Abortion! Can we agree that you won't call yourself pro life if you cause more death than life?

Question

There are more people on earth than there are resources, organization and transportation to keep people alive. 10 million children will die from lack of medical care this year. 100 million need to be adopted, and will not be adopted. The pro life movement could save these people simply by redirecting their massive resources to these proven needs. Yet they choose to focus on saving a fetus. It is a fact that each time they use resources to save an unwanted fetus, they cause the death of a wanted fetus or child. There is no net gain in lives saved. In fact it is proven that each "saved" fetus causes the death of 12 loved and wanted children.
For that reason I am repossessing the name "pro life" and reissuing a more appropriate name "anti life". Those who are now "pro life" should refrain from using that term and now use the name I have issued you. :-) It would also be nice if "prolifers" would quit taking donations under false pretenses. http://www.prolifeismurder.com

cmdr...
commander...
sherilynne...
I don't want anyone to kill anyone off. You are already doing that. I just want you to stop killing 12 loved and wanted kids to save a single unwanted fetus.

Being sarcastic does not stop the murder you cause. I am asking you to stop killing the elderly, children and infirm. Please treat these kids with respect before they die.

To the nutcakes that say that I want to kill all the kids to save other kids. No--- you are already killing the kids by your unwise decisions. If I have my way millions more will live, and have better lives. You are causing death. It is a fact and it is proven.

x char x
There is not a shortage of resouces. This is proven by the fact that pro lifers spend money saving fetuses and not children. This of course leads to the death of born and loved children. Until you spend your resouces saving kids, then you are killing kids and that is not being pro life.

Answer 1

Please link me to your "proof" that saving one fetus sacrifices
12 other children. Using the logic that spending that money on third-world children doesn't wash with me. There is a lot of
pro-choice money spent , that could be used to save those children. Abortion has zero impact on the healthcare of kids
around the world.
And by the way, I know a lot of people, who are opposed to abortion, that are not "Christian fundamentalists". I for one, am opposed to abortion when it is used as a means of birth control, just for birth control's sake. Rape,incest, and potential
danger to the mother are a different discussion, as far as I am concerned.

I suppose being pro-flat sreen TV makes one anti-human,
becasue if you by one, you're causing the starvation of others, by not donating to hunger relief. This kind of rationale can be extended in whatever direction any on chooses,agreed ?

:-(

Answer 2

-Abortion!-

I have no problem with abortion IF it's for health reasons.

-Can we agree that you won't call yourself pro life if you cause more death than life?-

Maybe, maybe not. The pro abortion supporters have been directly responsible for over 50 million unborn children being killed. That's 50 million lives that could have had possible solutions to global warming, peace in the middle east, and a host of other problems this world faces.

-There are more people on earth than there are resources, organization and transportation to keep people alive.

Does this mean you would advocate killing people to reduce the over population? How about the requirement of abortions like china does? Wars kill lots of people do you want a good war to reduce the population?

-10 million children will die from lack of medical care this year.

And your solution is? Abortion? How about just kill them quick and avoid the pain and suffering. Before the womb or after what's the difference?

-100 million need to be adopted, and will not be adopted.

Funny, I don't recall the pro abortion folks going out and adopting these children wholesale. As it is more adoptions are done by pro-life than pro-abortion folks. What is your solution? If they are orphans kill them?

-The pro life movement could save these people simply by redirecting their massive resources to these proven needs.

All the while your side spends their 'massive' resources advocating death? The resources aren't that massive. Would you have the pro-life folks bring 100 million orphans into this country and raise them at the governments expense?

-Yet they choose to focus on saving a fetus. It is a fact that each time they use resources to save an unwanted fetus, they cause the death of a wanted fetus or child.

I disagree. If you don't want a fetus, use protection from conception.

-There is no net gain in lives saved. In fact it is proven that each "saved" fetus causes the death of 12 loved and wanted children.

Now that is a stretch isn't it. But then you stretch everything else so why not.

