glassjester
Well-known member
But how can you encourage a softening of someone's abortion position if even after a change you still name them 'abortion lovers'?
Do you want your position on abortion to be softened?
But how can you encourage a softening of someone's abortion position if even after a change you still name them 'abortion lovers'?
I don't like abortion, and would not procure one, so I see it as a necessary if distasteful procedure for certain circumstances. That is not 'abortion loving' in any sense of the term, so you are severely mistaken.
Do you think the "right" to abortion should be protected no matter what?
Do you think abortion is a fundamental human right?
If there was a war to end abortion (as there was for slavery), would you be willing to fight on the side that wants to keep it legal?
Because valuing someone's change of opinion from "all abortions ok" to "only for medical reasons" would save, in your terms, lots of lives. Why allow the pursuit of abolishment to stop you achieving reductions?
In other words, the 'continuum' view allows for 'better' versions of pro-abortion to replace 'worse' versions, whereas the 'excluded middle' version prevents piecewise movements on the issue, forcing people into the extreme position.
No, I think they are important freedoms guaranteed by law and societal acceptance. They are free to be modified as society sees fit.
This sounds like you don't have an opinion on it - or that, if the majority wants it, it's the right thing.
Is this correct?
No, it means I don't think that there are many 'fundamental' rights. I think the freedom to abort pregnancies is important, but not fundamental.
When *some abortions* are deemed as acceptable, the conclusion is that *some unborn babies* are not worthy of protection. For anyone who is anti-abortion to remain consistent, the focus needs to be protecting the life of the unborn ... NOT who got pregnant, how they got pregnant, etc.
IMO what is missing from the anti-abortion advocacy is the desire to follow through insofar as the health and welfare of the mother and child during pregnancy and AFTER. For example, the pretend Trump-care health plan which in actuality is a tax credit for the rich. For me, the very idea of wanting to take health care away form the most vulnerable (which would include women in crisis pregnancies) and children IS an action that promotes abortion.
No fundamental rights? Ok...
How did my 'not many' turn into your 'no'?
I have a lot to say on the subject of abortion, but this isn't the thread to say it.
:yawn:"Baby-killing is always wrong " . OK Doser, I'm sick and tired of the way anti-choicers indiscriminately use the term "baby " when it comes to the discussion of abortion .
A baby is a fetus which is close to birth or one which has already been born. A four week old fetus is not a "baby ". Since the overwhelming majority of abortions happen very early in a pregnancy, I can't stand the use of the manipulative term "baby " .
Children born out of incest are at risk of severe birth defects and all kinds of terrible problems which can cause lifelong suffering . Is it OK to force them to be born no matter what ? I think not .
If an individual is opposed to abortion being an option in all scenarios except for rape or incest or incest rape, is that individual pro-life or pro-choice?
I realize that by entering your thread I'm subjecting myself to one of your many smear campaigns against me, but here it goes:
It's been a while since I took 9th grade biology Aaron, so perhaps a brilliant graduate of the University of Wisconsin/Madison could help me with this answer.
If numerous medical professionals tell a pregnant woman that she'll die if she continues the pregnancy, is it a scientific fact that two human beings will be dead in the long run?
Cecily Kellogg, 44, a writer who lives near Philadelphia, says that was the situation she faced when she was nearly six months pregnant with twin boys in 2004 and developed severe preeclampsia. One fetus had already died and "my liver had shut down, my kidneys had shut down and they were expecting me to start seizing at any minute," she says. The doctors said they had to quickly dilate her cervix and perform an abortion to save her. "I fought it," she says. "But they told me I would die — that it was either me and my son or just my son."
She says it was a "horrible experience," but the right thing to do. She and her husband had a daughter in 2006.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/19/abortion-mother-life-walsh/1644839/
If the woman had been dead Aaron, is it a scientific fact that she wouldn't have brought another life into this world two years later?
If pretend pro lifers such as yourself are responsible for [edit] the mother's death, how is it possible that you consider yourself "pro life"? (note that I haven't even mentioned that you embrace the LGBTQ culture of death, nor will I mention it).
If the woman had been dead Aaron, is it a scientific fact that she wouldn't have brought another life into this world two years later?
I would be more than happy to answer but I'd like you to go first. What should have been done to the surviving twin?
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...egally-Abort&p=3557991&viewfull=1#post3557991If you're OK with an abortion to save the mother that's one thing...
Her unborn child is dead because her doctors told her abortion was the only option rather than giving her the option of removing the baby via c-section with the intent of saving both lives.