Pro-Lifer responds to Onion article

[Al-Dog]

http://marchtogether.blogspot.com/2006/07/murder-without-conscience.html

This is why you shouldn't take yourself too serious.

[Natalie]

Is there anyone who is actually "pro-abortion?"

Gosh, wish they'd kill some more babies....huh?

[Jakester]

Guess she's never read The Onion before. I condemn her to anal sex.

[Penfold]

That's funny. I recall getting an infuriated e-mail passing on a story The Onion ran on Jesus attacking an abortion clinic. People really don't know satire when they see it.

[Jakester]

I do! I do! It's all nice and silky and soft and sorta shiny, and when chicks wear it, it looks sexxxy.

[Cncrman]

No no Jake, you are thinking about Satin...SATIN.

You know, the Evil One, The Devil, Beelzebub...the one that Dana Carvey's Church Lady kept yelling about.

[TrixieB]

Is there anyone who is actually "pro-abortion?"

Gosh, wish they'd kill some more babies....huh?

I have always wondered about people who call others "pro abortion". I don't know anyone who thinks abortion is a good idea, but there are many people who believe that there are times that it can be necessary and should be a choice left up to the woman, her partner (if possible) and her doctor.

I really can't wait for the day when it is NEVER needed. When people have the education and the resources to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies (and diseases for that matter). I hope that day comes soon.

Oh... and I love the Onion!!

[barqs]

Guess she's never read The Onion before. I condemn her to anal sex.
ME NEXT!....CONDEMN ME NEXT!

[Jakester]

Sorry, root beer boy, I condemn you to munching on Lohan's carpet.

CSM - ah yes, I remember The Great Satin! How could I forget? Or maybe it was that song...you know, Satin by the dock of the bay, wasting tiiiiiime.

[Space Tycoon]

Is there anyone who is actually "pro-abortion?"

Gosh, wish they'd kill some more babies....huh?Well, there are those of us who consider the term "pro-choice" to be an example of weasel words at their finest.

Like, "Collateral Damage."

Or my personal favourite from the Iran-Contra days: "Mistakes were made, Senator."

:smirks:

The term "Pro-Life," while it may have the whiff of sanctimony about it, is basically accurate. A pro-lifer is one who believes in their heart of hearts that in a civilized society we do not classify an entire category of human beings as "disposable."

Period. No exceptions.


.

[Al-Dog]

Well, there are those of us who consider the term "pro-choice" to be an example of weasel words at their finest.

.

Pro-choice is a weasel word? I think it's a pretty accurate description of how most people feel.

I do not believe most reasonable people who decide to have an abortion make that sort of decision without a lot of thought.

[Space Tycoon]

The term "pro-choice" makes it easier for those who support legalized abortion to distance themselves from the unpleasant act itself. "I'm against abortion, but I support someone's choice to have one," while noble-sounding on it's face, is really just a copout.


Either be against abortion or for it.



.

[fastcar]

How about, I'm against smoking, but I don't think it's the government's right to ban it entirely in Pittsburgh establishments? It should be up to the proprietor.

[Jakester]

I'm against chicks not swallowing, but I don't think they should be forced to do it if they don't...er, wait, yes I do.

[Space Tycoon]

How about, I'm against smoking, but I don't think it's the government's right to ban it entirely in Pittsburgh establishments? It should be up to the proprietor.

Well, smoking and abortion are two very different activities.



.

[Penfold]

Exactly. One kills unborn fetuses, the other kills fully grown adults.

[neglet]

Touché, Penfold! :lol:

[neglet]

The term "Pro-Life," while it may have the whiff of sanctimony about it, is basically accurate. A pro-lifer is one who believes in their heart of hearts that in a civilized society we do not classify an entire category of human beings as "disposable."

Period. No exceptions.

Except for abortion doctors and people on death row....:ohwell:

[Space Tycoon]

Exactly. One kills unborn fetuses, the other kills fully grown adults.

