If not overturning RvW, how would you suggest pro-lifers fight to *end* abortion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's a violent act.

No, a violent act is shooting a doctor in a church. An abortion is a medical procedure.

Also a violent act? Forcing women to bear children that they don't have the ability to care for. Speaking of slavery.

Whoa.. I am a NP. Let me get this right:

The U.S. is 16 trillion in debt. Half the population relies on some form of government assistance. The other half the population doesn't want to pay more in federal, state, local, bag, property, taxes. Our Triple AAA bond rating is gone. Our Ambassador is dead. U.S. can only borrow for 2-3years max at this speed before we reach the precipice.

And you are worried screwing around? Rape and incest is another issue but, partial birth is murder. PERIOD.. Otherwise, stop screwing around (literally and figuratively) with your first world problems, be responsible, and don't get pregnant. If I said, "Don't catch an STD or AIDS, you'd have NO problem with that language. So,let's try it: don't catch a baby.Go to China if you want easily accessible abortions without the moral baggage. You may not come back because you may then and only then find out what REAL slavery is if you are one of the unfortunate women abducted. So, stop tossing your ignorant 1980's "I am soooo upset we lost the ERA so let's all just lower our standards to something all women have in common - the NEED for access to abortions!" I am pro-choice and I chose not to engage in risky behavior and I chose to help more people throughout the world if the US can get people like you to realize sex isn't gonna help people in SYria.

Gosh, much of what you said in the first paragraph is spot on. Makes you wonder what the president was thinking 3 years ago...

[Anonymous]

Most on both sides of the argument would agree that we should work toward fewer unplanned pregnancies, and thus fewer abortions.

The most expedient way to get there is through education and access to birth control.

But the pro-lifers object to this route. Why? In my opinion it is because for the catholic church and other right wing religious groups the real motivation is to control women. Women are second.citizens

[Anonymous]

Second class citizens to a lot of these groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People. You are asking the wrong question and therefore forcing the wrong conclusion.

The relevant question is not whether abortion is a violent act. To the extent that it may be interesting (though still not relevant), I would argue that a D&C at 3 weeks post-conception is not violent, whereas a partial birth abortion is.

The question is whether and when and under what circumstances a violent act may be justified. Certainly those above who go to great lengths to describe abortion as violently as possible are not opposed to violence in all circumstances. That is a complicated question which requires analysis of specific circumstances in different instances. I am sorry that this discussion does not fit you elementary-school style frame of reference. Try harder.

Wait, just so we can fit this into my "elementary-school style frame of reference", it's safe to infer that your assumptions are that those of us that believe abortion to be an unwise choice and a violent act DO support violence when it involves war in the middle east, where women and children are killed. And that we want to extend the current wars to a third, right? Is that what we want?

Have I hit the nail on your partisian head?

Nope. Not even close. You have a problem with thinking very categorically and with a broad brush. Try being analytical. Under what specific circumstances may an act of violence be jutified? Try to think of sefveral specific examples. Then you may be able to analyze the issue of abortion correctly. You've got a long way to go.

[Anonymous]

Pro choice here. As a woman who votes pro choice, I would accept limits on abortion such as # of weeks. We should do everything we can to educate and persuade people not to abort. But I believe we must stop short of forced maternity.

Pp said: "But the pro-lifers object to this route. Why? In my opinion it is because for the catholic church and other right wing religious groups the real motivation is to control women. Women are second (class) citizens".

Yes. When it comes to religion, the fundamental issue is power. It's difficult for patriarchal religions withtheir father-god to reconcile the all-powerful male with the reality that it is women who concieve, bear and nurture life - or who have the power to destroy it in the womb. I believe THAT is why the church has tried so hard to controlw omen's sexuality over the centuries.

As others before me have observed, if men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament. I believe it.

I don't mind if old white male church leaders and politicians want to encourage us to give birth. I will revolt if they try to force me to give birth. Big difference.

[Anonymous]

^+10

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People. You are asking the wrong question and therefore forcing the wrong conclusion.

The relevant question is not whether abortion is a violent act. To the extent that it may be interesting (though still not relevant), I would argue that a D&C at 3 weeks post-conception is not violent, whereas a partial birth abortion is.

