Why should abortion be rare?

  • Thread starter Thread starter estesbob
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

estesbob

Guest
Tht mantra from the pro-abortion side has been that abortion should be safe, legal and rare(although the Democrat party has now dropped the “rare” from their platform.)

If abortion is a “right” for women what should the excercising of that right be rare? OTH if abortion is wrong why should it be allowed at all?
 
Precisely.
Abortion’s rightness or wrongness depends on just one question: What is a fetus?
If a fetus is anythign but a person, anything at all, abortion is analogous to any removal of an unneeded body part in a surgical procedure that doesn’t involve full anesthesia and post-op care: a tooth, for example.
If a fetus is a person, abortion is the ending of a person’s life without the justifications of self-defense, punishment of a crime or any like excuse – that is, a murder.
Should dental surgery be safe, legal and rare? Not really. It should be as common as need be to help people with bad teeth.
Should wart removal be safe, legal and rare? Not particularly. It should be a simple thing with no reason to grieve and no one there to hold the patient’s hand.
Should mole removal be safe, legal and rare? No reason. It should be there for anyone with a suspicious mole, that’s all.
Should killing the screaming baby in the next apartment be safe, legal and rare? No. It should be a felony.
 
It is a slippery slope. If we allow a baby in the womb to be killed, that leads to accepting euthanasia, accepting contraception as OK, accepting the government of China’s genocide as OK, accepting doctor-assisted suicide as OK, etc. Life, in all stages, from conception to natural death must be protected.
 
abortion should be safe, legal and rare
This is the problem with our current government, whom has zero control of " safe, legal and rare" and yet feels free to pass legislation.
 
It is a slippery slope. If we allow a baby in the womb to be killed, that leads to accepting euthanasia, accepting contraception as OK, accepting the government of China’s genocide as OK, accepting doctor-assisted suicide as OK, etc. Life, in all stages, from conception to natural death must be protected.
See, I dont quite understand this argument. Why would allowing abortion mean we would all instantaneously also decide that ethnic cleansings are a-okay?

And if your side seems to be so keen on protecting life, how come there are quite a few who dont seem to have any problems murdering abortion doctors, yet I have not heard of any pro-abortionist going out and opening fire on protesters outside a clinic.
 
See, I dont quite understand this argument. Why would allowing abortion mean we would all instantaneously also decide that ethnic cleansings are a-okay?

And if your side seems to be so keen on protecting life, how come there are quite a few who dont seem to have any problems murdering abortion doctors, yet I have not heard of any pro-abortionist going out and opening fire on protesters outside a clinic.
Please tell us the date of the last clinic bombing and the last Dr Murdered. Please list the pro-life organizations who expressed approval of this.

Truly one of the more ill-infomred posts I have run across in a long time.
 
See, I dont quite understand this argument. Why would allowing abortion mean we would all instantaneously also decide that ethnic cleansings are a-okay?

And if your side seems to be so keen on protecting life, how come there are quite a few who dont seem to have any problems murdering abortion doctors, yet I have not heard of any pro-abortionist going out and opening fire on protesters outside a clinic.
How many abortionists have been killed in all?

How many unborn children have been killed in all?

Oh yeah! You have to keep an eye on those murderous pro-lifers!:rolleyes:
 
Please tell us the date of the last clinic bombing and the last Dr Murdered. Please list the pro-life organizations who expressed approval of this.

Truly one of the more ill-infomred posts I have run across in a long time.
Last actual death: Dr Barnett Slepian, October 23d 1998
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_Slepian

Last Attempted Murder: a failed suicide bombing against a womens clinic by a David McMenemy, September 11 2006

Last Act Of Arson: A planned parenthood clinic was burned down in December 6th 2007 in New Mexico.

As for supporters:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Army_of_God

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Coalition_of_Life_Activists



Thats odd, I cant seem to find anything about Pro-Abortion violence.
 
Last actual death: Dr Barnett Slepian, October 23d 1998
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_Slepian

Last Attempted Murder: a failed suicide bombing against a womens clinic by a David McMenemy, September 11 2006

Last Act Of Arson: A planned parenthood clinic was burned down in December 6th 2007 in New Mexico.