Smoking is an activity one does to oneself, as a matter of choice. A lifetime of smoking can be lethal, in the long run, but one cigarette won't kill you. Abortion is something one human does to another human. Deciding whether or not that life is permitted to continue.

Very different.




.

[Space Tycoon]

Except for abortion doctors...

So in other words, you believe that the extremists of a particular movement are the ones who represent that movment? All prolifers are supportive of killing abortion doctors, hmm.

Terrorists act out of desperation, when they are unable to effect change through legal or institutional structures. If I support Palestinian statehood, does that mean I consider Israeli civilians expendable somehow?

Geez Louise...


...and people on death row....:ohwell:


Oh spare me another argument declaring some sort of moral equivalency between a) executing convicted murderers following exhaustive legal procedures and b) snuffing out unborn life out of convenience.

That is a losing argument. Convicted murderers do not constitute a class of people. They are individuals who have made their choices.




.

[neglet]

So in other words, you believe that the extremists of a particular movement are the ones who represent that movment? All prolifers are supportive of killing abortion doctors, hmm.

Terrorists act out of desperation, when they are unable to effect change through legal or institutional structures. If I support Palestinian statehood, does that mean I consider Israeli civilians expendable somehow?

Geez Louise...

Oh spare me another argument declaring some sort of moral equivalency between a) executing convicted murderers following exhaustive legal procedures and b) snuffing out unborn life out of convenience.

That is a losing argument. Convicted murderers do not constitute a class of people. They are individuals who have made their choices.

I was merely pointing out that you can't call "pro-choice" a "weasel word" and then throw around the term "pro-life" as if everyone who identifies themselves as such is an absolutist who believes all life is precious. There are many pro-lifers who "make exceptions," and not to acknowledge that is ignore the moral shades of gray that populate all such issues.

[Jakester]

On his radio show a while back, Penn Jillette made an interesting point -- most "pro-life" people don't really believe that abortion is murder. If they really believed that it was unjustified homicide, why aren't they constantly demonstrating against a state that allows innocent people to be killed wholesale? Do they just not care enough about people? Seriously, if the government were to just let, say, dental hygenists get killed at random, don't you think there'd be a much larger outcry than we get from abortion protesters?

[Space Tycoon]

I was merely pointing out that you can't call "pro-choice" a "weasel word" and then throw around the term "pro-life" as if everyone who identifies themselves as such is an absolutist who believes all life is precious. There are many pro-lifers who "make exceptions," and not to acknowledge that is ignore the moral shades of gray that populate all such issues.

Ultimately I prefer pro- or anti-abortion. It's simpler and unambiguous. The problem with "pro-life," and the reason that phrase has lost much of it's cachet over the years, is that it is often used by activists who support candidates who are usually "pro-war" to some extent or another.

Pro-war = anti-life.

But I still say "pro-choice" has got to go.






.

[Space Tycoon]

On his radio show a while back, Penn Jillette made an interesting point -- most "pro-life" people don't really believe that abortion is murder. If they really believed that it was unjustified homicide, why aren't they constantly demonstrating against a state that allows innocent people to be killed wholesale? Do they just not care enough about people? Seriously, if the government were to just let, say, dental hygenists get killed at random, don't you think there'd be a much larger outcry than we get from abortion protesters?


There is a difference between killing a fully grown innocent human being and killing a fetus. That much I would have to concede. But they are still both wrong, and ought to be illegal. It's a slippery slope. If we can abort fetuses, why not allow partial-birth abortions? And then, why not infanticide? Pretty soon you've cleared the way for allowing state-sanctioned murder of anyone.

If you don't believe me, consider that abortion has usually been vigorously promoted by totalitarian states in which megadeath was a state policy.

All in the name of "progress."




.

