What does 'Pro-Life' mean?

[Godwintopia]

Fur is murder.

Killing non-human entities is not defined as murder. And cannot sanely be.

[Olthar]

Basically it's to stop being from noticing that the Pro-Choicers are murderers and the Pro-Lifers by default have conscripted women's bodies in order to avoid becoming murderers. It's a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too. Nobody wants to face up to what they actually in favour of.

Abortion is abortion, murder is murder.

What if you murder a pregnant woman?

[Immoren]

Fur is murder.

Killing non-human entities is not defined as murder. And cannot sanely be.

tongue-in-cheek

Abortion is abortion, murder is murder.

What if you murder a pregnant woman?

You aborder.

[Luveria]

Abortion is abortion, murder is murder.

What if you murder a pregnant woman?

That would depend on the local laws of the area in which the murder of the pregnant woman takes place in, but in most areas it would be ruled as a murder instead of an abortion and murder.

[Olthar]

What if you murder a pregnant woman?

That would depend on the local laws of the area in which the murder of the pregnant woman takes place in, but in most areas it would be ruled as a murder instead of an abortion and murder.

What if you murder her by specifically stabbing her in the baby?

[Luveria]

That would depend on the local laws of the area in which the murder of the pregnant woman takes place in, but in most areas it would be ruled as a murder instead of an abortion and murder.

What if you murder her by specifically stabbing her in the baby?

As the unborn baby is not legally considered a person, it is still only a murder.

[Olthar]

What if you murder her by specifically stabbing her in the baby?

As the unborn baby is not legally considered a person, it is still only a murder.

What if, before you stab her in the baby, you jump out and shout, "SURPRISE ABORTION!"?

[Luveria]

As the unborn baby is not legally considered a person, it is still only a murder.

What if, before you stab her in the baby, you jump out and shout, "SURPRISE ABORTION!"?

Aggravated assault with intent to abort.

[Olthar]

What if, before you stab her in the baby, you jump out and shout, "SURPRISE ABORTION!"?

Aggravated assault with intent to abort.

What if you shout "SURPRISE BUTTSECKS!" but stab her in the baby, instead?

[Luveria]

Aggravated assault with intent to abort.

What if you shout "SURPRISE BUTTSECKS!" but stab her in the baby, instead?

That could be used as evidence of a potential sexual assault in addition to the other charges.

[Olthar]

What if you shout "SURPRISE BUTTSECKS!" but stab her in the baby, instead?

That could be used as evidence of a potential sexual assault in addition to the other charges.

Alright. What if you don't shout anything, stab her in the baby, and then leave behind a copy of your degree showing that you're a certified abortion doctor?

[Luveria]

That could be used as evidence of a potential sexual assault in addition to the other charges.

Alright. What if you don't shout anything, stab her in the baby, and then leave behind a copy of your degree showing that you're a certified abortion doctor?

That could be good grounds for the rogue 'abortionist' to get an insanity plea.

[Olthar]

Alright. What if you don't shout anything, stab her in the baby, and then leave behind a copy of your degree showing that you're a certified abortion doctor?

That could be good grounds for the rogue 'abortionist' to get an insanity plea.

I'll take it!

[Cruciland]

That would depend on the local laws of the area in which the murder of the pregnant woman takes place in, but in most areas it would be ruled as a murder instead of an abortion and murder.

What if you murder her by specifically stabbing her in the baby?

DOUBLE-KILL!

[Ashmoria]

In American politics, the generalization is that conservatives tend to be 'pro-life' while liberals tend to be 'pro-choice', and I think we're all well aware of that. However, that only pertains to the issue of abortion. People label themselves as pro-life, but then go on to support contradicting things like wars or cutting welfare spending. At least that's how I see it. For me, I'm more of a big picture guy, and I like to stay consistent. For me, pro-life is supporting the life of the mother, even if she does choose to have an abortion, and then protect and preserve the life that is already here and is producing for the economy. So, where do you think the line should be drawn? How do we distinguish between pro- and anti-life? Should these things even exist?

the people in a cause get to decide what to call it.

those who are working to make abortion illegal have decided to call their cause "pro life". so that is what it is called. that it isn't accurate for all forms of life at all stages of life is their problem not ours.

those who are working to keep abortion legal have decided to call their cause "pro choice" so that is what it is called. that it doesn't cover all choices is their problem not ours.

[Risottia]

In American politics, the generalization is that conservatives tend to be 'pro-life' ...

"Pro-life" is just a buzzword for "against respecting the rights and the freedom of pregnant women".

[Grad Duchy of Luxembourg]

Cancer cells are human. However as they are merely malfunctioning cells in an individuals body they do not consititute a human individual and consequently do not have any moral or legal status.

