Americans Becoming More Pro-Life

[Christian Democrats]

2) God killed everyone in the world during the Great Flood.

No, He didn't kill everyone.

[Wisconsin9]

2) God killed everyone in the world during the Great Flood.

No, He didn't kill everyone.

Yeah, didn't, like, half a dozen people survive? That's totally nowhere close to killing everyone.

[Hallistar]

1) God is moral.

2) God killed everyone in the world during the Great Flood.

3) "Doesn't matter; they were all sinful! God is still moral."

4) Some of them were pregnant.

5) God killed fetuses/embryos/zygotes.

6) God committed abortion.

7) Abortion is moral.

"This is god's will and we must never question, for we must humbly default to our invisible best friend in the sky on everything and readily accept that they can morally do everything that we can't, because they made us (Even though we never asked/wanted to be born into a world with heaven and hell) and as such somehow are owed our eternal obedience".

(Even though, y'know, god is supposed to be the definition of morality and all that jazz)

[The Black Forrest]

2) God killed everyone in the world during the Great Flood.

No, He didn't kill everyone.

How many lived?

[Saluterre]

Because of misinformation. You'll get more people to support the proposal of "LET'S NOT KILL BABIES!" than "A woman should be able to decide what she can do with her body or not, including terminating a pregancy." Social freedoms are being limited because one side is painting the discussion as "pro baby murder vs. anti baby murder," when that's simply not the case.

Not to mention that if life begins at conception, when do we stop? Is a sperm a person? Al Madrigal had a great report on that: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-11-2012/bro-choice

[Hallistar]

Because of misinformation. You'll get more people to support the proposal of "LET'S NOT KILL BABIES!" than "A woman should be able to decide what she can do with her body or not, including terminating a pregancy." Social freedoms are being limited because one side is painting the discussion as "pro baby murder vs. anti baby murder," when that's simply not the case.

Not to mention that if life begins at conception, when do we stop? Is a sperm a person? Al Madrigal had a great report on that: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-11-2012/bro-choice

Life is what we make out of it and is defined by what we have had accomplished that was signifigant to us in the past. Sure, fetuses are possibilities, but its not like there is any kind of already predetermined life that they're supposed to live out, if they dont go on to be born they lose nothing. They never had or did anything significant to them. In the case of most elective abortions, they're about as sentient and sapient as a doorknob, and look nowhere near similar to a baby until perhaps the third trimester.

Seriously, thats the only reason why there are "Defuned Planned Parenthood" ads with a woman and baby smiling. Its false advertising designed to play on your pathos. They deviously find ways to paint abortionists as baby killers and monsters. The large majority of PP's funding does not go to abortions, it goes to contraception, education, as well as screenings. But, you know, that kind of logic and facts and helping women would spoil the whole 'defuned planned parenthood' ads.

[Saluterre]

Because of misinformation. You'll get more people to support the proposal of "LET'S NOT KILL BABIES!" than "A woman should be able to decide what she can do with her body or not, including terminating a pregancy." Social freedoms are being limited because one side is painting the discussion as "pro baby murder vs. anti baby murder," when that's simply not the case.

Not to mention that if life begins at conception, when do we stop? Is a sperm a person? Al Madrigal had a great report on that: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-11-2012/bro-choice

Life is what we make out of it and is defined by what we have had accomplished that was signifigant to us in the past. Sure, fetuses are possibilities, but its not like there is any kind of already predetermined life that they're supposed to live out, if they dont go on to be born they lose nothing. They never had or did anything significant to them. In the case of most elective abortions, they're about as sentient and sapient as a doorknob, and look nowhere near similar to a baby until perhaps the third trimester.

Seriously, thats the only reason why there are "Defuned Planned Parenthood" ads with a woman and baby smiling. Its false advertising designed to play on your pathos. They deviously find ways to paint abortionists as baby killers and monsters. The large majority of PP's funding does not go to abortions, it goes to contraception, education, as well as screenings. But, you know, that kind of logic and facts and helping women would spoil the whole 'defuned planned parenthood' ads.

Precisely. It's a propaganda campaign that's meant to carry along an overtly religious agenda to strip women of their civil liberties. It has no scientific basis. Now, if you want to argue about the effect on the mother, that's a different story, but ultimately it should be her choice.

[French Union]

I guess I'm pro-choice. If I get a girl pregnant, I would want her to get an abortion and would do my best to convince her to do so.

[Stalinst Britain]

Okay I'm pro life I know I am an irrational asshole. So call me a terrible person.

