A question for those against abortion

[Paramedico]

x Sarnath x

Nonesuch Solo

x Sarnath x

Paramedico

Nonesuch Solo

x Sarnath x

Yeah, but that doesn't always happen. That isn't how life works.
Sure, it's a good idea to persuade people to do that. But sometimes they don't. This is why we have a backup plan - a.k.a. abortion.

So just because we have abortion, we should stop worrying about how many people don't use protection properly?

I mean, that's like saying because we have triple-bypass surgeries, we should stop encouraging people to eat healthier.

I like this example. Very nicely put.

Preventitive medicine is the most effective medicine of all. If you eat poorly, don't exercise, and smoke, you should expect a heart attack in your future; likewise, if you have sex, you should expect that pregnancy may occur.

But if it does occur, you should be free to do as you choose with your body without being harassed by the "moral police."-----

Until someone points out that the little clump of cells is an individual and not "your body." Which is why people still debate it so fiercely--not because they want to control women and force them to have all sorts of babies they don't want, but because they think the unborn are individual beings that deserve some sort of protection.

Then scientists better get a move on. Better develop some sort of external incubation system to revive all those aborted babies. Maybe someone wants them, but I know I sure as hell don't.

Then the solution is a simple one: avoid activities that may result in unwanted pregnancy.

[x Sarnath x]

Paramedico

Phantomboy411

Nonesuch Solo

x Sarnath x

Paramedico

I like this example. Very nicely put.

Preventitive medicine is the most effective medicine of all. If you eat poorly, don't exercise, and smoke, you should expect a heart attack in your future; likewise, if you have sex, you should expect that pregnancy may occur.

But if it does occur, you should be free to do as you choose with your body without being harassed by the "moral police."-----

Until someone points out that the little clump of cells is an individual and not "your body." Which is why people still debate it so fiercely--not because they want to control women and force them to have all sorts of babies they don't want, but because they think the unborn are individual beings that deserve some sort of protection.

nicely put.

I agree with both you and the statement. Anti-abortionists are not against women's rights, they are advocates of life.

Oh dear. I'm sadly mistaken. Advocates of life... How noble.
Pity no one was here to advocate the lives of all the woman that wanted an abortion so badly that they bled to death in a back alley.
It's really too bad. So instead of just the fetus dying, the woman died too.

And no matter how you look at it, they're against woman's rights. Anyone that tries to control a woman's reproductive rights is against woman's rights.

[x Sarnath x]

Paramedico

x Sarnath x

Nonesuch Solo

x Sarnath x

Paramedico

I like this example. Very nicely put.

Preventitive medicine is the most effective medicine of all. If you eat poorly, don't exercise, and smoke, you should expect a heart attack in your future; likewise, if you have sex, you should expect that pregnancy may occur.

But if it does occur, you should be free to do as you choose with your body without being harassed by the "moral police."-----

Until someone points out that the little clump of cells is an individual and not "your body." Which is why people still debate it so fiercely--not because they want to control women and force them to have all sorts of babies they don't want, but because they think the unborn are individual beings that deserve some sort of protection.

Then scientists better get a move on. Better develop some sort of external incubation system to revive all those aborted babies. Maybe someone wants them, but I know I sure as hell don't.

Then the solution is a simple one: avoid activities that may result in unwanted pregnancy.

If it was only that easy.
This is both childish and stupid. People are going to have sex whether you like it or not. Abortion is legal whether you like it or not. Sorry.

[Phantomboy411]

x Sarnath x

Paramedico

Phantomboy411

Nonesuch Solo

x Sarnath x

Paramedico

I like this example. Very nicely put.

Preventitive medicine is the most effective medicine of all. If you eat poorly, don't exercise, and smoke, you should expect a heart attack in your future; likewise, if you have sex, you should expect that pregnancy may occur.

But if it does occur, you should be free to do as you choose with your body without being harassed by the "moral police."-----

Until someone points out that the little clump of cells is an individual and not "your body." Which is why people still debate it so fiercely--not because they want to control women and force them to have all sorts of babies they don't want, but because they think the unborn are individual beings that deserve some sort of protection.

nicely put.

I agree with both you and the statement. Anti-abortionists are not against women's rights, they are advocates of life.

