Only the far-left finds abortion totally acceptable. Most (I'd say 85%) of Americans realize that it is, in one way or another, ending a life/life-to-be.
My question is this: Should we change the liberal slogan to delineate the true nature of our agenda?
2007-01-04 08:47:25 · 27 answers · asked by Tofu Jesus 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
You should just call it what it is... Infanticide...
Cannonball, you can't POSSIBLY be that dumb, can you? There have been what? 5 or 6 abortion clinic murders, total? Hell, we have more infanticides than that every 3 seconds! And I'll take a "save the baby" anytime over a "save the whale."
Pip - nice try, but don't minimize the debate. The very nature of the "definitional problem" you speak of goes to the CORE of human philosophy.
2007-01-04 08:48:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 10⤊ 9⤋
I agree that Pro-Choice doesn't seem to fit what they are actually after; but, what I don't understand with the negative answers that were given is why must someone be attacked for thinking/believing differently; isn't that why we live in this country...so that we can have the freedom to speak and not be brutalized for it; someone said that when this guy starts popping out babies then he can talk...while men are not able to gestate they are a part of the child that is being killed and thus should have a say in whether or not that child lives or dies...understanding that the woman does give up a lot of herself while pregnant does not give her the right to kill the baby, she had a choice to have sex or not have sex and I'm thinking if she didn't want a baby then she shouldn't have had sex...and don't slam at me about a woman being raped or incest...those situations are not the child's fault and if the to-be parent does not wish to keep the child then the child is open to adoption, in which case the parent is still no more responsible for the child than if an abortion had been performed...in cases of the Mother's life being endangered I think that not one but two doctors make the determination whether or not the baby should lose his/her life; everybody is out for their own agenda...including the pro-choice supporters...they want their way as much as the pro-life supporters...no harm, no foul there...
2007-01-04 09:25:37 · answer #2 · answered by Shannon M 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Great question! I use pro-life and pro-choice because what they lack in accurate descripriveness they make up for in "name recognition" - everyone knows what I'm talking about.
My short take on this is that both sides talk past each other - one focuses on the fetus, the other the mother.
I say: take the fetus out. If it lives, it's a person, if it's not, it isn't. Obviously, try to take it out alive.
That way, the woman doesn't have to gestate a pregnancy a minute longer than she wants to, but a viable human is not destroyed.
Most everyone objects to this solution, so it must have some merit. Think about it: if we truly mean what we say about not allowing abortion, we'd have to lock up all the pregnant women in preventive detention to make sure they don't get one. But if we say that even viable fetuses should be aborted because they are "unwanted," then that opens the door to getting rid of lots of discrete groups of unwanted people - check out the prisons, homeless shelters, mental institutions, retirement homes, etc. Also, I think if we did this the number of unwanted pregnancies would decrease, if only a little.
Like my solution? King Solomon himself would be proud! (I thought you'd like that reference.) Labels, schmabels, I say!
2007-01-05 03:54:37 · answer #3 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am for the law pro-choice, because I had a friend who was gang-raped before abortion was legal. Back then, women didn't report rapes. She ended up pregnant, and her father arranged an illegal abortion. She eventually got married and tried to have children. This is when the miscarriages started happening.
I have always maintained that I would not have an abortion for moral reasons, but I won't shove my morals on someone else.
Abortion has been around for thousands of years. Trust me, there are herbs out there that only women of ancient times, and some of today are aware of. It's better to have it monitored by government agencies, than not at all.
Technically, the first formation in an embryo is the medulla oblongata. There are no thought processes, no brain really. The medulla's primary responsibility is respiration and heartbeat. Are the heart and lung functions life without a brain...I don't think so.
2007-01-04 08:54:54 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
The only way you can convince me is to reverse Roe v. Wade.
Frankly, Democrats want to keep Roe v. Wade
and now they want to use the aborted fetuses for
stem cell research.
Most Republicans would not be heartbroke if roe v wade was overturned. There are plenty of birth control methods other than abortions that work fine.They would love government stem cell research using any and all stemcells EXCEPT from aborted fetuses.
2007-01-04 08:55:25 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, we should not consider each issue separately ...after all when the big bugle blows we only have to pay for our own mistakes - we should fight tooth & toenail to keep our government from taking any of our rights.... if we start giving our rights away soon the government will want them all...just look at the state of our country, did you ever believe you would see this must corruption in our congress? With the state of the USA & our government we need every right the constitution affords us!
Have you see the "new" name and patch of the militarybase at Fort Sam Houston...it is called USArmy - North the patch shows all of North America not just the USA...we must protect ourselves from our government...what they have planned does not bode well for Americans!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFMm-3f_uB8&mode=user&search=
http://www.5tharmy.army.mil/
2007-01-04 09:02:28 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The debate about abortion is a debate about a definition.. the definition of when is a fetus independent human life... for the pro-life that is obviously at an earlier stage than the pro-choice would define it.. but no one from either group condones killing infants... if these were 3 year olds running around there wouldn't be a debate... so remember.. it's a difference in definition, not in philosophy.
2007-01-04 08:51:14 · answer #7 · answered by pip 7 · 7⤊ 1⤋
to Jimbo,
Prove to me, scientifically, when sentience (not simply life; if the issue were about preventing the lose of life, the pro-lifers would ALL also be members of PETA) begins in utero, and I'll be happy to discuss whether or not an abortion is infanticide. Otherwise, we're basing a decision to change the law on pure conjecture and religious belief.
Some religions believe in reincarnation; does this mean that we must prohibit cattle farming based upon that religious belief that a cow could be a reincarnated human?
If we choose to apply only religious reasons for our laws, then we are insitutionalizing a religion, with directly conflicts with the separation of church & state.
Show me scientific reasons to prohibit or restrict abortions, and we can discuss it. Otherwise, it's simply a front to promote a particular religion into the government.
Edit: What, you can reply to Pip & Cannonball, but maybe my point is too difficult for you to refute??
2007-01-04 08:54:02 · answer #8 · answered by Devil Dog '73 4 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Actually, the correct figure is 98% of Americans consider abortion as ending a life. The abortion issue needs to go back to the states. It should be considered at a community level not a federal level. The only federal issue involved is at what point the fetus comes under protection of the constitution. That point was decided by the courts.
2007-01-04 08:52:33 · answer #9 · answered by Overt Operative 6 · 5⤊ 4⤋
You said, "Should WE change the..." Are you pro-choice? Does this slogan belong to you? How would you have the authority to speak for the millions of Americans who are pro-choice? Or...are you asking this question just to "stir the pot"?
2007-01-04 08:51:35 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Don't know about that but we are labeled right wing neocon prolifers because we oppose abortion. So, I guess their slogan should be pro-death for babies but save a murderers life.
2007-01-04 08:53:09 · answer #11 · answered by patrioticpeladac 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