Why Pro-Lifers Are Dead Wrong: From a Former Anti-Abortionist

Why do you keep posting falsehoods?

The medical community determined ONLY that it is VIABLE at 23 weeks. They always knew it was HUMAN from conception.


Why do you deny science?

YES! PROTECTIONS....PROTECTIONS ARE NOT RIGHTS......

...and you can ignore that if you choose but it's a fact.....you can't change words to fit YOUR personal meanings.[/QUOTE]

 

There are many innocent human lives that need a loving parent. Will you step up and adopt?

 

ooh, what a snappy comeback to try and justify killing human life. It's quite pathetic

 

If you can justify leaving those little lives in the system, it may help you understand why others justify abortion.

 

let's consider what you wrote. Death is preferable for the babies

 

I have no major problem with the option of abortion for others. It is their life and the life of their unborn. I have issues with hypocrisy, and forced participation by direct or indirect means through law. As you have a personal opinion as to your choice and think everyone should agree because you have studies, I have personal opinions based on religious education, common sense, and life experience as a man, former husband, father, reasonably compassionate and intelligent man. While those are not as scientific as your reasons, if you truly respect your fellow human, the decisions and conclusions of someone similar to me are enough to respect though not necessarily agree with.

For me, the idea of respect for other opinions based on what is real to those who differ in their reasoning to yours, is problematic. There can be no real respect other opinions, if there is no respect for the earliest stages of human life. I find that to be why there is so much controversy, and not anything else. Even I can understand the reasoning behind those who don't mind abortions, but that doesn't mean I am on board with them, nor does it mean I can respect them. I can respect their opinions because they believe they are valid. I cannot find it in my heart to respect their actions or what I consider hypocrisy as respectable.

That doesn't mean I want to stop anyone from making what I believe is a horrible mistake with negative consequences, in spite of any scientific proofs or theories you might provide. What it means is, I want the choice and what I believe is my right, to decide not to participate directly or indirectly in any way, shape or form. Since the costs are so high due to the market for medications and procedures, folks who are on the pro side of the argument need everyone to participate, in order that they might not be financially responsible for the consequences of their pleasure.

In the cases of rape and I consider pregnancy through incest to be rape, as well, I believe those who are on the pro side of this can afford to help those victims pay for the procedures. I would be willing to help indirectly or directly, depending on the case, with the health care that provides for necessities other than anything related to the abortive procedure, which might include bruising, broken bones, lacerations, pain meds and meds to reduce or eliminate infections from the beatings or injuries received during the rape, mental health professional counseling and any meds prescribed for the victim due to the trauma of rape. I do not think that is an all inclusive list, but it is fairly comprehensive.

I would also be willing to pay for any education for the population that would explain alternative means to the abortion process and temporary, though mid-length terms of assistance to provide education and baby sitting as well as other care for a single mother to achieve a life of independence from permanent life-long assistance. Of course, not all would be capable or able to do that. There are always exceptions and those folks would of course need help.

If I need to explain any of that, or the obvious hypocrisy of many on both sides of this argument, you haven't done your homework and/or are incapable of compassion and understanding. I believe my stance takes a compassionate stand for all parties involved on either side of the issue, and allows for the respect of individual rights.

Those who change their mind may either pay for the first abortion through sliding scales if necessary and then have those taxes collected from their pay through forms at the time of the procedure or pay for it outright in full. Those who decide they do not want to have those taxes taken from them would have to sign a waiver and a pledge to pay for the first procedure, should they change their mind. Otherwise, the full cost is on them, even at a sliding scale for repayment.

It would have to work similarly through any insurance company. The difficult part would be for them to separate increases for abortions from general increases in premiums.

I don't have all of the answers. I don't intend to entertain questions or comments. I don't expect the laws to change because of my opinions. I don't expect anything from anyone, except their respect for differing opinions, and acceptance that theirs will likely not change my mind. It will take several major personal decisions for that to happen.

There is no separation of church and state, when one does not have a choice to donate income to provide abortions or has the costs incorporated into health insurance premiums for those on the con side of this argument, including directly or indirectly through taxation. It then becomes an obligation to vehemently disagree with the practice of abortions and any contraceptive techniques which violate religious dogma.

There are other things in the opening posts I disagree with, but it's enough to address what I have. There is no good reason to argue about it. I will not reply to questions and comments, whether serious or simply venting disagreement, hate, intolerance, explanations, clarifications, persuasions, baiting, or abuse.

I do however, want to thank the site for allowing me the freedom to post my personal opinions without judgment. I want to also thank the mods for what I have found to be decisions which lean heavily on the side of fairness and equality.

 

I didn't bother too read all the above crap ( why would anyone if the poster can't handle any replies ....the posters style is well known to me but I will comment on this:

"""There is no separation of church and state, when one does not have a choice to donate income to provide abortions or has the costs incorporated into health insurance premiums for those on the con side of this argument, including directly or indirectly through taxation. It then becomes an obligation to vehemently disagree with the practice of abortions and any contraceptive techniques which violate religious dogma""""



There is no separation of church and state when greed filled religions and churches USE all the things that taxpayers pay for from roads, freeways, infrastructure, courts, public building, laws, police, military......all the things others pay for with their taxes that greedy selfish MOOCHING churches do not pay for....yet they want to then dictate what MEDICAL care women can and cannot get because they hate this group of taxpayers( women) with such a furious passion....... I will never understand women who donate their time and money to religion when it hates them so much.....but then look at all the abused wives who looooooooove their abusers...