As for supporters:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Army_of_God

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Coalition_of_Life_Activists



Thats odd, I cant seem to find anything about Pro-Abortion violence.
50 million children have died in these clinincs-is that enough violence for you?

Funny. You left out this part:

Pro-life reactions to anti-abortion violenceupload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fe/Unbalanced_scales.svg/40px-Unbalanced_scales.svg.png
This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality.
Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page. (June 2008)
Nearly all mainstream pro-life organizations reject violence as a form of opposition to abortion.[9] Advocates of force tend to be small groups or lone individuals.[9] Pro-life activism generally consists of activism such as picketing, vigils, and “sidewalk counseling” outside abortion clinics. Some governments have responded to such activities with laws that protect access to abortion, particularly the creation of buffer zones where protesters are not permitted to approach those entering or exiting facilities providing abortion.
In response to incidents of anti-abortion violence, many groups in the pro-life movement have sought to isolate themselves from violent factions in a number of ways. Many pro-life advocates have vocally condemned violent actions against abortion providers as running contrary to the values and goals of the right-to-life cause.[24]
Following the 1998 bombing of a clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, Feminists for Life offered a reward for the arrest and conviction of those responsible.[25] In 2001, Priests for Life, a group of pro-life Catholics in the United States, put in place a $50,000 reward for information that leads to the arrest of fugitives wanted in connection with violence against abortion providers.[26] The American Life League issued a “Pro-life Proclamation Against Violence” in 2006.[27] Other pro-life groups to take a stand against violence include Center for Bio-Ethical Reform and Pro-Lifers Against Clinic Violence. However, a few anti-abortion leaders have qualified their condemnation of anti-abortion violence by suggesting that the harm created by pro-life crime is small in comparison to the harm they associate with abortion providers. Scholarship contextualizes this support for violence as a political weapon against women’s rights, one that is associated with tolerance for violence toward women.[28]
Although the Roman Catholic Church has not officially released a statement corresponding explicitly to abortion-related violence, section 2265, chapter 5 of the official Catechism of the Catholic Church is as follows: “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil” .[29] Although open to interpretation, this is not a condemnation of vigilantes committing violence in good faith. However, the Church withdrew funding for two Canadian groups that had resorted to harassment of abortion providers.[9]

 
Thats odd, I cant seem to find anything about Pro-Abortion violence.
What do you think abortion itself is? You don’t think dimembering someone, injecting harsh chemicals into their bodies, or sucking their brains out is violent?:rolleyes:
 
Imagine moving to a country that legalizes killing spouses. A woman who decides she wasn’t ready to be married can hire a pro to come by and do a drive-by on her husband, and a man who is having cold feet a month after the wedding can have his wife taken out in the same way. Political groups advocating th “freedom” and “right” of a newlywed to get out of the marriage in such a way proliferate. They get government funding. They pay for studies that support the conclusion (surprise) that spouses who have their brides or rooms wacked live a little longer ad suffer no ill effects. They describe all opposition as “fanatical, hateful, old-fashioned and dogmatic” and accuse the objectors of “trying to control us all.” They attempt to grab the moral high ground. They maintain that killing someone you don’t want to live with is a basic human right and they say there is no evidence that the spouse feels a thing.
There is no complexity to this situation. It’s a straightforward question: Are the targets people or not?
If they are people, and here is every reason to think they are, and no reason to think they aren’t, then a horrifying crime is going on all around you. It must stop.
With that in mind, a person who thinks taking out a couple of the killers would save thousands might see that as a reasonable step. Such a person might consider it defense of the helpless. Yet even so, most pro-life activists don’t like that kind of violence, because it’s violence. Even in defense of the helpless, they choose to try ever harder to find effective peaceful means.
If a fetus is a growth, there is no reason removing one should be rare. But if a fetus is a baby, there is no justification imaginable for making it easy to kill one.
 