The question is whether and when and under what circumstances a violent act may be justified. Certainly those above who go to great lengths to describe abortion as violently as possible are not opposed to violence in all circumstances. That is a complicated question which requires analysis of specific circumstances in different instances. I am sorry that this discussion does not fit you elementary-school style frame of reference. Try harder.

Wait, just so we can fit this into my "elementary-school style frame of reference", it's safe to infer that your assumptions are that those of us that believe abortion to be an unwise choice and a violent act DO support violence when it involves war in the middle east, where women and children are killed. And that we want to extend the current wars to a third, right? Is that what we want?

Have I hit the nail on your partisian head?

Nope. Not even close. You have a problem with thinking very categorically and with a broad brush. Try being analytical. Under what specific circumstances may an act of violence be jutified? Try to think of sefveral specific examples. Then you may be able to analyze the issue of abortion correctly. You've got a long way to go.

NP. You are pretty smug.

We justify an act of violence against a cow because it is not a person, and because we like (but not require) meat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should make sure birth control is easily accessible and covered by insurance. Oh that's right, they don't want that either.

Add sex education to the list as well. The best way to end abortion is to end unwanted pregnancies and sex ed and birth control will go a long way to helping reach that goal.

[Anonymous]

The best way is to criminalize baby- killing and getting the father to pay for support by force. That will cut way back on unwanted pregnancy.

[Anonymous]

If the father has no money there will be highway trash pickup and urban graffiti removal jobs provided with proceeds going to mother and child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Are you a woman? At any rate, I give up. You're nearing nonsensicality by regurgitating what you already said. I've had the honor of giving birth, an honor because I had a say in it. Still have, and will always have, a disability resulting from it. I would do it again, too. Because it's my choice. You have officially stated that the Hughes honor for any and every woman is childbirth. It is a miraculous ability, isn't it? But it's a natural process, one that, once begun goes of its own accord. Congrats. You have reduced women to the greatness of a bodily function. Enjoy your night, as I'll be worrying that I might cross paths with your kind of evil misogyny someday.

I am sorry for your troubles during childbirth. Truly, I am.

But I assure you that I am being redundant for a reason. I feel that the realities of abortion are swept under the rug. Therefore, when discussing it, I am going to keep repeating what it is. Abortion is not just an "unpleasant procedure"- it's a violent act. It's violent towards babies, and it's violent towards women. I am sorry if that upsets you, but you should really redirect your anger.

Being against women ripping up their wombs and the children inside them does not make me a misogynist. To even imply that says a lot about your own issues and lack of conscience. And that is the problem with debating over this issue. There shouldn't even need to be a debate. Would we be debating chopping up premature babies? Is that acceptable to you? What is the difference between a 28 week premature baby and a 28 week old baby in the womb? It's okay to kill one, but not the other? And really the age doesn't matter. Babies of any age should be worth protecting.

You can call me whatever names make you feel better, but that won't change my views on women are destroying their wombs, shedding innocent blood, and throwing babies in the trash.

Like I said your anger should be directed elsewhere. The fact that it's not proves my point that this is a heart issue, not a legal one. Your heart is cold, just like many others. That's sad but I wish you the best.

Sir, you know not of what you speak. You really don't. The very least of the things you don't understand: legal abortion in no way damages a uterus. Which you might know had you done any non partisan research. The more I read your posts, the more I am aware you work or volunteer for an anti-choice organization. You're trolling.

[Anonymous]

13:52: There are many vegetarians who would disagree with you, especially since cows are killed much, much more violently than are fetuses.

Try again.

[Anonymous]

Someone in another country can mandate that our President step down so that a "spring" and "democracy" can happen here, and then we can arm rebels and assist in allowing the Muslim Brotherhood take over, and then the Muslim Brotherhood can legislate to outlaw abortions in the name of sharia law and the prophet Mohammed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:13:52: There are many vegetarians who would disagree with you, especially since cows are killed much, much more violently than are fetuses.

Try again.

I get that, but I am pretty sure that you or the pp are not vegetarians, nor are you advocating that meat eating be banned by law.

The argument does not have to work for everyone as long as it works for the person whom I am rebutting.

[Anonymous]

Send me the pro-life vegetarians and I will deal with them separately.