Americans Becoming More Pro-Life

[Hallistar]

Except you unsurprisingly fail to understand the difference between a fetus and a child. Many people have thought over the whole abortion process through, and they still go with it. Once you stop thinking "OH YOU MURDERERS JESUS WILL GET YOU!!!" and you actually analyze everything, you realize that its an undeveloped fetus, not a child, that the fetus is just a chemical possibility as are all the unfertilized eggs in a woman's body, and that it is in no way equatable to the termination of a sentient human's life. The fetus once again loses nothing by not existing. "But so and so could have been the next einstein!" Yeah well plenty of fetuses have been aborted so far and the world hasn't gone to hell yet, and possibilities are just possibilities.

More importantly, the "but it could have been the next Einstein" argument somehow doesn't stop spontaneous abortion, failure to implant, infertility, disease, or infant mortality. It's a nonsense argument, even if you ignore that - of all the billions of pregnancies that were NOT aborted, only one ever produced Einstein.

Its the same as someone telling me 'aren't you glad your mother didn't abort you?'. Had I never existed in the first place, I would never have known that I was supposedly losing anything, so its not applicable at all to me. Sure the thought makes me feel strange at times, but its the reality.

[Hallistar]

Except you unsurprisingly fail to understand the difference between a fetus and a child. Many people have thought over the whole abortion process through, and they still go with it. Once you stop thinking "OH YOU MURDERERS JESUS WILL GET YOU!!!" and you actually analyze everything, you realize that its an undeveloped fetus, not a child, that the fetus is just a chemical possibility as are all the unfertilized eggs in a woman's body, and that it is in no way equatable to the termination of a sentient human's life. The fetus once again loses nothing by not existing. "But so and so could have been the next einstein!" Yeah well plenty of fetuses have been aborted so far and the world hasn't gone to hell yet, and possibilities are just possibilities.

So you believe that the birth canal is a magic portal that converts chemicals into human beings?

And you concluded this how again?

[No Water No Moon]

I find it ironic that the polls are reversed on this forum.

Just a suggestion, but maybe it correlates with the higher than average intelligence of a forum like this, versus the general population:

http://www.science20.com/news_articles/ ... gist-65065

That might suggest that there would tend to a higher representation of 'liberal' opinion.

[No Water No Moon]

More importantly, the "but it could have been the next Einstein" argument somehow doesn't stop spontaneous abortion, failure to implant, infertility, disease, or infant mortality. It's a nonsense argument, even if you ignore that - of all the billions of pregnancies that were NOT aborted, only one ever produced Einstein.

Its the same as someone telling me 'aren't you glad your mother didn't abort you?'. Had I never existed in the first place, I would never have known that I was supposedly losing anything, so its not applicable at all to me. Sure the thought makes me feel strange at times, but its the reality.

True. And if my mother had really wanted to abort me, to be honest - since I respect the woman, and care about what she wants from life - I'd rather she'd done it. It's not like it would have upset me, I was jelly at the time.

[David Williams]

Unborn women deserve rights too!

A foetus isn't a woman. Get over it.

Actually, in 50% of cases the unborn child is a woman. they do have sex organs you know!

[Hallistar]

A foetus isn't a woman. Get over it.

Actually, in 50% of cases the unborn child is a woman. they do have sex organs you know!

An unborn fetus is not a woman. An unborn fetus could be a female, however, but not a woman. If we don't call teenaged females women, why should we call fetuses women?

[Christian Democrats]

The woman invited these in:

(Image)

What did she think they'd do?

Our world is screwed up for valuing nine months of one person's life over eighty years of another person's life.

The woman invited these in:

What did she think they'd do?

Did she invite clamydia into her body?

Every woman should know that almost every male ejaculation contains millions of sperm cells, one of which can fertilize an ovum and cause pregnancy. On the other hand, it is quite unlikely that an ejaculation will contain clamydia.

When a woman chooses to engage in vaginal intercourse, she knows that sperm entering her body is part of the sexual act. She also knows that those sperm can impregnate her. Therefore, she invites the possibility of pregnancy when she consents to vaginal intercourse and is responsible for carrying the new child to term after his or her coming into being.

A woman likely would not be aware of the presence of clamydia in the male ejaculation. Also, neither human beings nor their gametes are kinds of bacteria.

[David Williams]

Actually, in 50% of cases the unborn child is a woman. they do have sex organs you know!