Many Muslim countries allow men to kill women who have been raped. They call it ‘honor killing’.
Exactly. That’s the kind of doubletalk that allows abortion to wrap itself in an image of freedom and gentleness (the image it looks as if the “choice” lobby is aiming for). It isn’t honorable but dishonorable to kill the innocent, and setting apart a group (women, the unborn, the disabled e.g.) as without protection under the law has the same effect everywhere. It lowers the value of life in general and destroys trust between people.
But pro-choicers don’t see what is right in front of them because they don’t see the baby as a person. Until they accept that we are people from the beginning to the end they won’t know what the issue is.
I went to a well-travelled blog to see what they think and they are sure pro-lifers just want to punish women for sexuality. They see motherhood as a punishment. They see a baby before birth as a punishing, unloveable and unexpected illness a woman sometimes develops and abortion as merely a commonsense relief. Like freezing off a wart, I guess. That’s why they are abandoning the word “rare.” They are actually extremely indignant that they should have to apologize for wanting to be rid of such a little intruder. And they sure don’t see sex as inherently a procreative act. They seem to see reproduction as something incomprehensible and unconnected to sex, that mean fanatics made up to get back at them for having fun. This wasn’t mainstream but a sizeable vocal minority on the left.
So the issue just boils down to: what makes a person a person.
Even the angry people I spoke of just now wouldn’t likely advocate letting people kill children if they knew that is what they are advocating. So getting the idea across that the child really already exists and already wants and deserves to live, is the entire battle, IMO.
 
Exactly. That’s the kind of doubletalk that allows abortion to wrap itself in an image of freedom and gentleness (the image it looks as if the “choice” lobby is aiming for). It isn’t honorable but dishonorable to kill the innocent, and setting apart a group (women, the unborn, the disabled e.g.) as without protection under the law has the same effect everywhere. It lowers the value of life in general and destroys trust between people.
But pro-choicers don’t see what is right in front of them because they don’t see the baby as a person. Until they accept that we are people from the beginning to the end they won’t know what the issue is.
I went to a well-travelled blog to see what they think and they are sure pro-lifers just want to punish women for sexuality. They see motherhood as a punishment. They see a baby before birth as a punishing, unloveable and unexpected illness a woman sometimes develops and abortion as merely a commonsense relief. Like freezing off a wart, I guess. That’s why they are abandoning the word “rare.” They are actually extremely indignant that they should have to apologize for wanting to be rid of such a little intruder. And they sure don’t see sex as inherently a procreative act. They seem to see reproduction as something incomprehensible and unconnected to sex, that mean fanatics made up to get back at them for having fun. This wasn’t mainstream but a sizeable vocal minority on the left.
So the issue just boils down to: what makes a person a person.
Even the angry people I spoke of just now wouldn’t likely advocate letting people kill children if they knew that is what they are advocating. So getting the idea across that the child really already exists and already wants and deserves to live, is the entire battle, IMO.
The 50,000,000 signatures to end abortion is still going on, if you are interested.

see my signature
 
See, I dont quite understand this argument. Why would allowing abortion mean we would all instantaneously also decide that ethnic cleansings are a-okay?
Instanataneously is the wrong word to use here. You should know that.
And if your side seems to be so keen on protecting life, how come there are quite a few who dont seem to have any problems murdering abortion doctors, yet I have not heard of any pro-abortionist going out and opening fire on protesters outside a clinic.
Because there are some bad people in the world does not mean killing unborn children is acceptable. Don’t change the subject.
 
you’d have to ask the word twisters who came up with it. makes about as much sense in a political platform as saying:

child abuse should be rare

violence against women should be rare.
 
Instanataneously is the wrong word to use here. You should know that.

Because there are some bad people in the world does not mean killing unborn children is acceptable. Don’t change the subject.
Note that he never answered the question of why abortion should be rare. Just ad hominem attacks at pro-life adherents.
 
It’s all politico-speak.

If they say “abortion should be rare”, they are trying to coddle both sides. The implications in that statement are:
  1. It should be allowed and not made illegal, to placate the
    “pro-choice” crowd.
  2. You pro-lifers cannot disagree that fewer abortions are not a
    good thing, to try to trap the Pro-life movement.
🤷 Most pols are storing up time in hell, or at least purgatory, IMHO.
 
Tht mantra from the pro-abortion side has been that abortion should be safe, legal and rare(although the Democrat party has now dropped the “rare” from their platform.)

If abortion is a “right” for women what should the excercising of that right be rare? OTH if abortion is wrong why should it be allowed at all?
Because people who make such statements also believe that the use of logic should be legal…but rare. 😛
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top