 

I am important to you? Thank you for following my posts so closely. Odd that you don't use the quote function provided by this site. It's one of the best forum software programs I've ever used.

I'm glad we agree on there being no separation. I can get behind a consideration of them paying taxes for things they use which are among those you've listed. If they cannot be excused from paying for those things they do not use, like abortions for all, but allow an individual to pay for them as in the odd cases of a nun becoming pregnant and wanting an abortion, I don't think thee is a separation of church and state.

The problem with this suggestion is, the government would then be able to tell folks what they can worship. Since the churches don't sell anything, and also because I am against corporations paying taxes for instance, and due to the fact that the parishoners pay their taxes, plus the fact that they used to take care of their own through their own hospitals, schools, doctors, nurses, and justice, but the government has forced them to provide for services for all, I think it's the government who owes the churches.

They only want to educate believers and I honestly think they would be more tolerant if the government didn't force folks to help pay for the services which go completely against the doctrines of the churches. However, I my opinions on what they might think and do are not to be relied upon as representative of anyone, but my personal opinion. Adult women who are believers don't have to follow those doctrines. However, some privileges and sacraments will not be available to them until they have made themselves right with God and the church. These things are not hidden from them before they become full members, though a case may be made that children don't have a choice or the understanding of their parents who took them to those classes.

That's because you don't understand religion and are likely an atheist. That last phrase is very disturbing for me on so many levels.

I'll go back to ignoring you. You seem to get a kick out of disrespecting me behind my back. It does make me feel a little bit proud, though.

 

Well I thank you for sharing your thought but all you really did was explain your abortion plan but didn't actually explain how my main points were wrong or why abortion is wrong. I think that your opposition to abortion is based on blind faith and more of a religious belief than a rational one.

 

It isn't wrong for everyone. I thought I explained that. I've tried in other threads. I've even explained why I believe what I do. I was attacked for my opinions and told I wanted my standards for all.

I even suggested ways to handle my thoughts in the real world. Those were attacked, too. They were all my opinion and simply stated to explain how I thought folks could do things. Yes, could, if they wanted, not have to under penalty of law.

My stance is based in my beliefs. It's also based in my own personal morality which is individual to me, just as yours is individual to you, since science doesn't have morals, only theories, and proofs of theories. Morality comes from within, from experiences and conclusions drawn, from the philosophy of those men(not sure if there are any women philosophers) an individual deems favorable and from religious doctrines.

 

YOU: """ I will not reply to questions and comments, whether serious or simply venting disagreement, hate, intolerance, explanations, clarifications, persuasions, baiting, or abuse"""




BTW, I used the quote function, too bad you're confused even by that....

..and I'm sure you'll try desperately to ignore anything that doesn't agree with whatever you posted which is why I don't bother reading much of your posts.....


BTW, this is a discussion forum, not a ""give a speech and never expect others to disagree" forum.

 

Actually, the fundamental issue is quite simple. Opinion cannot remove rights.

Since there is massive dispute as to what a Fetus is, any definitive is pure opinion. One spectrum of these opinions has NO EFFECT on citizen rights and the other most certainly does.

 

No. A loving home and people who really care and are not just being sanctimonious. I guess it is much easier to put on a pro life t-shirt than to actually care.

 

It is illegal to snuff out a life. We are not talking about lives we are talking about zygotes that will eventually be life if the woman chooses to allow her to live off her body

 

Pro-life nuts DO care....all the way up to birth.

 

For me the ultimate reason why a woman has the right to choose is because it is an unalienable right. Rights only exist because they are associated with property. Without property there are no rights. And the first piece of property each and every human being owns at birth is his/her body. All rights associated with one's body are inherent and unalienable. It is therefore a woman's body (fetus carrying inclusive) until birth, period. Legally speaking, it is an unalienable right protected by the 9th Amendment (part of the Supreme Law of the Land). All laws abrogating a woman's right to choose are unconstitutional. But legalities are a side factor. No one has a valid right to determine a woman's choice (who is not mentally/physically handicapped and unable to choose as a result).

 

Of course it's a human being. Please tell me the exact moment, according to your views, that a fetus becomes a human being?

 

Per Roe vs. Wade, only for the first trimester (based on 1972 technology, it's probably later now), after that point the government is allowed to protect the unborn.

 

That is the outer limit of viability Why focus on late abortions when practically all abortions are done in the first trimester

 

What a snappy comeback to say that 01 /10th of 1 ounce fetus is a human life. It is ignorance to call it killing a human life when it isn’t. Is an acorn an oak tree?

 

When it is viable....

 

For them life begins at conception and ends at birth

 

Oh, please. This argument has been done a million times. Obviously no one, including scientists, is going to convince you a fetus is not a human being. You don't want to know. Don't ask me such a stupid question. Ask a scientist.

 

God aborts 500,000 fetuses in the US every year. "500,000 pregnancies each year end in miscarriage (occurring during the first 20 weeks)" If you have a problem with abortion, talk to God about it. Why is he killing so many, according too you, 'human beings.' All those abortions. Ask God about it. Get pissed off at him. I bet you wouldn't have a problem if women were aborting Muslim babies.

 

When did I mention God? Keep on the subject.

Of course it's a human being. Please tell me the exact moment, according to your views, that a fetus becomes a human being?