Pages

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Your answers to the difference between "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion."

In order to change people's minds, we need to understand what people think in the first place.

Many pro-lifers who insist there's no significant difference between the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion," but clearly the other side disagrees. You've probably heard people who support legal abortion get angry or frustrated if others try to label them as "pro-abortion," or insist that "no one is 'pro-abortion'." Why do they react that way?

In an effort to explore our own understanding of the other side's position, we recently asked Secular Pro-Life Facebook followers, "How would you describe the difference between someone being 'pro-choice' and someone being 'pro-abortion'?"

We had many responses from pro-lifers who believe there's no difference between the labels. However, I'm more interested in the pro-lifers trying to understand the other side's point of view. I include excerpts from those pro-lifers here, but first, a few caveats:
  • Some of the posts are edited for length or grammar.
  • I believe the people I'm quoting are pro-life, but it's possible some are pro-choice, as our Facebook page is public and anyone can comment.
  • I'm not suggesting that any one of the below answers is exactly correct. I'm only presenting the answers so we pro-lifers can consider the distinctions and so any pro-choicer reading can see how they may be viewed by those on our side who recognize a difference. It'd be interesting to see a similar compilation but with answers from only abortion rights advocates.
Anyway, on to the answers:


Clinton: Someone who believes abortion is a good thing and that there should be more abortions is pro-abortion. Someone who believes abortion is a necessary evil but that the option should be available for women is pro-choice.

Kim: I believe there are people personally opposed to abortion but who legitimately don't want to impose their beliefs on others.

Grace: "Pro-choice" means they wish abortion didn't happen a lot, but they believe that the option should be open for women in tough spots. "Pro-abortion" means they think abortion is pretty much okay no matter what. There are way fewer of the latter.

Diana: People who are pro-abortion think that abortion has value independent of what the woman wants. For example, they think there's justification for the forced abortions in China. People who are pro-choice think that any woman who does not want to have an abortion should not be pressured/forced to do so, regardless of other circumstances.

Josh: One thinks that abortion should be legal, and the other thinks abortion is a good thing and/or something that should be encouraged or in some extreme cases forced.

Conner: A pro-choice person holds that while abortion may not be a good thing, it's something that we should allow individuals to do because people should be free to make their own decisions regardless of whether or not we agree with them. Judith Jarvis Thompson's violinist thought experiment is an example of a pro-choice argument. ...

A pro-abortion argument, by contrast, justifies abortion by characterizing it as a good thing either in and of itself or because it has a positive consequence. The consequences may be positive for the woman, for women in general, or for society. Some eugenic arguments even characterize it as good for the victim: the child will be born unwanted, might have a birth defect, or there's some other reason he/she will live a life unworthy of living.

Ken: Very few people are pro-abortion, and even fewer self-identify as such. Most are pro-choice.

Nicholas: Arguing that abortion is a positive good or that it should be destigmatised and/or subsidized vs. merely thinking it should be legal.

Stephanie: "Pro-choice" is vague. It can mean someone who is personally pro-life, or supports abortion in extreme circumstances--life of the mother, for instance. It can mean someone who does not want to get involved in others' lives. "Pro-choice" can also mean someone who supports abortion in any and all circumstances.

"Pro-abortion" is someone who is very in favor of abortion and may use it as their sole form of birth control or "If I get pregnant, I will abort no matter what!"

Sanlee: "Pro-choice" is for people making their own choices about pregnancy (even if it favors abortion) and "pro-abortion" is for people who do not respect your choice if you choose life. Pro- abortion people vandalize Facebook and website pages of women who had disabled babies (because they think that those women should have aborted). They terrorize parents of Downs children and vandalize pro-life pregnancy clinics and displays. Basically pro-choice people believe that you should make your own decision and pro-aborts want to make that decision for you, and they want women to abort.

Jacob: "Pro-choice" is supporting choices including abortion but also the choices of child birth, adoption, and birth control and choices regarding your body away from abortion and child birth, such as body piercing, tattoos, and liberty of your own body. "Pro-abortion" is supporting termination of a pregnancy and the removal of a fetus from the womb.

Elizabeth: "Pro-choice" might find third trimester abortions disgusting. "Pro-abortion" says the child is not human until birth and doesn't want "defective" babies to be born.

Sarah: I would probably draw a line in what they think the options are. "Pro-choice" is someone who thinks that when a woman gets pregnant, the woman has several options, one of which includes abortion. Pro-choice people argue that, in the face of an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy, abortion should be available as an option, but they'll support the woman in whatever she chooses and fight for there to be good options for her. I think that in this way a lot of them are like pro-life people, just with one more option on the table.

"Pro-abortion" advocates argue that in the face of an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy, abortion should be the first and sometimes only option. This is where rhetoric like "every child a wanted child" comes in; every child is wanted, just perhaps not immediately. If the desire isn't immediate, I would imagine that a pro-abortion advocate would consider abortion to be the best option.

