|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:08 pm
All right. So I guess the point is that people that claim that they are pro-choice should really find a new name for their cause. Because, let's face it, they're not pro-choice, they're pro-abortion....pro-choice just sounds nicer. They're not out there trying to promote choice they're out there promoting abortion. I mean, anyone can choose to do something...you can choose to murder someone but the law makes sure that you get punished for it...it's not about choice.
I can be pro-choice and still believe that abortion is wrong.
...Get a new name....yours sends the wrong message.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:46 pm
I wouldn't mind being called anti-abortion if they took pro-abortion. It's a badge of honor to be anti-abortion, like being anti-holocaust. Use their language twisting against them and turn their supposed insult into a compliment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:33 pm
I've noticed the language thing when having discussions with pro-choicers. For instance, I have a friend who insists I "call things what they are" and insists I say fetus or embryo instead of baby or even "living thing."
But, when I retort that she should call things what they are, such as saying that she is choosing to kill something, regardless of whatever she considers that something to be, she flips out. She has to say "get rid of" or "abort" She refuses to say kill. Double standard much?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:39 am
It's very true. But, while I agree that Pro-Choice is much more misleading than our using Pro-Life, in their defense, it does make them out to be Anti-Life.
Pro-Choice is misleading because they aren't Pro-Choice. They don't support the choice to kill born people, or to rob a 7-11. The only "Choice" they support differently from us is the legalization of the choice to kill a fetus in the womb. Pro-Abortion is much more accurate, but they insist that people who are Pro-Abortion are those who encourage abortion. Which, honestly, I've met very few Pro-Choicers who wouldn't encourage abortion in certain cases.
Pro-Life, on the other hand, does have the implication that those who are not Pro-Life are Anti-Life. Which, to most people, is far worse than being considered Anti-Choice. But at least Pro-Life is not misleading. We unanimously value life. In cases where we may allow for purposeful killing, capital punishment or war, it is only in order to protect more lives than are being sacrificed. IE, capital punishment permanently takes a murderer off of the street, and so saves more lives than the one that is lost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 12:07 pm
I.Am In cases where we may allow for purposeful killing, capital punishment or war, it is only in order to protect more lives than are being sacrificed. I have gotten an argument similar from a pro-choice friend of mine. She says that if having the child will be more difficult for the mother, father, and everyone else than it should be allowed. The mother already has ties in this world and people that she loves, and the fetus does not. In her opinion, choosing to kill the fetus would be protecting more people [the mother, father, and all the ties they have] than it would be hurting. [the fetus.] She also claimed that if having a child in such a situation would make the baby's childhood negative, then that is a legitimate claim for the defense of the baby as well. I completely disagree, because just because a child grows up in a bad situation doesn't mean he or she does not deserve a chance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 1:10 pm
NiimuraKorin-kun I.Am In cases where we may allow for purposeful killing, capital punishment or war, it is only in order to protect more lives than are being sacrificed. I have gotten an argument similar from a pro-choice friend of mine. She says that if having the child will be more difficult for the mother, father, and everyone else than it should be allowed. The mother already has ties in this world and people that she loves, and the fetus does not. In her opinion, choosing to kill the fetus would be protecting more people [the mother, father, and all the ties they have] than it would be hurting. [the fetus.] She also claimed that if having a child in such a situation would make the baby's childhood negative, then that is a legitimate claim for the defense of the baby as well. I completely disagree, because just because a child grows up in a bad situation doesn't mean he or she does not deserve a chance. Except that the reality is that giving birth to a baby is not going to damage her (unless her life is in danger) in a way that will affect those ties, and no one can determine whether someone will have a negative life. If it was really that damaging, no one would want children. If it was okay to kill someone to defend them from a negative life, I could walk into an orphanage or hospital and kill everyone and that'd be fine because I'd just be defending them. Bottom line, you give birth, it's annoying, it hurts a little, you give the baby up for adoption and that might make you a little depressed, but no one dies, you move on. It's a big thing, but death is rather permanent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 4:16 pm
I am 100% pro-life. I stand in the defense of life at all stages, from conception to natural death.