[Desperate Measures]

Okay I'm pro life I know I am an irrational asshole. So call me a terrible person.

It's not fun if you ask for it. Is it a personal view or do you want to push a pro-life agenda on everybody else?

[Wamitoria]

Okay I'm pro life I know I am an irrational asshole. So call me a terrible person.

It's not fun if you ask for it. Is it a personal view or do you want to push a pro-life agenda on everybody else?

Also, is it pro-life in the extent of making contraception readily available or "THE PILL KILLS!!!!"

[The Steel Magnolia]

I'm staunchly pro-choice, but I find that people that I otherwise sympathize with often make the mistake of demonizing or alienating "pro-lifers."
There is a distinction, terminology aside, from being "pro-life" on a personal level, and being "pro-life" on a legislative one. Namely, I have absolutely no problem with people who sincerely think that getting an abortion is killing something, so long as they don't enforce that on a legislative level. So they're pro-life, and pro-choice, which makes sense, since pro-choice is pro-life. But then you get people who are against the ability of anyone to get an abortion, thereby putting the uterus-bearers at risk, not decreasing the levels of abortions at all, and restricting bodily autonomy to assuage their personal morality.
I have a problem with the latter group.

[Stalinst Britain]

Okay I'm pro life I know I am an irrational asshole. So call me a terrible person.

It's not fun if you ask for it. Is it a personal view or do you want to push a pro-life agenda on everybody else?

I'm not pushing an agenda this my personal views on abortion.

[No-Ghost Zone]

Life is good, this is good.

[Nidaria]

Because of misinformation. You'll get more people to support the proposal of "LET'S NOT KILL BABIES!" than "A woman should be able to decide what she can do with her body or not, including terminating a pregancy." Social freedoms are being limited because one side is painting the discussion as "pro baby murder vs. anti baby murder," when that's simply not the case.

Not to mention that if life begins at conception, when do we stop? Is a sperm a person? Al Madrigal had a great report on that: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-11-2012/bro-choice

Sure, because the other side never paints the discussion as "pro women slavery vs. anti women slavery."

Not to mention that if a mother is allowed to abort her child, when do we stop? Will it become legal to kill children after they are born?

[Hallistar]

Because of misinformation. You'll get more people to support the proposal of "LET'S NOT KILL BABIES!" than "A woman should be able to decide what she can do with her body or not, including terminating a pregancy." Social freedoms are being limited because one side is painting the discussion as "pro baby murder vs. anti baby murder," when that's simply not the case.

Not to mention that if life begins at conception, when do we stop? Is a sperm a person? Al Madrigal had a great report on that: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-11-2012/bro-choice

Sure, because the other side never paints the discussion as "pro women slavery vs. anti women slavery."

Not to mention that if a mother is allowed to abort her child, when do we stop? Will it become legal to kill children after they are born?

Why no silly, women have been allowed to abort their FETUSES for almost 40 years legally and infanticide is still illegal.

[Frisivisia]

Because of misinformation. You'll get more people to support the proposal of "LET'S NOT KILL BABIES!" than "A woman should be able to decide what she can do with her body or not, including terminating a pregancy." Social freedoms are being limited because one side is painting the discussion as "pro baby murder vs. anti baby murder," when that's simply not the case.

Not to mention that if life begins at conception, when do we stop? Is a sperm a person? Al Madrigal had a great report on that: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-11-2012/bro-choice

Sure, because the other side never paints the discussion as "pro women slavery vs. anti women slavery."

Not to mention that if a mother is allowed to abort her child, when do we stop? Will it become legal to kill children after they are born?

Fallacies, fallacies, everywhere!

[Norstal]

Sure, because the other side never paints the discussion as "pro women slavery vs. anti women slavery."

Not to mention that if a mother is allowed to abort her child, when do we stop? Will it become legal to kill children after they are born?

Why no silly, women have been allowed to abort their FETUSES for almost 40 years legally and infanticide is still illegal.

Give it 60 more years and the reckoning of mankind shall come in the form of fiery brimstones and HELL!

[Saluterre]

Because of misinformation. You'll get more people to support the proposal of "LET'S NOT KILL BABIES!" than "A woman should be able to decide what she can do with her body or not, including terminating a pregancy." Social freedoms are being limited because one side is painting the discussion as "pro baby murder vs. anti baby murder," when that's simply not the case.

Not to mention that if life begins at conception, when do we stop? Is a sperm a person? Al Madrigal had a great report on that: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-11-2012/bro-choice

Sure, because the other side never paints the discussion as "pro women slavery vs. anti women slavery."

