place to put my beliefs onto others, and I try not to look down on those who go the abortion route. I never know their stories or situations, and it's none of my business. But one can't argue that abortion is some kind of panacea that makes all the aforementioned options obsolete.