[Al-Dog]

Ultimately I prefer pro- or anti-abortion. It's simpler and unambiguous. The problem with "pro-life," and the reason that phrase has lost much of it's cachet over the years, is that it is often used by activists who support candidates who are usually "pro-war" to some extent or another.

Pro-war = anti-life.

But I still say "pro-choice" has got to go.

.

OK, what would be a better term?

I'll give you "anti-abortion" is more accurate then "pro-life" But "pro-abortion" is way off the mark.

[Space Tycoon]

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree because I think pro-abortion is right on the mark.



.

[fastcar]

Smoking is an activity one does to oneself, as a matter of choice. A lifetime of smoking can be lethal, in the long run, but one cigarette won't kill you. Abortion is something one human does to another human. Deciding whether or not that life is permitted to continue.

Very different.




.

Second hand smoke. (http://www.strategiy.com/healthcarenew.asp?id=20060713054308) is something that one person does to another person and it's not always a matter of the other person's choice.

But do I think that we should ban smoking outright in Pittsburgh establishments wholesale? No, I say let the the owner decide what is best for his business and all his patrons. I will continue to eat and enjoy myself in places that have smoking areas.


As far as the connection to abortion. I think abortion is murder, but I am still pro choice. Unless there is a danger to the mother, yadda yadda. IMO it should be restricted. But, I don't believe it is the admnistration's job to say yeah or nay. It should be the administration's job to make it extremely difficult to have done and wake people up to the atrocity they are about to commit.

[Jakester]

I'm not going to get into this whole debate, but I will say outright that I'm pro-blowjob.

And if there were more blowjobs in the world, there would be less unwanted pregnancies and therefore, less abortions. That's the truth, and you can't argue with it. So, stop abortion, blow someone today!

[Queen Mae]

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree because I think pro-abortion is right on the mark.



.


Then you can speak for yourself but not for other people.

I've known several people who have had abortions, even multiple ones, because they were careless. I find this act despicable and completely irresponsible.

However, while I can have my opinion on whether or not what someone does is despicable, I cannot dictate to them whether or not they should do it; and neither can anyone else. We cannot legislate personal responsibility.

There is also the issue of women who need abortions for medical reasons. I am very close friends with a woman, who is married, that accidentally became pregnant. She has quite a few health problems and after her last child her doctors advised her that she should not have anymore. She considered abortion but because she is Catholic she decided against it. The result was that the baby was born 3 months early and both my friend and the baby almost died.

I'm sure a pro-lifer (specifically a Christian one) could look at that story and say "By God's will they didn't die and if they had it would have been God's will also." Well okay - will God's will come down here and pay the medical bills? If she had died would God have come down here and taken care of her four other children? Nope, I would have - and who would pay for their therapy? God?

IMO, sometimes abortion is the practical, logical choice; other times it is the irresponsible choice. We cannot make choices for other people. Those choices are for the two people who conceived, not for the rest of the country. To say that "pro-choice" is inaccurate is to ignore people like me who find many abortions to be irresponsible decisions resulting from the irresponsible actions of both women AND men; yet don't believe in dictating to others.

It is impossible to have a discussion on abortion without first discerning what constitutes a humanness. Anyone care to say?

[Space Tycoon]

I don't even include abortions which are the result of legitimate medical concerns in my reasoning. People who would oppose every single abortion, even on those grounds, clearly fall under the category of "extremists."

But I refuse to believe that the majority of the abortions taking place out there are in fact medically necessary. Maybe someone has some stats to back that up, I could find some but I don't really feel like it.

Most are the result of irresponsibility, as you mention.

As far as humanness, I am willing to define it as beginning with conception. Unless someone elese can point to a particular, precise moment during pregnancy in which a fetus "graduates" into humanness.

[Queen Mae]

Ah, thanks for that clarification.

The humanness thing... if humanness begins at conception then what distinguishes human conception from other forms of animal conception? If humanness begins at a biological level of cells then what differentiates a human from other animals?

[DaForce]

Ah, thanks for that clarification.