An unborn fetus is not a woman. An unborn fetus could be a female, however, but not a woman. If we don't call teenaged females women, why should we call fetuses women?

Actually, older teenagers do get called "Young women". for the younger ones i guess we can use the term "girls".

[No Water No Moon]

The woman invited these in:

What did she think they'd do?

Did she invite clamydia into her body?

Every woman should know that almost every male ejaculation contains millions of sperm cells, one of which can fertilize an ovum and cause pregnancy. On the other hand, it is quite unlikely that an ejaculation will contain clamydia.

When a woman chooses to engage in vaginal intercourse, she knows that sperm entering her body is part of the sexual act. She also knows that those sperm can impregnate her. Therefore, she invites the possibility of pregnancy when she consents to vaginal intercourse and is responsible for carrying the new child to term after his or her coming into being.

A woman likely would not be aware of the presence of clamydia in the male ejaculation. Also, neither human beings nor their gametes are kinds of bacteria.

Unless you're arguing that women shouldn't be allowed to medicate chlamydia, because (you believe) they somehow agreed to it when they consented to sex, this is nothing but a huge red herring.

[Hallistar]

The woman invited these in:

What did she think they'd do?

Did she invite clamydia into her body?

Every woman should know that almost every male ejaculation contains millions of sperm cells, one of which can fertilize an ovum and cause pregnancy. On the other hand, it is quite unlikely that an ejaculation will contain clamydia.

When a woman chooses to engage in vaginal intercourse, she knows that sperm entering her body is part of the sexual act. She also knows that those sperm can impregnate her. Therefore, she invites the possibility of pregnancy when she consents to vaginal intercourse and is responsible for carrying the new child to term after his or her coming into being.

A woman likely would not be aware of the presence of clamydia in the male ejaculation. Also, neither human beings nor their gametes are kinds of bacteria.

Which is why condoms and contraception are typically used. Even if the sexual intercourse results in sperm that could fertilize, what empirically makes her responsible for carrying an egg that randomly fertilized all the way to term, and dealing with the entire costs and burdens just because she dared to enjoy sexual interaction?

[AiliailiA]

Wow, i never knew that before 1/3 of the way through the pregnancy the kid has fingers! Not to mention that even way before that it already had Sex organs, a Brain, And a Heart, 2 of which pro-abortionists don't have (and another that they don't deserve).

What a childish insult.

Interesting to consider though, that by your standards a person who supports abortion under some circumstances would be a "pro-abortionist". If you like, we could start calling your side anti-abortionists instead of "pro-life".

Almost any terms would be better than "pro-life" and "pro-choice". Also, the thread title could be changed from "Americans Becoming More Pro-Life" to "One in Five Americans is Anti-Abortion"

[Risottia]

A foetus isn't a woman. Get over it.

Actually, in 50% of cases the unborn child is a woman. they do have sex organs you know!

I see you insist that being a woman doesn't imply being a person. More anti-woman hate.

[Hallistar]

Yeah, fuck go women's rights!

This. Unborn women deserve rights too! Go anti-abortion feminism!!!

Totally a child.

Wow, i never knew that before 1/3 of the way through the pregnancy the kid has fingers! Not to mention that even way before that it already had Sex organs, a Brain, And a Heart, 2 of which pro-abortionists don't have (and another that they don't deserve).

When you say that you are against abortion, you are saying that the "life" of a single celled organism is more valuable to you then the life of a grown woman.

Striked out the word grown because it is ageist. as for the bold text, in 50% of cases they're the same thing. Saying that unborn men only should be aborted is sexist.

Next thing you know Sperm cells will be considered human, which would make masturbation Genocide.

Since when did male genitals start becoming pregnant?

Pro-abortionists don't have a brain or heart because it makes you feel bad that they're being reasonable and rational? Yep, clearly you're the one with the heart when you force a woman to carry a fetus all the way to term despite the many downsides to her, just to please jesus or whomever and to feel good.

[Risottia]

Did she invite clamydia into her body?

Yes she did. By willingly walking around in clamydia-infected area and not taking precautions, like donning a bio-hazard suit, which is basically a full-body condom .

So, yea,

[David Williams]

Wow, i never knew that before 1/3 of the way through the pregnancy the kid has fingers! Not to mention that even way before that it already had Sex organs, a Brain, And a Heart, 2 of which pro-abortionists don't have (and another that they don't deserve).