Laurie: Pro-choice but anti-abortion: might include believing abortion is wrong, but also believing it is an issue that is complicated and should be left as a decision of the woman rather than banned universally by law. Pro-abortion but anti-choice would include China, with women pregnant with one child already, forced by the government to abort a child they wanted.

You can also click here to see the full range of responses on the FB page.

104 comments:

secularprolife.org said...

Yup! The idea that supporting legality means you are "pro-x" falls apart once you compare it to divorce (I'm "pro-divorce," I think divorce should be legal!) or infidelity (I'm "pro-infidelity," I think infidelity should not be illegal) -- it sounds and is ridiculous, because "pro" implies much more than legality. It implies favor.

secularprolife.org said...

I think the difference is a bit subtle, but important. I like many of these responses.

I know people who identify as pro-choice but do not think that abortion is a good option for women, however, they do not want to tell women what to do (I can sympathize with that point of view - it is similar to LN's example below about infidelity being legal vs. being considered good).

I also have friends who believe that abortion is a sign of women's liberation, that it is a moral good, and that, in some cases, it is the ONLY moral option. I would characterize someone like that as pro-abortion, as they see nothing wrong with either the legality or the act of abortion. Spring-boarding of of LN's example again, this would be equivalent to someone who does not believe that fidelity is healthy or practical, since humans are programmed to want multiple partners. There ARE some people who are pro-divorce/infidelity, just like there are some people who are pro-abortion.



How common they are really is not so easy to determine. I believe people who are pro-abortion are quite common, but that might be a function of my environment and the place that I live!

secularprolife.org said...

I think, in all debates, we get caught up in our view of a person and/or activism. Because of such, we assume we know everything about this person. We don't, all because someone is pro choice dooesn't mean they just LOVE abortion. Going in an argument assuming that is giving your opponent the upper hand. Of course, there are exceptions to this, but all because some pro-choice blogger has a love affair with abortion, doesn't mean the random chick arguing with you on the internet does.

secularprolife.org said...

Another factor worth noting here: pro-choice people outnumber those who are pro-abortion, but the pro-abortion people are more passionate (because who gets passionate about a necessary evil?) and therefore the pro-abortion voices are louder. From what I can tell, most people who rise to *leadership positions* within the pro-choice movement are really pro-abortion. But the rank-and-file I believe are truly pro-choice.

secularprolife.org said...

Do you all see any similarity between you calling them "pro-aborts" and them calling you "forced birthers"?

secularprolife.org said...

It's very much like assisted suicide. It's presented generally just as an option. But once it's an option, then there's pressure to use it because it often is the financially cheaper option. The exact same thing happens with abortion. This is why in its effects on policy and on people's lives there really isn't much difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion even though people may come at it with very different perspectives.

secularprolife.org said...

I know some anti-natalists who are definitely pro abortion, and think that ONLY abortion should be an option. I also know people who will argue passionately that abortion is wrong, but do not wish to make it illegal.

secularprolife.org said...

The baby (or unborn baby) is going to come out either way (dead or alive), so nothing is being 'forced', except death on the unborn child during an abortion.

secularprolife.org said...

That wasn't Frank's point ...

secularprolife.org said...

Myintx the only force would be the one anti-choicers want to use on women by forcing her to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. They want to take away her options to be able to have the choice for an abortion.

secularprolife.org said...

No one should have the 'choice' to kill an innocent human being simply because they think that human being is inconvenient or unwanted. That's forced-death right there.

secularprolife.org said...

A ZEF is not a human being and I just do not understand why you are unable to see that. It is only a potential human being.

secularprolife.org said...

I had a tangent on your "pro-divorce/infidelity" comment that ended up relating back to the main point so here it is!


To be honest, you could pretty much call me pro-divorce, in that I think that if people are on the fence about divorce, it's probably because of social pressure to stay together, and they should probably get divorced. I also think divorce should be easier than it is, socially and legally.

So I think that might be how pro-abortion people feel about abortion. They don't necessarily think everyone who's pregnant should have an abortion, but they think that if people are on the fence, and they think it should be socially and legally easier than it is. This is probably how I would feel if I were less anti-adultist.

secularprolife.org said...

So, it magically changes into a human being on a trip down the birth canal? If it's not a human being, there is no reason to kill him or her right?


The life cycle of a human being starts when he or she is created - at fertilization. No innocent human being should be killed because he or she is inconvenient or unwanted.

secularprolife.org said...

It becomes an actual human being once it is born. It is no longer just a potential human that needs a host.
Abortion is not killing but yes for some women there is many reasons to have an abortion.

No woman should be forced to suffer through the misery of pregnancy because you think they deserve to be punished for having sex.

secularprolife.org said...

