Anonymous wrote:I think it is their way of trying to use what they see as the pro-choice argument against pro-choicers.

But the fundamental problem is that pro-lifers see that life begins at conception, and nothing else, while pro-choicers may differ at when life begins, but also acknowledge a whole host of other factors that go beyond when life begins.

To me its like 2 sides are shouting in different languages and can't even understand each other -- that's how different the perspectives are.

I'd like to hear from pro-choicers who think life does begin at conception. How can those two positions be reconciled? There was another thread recently where some posters were admitting to having multiple abortions and several responded saying something like this: "I am staunchly pro-choice, but these women having multiple abortions make me sick!" I honestly don't understand that. If the fetus isn't a human being then why would pro-choicers care? And if the fetus is a human being, then why is it ever okay to kill it?

Anonymous wrote:When people that are pro-life say things like "your mother chose life!" .....she made a choice, to keep the baby, yes? So wasn't she (in a way) pro-choice?

Honestly not trying to start a debate, just always been curious.

She may have previously or subsequently not chosen life. But she's still the same mother.

Anonymous wrote:What I find most interesting is the many people who claim to be pro-life are war mongers. War kills more people than abortions kill fetuses, yet they see no problem! This is when I think it is pro-lifers way of suppressing women from making their own decisions.

Wow, you managed to bring abortion, war and oppression of women into a 3 line post! You don't make a point but you did a good job of trying to be as controversial as possible!

What I find most interesting is the many people who claim to be pro-life are war mongers. War kills more people than abortions kill fetuses, yet they see no problem! This is when I think it is pro-lifers way of suppressing women from making their own decisions.

Next: Mommy Mommy why is the sky blue.

pro choice will never go pro life nor vica versa

Move on to another thread.. no one is going to change anyone's mind. NEXT

Anonymous wrote:This is why the terms should be pro-abortion or anti-abortion. Because even if you look at the pro-choice side their idea of "choice" falls apart if a hospital or doctor choose to not perform/participate in abortions.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126985072

Hmm. Seems like the anti-choice religions might need to check themselves.

Anonymous wrote:Atheist and pro life here. Nothing to do with religion. I've taken care of plenty of old folks who need total care and see analogy between end and beginning of life. Science background - one day we will be able to take care of fetus's outside of whom at very early stages of development and this debate will seem primitive.

A plural of anecdotes is not data.

You know what's primitive? Women the world over are not allowed to limit the size of their families. Children die of preventable diseases everyday. DNR directives are ignored everyday. That's primitive. I don't think growing fetuses externally is something we need to shoot for.

And as someone who someday hopes to be old, I find your drawing parallels between old people and non-sentient fetuses really insulting,

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why the terms should be pro-abortion or anti-abortion. Because even if you look at the pro-choice side their idea of "choice" falls apart if a hospital or doctor choose to not perform/participate in abortions.

No - because the "choice" rests with the woman, not the doctor.

Of course any doctor can refuse to perform any treatment he/she wants, but that is secondary to the point that the pregnant woman gets to choose what to do with her own body.

Oh can I pay for it!!!!

Anonymous wrote:This is why the terms should be pro-abortion or anti-abortion. Because even if you look at the pro-choice side their idea of "choice" falls apart if a hospital or doctor choose to not perform/participate in abortions.

No - because the "choice" rests with the woman, not the doctor.

Of course any doctor can refuse to perform any treatment he/she wants, but that is secondary to the point that the pregnant woman gets to choose what to do with her own body.

This is why the terms should be pro-abortion or anti-abortion. Because even if you look at the pro-choice side their idea of "choice" falls apart if a hospital or doctor choose to not perform/participate in abortions.

I think it is their way of trying to use what they see as the pro-choice argument against pro-choicers.

But the fundamental problem is that pro-lifers see that life begins at conception, and nothing else, while pro-choicers may differ at when life begins, but also acknowledge a whole host of other factors that go beyond when life begins.

To me its like 2 sides are shouting in different languages and can't even understand each other -- that's how different the perspectives are.

Outside of "womb" no "whom"!

Atheist and pro life here. Nothing to do with religion. I've taken care of plenty of old folks who need total care and see analogy between end and beginning of life. Science background - one day we will be able to take care of fetus's outside of whom at very early stages of development and this debate will seem primitive.

Obviously she made a choice. This is what anti-choicers do not understand: not everyone shares their life-begins-at-birth-belief, which is usually though not always religious in nature. If they don't like it, they needn't have one. Of course, if I remember my Guttmacher correctly, lots and lots and lots of anti-choice women have abortions.

What I'd like answered is how anti-choicers imagine a world without legal abortion. Do none of them acknowledge that abortion will never stop, it'll just become dangerous to the woman? Do they not read about Ceausescu? But I'll spin off if I need to...

When people that are pro-life say things like "your mother chose life!" .....she made a choice, to keep the baby, yes? So wasn't she (in a way) pro-choice?

Honestly not trying to start a debate, just always been curious.