I don't believe in the right to kill babies

[Anonymous]

I am pro-death on every issue: capital punishment, abortion, euthenasia. I am far more consistent on this than most.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:13:43, here is what I consider to be a pro abortion person. I used the term pro abortion because I feel this person is very different than most women who define themselves as pro choice.

A pro abortion person is one who refuses to let any of the medical and scientific advances in the realm of fetal development be part of the abortion debate or discussion. They feel that we should use 1973 knowledge to frame our 2012 debate, even though so much has changed in the past 40 years. They believe in completely unrestricted abortion on demand through the entire term of pregnancy. They believe a viable fetus is only a life if the mother wants it, even though courts have charged people (drunk drivers for example) for killing a baby in utero. They don't recognize the barbaric hippocrisy of our country saying the only difference between the value of the life of a viable fetus is whether or not a mother wants it. They are okay with a hospital not caring for a botched aborted fetus that came out alive, and are okay with an abortion occuring on a full term fetus. They support that elementary aged girls in California can be taken by a school official for an abortion without her parent's knowledge and permission, even though that same child cannot carry her epipen, inhaler, aspirin or cough drops at school and cannot get her ears pierced without permission or a tattoo with permission.

They rely on scare tactics (Such as if there are any regulations to abortion, no matter how reasonable, then women everywhere are going to be dying from botched coat hanger abortions). They rely on insults (Have you read some of the rude posts on this board? They are not from the reasonable pro-choice majority here.) And they absolutely refuse to bring the abortion debate in line with scientific advances of this century.

That is what I would define as a pro abortion person. Thank you for asking in such a polite manner.

I am totally proud to be "pro abortion". Next...

[Anonymous]

I don't believe government forcing women to have babies.

[Anonymous]

Can all of you who oppose abortion start believing in womens right to have paid maternity leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:a group of scientist and doctors need to do a study and determine when a fetus can feel pain and react to stimuli, that should be the test of when life begins.

Nope, life begins when the fetus leaves my body. Until then, it's as much a part of me as your appendix is a part of you. And I will fight to the death your right to remove your appendix.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:a group of scientist and doctors need to do a study and determine when a fetus can feel pain and react to stimuli, that should be the test of when life begins.

Nope, life begins when the fetus leaves my body. Until then, it's as much a part of me as your appendix is a part of you. And I will fight to the death your right to remove your appendix.

So you feel that science should be completely left out of the abortion debate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:a group of scientist and doctors need to do a study and determine when a fetus can feel pain and react to stimuli, that should be the test of when life begins.

Nope, life begins when the fetus leaves my body. Until then, it's as much a part of me as your appendix is a part of you. And I will fight to the death your right to remove your appendix.

So you feel that science should be completely left out of the abortion debate?

See, everyone throws around "when life begins" like it's the be-all, end-all of the abortion debate. It's not. The question is when the life of the fetus outweighs the rights of the mother. We end lots of lives for the rights of born humans: viruses, bacteria, cows, mosquitos, etc. Just because a fetus is "alive" doesn't mean it's entitled to the same rights as a born person. And in the case of prohibiting abortions, we're actually giving fetuses MORE rights than born humans. After all, we don't require that people donate their blood or organs even where the denial of that donation directly causes the death of another born person.

[Anonymous]

16:06, you never answered the question.

Do you feel that science should be entirely left out of the abortion discussion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:16:06, you never answered the question.

Do you feel that science should be entirely left out of the abortion discussion?

NP. Clearly science has something to do with it, since science was used to set the original term limit on abortion. So that's baked into the law itself. But viability outside the womb is also a pretty clear line that hasn't moved much in nearly 40 years. You might be able to argue it back to 24 weeks from 28, but you aren't going to get consensus much beyond that. Three or four examples of younger babies isn't enough to cut it.

If you really believe that science is the answer and not just a slippery slope, develop the means to take these "viable" babies and give them homes with someone else. That would be science actually solving the problem vs. providing a debating point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe government forcing women to have babies.

+1

I hate abortion. I'd love to see never another abortion in this country. But as long as unwanted pregnancy is a fact of life, I would shudder to live under a government that treats citizens as incubators. I don't want the govt telling me or my daughters what to do about pregnancy or anything else having to do with reproduction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:16:06, you never answered the question.

Do you feel that science should be entirely left out of the abortion discussion?

NP. Clearly science has something to do with it, since science was used to set the original term limit on abortion. So that's baked into the law itself. But viability outside the womb is also a pretty clear line that hasn't moved much in nearly 40 years. You might be able to argue it back to 24 weeks from 28, but you aren't going to get consensus much beyond that. Three or four examples of younger babies isn't enough to cut it.

If you really believe that science is the answer and not just a slippery slope, develop the means to take these "viable" babies and give them homes with someone else. That would be science actually solving the problem vs. providing a debating point.

Actually, if the poster really believed that science was the answer to the abortion debate, she would concede that abortions should be legal - without question - prior to the point of viability, but I sincerely doubt she does.

So I guess we can just start calling her anti-women, since she seems to be happy with putting (false) labels on posters who defend the right to choose.

[Anonymous]

Why you pro life Zealots are so obsessed with imposing your will upon others leads one to question your thought processing capability. Why such an obsession with the unborn fetus with no knowldge of; the mother's wishes, the viability of the fetus, the father's wishes and other family related concern? Can you conceive of the concept that my decision to carry or abort my fetus is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
Take your religious and scientific abstractions kof fetal pain and apply them to your life. Stay the hell out of lives of others

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:7 million more babies. There's a ticker running in Pro-Choice headquarters. 7 million more, and we all get free toasters.

Are you sure, because the Women folks are saying it is 70,000,000 every year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one? How many more millions of babies must be killed before we outlaw abortion?

Um, it's illegal to kill babies. Yes, I think you're the only one.

[Anonymous]

Oh, man, I totally love killing babies! I try to hit up the library story time at least once a month.

Fetuses, on the other hand, I leave in the capable hands of the women who grew the placentas for them and those women's doctors.