I'm pro-choice. I am not a "pro-abort." I support women who have an abortion or decide on pregnancy and child birth. If women want to have a child they should be fully supported. If women want to have an abortion that should also be fully supported. 'Pro-abort" sounds like people who are pro-choice are forcing women to have abortions. That is not true. However, "pro-lifers" who advocate that abortion be illegal are forcing birth on women against their will. I think you can be personally against having an abortion for yourself but pro-choice in respecting other womens decisions and choices.

secularprolife.org said...

Pro-abortion is anti-choice. I cannot stand anyone who holds that view.

secularprolife.org said...

I don't see any pressure on people to use assisted suicide. More often I encounter pressure from the medical community to keep fighting a disease in the terminal stage, even if the choice is NOT assisted suicide, but palliative care. Fortunately, that attitude is getting better. But I had to restrain myself from choking the doctor who tried to bully my mom into a nursing home on a ventilator when all she wanted was "to leave the hospital and never go back."

secularprolife.org said...

Non-sequitur. I am very passionate about choice, however I'd love to see a whole lot less abortions! You and I may differ on how we get to that goal, but I'm sure we both have the same goal: less abortion.

secularprolife.org said...

Let's not move the goalposts so much. I view abortion as usually morally neutral, and sometimes morally acceptable (such as in the case of a woman pregnant from rape, or abortion done for health reasons.) That isn't "pro-abortion." No matter how much someone may try to pretend that not being able to afford another mouth to feed, or the prospect of losing one's livelihood doesn't matter, it DOES matter. Until we, as a society, have the will to make welcoming life the more attractive choice, abortions will happen for so-called "lifestyle" reasons. Opposing insurance coverage of contraception is counter-productive. As is cutting social welfare, making a case for biological fathers skipping out on child support, and referring to single women who need help as "moochers." I myself chose to carry an unplanned pregnancy to term specifically BECAUSE these options were available to me. I know many other women who have been in the same boat. You want women to carry pregnancy to term? Make it an easy choice. Stop punishing them for it.

secularprolife.org said...

YES!!! THIS... times 1000.

secularprolife.org said...

It really does not matter what pro life or pro choice stance you take, abortion is controlled by scientific laws. Those laws yield theories that show: a fetus is not proved to be a human until birth; a choice to have sex is a consent to abortion; a woman that is forced to give birth is precluded from becoming pregnant with a child of her choice; a person must choose to save born life or unborn life, they cannot save both and there is no proof that abortion has caused a decrease in births.

These laws are immutable and constant. They cannot be changed and any person that attempts to bypass the laws will likely cause the death of a human.

secularprolife.org said...

42 percent of conceptions have genetic flaws that preclude them from becoming human life. so there is no baby to come out. Only 30 percent of conceptions will become babies. Those that become human life were always human. Those that do not produce human life never were human.

secularprolife.org said...

You "choose" to kill innocent human life every time you have sex. And you choose to kill human life every time you force birth.

secularprolife.org said...

{So, it magically changes into a human being on a trip down the birth canal?}

No, 42 percent of conceptions were never human life, only 30 percent will become human life. All the birth canal does is show which can be proved to be human. http://miscarriage.about.com/od/riskfactors/a/miscarriage-statistics.htm


{If it's not a human being, there is no reason to kill him or her right?}

There is no reason not to kill a fetus that is not human.

{The life cycle of a human being starts when he or she is created - at fertilization. }

No, the life cycle is continuous, unless you believe that a human comes from a non human. It you think that is the way it works, then prove it.


"No innocent human being should be killed because he or she is inconvenient or unwanted."

The only people killing innocent humans are pro lifers. You make the intentional choice to murder babies to save fetuses.

secularprolife.org said...

"Clinton: Someone who believes abortion is a good thing and that there should be more abortions is pro-abortion. Someone who believes abortion is a necessary evil but that the option should be available for women is pro-choice."

There is a third option. I believe that abortion enables society to save the most human life possible. I do not devalue life enough to call myself pro life.

secularprolife.org said...

"A pro-abortion argument, by contrast, justifies abortion by characterizing it as a good thing either in and of itself or because it has a positive consequence."

In my case being pro choice or pro abortion is not accurate, though I consider myself pro choice. There is always the choice to save a born baby or a fetus. Pro lifers choose to save the fetus and let the baby die and I choose save the baby and let the fetus die.
"The consequences may be positive for the woman, for women in general, or for society. Some eugenic arguments even characterize it as good for the victim: the child will be born unwanted, might have a birth defect, or there's some other reason he/she will live a life unworthy of living."

There are always at lease two choices of whom to save, the born life or the unborn life. Either choice can be claimed to be a eugenic choice. But only by saving the born life can one save the most life possible.

secularprolife.org said...

I agreed with you. Pro-life or pro-choice term is good enough.

secularprolife.org said...