What a childish insult.

Interesting to consider though, that by your standards a person who supports abortion under some circumstances would be a "pro-abortionist". If you like, we could start calling your side anti-abortionists instead of "pro-life".

Almost any terms would be better than "pro-life" and "pro-choice". Also, the thread title could be changed from "Americans Becoming More Pro-Life" to "One in Five Americans is Anti-Abortion"

I'm totally fine with that. the definition fits me, because I am against the medical procedure called "abortion" happening. By the way, if you find "Pro-abortion" as a term offensive, don't be offended. the people I associate with call em' "Murderers".

[The Black Forrest]

Why would you support imprisoning murderers for only ten years? Surely murder is murder, as a foetus is an equal person with actual people, and therefore should carry life without parole or death, depending on the state?

Murder is the unlawful killing of a person by another person with malice aforethought.

Do you think there is malice aforethought when an abortionist kills an unborn child, or do you believe that the abortionist is acting on the perverted notion that he is actually helping the mother by bringing an end to her pregnancy and the child's life?

In most cases, I would assume that abortionists are not seeking to kill babies just because they feel like it. Rather, their state of mind prevents them from fully seeing the wrongfulness of their actions. This would be a mitigating circumstance. Thus, most abortionists would be committing a form of wrongful homicide other than murder.

Also, in multiple U.S. states, 10 years in prison falls within the range of sentences that murderers can receive. Putting abortionists in prison for 10 years for each abortion performed would seem to be a reasonable sentence.

I do not support the death penalty.

Ahh yes. Georgia

Putting Abortionists in prison is easy; not what is right.

Doctors who perform abortions do it for many reasons. They don't wake up each day and celebrate it. They perform it for people as a service. Some even knowing that a good "Christian" might try and murder them for it.

Being religious you are probably ignorant to the reasons why women have them. Hint: The "inconvenience" of a child is low on the list.

[Christian Democrats]

Did she invite clamydia into her body?

Every woman should know that almost every male ejaculation contains millions of sperm cells, one of which can fertilize an ovum and cause pregnancy. On the other hand, it is quite unlikely that an ejaculation will contain clamydia.

When a woman chooses to engage in vaginal intercourse, she knows that sperm entering her body is part of the sexual act. She also knows that those sperm can impregnate her. Therefore, she invites the possibility of pregnancy when she consents to vaginal intercourse and is responsible for carrying the new child to term after his or her coming into being.

A woman likely would not be aware of the presence of clamydia in the male ejaculation. Also, neither human beings nor their gametes are kinds of bacteria.

Which is why condoms and contraception are typically used. Even if the sexual intercourse results in sperm that could fertilize, what empirically makes her responsible for carrying an egg that randomly fertilized all the way to term, and dealing with the entire costs and burdens just because she dared to enjoy sexual interaction?

Contraception is not typically used. In the United States, 83.1 percent of women who procure abortions were not using contraception or were using it improperly prior to pregnancy.

Every action has consequences. Pregnancy is a natural consequence of vaginal intercourse.

[David Williams]

Actually, in 50% of cases the unborn child is a woman. they do have sex organs you know!

I see you insist that being a woman doesn't imply being a person. More anti-woman hate.

Incorrect. Man refers to male "HUMAN", Woman is the female version. I believe that all female humans are "persons", assuming your definition of person is the same as mine.

[AiliailiA]

The woman invited these in:

What did she think they'd do?

Did she invite clamydia into her body?

Every woman should know that almost every male ejaculation contains millions of sperm cells, one of which can fertilize an ovum and cause pregnancy. On the other hand, it is quite unlikely that an ejaculation will contain clamydia.

No matter what precautions a woman and her partner took, you don't grant her any consideration of having taken sufficient. Even a hundredth of a percent (say they both used contraception and used it correctly) is "what did she expect?"

Clamydia is more likely than that, if her partner doesn't wear a condom, and still possible if he does. Now suddenly "it's not very likely" seems like a good defense against the exact same argument.

Face it, if you were going to be consistent with your previous "consent to sex is consent to pregnancy" argument, you would now have to deny the woman any medical treatment for clamydia.

When a woman chooses to engage in vaginal intercourse, she knows that sperm entering her body is part of the sexual act. She also knows that those sperm can impregnate her. Therefore, she invites the possibility of pregnancy when she consents to vaginal intercourse and is responsible for carrying the new child to term after his or her coming into being.