The humanness thing... if humanness begins at conception then what distinguishes human conception from other forms of animal conception? If humanness begins at a biological level of cells then what differentiates a human from other animals?


We screw each other over as well as we do to other species?










:D

[Space Tycoon]

The humanness thing... if humanness begins at conception then what distinguishes human conception from other forms of animal conception? If humanness begins at a biological level of cells then what differentiates a human from other animals?

I suppose nothing biologically separates human conception from other forms. And furthermore, humans are simply a form of animal life. However, a form of life with unparalelled capacity for abstract thought and creativity.

Perhaps the anti-abortion argument also segues neatly into an argument favouring animal rights. If it's wrong to kill fetuses (fetii?) for no pressing reason, then perhaps it is also wrong to mistreat animals or kill them without good reason.





.

[TrixieB]

I will also have to disagree with you, ST. "Pro-choice" is the right term. I am "pro-choice". I don't think abortion is a good idea, so I am NOT "pro-abortion". However, it is a choice that women need to make. It isn't up to you or me to make that decision for them.

I have been faced with this choice twice in my life. In college, I became pregnant and scheduled an abortion, but had a miscarriage before the appointment. Almost 15 years ago, I struggled with this decision and now have a 14 year old daughter. But these were my choices.

[barqs]

Sorry, root beer boy, I condemn you to munching on Lohan's carpet.

CSM - ah yes, I remember The Great Satin! How could I forget? Or maybe it was that song...you know, Satin by the dock of the bay, wasting tiiiiiime.

ok...that's just wrong on so many levels

[Space Tycoon]

Almost 15 years ago, I struggled with this decision and now have a 14 year old daughter. But these were my choices.

Well, that's good to hear.

Although (as I have recently stated), I don't like the majority of women out there in Greater North America that I have encountered, I try to respect the ones who have made good choices.

I would hate to put you on the list of those I don't respect. :smirks:




.

[Meathead]

The term "Pro-Life," while it may have the whiff of sanctimony about it, is basically accurate. A pro-lifer is one who believes in their heart of hearts that in a civilized society we do not classify an entire category of human beings as "disposable."

Period. No exceptions.


.
Question:
If carrying a baby to term would mean killing the mother so that the baby might survive which do you choose?

[sickness]

And how would that choice be pro-life? It seems to me that someone dies in that case.

[Jakester]

I hit the back button on my browser, and got an error message saying the operation was aborted. Guess we know where Microsoft stands on the issue.

[Meathead]

I find it kind of sad that he persists in believing that the "intellectual left" cannot go more than two sentences without "cussing". Personally, I have no issue with going to sentences without "cussing" and the use of "cussing" instead of "cursing" doesn't bother me in the slightest. As a matter of fact, I was using the word "cussing" probably before the aforementioned blogger.

I find it hard to countenance the pro-life stance, where abortion is a complete no-no, and here's why:
If you are pro-life, there is no such thing as abortion and you believe that it should be banned. No, this is not typical of ALL pro-lifers, just some, but I am using them to illustrate a point, much in the same way that the pro-life blogger is only using the posts from the "intellectual left" who "cuss" to illustrate his.

Example:
A young woman, on the way home from church services is raped and becomes pregnant.

Dilemma:
Pro-life, anti-abortion activists believe that this woman should not be able to abort the fetus.

Result:
A child, born of a rape, one of the most tragic and traumatising things that can happen to anyone, now has to be cared for by the mother whop was traumatised. As a result, the woman is constantly reminded of the most painful, humiliating, degrading day in her life every time she looks at this child.

Query:
A woman, 54 years old, becomes pregnant and it is discovered that carrying the fetus to full term will kill the mother, but there is a slight chance that the fetus will survive.

Dilemma:
Pro-life, anti-abortion activists believe that this woman should not be able to abort the fetus.