Nope. An unborn child at 39 weeks is more developed than a born child born at 23 weeks and immediately put on life support. Your 'logic' makes no sense. An unborn child IS a human being.


No unborn child should be killed because of someone45's 'feelings'. It's selfish and it's wrong.

secularprolife.org said...

You murder born babies to save fetuses.

secularprolife.org said...

So basically you're handwaving away the birth process again and pretending that there is no difference between a large object being forced through a small hole vs several smaller objects being forced through it. That being the case, I'm sure you can prove this point by swallowing a grapefruit whole, rather than in several small bites. Yes?

secularprolife.org said...

**If it's not a human being, there is no reason to kill him or her right?**


Sure. As soon as you give a valid reason why ANY human beings should have a 'right to life', but not cattle or worms, and ALSO explain why the ZEF has a special right that no other 'human being' has, to use someone else's body without their consent.

secularprolife.org said...

btw, I'm still waiting for you to provide links to all these people you claim discriminate against zefs ONLY because of (sob) 'their size' and who confirm this claim of yours by saying that they would regard the 1/4 inch tall children in 'Honey I Shrunk the Kids' as no longer being persons, and being able to be killed, based on their small size.

secularprolife.org said...

Myintc please get over your sick obsession with late term abortion...

I have every right to an abortion and my life shouldn't be ruined because myintx thinks so.

secularprolife.org said...

If a woman is so paranoid about childbirth and the pain involved, she should have her uterus removed before she ever has a chance of getting pregnant. "Pain from childbirth" is a lame excuse to kill your own son or daughter.


The child (born or unborn) is the same human being before and after birth. Sounds like you'd let a woman kill her unborn child at 7 months because of the fear of childbirth. Have the little one chopped into tiny little pieces in the womb and sucked out so that she wouldnt have to experience the 'misery' of childbirth. That OK with you if a woman CHOOSES to do that ?

secularprolife.org said...

So, you think newborn humans should be killed and eaten just like cows?

secularprolife.org said...

In the life of a human being, birth is an event just like going from 12 to 13 (maybe the child isn't strong enough to make it to 13 just like an unborn child in the womb at 8.5 months might not be strong enough to make it to birth). So, by your twisted logic anyone who tries to save a 12 year old is killing a 13 year old. See how twisted your 'logic' is?

secularprolife.org said...

oh, but it's OK to KILL your own son or daughter to make yourself feel better? Deny your own unborn son or daughter a chance at a full and productive life because you're not fweeling great? wow. Yep, that's the definition of selfish right there.

secularprolife.org said...

How many times do I have to tell you a ZEF is not my son or daughter. It is an unwanted developing potential human that has a parasitic relationship and I can remove it if I want.


I can have an abortion to save my life, because a pregnancy would destroy any chance I would ever have at a full and productive life, but since I was an evil woman and had sex for reasons besides baby making I should be punished I guess...

secularprolife.org said...

This is entirely wrong and not logical at all.

Lets rephrase your premise: There are always at least two choices of whom to save: one group of humans vs. another group of humans.

Say you are a doctor who exclusively treats adults with life-threatening diseases that present in humans without discrimination of age. You consistently choose to save adults rather than children with the same disease. Does it follow that you therefore must actively kill children with that disease?

I.e.: Just because you focus on saving/helping those humans who are born, does not mean that you must therefore be in favour of killing those who are not. Your argument is a false dichotomy.

secularprolife.org said...

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492

secularprolife.org said...

Can you provide any scientific evidence to back up your assertion that a ZEF is not an organism of the species homo sapiens?

secularprolife.org said...

"I'd love to see a whole lot less abortions"

Why?

secularprolife.org said...

Well, actually, I do wish infidelity was illegal, but really only in principle. I recognize that in practice such a law it would be nearly impossible to regulate and enforce, and would further burden our already over-strained law enforcement, so in that respect I don't think it should be illegal.

secularprolife.org said...

Because that would mean a whole lot less unwanted pregnancies.

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah. The drug is prohibitively expensive, and the woman is terminal. Her cancer is going to kill her, and very soon. This is not a cure. The insurance WILL pay for palliative care, which is appropriate in her situation.

secularprolife.org said...

1. Fear of the pain of childbirth is not the only reason a woman gets an abortion.

2. You're pretending that women all wait for '7 months' before getting an abortion. Want to try posting some real statistics on when most abortions are done?

3. That OK with you if a woman CHOOSES to do that?

Yes, and would you care to explain how something without a functioning brain even knows or cares what's happening to it, or are you still pretending that women wait for 7 months before getting an abortion.

4. I'm still waiting for your link of all the people who you claim 'discriminate based on size' who would regard the kids in 'Honey I Shrunk the Kids' as therefore not being persons. Or is that just your latest variation on last weeks BS, where you claimed that pro-choice people were discriminating against widdle embwyos simply because it 'doesn't look human' and for no other reason. Frankly, you make yourself look even stupider every time you make up this shit.

secularprolife.org said...