A woman likely would not be aware of the presence of clamydia in the male ejaculation.

And ignorance of the risks is now a sufficient defense. When it's not for pregnancy.

You know what? Rick Rollin just slayed you.

[No Water No Moon]

Which is why condoms and contraception are typically used. Even if the sexual intercourse results in sperm that could fertilize, what empirically makes her responsible for carrying an egg that randomly fertilized all the way to term, and dealing with the entire costs and burdens just because she dared to enjoy sexual interaction?

Contraception is not typically used. In the United States, 83.1 percent of women who procure abortions were not using contraception or were using it improperly prior to pregnancy.

Every action has consequences. Pregnancy is a natural consequence of vaginal intercourse.

Death is a natural consequence of being alive, it doesn't mean we don't try to medically inhibit it.

[Christian Democrats]

Did she invite clamydia into her body?

Every woman should know that almost every male ejaculation contains millions of sperm cells, one of which can fertilize an ovum and cause pregnancy. On the other hand, it is quite unlikely that an ejaculation will contain clamydia.

When a woman chooses to engage in vaginal intercourse, she knows that sperm entering her body is part of the sexual act. She also knows that those sperm can impregnate her. Therefore, she invites the possibility of pregnancy when she consents to vaginal intercourse and is responsible for carrying the new child to term after his or her coming into being.

A woman likely would not be aware of the presence of clamydia in the male ejaculation. Also, neither human beings nor their gametes are kinds of bacteria.

Unless you're arguing that women shouldn't be allowed to medicate chlamydia, because (you believe) they somehow agreed to it when they consented to sex, this is nothing but a huge red herring.

No, the woman would not have agreed to chlamydia because the ejaculation was unlikely to contain such.

Almost every ejaculation contains sperm, and the woman knows this.

[David Williams]

This. Unborn women deserve rights too! Go anti-abortion feminism!!!

Wow, i never knew that before 1/3 of the way through the pregnancy the kid has fingers! Not to mention that even way before that it already had Sex organs, a Brain, And a Heart, 2 of which pro-abortionists don't have (and another that they don't deserve).

Striked out the word grown because it is ageist. as for the bold text, in 50% of cases they're the same thing. Saying that unborn men only should be aborted is sexist.

Since when did male genitals start becoming pregnant?

Pro-abortionists don't have a brain or heart because it makes you feel bad that they're being reasonable and rational? Yep, clearly you're the one with the heart when you force a woman to carry a fetus all the way to term despite the many downsides to her, just to please jesus or whomever and to feel good.

Come back when you have info that isn't bs.

[Hallistar]

Pro-abortionists don't have a brain or heart because it makes you feel bad that they're being reasonable and rational? Yep, clearly you're the one with the heart when you force a woman to carry a fetus all the way to term despite the many downsides to her, just to please jesus or whomever and to feel good.

Come back when you have info that isn't bs.

Are you going to keep calling the kettle black?

[Hallistar]

Unless you're arguing that women shouldn't be allowed to medicate chlamydia, because (you believe) they somehow agreed to it when they consented to sex, this is nothing but a huge red herring.

No, the woman would not have agreed to chlamydia because the ejaculation was unlikely to contain such.

Almost every ejaculation contains sperm, and the woman knows this.

Yes it contains sperm, how does that however suddenly put a legal obligation on her to take on a full term pregnancy?

[AiliailiA]

Which is why condoms and contraception are typically used. Even if the sexual intercourse results in sperm that could fertilize, what empirically makes her responsible for carrying an egg that randomly fertilized all the way to term, and dealing with the entire costs and burdens just because she dared to enjoy sexual interaction?

Contraception is not typically used. In the United States, 83.1 percent of women who procure abortions were not using contraception or were using it improperly prior to pregnancy.

So?

Would you accept denying abortions only to those women, or do you insist that because some women misuse abortion (as you see it) that no woman can be trusted to be responsible in avoiding pregnancy?

The only advantage of banning abortion is that it would make people more scrupulous in the use of contraceptives. You do support sex education in schools so that every woman knows how to use contraception properly, and the subsidized or free supply of contraception to everyone who wants it ... don't you?

Every action has consequences. Pregnancy is a natural consequence of vaginal intercourse.

And dying is a natural consequence of contracting many diseases. It follows that if people get sick, we should let them die.