Result:
The 54 year old grandmother dies as a result of the difficulties in childbirth. Due to anti-abortion (sorry, pro-life) legislation, she cannot get an abortion, is forced to carry the child full term and as a result, her grandchildren are short one grandmother, all so an unplanned pregnancy is not terminated. Now her grandchildren are left a little short.

Those are two of the possible scenarios if abortion was outlawed...
Just for the record: 16 sentences without cussing...:D...and I am part of the "intellectual left".

[Meathead]

And how would that choice be pro-life? It seems to me that someone dies in that case.
That's my point, sickness, pro-lifers are saying you can't abort, but if she doesn't, someone dies, likely her...it's kind of hypocritical, don't you think? All life is vauable and no one is disposable, but by banning abortion, the mother will die...for the sake of her fetus, which may not survive, the mother is disposed of? Yeah...exactly...

[Queen Mae]

I suppose nothing biologically separates human conception from other forms. And furthermore, humans are simply a form of animal life. However, a form of life with unparalelled capacity for abstract thought and creativity.

Perhaps the anti-abortion argument also segues neatly into an argument favouring animal rights. If it's wrong to kill fetuses (fetii?) for no pressing reason, then perhaps it is also wrong to mistreat animals or kill them without good reason.




At what point does the abstract thought begin?

I agree, it definitely parallels animal rights. Whenever I've had a philosophical discussion about abortion it always turns into a discussion on animal rights because if humanness is defined as the ability to make abstractions (which is often the philosophical definition) then a fetus, and realistically even infants and toddlers, aren't "human" yet. They are still in their "animal" phase. It's a provacative concept and it really forces us to examine our personal and collective ethics and our worldview.

[sickness]

That's my point, sickness, pro-lifers are saying you can't abort, but if she doesn't, someone dies, likely her...it's kind of hypocritical, don't you think? All life is vauable and no one is disposable, but by banning abortion, the mother will die...for the sake of her fetus, which may not survive, the mother is disposed of? Yeah...exactly...
That's exactly why I brought it up, Assboy. :D

[Meathead]

Look, fart-knocker, you're a strong case FOR abortion... :p

[sickness]

So is anyone who sticks Mary On A Grilled Cheese Sandwich in their ass and has pictures taken in various locales with said insertion. :lol:

[neglet]

Boys, boys, boys .... we can settle this with an old story I like to tell.

A priest, a minister, and a rabbi were having a philosophical discussion about when life commences.

The priest said, "Life is so precious; it begins at the very moment of conception."

The minister said, "Life is precious, but it must be able to sustain itself. Life begins when the baby draws its first breath."

The rabbi shook his head. "Sorry, gentlemen (gentilemen?), you've both got it wrong. Everybody knows that life truly begins when the kids move out and the dog dies."


:D

[TrixieB]

Well, that's good to hear.

Although (as I have recently stated), I don't like the majority of women out there in Greater North America that I have encountered, I try to respect the ones who have made good choices.

I would hate to put you on the list of those I don't respect. :smirks:




.

But the point, ST, is that it was MY choice. I wasn't forced to do it one way or the other. That's what I think is important... that right to choose. For some (me in college and others that I have known) the right choice is to terminate the pregnancy. It might not be the choice that you would make, but it was right for them.

Before anyone starts in on the "abortion on demand used for convenience" thing.... I have known women who use abortion as a form of birth control. I despise that. There are many ways to prevent pregancy. Stopping after the fact should be a last resort.

[Queen Mae]

The rabbi shook his head. "Sorry, gentlemen (gentilemen?), you've both got it wrong. Everybody knows that life truly begins when the kids move out and the dog dies."


:D


HA!

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

But the point, ST, is that it was MY choice. I wasn't forced to do it one way or the other. That's what I think is important... that right to choose. For some (me in college and others that I have known) the right choice is to terminate the pregnancy. It might not be the choice that you would make, but it was right for them.