Not to mention that if a mother is allowed to abort her child, when do we stop? Will it become legal to kill children after they are born?

Because, essentially, that is the issue at hand. Civil liberties shouldn't be taken because of unfounded theories. The woman should have a right to what she wants with her own body.

And of course not. Children are unquestionably sentient life-forms. However, fetuses aren't. But since we really don't know when life starts, we play it on the safe side and don't allow abortions in the third trimester. All we know is, first trimester fetuses bear little resemblance to human life.

[Rick Rollin]

Because of misinformation. You'll get more people to support the proposal of "LET'S NOT KILL BABIES!" than "A woman should be able to decide what she can do with her body or not, including terminating a pregancy." Social freedoms are being limited because one side is painting the discussion as "pro baby murder vs. anti baby murder," when that's simply not the case.

Not to mention that if life begins at conception, when do we stop? Is a sperm a person? Al Madrigal had a great report on that: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-11-2012/bro-choice

Sure, because the other side never paints the discussion as "pro women slavery vs. anti women slavery."

Not to mention that if a mother is allowed to abort her child, when do we stop? Will it become legal to kill children after they are born?

Sure, because the other side never paint the discussion as 'pro-robbery' vs. 'anti-robbery'.

Not to mention that if a victim is allowed to defend himself, when do we stop? Will it become legal to partake in vigilantism?

[Desperate Measures]

It's not fun if you ask for it. Is it a personal view or do you want to push a pro-life agenda on everybody else?

I'm not pushing an agenda this my personal views on abortion.

So why on earth would I think you're a terrible person? You're making a choice and you're not forcing your view on me or anybody else. Seems fine.

[Ceannairceach]

Because of misinformation. You'll get more people to support the proposal of "LET'S NOT KILL BABIES!" than "A woman should be able to decide what she can do with her body or not, including terminating a pregancy." Social freedoms are being limited because one side is painting the discussion as "pro baby murder vs. anti baby murder," when that's simply not the case.

Not to mention that if life begins at conception, when do we stop? Is a sperm a person? Al Madrigal had a great report on that: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-11-2012/bro-choice

Sure, because the other side never paints the discussion as "pro women slavery vs. anti women slavery."

Not to mention that if a mother is allowed to abort her child, when do we stop? Will it become legal to kill children after they are born?

No, it won't; Children are no longer violating her bodily sovereignty such that they are a threat to her stability as a human being and person. Thus, killing them would be immoral and unjust.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Because of misinformation. You'll get more people to support the proposal of "LET'S NOT KILL BABIES!" than "A woman should be able to decide what she can do with her body or not, including terminating a pregancy." Social freedoms are being limited because one side is painting the discussion as "pro baby murder vs. anti baby murder," when that's simply not the case.

Not to mention that if life begins at conception, when do we stop? Is a sperm a person? Al Madrigal had a great report on that: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-11-2012/bro-choice

Sure, because the other side never paints the discussion as "pro women slavery vs. anti women slavery."

Not to mention that if a mother is allowed to abort her child, when do we stop? Will it become legal to kill children after they are born?

The reason women get abortions is because they don't want a child. Prior to it erupting out of their womb with the force of a thousand suns, they can't get rid of it without destroying it. After that, they can give it up for adoption.

[Desperate Measures]

Sure, because the other side never paints the discussion as "pro women slavery vs. anti women slavery."

Not to mention that if a mother is allowed to abort her child, when do we stop? Will it become legal to kill children after they are born?

The reason women get abortions is because they don't want a child. Prior to it erupting out of their womb with the force of a thousand suns, they can't get rid of it without destroying it. After that, they can give it up for adoption.

My Left Shoe Factory always needs workers. The Left Shoe Factory! For your left feet!

[Christian Democrats]

Because of misinformation. You'll get more people to support the proposal of "LET'S NOT KILL BABIES!" than "A woman should be able to decide what she can do with her body or not, including terminating a pregancy." Social freedoms are being limited because one side is painting the discussion as "pro baby murder vs. anti baby murder," when that's simply not the case.

Not to mention that if life begins at conception, when do we stop? Is a sperm a person? Al Madrigal had a great report on that: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-11-2012/bro-choice

There is no misinformation. The pro-life position is that every human being has an intrinsic right to live.

The "pro-choice" position is that prenates are human nonpersons.

I really don't believe that it is good for our society to label any human being a nonperson.