I commend this piece, especially for the opening line which mentions understanding people to change their mind's. The comments following also make good points in that it is the ones we hear more from who are pro-abortion while many are pro-choice.

However, I respectfully hold the opinion that if you are pro-choice, then you are pro-abortion. This is because one of the choices you support IS abortion. I suppose you could phrase it as pro-abortion as an option?

But at least this piece acknowledges that there ARE those who are truly pro-abortion. I hate the ignorant people who say there is no such thing. Oh there is...

secularprolife.org said...

You are in denial. An unborn child IS a human being.


If your life were TRULY endangered and you would die without an abortion, abortion should be allowed, but from what you've told me about your 'misery', you could have dealt with it and could have given your unborn son or daughter a chance at life, but you chose to kill another human being for your mere convenience.

secularprolife.org said...

I HATE tattoos. I utterly DESPISE them. Yet I don't seek to make tattoos illegal. I guess I must secretly be pro-tattoo eh?

secularprolife.org said...

Doctors don't remove healthy organs for birth control purposes. Tubal ligation, including burning the ends to prevent them growing back together is the go-to sterilization method.

Unfortunately, many control-freak ob/gyn's will not perform this simple and effective method on nulliparous women, or women who have not borne the 'correct' number of children or reached a 'suitable' age.

'Correct,' of course, being the arbitrary number of offspring or the arbitrary 'suitable' age according to the control-freak ob/gyn.

secularprolife.org said...

Handwaving. You're deliberately refusing to answer my question as to WHY they shouldn't be killed and eaten like cows.

secularprolife.org said...

**Can you provide any scientific evidence to back up your assertion that a ZEF is not an organism of the species homo sapiens?**



Can you provide any evidence that a molar pregnancy is not an organism of the species homo sapiens by the minimum standards you use, to squeak a zef through?

secularprolife.org said...

Oh, and I notice you're moving away a little from your previous claim that pregnancy and giving birth is as easy as eating a bag of doritos. Now your claim is that you agree it's torturously painful, but that women should be forced to experience the pain anyways, for the pwecious zef, because none of them ever get abortions before 7 months. And 'responsibility'.

secularprolife.org said...

"This is entirely wrong and not logical at all.
Lets rephrase your premise: There are always at least two choices of whom to save: one group of humans vs. another group of humans."

The error in your logic is that most zygotes are not human life. 42 percent of conceptions produce life so flawed it is not human and incapable of becoming human life. And it is impossible to tell until birth or death in the womb which zefs will become human life and which will die. So the choice is between human life and potential human life, not between human life and human life.

"Say you are a doctor who exclusively treats adults with life-threatening diseases that present in humans without discrimination of age. You consistently choose to save adults rather than children with the same disease. Does it follow that you therefore must actively kill children with that disease?"

My discussion is about saving the most human life possible. Pro lifers murder born humans to save fetuses and that is what I am opposed to. So my concern is about saving life and pro lifers' concern is about saving non human life over human life.

"I.e.: Just because you focus on saving/helping those humans who are born, does not mean that you must therefore be in favour of killing those who are not. Your argument is a false dichotomy."

The fact is that born humans are dying and unborn humans are dying. I am for saving real human life. An unborn human/fetus is not a human life, it is a potential human. So the dichotomy is not false, I am for saving life and you are for letting life die.

secularprolife.org said...

"In the life of a human being, birth is an event just like going from 12 to 13 (maybe the child isn't strong enough to make it to 13 just like an unborn child in the womb at 8.5 months might not be strong enough to make it to birth).

The Children are humans and the unborn may or may not be humans. The 13 year old you speak of will die because you are focusing on saving a fetus. You are the one responsible for the death of the 13 year old. You are a murderer. You choose fetuses over children.


" So, by your twisted logic anyone who tries to save a 12 year old is killing a 13 year old. See how twisted your 'logic' is?"

No by my logic I save children and let fetuses die. By your logic you kill children to save fetuses. You are a murderer, I am a person that saves life.

secularprolife.org said...

myintx, Have you ever thought of what a waste of protein it is for you to murder innocent children and not eat them? I mean you have already murdered them, why not chow down. Hey, I have an idea, why not server them up at the next pro life awards dinner.

secularprolife.org said...

You have no qualms at letting innocent babies die. Why the faint concern for a fetus. Life means nothing if it is not valuable after birth.

No born child should be left to die so that myintx can save a fetus.

secularprolife.org said...

myintx, right now there are 1.8 born babies dying. Your own family is dying. But you choose to let them all die. That is your choice. You choose to let innocent babies die in an effort to save fetuses.

secularprolife.org said...