I am 100% pro-choice. I stand in the defense that every woman has the right to choose to take the chance of having a life develop in their bodies by having sexual intercourse or not. If she does indeed become pregnant, she has the right to choose which option is more viable for her, keeping the baby and raising him/her, carrying the child to term and giving him/her up for adoption or carrying the child to term and giving the child to the father or other family members to raise. Those are choices and in that, I am pro-choice, no other options suffices that title.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 4:35 pm
NiimuraKorin-kun I.Am In cases where we may allow for purposeful killing, capital punishment or war, it is only in order to protect more lives than are being sacrificed. I have gotten an argument similar from a pro-choice friend of mine. She says that if having the child will be more difficult for the mother, father, and everyone else than it should be allowed. The mother already has ties in this world and people that she loves, and the fetus does not. In her opinion, choosing to kill the fetus would be protecting more people [the mother, father, and all the ties they have] than it would be hurting. [the fetus.] She also claimed that if having a child in such a situation would make the baby's childhood negative, then that is a legitimate claim for the defense of the baby as well. I completely disagree, because just because a child grows up in a bad situation doesn't mean he or she does not deserve a chance. Remember this, Hitler was a gifted child, he was intelligent, polite, and cultured. His family loved him and gave him the best of everything they could. To look at his childhood, no one could find fault. Yet look at what he became. Saint Giana Molla, a poor woman married to a poor man, with three children, became pregnant and discovered well into the pregnancy, she had uterine cancer. When asked, she chose to risk her life to bring the child into the world. She put off treatment until the child was born and only after the child was safely in the loving embrace of parents, did she undergo treatment. Unfortunately, her battle with cancer was short and she was taken to heaven. How do you hate a woman who risked her life for her child. I would rather have a mother in heaven, an example of what true motherhood is, than know that I could have had a brother or sister and wonder what it would be like if his or her life hadn't been taken because my mother didn't have the courage to fight for life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 7:39 pm
Melosta NiimuraKorin-kun I.Am In cases where we may allow for purposeful killing, capital punishment or war, it is only in order to protect more lives than are being sacrificed. I have gotten an argument similar from a pro-choice friend of mine. She says that if having the child will be more difficult for the mother, father, and everyone else than it should be allowed. The mother already has ties in this world and people that she loves, and the fetus does not. In her opinion, choosing to kill the fetus would be protecting more people [the mother, father, and all the ties they have] than it would be hurting. [the fetus.] She also claimed that if having a child in such a situation would make the baby's childhood negative, then that is a legitimate claim for the defense of the baby as well. I completely disagree, because just because a child grows up in a bad situation doesn't mean he or she does not deserve a chance. Remember this, Hitler was a gifted child, he was intelligent, polite, and cultured. His family loved him and gave him the best of everything they could. To look at his childhood, no one could find fault. Yet look at what he became. Saint Giana Molla, a poor woman married to a poor man, with three children, became pregnant and discovered well into the pregnancy, she had uterine cancer. When asked, she chose to risk her life to bring the child into the world. She put off treatment until the child was born and only after the child was safely in the loving embrace of parents, did she undergo treatment. Unfortunately, her battle with cancer was short and she was taken to heaven. How do you hate a woman who risked her life for her child. I would rather have a mother in heaven, an example of what true motherhood is, than know that I could have had a brother or sister and wonder what it would be like if his or her life hadn't been taken because my mother didn't have the courage to fight for life. Not to totally dump on what you're saying because I do agree with it but....Hitler was beat by his father when he was a kid...I mean...the rest of his life was alright and everything but his dad was kind of a mean dude.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 8:03 pm
The reason pro-choicers don't like being called pro-abortion is because they know their position is unjustifiable, so they sugarcoat it any way they can. First they claim they support choice because they know that everyone loves having a choice, so they say they are for choice. If they truly pro-"choice", they would also advocate adoption, informing women of the risks of abortion, and other abortion alternatives, but noooo! Informing women of the risks is, "Making her feel guilty and pressuring her" and adoption, "costs so much" and "children get abused in foster homes".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