Oh dear. I'm sadly mistaken. Advocates of life... How noble.
Pity no one was here to advocate the lives of all the woman that wanted an abortion so badly that they bled to death in a back alley.
It's really too bad. So instead of just the fetus dying, the woman died too.

And no matter how you look at it, they're against woman's rights. Anyone that tries to control a woman's reproductive rights is against woman's rights.

have you actually found any stats? well, as it turns out, back-alley abortions were alot safer than people think, and it's not like the legal ones are perfectly safe, either.

[Phantomboy411]

x Sarnath x

Paramedico

x Sarnath x

Nonesuch Solo

x Sarnath x

Paramedico

I like this example. Very nicely put.

Preventitive medicine is the most effective medicine of all. If you eat poorly, don't exercise, and smoke, you should expect a heart attack in your future; likewise, if you have sex, you should expect that pregnancy may occur.

But if it does occur, you should be free to do as you choose with your body without being harassed by the "moral police."-----

Until someone points out that the little clump of cells is an individual and not "your body." Which is why people still debate it so fiercely--not because they want to control women and force them to have all sorts of babies they don't want, but because they think the unborn are individual beings that deserve some sort of protection.

Then scientists better get a move on. Better develop some sort of external incubation system to revive all those aborted babies. Maybe someone wants them, but I know I sure as hell don't.

Then the solution is a simple one: avoid activities that may result in unwanted pregnancy.

If it was only that easy.
This is both childish and stupid. People are going to have sex whether you like it or not. Abortion is legal whether you like it or not. Sorry.

people are also going to argue with you whether you like it or not.

[x Sarnath x]

Phantomboy411

back-alley abortions were alot safer than people think.

Because having a dangerous procedure performed by someone who never went to medical school always turns out fine. rolleyes

[Phantomboy411]

x Sarnath x

Phantomboy411

back-alley abortions were alot safer than people think.

Because having a dangerous procedure performed by someone who never went to medical school always turns out fine. rolleyes

actually, it was abort as safe as legal abortions. stats are just warped b/c of numbers.

[Anaiira]

Paramedico

Phantomboy411

Nonesuch Solo

x Sarnath x

Paramedico

I like this example. Very nicely put.

Preventitive medicine is the most effective medicine of all. If you eat poorly, don't exercise, and smoke, you should expect a heart attack in your future; likewise, if you have sex, you should expect that pregnancy may occur.

But if it does occur, you should be free to do as you choose with your body without being harassed by the "moral police."-----

Until someone points out that the little clump of cells is an individual and not "your body." Which is why people still debate it so fiercely--not because they want to control women and force them to have all sorts of babies they don't want, but because they think the unborn are individual beings that deserve some sort of protection.

nicely put.

I agree with both you and the statement. Anti-abortionists are not against women's rights, they are advocates of life.

Pro-choice isn't anti life. If nothing else, it's pro life. And pro choice (no duh, hence the name.) It's a woman's right to choose to whatever happens inside her body. A baby may be an individual, but he/she can't magically occur without the woman (barring cloning, test tube babies).

And pro-choice is also pro life because it supports the right for a woman to have a life unhindered by a baby that she didn't want/can't support. Is the woman's life less important than the baby's?

http://tinyurl.com/yebf5lh/.gif

[Nonesuch Solo]

x Sarnath x

Then scientists better get a move on. Better develop some sort of external incubation system to revive all those aborted babies. Maybe someone wants them, but I know I sure as hell don't.

In the meantime, I'm advocating the currently-available option of perfecting the user-friendliness of contraceptives.

[Phantomboy411]

Anaiira

Paramedico

Phantomboy411

Nonesuch Solo

x Sarnath x

Paramedico

I like this example. Very nicely put.

Preventitive medicine is the most effective medicine of all. If you eat poorly, don't exercise, and smoke, you should expect a heart attack in your future; likewise, if you have sex, you should expect that pregnancy may occur.

But if it does occur, you should be free to do as you choose with your body without being harassed by the "moral police."-----

Until someone points out that the little clump of cells is an individual and not "your body." Which is why people still debate it so fiercely--not because they want to control women and force them to have all sorts of babies they don't want, but because they think the unborn are individual beings that deserve some sort of protection.

nicely put.

I agree with both you and the statement. Anti-abortionists are not against women's rights, they are advocates of life.