The scientific proof is that an unborn child cannot be proved to be a human life. It is impossible. Until the DNA of the genotype expresses the correct phenotype, there is no human life. Humans have 46 chromosomes and most zygotes can never be proved to have the right number of chromosomes that express human life. So until you can find a way to predict "expression" and prove that there is human life, you are wrong.

secularprolife.org said...

I would die without an abortion because I would probably kill myself if forced to carry to term. THAT is how much I do not want to ever be pregnant. So your precious ZEF would no longer exist either.


Sweetie no I could not have dealt with nine months of that type of misery. Right now I would have never finished school, I would either not have a job or be living off welfare since I would have nothing in my life, and my life would basically be over all because people like you think a ZEF is more important than the pregnant woman.

secularprolife.org said...

It is a POTENTIAL human being. A egg is not a chicken and an acorn is not a tree. Can't you people see that difference?

secularprolife.org said...

No offense, but you sound like a drama queen. You could get help from a mental professional. People go back to school or make special arrangements. Just because you may have to (boo hoo) alter your schedule a bit doesn't mean you should be able to kill another human being.


I never said an unborn child was more important than a pregnant woman - all innocent human beings should have a right to life. In the case of a woman and her newborn, does it mean the newborn is more important if a woman has to miss a party to take care of her sick baby? can she kill the baby because her happiness is more important than her baby's life? NO - because it is NOT. Her life is worth the same as her baby's and her happiness is worth the same as her babies, but her happiness is not worth more than another human beings life.

secularprolife.org said...

Must be nice to be that certain about what other people can and can't "deal with".
For myself, I have serious anxiety, now being treated, and absolutely the last thing I need is the disruption that another pregnancy would cause. The second-to-last thing I need is other people deciding for me whether or not I can "deal with it".
If I became pregnant again - the most unlikely of eventualities, but theoretically possible - you bet I'd be making that abortion appointment in that exact amount of time that it takes to get from the bathroom to the phone. I'm fortunate enough to live where the nearest clinic is within walking distance and I don't have to go through a lot of nonsense to get an abortion.

secularprolife.org said...

1. I know that. Some kill for 15 minutes of fame or because the baby is the wrong sex. I'm sure you support that selfishness too. There's your war on women - a woman killing her unborn child because she wants a boy instead of a girl. You're a proud supporter of the war on women.
2. Not pretending anything, but you support the killing at 7 months.
3. You could drug someone so that they don't feel pain. That doesnt justify killing them does it? An unborn child is a human being - at 7 days or 7 months. He or she shouldn't be killed by his or her own parents just because he or she is unwanted.
4. Unborn children most certainly are discriminated on based on size AND location. Those kids in the movie weren't located in someone elses womb.

secularprolife.org said...

An unborn child is a human being, just like a newborn. If you think unborn children should be killed and eaten like cows then you should think newborns should be too... do you?

secularprolife.org said...

An unborn child IS a human being...


That 13 year old is a teenager though and the 12 year old is not... since not all 12 year olds make it to 13, by your twisted 'logic', it must be OK to kill them.

secularprolife.org said...

Pro-aborts are the ones killing human beings, not me.

secularprolife.org said...

We are all going to die anyway, so by your 'logic' since we're all going to die and some might die early, it must be OK to kill others. Every human being deserves a CHANCE. You cannot kill a human being because others might not make it.

secularprolife.org said...

If a woman cannot 'deal with' her newborn and cannot 'deal with' the thought of her newborn going into the system (it gives her more anxiety), what will she do? Can she KILL her newborn because we don't know what she is going through? or can she GET HELP from mental professionals or counselling places to either deal with and learn to love her newborn or deal with and learn to live with the fact that her child is in the foster care system or will be adopted?? I'd say she should GET HELP. What about you?

secularprolife.org said...

Don't listen to myintx. She will give you every CPC talking point in the book. I also struggle with mental illness and understand what you are saying.

secularprolife.org said...

I have demonstrated and proved that my choice is to save babies. I have also proved that you have a choice to save innocent babies or to let them die. Your intentional choice is to let babies die.

secularprolife.org said...

"1. I know that. Some kill for 15 minutes of fame or because the baby is the wrong sex."


You murder babies for the same reason Hitler murdered babies. You think it will bring you power.
"There's your war on women - a woman killing her unborn child because she wants a boy instead of a girl. You're a proud supporter of the war on women."

You murder innocent born babies that can be proved to be human and alive. You do so because you are insane and believe that a zygote this size (.) is a baby. That is proof enough of insanity in and of itself. But you go farther, you believe the government should be used to murder babies to save zygotes. You are massively insane.


"2. Not pretending anything, but you support the killing at 7 months. "

You support the murder of born babies, children and adults. And you favor forcing those who do not want to murder babies to in fact murder babies in your name. You are massively insane.