Before anyone starts in on the "abortion on demand used for convenience" thing.... I have known women who use abortion as a form of birth control. I despise that. There are many ways to prevent pregancy. Stopping after the fact should be a last resort.

I'm opposed to allowing abortions as a means of disposing of an unwanted pregnancy, but I do support the concept that a woman owns her own body, and should have the final say. I think what we really need to do is solve the actual problem. If there were no unwanted pregnancies, there wouldn't be any need for abortions except for medical reasons.

I also believe that the father of any child should be responsible for any issues arising from a pregnancy.

I am a believer that we can create a technological solution, one that keeps unwanted pregnancies from happening in the first place. One idea I had was some type of implant that allows a man to prevent his sperm from being able to cause conception. I can't imagine that we aren't capable of coming up with some way of preventing unwanted pregnancies that works, makes sense, and is acceptable to everyone.

The bottom line is that it is way past the time that MEN were held accountable for unwanted pregnancies, and we need to resolve the actual problem here, rather than putting a band-aid on it via abortions.

[Space Tycoon]

At what point does the abstract thought begin?

I agree, it definitely parallels animal rights. Whenever I've had a philosophical discussion about abortion it always turns into a discussion on animal rights because if humanness is defined as the ability to make abstractions (which is often the philosophical definition) then a fetus, and realistically even infants and toddlers, aren't "human" yet. They are still in their "animal" phase. It's a provacative concept and it really forces us to examine our personal and collective ethics and our worldview.

And while people usually associate animal rights's concerns with the left, there are conservative Republicans like Matthew Scully (http://www.matthewscully.com/index.htm) who view cruelty to animals as a very serious moral issue.

I was going to add that in addition to abstract thought, what separates us from animals is our development of systems of ethics and morality, beyond mere survival. However haphazardly we seem to follow those systems, we are apparently the only species to have written down complex rules for treating each other.

Whether these rules are entirely man-based, or whether they were delivered to certain messengers/prophets/holy men by a divine power is, I think, an open question. I'm an agnostic, after all. One thing I do know, however, is that if there is a God, He does not want us to kill our unborn children unless it is absolutely unavoidable.

[Ronnie]

I don't even include abortions which are the result of legitimate medical concerns in my reasoning. People who would oppose every single abortion, even on those grounds, clearly fall under the category of "extremists."

But I refuse to believe that the majority of the abortions taking place out there are in fact medically necessary. Maybe someone has some stats to back that up, I could find some but I don't really feel like it.

Most are the result of irresponsibility, as you mention.

Most are not the result of irresponsibility... half of all women getting abortions report that contraception was used during the month they became pregnant. Some of these couples had used the method improperly; some had forgotten or neglected to use it on the particular occasion they conceived; and some had used a contraceptive that failed. No contraceptive method prevents pregnancy 100% of the time. My 18 month old daughter is proof of that... by the way, the patch sucks!?!

If abortion were used as a primary method of birth control, as some 'pro-lifers' contend, a typical woman would have at least two or three pregnancies per year - 30 or more during her lifetime. In fact, most women who have abortions have no previous abortions (52%) or only one previous abortion (26%). (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5109a1.htm) Considering that most women are fertile for over 30 years, and that birth control is not perfect, the likelihood of having one or two unintended pregnancies is very high.

[Space Tycoon]

Most are not the result of irresponsibility... half of all women getting abortions report that contraception was used during the month they became pregnant. Some of these couples had used the method improperly; some had forgotten or neglected to use it on the particular occasion they conceived; and some had used a contraceptive that failed. No contraceptive method prevents pregnancy 100% of the time... My 18 month old daughter is proof of that...

I would still say that constitutes a degree of irresponsibility. Or at least, a situation that warrants the taking of responsibility on the part of those involved. Obviously it's not in the same league as f---ing around heedlessly without contraceptives. But ultimately, my stand would be the same. The unborn need not be sacrificed for the sake of individual pleasure.