Pro-choice isn't anti life. If nothing else, it's pro life. And pro choice (no duh, hence the name.) It's a woman's right to choose to whatever happens inside her body. A baby may be an individual, but he/she can't magically occur without the woman (barring cloning, test tube babies).

And pro-choice is also pro life because it supports the right for a woman to have a life unhindered by a baby that she didn't want/can't support. Is the woman's life less important than the baby's?

http://tinyurl.com/yebf5lh/.gif

no, but the woman has a choice, the baby doesn't.

[Nonesuch Solo]

x Sarnath x

Paramedico

Phantomboy411

Nonesuch Solo

x Sarnath x

Paramedico

I like this example. Very nicely put.

Preventitive medicine is the most effective medicine of all. If you eat poorly, don't exercise, and smoke, you should expect a heart attack in your future; likewise, if you have sex, you should expect that pregnancy may occur.

But if it does occur, you should be free to do as you choose with your body without being harassed by the "moral police."-----

Until someone points out that the little clump of cells is an individual and not "your body." Which is why people still debate it so fiercely--not because they want to control women and force them to have all sorts of babies they don't want, but because they think the unborn are individual beings that deserve some sort of protection.

nicely put.

I agree with both you and the statement. Anti-abortionists are not against women's rights, they are advocates of life.

Oh dear. I'm sadly mistaken. Advocates of life... How noble.
Pity no one was here to advocate the lives of all the woman that wanted an abortion so badly that they bled to death in a back alley.
It's really too bad. So instead of just the fetus dying, the woman died too.

And no matter how you look at it, they're against woman's rights. Anyone that tries to control a woman's reproductive rights is against woman's rights.

Why can't people be for both?

[Anaiira]

Phantomboy411

Anaiira

Paramedico

Phantomboy411

Nonesuch Solo

Until someone points out that the little clump of cells is an individual and not "your body." Which is why people still debate it so fiercely--not because they want to control women and force them to have all sorts of babies they don't want, but because they think the unborn are individual beings that deserve some sort of protection.

nicely put.

I agree with both you and the statement. Anti-abortionists are not against women's rights, they are advocates of life.

Pro-choice isn't anti life. If nothing else, it's pro life. And pro choice (no duh, hence the name.) It's a woman's right to choose to whatever happens inside her body. A baby may be an individual, but he/she can't magically occur without the woman (barring cloning, test tube babies).

And pro-choice is also pro life because it supports the right for a woman to have a life unhindered by a baby that she didn't want/can't support. Is the woman's life less important than the baby's?

http://tinyurl.com/yebf5lh/.gif

no, but the woman has a choice, the baby doesn't.

The cluster of cell can't think either. At that point, it's about as biologically advanced as a bunch of bacteria. Should I make the claim that no one should use antibiotics because it violates a bacterium's right to life?

http://tinyurl.com/yebf5lh/.gif

[x Sarnath x]

Anaiira

Paramedico

Phantomboy411

Nonesuch Solo

x Sarnath x

Paramedico

I like this example. Very nicely put.

Preventitive medicine is the most effective medicine of all. If you eat poorly, don't exercise, and smoke, you should expect a heart attack in your future; likewise, if you have sex, you should expect that pregnancy may occur.

But if it does occur, you should be free to do as you choose with your body without being harassed by the "moral police."-----

Until someone points out that the little clump of cells is an individual and not "your body." Which is why people still debate it so fiercely--not because they want to control women and force them to have all sorts of babies they don't want, but because they think the unborn are individual beings that deserve some sort of protection.

nicely put.

I agree with both you and the statement. Anti-abortionists are not against women's rights, they are advocates of life.

Pro-choice isn't anti life. If nothing else, it's pro life. And pro choice (no duh, hence the name.) It's a woman's right to choose to whatever happens inside her body. A baby may be an individual, but he/she can't magically occur without the woman (barring cloning, test tube babies).

And pro-choice is also pro life because it supports the right for a woman to have a life unhindered by a baby that she didn't want/can't support. Is the woman's life less important than the baby's?

http://tinyurl.com/yebf5lh/.gif

The baby can't live without the woman. Therefore it is a part of her. If she chooses to exterminate it, then it's like any other part of her body and should be treated as such.

[Phantomboy411]

ponakn32

dsgdgsd

exclaim question exclaim