"3. You could drug someone so that they don't feel pain. That doesnt justify killing them does it?"

Nothing you can do can justify the murders of innocent born babies, children and adults committed by pro lifers. You are massively insane as proved by the fact that you believe that killing life is saving life.
" An unborn child is a human being - at 7 days or 7 months. He or she shouldn't be killed by his or her own parents just because he or she is unwanted."

If a zygote is a baby at an earlier stage, then a egg or sperm is a baby at an even earlier stage. A zygote needs a uterus just as a sperm needs an egg. Neither can live without outside help.


"4. Unborn children most certainly are discriminated on based on size AND location."

You murder born babies because you believe that the fetus is more of a human than a real live human is a human. That is a sign of massive insanity. You murder real live humans to save fake humans.

"Those kids in the movie weren't located in someone elses womb."

You kill children that attend movies in an effort to save a zygote this size (.). That is insane.

secularprolife.org said...

You have a choice, you can save innocent born babies or you can kill them and save a fetus instead. You have already admitted that you choose to save the fetus and let the baby die. So you are the person killing human beings.

secularprolife.org said...

All you have to offer are lies. My logic is that it is best to save the most human life possible. Your logic is to save fetuses and let babies die. My logic is to look at two dying entities and save the human. Yours is to look at the same entities and let the human die.

secularprolife.org said...

You murder 13 year olds, 12 year olds and all born life you can influence. Why, because you believe that it is better to kill innocent born life than to save it. You are insane and need professional help.

secularprolife.org said...

You obviously need to get your umbilical cord removed.
The rest of us are different from an unborn fetus, when have no placenta.
In addition we have human organs and a fetus has fetal organs.
Also we have human DNA and you cannot prove the DNA of a fetus is human until birth.

You are making an effort here to justify killing innocent babies. Your plan has failed. You are making a fool of yourself.

---But please, please continue.---

secularprolife.org said...

** Some kill for 15 minutes of fame or because the baby is the wrong sex. I'm sure you support that selfishness too. There's your war on women - a woman killing her unborn child because she wants a boy instead of a girl.**

Uhhuh. Everyone gets an abortion for trivial reasons, and so they can be famous and slut it up. Nobody ever has major problems in their life. Everyone lives in your little fairytale world where their life is perfect, and everything would be hunky-dory if they would just 'take responsibility' or else be abstinent, and money and and angels and nanny fairies would float from the sky to provide care until the age of 18 for normal children and until the age of 80 for severely handicapped children.

**2. Not pretending anything, but you support the killing at 7 months.** There are valid reasons why an abortion might very rarely be done then. And stop babbling the word 'killing'. You've overused that word to the point of making it meaningless.

3. **You could drug someone so that they don't feel pain.** Can you explain whether a zef 'feels pain' and why or why not? Your statement is meaningless, a zef is not a 'someone' any more than a rock is.

4. **An unborn child is a human being** And you have yet to provide me with ANY reason why ANY human beings should have a 'right to life' when cattle and bacteria don't. All you've done is handwave, insult me, and give circular definitions of the term 'human being' that you carefully construct to sneak the zef through.

Sorry, I don't play that game. I'm not going to fill in blanks for you with one definition of the word 'human' when you insist on using a very different definition of that word in order to sneak the zef through. If you want to use YOUR definition of the word 'human', then there is no 'right to life' for 'humans' under that definition.

5. **He or she shouldn't be killed by his or her own parents just because he or she is unwanted.**

Your use of the term 'unwanted' is an extreme understatement of the situation, and you are deliberately not describing WHY the zef isn't wanted. 'Unwanted' can refer to anything from the dust under my bed to someone torturing me. Being tortured is 'unwanted'. That doesn't mean that being tortured is as trivial as having dust under my bed, simply because that is 'unwanted' as well. Stop trying to play equivocation games.

6. **Unborn children most certainly are discriminated on based on size AND location.** Gee, guess what? We discriminate based on location all the time! You can't just be in any 'location ' you want without getting into trouble. You can't go into a bank vault or a nuclear plant or the oval office. There is a big difference between a penis being 6 inches outside your body in a crowded elevator, and 6 inches inside your body when you are being raped. Grow the fuck up. The zef does not have special rights to any 'location' it 'needs' for it's 'very life' when no other human being has that right.

**Those kids in the movie weren't located in someone elses womb.** But they were the same SIZE as a very young embryo. You are claiming that the pro-choicers discriminate based on (sob) *size*. Now you're claiming that it's not size. Which is it? Is it size, or not? You can't have it both ways.



God, you're dumb.

secularprolife.org said...

Give it up, Myintx. This Russ Crawford is one smart cookie. He knows all them smart dehumanizing antiseptic words like geenietick espressxion/ I think I got it right. Anyway, he is smart. Got an IQ of 49. Jse axe em.

secularprolife.org said...

