s/o 100% against abortion unless it's me

[Anonymous]

In a thread on terminating beause of severe maternal illness, a poster noted that while she was 100% against abortion, she considered it when she had the same illness. This sentiment is why we call it "anti-choice" when you are against abortion rights and access. The fact that the poster ahs the opportunity to even consider ending her misery is because of activism keeping access to abortion safe and legal. That she could not morally make that decision is fine, the fact is she had a decision to make. So just something for anti-choicers to think about- when you are participating in removing women's access to abortion (by voting for crazies, etc.) No one wants you to have an abortion if you don't want one, but your moral choices should not dictate the choices for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Good point and well said. Something to be conscious of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In a thread on terminating beause of severe maternal illness, a poster noted that while she was 100% against abortion, she considered it when she had the same illness. This sentiment is why we call it "anti-choice" when you are against abortion rights and access. The fact that the poster ahs the opportunity to even consider ending her misery is because of activism keeping access to abortion safe and legal. That she could not morally make that decision is fine, the fact is she had a decision to make. So just something for anti-choicers to think about- when you are participating in removing women's access to abortion (by voting for crazies, etc.) No one wants you to have an abortion if you don't want one, but your moral choices should not dictate the choices for everyone.

It's not too different from anti war protesters insulting the very soldiers that protect their freedoms.

[Anonymous]

If you are pro-life, this really doesn't mean anything. We believe that society already bands together, under a social contract, to choose to regulate a lot of behavior for the greater good. These decisions are based upon moral choices, e.g.: you cannot murder people, you cannot steal from people, you cannot crash your car into someone else, etc. This is simply another moral decision that we wish that society would agree upon to decide that it's better for the greater good of all, if we agree to say: you cannot abort an unborn child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you are pro-life, this really doesn't mean anything. We believe that society already bands together, under a social contract, to choose to regulate a lot of behavior for the greater good. These decisions are based upon moral choices, e.g.: you cannot murder people, you cannot steal from people, you cannot crash your car into someone else, etc. This is simply another moral decision that we wish that society would agree upon to decide that it's better for the greater good of all, if we agree to say: you cannot abort an unborn child.

If more of your ilk could articulate that as well, you would all find that many of us who disagree completely respect your reasoning.

[Anonymous]

Thanks. Maybe I should take my show on the road.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are pro-life, this really doesn't mean anything. We believe that society already bands together, under a social contract, to choose to regulate a lot of behavior for the greater good. These decisions are based upon moral choices, e.g.: you cannot murder people, you cannot steal from people, you cannot crash your car into someone else, etc. This is simply another moral decision that we wish that society would agree upon to decide that it's better for the greater good of all, if we agree to say: you cannot abort an unborn child.

If more of your ilk could articulate that as well, you would all find that many of us who disagree completely respect your reasoning.

Yes - I disagree, but that was very well said.

[Anonymous]

If people choose to have a slave it should be their choice. As long as you can figure a reason that the slave is somewhat less than a full person (like a fetus or iq below 105 or elderly or from an undeveloped country ) then others morality should not carry any weight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If people choose to have a slave it should be their choice. As long as you can figure a reason that the slave is somewhat less than a full person (like a fetus or iq below 105 or elderly or from an undeveloped country ) then others morality should not carry any weight.

If that slave is inside my body, I get to decide what to do with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a thread on terminating beause of severe maternal illness, a poster noted that while she was 100% against abortion, she considered it when she had the same illness. This sentiment is why we call it "anti-choice" when you are against abortion rights and access. The fact that the poster ahs the opportunity to even consider ending her misery is because of activism keeping access to abortion safe and legal. That she could not morally make that decision is fine, the fact is she had a decision to make. So just something for anti-choicers to think about- when you are participating in removing women's access to abortion (by voting for crazies, etc.) No one wants you to have an abortion if you don't want one, but your moral choices should not dictate the choices for everyone.

It's not too different from anti war protesters insulting the very soldiers that protect their freedoms.

That doesn't make any sense. Assuming these protesters insulted soldiers, it would not be contradictory or hypocritical given their anti-war stance.

Maybe you should consider that anti-war protestors actually don't want to be defended. There are a lot of countries which do not get into foreign wars, and shocker their actual defense requirements are a lot smaller than ours. Why? Because they only have to defend their own country, not everyone else's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If people choose to have a slave it should be their choice. As long as you can figure a reason that the slave is somewhat less than a full person (like a fetus or iq below 105 or elderly or from an undeveloped country ) then others morality should not carry any weight.

If that slave is inside my body, I get to decide what to do with it.

Absolutely, now your getting it! Also if not having the slave hurts your body ( like putting you in the position of having to pick cotton in the hot Alabama sun (which would be much more detrimental to ones body than carrying a baby) then you can definately use that slave in any way !

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If people choose to have a slave it should be their choice. As long as you can figure a reason that the slave is somewhat less than a full person (like a fetus or iq below 105 or elderly or from an undeveloped country ) then others morality should not carry any weight.

If that slave is inside my body, I get to decide what to do with it.

Absolutely, now your getting it! Also if not having the slave hurts your body ( like putting you in the position of having to pick cotton in the hot Alabama sun (which would be much more detrimental to ones body than carrying a baby) then you can definately use that slave in any way !

You took this from being a smart discussion to being a stupid one. Your failure to maintain a metaphor is stunning. A fetus is not like a slave unless the slave is part of the body. In any event, if you read the OP's post, the discussion was about exceptionalism in one's attitude towards abortion, not opening up an opportunity to offer general idiocy. See thoughtful comment by pro-lifer above for inspiration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are pro-life, this really doesn't mean anything. We believe that society already bands together, under a social contract, to choose to regulate a lot of behavior for the greater good. These decisions are based upon moral choices, e.g.: you cannot murder people, you cannot steal from people, you cannot crash your car into someone else, etc. This is simply another moral decision that we wish that society would agree upon to decide that it's better for the greater good of all, if we agree to say: you cannot abort an unborn child.

If more of your ilk could articulate that as well, you would all find that many of us who disagree completely respect your reasoning.

Yes - I disagree, but that was very well said.

Thank you.

[Anonymous]

so if you have a 3 week old, why can you choose to not care for it or feed it?

[Anonymous]

Carrying a baby and raising of is way easier on life and body than running a plantation without the combustion engine. People who snuff out a baby in the womb are worse than the colonial slave holders.