Fetuses are dependant human beings in the full sense. And so they are entitled to what is necccesery in order to survive. In the same way that governments are entitled to coerce taxpayers to pay their taxes in order to provide medical servives (including perversely abortions) to women.

Wrong. There is no law in the land that forces pregnant women to take good care of themselves. There is no law in the land that prosecutes women for drinking alchol, not taking vitamins, not eating, smoking, taking prescription pills they should not while they are pregnant. It's an extreme comparison, but fetus are not entitled in the same way that cancer cells are not.

[Ethel mermania]

Abortion is abortion, murder is murder.

What if you murder a pregnant woman?

well since two wrongs make a right, i think your in the clear.

[Ethel mermania]

Cancer cells are human. However as they are merely malfunctioning cells in an individuals body they do not consititute a human individual and consequently do not have any moral or legal status.

Fetuses are dependant human beings in the full sense. And so they are entitled to what is necccesery in order to survive. In the same way that governments are entitled to coerce taxpayers to pay their taxes in order to provide medical servives (including perversely abortions) to women.

Wrong. There is no law in the land that forces pregnant women to take good care of themselves. There is no law in the land that prosecutes women for drinking alchol, not taking vitamins, not eating, smoking, taking prescription pills they should not while they are pregnant. It's an extreme comparison, but fetus are not entitled in the same way that cancer cells are not.

that is not correct, use coke and have a healthy baby and you will be charged with child abuse


www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/issue ... the_facts/

[America Resurgent]

Killing non-human entities is not defined as murder. And cannot sanely be.

Why?

[Varijnland]

In American politics, the generalization is that conservatives tend to be 'pro-life' ...

"Pro-life" is just a buzzword for "against respecting the rights and the freedom of pregnant women".

Unless the woman's life is threatened, it's got nothing to do with not respecting the woman's rights and all to do with the baby inside her.

[Freiheit Reich]

My college biology professor was pro-life. He said we all start as a single cell which in his view means abortion is wrong (I don't believe he said 'murder' though but it was implied).

http://www.parenting.com/article/spend-half-hour-cell

His comments affected me. I still think the goods of abortion outweigh the bad BUT I understand people that are pro-life better after what he said. Scientifically, it can't be argued. It is why I could vote for a candidate who feels either way on this issue. I like Ron Paul although he is very pro-life (he is a doctor that delivered thousands of babies which likely affected his views on it). Anti-abortion is no longer anti-freedom in my viewpoint (since it is about protecting the life and freedom of the human developing baby).

However, I think of it like eating a chicken egg versus eating a chicken. I would feel less guilty eating the egg than eating the chicken (if I had to get and kill it myself). Both are chickens but one is fully developed in mind and body (one cell is not as developed in thoughts or feelings in my opinion).

[Ashmoria]

"Pro-life" is just a buzzword for "against respecting the rights and the freedom of pregnant women".

Unless the woman's life is threatened, it's got nothing to do with not respecting the woman's rights and all to do with the baby inside her.

exactly. it is ignoring the very real woman in order to press the potential rights of the potential person that she is growing.

[Kleomentia]

In American politics, the generalization is that conservatives tend to be 'pro-life' while liberals tend to be 'pro-choice', and I think we're all well aware of that. However, that only pertains to the issue of abortion. People label themselves as pro-life, but then go on to support contradicting things like wars or cutting welfare spending. At least that's how I see it. For me, I'm more of a big picture guy, and I like to stay consistent. For me, pro-life is supporting the life of the mother, even if she does choose to have an abortion, and then protect and preserve the life that is already here and is producing for the economy. So, where do you think the line should be drawn? How do we distinguish between pro- and anti-life? Should these things even exist?

I think you're trying to change the language. Pro-life has only been used in abortion debates. It has no bearing in other political issues.

^

[Ashmoria]

My college biology professor was pro-life. He said we all start as a single cell which in his view means abortion is wrong (I don't believe he said 'murder' though but it was implied).

http://www.parenting.com/article/spend-half-hour-cell

His comments affected me. I still think the goods of abortion outweigh the bad BUT I understand people that are pro-life better after what he said. Scientifically, it can't be argued. It is why I could vote for a candidate who feels either way on this issue. I like Ron Paul although he is very pro-life (he is a doctor that delivered thousands of babies which likely affected his views on it). Anti-abortion is no longer anti-freedom in my viewpoint (since it is about protecting the life and freedom of the human developing baby).

However, I think of it like eating a chicken egg versus eating a chicken. I would feel less guilty eating the egg than eating the chicken (if I had to get and kill it myself). Both are chickens but one is fully developed in mind and body (one cell is not as developed in thoughts or feelings in my opinion).

yeah its compelling right up to the time when you find out how very many fertilized eggs come to nothing. if they are so wasted naturally what difference does it make to actively terminate them?