-For that reason I am repossessing the name "pro life" and reissuing a more appropriate name "anti life".

Now how are you going to do that? Do you have a law suit pending?

-Those who are now "pro life" should refrain from using that term and now use the name I have issued you. :-)

Who died and left YOU in charge?

-It would also be nice if "prolifers" would quit taking donations under false pretenses.

They will just as soon as your side starts pushing responsibility for your actions.

You will pardon me if I think you are one of the most hypocritical male offspring of a female dog I've had the pleasure of poking holes in their points.

Answer 3

Pro lifers believe that EVERY human being, born or unborn, young or old, should have the chance to live. Allowing the killing of thousands of unborn children portrays life as being disposable and unimportant and leads to increased child abuse.

Saving unborn children does not cause the deaths of born children; the lack of resources causes that. What we should be focusing on is improving organisation and transportation and putting money into researching alternative resources and medical care to allow every conceived child to have a better quality of life, instead of blindly accepting that resources are running out and that some people must die to order to save others.

You can call yourself whatever you like, but i will refer to myself as pro life :-)

Answer 4

Very good points. Interesting is the fact that pro-lifers claim they are unprovable, when the fact is, if not for advances in agriculture and genetic modification of crops, we wouldn't be able to sustain our current population.

It is completely provable, because all organism populations exhibit the same type of growth patterns under ideal conditions, starting with a lag phase that leads to exponential growth; which ultimately ends in exhausting resources and eventually leads to the population growth slowing, followed by a stationary phase and death, where large percentage of the population perishes.

I'm no big fan of abortion, and if I was included in the decision making, I will always go with an alternative, but some people really don't think beyond what their preacher tells them.
If it is a sin, I'm sure an omnipotent being can deal with it.

If pro-lifers were really against abortion that much, they would promote use of condoms rather than abstinence which works very rarely.

Answer 5

LOL, you post that link as though it's a 'source' of some kind. It's nothing more than the extension of you unproven and twisted opinion.

Good try there, though. And the answer is no, we cannot. I cannot support your premise that to save the planet, we have to kill the fetus'. We'd like to save both as both are human beings and are trying very hard to do that. What we do need to do though is to reduce the number of unwanted or unsupportable human beings from being created in the first place through education, responsibility and availability of contraceptive methods.

So stop, please. The case for abortion cannot be made except in the courts and the courts represent a legal, not a moral, position. Courts interpret law, they don't determine justice.

Answer 6

Your suggesting that "pro-lifers" are responsible for the 10 million children who die due to lack of medical care because the "pro-lifers" resources are not focused on those children? How many of those children could be saved if we allocated to them the funds used for environmental causes? Does that mean environmentalists are pro-death? How about the money used for public education? Does that mean everybody that works towards improving public ed is pro-death because that money could be spent on the dying children?

You should really rethink your argument as it is completely devoid of logic.

I don't mind changing the term to anti-abortion since I'm completely pro-killing murderers in prison. And of course, we could change the term "pro-choice" to "pro-abortion" since that is what it really is.

Answer 7

Obviously we cannot agree. The dictates of newspeak require convenient and misleading labels for everything.

If you expect conservatives to back off on denying choice merely because they demand the death penalty you will be waiting a long time. The conservative doctrine of unlimited economic growth requires an ever expanding population, or the bubble will burst. They need more lives to exploit. It isn't about the lives themselves but about the goods and services that life will consume, and the labour that can be gained from the warm body.

The same logic pervades the drug issue. The corporate mantra in the war on drugs was that such use cost the employer money. The entire conservative line is not about conservation, but about profit.

Answer 8

1

Answer 9

If things are so bad maybe you would propose killing all children under five years old to relieve the population situation. Think of all the lives you could save then! And imagine how many people would want to adopt if their children were killed. There wouldn't be an orphan left in the whole world.

Answer 10

Let the unborn live as long as we do not have to take care of them, RIGHT. Oh the irony