There he goes again, myintx. Read his posts. He has that down pat. I think he made an "A" on the NARAL troll test.

secularprolife.org said...

Now, you are cheating, myintx!!!! It sin't fair to confuse a genius with facts. You know if you didn't worry so much about live babies, you could save a lot of unborn babies...no, wait, I think I have it backwards. I'll have to go ask Russ. He knows everything.

secularprolife.org said...

Congratulations Russ. You have gravitated to the nonexistent war on women and given it a bizarre twist. You better check with NARAL before you do that again. I don't think I have seen a list of BS that long.

secularprolife.org said...

The evidence on this site makes it clear that pro lifers murder innocent born life in an effort to save fetuses. So, how can any thinking person be pro life?

secularprolife.org said...

Note the change of subject below. Russ has dementia. He keeps saying the same things over and over and over.

secularprolife.org said...

You are the drama queen little myintx. You think all abortions happen at 23 weeks.

Sorry but I do not have to live my life by your values. I am free to live by mine and you need to get over it.

secularprolife.org said...

no kidding.

secularprolife.org said...

A 16 year old shoots a 15 year old with a gun and that's my fault? nope...


You're the one who needs professional help.

secularprolife.org said...

Besides the point, which was simply that if you DID think infidelity should be legal, that wouldn't make you "pro-infidelity" -- the word has more implications than legality.

secularprolife.org said...

You have a choice, you can stand outside a clinic and let babies die or you can save the babies, children and adults. One can always come up with an excuse to let children die. Your excuse is that you don't want to help stop kids with guns. So you murder babies.
Your excuse won't work. You could choose to save people without guns or with guns. It does not matter. One way you save life the other way you kill life. Your choice is to murder.

secularprolife.org said...

Are you looking for wading pools to monitor right now? Nope...then by your lame definition, you're not saving babies.

secularprolife.org said...

Many countries have laws banning abortion. Is there any country that will charge every pro-lifer with murder by omission if a toddler they have never met dies in a wading pool on the other side of the state or country? Your 'logic' is messed up.

secularprolife.org said...

Any nation that has pro life laws is a nation committed to murdering its citizens. The Nazis were strong pro life proponents and you see what their lifestyle lead to. So pro lifers would rather a baby die in a pool than to save the baby. Like the Nazis they emulate, they probably would not like me or my ideas for saving the most life possible. .

secularprolife.org said...

I don't claim to be pro life so I don't have a duty to monitor wading pools. You one the other hand claim to save babies but instead choose to let them die. There are 1.8 born humans that die each second. You claim to save them, but you let them die. You let them die! You let them die!

secularprolife.org said...

Wait WHAT are you talking about?

secularprolife.org said...

Countries like El Salvador outlaw all abortion and women are jailed for having a miscarriage. Is that what you want the U.S. to be like?

secularprolife.org said...

Nope... But I would like to see abortion be illegal and only allowed if the life of the woman was truly endangered from the pregnancy.

secularprolife.org said...

An unborn child IS a human being.


Many born children aren't strong enough to make it to their first birthday. That does NOT mean we can kill any newborn just because some might not make it. The 'logic' you're proposing is that it's OK to kill a healthy unborn child because he might not make it to birth. It's insane logic.

secularprolife.org said...

So you would be happy to see a 13 yo rape victim permanently paralyzed and in a wheelchair for life, as long as she gives birth.


You sound like a sociopath who gets off on torturing children..

secularprolife.org said...

And, how about that 20 something year old killing for 15 minutes of fame? or the wife killing to hide the results of an affair?

secularprolife.org said...

Thanks for confirming that you want to see women permanently disabled.

You gonna pay for their wheelchair? Hospital bills? Lost income? Physio?

Yeah. Thought not.

secularprolife.org said...

Can a woman use 'hospital bills' as an excuse to kill her newborn? NO.


A woman with a life threatening pregnancy can either have the baby early to minimize the health risks or have an abortion if her life is truly endangered.


It sure does look like you have no defense for abortions for 15 minutes of fame or to hide the results of an affair. You deflect every time they are brought up.

secularprolife.org said...

We are discussing your joy at forcing permanent disability on women and then telling them to piss up a rope once their lives are destroyed.

DIAF.

secularprolife.org said...

More than likely, a permanent disability that threatens to put someone in a wheelchair would be classified as life threatening by a doctor and an abortion would be allowed if the baby could not be delivered safely. Most life threatening complications happen after viability, when the woman can be induced if her life is threatened, or, the doctor can determine that a C-section wouldn't threaten her life and that could be the route taken.




So, somehow, in your mind, allowing an abortion in a life threatening situation (or severe health situation) makes it OK for a woman to kill to hide the results of an affair or for 15 minutes of fame?

secularprolife.org said...

How could paralyzation from the waist down be life threatening?